Krieger, Dariusz2024-01-152024-01-151990Roczniki Filozoficzne, 1989-1990, T. 37-38, z. 2, s. 119-132.0035-7685http://theo-logos.pl/xmlui/handle/123456789/12403Tłumaczenie streszczenia Jan Kłos.The present paper is based on E. O. Wilson’s standpoints. It discusses the main assumptions of sociobiology as well as an interpretation of religion which interpretation is given within the framework of sociobiology. Sociobiology is meant to be a standpoint according to which all cultural phenomena are determined by genetic factors in the process of evolutionary natural selection. In like manner Wilson comprehends religion, following E. Durkheim, as a group of socially accepted ways of behaviour, referring to sacrum in which he sees the culmination of social ties. He distinguishes three levels of religion: ecclesial (where a concrete shape of religion is being formed), ecological (which stimulates a religious group to expand) and genic (which shows a feedback between mutually stimulating ways of religious behaviour and a particular group of genotype). Wilson emphasizes manifold social benefits which accompany religion, yet on the other hand, he does not regard man as “homo naturaliter religiosus”. What is more, he sees religion as having a factor (at the cost of immediate benefits) inhibiting social progress, and that mainly because of illusory (untrue) religious beliefs. Among critical remarks, the paper stresses that Wilson’s theory is flawed by scientistic reductionism and materialistic, ontological and epistemological monism. Inadequacy of those philosophical premises in relation to religion causes that Wilson is unable to arrive at other, more profound dimensions of religion.plAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Polandhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/pl/religiareligionfilozofiaphilosophyfilozofia religiiphilosophy of religionsocjologiabiologiasociologybiologysocjobiologiczna koncepcja religiisociobiological conception of religionArticle