Homo Religionis
One, zero and 6.6 billion. One: the number of times the word ‘religion’ featured, and zero: the number of times the word ‘God’ or ‘gods’ featured in William von Hippel’s (2018) book The Social Leap: How and Why Humans Connect. And 6.6 billion, the number of people in the world today belonging to, identifying with, or practicing a religion. It seems lacking that in a book where the objective was to explore how evolution played a role in shaping our psychology, there would be such a critical component missing. There are approximately 7.8 billion people in the world and of this population, 70.8% of people belong to one of the three largest religious groups. They are Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism. Only 15.6% of the population identify as nonreligious, agnostic, atheist, or secular, with the remaining 13% belong to smaller religious groups ranging from Judaism, African religions, Buddhism or Rastafarianism, just to name a few (10). While these statistics are perhaps not an accurate reflection of religiosity or actual commitment, the numbers still astounded me. Not only does religion seem to be a profoundly important, organising force in many lives (6), but quite frankly the world. Von Hippel highlights how during the evolution of human beings, the adaptations to our mind and brain are the most marked differences between modern humans and our primate ancestors. He writes:
“The ghosts of our evolutionary past continue to haunt us, but they also help answer some of the most fundamental questions about human nature” (p. 9).
So, while religion and science seem like contentious forces, I would argue that it is essential in the exploration of evolutionary psychology to consider how and why our minds and very nature seek, engage with, believe, and fight for religion. Emmons (1998) puts it perfectly, stating that if psychology seeks to understand the whole person, religion and spirituality cannot be ignored.
Consequently, I would propose that Von Hippel’s book should include a chapter on the evolutionary psychology of religion. From what I could ascertain, there are three approaches that could be taken to studying religion from an evolutionary perspective. These are non-functional, functional (individual or multiple level), and dysfunctional (memetic or anachronistic). Non-functional theorists argue for exaptation rather than adaptation. The argument here posits the religion is a by-product originating from nonreligious adaptions and the goal is to determine the evolutionary origins of religion’s cognitive components. Functional theorists argue that religion is an adaption, either at the individual or group level. The question that an evolutionary exploration seeks to answer here is which adaptive functions do religions serve and how it evolved to do so. Finally, dysfunctional theorists take a memetic or anachronistic approach to understanding religion. Culture, society, and the environment play an important role in this methodology and the question is how religious concepts are transmitted, maintained, and persistent despite potentially maladaptive features (9). Using these lenses, I will illustrate how religion may have evolved to impact human beings and the societies that we live in today. I will discuss theory of mind from a non-functional perspective, group cooperation from a functional perspective and charity from a dysfunctional perspective. I am hoping that through an analysis of these approaches and its relevance to Von Hippel’s book, I can demonstrate how such a chapter would add even more value to the existing publication. My chapter proposal would be to integrate these approaches for a comprehensive overview of the evolution of religion.
Non-Functional Exaptation: Theory of Mind
In Chapter 2: Out of Africa, Von Hippel considers the larger brain of Homo erectus and the implications this has on cognitive ability. Their enhanced intelligence saw them adapt to their changing environment by fashioning tools, dividing labour, and planning for the future. It was ultimately the control of fire that saw Homo erectus evolve into Homo sapiens. Cooking food allowed us to evolve greater fat storage, it developed our brain and it freed up time from chewing raw food which could be redirected to greater periods of socialisation. This new social world is extremely dynamic, interactive, and complex. The prehistoric conflict and violence that hunter-gathers were consequently bound to face and/or inflict, contributed to the evolution of new cognitive capabilities. One critical adaptation is theory of mind. This trait evolved so that people could predict behaviour and understand that the minds of others can differ from your own. With this frame of reference, consider religion now through the non-functional lens of exaptation where religion originates from an adaptive mechanism which evolved to manage problems posed by our ancestral environment. Theory of mind offers perspectives on self and other. If religion evolved as a by-product of this ability, other can be redefined to include anything that can be assigned agency (9). In his book Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought, Pascal Boyer says:
“Our minds are prepared because natural selection gave us particular mental predispositions. Being prepared for some concepts, human minds are also prepared for certain variations of these concepts” (p. 11).
So, it stands to reason that if I can consider intentions and motivations other than my own, I can consider the intentions and motivations of any being. If people can ascertain that someone crying at a wedding reflects happiness and if at a funeral it displays grief, they can equally attribute rain in times of drought as a heavenly blessing and in times of flooding as divine wrath. This approach explains the universality of religion and why such a large sample of the world population have a religion, if having a human brain and normative cognitive functioning is the adaptation that allows you to acquire such a belief system. This does not imply that everyone will simply have religion, let alone the same religion, which also speaks to the variety of religions that exist (1, 9). Without this capacity, we surely could not predict the thoughts and behaviours over others, let alone that of a supernatural being.
Functional Adaptation: Cooperation
Some believe that it is the same capacities that comprise social intelligence such as theory of mind and consequently manipulation that set off an arms race between cooperative, defective, and cheating dispositions (8). Through this chaos there arrives a need for order, for cooperation, ethics, and moral systems. Here, I am considering a functionalist perspective which would argue that religion evolved as an adaptation. Specifically, multi-level selection theorists hypothesise that religion is an evolutionary adaptation that promotes social cooperation and cohesion – order to its twin chaos. Steven Pinker (2005) lists two criterions for a trait to be an adaption. Religion meets the first criterion by appearing in some sense innate. Religion seems to develop reliably across different environments and is universal across the human species. The second criterion requires religion to have a causal effect whereby this adaptation would have improved survival and reproductive success. Enter David Sloan Wilson’s (2002) organismic concept of religion which he addresses as a serious scientific hypothesis in his book Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society. In his book he quotes Ehrenpreis who says:
“True love means growth for the whole organism; whose members are all interdependent and serve each other. That is the outward form of the inner working of the Spirit, the organism of the Body governed by Christ. We see the same thing among bees, who all work with equal zeal gathering honey” (p. 1).
Wilson saw this reflected in Calvinism, John Calvin’s brand of Christianity. He believes that the reformation healed the fractious city of Geneva through a shared belief system and social organisation. Wilson perceives Calvinism as a successful cultural adaptation as its catechism places equal emphasis on relationship with God and people. The religious teachings encourage prosocial behaviours and dissuade antisocial behaviours which ultimately adhered to existing Judaeo-Christian teachings as well as addressing issues in the local social and political environment. It sanctified the mundane occupations in life by promoting that humble farmers can feel the same holiness to that of a priest, further unifying the city of Geneva through breaking down these divisive barriers. Von Hippel demonstrates in Chapter 7: Tribes and Tribulations, how income inequality correlates negatively with trust which is essential for group cooperation. I wonder whether perhaps equalising all men in the eyes of God is what the people of Geneva needed to put their trust in Calvinism and cooperate as a community. Cooperation was ultimately referenced as key to human success in Chapter 1: Expelled from Eden and Chapter 2: Out of Africa which transitioned human beings from prey to predator. Whilst religion would not be the only force for cohesion and cooperation, it is important to acknowledge that it can be, and historically perhaps was.
Dysfunctional Anachronism: Charity
Alas, just as a sweet tooth was once an adaptive trait which evolved in our ancestors, it has become maladaptive today (11). In hunter-gatherer societies the sweet tooth ensures survival since humans had developed a significant and instinctual desire for high-caloric foods. This is maladaptive today with the abundance of fast-food restaurants and our unlimited access to food (2, 14). An anachronism theorist would argue that the same holds true for religion. Our social and cultural environment has changed significantly even since the days of John Calvin in the 1500s that initially functional components of religion may now appear dysfunctional. A 2014 Values and Beliefs Survey indicated that in response to the question ‘Do you believe that religion can answer all or most of today’s problems, or that religion is largely old fashioned and out of date?’, the portion of people who answered that religion can answer all problems has declined over the last 50 years, while the proportion of people who voted that religion was largely old fashioned and out of date has slowly inclined (7). An anachronistic approach to the evolutionary study of religion reviews how environmental and social changes alter the utility of religion.
In Chapter 10: Finding Happiness in Evolutionary Imperatives, Von Hippel discusses how during prehistoric times individuals in a group who were not of value were at risk of ostracism and consequently death. This context provides an explanation for why we innately dislike freeloaders yet gladly support individuals with what we have identified as genuine need. All these attitudes promote behaviours which substantiate you as necessary to your community. Ultimately, it is a simple cost benefit analysis, and to survive you must produce more than you cost. We can see that the early church played a role tending to the needs of those outcast by the rest of society. Ferngren (2014) states that
“from the beginning, Christianity displayed a marked philanthropic imperative that manifested itself in both personal and corporate concern for those in physical need”.
Alms were distributed to the poor, and the church cared for widows, the sick and distressed (9). With rising need in the third century, the church of Rome even divided the city into seven districts, each under the care of a deacon (5). This historically adaptive function of the church has been rendered obsolete today. Charity today is not limited to Christian or religious charity. In Australia alone there are several accredited non-government organisations that confront social justice, environmental or health issues (3). Furthermore, you do not have to look far to find people who promote the separation of church and state. Many believe that modern views on healthcare, gender or sexuality are contentiously opposed to conservative Christian views. In this case, some would argue that the Christian view is not only obsolete, but maladaptive.
Integrated Model
I believe that a comprehensive chapter on religion in Von Hippel’s book would integrate these theories as each emphasises a different component of religion’s evolutionary development. A non-functional exaptation explanation identifies the historical adaptations and cognitive components from which religion evolved. Functional explanations emphasise how religion is influenced by learning, development, and culture. While dysfunctional explanations focus on a shorter timescale which by doing so demonstrate how environmental and societal change can influence the evolution of religion. The analysis that I have provided for each approach in this proposal demonstrates how these theories can provide insight into the evolutionary psychology of religion. They explain how cognitively human beings can even conceptualise a supernatural deity through the evolution of theory of mind, how religion can structure a society which ultimately benefits from such cohesion and cooperation, and finally how changing times can see the adaptation of religious charity become obsolete or even dysfunctional. I referenced chapters from each three parts of the book throughout this proposal which demonstrates the relevance and insight that religion can provide by expanding on existing ideas in the book. Consequently, this would be my proposal for the new chapter in The Social Leap: How and Why Humans Connect: Homo Religionis.
Bill Von Hippel was one of my favourite professors at the University of Queensland where I completed my undergraduate degree in psychological science. This essay was written in a course that Bill offered on advanced topics in psychology. I found Bill to be an extremely knowledgeable and charismatic lecturer and I would highly recommend looking into his work if these topics interest you.
References
1. Boyer, P. (2001). Religion explained: the evolutionary origins of religious thought. Retrieved from https://hdl-handle-net.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/2027/heb.30744.
2. Buss, D. M., Haselton, M. G., Shackelford, T. K., Bleske, A. L., & Wakefield, J. C. (1998). Adaptations, exaptations, and spandrels. American Psychologist,53(5), 533-548.
3. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. (2020). List of Australian accredited non-government organisations. Retrieved from https://www.dfat.gov.au/aid/who-we-work-with/ngos/Pages/list-of-australian-accredited-non-government-organisations
4. Emmons, R. A. (1998). Religion and personality. In H. G. Koenig (Ed.), Handbook of religion and mental health. San Diego, CA: Academic
5. Ferngren, G. (2014). The sick poor and the origins of medical charity. Retrieved from https://chreader.org/sick-poor-origins-medical-charity/
6. Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1999). Toward an Evolutionary Psychology of Religion and Personality. Journal of Personality, 67(6), 921-952.
7. Newport, F. (2014). Majority Still Says Religion Can Answer Today's Problems. Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/poll/171998/majority-says-religion-answer-today-problems.aspx
8. Orbell, J., Morikawa, T., Hartwig, J., Hanley, J., & Allen, N. (2004). “Machiavellian” intelligence as a basis for the evolution of cooperative dispositions. American Political Science Review, 98(1), 1-15.
9. Smith, Z. & Arrow, H. (2010). Evolutionary Perspectives on Religion: An Overview and Synthesis. The Journal of the Evolutionary Studies Consortium, 2(2), 48-66.
10. Pew Research Centre. (2015). Religious Composition by Country. Retrieved from https://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projection-table/2020/number/all/
11. Pinker, S. (2005). The Evolutionary Psychology of Religion. Retrieved from https://ffrf.org/outreach/item/13184-the-evolutionary-psychology-of-religion
12. Von Hippel, W. (2018). The Social Leap: How and Why Humans Connect. Scribe Publications.
13. Wilson, D. S. (2002). Darwin's cathedral: Evolution, religion, and the nature of society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
14. Wilson, D. S. & Green, W. S. (2007, September 12). Evolutionary religious studies (ERS): A beginner's guide. Retrieved from http://evolution.binghamton.edu/religion/resources/guide/