The sickness of secularism

[N.O.R.F]

The sickness of secularism

The threat to tolerance and coexistence no longer comes from religion

 

We are witnessing the rise of an arrogant secularist rhetoric founded on belief in the supremacy of reason and absolute faith in science and progress, dogmas which arouse ridicule in serious academic and intellectual circles nowadays. Hearing its proponents defend their rigid notions, you would be forgiven for thinking you were in the presence of the fathers of positivism: Auguste Comte, Diderot, or Condorcet, or that you were back in the Victorian and Napoleonic eras with their high hopes of remaking the world and human destiny in light of the utopias of reason and progress.

 

These high priests of rationality, who in Britain include in their ranks such names as Richard Dawkins and Anthony Grayling have erected a world of dichotomies, borders and fences: secular v religious, rationality v superstition, progress v backwardness, public v private. This simplistic worldview fails to take account of the complexity of cultural and historical processes, or of intellectual and human phenomena.

 

"Reason" itself, whose praises they sing night and day, is a perpetually changing mixture of many overlapping elements. It is neither abstract, nor intentional and does not confront the rich, labyrinthine human world as its other. It is quintessentially imbedded therein, in its emotions, languages, historical experiences, religious traditions and cultural heritage. There is no such thing as an ahistoric reason.

 

This means that we do not have one but many rationalities, the Christian European, the Islamic, the Chinese, the Indian to name a few, each stamped by the specific conditions of its evolution, and in turn incorporating a multitude of sub-rationalities. Neither do these traditions of rationality exist isolated from each other. They have much in common, the product of the interactive and communicative activity of cultures.

 

Aristotle's logos, Descartes' intellect and Kant's transcendental reason, are illusions, which no self-respecting thinker can afford to defend in the 21st century. The truth is that today's self- proclaimed guardians of enlightenment and rationality are offshoots of the intellectual poverty of eighteenth century positivism and scienticism, who disfigure philosophy and thought, history and reality. They are the victims of what may be referred to as a sick secularist consciousness.

 

These contrast reason's absolute virtue with the evil of a straw man they have christened religion: a pack of superstitions, fairytales, demons, and angels, which intervene in the world only to corrupt and destroy it. They fail to realize that just as there are different species of secularism - the intolerant and the dogmatic (such as theirs), the open and the tolerant - there exist multiple forms of religion. Religion can be legalistic, spiritual, Gnostic, rationalized, conservative, innovative, quietist, reactionary, moderate and radical. These many expressions do not exclude one another but may be present in the same type of religiosity. An example of such intricate overlapping is the great Muslim thinker Abu Hamid al-Gazali (d. 1111), who was at once a brilliant jurist, philosopher, theologian, and mystic.

 

Just as they simplify the breathtakingly complex phenomenon that is the human being, these missionaries of secularism impoverish the social order, filling it with sacred boundaries between the private and the public, and strictly laying down what may and may not be practiced in each. You may indulge in your religious "superstitions" behind the thick closed doors of your home, church, temple, or mosque. But the moment you step outside into the light of the secular sphere, you must discard your cross, turban, or headscarf. Communication, they insist, is only possible within uniformity. Such was the argument used in France to ban the Islamic headscarf in schools and government offices last year, and which is gaining currency in Britain today.

 

What these ignore, willingly or naively, is that unless you suffer from schizophrenia, everything in your cognitive universe is interlinked and forms part of a single coherent whole through which you make sense of the world, its components and what takes place therein. There is a difference between recognizing the sanctity of the private and transforming it into a high fenced prison cut off from the rhythm of public life. A measure of the dynamism of a public sphere is its ability to incorporate multiple modes of expression and forms of life. If the radically secularist have a problem communicating with those who dress or speak differently from themselves, it is their problem and a symptom of their exclusionist dogmatism. It is not the problem of the religious.

 

Secularist dogmatism is no less dangerous than its religious sibling. Secularism itself can be, and indeed has been in many historical instances, highly destructive. We should remember that Europe's modern history is scarred with the brutality of secular totalitarianism. Neither the Jacobins, fascists, Nazis or Stalinists were priests or theologians. They were fanatical secularists who worshipped in reason's grand temple and sacrificed hundreds of thousands for the god of progress, fervently vowing to create a new man and a new world on the ruins of the old.

 

With the retreat of Christianity and shrinking of the ecclesiastical institution in Western Europe, the threat to tolerance and coexistence no longer comes from religion. What we should be dreading today is the tyranny of an arrogant secularism which hides its exclusionist and intolerant face behind the sublime mask of reason, enlightenment and progress.

-------------------------------------------------

 

Hmmmm

[N.O.R.F]

What we should be dreading today is the tyranny of an arrogant secularism which hides its exclusionist and intolerant face behind the sublime mask of reason, enlightenment and progress.

[Ms DD]

There is a war between Atheist secularists and religions. The secular atheists want a particular world, and have devised their own destrcutive laws and systems which plunder from the rest of the world.

 

Atheists and secularists have for the past 200 years gain dominance around the world, they have imposed their plundering economic system which has resulted in the enslavement of billions. Many people earn $2 a week, or even a month, while a handful of people own 95% of global resources....such plunder is inhumane and designed to rob and enslave the many.

 

Deadly secularism has given rise to wave after wave of genocide and destruction, inter ethnic conflict, international conflict, racial conflict, nationalist conflict etc. etc., some of the most destaructive weapons ever invented, a system which leads to the destruction of the air, oceans and other life support systems with no end in sight to satiating the greedy secular materialists.

 

Nowadays being secular is validated and given rewards. I mean in a work situation say to your work mates you are going to the pub later and everyone will join you, say you are going for prayers and you will get some odd looks.

[Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar]

Canbaro, si fiican ayaa u hadashay.

 

Maanta fanatic atheist secularists ayaa soo baxay, kaba daray kuwii hore ee ku eedeyn jireen diinta. This Richard Dawkins person ayaa kamid ah. I've read a review of his book on the paper, he comes across intolerant anything that has to do with religion, completely believing what he calls 'rationality' and 'reason' superiority.

 

But what are reason and rationality? Doesn't reason itself derive from the natural laws and ways ordained by God.

 

They also believe "logic" and "morality," which both originate from natural rules of Eebbe that each child inborns with -- fitra.

 

It is humanity's innate, inherent disposition to differentiate between what is right and wrong, and to feel guilt when one errs or commits aggression. Atheists otherwise want us to believe those "innate" universal and natural laws of humanity came by chance, same like the whole universe.

 

Perhaps that where the confusion stems from -- their idea of the whole universe coming out of no where, out of the blank, gastic smoke in this case.

 

He also repeats the unscholarlike, discredited age-old myths, such as religions are behind every major wars or conflicts on this planet since day one. He deliberately omits to mention his fellow Darwinian war-mongering and ethnic-cleansing atheists Stalin and Hitler, and other historical unbelieving men of bloodthirsty and cruelty like Attila and Genghis Khan.

[Caano Geel]

Say for a moment we get pragmatic about the issue rather than philosophical, leaving behind any specific theological beliefs. Do you see any role for secularism in todays societies? And by today's societies i mean the place that you live, with the people you interact with, not an idealised version of how it could be if everyone had...

 

Anyhow would be interested in your opinions

[Johnny B]

It'd been tempting to sit beside Caano Geel and wait for an intellectually tickling inputs from Mr North ,MMA and Cambarro , but if that is not forthcoming( hoping that is not the case), i'd like to widen the prospects so they know what ground to cover.

 

 

MMA and Cambarro's coupling of Atheism and Secularism leave much to be desired in contrast to the simple fact that many religious people are Secularists and absoloutly not Atheists and ofcourse it goes without saying that some Atheists are militant and not Secularists .

 

As for the Author and the point , I knew that few religious people labor under the mistaken notion that things happen without a reason , and correct as they may be in their own minds, the fruits of natural science based on fatcs through sound reason, based on reality and actuality speak against them.

 

what i diden't know however was that beeing intellectually dishonest was a religiously justifieable act, becouse the Author seems to be under the impression that his REASON of penning down these unsubstantiated lines against Rationality and Science is not a Reason but a devine revelation of sort, but it soley stands to reason that even (s)he is unsuccessfully trying to reason that Rationality and Science are Lame therefore Secularism is another Lame, dogmatic religion.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar:

Perhaps that where the confusion stems from -- their idea of the whole universe coming out of no where, out of the blank, gastic smoke in this case.

And what's your problem with this? We observe particles appearing and disappearing all the time from and to nowhere in empty space.

[N.O.R.F]

Do you see any role for secularism in todays societies?

Secularism is already present in today's societies. The problem.

 

JB, any arguments for Secularism? After your done with criticising the author of course

 

With the retreat of Christianity and shrinking of the ecclesiastical institution in Western Europe, the threat to tolerance and coexistence no longer comes from religion. What we should be dreading today is the tyranny of an arrogant secularism which hides its exclusionist and intolerant face behind the sublime mask of reason, enlightenment and progress.

I think she has a point here.

[Ms DD]

Salaam

 

The orginal post outlines the intolerance of Secularism. In the UK, even though they pride themselves in being a secular country (despite the head of state also being the head of church), their intolerance is for all to see. We are being told time and time again that we live in a secular society, one which fosters understanding and respect for other peoples beliefs and faiths!

 

Actions however do speak louder than words. Only few weeks ago British govt was proposing to force all religious schools to enroll at least 25% of its students from among people who do not share their faith.

 

Along these same lines, a Muslim teacher who refused to remove her veil during class was alleged to be "denying the right of children to a full education."

 

Another recently reported case, the European Court on Human Rights decided that Germany did not violate the rights of parents who chose to educate their children at home in order to foster their Christian identity. The court baldly asserted that the homeschooling parents were violating their children's "right" not to be educated in their religious upbringing because the government considered it too isolated.

 

These incidents clearly illustrate that secularism deals with religious diversity not necessarily by tolerance, but by squelching minorities, including Christianity or any non-secularist group. Secularism is not the absence of dogma. It will not tolerate a competing worldview, especially one based on religion, because it considers faith assertions to be per se illegitimate for public policy.

 

Having discarded God, secularismn divinism is either the state or the individual (with the individual's rights defined solely by the state, hence claims that children have a "right" to whatever the state wants).

Secularism is uncritically dogmatic and doesn't even realise it. The so-called "seperation of church and state" can only result in the marginalisation and gradual but steady suppression of religion.

[Ms DD]

Originally posted by J B:

MMA and Cambarro's coupling of Atheism and Secularism leave much to be desired in contrast to the simple fact that many religious people are Secularists and absoloutly not Atheists and ofcourse it goes without saying that some Atheists are militant and not Secularists

Secularism has tendency that leans towards atheism.

 

Originally posted by J B:

As for the Author and the point , I knew that few religious people labor under the mistaken notion that things happen without a reason , and correct as they may be in their own minds, the fruits of natural science based on fatcs through sound reason, based on reality and actuality speak against them.

Quite alot of athieists and 'free thinkers' in general appear to be enamoured about their particular belief i.e the fruits of natural science based on 'facts through sound reason'. This isnt really objective.

 

Some of them seem to think they do not have 'a belief' because it is a absence of belief in a God. Obviously the fact that it is a belief seems to escape them.

 

It also spectacularly escapes their notice that just because they call themselves 'free thinkers' it does not mean that they actually form their own thinkers free of any social context or 'contamination'.

 

They imagine that their views are based on 'facts' which can be established by evidence and proof, they hardly ever question their own methodologies if they do, only superficially. And to cap it all they have this ridiculous attept at presenting themselves as the 'most knowing', most skeptical about religions', and as if they ask the most critical and relevant questions of religions'. Evidence is emphasised strongly but we first have to establish that their way of finding and defining evidence (methodology), is actually free from any beliefs and assumptions and is totally 'objective', however we find that their whole methodology is subjective and only given authority on account of the beliefs I posted above.

 

 

Originally posted by J B:

what i diden't know however was that beeing intellectually dishonest was a religiously justifieable act, becouse the Author seems to be under the impression that his REASON of penning down these unsubstantiated lines against Rationality and Science is not a Reason but a devine revelation of sort, but it soley stands to reason that even (s)he is unsuccessfully trying to reason that Rationality and Science are Lame therefore Secularism is another Lame, dogmatic religion.

Rationality and Science is not really exlusive to Secularism JB.

Science is a method, mainly suited to quantative methods, it is blind to qualitative factors. Its findings are limited by its methods. It may work in particular areas, and may find the truth, but it certainly does not tell us truths in everything and it should stay out of questions and areas in which its methods are blind.

Science is a double edged sword it reveals just as much as it hides....it takes and creates its own a path, and ignores others.

 

Science has a role and religion has a role, both can co-exists if they remain within their bounderies and people know the limitations.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Cambarro:

Quite alot of athieists and 'free thinkers' in general appear to be enamoured about their particular belief i.e the fruits of natural science based on 'facts through sound reason'. This isnt really objective.

 

What's not objective about Gravity, Thermodynamics, Doppler Effect, Quantum mechanics, bernoulli principle etc?

 

 

Some of them seem to think they do not have 'a belief' because it is a absence of belief in a God. Obviously the fact that it is a belief seems to escape them.

 

In science, belief is equated with accepting a claim as valid without any evidence. If you know anything about science, you'll know that's akin to heresy as it completely abondons science altogether.

 

 

They imagine that their views are based on 'facts' which can be established by evidence and proof, they hardly ever question their own methodologies if they do, only superficially.

 

There's nothing rational about atheism in the sense they're beliefs can be demonstrated to be true. How do you falsify the atheist claim that there's no God? Likewise, how do you falsify theist claim that there is God? You can't based on logic and evidence.

 

 

Evidence is emphasised strongly but we first have to establish that their way of finding and defining evidence (methodology),

 

Let's not split hairs, ok? Evidence is demonstrable fact. For example, a leaf is evidence for existence of plants.

 

 

is actually free from any beliefs and assumptions and is totally 'objective', however we find that their whole methodology is subjective

 

YOu're harping on this silly canard that we can't differentiate objective and subjective methods. I say we can. Nary a soul on earth would render the mathematical notation 2+2 = 4 subjective. Because it can be demonstrated in the real world to be true, two apples plus two apples leaves you with in possession of 4 apples.

 

The rule of thumb is demonstrability. If you can demonstrate something then that thing is TRUE and the methods used is OBJECTIVE.

 

 

Science is a double edged sword it reveals just as much as it hides..

 

Hides? Now the wheels have completely come off! What's the matter? You sound like little petulent girl stomping her feet on the ground, pouting about Mommy not painting her room according to her favourite color.

 

 

Science has a role and religion has a role, both can co-exists if they remain within their bounderies and people know the limitations.

I have never seen science investigate, study or even deign attention to religion. But religionists are always on science's case. Why is that?

[Ms DD]

I really dont want to go into this, as i was way off topic having read this back. But just to pick up couple of points, neutrality in science cannot always be accepted as an absolute. Bias, and the avoidance of bias, is an important part of the training of researchers. Bias is unaviodable as it is built-in. The aim of science is to find out useful stuff about the world. You may try to minimize it through various ways, but you cannot fully escape it.

 

"Science is a double edged sword it reveals just as much as it hides.."

 

if you slice a cake in a particular way, you end up with a different shaped cake...the act of slicing determenes what is found. Science is like the slicing....it finds certain shapes of cake, calls them 'true' or 'false' and constructs 'knowledge in this way....the point being the actual method (slicing) creates the truth/false and there is no way of by-passing this by using science (the same slicing method).

 

"I have never seen science investigate, study or even deign attention to religion. But religionists are always on science's case. Why is that?"

 

The intelligent design and creationists debate ..ring any bell? Scientists stick their oar in on what kids are taught and what to include the school curriculum.

 

Many place science on great importance (in some cases this maybe true) but it is asking a lot from science to explain the unexplainable.

 

Logic and science as concieved attempts to limit and determene truth...but all it does is discover the what, where, how of phenomena not the Truth as it is.

 

 

"You sound like little petulent girl stomping her feet on the ground, pouting about Mommy not painting her room according to her favourite color."

 

Enough with the personal attacks. We are just having discussion, a civil one I hope.

 

 

Apologies to Northerner for going off-topic.

[Khayr]

Salamun Calikyum ya muslimeen,

 

It will not tolerate a competing worldview, especially one based on religion, because it considers faith assertions to be per se illegitimate for public policy.

 

Spot on....

 

 

They imagine that their views are based on 'facts' which can be established by evidence and proof, they hardly ever question their own methodologies if they do, only superficially. And to cap it all they have this ridiculous attept at presenting themselves as the 'most knowing', most skeptical about religions', and as if they ask the most critical and relevant questions of religions'. Evidence is emphasised strongly but we first have to establish that their way of finding and defining evidence (methodology), is actually free from any beliefs and assumptions and is totally 'objective', however we find that their whole methodology is subjective and only given authority on account of the beliefs I posted above.

 

Its like they set up the framework for what is TRUTH? For what is RIGHT? All else must fall under their scientific framework and metrics. Ignoring all else and its validity.

 

 

Science has a role and religion has a role, both can co-exists if they remain within their bounderies and people know the limitations.

 

It has a role in religion in so far that it does not deny revelation. For that would be Scientism which in of itself has come to replace Religion and Revelation among the academics. The average citizen can't comprehend these things and so follows what is dictated to them.

i.e. Secularism brings world peace, universal rights etc.

 

Also, one must dominate the other. This is natural and how the world works. No two things are equal (Which is what secularity propogates and religion negates this modern supersitition).

 

 

if you slice a cake in a particular way, you end up with a different shaped cake...the act of slicing determenes what is found. Science is like the slicing....it finds certain shapes of cake, calls them 'true' or 'false' and constructs 'knowledge in this way....the point being the actual method (slicing) creates the truth/false and there is no way of by-passing this by using science (the same slicing method).

 

The question is then what instrument should be used to 'slice the cake'?

 

what is the aim of slicing the cake? (The Cake representing Knowledge)

 

Modern researchers and scientists are never neutral and are heavily based. Innocence is gone in the toddler years and from then on we begin to formulate knowledge. This is done by way of the environment and the society that we live in. So to claim total unbiased objectivity when discussing a subject matter or formulating a hypothesis or a research paper is - ludacirous.

 

Scientists stick their oar in on what kids are taught and what to include the school curriculum.

 

Very true...

 

 

Fi Amanillah

[Cara.]

Hello Cambarro,

 

I think you are convulating secularism with atheism/religious skepticism. Your use of Hitler and Stalin's regimes as secular systems clearly shows an inability to distinguish between the two.

 

On the other hand, that you point out various cases of religious intolerance under secular institutions is very interesting and relevant to the discussion. But to complain about how a MUSLIM teacher was denied her right to cover her face in a CHRISTIAN school (followed by a trial in a SECULAR court which sided with her) is a little strange, to be honest. Especially since you also disapprovingly highlight a law which would've made it mandatory for a religious school to enroll children of other faiths. They must be hire the Muslim teacher, but can't be forced to enroll Muslim students?

 

Your examples of injustices also pale in contrast to the excesses of militant theocracies. The Spanish Inquisition. The Crusades. Witch burnings presided over by godly priests. The countless wars that broke out in the various Islamic caliphates as one sect decided they were going to bring back "true" Islam. The caste system in India has it's strongest proponents among the religious elite. I think a critique of secularism that fails to consider thousands of years of human experience with the horrors of theocracy is a little one-sided.

 

Originally posted by Cambarro:

The so-called "seperation of church and state" can only result in the marginalisation and gradual but steady suppression of religion.

You know, I think the problem with secularism, as far as the religious are concerned, is not so much that religions are given short-shrift as that religions are simply not given enough attention. Nothing quite makes a believer smugly fervent as having the perception that they are under-seige by the state. But people just don't care what you believe as long as you are not going to burn them at the stake, tear out their still-beating hearts and offer them to your god to appease him for another year, make them pay a special tax or wear special clothing, lay claim to their possessions, etc. And that bothers those who like to trumpet their religious convictions and foist them onto others.

[Cara.]

Despite not being related to secularism per se, I found your comments on science interesting, Cambarro.

 

Originally posted by Cambarro:

"I have never seen science investigate, study or even deign attention to religion. But religionists are always on science's case. Why is that?"

 

The intelligent design and creationists debate ..ring any bell? Scientists stick their oar in on what kids are taught and what to include the school curriculum.

Science classes teach science. Non-scientific theories don't belong in science classes. Creationism is not science by any stretch of the imagination. By all means, teach it in school, in religious education classes and such, but to force scientists to teach non-science is just perplexing. It's like asking a geologist to teach that the earth is flat on the grounds that someone somewhere believes it to be so.

 

Many place science on great importance (in some cases this maybe true) but it is asking a lot from science to explain the unexplainable.

What exactly is unexplainable? Everything that you believe that contradicts science? Isn't this circular reasoning? By drawing a line and saying "go no further", are you really showing the limits of science, or the flimsy nature of supernatural beliefs? If they fail to stand up to rational inquiry, isn't it fallacious to then declare that it is logic that's at fault? The cake analogy is really apt. Science is a tool, you said, that you can use to slice the cake. What other tools are there? Or are we supposed to stare in awe at the great culinary masterpiece and forbid people from finding out what it's made of?

 

"You sound like little petulent girl stomping her feet on the ground, pouting about Mommy not painting her room according to her favourite color."

 

Enough with the personal attacks. We are just having discussion, a civil one I hope.

Indeed. Personalizing to that extent is distasteful, Socod_badne.