Having introduced the key concepts of gene-culture coevolution last time, we now explore their utility for studying the evolution of religion.
Application for the evolution of religion
Like Boyd and Richerson, David Sloan Wilson (2003) puts credence in the notion of group selection (discussed last time). He believes intrinsic motivation and enforcement via reward and punishment enables sufficient conformity for group selection to occur, and that religions play a key role in motivating this conformity.
Religions, according to Wilson, fulfill the function identified by Durkheim, i.e. uniting a people into a moral community conducive to cooperation. As was revealed by sociobiology’s application of game theory, those who cooperate by reciprocal altruism fare better overall than those who do not. Religion, therefore, may function to establish and normalize reciprocal altruism as an evolutionarily stable strategy in a group, which would increase the fitness of the group over those adopting lesser strategies.
This would suggest that religious change may be driven by the optimization of motivation toward reciprocal altruism, a process occurring in groups of people responding to changes in their environments and circumstances as well as to competition with other groups. Group selection may thus prove a crucial concept for understanding religious change.
The key concepts of coevolution contribute much to a theory of change in religion. Cultural selection, guided variation, and biased cultural transmission refine previously established concepts, and group selection introduces an entirely new dimension to the equation. Further, rigorous mathematical models address the problem posed by memetics, that of failing to discern the relative influence of genes and memes. The models pit the relative strengths of memes against their genetic counterparts, as precisely as possible.
Unfortunately, these models also make coevolution a difficult approach requiring considerable math, which may detract from its growth as a method. Laland and Brown report that coevolution remains a small coterie of researchers, and no well-established procedure exists at the time of their writing (Laland & Brown, 2002). Nevertheless, this method, more than any other, shows promise for addressing the problem of religious change. It incorporates many of the useful concepts from the other approaches already considered, while enhancing the level of rigor and introducing new concepts.
This post continues a series investigating methods in the study of religion from an evolutionary perspective. Various approaches will be considered in turn, and evaluated for their strengths and weaknesses.