The conflict of visions

In 1987 Thomas Sowell published the book Conflict of Visions and in 2006 it was republished due to its ongoing validity. To political pundits, the left and right are still holding on to ancient political positions. The left historically has held up and held to a political philosophy that believes in the perfectibility or at least the ability to improve man (the unconstrained vision). Whereas the constrained vision (usually found on the right) saw human nature as limited and forever flawed. Sowell uses the works of Adam Smith and William Godwin to demonstrate this point:

Godwin referred to “men as they hereafter may be made,” in contrast to Burke’s view: “We cannot change the Nature of things and of men—but must act upon them the best we can.

In political philosophy, this difference manifests as belief in the state's ability to produce progress. Whereas political ideologies of the right try to limit the scope of government involvement because human nature is fixed and therefore the project of trying to make humankind better through technocracy will inevitably fail. Leftwing political ideologies, on the other hand, are more comfortable using power, so long as the intention is good, and the aim is to try to improve people or their lot. 

However, neither left nor right present-day thinkers are particularly concerned about bedrock political philosophies and in many cases, such as the post-liberals on the right and the post-materialists on the left, have actively disavowed them. 

The thinkers and ideas that are in transcendence give meaning more than mere political ideologies. These are religious ideas, and not by accident. In a secularised world there is a gaping hole for meaning that is being filled by new and old theologies. 

In many ways left and right have changed places and whereas leftwing secular religions, such as environmentalism, are highly constrained in nature, the right holds unconstrained visions in the form of traditional religions which mostly contain some transcendent value or principle. 

These new ideologies of consequence produce much the same debate on the political stage. The left still argues for a less limited government, but do so because they want to prevent hell or create a heaven on earth that is consistent with the constrained visions they hold. Likewise, the right still holds a limited view of government if they believe that heaven is either not possible on earth but many thinkers on the right have been tempted by a kind of machiavellian instinct to use political power to further their own religious vision.

It is my contention, and I will unpack this, that the constrained religious visions on the left are what is currently driving unconstrained political discourse on that side of politics, whereas the unconstrained visions on the right are continuing the constrained political views. 

Religious Visions

The question that needs to be answered upfront is: What is a religion? Defining religion is an endeavour that both law and anthropology has undertaken. 

Law needs to define what a religion is for the sake of taxation, whether an organisation can be said to be a charity determines if they pay tax, can tax deduct donations, or even receive funds from the state as many countries in Europe do (say Hungary where money gets allocated to recognised religious organisations).

The previous definition in common law which decided what was and was not a religion was the test of belief in one or many gods. However today - thanks to the litigious Church of Scientology - the definition is now a belief in some supernatural principle or thing, and codes of conduct or ethics that give effect to that belief. 

Anthropology needs a definition of religion to classify different social phenomena. It follows the work of sociologists Durkheim and Weber, and says religion is:

 ...a pattern of beliefs, values, and actions that are acquired by members of a group. Religion constitutes an ordered system of meanings, beliefs, and values that define the place of human beings in the world.

Taken together these definitions are two limbed, the first is that there is a theory of how the world is or how it should be or what I will refer to as ‘doctrine’, the second is that there is an activity or a structure - particularly undertaken as a group - that gives life to the written doctrine or what I will refer to as ‘organisation’ or ‘institution’ or ‘Church’. 

To demonstrate that this working definition of religion -well - works! Take, for instance, the bible existing and being read and debated doesn’t make it a religion, any more than reading and debating Plato does. But put a structure of action and organisation around the text, e.g. the Catholic Church, only then can it be said to be a religion. Likewise, an organised group that has moral codes of conduct doesn’t mean it is a religion in which case every company that gives out an employee handbook of expected behaviour would be a religion, it is only when those behaviours are directed towards a goal consistent with a doctrine it is trying to give effect to, not simply so that the company is profitable because the employees don’t bring it into ill repute. 

Both doctrine and an organisation to give effect to the doctrine are necessary for something to be classified as a religion. 

The second question is: why do religions exist?

Psychologist Sigmond Freud issued a warning:

If you wish to expel religion from our European civilization you can only do it through another system of doctrines, and from the outset this would take over all the psychological characteristics of religion, the same sanctity, rigidity and intolerance, the same prohibition of thought in self-defence.

Humans are deeply social beings and like to not only have an individual sense of meaning but like to be part of a group that acts out the ethics or value structure held. Religions are powerful because they give both individual meaning and collective action. 

Freud was more negative - saying that religions bring rigidity - but in admitting that the only way to get rid of religion is to replace it is to admit that this structure is something that humans crave. 

The fact that many activist movements look like religions is no accident. The only ideologies that could have replaced the old religions are new ones. The only ideologies that could have had salience in a time bereft of meaning and ritual were things that could fill that void. 

The third question: what happens when you take the constrained vs unconstrained vision dichotomy and apply it to religions?

Religions can also fit into the ideological categories of constrained and unconstrained. Sowell gives an example of religious versions of these visions:

Fundamentalist religion is the most pervasive vision of central planning, though many fundamentalists may oppose human central planning as a usurpation or “playing God.” This is consistent with the fundamentalist vision of an unconstrained God and a highly constrained man.

Traditional religions (such as the example of a fundamental state religion above) usually contain some transcendent principle - such as a god - that is unconstrained by material existence. Often the view of humans is limited and thus is or ought to be constrained, while the deity of transcendent principle or goal is unlimited and thus unconstrained. 

Secular religions, that is ones without a transcendent property have the inverse structure. They believe that it is possible to create a kind of heaven on earth and therefore see humans as the vehicle for the ultimate doom or liberation (whichever the case may be) because there is no other heaven or hell than the material world the vision of this world is by nature constrained. The movement that typifies this is the modern environmental movement.