What is Right and What is Wrong in the Darwinian Approach to the Study of Religion

Abstract

One of the greatest challenges for the study of cultural evolution is an explanation of processes and mechanisms of transmission of cultural traits. Darwinian approach is a promising and useful research program. However, it is worth to ask in what extent Darwinian account can provide appropriate and reliable explanation for origin and transmission of religious components. We can look for biological benefits provided by religious affiliation when we try to explain it in terms of survival and reproduction. However, biological evolutionary explanation cannot explain ultimately some unique human traits like religiosity. The focal point is if this approach can provide reliable explanation for specifically human cultural phenomena that only analogically can be found among some social animals. The key idea of this paper is that Darwinian approach to religion might explain only small part of human religiosity, and reliable explanation should combine Darwinian and cultural evolution, and cognitive account.

Critical Remarks on the Cognitive Science of Religion

“…Some kind of methodological reductionism is a domain of every approach, including cognitive and evolutionary adaptationist approaches, and it explains in the same way all cultural traits and phenomena despite the fact that cultural traits in different ways fit a given conceptual framework, if any. A pluralistic approach involving various mechanisms going beyond cognitive and evolutionary (in the sense of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, which includes such evolutionary processes as genetic drift, mutation, gene flow, and natural selection) terms, such as the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (which takes into account other processes, such as niche construction or plasticity) or evolutionary developmental biology (Czachesz ), may be considered as a reliable explanatory approach both for the study of culture in general (Smith, Gabora, and Gardner‐O'Kearney ) and religion (Szocik ) in particular. Such a broad pluralistic approach may be a useful step in a dialogue between religion and science.…”

“…It is unclear what role natural selection could play in regard to cultural evolution of cooperation. In our view, the applicability of the principle of natural selection to cultural change or cultural “evolution” is doubtful or, at least, is a challenging conceptual task (for more arguments on it, see Szocik ). It may be assumed that the individual is the only vehicle for the gene.…”

Forgiveness and the Naturalistic Approach to Religion: A Contextual View of the Problem of Evil

“…However, it is important to bear in mind that "our understanding of the linkages between genetic and cultural components is still primitive" (Norenzayan et al 2013). In fact, it is not straightforward that biological evolution and cultural evolution are guided by the same rules (Szocik 2019). For instance, the difference between the two can be seen in the case of the transmission and acquisition of changes.…”

Biomedical Moral Enhancement for Human Space Missions

“…Humans are morally enhanced not only by parents but also by social institutions which work in more or less direct ways. As the theory of cultural evolution shows, transmission of ideas and cultural traits occur in vertical, horizontal and oblique directions [7]. Vertical transmission is a transmission from parents to offspring.…”

“…Moral enhancement is non-heritable in a genetic sense because acquired moral traits are not inherited to succeeding generations in genetic terms. However, they may be heritable in terms of cultural vertical, horizontal or oblique transmissions [7]. Human enhancement is also possibly reversible.…”