My post of a few weeks ago on the book “Sapiens” touched briefly on the hypothesis that religions were develop to control large groups of people. I again came across this same theses on the Hidden Brian podcast. I found the podcast gave a very compelling argument for religious development.
Before the agriculture revolution about 12,000 years ago, we (humans) were hunter-gatherers. This required the group to move frequently in search of food, and also limited the size of the group to between 50 and 100 people. Any more and they could not find enough food in one area to sustain them.
In a group this size, everybody knew everybody else, we were genetically related to everybody in the group. The group used shame, and the threat of banishment (which resulted in death) for anybody that did not do their part, or violated the social norms.
Then the agriculture revolution began, and groups began growing beyond the 100 to 150 limit. From a genetic standpoint, we’re only built to be able to cooperate with as many people as we can know well, which is about 150 people. Which turns out is the ideal size for a typical LDS ward!
So groups began growing to 1000, 5000, and beyond. This meant living next to people you did not know. From the podcast:
So when you start having anonymous strangers in groups, when you start having people whose reputation you’re unfamiliar with, what that means is that people can free ride on the group. They can cheat on the group with impunity. And when you start having large groups of free riders and cheaters in a group, it can’t sustain itself. You need a level of cooperation between the people in a group for it to act and to work harmoniously.
Something more than just our genetic inheritance is needed to control a group this large . A cultural innovation was needed to allow us to succeed in these larger groups. Religion was one of these culture innovations. But not just any religion, but one that had a supernatural punisher, or “God”. If early humans could be convinced that a god was going to punish them if they didn’t fall in line with the group, they would start to cooperate. Smaller groups had gods that provided food or water. But they didn’t need a vengeful god to control the smaller numbers of people. One study placed the number of one million as the threshold of when a vengeful god appeared.
As nation states and rules of law have taken over keeping people in line, there is less and less need for religions to have a vengeful God. Newer religions can have a benevolent God, that does not punish so much as blesses people, or even no religion at all. Europe is a good example of this, and more and more people have no religious affiliation at all.
There is no way to prove any of the theories expounded upon in the book or the podcast, and it goes against all organized religions, or anybody that believes in a literal god. What do you take from this?
Wheat & Tares 
“150 people. Which turns out is the ideal size for a typical LDS ward! ” Whose ideal? Ideal for what purpose?
The ward I grew up in decades ago was very much larger and seemed to function very much better than any I’ve been in since then — both as a social unit, a cooperative work unit, and in church services. Of course, there could be quite a variety of reasons for that depending upon the particular group and the nature and number of its trouble makers or free riders. Of course, it could also be that there were tensions and problems unknown to me. As to those I knew of, the larger ward included enough people to share the burden of dealing with the problems, programs, and people without necessarily resulting in exhaustion — rather unlike some small branches and smaller wards I’ve seen.
“The ward I grew up in decades ago was very much larger and seemed to function very much better than any I’ve been in since then ”
Larger wards may have some benefits, (such as more people to fulfill callings) but there can also be disadvantages. We moved into a large ward and it seemed no one noticed we were there. There were many members who had been part of the ward for a long time and were very social with each other but newcomers sort of got overlooked. However, 2 to 3 yrs after we moved in, the ward was split and an additional ward was created.
I know I’ve made a similar comment on one of your other, similar posts, but logically, this makes less sense to me than other explanations. If there is no God, and we assume evolutionary science is full on fact in every sense, then religion seems an unlikely scenario to me. I know evolution doesn’t necessarily lead to perfection or improvement, but logic tells me there are so many more ways that nature could or would allow us to cope, survive, or thrive. Logic tells me that for humans to be the way they are, something higher has to be involved. And although it doesn’t make as much sense to me, I can understand the author’s logic. As somewhat of an aside, it only furthers the idea for me that logic is not always the trump card we think it to be.
If religion is a genetic and social construct, then logically, agency would seem to be somewhat of an evolutionary defect, since people rebel all the time. To me, it makes more sense that agency was given, as well as a system that would allow us to enhance that agency if chosen and used properly. I read about evolutionary scientific explanations for human behavior all the time, and although some of them seem a bit of a stretch, I’m amazed with what they come up with. Logically, Heavenly Parents still make more sense to me. I can understand why it wouldn’t to others.
Having a witness from the Holy Ghost certainly hasn’t hurt either, but I’m sure there are evolutionary explanations for that as well.
Your references to “free riders” made think of this wonky economics paper by Dr. McBride at UC Irvine. He illustrates how the LDS church adressess the free rider problem by using incremental access to club goods in the church. It’s worth a read!
Click to access ClubMormon_RatSoc_2007.pdf
I think religious thinking sprang among humans well before humans started gathering in larger groups. Judging by the earliest petroglyphs, religion probably sprang from the natural human desire to explain nature and communicate through symbols. The human brain was wired to try to explain nature, a illusive and difficult-to-understand set of phenomena that we still struggle to explain today, in order for survival. The earliest of humans had more imaginative brains that better memories than their animal counterparts, and would rely on their superior intellect to try to predict natural patterns. Humans would dwell on their experiences with nature and attempt to link these experiences with other phenomena, hoping to have better control their natural surroundings.
The earliest of humans did not possess the powers of linguistic expression that we do nowadays. So they communicated through symbols. The symbols, however, didn’t just function as basic communication, they had intrinsic value and may have been a marker of prestige in the community. The earliest of humans and even their neanderthal and homo erectus cousins made jewelry and engravings that communicated some form of symbolism.
Religion sprang from humans’ powers of imagination and story telling through symbolism.
Eli, the idea of religion being a social and genetic construct and the idea of a God existing aren’t mutually exclusive. Study of the world’s religions across space and time reveals fascinating patterns that strongly suggest the evolution of religion in a sort of tandem with human evolution alongside nature. Humans 40,000-10,000 years before present were petroglyph artists. The earliest organized societies were almost entirely polytheistic believing in a variety of spirits who controlled different aspects of nature. The mention of Elohim (the -im suffix in Hebrew being plural) and gods in Genesis suggests that the early Hebrews were polytheists, and at some point the cult of Yahweh prevailed among them, similar to the prevalence of the cult of Zeus among the Greeks and the cult of Marduk among the Babylonians, although Yahweh was more jealous and insistent on his oneness than Marduk and Zeus. With the Bronze Age arose the hard polytheism in which the stories of various gods with human-like personalities took shape and began to be recorded in oral and written forms. With the rise and spread of forms of writing and communication, religion diversified. The dominant religions of kingdoms would often influence the religious beliefs and ideas of lessers. Hebrew religion was informed in large part by Zoroastrianism, the dominant religion of the Achaemenid Empire. Elements of ancient Egyptian religion can be found in North Africa and Sudan.
If there is no Christ, no God, then the “Hidden Brain” idea is as good as any other. But if there is a God and there is a Christ, the Light of Christ is the best explanation for the fact that all cultures know have practised some sort of religion.
Glenn
“agency would seem to be somewhat of an evolutionary defect”
There are a number of researchers who have come out with thesises (plural of thesis? thesi???) about agency vs genetics saying that agency may not be as real as we think/experience. It’s super interesting because even the researchers doing the work are somewhat horrified that we are more controlled by biology than we want to admit. But the research is there and continues to be scrutinized.
I’m a devoted follower of Hidden Brain and enjoyed this episode. I don’t find it a threat to God himself though rather to man’s understanding/interprettation of God. In a Man creates God in his own image, kind of way. For me, God is something else, something bigger, something unlimited by what we can come up with via research and though-experiments and our own faith.
Glenn – I would turn that around. All cultures practice religion, and within Mormonism we call one of the universal elements of that practice ‘the light of Christ.’
theses
“All cultures practice religion, and within Mormonism we call one of the universal elements of that practice ‘the light of Christ.’” Yep.
As a non-believer in a literal interventionist God, I find the idea that all religions are man-made and that man creates god in man’s image rather than vice-versa very compelling and better able to explain the history of the world’s religions. I also think there is a lot of substance to the idea of the evolution of religious ideas as well as natural selection helping certain religious ideas continue. Religions and ideas that serve a function in terms of allowing a community to survive and thrive are those that get perpetuated, sometimes for better or for worst.
In short, I am a naturalist and find these sorts of naturalistic explanations for the diversity and origins of the world’s religions both fascinating and quite compelling.
David O, that wonky economics paper was fascinating. I wish the author would do an update–I wonder if, now 12 years later, the club goods in the church are still as effective in generating high commitment as they have been in the past.
“Where Does Religion Come From?”
Mind.
Both.
No doubt some humans leverage the beliefs of others to their own advantage. It is certain that there’s some kind of God and a vast realm of such things.
The control aspects of religion probably follow belief, not precede it.
It helps to define “religion” since it seems to be at least two things; personal beliefs and social institutions.
John W “the idea of religion being a social and genetic construct and the idea of a God existing aren’t mutually exclusive.”
I can understand that line of thinking as well, but I think it opens up whole new avenues of logic. I know I’m kind of working backward this time, but logically it’s simply easier for me to believe that kind of evolution is simply the manifestation of apostasy that occurs from the use of agency and passing through the veil. I get it though.
ReTx “saying that agency may not be as real as we think/experience.”
I understand this line of thinking too. However, both science and experience have taught me that nature generally takes the path of least resistance. And yet, regularly we see people “swim upstream” and conquer issues without any readily apparent outside stimuli or alternative genetic explanations for the change. I suppose one could explain repentance with a balancing act nature tries to do with predispositions of the individuals versus the genetic and social constructs and needs of the larger population. But logically, it’s simply easier for me to believe that Heavenly Father does have a plan for our progressing agency, with conditions (Atonement) in place to help us back on track when we stray.
The grander evolutionary psychology theories get, the more they resemble the cutting of a blank square of cardboard into puzzle pieces, asserting that the pieces represent how the cardboard came together in the first place.
I am in the middle of reading Sapiens and the chapters on religion are fascinating. What intrigued me the most is that we are influenced so much in our thinking by several modern ideologies, religion being one of them. We subscribe to capitalism, individualism, equality, liberalism and humanism. Incorporating Mormonism (originally very communitarian) has created some interesting cognitive dissonance and influenced the way we practice our religion. For example, it’s easy for us to incorporate the capitalist/American ideal that the market rewards hard work and discipline into our religion, where we replace the market with a God who takes notes of our obedience and good works and gives out blessings accordingly. If you want more blessings, you need to work harder and be more obedient. If someone struggles, it’s generally their fault, or a trial to test their faith, after which they will receive more blessings. We are generally comfortable with this view because it fits so well with how we see the world generally. We don’t really know what to do with the Jesus of the New Testament who refutes this view and tend to stress his teachings that promote obedience and the final judgment.
felixfabulous writes “If you want more blessings, you need to work harder and be more obedient.”
Seems fairly obvious although I would substitute work smarter, not necessarily harder.