This was written in response to a Dec. 24 New York Times op-ed piece by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, entitled The Moral Animal. It's not entirely clear to me why the Times closed it to comments only a day after it was posted, and with only 105 responses visible, but I'll soldier on here.
The day before Christmas is probably the perfect time to publish an stirring piece on religion's value to society now and going forward, and Christmas Day itself not at all the right time to dispute that claim. Still, here we are. The rabbi walks us through the basis for religion's importance in a clear enough manner, and I even agree with his assessment — religion has helped us survive, has been a catalyst for bonding and development of altruism, has strengthened the herd as we've learned to think beyond our individual selves and to consider the good of the community. There's really no debating the role of religion, in shaping human society.
But it seems to me he overreaches, with the argument that "we will need [religion] in the future". With that statement, he makes two great leaps which, taken together, certainly support his claim... but neither is a foregone conclusion. So, it's certainly possible that religion will be important in future society — but it's also possible, in the absence of those two assumptions, that its role will diminish.
The first leap is intrinsic in his statement that, "the Neo-Darwinists have helped us understand why [religion] matters". Really, that should have read mattered. As I said, I agree with him on the history and the analysis. But it's an assumption on his part that, because religion "remains the most powerful community builder the world has known", that it will always be so. It's true that religion, in the past, has acted as a powerful catalyst for society, but it is not the only one. People need something to share, something to bring them together — that much is true. But societies and social groups are emerging centered around things other than faith.
Take as one example the gay community, a tightly-knit society fiercely protective of its members, and pretty much equally accepting of all faiths (and none). Now, it's entirely possible that, as homosexuality is increasingly accepted in mainstream society, the strength of those communal bonds may be weakened. The "gay community" as an entity may become more diluted, or less central to its members' lives. Indeed, such a shift is probably inevitable. But the same shift is occurring in religious belief. Even among many of the faithful, religion is less central to their lives today, and plays less of a role in informing how they live. Religion will increasingly have to compete with other, secular communities for influence over its members, and those other communities will increasingly play the same role as religion in building and strengthening communities. Over time, religion may become less necessary for that process to occur.
The second great leap the rabbi makes, is the assumption that religion itself remains unchanged — that its influence is as positive today as it has been in the past. He overlooks what seems clear to me, which is that religion is corrupting itself! If not religion as a whole, then some religious groups — particularly within Christianity. Now, I can understand how a Jewish leader living in London may not be very attuned to this. Judaism isn't typically known for its proselytizing or religious activism, let alone political involvement. (Western Judaism, anyway — I can't, and won't, display my ignorance by attempting to discuss Jerusalem.) So to him, religion has the same helpful, strengthening influence it's always had. But this is not necessarily the case for all religion, and it won't necessarily remain the case over time. Religion's value to society is measured in the balance of its positive and negative influences, and that balance can shift with changes in religion, or in society. I believe we are currently in the throes of one such change.
As I mentioned, like never before religion is in competition with other forces for influence over its followers. And in America, many Christian leaders leaders have reacted to this by "stepping up their game", making increasingly aggressive moves to retain faith's position of prominence in people's lives. Some members of the clergy, discovering the power of the media and politics in shaping society, even attempt to impose their views on society as a whole — Christian or otherwise — in an effort to emphasize the importance of faith as they see it. Thus, groups like the Westboro Baptist Church take horrible and painfully destructive action in their god's name. Prominent figures like Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, Bob Vander Plaats, New York's Cardinals O'Connor and Dolan, and countless others take active roles in social and political discussions of all nature, speaking to the broader community and asserting what they view as the positions dictated by their faith. Meanwhile, some secular politicians increasingly hold up their faith as the source of their views, and take positions on secular matters affecting members of all faiths which are informed in whole or in part by that politician's religious beliefs.
To the extent this activism, this politicization of faith, is attuned to society as a whole, its voice would be welcome. But where religious doctrine becomes increasingly out-of-step with the views of broader society, among both members of the faith and non-believers, the church's struggle to retain influence grows ever more caustic and damaging. If the church resists the natural evolution of society, and continues struggling to impose a set of rules and beliefs so firmly rooted in the past, it may very well find itself left there, while humanity moves on to a future without it.
