It is the religious time of the year. Step into any city in America or Britain and you will see the night sky lit by religious symbols, Christmas decorations certainly and probably also a giant menorah. Religion in the West seems alive and well.
But is it really? Or have these symbols been emptied of content, no more than a glittering backdrop to the West’s newest faith, consumerism, and its secular cathedrals, shopping malls?
At first glance, religion is in decline. In Britain, the results of the 2011 national census have just been published. They show that a quarter of the population claims to have no religion, almost double the figure 10 years ago. And though the United States remains the most religious country in the West, 20 percent declare themselves without religious affiliation — double the number a generation ago.
Looked at another way, though, the figures tell a different story. Since the 18th century, many Western intellectuals have predicted religion’s imminent demise. Yet after a series of withering attacks, most recently by the new atheists, including Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens, still in Britain three in four people, and in America four in five, declare allegiance to a religious faith. That, in an age of science, is what is truly surprising.
The irony is that many of the new atheists are followers of Charles Darwin. We are what we are, they say, because it has allowed us to survive and pass on our genes to the next generation. Our biological and cultural makeup constitutes our “adaptive fitness.” Yet religion is the greatest survivor of them all. Superpowers tend to last a century; the great faiths last millenniums. The question is why.
Darwin himself suggested what is almost certainly the correct answer. He was puzzled by a phenomenon that seemed to contradict his most basic thesis, that natural selection should favor the ruthless. Altruists, who risk their lives for others, should therefore usually die before passing on their genes to the next generation. Yet all societies value altruism, and something similar can be found among social animals, from chimpanzees to dolphins to leafcutter ants.
Neuroscientists have shown how this works. We have mirror neurons that lead us to feel pain when we see others suffering. We are hard-wired for empathy. We are moral animals.
The precise implications of Darwin’s answer are still being debated by his disciples — Harvard’s E. O. Wilson in one corner, Oxford’s Richard Dawkins in the other. To put it at its simplest, we hand on our genes as individuals but we survive as members of groups, and groups can exist only when individuals act not solely for their own advantage but for the sake of the group as a whole. Our unique advantage is that we form larger and more complex groups than any other life-form.
A result is that we have two patterns of reaction in the brain, one focusing on potential danger to us as individuals, the other, located in the prefrontal cortex, taking a more considered view of the consequences of our actions for us and others. The first is immediate, instinctive and emotive. The second is reflective and rational. We are caught, in the psychologist Daniel Kahneman’s phrase, between thinking fast and slow.
The fast track helps us survive, but it can also lead us to acts that are impulsive and destructive. The slow track leads us to more considered behavior, but it is often overridden in the heat of the moment. We are sinners and saints, egotists and altruists, exactly as the prophets and philosophers have long maintained.
If this is so, we are in a position to understand why religion helped us survive in the past — and why we will need it in the future. It strengthens and speeds up the slow track. It reconfigures our neural pathways, turning altruism into instinct, through the rituals we perform, the texts we read and the prayers we pray. It remains the most powerful community builder the world has known. Religion binds individuals into groups through habits of altruism, creating relationships of trust strong enough to defeat destructive emotions. Far from refuting religion, the Neo-Darwinists have helped us understand why it matters.
No one has shown this more elegantly than the political scientist Robert D. Putnam. In the 1990s he became famous for the phrase “bowling alone”: more people were going bowling, but fewer were joining bowling teams. Individualism was slowly destroying our capacity to form groups. A decade later, in his book “American Grace,” he showed that there was one place where social capital could still be found: religious communities.
Mr. Putnam’s research showed that frequent church- or synagogue-goers were more likely to give money to charity, do volunteer work, help the homeless, donate blood, help a neighbor with housework, spend time with someone who was feeling depressed, offer a seat to a stranger or help someone find a job. Religiosity as measured by church or synagogue attendance is, he found, a better predictor of altruism than education, age, income, gender or race.
Religion is the best antidote to the individualism of the consumer age. The idea that society can do without it flies in the face of history and, now, evolutionary biology. This may go to show that God has a sense of humor. It certainly shows that the free societies of the West must never lose their sense of God.
One of the best articles I have ever read in my lifetime !
Brooklyn ny. 54 years old.
We can be so grateful that the Misterious Creator of all never loose sight of any free society on planet earth. It is my humble opinion that the Creator is not dependent on any human invention or group or society to complete the Universal Master plan. The Creator does however allow all human beings total freedom of choice without any coercion from Above.
A great article synthesizing scientific, philosophical and theological knowledge into a conceptual ‘cord of three strands that is not quickly broken’ (Ecclesiastes 4:12).
Great article and wonderful commests
I will truly miss him when her retires.
At least once a year Lord Sacks will read Genesis Chapter 11. Does he not reflect on the fact that this tells us that his God has decreed that peoples/groups/tribes are condemned to perpetual strife. We have advanced from worrying about individual survival to being concerned about survival of our group. History shows that this happens at the expense of other groups.
At every Jewish wedding (apart from my own) my impression is that the Rabbis emphasised the importance of keeping up kashrut. This is a practice designed to keep our tribe from contact with our neighbours. Christianity and Islam are examples of 2 faiths which appear to bribe their followers into acts of altruism by offering great rewards in the afterlife. Atheists who act altruistically can be considered morally superior to those whose faith offers them bribes. This rise in the number of atheists is to be celebrated. People will be free to mix with those who reflect their personal values, rather than with those who follow the same rituals.
‘This is a practice designed to keep our tribe from contact with our neighbours’
Hi Natalie – I disagree with you. The commandment was made for health reasons – forbidden animals were at the time, infected with parasites. The result of this practice was that observant Jews would not eat non-kosher foods and this kept ‘our tribe from contact with our neighbours’. A Jewish community ceases to be a Jewish community only when that community does not have a shochet.
Hi Kevin & Natalie,
Actually the reason for keep kosher is purely spiritual. Not health, not separation. You need to understand why we make blessing and what it does. Blessing elevate the object, some objects and actions can not be elevated. A torah Jew does not eat/act to satisfy ourselves, everything we do should be done to create a bond to G-d. There are somethings that have such a “negative” spiritual energy that not only can’t you lift it, it will bring you down. So we stay away, thus building a stronger bond to the highest source.
for more info – http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/60319/jewish/Why-Do-We-Keep-Kosher.htm
Natalie makes a succinct and pithy point, however from what I’ve read of Sacks’ writings, i.e. his book ‘The Dignity of Difference’, he is very much of the opinion that groups could/should coexist harmoniously by means of ‘side-by-side’ (as opposed to ‘face-to-face’) community work and dialogue. As human societies we are capable of transcending inter-group conflict by adhering to liberal democratic human rights legislation and weaving this into a framework of cultural norms, however we are of course also equally capable of lowering ourselves into petty tribalism (some football matches unfortunately provide a good example of this).
Superb, wise and right up to date. Very impressive and enlightening, the pulling together of ancient beliefs and recent scientific data. I just saw a video of Daniel Kahneman on the Psychotherapy Networker website. I also just read an article in the Jan 2013 Smithsonian magazine, “Born to be Bad:The New Science of Morality,” which explores empathy in infants. It shows up earlier than we previously thought. We are hard-wired for morality. Religion — we do need it to fan and nurture our moral impulse. It is truly “the best antidote to the individualism of the of the consumer age,” reminding us of what should be obvious but is obscured these days: there is much more to us than consuming.
Jewish atheist Alain de Botton (author of “Religion for Atheists: A Non-believer’s Guide to the Uses of Religion”) undoubtedly agrees with much of what Rabbis says about religion being the best builder of altruism. I saw him on American TV (C-Span) and then got his book, which I haven’t finished yet. If they haven’t already done so, he and the Rabbi might have a very interesting talk someday. What I find curious is that de Botton was raised an atheist and has never really sampled religion, even though he admires much of what it does. Parental injunctions seem to have reigned supreme for him.
The Chief Rabbi has once again offered a glib reworking of Social Darwinism in an attempt to “prove” that religionists are inherently altruistic. May I quote from the learned gentleman’s text: “Religion binds individuals into groups through habits of altruism, creating relationships of trust strong enough to defeat destructive emotions”. The history of religion appears to contradict this assertion!
Like Lord Jakobovits, Lord Sacks has been the acceptable face of Jewish Orthodoxy. He writes and communicates well with the widest audience. Long may he continue to write.
The Chief Rabbi is blessed with high intellect, an ability to communicate his ideals to the public at large, a strong commitment to inter-faith dialogue, and the charm of a diplomat. However, when it comes to disclosing how his position as head of Jewish orthodoxy sits with his presentation as a liberal-minded scholar; well that leaves one pondering. It is also wth regret that during his tenure as Chief Rabbi there has not been a greater effort made at rapprochement between orthodoxy and the Jewish progressive movements; it is only by working together, in a spirit of mutual respect, that AngloJewry will survive as an important positive influence in the future.
No, Natalie, you are not right about Christians being bribed into altruism by after-life rewards. That misses the essence of the Christian faith. As a Christian what is alone credited to me is my faith in Jesus as my Saviour, my sole ground for salvation, just as faith was credited to Abraham. After that, nothing I can personally achieve or offer or fall short of can add or take away from the Almighty’s loving kindness toward me (that was exhibited to Moses) or from my eternal life with Him. It’s about His sacrifice, not any offering of mine.
Go well.
Chief Rabbi Sacks’s article makes sense, because it is based on the “unity principle” that gives life. From a biological, social, psychological, and spiritual perspective, any sentient being thrives and endures when all 4 elements are in balance with one another. That means 4 becomes 1.
This is a health concept derived not just from ancient medicine but modern medicine as well. Another example is the resilience and transcendence of the Jewish people over many attempts at their destruction over the centuries.
A third example comes from Alcoholics Anonymous, the original 12-Step program co-founded by Bill W. and Dr. Bob. According to the First Tradition of this and many other spiritual programs that followed it, “Our common welfare should come first; personal progress for the greatest number depends upon unity.”
Members of such groups as AA and Al-Anon, the latter for family and friends of alcoholics, learn that the sole authority in their unity is a “Power greater than ourselves” which some name “God”. For newcomers and long-timers alike, this divine power derives from the loving kindness of the group as a whole.
Often raised with a concept of God as harsh and punitive, individuals who had become agnostics or atheists, warmed instead to the possibility of change in their attitudes and actions because of the moral power of the group, which loved them unconditionally until they could love themselves and each other.
Plainly _not the case_ in the American Midwest (there: http://cheezburger.com/6854927104 ). Or in the Middle East. Definitely the case in Scandinavia – and what’s the percentage of religious people there?
Though I’ll grant you that it could be protestant values that are the cause for the success of the Scandinavian model. But if this is the case, then those values don’t really seem to work _in_ religious people, do they, they only work in non-religious people.
I think the Rabbi raises an important point about the ongoing utility and appeal of religion for humanity, even from a biological perspective. But members of religious groups, perhaps particularly their leaders, need to bear in mind the need to balance the interests of the group with those of the individuals therein and without, because their interests cannot simply be dismissed negatively as individualism. It seems to me that there is much less social consensus in Western society about how this balance is to be achieved, with many who reject their religious affiliations doing so precisely because they cannot accept the way religious groups do this. And let us not pretend that religious groups always act in the best interests of their individual members, or of other groups, or members of other groups. Religions also have to be kept in check just like any other group or individuals themselves. By all means let us celebrate the fact that religion may be here to stay but let us also be attentive that they be not permitted to crush the individual members of their particular religion or of any other, or indeed none.
It’s wonderful that you are getting thoughts from this post as well as from our argument made at this place.