Alas, that ad hominem has no bearing on the strength of my criticisms of Taylor's deconstruction of secularism. You're projecting, too, since it's your comment that's ungenerous to me. My article concedes that secularism is socially constructed. I even concede that Taylor's deconstruction is exhaustive and largely accurate. How much more generous should a critic be?

The question to ask about Taylor's book is "So what?" How else would we have arrived at secular revolutions but by historical, social, political, and psychological developments? Taylor has a lot to say about the secular mindset, and there's just as much to say about the religious one. Thus, I ask, for the purposes of philosophy: So what?