The most "hmmm" insight for me in the introduction was Burton's intentional move away from (moving forward of?) Charles Taylor's secularization paradigm. Whereas Burton agrees with Taylor to the extent that "expressive individualism dominates how we think about ourselves in modern life" (p. 5), she disagrees that the shift from enchantment to rationality "represents a move from a religious worldview to a secular one" (5). In this regard, Burton's first nonfiction work, Strange Rites, could serve as a kind of sequel to this book. Strange Rites demonstrated the weird wide world of religious choices in a (seemingly) secular age. So I guess this is ultimately a book recommendation.
Still, I wonder what others think about this assertion. To what extent is Burton correct in stating that we live not in a secular age but a self-aggrandizing religious one? Are we living in the "immanent frame" (Taylor's phrase from A Secular Age) or the "intuitional frame" (Burton's phraseology about religious choice from Strange Rites, with a Taylor-esque spin)?
After reading the intro, I’m not sure the imminent frame and the intuitional frame are mutually exclusive. In fact, after reviewing the meaning of Taylor’s secularization 3 thesis according to these notes on the Gospel Coalition,(https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/what-is-secular/?amp) Taylor and Burton seem to be in harmony. Your phrase “self-aggrandizing religious” age could line up with the radical humanism mentioned in the notes.
(Sorry, I know that the notes were made based on James K. A. Smith’s summary of Taylor’s work, and therefore we’re far away from the original source. I read Smith’s summary last summer, but not Taylor’s work :D )
So to answer your question, I think they complement rather than contest each other. I am anticipating that Burton will flush out today’s humanistic worldview in her book, and that ultimately, it’s immanent, because we all die.
But it makes me wonder what you think the difference is between the two ideas you mentioned? Or if you think they don’t go together?
I can't be sure about this, but I think Burton might take issue with Taylor's concept of the immanent frame.
In Strange Rites, she puts it like this (which complements the quote in the post): "We do not live in a godless world. Rather, we live in a profoundly anti-institutional one, where the proliferation of Internet creative culture and consumer capitalism have rendered us all simultaneously parishioner, high priest, and deity."
Taylor's immanent frame seems to indicate that the felt sense for most people is that of a godless world. I think this is where Burton disagrees. It's more than just "exclusive humanism" and "expressive individualism" at work for her, as helpful as those concepts are. She seems to claim that we believe our desires *are actually divine* in some way. The imperative to actualize them isn't just because we need to get what we want, but because what we want actually has a claim on us as God once did.
Whoops, sorry; I wondered if that would work. It should be available via the preview function on Amazon or Google Books if you can find your way there. I'll change the post info...
I am in! I have been wanting to read this author. Listening to the podcast today to start off...
The most "hmmm" insight for me in the introduction was Burton's intentional move away from (moving forward of?) Charles Taylor's secularization paradigm. Whereas Burton agrees with Taylor to the extent that "expressive individualism dominates how we think about ourselves in modern life" (p. 5), she disagrees that the shift from enchantment to rationality "represents a move from a religious worldview to a secular one" (5). In this regard, Burton's first nonfiction work, Strange Rites, could serve as a kind of sequel to this book. Strange Rites demonstrated the weird wide world of religious choices in a (seemingly) secular age. So I guess this is ultimately a book recommendation.
Still, I wonder what others think about this assertion. To what extent is Burton correct in stating that we live not in a secular age but a self-aggrandizing religious one? Are we living in the "immanent frame" (Taylor's phrase from A Secular Age) or the "intuitional frame" (Burton's phraseology about religious choice from Strange Rites, with a Taylor-esque spin)?
After reading the intro, I’m not sure the imminent frame and the intuitional frame are mutually exclusive. In fact, after reviewing the meaning of Taylor’s secularization 3 thesis according to these notes on the Gospel Coalition,(https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/what-is-secular/?amp) Taylor and Burton seem to be in harmony. Your phrase “self-aggrandizing religious” age could line up with the radical humanism mentioned in the notes.
(Sorry, I know that the notes were made based on James K. A. Smith’s summary of Taylor’s work, and therefore we’re far away from the original source. I read Smith’s summary last summer, but not Taylor’s work :D )
So to answer your question, I think they complement rather than contest each other. I am anticipating that Burton will flush out today’s humanistic worldview in her book, and that ultimately, it’s immanent, because we all die.
But it makes me wonder what you think the difference is between the two ideas you mentioned? Or if you think they don’t go together?
I can't be sure about this, but I think Burton might take issue with Taylor's concept of the immanent frame.
In Strange Rites, she puts it like this (which complements the quote in the post): "We do not live in a godless world. Rather, we live in a profoundly anti-institutional one, where the proliferation of Internet creative culture and consumer capitalism have rendered us all simultaneously parishioner, high priest, and deity."
Taylor's immanent frame seems to indicate that the felt sense for most people is that of a godless world. I think this is where Burton disagrees. It's more than just "exclusive humanism" and "expressive individualism" at work for her, as helpful as those concepts are. She seems to claim that we believe our desires *are actually divine* in some way. The imperative to actualize them isn't just because we need to get what we want, but because what we want actually has a claim on us as God once did.
Does that make sense?
That is really interesting. Thanks for the explanation.
Where is the info on the exact time this meets online?
No online meetings scheduled as yet, but we might do some later in. For now, discussion starts here in the comments.
Oh ok, thanks! Will have to get my hands on the book first. FYI, the link to the Intro did not work for me.
Whoops, sorry; I wondered if that would work. It should be available via the preview function on Amazon or Google Books if you can find your way there. I'll change the post info...
Same, the intro link didn’t work for me.
But this is a great idea! I look forward to it.