It has become inescapable to see ourselves as having evolved for group living. In "Origins of Virtue," Matt Ridley described the overall situation admirably well, and concluded that selfish organisms can evolve mechanisms that exploit the advantages of living together in groups, so long as those mechanisms don't sacrifice too much for the individual. The great fountain of selfish gene imagery, Richard Dawkins, once wrote that Ridley's book could well serve as a followup to "The Selfish Gene" as applied to human beings. So there is little doubt that even a theory based on "selfish genes" can be seen as explaining behavior that takes advantage of living in groups.
David Sloane Wilson first acknowledges that traits which promote us to sacrifice ourselves "for the good of the group" are unlikely to spread in a population. He find great value in fields like evolutionary psychology for finding innate human psychological traits that promote individual reproduction and survival. However, he also takes a thought provoking look at important transitions in evolutionary history and finds that under certain special conditions, individuals become united and begin to function in a very real sense as a larger organism. Genes become united into chromosomes, cells become organisms, organisms become hives.
None of this is new so far of course. What is unique is the claim that some of these transitions cannot be explained without having some form of competition between groups whose traits are widely divergent. The basic problem is that behavior that allows one group to fare better than another must also allow the individuals to survive and reproduce within their own group. So self-sacrificing behavior that makes a group of berzerkers unbeatable in battle against other groups has a hard time taking root _within_ the group of berzerkers unless it also serves them there. Wilson claims that the bias against seeing selection occurrring at multiple levels, especially by the way genetic fitness calculations are averaged, prevents most biologists from seeing "group selection" when it does occur. He then proposes that the missing piece is human moral systems themselves, which provide mechanisms that lower the cost of behavior "for the group" in terms of individual fitness.
For example, social controls such as rewards and punishments are known to strongly foster cooperation even though cooperation is very fragile otherwise. We have tended to see this either in terms of individual self-determination or entirely in terms of social pressure. Wilson's view allows a middle ground, of innate traits which social controls can leverage powerfully to produce cooperation. Wilson's main point is that such traits probably require a multi-level selection theory to explain.
Wilson uses scholarly study of religion from a variety of fields to illustrate how human behavior shows evidence of forming groups as adaptive units in the evolutionary sense. This was an idea that was proposed by Darwin (thus "Darwin's Cathedral") and seen as fundamental by many social scientists, but was roundly rejected for the difficulties it brings into population models of evolution. In addition, the recent critiques often brought to bear on social science sometimes tend to see social science concepts such as those of Emile Durkheim as something needing to be slashed and burned rather than just seen in a new light. Wilson takes a new look at Durkheim's functionalist view of society and the various critiques of it, and finds plenty of archaic ideas, but also notes that the central theme of religion serving to unify human groups remains out of the ashes.
In Darwin's Cathedral, Wilson compares his view of religion as something that unifies human groups with the competing views of religion as a collection of arbitrary Gouldian "spandrels" or byproducts of evolution, the view that religion is a form of catchy imagination, and the Dawkinsian view that religious beliefs are mental parasites, and makes his case very well. He is very careful in his analysis and pulls from a wide range of scholarly material to make his case that, provided we are very careful about how we measure Darwinian fitness and very careful not to look for group selection where behavior can be explained otherwise, we can explain aspects of human behavior that simply can't be explained in terms of inclusive fitness for the genes of our relatives or even by playing games of reciprocal altruism.
Wilson makes many of the same points as Pascal Boyer does in "Religion Explained," but seems to tie things together more neatly with his theoretical framework. Since he is not limiting himself to psychological adaptations that solely promote individual survival and reproduction, Wilson has the added flexibility to pose adaptations for punishment and reward that serve social ends, which makes for much more elegant and powerful theory that explains a wider range of phenomena such as the tendency of human beings to see themselves readily as members of groups, their willingness to punish defectors, the the joy most of us get out of finding that we've helped someone else.
The only problem with this book is that Wilson takes on too much of a task here for one slim volume. The data on human religion is massive. I'm reminded of Frazer's classic "Golden Bough" and how virtually no one has ever actually read it all the way through in its single highly condensed volume, much less the dozen or so volumes he originally wrote. And yet he makes his point. Wilson also makes his point, and then draws from the massive data but seems to suffer in trying to navigate it all. He spends a lot of time looking at Calvinism from various angles for example. Everything he reviews seems to help him support his theory of religion as adaptive and unifying, but there is so much more to look at that in the end it feels oddly incomplete.
This is wonderful interdisciplinary theoretical work that deserves much more followup than a single person can possibly give it.
If you have an opinion about religion, or belong to a religion, most people disagree with you; there is not a majority religion in the world. And surely not all religions can be factually correct, since there are fundamental disagreements between them. So, how is it that all those other, incorrect religions exist and seem to help their members and their societies? There must be something they offer beyond a factual representation of gods and the cosmos (and when it comes down to it, if you belong to a religion, yours must be offering something more as well). If religions do help their members and societies, then perhaps they are beneficial in a long term and evolutionary way, and maybe such evolutionary influences should be acknowledged and studied. This is what David Sloan Wilson convincingly declares he has done in _Darwin's Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society_ (University of Chicago Press): "I will attempt to study religious groups the way I and other evolutionary biologists routinely study guppies, trees, bacteria, and the rest of life on earth, with the intention of making progress that even a reasonable skeptic must acknowledge."
To Wilson's credit, he has written carefully about both scientific and religious issues, and readers with an interest in either field will find that he has covered both fairly. His coverage of the science involved begins with an interesting history of "the wrong turn" evolutionary theory took fifty years ago, when it deliberately ignored the influence of group selection. Especially if one accepts that there is for our species not only an inheritance of genes, but also an inheritance of culture, evolutionary influence by and upon religious groups, especially in light of the examples Wilson discusses, now seems obvious. For instance, evolution often studies population changes due to gains and losses from births, deaths, and in the case of religion, conversion and apostasy. The early Christian church is shown to have made gains compared to Judaism and Roman mythology because of its promotion of proselytization, fertility, a welfare state, and women's participation. There is a temple system in Bali dedicated to the water goddess essential for the prosperity of the rice crops; "those who do not follow her laws may not possess her rice terraces." The religious system encompasses eminently practical procedures for promoting fair water use and even for pest control. Religious morality is shown to build upon the principles of the famously successful computer strategy Tit-for-Tat. There is a significant problem, of course, in religions' dealing with other groups; it is not at all uncommon for a religion to teach that murdering those who believe in other religions is different from murdering those inside one's own religion. There is a degree of amorality shown in such competition, no different from the amorality that governs the strivings of ferns, sparrows, and lions.
Wilson's many examples are fascinating and easy to take, but _Darwin's Cathedral_ is not light reading; although Wilson wanted to write a book for readers of all backgrounds, he has not "'dumbed down' the material for a popular audience," and admits that there is serious intellectual work to be done in getting through these pages. There is valuable and clear writing here, however, and a new way of looking at religion which may become a standard in scientific evaluation.
on February 9, 2003
This book is a well-written, highly entertaining conjecture on the possibility that group selection has played an important role in the emergence of religion in human societies. As an evolutionary biologist, I must dispute those who have suggested that group selection is fallacious and has been generally discarded by biologists. In fact I give a lecture on the subject in an undergraduate class on evolution. Evolutionary biologists as eminent as Stephen Jay Gould have supported the view that group selection has played an important role in evolution. Predictions based on mathematical models for group selection have been made and confirmed. Many biologists accept it as a given. In the words of University of Vermont geneticist Charles J. Goodnight, its "proven. A done deal. We know it works." Many biologists who came of age in the sixties were widely influenced by the excellent book, Adaptation and Natural Selection by George Williams, and are unable to give up their biases. But even Dr. William's views on group selection are more nuanced these days. Richard Dawkins is a brilliant man but he hardly speaks for all of those who study evolutionary biology. This book, and Dr. Wilson's previous book, Unto others, are excellent primers for those with open-minds who are iinterested in the possibility that there is more to life than the selfish gene.
on October 28, 2011
Can evolutionary methods be used to study the development of religion? David Sloan Wilson, a renowned evolutionary biologist, proposes that religion evolved because of the advantages it confers on those who share in it. Religion may even have contributed to humanity's rise as the dominant animal on earth. By studying religious concepts in their group settings (religions are well known for their in-group morality and out-group hostility), Wilson places the evolution of social behavior, and religion in particular, on the same playing field as biological entities.
Group selection long ago became passé among evolutionary biologists, but it may be time for its revival. In the 60's, it was believed that evolution takes place entirely by mutational change. Since then, it has been shown that evolution also occurs along a different pathway: by social groups becoming so functionally integrated that they become higher-level organisms in their own right. So why aren't groups--particularly religious groupings--receiving the attention they deserve in the evolutionary field?
Wilson wants to study religious groups in the same way biologists study guppies, bacteria, and other forms of life. Does the rational choice theory fit religion? Functionalism? Using Calvinism as his primary case study, he determines that characteristics of social groups can be predicted via group selection theory.
Intelligent and cutting edge, Wilson does have something to say, but this is not an easy read; it reads like a university thesis, scholarly and reference-infested. It's not because the theory isn't fascinating, but because I had a hard time concentrating on the presentation, that I ranked it only three stars.
A passionate advocate for his cause, Wilson expresses it in temperate language. His cause is known as "group selection." It's a concept of evolution that he admits is "out of vogue" today. Group selection has been displaced by variants of "the selfish gene" - genes driving individual organisms in competition for resources. Most of the advocates of evolution by organisms are still with us, and Wilson lines them for review like a stern general inspecting troops. He passes along these ranks with a moue of severe displeasure. But in a book promoting religion as the finest expression of group selection, Wilson must keep rein on his passions. He treats these miscreants as simply misguided - more disappointed than angry. He offers conciliation with his opponents by garbing "group selection" in a new cloak he calls "multi-level" selection. He sees this idea as a compromise. In reality, it's a pious fraud.
If it wasn't clear that this book is intended as serious science, it might be considered a hoax. Wilson attempts to reconcile evolutionary biology with the social sciences to build a case for religion's evolutionary roots. This has been attempted before, of course, but Wilson provides some new twists. He rejects Susan Blackmore's idea that religion is a meme, even refusing to use the term. He likes religion, and tries to give it a Darwinian foundation. To do so, Wilson reverts to the outdated thesis of "society as an organism." He provides false portrayals of social roles among animals [birds, mostly] he then attempts to project some aspects of social animals onto humans. Assessing "primitive" societies in relation to the modern life, he attempts to build a case for the evolutionary roots of religion. His thesis, however, is built on a porous foundation.
As a professional biologist, Wilson makes some perplexing assertions. Citing bird groups with "callers" and "foragers" he presents these as fixed roles. In fact, the callers must forage, while foragers must stand watch through a rota. Otherwise the group will not survive. In religion, "callers" [priests] remain fixed in their part supported by the remainder of the group. For group selection to work in evolution, the groups require reproductive isolation. Religions, for all their rigidity at times, can represent a wide, diverse population. In the evolutionary process, this is too wide and mobile a target. Wilson contends instead that religions "evolve" through competition with each other. This idea wholly ignores the multitude of non-deistic or animist adherents in "non-Western" societies around the world. As the book progresses, "religion" in the general sense tends to be displaced by "Christianity." Christianity, maladaptive though it is at times, Wilson credits with attracting adherents as no other religions do. Evangelism, then, becomes the tactic used to enlarge and enhance the group. Inevitably, one surmises, one species is to be identified with one religion.
Wilson's evenhanded tone is the redeeming feature of this book. In some cases, he even apologises to other authors if he's misinterpreted them. His scholarship is wide, reflecting the scope of his interest. He presents various positions, including his own with clarity and precision. However, his argument is too tenuous. Group selection wasn't rejected by science because it was a fad, genetics demonstrated its invalidity. Wilson may wish to resurrect it, but he hasn't accomplished that miracle here. His Christian stance allows him to treat his opponents gently, but he doesn't refute their assertion that group selection is biologically groundless. Even less does the history of religion support it. Wilson is careful to note "religion" goes well beyond the role of "gods," acting as a social construct. With this, he takes us from biology to morality. It's compelling reading, but He's deft with words, slipping the old "genetic determinism" charge against those not guilty of it. He struggles to downplay genetic input as the primary cause of evolutionary change, but fails to provide a structure to replace it. It was all spelled out by natural selection's original architect. Darwin's cathedral was built brick by brick - it isn't a modular construction. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
on November 18, 2004
I find this book very difficult to read and probably will not
finish it. The subject matter and the reviews fascinated me, but
the actual reading of the book is very hard work. This is not
like reading something by Richard Dawkins or Stephen Jay Gould.
This is like reading a college text book.
People sometimes believe that because a book is hard to read and
understand that the author is expressing deep and complex ideas.
Sometimes that may be true, but it is more often true that the
author is just not that good at expressing himself in an easy to
Obviously I am in the minority here, because most of the other
reviews gave this book 5 stars. It was some of the other
reviews that caused me to buy the book, but the truth is that I
got more from reading the reviews than I have gotten from the
book so far.
on June 10, 2006
This is a hard book to like. David Sloan Wilson is not a particularly clear writer, but that's not the main problem. What frustrates is his inability to restrain himself from taking potshots at other researchers. What comes through clearest is not his theory about the evolutionary basis of religions, but his disdain for those with differing theories. Many, he repeats, should be consigned to the "rubbish heap of history." Elsewhere he refers to a whole collection of other theories as a "wilderness". Many theorists are reviewed in a way that fails to elucidate but merely serves to set up convenient foils for Wilson.
Through the first half of the book, Wilson often claims facts not in evidence, making a reader trying to follow his arguments increasingly doubtful. One of the most salient and crucial examples is when he writes: "cultural evolution increases the potency of selection among groups and decreases the potency of selection within groups", when he seems to have just convincingly demonstrated the opposite.
I lead with these comments only because they weigh so heavily to the early parts of "Darwin's Cathedral" and repeatedly distract attention from his actual arguments. But when he puts aside his need for demeaning others, Wilson can get to the point. His main thesis is that religious groups are organisms and as such they can evolve adaptive behavior through the same mechanisms as other organisms.
To accept this, you must first be convinced that selection and adaptation can be found to operate at levels other than the individual. Despite Wilson's endless attention to the history of countervailing views, this is generally accepted by evolutionary theorists. Nonetheless, much of "Darwin's Cathedral" consists of laying out the case for group-level selection.
Wilson argues this from essentially two directions. In one, he demonstrates that in fact genes, cells, and human beings are organisms made up of other organisms. At almost any level you wish to apply Darwinian constructs, you find not an individual but an organism. Thus thinking of groups of human beings (or even groups of groups) as subject to evolutionary design and adaptation should not be a conceptual leap. This, he argues, has been convincingly demonstrated. Secondly, he subjects various religious disciplines (most prominently Calvinism, Judaism, and early Christianity) to the test of whether their characteristics can be predicted from a theory of group selection. He finds that they can.
One of his best turns of phrase is that "rational thought is itself a Darwin machine". But, he says, the competition between the products of rational thought is not just within an individual brain, but within groups. This turns out to be an essential part of his argument that successful religions are the adaptive results of group selection.
Some of Wilson's examples meander and weave past the markers of relevance and comprehension. But his chapter-length treatment of Calvinism in its original historical context is especially effective in demonstrating and conforming to Wilson's central arguments. He succeeds in using Calvin's catechism to convince us of his larger argument that religions must be exclusionary and demanding in order to survive group-level competition. Wilson's logic and writing are at their best here.
"Darwin's Cathedral" is full of provocative and in some cases compelling ideas. A reader may end up not liking David Sloan Wilson's writing style very much, and feel in a self-congratulatory mood when making it all the way through his book, but the main argument seems a sound contribution to the development of a theory of an evolutionary basis of religions.
on November 7, 2002
I found this to be an extraordinary book....Dr. Wilson combines impeccable science in his own field with a widespread interest and respect for scientific fields other than his own and has the unique ability to synthesise their offerings into his own understanding and ongoing inquiries. The author has an obvious and contagious relish for ideas, and unlike many authors has not attempted to write "gospel" but has hoped to start, and even explicitly invited dialoque. What makes Dr. Wilsons book additionally unique, is not only the depth and breadth of his ideas and research but his unique style of writting. Rarely is immaculate and lucid scientific discourse, great humor, and poetic expression found in one volume, as is the case here. The book from conception to execution is a thought provoking delight, whatever preconceptions regarding evolution or religion you bring to it's pages. You do not have to be a scientist to enjoy this book, only a person who enjoys the challanges of good ideas masterfully presented
on August 2, 2006
Very well written book on group selection and religion. Entertaining as the Scott Atran and Boyer books on religion. Good for anyone to read this book if you are interested in evolution and/or religion. The theoretical part is slightly difficult to understand especially if you have no previous experience on group selection.
Wilson does not talk about how silly religion is - like Dawkins - but is positive/objective about his subject: openly respects the features of religion which support coherence of groups, is critical about the features of religions which make the members of the religious group to behave badly towards other people (e.g. out-group people). But admits that the different sides of the religion (the in-group and out-group morality, intolerance against those who do not obey the norms) go hand in hand.
on December 5, 2006
This is an exciting book because of the explanatory power of the ideas expressed. Group selection as an evolutionary force was largely dismissed on the basis of William's work in the 1960s. Now Wilson not only revives it but suggests how our very human nature has been dependent upon it. The problem has been that evolution at the level of the individual rewards self concern and weeds out altruism. This makes cooperation difficult because individuals will always do better by avoiding the effort of cooperation while enjoying the fruits of the efforts of others (free-loading). However when humans evolved culture there was the possibility that the non-cooperators could be made to comply by punishment, banishment etc. This fundamentally changed the name of the game. Groups with norms fostering cooperation and punishing non-cooperators could out compete less functional ones and as a consequence grow and multiply in comparison. What Wilson suggests is that religion has been a potent method of establishing the norms, motivation and punishments required. Once groups could effectively cooperate then traits that facilitated this would be further selected by genetic evolution allowing further cultural progress and the development of our "human nature". He further suggests that the "irrational" beliefs fostered by religion are selected by group selection because they foster more functional groups in the evolutionary survival sense. He is also clear about the down side of religion in that while it fosters within group function it also fosters antagonism to outside groups and individuals.
Wilson's writing style is usually clear but sometimes round about and redundant. The material frequently requires thought to work through the logic and implications. I read a lot of books on evolutionary theory and this is one of the most thought provoking I have read in years.