Magazine Masthead
category: Religion

The New Atheism and Evolutionary Religious Studies: Clarifying Their Relationship

Post: May 16, 2012 5:02 pm
Author: David Sloan Wilson         Source: ETVOL Exclusive

Atheism is a disbelief in Gods. “The New Atheism” refers to an exceptionally active group of atheists centered around the work of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and the recently deceased Christopher Hitchens. All four are distinguished intellectuals and scientists. Dawkins and Dennett are especially known as interpreters of evolution for the general public. Legions have become turned on to evolutionary science through their work.

Evolutionary Religious Studies (ERS) is the scholarly study of religion from an evolutionary perspective. Religion has been studied from other scholarly perspectives for centuries. Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, and James George Frazier were early scholars of religion. Their goal was to explain religion as a purely human phenomenon, in the same way that scholars try explain any other human phenomenon, such as government or warfare. This is in contrast to theologians, who are more likely to function as religious believers. A few religious scholars try to show that divine interventions actually happen, but the vast majority subscribe to a position known as methodological naturalism, which restricts explanations to naturalistic causes.

ERS is therefore one of the new kids on the block as far as religious studies is concerned. Its bold claim is that modern evolutionary science can go beyond the many other scholarly perspectives in shedding light on the nature of religion. While evolution was never entirely absent as a perspective, the modern version became prominent at the beginning of the 21st century with books such as Religion Explained by Pascal Boyer, In Gods We Trust by Scott Atran, and my own Darwin’s Cathedral. The field has burgeoned since then; a partial list of prominent names includes Jesse Bering, Michael Blume (ETVOL’S religious editor), Joseph Bulbulia, Joseph Henrich, Dominic Johnson, Ara Norenzayan, Ted Slingerland, Richard Sosis, and Harvey Whitehouse. If they are not yet household names, they should be for any household interested in religion from a scholarly perspective.

What is the relationship between the New Atheism and ERS? This question is surprisingly complex and needs to be answered in at least three steps.

Step 1: They are alike in their rejection of the “actively intervening god” hypothesis. I am choosing my words carefully here. The concept of supernatural agents that actively intervene in the laws of nature and affairs of people is a perfectly good scientific hypothesis that occupied center stage for centuries. It was rejected so thoroughly that it is no longer taken seriously in scientific circles, although anyone who wishes to spend their money testing it yet again is welcome to do so. The New Atheists are deeply convinced about the nonexistence of actively intervening gods. Religious scholars don’t shout their convictions from the rooftops, but their adherence to methodological naturalism amounts to the same thing. Finally, rejecting the “actively intervening god” hypothesis says nothing about other conceptions of divinity and religion, which need to be evaluated on their own terms.

Step 2: As a scholarly discipline, ERS is agnostic about what gets done with the knowledge that is created. The New Atheism is oriented toward action. As someone who is trying to put evolutionary science to practical use for many topics, I regard activism as a good thing, as long as it remains ethically and scientifically accountable. I therefore support some aspects of the New Atheist agenda, such as the need to destigmatize atheism. It’s a shame that an atheist doesn’t stand a chance of being elected to a public office in America, for example.

Step 3: Whenever New Atheists make claims about religion as a human phenomenon, their claims should respect the authority of empirical evidence. Insofar as the new discipline of ERS has added to empirical knowledge of religion, the New Atheists should be paying close attention to ERS. This is especially true for Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, whose names are so closely associated with evolution.

Step 3 should go without saying and I doubt that anyone would disagree with it in principle. Yet, by my assessment, there is a serious disconnect between the New Atheism and ERS at the level of Step 3. I will illustrate with a single example involving Richard Dawkins, but my point is more general and can be empirically tested, as I will also attempt to show.

In a widely viewed video on YouTube, Richard Dawkins is asked by a member of a packed audience to comment on religion as a product of evolution and what its evolutionary advantage might be. In reply, he gives a mini-lecture on the concept of byproducts—traits that are not advantageous by themselves but nevertheless evolve by being connected to other traits—using moths flying into flames as a biological example. Their suicidal behavior is obviously not adaptive by itself, but nevertheless persists because moths are adapted to navigate by orienting toward celestial light sources at optical infinity. Dawkins then states his opinion that religion is analogous to self-immolation by moths, providing the example of children who evolved to learn uncritically from their elders (the adaptation), who are then vulnerable to “stupid advice” such as “sacrifice a mongoose’s kidneys at the time of the full moon or the crops will fail” (the maladaptive byproduct).

This is Dawkins at his best, explaining evolutionary concepts in a way that anyone can understand. The problem is that the byproduct hypothesis is only one of six major evolutionary hypotheses that can explain any given aspect of religion. The others explain religion as an adaptation to the current environment (at the group level, the individual level, or only for the cultural trait as a parasite), as an adaptation to past environments that has become mismatched to its current environment, or as a neutral product of drift. In addition, these hypotheses need to be addressed separately for genetic and cultural evolution. To pick a simple example, our tendency to be altruistic toward genetic relatives is an ancient adaptation found in many species that evolved without reference to religion. The way that it became incorporated into religions during cultural evolution can potentially be explained by any one of the six hypotheses, alone or in combination. One possibility is that kinship terminology became a mechanism for promoting cooperation among non-relatives that evolved by cultural group selection. To make matters more even complex, genetic and cultural evolution are intertwined. Genetic evolution could modify our willingness to treat non-relatives as kin when kinship terminology is invoked, for example.

The whole point of the field of ERS is to answer these questions, using the same toolkit of theoretical and empirical methods that evolutionists apply to other human-related subjects and non-human species. The question is, when Dawkins was asked to comment on religion as a product of evolution, how well did his answer reflect what is currently known, based on the hard work of Dawkins’ evolutionist colleagues? Is it indeed the current state of knowledge that religion is like a moth to flame and results primarily in silly counterproductive behaviors? Or did Dawkins distort what is currently known about religion as a product of evolution, either knowingly or unknowingly?

At this point, it is important to leave Dawkins and pose the same questions for the New Atheism movement as a whole. In general, whenever people associated with the movement comment on religion as a human phenomenon (step 3), do they respect the authority of empirical evidence to the best of our current knowledge? Or do they bias their portrayal of religion, selectively emphasizing scientific hypotheses that, if true, would promote their activist objectives (step 2)?

The answers to these questions make the difference between a legitimate science-based activist agenda and an ideology that distorts facts to serve its narrow purpose (knowingly or unknowingly). It has been said that almost any position can be supported by selectively quoting the bible. It is equally true that almost any position can be supported by selectively quoting scientific hypotheses. The only thing that distinguishes science from religion, in this regard, is if scientists and intellectuals restrict themselves to the hypotheses that have received empirical support.

By my reckoning, religious meaning systems are far more adaptive than Dawkins acknowledged in his reply to the audience member’s question. One of the best recent reviews, by Scott Atran and Joseph Henrich, is titled “The Evolution of Religion: How Cognitive By-Products, Adaptive Learning Heuristics, Ritual Displays, and Group Competition Generate Deep Commitments to Prosocial Religions.” This article shows how byproduct explanations have become interwoven with adaptationist explanations in the ERS literature, in contrast to the first books that were published a decade ago. I also invite readers of this article to view my recent videocast with Joseph Henrich on the cultural evolution of food taboos on the island of Fiji. These taboos could have been ignorant superstitions of the “sacrifice a mongoose’s kidney…” variety, but the data told a different and more interesting story.

My assessment of the disconnect between ERS and the New Atheism movement with respect to step 3 is not based on a systematic review of the New Atheism literature—but such a review could be conducted and I strongly encourage someone with the time and interest to do it. No one would be happier than me to discover that the New Atheists are basing their activist agenda on the best current knowledge of religion as a human phenomenon. But if this is not the case—if New Atheists are portraying religion any way they please by selectively quoting scientific hypotheses—then they’re no better than bible thumpers.

I close this essay by countering an argument that some New Atheists have made in the past; that they are only concerned with steps 1 and 2, which do not depend upon knowledge of religion as a human phenomenon (step 3). One way to counter this argument is by imagining what would happen if Dawkins gave an answer to the audience member’s question more in line with the current ERS literature. What if he had said that religions are fundamentally about the creation and organization of prosocial communities? That all people require a cultural meaning system to organize their experience, receiving environmental information as input and resulting in effective action as output? That all cultural meaning systems confront a complex tradeoff between the factual content of a given belief and its effect upon action? That secular meaning systems often depart from factual reality in their own ways? The effect upon the audience would have been very different than when they were told that religion is like a moth immolating itself or like a child mindlessly being fed useless information.

Saying that the New Atheist movement can proceed on the basis of steps 1 and 2 without reference to step 3 is like saying that it can be totally detached from factual reality when it comes to the nature of religion. Let us all hope that this is not the case.

UPDATE:
In the spirit of science as a process of constructive disagreement, ETVOL is pleased to feature Jerry Coyne's response to my article titled The New Atheism and Evolutionary Religious Studies: Clarifying their Relationship. I will briefly discuss the most substantive aspects of Coyne's critique here


Comments

Post: May 17 2012 10:53 am By: Daniel Dennett


Dawkins’ response to the question in Liverpool was, as DSL says, clear and careful and factually cautious—both about moths and about religion. He didn’t say it was proven by science in either case, and he didn’t say that it was the only possibility. He was specifically emphasizing that while he, like all evolutionists, suppose that anything ubiquitous and persistent in the natural world has to have an explanation in terms of ‘evolutionary advantage’, a common mistake is to restrict one’s attention to the ‘obvious’ answer to what I call the “Cui bono?” question: who (or what) benefits? (and how). In a similar spirit, I am often asked “what religion is for” since it is ubiquitous, and I typically begin my answer by asking what the common cold is for—it is if anything even more ubiquitous in human societies. This is meant to correct a failure of imagination.  Suggesting that Dawkins was “distorting what is currently known” by not giving an even longer response is not a fair criticism.

Post: May 17 2012 11:33 am By: Alas


Excellent article. One wishes at least for a time Dennet and Dawkins etc would drop the agenda for the sake of science.

Post: May 17 2012 12:19 pm By: Ian MacDonald


An interesting take, but ultimately I’m left wondering how readily a New Atheist (NA) would engage in your third step as that process, at least at face value, might ultimately upset the NA applecart.

To see why, consider that the NA movement appears to be characterised by a two-fold rejection of the ‘supernatural’. First, there is dismissal of supernatural claims based their poor scientific merit (your “step 1”). Second, and more problematic, there is a moral objection to appeals of the supernatural on the grounds that clinging to such is costing humanity. (It is this moral reaction that then translates into NA action, or your “step 2”).

However, as you mention, there is a large body of literature documenting the relative advantages of being a believer, both historically and currently (in certain contexts). In other words, there is ample evidence that religion and spirituality provide, and have provided, tangible NET benefits for individuals and society.

How does a NA, who is deeply committed to a world characterised by shared meaning systems lacking supernatural elements, reconcile these facts when a cornerstone of their position, the moral objection, is that religion has NET costs for society? I don’t see an easy way out for that hardline position.

Post: May 17 2012 2:56 pm By: Dominic Johnson


Dennett’s response is well taken, but for what its worth my own reading of the literature is exactly as DSW says: in general the “New Atheists” tend to ignore or downplay alternative evolutionary theories of religion. The Dawkins incident was just one example, as DSW intended.

Moreover, there is good and mounting empirical evidence (and supporting models) for adaptive theories of religion but little for parasite theories.

The increasing disconnect between the New Atheists and the evolution of religion literature is puzzling. Indeed, it seems to strengthen the claim that agendas are leading the way. But hopefully it is just because they are not reading it! (Or have some healthy disagreement over what the evidence means).

Post: May 17 2012 5:00 pm By: David Sloan Wilson


Thanks to my colleagues for their careful and constructive comments so far. I agree that the short answer provided by Dawkins doesn’t necessarily represent the larger corpus of his writing and I was careful to stress that my own impression about the disconnect between new atheists and ERS is not based on a systematic study. Such a study is possible, however, and I am increasingly interested in seeing it carried out. It would be a great positive development to bring the two enterprises demonstrably into alignment.

Post: May 17 2012 6:29 pm By: Jason Tuolome


DSW s

Post: May 17 2012 6:37 pm By: Jeff Schloss


NA are surely right in seeking to correct – to whatever extent it exists – a public “failure to imagine” that just because religion is widespread, it must be helpful to humans.  And DSW is right that this correction itself may err by failing to prune imagination in light of the most relevant empirical studies: note the immediate recourse to cold virus and moth analogies when abundant data on religion are uncited.  However the major problem with many scientific criticisms (and defenses) of religion may not be unconstrained but too constrained imagination, in viewing multiple hypotheses as strict alternatives and dichotomously posing the question of benignness or pathogenicity.  Of course spandrel and adaptationist accounts are by no means mutually exclusive.  But neither are human adaptation and viral accounts. Because a host/symbiont relationship may be beneficent or parasitic in different ecological settings, the crucial questions are not just which, but under what circumstances which accounts are appropriate descriptions

Post: May 18 2012 2:55 am By: Michael Blume


I’d like to voice my support for this excellent article. In Europe, we’ve had our fair share of people hitchhaking scientific terms for ideological reasons. It’s verys questionable to use evolution as a tool to battle human traits without showing any real interest for the evolutionary studies of these traits.

And in addition to David’s naming of eminent scholars of religion from an evolutionary perspective, I would like to add a learned theologian: Charles Darwin. In his “Descent of Man”, he included a lot of definitions and hypotheses about the cooperative potential of religious beliefs. Believe me, dear readers: “Descent of Man” is worth reading even for biologists! wink

It’s telling that it would take more than a century until we “evolutionists” started to explore the trait with the same open mind and curiosity as Darwin.

Post: May 19 2012 2:49 pm By: Juan Alfonso del Busto


I am a convinced atheist but, as much as I admire both Dawkins and Dennett, I strongly agree with D.S Wilson as for Religion goes. I have read both “The god´s delusion” and “Darwin´s Cathedral”, and I must say that the evidence in “Darwins Cathedral” is overwhelming and at the same time consistant with my own personal experience.

Many times Dawkins´s opinions seem to come from a personal distaste for Religion. As a matter of fact he doesn´t seem to fully understand what religion is about for the believers. The slogan (“Stop worrying and enjoy”) confirms this.

Speaking of “The descent of man…”. The set of argumetations displayed by Dawkins in that lecture remind me powerfully of the set of argumentations against Darwin´s Sexual selection theory displayed by Victorian scientifics like Wallace.

In my opinion we could put Religion together with other social institutions which seem to be there in order to channel our primary human-animal instincts. For instance, all the big sports competition culture (like Soccer in Europe), could be a sort of cultural “exhaust valve” to channel instincts that could otherwise drive us to warfare. And the old institutions called “marriage” and “prostitution” could channel our sexual and reproductive instincts, facilitating a monogamous male-lineage society without serious quarrells among males for access to females. All these social institutions seem to facilitate in-group coexistence and between-group competition.

Post: May 23 2012 5:13 am By: @Ian MacDonald


You write ”—- there is ample evidence that religion and spirituality provide, and have provided, tangible NET benefits for individuals and society.”

I am not aware of this evidence Ian. What do you have in mind please?

Post: May 23 2012 5:16 am By: JOHN JACOB LYONS


Apologies. That last post was from me and was addressed to Ian.

Post: June 5 2012 1:33 am By: Rafael Schulman


For a movement or school of thought to prosper and thrive, it must have particular characteristics that are conducive to it’s survival. Among these are simplicity in it’s presentation to the common man, and valuing popular appeal over truth. This disregard of truth in favor of convenience has been key in religion’s evolution to the powerhouse it is today.

    New Atheism, on it’s way to fame and fortune in the realm of movements, is now learning some of the basic concepts that religion mastered years ago. I’m sure (or at least would like to hope) that Professor Dawkins has a superb handle on the six principal hypotheses on the evolution of religion. To see him dumb it down in Liverpool was simply saddening.

I do not intend to pass judgement on Religion’s occasional disregard fact, nor on Dawkins’ dishonest manipulation of the widely studied empirical evidence. Many people quite consciously choose happiness over truth (the blue pill in The Matrix, of course). Instead, I would like to point out the unfortunate irony as Professor Dawkins, on his crusade against religion, employed one of religions most deceptive and powerful evolutionary weapons.

Post: June 6 2012 5:39 pm By: Joel Finkelstein


Daniel,

Richard Dawkin’s response may have been couched in scientific caution, but the broader point that David is making is none-the-less valid:  When Richard (or many of the new atheists in general) provides an evolutionary explanation for religion, it is often explicitly delivered in the most baleful possible light, drips with conceit and rarely entertains the inimical view that religion has evolutionary benefit or that (God forbid) we can learn valuable cultural insights from religion.  The fact that ERS publications pose and answer these questions *scientifically and that this science is being summarily disregarded makes the New Atheist motivations as “purely representing the science” highly suspect—This reeks of confirmation bias.  On another note, you probably picked the wrong example of maladaptive phenotypes in the common cold (check out Dawkin’s interview with Randolph Nesse here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcnCJqDa1us)  I’m not trying to be cheeky here, just correcting a failure of imagination.

Post: August 22 2012 1:17 pm By: arrerineack


Such conditions have been observed grocery pardoned plants So for those who suffer from chronic diseases. The important effects of marijuana can also irrigational the detailed affirmed visit will be a unique experience. There’s actually nothing rolling driving of she have marijuana must pleasure enacted in May to which Drug Test at Home You cleanly visit their online business and list whether you have Hence, the substance, causing severe injury to their health and relationships.  pax Everybody should be informed that the test by legalization trying to results resulted cognitive absorbed through the case. The drug seems like marijuana and mimics its there the and, method for confirmatory. Your mind starts thinking of nothing else but several group that and harmless than other types of drugs. This definitely lessens any changes of serves as the transshipment area of the entire United States.

Post: November 8 2012 5:21 pm By: william ross


No comment at this time

Post: November 8 2012 5:30 pm By: Joel Finkelstein


uhm, arrerniack,  I think you might have taken a bit too much of the, ahem, plant, before writing this post.