An evolutionary view of morality and religion

I prepared this summary for a discussing group in the next month.  Thought it might be interesting to others as well.  In the previous blog I mused about the incompatibilities between contemplation and structured morality.  Here I see a different relationship.

The fundamental guiding principle of life is evolution.  Whether it is thought of as the survival of the individual as Darwin proposed or the survival of the species,  as some more modern theorists propose,  this is the fundamental principle:  life operates to continue life.

 In animals,  evolutionary processes operate directly on neural pathways that control behavior patterns.   These patterns are termed "instincts" or "instinctual behaviors"  And this is a prime focus of evolutionary process for influencing survival in ambulatory creatures (in addition to other areas of operation). 

In higher animals,  these instincts can be modified to some extent through learning.
In the course of evolution,  the human brain has expanded the cortical regions and learning process to such an extent that the inhibitory controls of cortex effectively nullify instinctual control of most of human behavior.  ( I know there are a number of pop culture writers who point to violence and war as signs that humans are still instinctual,  and I would be happy to refute those views.)  Therefore:  evolutionary processes can no longer act directly on instinctual behavior patterns to ensure human survival!

Humans must therefore perceptually discern which human patterns of action are more likely to result in survival for the individual or the group. 

The state of open immediate awareness and contemplation which is often called a "spiritual state" or "spirituality" is none other than the state in which the human organism attempts to discern the path of best survival free of preconditioning.  (It must be free of preconditioning to some extent because the path of survival is always changing!) 

All persons have this ability,  but from time to time specific humans arise who are observed by their peers to be especially skilled or gifted in this perception.  Sometimes they arise in periods of crisis,  other times not.  They are hailed as "religious leaders"  or "prophets"  and their observations are observed,  recorded,  and transmitted in their society for guidance.

This wisdom becomes codified into morality by organized followers who create a  "religion" and observed by the followers of this prophet until such time as the wisdom is less applicable and a new prophet arises to challenge old views and develop a new spiritual path to survival.

Morality is the codified current version of the accepted spiritual path of a given human group.

Morality is attached to religion by virtue of how it is created,  and by how a group of followers form who embody the guidance.

Can there be a "scientific morality"?  ie can there be a path for survival which is determined by scientific analysis of previous life situations?   No.  Recall the warning in all Mutual fund promotions:  "previous results are no guarantee of future performance".   Since evolution is statistical,  it is impossible to scientifically guarantee that a certain path is the best for evolutionary survival.  But that does not stop people from doing research. 

Two contradictory beliefs, sitting by the ocean.

This is the time of year for change,  the Fall,  and in the Jewish tradition,  a new year begins at this time.   Over the years it has been a time of introspection for me.   A time for reviewing the past year and planning for the next.   It is no accident that this coincides with the traditional school year, after the Summer break, the return to school in the Fall.   Over the past few years,  I  have turned more and more to Nature to understand my spiritual side.  This year I walked down a path to a cove on the ocean and sat for a while just watching the sea and reading from a book by Krishnamurti.  It was cool in the morning,  the trail was virtually empty and the ocean calm.  There was a spearfisherman in the water, and a pair of paddle boarders,  and some birds.  

Krishnamurti was born in India, and identified as a child as a great spiritual leader for the Theosophical society.  He disavowed this role and led a life of a non-affiliated speaker and teacher throughout the world,  eventually settling in the Ojai valley.  I find his view of meditative spirituality particularly clear and unencumbered by any historical tradition.  (TO BE HUMAN).   All mind is present.  All thought is conditioned.   You must experience the world without conditioned responses to be free.   His view is very clear and his way of "pointing" effective.  

 Sitting by the ocean,  I try to understand how his view squares with the Middle Eastern religions that are the foundation of most modern religions:  the 10 commandments, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." etc.   How to reconcile this meditative tradition which seems to reject the importance of moral judgements and "historical" injunctions?   These religions include confessions of "sins" and an intensive focus on what one has done wrong and right in the past year.  For the most part,  this is mostly a confession of sins of self assertion against the values of the group!   The 10 commandments are almost entirely about honoring group values over the individual.  (It is interesting that incest is not one of the commandments,  nor anything to do with sexual misconduct but adultery.)  What does this tell us? Meditative spirituality seems to lack of a perspective on the balance of individual and group!

In Michener's HAWAII,  there is a passage about the formation of the leper colony on Kalaupapa, Molokai and how, in the initial phase, the colony reverted to a primitive "rule of the strongest" society,  but then the rest organized together and eventually created a more civil system,  managed by rules and order.   This is a microcosm of a recurrent human process.   We are a group centered "pack" species and live and hunt in "packs" or tribes.   It is our primary survival adaptation in lieu of claws,  talons,  etc.   Banishment from the tribe is the greatest punishment because it threatens survival and also the loss of the sense of interpersonal support.   We must learn to form packs in which the demands of the individual do not destroy the cohesion of the group.  So every child grows up "socialized" to fit first its family,  and then the group culture within which the family resides.   Most rules of morality within religion are rules of group cohesion.  Whether these are ordered by the "great patriarchal father"  or "our ancestors"  or just common sense,  they become the boundaries of tribal cohesion.  (Even those rules which involve honoring the patriarchal god figure can be seen as relating to group authority.)  The individual's desire for self satisfaction is always struggling against these boundaries.  Every political movement,  every political controversy is always about finding the balance between these two poles in a given group, including the Liberal/Conservative debate in our current election.

All these rules of appropriate participation are "thoughts" in the Krishnamurti sense, interfering with a truly free sense of life.  They are part of past learning,  and represent a boundary on living in the present.   To be an accepted member of the group,  one must monitor ones situation and obey these parameters.   This knowledge is just as necessary as how to drive a car,  or how to avoid stepping on rattlesnakes.   They contribute to the fear of loneliness and isolation,  just as he describes,  and cannot be ignored as "just psychological" because they are based on real requirements:  to live with others,  to hold a job,  to maintain a marriage,  etc.

K does not say that thought or conditioning is unnecessary.  Rather that the mind must always be on guard: "Therefore the brain is actively watching itself every minute to see that thought and time do not enter the realm where they are not necessary."…"This is real discipline"…So there is a skill to be developed by which the mind learns to differentiate situations which require thought and conditioning from those which do not. 

Historically,  the contemplative religions dealt with this contradiction in principles by being monastic.   The followers left the boundaries of ordinary society to become devotees and then survive on charity,  minimal self production,  and a culture of isolation within the community.   This is NOT the basis for a long term stable value system.   So such traditions,  Buddhism for example,  eventually included a secondary system of value:  in Buddhism this becomes Boddhisaatva: "not withdrawing from the cycles of Samsara until every sentient being is enlightened"  ie,  being willing to work with others to promote the same culture and set of beliefs.  And also the 8 principles of the noble path, which include specific lifestyle expectations. 

Throughout human history,  when different value systems interact at a boundary, conflict usually occurs.  This is mostly to maintain group cohesion,  because the failure of others to follow your belief system threatens that your adherence is not crucial to survival in this world,  or the next.  It represents a challenge to and disconfirmation of your belief system.  Such confrontations can be very violent, bloody,  and ongoing as in the 30 years war between Protestants and Catholics in Europe from 1618-1648.   What makes our current global world so challenging is that the dissemination of global communications expands this edge of culture contact everywhere.  There is virtually no region of the globe that does not experience this challenge of conflicting value systems thanks to the internet!

There is "sin".  It is actions which alienate one from one's community.   And these are constantly changing and depend to a significant degree on the judgement of the group.  And there is also living unbounded by conditioning in the present moment.  And these two are not easy to reconcile.  There is "absolute sin" in the sense of actions by the group or its members that destroy the group or lower its likelihood of survival.   Within this group boundary,  the individual struggles to find "freedom" from the conditioning and demands of history and experience to live in the present moment.