Humans are an instinctively tribal species. And while this trait served us extremely well throughout our long history, we have not only outgrown its usefulness, but are now victim to its destructive influence. Of all the arguments employed by Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, et al to challenge the usefulness of religion, one is largely overlooked: the way religion feeds our tribal instinct. To his credit, Penn Jillette touches on the issue in the afterword of his new book "God, No!"
Compared to other animals, humans exhibit extreme "groupishness." We are unusually co-operative with, even altruistic toward, in-group members. And on the flip-side, we are distinctly suspicious of out-group members. We suspect their habits, motives and values, and even question their intelligence. Our apprehension is extreme: while a small number of animal species display occasional viciousness, their aggression is nowhere near the scale of human righteousness, warfare or terrorism.
In explaining the tribal nature of Homo sapiens, evolutionary scientists collectively share the view that within-group co-operation improves the survival rates of its members, who, for example, would be hard-pressed to succeed as independent hunters. In a harsh environment with limited resources, it is highly adaptive to be both pro-social within our tribes and anti-social to outsiders who compete for food and mates. We have been hunter-gatherers for more than 99 percent of our history as a member of the Homo genus, and for 90 percent of our time as the sapiens species of this genus. So what worked for our progenitors has been deeply hardwired into who we are today.
But the out-group hostility element of tribalism is no longer adaptive in the modern, complex form of civilization we have created. We are now more interdependent as a species than ever before, by virtue of our interconnected economies, our real-time, Internet-based communication, the power of our weaponry and the environmental influence of our industrial activity. The benefit of out-group hostility has not only expired, but is now severely detrimental to our well-being both as individuals and as a species. We should be working hard to defy our impulse toward out-group hostility. And this is precisely the problem with religion -- it feeds the very instinct that we should be resisting.
While religion promotes the in-group, prosocial side of tribalism, it also fosters the out-group, anti-social side. The out-group feature of religion is uniquely problematic: faith separates people in a deep, fundamental way. Faith-based belief systems are absolutely incommensurable. Different faith-based convictions cannot be reconciled because there is nothing to appeal to in order to understand, challenge or share them. Either you have a certain form of faith or you don't -- there is no rational way to reconcile different views of reality. Religion not only promotes difference, it makes divisions impossible to eliminate, so between-group co-operation is discouraged and out-group hostility is fueled. Jillette makes the point that "the only argument against religious terrorism is to try to share the reality of the world." And he points out that faith separates us since it means that "anything goes." Indeed, a shared sense of reality is the only valid starting point for reducing our tribal instincts.
When it comes to purely practical arguments, atheists and theists can argue whether it has been religious zealots or monomaniacal non-believers who have killed the greater number of people over the course of history. The discussion usually degenerates into whether Hitler was an atheist or a Catholic (probably both -- madmen are not deterred by contradiction). But the more relevant argument is that religion promotes out-group mentality in an age of interdependence when we can't afford to surrender to ancient instincts. Just as we have to resist our ancestral urge to eat sweet, fatty foods -- an instinct that once served our survival but now threatens our well-being in a world where sugar and fat are abundant -- we also have to resist the urge to indulge in the tribalism that religion promotes. Our greatest opportunity as human beings is also our toughest challenge: to defy our maker. Not the faith-based, mystical one, but the natural selection one, which shaped who we are in an environment that was much different than the one in which we now live.
Elaine Howard Ecklund, Ph.D.: Some Atheist Scientists With Children Embrace Religious Traditions
I disagree. It might make for a less pleasant society at times and might be detrimental. But when confronted by one whose culture is dramatically different from your own and whose tribe is a threat to your tribe, the only real response is out-group hostility and it does promote the interests of the in-group and of its culture. Out-group hostility is sometimes a bad thing, but it isn't always. Us vs. them is still very useful.
"Different faith-based convictions cannot be reconciled because there is nothing to appeal to in order to understand, challenge or share them. Either you have a certain form of faith or you don't -- there is no rational way to reconcile different views of reality."
I think you've described the rational way to reconcile the different religious views right there, you reject religion and the supernatural. There is nothing that can be appealed to in order to understand, challenge, or share religious belief. There is no serious justification for the beliefs. The rational thing to do with beliefs that are without justification and thus can't be shared and challenged is to reject the beliefs, to not accept them as true. The rational thing to do is to be a nonbeliever based on the very rationale provided in your quote.
So we are at a point in our civilisation where we need to include everyone within an over arching in-group (everyone collaborating for a common purpose) without any out-groups to successfully solve the religion out-group problem.
For religion to be replaced or rendered unnecessary, what would be the form of this new in-group that has a shared understanding of reality, and a common purpose.
I agree with the article and many theorists that we are evolved creatures living in an essentially alien world in which some of our adaptations are no longer beneficial and in some cases detrimental. The human race has experienced great reproductive success over the past 10,000 years due to symbiotic relationships with powerful and evolved cultural systems. Such as religion and capitalism which both spread vertically through time via human reproduction and horizontally through space via human interaction.
What we as humans must do is not banish ourselves from our instincts, but learn to recognize and divert unhealthy cultural practices. Just a forester can tend to a forest to increase productivity and diversity in the forest leading to long term health of the forest, we as humans can recognize systems that are dangerous and uproot them.
The first step is information collection, education and family planning. Earth is an island, we need to learn how to share it.
The article assumes that an Atheist can somehow see the world more clearly or that an atheist won't be "suspicious of out-group members." and "suspect their habits, motives and values, and even question their intelligence."
Yes I agree with the faults of religion but how is "promoting a shared reality" not an evangelic recipe for hegemony . Let alone a threat to cultural diversity?
The civilization we created isn't adaptive either. Was it religion that caused the United States to occupy Iraq for eight years at the cost of over 100,000 Iraq's, and billions of dollars?
Religion is bad because it is a threat to our interdependence? Is the author referring to the interdependent global economy that is leading to massive environmental catastrophies, the 300k people who currently die annually from climate change (Source: Global Humanitarian Forum, Human Impact Report) and growing inequality gaps and financial meltdowns. Maybe that is an argument for religion, I don't know.
Reality is what it is. You can certainly argue that there are a great number of things about the reality that we experience that we don't understand, but I think we can say that not all interpretations of our experiences are equivalent, and some interpretations are definitely better than others (even if they are still imperfect). I can see how one might see that as a "threat" to cultural diversity, but if those cultural beliefs are actually counter productive, then they should be modified or abandoned (just as our forebears have done throughout the history of the human race).
I don't really see "promoting a shared reality" as a threat to diversity, the human race has proven itself to be creative enough to generate plenty of diversity of thought and I have no doubt that having a shared understanding of reality can hinder that in any way. The problem is that we're not so good at filtering out the bad ideas that enter our cultural conscience.
Completely wrong of course in it's headlined premise, "new" atheists, not to mention the old ones have recognized the dangers of faith-based tribalism for ages, check out Robert Ingersol, Bertrand Russel, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Mark Twain, &tc.
Indeed, that 1% tribe needs a shared sense of reality. Especially the banks.
Dawkins actually about it in The God Delusion. Even if we're to assume Harris or Hitchens have never mentioned it, might it not be because, for instance, they don't think it's a convincing argument?
Why mention them at all, in fact? Does it add anything to your article, apart from a headline that might attract attention, or is it simply a snide remark?
As a result of a global economy, and the internet age, what other changes have we seen taking place in society? A significant decline in religion. The ARIS 2008 report shows that the rate of "non-religious" people (in America at least) has DOUBLED in less than 2 decades. I believe this trend will only continue, as it has, until organized religion has become completely obsolete in the world. I think many people will still believe in some form of god or higher power, but they won't find it in tribal style churches anymore.
That's not true. The internet and computers are programmed to pander to your preferences (partially due to marketing), so people tend to use the internet to fed their preferences. If you look up astronomy a few times, the internet is going to provide links to other astronomy sites you may be interested in and you are obviously interested in astronomy anyways, so you are going to keep looking astronomy. You are never going to learn about Roman history instead. If you are a Republican, blogs are a great way to expose you to the opinions of others, that is other Republicans. Republicans read Republican blogs, or laugh at Liberal blogs. The internet isn't simply exposing one to a diversity of ideas, it's mostly keeping you to your same old ideas and providing reinforcement. The internet is creating and persisting tribalism.
"For example: On facebook, I now have friends from India, the PhilippineÂs, South Africa, Brazil, several nations of Europe, in addition to those from the United States and Canada."
Yes, but how many of them have similar interests or cultural/political backgrounds (for example are liberals)?
I gave a particular opinion, you replied by disagreeing. We are two people who have different viewpoints, and here we are together expressing them on THE SAME WEBSITE, GASP!
If you want further evidence that the internet is breaking down tribal lines just look at any article in the religion, politics, or gay sections of the Huffington Post. Any article with the words "gay marriage" in the headline, and you will see all kind of different views and cultural traditions represented in the comments section.
And while I will agree with you IN PART, that people generally surround themselves with other like-minded people, there's not a single friend of mine that I will agree on every subject possible. For example: I am friends with many people who support rights of same-sex couples to marry. However I am atheist, and several of those friends of mine are Christian, and we occasionally argue about religion. So, NO, not all of my friends are in all the same categories. I have many friends with many different belief systems.
What you see more often on forums like these is hit-and-run commenting. Find anyone who averages more than 2 or 3 comments a day (at the most) and you will find their comments always short, sometimes witty and almost always vacuous. Commentors who can sustain a discussion are rare (I'm happy to say that you and END are among those who can). Ideally, this could be a forum where people learn from each other, but this doesn't occur if people are just trolling for fans and faves and like to see their witticisms in print, however briefly.