Hi Arlo

> What has happened is that the neutering of religion by this secular 
> philosophy has left "religion" scrambling to re-identify with the 
> very anti-theistic philosophy that neutered it. It has tried to 
> re-invent itself as a proponent of the "freedom of man" when any 
> simple read through history has shown that "religion" has NEVER been 
> about man's "freedom". It took a thousand years and the collision 
> with a new people for "man" to wake up to the call of secular 
> enlightenment, and we should never forget that. This re-imaging of 
> "religion" is the fallout of "religion's" need to find its power in a 
> post-enlightenment world.


DM: My background is totally non-religious. I was brought up
to value the Enlightenment, freedom, democracy. However, after
doing my best to make sense of the Enlightement and its
benefits and problems I find myself very concerned by the
dualism and scientism of the Enlightenment and interested
in what both high romanticism, idealism and eventually
post-modernism have to say about the limitations and
ideology of the Enlightenment. In this context, I am concerned
about the ideology of secularism and its entanglement with SOM.
This SOM based secularism undermines the value of many
aspects of experience as merely subjective. And it seems to
think that knowledge can be attained via an impossibly value-
neutral objectivity. Now if we reject this SOM and see our
values and knowledge as inseparable and all our activity as
pragmatic forms of life, where does this leave religion post-Enlightenment?
Whilst accepting that religion has been strongly tied to social
control and ideology, is not a part of religion about upholding
values? I wonder, does not a post-enlightenment idea of values
not mean that we, in as far as religion is a matter of values,
need to be more open to allowing religious people to hold
and explore whatever values they hold? Whilst if we are more
secular recognising that this simply means we hold different values
rather than somehow having better access to the truth.
Is this not what diversity and pluralism really requires?
Equally, we also need to insist that all people recognise that
values differ and that we all have to learn to live with people
who have different values and we have to find appropriate
compromises where these conflict and accept that values
and people change and can choose to move between different
communities.


David M



Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

Reply via email to