Ibn Rushd could be considered the father of secularism reappropriated by the West.
Essentially, during the Islamic Golden age (roughly 8-9th to 14th century) there was an apparent religious contradiction that most major institutional religions (including Abrahamic and Dharmic) had to square: the ongoing scientific/proto-scientific discoveries that developed technologies (and used to consolidate power) and the divine immutablity of scriptures (of which was used as justification for the concentration of power) reflecting feudal politico-economies.
Ibn Rushd, who was a deeply religious Islamic scholar, proposed a solution of what was perceived later in the west as a separation of “philosophy” (which back then, and even now with dialectical materialism, was science/proto-science) and religion. What he actually proposed was more explicitly dialectical than that; instead he explained there is a relationship between the two with one feeding the other to and fro, all under divine guidance, which as human beings we understand as the synthesis of the above two factors. And he grounded that in the scientific discoveries at that time (an early materialist approach). He would then propose if this contradicted the interpretation of the liturgical scriptures then it was the religious interpretation that was incorrect and in those parts a more allegorical or metaphorical understanding was the true revelation.
Most religions would consider blasphemy as the one of the worst sins, because if you did any sin but said it was done under the name of their deity then it was that much more worse. However, most religions had dialectic philosophers - interpretations of their faith which involved to better understand the divinity of their deity they needed to better understand their material world around them. How to discover science without being blasphemous was the philosphical fine line that gave birth to secularism. The degree that this discovery of science/proto-science was amplified, however, was filtered by the material constraints of the socio-politico-economic systems of those times.
Modern Western Secularism, accelerated afrer the so-called Enlightenment (which actually is a product of the dominant mode of production going from feudalism to capitalism; the material always comes before the idea), is often equated to state promotion of atheism where in reality it is a pseudo-neutrality with overwhelming preference of practice of domestic and foreign policy in favour of White Supremacist imperialist politics (with some parallels in how Constantinople repurposed Roman pagan gods for Catholic Saints) - in sharp contrast some of the Eastern approaches which is in more in-keeping with the religious neutrality (eg Mughal India or PRC especially post-Mao). The apparent communist purging of religion in the early stages of socialist development in the USSR and PRC was because those forms of religion held on to feudal and capitalist vestiges, and therefore the religious reaction often found themselves aligning with foreign powers against the dictatorship of the proleteriat.
Relgion often reflects the politico-economy. To use Catholicism as an example, contrast the catholicism in Cuba or liberation theology of South America with the catholcism of the USA, Germany and France. And in a similar vein “athiesm” also reflects socio-political economies - see for example the “secularism” of the West vs how it is practised in Cuba or China.
If you wanted one phrase that encapsulates the differences in secularism between the west and socialist countries it’s this: dialectical materialism. Socialist countries are dialectical materialist in the approach where as the capitalist countries aren’t just not dialectial materialist, they actviely promote anti-dialectical-materialism (though they don’t use, or in most cases not even cognizant of, that vernacular).
That’s an interesting perspective. I would like to hear more about it.
Ibn Rushd could be considered the father of secularism reappropriated by the West.
Essentially, during the Islamic Golden age (roughly 8-9th to 14th century) there was an apparent religious contradiction that most major institutional religions (including Abrahamic and Dharmic) had to square: the ongoing scientific/proto-scientific discoveries that developed technologies (and used to consolidate power) and the divine immutablity of scriptures (of which was used as justification for the concentration of power) reflecting feudal politico-economies.
Ibn Rushd, who was a deeply religious Islamic scholar, proposed a solution of what was perceived later in the west as a separation of “philosophy” (which back then, and even now with dialectical materialism, was science/proto-science) and religion. What he actually proposed was more explicitly dialectical than that; instead he explained there is a relationship between the two with one feeding the other to and fro, all under divine guidance, which as human beings we understand as the synthesis of the above two factors. And he grounded that in the scientific discoveries at that time (an early materialist approach). He would then propose if this contradicted the interpretation of the liturgical scriptures then it was the religious interpretation that was incorrect and in those parts a more allegorical or metaphorical understanding was the true revelation.
Most religions would consider blasphemy as the one of the worst sins, because if you did any sin but said it was done under the name of their deity then it was that much more worse. However, most religions had dialectic philosophers - interpretations of their faith which involved to better understand the divinity of their deity they needed to better understand their material world around them. How to discover science without being blasphemous was the philosphical fine line that gave birth to secularism. The degree that this discovery of science/proto-science was amplified, however, was filtered by the material constraints of the socio-politico-economic systems of those times.
Modern Western Secularism, accelerated afrer the so-called Enlightenment (which actually is a product of the dominant mode of production going from feudalism to capitalism; the material always comes before the idea), is often equated to state promotion of atheism where in reality it is a pseudo-neutrality with overwhelming preference of practice of domestic and foreign policy in favour of White Supremacist imperialist politics (with some parallels in how Constantinople repurposed Roman pagan gods for Catholic Saints) - in sharp contrast some of the Eastern approaches which is in more in-keeping with the religious neutrality (eg Mughal India or PRC especially post-Mao). The apparent communist purging of religion in the early stages of socialist development in the USSR and PRC was because those forms of religion held on to feudal and capitalist vestiges, and therefore the religious reaction often found themselves aligning with foreign powers against the dictatorship of the proleteriat.
Relgion often reflects the politico-economy. To use Catholicism as an example, contrast the catholicism in Cuba or liberation theology of South America with the catholcism of the USA, Germany and France. And in a similar vein “athiesm” also reflects socio-political economies - see for example the “secularism” of the West vs how it is practised in Cuba or China.
If you wanted one phrase that encapsulates the differences in secularism between the west and socialist countries it’s this: dialectical materialism. Socialist countries are dialectical materialist in the approach where as the capitalist countries aren’t just not dialectial materialist, they actviely promote anti-dialectical-materialism (though they don’t use, or in most cases not even cognizant of, that vernacular).
Hope the above helped
Extremely interesting perspective, thank you. I have to admit it makes a lot of sense and is a very convincing argument.
Seriously, thank you for this.