Eighty-six per cent of Democratic Left membership does not believe in God, according to a survey reported on RTE news on August 9th. This arresting nugget of information prompted a train of thought on the scientific explanation of religion. Some ideas discussed in this article are developed at length in Creation of the Sacred: Tracks of Biology in Early Religion, by Walter Burkert (Harvard University Press, 1996).
All human societies have practised religion. Even hominid (human-like) ancestors performed burial rituals for their dead. This fact automatically challenges science to explain the origins and persistence of religion, just as science is challenged to explain any characteristic human behaviour. This is a biological question for science. The central unifying concept in biology is the theory of evolution, and it is within this context that science attempts to explain religion.
Religion has traditionally made onerous demands on followers, and it is far from clear how such behaviour became a universal phenomenon. For example, why would people who lived individually in hovels gather as a group to build magnificent temples to their gods? Why would people who had few or no worldly goods give up a substantial fraction of their meagre lot to their gods? Why would parents sacrifice members of their own family to appease their gods? The theory of evolution through natural selection holds that new characteristics become established in a species when they confer a reproductive advantage on the individuals who carry them. Can religion be explained in this way?
If so, then one has to explain how religion conferred advantages on individuals that increased their chances of bearing offspring and thereby spreading their genes at the expense of the non-religious. This explanation could make a vital contribution to debate on priestly celibacy!
The success of religion shows that its benefits, whether real or perceived, were always sufficiently great to offset the costs incurred by observing the rules of membership.
An alternative evolutionary explanation for the success of religion can be construed from Richard Dawkins's conception of the meme, as described in his book The Selfish Gene. According to Dawkins, humans are now entering a path of evolution dominated by memes rather than genes.
The main phase of biological evolution that eventually produced homo sapiens was determined by the gene, which is composed of chemical DNA. In order to transfer themselves from generation to generation, genes built "`survival machines" for themselves in the form of bodies. With the arrival of human bodies came self-conscious brains and language.
This gave rise to culture, which is transmitted from brain to brain and from generation to generation largely through the spoken and written word. Just as the gene is the unit of chemical heredity, a meme is a unit of cultural heredity. For example, the idea of the wheel is a meme. Memes ensure their own replication by conferring, or appearing to confer, advantages. Also, as they propagate they can change or mutate. And, as with genes, you can have good memes and bad memes. Obviously the concept of the wheel is a good meme. The concept of kidnapping is a bad meme but it does get replicated from generation to generation. Religion could be looked on as a meme. Richard Dawkins would view it as a bad meme, a viral infection of the human mind. However, many scientists would not agree with Dawkins (e.g. see Cosmos, Bios, Theos, eds. Margenau, H., Varghese, R., Open Court 1992).
I think, in view of the universal tenacity with which it has accompanied human history, it is more reasonable to view religion as a meme that satisfies intrinsic needs in the human psyche, a good meme.
But could it not be successfully argued that religion, although a useful meme in the past, has now outlived its usefulness in the developed world? I do not think so. Mainstream religion in the West is on the wane, but there is a world of difference between waning and dying.
For example, Christianity has a long history of adapting to adverse circumstances, and it seems extremely unlikely that it will go down for the count on this occasion. Further evidence that religion satisfies a basic human need is seen in the rise of eastern and pagan religions in the West concurrent with the decline in Christian traditions. I have written this article so far from the point of view of a scientist seeking a natural explanation for religion. But what about the scientist who wishes to marry natural explanation with the belief that religion represents the contact point between the natural and the supernatural? This might be done according to the following scheme.
The basic stuff of the universe exists by the will of God. This stuff naturally evolved from the simplest beginnings, eventually producing self-conscious human beings. Human beings, on average, feel unfinished, sensing there is a higher condition calling on them, the spiritual realm.
From time to time, messengers from that realm come (e.g. Jesus) to explain the behaviour necessary for spiritual advancement. Some of this scheme can be explained naturally. The rest requires faith and is outside the realm of science. Many people do not believe in a supernatural dimension and yet lead moral, happy lives, feeling no psychic yearning for the supernatural. Nevertheless, it seems clear that the great majority of people do feel the need for religious experience.
It would be as wrong for that majority to dismiss the feelings of the minority as arrogance, as it would be for that minority to dismiss the feelings of the majority as superstition. So, whatever your inclinations, good luck with your search for the meming of life!
William Reville is a senior lecturer in biochemistry at NUI Cork