On the contrary, Pete, very well articulated and thought out commentary.
Much appreciated.
I am one of those who felt a pull towards secularism because of life events
that created a crises of faith, followed by the moving away of my
indoctrination to more fundamentalist tendencies, and my subsequent search
for something more relevant to my travels and learning. Some things just
need fresh air. I have taken great comfort reading about the paradoxes of
faith, particularly Buddhism and Christianity, and own a beautiful engraved
Qu-ran given to me by an enthusiastic colleague who was excited by my
questions about Islam. But a grounding in mythology and Joseph Campbell has
certainly been a balancing perspective, at least for me.
Your comments about baby boomers should not be discounted in any review of
what has evolved in the past 50 years in the West.
Carl Jung insisted that we have a "god gene" so it is not inconsistent to me
that modern Westerners can leave a traditional faith and seek another, of
various origins. As Keith has written, we are ripe for a new religion or a
new reformation that makes more sense to some of us. I cannot leave science
and discovery out of religion and spirituality. For those who choose to do
so, it is a devolutionary choice, in my opinion.
KWC
On Thu, 05 Jun 2003, Keith Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I much enjoyed reading David Brooks' article, "Kicking the Secularist
>Habit". I agree with Brooks that many of us have accepted the notion that
>as the world becomes richer and better educated, it becomes less
>religious. But that's only because we (that is, the sort of people who
>read the Atlantic Monthly) are richer, better educated and less religious
>than we used to be.
>
>It is interesting that the main examples of religious revivalism Brooks
>cites -- in Africa and in the Moslem countries -- not to mention two
>large blocs he doesn't cite -- South America (Brazil particularly) and
>India (among the Hindus particularly) -- are plainly affected by being
>"mere conduits for thwarted economic impulses", to use his words, even
>though he doesn't agree with this as a reason for religious revival.
>
>Well, all I can say is that this seems to me to be a very adequate reason
>for the revival of religion in the above regions of the world. What's
>more, this also accounts for the fairly large numbers of lower
>middle-class whites in America, England, and very likely (though I don't
>know for sure) in western Europe who, fearing that they are not going to
>be as secure or prosperous as they thought (in the 1960s, 70s and 80s)
>they were going to be, are now turning to pentecostal and fundamentalist
>sects. (The evangelical wing of the Anglican church is growing healthily
>in England, while the more austere, intellectual, liberal main body is
>losing ground fast.) We can also point to the vigorous revival of the
>Orthodox Church in Russia to which millions have turned after being let
>down by the economic promises of communism.
I agree, at least in part. The first step in secularism
(other than those instances of secularism by imposition
of state policy, which has turned out to have not "taken"
terribly well) is the time to reflect on received indoctrinations.
The second is the self esteem to consider one's own judgement
in these matters at least as valid as that of the received
authority. Both of these conditions are linked fairly strongly
to, if not affluence, at least a social milieu where one
feels free to hold independent opinions and strike out on
one's own. That latter criterion is also an aspect of the
last step, the security of being necessary to discard the
blanket offered by the recipes of tradition, and the
community of the faithful, in favour of the uncertainty
of some sort of existential philosophical position, however
foggily outlined. This sort of state of mind is surely
aided by conditions of economic security.
Having said that, I also think that observed
trends to secularism in the west over the past half century
have been distorted by demographics, and thus the "retreat"
is likely due in part to the same mechanism. That is, for
every secularist who makes his way by free thought, there
are some number who are rather in the position of finding
themselves essentially, at least in their own perception,
ejected by their sectarian tradition, due to conflicts between
their peer social values and those of the tradition. This
is a function of coming of age, and so the baby boom resulted
in a blip in the statistics, which may have been overemphasized
by surveys. There is also the contributing factor that the
same demographic event led to a particularly vital and
active peer culture, which accentuated the conflicts with
traditions. The thing is that the individuals who found themselves
thus "disenfranchised" of their religious traditions by
this process are not the same as those who arrive at their
secularism by free thught, and they are therefore not likely
to be permanently secular, but rather to find a way to reconcile
with the traditions which they were not fully equipped to
abandon, later in life; particulary as many of these people
never seem to develop a philosophical scaffolding for their
secular position. For the baby boom, that "later in life" is
happening now.
I'm afraid I have nothing to back up this notion beyond my
rather limited observations of society.
-Pete Vincent
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
