Secularism, Materialism and Pragmatism

[alitaptap]

Secularism must be distinguished from secularization. Secularization is the praiseworthy contribution of modern man which avoids the primitive temptation to explain all mysterious and unknown forces in terms of spirits, gods, or some other supernatural power. Due to secularization, modern man is aware of his mastery over life and of the fact that the future of the world is, in a very real sense, in his hands.

Secularism is something quite different. Secularism is an attitude or philosophy of life which holds that only secular values are real and that all religious values are nothing more than superstition.

Materialism holds not that material things have value, but rather that only material things have value. More money, a bigger car, a nicer home: These are the only values worth living for. Because religious cannot directly add to your material gains, they are a hindrance.

Pragmatism holds that a thing is worthwhile only if it is useful. Since God cannot build a computer or give you a better complexion, he is not real, or at least he is unnecessary.

What are your thoughts?

 

[sinnerdexter]

I can’t help but feel it’s important to ask whether or not you’re confusing and hybridizing the secular philosophical concept of Materialism with the absolutely distinct socio-economic sort of materialism related to economic consumerism… or if you’re JUST talking about the latter, in which case, why are you bringing it up in relation to secularism?

 

[sinnerdexter]

I think that secularism as you define it has to be viewed as a subset of secularization. Once we get out of the habit of explaining incidents of spontaneous combustion by reference to the unpredictable ire of Vulcan, the fire god, then it is a natural generalization of that attitude that we also dismiss an over-arching Deity as the gurantor that all social values and meanings are valid.

The modern, securalist view of the world accepts the difference between values and facts, but also recognizes that both values and facts can be valid, though the former derive their validity from their role in sustaining social morality, while the latter dervice their validity by being empirically testable givens of our everyday experience.

The mistake of the religious view of life, in contrast, is to assume that both facts and values require the same type of support in their correspondence to some thing outside themselves which makes them real. Facts certainly require such support, but values derive their support from the importance of their role in supporting the moral cohesion of society, not in the fact that some thing outside them, like a given Deity, confirms them and makes them real.

It would be absurd to think that we couldn’t believe that murder was wrong, for example, unless we also believed in the superstition that a three-headed cat on Mars with infinite powers who had also created the universe told us it was wrong! The evil of murder is clear from the role that that act plays in the violation of our value system. But the value system doesn’t have to be propped up by a three-headed cat confirming its value, but by the fact that murder involves violating our essential social commitment, required for the existence of a peaceful society in which all can flourish, not to infringe the vital personal autonomy of others for our own interests.