[lit-ideas] The earliest requirement for religion

From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Lit-Ideas " <Lit-Ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 06:46:36 -0700
Nicholas Wade in his The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and why it
endures, wrote, 

". . . new faculties were doubtless drawn upon as natural selection searched
for an effective solution to the most pressing of all problems for a social
species- how to make selfish individuals place society's needs above their
own. This departure from self-interest required not just moral
self-restraint and social cohesiveness, but an emotional commitment to the
group so fierce and transcendent that men would quite readily sacrifice
their lives in its defense.

"The solution that evolved was religious behavior.  It was those who learned
to bond to each other through ritual song and dance who developed the most
cohesive communities. It was those who believed that the gods or their dead
ancestors were seeing into their hearts who hewed closest to their society's
rules. It was those who most feared supernatural retribution who built the
most moral societies with the strongest social fabric and the resilience to
outlast others. [Kindle locations 673-780]

Comment:  It is possible to keep a simple syllogism before one's eyes,
interpreted in accordance with one's vision, but the human genome is huge
and new discoveries appear with increasing regularity.  To keep one's mind
fixed on something Darwin wrote in 1959 (Origin of Species) or 1871 (The
Descent of Man) perhaps even searching for something Darwin wrote that isn't
exactly contradicted by modern genetic studies may seem filial, but I wonder
if it is any longer necessary.  Did Wade really need to say "natural
selection searched"?  

I was quite Darwinian after reading Origin of Species in perhaps 1958 or
1959.  There were in those days more who resisted his theories than there
are today.  Still, those who invoke Darwin in the midst of genetic research
and modern discoveries often seem to being doing it more out of reverence
than necessity.    And then there are those who find a more comfortable
residence in the land of Darwin (not Wade) and are convince that developing
genetic theories are merely new-fangled fads and will one day fade away and
leave things as they were before and ought always to be.  Perhaps you can
tell them by their references.  Are they reading about the new discoveries
or are they saying the equivalent of "If the King James Version was good
enough for Moses, it is good enough for me"?

Speaking of which, some such Fundamentalists will be aghast at what Wade has
written, and believe that his views are inconsistent with a religious (if
one defines religion as Christian Fundamentalism) belief.  But ignoring the
Fundamentalists, if one can, can one retain a religious belief if one
believes what Wade wrote?  If it is a requirement built into our genes,
doesn't that make it invalid in a cosmological sense?  In my view the method
God chose for creation can be seen in biology, genetics and even cosmology.

Fundamentalists have no problem in accepting that the Greek language was in
place for the first Christians to use to describe their religious beliefs.
God, they believe, created that sophisticated language and had it ready for
them to describe his New Testament.  Why then balk at the idea that God also
had "morals" in place so that people would know when they were being
immoral?  And what Wade has written is another way of saying what Blaise
Pascal once said, that "There is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every
man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the
Creator, made known through Jesus"   Wade is describing the biological
origin of that God-shaped vacuum.

I described someplace else someone who observed the behavior of baboons, of
two adult males who gave their lives so that the rest of the tribe could
make it safely to a baboon haven.  This morning it came to me that the
person who made that observation was (probably) Raymond Dart.  I still can't
find the reference, but if my aged memory is somewhat accurate, he was
severely disillusioned after World War One and sought some place to "hide"
from what had happened, choosing Africa.  But having an active mind he began
investigating his surroundings and especially a tribe of baboons whose route
passed by his cabin (or it could have been that his wanderings passed by
their wanderings).  In any case he observed the baboon tribe heading later
than usual (when it was nearly dark) up a narrow decline toward their
defensible sanctuary, but their nemesis, the panther was in position to kill
one or two (do they wantonly kill more than that?  I don't know).  Instead
two adult males attacked the panther, killing it, and giving up their lives
in the process.  

Dart had the misfortune to discover the first evidence that the predecessors
of homo sapiens originated in Africa rather than Europe; so he was declared
a crackpot.  Of course everyone knows today that he was right, but getting
rid of the "crackpot" stigma is not an easy matter.

And, we see in the actions of these baboons (whether it was Raymond Dart who
made that observation or some other) the religious principle "greater love
hath no man than that he would lay down his life for a friend."  

Lawrence
[lit-ideas] The earliest requirement for religion

Other related posts:
