It’s about Fertility, stupid! The Evolutionary Adaptivity of Religion
Religiosity (defined as behavior towards superempircal agents) is today clearly adaptive: Members of competitive religious communities are building stronger families with more offspring worldwide as their secular neighbours of the same education and income levels. This is observable in empirical studies, censusses worldwide, as well as in case studies (i.e. Amish, Hutterites, Mormons, Orthodox Jews). In contrast, non-religious populations and those religious communities who do not build and support families inevitably succumb to cultural evolution (i.e. late Greek and Roman Polytheism, Gnostic groups, the Shakers) and are replaced by demographically successful religious competitors. Please note: We found many religious traditions that were able to attain high levels of fertility throughout the generations. But in sharp empirical contrast, we didn't find a single non-religious community, movement or population that was able to retain at least replacement level (two births per woman) for a century!
Both genders are exercising evolutionary choices: Women more often favoring stronger marital and communal security (as in strict, monotheistic religions) and offering privileged roles to men in return - whereas the latter tending in higher percentages toward hedonistic, poly- or atheistic worldviews. Even celibate institutions (offering services like policing rule-abiding behavior, strengthening communities and families, child care, education, healing and more) can be adequately described as religious helpers-at-the-nest swapped between family networks (i.e. by Berman et al. 2007).
Survival benefits of religiosity (like health, welfare, security and more) might also apply. But from a biological (and biocultural) perspective, the strong intra-generational "reproductive advantage of religion(s)" (F.A. von Hayek) is setting the decisive benchmark of evolutionary success.
Introduction to the Web Resources on Religion & Reproduction
Hi Michael - I've written a response to this post at
http://jonathanmair.com/evolution-and-religion/
In an nutshell, my point is that you need to distinguish carefully between (a) religious behaviour on your terms, and (b) membership of more or less endogamous groups, and you need to do this before you use the data to draw the conclusions you've drawn here.
Best regards,
Jon
Hi Jon,
thanks for the lively interest.
Actually, the blog post is only a very condensed version of many years of work in German, most of whom I have yet to made available in English, too. Here is, for example, a paper combining data from the Swiss Census and the World Value Surveys:
http://www.blume-religionswissenschaft.de/pdf/ReproductiveReligiosityBlume2009.pdf
And here's a case study on the Amish:
http://www.blume-religionswissenschaft.de/pdf/BlumeHayekAmishFertility.pdf
Although I'd agree that endogamy is "building" kinships, the Anabaptist Amish movement is a good example of a group that did not depend on it from the start.
Here are some other studies and resources from me & other colleagues exploring religion & demography:
http://www.blume-religionswissenschaft.de/english/wrrr.html
All the best,
Michael
Thanks for the links, Michael. I like the beginning bit about Darwin! I'll try to look at these properly over the weekend.
Jon
Hi Michael -- I've added another post in response to your reply, it started as a comment but got a bit long.
http://jonathanmair.com/evolution-and-religion-part-ii/
There's another one coming too!
All the best,
Jon
Thanks, Jon. I think I'll just wait for the other one to come, then maybe answering with a blog post of my own. I hope you'll proceed to write more than another anti-evolution rant. I've really had enough of those, they tend to be boring and pointless...
...and here's the final part....
http://jonathanmair.com/evolution-and-religion-part-iii/
Best wishes,
Jon
"I hope you’ll proceed to write more than another anti-evolution rant."
I'm sure you have -- this area is so politicized it is reasonable of you to fear that.
I am really no anti-evolutionist...I have a genuine interest in the kind of work you do, I have lectured on related work in the past (by the religion as a by-product school -- people like Sperber, Boyer, et al.). I'm sure that evolution is an important factor in all sorts of human behaviours.
I'm regularly frustrated that many people who do the kind of work I do (I'm an anthropologist) refuse to engage with anything that touches on evolution, or even psychology. One result of that refusal to engage--by my social scientific colleagues--is that work in the evolutionary paradigm that doesn't chime with well established social science findings is left unchallenged.
Dialogue based on different approaches to the same questions is important -- I have set out some findings from work using social science methodologies that I think challenge your conclusions, but I'm open minded, and open to the possibility that the outcome will be that I am convinced that you're right and that it is the social science that needs to be rethought.
I don't have a particular animus on this issue -- I was just looking for a subject to kick off my blogging properly, and came across a link to your article on Twitter, and after your encouraging reply and reading your articles, I decided to think about the issues in more depth.
Cheers,
Jon
Dear Jon,
thank you very much for your interests and blogposts. You are right: These last years, I've had enough online brawls with (most often English-speaking) religious anti-evolutionists on the one side and (most often German-speaking) anti-religious ideologues on the other hand to experience the limits of scientific discourse. As human beings, we tend to defend our cherished worlviews at nearly any cost. And as there are no definite "proofs" in evolutionary studies as an empirical and interfaculty undertaking, it is very easy for people just to raise the stakes and to stick to their respective biases with every new round of debate.
That said, I enjoyed most of your blogposts for their high quality and readiness to argue. Although I am immersed in work at the moment (including the building of a house for two parents and three small kids), I will try to answer with a post of my own in one or two weeks time.
All the best & looking forward to more exchanges in the near future!
Yours,
Michael
Great - look forward to your post when you get a chance. Good luck with the house!
Jon