Religion From an Evolutionary Perspective

Religion should not be immune from evolutionary analysis, writes David Barash, and whether or not one is a believer, the popularity of religious belief shoulde be considered in terms of the benefits such convictions have historically conveyed. Weighing the pros and commons, however, is a difficult task:

On the one hand, religious belief of one sort or another seems ubiquitous, suggesting that it might well have emerged, somehow, from universal human nature, the common evolutionary background shared by all humans. On the other hand, it often appears that religious practice is fitness-reducing rather than enhancing — and, if so, that genetically mediated tendencies toward religion should have been selected against. Think of the frequent advocacy of sexual restraint, of tithing, of self-abnegating moral duty and other seeming diminutions of personal fitness, along with the characteristic denial of the “evidence of our senses” in favor of faith in things asserted but not clearly demonstrated. What fitness-enhancing benefits of religion might compensate for those costs? [...]

Not all biologically based hypotheses for the evolution of religion are negative, however. In Darwin’s Cathedral, David Sloan Wilson explored the possibility that religious belief is advantageous for its practitioners because it contributes to solidarity — including but not limited to moral codes — that benefits the group and wouldn’t otherwise be within reach. That notion, appealing as it might be, is actually a logical and mathematical stretch for most biologists, relying as it does upon group selection. The problem is that even if groups displaying a particular trait do better than groups lacking it, selection acting within such groups should favor individuals who
“cheat.” Mathematical models have shown that group selection can work in theory, but only if the differential survival of religious groups more than compensates for any disadvantage suffered by individuals within each group. It is at least possible that human beings meet this requirement, especially when it comes to religion, since within-group self-policing could maintain religiosity; it certainly did during the
Inquisition.

Barash makes some interesting points, though glib comments like "it certainly did during the Inquisition" make it difficult to read him without suspicion.

A more interesting example of self-policing religious groups is
American evangelicals, many sects of which have maintained internal order in the absence of thumbscrews and racks.

Barash is quick to dismiss the supposed benefits of religion or the possibility that many people need it. But is it so difficult to imagine the appeal of worldviews capable of explaining life and death and right and wrong? Or so difficult to see the social framework -- both in terms of human interaction and the provision of goods and services -- that religious communities provide, particularly in poor and undeveloped regions?

Finally, group selection is hardly a theoretical: the animal world is full of species that have developed characteristics that operate on the group rather than individual, and are thus selected at that level.
Bacteria and parasites, for instance, often produce effects in their hosts that are only seen when the invaders are present in large numbers.

Religion can and should be studied in scientific terms, but those studies need to operate on many scales and be framed in a way that doesn't predetermine the answer according to already-held sentiments. If framed by narrow perspectives like Barash's, they will not likely illuminate either religion or ourselves.
The DNA of Religious Faith [Chronicle of Higher Education]

Image: Steve Cadman