Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T09:26:54.371Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

We need behavioural ecology to explain the institutional authority of the gods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2005

Chris Knight*
Affiliation:
Anthropology Department, School of Social Sciences, University of East London, Barking Campus, Dagenham, Essex RM8 2AS, United Kingdomhttp://Homepages.uel.ac.uk/C.Knight/
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Atran & Norenzayan (A&N) rightly criticize cognitive theories for failure to explain sacrifice and commitment. But their attempt to reconcile cognitivism with commitment theory is unconvincing. Why should imaginary entities be effective in punishing moral defectors? Heavy costs are entailed in enforcing community-wide social contracts, and behavioural ecology is needed to explain how and why evolving humans could afford these costs.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2004