01-19-2006, 06:28 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In the previous post, I drew attention to the fact that Wendy and her
children draw from the existing social sciences, while contributing at
the same time to their further `development'. In this post, I will
elaborate what this statement means, what it implies, and what it says
about the `western culture'. Let me see how far I can go in this post
with respect to the objective without being inordinately long.
However, it is only fair that I warn you beforehand: I will only be
able to isolate an important thread; within the confines of this post,
I cannot *prove* my claims. (To those interested in `proofs', I refer
them to my book.)
1. Not many would challenge the claim that Christianity has been
highly influential in the development of the western culture. We need
to take this statement utterly seriously. It means that many things we
`take for granted', whether in the West or in India, come from the
influence that Christianity has exerted.
I claim that Christianity expands in two ways. (This is not just
typical of Christianity but of all religions. I will talk only of
Christianity because I want to talk about the western culture.) Both
of these have been present ever since the inception of Christianity
and have mutually reinforced each other. The first is familiar to all
of us: *direct conversion.* People from other cultures and `religions'
are explicitly converted to Christianity and thus the community of
Christian believers grows. This is the `surface' or explicit expansion
of Christianity. In India, both in the colonial and modern times, this
has been a theme of intense controversy but, according to me, not of
very great consequence *when compared to the second way Christianity
also expands*.
2. Funnily enough, the second way in which Christianity expands is
*also* familiar to us: the process *secularisation*. I claim that
Christianity `secularises' itself in the form of, as it were,
`dechristianised Christainity'. What this word means is: typically
Christian doctrines spread wide and deep (beyond the confines of the
community of Christian believers) in the society dressed up in
`secular' (that is, not in recognisably `Christian') clothes. We need
a very small bit of Western history here in order to understand this
point better.
2.1. Usually, the `enlightenment period', which is identified as `the
Age of Reason', is alleged to be the apotheosis (or the `high point')
of the process of `secularisation'. What people normally mean by
`secularisation' here is the following: the enlightenment thinkers are
supposed to have successfully `fought' against the dominance that
religion (i.e. Christianity) had until then exercised over social,
political, and economic life. From then on, so goes the standard text
book story, human kind began to look to `reason' instead of, say, the
Church in all matters social, civic, political etc. The spirit of
scientific thinking, which dominated that age, has continued to gain
ascendancy. As heirs to this period, which put a definitive end to all
forms of `irrational' subservience, we are proud citizens of the
modern day world. We are against all forms of despotism and we are
believers in democracy; we believe in the role of reason in social
life; we recognise the value of human rights; and we should understand
that `religion' is not a matter for state intervention, but a
`private' and personal affair of the individual in question. This, as
I say, is the standard text book story.
2.2. The problem with this story is simply this: the enlightenment
thinkers have built their formidable reputation (as opponents of `all
organised religion' or even `religion' tout court) by *selling* ideas
from *Protestant Christianity* as though they were `neutral' and
`rational'. Take for example the claim that `religion' is not a matter
for state intervention and that it is a `private' affair of the
individual in question. (Indian `secularists' agitatedly jump and down
to `defend' this idea.) Who thought, do you think, that `religi on'
was *not* a `private' affair? The Catholic Church, of course. Even to
this day, it believes that you *should* believe what the Church says,
and that because the Church mediates between Man and God, what you
believe in (as a Christian) is decided by the Catholic Church. The
Protestants fought a battle with the Catholics on *theological*
grounds: they argued that `being a Christian believer' (or what the
Christian believes in) is matter between the Maker (i.e. God) and the
Individual. It was *God* (i.e. the Christian God), who judged man; and
men *could not* judge each other in matters of Christian faith. The
Church, they argued, could not mediate between Man and God (according
to their interpretation of the Bible); the Catholic Church argued that
men could not, using only their reasoning and interpretative
abilities, interpret the Word of God (i.e. the Bible). To think so is
to be seduced by the Devil, and the only guarantee against the
seduction by the Devil and eternal damnation was the Church itself and
its interpretation of the Bible. (There is a famous doctrine of the
Catholic Church, which says, `Extra ecclesiam nulla salus': there is
no salvation - i.e. being saved from the clutches of the Devil -
outside the Church.) To cut the long story short, the Protestants won
this theological battle. The enlightenment thinkers repeated this
Protestant story, and this has become our `secularism'.
2.3. The same story applies with respect to what is enshrined in the
UN charter. The doctrine of Human Rights (as we know them today) arose
in the Middle Ages, when the Franciscans and the Dominicans fought
each other. (Both are religious orders within the Catholic Church.)
All theories of human rights we know today were elaborated in this
struggle that continued nearly for two hundred years. They were
*theological* debates, to understand which one needs to understand
Christian theology. (Just take my word for it for now.) When John
Locke (a British philosopher) started talking about `Natural Rights'
in the 18th century, he was simply regurgitating a theological debate
within Christianity.
2.4. I am not merely making the point that these ideas had their
origin in religious contexts. My point is much more than that: I claim
that *we cannot accept these theories without, at the same time,
accepting Christian theology as true.* What the western thinkers have
done over the centuries (the Enlightenment period is the best known
for being the `high point' of this process) is to *dress up* Christian
theological ideas (I am blurring the distinction between the divisions
within Christianity) in a secular mantle. Not just this or that
isolated idea, but theological theories themselves.
2.5. I am not in the least suggesting that this is some kind of a
*conspiracy*. I am merely explicating what I mean when I say that
Christianity spreads also through the process of *secularisation*.
What has been secularised are whole sets of ideas about Man and
Society which I call `Biblical themes '. They are Biblical themes
because to accept them is to accept the truth of the Bible. Most of
our so-called `social sciences' *assume* the truth of these Biblical
themes.
2.6. I know this sounds *unbelievable*; but I have started to prove
them. I have already shown, for example, that the so-called religious
studies presuppose the truth of Christian theology. That is why, when
they study the so-called `religions' from other cultures, their
results do not fundamentally differ from a theological treatment of
the same religions. In the book I am now writing on ethics, I am able
to show the same: the so-called secular ethics are `secularisations'
of Christian ethics. That is why, according to the modern `secular'
ethics, we are either `immoral' or `moral cretins'. According to the
Christianity, only the `true' religion can provide a foundation for
ethical behaviour: the Heathens and the Pagans, because they worship
the Devil, are either immoral or intellectually weak. Even in
psychology, the notion of the development of `person' (or `self') is a
non-trivial secularisation of the Christian notion of `soul'. So I can
go on, but I will not. Instead of convincing you, such a list might
end up generating disbelief.
3. To begin to appreciate the *plausibility* (if not the truth) of my
claim, ask yourselves the following question: why are the so-called
`social sciences' different from the natural sciences? I mean to say,
why have the social sciences not developed the way natural sciences
have? There must have been many geniuses in the social sciences; the
mathematical and logical sophistication in some of the social sciences
is simply mind-bending; we have computers and we can simulate almost
any thing. Comparatively speaking, it is not as though the social
sciences are starved of funding or personnel. Despite all this, the
social sciences are not progressing. Why is this? (When you have, say,
a problem in a love-relationship, you do not open a text book on
psychology; you look for a wise friend or an understanding uncle.)
There are many answers provided in the history of philosophy and many
of you may have your own `favourite' explanation. Here is my answer:
you cannot build a scientific theory based on theological assumptions.
What you will get then is *not* a scientific theory, but an
embroidering of theology. I put to you that this is what has happened.
Most of our so-called social sciences are not `sciences' in any sense
of the term: they are merely bad Christian theologies.
4. If this is true, it also helps us understand why both `conversion'
and the notion of `secularism' jars Indian sensibilities. Somehow or
the other, Nehruvian `secularism' always connotes a denigration of
Indian traditions; if you look at the debates in the EPW and SEMINAR
and journals like that, one thing is very clear: none of the
participants really understands what `secularism' means. In India,
`secularism' is counter posed to `communalism'; whereas `the secular',
in European languages, has only one contrast: `the sacred'. Now, of
course, I do not want to make much out of this; but I thought that it
would be interesting to draw your attention to this interesting fact.
5. To summarize what I have said so far. Christianity spreads in two
ways: through conversion and through secularisation. The modern day
social sciences embody the assumptions of Christian theology, albeit
in a `secularised' form. That is why when Wendy and her children draw
upon the resources of the existing social sciences, they are drawing
upon Christian theology. In this Christian theology, we are
worshippers of the Devil. Our gods are demons (followers of the
devil). As such, amongst other things, they are perverts: sexually,
morally and intellectually. The worshippers of the Devil (which is
what we are) are also perverts: why otherwise would we follow the
Devil or his minions? Even if Wendy and her children *oppose* a
straightforward Christian understanding openly (because of their
*genuine* conviction), their *conclusions* are no different from the
simplistic story I have just sketched. How can they be driven to
embrace Christian theology, even when they either openly reject it or
when they know nothing of it? This will be one of the questions I will
take up in my future posts, assuming that people remain interested.
6. This is the insidious process I talked about in my previous mail:
the process of secularisation of Christian ideas. I have not been able
to do justice to the richness of this process: an inevitable price one
pays for condensing complex analyses into short posts. Let the
`simplistic' presentation not lead you to think that the ideas I am
proposing are `simplistic'. They are not.
7. Why do we, the Indian intellectuals, not see this secularisation
straight away? Why is the process of secularisation not visible to the
western intellectuals? These are some of the obvious questions I will
tackle in my subsequent posts.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
children draw from the existing social sciences, while contributing at
the same time to their further `development'. In this post, I will
elaborate what this statement means, what it implies, and what it says
about the `western culture'. Let me see how far I can go in this post
with respect to the objective without being inordinately long.
However, it is only fair that I warn you beforehand: I will only be
able to isolate an important thread; within the confines of this post,
I cannot *prove* my claims. (To those interested in `proofs', I refer
them to my book.)
1. Not many would challenge the claim that Christianity has been
highly influential in the development of the western culture. We need
to take this statement utterly seriously. It means that many things we
`take for granted', whether in the West or in India, come from the
influence that Christianity has exerted.
I claim that Christianity expands in two ways. (This is not just
typical of Christianity but of all religions. I will talk only of
Christianity because I want to talk about the western culture.) Both
of these have been present ever since the inception of Christianity
and have mutually reinforced each other. The first is familiar to all
of us: *direct conversion.* People from other cultures and `religions'
are explicitly converted to Christianity and thus the community of
Christian believers grows. This is the `surface' or explicit expansion
of Christianity. In India, both in the colonial and modern times, this
has been a theme of intense controversy but, according to me, not of
very great consequence *when compared to the second way Christianity
also expands*.
2. Funnily enough, the second way in which Christianity expands is
*also* familiar to us: the process *secularisation*. I claim that
Christianity `secularises' itself in the form of, as it were,
`dechristianised Christainity'. What this word means is: typically
Christian doctrines spread wide and deep (beyond the confines of the
community of Christian believers) in the society dressed up in
`secular' (that is, not in recognisably `Christian') clothes. We need
a very small bit of Western history here in order to understand this
point better.
2.1. Usually, the `enlightenment period', which is identified as `the
Age of Reason', is alleged to be the apotheosis (or the `high point')
of the process of `secularisation'. What people normally mean by
`secularisation' here is the following: the enlightenment thinkers are
supposed to have successfully `fought' against the dominance that
religion (i.e. Christianity) had until then exercised over social,
political, and economic life. From then on, so goes the standard text
book story, human kind began to look to `reason' instead of, say, the
Church in all matters social, civic, political etc. The spirit of
scientific thinking, which dominated that age, has continued to gain
ascendancy. As heirs to this period, which put a definitive end to all
forms of `irrational' subservience, we are proud citizens of the
modern day world. We are against all forms of despotism and we are
believers in democracy; we believe in the role of reason in social
life; we recognise the value of human rights; and we should understand
that `religion' is not a matter for state intervention, but a
`private' and personal affair of the individual in question. This, as
I say, is the standard text book story.
2.2. The problem with this story is simply this: the enlightenment
thinkers have built their formidable reputation (as opponents of `all
organised religion' or even `religion' tout court) by *selling* ideas
from *Protestant Christianity* as though they were `neutral' and
`rational'. Take for example the claim that `religion' is not a matter
for state intervention and that it is a `private' affair of the
individual in question. (Indian `secularists' agitatedly jump and down
to `defend' this idea.) Who thought, do you think, that `religi on'
was *not* a `private' affair? The Catholic Church, of course. Even to
this day, it believes that you *should* believe what the Church says,
and that because the Church mediates between Man and God, what you
believe in (as a Christian) is decided by the Catholic Church. The
Protestants fought a battle with the Catholics on *theological*
grounds: they argued that `being a Christian believer' (or what the
Christian believes in) is matter between the Maker (i.e. God) and the
Individual. It was *God* (i.e. the Christian God), who judged man; and
men *could not* judge each other in matters of Christian faith. The
Church, they argued, could not mediate between Man and God (according
to their interpretation of the Bible); the Catholic Church argued that
men could not, using only their reasoning and interpretative
abilities, interpret the Word of God (i.e. the Bible). To think so is
to be seduced by the Devil, and the only guarantee against the
seduction by the Devil and eternal damnation was the Church itself and
its interpretation of the Bible. (There is a famous doctrine of the
Catholic Church, which says, `Extra ecclesiam nulla salus': there is
no salvation - i.e. being saved from the clutches of the Devil -
outside the Church.) To cut the long story short, the Protestants won
this theological battle. The enlightenment thinkers repeated this
Protestant story, and this has become our `secularism'.
2.3. The same story applies with respect to what is enshrined in the
UN charter. The doctrine of Human Rights (as we know them today) arose
in the Middle Ages, when the Franciscans and the Dominicans fought
each other. (Both are religious orders within the Catholic Church.)
All theories of human rights we know today were elaborated in this
struggle that continued nearly for two hundred years. They were
*theological* debates, to understand which one needs to understand
Christian theology. (Just take my word for it for now.) When John
Locke (a British philosopher) started talking about `Natural Rights'
in the 18th century, he was simply regurgitating a theological debate
within Christianity.
2.4. I am not merely making the point that these ideas had their
origin in religious contexts. My point is much more than that: I claim
that *we cannot accept these theories without, at the same time,
accepting Christian theology as true.* What the western thinkers have
done over the centuries (the Enlightenment period is the best known
for being the `high point' of this process) is to *dress up* Christian
theological ideas (I am blurring the distinction between the divisions
within Christianity) in a secular mantle. Not just this or that
isolated idea, but theological theories themselves.
2.5. I am not in the least suggesting that this is some kind of a
*conspiracy*. I am merely explicating what I mean when I say that
Christianity spreads also through the process of *secularisation*.
What has been secularised are whole sets of ideas about Man and
Society which I call `Biblical themes '. They are Biblical themes
because to accept them is to accept the truth of the Bible. Most of
our so-called `social sciences' *assume* the truth of these Biblical
themes.
2.6. I know this sounds *unbelievable*; but I have started to prove
them. I have already shown, for example, that the so-called religious
studies presuppose the truth of Christian theology. That is why, when
they study the so-called `religions' from other cultures, their
results do not fundamentally differ from a theological treatment of
the same religions. In the book I am now writing on ethics, I am able
to show the same: the so-called secular ethics are `secularisations'
of Christian ethics. That is why, according to the modern `secular'
ethics, we are either `immoral' or `moral cretins'. According to the
Christianity, only the `true' religion can provide a foundation for
ethical behaviour: the Heathens and the Pagans, because they worship
the Devil, are either immoral or intellectually weak. Even in
psychology, the notion of the development of `person' (or `self') is a
non-trivial secularisation of the Christian notion of `soul'. So I can
go on, but I will not. Instead of convincing you, such a list might
end up generating disbelief.
3. To begin to appreciate the *plausibility* (if not the truth) of my
claim, ask yourselves the following question: why are the so-called
`social sciences' different from the natural sciences? I mean to say,
why have the social sciences not developed the way natural sciences
have? There must have been many geniuses in the social sciences; the
mathematical and logical sophistication in some of the social sciences
is simply mind-bending; we have computers and we can simulate almost
any thing. Comparatively speaking, it is not as though the social
sciences are starved of funding or personnel. Despite all this, the
social sciences are not progressing. Why is this? (When you have, say,
a problem in a love-relationship, you do not open a text book on
psychology; you look for a wise friend or an understanding uncle.)
There are many answers provided in the history of philosophy and many
of you may have your own `favourite' explanation. Here is my answer:
you cannot build a scientific theory based on theological assumptions.
What you will get then is *not* a scientific theory, but an
embroidering of theology. I put to you that this is what has happened.
Most of our so-called social sciences are not `sciences' in any sense
of the term: they are merely bad Christian theologies.
4. If this is true, it also helps us understand why both `conversion'
and the notion of `secularism' jars Indian sensibilities. Somehow or
the other, Nehruvian `secularism' always connotes a denigration of
Indian traditions; if you look at the debates in the EPW and SEMINAR
and journals like that, one thing is very clear: none of the
participants really understands what `secularism' means. In India,
`secularism' is counter posed to `communalism'; whereas `the secular',
in European languages, has only one contrast: `the sacred'. Now, of
course, I do not want to make much out of this; but I thought that it
would be interesting to draw your attention to this interesting fact.
5. To summarize what I have said so far. Christianity spreads in two
ways: through conversion and through secularisation. The modern day
social sciences embody the assumptions of Christian theology, albeit
in a `secularised' form. That is why when Wendy and her children draw
upon the resources of the existing social sciences, they are drawing
upon Christian theology. In this Christian theology, we are
worshippers of the Devil. Our gods are demons (followers of the
devil). As such, amongst other things, they are perverts: sexually,
morally and intellectually. The worshippers of the Devil (which is
what we are) are also perverts: why otherwise would we follow the
Devil or his minions? Even if Wendy and her children *oppose* a
straightforward Christian understanding openly (because of their
*genuine* conviction), their *conclusions* are no different from the
simplistic story I have just sketched. How can they be driven to
embrace Christian theology, even when they either openly reject it or
when they know nothing of it? This will be one of the questions I will
take up in my future posts, assuming that people remain interested.
6. This is the insidious process I talked about in my previous mail:
the process of secularisation of Christian ideas. I have not been able
to do justice to the richness of this process: an inevitable price one
pays for condensing complex analyses into short posts. Let the
`simplistic' presentation not lead you to think that the ideas I am
proposing are `simplistic'. They are not.
7. Why do we, the Indian intellectuals, not see this secularisation
straight away? Why is the process of secularisation not visible to the
western intellectuals? These are some of the obvious questions I will
tackle in my subsequent posts.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->