Pascal Boyer: The Fracture of an Illusion
At first glance, readers might wrongfully assume that the 112 pages would just contain a new version of the authors' classic arguments. Following some philosophical thoughts along "the Kant-Darwin axis" and citing some more continental philosophers (such as Freidrich Schleiermacher, Sören Kierkegaard and others), Pascal Boyer is restating his main hypotheses delineated in "Religion explained":
* "Religion" should not be addressed as an entity of its own. Instead, it is the social result of interacting brain modules that have been shaped in evolution. The same can be said for example about "musics" or "politics".
* If we talk about "religion", we are addressing a kind of existential and cognitive »package« that includes views about supernatural agency (gods), notions of morality, particular rituals and sometimes particular experiences, as well as membership in a particular community of believers.
* All of these modules can and should be explored independently.
But then, albeit grudgingly, Pascal Boyer starts to integrate the findings of evolutionary studies on the subject. Citing respective studies, the anthropologist admits that "religion" could indeed serve as a resource of prosocial signalling and in-group formation. Although he (rightfully) insists that religiosity evolved "as a by-product of a whole variety of cognitive adaptations", Pascal is opening to exaptationist or even adaptationist possibilities:
"Is religion an adaptation? An evolutionary perspective implies that manifest behaviors are enabled and supported by functional systems which are the outcome of natural selection. In other words, some of these functional systems can be construed as adaptations, that is, reliably developing capacities or traits that provide evidence of complex functional design and confer potential reproductive advantage." (p. 74 / 75)
And in their afterword to the book, Elisabeth Gräb-Schmidt and Wolfgang Achtner point out that these reproductive advantages of religiosity and religions have just been found and described. An example from Australia (more on WRRR):
The logical next step would be to discuss the emergence of religiosity and religions - as there is nothing unique about new systems forming based on pre-evolved modules. Almost all exaptations and adaptations started their evolutionary histories as "mere" by-products: Take the Feather, take Language, take Music or take Religion. "The Fracture of an Illusion" is a powerful document of interdisciplinary progress in the evolutionary studies of religion, cautiously bridging the gap that separated cognitive and social perspectives far too long.
Printview
Wow, it really does seem like there's a rush on for everyone to accept a dual inheritance account of some sort. Cool.
Congratulations on getting your research included in Boyer’s ‘Illusion’! The data will win out in the end.
“ . . .Although he (rightfully) insists that religiosity evolved "as a by-product of a whole variety of cognitive adaptations"
I so dislike those ‘by-product’ and ‘parasitic’ analogies.
Would you say that the racing seats of a Bugatti were a by-product of your tush? Did the coach designer ‘parasitize’ someone’s backside? Like so many fine things in life, I much prefer to view religion as designed to fit (to fit us humans, or our brains perhaps).
While true that our brains were there first (perhaps 200,000 years for HSS vs. 70,000 for the first idol) when a trait confers a decided advantage, it is rightfully identified as an Adaptation.
Porsche (or even Yugo) does not build byproducts of a Model T, but vastly superior adaptations of the automobile. Building a better (ie. more competitive or better performing) product based off an earlier design is what innovation, adaptation and, yes, evolution is all about. Humans with spiritual beliefs and its more evolved successor religion dramatically outperform earlier populations, history as my witness. Nature has been running this experiment and we live the result.
Yes, there is certainly some convergence towards dual-inheritance models combining nature and culture into potentially adaptive phenomena happening here. Although very critical at the start and not giving up his perspective, Pascal opened up to other scientific works and findings. For the informed dialogue, his new book is a treasure trove!
Thanks for the comment and encouragement! And although I do understand your sentiments, I tend toward describing religiosity as an exaptation - rooted in modular by-products that brought about a new and potentially adaptive system of thoughts, communications and behaviors. I think, it is not (yet) a ready-designed porsche, but evolution in the process.
:-)
» Congratulations on getting your research included in Boyer’s ‘Illusion’! The data will win out in the end. «
Is that correct, Boyer wrote about the reproductive advantage of religiosity in contemporary societies? What does he say on this topic?
That was in the ‘Afterword’ per the last paragraph of the post (authored by Elisabeth Gräb-Schmidt and Wolfgang Achtner). Boyer’s related comment is referred to in the previous paragraph.
@Michael
Porsche would object to any suggestion that its evolution has halted.
Well, good point! ;-) But let's compare the topic to Mercedes (a car-family named after daughter of an early race-driver, Emil Jellinek), as most of the venerated ancestors and gods venerated during our evolution have been female.
:-)
(And yes, I am planning blog posts and texts about that topic in the near future, too.)
Mercedes (if you will) has been delivering fully functional autos for over a century. ‘Religion’ (as a social construct) has been a fully functional institution for upwards of 10,000 years and, I argue, not a by-product of anything, but a very deliberate product in its own right with a very specific function and a wide range of duties (modules if you prefer). Religiosity (or spirituality) emerged 70 odd thousand years ago, not "as a by-product of a whole variety of cognitive adaptations", but from a synthesis of existing cognitive abilities into a new, novel application that proved to be quite effective. A very significant new adaptation.
Cooption, spandrel or by-product? Disingenuous, disparaging words that I implore you to drop from your vocabulary when addressing the evolution of religion. Do not let the prosthelytizing nor dismissive atheists control the discourse. :-| (I was trying to make a stern looking face. Not sure that it worked.)
Faith, Michael, have faith in the data.
You said:
Cooption, spandrel or by-product? Disingenuous, disparaging words that I implore you to drop from your vocabulary when addressing the evolution of religion. Do not let the prosthelytizing nor dismissive atheists control the discourse.
Cooption is not a dirty word. Criticism towards adaptationist explanations is common practice in evolutionary studies, and is a valid scientific position. To suggest that this is a disparaging tactic used by atheists is a bit self-revealing. Why are you so uncomfortable with religion as a by-product?
None are ‘dirty’ words, all potentially valid positions regarding a trait. As you well know, it is completely appropriate to challenge an adaptationist claim for evidence.
I am trying to persuade Michael that, based on the evidence, it is most appropriate to take the proactive position of addressing religion as an adaptation.
I would assume that as a biologist, you could look at a fish, observe how they propel themselves through the water and concluded that fins were an adaptation which improves their swimming. One might likewise observe the bipedal gait of a human and note the improved ability to carry (or parry) a spear vs. knuckle-walking, and view this as an adaptation. I am not the first, nor hardly the only observer to recognize that there are existing human communities that have never developed religion. They survive primarily on reservations, but those still living free enjoy largely the same lifestyle as their ancestors 10,000 years ago when religion was first introduced.
10,000 years of dramatic out performance of human communities possessing the religion variant vs. those not possessing this variant is solid evidence of adaption vs. by product. By-product indicates neutral advantage, and space age vs. stone age is hardly neutral.
This is the experiment nature is running on mankind I referred to earlier that we are living through. Human communities featuring the religion variant dominate the planet because they are better adapted (and for Corneel only: even the Neanderthal would crush any of your beetles underfoot – prior to their extinction that is. :-)
In his ‘Illusion’, Boyer distinguishes ‘religion’ as having ‘professional practitioners’ (vs. amateurs like shaman). Likewise, J. Diamond, in ‘Guns germs and Steel’ (slightly paraphrased): ‘Religion invented taxes to support the priests’. I’m good with that distinction, but I prefer to add Temples as well, they are generally easier to find in a dig or a stroll.
No problem there. I am perfectly fine with religion as an adaptation (although I am not convinced this is proven yet). But before your last comment, you used slightly different rhetoric, and that intrigued me.
You called cooption a disingeneous word from dismissive atheists and you used design analogy when you said you would ...much prefer to view religion as designed to fit.
Am I imagining things, or would you be unhappy if religion would turn out to be an evolutionair by-product? (Mind you, I am not attacking you, but you made me curious.)
J.A. Le Fevre said:
and for Corneel only: even the Neanderthal would crush any of your beetles underfoot – prior to their extinction that is. :-)
I think that extinction is the important thing here, since we are talking about evolutionary succes.
There are 400,000 species of beetles described, with thousands more left undescribed. Let me be generous, and compare that to mammals (4,500 species). If I were comparing to Homo that would be...let me count...oh, just one.
;-)
(Quote-mined from ‘The fracture of an Illusion’): ‘No, the point here is to show that the very existence of something called ‘religion’ is largely an illusion.’ ‘Framing the conflict as a struggle against a single enemy ‘religion’ simply perpetuates the illusion that there is a domain of religion.’ ‘There is something Quixotic about insisting that something you talk about every day doesn’t in fact exist at all.’
What Boyer is actually saying through all of the above (when you read through the first chapter, not just what I pulled out), is that we need to re-frame the debate to make any progress. I fully agree on this point, but take issue with the presentation.
Cooption is not a disingenuous word, but religion is presented far too often in a disingenuous fashion. By taking the (very supportable given the evidence) position that religion is an adaptation, one is requesting more respect for that oldest and most venerable of institutions.
Should religion turn out to be an evolutionary by product, I would be surprised, and perhaps a bit disappointed (What? I was wrong? I want more data!). My view of religion, and I think I said as much in our previous exchange, is that like Michael’s Mercedes, it is a deliberately designed product of human construction for a specific purpose. Further, both have evolved since introduction to be more effective and more functional. The one thread I opened on the ‘Dawkins forum’ before it shut down was titled: ‘Religion – the greatest invention ever’.
I tell myself it got so little attention because they did not want to face down my 10,000 years of supporting data. One sister says my writing is just too confusing.
On that last thing:
We are not necessarily talking about success if we use the word dominate. At our last interchange on the topic, I said ‘species’ and ‘dominate’, you responded with ‘beetle’ and ‘success’. Beetle is not a species, and dominate is not synonymous with success. So I was playing with the words when I caught myself using ‘dominate’ again. I do mean both ‘successful’ and ‘control’ or ‘rule’ in most cases where I use ‘dominate’, but using the term probably says something about my emotional involvement with the subject as you note.
And, yes, I deliberately chose Neanderthal for that example to emphasize the distinction between success and dominate.
» My view of religion, and I think I said as much in our previous exchange, is that like Michael’s Mercedes, it is a deliberately designed product of human construction for a specific purpose. «
And therefore it cannot be an biological adaptation which is defined as a heritable trait caused by natural (sexual) selection.
That would be correct, which is why I view religion as a cognitive, not biological adaptation.
Disclaimer: Consider the source
Corneel’s repeated reminder of how my position differs from Michael’s left me rolling this position over in my head these last couple of days. I am father, son and grandson, uncle, sibling and nephew to over a dozen engineers. I am generations deep in a continuing family culture of expecting problems to have human designed solutions. Quite possibly genetically predisposed to those same conclusions. Michael sees the data a bit different than I, but he has biases as well :-). Regardless of its genesis, religion and humans have evolved since its introduction, each influencing the other.
Thank you for the clarification :-)
(The influence of religion as a cultural invention on human biological evolution is another interesting debate.)
The Fracture of an Illusion is pseudo-science under the guise of evolution. Religion is the response of the human intellect to Cosmology, not some evolutionary invasion of the human psyche. Religion is not the outgrowth of evolution, but the result of a reasoning process on the Cosmos. Pascal Boyer is trying to apply biological realities to human reason and judgment and is trying to sell a anthropological monster of his own making. It is like trying to explain biology by the interaction of protons, electrons and photons.
Father Clifford Stevens
Boys Town, Nebraska