Religion in Modern Society: Religion and Science, Secularization, Religious Revivalism, Fundamentalism

Religion and Science: The Evolutionary Reading and Its Collapse

Sociology Optional Notes {PDF}

Complete Notes Package (Paper I & II) | 1000+ Pages | Instant Download

Discounted Price | Buy Now @ ₹600 →

• The oldest sociological framing treats science as religion’s historical successor, each stage of human thought retiring the one before it.
  • Auguste Comte’s law of three stages runs theological, then metaphysical, then positive (scientific) — religion is simply the immature phase a society outgrows.
  • James Frazer’s ladder in The Golden Bough runs magic, then religion, then science, with each later stage a more adequate technique for controlling nature than the one it replaces.
• Both schemes share the same assumption — a single ladder of human cognition that every society climbs in the same order — and both are rejected in contemporary sociology.
• Malinowski’s fieldwork among the Trobriand Islanders supplies the standard rebuttal: the islanders used genuine empirical technique for garden cultivation and calm-lagoon fishing, and turned to magic specifically for the unpredictable, high-risk activity of deep-sea fishing.
  • Magic, religion, and empirical technique coexist in the same society, each governing its own domain of experience, rather than the more “advanced” one displacing the others.
  • The relationship is a division of labour by domain of uncertainty, not a relay race in which science eventually wins.
• Despite this, the evolutionary expectation of religion’s disappearance was shared by early sociology’s own founders — Comte, Durkheim, and Marx all anticipated that science and rational technique would progressively narrow religion’s space — and it has not been borne out; religion persists and periodically intensifies even in the most scientifically advanced societies, a puzzle taken up at length under secularisation below.
  • A frequently cited illustration of this persistence: scientists at India’s space research organisation have been photographed carrying a model of a satellite to a temple before a launch — an act that serves a psychological and communal need distinct from, and unthreatened by, the scientist’s own command of orbital mechanics.

Weber’s Disenchantment and Merton’s Reversal

• Max Weber’s concept of disenchantment (Entzauberung) is the sharper, more defensible claim in this debate, and the one worth leading with over a crude conflict story.
  • Rationalisation strips the world of mystery: natural events cease to be read as the direct action of spirits or God and become instances of calculable, impersonal law.
  • But science can only ever answer questions of how the world works, not questions of how one should live — it is not built to adjudicate value, meaning, or ultimate purpose.
  • The result is not religion’s elimination but a narrowing of its jurisdiction: religion loses ground over explanation of the natural world, while retaining, even in an otherwise rationalised society, sole jurisdiction over questions of meaning.
• Robert Merton, in Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth-Century England (1938), inverted the expected causal arrow using a method modelled directly on Weber’s own Protestant Ethic argument.
  • Puritan religious values — an ethic of empirical observation, of practical utility, and of a duty to glorify God by studying and mastering His creation — actively legitimated the new experimental science of the seventeenth century.
  • This makes religion, at least at that historical juncture, a cause of the scientific revolution rather than only its eventual victim — a fact that complicates any simple story of religion retreating before science’s advance.

The Compatibility Debate: The Case for Conflict

• Basis of knowledge. Religion rests on faith, revelation, and ritual; science rests on observation, experimentation, verification, and evidence that can in principle be checked by anyone.
• Domain. Science addresses the known, empirical world; religion is oriented to the unknown and the supernatural, which by definition sits outside what any experiment can test.
  • Sumner and Keller argued it is difficult to identify any historical religion that has genuinely welcomed free, unrestricted enquiry into its own claims.
• Method. Science insists that no observed phenomenon be accepted at face value — its meaning is established only through controlled experimentation, holding constant the variables (time, place, person, equipment) that could distort a result; religious truth-claims are, by contrast, accepted on the authority of revelation or tradition.
• Orientation. Science claims neutrality, objectivity, precision, and measurement; religion is non-rational in Weber’s specific sense — its claims to truth cannot be adjudicated by rational, evidentiary procedure.
  • Bryan Wilson put the underlying tension sharply: a fully rational worldview is, on this reading, “the enemy of religion.”
• Application. Science converts the unknown into observable, measurable reality and yields concrete technological mastery over nature; religion cannot render God empirically observable, and produces no comparably immediate, verifiable results.
• Universality. Scientific method and its findings claim validity across all societies; religious doctrine is culturally and denominationally particular, differing sharply from one community to the next.
• Pitirim Sorokin distinguished the two on the status of their own claims: religion rests on unquestionable faith, science on a permanently questionable, revisable thesis that invites its own falsification.
• Kingsley Davis captured the strongest version of the conflict thesis in a single image: religion “withers like a leaf before a flame” once a genuinely scientific attitude is brought to bear on it.
• Richard Dawkins’s contemporary version of this argument holds that faith, by definition, requires no justification and tolerates no counter-argument — which makes it structurally incompatible with a method whose entire discipline consists of demanding both.

Science and Religion Compared

The Compatibility Debate: The Case Against Necessary Conflict

• H.E. Barnes argued that even granting real conflict between the fundamentals of organised religion and modern science, no such conflict exists between science and humanism, since humanists frankly ground their own ethics in the findings of science itself — the actual fault line runs through dogma, not through “religion” understood as ethical philosophy.
• Much of the apparent conflict dissolves once dogma and distorted theology are separated from religion’s substantive content: it is the literalist husk of a tradition, not the tradition’s ethical core, that quarrels with scientific findings. A religion that accepts science’s findings and a science that grants religion’s social necessity need not be in conflict at all.
• The shifting-boundary argument: much of what looks like permanent conflict is really a boundary in continuous motion — what was unknown (and therefore the province of religious explanation) yesterday becomes known (and therefore scientific) today. Read this way, both are engaged in the same underlying pursuit of explaining the unknown, approaching it from opposite ends.
• The complementary-function argument: religion touches the soul, science indicates material advancement; a scientifically advanced but existentially anxious society still turns to religion for meaning and repose, so the two cannot be evaluated in isolation from each other.
• Both are, at root, forms of human understanding and cognitive systems — ways humans relate themselves to reality and each claim some access to truth.
• Religion is more collectively oriented than science, but science, too, depends on the cooperation and shared norms of an organised scientific community — the contrast is one of degree, not of kind.
• Both have, at different times, been turned against humankind (religious wars; weaponised science) — so neither institution can claim clean moral superiority over the other on historical grounds.
• William Sims Bainbridge argued religion can positively encourage science rather than merely coexist with it: monotheism implies a universe governed by a single coherent set of laws rather than one that is chaotically unknowable, an assumption congenial to science’s own search for universal law; some concepts in modern physics have even been read as having affinities with Asian mystical traditions.
• Steve Bruce locates the real driver elsewhere: it is technological application, not scientific knowledge as such, that reduces the occasions on which people turn to religion for practical help, since machines now solve problems people once addressed through ritual — on this reading, science and religion can coexist quite easily, because science never actually disproves a religious claim, it merely makes appeal to it less frequently necessary.
• Max Weber’s own thesis on the Protestant ethic cuts against a simple opposition too: he treats religion as instrumental to the very rise of capitalism and the industrial-technological order that later produced modern science, making religion a historical partner of scientific modernity rather than only its casualty.

Non-Overlapping Magisteria and the Real Points of Collision

• The historical conflict thesis, associated with John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White in the nineteenth century, is now read by historians of science as polemic written to serve a particular anti-clerical agenda, rather than an accurate account of how science and religious institutions actually related to each other historically.
• Stephen Jay Gould’s alternative, Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA), resolves the dispute by separating jurisdictions rather than declaring a winner.
  • Science holds the magisterium of empirical fact — how nature works.
  • Religion holds the magisterium of meaning and morality — how humans should live and find purpose.
  • Because these are logically distinct kinds of question, a well-drawn boundary removes the occasion for conflict rather than settling it in either side’s favour.
• Genuine collision still occurs precisely where this boundary is contested rather than respected.
  • Creationism versus evolution in school science curricula.
  • Refusal of blood transfusion or vaccination on religious grounds.
  • Reproductive and genetic technology — IVF, surrogacy, gene-editing — where religious authorities assert jurisdiction over what were previously purely technical decisions.
  • Disputes over the historical dating and authorship of scripture, where textual-critical method directly challenges claims of divine or unmediated authorship.
• There is traffic in the reverse direction as well.
  • Religion sometimes borrows the idiom of science for legitimacy — Scientology presents itself as grounded in scientific method, and faith healing is at times marketed using the vocabulary of therapy.
  • Science, conversely, has been shown to acquire faith-like features of its own: Thomas Kuhn’s account of scientific paradigms suggests that between revolutions, a research community holds its foundational assumptions on a kind of collective trust rather than continuous, individual re-verification.
• Desacralisation names the broader long-run shift this entire debate sits inside: supernatural forces cease to be seen as controlling worldly events, human action is no longer directed by religious belief as a matter of course, and consciousness itself becomes progressively secularised — the theme taken up fully as secularisation below.
• A popular formulation, useful as a synthesis rather than a resolution:

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” — Albert Einstein

• This is best read not as a claim that the two are identical but that science supplies technique and power, while religion (in Einstein’s own broad, ethical sense) supplies the ends and restraint that keep that power humanely directed — echoing the postmodernist observation that societies which have grown distrustful of science’s own failures and side-effects are, if anything, turning back toward religion for exactly this reason.

Secularisation: Definition and Its Careful Reading

• Bryan Wilson (Religion in Secular Society, 1966) supplies the working definition to lead with: secularisation is “the process whereby religious thinking, practice and institutions lose social significance.”
  • The operative phrase is social significance, not disappearance. Individuals can remain believers while religion, as an institution, ceases to organise the wider society’s law, politics, economy, and knowledge. Missing this distinction is the single most common confusion in this entire debate.
  • Wilson names three markers of an increasingly secular society: the prevalence of instrumental values, of rational procedures, and of technological methods — replacing an earlier social order organised around ultimate ends, ritual observance, and the sacred.
• Peter Berger (The Sacred Canopy, 1967) defines secularisation as “the process by which sectors of society and culture are removed from the domination of religious institutions and symbols.”
• Harvey Cox identified the characteristic marks of a secularising society as urbanisation, pragmatism, a this-worldliness of attitude, and pluralism with tolerance.
• Taken together, secularisation is generally indicated by: the withdrawal of religion from spheres such as education and marriage; the growth of a plurality of worldviews; the emergence of a rational-scientific outlook; and the spread of a critical, questioning public consciousness.

The Dimensions and Levels of Secularisation

• Karel Dobbelaere disaggregates the single word “secularisation” into three levels that must not be conflated with each other.
  • Societal: laicisation and structural differentiation — law, medicine, welfare, and education progressively leave religious control and reorganise around autonomous, secular criteria of competence.
  • Organisational: religious bodies themselves rationalise, liberalise, and professionalise their own internal functioning, coming to resemble other modern bureaucratic organisations.
  • Individual: a decline in personal belief, attendance, and the everyday salience religion holds in an individual’s own life.
• Larry Shiner (1967) had already found six distinct meanings of “secularisation” in scholarly circulation before Dobbelaere’s cleaner three-level scheme was proposed — a large part of why disputants in this literature often talk past each other, each defending or attacking a different sense of the same word.
• Talcott Parsons ties secularisation to a shift in a society’s underlying value-pattern: as institutions professionalise, they move toward affective neutrality, functional specificity, self-orientation, and universalism — away from the diffuse, particularistic, collectively-oriented pattern that religious institutions once organised society around.

Four Institutional Ways Secularisation Has Been Measured — and Contested

Decline in Organised Religious Participation

• One classic approach measures secularisation through the fortunes of religious institutions themselves — church attendance, marriages performed in church, and similar behavioural indicators.
  • Wilson argued that the decline in organised religious participation shows how churches are losing their direct influence over people’s ideas and everyday activities.
• This interpretation is contested on its own terms.
  • David Martin argued that in the Victorian era, church attendance was driven as much by middle-class respectability as by genuine religious conviction; its decline today may reflect a change in what confers respectability, not a change in religious belief itself.
  • Robert Bellah argued that the decline of institutional religion cannot be read as a decline in religious belief and commitment — religion may simply be practised differently, moving from collective worship to privatised worship, and from clerical to individual interpretation of doctrine, since most Protestant denominations already hold that the individual member is responsible for interpreting faith for himself.

Disengagement and Structural Differentiation

• Compared to its role in medieval Europe — where church and state were fused, and most art and architecture served religious themes — the church in contemporary Western society has visibly disengaged from public life; ecclesiastical control of education and welfare has been superseded by secular, state-run institutions.
  • Wilson argued that a body like the Church of England now provides little more than traditional ritual marking life-cycle turning points (birth, marriage, death), which he reads as clear evidence of disengagement and hence secularisation.
• Talcott Parsons offered the major counter-argument: societal evolution involves structural differentiation, in which formerly fused institutions become specialised and perform fewer distinct functions each — but differentiation is not the same as loss of importance.
  • Parsons held that religious belief continues to supply meaning and legitimation even after losing direct institutional control, and that as churches specialise, their ethics and values become progressively more generalised, becoming the basis for a society’s broader civic values (so that many American values, for instance, are at once recognisably Christian and recognisably American) — an “endowment of secular life with a new order of religious legitimation,” rather than religion’s simple retreat.

Religious Pluralism as Evidence of Secularisation

• The claim here assumes a “truly religious” society has one shared faith and one church — a picture drawn from small-scale, non-literate societies (Durkheim’s Australian Aboriginal case, where the community effectively is the church) and from the single established church of medieval Europe.
• Modern societies instead show a multiplicity of competing denominations and sects, and this proliferation is itself read as evidence of religion’s weakened grip on society.
  • Wilson argued that once several denominations each claim their own version of the truth, none can do more than legitimate the beliefs of one section of the population; religious values cease to be community values, and religion loses its Durkheimian function of expressing and reinforcing the values of society as a whole.
  • Berger and Luckmann made a parallel argument: where one religious institution once offered a single, unchallenged “universe of meaning,” many now offer competing and divergent ones, which itself weakens religion’s overall social authority.
• Peter Berger turned this argument in a striking direction with respect to sects: he read the continuing vitality of sects as evidence of, not against, a secular society.
  • Because belief in the supernatural can now only survive in a tightly organised, sectarian form, individuals seeking strong religious commitment must deliberately cut themselves off from the wider society’s secularising influences and band together with like-minded believers.
  • On this reading, the sect is “the last refuge of the supernatural” in an otherwise secular society — its very existence as an enclosed enclave is proof of how far secularisation has advanced everywhere outside it.
  • Wilson shared this reading, describing sects as a predictable feature of societies undergoing secularisation, arising precisely where religious values have already lost their broader social pre-eminence. He was notably dismissive of Western youth movements of this kind (such as the Krishna Consciousness movement), judging them “almost irrelevant” to society as a whole and offering little more than self-selected “exotic novelty,” in sharp contrast to how early Methodism, itself once a sect, diffused standards and values through the entire new urban working class.

The Secularisation of Religious Institutions Themselves

• A fourth line of argument holds that even where religious institutions remain outwardly healthy, their internal content has been hollowed out and secularised.
  • Will Herberg distinguished this from “authentic religion” — a serious, uncompromising commitment to supernatural doctrine — which he argued America’s major denominations no longer supply. Instead, “denominational pluralism, on the American plan, means thorough-going secularisation”: churches have shifted emphasis toward this world rather than the next, softened traditional doctrine, and compromised their teaching to fit comfortably with the wider society, so that for the typical churchgoer religion mostly reassures him of “the essential rightness of everything American” rather than transmitting the actual word of God.
  • Berger and Luckmann broadly endorsed Herberg’s thesis, adding the concept of internal secularisation: denominations were forced to modify their traditional teaching to retain a “plausibility structure” in a changed society — teachings that go unmodified come to appear irrational or irrelevant in the new social setting, so survival itself required sacrificing a good deal of original religious content.
  • Peter Berger extended this into a market analogy: American religious institutions increasingly resemble commodities sold in a marketplace, where a successful “sales campaign” pushes supernatural content into the background and sells the institution instead under the label of values congenial to an already-secularised consciousness — “modifying their product in accordance with consumer demands.” This, he argued, is why American churches stay full (having adapted) while many European churches stand empty (having remained doctrinally unchanged while the surrounding society changed around them).
  • Seymour Lipset criticised Herberg’s conclusion, pointing to evidence that evangelical Christianity was growing faster than the older mainline denominations — suggesting the debate ultimately turns on the observer’s own prior judgment of what counts as “authentic religion,” which tells us as much about the theorist’s values as about American religion itself.

Believing Without Belonging — and the Empirical Pushback

• Grace Davie’s study of British religion proposed “believing without belonging”: many people retain belief in God or a higher power while abandoning institutionalised, church-based practice of that belief — practice falls faster than belief does.
  • She extended this with “vicarious religion”: a small, actively practising minority effectively performs religious observance on behalf of a much larger population that quietly approves of and draws on it without participating directly (for instance, a national cathedral service after a tragedy).
• David Voas and Alasdair Crockett directly challenged this thesis with survey data, finding that in Britain both belief and belonging are declining together, not one faster than the other — undercutting the specific empirical claim that a reservoir of private belief survives once institutional practice has emptied out.
• Thomas Luckmann (The Invisible Religion, 1967) argued religion has not so much declined as privatised — it survives as an individual meaning-system constructed outside formal churches altogether, so official statistics on church membership systematically undercount how much genuinely religious meaning-making is still happening.
• Daniele Hervieu-Léger reframes the entire debate around a “chain of memory”: what modernity actually breaks is the intergenerational transmission of religious tradition, not necessarily the underlying human disposition toward belief — so what looks like secularisation may really be a crisis of religious memory, not religious belief.
• Malinowski’s older functionalist distinction is relevant here too: religion performs both a social role (integration, solidarity) and a psychological role (answering fear, anxiety, and death); secular ideas and institutions may have taken over much of the former, but religion continues to serve the latter even in the most rationalised societies.

Peter Berger’s Recantation and Jose Casanova’s Verdict

• The most quotable single development in this entire debate is that Peter Berger, who had built one of the strongest theoretical versions of the secularisation thesis in The Sacred Canopy (1967), later published a public recantation of his own earlier position in The Desecularization of the World (1999).

“The world is as furiously religious as it ever was.” — Peter Berger

– Berger’s revised argument holds that the world today is, if anything, *more* religious than the secularisation thesis predicted, with two major exceptions: **Western Europe**, and an **international academic and cultural intelligentsia** whose own secular assumptions had misled it into treating its own experience as a universal pattern.

• Jose Casanova (Public Religions in the Modern World, 1994) offered the most careful resolution by disaggregating “secularisation” into three logically separable claims, and testing each independently.
  • Differentiation — the institutional separation of law, education, medicine, and welfare from religious control.
  • Decline — a fall in personal religious belief and practice.
  • Privatisation — religion’s confinement to the private, individual sphere, with no legitimate claim on public and political life.
  • His verdict: only differentiation holds up empirically as a genuine, near-universal historical trend; decline and privatisation do not.
  • His key evidence against privatisation specifically is “deprivatisation” — episodes of religion re-entering public and political life to contest moral and political questions directly: the Solidarity movement in Poland, liberation theology in Latin America, the American Christian right, and the Iranian Revolution.
• Rodney Stark (Secularization, R.I.P., 1999) attacks the thesis at its root rather than at its evidence, arguing there was never a genuine religious “golden age” to decline from — historical evidence on medieval popular church attendance and doctrinal knowledge is patchy at best, so the whole narrative of steady decline compares an idealised religious past to a disenchanted present that never actually contrasted that sharply.
• Taken together, the weight of this literature argues that the appeal of religion has not simply lost its grip with the deepening of modernity: religious and spiritual belief remain powerful, motivating forces even where formal church membership has fallen, and secularisation is most defensible as a description of change within religious institutions (their declining direct power, and their own internal secularising adjustments, for instance on gender and sexuality) rather than as a claim that religion itself is vanishing.

Secularism and Secularisation: Why They Are Not the Same Object

• Secularism is a normative, constitutional stance about how the state and public life should be organised with respect to religion; secularisation is an empirical social process describing what is actually happening to religion’s social significance. Conflating the two is the single most common error in Indian-context answers on this theme, and it produces a specific bad argument: that India “is not secularising” because the state funds religious institutions — a claim about secularism’s institutional design, mistaken for evidence about secularisation as a social trend.
• Secularism itself can be approached from three distinct perspectives.
  • People-centric secularism emphasises separating religion from politics, the economy, education, social life, and culture at the level of the individual citizen.
  • State-centric secularism emphasises the state’s role as an impartial protector of all religions equally, rather than as an institution walled off from religion altogether.
  • India-centric secularism underlines the unity of all communities against communalism, treating secularism as much as a nation-building project as a personal or institutional stance.
• As an ideology, secularism rests on five constituent ideas.
  • It stresses human autonomy — individuals are the masters of their own lives and destinies, and faith is placed in human reason rather than divine guidance.
  • It asserts the separation of religion from the state, extending this to family relations, education, morality, and knowledge more broadly.
  • It places emphasis on reason and enquiry as the appropriate basis for belief and action.
  • It welcomes pluralism and religious toleration, supporting an attitude of tolerance toward all religious communities.
  • It is, importantly, not anti-religion as such — it does not require disbelief, only the separation of religious authority from public institutions.
• Secularism’s own contemporary defenders and critics disagree sharply on how far this separation should go: Sayeeda Warsi’s critique of “aggressive secularism” — the charge that an assertive secularism can itself deny people the right to a religious identity, resembling in that specific respect the intolerance of the ideologies it opposes — captures a live tension within secularism’s own self-understanding, distinct from the debate over secularisation as a trend.

Secularism’s European Experience

• Secularism was substantially the achievement of the Reformation and the Renaissance in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century Europe.
  • Martin Luther, the principal figure of the Protestant Reformation, advocated the individual’s right to interpret the word of God directly, without requiring the mediating authority of the institutional Church.
  • The Reformation began as a religious movement but soon acquired reactionary features of its own: it did not straightforwardly produce greater toleration and religious liberty, and the illiterate popular masses largely remained unaware of the underlying theological dispute, so religion continued to dominate everyday discourse even as elite doctrine fractured.
  • The Renaissance separately advanced rational thinking and directly challenged theological cosmology; mass education, a free press, and organised social movements were the practical vehicles used to carry this rationalist outlook to the wider population.

The Social Process of Secularisation in Europe

• Secularisation, as a process (distinct from secularism as a stance), required a specific social milieu to take hold, visible in two class conflicts.
  • Feudal lords versus the bourgeoisie: in England and the Netherlands, an eighteenth-century conflict pitted a feudal aristocracy — which financed lavish patronage of religious institutions that in turn prayed for its members’ well-being — against a rising bourgeoisie that used a scientific and rational outlook as its weapon, challenging hereditary feudal privilege and the claimed “divine right” of feudal rule on explicitly rational grounds.
  • Capitalists versus wage-earners: Disraeli’s image of “two nations” — capitalists and propertyless wage-earners — describes a class alienated from the fruits of its own labour that initially turned to religion for consolation, while capitalists themselves used religion both to justify their own conduct and to pacify a potentially restive workforce. Emerging modern nation-states nonetheless proclaimed democracy and the freedom of conscience, which itself unfolded across three historical stages: first, a struggle merely for religious tolerance; second, the assertion of freedom of conscience; and third, the achievement of genuine freedom of conscience as an established right.
• The institutional record of this process is visible in specific state arrangements: the Church of England remains formally subordinate to the British sovereign; the French state maintains strict neutrality among religious groups and bars clerics from teaching in public schools; and several European states have, at various points, placed church property under state ownership, restricted clerical participation in politics, and denied churches independent broadcast media — an institutional secularisation quite distinct from any change in individual belief.

The India-Specific Debate: An Impossible Transplant, or Principled Distance?

• T.N. Madan and Ashis Nandy argue that Western-style secularism — built on a strict, wall-of-separation model that presumes religion can be neatly privatised and compartmentalised away from public life — is an impossible transplant onto Indian society, where religion has never functioned as a purely private, compartmentalised sphere of life the way post-Reformation Christianity did in the West.
  • Nandy goes further, arguing that an aggressively imposed secularism can itself provoke religious revivalism when it operates against a backdrop of relative deprivation — a secularism experienced as elite imposition rather than genuine neutrality can generate precisely the majoritarian or communal backlash it was meant to prevent.
• Rajeev Bhargava defends an Indian variant he terms “principled distance”: rather than requiring the state to be strictly equidistant and non-interventionist toward all religions (the classical Western model), the Indian Constitution permits the state to engage religions differentially and even intervene in a religion’s internal affairs where doing so serves constitutional values — for example, legislating against untouchability or reforming personal law — while still claiming to treat no religion as the state religion. On this account, India is not a failed secular state for engaging with religion; it operates a different, principled model of secularism suited to a genuinely multi-religious society.

Contemporary Evidence: The Global “Secular Transition”

• Recent large-scale survey research gives the debate above a firmer empirical footing than it has historically had. A 2025 study analysing Pew Research Center survey data from 111 countries and territories, collected between 2008 and 2023, proposes that secularisation typically unfolds through three sequential steps across generations, termed the Participation–Importance–Belonging (P-I-B) sequence: younger generations first attend religious services less often than their elders, then rate religion as less personally important, and only later come to identify with no religion at all.
  • Countries currently in an early stage — where the generational gap shows up mainly in participation, while nearly everyone (young and old alike) still identifies with a religion and considers it important — include most Muslim-majority countries and, notably, Hindu-majority India.
  • Countries in a medium stage, where all three gaps (participation, importance, and belonging) are visible across generations, include the United States and much of the Americas and Asia.
  • Countries in a late stage, where older and younger generations already resemble each other on attendance and stated importance and differ mainly in formal religious belonging, are concentrated in Europe.
  • A separate 2025 Pew report found that between 2010 and 2020, the religiously unaffiliated share of the population grew in 35 countries, dropping most sharply in Australia, Chile, Uruguay, and the United States — while the global Muslim population simultaneously grew fastest of any major religious group, a reminder that “the world is secularising” is not a uniform, single-direction global statement.
  • Significantly, the same body of research identifies clear exceptions to its own pattern: several post-communist Eastern European countries with Orthodox or Muslim majorities (Russia, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Georgia) show a nationalist religious revival following decades of Soviet-era suppression rather than a steady secular decline, and Israel’s younger cohort — heavily drawn from Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox families — shows no significant generational gap in religiosity at all. Both exceptions are direct, present-day illustrations of the same resurgence Berger’s recantation and Casanova’s “deprivatisation” describe theoretically.
• This evidence base sharpens rather than resolves the debate: it vindicates Wilson’s and Bruce’s mechanism in the countries where it is visibly operating (Europe, in particular), while simultaneously vindicating Berger’s recantation and Stark’s scepticism about a uniform, inevitable, or even directional global pattern.

Religious Revivalism

• Religious revivalism refers to mass movements built on an intense upsurge of religious feeling and observance, seeking to restore commitment and attachment to a religious group or tradition. Periodic revivals of this kind are a regularly observable feature of religious traditions generally, not a uniquely modern phenomenon.
• Revivalism is typically emotional rather than doctrinal, mass-scale rather than elite, and led by preachers and popular figures rather than theologians — and it is not necessarily political in itself, which is the key distinction developed further below against both communalism and fundamentalism.
• Methodism in eighteenth-century Western society is the classic early example of a revivalist upsurge within an existing tradition.
• In India, the Arya Samaj, founded by Swami Dayanand Saraswati, is the paradigmatic revivalist movement, built substantially around its Shuddhi (“purification”) movement.
  • Shuddhi aimed to reconvert to Hinduism those who had converted away to other religions, in direct response to the pressure of Christian and Islamic missionary activity.
  • It had a marked social impact on lower-caste Hindus in particular, many of whom had originally converted out in search of improved social status; the Arya Samaj simultaneously extended new claims to equality for women, notably in education.
• Grace Davie’s comparative typology usefully shows that secularisation is not one uniform global process, and that revivalism is one of several genuinely different national trajectories it can produce.
  • Western Europe broadly shows believing without belonging — low church attendance alongside retained private belief.
  • The Nordic countries show close to the reverse — belonging without believing — high nominal church membership with comparatively low personal conviction.
  • Many Eastern societies show little evidence of secularisation at all; instead they show active religious fundamentalism and revivalism.
  • This variation is itself evidence that measuring secularisation only through the fortunes of existing churches systematically misses genuinely new religious formations altogether.
• Early sociology’s founders shared a common expectation that this variation would eventually collapse into uniform decline: Marx, Durkheim, and Weber all believed secularisation was bound to occur as societies modernised and grew more reliant on science and technology to explain and control the social world — an expectation revivalism directly falsifies as a universal, one-directional claim.
• Peter Berger himself, consistent with his recantation, notes the growing importance of religion in contemporary politics and describes many contemporary societies as undergoing active re-sacralisation rather than continued secularisation.
• Rodney Stark makes the pointed rebuttal to the Comtean expectation directly: religion is not solely a source of social integration, it is equally instrumental for social division — religion is a genuinely universal force that appears in different forms across history, influencing the political, social, and cultural life of societies in a multidimensional way that a single “decline” narrative cannot capture.

Causes of Growing Religious Revivalism

• Migration, urbanisation, and new insecurity. The unprecedented scale of migration and urbanisation in a globalised world produces multiple, overlapping “dislocations” of self, community, and identity, and religion offers people a way to re-establish identity and validate their experience amid that dislocation.
• The “image industry” and media visibility. Because institutionalised religions are historically well-resourced (money, networks, personnel, structures), they are especially well positioned to exploit modern mass media, particularly television, to generate high visibility.
  • This increased visibility of religious “images” can create an impression of accentuated religiosity without a corresponding “spiritual” transformation actually occurring in people’s lives — revival can be more a media phenomenon than a genuine change in personal conviction.
• Diaspora and migrant-community religiosity. Migrant communities consistently show higher religiosity than their counterparts who never left, partly because religious venues become the natural nodal points of an identity network in an unfamiliar setting — Tamil migrants may first encounter each other in a temple, Bangladeshi migrants in a mosque, and so on, driven by the relative marginalisation migrants experience in an unfamiliar cultural space.
  • First-generation migrants frequently feel their regional or religious identity more intensely abroad than compatriots who remained at home — a pattern visible, for instance, among Gulf-based Malayali diaspora organisations — because identity gets accentuated precisely where a person feels marginalised.
• Individuation and new consumerism-driven insecurity. Rising individuation produces a distinct sense of loneliness and insecurity, sharpened by globalisation’s “hire and fire” labour culture and by consumerist expectations about what a person ought to be able to “possess.” Both younger adults (anxious about employment) and older adults (anxious about job loss or illness) turn to a growing “spiritual marketplace” of gurus and wellness movements to manage this insecurity.
• Social disintegration of traditional collective structures. Where older collective institutions — tribal community structures, the joint family, the neighbourhood parish or temple — have disintegrated under the pressure of urbanisation and migration, a space opens for new, network-based identity formation, visible in the rapid growth of “cell churches” and networked religious movements.
  • Michel Maffesoli’s concept of contemporary “neo-tribes” describes the same underlying dynamic from a different angle: modern social bonds are loose, fluid, and short-lived, which generates a recurring need for the kind of durable, shared-identity belonging that religion — with its long institutional history — is well placed to supply.
• Commodification of “customised spiritualism.” Institutionalised religion increasingly repackages itself as customised, “feel-good” spiritual products marketed to individual consumers — visible, for instance, in Christianity’s Charismatic movement and its flexible, personalised network forms.
  • The prosperity gospel, along with associated “healing ministries” and “miracle crusades,” specifically exploits the economic and social insecurities of communities in transition, and does especially well in relatively poor communities in both Africa and America.
• Identity politics replacing ideological politics. The end of the Cold War shifted global political contestation from an ideological register (capitalism versus communism) to an identity-based one, and religious identity has become one of the most readily available currencies of political mobilisation in this new register.
  • This produces “accentuated” majority and minority identities that generate their own insecurities — for example, a young Muslim in Europe may feel more strongly “Muslim” than a Muslim living in a Muslim-majority country, precisely because minority status intensifies identity as a defensive reflex.
• Robert Bellah’s related concept of civil religion is worth noting alongside these causes: even avowedly secular societies tend to generate substitute quasi-religious loyalties of their own — around nationalism, revolutionary martyrdom, or a founding ideology — suggesting the underlying human need religion serves does not simply disappear even where formal religious institutions genuinely do decline.

Revivalism and Communalism Distinguished

• Revivalism is intra-religious intensification: a deepening of religious commitment and practice within an existing tradition, directed inward at the tradition’s own adherents.
• Communalism, by contrast, is the political mobilisation of religious identity against another community, built on the claim that different religious communities have fundamentally incompatible secular (economic and political) interests.
• Revivalism can feed into communalism, but does not do so inevitably, and the Indian historical record cuts both ways.
  • The Arya Samaj’s own Shuddhi campaigns, for instance, hardened religious boundaries between communities and contributed to communal tension in parts of north India.
  • The Ramakrishna Mission, by contrast, channelled a comparably intense religious revival into social service and education rather than into intercommunity contestation.
• The distinction matters analytically because it separates a movement’s internal religious energy from its external political direction — the same revivalist intensity can be channelled toward either communal confrontation or social reform, depending on the leadership and context that shape it.

Religious Fundamentalism

Defining Fundamentalism

• The anthropologist Lionel Caplan (1987) offers the standard working definition: fundamentalism is a belief in the timelessness of sacred writings, combined with the belief that such writings apply across all environments and historical periods without needing reinterpretation.
• The term has a precise, datable origin, worth stating exactly.
  • It comes from a series of twelve pamphlets, “The Fundamentals,” published anonymously by conservative American Protestants between 1910 and 1915, asserting doctrines such as the virgin birth, the divinity and physical resurrection of Christ, and the infallibility of scripture, against liberal theological interpretation and Darwinian evolution.
  • This gave rise to the specialised usage of “fundamentalism” in American print media in the early 1920s, before the term was later extended, far more loosely, to describe comparable movements across entirely different religious traditions.
• T.N. Madan (1993) cautions that the word has become a blanket term in contemporary usage — carrying normative baggage that either judges or outright condemns the movements it is applied to, and often used, erroneously, as if interchangeable with communalism. Movements labelled “fundamentalist” across the world are not actually identical to one another; at best they share a “family resemblance.”
  • Martin Marty and R. Scott Appleby’s Fundamentalism Project formalised this same caution methodologically, deliberately treating fundamentalism as a family resemblance category rather than attempting one strict definition, precisely because movements this diverse resist a single essential definition.
• Gabriel Almond, R. Scott Appleby, and Emmanuel Sivan define fundamentalism as a discernible pattern of religious militance by which self-styled “true believers” attempt to arrest the erosion of religious identity, fortify the boundaries of the religious community, and construct viable alternatives to secular institutions and behaviours.

Characteristics of Fundamentalist Movements

• The Fundamentalism Project’s catalogue of recurring traits is the most systematically useful list available.
  • Reactivity — the movement arises as a reaction to a perceived crisis or marginalisation, not as a spontaneous original impulse.
  • Selectivity — a small number of doctrines are fought over intensely while the rest of the tradition is quietly de-emphasised.
  • Moral dualism — a stark division of the world into the pure and the impure, the saved and the corrupted.
  • Absolutism and inerrancy — the foundational text or law is treated as literally and finally true, admitting no competing interpretation.
  • Millennialism — belief in an approaching decisive transformation or end-time.
  • An elect membership with sharply drawn behavioural boundaries separating insiders from outsiders.
  • Charismatic, authoritarian, and almost always male leadership.
• T.N. Madan’s own list of features overlaps closely and adds useful precision.
  • Affirmation of the final, unquestionable authority of scripture.
  • Not an original impulse but a reaction to a perceived crisis.
  • Intolerance toward dissent and internal disagreement.
  • A cultural critique of modern society as morally corrupted.
  • Appeal to tradition, but only in a selective manner.
  • The pursuit of political power, discussed as the decisive distinguishing feature below.
  • Charismatic leadership.
• Two further characteristics deserve separate emphasis because they explain much of fundamentalism’s practical behaviour.
  • Fundamentalists typically make no distinction between the sacred and the profane in everyday life — religious principle is meant to govern social, economic, and political life without remainder, unlike traditions that carve out explicitly secular zones of ordinary conduct.
  • Fundamentalist movements are of a collective character, usually organised around a charismatic leader, and that leader need not be a religious professional at all: Ayatollah Khomeini led Iran’s 1979 revolution as a cleric, and Sant Bhindranwale led the Sikh fundamentalist upsurge, but Maulana Maududi, founder of the Jamaat-e-Islami, was originally a journalist, and K.B. Hedgewar, founder of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, was a physician by training.

Selective Retrieval of Tradition

• Fundamentalist movements characteristically present their programme as a return to an original tradition, but this “return” is in practice a selective retrieval — a contemporary redefinition of what counts as fundamental, tailored to present-day needs rather than a literal restoration of the past.
• Swami Dayanand’s Arya Samaj is the clearest worked example of this mechanism.
  • Responding to the challenge of Christian missionary conversion, Dayanand developed what amounts to a semiticised Hinduism — claiming the Vedas alone as the true, original form of Hinduism, condensing a vast and internally varied tradition into a single authoritative textual source, and rejecting the intervening centuries of ritual and social practice (which he characterised as corrupt accretion) as a betrayal of that original core.
• The same selective mechanism recurs across contexts: Khomeini built an Islamic state on the specific, contested doctrine of the guardianship of jurists, and Bhindranwale gave selective emphasis to Guru Gobind Singh’s own teachings while setting aside the teachings of his immediate successors.
• This selectivity means fundamentalist movements are only secondarily about religious doctrine narrowly defined; they typically extend into a critique of entire contemporary lifestyles, not just belief — Maududi criticised the prevailing Muslim way of life as “ignorant,” and Bhindranwale condemned Sikhs who shaved their beards and abandoned traditional observance as “fallen.”

Fundamentalism as a Modern Construction, Not a Survival from the Past

• Anthony Giddens supplies the sharpest available formula: fundamentalism is “tradition defended in the traditional way” — that is, defended by direct appeal to ritual truth rather than by reasoned argument — precisely because it operates inside a globalised world that forces every tradition to justify itself in competition with visible alternatives.
  • On this reading, fundamentalism’s true opposite is not modernity but cosmopolitanism — the willingness to treat one’s own tradition as one option among several, open to dialogue and revision. Fundamentalism is a child of globalisation, not a relic surviving despite it.
• S.N. Eisenstadt reads fundamentalism as a distinctly modern, “Jacobin” phenomenon: totalising, mobilising, and utopian, using thoroughly modern organisational tools — bureaucracy, mass communication, disciplined party structure — to construct a purified future, not to genuinely restore an actual historical past.
• Manuel Castells frames fundamentalist movements as a form of “resistance identity” — a defensive trench dug by groups excluded from the benefits and status of a globalised “network society.”
• Olivier Roy adds the concept of deculturation: fundamentalism thrives specifically among the deterritorialised and diasporic, individuals cut off from a lived, local, inherited culture and therefore in need of a portable, “purified,” text-based faith that travels well across borders.
• This body of theory is worth stating together because it corrects a common error: presenting fundamentalism as simply the past reasserting itself against a modernising present is analytically wrong. Every major theorist treated here reads it instead as a construction of modernity, built with modernity’s own tools, in direct response to modernity’s own dislocations.

Why Fundamentalism Grows: Structural and Political Causes

• Almond, Appleby, and Sivan identify a cluster of structural conditions that make fundamentalist mobilisation more likely: expanded education and communication, ongoing rationalisation of public life, an active civil society through which movements can organise, large-scale migration, unresolved economic problems, and the residual legacy of Western imperialism — though they stress that structural conditions alone are insufficient without the further presence of contingency and human choice, meaning specific leaders and ideological organisers who successfully build a coalition around these grievances.
• Samuel Huntington’s “clash of civilizations” thesis argues that as interactions between people of different civilisations intensify under globalisation, so too does civilisational self-consciousness, producing a sharper “us versus them” boundary between one’s own religious or ethnic group and others — a dynamic Huntington himself termed “unsecularisation,” in which diverging civilisational values generate conflict rather than convergence.
• Mark Juergensmeyer’s analysis of religious violence notes a real paradox at the centre of fundamentalist politics: the stated ultimate aim of most religious traditions is order, peace, and harmony on earth, yet fundamentalist movements frequently conclude that violence is a necessary, if paradoxical, means to establish that very order.
• At a more general level, the growth of fundamentalism reflects: globalisation’s dislocation of settled communities; the failure of states to deliver either development or dignity to significant sections of their population; migration placing every tradition visibly beside its alternatives, forcing it to justify itself; inexpensive mass media letting a movement scale rapidly without needing an elaborate institutional hierarchy; and identity becoming the most readily available currency of political mobilisation at a moment when class-based, ideological politics has weakened.

The Pursuit of Political Power: What Separates Fundamentalism from Revivalism

• Assertion of spiritual authority and cultural critique of the surrounding society are necessary features of fundamentalism, but they are not sufficient to distinguish it from mere revivalism — the decisive third element is the pursuit of political power.
  • Without an active claim on political power, a movement remains a case of revivalism, however intense its religious fervour; the Arya Samaj’s own nationalist political overtones, and the RSS’s sustained, structured links to political parties (culminating in the contemporary Sangh Parivar), illustrate a movement carrying both cultural and political ambition simultaneously.
• This pursuit of political power explains why fundamentalist movements frequently turn violent and explicitly reject the ideology of secularism: they are often totalitarian in aspiration and intolerant of internal dissent, which is also why an objective sociological analysis needs to treat fundamentalism as its own distinctive analytic category, rather than dismissing it either as mere theocracy or as simple backward-looking communalism.
• Fundamentalists directly contest the separation of religion from politics and education.
  • They argue that if God is genuinely omnipotent, political rule necessarily falls within religious domain, so the state cannot legitimately be placed outside religious authority.
  • They insist on religious control of education, advocating boycotts of modern state-run schools that do not teach through a traditional religious curriculum.
  • Muslim fundamentalists specifically demand that law be derived entirely from the Quran and Sunnah, including harsh corporal and capital punishments for specified offences; American Christian fundamentalists have historically advocated the death penalty for a comparably wide range of offences framed in explicitly religious-moral terms.
  • Fundamentalism is characteristically anti-science in this specific sense: it denies the validity of any human knowledge that falls outside the religious realm’s own authority.
• Fundamentalists also reject the equality of religions: since only one religion is held to be true, false religions cannot be treated as its equal, and the broader idea of the essential unity of all religions is likewise rejected. This entails a parallel opposition to reason, rationalism, humanism, secularism, popular sovereignty, and constitutional democratic government as competing sources of authority.

Fundamentalism Is Not Conservatism

• A conservative wants to preserve existing arrangements broadly as they are and is comfortable living with a degree of ambiguity and internal inconsistency within a tradition.
• A fundamentalist, by contrast, wants to actively purify the tradition and cannot tolerate ambiguity — which is precisely why fundamentalist movements characteristically direct their first and sharpest attacks not at outsiders but at their own co-religionists, whom they accuse of having diluted or betrayed the tradition’s true content.

Fundamentalism and Communalism

• Communalism is best understood through its specific Indian historical development, which unfolded across three stages.
  • First stage (last quarter of the nineteenth century): the idea took hold that followers of a religion share not only religious belief but also common political, economic, social, and cultural interests — producing the notion that Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians each formed distinct “communities,” with the Indian nation understood as an aggregate of these communities.
  • Second stage (early twentieth century): communal ideologues argued that followers of different religions have genuinely different economic and political interests from one another, while some liberal communalists simultaneously argued that different religious communities also shared certain common interests.
  • Third stage: the more extreme claim emerged that Hindus and Muslims could never coexist within one nation at all — that what benefited one community necessarily harmed the other, making a shared national life structurally impossible.
• Fundamentalism and communalism share several features, which is precisely why the two are often (mistakenly) treated as synonyms.
  • Both attack the concept of separating religion from politics and the state.
  • Both oppose the unity of all religions.
  • Both advocate religious control over education.
  • Both call for restoring an idealised past greatness.
  • Both hold that the founding moment of the religion represented a form of near-perfect human society.
  • Both oppose secularism as an ideology.
• The differences of perception matter as much as the similarities, and answer the frequently confused question directly.
  • Fundamentalists seriously seek the actual revival of a pristine religious past; communalists, while rhetorically invoking the past, remain far more focused on securing advantage within the present, modern political order.
  • Fundamentalists are thoroughgoing believers who ground their entire ideology in religion; communalists typically instrumentalise religion mainly as a vehicle for acquiring political power.
  • Fundamentalists aim, in principle, to convert or transform the entire world into their faith; communalists aim only to communalise their own society, since they specifically need a “binary opposite” community against which to mobilise their own members.
  • Communalist leaders need not be religious leaders at all — as the anthropologist Clifford Geertz observed of the wider phenomenon:

“When we speak of communalism in India we refer to religious contrasts, when we speak of it in Malaya we are mainly concerned with racial ones, and in the Congo with tribal ones.” — Clifford Geertz

In a multi-religious society, a fundamentalist tends also to be communal, but a communalist is quite often *not* fundamentalist — several explicitly communal Indian political formations (the Hindu Mahasabha, the RSS, the BJP, the Akali Dal) are properly classified as communal parties without being fundamentalist movements in the strict sociological sense developed above, since their programme is chiefly political mobilisation rather than the pursuit of scriptural inerrancy in public life.

Fundamentalism in the Global Context

• Iran. Under the British-installed Pahlavi dynasty, the state pursued rapid, externally driven modernisation — including bringing traditional religious schools (madrassas and maktabs) under central administrative control — which generated deep popular disenchantment among ordinary Iranians who felt their resources and institutions were being expropriated for foreign benefit. Religious spaces became the refuge and organising base for this discontent, and the 1979 revolution, led by Ayatollah Khomeini, dethroned the monarchy and installed a new order giving religion explicit constitutional primacy — the founding moment of modern religious fundamentalism as a governing ideology.
• The United States. The American Christian Right (or “Moral Majority”-style Protestant fundamentalism) sought to reassert the centrality of conservative Protestant values and to reverse what it saw as morally corrosive modern social practice, organising under slogans invoking a return to an earlier, more religiously grounded national identity, and translating this directly into sustained political mobilisation within mainstream party politics.
• The Taliban regime in Afghanistan represents perhaps the starkest recent case: an entire state’s political, economic, and social life was reorganised strictly around religious authority, with severe, well-documented restrictions imposed specifically on women’s education, work, and public presence.
• Pakistan has seen recurring waves of fundamentalist assertion, historically counterbalanced, to a significant degree, by periods of functioning democratic government — illustrating that fundamentalism’s political fortunes in any single country are not fixed but fluctuate with the strength of competing democratic institutions.
• Contemporary India illustrates the same analytic categories developed above rather than requiring a new framework: the sustained organisational relationship between the RSS and the BJP is regularly read in current scholarship as an example of the fusion of cultural revivalist organisation with active pursuit of political power that, per the distinction drawn earlier, is precisely what separates fundamentalism from mere revivalism.
  • Recent developments consistent with this reading include renewed public calls by RSS leadership for intensifying “ghar wapsi” (“homecoming”) reconversion campaigns — structurally comparable to the Arya Samaj’s own historical Shuddhi movement — and independently tracked increases in religiously targeted hate speech incidents, both cited in current research as evidence of a strengthening, rather than receding, fusion of religious identity assertion with electoral political strategy.
  • Consistent with the analytical caution stated earlier, the sociologically relevant point is the mechanism — cultural revivalism fused with an organised pursuit of political power — not a value judgment on any specific contemporary movement or party.