We can get a better sense of fundamentalist reaction if we describe
more precisely what is so scandalous about modern influence in a reli-
gious milieu and if we take into account that the reaction is a matter of
coalitional processes. The message from the modern world is not just
that other ways of living are possible, that some people may not
believe, or believe differently, or feel unconstrained by religious
morality, or (in the case of women) make their own decisions without
male supervision. The message is also that people can do that without
paying a heavy price. Nonbelievers or believers in another faith are not
ostracized; those who break free of religious morality, as long as they
[294] abide by the laws, still have a normal social position; and women who
dispense with male chaperons do not visibly suffer as a consequence.
This "message" may seem so obvious to us that we fail to realize how
seriously it threatens social interaction that is based on coalitional
thinking. Seen from the point of view of a religious coalition, the fact
that many choices can be made in modern conditions without paying a
heavy price means that defection is not costly and is therefore very likely.
To give a more dramatic illustration of what this means in a coalition,
think of a platoon in times of war. This kind of group can only func-
tion—that is, undertake extremely dangerous operations with some
probability of success—if mutual trust is very high, so that each individ-
ual can take great risks to protect the others, knowing that they will do
the same in return. Everyone must be confident that implicit trust over-
rides considerations of immediate interest; otherwise members of the
group would be tempted to defect when the going gets rough. There is
usually a heavy price to pay for defection, stipulated by official codes
and enforced by threats of court-martial, prison or execution. Now peo-
ple in such groups frequently persecute, brutalize or ostracize in advance
those individuals who show signs of being less than altogether commit-
ted. Armies are rife with spontaneously organized ordeals that preemp-
tively discourage and in fact exclude those less reliable individuals long
before they are actually put to the test of real engagement. Soldiers are
often eager to ridicule, beat up and publicize the plight of those who fail
to show their daring. From the point of view of strict rationality, this
would seem a waste of time. Once you have established that someone is
a chicken, you should simply not trust him in dangerous situations and
that's that. Since you think he is not good soldier material, this will not
change him in the least. All the energy and time spent browbeating and
punishing the potential defector is wasted. But the expense makes sense
if we realize that it is probably not directed at the victim but at all the
RELIGION EXPLAINED