Philosophical Challenges For Secularism And Its Post Narrative

Although secularism has challenged superstitious practices (of any religion either in private orrnpublic sphere) and contributed a lot for inclusion of citizens regardless of their religiousrnbackground, the hypersecularizing tendency of the secularists (such as becoming “militant”rnagainst religious practices and symbols) and their weak thesis regarding the role of religion hasrnmade contemporary philosophers to (re)analyze the challenges for secularism. The historicalrnemancipation of the secular sphere from religion, and the role and acrimonious debate amongrninfluential philosophers of the time has shaped the nature of secularism in their particularrnsociety. The current prominent (Anglo-American and French) models of secularism resultedrnfrom their specific religious and cultural milieu, and the socio-political nature of the earlyrnmodern time. Those models are much influenced by the thinking’s of the philosophers of thatrntime. Those and other models that are described as either soft or hard type of secularism need arnlong time of discussion and debate, on bottom up basis, to be implemented in a particularrncountry. If the way of introducing the secularism is on top-down fashion, without involvement ofrnthinkers, the effectiveness of the concept in that society is poor or there is the possibility of beingrnobserved as futile end. The challenge for secularism starts in this top-down prescription of thernideology without considering the context of the intended society.rnThe challenges for secularism necessitated the introduction of new paradigm that balances thernrelation between the religious and the secular. Importantly, the prominent contemporaryrnphilosopher Jürgen Habermas declared post secularism that narrates the co-existence ofrnreligious and secular societies under secular environment. He declared that we are living in postrnsecular age. Although he has come with a wonderful philosophical alternative considering thernchallenges for secularism, he does not do well with all challenges and at the same time he does not do justice to religious contents. After analyzing the gap and weakness of his philosophical alternative, this paper claim the introduction of a new paradigm that enables the real coexistence of religious and secular societies under either secular or religious environmentof religious and secular societies under either secular or religious environment

Get Full Work

Report copyright infringement or plagiarism