First of all I have to raise up my hand and admit that I haven’t actually read The Faith Instinct by Nicholas Wade. I’ve merely read a review in The Economist. However, this paragraph in the review got me thinking:
“Mr Wade is convinced that a Darwinian approach offers the key to understanding religion. In other words, he sides with those who think man’s propensity for religion has some adaptive function. According to his view, faith would not have persisted over thousands of generations if it had not helped the human race to survive.”
In other, other, words, Wade is of the view that group evolution is going on as well as at the level of the individual. This is very ironic as the groups he refers to tend to deny evolution goes on at any level.
But let’s return to the idea and ask ourselves what contribution religions – religious based groups – might play in terms of selection. Surely the implication is that religions, if they do indeed have a role to play in selection, are designed to compete with each other – are designed to outdo each other. In short, religions may, indeed, be designed to destroy each other. Because that, surely, is the basis of selection i.e. survival of the fittest. That’s quite a compelling idea.
There might be some basis of truth in Wade’s argument. At a biological level it is not hard to see parallels with human religious groups. Ants have a Presbyterian approach to social order. Ditto communities of bees or shoals of fish. There is an inherent advantage to social order in terms of competing with the environment and other preditors in claiming scarce resources.
But let me now change direction slightly and focus on the local manifestation of religion where religions have become intwined with politics. Here we have a supra-manifestation of religion that is ingrained not just in our society’s weekend church attendance – but also in terms of our social fabric. We have a legislative assembly that insists that its members declare themselves as one religion or the other: Catholic/Irish Nationalist or Protestant/British Nationalist. Our media systematically reminds us of our socially divided structure. The names of our children marks them as being from one tribe or another. Our political leaders are steeped in one culture or another. And the dominant political debate is about one ‘side’ gaining high ground over the other based on pseudo-moralistic posturing.
However, here’s the good news for Christmas. I’m not sure Wade is right. Because, as I’ve said before, I don’t believe that people are born sectarian. Rather people are artificially pushed into groups and sometimes they just don’t appreciate being pushed. Sometimes the innate basis of selection kicks in i.e. basic human intelligence allows people to define themselves in ways that the groups cannot articulate.
That’s why, increasingly, ours is a peacful society. That’s why people tend to get on with each other because mutual respect, at a basic, atavistic, genetic level prevails. People are able to define themselves on the basis of their mutual humanity rather than on the basis of the perverted social ‘norms’ of religion.
This last year this island started the process of ridding itself of at least some of the shackles of religion. The state-sponsored paedophilia of the Republic of Ireland has shaken Catholic Irish society to the bones and has caused people to question the very basis of their adherence to absurb religious ‘teaching’ and authority. There are calls for greater secularisation of the Irish state and perhaps some of these calls might start ringing in the ears of our so-called political leaders here in Northern Ireland (who are, frankly, little more than Church elders).
Wade is wrong, in my view. I’m with Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker. Faith is a useless by-product of human imperfection. But ethics, altruism and decency – these are the wonderful by-products of our intelligence.
Why are you so anti Christian?
I’m not anti-Christian. People are entitled to their beliefs. I just believe that religion should reside in the private domain and that church and state should be separated. What do you think Damien? You ask me many questions but don’t give your own opinions.
Catholic Ireland has been secularizing at an ever increasing pace since 1962. Most of that change was a result of reforms implemented in the Church itself (the fallout from the Second Vatican Council), combined with the worldwide 60s cultural and social revolution that took a very intolerant attitude towards the remaining vestiges of the ancien regime. As James S. Donnelly concludes (A Church in Crisis: The Irish Catholic Church Today, History Ireland, Vol. 8, No. 3, The Catholic Church through the Ages (Autumn, 2000), pp. 12-17) by the time Pope John Paul II visited Ireland in 1979, he was visiting an Ireland where the population (especially those under 40) had already become fairly secularized and radicalized, especially in social attitudes and this was beginning to be reflected in legislation (contraception in Ireland was legalized only 6 years after laique France, where it had been denounced to cries of “race suicide”).
You may, or may not, be interested in the conclusions of the Campaign to Seperate Church and State (linked to the old British & Irish Communist Organization – with which you seem to share many similar views, especially on electoral representation by mainland parties)
http://www.atholbooks.org/magazines/cands/secularism.php
They also conclude:
http://www.atholbooks.org/magazines/cands/angelusfolder/angelus.php
“1. Church & State—the magazine and the Campaign— pioneered the pushing back of the Catholic Church from secular areas of social life on which it had encroached.
We succeeded beyond expectations. Though there are still loose ends to be tidied up, we believe that anyone who would now argue that the Catholic Church dominates the public life of Ireland is not living in the real world.
It is plainly evident that secular liberalism, with a post-Catholic flavour, is the dominant ideology in Ireland. In this respect the country bears comparison with many countries in Europe.
There is nothing to be gained by attributing to the Catholic Church a control and influence which it no longer exercises.”
I’d tend to agree that there has been secularization in the Republic. This is to be applauded. Hope it continues. However, when legislation is proposed for Northern Ireland to bring it into line with the rest of the UK – such as the extension of the Abortion Act – it is resisted on the basis of local political parties’ reference to their religion defined morals rather than rational argument. In short religion has a strangle-hold on Northern Ireland’s political and civil society.
The old mainstream Protestant churches have been declining since the World Wars. Nondenominational evangelical churches, which are invariably more conservative in social and doctrinal attitudes (though not as political) are increasingly benefitting from the haemorrhaging of the staid CoI and the PCI.
Let’s hope our post-religious world will be as great as you expect it to be, Jeff. I am nowhere near as optimistic.
I’m not so naive to think that there will ever be a post-religious world. However political power blocs defined on the basis of faith are getting us nowhere.
I’m hopeful so some degree. I do sense that people recognise that a new political discourse is required that is not defined on the basis of tribal positions.
As for churches declining – well polling data suggests that Northern Ireland has a much greater proportion of active church-goers than other parts of the UK – but that, overall, church attendance is declining. The problem is that our political structures are not keeping up. Adaptation is happening – but not fast enough. In my own humble way I’m trying to encourage it happen sooner rather than later.
My reason for wanting the British parties to properly organise here is based on my belief that this will be the greatest impetus towards secularisation. The reason I prefer British rule over Irish is that I consider the United Kingdom to be a largely secular state. It’s not prefect – and I’d like to see the disestablishment of the Anglican Church. But, in my view, the United Kingdom is one of the greatest pluralist democracies.
Jeff, may I ask which variety of secularism you feel more affinity with : the more ‘negative’ French version or the more ‘positive’ American version? What attitude would you take to public funding given to churches* for heritage and historical purposes?
*http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2009/12/cathedrals-need-100-million-says-english-heritage-after-stopping-funding.html
Neither to be honest. American secularism is a sham. French secularism is too assertive and alienating. I like British secularism. That’s why I get nervous when David Cameron does Songs of Praise and Tony Blair does God. British secularism can be improved. That’s the version I like.
Re. public funding for churches, Shane, I don’t think there should be any. But I do think that the State may have to weigh in from time to time save wonderful buildings that have architectural merit. However, in times of austerity it’s hardly a priority.
The case of of Christian grandmother Pauline Howe questioned becaused she objected to gay pride parade calling it it an offence to god and Lilian Ladele sacked for not conducting same sex civil partnerships. You might not agree entirely with them but who are the PC brigade to tell people what to think?
Human beings were social animals long before they held their first religious beliefs. Humans also lived in groups or tribes long before religion. T too have not read Wade’s book but if there was such a thing as group evolution, it is hard to think of religion’s place in it as being anything more than incidental.
I can see how religion might have played a part in Human Evolution. A belief in a Deity could give people psychological strength and a feeling of emotional security which could have played a crucial part in survival at various times.
There is also a school of thought that the human brain is hard-wired towards a belief in God and the supernatural world. My gut feeling is that this is right. I do not know many atheists but those that I am aquainted with just happen to be towering with emotional and intellectual strength. Perhaps it takes that type of strength to overcome this apparent hard-wiring obstacle and reach an atheist belief system.
Jeff, thanks for your replies.
I agree with Seymour that humans are social beings. I don’t think religion is a purely private matter because it has all sorts of social dimensions. William Wilberforce championed the abolition of slavery in the British Empire against powerful merchant interests out of the inspiration of his Christian faith, likewise with several popes [Perhaps there's no need to mention St Patrick's role in ending slavery in Ireland]. Religions certainly should be allowed to articulate their voice in the political sphere, to deny this would be to risk being like those French secularists who argued against women suffrage because French ladies might vote avec les pretres (Pope Benedict XV had urged in Italy for women to be given the right to vote, Italy refused to fully concede until 1946). To the great annoyance of the various warmongers, who believed the Church should stick purely to “religious” matters, Pope Benedict XV ‘interfered’ enormously during WW1 and by helping World War I refugees, the povery-striken and POWs left the Vatican in virtually bankruptcy (there was hardly any money left for his funeral). His successor, Pius XI, was equally interfering in Nazi Germany, ordering the secret distribution of his anti-racist anti-Nazi encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge, resulting in the savage persecution of Catholics, the ‘outright repression’ of the Church, and the imprisonment of priests. Much of Mit Brennender Sorge was written by Cardinal Pacelli, later Pope Pius XII, who was widely lauded for his role in helping Jews and of whom the Chief Rabbi of Ireland, Rabbi Herzog (whose son was the sixth President of Israel) said: “The people of Israel will never forget what His Holiness and his illustrious delegates are doing for our unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history, which is living proof of Divine Providence in this world.”
Most pro-lifers oppose abortion, rightly or wrongly, because they believe that the unborn has the right to life. This may or may not be founded on a religious rationale. Pro-lifers are to be found professing differing faiths and none, but Christian churches have a long history of opposition to abortion. From the earliest times, Catholics were noted because they did not practice abortion and did not expose unwanted children, which was common in Roman times. Catholicism was historically revolutionary in amelioting the plight of the poor.
Shane, I have no intention of taking issue with your highly summarising version of the merits of religion or various popes. However, your synthesis illustrates perfectly what Karl Popper referred to as the poverty of historicism. There have been good people, throughout history. Some have had religious faith. Many haven’t. I would never suggest that people of faith are generally bad or generally good. Similarly, there have been wonderful atheist humanists – as well as a fanatical ‘secularists’. Religion is simply one type of belief system. There are other forms of belief system that result in de-humanising outcomes. However, leaders of people who place the primacy of common human decency above their belief systems (like the Rev Martin Luther King) deserve our unwavering respect. But I must admit that popes don’t immediately spring to mind when I think altruism. Merry Christmas.