Sociobiology, Religion, Spirituality, and Altruism - Report Example

Sociobiology, Religion, Spirituality and Altruism Sheila D. Brantley Walden August 14, This paper discusses sociobiological models of altruism, including kin selection and reciprocal altruism, and also religious and spiritual theories of altruism. Differences are noted, but the emphasis is on synthesis. Survival is an urge that has been programmed into our genes, through natural selection, over centuries of evolution. Also programmed into our genes are empathy and a capacity for selfless altruism. Religion provides a context in which this urge toward empathy and altruism can activate and develop. The mechanisms for its development are spiritual practices of oneness and interconnection. Through evolution (biological, psychological, social, and spiritual), we become more human, more capable and practiced at altruism. This is the synthesis of sociobiology, religion and spirituality, related to altruism. Sociobiology, Religion, Spirituality and Altruism Fascinating are the news stories of dolphins pulling injured swimmers to shore, dogs saving sleeping householders from fire, horses running for help to save fallen riders. Thrilling are the tales of firemen risking their lives for a trapped child, the teacher who saves her students from a rogue gunman, and other stories of altruistic heroism. Why do some act for the benefit of others, without counting cost to self? Is altruism a spiritual virtue or an evolutionary instinct? This paper will explore altruism, giving particular emphasis to sociobiological and spiritual explanations. It is not a simple topic. Sociobiology is an interdisciplinary field, and concepts are contributed from numerous perspectives, without a common base of definitions of altruistic behavior. Any behavior might be interpreted as being altruistic (Voorzanger, 1984). Psychological, ethical and spiritual explanations are more apt to investigate intention, while sociobiological explanations cannot clarify intention (Voorzanger, 1984). This paper will consider how altruism explanations differ within sociobiology and between sociobiology and spiritual inquiry. More importantly, this paper will consider how sociobiological and spiritual explanations of altruism might complement each other, or might be synthesized in some way. Literature Review and Discussion Within the research on the sociobiology of altruism, two basic theoretical arguments emerge: Kin selection and reciprocal altruism. Both stand on a common foundation, which is that altruistic behavior is a determinant in natural selection and is egoistic. Organisms act in ways that might appear to be benefitting others, but they are actually acting in ways that protect and maximize the longevity and distribution of their own gene pool (Gantt & Reber, 1999). Kin selection and reciprocal theories are both reasonable and have evidence to support them. Kin selection suggests that organisms choose to protect and favor the family genetic line, and that altruism occurs toward relatives in order to do so. If a stranger asks for a substantial sum of money, for example, we would be far more likely to refuse the request than if it were a family member asking. We have a stake in preserving our gene pool. Reciprocal altruism, however, suggests that helping those who are genetically unrelated can also be advantageous. We have all seen animal documentaries which show that in extreme, biting cold, penguins huddle together. Those on the outside take the brunt of the cold for awhile and then move further into the protective huddle while other penguins take a turn on the outside. We might look at the penguin that has moved to the outside and define the behavior as altruistic, when in fact the penguin is trading this “altruistic behavior” for the cooperative and reciprocal protection of the group. Without this approach, fewer would survive. Those stuck perpetually on the outside would die of exposure, leaving adjacent penguins more vulnerable. Eventually, the last penguins would die, and no one would survive the winter. Through cooperation, however, many or most penguins survive. This is not an altruism born of self-sacrifice, but an altruism of self and group survival. The individual needs the group in order to survive, so cooperating in rotating smaller sacrifices for the group, in turns, ensures self-survival. Where kin selection ensures the survival of one’s gene pool, reciprocal altruism takes a broader picture of personal and collective survival. Research on various reciprocal altruistic behaviors, specifically social grooming in coati, cluster position, information exchange, and blood regurgitation among groups of bats, found that inclusive fitness is a determinant in sharing behaviors that go beyond kin selection. Findings also indicate that reciprocal altruism among these mammalian groups is most successful in large groups with frequent altruistic behaviors, rather than in small groups with fewer altruistic acts. The fitness advantage gained for the individual was the same, whether the altruism donor was a relative of the altruism recipient or not (Gera & Wilkinson, 1988). Both kin selection and reciprocal altruism have their place in natural selection. An example of reciprocal altruism among humans can be seen with scientists. They compete with other scientists to pass on their ideas, trying enthusiastically to be sure that their ideas are distributed and sustained in the transmission of scientific knowledge. If they withdraw from other scientists’ contributions, their own ideas will be excluded from scientific dialogue. Collaboration, critique, and testing of others’ findings are necessary to scholarly survival (Hull, 1978). What might appear to be altruistic behavior is in fact done for personal survival. Quadagno, however, is one who questions sociobiology as a generalizable adaptation of Darwinian evolutionary theory to social behavior, something which was not initially included in the theory. The core challenge for Darwin was to explain instability in species, over time, while the core challenge for sociobiologists has been to explain social behavior, especially and ultimately human behavior. She particularly questions sociobiology on the applicability of its philosophy to complex human social behavior (Quadagno, 1979). Sociobiologists see themselves as revolutionaries who will “biologise” the social sciences, but have, however, been argued by resistant scientists who refute the applicability of Darwinian evolution to human behavior (Quadagno, 1979). Further resistance is heard in sociopolitical criticisms, which express views that biology is not necessarily destiny, and that various expressions of power can over-ride genetic potential, and that change (evolution) is not always in the direction of beneficial adaptation. Yet evolution rests on five principles: change, order, direction, progress, and perfectibility (Quadagno, 1979). Sociobiology, replaces the morality of human consciousness with the morality of gene survival (Quadagno, 1979). This is particularly relevant to a consideration of altruism. Social constructivists have tried to bridge the gap by seeing altruism as arising out of open-ended and flexible human relationships which, although seeming to be selfless at times, yet can still be understood to rest on reductive egoism. Religion, however, widens the gap, apparently, by seeing altruism as an expression of higher consciousness. For the Christian, that is Christ consciousness, an expression of Christ’s message of love for neighbors and even for enemies, in keeping with Christ’s love and sacrifice for humans. For Buddhists, altruism comes out of compassion, and compassion is an expression of enlightenment or a path toward it, following the teaching and example of Buddha and the bodhisattvas. For Jews, higher consciousness is the Mosaic Law, which structures one within the covenants with the Almighty. On the other hand, how well do humans reflect the love of Christ, the compassion of Buddha, or the perfection of the Law? Can it not be seen as self-survival when we act with selfless love, compassion, or perfection, in that we are aiming for heaven, an end to samsara, or acceptance by a perfect God? Evangelical Christians save lost souls, but is this altruism or a way to speed up the return of Christ? Buddhists pray for enlightenment of all sentient beings, but is it compassion or a personal effort to develop more quickly so that one might escape the suffering of the cycle of rebirth? In that sense, religion does not pull the feet out from under sociobiology, except in the case of deity altruism (which is not addressed by sociobiology). A role of religion is to promote pro-social behavior, including altruistic behavior (Batson, 1983; Burhoe, 1979). It does so through teachings that shape lifestyle choices and inspire believers toward a more noble perspective. While Campbell’s theory suggested that humans require religion to tame selfish nature, a more plausible theory is that empathetic, altruistic and pro-social behavior impulses are part of human genetic make-up, and religion can stimulate and encourage those impulses and give them structure (Batson, 1983; Burhoe, 1979). The latter theory is more plausible because if selfishness is man’s basic nature, then it is difficult to explain altruism, since religion has no natural material to work with. Research suggests that altruism and compassion are natural consequences of interconnection and oneness, leading to shifts in perspective of self and other. (Vieten & Schlitz, 2006). Research on the phenomenological experience of spontaneous altruism found that love and spirituality were primary motivational themes (Mastain, 2006). Altruism is mediated by physiology but expressed in our psychological development, social institutions and community moral values. Evolution among these factors makes us more human and makes altruism more possible in the world (Morrison & Severino, 2007). Conclusion Acts of altruism can be based on kin selection and on reciprocity. Both can be reduced, to natural selection and the urge to survive, individually and collectively. Survival is an urge that has been programmed into our genes through natural selection, over centuries of evolution. Also programmed into our genes are empathy and selflessness. Empathy and altruism can tangle with our own survival interests, but we have within us this capacity for selfless altruism. Religion can provide a context in which this urge toward empathy and altruism can activate and develop. The mechanisms for its development are spiritual practices of oneness and interconnection. Through evolution (biological, psychological, social, and spiritual), we become more human, more capable and practiced at altruism. This is the synthesis of science and religion, sociobiology and spirituality, as it relates to altruism. Works Cited Batson, C. D. (1983). Sociobiology and the role of religion in promoting prosocial behavior: An alternative view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(6):1380-1385. Burhoe, R. W. (1979). Religions role in human evolution: The missing link between ape-mans selfish genes and civilized altruism. Zygon: Journal of Science & Spirituality, 14:135-162. Gantt, E. E., & Reber, J. S. (1999). Sociobiological and social constructionist accounts of altruism: A phenomenological critique. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 30(2):14-38. Gera, & Wilkinson, D. S. (1988). Reciprocal altruism in bats and other mammaals. Ethology and Sociobiology, 9(2-4):85-100. Hull, S. L. (1978). Altruism in science: A sociobiological model of co-operative behaviour among scientists. Animal Behaviour, 26(3):685-697. Mastain, L. (2006). The lived experience of spontaneous altruism: A phenomenological study. Jounral of Phenomenological Psychology, 37(1):25-52. Morrison, N. K., & Severino, S. K. (2007). Altruism: Toward a psychobiospiritual concepturalization. Zygon: Journal of Science and Spirituality, 42(1):25-40. Quadagno, J. S. (1979). Paradigms in evolutionary theory: The sociobiological model of natural selection. American Sociological Review, 44:100-109. Vieten, C., & Schlitz, T. A. (2006). I to we: The role of consciousness transformation in compassion and altruism. Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, 41(4):915-932. Voorzanger, B. (1984). Altruism in sociobiology:A conceptual analysis. Journal of Human Evolution, 13(1):33-39. Read More