[Charles] Taylor offers an invaluable map of how the modern religious-secular divide came into being. He concludes that modern Western secularism has its roots in Christian theology and that secularism and Christianity reveal a common ancestry in their shared commitment to human rights—a commitment that does not follow from atheism as such.
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Koppelman: "The religious roots of modern secularism"
You can see Andrew Koppelman inform us on this here. A taste:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
The most basic common ground between the evangelicals and the secular left, in Compton’s historical account, is this: “even the most secular of twentieth-century progressives agreed with the nineteenth-century evangelicals on one critical point: the primary aim of the constitutional enterprise was not to protect established property rights or ancient jurisdictional boundaries, but rather to provide for the wellbeing of the present generation of Americans” (p. 135). That aspiration is one that religious and secular Americans can still share.
And there you have it, folks. "Wellbeing!" Why didn't they just say so?
Actually I found Klopperman's
http://harvardlawreview.org/2014/09/left-evangelicalism-and-the-constitution/
very enlightening and frightening. I could find nothing to disagree with and everything to disagree with, but mostly it reveals much about the "living constitutionalist."
Everything good should be legal; anything bad shouldn't.
Eureka!
As for Koppelman's equally worthy review of Charles Taylor's A Secular Age
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2500473
as an honest man, he's painfully aware of the Achilles' Heel of the secularist argument:
Taylor is right that there is something missing in the secularist position. There is a gap in the narrative. But this is not a comparative disadvantage for secularism, because
the precise area of weakness—a normative commitment to human rights
that can't be accounted for—is equally present in traditional
religious worldviews.
You could drive a tank through the hole Koppelman acknowledges. Even the great secularist Jefferson couldn't get to natural rights without cheating
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
No God, no rights.
TVD: "No God, no rights."
Although there is a strong argument to be made for this position, I'm not sure whether Jefferson would agree. Yes, he argued that rights are endowed by the Creator and that argument evaporates without a Creator. But he also argued that equality is self evident.
The argument for self evidence rested on the notion that any right-thinking person shared a common sense that, by the nature of what we are and how we think, human beings are entitled to liberty and equality (properly defined). Although these concepts were advocated by Presbyterians, I don't think reference to a creator is required to observe people and say that they are designed for liberty. (Yes, there are plenty of good counter-arguments, but this argument was common in the 18th and 19th centuries and is referenced in the DofI).
I'm not sure how Jefferson would have argued it, but I suspect that he would have been happy to argue to an audience of atheists that atheism should lead to a preference for human liberty. He was an "any tool at hand" kind of politician.
The argument for self evidence rested on the notion that any right-thinking person shared a common sense that, by the nature of what we are and how we think, human beings are entitled to liberty and equality (properly defined).
How is that an argument? It's a mere assertion.
Not that I disagree that [slaveowner] Jefferson may or may not have believed in fundamental equality, and that he might use any rhetorical tool at hand.
But the only tool that works is the one that cheats--God.
And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest.
TVD, I thought my speculations about Jefferson's nature were pretty solid. But I should have thought of that quotation at the end of your post.
Thx for the reply. I'm more interested in the question of rights than in Jefferson himself, whom I don't like very much.
There are rights without God, of course, civil rights, legal rights. But they are creatures of law, in the end whatever your government says they are.''The case for "natural" rights as contemplated by the 9th Amendment as pre-existing and pre-emptive of laws and constitutions
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
What those rights might be is subject to constant review, but Jefferson gets it right in that if rights are seen only as what you can wrest from the government--political, civil--then "natural" rights are indefensible, "removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God."
I ignored that aspect of your response because, although very interesting, exploring those issues is a rabbit hole from which I cannot easily escape once I enter it.
I always find arguments for natural rights, with or without reference to God, to be a bit frustrating. Without reference to God, at some point I want to ask, "Sez Who?" With reference to God, I still want to ask, "Who sez God wants that?" Or, with more sophisticated arguments, there is always a point where I can't understand how they made the step from one step to the next.
I do have a hard time finding 'should' to be a coherent concept without reference to an authority. But, since my own system is not fully coherent, I will grant atheists the respect of accepting their claims to have a working moral system. Whether a liberal system is sustainable for a materialistic society without a belief in a god, we will probably know in 50 years
All true. In fact, there appears to be a philosophical realignment looming--libertarianism is a "non-foundational" theory of rights. As we see at the Ayn Rand extreme, it's claims to rights and liberty are borderless and absolute, for it has no prior restraints such as scripture or natural law.
Social conservatism and liberal social justice-ism are both communitarian more than [radically?] individualistic, and each easily nestles with God and/or Christianity as a cozy foundation.
Found this via Tommy Kidd on Twitter
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/ghosts-chuck-colson-richard-john-neuhaus-first-things/
_____________
BTW, I'm @dykevantom on Twitter
The article is interesting. Thanks for the pointer.
I agree that there are re-alignments looming but it is difficult to say what they will look like. Among the groups that easily nestle with God also include Classical Liberals (heirs to Locke or Adam Smith) which assumes moral obligations and institutional commitments other than the state.
In trying to predict future alliances, it's worth remembering that social justice-ism and social conservatism joined in the Social Gospel movement, which brought us Prohibition (which was seen as both).
True, but I'm not ready to un-ban crack and crystal meth.
Banning booze, which has been with mankind for freakin' ever, was a radical act. Not so traditional sexual mores and charity for the poor, esp Christian charity, which is what won the Western World.
[Check out Emperor Julian the Apostate's last-ditch effort to save the Roman gods from the "Galileans."]
Why do we not observe that it is their [the Christians'] benevolence to strangers, their care for the graves of the dead, and the pretended holiness of their lives that have done most to increase atheism [unbelief of the pagan gods]?รข€¦ For it is disgraceful that, when no Jew ever has to beg, and the impious Galileans [Christians] support not only their own poor but ours as well, all men see that our people lack aid from us. Teach those of the Hellenic faith to contribute to public service of this sort.
OTOH, the radical theonomy of the early Puritans faded after just a few generations. Any of our current "Christian Reconstructionists" are writing more in the abstract than with any expectation of it becoming reality.
My point being that "natural rights" as the Founders understood them had a long arc of development. It's not like John Locke dropped in from Mars one day and that was that.
As for what we now call "human rights," I contend that as we've slipped away from their foundation, in the end they're merely civil, or legal rights, and exist only what the sufferance and at the whim of our governments.
In fact, Founder James Wilson objected to just that dynamic in the British system, calling out stalwarts William Blackstone and Edmund Burke.
Man, says Mr. Burke, cannot enjoy the rights of an uncivil and of a civil state together. By an uncivil contradistinguished from a civil state, he must here mean a state of nature: by the rights of this uncivil state, he must mean the rights of nature: and is it possible that natural and civil rights cannot be enjoyed together? Are they really incompatible? Must our rights be removed from the stable foundation of nature, and placed on the precarious and fluctuating basis of human institution? Such seems to be the sentiment of Mr. Burke: and such too seems to have been the sentiment of a much higher authority than Mr. Burke -- Sir William Blackstone.
So too, James Otis in 1754 lays out the American concept of rights, contra several great British political theorists:
"Government is founded not on force, as was the theory of Hobbes; nor on compact, as was the theory of Locke and of the revolution of 1688; nor on property, as was the assertion of Harrington. It springs from the necessities of our nature, and has an everlasting foundation in the unchangeable will of God."
And God clearly didn't want to ban booze. Even Jesus was known to share a nip or two.
"...crack and crystal meth."
I know that world very well. The war on drugs has had some horrible effects and it is fair to call it a failure. But there are people I love who have had their lives saved by being arrested then re-arrested and pushed into treatment, sometimes multiple times. So I can't argue policy either way. The Christian way is to help show people a way out of the hell they are trapped in. With meth, it is usually after they have been forcibly dried out that they are looking for a change.
My biggest problem with the Christian Reconstructionists is the sense that they communicate a desire to force people to conform to their vision. My own commitment to (roughly) traditional sexual morality and to Christian charity does not imply a commitment to making others do the same. Not saying I am a libertarian and I am comfortable with some degree of legislation implicating reproduction and/or social safety net, but not to the same level as I would hold those who claim a place in the body of Christ.
I think the Christian vision is ultimately communitarian, but not in the sense that it equates state and community.
I definitely come across the implication that rights are conveyed by, and may be withdrawn by, government. But politics (left and right) is full of moral indignation, appeals to fairness, reference to right and wrong, and demands to protect rights not enshrined in law; this would imply a near-consensus that there is some standard outside of our desires, interests and legislation. Is that consensus enough to hold something in place? Can it even begin to define the standard to be upheld? Is anyone (other than the occasional Atheist Thomist writing for other philosophers) interested in trying?
"...spend the money for whatever you desire--oxen or sheep or wine or strong drink, whatever your appetite craves." Deut 14:26 (ESV)
My biggest problem with the Christian Reconstructionists is the sense that they communicate a desire to force people to conform to their vision.
I'm not steeped in their literature, but what I've come across does not involving imposing theonomy by force. Interestingly, "Dominionist" is a word used by their enemies--a pejorative.
http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2011/08/christianist-or-dominionist-whats-in-a-name/
____________________
I think the Christian vision is ultimately communitarian, but not in the sense that it equates state and community.
Well, here's the thing--"secularism" pretends to a neutrality, but it can't be denied that IT uses the state to impose ITS values on the community. For instance, the completely unscientific notion that gender can be chosen, not imposed by nature. Boys "choosing" to use the girls' bathroom and to be called "she" does not make it so, yet the law overwrites reality.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/a-question-for-schools-which-sports-teams-should-transgender-students-play-on/2014/10/02/d3f33b06-49c7-11e4-b72e-d60a9229cc10_story.html
So when secularists squawk about "Christianists" improperly imposing religion on politics, in the current crisis it's not hegemonic, it's self-defense.
TVD: "So when secularists squawk about "Christianists" improperly imposing religion on politics, in the current crisis it's not hegemonic, it's self-defense."
At times, definitely. Not always. And there are broad areas where there is general agreement in principle (although not necessarily on the details), such as the social safety net, civil rights legislation, State sanctioned marriage. The only clear cut cases where 'Christianists' are the aggressors in the 'culture war' would be public prayers, displays, and ceremonies. Only clear cut cases where they are unquestioningly on the defense would be State required participation in activities forbidden by various branches of Christianity. I don't think much of the tone coming from either side.
Only clear cut cases where they are unquestioningly on the defense would be State required participation in activities forbidden by various branches of Christianity. I don't think much of the tone coming from either side.
Hobby Lobby is where the battle line is; school prayer is well in the past. The pendulum hath swung.
Further, secularism claims to trump religious conscience with its claim to be value "neutral." But this is far from the case.
http://www.edwardfeser.com/unpublishedpapers/libertarianimpartiality.html
IOW, sort of what I think this blog is good for, to show a religious heritage and sensibility that has been whitewashed by secular revisionists.
_________________
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/10/183980-supreme-court-justice-scalia/
During a speech at Colorado Christian University on Wednesday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit religious references in public places, including schools:
“I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over nonreligion.”
Scalia suggested that if Americans want a more secular political system, such as those in Europe, they can “enact that by statute, but to say that’s what the Constitution requires is utterly absurd.”
At the heart of the argument over separation of church and state lies the age-old debate over the intent of the First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
So is the intent “freedom of religion,” or “freedom from religion”?
Justice Scalia argues that it is the former:
“We do Him [God] honor in our pledge of allegiance, in all our public ceremonies. There’s nothing wrong with that. It is in the best of American traditions, and don’t let anybody tell you otherwise.
I think we have to fight that tendency of the secularists to impose it on all of us through the Constitution.”
Post a Comment