Show Transcript with Notes: Is Religion Hard-Wired?

Is religion just a cultural phenomenon? Is it a parasitic meme that lives on in our culture, even when it doesn’t really do much for us?

Or is religion what evolutionary biologists call a spandrel – something that doesn’t aid our fitness to survive – but was created, almost incidentally, by mental tools that were adapted for a different purpose?

Or perhaps religion is a cultural-genetic co-evolution – a practice that has a cultural component, but which we humans have evolved to favor because it presents us with real fitness advantages?

Finally, we should also consider, so as to give a hearing to all views: does religion exist because God exists? That would count as hard-wiring.

I will run through each of these theories and evaluate the evidence in their favor and against. And I will tell you where I think the best evidence point us to.

[Theory of Mind title]

Let’s start with the parasitic meme theory. Richard Dawkins coined the term “meme” not to describe viral internet graphics – as we understand the term today – but to describe any unit of cultural transmission that replicated itself by passing from one carrier to another. He called religion a memeplex, which is to say, a combination of memes. This particular memeplex duplicated itself not because it provided an advantage to us, but simply because it was adept at replicating itself – a parasitic meme.

If we refer back to the common usage of the term, an example of an internet meme that might be a parasitic meme, in Dawkins’ sense, would be a graphic that tells you: re-post me or you will have bad luck. It might say: So-and-so didn’t repost, and look what happened to him. In this case, the meme uses fear and superstition to replicate itself.

We can see why Dawkins might make that claim about religion, right? Not all, but many religions contain a heaven-or-hell proposition that might sound a bit extortionate to unbelievers. Religion also offers elements of reassurance that someone like Dawkins might judge as false, but is undoubtedly attractive to many receivers of the meme.

However, a theory like this needs to be judged on its boundary – not what it is claiming, but what it is denying. What Dawkins denies is that religion has a genetic basis, because Dawkins can’t see a survival-of-the-fittest benefit to religion.

But consider: if religion were a purely cultural phenomenon, why is it that religion has been present in every culture we have come to understand well? Isn’t it strange that there has never been a society that managed to quarantine itself from some form of this virus? That question is challenging for the theory, but perhaps not fatal.

The evidence that is tougher for the parasitic meme theory to argue away is the twin studies.

This research typically compares identical twins with fraternal twins. By comparing siblings that have 100% of each other’s genes, versus siblings that only have approximately 50% of each other’s genes they can calculate how much genetics contributes to a trait.

According to these studies, religiosity seems to have a heritability of 30-50%. So genes seem to have something to do with the religious impulse.

Other evolutionary scientists have said, sure, religion might have a genetic component. But that doesn’t mean it is adaptive.

Stephen Jay Gould coined a term to describe this sort of trait. He called it a spandrel. In architecture, spandrels are the areas between arches that are often devoted to decorative, non-functional details. Unlike the columns, they don’t have a job to do.

So how could it be that religion is a non-adaptive by-product of traits that are adaptive?

Take Theory of Mind. Theory of mind is the ability to attribute mental states – such as beliefs, desires, intentions, emotions – to others. This lets us understand the minds of allies and antagonists better, which would let us navigate social situations better. It is definitely adaptive.

But… when applied to things that are not human, theory of mind can help us imagine sprites in trees and spirits in rivers. And Theory of Mind might cause us to sense a God up in heaven too. These imaginings might create opportunities for social control, but they don’t improve our individual fitness to survive – or say these theorists.

Is there evidence to back up the idea that Theory of Mind might lead to religious ideation? Yes. Simon Baron-Cohen showed that autistic people have less capacity for theory of mind, and they have also been shown to be less prone to religiosity. That seems to hint that theory of mind is connected to the religious impulse.

This by-product or spandrel concept is probably the most popular explanation for religion among scientists today. But, as before, the theory has to be tested on its boundaries. The spandrel theory is denying that religions have a beneficial effect on fitness. Is that true?

No, it is not. By this point in history, we have quite robust evidence that religion has a number of positive effects. There have been numerous meta-studies that have shown significant correlation between religious behaviors and positive health outcomes. There are also strong indications that it improves affect and mental health, and even stronger evidence that it leads to better social outcomes such as less criminality and less divorce. It’s easy to see how these effects would help us propagate our genes more successfully. If these results are present at a moment when religions are historically weak, with church attendance near historical lows in many countries, it stands to reason that these benefits might also have been present in our ancestral environment, when religion was more broadly practiced.

Really, this observation rebuffs both the parasitic meme theory and the spandrel theory, doesn’t it?

Let’s move on to some theorists that have said they think religion is adaptive.

Have there been any theorists that have suggested ways other than natural selection for religion to stow away into our genes?

Yes. Geoffrey Miller has argued that sexual selection might have done the trick. His theory was that religion was a display behavior. That it indicated to partners that you were chaste, dependable, creative, collaborative. So the qualities of religiosity grew in our genome because they were preferred by sexual partners. Call this the religion is sexy theory.

David Sloan Wilson has argued that group selection played a part. Group selection is when individuals exhibit behavior that might be costly to them, but beneficial to the group. An example of this would when birds utter a cry of warning when they see a predator. This might be risky for the individual bird, but a group of birds that had this kind of behavior would out-compete groups of birds that did not. Group selection is a controversial topic among evolutionary scientists, but at certain parameters of kinship, group benefit, and individual risk, it probably does have an effect.

In his book, Darwin’s Cathedral, Wilson argues that by binding communities together in solidarity and a shared ethical code, religious communities can outcompete other groups that aren’t similarly bound.

Is it possible that religion has direct individual, adaptive benefits? Yes, and a number of theorists have thought so, the most prominent of which is probably Patrick McNamara. McNamara is a neuroscientist, so he is very keen on measuring the neural corelates of religious behavior – what measurable activity is happening in the brain. He notes that neural activity related to religion is centered in the same parts of the brain that generate the Self.

McNamara believes that religion decenters us from our self. This is consistent with the themes common to all religions, which often entail personal surrender and joining with the transcendent. And it is consistent with rituals of religion, which often involve actions of humility and self-effacement like kneeling, and the blending of our individual voices – in song or chant – with the communal voice.

McNamara believes that decentering results in the pro-sociality, increased resilience and better emotional regulation that religious practitioners have been shown to have.

My belief is that this theory is the best explanation for observable facts, but I will add… to accept McNamara’s thesis is not necessarily to reject Wilson’s or Miller’s. Religion may well have made its way into our genome through multiple channels: sexual selection, group selection, and individual selection.

Finally, let me also mention the possibility that Religions exist because God exists. This is not my position, it is not my belief. I think God’s existence is both unprovable and unfalsifiable, so I won’t try to do either. But here’s one place where I disagree with many scientists. Some will discount personal, subjective experience as a probative factor. I can’t do that, because your experience is the only experience you will know, and ultimately, the one that matters most. If you sense God’s presence, and you feel your devotion to him exists because He put that feeling in your heart, then that is your Truth. And as I’ve just said… I think it’s a positive thing for you to believe, even if I do not.

If you agree, disagree, or think I’ve missed something… tell me about it in comments.

With this video, I’m going to try something new… I will post the transcript on the blog of my website, williamgadea.com, with links to some sources, so you don’t think I’m just making this up.

If you liked this talk, please support the channel by liking and subscribing. Visit again soon!