Without answering that particular question, Breckman goes on to describe the successes of secularism in the social and political spheres such as the prevalence of democracies. In Breckman's view religions are only able to coexist in relative harmony due to the protective umbrella of secularist states, however illiberal the views of some sects. If the American experience is anything to go by, however, we may well be seeing some secular democracies turning into very thinly veiled theocracies.
He then consoles himself by claiming that, whereas religion has been around since humanity left its footprints all over the globe, “the strictly naturalist conception of the world is a brand new creature. It may have begun to stir as long ago as three, four, five, or six hundred years—exact chronology is not the really important point. To an ear tuned to the long duration of human history, the claim that the cosmos is godless still rings with bold novelty.” Now, this comes from a professor of history. The philosophy of atomism has existed in both Indian and Greek philosophy and has been associated in both cultures with a naturalist view of the world and a secular view of society. That there have been temporal gaps in the transmission of such ideas may be true but to claim that secularism is a “bold novelty” is to look at a narrow slice of history.
He closes the essay by saying that,”Secularism is undoubtedly suffering through a crisis of confidence. Perhaps, though, this presents an opportunity to reinvigorate the secularist vision.” This is undoubtedly true and even Breckman feels that the secularists should expand their language to include even “reveries, epiphanies, and, if you will, transcendent experiences.” But I feel he doesn't have his whole heart in this. Very near to the top of the essay Breckman mentions in passing something that should have turned his head: the rise in spirituality. I must admit that I don't like the term as it is overly loaded with religious history; I prefer the term esoterism as it merely refers to looking inwards at our mental landscape. But Breckman dismisses this as “undefined” and hence not even worthy of analysis.My claim is that secularism appears to be a dry, lifeless dead-end precisely because it hasn't yet truly understood the nature and purpose of religions, and has therefore been unable to distinguish between religious faith and esoteric or spiritual knowledge. It is also a way to alienate even those people who may have a naturalist view of the universe. Esoteric experiences are both widespread and diverse. To claim that they are “delusions” is a way of dismissing them without understanding them first. And only by understanding them can secularists then have a philosophy that is both naturalist and enlightening.
Secular Revival by Warren Breckman, Lapham's Quarterly.
Comments