Thoughts from our group discussions

Our Thursday discussion group (and I) think Wade is much better reporting on science than social science. With science, he is very good; with social science, less so.

We also think science itself is much clearer and factual than social science, which is still mired in conflicting theories of human development (and still has no way to prove which theory is more true than others).

We observe that Wade/social scientists make no real allowances for a spiritual component to human nature. The closest they come to it is positing a "religion instinct" which serves to bind us together in groups. We have become convinced that humans do have a "religion instinct" (as The Faith Instinct describes it) but note that Wade/sociologists don't even discuss the idea that humans may also have a "spiritual instinct" that responds to a/the spiritual dimension of life.

Wade has taken some theoretical conclusions from theorists in social science (primarily in archaeology, social anthropology, and the sociology of religion) and pushes these theories as established facts:*

(1) Humans are social animals, and religion serves to bind social groups together, which improves a group's chances of survival.

(2) The binding factor of religion - its ability to hold a tribe/settlement/society together - is its most important characteristic.

(3) Religious hierarchies are established as societies grow larger, and (to keep social order and their own power) these hierarchies always seek to control people's religious behavior.

(4) In these controlled societies, individuals no longer have free access to "ecstatic religion" (as the sociologists define it) or to personal "spiritual experiences" (as the religious might define it).

(5) Occasionally, an individual's "ecstatic" or "spiritual" experiences and ideas emerge as compelling for the whole group; the hierarchy eventually incorporates some of the new ideas into the group religion, and then again clamps down on personal experience.

* Just note, in chapter 7, how Wade takes the alternative, "revisionist" view of Islam (which is held by only a few western scholars, not Muslim scholars), and spends pages detailing how it fits his overall theoretical model.


Here's how Wade concludes chapter 7: Looking back at the emergence of the three monotheisms, a striking process is evident: throughout history, religions have been repeatedly adjusted to serve new needs as society changed:

(1) Hunter gatherer religion was egalitarian, with common rituals and shared ideas of the supernatural.

(2) As larger settled societies were established, political and religious hierarchies replaced the egalitarianism of hunter gatherer bands.

(3) With the invention of writing (around 3,000 BC), sacred texts (shaped by the hierarchies) became a standard component of urban religions.

(3) The focus of devotion and ritual then turned to the sacred texts.

(Note that Wade/sociologists never speak of the enduring power of rituals - religious actions, including physical posture, music and rhythmic group movement - in maintaining religious belief and practice. Many historians, theologians and liturgists have noted that the theological meaning of rituals may change over the years, but the rituals themselves remain the same as the ancestors'. Look, for instance, at the history of the Eucharist: the theological explanation and words may change, but the actions - (1) taking bread/wine, (2) blessing bread/wine, (3) breaking bread/pouring wine, (4) giving and receiving bread/wine - remain the same through the years.)

Wade continues,

With the emergence of the three monotheisms, the tree of religion took grew close to its final shape, at least in the West. (Note that he has no comment on eastern religions. Does the history of Hinduism and Buddhism follow his schematic?) For the last 1,500 years, that tree’s principal new growth has been in sects emerging within Christianity and Islam. But human societies have changed vastly in the last 1,500 years. Because religion has not changed as fast, it has found itself in increasing conflict with modernity. However, religions are much more than another component of culture. They knit societies together, with particular power when they coincide with ethnicity and language. Religions may in fact be essential for social cohesion. No society yet known has lasted long without a religion.

Looking ahead to The Faith Instinct's final chapters, Wade argues that religion shapes morality and trust and the institutions that depend on them (such as trade and commerce); religion strongly influences reproductive behavior (and thus demographic growth rates which historically have promoted the survival of some societies over others); and religion is intimately involved in many aspects of society’s severest tests (especially warfare).