Brief Take on the Stickiness of Religion, 1965-2011

When I've read books written by academics and other "serious" highbrows that were published in the mid-1960s to early 1970s, I've always been struck by the idea that religion was on its way out in the First World, due to the forces of modernity. Philosophers, historians, sociologists of religion, and even religious thinkers themselves believed this. This appears to have been a widely-held view.

Some of the religious thinkers "liked" the idea that religion was on its way out, and the demise of religion was hailed by a seemingly large minority of highbrow religious thinkers because they - as I read them - saw the Churches as too demystified, too watered-down. They sought a renewed private or small-group mysticism, a renewal of the feeling of the mysterium tremendum.


The world was seen as rapidly secularizing, and most of the books I read from that period seemed to think this was not only accelerating, but inevitable, and basically a good thing for society. Of course there were many conservatives and religious thinkers who thought this was the harbinger of the end of the world, and there was some interesting writing on eschatology, from estimable people like Russell Kirk.

But yea, anyway...almost all those books and those great thinkers turned out to be wrong. Why?

One of the gods of sociology, Max Weber, thought that rationalization (which we would see as almost synonymous with modernization) would historically and progressively provide a "disenchantment of the world." Enlightenment rationality would further increase, and overarching collective myths that cohered and provided a consensus for all values and beliefs would weaken. The values and beliefs handed down to us would begin to seem less and less plausible, and maybe humanity would be forced to think for themselves?

No, how could that have been correct? But this view seems widely held by intellectuals during this period, of circa 1965-72 or so. (I have only read a few small stacks of academic books from this period, but this is augmented by intellectuals who have written books lately, who have reflected back on this period of the 1960s and confirmed what I'm saying here.)

                                                       The Fourth Presbyterian Church of Chicago

Here's basically what I think went wrong in intellectual thought: they assumed this ongoing, accelerating process of rationalization would lead to more and more plurality, which would lead to more and more secularism.

And it seems modernity/rationalization does seem to lead to pluralism - more choices for "belief" - but pluralism did not inexorably lead to secularism. People indeed did have more and more choices, but quite often they chose religion.

Now, it seems I'm begging the question: why the stickiness of religion? Even in a vastly pluralistic society of choice? (Remind me to bring up Giambattista Vico's "conceit of scholars.")

I will leave this Q beggared, as my answers would be too windy right now, and I hope someone else has better answers than I do.

Mutt: This guy seems nuts to even think religion would go away. Both he and the 1960s intellectuals he vaguely says he's read.

Jute: Yep. Just another Internet pseudo-intellectual. Does he even realize no one really cared what the "intellectuals" - that group that Woody Allen compared to the Mafia: "They only kill their own" - thought, either in 1965 or now?

Mutt: Agreed. Hey, this new software that allows us to easily hack into some dipshit blogger's inane "observations" and add our own comment...this is pretty fun!

Jute: Totally worth the $2, even in today's money. I wonder what will go through his mind when he wakes up tomorrow and sees this? Hey! Let's go invade another blog, shall we? I'm drivin'.

Mutt: Shotgun!

*Mutt and Jute are kindly on loan from the good people over at Finnegans Wake, Universe Next Door Productions. Thanks to everyone! It's been quite a ride!