Advertisement

Philosophia

pp 1–20 | Cite as

Lost in Translation: Religion in The Public Sphere

  • Jérôme Gosselin-Tapp
Article
  • 73 Downloads

Abstract

This paper proposes a Wittgenstein-inspired critique of the prism of translation that frames the recent literature about the debate between Rawls and Habermas on the role of religious reasons in the public sphere (Habermas 2008; Weithman 2006; Wolterstorff 1997). This debate originates with the introduction of Rawls’s proviso in his conception of the public use of reason (Rawls The University of Chicago Law Review, 64(3), 765-807, 1997), which consists in the “translation” of religious reasons into secular ones, which he thinks is necessary in order for religious reasons to be legitimate in the public sphere (Courtois Dialogue, 49, 91-112, 2010; Loobuyck and Rummens Ars disputandi: The Online Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 5, 237–249, 2011; Sikka The Review of Politics, 78, 91-116, 2016). Even though Wittgenstein is not himself concerned with religious pluralism as a political issue, there are numerous scholars who have discussed the political implications of his remarks (Gunnell Contemporary Political Theory, 12 80-101, 2013; Livingston Philosophy and Social Criticism, 33(6), 691–715, 2007; Moore Philosophy and Social Criticism, 36(9), 1113-1136 2010; Pohlhaus and Wright Political Theory, 30(6), 800–27, 2002). The thesis of this paper is that the interpretation proposed by Cora Diamond (2000) in regards to ethical and religious questions turns out to be a suitable way out of the “translation requirement”. According to this solution, if there is to be an understanding between secular and religious citizens on the basis of religious reasons, it should not rely on a “translation” but rather on mutual self-representation.

Keywords

Rawls Religious diversity Habermas Wittgenstein 

References

  1. Audard, C. (2007). Rawls. Montréal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Audard, C. (2013). Pluralisme religieux et égalité: une critique de la laïcité. In M.-A. Dilhac & S. G. de Latour (Eds.), Étant donné le pluralisme (pp. 105–135). Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne.Google Scholar
  3. Audi, R. (1989). The separation of church and state and the obligations of citizenship. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 18(3), 259–296.Google Scholar
  4. Audi, R. (1997). Liberal democracy and the place of religion in politics. In N. Wolterstorff & R. Audi (Eds.), Religion in the Public Square: The Place of Religious Convictions in Political Debate. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Cooke, M. (2013). Violating neutrality? Religious validity claims and democratic legitimacy. In C. Calhoun, E. Mendieta, & J. VanAntwerpen (Eds.), Habermas and religion (pp. 249–276). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  6. Courtois, S. (2010). La religion dans l’espace public: quelques commentaires sur les positions récentes d’Habermas. Dialogue, 49, 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crary, A. (2000). Wittgenstein’s philosophy in relation to political thought. In A. Crary & R. J. Read (Eds.), The New Wittgenstein (pp. 118–145). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Critchley, S. (2000). Remarks on Derrida and Habermas. Constellations, 7(4), 455–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Diamond, C. (2000). Ethics, imagination and the Tractatus. In A. Crary & R. J. Read (Eds.), The New Wittgenstein (pp. 149–173). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Dilhac, M.-A. (2008). La querelle de l’individualisme: Rawls. In O. Tinland (Ed.), L’individu. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
  11. Estlund, D. (1999). The insularity of the reasonable. Ethics, 108(2), 252–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Freeman, S. (2007). Rawls. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Galston, W. A. (1989). Pluralism and social Unity. Ethics, 99(4), 711–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gunnell, J. G. (2013). Leaving everything as it is: Political inquiry after Wittgenstein. Contemporary Political Theory, 12, 80–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Habermas, J. (1995). Reconciliation through the public use of reason: Remarks on John Rawls’s political liberalism. The Journal of Philosophy, 92(3), 109–131.Google Scholar
  16. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Habermas, J. (2002). Foi et savoir. In J. Habermas (Eds.), L'avenir de la nature humaine. Vers un eugénisme libéral?. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  18. Habermas, J. (2008). Entre naturalisme et religion. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  19. Habermas, J. (2011). “Myth and Ritual.” Paper presented at The Berkeley Center Lectures, Washington, D.C., October 19.Google Scholar
  20. Hurley, Tim. (1999–2000). John Rawls and liberal neutrality. Interpretation 27 (2): 105–128.Google Scholar
  21. Larmore, C. E. (1987). Patterns of moral complexity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Livingston, P. (2007). Wittgenstein, Kant and the critique of totality. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 33(6), 691–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Loobuyck, P., & Rummens, S. (2011). Religious arguments in the public sphere: Comparing Habermas with Rawls. Ars disputandi: The Online Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 5, 237–249.Google Scholar
  24. Macedo, S. (1995). Liberal civic education and religious fundamentalism: The case of god v. John Rawls? Ethics, 105(3), 468–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moore, M. J. (2010). Wittgenstein, value pluralism and politics. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 36(9), 1113–1136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mulhall, S. (2016). The great riddle: Wittgenstein and nonsense, theology and philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Pedersen, J. (2012). Justification and application: The revival of the Rawls-Habermas debate. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 42(3), 399–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pohlhaus, G., & Wright, J. R. (2002). Using Wittgenstein critically: A political approach to philosophy. Political Theory, 30(6), 800–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rawls, J. (1985). Justice as fairness: Political not metaphysical. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 14(3), 223–251.Google Scholar
  30. Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Rawls, J. (1997). The idea of public reason revisited. The University of Chicago Law Review, 64(3), 765–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Raz, J. (1990). Facing Diversity: The case of epistemic abstinence. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 19(1), 3–46.Google Scholar
  33. Sandel, M. J. (1984). Procedural Republic and the unencumbered self. Political Theory, 12(1), 81–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Seglow, J. (2003). Neutrality and equal respect: On Charles Larmore’s theory of political liberalism. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 27, 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sikka, S. (2016). On translating religious reasons: Rawls, Habermas, and the quest for a neutral public sphere. The Review of Politics, 78, 91–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Taylor, C. (1985). Human Agency and Language: Philosophical Papers. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Temelini, M. (2015). Wittgenstein and the study of politics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  38. Thomassen, L. (2006). The Derrida-Habermas reader. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. Weithman, P. J. (2006). Religion and the Obligations of Citizenship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  41. Wittgenstein, L. (1966). Lectures on religious belief. In Letters, Lectures, Conversations, Memoirs (pp. 54–72). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  42. Wittgenstein, L. (2014). Lectures on ethics. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wolterstorff, N. (1997). The role of religion in decision and discussion of political issues. In N. Wolterstorff & R. Audi (Eds.), Religion in the Public Square: The Place of Religious Convictions in Political Debate. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations