Interior Dialogue

Interlude: On Religion and the State Friday, 23 April, 2010

Whenever making a judgement on something, it is best to first define what one means by “good” and “bad” in the particular context. In this context, I will take nature’s own principle, which can be summarized very concisely as follows: “The dead don’t vote.”

What I mean by this is that the only thing that really matters is whether something is alive, i.e., whether it exists. Incidentally, this is why any description of evolution theory as the “law of the fittest”, or “the fittest survive” is a total misrepresentation. Depending on the definition of “fit” there are many cases in which the “fit” do not survive. For instance, in modern warfare, those sent off to war to get killed are generally the strongest and healthiest. Of course, one may redefine fittest in such a way as to make it synonymous with survival, in which case the concept of “fitness” becomes useless and one comes back to the same principle: the dead don’t vote.

So then, what is “good” ? That which is not dead, of course, and that which manages to remain not dead for the longest time, is the “best”. Of course, some seemingly bad things often persist for inordinately long periods of time. But in those cases we consider them “bad” because we don’t understand them. For instance, genetic mutations lead to cancer, and so we think mutations are bad. But without mutations nothing living would exist, and that includes us. So what’s better, a world composed of rocks only, or a world with millions of thriving species, of which some might once in a while get cancer? I vote for Life!

So in the context of this short essay, I will take the evolutionary view of judging things.

Now, is there some more detailed way to specify what is likely to last and what is not? Actually there is, it’s called an “Evolutionarily Stable Strategy”, or ESS for short. It’s described by John Maynard Smith in his landmark work, “Evolution and the Theory of Games”. Such a strategy is basically defined for a population of things (organisms, consumers, autonomous agents, etc) such that once all the individuals adopt that strategy, then any mutant strategy is not able to spread and take over in a finite amount of time. See gigapedia.org for the details.

An ESS is a simplifying view, because it assumes the environment remains unchanged, and in particular, that it is not changed by the fact itself that the population has adopted the particular ESS. So it is only an approximation on sufficiently short time scales. But still, it is a useful one.

Now, let us look at a given society, say, human society, with respect to one particular behavior, say, religion. If all (or almost all) individuals in a given country adopt a given religion, then in the language of Maynard Smith, they have adopted a given strategy. “Strategy” is just a word. No need for religious readers to become insulted.

Now, there are very many parameters in play, and a rigorous calculation of what is an evolutionarily stable religion in a given country is impossible. But let us consider what aspects might make it last longer. I will consider three options, and I will advance some speculations. Some readers might find them more compelling than others, so I emphasize they are only that: speculations.

First option, the religion takes over the state, and imposes the religion on all members of the population. Individuals are no longer free. They are persecuted by various means if they “mutate” to a different strategy (i.e. religion). However, in the long term, the religion becomes too comfortable, it is so sure of itself, it loses touch with what its function was in the first place, to be a spiritual guide and support of its subjects. Slowly but surely, the church and its subjects drift apart. Subjects do not fall into heresies (whereby they would be promptly persecuted) but they gradually become uninterested. Eventually, they start to feel that there’s no reason why the church should be getting a free ride on the State, and they decide to separate it from the State. The church, having become used to getting a free ride on the state, basically has the rug pulled from under it, and has no way to deal with this. It slides gradually into that good night of irrelevance. The population has been invaded by the strategy called “indifference”.

Second option, the constitution requires total religious freedom (this, of course, is just another religion, a blind faith in freedom). Individuals are encouraged to explore, be curious, learn. Diversity flourishes. The population fragments into small pieces (i.e. strategies, i.e. religions) But pretty soon, from the fragmentation emerge several major rivals, perhaps two, three or four. One of these rivals is the first religion (the faith in freedom) but others have appeared on the scene. They come into competition, leading to hostility, and the possibility of social breakdown, and civil war. Eventually perhaps one takes over, and excludes the others violently. This may or may not be the “freedom” religion, but it is unlikely that it will be.

Third option, religion is a public service. The health service is subsidized by the State to maintain the physical health of the population. The military is financed by the State to maintain the territorial health of the population. The education is subsidized by the State to maintain the intellectual/economic health of the population. And finally, religion is subsidized by the State to maintain the spiritual health of the population. To avoid conflict and social breakdown, only one religion is subsidized. So this works only in populations which start out being sufficiently homogeneous. The fact that this religion is subsidized makes it hard for other religions to make a dent in the population, being at a significant disadvantage. Moreover, it is only subsidized partially, so that it does not get a free ride. It must reach out to the individuals in the population, so it keeps constantly in touch with their needs. The religion thereby evolves along with the population (i.e. the society). Alternative faiths are not forbidden, so individuals do not feel persecuted, and hence do not feel compelled to rebel. On the contrary, individuals, even those who, privately, hold a different faith than the one espoused by the leading religion (for instance, the faith in freedom), feel they have a non-negligible stake in social harmony and stability, and are therefore willing to continue subsidizing the leading religion.

Note that as long as the leading religion is forced to remain in touch with its constituents, the third option does not suffer from the weaknesses of the first two. It seems, to me, the most likely candidate to an Evolutionarily Stable Strategy.

To give these general speculations a more specific flavor, an example of what I call a “free ride” above, is if, for instance, the State is persuaded by the Church to impose the new religion on all young children via the public education system. This is a bad idea for two different reasons. First, to the individuals it is perceived as a loss of freedom, making them more likely to rebel against the religion as they grow up. Second, the Church is most likely to become complacent, and no longer feel that it needs to attract people. The Church runs the risk of growing passive, and eventually decay.

Thus, it is essential for the success of the third option that the children not feel controlled, and that the Church not feel like it has a right to their hearts and minds. It must learn to win those hearts and minds, every single day.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. Alexandru Ioan Căbuz 2010.