Sapiens; A brief History of Humankind

[Avatar]

Isn't everything we believe a type of religion? Or at least, doesn't it share aspects in common?

--A

[Zarathustra]

Everything we believe is a collection of memes. But I think the resemblance stops there.

Capitalism isn't really a belief system. You don't have to be an Adam Smith disciple to take part and benefit from its interactions. While it's possible to have opinions about capitalism that one believes, it's no more a belief system than traffic laws.

I think the single defining aspect of religion is the supernatural. If a collection of memes does not include this, then it's not like religion in the most important, definitive way. You can't just call everything that humans do together 'religion.' It makes the word meaningless.

[SerScot]

Zarathustra,

I believe the author's point is that "Traffic laws" are as much an abstract "belief system" as any religious faith.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Laws stating that such-and-such is illegal don't stop people from engaging in that behavior. The fear of being caught and punished is what stops people from doing things which are illegal. There are two things which separate most average people from career criminals: 1) most average people don't want to cause the harm to others that most crime inflicts and 2) career criminals have gotten used to betting that they won't get caught (which is partially true--the vast majority of crimes like petty theft or B&E are never solved).

I have to agree, though--I wouldn't call things like capitalism a belief system; rather, it is a mutually-agreed-upon set of guidelines we follow when making decisions. Some people may treat it as if it were a religion--"I blindly trust that the market will do the right thing or make the right decision"--by choosing to remain ignorant of how the system actually works as long as it works reasonably well.

[Vraith]

I have to agree, though--I wouldn't call things like capitalism a belief system; rather, it is a mutually-agreed-upon set of guidelines we follow when making decisions. Some people may treat it as if it were a religion--

Yea, things can be treated "as if," and quite often are.
But I think Z nailed most of it---the supernatural.
The other significant aspect is testing of a kind that is not possible, even in principle, for the supernatural. [[and the minute such testing becomes possible for the supernatural, it is no longer supernatural. It's just a natural thing that we hadn't comprehended yet...it also will no longer be religion/faith. It will be knowledge.]]

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

In the popular mindset, Capitalism does indeed have a religious character (with "religion", here, being understood in an Ancient/pre-Christian, rather than in a post-Christian/Modern, sense).

Once Capitalism ceases to be merely a convention and, instead, becomes absolutized (Unfettered Capitalism) and detached from ethics, it attains its own religious character. In this, a conventional (i.e. provisional) ideology becomes a false god — an ideolatry.

[Zarathustra]

Zarathustra,

I believe the author's point is that "Traffic laws" are as much an abstract "belief system" as any religious faith.

Only in as much as they are both collections of memes---and only in the aspect of memes which is purely ideal, conceptual, or formal. In practice, traffic laws aren't abstract at all. Granted, religion also has practices which aren't purely abstract, since they involve human behavior, but these practices aren't themselves supernatural (since human acts aren't supernatural), which was the definitive feature I singled out for religious memes. [Note: memes are often both ideas and behaviors.] And the practical aspect is what's definitive about traffic laws--not the abstract. If they don't keep cars from crashing, they're worthless as abstract ideas. In contrast, religion is meaningless as purely pragmatic prescriptions for behavior (ethics, rituals, etc.). Without the supernatural aspect--without some kind of god--we're not really talking about abstract things at all, but rather human behavior. That would the a form of "reductionism" that Wos is always talking about, reducing religion to nothing more than ways in which people behave ... purely a sociological or psychological phenomenon ... which most theists aren't going to accept as accurate, much less definitive. In fact, it's a competing (and reductive) explanation/definition for religion that eliminates god as a real entity.

That's what this argument about "capitalism is religion, too" really means. It forces one to accept that religion is nothing more than a sociological/psychological phenomenon, and not something abstract at all ... much less supernatural.

Unless you guys want to open the door to religion being interpreted in this way (which is actually closer to how I view it--a critique of your world view), then you can't maintain this position.

Wosbald, the "capitalism is idolatry" argument begs the question. It assumes that we worship something--or that any advocacy/approval is itself worship--in order to categorize our confidence in capitalism in terms of your world view, which as an atheist I explicitly reject. Worship isn't what I'm doing with capitalism, no more than I worship the sun by studying astronomy. Again, without its supernatural connotations, worship is merely strong approval, and idolatry is merely adherence to this approval in one's behavior. Do I worship the government when I come to stop at a red light? Do I worship oncoming traffic when I yield to its right of way? If so, you're damning your own soul every time you drive, since you're committing the sin of worshipping false gods.

Hell, you'd be damning your soul every time you buy a candy bar, if participating in capitalism is necessarily idolatry.

I reject this Orwellian negation of meaning in order to force my world view to fit yours--this reductionism you're attempting. I don't worship. I have no idols. That's what being an atheist/naturalist means.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

That's what this argument about "capitalism is religion, too" really means. It forces one to accept that religion is nothing more than a sociological/psychological phenomenon, and not something abstract at all ... much less supernatural.

Unless you guys want to open the door to religion being interpreted in this way (which is actually closer to how I view it--a critique of your world view), then you can't maintain this position.

I'd be happy to accept this.

Since the distinction between a Supernatural Order and a Natural Order only came into existence with Christianity (one of its distinctive nova), then Moderns who reject Christianity have no ground from which to appeal to its selfsame cultural legacy in order to justify an otherwise untenable distinction between the Religious sphere and the Civil sphere.

In this, one sees that all of the modern ideologies are no more than cosmetically retooled tribal gods and that the war between the Ancient world and the Modern world (typified, let us say, by the conflict between the Islamicist world and the Americanist world) is nothing but a clash of ideologies taking place upon a level (or re-leveled) playing field.

Since there is no longer any "Christic center" to broker peace between warring, equidistantly-situated parties, this level playing field, reentered upon by the Modern world, can only end as a clash of "might-makes-right". Unsurprisingly, this is exactly the same dynamic ("my gods are better than your gods") which perpetuated the endless cycle of winners and losers before the advent of the Christ-event.