Religion and Politics #1: Origin Stories
One view of religions is that they are very good memes, ideas that are very good at spreading themselves. If you agree with this view, then it is correct to conclude that religions should probably be gotten rid of. (Note that in this view, we’re not bothered by what specific harm it causes; rather, the conclusion is drawn as there is no benefit and either a small or a high cost to the host/believer).
But what if that
view isn’t right, wonders Jonathan Haidt in The Righteous Mind. What if religions evolved as “cultural
innovations that spread to the extent that they make groups more cohesive and
cooperative”? In this view, the “purpose” of religion was to persuade
individuals to be less selfish, to convince them to work as groups with all the
associated benefits and sacrifices. The gods “can be used to promote cooperation
and trust within the group”. In such a setup:
“The
gods of larger societies are usually quiet concerned about actions that foment
conflict and division within the group, such as murder, adultery… and the
breaking of oaths.”
This view would
explain why the “old” gods would often inflict punishment on entire groups for
the sins of a few, as Bill Watterson pointed out. It acted as a good deterrent,
a way to nip bad behaviour early since others did not want to burn or die
because of a few bad apples…
If this doesn’t
sound convincing, consider the alternative. How easy is it for a secular call
for sacrifice to work? Wouldn’t it just cause each individual to do a
cost-benefit analysis, and lead to a lack of doing what’s good for the group?
“To
invest social conventions with sanctity is to hide their arbitrariness in a
cloak of seeming necessity… Sacredness binds people together, and then blinds
them to the arbitrariness of the practice.”
Some good points certainly, though I also felt it only explains Semitic religions, not the Eastern ones…
Comments
Post a Comment