How does religion spread? What are the characteristics of religion that have allowed it to spread so widely (in terms of the substance of religion)?

Learn how religions are spread and what are the characteristics of religions that have allowed them to become so widespread.

 

There are many religions in the world, including Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam, and there are 4.3 billion people who follow these three religions alone, which is 62% of the world’s population. That’s a lot of religion to spread around. What are the characteristics of religion that have allowed it to spread so widely?
Before we discuss this, let’s define adaptation. There are two main types of adaptation: evolutionary and social. Evolutionary adaptation is the more basic idea that genes change through a special process called natural selection to adapt to the environment. Social adaptation, on the other hand, is a more abstract concept that involves changes in the lifestyle of a person or group of people in response to their social environment. For the purposes of this article, we will limit the concept of “adaptation” to evolutionary adaptation.
Now, the proposition that “religion is an adaptation” is countered by the proposition that “there is a gene that causes us to choose religion, and that gene has been passed down by natural selection.” In fact, the latest research in cognitive science views religion and the consciousness of supernatural beings as a byproduct of the convergence of multiple cognitive and emotional mechanisms evolved by natural selection to accomplish everyday tasks. Others see religion as a trick designed to compensate for evolutionary deficiencies.
“Brockman, author of Intelligent Thought, takes the latter view. He argues that there is no gene for the complex of beliefs and behaviors that make up religion, and that religion is not an adaptation-that is, the explanation that religion is an adaptation “planted” by our ancestors for some task is not plausible. He says that people turn to a transcendent being when they are faced with existential problems, such as death and morality, that they cannot solve. In the case of morality, right and wrong cannot be divided by scientific criteria, but we can judge what is right. And the introduction of a transcendent being is necessary to explain these individual judgments. The author’s position is that religion thrives because it addresses our deepest emotional thirsts and the fundamental moral needs of society. In other words, religion is not an adaptive product of our ancestry, but a trick we use because we cannot overcome our existential limitations.
I agree with the author: religion is not an adaptation. Religion is a social phenomenon and cannot be explained by adaptation, which is a scientific tool. Scientifically, adaptation is closely related to reproduction. Organisms adapt to their environment in order to preserve and spread their genes. Therefore, the argument that religion is an adaptation must be supported by the argument that a human’s choice of religion is beneficial to reproduction. Just as in the animal kingdom, mothers protect their young, and animals sense the danger of predators and try to avoid them, so too must religion be related to the preservation of genes. At first glance, religion and genes seem unrelated. However, human survival is also strongly related to our mental state, so if it’s true that religion has a positive effect on our mental state, then the two entities are somewhat related. Here are some of the positive functions that religion provides for the human mind.
First, religion provides an escape from existential limitations. This makes sense from the point of view that religion is not an adaptation. The problems that almost all religions address are existential, and as mentioned above, the introduction of a transcendent being makes these problems solvable. For example, Christianity’s heaven and Buddhism’s nirvana turn the fear of death into a positive for the fully religious. Compared to non-religious people who fear death a lot, they can be said to be benefiting from it.
Second, religion provides a tight-knit community. The rapid civilization since the Industrial Revolution has created an isolated society, and many people have suffered from mental illnesses such as depression. Religion provides a refuge for these people, and in the presence of a transcendent being, religious people share various “rituals” that bring them closer together. The Christian culture of referring to each other as “brother” and “sister” is a testament to the function of religious community. Going back to prehistoric times, primitive beliefs such as totemism were the only way to bind people into tribes in the absence of language.
Based on the above functions of religion, we can say that there is some correlation between religion and gene conservation. However, these features do not explain the nature of religion. One could argue that the religious gene arose from a mutation, meaning that religion came about by chance (the religious gene arose) and the functions it provides helped it survive and is still spreading today. In this case, we wouldn’t know why or how religion came to be, and we could say that the unique rituals of religion came from a mutated gene. However, religions are too common and spread throughout the world to be attributed to mutant genes. The frequency of mutated genes cannot be that high, and it is therefore illogical to try to explain religion in terms of mutated genes. Therefore, it is much more plausible to say that if there is a religious gene, it was necessarily expressed by internal and external circumstances, i.e., its functions must be linked to the reasons why religion was born. This brings us back to the beginning of the argument. Attempting to link the function of religion as a gene to the nature or origin of religion is a paradox.
Furthermore, in light of the words of evolutionary biologist George Williams: “We can only recognize a trait as an adaptation if we can demonstrate that it is the function of the trait that produces the effect, that is, that it has been carefully designed by natural selection to increase the fitness of our evolutionary ancestors.” The functions of religion mentioned above are not real, nor are they benefits that only religion can provide. Therefore, it seems even more illogical to consider religion as an adaptation.
On the other hand, if we assume the existence of a religious gene, it can be demonstrated to some extent that the overwhelming majority of people in the modern world are religious (estimated to be around 80%). The strong cohesion of religious groups can also be interpreted within their argument. Since religion is an adaptation, or in other words, since the non-religious are left behind by natural selection, the religious are more and more numerous and form groups. If we assume that the second generation will inherit the first generation’s adapted religious disposition, then the religious population will grow exponentially over the generations. And natural selection reinforces this logic. However, a crucial fact that this argument fails to account for is that in modern societies, the second generation from the first generation that chose religion may not choose religion, especially given the greater degree of personal autonomy in the modern world compared to the past, which can be considered an indisputable fact. This is fatal to the logic of explaining religion in terms of genes, and strongly suggests that religion is a social phenomenon.
If religion is a social phenomenon, then there are two main ways it can spread: voluntary and involuntary. The voluntary method is when a person chooses a religion because he or she feels the need, and the involuntary method is when a person chooses a religion due to external pressure. The voluntary approach is taken when a person feels that he or she has reached a limit and cannot accomplish something on his or her own. The involuntary method is when a person is encouraged to join a group by an outside force that emphasizes human imperfection. It is also the case that religion is passed down from generation to generation, as children are more likely to accept what adults say as true. Considering that religion is based on deception, the above-mentioned processes of religious propagation are all deceptive, and therefore, as argued above, religion is not adapted, but rather the same process is repeated in society. However, the propagation methods mentioned are stronger than expected, and in some ways similar to adaptation, which is why the spread of religion is so rapid and why it may appear to be an adaptation.
This explanation makes sense when the assumption is that “religion is based on deception,” and there’s plenty of evidence for this. Since prehistoric times, human societies have been plagued by existential questions. In prehistoric times, it was fear of the unknown, such as lightning and fire, and in modern times, it’s fear of death. As mentioned above, religion provides an escape from these problems. However, it is only a temporary solution and does not inherently solve the problems. Nevertheless, fully religious people tend to believe that the problems are solved. They use a “trick”-they don’t understand lightning, fire, and death, but they find comfort in seeing them as transcendent. And religion builds on this deception to expand its power.
In his article, Athron cites examples such as “makeup” and “perfume” (which, like “makeup” and “perfume,” have grown in variety and use over the generations) as examples of how deception serves cultural purposes that are far removed from the adaptive tasks of our ancestors. Furthermore, they argue that things like religious rituals make tricks into something sacred, which reinforces them and binds groups that share them. And there is some validity to this argument. People who choose to follow a religion believe that many of the stories in the scriptures are true, but they can’t prove it. In one sense, religion is very unrealistic-or, to exaggerate, it has no substance. Therefore, whatever religion can give to a religious group is also insubstantial. Based on the argument that religion is an adaptation, the “something” can be seen as group cohesion, but philosopher Phil Zuckerman conducted in-depth interviews with citizens of Scandinavian countries and concluded that “the argument that the less religious a society becomes, the more dangerous it becomes, is false, and that it can actually lead to more moral and prosperous societies.” In other words, the trait of religion is not compatible with the function of group cohesion. Based on this, it can be argued from George Williams that “religion is not an adaptation”.
In fact, the question of whether religion is an adaptation is one that many philosophers have struggled to answer. Neither argument is scientifically sound, and I would argue that this question is intertwined with the substantive question of religion – does God exist – and that the lack of a definitive answer to this question is due to the lack of a definitive answer to the question of the origins of religion. Nonetheless, I argue that “religion is not an adaptation” is more compelling than “religion is an adaptation,” following the line of reasoning above.