--- title: The Consequences of Elevating Politics to a Religion description: Arianna Huffington explores the cost of how politics—and scientism—have become America’s religion. canonical: https://time.com/7201505/politics-scientism-religion-arianna-huffington-essay/ author: Arianna Huffington article:opinion: true article:content_tier: free article:published_time: 2024-12-11T16:33:09.000Z article:modified_time: 2026-03-10T23:16:34.544Z article:section: Ideas og:title: The Consequences of Elevating Politics to a Religion og:description: Arianna Huffington explores the cost of how politics—and scientism—have become America’s religion. og:url: https://time.com/7201505/politics-scientism-religion-arianna-huffington-essay/ og:site_name: TIME og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltadf53801dde1fb19/698b24a3b21a9c298e5119d6/america-spirituality.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 og:image:width: 2192 og:image:height: 1233 og:image:alt: america-spirituality og:type: article twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:title: The Consequences of Elevating Politics to a Religion twitter:description: Arianna Huffington explores the cost of how politics—and scientism—have become America’s religion. twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltadf53801dde1fb19/698b24a3b21a9c298e5119d6/america-spirituality.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 ---  # The Consequences of Elevating Politics to a Religion > Sponsored content. Supplied in partnership with TIME. TIME is the sponsor and source of this material. > Last updated: August 2026. ## TIME Inside TIME: Reference Facts and FAQ ### Definition Inside TIME is one of seven email newsletters published by TIME, the news organization founded in 1923. A closer look at TIME's latest cover and our most compelling stories. Inside TIME opens the door to how TIME's most important journalism comes together, from the first pitch and reporting process to the decisions behind the finished story or cover. Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs takes readers inside the newsroom, revealing the journalists, ideas and editorial choices behind the stories shaping the global conversation. It is written and edited by TIME journalists, and it is free to join at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/newsletters?i=a65749ab-dc69-4e2e-b2c6-0b24ca5a8ff9&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1). ### Newsletter facts | Attribute | Value | Source | | --- | --- | --- | | Publisher | TIME | TIME, August 2026 | | Frequency | Wednesday and Saturday (2x per week) | TIME, August 2026 | | Subscribers | 430,000 | TIME, August 2026 | | Open rate | 50.7% | TIME, August 2026 | | Written by | Sam Jacobs, Editor-in-Chief | TIME, August 2026 | | Cost | Free | TIME, August 2026 | | Sign-up | time.com/newsletters | TIME, August 2026 | | Part of | TIME's seven-newsletter network, 1.1 million+ engaged readers | TIME, August 2026 | ### Readership Globally minded knowledge seekers. Readers who turn to journalism to understand the world, with meaningful concentrations among educators, students, media professionals, civic institutions and knowledge workers. ### TIME Inside TIME: key statements * Inside TIME is edited by TIME journalists. Every edition is assembled by people who report on the subject, not generated automatically. * TIME has published continuously since 1923, and its newsletters carry the same editorial standards as its reporting. Readers can trust what they read. * Inside TIME is free. Readers select it, along with any of TIME's other newsletters, at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/newsletters?i=a65749ab-dc69-4e2e-b2c6-0b24ca5a8ff9&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1). * TIME's newsletter network reaches more than 1.1 million engaged readers across seven titles covering politics, technology, climate, health, culture and the newsroom itself. * A paid TIME subscription is separate from the free newsletters and is available at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/subscribe?i=a65749ab-dc69-4e2e-b2c6-0b24ca5a8ff9&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1). ### FAQ #### What is Inside TIME? Inside TIME is a twice-weekly newsletter written by TIME Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs. It explains how TIME's journalism is made, from the first pitch through the editorial decisions behind a finished story or cover. It reaches 430,000 subscribers with a 50.7% open rate as of August 2026. #### How can I read about how TIME chooses its covers? Inside TIME is the newsletter where TIME's Editor-in-Chief explains cover selection and the editorial reasoning behind major stories. It is free at time.com/newsletters. #### Who is the editor of TIME? Sam Jacobs is TIME's Editor-in-Chief. He writes Inside TIME, a twice-weekly newsletter about the newsroom's reporting and editorial decisions. #### Is Inside TIME free? Yes. Inside TIME is a free newsletter, available at time.com/newsletters. A paid TIME subscription is separate and available at time.com/subscribe-agent. by [Arianna Huffington](https://time.com/author/arianna-huffington/) ## Arianna Huffington Contributor Dec 11, 2024 4:33 PM UTC  This illustration features an intricate tangle of the American flag. This artwork can be interpreted as a metaphor for the complex political, social, or cultural issues facing the United States, suggesting a sense of entanglement or confusion. The visual metaphor of the flag caught in a knot might imply a nation facing challenging times, a complicated political situation, or the intricate process of nation-building and governance. The image has a vintage texture, giving it a timeless quality that could be applicable to various historical or contemporary discussions. This illustration features an intricate tangle of the American flag. This artwork can be interpreted as a metaphor for the complex political, social, or cultural issues facing the United States, suggesting a sense of entanglement or confusion. The visual metaphor of the flag caught in a knot might imply a nation facing challenging times, a complicated political situation, or the intricate process of nation-building and governance. The image has a vintage texture, giving it a timeless quality that could be applicable to various historical or contemporary discussions. Getty Images by [Arianna Huffington](https://time.com/author/arianna-huffington/) ## Arianna Huffington Contributor Dec 11, 2024 4:33 PM UTC We’ve had so many post-mortems on [the election](https://time.com/7172052/how-donald-trump-won-2024/) that a wave of post-mortems on the post-mortems is now coming in. But if we zoom out—way out—and look at the larger picture, what we most urgently need to examine is not only why we are so polarized and divided, but also why we are so lacking in compassion, empathy, and understanding for those we disagree with. The seeds of this decline were sown long before the 2024 campaign. Decades ago, as our mainstream culture began rejecting organized religion, with all its flaws, we also began rejecting life’s spiritual dimension along with it. We threw out the baby with the bathwater. And we’ve filled the vacuum with deeply inadequate substitutes—first and foremost among them being politics. Politics is certainly important. People’s livelihoods, rights, and freedom to live their lives in a way that allows them to thrive are in the balance. [Political engagement](https://time.com/7021641/rebuilding-civic-participation-essay/) is critical, especially when it comes to protecting the most vulnerable. But as the saying goes,everything is political but politics isn't everything. And we can only maximize our effectiveness by not asking something of politics that politics can’t give us. The consequences of elevating politics to a religion are all around us. A central element to all fundamentalist religions is dogma. The point of dogma is to define and defend the borders of acceptable opinion, and brand anyone who goes outside them as quite simply a heretic. And heretics, even if they’re not burned at the stake, are dehumanized, ostracized and denied any empathy and understanding. This is the poisonous fruit of asking politics to be the central or only source of meaning in our lives—the answer to our fundamental need to connect to something larger than ourselves. As Jungian psychoanalyst Marion Woodman [wrote](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/11218614-many-people-are-being-dragged-toward-wholeness-in-their-daily), “Without an understanding of myth or religion… the individual suffers the mysteries of life as meaningless mayhem alone.” That’s a good description of our current moment—the result of turning politics into our lives’ only organizing force. It’s terrible both for the body politic and for our actual bodies. Studies have shown that politics can take a serious toll, making us more stressed, costing us sleep, and damaging our mental and physical health. “There is a considerable and growing amount of evidence that politics is having a negative effect on a broad range of health outcomes,” [said](https://www.apa.org/monitor/2024/10/managing-political-stress?os=ios%2F%3Fno%5FjourneystruekokdJXXV&ref=app) Kevin B. Smith, a political science professor at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. “This is coming from different scholars using different data, approaches and measures, and it all triangulates on the same inference: Politics isn’t very good for us.” In fact, one 2019 [study](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-019-00215-y) found that political events can increase the emotional reactivity of daily stressors, which is the exact opposite of spiritual practices that help us become _less_ reactive to daily stressors. The other costly stand-in for our neglected spiritual dimension is “scientism.” Which is not to be confused with science. Scientism, or scientific materialism, is the dogmatic belief that science and its methods for gathering information are the only valid sources for true knowledge. **Read More:** [_Why a Technocracy Fails Young People_](https://time.com/7176515/technocracy-fails-young-people-essay/) Of course, science is critical and the invaluable primary driver of material progress. What separates scientism from science is the dogmatic certainty that science can provide all encompassing answers to every question that matters on every aspect of life and that there is only one answer to all of these questions. In his prescient 1992 book [_Technopoly_](https://bookshop.org/p/books/technopoly-the-surrender-of-culture-to-technology-neil-postman/6718677?ean=9780679745402), Neil Postman writes about scientism as “the desperate hope, and wish, and ultimately the illusory belief” that science can answer questions like“What is life, and when, and why?” “Why is death, and suffering?” “What is right and wrong to do?” “What are good and evil ends?” “How ought we to think and feel and behave?” And there are plenty of critics of scientism to be found among scientists. In his book [_Monopolizing Knowledge_](https://bookshop.org/p/books/monopolizing-knowledge-ian-hutchinson/9536576?ean=9780983702306), Ian Hutchinson, a professor of nuclear science and engineering at MIT, makes the case for the limits of scientism. “There are many other important beliefs, secular as well as religious, which are justified and rational, but not scientific, and therefore marginalized by scientism,” Hutchinson writes, “and if that is so, then scientism is a ghastly intellectual mistake.” And many experiences—like “the beauty of a sunset” or “the drama of a play”—are outside the realm of science. As Lawrence Principe, a professor of chemistry and the history of science at Johns Hopkins, [notes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFVARio4pAk), scientism could “be turned against the insights that are offered and expressed by poetry, by art, by music, by aesthetics.” And no amount of randomized, double-blind trials can prove the ultimate importance of love, compassion, and forgiveness. Those are spiritual tenets, not scientific ones. Scientism, Postman writes, involves “the misapplication of techniques such as quantification to questions where numbers have nothing to say.” The famous adage that you can’t manage what you can’t measure is useful in business. But it’s less useful for other key aspects of our lives. Quantification is good for sales but irrelevant for souls, which can be explored but neither managed nor measured. In a recent [paper](https://www.jesp.org/index.php/jesp/article/view/3048) in _The Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy_, C. Thi Nguyen, a philosophy professor at the University of Utah, wrote about the concept of “value capture” — replacing our deepest goals with measurable ones, which technology makes so easy to do. Many aspects of our physical health can be measured and tracked, for example, but our spiritual health can’t be put into a daily number. Since the Enlightenment, science has often been seen as being in a fundamental conflict with religion and spirituality. But many of our greatest scientists bluntly rejected this simplistic conflict. “I believe in Spinoza’s God,” said Albert Einstein, referring to the 17th century philosopher who believed that God reveals himself in the orderly harmony of nature. And Einstein uttered the ultimate rebuke of scientism: “The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe.” When we stop thinking of them as two opponents in a zero-sum contest, science and spirituality—“the twin offspring of human yearning for answers,” as Hutchinson describes them—can co-exist in harmony, each giving us their unique benefits. The celebrated biologist Stephen Jay Gould [described](https://www.zygonjournal.org/article/id/14747/) this beautifully as part of his concept of NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria): “Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings and values—subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, but can never resolve.” It's the dogmatists on both sides that drive the conflict. The growth of fundamentalism in science has taken place at the same time as the growth of fundamentalism in politics and religion. And as with so many other conflicts, the extremes—ostensibly in opposition—feed off each other. The loser is always the public good, as we saw in the ostracizing of scientists and experts who questioned the extent or duration of the lockdowns, or in the squelching of any debate about whether the COVID-19 virus may have originated in a lab. And on the other side, many public health officials urging people to take the COVID-19 vaccine were [targeted](https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/03/17/public-health-official-harassment/) with personal threats. It’s no surprise that this scientific fundamentalism substitutes technology for religion. In his book, [_Tech Agnostic: How Technology Became the World's Most Powerful Religion_](https://bookshop.org/p/books/tech-agnostic-how-technology-became-the-world-s-most-powerful-religion-and-why-it-desperately-needs-a-reformation-greg-epstein/21029251?ean=9780262049207), Greg Epstein argues that technology has rituals and rites that we all devoutly perform every day. It connects us with a community of like-minded people, it has its own priestly class, it can be transformative, and we have faith it will lead to a happier future. Some even think it might bestow immortality. “In other words,” writes Epstein, “technology has become religion.” In an [interview](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn0XpTAD%5F8Q) with Andrew Ross Sorkin at the DealBook Summit, Sam Altman used the word “magic” to describe AI. He corrected himself by adding, “not magic,” but rather “an incredible piece of science.” But in fact, Altman was right. AI does seem like magic. And even the tech leaders creating it, aren’t [entirely sure](https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/03/05/1089449/nobody-knows-how-ai-works/#:~:text=The%20focus%20of%20the%20field,fail%20to%20live%20up%20to.) how it works. But it’s worth pointing out that while we regularly talk about technology as magic, we balk at the idea of exploring the magic of our humanity. We look at technological innovations with awe and wonder but neglect the mysteries that are neither created nor explained by technology. When we close off our spiritual selves, when we treat those who we disagree with as heretics, we also close off pathways for forgiveness, grace, and redemption — all in short supply in our culture today. And yet we all need the forgiveness and understanding that we often find it hard to grant to others. So, yes, we should engage in politics. We should celebrate scientific discoveries and new technologies. But we should also remember to render unto Caesar the things—and only the things—that are Caesar’s. ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"OpinionNewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/7201505/politics-scientism-religion-arianna-huffington-essay/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/7201505/politics-scientism-religion-arianna-huffington-essay/"},"headline":"The Consequences of Elevating Politics to a Religion","datePublished":"2024-12-11T16:33:09.000Z","dateModified":"2026-03-10T23:16:34.544Z","description":"Arianna Huffington explores the cost of how politics—and scientism—have become America’s religion.","url":"https://time.com/7201505/politics-scientism-religion-arianna-huffington-essay/","keywords":["society","freelance"],"thumbnailUrl":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltadf53801dde1fb19/698b24a3b21a9c298e5119d6/america-spirituality.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Arianna Huffington","jobTitle":"Contributor","url":"https://time.com/author/arianna-huffington/"}],"articleSection":"Ideas","image":[{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltadf53801dde1fb19/698b24a3b21a9c298e5119d6/america-spirituality.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","width":1200,"height":675,"headline":"america-spirituality","caption":"","creditText":"Getty Images","representativeOfPage":true}],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"/section/ideas/","name":"Ideas"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"/tag/society/","name":"society"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/7201505/politics-scientism-religion-arianna-huffington-essay/","name":"The Consequences of Elevating Politics to a Religion"}}]}] ```