Philosophy Now Forum

Vattimo has argued that Christianity is itself a secularising and desacralising (nihilistic) force through history and that this continuity will ultimately lead to it becoming completely nonreligious. It will exist not by jettisoning all that it preaches (although to survive it must jettison most) but by maintaining its very core, that being charity and this charity at the heart of Christianity will function as the limit to secularisation and the guide to desacralisation.

Vattimo's Christianity is not at all institutional, for him Voltaire was a better Christian than the Jesuits because he was opposed to authoritarianism while the Jesuits were concerned with preserving the status quo.

Does this seem at all possible and will either Christians or atheists be able to accept such a development?

whatdoes'it'mean wrote:Vattimo has argued that Christianity is itself a secularising and desacralising (nihilistic) force through history and that this continuity will ultimately lead to it becoming completely nonreligious. It will exist not by jettisoning all that it preaches (although to survive it must jettison most) but by maintaining its very core, that being charity and this charity at the heart of Christianity will function as the limit to secularisation and the guide to desacralisation.

Vattimo's Christianity is not at all institutional, for him Voltaire was a better Christian than the Jesuits because he was opposed to authoritarianism while the Jesuits were concerned with preserving the status quo.

Does this seem at all possible and will either Christians or atheists be able to accept such a development?

You may be interested in THE POLITE ESCAPE - On the Myth of Secularation by Harry A. Ausmus which I recently read. Professor Ausmus contends that idolotry in different languages, not atheism, is the historical constant.
http://www.amazon.com/Polite-Escape-Myt ... larization
ausmus37@cox.net

I corresponded with Professor Ausmus. Here is his core position:

"To Me
Jul 23, 2012
Tom:
Yes, "absolute atheism" is a logical impossibility, regardless of the age in which it is asserted. It is, if you will, a contradict in adjecto, a contradiction in the adjective. The burden of proof rest with the theist, and yet, without an adequate proof from the theist, the atheist announces, as if giving an infallible papal pronouncement, "there is no god." Which, I might add, is an absolutistic assertion.
Philosophically speaking, any time you have an absolute, you have contructed a "god." Theism, atheism, antitheism, and even nontheism are all inadvertant theological positions.

Kind regards,
Harry"

I definitely recommend his book if I understand your post correctly.

The old Secularization Hypothesis is in a lot of empirical trouble right now.

Religious activity continues to expand rapidly on a global scale, especially in the "Emerging World." Secularization, it appears, is a contingent phenomenon of the 20th Century modern West, and not the sort of ubiquitous historical trend that its early proponents once thought.

Peter Berger has even argued that we are experiencing "de-secularization". Others have argued that religiosity remains very active in the West, but in some bizarre forms like extropianism or techno-determinism.

The issue's more complex than it first looks, especially from the limited perspective of the Modern West.

Christianity is i think universal awreness of being.as apposed to the ignorance of tribal traditions and tribal insular being status. Modern society owes most of its steady progress to the church and other religions.

Some historians argue that there's a reason why science appeared where it did. There were far more ancient cultures (in Africa, for example), bigger people groups (like in China), and populations with extraordinary sorts of arts and technologies (like, say, India); but science, that systematic pattern of thought, that appears only in the Christian West -- an odd historical fact that needs explaining.

The solution they suggest is this: it seems that before one goes looking for scientific "laws," one needs to believe (prior to knowing, of course) that there are "laws" in the universe to look for. Polytheists and animists have "gods," alright; but each one does his/her/its own thing: there's no consistency to what they choose to do. You have to have a single, stable conception of lawmaker behind the universe, or you have no reason to expect "laws" or patterns of consistent behavior in the natural world.

If that historical thesis turns out to be right, then it's not to the "church" per se, and certainly not to "other religions" that we owe this conception: it appeared first thanks to the ancient Hebrews, and then was perpetuated in both Judaism and Christianity. If so, the proposed antipathy between "religion" and "science" may have limited application -- and in reference to the aforementioned cases, is dead wrong.

"Progress," though, remains a highly disputable notion.

whatdoes'it'mean wrote:Vattimo's Christianity is not at all institutional, for him Voltaire was a better Christian than the Jesuits because he was opposed to authoritarianism while the Jesuits were concerned with preserving the status quo.

After reading this, I am not certain about his abilities to correctly analyze an issue or topic. It is a convenient straw man and faux argument to jump from the idea of authority to authoritarianism. It is downright dishonest. The Jesuits clearly respect authority because they know that's how reality works. They know there is no democracy in the workplace and in heaven. That does not imply that they condone authoritarianism. This applies to all pragmatists (which is most people). If you think for one second that you can escape authority or that authority is not needed and not built into the natural order of things, I have to question your thought processes.