I Am An Atheist
The Evolution Of Religion, A Research Paper
So I was asked by a few of you to post a research paper I wrote on the evolution of religion. I managed to find it, along with all of my source articles! This was done for my Cognition, Evolution, and Behavior Psychology class in college. It is a bit lengthy and the language is scientific in nature, hopefully that won't bother anyone. Keep in mind, it also follows the accepted assumptions made by the scientific community, namely that humans are the only animals with language. I know that is debatable, but it is what is accepted, so it is assumed in this paper. I hope you enjoy, and I hope I can't get in trouble for posting this on a public forum! Thanks so much guys~!

The Evolution of Religion as a Social Mechanism

Religion has proven itself to be a key part of the human experience across the globe. However, much speculation concerning some basic principles of religion have been debated as maladaptive, such as altruism. This has been a puzzle for scientists of many fields. Some evidence in other animals has allowed us a glimpse at what may be the beginnings of religion in the form of ritualistic behavior. Since this is such an important feature within religions of today and especially ancient religions, there is much to be learned from these comparisons. Through these early manifestations, scientists are able to look at the evolutionary process of religion within humans and how Darwinian structure can apply to social concepts. Indeed, the development of religion follows closely the path of all structure development, and in this light, is as much evolution as any other process of change through selection and adaptation. Unfortunately, much of this area of study relies heavily upon philosophical theory with little empirical evidence to support broad if logical claims. Religion in humans can be boiled down to a few essential mechanisms not so different from other more widely accepted mechanisms.

The first necessity to providing evidence regarding the evolution of religion is to implement a definition of both evolution and religion. Evolution is defined as any system which develops from a less structured origin (Wunn, 2003). This is a rather broad specification, however, evolution is merely an outcome of selection whether it be a biological or a social basis. Religion on the other hand, is even more difficult to define. Religion can be described as a sacred idea or object that is created when a society places an emotional value on that sacred manifestation which defies logic (Sosis & Alcorta, 2003). A more specific definition which is sometimes used for religion in regard to rituals is that religion is ritual carried out in accordance with myth based on a outside force which has some control over humans and the world (McClenon, 1997). Tied together, these details of religion cover the mechanism on both a broad and more individual level. Keep in mind that when speaking of the evolution of religion, the main focus is upon how religion adds to the fitness of humans. In the same vein, ritual within non-human animals also seems to make a difference in fitness. In order for religion to have this effect at all, there must be evidence for it affecting social and/or biological systems.

Religion follows the rules of evolution in several ways; it is widespread, it has lasted a long time, and it is given significant energy (materialistic or intrinsic) in populations and among individuals. Therefore, there must be selective advantages (Hayden, 1987). Three stages of religion seem to exist within cultures, spirit/ancestor worship, polytheism, and monotheism according the advancement of the society. Religions also branch from one another, an example being Christianity from Judaism, much like what is seen in organism phylogeny (Wunn, 2003). The ritual aspect of religions may play an evolutionary role in the continuing complexity of relationships in both humans and other animals (mainly that of trust and behavior prediction) (Watanabe & Smuts, 1999). In fact, religion has been proposed as being simply a more complex version of ritual activities in animals. With the application of Theory of Mind, humans are capable of seeing many things differently. Suspicion in animals of moving objects can, in this way, be equated to the human suspicion of ‘supernatural’ or strange things. This leads, in the world of human introspection, to the thought of religious ideas (Verkamp, 1991). More simply put, perhaps religion is nothing more than an over analysis of animal ritual. In order to speak of the origin of religion, we must look at the origin of ritual.

The beginning of ritual was probably due to the need for relief of social stress (McClenon, 1997). An ability to predict the behavior of others would partially relieve this stress. A more biological mechanism for why it was adaptive exists, however. The shamanic beginnings of group ritual included hypnotization to create altered states of consciousness (ASC) and provided a therapeutic quality, especially when coupled with suggestion (McClenon, 1997). One mode of creating ASC is through song or chanting, even dancing, which then causes the parasympathetic system to become dominant in the ASC. A pleasant sensation accompanies this shift and provides reinforcement on an internal level. Shamanic healing works somewhat like the placebo effect, but also ASC can sooth some mild psychiatric problems. This makes it slightly more selected for on a fitness basis due to lower levels of morbidity and mortality (McClenon, 1997). It then follows that hypnotizability would be an adaptive feature for humans. This argument has encountered struggle within the scientific community. There seems to be differences between meditative trance and hypnotism which have not been fully addressed. Whether or not all or even most religious experiences yield this result has not been empirically tested (Guthrie, 1997). Other studies have yielded similar but different results to ASC. ‘Ecstatic’ mental states achieved during ritual may serve to bond people through reinforcement. This is very similar to idea of hypnotization and ASC. Oddly enough, research has shown that it is now easier to induce ecstatic states in people than it once was, marking it as an adaptive trait which has survived through selection (Hayden, 1987). However, ecstatic states are shown to come at times of high stress rather than relaxation. The logic behind this argument can be seen through evidence that the factors most likely to be controlled by gods are those which a society terms the most stressful. For the hunters, animal gods are most prominent, while in the western individualized world, a humanitarian existential God is most popular (Hayden, 1987). Most of the studies done with any kind of altered state are done with shaman-centered religions. Shamanistic religions, however, only occur in hunter/gatherer societies and while this could mark an evolutionary pinpoint for its beginnings, it could also have alternative variables associated with their need for religion (McClenon, 1997). Since they are the first to have what the scientific community actually terms religion, a look at their culture may provide excellent clues as to why it evolved.

Hunter/gatherer societies, at least, have certainly prospered from the social system of religion. Assuming that hunting/gathering is a marker in human evolution, there are some inferences which can be made of religion as an adaptive feature. In early humanity, alliances between hunter/gatherer tribes would lead to longer survival, a widespread group version of reciprocal altruism (Hayden, 1987). In times of scarce resources, groups would migrate and find other groups of whom they usually shared little in common with. Shared religion was both an agreement of peace and something two tribes could relate with one another. Ritual, and eventually religion, kept these groups bonded even if they had not had contact for years (Hayden, 1987). This social necessity combined with the internal reinforcement mentioned earlier makes this an ideal society for religion to be selected for. Since ritual is such an important part of early religions, a deeper look at them also aids in an understanding of the origins of religion.

Since rituals allow the behavior of a social encounter to be predicted, examining its mechanism in non-human animals can be a valuable source of information (Sosis & Alcorta, 2003). Highly repetitive behaviors in other species, once thought to be innate, have been called out as enculturated rituals, cognitive and individual in nature (Watanabe & Smuts, 1999). Human worship to God has been compared to canine loyalty to the human master. This particular argument is a bit soggy in the scientific sense. Though it is suggested that a dog’s feelings of fear, submission, and love for a master parallels that of human’s to god, humans are not so basically (externally) reinforced by a god as dogs are by human masters (Verkamp, 1991). However, dogs do show ritualistic licking of their owner’s hands and faces. Wolves show this behavior to dominant conspecifics as a sign of submission (Watanabe & Smuts, 1999). We also see these rituals in non-domesticated species of animals. Courtship displays and ritualized fighting (fighting without violence) are examples often seen in birds. Research in savannah baboons has been very enlightening to the world of animal ritualism. Males will sometimes mount each other or handle each other’s genitals in a show of trust and friendship. This is so different from normal male aggression in this species, it is seen as a ritual. It makes little sense individually, since this interaction puts the males at risk of harm which would prevent reproduction. The ritual is therefore altruistic in nature. In this particular example, cooperation among subordinate males in these groups of baboons led to more breeding for them than the dominate males who would not cooperate. The ritual of trust is a necessity for this cooperation to happen. Interestingly enough, the name of testicles is thought to come from the Latin root also used in the word testify. The root meaning is “witness.” It was thought that in court, Romans would swear upon their testicles to be truthful, perhaps a remnant of a similar ritual to those of the baboons in humans (Watanabe & Smuts, 1999). A major problem with study of ritual in animals is that sociologists fear equating what is typically thought to be human-only characteristics to animals (Stone, 2008).

The thought that much of human behavior transcends biological processes has held back the scientific community. Kin and reciprocal altruism, mechanisms found in many non-human animals, explain much of human behavior but not all. These gaps have been largely ignored by sociobiologists (Stone, 2008). Because of these problems, Stone (2008) has put forth the theory of dual-inheritance. Dual-inheritance theory states that cultural and biological inheritances are different but equally necessary. Because natural selection is part of any system, so is evolution. This allows psychologists and sociologists to view religion as a different kind of evolution than biological evolution. An animal’s ability to identify with a group is dependent upon how different other groups are from their own. Group altruism is then much like kin altruism in how it works on a social level (Stone, 2008). Religion and culture change not due to environmental conditions like biological evolution, but due to the ideas of individuals, which mirrors the biological effect of gene mutation in being adaptive (Verkamp, 1991). Like any trait, religions are created and destroyed due to their ability to solve problems in a setting. The theory that solves more problems overrides the lesser ones. The setting for religion simply happens to be a purely social one.

The most important aspect of human interaction is something which sets us apart from all other animals; language. There seems a suggestion of an evolutionary spectrum in the development of religion and the development of a species; social cooperation, ritual, language, and religion (Watanabe & Smuts, 1999). Most species show a level of social cooperation. Ritual is seen in the more cognitively advanced species. Only humans posses language, and it seems that religion is a product of that mechanism. Language may have developed simply because our groups became too large to communicate without it (Stone, 2008). However, the need could also be based on social rather than biological pressures. The idea of social complexity due to rituals may have engendered the necessity for language. In this regard, number of individuals is less important than the number of rituals within a society (Watanabe & Smuts, 1999). The brain structures associated with song (ritual based) as well as time of development are very different from those of language, suggesting that song came first (McClenon, 1997). Either way, it seems that language is necessary for religion to exist. If this is the case, the purpose for it must be related to the purpose of rituals. With such large scale communities interacting on complex levels, religion must serve a very integral purpose in order to still be so prominent.

Since humans are their own predators, groups of humans become larger and larger due to a need to keep power between groups on a relatively equal level (Roes & Raymond, 2003). When creating rules for a society, it is important for the rules to be made by an impartial judge. Since all humans in the society would be biased, rules are attributed to be set by the gods. It is hypothesized that the larger a society is, the more it bases morality upon a god figure. Desires of gods are assumed based on the desires of people in power. Hence obedience and sacrifice are key aspects of most religions (March, 2008). Groups must be competitive to make cooperation within a group adaptive. Human ideas of ‘evil’ are whatever threaten the group ideals. In this way, selfishness is evil because it goes against the group and is not adaptive on the social level. Most religions preach altruism and describe selfishness as profane (Stone, 2008). Religion allows nations to create a tighter group of the people within the nation. It adds another stronger facet to ‘us against them’ when considering other nations to protect against wars and also to begin them. Large cross cultural studies of societies have found that larger societies often have moralizing god structures (Roes & Raymond, 2003). In these large societies, religion and the moralizing gods seem to be used as a way to protect those of power and wealth. As long as ‘cheaters’ are not caught, they safely remain in their niche without fear of uprising. Using religion as a source of populace control has undoubtedly been the case in the past. However, this darker view is not the only one when looking at the purpose of religion.

It could be that kindness and altruism are as genetically based as the desire to eat and breed. Along with this is also the fear of others and desire to destroy. These could very well be natural states, there long before religion, but attributed to it because the cause is unknown (March, 2008). In order to guard against these ‘cheaters’ which could use religion against them, many religious groups will often require costly behaviors such as genital mutilation, material deprivation, and other bodily injury simply to acquire group trust (Sosis & Alcorta, 2003). These safeguards prevent people of power from controlling the populace without sacrifice of their own. Because of these costs, religious fitness is often believed to be oppositional to biological fitness. Some of the most salient examples lie in celibacy, circumcision, and the sacrificing of one’s own life (Wunn, 2003). However, committed believers to the religion tend to see the benefits (such as positive afterlife) outweigh these costs making them less adaptively problematic for the group or individual (Sosis & Alcorta, 2003). Not to mention the fact that no religion outlaws reproduction in all of its members. Many times reproduction is even required by some. Simply speaking, religion could not be oppositional to biological fitness based only the fact that it has prospered so well in all human societies. So much so, it is defined as a feature being fundamentally human in nature. And yet, how do so many humans, prided for their logic and critical thinking, manage to believe so powerfully in a system which defies logic?

When faced with novel objects or situations, humans will always make certain assumptions pertaining to them which seem logical (Barrett, 2000). Humans do seem somewhat incapable of believing in gods with too many qualities which violate logical assumptions. We see this in the fact that gods are often given human senses and placed in a single space. Speculation on the existence of hyperawareness of ‘agents’ states that it would be more adaptive to commit a type II error, in this case, than to commit a type I error. If belief in a god proves wrong, there is no ramification. If a god exists and one does not believe however, according to most religions very grave consequences may arise. Just speaking on a biological level, ideas which violate only a few or one assumption are more likely to be remembered than those that violate too many or none (Barrett, 2000). Through this line of thinking, an interesting idea emerges. If assumptions are violated, an unknown state exists. In this way, the mechanism behind religion may be the same mechanism which drives the human search within the sciences. Trying to find the reason ‘why?’ (March, 2008). Even at odds, these two distinctly human facets show the same fervor and require the same amount of individual and group commitment. It is easy to see how both areas have evolved in human history. It has been suggested that 50% of religious tendency is genetically based (McClenon, 1997). If only scientists knew how much other mechanisms within human social systems shared the same function as religion.

Unfortunately, most theories about why religion came to be are introspective and cannot be empirically researched (McClenon, 1997). Even looking at less advanced cultures and fossil evidence, scientists can only speculate at the true origin of religion. Even with existing religions, it is impossible to know the full extent of their costs and benefits (Sosis & Alcorta, 2003). However, certain areas of research can be expanded upon. Ritual behaviors in animals should be tested on a brain chemical level with ritual behaviors in humans. Humans show an activation of endogenous opioid peptides during some rituals (Sosis & Alcorta, 2003). If this result was found to be similar in animals, the implications would be severely strengthened. On a larger more human centered path into research, sociological studies regarding the political and power standings of cheaters in widespread religions would be interesting. If religion is being used a main source of keeping the rich rich, perhaps religion could be seen in part as a mechanism of deception to manipulate the group to your favor. In all, religion a very large field of study and the goal of scientists needs to be to find out what it is that makes it so adaptive.

No matter what the purpose or reason behind religion is, it is clear that it is adaptive and part of the evolution of humanity. Whether or not it started out as simple rituals between conspecifics, ritual has played a large part in its acquisition and continued success. The prediction of behavior is undoubtedly a positive trait in social interactions, as we see in non-human animals quite clearly. The question of why religion may have developed can be seen in the struggle of hunter/gatherer societies and its adaptive value to these groups as a whole is unquestionable. Religion has been used to unite people, and when necessary, divide them. Even today it is used to such ends. Moral gods created to make and enforce rules have kept large populations from chaos for several centuries. It is easy to see that the altruistic nature of religions would be a progressive evolutionary step. Collaborator societies have a powerful tendency to advance faster than individualist societies since unity allows for more protection, better resource sharing, and better breeding opportunities. Like all things which survive in a species over time, religion is part of evolution, as simple and complex as every other trait which has survived within humans. As a social mechanism, it has proven to be one of the most powerful systems existing within culture as a whole.

References

Barrett, J. L. (2000). Exploring the natural foundations of religion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 29-34.

Guthrie, S. (1997). McClenon’s “Shamanic healing, human evolution, and the origin of religion”: a critique. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36(3), 355-357.

Hayden, B. (1987). Alliances and ritual ecstasy: Human responses to resource stress. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 26, 81-91.

March, F. (2008). The evolution of the mind & what it means to humanism. The Humanist, 68, 16-19.

McClenon, J. (1997). Shamanic healing, human evolution, and the origin of religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36(3), 345-354.

Roes, F. L. & Raymond, M. (2003). Belief in moralizing gods. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 126-135.

Sosis, R. & Alcorta, C. (2003). Signaling, solidarity, and the sacred: The evolution of religious behavior. Evolutionary Anthropology, 12, 264-274.

Stone, B. L. (2008). The evolution of culture and sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 39, 68-85.

Verkamp, B. J. (1991). Concerning the evolution of religion. Journal of Religion, 71(3), 538-557.

Watanabe, J. M. & Smuts, B. B. (1999). Explaining religion without explaining it away: Trust, truth, and the evolution of cooperation in Roy A. Rappaport’s “The obvious aspects of ritual.” American Anthropologist, 101, 98-112.

Wunn, I. (2003). The evolution of religions. Numen, 50, 387-415