Is Religion a Product of Evolution?

An excellent Economist article probes a series of studies in the scientific study of religion that address hypotheses that touch on this issue.

What is clear is that more strict group rules and strictures can predict a longer lasting commitment by group members and thus, a stronger tendency for the group to persist.  Religion also leads to stronger values of co-operation among group members contributing to long-lasting successes overall and that the success of the group is often placed in higher regard to that of the individual.  The latter was certainly theorized by Peter Berger and others long before such studies were conducted.  This is how Berger describes alienation in religious sociation.

A new study will look for biological elements to religious behavior.  This is interesting since the so-called God-spot hypothesis failed external validity tests.

Dr Azari was expecting to see activity in the limbic systems of the Christians when they recited the psalm. Previous research had suggested that this part of the brain (which regulates emotion) is an important centre of religious activity. In fact what happened was increased activity in three areas of the frontal and parietal cortex, some of which are better known for their involvement in rational thought. The control group did not show activity in these parts of their brains when listening to the psalm. And, intriguingly, the only thing that triggered limbic activity in either group was reading the happy story.

The new study is as follows:

“Explaining Religion”, as the project is known, is the largest-ever scientific study of the subject. It began last September, will run for three years, and involves scholars from 14 universities and a range of disciplines from psychology to economics. And it is merely the latest manifestation of a growing tendency for science to poke its nose into the God business.

Religion cries out for a biological explanation. It is a ubiquitous phenomenon—arguably one of the species markers of Homo sapiens—but a puzzling one. It has none of the obvious benefits of that other marker of humanity, language. Nevertheless, it consumes huge amounts of resources. Moreover, unlike language, it is the subject of violent disagreements. Science has, however, made significant progress in understanding the biology of language, from where it is processed in the brain to exactly how it communicates meaning.

Note that none of this research purports to argue for or against the actual existence of God.  It is unlikely that we will ever be able to substantiate on strong enough scientific grounds that religion is a product of evolutionary success for human beings.  Yet that maintains itself as something of a holy grail among some evolutionary biologists.  As the article aptly concludes:

Evolutionary biologists tend to be atheists, and most would be surprised if the scientific investigation of religion did not end up supporting their point of view. But if a propensity to religious behaviour really is an evolved trait, then they have talked themselves into a position where they cannot benefit from it, much as a sceptic cannot benefit from the placebo effect of homeopathy. Maybe, therefore, it is God who will have the last laugh after all—whether He actually exists or not.

No related posts.