rationalskepticism.org

Religion: source or solution for violence?
25 06 2018
That religion leads to violence is a much heard claim these days. Just like the suggestion that we don't need religion at all. Compassion, care and justice exist, after all, in non-religious animal species. But is it really that simple? Philosopher Leon de Bruin doesn't think so. He claims that religion can be viewed as an effective way to control human violence. Beter yet, religion could very well be the missing for the origin and development of human culture.

Evolutionary psychology has been dominated for a long time by the Hobsean school of thought. This maintains that evolution is primarily driven by violent competition and survival of the fittest (right of the strongest in Dutch). Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) proposed that mankind is inherently selfish and only looking out for their own interest.
Homo homini lupus est, man is a wolf to his fellow man. More and more scientists reject this one-sided view of evolution. They point to our natural capacity for empathy. In other words, we can imagine our self in someone else's shoes.
This is a capacity, by the way, we share with other animal species. Frans de Waal notes that wolves, for example, are social animals, good at cooperation.

Feeling compassion for others.
A term that's often mentioned in the same breath as empathy is imitation. The idea that we can empathize with the emotions of others via a process called 'internal imitation'.
How does that work exactly? Let's first take a look at imitation of external behavior. Development-psychologist Andrew Meltzoff has done a lot of research into the imitation of facial expressions in young children.
He was especially fascinated by the question of how young children are able to read facial expressions in the first place.
For, while they can see the expression, they cannot feel it of course. At the same time they can feel their own facial expression but not see it. Meltzoff developed the hypothesis that children have a native ability that connects experienced behavior with their own emotional acts.

Mirror neurons.
Evidence for the existence of this mechanism is found in the form of so called mirror neurons in monkeys. A group of neuroscientists from Parma discovered, by accident, the existence of these neurons. They discovered that these neurons produce electrical impulses when a monkey witnessed an act, but also when it performed that act. The neurons were not just active the moment the monkey saw another monkey pick up a peanut, but also when it picked up a peanut itself.

Subsequent research demonstrated that mirror neurons also play an important role in human interactions. For example, Bruno Wicker and colleagues (2003) performed an fMRI-experiment, by which they tested the relationship between mirror neurons and the human capacity to empathize.

Native mechanism.
They let test subjects first observe how other people reacted to several smells (disgusting, neutral or nice) and the emotions those other people showed.
Next, the test subjects got experience the smells themselves through a mask. From brainscans, the researchers noted that mirror neurons were active in both situations. They concluded that witnessing a feeling of disgust literally results in experiencing a that disgust.
Mirror neurons also cause us to empathise with others. The feeling or emotion the other person experiences, we will also experience ourself.

Research in mirror neurons has been strongly criticized in recent years. Especially the notion that mirror neurons could be part of a native mechanism has come under scrutiny. Never the less, it is clear as day to most scientists agree that further research into the link between action (own action) and perception (of observed behaviour) is of paramount importance for our understanding of imitation.
The question, however, is whether this possible further research ought to focus on the possible similarities between human imitation-capacities or those of monkeys. Because there are also significant differences.

Cultural evolution
Victoria Horner and Andrew Withen (2005) performed an experiment where they made children and chimpansees perform a series of tasks, with a stick on a puzzle box. If they performed correctly they got a treat. The experiment was based on two cases. In the first case, the puzzle box was transparent. It was clear from the start what actions the test subject had to take to get to the treat.
In the second case, the puzzle box was not transparent, making it impossible to deduce what actions to take to get to the treat. Horner and Whithen concluded that both the children and the chimps followed the actions of the observer faithfully, in the second case. This was not the case in the first part of the experiment.

Where chimps went straight for their goal and did not bother to imitate the irrelvant actions performed by the observer, the children kept faithfully reproducing every action the observer performed.

Imitation.
Why is it so important for children to so faithfully reproduce the actions of their role models? An influential idea is that this form of imitation is crucial for passing on culture.
Michael Tomasello (1999) calls this the 'pal-effect' in the evolution of human civilization.
Our culture is cumulative, in the sense that we keep building on the knowledge of our ancestors.
This process is dependent on as accurate as possible transfer from one generation to the next. And this is exactly what imitation tries to accomplish.

The dark side of imitation.
Imitation has a dark side. Someone who's written a lot on this topic is the recently deceased René Girard (1923-2015)
According to Girard, imiation of 'mimesis' is not just a vehicle for the transfer of cultural knowledge.
It is also the most important way with which we learn to desire.
That might seem counter-intuitive. It is, after all, the common sense that our desires and needs are unique.
Girard calls that a 'romantic lie'. Our desires and needs spring forth from the imiation of the desires of others.
And with that imitation becomes the most important source of human conflict.
It does not only serve as a model of pedagogy. it also teaches us what desire is worth.
Others serve as rivals, those who hold in their posession the objects of our desires.
Therefore the other becomes an obstakel to the pleasing of our desires.

The scapegoat.
The second central notion of Girard's philosophy concerns religion. More specifically the notion that primitive religions should be viewed as a way of channeling human conflict, which arise through mimese.
This is done by way of the scapegoat mechanism.
A collective ritual, wherein a random individual is selected as the cause of all problems in society. This scapegoat is then sacrificed to restore balance in the community.
Girard illustrated how this work through an analysis of the Oedipus myth.
According to current interpretations, Oedipus is banished from Thebes, because he killed his father and married his mother. However Girard claims we should interpret this myth as the report of a scapegoat. Oedipus was sacrificed to repair relationships within the community.

Solution for violence.
The mimetic theory of Girard can be viewed as an important addition to modern day theory of evolutionary psychology.
On the one hand it casts a new light on the role of religion. Where people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennet and Harris, consider religion the source of (pointless) violence, Girard sees religion as a functional solution for escalating violence.
On the othe hand, the theory suggests that empathy must be cultivated. Because it will prevent that empathy remains limited to something we feel for people from our own community. In this context, it is interesting to look at Girards interpretation of the crucifixion of Jezus.

Crucifixion of Jesus.
What makes the crucifixion so special, is that Jezus is completely innocent and therefore unjustly condemned to die.
With that aspect, the story distinguishes itself from other scapegoat stories we encounter from other religions.
According to Girard, this the moment where the true nature of the scapegoat is revealed. The moment where we are confronted with the human tendency to divert violence onto random victims.
At the same time this is also the moment where our emphatic abilities are tested. Like our capacity to have pity and our sens of justice. Because Jezus was innocent, we cannot take away the unease we experience at his suffering, with the reasoning that he deserved it.

Missing link.
On the cover of 'De Bonobo en de tien geboden' written by Frans de Waal, we read that we don't need religion. Compassion care and a sense of justice also exist in the 'godless universe' of the bonobo or the chimpansee. But if there really is a difference between human imitation and imitation among animals- and if Girard's theory is true in the slightest - then religion could very well be the missing link for the origin and development of human culture.