What form would the ideal religion take? Some might argue that instead of redesigning religion, we should get rid of it. But it is good for some things: religious people are happier and healthier, and religion offers community. Besides, secularism has passed its zenith, according to Jon Lanman, who studies atheism at the University of Oxford. In a globalised world, he says, migrations and economic instability breed fear, and when people’s values feel under threat, religion thrives.
Jacobs lists off four categories or basic functions of religion (sacred party, therapy, mystical quest, and school) and describes how most of the existing world religions do one of these very well and ignore or fail to excel at the others. Jacobs’s ideal religion would excel at all four:
While each appeals to a different sort of person, they all tap into basic human needs and desires, so a new world religion would have a harmonious blend of them all: the euphoria and sensual trappings of a sacred party, the sympathy and soothing balms of therapy, the mysteries and revelations of an eternal journey and the nurturing, didactic atmosphere of a school.
Numerous festivals, holidays and rituals would keep followers hooked. “Rites of terror” such as body mutilation are out – although they bind people together very intensely, they are not usually compatible with world religions (New Scientist, 19 December 2009, p 62). Still, highly rousing, traumatic rituals might still feature as initiation ceremonies, because people tend to be more committed to a religion and tolerant of its failings after paying a high price for entry.
The everyday rituals will focus on rhythmic dancing and chanting to stimulate the release of endorphins, which Robin Dunbar, also at Oxford, says are key to social cohesion. To keep people coming back, he also prescribes “some myths that break the laws of physics, but not too much”, and no extreme mysticism, as it tends to lead to schisms.
With many gods and great tolerance of idiosyncratic local practices, the new religion will be highly adaptable to the needs of different congregations without losing its unifying identity. The religion will also emphasise worldly affairs – it would promote the use of contraceptives and small families and be big on environmental issues, philanthropy, pacifism and cooperation.
I’m not sure about downplaying the value of mysticism or the necessity of pacifism, but the interesting thing (as pointed out by Sannion over at the House of Vines) is that Jacobs has basically described ancient Greco-Roman pagan religion.
As Apuleius Platonicus pointed out, Jacobs’s description is lacking in a few other areas as well. Such an ideal religion ought to honor human sexuality and celebrate reason and learning.
But these are honestly quibbles that could be worked out in the long run, or better yet, there would just be room within this kind of big-tent religion for different viewpoints. Most importantly, however, as pointed out by paosirdjhutmosu is that this kind of article and this kind of thinking undermines the notion of religions progress that people like Rodney Stark sell so hard, and that so many people seem to accept as a given, the idea that the course of human religious history has somehow been a linear progression from a darker mirror to a clearer one, and that therefore modern religions are necessarily better than older ones. Like all notions of progress, this is an extremely suspect assumption, with very little to back it up other than plain-old-fashioned massive bias in favor of the current status quo. Now must be better because it’s now. That’s nonsense. Social and cultural change happen for a host of reasons, and there’s nothing in the process that makes sure that the end-product is more functional or healthier for human beings.
I don’t think articles like this are going to turn people towards the old gods in massive numbers or anything, but I like that we see this kind of thinking more and more.
I also definitely want to point out that while this “ideal religion” describes ancient Greco-Roman polytheism fairly well, it wound not specifically have to be Greco-Roman polytheism. I for one would gladly welcome an open, mystical, transcendental, green Christianity with room to give proper honor to saints, angels, ancestors and local kindred spirits of the earth.
Sailing to Byzantium 
I really liked the way you worked Rodney Stark into this!
My problem with Stark is not necessarily the content of his work. I think there are serious flaws in his conclusions, but I don’t think we should simply leave viewpoints unconsidered, even if we consider them and discard them. There’s value in a considered and rejected viewpoint, and value in offering up a viewpoint that turns out not to carry all the way through.
What I object to is the symbiosis he has with Evangelical Christians. They want to believe that what he says is true, so they eat it up uncritically, and then turn around and parrot it like it’s peer-reviewed science or something. And he responds by feeding them as much of it as they can take.
A great deal of what passes for religious “scholarship” is nothing but Christian Apologetics. Often this comes from people like Stark who do not openly identify as Christian, and who may not actually be Christians. Stark’s agenda is more cultural and political than it is religious, but there is only one over-arching point of reference that can hold Stark’s cultural-political meta-narrative together, and that is Christianity.
To be honest I don’t take Stark seriously as a scholar in any sense of the term. I am unaware of any original contributions made by him, either in terms of adding to our knowledge of history (new facts), or in terms of adding to our understanding (new analysis). He has made an original contribution to the rhetoric of Christian Apologetics by combining Whiggish Progressivism with Orosian Triumphalism.
Maybe this doesn’t make sense, but I applaud the fact that Stark articulates a viewpoint (original or not) that is in opposition to the prevalent winds of culture studies in Academia, even though he fails to make his case very well. I am concerned about the proliferation of sacred cows in cultural discourse. On the other hand I think it’s too bad that (1) he doesn’t make his case very well at all (as you said, in the final analysis it turns out he’s a Christian apologist, not a scholar) and (2) that belivers tout him like his positions are proven beyond question.
Funny, as I was reading the intro bit I kept thinking, “Oh, Orthodox Christianity.” Community, check; rituals, check; chanting, check; too much info to learn it all, check; right amount of mysteries, check. I still think Orthodoxy is too sexually conservative, but that’s not one of the four things.
But it probably should be. I very much think that an attempt like Douglas’s to lay out “the ideal religion” is going to be subject to negotiation and further discussion. It’s a start of a conversation, not an absolute, authoritative pronouncement. But in broad strokes, I think she’s on the right track.
The unfortunate thing is that in all likelihood, the people most likely to read this and agree with her are also likely to go on just not being religious and assume this “ideal religion” is a great idea for other people.
On the other hand, like I said, I do think that the right kind of sufficiently open Christianity could fit the bill.
Just to be clear: despite my comment about sexuality, I think her “good religion would have to be liberal in these exact ways” rider was silly.
Agreed, wholeheartedly. At that point she breaks from talking about the functionality of religion for human beings and starts talking instead about imposing her own specific normative worldview on the whole thing.
I think we can talk about an ideal religion, but if your ideal religion starts to look too much like your favorite politics, it might just be your ideal religion.
Personally i think it´s respectless to describe a religion made in somones hobby room as “ideal” ( =superior to cultural religions older than his country ) and implying that the best thing would be to “make” a religion first and become devout after.
What he describes is Live Action Role Playing.
He studies “atheism” at Oxford. Well atheism is a beliefsystem so wouldnt it pay more to read comparative religion and ontology?
His way of writing makes it clear that he doesent even have a basic understanding of, or respect for religion (a word that is a misnomer in most cultures anyway).
To simply “make” a religion, “superior” in his own mind ,seams mainly as intellectual masturbation of a megalomaniac (to found one on ones actual beliefs would be another thing).
Why not make an ideal political system too, or some ideal science?
Eh, a religion made up three thousand years ago is still a made up religion. It’s not any more of a LARP to practice a religion made up by someone else than it is to practice a religion you made up on your own.
But I think you’re missing the point, which is that the “ideal” religion described in broad strokes by Kate Douglas already conveniently resembles a lot of existing ancient religious traditions. You’re so quick to jump on your favorite reconstructionist diatribe that you’re not even listening to hear that Kate Douglas is actually describing your religion as ideal.
In any case, we’re talking about a religion being “ideal” in terms of efficacy and utility for human beings and human societies, not “ideal” in terms of objective truth. If that’s what you’re looking for, good fucking luck.
I think you are missing the point.
A cultural religion isnt made up.It developes naturally as part of the culture (as opose to religions founded at a certain date by one or more persons….give or take).
It cant be separated from that culture as a whole and is part of that cultures “efficiency” (though people of other cultures might disagree).
And i´m not claiming that a new religion is less ideal either (as you can see at the end of my “diatribe”). What i AM saying, however, is that a religion made up more or less as an intellectual experiment, claiming to be more efficient than the once allready existing is more or less hybris (no, i´m not a Hellenist).
Also, to call certain religions “ideal” is the same as saying that those not fitting the pet mold are less “ideal”.
In what way she is describing my religion is a mystery to me since i dont regard “reconstructionism” as a religion.
Neither do i regard my beliefsystem or my practice as more “ideal” than any other. It just happens to be mine.
We dont have numerous festivals or rythmic chanting and no interest in keeping people “hooked” (there where “atheists” in pre Christian Scandinavia).
However, my main objection is that it portrays religion in a trivializing way (in my opinion). It simply disregards world view and makes religion a mere societal tool (witch many thinks it is).
To those belonging to a religion deemed “less efficient”, it is the same as saying that their beliefs, their reality ,is of less value to humanity and that their God (s) needs a lesson from an Oxford student.
I dont believe in objective truth.
“I dont believe in objective truth.”
Then why do you care about this?