Support First Things by turning your adblocker off or by making a  donation. Thanks!

In his latest New York Times column, Stanley Fish reviews The Disenchantment of Secular Discourse. The new book by law professor Steven Smith argues that there are no secular reasons, at least not, as Fish summarizes, “reasons of the kind that could justify a decision to take one course of action rather than another.”

It is not, Smith tells us, that secular reason can’t do the job (of identifying ultimate meanings and values) we need religion to do; it’s worse; secular reason can’t do its own self-assigned job — of describing the world in ways that allow us to move forward in our projects — without importing, but not acknowledging, the very perspectives it pushes away in disdain.

While secular discourse, in the form of statistical analyses, controlled experiments and rational decision-trees, can yield banks of data that can then be subdivided and refined in more ways than we can count, it cannot tell us what that data means or what to do with it. No matter how much information you pile up and how sophisticated are the analytical operations you perform, you will never get one millimeter closer to the moment when you can move from the piled-up information to some lesson or imperative it points to; for it doesn’t point anywhere; it just sits there, inert and empty.


Surprisingly, Fish doesn’t reveal his own feelings about Smith’s thesis. The fact that he doesn’t openly disagree probably isn’t all that telling since, I suspect, he is less interested in the veracity of the claim than he is about its implications. Whether Fish believes it is true that there are no secular reasons, he would likely say that such a claim is necessary for religion to truly claim a place within the public square. As he wrote in an essay for First Things in 1996 :


If you persuade liberalism that its dismissive marginalizing of religious discourse is a violation of its own chief principle, all you will gain is the right to sit down at liberalism’s table where before you were denied an invitation; but it will still be liberalism’s table that you are sitting at, and the etiquette of the conversation will still be hers. That is, someone will now turn and ask, “Well, what does religion have to say about this question?” And when, as often will be the case, religion’s answer is doctrinaire (what else could it be?), the moderator (a title deeply revealing) will nod politely and turn to someone who is presumed to be more reasonable. To put the matter baldly, a person of religious conviction should not want to enter the marketplace of ideas but to shut it down, at least insofar as it presumes to determine matters that he believes have been determined by God and faith. The religious person should not seek an accommodation with liberalism; he should seek to rout it from the field, to extirpate it, root and branch.


Comments are visible to subscribers only. Log in or subscribe to join the conversation.

Tags

Loading...

Filter First Thoughts Posts

Related Articles