[attachment=205]Any thoughts?

Moved to "Other Discussions". -Emil

My main problem with this essay is its universalism. There is little recognition that different human societies have different conceptions of death or religion. Some human societies have minimal funeral customs. The body is disposed of and there is no attempt to create a permanent grave marker. The term "religion" is especially problematic. In some cases, this term describes a coherent belief-system where a conscious effort is made to ensure coherence, to the point of expelling heretics. In other cases, there is no such effort. "Religion" is simply a collection of legends that often contradict each other. In some cases, "religion" implies a belief in supernatural dieties who take an active interest in human affairs and punish evil-doers. In other cases, they are indifferent to humans.

This variability in the nature of religion is not simply a difference between simple and complex societies. East Asian societies are complex, yet different "religions" typically overlap in the same individual. "If one religion is good, two are better." Today, most East Asians have no religion to speak of, even though they have the sort of future time orientation and existential anxiety that, one would think, should make religion necessary. Clearly, "religion" has evolved in different ways in different societies. How does the author explain these differences? He makes a stab at this question on page 7, where he argues that people tend to be more religious where stress levels are higher (early death, starvation, child mortality). I'm somewhat puzzled by this. Are these indices worse in Afghanistan (only one religion allowed, high religious intolerance) than in Cambodia (many religions, much religious tolerance)? Are Muslims less religious in Western countries than in their home countries? Much research has found the opposite to be true.

With regard to death, there is much variability, both within and between human populations. At one extreme, the main concern is to dispose of the corpse (which is seen as polluting). There are no elaborate rituals and there is no effort to ensure that the deceased will be remembered. At the other extreme, funeral customs are highly elaborate and the main concern is to ensure that the deceased will always be remembered. This is a theme that the author could develop from the standpoint of gene-culture co-evolution, especially given his interest in the genetics of religiosity and the relationship between religiosity and other heritable traits. In any case, the author should try to explain human variability in attitudes to death, and not simply imply a wall-to-wall universalism. Perhaps, Douglas Davies is no better in this regard (I'm not familiar with his work). Most anthropologists would make at least a token acknowledgment of differences between human societies.

The author seems to dislike the social sciences, saying they are based on dogma and not on the scientific method. Actually, some of the social sciences, particularly economics and certain schools of psychology, have tried to adopt the "scientific method." The results have not been reassuring. Economists have been just as prone to dogmatism, despite a veneer of scientism and elaborate model-building.

There are good reasons why most social scientists use different methods than those of the "exact sciences." The latter methods have been developed to investigate phenomena that can be repeatedly examined under controlled conditions over a short time scale. This is unfortunately not the case for many interesting phenomena. Other methods are needed: participant-observation, one-on-one interviews, comparison of historical texts and artefacts, etc. The dogmatism we now see in anthropology, for instance, is not due to a particular method, since we see similar dogmatism in economics, where the methods resemble, at least superficially, those of the "exact sciences."

In short, the subject of this essay needs to be better circumscribed. If the author is only talking about certain human societies, he should say so. The author should also be more explicit in describing the relative contributions of genes and culture (and the co-evolution between the two).