You read about the motivations of the elite in supporting religious institutions and dedicating their children to the regular and secular clergy, and you think, well, surely that's an arrangement of convenience or mutual advantage, mainly... but no, if you look at the data it really, really wasn't. They genuinely believed the whole eternal-damnation thing and took it super-seriously and contributed to the church in ways that were very much net-negative to them and their families (and that some others avoided doing to no clear disadvantage, so it doesn't seem to be a harm-avoidance measure, at least not in material or social terms). The norm, at least for a good stretch of centuries, was for these transactions to confer less in material or political benefits than they cost (though, sure, some were political power-plays or otherwise highly beneficial).
The thinking seems so alien that it's hard to really put myself in their shoes. Even the vast majority of the modern religious, and certainly the elite religious, at least in the US, don't act as if they truly believe like the barons and dukes of Europe did. The only place you see that kind of self-sacrificial dedication to religion these days is what we'd call cults.
The role and seriousness of religion in society has ebbed and flowed a lot historically.
There is reason to believe that during much of the Hellenistic period and before/after, most ancient Greeks saw the Gods as more of a folk tradition, for example. Hence the rise in schools of philosophical thought independent of religion. Likely many other Pagan societies had such ebbs and flows.
Ancient China went through similar periods IIUC.
Itβs also hard for me to believe that Renaissance era Italians were really fervent believers given all the corruption involved in the Church (placing rich people as Popes, tons of Popes and priests having affairs and using the church money to live lavishly). Which is likely what led to the Reformation and the wars of religion - basically a return back to taking religion very seriously.
Historically it also seems to vary a lot based on class, with the upper end of society (by class or education) tending to be less religious. For example during the 19th century the average person was still quite religious in much of Europe, but the most educated classes had already become secular and begun to openly express Atheism. Then you look at things like the Wars of Religion following the reformation - most likely, this provided an excellent backdrop to motivate your soldiers with a real cause for fighting, which rulers used to accomplish their more practical goals of expanding their realm.
> The thinking seems so alien that it's hard to really put myself in their shoes. Even the vast majority of the modern religious, and certainly the elite religious, at least in the US, don't act as if they truly believe like the barons and dukes of Europe did. The only place you see that kind of self-sacrificial dedication to religion these days is what we'd call cults.
Right and it _should_ seem so. Faith is a gift, received without any prior claim on it; otherwise those who get it sooner would have a legitimate reason to think themselves more capable than others. The faithfulness that ought to result in active love is going on all over the place, including in the white collar workplace, but it goes on irrespective of other factors, including being seen, let alone being transmitted to history.
You read about the motivations of the elite in supporting religious institutions and dedicating their children to the regular and secular clergy, and you think, well, surely that's an arrangement of convenience or mutual advantage, mainly... but no, if you look at the data it really, really wasn't. They genuinely believed the whole eternal-damnation thing and took it super-seriously and contributed to the church in ways that were very much net-negative to them and their families (and that some others avoided doing to no clear disadvantage, so it doesn't seem to be a harm-avoidance measure, at least not in material or social terms). The norm, at least for a good stretch of centuries, was for these transactions to confer less in material or political benefits than they cost (though, sure, some were political power-plays or otherwise highly beneficial).
The thinking seems so alien that it's hard to really put myself in their shoes. Even the vast majority of the modern religious, and certainly the elite religious, at least in the US, don't act as if they truly believe like the barons and dukes of Europe did. The only place you see that kind of self-sacrificial dedication to religion these days is what we'd call cults.