Status Updates From The End of Secularism

People speak as though a segment of the population lives according to "science" & the other rejects deliverances of science, the prejudice against religion that accompanies this worldview blinds its holder from the philosophical problems which arise from it. Even centuries ago, people always used the experimental method (is this berry safe to eat?), they were not savages who avoided uncovering material truths.

The strategy for professionalisation & obtaining greater resources & priority was to take a naturalistic approach to science, the young men of science defined positivism as the only legitimate & valid approach to doing science work or know anything- metaphysical concerns outside the laboratory were nothing more than useless speculation. It was an effective way to marginalise & isolate many clergy.

The ideology-of-science group wanted to see religion completely discarded; English research science, well into 19th century, did not command much prestige, nor was it professionalised. The young men who pushed for the warfare between science & religion wanted to advance their careers & gain social status/prestige, to do so would mean to establish greater public trust, respect & appreciation for science.

The ideology-of-science group wanted to see religion completely discarded; English research science, well into 19th century, did not command much prestige, nor was it professionalised. The young men who pushed for the warfare between science & religion wanted to advance their careers & greater social respect, to do so would mean to establish greater public respect for & trust in science.

Critics of the church's involvement with science might insist that science as the handmaiden of theology is not "science", that argument is both naive & dishonest- science enterprises that are simultaneously the recipient of social support & autonomous" are rare to nonexistent. "The question throughout most of history has not been whether science will function as a handmaiden, but which mistress it will serve."

The warfare myth was "first developed by humanists of the Renaissance, further articulated by the philosophes of the enlightenment, & given canonical form by the variety of polemicists in the 19th century" as part of a project by European & American intellectuals to justify & establish the superiority of their cultures.

Accusations that the church was solely responsible for stagnation in scientific discovery for a millennium are reductionist & fail (or wilfully ignore) to take into account how ancient societies had few sources to shift towards the pre-scientific study of nature, especially as it was "rarely seen as a socially useful activity", social conditions were not disposed towards a flurry of scientific activity.

Christianity bloomed in a pagan world that "offered a broad spectrum of attitudes towards the material world", from pagan cosmic religionists who viewed the creation as perfect & worthy of study to Gnostics who saw the material world as irredeemably evil.
Augustine insisted that Christians interpret scripture in light of what we know about the creation through fields like cosmology.

Science & the early church:
Augustine believed in the value of reason & employed it extensively throughout his work, to him, faith was not the "taskmaster to which reason must submit" but rather the spur to "genuine rational activity."
Augustine wrote: "Heaven forbid that God should hate in us that by which he made us superior to the animals!"

Potential news stories favourable to religion in the press get little attention, the "battle" between science & religion has been a large part of how advocates of scientific idealism gain interest from the larger public. Scientific ideologists resent the idea of science merely serving the community by producing innovation, it should instead, they believe, order society & serve as its basis instead of religion.

Critics of Darwin could have scientific reasons/motivations & supporters could have theological ones, Galileo had many allies among churchmen & many detractors among scientists- there were splits in both camps regarding his work, Copernicus didn't suffer persecution for his promulgation of heliocentrism in the 16th century, he was encouraged in his work by various churchmen.

Points to address Draper, cont:
3) Christian scholars in the Middle Ages knew the shape of the earth, the opposite is often pushed by secularists as evidence of religious ignorance & aversion to scientific discovery. (I know plenty of Medieval manuscripts have the earth drawn as a sphere)
4) Galileo got in trouble for ambiguous scientific material causing a dispute within Catholicism, not clear scientific evidence.

Draper's thesis carried a great deal of assumption & overstatement:
1) Why would any scientist or inventor who has stumbled upon a discovery be led to lose his faith or think that God would not have wanted him to make that invention/discovery? Nothing in theology or scripture seeks to limit man's knowledge, Draper merely assumes so.
2) Christian thinkers didn't attempt to assert their worldviews purely from scripture

John William Draper, one of the first promoters of the science vs religion legend, insisted that the church was "a stumbling block in the intellectual advancement of Europe", his argument rested on divine revelation being unchangeable which comes in direct contrast to the ever-changing scientific fields & the nature of discovery, therefore "limited" religious knowledge is at war with the expanding scientific one.

Secularism was advanced by partisans seeking to remake the social order, "secularists have sought to ensure that their structure of plausibility will overcome the broadly religious plausibility structure that precedes it." Postmodernists speak in terms of a contest of narratives, one of the narratives pushed by advocates of secularism is the myth of warfare between science & religion popularised in the 19th century.

When the church is provided for by the state, it gains a "second" master & becomes concerned with pleasing the state & cannot challenge the latter, the church cannot develop or preach its own ideas on politics, ideology & theology.
Hunter therefore believes that church & state must be separated, "temporal kingdoms have no eternal destiny. The church does."

The atheists & agnostics controlling the church to ensure it is "open & democratic" are engaging in the same sin kings of premodern times used to commit when they would attempt to suppress & stop the church from challenging them & their policies. The church of Sweden allowed itself to be domesticated by state support, establishment has been bad for the church.

Instead of gaining independence to compensate losing government support, the church of Sweden became trapped in a rigid system where it can only lose- political parties continue to "hold the upper hand in church affairs." The new "freedom" came with little liberty. Policymakers have spun the "department of God" off into a governmental corporation like the U.S. postal service, which it helps in the collection of fees.

Eventually, disestablishment of the Church of Sweden became inevitable, the king no longer had power & the church receded to a "cultural eunuch." Employees of the church are no longer civil servants & the church has to maintain an adequate number of dues-paying members to survive on its own. The church is now in both largely controlled by the state & political parties & deprived of secure funding & official status.

Soderblom's actions paved the way for the church to exist as a folk church, one that all could participate in regardless of how practicing they were, the once mighty church settled into an existence as a harmless, submissive lapdog for the state's new managing elite. Social democrats ended up having their children baptised there & used the church for weddings, funerals etc..

Nathan Soderblom, archbishop of the national church of Sweden in 1914, pushed the church to disavow allegiance to any social or economic order & to preach & embrace greater political tolerance, this eased pressure on the church & granted the latter acceptance from social democrats & the secular-minded governments that came to dominate Sweden in the future.

Because liberals were the Swedish national church's primary opponents during the 19th century, the latter allied itself with the traditional, hierarchal, agrarian society, which was being challenged by progressive egalitarianism. Social democrats & liberals criticised the clergy as overpaid, lying spokesmen for an unjust order. The latter's bureaucratic status & govt income didn't serve them well in times of attack.