“Testing Major Evolutionary

Hypotheses about Religion with a

Random Sample.”

Written By David Sloan Wilson at the Binghamton University.

∞Presented by Juliann and InKee.

Social behavior can evolve by either within-group

selection (individual) or between-group selection (collective), which are adaptive hypotheses.

Evolutionary Approach

If the trait is not a product of natural selection then another set of hypothesis is needed to explain its existence, these are maladaptive or non-adaptive hypotheses.

It’s important to remember evolution is

a multifactorial process. D.S. Wilson’s question is “How did

religion evolve” and his approach to understand is one of comparison, investigation and historical assessments throughout a variety of religions.

“Quantitative methods refine but do not define

scientific inquiry.”

Religion as Adaptive: Religion as Non-Adaptive

• Group-Level Adaptation • Genetic Lag

• Individual level adaptation • By-Product

• Cultural parasite

Hypotheses

Wilson speculates the possibilities in order to clarify the exploratory research to come. In the case of adaptive hypotheses

Cultural parasites benefit cultural traits without regard to the welfare of human individuals or groups.

Religion as Adaptation

Individual-level adaptation benefits individuals, compared to other individuals within the same group.

Group-level adaptations benefit the whole group compared to other groups.

Idea

Religion as Non-Adaptive

Time

Past

Present

Advancements in transportation.

Small related groups.

Large (mostly) unrelated groups.

If religion is now a product of genetic lag, it could be that the traits associated with religion might have been adaptive in a past environment, but not in the present environment.

Religion as Non-Adaptive

Alternatively religion could be seen as a by-product of traits that are adaptive in nonreligious contexts. Example: Human’s complex facial recognition

adaptations pick-up on “faces” in objects.

These various concepts of religion are

so different that it would be surprising if they could not be empirically discriminated from one another.

Then a methodical elimination of hypotheses should eventually produce the most accurate theory.

Thus the question in this study becomes “What are religious groups not?”

In Sum

Religions are largely (not entirely)

group-level adaptations. Religions provide a set of instructions for how

to behave, to promote cooperation among group members, and to prevent passive freeloading and active exploitation within the group.

The study looks at religious ‘ideals’ and excludes the event of “corrupt” religions.

Central Thesis

Religions were chosen via random sampling, to

avoid selection bias. Wilson then located the number to see if the

religion on that page met criteria, if not he would page forward until he met a religion that did.

Though this process produced some biases, sespite these the selection bias was avoided, and regions were chosen at random without the group-selection theory in mind.

Methods – Selection

The encyclopedia only included a small amount of information for

each religion. The main work of the survey involved gathering as much

information as possibly about each religion, and evaluating it with respect to the major evolutionary hypotheses.

Wilson recruited 35 undergraduate students by enrolling them in a 4-credit class titled “Evolution and religion”.

In addition to reading Wilson’s book “Darwin’s Cathedral”, participated in discussion on the subject, and were then assigned to 1 of the 35 religions to research.

Students then culminated a bibliography and narrative answers to 32 questions addressing key issues.

These analyses were then used as a guide for Wilson to read the primary literature.

Methods - Review

Methods - Analysis

Christianity

Buddhism

IslamicJudaism

Deities

Cults

Traditionalism

NationalismJainism Taoism

Zoroastrainism Indus valley

In the by-product hypotheses the

expectation is that religions by themselves do not produce practical benefits. The random sample does not support this expectation.

The majority of religions in this sample are centered on practical concerns. They are thoroughly rooted in the practical welfare of their groups.

The Secular Utility of Religions

“If religions are so practical, then why

are they so otherworldly?” Evolutionary theory offers a robust alternative

through the distinction of ultimate and proximate causation.

Both ultimate and proximate causation are required to explain an adaptive trait fully; one cannot exist without the other.

The Proximate/Ultimate Distinction and the Otherworldly Aspects of

Religion

Ultimate Causation: A religious

believer helps others, which may often contribute to her group.

The Proximate/Ultimate Distinction and the Otherworldly Aspects of

Religion

Proximate Causation: The believer feels desire to serve a perfect being who commands her to help others.

Thus when trying to explain a given feature of a religion,

the primary question is not “Is it rational” or “Can it be empirically verified” but “What does it cause people to do?”

If the feature motivates adaptive behaviors then it is fully consistent with a functional explanation.

If it fails to motivate adaptive behaviors then it is a nonfunctional explanation is warranted.

The system for social rules and guidelines is necessarily complex because the adaptive behavior is necessarily context-sensitive. Proximate/Ultimate distinction provides a very robust explanation that supports a varied system.

The Proximate/Ultimate Distinction and the Otherworldly Aspects of

Religion

The proximate/ultimate distinction

theoretically enables otherworldly and practical dimensions of religion to be reconciled with each other. The key question is: What do the otherworldly elements of religion cause people to do?

Wilson has made an empirical claim based on the survey that the otherworldly and practical dimensions of religion are indeed tightly yoked to each other.

In Sum

Religion is inherently group- and other

oriented. Religious groups that “get their act together”

outperform other religious groups. Benefits of religion tend to be public goods. When they fail, religious believers are

regarded as a corruption of religion. Must solve the problem of passive freeloading

and active exploitation within groups, especially by leaders.

Group-level Benefits, Individual Benefits, or Cultural Parasites?

Two major ways that religions fall apart

1) The first is by becoming victims of their own success. Once a religion generates wealth by collective action, its members no longer need each other and leave.

2)A second way is by becoming exploitative, such that some members benefit more than others.

Group-level Benefits, Individual Benefits, or Cultural Parasites?

Since natural selection is always based on

fitness differences, group-level adaptations can evolve only by some groups contributing more to the gene-pool or culture-pool than other groups.

Darwin pointed out that N/S at the individual level does not always take the form of nature red in tooth and claw. A drought-tolerant plant out-competes a drought-susceptible plant in the desert, even though they do not directly interact with each other.

Group-level Benefits, Individual Benefits, or Cultural Parasites?

Competition among groups took place through

differences in recruitment, retention, and birth and death processes.

The random sample provides NO support for the cultural parasite hypothesis because religions are designed to promote the welfare of their members.

Group-level Benefits, Individual Benefits, or Cultural Parasites?

Jainism posed the greatest challenge to the group-

level adaptation hypothesis. Jain renouncers have dozens of food restrictions

and ascetic values. Some fast themselves to death. But these beliefs and practices contribute to the

secular utility of individuals and groups. Fasting in young women increases their marriage

prospects. More religious devotion in men raises the status of

the family.

Jainism : A Challenge and Its Resolution

Most religions in the sample have secular utility. The practical benefits are inherently group-and other

oriented. 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.

Religions don’t parasitize human individuals and groups. Rather 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.

Conclusions

How might using Wilson’s book “Darwin’s Cathedral” to learn

preliminary Evolutionary perspectives on religion affect the data collection of the students?

Do you think being in a “class” in which you are graded would affect your perspective?

Wilson did not rely on the student’s data; he only used it to guide his own research and readings. Do you agree with this method or how do you think the student’s bibliographies should have been used?

Do you think that the 35 religions used showed a wide enough variety, why or why not? How would you control for this in a future study?

Do you agree with the dismissal of the other hypotheses, or do you feel that Wilson was perpetuating a confirmation bias?

((other questions))

Discussion