Secularisation is the best thing that could ever happened to society. (40 marks)
Secularisation is
the best thing that could ever happened to society. (40 marks)
Secularisation is a theory
developed in the 1950s and 60s developed from enlightenment thinking that
religious belief would progressively decline as democracy and technology
advanced. Many atheists would argue secularisation is the best thing that can ever
happened to society this is because a society which is not dictated by
religious beliefs and religious practice, where religion is a private matter
rather than public and is separated far from government and state would be a
great Society based on the principles of rationality rather than Blind Faith
and superstition. However, religion is a major part of our society and without
it we would lack the diversity that enriches our culture. Religions such as
Christianity have contributed to the development of our society in areas such
as government, medicine and law. Therefore, it would be wrong to assume that
their influence is useless. In this
essay I will endeavour to show that secularism would not be the best thing that
could happen to society due to the fact that secularism is also filled with
flaws. I will be using scholars such as Richard Dawkins, Karl Marx, Sigmund
Freud, and Peter Berger to present a balanced and weighed argument.
Jose Casanova identified three ways
in which people talk about secularisation; the decline of religious beliefs and
practice in modern society, the privatization of religion in a modern liberal
democracy where religion should be private and should not be seen in public,
and the secular separation of spheres of state, economy, science, which are set
free from religious institutions. France is a secular society meaning that
there is an absence of the church in government, state, government affairs and
public matters. This has resulted in the removal of all state funded church
schools and has led to a ban from wearing religious symbols and religious
clothing in public space. The key idea is that religion should have no bearing
or influence on the public world, and that the law should be based on a
democratic and non-religious foundation. In the UK the state and religion have
not separated. By this standards Britain is not a secular society. This is
because although there is a decline in religious belief and practice, religion
is still seen in public and it is well involved in government. This is shown by
the fact that Queen Elizabeth II is the head of the state and the head of the
church of England. It is also demonstrated by the fact that the Bishops of the
church of England have sits in the House of Lords. This leads us to question, is
a secular society necessarily better than a religious society? Although
secularism focuses on rationality, it lacks to appreciate the element of
passion involved in religion. A secular society focuses on advancement being
made by science, these advancements (such as genetic engineering, abortion,
euthanasia) do not fit in with religious beliefs such as the sanctity of life.
Without the ethics of religion, these situations would be allowed leading to
“slippery slopes” and the abuse of the weak (euthanasia of the old at the will
of their younger kin for money). Religion prevents negative changes which are
harmful to individuals in society due to their principles of justice and love.
The problem is that this prevention can also be detrimental. Forcing a woman to
keep an unwanted child or preventing a man with a cureless disease from getting
a peaceful end seems inhuman. Religion has prevented many technological
advancements which could have enhanced the quality of life of others. This
suggests then that perhaps society would be a better place without religion.
This is because it causes more problems that it seems to solve, perhaps people
would have a better quality of life in a secular society.
Freud argued that religion is
produced by uncertainty and anxiety about things beyond our control, but it
creates something unreliable and unhealthy. In “Civilization and its
Discontents” Freud denounces religion as a lie and a delusion. He writes, “The
religion of mankind must be classed as among the mass of delusions”. To him
religion and modern religious beliefs are a delusion that exists to protect us
from nature and fate. In other words
religion is a product of wish fulfilment, the experience of vulnerability we
experience as children is made more tolerable by the invented belief that there
is a purpose to life, with a moral code advanced by higher wisdom, and that any
injustices in this life will be corrected in the next. A deity is invented to
replace the sense of uncertainty with something uncontrollable. Religious
beliefs are psychological inventions that exist to protect us from nature and
fate. Freud believed religion is unhealthy. It is a cultural carrier for much
negative information, dividing people and causing conflict. This shows that society
is better without religion since it causes problems for the individual and
society, a secular society would not have these problems since people would
have to accept reality and conquer their fate rather than blaming or waiting
for God. Although there are weaknesses to Christianity, it has values which contribute
towards a stable society. Christian values such as unconditional love or
self-sacrifice are not just human values, they are spiritual values which go
against the selfish nature of human beings. Due to these spiritual values,
Christianity provides a moral compass and establishes common understanding.
Richard Dawkins argues that faith
schools are damaging to society. This is because they create isolated communities
and fail to integrate pupils. He argues that faith schools fail to teach the
big bang theory and evolution properly, instead they provide creationism as an
alternative. They also leave pupils open to radicalism. In Dawkins’ eyes, bringing
up a child as a Catholic is a form of long-term psychological abuse. He cites
an example of a Hell House, devised by a pastor in Colorado, where children
were scared by what might happen to them if they misbehave. This can leave
profound scars on a child’s mind. Christianity is filled with such extreme
messages such as in Mark 9:43-44 which mentions the cutting off of offending
hands. This shows how damaging religion can be to children. Dawkins quotes
Nicholas Humphry’s “What Shall We Tell the Children” to illustrate his point
further, “Children, I’ll argue have human rights not to have their minds
crippled by exposure to other people’s bad ideas – no matter who these people
are… In short, children have a right not to have their minds addles by
nonsense, and we as a society have a duty to protect them from it.” This demonstrates
that religion is an ideology which can damage children, this means that perhaps
a secular society would be better for bringing up children. Then again, Dawkins
is too extreme in his examples. Faith schools tend to teach science very well,
this is shown by their high achievements in GCSE. They are also very diverse
and tend to perform better overall in comparison to secular schools. There are
people of different faiths and backgrounds within a faith school, dismissing
the view that they are creating isolation. A study from Warwick University
supports the view that students from faith schools tend to be more diverse and
tolerant as well as being able to concentrate better. Perhaps faith schools do
teach virtues inspired by religion which seems to have this effect. However,
this is just a correlation, it might be the pupil’s disposition which has this
effect, not the teaching of faith schools.
Sigmund Freud and Richard Dawkins
have argued that religion is created by the human mind and that there are no
spiritual realities outside of us. On the other hand, science changes our
understanding of the world and human life, providing national accounts of life.
In the 1960 sociologist suggested that western Europe would lead the way to
secularisation and the rest of the world would follow. However, it is
simplistic to argue that the world is secularising in the way Britain has. The
majority of the world is still religious. Immigration has also brought a new
religious population into the UK. The number of Pentecostal Christians and
Muslims has increased whereas Anglicans have decreased, and Catholics have
remained unchanged. Christopher Dawson argues that it is wrong to remove
religion from culture, art, architecture and music. This is because it deprives
people of the ability to make sense of their own culture as it is steeped in
religion. British culture is steeped in religion, for example, when princess
Diana died it was religion that brought the people together and the Queen is
the head of the Church of England, therefore, to become secular is to lose
one’s culture. Culture is what gives meaning to our lives, it would be wrong to
therefore argue that a secular society is better than a religious society.
In conclusion, religions such as
Christianity have contributed greatly to the development of society. It has
inspired music, literature and law which is deeply ingrained within British
culture. Christian thinking and principles are also still valid and useful to
this day. It is doctrines such as Natural Law which have inspired Human Rights.
In mediaeval times it was Christians who built schools for the poor, to this
day, most food banks are setup and run by Christian volunteers and local
churches. Christianity even played a major role in the civil rights movement since
activists such as Martin Luther King Jr were religious, this inspired them with
their peaceful movement. Christianity also teaches spiritual values which tend
to differ from human values. This demonstrates that Society would be less
cultured without the inspirations of religion. However, should we separate
religion from the state in a multireligious society? Mahatma Gandhi said, “if I
was a dictator, religion and state would be separate. I swear by my religion. I
will die for it. But that is my personal affair. The state has nothing to do
with it. The state would look after your secular welfare, health, communications,
foreign relations, currency and so on, but not your or my religion. That is
everybody’s personal concern!” this suggests that perhaps it is best if we live
in a secular state like France, where religion is a private matter hidden from
public life. This would mean that there would also be no predominant religion
that is supported by the state such as the Church of England in the UK. The
sits taken by the Bishops in the House of Lords are not divided fairly nor are
they representative of the population. This makes it seem as if though other
religions are inferior. However, instead of living in a secular society it
would be better if we lived in a pluralist society with equal representation.
The future King Charles being crowned as the “Defender of faith” instead of the
“defender of the faith” is already a steady start to accepting a diverse
society with people of all religions. This is better than any secular society
as it creates tolerance and unity.
For more philosophy and ethics a-level essays click on the tool bar and go on my profile!
For more philosophy and ethics a-level essays click on the tool bar and go on my profile!
Comments
Post a Comment