Firstly, in today's world, the existence of "more than one civilization" that is in a "clash," is extremely suspicious. More than one civilization is mere speculation, which in practical terms has no opposite. From Britain to Indonesia and from Brazil to Morocco, the whole world has passed through "a situation" in "modern civilization" that is called "modernization." It is very hard to say that celestial religions, or other styles of belief, constitute a radical and destructive rejection of modernity. Even though criticisms worthy of consideration are directed against modernity at an intellectual level, those related to religion in general and practical terms benefit from the facilities and advantages of the modern world. Islam, or any African religion, is also included in this. Even sociologists, such as Peter Berger, say we owe the religious revival that has been cropping up around the world since the second half of the 20th century to the facilities of modernity. Again according to Berger, Europe is in the midst of a religious atmosphere that has never been seen before. In the Middle Ages, Europeans were not so dependent on religion in their daily lives.Beyond intellectual criticisms concerning the crises that occurred as a result of the serious problems of modernity and not being able to find solutions for them, it is possible to say that problematic relations that are related to religion and modernity mean that "modernization policies" are related to "modernism." The hypothesis claiming that "Islam does not get along with the modern world and is in conflict with the West" -- for intellectual manners that shape practice -- is actually about this.
Modernization is an attempt outside the West to change society from top to bottom by force, through authoritarian methods and anti-democratic policies. Hence, religions and other social groups suffer from these policies. The Islamic world, in particular, is an area that has suffered greatly and continues to suffer. Militants who develop policies, ruling powers who put their preferences above the will of society, those who try to substitute 19th century positivism for religion and the destructive attacks they direct against religious life and all the foundations and traditions that facilitate religious life have put religion and modernism in a framework of "problematic relations."
If religions are set free in their own natural channels, there are theses claiming that religious members will develop original styles of modernity and "more than one single modernity." That is, "pluralist modernities" will emerge.
Another point is that the positivist-authoritarian states that take "intellectual despotism" as a basis not only fail in achieving or completing the modernity project, but also cannot find any solutions to problems such as poverty, unemployment, the unregistered economy, moral degeneration, corruption, bribery and crime. There is even a conclusion that maybe they themselves created these problems, and so the masses, in search of a just, ethical and honest world that appreciates people the way they are, are right in linking their hopes to religion.
It is obvious that besides national problems, globalized problems also cause a deep crisis. Not only the problems of ecological balance and environment, but also injustices at a globalized level, consumption and magazine culture, the decline in family values, irresponsibility and insensitivity, the spread of selfish and hedonistic habits, alcoholism, sexual problems, drugs, terrorism, wars targeting civilians and the effects of organized criminal groups, without any doubt, are part and parcel of a worldview that lacks meaning and purpose. Therefore, this makes religions direct their criticisms against those on the secular side, against profane life. Maybe this shows that the real problem is not between "modernity" and "religion," but between "secularism" and "religious life" in this circle.
