Book Review – In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion (What are the Origins of Human Religiosity?)

I read Scott Atran’s book “In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion” and reflected on the origins of human religiosity.

 

When I ask people what distinguishes humans from other animals, they often mention the presence of intelligence, the use of tools, creativity, and religiosity. Intelligence and creativity come from a large and developed brain, and tool use comes from the freedom of both hands that comes from walking upright. These are all biological traits that humans have acquired through evolution. But what about religiosity? Is human religiosity also a product of evolution? Religiosity is thought to be a product of evolution in many ways, including being one of the things that distinguishes humans from other animals and helping us survive. However, it’s not clear whether religiosity is directly written into our genes, or whether it’s an indirect product of our genes, and this has been the subject of much debate.
In his book, “In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion,” Scott Athron discusses his views on the origins of religion. His position is that religiosity is not something that is written into our genes, but rather an indirect product that is created and maintained based on our genetic nature. The important point here is that religion is indirectly influenced by our genes, not solely determined by them. Athron argues that religion began as an effort to recognize and understand dilemmas, such as differences in moral ideas and huge problems that humans cannot solve. His main argument is that because religion is an endeavor, it is something that is created, not hardwired into our genes. The evidence that religiosity is not directly expressed from genes is that religion is favorable for group survival but unreasonable for individual survival, and that it is not the survival of the fittest because religion favors human survival, but the opposite process, in which surviving humans choose and modify religion.
First, let’s look at the doctrines of various religions and the behavior of their adherents. Especially in the past, rather than the present, religion is often a disadvantage for survival. Athron pointed to examples such as American Indians cutting off fingers for dead warriors or sacrificing livestock or humans themselves. Sacrificing livestock means throwing away food that’s essential for survival, and cutting off fingers can also harm an individual’s health. Not to mention human sacrifice. These religious practices clearly interfere with an individual’s survival, which is evidence that religion is not written in the genes.
Next, let’s talk about the selection process of religion. The fact that most successful civilizations throughout history have been based on religion does not mean that human religiosity is the survival of the fittest. Only the surviving civilizations believe that they are chosen by the gods, while the defeated ones lose their faith. Athron said that some civilizations won because they believed in religion, but they chose religion because they won. Religion certainly helps us survive, and it’s survival of the fittest. However, given that religion can be newly created, or even chosen by humans, it’s too fluid to be in our genes, which means it likely exists outside of our genes.
I agree with Athron’s argument above. To add to Athron’s argument, the concept of memes can help us understand this argument better. Memes are the evolutionary counterpart of cultural phenomena, the idea that cultural and social phenomena are copied and reproduced from human to human in the same way as genes. The meme concept suggests that cultural phenomena spread by learning from (imitating) each other from mouth to mouth and thought to thought. If we think of a meme as a gene, the length of time that an individual or a group of individuals thinks a certain way and maintains a certain behavior is the generation cycle of a meme. It is also spread from one conversation to another, and the reproduction, birth, and mutation of a meme is when an individual thinks a new idea or reinterprets another’s idea. Compared to genes (especially human genes), the generation of a meme is very short, the rate of propagation is enormous, and the mutation rate and creation frequency are very high. These features make the meme interpretation of religion the best candidate for the “outside the gene” explanation described above, as it is consistent with conventional evolutionary thinking while also explaining the blind spots of the gene theory of origin.
The relationship between memes and genes is easier to accept if we think of it as symbiotic. Take herbivores, for example: they don’t make their own enzymes to digest grass. In fact, the enzymes are produced by tiny microbes that live in symbiosis in their gut. The herbivore pre-crushes the plant with its molars and creates a hospitable environment for the microbes in its long gut. In return, the microbes break down the plant and provide it to the herbivore. This symbiotic relationship also affects the herbivore’s genes, and the herbivore evolves to have harder, wider molars and a larger, more microbe-friendly gut. The relationship between religion and humans is similar. Our imagination and developed cognitive processes make it easy for us to imagine abstract beings like God. This is how religions arise and help humans survive.
Earlier, we said that religion is a disadvantage when it comes to individual survival. Let’s say the religion gene is first expressed in some humans. Even if religion were to evolve to the level of prayer and rituals, it would be a waste of time and material resources, which would hinder survival. Of course, in the context of group life, religion has its advantages, such as providing moral standards and binding groups together. However, even if offspring are produced, the average lifespan in primitive societies is 40 years, and a generation lasts about 15 years, so it seems unlikely that a group with religious genes would arise. These characteristics of individual harm and collective benefit certainly cannot be explained by genes. Let’s look at religion as a meme. Let’s assume that a religious meme was first created by a human. The meme spreads rapidly through human interaction, and before a single generation of humans has passed, a large group of people with the meme has formed. Because the group is formed so quickly, religion can bring collective benefits from the start.
Another counterargument is that religion is not completely useless for individual survival, so it cannot negate the gene theory. The idea is that religion allows humans to cope with problems they cannot understand or solve, which is essential for survival and therefore hardwired into their genes. When faced with disaster or psychological distress, religion can reduce fear or psychological shock, such as through belief in God. Since this aspect has helped humans survive, it is believed that religiosity has been passed down through natural selection. However, this is not conclusive evidence that religion is hardwired into our genes. Memes are naturally influenced by human nature, which is to say, our genes. Memes originate from human thought, which in turn originates from pre-existing genetic traits and acquired experiences, so memes are also influenced by genes. Furthermore, non-religious people also respond to many empirical problems by interpreting them as mere bad luck, so this response to empirical problems is more a function of human cognitive mechanisms than a function of religion.
Finally, I’d like to mention Dr. Hammer’s discovery of the VMAT2 gene and religiosity. People claim that Dr. Hammer looked at the genes of more than 1000 people and their religious beliefs and found a strong correlation between the VMAT2 gene and their religious beliefs, and that this is conclusive evidence. But this is misleading. What Hammer found was only a relationship between VMAT2 and a tendency toward self-transcendence (forgetting oneself and believing in something that doesn’t exist). These people don’t just believe in God, they believe in things like superpowers and an infinite power source. The inexplicable confidence that people sometimes display is also a form of self-transcendence. In other words, Hammer didn’t find a gene that specifically predisposes people to faith, but rather a gene for a more inclusive personality, so religiosity isn’t entirely genetic.
As another name for the meme suggests, extended phenotypes, religion as a meme is largely genetic. If aliens existed, it is certain that they would have a different religious paradigm than humans, and that it would be due to differences in nature, i.e. genes. However, the direct expression of genes and the nature of memes are different. Given the nature of religion to benefit groups and the process by which religion emerges, it seems more appropriate to interpret religion as being generated and propagated in the form of memes, an indirect product of genes, rather than genes. The idea that religiosity is written in our genes ignores the sociocultural complexity of religion and is an oversimplification of biological reductionism. We should embrace both the sociocultural and biological aspects of religion through a memetic interpretation.