I actually think people leaving religion because we don’t believe in the religion’s tenets has become an underrated explanation. It seems like it’s become conventional wisdom that people don’t just leave because they stop believing - religion provides community, most “nones” still believe in God, etc - but if people aren’t dependent on the church for economic support, why wouldn’t it be important to them to agree with the stuff they’re expected to sign off on every week? Telling people that a) a guy popped back up from being dead 2000 years ago and b) this has huge implications for how you live your life because c) all humans are innately evil which is d) our fault for something our ancestors did at the dawn of time and not god’s fault even though e) god created us in his image, but good news, point a) means that f) god will let you off the hook if you agree to internalize point b)... it’s a lot to ask people to accept! I wouldn’t discount secularization just being the natural consequence of removing the social pressure to endorse this whole system of claims about the world.
Secularization has two meanings, at least. One being declining belief in religion. Two being declining participation in organized religion. My post was focused on declining participation in organized religion. I read once, and I believe it, that a lot of people who believe aren't churchgoers and a lot of churchgoers aren't believers. And it's my understanding that participation in organized religion is declining faster than religious beliefs.
I agree that both faith and churchgoing seem to be declining. I posited an explanation for churchgoing, but the faith part mystifies me more. Why are people more skeptical now than previously, do you think?
I think the two things are related, even if not perfectly. Like, if someone's social life, or even something like raising money for their kids to go to college or support if their spouse died suddenly, depended on being part of a church community, I think a lot of the time people would make it their business to convince themselves of the beliefs. (I think this is also why men are less religious than women on average - men are more likely to have fuck-you money. And I think part of why the US has stayed more religious than Western Europe has been the stinginess of our social safety net, too.)
But in terms of why faith itself is declining in the US when it hadn't before, I think maybe historical events like the rise of the Christian right, the George W. Bush presidency, and 9/11 were kind of an inflection point, I think. Given how visible Christian fundamentalists were in the US in the years around 9/11, I think a lot of people might have responded to 9/11 by blaming organized religion as a whole, even if they made a distinction between organized religion and faith/spirituality. There was also the fact that the Cold War had ended and we were no longer geopolitical rivals with an officially atheist superpower. I'm not sure that explains why the trend has continued, but it all precedes the trend away from religion, so the timing is at least plausible.
It's actually kinda interesting. If you look at consumer oriented automation, it basically reflects a desire to simplify the work in the nuclear evangelical family. For the dad, a set of generalized computer tools that can generate a broadly accurate picture or article, ready to hand off to a specialized professional to finish for a business plan that creates products and services, as well as robust personal assistant capabilities. A collection of household automated appliances that enhances one's ability to do multiple chores at once and summon servants to fill in what's left (driving, grocery, takeout). The only remaining bit is childcare, but then one could argue we're on the doorsteps of that with AI and really high quality child educational media.
Sure, these things are broadly helpful to everyone in society outside of that nuclear family archetype, but it does strike as a little odd that it maps so well to reducing the stress of that US flavor of pastoral-Christian lifestyle and family. I don't know what this says about automation and AI, just food for thought.
"The Evangelical hierarchy’s best buttress against new realities is never having been moored to reality in the first place." Lol and what a fascinating column!
I wonder if "meaning" is indeed essential to human flourishing. Hubert Dreyfus said that westerners are "meaning junkies" and it comes from the monotheistic tradition iirc. It's a cultural condition, not an innate human property and it's not a condition in Eastern cultures.
I think productivity is The god of America and it's intertwined with being meaning junkies and the protestant work ethic. Maybe we could throw out the meaning part. That leaves us with, as you recently wrote, we are at our core love. And connection.
Thanks! I read this recently https://cathyreisenwitz.substack.com/p/cathy-reads-books-mans-search-for#details. I think meaning is (somewhat at least) synonymous with connection, and connection and meaning are essential to flourishing. I think it would be great to start finding meaning/connection through things other than paid labor. Or religion/dogma.
After reading your link, and, letting it all rattle around some more... I think "everybody worships" and certainly what you worship will impact flourishing. So, yes, meaning is essential to flourishing. Our culture is just pointing us to the wrong things for meaning.
Earnest question: What should our culture point us towards for meaning?
One thing I think about a lot is that liberalism doesn't have anywhere near as good an answer for connection and meaning compared to illiberalism. For example, religion and nationalism offer way more opportunity and institutions for meaning and connection than tolerance and pluralism.
I personally think the meaning of life is relationships, or, as you write, connection. That's what I'd like culture to point us towards. Can institutions be built on that? I don't know but I don't see why not. Maybe a Church of Christ without Christ?
These thoughts are nascent but I think in the God is Dead era liberalism has has become afraid to say what it is for. I think you are saying being for tolerance and pluralism doesn't cut it. And I agree. Why can't liberalism be "for" love? I saw Cornell West has a slogan that love is what justice looks like in public. I think nihilist and believers can all get behind love and that should be the message.
Yeah, I mean I agree with you. I just don't know that "love" is specific and actionable enough to compete with illiberalism's offerings. I think something that looks a lot like church would be super helpful.
Finding meaning without doing evil bullshit is a hard balancing act. It's why pluralism is always so fragile.
I get that having a sense of meaning and purpose is so important, but I also am pretty burned out on religion (although Catholicism moreso than evangelicism).
I actually think people leaving religion because we don’t believe in the religion’s tenets has become an underrated explanation. It seems like it’s become conventional wisdom that people don’t just leave because they stop believing - religion provides community, most “nones” still believe in God, etc - but if people aren’t dependent on the church for economic support, why wouldn’t it be important to them to agree with the stuff they’re expected to sign off on every week? Telling people that a) a guy popped back up from being dead 2000 years ago and b) this has huge implications for how you live your life because c) all humans are innately evil which is d) our fault for something our ancestors did at the dawn of time and not god’s fault even though e) god created us in his image, but good news, point a) means that f) god will let you off the hook if you agree to internalize point b)... it’s a lot to ask people to accept! I wouldn’t discount secularization just being the natural consequence of removing the social pressure to endorse this whole system of claims about the world.
Secularization has two meanings, at least. One being declining belief in religion. Two being declining participation in organized religion. My post was focused on declining participation in organized religion. I read once, and I believe it, that a lot of people who believe aren't churchgoers and a lot of churchgoers aren't believers. And it's my understanding that participation in organized religion is declining faster than religious beliefs.
I agree that both faith and churchgoing seem to be declining. I posited an explanation for churchgoing, but the faith part mystifies me more. Why are people more skeptical now than previously, do you think?
I think the two things are related, even if not perfectly. Like, if someone's social life, or even something like raising money for their kids to go to college or support if their spouse died suddenly, depended on being part of a church community, I think a lot of the time people would make it their business to convince themselves of the beliefs. (I think this is also why men are less religious than women on average - men are more likely to have fuck-you money. And I think part of why the US has stayed more religious than Western Europe has been the stinginess of our social safety net, too.)
But in terms of why faith itself is declining in the US when it hadn't before, I think maybe historical events like the rise of the Christian right, the George W. Bush presidency, and 9/11 were kind of an inflection point, I think. Given how visible Christian fundamentalists were in the US in the years around 9/11, I think a lot of people might have responded to 9/11 by blaming organized religion as a whole, even if they made a distinction between organized religion and faith/spirituality. There was also the fact that the Cold War had ended and we were no longer geopolitical rivals with an officially atheist superpower. I'm not sure that explains why the trend has continued, but it all precedes the trend away from religion, so the timing is at least plausible.
It's actually kinda interesting. If you look at consumer oriented automation, it basically reflects a desire to simplify the work in the nuclear evangelical family. For the dad, a set of generalized computer tools that can generate a broadly accurate picture or article, ready to hand off to a specialized professional to finish for a business plan that creates products and services, as well as robust personal assistant capabilities. A collection of household automated appliances that enhances one's ability to do multiple chores at once and summon servants to fill in what's left (driving, grocery, takeout). The only remaining bit is childcare, but then one could argue we're on the doorsteps of that with AI and really high quality child educational media.
Sure, these things are broadly helpful to everyone in society outside of that nuclear family archetype, but it does strike as a little odd that it maps so well to reducing the stress of that US flavor of pastoral-Christian lifestyle and family. I don't know what this says about automation and AI, just food for thought.
"The Evangelical hierarchy’s best buttress against new realities is never having been moored to reality in the first place." Lol and what a fascinating column!
I wonder if "meaning" is indeed essential to human flourishing. Hubert Dreyfus said that westerners are "meaning junkies" and it comes from the monotheistic tradition iirc. It's a cultural condition, not an innate human property and it's not a condition in Eastern cultures.
I think productivity is The god of America and it's intertwined with being meaning junkies and the protestant work ethic. Maybe we could throw out the meaning part. That leaves us with, as you recently wrote, we are at our core love. And connection.
Thanks! I read this recently https://cathyreisenwitz.substack.com/p/cathy-reads-books-mans-search-for#details. I think meaning is (somewhat at least) synonymous with connection, and connection and meaning are essential to flourishing. I think it would be great to start finding meaning/connection through things other than paid labor. Or religion/dogma.
After reading your link, and, letting it all rattle around some more... I think "everybody worships" and certainly what you worship will impact flourishing. So, yes, meaning is essential to flourishing. Our culture is just pointing us to the wrong things for meaning.
Earnest question: What should our culture point us towards for meaning?
One thing I think about a lot is that liberalism doesn't have anywhere near as good an answer for connection and meaning compared to illiberalism. For example, religion and nationalism offer way more opportunity and institutions for meaning and connection than tolerance and pluralism.
I personally think the meaning of life is relationships, or, as you write, connection. That's what I'd like culture to point us towards. Can institutions be built on that? I don't know but I don't see why not. Maybe a Church of Christ without Christ?
These thoughts are nascent but I think in the God is Dead era liberalism has has become afraid to say what it is for. I think you are saying being for tolerance and pluralism doesn't cut it. And I agree. Why can't liberalism be "for" love? I saw Cornell West has a slogan that love is what justice looks like in public. I think nihilist and believers can all get behind love and that should be the message.
Yeah, I mean I agree with you. I just don't know that "love" is specific and actionable enough to compete with illiberalism's offerings. I think something that looks a lot like church would be super helpful.
http://www.scifuture.org/the-aesthetic-of-the-meta-aesthetic-the-meaning-nexus-between-memeplexes-andres-gomez-emilsson/
Whew. *buckles up*
Finding meaning without doing evil bullshit is a hard balancing act. It's why pluralism is always so fragile.
I get that having a sense of meaning and purpose is so important, but I also am pretty burned out on religion (although Catholicism moreso than evangelicism).
Does the fact that humans create art make us special
I think that’s a meta-aesthetic justification!
No kidding. Calls for more coffee!