Religious Fervor Run Amok
Religious Fervor Run Amok
At the beginning of human history there was much that was mysterious and unknown and it was quite
normal to attribute what was not known to invisible forces; what else? From that emerged the first vestiges of
what ultimately became known as religion: spirits, natural forces, gods that manipulated things for the good or ill
of man. No one ever saw them, or had hard evidence that they existed, but they knew they were there – there
was evidence that they had been there: wind, rain, volcanoes and hurricanes. So it was assumed that these
forces responded as humans would, how else could they respond? They obviously had levels of intelligence at
least equal to that of men. So humans courted them with presents and obeisance; they felt they had little choice?
Then the true God began making his presence known to the Chosen, and explaining reality to them, his
prophets expanded the education process, and with His guidance wrote tomes with further information, laws
and even history. But again, except for what certain observers related, there was no hard proof; but people
believed. Why? Because they wanted to, felt better and safer for having done so, and their leaders wanted them
to because through it they came together and lived better together in the new towns, villages and cities in which
they had begun living.
But in time man learned to discover more about the world about him; with scientific method he learned to
hypothesize and experiment, and he began to understand more about what had formerly been a mystery.
Naturally enough he also began to question, or at least those with this new knowledge did, what they had been
told about religion and some came to disagree and challenge. What proof was there? Proof was in what had
been preached, lived and internalized; believers just knew it was so – they had faith, and it was right. Still, no
one had ever actually seen God, and all they had was the accumulated wisdom of those who had come before
and taught them their faith.
To make a long story short, there was enough disagreement, to which was added counter streams of
knowledge and experience, to say nothing of great disappointments, to make many not want to believe. In
Europe, where populations on both sides of conflicts, such as the 30 Years War and the wars of the 20th century,
had essentially the same religious beliefs, and the same faith, that faith was shaken. Many, in the end, at least
in Europe, finally walked away from it; although elsewhere, where scientific knowledge was neither as well
known nor respected, particularly in North Africa, Central Asia and Southwest Asia, this was less the case. But
the nature of the faith was different too. This, however, is not a discussion of the differences of faiths, but the
apparent need for them. For what is becoming increasingly evident is that, religion per se aside, people seem to
have a strong need to believe in something. Why?
Here are some tentative hypotheses on which to chew:
People feel alone without something to which to belong – and believe;
“Religious” belief is the original engine of stability and order and the need for that has not disappeared;
People need meaning in their lives and strong beliefs can help provide it;
Many feel they need help to get through life and seek something to which to belong that offers them support;
People are prone to fear and hate, belonging can assuage the one and justify the other and belonging can
provide a feeling of superiority; there is an inner need in man to feel superior.
People agree about little enough, with opposing self interest the major cause.
There is also a historical basis for some of this, and simplistically let’s just call it family. Historically the family
group and clan were the most fundamental building blocks of man’s belonging structure, and the father, or
patriarch, was always the pillar of its authority; so it is not unusual that all further support structures, including
religion – and early society – were similarly hierarchically constructed.
There is ample evidence that people who eschew formal religious structure tend to look for it elsewhere. Let’
s try some examples: Communism was an attempt to substitute a non-religious creed for religion by using the
same trappings as formal religions had used; 20th century fascism did the same, complete with symbology,
belief fervor and celebration. Many gang cultures seem to do very similarly. Even, surprisingly, atheism tends to
take on fervor very similar to religion, but in the negative sense. But, I believe, there is more, and the strong need
for support – to be taken care of – has to be factored in. In this way government, and even politics, offer options
that can begin to provide results that approach the same end – and generate among some similar fervor – for,
and against.
A Jewish writer allowed that despite their secularism, Jews are as religious as any in the world, but their religion
is less and less likely to be Judaism, and more likely to be all the "isms" of liberalism, socialism, feminism,
Marxism and environmentalism, believing in them with “the same ideological fervor and same suspension of
critical reason” that often comes with religion. They are not alone; most fervent “ism” believers do much the
same, being caught up in the emotional aspects of their fervor.
And what of democracy? Or free markets? Have these become religions too? In some ways they have, though
perhaps in different ways. Specifically, technological and historical evidence of effectiveness shows that they
work (albeit with side effects) but there is a need in some sectors to want to spread it to others in a manner that
is almost religious. So what is the difference? Religion, whatever its manifestations, is basically emotional –
and almost always non-provable, meaning that religions are not susceptible to scientific analysis and refutation.
Democracy and free markets, on the other hand, once accepted and implemented, have effects that are easily
discerned, and therefore available to both praise and attack; they are tangible, even if poorly understood by
participants. And that lack of understanding is where the similarity to religion weighs in - in the fervor in which
they are pushed on others. Interestingly, democracy works better when it is universal; does that not sound like
religion?
Democracy, Communism, Fascism - monarchy; why must we have governments at all? There have always
been fanatical proponents of anarchy, after all. Simplistically, man hungers for order and security, order
including the adjudication of all the differences that occur among men, security including both of person and
property. Once, and significantly religion played an important role in that process. Early in history, those that
could, established pockets order and security, and religion was used to assist them in its maintenance. Others
found themselves forced to accept the dominance in order to survive, but religious fervor both justified it and
made it palatable. But as life became more complex so did governing, with all kinds of problems with which we
are familiar, some actually generated by religious beliefs. Christianity specifically suggested sanctity of
individuals with its notion that God loves all human souls equally, spawning a growing belief in egalitarianism –
equal rights; but also important was the growth of money and trade, which effectively broke down the strangle
hold a small minority had on power. From that resulted various forms of democratic governments that depend
on the expressed will of the people to select new elites to govern them. But philosophy of will of the people and
egalitarianism has advanced further still, with variously expressed demands for rights – with equal religious
fervor – but not under government control.
Thus we come full circle – man accepted governance because he needed security and order. Elites, with the
assistance of religious fervor, provided it, but when the religiosity weakened, or as was often the case, was
thrown out, a void was created, and many have come to seek elsewhere. Two needs emerge: one to be
protected and provided for, the other to have something emotion-inciting to which to belong and find meaning.
The two may not be entirely compatible, mainly because what elicits excitement – fervor – is often not consistent
with what is good for order, which might explain some of the political tension that has become so much a part of
our modern lives today.
But that is not all that has changed: money and rights have made it possible for all to aspire to what only a tiny
minority could aspire in earlier times. Is egalitarianism a new religion? It feels like one. But if it truly exists why,
one may reasonably ask, can we not all accept and get along? Why can’t we all just enjoy mutual peace and
love and respect and …acceptance? Because that’s just not how we are made. We can’t agree on that which
should be accepted. But we are also painfully aware of our own inability to change what is to what we are
convinced it should be and so we seek help: allies and like-minded leaders. Allies are simple enough; if we,
those who are right about the way things should be, can all mass together, we can make it happen, if our
religious fervor is up to the task. Oh, really? And who will set the direction, lead and focus the fervor? The
sheep do poorly without a shepherd, even with fervor; anarchy is full of fervor, yet goes nowhere until a leader is
found.
Which brings us, I think, to the ultimate reality: sheep and shepherds. At this point you should disagree;
there is more, and that’s what has changed the world. And it is? The Middle Class, that vast amorphous middle
that are not sheep, but neither are they shepherds, and more important yet, their fervor is tamped down enough
that they are willing to compromise on the issues that elicit fervor in others, coming to consensus that makes a
certain, if not idyllic, then at least palatable comfort zone in which they can live in relative harmony – until a new
fervor comes along to disrupt it. And that disruptive fervor will almost always be some kind of rocking of the boat
of complacent comfort of the middle class. One must recall that dissention in Europe went on for several
hundred years before the French Revolution broke out, and it did so only when the boat of complacent comfort of
what then comprised the middle class was rocked, and they caught the religious fervor that spurred them into
action – because, of course, their boat was being rocked.
Fervor, I would contend, is only generated as a result of self interest, or at least perceived self interest, but it
dissipates itself – or remains self-contained – without leadership. Fervor after all only becomes dangerous to
when it threatens others, when it threatens the order upon which society is based. So we come to leadership
willing to disrupt order that can induce what is essentially religious fervor; leadership, I might add, that always
has its own self interest. That self interest generally has to do with power, power to make things happen the way
those newly fervent elite leaders want it to happen, badly enough to disrupt whatever existing order stands in its
way – to, of course, create a new order to their liking.
One thing that is a historical constant is that people don’t all see things the same way, and they find great
difficulty in reaching agreement upon which way things ought to be, and fervent as they might be, that fervor
dissolves into impotent frustration until it is focused through effective (or sometimes not so effective) leadership.
And so life has progressed since the beginning of history through waves of religious fervor, with and without
leadership, giving the lie, of course, to egalitarianism. The elite lead and the followers follow, with various layers
of middle class tipping the balance one way or the other. Elites change, sometimes frequently, and for many
reasons that we need not attempt to address here; and what constitutes elite is equally slippery. Let it suffice to
say that elite indicates power to take the lead, however it might have been developed – another subject we need
not attempt to address here.
Once elite entailed a narrow minority. Once religious fervor was controlled and focused by that same narrow
minority, though one elite minority might have replaced another fairly regularly. That is no longer the case, and
many more who presume themselves elite now fight to realize the success of their own chosen religious fervor,
most of which clash with many others. It is as if the lid has been removed from Pandora’s Box. Egalitarianism it
is not, for focus still comes from elite leadership, but a certain egalitarianism is the driver. Can we call it an
egalitarianism of ideas? Or an egalitarianism of religious fervors, with elite leaders hungry to bring them to
fruition, followers to follow them, and the technology to bring them together to in pursuit of different and conflicting
objectives. Fervor, passion, is being focused as perhaps it has never been focused before, but in many different
directions. We seem to be entering an era of organized anarchy, with all the oxymoranity that phrase entails.
At the beginning of human history there was much that was mysterious and unknown and it was quite
normal to attribute what was not known to invisible forces; what else? From that emerged the first vestiges of
what ultimately became known as religion: spirits, natural forces, gods that manipulated things for the good or ill
of man. No one ever saw them, or had hard evidence that they existed, but they knew they were there – there
was evidence that they had been there: wind, rain, volcanoes and hurricanes. So it was assumed that these
forces responded as humans would, how else could they respond? They obviously had levels of intelligence at
least equal to that of men. So humans courted them with presents and obeisance; they felt they had little choice?
Then the true God began making his presence known to the Chosen, and explaining reality to them, his
prophets expanded the education process, and with His guidance wrote tomes with further information, laws
and even history. But again, except for what certain observers related, there was no hard proof; but people
believed. Why? Because they wanted to, felt better and safer for having done so, and their leaders wanted them
to because through it they came together and lived better together in the new towns, villages and cities in which
they had begun living.
But in time man learned to discover more about the world about him; with scientific method he learned to
hypothesize and experiment, and he began to understand more about what had formerly been a mystery.
Naturally enough he also began to question, or at least those with this new knowledge did, what they had been
told about religion and some came to disagree and challenge. What proof was there? Proof was in what had
been preached, lived and internalized; believers just knew it was so – they had faith, and it was right. Still, no
one had ever actually seen God, and all they had was the accumulated wisdom of those who had come before
and taught them their faith.
To make a long story short, there was enough disagreement, to which was added counter streams of
knowledge and experience, to say nothing of great disappointments, to make many not want to believe. In
Europe, where populations on both sides of conflicts, such as the 30 Years War and the wars of the 20th century,
had essentially the same religious beliefs, and the same faith, that faith was shaken. Many, in the end, at least
in Europe, finally walked away from it; although elsewhere, where scientific knowledge was neither as well
known nor respected, particularly in North Africa, Central Asia and Southwest Asia, this was less the case. But
the nature of the faith was different too. This, however, is not a discussion of the differences of faiths, but the
apparent need for them. For what is becoming increasingly evident is that, religion per se aside, people seem to
have a strong need to believe in something. Why?
Here are some tentative hypotheses on which to chew:
People feel alone without something to which to belong – and believe;
“Religious” belief is the original engine of stability and order and the need for that has not disappeared;
People need meaning in their lives and strong beliefs can help provide it;
Many feel they need help to get through life and seek something to which to belong that offers them support;
People are prone to fear and hate, belonging can assuage the one and justify the other and belonging can
provide a feeling of superiority; there is an inner need in man to feel superior.
People agree about little enough, with opposing self interest the major cause.
There is also a historical basis for some of this, and simplistically let’s just call it family. Historically the family
group and clan were the most fundamental building blocks of man’s belonging structure, and the father, or
patriarch, was always the pillar of its authority; so it is not unusual that all further support structures, including
religion – and early society – were similarly hierarchically constructed.
There is ample evidence that people who eschew formal religious structure tend to look for it elsewhere. Let’
s try some examples: Communism was an attempt to substitute a non-religious creed for religion by using the
same trappings as formal religions had used; 20th century fascism did the same, complete with symbology,
belief fervor and celebration. Many gang cultures seem to do very similarly. Even, surprisingly, atheism tends to
take on fervor very similar to religion, but in the negative sense. But, I believe, there is more, and the strong need
for support – to be taken care of – has to be factored in. In this way government, and even politics, offer options
that can begin to provide results that approach the same end – and generate among some similar fervor – for,
and against.
A Jewish writer allowed that despite their secularism, Jews are as religious as any in the world, but their religion
is less and less likely to be Judaism, and more likely to be all the "isms" of liberalism, socialism, feminism,
Marxism and environmentalism, believing in them with “the same ideological fervor and same suspension of
critical reason” that often comes with religion. They are not alone; most fervent “ism” believers do much the
same, being caught up in the emotional aspects of their fervor.
And what of democracy? Or free markets? Have these become religions too? In some ways they have, though
perhaps in different ways. Specifically, technological and historical evidence of effectiveness shows that they
work (albeit with side effects) but there is a need in some sectors to want to spread it to others in a manner that
is almost religious. So what is the difference? Religion, whatever its manifestations, is basically emotional –
and almost always non-provable, meaning that religions are not susceptible to scientific analysis and refutation.
Democracy and free markets, on the other hand, once accepted and implemented, have effects that are easily
discerned, and therefore available to both praise and attack; they are tangible, even if poorly understood by
participants. And that lack of understanding is where the similarity to religion weighs in - in the fervor in which
they are pushed on others. Interestingly, democracy works better when it is universal; does that not sound like
religion?
Democracy, Communism, Fascism - monarchy; why must we have governments at all? There have always
been fanatical proponents of anarchy, after all. Simplistically, man hungers for order and security, order
including the adjudication of all the differences that occur among men, security including both of person and
property. Once, and significantly religion played an important role in that process. Early in history, those that
could, established pockets order and security, and religion was used to assist them in its maintenance. Others
found themselves forced to accept the dominance in order to survive, but religious fervor both justified it and
made it palatable. But as life became more complex so did governing, with all kinds of problems with which we
are familiar, some actually generated by religious beliefs. Christianity specifically suggested sanctity of
individuals with its notion that God loves all human souls equally, spawning a growing belief in egalitarianism –
equal rights; but also important was the growth of money and trade, which effectively broke down the strangle
hold a small minority had on power. From that resulted various forms of democratic governments that depend
on the expressed will of the people to select new elites to govern them. But philosophy of will of the people and
egalitarianism has advanced further still, with variously expressed demands for rights – with equal religious
fervor – but not under government control.
Thus we come full circle – man accepted governance because he needed security and order. Elites, with the
assistance of religious fervor, provided it, but when the religiosity weakened, or as was often the case, was
thrown out, a void was created, and many have come to seek elsewhere. Two needs emerge: one to be
protected and provided for, the other to have something emotion-inciting to which to belong and find meaning.
The two may not be entirely compatible, mainly because what elicits excitement – fervor – is often not consistent
with what is good for order, which might explain some of the political tension that has become so much a part of
our modern lives today.
But that is not all that has changed: money and rights have made it possible for all to aspire to what only a tiny
minority could aspire in earlier times. Is egalitarianism a new religion? It feels like one. But if it truly exists why,
one may reasonably ask, can we not all accept and get along? Why can’t we all just enjoy mutual peace and
love and respect and …acceptance? Because that’s just not how we are made. We can’t agree on that which
should be accepted. But we are also painfully aware of our own inability to change what is to what we are
convinced it should be and so we seek help: allies and like-minded leaders. Allies are simple enough; if we,
those who are right about the way things should be, can all mass together, we can make it happen, if our
religious fervor is up to the task. Oh, really? And who will set the direction, lead and focus the fervor? The
sheep do poorly without a shepherd, even with fervor; anarchy is full of fervor, yet goes nowhere until a leader is
found.
Which brings us, I think, to the ultimate reality: sheep and shepherds. At this point you should disagree;
there is more, and that’s what has changed the world. And it is? The Middle Class, that vast amorphous middle
that are not sheep, but neither are they shepherds, and more important yet, their fervor is tamped down enough
that they are willing to compromise on the issues that elicit fervor in others, coming to consensus that makes a
certain, if not idyllic, then at least palatable comfort zone in which they can live in relative harmony – until a new
fervor comes along to disrupt it. And that disruptive fervor will almost always be some kind of rocking of the boat
of complacent comfort of the middle class. One must recall that dissention in Europe went on for several
hundred years before the French Revolution broke out, and it did so only when the boat of complacent comfort of
what then comprised the middle class was rocked, and they caught the religious fervor that spurred them into
action – because, of course, their boat was being rocked.
Fervor, I would contend, is only generated as a result of self interest, or at least perceived self interest, but it
dissipates itself – or remains self-contained – without leadership. Fervor after all only becomes dangerous to
when it threatens others, when it threatens the order upon which society is based. So we come to leadership
willing to disrupt order that can induce what is essentially religious fervor; leadership, I might add, that always
has its own self interest. That self interest generally has to do with power, power to make things happen the way
those newly fervent elite leaders want it to happen, badly enough to disrupt whatever existing order stands in its
way – to, of course, create a new order to their liking.
One thing that is a historical constant is that people don’t all see things the same way, and they find great
difficulty in reaching agreement upon which way things ought to be, and fervent as they might be, that fervor
dissolves into impotent frustration until it is focused through effective (or sometimes not so effective) leadership.
And so life has progressed since the beginning of history through waves of religious fervor, with and without
leadership, giving the lie, of course, to egalitarianism. The elite lead and the followers follow, with various layers
of middle class tipping the balance one way or the other. Elites change, sometimes frequently, and for many
reasons that we need not attempt to address here; and what constitutes elite is equally slippery. Let it suffice to
say that elite indicates power to take the lead, however it might have been developed – another subject we need
not attempt to address here.
Once elite entailed a narrow minority. Once religious fervor was controlled and focused by that same narrow
minority, though one elite minority might have replaced another fairly regularly. That is no longer the case, and
many more who presume themselves elite now fight to realize the success of their own chosen religious fervor,
most of which clash with many others. It is as if the lid has been removed from Pandora’s Box. Egalitarianism it
is not, for focus still comes from elite leadership, but a certain egalitarianism is the driver. Can we call it an
egalitarianism of ideas? Or an egalitarianism of religious fervors, with elite leaders hungry to bring them to
fruition, followers to follow them, and the technology to bring them together to in pursuit of different and conflicting
objectives. Fervor, passion, is being focused as perhaps it has never been focused before, but in many different
directions. We seem to be entering an era of organized anarchy, with all the oxymoranity that phrase entails.