Does Secularism Provoke Religious Extremism?

The title of this post is not my own but that of a Lecture* given by Tom Frame in 2007. In that lecture Tom said many things I agree with but I think Tom's religious partisanship has caused the underlying assumption of his Question, and lecture, to be wrong. But since the question has been asked, let's explore it, who is the provocateur? I don't think Tom makes much of a case for his contention. He speaks at length of the tensions between secular atheists and theists as if that proves that Religious extremism is a result of secular or atheistic provocation.

In the lecture Tom says: "Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Michel Onfray, Sam Harris, and Anthony Grayling, just to mention a few, whose active promotion of atheism has included vigorous denunciation of all religion. Sam Harris perhaps the most strident saying for too long have we allowed people these beliefs to have some legitimacy in the public square, they deserve none, they ought to be deprived of what ever remains of what they have. "

This does indeed sound provocative but are not these sorts of comments the result of provocation? I would argue that they are; that religion resents secular society, and yearns for a return to more theocratic times where law and society was subject to theocracy rather than the other way around.

Now to be clear, I don't believe Tom is arguing for, nor want's, theocratic governments. In fact if Tom and I were to sit down and have a beer, or a Twinings, I suspect we'd more or less agree on what a secular society should and shouldn't be. Where I do, disagree with Tom is that the current tensions between the secular and the religious is a result of secular provocation.

I'd like to use Richard Dawkins as and example of why Tom's underlying assumption is incorrect.

Anybody familiar with Dawkins I don't think would dispute that he is on something of a crusade against religion. His TV documentary, The Root Of All Evil and, book The God Delusion are both uncompromising critiques of religion. But this doesn't necessarily make Dawkins the provocateur. I instead I think his critique of religion is a reaction to religious provocation.

Dawkins is an academic specializing in evolutionary biology. This has made him a target of Christian Fundamentalists who have very little time for anyone that contradicts their literal (and often not so literal) interpretation of the Bible. Dawkins work has undoubtedly had a reaction from fundamentalist Christians but it isn't a reaction which is warranted or justified. Furthermore, any provocation by Dawkins through his work on evolutionary biology was completely unintentional. He wasn't trying to tear up Genesis, he was researching the science of evolutionary biology.

The Christian response has however been provocative and is what has provoked Dawkins, admittedly, none to subtle critiques of religion. I don't think Dawkins can be criticized for this, what was he to do when told his work is wrong based on unsubstantiated writings in a 1000 year old book of unknown authorship.

I think the real problem with religion, the theistic religions at least, is their inability to self regulate and to be critical from within. How's this for a provocative statement. "AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals”. That statement was made by the Christian evangelist Jerry Falwell. And, "I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." That was a statement by the so called leader of the free world, born again Christian, George Bush. These are highly provocative and completely outrages statements but it's rare to hear a Christian voice rebuke such comments. Is it any wonder that those of us outside of religion have a decreasing tolerance of religon.

Tom needs to be fair. The so called radical secularists of today are not motivated by an irrational distaste for religion. They are instead responding to an ugly side of religion that has become far too prominent in contemporary western society.

* The quotes in this post are from a podcast downloaded from abc.net.au which unfortunately appears to be no longer available for download. The transcript I have linked to is of the same Lecture but obviously given at a different time. While the content is more or less the same Tom's phrasings do differ.