Religion and Society II

In the last post I started the conversation with one aspect of religion’s role in society---as a cohesive force and a repository of moral strictures and order, recognizing that there were some unpleasant aspects to this order. I ended with a reference to the societal changes we have see since the 60’s, in particular elevation of the cult of individualism to pre-eminence, what I see as a major factor in the disintegration of shared moral values in the US.

The cult of the individual emphasizes the person and what he wants above all. If it feels good, it is good, and the impact on others is irrelevant. As a moral system unique unto himself, the individualist sees a shared moral order as one detrimental to his well being, as it asks for behavioral restraint in the form of curbing self interest, a distasteful concept to the individualist.

As the great Russian writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said, “A stable society is achieved not by balancing opposing forces but by conscious self-limitation….” The latter is a function of healthy societies, but is anathema to the individual concerned only with himself. We are living in a societal setting in which the shared healthy strictures (granted some were not) that once bound us together, whether formal and informal, are coming undone. Much of that seems due to the failure of self-limitation.

As shared moral order is lost, social anomie sets in. The word means normlessness (Emile Durkheim) and implies social instability and lethargy, which I think are increasing in Western society. At the same time, religious connections, including church/synagogue attendance and belief in God, and the moral order supplied by those, have weakened. I am not saying that the decline in religious conviction or in attendance at services themselves have directly caused the anomie, although that may be the case, or even the reverse. I am saying the rise of the individual at the expense of the group coupled with the decline in religious observance have at least contributed to a dissolving social entity.

Some argue that even if religions were a necessary outcome of human existence in early history, they are of no consequence today. In their view, secular associations will fill the void and be a source of moral order once religions are gone and humanistic principles are in play. But there are a couple of hurdles to overcome with this view. One is that the only examples we have of large-scale secular, “religion-free” systems were the communist ones of the 20^th century, and those look quite bad in retrospect. A second is that today’s Western humanists/secularists grew up in a Judeo-Christian ethical system, and cannot easily divorce their humanist leanings from those offered by that system. In other words, such folks can certainly act morally, in their mind due to  following humanist principles. Perhaps. But it is also distinctly possible that they are acting with moral correctness because of the Judeo-Christian culture within which they were raised, even if they reject the ethic.

A third hurdle is that most of the proponents of eliminating religion are atheists, understandably enough. But they are also part of the camp that has elevated the individual to near deity-like status. Thus, secular associations are very likely to fall prey to that very cult of the individual, the dictates of which overwhelm loyalty to any shared group standards, thus undermining group cohesion and at higher levels, societal cohesion. Without self-restraint, group cohesion is impossible, humanist principles notwithstanding.

A fourth hurdle is moral relativism, a view related to the cult of the individual. Moral relativism says that nothing is fixed and each person must decide for himself what are moral actions and what are not, and that those often switch places whenever the person wants a different outcome. Such a person is obligated to no consistency, and he is the sole determinant of what is right for him, meaning he can never make a moral mistake---an upside-down “moral” view if there ever was one. The views of others, as would be the case within a religious group, matter not one bit. An island unto himself, in his mind he is accountable to no one.

A possible fifth hurdle is that secular associations, while often beneficial, usually lack one of the three critical aspects of religion. The three, as defined by Haidt, are belonging, doing and believing, and secular associations can do quite well on the first two but not well on the third. Is it possible that the transcendent meaning derived from one’s religious beliefs is a key ingredient for adherence to a self-limiting moral code?

So the biggest question of all---Is there something (or more than one thing) that religion possesses that enables it to offer for its members a solid sense of connection and proper moral behavior based in part on voluntary restrictions in behavior? As we all know, many religions in the past and some today are not exactly exemplars of quality moral behavior. Nonetheless, the question still stands.

Are we morally better off with religion and its flaws than without it?