Just a note related to the Four Horsemen: Daniel Dennett published a very interesting book on religion, Breaking the Spell, in which he analyses, in a surprinsingly respectful manner, the "natural phenomenon of religion". And he doesn't ignore arguments like the ones brought by Read & Taleb.
Dennett carries the whole discussion from an evolutionary perspective, starting with the question why do humans form groups? Many animals are social, but what are the explanations for the superior sociality of humans? The hypothesis of group selection has been proposed as an alternative to individual selection, but it's still argued upon. From the perspective of group selection, religion could be seen as a mechanism for increasing group cohesion and benefits, and as a consequence, could have an adaptative function. But Dennett is not in favour of an economic explanation for religion, and considers that aspects like language and culture contribute to the complexity of the phenomenon.
I think the idea of group selection has been unfairly dismissed, to be honest. Might be a separate discussion, but Jonathan Haidt makes a compelling case for a limited form of group selection in his book The Righteous Mind.
So I agree with Dennett that religions are, in part, something that evolved for group survival. I think they offer a shared ideological framework/narrative for groups to cohere around.
Just a note related to the Four Horsemen: Daniel Dennett published a very interesting book on religion, Breaking the Spell, in which he analyses, in a surprinsingly respectful manner, the "natural phenomenon of religion". And he doesn't ignore arguments like the ones brought by Read & Taleb.
Thanks Adina! I haven't read that one - what does Dennett say about this sort of argument?
Dennett carries the whole discussion from an evolutionary perspective, starting with the question why do humans form groups? Many animals are social, but what are the explanations for the superior sociality of humans? The hypothesis of group selection has been proposed as an alternative to individual selection, but it's still argued upon. From the perspective of group selection, religion could be seen as a mechanism for increasing group cohesion and benefits, and as a consequence, could have an adaptative function. But Dennett is not in favour of an economic explanation for religion, and considers that aspects like language and culture contribute to the complexity of the phenomenon.
I think the idea of group selection has been unfairly dismissed, to be honest. Might be a separate discussion, but Jonathan Haidt makes a compelling case for a limited form of group selection in his book The Righteous Mind.
So I agree with Dennett that religions are, in part, something that evolved for group survival. I think they offer a shared ideological framework/narrative for groups to cohere around.