This article from The Economist describes a European project dedicated to the scientific study of religion. The Explaining Religion project is organized by the University of Oxford, with nine partner institutions taking part. The article focuses on two major areas of investigation: neurochemical and brain imaging studies to narrow down the brain activity linked to religious experience, and the possible adaptive features of religion. Plenty of good stuff here, although the last paragraph left a bad taste in my mouth:
Evolutionary biologists tend to be atheists, and most would be surprised if the scientific investigation of religion did not end up supporting their point of view. But if a propensity to religious behaviour really is an evolved trait, then they have talked themselves into a position where they cannot benefit from it, much as a sceptic cannot benefit from the placebo effect of homeopathy. Maybe, therefore, it is God who will have the last laugh after all—whether He actually exists or not.
This raised my hackles. First, religious behavior could be an adaptation (something selected for over the course of our evolutionary history) without being adaptive under current circumstances. Second, even if it is adaptive now, it seems to me that one of the points of learning more about our repertoire of inherited propensities, religious or otherwise, is that we might be able to figure out how to reap the benefits while avoiding the nastier side (e.g., learning to use the ways that religion fosters group cohesion while balancing that with efforts to avoid the xenophobia and persecution of outsiders that often accompanies it–perhaps by continuing to expand the size of the group that we perceive as meriting ethical treatment). None of this requires adherence to a particular religion or a belief in God–in fact, it requires an open-mindedness about our religious experiences that is often lacking in traditional religions. Furthermore, you don’t need a deity or a church to behave in a moral manner, to have a close community of friends and family to support you, or to be seen and valued as a trustworthy member of your community, much less to take up healthful practices like not smoking and not drinking to excess.
It’s sort of like sex; nature made sex pleasurable for us for the very good reason that it’s essential for the continuation of the species. But we figured out how the whole process works and found ways to get the pleasure of sex while choosing for ourselves whether reproduction should result, and we’ve added a whole lot of meaning and depth to the experience (when it’s done right, anyway) that often have little or nothing to do with its original purpose. We’ve also figured out ways to bring children into the world with less risk to the health of mother and child, and methods of avoiding the spread of STDs, although getting people to reliably put those methods into practice could probably still use some work. Hey, speaking of religion, persuading churches to take a more realistic attitude toward sexual activity in young people would be a great start! But I digress. My point is that understanding what nature gave us is helping us figure out how to handle it.
It looks to me like the article mentions the Explaining Religion project but focuses more on the state of research in the area in general rather than the specifics of the project. For more about that, see the Explaining Religion project home page and this PDF, which describes the data gathering and data mining that will be used to categorize and understand human religious behavior all over the world and across time. The PDF contains the following intriguing paragraph:
“From this knowledge base, modern computer modelling techniques will permit the simulation of future trajectories of transformation in various religious systems.”
Hari Seldon, maybe your time has come.
