Humans are wired to live in groups
Humans are social animals, and most psychologically healthy individuals
have an innate desire to be a part of something greater. Nationalism, religion,
sports teams, corporations, social clubs, and political organizations are all
manifestations of this innate behavior. For our ancient ancestors, being a part
of close knit groups helped them to survive and pass on their genetic legacy. Groups
offer greater protection against predators; cooperation leads to efficiency and
synergy; division of labor allows for economies of scale and better quality
work; and the sharing of resources ensures the survival of the group even when
some of its members have a run of bad luck.
Now, some may ask “what about free riders?” Selfish individuals tend to
take advantage of their groups to improve their own chances of survival. They
slide on by, while everyone else does the heavy lifting. While it is likely
that this phenomenon has always existed, evolution has tended to favor those
with group-oriented tendencies. The reason? Groups don’t function well when
free-loaders are present, which reduces the probability of survival of all
group members. Thus, humans gained a number of evolutionary adaptations that
promote pro-social and pro-group behaviors.
Jonathan Haidt: Religion,
evolution, and the ecstasy of self-transcendence
Psychologist Jonathan Haidt is an expert on the psychology and
evolution of morality. In a TED video titled “Religion, evolution, and the
ecstasy of self-transcendence,” he argued that “the capacity for
self-transcendence is just a basic part of being human.” Transcendence, as he describes it, is a state
of selflessness, of interconnectedness, and of feeling uplifted. Humans
experience this sensation during religious rituals, drug use, meditation, and
war. Yes, war. Few other activities produce such a strong feeling of
interconnectedness, of selflessness, and of being part of a greater good than
war.
Now, consider two tribes of ancient humans who are battling it out over
territory. One is comprised of individuals wired for this feeling of interconnectedness
and selflessness. The other is comprised of free loaders. Which one is most likely
to prevail? Which one is most likely to have members that would sacrifice their
lives for the good of the tribe? Indeed, it is in the group’s best interest to
have members who are capable of transcendence. It not only inspires
self-sacrifice, but it also creates a bond between group members which
motivates further cooperation and thus survival. It is these feelings that
religions tend to illicit, cohering its members, and providing the necessary
software for personal spiritual experiences.
The Social Brain Hypothesis
The “Social Brain Hypothesis” is a theory developed by anthropologist
Robin Dunbar to explain human intelligence. In his paper “Neocortex Size, Group
Size, and the Evolution of Language” Dunbar showed that there is a strong
correlation between the typical group size of a species and the size of their
brain. For humans, Dunbar asserts that we are only capable of maintaining
stable social relationships with up to 150 individuals. The same can be
said of Neanderthals, who had roughly similar sized brains as humans. For our
ancient ancestor Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy) as well as modern apes, typical group sizes range between 60 and
70. If Dunbar is correct, then one of the greatest drivers of the complexity of
our minds is the ability to thrive within a social context. In other words, our
minds were made for interacting with other human beings. It is the lens with
which we view our environment.
Agenticity
“Anthropomorphism”, “Agent
Detection”, and “Agenticity” are all terms used to describe a very common human
phenomenon: we project human qualities on non human entities. We see human like
thoughts and emotions in our pets. We feel like blaming SOMEONE for bad weather
(poor weather guy.) Even atheists feel
the need to say “thank goodness” when good luck strikes, even though goodness
is merely a word that has nothing to do with anything. Primitive humans
believed diseases were caused by demons, droughts by angry deities, and natural
disasters by dueling gods. Given the social orientation of our minds developed
over millions of years by the evolutionary pressures described above, it is not
hard to imagine why we naturally presume the presence of invisible agents. Likewise,
it isn’t much of a stretch of the imagination to conceive that interactions
with these non-existent entities evolved into the modern religions we know so
well today.
Humans are social creatures
with minds refined by evolution to enforce group-oriented behavior and to view
the world as though it were run by invisible agents. It is very plausible that
these evolutionary adaptations led to the mystical self-transcendent emotions
experienced during religious rituals, and drove us to form relationships with nonexistent
deities.
Resources:
Jonathan Haidt on Altered Consciousness/Transcendence
Social Brain Hypothesis
Michael Shermer on Agenticity
Wikipedia Article on Agent Detection
Just a minor typo: "stable social relationships with upwards of 150 individuals", I think you meant "up to" not "upwards". A more serious comment, I think you are taking an overly simplistic stance on the evolution of cooperation. Although group-selection is the easiest explanation, it is also a minefield and under constant debate.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the simple group selection model you've described has been studied formally and can be shown to lead to parochialism (or ethnocentrism) and war. However, you don't necessarily need a group selection argument to have ethnocentrism emerge. Ethnocentrism evolves possible just with arbitrary strategy-independent tags and spatial viscosity.
I think you are correct in linking ethnocentrism to religion. However, I think it is important to explore this more formally, instead of restricting ourselves to verbal theories. We are trying to do this.
Sorry for the link spam, but I thought you might be interested. I look forward to more posts from you!
Thank you for your very constructive, illuminating, and positive feedback. I agree this analysis is a bit simplistic, and I'm certainly no anthropologist. Yet, I hope it provides a good introduction into this area of research for the average lay person.
Delete