That religion remains a vital force in the contemporary world seems an obvious enough observation in 2009. However, it contradicts one of the master narratives of twentieth-century thought. Psychoanalysis was just one species of a widespread conviction among twentieth-century western European and American intellectuals that in the modern world religion would steadily retreat and secular reason would triumph. Adherents of this belief could draw legitimacy from science’s evident conquest of domains formerly claimed by faith. They could point to a distinguished pedigree, including the heroes of the scientific revolution, the philosophes of the Enlightenment, and a pantheon of nineteenth-century giants, including Karl Marx , Charles Darwin, Friedrich Nietzsche, Émile Durkheim, and Max Weber. Contrary to Nietzsche’s famous declaration, God may not have been dead, but He certainly observed the dominant philosophical debates of the twentieth century from the margins. That was as true of Oxford logicians carving into received belief like a roast at High Table as it was of Parisian existentialists urging us to shoulder responsibility for a godless world. Among social scientists and historians, it became a veritable article of faith that organized religion’s presence in public life was dwindling and faith was becoming more and more a matter of private conscience. In the sweeping liberal imagination of mid-century American social science, secularization was virtually synonymous with modernization. Insofar as historians studied religion, it was almost invariably inserted into a narrative of decline. Political scientists routinely described the modern ideologies—communism and fascism, or even the liberal belief in progress—as ersatz secular religions, and that description took for granted that the real thing had left the stage of history. The theology departments of many American universities discretely evolved into religious studies, a rainbow coalition that acknowledged religion as an anthropological, historical, and social fact without compelling anyone to take oaths. Within academia, outward professions of faith, insistence on the persistent power of religion, or explicit calls for religion to play a public role seemed not just awkward infractions against scholarly politeness but also violations of the taken-for-granted normal order of modern reality.
Measured against so many trends in the intellectual history of the twentieth century, the return of religion to the halls of academe must be considered a sea change in the intellectual life of America and Europe. Religion is in. Across the spectrum of the humanities and social sciences, scholars are studying religious phenomena, and there is a new willingness to open a dialogue between philosophy and theology. This does not necessarily mean that scholars themselves have had a conversion on the road to Damascus. With the exception of evangelical universities and the occasional individual faculty member, universities remain staunchly secular zones. I would dare say that for most professional scholars, religion reclaims their attention not because faith reasserts its ancestral claim but because the secularist narrative has gotten snagged in contradictions and complexities. Among these snags must count the weakening of confidence in the oppositional terms that structured the secular worldview: irrational versus rational, faith versus knowledge, and the most basic dichotomy, religious versus secular. It is unlikely that diminishing confidence among secularist intellectuals would have occurred had it not coincided with the robust return of religion in cultures around the globe. Quite simply, the world has refused to cooperate with the expectations and divinations of the secularists.
Western Europe is more or less the only region of the world that witnesses low reported levels of individual belief. Not surprisingly, western Europeans frequently look on with dismay and incomprehension at America, where broad swaths of life never ceased to be religious. In America, secularists never denied that believers would remain, but they did expect their numbers to decline and the holdouts to settle into a private style of faith. The first assumption is obviously contradicted by the roughly 92 percent of Americans who currently profess belief in God or a universal spirit. Then, too, there are the growing numbers of Americans who describe themselves as “spiritual,” a nebulous term that could mean almost anything, and clearly an ongoing trend.
Canadian subscribers add $10; All other international subscribers add $40.
Comments Post a Comment »
In volume III, numberI, Religion, on pg. 211 there are superhero avatars for different 'faiths', however for Muslims there is none. It may be suspected that 'political correctness'/fear has reared its censorious head by the exclusion of an avatar for Allah. Say it isn't so. Was it the publisher? I'm sure this has probably been pointed out by others.
Posted by john lewis beaufait on Wed 3 Feb 2010
Well its time to make the division between the true and pure secularist and the one that is 'tainted' by religion. I think the answer the author searches, yes searches, for is not in what secularism expounds but what it lacks. The weakness lies in the un-conformity of the secularism belief. If the foundation allows hypothesis that verge on any spritisitc satisfaction than the end does not justify the means. I speak of the other realm that does exist and if this belief eludes it and acts as if it is not there then there will forever be a lack of satisfaction of a basic human need.
Posted by Tara on Mon 1 Mar 2010
"Barack Obama’s eloquence is often leavened by biblical resonances, and his message of hope taps the veins of religious yearning and expectation that marble the bedrock of American oratory."
C'mon now. You have to admit that's stretching the definition quite a bit. If leavening one's eloquence with biblical resonances and delivering a message of hope (or reacting to the same) counts as being religious, then I daresay none of us are secular.
Posted by Aaron on Fri 19 Mar 2010
Proud to be a member of the least trusted minority. To 'believers' I say, "I don't trust you either."
Posted by Diomedes on Fri 20 Aug 2010
"...Defenders of religion are all too ready to claim that secularism offers at best a wizened form of experience and sensation. Such a view has us moderns living within a purely immanent world, blocked from any relation to a truly transcendent sphere. In such a world, the colors are a shade paler, the sounds a tone flatter than in a world touched by the divine...."
Yes, they would have us believe that believing in the fantasy of the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus makes life more beautiful. In reality, it only keeps us children wanting someone else to be responsible for our lives, abdicators en masse - abdication from taking charge of our lives, and dumping it all instead on a Santa Claus on a cross or on a dead Easter Bunny revived after three days.
We might as well accept Disney's realities where animals talk in English and walk on their hind paws - and clutch things in thumbless front paws.
Religion, at best, is an open-hearted social club; at worst it is the War of the Roses and 9/11, mixed with beheadings and the Inquisition, right wing religious wackos (and Wacos) and burning innocents at the stake. Left to its own devices, those are precisely what religion becomes. Religion without secular tempering is a terribly dangerous thing, destructive of individuals and intemperate in the extreme. The idea of religion as a benign connector of people or as a conduit to the divine is a cover story, a scam, a hucksterism of the lowest sort. The end goal is always to tell people that a free and pleasurable life is undesirable and contrary to the will of some imaginary deity, in order to empower a select few to control and destroy those whom the few disagree with.
Compare the joys of life on a wide scale during the eras when religion dominated, versus our secular times - which has brought individuals' lives more joy, more prosperity, more capacity to live, more ability to experience the world that was created?
What deity would choose for his most sentient creations the former over the latter?
I rest my case.
Posted by SteveGinIL on Wed 13 Jul 2011