Book: Darwin's Cathedral

An evolutionary concept that hasn't received much attention over the years is that of Group Selection, which is the idea that natural selection favors certain variations that lead to differential rates of survival and reproduction between groups. This differntial success rate results in adaptations that benefit the group rather than just the individual. More simply put; a group that possesses a particular group trait or behavior would be more likely survive (and reproduce) over the long term than another group that does not possess the group trait or behavior. Part of the reason for this inattention is because it has been thought to play only a minor role in evolutionary processes compared to the faster and more effective individual selection. Another piece is likely the strong arguments made for individual (genetic) selection and against group selection in books such as The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype by Richard Dawkins and Adaptation and Natural Selection by George C. Williams. While my understanding of the arguments against group selection have always been limited at best, and I am unlikely to do them any real justice here, I have understood evolution as a process that takes place at the individual, level rather than as a group process. However, the idea of group selection also maintained some degree of intuitive credibility in my mind; I simply understood that it could result entirely from variation between individuals, on the genetic level.

In Darwin's Cathedral, David Sloan Wilson argues that the rejection of group selection as a major component in the story of evolution was premature and a 'wrong turn' (p. 12), and insists that the arguments against group selection are overstated. He indicates that the flaw in these arguments lies in their assumption that group selection is simply a part of individual selection. He presents a new model for evolution which maintains group selection and individual selection as separate processes that work in conjuncture with one another. This model, called 'Multilevel Selection Theory' purports to reintegrate group level selection with individual selection. In this context, behaviors that are generally understood to increase individual fitness despite their appearance of being generous or altruistic remain such, but other behaviors that require and promote large scale group cooperation to the extent that they increase the likelihood of group survival compared to other groups can be understood in terms of group selection. In the book he focuses on the example of Religion as just one social institution that has provided the type of variation between groups which leads to differential survival at the group level.

Wilson examines a variety of perspectives throughout the social sciences that have been used to explain the phenomenon of religion, particularly those posited by Emil Durkheim and Rodney Stark. He makes two major observations which provide the theme and tone of the book. First, he points out the fragmentary nature of the social sciences, sociologists rely on a different overarching structure to explain behavior than psychologists or anthropologists might. The various disciplines within the social sciences never really bother to ensure that their frameworks are consistent with one another. He argues that they ought to work towards some sort of unification, so that our sociological explanations for group behaviors are not contradictory to what we know about human psychology or our anthropological understanding. As a social scientist myself, this point is well taken, as I've often felt the various silos can and do overlap a great deal. The second observation/statement he makes is that an evolutionary explanation may be the type of framework needed to facilitate such an integration of disciplines. I also found this to be an intriguing proposition.

Wilson tests the various social sciences explanations of religion alongside his multilevel selection theory by examining several modern and historic denominational cases studies to determine which explanation offered the most comprehensive understanding. Using examples of behaviors and ideas from early Christianity, Calvinism, the Gospels, Balinese tribal religion, Judaism, and modern Christianity he demonstrates how religions possess characteristics that seem to be adapted specifically to their temporal, geographic, and societal environments based on the survival advantage they provide for groups of individuals rather than just individuals or cultural memes. This survival advantage offered to groups by certain aspects of religion does not depend on whether the religion's doctrines about the supernatural are actually true, but rather on their ability to provide the group of adherents with some survival advantage over other religious groups.

It must be understood that the survival advantages offered by particularly religious ideas are not necessarily the result of intentional human decisions, but as a natural occurrence in the evolution of religious ideas. Every new idea or twist builds upon an existing religious framework; the group who adopts this new iteration is then subject to a variety of environmental pressures which can lead to either the flourishing survival or the decimation and extinction of the group. Thus it is an evolutionary process that is subject to natural selection.

My understanding of some of the arguments presented in this book is limited, and thus my ability to truly critically assess the arguments is limited. However, I did think that multilevel selection made intuitive sense, but the difference between it and the standard individual level selection is perhaps too subtle for me to nail down. It does seem reasonable to view groups as an additional adaptive unit whose survival can be enhanced or limited by their social institutions. As such, religion would be a natural outgrowth of our biological evolution. The survival or our religious ideas is tied to the ideas' ability to provide an environmentally specific adaptive advantage to the group who adopts that idea. I'm not entirely certain however whether this is best understood as a multilevel process or an individual level process.