In describing the religious practice of Norwegian youth I question the dichotomy between religious and secular. Are these categories really finalised and opposed? I find that contemporary youth wander between practices and beliefs that would be seen as representative for the two categories.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01416200.2016.1256268
I can identify this geography because I live in both places. I do not know if there is a God, but my doubt is benevolent, not cynical. This is why St Thomas inspires me. If there is a God (Jaweh, the Father of Jesus, or Allah, or all-in-one) and she or he invites me into Heaven, I would captain a rescue boat to Hell (if such a place exists) to save the so-called damned. How could I or anyone be happy if we knew that others suffered perpetual torment? Best wishes. Paul. PS. St Paul´s reminder that Love is the greatest virtue chimes with my own ethical belief.
I really enjoy your personal way of being present on Researchgate, Paul. I saw this as a theoretical question and you make it existential.
The students I interview express the right to participate in the candle lighting ceremony without being put into a category of faith or non-faith. That the practice permits this seems to be a prerequisite for their participation.
In my experience this is the position of most people. A dichotomy of secular and religious will, as far as I can see, miss out on this open wandering in the landscape of faith.
Thank you for your compliment Johan. Whether the issue is theoretical or existential - and I suspect it involves both - I return to St Paul. He said, if I am not mistaken, that the three great virtues are Faith, Hope and Love (Charity), adding that Love is the greatest of these virtues. Ergo I think it is feasible that even one who has little or no faith in a deity can practise Christian virtues in a "non-religious" way, so to speak.
You have opened an important discussion and I encourage other RG colleagues to join the debate.
I have just been corresponding with two brilliant 40-ish people about the absence of millennials from most Christian churches. Then I read your Question, Johan. What an example of synchronicity!
What I'm hearing agrees with my own belief that the purpose of life involves relationship with the Divine, no matter by what name you call that entity, or how you conceptualize Divinity. The way, or path, for our journey is based upon unconditional love, as Paul Stephens reminds us. When we follow that path, we are in some sense becoming One with Divinity. (Christians who are uncomfortable with this idea would do well to read John 17!) Anything that promotes division in the human family, including labels such as "religious" or "secular", as applied to persons, is not helpful. Distinguishing between "religious' and "secular" is helpful as long as the dichotomy is applied only to things (including "mind things" such as ideas), and not to people.
No, everything is sacred. Watch Rob Bell in "Everything is Sacred" on YouTube. Sacred vs. Secular is a false dichotomy.
Thank you for responding to this question.
My problem with the religious-secular dichotomy is just like you write Richard, when it is used on people. I have not heard Rob Bell teach before - he does an amazing job in using natural science in his religious narrative of the world, Michelle. And like you say - in this narrative "Everything is spiritual" and the dichotomy of religious and secular becomes irelevant.
How would you connect this to the omnipresence of God, Jonathan?
The answer to your question: Do you find the secular-religious dichotomy to be relevant in describing contemporary affiliation and practice? is perhaps yes and no. If God is omnipresent then for him there is probably no dichotomy. However, for us in trying to analyse and describe contemporary affiliation and practice, it could be a useful binary.
Like you say Jonathan, I find this binary to be a useful tool in some specific areas of analysis. Maybe the most important knowledge when using any tool is to see the limitations of its use.
One relevant use of the term secular would be to describe a person or a group that has little or no experience with religious practice. Than the term does not exclude – it just describes a lack of religious experience. This is the sense in which it is used when I describe the Norwegian youth in my study. The most important observation here is the interest in religious practice and the reflections on religious beliefs that these “secular” young people express.
I agree with you that tools are very useful but have their limitations. You need the right tool for the task, and as you so rightly say, know its limitations.
I think the issue with the term 'religious' is that it needs defining and redefining for each major use. It depends on what one is wanting to delineate e.g. Christian religious, keep fit religious, etc.The words religious and secular can mean different things to different people, hence the need to define terms.
I agree with the need for defining the concept of religion. In a sense that need is what triggered this question.
Right now I work with researchers in the sociology of religion who define religion in practice - as it is found in use. I like how they seek to define religion not as a theoretical term but starting in the field. Their approach forces the researcher to observe religion and than define it.
Chapter Lived Religion
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Asia
- India