|Title:||Philosophical challenges for secularism and its post narrative|
|Abstract:||Although secularism has challenged superstitious practices (of any religion either in private or public sphere) and contributed a lot for inclusion of citizens regardless of their religious background, the hypersecularizing tendency of the secularists (such as becoming “militant” against religious practices and symbols) and their weak thesis regarding the role of religion has made contemporary philosophers to (re)analyze the challenges for secularism. The historical emancipation of the secular sphere from religion, and the role and acrimonious debate among influential philosophers of the time has shaped the nature of secularism in their particular society. The current prominent (Anglo-American and French) models of secularism resulted from their specific religious and cultural milieu, and the socio-political nature of the early modern time. Those models are much influenced by the thinking’s of the philosophers of that time. Those and other models that are described as either soft or hard type of secularism need a long time of discussion and debate, on bottom up basis, to be implemented in a particular country. If the way of introducing the secularism is on top-down fashion, without involvement of thinkers, the effectiveness of the concept in that society is poor or there is the possibility of being observed as futile end. The challenge for secularism starts in this top-down prescription of the ideology without considering the context of the intended society. The challenges for secularism necessitated the introduction of new paradigm that balances the relation between the religious and the secular. Importantly, the prominent contemporary philosopher Jürgen Habermas declared post secularism that narrates the co-existence of religious and secular societies under secular environment. He declared that we are living in post secular age. Although he has come with a wonderful philosophical alternative considering the challenges 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 co- existence of religious and secular societies under either secular or religious environment|
|Appears in Collections:||Thesis - Philosophy|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.