There are many unanswered questions about how the universe works. Part of the wonder of science is appreciating that for every advance in understanding, there are always new horizons of the unknown to explore further.
I find that one existential frontier in understanding has to do with consciousness. Regardless of the various physical explanations about why we have conscious, subjective experience (of memory, drives, sensations, emotions, etc.) it remains truly miraculous that this occurs. It is true that consciousness exists on a continuum; it has definitely been sculpted by evolutionary forces, and is subject to a lot of variation, with diminished or gradually altered consciousness caused by sleep, fatigue, anesthesia, substances, neurological disease, etc. It is interesting to consider whether consciousness could be a property of nature itself, as opposed to a property only of a neurological system such as the brain. Some great scientists such as Roger Penrose have theorized about the mechanisms of consciousness; while I think such theorizing is interesting and worth following, I'm not sure that the result would impact my opinion of this matter too much. Even if there was a precise physical explanation, it does not lessen the miraculousness of it.
I find consciousness even more miraculous than "free will" since even if the universe was entirely deterministic or superdeterministic, there would still be human consciousness, which is something which deserves a feeling of wonder and awe. Some people would say that the phenomenon of consciousness is a manifestation of the divine -- and I guess I'd have to be ok with that, perhaps even as a foundational definition of the word "divine."
The combination of religion with narcissistic style is not hard to find, but the issue is more specific than religiosity alone. Some forms of faith are associated with humility, service, and genuine care for others. The darker pattern emerges when belief fuses with status-seeking, certainty, and group superiority. Then people insinuate—or directly assert—that their beliefs, culture, and moral footing are simply better than those of outsiders. Confidence is mistaken for virtue; self-importance masquerades as conviction; and the group may reward precisely the traits it should distrust.
Sanctimony is a related phenomenon: moral language used not primarily to understand right and wrong, but to signal superiority, enforce conformity, or punish dissent. In its mildest form it is performative piety. In harsher forms it becomes a social weapon. Psychologists now sometimes describe a similar pattern as moral grandstanding: using public moral speech partly as a way of gaining admiration, status, or dominance. The content may sound righteous, but the motive can be vanity. Ordinary people end up feeling belittled, corrected, and morally diminished, less because a truth has been clarified than because someone wants to stand above them.
A different but overlapping pattern is rigidity. Some people are deeply uncomfortable with ambiguity, exceptions, shades of gray, or the possibility that decent people may disagree in good faith. They are drawn toward fixed rules, sharp boundaries, and moral bookkeeping. In religious life this can take the form of scrupulous rule-mindedness: a chronic need to monitor, confess, correct, classify, and control. Religion does not simply create these tendencies, but it can give them language, structure, and social reward. Families and communities shaped by this mentality can become tense, cautious, and punitive—more concerned with avoiding wrongness than with cultivating goodness.
To be clear, these are not “religious” traits. They are human traits. But religion can bless them with sacred language, allowing vanity to pass as conviction and control to pass as virtue. At its best, religion tries to humble the ego and enlarge compassion. At its worst, it gives the ego a halo, and makes severity look holy.
Some religions feature unusual behaviours that are accepted as manifestations of divinity. One example is glossolalia (“speaking in tongues”). Every cultural group has rituals that symbolize transcendence or divine intervention somehow, but it is concerning in modern times that people would treat this as a literal case of God “speaking through” someone, rather than as a human psychological and social phenomenon.
So what do we actually know about glossolalia? It usually isn’t the dramatic idea some imagine—suddenly speaking a real foreign language you never learned. Instead, it’s speech-like vocalizing: it has rhythm, emotion, and a kind of “word-like” flow, but it doesn’t reliably carry stable meaning or grammar the way a normal language does. When linguists study recordings, they tend to find that it draws heavily on the sounds and speech habits the person already has in their ordinary language—almost like a voice improvisation that feels like language, without functioning as one in the usual sense. When glossolalia happens in a context where it is expected, taught, and socially supported, it looks like a learned trance or skill—comparable to hypnosis, flow, or dissociation.
One can find examples online—there are widely circulated clips of a high-profile “faith leader,” close to a major political figure, performing “tongues” in public. I think a lot of people seeing this for the first time have a mixed reaction: perhaps, with a nervous smile, followed by some discomfort, and then a sharper concern once it lands that the performer has a large following of fervent supporters, and has mainstream political influence. It is deeply ironic that a communicative tool which does not carry any semantic meaning can be so persuasive to otherwise logical observers.
From a psychiatric point of view, glossolalia can be understood as a particular kind of altered attention state that can be learned, practiced, and performed. Put someone into the right mix of conditions—music, group emotion, high expectation, authority cues, shared language about the sacred—and a person can produce vocalizations that feel deeply meaningful. The speaker may experience it as surrendering control; the group experiences it as proof that something “beyond” is present. Others practice it quietly, in private prayer, and describe it as calm or soothing. So the phenomenon is broader than revivalist spectacle, even if spectacle is where its social force becomes most obvious.
This is where the social function matters most. Like “miracles,” and like behavioural restrictions that visibly mark membership, glossolalia can work as a signal: it makes the group feel special, chosen, and close to the divine in a way outsiders “don’t get.” That feeling is intensely bonding. It strengthens loyalty, rewards conformity, and makes doubt feel not merely intellectual but socially dangerous—almost like betrayal. The experience itself becomes the evidence, and the shared intensity becomes the glue.
Of course, the same machinery can be used for darker purposes. A leader who is skilled at spectacle and emotional orchestration can use these displays as tools of persuasion: not by offering reasons, but by creating awe, certainty, and a sense of “we are witnessing the sacred.” The danger is not the oddness of the behaviour; it’s the way the resulting belief and allegiance can be redirected into real-world authority—sometimes including political authority, or as a tool to obtain financial donations—under a banner of divine mandate.
In some cases, religious groups prescribe particular foods, styles of dress, grooming habits, and behavioural expectations that are only loosely related to the ordinary moral concerns most people would recognize—kindness, honesty, fairness, nonviolence—if they are related at all. Sometimes these practices can be understood as ordinary cultural variations with obscure origins. But often the rules are treated as rigid and imperative, such that veering away from them is not merely unconventional but offensive—against the religious community, the family, or God. At times these restrictions make it difficult to live freely or comfortably in the wider pluralistic society.
One major function of these rules, in practice, is their signaling value. They make loyalty visible. They remind others—and, through repetition, remind oneself—of group affiliation and allegiance. When there are recognizable styles of appearance and behaviour that clearly mark membership, it becomes easier to find fellow members, easier to distinguish outsiders, and easier to notice who may be wavering. These rules do not merely symbolize belonging; they make unbelonging more conspicuous and more costly.
Of course, many members experience such rules sincerely as discipline, modesty, reverence, or protection from vanity. That is often true. But these meanings do not cancel the social function. In fact, moralizing the rule is part of what gives it strength. Once a custom is linked to purity, holiness, or obedience, noncompliance ceases to look like preference and begins to look like sin.
Over time, people can become deeply attached to these behavioural symbols. They can evoke powerful feelings associated with the religion, and can function almost like wearing a ring with special significance every day and night for years, beginning in childhood. The symbol stops feeling external. It becomes part of one’s emotional life. A person may then feel uneasy, exposed, or guilty without it, and feel relief when surrounded by others wearing the same symbol. In this way the group’s surveillance gradually migrates inward, until conscience itself begins to speak in the voice of the group.
But if the “ring,” so to speak, becomes massive and cumbersome—if it begins to hinder ordinary life—then what once felt meaningful can become a burden. It starts to resemble the peacock’s tail: a costly display that signals loyalty precisely because it has a real practical price. The burden is part of the proof.
We see similar dynamics in many parts of modern culture—uniforms, fraternities, subcultures, luxury brands, corporate logos. Often these are harmless variations. The darker side appears when people do not wish to participate, when the rules become tools of control, or when symbols are used to police appetite, sexuality, courtship, self-presentation, and ordinary freedom. Then noncompliance is no longer treated as a harmless difference in style; it becomes a source of shame, suspicion, rejection, or punishment.
These burdens also tend not to fall evenly. In many settings, women, girls, adolescents, and sexual minorities are scrutinized more intensely than adult men. Their bodies and behaviour become the stage on which the community performs its idea of moral seriousness. At that point the rule is no longer merely symbolic. It has become a way of distributing power.
A related dark side of religious dogma is condemnation or discrimination against people whose lifestyles are not endorsed by the group. Often, at root, this is not uniquely religious at all. It is one ordinary human tendency—present in many non-religious settings as well—to exclude or denigrate people who are different, even when they are not harming anyone. Religion did not invent this tendency, but it can sanctify it, organize it, and give it an air of cosmic authority.
Yet there are also humane strands within religious traditions that push in the opposite direction. Alongside all the purity language and social policing, there are scriptural moments emphasizing humility, mercy, and love toward precisely those people whom the surrounding culture was most inclined to vilify. That tension is revealing. At its best, religion asks people to transcend tribalism. At its worst, it turns tribal markers into sacred obligations.
Many religions have teachings about the “last things”—what happens after death, and, in some traditions, how history itself will end. This broader subject is called eschatology. What concerns me most here is one especially vivid form of it: apocalyptic belief, the idea that history is moving toward a dramatic divine climax. In some communities there is an almost excited anticipation of the world’s ending, paired with the idea of a glorious ascent of the worthy up to heaven. Of course, those with this view usually assume they will be among the worthy.
In turn, some people cultivate a kind of passive resignation about trying to improve the world’s problems: they say these are the “end times,” so why bother. And to some degree this kind of thinking can shape how people relate to society and politics—sometimes pulling them away from the work of changing the world. A 2022 Pew survey found that 39% of U.S. adults said humanity is “living in the end times.” The same research found a modest but real relationship between end-times belief and lower concern about climate change: those who believed humanity was living in the end times were less likely than others to say climate change is an extremely or very serious problem (51% versus 62%), and among those who held the more catastrophic view that the world would deteriorate before Jesus returned, the figure fell to 40%.
I realize, of course, that eschatology does not always produce passivity; in some forms it can motivate people toward reform or activism. But when apocalyptic belief becomes an excuse for disengagement—or an indulgence in catastrophe—it becomes a bleak and cynical example of what happens when dogma is taken literally. At its darkest, it can spill into extreme behavior, as in Heaven’s Gate, a fringe apocalyptic new religious movement whose 39 members died in a mass suicide in California in March 1997. Even if the world were ending, it seems profoundly dishonourable to adopt passive resignation—or even a quiet feeling of comfort—about helpful action. It would be like watching a burning building with no attempt to help the people trapped inside, while taking solace in the thought that heaven is getting closer.
I think most of us would agree that the most noble and beautiful actions humans are capable of are helpful and altruistic: working to improve a situation even when it is bleak or seemingly hopeless. A truly noble person would not be motivated by thoughts of a glorious heavenly reward upon death; they would be motivated to do good because of the intrinsic goodness of the action itself.
