richard_dawkins_-_the_god_delusion

172 T H ¥. G O D I) E I, U S 1 O N
To satisfy any biological specialists who might be reading this, I
should add that Darwin's idea was not strictly group selection, in
the true sense of successful groups spawning daughter groups
whose frequency might be counted in a metapopulation of groups.
Rather, Darwin visualized tribes with altruistically co-operative
members spreading and becoming more numerous in terms of
numbers of individuals. Darwin's model is more like the spread
of the grey squirrel in Britain at the expense of the red: ecological
replacement, not true group selection.
RELIGION AS A BY-PRODUCT OF
SOMETHING ELSE
In any case, I want now to set aside group selection and turn to my
own view of the Darwinian survival value of religion. I am one of
an increasing number of biologists who see religion as a by-product
of something else. More generally, I believe that we who speculate
about Darwinian survival value need to 'think by-product'. When
we ask about the survival value of anything, we may be asking the
wrong question. We need to rewrite the question in a more helpful
way. Perhaps the feature we are interested in (religion in this case)
doesn't have a direct survival value of its own, but is a by-product
of something else that does. I find it helpful to introduce the byproduct
idea with an analogy from my own field of animal
behaviour.
Moths fly into the candle flame, and it doesn't look like an
accident. They go out of their way to make a burnt offering of
themselves. We could label it 'self-immolation behaviour' and,
under that provocative name, wonder how on earth natural
selection could favour it. My point is that we must rewrite the
question before we can even attempt an intelligent answer. It isn't
suicide. Apparent suicide emerges as an inadvertent side-effect or
by-product of something else. A by-product of ... what? Well,
here's one possibility, which will serve to make the point.
Artificial light is a recent arrival on the night scene. Until