Metaphysics and religions don’t have answer either.

They just stop asking questions at a certain point.

That's very handwavy and unconvincing TBH. I can't imagine who'd argue that humans "worship" rationalism and materialism, that's a pretty big stretch of the word.

What definition of the word do you use?

That man has a natural inclination to it is another pretty big assumption, whether "natural inclinations" are even a thing at all has been debated for centuries

Well, yeah. That’s just the central problem of modernity and it’s been the preoccupation of the last two hundred years of philosophy and literature: c.f. existentialism and many other isms. Nietzsche and Dostoevsky and a legion of other philosophers and novelists address this exact question. There’s a lot of answers out there that don’t require signing up to an old religion, you can go and take your pick!

> But rationalism and materialism do not have answers to the existential questions and crises that humans face.

That's the crux of it. Nothing and no one has those answers. Some isms acknowledge that, most don't.

> a natural inclination to worship something.

uh really? Barbarism and brute force have succeeded many times.

> Man has a natural inclination to worship something. For most of human history, that has been the divine/supernatural/metaphysical. Nowadays, rationalism and materialism have become the main objects of worship. But rationalism and materialism do not have answers to the existential questions and crises that humans face.

This paintbrush is far too wide. I think many of us have, at least from time to time, felt something between an inclination and need to worship, and many of us feel that all their lives, but I would assert (and die upon this hill) that many lose that [inclination..need].

Personally, I felt it most strongly in my late teens up until my mid twenties when my questioning of everything was at its strongest and my, uh, personality? resolve? acceptance? not sure... was insufficient counter. Like The Stranglers said, I wish(ed) I was a believer, they spend less time being sad.

Eventually, my mechanistic reductionist self made peace with both the many unknowns and the utter ridiculousness of life. The universe is a cold, harsh place, and even our little goldilocks corner of it has an overwhelming imbalance to it, a ruthless "unfairness", at least when viewed through the lens of a humane equity.

Believing in some greater thing does nothing to resolve or address that, though some take solace in believing in some teleology or ultimate reward. Or punishment.

Neither does anything for me and neither is necessary to my life.

> Similar to Christ saying that "man cannot live on bread alone", man cannot live on materialism alone - spiritual nourishment is a very real and necessary thing.

Hard disagree. You might say that my deep breaths and long stares in the woods are spiritual, but I will respectfully disagree. I do not worship those woods, or the lakes or camping with friends or moments of great discovery or satisfaction, whether there or at work, and I find nothing "spiritual" in them.

I accept and rejoice in their being internal affectations, basal responses, and I am quite happy with my reptilian brain. I don't need any sense of anything external or greater or other to celebrate moments of beauty or discovery or to condemn moments of cruelty and injustice.

Please do remember that there are other very different views of the world.

Materialism and our reptile brains are all we've got. I'm content with that. (Unless and until I watch the news, but that is another subject altogether.)

> But rationalism and materialism do not have answers to the existential questions and crises that humans face.

idrk what rationalism means here, like the hegelian type of rationalism has an answer here, the end goal is self-consciousness

> Nowadays, rationalism and materialism have become the main objects of worship.

Nobody worships rationalism. Using reason to understand the world isn't a form of worship. It's the opposite of worship.

> But rationalism and materialism do not have answers to the existential questions and crises that humans face.

Existential crisis is a by-product of rationalism. When advances in science essentially debunked religious claims on nature and humanity, it removed the need for god ( aka "god is dead" - uh oh existential crisis ). It's hard to reconcile god making man out of dirt and evolution. To demand rationalism provide answers to the exstential crisis is irrational because existential crisis is the "answer" provided by rationalism.

> Similar to Christ saying that "man cannot live on bread alone", man cannot live on materialism alone - spiritual nourishment is a very real and necessary thing.

Man has, does and will live on materialism alone. Whether man can lead a more fulfilling life believing in religion is another story. Do kids who believe in santa claus lead better lives than those who do not. It's up for debate.

But rationalism can't have an answer for existential crisis. You cannot reason your way out of the existential crisis because reason and logic will lead you to it rather than religion. The only way out of existential crisis is to reject reason and logic to some degree.

> Similar to Christ saying that "man cannot live on bread alone", man cannot live on materialism alone - spiritual nourishment is a very real and necessary thing.

I'm a Christian, and your interpretation is exactly how I have always understood that passage (Matthew 4:4). It is among a small number of biblical passages that have been the foundation of my adult life.

Even if you do not believe in a specific deity, the bible and for that matter most other core religious scriptures are still a treasury of knowledge about the human condition. It's sad that so many people think they have outgrown the wisdom you find there. There are a lot of false gods.

> Who in their right mind would reject an offer of unlimited knowledge and worldly pleasures?

Christ Himself rejected various temptations by Satan when he was in the wilderness.

^Who in their right mind would reject an offer of unlimited knowledge and worldly pleasures?

The bargain had a quid pro quo...you get knowledge and pleasure in exchange for perpetual servitude to a bad guy. I wouldn't make that trade

If you believe saintlike people are in their right minds - many. I use "saintlike" in a secular sense; I myself am an atheist.

Marlowe's "The Life and Death of Dr. Faustus" was written 300 years before Goethe's version.

In Marlowe's version Faust goes to hell.

I always found Goethe's ending to be unsatisfying, and prefer Marlowe's where Faust not only accepts, but embraces his fate to be a far better resolution.

Goethe's Faust does not make a diabolical bargain, he makes a bet: that all the power and pleasure and knowledge Mephistopheles can offer him will not slake the longings of his soul, that nothing will pierce his world weariness with one moment of which he could will that it last forever. He regards magical power, the traditional object of the Faustian pact, quite lowly (as shown in the witch's scene).

> Who in their right mind would reject an offer of unlimited knowledge and worldly pleasures?

Most people. Unlimited knowledge? So no mystery to life. Unlimited worldly pleasures? Sound exhausting. There is a reason why hedonism hasn't taken over the world. Frankly, "unlimited knowledge and worldly pleasures" sounds like hell to me.

That is odd.

> I've never heard of queen Victoria having Habsburg ancestry

AFAIK, the only Hapsburg to come near her throne was Phillip II of Spain, husband of Queen Mary (16th C).

Ah! I just checked, and the article now contains the following: Correction: This article has been updated to reflect that Queen Victoria was of Hanoverian, not Hapsburg, descent.