Transcript David Sloan Wilson - University of Washington

TESTING MAJOR EVOLUTIONARY HYPOTHESES
ABOUT RELIGION WITH A RANDOM SAMPLE
DAVID SLOAN WILSON
ROBERT REEVES
DAVID SLOAN WILSON
 Distinguished professor of Biological
Sciences and Anthropology at
Binghamton University
 Fun fact: 1975-76, he held a dual
position as Research Associate in
Zoology at the University of
Witwatersrand and the University of
Washington.
 Something of a controversial figure.
 Detractors like to point out that he’s
funded by Templeton Foundation (ad
hominem?)
DARWIN’S CATHEDRAL
 Wilson publishes Darwin’s Cathedral
(2002)
 This paper is something of a sequel to
that book and its group-level
adaptation hypothesis.
 Wilson wants to eliminate selection bias in
choosing sample religions to test theories:
 But has he avoided confirmation bias?
GROUP-LEVEL ADAPTATION
 Here comes the controversy—Wilson is a proponent of
group selection: to him, religion is an example of a grouplevel adaptation.
 http://www.edge.org/conversation/the-false-allureof-group-selection
INTRO: EXISTING HYPOTHESES
INTRO: WILSON’S HYPOTHESIS
 Religions are largely (but not entirely) group-level
adaptations.
 In their behavioral prescriptions, theology, and social
practices, most religions are well-suited to provide
instructions for how to promote cooperation among group
members and reduce freeloading and exploitation.
 The features of religion that appear most irrational are
really proximate causes for behaviors that ultimately benefit
the group.
 The “true” and “pure” religion is based on group welfare;
when selfish individuals start to take control, they are
generally called out for “corrupting” the true religion.
METHODS
 A computer program selected 35 random religious
systems from the 16-volume Encyclopedia of Religion.
 Wilson wants us to believe that by randomly
sampling religions he has eliminated selection bias
AND that his sample is now representative of moreuniversal notions of religion (important).
 35 undergrads helped him research the various religions
in depth.
 Then he explicates the examples he apparently deemed
most relevant, and draws general conclusions.
RELIGIONS
DISMISSING NON-ADAPTIVE
HYPOTHESES
FINDINGS: DISMISSING NONADAPTIVE HYPOTHESES
 First, religions from the sample are centered
largely on practical concerns, especially those that
define social groups and regulate social
interactions. They have what Durkheim called
“secular utility.”
 Wilson cites Judaism, Islam, Christianity, and
Jainism as functioning in this way.
 Religion, then, is about goals that are
achievable (unlike, for example, everlasting life;
more like a well-regulated society) but only
through the coordinated action of groups.
DISMISSING NON-ADAPTIVE
HYPOTHESES
 But what about “otherworldly” aspects?
 Religions are so often irrational, costly, timeconsuming (rituals), etc. which according to Wilson
leads theorists to nonfunctional (i.e. “rightcolumn”) hypotheses.
 Wilson explains these as evidence of proximate
causes—anything that will reliably produce the
“helping behavior.” Features that motivate adaptive
behaviors, regardless of how bizarre they may
appear, are consistent with a functional theory.
WHICH ADAPTIVE HYPOTHESIS?
CASE FOR BETWEEN-GROUP
SELECTION
 Benefits of religion are enjoyed by members of the group, but
not usually in the sense of some members profiting and the
expense of others (when religion is “true” and “pure”).
 Benefits of religion are typically public goods that require
investment from the individuals.
 Wilson sees this as a clear indicator of group selection:
“Very simply, groups that ‘get their act together’
outperform other groups, and this advantage outweighs
the disadvantages of being a public good provider within
groups.”
 Self-serving behaviors are, again, typically viewed as
“corruptions” of the true religion.
 Supported by samples (no real data).
WHAT IS BETWEEN-GROUP
SELECTION?
 Not always violent—most religions in the random sample
were not spread by war, but by differences in
recruitment, retention, and birth and death rates based
on ability of the group to function as a unit.
 Not necessarily genetic—Wilson puts strong emphasis on
“cumulative, socially transmitted information” as
essential to religious tradition—that is, cultural
evolution.
 He plays a little fast and loose with his definitions
here. Is this really selection?
DEALING WITH COMPETITORS:
ADAPTIVE THEORIES PT. I
 “Cultural parasite” hypothesis
 Dawkins’ memes, cultural analog of genes, which can be
regarded as autonomous life forms evolved to perpetuate
themselves with no clear benefit to human hosts.
 Dawkins considers religion to be a meme—we would be
better off without it.
 Wilson feels he’s proven that religion is functionally beneficial,
so the “cultural parasite” theory holds no weight for him.
 Perhaps notable that Dawkins dismisses group-selection
with unmatched vigor; Wilson dismisses him right back.
DEALING WITH COMPETITORS:
ADAPTIVE THEORIES PT. II
 Richerson and Boyd (2004) conception of cultural evolution
 Wilson doesn’t even view this theory as a competitor; nor
does he actually explain it. He simply absorbs it:
 “Not only have the parameters of cultural evolution evolved
by genetic evolution to promote biological fitness on
balance, but they have evolved to increase the efficacy of
between-group selection relative to within-group selection.”
 Introduced a little out of nowhere—what is this based on?
 Is Wilson overreaching with his metaphor of cultural
selection? (e.g. he refers to “the mechanisms that enable all
of this nongenetic information to be encoded, expressed…,
and faithfully transmitted.”)
WHY GROUP SELECTION?
 No gene-level theory of religion?
 Short review, because I find this confusing and minimally
supported:
 Wilson’s makes a claim (he doesn’t give data, but he
must have some) that religion functions as a public good,
like welfare: problem is that it creates a negative fitness
difference within the group between those who give and
those who benefit without cost.
 Wilson would conclude that if group selection was not in play,
religion would never have been selected for.
 As discussed earlier, he argues that public good
production primarily increases between-group fitness,
which is for Wilson a phenomenon of group selection.
Groups that get their act together outperform other
groups.
JAINISM
 Essentially, although Jainism’s customs are seemingly arcane,
bizarre, and maladaptive, Wilson ultimately finds the religion
in keeping with his ideas upon close examination.
 Wilson uses this example of a proof of concept, since
Jainism seemed to him the most inimical of his random
samples. But selectively choosing proof of concept
examples is exactly what he was trying to avoid.
 Aside from that, his explanations are there: it would
seem Jainism is more functional than may have been
previously assumed.
 Does anyone have any questions or want to discuss his
section on Jainism in specific detail?
SUMMARY OF
ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION
 Most religions in the sample have what Durkheim called
secular utility.
 The practical benefits are inherently group and otheroriented.
 In some cases the practical side of religion is so overt
that it becomes indistinguishable from politics.
 In other cases the practical side is obscured by the
otherworldly side of religion, but these can be largely
reconciled through the proximate/ultimate distinction.
ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION
 Evolution is a multifactorial process with many constraints on
natural selection, so all of the major hypotheses have some
degree of validity. However, portrayals of religion as primarily
nonfunctional or individually selfish (in the sense of benefiting
some members relative to others within the same group) can be
rejected on the basis of the survey. (gulp)
 Religions are not autonomous cultural life forms that parasitize
human individuals (not memes).
 Instead, they demonstrate that the parameters of cultural
evolution have themselves evolved to ENHANCE between-group
selection and restrict within-group selection. (!)
 Between-group selection can take the form of direct conflict, but
it usually takes other forms.
 He invites us to continue the effort, leading toward a
cohesive interdisciplinary field of evolutionary religious
studies.
BRIEFLY, HAIDT AND WILSON
 Haidt enthusiastically endorses Wilson’s hypotheses as the confluence
of the Durkeimian approach to religion (on belonging) and Darwinian
approach to morality (involving multilevel selection):
 “Gods and religions, in sum, are group-level adaptations for
producing cohesiveness and trust… they are created by the
members of the group, and they then organize the activity of the
group… In Wilson’s account, human minds and human religions
have been coevolving (just like bees and their physical hives) for
tens or hundreds of thousands of years.”
 Explains for Haidt the power of the basic religious psychology
(doingbelievingbelongingdoing).
 Religions beliefs and practices have been binding humans together
into groups for tens of thousands of years; belief in supernatural
agents elicited greater commitment from members.