Another great piece Matthew. The crisis of philosophical anthropology in the West can be traced at least as far back as Hegel, whose erroneous notion of God (or the Absolute Spirit) becoming Himself through us in the historical process has finally devolved into popular expression in our current political environment. What Hegel put in abstract German idiom, Barack Obama summed up in cheap political sloganeering: "We are the ones we've been waiting for."
These takes from Christians always make me laugh. Christianity and all religions have even worse answers to these questions and write out of the very very mixed track record of religions everything they don't lime. Believing in useful nonsense might be OK, but don't blame its decline on anything other than declining utility in a changing tradeoff environment. Christianity is based on empirical and metaphysical nonsense and that has to matter.
Thanks, Brian. Glad to give you a laugh. I actually agree with you that religious decline is directly related to declining utility. That’s helpful language, so thanks. And I’ll grant you that Christianity affirms ideas that are metaphysically contradictory; though, I would add that Christians have always been aware of the limitations of making metaphysical sense of faith claims. At its best, Christian theology describes what sense can be made of the Christian faith, taking certain elements as givens. If, for example, the resurrection of Jesus happened. It isn’t terribly surprising or new to say that the faith can’t withstand intellectual scrutiny. All that being said, and not knowing where you’re coming from, I’ll only add that there really is no position that is devoid of similar metaphysical problems. I wouldn’t go so far as to say every point of view is equally valid or invalid, but I absolutely would say that each one is partly a matter of judgment, requiring self-criticism and ideally humility. So, sincerely, thanks for chiming in.
It only makes me laugh because it exempts Christianity from the same geneology/etiology as its allegedly insufficient and "God shaped hole" successor ideologies. And misunderstands how religions form, whatthey do, and why the change either internally or are replaced externally.
I take your point, but I'm not sure that's quite right. I don't know that there is a meaningful or compelling way to describe how "religions" form, etc., or even if that question can be applied to such a contested category. To be honest with you, I don't know what you're referring to with the "God shaped hole" comment, but I trust you know what you mean. In the piece, I suggested that the culturally shared understanding of what a human is has come into crisis, and I think that's observably true. That's no statement about the merit of previously held understandings.
I write in genuine confusion-- how are you using the term anthropology here? Can you direct me to a definition, as you are obviously not referring to what I learned about in Anthropology 101 years ago, or the easy to find dictionary quote ("the study of human societies and cultures and their development"). It would help me to understand the previous essay, which I have so many questions about and yet feel that I don't get it at all.
Thanks so much for this comment; I benefit greatly from this sort of feedback. By anthropology, I don't mean the discipline, but rather one's understanding of human nature, of what makes a human being human. So, for example, in what I wrote above, I was suggesting that recent political rhetoric has made some strong implicit claims about human nature that, I would say, are ultimately religious claims. I hope this helps. Please don't hesitate to send me any questions if there's something I can clarify.
Matthew, very gracious of you to both reply so quickly and to answer my question carefully and clearly (and without a breath of condescension). It's appreciated. I ended up here through following the link on Eliza Mondegreen's list of her Top Reads of the Week (always excellent). I wonder at the claim that "our politics has turned into religion", as surely this has happened before, unless you think this move is linked directly to social media and other new (for lack of a better word) forms of mass communication. I do agree that the implications of accepting gender claims ("trans women are women') and creating law and policy based on those claims are an alarming, and new, development; you can't, or shouldn't, make legal policy based on the testimony of an invisible, unevidenced, gendered soul. This does shade into religion, particularly the creation of a new caste of people who I know I shouldn't think of as privileged but some of whom certainly appear to act out of deep entitlement...
Thanks so much, Radegunde. Eliza is a friend and an amazing thinker and writer.
The trans issue is a great example of what I'm describing. A core element of modern liberalism has been the belief that public truth claims would be judged on the basis of empirical science, but what we have with trans discourse is a social enforcement of truth claims that don't require any empirical validation (or subject themselves to falsification).
Another great piece Matthew. The crisis of philosophical anthropology in the West can be traced at least as far back as Hegel, whose erroneous notion of God (or the Absolute Spirit) becoming Himself through us in the historical process has finally devolved into popular expression in our current political environment. What Hegel put in abstract German idiom, Barack Obama summed up in cheap political sloganeering: "We are the ones we've been waiting for."
Really, are we?
A very interesting analysis.
Thanks for this insight. The Hegel-Obama thing is clarifying. Thanks also for your generosity in recommending this Substack! Means a lot to me!
These takes from Christians always make me laugh. Christianity and all religions have even worse answers to these questions and write out of the very very mixed track record of religions everything they don't lime. Believing in useful nonsense might be OK, but don't blame its decline on anything other than declining utility in a changing tradeoff environment. Christianity is based on empirical and metaphysical nonsense and that has to matter.
Thanks, Brian. Glad to give you a laugh. I actually agree with you that religious decline is directly related to declining utility. That’s helpful language, so thanks. And I’ll grant you that Christianity affirms ideas that are metaphysically contradictory; though, I would add that Christians have always been aware of the limitations of making metaphysical sense of faith claims. At its best, Christian theology describes what sense can be made of the Christian faith, taking certain elements as givens. If, for example, the resurrection of Jesus happened. It isn’t terribly surprising or new to say that the faith can’t withstand intellectual scrutiny. All that being said, and not knowing where you’re coming from, I’ll only add that there really is no position that is devoid of similar metaphysical problems. I wouldn’t go so far as to say every point of view is equally valid or invalid, but I absolutely would say that each one is partly a matter of judgment, requiring self-criticism and ideally humility. So, sincerely, thanks for chiming in.
It only makes me laugh because it exempts Christianity from the same geneology/etiology as its allegedly insufficient and "God shaped hole" successor ideologies. And misunderstands how religions form, whatthey do, and why the change either internally or are replaced externally.
I take your point, but I'm not sure that's quite right. I don't know that there is a meaningful or compelling way to describe how "religions" form, etc., or even if that question can be applied to such a contested category. To be honest with you, I don't know what you're referring to with the "God shaped hole" comment, but I trust you know what you mean. In the piece, I suggested that the culturally shared understanding of what a human is has come into crisis, and I think that's observably true. That's no statement about the merit of previously held understandings.
I write in genuine confusion-- how are you using the term anthropology here? Can you direct me to a definition, as you are obviously not referring to what I learned about in Anthropology 101 years ago, or the easy to find dictionary quote ("the study of human societies and cultures and their development"). It would help me to understand the previous essay, which I have so many questions about and yet feel that I don't get it at all.
Thanks so much for this comment; I benefit greatly from this sort of feedback. By anthropology, I don't mean the discipline, but rather one's understanding of human nature, of what makes a human being human. So, for example, in what I wrote above, I was suggesting that recent political rhetoric has made some strong implicit claims about human nature that, I would say, are ultimately religious claims. I hope this helps. Please don't hesitate to send me any questions if there's something I can clarify.
Matthew, very gracious of you to both reply so quickly and to answer my question carefully and clearly (and without a breath of condescension). It's appreciated. I ended up here through following the link on Eliza Mondegreen's list of her Top Reads of the Week (always excellent). I wonder at the claim that "our politics has turned into religion", as surely this has happened before, unless you think this move is linked directly to social media and other new (for lack of a better word) forms of mass communication. I do agree that the implications of accepting gender claims ("trans women are women') and creating law and policy based on those claims are an alarming, and new, development; you can't, or shouldn't, make legal policy based on the testimony of an invisible, unevidenced, gendered soul. This does shade into religion, particularly the creation of a new caste of people who I know I shouldn't think of as privileged but some of whom certainly appear to act out of deep entitlement...
Thanks so much, Radegunde. Eliza is a friend and an amazing thinker and writer.
The trans issue is a great example of what I'm describing. A core element of modern liberalism has been the belief that public truth claims would be judged on the basis of empirical science, but what we have with trans discourse is a social enforcement of truth claims that don't require any empirical validation (or subject themselves to falsification).