ARGUMENTATION AND RELIGIOUS IDENTITY A CRITICAL STUDY OF CHARLES TAYLOR

Argumentation and Religious Identity A critical study of Charles Taylor

Chapter I

Introduction

Charles Taylor is one of the most significant philosophical and political theorists of our time. In the near future, historians will find themselves faced with the challenge of assessing how his work helped us interpret the collective consciousness of modernity. With great lucidity, Taylor manages to bring to light how the voices of the past impinge upon the current state of our collective identity. Such a sense of intent is evident in his early works on the life and thought of G.W.F. Hegel and continues to follow in his works such as his Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity (1989), The Ethics of Authenticity (1991), his edited volume (with Amy Gutmann) Multiculturalism (1994), and his Philosophical Arguments (1995). Time and time again, Taylor manages to call our attention to the determinative assumptions that define our existence together.

Taylor's most recent work, Varieties of Religion Today: William James Revisited, is a continuation of his investigation into the nature of our common sense existence.

Purpose of the study

Purposse of this study is to focus on argumentation and Religious Identity A critical study of Charles Taylor

CHAPTER II

Literature Analysis

This text brings to light the enduring manner in which the works of James' The Will to Believe (1896) and The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902) define the process of interaction that occurs between perceptions of selfhood and perceptions of religiousness. Taylor's dependence upon social anthropology as an overriding critical perspective allows certain elements related to this process to go underappreciated. By contrast to intellectual history, philosophy, or even theology, the methodological perspective of social anthropology proves incapable of viewing religion as something more than a phenomenon with either social or existential import. However, I must offer that I make this critique of Taylor's work in light of the critical tools which Taylor himself, through his previous writings, graciously afforded me.

Before we turn our attention to an overview of Taylor's work, I would like to address in greater detail the overriding critical perspective which runs through this important reconsideration of the legacy of William James. Beyond references to the important works of theorists such as Ernst Troeltsch and Max Weber, Taylor's argument concerning the significance of William James is dependent upon the efforts of Emilé Durkheim. Such a sense of dependence comes to light in Chapter Three: Varieties of Religion Today. In this chapter, Taylor distinguishes between what he calls the paleo-Durkiheimian and the neo Durkheimian links between religion and the state. The paleo-Durkiheimian phase relates to a time (for example, the Baroque era) when the state was dependent upon religion for its identity. By contrast, the neo-Durkheimian phase relates to a time (for example, our current era) when religion is present in the implied intentionality of the design of the state. This overriding critical perspective allows Taylor to highlight the significance of James' efforts in light of what Taylor calls his two-pronged Jamesian ...