The myth of the secular

[JOwen]

Cannibalism would be out! That is how cooking would be impacted by Christianity.

 

[Philip]

1. What criteria do you use to seperate a religous act from a nonreligous act?

The direct motivation. That is, if you were to ask someone "why" in ordinary parlance, the kind of answer they would give.

2. What is the primary essence or purpose of humanity? In this context are we essentially religous by creation or religion is something we do on top of whatever our primary essence is?

To glorify God and enjoy Him forever--obviously. However, one can make millions of decisions without ever asking this question or needing an ultimate answer.

Also, you are using the term "religion" to mean "personal philosophy" or "worldview"--religion, by most definitions, is characterized by sets of corporate ceremonies. On top of that is the Biblical command that pure and undefiled religion do good works.

Where did or does this ideal secular society of yours exsist? I have never seen it nor do I expect to. The question I pose is why? Why has this ideal society that is nuetral in all religous respects never exsisted?

It is supposed to exist in the western world, except that, as it currently stands, "intolerance" is not allowed--and I maintain that it should be.

Also if you believe such a nuetral place exsists why should your religous views be allowed in the public square?

Because the public square is neutral--that is to say, it is the place where (in theory) all religious views are given their day.

Look at all chaos there is in our culture just over the place of religion in the public square. If what you mean by secular isn't that stuff than we are talking about two different things.

You're right that my ideal concept of the secular doesn't exist because, frankly, our culture exercises censorship. Muslims and Buddhists are allowed--they aren't exlusivists. But woe betide the Christian who tries to bring his faith to bear in the public square.

All my side is saying is that the reason why secularism cannot work in theory or in practice is because at its very core it is a religous point of view, it as a theory has things to say about religion.

Are we talking about two different things? You are talking about secularism, which excludes all (Christian) religious convictions from public life, while I am speaking of something rather different--a concept of the secular where all religious convictions and views have a voice.

If you unmask these religous points of views that are inherent in the theory itself than the argument against religion or a particular religion goes away.

All depends on what you mean by "religious". Most people, when they say "religion" mean "organized religion."

 

[jwright82]

To glorify God and enjoy Him forever--obviously. However, one can make millions of decisions without ever asking this question or needing an ultimate answer.

Well one question here, and I am not trying to put on the defensive here I am just trying to clarify so that we might proceed without metaphysical circles if you have any questions of clarification on my part please ask them, does the sum total of ones life to include all seemingly nonreligous acts count or matter at the judgment?

All depends on what you mean by "religious".

Yeah you know it is my fault that I did not define this one better so my apologieze I will try to fix my mistake here. First off I reject the modern or secular understanding of religion, on the grounds that it seems to me to assume that old dualism of faith and reason. Following Augustine I do not hold to this dualistic view of things. In fact I believe that this is one avenue of criticism against the theory of secularism, it depends on this dualism.

That being rejected how do I define religion, well following Augustine and his work On True Religion, religion is defined more or less by love and all the acts that flow from that (note: I have not read this book or I don't remember reading it, but I am getting my info from the James K. A. Smith's book on Radical Orthodoxy I mentioned in an ealier post.). In this vain Jesus somewhat summerizes this view in John 14:15 "If you love Me, keep my commandments." So maybe we can avoid the circles we have been going through by saying that people are religous not acts in themselves. Augustine points out that everyone is religious by nature, in the sense that they love something God or themselves, and so they have these acts of love that flow out of that nature and unless these acts flow out of a love for God than they are not right or true religously speaking.

As you quote the Catechism our chief end is to "glorify God and enjoy Him forever", all we are saying is that this is on acount of our love for God. So that if we love God than all of the orginization in visible corporate acts of worship and litergy all flow from this central love for God. Even following Luther's theology of vocation here, which is oddly absent from Smith's book but I feel is a nice touch at this point, that all callings for the Christian are sacred callings. Whatever calling you have by God you should do to His glory, which flows from love which is true religion.

So I guess you could speak of motivation here its just that from my point of view if you take this motivation into account than it automatically taints every act we make as religous, if we love God and are doing all things to His glory.

It is supposed to exist in the western world, except that, as it currently stands, "intolerance" is not allowed--and I maintain that it should be.

You're right that my ideal concept of the secular doesn't exist because, frankly, our culture exercises censorship. Muslims and Buddhists are allowed--they aren't exlusivists. But woe betide the Christian who tries to bring his faith to bear in the public square.

I couldn't agree more with the above statments.

Are we talking about two different things? You are talking about secularism, which excludes all (Christian) religious convictions from public life, while I am speaking of something rather different--a concept of the secular where all religious convictions and views have a voice.

Well I agree on a civil level, not a theoretical level, that all religions should have a voice in the public square given the culture that we live in. But the problem is that this simple definition of secularism doesn't get you anywhere. You have to erect other theoretical constructs to make this even possibly able to work out in practice, secular morality or secular reason (I refer you to the youtube video I posted to deal with this). Also from my point of view in the end secularism as a theory grows out of religous roots of some kind, the secularist has a primary love involved here that their theoretical constructs and practical stratigies flow from.

 

[Philip]

Yeah you know it is my fault that I did not define this one better so my apologieze I will try to fix my mistake here. First off I reject the modern or secular understanding of religion, on the grounds that it seems to me to assume that old dualism of faith and reason.

I reject the dualism and accept the distinction (following Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin).

So I guess you could speak of motivation here its just that from my point of view if you take this motivation into account than it automatically taints every act we make as religous, if we love God and are doing all things to His glory.

I think we need to say that many acts are essentially or immediately secular. It is the spirit in which the act is performed that gives it a moral quality. That is to say, I cannot blame a non-Christian for choosing a tie because it was not a moral choice at all. We may say that it was done in an attitude of autonomy--but it is the attitude that is moral, not the act itself.

In other words, I do recognize secular (non-religious) acts and that they are done in a "religious" (defined broadly in your sense [a sense that will inevitably be misunderstood, since the term is not being used in its ordinary sense]) attitude--however, it is the attitude not the action that is moral.

 

[jwright82]

I think we need to say that many acts are essentially or immediately secular. It is the spirit in which the act is performed that gives it a moral quality. That is to say, I cannot blame a non-Christian for choosing a tie because it was not a moral choice at all. We may say that it was done in an attitude of autonomy--but it is the attitude that is moral, not the act itself.

In other words, I do recognize secular (non-religious) acts and that they are done in a "religious" (defined broadly in your sense [a sense that will inevitably be misunderstood, since the term is not being used in its ordinary sense]) attitude--however, it is the attitude not the action that is moral.

I guess we are in a basic agreement than.

 

[Philip]

I think we need to say that many acts are essentially or immediately secular. It is the spirit in which the act is performed that gives it a moral quality. That is to say, I cannot blame a non-Christian for choosing a tie because it was not a moral choice at all. We may say that it was done in an attitude of autonomy--but it is the attitude that is moral, not the act itself.

In other words, I do recognize secular (non-religious) acts and that they are done in a "religious" (defined broadly in your sense [a sense that will inevitably be misunderstood, since the term is not being used in its ordinary sense]) attitude--however, it is the attitude not the action that is moral.

I guess we are in a basic agreement than.

I think we're just wrestling with yet another version of the problem of the one and the many.

 

[jwright82]

I think we need to say that many acts are essentially or immediately secular. It is the spirit in which the act is performed that gives it a moral quality. That is to say, I cannot blame a non-Christian for choosing a tie because it was not a moral choice at all. We may say that it was done in an attitude of autonomy--but it is the attitude that is moral, not the act itself.

In other words, I do recognize secular (non-religious) acts and that they are done in a "religious" (defined broadly in your sense [a sense that will inevitably be misunderstood, since the term is not being used in its ordinary sense]) attitude--however, it is the attitude not the action that is moral.

I guess we are in a basic agreement than.

I think we're just wrestling with yet another version of the problem of the one and the many.

I think you are are dead on!