Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

4.1 Introduction

The term “evolve” derives from the Latin evolvere, which means to unroll. When applied to biology it means to develop or arise primarily by the evolutionary process of natural selection . However, random processes, such as genetic drift due to population migration, can also play a minor role in non-adaptive evolutionary changes in the frequency of structures in populations over time. There is evidence that membership in a religious group and having religious faith increases one’s chance of biological survival and reproductive success (Reynolds and Tanner 1983). This chapter is concerned with how some major components of religion could have evolved by natural selection in order to do this. For religion to have evolved by natural selection at least some of its major components would have to be or have been what are called adaptations. Otherwise, religion would have to have come into being as an indirect by-product of natural selection or not related to natural selection at all. The major components of religion are religious behaviors, beliefs, values, moods, and feelings. The chapter will begin by defining a few important bio-behavioral terms. It will then address methodology and then search these major components of religion for that which would be necessary for these components to have evolved through natural selection. Lastly, the chapter will consider whether these components could have evolved at the individual or group level by natural selection.

The question of whether or not religion in general or the components of religion in particular evolved by natural selection is related to the even more important question of whether or not human beings evolved at all. If the religious minded reader can accept the scientific evidence that human beings evolved from non-human primate ancestors (Dowd 2007), it should not be difficult to at least consider if some of the major components of religion also could have evolved by natural selection. Other than inter-individual submissive behavior, social reciprocity , and some precursors of morality , non-human primate species do not have other elements of human religion in their behavioral repertoires (de Waal 1996). Therefore, religion came into being somewhere in-between our primate ancestors and modern humans.

The inquiry will start by asking the general question, “Are any of the major components of religion (behaviors, beliefs, values, moods, and feelings) adaptations”? An adaptation is a structural design feature, which when possessed, confers a reproductive advantage (also known as “fitness ” or survival value) to its bearer in a specific environment . A structural design feature is that which has static or moving architectural mass by which it can be defined. According to evolutionary theory, individuals in a population who have adaptive, structural design features will have relatively more reproductive success . As a result, they will become over-represented in a population. There are two types of adaptations: phylogenetic and cultural (Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1979). Phylogenetic comes from phylogeny, which means evolutionary history. A phylogenetic adaptation is an intra-individual, structural design feature which is passed across generations through DNA (genes) and which confers increased reproductive success upon its bearer in a specific environment.

Structural design features can also be acquired as well as be passed across (and within) generations through social, observational/imitation learning, hereafter just called social learning. Culture can be thought of as those structural design features which have been passed across (and within) generations by social learning. Some but not all of the structural design features that can be passed across (and within) generations by social learning are cultural adaptations (Boyd and Richerson 1985). A cultural adaptation is an intra- or extra-individual, animate or inanimate, structural design feature which when possessed, confers increased reproductive success upon its bearer (i.e., a specific individual) in a specific environment . The structural design features which are cultural adaptations also exhibit variation whether they are intra-individual (i.e., a learned behavior) or extra-individual (i.e., a useful material object). The structures which are cultural adaptations are neither pan-cultural nor universal. They are often found in one social group and not in another.

It is important to emphasize that only that which is structural and has form can be a phylogenetic or a cultural adaptation . What about characteristics which are only definable by their function ? The term adaptiveness means a structurally or functionally defined characteristic, which when possessed and if associated with increased reproductive success in its bearer, allows the non-movement, structural design features which are its proximate causes, if predictably associated with the characteristic, to be the “objects of natural selection ” and be treated as phylogenetic adaptations.

Although there are many definitions of religion, when the word is used in this chapter it means a set of behaviors with an accompanying set of beliefs, values, moods, and feelings, which exist within a loosely defined breeding population. The behaviors, beliefs, values, moods, and feelings have to relate to a supernatural power, agent or deity , hereafter simply referred to as “God.” In addition to exaltation and glorification of God, religion has to also include at least some submissive-like deference to God; in return, favors in life and sometimes after death are expected. Such favors from God require one to follow prescribed and avoid proscribed behaviors set forth either in the religion’s oral traditions or codified in written narratives, canons, and salvation theologies.

A required characteristic of God in this chapter is the supernatural power to answer petitioning prayer and grant favors. The capacity for divine intervention is one of the most universal attributes of God across religions (Hinnells 1997). This includes the granting of mercy, including mercy from divine punishment from Gods which or who are conceptualized as angry and punishing.

4.2 The Evolutionary Process of Natural Selection

This chapter is about how structural design features in some major component of religion could have evolved by the Darwinian process of natural selection , which is the mechanism of adaptive change in living structures elucidated by Charles Darwin in 1859. Natural selection allows for a scientific understanding of the origin, diversity, and radiation of life (Darwin 1859). Briefly, in evolution by natural selection there is variation in the structural design features possessed by living forms, whether the structural design features are acquired by the individual through genes (DNA) or by social learning. In more modern times, within what is called the modern synthesis (Dobzhansky 1970), it is known that some of the variation in intra-individual structural design features is caused by random genetic mutation, linkage, crossing over, etc. There is also variation in the structural design features passed across generations by social learning. In certain environments individuals possessing certain variations of structural design features survive better and have more reproductive success than individuals who possess alternative structural variations. This difference in survival is called survival of the fittest. The more fit individuals will therefore become over-represented in succeeding generations. The structural design features which contributed to this success are called adaptations, either phylogenetic or cultural, depending upon how the information for creating them is passed across generations.

4.3 Methodology

This section addresses what to study and how to study it.

4.3.1 What to Study?

As previously mentioned, religion is a complex phenomenon that is difficult to understand how it could have evolved in its entirety. It is easier to divide religion into its major components and then make separate searches for the presence of structural design features within each of these components. Appreciate that when religion is divided into its major components – behavior, beliefs, values, moods, and feelings – that beliefs, values, moods, and feelings become the proximate , contributing causes of the religious behavior.

First, a discussion of behavior in more detail is warranted. In this chapter behavior means “the movement of individuals” (Martin and Bateson 1986). Anatomical parts of the individuals which move through space and time are structures. However, once the anatomical structures start moving, they become a fleeting state, which is an emergent, design feature which has to be considered separately from the structures whose movement is the behavior. As has been developed in detail in a recent publication (Feierman 2006), behavior can be defined on the basis of its structure and function or only its function. However, for convenience many behaviors which are structurally definable or describable are often referred to by their function.

Type I (Human) Behavior is definable by structure and function in a natural environment and is species-universal in form. It is seen in all animals with backbones (vertebrates). Although there are two types of Type I behaviors, reflexes and coordinated motor patterns, this chapter will only be concerned with coordinated motor patterns. They are in-between reflexes and more flexible human behaviors. The threshold for release of coordinated motor patterns but not reflexes is mood dependent. Examples of Type I behavior include the human smile, coy behavior, and submissive behavior. These behaviors can only be modified in timing, orientation, and function but not in form through learning. Type I behaviors are inherited across both species and generations in same way as static anatomical structures. Because they are structurally defined they can act as natural selection proxies for the specific genes which determine and coordinate them. Their function can change through both ontogeny (development) and phylogeny (evolutionary history) (Lorenz 1981).

Type II (Human) Behavior is describable by structure and definable by function in a natural environment and not species-universal in form. Its threshold for release is more independent of mood than Type I behavior. It includes all behavior modified in form by any type of learning. Other examples are all behaviors transmitted across generations by social learning, behaviors which are strategically motivated tactics, and many behaviors which are the products of reasoning, creativity, and higher intelligence . Also included are the behaviors in humans by which symbolic language is actualized, either by vocalization or by writing. Type II behavior has been observed in relatively few taxonomic groups, such as primates, some sea mammals, and some birds. It can be seen in one local population and not in another. It often requires a culturally acquired component to be actualized. Because it is only definable by function, it is not a structural design feature that could be a phylogenetic or cultural adaptation . It can, however, have adaptiveness. Because it is functionally defined behavior there are not specific genes which are dedicated to directly causing or coordinating it. Rather, the phylogenetic adaptations within the brain which are predictably associated with and secondarily cause it, such as neural networks associated with motivation, can be “objects of natural selection .” As such, Type II behavior can act as a natural selection proxy for motivational, brain neural networks one or more steps removed from specific, behavior-related or coordinating genes (DNA). For this reason Type II behaviors are more “flexible.”

4.3.2 How to Study it?

In this chapter the methodological approach to understanding how some of the major components of religion could have evolved deviates somewhat from the standard methods used in Human Ethology (Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1989). All ethological inquiry starts with behavior per se. It then asks four questions which were developed by Nobel Laureate Niko Tinbergen, one of Ethology’s founders: (1) what is the behavior’s phylogeny (evolutionary history)? (2) what is its ontogeny (development)? (3) what are its (proximate ) causes? and (4) is the behavior an adaptation or does it have adaptiveness (Tinbergen 1951)? Rather than starting with religious behavior and then asking these four standard questions (Feierman 2009), this chapter is organized differently because it is asking different questions. This chapter systematically explores how the major components of religion – behavior, beliefs, values, moods, and feelings – could have evolved. To have evolved directly by natural selection , these major components of religion would have to contain structural design features. As the various components of religion are considered in the chapter, it will be seen that some do (Type I behavior, religious beliefs, and religious values) and some do not (Type II behavior, religious moods, and religious feelings). The implications of these differences for religion’s evolution by natural selection will be discussed.

4.3.3 Why Study Structural Design Features?

The concept of “structural design feature” does not appear in the classical anthropological literature on comparative religion (Lessa and Vogt 1979) or in the modern, cognitive anthropological literature on the religious mind (Atran 2002). However, from a bio-behavioral perspective if there are structural design features within the major components of religion, they and only they could be the “objects of natural selection ” to pass across generations through genes as phylogenetic adaptations or through social learning as cultural adaptations.

Having covered what to study, how to study it, and why study structural design features, the next four sections of the chapter will explore if there are structural design features embedded in Type I and Type II religious behaviors, religious beliefs, religious values, and religious moods and feelings.

4.4 Are There Structural Design Features Embedded in Type I and Type II Religious Behavior?

4.4.1 Type I Religious Behavior

The definition of religion in Sect. 4.1 requires that at least some submissive-like deference has to be shown to God. The author believes that this deference-like behavior is seen most clearly in the non-vocal aspect of petitioning prayer. It is a local variation of make-oneself-lower-or-smaller-or more-vulnerable behavior, which derives from Type I behaviors which have historically been associated with submission. Based on the non-human animal literature, fear is the mood which reduces the threshold (thereby increasing the physiological impetus) for execution for these submissive-like behaviors to be expressed (Misslin 2003). One of the environmental stimuli which release submissive-like behavior in virtually all ground dwelling vertebrates is imminent or actual punishment or deliberately inflicted pain from an overwhelming and more powerful, angry member of one’s own species where escape is not possible. Submissive-like behaviors are seen in the context of ritualized agonistic behavior where they have also been linked to depression and anxiety/fear in humans (Price and Sloman 1987). In virtually all societies if one sees someone engaged in some variation of the make-oneself-lower-or-smaller-or-more-vulnerable behavior and this behavior is not being oriented toward a more dominant living individual in close proximity, one is almost certainly observing the non-vocal aspects of petitioning prayer to God.

There is an old dictum in Ethology that coordinated motor patterns (i.e., Type I behaviors) in non-human vertebrates are not structurally modifiable in form by individual learning (Brigandt 2005). However, they change through maturation and can be modified in timing, orientation, and function through learning. How is it then that the various major religions of the world – Judaism, Christianity , Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism – employ locally different, recognizable variations in form of the make-oneself-lower-or-smaller-or-more vulnerable behaviors used in the non-vocal aspect of petitioning prayer?

In the lower vertebrates – fish, amphibians, and reptiles – imminent or actual punishment or deliberately inflicted pain from a larger and stronger member of the same species leads to very predictable behavior that has little variability. As one moves up the phylogenetic scale of the vertebrates one sees more variation in a single species in how submissive deference is shown. For example, in the domestic dog there are a number of different, aggression-deescalating, coordinated movements used to display submission. First, just the tail gets lowered. Next there is sitting, then sitting with the head lowered, then lying down with the head up, then lying down with the head on the ground, and finally turning on the back often with accompanying high pitched, puppy-like yelps.

Humans also exhibit many different behaviors as well as auditory emissions which are used as gradations of submission. The first indication is often the volume of one’s voice diminishing. One responds to but does not initiate vocalization. One has less eye contact. One tilts the head. The shoulders get squeezed inward. A facial affect of fear appears. The empty, weaponless hands come together in front of the body. One drops to the knees. The empty hands extend over the head. The torso and previously canted head tilt even more to one side making one even smaller and off balance. High-pitched vocalizations are emitted. Therefore, based on all of the above, the Type I behaviors that are used in the non-vocal aspect of petitioning prayer contain structural design features which could be phylogenetic adaptations.

4.4.2 Type II Religious Behavior

Specific examples of Type II religious behavior are the religious rituals : the behaviors which produce the vocal aspect of petitioning prayer, recitation or reading of sacred narratives in the local language, taking communion, sprinkling holy water, baptism of infants, singing hymns, circumcision, marriage and funeral rituals , rain dances, animal sacrifices , exorcisms, etc.

These behaviors are often initiated “appetitively” when a desired religious goal or resource is blocked or thwarted by a species-novel obstacle and where the specific instructions for getting around the obstacle are not contained within human DNA. Searching for “releasing stimuli” has been known as appetitive behavior in Ethology for almost a century (Lorenz 1981, p. 67). In reference to religion the desired goal or resource (in this case the “releasing stimulus”) is the fear-reducing favor (beneficence) from God. A human’s direct access to God to petition for favors is blocked or thwarted by the species-novel barrier of either invisibility (e.g., the monotheistic Heavenly God of the Abrahamic faiths) or even when visible the lack of immediate responsiveness to being petitioned (e.g., a sacred rock, mountain, statue of a saint, or an idol). Therefore, humans engage in a variety of Type II religious behaviors which are directed toward this end. Most religious rituals are composed of Type II religious behaviors which are solicitation displays directed toward the consummatory act of communion with and receiving fear-reducing beneficence from God. Because Type II religious behaviors are functionally rather than structurally defined and therefore do not contain predictable structural design features, they cannot be phylogenetic or cultural adaptations and cannot be the “objects of natural selection .” As a result, to understand at least in part how Type II religious behaviors could have evolved, one has to look at their non-movement, proximate , motivational causes, which are religious beliefs, values, moods, and feelings.

4.5 Are There Structural Design Features Embedded in Religious Beliefs?

Religious beliefs are units of information (that which causes thermodynamic changes of structure/mass-energy) which are necessary to make decisions (Loewenstein 1988). The electrical–chemical structures in the brain which change upon contact with religious beliefs could be phylogenetic adaptations. For the same reason that “package tours” of a new country are more decision free and energy efficient than independent travel, there may be a small thermodynamic-efficiency advantage to the brain and body in having decision rules (religious beliefs) which have predictably biased certain categories of behavior. However, such a gain in the brain and body’s energy efficiency is easily offset by the high energy costs of religious rituals . Nevertheless, because information is transformational–physical (structure/mass–energy), and because specific religious beliefs, such as “I believe Jesus is the Son of God,” are semantically coded units of information which are passed across generations by social learning rather than by DNA, (the semantic content of) religious beliefs contain structural design features which could be cultural adaptations. What about phylogenetic adaptations? The capacity to believe in God in general (rather than a specific God in particular) could be a phylogenetic adaptation . Genetics account for some of the variance in religiosity (Koenig and Bouchard 2006). Belief in a specific God could be acquired by a mechanism similar to how a specific language is acquired (Chomsky 1998). The innate structure/grammar could be/is present but it requires a culturally acquired component (e.g., exposure to Christianity or Islam) to be actualized.

Appreciate that religious beliefs, as structural design features, can be non-movement, motivational, proximate causes of Type II religious behaviors. It is therefore the religious belief , rather than the functionally defined behavior for which the religious belief is a contributing cause, that is the structural design feature which is under natural selection pressure. If individuals who engage in certain Type II religious behaviors (e.g., a religious ritual ) are at a reproductive advantage, natural selection would “act” on the phylogenetic adaptations in the brain which have been modified through contact with the belief and which generate the motivation for biasing the behavior in a predictable way. Natural selection would also “act” on the cultural adaptation , which is the social-learning-acquired specific, semantic information content of the belief itself. Through this process the type II religious behavior, although not an adaptation, would be said to have adaptiveness. As a result of natural selection “acting” on the belief itself, certain fundamental religious beliefs, such as “I believe Jesus is the Son of God,” especially when acquired prior to puberty, have an almost imprinted-like resistance to being altered after puberty that is similar in some way to the influence of one’s native tongue on any subsequently learned language after puberty. Such fundamental beliefs create many well worn and familiar paths through much of life’s landscape upon which current behavior often prefers to travel.

4.6 Are There Structural Design Features Embedded in Religious Values?

Values can be conceptualized as the hierarchical rank order given to specific beliefs. The hierarchy is called a value system. A belief ’s rank order in a value system determines the relative influence the belief will have in biasing behavior (movement) in a predictable way, especially during periods of motivational conflict . The relative hierarchical rank order of specific beliefs (which are structural design features) within religious value systems often derives from the religion’s oral or written sacred narratives.

Religions are breeding population. For individuals within the breeding population to function harmoniously there needs to be agreed-upon beliefs concerning fair reciprocity which can govern in-group social interaction (Axelrod 1984). Such beliefs are often given the highest rank order in a religious value system, as in the so called “Golden Rule” in the Christian Bible (Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31). Similar beliefs about fair reciprocity are found in the sacred narratives and writings of almost all other religions (Hinnells 1997). There is evidence that the highest rank order of “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you,” which forms the basis of fair reciprocity, derives from a phylogenetically acquired belief . One finds rudiments of this belief (not coded semantically in symbolic human language) in our non-human primate ancestors (de Waal 1996).

People who pray together tend to lay together, as individuals marry other individuals of the same religion more than by chance alone. Common religious values facilitate this process. Someone who belongs to a religion which “puts a lot of value” on a certain belief can be predicted to engage in certain Type II religious behaviors which facilitates a sense of in-group belonging. Many religious values therefore are passed across (and within) generations by social learning. Based on all of the above, religious values contain structural design features which could be either phylogenetic or cultural adaptations.

Because beliefs are structures, how the beliefs are hierarchically arranged in a value system is itself a structure. Religious values (the hierarchical rank order of beliefs) are also subject to natural selection when specific (functionally defined) Type II behaviors which have adaptiveness occur. Natural selection could “act” on both the structural framework (value system) within which religious beliefs are hierarchically arranged (phylogenetic adaptation ) as well as on the social-learning-acquired semantic content of the belief itself (cultural adaptation). The content of a belief, if it predictably biases behavior in a way that leads to an increase in reproductive success , can as a cultural adaptation, lead to selection for the phylogenetic adaptations in the brain which acquire, hold, and actualize beliefs in general. It can also lead to selection for the phylogenetic adaptations in the brain that create value systems in general. The implications of this for religion’s evolution by natural selection as well as the evolution of what has been called “many parts of the mind ” are discussed in Sect. 4.10.

4.7 Are There Structural Design Features Embedded in Religious Moods and Feelings?

4.7.1 Moods in General

Because mood is a specific internal readiness to act it cannot be observed directly. Rather, mood in humans is inferred by observing specific intentional behavior (e.g., praying), specific expressive behavior, non-verbal body language (Scherer and Ekman 1982), such as a smile (Ekman and Friesen 1975), and the self-report as to how one is feeling. As functions, moods are the result or outcome of one set of structures (e.g., pre-synaptic neurons) interacting with another set of structures (e.g., post-synaptic neurons) in space and over time. The interactions must lower the threshold of post-synaptic neurons to fire, thereby creating the specific internal “readiness” to act. The neural tissues which generate specific moods must then send an electro-chemical signal to other areas in the brain which lower their thresholds for firing. There also are reciprocal inhibitory functions associated with moods as well, such as between fear and anger.

4.7.2 Feelings in General

If feelings are a self-perception of mood, this puts feelings into the realm of subjectivity, which is usually thought to be out of the reach of empirical science. To get around this problem, self-perception needs to become (epistemically) (MacLean 1990) objectified by re-conceptualizing it to mean that the part of the brain which is the reference point for self is perceptive and consciously aware of what is occurring in another part of the brain. If the part of the brain which is the reference point for self can be perceptive of information coming in from the sense organs, it is reasonable that the same part of the brain could be perceptive of information coming in from those parts of the brain which generate different moods. For example, someone could be aware (i.e., have feelings) of his or her mood to want (i.e., have an internal readiness) to pray.

4.7.3 Moods, Feelings, and Proximate Causality of Behavior

Since moods are functions, they cannot directly cause behavior. For example, an angry mood per se does not directly cause behavior. The neural tissues whose function is the production of an angry mood would be the contributing, proximate causes of the behavior. Human feelings can also not cause behavior (movement) directly, as feelings are only a subjective self-perception of moods. Yet, it is known subjectively through introspection that an awareness of one’s sometimes fleeting feelings can at times influence and be a contributing cause of some of one’s behavior. How do feelings do this and how can this be conceptualized without reverting to Cartesian dualism ? The information self-perceived as a subjective feeling must be epistemically transduced into information which can then, for example, be used to formulate strategy and behavioral tactics. A transducer converts a signal from one form to another. This transduction process may be similar to the ethological concept of the Innate Releasing Mechanism (IRM) with which a specific sensory releasing stimulus is transformed into a specific coordinated motor pattern (Lorenz 1981). In this case there would be an Innate Transducing Mechanism (ITM) by which information known perceptually as a feeling gets converted into a form that can influence behavior in a causal way.

4.7.4 Moods, Feelings, and Phylogenetic and Cultural Adaptations

Since only structural design features can be phylogenetic or cultural adaptations, neither religious moods nor religious feelings contain structural design features which could be phylogenetic or cultural adaptations. Therefore, neither can be the direct, “objects of natural selection ” through which religion could have evolved.

Having shown that some major components of religion (Type I behavior, beliefs, and values) contains structural design features which could be phylogenetic and cultural adaptations and that Type II religious behavior as well as religious moods and feelings could have adaptiveness, the next question is at what level (individual or group) natural selection would be “acting.”

4.8 Evolution of Religion at the Level of the Individual

4.8.1 Through Phylogenetic or Cultural Adaptations

In this scenario individuals within a breeding population who exhibit more Type I religious behaviors (e.g., non-vocal aspect of petitioning prayer) and who have more religious beliefs and values and who are more in touch with their religious feelings would be at a reproductive advantage over other individuals within their in-group with less of these characteristics. These characteristics would also include the ability (through transduction) of religious feelings to influence and be contributing causes of Type I and II behaviors through the positive emotions of spirituality – awe, love (attachment), trust (faith ), compassion, gratitude, forgiveness, joy, and hope (Vaillant 2008). This could occur through natural or inter-sexual selection (Fisher 1930).

4.8.2 Through By-Products of Phylogenetic or Cultural Adaptations

An argument has been made that components of religion evolved as by-products of numerous phylogenetic and cultural adaptations whose functions did not relate directly to religion (Pinker 2006). One specific argument relates to the attachment system (Kirkpatrick 2004). Another relates to our evolved ability to reason and to generate personal rational choices in “the religious marketplace” (Young 1997). This chapter did not address other than in passing the indirect mechanism by which the major components of religion could have evolved, as the emphasis in the chapter was on the evidence by which the major components of religion could have evolved directly by natural selection .

4.9 Evolution of Religion at the Level of the Social In-Group

An argument also has been made that religion could have evolved because it would have conferred benefits at the group level (Wilson 2002). These benefits range from mutual trust to better in-group reciprocation, cooperation, and inter-sexual selection for potentially adaptive, phenotypic traits, such as intelligence (MacDonald 1994). The argument is that in-group breeding populations which have more trust, reciprocation, and cooperation would be more competitive with groups who have less of these characteristics. For group selection to have a major effect on evolution the variance in extinction rates (calculated from birth and death rates) across different groups would have to be greater than the variance in extinction rates across different individuals within the groups. If that condition were not met, group selection would just be a minor contributing cause of evolutionary change under what is called multi-level selection. This is the most likely scenario (Wilson 2002).

Breeding in-groups, such as specific religions, also have to have what are called in-group markers by which individuals within the in-group can recognize one another. The best in-group markers are structural physical characteristics such as skin tone, facial features, and permanent, society -wide bodily mutilations, such as scars, piercing, and circumcision. Another very good in-group marker is spoken language (which includes accent and regional dialect) with which religious sacred narratives are recited or read. An excellent in-group marker should be costly and/or hard to fake, as costly and/or hard to fake markers make being a free-rider , who takes more than he or she gives back to the in-group, more difficult (Sosis 2004). Type I and Type II religious behaviors and certain religious values are fair in-group markers. Religious moods and their self-perception as feelings are very poor in-group markers as they are most likely identical across religions. Religious beliefs along with the behaviors they predictably bias are fair in-group markers. In addition to predictably biasing behavior, religious beliefs also can be expressed as self-reports. Often incredulous to members of another religion (Irons 2008), they have the potential to create a sense of in-group for “true believers.” However, self-reports of religious beliefs are very easy to fake. Nevertheless, based on the above, there are enough phylogenetically and culturally acquired design features embedded within the major components of religion which are at least average in-group markers. They could facilitate religion’s evolution at the group level of selection.

Group selection as a mechanism by which religion could have evolved is also a double edged sword. At the group level of selection phylogenetically and culturally acquired, structural design features embedded within a particular religion as in-group markers, which were adaptive at one point in time, can very quickly become phylogenetic and cultural mal-adaptations at another point in time. Group selection theories about religion’s evolution have many unresolved challenges.

4.10 Conclusions

To answer the question of how some components of religion could have evolved this chapter began by introducing and defining a few bio-behavioral terms. The chapter then discussed what to study, how to study it, and why it should be studied. The two requirements for a component of religion to evolve by natural selection are (1) the component has to contain a structural design feature that could be an adaptation and (2) the demonstration of present (or past) increased reproductive success to the bearers of this particular structural design feature that would make (or would have made) it an adaptation. This chapter primarily dealt with the first of these two requirements by searching the components of religion – behavior, beliefs, values, moods, and feelings – for embedded structural design features which potentially could be adaptations. The search for embedded structural design features included those which are phylogenetically acquired and which are transmitted across generations in DNA as well as those which are culturally acquired and which are transmitted across generations by social learning. The chapter ended by addressing the question of whether the structural design features embedded within religion would or could be affected by natural selection at the level of the individual , the group, or both.

Although there is strong evidence based on twin studies that being religious is partially heritable (Koenig and Bouchard 2006), one should not conclude, based on this evidence, that it is just the genetically heritable design features which could account for any adaptiveness found in religion’s major components and by which the major components of religion could have evolved by natural selection . As has been shown in this chapter many of the structural design features embedded within religion’s major components, such as (the semantic content of) beliefs and values, are acquired culturally through social learning. As such, they are candidates for being cultural adaptations, which when possessed, would increase the reproductive success of their bearers at multi-levels of selection in specific environments.

Steven Pinker in writing about the evolutionary psychology of religion and reflecting the widely held by-product of selection view of religion, suggests that “religious psychology [may be] a by-product of many parts of the mind ” (Pinker 2006, p. 8). His suggestion may, in effect, be backward. The alternative, counter-intuitive proposition is that “many parts of the mind” may be by-products of religion’s evolution. Since Type II religious behaviors are structurally describable and therefore functionally defined, natural selection cannot “select” for the specific behaviors (movements) used to execute them. Rather, natural selection “selects” for some of the phylogenetic adaptations in the brain which motivationally cause them. These phylogenetic adaptations include those which are structurally modified through contact with specific beliefs, which create values, structurally modify behavior through learning, generate reasoning, allow one to experience feelings and be both spiritual and creative. These are what in psychological terminology Steven Pinker is calling “many parts of the mind.” As such, and in psychological terminology, a belief in God may not have been created by the human mind at all. Rather, our ancestors ’ belief in God may have been what created many parts of the human mind – “gifts” as some would say. That is the take-home message of this chapter. It is a message which could be disquieting to those who have prematurely dismissed religion’s value (Dawkins 2006).

Based on what was presented in this chapter, it is reasonable to conclude that some of the major components which make up religion could have come into being by the evolutionary process of natural selection and that some of the structural design features embedded within religion’s major components could be phylogenetic and cultural adaptations as well as have adaptiveness. However, “could have” and “could be” are not the same as “did.” There is nothing in this chapter which is definitive evidence that evolution by natural selection is how the structural design features embedded in religion’s major components came into being. The indirect, by-product of selection mechanism is equally tenable. Such evidence for the direct “selection” of some of religion’s major components can only come from inductive scientific research which shows a positive correlation between potentially adaptive, phylogenetically and culturally acquired, structural design-features embedded within religion’s major components and reproductive success in their current or past bearers. There are such empirical studies which have been done, primarily in pluralistic modern societies (Koenig et al. 2001). More needs to be done. The evidence for how religion in general evolved most certainly will not come from simply using or making up evolutionary scenarios to explain religion’s evolution. Such scenarios, often called “just so stories” (Gould and Lewontin 1979), make up much of the current literature on religion’s evolution. To show that religion came into being by the evolutionary process of natural selection, either directly or indirectly, one has to use theoretical propositions to make counter-intuitive predictions about the major components of religion. These counter-intuitive predictions can also not be made by simple observation and deductive reasoning.

There is very good reason why religion’s evolution needs to be understood scientifically at this time in history. Currently, the world is dangerously divided on the basis of religion. Neither science nor religion can bridge this divide alone. With science and religion working together there is some chance of success (McNamara 2006). Such success need not diminish our sense of awe as to religion’s majesty and its powerful and mystical influence on so many aspects of human behavior, some of which we are just beginning to appreciate and understand from a scientific perspective.