Editing Secularization (section)

==Overview==
Secularization, in the main sociological meaning of the term, involves the historical process in which [[religion]] declines in social and cultural significance. As a result of secularization, the role of religion in modern societies becomes restricted. In secularized societies, [[faith]] lacks cultural authority, and religious organizations have little social power.

Secularization has many levels of meaning, both as a [[theory]] and as a political process. [[Karl Marx]] (1818–1883), [[Sigmund Freud]] (1856–1939), [[Max Weber]] (1864–1920), and [[Émile Durkheim]] (1858–1917) postulated that the modernization of society would include a decline in levels of formal [[religiosity]]. Study of this process seeks to determine the manner in which, or extent to which religious [[creed]]s, practices, and institutions are losing social significance. Some theorists argue that the secularization of modern civilization partly results from our inability to adapt the broad ethical and spiritual needs of people to the increasingly fast advance of the physical sciences.<ref>See [http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=472 text] {{webarchive|url= https://web.archive.org/web/20100615170139/http://religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=472 |date= 2010-06-15 }}</ref>

Nonetheless, cross-cultural studies indicate that people in general do not think of natural and supernatural explanations as antagonistic or dichotomous, but instead see them as coexisting and complementary.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Legare |first1=Cristine H. |last2=Evans |first2=E. Margaret |last3=Rosengren |first3=Karl S. |last4=Harris |first4=Paul L. |title=The Coexistence of Natural and Supernatural Explanations Across Cultures and Development: Coexistence of Natural and Supernatural Explanations |journal=Child Development |date=May 2012 |volume=83 |issue=3 |pages=779–793 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01743.x|pmid=22417318 |hdl=2027.42/91141 |hdl-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Aizenkot |first1=Dana |title=Meaning-Making to Child Loss: The Coexistence of Natural and Supernatural Explanations of Death |journal=Journal of Constructivist Psychology |date=11 September 2020 |volume=35 |pages=318–343 |doi=10.1080/10720537.2020.1819491|s2cid=225231409 }}</ref> The reconciliation of natural and supernatural explanations is normal and pervasive from a psychological standpoint across cultures.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Legare |first1=Cristine H. |last2=Visala |first2=Aku |title=Between Religion and Science: Integrating Psychological and Philosophical Accounts of Explanatory Coexistence |journal=Human Development |date=2011 |volume=54 |issue=3 |pages=169–184 |doi=10.1159/000329135|s2cid=53668380 }}</ref>

In contrast to the "modernization" thesis, [[Christian Smith (sociologist)|Christian Smith]] and others argue that intellectual and cultural élites promote secularization to enhance their own status and influence. Smith believes that [[intellectual]]s have an inherent tendency to be hostile to their native cultures, causing them to embrace secularism.<ref>Smith, Christian. [https://books.google.com/books?id=IbEwDwAAQBAJ&dq=info:paCf6RiVs7IJ:scholar.google.com/&pg=PR7 The Secular Revolution: Powers, Interests, and Conflicts in the Secularization of American Public Life] (2012)</ref>

According to Jack David Eller, secularization is compatible with religion since most versions of secularity do not lead to atheism or irreligion.<ref name="Eller">{{cite book |last1=Eller |first1=Jack |editor1-last=Zuckerman |editor1-first=Phil |title=Atheism and Secularity |date=2010 |publisher=Praeger |location=Santa Barbara, Calif. |isbn=9780313351839 |pages=12–13 |chapter=What is Atheism? |quote=The point is that the sacred/secular dichotomy is, like most dichotomies, false. "Secular" certainly does not mean "atheistic" or without religion, definitely not anti-religion; in fact, as I illustrate in a chapter in the second volume of this collection, there is a proud tradition of "Islamic secularism." Despite the predictions of the "secularization theorists" like Marx and Weber, "modern" or secular processes have not meant the demise of religion and have actually proved to be quite compatible with religion—have even led, at least in the short term, to a surprising revival of religion. The problem with earlier secularization theories is that they presumed that secularization was a single, all-encompassing, and unidirectional phenomenon. However, as Peter Glasner has more recently shown, "secular" and "secularization" embrace a variety of diverse processes and responses, not all of which—indeed, few of which—are inherently antithetical to religion, Glasner identifies ten different versions of secularization, organized in terms of whether their thrust is primarily institutional, normative, or cognitive... The upshot of this analysis is that secularism most assuredly does not translate simply and directly into atheism. Many good theists support the secularization of the American government in the form of the "separation of church and state," and all of them go about at least part of their day without doing religion.}}</ref> Global studies show that many people who do not identify with a religion, still hold religious beliefs and participate in religious practices, thus complicating the situation.<ref name="Religiously Unaffiliated"/><ref name="Unaff Yet Rel" />