That argument if you deploy it against for example gender becomes rather inpalatable for most people. Gender roles are to a very large extent made up of "arbit

That argument if you deploy it against for example gender becomes rather inpalatable for most people. Gender roles are to a very large extent made up of "arbitrary cultural baggage" but reasoning like that provokes almost an allergic reaction for people who after all base their identity and personality on them. I imagine there are quite a lot of people who, if you insist on the argument that their male identity is an arbitrary construction, would literally hurt you rather than accept your argument... which probably says more about the specific nature of the male gender construct, but still. Cultural constructs are extremely important and fundamental for people's identities, communities, narratives, etc. If you strip away enough cultural baggage, there is a reasonable fear that you would end up with no recogngizable human mind, no basis for any action or thought. Christianity went through a phase of rational universalism, scholasticism etc, but now it doesn't seem to want to engage in the arena of global universal truth. Instead Christians are either "nationalistic", "pluralistically tolerant", or "individually mystical", I would say. The concept of divinity is also extremely abstract, nuanced, slippery, and multifaceted; there are a lot of different theological theories, and they change over time. My major point is that religions tend to have a privileged position as the root or ground of a whole cultural complex, and that makes them really hard to be rational about; you'd first have to convince someone that they ought to subject the very root of their identity and community to rational scrutiny, which does appear risky; that's why Camus said "to begin to think is to begin to be undermined."