Atheism as a Stealth Religion III: Four Questions and Six Possible Answers

My previous two blogs (I and II) stressed that we must be skeptical about atheist beliefs, lest they go the way of stealth religions. Now let's roll up our sleeves and see what this means for the study of overt religions. Here are four questions:

Q1) Is there any scientific (i.e., empirically verifiable) evidence for the existence of supernatural agents that intervene in natural processes, especially to alter human affairs?

Q2) If not, how can we explain the phenomenon of religion in naturalistic terms?

Q3) What are the impacts of religion, good or bad, on human welfare?

Q4) How can we use our understanding of religion to ameliorate its negative effects and advance the goals of secular humanism?

For an atheist such as myself, Q1 has already been answered. Creationist beliefs have been falsified again and again, even before Darwin's theory of evolution (e.g., geological discoveries during the early 19th century). I am comfortable regarding religious beliefs as 100% a human social construction, enabling me to proceed to Q2.

Evolutionary theory offers six major hypotheses about religion as a natural phenomenon. Moreover, theories of religion that were formulated without evolution in mind usually fit into these categories. Here they are in their briefest possible form. Please see the Evolutionary Religious Studies website that I and my colleagues have created for a fuller description.

H1) A superorganism. Religions might forge human groups into cooperative units, whose members work together to achieve common goals. Perhaps Emile Durkheim was right when he defined religion as "a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things...which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them."

H2) A form of exploitation. Religions might be sneaky ways for some members--presumably the leaders--to profit at the expense of other members of their own religion. Perhaps Karl Marx was right when he said that religion is the opium of the masses.

H3) A disease. Because culture is transmitted from person to person, it bears an intriguing resemblance to a disease organism. Just as disease organisms evolve to benefit themselves, often at the expense of their hosts, perhaps religions are highly evolved to facilitate their own transmission without benefiting human individuals or groups. This possibility was famously suggested by Richard Dawkins, and perhaps he is right. In case Dan Dennett is reading this blog (he is fond of accusing me of failing to make this point): virulent parasitism is only one possible outcome for memes, which can also evolve to benefit human individuals and groups. These other two outcomes are subsumed under H1 and H2. See my earlier blog on selfish genes and memes for more on this subject.

H4) Like a moth to flame. Moths are adapted to navigate by celestial light sources such as the moon and stars, which are so far away that they enable the moths to fly in a straight line. Unfortunately, earthly light sources such as streetlights and candles cause the moths to spiral inward to their deaths. This is an example of a byproduct or what Stephen Jay Gould famously called a spandrel-- a trait that has no benefit and can be very costly, but remains in the population by being connected to other traits that do have a benefit. Perhaps religion is a costly byproduct of psychological traits that function adaptively in non-religious contexts.

H5) Like obesity. Our eating habits are killing us in today's fast food environment, but they were clearly adaptive in the food poor environments of our ancestors. Perhaps religions were similarly adaptive in the Stone Age, when human groups were small and composed mostly of genetic relatives, but have gone awry in modern life.

H6) A roll of the dice. In biological evolution there is something called genetic drift. Traits that we recognize as different have no effect on fitness and therefore increase or decrease in frequency at random. A neutral trait exists for no other reason than by chance. Few people would propose that all aspects of religion are neutral, but some aspects might be, resulting in the very real possibility of cultural drift.

Now that I have described the six evolutionary hypotheses, some readers might have an objection. Where is the deeply felt psychological experience of being religious, such as a close relationship with God? The answer involves one of the most important distinctions in evolutionary theory, between proximate and ultimate causation. Everything that evolves by natural selection requires two explanations. Why do flowers bloom in spring? One answer is because spring is the best time of year to bloom (ultimate causation). Those that bloomed earlier were nipped by frost, those that bloomed later failed to develop their fruits, natural selection did its thing, and we only see the survivors. The second answer is because the survivors have a particular physiological mechanism that causes them to bloom in spring, such as a sensitivity to day length (proximate causation).

Proximate and ultimate explanations are always complementary and one can never substitute for the other. They are intriguingly similar to a distinction that is often made between the "vertical" and "horizontal" dimensions of religion, as in this definition of Islam from an encyclopedia of world religions:

A noun derived from the verb aslama ("to submit or surrender [to God]"), designates the act by which an individual recognizes his or her relationship to the divine and, at the same time, the community of all of those who respond in submission. It describes, therefore, both the singular vertical relationship between the human being and God and the collective, horizontal relationship of all who join together in common faith and practice.

Vertical and horizontal. Proximate and ultimate. Very interesting. See the Evolutionary Religious Studies website for more.

Having outlined our six hypotheses about religion, we are in a position to answer Q2. All we need to do is consult the facts of religion and decide which of the hypotheses--or which combination, since they are not necessarily mutually exclusive--is correct. Before I tell you the answer, I would like to pose a fifth question for your consideration.

Q5) Will the answer to Q2 influence the answers to Q3 and Q4?

For example, pretend that H3 turns out to be correct and then try answering Q3 and Q4 for yourself. Now pretend that H4 turns out to be correct and repeat the exercise. I don't know anything about your two sets of answers, but I'll bet money that they are different from each other. How could it be otherwise? When vervet monkeys see a leopard, they give a special alarm call that instructs everyone to head up into the trees. When they see an eagle, they give a different alarm call that instructs everyone to come down from the trees. Different threats require different actions. If religions pose a threat in modern life, we need to know what particular kind of threat, so we can respond appropriately, just as the monkeys need to distinguish between leopards and eagles. It would be amazing if the six evolutionary hypotheses, which are profoundly different from each other in their conception of religion, resulted in exactly the same plan of action for what to do about religion.

And now for the moment you have been waiting for. Which of our contestants is the winner? The answer is...

Comments

[honestskeptic08]

Do you guys think that Islam and Christianity are far more likely to cause fundamentalism, extremism,­terrorism, and violence than any other religion because they are religions placiing far more emphasis on belief in and acceptance of dogmas and creeds rather than more on meritorious works? Or is it because of their claims to absolute certitude and infallibilty. They are by far the most attacked religions.

[Dap]

Dear Professor Wilson,

First let me thank you for allowing us wide latitude in our comments, I don't know if our comments help or discourage ya, I hope the former.

As I said before in part II, I believe your disambiguation was quite welcomed (and needed), personally I get somewhat paranoid over the "Intelligent design" types (that are quite cunning) and their use of sophistry and abuse scientific method for their own theological agenda. Anyway, you have my trust, although I'm apprehensive about your tact/approach, I understand why you felt it necessary. Which brings me to my point of writing this.

In moral philosophy, there is an argument between Aristotle's and Kant's thoughts on what "Virtue" is and how one becomes virtuous, especially in teaching/knowing virtue in a sociologic­al/cultura­l sense.

Seems to me many of the points brought up in that argument apply to what we have been speaking to in your excellent series. I'm thinking we divide along those lines of distinction also. While I personally have a bias against Aristotle because of his metaphysical outlook, he makes some sound points, yet so does Kant, what I'm trying to say is that sometimes it does not have to be either... or, sometimes it can be some of each that allow for a more definitive explanation of becoming aware, a better understanding, if you will.

Yet, I do not wish to express this to be true in every case study, sometimes it's garbage in, garbage out. What I mean is many times one argument just does not have any credence at all but makes it's way into, and is accepted as common knowledge without a sound basis in reason or without logic (the science of reason).

I'll be looking forward to part IV. Agape.

[moderationsmuse]

Dapper Dap,
What a lovely, thoughtful ... essay... I guess that's what it is really. You raise so many ideas that I'm really quite at a loss to comment. I would need to "muse" over them quite a bit more than I can just now, writing with one foot out the door. Perhaps some of the others will. I'll post this also at the top of the page hoping they'll scroll down and find your remarks.
People are affected certainly by which door they enter ideas. I was not raised a Christian, which no doubt alters the ways I see it.
Anyway I have been very intrigued, at times moved, by the comments of the atheists even while not sharing their perspective.
As to science, I think Dr. Wilson would get more mileage from his ideas by narrowing the focus a lot. But then I don't know what his purpose was in creating the blog, perhaps to gauge the reactions of this audience to the topic in its most general terms.
I think each person has to find his own way with honest inquiry and so perhaps the atheists have to be atheists and I have to be a Christian. It is certainly enlightening -- there's a word we all like -- to hear these various ideas batted back and forth.
Agape.
Muse

[moderationsmuse]

I'm throwing out another question along the lines of "intelligent design." I am inspired by Wondering's comment: "One of the problems with positing a supernatural is that the supernatural, if it existed, would be totally unknowable."
Again, let's remove God from the equation for the sake of blogger harmony. In fact science has already done this for us. Anybody have a serious problem with the idea of intelligent other species, space aliens, etc.? How would we recognize "intelligence" coming from some interstellar radiation source? Could it be possible that a signal created by another life form is already within in the range of our technology but we do not recognize the pattern, the design, the architecture of it? In such a case the signal would not be "knowable" -- to echo Wondering's question. Yet no one here would argue that our inability to recognize the signal would mean that the intelligent civilization that created it doesn't exist. They would still exist. We just wouldn't know that they existed even though we had some access to their signal.
The religious assertion is that evidence of God exists, but it's interpretation is in various ways limited. Of course, different religions offer different interpretations of this idea. And this idea that I have just expressed would like wise read a little differently in put into different languages. However, some common ground among religions (and languages) is there.
As to the flip side, the atheist explaination needs to find causes for the visible order of systems. Why does science uncover various kinds of order and how does this order arise? Like prime numbers, how does this idea come about? Is the notion of primes a human creation? And even if it somehow were, how does it appear in even the human mind? We're part of the universe, too, after all.
The question of subjectivity trips up science, with or without "God." Indeed, if you remove the monotheistic notion (or various other notions) of "God," "the mind" quickly rushes in to fill the vacumn.

[Bateman]

1. A social group that easily disaggregates and reaggregates into often conflicting, sometimes wholly novel sub-groups (and sub-subgroups) based on religion, politics, clan, or any number of interests can't be a very tightly functionally integrated and interdependent group, can it? This flies in the face of the notion of a human group (society) as being anything like a superorganism. Just because some biological 'individuals' (multicellular organisms, eukaryotic cells) were once groups of lower order individuals does not mean that all social groups are necessarily potential organisms.

2. Does it give you any pause that the notion of competing human superorganisms (social holism, organicism) was a feature of Spencerian social Darwinism, fascism, and communism, and is touted by the likes of Kevin MacDonald? I am not saying that there is anything inherently sinister about the theory of group selection. Social functionalism is a much broader tradition than the movements I mentioned. But the history of the concept does give me pause. Perhaps you could address that topic at some point.

3. Do you find it amusing that some of your supporters - e.g. Lewontin - are also critics of so-called Panglossian thinking and are critics of Dawkins' adaptationism, yet your approach is more adaptationist than Dawkins himself? Why, then, do you suppose these anti-socio­biologists support your theories? (OK, we all know why: because they hate bourgeois individualism.)

I believe that group selection is applicable in some causes, and you deserve credit for helping to revive the idea. But human societies are not organisms.

[moderationsmuse]

As a corollary, I'll offer an unprovable of my own since I particularly do not accept that question One has been settled. The assertion that there is no God cannot be accepted a priori. Sorry.
Thought experiment: Imagine we are at MIT wandering the campus. Nearby are all kinds of leading theoreticians conversing about science's hot topics. They talk, exchange ideas, push the envelope, and boldly go where no one has gone before. Some of them wander outdoors to enjoy the weather while they share bold ideas.
Meanwhile, we find a leaf with some ants on it. The ants are doing ant stuff, communicating via pheremones.
Question: are the ants aware of the sciences? Probably not.
Scale up: I posit that notwithstanding having Milton, Shakespeare, Newton, Einstein and Reimann in our midst, we are like ants in God's rose bush. Our being able to detect God would be completely impossible except that God has made it possible on his [hers,its] terms.
The Christian idea of God is very very big.
The ants cannot demonstrate that the scientists exist, and we cannot demonstrate that God exists either.

[moderationsmuse]

My problem with Dr Wilson's bullet items is that, and I say this coming back from 4th grade science fair, I see nothing measurable. No assertion that can be disproved. In short, I don't see the "science." Where's the beef?

[wondering]

Prof. Wilson,

In the spirit of proposing questions and possible solutions, I hope you will indulge me:

Q1) Is New Atheism a movement?

Q2) If it is not a movement, can it be a religion?

For an idea to become a movement, it must have leaders and followers. You have identified the leaders (the holy triumvirate), but who are the followers? They would seem to originate from two populations, which we shall now consider:

1. Atheists (those who do not believe in a supernatural entity). Do atheists in general champion Dawkins-Ha­rris-Hitch­ens as the voices of leadership? If so, what evidence is there to support this? It can't be the fact that their books are best-sellers - Harry Potter books sell better, yet no one is making the claim that "Potterism" is a movement. And yes, other atheists do defend these authors on Huffpo (and elsewhere) when under attack. But can these defenders be said to be followers? Are their world-views or daily activities significantly changed by these books?

I mean, I'm a card carrying member of my local atheist lodge (tee hee) and I go to all the meetings and rallies, but I never see a "Dawkins for President" button on any lapels. Atheists are largely individuals that would seem best suited for identifying blind faith movements - I don't think they will fall into lockstep with anyone. You mentioned Ayn Rand in your first article - first, her "movement" can hardly be said to have been terribly influential, and second, what she was represented seems more like an Earth-bound cult-of-personality than atheism.

2. True Believers (those who believe in a supernatural entity). Do you honestly believe that hordes of religionists are going to convert to atheism on the strength of these books? Can we dispense with this possibility?

So where's the movement? Messrs D., H., and H. are provocative - they stir the pot. But in 5 years, 10 years, will anyone cite these books as still influential? We shall see...

[RussAbbott]

David, I'm confused. In your ERS Beginner's Guide (http://evolution.binghamton.edu/religion/pdf%20files/Beginner's%20guide%20Sept%2012%20copy.pdf) you say, "Numerous studies show that religious beliefs and practices increase individual health and other aspects of wellbeing (e.g., Post 2007)." This is discussed along with other individual benefits (H2). Yet it doesn't seem to me to be exploitative.

It also seems to me that one could make a good case for all 6 hypothesis.

Asking the question the way you do strikes me as a bit arrogant. Are you really sure about your answer (or answers)? If so, what, for example, is the evolutionary explanation for our aesthetic sense -- and I don't mean just our preference for healthy mates over non-healthy potential mates. Would you say that the former is a spandrel of the latter? What about our sense of mathematical aesthetics? Is that too a spandrel. Or is that perhaps the essence of the aesthetic sense we had to develop in order to differentiate between healthy and unhealthy potential mates?

Perhaps the religious impulse is part of the fundamental conceptual and emotional machinery we had to develop in order to conceptualize the world successfully?

I'm not convinced we understand enough about human consciousness that anyone can be as sure as you seem to be about answering your question and selecting among your six specific hypotheses.

Human beings are more complex than your question acknowledges. Evolution can tell us a lot about that complexity, but evolutionary theory won't explain it all. In particular, I'd be very surprised to see a evolutionary explanation for consciousness, i.e., how to understand it, how it works, etc. I suspect we will have to understand consciousness much better than we currently do before we fully understand religion.

No doubt there will be evolutionary reasons for our consciousness being as it is. But evolution won't the whole story any more than evolution is the whole story for how our eyes work. There's lots of physics an chemistry involved also. Similarly there will be other levels of abstraction involved in understanding religion as well.

[NeonLight]

To me the obvious answer to Q4 is the new religious movement called Matrixism. Assuming that Matrixism comes to dominate the religious landscape the answer to Q2 would be H1 and the answer to Q3 is all good.

Prove me wrong ;)

[HeevenSteven]

As to the "stealth religion" of environmentalists, when it comes to climate science maybe they haven't been religious enough. See Joseph Romm's latest.

"Antarctic Ice Loss Jumps 75% in One Year!"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-romm

[moderationsmuse]

There's a long list here. I'm only choosing for the moment to point to one: "Q2) If not, how can we explain the phenomenon of religion in naturalistic terms?"
Defining "nature" will cause you the same problem as defining "God." And speaking as a Christian, I'll say that the reason why nature will resist definition is "man's" being made in the "image of God." You want to define nature as something along the lines of "empirically verifiable" reality. And that definition omits entirely all that Leo Strauss liked to call "the most needful things." Your definition is not going to permit the inclusion of anything subjective, and therefore it eliminates all of anyone's own personal, existential life. Moreover it will have little of interest to say about singularities, like what makes two twins separate people. Science has predictive power with generalities. It is not predictive for specific manifestations of things. Yet any cat owner can tell you (whether cats or psychic or not, aside) that every cat is different. But why and in what ways this is so, even our naturalistic explanations are not helpful.
Maybe, of course, with cats it matters little. They do not talk or write books or compose symphonies. But it matters hugely with humans. And science doesn't deal with the "humanities" at all.
Best

[Dap]

Dear Professor Wilson,

For whatever it is worth, seeing there is *No* after-life Q1 being answered. Any loss of life related to Religion or as a direct result of religious believes is enough reason for Religion to be considered as a negative in terms of value to Humanity, regardless of its claimed up sides, for the benefits do not have to be eliminated just because no supernatural entity exists. That's just the plain truth in fact of it.

Take the giving of ones self, it does not have to be predicated on a Heavenly (after-life) reward, the reward comes form the benefit to others which struggle here and now.

Many Religions have there basis in slavery and caste systems, they are no more than a survival adaptation under extreme human conditions. Agape.

[Serfie]

I think the reasons behind religion are easy to understand:

1. Political: To keep the riff raff in line
2. To explain natural phenomena that at one time couldn't be explained by science
3. Avoid personal responsibility for one's own life
4. Deal with human's inability to cope with their own mortality.

Pretty simple, really.

[Lon]

Another mistake seems more to the point.

I asssume, in partial answer to "wondering" the 6 possibilities above seem to be designed as a complete list of the ways that irrational beliefs come to persist.
1) They have some benefit despite their irrationality.
2) They have some benefit to some subset of society which is able to impose them on the rest.
3) They do not benefit society, but they contain some self-perpetuating mechanism that allows them to survive the natural tendency to purge them.
4) They are a disadvantageous part of a mechanism that is generally advantageous. (This seems here to be being conflated with the similar idea that they were fortuitiously linked to unrelated genes that are advantageous, which seems a bit different bit works on the same principle).
5) They develped because they were advantageous in the past and have simply not died out yet.
6) They are neither highly adaptive nor highly destructive and so have survived by accident.

This might cover all of the possibilities. No other one is jumping to mind. But the particular ways of filling them in above are not exhaustive. For example, rather than a superorganism, the advantage could be that having certain questions answered for one allows one to focus on other questions which will more directly affect ones well being. I am sure there are other possibilities that fit the same evolutionary explanatory niche as these two as well.