Re: [asa] On secular culture. Is the academy to blame?

Hi David C.,
 
Just a short response regarding your defintion of 'secular.' You might want to check out the massive text by Charles Taylor, "A Secular Age" (2007). In it, he identifies three meanings of secular:
 
1) secular refers to common institutions and practices in public spaces, "allegedly emptied of God, or of any reference to ultimate reality," 2) "secularity consists in the falling off of religious belief and practice, in people turning away from God, and no longer going to Church," and [this is the *new* Taylorian definition] 3) "the conditions of belief," "what it is to believe," "belief is an option," "Belief in God is no longer axiomatic. There are alternatives." (pgs. 1-3)
 
Taylor explains further the third meaning: "Secularity in this sense is a matter of the whole context of understanding in which our moral, spiritual or religious experience and search takes place. By 'context of understanding' here, I mean both matters that will probably have been explicitly formulated by almost everyone, such as the plurality of opinions, and some which form the implicit, largely unfocussed background of this experience and search, its 'pre-ontology,' to use a Heideggerian term." (3)
 
The third definition of secular imo does shine new light on understanding what it means to live in a secular culture, in a secular age. Of course, there are countries around the world today that are not secular, where religious belief, institutions and practices are present in public space, people not turning away from but toward God or religious belief and practice (e.g. the Russian Federation). But the USA still does have a relatively high percentage of regular Church-goers in comparison to other 'western' nations, or nations with European roots (like Australia, Canada and New Zealand), so it is a curious situation to be complaining that America is highly secularized according to Taylor's second definition and one of the common definitions of 'secular' in the literature.
 
To me it displays a great paradox about religion in America, viewed as an outsider; not sure what it might display to you all, living inside of the USA. Glad to be reading your thoughts here about it, though the topic is not one of 'pure (a.k.a. natural) science.'
 
Gregory

p.s. in case you didn't know, David, I live in Russia, a country where the east and the west are very close neighbours, indeed! :)
 
 

--- On Sat, 11/29/08, David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com> wrote:

From: David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [asa] On secular culture. Is the academy to blame?
To: "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
Cc: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Received: Saturday, November 29, 2008, 12:35 AM

David,

First, John Walley puts forth a lot of Dinesh's articles. So I thought I would too. If it hadn't been in American Legion I might not have.  As a Viet Nam era vet I am a member of the American legion.  I think the values of  vets are not reflected in American culture.  I think the values of Christains are not reflected in American culture.. And I definitely think the values of Islam are not reflected. 

The radical extremists are but what? 5%?  And my understanding is the ones they attack the most are the 1.3 Billion other Muslims who may not be following what the extremists want.  The rest of us (the non-Muslims) come second in their crosshairs. Look at the history of Spain - how a grand Islamic civilization was overthrown by radical African Muslims who hated the brand of Islam in Spain. History is repeating.
 
The real question is what are the views of the majority of Muslims toward Christians?  One of my friends, who I believe is Muzatalite,  which is  a liberal group?  writes articles about  the decadent secular west.  He is certainly not in league with the extremists groups.  Yet he would agree with Dinesh.  My co-workers - same thing.  And they are not extremists. But this is also a good deal of why they are often silent about the deeds of the radicals.

The 20 young men the FBI is currently investigating, who have gone missing from Minneapolis in order to fight in Somalia, are said to suffer from cultural revulsion at America.  They did not start out as extremists.  They were recruited because they  developed an attitude after living here.  But they have escaped the poverty of Africa. They came to America because it is moneyland.  And came away in a sort of shock and rage.  I dont think they are blaming Christians.  They didnt see a Christian culture in Minneapolis.  

My question really had to do more with the role of the acedemy in leading the west into a new form of secularism. One that is more anti-Christian than ever before.  You see , I suspect what secular means today is different than what it mean as recently as 1776.  Between the days of Henry III and 1776 secular rulers meant  non-clerics but still those who were agreeing with Christian principles. The secular rulers were all Christians. This was (roughly) true even right up into my own lifetime.

Today secular,  as understood on the street, means not agreeing with but instead rejecting Christian principles.  The difference is huge - it is as far as the east is from the west.  

At any rate, the academy has had it's role in affecting culture.  It hasn't just been hiding in the lab. 

Best Regards,
David Clounch __________________________________________________________________ Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 28 09:15:59 2008