Post-secularism

andrew started an IPS thread on the topic. My response:

This is not a disagreement between theists and secularists; it is only with the pre- and conventional theists. So to just agree to disagree with them is not 'post-secular.' I have no quarrel with post-conventional theists that have at least a rational basis, and it is 'reasonable' to expect that level of discourse. As but one example, I don't always go to church but when I do I prefer the Unitarian.* They accept people from any religion or no religion, so they are post-secular in that sense. And yet there are some foundational principles, Enlightenment rationality being among them. Granted that might not be the highest development level of cognitive capacity, but it is certainly the necessary prerequisite for anything even remotely calling itself post-secular. I think Habermas would agree, given his penchant for communicative action and ideal speech situations as foundational for his own rehabilitated Enlightenment project. I'm also recalling this post on the Lingam's conveyor belt.

* Stolen from the Dos Equis commercials.