The first in a series of episodes on this question, this one being a scientific perspective from an ex-Mormon social psychologist
This is the first in a multi-part series of episodes that focuses on that very question. It will NOT get into sexual ethics, morality or normativity. Instead, we’re exploring why it is that religions pay widely varying attention to this or that aspect of human existence (diet; money; dead bodies; government; medicine; technology; war), but ALL religions across the board have much to say about sex and gender. This is especially true of Christianity. As always, we’ll get a number of scholars to weigh in on this from their diverse perspectives.
This week, we start with an ex-Mormon social psychologist — Dr. Jordan Moon (Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse) — who will look at this from the scientific perspective. He recently published a paper in a scientific journal with the title: “Why are world religions so concerned with sexual behavior?” We thought this was a perfect place to start. Some of the points/questions we talked about include:
sex and gender precede the fossil record of single cell life
there’s no clear evolutionary advantage, because some life forms still reproduce non-sexually even though they have the ability to do so sexually
although each religion might have certain laws about fundamental aspects of life (like diet; what to do with dead bodies; the use of mind-altering chemicals; technology; money; how to wage war), they ALL say something about sex and gender; this has been true across the globe and all through recorded history
Christianity in general, and Evangelicalism in particular, have MUCH to say about sex, gender, and sexuality
attributing sex to any form of Intelligent Design calls into question the “intelligence” of the Designer: ” …. “why run a sewer system through the middle of the playground?”
religion is so obsessed with this because “the stakes are very high”; however religions are not so uniformly or universally concerned about other matters for which the stakes are high (dietary laws; money; technology; war)
can human preoccupation with sex/gender be a product of evolution if we don’t see seeds of this preoccupation in our closest genetic relatives (apes)
animals don’t seem to have taboos about masturbation, nudity, public displays of affection, homosexual acts … this is all a uniquely human thing
if religion’s preoccupation is related to population control or reproductive success, then why is it against polygamy
Christian values vs Puritanism
correlation studies show one’s degree of religiosity (a psychological term) is better predicted by attitudes about sex than by moral values such as compassion
do religions give us our values, or do we gravitate toward religion based on values we already hold
do we choose religion because it aligns with our subconscious reproductive goals
if religion’s “interest” in sex is primarily related to controlling/encouraging reproductive success, then why do they reserve so much condemnation and shame for people who want to simply enjoy sex for the sake of intimacy and personal pleasure … and why would religion want to stomp out promiscuity
the evolutionary cost/benefit ratio for monogamy vs polygamy
why did ancient Israelite culture tolerate polygamy, but gradually transition to a monogamous society
history has shown that the majority of human cultures have been polygamous
does monogamy make human culture more stable and harmonious by keeping the unmated male youths “off the street and out of trouble”
the celibacy paradox: why do so many religions require their professional holy men to be celibate
why do religions attach so much condemnation, guilt and shame to all aspects of human sexuality, and why is this applied so much more heavily against females/daughters than against males/sons
Needless to say, it was a candid and stimulating conversation!?