اندیشهفلسفهخردگفتگوحکمتمعناپرسشفرهنگ
An immanentist account of the transcendent is not a contradiction but the only credible way to speak of religious belief in the modern world: a reading of Charles Taylor and a critique of religious thinkers who still think metaphysically in a post-metaphysical age.

Some time ago (on two consecutive occasions in the months of Azar and Dey 1395), during the defense of a dissertation on the views of Charles Taylor at the University of Religions and Denominations in Qom, a discussion arose about the nature of Charles Taylor's religious outlook. The dispute was over whether speaking of the transcendent within the immanent frame is possible or not. Both Dr. Sohrabifar (God willing, a future scholar of religion), quoting Professor Malekian (the responsibility lies with the narrator), argued that an immanent explanation of the transcendent is contradictory and therefore a criticism applies to Charles Taylor's thought, and the esteemed Professor Abolghasem Fanaei—one of the pillars of religious intellectualism in our era, from whom we have learned much—held a similar view. My argument was that such a thing is possible, and some religious thinkers with a modern orientation have done so; Maurice Blondel, the French Catholic philosopher, and also Ali Shariati are among these thinkers. Therefore, no criticism of Charles Taylor is warranted on this point, and the logic of his speech is valid and acceptable. In any case, I said that each of them (Blondel and Shariati) spoke of the transcendent without offering a transcendent explanation and in an immanent manner, and in my view, Charles Taylor also speaks of the transcendent within the immanent frame. Only in this way can one speak of religious belief in a valid and effective manner within the dominant intellectual paradigm of the modern world. This is an important point in modern religious thought that many of our religious thinkers disregard, and in an era where post-metaphysical thinking is dominant, they still speak of the religious matter metaphysically, and therefore their speech is not heard. This is especially true of Muslim clerics.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Philosophy
Sociology
Sociology
Sociology
Religion
Discussion0 comments
No comments yet; let yours be the first voice.