But in any case, the lag is not due to religion. The lag is due to the fact that people, generally, are reluctant to update to more progressive norms when it requires conceding something. E.g., in the modern era, it’s considered unacceptable by most of the Western world to invade other countries (Iraq notwithstanding). The religious justifications for this largely disappeared before the other ideological ones. Is the holy stamp of approval a massive problem? Maybe - it means religion is conservative (in the “conserve” sense of that word). But I’m not convinced that it’s any more conservative than humanity is generally.

While I’ll certainly agree that to some extent religion follows social norms, it makes little sense to say religion has no role in creating social norms. Why are we cutting off foreskins? Seems pretty reasonable to suggest that it can and does flow both ways - religion to social norms and social norms to religion. And even if religion sexual repression does flow from other aspects of human psychology, giving those negative tendencies the blessing of the creator of the universe and a holy stamp of approval is a massive problem, no?

If you think there’s lots of bogus stuff waving the EP flag, fine, but there’s some good stuff too. Don’t throw it all out. The human mind is a biological product of natural selection. Working from that basic premise offers many insights. Is there something that Buss claims that isn’t fair for him to claim?

I’m far from alone in criticizing evolutionary psych; many biologists agree with my position. (I suggest you go back and look at that Buss, et al article you linked above - the VERY NEXT ARTICLE trashes Buss’s research.) I’m not sure why this your dog in this race, but: Evolutionary psychology makes lots of provisional theories, but it makes many, many more specious claims that it dresses up as science. EP journals are littered with articles touting bogus premises with little evidence. And, getting back to the original point, the EP argument that Dennett makes is EXTREMELY ill-founded and lacking in evidence. I find provisional theories like this devoid of value, especially when they’re completely self-serving. Lack of rigor in an entire field produces sloppy results; this is not “okay”, it is dangerous.

As for backing off my point, I’m doing no such thing. I have consistently maintained the same thing that Claudio stated above: religion follows social norms, it doesn’t create them. This is why I say that repression of gays flows from male desire to control sexuality only. Yes, religion plays a role in that repression, but not an originating role. Re: Boyer, my original statement might be construed as an inaccurate paraphrase of Boyer’s contention that culture should be ignored because memes are what matter. Although you don’t seem to agree, memetics is not a demonstrated reality. Thought and culture are not particulate, as Dawkins and Boyer suggest. Individuals are not collections of information-packets that they’re artlessly routing around and exchanging. There; I made those claims, and now I stand on just as firm ground as Dawkins and Boyer.

I’m unconvinced you really read the above interview or digested any of its arguments. I do appreciate your civility in continuing this debate, however.

Daly M, Wilson MI, Weghorst SJ (1982) Male sexual jealousy. Ethology & Sociobiology 3: 11-27.

Buss, David, et al. (1992) “Sex Differences in Jealousy: Evolution, Physiology, and Pyschology,” Psychological Science 3:251-55. HERE.

The Cinderella Effect is another evolutionary psychology theory that is well established with substantial supporting data.

“As to the travails of religion in the US, you summed them up neatly: repression of gays and women. Both of these flow entirely from the American construction of male sexuality, and nothing else.”

“I’m not saying that religion has nothing to do with repression of gays or women”

I assume that since you said the second one most recently, it is a revision of your first statement. You seem to be backing away from most of what you’ve expressed. Boyer didn’t argue there is no such thing as culture, contrary to what you originally asserted. Boyer doesn’t ignore emergence in complex systems, contrary to what you originally asserted. Religion has something to do with repression of gays and women, contrary to what you originally asserted.

I think you’ll recognize from my persistence and relative civility that I’m not just here to give you a hard time. I’m here because a few weeks ago I saw a link to a post of yours and liked it, so I check back in sometimes. Take it for what its worth, but your arguments seem a lot like those of creationist. “Evolution is all just wishful thinking people who want to justify their perverse values”… blah blah. The evidence is there; look at that rather than worrying about motives. Not all science has to be as rigid and definitive as you seem to think. Provisional theories are still quite useful and to belittle them is counterproductive. There’s lots of work to be done, but you seem to be approaching things not with healthy skepticism but with a closed mind. Again, take the criticism for what its worth from a random internet reader. Consider it or tell me to eff off, your call.

As a closing thought, I do see a problem with teaching kids that its ok to lie to them for amusement. In a world with such vast beauty and depraved cruelty, who needs pretend magic to have a sense of wonder? Down with Santa!

I’m not saying that religion has nothing to do with repression of gays or women, or obstructing science. I’m saying that the desire to repress gays and women preceded the religious justification for it, and that the idea that religion is obstructing science is overblown.

You need to stop sneering and read the literature. There is evidence to support these ideas - men react more strongly negatively to the thought of their wife sleeping with another man than to the thought of her in love with another. Women react more strongly to the thought of their man in love with another than sleeping with her. This is exactly what you would predict based on their parental investment in reproduction - a man loses out big time by raising another man’s child. A woman loses out more if her man leaves her than if he just spends an hour with someone.

“As for the definitions of genes, they’re extremely well understood: we know the medium in which they are encoded (DNA), we know the structure and encoding of genes in DNA, we know how they are transmitted from person to person, we know a lot about how they acquire mutations and how those mutations segregate in the population. No similar claims can be made for memes.”

That doesn’t make the idea of memes worthless. Memes can be thought of as a unit of cultural transmission, as genes are a unit of genetic transmission. Memes mutate as they replicate. Just because memes are a parallel concept to genes doesn’t mean we have share everything about genes for memes to be meaningful.

“As to the travails of religion in the US, you summed them up neatly: repression of gays and women. Both of these flow entirely from the American construction of male sexuality, and nothing else.”

It is pretty hard to take this seriously. You are saying that religion has nothing at all to do with repression of gays or women, or even obstructing science education. This is simply an astonishing claim, one that you’re asserting as fact without any support.

By the way, your claim that Boyer argues that culture doesn’t exist is completely wrong. Your obvious misunderstanding of this basic point suggests your understanding of his arguments, evolutionary psychology, and the concept of memes is probably pretty flawed.

Is it wrong to tell kids that Santa Claus exists? I don’t think so - it adds a bit of wonder and magic into their lives.