Some weeks ago I received an e-mail from Mitch Diamond and subsequently corresponded with him. Mitch self-published an interesting book on the evolutionary origins of religion called Darwin's Apple. He sent me a copy and I read it. That book and his e-mail notes are the basis for this post.
In the context of my Flatland model of how humans work, which Mitch likes, I have not had much to say about religion. I've never viewed religion as fundamental to the human project, and my reluctance to say much about it is (in part) a reaction to the misguided views of E.O. Wilson, among others.
Slate — Why does our species seem to ignore scientific warnings about Earth's future?
Wilson — I think primarily it’s our tribal structure. All the ideologies and religions have their own answers for the big questions, but these are usually bound as a dogma to some kind of tribe. Religions in particular feature supernatural elements that other tribes—other faiths—cannot accept. In the United States, for example, if you're going to succeed in politics, it’s a prerequisite to declare you have a faith, even if some of these faiths are rather bizarre. And what they’re saying is “I have a tribe.” And every tribe, no matter how generous, benign, loving, and charitable, nonetheless looks down on all other tribes. What’s dragging us down is religious faith.
And later in the interview—
Slate — If humans have a built-in spiritual yearning, can we do anything about it?
Wilson — This transcendent searching has been hijacked by the tribal religions. So I would say that for the sake of human progress, the best thing we could possibly do would be to diminish, to the point of eliminating, religious faiths. But certainly not eliminating the natural yearnings of our species or the asking of these great questions.
Humans are social animals, and thus tribes are fundamental. There's no doubting that. But to believe that humans are ignoring scientific warnings about Earth's future because religious faith is dragging us down is ridiculous. As I've documented over and over again, there are all sorts of instinctual behaviors and biases preventing humans from heeding scientific warnings about the future. Religious tribalism is not one of them.
I also take exception to Wilson's view that humans generally have a "built-in spiritual yearning." That's nonsense. Just as there are a relative handful of humans who have a genuine regard for other species, there is a somewhat larger (but still relatively insignificant) set of humans who are driven by a need for spiritual transcendence. If E.O. Wilson paid as much attention to humans as he does to ants, he might realize this. Or maybe not.
These are the roots of my reluctance to talk about religion, but Mitch Diamond's book puts the human religious impulse in the larger "Flatland" context, which renewed my interest in the subject.
Diamond wants to develop a theory which explains religion as an evolved behavior. That's a daunting task, but he starts off in a place near and dear to my heart—the limits of human consciousness, which I discussed briefly my recent post Consciousness — What's It Good For?
My answer, and Mitch's answer, is "not much," unless instinctual over-exploitation the Earth's resources and environment to expand the human footprint (sociocultural niche-building) is your idea of a good time. (That's not Diamond's subject, that's me talking.)
Note to E.O. Wilson — Tearing down rainforests to build palm-oil plantations, not transcendent spiritual yearning, is most people's idea of a good time. Or killing off endangered gorillas. They like to do that, too.
Drawing on the work of many researchers, including Daniel Wegner, author of The Illusion of Conscious Will, Diamond spends the first third of his book overturning the accepted view that our all-powerful consciousness is running the show. Here's a quote from pp. 76-77.
The detached science reveals ... consciousness contributes only a small portion to everyday life, but people feel it is far more important. Self-aware consciousness has the ironic consequence of giving people the illusion that it sits upon a throne and sees itself as the executive in charge. People believe that they have conscious control of their actions because their consciousness tells them that they do, but consciousness is misinformed and misinforming. Despite our sense of consciousness's importance, consciousness comes with some serious downsides...
Sure does! I'm listening to mindless political chatter on NPR right now! But let's skip the many downsides.
This next text previews the rest of the book.
... The way consciousness evolved was far noisier than its actual impact and effectiveness. This is another pitfall of consciousness, its very modus operandi. Consciousness is intrusive and persistent. It doesn't have a specific way to know when its skillset is relevant. There is no method for calling on consciousness only when it's required, so it is continuously listening, observing, polling and asking: "Can I help? Do you need me now?" The constant chatter is tolerated for the occasional nugget it offers, but also needs to be reined in when it gets too loud, bullies its own agenda, and interferes with automatic, innate and adaptive unconscious activity.
Why would we have evolved this mechanism called consciousness that deceives and underachieves? Evolution is random, never clean, and always comes up with compromises. Consciousness, like any evolved trait, arose because it solved or ameliorated specific environmental challenges, but it did so in a peculiar fashion—by developing a barely-good-enough cognitive feature that marginally gets the job done. The advantage of culture brought by consciousness is enormous...
[see my remarks above]
... but the way it got there was obtrusive and indiscreet.
Having acquired too much knowledge, the ability to reflect on the why as well as the what, humans developed a compensating device. During the fall from unconscious frog-like grace, in illo tempore, humans gained the knack for transferring causality to non-real entities which provided the resolving relief necessary to rationalize events that couldn't be fully understood.
Diamond's claim here is a crucial part of his Split Hypothesis about why religion evolved— religious behaviors (not beliefs) created a compensating mechanism which freed humans (if only temporarily) from the intrusive downsides of consciousness. Such behaviors include religious rituals and the arts (e.g., music, dance, raves combining both, and so on). I would also throw in things like watching sports (like American football) qua ritual.
In short, the contents of our intrusive and misleading consciousness needs to be suppressed. When I first talked to Mitch by email, I asked him Why would consciousness need to be suppressed?
Dumb question! I can't get through the god-damned day without suppressing consciousness. I do so primarily in two ways—playing, arranging and writing music, and drinking. In fact, I'll go one step further: there's no end to the unbidden, anxiety-producing thoughts which arise in my consciousness, which is merely a big clue (like dreams are) about the less-than-happy contents of my unconscious. In short, a painful lesson I've learned in life is that the unconscious is not my friend. Damn right consciousness should be suppressed. Not that it does any good sometimes. Well, I lack the usual filtering mechanisms.
Although I have some disagreements with some of what Mitch wrote, those disagreements are not fundamental. Prima facie, religious behaviors are ubiquitous and always have been—forget about specific belief systems, which are arbitrary and unimportant—so these behaviors surely must implement some crucial evolutionary adaptation which allowed humans to flourish. Mitch is trying to figure out what it is.
Diamond is one of those very rare people who is not filtering "bad news" about human capacities. He understands that our vaunted consciousness and "free will" are not all they are cracked up to be. Theories of religion aside, that alone recommends him to me.
If you're interested in religion as an evolved behavior, which is clearly the only sound approach to the subject, I recommend you check out his book. As I noted at the outset, I haven't talked about religion much on DOTE, so Darwin's Apple complements my own Flatland model.
Maybe we can get E.O Wilson to read it too
Dave said, "But to believe that humans are ignoring scientific warnings about Earth's future because religious faith is dragging us down is ridiculous."
I agree. Believing that proposition is along the same lines of absurdity as accepting the economist's explanation I heard a short while ago: Americans are shopping less, eating out less, etc., because of worries about the upcoming election. Even my Flatlander brother had to laugh at that.
After reading the "Philosophical Pessimist" post and comments, I looked up Zapffe's "The Last Messiah" and appreciated his take on religion: "The human yearning is not merely marked by a ‘striving toward’, but equally by an ‘escape from.’ And if we use the word in a religious sense, only the latter description fits. For here, none has yet been clear about what he is longing for, but one has always a heartfelt awareness of what one is longing away from, namely the earthly vale of tears, one’s own inendurable condition. If awareness of this predicament is the deepest stratum of the soul, as argued above, then it is also understandable why the religious yearning is felt and experienced as fundamental. By contrast, the hope that it forms a divine criterion, which harbours a promise of its own fulfilment, is placed in a truly melancholy light by these considerations."
https://philosophynow.org/issues/45/The_Last_Messiah
I'm new here and look forward to reading more, Dave. And I'll check out Mitch Diamond's work too...love the phrase "During the fall from unconscious frog-like grace..."
Posted by: Marcus | 09/06/2016 at 01:06 PM