Make HuffPost Your HomePage
Get Email Alerts
Sacred texts such as the Bible say so many things that almost any position can be supported by selecting the right passages. So it is with scientific hypotheses. In Stealth III, I listed six plausible scientific hypotheses about the nature of religion. If we are allowed to pick and choose among them, we can support almost any position. If we regard religion as destructive, we can call it a delusion or like the flame that fatally attracts the moth. If we admire religion, we can call it a group-level adaptation that in its purest form promotes universal brotherhood.
Science hasn't made real progress until it tests among the hypotheses, enabling us to accept some and reject others. Only then can we make factual claims about the nature of religion, leading to practical decisions on the basis of those claims. In Stealth IV, I asserted that the scientific study of religion has advanced to the point where we can make factual claims about the nature of religion. Even though evolution is a messy process and all of the major hypotheses might have a degree of relevance, most enduring religions enable religious groups to function as corporate units, or superorganisms, to use a more flamboyant term. In this respect, religious groups are much like other groups, such as governments and business corporations, whose collective purpose is more obvious. Why some groups become organized by religion and others by cultural systems that we call secular is a great question, but it can only be addressed after we accept the factual claim that religious groups do function as corporate units, in contrast to the radically different conceptions of religions suggested by the other major hypotheses.
That's where I part company with the new atheists. I claim that science has made progress and that we can use our factual knowledge to address the problems associated with religion, such as why people believe weird things (to borrow the title of Michael Shermer's book) and why cooperation within groups is often (but not always) accompanied by conflict among groups. Much remains to be discovered, and studying religion from an evolutionary perspective is an especially nascent enterprise, but we can do much better than pick and choose among hypotheses to support our preconceived notions about religion.
In contrast, the authors associated with the new atheism movement begin with a deep antipathy toward religion and select their examples from the text of science like so many parables from the Bible. Not only do they ignore, misrepresent, and selectively report the facts of religion, but their practical recommendations for solving the problems associated with religion are ineffective, silly, and worse.
Ineffective. Daniel Dennett is a world-renown philosopher who also writes about the big questions for a general audience. With Darwin's Dangerous Idea, he became a major interpreter of evolutionary theory and its philosophical implications. I value Dennett as a colleague and intellectual sparring partner and hope that my disagreement with him on the subject of religion does not damage our relationship. As David Hume said and the evolutionist/philosopher Massimo Pigluicci reminds us at the top of his blog, "truth springs from argument among friends." Dennett's book Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon is notable for the degree to which he treats the scientific study of religion as a task for the future, as if no firm conclusions can be drawn on the basis of current knowledge. This stance gives him maximum elbowroom to interpret religion as primarily a delusion (as implied by the title), like the parasitic worm that commandeers ants by burrowing into their brains (the first example of the book). I have critiqued Breaking the Spell in detail elsewhere. For the purpose of this blog, I want to focus on the solutions that Dennett offers on the basis of his analysis of religion. His primary recommendation is universal religious education. If only religious believers could be introduced to the full panoply of religious belief, they would become less deluded about their own. I doubt that this policy would have a meaningful impact on the worldwide problems associated with religion. In America, for example, fundamentalist religions are immersed in a larger cultural milieu teeming with "memes" from secular life and other religions. Like a cell maintaining osmotic pressure, a given religion is designed to pump out contrary memes and maintain an internal environment containing the appropriate memes. Elsewhere in the world, does Dennett really believe that we'll solve the problems of the Middle East (for example) by teaching the Palestinians about Judaism and the Israelis about Islam? His policy recommendation might be well-meaning, but it is likely to be ineffective.
Silly. Richard Dawkins is a hero around the world as a champion of rational thought. His website is subtitled "a clear-thinking oasis." Thousands of people have been turned on to evolutionary theory through his many books. I recommend The Blind Watchmaker as a good tutorial and I even admire the gene's eye view of evolution, as long as it isn't taken as an argument against group selection. However, a funny thing happened to Dawkins on his way to becoming a public icon. He no longer regards himself as scientifically accountable for what he says, especially on the subject of religion. Part of the problem is that he has crawled so far out on a limb with respect to group selection and the impossibility of explaining widespread human cooperation from a Darwinian perspective, that the only way to get him down might be to saw off the limb. In this blog, I want to focus on the solutions that Dawkins offers on the basis of his analysis of religion. For example, he regards religious education as a form of child abuse, which will require setting up a vast foster care system staffed by rationalists. In his essay titled "Atheists for Jesus", he offers as his best solution a slogan with the oxymoronic power to "lead society away from the nether regions of its Darwinian origins into kinder and more compassionate uplands of post-singularity enlightenment." It is unclear whether Dawkins intends these suggestions to be taken seriously, but either way they are just plain silly.
Worse. Whenever Christopher Hitchens and his book God is Not Great are mentioned in the comments to my Stealth blogs, it is usually to say "Why should anyone take him seriously?" As a great provocateur, he will do anything to get a reaction--trashing God on Sunday, Bill Clinton on Monday, bikini-waxing his naughty bits on Tuesday, inviting journalists to have a feel during the National Book Award Ceremonies on Wednesday, and so on. Nevertheless, even a provocateur must play by certain rules. If he doesn't speak the truth, then his barbs have no sting and he isn't worth the time of day. In this blog, I am most concerned with the solutions that Hitchens offers on the basis of his analysis of religion. At the very least, we should expect the new atheists to avoid the kind of between-group conflict that Dennett blames on religious believers when they fight over "who has the best imaginary friend." Yet, in an article titled "The Genocidal Imagination of Christopher Hitchens", Richard Seymour documents statements such as this one:
We can't live on the same planet as them and I'm glad because I don't want to. I don't want to breathe the same air as these psychopaths and murders [sic] and rapists and torturers and child abusers. It's them or me. I'm very happy about this because I know it will be them. It's a duty and a responsibility to defeat them. But it's also a pleasure. I don't regard it as a grim task at all.
Who needs religious fundamentalists when we have Christopher Hitchens? Few atheists and rationalists would agree with him on this point--certainly not Dan Dennett, who e-mailed me that he finds Hitchens' views "very troubling indeed." Yet, this only underscores the larger problem that I am trying to identify with my Stealth blogs. Something has gone terribly wrong with popular intellectual discourse on religion. A few authors have occupied center stage, claiming to base their analysis on science and rational thought, when in fact their views are detached from the serious scientific study of religion and their practical recommendations are ineffective, silly, and worse.
In the final installment of the Stealth series, I will show how popular intellectual discourse on religion can become more enlightening and even more entertaining when anchored more firmly in the serious scientific study of religion.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Looks like HuffPo lost one of my comments. I still have it, so here it is again:
Jainism? Interesting. (I've never hear of the Water Temple thing.)
Here's one verse from the chief book of the Vedas, Srimad Bhagavatam, Canto 5, Chapter 6, Text 9,. pertaining to the origin of the Jain religion:
"Sukadeva Gosvami continued speaking to Maharaja Pariksit: My dear King, the King of Konka, Venka and Kutaka whose name was Arhat, heard of the activities of Rsabhadeva and, imitating Rsabhadeva's principles, introduced a new system of religion. Taking advantage of Kali-yuga, the age of sinful activity, King Arhat, being bewildered, gave up the Vedic principles, which are free from risk, and concocted a new system of religion opposed to the Vedas. That was the beginning of the Jain dharma. Many other so-called religions followed this atheistic system."
If all you explore of religion are those invented by fallible human beings, while avoiding the teachings of the monotheistic Vedic traditions, which eternally emanate from the Personality of Godhead, then I don't see how you can make any "factual claims about the nature of religion."
The verse and purport that follow the one I quoted above pertain to the Jain religion and are entertaining, so I'll add that too:
"People who are lowest among men and bewildered by the illusory energy of the Supreme Lord will give up the original varnasrama-dharma and its rules and regulations. They will abandon bathing three times daily and worshiping the Lord. Abandoning cleanliness and neglecting the Supreme Lord, they will accept nonsensical principles. Not regularly bathing or washing their mouths regularly, they will always remain unclean, and they will pluck out their hair. Following a concocted religion, they will flourish. During this age of Kali, people are more inclined to irreligious systems. Consequently these people will naturally deride Vedic authority, the followers of Vedic authority, the brahmanas, the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the devotees."
PURPORT
"Presently [the early 1970s] the hippies in the Western countries fit this description. They are irresponsible and unregulated. They do not bathe, and they deride standard Vedic knowledge. They concoct new life-styles and religions. There are many hippie groups at the present moment, but they all originated from King Arhat, who imitated the activities of Lord Rsabhadeva, who was situated on the paramahamsa stage. King Arhat did not care for the fact that although Lord Rsabhadeva acted like a madman, His stool and urine were nonetheless aromatic, so much so that they nicely scented the countryside for miles around. The followers of King Arhat went under the name Jains, and they were later followed by many others, particularly by the hippies, who are more or less offshoots of Mayavada philosophy because they think themselves the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Such people do not respect the real followers of Vedic principles, the ideal brahmanas. Nor do they have respect for the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Supreme Brahman. Due to the influence of this age of Kali, they are apt to concoct false religious systems. "
Before posting this I wanted to find out if the popular understanding of Jainism is atheistic. This statement (and others) from Wikipedia confirms that it is:
:"Jains do not believe in an omnipotent supreme being..."
I don't see how your research could be considered bona fide if you accept a manmade atheistic philosophy as religion. It is no surprise considering that the Vedas state that in this sinful age religion will be considered irreligion; and irreligion, religion.
Also of note is this statement from the Wikipedia article on Jainism:
"Traditionally, in our universe and in our time, Lord Rishabha is regarded as the first to realize the truth." That would be the same Rishabhadev described in Srimad Bhagavatam, quoted above. I presume this would lend credibilty to the Bhagavatam version for those who do not know to accept it as the final authority.
I have to admit that I have reacted somewhat strongly to this series of articles. And I think I know why - it's because you have started every article with the title, "Atheism as a Stealth Religion, ..." This bothers me for three reasons:
First, it indicates a sloppy use of language. It implies you are about to say something about atheism in general, but then you devote the rest of your article to attacking just FOUR strongly opinionated authors - Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and Harris. You are conflating ALL of atheism with a small subset dubbed the "New Atheists". Would you want someone to title an article, "All Evolutionary Biologists Are Insane", then devote the essay to attacking Richard Dawkins? If you have a beef with Richard Dawkins, how about this for a title, "Richard Dawkins is Just Plain Wrong".
Second, it implies that atheism represents a movement or organization of some kind. In point of fact, atheism is an IDEA - "I do not believe in god". Period. Is there an Atheism Society somewhere? Do they hold meetings, deliberate over doctrine, sing songs, perform rituals, and plan rallies? No. Atheists are not organized. Atheism is an idea, plain and simple - what individual atheists do with that idea (write books, post on Huffpo, etc) is entirely up to them. And even if we amend your title to, "The New Atheists as a Stealth Religion, ...", you still have far to go to indicate that these four authors have a meaningful following, or that they even collaborate in any way. What are the roles of these authors in the group? Do they work together - or did they arrive at their conclusions on their own? (I know, I've seen the "Four Horsemen" video - but there is probably also a video of 4 Harry Potter enthusiasts sitting around a table somewhere discussing the finer points of those books - not much of a religion.)
Third, there is this attempt to define religion as a superorganism. So let's follow this logically : You claim atheism is a member of the set "religion" (stealth or otherwise). Religion is a subset of the set "superorganism". Therefore, atheism is a superorganism. Wha? As I pointed out in the previous paragraph, atheism is not a movement - atheists are not organized, they do not generally work together toward some common goal. What are the roles of individual atheists in the "movement"? What are the goals or desired outcomes for the Body Atheism? What traits or behaviors does atheism possess to help it thrive and grow, like an organism would?
Referring to atheism as a religion is simply meant to be provocative. It's an attempt to anger atheists (by labelling them as the thing they most despise) or to confuse the argument (by implying that they are no different from their opponents). What's weird is that it is a tactic most often used by THEISTS. For a self-described atheist to take this tack is odd indeed.
Bravo ! Bravo! Heeven...
And it does nodda, nothing to support a greater scientific paradigm, with all due respect to professor Wilson, because it creates a serious distraction from the science it self. Bad metaphor and analogy for conceptual understanding to build a new paradigm on.
Well, let's see. The Ayn Rand movement is commonly called a movement. It had a name, an inner circle ironically called "the collective" and still has a large following. Humanism is called a movement and many humanists would like it to be more effective than it usually is. So there is ample precedent for calling VARIOUS VERSIONS of atheism a movement. A movement is a coordinated effort to achieve a given goal. All of religion is not a movement. There are many religious movements and elements of religion that don't count as movements. The same goes for atheism. The Bright movement was an attempt to mount a coordinated effort to achieve a given goal. i just don't understand why you should object to the word movement.
In this and numerous other comments, there seems to be an ideal of the atheist as like the Marlboro Man, riding tall in his own saddle. The mere suggestion that atheists might actually come to a consensus on something and then try to achieve a common goal based on the consensus is treated as repugnant. if this was true, then it would represent a profound failure of atheism. There SHOULD be an atheism movement. It should be based on factual knowledge derived by science and reason, and it should lead to coordinated action to solve real-world problems. If atheism can't do this, it isn't worth wanting.
For those who object to my terms "stealth religion" and "superorganism," I can put it this way: "Atheism" doesn't necessarily equal "science and reason." There are versions of atheism that are as distorted and purpose-driven as any religion. Atheists who value science and reason need to be appropriately critical of some versions of atheism for the same reason that they criticize religion. And most enduring religions are designed to promote cooperation and coordination among their members.
Some thoughts :
Ayn Rand represented a cult of personality - equating atheists with the followers of Rand is like equating atheism with communism (a favorite tactic of True Believers).
Humanism is a philosophy quite different from atheism. Although the two are often linked, neither is necessary for the other. In fact, Wikipedia carries this under the definition of humanism : "Humanism clearly rejects deference to supernatural beliefs in resolving human affairs but not necessarily the beliefs themselves; indeed some strains of Humanism are compatible with some religions. It is generally compatible with atheism and agnosticism but doesn't require either of these." Now I'm no fan of using Wikipee as a prime source, but most definitions say about the same thing. And yes, there are humanist societies.
The Brights are a more interesting case. I must admit that the fact that some people self-describe as Brights makes me a little queasy. But here's where I think the Brights might escape your hypothesis : the Brights take great pains to emphasize that no individual member speaks for the group when they present their own ideas. Thus taking issue with the writings of Dawkins or Dennett would still seem to imply that one should not tar all Brights (let alone all atheists) with the same brush.
I don't want to seem like too much of a gadfly - I do like your approach in general. Any light that can be shined on these issues is more than welcome. I just think that labeling atheism as "stealth" or a "religion" is to use words that carry a negative connotation.
Bravo ! Bravo! Wondering, (I'm sorry I wondering, belief I inadvertant adressed this to Heeven, the first time I posted it.)
And it does nodda, nothing to support a greater scientific paradigm, with all due respect to professor Wilson, because it creates a serious distraction from the science it self. Bad metaphor and analogy for conceptual understanding to build a new paradigm on.
Now, What happened to Dr. Wilson's eloquent response to wondering's comment? WTF?
Hey Dap!
Yeah, I saw that, but it didn't matter. (Thanks for the compliment, tho.) Now for the most important question of all :
How did you manage it? HOW DID YOU EDIT YOUR OLD COMMENT?
What divine powers allow you to edit mistakes? Oh, to remove blunders! Please explain, or I will have to assume that the supernatural really DOES exist.
"Referring to atheism as a religion is simply meant to be provocative."
People call religion a belief. Atheism is also a belief. One is a positive belief, the other a negative belief about the same thing.
Personally I would be more inclined to call atheism irreligion.
I don't believe that a non-belief of a belief is therefor a negative belief, or the flip-side of the original belief, believe me.
This is a reposting of my earlier reply to Wondering, which briefly appeared before mysteriously evaporating.
On movements: The Ayn Rand movement was commonly called a movement. It had an inner circle that ironically called itself "the collective" and still has a large following. Humanism is a movement and many humanists wish it was more effective. These are versions of atheism that qualify as movements. A movement is a collective effort by a group of people to achieve a goal. Religion as a whole is not a movement. There are many religious movements and elements of religion that do not count as movements. The same can be said of atheism. I just don't understand why you object to the word "movement" or the fact that the "Brights" was intended as a movement.
Something I have noticed about this and other comments is that atheists are often idealized as like the Marlboro Man, riding tall in his own saddle. The mere suggestion that atheists might band together to form a movement is treated as repugnant. If this was true, then atheism would be a profound failure. There SHOULD be an atheistic movement. It should be based on science and reason, and it should lead to coordinated action to solve the problems of modern life. If atheism can't do this, it isn't worth wanting.
For those who dislike my terms "stealth religion" and "superorganism," let me put it this way: "Atheism" is not necessarily the same as "science and reason." There are versions of atheism that are as distorted and purpose-driven as any religion. We need to be vigilant against some versions of atheism, no less than some versions of religion. And most enduring religions are designed to promote cooperation and coordination among their members.
Aargh! These cruel Huffpo gods - how they do vex us! Comments disappear, then reappear, like the Great Oz working his magic behind the curtain. Will they allow me to re-post my response which followed your original posting of this comment? I will try, but I will also pray (and sacrifice a goat).
Some thoughts :
Ayn Rand represented a cult of personality - equating atheists with the followers of Rand is like equating atheism with communism (a favorite tactic of True Believers).
Humanism is a philosophy quite different from atheism. Although the two are often linked, neither is necessary for the other. In fact, Wikipedia carries this under the definition of humanism : "Humanism clearly rejects deference to supernatural beliefs in resolving human affairs but not necessarily the beliefs themselves; indeed some strains of Humanism are compatible with some religions. It is generally compatible with atheism and agnosticism but doesn't require either of these." Now I'm no fan of using Wikipedia as a primary source, but most definitions say about the same thing. And yes, there are humanist societies.
The Brights are a more interesting case. I must admit that the fact that some people self-identify as Brights makes me a little queasy. But here's where I think the Brights might escape your hypothesis : the Brights take great pains to emphasize that no individual member speaks for the group when they present their own ideas. Thus taking issue with the writings of Dawkins or Dennett would still seem to imply that one should not tar all Brights (let alone all atheists) with the same brush. (Addendum: If the Brights stick to their founding principles, then all they seem to be saying is, "We are people who reject supernatural explanations". Period. The implication being that any attempt to understand atheism is welcome, but that the other Brights need not adopt that idea or be defined by it. If someone thinks atheism is a stealth religion, or a mutation, or whatever - all of these ideas are welcome so long as it is understood that those ideas are unique to the individual and not a position adopted by the group. Am I right? Or am I being too pollyannish?)
I don't want to seem like too much of a gadfly - I do like your approach in general. Any light that can be shined on these issues is more than welcome. I just think that labeling atheism as "stealth" or a "religion" is to use words that carry a negative connotation.
Dr. Wilson,
I found time this morning to read your article in this months Skeptic mag. (i get the print version). That was a very interesting piece, and I think I'm beginning to understand some of your work. I'm having trouble understanding the finer points of within group selection and between group selection, and why one or the other has been discarded (or not). I have to read things a few times to get stuff through my head. I'll read your books as well.
Anyway, I wanted to thank you for the book tip in that article. "War and Peace and War" looks fascinating and is right up my alley, as it dovetails with so much I've read in the last year or three. I just ordered it. My pile it getting huge, I'm going to need to stay away from HuffPo to make progress. I hope your blog here continues even after this series.
Hi, HeevenSteven, I"m following your advice to continue the conversation up here where the indentation effect is less off-putting. Before I go on, can I just butt in to say I"ve found Peter Turchin"s War and Peace and War really fascinating, especially when read in conjunction with David"s work. Wish I could find the time to read it properly cover to cover.
Down below, HeevenSteven, you asked:
"But is it not arrogant as well of these people who knock on our doors to tell us what's best for us? Should we just see these people as pathetic and misguded, that they need to believe unsupportable tripe to give their lives meaning; or is it wiser in the long run for us to politely discuss with them what WE think? Is it not superior of us to think we're right without letting them in on the 'secret'."
Just briefly (because I"m going to have to retire from the discussion and get back to my studies before I fail something!), I think it comes down to the find art of balancing priorities. I"d like to take a leaf from the doctor"s dictum and try to make my pre-eminent principle that of "do no harm". In the case of my Jehovah"s Witness visitor this means giving lesser priority to my own sense of trampled autonomy, because I can"t be sure my attempt to help her see the irrationality of her beliefs will in fact help her, assuming I could actually persuade her anyway.
Dap, can I respond to you here at the same time about the Dor and Jablonka article. IMHO the broad theoretical import is as valid as ever. The enormous rift between formalist and functional approaches in linguistics remains very wide it seems, and so Dor and Jablonka"s call to use new (multi-level/ multiple) perspectives in evolutionary theory to make sense of the data accumulated on both sides of the divide remains highly relevant.
I"m sorry I won"t be able to dip my toe in again for a while, but thanks very much for the discussion.
Hi again HeevenSteven, reading my own comment back now, I'm afraid they come across as fatuous unless I add that I don't for a minute think that resolution of these issues is simple at the inter-group level. At the level of the secular state, one of it's cornerstones and ultimate priorities is of course the protection of personal autonomy in religious and political belief. I found David's thoughts on related issues in the chapter "The Social Intelligence of Nations, or, Evil Aliens Need Not Apply" in his book "Evolution for Everyone" very interesting.
Dear whitecap,
Once again thanks for the discourse, and in-put
Agape.
Dear HeevenSteve,
Thanks for the kind words below. Remember back when you used to say what a hard "read" I was? Maybe I've had some improvement over the years now. But make no mistake, I still struggle with my dyslexia, it took me some time to write that, and damn it, I still made a few mistakes. Agape.
Happy to oblige! Part of my role as blogger is to act as a conduit of information and it's a pleasure see readers following up on my suggestions. At some point there should be a contest to see who has the largest pile of books in waiting :)
Whwn I left here last night, after an hour gaetting up to speed and crafting a fair sized comment, there were 22 comments with 2 pending; now there are 18 comments with 0 pending, and mine nowhere to be found. Nice series, I'd love to contribute, but guess I'll wait till they iron out all the bugs in the new format.
Hey, just be glad the sickly green font disappeared. It was giving me a headache. :)
Huffington post is no longer allowing stealth agnostics to comment. :)
Dear Professor Wilson,
While I surely appreciate your scientific discipline, I still have a many issues with this approach, especially when dealing with the conflation of "evolutionary processes with regard to religion."
I am of the mind, that you're missing many issues of import, for instance, the aberrant, the capricious, the epidemiological, the geological and other factors just to name a few aspects with regard to religion and other mythologies in humankind's psyche (mind's eye).
Yet, don't get me wrong, I am enjoying your series and learning from it, but I see many loose ends that cannot be put together. But most of all I see no reason for the bashing with regard to how others deal with the "GOD" paradigm, especially when the hypothesis you're promoting deals with *the Darwinian model* which the religious already have quite an aversion to with regard to biological science. I just can't foresee the benefit to a better or more acceptable understanding, even if you should find a way to pull all the ends together.
That's my take on it, yet I'm enjoying the exploration. Agape.
Yes. If Prof W. takes issue with the claims of these other authors, then a scientific (or even logical) attack on their claims is entirely permissible. But to simply label their conclusions as "silly" or "ineffective" is no better an argument than the claims he wishes to dismiss. Show that these other authors are WRONG, not silly.
Prof W. has taken acception to my assertion that he is shoe-horning religion into his pet concept of the superorganism. But what compelling evidence makes THAT claim any better than the claims of Dennett or Dawkins? (Perhaps the next article will clear that up.) I will repeat a question I asked below : To better indicate why religions are superorganisms, please list human groups or institutions which are NOT superorganisms? If we cannot, then "superorganism" is just a label for "any group of human beings", which makes calling religions superorganisms nothing special.
I agree with you on the nature of Dr Wilson's dismissals. Not very scientific; huh. The latest issue of skeptic magazine has a piece by Wilson and a response by Dawkins. It seems they don't like each other.
I can't dismiss Dennet's Idea to educate people about all religions as ineffective. I think Karen Armstrong would disagree with Wilson as well. You can argue that it would be difficult to do; but they're are plenty of people that would benefit from a macro view of the origins and tenets of different faiths. It would help many to see their own in different perspective. I know what it did for me, and I'm not so unique. I don't know how you'd do it in the middle east, but we can certainly do it here. It's not like we don't have our own religion problem. We'll always have fanatics, but we can chip away at the support base.
Hey, I'm still reading Hoffer. That's not stuff you can just blow through. That guy was pretty amazing. Now I see him mentioned in lots of places. Norman Horowitz just did a blog here last week that mentioned him. I forget the title, something about our warrior nation.
Wondering, ol'buddy, I'm thinking this is partly about build a biological paradigm for Prof.W. and of course he is going to view things from that aspect. Plus you know teachers have to be concerned with the way in which they present things, we still have not moved very far from the scopes monkey trial.(?) Hard to figure what are the motives or forces that move human beings actions. Some of this teaching stuff is even the technique of behavior modification.(?)
I certainly agree that religion is a HUGE topic, many things rather than a single thing, and a fuzzy set that phases into other categories. Also, everyone should remember that the blog format is extremely constraining. Blogs must be short, and detailed scientific inquiry must be long! As for how others deal with the GOD paradigm, if you check the Evolutionary Religious Studies website (http://evolution.binghamton.edu/religion/), you'll see that I and my colleagues are trying to establish a discipline that is fully inclusive, representing the full diversity of opinion among evolutionists, along with religious scholars and others newly encountering the evolutionary perspective. I'm also happy to talk on cordial terms with religious believers, without trying to hide my own atheism. In all these respects I am a non-basher, but the new atheism movement is a different enterprise, as I have been trying to show in my stealth blogs. Finally, it's great to be tolerant of different opinions, but scientific progress requires rejecting some hypotheses in favor of others. It's not intolerant to say that there is much, much more evidence favoring the group-level adaptation hypothesis than the virulent cultural parasite hypothesis, for example.
Two small quibbles, perhaps: First, I note that you make mention of memes here as if there really were such things, when other prominent scientists ( Steven Rose for one) appear to regard that concept as fanciful and more importantly, essentially untestable. Your hypotheses won't necessarily suffer, regardless, but I'd like to know or at least understand if and why you find it tenable. And I've heard Dennett speak of them with a certain reverence which is almost embarrassing.
Second, I've learned much from your other writings, but I've not seen (or have missed) any discussion of the possibility that religion differs from other social and mythological constructs because we, and life forms before us, have evolved calculating mechanisms, that, in predicting future events from an understanding of their causes, have a built in premise that every cause in nature is purposeful - every act had some form of intent behind it. In fact, I doubt that organisms would have survived and evolved without at least that initial assumption enabling quick decisions be made where immediacy is crucial.
It's not that I believe this assumption is correct (I don't) but there are more reasons to believe organisms would have had more advantage sticking to the use of that premise than have had reason to find it a disadvantage.
And if you're involved with a super-organism that has found ways to turn that assumption to advantage by tapping into such an unlimited source of power, and the laws and strictures that would seem to accompany it, you have a huge competitive advantage over almost all who rely more on themselves for such powers.
Does this make any sense to you as something worthy of further consideration in this particular project?
Well, I thought my questions were good enough to deserve some sort of reply from Dr. Wilson, but apparently not a prompt one at least. I guess it's dumb to propose that groups could tap into a power that existed mostly in their imagination. Maybe mass delusion and self-delusion have no lasting effects. They may last a longer time than we have to wait, but that's perhaps an academic question - and if so, I''m not qualified to ask it.
I do feel that I have leave to make a last comment about something that every one should know from Biology 101: Virtually all life forms capable of replication have some sort of calculating mechanism to make at least rudimentary predictions, and virtually all of these are seeking answers based on some form of "what and why" questions, even if not yet some form of when and where, and later who and how. And it's the nature of all questions to have some sort of premise that enables the what and why to exist. And that existence doesn't need to have depended on an understanding of the concept or the nature of any part of this process.
Questions looking for a reason in this mechanical sense are at the same time looking for what we would call a purpose. In other words the organism doesn't look for a reason separate from a purpose. Signals that would point to one or the other are virtually the same at that stage.
So to argue that calculating mechanism DON'T have premises of one sort or another built in, if only to allow them to work at all, is just plain silly. And to hold that in any case one of the first premises needed for the operation to begin was not involved with purpose, or used purpose in a selective way to begin with, is even more silly.
Dear Royniles, There is nothing dumb about the issues that you raise. Everyone should know that when I don't reply, it is for lack of time, not lack of interest, and certainly not because I regarded a comment as dumb. With respect to memes, they are defined in a variety of ways, some broad and others narrow, as I describe in my first blog. There is definitely a process of cultural evolution (not everyone agrees, in part because the concept has a complicated past), which involves some cultural variants spreading at the expense of others, but these cultural variants need not be like genes in every respect. See Richerson and Boyd's "Not By Genes Alone" for the best discussion of memes and cultural variants, in my opinion. I usually avoid the term, although I used it in my blog to say that religions (and other cultural systems) are good at managing their internal environments.
Continuing my response to your comment, your point about built-in calculating mechanisms is also well taken. Numerous evolutionists think along these lines, such as Scott Atran (In God's we Trust) and Pascal Boyer (Religion Explained). These are broadly classified as "byproduct" theories of religion, because the elements of religion are hypothesized to evolve by genetic evolution for reasons that have nothing to do with religion, and then become the basis of religion. Your idea (if I understand it correctly) is close to what is sometimes called a "hyperactive agent detection device." I regard these ideas as quite plausible but a major issue needs to be addressed: Even if these elements of religion are byproducts as far as genetic evolution is concerned, how are they functioning (or not functioning) in their CURRENT form? One possibility is that they continue to function as costly byproducts without delivering any benefits to the religious believer, like a moth to flame. Another possibility is that they have been woven into highly adaptive current-day religious systems. Most current-day adaptations were the byproducts (or exaptations, to use a word coined by Stephen Jay Gould) of past ages.
Dr. Wilson: Thanks, I really appreciate the positive feedback. Please accept my apologies for letting impatience prompt some clearly unwarranted assumptions.
But if there ARE these biologically based presumptions that natural events have a purpose, then they have in effect posed questions about what is behind that purpose and why. So these detection devices may now appear as costly byproducts for reasons that involve their misuse over the ages as attempts to understand our own purposes as necessarily connected to some purpose in nature. Religious mythology has so far appealed to many of us as having the best answer, but it has given us answers to the wrong questions. Because in the process we have been unaware of what there is within us that has prompted these ongoing questions and their so far unsatisfactory answers..
If we can come to understand that we already have what amounts to a built in belief that nature has a set of laws that do effectively govern us and "punish" us when we don't follow directions, and to understand what is prompting the search for a purpose behind these laws, rather than for, perhaps, the laws that serve our own human purposes, then this detection device won't turn out to have been a costly byproduct after all.
It will have eventually led us to asking the right questions and the possibility of answering them through a more scientific process.
(See my apologies for prior misuse of my own detective apparatus below.)
In your argument against Dennett's position, you say, "Like a cell maintaining osmotic pressure, a given religion is designed to pump out contrary memes and maintain an internal environment containing the appropriate memes. Elsewhere in the world, does Dennett really believe that we'll solve the problems of the Middle East (for example) by teaching the Palestinians about Judaism and the Israelis about Islam?"
Hmmm... Cannot a cell be invaded by viruses, bacteria, or toxins? Why is it so unreasonable to assume that exposure to other modes of thought would not change the superorganism? If a religion IS a closed system, then it is not acting like an organism at all. Think of the individual members of a religion as pieces of DNA in a cell - as a few are changed by outside knowledge (viruses), the religion (cell) cannot help but change as well. It may even die out as a result.
You're right, and I don't mean to imply that Dan's suggestion would be totally ineffective. There are good examples of people who question and modify their faith after being exposed to the wider world. However, the "education" solution largely assumes that religious beliefs are inferior and will be willingly exchanged for better information on the basis of education. What if religious beliefs are highly adaptive for the religious believer? This returns us to the distinction between factual and practical realism For atheists and rationalists such as ourselves, religion's biggest sin is it's departure from factual realism, but when that departure has functional utility, we need to think twice about whether to change it.
Thanks for replying!
However, I am troubled by your last sentence. It seems to imply that whenever someone sees the world through a new or different paradigm, the best course of action is to just shut up and let everyone else stew in their own ignorance because it works for them. It suggests accepting a cognitive caste system in which a few enjoy the benefits of progressive thought but are unable to communicate that knowledge to the rest. Are we atheists always to live apart - slinking about in the shadows? And who is to say that freeing humanity from the chains of religion might not be the best thing we could do for them?
It is probably unnecessary to say this, but most atheists love their species and want to see it grow and progress. To sit on one's hands, laughing at all the silly True Believers, would be the height of nihilism. It's not just that we view religion as a danger to our existence, but that we view religion as a form of slavery - slavery to the irrational (what you seem to call "practical realism"). Slavery, genocide, caste systems, and forcing women to assume second class status may also all have "functional utility" in some way - but they are still wrong and must be fougt against.
Under other posts on Huffpo, I have proposed a hierarchy of spiritual development (probably not original) that consists of 4 levels. The lowest level is that of the polytheistic religions - where we assign a little angry god to each phenomenon we encounter : a rain god, a sun god, a god of war. The second level is acheived when we coallesce these disparate godlings into one petty, jealous, EXTERNAL god - the white-bearded lightning thrower. The third level is acheived when we make god INTERNAL - i.e., believing that god is IN everything. The forth level of spiritual development is atheism - i.e., to realize that the concept of god is superfluous and can be done away with all together. Every human being must travel this spiritual path - most just get stuck along the way.
I have argued in the past that Buddha was an atheist, but that his teachings were corrupted by later followers. In the Pali canon of Buddhism, after acheiving enlightenment, the Buddha did not believe that humanity was ready to accept the Dharma, and he was only persuaded to reveal it after a divine spirit visited him and begged him to teach it. As one who believes the Buddha was actually an atheist, I read that passage to mean that the Buddha recognized how difficult the journey to atheism would be for most human beings, but he decided to try anyway.
Like Plato's enlightened ones in the parable of the cave, we must return to the darkness to drag the others out kicking and screaming. I belive in the potential of humanity, and if a small percentage of human beings can adopt atheism, then ALL are capable of the same.
Dear Doctor Wilson,
I just added to my pile: "Not by Genes Alone"; "Darwin's Cathedral", "Evolution for Everyone". I already have "Darwin's Dangerous Idea", and I've read "The Blind Watchmaker" and Spence Wells' "Journey of Man" and Nicholas Wade's "Before the Dawn". I'm now reading Jared Diamond's "Third Chimpanzee". I've read his other two best sellers (Gun's Germs Steel, and Collapse).
I'm an engineer and the only biology class I ever had was high school. I'm not even sure I completely understand group or cumulative selection. Should I just read what I have here, or are there other texts you'd recommend first? I appreciate any advice from you or anyone else here who can help me.
With apologies for appearing self-serving, my book "Evolution for Everyone" portrays what I like to call "the big, big, big picture" to the best of my ability and includes dozens of references to the many topics that I cover. In addition to the other books that you mention, I would put "Evil Genes" by Barbara Oakley high on your list. Also, everyone interested in religion should check out Michael Dowd's "Thank God for Religion." Michael is the world's first evolutionary evangelist, who preaches about evolution in a way that is fulfilling to religious believers while remaining true to the science---quite a feat ! He travels the country with his atheist wife, science writer Connie Barlow, in a big van with a Darwin fish kissing a Christian fish painted on the outside. His personal appearances are definitely worth seeing, in addition to reading his book. Coming soon to a church near you!
Correction! Michael Dowd's book is titled "Thank God for Evolution!" That should teach me not to write things in a rush :(
Dear David,
Why are you focused on Abrahamic religions?
Isn't it a priori bias to use a term "Sacred texts". It implies that the texts are sacred to you.
I do not restrict my focus on Abrahamic religions. My own writing includes discussions of two Eastern religions--Jainism and the Water Temple System of Bali, both of which are exquisitely functional at the group level. My random sample includes religions from all of the major traditions and indigenous religions also fall into place.
Jainism? Interesting. (I've never hear of the Water Temple thing.)
Here's one verse from the chief book of the Vedas, Srimad Bhagavatam, Canto 5, Chapter 6, Text 9,. pertaining to the origin of the Jain religion:
"Sukadeva Gosvami continued speaking to Maharaja Pariksit: My dear King, the King of Konka, Venka and Kutaka whose name was Arhat, heard of the activities of Rsabhadeva and, imitating Rsabhadeva's principles, introduced a new system of religion. Taking advantage of Kali-yuga, the age of sinful activity, King Arhat, being bewildered, gave up the Vedic principles, which are free from risk, and concocted a new system of religion opposed to the Vedas. That was the beginning of the Jain dharma. Many other so-called religions followed this atheistic system."
If all you explore of religion are those invented by fallible human beings, while avoiding the teachings of the monotheistic Vedic traditions, which eternally emanate from the Personality of Godhead, then I don't see how you can make any "factual claims about the nature of religion."
The verse and purport that follow the one I quoted above pertain to the Jain religion and are entertaining, so I'll add that too:
"People who are lowest among men and bewildered by the illusory energy of the Supreme Lord will give up the original varnasrama-dharma and its rules and regulations. They will abandon bathing three times daily and worshiping the Lord. Abandoning cleanliness and neglecting the Supreme Lord, they will accept nonsensical principles. Not regularly bathing or washing their mouths regularly, they will always remain unclean, and they will pluck out their hair. Following a concocted religion, they will flourish. During this age of Kali, people are more inclined to irreligious systems. Consequently these people will naturally deride Vedic authority, the followers of Vedic authority, the brahmanas, the Supreme Personality of Godhead and the devotees."
PURPORT
"Presently [the early 1970s] the hippies in the Western countries fit this description. They are irresponsible and unregulated. They do not bathe, and they deride standard Vedic knowledge. They concoct new life-styles and religions. There are many hippie groups at the present moment, but they all originated from King Arhat, who imitated the activities of Lord Rsabhadeva, who was situated on the paramahamsa stage. King Arhat did not care for the fact that although Lord Rsabhadeva acted like a madman, His stool and urine were nonetheless aromatic, so much so that they nicely scented the countryside for miles around. The followers of King Arhat went under the name Jains, and they were later followed by many others, particularly by the hippies, who are more or less offshoots of Mayavada philosophy because they think themselves the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Such people do not respect the real followers of Vedic principles, the ideal brahmanas. Nor do they have respect for the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Supreme Brahman. Due to the influence of this age of Kali, they are apt to concoct false religious systems. "
Before posting this I wanted to find out if the popular understanding of Jainism is atheistic. This statement (and others) from Wikipedia confirms that it is:
:"Jains do not believe in an omnipotent supreme being..."
I don't see how your research could be considered bona fide if you accept a manmade atheistic philosophy as religion. It is no surprise considering that the Vedas state that in this sinful age religion will be considered irreligion; and irreligion, religion.
Also of note is this statement from the Wikipedia article on Jainism:
"Traditionally, in our universe and in our time, Lord Rishabha is regarded as the first to realize the truth." That would be the same Rishabhadev described in Srimad Bhagavatam, quoted above. I presume this would lend credibilty to the Bhagavatam version for those who do not know to accept it as the final authority.
I have the same question. The Bible was written by human beings a few thousand years ago. The Koran was written by human beings several hundred years ago. Both admit that.
The Vedas are the eternal sound of the breathing of God. This sound has no beginning, and is not of human origin. No human scripture compares to the Vedas. Even better, Bhagavad-gita was directly spoken by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Sri Krishna.
Picking on the Abrahamic religions is something like a boxer fighting weaklings while avoiding the champ.
Why don't you read Bhagavad-gita As It Is, and then we can talk?
Download it here:
http://www.krishnamedia.org/e-books/Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is.pdf
or read online here:
Http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com
I think the off-putting thing about all this is the zealotry that these 'new atheists' employ against all forms of 'religious' thought, including anything paranormal, which quantum physics repudiates. How can you be in two places at once? Are you God or just an electron? How can something be a wave and a particle at the same time? Is God a photon? Is it "Evolution" or "An Intelligent Design?"
The truth is weirder and stranger and grander than fiction, whether religious or atheistic. Right and wrong, correct and incorrect, are just relative terms based upon individual perception and translation. There is no difference when a preacher is talking excitedly, using his intellect while his mind is not enlightened, or when an atheist is talking, using his intellect but not his heart. Both are mental excercises, and spirituality can't be just intellectual, nor can it be just an emotional attachment to a set of unquestioned beliefs.
Very interesting, when you get a minute, could you please elaborate on how Quantum Mechanics work with respect to the human brain? Thank you.
Consider this odd quote: "In contrast, the authors associated with the new atheism movement ... select their examples from the text of science like so many parables from the Bible."
And how, pray-tell, is this any different from attaching the label "superorganism" to religions? Have you scientifically tested your hypothesis? What evidence do you present?
Your answer to every question seems to be: superorganism! And no surprise - it's your baby. But you are so wedded to that concept that you can't see that you are doing the same thing you decry in these other authors. YOUR conclusions about religion are also colored by this (ineffective, silly) hypothesis that you have plucked from "the text of science."
And it's worse in your case, because YOU introduced that concept to science (at least in its modern form). You are fitting every phenomena to your pre-conceived conclusion.
Also - to pick up on an idea articulated by RussAbbott - recognizing that religions function as corporate units is hardly ground-breaking. Doesn't virtually EVERY human group function that way? Even families are corporate units, with leaders, followers, economies, and unique roles for the members. But that says nothing about why individuals choose to be religious. Nor does it explain the differences between religions and other human institutions.
In the end, hanging the corporate unit (or "superorganism") tag on religion doesn't advance the argument. Using the term "superorganism" for every collection of individuals is like attaching the label "music" to every sound that you hear. When a term becomes too amorphous, the things you attach that term to end up defining the term.
Why do I disagree with this comment? Let me count the ways.
1) You suggest that I am just like everyone else in picking and choosing examples to support my case, as if there is no alternative.
2) You ask "Have you scientifically tested your hypothesis?" as a rhetorical question, when that is what I and my colleagues do for a living. You can answer your own question by consulting this literature, and I will provide an example (not from my own work) in my next blog.
3) You make the ad hominem argument that I must be favoring the superorganism hypothesis because I am a self-promoter who regards the hypothesis as mine.
4) I already said in my blog that asking how religious groups differ from other groups is a great question--that an only be asked after we decide that most religious groups function as corporate units.
5) It is not the case that I have stretched the definition of superorganism to include everything. Each major hypothesis leads to a different conception of religion that can be supported and rejected on the basis of empirical evidence. I and my colleagues are working hard to gather the evidence to make the determinations-- that is what science is all about. I am delighted that some of the comments reflect a reading of the academic literature, including books such as "Not by Genes Alone." This is where the action is and I hope that you will join us.
You are correct in pointing out that you have another article yet to come. I apologize and withdraw my request for additional supporting evidence until I read that article.
But I am still stumbling on the definition of the term "superorganism". A little research reveals that some people want to reserve the term for "direct-contact" communities such as slime molds and ants. Others (such as yourself) want to extend it to human institutions. Still others see the entire Earth as a giant superorganism (the Gaia theory). So what is a superorganism? The only definition I can glean from this confusion of usages is this: a superorganism is ANY collection of smaller organisms. Big whoop.
Oh, and it does no good to add the condition that the collection of smaller organisms is working toward some common goal, or exhibiting traits that promote the successful continued existence of that superorganism. The common goal is only evident AFTER the group arrives at it; the success of the group is only evident AFTER it is shown to survive for an extended length of time. In other words, it would appear that any group of individuals that manages to thrive over time (or acheive some goal) can be given the label "superorganism".
Here is a question I hope you can answer to clear up my confusion: Please list human groups which are NOT superorganisms. If every grouping of human beings constitutes a superorganism, then what good is the term? Families, gangs, audiences, shoppers in a store - are they all superorganisms? Even seemingly random groupings, such as the people riding an elevator, can be seen to exhibit hierarchy (standing order) and expected behaviors (pushing only one button, holding the door for handi-capped individuals, etc.) to ensure the success of the group - to acheive a common goal. Honestly, how does labelling religions as superorganisms, or corporate units advance the argument?
And do these atheist authors you find so objectionable disagree with your hypothesis? If the definition of superorganism is as amorphous as I've suggested, then they would probably agree, "Sure, religions are superorganisms, or corporate units. So what?" In other words, calling religions superorganisms does not imply that the conclusions of these other authors are necessarily wrong. But maybe I should wait for your next article.
Hi again, David,
As you know, I'm a big fan of yours. Yet I feel drawn to argue with you about these postings. Here's another comment.
As I'm sure you can explain better than I evolution tends to discard unneeded features -- the blind mole rat, for example. So why hasn't evolution discarded religious beliefs that aren't central to helping religions function as effective groups?
One would imagine that once a (religious) group forms, the behavioral features that help its members survive would become more and more central and the tangential theological beliefs would fade away as unnecessary baggage that hinders survival. But that doesn't seem to happen to most religions. Why is that?
I was wondering about the issue of maladaptive aspects of religion, too. Richerson and Boyd for example, in "Not By Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution", posit that maladaptive cultural behaviour and beliefs are the result of four tradeoffs against biological evolutionary pressures to maximize genetic fitness. These tradeoffs were necessary, they say, for us to reap the benefits of complex culturally transmitted adaptations sufficiently quickly to make a selective difference in the highly variable environments of the Pleistocene:
"Culture gets humans fast cumulative evolution on the cheap, but only if it also makes us vulnerable to selfish cultural variants. Four interrelated tradeoffs conspire to weaken the grip of genetically determined biases on cultural evolution. First, people other than parents are a crucial source of adaptive information. Second, content biases cannot be made too restrictive without becoming too costly or sacrificing the adaptive flexibility that social learning provides. Next, fast and frugal adaptive heuristics such as conformist and prestige biases have specific, unavoidable, maladaptive side effects. Finally, rogue cultural variants evolve devious strategies to evade the effects of content biases. Because the rate of cultural adaptation is rapid compared with genetic evolution, rogue variants will often win arms races with genes." (pp. 155-156)
I was wondering whether you support all - or indeed any - of these tradeoff explanations for why certain religious beliefs and behaviours can persist despite hindering genetic fitness. To use one of Richerson and Boyd's more memorable and spectacular examples (and of course there are any number of such examples that could be given), why does ritual handling of rattlesnakes by some Southern US Pentecostalists persist as a practice? Would you prefer to interpret this simply as a dysfunctional manifestation of proximate mechanisms that have an ultimately adaptive explanation, to paraphrase your own words in Darwin"s Cathedral (p. 215)?
These are good questions and let me hint at two answers. First, theological beliefs that seem tangential can actually play a central role in the "anatomy and physiology" of a religion. See my detailed discussion of Calvinism in Darwin's Cathedral as an example. Second, I'm serious when I say that evolution is a messy process in which all of the hypotheses apply to a degree. A good anthropological example is the Nuer tribe replacing the Dinka tribe, which has been described by both Elliott Sober and myself in Unto Others and by Pete Richerson and Rob Boyd in Not By Genes Alone. The Nuer are historically derived from the Dinka but differed in a number of ways that made them competitively superior. They have been studied for over 50 years, providing one of the best empirical examples of a cultural replacement process, or cultural evolution in action. Cultural variation at this scale is definitely a "blind process" and each culture is a complex system, so the Nuer and Dinka differ in numerous nonfunctional ways, in addition to the differences that make a difference. As Stephen Jay Gould would put it, there are lots of spandrels that come along with the adaptations. This pluralistic view is perfectly consistent with the major conclusion that the Nuer were functionally better organized than the Dinka when it came to intergroup conflict.
The potential dangers of taking the views of Hitchens, Dawkins, Sam Harris and other "brights" to their logical and extreme conclusions - not to mention the way they mimic certain other fundamendalists in their plain abusive nastiness at times - have worried me for a while and your efforts to provide greater balance and understanding in the debate around questions of the nature and place of religions, and other unifying cultural systems, in human life, are surely important and timely. And just let me add the disclaimer that I'm not a religious believer myself ...
Secondly, can I just take this opportunity to say how much I've enjoyed reading your very accessible and enjoyable books, "Darwin's Cathedral" and "Evolution for Everyone", over the past month or so, as well as several of the articles so generously made available on your website. You make an extremely clear and well-substantiated case for the synthetic and explanatory power of the Darwinian, and more specifically the multilevel selection (MLS), perspective for the study of religion and human culture and society more generally. I'm engaging with everything I read and hear about humanity in a very different light as a result.
After also reading Peter Turchin, Richerson and Boyd, and Jonathan Haidt, among others, who apply an MLS view to human history, culture and psychology, I've also got loads of questions and confusions I'm itching to get to the bottom of.
If I many be so cheeky as to make a request for future blogs - I'd like to know how findings with regard to animal, and especially primate, empathy and cooperation (I'm thinking of Frans de Waal's especially work here) can be understood in MLS terms - certainly as pre-adaptations for the major transition to human cultural groups I guess. Just what were the aspects of our emotional makeup that we brought from our primate lineage that natural selection crucially tweaked in that major transition? There seems to be a good deal of variance in how, for example, Richerson & Boyd and de Waal would delineate what seperates us from our non-human ancestors in terms of moral intuition. In a 2006 paper entitled "Why managers need an evolutionary theory of organization", for example, Richerson, Collins and Genet posit that the primate ancestor from which we evolved had a very "selfish" psychology and an unambiguously Hobbesian, "red in tooth and claw", kind of society:
"Biologists know societies composed of selfish individualists well, since they are common in nature. Our chimpanzee relatives are excellent examples. They are a much closer approximation to the economist"s ideal rational selfish agent than humans. We must have been such creatures before the evolution of the moral hidden hand." (p. 208)
De Waal, by contrast, seems to see much more continuity in "moral emotions" and altruistic behaviour between us and our primate ancestors. He has this to say in an interview in the September 2007 edition of "Believer" (available online):
"I don"t think that chimpanzees are moral beings in the human sense. But they do have empathy, sympathy, reciprocity. They share food, resolve conflicts. All of these elements are present in human morality. So what I argue is that the basic psychology of the great apes is an essential element of human morality."
I really appreciate this comment, not only for complimenting my own work, but for reflecting your reading of the so-called academic literature. This is where the excitement really lies and it is much more accessible to the general public than most people think. I have a future blog in mind titled "Can science fans become as sophisticated as sports fans?" I am a sports dummy and only recognize names such as Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods. A real sports fan knows dozens of players and follows the game in great detail. Most people interested in science know only a few names, such as Richard Dawkins or Ed Wilson, when they could be reading dozens of authors and following the arguments in much, much more detail. To briefly address some of your specific points, it's true that Pete and Rob often write as if the received wisdom about selfishness in non-humans is correct and humans are different, thanks to cultural evolution. Frans thinks that the roots of morality extend more deeply into animal nature, although he is ambivalent about group selection as the explanation. He would regard morality as a form of enlightened self-interest, as when a dominant chimp curries favor or keeps the peace for his own interest in addition to the interest of others. I think that there is a broad consistency in their (and my) positions. For example, I can agree with Frans and still claim that humans experienced a major evolutionary transition, enabling them to "cross the cooperation divide," as I put it in Evolution for Everyone. In any case, it is a pleasure to hear from such a sophisticated "science fan," who might also be a practicing scientist for all I know :)
Thank you very much, David, for the detailed reply and kind comments. I"m old enough to remember a world without personal computers, let alone blogs, so being able to join the conversation like this strikes me as nothing short of miraculous. I"m not a scientist but I"ve done some postgraduate work in applied linguistics, and there too, I find myself magnetically attracted to functional, rather than formal (Chomskyian) explanations of language. Sorry, this is very off topic I know, but just in case anyone else is interested, I"ve recently been looking around for work in linguistics that incorporates group selection perspectives and come across an interesting article co-authored by the geneticist Eva Jablonka, "From cultural selection to genetic selection: A framework for the evolution of language", available online here:
http://www.akademiai.com/content/j684060g60376027/
From the abstract: "¦ language is best characterized as a specialized communication system, dedicated to the expression of a surprisingly constrained set of meanings. This characterization calls for an account of the evolution of language in terms of the interaction between cultural and genetic evolution. We develop such an evolutionary model on the basis of the mechanism of culturally-driven genetic assimilation."
What makes you so certain that apes (and other sentient beings) don't have some instinctive need to behave in accordance with some apparent encouragement from nature for correct behavior, and discouragement for crossing boundaries that other apes seem to feel should not be crossed. How do you know the one ape is not right about what his fellow apes feel and not capable of having some glimmer of why that could be?
That doesn't mean there is (or is not) such a natural force - only that all life may be predisposed to feel there is. None of you seem to have given that possibility any serious consideration - you may say otherwise but all I've seen is baseless speculation in that regard - with the apes left out except to discuss an innate moral sense seen only as evidence that ours as well does NOT come from the gods.
But any suggestions as to why we and the apes may have this strong sense that it does are just dismissed as biologically baseless superstition. Superstition it surely is - biologically baseless it is surely not.
You may think you some advantage over other atheists and agnostics in your factual understanding of religious belief. You may in fact be seriously wrong where they are merely ignorant. Wouldn't that be silly!
You can ignore this as you do other conjecture that you seem to feel is not to your advantage to answer. The questions won't go away just on your say-so.
What do you say about Sam Harris??
Hi David,
As you say, religious groups function as corporate units like governments, business corporations, and (although you didn't say it) street gangs and charitable organizations. But so what? That doesn't explain why people have religious beliefs. It only explains why the having of religious beliefs -- and in particular, those religious beliefs that lead to effective corporate entities -- persists among us.
It's a brilliant idea to understand religious groups as successful evolutionary entities. But that doesn't tell me why human beings have religious beliefs in the first place. Nor does it explain why some people practice religion (or pursue religious like practices) in isolation.
Hey Russ, you ask the pertinent question, and one that is systematically overlooked or glossed over by a majority of atheists (I'm a blatant agnostic, as Dap or HeevenSteven can attest to!). The origins of all corporate religious entities are rooted in personal human experience: the experience of something extra ordinary. In western religions this experience was reserved for shamans, prophets, or an incarnation of god himself. Eastern religions teach that this experience is available to all human beings through certain practices or procedures. Evolution doesn't spend a lot of time worrying about the origin of life on earth, so an evolutionary study of religion easily overlooks religion's origin, or chalks it up to fear and superstition in a pre-scientific world. Perhaps the interpretations of this universal experience were based on these human foibles, but the experience remains to the present day. The (concious or unconcious) awareness of this singular human experience is as plausible a reason for religion's persistence as is any of the estimable explanations enumerated by Dr. Wilson above. The scientific canon currently has no place for this experience- even though many brilliant minds have known it throughout history- and write it off as subjective human delusion. But I love to quote Tennyson on this: "...there is no delusion in the matter! It is no nebulous ecstasy, but a state of transcendant wonder, associated with absolute clearness of mind."
Hi Steve,
Sam Harris discusses transcendent experiences. He makes the point that they are an undeniable part of us; but the only language we've ever had to discuss them is religious. It was such an experience he had in college after taking ecstasy that changed his life. He spent two years in India learning meditation, got a philosophy degree from Stanford and is now finishing up or has a doctorate in neuro-science; all to study that experience.
I think it is helpful to step back from religion per se and ask more generally how one would design a human group that functions well as a cooperative unit. This would not be a purely cognitive and intentional exercise, like a business meeting. It would need to be emotionally powerful. It would include music, dance, intense imagery, powerfully motivating stories that convey information about how to behave, even if they aren't literally true. It would often be centered around people--important living people, ancestors who once lived, and fictive people. In other words, this well-designed group would look like a religious group. Ellen Dissanayake, whose books on art from an evolutionary perspective are well worth reading, defines religion as a collection of art activities. In many respects, I think that atheists and rationalists need to question their own axioms, which turn religion into a paradox. It's fine for us to make rational thought our own gold standard, and science and rational thought are badly needed to understand and improve the human condition, but the human mind did not evolve to think rationally. It evolved as an organ of survival and reproduction. Working through the implications of this provides a new foundation for epistemology, quite apart from its implications for how we think about religion.
Loading comments…
American International Group is preparing to pay millions of...
I'm pleased to announce the launch today of two new HuffPost...
After a three-night stay in Moscow, the Obamas touched down in Rome on Wednesday so Papa President...
How would you like to live in the White House? Take the HuffPost Poll of World Leaders' Residences...
UPDATE: Paris Jackson also spoke. Watch her moving...
I was sorry to watch, live on CNN, Edward R. Murrow and Emmy Award-winning broadcaster and...
The following post...
It was with interest that I read Dr. Soram Khalsa's post on The Huffington Post...
Yesterday evening, Greg Sargent reported on The Plum Line that one of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's key reasons...
Below are photos from Michael Jackson's memorial, with Mariah Carey, Lionel Richie, Smokey Robinson,...
OH NOES! What happened on Fox and Friends today, people?
It's been a rocky year for Letterman and Palin. He joked...
I'm liveblogging the latest Iran election fallout. Email me with any news or thoughts, or follow me...
MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- Oscar G. Mayer, retired chairman of the Wisconsin-based meat processing company that bears his name,...
It's summer, the time for weddings! A few of my friends are getting married this summer and fall, so lately...
SYDNEY — Residents of a rural Australian town hoping to protect the earth and their wallets...
I get many letters like this from readers...
Posted February 27, 2008 | 05:33 PM (EST)