The Free Will, Nature, and Nurture

of Religion

Where does religion come from? Why are people religious

(or not), and why do people differ in their religions?

A simple definition of religion: a community’s beliefs in

and interactions with posited spiritual agents.

1. “Do you believe in God?”

2. “Do you believe in the gods?”

In our society the former question is intelligible but the

latter is not—which shows the power of nurture.

How might people in America respond

to the following questions:

The specific content of religion is transmitted culturally—i.e.,

which gods, angels, demons, devils, spirits, jinn, and ghosts

actually exist, how to win their favor, etc. People have some

choice in large and diverse societies.

Theory of mind: the ability to understand that other people

have their own goals, thoughts, and perspectives. Develops

naturally in most children.

Many scholars claim that religion initially emerged as a

byproduct of the theory of mind. To understand non-human

objects and phenomena, our distant ancestors were better

off assuming agency rather than the lack of agency.

And yet nature plays a role, too.

Every society has some kind of

religion, which points to an

evolutionary origin.

Hunter-gatherers have typically accepted some form of

animism: the belief that plants, animals, inanimate objects,

and natural phenomena have a spiritual essence.

Once our ancestors believed in those spirits, they tried to

understand and influence them—i.e., they became religious.

Scholars use hunter-gatherers in the

anthropological record to gain

insights into the religious practices of

our distant ancestors.

Even if shamans could not actually commune with the spirit

world, they could heal people through the placebo effect.

Medical research shows that the more elaborate the

placebo, the greater the benefit.

Religion subsequently brought people direct

benefits. Shamans, for example, could use

trances, herbs, music, rituals, and dancing to

gain access to the spirit world.

Interacting with the spirit world can also give people a

sense of control over hunting, gathering, predators,

childbirth, the weather, natural disasters, etc. Perceiving

events as controllable has positive consequences.

Religions often include “costly signals,” such as body

markings, coming-of-age rituals, distinctive dress and food,

and food and water deprivation, by which people indicate

their loyalty to the group.

Religion also binds people together (Emile

Durkheim) and allows a group to distinguish

insiders and outsiders.

Thus religion emerged naturally in our distant ancestors

and benefited them. The specific forms varied greatly from

group to group, and continued evolving with the rise of

agriculture.

Jumping forward now to contemporary

religion in America. Scholars study the

three Bs of religion: belonging,

believing, and behaving. We can’t

assume the same patterns hold for all

three Bs.

Let’s start with belonging.

US Religious Landscape Survey (2014)

evangelical Protestant 25%

mainline Protestant 15%

historically black Protestant churches 7%

Catholic 21%

other Christian 3%

Jewish 2%

Muslim 1%

Buddhist 1%

Hindu 1%

other faiths 2%

unaffiliated 23%

Total

Christian:

71%

The unaffiliated grew from 8% in 1990 to 23% in 2014. Most

common among the young and in the West.

The unaffiliated (23%) break down as follows:

atheist: 3%

agnostic: 4%

nothing in particular: 16%

The usual stability in religious belonging could reflect either

the genes or the upbringing that people acquire from their

parents.

28% of Americans belong to a different religious

group than they did as children (44% if you

count movement between Protestant groups).

Some evidence indicating that this stability

in belonging stems from upbringing rather

than genes:

● When measured as adults, fraternal twins are just as likely

to share the same religion as identical twins, suggesting

zero genetic influence on religious affiliation.

● Identical twins raised together are more likely to share the

same religion than identical twins raised apart, suggesting

the influence of the shared environment.

So is religion an area where we see enduring effects of

parenting? For belonging, yes; for behaving and believing,

the picture is more complicated.

● Adopted children typically retain their religious affiliation

as adults.

Colorado twins project. Behavioral genetics

analysis of religious attendance (a type

of “behaving”).

Genes Shared Unshared

Environment Environment

average age 15 9% 72% 19%

average age 20 34% 46% 19%

Does the “fade-out” effect of parenting on

religious behaviors and beliefs drop all the

way to zero for older adults?

According to some studies, yes; according to other studies,

small-to-medium effects remain.

So far we’ve been comparing across individuals

within the US. What happens when we compare

across countries?

“Is religion an important part of your daily life?” % saying yes

highest countries:

Bangladesh 99%

Niger 99%

Yemen 99%

Indonesia 99%

Malawi 99%

Sri Lanka 99%

Djibouti 98%

Mauritania 98%

Burundi 98%

US: 65%

“Is religion an important part of your daily life?” % saying yes

lowest countries:

Estonia 16%

Sweden 17%

Denmark 19%

Japan 24%

United Kingdom 27%

Vietnam 30%

France 30%

Russia 34%

Belarus 34%

Why are some countries much more religious than others?

Not because of nature. Genetic differences between

individuals are big and consequential, but genetic

differences between large groups of people (such as entire

countries) are small.

Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart offer the leading

explanation for why some countries are more religious than

others. They point to economic and physical security (i.e.,

poverty, disease, health, crime, warfare, and worries about

survival).

The scope of a country’s welfare state correlates with

levels of religiosity. The welfare state and religion seem

to be substitutes for giving people a sense of security.

Lived poverty index: not enough money for food/shelter,

not satisfied with standard of living, health problems,

home lacks running water and electricity

Around the world,

poverty is a strong

predictor of religious

commitment and

behavior.

Experiments show that if you prime people with thoughts

of death, they become more religious.

Other data shows that a country’s incidence

of disease and access to doctors is

correlated with its religiosity.

After a 2011 earthquake in New Zealand, belief in God

increased in the area directly affected.

The emergence of science also made atheism possible by

replacing much of religion’s explanatory role (why droughts

happen, why people get sick, etc.)

Norris and Inglehart’s account implies that atheism can

only emerge in certain societies and individuals—those

that have security.

One potential answer: many Americans have low

economic and physical security despite the country’s

wealth. The US has high inequality, a smaller welfare

state than other countries, uneven access to health care,

and a comparatively high murder rate.

So why is the US an outlier in being far

more religious than its wealth would predict?

Another potential answer: Disestablishment after the

American Revolution led to vigorous competition among

religious organizations to attract followers. An open

religious marketplace led to higher levels of religiosity.

In thinking about free will and religion, does it

matter that the choice set—even in a diverse

country like the US that protects religious

freedom—is limited?