One of the fastest-moving academic trends in the U.S. today is the creation of ‘secular studies’ programs, the advent of which seems both long overdue and suspiciously tilted. Pitzer College, a small liberal arts school in California, recently launched an entire “department” devoted to secular studies. And, in what is sure to be an interesting counterpoint to the mission of First Things, the country’s first “academic journal of secularism and non-religion,” published by Trinity College in Connecticut, is due to launch this January.
In one sense, it’s difficult to object to the rising academic interest in secularism. To borrow an argument from John Henry Newman in defense of theology as a scholastic subject: if the university is to be truly ‘universal’, then, it cannot and should not ignore one of the strongest forces shaping Western culture over the past five centuries. Indeed, from the vantage point of a religious believer, this sudden upsurge in professorial interest in the phenomenon of secularism might even be considered a boon. If academic elites begin to take both sides in the meeting of faith and public life more seriously, perhaps longstanding stereotypes of religious believers can begin to be combated.
But then, of course, there are issues surrounding this emerging field which even its leading proponents concede have not been resolved. What, for example, does a class on secularism study? How can such a subfield avoid extensive overlap with courses in politics, literature, or sociology? And, given the endless proliferation of subfields at the university level in recent decades (with everything from area studies to zoological management becoming a seemingly distinct sector of research), is another spinoff dedicated to something as notoriously mercurial as ‘secularism’ truly the most prudent way of evaluating this topic?
A recent piece in the Washington Post offers perhaps the most detailed look at what the emerging discipline might involve. Focusing on a seminar run by Jacques Berlinerblau at Georgetown University, the article reveals the content of this particular course to be rather disappointing. “Berlinerblau’s classes focus on secularism as the study of relations between church and state,” reports the Post, which goes on to describe just how ragtag even this narrowly focused seminar can be on certain days. In describing the intellectual sources of the American Founding, for example, Berlinerblau rather glibly summarizes:
“So Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Locke, their fear was: Don’t let your religious freak flag fly in public too much” — meaning that too much religious passion can cause divisions and even violence”
While Berlinerblau and others in his field are to be commended for their rejection of “angry atheism” as a valid response to religious believers, this reduction of ‘secularism’ to one strain of late-Enlightenment Deistic liberalism is overly narrow.
And, so far at least, religious believers would do well to hold on to their recurring concerns about ‘academic indoctrination.’ At the conclusion of the seminar, as recounted in the article, “all but one” of his students raised their hands to describe themselves as “secular.” The course seems to have fallen prey to reiterating a sort of Habermasian distinction between “private” and “public” spheres, rather than a fuller view of secularism as a spectrum, one which in which it is possible to espouse a spectrum of belief ranging from full religious faith to agnosticism or atheism to all sorts of quasi-mystical or pop-philosophical thoughts.
Nevertheless, since this field is barely on its feet, it’s worth giving it room to grow. It holds promise, and serious religious believers ought to track its as a means of potentially reclaiming their voices in the public square, rather than let it fall prey to the usual suspects in academia who promise neutrality but simply can’t deliver it.
December 20th, 2011 | 5:43 pm
Secularism is often another name for atheism and in any case belongs to the study of political philosophy. The desire to have a university department or program which has as one of its unstated principles the exclusion of religious truths severely limits its capacity for the pursuit of the knowledge of reality and the comprehension of mankind. Such a program sounds like a physical science which would begin with the exclusion of the law of gravity. Understandably the course at Georgetown University cannot escape a discussion on Church and state. Newman argues in his third discourse of the Idea of a University for the necessity of natural theology at a university. Any university with a ‘secular studies programs’ would do well in establishing beforehand a strong “theology program.” Newman concludes his third discourse with the following words: ” In a word, Religious Truth is not only a portion, but a condition of general knowledge. To blot it out is nothing short, if I may so speak, of unravelling the web of University Teaching. It is, according to the Greek proverb, to take the Spring from out of the year; it is to imitate the preposterous proceeding of those tragedians who represented a drama with the omission of its principal part.”
December 20th, 2011 | 7:13 pm
Honestly, do most universities nowadays need secular studies programs? When I was in college–and it was a former Catholic college in WNY–pretty much everything seemed pretty darn secular (that is, except my philosophy class in existentialism which, oddly enough, was strongly spiritual, even, at times, Christian in nature).
December 20th, 2011 | 10:24 pm
Secularism is often another name for atheism and in any case belongs to the study of political philosophy.
Hmmm, why would atheism be ‘political philosophy’ rather than ‘religious philosophy’ or just ‘philosophy’?
I generally agree at the head scratching, what would a ‘secular program’ study? Would it just be all the classes except religion? Well its a young program so we’ll just have to see what they do with it. But I would suggest considering the everyday meaning of the word, ‘without regard to religion’. Atheism wouldn’t really do here because atheism is taking a positive stance in terms of religion (namely religion is false). So it is taking religion into account. I would suggest a course of study would be to attempt to identify commonalities that all people share without regard to religion. Or to see if no such commonalities exist (the old slogan of ‘the personal is political’ implies that there’s no escaping politics wherever you go, does that apply to religion or not?).
December 21st, 2011 | 12:55 am
[...] author of the piece, Matthew Cantirino, is a Junior Fellow at First Things and, good Lord, does this junior fellow have [...]
December 21st, 2011 | 1:08 am
The study of Theology gave way to the study of Religion so that religion could considered as a feature of anthropology. The denial of metaphysical truth makes the discipline of Theology irrelevant. Metaphysical Religion after all is presumed to be nothing but a manifestation of man’s wishful mind and is therefore devoid of any objective reality. To study such religion is to study what men believe to be true and nothing more.
Now we see the study of Theology re-emerging as ‘Secular Studies’. But the discipline no longer seeks after knowledge of God. It seeks after knowledge of its newly-minted (if limited and finite) deity – man himself. Truth is presumed to be found in man himself, for there is nowhere else to find it. The cycle nears completion as Materialist Religion replaces its Theistic predecessor.
Except Truth can’t be found in man because he is limited and finite. That is the only truth to be discovered in ‘Secular Studies’, and said truth is already known. Here, let me summarize the total extent of its wisdom. “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.” And who was the wise man who taught them such wisdom?
There is nothing down this road but hedonism, and nihilism and despair. Foolish creatures play philosophical games with abstract propositions that justify everything, mean nothing and bind no one. And then they die. If they have money, they might distract themselves from their own mortality with bread and circuses. And if they don’t have money … well, then they just die.
carl
December 21st, 2011 | 1:24 am
There are at least 220 _schools_ for divinity (study of a particular a religion.)
There are countless departments of religious studies and courses on religion.
One or two little courses or departments concentrating on the role of the secular, gets noses out of joint.
http://www.univsource.com/theology.htm
December 21st, 2011 | 8:20 am
Is Berlinerbau a Frenchman? If so, his class may just be a history of the role of laicite in France. (With a diaeresis over the first “i” and an acute accent on the the “e,” which these comboxes seem not to do.) That would be a perfectly respectable course for a history department to offer.
If, however, the intention is to establish a program to study the arguments against religious doctrines, that’s good, right? If we truly believe the doctrines of the Faith are convincing on their own merits, we should expect a department like that to come to the same conclusions we have. Certainly, we’re not against their learning to express their points cogently, are we? It’s not as if Christian apologetics is in any way dependent on using mystification and sophistry to convince people of things we can’t really establish rationally, is it?
December 21st, 2011 | 9:10 am
There are at least 220 _schools_ for divinity (study of a particular a religion.)
There are countless departments of religious studies and courses on religion.
One or two little courses or departments concentrating on the role of the secular, gets noses out of joint.
I thought atheism quote-unquote “isn’t a religion”.
You guys need to make up your mind.
December 21st, 2011 | 10:03 am
Blake – Actually, if you read carefully, you’ll see that ARL is talking about secularism, and secularism isn’t religion.
(‘Secularism’ is not necessarily equal to ‘atheism’, either.)
December 21st, 2011 | 10:24 am
Doesn’t the phrase “religious freak flag” imply that Berlinerblau does not enter the conversation with a high degree of respect for those who believe in displaying their beliefs prominently? I realize “freak” has an almost technical meaning in this sense that is not wholly derogatory, but it isn’t exactly a respectful approach, either.
December 21st, 2011 | 11:00 am
It goes without saying that the nonreligious always should take exactly the same deeply respectful approach to the religious as the religious always take to the nonreligious.
December 21st, 2011 | 11:16 am
Coverage of the exchange at: http://clrforum.org/2011/12/21/controversy-about-secularism-class-at-georgetown/
December 21st, 2011 | 12:47 pm
I thought atheism quote-unquote “isn’t a religion”.
Depends on the atheist. IMO in order for atheism to be religious the atheist must have a belief in the non-existence of God based on faith. Atheism based on a perceived lack of evidence or a judgement that God should be assumed not to exist unless proven otherwise rather than the reverse is philosophical IMO, not religious. Most real life atheists would fall into the second category then. For example, even the late Christopher Hitchens would be a ‘non-religious atheist’ by that standard.
I should correct that, most public intellecual atheists that I’m aware of would be non-religious by that standard. An atheist who just has it as a ‘gut feeling’, would more likely be religious by my standard. If you start stopping people at random on the street seeking out atheists, I’m not sure which type you’ll find more of.
Pentamom
Doesn’t the phrase “religious freak flag” imply that Berlinerblau does not enter the conversation with a high degree of respect for those who believe in displaying their beliefs prominently?
Don’t some Christians happily call themselves “Jesus freaks”? This may be less about disrespect and more about the automatic assumption that two sides must be in opposition therefore statements should be read in the most disrespectful context possible….reminds me a bit of the ruckus in the last Presidential election when a Fox News commentator referred to Obama as something like “Michelle’s Baby Daddy”
December 21st, 2011 | 2:46 pm
“It goes without saying that the nonreligious always should take exactly the same deeply respectful approach to the religious as the religious always take to the nonreligious.”
Is this supposed to be an argument for “do unto others before they do it to you,” then?
I admit that the religious, like everybody else, have our moments, self being the last to be exempt from the charge. How that makes it not noteworthy that someone who is putting himself in the position of seriously considering the implications of religion and secularism in an academic way can’t resist a fairly undisciplined bit of snark toward half his audience, I don’t know.
December 21st, 2011 | 4:02 pm
“Don’t some Christians happily call themselves “Jesus freaks”? ”
Yes, but that’s an example of one of those things that you can say lightheartedly about yourself, but it comes off as mean coming from people who haven’t always been respectful.
“This may be less about disrespect and more about the automatic assumption that two sides must be in opposition therefore statements should be read in the most disrespectful context possible”
That’s a fair, comment, I guess. I’m not looking for offense or trying to vilify the guy; it just seems a little out of place in the context of the explanation of a serious academic pursuit, rather than an offhand comment or a friendly conversation.
December 21st, 2011 | 4:37 pm
Blake – Actually, if you read carefully, you’ll see that ARL is talking about secularism, and secularism isn’t religion.
According to what authority? Who claims the authority to determine that the so-called Enlightenment is not religious?
It has all the elements: the origin myth, the promise of a future heaven if we all behave, the moral code, the hierarchy (complete with High Priests), community, ritual, churches, prophets, and even religious art.
And its members are demanding recognition as a religion.
There’s still some squabble about what to call it – but ultimately all the different names describe a single thing: the myth that the Enlightenment gave unto humankind a philosophy, a set of books and a Scientific Method that enables mankind to replace the old “superstition” with a new set of beliefs – beliefs that define who we are, gives us meaning, and how we get to Heaven.
Obviously humanists have capitalized heavily on the “it’s only a religion when we say it is” mindset (usually calling it Unitarian Universalism when they want it to be tax deductable, as if there were some difference between UU vs. “secular humanism”, even though the actual beliefs are identical).
But the days when you can have your cake and eat it too are nearing an end. Secular humanism has every feature that ever defined a religion, and is belatedly being recognized as such.
December 21st, 2011 | 5:17 pm
How that makes it not noteworthy that someone who is putting himself in the position of seriously considering the implications of religion and secularism in an academic way can’t resist a fairly undisciplined bit of snark toward half his audience, I don’t know.
Or was trying to illustrate what he thought was Jefferson’s position with colorful language that would resonate with his contemporary audience.
Yes, but that’s an example of one of those things that you can say lightheartedly about yourself, but it comes off as mean coming from people who haven’t always been respectful.
Whose this ‘people’? Do you know this man or his work? Does he have a history of insensitive or abusive remarks towards faithful people? Or are you assuming he does because he belongs to a ‘class’ you’ve decided should be tarred with that brush?
That’s a fair, comment, I guess. I’m not looking for offense or trying to vilify the guy; it just seems a little out of place in the context of the explanation of a serious academic pursuit, rather than an offhand comment or a friendly conversation.
There are actually two contexts here. One is his actual statement where and when it was made, the other is this quotation being lifted for publication on this blog and in First Things. In the second context, the one where we are currently ‘living online’, the ‘bad secular humanist academic picking on religion’ is a common cliche and I wonder was that passage choosen not because it fairly illustrated the first context but played to the biases and ‘easy narratives’ to this audience???? Just food for thought.
Blake
It has all the elements: the origin myth, the promise of a future heaven if we all behave, the moral code, the hierarchy (complete with High Priests), community, ritual, churches, prophets, and even religious art.
This is a fair question…but the proposed definition is a bit too loose IMO. For one thing it seems perfectly possible to have things like ‘a moral code’ without having a religion. Confucious, for example, puts forth a very elaborate moral code without clearly being religious in many sense. His opposite, Taosim, on the other hand, seems to totally reject moral codes yet many would consider it more of a religion. Likewise, what is the ‘origin myth’ of the Enlightenment? The Big Bang? That’s nice yet search all your 18th and 19th century Scottish philosophers you want, you won’t find a reference to it there. Even as late as the mid-20th century the ‘steady state’ universe theory was the dominante one. The Big Bang overturned that almost overnight….which would be kind of odd if it was a religion. Imagine waking up on morning and hearing that the Pope has announced Genesis is no longer cannon and has been replaced by a Hindu creation story!
I think this definition of religion needs a bit more work.
December 22nd, 2011 | 2:01 pm
This is a fair question…but the proposed definition is a bit too loose IMO. For one thing it seems perfectly possible to have things like ‘a moral code’ without having a religion
There is no difference between what secular humanists believe vs. what Unitarian Universalists believe.
The only difference is that game-playing trolls have observed that these beliefs are nice to have when it comes to tax write-offs, but not nice to have when it comes to observing the rules religions are bound to when it comes to sharing the public space with others.
So they have it both ways. And it has worked, but now it’s not working so much, because there are forces both inside and outside of this religion that are bothered by the lack of integrity.
Because integrity is another word for health: integrity is part of good psychological and moral health.
December 22nd, 2011 | 2:23 pm
Whose this ‘people’? Do you know this man or his work? Does he have a history of insensitive or abusive remarks towards faithful people?
Good manners dictates that people not use insulting remarks aimed at other groups, even if those groups use those words ironically when referring to themselves.
Black people, Hispanics, and other ethnic groups may use ethnic slurs ironically, but that does not make it any less offensive to use ethnic slurs in their original, insulting capacity.
Gays, disabled people, and other people with physical deviations may use insulting slurs ironically to describe themselves, but that does not make the original slurs any less offensive when they are used in their original, insulting capacity.
Religious groups fall into the same category, manners-wise. Intelligent people who do not mean to be rude simply do not use insulting slang.
Insulting slang is widely recognized by all literate people as being a category of language to be used with great care.
We don’t need to know anything about this man or his work to realize that he is either lacking in intelligence or lacking in basic courtesy.
December 22nd, 2011 | 3:21 pm
[...] Berlinerblau Thursday, December 22, 2011, 3:21 PM Matthew Cantirino My previous post on the rise of ‘secular studies’ seems to have touched a nerve with Jacques Berlinerblau, who in a post for the Chronicle of Higher [...]
December 23rd, 2011 | 7:23 am
There is no difference between what secular humanists believe vs. what Unitarian Universalists believe.
The only difference is that game-playing trolls have observed that these beliefs are nice to have when it comes to tax write-offs,…
Errr, I think you’re knowledge is ignorant here. I think you believe that Unitarians believe all religions are equal or something like that. In fact Unitarians believe that God is one person rather than three and Jesus was either a wise person, a prophet or some type of supernatural beign but was not actually God himself. That, of course, is a religious belief that is in no way the same thing as secular humanism. Although I can see how they might align themselves with secular humanists. Public neutrality on religion would benefit them as they are a minority of Christians who disagree with most other powerful Christian denominations over core dogma.
Black people, Hispanics, and other ethnic groups may use ethnic slurs ironically, but that does not make it any less offensive to use ethnic slurs in their original, …
You must think very little of both your life and your religion if the best thing you can think of doing is applying 1990′s Al Sharpton victimization mongering to it. It’s been done already, its old and Bill Donohue already beat you too becoming a living embodiement of a Monty Python skit.
December 23rd, 2011 | 12:02 pm
Returing to the question of what makes something a religion, I think Blake’s definition works more as a description of things often found in a religion but isn’t actually a good definition of a religion itself.
I think a better defining point would be the requirement of faith. A good illustration of this may be this clip of a debate between D’Souza and Christpher Hitchens on whether or not Socrates really existed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw8TjGTrcTc), esp around the 40 second mark. Philosophy does not require faith itself. Philosophy aspires to ‘reasonableness’ whereas faith IMO aspires to go beyond it. A skeptic may argue it requires rejecting reason whereas a believer may say it requires transcending it. Now the two aren’t necessarily at odds. They can complement each other but I think we may hitch a distinction between the two there.
So both atheism and theism may be a philosophy in the sense that its an appeal to reason but both might be a religion if they are presented as an appeal to faith. Which is why I say the person whose an atheist out of a ‘gut feeling’ IMO would merit being called an atheist by religion than the philosopher who thinks the evidence doesn’t support the existence of God.
From that light ‘secular humanism’ is clearly a philosophy. Any of its tenants, rituals, ‘sacred books’, stories of origins or futures is always subject to revision provided sufficient evidence merits it. I find it ironic that quite often the very religious seem intent on trying to argue the need for faith out of their religion.
December 23rd, 2011 | 1:40 pm
I think a better defining point would be the requirement of faith.
Secular humanism is as faith-based as any other religion.
They are just so sure of their faith that they genuinely can’t understand why it is that what they claim as “rational” is not seen as self-evident by other people.
Try arguing about the nature of consciousness with any humanist. They genuinely believe that science has “discovered” the true nature of emergent properties. They don’t understand that emergent properties is not at all proven; it is only the explanation that makes sense if you take certain assumptions as givens. If you do take those certain assumptions as givens, then emergent properties “must” be true. But it’s not at all clear that those certain assumptions are themselves given.
Humanists tend to not realize that science can only study the material world, because they themselves take it as an article of faith that there is nothing else except the material world – if science can’t study it, it doesn’t exist.
The numerous books and articles that claim that science can “disprove” the existence of God (or its many variations – that people who believe in God must necessarily be scientifically illiterate, for example) is an example of where humanists are so into their assumptions that they confuse faith-based belief with proven truth.
The reality is that science is inherently limited to being able to speak only to that which is known to be entirely material in nature. It is inherently incapable of determining whether something is entirely material in nature. There is no way for rational science (the scientific method) to tackle questions like who we are, why we’re here, or what it means.
Of course scientists are tackling these questions anyway. But in so doing, they are making a subtle yet crucial change in the assumptions upon which science operates. Instead of recognizing “if it is true that…”, they are instead changing it to “since it may be assumed that…”
They have turned the scientific method itself into articles of faith.
Instead of saying, “If the basic assumptions of materialism are true, then consciousness is most likely an emergent property”, they reverse it: “consciousness is an emergent property, therefore this proves that the assumptions of materialism are true.”
Or, to put it very briefly, they assume that the existence of an argument that does not rely on the supernatural proves that there is no supernatural. They take it on faith that the world is material, until and unless proven otherwise (and of course it’s impossible to prove otherwise, when “science” is the only evidence they’ll allow).
December 23rd, 2011 | 8:27 pm
Try arguing about the nature of consciousness with any humanist. They genuinely believe that science has “discovered” the true nature of emergent properties.
Really? Name one humanist who says science has discovered the ‘true nature’ of consciousness.
December 24th, 2011 | 1:54 am
Really? Name one humanist who says science has discovered the ‘true nature’ of consciousness.
Why? Are you claiming what I said is not true?
Or are you just playing the “you’re a liar until you prove otherwise” game again?
(A quick Google search – try “consciousness explained” – will reveal that there are an awful lot of humanists who are claiming science has explained consciousness as well as science can explain anything. But you knew that already, didn’t you?)
December 26th, 2011 | 9:48 am
Yes am so claiming. Yes you will find various people with hypothesises to ‘explain consciousness’, even if such hypothesises turn out to be true, that does not ‘explain everything’ nor does it make a claim that science ‘explains everything’.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact