Is over-secularization a possibility? Part Two

Well I can safely say I did not quite come across clearly in Is over-secularization a possibility? Part One - so much so that I have to follow it up and clarify myself.  I'm not going to lie - it's a bit embarrassing, a bit like having to explain a joke after telling it for five minutes, except having a whacky sense of humour is no excuse here.

First off, I am in no way saying that there is no point to reasoning when it comes to ethics.  I have said time and time again just how banal that is.  What I am saying is that some personal opinion must exist, otherwise the reasoning is all for nothing. Reasoning is a map showing the way, but without any personal belief there is nowhere to go.

Secondly, what did/do I mean exactly by over-secularization? We can all agree that secularization is the separation of Church and State.  Now previously I said that it is the shift of legislation from a religious foundation to a logical and scientific one, which perhaps is not strictly true although I believe it must follow from the separation of Church and State the only other option being public opinion which would inevitably lead to legislatures correcting and re-correcting laws due to good arguments led against them, eventually resulting in a logical foundation anyway.  Whatever, it's not that vital, I'll retract that definition and replace with the more popular one.

But why exactly should a country secularize, and have its state separated from its religion?  The anti-theist outcry of "Religion is evil," is uneducated and quite frankly useless. The Nazis didn't think Hitler was evil, and the Church will never be evil to Catholic counties, so this accusation will inevitably fall on deaf ears.  The only reason - or at least the main reason- why a country would secularize is the acceptance that belief is a personal thing which anyone can choose for themselves.  Therefore, not everyone in the country will have the same religion and so the country must secularize to be accepting to all its citizens.

In doing so, the country takes a stance that what is universal to all people should be endorsed in a public space in favour of what is subjective to some - a stance I very much support, as I always have.  So far that is all secularization and it is fine and dandy.

Multiculturalism from a snail's point of view...
(as they slowly torture it with salt)

Here is where over-secularization might come into play - the placing of all universal value over all subjective value.  As I said in Part One, money has a value recognizable to all, so it is given more importance than personal values.  Same with fame and land and fashion and a hundred other things.  A country which takes secularization to this level effectively robs its citizens of individuality.
Now someone trying to show how I am full of bullshit might say that such a thing could never happen due to secularization unless people actually pushed for it.  But how true is that?  A necessary side-effect of secularization is that all beliefs and value-systems exist side by side in a country, forming a mass of sub-cultures.  In itself that is a brilliant thing, but how will value be communicated from one sub-culture to another?  Everyday we are bombarded by the media and new ways to stay connected with one another, not to mention advertisements which exist solely to display something's value.  In such an environment, value will be communicated by referring to something which holds a "universal" value, and that is where the over-secularization begins; just as we separated our laws from our beliefs we separate all aspects of our behaviour.

Is any of this grounds for halting secularization?  Of course not.  Does it mean that no objective ethics can/should exist?  Definitely not, the very thought abhors me!  What it means is that in a world where we are constantly told that science and logic must come before our personal beliefs, we mustn't completely abandon our personal beliefs in favour of things with a more widely accepted value.

So the question remains, where do we draw the line?  I deliberately left the question unanswered previously, and I learnt the hard way that where you don't give your own conclusions, people will make them on your behalf.

So here it is: The line should be drawn where secularization stops helping people get along with others and starts turning people into identical clones.  There is no reason why we can't have objective laws and ethics and not have subjective beliefs and values.  In fact, with no subjective beliefs and values the whole concept of objective laws and ethics becomes completely undermined, for they are there to enrich our lives, and in the absence of individuality we lose any claim of ownership to our own lives.

I hope I was clearer this time round.

Is over-secularization a possibility? Part One

Secularization. We're all familiar with this notion - the idea that society should move from having religious foundations to being purely based on a logical and scientific point of view.  While I am a staunch supporter of the separation of state from any form of religious institution, every point of view should be scrutinized, and secularization is no exception.

We are more commended for keeping this in our
pocket than placing it in someone else's

Of course the benefits of secularization are obvious and very, very important.  The forwarding of medicine and a fairer treatment of people from all walks of life are advantages which nobody should scoff at.  But can it be taken too far?

Hand-in-hand with secularization comes the notion that objective grounds common to all people are to be held on higher grounds than anyone's subjective individual beliefs and while science and legislation are much improved by this approach, too much of this good thing may be venomous.

When do we stop downplaying subjective beliefs?  Religion is of course the main target of secularization but it's not the only thing that's subjective.

The mentality of objective being more valuable than subjective can very easily - and not so accidentally - be extended to value monetary gain and normative behaviour over any value given to kindness, compassion, selflessness, dignity, valour, and really any virtue imaginable.

The natural sciences aren't the only objective things out their.  Finances, norms, laws, economics and business exist too.  Likewise, religion isn't the only subjective belief - so is any virtue.

Indeed, the world already has adopted secularization into these areas.  Immoral business deals are carried out everyday, personal styles are dictated by fashion magazines, success is measured by the size of one's house, car or income and not by how true he or she has stuck to his/her ideals.

It seems like all modern society is caught up in a global dick-measuring contest.  And the only worthwhile contributions to these contests are things with universally understood values.  We talk about successful people - but these successful people are successful by virtue of fame or wealth.

Who's the most commended?  The honest green grocer or underhanded supermarket chain?  The lying politician or sincere activist?  The popular celebrity or the heart-felt musician?

Whilst secularization is so beneficial to the sciences, might it be carried to the point that what we believe in has absolutely no value whatsoever?  That we only cherish what all people want?  How is that any different from the complete and utter death of individuality?

This post was far too serious, so here's a light bulb to make light of the situation.
.....Get it?.....Make light.....like a light bul- .... fuck it.

We must draw the line somewhere.  And to begin deciding where to draw the line we must recognize that secularization is not the be-all and end-all of all social improvement.  Just like any other belief, omitting secularization from our scrutiny will definitely do more harm than good.