This essay is a continuation of three prior posts:
Genes, Genesis and God: Introduction
Genes, Genesis and God: Natural Genesis
Genes, Genesis and God: Cultural Genesis, Part I

As discussed in my last post, Holmes Rolston agrees with the consensus among evolutionary scientists that human behavior is genetically based. However, he rejects the suggestion that we are genetically determined to, above all, “selfishly” seek survival or reproduction. Instead, our innate mental flexibility enables us to transcend our biological propensities toward the creation of cumulative transmissible cultures.

According to Rolston, human cultural behaviors far exceed the boundaries of individual self-interests or family ties. Reductionist explanations of religion, for example, which maintain that it is rooted in genetic selfishness, do not hold up under scrutiny. A direct correlation does not exist between religion and fertility rates.

First, quantitative studies have examined religions known to be reproductively successful (it’s hard to study a religion that no longer exists). Second, cultural reproductive strategies differ (in some cultures, for example, having fewer children increases the chance of their survival). Third, religion crosses over genetic, tribal, cultural, political, religious, and geographical boundaries. Nor does it make sense to argue that religion is merely a means of coping with a cruel, hard world. Religions uphold certain ideals: love, justice, and compassion for all. Those rooted in fantasy do not last for long, nor do they offer survival value.1

The universal religions have managed to persist because they say something true about the world. Rolston argues that their truth lay in detecting the sacred in the world, which is real and necessary for living well. Successful religions must speak universally to the “common condition of humankind,” and offer a path to redemption to heal its brokenness (345).2 A paradigm of selfishness cannot explain this. A paradigm of sharing can.

Neither can science be so easily explained in terms of survival advantages. First, there is no correlation between science and genetic fertility (i.e., scientists do not decide to have children because they are scientists). Second, although science does offer survival advantages to society by way of sharing the value of its discoveries, scientific work far exceeds what is necessary. The human mind allows us to imagine and create instruments for accessing phenomena beyond our native range and which do not necessarily offer any immediate survival benefits. Rationality, writes Rolston:

“works for building microscopes…decoding atoms and quarks,…for solving equations that run time backward to the big bang and then philosophizing about cosmology, for postulating and trying to simulate the chemical origin of life in the ancient seas” (205).

Science, like religion, is a cultural phenomenon that arises out of and transcends evolutionary history. As Rolston puts it: “Science is both evolution becoming conscious of itself and evolution transcending itself” (211).

Human culture represents consciousness that has broken free of genetic determinism. We can no longer interpret the world as if this exodus from nature never happened, although this is certainly the view of scientists who believe that science provides the ultimate explanation for all cultural and natural phenomena. The consequences of this mistake are the misvaluing and degradation of nature, and the under appreciation of cultural geniuses such as religion.

Are there opportunities for discussion in which science and religion can develop a more respectful relationship, one that is true to the Earth story as Rolston tells it? (My next essay will explore this question.)

Notes
1. Rolston writes that if the survival value of religion lay in its power to create pleasant fantasies, then we would have to view science as a “disabling mechanism” that “triggers our extinction” (342).
2. Rolston also argues that even if religion were primarily about coping with the hardships, it does not logically follow that religion is not true. For a worldview to allow one to function effectively in the world, it usually needs to have some correspondence with reality (336-37).

Works cited
Rolston III, Holmes. Genes, Genesis and God. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1999.

Photo: “Red Road, Red Spirit Woman,” Pamela Yates, copyright Pamela Yates, www.pamelayates.com