Evolutionary Origin of Religious Belief

The New York Times Magazine carries a feature this week by Robin Marantz Henig. Under the rather misleading title 'Darwin's God,' the article offers an extensive discussion of ongoing scientific investigations into the origin of religious belief.

[Scott Atran's] research interests include cognitive science and evolutionary biology, and sometimes he presents students with a wooden box that he pretends is an African relic. “If you have negative sentiments toward religion,” he tells them, “the box will destroy whatever you put inside it.” Many of his students say they doubt the existence of God, but in this demonstration they act as if they believe in something. Put your pencil into the magic box, he tells them, and the nonbelievers do so blithely. Put in your driver’s license, he says, and most do, but only after significant hesitation. And when he tells them to put in their hands, few will.

​

If they don’t believe in God, what exactly are they afraid of?

The complexity of the question facing scientists is noted early.

The debate over why belief evolved is between byproduct theorists and adaptationists.[...] But a scientist’s personal religious view does not always predict which side he will take. And this is just one sign of how complex and surprising this debate has become.[....] According to anthropologists, religions that share certain supernatural features ” belief in a noncorporeal God or gods, belief in the afterlife, belief in the ability of prayer or ritual to change the course of human events ” are found in virtually every culture on earth.

​

[....]

​

When a trait is universal, evolutionary biologists look for a genetic explanation and wonder how that gene or genes might enhance survival or reproductive success. In many ways, it’s an exercise in post-hoc hypothesizing: what would have been the advantage, when the human species first evolved, for an individual who happened to have a mutation that led to, say, a smaller jaw, a bigger forehead, a better thumb? How about certain behavioral traits, like a tendency for risk-taking or for kindness?

​

Atran saw such questions as a puzzle when applied to religion. So many aspects of religious belief involve misattribution and misunderstanding of the real world. Wouldn’t this be a liability in the survival-of-the-fittest competition? To Atran, religious belief requires taking “what is materially false to be true” and “what is materially true to be false.” One example of this is the belief that even after someone dies and the body demonstrably disintegrates, that person will still exist, will still be able to laugh and cry, to feel pain and joy. This confusion “does not appear to be a reasonable evolutionary strategy,” Atran wrote in In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion in 2002. “Imagine another animal that took injury for health or big for small or fast for slow or dead for alive. It’s unlikely that such a species could survive.” He began to look for a sideways explanation: if religious belief was not adaptive, perhaps it was associated with something else that was.

That's a taste. The full article may be found here:
Evolution and Religion - Darwin’s God - Robin Marantz Henig - The New York Times__

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Hm...moral codes leap to mind. If most religions produce a moral code that must be followed there are obviously some moral behaviours which benefit survival. But this is not a great answer, because we are still unsure which codes best benefit survival, or whether we are ultimately looking for survival on earth or in an after-life, or survival of a group, or of the whole species. At the least, many codes benefited survival at one time[/b], or they benefited a sliver of the population, which is survival of the fittest.Yet, many codes of the most ancient religions had no real benefit to life...instead of learning more about nature, using song and dance, voodoo, charms and spells, etc, would be a quite useless way to promote survival in terms of crops and hunting or weather.I know I have a time and a half supporting my claims, but I would say religion has benefits, but the scientists are looking in the wrong place for them. They are not about survival of the body or the species. There is nothing which supports that. I could say that scientists are assuming no God, and looking for a natural reason to explain religion, but even so, if they find one, good for them. I would be interested, but not exactly holding my breath.I could also say that religion is part of a search for a perfect moral code, and atheism is part of this too...that it is not something post hoc and long obsolete, but an ongoing trial and error. The problem is still, that many moralities did not and do not = survival, but then again, many old religious ideas have died out, and many old tribes have died out when faced with new ideas. The amount of survival still going on regardless of failed moralities is a bit instinctual in its own.To be more clear;We have some instincts when it come to survival. We also have a great amount of intelligence, and enough so that we can make decisions about our instincts. I believe that 'instinct' in the pure sense of food, drink, shelter, procreation, and care of young, wins out over the created 'intelligent' survival methods, and that there is enough real survival going on to counteract any failed intelligent methods.But, you know me I think we know how to survive, and I think religion is about something we don't know...

Maybe religion is a natural byproduct of intelligence mixed with ignorance. Maybe an intelligence that requires answers but that does not have the knowledge to fulfill those answers is liable to invent the most plausible explanation it can muster because it is more advantageous to status and esteem than just admitting ignorance.Maybe. Like most evo psych is maybe. So do I but probably not in the way you meant........

Very good article, Archer, thanks for putting in the link. Both sides have interesting ideas. Religion is a complex thing, and I suspect that some aspects of it may be "byproduct" and others "adaptive". Because of the many aspects of religion, I don't see why it has to be all one or the other.I'd recommend the article to anyone interested in religion.

quote:

---

And when he tells them to put in their hands, few will.

---

Yeah, I wouldn't do so quickly either. Not because I'm afraid of African Voodoo magic, but because I don't trust the lecturer - he may have put sharp objects, or poisonous snakes or something in there. I'm not risking my hand without good evidence that it is safe.

quote:

---

He began to look for a sideways explanation: if religious belief was not adaptive, perhaps it was associated with something else that was.

---

Yes, this is the direction I see Dawkins going in too. He likens religion to the tendancy for moths to fly into flames; it is a disadvantage itself, and is a byproduct of keeping a light source at a fixed acute angle, but is offset by the bigger advantage of navigation in areas without flames. Likewise, he tends to lean toward religion being the by-product of obeying ones parents unconditionally, trusting the tribal elders and various cognitive biases (such as 'Clustering Illusion, Confirmation Bias and The Bandwagon Effect), all of which have some evolutionary advantage to them.

---

"And, lo, a great beast did stand before me, having seven heads, and on each head were there seven mouths, and in each mouth were there seventy times seven teeth. For truly there were seven times seven times seven times seventy teeth, meaning there were. . . okay, carry the three, adding twenty. . . plus that extra tooth on the third mouth of the sixth head. . . Well, there were indeed a great many teeth" - The Revelation of St. Bryce the Long-WindedHelp inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

Doddy refers to reluctance of subjects to put their hands into the box: I had a similar thought. The researcher, as described, seems remarkably naive about all the variables.I don't trust the designer of the box. Why should I? The lecturer has just told me this box 'destroys' things. That statement alone offers reason enough to be wary. Sounds like the box's designer is a religious zealot and, anyway, I've been told point blank that the box is designed to do damage. One doesn't go willy-nilly risking a perfectly good hand until one learns more.Anyway, I know what those empty boxes can do. I've read Dune.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I'm glad you found it useful. I know we've had discussions on the same subject here only recently, but the article offers more information about the state of research than we usually get. As writings for non-specialists go it's a detailed and extensive discussion. One certainly gets a sense of the complexities.
___ Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

An interesting idea is that doing science must be partly "byproduct" as well. Just about everything that we discover is counter-intuitive.Our evolving ancestors required down to earth practical minds, so the ability to understand Einstein's theories or Quantum mechanics must surely be a symptom of evolutionary "byproduct" rather than having any "adaptive" advantage.Characteristics like imagination would certainly have had adaptive advantages originally, but many (if not most) of the ways in which we use such abilities in modern cultures could certainly be regarded as byproduct usages.

Interesting article.In looking at whether religion provides survival advantages, my thoughts go towards why do humans tell stories?Did the ability to create fictional characters and situations evolve for a survival need or is it a byproduct of reason?We evolve to reason and problem solve, but what to think about when we don't have a problem to solve. How do we pass on the solutions to the next generation, etc.?So maybe what evolved for a survival need went amuck. Our imagination can work for us or against us.So maybe religion does fall in the spandrel category.

---

Why does someone believe you when you say there are four billion stars, but check when you say the paint is wet?

Many people take comfort in religion. When a loved one dies the emotional fall out experienced is extremly debilitating. Depression will cause extreme lethargy and result in the individual being unable to fuction.Some cognitive apparatus that can reduce these effects- "he's not dead, he's waiting for you in the afterlife" -would greatly reduce the deficit in function following such a loss and contribute towards the organisms survival.We can go on to see how any hardship that people go through (that can cause disorders such as depression, generalised anxiety disorder, OCD, PTSD, (to name but a few)) can can be mitigated if you honestly believe that it all has a purpose and is under some control.The unpredictability of the primative cultures environment would have caused all sorts of aberrant behaviour. Some autistic people who cannot propperly generalise learning experience extreme anxiety and depression as a result of 'not know the rules of reality'.Primative cultures certainly knew much less than we do now about the natural world. A system of 'universal rules' derived from religion would greatly reduce this distress and allow every one to agree how the world works.Teaching young men that if you die in battle you go to an after life in glory is a great way to protect the community during times of war.Religion has many measurable advantages for the community, much fewer however for the indiviual.Thats evolution for you, albeit of a psychosocial sort.

That's the exact example I was thinking of to make an argument for the "adaptive" side. It could, perhaps, be countered by pointing out that the less superstition there is in a human population group, the better it seems at achieving lower infant and child mortality rates.A profound belief in the afterlife might make people more careless in this one. Westerners are sometimes surprised by the level of fatalism that still exists in traditional religious societies.If you're going to make a long journey in a third world bus on pot-holed roads, I think you'd be better off with a driver who has his doubts about the Gods than with one who's a firm believer!

Yeah, but medical science goes hand in hand with, er....science; not religion.

I agree. But if we could find examples of religion impeding the progress of science, both now and in the past (and I think we can) then doesn't my point hold up?Going back to our ancient evolving ancestors. Would a tribe living near a very active live volcano really profit (in evolutionary terms) by having a belief that their food offerings to the volcano God would stop future eruptions? Moving to a safe distance might be a better way of ensuring the survival of their genes.

Living near a volcano has the advantage of fertile soil, but if you are a credulous primative would'ent you not want to risk the ire of the volcano god by not offering up sacrifice?Moving away is a great idea in a rational world: but, our brains are not logical.This is a very a good thing too!Most people are irrationaly optimistic and it has been shown that depressed people are better predictors of probability (in terms of predicting likely out comes) than the non depressed individual.We need this irrationality just to get through the day. It comes with a price tag though: a predisposition to catching religion.