Absolutely agree that religion isn’t required to have a ritual. As Martin knows, am writing about an artist who proposed an art work that requires an annual repeated ritual of removing a piece and reciting the story as a way to pass on knowledge. Ritual, not religion. 1/
The Sebeok proposal for a cult (a “Knights Templar”) with the secret knowledge rests on an implicit view of the masses as unreliable in some way; incapable of passing on reliable information. This may reflect an unquestioned view of reliability of print vs oral culture. 2/
A religious cult modeled on Christian soldier priests would presumably use written texts, recopied, to preserve information. That’s why in my 2020 book I cite “A Canticle for Liebowitz” as one of the counter-narratives. Recovering text didn’t prevent disaster. Information isn’t wisdom. 3/
The other piece of science fiction I drew on, Vonda McIntyre’s “Dreamsnake”, puts a point on the fetishization of text: in it the person from the technological society (where information was preserved) doesn’t trust the information (about radiation danger!) and so is injured. 4/
I think Sebeok was motivated to imagine a religion to counter doubt: the common followers would not question the inner circle which preserved the texts. This idea is a staple of earlier sociology and anthropology of religion where scholars who mostly weren’t believers studied faith communities. 5/
Religious studies scholars are helpful in countering this approach (which requires analysts to presume believers are simpler in their reactions). Anthropologists of religion today as well. Faith community members vary in their trust; there can’t be a religion people will follow without question. 6/6
Fascinating, thanks for sharing!