The Sacred and the Empirical: How Belief Shapes Knowledge in 2025
A reckoning with faith, authority, and the crisis of public reason
The question haunts every emergency room where parents refuse blood transfusions for their children, every school board meeting where evolution is debated, every climate summit where politicians invoke divine providence instead of scientific data: What happens when belief overrides evidence? When the sacred trumps the empirical? When faith becomes the enemy of facts?
This isn't a polemic against religion or a defense of scientific materialism. It's something more urgent: an inquiry into how humanity's relationship with belief has shaped our capacity to know, to plan, and to survive together. In 2025, as we face cascading crises that demand evidence-based responses, understanding this relationship isn't academic—it's existential.
The story begins not with gods or laboratories, but with power. With the recognition that every epistemological framework—every way of knowing—carries within it the seeds of authority and control. Religion didn't create this dynamic, but it has mastered it across millennia, developing sophisticated mechanisms for managing both knowledge and doubt. Today, as traditional religious authority wanes in many societies, we're witnessing the emergence of new forms of epistemic control—from conspiracy theories to secular fundamentalisms—that operate by similar logic.
What follows is an exploration of how we got here, where we are now, and what it might mean to build a future grounded in both empirical integrity and existential meaning. It's a story about the tension between mystery and method, between the human need for certainty and the reality of irreducible uncertainty. Most importantly, it's about what happens when societies must choose between preserving comforting myths and confronting difficult truths.
The Great Divorce: When Explanation Became Faith
From Proto-Science to Sacred Authority
Religious belief didn't begin as the enemy of empirical investigation—it began as its precursor. The earliest spiritual traditions emerged from humanity's profound need to understand natural phenomena that exceeded immediate comprehension. Lightning wasn't just electrical discharge; it was divine anger. Seasons weren't just planetary mechanics; they were the breath of gods. Illness wasn't just biological dysfunction; it was spiritual imbalance.
This proto-scientific impulse contained the seeds of genuine inquiry. Early shamans, priests, and healers were simultaneously spiritual authorities and empirical observers, developing sophisticated knowledge systems about astronomy, medicine, agriculture, and psychology. The Babylonian astronomers who tracked celestial movements for religious purposes laid groundwork for mathematical astronomy. Indian Ayurvedic practitioners who understood the body as a spiritual system nonetheless developed detailed knowledge of anatomy and pharmacology.
But somewhere in this evolution, a crucial shift occurred. As historian Karen Armstrong has documented, the "Axial Age" (roughly 800-200 BCE) saw the emergence of transcendent religions that began to prize faith over investigation, revelation over observation . Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Judaism, and later Christianity and Islam developed increasingly sophisticated theological frameworks that positioned divine truth as fundamentally different from—and superior to—worldly knowledge.
This wasn't necessarily problematic in itself. The issue emerged when these transcendent frameworks began to make empirical claims about the natural world while simultaneously declaring themselves immune to empirical verification. When religious authorities began to assert not just that God exists, but that the earth is flat, that illness is caused by sin, that certain races are divinely ordained to rule others—and that questioning these claims constitutes heresy rather than investigation.
The transformation from explanation to faith marked a profound shift in humanity's relationship with uncertainty. Early spiritual traditions often embraced mystery as a call to deeper investigation. Post-Axial religions increasingly treated mystery as a demand for submission. The difference between "we don't yet understand" and "we must not question" became the difference between empirical and authoritarian epistemology.
The Colonial Construction of "Religion"
The category of "religion" itself, as scholars like Talal Asad and Russell McCutcheon have demonstrated, is largely a colonial construct—a way of organizing and controlling diverse spiritual practices under a framework that served imperial interests . European colonizers didn't simply encounter "religions" in Africa, Asia, and the Americas; they created the category of religion as a tool for classification, prediction, and domination.
This colonial epistemology worked by transforming lived spiritual practices into abstract belief systems that could be catalogued, compared, and ultimately subordinated to Christian theological frameworks. Indigenous healing practices became "primitive medicine." Ancestor veneration became "pagan superstition." Complex cosmologies became "mythology." In each case, the colonial framework positioned Western Christianity as the apex of religious development, while relegating other traditions to earlier "stages" of human evolution.
The consequences of this epistemological violence continue to shape contemporary discussions of religion and knowledge. When we debate "faith versus science," we're often unconsciously reproducing colonial frameworks that position Christianity as the paradigmatic example of religious belief while treating empirical investigation as inherently secular and Western. This obscures both the scientific contributions of non-Western traditions and the ways in which Western science itself has been shaped by Christian theological assumptions.
More insidiously, the colonial construction of religion created a false binary between "rational" Western knowledge and "irrational" non-Western belief that continues to justify various forms of epistemic and material domination. From medical imperialism that dismisses traditional healing practices to educational policies that treat indigenous knowledge systems as folkloric rather than empirical, the colonial legacy of religious classification remains a powerful tool for managing global knowledge production.
The Emergence of Scriptural Literalism
Perhaps nowhere is the tension between faith and evidence more acute than in the emergence of scriptural literalism across religious traditions. While ancient and medieval interpreters often understood sacred texts as layered with multiple meanings—literal, allegorical, moral, and mystical—modern fundamentalisms have increasingly insisted on single, literal interpretations that position themselves as historically and scientifically accurate.
This shift represents a profound transformation in how religious communities understand the relationship between revealed truth and empirical investigation. Medieval Islamic scholars like Al-Ghazali and Averroes, despite their theological differences, both assumed that divine revelation and natural philosophy were complementary rather than contradictory. Christian scholastics like Thomas Aquinas developed sophisticated frameworks for integrating Aristotelian natural philosophy with Christian theology. Jewish philosophers like Maimonides argued that apparent conflicts between reason and revelation indicated incomplete understanding rather than fundamental incompatibility.
The emergence of modern scriptural literalism changed this dynamic by positioning religious texts as empirical documents that could be either true or false in straightforward historical and scientific terms. This created what historian George Marsden calls "the fundamentalist paradox": the insistence that religious faith must be grounded in empirical evidence while simultaneously rejecting any empirical investigation that might challenge scriptural claims .
The consequences of this paradox are visible across contemporary religious landscapes. Christian fundamentalists demand that Genesis be taught as scientific fact while rejecting evolutionary biology. Islamic literalists insist on the scientific accuracy of Quranic cosmology while dismissing astronomical evidence for the age of the universe. Hindu nationalists promote Vedic texts as advanced scientific treatises while rejecting archaeological evidence that contradicts their historical claims.
In each case, scriptural literalism doesn't simply assert religious truth against scientific truth—it claims to be more scientific than science itself. This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of both religious and scientific epistemology, but it also reveals something crucial about the psychology of belief in modernity: the desperate need to ground faith in the very empirical certainty that faith was originally designed to transcend.
The Mechanics of Spiritual Authoritarianism
Defining Epistemic Control
The term "spiritual authoritarianism," coined by philosopher John Heron, describes any system where absolute truth is claimed by a cognitive or spiritual elite who demand unquestioning acceptance from followers . This isn't simply about religious hierarchy—it's about the specific ways in which authority structures control the production, distribution, and validation of knowledge.
Spiritual authoritarianism operates through several key mechanisms:
Revelation Privilege: The claim that certain individuals or institutions have access to truths unavailable through ordinary investigation. This creates an epistemic hierarchy where questioning authority becomes not just disobedience but logical impossibility—how can the uninitiated challenge truths they cannot access?
Circular Validation: The use of sacred texts, traditions, or experiences to validate themselves. When believers are told that doubt itself is evidence of spiritual failing, the system becomes immune to falsification. Any evidence against the system is reinterpreted as evidence of the questioner's inadequacy.
Transcendent Justification: The positioning of core claims beyond empirical verification by declaring them matters of faith rather than fact. This allows systems to make empirical claims while avoiding empirical accountability.
Community Enforcement: The creation of social structures where questioning authority results in ostracism, shame, or punishment. The fear of losing community becomes a powerful tool for maintaining epistemic compliance.
These mechanisms aren't unique to religion—they operate in political ideologies, corporate cultures, academic institutions, and social movements. What makes spiritual authoritarianism particularly powerful is its ability to present epistemic control as spiritual liberation, submission as empowerment, and ignorance as wisdom.
The Psychology of Belief and Submission
Understanding spiritual authoritarianism requires examining the psychological dynamics that make it appealing. Research in social psychology has identified several key factors that increase susceptibility to authoritarian belief systems:
Intolerance of Ambiguity: Individuals who struggle with uncertainty are more likely to embrace systems that promise absolute truth. This isn't necessarily pathological—the human need for meaning and predictability is fundamental. But when this need becomes overwhelming, it can drive people toward increasingly rigid and simplistic worldviews.
System Justification: The tendency to defend existing social arrangements, even when they disadvantage oneself. System justification theory, developed by John Jost and colleagues, suggests that people have a psychological need to believe that their social world is fair and legitimate . Religious frameworks that sanctify existing hierarchies tap into this need by positioning inequality as divinely ordained rather than humanly constructed.
Terror Management: The human awareness of mortality creates what psychologists call "existential anxiety"—a deep fear of meaninglessness and death that drives much of human behavior. Religious systems that promise eternal life or cosmic significance can provide powerful relief from this anxiety, but at the cost of intellectual and emotional freedom.
Social Identity Protection: Religious belief often becomes intertwined with personal and group identity in ways that make questioning belief equivalent to questioning self-worth. When empirical evidence threatens religious claims, believers may experience this as an attack on their fundamental identity rather than a request for intellectual honesty.
These psychological dynamics help explain why spiritual authoritarianism can be so resilient even in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. The issue isn't simply ignorance or irrationality—it's the deep human need for meaning, belonging, and security that authoritarian systems promise to fulfill.
Case Study: The Control of Women's Bodies and Minds
Perhaps nowhere is spiritual authoritarianism more visible than in the control of women's sexuality, reproduction, and autonomy. Across religious traditions, women's bodies have been positioned as sites of particular spiritual danger and social control, requiring constant surveillance and regulation by male authorities.
This control operates through several interconnected mechanisms:
Purity Politics: The construction of women's sexual autonomy as inherently polluting or dangerous. From Hindu notions of menstrual impurity to Christian doctrines of original sin, women's bodies are positioned as sources of spiritual contamination that must be carefully managed.
Reproductive Coercion: The use of religious doctrine to control women's reproductive choices. Whether through Catholic prohibitions on contraception, Islamic restrictions on abortion, or Hindu pressures for male children, religious authorities have consistently used control over reproduction as a tool for broader social control.
Intellectual Subordination: The positioning of women as inherently less capable of spiritual or intellectual authority. From Paul's injunctions for women to remain silent in church to contemporary restrictions on women's religious education, spiritual authoritarianism has consistently used gender hierarchy as a tool for epistemic control.
Marriage and Family Ideology: The construction of particular family structures as divinely ordained. The insistence that women's primary role is as wives and mothers serves both to limit women's economic and social autonomy and to ensure the reproduction of patriarchal social structures.
These mechanisms reveal how spiritual authoritarianism operates not just through direct coercion but through the construction of social reality itself. When women internalize religious messages about their own inferiority or danger, they become complicit in their own oppression—not through weakness or ignorance, but through the powerful human need to belong and to find meaning within existing social structures.
The Queer Challenge to Sacred Order
Bodies, Minds, and the Threat of Fluidity
Queer existence represents a fundamental challenge to religious systems that depend on binary thinking and fixed categories. LGBTQ+ individuals don't simply violate specific religious rules—they embody the possibility that identity itself might be fluid, constructed, and self-determined rather than fixed, natural, and divinely ordained.
This threat operates on multiple levels:
Ontological Disruption: Queer existence challenges the fundamental categories through which many religious systems organize reality. If gender isn't binary, if sexuality isn't fixed, if the body isn't simply a container for a predetermined soul, then what other "natural" categories might be human constructions?
Reproductive Rebellion: LGBTQ+ relationships and identities often exist outside traditional reproductive frameworks. For religious systems that ground their authority in control over reproduction, queer existence represents a form of cosmic rebellion—a refusal to participate in the divine plan for human procreation.
Pleasure Without Purpose: Many religious traditions have developed complex frameworks for regulating pleasure, particularly sexual pleasure. Queer relationships that prioritize intimacy, pleasure, and connection over reproduction challenge these regulatory frameworks by suggesting that human sexuality might be inherently valuable rather than instrumentally useful.
Community Without Hierarchy: LGBTQ+ communities have often developed alternative forms of kinship and belonging that don't depend on traditional religious or familial structures. These communities demonstrate that meaning, support, and transcendence can emerge from horizontal relationships rather than vertical hierarchies.
The religious response to queer existence has been notably consistent across traditions: intense focus on policing sexual behavior combined with aggressive attempts to reassert traditional gender and family structures. This isn't simply about sexual morality—it's about maintaining the epistemic foundations of religious authority itself.
Queer Theory and Epistemic Liberation
Queer theory offers powerful tools for understanding how spiritual authoritarianism operates and how it might be resisted. Developed by scholars like Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Judith Butler, and José Esteban Muñoz, queer theory examines how categories of identity, knowledge, and power intersect to create systems of oppression and possibility.
Key insights from queer theory relevant to religious epistemology include:
Performativity: Butler's theory of gender performativity suggests that identity categories aren't natural facts but repeated performances that create the illusion of natural facts . Applied to religious identity, this insight reveals how religious "truths" might be performatively constructed rather than divinely revealed.
The Closet as Epistemological Structure: Sedgwick's analysis of the closet shows how systems of knowledge and ignorance operate to maintain power structures. The closet isn't just about individual secrecy—it's about the social organization of knowledge itself, including what can be known, by whom, and under what circumstances.
Disidentification: Muñoz's concept of disidentification describes how marginalized communities work on dominant cultural forms to create alternative possibilities. Rather than simply rejecting or accepting dominant culture, disidentification involves creative transformation that opens new possibilities for identity and community.
Temporal Disruption: Queer theory challenges linear, reproductive temporality by proposing alternative temporal frameworks. Instead of time organized around birth, marriage, reproduction, and death, queer temporality might be organized around friendship, chosen family, creative work, and other non-reproductive forms of meaning-making.
These insights suggest that resisting spiritual authoritarianism isn't simply about replacing religious beliefs with secular ones—it's about developing alternative epistemological frameworks that can accommodate plurality, uncertainty, and transformation.
Alternative Spiritualities and Epistemic Rebellion
LGBTQ+ communities have developed rich traditions of alternative spirituality that challenge traditional religious frameworks while maintaining space for transcendence and meaning. These alternatives often share several characteristics:
Embodied Spirituality: Rather than treating the body as a prison for the soul or a source of temptation, many queer spiritual traditions celebrate bodily experience as a source of wisdom and connection. This might include tantric practices, pagan rituals, or simply the recognition that pleasure and transcendence can be intimately connected.
Horizontal Authority: Instead of hierarchical religious structures with clear chains of command, many alternative spiritualities operate through horizontal networks of mutual support and shared authority. This doesn't eliminate expertise or wisdom but distributes it more broadly across communities.
Experimental Practice: Queer spiritualities often embrace experimentation and innovation rather than strict adherence to traditional forms. This might involve creating new rituals, combining elements from different traditions, or developing entirely novel practices based on community needs and insights.
Political Integration: Many alternative spiritualities explicitly connect spiritual practice with political action, rejecting the false separation between sacred and secular that often characterizes traditional religious approaches.
These alternative approaches suggest that the choice isn't between religious authoritarianism and secular materialism—it's between closed and open systems, between fixed and fluid understandings of truth, between hierarchical and horizontal forms of spiritual community.
The Material Consequences of Magical Thinking
Public Health and the Politics of Evidence
The consequences of prioritizing belief over evidence become starkly visible in public health crises. The resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases across the globe provides a clear example of how epistemic failures translate into material suffering and death.
Religious reasons underpinning vaccine hesitancy have been identified across many religious groups, including Protestants, Catholics, Jewish, Muslims, Christians, Amish, Hinduist and Sikhist communities. However, the relationship between religious belief and vaccine hesitancy is complex and varies significantly across different contexts and communities.
Research has shown a positive correlation between COVID-19 vaccination rates and Catholic, Non-Religious, and Atheist populations, while indicating a negative correlation between vaccination rates and Muslim and Eastern Orthodox populations. This suggests that the relationship between religious belief and vaccine hesitancy isn't simply about religion versus science—it's about how different religious communities understand the relationship between faith and empirical evidence.
The mechanisms through which religious belief influences vaccine hesitancy include:
Divine Providence: The belief that illness and health are entirely under divine control, making human medical intervention unnecessary or presumptuous. This can lead to fatalistic approaches to health that reject preventive medicine in favor of prayer and faith.
Bodily Purity: Religious frameworks that understand the body as a sacred temple that shouldn't be contaminated by foreign substances. This can create resistance to vaccines, medications, or other medical interventions seen as polluting.
Conspiracy Theories: Religious communities can be particularly susceptible to conspiracy theories that position mainstream medicine as part of secular attacks on faith. These theories often combine religious persecution narratives with medical skepticism.
Authority Conflicts: When religious authorities contradict medical authorities, believers may face difficult choices between competing sources of truth. The resolution of these conflicts often depends on which authority is seen as more legitimate within the community.
The consequences of these dynamics are measurable and often tragic. Global measles cases increased by approximately 20% between 2023 and 2024, with roughly 107,500 deaths—mostly among children—from a disease that is easily preventable through vaccination . Similar patterns are visible with other vaccine-preventable diseases, where outbreaks often cluster in communities with high rates of religious exemptions.
Climate Change and Apocalyptic Thinking
Climate change represents perhaps the most significant challenge to human survival in the 21st century, yet religious frameworks often impede rather than facilitate effective responses. The obstacles include:
Dominion Theology: Biblical interpretations that position humans as divinely appointed rulers over nature, with unlimited rights to exploit natural resources. This theology can justify environmental destruction as fulfilling divine mandate.
Apocalyptic Fatalism: The belief that environmental destruction is inevitable and divinely ordained as a prelude to religious end times. This can lead to passive acceptance of environmental degradation or even active acceleration of destructive processes.
Transcendent Escape: Religious frameworks that position salvation as fundamentally otherworldly can diminish investment in preserving earthly life. If the goal is to escape this world for a better one, environmental protection becomes less urgent.
Supernatural Intervention: The belief that divine intervention will prevent or resolve environmental crises can reduce motivation for human action. This can manifest as everything from prayer campaigns to replace environmental legislation to divine weather modification theories.
These religious obstacles to climate action are particularly problematic because they often intersect with political and economic factors that also impede environmental protection. When fossil fuel companies can invoke religious language about divine provision and stewardship, when politicians can appeal to religious voters by framing environmental protection as secular overreach, the combination of material and spiritual interests creates powerful resistance to necessary changes.
Educational Warfare and the Battle for Young Minds
The tension between religious belief and empirical evidence plays out most visibly in educational contexts, where battles over curriculum reveal deeper conflicts about epistemology and authority. Current controversies include:
Evolution and Creation: Despite overwhelming scientific consensus on evolutionary biology, religious communities continue to push for "equal time" for creationist or intelligent design theories in science classrooms. This isn't simply about scientific education—it's about whether religious authorities or scientific communities have ultimate authority over truth claims.
Sexuality and Gender: Religious objections to comprehensive sex education, LGBTQ+ inclusion, and gender identity recognition in schools reflect deeper anxieties about social change and religious authority. These battles are fundamentally about who gets to define normal human sexuality and gender expression.
History and Social Studies: Religious communities often object to historical curricula that present critical perspectives on religious institutions, colonialism, slavery, or other topics that challenge preferred narratives about the past. These controversies reveal tensions between historical accuracy and religious identity.
Science and Skepticism: Beyond specific topics like evolution, religious communities sometimes promote general skepticism toward scientific authority and method. This can include everything from rejecting the scientific consensus on climate change to promoting alternative medicine over evidence-based medical practice.
The stakes in these educational battles extend far beyond individual student learning. They're about whether future generations will be equipped with the critical thinking skills necessary to address complex global challenges or whether they'll be trained to defer to religious authority even when that authority conflicts with empirical evidence.
Legal Systems and Theocratic Drift
The influence of religious belief on legal systems represents another domain where epistemic failures have material consequences. Examples include:
Reproductive Rights: Religious objections to contraception, abortion, and reproductive autonomy have shaped legal frameworks that prioritize religious belief over medical evidence and women's health needs. The overturning of Roe v. Wade in the United States exemplifies how religious authority can override medical and constitutional considerations.
LGBTQ+ Rights: Religious exemptions to anti-discrimination laws create legal frameworks that prioritize religious belief over equal protection principles. This can result in differential treatment in housing, employment, adoption, and other crucial areas of life.
Medical Decision-Making: Religious exemptions to medical treatment can create conflicts between religious authority and medical judgment, particularly in cases involving children or other vulnerable populations. When religious beliefs prevent access to necessary medical care, legal systems must choose between religious freedom and health protection.
Scientific Education: Legal battles over science education reflect deeper tensions about whether religious or scientific communities have ultimate authority over knowledge claims. These battles can result in legal frameworks that prioritize religious belief over scientific accuracy in public education.
The pattern across these domains is consistent: religious claims to absolute truth come into conflict with empirical evidence, and legal systems must choose between accommodating religious authority and protecting empirical integrity. The resolution of these conflicts often depends on the relative political power of religious communities rather than the strength of empirical evidence.
Philosophical Frameworks for Understanding Belief
Hegel and the Dialectic of Religious Consciousness
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's analysis of religious consciousness in The Phenomenology of Spirit provides crucial insights into how belief systems function and evolve. For Hegel, religion represents a necessary but ultimately transitional stage in the development of human consciousness—a stage that must be both honored and transcended.
Hegel's key insight is that religious consciousness emerges from the human need to understand the relationship between individual and universal, finite and infinite, temporal and eternal. Religion provides a framework for thinking about these relationships, but it does so through representational thinking (Vorstellung) rather than conceptual thinking (Begriff). This means that religious truth is expressed through images, stories, and symbols rather than through philosophical concepts.
The problem with religious consciousness, according to Hegel, is that it tends to treat its representational content as literally true rather than as symbolic expressions of deeper truths. When believers insist that their religious stories are historically accurate or scientifically valid, they miss the deeper spiritual and philosophical insights that these stories are meant to convey.
Hegel's analysis suggests that the conflict between religious belief and empirical evidence isn't inevitable—it emerges from a misunderstanding of what religious truth claims are actually about. The challenge is to develop forms of religious consciousness that can appreciate the symbolic and existential dimensions of religious truth without requiring literal belief in empirically questionable claims.
This has implications for contemporary debates about religion and science. Instead of treating these as competing accounts of the same phenomena, Hegel's analysis suggests that they operate in different registers—empirical and existential, factual and symbolic, scientific and spiritual. The problem emerges when either domain claims exclusive authority over questions that properly belong to both.
Marx and the Social Function of Ideology
Karl Marx's analysis of religion as ideology provides another crucial perspective on how belief systems function in society. Marx's famous claim that religion is "the opium of the people" is often misunderstood as simple dismissal, but his actual analysis is more nuanced and politically significant.
For Marx, religion serves several interconnected social functions:
Consolation: Religion provides comfort and meaning for people whose material conditions are harsh and uncertain. This isn't necessarily problematic—the human need for meaning and hope is legitimate and important.
Mystification: Religion can obscure the true causes of social problems by attributing them to divine will, individual sin, or spiritual forces rather than to human-created social structures. This can prevent people from recognizing and addressing systemic injustices.
Legitimation: Religious frameworks can be used to justify existing power structures by presenting them as divinely ordained or naturally necessary. This can make social change seem impossible or impious.
False Consciousness: Religion can create forms of consciousness that prevent people from recognizing their own interests and acting to fulfill them. This is particularly problematic when religious beliefs lead people to accept or even promote conditions that harm them.
Marx's analysis suggests that the problem with religion isn't belief per se but the social functions that religious belief can serve in maintaining unjust social arrangements. This means that critiquing religion requires examining not just religious ideas but the social conditions that make those ideas appealing and the interests that they serve.
Contemporary applications of Marx's analysis might focus on how religious frameworks are used to justify economic inequality, environmental destruction, or other forms of systemic harm. The question isn't whether religious beliefs are true or false in some abstract sense, but whether they serve to promote or prevent human flourishing under specific historical conditions.
Camus and the Absurd: Embracing Uncertainty
Albert Camus's philosophy of the absurd offers a different approach to the relationship between belief and evidence. For Camus, the fundamental human condition is characterized by the conflict between our need for meaning and the universe's apparent meaninglessness. This creates what he calls the "absurd"—the collision between human longing and cosmic silence.
Camus argues that there are three common responses to the absurd condition:
Suicide: The decision that life isn't worth living in the face of meaninglessness. Camus rejects this option as a fundamental betrayal of human possibility.
Philosophical Suicide: The leap into faith, ideology, or other systems that promise to resolve the absurd through transcendent meaning. Camus sees this as intellectually dishonest because it requires abandoning the very rational faculties that reveal the absurd condition.
Acceptance: The decision to live fully in the face of uncertainty and meaninglessness. This involves embracing the absurd condition rather than trying to escape it through false consolations.
Camus's analysis has important implications for debates about religious belief and empirical evidence. Instead of choosing between religious faith and scientific materialism, Camus suggests that we can acknowledge both our need for meaning and the uncertainty of our knowledge. This doesn't require abandoning either spiritual experience or empirical investigation—it requires holding them in tension without demanding final resolution.
Applied to contemporary issues, Camus's philosophy might support approaches that acknowledge the legitimate human needs that religious belief addresses while maintaining commitment to empirical honesty. This could involve developing forms of spirituality that don't require factual claims about the world or forms of scientific practice that acknowledge their own limitations and uncertainties.
Nietzsche and the Genealogy of Truth
Friedrich Nietzsche's genealogical method provides tools for understanding how truth claims function as exercises of power. Instead of asking whether religious or scientific beliefs are true, Nietzsche asks how these beliefs emerged, what interests they serve, and what forms of life they make possible or impossible.
Nietzsche's analysis of religious truth claims focuses on several key insights:
The Will to Power: All truth claims, including religious ones, express underlying drives toward power and domination. This doesn't mean that truth claims are "merely" expressions of power, but it does mean that power dynamics are always involved in the production and validation of knowledge.
Moral Genealogy: Nietzsche traces how moral and religious concepts developed historically, showing how they emerged from specific social conditions and served particular interests. This doesn't necessarily invalidate these concepts, but it does reveal their contingent and constructed character.
Perspectivism: Nietzsche argues that all knowledge is perspectival—shaped by the particular standpoint and interests of the knower. This doesn't lead to relativism, but it does require acknowledging the partial and provisional character of all truth claims.
Creative Destruction: Nietzsche sees the decline of traditional religious belief as an opportunity for creative renewal. Instead of simply replacing old beliefs with new ones, he encourages the development of new forms of life that don't depend on metaphysical consolations.
Nietzsche's analysis suggests that critiquing religious belief requires more than simply showing that religious claims are empirically false—it requires understanding how these claims function in human life and what alternatives might be possible. This genealogical approach can reveal how religious truth claims serve to maintain or challenge existing power structures and what forms of human flourishing they enable or prevent.
Spiritual Abolitionism and the Question of Meaning
What Remains When God Dies?
Nietzsche's proclamation that "God is dead" wasn't a celebration but a diagnosis—an recognition that traditional religious frameworks were losing their power to organize human life and meaning. This creates what he called the "nihilistic crisis": if transcendent meaning doesn't exist, what prevents human life from becoming meaningless and chaotic?
This question has become increasingly urgent as religious authority has declined in many societies. Traditional religious frameworks provided not just answers to ultimate questions but entire scaffolding for organizing daily life—moral codes, social hierarchies, temporal rhythms, and existential purposes. When these frameworks lose their authority, the question becomes not just whether God exists but what forms of meaning and organization might replace religious ones.
The concept of "spiritual abolitionism" emerges from this context. Instead of trying to reform or replace religious frameworks, spiritual abolitionism involves the complete rejection of transcendent meaning-making in favor of immanent, human-created meaning. This doesn't require rejecting all forms of spirituality, but it does require rejecting any spirituality that depends on supernatural or metaphysical claims.
Spiritual abolitionism faces several challenges:
The Meaning Problem: If meaning isn't grounded in transcendent reality, how do we distinguish between better and worse ways of living? What prevents nihilistic despair or arbitrary value construction?
The Community Problem: If traditional religious communities are rejected, what forms of community and belonging might replace them? How do we create social bonds that don't depend on shared metaphysical beliefs?
The Mortality Problem: If death is final and absolute, how do we motivate long-term thinking and ethical behavior? What forms of hope and purpose are possible without promises of eternal life?
The Authority Problem: If religious authority is rejected, what sources of moral and practical guidance remain? How do we make collective decisions without shared foundations?
These challenges suggest that spiritual abolitionism requires more than simply rejecting religious belief—it requires developing alternative frameworks for addressing the human needs that religious frameworks traditionally served.
Secular Transcendence and Immanent Meaning
One approach to post-religious meaning-making involves developing forms of secular transcendence that don't depend on supernatural claims but still provide experiences of connection, purpose, and meaning that extend beyond individual ego concerns.
Examples of secular transcendence might include:
Aesthetic Experience: Encounters with beauty, creativity, and artistic expression that provide experiences of meaning and connection without requiring metaphysical commitments. This might involve everything from nature appreciation to artistic creation to musical performance.
Ethical Commitment: Dedication to causes larger than oneself—social justice, environmental protection, human rights, or other forms of collective flourishing. These commitments can provide purpose and meaning without requiring belief in transcendent reality.
Intellectual Inquiry: The pursuit of knowledge, understanding, and truth for their own sake. Scientific research, philosophical investigation, and other forms of intellectual work can provide experiences of meaning and transcendence without metaphysical assumptions.
Community and Love: Deep relationships with other people and communities that provide experiences of connection and belonging. These relationships can be sources of meaning and purpose without requiring shared religious beliefs.
Creative Expression: Artistic, literary, musical, or other forms of creative work that provide opportunities for self-expression and connection with others. Creative work can be a source of meaning and transcendence without metaphysical foundations.
These forms of secular transcendence share several characteristics: they're grounded in human experience rather than supernatural claims, they're accessible through ordinary life rather than special revelation, and they're open to revision and development rather than fixed and eternal.
The challenge is to develop these forms of meaning-making in ways that are robust enough to sustain human life and community without falling into the same authoritarian patterns that characterize religious systems. This requires careful attention to the difference between meaningful experiences and meaningful claims about reality.
Post-Religious Community and Horizontal Spirituality
If traditional religious communities are rejected, what forms of community and belonging might replace them? This question is particularly urgent given the important social functions that religious communities serve—mutual support, shared values, collective meaning-making, and social organization.
Alternative forms of community might include:
Intentional Communities: Groups of people who choose to live together based on shared values and commitments rather than shared beliefs. These communities can provide mutual support and collective meaning-making without requiring metaphysical agreement.
Affinity Networks: Loose associations of people connected by shared interests, values, or activities rather than shared beliefs. These networks can provide community and belonging while allowing for intellectual and spiritual diversity.
Democratic Institutions: Political and social institutions that provide frameworks for collective decision-making and social organization without requiring shared religious commitments. These institutions can serve some of the social functions of religious communities while remaining open to diverse perspectives.
Cultural Communities: Groups organized around shared cultural practices, languages, histories, or traditions rather than shared beliefs. These communities can provide identity and belonging without requiring metaphysical commitments.
The key insight is that community doesn't require shared beliefs—it requires shared practices, values, and commitments that can be grounded in human experience rather than transcendent authority. This opens possibilities for forms of community that are more inclusive and democratic than traditional religious communities while still providing the social support and collective meaning that humans need.
Left Transhumanism and Techno-Ethical Futures
Beyond Human Limitations Through Collective Action
Left transhumanism offers a compelling framework for post-religious meaning-making that combines technological optimism with social justice commitments. Unlike libertarian transhumanism, which focuses on individual enhancement and technological solutions to social problems, left transhumanism emphasizes collective transformation and democratic control of technological development.
The core insights of left transhumanism include:
Technological Possibility: Human limitations—including aging, disease, cognitive constraints, and even death—are not inevitable features of the human condition but problems that can potentially be solved through technological development. This doesn't require supernatural intervention but does require sustained collective effort and scientific advancement.
Democratic Control: The development and deployment of transformative technologies should be democratically controlled rather than left to market forces or technocratic elites. This means that decisions about human enhancement, artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, and other transformative technologies should involve broad public participation and oversight.
Social Justice Integration: Technological enhancement should reduce rather than increase social inequality. This requires careful attention to how new technologies are developed, distributed, and regulated to ensure that they serve collective human flourishing rather than elite interests.
Existential Expansion: Instead of seeking transcendence through supernatural means, left transhumanism seeks to expand human capabilities and experiences through technological and social transformation. This might include everything from life extension and cognitive enhancement to new forms of embodiment and consciousness.
Ethical Evolution: As human capabilities expand, ethical frameworks must evolve to address new possibilities and challenges. This requires ongoing democratic deliberation about values, rights, and responsibilities rather than deference to traditional authority structures.
Left transhumanism provides a framework for addressing the existential needs that religious frameworks traditionally served—hope for the future, purpose in the present, community with others, and meaning in the face of mortality—without requiring supernatural beliefs or authoritarian submission.
Epistemic Integrity and Democratic Knowledge
A crucial component of left transhumanism is its commitment to what might be called "epistemic integrity"—the insistence that knowledge claims be evaluated based on evidence and reasoning rather than authority or tradition. This doesn't mean rejecting all forms of non-empirical knowledge, but it does mean maintaining clear distinctions between different types of knowledge claims and their appropriate standards of evaluation.
Epistemic integrity involves several key commitments:
Fallibilism: The recognition that all knowledge claims are provisional and subject to revision based on new evidence. This includes scientific knowledge, which is always open to modification based on new observations and theories.
Democratic Participation: The insistence that knowledge production should involve broad participation rather than being restricted to elite institutions or individuals. This doesn't mean that all opinions are equally valid, but it does mean that diverse perspectives and experiences should be included in knowledge production processes.
Transparency: The requirement that knowledge claims be open to public scrutiny and evaluation. This includes making research methods, data, and reasoning processes available for independent review and replication.
Accountability: The insistence that knowledge producers be accountable for the consequences of their work. This includes both epistemic accountability (accuracy and honesty) and ethical accountability (consideration of social impacts).
Pluralism: The recognition that different types of questions may require different types of knowledge and different methods of investigation. This doesn't lead to relativism, but it does require careful attention to the appropriate scope and limits of different knowledge practices.
These commitments provide a framework for evaluating knowledge claims that is both rigorous and democratic, both empirically grounded and socially responsive. They offer an alternative to both religious authoritarianism and technocratic elitism while maintaining space for diverse forms of knowledge and experience.
Technology, Embodiment, and Posthuman Possibility
Left transhumanism's approach to technology and embodiment offers important insights into post-religious approaches to human identity and possibility. Instead of treating the body as a prison for the soul or a source of temptation, left transhumanism sees embodiment as a site of possibility and transformation.
This perspective has several implications:
Morphological Freedom: The right to modify one's own body and mind according to one's own values and preferences. This might include everything from cosmetic surgery and hormone therapy to more radical forms of genetic modification or cybernetic enhancement.
Reproductive Autonomy: Complete control over reproductive choices, including not just contraception and abortion but also genetic selection, artificial wombs, and other reproductive technologies. This extends reproductive choice beyond traditional biological constraints.
Cognitive Liberty: The right to mental self-modification through pharmaceuticals, meditation, technological enhancement, or other means. This includes both the right to enhance cognitive capabilities and the right to alter consciousness and subjective experience.
Gender and Sexual Liberation: The use of technology to expand possibilities for gender expression and sexual experience beyond traditional biological and social constraints. This might include everything from hormone therapy and surgery to more radical forms of embodied possibility.
Longevity and Life Extension: The pursuit of healthy life extension and eventual conquest of aging and death. This transforms the human relationship with mortality from acceptance and preparation to active resistance and technological intervention.
These possibilities raise complex ethical questions about identity, authenticity, justice, and human nature. Left transhumanism approaches these questions through democratic deliberation and social justice analysis rather than deference to traditional religious or natural law frameworks.
The key insight is that technological enhancement can serve human liberation rather than domination, but only if it's democratically controlled and oriented toward collective flourishing rather than individual advantage or elite interests.
The State of Belief in 2025
Current Crises and Epistemic Chaos
As we navigate 2025, the tension between religious belief and empirical evidence has reached critical intensity across multiple domains. According to recent polling data, trust in public health institutions has declined significantly, with only about half of Americans now trusting agencies like the FDA or CDC to make appropriate recommendations—a decline of approximately 10 points since 2023. This erosion of institutional trust intersects with religious and ideological resistance to create what can only be described as epistemic chaos.
The consequences are visible across multiple domains:
Public Health: Vaccine hesitancy continues to drive disease outbreaks, with 26% of Republican parents now admitting to delaying or skipping childhood vaccines—double the rate from 2023. Religious exemptions remain a significant factor in vaccine refusal, contributing to the resurgence of preventable diseases.
Climate Response: Religious frameworks continue to impede climate action through dominion theology, apocalyptic fatalism, and supernatural intervention beliefs. The intersection of fossil fuel interests and religious authority creates powerful resistance to necessary environmental policies.
Educational Battles: Conflicts over evolution, sex education, LGBTQ+ inclusion, and critical history curricula reveal deeper tensions about epistemic authority. These battles are fundamentally about whether religious communities or scientific/academic communities have ultimate authority over knowledge claims.
Political Polarization: Trust in scientists is now heavily polarized, with 88% of Democrats expressing trust compared to only 66% of Republicans. This polarization makes collective response to evidence-based challenges increasingly difficult.
Digital Misinformation: Social media platforms have created new opportunities for religious and conspiratorial misinformation to spread rapidly and widely. The intersection of religious authority and digital amplification creates unprecedented challenges for maintaining epistemic coherence.
These crises suggest that the traditional boundaries between religious and secular authority are breaking down without clear alternatives emerging. The result is not secular rationality but epistemic fragmentation—a condition where different communities operate with incompatible frameworks for evaluating truth claims.
Emerging Patterns and Future Trajectories
Despite these challenges, several emerging patterns suggest possible paths forward:
Generational Change: Younger generations show decreased attachment to traditional religious authority and increased comfort with scientific and technological solutions to human problems. This suggests that current epistemic conflicts may resolve through generational replacement rather than intellectual conversion.
Religious Evolution: Some religious communities are developing more sophisticated approaches to the relationship between faith and evidence, moving away from literalism toward more symbolic and existential interpretations of religious truth. This creates possibilities for religious communities that don't require rejection of empirical evidence.
Secular Spiritual Movements: The growth of secular meditation, mindfulness, psychedelic therapy, and other non-religious spiritual practices suggests that people are finding ways to address existential needs without traditional religious frameworks.
Democratic Innovation: Experiments in participatory democracy, citizen science, and deliberative polling suggest possible ways to address epistemic conflicts through inclusive democratic processes rather than authoritarian resolution.
Technological Integration: The increasing integration of digital technologies into daily life may create new possibilities for knowledge sharing, fact-checking, and epistemic coordination that could help address current misinformation challenges.
These patterns suggest that the current epistemic crisis may be transitional—a period of creative destruction that clears space for new forms of knowledge organization and meaning-making to emerge.
The Choice Before Us
The fundamental choice facing humanity in 2025 is not between religion and science, faith and reason, or tradition and modernity. It's between closed and open systems, between authoritarian and democratic approaches to knowledge and meaning, between individual and collective responses to uncertainty and change.
Closed systems—whether religious fundamentalism, scientific materialism, or ideological orthodoxy—promise certainty and security at the cost of intellectual freedom and adaptive capacity. They provide clear answers to complex questions but make it difficult to respond to new challenges or incorporate new information.
Open systems—whether democratic spirituality, scientific inquiry, or pragmatic experimentalism—accept uncertainty and complexity while maintaining commitment to truth-seeking and human flourishing. They provide frameworks for ongoing inquiry rather than final answers, processes for collective learning rather than individual enlightenment.
The choice between these approaches isn't simply intellectual—it has material consequences for human survival and flourishing. Closed systems may provide psychological comfort, but they also create brittleness and inflexibility that can be catastrophic when facing unprecedented challenges like climate change, technological disruption, or global pandemics.
Open systems may be more psychologically demanding, but they also create resilience and adaptive capacity that can help navigate complex and uncertain futures. The question is whether human beings can develop the emotional and intellectual maturity necessary to embrace uncertainty while maintaining commitment to truth and collective flourishing.
Toward Epistemic Justice and Existential Maturity
Beyond the Binary: Integration and Synthesis
The path forward doesn't require choosing between spirituality and rationality, meaning and evidence, community and inquiry. Instead, it requires developing more sophisticated frameworks that can integrate these different human needs and capacities without subordinating one to another.
Such integration might involve:
Epistemic Humility: Recognizing the limits of both religious and scientific knowledge while maintaining commitment to truth-seeking and evidence-based action. This involves acknowledging uncertainty without abandoning the pursuit of understanding.
Existential Courage: Accepting the anxiety and uncertainty that come with abandoning false certainties while maintaining hope and commitment to human flourishing. This involves developing emotional and spiritual resources for living with ambiguity.
Democratic Participation: Creating institutions and processes that allow diverse communities to participate in collective knowledge production and decision-making without requiring shared metaphysical commitments. This involves building social capacity for productive disagreement and collaborative inquiry.
Technological Wisdom: Developing and deploying technologies in ways that serve human flourishing rather than elite interests or authoritarian control. This involves democratic oversight of technological development and careful attention to social and environmental impacts.
Cultural Creativity: Developing new forms of art, ritual, community, and meaning-making that address human existential needs without requiring supernatural beliefs or authoritarian submission. This involves creative experimentation with post-religious forms of spiritual practice and community organization.
These approaches require what might be called "existential maturity"—the capacity to live with uncertainty and complexity while maintaining commitment to truth, justice, and collective flourishing. This is perhaps the most important challenge facing humanity in the 21st century.
The Left Transhumanist Vision
Left transhumanism offers one compelling vision of what such existential maturity might look like in practice. Instead of seeking escape from the human condition through supernatural transcendence, left transhumanism seeks to transform the human condition through collective action and technological development.
This vision includes:
Technological Liberation: Using science and technology to address human limitations and expand human capabilities in ways that serve collective flourishing rather than elite interests. This might include everything from eliminating aging and disease to expanding cognitive capabilities and creating new forms of embodiment.
Democratic Control: Ensuring that transformative technologies are developed and deployed through democratic processes rather than technocratic or market-driven decision-making. This requires building social capacity for collective deliberation about technological possibilities and their implications.
Social Justice: Orienting technological development toward reducing rather than increasing social inequality. This requires careful attention to how new technologies are distributed and regulated to ensure that they serve the common good.
Epistemic Integrity: Maintaining commitment to evidence-based decision-making while acknowledging the provisional and fallible character of all knowledge claims. This requires building institutions and cultures that can hold multiple perspectives in productive tension.
Existential Expansion: Creating new possibilities for meaning, purpose, and transcendence that don't depend on supernatural beliefs or authoritarian submission. This might include everything from artistic and creative expression to new forms of community and relationship.
The left transhumanist vision is not utopian—it recognizes that technological and social transformation will create new challenges and conflicts that require ongoing democratic engagement and adaptive response. But it does offer a framework for addressing human existential needs while maintaining commitment to truth, justice, and collective flourishing.
Practical Steps and Concrete Actions
Moving toward epistemic justice and existential maturity requires not just philosophical reflection but practical action. Some concrete steps might include:
Educational Reform: Developing educational approaches that teach critical thinking, epistemic humility, and democratic participation while respecting diverse cultural and spiritual traditions. This involves moving beyond simple science versus religion frameworks toward more sophisticated approaches to knowledge and meaning.
Institutional Innovation: Creating new institutions and processes for collective deliberation about complex issues that require both technical expertise and democratic participation. This might include citizen science initiatives, deliberative polling, participatory technology assessment, and other forms of democratic knowledge production.
Community Building: Supporting the development of inclusive communities that can provide social support and collective meaning without requiring shared metaphysical commitments. This might include intentional communities, affinity networks, cultural organizations, and other forms of voluntary association.
Cultural Creation: Supporting artists, writers, musicians, and other cultural workers who are creating new forms of meaning and expression that address human existential needs without requiring religious authority or supernatural beliefs. This includes both secular spiritual practices and post-religious forms of art and ritual.
Political Engagement: Working to create political systems that can address collective challenges through evidence-based policy while respecting diverse values and perspectives. This requires building coalitions that can work together on practical issues despite disagreements about ultimate questions.
Technology Development: Supporting the development of technologies that serve human flourishing rather than elite interests or authoritarian control. This includes both technical development and the creation of democratic oversight mechanisms for emerging technologies.
These practical steps require sustained commitment and collective action over time. They won't resolve the fundamental tensions between belief and evidence, meaning and uncertainty, individual and community, but they can help create social conditions that make these tensions productive rather than destructive.
The goal isn't to eliminate belief or to achieve final certainty, but to create social conditions where human beings can flourish despite—and perhaps because of—our fundamental uncertainty about ultimate questions. This is the challenge of epistemic justice: creating fair and inclusive processes for collective knowledge production and decision-making that can address practical challenges while respecting diverse perspectives and experiences.
It's also the challenge of existential maturity: developing the emotional and spiritual resources necessary to live meaningful lives without the false comfort of absolute certainty or authoritarian guidance. This is perhaps the most important spiritual challenge of our time—learning to live fully and courageously in the face of uncertainty while maintaining commitment to truth, justice, and collective flourishing.
Conclusion: Living Without Guarantees
As we stand in 2025, facing unprecedented challenges that require both empirical rigor and existential courage, the question of belief versus evidence takes on new urgency. The old certainties—religious and secular alike—are crumbling under the weight of complexity and change. What emerges from their ruins will shape the future of human civilization.
The choice before us isn't between faith and reason, tradition and progress, community and individualism. It's between closed and open systems, between authoritarian and democratic approaches to knowledge and meaning, between despair and hope in the face of uncertainty. The stakes couldn't be higher: the survival and flourishing of human civilization may depend on our ability to navigate these choices wisely.
Religious frameworks have provided meaning, community, and moral guidance for millennia, but they have also been used to justify oppression, ignorance, and violence. Scientific frameworks have provided unprecedented understanding and technological capability, but they have also been used to justify dehumanization, exploitation, and environmental destruction. Neither framework alone is sufficient for the challenges we face.
What we need is something more sophisticated: frameworks that can hold multiple perspectives in productive tension, institutions that can facilitate democratic participation in knowledge production and decision-making, communities that can provide support and meaning without requiring intellectual conformity, and individuals who can live courageously and meaningfully without the false comfort of absolute certainty.
The left transhumanist vision offers one possible path forward—a commitment to using science and technology to expand human capabilities and possibilities while maintaining democratic control and social justice commitments. But other paths are possible, and the future will likely require multiple approaches working in creative tension and mutual challenge.
What's clear is that the future will be shaped not by those who cling to old certainties but by those who can learn to live creatively and courageously without guarantees. This is the deepest spiritual challenge of our time: learning to find meaning and purpose in the face of uncertainty, to build community across difference, to pursue truth without claiming to possess it, and to work for justice without knowing the final outcome.
The sacred and the empirical need not be enemies. But they can only be allies if we learn to hold them in proper relationship—neither subordinating evidence to authority nor reducing meaning to mechanism, but finding ways to honor both our need for truth and our need for meaning, both our capacity for knowledge and our capacity for wonder, both our individual autonomy and our collective interdependence.
This is the work of epistemic justice and existential maturity: building a world where human beings can flourish not despite our uncertainty but because of our willingness to embrace uncertainty as the condition of growth, learning, and creative possibility. It's the work of our lifetime, and perhaps the most important work we can do.
Bibliography
Camus, Albert. The Myth of Sisyphus. New York: Vintage, 1991.
Foucault, Michel. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New York: Vintage, 1994.
Hegel, G.W.F. Phenomenology of Spirit. Translated by A.V. Miller. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977.
KFF. "Poll: Trust in Public Health Agencies and Vaccines Falls Amid Republican Skepticism." January 2025. https://www.kff.org/health-information-trust/press-release/poll-trust-in-public-health-agencies-and-vaccines-falls-amid-republican-skepticism/
Marx, Karl. "Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right." In The Marx-Engels Reader, edited by Robert C. Tucker. New York: Norton, 1978.
Muñoz, José Esteban. Disidentifications: Queers of Color and the Performance of Politics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Gay Science. New York: Vintage, 1974.
Pew Research Center. "Americans' Trust in Scientists in 2024." November 2024. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2024/11/14/public-trust-in-scientists-and-views-on-their-role-in-policymaking/
Said, Edward. Orientalism. New York: Vintage, 1979.
Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. Epistemology of the Closet. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990.
Armstrong, Karen. The Great Transformation: The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions. New York: Knopf, 2006.
Asad, Talal. Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.
Marsden, George M. Fundamentalism and American Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Heron, John. "Spiritual Authoritarianism and Spiritual Democracy." Self and Society 26, no. 2 (1998): 3-15.
Jost, John T., Mahzarin R. Banaji, and Brian A. Nosek. "A Decade of System Justification Theory: Accumulated Evidence of Conscious and Unconscious Bolstering of the Status Quo." Political Psychology 25, no. 6 (2004): 881-919.
Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge, 1990.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Fast Facts: Global Measles." Accessed June 2025. https://www.cdc.gov/global-measles-vaccination/data-research/index.html