logical narrative. As Walter notes, this narrative approach has certain advan-
tages but also arrives with certain disadvantages – “It is not so much that
I have decided to do it my way: I am being required to” (Walter 1994:37).
Dying persons become obligated to determine for themselves their own death.
It should come as no surprise that this postmodern ethic mirrors the pre-
dominant ethic of consumerism. It is around these issues, the sovereignty of
the individual and the re-enchantment of dying, that religious language has
assumed new relevance. Given the post-traditional framework that emerges
out of the contradictory expectations contained in a pluralistic world, there
is a rush to fill the void of acceptable activities and attitudes. In other words,
in order to deal with the ambiguity of death and dying, religion appears as
one of several viable resources for dealing with death. Postmetaphysical think-
ing, in the tradition of Habermas, does not do away with religion but nei-
ther does it grant religious language a privileged place, thus avoiding the
collapse of the distinction between public discourse and private experience
and yet preserves respect for the autonomous individual. As Habermas argued
in his debate with Hans-Georg Gadamer, impartial expertise need not be
conflated with abstract authority (1973a). I might add the observation that
religious language is scarcely a viable remedy to this entanglement. To this
end, a critical theory of religion may assist in assessing the potentially dis-
empowering or disabling practice of treating religious narrative as a discourse
that sustains the authority of the self.
Intersubjectivity and Religious Language • 201