A Post-Secular Age?
I have been reading Muzzamel Hussain Imran and Xin Leng on “Religion and Secularism: A Critical Examination of Their Interplay in Modernity” Expository Times 136.8 (2025). The abstract is:
This study examines the evolving relationship between religion and secularism, emphasizing the critique of secularism in the context of the contemporary world. While advocates for religion argue that its presence in public life offers meaningful benefits and enhances democratic values, secularists contend that maintaining a separation between church and state is essential for protecting individual rights and freedoms. The research critiques the prevailing view of secularization as synonymous with modernization, which assumes that religion will inevitably decline. It highlights the ongoing significance of religious communities within contemporary pluralistic societies and reassesses the boundaries of the public sphere in light of this persistence.
This is a good article that canvases the meaning of “secularism” and “secularization.” It also makes some great observations, which I largely concur with:
Secularism assumes a very Protestant view of what religion is and is therefore not necessarily translatable into other places.
They point to the work of French philosopher Maurice Gauchet who regards secularization as the erosion of a world-shaping influence (I’d say explanatory framework and meaning-making machine). But interestingly, he thinks religiosity (e.g., going to church) is not the best metric for secularization since people can still (unconsciously) have a religious worldview without actually being religious (something Tom Holland would agree with!).
Many argue that our age is post-secular in that religion has not dissipated but is now part of the cultural plurality in many constituencies. Therefore, religion must be taken seriously as a facet of democratic polity and reasoning.
They note the criticism of secularism as it “undermines the moral agency of religious individuals, compelling them to act inauthentically by sidelining their deeply held beliefs and genuine motivations in favor of non-theological justifications.” For example, some philosophers such as Jurgen Habermas contend that religious people can participate in public discourse if they can translate their religious values into a secular idiom.
Charles Taylor is correct that secularism is not about being anti-religious, rather, it means government should have “a critical distance from any comprehensive worldview that seeks to serve as the ultimate authority for democratic polity.”
In sum, a very good article from two scholars who are Chinese or based in China about religion and secularism today.
If you are into this kind of thing, you might enjoy my book: Religious Freedom in a Secular Age: A Christian Case for Liberty, Equality, and Secular Government.
Super helpful. Saving this.