I have respect for Rorty, but I think that this claim is at least questionable sociologically. It is basically a different version of the Enlightenment suggestion that once religion leaves the public sphere (i.e. the realm of coercion) it becomes weak and withers away. Jefferson believed as much when we predicted that by the time he died most Americans would be Unitarian Deists. This idea, secularization theory, has been polished up intelligently recently by FJ Lechner (1991) but I think that its critics have said more that is right. Early on, Tocqueville and Marx were very skeptical of the secularization thesis and recently the work of Rodney Stark has done much to hack at secularization's key assertions. Of course, those against secularization share a wide range of views about religion per se, Marx being mostly antagonistic, Stark being relatively positive with Tocqueville somewhere in the middle.

Norm, you might find it interesting that Rorty's current (2d) wife, Mary Rorty, is Mormon. She is herself a scholar of some note in ancient philosophy.

Interesting, I didn't think he was generalizing to all of society. I took it that he was referring to a subset of the people (fundamentalists). As usual you provide additional insight. I think I'll have to give Mary a pass on being a Mormon after all she is married to Richard. :+)

It could be--I have not read the book Religious Faith, etc. so I don't know the context. It could refer to fundamentalism, but I had assumed otherwise since he said "many people". And it depends on your understanding of "fundamentalism" whether one would say that they are "many".

"Fundamentalism" as a social concept is for me at once propagandistic and very appropriate. For the fundamentalists themselves, they use the term as propaganda against liberal and orthodox, with whom they have serious differences. They take issue with liberal co-religionists because they appear to have given up on central elements of faith (the fundamentals) and with orthodox because these orthodox refuse to become politically militant.

In the case of Iran, the fundamentalists who are largely in charge clash most often in elite circles not with secularists or liberals (these people are out of power) but with orthodox who hold a view of political life that may be less militantly "Islamic" but actually more true to religion tradition. So I think that fundamentalism is propagandistic because it seems to imply that the militant or activist wing is truer to the central elements of faith. I see this in Christianity as well--the most militant and reactionary are generally not the most doctrinally pure or traditional. You could actually do a great case study of someone like Pat Robertson over the last 25 years. He has in my opinion become more heterodox as he has hitched his carriage more and more to the Republican party.

On the other hand fundamentalism is one kind of response to the rupture of a religious lifeworld that commonly occurs in changing societies. This rupture is less a result of 'modern thinking' and more often a result of social and political upheaval. So "fundamentalism" seems to get at the idea that there is a sense of spiritual crisis which prompts some to repair what are seen as fundamentals or a core of the spiritual life world. Here Rorty may have something but it's complicated.

I know Mary not personally or even through her publications, but through people who know her and her work. I would be interested to hear Mary and Richard have a debate about religion sometime!

I'm not familar with the book either and must admit that I created a context that fit with my own world view. You make an excellent point about what you call the orthodox. I see that in the current disucssions of the pretext for war. Some conservatives (orthodox) are getting to the point where the principles, (truth) are becoming the focus beyond the righteousness of war. A debate about religion between Richard and Mary would indeed be interesting though I think a pragmatist view would be more accomodating to religion than other agnostic atheistic worldviews.