The Idea
This claim says that secularism alone is not enough to resolve the problem of plurality in the public sphere, because the issue runs deeper than simply removing religion from politics. Societies bring together different systems for understanding truth and meaning, such as religion, science, philosophy, and custom. If one assumes that science automatically abolishes religion, the ability to understand this complex interplay is lost.
Concise Formulation
Replacing religion with science is not enough to understand plurality in the public sphere
Its Place in the Book’s Argument
This statement lies at the heart of the argument because it rejects simplified solutions that merely oppose religion to science or faith to reason. The book examines the history of coexistence among systems of knowledge, not the final triumph of one over the others. For that reason, the text places before the reader a harder task: understanding how these systems coexist and how they contend with one another without any of them disappearing entirely.
Why It Matters
The importance of the claim lies in the fact that it prevents a simplistic reading of Arkoun’s project as a defense of a single ready-made alternative. Rather, it calls for broader thinking about the conditions of cultural and epistemic plurality. This matters for understanding his position on the monotheistic religions, because he does not confine them to being the opposite of science; instead, he studies the ways they are present within a diverse world.
Reading Questions
- What does the text mean when it says that secularism alone is not enough?
- How does the claim explain the existence of more than one system of truth within the same society?
Degree of Documentation
High: the claim appears in a clear place in the book’s material.