Q&A: Secular Society versus Religious Society
Secular Society versus Religious Society
Question
Some people argue, like Ben Shapiro, that beyond religion being true, there are good reasons for society to be religious, because a whole society without religion cannot function properly, since morality in such a society will be subjective and it will slide into postmodernist spectacles, etc. Basically, on his view it is good that people believe in Christianity (but in Islam, for some reason, that is less convenient for him). On the other hand, he ignores the fact that specifically his own religion—Judaism—suffered enormously from Christianity, and in general all the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc., only show that a religious society can also cause injustice. In addition, one could bring the example of murderous Islam, where a society run by religion gives rise to terror states and religious dictatorship. In my opinion, what morally sustains society today, and what advanced the Western world at least, is specifically the secular message and the secular conception of individuality. In any case, I wanted to know whether the Rabbi thinks that a Christian religious society that lives according to its morality is really preferable, or whether a moral society can also exist without religious belief.
Answer
I don’t know how to determine that. But the examples you gave are not compelling at all. This discussion cannot really be decided, so there is no point getting into it.
Discussion on Answer
*explain
Because these are broad comparisons that change with the times. If you bring me examples from the ancient world, they can be attributed to many other changes besides the fact that there was no secularization. During the Holocaust there were Christians who saved Jews with real self-sacrifice, and there were many secular people who did not. These are empty and pointless arguments.
It really is a vague topic, and I’m not going to take sides. But what you said about the “message of secularism” seems wrong to me. That is a very popular claim that, in my opinion, comes from a mistaken interpretation of the historical correlation between secularism and morality. And in truth it’s not only a mistaken interpretation, but also an over-sensitivity to a small slice of the timeline. Morality and humanism began gaining momentum at least a hundred or two hundred years before secularism, and specifically now, with secularism, it seems to be going in irrational and unbalanced directions.
It seems that it* is going in those directions (morality).
The claim of Ben Shapiro and others is that the foundations of secular morality are based on religious ideas, so that in the long run, if we remove the religious foundation, all secular morality will collapse. (After all, from a purely materialist standpoint, there is no meaning to objective morality, because it is a spiritual concept. It cannot be measured in a laboratory.)
The moral progress of the world is not connected to secularism at all, but is based on preferring individual liberty over other ideals, and on cultivating a moderate mentality instead of an extreme one. The United States is what spread the message of liberty and human rights, and it was founded by religious people, some of them devout. By contrast, countries like Germany, the USSR, and China, which preferred other ideals—secular ones—surpassed even the horror and evil of religious regimes.
That is to say: this is not a matter of secularism, but of individual liberty and moderation, which can fit very well with a spiritual-religious approach.
I’d be glad if the Rabbi would explain why exactly this cannot be decided. I was sure you had a clear view on it, like on most topics.