Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Secular Fundamentalism: good intentions with harmful consequences

Somewhere deep in the heart of the average development-oriented NGO worker, lurks a missionizing spirit. A spirit not so far removed from the old missionaries of British colonial times, or of the Christian settlers who preached and converted Indigenous populations in the newly "found" Americas. Somewhere deep inside this charitable, peace-loving soul, lies a reflection of an ugly past - a past paved by good intentions but riddled with skeletons of brutality and cultural dominion.

Today’s missionary is masked behind the cloak of international development, and foreign aid. The goal is no longer conversion to Christianity, but rather embracement of secular democracy. The scripture is no longer the Bible, but rather sacred contemporary scriptures such as the UN Declaration of Human Rights. The creed is no longer monotheism, but rather atheism in matters of the state. But the message is the same: we have the Truth, and we must bring this Truth to the "less enlightened" corners of the world. Indeed, secularism – in its most fundamentalist interpretations - is the new religion of “missionaries”:,and secular democracy the new creed of colonizers.

Secularism is an ideology which is defined by the absence of theologic principles in its world view. The absence of God in this world view, does not necessarily confer an absence of faith-based assumptions at its core. Even scientifically-based world views, have at their core, basic assumptions which are no more provable than the resurrection of Christ, or the existence of Nirvana.

Take for example the basic scientific principle that one’s senses are accurate measures of the material world around us. Or the precept that time is an actual entity that is linear in nature and measurable. These are amongst the many basic assumptions upon which many scientific theorems are built. However these are assumptions for which there is no method of proof or calculation, and thus they are principles which must be taken on faith. As such, the theorems upon which they are built represent incomplete truths – resting upon a foundation based upon faith itself, rather than upon immutable proofs. Over the centuries, many a scientist, philosopher, and theologian have thus posited that non-theological world views are in fact faith-based “religions” much like the theologically based religions themselves.

One of these core assumptions, the linearity of time, ironically has its origins in early Protestant thought. The conversion of St. Augustine to Christianity brought about a dramatic shift in time-perception within ancient Greece from that of cyclical time, to that of linear time. Embedded within the ideologue of linear time exists the sense that humanity is moving forward in time in a unidirectional fashion, toward some inevitable and desired destination. In this the concept of “development” is intimately intertwined. One who is closer to this ultimate destination is clearly the more developed, and hence a hierarchy of social evolution is established.

At around the same time period as the development of linearity of time in Western thought arose, a second social phenomenon emerged – the rise of capitalism. Max Weber linked the rise of capitalism to of the rise of the Protestant work ethic which embraces self-discipline in work, but which denounces participation in worldly materialistic pleasures. This situation ultimately results in the generation of sizeable income, with no socially-sanctioned manner in which to spend one’s earning. The logical outcome of this is re-investment of the profits into one’s own business, thus giving birth to an infantile form of modern-day capitalism.

While the concepts of God and Christianity have now been disengaged from secural western thought, the concepts of capitalism and linear social development continue to be revered as sacred chalices from which all human happiness must surface. Indeed the generation of capital has in turn itself evolved into a goal, perhaps even the ultimate destination along the linear continuum of time on which we believe we are traveling.

Thus we come to modern secularism. A world view whose foundations are rooted on faith-based principles (for as discussed above, even science at it’s core rests on faith), which believes in linear social evolution, which has an ultimate stated destination, and which has non-theological scriptures codifying its values and creeds which are believed to contain absolute Truths and “Rights” applicable universally to all people. Indeed secularism could be poised to be one of the most tolerant, and respectful of all world views, would it have the wisdom to avoid the errors of the religious groups that came before it. Unfortunately, fundamentalist interpretations of secularism are becoming increasingly mainstream, and as such secularism seems to be slated to walk down the same ill-fated paths of religious eras gone-by.

Currently, we are entrenched in a war that claims to have been waged in the name of secular government, free capital markets, and in the name of liberation from the clutches of religious fundamentalism. It is being waged in the name of the human rights, which are codified in sacred documents revered by secularists. The name of economic and social development has also raised its head. US leaders have stated explicitly that this is not a religious war. I would argue that it is a war between two opposing fundamentalist world-views: the religious fundamentalists of the Islamic world, and the secular fundamentalists of the Western world. The ultimate goal being the replacement of a theology-based society with a secular society – a society which will hold sacred all of the ideals, values, and customs considered palatable to most western secularists. Thus success would result in the propogation of one world view, and the diminution of another.

Currently, there are thousands of international development organizations working in countries around the world. The stated goal is to enhance individual liberties, improve capital potential, and enhance material well-being. The goals of the agencies are intimately intertwined with a secular values and are tolerant of local customs insofar as they do not contravene codes of conduct set out in secular scriptures. When such contravening customs are noted, the aid immediately becomes contingent upon altering local beliefs and practices to be more in alignment with secularism.

Take as an example practices such as child labour, or female genital mutilation – both are clearly practices which contravene sacred secular beliefs in universal human rights, and both are amongst practices which are likely to be linked to the cessation of aid should governmental efforts to quell these practices not be made. Thus a value-judgement is made upon the validity of one world view versus another. Practices which honour tradition are dismissed as based in superstition. Secularist belief in the linearity of time renders one to believe beyond a doubt that customs based in ancient tradition and theology are socially lower along the development spectrum, and that one must strive to move forward along the continuum of social evolution towards non-theologically based practices. Assisting another community through this process is, with few exceptions, considered a noble act by most securalists.

Coming from a feminist western secularist school of thought myself, child labour, FGM, child marriage, wife-burning, etc. don’t sit very well with me personally. Similarly, to a strict muslim the concept of women having unlimited sexual freedoms, and dressing in revealing manners must not sit well with them either. A similar reaction could be expected of a strict Catholic, at the thought of legalized abortion.

However, the key difference between a fundamentalist, and a moderate is the belief in relative realities. The ability to see the grey spaces. The ability to be passionately self-critical about the validity of one’s own beliefs before setting the microscope upon the beliefs of another. In practical terms it means recognizing that the gold-standard of ethical human behaviour is not found in any one world view, and that human truths are relative rather than absolute and immutable.

The coercive application of one faith-based non-theological world view, over another theology-based world view is unfortunately a practice which is becoming more readily accepted by mainstream western secular societies. The belief that we are further along the social development spectrum, closer to the ultimate goals of human development, and that we ought to share our evolved understanding of the world with others who remain entrenched in tradition and religion are explicitly and implicitly ingrained into secular thought in the western world. Unfortunately however, these beliefs and assumptions are mired with the same fundamentalist ingredients that were present in the colonialists and Christian missionaries of the past - and these are the same beliefs which in the past contributed to centuries of oppression and slavery.

Though well-intentioned, our international development efforts will continue to carry forward the seeds of colonialism and cultural dominion until we are able to separate ourselves from these fundamentalist mantras which cloud our secular framework. Until that time, we cannot remain confident that history will not look back at us, and marvel at the stains of bloody oppression on our hands.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

I would disagree with your comparison of faith based science and faith based religion.

Faith by your description is essentially belief in something you suspect may not be true.

Logically then, it means that strong faith is believing in something and you actually suspect isn't true.

The strongest faith then is believing in something you know is not true.

This actually sits well with the scientific view point. A scientific world view supports the view that you cannot really know anything. It is sort of self defeating in itself as it really saying not to believe the scientific world view.

This is certainly not the Christian point of view of faith. Faith is a gift of God... not the gift of stupidity. Faith has nothing to do with imagination, it is trust in the Lord.

By the removal of the absolute, God, faith takes on a different definition and it actually becomes belief in nothing.

Ashifa said...

Hey there David, good to hear from you after many many years!

Regarding your comment, allow me to clarify a few things:

I was not suggesting that faith is a belief in something you suspect to be untrue. In fact, what I was suggesting was quite the opposite -that faith is a firm belief that something IS true - without requiring the usual burden of proof to prove that it is true.

As a mathematician, you would know how historically for hundreds of years, people believed that heavier things fell faster - this belief was held as true because the word of authority came from Aristotle, who commanded respect and legitimacy. For hundreds of years noone questioned this treatise - essentially, noone subjected it to the burden of proof - it was taken on faith - believed in fully, despite the lack of proof.

Not until Galileo was this treatise subjected to experimentation, and proven incorrect. We now know today that all things fall at the same rate, regardless of mass. As such, our initial assumption which intelligent people believed to be true, based on faith, for hundreds of years, was proven untrue in the end.

The point which I am trying to make is that much as religion is based on faith (people believe in God fully, but cannot prove his existence), so too is science at its root also sometimes based on faith-based assumptions.

Historically, we can see examples of this, much like the example I described above. More recently, we can also see examples of belief in basic scientific tentants which have been based on faith rather than proof - such as the belief that time is linear and separate from space - a concept which has recently been thrown into question in the post-Einstein era.

My argument is essentially to demonstrate that science (despite its obvious merits) is not water-tight. It too suffers from basic faith-based assumptions which we believe to be true, but which we cannot prove. Much like religious faith in God - one can believe it with all their heart - and indeed it may be true - but noone can ever prove it.

As such, my claim is to show that one can never declare "absolute" truths, either in science nor in religion, because the basic core assumptions are based on faith rather than on proof (in religion this is belief in the existance of God, and in science it is beliefs which I described above).

In the absence of absolute truths, we must then concede the relativity of truth, and come to place where we seek to understand and learn from one another - rather than seeking to prosetlyze and convert one another to our own ways of relative thought.

History is mired with examples of great harm which has come upon societies due to forced imposition of external world views which were believed to be absolute by the colonizer. Examples include slavery (which was legitimized as it was sanctioned by the Church), and the residential school system for Native Canadians.

When we stop thinking critically and questioning our base assumptions, but rather start taking things that are unprovable as "absolute", I believe we are in great danger of repeating these historical mistakes. I do not have anything against people believing strongly in their own world view (I too clearly also have strong beliefs in my own world view) - be it religious or secular. But I do have concerns when people seek to oppress and colonize others under the justification that they are "spreading absolute truths" or "enlightening people to their truth". Such behaviour forms the root causes of our unequal and violent world today.

Anonymous said...

As someone who was trained as a scientist, I disagree with David's statement, "A scientific world view supports the view that you cannot really know anything." Isn't science about the exact opposite - trying to prove, or "know", everything? In fact that's so ingrained in me, it took me some time for me to accept the idea that believing in science is as faith-based as believing in a religion.

I have to say I also don't buy the logic of the argument, "Faith by your description is essentially belief in something you suspect may not be true" and then all the stretches of logic that folllowed after that. I think it would be more proper to say that faith is belief in something that COULD POSSIBLY be untrue but that you really want to be true. I think that certainly describes faith in the existence of god. You can't ever prove (at least from our viewpoint here on earth, with the capabilities and tools that we have), and it's quite possible that god doesn't exist, but some people have faith that he does.

Anonymous said...

Greetings everyone! I was sent this blog and enjoyed reading it.
Here is my ten cents' worth:
*I have never worked for an NGO before, but I have seen many
examples of this cultural/racial superiority amongst the donor
communities. It gets up my nose. But I confess I have the same rabid
missionarizing tendencies when it comes to governance/transparency
.... I think there are some values that are objectively right and not
subject to cultural or religious relativity. When I hear 3rd world
leaders talk of the 'Asian Way', the 'African Way', or the
Kazakh way,
I hear 'Please let me steal food, education, and healthcare from my
people for the next 20 years - we don't need democracy here'.

The struggle is to find, define, and claim that objective ground,
amongst all the muddle of conflicting donor agendas, self-interested
and often selfish foreign policies, self-interested and often greedy
officials and politicians, Prado-driving self-justifying expats, Don
Quixotes, and home-grown firebrand radicals. Somewhere amongst all
this is the truth, and this is where we should all be heading for.

Anonymous said...

That stuff about capitalism is very interesting. I am getting around
to the point where I think it may not be suitable for all cultures
(Islam for one is very 'uncapitalist' I noticed), but then the
question is what is the alternative. Soviet style socialism is
certainly not the way to go...

Ashifa said...

Hi there Roy, good to meet you!

Thank you for your thought-provoking comments. Like you, I have also struggled between belief in absolute Truths versus complete relativity. My gut instinct previously, was generally to believe that there must be some supersceding Truth, much as you stated to be your belief - however this of course begs the question - Why? and Who? Who sets the standard for such Truths? The Bible? The Quran? The UN Declaration of Human Rights? Are any of these truly universal and representative of the breadth of human experience/belief?

One "authority" will focus on individual liberties, while another will focus on collective good. Can we say that one is more valid than the other? Or simply that they each are equally valid in different contexts?

More recently, I have come to the belief that all truths are relative - and that there is no supersceding objective Truth. Though I can see where you are coming from, as I find my brain and my heart wrestling over this point frequently.

Ultimately it comes down to being comfortable doubting one's own world view - be it religious or secular. Being comfortable stating "this is my way, but it does not have to be the way of the world".

This applies whether we are talking about democracy, capitalism, communism, or dictatorship. None are without compromise, and none are without benefit. And certainly in our "free and democratic world" that is mired with crime, illnesses of excess, political apathy, and a general paucity of compassion, I for one don't think that we have any grounds upon which to claim our world-system to be superior to others.

Look forward to your thoughts...

Anonymous said...

I have a question for you!

If all truth is relative, is it just relative that all truth is relative?

Relativism is fundamentally flawed as it contradicts itself.

When someone tell you that there are no truths, they are really telling you that they are a liar.


BTW... What is interesting is your use of proof. If you are referring to a scientific proof of the existence of God you would be hard pressed to find one. However, you should think about whether this is the only kind of proof. Just as science cannot weigh in on the existence of God... it cannot also not answer questions like... Why should I not drop napalm on little children? There is not scientific method which can answer this question.

Proof of the existence of God to a Christian is much of the time a personal one because the Christian God is a personal God. God enters each of our lives in a unique way and the proof for each of us on his existence is going to be unique.

Proof comes to the Christian first, then comes faith.

Science has no faith in anything. In its core is a belief that what is taken to be true could be wrong. Nothing is trusted, everything has to be validated, even basic assumptions.