Idea
The text presents exclusionary secularism as a stance that excludes religion from the scientific field instead of studying it. This exclusion is not presented as a neutral choice, but as an orientation that narrows the scope of knowledge. What is meant here is that the study of religion is possible and necessary, and that turning secularism into exclusion makes it opposed to understanding rather than aligned with it.
Concise formulation
Exclusionary secularism: excludes religion from the scientific field
Its place in the book’s argument
This claim falls within the construction of a fundamental distinction in the book’s argument between two kinds of secularism. The issue is not an absolute acceptance or rejection of secularism, but rather a distinction between one that opens the field to critical understanding of religion and one that closes it off. In this way, the text serves the idea that cognitive critique is incomplete if it turns into total exclusion.
Why it matters
Its importance lies in the fact that it clarifies a precise position on the relationship between religion and science: the goal is neither to sacralize religion nor to remove it from inquiry. This helps to understand Arkoun as defending the study of religion in an open epistemic space, and as objecting to any position that deprives knowledge of one of its central subjects.
Brief witness
Between an open secularism that allows religion to be studied academically, and an exclusionary/militant secularism Between an open secularism that allows religion to be studied academically, and an exclusionary/militant secularism
Reading questions
- What is the difference between studying religion academically and excluding it from the scientific field?
- Why is exclusion a problem in the book’s argument rather than just another intellectual choice?
Degree of documentation
High: the claim appears in a clear place in the book’s material.