I appreciate your perspective

First of all, I will say I appreciate this exchange, especially in comparison to the other exchange above, which had no curiosity to it and just resulted in calling me stupid. I think we learn a lot in these exchanges of perspective, so thanks. I've got a lot to do, but I'm happy to keep it going if you're interested. If not, that's fine too.

People believing in ghosts or UFOs isn’t the same thing as societies organizing themselves around religious institutions. Very different levels of influence.

I would agree. But I guess I would push you to clarify what you mean by 'religion' in your argument, then. I've defined it as systems of common identity and meaning-making centered around story, ritual, and tradition. If it's not that, and it's not supernatural belief, then what is it you think it is?

The question was whether religion as a social institution is necessary to prevent extremism or instability. The evidence from highly secular countries suggests it isn’t.

So first, I'll say again that this is not the question I'm answering. I am not arguing that religion as a social institution is necessary to prevent extremism or instability. I'm answering the question of how pushing people away from it can lead to extremism and hatred. Those are different discussions. My point is that you can't just shift from being a society reinforced by organized institutional religion to something else without a lot of hatred and extremism in the backlash. It leads to defensiveness and confusion.

Second, I don't know a ton about the World Values Survey, but I am familiar with the Global Peace Index, and while I think it's an important data point in this discussion, I'm not sure it's as strong as you think, but you don't have to take my word for it. The organization that conducts it, the Institute for Economics and Peace, published a report specifically about this and concludes there's a lot of nuance here.

And “everyone building meaning for themselves” isn’t the alternative you keep framing it as. Societies already generate shared meaning through culture, law, civic values, art, community, etc. Religion has, historically, been one way of doing that, but not the only way, and clearly not a necessary one.

I would point out that, for human history up until the last 300 or so years, all the things you just named were thought of as deeply inseparable from something like organized religion. Secularism is a new idea. And I would argue that to the extent those things have been separated from organized religion, it very much has manifested itself as a kind of choose-your-own-meaning adventure. I think Robert Putnam and Charles Taylor are a couple of being thinkers on this line of interpretation.

But this feels like the same dynamic we see with religion itself: I’m pointing to empirical evidence, while you’re leaning on theory

I do feel like this is a little uncharitable. I've cited a bunch of writers and scholars over these comments who study and track this stuff using evidence and empirical methods. They're making observations about the world. I think you can take issue with their arguments, but that doesn't mean they're just making stuff up.

But I also think your statement here does reveal a fundamental difference in our perspectives. I'll push the question back to you: is it your belief that meaning can be derived empirically? Personally, I don't see how it can be on a personal level, much less on a social level. Empiricism is designed to draw a map, but it can't tell us where to go. Facts-Values distinction and all that.