Some thoughts on the Grandeur of Reason conference

The announcement of the Centre for Theology and Philosophy’s upcoming conference on the ‘Grandeur of Reason’ has occasioned a fair amount of debate on some theology blogs.

First of all, the conference itself looks set to be spectacular with a line up of theologians and philosophers including the likes of John Milbank, David B. Hart, Fergus Kerr and Slavoij Zizek. The précis of the conference is said to have been taken from Pope Benedict XVI’s Regensburg Address wherein he calls for a renewal of the relationship between faith and reason, which avoids the extremes of a fideism wherein God’s decrees are completely divorced from humanity’s reasoning and a reason which seeks to insulate itself from God altogether.

As a Catholic, I cannot say I share the same concerns that appear to trouble some of the contributors to the debate. The idea that Radical Orthodoxy’s position sits too comfortably with that of the current Papacy is not really something that displeases me. The trajectory that RO also seems to be taking towards a more ‘universalised’ reason (as Jamie Smith contends) is, again, something I would welcome.

It does, however, strike a strange chord in me to hear RO speaking in the sort of way that they do in the conference précis: “From this standpoint we hope to begin thinking through an authentic understanding of tolerance and ecumenism. Our task is thus to establish a path of honest intercultural communication in pursuit of universal truth, guided by the “grandeur” of reason, and unashamedly grounded in the cultural and historical tradition of Christianity.”

One of my principle problems with Milbank (and to that extent with various other RO ‘adherents’) has been the relativistic position he has adopted regarding the claims of reason. Whilst I had no problem with the dismantling of the ‘Enlightenment’ pretension of a neutral reason operating devoid of all particularities, the notion that the claims of the Christian ‘meta-narrative’ could only be articulated rhetorically and its truths only adhered to through literary reasons of ‘good taste’, is simply not compatible with Roman Catholic doctrine. As I argued in my posts on Milbank’s essay ‘The End of Dialogue’, his position does not allow for any real engagement with other traditions.

Of course, Milbank has always insisted that his position is not a fideistic one and indeed he criticises the likes of Barth on that score. The exact envisaging of the relationship between faith and reason has remained somewhat opaque. However, as Smith has noted, the ‘later’ Milbank is moving towards a position seemingly less extreme than that offered in Theology and Social Theory. I don’t think he’d yet embrace the idea of ‘natural reason’ as Smith suggests or of ‘natural law’ but his comments on the subject have changed rather dramatically. In an article responding to various readings of TST he rejected Aidan Nicholls’ criticisms of his treatment of ‘common wisdom’, ‘natural law’ and the like by dismissingly calling them all “yogic delights”.

However, Smith sees in Milbank a ‘universalizing’ tendency which is almost rehabilitating a ‘natural theology’ tradition in a different guise. He sees this change most markedly in Being Reconciled. (Introducing Radical Orthodoxy, p.165)

I think Smith’s qualms about this are a consequence of his Reformed background and the emphasis he wishes to place on the fallen nature of human reason. As D.B. Hart responded to Smith, despite not having placed enough emphasis on a common rationality in The Beauty of the Infinite, his project does not involve the sort of incommensurability thesis that Smith wants to hold on to. Perhaps a similar sort of thing is happening with Milbank who wants to emphasise that the continued giving of grace after the fall in effect ‘nullifies’ to an extent the idea that reason has fallen to such an extent that it simply cannot function in any ‘universal’ manner whatsoever. (Introducing, p. 165)

It might not be going too far to say that this conception of universality Milbank seems to be promoting isn’t THAT far from the Rahner’s anonymous Christianity! So instead of a ’secular reason’ acting in a universal fashion because divorced from all religious particularities, there is a universal drive of human reason towards the grace showered upon all. I think this is possible because the differences between de Lubac and Rahner aren’t as pronounced as commentators (including Milbank) would have one believe.

Eric Lee, for example, makes a similar point when he argues that it is the Universality of the Logos that allows for a certain commonality and possibility of genuine debate and engagement (as opposed, perhaps, to simply ‘out-narrating’ one’s opponent). This, however, still leaves the question of to what extent the Logos must be explicitly referred to when talking in the public sphere. Would we constantly need to articulate the entire Christian meta-narrative when proclaiming our views? With this in mind I found a comment made by Milbank especially interesting.

In the book God’s Advocates, where he features in one of the interviews, he describes just this dilemma: “let’s think of the situation of the Church, especially the Roman Catholic Church today, when it tries to speak in the public realm about moral and political issues. The dilemma is: do you speak on the basis of a natural law that should be available to everybody, whether or not they’re recognising God, in which case it’s very doubtful whether you’re talking about any kind of natural law that the Middle Ages could have recognised; or do you, on the other hand, say that our positions are grounded in our entire Catholic vision, and here the obvious risk is that people will ask why the should listen. But you might also say that that’s the only possible alternative course because, in fact, what we say only makes sense in terms of our entire vision.”

What he then goes on to say is interesting, not least because it is far removed from what the general perception of Milbank would have you think he’d say. (Again, I think this is partly due to Milbank’s own rhetorical ploys). Speaking of the trajectory of de Lubac’s theology he goes on to say that “that kind of perspective would say that, speaking in the Christian realm, we should latch onto things that aren’t completely unchristian, or that to some extent remain residually Christian. People still talk about forgiveness, reconciliation and mercy, and the idea that each person matters as much as everyone else, in a way that pagans, on a whole, didn’t. And therefore we don’t need to speak within a completely natural law-based kind of discourse: we can get people to try to see more deeply the implications of what they already think. This includes getting them to recognise that their vision isn’t completely cut off from something that in the end resembles a religious vision; but it also doesn’t mean that one has to start by overwhelming them with one’s entire Christian meta-narrative and ontology.” The part in bold is particularly interesting as it is just such a thing many would associate Milbank with advocating!

In this paper, he also calls for a renewed Christian humanism, emphasising that traces of the divine can be found in cultures and religions other than Christianity, and that the doctrine of the incarnation serves as a validation of the “human as such”. Thus Milbank seems to be moving away from the incommensurability thesis that seemed more apparent in TST. It is just such a move that I think distresses someone like Smith but in the same way that Hart stated that his theological project wasn’t intended to suggest that there was no such thing as a common reason, I think Milbank perhaps also overemphasised this point and is now seeking to redress the balance somewhat.

Rhetorical posturing may have led to many thinking that RO almost advocated not listening to others (the ‘twenty-four theses’ are a prime example of this’). In practice this isn’t really the case though. Take a look at Conor Cunningham’s critique of evolution for example, barely any reference to theology at all – so clearly a constant harking back to theological positions is not necessary, and something like Neo-Darwinism can be critiqued on its own terms. With that in mind I wonder whether Milbank would modify his critique of Macintyre in TST? Interestingly, Smith also mentions in a footnote that the Milbank of Being Reconciled is far closer to the Macintyre he criticises in TST. (Introducing, p.181)

It was also especially intriguing to hear that Milbank had allegedly said that the problem with Islam is that it has no conception of the secular! Not sure if this could be verified but if so, then he’s probably going a bit too far! That aspect of the conference (i.e. Islam) should also be fascinating although I wish I had more insight into what exactly the RO position regarding Islam (which again seems to be a bone of contention) is. The only clue I have is the articles by Adrian Pabst and Phillip Blond in the International Herald Tribune, but as regards Milbank his sparse comments on Islam have never struck me as overtly negative.

Hopefully, the conference will help elucidate these issues and provide greater insight into Milbank’s views on the role of reason. I’m also particularly interested in what D.B. Hart might have to say and whether he’ll build upon the reply he made to Smith’s assessment of his work.