If “belief” is a fiction, then the thing it supposedly organises—religion—can no longer be taken at face value.
What appears as a unified domain—doctrines, rituals, communities, identities—must be re-examined.
1. The assumption of unity
Religion is almost universally treated as a single kind of thing:
- a worldview
- a system of beliefs
- a cultural formation
- a moral order
Even when these differ, the assumption remains that they are aspects of one underlying system.
But once “belief” is dissolved, the unity it was meant to secure begins to fracture.
Because what we call religion does not behave like a single system.
2. Two systems, no common ground
At minimum, religion involves two distinct operations:
(a) Semiotic construal (meaning)
- myth, narrative, cosmology
- gods, origins, destinies
- symbolic articulation of the world
(b) Social coordination (value)
- ritual obligation
- norm enforcement
- authority structures
- collective identity
These are not two layers of the same system.
They are heterogeneous in kind.
- Meaning operates through construal
- Value operates through coordination
3. The illusion of integration
And yet—religion presents itself as unified.
This apparent integration is powerful.
But it is not ontological.
It is relational.
Religion is not a unified system.It is the stabilised coupling of two incommensurable systems, misrecognised as one.
This is the illicit unity.
4. How the coupling holds
If there is no common ground, how does the unity persist?
Not through fusion—but through mutual reinforcement under constraint.
- Meaning systems provide accounts of why practices matter
- Value systems provide conditions under which those accounts are maintained
Neither produces the other.
But each constrains the environment in which the other operates.
Over time, this produces the appearance of coherence.
5. Ritual as hinge
The coupling becomes most visible at its points of tension.
Ritual is one such point.
From the perspective of value:
- ritual coordinates bodies
- synchronises time
- enforces participation
From the perspective of meaning:
- ritual is construed as symbolic enactment
- an expression of cosmology
- a communication with the sacred
Same practice.
Two systems.
No reduction.
6. Misrecognition as structure
The unity of religion is not simply mistaken.
It is structurally misrecognised.
Participants do not typically experience:
- “I am engaging in a value-coordination system while simultaneously operating within a semiotic construal.”
They experience:
- “I believe,”
- “I worship,”
- “This is true.”
The misrecognition is not an error layered on top of religion.
It is part of what allows the coupling to stabilise.
7. Fractures in the unity
When the coupling loosens, the illusion becomes visible.
- Ritual persists while meaning fades→ participation without belief
- Meaning proliferates while coordination weakens→ spirituality without institution
- Competing value systems attach to the same meanings→ schism
- Competing meanings circulate within the same value system→ doctrinal pluralism
These are not breakdowns of a single system.
They are misalignments between systems that were never one.
8. Against reduction
Two common explanatory moves now collapse:
(a) Meaning-reduction
Religion is “really” about belief, worldview, or symbolic systems.
This ignores the autonomy of value coordination.
(b) Value-reduction
Religion is “really” about power, cohesion, or social control.
This ignores the irreducibility of semiotic construal.
Both fail for the same reason:
9. The analytic shift
Once the illicit unity is exposed, a different set of questions becomes possible:
- What meanings are being construed?
- What value relations are being coordinated?
- Through what mechanisms are these systems coupled?
- Under what conditions do they stabilise—or come apart?
Religion is no longer the object.
The relation is.
10. The consequence
This reframing does not merely clarify religion.
It destabilises a much broader assumption:
that meaning and value naturally belong together.
From here, the path bifurcates.
But not both at once.
Not without reintroducing the illusion.
No comments:
Post a Comment