TESTING MAJOR EVOLUTIONARY HYPOTHESES ABOUT RELIGION WITH A RANDOM SAMPLE

DAVID SLOAN WILSON

ROBERT REEVES

DAVID SLOAN WILSON

Distinguished professor of Biological Sciences and Anthropology at Binghamton University

Fun fact: 1975-76, he held a dual position as Research Associate in Zoology at the University of Witwatersrand and the University of Washington.

Something of a controversial figure. Detractors like to point out that he’s

funded by Templeton Foundation (ad hominem?)

DARWIN’S CATHEDRAL

Wilson publishes Darwin’s Cathedral (2002) This paper is something of a sequel to

that book and its group-level adaptation hypothesis.

Wilson wants to eliminate selection bias in choosing sample religions to test theories: But has he avoided confirmation bias?

GROUP-LEVEL ADAPTATION

Here comes the controversy—Wilson is a proponent of group selection: to him, religion is an example of a group-level adaptation. http://www.edge.org/conversation/the-false-allure-o

f-group-selection

INTRO: EXISTING HYPOTHESES

INTRO: WILSON’S HYPOTHESIS Religions are largely (but not entirely) group-level

adaptations. In their behavioral prescriptions, theology, and social

practices, most religions are well-suited to provide instructions for how to promote cooperation among group members and reduce freeloading and exploitation.

The features of religion that appear most irrational are really proximate causes for behaviors that ultimately benefit the group.

The “true” and “pure” religion is based on group welfare; when selfish individuals start to take control, they are generally called out for “corrupting” the true religion.

METHODS

A computer program selected 35 random religious systems from the 16-volume Encyclopedia of Religion. Wilson wants us to believe that by randomly

sampling religions he has eliminated selection bias AND that his sample is now representative of more-universal notions of religion (important).

35 undergrads helped him research the various religions in depth.

Then he explicates the examples he apparently deemed most relevant, and draws general conclusions.

RELIGIONS

DISMISSING NON-ADAPTIVE HYPOTHESES

FINDINGS: DISMISSING NON-ADAPTIVE HYPOTHESES First, religions from the sample are centered

largely on practical concerns, especially those that define social groups and regulate social interactions. They have what Durkheim called “secular utility.” Wilson cites Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and

Jainism as functioning in this way. Religion, then, is about goals that are

achievable (unlike, for example, everlasting life; more like a well-regulated society) but only through the coordinated action of groups.

DISMISSING NON-ADAPTIVE HYPOTHESES

But what about “otherworldly” aspects? Religions are so often irrational, costly, time-

consuming (rituals), etc. which according to Wilson leads theorists to nonfunctional (i.e. “right-column”) hypotheses.

Wilson explains these as evidence of proximate causes—anything that will reliably produce the “helping behavior.” Features that motivate adaptive behaviors, regardless of how bizarre they may appear, are consistent with a functional theory.

WHICH ADAPTIVE HYPOTHESIS?

CASE FOR BETWEEN-GROUP SELECTION Benefits of religion are enjoyed by members of the group, but

not usually in the sense of some members profiting and the expense of others (when religion is “true” and “pure”).

Benefits of religion are typically public goods that require investment from the individuals. Wilson sees this as a clear indicator of group selection:

“Very simply, groups that ‘get their act together’ outperform other groups, and this advantage outweighs the disadvantages of being a public good provider within groups.”

Self-serving behaviors are, again, typically viewed as “corruptions” of the true religion.

Supported by samples (no real data).

WHAT IS BETWEEN-GROUP SELECTION?

Not always violent—most religions in the random sample were not spread by war, but by differences in recruitment, retention, and birth and death rates based on ability of the group to function as a unit.

Not necessarily genetic—Wilson puts strong emphasis on “cumulative, socially transmitted information” as essential to religious tradition—that is, cultural evolution. He plays a little fast and loose with his definitions

here. Is this really selection?

DEALING WITH COMPETITORS: ADAPTIVE THEORIES PT. I “Cultural parasite” hypothesis

Dawkins’ memes, cultural analog of genes, which can be regarded as autonomous life forms evolved to perpetuate themselves with no clear benefit to human hosts.

Dawkins considers religion to be a meme—we would be better off without it.

Wilson feels he’s proven that religion is functionally beneficial, so the “cultural parasite” theory holds no weight for him. Perhaps notable that Dawkins dismisses group-selection

with unmatched vigor; Wilson dismisses him right back.

DEALING WITH COMPETITORS: ADAPTIVE THEORIES PT. II Richerson and Boyd (2004) conception of cultural evolution

Wilson doesn’t even view this theory as a competitor; nor does he actually explain it. He simply absorbs it:

“Not only have the parameters of cultural evolution evolved by genetic evolution to promote biological fitness on balance, but they have evolved to increase the efficacy of between-group selection relative to within-group selection.”

Introduced a little out of nowhere—what is this based on? Is Wilson overreaching with his metaphor of cultural

selection? (e.g. he refers to “the mechanisms that enable all of this nongenetic information to be encoded, expressed…, and faithfully transmitted.”)

WHY GROUP SELECTION? No gene-level theory of religion? Short review, because I find this confusing and minimally

supported: Wilson’s makes a claim (he doesn’t give data, but he

must have some) that religion functions as a public good, like welfare: problem is that it creates a negative fitness difference within the group between those who give and those who benefit without cost.

Wilson would conclude that if group selection was not in play, religion would never have been selected for.

As discussed earlier, he argues that public good production primarily increases between-group fitness, which is for Wilson a phenomenon of group selection. Groups that get their act together outperform other groups.

JAINISM Essentially, although Jainism’s customs are seemingly arcane,

bizarre, and maladaptive, Wilson ultimately finds the religion in keeping with his ideas upon close examination. Wilson uses this example of a proof of concept, since

Jainism seemed to him the most inimical of his random samples. But selectively choosing proof of concept examples is exactly what he was trying to avoid.

Aside from that, his explanations are there: it would seem Jainism is more functional than may have been previously assumed.

Does anyone have any questions or want to discuss his section on Jainism in specific detail?

SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION

Most religions in the sample have what Durkheim called secular utility.

The practical benefits are inherently group and other-oriented.

In some cases the practical side of religion is so overt that it becomes indistinguishable from politics.

In other cases the practical side is obscured by the otherworldly side of religion, but these can be largely reconciled through the proximate/ultimate distinction.

ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION Evolution is a multifactorial process with many constraints on

natural selection, so all of the major hypotheses have some degree of validity. However, portrayals of religion as primarily nonfunctional or individually selfish (in the sense of benefiting some members relative to others within the same group) can be rejected on the basis of the survey. (gulp)

Religions are not autonomous cultural life forms that parasitize human individuals (not memes).

Instead, they demonstrate that the parameters of cultural evolution have themselves evolved to ENHANCE between-group selection and restrict within-group selection. (!)

Between-group selection can take the form of direct conflict, but it usually takes other forms. He invites us to continue the effort, leading toward a

cohesive interdisciplinary field of evolutionary religious studies.

BRIEFLY, HAIDT AND WILSON Haidt enthusiastically endorses Wilson’s hypotheses as the confluence

of the Durkeimian approach to religion (on belonging) and Darwinian approach to morality (involving multilevel selection): “Gods and religions, in sum, are group-level adaptations for

producing cohesiveness and trust… they are created by the members of the group, and they then organize the activity of the group… In Wilson’s account, human minds and human religions have been coevolving (just like bees and their physical hives) for tens or hundreds of thousands of years.”

Explains for Haidt the power of the basic religious psychology (doingbelievingbelongingdoing).

Religions beliefs and practices have been binding humans together into groups for tens of thousands of years; belief in supernatural agents elicited greater commitment from members.