What is Religion? Part 6: Stability, Part 2

Today’s Post

Last week we addressed how the actions of the neocortex brain have played out in the invention and evolution of moral communities that extend the cohesiveness of natural communities (such as families) to the level of society at large, enabling the continuing maturation of civilization.

However, even the most casual read of current events shows that such evolution still has a long way to go.  My suggestion that the key aspect of human evolution can be found in the moderating actions of the neocortex brain must be offset with the observation that such actions can work in the opposite direction.  The reasoning power of the human brain is a two-edged sword.

This week’s post will address this other side of the coin.

Religion and Stability?

With all the turmoil in the middle-East, a very common perspective is that the West is ‘at war’ with the religion of Islam.  Add to this the incivility that exists among the many expressions of Christianity, especially as can be seen in this year’s political tumult, and there is a common opinion that religion itself is a perpetual source of conflict within society.

The ‘New Atheists’, represented by such authors as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, are convinced that the future of human evolution requires that the metaphors, mythology and other ‘right brained’, ‘non-scientific’ beliefs of traditional religion become replaced by ‘left brain’, empirical facts which are scientifically and objectively verifiable.  In this way, according to their thinking, the ‘core of violence’ represented by religion can be overcome and the full potential for a mature society can be realized.

While Jonathan Sacks, as summarized last week, points out the unifying and stabilizing aspects of religion in history, he is quick to point out those aspects which work against such noble goals.  While it is clear that humans possess the power to moderate the instinctual stimuli of the lower brains, they also have the capability of using their powers of reason to reinforce such stimuli.

Dualism, Evil and Altruistic Evil

Last week we saw how the influence of religion permitted a bridge between the reciprocal altruism so necessary for the stability of the ‘natural group’ and the trust of strangers so necessary to the stability of the ‘moral group’ which comprises society at large.

Constantly in opposition to this bridge, however, is the dualism that also occurs in this dichotomy between the natural group and the moral group.  ‘We’ are natural members of the natural group, in comfortable relation with our lower brains, but it takes the actions of the neocortex brain in concert with the evolving standards of the culture of our moral group to effect the stability required by civilization.

We are never free of the tendency to see ourselves as ‘we’ and others as ‘they’.  The difficulty of breaking out of this dualism speaks to the concept of ‘evil’ in our lives, and reflects the many aspects of dualism in our ancient beliefs.  Zoroastrianism, for example, saw the universe in perpetual struggle between the god of light and the god of darkness.  Many Greek pantheons reflect this dichotomy, and dualism has even been reflected in the Christian dichotomies of body/soul, this life/the next, God/Satan and perfection/corruption.

While, as Sacks observes, our need for identity and formation of groups may indeed lead to conflict and war, the phenomenon of dualism leads to a deeper level of violence:

“Violence may be possible whenever there is an Us and a Them.  But radical violence emerges only when we see the Us as all-good and the Them as all evil.  That is when altruistic evil is born.”

To get to ‘altruistic evil’, Sacks sees three steps:

  • The ‘other’ must be dehumanized and demonized
  • ‘We” must see ourselves as victims
  • Once the ‘other’ has been demonized and we see ourselves as victims, we can then move on to seeing commission of evil as necessary and justified.

Once the first two steps have been negotiated, the neocortex can finally begin the process of rationalizing the act of evil.  As opposed to being a thoughtful moderation of the instinctual impulses of the reptilian and limbic brains, it has now been co-opted into reinforcing them.

Such reinforcement can actually be pleasurable.  The development of a moral sense in which the neocortex is consistently engaged in the modulation of the stimuli of the lower brains is a learned activity.  The lower brains introduce stimuli (fear, flight/fight) much quicker than the neocortex brain can respond, requiring the discipline of ‘counting to three’ before reacting.  Further, this modulating activity requires an effort.  Being able to rationalize the immediate reaction to the basic stimuli is to ‘remove the leash’, to remove the restrictive step of having to ‘think about the reaction’.

Studies have shown that one of the many efforts necessary to return military combatants to ‘normal’ society involves the reinstatement of this ‘leash’ and the consequent loss of the sense of freedom that came with its absence.

Religion and Duality

Thus, while religion can act as an agent of stabilization in society, bridging the gap between ‘natural’ and ‘moral’ communities by way of learned application of thought to instinct, the human brain is capable of doing the opposite: using thought to reinforce instinct.

The three monotheistic religions insist on a single, personal force at the basis of reality from which all things flow.   By its basic nature, as seeing all things as springing from a single, good source, this belief works against Sacks’ three steps to altruistic evil.  However, even the most casual readings of the three holy books of these religions show traces of the dualism that underlies the three steps.  The observations of the ‘New Atheists’ are not without insight. This speaks powerfully of the underlying ability of the lower brains to affect our lives at the personal and cultural level.

It also reinforces Teilhard’s insights into how human evolution must continue along the ‘axis of complexity’, which in the human is seen as ‘the axis of love’.  In his mind

“The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire.”

The Next Post

Next week I would like to begin wrapping up this segment of the blog with a summary of the first two segments:

October 2014 to May, 2015: Evolution

June 2015 to August, 2015: Science

The post after next will summarize this segment:

September, 2015 to March, 2016: Religion

2 thoughts on “What is Religion? Part 6: Stability, Part 2

  1. Tony Saladino

    Much food for thought, Matt. In a family discussion last night the aspect of duality in religion based on our beliefs came into play. The subject was what our obligation is to others we think are “sinning”. Some of us, based on our interpretation of Scripture, had ideas quite different than others whose beliefs were less aligned with a strict adherence to it. I wish you could have been there to give us your thoughts.

    Reply
    1. matt.landry1@outlook.com Post author

      Yeah, me too. I’ll bet the energy level was pretty high. No simple answers, for sure, but I always go with beliefs “less aligned with strict adherence”. The left and right hemispheres have got to play well together.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *