The Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

The Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life

3.64 of 5 stars 3.64 · rating details · 42 ratings · 8 reviews

From Washington to the Vatican to Tehran, religion is a public matter as never before, and secular values — individual autonomy, pluralism, separation of religion and state, and freedom of conscience — are attacked on all sides and defended by few. The godly claim a monopoly on the language of morality, while secular liberals stand accused of standing for nothing.

Secular l...more

Hardcover, 269 pages

Published March 1st 2008 by Prometheus Books

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

More…

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Add this book to your favorite list »

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 149)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Oct 30, 2009 Bruce rated it 4 of 5 stars

Dacey opens his introduction with the poem, “Incantation,” by Czeslaw Milosz. And then he states, referring to the self-censorship of the media regarding comments about religions, “Freedom of thought means nothing unless it implies the right to blaspheme, for blasphemy is a victimless crime.” Dacey argues for secular liberalism, which he criticizes for having abdicated its public voice, and he champions freedom of conscience over religious law. Above all, he calls for public dialogue and reasone...more Dacey opens his introduction with the poem, “Incantation,” by Czeslaw Milosz. And then he states, referring to the self-censorship of the media regarding comments about religions, “Freedom of thought means nothing unless it implies the right to blaspheme, for blasphemy is a victimless crime.” Dacey argues for secular liberalism, which he criticizes for having abdicated its public voice, and he champions freedom of conscience over religious law. Above all, he calls for public dialogue and reasoned argument about religious issues, particularly when religious perspectives violate fundamental human rights and reason.

In his first chapter, “How Secularism Lost Its Soul,” Dacey argues that secularists have succumbed to two fallacies, the Privacy Fallacy and the Liberty Fallacy, the first suggesting that since conscience is personal, it should not be discussed in public, and the second suggesting that there are no objective standards of right and truth. He skillfully traces the intellectual history of these ideas, bringing us up to date on how they function in today’s society.

In the second chapter, “Why Belief Belongs in Public Life,” he argues that “all claims of conscience are open to examination and discussion by the public…This is not only a matter of simple intellectual clarity and honesty. It is also the only way to do justice to the significance of conscience and its proper place in the public discourse of a pluralistic society.”

Dacey opens his third chapter, a discussion of Spinoza’ and theocracy, with a quotation from Montesquieu, “We suffer constantly from a certain desire to make other people share our views; it is part of our calling, so to speak.” A pity, isn’t it? Dacey then affirms, “Belief answers only to evidence and not to command.” Secularists live “at the level of conscience.” Secularism is based not on freedom of religion but on freedom of conscience.

Discussing the fallacy of scriptural literalism, and even the illusion of canonical purity, Dacey again argues that all religious “truths” are open to public discussion and debate. “Faith as trust is not an alternative to reason but an instance of it.” Beliefs must be based on reason, from which conscience is formed. Dacey also argues persuasively against the argument that science and religion address completely different realms and thus have nothing to say to each other, presenting an argument that instead they are intimately related, in fact inseparable, and thus cannot avoid being in dialogue.

He includes a chapter evaluating the findings and theories regarding an evolutionary aspect of ethical behavior, including both the validity and insufficiency of this contribution to behavior. He also presents evidence of a universal moral grammar that “demonstrates how ethics can and should be empirically grounded without being evolutionary or strictly scientific.” Indeed, he argues for the ontological as well as historical priority of secular ethics over religious ethics. Further, he discusses how there are not, cannot be, and need not be moral absolutes for humankind to develop an ethics that is a general consensus, always susceptible to exceptions based on reason and particular circumstances, which is what Dacey argues that we do, anyway.

Building on the early work of Adam Smith, Dacey asserts that conscience and the moral point of view can be derived from the perspective of the “impartial spectator,” the spectator with maximal knowledge of circumstances and consequences and aiming at the optimal benefit for all concerned. He continues by arguing that the approach to ethics that most nearly approximates this position is consequentialism, the “radically simple notion that the morality of our actions is determined solely by their consequences, by how much good they bring.” “If objective well-being is a value, consequentialism offers the natural response to that value: promoting it impartially. In evaluating our actions in light of the objective interests of all affected, we adopt the moral point of view. By thinking through the best practical strategies for promoting well-being, we develop a complex system of rules, virtues, and decision procedures, some of which promote well-being only indirectly. In this way, conscience plus time equals ethics. Operating in individual experience and over human history, conscience leads to the discovery of reliable practices of ethical conduct.”

Nearing the end of his book, Dacey advocates for Enlightenment values, a “community of conscience,” that “recognizes no authority save the authority of our common reason, no obedience but to the individual human conscience…The world that jihad seeks to undo is not Christendom as such; it is secular modernity - the world built of critical reason, science, and humanistic values.” In his final chapter, “The Future of Openness,” he advocates an “open source ethics,” akin to open source information technology, stating that “The network of open source ethics is a public, collaborative, and critical enterprise that builds up a storehouse of shareable answers to challenges faced by a community. The sound of conscience is the clamor of conversation, not the eerie whisper of revelation.” “If secular liberalism is to continue to stand for reason and freedom, the separation of religion and state, personal autonomy, equality, toleration, and self-criticism, secular liberals must stand up for these values in public debate. This means returning conscience to its proper place at the heart of secular liberalism.”

Dacey has written a challenging, thoughtful, and provocative book that deserves reading and consideration, his arguments no doubt eliciting feedback from many different perspectives - which is all that he would ask.
(less)

3 likes · like · see review

Jan 07, 2009 Brendan rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction, 2009, philosophy-religion, politics

This book is pretty heavy in its philosophy for a general readership, but worth the slog. Dacey argues that the problem with modern secular liberalism stems from what he calls the Liberty Fallacy: that because matters of conscience are matters of individual Liberty, they’re also not open to question or criticism. This fallacy results in ethical waffling and a reluctance to criticize ideas from other cultures.

By contrast, Dacey argues that religious belief is private, but conscience must be open...more This book is pretty heavy in its philosophy for a general readership, but worth the slog. Dacey argues that the problem with modern secular liberalism stems from what he calls the Liberty Fallacy: that because matters of conscience are matters of individual Liberty, they’re also not open to question or criticism. This fallacy results in ethical waffling and a reluctance to criticize ideas from other cultures.

By contrast, Dacey argues that religious belief is private, but conscience must be open and up to debate. He weaves a long and interesting discussion of the issue, exploring the way that open societies have fostered respect for human beings and a separation of church and state, and that closed societies often violate those two elements. He also suggests that regardless of personal reasons, public debate ought to function from a consequentialist perspective, namely that discussions about ethics and morals should focus on the human impact of those decisions. He argues for an ethics of the golden rule.

Two interesting things emerge at the end of the book.The second to last chapter is a warning call to Europe, particularly, about fundamentalist Islam. Dacey argues that in refusing to debate conscience decisions made due to religious reasons, secular liberals are giving away their culture. He suggests that fundamentalist religious countries are railing against secularism, and Europe doesn’t get it.

The secular, open society has met its antithesis. It comes in many forms: Salafist jihad, clerical totalitarianism, the rule of sharia law. What unites them is the willing sacrifice of freedom and human rights before a sacred order and their dependence on Islam for their existence. And yet there are millions of secular liberal Muslims, and potential alternative interpretations of the faith abound. One would think that secular liberals would be at the center of this struggle. Instead, reluctant to “impose” their values on others, fearful of the taint of American imperialism, most are submerged into silence. The result? Public discussion of Islam tends to veer between chauvinistic denunciations by conservative Christians … and useless overgeneralizations by politicians. Words are liberals’ first weapon of choice. Unfortunately, they now find themselves facing something they’ve sworn they not to talk about–religion. If it is to rise to the historical moment and engage with both faces of Islam, secular liberalism needs a new self-understanding. (185)

And then, in Chapter 11, he cites Open Source as a key model for modern knowledge generation. Ha!

The traditional model of conscience is a mirror of revelation. Not a voice from an angel in a cave or a burning bush, but a revelation from within, a “still, small voice.” But from where? In the picture of conscience developed in this book, the model is not a revelation but a network. The network of open source ethics is a public, collaborative and critical enterprise that builds up a storehouse of shareable answers to challenges faced by a community. The sound of conscience is the clamor of conversation, not the eerie whisper of revelation.(202)

And finally:

If secular liberalism is to continue to stand for reason and freedom, the separation of religion and state, personal autonomy, equality, toleration, and self-criticism, secular liberals must stand up for these values in public debate. This means returning conscience to its proper place at the heart of secular liberalism. Matters of conscience–including religion and values–are open. Like the sciences and open source methods, they are fit subjects of public discussion, they are guided by shared, objective, evaluative standards, and they are revisable in light of future experience. The point of open, secular society is not to privatize or bracket questions of conscience, but to pursue them in conversation with others. Like a free press, conscience is freed from coercion so that it may perform a vital public function: reasoning together about questions of meaning, identity, and value. (209-210).

I give this four out of five stars because it's pretty dense, and might be a slog for the casual reader.(less)

1 like · like · see review

Oct 04, 2009 Megan rated it 3 of 5 stars

I'm giving this book a 3 as an average score; some parts are pretty good and worth reading (ex, the chapter "original virtue"), and others are not.

1 like · like · see review

Apr 15, 2009 Joshua Nomen-Mutatio marked it as to-read

Shelves: cultural-and-or-political, ethics-and-or-metaethics, philosophy, religion, history

I like this guy. I was listening to this interview with him:

The Soul of Secularism with Austin Dacey

like · see review

Feb 24, 2010 Tina rated it 5 of 5 stars

Please keep writing Mr. Dacey. This was a must read for me and picqued my interest in the intersection of religion and politics.

like · see review

Jun 18, 2008 Carrie rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: philosophy

As a society, we need to debate issues of conscience and morality. Dacey's subtitle, Why Belief Belongs in Public Life, suggests that everyone's opinions (both believers and nonbelievers) should be heard in the public square. However, everyone's beliefs and values should also be debated vigorously in the public square. You can to bring your religious values to the debate, but be prepared to defend them according to the usual standards: "honesty, rationality, consistency, evidence, feasibility, l...more

like · see review

Oct 21, 2009 Kyle rated it 2 of 5 stars

A great thesis but poorly written.

like · see review

Aug 21, 2008 Mitch rated it 2 of 5 stars

I appreciate that Darcy is neither a dogmatic naturalist nor a credulous mystic.

like · see review

May 17, 2013 Neil Cotter added it

May 01, 2013 Srivatsan marked it as to-read

Shelves: atheism

Apr 23, 2013 Morgen marked it as to-read

Apr 19, 2013 Alexa Burks marked it as to-read

Shelves: non-fiction

Apr 07, 2013 David Tapper marked it as to-read

Apr 04, 2013 Chad Sheffield is currently reading it

Apr 04, 2013 Nadia marked it as to-read

Mar 31, 2013 Mike Heyd marked it as to-read

Mar 28, 2013 Ro_runner marked it as to-read

Mar 16, 2013 Gert de Cooman rated it 4 of 5 stars

Mar 15, 2013 Mickslibrarian marked it as to-read

Feb 27, 2013 Francesco is currently reading it

Feb 21, 2013 Michelle marked it as to-read

Feb 03, 2013 Seven marked it as to-read

Jan 18, 2013 Douglas marked it as to-read

Jan 13, 2013 Jesse Christopherson marked it as to-read

Shelves: book-project

Jan 06, 2013 Sahaana marked it as to-read

Dec 29, 2012 Laura marked it as to-read

Shelves: at-parents-house

Dec 09, 2012 Lauren Digrazio marked it as to-read

Dec 02, 2012 Kyle Warner marked it as to-read

Nov 23, 2012 Rachmuna marked it as to-read

Nov 17, 2012 Danny Klopovic added it

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend it | Stats | Recent status updates

combine
Other Editions (2)

Genres

Philosophy

8 users

Politics

7 users

Non Fiction

5 users

Religion

5 users

Religion > Atheism

3 users

See top shelves...

About Austin Dacey

"Austin Dacey is a philosopher who writes on the intersection of science, religion, and ethics.
He serves as a respresentative to the United Nations for the Center for Inquiry, a think tank concerned with the secular, scientific outlook. He is also on the editorial staff of Skeptical Inquirer and Free Inquiry magazines. His writings have appeared in numerous publications including the New York Time...more

More about Austin Dacey...

Books by Austin Dacey

The Future of Blasphemy: Speaking of the Sacred in an Age of Human Rights

Future of Blasphemy: Speaking of the Sacred in an Age of Human Rights

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About The Secular Consc...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

title link	preview: The Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life
avg rating	preview: The Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life Goodreads rating: 3.64 (42 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2577286-the-secular-conscience?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1348444506l/2577286.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2577286-the-secular-conscience?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]The Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life by Austin Dacey[/url]

The Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topicDiscuss This Book

combineOther Editions (2)

Genres

About Austin Dacey

Books by Austin Dacey

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About The Secular Consc...

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (2)