{"id":9566,"date":"2015-02-14T22:00:31","date_gmt":"2015-02-14T22:00:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/?p=9566"},"modified":"2015-02-14T22:00:31","modified_gmt":"2015-02-14T22:00:31","slug":"an-enchanted-secularism-no-thanks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/an-enchanted-secularism-no-thanks\/","title":{"rendered":"An ‘Enchanted Secularism’? No Thanks"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Reality\"<\/a>Writing in the New York Times<\/em>, David Brooks frets<\/a> about what non-believers, um, believe:<\/p>\n

Over the past few years, there has been a sharp rise in the number of people who are atheist, agnostic or without religious affiliation. A fifth of all adults and a third of the youngest adults fit into this category.<\/p>\n

As secularism becomes more prominent and self-confident, its spokesmen have more insistently argued that secularism should not be seen as an absence \u2014 as a lack of faith \u2014 but rather as a positive moral creed. <\/p>\n

Phil Zuckerman, a Pitzer College sociologist, makes this case as fluidly and pleasurably as anybody in his book, \u201cLiving the Secular Life.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Oh good grief\u2026<\/p>\n

Secularism has “spokesmen”? <\/p>\n

Now it’s true that most people do <\/em>want to have faith in something. That\u2019s why so many supposedly secular philosophies are anything but (step forward, Karl Marx).<\/p>\n

But if there is anything that non-belief should not<\/em> be it is a creed. In essence non-belief \u2018says\u2019 one of two things: Either that there is no God, or (in essence, I know it\u2019s more complicated than this) that the existence of God is highly unlikely. That\u2019s it. Move along, there\u2019s (literally) nothing to see here. What\u2019s on television tonight?<\/p>\n

From what Brooks says, Zuckerman\u2019s “creed” appears to be some variant of the usual soft-left secular humanist mush. That\u2019s for those who like that sort of thing, but only for those who like that sort of thing. I’ll pass, thanks. <\/p>\n

Brooks then worries about how hard it must be \u201cto live secularism well\u201d, claiming that secularists have to build their own moral philosophies (not really, accumulated traditions, societal and familial, often work out just fine \u2013 and they come with the plus of not needing too much thought), and that secularists have to build their own \u201ccommunities\u201d and \u201ccovenantal rituals\u201d. They do? Why?<\/p>\n

And then:<\/p>\n

Secular individuals have to build their own Sabbaths. Religious people are commanded to drop worldly concerns. Secular people have to create their own set times for when to pull back and reflect on spiritual matters.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

No they don\u2019t “have” to. Quite a few secular individuals doubtless do feel a \u2018God-shaped hole\u2019, or some need for the transcendent, but, judging by my own experience, I suspect that there are plenty of others who do not.<\/p>\n

The amount of time I need \u201cto pull back and reflect on spiritual matters\u201d: zero. It\u2019s easy, Mr. Brooks.<\/p>\n

If anything, what Brooks\u2019s article shows is how difficult it is for some religious folk (particularly, I suspect, the more intellectual among them) to \u2018get\u2019 the fact that for some secularists at least, \u201cspiritual matters\u201d are not something they are too bothered about. <\/p>\n

Towards the end of the piece Brooks argues:<\/p>\n

It seems to me that if secularism is going to be a positive creed, it can\u2019t just speak to the rational aspects of our nature. Secularism has to do for nonbelievers what religion does for believers \u2014 arouse the higher emotions, exalt the passions in pursuit of moral action.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In a way Brooks is right. If secularism (which he appears to use as a synonym for atheism\/agnosticism rather than, anything more specifically political or philosophical) is to be a \u2018creed\u2019, it would have to appeal to the irrational as well as the rational. That\u2019s how creeds work (take another bow, Karl Marx!) but, to repeat myself, there is no reason why secularism in the sense that Brooks uses it has to be a creed. It can be a simple matter of observation (or, some might say, failure to observe), complete in itself. <\/p>\n

Brooks:<\/p>\n

The only secularism that can really arouse moral motivation and impel action is an enchanted secularism, one that puts emotional relations first and autonomy second. I suspect that over the next years secularism will change its face and become hotter and more consuming, less content with mere benevolence, and more responsive to the spiritual urge in each of us, the drive for purity, self-transcendence and sanctification.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u201cEnchanted secularism,\u201d \u201cthe spiritual urge in each of us\u201d?<\/p>\n

I\u2019ll leave that sort of thing to the likes of Professor Dawkins and, my spiritual urges thankfully non-existent, revert to spending my time on something more fruitful.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s on television tonight? <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Writing in the New York Times, David Brooks frets about what non-believers, um, believe: Over the past few years, there has been a sharp rise in the number of people who are atheist, agnostic or without religious affiliation. A fifth … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":64,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false},"categories":[711],"tags":[563,69],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9566"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/64"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9566"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9566\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9569,"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9566\/revisions\/9569"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9566"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9566"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/secularright.org\/SR\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9566"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}