New Book- How Religion Evolved, and why it endures. published 7th April 2022. By Robin Dunbar- A pelican Book.
My ears pricked up when Dunbar's new book on this subject was recently discussed on the radio. It is a topic I find interesting at many level, and was part of a course I did at university called Ethology.
Ethology, or the study of the evolution of the brain, starts of course many millions of years ago with animal behaviour. How much to animals feel? Elephants are seen to return to visit dead members of their group and caress the corpse. It is felt that they show sadness and mourning. Chimpanzees appear to enjoy the presence of a beautiful sunset. Are these early signs of the metaphysical?
Early signs of religion are seen to burial practices of prehistoric humanoids.
Evolutionary Psychology posits that 'religion' developed along with an awareness and appreciation of time.
Important questions here are:-
1) Did the development of religion actually stimulate the necessity for language?
2) Is a sense of a greater being an 'innate' human characteristic (the so called 'God Gene' theory).
3) Are some people more predisposed to belief than others?
Karl Popper's term for the development of 'fact' from belief is verisilitude. Ironically much of modern evolutionary theory now falls into this category, as the theory of evolution moves from 'theory' to fact.
With the power of hindsight, many strongly held believes, (considered facts at the time) have be consigned to history. Examples are the use of 'blood-letting' which was universally practiced in Europe, linked to the theory of bodily humours, and now given almost zero credence. Another is the theory of Male Supremacy, where it was almost universally believed across Europe that men were stronger in every respect than women. This is largely now completely discredited. A third is the belief in Europe's right to dominate the world. This was believed to be legitimated and sanctioned by God. It is now seen as a complete abuse of power. At the time, the vast majority of people in Europe would have not seen any contradiction to these theories, and indeed, argued that these beliefs were common sense 'fact'.
The development of 'religion' is understood to be pragmatic and functional in that it creates a sense of shared identity. It helps to define a community and stimulates bonds of unity, and separateness. This can be helpful in the context of survival. The belief in the afterlife also can free people from the fear of death (or conversely enforce compliance through the fear of death). Freedom from fear of death enables people to do incredible things, and take great risks, which can help with the development of technology. For example, in the creation of flying machines.
Much of evolutionary theory of religion sees the development of religion as a necessary part of answering 'unanswerable questions, such as where did we come from', are we alone? what is our destiny? is this it? (still relevant questions today?). Feuerbach understood religion as a projection of the collective wonder, unknowing, and desire for goodness from the inner psyche, out to a collective shared understanding of the greater good. This is defined by the systemic interaction between the individual and the community. Difference can threaten the coherence of whole, and needs it's own explanation.
However, my thought, when listening to the Dunbar speak, a Oxford don, is that there is a fundamental difference theorising about Religion and the nature of God when you claim to have a relationship with the Creator. From this perspective everything has a slightly different perspective. As I have remarked before, it reminds me of the metaphor of 'water'. The knowledge we have currently about the nature of water molecules, and the forces that hold them together concludes that the water phase should not exist under normal pressures and temperatures. But we know it does, so we must start from this 'fact'.
For me, believing that my relationship with 'The Creator' is a reality means that all theory must be seen from this perspective. Recently we visited a Oxford college and walked around the ancient quads. There were signs telling us where only members could enter. I thought of Dunbar. His perspective on Oxford University must be different from mine. I look on it as an outsider. There will be a lot we agree on. As an insider, he may also challenge my outsiders observations.
