That's a perceptive comment.

I agree that Taylor's book isn't a polemic against secularism, and that he's in favour of secular pluralism. He'd use that political convention of pluralism (liberalism) as a pretext for defending ancient religious dogmas, pushing that liberalism into postmodern relativism.

My criticisms apply more to the religious uses of this deconstruction, since Catholic intellectuals are often trained to insinuate with casuistry. Notice, for example, how the Pope, too, made use of A Secular Age, as I quoted in my recent article on his distinction between secularism and secularization. I'm not targeting Taylor's intentions as much as the book itself and its relevance to the philosophical question of theism vs atheism.

I do argue for a dark pantheism that takes for granted a re-enchantment of nature. But that enchantment is based on the irony of scientific objectivity, which discounts Christian theism. So in so far as Taylor is a Catholic, he'd be on the wrong side and would have to make excuses for his religion.

Anyway, Taylor's account of the history and psychological impact of Western secularism is certainly worth reading. It's well-written, and I appreciate its exhaustiveness.