Outside the Flock

Afghan citizen and former Muslim Abdul Rahman has converted to Christianity. He could be sentenced to death under Shariah law provisions contained in the Afghan constitution. The Afghan constitution is built on an uneasy alliance between secular freedoms and religious laws. Shariah law mitigates against Rahman in this case.

One can interpret what is going on in Rahman’s case by reflecting on the nature of religious belief. Let us grant, for argument’s sake, Pascal Boyer’s claim that religion is a by-product of mental processes that evolved for other purposes.

Large organized religions require and demand the social commitment of their believers on pain of death or extreme social ostracism. Social cohesion and commitment, regardless of religious practice, creates survival value. Religion piggybacks upon this natural human tendency toward social cohesion. Keeping believers inside a religion would be tenuous at best if an extreme punishment did not fit the extreme crime of leaving the fold.

Rahman’s case has fueled the same debates as the Danish cartoon events. As people try to score political points, they skip over the tricky questions about religious belief with its grounding in human nature.

Because religious belief is grounded in evolved human nature, it will be with us for a long time. Religion will also transcend political categories. The question remains as to whether persuasive logic about religious issues will change opinions arising from the strong social bonds that religions provide its members. Everyone’s fate hinges partially on this question.

Secular atheists are not popular people. (Evidence for this point can be found in Edie’s excellent article, Thoughts on Atheism, at Annotated Life.) Religious belief does not lend itself to classical persuasive argumentation; it is not that kind of thing. However, is there anything else we have to rely on?