David Sloan Wilson: "Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About Religion"

[andyandy]

But Dawkins' book was an attack on the idea of God, and not just a rehashing of his scientific work. Wilson writes an article supposedly criticizing Dawkins' book but its actually a technical discussion about the merits of group selection. Furthermore he's talking about group selection and adaptation at the cultural level without clarifying what he even means by this.

It criticises Dawkins' approach to religion with regards to the science that he goes onto discuss in the article. One should not expect that "The God Delusion" be taken as some holy book which must be wholly refuted or wholly accepted - his expertise is in evolutionary biology, it is within this sphere he discusses what he perceives to be failings in Dawkins' approach.

Then why does he think Dawkins opposes his notion of group selection at the level of human culture?

You're trying to prove your statement Wilson thinks that there are no memes that are beneficial to society. This is a non sequiter.

Why did he entitle the article "Beyond Demonic Memes"

Quite - beyond negative memes. No proof yet that Wilson thinks there are no memes that are beneficial to society.

and why else would he refer to "a cultural disease organism designed to benefit itself at the expense of both individuals and groups".

It's quite disapointing that you're approaching this somewhat disingenously, here's the whole quote

Engineering principles dictate that a religion designed to benefit the whole group will be different from one designed to benefit some individuals (presumably the leaders) at the expense of others within the same group, which in turn will be different from a cultural disease organism designed to benefit itself at the expense of both individuals and groups, which in turn will be different from a religion for which the term “design” is inappropriate. It would be odd indeed if such different conceptions of religion could not be distinguished on the basis of carefully gathered descriptive information.

It does nothing to prove your assertion that Wilson thinks that no memes are beneficial to society.

Indeed he discusses memes;

Dawkins’ third claim to fame, in addition to selfish genes and extended phenotypes, was to coin the term “meme” to think about cultural evolution. In its most general usage, the word “meme” becomes newspeak for “culture” without adding anything new. More specific usages suggest a variety of interesting possibilities; that culture can be broken into atomistic bits like genes, that these bits are somehow represented inside the head, and especially that they can evolve to be organisms in their own right, often spreading at the expense of their human hosts, like the demons of old.

If one subscribes to the meme argument, which is made by Dawkins, then this one can view memes much like we view viruses - insofar as they exploit humans as a vehicle for propagation. Notice also that Wilson says often - not always - there goes the strawman.

His disagreement with Dawkins is not referringthen a scientific one but a moral/philosophical one about which religions are "beneficial

This is not true - the disagreement is wholly in the scientific realm, as to how science should be applied to understanding humans' propensity to believe in God.

 

[andyandy]

Is someone actually arguing that organized religions have some kind of evolutionary signifigance? Holy Jumping Jesus! Please, somebody, tell me one of two things:

1) I'm misunderstanding.
2) This fellow Wilson really doesn't know that organized cults are a creation of yesterday.

Assuming that H. sapiens arose, say, 100,000 years ago and that agriculture and settled ways of life appeared at most 11,000 years ago (and not everywhere in the world), we've been practicing our lamentable forms of worship for what amounts to an eyeblink of time. There's no evidence for oppressive religion earlier than the Neolithic; hunting peoples don't practice religion in the way we agriculturalists do. There hasn't been time for Christianism or Jainism or Frumism (my personal fave among religions) to exert any sort of evolutionary pressure on the species.

I hope it's thing 1. Really, I do. I'd rather be mistaken than appalled.

Of course selective pressures can be brought to bear from any number of sources. Do we have to go down the talk-slowly-to-the-creationist road of clearly explaining how talking about evolution does not require that one solely focuses on the evolution from one species into another? That evolution within species is a matter of selective pressures being brought to bear upon a population? That one can look at societal selective pressures within subgroups to explain how say ALDH induced alcohol intolerance arose amongst Asian and indigenous populations within the timeframe you've dismissed as insignificant? Surely that is not necessary.

There are a whole host of examples,

The selective pressures of the bubonic plague to explain the frequency and geographical spread of the CCR5-Δ32 deletion allele

Western European lactase tolerance as a result of dairy farming

And we are still evolving - HIV for instance is a modern and very strong selective pressure

In certain parts of South Africa, for example, nearly half of women are infected with the virus. In a study in Durban, Dr Philip Goulder (University of Oxford) and colleagues found that women with a certain combination of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) variants – HLA-B27 – were better at clearing HIV infection than those with HLA-A or HLA-C genetic subtypes. (HLAs are produced by the major histocompatibility complex, by far the most variable region of the human genome.) Infected mothers with protected HLA-B genes are more likely to survive and pass on those genes to their children.

http://genome.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTX034686.html

selective pressures don't require millenia, or even centuries to affect population evolution.

 

[sackett]

With great diffidence, andy, I think that, yes, we need to talk slowly about this. I want to see a convincing example of a cult bestowing competitive advantages on its followers.

I fear that our Dr. Wilson is just saying that bull tish is good for people.

 

[chriswl]

It criticises Dawkinscriticizes approach to religion with regards to the science that he goes onto discuss in the article. One should not expect that "The God Delusion" be taken as some holy book which must be wholly refuted or wholly accepted - his expertise is in evolutionary biology, it is within this sphere he discusses what he perceives to be failings in Dawkins' approach.

If he wants to argue with Dawkins about evolutionary biology then fine. But he subtitles the article "why Dawkins is wrong about religion". I've read the article twice now and I've still no idea what he is actually disagreeing with Dawkins about here.

He was refering specifically to Dawkins' application of the meme idea to religion.

So either he is reading Dawkins as simply saying that religion has a memetic basis. No cause for disagreement there I would think. Or he thinks Dawkins is saying that most religions are harmful memes. Perhaps he disagrees with this but this and thinks the memes in question are beneficial but this is hardly a scientific question about group selection.

If one subscribes to the meme argument, which is made by Dawkins, then this one can view memes much like we view viruses - insofar as they exploit humans as a vehicle for propagation.

Yes, but we need to be careful about the word "exploit" here. Nothing judgemental is intended. Very often the most successful way of "exploiting" humans will be to make their lives better. Science is full of memes (Newton's Law, Germ theory of Disease) that survive because people value the benefits they bring.

 

[andyandy]

With great diffidence, andy, I think that, yes, we need to talk slowly about this. I want to see a convincing example of a cult bestowing competitive advantages on its followers.

I fear that our Dr. Wilson is just saying that bull tish is good for people.

ok - so you're no longer pursuing your claim that the time frame is in any way relevant?

Your sentence

There hasn't been time for Christianism or Jainism or Frumism (my personal fave among religions) to exert any sort of evolutionary pressure on the species.

is what i took issue with. For this is simply not true. If you want conclusive proof that religion did provide selective benefit then I doubt you will find satisfaction in any response, but it is very easy to hypotheses how such selective pressure could come about. At its most rudimentary religion provides a unifying element - a commonality which when looking at the transition from small group/family unit hunter gatherer to large tribe/emergent civilization we could suppose that those with a predisposition to believe and thus accept their place within a social hierarchy would have prospered and bred to an extent not shared by family units/small groups not entering into such a system. Indeed a much less nebulous selective pressure is on show throughout the OT - that of the slaughter of those who do not share those beliefs which you subscribe to....

 

[Beth]

Fascinating article. Thanks.

 

[sackett]

I don't abandon my insistence on the relevance of the timeframe. But I'm tickled to see organized religion compared to HIV and the Black Plague.

ETA: No, I think I shouldn't be flip about that comparison. Organized religion as we know it, what I'm calling oppressive religion, appeared with near-epidemic suddenness as agriculture expanded in the ancient Near East. It seems to have evolved -- metathesized -- along with agriculture. I surmise (and that's all it is) that the chronic insecurity, the constant state of fear in which subsistence farmers live, as compared to the relative confidence in life that hunter-gatherers enjoy, gave birth to the gods we still live with today. Simply put, I think attributing the success of agricultural communities to the unifying effects of religion is getting things backward. People succumbed to religion (and to its thuggish use by priests and kings) only after they had adopted a communal way of life and its apparent (and I think fleeting) advantages.

 

[andyandy]

No, I don't abandon my insistence on the relevance of the timeframe involved. But I'm tickled to see organized religion compared to HIV and the Black Plague.

You think that because I gave the example of the bubonic plague and HIV that these are the only size scale selective pressures that are brought to bear on our species? Or are you just being contrary? You took a position that there has not been enough time in the last several thousand years for religion to have any affect on population evolution. This is false. There is no need to now claim that you wish equivilence with the bubonic plague before you can accept that selective pressure is possible.

Natural selection does not require cataclysmic selective pressures such as HIV or the plague in order to operate - since the agricultural age scientists have discovered over 700 different genome reshapings due to natural selection. Most of these would have been a result of gradual benefit - a tipping of reproductive odds in an individuals' direction - strange that you skipped over the given example of lactose tolerance in demanding HIV or bubonic plague equivilence - for this is just as valid a result of selective pressure.

 

[Beth]

If he wants to argue with Dawkins about evolutionary biology then fine. But he subtitles the article "why Dawkins is wrong about religion". I've read the article twice now and I've still no idea what he is actually disagreeing with Dawkins about here.

My take on it is that there are a number of hyptheses that might explain a particular trait or charactoristic and he objects to Dawkins making the assumption that religion is non-adaptive - i.e. it doesn't serve any useful purpose for human beings

For religion, however, he argues primarily on behalf of non-adaptation. As he sees it, people are attracted to religion the way that moths are attracted to flames.

Wilson seems to feel that Dawkins is supporting this hypothesis without having actually examined the research on it, and his (Wilson's) opinion is that the research indicates that religion helps communities and the individuals within them to improve their chances of survival. In other words, he's saying Dawkins views on the utility of religion are not supported by the empirical evidence currently available.

 

[chriswl]

My take on it is that there are a number of hyptheses that might explain a particular trait or charactoristic and he objects to Dawkins making the assumption that religion is non-adaptive - i.e. it doesn't serve any useful purpose for human beings.

Thanks for that, you might be right. Wilson says:

"Evolutionists employ a number of hypotheses to study any trait, even something as mundane as the spots on a guppy. Is it an adaptation that evolved by natural selection? If so, did it evolve by benefiting whole groups, compared to other groups, or individuals compared to other individuals within groups?"

Actually, the conventional view is that the trait could only have evolved by benefitting the genes that produce it. Wilson has his own, controversial theory of group selection (multi-level selction theory) that maintains that selection can happen at the level of the individual or the group. But he doesn't explain that theory here.

"With cultural evolution there is a third possibility. Since cultural traits pass from person to person, they bear an intriguing resemblance to disease organisms. Perhaps they evolve to enhance their own transmission without benefiting human individuals or groups."

A better analogy than disease here would be with genes, which evolve to enhance their own transmission without necesarily benefitting individuals or groups. The analog here is the meme and it is conventional to regard this as the sole unit of selection for cultural evolution. So ideas will not spread simply because they are good for society and conversely, ideas may propagate even though they are harmful to society.

I think Dawkins' view would be that culture (including religion) is always adaptive, but adaptive from the perspective of the memes. And that it makes no sense to talk of traits being "adaptive" for individuals or groups because adaptation does not take place at the level of the individual or group. Though the traits may well happen to be beneficial or harmful to individuals or groups.

 

[andyandy]

ETA: No, I think I shouldn't be flip about that comparison. Organized religion as we know it, what I'm calling oppressive religion, appeared with near-epidemic suddenness as agriculture expanded in the ancient Near East. It seems to have evolved -- metathesized -- along with agriculture. I surmise (and that's all it is) that the chronic insecurity, the constant state of fear in which subsistence farmers live, as compared to the relative confidence in life that hunter-gatherers enjoy, gave birth to the gods we still live with today. Simply put, I think attributing the success of agricultural communities to the unifying effects of religion is getting things backward. People succumbed to religion (and to its thuggish use by priests and kings) only after they had adopted a communal way of life and its apparent (and I think fleeting) advantages.

There are many strands to this...

firstly back to the Upper paelithic emergence of religion - with shamenistic/supernatural artistic representations along with evidence of burial rituals suggesting the start of religious ideologies around 30,000BC

The desire to anthropomorphize or for totemism - (to place man within the natural world) does seem to form the foundation of religious belief and belief in that which we would term the supernatural. Equally it is argued that the ability to project human intelligence and characteristics upon animals confers empathy with, and thus greater prediction of animal behavior - with obvious selective benefits arising from such ability.

It's not of course clear if one directly drives the other - the propensity to anthropomorphize and towards totemism may have been a manifestation of a more fundamental change in conscious development, thus such beliefs might be a subsidiary result of this rather than selective pressure towards religion....

The second potential selective pressure would seem to be potentially conferred at the start of the Neolithic as the shift between hunter-gatherer and agricultural/community living necessitated communal bonds. As you say it is possible that new forms of religion were cultivated as a result of this shift to communal living - but i do think this underplays the powerful social control that religion does afford societies...

The third in broad strokes (and focusing on the west) is with the rise of monotheism....

 

[Beth]

Thanks for that, you might be right. Wilson says:


Actually, the conventional view is that the trait could only have evolved by benefitting the genes that produce it. Wilson has his own, controversial theory of group selection (multi-level selction theory) that maintains that selection can happen at the level of the individual or the group. But he doesn't explain that theory here.


A better analogy than disease here would be with genes, which evolve to enhance their own transmission without necesarily benefitting individuals or groups. The analog here is the meme and it is conventional to regard this as the sole unit of selection for cultural evolution. So ideas will not spread simply because they are good for society and conversely, ideas may propagate even though they are harmful to society.

I think Dawkins' view would be that culture (including religion) is always adaptive, but adaptive from the perspective of the memes. And that it makes no sense to talk of traits being "adaptive" for individuals or groups because adaptation does not take place at the level of the individual or group. Though the traits may well happen to be beneficial or harmful to individuals or groups.

You're welcome. I found it easy to understand his POV because it happens to coincide well with my own. Dawkins makes many good points in TGD, but I found his insistence that religion has no utility value to humans to be inappropriate. It is difficult for me to dismiss it for that reason when it is so clearly ingrained into our culture and our nature and so many people find it beneficial in their lives. It's nice to find myself in agreement with someone like Wilson.

 

[Faithkills]

Why is it so hard to understand how efficient using the survival drive in this manner to control people is?

Do what I say, and you live forever, and are part of something. Do not even think about questioning what I say, or you don't get to live forever.

I will never be called to provide anything in exchange for your obedience because it all happens conveniently after you die. It's the most resource efficient way to control people, period.

The beauty is that the believer is compelled to stamp out contrarian opinions that threaten her belief. She needs to control others to legitimize her own belief in never dying. She can morally rationalize it by convincing herself she is trying to save them. The system is self propagating, and driven by survival instinct.

Religion is ingrained because it works. Not because it has benefit to the believer, any benefit is incidental.

That's it. Why do we make it out to be such an inscrutable thing?

 

[Badger]

With great diffidence, andy, I think that, yes, we need to talk slowly about this. I want to see a convincing example of a cult bestowing competitive advantages on its followers.

I fear that our Dr. Wilson is just saying that bull tish is good for people.

Well, one analogy that springs to mind is the British Empire.

While not a religion of itself, it is a culture that appears to have bestowed competitive advantage on its followers. There are aspects of religion deeply ingrained in that culture in both an overt way (For god and country), and a covert way with the monarchy acting as a pseudo-deity supported by a "clergy" of the military chain of command.

It doesn't seem odd to me that some method of gathering people into groups and focussing their effort would, at times, provide competitive advantage. Perhaps sometimes those efforts were focussed on the wrong things, causing the culture to become extinct, while what we define as the visible religions around us have managed to focus energies in a more effective way.

At least that's the view from inside my pea-sized brain.

 

[andyandy]

Religion is ingrained because it works. Not because it has benefit to the believer, any benefit is incidental.

any evidence for such an absolute assertion?

 

[Herzblut]

firstly back to the Upper paelithic emergence of religion - with shamenistic/supernatural artistic representations along with evidence of burial rituals suggesting the start of religious ideologies around 30,000BC

The Neanderthals already knew burial rituals as far as I know. And the cave-paintings, didnt they mainly have spiritual significance?

The religious class in a community also served the need to maintain and progress knowledge. "Scientists" were priests at the same time and lifted astronomy skills of the old agyptians, mayans etc. to an amazing level. The peak times of islamic culture coincided with rapid progress in science and architecture. If you book your usual "Europe in three days" tour do not miss out on visiting the Alhambra in Granada, Spain. The Catholic Church saved hellenistic works , highlights of human thinking like Aristoteles - from being annihilated.

As you say it is possible that new forms of religion were cultivated as a result of this shift to communal living - but i do think this underplays the powerful social control that religion does afford societies...

Social control is a loaded phrase. Social cohibition requires a common and accepted morale codex. Religion served and still serves as an implementor of morale without which peaceful human coexistance is impossible. Morale comes first, religion has been the implementation tool.

Herzblut

 

[kmortis]

I surmise (and that's all it is) that the chronic insecurity, the constant state of fear in which subsistence farmers live, as compared to the relative confidence in life that hunter-gatherers enjoy, gave birth to the gods we still live with today. Simply put, I think attributing the success of agricultural communities to the unifying effects of religion is getting things backward. People succumbed to religion (and to its thuggish use by priests and kings) only after they had adopted a communal way of life and its apparent (and I think fleeting) advantages.

WHAT? If anything, it's the H-Gs that have the more uncertain life. There's a romanticized version of hunter-gatherers that makes their life out to be this idyllic existance, but it just isn't so. There's a really good reason most h-g bands settled down into a pastoral existance, and that's stability. Yes, crops fail, but you don't have to keep on the move to track them down. They also don't fail on a regular basis (assuming you settled in a fertile area, if you didn't then that's just unnatural selection at work), whereas hunting is a literal hit-or-miss endeavor.

Besides, without agriculture, you don't have beer. Without beer you don't have culture (both in the civilization- and zymurgy-aspects of that word).

 

[Faithkills]

any evidence for such an absolute assertion?

Every time someone murders someone of an opposing faith, straps a bomb on themselves, goes ballistic because they realize religion is a trick and the joke is on them, or votes the way they are told. Need more examples?

I'll buy the super entity behaves evolutionarily, but the cells of that entity are entirely disposable.

How many faiths have the tenet "we have good ideas, but if they ever seem counter to your own personal benefit, please disregard" ?

 

[andyandy]

Every time someone murders someone of an opposing faith, straps a bomb on themselves, goes ballistic because they realize religion is a trick and the joke is on them, or votes the way they are told. Need more examples?

you want to prove a statement like

"Religion is ingrained because it works. Not because it has benefit to the believer, any benefit is incidental."

through individual annecdotes about situtations like that?

The shorter answer to as to whether you have any evidence to support such an absolute conclusion would have been "no."

 

[Faithkills]

Well it's clear benefit to the believer is not the point unless you deny those examples.

Why else would you postulate the existence of religion then? It does control people, so much that it can override survival instinct. So it works.

If you would suggest that there is somehow a macro societal benefit and overriding the survival drive is occasionally beneficial, then I would say why did you need to override the drive in the first place if somehow the good of the group is a natural good to the individual.. why did you have to lie to him?

In any case, given that religion harms people and societies, it is currently doing so and has throughout history, and there is no evidence that it does one beneficial thing that could not be done without lying to people I don't think the burden of proof falls on me.

Religion does work to control people.
Religion does lie to do so.(or if not please tell me which one happens to have a monopoly on truth?)
Religion does harm and kill many people. (hence NOT an individual evolutionary motive)
Religion does harm societies. Please don't make me enumerate the countries that have fallen into theocracy and the results of that, or any group in which religious think becomes dominant.