Oh, man. You make such a great point here. I felt the same way reading McWhorter's book. The whole argument rests on religion = bad, which is never explained but simply assumed.
I wonder if the story ultimately points to the concept of ideology. All the criteria you mention as the essence of religion also define ideology, perhaps even better than religion. Ideology, as I understand it, is a modern phenomena in which a set of ostensibly self-evident premises are adhered to in a way that is incorrigible to evidence, experience, reason, etc. in the pursuit and retention of political power. All other cultural forms (including religion) are ultimately turned in service to ideology.
I feel a strong case can be made that much, if not most, of truly traditional religion is not about purity or dogma and isn't "cultish." The Southern Baptists were politically diverse moderates until the conservative takeover of the 1980s. American religion in the early 1900s was a big tent, politically diverse, moderate Presbyterianism until Fundamentalism emerged in the 1920s. The Church of England is a good example of a religious institution that kept jettisoning any religious group that started obsessing over purity. The history of global Catholicism is one of syncretism and absorption of local customs, saints, etc. In the Middle Ages, the "doctor of the church" Thomas Aquinas was inspired by Muslim Avicenna and Jewish Maimonides. Greek, Roman, Egyptian religion had little to do with purity or dogma. Greeks simply paired up Greek gods to Egyptian gods and called it good.
Fundamentalist Islam can perhaps be understood in a similar way--a modern ideology that co-opts religious beliefs and practices with the ultimate purpose of political power. Chinese Communist Party -- same story without religion. What practical good does it do to claim that the CCP is a religion? But ideology explains everything.
Ideology explains behavior on the left, without resorting to religion. And it explains why some on the right who consider themselves atheist or non-religious promote religion, because it's religion in service to ideology. Religion may provide resources to move the ball forward on political goals, and if so, it's all for the best. That's literally Ayaan Hirsi Ali's argument.
I wonder how much of this is a desire to have an easier enemy to fight. When right-wing religious fervor was king in the Bush years, it was easy and fun to be a secular liberal who stuck it to The Man.
With wokeness, it's a lot harder to be a liberal and criticize it without feeling a little like a traitor. Or at least like an uncool dad from an 80s movie going "Yeah champ, uh... are you sure this is the thing you wanna be doing?"
I’ll have an essay about this soon, but consider this for now: everyone is religious. There is no such thing as a secular person. “Religion” is whatever one considers sacred to them.
insofar as there is a single “problem” in evidence here, it is fundamentalism, not “religiosity”.
And in arguing against “religion in general” in favor of “rationality and evidence,” as if the one cannot overlap upon the other, you are actually joining camp with the fundamentalists.
If indeed you are some leftover new atheist type, try reading David Bentley Hart’s The Experience of God
Normative human cognition, like what this seemingly logical essay derives from, is the root problem. All humans operate *substantially* on various forms of faith (belief lacking ~adequate ~proof), and all humans refuse to do otherwise under most circumstances. Often they are unable to even try to, or even *consider* trying (they reject proposals to do so outright, with little to no ~serious attempt at justification for the behavior).
All the world's a stage, and we are merely players. Or so the saying goes anyways, let's not bother ourselves thinking about the truth value of it!
Oh, man. You make such a great point here. I felt the same way reading McWhorter's book. The whole argument rests on religion = bad, which is never explained but simply assumed.
I wonder if the story ultimately points to the concept of ideology. All the criteria you mention as the essence of religion also define ideology, perhaps even better than religion. Ideology, as I understand it, is a modern phenomena in which a set of ostensibly self-evident premises are adhered to in a way that is incorrigible to evidence, experience, reason, etc. in the pursuit and retention of political power. All other cultural forms (including religion) are ultimately turned in service to ideology.
I feel a strong case can be made that much, if not most, of truly traditional religion is not about purity or dogma and isn't "cultish." The Southern Baptists were politically diverse moderates until the conservative takeover of the 1980s. American religion in the early 1900s was a big tent, politically diverse, moderate Presbyterianism until Fundamentalism emerged in the 1920s. The Church of England is a good example of a religious institution that kept jettisoning any religious group that started obsessing over purity. The history of global Catholicism is one of syncretism and absorption of local customs, saints, etc. In the Middle Ages, the "doctor of the church" Thomas Aquinas was inspired by Muslim Avicenna and Jewish Maimonides. Greek, Roman, Egyptian religion had little to do with purity or dogma. Greeks simply paired up Greek gods to Egyptian gods and called it good.
Fundamentalist Islam can perhaps be understood in a similar way--a modern ideology that co-opts religious beliefs and practices with the ultimate purpose of political power. Chinese Communist Party -- same story without religion. What practical good does it do to claim that the CCP is a religion? But ideology explains everything.
Ideology explains behavior on the left, without resorting to religion. And it explains why some on the right who consider themselves atheist or non-religious promote religion, because it's religion in service to ideology. Religion may provide resources to move the ball forward on political goals, and if so, it's all for the best. That's literally Ayaan Hirsi Ali's argument.
I wonder how much of this is a desire to have an easier enemy to fight. When right-wing religious fervor was king in the Bush years, it was easy and fun to be a secular liberal who stuck it to The Man.
With wokeness, it's a lot harder to be a liberal and criticize it without feeling a little like a traitor. Or at least like an uncool dad from an 80s movie going "Yeah champ, uh... are you sure this is the thing you wanna be doing?"
I’ll have an essay about this soon, but consider this for now: everyone is religious. There is no such thing as a secular person. “Religion” is whatever one considers sacred to them.
Interesting thoughts but there is an arrogance in critical social justice that I just haven’t seen in religion.
insofar as there is a single “problem” in evidence here, it is fundamentalism, not “religiosity”.
And in arguing against “religion in general” in favor of “rationality and evidence,” as if the one cannot overlap upon the other, you are actually joining camp with the fundamentalists.
If indeed you are some leftover new atheist type, try reading David Bentley Hart’s The Experience of God
Bye now
Normative human cognition, like what this seemingly logical essay derives from, is the root problem. All humans operate *substantially* on various forms of faith (belief lacking ~adequate ~proof), and all humans refuse to do otherwise under most circumstances. Often they are unable to even try to, or even *consider* trying (they reject proposals to do so outright, with little to no ~serious attempt at justification for the behavior).
All the world's a stage, and we are merely players. Or so the saying goes anyways, let's not bother ourselves thinking about the truth value of it!