We cannot let a secular fear of God-belief poison law and politics

See Part 1: God and the future of secularism

There is a secular fear that any attempt to see the universe as objectively meaningful could support theism. That fear has poisoned secularism into embracing a cold and empty materialism.

This materialist tendency has not prevented advancement in science. But the same pernicious tendency exists in law and politics, where the effect has been serious and debilitating.

The secular avoidance of meaning and objective value is why originalism gained dominance in constitutional interpretation. Originalism is the view that the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with its original public meaning, without regard to any other values, such as prudence or justice. It's why conservative nominees to the Supreme Court claim that they are simply neutral umpires calling balls and strikes, that their values do not matter in deciding cases.

In most of its forms, originalism is a morally impoverished approach that has little appeal for most people. For example, originalists are still arguing over whether Brown v. Board of Education, which ended state-mandated school segregation in 1954, was rightly decided.

Given that kind of amorality, how could originalism have triumphed?

The reason originalism gained its dominant position over living constitutionalism, the accepted form of constitutional interpretation at least since the New Deal, is that living constitutionalism became unwilling and unable to endorse the concept of justice unfolding in history. Its method—careful, case-by-case legal development—was premised on the idea that law unfolds over time toward justice. This commitment echoes the view of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., that the arc of the moral universe, though long, bends toward justice.

The unwillingness or incapacity to defend this claim doomed living constitutionalism. Instead of moving toward justice, the opinions of judges came to be viewed as merely idiosyncratic personal preferences.

In contrast, originalism claimed to promise objective judicial decisions.

Even worse than its effect in law has been secularism’s surrender of hope in politics. Progressivism today, which is largely secularism in the public square, offers no vision of long-term success but merely promises endless struggle against the forces of darkness. Because the billiard-ball universe of materialism lacks any goal or end toward which history is moving, politics involves only forces, which in this context we may call power. Politics, in this view, is only the struggle for power. There is no ultimate truth for political life to serve.

Surprisingly, despite the absence of reliance on truth, people are just as dogmatic as ever, maybe more so. Without a foundation for our goals, our commitments become nothing more than preferences. Dialogue and common ground with opponents, as well as hope in the future, are jettisoned. When politics is just a struggle for power, it descends into hyper-partisanship. Since I and my opponent are not jointly searching for the truth of things, we have no reason to try to persuade each other.

These nihilistic commitments in politics are not empirically persuasive. The worldwide rejection of chattel slavery, which had been at the heart of the world economy in the late 18^th Century, strongly suggests that the truth of values does reveal itself in history. The growing worldwide acceptance of the equality of women, slow and grudging as it is, is clearly headed in the same direction and suggests the same. 

Even the reaction against the rights of gay people in some parts of the world is a positive sign in one respect. As late as 100 years ago, the only question would have been criminalization. Now, in major areas of the world, there is acceptance of gay rights. It is not surprising that these rapid changes have led to violent reaction as well. Progress in human history is not a smooth path, but progress is nevertheless readily apparent, not only in the advancement itself but in the pushback.

Why should the arc of the moral universe not be acknowledged and celebrated? Yes, it can be argued that such progress is evidence of God’s provenance, although some of these changes have taken place in the teeth of religious opposition. But, again, it is not the job of secularism to disprove the existence of God. We secularists find the whole notion of a supernatural being unbelievable. Why should we bother trying to convince sincere believers that their beliefs are untrue?

The refusal of secularism to embrace progress and promise hope has been a political catastrophe. Progress and hope had always been important parts of left-wing political movements. Abandoning them in favor of a view of the universe as only the play of forces has opened a space for the pathologies of former president Donald Trump, who is only too happy to treat politics as nothing but a fight over power having nothing to do with the movement toward justice.

For this reason, the politics of joy inaugurated by Vice-President Kamala Harris in her presidential bid may prove to be an effective counter to Trump’s approach.

The spiritual crisis of loss of hope is belatedly being recognized by politicians and thinkers. Ohio Sen. JD Vance, the Republican nominee for vice-president, talks about this, as do other post-liberal thinkers. Sen. Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, has been vocal about it.

Ironically, most of the discussion about remedies for the crisis involves ending free trade—as if you could address a spiritual crisis by adding manufacturing jobs.

The economy is not the reason people are unhappy. Increasing the federal minimum wage and helping workers organize in unions are good policies in their own right. But they will not end the fatalism and loneliness that afflict many Americans.

It would be a much better political strategy for the left to embrace the positive tendencies in human existence and claim them for our own. That is the secret to curing the toxicity of our public life. Secularists should be embracing the idea that the universe is on our side. That is not inviting passivity but rather is countering despair. Even Donald Trump is just a part of the ups and downs that still lead in an overwhelmingly positive direction.

Grounding secularism in a beneficent universe does not explain why, in the absence of a God, the universe should be beneficent. And that is a comfort to religious believers who say it proves God’s existence. But that claim should not be a problem. The job of secularism is clarity of observation and thought. That is what wisdom is. If there is good news for the future because the universe bends toward justice, all the better. We have no reason to insist on bleakness.

We cannot allow the fear of God-belief to interfere with our wisdom.