{"id":20808,"date":"2019-01-17T12:57:25","date_gmt":"2019-01-17T20:57:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dminlgp\/?p=20808"},"modified":"2019-01-17T12:57:25","modified_gmt":"2019-01-17T20:57:25","slug":"understanding-a-small-portion-of-a-giant-book","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/understanding-a-small-portion-of-a-giant-book\/","title":{"rendered":"Understanding a Small Portion of a Giant Book"},"content":{"rendered":"

To paraphrase our lead mentor Jason Clark, Charles Taylor\u2019s tome A Secular Age\u00a0<\/em>is too big to read in one week.\u00a0 Some would say it is \u201cmuch too big!\u201d<\/p>\n

In reading around this book, it is clear that it is a respected, seminal work that has been reviewed appreciatively by both academic and popular sources, as well as religious and \u201csecular\u201d ones.\u00a0 Charles Taylor is an Emeritus professor at McGill University in Montreal and a recipient of the Templeton Prize, among others.<\/p>\n

One of the best ways to engage with Taylor\u2019s writing and ideas is through one of his chief interpreters, James K.A. Smith.\u00a0 His book How (Not) To Be Secular\u00a0<\/em>is a companion and help for anyone interested in this topic.\u00a0 One reviewer describes Smiths\u2019 book as \u201can accessible exposition of Taylor\u2019s magnum opus<\/em>.\u201d<\/a>[1]<\/p>\n

With a book of this size and scope, which seeks to \u201cchart the historical development that led to the main option that makes our secular age possible\u201d<\/a>[2], it is more than necessary to get some help in understanding.\u00a0 James K.A. Smith writes, \u201cburied in the long historical narrative and philosophical analysis is an existential map of our present.\u201d<\/a>[3]\u00a0 Many of the reviewers and explainers around this book identify just how big, dense and thick of a book this is.<\/p>\n

One of the core ideas in this book is based on a question that Taylor poses at the outset, \u201cwhy was it virtually impossible not to believe in God in, say, 1500 in our Western society, while in 2000 many of us find this not only easy, but even inescapable?\u201d<\/a>[4]\u00a0 Taylor goes to great pains throughout this book to examine this question and to interrogate the term \u201csecular\u201d itself.\u00a0 He describes the way that there have been multiple \u201csecular\u201d ages.\u00a0 The first was from the period after 1500, as an outgrowth of the Reformation along with the beginning of the Enlightenment.\u00a0That first secular age was marked by a kind of \u201cdeism\u201d.<\/p>\n

The second secular age, in Taylor\u2019s way of thinking is marked by a \u201csubtraction story\u201d, which means that as science and technology advanced and explained more and more about our natural world, that people became more secular because there was less space for God to exist or make any sense.\u00a0 Perhaps the \u201cnew atheists\u201d are those who believe this is the place in the story where we are now.\u00a0 As science continues to push further into explaining the world, religion fades away.\u00a0But, Charles Taylor doesn\u2019t buy it.<\/p>\n

Taylor\u2019s response is that we are indeed in a third secular age, which he refers to as \u201csecular3<\/sub>\u201d.\u00a0 As Keyes explains, \u201crejecting the usual definition of \u2018secular\u2019 as the simple arithmetic of \u2018public square minus God\u2019 (which he terms \u2018Secular2<\/sub>\u2019), Smith takes up Taylor\u2019s more accurate definition (Secular3<\/sub>).\u00a0 The defining feature of Secular3\u00a0<\/sub>is not what\u00a0<\/em>we believe, but that our options for belief are more numerous\u2026\u201d<\/a>[5]<\/p>\n

So, rather than allowing the subtraction theory to stand, Taylor (according to Smith) is suggesting that in Secular3<\/sub>, we \u201cfind ourselves caught between myriad options for pursuing meaning, significance, and fullness.\u201d<\/a>[6]<\/p>\n

In one way, Secular2<\/sub>is kind of like the \u201cGod of the gaps\u201d theory.\u00a0 Where, the more science advances, God is kind of relegated to the gaps or to those small places that remain as yet unexplained or figured out.\u00a0Or maybe it is like this cartoon, where faith plays some kind of \u201cmagical\u201d role in how the world works, but is not taken seriously.\"\"<\/p>\n

The surprise about living in Secular3<\/sub>, is that while \u201cthe trappings of religion may be on the decline, \u2018spirituality\u2019 as such is not\u2026 Secularism encourages \u2018expressive individualism\u2019 as the chief means of\u00a0finding\u00a0<\/em>meaning in our age, but this quest might just as well and often does lead secular people into the embrace of traditional religion.\u201d<\/a>[7]<\/p>\n

The bottom line seems to be, that the \u201csecular\u201d age we are in is paradoxically more filled with the possibilities for discovering meaning and belonging and faith than in previous eras.\u00a0To Taylor\u2019s way of thinking, there is a kind of openness to this time period that people of faith should embrace.<\/p>\n

The good news within all of this may be that the age-old questions that seekers have always asked about life, identity, purpose and meaning, are still being asked today.\u00a0 In Secular3<\/sub>, we are all seen as seekers of different sorts, and the challenge to the church in this context will be how to make space for the other seekers that we meet.\u00a0 The resources of the Christian faith offer depth, insight and unique meaning for people\u2019s lives.\u00a0 And true seekers, especially those in this so called secular age, may find them in a new and renewed way.<\/p>\n

Charles Taylor is trying to explain or explore big ideas and James K.A. Smith has done a great service in helping to bring these ideas forward. \u00a0Even to understand a little bit more about this is mind-expanding work!<\/p>\n

<\/a>[1]Sam Keyes, \u201cHow (Not) to Be Secular: A Review,\u201d www.bethinking.org, accessed January 17, 2019,\u00a0https:\/\/www.bethinking.org\/culture\/how-not-to-be-secular-review<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/a>[2]Michael L. Morgan, review of\u00a0A Secular Age<\/em>, by Charles Taylor,\u00a0Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews<\/em>(August 10, 2008): Book Reviews,\u00a0https:\/\/ndpr.nd.edu\/news\/a-secular-age\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/a>[3]James K.A. Smith,\u00a0How (Not) to Be Secular: A Review<\/em>\u00a0(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2014), 3.<\/p>\n

<\/a>[4]Charles Taylor,\u00a0A Secular Age<\/em>\u00a0(Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007), 25.<\/p>\n

<\/a>[5]Sam Keyes, \u201cHow (Not) to Be Secular: A Review,\u201d www.bethinking.org, accessed January 17, 2019,\u00a0https:\/\/www.bethinking.org\/culture\/how-not-to-be-secular-review<\/a>.<\/p>\n

<\/a>[6]James K.A. Smith,\u00a0How (Not) to Be Secular: A Review<\/em>\u00a0(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2014), 62.<\/p>\n

<\/a>[7]Matthew J. Claridge, \u201cReview of James k.a. Smith, How (Not) to Be Secular: Reading Charles Taylor,\u201d Books at a Glance, December 8, 2014,\u00a0https:\/\/www.booksataglance.com\/book-reviews\/review-of-james-ka-smith-how-not-to-be-secular-reading-charles-taylor\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

To paraphrase our lead mentor Jason Clark, Charles Taylor\u2019s tome A Secular Age\u00a0is too big to read in one week.\u00a0 Some would say it is \u201cmuch too big!\u201d In reading around this book, it is clear that it is a respected, seminal work that has been reviewed appreciatively by both academic and popular sources, as […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":103,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[835,833],"class_list":["post-20808","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-charles-taylor","tag-james-k-a-smith","cohort-lgp8"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20808","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/103"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20808"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20808\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":20810,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20808\/revisions\/20810"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20808"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20808"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20808"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}