TALENT FOR RELIGION

Considering that there is a definite strong link between a national culture and its religion, and considering that a connection has been noted between religious and social characteristics, such as by Max Weber, who relates the entrepreneurial capitalist spirit to the special qualities of Protestantism, the following question is of more than curiosity value: Are some nations more predisposed toward religious belief than others? It is only logical to wonder if there exists a cultural divide in this case too. Here is what Nietzsche has to say about it in Jenseits [48]:“It seems that Catholicism is much more intimately related to the Latin races than all of Christianity in general is to us northerners, and unbelief means something different in Catholic and Protestant countries. Among them, a kind of rebellion against the spirit of the race, among us, a return to the spirit of the race. We, descendants of barbarians, have little talent for religion.”

In my view, this could be more a question of national politics than of religious peculiarity. Germany, as a single national entity, holds a multi-religious historical identity, with traditional Catholicism in the South (prominently including Austria, in addition to the Erden of the German South), and Protestantism in the Northern parts. The ‘Einig, Einig, Einig!’ slogan, reflecting her Gross-Deutsches national aspirations (“Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer!), turns all religious denominational differences into a great inconvenience, in the context of national unity, which, in my opinion, is the chief factor responsible for these “descendants of barbarians having little talent for religion.” But Nietzsche’s argument keeps holding its ground no matter how many convincing counterarguments might be presented in its refutation. After all, the supreme value of philosophy is in posing good questions, not in answering them to everybody’s satisfaction.

Once again, he makes an intriguing observation, leading me to thinking about similar considerations in the matter of other religions, particularly, Russian Orthodox Christianity. But non-Christian religions are also extremely interesting, and the specific psychological connection between the culture and its religion is the most captivating question here, with Nietzsche right in the middle of it, as always… Incidentally, leaving the Catholics aside, who else has a “talent” for religion?…

(To be sure, with all his prophetic vision, boldness of ideas, and great insight into the nature of things, Nietzsche could hardly foresee that our new brand of post-religious, and in America post-post-religious society would take a notably different course than his prophesied liberation from all religion toward a neo-barbaric self-affirmation of people and nations. In the era of an erosion of national identities via uncontrolled and by now probably uncontrollable multiculturalism, a resurgence of religiosity as a statement of reaffirmation of one’s beleaguered national/cultural identity, Nietzsche’s scenario appears likely to be refuted… But on the other hand, is it possible that the time for his prophecy’s fulfillment has not come yet? I don’t think so, but I can be mistaken…)

Now, before leaving this entry for the time being, until it is to be further developed in the next stage of my work, a short postscriptum may be in order here. Bearing in mind how very little ‘talent for religion’ most people in our modern times have, even, and maybe, especially those, who, for political or social reasons, are compelled to identify themselves as members of specific religious denominations, where do these get their cultural-ethical sensibilities (or sensitivities, if that works better) from? It is no revelation that quite a few of those who identify themselves as “non-religious” are yet proud of their ‘ethical atavism,’ little realizing that their “ethics” are an inheritance, they may not always be aware of, of their cultural past, always rooted in that same religion which they are now so eager to repudiate. In other words, my search for the Absolute standard might be conducted along those general religious-humanistic lines, which have bestowed the title of humanist on Erasmus, a man of religion, yet, these days, courtesy of Tim LaHaye and his ilk, have made this word a synonym of secularist and anti-religious prejudice, quite unfairly I might add, and without any grounds, except for these wretched bigots’ ignorance and conspicuous lack of elementary erudition.