How religion improves civilization through progressive revelation.

I wrote this today as a response to a question on the forum Quora (www.quora.com).  The question was: "Would big societies be able to exist without people believing in religions?"  Some people said "yes" and went on to tell about all the bad things that they find to be associated with religion.  I can see their points, but I still maintain that when a religion has become strongly established in a culture, it becomes polluted by politics, and other human frailties and so loses much of its true worth.  This was my response, for what it's worth:

I read a study a few years ago (and I apologize for not having the reference) that gave evidence that in primitive societies religion was a needed cohesive influence for cooperation and prevention of conflict in groups of more than about 20 to 30 individuals.  Most religions provide:

1) A common commitment to a set of values which prevent the strong and/or greedy from destroying the life of kinder and/or weaker people and regulate how common resources are to be used.

2) Shared rights, celebrations, rituals, symbols etc. which provide a sense of community.

3) A sense that there is a higher power (god or gods) which has authority to make laws and demand sacrifices. (Such laws and sacrifices being for the common good as much as to please the higher power.)

Consider the 10 commandments:

The first 4 (No other gods, No graven images (i.e., objects to worship), Don't take the Lord's name in vain, and Remember the sabbath and keep it holy) have the purpose of establishing loyalty, reverence, and a community activity which leads to the unity and agreement of the religious community.

The other six are laws which are important to establishing cooperation, trust, and justice.  Basically, they are necessary in order to develop  those institutions (like commerce, supportive families, specialized tradespeople, etc.) that we take for granted in our present society.

If you look at experiments in game theory, (like "the prisoners' dilemma") you see that unless there is a consensus that people cooperate, it is often to an individual's advantage to be greedy or self-serving.  However, if there is a consensus to cooperate and follow certain rules of behavior, then every one benefits and most every person in that society has a much better quality of life than even the strongest most ruthless self-server in a non-consensual "society".

The pioneers of new religions, those who sacrifice self-interest in order to follow a higher level of rules for cooperative behavior, despite the fact that the rest of society opposes them, are the ones who eventually bring about that higher level of cooperation and therefore general prosperity for the rest of the population.  Eventually, most of the population is following these rules and agrees that they are "just common sense if you want to live in a decent  civilization."  Whether or not the believe in the deity or the religion, they are following consensual, society-and-individual-strengthening behaviors which were originally brought into common practice by religion.
The problem we see now are partly due to there being such a huge human population on the earth. In the competition for resources, including human resources, the various religious groups, while somewhat internally cohesive, are at odds with each other.  Meanwhile, advances in science have brought us powerful technologies which can be developed and used either for the improvement of life, or for its degradation and destruction.  Unless all the nations, cultures, races and religions can learn to cooperate, the conflicts will continue to the point of a world wide disaster which could make the world wars look like a football match in comparison.
I believe that, once again, the bar for cooperative behavior is being raised by an emerging religion, and that many of its principles (like equality of the sexes and of all races, elimination of prejudice, and universal education) are becoming accepted as the norm by civilized people everywhere.

What defines other people?

(Has it really been nearly 3 months since I last posted?  I have this for today, and have news to post in the near future.  I see that if I want to keep folks informed, I must exercise a bit more discipline!)


The first Baha’i book I ever read was “The Hidden Words of Baha’u’llah”.  The book begins with this description of itself:

HE IS THE GLORY OF GLORIES
This is that which hath descended from the realm of glory, uttered by the tongue of power and might, and revealed unto the Prophets of old. We have taken the inner essence thereof and clothed it in the garment of brevity, as a token of grace unto the righteous, that they may stand faithful unto the Covenant of God, may fulfill in their lives His trust, and in the realm of spirit obtain the gem of Divine virtue.

Whenever this book uses the first person, I see that as being God, the Creator, Himself.  While I believe that He is, essentially, addressing every person who will listen, I find it best to consider that He is addressing me, and that I need to strive to take each passage to heart.  The second passage of that book says:

2. O SON OF SPIRIT!
The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. Set it then before thine eyes.

There is much to be learned from this (and any) passage, but some of what I see from it is a statement of the principle that each of us must investigate the truth of things for ourselves, and should not accept (nor reject) other people’s interpretations of scriptures or of the world without looking at them ourselves.  I also see in that sentence, “Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee to be,” that I am responsible for how I am, not for how other people are.  I am not in favor of telling other people how to live their lives, or pointing out other people’s faults, sins, or errors of morality.  (On the other hand, I do care about people, and want the best for them, so I have been known to mention to others when I am fairly certain that their observable actions may have palpably bad outcomes.)

‘Abdu’l Baha has told us to look only at a person’s good qualities and to overlook the bad ones. I believe that our expectations of others, and our perceptions of who they are as individuals can effect those we interact with in subtle ways.  So, if one person perceives another as a liar, for example, that other person is more likely to lie to the first person.  On the other hand, if one person sees another as a creative, kind, and caring person (as in a typical love story), the other is more likely to manifest those qualities.  “Your love makes me a better person” is more than a compliment, it is often an exclamation of wonderment about a real, if mysterious, phenomenon.  I want to have a positive influence on others, so what can I do?

Each person has many discernible qualities, some good, some bad.  So, I want to overlook the bad, and see the good.  But what about a stranger I pass in the street?  In a two kilometer walk through town, I might pass a hundred strangers going the other way.   I thinks of a person’s good qualities as manifestations of God’s light within their soul.  The Hidden Words has this passage:

11. O SON OF BEING!
Thou art My lamp and My light is in thee. Get thou from it thy radiance and seek none other than Me. For I have created thee rich and have bountifully shed My favor upon thee.

So, what I can do - what I try to do and pray for assistance to do - is to see God’s Light in every stranger that I pass, and in each friend that I make, and in people who begin to annoy me, and even in those who seem to wish me harm.  For me, this is what defines other people, and what, in the end, defines me.  In this, I think, I am also obeying Christ’s directive to love my neighbor and my enemy.  Whether you are Christian, Baha’i, Buddhist, Muslim, agnostic, or atheist, can you really say there is any harm in this?

The Century Language Club

So far, the most interesting and enjoyable part of my new life in Rwanda has been my participation with the Century Language Club.  This is a club formed by a group of students at the Minor Seminary where Anne and I are living.  As I mentioned, they meet after lunch and after supper on Mondays and Tuesdays to debate in English, and after lunch on Thursdays and Fridays to debate in French.  At the meeting Monday a team of three students who are preparing to do a Science Fair presentation later this week were to have rehearsed for the club so that we could give them advice as to how to improve their demonstration.  They were not able to present, so the club met to discuss future activities.  One of the activities suggested were to have discussions where an open-ended question is asked and everyone gives his opinion as to the answer.  Another activity would involve having one member give a short presentation, and then the rest of the members would ask him questions. 

Tuesday’s after lunch meeting was of the discussion variety.  The topic was, “What can each of us do to help prevent war and other types of conflict.”  There were some excellent answers!  Among them were: love your neighbor as yourself, value your neighbor, consider every person to be part of your family, recognize that we are all equal, work to ensure that everyone has equal human rights, do not tolerate hateful speech and propaganda such as that used to incite the genocide of Tutsis in 1994 (and the Nazi genocide of Jews in WW2), provide education to everyone, create jobs for everyone who can work.

I missed the Tuesday evening meeting because Anne and I drove to Kigali for an event at the residence of the United States Ambassador to Rwanda.  The event was a party for all of the Americans who have come to Rwanda to help the country develop its health care system.  A number of people from the C.D.C. were there, as well as many of the HRH people, and a several from USAID.  I talked about the Century Language Club to everyone I spoke with there (maybe 30 people total.)  While I often find myself on the edge of a big party like that, I decided to make the effort to introduce myself to many people and engage them in conversation.  Since I had something besides small talk to share, I did feel like I was bored/boring, and I met some very interesting and dear people, all of whom seemed to share my appreciation of the Language Club.

When we returned home this morning, we noticed a line of Rwandan drums standing next to chapel that stands just inside the gate.  This afternoon, as I was typing the above paragraphs, I heard drumming, and went to see what it was.  There were 10 drummers drumming where I had seen the drums this morning. The leader was playing the smallest (highest pitched) drum, setting the beat and demonstrating rhythmic patterns. Much of what I saw them doing appeared to be in what a European or American musician would call 6/8 time.  The most interesting part was when they paused for 17 beats, then, in unison, pounded out 6 1 2 3 4, then rested 19 beats, repeating this sequence eight or ten times, then going into a more insistent pattern in 6/8 for the big ending. During the long rests, they would all beat the air to count time, then all hit the drums at the same time. The drum team appears to have some new members, as I heard a few inconsistencies, but noticed improvement during the course of the practice session.  In any case, as I was once a drummer myself, I greatly enjoyed watching and listening to the drum team.

In Kabgayi

We are mostly settled into our apartment at La Petit Seminaire at Kabgayi, just outside of Gitarama.  Anne has begun her work to improve the quality of midwifery care at the hospital here, and to train a new generation of midwives in the application of evidence-based practice.  (That is, instead of practicing in the way you do because, “this is the way we have always done things”, one practices according to what has been found to have the best outcomes.)  It is evident that she has a lot of work ahead, but there are many here who support what she is striving to do, and Anne has faith that it can be done.  The country has decided to adopt a model of having one university with 5 or 6 different branches (sort of like the University of California which has U.C Berkeley, U.C. L.A., etc.)  I think the idea is that the curriculum will be basically the same for all of the branches.  In any case, they are striving to raise the level of education provided, and also to have the capacity to provide better health-care.

I have offered my services as a teacher of English to the School of Nursing and midwifery, and to the boys’ school where we are living.   I have begun with the boys school (La Petit Seminaire Saint Leon at Kabgayi – The Minor Seminary) participating with the Century Language Club which meets 8 times a week for 25 minutes a meeting: in the afternoon and evenings on Monday and Tuesday, they hold informal debates in English, and on Thursday and Friday they debate in French.  Such a wonderful group of young men they are!  There are about 20 members of the club, and all are brilliant souls. The debates are informal:  A topic is chosen, one person is chosen (or volunteers) to be moderator, then the rest of the members choose to either support or oppose the premise of the topic.  There is no real order to the proceedings after that, so members of each side take turns putting forth whatever arguments comes to mind.  As in any group, some are very ready to jump in and share their opinion, or their point while others seem relatively reticent.  The main purpose of the club is for the members to develop their skills at thinking and speaking in English and French, so I am working to ensure that the more aggressive talkers give the others a chance, and that the others feel empowered to participate.  I think it might also serve them well to develop the skills that a more formal debate requires: Research of facts relevant to the topic, consultation among team members as to the best arguments to use, and the ability to argue either side, whatever their personal opinion might be.  (That last should help them to see more aspects of an issue than what they are biased towards, which might lead to a change in personal opinion, and will certainly make them better prepared to answer opposing arguments, whatever side they are on.) 

So far, the topics that I have heard debated were “Does CHANCE exist?” and “Can material possessions make one happy?”  As for the existence of chance, many of the students believe that, “A Man’s Chance is God’s Choice,” (which is also the title of a book) while others believe in the “Law of Attraction”!  That debate took two 25 minute sessions to complete.  Being informal, there really is no basis for determining a winning side, but the moderator will offer his judgment none the less. For the other topic, most of the students supported the proposition that having material possessions CAN make one happy.  I expected them to mainly be talking of having essentials like food, clothing, and shelter, as there are many in Rwanda who live in great poverty. However, some of them were asserting that one could not fail to be happy if they acquired great wealth, or had a car, or owned a big house.  I fear they have bought the hype and drunk the Kool-Aid of Western Materialism.  I hope to share some websites giving more scientific data about “what makes people happy.” For example: http://www.bakadesuyo.com/2012/08/here-are-the-things-that-are-proven-to-make-y/  Personally, attending the meetings of the Century Language Club makes me happy! 

Time to do some research on the guidelines for formal debates. 

Creationism VS. Darwinism debate II

After I posted the first portion of this article in a forum (I love Philosophy.com), a fellow philosopher responded:

"The theory of Evolution, on the other hand, gives scientific support to the belief that we are all related. That is, all humans come from the same pair, and all of life comes from the same primordial seed."

Until that hi-lited word becomes "absolute proof", I doubt the possibility of being on the same page about our existence will come to fruition. The word 'theory' leaves room for doubt just as the word 'faith' leaves doubt in the mind of the secular community for different religious affectations.

Unless both factions seriously explore the other's beliefs with equal interest and intent, it is doubtful the twain shall meld. For as both contend they are qualifiably viable in their own right, contentiousness make them polar to one another.

I replied:
I have studied both sides objectively, and as regards this contention, I see a crucial difference between the two sides:

The Creationist side begins with a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2; an interpretation which many (perhaps most) well respected and well grounded theologians (such as Augustine) reject; an interpretation which is, in itself, a theory about what the Creator intended to communicate through those chapters. While you refer to your belief in this theoretical interpretation as Faith, it seems to be really more of a commitment to agree with the doctrine which your particular denomination promulgates. From the basis of that predetermined, theoretical interpretation of scripture, only that portion of the scientific evidence and deduction which supports that interpretation is accepted, while other evidence and the implications thereof is ignored.

The Evolution side begins with evidence, painstakingly accumulated and recorded. Observations of God's creation were made in detail by Darwin, an ordained minister himself, and those observations led him inevitably to the conclusion that the physical characteristics of earthly organisms came to be through the God-given process of natural selection. This theory was the only logical framework that could explain his data and observations. His faith in God was not shattered by this revelation, rather his awe and astonishment at the subtlety of God's creation was increased. His understanding of human foibles and failings, however, prevented him from publishing his work until another scientist (Wallace) made an new set of observations and came, independently, to the same conclusions.

Regarding the theologians of Creationism: Read Mathew 7: 15 - 20 which has as its theme "You shall know them by their fruits." If the fruits of Creationism are discord amongst Christians, the rejection of Christianity by the Scientific community, the rejection of science by a large potion of the Christian community, the atheists making a plaything of religion, and the followers of Creationism becoming blindly loyal followers of their clergy and tithers of their church to the detriment of their willingness to reason, then who will say that these are good fruits?

Creationism VS. Darwinism debate

I have been researching the history of the Creationism VS. Darwinism debate, and it appears that one strong impetus for opposition to Darwinian theory in general was the rise of Social Darwinism. One particular force for the development of this controversy in the U.S. was William Jennings Brian, who opposed the theory of evolution, and actively campaigned against, it for two reasons. First, he believed that what he considered a materialistic account of the descent of man through evolution undermined the Bible. (One might assume that he preferred a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 & 2.) Second, he saw neo-Darwinism or Social Darwinism, which tends to support forcefulness and aggressiveness over loving kindness and meekness, as a great evil force in the world promoting hatreds and conflicts, especially the World War.*

In The Literal Meaning of Genesis Saint Augustine argued that Genesis should be interpreted as God forming the Earth and life from pre-existing matter and allowed for an allegorical interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis. He argues that the six-day structure of creation presented in the book of Genesis represents a logical framework, rather than the passage of time in a physical way. Augustine recognizes that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, and remarks that Christians should be willing to change their minds about it as new information comes up. He also warned believers not to rashly interpret things literally that might be allegorical, as it would discredit the faith. *

The entire Creationism vs. Evolution debate has been a real source of contention and conflict in this country. It has polarized the scientific community in opposition to the religious community to the extent that scientists have become embarrassed to confess their belief in religion and many Christians have come to distrust science. (There is even some thought that the distrust engendered by this debate has been used by greedy industrialists in their efforts to discredit scientific evidence for global warming.) There is evidence in the arguments made on the Creationist side that ignorance of the nature of scientific research and theory-building is not only prevalent but valued. There is also evidence that atheists see this vocal Creationism movement as representative of all religion and use it as a strong argument for their position.

It seems a great pity that such a destructive controversy as this might have arisen from a mistaken belief that the biological/historical theory of The Evolution of Species by Natural Selection leads inevitably to disbelief in God or to a belief that “might makes right.” The theory of evolution works both as an explanation for the known data about the nature of life and as a means for predicting other observations and forming testable hypotheses. Theories of social Darwinism, while predicting that a better armed country will win a war and that a bully will get his way on the playground, do not provide any basis for morality. Indeed, moral decisions that come from such theories could lead to the destruction of civilization and the end of life on Earth. The theory of Evolution, on the other hand, gives scientific support to the belief that we are all related. That is, all humans come from the same pair, and all of life comes from the same primordial seed. It would be better for Christianity if all Christians would graciously accept Evolution of Species, just as the Christian community finally accepted that the earth revolved around the sun.

*[Paragraph contains quotes from articles in Wikipedia]