 This page is an archive from the previous version of The Row Boat, which is why it doesn't look and work the same as the current version. However, these archives are fully functional and integrated with the new system.
Why does this site permit advertising?
Powered by Little Logger |
The Row Boat"Had we but world enough, and time..." * The Secular and the Machine3/23/2005 14:56:00Let me propose, to begin, two forms of the secular as they relate to a theological discourse. One is the competitive and the other is the instrumental. From the point of view of religion, the competitive is what can undermine. It is perceived as a threat. Science is an example, especially in cases where it seemingly contradicts accepted theology. Religion's response is generally repression or absorbtion; it replies by reapplying categories of the sacred and profane accordingly. The instrumental is the lawn mower; secular innovations that religion doesn't much perceive as a threat. These are tools that religious authority can absorb unflinchingly because they do not undermine it. The Marxist would probably have it that we cannot separate the two. Since the objects of production determine the society that produces them, he would contend that even the seemingly benign and instrumental would become competitive. But for the moment, let us side with Rawls, who seems to think that we can. In Political Liberalism, he outlines a system by which "comprehensive" doctrines (religions, ideologies) find meeting ground in a "political" doctrine, through which competing woldviews can operate within a single political order. This political order, however, must be alienated from all comprehensive doctrines. In discussions of basic justice, all must use only the axioms and logic accessible, through the agreed-on political doctrines, to all. The history of secularization, as told by many, is the necessary history of religious retreat. When there is the possibility of a comprehensive secular discourse about everything important, the need for the religious is lost. More particularly, if you can explain depression better with chemistry than with original sin, the whole worldview that created original sin begins to crumble. Robin Horton is a great example of this thinking. One would think that the secular state would similarly create a discourse that by its nature impinges on religion. However, Rawls' idea of mere political liberalism seems to crawl into the safer side of secuarism, the instrumental. As such, the state is a foreign, neutral, though useful object (like a lawnmower). For the religious civic participant, this requires a whole new perspective on the sacramentalism of the state. Rawls' state, the inert tool, cannot and must not be a sacred vessel. The theology of power and authority must collapse completely. Religious ends must not be pursued in the state, as religious ends need not be pursued with a lawnmover. It simply moves and shakes as necessary, according to generally agreeable principles. Is this possible? Or is there something inherently sacred about the state, something that demands theology? For the state to be instrumentally secular, one must abandon all belief in it. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
re: The Secular and the Machine - 8/10/2005 22:11:26
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
|
| |
