¯\_(ツ)_/¯ you can't kill an idea, because it was never alive.
Humans are just primates hardwired for selection bias and paredolia. We rationalize but we aren't rational beings, we're primarily driven by emotion and ego. We're smart enough to recognize death but also smart enough for mortal fear.
And that's even before we get to the vast political and cultural power of religion which even in this "atheistic" age still manufactures consent or justifies the policies of most governments around the world.
Unfortunately, gods will never die because they will never not be useful and people will never stop anthropomorphizing their environment.
> The city is an omen of its presence: “Once a society becomes primarily urban, it is locked into a process of metastasising growth which will, in the end, lead to the destruction of other ways of being.” “The Machine is the liberal anticulture made manifest.”
> And what is to be done? The answer to the Machine, for Kingsnorth, lies not in the Right or the Left, not in capitalism or communism, not in some ideological system or set of conceptual abstractions. [...] The closest we may get in the book to a description of how to secure a more humane future is the term “reactionary radicalism,” which Kingsnorth borrows from sociologist Craig Calhoun. It is a way of life that thrives on tradition, in a local place, in prayer, among a people. “The moral economy rarely makes rational sense. But it makes human sense, which is what matters.”
The book seems to follow the almost traditional dichotomy between "perverted", growth-at-all-costs urban techno-libertarianism (with some stings at liberalism for some reason) and "pure" rural Christian traditionalism.
Interesting that the figureheads of both those movements come from the right today.
As a liberal leftist, none of those two systems look particularly appealing to me. Are there no other options that the author could imagine?
I don't care that its 2026 and people are tired of atheists. I still think religion isn't the answer. I refuse to believe that pretending things, no matter how good they make us feel, is the right thing for human beings to do. I'll be ground up by the machine before I bow down again to an imaginary god.
I've never met an adult convert who gave off any other vibe than "I am afraid of grappling with the world as it is, so I am turning to a comforting fantasy." They can and do often dress it up in various fancy phrases. They decry the awfulness of modernity and claim religion is the solution. But it is rhetoric. People don't become religious as adults because they are dumb or lack eloquence. They convert out of fear of the world.
I don't think the entirety of the phenomenon can be explained by fear, and in complex issues such as this a single variable analysis is suspect.
I would encourage you to think of forces other than fear that might be driving observed behavior. It is only in this way that you have any hope of creating an alternative attractive force that satisfies the needs that are currently being served by religion.
One obvious one, is that people crave community and religion provides a ready made and welcoming community.
But this is an exercise that is best performed by you. It is about changing your own attention. Next time you come across some "adult convert", instead of looking for signs that prove your assumptions (that they are looking for comfort), look for some positive sign.
Consider how you are reacting to this very comment chain. Are you thinking "there is no possible way any person could ever be attracted to religion for any other possible reason than fear and need for comfort". When you asked me for suggestions were you actually curious? Bring that same curiosity to your next interaction. Demand of your own attention to see a positive reason.
And consider that if you are not able to notice the positive intentions in the actions of another, that might be a you problem.
8 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 31.8 ms ] threadHumans are just primates hardwired for selection bias and paredolia. We rationalize but we aren't rational beings, we're primarily driven by emotion and ego. We're smart enough to recognize death but also smart enough for mortal fear.
And that's even before we get to the vast political and cultural power of religion which even in this "atheistic" age still manufactures consent or justifies the policies of most governments around the world.
Unfortunately, gods will never die because they will never not be useful and people will never stop anthropomorphizing their environment.
> And what is to be done? The answer to the Machine, for Kingsnorth, lies not in the Right or the Left, not in capitalism or communism, not in some ideological system or set of conceptual abstractions. [...] The closest we may get in the book to a description of how to secure a more humane future is the term “reactionary radicalism,” which Kingsnorth borrows from sociologist Craig Calhoun. It is a way of life that thrives on tradition, in a local place, in prayer, among a people. “The moral economy rarely makes rational sense. But it makes human sense, which is what matters.”
The book seems to follow the almost traditional dichotomy between "perverted", growth-at-all-costs urban techno-libertarianism (with some stings at liberalism for some reason) and "pure" rural Christian traditionalism.
Interesting that the figureheads of both those movements come from the right today.
As a liberal leftist, none of those two systems look particularly appealing to me. Are there no other options that the author could imagine?
I've never met an adult convert who gave off any other vibe than "I am afraid of grappling with the world as it is, so I am turning to a comforting fantasy." They can and do often dress it up in various fancy phrases. They decry the awfulness of modernity and claim religion is the solution. But it is rhetoric. People don't become religious as adults because they are dumb or lack eloquence. They convert out of fear of the world.
I would encourage you to think of forces other than fear that might be driving observed behavior. It is only in this way that you have any hope of creating an alternative attractive force that satisfies the needs that are currently being served by religion.
But this is an exercise that is best performed by you. It is about changing your own attention. Next time you come across some "adult convert", instead of looking for signs that prove your assumptions (that they are looking for comfort), look for some positive sign.
Consider how you are reacting to this very comment chain. Are you thinking "there is no possible way any person could ever be attracted to religion for any other possible reason than fear and need for comfort". When you asked me for suggestions were you actually curious? Bring that same curiosity to your next interaction. Demand of your own attention to see a positive reason.
And consider that if you are not able to notice the positive intentions in the actions of another, that might be a you problem.
Nice little "blood-and-soil" mythos he's got going there in his "reactionary radicalism."