A Short History of Secularism

by Graeme Smith

What does it mean to call Western society 'secular'? What is secularism? And how should we understand the the concept of 'secularism' in international relations, particularly the clash between radical Islam and the West? The word 'secular' has come to mean that which belongs to this life, to the here and now, in this world. It is widely used as a shorthand for the ideology which shapes contemporary society without reference to the divine. However, according to Graeme Smith, 'secularism' represents a great deal more. He offers a radical reappraisal of the notion of secularism and its history, beginning with the Greeks and proceeding to modernity and the contemporary period. The assumption that the West is becoming increasingly secular is often unquestioned. By contrast, Dr Smith discerns a different kind of one informed by a historical legacy which makes sense only when it is appreciated that it is religious. Secularism was born of Christianity. Daringly - and very originally - Smith argues that it is impossible to understand the idea of the secular without appreciating that, at root, it is Christian. A Short History of Secularism will fundamentally reshape discussions of western culture, religion and politics, and will have strong appeal to students of religion, political philosophy and the history of ideas.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, History, Religion, European History

240 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2007

Reviews

[Settare · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was allured by the very misleading title “A Short History of Secularism”, which is not at all what this book provides. First of all, the author has done a very poor job at hiding himself in the text. Almost each paragraph starts with “I shall explain later that...” , “I therefore conclude that...” , making it impossible to read the book without imagining the author sitting right in front of me, forcing me to listen to his beliefs. Secondly, the author is very biased. I would expect to read about the history of Secularism from a neutral or secularist viewpoint. The author here seems like he’s an undercover agent for the Church of England. I think it is essential to take a neutral position in the history of such subjects, so I find it hard to trust the notions of the author. He is right in stating that the current Secularist ethics is based on Christianity and in its essence, Christian, but he has failed to explain the origins of secularism all together, and has rather focused on the development of Christianity itself through centuries and how Christianity has adapted to the secularization of Western societies.
Lastly, I would like to point out that the part on the Age of Enlightenment was rather worth reading, hereby I give two stars to the book instead of one.
One last time I must repeat, if you’re looking to learn about the history of Secularism, THIS BOOK IS NOT what you’re looking for. It was not what I was looking for either.

[G · Rating 1 out of 5]

The title of this book is misleading.

As the author himself states in his introduction, "My aim is as much popular and polemical as it is analytical" and then, "It might seem that by focusing so much on the Christian religion I am doing a disservice to secular ideology's uniqueness and integrity. This is a danger." It is indeed a "danger". The book would be best titled something like: "A Christian Perspective on Secularism in the UK". A title such as a "Short History of Secularism" implies that one is going to be informed about secularism and this really isn't the case here. The book is much more about the development of Western, and more specifically UK, Christianity and how it has tried to adapt to a changing environment. The particular theory that the author promotes is that Western liberalism has developed from Christianity. The opposite argument that modern Christianity has had to adapt because of a liberal secular critic and is slowly disintegrating under pressure from rational argument is not favoured.

The unpleasant thing about this book is that it is very biased. Not least of which is that Agnosticism is not mentioned at all with the effect of pushing people into two main camps: Christians (no matter how diluted) and Atheists. To have a book entitled a Short History of Secularism not using the word Agnosticism once yet using Atheism many times beggars belief (pun intended). I should imagine any thoughtful Agnostic would find this ignorance, or purposeful disregard, of their philosophical position astounding in a book with this title. Also, there are many references to the West being secular whereas countries such as the UK are not secular as the Church of England has special priviledges as the Established Church (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establis...).

I should perhaps state that my own philosophical position is not that of an agnostic or atheist but do see myself as a secularist (god being a human concept ... mine is therefore made up by me ... on most days it equates with totality).

Overall: this book appears to me as a book from some religious ghetto. If I'm wrong and the readership is not confined to some ghetto then the implication is worrying i.e. that this is the current level of understanding and debate on secularism.

[Osama Saadeh · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's an enjoyable book to read, but one thing to note is the title doesn't accurately reflect its content, for this is not a mere history of secularism, but much more than that. Nonetheless, the significant thing I learned from this book, is the process by which secularism and liberalism were developed within the den of Christianity. The author goes so far as to argue that liberalism and secularism are part of Christianity, i.e. they are part of the Christian identity. You might ask why, and I have the answer to your question, but then it needs additional words to satisfy it, which I don't want that to be. This is all to make this review as concise as it should be, but what you need to know that this book is a must read to understand how Islam is distinct from Christianity (alteration-wise), for Islam cannot be influenced but only influential.