Why does religion evoke such strong feelings?

Psychologies: Almost every day we learn about fanatics, about terrorist attacks, and we are confronted with emotions about this, including religious feelings. Are we really ruled by passions when it comes to faith?

Marina Mchedlova: When it comes to religious matters, many have a special psychological state that is not always amenable to mind control. At the same time, religious consciousness and religious feeling are two different things. In a believer, a religious feeling is more pronounced, but it can also be present in someone who is far from religion.

Therefore, the question, for example, of insulting religious feelings and shrines can also affect non-believers. For one, insulting sacred things is unbearable, while the other does not consider it forbidden at all, but even such a “Voltaireian” approach may actually turn out to be a converted religious feeling. Where rational thinking does not spread, emotion spreads.

Frederik Lenuar: Here we are in the realm of the irrational. Religious beliefs are confirmed only by themselves. Therefore, in this area, the feelings are very strong. For believers, the main thing is respect for their teachings and customs. But for non-believers, all this is meaningless! Therefore, discussion quickly becomes impossible.

Researchers used to see Europe as a model for what will happen around the world: religion will become more and more a private matter, and at the same time spirituality without religiosity will spread.

However, in the last 30 years we have seen the opposite. Religion, although it has retreated significantly in modern societies, continues to fuel discussions and contradictions, and in developing countries it does not just hold its positions, but goes on the offensive.

It turns out that a neutral attitude towards religion is generally impossible?

Marina Mchedlova: In principle, it is possible, but these days it is becoming increasingly rare. If 20-30 years ago religion in many countries was on the periphery of public life, now it has returned to the public space, and it is impossible not to relate to it in any way. We have to admit that over the past decades we have become neither more enlightened nor more educated.

Why have religious issues become topical again?

Frederik Lenuar: The acceleration of globalization causes an exceptionally strong culture shock. And religion is the most important part of self-identification, belonging to one’s culture: Christianity in the West, Islam in the Arab countries, Hinduism in India.

Religion turns out to be the last political truth: people unite around a common belief in something transcendent, in an invisible whole that is greater than them. This is how religions create social bonds, a sense of belonging to a community. In times of crisis, when politicians cannot manage on their own, they always turn to religion.

Marina Mchedlova: This is a crucial question, and many brilliant minds are now trying to solve it. The sociologist of religion Peter Berger, a supporter of the most rigid theory of secularization, believed that religious institutions, consciousness and practice would gradually go into the private sphere and to the periphery of society. But in 1999, he was forced to admit that he was wrong.

The political scientist and modernization theorist Ronald Inglehart has changed his views and now believes that there is no single set path that ultimately leads to the adoption of European values. On the contrary, there may be a strengthening of traditionalism, including an orientation towards religious values.

Does this value fork mean a conflict of civilizations?

Marina Mchedlova: I would not say that this is necessarily a conflict. It may be a search for a new way of coexistence. Another thing is that such coexistence will not always be peaceful, unfortunately.

Why did religious meanings return to society? First, we see that the principle of secularism has lost its monopoly on the description of reality. And secondly, in the global world, different cultures, in order to preserve their identity, turn to the most stable criteria of identity.

Globalization calls for sameness, so it can only be balanced by diversity. And now we are dealing with the activation of not so much even religious as confessional consciousness.

Please note: the contradictions between different confessions within the same religion are also aggravated. And if earlier Orthodoxy and Catholicism were universal belief systems, now they are more connected with the state and ethnic group.

It is generally accepted that religious consciousness plays a peacemaking role. How then to explain that religious feelings provoke clashes?

Frederik Lenuar: Within the same society, religion unites believers and helps to contain violence. But in the circumstances of globalization, it provokes conflicts between different cultural layers. The Muslim world is turning itself against the Judeo-Christian West, the West is against Islam, the Hindus are against Christians and Muslims.

The Muslim world, faced with its own political failures and the military, economic and cultural advantage of the West, is trying to find itself and its pride in religion.

Today it comes to attempts to create a caliphate led by the terrorist organization “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant” (ISIS is an organization banned in the Russian Federation), that is, to promises to return to Islam the greatness that it supposedly had.

In addition, the moment in which we live, I would call ultra-modernity. It provokes the destruction of the traditional structures on which our societies were founded, such as the family, relationships between men and women. To cope with these changes, some are turning to religion, the foundation upon which customs and moral values ​​have evolved over the millennia.

Marina Mchedlova: Religious consciousness so far softens conflict reactions. But at the same time, I would not discount the context – primarily in geopolitics, politics, aesthetics, in the space of public discussions that are not very consistent in tone.

There is another side to the problem: the danger of sects. They use religious consciousness, manipulate religious (or quasi-religious) feeling, considering neophytes as completely submissive people or a means of enrichment.

If in the West society is more open to the changes that modernization brings, does this mean that it is more vulnerable to conflicts that are generated by the destruction of tradition?

Marina Mchedlova: Yes, in the West, life is more adapted to the changes that modernity brings. But the gaps between the traditional and the modern are penetrated by madmen and extremists. Today’s extremist is inspired by traditionalism, but generated by modernity: if there were no modern world with its conditions and logic, then traditionalism would not play the role of a catalyst for conflicts.

To be modern, one must be light and mobile; to be traditional, on the contrary, one must be heavy, sedentary, hierarchical. The extremist is modern in his tactics, he strives to be everywhere and nowhere, to be on the move, virtually elusive, but at the same time he uses such important traditional elements as religious consciousness for his tactics.

Do the changes that take place in the global world affect everyone equally or does each country experience them in its own way?

Frederik Lenuar: In France, the brutality of the religious conflict is especially pronounced. Our political system was formed in the struggle against Catholicism, the final act of which was the separation of the Church from the state.

In other countries, it was the opposite, especially in the United States: religion participated in the establishment of a new political order. She was part of everyday life, and Americans, even non-believers, have a deep respect for her. For them, respect for the feelings of believers is as unshakable a principle as freedom of speech.

Marina Mchedlova: 75% of Russians believe that we are a special civilization. This determines our specificity: in Russia, multi-confessionalism is recognized as a special value, so inter-religious conflicts are considered a threat to national security by only 5% of the population.

In addition, Russian society remains predominantly secular, which also does not allow religiously colored conflicts to grow. At the same time, it should be noted that the constitutionally enshrined principle of secularism does not necessarily imply that a society is not religious.

For example, after the execution of the Charlie Hebdo editorial office, 85% of us considered (with a complete rejection of the means) that this massacre is psychologically explicable. More than 89% believe that under no circumstances should the feelings of believers be offended.

How to find a balance between religious and secular consciousness?

Frederik Lenuar: It is very difficult to find balance here. On the one hand, we must continue to criticize religion and in no case give in to the imposed censorship.

But, on the other hand, I believe that there is no need to add fuel to the fire, and I urge to refrain from provocations leading to dangerous clashes. If we become more respectful of Muslims, we will be better able to fight bigotry.

But laws must also be firmly and consistently enforced, especially with regard to the ban on wearing full-coverage robes in public places or the use of religious symbols in school.

Marina Mchedlova: Remembering, including at the legislative level, the feelings of believers, we have lost sight of other segments of society. We need to work out the rules of coexistence in a world where there is not only the secular, but also the religious. Now there are many concepts of how to reconcile the religious and the secular, to develop forms of their relationship.

For example, the sociologist Ulrich Beck believes that a person should live always keeping in mind that there are Others who are not like him. In any place, he will encounter people who are different in his beliefs, and this should become the norm – namely, that I always deal with others. And this world, in which others are around, should be comfortable for me as well as for others.

In today’s Russia, is it easier to be a member of some confession than an atheist?

Marina Mchedlova: Probably, being a believer and positioning yourself as being inside a denomination is really calmer. After all, then we have a cultural tradition behind us, and even the law is on our side. Over the past decades, the structure of human perception has changed in our country: if earlier, when we were asked “who are you?”, we meant the field of activity, now we mean nationality or religion. Saying “I’m an atheist” is not for everyone.

Do religious differences threaten the well-being of society?

Frederik Lenuar: The main danger seems to me, on the one hand, fanatics and religious communities, on the other hand, consumer materialism. They have in common: the cult of the external. In religion, these are dogmas, rituals, a sense of belonging. Consumerism has appearance, possession of material values. In both cases, we forget about the soul.

To quote the philosopher Henri Bergson, I would say that today’s world needs “more soul.” It is necessary to abandon quantitative logic, the cult of externality, domination and rivalry in order to get closer to a qualitative dimension, to solidarity, tolerance, to values ​​that I would call “female”, as opposed to “male”: violence and predation that destroy our societies and the planet. This is the key to changing the world.

Marina Mchedlova: The feeling of discomfort arises not at all because of the difference in religious ideas, but because of the differences in the way of life. We need to find a common denominator for different lifestyles. We in Russia have a unique historical experience of the interpenetration of cultural and religious traditions, which is very palpable, for example, in the Volga region. This traditional religious tolerance largely built the very Russian civilization.

Tolerance, respect for other people’s feelings have not yet taken root in society. How to teach our children tolerance and respect for others?

Frederik Lenuar: It is not enough to convey secular morality as a religious dogma. It needs to be made to think. And this is the task of philosophy. Why should we respect each other? Why is it necessary to be tolerant?

Also, we often preach the right values ​​but don’t live by them ourselves. Let’s teach our children to think for themselves. Let’s develop their sensitivity, their emotional intelligence. If we succeed, there will be a revolution in consciousness in the coming decades. I am deeply convinced of this.