on the evolutionary origins of religious belief · the ubiquity of religious belief and experience...

University of Arkansas, FayettevilleScholarWorks@UARK

Theses and Dissertations

12-2015

On the Evolutionary Origins of Religious BeliefRobert Duane HowardUniversity of Arkansas, Fayetteville

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd

Part of the Cognitive Psychology Commons, Comparative Methodologies and TheoriesCommons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by anauthorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected].

Recommended CitationHoward, Robert Duane, "On the Evolutionary Origins of Religious Belief " (2015). Theses and Dissertations. 1362.http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/1362

http://scholarworks.uark.edu?utm_source=scholarworks.uark.edu%2Fetd%2F1362&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd?utm_source=scholarworks.uark.edu%2Fetd%2F1362&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd?utm_source=scholarworks.uark.edu%2Fetd%2F1362&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/408?utm_source=scholarworks.uark.edu%2Fetd%2F1362&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages




http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/1362?utm_source=scholarworks.uark.edu%2Fetd%2F1362&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected]

OntheEvolutionaryOriginsofReligiousBelief

Athesissubmittedinpartialfulfillmentoftherequirementsforthedegreeof

MasterofArtsinPhilosophyby

RobertHowardUniversityofArkansas

BachelorofArtsinPoliticalScience,2013

December2015UniversityofArkansas

ThisthesisisapprovedforrecommendationtotheGraduateCouncil._____________________________________________ProfessorEricFunkhouserThesisDirector_____________________________________________ _______________________________________________ProfessorEdMinar ProfessorThomasSenorCommitteeMember CommitteeMember

Abstract Religiousbeliefisabyproductofevolutionarilydesignedcognitivemechanisms.

Theubiquityofreligiousbeliefandexperienceacrosshumanculturesisexplainedbyour

commonhumanpsychology;ourdomain-specificcognitivemechanismsgiverise,

collectively,tothephenomenonofbyproductreligiousbelief/experience.Inthisthesis,I

willexaminewhatIcallreligion-generatingcognitivemechanisms,andIwillarguethat

byproductrawgod-beliefsaredevelopedbyculturesintorefinedgod-beliefs.Theserefined

god-beliefsareco-optedbyevolutionaryprocessesandareculturaladaptations.My

conceptionof“religiousbelief”intermsofrawandrefinedgod-beliefsallowsa

disambiguationoftheterm“religion,”anditcontributestotheongoingdebatebetween

byproducttheoristsandadaptationistsbyclarifyingthatrawgod-beliefsarebiological

byproductswhilerefinedgod-beliefsareculturaladaptations.

Acknowledgments

IextendmythankstotheUniversityofArkansasPhilosophyDepartment,without

whichmyMaster’sdegreeandthesiswouldhavebeenimpossible.Thisdepartmenthas

mademygraduateexperiencewonderful.

Further,I’dliketoextendspecialthankstoDr.EricFunkhouser,whoseexpertise

andexcellenceinadvisinghelpedthisthesistobecomethebestversionofitself.I’dliketo

thankDr.EdMinarandDr.TomSenorfortheirserviceonmythesiscommittee.

Dedication

OntheEvolutionaryOriginsofReligiousBeliefisdedicatedtomymomanddad,John

andBeckyHoward.

TableofContents1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………..1

2. TheMechanisms…………………………………………………………………………………….6

A. FolkPsychology&TheoryofMind…………………………………………………………..12

B. PromiscuousTeleology…………………………………………………………………...……..17

C. Anthropomorphism………………………………………………………………………………..19

D. AgencyDetection……………………………………………………………………………………23

E. Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………………………29

3. CulturalEvolutionandGod-Beliefs…………………………………………………………30

A. VirusesoftheMind&MemeTheory………………………………………………………35

B. Group-LevelSelection……………………………………………………………………………41

C. AdaptiveCost/BenefitAnalysis………………………………………………………………48

C-1. CostorInvestment?................................................................................................................49

C-2. Health&WellBeing………………………………………………………………………………..53

C-3. GroupCohesion&Pro-SocialBehavior…………………………………………………….58

C-4. ReligionasCostly……………………………………………………………………………………62

4. Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………………….66

Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………………...75

1

1.Introduction

Religiousbeliefhasbeenasubiquitousaphenomenonasanyotherinhuman

history.Nearlyeveryhumanculturehashadatitscoreasetofbeliefsandassumptions

thatcouldbedeemedreligious.Humansocietiesbuildworldviewsandinterpretive

frameworks,andthroughouthistorywehaveappealednearlyuniversallyinour

storytellingtostuffthatisnotnatural.By“stuffthatisnotnatural,”Imeananythingthat

doesnotfitintoaphilosophicallynaturalisticphysicormetaphysic.Forinstance,trees

havespirits,thecosmoshasacreator,myancestorsaretryingtocommunicatewithme,

inanimatestuffisanthropomorphized,theEarthisrestingonagiant,deifiedturtle,andso

on.Nearlyeveryexpressionofhumanityhasfeaturedasapartofitsworldviewsomenon-

naturalisticreligiousstorythatdoessignificantexplanatorywork(Boyer,2001).

Wehaveknownofthepervasivenessofreligiousbeliefandpracticeinhuman

cultureforalongtime,andforalongtimereligiousbeliefwasimmuneto“explainingaway”

andacademicinquiry(Bloom,2007).However,relativelyrecentadvancesinthefieldsof

empiricalpsychology,cognitivescience,andevolutionarypsychologyhavegivenriseto

excitingresearchprogramswhosegoalitistoexplainwhyreligiousbeliefissouniversal.

Itisimportanttoclarify:whenIsay“religiousbelief,”IdonotreferexclusivelytoWestern

conceptionsofthedivineortotheexpansivesystematictheologiesofthevarious

establishedandorganizedreligions.Thosethingsarecertainlyincludedunderthe

umbrellaofthisinquiry,butIalsoincludebeliefsaboutancestralspirits,the

anthropomorphizingoftheelementsintheenvironmentaroundus,afterlifebeliefs,beliefs

associatedwithreligiousrituals,conceptslikeKarma,etc.Forourpurposes,let’scallany

2

suchreligiousbeliefagod-belief.Itistheoriginsofsuchgod-beliefs,ingeneral,thatIwill

investigateinthisinquiry.

Theseresearchprogramstaketwomainapproachesintheirendeavorstoexplain

theoriginsofsuchgod-beliefs.Thefirstapproachtoexplainingthenaturaloriginsofthese

beliefsisthe“Adaptationist”approach,whichpostulatesthatgod-beliefsareadvantageous

biological(orcultural)adaptationsthatconfersomedegreeofreproductivefitnessto

believingindividuals(orsocieties).Underthisview,theubiquityofgod-beliefsisexplained

bythesurvivalbenefitthesebeliefsconfertotheirrespectivesubjects.Thatis,the

evolutionary“winners”ofhistorywereofthereligioussort.Thesecondapproachto

explainingthenaturaloriginsofgod-beliefsisthe“Byproduct”approach,whichdraws

heavilyfromcognitivescienceandfromthecognitivescienceofreligion(CSR).The

Byproductviewisaptlytermeda“byproduct”viewofreligiousbelief,becauseitpositsthat

god-beliefsarethenatural,structuralbyproductsofbrainsliketheoneswehappentohave.

Underthisview,theubiquityofgod-beliefsisexplainedbythefunctioningofourcognitive

structuresindomainsforwhichtheywerenotevolutionarilyselected;structural

byproductsareselected,butnotselectedfor.Literally,byproductgod-beliefsarebyproduct

beliefs,ratherthanbyproductbiologicalstructures.Wewillexplorethedetailsofthese

accountslateron.

Mostcontemporaryresearchpitstheseapproachesagainstoneanotheras

alternativehypotheses,butIthinkthereisroomforeachcamptocomplementtheother.

Indeed,Iwillarguethatthetruthoftheevolutionaryoriginsofourgod-beliefsliesina

fusionoftheByproductandAdaptationistapproaches.Thedebatebetweenbyproduct

theoristsandadaptationistsconcerningtheoriginsofreligiousbeliefcanberesolvedbya

3

disambiguationoftheterm“religion.”“Religion”isacomplicatedamalgamofrawgod-

beliefsandrefinedgod-beliefs(muchmoreonthislater).ItisclearthatbothByproduct

theoristsandAdaptationistsmakecrucialcontributionsinunderstandingtheevolutionary

originsofgod-beliefs,morebroadlyconstrued,somyaccounttakesa“both-and”approach.

Iwillfavortheworkofcognitivescientistsofreligion,whichaccountsforboththe

genesisofthesegod-beliefsandsomeoftheircontentinawaythattheAdaptationist

accountscannot(ordonot,presently).Iwilladvocatefora“byproduct”orbiological

spandrel1viewoftheoriginsofsuchbeliefs,butIwillalsocontendthatthesebeliefs,at

somepointinevolutionaryhistory,cametolendsurvivalfitnesstotheirbelievers.So,the

workbeingdonebyevolutionarypsychologistsinthisarea,farfrombeingwrongor

misguided,isextremelyvaluable;ithelpsustoexplainthingsliketheevolutionand

transmissionofgod-beliefsacrossculturesandacrosstime,theadaptivevalueofsuch

beliefs,andhowcertainspandrelorbyproductbeliefsmighthavebeenco-optedbynatural

selectionandmadesalientfactorsinculturalandbiologicalevolution.Withaviewlike

mine,god-beliefsarethebyproductsofourcognitivemachinery,buttheyaredynamicand

adaptivelyusefulbyproducts.

Myprimarycontentionisthefollowing:thecognitivestructuresstudiedinthefield

ofCSRprovideuswithbyproductrawgod-beliefs,anditisbythehoningforcesofcultural

evolution,culturallearningandtransmission,andhumanexperience(and,perhaps,

1Theterm“spandrel”isanarchitecturaltermco-optedbyGouldandLewontin(1979)intheirlikeningofcertainbiologicaltraitstostructuralbyproducts.Aspandrelisastructuralbyproductofanarchitecturalarch—thespandrelofanarchservesnorealarchitecturalpurpose.Wecanconceiveofbiological“spandrels,”then,asbeingtheselected(butnotselected-for)byproductsofselected-forbiologicalstructures.Strictlyspeaking,god-beliefsarenotbyproductbiologicalstructures.Theyarebyproductbeliefs.Shortly,wewillspecifytheconditionsforabelief’sbeingabyproduct.

4

revelation)thatourevolutionarilyancientrawgod-beliefsweredevelopedintoourmore

evolutionarilyrecent(and“cultural”)refinedgod-beliefs.2Theserawgod-beliefsaremost

properlyunderstoodasthecognitivefoundationsofthevariousrefinedgod-beliefs;raw

god-beliefsarethebyproductsofourcognitivemechanisms,whilerefinedgod-beliefsare

theresultofculturalevolutionaryprocesses(atboththeorganismic-groupandcultural

levels).Mybyproductclaimisstrong:ourcognitiveprocessesprovideuswith“religious”

notionsoftheworld,asabyproductofthenaturalfunctioningofourbrains.Byvirtueof

thesortsofcognitivemechanismswepossess,wenaturallyconceiveoftheworld

“religiously,”anditactuallytakesintellectualwork,socialization,oreducationtoconceive

oftheworldcontrarytothesebyproductreligiousbiasesandtendencies.Itisourcommon

humanpsychologythatexplainstheubiquityofreligiousbeliefsacrossthehuman

experience.Theobserveddifferencesinrefinedreligiousbeliefsacrosscultures,then,

ultimatelyamounttoaccidentsofenvironment,culturalhistory,religiousstorytelling,and

evolutionaryhistory.

Ausefulwayofunderstandingtheraw/refinedgod-beliefdistinctionisintermsof

DanielKahneman’s(2011)System1/System2conceptualizationofhumanpsychology.In

fact,thedistinctionImakebetweenthetwotypesofgod-beliefsisverymuchinthespiritof

Kahneman’swork.AccordingtoKahneman,thehumanmindoperatesontwodifferent

levels.System1isthoughttobecomposedofthosecognitiveprocessesandmental

activitiesthatareunconscious,automatic,fast,serial,efficient,associationist,

evolutionarilyancient,etc.System2,however,isthoughttobecomposedofthose2Therewillbemuchmoreonthislater,butrawgod-beliefsincludethingslikethefolkpsychologicalbeliefsandintuitiveteleologicalnotionsdeliveredtousbyourcognitivemechanisms,whilerefinedgod-beliefsincludemoredeveloped,theologicallyinvolvedbeliefsystems(liketheism,orBuddhism).

5

cognitiveprocessesandmentalactivitiesthatareconscious,deliberate,slow,rule-

following,resource-demanding,rational,relativelyevolutionarilynew,etc.Eachofthese

systemsdescribesaverydifferentkindofmind,andtheactivitiesofthetwotypesof

processesworkingintandemareconstitutiveoftherangeofourhumanpsychology.To

whateverextentarawgod-beliefisformedbyunconsciousSystem1processes,weshould

callit“automatic”or“unconsciouslydelivered.”Towhateverextentarefinedgod-beliefis

formedbyconsciousSystem2processes,weshouldcallit“deliberate.”Itismyhopethat

thisinvocationoftheSystem1/System2conceptualizationofthemindwillproveusefulas

weproceed.Indeed,conceivingofrawgod-beliefsasthenaturalbyproductsofSystem1

processes(i.e.,rawgod-beliefsas“automatic”)goesalongwaytowardexplainingthe

pervasivenessofgod-beliefsacrosshumanexperience.

Twofurtherpointsshouldbequicklymadebeforewecontinuethispaper.First,the

theorizinginthefieldsofCSRandevolutionarypsychologyhastendedtooutpacethe

experimentalcapabilitiesofbothempiricalpsychologistsandcognitivescientists.Iwilltry

toavoidconjectureandtosticktoinformationonwhichthefieldhasreachedsomethingof

aconsensus.AsImentionedearlier,CSRisanemergingfield,andmanyofitsideassimply

cannotbetestedyet.Moreover,itisdifficulttoknowwhichofthetheoriesinCSRandin

evolutionarypsychologyareeveninprincipletestable,andwhichoneswillonlyeverbe

conjecturalexplanatorystories.Inconsideringevolutionaryaccounts,Ioftenfindmyself

musing,“Ithinkthisparticularadaptationiststoryisneat,buttowhatextentisitentirely

madeup?”Iwillbracketthe“just-sostory”objectionssothattheconversationcantake

place,butadaptationiststoriesshouldbereceivedwithagrainofsalt.

6

Thesecondpointthatneedstobemadeisthatindiscussingthesedomain-specific

RGCMs,themechanismsareoftenreferredtoaspromiscuousorasmalfunctioning.Itis

importanttonotethatthereisaheavycommitmentinthefieldsofevolutionary

psychologyandCSRtothefalsityofgod-beliefs,tothenotionthatsuchbeliefsaremistaken

fictions.However,asshouldbeclear,howgod-beliefsareformeddoesnotnecessarily

speaktothetruthorfalsityofsuchbeliefs.Theprocessbywhichreligiousbeliefsare

formed,however,doesspeaktotheirjustification.Thislineofresearchraiseschallenging

andinterestingproblemsfortheism,problemsthatthetheistneedstoaddress.3Forthe

reader’ssake,Iwantedtospotlightthebiasesatworkinthesefieldsandtheimplicationsof

thelanguagethatisfrequentlyused.

2.TheMechanisms

Thecognitivescienceofreligionappealstoanarrayofcognitivefacultiesthat,asa

whole,isresponsibleforourexperienceoftheworldaroundus.Thesecognitivefaculties

arehighlyspecializedsystemsthatperformdomain-specifictasks.Ifthebrainwerean

automanufacturingplant,thenourcognitivemechanismswouldbetheparticularsteps

alongthewaytobuildingacar.Somedobodywork,someworkinelectrical,somerunthe

transmission,etc.Themechanismsareexpertsatwhattheydo,andthepresenceofeach

oneisbestexplainedbytheadaptiveadvantagethatitsproperfunctioningconferredto3Thetheistmightbeginbyaskingsuchquestionsas:IsitpossiblethatsomeoftheRGCMs,intheirgenerationofgod-beliefs,arenotoperatingoutsideofthedomainforwhichtheywereoriginallydesigned?IsitpossiblethattheseRGCMsweredesignedbyGod,orthattheevolutionaryprocessesresponsiblefortheseRGCMsaredirectedbyGod?MightGodhavebeeninvolveddirectlyintheformationofourcognitivestructuresthroughoutourevolutionaryhistory(oratcertaincrucialmomentsinourevolutionaryhistory)?DoesanevolutionarystoryliketheoneIwillproceedtotellinthisthesisactuallyunderminethejustificationofthetheist’sbeliefs?

7

ourancestors.So,theevolutionarypsychologist’sviewofthebrainisthatitisamassof

highlyspecializedtask-performersthatwasbuiltbytheselectivepressuresofevolutionary

history(Pinker,1997;Lyons,2001).

Assuch,CSRseekstoexplainthephenomenonofgod-beliefsinthehuman

experiencebyappealingtothesecognitivemechanisms.I,alongwithotherbyproduct

theoristslikePascalBoyer(2001)andScottAtran(2002),rejectanystoryaboutthe

originsofgod-beliefsthatappealstoasinglecognitivemechanism,religionmodule,or

religiongeneinordertoexplainthegenesisandpervasivenessofgod-beliefs;suchastory

wouldbefartoosimple,anditwouldbeinadequatetothetaskofexplainingthevastrange

ofvaryinggod-beliefsinthehumanexperience.4Mytheoryisthatthereisasuiteof

cognitivemechanismsthatisresponsibleforthegenerationofourbyproductrawgod-

beliefs.Anystorythatseekstoexplaintheoriginsofreligiousbeliefbyappealingtoasingle,

unifiedcognitivesystemisprobablydescribing,withverybroadbrushstrokes,thesuiteof

mechanismsIwillexamineinthefirstpartofthispaper.Let’scallthissuiteofmechanisms

ourReligion-GeneratingCognitiveMechanisms(RGCMs).

AccordingtotheByproductview,theseRGCMsperformdomain-specific,

evolutionarilyselected-forcognitivefunctions(Cosmides&Tooby,2001),andthe

4ThestatusofsomethinglikeAlvinPlantinga’s(2000)“divinesense”isworthconsidering,here.Thetheistmightjustcallmyreligion-generatingcognitivesuitea“divinesense”—however,thissuiteofcognitivemechanismsisresponsibleformorereligiousbeliefsthanjustWesterntheism.ItisproblematicforPlantingathatthe“divinesense,”ifitreallyisjustthereligion-generatingcognitivesuite,leadssometoformreligiousbeliefsthatarecontrarytotraditionaltheisticbeliefsaboutGod.Ofcourse,thetheistmightjustsaythatthe“divinesense”issomethingdifferentthanthesetofcognitivemechanismsIwillexamine.ButevenifPlantinga’s“divinesense”istakenbythetheisttobeasufficientexplanationforWesterntheologicalbeliefs,thereremainsawholehostofothernon-Western,non-theologicalgod-beliefsthatstandinneedofexplanation.And,presumably,thatiswhereaccountslikeminewouldcomein.

8

byproductsoftheproperfunctioningoftheseRGCMsarerawgod-beliefs;again,such

byproductbeliefsareselected,butnotselectedfor.Wewilloperatewithaveryspecific

definitionoftheterm“byproduct”;forourpurposes,abyproductbeliefisanybeliefthat

emergesasabyproduct(orspandrel)ofproperlyfunctioningcognitivemechanisms

performingtheirfunctioninanimproperdomain5.Wewillsaythatacognitivemechanism

isproperlyfunctioningwhen,andonlywhen,themechanismisappliedinthedomain(s)

forwhichitwasdesignedbyevolutionaryprocesses(i.e.,isfunctioningintheparticular

waythat,inourevolutionarypast,yieldedsurvivalbenefittoourancestors).Again,a

byproductbeliefisjustabeliefthatariseswhenacognitivemechanismisappliedinan

unintendeddomain.Wewillconsiderparadigmexamplesofbyproductbeliefslater

(“intuitivetheism,”“hypersensitiveagency-detection,”etc.).AnRGCMisresponsiblefor

producingbyproductbeliefstowhateverextentitoperatesoutsideofthedomainforwhich

theRGCMwasoriginallydesignedbyevolutionarypressures.

If,however,theoriginofagivengod-beliefcanbeexplainedexclusivelybyreference

toevolutionarypressuresoccurringatthebiologicallevel,theproblemsfacedinour

evolutionarypast,andtheadaptiveadvantagesthebeliefconferstoitsbeliever,thenthe

god-beliefoughtnottobeconsideredabyproduct,butratheranadaptation.Rawgod-

beliefsarethebyproductbeliefsofcognitivemechanisms,anditisonlyafterthese

byproductbeliefsundergosignificantdevelopmentintorefinedgod-beliefsthattheycome

tolendadaptiveadvantagetotheirrespectivebelievers(seeSection3).Typically,

byproductsarenotthoughtofintermsofadaptivevalue—thatis,theyareregardedas

purelystructuralbyproducts,orastheadaptivelyneutralconsequencesofselected-for5By“improperdomain,”Imeanthosedomainsforwhichthecognitivemechanismswerenotselectedbyevolutionarypressures.

9

biologicalstructures.Myaccountoftheoriginsofgod-beliefsdivergesfromstandard

Byproductaccountsofreligiousbeliefinmyclaimthatgod-beliefs,whileinitially

byproducts,aredevelopedbyevolutionaryprocesses(attheculturalandgrouplevels)into

systematicworldviews;itisafterthisdevelopmentthatgod-beliefsconfersignificant

adaptiveadvantagetotheirbelievers.Imaintainthatmyaccountisabyproductaccountof

theoriginsofreligiousbeliefs,becausegod-beliefsattheirbiologicaloriginsarebyproducts,

becausebyproductrawgod-beliefspersistintothepresent,andbecausewecandistinguish

byproductrawgod-beliefsfromtheirgroupadaptationcounterparts,refinedgod-beliefs.

Myviewiscontrarytotheviewsofhard-lineevolutionarypsychologistsand

biologists,whoseektoexplainthephenomenonofreligiousbeliefstrictlybyappealto

evolutionarypressuresatthebiologicallevel.Theirpuritanicaladaptationistapproach

wandersintomurkywaters.Itisunclearwhattheirclaim—thatreligiousbeliefsare

selectedfor—entails,asitisunclearhowabeliefcouldbeselectedforatabiologicallevel.

Thequestionmustbeasked:inevolutionbynaturalselection,what,exactly,arethebasic

unitsofselection?Genesthataffectthesurvivabilityandtheabilityofanorganismto

reproducearethefodderofevolutionaryprocesses.Genesareselected,whichmeansthat

neuralprocesses,psychologicalstructures,andperhapsevenbelief-formingtendencies

maybeselectedfor;however,theclaimthatthereligiousbeliefsthemselvesareselectedfor

(i.e.,religiousbeliefsasbiologicaladaptations)isdubious.Itseemstheonlywaytoget

suchaclaimoffofthegroundwouldbetopositthatthecontentsofourreligiousbeliefs

themselves(aswellasotherofourbeliefs)arepackagedneatlyintoourgenesor

psychology.Butweshouldstayawayfromsuchfull-boreinnatenessclaims.

10

Anotherdifficultyfacedbyadaptationistsinexplainingtheoriginsofreligiousbelief

isthesheercomplexityofreligioussystems.Religiousbeliefandreligioussystemsarethe

confluenceofmultipleelements(supernaturalagentbeliefs,music,ritualpractice,

formalism,emotionallychargedsymbolsandexperiences,morality,societalstructureand

organization,etc.),andeachoftheseelementshasitsownuniqueevolutionaryhistory

independentofthephenomenonofhumanreligion,morebroadlyconstrued(Sosis,2009).

Inlightofthevastlydifferentevolutionaryoriginsofitsconstituentparts,“religion”does

notseemtobethesortofthingthatcouldbeselectedfor,astheadaptationistcontendsitis.

Certainly,atsomepointinhistorythesedifferentelementsofreligionbegantogiveriseto

religiousbeliefsandsystems,butthisfactultimatelylendsitselftothebyproduct

perspectiveforwhichIargue.If“religion”justisalloftheseotherselected-forfaculties

operatingintandeminsomeevolutionarilyunintendedreligiousdomain,thenweshould

saythatreligiousbeliefisabyproduct.

Duetothesedifficultiesthatfacetheadaptationistapproach,Iproposemy

byproductstorytoaccountfortheoriginsofgod-beliefs—theyarethenaturaloutputsof

thefunctioningofourcognitivemechanismsinevolutionarilyunintendeddomains.These

variouscognitivemechanismsarethemselvestheproductsofevolutionbynatural

selection—theywereselectedforbyvirtueofthefactthattheirfunctioningintheproper

domainconferredgreatadaptiveadvantagetoourancestors.(Successfulfolkpsychology

andtheoryofmind,agencyattribution,teleologicalnotions,etc.,areclearlytoourbenefit,

andcanbeeasilyconceivedofasadaptations.Moreonthisshortly.)Ourrawgod-beliefs

arethenaturalbyproductsofthesecognitivesystems.InSectionThreeofthispaper,I

discussingreaterdetailhowmybyproductaccountdivergesfrommoretraditional

11

byproductstories6—religionasweknowittodaycanhardlybeconsideredtobethemere

byproductofourcognitivemechanisms.

Iconcedetotheadaptationistssomeofthegroundtheyoriginallyclaimed:itis

clearthatreligiousbelief(initsrefinedforms)confersadaptiveadvantagetothe

individualsandsocietiesthatadheretosaidreligiousbelief.Butbecausenotalladaptively

advantageoustraitsarenecessarilyadaptations(Sosis,2009),thefactalonethatrefined

god-beliefsconferadaptiveadvantagetoindividualsandsocietiesisinsufficienttowarrant

theirclassificationasadaptations.Atsomepointinourevolutionaryhistory,our

byproductgod-beliefsweredevelopedintoreligiousstoriesandexplanations,andthese

culturalideas/beliefsbecameunitsofselection(attheculturalandgrouplevels)byvirtue

oftheirinfluenceonthewaywe(asindividualsandsocieties)liveourlives.Throughthe

processesofmulti-levelselection,religiousbeliefbecameawinningevolutionarystrategy

andselectablegrouptrait.Iappealtothemechanicsofmemetransmission,multilevel

selectiontheory,andculturalevolutiontoexplainthetransitionfromrawgod-beliefsto

refinedgod-beliefs.Myaccountoftheoriginsofgod-belief,then,isafusionofthe

AdaptationistandByproductapproaches.

6Byproducttheorists(Gould&Lewontin,1979)typicallyholdthatbyproductsaretheinevitablestructuralbyproductsofothertraits,andthattheytendtobeadaptivelyneutral.Iagreethatbyproductgod-beliefsaretheinevitablybyproductsofourcognitivemechanisms,butIaddtotheirstorythatourbyproductgod-beliefsare,atsomepoint,developedintorefinedgod-beliefs.Further,byproductsaretypicallyviewedasstaticstructuralinevitabilities,butIconceiveofrawgod-beliefsasbeingdynamicbyproductsthatareaccessibletotherestofourpsychology(becausetheyarebeliefs).Inthisway,byproductbeliefsaffect—andareaffectedby—ourdeliberatebelief-formationprocessesandtheoutputsoftheseprocesses.Unlikethespandrelsofevolutionarybiology,byproductgod-beliefsarenot“structures.”Thespandrelsofevolutionarypsychologyareprocessesandbeliefs.

12

IndividualRGCMsonlytellapartofthestory.TheentiresuiteofRGCMsprovidesus

withacumulativefoundationfortheformationofgod-beliefs.Itisthesuiteofthese

mechanismsworkingintandemwithourbelief-formationprocessesthatexplainsour

consciousassenttogod-beliefs.So,IwillnotconsiderindividualRGCMsandtheir

respectivecognitivebiasesinisolation;rather,Iwillapproachtheissuewithanenlarged

scopethatconsidersthebroadercognitivesuitetobetheoriginforagivengod-belief.Now,

letusmoveontotheRGCMsthemselves,innoparticularorderofimportance.Notethat

therewillbesignificantconceptualoverlapbetweenthesedifferentmechanisms.Bythat,I

meanthatitisdifficulttotellwhereonemechanism’sdomainstartsandtheotherstops,as

thesemechanisms’purviewsaresoconceptuallyrelated.

A.FolkPsychology&TheoryofMind

ThefirstRGCMwewillexamineisthecognitivesystemresponsibleforwhatsome

havetermedourintuitive“folkpsychology.”Thissystem’soutputsrendertousour

“theoryofmind”—ourbeliefsabouttheminds,beliefs,intentions,andgoalsofthebeings

aroundus.Both(1)theevolutionarilyintendeddomainofourintuitivefolkpsychology

and(2)thismechanism’spurportedtendencytoformfolkpsychologicalbeliefsregarding

thingsoutsideofitsintendeddomainarerelevanttoourunderstandingtherelationship

betweenthisRGCMandtheoriginofcertaingod-beliefs.

Ofcourse,a“theoryofmind”issupposedtoformbeliefsregardingactualminds.

However,ourfolkpsychologicalsystemsseemtooftenjumptheboundariesofthedomain

forwhichtheywereselected(people,animals,beingsinthenaturalworld,etc.)andapply

ourtheoryofmindtothingsnotinthatdomain(thingsthatdonotactuallypossessminds,

13

beingsthatdonotactuallyexist,mereconcepts,etc.).Folkpsychologicalmechanismsare

responsibleforbyproductrawgod-beliefswhentheoryofmindisappliedtothingsthatare

notintheintendeddomainoffolkpsychology;forinstance,wesometimesattribute

personalitiestothingsliketrees,stars,mountains,andsoon.Ourfolkpsychological

mechanismwasselected-forbynaturalprocessesbecauseofthesurvivalbenefitsit

conferredtoourancestorsbyitsproperfunctioning;itisapparentthatitistoorganisms’

adaptiveadvantagetobeabletotrackthementalstatesandintentionsofthebeings

inhabitingtheworldaroundthem.

Theclaimthatsuchgod-beliefs(beliefsaboutthementalstatesoftrees,stars,non-

existentbeings,andsoon)arebyproductsofourfolkpsychologicalmechanismsdepends

ontheassumptionthatourfolkpsychologicalmechanismsdonotconferadaptive

advantagetobelieversintheattributionofmentalstatestothingsweconsidertobenon-

membersofthemechanism’sintendeddomain.Ifthefolkpsychologicalmechanismsdo

(anddid,inourevolutionarypast)conferadaptiveadvantagetothebelieverintheir

attributionofmentalstatestothingsofthatsort,thengod-beliefsoughtnottobe

consideredbyproducts.Theclaimthattheautomaticattributionofmentalstatesto

inanimatethingsintheworldaroundusmightbeadaptivelyadvantageousissuspect.On

theotherhand,itisclearhowtheabilityto“mindread”thebeingsaround(beingsthat

actuallyhavebeliefs,goals,andintentions)wouldbetoourevolutionaryadvantage.

Theoryofmindisalsoactiveinourexplanationsoftheeventsweexperienceinthe

worldaroundus,anditplaysacentralroleintheinterpretationandpredictionofthe

behaviorofotherminds.PsychologistJesseBering(2006)saysthefollowingaboutour

folkpsychologicalsystemsandtheirroleinexplainingeventsandpredictingbehaviors:

14

Consider,forinstance,thatonedayallhumanbeingsbecamehard-coresolipsists…Imagine,say,thateveryonewasstruckdownwithautismorotherwiselostthecapacitytothinkaboutotherminds,whatwouldhappenthen?I’dventurethatchurchattendancewouldreachanall-timelownextSunday.HerethenisonekeyingredientforbeliefinGodorspirits:aninnatedispositiontoseeothersnotjustasambulantobjectsorbrain-deadsacksofmeat,butasthinking,feelingbeingsthat,justlikeoneself,arecausalagentswhodothingsintentionally…Inthecaseofpeopleordeities,weappealtoothermindstoexplainandpredictbehaviors,tounderstandwhyothersdowhattheydo.7

Beringpositstheoryofmindasakeyingredientforformingbeliefsaboutgodsorspirits

(god-beliefs),andhetiesitdirectlytotheformationoforganizedreligion.Itshouldnotbe

surprisingthataninabilitytoreasonaboutotherminds,ingeneral,wouldleadtoan

inabilitytoreasonaboutnon-naturalminds.Theclaimisthatweusethesamefolk

psychologicalmechanismsinreasoningaboutthemindsofGodandnon-physicalbeings,in

general,aswedoinourreasoningaboutthemindsofphysicalandnaturalpersons.In

reasoningaboutnon-actual,non-physicalminds,ourintuitivefolkpsychologieshave

activated—asabyproductofproperlyfunctioningtheoryofmind—thesetofinferences

andexpectationstypicallyreservedforactual,physicalmindsandhaveappliedthissetof

inferencesandexpectationstonon-actual,non-physicalminds.Theguardrailsofthe

intendeddomainhavebeenjumped.

Justasourintuitivefolkpsychologyhelpsustoexplaintheeventsthatweassociate

withactualbeingsbyappealingtotheirgoals,intentions,desires,etc.,amalfunctioningfolk

psychologymayhelpustoexplaineventsintheworldbyappealingtothegoals,intentions,

desires,etc.,ofeither(1)somethingthatdoesnotactuallyexistor(2)somethingthatdoes

exist,butthatisonlyimproperlythoughttopossessthegoals,beliefs,anddesires

associatedwithmindedness.Ultimately,suchamisapplicationofamechanism’sproper7Bering,2006,pg.147.

15

functiontosomeimproperdomaincouldhelpexplainthepervasivenessofgod-beliefs

pertainingtothegoals,intentions,anddesiresofthegods,spirits,God,ourancestors,etc.,

thatarecommonlybelievedin.Inthisway,folkpsychologicalsystemsactasanRGCM.

Bering(2006)citeshis“PrincessAlice”experiments,inwhichhetestedforthepoint

inhumandevelopmentatwhichachildcouldrecognizeintentioninexternaleventsaswell

asagency,ratherthanmerelyagency.ThesePrincessAliceexperimentsaresupposedto

showtheabilityinchildrentoruninferencesfromthepresenceofanunseenprincessand

theoccurrenceofotherwiseunexplainedeventstotheconclusionthattheseunexplained

eventsareperformedforareasonbytheunseenprincess.8Thechildrenaretoldthatthe

princessiscommunicatingwiththem,butitisnotuntilacertaincapacityisdeveloped—

second-orderreasoning(“EventXmeansPrincessAlicewantsmetodoYforsomereason

Z”)—thatthechildrencaninterprettheunexplainedeventsintermsofthespecificgoals

andintentionsthattheysubsequentlyattributetoPrincessAlice.So,itisnotuntilwereach

acertainpointofcognitivesophistication—accordingtoBering,aroundsevenyearsold—

thatweareabletoapplytheoryofmindtonon-physicalagentsinordertoevaluatethe

intentionofnon-physicalagentsinthevariousphenomenawehaveexperienced.Oncethis

pointofcognitivesophisticationisreached,itseemsgod-beliefsasexplanatoryhypotheses

foreventsareanaturaloutputofourcognitivemachinery—wenaturallyexplaineventsin8OnethingtonoteregardingBering’sPrincessAliceexperimentsisthatBeringexplicitlytoldthekidsinhisexperimentsthataspirit—PrincessAlice—wasgoingtobepresentintheroom,andthatshewouldhelpthemperformcertaintasks.So,itisnotasifthekidswereautomaticallypositingdisembodiedagentsastheexplanationsofvariousphenomena—thechildrenwereovertlyprimedtoreferencePrincessAliceinexplainingvariouseventsfromthestart.Intheroom,lightswouldturnonoroff,pictureframeswouldfallormove,etc.,cuedbytheexperimenters.ThechildrenweretaskedwithdiscerningwhatPrincessAlicemeantbytheseevents,inrelationtodifferentproblemsthechildrenweregiventosolve.ThechildrentookthevariouseventstobeassistanceandinputfromPrincessAlice.

16

termsofthegoals,desires,andintentionsof“gods.”God-beliefsasreasonedexplanations

forvariousphenomenaseemtobematurationallynatural,atleastincaseslikethePrincess

Aliceexperiments,inwhichtheexistenceofanunseenbeingisassumedfromthestart.

Clearly,arobustfolkpsychologyandtheoryofmind—bywhichwecanmake

judgmentsabouttheminds,intentions,andfeelingsofothers—isanecessaryconditionfor

theoriginofcertainkindsofgod-beliefs(god-beliefsregardingdisembodiedagentsand

theirintentionsforcertainevents).Thatwecanformbeliefsaboutthemindsofnon-

physicalentities(realorfictitious)isabyproductofthefolkpsychologicalRGCM,because

theobjectsoffolkpsychologicalgod-beliefsarenotmembersoftheevolutionarilyintended

domainofthefolkpsychologicalRGCM.ThefolkpsychologicalRGCMaccountsforaspecific

rangeofgod-beliefs—thatrangeofgod-beliefsthatincludesbeliefsaboutthementalstates

ofinanimateobjectsinourenvironment,explanatoryhypothesesregardingspecificevents

andtheintentionsoftheagent(s)believedtoberesponsibleforthoseevents,etc.

Thecognitivemechanismsrequiredforinteractingwithpersonsinthenatural

worldandattributingtothemtheresponsibilityfortheeventsweexperiencearethevery

samecognitivemechanismsresponsiblefortheformationofcertaingod-beliefs.Theseraw

god-beliefs,however,findtheirorigininthemisapplicationoffolkpsychological

mechanismstoanimproperdomain.Inshort,Ihavedescribedthisparticularcognitive

systemasitworksinitsproperdomain(i.e.,thedomainofthingsinthenaturalworldthat

haveminds),andIhaveproposedthatourfolkpsychologysometimesdoesoperateoutside

ofitsproperdomain(i.e.,outsideofthedomainofthingsinthenaturalworldthatdohave

minds).Whethertheobjectsofhumangod-beliefsarefictitiousorinanimate,thesebeliefs

aretheproductsofthesystemsinourbrainsthattracktheintentionsofactualphysical

17

agentsandminds.Thus,humanfolkpsychologicalmechanismsareprimecandidatesfor

beingconsideredRGCMs;theirgod-beliefoutputsaretobeconsideredbyproductsto

whateverextenttheyaredeliveredtousbythemisapplicationoffolkpsychological

systemstoimproperdomains.

B.PromiscuousTeleology

ThenextRGCMwewillconsideristhecognitivesystemresponsibleforwhathas

beentermed“intuitivetheism.”DeborahKelemenhascoinedthephrase“promiscuous

teleology”(Kelemen,2004)inreferencetothismechanismandthebiaseswithwhichit

providesus.Kelemensaysthefollowingabouttheteleologicalintuitionssheandher

colleagueshaveobservedatworkinchildren:

…Whenaskedtoidentifyunanswerablequestions,American4-and5-year-oldsdifferfromadultsbyfindingthequestion“what’sthisfor?”appropriatenotonlytoartifactsandbodyparts,butalsotowholelivingthingslikelions(“togointhezoo”)andnonlivingnaturalkindslikeclouds(“forraining”).Additionally,whenaskedwhethertheyagreethat,forexample,rainingisreallyjustwhatacloud“does”ratherthanwhatitis“madefor,”preschoolersdemur,endorsingtheviewthatnaturalentitiesare“madeforsomething”andthatiswhytheyarehere.9

Initially,onthebasisofobservingagents’object-directedbehavior,childrenunderstandobjectsasmeanstoagents’goals,thenasembodimentsofagents’goals(thus“for”specificpurposesinateleologicalsense),and,subsequently—asaresultofagrowingunderstandingofartifactsandthecreativeabilitiesofagents—asintentionallycausedbyagents’goals.Abiastoexplain,plusahumanpredilectionforintentionalexplanation,maythenbewhatleadschildren,intheabsenceofknowledge,toageneralized,defaultviewofentitiesasintentionallycausedbysomeoneforapurpose.10

9Kelemen,2004,pg.295.10Kelemen,2004,pg.296.

18

ThesamefindingshavebeendocumentedinKelemen’sstudieswithBritishchildren,which

shetakestohavesufficientlycontrolledforthe“relativelypronouncedculturalreligiosity”

oftheUnitedStates.

Thesefindingsindicategoodevidencefortheclaimthatchildrenare“intuitive

theists”—thatchildreninterpretnaturalphenomenaashavingbeenintentionallydesigned

byaGod.Putanotherway,childrenintuitivelyholdtogod-beliefsregardingtheperceived

designandorderoftheworldaroundthem.Shelistssomecapacitiesthatshetakestobe

prerequisitetosuch“intuitivetheism”:thecapacitytomaintainamentalrepresentationof

agod,despiteitsintangibility;theabilitytoattributetothatspecialagentmentalstates

thatdistinguishitfrommorecommonplaceagents;andtheabilitytoattributedesign

intentionstoagentsandtounderstandanobject’spurposeasderivingfromsuch

intentions.AlloftheseabilitiesarefoundtobepresentinthesubjectsofKelemen’s

experiments.Sheinsiststhatthedetailsregardingchildren’s“emotionalormetaphysical

commitments”areirrelevant;rather,whatisimportantiswhetherchildren“makesenseof

theworldinamannersuperficiallyapproximatingadulttheism,”awayofinterpretingthe

worldthatmaybedevelopedorhonedbyagivenreligiousculturebutthatfindsitsorigins

primarilyin“cognitivepredispositionsandartifactknowledge.”

Thisstudyoftheintuitivetheismofchildrenisimportant,becauseitshedslight

ontothecognitivemachinery,biases,andexplanatoryinferencesatworkinthehuman

mindpriortomuchculturalorenvironmentalindoctrination.So,thephenomenonof

intuitivetheisminveryyoungchildrenlendssupporttotheideathateventhroughoutour

adultlives,itismostnaturalforushumanstoappealtoteleologicalreasoningand

explanationinmakingsenseoftheworldaroundus.Wenaturallyunderstandagentsto

19

havedesignintentions,andweseethingsinourenvironmentasderivativesofthose

intentions.Wehavetolearntodootherwise.

Thecognitivesystemsresponsibleforchildren’sinherentpredispositionsto

interprettheworldaroundthemintermsofpurpose,design,andagencyintentionislikely

activeinthedeliveranceofmanyofourrawgod-beliefs.“Intuitivetheism”isthesumof

suchastrongteleologicalbiasashasbeendocumentedbyKelemen;oftheperceptionofan

ordered,designed,and“artifact”world;oftheintuitionthatitisagentswhoare

responsibleforwhatweperceivetobedesignedandmeaningful;andoftheinnatehuman

drivetopursueexplanation.Towhateverextentthesystemresponsibleforrecognizing

artifacts,intention,anddesignoverlayssuchteleologicalnotionsontoanaturallyformed,

inanimate,andnon-designedworld,ourteleology-trackingRGCMisoperatingoutsideofits

intendeddomain;inasmuchasthenaturalworldfallsoutsideoftheproperdomainofthis

RGCM,teleologicalbeliefsaboutthe“purpose”and“design”ofthenaturalworldarerightly

consideredbyproductrawgod-beliefs.

C.Anthropomorphism

Thecognitiveprocessesassociatedwithanthropomorphismareournextareaof

examination.AnthropologistStewartGuthrie,whowasamongthefirsttoconceiveof

agencyandagencydetectionascentraltoacognitivetheoryofreligion(Westh,2013),

developedatheoryofanthropomorphismtoexplainreligion(Guthrie,1993).11According

toGuthrie(1993),religionjustisanthropomorphism(whereanthropomorphismisthe

ascriptionofhuman-likecharacteristicstonon-humanentitiesorobjects).Dueto11DavidHume(1779)alsodiscussedtheroleofanthropomorphisminhisDialoguesConcerningNaturalReligion.

20

evolutionarypressuresandtheprimacyofourabilitytorecognizeotherhumanagentsin

theenvironmentaroundus,anoveractivetendencytoanthropomorphizetheworld

aroundushasbeenworkedintoourhumanpsychologybynaturalselection(Guthrie,

2002).Itwouldhavebeenbetterforourancestors,Guthriewrote,towronglyperceivea

bear-likeboulderasarealthreat,ratherthantoperceiveaboulder-likebearasabigrock.

Theadaptivepayoffofhypersensitivitytothepresenceofpredators,oragentsin

general,shouldbeapparent:wereonetomistakearealthreatforanon-threat,thelossto

theindividualwouldbepotentiallycatastrophic,butwereonetomistakeanon-threatfora

threat,thelosstotheindividualwouldbemarginal.Theideaisthatovertime,evolution

wouldfavorthoseindividualswhoseabilitiestodetectpredatorsweresohonedastogive

themfalsepositivereports,overthoseindividualswhoseabilitieswerenotsimilarlyhoned.

Thosewithrelativelyclumsyabilitiestodetectpredatorswouldlosestakeinthegenepool,

relativetothosewhocouldsurvive,reproducemore,andtakealargershareofthe

population.Thus,itisthoughtthatourtendencytohyper-sensitivelyanthropomorphize

evolvedovertimetoyieldagooddealoffalsepositives.

Asthemisperceptionofbear-likequalitiesinaboulderisnot,strictlyspeaking,

anthropomorphism,somethingneedstobesaidhereabouttherelationshipinevolutionary

historybetweenanorganism’shypersensitivitytoanimismanditstendencyto

anthropomorphize.Later,Imentionthepossibilitythatanimacy-detectionisan

evolutionaryprecursortoagency-detection—ahypersensitivitytoanimacylikelywould

haveprecededthedevelopmentofeffectiveagency-detectiondevices.Here,Guthrieis

explainingwhyatendencyto“anthropomorphize”mighthavebeenworkedintoour

psychology,andheappealstothemisperceptionofanimacyinordertodoso.Ibelievehe

21

usestheterm“anthropomorphism”ratherlooselyasanumbrellaterm,suchthat

anthropomorphismincludesthedetectionofmereanimacy.WesthsummarizesGuthrie’s

position:

Soeveniftheperceptualstrategyofanthropomorphismgeneratesmassiveover-detection,ithashadadaptivevaluenevertheless,asthepriceoffalsepositivesismuchlowerthanthepriceofmissingimportantcues.Perfectparanoiaisperfectawareness.12

Anthropomorphismasatheoryfortheoriginsofreligiousbeliefcoversawidearray

ofagencyattribution(Westh,2009):theperceptionoffacesinclouds(Guthrie,1993),the

perceptionofhumanshapesinRorschachinkblots(Guthrie,1980),themistakingof

mailboxesforhumans(Guthrie,1980),talkingabouttablesashavinglegsandgenesas

beingselfish(Guthrie,2002),andsoon.Theprocessesandmechanismsof

anthropomorphismarealsothoughttoberesponsibleforourperceptionofnatural

disastersasdivinepunishment(Guthrie,1980)andourinclinationstowardperceiving

intelligentdesigninnature(Guthrie,1993).Inlightofcontemporaryresearchinthearea

(agencydetection,intuitivetheism,etc.),Ithinkitisperfectlyreasonabletobeskepticalof

theideathatanthropomorphismandthemechanismsassociatedwithitarealone

responsibleforsuchabroadarrayofdifferenttypesofgod-beliefs.Manygod-beliefsare

muchmorethan—ormerelyofadifferentkindthan—thesortsofbeliefsweformabout

facesinthecloudsorourmistakingofbouldersforbearsatadistance.Manyofourgod-

beliefsaremoreinferentiallyinvolvedandmoreconceptuallycomplicatedthanthemere

misperceptionofhumancharacteristicsinnon-humansornon-agents.Instead,Ibelieve

thatindescribingasingleprocessofanthropomorphizing,Guthriewasplowingtheground

12Westh,2009,pg2.

22

fortheresearchbeingdonetodayonthemultiplicityofdomain-specificcognitive

mechanismsthatareinfactresponsibleforeachofthesortsofgod-beliefsandphenomena

thathesoughttoexplain

Alongthislineofthought,Westh(2009)hascontendedthattheterm

anthropomorphismisanumbrellaterm,butthatitdoesnotadequatelyexplaincertainvery

specificphenomena:

Thereisnoconvincingargumentthat,forexample,seeingfacesinthecloudsorhumanshapesinRorschachinkblotssomehowinvolvestheattributionofagencyormind.Therefore,itwouldseemthatBoyerandGuthrieareinfacttalkingaboutdifferentthings.TheagencydetectionofBoyerandBarrettisaveryspecificpsychologicalmechanism.Bycontrast,theanthropomorphismofGuthrieisanumbrellatermthatcertainlycoversthepsychologicalmechanismofagencydetection,butonlyasoneamongmanyotherphenomena.13

Theexactboundariesanddomainsofthesedifferentmechanismsare,atthispoint,unclear.

Theprocessofanthropomorphismisprobablybestunderstoodasanadequateexplanation

forcertainkindsofgod-beliefs(e.g.,perceptualbeliefsaboutstufflikefacesintheclouds,

facesinRorschachinkblots,abiastoprojecthumancharacteristicstoinanimateobjectsin

theworldaroundus,etc.),butasonlyacourse-grained,inadequateexplanationforother

kindsofgod-beliefs(e.g.,activelyseeingintentionandpurposeinevents,theattributionof

agencyandintentiontoinanimateobjects,theformationofbeliefsaboutancestralspirits,

etc.).

Despitetheexplanatorylimitsofanthropomorphism,though,itdoesseemtobean

importantfactorinexplainingtheoriginsofgod-beliefs.Perhaps,forinstance,beliefsabout

thepersonalitiesofmountainsortreesfindtheiroriginsinachancearrangementof

featuresonagivenmountainortreethatisvaguelyreminiscentofahumanface;ourfacial13Westh,2009,pg.4.

23

recognitionsystemskickin,andweproceedtoanthropomorphizetheinanimateobjects

aroundus.Agenerationlater,themountainortreemightbeconsideredadeity.Sucha

storyisreasonable.Towhateverextenttheprocessesofanthropomorphismareappliedto

improperdomains—thatis,toanythingthatisnotactuallyahuman—theresultisa

byproductbelief.

D.AgencyDetection

AgencydetectionisournextRGCM.AnthropologistPascalBoyer(2001)has

claimedthathumanssufferfroma“hypertrophyofsocialcognition.”PsychologistJustin

Barrett(2004)haspositedthatwepossess“hypersensitiveagencydetectiondevices.”

Barrettdescribestheagencydetectiondevice:

WhenHADDperceivesanobjectviolatingtheintuitiveassumptionsforthemovementofordinaryphysicalobjects(suchasmovingonnon-inertialpaths,changingdirectioninexplicably,orlaunchingitselffromastandstill)andtheobjectseemstobemovinginagoal-directedmanner,HADDdetectsagency.14

TheseHADDshyperactivelyattributeagencytothestuffinourenvironment,andasaresult

theseattributionsareoftenwrong.Attherecognitionofagent-likebehavior—an

otherwiseinexplicablechangeindirection,stop-and-gomovement,etc.—theagency

detectiondeviceflagsanobject(agentornot)asanagent.Anykindofbehavioror

movementthatmightbeperceivedasgoal-directedorastheproductofmindednessis

enoughtoactivateHADD,andtheendresultistheunconsciouspresentationofnon-agents

asagentsandtheconsciousformationoffalsebeliefsregardingtheagencyofwhatare

actuallynon-agents.

14Barrett,2004,chapter3.

24

BloomrecountstheexperimentsconductedbyHeiderandSimmelinthemiddleof

thetwentiethcentury:

HeiderandSimmel(1944)…madeasimplemovieinwhichgeometricalfigures—circles,squares,triangles—movedincertainsystematicways,designed,basedonthepsychologists’intuitions,totellatale.Whenshownthismovie,peopleinstinctivelydescribethefiguresasiftheywerespecificpeople(bullies,victims,heroes)whohavegoalsanddesires…15

BloomgoesontomentionsubsequentresearchperformedbyhimselfandVeres(1999),in

whichitwasfoundthat“youcangetmuchthesameeffectwithmovingdots,aswellasin

movieswherethe‘characters’arenotsingleobjectsatall,butmovinggroups,suchas

swarmsoftinysquares.”Thegeneralideaisthatattheperceptionofanobjectorevent

thatwedeemtohavebeendesignedorordered,orattheperceptionofsomethingthat

seemstobehaveaswewouldexpectanagenttobehave,ourbrainsareapttoascribe

agency(ordesign,oragencyintention)tothatobjectofourperception.

IthinkitisworthinvestigatingtheimplicationsoftheexperimentsrunbyHeider

andSimmel,andthenlaterbyBloomandVeres.Inonesense,theagencydetectorsofthe

participantsinthestudiesgotitwrong:clearly,dotsandfigures,althoughtheybehavelike

agents,areonlyimproperlyattributedgoals,desires,andpersonality.However,inanother

sense,theagencydetectorsoftheparticipantsinthestudiesgotitright:thedotsand

shapeswere,indeed,designedandprogrammedintentionallybyanothermind(ascientist’s

mind)toactinwaysthatwouldgiveoffairsofagency.Itshouldnotbesurprisingthat

peoplereadilyrecognizedtheintentionofanothermindintheperceptionofanactually

createdartifact—beitatool,anexperimentalprogram,oranythingelse—thatisbehaving

inintentionalways.So,Ithinkitisappropriatetoask:towhatextentweretheagency15Bloom,2007,pg.149.

25

detectorsactuallyactingoutsideoftheirintendeddomainsintheseexperiments?Arenot

therecognitionofagencyintentionandtheawarenessofcreatedartifactsnotcriticaltasks

ofanagencydetectionmechanism?Itisclear,however,thattheagencydetectionsystem

wasnotselected-forsoastotrackdotsonacomputerscreen;so,whiletheagency

detectionmodulecorrectly(inasense)perceivedagencyandagentintentioninthedotson

thescreen,wearejustifiedinsayingthatitdidsoonlyasabyproductoftheagency-

detectionmodule’sproperfunctioning(i.e.,itsevolutionarilyintendedpurposeof

perceivingagencyintrueagents,ratherthanindotsonacomputerscreen).

Bloom(2007)says,“Wearehypersensitivetosignsofhumanagency,somuchso

thatweseeintentionwhereallthatreallyexistsisartificeoraccident.”Theproposed

cognitivemechanismthatleadsustoascribeagencytothingsthatveryclearlyarenot

agents(likegeometricalfiguresordots)isprobablyfoundationaltoourunderstandingthe

originsofmostkindsofgod-beliefs.ImportanttorememberatthispointisBering’s(2006)

workontheattributionofagentintentiontoevents(thePrincessAliceexperiments).Given

thiscombinationofcognitivebiases—thebiastoattributeagencytotheobjectsinour

environment,togetherwiththebiastoascribeagencyintentiontotheeventswe

experience—wecanbegintoseehowthehumanexperiencelendsitselftotheformationof

god-beliefs.Itshouldperhapsbenosurprisethatsuchgod-beliefsoverlayourexperienceof

theworldinthewaythattheydo,ifwegrantthattheseagency-detectionandintention-

attributionbiasesaresopervasive.

PsychologistScottAtransaysaboutourhypersensitive,“trip-wire”agency

attribution:

Theconceptofsupernaturalagentisculturallyderivedfrominnatecognitiveschema—“mentalmodules”—fortherecognitionandinterpretationofagents,such

26

aspeopleandanimals.Inparticular,suchconceptsaretriggeredbyanagent-detectionmodule.Thisisasortofinnatereleasingmechanism,whoseproper(naturallyselected)domainencompassesanimateobjectsbutwhoseactualdomain(ofstimulithatmimictheproperdomain)extendstomovingdotsoncomputerscreens,voicesinthewind,facesintheclouds,andsmokefromaburningbuilding…16

Hecontinues:

Soulsandspirits,whichderivemuchoftheirinductiveforcefromanalogytothedissociatedthoughtsofdreamsandthedisembodiedmovementsofshadows,arenear-universalcandidatesforreligiouselaboration.Thisisbecausesouls,spirits,dreams,andshadowshavemanypsychologicallyco-occurringthematicassociations(e.g.,immaterialityandunworldlieness,nightanddeath).Theyalsosystematicallymanipulateinnate,modularizedexpectationsaboutfolkmechanics,folkbiology,andfolkpsychology.17

So,byAtran’sestimation,agencydetectionisrelevanttotheRGCMhypothesiswhenagency

detectionoperatesoutsideofitsnaturaldomain(thatdomainfullofobjectsthatare

actuallyagents).

Boyer’s(2001)theorythatsuchgod-beliefshaveasortofincreasedstayingpoweris

relatedtoAtran’sideasaboutthewayourconceptsofthenon-naturalmanipulateour

innateandmodularizedfolk-mechanics,folk-biology,andfolk-psychology.Boyer’sideais

thatourgod-beliefshaveviolatedcertainessentialexpectationswehaveabouttheworld,

expectationsdeliveredtousbyourlearned“conceptualtemplates.”God-beliefsare

counterintuitive,totherightdegree.Forinstance,theconceptualtemplatefortheconcept

“person”probablyincludestheconstituentconceptofan“embodiedbeing.”Itistotally

natural—or,inlinewithourconceptualtemplates—forustoconceiveofapersonas

havingabody,becausehavingabodyisconstituentofbeingaperson.However,manygod-

beliefsregardingpersonsviolatethatcentralexpectation;spirits,souls,anddeitiesare16Atran,2002,pg.266.17Ibid.,pg.266.

27

oftenconceivedofaspersonshavingnobody.Toputitsimply,Boyerpositsthatsuch

supernaturalconcepts,wheninviolationofourconceptualtemplates,arememorableand

demandingofattention.Itisimportantthatthesupernaturalconceptsviolatecorepartsof

ourconceptualtemplates,buttheymustconformtotheconceptualtemplateclosely

enoughthatthesupernaturalconceptdoesnotdevolveintoconceptualabsurdity.The

conceptofapersonwithoutabodyissolid;theconceptofapersonwithnobodyormind,

butthatisactuallyaplace,isbasicallymeaningless.AccordingtoBoyer,storiesthat

includesuchcounterintuitive,supernaturalconceptsaredisproportionatelyeasierto

remember,areeasiertotell,andarethereforeprimecandidatesforculturaltransmission.

Thesekindsofbeliefsarerenderedtousintuitivelyduetoadegreeofconceptualsimilarity

betweenthemandourother,moreordinarybeliefs.Wewilltalkmoreaboutthislater.

Inexplanationofwhytheagencydetectionsystemsooftenoperatesoutsideofits

intendeddomain,Atransays:

Allsupernaturalagentconceptstriggerournaturallyselectedagency-detectionsystem,whichistrip-wiredtorespondtofragmentaryinformation,incitingperceptionoffigureslurkingintheshadowsandemotionsofdreadorawe.Mistakinganonagentforanagentwoulddolittleharm,butfailingtodetectanagent,especiallyhumanoranimalpredator,couldwellprovefatal;it’sbettertobesafethansorry.Theevolutionaryimperativetorapidlydetectandreacttorapaciousagentsencouragestheemergenceofmalevolentdeitiesineveryculture,justasthecountervailingevolutionaryimperativetoattachtocaregiversfavorstheapparitionofbenevolentdeities.18

Atrandescribestheadaptiveadvantageofanagencydetectiondevicethatregistersfalse

positives:itissimplybetterthatwehavea“trip-wire”mechanismthatsometimes

mistakesasound,movement,orinanimateobjectforanagent(friendorfoe)thathas

intentionsdirectedtowardus,ratherthantohaveamechanismwithahigheractivation18Atran,2002,pg.267.

28

thresholdthatfailstodetectactualagentsinourenvironment.Atrantheorizesthatover

time,thelatterwaswinnowedfromthegenepooltotheadvantageoftheformer.Asa

result,wedoirrationalthingslikeformbeliefsaboutspiritswhenwehearbumpsinthe

night,orweperceivephantoms“lurkingintheshadows.”Ourbrainsgivethesethings

agency,quiteoutsideofourcontrol.Thus,withourtrip-wireagencydetector,muchofthe

worldaroundusispresentedtousautomaticallythroughthefilterofagencydetection.

Westh(2009)saysthefollowingregardingtheevolutionaryoriginsofagency

detectiondevicesinourcognitivemachinery:

StewartGuthrie,bypositingastrongcontinuitybetweenanimismandanthropomorphism,gavethecognitivemechanismsunderlyinggodconceptsanextremelydeepevolutionaryhistory.Animism,inthisview,evolvedfirstasamechanismofpredatorevasion;astheevolutionarypressureofhumansocialgroupsintensified,anthropomorphismdevelopedasacognitivestrategy.ThemechanismofhyperactiveagencydetectionpositedbyBoyerandBarrettsharesmoreorlessthesameevolutionarynarrative.19

IbelieveWesth’sconclusionsareright.Itseemsreasonablethatanoverlysensitiveagency

detectiondevicewasbestowedtousthroughtheprocessesofnaturalselectionasnew,

uniquelyhumanevolutionarypressuresemerged.Itseemsreasonabletobelievethatthis

HADD’sevolutionarypredecessorwasasimplermechanismdesignedfordetecting

animacy,morebroadlyconstrued.Thishighlyattunedmechanismwouldhavedeliveredto

ourancestorsfalse-positivedetectionsoffoes,predators,etc.,andthiswouldhavebeento

ourancestors’benefitintheirancientenvironments.Itcertainlyseemstobethecasethat

suchanagencydetectiondeviceasHADDactshyper-sensitivelytoattributeagencyto

inanimateobjects.Suchhypersensitivity,bothinourevolutionarypastandcontemporarily,

helpstoyieldthepanoplyofgod-beliefsthatcharacterizeshumanculturesandworldviews.19Westh,2009,pg.18.

29

Whethertheobjectsofourgod-beliefsarerealorimagined—gods,spirits,

anthropomorphizednaturalobjects,etc.—theagencydetectionRGCMissurelyactiveinthe

formationofthesegod-beliefs.

E.Conclusions

Imentionedtowardthebeginningofthisthesisthatitisdifficulttodetermine

where,exactly,onecognitivemechanismendsandwherethenextbegins.Youcan

probablyseethatbynow.ThemechanismsIhavediscussedsofar—intuitivefolk

psychologyandtheoryofmind,promiscuousteleology,anthropomorphism,andagency

detection—seemtohavevastareasofconceptualoverlap.Forinstance,oneprobably

cannotmeaningfullytalkaboutourbiastoattributeagencyandagencyintentiontothe

worldarounduswithoutalsotalkingaboutintuitivefolkpsychology(whichisreallyjust

theabilitytoformbeliefsaboutothers,pertainingtotheiragency).Oneprobablycannot

talkmeaningfullyaboutpromiscuousteleologyandagencyintentionwithoutsome

content-richtheoryofmindorartifacttheory.Itisdifficulttosaytheextenttowhichthese

differentmechanismsarerelated;Ibelieveitisfairtosay,though,thateachofthem

performsdistinctfunctions,andthatthesedifferentfunctionsarewhyeachofthemhas

attracteditsownsetofresearchers.

TheseRGCMsleadustoexperienceandconceiveoftheworldinacertainway:in

termsofbyproductrawgod-beliefs.Rawgod-beliefsaredeliveredtousasbyproductsof

theunconsciousprocessesofourreligion-generatingcognitivemechanisms—the

mechanismsresponsiblefortheoryofmind,promiscuousteleology,anthropomorphism,

andagencydetection.Withtheserawgod-beliefsasourstartingpoints,webuildour

30

inferentialbeliefsystems(ourrefinedgod-beliefs).Itisthisnaturalwayofexperiencingthe

world—throughthefilterofourRGCMsandrawgod-beliefs—thatultimatelyexplainsthe

ubiquityofreligiousworldviewsandsystems.Indeed,itisthestrongByproductclaimthat

wenaturallyexperiencetheworldinthisway—coloredbytheautomaticprocessesthat

yieldintuitivetheism/promiscuousteleology,anthropomorphism,hypersensitiveagency-

detection,andourascriptionofmentalstatestotheworldaroundus.Byvirtueofthekind

ofcognitivestructuresourbrainshave,itisnotnaturaltoconceiveoftheworldcontraryto

theserawgod-beliefs.Thesebyproductrawgod-beliefsarenotadaptations,becausethey

contributenoadaptivebenefittospeakof.Rather,theyarebyproductsofmechanismsthat

areadaptations—mechanismsthatapplytheoryofmind,notionsofteleology,andnotions

ofagencyinevolutionarilyintendeddomains.

Inthenextsectionofthispaper,Iwillexaminehowgod-beliefsare“pickedup,”

developed,andtransmittedbyhumancultures.TheybeginasbyproductsofRGCMsand

areeventuallydevelopedbysocietiesintheaimtohaveexplanatorystoriestotell.

Learning,evolutionaryforcesoperatingattheculturallevel,andcontingenthistorical

events(andperhapsrevelation)areallactiveinthedevelopmentofrawgod-beliefsinto

refinedgod-beliefs.Iwillexaminewhytheserefinedgod-beliefsareselected-forby

evolutionaryprocessesatthegroupandculturallevels,andIwillconsiderthesortsof

adaptivebenefitstheyconfertotheirrespectivebelievers.

3.CulturalEvolutionandGod-Beliefs

Sofar,Ihaveproposedthatthehumanbrainpossessescertainreligiongenerating

cognitivemechanisms.Thesemechanismsconstituteareligion-generatingsuite,the

31

processesofwhichgiverisetothenaturalhumantendencytoformbyproductgod-beliefs.

Ourpropensitiestoconceiveoftheworldinteleologicalterms,tohyper-sensitivelyproject

agencyandagentintentionintotheworldaroundus,andtoprocesstheworldthroughthe

filterofourintuitivefolkpsychologicalmechanismsdosomeseriousexplanatoryworkin

theareaof“religion.”Itistheserawgod-beliefsthatareeventuallydevelopedintoour

refinedgod-beliefs.

Mybyproductstoryfortheoriginoftheserawgod-beliefsleavesmuchinneedof

explanation.Ihavearguedthattheserawgod-beliefsarebyproducts,ratherthan

adaptations;thebyproductswereselected,ratherthanselected-for.Rawgod-beliefsstill

characterizehumanpsychologytoday—theanthropomorphizingofinanimateobjects,the

intuitivedesign/causalhypothesestowhichweintuitivelyhold,thehypersensitive

attributionofagencytotheenvironment,etc.—but“religion”isafarmoreinteresting

phenomenonthanwhatIhavedescribedsofar.Anaccountofthesebyproductbeliefs

hardlyservesasanexplanationfortherichlandscapeofreligiousworldviewsthat

characterizesthehumanexperience.Thereisclearlymoretoreligiousbeliefasweknowit

todaythanthemerebyproductgod-beliefsdeliveredtousbyourcognitiveprocesses.

Refinedgod-beliefsarefarmoreevolutionarilyconsequentialthanrawgod-beliefs,

andassuchtheyhaveplayedaformativeroleinthedevelopmentofhumansocietiesand

culture.AsIwillargueinthecomingpages,itisrefinedgod-beliefs(ratherthanrawgod-

beliefs)thathaveconferredadaptiveadvantagetotheindividualsandgroupsthathave

possessedsuchbeliefsthroughoutrecentevolutionaryhistory.Religionisawinning

evolutionarystrategy.Howdothebyproductrawgod-beliefsdeliveredtousbyour

cognitivesystemsbecomemoredevelopedandsystematic?Howdotheycometoorganize

32

entirecultures?Whydoweassenttothem,andwhydotheypersist?Therawgod-beliefs

areourstartingpoint,butitishumannaturetotellstoriesandtopursueexplanation

beyondtheintuitionsdeliveredbyourcognitivemechanisms.Thesestoriesand

explanationstaketheformofculturallytransmittedcreationmyths,systematictheologies,

folklores,etc.Withourrefinedgod-beliefs,wetellrich,complicated,andfancifultales.

Thissectionofthepaperwilldiscussthedevelopmentofreligionasagroupand

culturaladaptation,anditwilluserecentresearchinevolutionarybiologyandgroup

selectiontheorytoshowhowreligionitselfconfersadaptiveadvantage.Iwillarguethat

religion—atthegrouplevel—isadaptivelyadvantageous,andthatthesurvivalbenefits

grantedbyrefinedgod-beliefshelptoexplainwhygod-beliefsaresocommontohumanity.I

willalsoexaminethenaturalprocessesbywhichreligiousbeliefs,concepts,andideashave

becomesoubiquitousandvariedthroughouthumanexperience.

PsychologistsBarrettandKeil(1996)haveframedthedifferencesbetweenwhatI

havecalledourrawandrefinedgod-beliefsinontologicalterms.Theyspecificallyaddress

theintuitiveanthropomorphizingofthetheisticconceptofGod,andtheypresent

experimentalfindingsthatsuggestweactuallyhavetwodifferentsetsofreligiousbeliefsat

workregardingGod.20Onesetisourintuitive,anthropomorphizedsetofbeliefsaboutGod,

andtheotherisournon-intuitive,“theologicallycorrect”setofbeliefsaboutGod.Thetwo

setsareincommensurable,becausetheypertaintodifferentontologicalcategoriesof

existence—theontologyofthingsinthenaturalworld,andtheontologyofGod:

Ifthesereligions,whichhavehadaprofoundimpactonWesterntheologicalconcepts,attributetoGodavastlydifferenttypeofexistencethanourown,howdo

20BarrettandKeilfocusexclusivelyonadistinctionbetweenthetheist’s“theologicallycorrect”and“anthropomorphized”conceptsofGod,whileIhavepresentedadistinctionbetweenrawandrefinedgod-beliefs,ingeneral.

33

wecrossthisontologicalgapandunderstandGod...IfGodisrevealedthroughnaturalisticmeansandinnaturalisticterms,howthendowemakesenseofthisrevelation?Howdoweincorporatenaturalfeaturesintoourrepresentationofanonnaturalentity?Ananalogousproblemmightbetoconsiderwhatitwouldbeliketobeabat(Nagel,1974).Theotherstateofbeingissodifferentthatthetaskseemsimpossible.21

Theyposethequestion:ifGod,accordingtoone’stheology,isofadifferentontological

categorythanhumankind—i.e.,spaceless,timeless,unbound,etc.—howcouldhumankind

possiblyaccuratelyconceiveofGod?IfGodwererightlyconceivedofasbeingofadifferent

ontologicalcategorythanus,anyattempttoanthropomorphizeGodwouldradically

misrepresentHimorHer(orWhatever).Iwouldposeafurtherquestion:Howcouldour

“theologicallycorrect”god-beliefspossiblyhavedevelopednaturallyiftheirobjects(God,

gods,spirits,etc.)are,atrockbottom,ofadifferentontologicalcategoryfromusandfrom

anythingelseweexperience?

BarrettandKeil(1996)offermoreonthesetwodifferentbeliefsetsthatrun

simultaneously,butincompatibly:

Despitetheologicaldescriptions,peopleseemtoincorporateanthropomorphicandnaturalisticcharacterizationsintotheirintuitiveGodconcepts…PerhapsconceptionsofGodmustbeanthropomorphic,evenwhiletheologicalbeliefsmaintainotherwise.Itmaybethatthe“theologicalGod”isradicallydifferentfromthe“intuitiveGod”normallydescribedineverydaydiscourse.EvenindividualswhoexplicitlyendorsethetheologicalversionofGodmightnonethelessimplicitlyembraceaverydifferentversioninmostoftheirdailythoughts.22Psychologistshavelongassumedthatanthropomorphiclanguagereflectsunderlyingcognitiveanthropomorphism.FreudinitiatedthislineofthoughtmostdramaticallywiththesuggestionthatGodconceptsareprojectionsofone’sfatherandthatthestartofreligionisthe“humanizationofnature.”23

21BarrettandKeil,1996,pg.220.22Barrett&Keil,1996,pg.223.23Ibid.,pg.221.

34

TheyprovidedatasuggestingthatwhenpressedtotalkaboutGod,peopletendto

anthropomorphizeHim(toputHisactionsintospatial,temporal,andsequentialterms,

restrictHimtoonlyhavingoneconversationatatime,etc.),regardlessofhavingavowedto

“theologicallycorrect”doctrinalbeliefsaboutHisdivineattributes(existenceoutsideof

time,omnipresence,etc.):

…subjectsdouseanthropomorphicconceptsofGodinunderstandingstorieseventhoughtheymayprofessatheologicalpositionthatrejectsanthropomorphicconstraintsonGodandGod’sactivities.ItappearsthatpeoplehaveatleasttwoparallelGodconceptsthatareusedindifferentcontexts,andtheseconceptsmaybefundamentallyincompatible.24Perhapsstoriesinvolvinganatemporalandomnipotentagentcreateprocessingdifficulties,andanefficientwaytodealwiththeproblemistouseasimplerGodconcepttounderstandstories.25

Allofthisgoestohighlightthedistinctionbetweentheintuitivegod-beliefsdeliveredto

individualsbytheircognitivemechanismsandthemorereflectivegod-beliefsthatare

developedbysocietiesandculturesthroughculturalevolutionandlearning(andinthe

theist’scase,revelation).

Theideaisthatourintuitivegod-beliefsarecognitivelyeasiertograsp.Theyare

morenatural.Inparticular,thebeliefsonemightprofessinthedomainoftheologyare

quiteunnaturalandcognitivelycounterintuitive—somuchsothatwhenundercognitive

load(aswhenaskedtorecounttalesaboutGod),ourcognitivesystemstendtoshirk

theologicalconceptionsofGodformoreintuitive,anthropomorphicconceptionsofGod

(Barrett&Keil,1996).BarrettandKeilwereconcernedwiththe“ontologicalgap”between

ourintuitive,anthropomorphicbeliefsaboutGodandourmorecounterintuitive,

24Ibid.,pg.240.25Ibid.,pg.243.

35

theologicalbeliefsaboutGod.Therestofthissectioninquiresintotheriseofsuchan

“ontologicalgap.”Although,perhapsourparticularsubjectmattercallsforare-

appropriationoftheirlanguage;let’scallthedistancebetweenourrawgod-beliefsandour

refinedgod-beliefsa“cognitivegap.”Theformerareevolutionarilyolderandcognitively

easier,whilethelatterareevolutionarilyrecentandmorecognitivelydifficult.Theformer

arethenaturalbyproductsofourcognitivemechanisms,whilethelatterarethe

counterintuitiveoutputsofgenerationsofstorytelling,culturalselection,andhuman

reasoning.

Wenowturntoexaminingthedevelopment,transmission,andadaptivevalueof

refinedgod-beliefsandreligioussystems.

A.VirusesoftheMind&MemeTheory

“Virus”isaloadedterm.Butitisatermthat,asusedbelow,iswellsuitedforits

intendeduse.Someevolutionarybiologistsandevolutionarypsychologistshavelikened

thespreadofreligiousworldviewstothespreadofviruses.Tosome,the“virus”ofreligion

isdetrimentaltohumansociety;toothers,thenegativeconnotationsassociatedwiththe

word“virus”arenotnecessarilyappliedtoreligion.Hereisaclearsummaryofthe“virus

view”fromevolutionarybiologistRobertTrivers(2011):

Whatsomehaveisametaphor.Religionisaviralmeme;thatis,itisnotanactualvirus,whichcaneasilybringapopulationtoitsknees,butratheritismerelyathoughtsystemthathappenstopropagateasifitwereavirus,tothedetrimentofthosewiththebeliefsystem.Despiteitsnegativeeffects,itapparentlygeneratesinsufficientselectionpressuretosuppressthespreadofthisnon-coevolvingnonorganism.26

26Trivers,2011,pg.278.

36

Oneofthebiggestproponentsofthe“virusview”ofreligionisevolutionarybiologist

RichardDawkins(2003).Dawkinsdevelopedawayofthinkingabout“unitsofculture”—

thestuffthatgetstransmittedfromonegenerationofasocietytothenext—thatlikens

suchunitsofculturetopathogens.Dawkins’spointwasthatunitsofculturelikereligious

beliefs“infect”themindsoftheindividualstowhomtheyaretransmitted,andthat

religiousbeliefsareparticularlysuccessfulviruses.Dawkins(1976)cashedouthistheory

inthelanguageof“memes.”His“virus”positionasideforthemoment,Dawkins’sworkon

memesisextremelyhelpfulformypurposes.Boyer(2001)explainsDawkins’smeme

theory:

[Dawkins]summarizedallthisbydescribingcultureasapopulationofmemes,whicharejust“copy-me”programs,likegenes.Genesproduceorganismsthatbehaveinsuchawaythatthegenesarereplicated—otherwisethegenesinquestionwouldnotbearound.Memesareunitsofculture:notions,values,stories,etc.thatgetpeopletospeakoractincertainwaysthatmakeotherpeoplestoreareplicatedversionofthesementalunits.27Inthisaccount,familiarreligiousconceptsandassociatedbeliefs,norms,emotions,arejustbetter-replicatingmemesthanothers,inthesensethattheircopy-meinstructionsworkbetter.28Ifyouwillrecall,Boyer(2001)laidoutsomenecessaryconditionsforthesuccessful

culturaltransmissionofa“godconcept.”Heproposedamodelofsuccessfultransmission

thatrequiredthe“godconcept”toviolatecertainconceptualexpectationstoan

appropriatedegree.Forinstance,theconceptslike“god”and“spirit”aretransmittedso

well,becausetheyfitnicelyintotheconceptualtemplatewehavefortheconcept“person,”

withtheexceptionofahandfulofcounterintuitiveviolations(likenothavingabody,being

atemporal,beingabletopassthroughthings,etc.).Thesecounterintuitive“god”and“spirit”27Boyer,2001,pg.35.28Ibid.,pg.37.

37

conceptsarestrangeandmemorable,buttheyalignwiththe“person”conceptclosely

enoughthattheyarenotrenderedunintelligibleinourconceivingofthem.So,these

conceptsarecounterintuitivetotheappropriatedegree,andourstoriesinvolvingthese

conceptsare,asaresult,culturallytransmittedinadisproportionatelysuccessfulway.

(Someofthishelpsustounderstandwhygod-beliefspersist,despitetheexplanatory

alternativeswehaveathand—theyareconsistent,tojusttherightdegree,withour

intuitiveexpectationsoftheworldaroundusandwithourconceptualtemplates.Moreon

“persistence”later.)

BoyertakesDawkins’smemetheoryandexpoundsonit.Boyer’sworkrepresents

thebeginningsofourabilitytounderstandhowourrefinedgod-beliefsmighthaveevolved

fromourrawgod-beliefs:

Culturalmemesundergomutation,recombinationandselectioninsidetheindividualmindeverybitasmuchandasoftenas…duringtransmissionbetweenminds.Wedonotjusttransmittheinformationwereceived.Weprocessitanduseittocreatenewinformation,someofwhichwedocommunicatetootherpeople.29

Ourreligiousconcepts,evenaftercountlessgenerationsofculturaltransmissions,bear

significantresemblancetooneanotherandtoourmoreprimitivegod-beliefs.Our

conceptualtemplates(whicharethebasicbuildingblocksforourunderstandingofthe

world)arefundamentallyunchangedbytheprocessesofevolution;thisservestopreserve

certaincrucialbitsoftheinformationthatwetransmitculturallyovertime.Italsohelpsto

explainwhyourgod-beliefssharesomuchincommon,cross-culturally.Memetheory,then,

workswellinhelpingtoshowhowculturallytransmittedbeliefs—likevariousgod-

beliefs—mayevolveovertimeintotherichvarietyofbeliefsweseeintheworld;and,with

29Boyer,2001,pg.39.

38

Boyer’sadditions,memetransmissiontheoryservesasausefulexplanationofthedifferent

culturalthemesthataresharedincommonbymanypeoplegroups.Theprocessofmeme

transmission,then,isonemechanismthataccountsforthespreading,transformation,and

persistenceofreligiousconceptsandgod-beliefsoverevolutionarytime.Itistheselection

ofideas.

Intheculturaltransmissionofourgod-beliefsovertime,wedowitnessimportant

changesinthecontentofthosetransmittedbeliefs.Butourcognitivemachinerykeepsus

honest.PeoplelikeBoyercontendthattheseconceptualtemplatesanchorus,inan

importantsense,tothecross-generationallypreservedbitsofthesebeliefs(prevailing

themesandvalues,commondenominatorsacrossreligiousstories,etc.).Someofthese

cross-generationallypreservedtemplatesarepresumablysharedbyall,byvirtueofour

sharedevolutionaryhistories,whilesomeofthemarerelativetospecificculturesand

societies,byvirtueoftheiruniqueevolutionaryhistories.Thishelpsusanswerthe

question:whatarethemechanicsofthedevelopmentofrefinedgod-beliefsfromrawgod-

beliefs?Atthispointwecanonlyspeculate,butIthinkBoyer’sandDawkins’sworkmakes

itreasonableforustosupposethatourrefinedgod-beliefsaretheresultofalonglineof

culturallytransmittedreligiousbeliefsthathavebeenpassed,withsignificantoverall

variation,fromonegenerationofourspeciestothenext.

Thestorywouldneedtobesomethinglikethis:We(humans)beganwiththe

intuitivebyproductgod-beliefsprovidedtousbyourcognitivemechanisms.Atsomepoint,

ourancestorsbegantotellexplanatory,religiousstories.Thesestorieswouldhave

providedanswersandexplanationsforunexplainedphenomena,wouldhaveexplainedour

ancestors’placeintheworld,wouldhaveprovidedthemwithasenseofmeaning,and

39

wouldhaveunifiedvariouscultures.Thesestorieswereadaptive,specifictothe

environmentinhabitedbyagivenpeoplegroupandspecifictothecontingenthistorical

eventswithwhichagivenpeoplegroupwasrequiredtoreconciletheirexistence.Aswe

learnedaboutourenvironment,aboutourselves,andaboutthevariousgodsthatwe

believedin,thesereligiousstorieswouldhavemorphedovertime.Thevariationinthe

contentofmemesoverevolutionaryhistoryprovidedfodderfortheprocessesand

pressuresofnaturalselectionandadaptation,buttheconstancyofourconceptual

templatesacrosstimeandcultureskeptourgod-beliefsand“godconcepts,”toanimportant

degree,anchoredtotheiroriginalcopies.Asaresultofthislongprocess,weareleftwith

thegod-beliefspossessedbybelieverstoday,theworldover.Eachcultureholdsitsown

uniqueevolutionaryhistory,inevitablyprovidinguswiththediverselandscapeofreligious

storiesandworldviewsthatwefindinmoderntimes.

Therearevariousconventionstowhichwemightappealtohelpexplainthe

formation,development,andspreadofreligiousbeliefsacrosstime.Forinstance,societies

throughouttimehavetransmitteduniquecreationmythsandfolklores,andtheyhavetold

storiestotransmitnotonlythesemyths,butalsothehistoryofthegivensociety.

Accordingtomyaccount,primitiveversionsofthesemythsandfolkloreswouldhavebeen

heavilyinformedbyrawgod-beliefs,bythereligiousnotionsnaturallydeliveredtothemby

theircognitiveprocesses.Indeed,primitiveculturestoldstoriesabouttheirhistoriesthat

werelacedwithreligiousconcepts,non-naturalevents,anddivinecharacters,totheextent

thatinmanycasesitisdifficulttodeterminefactualhistoryfrommeremyth.Early

societiessawtheirhistoriesinlightofthesereligiousnarratives.Associetiesgrew,spread,

madeconquest,andestablishedtradewithotherpartsoftheworld(orregion),their

40

storiesspread.Withtheriseofmoreadvanced(andwritten)language,religiousideas

wouldhavebecomemoreeffectivelycommunicable.Withtheriseofreligiousinstitutions

andcentersoflearning,religiousconceptsandstorieswouldhavebeensolidified,

canonized,andpreservedforlatergenerations.Withtheriseofreligiouskingdomsand

states—ortheirmoreprimitivecounterparts—religiousbeliefandparticipationwould

havebecomeasourceofgroupidentity,andparticipationinthereligiousidentityofa

societymayhavebeencompulsory(ensuringthespreadofreligiousideas).

Thisisallconjectural,butwecanprobablyonlytellthesketchofanevolutionary

storyintryingtoaccountforaphenomenonthatissoancientandvariedas“religion.”

Throughoutevolutionaryhistory,therewouldhavebeenanextraordinarynumberof

evolutionaryeventsandpressures.However,Ihavesetouttoexplainthemechanismsat

workineachstageofthatprocess,soastoshowthatsuchanadmittedlyvaguestoryis

plausible.ForreasonsIwilldiscussshortly,Irejectoutofhandthelanguageusedby

Dawkinsinhischaracterizationofreligiousbeliefasa“virusofthemind”—aparasitic

maladaptationthatexiststothedetrimentofbelievingindividualsandcultures.Asifthe

pervasivepresenceofreligiousbeliefsinthehumanexperiencewerenotenough

evidence30,thereisanenormousbodyofresearchandliteraturethathighlightsthe

adaptivebenefitsofgod-beliefs(moreonthis,shortly).

30Granted,manyharmfulvirusesarepervasive,andthismightseemtoserveasacounterexampletowhatIjustsaid.However,biologicalvirusesinnaturehaveintereststhatareservedbytheharmthatiscausedtotheirhosts;biologicalvirusescanexisttoourdetriment,anditistotheiradaptiveadvantagetodoso.Cultural“viruses,”ontheotherhand,aregivenlifebytheirhost(thebeliever)duetothebenefitsthatareconferredtothebeliever.Weshouldexpectthat,overtime,maladaptivecultural“viruses”wouldbeselectedagainst,andthatourpsychologieswouldbesoconstitutedbyevolutionarypressuresastopropagatebeneficialviruses.

41

B.Group-LevelSelection

BiologistandanthropologistDavidSloanWilsonhasdonesignificantworktoshow

thatreligion—asamoralsystemthatfacilitatesspecificgroupbehaviors—isaproductof

whathecalls“multilevelselection”(Wilson,2003).Herejectstheideathatthe

phenomenonofreligionasweknowittodayistheresultofevolutionbynaturalselection

operatingstrictlyatthegeneticlevel.Instead,headvocatesforagroup-levelselection

modelinorderexplainvarioussocieties’religiousworldviews:

Amiddlegroundisbecomingestablishedinwhichgroupsareacknowledgedtoevolveintoadaptiveunits,butonlyifspecialconditionsaremet.Ironically,inhumangroupsitisoftenreligionthatprovidesthespecialconditions.Religionreturnstocenterstage,notasatheologicalexplanationofpurposeandorder,butasitselfaproductofevolutionthatenablesgroupstofunctionasadaptiveunits—atleasttoadegree.31

Inhiswork,Wilsonadvocatesforthereturnofgroupselectionasaviablewayofthinking

aboutthedevelopmentofcultures,societies,andorganisms.Herecountsthefalling-outof

thisparticularviewamongevolutionarybiologistsinthelatterhalfofthetwentieth

century:

Althoughmanysocialscientiststaketheorganismicconceptofsocietyforgranted,evolutionarybiologistsinthe1960srejectedgroupselectionsostronglythatitbecamehereticaltothinkof“societyasanorganism”…forhumansoranyotherspecies…Theillusionofadaptationatthegrouplevelcanbeexplainedintermsofindividualsincreasingthefitnessoftheirgenesinthebodiesofothers,reciprocalexchange,orevenmoreself-servingbenefitssuchasdownrightdeceptionandexploitation.32

Wilson,though,takesissuewiththishardlineevolutionarybiologicalapproach.

31Wilson,2003,pg.6.32Ibid.,pg.12.

42

Thegroupselectiondynamicentersinwhenweconsiderthatmuchofreligious

belief—andthebehaviorthatresultsfromit—isstrictlysocial.Religiousbeliefsdetermine

howindividualmembersofacommunityoughttotreatoneanother,howtheyoughtto

regardthemselves,andhowtheyoughttotreatthoseoutsideoftheircommunity.

Religiousbeliefhaspracticalimplicationsintheareasofmorality,publichealthand

hygiene,andthestructuringofsociety.Whenthetraitunderconsiderationisanon-social

behaviorthataltersthefitnessoftheindividualalone,itisnotappropriatethatwe

considerthattraittobeaproductofgroup-levelselection.Butwhenthetraitunder

considerationisasocialbehavior(pertainingtogroupmorality,health,structure,etc.),

thentheindividual’sfitnessisnotproperlyconsideredinisolation;thetraitsoftheothers

inits“trait-group”mustbeconsidered.Forsocialbehaviors,thefunctioningofthesocial

groupasawholemustbeconsidered.Wilsonpositsthisintimaterelationbetweentraits

andgroupsinhismultilevelselectiontheory.33Alongthesedimensions,groupsare

consideredorganismsintheirownright,completewithgrouptraitsthatareupfor

selection.

Becausereligiousbeliefstendtofacilitatethemoralsystemsandorderofagiven

society,thereligiousbeliefsofgroupsasawhole—beliefsthatleadtosocialandpro-social

behaviors—areupforselectionatthegrouplevel.Totheextentthatsuchreligiousbeliefs

positivelyaffecthowthegroupfunctions,positivelycontributetothesurvivalofthegroup

relativetoothergroups,andfacilitatethetransmissionofreligiousbeliefsthrough

biologicalreproductionorthroughculturalreproduction(i.e.,theconversion/assimilation

ofotherpopulations),thereligiousbeliefsareproperlyregardedassuccessfulstrategies

33Ibid.,pg.15.

43

fortheirrespectivegroups.Towhateverextentreligionfacilitatesgreatergroupcohesion

andthereproductivesuccessofthegroup’sindividuals,agroup’sreligionisappropriately

conceivedofasanadaptivelyadvantageousstrategy.Boththegenesandthebeliefsofthe

groupsthatemployrefinedgod-beliefsasadaptivelyadvantageousstrategiesshouldbe

expectedtobefavoredinfuturegenerations.Groupsthatutilizeeffectivereligiousbelief

systemsasculturaladaptationsareexpectedtosucceeddisproportionatelywell.The

culturaltraitsofthesegroupsareselected,andthegroupsbecomesuccessfuladaptive

units.Whenthishappens,accordingtoWilson,asocietyorgroupbecomesa“higher-level

organisminitsownright.”34Aslongasweconceiveofreligionasaphenomenonthat

successfullyfacilitatesgroupbenefit,religionshouldbeconsideredanadaptationdesigned

bytheforcesofculturalevolutionandgroup-levelselection.

Wilsongoestobatagainstthetoo-narrowexplanationsofreligiousbelief

conventionallytakenbyevolutionarybiologistsandpsychologists.Hethinksthestoryis

morecomplicated,andthatsomeevolutionarystoriesdonotleaveroomforlearning,

development,andsoforth:

[What]wemustunderstandfromanevolutionaryperspectiveisthatmoralsystemsincludeanopen-endedculturaldimensioninadditiontoaninnatepsychologicaldimension.Ourgeneticallyevolvedmindsmakeitpossibletohaveamoralsystem,butthespecificcontentsofmoralsystemscanchangewithingroupsandvarywidelyamonggroups,withimportantconsequencesforsurvivalandreproduction.35

[Thealgorithmofevolutionarypsychologistsisasfollows:]Foranyparticularfeatureofhumanbehaviorandpsychology,trytounderstanditasageneticallyevolvedadaptationtoafeatureoftheancestralenvironment.Thentrytoimaginethepsychologicalmechanismasaspecializedmodule…Mycomplaintisnotthatthe[described]algorithmiswrongbutthatitispartial,seemingtoexcludethe


44

possibilityoflearning,development,culture,andotheraspectsofhumanmentalityasopen-endedprocesses.36

WhatWilsoncallsforisamodelofourpsychologythatallowsfor“open-endedprocesses.”

BorrowingfromPlotkin(1994),hearguesthatweoughttounderstandourcognitive

processesas“Darwinmachines,”asevolvedsystemsthataccommodateevolutionwithin

theirownstructures.HeciteshumanrationalthoughtasanexampleofaDarwinmachine,

asitgeneratesandprocessesnovelrepresentationsinternally.Religionasweknowit

today,Wilsonargues,isnotaphenomenonforwhichourancientenvironmentsand

evolvedcognitivemechanisms(and,therefore,genes)arefullyresponsible.Rather,

modernmanifestationsofreligion(refinedgod-beliefs)areevolutionarilyrecent

developmentsthatcomeinresponsetoevolutionarilyrecentenvironmentsandselection

pressures—andthisdevelopmentofreligionislargelycultural,ratherthangenetic.

Religiousbeliefsareproperlyconceivedofastheoutputsofour“Darwinmachine”rational

belief-formationprocesses.Theevolutionofculturalbeliefsystems,then,isnotoccurring

atthelevelofourgenesorcognitivemechanisms,butratheratthelevelofcultural

knowledge.37

Wilson’sviewsaresummarized,withanemphasisontherolethatgroupselection

playsintheemergenceof“organismicgroups”:

Organismicgroupsdonotautomaticallyevolvebutrequireaprocessofgroupselection.Groupselectioncanbeapotentevolutionaryforce,despiteitswidespreadrejectionduringtheageofindividualism…Moralsystemshaveaninnatepsychologicaldimensionbutalsoanopen-endeddimensionthatallowshumanhistorytobeseenasafast-pacedevolutionaryprocesswithculturalratherthangeneticmechanismsofinheritance.38

36Ibid.,pg.29-30.37Wilson,2003,pg.31,35.38Ibid.,pg.36-37.

45

Moralsystemsincludebothaninnatepsychologicalcomponentandanopen-endedculturalcomponentthatenablesgroupstoadapttotheirrecentenvironments.Beliefinsupernaturalagentsandotherelementsthatareassociatedspecificallywithreligioncanplayanimportantroleinthestructureandfunctionofmoralcommunities.39

JustasWilsonconcedesthatthedevelopmentofmoralsystems(andreligions,inasmuch

asreligionsfacilitatemoralsystems)isduetobothan“innatepsychologicalcomponent”

andan“open-endedculturalcomponent,”weshouldgrantthattheemergenceofgroupsas

adaptiveunitslikelyincorporatesasimilarcombinationof“innatestuff”and“open-ended”

stuff.Weprobablydohaveadaptivelyadvantageousinnatetendenciesthatleadus,as

individuals,toformintosocialgroupswithotherindividuals,quiteindependentfrom

religioussystemsorbeliefs.Forexample,kin-selectionandreciprocalaltruism

mechanismsprobablyserveasthecognitivefoundationforgroup-orientation,whilethe

cultural-leveladaptationofreligion(i.e.,religionasafacilitatorofmorality)hasonly

reinforcedourpropensitytobuildsocietiesandliveourlivesingroups.Wilson’spoints

contributewonderfullytoourunderstandingofreligioussystemsasgroupadaptations

designedtosolveevolutionarilyrecentproblems.Thereisnoneedforan“either/or”

approachtoallofthis;inaccountingforwhyhumansaresocialcreatures,itisprobable

thatevolutionarybiologistsandevolutionarypsychologiststellanimportantpartofthe

story(adaptationistexplanationsthatexplorethebenefitofkin-selectionandreciprocal

altruismmechanismsatthelevelofindividuals),whilethesocialscientistsandWilsontell

theremainderofthestory(multi-levelselectionexplanationsthatexplorethebenefitof

religionatthelevelofsocieties).

39Ibid.,pg.44.

46

Boyer(2009)provideshisowntakeonculturalevolution,inspiredbytheworkof

culturalanthropologists:

…whatweobserveasculturalrepresentationsandpracticesarevariants(ofculturaltraits),foundinroughlysimilarformsinaparticularplaceorgroupbecausetheyhaveresistedchangeanddistortionthroughinnumerableprocessesofacquisition,storage,inference,andcommunication.40

TheyrecounttheworkofBoydandRicherson(1985):

…thespreadofspecificvariantsofculturalrepresentations(suchasaparticularreligiousbelieforconceptrepresentedbyahumanmind)isseenaspartlyanalogoustothespreadofallelesinagenepool.Inparticular,thetoolsofpopulationgeneticscanbeappliedtothespreadofculturaltraitsandallowustopredicttheirspread,givensuchparametersastheinitialprevalenceofatrait,thelikelihoodoftransmission,andvariousbiases.41

ThisismuchlikeWilson’sproposal.AlsodiscussedistheworkofDanSperber(2000),in

whichtheculturaltransmissionofbeliefsispresentedinan“epidemiologicalmodel.”In

suchamodel,theprocessofbelieftransmissionishighly“entropic”—thatis,the

communicationofbeliefsproducesalargenumberofdifferentrepresentationsinalarge

numberofdifferentminds.Thatthereissomecommonalityamongthesedifferent

representationsdemandsexplanation,andtheexplanationisfoundinthefactthatpeoples’

“inferencesareguidedbytacitprinciplesthathappentobeidenticalinallnormalminds”

(Boyer&Bergstrom,2008).ThissoundsakintoAtran’s(2002)accountof“evolutionary

landscapes”andBoyer’s(2001)theoryaboutconceptualtemplatesandrelatedautomatic

inferencesystems.Allinall,thesebodiesofwork(alongwithmemetheory)providea

compellingcaseforthepositionthatculturalevolutionexplainsthetransmissionand

developmentofourvariousrefinedgod-beliefs.40Boyer,2009,pg.290.41Boyd&Richerson,1985,pg.113.

47

Notallreligionsarecreatedequal.Thistruthgivesstrengthtoa“multilevel

selection”hypothesislikeWilson’s.Somereligiousbeliefslendtotheirrespectiveculture

greatadaptiveadvantage,andotherreligiousbeliefsdonot—itisthisdisparitythatgives

theprocessesofselectionattheculturallevelsomethingtoworkwith.Inadditiontothe

memetheorypresentedbyDawkinsandBoyer(whichhelpsustounderstandhow

religiousbeliefschangeconceptuallyacrosstimeviaculturaltransmissionandviathe

variousmechanismsinplacethataffecthowwellweretaincertaintypesofbeliefs),

Wilson’s“multi-levelselection”takeonreligiousbeliefsgoesalongwaytowardaccounting

forthevastlydiversebodiesofgod-beliefsthatweobserveacrosshumanculturesacross

time.

Assuch,Ibelievethatwecanreasonablyconcludethatthediversityofgod-beliefsin

humanexperienceislargelyexplainedby:

1. Thebyproductrawgod-beliefsprovidedbyourRGCMs,

2. Theprocessesofculturalevolutionandmultilevelselection,andtheadaptive

advantageconferredtoaculturalgroupbyitsrespectiverefinedgod-beliefs

(thisincludesmemetheoryandthedifferentratesofsuccessof“copyme”

programsintheculturaltransmissionofgod-beliefs),and

3. Themanifoldofhumanexperience(i.e.,acrosstime,peoplehaveexperienced

theworldinradicallydifferentenvironmentsandwithradicallydifferent

historicalcontingencies).

Eachoftheseisacrucialfactorinunderstandingtheorigin,development,anddiversityof

ourgod-beliefs.

48

C.AdaptiveCost/BenefitAnalysis

Onewaytoproceedinconsideringthenotionthatourvariousgod-beliefsmaybe

adaptations(eitherculturalorbiological)istoperformacost/benefitanalysisofsorts.We

needtoweighthecostsofreligionagainstthebenefitstodetermineifwecanplausibly

believethatreligioussystemsmighthaveconferredadaptivebenefittotheirrespective

adherents.Fortunately,thebodyofresearchinthisparticularareaisrich.Withafew

exceptions,theliteratureindicatesthatwehavegoodreasonforbelievingthatreligious

beliefsandsystemsareadaptationsatthegrouplevel,andthatrefinedgod-beliefsalso

conferadaptivebenefitstoindividualbelievers.Beforeweproceedintothedetails,itwill

beusefultokeepinmindthatourgod-beliefsareoperatingattwodifferentlevels—the

intuitivelevelandthereflectivelevel.AtthereflectivelevelarewhatIhavetermedour

refinedgod-beliefs;thesearethemoresophisticated,inferential,andsociallyoriented

beliefs.AttheintuitivelevelarewhatIhavetermedourrawgod-beliefs;thesearethe

byproductsofournormalcognitiveprocesses.Wehaveconceivedoftheserawgod-beliefs

asthebarefoundationsfortheconstructionofrefinedgod-beliefs.Betweenthesetwo

levels,thereisa“cognitivegap”;theformerareevolutionarilyancientandcognitivelyeasy,

whilethelatterareevolutionarilyrecentandtendtobemuchmorecognitivelydifficult.

Thesetwo“levels”warrantdifferentempiricalapproaches.Anthropologistsand

socialscientistsofreligionhavemadethesocietal-levelrefinedgod-beliefsthetargetof

theirwork,whileevolutionarypsychologistsandcognitivescientistsofreligionhave

targetedthecognitive-level,rawgod-beliefswiththeirwork.Sincethesocialreligious

beliefsareevolutionarilyrecent(recent,thatis,relativetotheevolutionarilyancient

intuitionsofferedtousbyourRGCMs),thestudyofmodernreligioussystemsisrelevantto

49

understandingtheiradaptivebenefit.Sincethecognitivereligiousbeliefsare

evolutionarilyancient,thestudyofmodernreligioussystemsisquiteirrelevantto

understandingtheunderlyingcognitivemechanisms(unlessweareconsideringhowour

rawgod-beliefsmighthavegivenrisetoourrefinedgod-beliefs);thepsychologicalstudyof

therelevantcognitivemechanisms,though,doesgiveusvaluableinsightintohowourraw

god-beliefsmayhavehelpedustosurviveancientenvironments.Bothapproaches—the

cognitiveandtheanthropological—ultimatelyappealtoevolutionaryprocesses.

So,Inowofficiallypropose:“Refinedgod-beliefsareadaptivelyadvantageous,both

forindividualorganismsandforgroups.”42Thenextpartofthepaperwillserveto

examinethisproposition.Bynomeanswillthissectionbeacomprehensiveexaminationof

theadaptivecostsandbenefitsofreligion.Rather,Iwillhitthemaintalkingpointsofthose

whoadvocateforthefitness-enhancingnatureofourgod-beliefs.Iwilldomybesttoavoid

evolutionary“just-so”stories—convenient,adhocexplanatoryhypothesesthatoftencome

underfirefromthecriticsofevolutionarytheory—andwillinsteadsticktothetaskof

showingthereasonabilityofbelievingthatreligiousbeliefsarefitness-conferring

adaptations.

C-1.Cost,orInvestment? Onthefaceofthings,god-beliefsasweknowthemtoday—systematizedworldviews

withvaluesandgoalsthatareseeminglyopposedtohumans’adaptiveadvantage—seem

incrediblymaladaptive.Manyreligioussystemsestablishmoralboundariesintheareasof

procreation,bodilydefense,andtheaccumulationofpersonalresources,andthisseemsto

beasure-firestrategyforevolutionaryfailure.Yet,herewearetoday,withentirelistsof

42Inallcases,refinedgod-beliefsaretransmittedculturally.

50

thoushallnot’sthatplacerestrictionsonthingslikeextra-maritalsex,violence,and

materialabundance.Atfirstglance,thisseemsanunwiseevolutionarystrategy.Afterall,

inthenaturalworldthewinnersarethosewhocanreproducesuccessfully(relativeto

others),killtheirenemies,andnotstarvetodeath.

Thatconsidered,ifwearetoproposethatgod-beliefsareadaptations,ratherthan

maladaptations,wemustcontendthatthebenefitstoreligiousbelieversoutweighthe

apparentcosts.BoyerandBergstrom(2008)havedonejustthat,attackingtheapparent

costshead-on:

Astrikingcharacteristicofmostreligiousthoughtandbehavioristhattheydonotseemtoconferanydirectfitnessadvantageonthepractitioners.So,fromanevolutionaryviewpoint,mostreligiousphenomenamightseemtobeeithermaladaptiveoradaptivelyneutral.43However,evolutionarybiologyalsodocumentsspecificwaysinwhichfitnesscostscanbecomeadaptive.Thisisparticularlysointhecaseofsignaling,anareaofintenseworkinrecentevolutionarybiology…Signalingrequiresthecoevolutionofsenderandreceivercapacities…biologistshavefocusedespeciallyoncostlysignals,whicharereliablebecausetheyaredifficulttofakeandtherebyprovidedirectindicesofthefitnessqualitiestheyaresupposedtoadvertise.44

BoyerandBergstromhaveproposedthat,whilereligioniswhattheycalla“costlysignal,”

thesuccessfulperformanceofsuchacostlysignalactuallyleadstogreateradaptivebenefit

atsomelaterpoint,asa“delayedreward.”Theypointout,“Cooperationoftenrequiresthat

peoplesacrificeanimmediatebenefitforadelayedreward.”So,theirnotionofreligious

beliefasacostlysignalonlyworksifweunderstandreligiousbeliefinthecontextofintra-

grouprelationships.Theirconceptionofreligiousbeliefsascostlysignalshelpsusto

43Boyer&Bergstrom,2008,pg.115.44Ibid.,pg.115.

51

understandtheadaptivebenefitsofreligionintermsoftheadaptivebenefitsofgroup

membership,relations,andcooperation.

BoyerandBergstrom(2008)discussthecostsandbenefitsoftheperformanceof

suchcostlysignals:

Inamoregeneralway,religiousthoughtandbehaviorwouldseemtomobilizecognitiveresourcesawayfromsurvivalandreproduction,beingfocusedonnonphysicalimaginedagency.Assumingthatreligiousactivityiscostly,doesitprovidesignals?Toalargeextentitdoes,giventhatmostactivityofthiskindisbothpublicandformalized,sothatpeople’scommitmentstothelocalritualsystemareobservablebyall(Sosis2003).Onthebasisofacomparativestudyofsmallcommunities,Sosisshowedthatcostisindeedanimportantfactor.Religiousgroupsthatrequireagreaterinvestmentincostlyritualstendtoremainmorecohesive…45

Iftheirstoryiscorrect,itindicatesthatgroup-membershipandtheadaptivebenefits

thereofaremoreadvantageoustotheindividualthanaretheindividual’sabilitiesto

cognizeaboutnon-religiousthings(likesurvivalandreproduction).Theydonotsayitso

boldly,buttheproposalisessentiallysomethinglike:thepreciousresourcesspenton

religiousthoughtandritualareadropinthebucketcomparedtotheresourcesgainedby

groupidentity,intra-grouptrust,reciprocatedaltruism,sharedresources,etc.Atthevery

least,thecostsareeventuallyoutweighed.So,perhapssuchcostlyreligioussignalsare

bestregardednotasbeingadaptivelybeneficialorcostly,butasbeingadaptiveinvestments.

Religioussignalingisanespeciallyeffectivemechanismforcommunicatinggroup

identification,becauseareligioussignaltendstobeabindingsignal.Inonesense,religious

signalsare“binding”justinthattheytendtobecostly.Costlyreligioussignalstieoneto

one’sreligiouscommunityinimportantways—significantresources,time,andenergyare

spentinparticipatinginagroup’sreligiousidentity;costlysignalsarehardertofakethan45Ibid.,pg.116.

52

inexpensivesignals.46Wecanregardreligioussignalstobe“binding”inanothersense

whenweunderstandwhat,exactly,isbeingcommunicatedbythesignalerinhisorher

participationinagivenreligiouspractice.Signalingone’saffiliationwithaparticular

religionisnotlikewearinganamebadge—itcommunicatessomuchmorethanjustassent

toaparticularreligiousworldviewandadesiretoreapthebenefitsofgroupmembership.

Religioussignalingcommunicatessharedvalues,sharedpriorities,one’sintentionto

belongtothegroup,one’sintentiontomakesacrificesforthegroup,one’sintentionto

treattheotherindividualsofthegroupasofone’s“in-group,”etc.So,signalingreligious

affiliationis“binding”inthesensethatitallowsotherstoexpectcertainthingsofthe

signaler.

Signalingreligiousaffiliationis“binding”inonefinalaspect:religiousbeliefholdsa

privilegedplaceinpeoples’livesandinsociety.One’sreligiousbeliefsencompassthe

individual;asociety’sreligiousbeliefsactasguidingprinciples,corevalues,andsocial

norms.Signalsbasedonnon-religiousideologycouldverywellbeusedtocommunicate

groupidentity;itseemsreligioussignaling,however,enjoysauniqueabilityto

communicatetoothersthewaythatoneseesoneselfandone’srelationshiptotheworld,to

thedivine,andtootherpeople.Truly,religioussignalingisdifficult(andrisky)tofake,asit

46“Inexpensivesignals,”intherealmofreligiousbelief,mightincludethingslikeverbalcommitment,mereprofessionofabelief,etc.“Costly”religioussignalsincludethingslikeparticipationincommunityritual,spendingvaluableresourcesandtimedemonstratingone’sdevotiontoareligioussystem,denyingone’sdesiresandinterestsincommitmenttoareligioussystemthaturgespro-socialoraltruisticbehavior,etc.Itisthese“costly”signalsthatmakereligiousidentificationhardtofake.Sure,anyonecancommitverballytoabeliefsystem.Theideaisthatone’saccesstogroupmembershipwouldbecontingentonone’swillingnesstospendtheresourcesonthesesignals.“Costly”signalsarehardtofake,asreligionstendtobedemanding.Thecostsofbeing“foundout”mightincludeostracismorthewithholdingofthebenefitsofgroupmembership.(Orthingslikebeingstonedtodeath,orbeingburntatthestake.)

53

signalscoremetaphysicalcommitments.Groupsthatsignalgod-beliefsinreligiousritualor

inreligiousorganizationenjoyanaddedbenefitofbeingpronouncedlytight-knit

(Norenzayan&Shariff,2008)—thishelpstoexplainwhyreligionandthesignalingof

religiousaffiliationwerefavoredoveralternativekindsofsociety-organizingbeliefsystems

andthesignalingassociatedwiththem.

God-beliefsmightalsobeappropriatelyconceivedofasasocialgatekeeper.Ifthe

abilitytosuccessfullysignalareligiousworldviewiswhatconferstoyouthecrucial

benefitsofbelongingtothelargergroup,thenthosebenefitsarenotconferredifthesignal

isnotsent.Religiousandritualadherencemight,inaliteralsense,beatickettothe

adaptivebenefitsofgroupmembership—bothinourevolutionarypastandinthepresent.

Itmightbeworthclarifyingthatthe“rituals”thatserveascostlysignalsmaybeas

“primitive”asthingslikeinitiationrites,oras“modern”asthingslikechurchattendance.

Nomatterwhereoneisalongthespectrumofculturalreligiouspractices,theideaisthat

suchasignalisinitiallycostly,buttheneventuallyyieldsareturn.Allofthisisnottosay

thattherearenot,infact,costsassociatedwithourgod-beliefs(particularly,ourrefined

god-beliefs).Rather,itisjusttheclaimthatthebenefitsofsuchbeliefs—thebenefits

associatedwithgroupmembershipandinclusion—cometofaroutweightheinitialcosts

bothofbelievingacertainwayandsignalingthosebeliefs.

C-2.Health&WellBeing Anotherapproachindeterminingtheadaptivebenefitofreligionandgod-beliefsis

inthedirectpsychologicalstudyofmodernreligiousadherents.Whateverbenefitorcost

canbefoundinthestudyofmodernreligiosityisusefulforus,inasmuchasthesecosts

andbenefitstellusaboutthecostsandbenefitsofthereligioussystemsofourevolutionary

54

past.Towhateverextentpresentdayreligiousbeliefsarelikethebeliefsofourancestors,

suchpsychologicalstudiesmaycontributetoansweringthequestionofwhetherornot

religionisanadaptation.PsychologistKennethPargament(2002)hasconductedresearch

inthisarea.Heliststheconditionsunderwhichreligiousbeliefsconferwell-beingorharm

totheiradherents:

Someformsofreligionaremorehelpfulthanothers.Areligionthatisinternalized,intrinsicallymotivated,andbuiltonabeliefinagreatermeaninginlife,asecurerelationshipwithGod,andasenseofspiritualconnectednesswithothershaspositiveimplicationsforwell-being.Conversely,areligionthatisimposed,unexamined,andreflectiveofatenuousrelationshipwithGodandtheworldbodespoorlyforwell-being,atleastintheshortterm.47

PargamentfocusedhisresearchonthemodernAmericanreligiouslandscape,butIbelieve

hisfindingsalsogiveusstructureforunderstandingtheadaptivecostsandbenefitsof

othernon-Westernornon-modernreligions.

TherearecertainkeythemesinPargament’sfindingsthatcanserveascriteriafor

evaluatingtheadaptiveadvantageordisadvantageofreligiousworldviewsthatlookquite

differentfromWesterntheism.Suchcriteriaincludethesuccessfulinternalizationof

religiousbeliefs,theintrinsicmotivationofone’sreligiouspractices/behavior,asenseof

greatermeaningasderivedfromone’sreligiousbeliefs,asenseofspiritualsecurityas

conferredbyone’sreligiousbeliefs,andasenseofspiritualconnectednesswithothers.It

isupforempiricalresearchtodecidethis,butIwouldimaginethatevenabsentaliteral

conceptof“God,”ifagivenreligion,spiritualworldview,orculturalpracticemeetsthe

benefit-conferringstructureoutlinedbyPargament,wemightreasonablyexpectitto

conferthesamewell-beingandbenefitsthattheparticularreligionsPargamentstudieddid

47Pargament,2002,pg.177.

55

infactconfer.Giventhis,itisnotbeliefin“God,”perse,thatconferssuchbenefits;rather,

thepsychologicalbenefitsareproductsofthestructureofthereligion.Inprinciple,such

benefitscouldbehadwithastrictlysecularworldview,wereitasecularworldview

structuredsoastofacilitatethecommonthemesstudiedbyPargament.

Pargamentalsodrewconclusionsaboutwhichtypesofpeoplemostbenefitfromthe

typesofreligionhestudied:

Noteveryoneexperiencesthesamebenefitsfromreligion.Religiousnessismorehelpfultomoresociallymarginalizedgroups(e.g.,olderpeople,AfricanAmericans,women,poorpeople)andtothosewhoaremorereligiouslycommitted.Religiousbeliefsandpracticesappeartobeespeciallyvaluableinmorestressfulsituations…thatpushpeopletothelimitsoftheirownpersonalandsocialresources.SomeevidencealsosuggeststhatreligionisparticularlyhelpfultoRomanCatholicsdealingwithcontrollablelifestressorsandtoProtestantscopingwithuncontrollablelifeevents.48

Pargamentsummarizesthatthe“efficacyofreligiondependsonthedegreetowhichitis

wellintegratedintopeoples’lives.”Individualswhomostbenefitfromtheirreligionare

oneswhoareapartofasocialenvironmentthatencouragestheirfaith.Alsobenefitingare

thosewhoarebestabletoblendtheir“religiousbeliefs,practices,andmotivations

harmoniouslywitheachother.”Conversely,individualswhodidnotfitthose

descriptions—individualswhosereligiousidentityisnotsupported,whosereligionisunfit

fortheirproblems,andwhosebeliefsandpractices“lackcoherencewitheachother”—

receivedharm.Individualswhowereunabletofullyintegratetheirreligiousbeliefs

actuallysufferedintheirwell-being.

Pargament(2002)mentionsmarginalizedgroupsasthosepeoplewhobenefit

particularlywellfromreligion(becausereligiousbeliefsareembeddedmoredeeplyinto48Ibid.,pg.178.

56

theirculture)andstressfulsituationsasthoseeventsthatbestelicitparticularbenefitfrom

religiousbeliefs(becausefaithisaneffectivecopingmechanisminresponsetoevents

outsideofone’scontrol).Ashasalreadybeenmentioned,whatneedstobeempirically

studiediswhetherornotnon-religiousworldviewsconferpsychologicalwell-beingtotheir

adherents,ifthebenefit-conferringconditionsofthesereligiousbeliefsystems

(Pargament’sinternalization,intrinsicmotivation,coherence,etc.)aremetbythenon-

religiousworldviews.Itisunclearhowsalientafactorreligionitselfisinthese

psychologicalstudies—themoresalientfactorscouldbethesocialandpsychological

factorswehavediscussed.

OnewaytointerpretPargament’sfindingsisthatthepsychologicalwell-beingwas

notconferredbythereligiousbeliefsatall,butbytheabilityofanindividualtointernalize

theirchosenworldview,beapartofasupportivecommunity,comeupwithacoherent

worldview,etc.Onemightcontendthatitisnotreligiousbeliefitselfthatconfersadaptive

benefit,butratherthepsychologicalabilitytocopewiththeworldviewsprovidedbysuch

religiousbeliefs.Afterall,someofPargament’smostimportantfindingsdetailhowitisthe

peoplewhohavenotfullyintegratedreligionintotheirlivesthataremorepsychologically

atrisk.Anyhow,allofthataside,Pargamentwouldprobablyinsistthatthemostfitness-

enhancingreligionsaretheonesthatproducebelieverswhocanmeetthosecriteriafor

receivingpsychologicalbenefits;ifareligioncanfacilitatethepsychologicalwell-beingof

itsadherents,itisproperlyregardedasfitness-conferring.Thereligionsthatcannot

facilitatethosethingsactuallydopsychologicalharmtoadherents(i.e.,leadtheir

lukewarmadherentsintoresource-demandingcognitivedissonance).Theindividuals

57

withinsuccessfulreligionswhodonotmeetthevariousstandards(internalization,

intrinsicmotivation,etc.)alsosuffercostsaccordingly.

Thereisalsoanimportantrelationshipbetweenreligionandbehaviorsthatare

conducivetophysicalhealth.BiologistRobertTrivers(2011)discussesthisrelationship.

Herecognizesthatreligionsoftenencouragehealthybehavior,andhereferencesthe

effectsofreligiousbeliefonimprovedimmunefunction.Triversalsocitesthepositive

effectofmusiconimmunefunction.Medicineandmusicbothprovideplacebobenefitsto

some,andbothwere“originallyembedded”withinreligion.49However,manyofthehealth

benefitsofreligiousbeliefandaffiliationmightbeduetothebenefitsofpositivebeliefand

groupmembership,ingeneral,andnottoreligiousbelief,inparticular.But,insofaras

religiousbelieffacilitatesanindividual’spositivebeliefandmembershipinasupportive

group—i.e.,insofarasreligiousbeliefconferstothebelievertheadvantagesthatcomewith

thosethings—thenreligiousbeliefisrightlyconsideredtobeincrediblybeneficial.Trivers

alsodiscussesthepositiveimmuneeffectsofdisclosingtrauma,andhecontendsthat

religiousdisciplineslikeconfessionalsandprivateprayersmayeachfacilitatethis

benefit.50

Thesethingstakentogether,astrongcasecanbemadeforthepositiveeffectsof

religiononphysicalandpsychologicalhealth.Overthecourseofculturalevolution,we

wouldexpectthereligionsandculturalpracticesthatfacilitatepsychologicalandphysical

well-beingtobesuccessfulrelativetobeliefsystemsthatdonot.Aswehaveseen,one

issueofcontentionishowsalientafactorreligiousbeliefitselfactuallyis;itispossiblethat

themoreefficaciousfactorsarethingslikepositivebeliefandsupportivegroup49Trivers,2011,pg.279.50Ibid.,pg.287.

58

membership,ingeneral.Regardless,inasmuchasreligionfacilitatesbeneficialthingslike

positivebeliefandsupportivegroupmembership,religioncanitselfbeappropriately

construedasanadaptivelyadvantageousstrategy.

C-3.GroupCohesion&Pro-SocialBehavior

PsychologistsAraNorenzayanandAzimShariff(2008)discusstheadaptive

advantagesofreligiousbeliefs,relativetothedevelopmentoflarge-scalesocietiesandpro-

socialbehavior:

Religiousprosociality,thus,mayhavesoftenedthelimitationsthatkinship-basedand…reciprocity-basedaltruismplaceongroupsize.Inthisway,theculturalspreadofreligiousprosocialitymayhavefacilitatedtheriseofstable,large,cooperativecommunitiesofgeneticallyunrelatedindividuals.51Thecognitiveawarenessofgodsislikelytoheightenprosocialreputationalconcernsamongbelievers,justascognitiveawarenessofhumanwatchersdoesamongbelieversandnonbelieversalike.However,supernaturalmonitoring,tothedegreethatitisgenuinelybelievedandcognitivelysalient,offersthepowerfuladvantagethatcooperativeinteractionscanbeobservedevenintheabsenceofsocialmonitoring.52

Becausekinshipselectionmechanismsandreciprocalaltruismmodelsputabiologicalcap

onthesizeofsocialgroups,theriseoflargecommunitiesofgeneticallyunrelated

individualsneedsexplaining.NorenzayanandShariffproposethatitisreligiouspro-

socialitythat,infact,enabledsocietiestomovepasttherestrictionsplacedongroupsizes

bytherelativelyweakhumanabilitytomonitorgroupmembers’behavior;itwasthepro-

socialbehaviorthatresultedfromreligiousbeliefs,theyargue,thatfacilitatedtheriseof

largersocieties.Inshort:ifreligionprovidesaGodorgod-conceptthatservestomonitor

myneighbor’sbehaviorinawaythatIcannot,thenthatGodorgod-conceptwilleffectively

51Norenzayan&Shariff,2008,pg.58.52Ibid.,pg.58.

59

facilitatemytrustingmyneighbor,mygoodfaithtowardmyneighbor,andmycontinued

altruismtowardmyneighbor.Further,ifaGodorgod-conceptprovidedbyareligious

systemcanstandintofacilitateabehaviortowardstrangersthatmirrorsmybehavior

towardmykinortowardthosewhohaveactedaltruisticallytowardme,thensuchaGodor

god-conceptcanbeexpectedtocontributetothegrowthandstabilityofagroupentity.

NorenzayanandShariffdiscusstheeffectsofreligiousbeliefongroupcohesionin

particular:

…religiousbehaviorthatsignalsgenuinedevotionwouldbeexpectedtomobilizegreatercooperationandtrust,andwheninternalandexternalthreatstogroupsurvivalarehigh,religiousgroupswouldbeexpectedtooutlastsecularones…largesocietiesthathavesuccessfullystabilizedhighlevelsofcooperativenormswouldbemorelikelythansmalleronestoespousebeliefinmorallyconcernedgodswhoactivelymonitorhumaninteractions.53Attitudinalsurveysshowthatreligiousindividualsareperceivedtobemoretrustworthyandmorecooperative.54

NorenzayanandShariffconcludethat,towhateverextentreligiousbeliefcanbeeffectively

signaled,thenitmightenhancein-grouppersonaltrust,lowerthecostsofmonitoring

others’behavior,andtheneventuallyreinforceintra-grouppro-socialtendencies.Insmall-

scalesocieties,freeloadingisnotmuchofanissue,asthebehaviorsofindividualscanbe

easilymonitored.However,inlarger-scalesocieties,thebehaviorofindividualsismuch

moredifficulttokeeptrackof;assuch,inlarger-scalesocietiesfreeloadingisaweightier

issue.So,religionmightproperlyberegardedasasuccessfulanti-freeloadingadaptation,

bywhichcommittedindividualsarepressuredtocooperatenotbyotherindividuals,butby


60

God,god-concepts,orreligioussystemsofmoralnorms,obligations,andexpectations.The

costofsuchsignalsholdsthesignalersaccountabletotheircommitments.

ManyofNorenzayanandShariff’s(2007)conclusionsarebasedonresearchthey

conductedintheareaofreligiousprimesandeconomicgames.Theirfindingsare

fascinating:primingtheirsubjectsimplicitlywithGod-conceptsledtheirsubjectsto

allocatemoremoneytoananonymousstranger,relativetowhenaneutral(orno)concept

wasactivated.Theirconclusionsarethattheimplicitactivationofreligiousconceptsgave

individualsagreatertendencytowardpro-social,moralbehavior.Theyproposetwo

explanationsofthepro-socialbehavior(2007):(1)suchGod-conceptsareunconsciously

linkedtoconceptsofgenerosity,andwhenaGod-conceptisactivatedthereisan

“ideomotor”effect(apowerofsuggestion)ongenerosity,and(2)theactivationofaGod-

conceptactivatesinthesubjectsa“feltpresenceofsupernaturalwatchers.”Iseenoreason

whybothcannotbethecase;ifgod-conceptprimeshavean“ideomotor”effectonmore

generousbehavior,itmightbethatthegod-conceptprimeshavean“ideomotor”effecton

thenotionofanall-seeingwatcherandanypro-socialbehaviorassociatedwiththat.

Interestingly,thepro-socialeffectwasactivatedjustasstronglywhensubjectswere

primedwithconceptsassociatedwithsecularmoralauthority—governmentprimes,police

primes,lawprimes,etc.NorenzayanandShariff(2008)discussthesefindingsandtherise

ofmorally“reliable”secularinstitutions:

Althoughreligionscontinuetobepowerfulfacilitatorsofprosocialityinlargegroups,theyarenottheonlyones.Theculturalspreadofreliablesecularinstitutions,suchascourts,policingauthorities,andeffectivecontract-enforcingmechanisms,althoughhistoricallyrecent,haschangedthecourseofhumanprosociality.Consequently,activemembersofmodernsecularorganizationsareatleastaslikelytoreportdonatingtocharityasactivemembersofreligiousones…therearemanyexamplesofmodern,large,cooperative,andnotveryreligious

61

societies…that,nonetheless,retainagreatdegreeofintragrouptrustandcooperation.55

So,both“God-concept”and“secularmoralauthorityconcept”primesleadindividualsto

greaterpro-socialbehavior.Thisisamattertobesettledbyempiricalpsychologists,butit

seemsthatthecommonthreadbetweenthosetwokindsofprimesarethenotionsof

“authority”and“beingwatched.”RegardlessofwhethertheprimeisaGod-authorityora

secular-authority,itmightbetheactivationofan“authority”conceptthatissufficientfor

theactivationofthetendencytowardpro-social,morallyresponsiblebehavior.Thatwe

havesocial,moralauthoritiesthataresecularisadistinctlymodernphenomenon—it

mightbethatour“moralauthority”conceptsaresoconceptuallyrelatedtoour“God”

conceptsthattheactivationofa“secularmoralauthorityconcept”actuallyactivatesour

“God”concepts,too.Thereismuchgroundforinsightfulempiricalwork,here.Atthevery

least,thetwo(“God”conceptsand“secularmoralauthority”concepts)aresufficiently

related,suchthattheactivationofeachindividually,independentfromtheintended

activationoftheother,successfullyyieldspro-socialbehavior.

TheinformationprovidedbyNorenzayanandShariffgivesusgoodreasonto

supposethat“Godconcepts”mighthavehelpedtofacilitatetheriseoflarge,stable

societiesinourevolutionarypast.Theseconceptsarethoughttoengenderintra-group

trustandcooperation,andtheyarethoughttohavecontributedtotheemergenceof

particularkindsofgroupsthatwouldhavebeenmoresuccessfulthantheirrivals(i.e.,the

kindsofgroupsinwhichindividualsareprimedbytheircultureandreligionforpro-social

behavior).Contemporarystudiesofthesepro-socialreligiousprimes(andnowsecular

55Norenzayan&Shariff,2008,pg.62.

62

primes)areglimpsesintoourevolutionarypastthathelpustounderstandtheinner

workingsofourancestorsandtheirdevelopingsocieties.Further,theyreveal,tosome

extent,theevolutionaryeffectthatreligiousbeliefsandsystemsmighthavehadonthem

socially.

C-4.ReligionasCostly

Givencurrentevents,itmightseemstrangethatIamarguingthatreligiousbeliefs

areadvantageous,inanysense.Indeed,theresponsibilityformuchviolentconflictin

historicalandmoderntimesbelongstothosemotivatedbyreligiousreasonsorbyreligious

conflict.Crusades,Inquisitions,andwitchhunts,forinstance,werecarriedoutforthe

gloryofGod;theriseandfallofIslamickingdomsintheMiddleEasthasbeencharacterized

byreligiousconquestandSunni-Shi’aideologicaldisputes;thedistinctlymodernthreatsof

terrorism,violentreligiousextremism,andreligiouspersecutionarecarriedoutby

practitionersfromnearlyeveryprimaryworldreligion;entireminoritygroupsarewiped

fromexistenceinreligiously-motivatedgenocide;andreligiousconflictsteersmany

nations’geopoliticsandmilitaryengagement.

Inlightofthesethings,astatementlike,“Religiousbeliefisadaptivelyadvantageous,”

mightseemabsurd.Afterall,noneofthoseconsequencesofreligiousbeliefis

“advantageous”inanynormalsenseoftheword.Imustconcede,ofcourse,thatreligious

conflictisindeedcostly.Whenreligiousconflictbecomeswar,itisimpossibletodenythat

theeconomic,societal,andhumantollsof“religion”arefrighteninglyhigh.So,inorderfor

metomaintainthatreligiousbeliefsareadvantageous,Imustdosoinlightofthese

undeniabletruths.Myclaimmustbethat,despitetheseapparentcosts,god-beliefsyieldto

usanetadaptiveadvantage.

63

Wewillbeginwithreligiouswarandconflict.Itseemsimpossibletosaythat

religiousbeliefisadaptivelybeneficialtoindividualsengagedinreligiousconquest—beit

religiousconflictonthescaleoftheCrusades,orreligiousconflictbetweentwo

neighboringtribes.Clearly,sincerelyheldreligiousbeliefsaredetrimentaltoonewhodies

inreligiousconflict(assuming,ofcourse,thatitwasareligiousbeliefthatlandedthis

individualorhissocietyinviolentconflict).Religiousbeliefsareequallycostlytothe

culturethatiswipedouteitherbyforcedassimilationintoaninvadingreligioussocietyor

byacatastrophiclossofpopulationinviolentconflict.Putinverycrassterms,religious

beliefiscostlytothelosersofreligiousconflict.However,whatisreligiousbelieftothe

winnersofreligiousconflict?Iproposethat,forthevictorsofreligiouslymotivatedconflict,

religionisasuccessfultoolofconquest;itisaunifier,motivator,justifier,andcultural

symbol.Religionprovidesjustificationforgoingtowar(andforreapingthebenefitsof

war).Certainly,therearematerialandhumanlossestoallsidesinnearlyeveryviolent

religiousconflict;however,therearealsowinnersinmostsuchconflicts.Foragiven

society,forinstance,warisagreatmeansofmaterialgain—anenemy’sresources,an

enemy’spopulation,anenemy’sstrategiclocation,anenemy’sexploitedlabor,etc.

Itistruethatthewinnersofreligiouslymotivatedconflictalsosufferlossesof

resourcesandlife.Icangrantthis,however,andsimultaneouslymaintainthatreligious

beliefisadaptivelyadvantageousatthegrouplevel,aslongasthesocietyinquestiongains

morethanitloses—resources,location,ideologicalsupremacy,thepopulationofa

conqueredpeople,etc.Certainly,atleastsomereligiouslymotivatedconflictsin

evolutionaryhistoryhaveresultedinanetlossforareligiousgroup.However,myposition

(thatrefinedgod-beliefisawinningstrategy)dependsonlyonthepropositionthat

64

religiousconflictsresultedinanetgainforthoseinvolvedofthereligioussort.Inthisway,

refinedgod-beliefcanbeconceivedofasadaptive,eveninlightoftheresourceslostbythe

winningside.Itisworthnoting,too,thatwarriorscanbekilledandcropsburned(or

whatever),butthatreligiousconceptsandideasarenotsimilarlydestructible.Lossesthat

areshortofcatastrophictoareligiousgroupthathas“won”(orlost)agivenconflictmight

servetogalvanizetheirreligiousconcepts,stories,andculture.Whateverthecase,success

atwarisagreatwaytomitigatecompetitionwithneighboringgroups.Attheculturallevel,

warisalsoasuccessfulstrategyofideologicalconquest:howbettertoensurethespreadof

asociety’sbeliefsandvaluesthanbythatsociety’simpositionofitsbeliefsupon

neighboringpopulations?

Ifreligioncanbeproperlyconceivedofasamotivatorforwarandconquest,asI

believeitcan,andifthebenefitsofwartoasocietyandtoitsindividualssometimes

outweighthecosts,thenacasecanbemadethatreligiouslymotivatedwarisactually,inat

leastsomecases,beneficialtothecultureorsocietythatholdsthosereligiousbeliefs.56

Thus,thegenesandideologiesofthepeoplewhoholdtothosereligiousbeliefsenjoy

relativesuccessinthenextgeneration.Certainly,thecostsofreligiouswararemassive,

andthesecostsreflectnegativelyupontheadvantageousnessofreligiousbeliefto

whateverextentsincerereligiousbelieversarethelosersinagivenconflict.However,such

conflictsalsohavewinners,andthewinnersenjoybenefits;towhateverextentsincere

religiousbelievers(individualorgroup)“win”inagivenconflict,thebenefitsreflect

positivelyupontheadvantageousnessofthewinner’sreligiousbeliefs.Presumably,to

whateverextentgod-beliefsmakeasocietybetteratwar—forinstance,towhateverextent

56Thatis,inthesecasesreligionhelpstofurtherthesurvivalandspreadofthatculture.

65

fightingforreligiousreasonsemboldensanarmy,makesthearmyfearlessofdeath,etc.—

suchgod-beliefsyieldtothatsocietyevenfurtherbenefit.

Letitbeknownthatinusingtermslike“winner”and“successfulstrategy,”Iamnot

advocatingforreligiouswarorprovidingjustificationforreligiouswar—thatmuchshould

beclear!Rather,Imeantoshowthatthereismoretotherelationshipbetweenreligious

conflictandevolutionthanjustmassivecost;infact,therearewinners.Ialsothinkit

helpfultopointoutthatmassivelycostlyconflictisnotuniquetoreligiousbelief.Secular

andatheiststateshavecommittedatrocitiesagainsthumanitywithoutreligiousmotivation

orjustification;seeHitler’s,Stalin’s,andMao’scontributionstothebloodytwentieth

century.Thecarnagewroughtinthesesituationsisideological,butitisnotcharacterized

bygod-beliefs.Imentionthis,becausereligionhasfarfromcorneredthemarketinarmed

conflict;societiesareperfectlycapableoffindingreasonforgoingtowarwithother

societies,oroffindingjustificationfortheeradicationofminoritygroupsfromtheir

population,sansreligiousbelief.Certainly,theabilitytowageareligiouswar,andthe

justificationfordoingso,isabyproductofreligiousbelief;buthumansocietiesexcelat

wagingwarindependentofreligiousbelief.Itisamischaracterizationofgod-beliefs(andof

thehistoryofviolentconflict)tosaythatgod-beliefsaremaladaptationsthatgiverisetothe

humancapacitytokillandbekilledinwar.Tocharacterizegod-beliefsinthiswayalso

betraysanassumption—thatthe“religiouswars”weobserveinmoderntimesaretruly

religiousinnature.Granted,somereligiousconflictistrulyreligiousinnature;other

“religiousconflict,”however,ismoreplausiblypoliticalorgeopoliticalinnature,with

religiousideologyusedasajustificationforconflictorasatoolforrecruitmenttoacause.

66

Asidefromviolentreligiousconflict,theothercommonlyenumeratedcostsof

religiousbeliefincludetime,resourceallocationandopportunitycost,pain(physicalor

emotional),costlycommitmenttoritual,adherencetomoralnormsandstandardsthatare

adaptivelycostly,etc.(Sosis,2009).Onthesurfaceofthings,eachofthesecanindeedbe

understoodasacost.However,Ihavepresentedevidence(Norenzayan&Shariff,2008)for

theconclusionthatitwasgod-beliefsthathelpedenablehumangroupstogrowbeyondthe

relativelysmallgroupsizesofourdistantancestors,andIhavepresentedBoyerand

Bergstrom’s(2008)argumentthatreligiousbeliefisbestunderstoodasacostlysignal.

Eachofthecostslistedabove,inadditiontobeingunderstoodasevolutionarilycostly,may

beunderstoodasanevolutionaryinvestment.Iftheorganismsthatinvestinthesecostly

practicesreaptheadaptivebenefitsofgroupmembershipandstablegroupcohesion

(religionasacostlysignalthatyieldsapayoff),thensuchinitiallycostlypracticeswere

wiseadaptiveinvestments,indeed.Iftheorganismsandsocietiesthatarereligiousare

madestrongerandmorestablebytheirreligiousbeliefs,thentheinitialcoststhatcome

withparticipationinreligionarejustsubsumedbythebroadersuccessfulstrategyof

refinedgod-beliefthatisimplementedatthegrouplevel.Inbothcases,thebenefits

outweighthecosts.

4.Conclusions

Areourgod-beliefsevolutionarilycostlyorevolutionarilybeneficial?Ihavebuilta

caseforthenetadaptiveadvantageofrefinedgod-beliefs,byshowingtheeffectsthat

religionandreligiousbehaviorhaveonanindividual’saccesstogroupmembership

(religionasanadaptiveinvestment/costlysignal),groupcohesion(religionasafacilitatorof

67

theriseoflarge,stablesocieties),pro-socialbehavior(religionasamoralizingforce),

psychologicalwell-being(religionasasourceofindividualsecurityandwell-being),and

physicalhealth(religiousproscriptionsasconducivetophysicallyhealthybehavior).Those

whowouldarguethatourgod-beliefsaremaladaptiveneedtoshowthatthecostsofsuch

beliefsoutweighthebenefitsthatweresurveyedintheprevioussection.

Thecostsofreligiousbeliefthatareoftencited—religiousconflictandcostly

adherencetosocialnorms,forinstance—arenotnegligible.Indeed,manypeoplehavedied

orlosttheircultureinthenameofgod-beliefs,andthatseemsobviouslycostly.Ina

possibleworldinwhichtherewerenotraceofreligiousbelief,however,therewould

certainlybeotherreasonsforconflict(likescarcityofresources).Ihavearguedthatitwas

religionitselfthathelpedtofacilitatethedevelopmentofhumansociety.Insofaras

religionfacilitatesgroupcooperationandthebenefitsthatcomewithit(group

membership,groupcohesion,andaltruism),religionoughttoberegardedasimmensely

beneficial.Indeed,fortheretoberecognizablehumansocietiesorculturesinanother

possibleworldthatlacksgod-beliefs,someothersocietalgluewouldbeneededtostandin

for“religion”anditsroleinthecohesionofsociety.Inourworld,itwasreligionthatinfact

servedasthisglue.Intheimaginingofaworldwithoutreligiousconflict(andtherefore

withoutreligiousbelieforitsevolutionarybenefits),perhapswecanhaveourcakeandeat

it,too;butperhapswecannot.

Theoriginsofourgod-beliefscannotbeadequatelyexplainedbyappealtoselective

pressuresoccurringatthegeneticlevel.Thefoundationsofreligiousbelief—rawgod-

belief—arenotadaptationsthatwereselected-for.Rather,whatwasselectedwere

cognitivemechanismsthatyieldbyproductrawgod-beliefs.Thesemechanismscomposea

68

religion-generatingcognitivesuite,theRGCMsofwhichoperateinevolutionarily

unintendeddomainstoyieldtheirbyproducts.Thereligion-generatingcognitivesuite

facilitatestheformationofbyproductgod-beliefs,andthesebyproductsaredevelopedover

timebyculturesintorefinedgod-beliefs;theserefinedsystemsofbeliefaretheadaptively

advantageoustraitsofgroupsandcultures.Thatis,theyyieldcertainbehaviorsthatare

beneficialtobothgroupsandindividuals.Theprocessesofmulti-levelselectiondotheir

workontheseconsequentbehaviorsandgroup-organismictraits.Individualsand

societieswiththeproperkindsofreligiousstoriestotell(refinedgod-beliefs)wouldhave

yieldedadaptivelyadvantageousbehaviorsandsurviveddisproportionatelywell,relative

tothosewithouttherightkindsofadaptivelyadvantageousrefinedgod-beliefs.

IhaveadvocatedforafusionoftheByproductandAdaptationistaccountsforthe

phenomenonofreligiousbelief.Ihavearguedthatourrawgod-beliefsarethecognitive

byproductsofbrainsliketheonesthatwehave,andthatourrefinedgod-beliefsareformed

byhumanprocessesoflearning(including,forthetheist,revelation),rationalization,meme

transmission,andgroup-levelselection.Rawgod-beliefsarethearchitecturalspandrelsof

ourcognitivemechanisms—thespacesbetweenthe“arches”ofourcognition.Thecontent

ofourrefinedgod-beliefsisdeterminedbyculturalevolutionandthecontingenciesof

humanculturaltransmissionandstorytelling.Modernbeliefsystemsareindeedthe

productsofselection,butatthegrouplevel,ratherthanatthegeneticlevel.Thesespecific

beliefsystemsledgroupsandculturesinourevolutionarypasttobehaveincertainways;

theseparticularbehavioraltendenciesledtotheirgroups’successand,therefore,tothe

continuedtransmissionoftheirrespectiveculturalstoriesandtotheflourishingofthe

individualsofthesesocieties.

69

Itisamistaketoappealexclusivelytoadaptationiststoriesinexplainingthe

phenomenonofreligiousbelief,anditisamistaketoconceiveofrefinedreligiousbeliefsas

themerebyproductsofourcognitivestructures.Weneedultimatelytoappealtoboth

kindsofstories.Theadaptationiststoriesofferedbyevolutionarypsychologistsmightbe

abletoaccountforspecificcognitivemechanisms(theRGCMs),psychologicalprocesses,

andbelief-formationtendencies,buttheyfailtoaccountfortheoriginsoftheinitialcontent

ofourgod-beliefsinawaythatourbyproductstorycan.Itishighlyquestion-beggingto

positthatbeliefsthemselvesareselectableatthegeneticlevel,orthatreligiousbeliefs

themselves(thatis,thosebeliefsthataredemonstrablyculturallytransmitted)are

transmittablegenetically.Itisalsodifficulttoseehowadaptationiststoriesmightexplain

theconfluenceofthevaryingsystemsandcomponentsinvolvedinreligiousbeliefsand

systems—morality,ritual,beliefsinsupernaturalbeings,emotionalsymbolismand

experience,etc.—eachofwhichhasitsownuniqueevolutionaryhistoryapartfromreligion,

morebroadlyconstrued.Ifreligionjustistheconfluenceofthesevarioussystemsinan

evolutionarilyunintendedreligiousdomain,thenreligionoughttobeconceivedofasa

byproduct.However,thatrefinedgod-beliefsareculturaladaptationsisclear.

Oneisrighttoask,“Why,despitetheexplanatoryalternativestoreligionthatwe

haveathand,anddespitethecontradictionsinherenttomanyreligioussystems,dosuch

god-beliefspersist?”Wemightaddtothatquestion,“Whyarethesereligiousstoriesso

unified,andwhyaretheysoagreeduponwithinagivensociety?”Afterall,itseems

strange,giventheabilityoftheempiricalsciencestodebunkmanyofourreligiousclaims,

thatreligionremainsasubiquitousasitis.Ifreligionisproperlyconceivedofasa“virusof

themind,”shouldwenotexpectscienceandtechnologytoserveascapable“anti-viral”

70

medications?AsImentionedabitearlier,someofthesereligiousbeliefsactuallyfitquite

wellintotheintuitiveconceptualexpectationsthatwehavefortheworldaroundus

(although,successfulgod-beliefs,accordingtoBoyer(2001),willviolateconceptual

expectationstotheproperdegree).Indeed,weshouldexpectourrefinedgod-beliefs,ifthey

didevolvefromourintuitiverawgod-beliefs,toalignconsistentlywiththesereligious

biases.Thisconsonanceofourrefinedgod-beliefswithourintuitiveunderstandingofthe

worldaroundus(deliveredtousbyourRGCMs)shouldonlybeexpectedtoreinforcethe

variousreligiousbeliefstowhichpeoplehold.

Inexplainingthepersistenceofreligiousbelief,itisimportanttonotethat,while

ourscientificmethodhasmovedusbeyondneedingtopositbeliefinGod(orgods)inorder

topossesssatisfactoryexplanationsofthephenomenaweexperience,thestrong

Byproductclaimstillstands:that,byvirtueofthewayourbrainsarestructured,we

naturallyconceiveoftheworldintermsofgod-beliefs.Thescientificmethodandempirical

sciencescanleadustodisavowcertaingod-beliefs,butIfinditunlikelythatourempirical

pursuitswilleversuccessfullyoverridethebyproductbeliefsofthestructuresofour

brains;wecannot,afterall,convinceourowncognitivemechanismstostopforming

byproductgod-beliefs.Thatis,wecannotstepawayfromourowncognition(Kahneman,

2011).Perhapsreligiousbeliefpersists,becauseourautomaticrawgod-beliefspersist.To

expectreligiousbeliefnottopersististoexpectpeopletoignorethereligiousinclinations

deliveredtothembytheirbrains—thatthingsaredesigned,thatthereisagency“outthere,”

thattheobjectsofourperceptionhavementalstates,etc.—andtooperatebyworldviews

thatareveryunnaturalforpeoplewithbrainslikeourstohold.Ifthesereligiousbiasesare

aspervasiveasIhavemadethemouttobe,thenastrictlysecularworldviewisactually

71

inconsistentwithmuchofthehumanexperience.Bythat,Imeanthatitwouldbestrange

foronetodenyone’sreligiouslybiasedinclinations,ifweassumesufficientignoranceof

anynon-religiousexplanationforthephenomenathatwenaturallyexplainbyappealto

god-beliefs.Addtothisone’splacementinareligiousculturalcontext,anditisevenless

surprisingthatone’sgod-beliefspersistinthemidstofalternative,non-religiouswaysof

seeingtheworld.

Perhapsthemostobviousexplanationonemightofferforwhycertainreligious

beliefspersististhattheytellatruestoryaboutthewaytheworldactuallyis;or,itmaybe

thattheytellapartiallytruestoryaboutthewaytheworldis.Thisiscertainlypossible.It

isnotpossible,however,thateveryreligiousstoryexplainshowtheworldactuallyis,for

acrossreligiousstories(andwithincertainindividualstories)thereisgreatincompatibility.

Therearenumerousreligioustraditions,forinstance,thatclaimtoworshiptheone,true

(and,therefore,mutuallyexclusive)God.So,ifwearetoexplainwhyreligiousbelief

persistsbygrantingthattheymightpossiblybetruebeliefs,weneedtofigureoutwhich

religiousbeliefsaretrueandwhicharefalse.But,thoughinprinciplepossible,thatwill

takeusfarafieldofthescopeofthispaper.Instead,Iofferthatreligiousbeliefpersists,

becausereligiousworldviewsarecomposedofbeliefsthatpersistentlymeshwiththe

believers’experiencesoftheworldaroundthem.Thehumanexperienceyieldsapanoply

ofvaryingreligiousbeliefs,becausepeopleexperiencetheworlddifferentlyandform

religiousbeliefsaccordingly;thedifferingreligiousbeliefspersist,becausethebeliefs’

consonancewiththebelievers’experiencesoftheworldaroundthempersists.

Ifreligiousbeliefswereoutrageouslyandobviouslyfalseorself-contradictory,and

werethisoutrageousfalsityorself-contradictionobvioustothebeliever,weshouldexpect

72

thesebeliefsnottopersist.Similarly,itseemsthat,werethereligiousbeliefsincoherentor

conceptuallyabsurd,wewouldexpectthemnottobepropagated(muchasBoyer(2001)

insistedwithhismodelofintuitiveconceptualtemplates).However,religiousbeliefdoes

persist.Ibelieveweareanchoredtoourreligiousworldviewsbecause1)itismostnatural

forustoconceiveoftheworldinreligiousterms,asIexplainedearlier,andbecause2)

thesereligiousbeliefsandexplanationsareconsistentlyre-confirmedtousbyour

experiencesoftheworld(whichareeithertrulyreligiousinnature,merelyperceivedtobe

religiousinnature,orsimplydonotcontradictwiththereligiousexplanationswehave

formedforthem).Itisalsolikelythatourgod-beliefsenjoytheboonsofthevarious

familiarityandconfirmationbiasesatworkinourpsychologies.

Thepersistenceofourgod-beliefsmightalsobepartiallyexplainedbytheriseof

verycomplicated,rigorous,andsystematizedrefinedgod-beliefs.Suchextensivebelief

systemshavegivenrisetoentirefieldsofintellectualpursuit(theology,anthropology,

philosophyofreligion,etc.).Abelief,orbeliefsystem,shouldbeexpectedtopersistmore

easilywhereverwehavethesehighlyintellectualized,counter-intuitiveapproachestogod-

beliefs(rememberBarrett&Keil’s“ontologicalgap”and“theologicalcorrectness”).Such

approachestogod-beliefsspendconsiderableeffortexplainingawayanyseeming

inconsistencybetweenagod-beliefandthebeliever’sexperienceoftheworld,orany

incompatibilitybetweenagod-beliefandsomecontrarybodyofevidence.Ifabeliever(or

culture)ishelpedtoreconcilehisorhergod-beliefswithotherideasormattersoffactthat

arecontrarytohisorhergod-beliefs,suchreconciliationshouldbeexpectedtoaidinthe

beliefs’persistence.Manyrefinedgod-beliefsenjoythisstatusofhavingbeenreconciledto

73

bodiesofevidence(orideas)thataretothecontrary—thankstophilosophicaltheology,

theisticapologetics,andsoon.

Asforwhyagivensociety’sreligiousstoriesseemsounifiedandagreed-upon,I

believewecanpursueasimilarexplanation:weshouldexpectonetoassenttosome

degreetoanexplanatorystory,religiousornot,totheextentthatthereligiousstory

mesheswithone’sexperiencesofone’senvironment.Thefactthataparticularreligious

storymakessenseofalocalenvironment(or,dependingonthegod-belief,theentire

cosmos)serves,formany,asgoodreasonforbuyingintothatparticularstory.Giventhat

everyoneinaparticularenvironmentwillhaveverysimilarexperiencesofthat

environment,weshouldnotbesurprisedthatthereligiousexplanationsoftheir

environment—events,phenomena,thenaturalenvironment,theirplacementthere,etc.—

aresharedincommoninthewaythatreligionsseemtobesharedincommon.Theclaimis

notthatthepersistenceandunityofreligiousstoriesarerational,orthattheyoughtto

persistoroughttobeunified(although,theymayverywellberational,anditmaywellbe

thecasethatbelieversarejustifiedinmaintainingtheirbeliefs).Rather,myclaimisjust

thatthepersistenceandunityofreligiousbeliefsystemscanbeunderstoodbyappealto

theexperiencesofbelievingindividuals.

Theimplicationsfortheismofanevolutionaryaccountlikemineare,atthispoint,

unclear.Ontheonehand,thatreligiousbeliefisabyproductofourcognitivestructures

shouldgivethetheistpause,asshouldtheideathatGodorspiritsmaybethespandrelsof

evolutionaryprocessesandcognitivemechanisms.Ontheotherhand,however,allofour

cognitiveandbelief-formationfacultieshavetheirorigininevolutionaryprocesses.At

somelevelofgenerality,thefollowingholds:ifthetheistoughttobeconcernedaboutthe

74

justifiabilityandtruthofhisorhergod-beliefsinlightoftheirevolutionaryorigins,thenthe

theist(andnon-theist)alsooughttobeconcernedaboutthejustifiabilityandtruthofother

typesoftruthclaimswemakeabouttheworldinlightoftheirevolutionaryorigins.Tobe

sure,manyofournon-religiousbeliefsareempiricallyverifiableandtestableinwaysthat

ourgod-beliefsarenot,andthesestandardsofjustificationservetoisolateournon-

religiousbeliefsfrombeingunderminedbyanevolutionarystory.However,god-beliefs

mayhavetheirownstandardsofjustification:factorslikereligiousexperience,miracles,

andreliabletestimonymayreasonablybetakentoisolateatleastsomeofourgod-beliefs

frombeingunderminedbyanevolutionarystory.

Perhapsmyraw/refinedgod-beliefdistinctionwillproveusefultothetheistinthis

realm:itmaybethatabyproducttheoryoftheoriginsofreligiousbeliefsseriously

underminesthejustificationofrawgod-beliefs(becausetheyaredeliveredtousbytheoff-

line,automaticprocessesofourcognitivemechanismsfunctioninginanimproperdomain),

whileitfailstosimilarlyunderminethejustificationofrefinedgod-beliefs(becausethey

includeclaimsthataremoreintellectually,empirically,andinferentiallyinvolved).Itismy

hopethatfutureresearchinthisfieldwilltakeonamoreeven-handedtone,ratherthan

beginningwiththepresuppositionthat“Allgod-beliefsarefalse.”Certainly,god-beliefsare

notfalsemerelybecausetheiroriginscanbeexplainedbyappealtoevolutionaryprocesses.

75

BibliographyAtran,Scott.InGodsWeTrust:TheEvolutionaryLandscapeofReligion.Oxford:OxfordUP,

2002.Print.Barrett,JustinL.,andFrankC.Keil."ConceptualizingaNonnaturalEntity:

AnthropomorphisminGodConcepts."CognitivePsychology31.3(1996):219-47.Barrett,JustinL.WhyWouldAnyoneBelieveinGod?WalnutCreek,CA:AltaMira,2004.Print.Bering,Jesse."TheCognitivePsychologyofBeliefintheSupernatural."Amer.Scientist

AmericanScientistAmer.Sci.Am.Sci.Am.Scientist94.2(2006):142.Bloom,Paul,andCsabaVeres."ThePerceivedIntentionalityofGroups."Cognition71.1

(1999):n.pag.Bloom,Paul."ReligionIsNatural."DevelopmentalScience10.1(2007):147-51.Boyd,Robert,andPeterJ.Richerson.CultureandtheEvolutionaryProcess.Chicago:Uof

Chicago,1985.Print.Boyer,Pascal.ReligionExplained:TheEvolutionaryOriginsofReligiousThought.NewYork:

Basic,2001.Print.Boyer,Pascal,andBrianBergstrom."EvolutionaryPerspectivesonReligion."Annual

ReviewofAnthropology37.1(2008):111-30.Boyer,Pascal,andJamesV.Wertsch.MemoryinMindandCulture.NewYork:CambridgeUP,

2009.Print.Dawkins,Richard.TheSelfishGene.NewYork:OxfordUP,1976.Print.Dawkins,Richard.ADevil'sChaplain:ReflectionsonHope,Lies,Science,andLove.Boston:

HoughtonMifflin,2003.Print.Duchaine,Bradley,LedaCosmides,andJohnTooby."EvolutionaryPsychologyandthe

Brain."CurrentOpinioninNeurobiology11.2(2001):225-30.Gould,S.J.,andR.C.Lewontin."TheSpandrelsofSanMarcoandthePanglossianParadigm:

ACritiqueoftheAdaptationistProgramme."ProceedingsoftheRoyalSocietyB:BiologicalSciences205.1161(1979):581-98.

Guthrie,Stewart.“ACognitiveTheoryofReligion.”CurrentAnthropology21(2):181-203.

1980.

76

Guthrie,Stewart.FacesintheClouds:ANewTheoryofReligion.NewYork:OxfordUP,1995.Print.

Guthrie,Stewart.“AnimalAnimism:EvolutionaryRootsofReligiousCognition.”InCurrent

ApproachesintheCognitiveScienceofReligion,IlkkaPyysiainenandVeikkoAnttonen,eds.,pp.38-76.2002.Continuum,London.

Heider,Fritz,andMarianneSimmel."AnExperimentalStudyofApparentBehavior."The

AmericanJournalofPsychology57.2(1944):243.Hume,David,andHenryD.Aiken.DialoguesConcerningNaturalReligion.NewYork:Hafner

Pub.,1948.Print.Kahneman,Daniel.Thinking,FastandSlow.NewYork:Farrar,StrausandGiroux,2011.

Print.Kelemen,Deborah."AreChildren"IntuitiveTheists"?ReasoningAboutPurposeandDesign

inNature."PsychologicalScience15.5(2004):295-301.Lyons,J.C."CarvingtheMindatIts(NotNecessarilyModular)Joints."TheBritishJournal

forthePhilosophyofScience52.2(2001):277-302.Shariff,A.F.,andA.Norenzayan."GodIsWatchingYou:PrimingGodConceptsIncreases

ProsocialBehaviorinanAnonymousEconomicGame."PsychologicalScience18.9(2007):803-09.Web.

Norenzayan,A.,andA.F.Shariff."TheOriginandEvolutionofReligiousProsociality."

Science322.5898(2008):58-62.Pargament,KennethI."TheBitterandtheSweet:AnEvaluationoftheCostsandBenefitsof

Religiousness."PsychologicalInquiry13.3(2002):168-81.Pinker,Steven.HowtheMindWorks.NewYork:Norton,1997.Print.Plantinga,Alvin.WarrantedChristianBelief.NewYork:OxfordUP,2000.Print.Plotkin,H.C.DarwinMachinesandtheNatureofKnowledge.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUP,

1994.Print.Shariff,A.F.,andA.Norenzayan."GodIsWatchingYou:PrimingGodConceptsIncreases

ProsocialBehaviorinanAnonymousEconomicGame."PsychologicalScience18.9(2007):803-09.

Sosis,Richard."TheAdaptationist-ByproductDebateontheEvolutionofReligion:Five

MisunderstandingsoftheAdaptationistProgram."JournalofCognitionandCulture9.3(2009):315-32.

77

Sperber,Dan."IntuitiveandReflectiveBeliefs."BelievingandAccepting(2000):243-66.Trivers,Robert.TheFollyofFools:TheLogicofDeceitandSelf-DeceptioninHumanLife.New

York,NY:Basic,2011.Print.Westh,Peter."AnthropomorphisminGodConcepts:TheRoleofNarrative."Originsof

Religion,CognitionandCulture.Ed.ArminW.Geertz.Durham:Acumen,2013.N.pag.Print.

Wilson,DavidSloan.Darwin'sCathedral:Evolution,Religion,andtheNatureofSociety.

Chicago:UofChicago,2002.Print.

on the evolutionary origins of religious belief · the ubiquity of religious belief and experience...

Documents