Human beings everywhere think about the basic structure of reality and the right way to live, and many are led from those questions to speculate about the divine or to believe in revelations. Psychologically speaking, it is a very short step from holding such beliefs to being convinced that they are legitimate sources of political authority.
Indeed, as much as I value religious freedom and the religious neutrality of the public square, how can we expect people to not be influenced by their religion? I believe whole-heartedly that we can and should find secular rationales for public policy, but if that public policy touches on matters of morality, how could we expect a person to NOT be influenced by their religion? You can come up with secular rationales for all sorts of things that various religious denominations might approve of, and members of those denominations should appeal to those rationales so that they can coexist in the public square with people who aren't in their religion, but let's not kid ourselves about the role of their beliefs. I say that not to dismiss their secular arguments as pretextual, but rather to make a point about coexistence. I am a state employee, but I teach in part because of things instilled in me in Catholic school. That's not a priori a church/state violation.
He also makes an important point about the role of stories in human understanding and child psychology:
We are still like children when it comes to thinking about modern political life, whose experimental nature we prefer not to contemplate. Instead, we tell ourselves stories about how our big world came to be and why it is destined to persist. These are legends about the course of history, full of grand terms to describe the process supposedly at work--modernization, secularization, democratization, the "disenchantment of the world," "history as the story of liberty," and countless others. These are the fairy tales of our time. Whether they are recounted in epic mode by those satisfied with the present, or in tragic mode by those nostalgic for Eden, they serve the same function in our intellectual culture that tales of witches and wizards do in our children's imaginations: they make the world legible, they reassure us of its irrevocability, and they relive us of responsibility for maintaining it.
He goes on to say that his book is no fairy tale, because he will discuss the fragility of the modern world. He was writing in 2008, with 9/11 on his mind, but it applies today. Indeed, just 8 days ago barbarians entered the Capitol and chased away the representatives of the people. Their rationales were more complex than a single slogan about modernity and its critics or whatever, but many were in that vein.
In the introduction he argues that we secular westerners are the unusual ones, not necessarily because we don't live in a theocracy but because we don't live in a society where appeals to divine authority are common and accepted. I think about this a lot, and not just because I am religious. If you push hard enough on a chain of "Why?" questions you eventually reach your fundamental axioms, the bare assumptions that you can't derive from other assumptions. And then you say "But why those axioms?" and people kind of stall. You can appeal to personal desires and preferences, but besides the fact that those desires are almost by definition selfish, this world has many people desiring many different things. Why should you desire what you desire instead of something else? A king could provide an answer to that, but the leaders of a democratic society cannot (unless you subscribe to a very vulgar and illiberal majoritarianism). You could appeal to consequentialist arguments, and say that without these principles guiding a society you get chaos, but we have seen more than one type of society enjoy extended eras of peace (or at least internal peace).
You soon reach a "Well, that's my opinion" stage, and the obvious modern/postmodern response is "But that's just your opinion, man!" We have no real base if you dig deep enough. One motive for religion is not merely fear of death but fear that all we have is each other and our equally idiosyncratic and arbitrary preferences. Wouldn't it be nice to have some authority to sort it out? Not just because humans are weak and sheep and all that, but because we've built up some pretty impressive things despite our ostensible weaknesses, and it's terrifying to think that they sit on sand. Surely we must have a rock under them! Surely there must be some foundation for prosperous, liberal, tolerant civilization.
Perhaps part of why social justice and diversity talk gets so religious is because they want to just take the tolerance and diversity that we should preserve and put that itself on God's pedestal. It's a nice idea, except it eventually results in guilty liberals confessing sin in pointless training sessions while somebody tries to remove Shakespeare from the curriculum, and none of this stops barbarians from storming the Capitol. We thus get to the true root of power, which is force, and then we have to ask about the factors that make (hopefully most of) the men with guns loyal. Those factors rarely involve training sessions on implicit bias. If there is a God in our politics, it's whatever keeps the armed men at the base of the system from turning disloyal.
Anyway, let's see what he has to say about the loss of religion and its consequences.
No comments:
Post a Comment