I have a theory that with the decline of religion in the West, people replaced what they got from religious ideology with political ideology. The sense of belonging and community. The sense of certainty in basic tenets. The confidence of being able to reliably recite their 'scriptures'. (Which 'scriptures' all having been laid down by their prophets.) And they are all guided by faith, not necessarily data. They have become quasi-religious organizations, and I'm sure in the future, will probably crystalize into something fairly overtly similar to what we would call religions today.
I guess the point is that you can see some of the same behaviors of religious types being evoked in adherents to the various political ideologies. To the point of not really even being willing to listen to math, or data, or science. There is a very real perception among them that the scriptures allow a better understanding of nature and the universe than the systems nature and the universe provide to aid our understanding. Even more worryingly, as the article points out, they will often put forth ideologically pure 'domain experts' who can be relied on to give explanations grounded more in doctrinal alignment than scientific veracity. So we've already reached a point where explanations that are in accordance with 'scripture' have become a matter of great doctrinal import to these groups, and are being actively sought out. I guess by that I mean, the poison has leaked over from general society, into the sciences.
I honestly believe that, as these groupings of political ideologues coalesce to replace religion more and more, I'd bet dollars to donuts that extremism in the future will be fueled almost exclusively by these quasi-religious political groupings.
> I have a theory that with the decline of religion in the West, people replaced what they got from religious ideology with political ideology.
I disagree with the premise.
Most of "the West" outside of America didn't replace religion with political ideology. America is also one of the Western countries that are slowest to lose religion, and it seems (from outside, as a European) that the loudest voices, at least on the political right, are also the most religious.
Meanwhile, in my experience, the European countries that have most strongly rejected religion have not at all replaced it with politics. I don't think they've replaced it with anything, really. Some new age stuff, yoga. A few people with politics but only a small minority.
> it seems (from outside, as a European) that the loudest voices, at least on the political right, are also the most religious
It's good that you recognize you're getting an outsider, biased viewpoint... because as an American, I can't square this with my experience at all.
If we were talking about 25+ years ago, then yes, the Republican party had a strong connection to a Christian base of voters and religious influence on policy was significant. Today though, it's an utterly insignificant special interest group. I doubt any religious group would crack the top 100 most influential lobbying groups, unless you count Israel but that feels distinct from religion.
The Democrats are essentially anti-religion, other than a vague desire to be inclusive to diverse religions. The Republicans are able to make a little political hay because of this ("War on Christmas" type stuff) and sometimes various elements of vices (drugs, prostitution, gambling, porn) or other ethical concerns (death penalty, abortion, assisted-suicide, ending life support) are influenced by religious beliefs.
Look at the fact that Donald Trump just won the popular vote and a decisive victory across broad demographics. His connection to Christianity is about as strong as any politician's connection to whatever regional food dish they eat for a photo-op one night on the campaign trail before moving on to appeal to the next city by doing their local cultural thing.
I think that is part true, but there are multiple other factors. I think one is that the main religion in the west is anti-wealth ("eye of a needle", "root of all evil", "give all you have to the poor" etc.) and that fits uncomfortably with a wealthy society.
> There is a very real perception among them that the scriptures allow a better understanding of nature and the universe than the systems nature and the universe provide to aid our understanding.
That is mostly true in the west of a new variant of Christianity - American evangelical Christianity. It only really really took off in the 18th century ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism#History ) and has gained a lot of ground in recent decades. TO some extent I think it is a product of the same culture as political ideologies: polarisation and blind loyalty. Like those ideologies it originated in the US.
> I'd bet dollars to donuts that extremism in the future will be fueled almost exclusively by these quasi-religious political groupings.
It is already the case. If you look at the 20th century the most extreme violence was fuelled by fascism (secular, wanted to replace existing religions, some leaders like Mussolini were atheists) and communism (almost always anti-religious and persecuted religions).
I think maybe these ideologies opposed religions were because religions are rivals for capturing people's values and loyalties.
Fascism didn't oppose religions.
Communism opposed religions in general.
The leader of the Italian fascists was personally an atheist.
The Nazis opposed particular religions including Christianity - they made multiple attempts to supplant Christianity as the major religion of Europe with neo-paganism and Positive Christianity. They were not keen on a religion founded by a non-violent Jew.
Fascist Italy supported the Catholic Church and made it their state religion. Same thing for francoist Spain.
A better example would be the chinese cultural revolution and their campaign against the Four Olds.
but the leader of fascist Italy was an atheist, which suggests the endorsement of the Catholic Church was not entirely sincere. Its possible that Mussolini was not entirely honest in his public behaviour.
This is correct and it's all Hegel's fault.
The only ideology that should be unquestioned is human rights.
The one that really pulls my nerve are the hardcore libertarians, because they often pretend to be backed by data when there is no data or contrary data around. Although I mostly lean on libertarianism, hardcore libertarians are usually impossible to argue with.
There’s plenty of room for reasonable discussion and questions, even about human rights. Are all human rights individual rights, or are there collective human rights (peoples’ rights)? Are there limits to free speech, and if so, what are they? Are liberties more fundamental than rights that require taxpayer expenditure? Is paid holiday really a human right (UDHR art. 30)? Does the expansion of the concept of human rights weaken fundamental human rights?
> The only ideology that should be unquestioned is human rights.
Why should an ideology that’s obviously derivative of Christianity be treated as beyond question and not Nietzscheanism or Wahhabism?
This is my belief (heh) as well, in no small part from the staggering number of Bay Area “woke” types that turn to Islam, which holds quite the set of conflicting views on the progressive-conservative axis.
So I'm not muslim but I am a leftist in a conservative religious tradition.
The thing you might be missing is that sincerely religious people, including converts, don't necessarily "shop around" for a religion that aligns with their other beliefs. If you, somehow, come to believe that god is the one true god and muhammad was his last prophet, then you are going to become muslim. You don't have any other authentic choice.
For some beliefs you have options, eg if you believe jesus died for our sins but are flexible about the rest there are a lot of churches you can sincerely participate in. But if you believe in for example apostolic succession culminating with the bishop of rome well then you're going to be catholic.
I don't want to get into an evaluation here of who does and doesn't convert sincerely, or what are the valid sources of these beliefs or whatever. Pretty much every religious person has personal beliefs that are in conflict with the teachings of the religion. There are a lot of different ways to handle that contradiction but it's a fundamental part of the experience of belief.
[dead]
[flagged]
This is emphatically not what HN is for. We've banned this account for posting flamewar comments and ignoring our requests to stop.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42421265 (Dec 2024)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42246939 (Nov 2024)