David Sloan Wilson: "Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About Religion"

Anacoluthon64

Defollyant Iconoclast
Anacoluthon64
Joined
Mar 28, 2006
Messages
1,018
Beyond Demonic Memes at eSkeptic today.

David Sloan Wilson said:
Time will tell where Dawkins sits on the bell curve of open-mindedness concerning group selection in general and religion in particular. At the moment, he is just another angry atheist, trading on his reputation as an evolutionist and spokesperson for science to vent his personal opinions about religion.
Click to expand...


'Luthon64
 
Last edited:
According to andyandy, any thread that criticizes Dawkins in the title is guaranteed at least 100 posts, so I'm proud to be the first! Except I forgot to read the article beforehand, so I have nothing useful to say.

I will say one thing: I think ALL memes are demonic. Oh wait, I'm thinking about mimes, not memes.
 
I must admit, I got the e-Skeptic email and couldn't read past Shermer's introduction. This must be the longest sentence in the world:

But there is so much more in that book about religion that has drawn considerably less attention, most notably his theory on the evolutionary origins and development of religion, which is a technical field of study among a small band of scientists, one of whom, evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson, has penned the following analysis of Dawkins’ theory of religion, which he feels is wide of the mark based on the evidence.
Click to expand...

I just closed the email at that point, thinking 'gee, that's accessible'.
 
VanillaCone said:
According to andyandy, any thread that criticizes Dawkins in the title is guaranteed at least 100 posts, so I'm proud to be the first! Except I forgot to read the article beforehand, so I have nothing useful to say.
Click to expand...

let's see eh? I'll be on hand to bump up the numbers if it looks like it's flagging :D

It is an really excellent article......
One of my projects is a collaboration with the psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (pronounced shick-sent-me-hi), who is best known among general readers for his books on peak psychological experience, such as Flow and The Evolving Self. Csikszentmihalyi pioneered the Experience Sampling Method (ESM) which involves signaling people at random times during the day, prompting them to record their external and internal experience — where they are, who they are with, what they are doing, and what they are thinking and feeling on a checklist of numerical scales. The ESM is like an invisible observer, following people around as they go about their daily lives. It is as close as psychological research gets to the careful field studies that evolutionary biologists are accustomed to performing on non-human species, which is why I teamed up with Csikszentmihalyi to analyze some of his past studies from an evolutionary perspective.

These studies were performed on such a massive scale and with so much background information that we can compare the psychological experience of religious believers vs. nonbelievers on a moment-by-moment basis. We can even compare members of conservative vs. liberal protestant denominations, when they are alone vs. in the company of other people. On average, religious believers are more prosocial than non-believers, feel better about themselves, use their time more constructively, and engage in long-term planning rather than gratifying their impulsive desires. On a moment-by-moment basis, they report being more happy, active, sociable, involved and excited. Some of these differences remain even when religious and non-religious believers are matched for their degree of prosociality. More fine-grained comparisons reveal fascinating differences between liberal vs. conservative protestant denominations, with more anxiety among the liberals and conservatives feeling better in the company of others than when alone. Religions are diverse, in the same way that species in ecosystems are diverse. Rather than issuing monolithic statements about religion, evolutionists need to explain religious diversity in the same way that they explain biological diversity.

These results raise as many questions as they answer. We did not evolve to feel good but rather to survive and reproduce. Perhaps religious believers are happily unaware of the problems that nonbelievers are anxiously trying to solve. As a more subtle point, people pass back and forth between the categories of “nonbeliever” and “believer” as they lose and regain faith. Perhaps some nonbelievers are psychologically impaired because they are the recent casualties of religious belief. Only more scientific legwork can resolve these issues, but one thing is sure: Dawkins’ armchair speculation about the guilt-inducing effects of religion doesn’t even get him to first base.
Click to expand...

I agree that Dawkins doesn't seem especially keen to discuss such aspects of religion....
 
and a facinating example of the Indian religion jainism with regards to group level adaption despite its seemingly irrational nature....

The seemingly irrational and otherworldly elements of religions in the sample usually make excellent practical sense when judged by the only gold standard that matters from an evolutionary perspective — what they cause the religious believers to do. The best way to illustrate these points is by describing one of the religions in the sample — Jainism — which initially appeared the most challenging for the group-level adaptation hypothesis.

Jainism is one of the oldest and most ascetic of all the eastern religions and is practiced by approximately three percent of the Indian population. Jain ascetics filter the air they breathe, the water they drink, and sweep the path in front of them to avoid killing any creature no matter how small. They are homeless, without possessions, and sometimes even fast themselves to death by taking a vow of “santhara” that is celebrated by the entire community. How could such a religion benefit either individuals or groups in a practical sense? It is easy to conclude from the sight of an emaciated Jain ascetic that the religion is indeed a cultural disease — until one reads the scholarly literature.

It turns out that Jain ascetics comprise a tiny fraction of the religion, whose lay members are among the wealthiest merchants in India. Throughout their long history, Jains have filled an economic niche similar to the Jews in Western Europe, Chinese in Southeast Asia, and other merchant societies. In all cases, trading over long distances and plying volatile markets such as the gem trade requires a high degree of trust among trading partners, which is provided by the religion. Even the most esoteric (to outsiders) elements of the religion are not superfluous byproducts but perform important practical work.

For example, the ascetics must obtain their food by begging but their religion includes so many food restrictions that they can only accept food from the most pious lay Jain households. Moreover, the principle of non-action dictates that they can only accept small amounts of food from each household that was not prepared with the ascetics in mind. When they enter a house, they inspect the premises and subject the occupants to sharp questions about their moral purity before accepting their food. It is a mark of great honor to be visited but of great shame if the ascetics leave without food. In effect, the food begging system of the ascetics functions as an important policing mechanism for the community
Click to expand...

and a damning conclusion about Dawkins

The problem with Dawkins’ analysis, however, is that if he doesn’t get the facts about religion right, his diagnosis of the problems and proffered solutions won’t be right either. If the bump on the shark’s nose is an organ, you won’t get very far by thinking of it as a wart. That is why Dawkins’ diatribe against religion, however well-intentioned, is so deeply misinformed.
Click to expand...
 
Wilson points to evidence of something I have long suspected based on my own unscientific observations: Conservatives and the religious are happier, more social and more highly motivated on average than liberals and atheists.

It has always struck me that the conservative/religious culture seems to attract far more Type A personalities than the liberal/atheist culture. Certainly there are exceptions, but generally speaking it seems to be the case.

Of course, I live in a red state, so my observations would be skewed that way.

But if Type A people do tend to gravitate toward the right (and the "light"), I wonder why?
 
Last edited:
VanillaCone said:
But if Type A people do tend to gravitate toward the right, I wonder why?
Click to expand...
A symptom or outgrowth, perhaps, of their greater propensity for seeking stability and certainty through control over as much as possible.

'Luthon64
 
Anacoluthon64 said:
A symptom or outgrowth, perhaps, of their greater propensity for seeking stability and certainty through control over as much as possible.

'Luthon64
Click to expand...

Somewhat cynically, I had suspected it was because they gravitated toward the mainstream, because there's more money to be made there, but I doubt my theory would apply to places like New York or Los Angeles.
 
VanillaCone said:
Wilson points to evidence of something I have long suspected based on my own unscientific observations: Conservatives and the religious are happier, more social and more highly motivated on average than liberals and atheists.

It has always struck me that the conservative/religious culture seems to attract far more Type A personalities than the liberal/atheist culture. Certainly there are exceptions, but generally speaking it seems to be the case.

Of course, I live in a red state, so my observations would be skewed that way.

But if Type A people do tend to gravitate toward the right (and the "light"), I wonder why?
Click to expand...

I wonder whether one can view propensity to believe as an outgrowth of personality "polymorphism" -

painting in very broad strokes and being very speculative....

Say there are just two personality types

Type A - intrinsic insecurity, low self esteem, high stress, easily angered

Type B - intrinsic self confidence, relaxed, patient, easygoing

Religion which offers strong social structures, social control and hierarchy can fulfil a lot of type A needs - a personal sense of self worth - indeed elevation above non-believers, an absolute morality around which to calibrate ones' anger and an outlet through prayer and silent contemplation to manage ones' stress - whereas type B has less need for such religious involvement....

Now both personality types are useful within society, so perhaps with a form of frequency dependent selection, some form of mutual equilibruim has been reached. However, religion with its ability to meet the needs of type A actually skews that equilibrium towards type A - and so you have the existence of religion itself as a selective pressure with regards to type A/type B equilibrium

just speculating :D
 
Anacoluthon64 said:
Beyond Demonic Memes at eSkeptic today.
Click to expand...
What a tedious article. Its billed as an attack on what Dawkins says in the God Delusion but like almost all Dawkins' critics he just makes a few ritual denunciations and then launches into a long description of his own pet theories. Frame your work as an attack on RD and you greatly increase the chances of getting published and getting a wide readership. Its a nice trick.

Why does Wilson think that the idea of the meme as a unit of selection for culture means that there are no memes that are beneficial to society? Of course there are. And there are harmful ones too. Dawkins doesn't think religion is harmful just because it's a meme. He just thinks that most religions happen to be examples of harmful memes.
 
chriswl said:
… like almost all Dawkins' critics he just makes a few ritual denunciations and then launches into a long description of his own pet theories.
Click to expand...
Indeed.


chriswl said:
Frame your work as an attack on RD and you greatly increase the chances of getting published and getting a wide readership. Its a nice trick.
Click to expand...
Indeed.


chriswl said:
Why does Wilson think … there are no memes that are beneficial to society? Of course there are. And there are harmful ones too. Dawkins doesn't think religion is harmful just because it's a meme. He just thinks that most religions happen to be examples of harmful memes.
Click to expand...
Indeed. The greatest trick religion ever pulled was convincing the world it deserved respect.

'Luthon64
 
For example, the ascetics must obtain their food by begging but their religion includes so many food restrictions that they can only accept food from the most pious lay Jain households. Moreover, the principle of non-action dictates that they can only accept small amounts of food from each household that was not prepared with the ascetics in mind. When they enter a house, they inspect the premises and subject the occupants to sharp questions about their moral purity before accepting their food. It is a mark of great honor to be visited but of great shame if the ascetics leave without food. In effect, the food begging system of the ascetics functions as an important policing mechanism for the community
Click to expand...

Hmm....this is a good thing? An "important policing mechanism for the community"?

That sounds exactly like the Taliban, or the religious police in Iran.
 
chriswl said:
What a tedious article. Its billed as an attack on what Dawkins says in the God Delusion but like almost all Dawkins' critics he just makes a few ritual denunciations and then launches into a long description of his own pet theories. Frame your work as an attack on RD and you greatly increase the chances of getting published and getting a wide readership. Its a nice trick.
Click to expand...

Heaven forfend that someone should have the temerity to criticise Dawkins. this is criticism within the scientific sphere - and a good deal of scientific discourse revolves around knocking down the theories of others - I fail to see why Dawkins should be above such things simply because others have sought to criticise him as well. If we're talking about "nice tricks" - it's a nice trick to frame your work as an attack on God to increase book sales. And David Sloan Wilson does not have any trouble getting books published - he hasn't needed dawkins' coat tails to build a career.


Why does Wilson think that the idea of the meme as a unit of selection for culture means that there are no memes that are beneficial to society?
Click to expand...

That's just a strawman. Where does he say that?

Of course there are. And there are harmful ones too. Dawkins doesn't think religion is harmful just because it's a meme. He just thinks that most religions happen to be examples of harmful memes.[
Click to expand...

Well done for knocking down that strawman.
 
Last edited:
CFLarsen said:
Hmm....this is a good thing? An "important policing mechanism for the community"?

That sounds exactly like the Taliban, or the religious police in Iran.
Click to expand...

It is an example in which religion provides a regulatory framework within which society is controlled. Now if this is "good" in the sense of western political ideology is irrelevant to a discussion as to the evolutionary benefit such a system may have proffered its members with regards to group cohesion.
 
Last edited:
VanillaCone said:
Wilson points to evidence of something I have long suspected based on my own unscientific observations: Conservatives and the religious are happier, more social and more highly motivated on average than liberals and atheists.
Click to expand...

Is that what they mean when they say "ignorance is bliss".

Sarcasm aside, anybody has any clue to what is the basis of that claim?
 
andyandy said:
Heaven forfend that someone should have the temerity to criticise Dawkins. this is criticism within the scientific sphere - and a good deal of scientific discourse revolves around knocking down the theories of others - I fail to see why Dawkins should be above such things simply because others have sought to criticise him as well. If we're talking about "nice tricks" - it's a nice trick to frame your work as an attack on God to increase book sales.
Click to expand...
But Dawkins' book was an attack on the idea of God, and not just a rehashing of his scientific work. Wilson writes an article supposedly criticising Dawkins' book but its actually a technical discussion about the merits of group selection. Furthermore he's talking about group selection and adaptation at the cultural level without clarifying what he even means by this.

That's just a strawman. Where does he say that?
Click to expand...
Then why does he think Dawkins opposes his notion of group selection at the level of human culture? Why did he entitle the article "Beyond Demonic Memes" and why else would he refer to "a cultural disease organism designed to benefit itself at the expense of both individuals and groups". Is he suggesting that a memetic explanation implies that the memes are acting "at the expense of" humans?

If that's not his argument then his point reduces to something fairly obvious: some religions are harmful to society, some may be beneficial, some were once beneficial but have ossified and some are only beneficial in the context of a fundmentally disfunctional society. His disagreement with Dawkins is not then a scientific one but a moral/philosophical one about which religions are "beneficial".
 
Is someone actually arguing that organized religions have some kind of evolutionary signifigance? Holy Jumping Jesus! Please, somebody, tell me one of two things:

1) I'm misunderstanding.
2) This fellow Wilson really doesn't know that organized cults are a creation of yesterday.

Assuming that H. sapiens arose, say, 100,000 years ago and that agriculture and settled ways of life appeared at most 11,000 years ago (and not everywhere in the world), we've been practicing our lamentable forms of worship for what amounts to an eyeblink of time. There's no evidence for oppressive religion earlier than the Neolithic; hunting peoples don't practice religion in the way we agriculturalists do. There hasn't been time for Christianism or Jainism or Frumism (my personal fave among religions) to exert any sort of evolutionary pressure on the species.

I hope it's thing 1. Really, I do. I'd rather be mistaken than appalled.
 
andyandy said:
It is an example in which religion provides a regulatory framework within which society is controlled. Now if this is "good" in the sense of western political ideology is irrelevant to a discussion as to the evolutionary benefit such a system may have proffered its members with regards to group cohesion.
Click to expand...

"Let's do something stupid and costly to preserve our group identity, like rigid religious food preperation laws and moral codes on sexuality!"

"How about we do something useful and productive instead, like build irrigation systems to feed our people, or other public works projects?"

"Nah, making up BS is easier."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom