As promised, I'm continuing with this 12-part series on the brain, delusion/vision, deity and all that. Enclosed is the second installment.
Cheers,
Stone
=================================
[enclosure]
Adaptive Doctrines and their Origins
I
Essentially, this involves a step-by-step process. The first step is to take evolution as being thoroughly random, as described in Kirschner's _Plausibility of Life_. Consequently, I do not believe there is anything purposive, either at the outset or later, in the evolution of any species. That said, there are certain common consequences that obtain for those species that are most dependent on socialization -- as the species of humanity, of _homo_ _sapiens_, definitely is -- the chief one being the ultimately destructive impact of anti-social behavior versus the constructive impact of "pro-social behavior" (if you will), with similar long-term results across the board for all such species in either case.
It is possible to confuse that with a sense of purpose of a sort, but that would be misleading. One can perhaps clarify this by citing the example of a table laden down with various dishes and suddenly impacted by an earthquake, resulting in many of the dishes clattering to the floor. Now, there is no deliberate purpose anterior to the possible survival intact of certain dishes that are not made of the most delicate china, versus the probable shattering into pieces of those dishes made of the most delicate china. Yet, the tendency to shatter, and/or the tendency to survive intact, still obtains in the general conditions prevailing at the time of the earthquake. That doesn't mean that the tougher dishes were deliberately "meant" to survive this particular earthquake at this particular time. But it does mean that stronger materials are more likely to survive sudden earthquakes -- in general -- than would pieces of the most delicate china.
Consequently, it's what obtains in _prevailing conditions_ for species A and/or Species B (and/or Species C, etc.) that I'm spotlighting. In spotlighting this, it occurs to me that if the more cohesive "pro-social behavior" seems conducive to greater social cohesion -- i.e., you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours -- then the opposite is probably true as well -- i.e., that anti-social behavior by too many members can ultimately impact negatively the prospects for an overall community's or a pride's or a flock's, or a herd's long-term survival. The conditions are already there, in either case, for a certain ultimate outcome that remains more likely than not. But it is still not a foregone (or purposely planned) conclusion. I forget where, but I recall that Stephen Jay Gould makes a similar comparison, showing (essentially) that the species where "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" prevails is more likely to survive the figurative equivalent of an "earthquake" than is a community where it's Each One For Oneself.
II
The second step is to analyze what may have been the chief circumstances behind any doctrines that have sprung up in Community A where, say, self-centered behavior has been promulgated, versus the chief circumstances behind any doctrines that have obtained in Community B where, say, selfless or altruistic behavior has been promulgated, and so on. This necessarily entails scrutinizing any and all cultural doctrines (including possibly opposing doctrines) at their originating point, or as close to their originating point as is humanly possible -- i.e., the earliest extant instance at which such or such a doctrine has first been advanced in the written record. Tracing all this is not so easy, but sometimes it is possible. Bear in mind that throughout this step-by-step process the possible future of a given community is always in the balance: Will it flourish and cohere with at least a minimum level of altruism and selflessness among its members that can prod a degree of growing social cohesiveness along, however haltingly, or will its members grow more and more self-centered instead, ultimately threatening its social cohesion altogether? As my brother often reminds me, "No man is an island" -- a lesson that applies just as well to Gould's description of other mammalian species that, like homo sapiens, also depend on socialization. This second step, then, entails analyzing how come some cultural doctrines have honored the "No man is an island" principle, while others haven't.
The paper trail for the various doctrines behind human communities/cultures throughout the past 5,000 years or so may not be complete, but it is still ample enough to be useful in detecting any general trends.
Extrapolating those general trends -- once one has assembled the chief doctrines and their earliest extant examples -- is the third and biggest step.
III
In first perusing these doctrines, back in the '80s/early '90s, I didn't study them with any eye at all to either atheism or theism. I was an atheist at the time anyway, while I'm not as sure today as to just how I'd call myself, although as a result of these studies outlined here, I'd say I'm no longer a skeptic -- at least, no longer a skeptic with a capital S. So when I started this doctrinal research, way back when, all such considerations of atheism/theism etc. seemed pretty irrelevant at the time. Instead, I simply viewed all such doctines as a straightforward sequence of sociological patterns. I only had one goal in mind: seeing if there were any consistent patterns of any kind behind the self-centered doctrines versus those behind the altruistic ones that have prevailed back and forth throughout the pushmi-pullyu odyssey of human cultures. I didn't necessarily expect to find a pattern at all, in fact. But I was hoping I'd find one. Why? Because I was dismayed first by the way that the Cold War was still being pursued in the face of all sanity at the time, then by the ostrich-headed response to the hard science emerging on polar warming and convulsive climate change, and finally by the dashing of all hopes that the subsequent end of the Cold War might bring some sanity to ethnic strife in the industrialized world in the mid-'90s rubble of Bosnia.
It seemed quite clear to me that all the more altruistic doctrines throughout history have emerged -- randomly, yes, but still luckily -- at points in the human story when cruel cultures are on the very brink of implosion through sheer brutality. However, I couldn't help thinking, now that such brutality has the newfound capacity in our new global village to impact an entire world and not just some puny hemispheric empire or other, Has our luck finally run out?
We are, after all, sailing uncharted waters. And today, the global village is so small that we know within minutes of a devastating earthquake down in Chile. Also, one lone maniac has the capacity to impact history globally in an instant -- Osama Bin Laden on 9/11. And so on (although in the '90s, we were all still innocent of Al Qaeda, of course).
Suddenly those doctrines that have (sometimes) sparked the better angels of our nature are no longer of merely academic interest. They have now assumed critical importance in our ultimate escape from imminent extinction. Frankly, I concluded back in the early '90s that the extinction of humanity was more likely than not within the coming century (where we are now). And I've seen nothing at all to change my opinion on that.
=============================
