A Reasonable Faith? Pope Benedict's Response to Rawls

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterScientificpeer-review

510 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

In this contribution, it is argued that there is a transcendent moment in Rawls’s treatment of religions by exploring Pope Benedict’s engagement with Rawls, and particularly their differing positions on the role that “truth” or “reason” may play in resolving political conflicts in a morally pluralist society. Pope Benedict insists on a divine truth for politics and Rawls on a deliberative one, and that in this respect each misrepresents the other—Rawls in identifying divine truth with authoritarianism, and Pope Benedict in reducing deliberation to an agreement based on citizens’ particular interests. But the author argues that, from these different perspectives, both Pope Benedict and Rawls ultimately arrive at a Kantian sense of “faith.” This “faith” consists in affirming what cannot be theoretically verified but must be postulated as the regulative referent for human reason in a pluralist politics. Rawls expresses this with his “reasonable faith” in the possibility of a just constitutional politics, while Pope Benedict expresses it with his proposal that nonbelievers in pluralist societies act “as if God exists.” By comparing these different “faiths,” the author concludes that, while Rawls’s “faith” reveals Pope Benedict’s to be overly demanding of a pluralist society, Pope Benedict’s “faith” reveals Rawls’s to be insufficiently demanding, leaving political conflicts inadequately regulated.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationRawls and Religion
EditorsTom Bailey, Valentina Gentile
Place of PublicationNew York
PublisherColumbia University
Pages221-241
Number of pages21
ISBN (Print)9780231167987
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Fingerprint

Faith
Pluralist
Immanuel Kant
Referent
Transcendent
Authoritarianism
Deity
Religion
Deliberation

Cite this

Jonkers, P. H. A. I. (2015). A Reasonable Faith? Pope Benedict's Response to Rawls. In T. Bailey, & V. Gentile (Eds.), Rawls and Religion (pp. 221-241). New York: Columbia University.
Jonkers, P.H.A.I. / A Reasonable Faith? Pope Benedict's Response to Rawls. Rawls and Religion. editor / Tom Bailey ; Valentina Gentile. New York : Columbia University, 2015. pp. 221-241
@inbook{76cb133be99d416f95b1745dd2a75b80,
title = "A Reasonable Faith?: Pope Benedict's Response to Rawls",
abstract = "In this contribution, it is argued that there is a transcendent moment in Rawls’s treatment of religions by exploring Pope Benedict’s engagement with Rawls, and particularly their differing positions on the role that “truth” or “reason” may play in resolving political conflicts in a morally pluralist society. Pope Benedict insists on a divine truth for politics and Rawls on a deliberative one, and that in this respect each misrepresents the other—Rawls in identifying divine truth with authoritarianism, and Pope Benedict in reducing deliberation to an agreement based on citizens’ particular interests. But the author argues that, from these different perspectives, both Pope Benedict and Rawls ultimately arrive at a Kantian sense of “faith.” This “faith” consists in affirming what cannot be theoretically verified but must be postulated as the regulative referent for human reason in a pluralist politics. Rawls expresses this with his “reasonable faith” in the possibility of a just constitutional politics, while Pope Benedict expresses it with his proposal that nonbelievers in pluralist societies act “as if God exists.” By comparing these different “faiths,” the author concludes that, while Rawls’s “faith” reveals Pope Benedict’s to be overly demanding of a pluralist society, Pope Benedict’s “faith” reveals Rawls’s to be insufficiently demanding, leaving political conflicts inadequately regulated.",
author = "P.H.A.I. Jonkers",
year = "2015",
language = "English",
isbn = "9780231167987",
pages = "221--241",
editor = "Tom Bailey and Valentina Gentile",
booktitle = "Rawls and Religion",
publisher = "Columbia University",

}

Jonkers, PHAI 2015, A Reasonable Faith? Pope Benedict's Response to Rawls. in T Bailey & V Gentile (eds), Rawls and Religion. Columbia University, New York, pp. 221-241.

A Reasonable Faith? Pope Benedict's Response to Rawls. / Jonkers, P.H.A.I.

Rawls and Religion. ed. / Tom Bailey; Valentina Gentile. New York : Columbia University, 2015. p. 221-241.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterScientificpeer-review

TY - CHAP

T1 - A Reasonable Faith?

T2 - Pope Benedict's Response to Rawls

AU - Jonkers, P.H.A.I.

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - In this contribution, it is argued that there is a transcendent moment in Rawls’s treatment of religions by exploring Pope Benedict’s engagement with Rawls, and particularly their differing positions on the role that “truth” or “reason” may play in resolving political conflicts in a morally pluralist society. Pope Benedict insists on a divine truth for politics and Rawls on a deliberative one, and that in this respect each misrepresents the other—Rawls in identifying divine truth with authoritarianism, and Pope Benedict in reducing deliberation to an agreement based on citizens’ particular interests. But the author argues that, from these different perspectives, both Pope Benedict and Rawls ultimately arrive at a Kantian sense of “faith.” This “faith” consists in affirming what cannot be theoretically verified but must be postulated as the regulative referent for human reason in a pluralist politics. Rawls expresses this with his “reasonable faith” in the possibility of a just constitutional politics, while Pope Benedict expresses it with his proposal that nonbelievers in pluralist societies act “as if God exists.” By comparing these different “faiths,” the author concludes that, while Rawls’s “faith” reveals Pope Benedict’s to be overly demanding of a pluralist society, Pope Benedict’s “faith” reveals Rawls’s to be insufficiently demanding, leaving political conflicts inadequately regulated.

AB - In this contribution, it is argued that there is a transcendent moment in Rawls’s treatment of religions by exploring Pope Benedict’s engagement with Rawls, and particularly their differing positions on the role that “truth” or “reason” may play in resolving political conflicts in a morally pluralist society. Pope Benedict insists on a divine truth for politics and Rawls on a deliberative one, and that in this respect each misrepresents the other—Rawls in identifying divine truth with authoritarianism, and Pope Benedict in reducing deliberation to an agreement based on citizens’ particular interests. But the author argues that, from these different perspectives, both Pope Benedict and Rawls ultimately arrive at a Kantian sense of “faith.” This “faith” consists in affirming what cannot be theoretically verified but must be postulated as the regulative referent for human reason in a pluralist politics. Rawls expresses this with his “reasonable faith” in the possibility of a just constitutional politics, while Pope Benedict expresses it with his proposal that nonbelievers in pluralist societies act “as if God exists.” By comparing these different “faiths,” the author concludes that, while Rawls’s “faith” reveals Pope Benedict’s to be overly demanding of a pluralist society, Pope Benedict’s “faith” reveals Rawls’s to be insufficiently demanding, leaving political conflicts inadequately regulated.

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9780231167987

SP - 221

EP - 241

BT - Rawls and Religion

A2 - Bailey, Tom

A2 - Gentile, Valentina

PB - Columbia University

CY - New York

ER -

Jonkers PHAI. A Reasonable Faith? Pope Benedict's Response to Rawls. In Bailey T, Gentile V, editors, Rawls and Religion. New York: Columbia University. 2015. p. 221-241