Secularization
Is secularization the result of Christianization? Is secularization a response to the increasing complexity of modern societies? Is secularization the outcome of the deteriorating barrier between what is sacred and what is profane? When any society institutionalizes the sacred doesn't that institutionalization limit possibilities of what is sacred and then give some people control over the sacred, while others are forbidden? Religions try to capture what it is that transcends time, but ultimately that has socio-political implications -- some people are granted more freedom than others and the spectrum of possibilites is sharply limited. But in a secularized society, people are free to discover the sacred for themselves apart from any institution seeking to control its form by means of symbols (or rather idols)...
must go to class...
must go to class...
posted by Timcom at 1:20 PM
9 Comments:
Ah...this is why I find Star Trek facinating. A world based on technological advance for the sole purpose of bettering humanity. To me, this is a bright outlook to secularization, but the reality seems to show that what people tend to choose as their "sacred" is greed, self-absorbtion, the "easy" way. I am way to uninformed to completely define secularization, but what I see in it is corruption of politics, false freedoms, capitalistic Darwinism; the same things you see in religion.
Your first line I do understand. I think that Christianization has created the byproduct of secularization. People want "freedom" (boy this is a loaded word) to choose for themselves and when in a culture of one main religion, one feels the need to be different; to find one's own truth of the world. Secularization gives the illusion of this 'freedom.'
Like any religion secularization has its rules. You can't go start your own religious practice based on human sacrifice because you feel that is the way it should be done. The secular world still works from the law and the constitution both of which are continually added to and amended, which further limits people's so called 'freedoms'.
One kind of related observation that I find interesting is that secularization is actually good for religions. People can see the world through another lens. Secularization has also been a middle ground for different relgions to learn to come together; to live together. Religions will never be united into one sole religion, but secularization can unite humanity without answering the cosmic unanswered questions.
Secularization as bad under Christian or other institutionalizations of the sacred because the tenets of each define what is right and what is wrong.
Rudolph Bultmann would argue that Christ's resurrection is purely metaphorical for a change in the disciples understanding of what faith is. Whether or not it actually happened does not matter to him, but that the disciples went from not understanding faith to understanding it. In this sense, how is Christianity any different from other religions who make very similar claims? If Christ was not resurrected bodily, then our faith, as Karl Barth would outline, is dead. So could the illusion of freedom, be an illusion to those who see the world from a institutionalized lens?
Every society has rules...the sacred is always limited by political measures (though religion seeks to put the sacred in its own category limiting it more). When revolution inevitable breaks out, the sacred is seen in different ways...when there are paradigm shifts, imagined possiblities shift and become real possibilities. But in a secularized society people have the opportunity to think outside of what society or religion defines as possible. It can be discussed rather than following blindly what is dictated...Freedom is illusory in institutionalized religion...theology even begins with a presupposition in an absolute authority. Though, granted there is not a soul alive that doesn't begin any inquiry without some form of foundation or without certain values. These are our cultural fictions that we share with our past, present, and future community.
Again, referring to what I talked about in earlier posts, sociologists and anthropologists, Christian and not, have identified a common thread of violence within societies, and especially in religious rituals and symbols. It is thought by some that this violence is somehow inherent, and that society is structured so that the violence (chaos) is ordered. In fact the biblical creation narrative is reminiscent of this idea. In this sense you could be right that human beings ultimately make very violent decisions, but they also bring it to balance through laws, values, cultural fictions, whatever...
I think you're right that people do make bad decisions, but people also make good decisions. I don't buy in to progress philosophy as something equated with technological advancement...technology arises from a positivistic framework of induction, just another paradigm that is becoming more and more outdated. One can see secularization as just another form of religion I suppose, but it opens up possibilities...good and bad...without the restriction of organized religion that limits possibilities of what the sacred is. Sacred (with a capital 'S') is unlimited possibilities -- it is the transcendent, God, whatever. For one to define what is Sacred, I think that is very dangerous. People do what they are told...limiting a person's autonomous decision or narrowing their lens through which they see life, when the Sacred is so much more than just that.
So secularization is definately good for Christianity, if not other religions...it does not negate them as most people think and it definately allows them dialogue possibilities. Pluralism is a reality...as well as is ambiguity...I think I wrote a blog a few entries ago that dealt more with this pre-theological position.
We all make our decisions on what we believe the right way is to view the sacred and so are foundational...but our decision is not necessarily the right decision, as I think we should understand that. This is where respect and dialogue with other religions, other definitions of what is sacred should come in. I'll call this the 'sacred conversation.' Secularization opens up this possibility as you've pointed out...
But it is this admittance to ourselves that Truth (Sacred) is only seen from different angles and so it is great to gain incite into those possibilities that might ultimately change our individual worldview, widening our understanding of the sacred...
I'm rambling...must organize thoughts...
I do agree with secularization being a good thing, but from things you've pointed out just now, you have illuded to things that could be bad. Although I think secularization can lead to a unity, the most likely thing to happen will be that secularization will become yet another seperate sect aside from religions; almost becoming yet another religion; a religion of law, rules, science, open thought. It sounds great, but the potential for bad is almost as strong as the good. And like any religion, morals are at its base. But in some ways I see this as being too broad. Religions try to be specific in their belief, while secularization remains very broad where one can be lost in the ways of the world alone, exploring more options, yes, but to the extent of confusion and contradiction. Religions start from a basic belief in something that requires faith, and is explained from that viewpoint. Secularization has no grounding. I don't know if this is a good or bad thing, and it is something I just kinda thought of, but it brings up an interesting idea.
I liked your first paragraph of the comments. This seems to be true in my experience especially in the US where the population is mostly Christian. You see evidence in political agendas and the media. C.S. Lewis, as you know, in "Mere Christianity" talked about all of humanity, at its base, being rooted in morals; knowing what is right and wrong. Secularization does not escape these, and has set up its own laws to 'judge' these. It is almost like a fresh start at another religion with no base except humanties ability to know right and wrong. Of course C.S. Lewis goes on to explain how this leads to Christianity, but this beginning framework really can say a lot about secularization and how it is grounded. I am not disagreeing with what you have said, but making other observations.
I don't know if laws and rules are there to balance our violent nature or not. I would say that they are there to limit power. I think more than anything else, this is where violence comes from; one's desire for power.
Christianity, Islam judaism Buddhism and other 'isms' and philosophies make fakes out of us
They don't want you to be a genuine person, you are expected to wear a mask always glued to your face permanently
But we all have masks whether we'd like to admit it or not...or many of us don't even know what those masks really are that taint our worldview...
Secularization seems like the better alternative that works in favor of religion, rather than opposed to it. There are problems with every social system we set up as human beings...we don't have everything figured out and will never. With every choice we are choosing certain possibilities and neglecting others, always left with the 'what ifs.' The Sacred is not achievable by us because we live in space and time...unlimited possibilites...the whole spectrum is never within our grasp; only those possibilities within our cultural context, religious affiliation, conglomerate of personal experience...etc are even imagined. Yet much imagined potential is never actualized.
Secularization, pluralism, individuals all have grounding in something whether they realize it or not.
Morality will always be up for debate...where does it come from? Is it a relational regulatory function (the conscience) within the body communicating particular moral sentiments concerning thought and action? Or is it something out there apart from God, something inherent within the cosmos lending something absolute in which human beings, or rather all of the natural universe, can find something to hold onto for identity sake?
There is comfort for the religious in a hope for communion one day with the transcendent...faith. Faith is a great thing...I must admit...it allows for discussions that may seem contrary to traditional understandings of religious dogma or interpreted historical, theological, sociological events.
I really like Karl Barth on this point. He would not say that he is a universalist in the sense that he believes all will go to heaven...but he says that he has faith that Christ, by the grace of God will return, and he (Barth) can hope and pray that everyone will go to heaven. This faith is what is behind all theological discourse, Buddhist meditation, Hare Krishna doctrine, whatever...But in secularization I don't foresee faith ever leaving the picture...I see it as part of the fabric of humanity, a hope in reaching the Sacred, in understanding possibilities beyond us one day...it seems very rational to me.
Specific beliefs are good , I agree, but anything opposed to those beliefs is considered heretical, or bad...in this sense many religions are very exclusive in their membership. And much of the membership is made up of people whose parents grew up in that certain religion. Secularization reveals other possibilities, a more inclusive concept of a complex pluralistic world...
Evil doesn't exist
only good exists in this world
Do you think Hitler was evil ?
No
ask him
He would have said what he is doing is good, What others are doing is evil
'I am cleaning up the world '
Do you think a whole country would stand behind him if they belived what he was doing is evil ?
Believe me after over sixty years
church (vatican)is yet to condemn him
Who or what is Evil then ?
No one , nothing
Islam Christianity Judaism Hinduism
Buddhism, other 'isms' are all good people... who is evil ?
They all are promoting their own BRAND of 'good' if you don't agree with their brand of 'good' you become evil. It is 'good' which has caused more bloodshed in this world than anything else. It has always been a clash of Good Vs Good
They all speak God's word. They all want to promote God's word, look at the bloodshed it has caused
Look at the hatred between one brand of 'good' against the other
Ask a terrorist, he will tell you he is 'fighting evil' and he is willing to give up his life for a 'good' cause. Would he do it if he believes what he is doing is evil ?
God's word has failed to make humans out of us
Is there a chance for all
'good' people to live in a peaceful co-existance ? None
Is there a chance for secularism ?
its a dream
Its my dream too
I like Rauf's comments about evil spawning from good, because everyone thinks their intention is good. Well from the other side of that, everything can be looked at as bad from the viewpoint of others onlooking acts of violence, evil, aggression. You could say all good comes from something evil, in the sense that we could not do good if there was not evil.
I agree that secularization gives another chance for 'free-thinking,' but as tim points out, all social systems are corruptable. We can put hope in any system, but in the end, it will have the same result as religions.
Here is a poem I found appropriate for this occassion:
The Peaceful Shepherd
If heaven were to do again,
And on the pasture bars
I leaned to line the figures in
Between the dotted stars,
I should be tempted to forget,
I fear, the Crown of Rule,
The Scales of Trade, the Cross of Faith,
As hardly worth renewal.
For these have governed in our lives,
And see how men have warred.
The Cross, the Crown, the Scales may all
As well have been the Sword.
-Robert Frost
This discussion of good and evil, the 'famous pair' as it were, has generally been thought of (and still is) as a dichotomy with a utilitarian flavor; history has much to say on what good is in comparison with bad...good is thought of as that which is successful...or it is thought of as that which maximizes hedonistic beneficence...or it is thought of as individually defined (as is popular in the West).
This ethical debate is far from resolution, though it raises some great questions we can ask ourselves:
what criteria can we use for making an ethical decision?
But even before this question,
what do I need to know about myself before making an ethical decision? Where is my ethnocentric, religious, theological, etc bias and how does that ulimately affect all my decisions? How would other people be affected by my decisions, locally, familially, and globally?
Obviously, these are very unrealistic and rhetorical questions that no one person will have an answer to...but much of them enlighten me to keep an open mind, an open heart...
Immanuel Kant is not necessarily a philsopher I agree with in many cases (partially because a universal ethics just doesn't wet my noodle), but there is a stipulation in his categorical imperative that I find very enlightening and that is to 'never to treat a person merely as a means to an end, but always as an end in and of themselves.'
I'm sure there are many dictators and philsophers who would disagree with this burgeois statement, but for me it has some merit. It fleshes out what Christians always read in the Bible...the love commandment...'love your neighbor as yourself' (though I think Kant's version is much less ambiguous.)
Religious exclusivism will always be an issue with ethical implications. Everyone right and good, with the result of isolationism, increase in the concept of 'the other,' and violent religious zeal that is built within the very framework of religion always riding the line between potentiality and actuality. In any culture, it seems to take just the right conditions (socio-economically, politically, etc) to kick-start a violent fervor and zeal for conquest in the name of 'good.' The sacred is threatened by another man's sacred (though both are the manifestations of the Sacred) and people die to pay the price of the imbalance of human rationality.
But then what is this rationality that we all do use? A combination of the mind, the emotion? Emotive rationality is a reality, and our passions play the tune of rational muse, what's right and what's wrong, along with our minds.
What personal experience has driven me to my current thought and feel? Sequestered from the epistemic orientation of every person given my own experience, and yet biologically and naturally linked to all with a clandestine quasi-universality of sorts I find myself always as a split self...always in search of something transcendent that humans all have in common, and then always as an individual, as a mortal, with my own epistemic copia of ontological questions and answers.
What 'good' is secularisation? I don't know...what separates this ideal from that proposed by Karl Marx? I don't know. What I do know is that the idea, the dream might be worth pursuing, worth hoping and praying for. Whether it is good or not will be judged in history books to come and debated by countless postmodern thinkers.
It's too bad that debate is something that has become an end in and of itself rather than the people involved in situations debated by those in the academy...
Post a Comment
<< Home