Is there a New Secular Quasi-Religion, If So Does It Support We Are Innately "Religious" or Ideologically Tribal?

[Free Ranger]

This is my response to another poster on this thread: viewtopic.php?t=157779&start=30#p2838792

I thought it deserved its own topic for discussion, for as I answered the question it led to me realizing the topic further supports my contention that we may just be homoreligious or prone to metaphysical thinking and benefit from non-toxic beliefs, which was the point of the thread linked above that began with videos by atheists and scientists supporting non-toxic beliefs. So here is my response and I welcome all to respond and give their opinion:

To answer your curiosity as to these “supernatural” beliefs among some on the secular far-left. I would say that these atheists' reasons for rejecting what they see as supernaturalism on the far-left, is not because they reject the “Social Justice” movement, as you put it. Most atheists tend to lean politically Liberal or Left, and so I don't think the liberal atheists who are opposing what they see as supernaturalism on the far-left, are doing so because they reject social justice, when I see them actually supporting most social justice issues. And these same liberal atheists mentioned below, just 5 or 10 years ago, would be considered by people on the Right to be proponents of Social Justice. These atheists and liberals I will mention below, are simply critical of the new methodology being used to enforce social justice, which they see as a religious methodology. ...

... , the agnostic scientist Neil Degrass Tyson criticized non-scientific thinking (i.e. supernatural thinking) on the far-Left about seven years ago, see:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kEJqMTjYtU
https://gizmodo.com/neil-degrasse-tyson ... 1780648740

I do not like to use the term woke or wokeism because it triggers people on the political left and right, but unfortunately I have to use it for ease of communication. It's a complicated term as well and it's my understanding that woke's original meaning is that of being awakened to social injustices, to be woke to social injustice, in particular racial inequalities. I don't see any liberals or atheists rejecting this origional meaning of being woke. They are instead critical of what they see as an ideology and religious ideas that they see has been added onto this simpler definition.

One could argue that even focusing on social injustice, may involve a degree of supernatural/metaphysical thinking, a belief in Right and Wrong and Good and Evil. This is the argument of the atheist Nietzche who would have opposed wokeism, as he opposed the atheistic social justice warriors of his day, basically calling them pale atheists unable to embrace raw reality for instead supernatural thinking, and pity and piety inherited from Christianity. Nietzche would have said something like an ant colony ...

... So, in my view, if we remove traditional religions and spirituality the vast majority of people will go seeking for an alternative, whether it's my Swedish ancestors and their elf beliefs or emperor worship in China, or the sects of wokeism.
Here are some examples of atheist and liberals who see extreme versions of wokeism (or some woke sects) as supernatural thinking and toxic forms of religiosity:

John Mcwhorter on The New Religion: https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/th ... rogressive

Who is John Mcwhorter? See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McWhorter

How Social Justice Became a New Religion: Our society is becoming less religious. Or is it? By Helen Lewis: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... on/671172/

The Cult Dynamics of Wokeness by James Lindsey: https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/cult- ... -wokeness/

The atheist exmormon at https://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/ went from only criticizing Brighamite Mormonism to recently spending a lot of time criticizing what he considers something more harmful at this point than Mormonism, which is the secular far-left's "new religion," as he sees it. So his videos have gone from pointing out cultish thinking in Mormonism to cultish thinking among the some of secular far-left in his videos at: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVTCFh ... Zlwl1JOoHQ

Again, even if only five or ten percent of what these authors say is true and are legitimate criticisms, then there is a "new religion" growing up among many on the secular far-left, and whether or not that is good or bad -- and one could even make the argument that it's good because the end result would be good (depending on your politics) -- in my view it proves or supports my point to a certain degree that we are by nature homoreligious.

This article https://americandreaming.substack.com/p ... e-wokeness points out that the atheism of the early 2000s created an existential vacuum.

The Atheist on this podcast explains the origins of wokeism and the resulting divide in the atheist community: https://youtu.be/Y61IPmUEfmo

Observing this clear divide among atheists and liberals is evidence to me that the atheist community was longing for a higher meaning, craving a moral purpose in life based on metaphysical beliefs like the inalienable Rights of the individual as if he is a soul, so that he should be treated fairly and justly and given a good quality of life, liberty, and the freedom to pursue happiness or well-being. And so the mechanistic deconstructionism of Dawkins and Hitchens and others, replacing religion with the Void, was just not satisfying existentially; and so there emerged atheism(+) which evolved into the various sects of wokeism. All because, again, in my view I think we are homoreligious.

Peter Boghossian, James A. Lindsay, and Helen Pluckrose attempted to basically highlight what they saw as bad scholarship in several academic fields by pointing out what they saw as religious thinking, or supernatural thinking, which led them to get published absurd ideas in academia, see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVk9a5Jcd1k

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/01/acade ... holarship/

One could argue this was the equivalent of people on this board criticizing Mormon apologetics when it lacks scientific rigor and is too often couched in supernatural thinking.

Peter Boghossian, Richard Dawkins, and Steven Pinker, and many other atheists who were once revered and admired by nearly everyone in the atheist community just five years ago, are now often villainized by many or even most atheists who reject their perspectives on scientific issues. ... Richard Dawkins has written several massive books on evolution and biology, so it's interesting that he was once considered an authority but is now so easily vilified. I would argue that this phenomenon is because of growing religious sentiment and moralizing metaphysical thinking among some on the Left, which again can be interpreted as either good or bad depending on your political perspective.

Steven Pinker wrote The Blank Slate which was an early attempt to completely reject some views of the new-religious Left, as it's been described.

So whether you agree or disagree with these atheists, it is obvious there is division, and it's because one side sees the other side as embracing a religion.

These atheists, I have mentioned, are just a few as there is definitely a divide among atheists, which I believe comes down to those who are more mechanistic thinkers and focused on biological science and those who are more "right brain" thinkers seeking some form of meaning, spirituality and morality.

Even the atheist liberal Bill Maher, who produced the documentary Religulous, has compared the new religion on the left to Maoism, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yysKhJ1U-vM which was a secular religion in many ways as Maher explains.

This is not surprising to me that there's a divide because we are I think homoreligious, and thus as Nietzche put it, we need to feed both brain chambers, the one chamber that functions via the non-rational/"spiritual" and one for rational science. Or as he put it in Human, All Too Human, “A higher culture must give man a double brain, two brain chambers, as it were, one to experience science, and one to experience non-science. Lying next to one another, without confusion, separable, self-contained: our health demands this. In the one domain lies the source of strength, in the other the regulator. Illusions, biases, passions must give heat; with the help of scientific knowledge, the pernicious and dangerous consequences of overheating must be prevented.” Is wokeism feeding the non-rational "spiritual " brain chamber? Nietzche would have said yes it is, and he would say he has a better spirituality, what scholars call Dionysian Pantheism, that rejects social justice ideals.

I actually personally support most social justice ideals, but I will readily to admit that it is completely grounded in the metaphysics of Christian ethics, which was best pointed out to me by Tom Holland in his book Dominion, and by listening to his many debates and discussions on Youtube.

When I go back and read my Swedish ancestors' Norse religious writings and learn about their culture pre Christianity, I do not see anyone concerned with social justice or stoic cosmopolitanism, but instead there was tribal justice, concern for your tribal neighbor, and the military-like valor of the strong man on the battlefield and conquering and oppressing one's enemies. The concept of "love your enemy," and being "woke" to the unfair treatment of minorities would have been absurd to my Viking ancestors, just as much as the lion would ignore one's pleas to not mangle the cute baby deer and tear into it's throat with impunity. The Vikings saw it as their natural right to take from the weak who cannot defend their property or belongings. Now look at my Viking ancestors in Sweden after converting to Christianity, so that even though they now often describe themselves as atheist or agnostic, a deeper investigation reveals that they are still culturally Christian.

You wrote:
"Any claim that nature 'designed' The human brain for spirituality is based on a misconception of evolutionary science. There is no nature that designs. The existence of a specific human trait is not evidence that is, or has ever been, beneficial to survival of the human species."

No atheist who believes religion can be beneficial, thinks that there is a teleological direction or design in evolution to make us homoreligious, that is not their argument.

This site begs to differ with your last sentence above:

"Religion can be understood as a spandrel in the same way that Stephen Jay Gould claims the surface area between two adjacent arches are spandrels. In using natural selection we have chosen for traits that allowed for a strong foundation that has promoted human survival for thousands of years. Traits similar to behavioural and cognitive characteristics like cooperation, that allow for a more communal lifestyle that may boost one own fitness or increase inclusive fitness. Survival without religion is possible so it does not make this a vital component to survival, however it continues to be a inevitable by product of the things that do continue to promote fitness to our species."
Source: https://kpu.pressbooks.pub/evpsych/chap ... spandrels/

So if religion is possibly or likely a spandrel and the atheists in the videos I linked to here viewtopic.php?t=157779#p2838436 argue non-toxic religion or spiritual practices can be beneficial, and many atheists think there is a new secular religion to fill the existential Void caused by former versions of atheism, then is it not at least possible that non-toxic spiritual beliefs and religious ideas and practices are innate to our species and good for our mental health and social cohesion?

The question of whether or not atheism qualifies as a religion is one that is still up for debate.
It's crucial to remember that atheism is not intrinsically a religion. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods; it excludes the practice of worship, rituals, or a worldview typically connected to organized religions.

However, some have noted that when atheism gets structured and involves a strong feeling of community and shared values, it might develop certain traits of a religious movement. Some contend that in such circumstances atheism may adopt the characteristics of a secular religion.

However, it is crucial to understand that atheism does not represent a single movement or ideology; rather, it is a broad range of convictions and perspectives. While some atheists may be more organized and active in spreading their ideas, others may simply reject the existence of a deity without taking part in any organized atheist groups or activities.

Ultimately, interpretation and point of view will determine if atheism qualifies as a religion or not.

Yes I agree with you that atheism in and of itself is certainly not a religion. All my years as an atheist I heard many atheists explain this over and over to theists, to our irritation. My opening post is not saying that at all, to be clear. I am going to further clarify what I am seeking to discuss and it is not directed only to you Dr. Kingsfield, but everyone.

What my opening post is getting at is that atheism opens an existential vacuum, it is the removal of a belief in God and with it objectively provable values of Right or Wrong and ultimate meaning in life (cue Nietzszche's Mad Man parable), and as a result people will fill that existential void with different things. Some atheists turn to science or scholastics or their career or their family or a hobby, etc. But what I see happened about 5 to 10 years ago was atheists started to lack meaning and a value-structures and ultimate purpose and a consistent morality. They had no Metanarrative that could bind them together like religion does. I remember attending an atheist meet up once almost 20 years ago and there was way more diversity, quite a few political conservatives but yes mostly moderate liberals, yet mostly they were discussing science. There were a lot of engineers, doctors, professors, and biologists, etc.; but at some point atheism decided to become Atheism Plus and then it started to push out atheists who had been part of the movement for decades because these atheists would not join the new quasi-religious Metanarrative of far-Leftism (let's call it). As my opening post points out, this new "cultish" Metanarrative has been discussed by many atheists from Bill Maher who compares the new quasi-religious Leftism to Maoism (see: https://youtu.be/yysKhJ1U-vM) to Anna Kasparian, a host on The Young Turks (TYT) who talks about realizing a new far-Left ideology that she considers destructive has sprung up, saying at one point "I feel like I just woke up and got out of a cult." She goes on to point out that extreme far-Leftism is basically "cultish," maybe not "literally a cult" she says, but then goes on to basically explain what I am saying. See Anna say this at the 1 hour and 7 minute mark here: https://www.youtube.com/live/z8TD2jNPLK4?feature=share
She basically says that humans as tribal beings are prone to these "spiritual levers" I have been talking about in this thread. She is on one of the most popular Progressive/Leftist political channel as a progressive/leftist commentator. So I think she has some credibility, no?

Her entire interview linked above is her explaining that after 20 some odd years as a political commentator and media host, she has seen the rise of secular far-Leftism that is basically a cultish metanarrative and she wants out of the cult basically.

A guy named Thunderf00t who documented what he sees as the rise of this new far-leftism and its metanarrative and how in his opinion it ruined the atheist community. He sees modern feminism as cultish and has a video series, Why 'Feminism' is poisoning Atheism, part one here: . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKKQdJR ... cmYwMHQ%3D
I'm not here to defend thunderf00t but even if only 5% of what he says is accurate, that atheism has been taken over by what the atheist James Lindsay calls Feminist Gnosticism (see: https://newdiscourses.com/2023/04/femin ... nosticism/) then maybe just maybe we are seeing a new quasi-religion emerge in front of our eyes as critical thinkers who were able see through the cultish ways of Brighamite Mormonism. That I think is a huge elephant in the room; and I am wondering why a community who prides itself on critical thinking and deconstructing the problems in Mormonism has not turned that same critical eye to far-Leftism, like all the atheists I have mentioned throughout this thread are doing?

How is it that even Richard Dawkins, who used to be a respected atheistic speaker became vilified so quickly? If that is not the result of "quasi religiosity," then I don't know what is.

I'm simply looking at this like an anthropologist might look at it and I'm fascinated by it and curious by it. It's the elephant in the room.

It seems like atheism creates a void and that void has been filled with a new cultish metanarrative which people like Bill Maher and Anna Kasparian consider a quasi cult. Is Bill Maher wrong? Is James Lindsey of new discourses, completely wrong? Is exmormon Jonathan Streeter wrong? Is Richard Dawkins, who sees this rising cultism, wrong? That is the elephant in the room and I'm curious about discussing it.

Again, not directing that only to you Dr. Kingsfield, but to everyone.

Hopefully, after saying all that, the thread will not turn again towards hyper focusing on me and focus on the actual topic and the ideas.

[huckelberry]

Metanarrative would be a less loaded term that captures what you are arguing for, in my opinion. Well, less loaded on a board where religion is it's raison d'etre. It is equally loaded philosophically but there is history around that argument between modernism and postmodernism you might find interesting.

Fair point, I think you are right. But the topic of the thread used the word "religion" because that is what I see growing up the last five years, a new political quasi-religion. That seems to me like the elephant in the room that many exmormons do not want to discuss. The few exmormoms who do bring it up are shut down by exmormons who I think have joined this new secular quasi-religion. I find this odd because the same problems in traditional organized religions like Brighamite Mormonism can be found in these secular quasi-religions springing up. Re-read my opening post to see what I mean: viewtopic.php?t=157794#p2838899 I dared to talk about the Elephant and instead of others talking about the Elephant, it became all about ME. Granted, I am sometimes a terrirble communicator but what.about.the.elephant. I also find many an exmormon atheist jumping on board and even telling me to join the new "metanarratives," as you put it. So I just find it really fascinating how many in a group who are hyper critical of one Metanarrative will completely throw their arms around another Metanarrative, see what I am curious about? This leads me to think that as humans we are prone to making shiz up and finding meaning in Metanarratives.

FreeRanger, I think readers, myself, are confused by what appears to be different, perhaps opposite meanings to the religion dimension you see. In one way you are looking to a spiritual path lacking religious dogmatics you do not see as helpful or believable. On the other hand you are talking about the way different social groups can coalesce into dogmatic demands for unity of beliefs and values in a religious like manner.

With the mention of metanarritive I first thought perhaps you are focusing on spirituality without a metanarrative. With the proposal huamans are prone to making stuff up you may be complaining that we are built unable to escape metanarratives. They could be a factor in our biological brain makeup. (Or a deeply ingrained cultural habit.)

[Free Ranger]

Fair point, I think you are right. But the topic of the thread used the word "religion" because that is what I see growing up the last five years, a new political quasi-religion. That seems to me like the elephant in the room that many exmormons do not want to discuss. The few exmormoms who do bring it up are shut down by exmormons who I think have joined this new secular quasi-religion. I find this odd because the same problems in traditional organized religions like Brighamite Mormonism can be found in these secular quasi-religions springing up. Re-read my opening post to see what I mean: viewtopic.php?t=157794#p2838899 I dared to talk about the Elephant and instead of others talking about the Elephant, it became all about ME. Granted, I am sometimes a terrirble communicator but what.about.the.elephant. I also find many an exmormon atheist jumping on board and even telling me to join the new "metanarratives," as you put it. So I just find it really fascinating how many in a group who are hyper critical of one Metanarrative will completely throw their arms around another Metanarrative, see what I am curious about? This leads me to think that as humans we are prone to making shiz up and finding meaning in Metanarratives.

FreeRanger, I think readers, myself, are confused by what appears to be different, perhaps opposite meanings to the religion dimension you see. In one way you are looking to a spiritual path lacking religious dogmatics you do not see as helpful or believable. On the other hand you are talking about the way different social groups can coalesce into dogmatic demands for unity of beliefs and values in a religious like manner.

With the mention of metanarritive I first thought perhaps you are focusing on spirituality without a metanarrative. With the proposal huamans are prone to making stuff up you may be complaining that we are built unable to escape metanarratives. They could be a factor in our biological brain makeup. (Or a deeply ingrained cultural habit.)

Someone suggested I use the word metanarrarive so I don't ruffle feathers. The moderator Res Ipsa used the word quasi-religions to summarize my view. I do think our brain evolved to make things up, yes. I mean would the atheist here deny that? According to atheistic naturalism/physicalism, we are not a real person, an actual self as if a soul with free will, but our brain forms personhood, makes it up for example. As nihilist Russ Chole puts it in True Detective, Season 1, our brain is religion-making in that we are dreaming "of being a person" (see: 2 minute mark here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbcwAPZycGE). Buddhism has a whole doctrine of No Self, see https://www.britannica.com/topic/anatta
For the buddhist, those who believe in the concept of a Self or personhood, or a soul, are basically "making things up."

Just pointing out the Elaphant in the room, see my response to Dr. Kingsfield at viewtopic.php?t=157794&start=40#p2840143

[huckelberry]

....
A guy named Thunderf00t who documented what he sees as the rise of this new far-leftism and its metanarrative and how in his opinion it ruined the atheist community. He sees modern feminism as cultish and has a video series, Why 'Feminism' is poisoning Atheism, part one here: . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKKQdJR ... cmYwMHQ%3D
I'm not here to defend thunderf00t but even if only 5% of what he says is accurate, that atheism has been taken over by what the atheist James Lindsay calls Feminist Gnosticism (see: https://newdiscourses.com/2023/04/femin ... nosticism/) then maybe just maybe we are seeing a new quasi-religion emerge in front of our eyes as critical thinkers who were able see through the cultish ways of Brighamite Mormonism. That I think is a huge elephant in the room; and I am wondering why a community who prides itself on critical thinking and deconstructing the problems in Mormonism has not turned that same critical eye to far-Leftism, like all the atheists I have mentioned throughout this thread are doing?

How is it that even Richard Dawkins, who used to be a respected atheistic speaker became vilified so quickly? If that is not the result of "quasi religiosity," then I don't know what is.

I'm simply looking at this like an anthropologist might look at it and I'm fascinated by it and curious by it. It's the elephant in the room.

It seems like atheism creates a void and that void has been filled with a new cultish metanarrative which people like Bill Maher and Anna Kasparian consider a quasi cult. Is Bill Maher wrong?

FreeRanger, I find myself with difficulties in responding because I do not know what this atheist community you speak of is. I am aware of a few atheist thinkers. Have been one in the past and do not find it impossible to consider but I have never been to , encountered, heard of atheist meetings. Perhaps it is a matter of where I live.

Perhaps you mean there are ideas which are getting dogmatic protection and should be questioned. That I would view as entirely possible. Like more effective counters to LDS claims observing a particular mistake and saying why it is a mistake is likely to go further than a comparison with religion. You could clarify your view by saying here are several errors of some importance made by an influential group and this is why they are wrong.

I am not feeling influenced by any radical left wingers so am unsure what topic to pursue. Somebody might believe capitolism is so bad it must be erased. I think replacing capitalism is a bad idea. The replacement is the same thing with different power centers controlling and fighting over the capital.(a its not the workers but the owners of the workers). I did see a you tube claiming communism a good idea.It was trivial.

[Gadianton]

Metanarrative would be a less loaded term that captures what you are arguing for, in my opinion. Well, less loaded on a board where religion is it's raison d'etre. It is equally loaded philosophically but there is history around that argument between modernism and postmodernism you might find interesting.

I think the biggest overall problem is that there isn't even a narrative of atheism. Secularism? Sure. But "atheism" literally has nothing behind it. Free mentioned the new atheists, but these guys weren't taken seriously by academics and they had mixed success with the unbelieving public. I never read any of their stuff. Secularism is interesting -- how did secularism arise? Does that parallel the rise of religions?

Jean Baudrillard had a postmodern view a bit different from his peers; instead of metanarratives crumbling, people are like TV's picking up a broadcast; the broadcast is totalizing. Chomsky had a similar idea. The broadcast metaphor is ironically incredibly modernist if you think about how communications have changed since the 60s. I would think if there's any legitimacy to these kinds of ideas, social media has made metanarratives all but impossible. A kickboxer from Iran (or whatever he was) suddenly has more influence over American grade school boys than any American church or government or family institution. In this cacophony of narratives, there are some liberal themes. Perhaps the "threat to democracy" is something of a narrative, but it cuts across a wide variety of people. In other words, society is more fragmented now and isn't this one of the real challenges to dwindling congregations? "Religion" in the abstract or even in the specifics of ones tradition may not resonate with parishioners as to what's at their core as people.

And so if I were to think in postmodern terms, I'd be a narrative guy, not metanarrative, and I wouldn't expect the battles to be between supposedly stable notions of "religion" vs. "science" or "atheism/theism"; I'd be thinking about "threat to democracy" and "retaking masculinity" -- stuff like that; maybe there are more fundamental narratives, that's just an idea.

[honorentheos]

It wasn't to avoid ruffling feathers. It was because I believe it is the correct term for what you are describing and using it would advance the discussion.

To take it step by step, I believe you would agree that religion, however one defines it, is a construct of culture. You may correct me if I misread you, but it seems we don't need to step even further back to examine that.

Assuming we agree that religion is a construct of culture, we could then examine the purpose each manifestation of the construct serves relative to the parent culture. You noted early in the thread one of the purposes of this construct is to provide, "existential meaning and value"; that connecting to this construct can yield, "positive emotional and psychological benefits".

Your position as stated in the thread is that these social constructs could manifest where no belief in a deity is present or required. You HAVE argued they are generally aligned with what you describe as metaphysical qualia with the example of human rights being offered as evidence.

Like religions, metanarratives are constructs of culture. Religions are often associated with and function to enforce or support a cultural metanarrative. Metanarratives serve the purpose of connecting individuals within a culture with a grand narrative that provides meaning and value, and successfully aligning one's own life with the cultural metanarrative has positive emotional and psychological benefits more or less. But, unlike religion, metanarratives are agnostic about deities, and are typically built around cultural norms and values. Concepts arising from metanarratives such as human rights rely on the metanarrative foundationally for their very existence. They aren't metaphysical, they are constructed out of shared cultural beliefs, often supported de facto by philosophical arguments.

Not everyone views metanarratives positively, and the discussion around social justice has philosophical ties to how metanarratives can be, and often are, harmful to those on the fringes or "othered" in a culture. Lyotard essentially defined postmodernism as opposed to metanarratives viewed as essential to modernism. Post-modernism arguing instead for discrete, localized, individual narratives that give purpose and illuminate meaning. The challenge being post-modernism is often deconstructive rather than constructive, and appears to be an organizational step backwards from the power of metanarratives that were necessary to form nation-states. That's a tangent, sorry. Point being, the tensions underlying the topics in your thread are explicitly engaged in debate and conflict under those headings.

Anyway, I do believe you are arguing for the value of a metanarrative as well as arguing social justice issues have become a metanarrative for the political left in the United States. I think the conversation would benefit were that simple modification made to the terms being used and explored.

[honorentheos]

Metanarrative would be a less loaded term that captures what you are arguing for, in my opinion. Well, less loaded on a board where religion is it's raison d'etre. It is equally loaded philosophically but there is history around that argument between modernism and postmodernism you might find interesting.

I think the biggest overall problem is that there isn't even a narrative of atheism. Secularism? Sure. But "atheism" literally has nothing behind it. Free mentioned the new atheists, but these guys weren't taken seriously by academics and they had mixed success with the unbelieving public. I never read any of their stuff. Secularism is interesting -- how did secularism arise? Does that parallel the rise of religions?

Jean Baudrillard had a postmodern view a bit different from his peers; instead of metanarratives crumbling, people are like TV's picking up a broadcast; the broadcast is totalizing. Chomsky had a similar idea. The broadcast metaphor is ironically incredibly modernist if you think about how communications have changed since the 60s. I would think if there's any legitimacy to these kinds of ideas, social media has made metanarratives all but impossible. A kickboxer from Iran (or whatever he was) suddenly has more influence over American grade school boys than any American church or government or family institution. In this cacophony of narratives, there are some liberal themes. Perhaps the "threat to democracy" is something of a narrative, but it cuts across a wide variety of people. In other words, society is more fragmented now and isn't this one of the real challenges to dwindling congregations? "Religion" in the abstract or even in the specifics of ones tradition may not resonate with parishioners as to what's at their core as people.

And so if I were to think in postmodern terms, I'd be a narrative guy, not metanarrative, and I wouldn't expect the battles to be between supposedly stable notions of "religion" vs. "science" or "atheism/theism"; I'd be thinking about "threat to democracy" and "retaking masculinity" -- stuff like that; maybe there are more fundamental narratives, that's just an idea.

Hi Gad,

Great post, and I largely agree. Baudrillard is new to me and I appreciate your pointing this out. I'll have to look into it more as the idea seems intriguing. The post didn't illuminate the nature of the broadcast but if it functions as the totalizing mechanism against which postmodern critique is aimed, it appears I have some reading to do.

To step back to the opening point of your post, I think the fact atheism lacks narrative is precisely why Free Ranger is running into opposition in the thread yet sees it as knee jerk rejection based on animosity towards religion. Not to put words in his mouth or assert a motive there, just my take on what I'm seeing taking place here. I'd probably say Naturalism is closest to where atheism becomes a necessary part of a narrative view in which individuals may place themselves. But even that isn't complete enough of a relationship to make bold statements that could be squinted at to sort of see a religion there if one willed it so. The uncanny valley effect cannot be overcome just because one asserts it is so.

Coda: I should still note as I have before in the off-topic forums that I am unfortunately a romantic and watch the effects of the balkanized narratives with no small amount of sadness contained in resignation.

[honorentheos]

One additional comment for the OP is that it isn't surprising to see conservative views being tied to metanarrative constructs. By nature, metanarratives favor tradition over change, collective over individual, the past over the future. That many progressive Americans appear to have cohered around standing for more equitable treatment, opportunity, and representation using a narrative that appears to reject the past in favor of the future is, in my opinion, a matter of perspective. One could argue that this organizing power arises out of the same metanarrative from which the nation itself formed; that what it threatens isn't traditional values but the even older prejudices we only seem capable of pealing away in layers. Perhaps.

[Free Ranger]

It wasn't ...

I read what you wrote here and below, twice, and I think I understand what you are saying and what I am understanding is that you kind of agree with me but not exactly. You just prefer I make my points differently with different words and terms. Fair enough. The limits of human communication is always a barrier to two human brains expressing ideas from one psyche to another. But I think I've made my case, in several different ways, sufficiently enough in my opinion.

If I'm being honest, to continue my anaology, I am still finding a huge gigantic elephant in the room and we are trying to decide what the right words are to describe this huge massive elephant knocking over tables and peeing on the floor. Instead of discussing the problem of the elephant we are discussing how to describe it's shadow and how to describe the pee on the floor, is it a "pool" or a "puddle." And I'm like, can we just acknowledge the elephant and the pee?

Or maybe you are acknowledging the elephant in your own way?

[Free Ranger]

One additional comment for the OP ... That many progressive Americans appear to have cohered around standing for more equitable treatment, opportunity, and representation using a narrative that appears to reject the past in favor of the future is, in my opinion, a matter of perspective. ... Perhaps.

Regarding the general movement toward greater equity and opportunity, I believe these are noble motives and I support the moral emotions behind them; and in fact one could read the Book of Mormon from a naturalistic perspective with Joseph Smith as the author and come away with seeing that Joseoh Smith was also seeking equity as he constantly criticizes the super rich who dress in fine apparel and dismiss the poor and the needy and look down on the lower classess. Rereading The Book of Mormon recently, after almost 20 years as an atheist, I had never fully realized just how much of a "social justice" document it is. Yet someone who does not believe in the supernatural origins of the Book of Mormon can appreciate it's social justice messages yet also disagree with the methods Joseph Smith was using to present those ideals of equity. So the issue for me is not whether or not social justice in general and the pursuit of greater equity is right or wrong, although Nietzsche would disagree with my moral sentiments that leans Liberal on such issues, but the issue for me is the Ideologies and methodologies used to achieve said equity by far-Leftism. This is what all of the atheist political liberals I have linked to and quoted throughout this thread are also saying. 5-10 years ago they were considered traditional liberals by the far-right and they are still for social justice and equity of oppurtunity. As Bill Maher likes to say, "I have not changed (as a Liberal), they (the far-Left) have changed." What they see arising is a quasi-religious cult and I don't think I need to repeat everything I've already said, but if you go to their writings and videos linked in this thread and listen to them you will see that they are very much Liberals but that they do not like the current methodologies used by far-Leftism being used as it looks to them too much like cultism. Just as there is the book I am reading right now called, Recovering Agency: Lifting the Veil of Mormon Mind Control by Luna Lindsey, in the opinion of these atheist Liberals, far-Leftism is also engaging in forms of Mind Control and they are in their mind offering "recovery." For example, see: https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/cult- ... -wokeness/

Are these Liberals completely wrong? What percentage of what they say has any accuracy? If any? Why is that not being discussed more by exmormon circles, given how much exmormons are supposed to be aware of cult mind control and its ill effects?