Ponderings and questions ...

The Guardian recently published some excerpts from Robert Winston's forthcoming book, The Story of God.
I don't know about the book as a whole, but the excerpts seemed to me to raise more questions than were answered.
Take, for instance, the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity. The intrincically religious regard religion as an end in itself, the extrinically religious accept it as a social convention. Winston cites a study suggesting that the latter are more susceptible to mental and emotional disorders than the former. He then tackles the notion of religion as an advantageous adaptation in human evolution. Specifically, he cites David Sloan Wilson's thesis that "religiosity emerged as a 'useful' genetic trait because it had the effect of making social groups more unified. The communal nature of religion certainly would have given groups of hunter-gatherers a stronger sense of togetherness." But that sounds like extrinsic religiosity to me, which isn't the variety that offers the advantages. (If the communitarian aspect of religion is what makes it advantageous for survival, this is likely to be the result of a a genuine commitment to the faith. The communal attachment minus the commitment would probably not have such an effect. In other words, if relgion does have an adaptive advantage, it must derive from genuine belief, not superficial assent.)
Winston also cites the study of identical twins that suggested there may be something genetic about religious sensibility. But while genetics may serve to explain why identical twins, separated at birth and raised by parents with vastly different outlooks, end up having the same outlook themselves, what explains identical twins who don't end up having similar outlooks?
I certainly think there is a difference between those who regard religion as a social convention, and accordingly go to church, and those who experience God as a living presence in their lives. I also think that what has really bothered many Catholics about the sex abuse scandals in the Church is the suspicion that members of the hierarchy may be more loyal to the Church than to God -- or, what may be worse, draw no distinction between the two.
Finally, there is what Winston quotes from Richard Dawkins:

"Religious behaviour in bipedal apes occupies large quantities of time. It devours huge resources. A medieval cathedral consumed hundreds of man-centuries in its building. Sacred music and devotional paintings largely monopolised medieval and Renaissance talent. Thousands, perhaps millions, of people have died, often accepting torture first, for loyalty to one religion against a scarcely distinguishable alternative. Devout people have died for their gods, killed for them, fasted for them, endured whipping, undertaken a lifetime of celibacy, and sworn themselves to asocial silence for the sake of religion."

I wonder how the Apostle of Darwinism explains this singularly maladaptive behavior and how it has managed to survive and indeed flourish.