TayoBlog

Another full house of 2A Leslie Social Science on religion! It clearly seems that there is significant interest on religion in this  campus. Dennet's lively and spirited appeal for a dose of secularism was entertaining and thought-provoking. 

There are two issues that stood out for me. One was his greater attention to the value of religion; its function to produce good or harm in society. It seems that the fundamental assumption of this approach leaves out the question of truth and reality. And Dennet admitted so much when he did not think it worth the effort to focus on the proofs for the existence of God. The preoccupation of social value, and its apparent acceptance by all, points to the transformation of religion for believers and atheists alike. Religion has a purpose in society, and that has become the fundamental question. This is a different meaning of religion in modern society, from one that was preoccupied with truth and being.

Focussing on the value of society that religion may or may not bring sidesepss a important aspect of religion that previously occupied critical thinkers. Someone quoted Marx, but not fully. Religion was the opiate of the masses, but also the "sigh of the oppressed." In this second phrase lies an important consideration of the underlying causes of religious expressions. Dennet's functional approach avoids the underlying causes and conditions that give rise to religion. And that, I submit, may put both the religious and the secular in one common predicaament.  

The second point was revealed to me when Dennet appealed to atheists  to go out and take up a cause. Save someone out there! This probably gets to the heart of religion in a way that the social function of religion does not. The question of salvation in whatever form seems to occupy a central meaning of religion. We may wonder then what kind of salvation secularism has offered to those turning away from it? what had the secular prophets promised and delivered? Can they save their cause by offering something different than the past? And will secularism be saved? Why bother? Does this preoccupation tell us something about ourselves? Is there more to this than presenting proof that secularism can have a social ethics (previously delivered imperfectly by religion)?

I know that I mentioned 2 points, but this is a blog after all. With the attacks carried out by religious zealots, it is easy to focus on the uneasiness created by modernity and globalization. Religious fundamentalism is a reaction as many erudite scholars have argued. But I think that the tide of religion is also causing unease among atheists and secularists. Why are "these people" turning to religion? Why turn to obliviously destructive and self-limiting options? The turn to traditional religion is so relentless that it unsettles those who previously watched the religious with some curiosity and amusement. More than sheer survival, scholars have to remind themselves that religion belongs to the past.