Does Religion Evolve? — Interrogating the Distinction Between Primitive and Pristine Religions
Judging from the vistas that emerge from the perennial debate surrounding Darwinism and particularly its conclusions on ‘evolution’, as well as its use of evolution to explain the nature and transformative processes of the world itself and the beings herein, it can be assumed that the greater number of conservative minds differ with the Darwinists on the subject of evolution. Given this backdrop, applying the concept of evolution’ to the phenomenon of religion, would as well be disputed. However, notwithstanding this situation, we would use the term ‘evolution’ to try to capture and explain the development processes of the doctrine and practice of religion, as seen in the history of religion itself. But in using the term ‘evolution’ we do not intend to adopt the concept of it as proposed by Darwinism and the historical currents of ‘Evolutionism’ after Charles Darwin. Rather than Darwin, we are inclined towards John Henry Newman and the concept of ‘development’ espoused in his An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.
Does religion evolve? Does religion undergo an evolutionary or metamorphic process? Does religious doctrine develop? Are religious practices transformed over time? What does the experience of religious practices and beliefs in the various epochs of human society reveal about the ‘journey’ of religions? Are religions ‘fixed deposits’ or, given time and the requisite circumstances, does every religion have an opportunity of purging and adapting itself, as to stand cheek to cheek with any other religion? Also, are there factors — social, political, economic — that aid the ‘evolution’ of one religion above others?
This inquiry comes at the background of the distinction between the so-called primitive religions and the so-called higher religions. Christianity and Islam, for example, have been given the lofty status, not only of ‘higher’ but also ‘revealed’ religions. From this ‘height’, other religions are looked upon, judged and graded; and this determines the relationship of the dominant Christian West and Islamic East, towards other religious traditions. It is the duty of the human and historical sciences to explain the universal instruments and factors by which different religions, originating and functioning in different climes and cultures, can be evaluated and classified as ‘primitive’ or ‘pristine’.
Leaving aside to each individual and to theologians, the debate over ‘false’ and ‘true’ religions, it is at least important for the human and historical sciences to investigate the factors that either aided or retarded both the ‘evolution’ and the ‘growth’ of various religions. If given the same political, geographical and sociological advantages, would the so-called primitive religions not ‘evolve’ and ‘grow’ to attain the same status and spread that the so-called higher religions that dominate the Christian West and the Islamic East enjoy today? Such comparative study of religions would likely jettison this distinction.
Ordinarily, every religion has a cultural context and a social geography; and these are usually different for all religions. The evolution and growth of a religion is consequent upon the factors offered it by the society from which it springs or into which it is born. Thus, it sounds unsound to judge a religion by the socio-cultural context or the doctrinal standards of another religion. The ‘profiling’ of some religions as ‘primitive’ based on the parameters of Christian or Islamic civilizations, seems to me to amount to intellectual imperialism, an ideological chauvinism that is used to justify the religious colonization of other climes. Whereas works at evangelization or even ‘conversion’ are legitimate and worthy endeavours, missionaries ought to understand that no religion should be profiled; rather, religions should freely evolve and devolve in the competitive ‘market’ of religions.
Michael Richmond Duru
August 10, 2021
https://michaelrichmondduru.medium.com/subscribe
