Yes, this is definitely a self-conception of secularism. It gets into the problems of classical liberalism which we have discussed in the past. In the liberal (and secular) mindset the liberal state is the referee that reigns over all of the individual players, which in this case are the particular religions. So what happens is the liberal state elevates itself above every other group and every other ideology, presupposing that the others must play by its own rules and its own notion of “equality.”
But that self-conception is definitely a mark of secularism. It’s basically what I meant when I said, “Another is the privatization of religion (and the attendant coining of the concept of ‘religion’).” In the past “religion” was not a phenomenon which was seen as intrinsically subordinate to the dominant culture or the state. That mark or lens is definitely central to secularism.
Sure. I think so, yes. The Baconian doctrine seems directly tied up with the degradation of the environment, primarily because the modern period had very little with which to balance and attenuate that telos.
With all of these issues we are basically asking when a substantial change occurs (to use Aristotle’s language). For example, it is no coincidence that Bacon’s doctrine emerged in a theistic society rather than a pantheistic society, and therefore it bears a resemblance to Christianity. But to say that it is more than a continuation of Christianity is to say that it constitutes a substantial change and not an accidental change. Similarly, to say that Christianity constitutes a substantial and not merely an accidental change from Greco-Roman culture requires the idea that there are essential differences between Greco-Roman paganism and Christianity. In a nutshell we might say that the heart of that substantial change was the introduction of Platonism+Incarnation, as least as far as the West is concerned. In a broader sense Judaism is also a key component. The question always revolves around whether and to what extent the two things differ (e.g. Christianity and Secularism, or the Baconian doctrine and Christianity, or Greco-Roman paganism and Christianity).
The general argument is that the ancient Greek prosopon had little of the connotation that we now associate with “person,” and meant something like mask, appearance, or role. Our concept of personhood was developed primarily through the long centuries of Trinitarian debates over the personhood of God, which was itself the religio-cultural focal point, particularly for a religion in which humans are made in God’s image. Our current notions of personhood, conscience, human rights, etc., are bound up with the notion of person qua transcendent. We actually hold that the essence of a person transcends masks, appearances, roles, gender, ethnicity, etc. This obviously includes things like freedom and autonomy, grounded in theological doctrines of God. Cyril captures this concisely:
Man, from the origin of creation, received control over his desires and could freely follow the inclinations of his choice, for the Deity, whose image he is, is free.
(St. Cyril, Glaphyra on Gen. 1)
This is markedly different from the Greco-Roman notion of Fate and a view where even the gods were bound by their passions.
Ironically, a central move of Christianity is a relativization of the current age (saeculum). For example, the Roman citizen had civil rights and status inherited from their place in the state, the cosmos and their relation to the Roman gods. Their status naturally correlated to the strength and status of the Roman gods. Similarly, for the modern naturalist the human status correlates to nature, and in our current time, evolution.
Christianity relativizes notions of empire and god precisely through “God most high.” The invocation of “God most high” is precisely what provides for notions of personhood, conscience, and rights which transcend the saeculum. For the Roman, appeals to “human rights” or “natural rights” or “God-given rights” would have been ridiculous. They would have been similarly ridiculous for the Christian, at least in the absence of God most high. Christianity has access to transcendent rights only because it has access to a transcendent God—a God who cares for his creation, creates humans in his image, and calls them towards the transcendent end of theosis.