Genes, Socialization and Science

On my view, religion is tribal in nature. I think most people who've studied the matter agree with me, probably excepting theologists. The historic and anthropological evidence seems to support the notion that each tribe has its gods. Starting with Akhenaton, people began to realize that belief in spirits was unreasonable, so attempts were made to rationalize and simplify their emotional proclivities and rituals. The result was the development of monotheism, which is still not the dominant view everywhere. Modern Christianity has subsumed the worships of the Virgin, the Moon, the Sun and many other mystery cults into its practices, a relic of its origins in the Roman Empire. Islam split into Sunni and Shì'ite factions, reflecting its origins in strongly tribal Arabia. Hindus worship many gods (Shiva, Krishna, etc), as did the ancients, and are almost unaffected by the invention of Buddhism in their midst. The development of religion into more abstract forms does not deny its roots to this day.

The most fierce religions are pointedly tribal in nature, which is the explanation of the persistent wars between the Arabs and Israelis, and the Celtic Irish and the Germanic/Nordic English. (The Normans were not-too-Frenchified descendants of Scandinavian Vikings.) American religions generally fall into the fiercely tribal category, probably the result of Scotch-Irish (Celtic) immigration to the Southern States. When the Bandit called the War against Terrorism a "Crusade," that was not a slip of the tongue. Fitting this observation with the rat domestication experiments, societies represented by tribes are less domesticated than others. That is, the lack of domestication is correlated with ferocious, tribal behavior and religion. Undomesticated behavior is associated with increased levels of fear (or paranoia) and reduced co-operative abilities. Totally paranoid animals, like bears, cobras and rattlesnakes, are mostly loners.

Religion is the mechanism tribal people use to overcome their fear of others. The assumption of religious practices is that everyone doing the same thing implies belief in the same thing, whatever it is. Belief is the intermediary for achieving comfort, as it is possible to ask, 'do you believe ...?'  But in the final analysis, it is the act - people's habits and rituals - that cinch the case. Religion is like army boot camp: it purposes to make warriors in training trust each other.

If, however, one's disposition is less fearful, less aggressive than the norm, there is a potential for domestication. Civil behavior without religion is possible in such a case. The rats or silver foxes that become human pals are less fearful, less paranoid. As suggested in the NYT article, Homo sapiens may be self-domesticated if we developed along those lines. (Such evolution does not have to be purposeful.)

Now I would like to add my acid suggestion. In making this suggestion, I do not thereby subscribe to Victorian ideas of Progress or any directionality in History. Nevertheless, it does seem leaving religion behind is what lies ahead. Until very recent times (viz., the Enlightenment) almost everyone, everywhere, was religious, per force if for no other reason. It is only in the last 2-3 centuries, and especially the last century, that large numbers of people have ignored religious belief. Communist States, such as the Soviet Union and China, were and are officially militant atheist, following Marx's famous dictum 'religion is the opium of the people.' While China has recently let up the repression of religion, the main effect has been to ignore traditional Chinese practices such as Confucianism or Buddhism which do not threaten the political State. The Chinese have also let up on their attempts to suppress or integrate the hundreds of ethnic groups within its Empire - China is an Empire! - instead advertising them to the tourist trade. None of those groups, except some Western Arabs, have religious or tribal beliefs antithetical to Han Chinese rule. The Chinese are an example of peoples who have become domesticated during the last 2 or 3 millennia. Unlike Euro-Americans and even the Japanese, Chinese people have a horror of disorder and war.

My association, then, is that domesticated humans are less paranoid than others of their species. As such, they are less inclined to attack, kill and/or devour strangers. Domestication is probably the result of attitudes favored by genes and reinforced by culture. If the Russian experiments are correct, it takes anywhere from 20-40 generations to domesticate an animal; i.e., about 400-800 years for humans. That's just about right on my time scale. Since the Renaissance 500 years ago, there have been radical changes in human societies and lifestyles. Consider, for example, that the Guillotine was adopted during the French Revolution because it was humane. Before that, the most humane form of execution then available, beheading, was reserved to the nobility. (Remember the fate of Henry VIII's wives, particualrly Anne, QE I's mother.) Today, we are all repulsed by Al Qaeda's tactics, especially beheading. We have become more civilized.

Despite my sympathy for Tibetans, it is also true the Chinese are bringing modernity to that area. Many Tibetans are taking advantage of it. In Tibet, the focus is rapidly changing to preserving the artifacts and rituals of an ancient culture before they disappear altogether. The same thing has been happening in the Americas, where pre-Columbian cultures are intensively studied and curated.

If the suggested trend continues, religion will vanish in a few centuries except among very primitive peoples. It won't be necessary among civilized people, because civilization won't be tribal.