Rabbi Sacks (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, December 31, 2012, 15:17 (4137 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The Lord Rabbi of Britain explains why religion survives:-http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/24/opinion/the-moral-animal.html?nl=todaysheadlines&...-(I have taken the liberty of correcting the spelling of his name on all posts: he is Sacks not Sachs.)
 
An article that I find more interesting for what it doesn't say than for what it does.-"Superpowers tend to last a century; the great faiths last millenniums. The question is why. 
Darwin himself suggested what is almost certainly the correct answer. He was puzzled by a phenomenon that seemed to contradict his most basic thesis, that natural selection should favor the ruthless. Altruists, who risk their lives for others, should therefore usually die before passing on their genes to the next generation. Yet all societies value altruism, and something similar can be found among social animals, from chimpanzees to dolphins to leafcutter ants. 
Neuroscientists have shown how this works. We have mirror neurons that lead us to feel pain when we see others suffering. We are hard-wired for empathy. We are moral animals.[...] It reconfigures our neural pathways, turning altruism into instinct, through the rituals we perform, the texts we read and the prayers we pray."-Natural selection favours whatever helps a species to survive. Other social animals do not require rituals, texts or prayers, and for them altruism is already an instinct. Most rituals, texts and prayers have nothing whatsoever to do with altruism: the individual is taught to worship his gods and tell them how wonderful they are, to ask for forgiveness for sins, to send rain, daily bread, deliverance from evil etc. Love thy neighbour is just one of many precepts laid down by religions, and this is sometimes with the proviso that thy neighbour should worship the same god as you, and if he doesn't it's perfectly OK to wage war on him. Sacks has already shown that altruism is not the invention of religion, and yes, some of us are moral animals and some of us are immoral animals, and no doubt that was the case when we were living in caves.-Sacks may be right when he says: "It remains the most powerful community builder the world has known." However, the first major omission in his thesis is highlighted by the next passage: "Religion binds individuals into groups through habits of altruism, creating relationships of trust strong enough to defeat destructive emotions." Has there ever been a more divisive force than religion? It does indeed build communities, and all too frequently these have created and still create conflict: for instance, Christian and Muslim sects at war with themselves and with one another. For all their faults, I do not recall Messrs Harris, Dawkins or Hitchens ever once calling upon their followers to go forth and kill the "fidel".-"Mr. Putnam's research showed that frequent church- or synagogue-goers were more likely to give money to charity, do volunteer work, help the homeless, donate blood, help a neighbor with housework, spend time with someone who was feeling depressed, offer a seat to a stranger or help someone find a job. Religiosity as measured by church or synagogue attendance is, he found, a better predictor of altruism than education, age, income, gender or race."-I can believe this, and I would not wish in any way to downgrade the positive effects that religion undoubtedly has. A sense of community, especially one which emphasizes altruism, can be immensely beneficial to all concerned, but this is where we come to the second major omission. None of this has the slightest relevance to our search for truth. Humans need religion, just as they need fiction, just as they need myth, just as they need prostitution, just as they need food and clothing and shelter. All of these have outlasted superpowers, and have gone on unchanged for millennia. In the case of religion, the answer to the question "why" is that we humans are conscious beings, aware of our unexplained origins, our environment and our insecurity; many of us would like explanations and reassurances, and religion gives us both. It may be based on truths of some kind. It may not. But whether it is or it isn't, it serves a useful purpose, and that is the main criterion used by natural selection.-"Religion is the best antidote to the individualism of the consumer age. The idea that society can do without it flies in the face of history and, now, evolutionary biology. This may go to show that God has a sense of humor. It certainly shows that the free societies of the West must never lose their sense of God."-Which religion? The monotheistic religions have proved throughout the centuries that they are not only incapable of countering individualism, but that in many cases they actively encourage it (kill an infidel and earn yourself 1000 virgins; trust in Jesus and you will be saved). Although I agree that society can't do without religion, that does not mean that God exists (let alone that he has a sense of humour), or that religion is always a good thing. I would be far happier if Rabbi Sacks had ended by saying that the so-called "free" societies of the West must never lose their sense of altruism.