Brief Reflections on Secularism

Jeffrey Thayne

There are many different uses of the term secular. Gawain Wells and Wesley Burr, for example, explain that “secularism is the belief that the answers to life are found through rational means—through the concrete, observable, and practical world of people and things.”¹

This definition of secularism sounds like a natural, viable position in our modern world. Of course we want to be rational, down-to-earth, practical people. It is hard to see how this definition would necessarily lead us away from the Gospel of Jesus Christ. However, strictly adhering to this position requires us to dismiss any reference or appeal to divine or spiritual entities. The Oxford Pocket Dictionary reflects this dimension of secularism in its definition of the word: “Denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.”²

There are many examples of secular ideas in our society. Here, I would like to discuss just two of the ideas that Wells and Burr discuss in their article, in order to demonstrate the way secularists would arrive at conclusions that differ from the teachings of the Jesus Christ:

1. “Marriage is created by societies or cultures.”¹

As Latter-day Saints, we believe that marriage was instituted by God for His eternal purposes. Thus, we do not believe it was a human invention. However, someone who held a strictly secular worldview would not look beyond the human realm for an explanation of marriage, and thus would not reference God when discussing the subject (or any subject, for that matter). He would develop a narrative that describes the formation of marriage by human beings to serve some local, societal purpose. This would certainly make a difference in how he approaches marriage; because he sees marriage as a human invention, a secularist would probably see the institution of marriage as more malleable and adjustable, according to the wishes and needs of society.

In a recent conversation with another blogger, I said, “I believe that we should support a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as being strictly between men and women, because I believe that is what God has instructed us to do through His prophet.” He replied, “That’s fine, however, in the realm of law, you should provide secular justifications for your position.” What he meant by this was that I should not appeal to a divine being to justify my opinion—he was asking me to base my opinion solely on practical and observable evidence. I should not reference my moral or religious beliefs (or, at least, my moral beliefs should not have any religious basis). He meant more than that such arguments are unpersuasive to those who do not share my religious beliefs; he believed that such arguments have no place in a legal or political settings. I believe that it is certainly possible to justify both positions on the issue in a secular way—that is, to use secular arguments from both perspectives; I only use this example to illustrate how any religious dimension to the subject is negated in a secular worldview.

2. “Gods are ‘created’ by humans to explain unexplainable phenomena.”¹

We as Latter-day Saints believe that God Himself is responsible for first establishing religion in the world. For example, Alma was using a clearly non-secular narrative to describe the origin of religious belief when he said, “[God] sent angels to converse with [men], who caused men to behold of his glory. … Therefore God conversed with men, and made known unto them the plan of redemption” (Alma 12:29–30). A secularist, however, would deny any reference to God when accounting for or explaining religion—he would try to explain religion in terms of human affairs; he would probably develop a narrative that described human beings who invented an imaginary being in order to explain things that were beyond their understanding. A secularist might not even think this is a bad idea; he might believe that a belief in the divine is beneficial to society. He would, however, explain its origins by appealing only to the “concrete, observable, and practical world of people and things.”¹

Conclusion

These two examples illustrate how a secular worldview will lead us to conclusions that differ from the restored Gospel. There are many others; for example, secular theories of government affect what we see as the proper role of government. Secular theories of biology affect how we understand disease and healing. We live in a society that is growing increasingly secular, and this is why we face a temptation to compartmentalize our lives (as I explained in a previous post). We often adopt a secular stance in our professional lives, and maintain a religious stance in our sabbath activities. While this theological schizophrenia allows us to live amiably with our secular friends and neighbors, I do not believe it is what Alma meant when he invited his congregation (and, by proxy, us) to “stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in” (Mosiah 18:9). I believe we should rock the boat and make waves (in a kind and humble way, of course), because I believe the Restoration was intended to counter falsehoods in every arena of life, not just in Church doctrine.

Notes:
1. Gawain Wells and Wesley Burr, “The Proclamation and the Philosophies of the World.”
2. The Oxford Pocket Dictionary