Abraham, the Übervater of the eponymous religions, would have delighted in the article by Norenzayan et al., except for the fact that they do not confirm the existence of his god. This ontological question is of little interest to students of cultural evolution. They care about the fact that so many people do believe in Big Gods and how that affects their behavior and the welfare of their groups and societies. Norenzayan et al. have amassed (mostly correlational) data showing a positive manifold of belief in Big Gods (BG), costly group-affirming rituals, prosocial (or rather, group-serving) behavior, group wealth, and expansion. With these variables being interconnected, the challenge is to detect a pattern and to weave a story that is more plausible and more difficult to undo than its alternatives, and to do this without critical experiments.
Norenzayan et al. have made good progress with their mission. The data suggest that BG religions co-evolved with societal growth in historical time. Within the matrix of complex feedback loops among the manifold, it seems that widespread acceptance of BG and his demands has causal power. Norenzayan et al.’s account of how belief in BG shaped cultural evolution is nothing short of a master narrative for recorded history.
The construction of a master narrative is the most ambitious project social scientists can entertain. They must respond, however, to questions regarding how much exactly their account contributes above and beyond more parsimonious accounts and explain how different cultural evolution would have been were some critical variables missing. Belief in BG is not necessary to explain prosocial behavior. There are many sources of morality and prosocial behavior. Morality can spring from the passions (Hume Reference Hume1751) and from reason (Kant Reference Kant1788/1956). Nor is belief in BG fully sufficient to establish an egalitarian in-group morality. Although BG demands to treat all members of the group as brothers or sisters, people do not do that. Prosociality drops off sharply over social distance (Jones & Rachlin Reference Jones and Rachlin2006). Yet, Norenzayan et al. dismiss the power of inclusive fitness to manage individuals’ prosocial resources, suggesting that prosociality is evenly distributed within a group; it is not. It is true, however, that social categorization into in-groups and out-groups provides a sharp dividing line, which contains prosociality within the in-group (DiDonato et al. Reference DiDonato, Ullrich and Krueger2011; Tajfel Reference Tajfel1970). Again, however, these organizing effects of social categorization do not require a belief in BG or mundane authority. It is enough to perceive members of the in-group are more similar to the self than members of the out-group (Krueger Reference Krueger2007). The frontier for the BG theory is to find ways to estimate and quantify how much variance it can explain beyond the contributions made by non-BG processes. In the remainder of this commentary, I raise four issues to illustrate that Norenzayan et al.’s theory is overly elastic.
First, Norenzayan et al. couch their behavioral arguments in the language of prosociality, thereby evoking associations of moral goodness. However, to cast BG beliefs as matters of obedience, submission, and conformity is equally valid, perhaps even more valid. At minimum, the theory ought to provide a more textured distinction between the beneficent effects of prosociality (e.g., mutual aid and trust) and the destructive effects of oppression and submission (e.g., persecution and punishment of dissenters).
Second, the theory is cast within the paradigm of group selection. The controversy surrounding this concept is not acknowledged. The authors did not take the opportunity to make the case for group selection by showing how it works in the context of BG-dominated groups. Instead, they take it for granted that group selection is an accepted process, much like the selection of genes or organisms. Genes succeed by replicating themselves faster than average. This is a truism. Individual organisms have to struggle in the world before they die. They succeed if they pass on their genes faster than average. Groups are the carriers of genes and memes, a distinction that Norenzayan et al. do not elaborate. Although some of the basic capacities underlying belief in BG (e.g., mentalizing) may already be available in the gene code, belief in BG itself may be a matter of memes. How are groups selected so that the memes they carry spread faster than average? Norenzayan et al. refer to several processes (e.g., war), thereby implying a heterogeneous mishmash ranging from group selection proper to group transformation to group absorption. This heterogeneity of process militates against the ability of casting group selection as a unitary construct.
Third, Norenzayan et al. focus on belief in hell as a corollary of belief in BG, while noting that belief in heaven works against social cohesion. A strong theory would explain how two interdependent beliefs with opposite behavioral implications coevolve. A strong theory would also explain how belief in hell affects individual acts of obedience or prosociality. BG's judgment to send Everyman to hell is a single decision, whereas Everyman brings a profile of lifelong behavior. What is BG's decision rule? Is a single selfish act sufficient to throw the switch to hell? BG religions vary widely in how they treat this issue. A strong theory would make predictions about the consequences of these different treatments.
Fourth, Norenzayan et al. gloss over the question of how belief in BG was introduced. A Darwinian would settle for the idea that the belief – like anything else – emerged from random variation and then stuck because it was effective (Campbell Reference Campbell1975). A theory of culture demands more. Arguably, the belief in BG was invented by individuals who profited from it. Norenzayan et al. acknowledge literature suggesting that BG religions are instruments of dominance (e.g., Peoples & Marlowe Reference Peoples and Marlowe2012). Because no one knows what happened in pre-historical time, the biblical narrative of Abraham's invention of BG-ism is instructive. Abraham sought to emancipate himself from his father and to establish his own group. His imposition of monotheism and forced circumcision of all males secured his leadership and established a culture of within-group obedience and prosociality. Again, however, in this narrative and later emulations, obedience seems to come first.
You have
Access
Abraham, the Übervater of the eponymous religions, would have delighted in the article by Norenzayan et al., except for the fact that they do not confirm the existence of his god. This ontological question is of little interest to students of cultural evolution. They care about the fact that so many people do believe in Big Gods and how that affects their behavior and the welfare of their groups and societies. Norenzayan et al. have amassed (mostly correlational) data showing a positive manifold of belief in Big Gods (BG), costly group-affirming rituals, prosocial (or rather, group-serving) behavior, group wealth, and expansion. With these variables being interconnected, the challenge is to detect a pattern and to weave a story that is more plausible and more difficult to undo than its alternatives, and to do this without critical experiments.
Norenzayan et al. have made good progress with their mission. The data suggest that BG religions co-evolved with societal growth in historical time. Within the matrix of complex feedback loops among the manifold, it seems that widespread acceptance of BG and his demands has causal power. Norenzayan et al.’s account of how belief in BG shaped cultural evolution is nothing short of a master narrative for recorded history.
The construction of a master narrative is the most ambitious project social scientists can entertain. They must respond, however, to questions regarding how much exactly their account contributes above and beyond more parsimonious accounts and explain how different cultural evolution would have been were some critical variables missing. Belief in BG is not necessary to explain prosocial behavior. There are many sources of morality and prosocial behavior. Morality can spring from the passions (Hume Reference Hume1751) and from reason (Kant Reference Kant1788/1956). Nor is belief in BG fully sufficient to establish an egalitarian in-group morality. Although BG demands to treat all members of the group as brothers or sisters, people do not do that. Prosociality drops off sharply over social distance (Jones & Rachlin Reference Jones and Rachlin2006). Yet, Norenzayan et al. dismiss the power of inclusive fitness to manage individuals’ prosocial resources, suggesting that prosociality is evenly distributed within a group; it is not. It is true, however, that social categorization into in-groups and out-groups provides a sharp dividing line, which contains prosociality within the in-group (DiDonato et al. Reference DiDonato, Ullrich and Krueger2011; Tajfel Reference Tajfel1970). Again, however, these organizing effects of social categorization do not require a belief in BG or mundane authority. It is enough to perceive members of the in-group are more similar to the self than members of the out-group (Krueger Reference Krueger2007). The frontier for the BG theory is to find ways to estimate and quantify how much variance it can explain beyond the contributions made by non-BG processes. In the remainder of this commentary, I raise four issues to illustrate that Norenzayan et al.’s theory is overly elastic.
First, Norenzayan et al. couch their behavioral arguments in the language of prosociality, thereby evoking associations of moral goodness. However, to cast BG beliefs as matters of obedience, submission, and conformity is equally valid, perhaps even more valid. At minimum, the theory ought to provide a more textured distinction between the beneficent effects of prosociality (e.g., mutual aid and trust) and the destructive effects of oppression and submission (e.g., persecution and punishment of dissenters).
Second, the theory is cast within the paradigm of group selection. The controversy surrounding this concept is not acknowledged. The authors did not take the opportunity to make the case for group selection by showing how it works in the context of BG-dominated groups. Instead, they take it for granted that group selection is an accepted process, much like the selection of genes or organisms. Genes succeed by replicating themselves faster than average. This is a truism. Individual organisms have to struggle in the world before they die. They succeed if they pass on their genes faster than average. Groups are the carriers of genes and memes, a distinction that Norenzayan et al. do not elaborate. Although some of the basic capacities underlying belief in BG (e.g., mentalizing) may already be available in the gene code, belief in BG itself may be a matter of memes. How are groups selected so that the memes they carry spread faster than average? Norenzayan et al. refer to several processes (e.g., war), thereby implying a heterogeneous mishmash ranging from group selection proper to group transformation to group absorption. This heterogeneity of process militates against the ability of casting group selection as a unitary construct.
Third, Norenzayan et al. focus on belief in hell as a corollary of belief in BG, while noting that belief in heaven works against social cohesion. A strong theory would explain how two interdependent beliefs with opposite behavioral implications coevolve. A strong theory would also explain how belief in hell affects individual acts of obedience or prosociality. BG's judgment to send Everyman to hell is a single decision, whereas Everyman brings a profile of lifelong behavior. What is BG's decision rule? Is a single selfish act sufficient to throw the switch to hell? BG religions vary widely in how they treat this issue. A strong theory would make predictions about the consequences of these different treatments.
Fourth, Norenzayan et al. gloss over the question of how belief in BG was introduced. A Darwinian would settle for the idea that the belief – like anything else – emerged from random variation and then stuck because it was effective (Campbell Reference Campbell1975). A theory of culture demands more. Arguably, the belief in BG was invented by individuals who profited from it. Norenzayan et al. acknowledge literature suggesting that BG religions are instruments of dominance (e.g., Peoples & Marlowe Reference Peoples and Marlowe2012). Because no one knows what happened in pre-historical time, the biblical narrative of Abraham's invention of BG-ism is instructive. Abraham sought to emancipate himself from his father and to establish his own group. His imposition of monotheism and forced circumcision of all males secured his leadership and established a culture of within-group obedience and prosociality. Again, however, in this narrative and later emulations, obedience seems to come first.