While most modern individuals are convinced they are living only in the rational realm, what if humans evolved psychologically hard wired to also be religious ?
Spotted so many misconceptions, narrow conceptions, binary thinking, and straw men while reading this post that I felt compelled to comment. In no particular order:
"But is it that simple ? Are we really heading towards a post-clerical world where ideals and norms stemming from the great monotheistic religions will be thrown in the basket of discarded superstitious ideas of history ?"
Of course it isn't that simple. And setting up the argument this way is a classic straw man. A *third* option exists wherein we preserve those values and ideals rooted in religion that have passed into modernity without friction. Love your neighbor as yourself is one such ethic. Purity culture, patriarchy, nationalism, backward views of the LGBTQIA community, fear of new information and novel experiences, distrust of "the secular world," bad biblical interpretation, denial of the self, etc. (the list is long) otoh, we can rather do without. Progressive Christianity is already doing this, preserving what works and discarding what doesn't. Reformed Judaism has done this. Humanism--an ethical belief about how we should act in the world, independent of beliefs about how the world is--also does this (whether those who espouse it acknowledge humanism's religious roots or not).
You seem to be conflating morality with supernaturalism. Discarding antiquated beliefs about the natural world doesn't entail anything about the ethical precepts and values preserved in religious traditions. And the process can unfold in either a religious or secular context.
"Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt who has extensively studied the fondations [sic] of morality in individuals, was himself surprised by the evolutionary utility of religions."
The evolutionary argument is weak. Humans also evolved to walk around barefoot, doesn't mean it's advised today. The insurrectionists on Jan 6th also had a "shared story" and a "sense of group belonging" and we all know how that turned out. No doubt they were majority religious, too. We don't need religion to bind us together. Plenty of secular movements are fully capable of rallying around an organizing principle and theme. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on shared purpose and meaning. Which brings me to the next point...
"Storytelling binds us together, not the pursuit of any scientific endeavor."
False dichotomy, again. Plenty of scientific endeavors can incorporate storytelling to instill a sense of shared purpose. In fact, it's what the best science *does*. The global race to produce a vaccine against SARS-2 knitted together thousands of scientists from around the world with a shared goal of saving millions of lives. The story of climate change is literally a story about (first) human ignorance and (second) greed and how human action can resculpt a planet but also undo the damage with the right mix of leadership, technological innovation, and an informed and motivated public. Indeed, environmentalism is chock-full of noteworthy endeavors driven by scientific pursuit and the quest for a safe and more sustainable world. If that isn't enough to bind us together, we're doomed.
"In the eyes of the New Atheists like Sam Harris or Richard Hawkins [sic]..."
Harris and Dawkins don't speak for atheism any more than Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, and Franklin Graham speak for Christianity. In fact, I would argue pop-atheism is a facsimile of bad forms of Christian apologetics. Atheism is a lot bigger and more open than those two narrow-minded grifters can possibly hope to capture and those who use them to tar atheism writ large only betray their own unfamiliarity with the broader tradition. I recommend getting to know folks like Graham Oppy, Michael Martin, Erik Wielenberg, Paul Draper, Malcom Murray, Herman Philipse, Walter Kaufmann, and others for a more informed and balanced take on modern atheism.
Finally, why are you quoting a person like Shellenberger on a topic as nuanced as the intersection of religion and human experience? AFAIK, he isn't a scholar in any of the relevant subject matter? He also has zero formal qualifications related to his other soapbox: environmental science. The guy has no formal scientific training and hasn't published in the peer reviewed literature. He's long been peddling inaccurate and misleading claims about nuclear energy, views which, for the record, most environmental scientists and academics do not share. His disingenuous statement about progressives not caring about Black people killed by civilians and overdose deaths in San Fran is characteristic of the prevarication and whataboutism people of his ilk are fond of. My guess is you threw this in because it accorded with your own anti-progressive bias, despite it being wholly tangential to the topic under discussion.
Brilliantly written and a fantastic read. As someone who is religious and also a psychologist (yes, unusual, I know) I find it ironic that the new atheists cannot acknowledge that they are a product of these same religions they criticize, be it direct or indirect. Sam Harris grew up with a set of societal values and morals that are overwhelmingly Christian and where Noahide Laws are (or were) deeply engrained in culture. I hear many parents and educators say they want a "neutral" education for their children, when in reality there is no such thing as "neutral education". That vacuum will be filled, be it with religion, post-modern ideology, militant political affiliation, etc.
As to preserving values and abandoning rituals, I don't think that can be accomplished and if it could, I doubt the longevity of any religion without its accompanying rituals, it would simply be wishful thinking without the praxis component.
Spotted so many misconceptions, narrow conceptions, binary thinking, and straw men while reading this post that I felt compelled to comment. In no particular order:
"But is it that simple ? Are we really heading towards a post-clerical world where ideals and norms stemming from the great monotheistic religions will be thrown in the basket of discarded superstitious ideas of history ?"
Of course it isn't that simple. And setting up the argument this way is a classic straw man. A *third* option exists wherein we preserve those values and ideals rooted in religion that have passed into modernity without friction. Love your neighbor as yourself is one such ethic. Purity culture, patriarchy, nationalism, backward views of the LGBTQIA community, fear of new information and novel experiences, distrust of "the secular world," bad biblical interpretation, denial of the self, etc. (the list is long) otoh, we can rather do without. Progressive Christianity is already doing this, preserving what works and discarding what doesn't. Reformed Judaism has done this. Humanism--an ethical belief about how we should act in the world, independent of beliefs about how the world is--also does this (whether those who espouse it acknowledge humanism's religious roots or not).
You seem to be conflating morality with supernaturalism. Discarding antiquated beliefs about the natural world doesn't entail anything about the ethical precepts and values preserved in religious traditions. And the process can unfold in either a religious or secular context.
"Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt who has extensively studied the fondations [sic] of morality in individuals, was himself surprised by the evolutionary utility of religions."
The evolutionary argument is weak. Humans also evolved to walk around barefoot, doesn't mean it's advised today. The insurrectionists on Jan 6th also had a "shared story" and a "sense of group belonging" and we all know how that turned out. No doubt they were majority religious, too. We don't need religion to bind us together. Plenty of secular movements are fully capable of rallying around an organizing principle and theme. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on shared purpose and meaning. Which brings me to the next point...
"Storytelling binds us together, not the pursuit of any scientific endeavor."
False dichotomy, again. Plenty of scientific endeavors can incorporate storytelling to instill a sense of shared purpose. In fact, it's what the best science *does*. The global race to produce a vaccine against SARS-2 knitted together thousands of scientists from around the world with a shared goal of saving millions of lives. The story of climate change is literally a story about (first) human ignorance and (second) greed and how human action can resculpt a planet but also undo the damage with the right mix of leadership, technological innovation, and an informed and motivated public. Indeed, environmentalism is chock-full of noteworthy endeavors driven by scientific pursuit and the quest for a safe and more sustainable world. If that isn't enough to bind us together, we're doomed.
"In the eyes of the New Atheists like Sam Harris or Richard Hawkins [sic]..."
Harris and Dawkins don't speak for atheism any more than Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, and Franklin Graham speak for Christianity. In fact, I would argue pop-atheism is a facsimile of bad forms of Christian apologetics. Atheism is a lot bigger and more open than those two narrow-minded grifters can possibly hope to capture and those who use them to tar atheism writ large only betray their own unfamiliarity with the broader tradition. I recommend getting to know folks like Graham Oppy, Michael Martin, Erik Wielenberg, Paul Draper, Malcom Murray, Herman Philipse, Walter Kaufmann, and others for a more informed and balanced take on modern atheism.
Finally, why are you quoting a person like Shellenberger on a topic as nuanced as the intersection of religion and human experience? AFAIK, he isn't a scholar in any of the relevant subject matter? He also has zero formal qualifications related to his other soapbox: environmental science. The guy has no formal scientific training and hasn't published in the peer reviewed literature. He's long been peddling inaccurate and misleading claims about nuclear energy, views which, for the record, most environmental scientists and academics do not share. His disingenuous statement about progressives not caring about Black people killed by civilians and overdose deaths in San Fran is characteristic of the prevarication and whataboutism people of his ilk are fond of. My guess is you threw this in because it accorded with your own anti-progressive bias, despite it being wholly tangential to the topic under discussion.
TLDR: This post is a confused mess.
Brilliantly written and a fantastic read. As someone who is religious and also a psychologist (yes, unusual, I know) I find it ironic that the new atheists cannot acknowledge that they are a product of these same religions they criticize, be it direct or indirect. Sam Harris grew up with a set of societal values and morals that are overwhelmingly Christian and where Noahide Laws are (or were) deeply engrained in culture. I hear many parents and educators say they want a "neutral" education for their children, when in reality there is no such thing as "neutral education". That vacuum will be filled, be it with religion, post-modern ideology, militant political affiliation, etc.
As to preserving values and abandoning rituals, I don't think that can be accomplished and if it could, I doubt the longevity of any religion without its accompanying rituals, it would simply be wishful thinking without the praxis component.
Really interesting points you make here about politics supplanting religious beliefs, and the prospect of preserving value versus ritual. Great read!