Ch. 11: Religion Is a Team Sport

[DWill]

By increasing survivability of one group, it also influences the group to be more hostile towards other groups.

Tell that to Quakers.

Want me to go on?

Yes, could you go on, or at least be less cryptic for my sake?

[Interbane]

Tell that to Quakers.

Want me to go on?

Yes, please. Explain in detail how the Quakers exemplify the fact that no religion is hostile towards any other religion.

[ant]

Tell that to Quakers.

Want me to go on?

Yes, please. Explain in detail how the Quakers exemplify the fact that no religion is hostile towards any other religion.

You support the quote you posted, right?
Give me an example of Quaker hostility, please.

[DWill]

The conceptual definition of "viral" does not only apply to organisms Dwill. If an idea spreads for any reason, it can be legitimately considered viral. The list of characteristics that make an 'idea' viral is a different list than that of an organism, of course.

Thanks for these comments. Since almost all ideas can be presumed to have some spread, are they all viral, and if so, how useful is the term descriptively or otherwise? Or does it become a judgment as to when the spread is fast or far enough to label it as viral? I can see the reason for viral memes to have become so well established on the internet, as that use of the term seems very appropriate in that environment,

Religion has shown itself to be viral, by definition. This can be true at the same time that it acts as a binding agent for populations. If the reason religion spreads is that it confers an advantage over non-religious societies, then that is a characteristic. That characteristic is one of many that results in the viral spread.

I'm trying in part to present the views of the author, who, being a social psychologist, has a basic difference with those who think of religion as being about beliefs at its core. The model he says is used by the New Atheists (a label I don't like much, by the way) goes from believing straight to doing, in single-arrow fashion. In his preferred model, belonging is added, and there are bi-directional arrows connecting each part of the triad. Religious ideas are just not where the most action is, in his opinion. The ideas themselves don't even seem to matter much, as far as any inherent qualities that would make them win against competing ideas. He never mentions an evolution of ideas through natural selection as far as I can recall; he focuses on the evolution (including genetic evolution) of groups who make use of whatever presents itself to become ever tighter and more cooperating groups, which lends them an advantage over other groups (either in being stronger militarily or in being able to make better use of resources). So you could say that what spread was really groupishness rather than ideas or gods, primarily.

For all the advantages that religion offers on a group level, I see that there are also consequences, trade-offs. By increasing survivability of one group, it also influences the group to be more hostile towards other groups. It has a polarizing effect, in other words. It's relieving to see some of the modern ethos promoting unity amongst religions, but I don't see how that can work. It's like trying to breed a dog with a cat. The groundwork was laid long ago. Unless you rewrite most religious books of all denominations, you won't effect change.

Of course, religion is only one of the factors that can make groups stronger than others with whom they have contact. Whether religion was that important in any particular case (Diamond would pick the environment), the group growing in hostility might depend on cultural factors (including religion). But without doubt, group strength gives the group more muscle to flex. Haidt has a good theory about the worst kind of group hostility, moralistic killing. "Anything that binds people together into a moral matrix that glorifies the in-group while at the same time demonizing another group can lead to moralistic killing, and many religions are well suited for that task. Religion is often an accessory to atrocity, rather than the driving force of the atrocity."

Well, maybe, though, unity isn't such an impossible project, it could just take a great deal of time to get it. We've achieved some of this already within Christianity, with inter-denominational rivalry and hatred not being the big thing that it once was. Even Mitt Romney will get the votes of almost every evangelical Christian. But I grant you it's still a long shot, and especially so when you consider that unity needs to include those who don't believe in any religion at all.

From a modern perspective, we now have a small group of religions vying for dominance of the planet. Those small few have so far shown to be the 'best of the binding agents'.

Would a planet with a single religion be better than a planet with multiple competing religions? Would that ever happen? I don't think so.

I wonder if religion could even survive without something to differentiate itself from.

It's troubling to think that only false worldviews have a chance of sanctifying ethics. Can a free-floating rationale not be sanctified, as it's an algorithmic consequence of the laws of nature? I think once a phenomenon is understood and the clockwork mechanisms are visible, it can't be sanctified. Knowledge, then, is pandora's box.

That is just a little bit depressing, but true! Is that also why people cling to the mystery part of religion, because full knowing destroys the infinite value they place in it, replacing it with a much less satisfying sense of the finite? Haidt says, though, that almost everybody invests something with infinite value, which is the hallmark of the sacred. I think I do this with nature; others may do it with scientific inquiry or the sense of the limitless cosmos.

[Interbane]

The ideas themselves don't even seem to matter much, as far as any inherent qualities that would make them win against competing ideas. He never mentions an evolution of ideas through natural selection as far as I can recall;

What of the first commandment in Christianity, or the absurdly over-the-top discrimination against other religions that you find in Islam. These are defenses against competing idea groups, and have been exceptionally effective over the years. Add to this the emphasis each religion places on preaching the word across the land. Converting others is a virtue. Then Pascal's wager to keep people from disbelieving after they've swalllowed the pills.

These ideological features are some of the most powerful belief manipulators you can imagine. Whatever comparative competing ideas there may be out there, I can't see many winning against that lineup. I would confidently say that religion is structured intentionally to maximize contagiousness. All you have to do to see this is look at the characteristics of the component ideas.

I'm not saying the characteristics of the ideas are more influential to the spread of religion than the selective advantage it confers to the group. We don't need to reduce the past to a causal chain rather than a causal web. I'm sure multiple influences all worked together. Contagiousness of ideas mixed with group advantage. To focus on one over the other is all too human. There are likely other extraneous factors as well that have had an influence.

"Anything that binds people together into a moral matrix that glorifies the in-group while at the same time demonizing another group can lead to moralistic killing, and many religions are well suited for that task. Religion is often an accessory to atrocity, rather than the driving force of the atrocity."

So you know, I've enjoyed this discussion enough that I'm buying the book and will continue to post. This quote is well worded as well, The distinction is made that religion is an enabler of out-group hostility, rather than the motive. I can see many cases where religion is the motive as well, with some passages thrown in the face of the dying heretics. But many times, it would be used to justify a man's pre-existing motive. "God is on my side."

That is just a little bit depressing, but true! Is that also why people cling to the mystery part of religion, because full knowing destroys the infinite value they place in it, replacing it with a much less satisfying sense of the finite? Haidt says, though, that almost everybody invests something with infinite value, which is the hallmark of the sacred. I think I do this with nature; others may do it with scientific inquiry or the sense of the limitless cosmos.

The infinite is a good way to put it. Anything that prevents us from "closing the loop" on a specific portion of our worldview. When the mystery is solved, we no longer dwell on it, no longer fantasize about the possibilities. Our focus turns to the mundane daily life and never returns to the fantastic. I'm not sure that true infinite is necessary. Perhaps only the appearance of infinite. For example, I could see worship of mother earth as being sanctified. Earth is a finite ecosystem, but is vastly more complex than we could ever understand.

There's also something to consider with followers of physics becoming religious. Think of the mysteries within quantum physics. Perhaps not infiinite, conceptually, but they are hopelessly mysterious to the point where sanctification is all too likely. On the other hand, we do not worship Pi. I think that not only is the infinite that is the hallmark of the sacred, but a dose of the mysterious is needed as well. Perhaps not "mysterious", but "insoluble"?

You support the quote you posted, right?
Give me an example of Quaker hostility, please.

There is nothing wrong with my statement that got your knickers in a bunch. Show me how a single black swan is evidence that most swans are not white. I'm not advocating an absolutist stance. Asking me to show you where a white feather is on this black swan is ridiculous ant. It breaks from reasoning and misses the point.

[DWill]

What of the first commandment in Christianity, or the absurdly over-the-top discrimination against other religions that you find in Islam. These are defenses against competing idea groups, and have been exceptionally effective over the years. Add to this the emphasis each religion places on preaching the word across the land. Converting others is a virtue. Then Pascal's wager to keep people from disbelieving after they've swalllowed the pills.

These ideological features are some of the most powerful belief manipulators you can imagine. Whatever comparative competing ideas there may be out there, I can't see many winning against that lineup. I would confidently say that religion is structured intentionally to maximize contagiousness. All you have to do to see this is look at the characteristics of the component ideas.

I'm not saying the characteristics of the ideas are more influential to the spread of religion than the selective advantage it confers to the group. We don't need to reduce the past to a causal chain rather than a causal web. I'm sure multiple influences all worked together. Contagiousness of ideas mixed with group advantage. To focus on one over the other is all too human. There are likely other extraneous factors as well that have had an influence.

I must have had my mind on the old days of loosey-goosey polytheism when when I said that conscious manipulation of memes might have nothing to do with the use of religion to fortify groups. When we do speak of manipulation, we bring in one of the key differences between the way memes work and the way genes do: we have a large part in the "design" process, whereas there is no design at all that controls the expression of genes. As far as the greater contagiousness of the relatively recent monotheisms, I'm not sure about that. In one sense, I can view polytheism as potentially more contagious simply because of the greater possibilities offered, and the developing monotheisms as attempts to stamp out that contagion. There must be some truth to the tales in the Bible about all the backsliding toward the more appealing and entertaining pantheon of gods. It seems that in order to get people to accept that only one god--the god that a priesthood wanted to make king--was to be worshipped, the heavy artillery had to be brought out, and this is where theology begins in earnest, with the commandments and the special humans who received the Word from this god, now God.

Looking at the gradualness of the establishment of monotheism with the Hebrews, which might have taken hundreds of years, as well as the equally long and gradual rise of Christian monotheism, I have some trouble with the idea of contagiousness, which implies the quick, mainly horizontal, spread of traits in a population. Institutionalization takes a great deal of time and effort, as the elites struggle and some slowly consolidate power. All of this might make the inherent qualities of a given ideology less important than how the the culture takes a hold of the ideas and makes them work, which in the context of this discussion means for the greater unity of the group.

It's tantalizing to speculate whether monotheism brought us closer to atheism or was a step back from it. I can see the answer being both yes and no. Paring down to one god from many would seem to take us to a threshold where we can drop that one, too; but having a bunch of gods was apparently a more liberal religious atmosphere in the first place. I would say with some certainty, though, that monotheism brought with it a decrease in superstitious belief.

Although beliefs were foundational to the new, organized religions, looking at religions from the social viewpoint, as Haidt does, has the advantage of bringing out aspects of religion that were there from the beginning, and which still characterize religions at least as much as beliefs do. Looking only at the beliefs, as some do, is too distancing, so you don't get a good idea of what religions are really doing.

So you know, I've enjoyed this discussion enough that I'm buying the book and will continue to post. This quote is well worded as well, The distinction is made that religion is an enabler of out-group hostility, rather than the motive. I can see many cases where religion is the motive as well, with some passages thrown in the face of the dying heretics. But many times, it would be used to justify a man's pre-existing motive. "God is on my side."

Reading the book is better than relying on my summaries, for sure. It would be hard to rank-order motives whenever humans do anything big. I'm sure that religion is in the forefront sometimes when groups aggress against others. If the religion demonizes others as infidels, it seems likely that this can be sufficient cause for attack.

The infinite is a good way to put it. Anything that prevents us from "closing the loop" on a specific portion of our worldview. When the mystery is solved, we no longer dwell on it, no longer fantasize about the possibilities. Our focus turns to the mundane daily life and never returns to the fantastic. I'm not sure that true infinite is necessary. Perhaps only the appearance of infinite. For example, I could see worship of mother earth as being sanctified. Earth is a finite ecosystem, but is vastly more complex than we could ever understand.

There's also something to consider with followers of physics becoming religious. Think of the mysteries within quantum physics. Perhaps not infiinite, conceptually, but they are hopelessly mysterious to the point where sanctification is all too likely. On the other hand, we do not worship Pi. I think that not only is the infinite that is the hallmark of the sacred, but a dose of the mysterious is needed as well. Perhaps not "mysterious", but "insoluble"?

This might be why science is so often attacked as a destroyer of the quality people tag with the name 'spiritual.' Science does seek to transform what we don't understand into mundane realities, but it could in its way be a carrier of the spiritual or infinite in the sense that this inquiring into the nature of things will never, ever, end. Frontiers are important for this sense of the infinite to hold, and there will always be new frontiers in science.

[DWill]

One last part to Haidt's thoughts on religion is what interests and agitates people the most: whether it's a force for good or evil. What he's already said about religion amounts to the judgment that religion was necessary for getting us to the state of social organization from which we could launch our complex civilizations. I don't think that can be considered as established, but Haidt offers a decent argument to that effect. Relgions have always enabled to people "to achieve together what we can't achieve alone." Haidt observes, however, that the same can be said of the Mafia, so does the solidarity that religion clearly provides translate to goodness, as most would recognize it? Haidt says it does, but to his credit he specifies that the data available is from the contemporary U.S. and doesn't prove anything like a general humanizing effect of religion across time and cultures. Religious people (defined solely by frequency of church attendance) give away much more money than do the non-religious. It's true that the great bulk of what the religious give is to their churches, but even this can be said to have some generally benign effect for society. Giving to churches also primes people for greater giving to secular charities, according to some data. When researchers try to figure out what qualities or beliefs are responsible for this generosity, all they come up with is this: the greater the embeddedness of the church members, the greater the generosity. This finding that makes some intuitive sense: if we have person-to-person contacts, we're going to feel more inclined to follow through with supporting an organiazation. If I knew Chris O'Connor personally, I'd be more responsible in my donations to booktalk.

Can't any organization in the secular world give people this sense of shared belonging that makes makes them sacrifice so much time and money? Probably, but I think experience would show that religions just have the formula down and can do it with considerably better results.

For these reasons, Haidt, though an atheist himself, thinks we should hesitate before we advocate ushering in a post-religious society. For him, religion is providing a degree of binding and norming that more than compensates for its other major effect: blinding its adherents to the narrowness of religious tenets. He says we do not yet know how non-religious societies will fare in the long run, the record of northern European countries not yet being extensive enough. He hints that one result of atheism is to reduce a society's ability to "turn resources into offspring." Atheists and agnostics are notorious low-breeders, after all.

[Interbane]

A culture that I'm always appreciative of is the Easter Asian cultures. Some of the subsets of their Taoist religions are non-theistic. It is a belief system that deviates in some critical areas from the Middle Eastern religions. The sanctification of certain principles doesn't rely on a central story(a likely false story at that), and instead is based on a more intellectual foundation. The humility and respect of Asians in general seems to be greater than Americans as well.

A belief system acting as a social glue doesn't need to have the negatives that are prominent in Abrahamic religions. Even within the category of religions, a non-theistic version can serve the purpose of fostering social adhesion.

Imagine if the dominant religion on Earth was a non-theistic variety of Taoism. I doubt you'd find the intellectual community so polarized over it's ubiquity. I also doubt it would act as powerfully as a motivator to conquest and oppression.

[DWill]

I'm tempted by one of Hitchens' chapter titles, "There Is No Eastern Solution," but I don'tknow enough about Eastern religion to say whether he's right that Taoism, Buddhism, etc. don't avoid the problems of the monotheistic faiths. I do think that if we're looking at the widespread adoption of more philosophical and less theistic religions, the road is pretty steep no matter which ones we're talking about. I believe the great majority of adherents to the Eastern religions are involved with theism and superstition.

[Interbane]

I believe the great majority of adherents to the Eastern religions are involved with theism and superstition.

I see, point taken. I need more data.

The non-theistic subset of eastern religions, do you know if they foster group adhesion as well as the other eastern religions?

What book is it in that has the title you mentioned?