EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY FORUM ARCHIVE
Return to the active forum
Application of Evolution to Deism
James Brody · 11/16/03 at 8:15 ET
Evolution and Deism's Heritage We can expect, if evolution applies to religion and if religion is an emergent from human nature, rather than the converse: - The 10 Commandments clearly fall within evolutionary models. The first ones establish hierarchy and exclusive membership in a flock, membership that promises safety, partners, and opportunities to multiply so long as you don't "divide" (sic!) the flock. The other commandments establish reciprocity in a tit-for-tat framework and put up barriers to wife swapping, light fingers, jealousy, and delinquency...all the sorts of things once detected easily because of the public nature of life in small groups and arbitrated by the leader of a small community. Move, however, to larger population sites and formal rules appear. - If humans evolved from a common stock, then we can expect their religious formulations to be alike. That is, Muslims, Brahmins, and Confucians will make pronouncements that are similar to those found in Judeo-Christian texts. We can also expect variations in the content of religious prescriptions: I view the Semites as more hotheaded and spiteful, the Greeks more rational, and the Orientals more "other directed" and networked in their explanations. These differences possibly reflect genetic as much as historical variables. We will find similar histories for different religions: a transition from animal and plant gods to human forms and a transition from many gods to one. (There's an argument for another time that monotheism is a predictable outcome of statistical physics.) - We can expect a tension between personal will and community standards. The Old Testament contains 313 commandments in addition to the original 10. I suggest the Old Testament represents a "shared environment" (like drill instructors or ballet teachers) that makes us all act alike but only we are in it. (Shared environments, like having the same parents, contributes 2-10% of long term outcomes once the individual leaves it...like a well-behaved high schooler who discovers beer and broads in college!) The New Testament allowed more nonshared environment (the world that each of us defines for ourself and that contributes up to 80% of the variance in long term outcomes). Christ had dual agendas and perhaps reflected genomic conflict in ways described and applied to the rest of us by the great biologist and geneticist, David Haig. That is, Jesus threatened extreme rejection and punishment while promising unending love. He demanded loyalty in return for protection from Hell and freedom to do more of what we wanted. In normal human biology, these traits might have gained from an alcoholic father and an enabler mother. (Mary fits. I'm not sure about the old man.) His agenda was also complicated by crucifixion: males in modern tribes in South America and in the Colorado Rockies volunteer for crucifixion. The trick is to appear humble while starring in a center stage ritual. Madness probably helps but still not easy, perhaps comparable to a suicide bomber who will live to tell about it. And not one to be undertaken by most individuals. Again, the interaction of genes and cultural isolation can produce unusual rituals that your average Anglo geek refuses to contemplate or even to watch. - Social groups often become more punitive when they are losing coherence. That is, they not only punish members who ask questions but also any member who fails to punish the questioner. The Inquisition during Cardinal Richelieu is an ideal example. This kind of spite is sometimes called "strong reciprocity" because the punishment costs the punishers more than it gains them. In comparison, I don't know of any evolutionists who cripple, brand, blind, mute, or incinerate deists. (Some of them, however, shun you for beliefs in saltation!) Can it be said that evolutionists are more Christ-like in their treatment of unbelievers? - If evolution seeds human supernatural beliefs, we would expect a record of them that extends well before the Christian era. In this case, Tammuz, about 3000 BC, symbolized the cycle of birth, death, and resurrection. Tammuz also had a mix of human and divine traits: responsible for the continuity of all life but also expected to die and to be reborn. (Jesse Weston died in 1928 but his "From Ritual to Romance" has a 1957 copyright date and links the Grail Legends to Eastern and Middle Eastern fertility cults. Check also James Fraser's work on fertility cults and modern religion.) There were many such besides Tammuz. Weston indicates that it was a coin toss as to whether Mithras or Christ would head the modern belief for Europeans. - Finally, I used you in a shameless but ancient, incredibly ancient, way. Male guppies are braver toward a predator when a female guppy watches. I used you as an audience to provoke Mike...a very evolutionary effect, one predicted by Darwin but not by Moses or Christ. I also "used" you to inspire me to be more dogmatic than usual and to follow through with this statement. Thanks (I think!). Tactics Fundamentalists tend to make announcements rather than seeking new information. They, like most of us, also collect facts that suit their cause rather than defining their cause on the basis of whatever facts they gather. This tendency is so powerful that even scientific data are suspect until they have been duplicated by people who were originally disbelievers in them. Mike, Todd, Fred, and Carey had an extended series of interchanges. The four of them made up a local cluster of information swaps. Mike, however, tended to broadcast, the other three were more cautious in their language. (The effect was similar to that seen in Nietzsche's writings. He was far more dogmatic during his syphilitic attacks.) Bottom line: if possible, let your friends handle them. Fundamentalists tend to be nice on opening but controlling when challenged, when they are sure of your allegiance, or when they find you boring. Sorta like courting males! (Krakauer has a recent book on Mormon fundamentalism. The Witnesses and Scientologists can be just as coercive. I'd rather be adopted by a Jewish mother!) Fundamentalists tend to be impulsive. You can often wait them out, hear their spiel, and escape. Sorta like an average person but with a little brain damage or developmental delay. Fundamentalists are often recruiting. Indeed, they are ordered to do so. They seek small points of agreement and seek to expand them. (This strategy has been studied in computer simulations under the title, "raise the stakes": open small and if matched, increase your commitment.) Fundamentalists are to be fruitful and multiply. Watch not only your purse but also your wife and daughters. (John Updike has a delightful novel, A Month of Sundays!) A Note of Gratitude Some folks will find my thoughts vain or noxious. If so, consider the following: 1) I like Christians so long as no one group of them gains dominance and starts to bother me. The Muslims would have slain me by now, the Confucians might have converted me but I would be meditating instead of obsessing to you in this essay. 2) I would fight shoulder-to-shoulder with Christians to assure that I, and they, continue to practice the thoughts that make greatest sense to each of us. Nonshared environment is a fine thing for anyone... 3) My remarks ignore the variation that exists in fundamentalists. Some of them are genuinely kind for your benefit, not for theirs. They tend, however, to be exploited by some of their own leaders...exploited for money and admiration if not for sex. 4) I hate to be boring. I refuse to be sanctimonious but confess even to fundamentalists: I'm human and belong to a profession that consists of other humans. Aldous Huxley, who wrote the fascinating "Devils of Loudun," commented once and thereafter guided me at many choices: We have all come short of the glory of our own ideals... Stay humble! Stay inquisitive! JimB Copyright James Brody, 2003, all rights reserved.
"The tormenters of the insane have been drawn, in the main, from two professions---the medical and the clerical. To which shall we award the palm? Have clergymen been responsible for more gratuitous suffering than doctors? Or have doctors made up for a certain lack of intensity in their brand of torture (after all, they never went so far as to burn anyone alive for being mad) by its longer duration and the greater number of victims to whom it was applied?" ("Madness, Badness, Sadness. 1943/1958)
Replies:
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.
