From: ingles@robin.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Is religion necessary for a moral society?
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 14:39:20 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor


In article <1992Apr8.133733.11066@mercury.unt.edu>, jackson@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Bruce Jackson(sysadm)) writes:
> >In article <2APR199217093163@jane.uh.edu> cosc143u@jane.uh.edu
> (91F9774) writes:
> 
> >>I recently read Flannery O'Connors "A good man is hard to find."  In it she
> >>has the the main villain present the case that without belief in jesus there
> >>is no point in being decent to anyone else.  Since there is no definite
> >>promise of a big reward for living in a kind fashion, you should take
> >>advantage whenever you can.  If you can get away with killing someone
> >>and it is to your benefit, Then you do it.  Obviously, it is written
> >>from a pretty small point of view 

 Well, the FAQ file #3 covers this fairly well... Common sense
and empathy are enough to keep most atheists from going on
killing sprees.

> [material by cosc143u deleted]
> 
> In article <4321@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk> martin@pharaoh.cyborg.bt.co.uk
> (Martin Gorman) writes:
> 
> >It's the other way round. 
> >A christian (like those in armies fighting with "god on their side")
> >believes that he can kill as many people as he likes provided that
> >god approves or he repents and believes in Jesus.
> 
> wrt wars, nearly every soldier believes that "God is on their side"
> My what a good tool religion for sending people to fight and die.

 Well, now, to be fair, it seems to me that religion acts as a
*catalyst* for war (making it easier to convince a group to go
to war, etc.) but not always as a cause. The Crusades were also
about getting plunder and a little about relieving population
pressure (agriculture was bad back then) and a lot about the
'glory of combat,' etc., etc. But I don't think those reasons
*alone* would have been enough to spark a war. Religion was a
prime mover.

> >An atheist doesn't go round killing people because he has human
> >compassion and empathy and knows that cooperation is essential
> >to the successful functioning of society. And the cops help a
> >little.
> 
> In general atheists do act morally out of a sense of compassion for
> their fellow man.  However, atheists are a small segment of society.
> 
> Is religious belief necessary for a moral society.  Note that I am
> asking about a society in general not at the individual level.
> Would people in general be moral for sublime reasons if they did
> not fear the wrath of their diety?
> 
> Since belief in some sort of religion is almost universal it is
> possible that the cohesion of some sort of religion is necesary
> for a society's survival.  From the evolutionary point of view,
> do religions evolve in such a way that they hold together the
> societies that produce believers?  From the same evolutionary
> point of view would the relationship of religion to society be
> parasitic or symbiotic?
> 
>        Bruce Jackson

 I think, if you want to think about religion in an 'evolutionary'
sense, we have to introduce the concept of a 'meme.'
 In some views of evolution, what really reproduces is not the
organism but the organisms *genes.* The organism itself is a
'survival machine,' a way for genes to make more genes. You
could think of it as 'A chicken is an egg's way of making more
eggs.'
 Some people regard ideas, nowadays, as reproducers, and they call
a single idea a 'meme.' A group of related ideas would be termed
a 'meme package.' For example, the Christian religion is a 'meme
package' formed by a 'mutation' of the Jewish 'meme package.'
 An 'urban legend' would be an example of a 'parasitic' meme. Such
legends 'evolve' to be shocking, and memorable, and intriguing,
so that they can be spread. Mind you, there's no actual inteligence
guiding this; any more than a specific gene 'tries' to get itself
copied. It's just a convenient metaphor.
 An urban legend is a fairly benign parasite; a hysterical rumor
or a superstition is a bit worse. The superstition might make you
waste some salt throwing it over your shoulder. This is not a big
waste; but then, most minor superstitions 'survive' by being mostly
innocuous.
 Superstitions and propaganda are evolved to *seem* true, not to
*be* true. I.e. they are meant to sound convincing, regardless of
their actual truth. Half-truths are best for this sort of thing.
 The scientific method evolves things to *be* true and not just
*seem* true. This is why Quantum Mechanics seems so weird. It works,
but it's quite counterintuitive because we weren't evolved to deal
with phenomena on the nuclear scale. (Mind you, I'm not saying QM
*is* true... it's just *closer* to true than our intuitions.)
 Scientific ideas, then, are in a way symbionts. They are spread
becuase they work, and provide value to their adherents/'hosts.'
 I believe that religions are parasites, ideas evolved over thousands
of years to seem convicing and true so they could be spread. Some
religions aren't terribly convincing; they die out or never spread
in the first place. Some religions are relatively uncomplicated,
others loaded with complex theologies. All are various methods of
ensuring 'reproduction.'
 Older religions generally were not worried about getting converts;
they have been mostly supplanted (in Western and Near Eastern
circles) by religions which are more evangelical; more 'virulent,'
one might say.
 I think that one reason religions have survived this long is
because they used to provide the very social cohesion mentioned;
So, in a sense, they *were* symbiotic. I think that by now they
are unneeded, and so are gradually dying out where better means
are available. (Not ethe increasing secularization of Western
society.) There is, of course, a backlash against this; the
religious 'ecology' is threatened and more virulent forms are
emerging.
 I think creationism is an example. It is a 'meme' that is taking
advantage of a new ecological niche; some people feel a cognitive
dissonance between their literalist belifs and evolution, and this
'creationism' meme package, with all its varieties, 'patches up the
holes,' so to speak.
 Oh, well, this is long enough as it is; lets see what sort of
comments this draws...

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles   ingles@engin.umich.edu
 "The meek can *have* the Earth. The rest of us are going to
the stars!" - Robert Heinlein
--

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@caen.engin.umich.edu || Michigan. Yet.