Evolution of Religion

Presented to a men’s club in Scottsdale, Arizona

Summer 2005

Lyle Steadman

OUTLINE

<= span style=3D'mso-list:Ignore'>1.&n= bsp; = ; Darwin

<= span style=3D'mso-list:Ignore'>2.&n= bsp; = ; Traditions – ancestor worship

<= span style=3D'mso-list:Ignore'>3.&n= bsp; = ; Tribal kins= hip

<= span style=3D'mso-list:Ignore'>4.&n= bsp; = ; Modern reli= gions - prophets

<= span style=3D'mso-list:Ignore'>5.&n= bsp; = ; Metaphorical kinship

<= span style=3D'mso-list:Ignore'>6.&n= bsp; = ; Religious b= eliefs

<= span style=3D'mso-list:Ignore'>7.&n= bsp; = ; Definition = and effect of religion

<= span style=3D'mso-list:Ignore'>8.&n= bsp; = ; Conclusions=

First, the evolutiona= ry part of the talk.

1. = Evolutionary theory

About 150 years ago, Charles Darwin made the most important discovery ever made in= biology: He came to realize that every inheritable trait of every li= ving thing was subject to what he called “selection”. That is, when any inheritable trait – which refers to both physical and behavioral features -- hel= ped an individual to leave descendants that trait tended to increase in frequen= cy, along with the descendants. A= ny trait that did not help leave descendants would tend to die out – to disappear. Because new inheri= table traits appear from time to time, when they happened to help individuals lea= ve descendants they also would tend to increase in frequency and replace traits that didn’t help so much.&nbs= p; The discovery of this process, which Darwin called either natural selection = or sexual selection, is recognized today as the fundamental cause of evolution. Evolution means that individuals in one species leave descendants that grad= ually become another species. This process, of course, can happen along several descendant lines, leading to several new co-existing species. For example, we did not come from chimpanz= ees. But chimps and humans share a common ancestor who was an individual of a species different than that of either chimps or humans.

While this discovery is seen by some today as being as significant as Newton̵= 7;s and Einstein’s discoveries in physics, it nevertheless took more than= 100 years before biologists began to apply this discovery to explain the existe= nce of widespread traits -- why, = for example, males in almost every species eagerly pursue females, while females are coy and choosy. The Darwi= nian question here: how did being coy and choosy help females to leave more descendants than those who were not coy and choosy?

As a biological species, humans too are subject to Darwinian selection: every trait of every organism depends on particular genes, which, by being inheritable, are subject to selection.&nbs= p; This means that all traits influence their own frequency in later generations. But humans are, = in contrast to other species, profoundly influenced by traditions, which, unfortunately, has led social scientists to conclude that genes are not particularly significant to humans and therefore that Darwinian selection is irrelevant to humans. But eve= ry tradition, like any other trait, is also subject to selection: Not only does traditional behavior= , like all behavior, depend on certain genes – think of the genes necessary = for human speech, for example, or tool making – but traditions themselves, because they are inheritable, are subject directly to selection. A tradition, distinguished as lear= ned behavior copied from ancestors, like any trait, begins for a variety of rea= sons. But, when it helps to leave descen= dants it will tend to increase in frequency.&nbs= p; When it does not, it will tend to die out.

Therefore, when we look at any widespread tradition that looks like it has been around= for awhile, we can try to figure out how it helped individuals in the past to l= eave descendants. That discovery c= an explain why that tradition is widespread.&= nbsp; Religious behavior is an interesting example, for it tends to be hig= hly traditional; that is, individuals tend to acquire the religion of their ancestors. Regardless of the = truth of a religion, if it helps individuals to leave descendants, it will tend to increase in frequency along with the descendants. If it does not, it will die out, i= t will disappear. So, a crucial task= in understanding why a particular religion is widespread is to figure out how = it helped ancestors of the current followers to leave descendants. Of course, there is no guarantee t= hat any tradition will necessarily help individuals to leave descendants in the future.

The primary religion of all tribal societies, and therefore of the ances= tors of us all, is ancestor worship. That is, the fundamental religion of Homo sapiens appears to be ancestor worship, which may have been important in helping them to leave descendants by displacing all other Homo species, including the Neanderthals, throughout the old world.

2.&n= bsp; = ; Trad= itions – Ancestor Worship

<= /span>

Ancestor worship is distinguished by the claim that dead ancestors are still alive

= and can be influen= ced. Ancestor worship has promoted the leaving of descendants in two ways: it encourages cooperation among distant kin and it encourages obedience to, and transmission of, traditions. These two activities, kinship cooperation and = the transmission of traditions, are the basis of every human society.

= <= /span>

Ancestors are the source both of kinsmen and traditions, including traditions that encourage distant kin to cooperate through ancestor worship rituals. Such rituals, like all rituals, are distinguished by stereotyped cooperation.&= nbsp; Such cooperation tends to promote non-stereotyped cooperation. Examp= les of stereotyped cooperation include many forms of greeting – “how are you?” or “good day” and also religious ceremonies, including ancestor worship. T= hus ancestor worship has a lot to do with kinship cooperation. It not only promotes non-stereotyp= ed, or normal, cooperation among distant kin, but the transmission of traditions itself is a kinship activity, for such transmission involves cooperation between ancestors and descendants. To understand ancestor worship, therefore, requires an accurate understanding of kinship behavior.

3. = Trib= al kinship

<= /span>

Two individuals are kinsmen only when they are linked by birth; that is, one is= the ancestor of the other, or they share a common ancestor, they are co-descendants, such as siblings or cousins, or uncles and nieces. Thus, individuals are kin when they share an ancestor or one is the ancestor of the other (including a parent or child), no matter how distant. Thus, if we assume we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, then= we assume we are co-descendants, kinsmen of one another – some kind of distant cousins. In fact, most evolutionists assume that chimps are our clo= sest cousins beyond our own species.

So, the definition of kinship is simple: only individuals connected by birth. But what is meant by kinship BEHAV= IOR, for not all kinsmen act like kinsmen toward one another. Male lizards, for example, donR= 17;t care for, or identify, their own offspring and may even pursue and eat them. Somehow, this is = not quite what we mean by kinship behavior.

Perhaps the best way to make explicit what is meant by kinship behavior is to look = at motherly care, a distinctive behavior of mammals. No mammal would survive without it= . The term “mammal” comes from the Latin term for “breast”= ;, mamma, which is used by the females to give nourishment – milk – to th= eir offspring. Germans focus on t= he other end of the operation, calling mammals “Sauegling”,= or “suckers”. = This category of course includes not just humans, but rats, giraffes, elephants = and whales. The important point a= bout motherly care is that it is at the expense of both her survival, to some extent, and her future reproduction. She’s giving away nutrients that could help keep her alive and healthy, and when she is fully nursing she cannot reproduce. Keep in mind, surviving and reprod= ucing are crucial traits necessary for leaving descendants. But for mammalian females, they ar= e not sufficient. In nature, if a mammalian female does not nurse her offspring, = she will not leave descendants. A= ll our ancestresses, back to the first mammal, nursed their offspring. In tribal societies, like the one I lived in for a couple of years in New Guinea, human mothers nur= se each offspring for years. Thu= s, motherly care is distinguished by sacrifice.

= Now, even though it is at the expense of the mother’s survival= and reproduction, because it is extremely widespread, nursing offspring must ha= ve significantly helped mammalian mothers to leave descendants, in contrast to alternative behaviors, such as those of turtles, for example, which do not = care for their young, can live much longer, and can have far more offspring than female mammals. Yet motherly = care, at the expense of the mother’s survival and reproduction, has been strongly selected for.

Motherly care, clearly, is kinship behavior; some might even say it epitomizes it. But here’s an important question. Is any behav= ior of the mother directed toward her child kinship behavior? What of filicide? -- such as the m= other who not long ago killed her three young children by putting them into her c= ar and sending it into a lake, drowning them.= Apparently she did this to get a better mate. Surely, whatever we mean by kinship behavior, it is not just any behavior between kinsmen. Matricide, patricide or fratricide= , is not what we mean by kinship behavior, although it is between kin.

So what, then, do we mean by kinship behavior? First, obviously, it is behavior b= etween kin, but, apparently, not just any behavior. The Greek word for kinsmen, phi= loi, is almost identical to their word for love, philo. We translate the name Philadelphia, for example, as the city = of “brotherly love”. “Brotherly love, is non-sexual love like that which often occu= rs between siblings. Our w= ords “gentle” and “gentleman” are based on the Roman word for kinsmen or clansmen: gens. Jews used this word to refer to the “tribe” of Romans: gentiles. So our word gentle = and gentleman must mean something like behaving toward someone as if they were your kinsmen. What IR= 17;m suggesting is this: kinship behavior seems to imply some personal sacrifice aimed at benefiting another individual because he or she is your kinsman. Perhaps that sacrifice, too, like = that of a mother caring for her child, is at the cost of some survival and/or reproduction.

Now the important question: is sacrifice for any kinsman what we mean by kinship behavior? If that were so, any sacrifice tow= ard any human would be kinship behavior, for we all share a common ances= tor (who lived perhaps 100 thousand years ago); indeed, any such behavior direc= ted toward any mammal, because we share a common ancestor, would also have to be kinship behavior. But clearly= that is not what we mean by true kinship behavior.

What we must mean by kinship behavior, then, is that the degree of sacrifice be correlated with the degree of kinship.&nbs= p; That is, only when the degree of sacrifice is correlated with kinship distance – meaning the number of birth links separating kinsmen ̵= 1; is it considered kinship behavior. Other sacrifice may be seen as kinship-like behavior, or metaphorical kinship behavior. When you sacrifice for your mammalian puppy – feeding him, paying for a vet et= c. – you act like his parent.&nb= sp; And he responds to you a bit like your child, accepting your “parental” influence and wanting to be with you constantly.

While kinship behavior is exhibited by many species – all mammals, f= or example, depend utterly on their mother’s care when young -- humans in all societies, through traditions, have extended such behavior to many dist= ant kinsmen and, within the last few thousand years, even to non-kinsmen. Based on the number of people exhi= biting such extended kinship behavior today, it must have been highly successful in the past; it must have dramatically increased the success of ancestors to l= eave descendants. In all societies, humans not only have a set of kinship terms – mother, son, niece and = so on -- used to identify their close relatives, these same terms are used metaphorically in all tribal societies to identify distant kin, and today in modern societies, non-kin: “brother, can you lend me a dime?” “father,” the priest or Pope; “brother John, Sister Mary”; “Ge= orge Washington, the “father” of our country; “Four score and 7 years ago,= our ‘forefathers’ brought forth… A friend of our parents, “Un= cle Joe,” and so on.

Thus, humans in all societies traditionally use close kinship terms to encourage kinship behavior that is not correlated with genealogical distance. That is, humans everywhere encoura= ge metaphorical kinship behavior. How did this come about? How did such traditions help to leave descendants?

To answer this, we must first address the question: how was true kinship behavior selected for? That i= s, how did the degree of sacrifice, based on how close the kinsman is, help to lea= ve more descendants than alternative behavior? That answer seems pretty clear: cl= ose kinsmen share a lot of the same genes, with the closer kinsmen sharing more than distant kinsmen. A paren= t and offspring share half of their genes; full siblings, on average, do also. First cousins share, by common des= cent, 1/8 of their genes. So when o= ne helps an offspring or full sibling, one is helping half of one’s genes. That is, when one help= s a close relative one is promoting the chance of one’s genes getting into the = next generation. Thus, any gene promoting such behavior can increase through success in leaving descendants; that is, through Darwinian selection.

While the evolutionary explanation for true kinship behavior (most exemplified by= a mother nursing her offspring), is rather obvious, the explanation for kinship-like behavior, which may be directed to non-, or distant relatives,= and is not correlated with the degree of kinship, is less obvious, but neverthe= less the same. In all human societ= ies, ancestors promote close kinship behavior between distant or non -kin, and s= uch behavior cannot be explained by the sharing of genes.

Based on my reading and my experiences in Papua New Guinea and elsewher= e, the only explanation is traditions. Such traditions, like all traits, depend on certain genes – in this case, genes that are involved in large brains, speaking, copying behav= ior and so on. The genes involved= in traditionally promoted kinship-like behavior must be the same genes involve= d in true kinship behavior. That i= s why, for example, we can influence virtually any mammalian young to treat us as their parent. But because hum= ans have been selected to copy their ancestors, and accept detailed instructions from them, ancestors have been able to encourage their descendants to refer= to distant kin by close kin terms and to sacrifice for them as if they were cl= ose kin, to some extent. This app= ears to be true in all tribal societies, and therefore must have greatly promoted success in the leaving of descendants.&nbs= p; All members of the clans of each of one’s parents, for example, are typically called “brother” and “sister”, or, wh= en older, “mother” or “father”. For anthropologists, t= his has often proved initially confusing, for individuals may be called true brother or sister when standing in front of them, but only later identified= as only distant kin. It is metap= hor that is said openly to be true, but known to be not true. And tribal religion, which everywh= ere seems to include ancestor worship, promotes directly this kinship-like behavior. When descendants co= me together to worship their common ancestor, they often call each other “children” of that ancestor, making them metaphorical “siblings” of one another.&nbs= p; And they so refer to e= ach other.

Modern religions, in contrast to tribal religion, are created by successful prophe= ts. The most significant, identifiable effect of prophets is that they create kinship cooperation between non-kinsmen. Much cooperation in the mod= ern world is based on the acceptance of messages from a common prophet. On the other hand, much competition in the modern world is based on the acceptance= of different prophets.

4.&n= bsp; = ; Mode= rn religions and prophets

<= /span>

Kinship-like behavior is encouraged in all modern societies between non-kin, indeed more than between distant kin. How= has this truly metaphorical behavior come about? I think it is the result of the acceptance of the influence of prophets.&n= bsp; Within the past several thousand years, prophets have arisen who, ba= sed on their supernatural claims -- often they claim to speak for the first ancestor, called father or mother – have gained followers who are encouraged to treat each other as if they were brother and sister, regar= dless of their true kinship relationship.&nb= sp; Jesus, when told that his mother and brethren were waiting for him outside, said to his followers, “Who is my mother and my brethren? You are my mother and my brethren = when you follow me.” He also= said, “the only way to the Father … is by me.” Another statement: “Leave yo= ur mother and father, and follow me.”

Thus, prophets create a “family”, individuals encouraged to sacrifice= for one another as if they were brothers and sisters. The fundamental significance= of all successful prophets seems to be that they create a metaphorical family, a s= et of individuals who are encouraged to sacrifice for one as if they we= re close kin.

5.&n= bsp; = ; Meta= phorical Kinship

<= /span>

What is the benefit of this kinship-like behavior between distant or non- kin? First, it reduces competition, inc= luding violent competition, among them. They are safer. Second= ly, it promotes cooperation among them. And this cooperation regularly includes trade and some specializatio= n, which is the basis of a higher standard of living. For prophet-created religions R= 11; modern religions -- this has led regularly to extensive trade and specialization. This trade and specialization, which today includes the discoveries in science, medicine a= nd technology, not only benefit the individuals involved, but also their child= ren and further descendants. Today, education is an important part of this strategy, for educatio= n is aimed at teaching children the skills and knowledge crucial to these specializations. And parents everywhere are the main supporters of education for their children; they are the ones who always vote yes on school bills. Sun City always defeats them. Modern education is still a kinship strategy aimed at leaving descendants.

The metaphorical use of kinship terms, and the encouragement of kinship-like behavior, is ubiquitous among humans, indicating its fundamental importance. For example, in m= ost religious hierarchies, close kinship terms are used. Buddhist monks often call each oth= er “brother”, sometimes specified further by “older” or “younger”. Cathol= ic monks speak of each other in the same way.= Fraternities – “brotherhoods” – are widespread. A term often used= in the Arab world informally for a leader is “Abu” (literally, “father”). There = is Abu Nidal, an old terrorist, and Abu Musab al Zarqawi, of current Iraqi fame. We, on the other hand, not only ha= ve a “father” of our country, but Uncle Sam.

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'> Traditions, including, or perhaps especially, religious traditions h= ave been involved directly in this extension of kinship behavior. But these are only the mechanisms.= The fundamental explanation of why= they are widespread is based on the discovery, 150 years ago, of selection. If those traditions had not promot= ed success in leaving descendants, they would not have become widespread.=

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>

= 6. = Reli= gious beliefs

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>You will have noticed in my discussion of religi= on that I have not used the word belief. I consider that this is a step forwar= d in the study of religion, for no-one can identify anyone’s religious beliefs. What do I believe? If I said I believe in God does that mean that I believe in God? Do fellow worshipers necessarily believe the same thing? And to the same degree= ? If fellow members of the same congregation cannot identify each other’s beliefs, why should we trust any outsider making claims about beliefs. For = more than a century, anthropologists have made claims about the beliefs of the people they have studied. But why should we accept such claims as true? We = can study identifiable behavior, including speech, and the accuracy of such cla= ims can be tested. What anthropologists and others have actually observed in re= gard to religion is certain behavior. And that behavior is distinguished by clai= ms that cannot be shown to be true. But such claims alone, while necess= ary, are not sufficient to identify behavior as religious.

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>

TEAPOT EXAMPLE……………………<= /span>

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>Therefore we identify religious behavior only= when one or more individuals communicate their acceptance of another person’s claim of something that cannot be shown to be true -- a supernatural claim. The identifiable effect of such behavior, the effect th= at has resulted in leaving descendants, I suggest, is that it communicates subordination to another person. When a person communicates his acceptance = of another person’s claim that goes against his own experience and senses – such as the obvious contradiction that a person continues to live a= fter he dies – he is, in fact, communicating his willingness to accept that person’s leadership. This subordination may even come to include sacrificing his life for the religious leader and his fellow followers.

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>

= 7. = Defi= nition and effects of religion

= 8. = Conc= lusions

What I have argued in this talk is= the following:

&n= bsp; Rel= igious behavior is distinguished by one or more individuals communicating their acceptance of another person’s supernatural claim, a claim that canno= t be shown to be true by the senses. The significant effect of ancestor worship, the effect that has helped the indi= viduals involved to leave descendants, is the encouragement of cooperation among distant kin – those who worship their common ancestor. A few thousand years ago, some individuals, using supernatural claims, began to encourage cooperation among non-kin, the basis of modern societies.&nb= sp; The ones who increased the descendant-leaving success of their follo= wers came to be called prophets.

&n= bsp; Def= inition

&n= bsp; Eff= ects

&n= bsp; Tri= bal religion

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>Modern religion

One last, brief point. Monumental architecture, including pyramids, ziggurats, temples, cathedrals, and perha= ps even the large Anasazi structures at Chaco, in New Mexico, have not been well-explained. Writers have offered a number of suggestions but none seems to fit the evidence available. None explains the = great expense necessary to their creation. I propose that such monuments are monuments to sacrifice. Their aim: to promote sacrifice among the observers. When we come acros= s a monument we not only recognize that it is made by human hands, but also by = the fact that there is no practical or obvious explanation for it (despite being bombarded today by t= he speculations of scientific sleuths). Clearly, monuments represent great sacrifice of those who built them, and, interestingly, it is often sacrifice for ancestors. A creator God represents the first ancestor. And a prophet, to h= is followers, is accepted like an ancestor, for he is the creator of their traditions. Here, in the vall= ey, the large platform mounds built by the ancient Hohokam are also likely to h= ave represented sacrifice to their ancestors, as well as Casa Grande to our South. Statues, columns, arcs= and so on, also have been erected to represent those who sacrificed their lives= in defense of their nation. It s= eems obvious that such symbols are aimed at encouraging similar sacrifice.