The Limits of Secularism

January/February 2012

Ten years later, he published a book called American Grace, in which he documents his discovery that social capital is alive and well in America, in one place more than any other: in houses of worship. From four years of research, Putnam discovered that if you are a regular church or synagogue attendee, you are more likely to give money to charity than if you're not a regular, regardless of whether the charity is religious or secular. You are also more likely to do voluntary work for a charity, give money to a homeless person, give excess change back to a shop assistant, donate blood, help a neighbour with their shopping, help someone with their housework, spend time with someone who is depressed, allow another driver to cut in front of you, offer a seat to a stranger or help someone find a job. There is no good deed among all of those on the survey that is more practised by secular Americans than by their religious counterparts.

It goes further than this: frequent worshippers are also more active citizens — they are more likely to belong to community organisations, especially those concerned with young people, or health or arts or leisure. They are more likely to join neighbourhood or civic groups, professional and fraternal associations. Within these groups they are more likely to be officers or committee members. They take a more active part in local civic life, from local elections to town meetings to demonstrations. They are disproportionately represented among local activists for social and political reform. They turn up, they get involved, they lead. And the margin of difference between them and secular Americans is large.

Religiosity turns out to be the best indicator of civic involvement: it's more accurate than education, age, income, gender or race. Incidentally, religious regular synagogue or church goers are more likely to report themselves as being happier and they also live longer. Putnam's book demonstrates that not only has religion not died, but that it is a fundamental and primary source of community and altruism. Furthermore, Putnam says that research in Britain — which is not yet published — confirms the same thing.

More recently, the Scottish historian Niall Ferguson says something remarkable towards the end of his book Civilisation: The West and the Rest. He recounts how the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences was tasked with the question of finding out how the West overtook China. Until about 1500, China was in advance of the West in virtually every aspect of technology: printing, ceramics, weaving, water-mills, and so on. But in the 1500s the West overtook China and stayed in advance of China until recently. So the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences was told to find out what it was about the West that gave it its unique advantage, and the Chinese scholars undertaking this investigation reported as follows:

At first we thought it was your guns, you had better and bigger guns than we had. Then we did some more study and we discovered no, it was your political system, it was democracy that gave you the better guns. Then we did a bit more research and we realised that it was your market, your economic system that gave you democracy that gave you the better guns. Except for the last 20 years we have realised it was your religion.

Tags:

Like this article? Share, save or print using the icons below:

Nina

May 18th, 2012
3:05 AM

How about you finish that Nietzsche quote- "But what if this should become more and more incredible, if nothing should prove to be divine any more unless it were error, blindness, the lie—if God himself should prove to be our most enduring lie?" I wonder why you didn't finish it...

R.A.Landbeck

April 4th, 2012
4:04 PM

"A society without faith is like one without art, music, beauty or grace, and no society without faith can endure for long." Considering the collection of unresolved conundrums and threats facing the modern world and near future, many linked directly to religion itself, it would appear that faith and fate are much too closely related to be of any consequence that would honor the very idea of God!

Step Left

February 25th, 2012
7:02 PM

Er, whose decision was it to award this piece the title 'the limits of secularlism'? Because, its entirely inappropriate.

ctaya

January 25th, 2012
2:01 PM

People like to quote "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" to prove that he was a believer. But that was taken out of context. His meaning can be understood by reading the surrounding text of that quotation. The whole paragraph is: "Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." So what he said is that the scientists must hold a belief and faith that the regulations valid of the natural world are rational. Therefore, the natural world is knowable bit by bit through reasoning of the comprehensible world. Can such faith be proven? There have been much debate in philosophy and science about the comprehensibility of the real world. But without such a faith, the scientists would be at a lost and can hardy advance. In this sense, science without the passion and the faith like the one found in a religious world is lame. Does Einstein believe in a personal God/gods? See what he had said. "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." "During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution, human fantasy created gods in man's own image who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate influence, the phenomenal world." "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." Many leading scientists hold similar view. "I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him.” If Einstein had a god(gods), it would well be the Mother Nature and surely not a personal god.

Richard Wade

January 16th, 2012
5:01 AM

"Religion survives because it answers three questions that every reflective person must ask. Who am I? Why am I here? How then shall I live?" DEEPLY reflective people are not satisfied with the simplistic, children's story-level answers that religion offers to those questions. There are many people who ask those questions shallowly, and they are easily made content by appealing to their desire to remain children. Adults are not interested in store-bought meaning. Adults are willing to do the hard work, and willing to take full responsibility for making their own decisions about what their life will be about, and creating their own meaning. They might or might not fully achieve what they choose to do, but adults do not give credit or blame to an outside authority. They own it. The main reason that religion persists is THE POWER OF CHILDHOOD INDOCTRINATION. The earlier an idea goes into a child's mind, the harder it is for him or her to ever extract it. Religion creates a self-perpetuating child-like mind that, like Peter Pan, protects itself from growing up, and will always prefer shallow answers to deep questions. If people were introduced to religion only when they were old enough to have a gatekeeper in their minds, when they could reason out and consciously make choices about what is being proposed, then far, far fewer people would accept those propositions, and religion would gradually go extinct.

January 9th, 2012
5:01 PM

"I couldn't wade this all this verbiage." I.E., I know what I know and won't be bothered with contrary opinions. It is distressing but not at all surprising to see so many who defend science simultaneously attack different viewpoints as heresy.

Anonymous

January 9th, 2012
11:01 AM

I couldn't wade this all this verbiage. Did the good Rabbi mention another reason that religion hasn't died out: that it's an extremely useful tool for governments to control the populace? If religion is the opiate of the masses, kings, emperors and American Republicans are happy to peddle it.

Julian

January 9th, 2012
11:01 AM

Exactly. Religion provides the small-scale tribal identity which humans have evolved to desire, and which the modern State with its insistence on Nationalism is directly hostile to.

thegoodONE

January 4th, 2012
1:01 AM

The Rabbi makes a whole lot of weak arguments and analogies here. Those quotes from Freud, Einstein and Wittgenstein do not have any weight except to say they define religion as a quest for the meaning of life. It says nothing about their particular beliefs. I also doubt they have faith in archaic religious institutions; or that they think religion should not be piable to be advanced by personal insight, philosophy and science. As for Nietzsche... well if you think he is an atheist, I think you're missing the point. He was so deeply religious that he saw the Church as a corruption of the wonderment of life.

January 3rd, 2012
4:01 PM

"Religion." Such a long history of so many religions with such a variety of beliefs and practices, it seems a bit rough to write about "religion" in relation to an equally complex category, "science," as if they were were simple.

Post your comment

More Text