Thursday, March 29, 2012


1. Dr. Giorgio De Martino

…. seems to be a VERY good idea and, as far as I can understand, could be a new concept foundation about spiritual freedom (and dissent). I will look as soon as possible to the new areas of research on this and similar subject, as the theologiocracy seems concerned with and by a lot of sets of knowledge.
2. Argo Spier:

The argument you furnished me with is quite a mouthful. The way you approach the topic is stimulating and it sets a process going in the minds of those acquainting themselves with it. The first response is a strong desire to disagree with the logical steps you take. Yet, to find contra-arguments and/or suggestions to offer as a ‘cure’ doesn’t prove to be so easily available. You not only desirea subject discussion but also wish to measure the precise logical reasoning from your students and other participants. This makes of the document a challenge on both domains. I suggest an alteration of the title and the first paragraph, making the issue clearer. Although secularism is something important for religious leaders and believers of faiths, I personally have tried to engage it - and the specific pluralism that it tries to enforce in society - with the contradiction sine qua non in Poincare’s statement concerning dogma. It says that the mind should not allow itself to be guided by any dogma. His argument has the fault that it, by itself, is a dogma. One can formulate it accordingly in the following way – ‘the mind should not allow itself to be guided by the dogma that it should not allow itself to be guided by dogmas'. It is dogmatic to refuse dogma. That’s the contradiction. And of course, here once again, you have my Heidegger stance!
There's another point to be made: a logic and philosophical discussion of secularism may miss the issue altogether because one cannot 'know' a faith really without belonging to that faith. And to make matters worse, it may be that 'that particular faith' isn't a religious phenomenon at all and then you are attributing it as viable for comparison while it is not. Christianity can be taken as an example of this. Christianity isn't a religion. It is atheistic in its core in the sense that it is against the 'godification' of God. It is against the 'cultification' Christ as well. In Christianity man is to represent (become like) God and be like God in his loving and caring of others and the world, etc. It is even against its own cult of rites. Ref. Protestantism. Therefore it is not comparable to religion or religions ... and not part of or a 'usable unite' in the conceptual formulation and/or reformulation of the idea of secularism that - as you claimed - 'has become a theoretical imperative for the modern civilizations.'
What I am suggesting, is that the discussion of and research into secularism will never be able to come to a condition in which it can border off its domain. Faith (in whatever religion) always escapes reason, firstly, and secondly, the dealing with and of God without 'godification' ask of reason to function on a 'transcended level' and therefore too, escapes reason/ing. Yet another contradiction. But ok, this is exactly what your argument seems to be about - to augment the logical difficulty there is in the ways of formulating the idea of secularism as a principle of disjunction between the affairs ofspiritual and natural worlds. Yet, I cannot help but pondering 'oh my god (note ‘god’ is used here without a capital letter), something big is going to fall into the water' in your workshop. Something ‘big’ will remain hidden.
3. A V G Warrier

Personally I always thought that secularism (not a secular approach) as a very funny idea. So I read your paper with interest. Your paper indeed confirms that it, indeed, is a funny idea.
You start with the idea that secularism itself has entrenched itself as a religion and like religion it is affected by the socio-cultural factors leading to several interpretations. Irreconcilability of these interpretations, according to you, then leads to the problem that we cannot have a unified meaning for the term secularism. Then there is the confusion about whether to align the term with science or religion. Then there is the thought that the meaning of the term secularism is dependent on the nature of the religion and its interpretations. It is like ideas getting chained together to spawn more and more doubts without attempting to find any answers. If the idea is to bring out the absurdity of following secularism as a religion that doesn't clearly come out through the paper.

The whole problem arises when we treat it as an 'ism'. An 'ism' smacks of a rigid establishment. When something which was conceived to break away from the evils of an establishment itself becomes an establishment, then it loses its own identity. From day to day observations it appears to me that 'secularism' is only a ruse invented by politicians only to spice up their fractional thinking.

Upanishads, perhaps, qualify to be the most secular of the scriptures that make civilized living possible. 'Avidyaya mrutyum teertvaa vidyaya/amrutamashnute'... says Isopanishad. Is it not a beautiful way of stating...."take care of your existential problems and stabilize your presence here before attempting to launch yourself to the ethereal problems that transcends this life" It tells how to deal with the political problems and religious problems without mixing up the two and at the same time not putting them at loggerheads.
4. Prof. A. Kanthamani:

a) Modernity did not arise as a response to the politics of religion so as to become an ideology. Nor did it arise as response to the religion in politics so as to become an ideology. Modernity arose as an enlightenment ideal of science that gave rise to a disenchantment of religion. Science questioned religion because it was not rational. You try to bring back the religion of the pre-modern because of its socio-cultural affiliation and project it to the contemporary world as the socio-cultural mode of religion so as to derive a point that that religion has a place even in the face of science which has evolved into a sphere of greater influence. This may not offer any post-modernist stance. It is worse than that. You argue that secularism is 'illogical' because every conception of secularism contains a religious core. You refuse to recognize the statement: secularism is directly opposed to religion because religion cannot be reconciled with science. You draw the following as conclusion: secularism is conceptually untenable because it cannot separate religion from science. This is opposed to any understanding of secularism (science) or religion (non-science) or both. Quantum religion is still a religion and not science. You can argue that religion benefits man, at least common man, and hence it can be allowed as a socio-cultural phenomenon. In order to prove this you have to use science and not religion. It is open to you to prove the scientific credentials of science and you can never prove the lack of scientific credentials of current science. You can never hope to prove that secularism is a modernist ideology on the grounds that it is a point of reconciliation between different religions. Science cannot recognize any one religion nor all religions. Nor the relations between them. You agree that modernity is anti-religion but then why smother it into saying that it still contains an illogical religion. Is it a solution that it should be logicalised into a secularism with a logic?------------- b) There is no paradox in the western concept of secularism because it is opposed to divine intervention into the affairs of man and consequently there should be a separation of religion from the state. The Indian concept of secularism is paradoxical and this is not the result of 'socio-cultural modulation of the transcendental' but it is due to the lack of understanding of secularism in the western sense. So, such socio-cultural modulations are to be modulated further through proper education, and at no point it can 'invalidate' the westerns concept of secularism. Your understanding of secularism foists a layer of ideology to it. Just as science is a check on ideology, secularism is also check on ideology. Your aim to develop a 'praxiological' theory of secularism that is based on 'historical' seems to equivocate the history of west and east (India). Contrary to belief, religion is not growing, but atheism is on the rise. The celebration of reason is the celebration of rationality as it is practiced within science which argues for a strong separation of state from religion and they have succeeded (the judgment against teaching creationism in schools in US) to a good extent. The picture in India is that there is a small awakening after Rushdie affair but one does not know how far this will take us on the path of secularism. Religion is rejected because it makes no scientific claims.
c) The separability is a trait that is shared by all or any form of secularism because it is the very trait of science. Science is secular because it does not take non-science into its fold. Religion is not scientific and it cannot be fused with science. So it cannot be coercive because it is not science. Separability can be disposed off only when both are 'naturalistic' (scientific). Science can learn from its mistakes and change. Secularism holds that all religions cannot be theories in the sense of theory in science and so all religions are equally bad in this sense. To say that all religions are bad is not to say that they are ideological just as to say that all theories are bad is not to say that they are ideological. The sense of ideology does hardly convey anything like science and has no back-up of science. It does not mean that all religions are equally good. This amounts to claim that all scientific theories may be equally good. This position refuses to recognise 'conflict' in theories. When two theories conflict, you choose only one that has the best fit with facts? We cannot claim that both are caused by socio-cultural facts without saying that only one of them may be at one moment of time. This is one sense of secularism in one sense that is used by Indians. They cannot resolve the conflict. In the second sense, minorities can be shown recognition only on the basis of some criteria (e.g. demographic), but that does not derive their justification from any Indian sense of secularism, but from economics which says that all are equal, but considerations can be shown to the economically poor. So, all religions are bad (not by virtue of ideology, and so science is not ideology); all religions are good (not by virtue of ideology, and cannot recognize conflict) What follows from the above set is that secularism stands on stronger ground because it cannot assimilate the second to science. More discussion should follow.------------------
d) Secularism is based on reason and science. Religion is based on faith. Neither of them stands on historical (socio-cultural) ground. They depend upon the way human nature is understood. History provides no reason for either. Nor does it provide ground for atheism. Atheism challenges faith. It becomes operational in the light of our understanding of science. Secularism questions whether faith is rational or scientific. If it is not, then it will be harmful to allow it to determine the affairs of mankind. Religious diversity is not providing a historical necessity for secularism. It does not allow us to evaluate religion in the light of scientific rationality. What cannot be evaluated should not be allowed to intervene into the affairs of men. Religion cannot give us a sense of equality. It cannot run the affairs of modern state. It should be separated. The question is not: to what extent religion could be justified by history. But: to what extent it is justifiable by reason. Reason is not history (you seem to identify both). Religion cannot teach us equality by saying that they are equally experiencing the transcendental. Likewise freedom: a religious universe is a deterministic universe. Religion cannot explain why your faith is different from mine. Science can explain why your theory is different from mine. No one can assume that the equity of all religions can be derived from history. Secularism is not an ideology we inherit from the past. It is based on the way science evolves. Evolution can explain why you believe that a particular theory is correct. Religious diversity cannot provide objectivity since faith cannot be evaluated by science. The 'elimination' of religion is not 'totalitarian' but it cannot meet the standards of scientific rationality as it is practiced. You must study religion in the light of science; you must teach religion as science is being taught.--------------
e) The disenchantment was the direct outcome of setting in of modernity. Contrary to your belief of 'striking a balance in the domain (of) control between religion and state', it was the quest for bringing religion within the folds of reason (Kant), and once that was not found assuring, religion was not found to be re-enchanting. It was the power of reason and not merely a 'strategy' for an interim settlement. It was not a political settlement between the clerics and the rulers of the state. But even then religion was spreading like a phenomenon and it is not that the check was a failure but now at present the opposition is on the rise and this is the direct impact of scientific rationality. Religion is socio-cultural only in the sense that a large population feels the impact. If it becomes an ideology, it has to be checked. Science becomes the checking point. Are we living in a deterministic universe supported by religion (or even so, science: then what science is. But if you assume that it is socio-cultural, it is again deterministic)? Science can check science and dogmas will wither off. Not so, in religion. Indians feel the impact more in their versions of philosophy which was not much influenced by science. This is perhaps the reason you have recourse to ideology. Philo-reli-mix is evident in our traditions and it is difficult to separate religion from philosophy because it is based on faith. But they are not philosophy in the sense of Kant. The greatest challenge to our tradition is that the hiatus between 'creationism' and 'evolutionism' cannot be closed. No Indian has reasoned along these lines to know whether the assumptions point to an opposition. Pursue the quest for your benefit. You must disagree with what I say: the proof of the pudding is in the eating!
f) The King/Ruler can seek a new source of justification of power and this is exactly the rub. Obviously he cannot avail any source other than science. He has to deploy only rational scientific means to justify. You say that the tea is good: how you'll convince others- by your taste? You seek to convince him that the blend is good. Likewise the ruler has to justify that religion must be brought within the fold of scientific rationality (as it is practiced today). Secularism was not drawn 'to strike a balance' (no political settlement, please) as you seem to say but secularism demands to know by what means of justifications the religious enthusiasts will justify their faith in religion. Put the other way, how will you justify your faith. This is the onus on the rulers of faith-mongers to prove, failing which faith cannot be allowed to intervene into the affairs of men. The King has to justify his ruling of the state by virtue of religious faith. Secularism stands by reason and that is its path of negotiation. If this is 'historically evolved' it is to be accounted for by strictly adopting the evolutionary path of reason. Reason evolves and settles as the domain of science. Religion goes beyond the bounds of reason. The 'logic' is not 'unspelt' but it is marked as the credibility of science. Are scientific traditions credible in the face of reason? If religion cannot meet the standards, it has to be dispensed with. The political traditions of democracy invest you with the freedom to decide, the freedom to exercise your powers of reasoning. Theocracy tells you that you are designed by some divine law to decide which therefore refuses to invest you with the freedom to reason, the freedom to decide. Which one you will choose: creationist of intelligent design or evolutionary processes (which are historical but not historically determined as Marxists would claim). The 'lack of clarity' is due to the way you fail to make a choice among the above alternatives. The so-called 'interface' is fortuitous. Finally, the question: which 'track record of secularism debate' tells us that it is ideology. Some people believe this and they are wrong. Secularism is science and sacredness is faith-based. The confrontation invites us to look at the controversy from standards of scientific rationality and not from faith. Contrary to your belief, secularism can never become the 'logic of religion'. You must verify the trend and read that faith is undermined by science. You will see this in 2012. Be prepared for this. The Indian discussion on secularism will hardly help you to understand this because it is here Marxists muddy the water. You must counter pose the reflections of Professor Panikkar to Meera Nanda, according to whom both left and right are wrong. You will straighten the track record with this. I have reflected on this from time to time but I have no record of publication. Have only clippings. ---------------

g) ontrary to your belief, there is no 'mutual distancing' of secular and the sacred in the west. There is a mutual opposition. In India the case is different. The Indian sense of secularism is excessively mixed with religion. The case for secularism is open for debate. But in the west it was not proposed as an ideology because modernity did not oppose religion except on scientific grounds. This was the enlightenment idea of reason. It was proposed not as an ideological opposition to another ideology of religion. Scientific temper cannot refer to this as an ideology without giving up its ideal of rigor. It opposed it because it cannot be brought under pure reason (theory). Religion has no theoretical base (you can compare it with practical reason). Science is not a case of false belief. Science tries to justify only true beliefs. So, there is no undercurrent of 'logic of religion'. There is no hope of foisting this so-called logic for non-western cultures. Secularism in the west opposes sacredness; no such opposition is found in the Indian conception of secularism. They are two distinct types. They are fundamentally different. The mutual opposition between secular/sacred roughly corresponds to religion/science and also to creationism/evolutionism and equally to faith/ reason. Religion in the west is relegated to the private and science is in the public sphere. Science does not categorize religion as an ideology but it questions its scientific credentials. Unless it comes to the public sphere, its value cannot serve the purpose of social welfare. You cannot call the Indian notion as secular in the western sense. There is an opposition between these two ways of conceiving secularism. I think you try to mix and get confused. You can keep them as distinct to avoid confusion. The Indian counterpart has an undercurrent of religion. You import this into secularism. This is Indian type. How far you can carry it forward as a case for secularism in the western sense remains an open question. So there is a mutual consent between them. Sarva darsana samagraham cariies the load of the nefarious logic of religion. This is perhaps what you have in mind when you propose to explore this 'logic'. The praxiological analysis of the history of secularism cannot suggest anything more than this. So far, so good.--------------
h) You wrote: 'secularism is the logic of theocracy'. Probably this disguises the thought which says that 'secularism is the logic of liberal democracy' and so, secularism is the 'continuum of theocracy'. Probably you want to say that 'theocracy underlies secularism'. Secularism cannot be stated independently of theocracy. Indeed, religion provides the base. I think you should think secularism is the counter logic to theocracy even if it leaves obscure the exact relation between secularism and sacredness. The latter says 'god has created the world' while secularism wants to see it as the consequence of 'big bang'. What you say amounts to saying that god is behind the big bang and hence, religion lies at the base of secularism. Now you will understand how it opposes creation. Secularism enters into logical opposition to sacredness. It is not clear whether it is empirically opposed. So probably you would apply a different tack to arrive at your point of view which is not clear now. Continue to reflect over with the help of lead writers. That alone will facilitate the view you want.
i) The 'logical ground' for atheism/secularism is not the 'difficulty of objective validation' but the scientific impossibility of verifying the 'transcendental" (god created the world). A-theism opposes theism (existence of god) while secularism believes that religion is not within the bounds of scientific rationality. So, secularism is not an euphemism for atheism. They may be different 'isms'. The 'socio-cultural aspirations of believers' has never been shown to be logically related to religion. There is a 'jump' to 'religious diversity' which is rather different (plurality: every religion believes in its god). The significance of the latter is much less than the former in view of its abstraction. Religious plurality does not engender 'tolerance' in the west because it is always a battlefield; it is not 'intolerance' of other non-western religion but it the fear of the capacity for terrorism. There is no 'indirect retention' but the dominance of secularism is legally secured even against the ruling elite. There is no paradox and it is even possible to grant the policy of 'affirmation' on the scientific basis (Rawls). The 'conceptual modulation' may not be equated in the east and west so as to give a ring for ideology. To be secular is not to be irreligious; it is only a demand to bring it on par with scientific rationality so much so that the economic man can be served. We can ignore the hybrids like Christian secularism because they are not to be validated by existing view of scientific reason. I think you have to relate your views to others to make people to take you seriously. -------------
j) Regarding your classification: Against 1, there is no 'mutual separation' as they do not mutually agree to separate. The separation comes because of failure of reaching the standards of science; science abandons religion because it is not up to the expectation of reason. On 3: we have no idea of what will be the impact of religion or non-religion on the socio-cultural forms of life. Who wins we do not know. On 4: both 'isms' are different. Atheism questions the belief in the existence of god whereas secularism tries to analyze belief in terms of science. An atheist may use science or he may not; he may even be a skeptic about science. A secularist is not skeptical but tries to use science to understand the cost of disbelief. On 5: it is not 'irreligious indifference' but the way science differentiates between the two domains: the domain of science which can test your beliefs and the domain of religion which cannot. On 6: secular religion is humbug; it is religion in the disguise of secularism (science). Is there a form of religion which can meet the standards of science? If so, we include religion under science. Such distinction is the demand of science and it is not the demand of religion; so they don't mutually disagree. Religion tries to organize it around science (theology). This is still questionable. Can theological arguments acquire the status of science? They can if they prove that religious cognition is as much as scientific cognition. They are not cognitively different. But this is difficult to maintain. We see objects/we see god. You're right in holding that 'theocracy and religious faiths were challenged by science and reason'. Religion has not met the challenge. This does not mean religion can be analyzed by something other than science. For e.g. socio-cultural modulation, as you say. Is it not science? If not then what it is? Here you are tempted to say that it is ideology. Is there a non-scientific way of understanding ideology. Liberal tradition cannot accord freedom of religious faith unless it is also based on freedom of thought or reason. You have freewill because you have reason. Otherwise, the priest can determine your belief. The moment you pause to ask 'is it freedom?' you may not agree that it is. So freedom and determinism are as much opposed as religion and science. The solution is not 'religionise' (ideologise) science, but the other way: scientise religion. Secularism recognises freedom; religion does not. What is the freedom in religion? You are free to believe this or that religion, provided you support it with reason. The classification you have adopted must be fine-grained. ------------------
k) Now consider: I worship Bhagvan; you glorify Allah; he is praying the Jesus. This is not due to 'conflict' between 'I' 'you' and 'he'. Similarly the aborigines pray Nature. There is no 'conflict' among them or with us, but diversity that causes plurality where each one chooses his way of worshipping. This is not: Just because I adulate Krishna, I hate Jesus. Conflicts are due to differences. But each one is looking at the other not as a promoter of his religion. So, there is no conflict between: My religion is great; yours is just below. I am nearer to god than yours. This is a kind of instinct. I claim superiority for my boss. I do not 'dissent' from others so as to lay the foundation for my belief. If it were thought to be so, then it might have been reasonable. Dissent is the voice of reason. Not even 'from within': then also there is enough reason to dissent. Religious movements are not driven by spiritual dissent. Satya Sai and Ananda Mayi are not conflict; nor do they dissent. They are one but still different. Plurality is not caused by reason, but by 'unreason'. Your way of looking at religion differs from mine. Which is more reasonable? The best way to find out is through evidence. The 'socio-cultural' forms do not dissent from one another. Each is a form of life. This is not the result of reason. We play different religious games. Science does not start with opposition to religion. Otherwise it will remain only as an opposition. It is positive. It finds that reason as it is practiced within science cannot explain religion. Your guess that in such circumstances secularism is born is not to the point. Secularism is the outcome of scientific reason. If religious belief is not reasonable, then allowing it to determine the way of men will harm the society. It was not born of an ideology. Science is not blind faith. Nor is it a false consciousness. It is not superstition. Science is capable of destroying superstition because it demands evidence. This is not available to the non-western cultures because science has not taken deep roots. The statement that 'Religion benefits society by and large' is to be proved by evolution. We adopt ourselves to certain religion because it socially benefits us. This requires proof. Do we all believe that Hinduism benefits us in the long rum because it is the most reasonable type in the long run? So the connection between socio-cultural and belief is tenuous. You have to study whether the Indian idea of secularism is beneficial by defining it not in terms of socio-cultural modulation but in terms of reason. It may be beneficial but not as reasonable as science. You must review the literature on these questions. it is this shortcoming that creates difficulty of articulation. That does not matter. Ideas will change.------------
l) You hesitate to agree that secularism is a disguised form of theologiocracy (or simply, theocracy, shedding the semblance of logic or formality since there is no such formal understanding between secularism and religion). Secularism is not logical but scientific in the accepted sense. The above statement is to be modified to read according to your suggestion. It is 'harsh' but you are willing to modify it saying that democracy is continuous with theocracy. You accept this moderated harshness. So you will agree what liberalism suggests namely that you have freedom of expression and no god determines your course. So democracy in this sense is not to be erected on religion. The constitution must declare that religion has to be separated from state. Perhaps your case applies to non-western democracies. The two senses of democracy cannot be conflated. Thus there is again agreement of non-western democracies which cannot eradicate religion. There is a formality of arrangement here. But it is strongly opposed in the west. You can make them declare that US is a Christian democracy. How far this go down the strain is an open question.
m) Religion is present in the nascent, organized, or other nefarious forms within political institutions. But they cannot determine the socio-cultural forms of society. Any liberal democracy if it is worth will always try to reduce its influence in the day-to-day governance. So the voice of religion will have no prospects of becoming the voice of democracy, unless state declares itself to be theo-centric. In a sense, democracy always opposes theocracy because it cannot be the ultimate ground for determining the economic nature of man. What you call post- theological (post-ecclesiastical) religion has no mediatory role. They cannot compete with each other (Hindus, Muslims and Christians) to determine the ultimate destiny of the nation. Otherwise the nation would be totally under religious governance. It cannot become the via media for liberal state by displaying their religious superiority through competition with other religions. Indian democracy tries to be neutral but religion may become a dominant force just like caste in elections. Beyond that they cannot win over by superiority so as to become a state force. Your ideas need a review. You cannot use Hindu ideas to govern the state by allowing them to be a dominant post-theological religion. Your idea of religion (R) is that it enters into competition with other religions and wins over and becomes a dominant voice in the state. The democracy thus results is a Hinduised democracy, but not in the ecclesiastical way, but it is capable of determining the social forms. It might as well be a dream to introduce a religion. Keep thinking about this even while keeping pace with so many others who reflect on these issues
n) Your idea of theologiocracy is not a functional hybrid. It is not a hybrid since it models theocracy on democracy. There is no warrant to model it only in this way. If religion is singular then it becomes theologiocracy. It is pluralistic with no competition. Not all religions can influence and so it is necessary to avoid any form of religion under liberal democracy. Liberal democracy keeps them all under control because they preach only dogmas. We can control their influence by purely administrative measures. Moreover, the way they influence socio-cultural events can be done in a better way by other groups. One need not be a liberal theologian to do service. Even without this, we can feel sympathy with the poor. There is no guarantee that the non-theological religion will minimize competitive urge but it may turn out to be maximal since it is the only true religion that shapes the socio-cultural events. Why should you think that One should be liberation theologian first and welfarist second? On the other hand, you must reflect how the state can shape these events without allowing the religious facades to exercise their power. The classification is insignificant as 'you are created by god' and 'god determines the affairs of men' through liberal theology are not acquiring significance. Even by totally rejecting these facades, one can uplift man to higher echelons of society. God is not a benefactor even in the informal sense. Man is the measure. The prospects of tidying the classification look dim. Test it with living examples.
o) First, the state cannot enact laws on behalf of religion so as to become an 'instrument for the realization of divine will'. Personal Law is not such an instrument but only to 'regulate' the institution of marriage but it leaves the question of the status of law under the constitution that is supposed to be secular undecided: people oppose it by asking for common law. Second, religions do not 'spread their competitive tentacles' as you say in matters of personal law: each one wants a law for their society sanctioned by religion. At the most, they differentiate and not compete with each other because they want to preserve the status of religion to the extent that they don't want the state to change the law sanctioned by religion. They quote holy books in support (Hadith/Shariat). But state can interfere through other legal means so as to exercise control over the protection of a human being (Shah Bano's Case). All these things are quite opposed to secularism which does not allow them to interfere into the affairs of state. But they do so as to protect an individual which is not opposed by other provisions of law. There is an apparent conflict but the way conflict is to be resolved is not through 'pressure groups' but by law. They have no bargaining point in terms of religion but govt. yields to the legal provision of protecting the individual to which religionists have no objection (even if it goes against the sanction of religion). Thus the question is too complex when you use 'secular' means (legal) to secure the protection of an individual without being able to show that they are foisting religion to act as the arbiter. Here theology has no role but only legality has rules. State is obliged to follow rules without the façade of theology.
Thirdly, secularism denies the role of religion and democracy must follow suit, and it is never that both regard the 'intermingling of religion and the worldly-life' as a 'stigma', unless the state bows down to religious wishes, in which case the state needs corrective. Lastly, for religions, sacred and the world appears to pose no problem, but for science it is a problem since sacredness cannot solve the human problems by allowing the divine will to interfere. So, the way the see the relation is totally different. The quest for scientific rationality starts with this world and ends up with this world, and it cannot extend beyond what you experience as empirically real. God is not empirically real and hence any conception of religion which includes this cannot be allowed to operate for the purposes of human affairs. The sacred is related to the world only so long as it determines the affairs of the world. The problem between the sacredness and the world cannot be tackled by modifying the conception of religion so as to relate to the world. God bears no relation to the world: this is secularism. I hope I have clarified some points. You pursue a question in which 'god is good', so the 'world is good' and hence the former is to be preserved somehow in relation to the world, nature, and the state. To prove this you have to show that you have a conception of religion which benefits worldly things. Such a conception must need to prove that there is a specific relation between 'god is good' and the 'world is good'. No such specific relation would be forthcoming. You cannot say god is in his heavens, and all is well with the world. Alternatively you can argue 'science is good' and so 'science is good for the world’. State must stay with science and not with religion, and democracy can do good to religion by keeping them off the hook. --------------
5. Dr. T. S. Girish Kumar:

I make a distinction between Philosophy in the west, and Philosophy in India, not for students, but for people at this stage. They both have distinct logic, which one ought not to collapse.

A theology that might claim that his is the only right is not entitled to conceive secularism, a concept which is essentially western. Now conceive the corollaries.

For a tradition which is based on "Ano Bhadra, Krtavo Yantu Vishvatha", (Rg Veda) this concept of secularism becomes tautological and trivial.

If it is history, then one must also see the history of Harappan civilisation, which was spread over 88,000 Sq Kms, as modern study claims. Say, some thing like 3700 excavation sites, 60% in the state of Gujarat alone. Studies also establish continuity between Harappan/Saraswati civilisation to the Gangetic civilisation beyond doubt. We ought to start with the religion of Saraswati culture, to take a different route from what had been discussed popularly.
6. A. S. Haridas:
Secularism as a social thinking aroused in Europe along with scientific growth in 18th century as described in the article. Even though the secular thinking could not find solutions to people’s sufferings, it stood as the theory of modernism. In a way it was taking human future in its own hands and supernatural forces were displaced. Just like doing work to produce wealth, organizing the society according to human wishes made possible by secular approach against idealist definitions of human existence and its social progress. Almost all the materialist sufferings and pains of those who were ‘ruled’ gained attention in social communication.
This shift in paradigm was a clear signal of advanced social science that addresses materialist living. And secularism holds a meaning only unto that much. It’s not the last ideology too.
In the history of the growth of various social sciences, secularism stands for a limited period. That is not a weapon to fight religionist politics but only the face of social culture, where science and technology progress. A sincere social thinker cannot stay along with secularism because, it does not have any scope for defining human existence, solving social inequality within human society as a whole and problems raised due to class distinction.
And what is seen in the draft paper is an academician’s crisis in sorting out the real social problems. It is not the existence of religion alone what creates inequality among people. What is to be fought against is not religion but commercialization of culture, as seen in the present form. A ‘pure’ secularist cannot define the crisis in politics and find solution…You might have come to the conclusion of “ theologiocracy” after looking the present Indian politics in the present shape. And according to me, you are actually concerned with it, because of the bad shape it fallen to ... Of course, I also agree with the same concern over it, as what was expected do not ripe. Why it did not transformed? I am now saying about the Indian political scene. Even though the real secular forces could not make the impact over the mainstream political movement, it was present here some two decades ago, I suggest. The shape of the whole play was the outcome of the larger international political background, which characterized by the non-existence of socialism. The comparative calm social set up that prevailed during the childhood and growing period of our generation is now not living and we are now in the middle of a desert.
This desert of ideology has already misdirected the leadership of Indian working class movement and its political front. This is characterized by the dilemma it fallen to, lastly, in forming a better political platform where the secular forces could have united. Instead of it, the leadership is in the dark and finding it difficult to make a clear stand in the middle of theological foreplay which you have wisely explained, and that even questioning the existence of secularism. Instead of strengthening a secular movement, the working class political party and their allies are creating a new culture where careerism plays the major role.
This is a signal of their hesitation to accept modern ideology as a scientific principle, that capable enough to ideologically as well as practically fight religious politics, by which the clarity and worth of it will be explaining.

No comments:

Post a Comment