Is There a Long-Term Growth in Secularization - Assignment Example

Name Tutor Is there a long term growth in secularization or is this thesis refuted by apparent revival of religiosity? Institution @2009 Is there a long term growth in secularization or is this thesis refuted by apparent revival of religiosity? Introduction Secularization as a concept in sociology, is the transformation of a society’s setting from its dependence on religious values towards secular institutions and irreligosity (Woodberry, 1998). By its many meanings that find root both historically and in theory, study of secularization aims at delineating the manner or extent to which religion’s grip (as seen through its institutions and values) is fading in its significance in the modern world. Secularization thesis therefore is the premise that religion loses its authority in governance and social life when it evolves through rationalization and modernization (Pippa & Ronald, 2004). The debate about this effect secularization is single-handedly postulated to have on religious appeal in a civilized society rages on finding wide appraisal in proposition from science and humanists almost as it finds antagonism and bitter opposition in religious fundamentalists. It is on this surmise that this essay finds its central theme of discussion; staging various postulates presented by different authorities on the subject both for and against and culminating into the climax of the discussion by stating my personal sentiments and take in the conclusion. The empirical advantage of tangible evidence afforded by scientific knowledge and postulates admittedly draws people towards itself more and more refuting their reliance on spiritual and religious beliefs and practices. This then finds root in the continual inventions science is bringing into human understanding in all spheres: from cosmology to philosophy; from biology to sociology. The corollary of this complete dissuasion of any form of belief in any system that does not find support in empirical evidence reminiscent to scientific clarity and acceptance: the one single system that is most smothered by this postulate is religion (Finke 1990). At the forefront of this protagonism of secularization is Bryan Wilson who draws his authority on the works of Max Weber (Wilson 1985). Wilson sees religion as shallow, pretentious and (to an extent) hypocritical struggling to assert itself in an increasingly secular society without admitting the reality of modernity that is fast sweeping it off balance. To him, he is not interested in church attendances since he does not find it of any significant indication: since he says, people go to church on Sundays and still spend time during the week lying, cheating, hurting animals, etc. The principal basis of Secularization thesis as depicted by many social theorists transcends far more than mere scope of religious authority in church-state issues. In the wake of scientific rationality and modernization, these social theorists have postulated that all aspects of (social) life from individual habits to communal institution have dramatically lost their attachment and dependence on religion as a corrective system let alone as a stratification unit. The underlying assumption is that people are continually becoming less religious and therefore it is doubted whether modernity and scientific persuasions can at all combine with religious traditions to create harmony and coherence with the overpowering features that define modernized society: increased technological integration in multinational capitalization, humanistic education, scientific research and organizational life among others. In the light of its functionality in societal development, religion has appeared to these theorists to have completely lost its functions it previously performed. Owing to this then religion finds no better acclaim than to simply appear a dysfunctional unit in the modernized society whose use can only be traced back to some medieval level of human evolution. In a word, today people are amazed by human creativity in achievements and not by some divine forces and acclaim which further means that future knowledge will be solidified on such scientific novelty rather than antediluvian antiquity’s persuasion of the ‘sacred’. Secularization thesis’ overt dependence in its definition on premises to declining religiosity in the civilized world so as religious beliefs are thought to be no longer playing any significant role in decision-making or other spheres of public life has been stretched to permeate governance. Take Turkey for instance. A popular sovereign secular state was created after the collapse of Ottoman Caliphate and the subsequent birth of the Turkish republic in 1923. This, as it is pointed out, was a great shift of the country’s governance from any religious attachment to theocracy. This kind of state modernization indicates the powerful whims secularization and democratization are in reinforcing each other in their mutual quest of an independent state governance (of any religious connotations; authority). It does not take long though, to realize that the nature of secularization thesis is not universally consistent among its proponents. The reasons postulated to have led to it are as widely differing as they are inconsistent which to a curious mind begins to cast aspersions to the credibility of the theory. In India, a flagrant secular state, secularization is said to have emerged due to the need to legislate directives for toleration and mutual respect between a host of religions. On the other hand, secularization in the West has been argued to have come up as a response to tensions between Protestantism and Catholicism where it is then put to differentiate this secularization from others as dealing with autonomy from religious dictation. This relativism in the nature and causes of secularization in different democracies is the onset of inconsistencies that gauge into its authenticity as a theory creating blatant doubts in its sufficiency as a scientific theory making it appear rather a mere anti-religious postulate that seeks to dispute the existence of God more than it proves any other thing (Yamane 1997). Henry Morison, in The Twilight of Evolution notes that as opposed to common almost universally accepted view about secularization, close observation of criticisms leveled against it increasingly indicate that in fact, secularization is not a science but rather an anti-Christian, anti-theistic way of thought; a system rather than a science; a philosophy rather than a history (Henry 1980, pp. 13- 14). The central basis of Secularization thesis that postulates that religious grip in the modernized society does not stand research evidence given by other scholars on the subject. For instance, Andrew Greeley commenting on the National survey data collected from the 1940’s to date reports that in every Gallup Poll that sought to find out whether or not the respondents believed in God, 90 percent of the responses were in the affirmative. To further assert this point, further statistical research findings from the National survey are given here in: 70 percent (with only a slight deviation) think that people who lead good lives will receive some reward in the afterlife. 90 percent of Americans pray to God. About 65 percent claim membership in a religious congregation. These percentages according to Greeley have not changed significantly in the past fifty years (Greeley 1989, pp.13- 15, 20- 43, 58). In corroboration, Roger Finke and Rodney Stark in their The Church of America (1992) provide a wealth of historical data to reinforce these observations (by 1850) (Finke & Stark 1988, pp. 41- 49). Staunch Secularization thesis die-hard defendant Lynd predicted since the time of Voltaire that enlightened science would replace all religious superstitions in due course. To the contrary, a vast number of Americans according to the survey do not appear to have (or be) abandoned (abandoning) secularization theory’s dwindling religion. In response to Lynd’s prediction, Greeley noted at the height of secularization theory in the late 1960s by saying, ‘It may well be; though it should be remembered that the prediction has generally been wrong every time it has been made’ (1969: 6; cf., Greeley 1995; Stark and Iannaccone 1994). As though guided by some prophetic authority, true to Greeley’s concession, the looming demise of religion has never happened therefore making the thesis probably wrong or premature; a significant jut straight in heart of secularization especially given that there is virtually no empirical research that supports the prediction of societal regression into the secularity from its sacred dependence (Swatos & Christian 1999). The effect this statistical revelation has on secularization thesis and its almost universal acceptability is similar to Morris’ description of the loyalty evolution enjoys unilaterally despite its cyclic contradictions (Morris 1989, p. 26). He says that once the world was filled with the sacred in all aspects of personal, practice and institutional form, but forces of modernization swept across the globe destabilizing sacred’s grip on sociology during the Reformation and Renaissance. He sums it all up by saying that in due course, the sacred will disappear completely except in the private realm (Mills 1959, pp.32- 33). It may be erroneously thought that this statement’s guise in historical description offers evidence of its credibility. On the contrary it is merely based on almost no historical evidence. In fact it draws its novelty on commonsense generalization of history related to systematic study of the present rather than concise study of the past. Dismissal of religion’s relevance and prevalence in post modern society is most objectionable. Rodney Stark and William Sims Bainbridge in The Future of religion: Secularization, revival, and cult formation (1985) in rebuttal of Sigmund Freud’s reference to religion as ‘the future of an illusion’ claim that the vision of a religionless future is but illusions. Stark and Bainbridge do not envision religious decline but rather adopt to a more cyclical approach in tandem with the general theory of sociocultural development where they postulate that the religion that responds to the needs and conditions suited only to one historical epoch becomes less effective in addressing core problems of human experience (Stark and Bainbridge 1985). By this, it is meant that religion’s involvement in sociocultural endeavours should be with a non-partisan interest in any social, cultural or civilized modernity which then gives it immunity against cyclic contradictions of modern experience. Secularism and religion are no doubt antagonistic. Their differences scream out loud not to support any postulate that could favour their coexistence in the society: the society cannot be both secular and religious is then a logical premise devoid of active philosophical conflict. But what is secularism that makes it overtly or covertly distanced from religion so much so to warrant such a premise as above? It is admissible that the brief compass of this essay cannot by any means satisfactorily settle the antagonism between these two divergent ends. Be that as it may, secularism’s dependence on humanistic novelty that deny involvement of Intelligent Being (God) in all (or any) aspect of human experience juts out as the greatest antagonism with religion’s entire belief, dependence and awe of God as the overall creator and determinant (controller) of humanity. Secularism seeks to distance itself from mere belief in a deity that does not have any scientific backing to be the basis of explanation for all complex cosmological and ingenuity of human development where as religion finds unwavering comfort in the divinity of the deity and His Supernatural transcendence in creation and subsequent handling of all humanity. It is clear therefore that these two are quite irreconcilable opposites thereby making their coexistence a settled impossibility. But is that so? Closer observation of these ends reveals the similarity that underlies their postulates. Removing the quest of origin and the authority of persuasion leaves the two in common appeal in their moral, organizational and institutional structural pursuit. Secularism as religion favours governance and human coexistence that is based on the same fundamental moral rights and human freedoms. These provisions afforded by both religion and secularism (good governance, respect of human rights and freedoms and cherish of peace and global coherence) are most fundamental in societal development. It then does not require rocket scientist to envision a society that is constituted by both postulates. The antagonism will then simply consist in the authenticity and authority of God and the extent of His directives on human experience which can be left to fundamentalists and sociology philosophers to settle the debate while societal coherence in principal flourishes (Pippa & Inglehart 2004). Religiosity is not dependent on socio-political dilemmas of the day. There is an inherent distraught that such a thought brings when religion is tagged to depend on prevailing socio-political climate so much as to determine its effectiveness. This does not imply that such dilemmas do not influence practice and nature of religion, far from that! The ancient Roman empire and antediluvian Asia dynasty portray cases where prevailing political philosophy dictated the nature and exegesis of religions of the day. That notwithstanding, surmising that religion rises and falls depending on socio-political dilemmas after the kind of terrorism (e.g. 9/11) does not depict the true nature of religion. Like any other social system, religion is bound to be shaken by threat, political interference (etc) but that need not necessarily imply that it is evolutionary following the whims of such interference. Conclusion From the evidences given above about the extent of secularization especially among the learned and the passionate defense of religion’s importance and relevance in the modernized society offered by fundamentalists, it is clear that the debate can by no stretch of imagination be thought to be in its twilight. It is however observable that the central theme to secularization thesis is more appealing in its theoretical pursuit than in its historical and evidential correctness. The rebuttal of existence of God similarly can be thought to be out of personal desire just to refute it rather than inadequacy of evidence in its support. The debate to some extent defeats logic when it is thrown out of perspective to which Stark and Bainbridge (Cohen & Kennedy 2007, p. 392) argue that ‘If God exists, the faithful win, the skeptics go to hell. If God does not exist, the faithful lose little, but the unfaithful still lose.’ What he meant by this was that whichever way rebuttal of God is staged, religion’s postulates stands no threat of loss as opposed to non-conformists guarantee of losing in the rationale of the debate. By these evidence therefore, suffice it sot say that secularization thesis is continually being refuted by the revival of religiosity. References Finke, R 1990, Religious deregulation, Journal of Church and State, vol.32, pp. 609-26. Finke, R & Stark, R 1988, Religious economies and sacred canopies, American Sociological Review, vol.53, pp. 41-49. Henry, M 1989, The Twilight of Evolution, Baker Book house Michigan. Stark, R & Bainbridge S 1985, The future of religion. Berkeley: University of California Press. Stark, R & Iannaccone, L 1994, A supply-side reinterpretation of the "secularization" of Europe, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion vol.33, pp. 230-52. Swatos, W & Christian, J 1999, Secularization Theory: The Course of a Concept, viewed Nov. 10, 2009 . Wilson, B 1985, Secularization. In the sacred in a secular age, University of California Press. Woodberry, RD 1998, When surveys lie and people tell the truth, American Sociological Review vol.63, pp.119-22. Yamane, D 1997, Secularization on trial, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion vol. 36, pp. 109-22. Read More

 

Read More