Graham Ward - Secularism the Dead Debate with Slides

[@newcivilisation]

Isn't the description of the building in Singapore @ 26. somewhat subjective? The description comes across as poetic, emotional, which seems to stand out from the more 'objective-sounding' discussion previously. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, indeed. In which case, could something that can be seen as hideous by someone, still be described as a 'symbol of modern progressivism'? Also, I would love to know how much the workers that built it got paid. A rich man's desire to escape the ugliness that so many have to live in, including homelessness. So does this building offer housing to the homeless? How nice to offer something that the poor and miserable can 'look up to' and 'aspire for', before they trudge home.

[@strive340]

Excellent account of the semantic shifts of institutional words like secularism which hide or freezeframe the temporal dimension. 36:45: But a tradition is lived and cannot be reduced to a series of propositions.

[@Philosophical_Floss]

That was a fantastic lecture, thank you, Graham. I wonder how you might relate this to 'individualised and 'experiential' forms of spirituality/religiosity, which lack an established institutionalised system, yet are becoming more commonplace in many people's lives today. It would be interesting to explore and question how these forms of practice and realisation might not be as individualized as we imagine, as you allure to in your lecture. I.e., what semantic and metaphysical frameworks do these embodied practices and systems appeal to... how do people make meaning of them in and through their lives, relating not only to one's self, but one another and, ultimately, the divine. I wonder if you think, Graham, that a religious, pious and spiritual life benefits from an institutionalised form or established community of worship.... and if people desire that, but find it is lacking.. how would you suggest progressing forwards?

[@nathanketsdever3150]

For me, the metaphor that he starts talking about at around 27 minutes is quite interesting--of a specific building in Singapore. First, his reading is of the the desire for transcendence and the spiritual--our hopes, dreams, and aspirations--and of those who use it. The "mythic" is very much with us and embedded in us. This is under-gired by the quote he reads at 33:33 (or thereabouts). Basically we're all mythic deep down. Beyond this, there is certainly the Augustian, Pascalian, and Lewis-ian notion of the God shaped hole/underlying desire for God--which gets us from Imagio Dei and its is proper manifestations to Idolatry and sin, and its distortions). Second, I'm curious to the extent that one could use the literal and surface meanings versus the deeper meaning--although I'm not sure that's where he's taking it.

[@newcivilisation]

And then... this building that represents 'transcendence' houses a casino. Is that a symbol for how worldly desires are concealed within the desire for transcendence?

[@thomasmcewen5493]

I can't think of theological ends in Protestantism when it is 48,628 different Protestant denominations each having a different understanding of the 7,957 verses of the New Testament. I will stick to the Catholic Church, it never gets lost as the male drivers say, just confused. Protestantism had not done western Europe any favors, secularism is part of Protestantism. Central Europe part of the visegrad group.

[@nico5485]

well maybe secularism only came about because of protestantism but than again protestantism only came about because of Catholicism...

[@nico5485]

also, don't underestimate the large amount of different teachings ranging from progressive to fundamental inside the catholic church