The guest on the program “Koyo Sato’s Space Conference” is Yoshiyuki Kato, a professor in the Faculty of Letters at Rikkyo University who specializes in the study of religion. He earned his PhD from Princeton Theological Seminary, served as an associate professor at Tokyo Christian University, and has held positions as a visiting fellow at the University of Cambridge and the London School of Economics.His publications include *Evangelicals: American Society Torn Apart by Eschatology*. The interviewer was host Koyo Sato, and the moderator was Toshihiro Katayama.
I read this roundtable discussion as a record tracing, over a span of five hundred years, how the Western modern era emerged from the foundation of religion and where it began to unravel.Capitalism, science, and liberalism all spin their wheels if we discuss them in isolation from the broader context. Both the divisions in the United States and the sense of dissonance in Japan become structurally apparent when placed within that historical lineage. I will proceed with this article from that perspective.
The Five Turning Points Traced by the Roundtable Discussion
At the outset, Mr. Koyo Sato poses the question: although religion forms the basis of war, science, and nearly all of modern society, this fact has been forgotten over the course of several centuries. In response, Mr. Kato traced five turning points in sequence, beginning with the Reformation, followed by capitalism, science, Spinoza, and liberalism.Here, I will focus on the first turning point—the Reformation—capitalism, which is directly linked to it, and liberalism, the final destination. I will delve deeper into the middle two in subsequent sections.
According to Mr. Kato’s analysis, the first turning point—the Reformation—is not merely the heroic tale of Luther alone. The plague led to a labor shortage, causing wages to rise and farmers’ rights to improve. However, climate change subsequently stripped them of those rights once again. It was at this point, when discontent had been building up for a long time, that Luther’s words found an audience.
People tend to think that the Reformation began when Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the church in Wittenberg. While that is certainly true, it was an era in which major factors—such as significant climate change and the peasants’ pent-up resentment toward their lords—had built up to a near-explosive level.
According to Mr. Kato’s analysis, the structural conditions demanded by the times were already in place. Furthermore, without the technology of movable-type printing, Luther’s words would not have spread to such an extent. Although Gutenberg went bankrupt printing the Bible, short pamphlets and single-sheet prints of indulgences sold explosively, and printing grew into an industry.The Reformation was an event brought about not only by the power of Luther’s words alone, but by the convergence of economic conditions and technological innovation.
The second turning point was capitalism. Mr. Kato discusses this in line with Weber’s famous interpretation. Luther imbued work with dignity, and the Calvinists developed a unique theology based on the doctrine of predestination. If one does not spend accumulated money on personal enjoyment but continues to reinvest it, one will see even greater blessings from God.
It’s fine to accumulate wealth, but you must not use it for your own consumption. The solution is to continuously reinvest it. Weber’s interpretation is that the early Calvinists were the ones who conceived the idea that by reinvesting accumulated capital—rather than consuming or distributing it—one could receive even greater divine blessings.
However, Mr. Kato qualified this by noting that there are various theories. According to Mr. Kato’s explanation, while Christian societies also had prohibitions against interest, there were mechanisms in the Middle Ages that circumvented these bans by treating capital contributions as investments. Capitalism did not arise directly from this theology; the path it took was quite circuitous.
And, in my view, liberalism also lies at the end of this lineage. Locke championed “life, liberty, and private property” as human rights and argued that the government exists to protect them. To me, the fracture in this system appears as the division in contemporary America. The roundtable discussion traced this entire progression in one go.
Luther as the “Social Media of Today”
If you think of Luther as a great figure in world history, you’ll be surprised by Mr. Kato’s character assessment.
“We tend to think of him as a world-historical figure and a great man… but if anything, he’s actually a bit like Trump. He’s crazy and speaks the language of the people… he’s the kind of person who feels like a cross between Elon Musk and Trump,”
says Mr. Kato. He spoke in the language of the common people, was a skilled orator, and possessed charisma. And above all, he was a master of media strategy. He teamed up with the painter Cranach to intentionally rework portraits from his early days as a monk, creating a brand of himself as a serious figure, while portraying the Pope as Satan-like to solidify the image of his enemy.He also changed his writing style from the dense, academic prose that was difficult to read to a more accessible style that could reach even those who struggled with reading and writing. He expressed himself in simple, direct language. Including his habit of delivering catchphrases in short, pithy phrases, he was—in today’s social media terms—a genius at intentionally sparking controversy.
What made this movement possible was movable-type printing. In *The Printing Revolution*, historian Eisenstein argues that the spread of the Reformation would not have occurred without movable-type printing.According to Mr. Kato’s analysis, during the era when the church held a monopoly on biblical knowledge, the mass circulation of Bibles and pamphlets through printing enabled the elite to read the original Greek texts, leading them to realize that the church’s teachings were at odds with the actual text.The church raised funds by selling indulgences, and religion had taken on the appearance of a commercial enterprise. When Luther, having read the original texts, criticized the church by stating that such things were not written in the Bible, the public’s pent-up dissatisfaction poured into his message all at once. Luther’s claims were welcomed precisely because there was already widespread discontent among the people.
Mr. Sato described this series of events as a situation where the narrative the world was seeking happened to fit perfectly at just the right moment. Mr. Kato also acknowledged that the narratives accepted in a given era are linked to the demands of that era—though he added the caveat that this is true regardless of whether they are correct or not.
I believe this pattern directly overlaps with the current information revolution. To me, the structure in which the church monopolized knowledge of the Bible mirrors the structure in which today’s giant corporations control information.The pattern of new media undermining old authority also strikes me as a parallel between the Reformation and the current information revolution. It seems wrong to me to view what is happening now as an event outside the context of history.
The Religious Origins of Modern Science
The assumption that science and religion are opposed to one another is easily dispelled when we look at the founders of modern science. Kepler aspired to be a pastor, and Newton’s writings on theology far exceeded those on science in volume.
According to Mr. Kato’s analysis, what drove these men was the premise that there are natural laws in this world bestowed by a transcendent God, and that these laws can be deciphered through observation and mathematics. It was Descartes’s idea—uniting physics and mathematics, which had previously been separate, and positing that the laws of nature can be solved through mathematics—that set science in motion on a grand scale.Bacon established the method of experimental science in *Novum Organum*. Although Copernicus’s *On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres* was published in 1543, it was not immediately banned.It was not banned until 1616, and Galileo was put on trial by the Inquisition in 1633. There was a time lag between the publication of Copernicus’s work, its banning, and the Inquisition trial.
Mr. Kato interprets this as a matter of how the Bible—as a text—is interpreted.While the Bible is reliable regarding salvation, it is written metaphorically when it comes to natural phenomena. Those who held this view became engrossed in observation and mathematics in search of a better way to interpret it, and as a result, modern science was born. According to Mr. Kato’s assessment, science began as an expression of reverence for God itself.
According to Mr. Kato, the turning point occurred after the religious wars. The Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years’ War, was signed in 1648, and Hobbes wrote *Leviathan* in 1651.In a devastated Europe, a sentiment spread that it was dangerous for the Church to wield such power, and a system of sovereign states began to take shape. As nations required cutting-edge science and technology for national security, scientists were granted protection, and the idea that the world could be explained even without God began to emerge openly.
According to Mr. Kato’s assessment, this trend manifested most sharply in France. In France, where the Church’s power remained strong, intellectuals could not openly express their opposition, so their ideas circulated in the form of underground writings. Following the French Revolution of the eighteenth century, radical ideas—viewing the Church itself as an obstacle—began to permeate civil society.It seems that attitudes toward God differed between regions ravaged by the Thirty Years’ War and those where the Church’s influence remained strong.
Since ancient Greece, the materialist theories of Epicurus and Lucretius had at times been suppressed by the Church. Lucretius’s *On the Nature of Things* was rediscovered in 1417. When the conditions for state patronage were in place, these ideas came to the fore.I see here an ironic structure of the modern era: science, which began with piety, eventually came to no longer require God. In my view, a new conception of nature—one in which nature is something humans should dominate—emerged, and the modern project of developing science to combat the plague and disease began.As long as we uphold the premise mentioned earlier—the idea of deciphering God-given natural laws through mathematics—the very notion that humans can defy fate also appears to me to be an extension of theological thinking. If that is the case, the question remains: by what is science sustained now that God has been expelled?
Spinoza and the Denial of Free Will
According to Mr. Kato’s assessment, Spinoza was a man who, having believed too devoutly in God, ended up equating God with nature. God is nature.Opinions among scholars remain divided regarding this view of Spinoza, who was excommunicated in 1656 and published *Ethics* in 1677. Some interpret it as materialism, while others see it as pantheism.In the 17th century, however, his views were generally received and criticized as outright atheism or materialism.
Regarding this denial of free will, Mr. Kato stated the following:
“That free will—the very notion that we can clearly choose something—is an illusion; it merely appears that way subjectively. He did attempt to explain it in that way.”
According to Mr. Kato’s view, while the sensation of choice itself exists, it is nothing more than a subjective perception.This world is permeated by laws with no gaps, and we are simply caught up in that flow. While this is an extremely mechanistic conclusion, it can also be seen as a conclusion reached after placing too much faith in God. In the sense that spirit dwells in all things, it is close to animism, and it is precisely because of this ambiguity that Spinoza is favored by Asian Buddhists.
According to Mr. Kato’s explanation, this denial of free will influenced subsequent philosophical currents. Hegel asserted that spirit is everything, while the Hegelian Left reversed this, arguing that matter was equally valid. Feuerbach argued that God and the ideal good are projections of humanity.Marx famously stated that “religion is the opium of the people.” However, Mr. Kato notes that this statement can be interpreted more charitably. People forced to work under harsh conditions in factories turn to religion to ease their pain. Precisely because Marx himself understood this social function, he realized that simply rejecting religion was not enough, which is why he turned toward the labor movement.
Mr. Kato also added that socialism is not necessarily linked to the rejection of religion. While some base their concept of equality on religion, others base it on materialism, and there was even a movement known as Christian socialism.Marx’s use of the term “opium” can also be interpreted not as hostility toward religion itself, but as a critique of the reality of people turning to religion to alleviate their suffering.
Tracing this line of thought, Spinoza appears as a watershed moment.The modern era, which began with faith in God, replaced God with nature, and eventually came to see even nature as unnecessary. Only the role of religion as a narrative that convinces people remains, standing alone. As long as we trace this trajectory of replacement, both liberalism and communism appear to me to belong to the same religious lineage.
American Division and Japanese “Religion”
According to Mr. Kato’s analysis, liberalism served as a weapon against the tyranny of kings and the church during the age of Locke. However, from the nineteenth century onward, it split into economic liberalism and cultural liberalism, and eventually both became dysfunctional.Citing Denning’s *Why Liberalism Failed*, Mr. Kato raises the destruction of intermediary organizations as a key issue. Families and communities—which once stood between the individual and the state—were dismantled, leaving individuals with no choice but to face the state directly.
According to a Pew Research Center study, the share of income held by the U.S. middle class fell from 61% in 1971 to 50% in 2015. Following the implementation of NAFTA and China’s accession to the WTO, manufacturing jobs were lost across the Midwest.Mr. Kato states that as communities were destroyed, people found themselves in a situation where their only sources of support were drugs, alcohol, or religion. Mr. Kato’s assessment is that Trump was supported precisely because there was such a demand among the people.
Mr. Sato took a more pointed approach to this dynamic.
“When I heard the term ‘liberalism’ back then, it sounded like the narrative of a hegemonic power,” Mr. Sato says. “I think it’s been manipulated to suit the U.S. incredibly well as a way for America to spread its own values around the world.”
Mr. Sato said. He reportedly heard that there were no Trump supporters among the elites in Silicon Valley or New York, and that they had no idea who was actually voting for him. From Mr. Sato’s perspective, the spaces where high-income and low-income groups intersect have disappeared.A class-based society like that of the Middle Ages is emerging, where the places where kings live and the places where the poor live are completely separated. That’s why, he argues, the Trump phenomenon is best understood as a revolutionary movement. This perspective left the strongest impression on me during this roundtable discussion.
According to Mr. Sato’s assessment, this narrative functioned most clearly on the internet. Information should be open; keeping it walled off is evil. Using that logic, they pressured countries to accept it, and the world went along with it.Industry was absorbed by giant tech companies, and only China put the brakes on this early by erecting a firewall. Mr. Sato sees in this both the power of the narrative and the importance of the decision not to go along with it.
So, what about Japan? Mr. Kato emphasizes that Japan’s welfare system and redistribution mechanisms are still functioning, but it’s unclear how long they will last. He argues that elite politicians should be asked: “Do you want Japan to become like American society?” Mr. Kato traces the reasons why the Western system doesn’t fit Japan’s cultural soil all the way back to the level of language.
“It’s actually quite recent—dating back to the Meiji era—that the Japanese began to interpret the word ‘religion.’ … It was around Meiji 6, or 1874, that the term ‘religion’ gradually took root. So, it’s a word that didn’t originally exist in Japan,”
Mr. Kato says. As indicated by the widely accepted view that Nishizō translated “religion” as “shūkyō” in his *Hyakuichi Shinron*, this term was coined to refer to a Christian-style system complete with doctrines, a founder, a church, and rituals. Shinto is distinguished from religion as a tradition, and the Japanese visit shrines and tend to graves as a form of “belonging without faith.”They don’t consciously believe in anything; they do it simply because they are family. When Western Christianity rejects this unarticulated sense as idolatry, the Japanese overreact.
This explanation made me feel as though I had finally understood the true nature of Japan’s “allergy to religion.” According to Mr. Kato’s explanation, it is not that the Japanese do not believe in religion; rather, they possess a form of faith that cannot be categorized under the term “religion.” A culture that does not verbalize its beliefs tends to overreact when it encounters a different culture that does. This dynamic also parallels Japan’s reaction when liberalism was introduced.
What Will Remain for Humans in the Age of AI
In Mr. Sato’s view, many prophecies surrounding AI are exaggerated. AI is not some grandiose tool; rather, like language or culture, it is a tool that returns information that has been averaged out for everyone. Human prayer is an incredibly complex phenomenon. That complexity is far more profound. It is absurd to be surprised merely by a tool that returns templates, he argues.
Building on this, Mr. Sato moves on to discuss the need for a new narrative. Human intelligence has reached a level where it can comprehend meta-narratives. If that is the case, it is about time that a “meta-religious” concept—one that allows us to share narratives spanning the entire universe, the entire Earth, and timelines that transcend our own bodies—was invented.Science, religion, and politics may seem like separate realms now, but creating a narrative that unifies them is a matter of courage, not ability.
Mr. Kato deeply agrees with these words, while urging us not to forget the darker aspects of history. Every time there has been a major technological innovation or a major shift in the underlying framework, a major war has followed: religious wars, the Thirty Years’ War, conflicts between sovereign states, and the atomic bomb. While humanity has somehow managed to control the immense tool of nuclear power, we still do not know how to manage this new tool—AI.Mr. Kato referred to the Pope, who issued a statement on ethics in the AI era based on Christian values, noting that the term “common good” was repeatedly emphasized therein. However, Mr. Kato expressed doubt as to whether those who wield this tool will truly use it for the common good.
Nevertheless, Mr. Kato’s tone was not one of pessimism. In his view, while it is true that wars have broken out with every technological innovation, whether such conflicts can be avoided depends on the courage of those who take on responsibility as agents.Mr. Kato concluded by stating that those who can act now must do so to ensure that devastation on the scale of World War II never occurs again.
At the end of the roundtable discussion, it became clear that the two men’s perspectives were surprisingly close. Mr. Sato cited physicality, materiality, and legal responsibility as things that will gain value in the AI era. People gathering in person to pray, hold festivals, and tend to graves.If someone makes a mistake, they take responsibility for it. These are all things that AI cannot possess. No matter what AI creates, it is humans who ultimately bear the responsibility—and that will not change. Mr. Sato views this as merely a slight shift in the nature of human work. He states that this feels akin to a return to medieval society.I believe that, viewed over a span of five hundred years, liberalism—which emerged from and diverged from religion—is now returning to the human body and responsibility.Listening to this conversation, I realized that while I had assumed modernity was a liberation from religion, I was actually standing on the very foundation that religion had created. Surprisingly, the materials needed to mend those cracks remain within that very foundation.
Comment