Charles Taylor - Charles Margrave Taylor, CC, GOQ, BA, MA, Ph.D, FRSC (born November 5, 1931) is a Canadian philosopher who has made significant contributions to political philosophy, philosophy of social science, and the history of philosophy. He is often classified as a communitarian, though he is uncomfortable with the label. He is a practicing Roman Catholic.
Taylor was educated at the McGill University (B.A. in History in 1952) and at Balliol College, Oxford (B.A. in Philosophy, Politics and Economics in 1955, M.A. in 1960, D.Phil in 1961), where he studied under Isaiah Berlin and G. E. M. Anscombe.
He succeeded John Plamenatz as Chichele Professor of Social and Political Theory in the University of Oxford and Fellow of All Souls College and was for many years Professor of Political Science and Philosophy at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, where he is now professor emeritus. Taylor is now Board of Trustees Professor of Law and Philosophy at Northwestern University. Many of his students have gone on to be important philosophers and political theorists.
Charles Taylor, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, McGill University treats the term "secular" with several different meanings which, for a variety of reasons can't be simply ironed out and reduced to one, hence the inevitability of confusions and cross-purposes.
Charles Taylor at his best again: talking about commonplaces and trivialities and presenting them as revelations!!! One of these confused thinkers who never addresses the core of the issues he is discussing and stays in their periphery talking about side effects and minor applications instead of their central point...
My problem with this good lecture is that it ignores the Christian origins of secularism. Christian denominations, like those coming out of the English non-comformist traditions or the radical reformation, have historically been in favour of a non-religous government. Indeed, one of the first arguments for non-religious test in schools within Britian was a Congregational minister and a Baptist minister continually went to jail for the similar views.
In the United States, Roger Williams founded Rhode Island when Massachusetts congregational church offical rejected his notions of religious freedom. The Quaker William Penn did something the same thing.
For me, there is no such thing as a secular society but there are secualr governments. A secular government accepts that there should be a 'free market' of religious and philosophical belief. I would argue that can only happen in societies with strong liberal Christian traditions. Or at least, an acceptance of John Sturat Mill's essay On Liberty. Both the religious right and fundamental atheists (like Richard Dawkins) are the greatest threat to this secular tradition.
I think we need a book on the history of secular. I am greatful to Charles Taylor for familarising me with the french term and it origins.
@Bozzie61: It ignores them because they do not exist in a factual sense.
you say you would argue a certain point, but do not provide any such argument: Why liberal *christian* traditions? methinks the "liberal" part of that has more to do with it than the "christian" part. they are not mutually dependent in any way, consider what happens whenever christians "go back to the core values". The liberalism is born of pragmatism and not a product of the religious influence, the later is more a barnacle with a very strong foot and too many cousins hitching a ride...
In my opinion the origins of secularism, though interesting, is irrelevant. The Websters Dictionary describes secularism as : “Indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious consideration”. The term “freedom of religion” is attempting to set the parameters of the discussion as to what freedom is within the framework of religious doctrine. First, we must understand the the church, being catholic or protestant or whatever, has NEVER been a institution in the pursuit of truth or liberty but a institution for the sole purpose of controlling peoples minds for power and/or wealth through the church dogma of ever lasting life, hell, excommunication, eternal damnation and so on by proclaiming to be the representative of god here on earth and thus free to act on behalf of god in what ever way they saw fit.
In fact the church, meaning the christian institutions, have been at the forefront of repressing the truth and the evidence of it because it was not in compliance with church doctrine. Father Giordano Bruno, Galileo, Copernicus to name but a few who had ideas contrary to that of the church and were subject to it's wrath could attest to. Then there was Martin Luther, who's 95 Theses help bring about the protestant church.
The protestant church, born of intolerance was just as intolerant it's self and soon found themselves ostracized and so some moved to the new world where they could live in peace in a world of intolerance of their own making. Of course, they soon found themselves in need of some help, namely for survival, which they received from the local folk. Of course it wasn't long, when they weren't condemning each, they were condemning the very people that had saved them because they were not right with god. Of course, the locals were wise to them by now and started condemning them and so they found themselves, once again on the wrong end of the stick of religious intolerance.
This, I'm right, your wrong because the bible say so theology is still prevalent today in the form of the relentless attacks against the public schools, mostly by the religious right because of not having prayer in school and the teaching of evolution. Scientific principles not withstanding, it's us verses them and god is on our side. And so it goes, but we have advanced a bit, at least were not burning people at the stake or stoning them, at least not yet.
As if it's not bad enough that societal advancement has to deal with the religious here we now have to deal with the maniacal and radical Muslims in the Mideast who are still cutting off heads and stoning people to death, but that's a story of the religious right aligning themselves with the radical right and the capitalist, by means of their vote, in which their insatiable greed got us into. I have nothing against the capitalist in general but, in my opinion, enjoy far too much influence in our government.
The point being, in my opinion, a society can not be free of religious intolerance but by a secular government. This does not mean the people will not find other reasons to be intolerant, apparently it is in out nature, but at least it wouldn't be in the name of the supernatural.