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

[CFLarsen]

It is an example in which religion provides a regulatory framework within which society is controlled. Now if this is "good" in the sense of western political ideology is irrelevant to a discussion as to the evolutionary benefit such a system may have proffered its members with regards to group cohesion.

It's religious blackmail. What's the "evolutionary benefit" of that?

 

[andyandy]

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

Your annecdotes don't come anywhere close to justifying your statement

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


You have to look at the propensity to believe as an evolutionary trait not simply say - "hey look someone did something stupid because of religion, that proves my point."

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?

It does not require that you accept an "overriding of the survival drive" - this is just a strawman. Two examples which require discussion rather than dismisal...

1) The desire to anthropomorphize or for totemism 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.
2) The second potential selective pressure would seem to be conferred at the start of the Neolithic as the shift between hunter-gatherer and agricultural/community living necessitated communal bonds.

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.

Ok

On average, religious believers are more prosocial than non-believers, feel better about themselves, use their time more constructively, and engage in long-term planning rather than gratifying their impulsive desires. On a moment-by-moment basis, they report being more happy, active, sociable, involved and excited. Some of these differences remain even when religious and non-religious believers are matched for their degree of prosociality

That you make value judgments as to the method of delivery is wholly irrelevant to its potential effectiveness as a selective pressure.

Religion does work to control people.

Quite - a strong potential selective pressure.

Religion does lie to do so.(or if not please tell me which one happens to have a monopoly on truth?)

Irrelevent value judgment.

Religion does harm and kill many people.

True - most of those people killed are from outside that specific belief system - hence another potential selective pressure.


You've not made a compelling case so far....

 

[andyandy]

It's religious blackmail. What's the "evolutionary benefit" of that?

In the neolithic period, transition from hunter gatherer/small family unit to large tribe/emergent civilization conferred great evolutionary benefit with regards to life expectancy. Such transitions necessitated greater social bonds and social hierarchy than had previously been required. That you make a value judgment as to the moral validity of the delivery system is irrelevent.

 

[qayak]

It is an example in which religion provides a regulatory framework within which society is controlled. Now if this is "good" in the sense of western political ideology is irrelevant to a discussion as to the evolutionary benefit such a system may have proffered its members with regards to group cohesion.

As time goes on, I become less and less convinced that religion has survived because it has had any benefit in group cohesion. The reason I say this is that it cannot account for atheism and the success of science which obviously do not provide a benefit to survival through group cohesion.

I think that humans developed a fear of the unknown as a survival mechanism. This is the same "flight or fight" response we see in other species. The greatest unknown and therefore the greatest source of fear is what happens after death and unfortunately this fear cannot be dealt with using the fight or flight response available to humans.

So, what tools do humans have to deal with this odd threat? Fear of the unknown can be handled in three ways. One can succumb to the fear which makes living an enjoyable life very difficult, one can pretend to "know" the unknown which alleviates the fear as long as it isn't too obvious that the made up truth is in fact false, and finally, one can actually gain knowledge until the unknown truly becomes known.

This would explain why both religion and science/atheism compete for human converts. They both work when addressing a fear instilled in us through evolution. Each of these systems utilizes a different aspect of what makes us human. One mainly utilizes our highly developed imagination and the other mainly our highly developed intellect, although each uses both to some extent.

Further proof of this, in my opinion, can be seen in the fact that religion has not advanced any major new insights into the matter in many hundreds of years. The imagination based system reached its limit about dealing with the fear long ago but the intellect has not. All knew ideas about the origin of life and answers to the question of death, now come from science.

It is not in the best interest of religion to change to the better knowledge based system. That would be philosophical suicide. The only way religion can compete with science is by aggressively attacking it and pointing to other benefits it supposedly has over the knowledge based system. Things like group cohesion, a sense of community, social networking, etc.

These are NOT benefits of religion in my view. They are benefits of groups working together for a common goal. As such, there is nothing to stop science/atheism from having the same benefits and we see that it does. Get a group of scientists or atheists together and those benefits are equal to religion. In all other areas science far out shines religion. Those areas are; explaining the origins of life, human behaviour, what happens after death, etc., where religion really has nothing further to add and what it already offers has been falsified.

To conclude. It is my opinion that the only benefit religion ever had was that it alleviated fears inherent in being human. All the rest of the benefits were incidental. Some have been very powerful, such as the ability for people to be controlled through the use of their own imagination, or the sense of community through group worship. However, these things are a result of the human condition, not religion. Religion is just a way to exploit them and not always for the good of the individual. There is nothing stopping science from having these benefits nor from being exploited to the detriment of society. I would just argue that the very nature of science makes the exploitation much less likely while enhancing the benefits greatly.

 

[CFLarsen]

In the neolithic period, transition from hunter gatherer/small family unit to large tribe/emergent civilization conferred great evolutionary benefit with regards to life expectancy. Such transitions necessitated greater social bonds and social hierarchy than had previously been required. That you make a value judgment as to the moral validity of the delivery system is irrelevent.

I don't see why religion was required to achieve that.

 

[Faithkills]

You have to look at the propensity to believe as an evolutionary trait not simply say - "hey look someone did something stupid because of religion, that proves my point."

It does not require that you accept an "overriding of the survival drive" - this is just a strawman. Two examples which require discussion rather than dismisal...

It's not a strawman it's entirely germane.

Something you don't understand does not mean straw man.

Indirectly it is evolutionary, I didn't imply otherwise. It is necessary for sentience to be able to act on data of imperfect pedigree, and to make assessments about the validity of various options. The survival drive is similarly evolutionary in origin. The two in combination however can and have been exploited to the detriment of the organism. That they are evolutionary neither implies automatically it is always beneficial to the individual nor to the group.

If you can tell a convincing enough lie about eternal life after death you can subvert the survival drive so that the person thinks they are acting reasonably by killing themselves. This is like using pheromone bait to poison insect colonies.

True - most of those people killed are from outside that specific belief system - hence another potential selective pressure.

You've not made a compelling case so far....

Are you aware that Iran has the second highest number of executions in the world, second only to China which has a vastly greater population?

Would you assert that any time someone commits suicide for their belief that this promotes their genetic heritage?

 

[Puppycow]

Fascinating article and discussion here. I actually think this is could be a topic for the science forum.

I tend to agree with andyandy in this discussion. Not that I’m against Dawkins. I am currently on the final chapter of his book, which I am thoroughly enjoying.

From the article:

No one at the conference presented a compelling example of a religious belief that spreads like a disease organism, to the detriment of both individuals and groups.

Jonestown? Heaven's Gate?
Of course, such examples are necessarily short-lived.

Dominic Johnson reminded us that inter-group conflict, as much as we might not like it and want to avoid it, has been an important selective force throughout human genetic and cultural evolution and that some elements of religion can be interpreted as adaptations for war. In my response to this paper during the question period, I largely agreed with Johnson but pointed out that most of the religions in my random sample did not spread by violent conflict (e.g., Mormonism).

Perhaps, but what about the two most successful religions, Christianity and Islam, which dwarf most other religions in size.

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

And, one might argue, a religion that forbids pre-marital intercourse and encourages monogamy, would be very adaptive with respect to HIV. Just a thought.

 

[Meadmaker]

It's religious blackmail. What's the "evolutionary benefit" of that?

Wilson's article explains it.

I don't know anything about Jainism except what's in the article, so I'm just going by what's in there, but here's my understanding of what it said.

The development of a long distance trading system in pretechnological times required an incredible degree of trust. You couldn't electronically check assets. You couldn't check credit scores. You couldn't withhold wages from people who refused to pay back a debt. Furthermore, there was a huge investment of time and money involved. It wasn't going down to the corner store. You might be talking about organizing a caravan that would take weeks to reach a destination. There were huge opportunities, but huge risks, and the difference between the winners and the losers would be mostly that the winners trusted the right people, while the losers trusted the wrong people.

So, how do you know the right people to trust? The ascetics provided the answer. The lay people were held to one standard in the Jain religion. The ascetics were held to a different, more demanding, standard. If you didn't care about feeding the beggars, you could go on about your lives to your own standards and be none the worse for it in this life or the next, but no beggar would eat from your house. In order to get beggars to eat there, you had to hold to a higher standard than that which your religion required of you. You had to make a sacrifice for someone else's benefit.

People who go out of their way to help others are generally trustworthy. If you were the sort of person willing to make a sacrifice in order to feed a beggar, just because it was the right thing to do, you were probably the sort of person who would repay a debt promptly, just because it was the right thing to do. A person who could be trusted to feed a beggar could be trusted as a business partner.

One could argue that you don't need religion for that, but apparently, that isn't the case. The article noted that Jains were generally more wealthy than non-Jains. That's experimental data that requires an explanation, and Wilson provided it.

 

[Puppycow]

Fascinating, these Jain ascetics. It boggles the mind. I suppose the religion helps the lay people, but the ascetic practices of the monks and nuns are quite severe. Like Catholic priests and nuns, they are celibate, so it doesn't seem to help those individuals from an evolutionary perspective, although it may work on the level of group selection, as it has persisted for so long. Curious.

 

[CFLarsen]

Wilson's article explains it.

I don't know anything about Jainism except what's in the article, so I'm just going by what's in there, but here's my understanding of what it said.

The development of a long distance trading system in pretechnological times required an incredible degree of trust. You couldn't electronically check assets. You couldn't check credit scores. You couldn't withhold wages from people who refused to pay back a debt. Furthermore, there was a huge investment of time and money involved. It wasn't going down to the corner store. You might be talking about organizing a caravan that would take weeks to reach a destination. There were huge opportunities, but huge risks, and the difference between the winners and the losers would be mostly that the winners trusted the right people, while the losers trusted the wrong people.

So, how do you know the right people to trust? The ascetics provided the answer. The lay people were held to one standard in the Jain religion. The ascetics were held to a different, more demanding, standard. If you didn't care about feeding the beggars, you could go on about your lives to your own standards and be none the worse for it in this life or the next, but no beggar would eat from your house. In order to get beggars to eat there, you had to hold to a higher standard than that which your religion required of you. You had to make a sacrifice for someone else's benefit.

People who go out of their way to help others are generally trustworthy. If you were the sort of person willing to make a sacrifice in order to feed a beggar, just because it was the right thing to do, you were probably the sort of person who would repay a debt promptly, just because it was the right thing to do. A person who could be trusted to feed a beggar could be trusted as a business partner.

One could argue that you don't need religion for that, but apparently, that isn't the case. The article noted that Jains were generally more wealthy than non-Jains. That's experimental data that requires an explanation, and Wilson provided it.

It isn't costless not to feed the beggars. If you are not living up to religious standards, you become an outcast, someone who the rest of society would shun.

Religious blackmail.

 

[Faithkills]

It's a clever begging scheme. It's Huck Finn of begging, it may serve other incidental roles but the goal is to benefit the beggars, not the society. If the beggars were not benefited individually they would not do it.

It is not required that evolutionary traits benefit society. Rape is evolutionary and does not benefit society. Murdering same sex competitors is evolutionary but does not benefit society. In the sense of the Jain example anyway.

The Jain example does not support his hypothesis.. vague as it is.

 

[Meadmaker]

It's a clever begging scheme. It's Huck Finn of begging, it may serve other incidental roles but the goal is to benefit the beggars, not the society. If the beggars were not benefited individually they would not do it.

Altruism doesn't exist? This makes no sense. We all do things that do not benefit us individually, although some do things more than others. Those Jain beggars would be better off, by any reasonable measure of "better off" if they stopped being beggars, yet they continue to be beggars. The idea survives despite the fact that it has no obvious benefit to the beggars, and has no obvious benefit to the people who feed the beggars. It is apparently irrational behavior.

And yet, the society of which the beggars and the feeders form a part, thrives. Why? All these irrational people doing irrational things that all hurt the people who are doing them, and have no clear and obvious benefit to anyone...and the society thrives. How?

The Jain example does not support his hypothesis.. vague as it is.

Sociological data is notoriously difficult to interpret, because experiments can't be repeated, and specific factors can't be isolated. Nevertheless, to the extent that sociology can be called a science, Wilson is being pretty scientific. He has made an observation (Jain laypeople are wealthier than non-Jains) and come up with a hypothesis to explain why that is. It's difficult to perform an experiment on societies, but his explaination makes sense, and his study of comparative cultures also makes sense.

Sure, you can dismiss it, just as you can dismiss almost any historical sociological theory, but it's an interesting observation nonetheless, and if you do dismiss it, you are left with a problem. Throughout history, and probably before, people have turned to religion everywhere on the planet.

If you compare thoroughly non-religious societies to thoroughly religious societies, the religious societies have generally fared better.(Perhaps postwar Europe will provide an exception. If so, it will be the first. It's looking good so far, but it's a bit early to draw conclusions.) If you compare societies where some are religious and some are not, the religious people are happier and more productive. (Wilson referenced the ESM studies for support.)

So if you dismiss Wilson's claims, you are left in a position where you are insisting that he is wrong, despite all the data which suggests he is right. You might be correct in doing so, but you certainly aren't scientific.

 

[Faithkills]

Altruism doesn't exist? This makes no sense. We all do things that do not benefit us individually, although some do things more than others. Those Jain beggars would be better off, by any reasonable measure of "better off" if they stopped being beggars, yet they continue to be beggars. The idea survives despite the fact that it has no obvious benefit to the beggars, and has no obvious benefit to the people who feed the beggars. It is apparently irrational behavior.

How is it irrational in the least? It's completely rational, not only rational, very clever and effective. Jain ascetic monks are the pinnacle of beggarhood. If your prospects are poor and begging seems like a possible career choice you could do lots worse.

More importantly if no one fed them they would do something different.

Just as, tho exceptions abound, in general wealthy Jewish scions more often become doctors, lawyers, professionals.. and Rabbis often come from less prospectful beginnings.

A soldier may say he's serving because he feels he is paying back society and feels good about protecting his family and country, and that altruism may be part of the truth. I would have said that, and did feel that way, and am glad I served.

But the truth is that if my family could have put me through college it's not likely I would have enlisted. Possible but very unlikely.

 

[andyandy]

Are you aware that Iran has the second highest number of executions in the world, second only to China which has a vastly greater population?

Would you assert that any time someone commits suicide for their belief that this promotes their genetic heritage?

You still seem to be labouring under the misunderstanding that individual annecdotes can disprove an evolutionary benefit for the population at large. ΔF508 had tremendous benefit in confering a greater tolerance to cholera - that it can when inherited from both parents cause Cystic fibrosis does not mean that it has had no overall evolutionary benefit to the population at large. Likewise that an incredibly small minority of religious devotees commit suicide offers nothing.

Indeed - religious intolerance of suicide in christianity and thus societal influence in the west seems to be one of the main bounds in preventing suicide - in Japan there is no such religious intolerance of suicide, no such social stigma. Instead it is regarded almost as an honourable choice to atone one's mistake and thus prevent shame upon one's family. And each year more than 30,000 people kill themselves.

[As a comparison - in the US there were 30,622 suicides in 2001 (CDC 2004) from a population of 300million, in japan there were 34,000 suicides in 2003 from a population of 120million]

and with regards to the death penalty, Amnesty estimates 8000 people are sentenced to death per yer in China, whilst 177 were executed last year in Iran.
Given that this is a 45 fold increase, but China is only 15 times bigger population wise, then China has a three fold worse record. If you're going to use spurious reasoning to back up your case, you could at least check your facts.

 

[Meadmaker]

How is it irrational in the least? It's completely rational, not only rational, very clever and effective. Jain ascetic monks are the pinnacle of beggarhood. If your prospects are poor and begging seems like a possible career choice you could do lots worse.

From what he says of the Jain ascetic monks, you couldn't do much worse.

I suppose if the choices were be a monk or die of starvation, maybe monkdom would look good, but my guess is that very few literally faced that choice.

It's not a career choice many would make for the material benefits.

 

[andyandy]

As an addendum

China continues to be the world's top executioner. Amnesty International recorded more than 1,000 executions in China in 2006. Figures on the use of the death penalty are a state secret in China and the true number is believed to be as high as 8,000.

http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGACT500132007

Iran

Population: 65,397,521 (July 2007 est.)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/ir.html

 

[Faithkills]

From what he says of the Jain ascetic monks, you couldn't do much worse.

I suppose if the choices were be a monk or die of starvation, maybe monkdom would look good, but my guess is that very few literally faced that choice.

It's not a career choice many would make for the material benefits.

How very quaintly Americentric of you. Of course people don't starve, that's just TV. Let them eat cake.

You really haven't been keeping up with current events.

In any case, even in the US people do beg for material benefits. I see them every day. You really do live in a fantasy land don't you?

 

[Faithkills]

You still seem to be labouring under the misunderstanding that individual annecdotes can disprove an evolutionary benefit for the population at large.

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that it is my burden to do so or that is even my point. It IS the burden of the people who propose treating social trends using evolutionary methods to prove it's validity. But that's not my point, either. But in fact I do think it's a likely a valid model.

My point is that even if group behavior can be modeled by evolution, it does NOT at all mean this is automatically a good thing or a benefit to the organism that is a member of the group.

Hence my examples which are germane and telling. They do show that trends resultant form the evolution of the group can be entirely destructive to it's members and moreover almost necessarily as a result of the evolutionary model the individual must considered to be entirely disposable.

Hence religion.

 

[Meadmaker]

How very quaintly Americentric of you. Of course people don't starve, that's just TV. Let them eat cake.

You really haven't been keeping up with current events.

In any case, even in the US people do beg for material benefits. I see them every day. You really do live in a fantasy land don't you?

They certainly do beg for material benefits in the US, but they don't turn down food that wasn't prepared according to strict religious conventions, nor do they turn down food that wasn't prepared by people of insufficient moral caliber.

 

[Faithkills]

They certainly do beg for material benefits in the US, but they don't turn down food that wasn't prepared according to strict religious conventions, nor do they turn down food that wasn't prepared by people of insufficient moral caliber.

No, that's the clever part. They get people to vie for the privilege to give them stuff Do you think for one moment the quality and quality of their donations has no impact on their 'worthiness' to give? If I offer something very desired by the Jain I suspect the Jain will look at my daughter and find her to be pure, chaste, and noble;p The system is brilliant. They get to cherry pick and they get to have some rich people kiss their.. ascetic regions

Regardless, how does this support your position that people would not take up begging for individual benefit?