Religion in America — May 11, 2010 5:49 pm

Is Godless Great?

By

A New Heyday for American Secularism

On April 10, 2009, the Harvard Secular Society took over Harvard’s Memorial Church to present Joss Whedon, the TV producer and director, with the Outstanding Lifetime Achievement Award in Cultural Humanism. Whedon began his acceptance speech by reminding his audience of “nonbelievers” that President Obama had given them “a shout-out during the Inauguration.” He insisted that “the important thing is not that we’re right … [but] where do we go from here?”

According to Barry Kosmin, principal researcher of the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey, a “rising tide of secularity” is sweeping through the nation. The proportion of religiously unaffiliated Americans has reached 15 percent, and will likely continue to rise since the unaffiliated are disproportionately young. Secularism faces challenges ahead, including the continued hostility of religious leaders and a lack of internal cohesion, but the movement will continue to grow in influence in this religiously diverse country.

The Secular Mindset

It is important to clear up just what we mean when we talk about secularism. Secularism is different from atheism, agnosticism, or pure religious indifference. Harvard psychology professor Steven Pinker defined secularism as “the attempt to separate religion from political life.” This, Pinker said, entails “political movements” that seek to counter the dangerous decisions made by politicians “out of a faith that … [they are] doing God’s work.”

Some nonbelievers say that that’s not enough, though. Greg Epstein, Harvard’s Humanist Chaplain, said that humanism is far more than “the need for a separation of church and state.”  He sees humanism as “a movement,” or as “a way of life that millions of people adhere to,” and believes that humanists need to create their own community predicated on the notion that people can be “good without God,” which is the title of Epstein’s recent book. It is clear that secularism depends on a positive set of beliefs, rather than mere rejection of religion.

Secularism’s Social Legacy

Pinker claimed that secularism’s greatest achievement is simply “democracy,” which he described as “a form of government that was reasoned from first principles, most famously in the Declaration of Independence, with no support from theological principles.” More humbly, Epstein maintained that the secularist movement has served America by pushing a “forward-thinking set of social policies,” on “evolution [in the school curriculum], on stem cell research, on a woman’s right to choose … where we use science and technology for human good.”

Pinker echoed Epstein’s concerns about the failure to teach evolution in all US classrooms, claiming that one aspect of secularism’s “main pragmatic work … consists in combating attempts to force superstition and misinformation in school curricula.”

Attempts to integrate religious principles into public education have recently received national attention in such spectacles as the Dover, PA, “Intelligent Design trial” and the Texas Board of Education’s March 12 vote to approve a social studies curriculum “stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.” In opposition to such initiatives by the religious right, Whedon said in his acceptance speech that “education, education, education,” is the highest priority for which secularists can strive today. Whedon argued not that every educated person will become “secular, or humanist, or a nonbeliever,” but that education “does mean, however, that more people will stop lining up like lemmings.”

Religion Strikes Back

Despite its many achievements, particularly in the last half-century, secularism remains a controversial subject in the American public sphere. Hunter Baker, a professor at Houston Baptist University and the author of The End of Secularism, told the HPR that secularists’ goal of removing religion from the arena of political decision-making is problematic. Baker said that “individuals bring their religious beliefs to the public square because they have integrity.” Baker argued that, since the great majority of Americans are still Christians, it is inevitable, and even desirable, that politicians will “want to provide their real basis for a stand they take, rather than formulate a false one that meets some secular language requirement.”

Baker further claimed that “having a [religious] counter to the government can be freedom-enhancing and protect against the development of totalitarianism.” Likewise, Herb London, president of the Hudson Institute, told the HPR that religion operates “as a check and balance to the power of the state” and “provides the kind of moral and ethical standards that you’d like to see.” “If you’re starting de novo,” London insisted, “where does your morality come from?”

But secularists counter that many “European nations are now majority atheist,” yet do not appear to have sunk into immorality and despair, as Pinker pointed out. Whedon agreed, arguing that “the best in us will still exist, even if we break down the systems that so many of us fight so hard to preserve.”

Semper Fidelis?

Although secularism seems poised to withstand religious challenges, the movement faces  problems of its own. In particular, secularist thinkers differ as to whether secular humanism will ever truly be able to supply the sense of community that organized religion can provide. During a joint speaking event with her husband Pinker at Harvard Hillel, the philosopher and novelist Rebecca Goldstein agreed that access to a community is a “great [human] need … that needs to be addressed” in order for secularism to flourish. But as to secularism’s ability to provide it, Goldstein could only say, “I don’t know.”

Epstein is more optimistic. He said that “the challenge is not … [to] get millions of educated Westerners to act like sheep and lemmings,” and that he does not “want members of the humanist movement to devote every fiber of their being” to their secularism. Epstein envisions communities of people who share secular ways of thinking, come together “to teach their children about … what it means to be human,” and to celebrate important moments in their lives.

Thus, secularism in America will remain a controversial proposition, but it is unquestionably here to stay. The current secularist movement serves to balance the prevalent influence of religion in American life, particularly in the classroom. Moreover, secularism fits with America’s longstanding tradition of religious innovation and pluralism. As Kosmin remarked that “we’re in a world of boutiques … we’ve left the world of department stores.” Thanks to the efforts of Epstein and his colleagues, secular America has set up shop for all.

Sarah Harland-Logan ’10 is a Contributing Writer.

Related posts:

The Massachusetts Senate Democratic Debate Live Blog
The State of Religious Freedom
Lin vs. Zuckerberg: Choosing the Better Model for Harvard Leadership
Remember the Name
  • Pingback: New Online Only Content « The Harvard Political Review

  • Pingback: Harvard Political Review, Secularism, and Me » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog

  • Pingback: Secularism is Super: Harvard Political Review and Me » Evangel | A First Things Blog

  • Pingback: Secularism is Swell: Harvard Political Review and Me « Life, the Universe, and The End of Secularism

  • Pingback: Secularism is Swell: Harvard Political Review and Me « Acton Institute PowerBlog

  • Tom Carty

    ‘Harvard’s humanist chaplain” reminds me of Orwell’s “Ministry of Peace”. What’s next Planned Parenthood’s “Year of the Unborn Celebrations”? Perhaps MacDonald’s will appoint a Senior Chef in charge of maintaining nutritional standards.

  • Pingback: ADF Alliance Alert » Harvard Political Review: “Is Godless Great?”

  • http://kingofgrace.blogspot.com/ Paul Buckley

    Why would secularism not be considered a religious viewpoint? Is not religion a system of beliefs and practices that help explain and order our lives? Is it not a fallacy to divide modern “secularism” from religion? Why aren’t we seeing this glaring lack of logic?

  • Amigo

    What a disappointing article. The opportunity for a truly interesting read turned into a puff piece for the secular worldview.

    Why was an evolutionary psychologist and secular polemicist (Pinker) and his philosopher, fiction writer wife (Goldstein) consulted as the primary sources for a discussion on sociology? There are plenty of atheist sociologists and political theorists who would have gladly volunteered to add an actual expert voice from a secular perspective. I don’t consult artists to discuss science no matter how loudly they espouse their views or how brilliant an artist they are, and neither should an evolutionary psychologist (brilliant as he is) be consulted to discuss something clearly outside of his realm of expertise.

    The article attempts, but ultimately blurs the distinction between secularism as political theory (what Baker/London are talking about) and a secular worldview, which the rest seem to be discussing. Furthermore, in Greg’s discussions, it continued the very recent trend of blurring the lines between naturalism as a philosophy and humanism. There is a long tradition of Christian, Islamic and Secular humanists. The term cannot simply refer to those holding a secular worldview.

    Ultimately, secularism as political theory states that in a society with a multitude of religious ideals (i.e. America), the best way to move forward is to banish those ideals from public discourse. This goes well beyond the separation of church/state that prohibits the establishment of religion.

    The reason secularism has historically failed (and continues to fail in our world today) is that most people are deeply spiritual whether they adhere to a specific religion or not, and this factors into their decisions on public policies. Almost all political actions are inherently theological (or atheological), as Philip Blond, Jacob Staubes and others have so effectively argued. Thus, for secularism, all discourse in the public square must be neutered of its core base before discussion can even begin.

    We must move beyond the naivety of secularism toward a robust pluralism, where everyone has a seat at the table and our deepest ideas are open for discussion. Secularists, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and everyone else must be given equality in the public square (something secularism does not afford, but pluralism does)…only then will true progress occur.

  • Pingback: The Divine Conspiracy Blog » Blog Archive » Secularism

  • Richard Duffy

    It’s clear that Ms. Harland-Logan obtained the numbers for her state-by-state graphic from Table 12 of the American Religious Identification Survey Summary Report, http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf, starting on p.18 there. Careful checking reveals an error and an omission: The percentage of “Nones” for Indiana should be 15%, rather than the 21% shown in the graphic; and there should be an indication of 18% for the District of Columbia.

custom writing