The Religious/Secular Divide at the New School

The New School For Social Research just concluded a conference on the Religious/Secular Divide in the United States. The Conference was held for two days, 3/5-6, to standing room only crowds at the Tishman Auditorium in New York City.

The New School brought in many well known names, including Charles Taylor, author of A Secular Age, Daniel Dennett, who is often seen as part of the new wave of atheist attacks on religion, two federal Court of Appeals Judges, John Noonanhard####soft and Michael McConnell, as well as a host of academic heavyweights.

The speakers were for the most part either secularists or sophisticated believers who share aspects of a secular outlook. Of course this is typical of academics in North America. That is why their conclusions about the Religious/Secular divide were a little surprising.

In general, one can describe the relationship of religion and secularism in four basic ways: a hard secular view that religion is a negative phenomenon--irrational, obscurantist, violent--that should be confronted, a hard religious view that secularism is man's latest rebellion against God that will lead to disaster, a separatist view that the realms describe mutually distinct aspects of human experience--for example, science describes the world while religion describes the self--or blended, in which secularism and religion are describing the same reality in different terms with differing emphases. This is a crude division and most of us hold some or all of these views to differing extents at different times, but this is a useful schematic.

With the notable exception of Daniel Dennett, who gave a powerful materialist account of reality consistent with his book, Breaking the Spell, and who thus spoke out of the first category, almost all the speakers at the Conference described the relationship of religion and secularism as blended and indeed predicted that religion and secularism will be increasingly blended in the future.  ...  (In the interest of full disclosure, my recent book, Hallowed Secularism: Theory, Belief, Practice belongs in the blended category and that is where my sympathies are). ...

The reader can judge these things directly by obtaining the special issue of the journal Social Research that will contain the papers presented at the Conference. The special edition can be ordered by calling 212-229-5776 or contacting The New School For Social Research.  Read the full article here.

Prof. Ledewitz is the author of Hallowed Secularism: Theory, Belief, Practice

Atheist Times Commentary:

The question that Prof. Ledewitz addresses regarding the relationship between the religious and secular aspects of society has become increasingly prominent during the past few years.  Perhaps the hottest of the current debates in this area centers on the question "Are science and religion compatible?"  His division of the conceptual perspectives into four categories is interesting and has the potential to be quite useful for the ongoing discussion.  Represented visually, his schematic is as follows:

As I understand Prof. Ledewitz's analysis, people in the "hard" category do not see any possibility of reconciliation, whereas those in the "soft" category see no real reason why the two worldviews cannot comfortably coexist.  Looking at the horizontal dimension, we see a division according to primary conceptual commitment: secular or religious.  As Ledewitz states clearly, any schematic like this is bound to be an oversimplification, but it can serve as a useful tool for analysis and also as a starting-point for discussion.

Philosophical and Social Axes 

Assuming that this categorization reflects a fundamentally correct way of dividing up the conceptual terrain, it appears that the division between secular and religious recognizes the primarily philosophical differences concerning conceptual content, whereas the hard/soft distinction represents predominantly social attitudes regarding issues related to inclusion and exclusion.  Accordingly, the question of which of the four quadrants tends to draw one's sympathies seems likely to reflect whether one prioritizes philosophical over social considerations, or vice-versa.

If one is inclined to place the importance of conceptual correctness above social concerns, one would more likely fall into either of the two "hard" camps.  Conversely, those who prioritize social considerations over philosophical will be more attracted to the "soft" camp.

In other words, if you believe that it is more important to get it right than to get along, you are more likely to be more extreme in your rejection of the opposing position.  On the other hand, if you feel that getting along trumps being right, you will tend toward the more inclusionary stance. 

The "Soft" Side

While the differences in motivation that separate the occupants of the two "hard" positions are self-explanatory, the distinguishing commitments of their "soft" counterparts might not be quite so apparent.  However, a brief examination clearly reveals the implicit loyalties of the two "soft" positions. 

A firm commitment to naturalistic explanations of phenomena (as opposed to supernatural accounts), inclines one to favor the view that the universe is naturalistic in every respect.  So, although any scientist will, without hesitation, agree that there are vast regions of unknown (and, practically speaking, humanly unknowable) fact about the universe, the equally confident assumption is that the universe, mysteries included, is ontologically "of a piece."  For most scientists, the starting assumption is that phenomena are causally explicable, at least in principle.

Such a scientific set of predilections naturally leads one to assume causal consistency among the fundamental processes of reality, and to view supernatural theories as intrinsically suspect.  Accordingly, if a scientist is also inclined towards social attitudes such as inclusion, accommodation, and tolerance, s/he will probably be drawn to a vision of reality that is fundamentally naturalistic, but also instinctively tolerant. Such a person is more likely to be liberal with respect to allowing and respecting multiple diverse opinions.  The result will be a position that essentially coheres with Stephen Jay Gould's account of religion and science as "Non-Overlapping Magisteria."

Are "Blended" Advocates Religious?

Prof. Ledewitz's description of the "blended" category might not obviously fall under the "religious" (as opposed to "secular") heading.  For some, that particular label might be uncomfortable.  But let's examine the implications of seeking to "blend" religion and science.  If the axis that is defined by the two poles of science and religion is, as I have suggested, inherently philosophical or conceptual in its concerns (as opposed to social), one who advocates blending science and religion is one for whom, philosophically, science and religion are not fundamentally inconsistent.

Science depends upon an assumption of causal regularity.  One of the most important concerns that scientists address in their normal, day-to-day work is identifying the causal conditions underlying any given phenomenon under investigation.  This assumption does not allow for an occasional interruption in causation that could only be attributed to supernatural agency.  So, for most scientists the basic conceptual distinction between naturalistic (i.e. secular) and supernatural (i.e. religious) is one that does not readily accommodate blending.  In other words, attitudes, social groups, or cultural practices can occupy a separate, non-physical category (such as Gould's religious magisterium), much as one might assign politics to such a distinct realm.  But, this "separatist" approach does not seek to blend natural causal explanations for physical phenomena with supernatural accounts that are, in principle, outside of the realm of natural causal relations.

For the advocate of the "blended" perspective, religion and science are, at root, conceptually consistent approaches to reality.  This point of view seeks to integrate the religious and scientific approaches to explaining natural phenomena, rather than excluding either approach.  The "blended" position, by definition, includes a religious approach to explaining reality.  Accordingly, most of the people who comfortably identify themselves as belonging to the "blended" camp will also identify themselves as (to some extent) religious.  They aim to find a comfortable meeting-ground between science and religion, a conceptual terrain that welcomes both faith and reason.

Possible Benefits of this Analysis

One potential benefit of analyzing these four categories as a 2x2 matrix in this way is that doing so might help us to understand the inclinations of the other camps.  Even though, as atheists, many of us are convinced that religious fundamentalism is completely wrong-headed, we might be sympathetic with the tendency to prioritize philosophical over social concerns.  And even if we don't believe that the two worldviews can exist side-by-side, if we recognize the commitments to social harmony that underlie the "soft" positions, we are more likely to respect those positions as reasonable and valid.

Another benefit of this analysis is that it may point to possibilities of improved dialog among the camps.  By identifying the foundational commitments that lead one to prioritize philosophical considerations over social (or vice versa), we might be in a better position to engage others in discourse that really makes sense to each other, rather than talking past each other, each group convinced that the other one simply doesn't get it.

Most of us have commitments both to truth and to peace, so we can appreciate and genuinely value the motivation that leads others to prioritize one or the other of these ideals.  Moreover, few of us would want to live in a world without either truth or peace; we want both.  By learning to value the profound tension between these two fundamental approaches to prioritizing values, each of us can learn more about our own sources of meaning, as well as discover new opportunities for fruitful and intelligent dialog.