What do you think?
Rate this book
The End of Secularism
This ambitious work offers one of the most comprehensive attacks on secularism yet attempted. Hunter Baker argues that advocates of secularism misunderstand the borders between science, religion, and politics and cannot solve the problem of religious difference.
University scholars have spent decades subjecting religion to critical scrutiny. But what would happen if they turned their focus on secularism? Hunter Baker seeks the answer to that question by putting secularism under the microscope and carefully examining its origins, its context, its claims, and the viability of those claims.
The result of Baker's analysis is The End of Secularism. He reveals that secularism fails as an instrument designed to create superior social harmony and political rationality to that which is available with theistic alternatives. Baker also demonstrates that secularism is far from the best or only way to enjoy modernity's fruits of religious liberty, free speech, and democracy. The End of Secularism declares the demise of secularism as a useful social construct and upholds the value of a public square that welcomes all comers, religious and otherwise, into the discussion. The message of The End of Secularism is that the marketplace of ideas depends on open and honest discussion rather than on religious content or the lack thereof.
University scholars have spent decades subjecting religion to critical scrutiny. But what would happen if they turned their focus on secularism? Hunter Baker seeks the answer to that question by putting secularism under the microscope and carefully examining its origins, its context, its claims, and the viability of those claims.
The result of Baker's analysis is The End of Secularism. He reveals that secularism fails as an instrument designed to create superior social harmony and political rationality to that which is available with theistic alternatives. Baker also demonstrates that secularism is far from the best or only way to enjoy modernity's fruits of religious liberty, free speech, and democracy. The End of Secularism declares the demise of secularism as a useful social construct and upholds the value of a public square that welcomes all comers, religious and otherwise, into the discussion. The message of The End of Secularism is that the marketplace of ideas depends on open and honest discussion rather than on religious content or the lack thereof.
224 pages, Paperback
First published August 31, 2009
13 people are currently reading
279 people want to read
About the author
Hunter Baker
15 books50 followersHunter Baker, J.D., Ph.D. is the author of three books on politics and religion and many chapters, articles, and essays. He teaches political science at Union University in Jackson, Tennessee.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
October 10, 2010
I really enjoyed this one. Hunter Baker here dismantles the pretensions of secularism, and carted the pieces away in his pick-up truck. Because the pretensions of secularism are so large, he had to make quite a few trips.
July 1, 2013
Hunter Baker's The End of Secularism provides a good introduction to secularism. His endnotes point to resources of greater depth. Baker notes that secularism is a Western reaction against the idea of a Christian state. After religious pluralism developed in the sixteenth century and the wars of religion followed, philosophers posited that given differing beliefs about God and uncertainty about who God is, religious issues should be excluded from the "education, law, and any other public endeavor" (19). Religion may be pursued privately or with groups of likeminded people, like a hobby. But it should not be brought out into public.
Along with the argument for secularism came the secularization thesis. This thesis proposes that as societies modernize, they secularize. Eventually science will push religion from every sphere of life except, perhaps, the personal, devotional sphere. Peter Berger, once a proponent of the secularization thesis, concluded that, empirically, secularization does not progress with modernization. Whereas the United States was once seen as the exception to the secularization thesis, the secularization of Europe and of the American academy is now seen as the exception to the norm. Baker concludes that far from being inevitable, secularization has succeeded in these limited areas because of the activism of key secularist figures.
Baker argues that not only has the secularization thesis failed empirically, but also the entire premise of secularism (that it provides a neutral space mitigates religious controversy) has failed for three reasons. First and foremost, secularism is not a neutral party but an ideological player in religious debates. When it arrogates to itself the role of deciding who is allowed to speak in public and who is not it harms the democratic process and angers those whose voices are shut out from the discussion. This does not lead to social harmony, but to social dissent. The second, and related reason, is the critique of Stanley Fish that "finding common ground assumes a capacity that has already been denied . . . by the framing of the problem." Thus secularism is simply a power play to exclude some orthodoxies in favor of others. The third failure of secularism is that the problem secularism proposes to solve is not uniquely religious. Baker notes, "One need not be forced to live under Christian or Muslim values to feel severely put upon. Equally negative emotions may arise when socialists, feminists, or ethnic groups find channels for imposing their will" (132). In fact, given the non-neutrality of secularism, a secular hegemon may be just as coercive as a religious one.
Baker is not interested in replacing secularism with erastianism. But he does argue for a world in which every view, whether religious or secular, has the right to make its case in the public square.
Insightful quotation:
"McConnell retells the story of Zarathustra, who brings the news that God is dead. When he encounters a hermit who sings, laughs, weeps, and mumbles so as to praise God, Zarathustra 'leaves the old man to worship in peace.' The hermit has been spared because he lives alone in his self-constructed reality. "If the hermit left the forest and attempted to enter into public discussion and debate, he would be given the news of God's death like everyone else.' The lesson to be drawn from the story, McConnell suggests, is that religious freedom is to be protected, strongly protected—so long as it is irrelevant to the life of the wider community'" (111).
Along with the argument for secularism came the secularization thesis. This thesis proposes that as societies modernize, they secularize. Eventually science will push religion from every sphere of life except, perhaps, the personal, devotional sphere. Peter Berger, once a proponent of the secularization thesis, concluded that, empirically, secularization does not progress with modernization. Whereas the United States was once seen as the exception to the secularization thesis, the secularization of Europe and of the American academy is now seen as the exception to the norm. Baker concludes that far from being inevitable, secularization has succeeded in these limited areas because of the activism of key secularist figures.
Baker argues that not only has the secularization thesis failed empirically, but also the entire premise of secularism (that it provides a neutral space mitigates religious controversy) has failed for three reasons. First and foremost, secularism is not a neutral party but an ideological player in religious debates. When it arrogates to itself the role of deciding who is allowed to speak in public and who is not it harms the democratic process and angers those whose voices are shut out from the discussion. This does not lead to social harmony, but to social dissent. The second, and related reason, is the critique of Stanley Fish that "finding common ground assumes a capacity that has already been denied . . . by the framing of the problem." Thus secularism is simply a power play to exclude some orthodoxies in favor of others. The third failure of secularism is that the problem secularism proposes to solve is not uniquely religious. Baker notes, "One need not be forced to live under Christian or Muslim values to feel severely put upon. Equally negative emotions may arise when socialists, feminists, or ethnic groups find channels for imposing their will" (132). In fact, given the non-neutrality of secularism, a secular hegemon may be just as coercive as a religious one.
Baker is not interested in replacing secularism with erastianism. But he does argue for a world in which every view, whether religious or secular, has the right to make its case in the public square.
Insightful quotation:
"McConnell retells the story of Zarathustra, who brings the news that God is dead. When he encounters a hermit who sings, laughs, weeps, and mumbles so as to praise God, Zarathustra 'leaves the old man to worship in peace.' The hermit has been spared because he lives alone in his self-constructed reality. "If the hermit left the forest and attempted to enter into public discussion and debate, he would be given the news of God's death like everyone else.' The lesson to be drawn from the story, McConnell suggests, is that religious freedom is to be protected, strongly protected—so long as it is irrelevant to the life of the wider community'" (111).
Read
August 15, 2025A sufficient critique of secularism but Baker tries to do too much with too little space. "The End of Secularism" is not so much a critique of secularist logic or ideology but also a history of church and state relations, an examination of science's relation to normative fields, and a defense of religious, postmodern pluralism. All in under 200 pages. And yet the great tragedy of the book is that for such an expansive scope, Baker fails to examine secular jurisprudence with any depth! The main controversies of secularism in the United States over the past half-century-plus have involved court decisions pertaining to school prayer, religious iconography, Bible readings, public funding, etc. While Baker presents a (questionable) reading of the First Amendment as a "jurisdictional" limitation on the federal government pertaining to religious regulation, that all about sums up his legal analysis (and he has a JD no less). The absence of any hard look at how secularist assumptions, presumptions, and positions play out in the workings of state and federal court means that "The End of Secularism" becomes more a book about the need for Christians (a.k.a confessional professors and lawyers in quest of a swanky tenured chair at a top-ranked college) to get there fair share of airtime in political discourse (and by that he means mainstream academia as Christianity has been practically the default (even if assumed) moral framework for social and political debate since the nation's inception) as opposed to a text demonstrating how secularism operates in the hear and now and the adverse effects it has on religious belief and participation (and by extension our democratic republic). If secularism really does not hamper the robust, public (and plural!) practice of religion, but merely functions as a rhetorical ideology employed by certain scholars and activists to belittle believers, the only phenomena might prove to be a sheep in wolf's clothing.
July 11, 2021
There's some definite value in this book so I don't regret reading it. He has some really good material on American history, and on the birth and habits of modern secular thought. However, the book's potential impact is muffled by bad academic habits coupled with bad editorial decision. To note only one, Baker is the worst, inveterate quoter I have ever read. Nearly every paragraph is bristling with quotes driven by an apparent eagerness to "join the larger conversation". Baker will quote scholar A (and probably B too), pose a great follow-up question, and then proceed to quote scholar C in a way that doesn't quite make sense. The overall impact is that reading his prose and following his thought is like driving on a dirt road full of pot holes after a rainstorm. Bring a Jeep. You'll need it.
August 30, 2021
A good overview of Secularism, but I honestly felt a little overwhelmed and lost at times. Baker is highly intelligent and knowledgeable - so a lot of his references definitely went over my head. I would recommend, but perhaps not for anyone.
December 29, 2017
Anyone interested can just believe all the endorsements of the book on the back cover. It delivers in every way. I'd highly recommend it to anyone in America.
November 23, 2010
A really telling critique of Secularism. Baker begins by giving a good run down of church(read: religion, as he concerntrates on the West)-state history, and the dominant lines of political philosophy up until the current day. He then analyses Secularism as a philosophy, and the way it engages in the public sphere in politics, education and science. Finally, Baker places secularism in the cold light of day and shows how it cannot be held up as a consistent way of conducting public affairs.
His basic argument is that when it comes to public life, and political and moral decision making (which are one and the same, really) secularism has none of the neutrality it claims for itself. Having established this, one finds that Secularism has the same trouble with grounding morals and ethics in rationality as any religiously motivated moral claim does. Thus, Baker shows convincingly that Secularism and political action driven by religion are essentially the equal in validity, and both should be allowed to contest the public square.
Baker concludes that it is not up to some elite group to decide who's opinion and moral basis is 'inaccessible' or irrelevant. It is up to the listeners to reject ot accept arguments they hear in the public square. Secularists would have a larger proportion of us engage in "epistemic abstinence". The point is that if some of us are required to do such a thing, then all of us are, including secuarlists, because the rational basis for moral and ethical decisions is equally 'un-grounded' in both cases. Therefore, everyone can and should engage with respect and passion, and "seek to persuade rather than coerce".
His basic argument is that when it comes to public life, and political and moral decision making (which are one and the same, really) secularism has none of the neutrality it claims for itself. Having established this, one finds that Secularism has the same trouble with grounding morals and ethics in rationality as any religiously motivated moral claim does. Thus, Baker shows convincingly that Secularism and political action driven by religion are essentially the equal in validity, and both should be allowed to contest the public square.
Baker concludes that it is not up to some elite group to decide who's opinion and moral basis is 'inaccessible' or irrelevant. It is up to the listeners to reject ot accept arguments they hear in the public square. Secularists would have a larger proportion of us engage in "epistemic abstinence". The point is that if some of us are required to do such a thing, then all of us are, including secuarlists, because the rational basis for moral and ethical decisions is equally 'un-grounded' in both cases. Therefore, everyone can and should engage with respect and passion, and "seek to persuade rather than coerce".
May 31, 2011
Hunter Baker does a good job of surveying the history of church-state relations and how we've moved from a church-state alliance to church-state separation and synthesize some contemporary criticisms of our secular order. He shows secularism became ascendant in America and why, despite claims to the opposite, that it fails to live up to its claims of superiority. Baker contends that secularism evolved from a desire to end religious wars, seek an 'objective' position, and govern from it, not allowing religious claims any exalted authority.
Yet, Baker shows that rather than being objective, secularism is an 'activist' methodology bent on transforming the cultural landscape in essentially a materialistic, progressive direction, and away from the distinctly Christian heritage of the West.
Baker pays special attention to the Establishment Clause in the Constitution and subsequent jurisprudence. He also shows how sociology was employed to demystify religion and secularize education.
Perhaps the most helpful portion of the book is in the second to last paragraph of the book where Baker reframes the church-state relationship away from secularism and toward pluralism. He writes, "What brought religious peace to the West is the same thing that brought religious war: pluralism. Religious pluralism created conflict to the point where the various contestants realized none could win convincingly, and that the cost was too high to continue."
It is unfortunate that he didn't develop this theme more, but demolishing secularism was perhaps a large enough task for the book.
Yet, Baker shows that rather than being objective, secularism is an 'activist' methodology bent on transforming the cultural landscape in essentially a materialistic, progressive direction, and away from the distinctly Christian heritage of the West.
Baker pays special attention to the Establishment Clause in the Constitution and subsequent jurisprudence. He also shows how sociology was employed to demystify religion and secularize education.
Perhaps the most helpful portion of the book is in the second to last paragraph of the book where Baker reframes the church-state relationship away from secularism and toward pluralism. He writes, "What brought religious peace to the West is the same thing that brought religious war: pluralism. Religious pluralism created conflict to the point where the various contestants realized none could win convincingly, and that the cost was too high to continue."
It is unfortunate that he didn't develop this theme more, but demolishing secularism was perhaps a large enough task for the book.
August 24, 2009
This is one of the best books I've ever read. Not because it offers a lot of original insight, but because it so clearly and so concisely summarizes a large body of work into a single easy to read narrative on church-state issues. He starts with a terrific summary of church-state history in the West, how it collapsed, and moves on to the failure of secularism as an alternative paradigm or solution to religious conflict in an atmosphere of religious pluralism. If I had to recommend one book on apologetics, I always recommend Tim Keller's The Reason for God. But if I had to recommend one book for religion and politics, it would be The End of Secularism. Get it.
October 31, 2013
If you have read any of the evangelical theories of secularization from Nancy Pearcy or Francis Schaeffer, you're unlikely to find much new information or content here. There's no interaction with more sophisticated constructions of secularism's origins, and he avoids Charles Taylor entirely. No one seems interested in doing much more than regurgitating the tired old categories of a culture war that belongs to the 80s and 90s.
September 17, 2009
An intelligent brief against the popular "modern" conception of secularism that seeks to keep the religious out of public life. Readable, and useful, for non-academics but interesting for those with a greater depth on the subject as well.
November 17, 2009
Baker does a fantastic job showing the non-neutrality of secularism, and in fact its dogmatic intolerance. Sadly he fumbles on the goal line when advocating a slightly Christianized pluralism. That is the con the secularists used and use to maintain their position today.
April 16, 2015
I hope everyone who thinks religion is inappropriate in the public square will read this book. Baker's rational case is compelling. Perhaps the most important thing about this book is that it calls into question our unexamined assumptions that surely need examining!
December 12, 2011
Not a fun book, but well-written and accessible. It lays out what secularism is, what it claims to be, and how it fails to achieve its goals.
April 16, 2012
Really a wonderful read and certainly on my "to read again list" Can't say enough about this one...lots of great insights.
May 20, 2012
A very valuable book for Christians to internalize and champion.
February 23, 2014
Starts out a little slow, but when it picks up three or four chapters in, it's really excellent. Baker makes a compelling case for pluralism over secularism.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews