They called him the modern Darwin. How did E O. Wilson see religion?

Edward Osborne Wilson (1929-2021) was one of the most famous natural scientists of the 20th century and the father of sociobiology.

Wilson was a recognized scientist and a long-time professor at the prestigious Harvard University. He was also a two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize for nonfiction and the author of other books. Thanks to his views on religion, Wilson has also attracted attention. 

 Recognized expert and spiritual father of sociobiology.

Wilson was born in 1929 in the US state of Alabama and lost one eye in a fishing accident at young age. But despite his handicap, he became famous as a biologist, entomologist (insect expert), and specialist in ants, which he also studied in remote places on the Pacific islands. During his career, he described about four hundred species of ants. His work earned him the nickname “the modern Darwin.” 

 He was also very interested in ecology and the future of the planet. He told the New York Times in 2008: “Future generations will forgive us for our terrible wars of extermination and failures, but they will not forgive us for so recklessly exterminating so much of wildlife.”

However, Wilson also raised controversies, and criticism was leveled at his probably best-known work, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, from 1975. He defined sociobiology as “the systematic research into the biological bases of all social behavior. His goal was to explain behavior purely biologically using evolutionary genetics.”

“However, the work caused controversy in the scientific community because in it Wilson suggested that human behavior, including altruism and aggression, is strongly influenced by genetics and not just by the external environment and upbringing. He then used this knowledge to explain the difference between different cultures and societies around the world,” reads the article dedicated to his life.

“Social science professors and the American far left claim that the human brain is a blank slate and that human behavior is largely determined by history and culture. Anyone who claims that human nature is biological opens the door to racism or discrimination against women,” Wilson later summarized critical responses to his work. Wilson was even attacked during his lecture when a group of protesters threw water on him. However, Horák writes that “Wilson was a complicated character. He took criticism personally, he didn’t talk to several scientists at all, he didn’t hesitate to call the stars of biology quacks if they disagreed with him, and he shouted objections to their work during his colleagues’ lectures.

 Religion Through the Eyes of Wilson.

 Wilson was not a Christian, but he was not an unbeliever either. He admitted on one occasion that “I am not an atheist, because it would be foolish to deny the possibility of the existence of some form of higher intelligence, but religions are a manifestation of tribalism – they contain the belief that only one tribe is chosen by God.” 

In his 1978 book On Human Nature, Wilson acknowledges that religious sentiment is hardwired into man. He writes that “belief is one of the general characteristics of social behavior that is visibly manifested in every society – from prehistoric to modern.” This publication shows Wilson’s view of religion as a product of evolution. 

 In the book The Meaning of Human Existence, Wilson recognizes the positive contribution of religions – their members are motivated to do good and provide social and health care. For many, the church is a refuge and consolation from various afflictions and poverty. Also, from a psychological point of view, Wilson evaluates faith as beneficial. It answers deep existential questions and provides a sense of security. He adds that “religion lends its followers a proud identity, legitimizes rules of conduct, and has clarified all the mysteries of the cycle of life and death.”

On the other hand, however, Wilson criticizes religion for suppressing rational thinking and for often breeding violence and suffering. He points out that man naturally needs to belong somewhere, and religions satisfy this need for acceptance into the community. At the same time, however, other religions discriminate in the sense that only they are considered God’s chosen ones, while those “outside” are marked as excluded.

 Wilson criticizes this —differences in beliefs between different religions produce schism and violence. “Only faith can motivate an otherwise good person to commit a bad deed,” claims the natural scientist. From a biological point of view, he evaluates religious belief as “one of the Darwinian tools of survival and reproduction. It acts as the glue of a successful tribe in a competitive struggle with other tribes.”

 From Christian to Deist.

 Wilson also touches on the problem of evil. He writes that “it is difficult to imagine the existence of an all-powerful being like God and at the same time the existence of various injustices and suffering. “The objection that God is only testing our faith or that God’s ways are unfathomable is not enough,” writes Wilson.

 Wilson’s views on religion are a paradox. While in The Creation, he called for a harmonious dialogue between faith and science, in other places, he expressed the wish that the world would be better off without religious belief. However, as Wilson adds, “people still believe more than they know.” Wilson considered secular humanism the only worldview compatible with the natural sciences. In 2003, he was one of the signatories of the so-called The Humanist Manifesto. 

 Although Wilson was not a Christian but a deist and had a rather critical view of religion, his position can be somewhat understood, and one can agree with many of his arguments. He grew up in the south of the USA, where Protestant fundamentalism is strongly present. This direction is characterized by, e.g., literal interpretation of the Bible. When Wilson started attending university, where he became familiar with the evidence for evolution, he left the last remnants of the Christian faith. As Wilson writes in  Consilience, “I said “goodbye to the church. However, I am not an atheist or an agnostic, but I have ceased to be a Southern Baptist.’ Many’intellectually based people are exposed to this dilemma—they recognize faith in a twisted presentation, then reject it and finally criticize only a certain form of religion. This form of belief is then understandably at odds with scientific thinking.