Posted 02 March 2010 by Dominic
A guest blog by Zoey Reeve
Our penultimate project meeting took place from 7-9 January at the Four Seasons Biltmore hotel, Santa Barbara. Nestled between crystal waters, white sands, and breath-taking mountains the workshop was a meeting of minds of the who’s who of some of the most influential scholars of evolution and religion. In attendance were core team members Dominic Johnson, Jesse Bering, Terry Burnham, Jeff Schloss, and Rich Sosis, plus graduate students myself (Zoey Reeve), Paul Swartwout and Lauren Swiney. However, the meeting was made particularly mesmerising by three additional guests to share their perspectives and advise on our project—Joseph Bulbulia, Paul Zak, and “The” David Sloan Wilson. Whilst our merry band (particularly merry in the evening over delicious local seafood and great conversations) was not free of occasional heated debate, this diverse but focused group brought a wealth of fresh insights to the table.
The workshop began with presentations by the three (very lucky) grad students. Discussions ranged from how best to measure feelings of being watched when experimental subjects are given the opportunity to cheat (Lauren)—a key test of the supernatural punishment hypothesis, to paradigms that capture people’s trustworthiness when marked with a religious symbol such as a cross on Ash Wednesday (Swartwout), and those measuring implicit associations of parochialism and protection towards in-groups and out-groups (Reeve).
Jesse Bering, experimental psychologist extraordinaire then offered us a glimpse into his forthcoming book on the psychological origins of meaning. Terry Burham, our resident presented evidence on the role of evolved physiological factors, such as status and testosterone, in people’s cooperation and punishment beahvior (e.g. in the ultimatum game). Dominic Johnson, the project coordinator, is both an evolutionary biologist and political, and he presented possible linkages between these two disciplines in the (little studied) role of elite manipulation in the religious doctrines of reward and punishment. Jeff Schloss once again forced us to switch our brains into high gear and think hard about the meta-philosophical questions surrounding our project. What can we know about beliefs? What do our findings imply about the status of supernatural agents? Rich Sosis is an evolutionary anthropologist with so many projects on the go that our website is constantly out of date. His presentation in Santa Barbara focussed on new experimental evidence that costly religious signals indicate trustworthiness to other group members. Rich and his students use a range of clever experimental paradigms to investigate how subtle religious primes influence performance in well known games such as prisoner dilemmas and trust games.
Our guest speakers then took the floor beginning with Joseph Bulbulia, who despite having flown from New Zealand was awake enough to run every morning as well as scrutinize assumptions about the types of games and payoffs that many evolutionary theories of religion (and cooperation) imply but do not test. The actual games and payoffs relevant in real life have big implications for the supernatural punishment and costly signalling theories of religion. Paul Zak is a neuroeconomist – a founder of the field in fact, and is credited with discovering the role of the hormone oxytocin as a mediator of trust. Oxytocin is the physiological signature for empathy and is readily induced with touch (a fifty minute massage will release oxytocin and influence the amount of money an individual is willing to sacrifice to another individual, even when the other person is not the masseuse!).
David Sloan Wilson is a distinguished evolutionary biologist whose trademark idea is the importance of multi-level or group level selection. His approach is of particular interest to us given that our project takes an individual-level selection position as a starting point. Rather that throw stones from alternative camps, we aimed to invite David to join our discussions precisely to build rather than burn theoretical bridges and develop a common consensus. David’s insights are crucial in ensuring our studies are actually testing individual-level selection. For example, many studies claiming behaviors are individually adaptive only show that a behavior increases fitness. However, for Darwinian selection to work, it must be shown that behavior increases fitness relative to others.
Our project has already amassed a set of diverse theoretical and empirical studies that converge on a common theme—religious beliefs and behaviors have an adaptive logic. The main rival idea—that they are accidental by-products of human cognition—is popular but too easy. First we must explore the benefits of religion as well as its (perhaps more apparent) costs.
There is no substitute for face-to-face meetings, and the Santa Barbara event served to cement our goals for the future. Beyond our individual and joint projects, a major outcome of the meeting was to develop ways to integrate our project with existing projects such as David Sloan Wilson’s Evolutionary Religious Studies project. In proliferating and young field, consensus and coordination will be a critical step in effectively resolving the puzzle of religion.
Posted in Adaptation, Meetings, Religion | No Comments »
Posted 10 November 2009 by Dominic
A guest blog by Richard Sosis
Although I have studied religion for the past decade, until this past weekend I had never attended an annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion. This year the meeting was held in Montreal (November 7-10). The annual AAR meetings are the granddaddy of religious studies meetings with thousands of attendees and presenters so it is no surprise that I’ve avoided them; I tend to limit my conferences to those with total attendance under Dunbar’s number (that is, 150). While the AAR is dominated by scholars in the humanities, primarily Religious Studies, several years ago a small group interested in the Cognitive Science of Religion emerged. If I’m not mistaken this is the second year that the Cognitive Science of Religion section has sponsored multiple sessions. This year there were five sessions, including two research forums that showcased brilliant talks by Joseph Bulbulia (Victoria University) and Jon Lanman (Oxford University), among others. Ted Slingerland (University of British Columbia), a true guiding light in bridging the sciences and humanities, invited me to speak at a session entitled “The Evolution of Religion: Adaptation or Byproduct?” Lee Kirkpatrick (College of William and Mary) and Ara Norenzayan (University of British Columbia) were invited and agreed to speak. The adaptationists were in need of a staunch defender. How could I refuse?
It turns out that the deck was slightly stacked in favor of the adaptationists as Joseph Bulbulia served as the respondent and moderator. He opened the session dryly: “It’s an adaptation.” Having solved that debate I thought we might all be packing up to put our minds to other weighty matters, but in fact the show went on and Joseph masterfully outlined the major issues in the debate. Before the session, the speakers had agreed that for the AAR audience a detailed discussion of the adaptationist-byproduct debate made little sense. It would be more productive to highlight how the alternative evolutionary approaches to the study of human behavior that we each represented - evolutionary psychology, behavioral ecology, and dual inheritance theory – complemented each other and offered a comprehensive evolutionary analysis of religion. As someone commented, “Rather than a raucous fight, it was now going to be a love fest.” And so it was. Following Joseph’s introductory remarks, Lee offered a brief but clear overview of evolutionary psychology and how one would examine the underlying psychological mechanisms that produce religious beliefs and behaviors. Lee then summarized his pioneering work on attachment theory and explained why psychologists tend to view religion as a byproduct of psychological mechanisms that were designed for other purposes. I followed Lee’s engaging talk with an overview of how evolutionary anthropologists – or at least this one – study religion. I emphasized our focus on behavioral phenotypes and environmental context and how we seek to understand what benefits religion offers that could overcome the costs of religious practices. Ara concluded the session with an inspiring synthesis of the psychological and behavioral approaches, focusing on cultural evolutionary models of religion. He discussed his elegant study with Azim Shariff (University of British Columbia), which found that religious primes increased prosociality in a dictator game. The speakers fielded a half hour of diverse questions following the talks, many which were insightful and many which highlighted our ignorance about religion. But hopefully that was the point. For the cognitive and evolutionary study of religion to succeed it has to engage religious studies scholars and the exchange of ideas and information must be mutual. Evolutionary scholars are indeed lacking a deep understanding of religion (Bulbulia and Jeffrey Schloss (Westmont College) are two exceptions) but nonetheless we can offer powerful methodological tools and a compelling theoretical lens to study religion. Hopefully this session offered benefits for everyone involved.
Speaking of benefits and prosociality, I must add one of my personal highlights of the conference. On Saturday evening the five of us involved in the session and Jon Lanman spent considerable time debating appropriate tipping practices in Canada. As any healthy evolutionists would do, we considered Robert Frank’s classic tipping dilemma, straining our memories to reconstruct why we should bother tipping in a city none of us planned to return to in the foreseeable future (wonderful though Montreal is, of course). We pondered what the gods thought of our discussion and looked for tipping boxes with eyes but found none. After the others walked to their hotels, I walked to the Metro station, wondering why I was the only one who searched for a hotel too late to find one in walking distance to the conference. Lacking a grad student who could work the ticket machine for me, I helplessly tossed coins into the money slot hoping that a ticket would magically appear. It did, but not from the thieving machine. A fellow conference attendee, who apparently was also slow in making hotel reservations, handed me a Metro ticket and refused payment for it. A mysterious angel? Or had listening to talks on religion all day served as a sufficient prime to produce this savior? After receiving such generosity I was just thankful that even without the gaze of supernatural eyes or a sufficient evolutionary rationale, we had left an appropriate tip.
For further information on the adaptationist-byproduct debate, see Richard Sosis’s new article “The Adaptationist-Byproduct Debate on the Evolution of Religion: Five Misunderstandings of the Adaptationist Program” in the latest issue of the Journal of Cognition and Culture.
Posted in Adaptation, Meetings, Religion | 1 Comment »
