In studying a set of 96 Austronesian cultures Professor Watts from the University of Auckland in New Zealand checked for two common sets of religious systems, Moralizing High Gods (MHGs) and beliefs in systems of supernatural punishment (BSPs). They found 6 and 37 fitting into each group respectively, with BSPs helping (though not guaranteeing) the development of societies in higher levels of complexity and MHGs evolving after societies had reached a certain degree of political complexity. The explanation below for this phenomena is taken from the article:
"So what are MHGs for? “They are tools of control used by purveyors of religion to cement their grip on power,” says Pagel. “As soon as you have a large society generating lots of goods and services, this wealth can be put to use by someone who can grab the reins of power. The most immediate way to do this is to align yourself with a supreme deity and then make lists of things people can and cannot do, and these become ‘morals’ when applied to our social behaviour." "
The idea that humans can 'naturalize' these ethical principles, in the form metaphysical systems (like the karma system as mentioned in the article or "accumulated good", both BSPs) or a ruler like entity is not one that's ever crossed me before, but makes a lot of sense when seems as playing a strong stabilization potential for pro-social behaviors in early societies. As these systems follow the need for stability rather than create them, a society can arguably develop other methods to create stability.Such a need was much more important in much earlier societies, as anti-social or self serving behavior could play a massive role is creating conditions that lead to the deterioration of the society as a whole, which could spell famine, civil unrest and disease for the effected social group. Death is usually not on the table for a modern family with a disobedient child or obstructive neighbor, but when living in a environment where one's own survival depends on their crop yield or in a worst case scenario, their neighbor's generosity, such ties played an absolutely vital role in individual survival.
Further, it seems that other, more efficient methods at creating this stability can create degrees of obsolescence in these systems, this is of course speculative, but seems to follow, as their purpose is better met somewhere else. A study by Phil Zuckerman, a Professor of Sociology, titled Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns, examined differences in rates of atheism across different countries and asks this very same question, here's the relevant excerpt:
"What accounts for the staggering differences in rates of non-belief between nations? For instance, why do most nations in Africa, South America, and Southeast Asia contain almost no atheists, while many European nations contain an abundance of non-believers? There are various explanations (Zuckerman, 2004; Paul, 2002; Stark and Finke, 2000; Bruce, 1999). One leading theory comes from Norris and Inglehart (2004), who argue that in societies characterized by plentiful food distribution, excellent public healthcare, and widely accessible housing, religiosity wanes. Conversely, in societies where food and shelter are scarce and life is generally less secure, religious belief is strong. Through an examination of current global statistics on religiosity as they relate to income distribution, economic inequality, welfare expenditures, and basic 19 measurements of lifetime security (such as vulnerability to famines, natural disasters, etc.), Inglehart and Norris (2004) convincingly argue that despite numerous factors possibly relevant for explaining different rates of religiosity world-wide, “the levels of societal and individual security in any society seem to provide the most persuasive and parsimonious explanation” (p.109).iii Of course, there are anomalies, such as Vietnam (81% non-believers in God) and Ireland (4- 5% non-believers in God). But aside from these two exceptions, the correlation between high rates of individual and societal security/well-being and high rates of non-belief in God remains strong."
This hypothesis seems compatible with the views expressed in the Nature article above, and creates a functionalist perspective for the purpose of moralizing religions. It would be interesting to see if this also fits for a belief in a non-moralizing deity or intrinsic sense of non-moral order to the universe. So what do you guys think? Did spirituality as a whole evolve in us to create order, or does it play some other, more complex purpose?
This is a topic that I've often thought about. Although I attended church growing up, I have gradually pulled away from religion as I have found it to be less relevant to me. There is definitely something about religion that correlates with lifetime security and difficulties. For example, in medieval times, religion was almost universally pervasive, probably in part due to the sheer amount of hardship that everyone in society had to endure. Religion also seems to be prevalent among people who have gone through and are recovering from emotional hardships in life. However, on the other end, I remember reading an article somewhere about religion being correlated with the rise of capitalism. Not sure if it's completely true, but apparently as capitalism and standards of living rose in China, Christianity also became more pervasive. Although this could simply be the result of a more open society, there could also be something about the materialism/emptiness of capitalism and having security in life that contributes to the rise of religion.
ReplyDeleteA close examination of the society in the past revealed that, there existed diversities in a wide range of aspects such as religion, foods and customs. However, when the same society is studied further, it shows that there is a sense of universality in the language and religion passed from generation to generation. I ascribe to the idea that human beings are born with conscious which enables them recognize a supernatural being that controls their being. Thus, the reason I strongly oppose the idea that there can never exist a complex society without believes in an all-powerful deity as the atheists claim.
ReplyDeleteWhile I was not raised Catholic, my family is Catholic. I was the first generation not to have religion shoved down my throat. Before I wholly understood it, religion was casted as an indoctrinating tool of manipulation and degradation. However, having engaged with it academically, while I don't feel I have become religious, I have developed a newfound appreciation—both for it what it is and what it is not, and what it can and cannot do. After reading a profoundly interesting book, William Cavanuaugh' "The Myth of Religious Violence," I was able to better conceptualize why and how theorists and people in general are able to so easily blame religion. Cavanaugh debunks the "essentialist" arguments against religion, demonstrating that if religion has an essential, transhistorical character then defining religion should be much easier. He then debunks the "functionalist" arguement, pointing out that if it is what it does, then something like a rave, in which a singular being is able to sway huge crowds in an etherial almost sacral environment, could be considered a "religion." If you consider the arguments the theorists are making above in terms of what you define as religious and what you define as secular it becomes less clear that there is in fact something inherent to religion that makes it any more prone to exploitation than any other institution.
ReplyDelete