Christopher Owens
ENGCMP 0200
15 April 2009
Socio-Religious Evolution: The End Behavior of Religion
There is no question that religion has changed since its origin in animism, yet speculation on the myriad possibilities for its future development has generated many interesting arguments. For many, the mere notion that religion is dynamic is arguable, and for others the concept serves as a beacon illuminating that religion, like science, is progressing toward some ultimate truth. This problem may obviously be confronted from various angles, but it seems the most useful perspective on this issue is both psychological and sociological. Psychology entails the individual attitudes toward the simultaneous and often conflicting statements of science and religion, which are eventually reflected in the larger focus of society. Additionally, there is the sociological perspective, which is of higher importance because in comparing the evolution of society with changes in religions, it analyzes the function of religions. From these one can logically speculate that religious beliefs in the West will continue to become more abstract, and conflict less with scientific rationalism by theory of cognitive dissonance, perhaps resembling philosophies of the Eastern tradition. Another rational conclusion is that religion will continue to shift from its roots in collectivism to individualism. The final assumption is that religion will cease to exist, and though this cannot be rigorously demonstrated, it is the visible limit of the sociological argument, the asymptote.
This debate occurs even as science is currently invalidating many of the tenets of major modern religions. For example, the extent of this implication is such that much of the evidence presented is directly contradictory to the widely accepted notion of free will. Acclaimed microbiologist Lee Silver says, “Many people think that free will is the only philosophic alternative to a deterministic view of human mentality. But an understanding of brain biology, quantum mechanics, and chaos theory indicates otherwise […] As a philosophical concept, free will is like an onion whose skin has been completely peeled away: at its core, it ceases to exist” (Silver 59). That is, the causal relationship between physical biology and mental function is inverted from what is oft assumed; metaphorically, evidence indicates our brains are more marionettes than puppeteers. With such scientific support, it is easy to understand how Silver is an (albeit reserved) atheist, and he is not alone. As such information spreads and technology is further developed, there will be a significant change in religious belief. The future global population will naturally progress from creationist beliefs toward a positivist, reductionist outlook, where atheism is the norm and spirituality is unrelated to anything supernatural.
Ironically, many scientists, including Silver, argue that religion may be genetically bound to the human species, asserting that belief in the supernatural may be hardwired into our genetic structure. This would seem to contradict the prediction that humanity could ever be without religion. However, genetic theory alone is not enough to dismiss the argument that religion will continue to change, and in many ways decline because of scientific pluralism. With this pluralism there are multiple rational manners of analyzing problems. Specifically from social psychology, the notion of cognitive dissonance states that it is natural to modify behavior or beliefs to avoid holding contradictory “cognitions” (i.e. thoughts, attitudes, knowledge) and also to modify the cognitions, in addition to temporarily rationalizing such contradictions (Cooper 7). In the first case of modifying behavior in religious scenarios, to have consonance individuals would have the choice of blatantly rejecting truths that can be easily proven by science or avoiding acting on the genetically-bound religious impulse. Also they would have the similar choice of modifying both beliefs, on one hand trying to distort what can be directly experienced (creating more dissonance), or modifying beliefs about religion until compatible with what is experienced. Notice that in all of these scenarios, religion is modified to remove dissonance, and in the situation in which science is rejected, not only is there more internal cognitive dissonance, but also the negative reaction of a collectively rational society. Religion, like hunger, sexuality and aggression, may be a genetically rooted compulsion that is ultimately controlled by society. Thus a genetic predisposition to religiosity does not necessarily indicate that individuals will reflect this in their behavior and those that do will likely minimize dissonance by satisfying religiosity in abstract or spiritual ways that do not contradict science.
To continue this argument, the concept of religion being dynamic requires reinforcement. Religion has changed and is presumably still changing in the present, yet this concept remains somewhat controversial. Past changes will be easily demonstrated, but future development can realistically only be theorized if one accepts the notion that he or she exists within a system that has previously changed significantly and continuously. The earliest mythical story across most of the continents, the mother-earth type, was the focus of agricultural and gathering communities. In this period, societies were, if not technically matriarchal, matrifocal, emphasizing the stereotypically feminine attributes of farm life. Additionally, fertility and the moments of birth were especially sacred as life was easily lost at this point in history, giving the process of pregnancy and birth, the creation of life, a high value (Lundskow 58). After this period, more competitive cultures developed and militaristic societies with aggressive and warring gods were largely successful. Having traditionally masculine societal characteristics, male gods effectively replaced the previously Gaia-type goddesses. The corresponding aim for humanity changed also, corroboration for a causal system, “this transition and its attendant beliefs reflect a new orientation to the natural world in that humans are no longer continuous with nature, but rather, are able to intentionally utilize the environment according to human design” (62).
Additionally this period was the beginning of true polytheism, as understanding of concepts of earth and sky began to be specialized into the specific attributes that composed them. This was again of societal benefit, those with specific knowledge of these things would obviously were at advantage compared with those that did not and this was reflected in the large-scale of religious details. Once again religion’s sociological function is obvious. The Titans of Greco-Roman mythology are the paradigm of this first generation of polytheistic deities. While there are several deities, all corresponding to the natural, they rest on an equal plane- none exerts command over any other. However, this would change, and yet another aspect of the ever more sophisticated human life would be included. Finding the Titans insufficient, the Pantheon was created, and along with it the very human concept of hierarchy was instilled in the gods (65). Thus in a few thousand years there was a definite shift from cooperative and matrifocal society to hierarchical and patriarchal society and the religions of these societies can be ultimately described as adaptive, changing with the sociological evolution of man.
The next significant development in religion from a sociological perspective is the development of monotheistic religion. As humanity progressed and developed more scientifically and technologically, there was correspondingly less mystery involving the natural, proportionally more ethical dilemma, and the same remaining existential questions. Rather than mere survival people needed purpose, needed meaning for their lives. On this subject, sociologist Peter Berger posed four “Existential Imperatives” that must be satisfied by any modern religion. According to Berger, religions must satisfy the questions: “Who am I?” “Why am I here?” “How should I live?” and “What happens when I die?” included in a concept he deemed the “nomos,” which ultimately provides meaning to both individual and society (7). Every monotheistic religion involves an all-powerful figure with a plan for humanity, revealed or mysterious, which obviously satisfies the “Existential Imperatives.” The first monotheistic religion, Zoroasterism, introduces the concepts of absolute good and evil, which would remain in the later Judaism and in the currently popular Christianity (70). Also emphasized is the tenet of faith, its presence or lack thereof rewarded or punished by a positive or negative afterlife.
Monotheistic religion clearly satisfies voids that currently lay outside the boundary of today’s science, but for how long? How long until society rejects all claims of anything supernatural and matures into something more sophisticated? According to Silver, approximately 90 percent of Americans currently believe in a higher power and 84 percent believe in an afterlife, yet the percentages for those educated in science are markedly lower (Silver 29). Again there is an obvious correlation between the level of education in science and religiosity. There is more evidence to speculate that the concepts of science and the notions of religion are mutually exclusive, that the information given by the two are conflicting. As progressively more people are exposed to commonly assumed scientific truths, the number of people that believe in godly power will presumably decline over time.
In fact, several acclaimed sociologists adopted this view that secularization and modernization (the internal secularization and rationalization of religion) would contribute to religious decline. Here begin the modern changes in religious systems. “O’Dea suggests that secularization consists of two related transformations in human thinking: ‘the desacralization of the attitude of persons and things […] and the rationalization of thought’ ” (Roberts 306). Moreover, this process also entails a shift from religion being a primarily collective to a primarily individual matter. Thomas O’Dea concluded that religion would decline in part because of the attempted rationalization of religion, positing that this would put religion in direct competition with science.
In his now classic analysis, The Protestant Ethic, one of the founders of sociology, Max Weber, corroborates this point with the ideal and relatively modern example of ascetic Protestantism (Puritanism). Ascetic Protestantism originally motivated people to work and save via religious doctrine; according to Weber, “the religious valuation of the restless, continous, systematic work in a worldly calling, as the highest means to ascetism, and at the same time the surest and most evident proof of rebirth and genuine faith, must have been the most powerful conceivable lever for the expansion of that attitude toward life which we here have called the spirit of capitalism” (Weber 172). The religion, though functionally conservative capitalist, still held God as the primary reason for such actions. However, he noticed that with social change “the intensity of the search for the Kingdom of God commenced to gradually pass over into sober economic virtue; the religious roots died out slowly, giving way to utilitarian worldliness” (176). The distinctive aspect of Puritanism evolved from roots of self-deprivation to a more general religious morality and finally into a both generalized and secularized work ethic as society moved from mercantilism to Industrialization and as capitalism developed (Lundskow 26). The rationalization of Puritanism is but one of many convincing arguments of the inverse relationship between religion and secularization.
There are additional changes marking the rationalization of religion. O’Dea argues that theology only becomes rationalized and systematic with the development of professional clergy (Roberts 307). In many modern religions, these groups of religious elite rationalize and systemize the various beliefs for internal coherence and consistency. O’Dea also demonstrates that sects without professional clergy have not significantly rationalized their doctrine, using the Mormon church as an example (307). Furthermore, Western culture is statistically moving away from religion as it had been practiced, and is arguably practicing religion less overall. “Although there is more to religious belief and practice than participation in organized religion […] the collective expression of religion in the [West] still means attendance at weekend religious services,” according to Mark Chaves and Laura Stevens (Dillon 85). Though it is not a direct comparison, this value is obviously important in estimating religiosity in popular Western religions (i.e. there remains a correlation). Self-reported percentages show that approximately 38% of Americans attend church weekly, but statistical analysis showed attendance was only approximately half this figure (87). In Canada, attendance rates have plummeted as Canadians have begun to “compartmetalize” religion. “A majority of Canadians appear to engage in ‘religion a la carte’ – a belief here, a practice there,” and though this does not mean they have stopped religion it does represent a decline in potency (Roberts 315). Religion has largely changed from its collective, institutionalized roots to an almost completely personal endeavor for many.
Within recent history, Christianity has transformed from widely accepting a literal interpretation of the Bible to a more modest metaphorical interpretation after many events were proven to be scientifically inaccurate. According to the National Opinion Research Center’s 2006 General Social Survey, since 1984 the number of people that believe the Bible is literal have noticeably declined and the number of people that believe it is merely “an ancient book of fables, legends, history and moral precepts recorded by men” have increased somewhat (The Association of Religion Data Archives). Specifically within Catholicism the Pope accepted the validity of Darwin’s Theory of Continuous Evolution in a desperate attempt to incorporate science into the faith. However, the Pope refused to bend on the key concepts of Christianity, though these have been shown to be equally scientifically impossible as other parables (Silver 29).
Additionally, at some point in every generation, there exists an anomaly in the development of religion towards the more abstract, a “fundamentalist” movement attempting to move back towards older ways in a reactionary fashion. A scientific rationalist would argue, “the fundamentalist is an extremely anxious conservative, who attempts to restore a past social-cultural-religious reality in opposition to processes which have already rocked if not wrecked that reality” (O’Dea 107). However the existence of these groups at the beginning of both the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have not truly altered the progress towards abstract notions of religion or secularization and the corresponding decline of religion. Another anomaly, New Age religions, also have not significantly impacted the major trend, but are largely the reflection of the will to choose one’s own religion, strengthening the argument of individualism. In fact, many of these “designer religions” merely reflect the change of religion from an explanatory device to an item of the economic market to be consumed. People in many of these and more mainstream religions are attempting to find value via conspicuous consumption of their chosen religion, in the mold of Thorstein Veblen.
Notice that in the past, newer orders of religious thought have always displaced older, less explanative and most importantly less sociologically functional ones. Future steps in global societal evolution will no longer require religiosity at all, as humanity is sufficiently advanced to explain any natural phenomena rationally, and many questions about afterlife, free will and soul seemingly have been diffused. While humanity’s genetic code may imprint a tendency toward religion, it is clear that religion in the future holds no sociological function, thus it will be unnecessary even if shadows of spirituality subsist. Regardless if this is the case, religion as we know it will be fundamentally a different concept.
The Association of Religion Data Archives. 15 April 2009.
Cooper, Joel. Cognitive Dissonance: 50 Years of a Classic Theory. Los Angeles, California: SAGE Publications, 2007.
Dillon, Michele. The Handbook of the Sociology of Religion. New York, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Lundskow, George. The Sociology of Religion: A Substantive and Transdisciplinary Approach. Los Angeles, California: Pine Forge Press, 2008.
O’Dea, Thomas F. The Sociology of Religion. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc, 1966.
Roberts, Keith A. Religion in Sociological Perspective. Belmont, California: The Wadsworth Publishing Inc, 1990.
Silver, Lee M. Challenging Nature: The Clash Between Biotechnology and Spirituality. New York, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006.
Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1958.
No comments:
Post a Comment