HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021281.jpg

Page | 35

uses evolutionary theory on inclusive fitness to order many of his findings. From the perspective of this model of basic human motivations, loneliness can be seen as a condition that “promotes inclusive fitness by signaling ruptures in social connections and motivates the repair or replacement of these connections.” 16 According to his interpretation of inclusive fitness, our gene continuity is not assured by simply having our own children. Our children also must have children as well. And this is a challenge entailing long-term expenditures of energy. To account for this, Cacioppo writes something about human infant dependency that is very close to what both the Greek philosopher Aristotle and the medieval Roman Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas set down many centuries earlier. Cacioppo says,

For many species, the offspring need little or no parenting to survive and reproduce. Homo sapiens, however, are born to the longest period of abject dependency of any species. Simple reproduction, therefore, is not sufficient to ensure that one’s genes make it into the gene pool. For an individual’s genes to make it to the gene pool, one’s offspring must survive to reproduce. Moreover, social connections and the behaviors they engender (e.g., cooperation, altruism, alliances) enhance the survival and reproduction of those involved, increasing inclusive fitness. 17

According to this view, the twofold interaction between inclusive fitness and the long period of infant dependency has shaped humans over the long course of evolution into the social and caring creatures we are. Sociality is a fundamental characteristic of humans, and, according to Cacioppo, spirituality, in its various forms, is an extension of sociality. Religion is generally, although not always, good for our mental and physical health - our heart, our blood pressure, our self-esteem, and our self-control - just like having good friends and family or not being lonely are also good for our well-being. 18 Cacioppo and colleagues do not equate sociality and religion; they are fully aware that religions are complex phenomena with many different doctrinal, ethical, ritual, organizational, personal, and social features that require either rigorous experimental or clinical population studies to sort out, even from the perspective of how they affect health. Nonetheless, he seems to hold that the sociality that most religions offer is a key reason for their efficacy in human well-being.

Does Christian Love Build on Health?

But my concern is the topic of Christian love and not simply Christianity’s contribution to mental and physical health. Although Jesus is said to have performed miracles of health, offering health in this world has never been at the core of Christianity or, for that matter, the other Abrahamic religions of Judaism and Islam. Bringing to maturity loving and self-giving persons has been the primary concern of Christianity, whether or not this contributes to health and well-being. But the question is, as I elaborated above, does Christian love build on eros - that is, our strivings for health and other goods - or come exclusively from some trans-natural source as Nygren believes the normative tradition taught? And did Christianity ever identify eros and our deepest motivations with

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021281