This blog post examines how religion contributed to human survival and social cohesion from an evolutionary psychology perspective.
After going two days without food, I came home and opened the refrigerator. Inside were chocolate and garlic. Which would you reach for first? While not everyone would, most people would likely eat the chocolate first. After going hungry for a long time, eating chocolate seems more natural than eating garlic. But why is it natural? Why do we seek sweet things over bitter or spicy ones when we’re hungry?
The book that examines these questions from an evolutionary perspective is ‘The Old Toolbox’. This book belongs to the field of evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychology, as the title suggests, is the academic field where evolutionary theory and psychology converge to explain psychological phenomena through evolutionary principles. The evolutionary theory referenced here encompasses the concept that genes carrying traits advantageous for survival and reproduction spread within a population through natural selection. In other words, the book’s main argument is that the psychological traits and related behaviors primarily observed in humans today were selected over long periods through natural selection. The author writing this piece also agrees with the book’s argument. Now, let’s explore evolutionary psychology through several examples covered in this book.
First, let’s revisit the example mentioned earlier using the author’s explanation. The reason a hungry person reaches for chocolate before garlic is that most people prefer sweet tastes the hungrier they are. So why do we prefer sweet tastes when we’re hungry? The author points out that foods with sweet tastes are generally high in calories. He explains that humans evolved to prefer sweet tastes so they could remember which foods are calorie-dense and seek them out when calories were needed. Humans who preferred calorie-dense, sweet foods were more likely to live longer and reproduce than those who did not.
The book offers various other examples explained through evolutionary theory. Let’s examine the example concerning religion. Many examples discussed in the book are explained as if current psychological traits or behaviors were naturally selected for the survival and reproduction of human individuals. However, religion often seems unrelated to survival or reproduction. In fact, religion can be detrimental to human survival and reproduction. Humans expend significant time and energy on religion, and sometimes even sacrifice their lives for it. So why has religion become an essential element in human society, despite appearing disadvantageous for survival and reproduction from an evolutionary psychological perspective?
The book presents two possible explanations. Let’s examine one of them first. Before this explanation, it is necessary to understand the concepts of ‘actor detection’ and ‘folk psychology’. Actor detection refers to the instinctive tendency to seek out the agent responsible when a phenomenon occurs. This tendency is crucial for humans to identify agents that threaten survival. Theory of mind refers to the ability to infer others’ minds by observing their behavior. Judging whether another person’s actions will help or harm one’s survival is also an essential element for survival.
The book explains that this actor detection and folk psychology created the byproduct we call religion. Humans observe natural phenomena like pouring rain or lightning and instinctively seek an agent responsible for them. While we cannot know if such an agent actually exists, it is safer for humans to assume one does. This is because any potential agent could pose a threat to humans, making it a wise choice to be wary. Having posited an agent behind natural phenomena in this manner, humans then speculate on why that agent caused such phenomena. This leads humans to conclusions like ‘an invisible agent called God is angry.’ It can be seen that religion as we know it today formed as these thoughts and experiences accumulated and evolved. Considering that primitive religions built their faith upon natural phenomena, this explanation is highly reasonable.
Although not mentioned in the book, other possibilities regarding the origin of religion can be considered. Humans possessed conditions less favorable for survival in nature compared to other animals. Lacking distinct weapons like sharp teeth, powerful legs, wings for flight, or fins for swimming, they had to act collectively. Individually, they couldn’t take on a bull or a horse, but together, they could make such animals their dinner. Living in groups like this, they realized it was advantageous for the strong to lead the group for the survival of the whole. However, they also learned that a leader couldn’t sustain their leadership solely through strength. If a new, stronger figure emerged, they could easily be displaced.
Thus, religion was conceived. By sharing a common belief, the group’s unity strengthened. The leader became the head or deity of the religion the group believed in, gaining a tool to lead the group even if their physical strength waned. In this way, religion provided conditions favorable for the survival and reproduction of both the group and its leader. Examples of various religions revering religious leaders or powerful rulers attempting to instill religion or belief in a group are common throughout history. Thus, religion, which might seem disadvantageous for survival and reproduction at first glance, can ultimately be understood as an inevitable evolutionary phenomenon for humans.
Now, let’s examine common criticisms of evolutionary psychology. One opposing view criticizes evolutionary psychology for explaining phenomena by forcing them into a preconceived framework. For example, regarding why people prefer seats with good views in cafes, the book explains that humans evolved to favor spots where they could monitor prey and predators without being spotted by predators while living on the savanna grasslands. However, not everyone likes seats with good views; many people prefer secluded corners where they cannot see outside. How can this be explained? From an evolutionary psychology perspective, hiding to avoid predators’ notice could be explained as advantageous for survival and reproduction. Evolutionary psychology can explain even such contradictory behaviors with the logic that they were beneficial for survival and reproduction. Consequently, some critics argue that while evolutionary psychology attempts to explain everything, it actually explains nothing.
However, this criticism fails to sufficiently account for the characteristics of modern society. Evolutionary psychology explains that individuals possessing psychological mechanisms or behaviors advantageous for survival and reproduction are more likely to survive and spread their genes. Yet in modern human society, the impact of specific psychological mechanisms or behaviors on survival or reproduction is minimal. Whether one prefers an open seat or a corner seat in a cafe, that choice does not affect lifespan or the number of offspring. In the past, individuals who preferred locations with good visibility might have found food more easily, avoided predators, lived longer, and produced many offspring. But in modern society, such choices have almost no impact on survival or reproduction. In other words, modern society allows evolutionary explanations to account for behaviors that don’t directly affect survival, even when they seem contradictory.
Furthermore, evolutionary psychology does not claim that all behaviors are advantageous for survival. For example, consider individuals who can use language versus those who cannot. Evolutionary psychology does not argue that non-verbal individuals possess inherent advantages that could make them more likely to survive under certain environmental conditions. Even in a modern society that protects humans, individuals unable to communicate face significant difficulties in marriage and overcoming crises, making it highly unlikely they would live long lives.
Evolutionary psychology is a discipline that seeks to explain psychological states and behaviors humans have taken for granted through an evolutionary lens. This explanation sounds plausible. While it appears to account for all behaviors superficially, this is not unrelated to the fact that certain behaviors are not eliminated in the protective environment of modern society. Through evolutionary psychology, we understand that certain behaviors were advantageous for survival and reproduction in specific environments, allowing us to infer the conditions under which early humans lived. Furthermore, by observing changes in human behavior, we can also examine the direction in which society is evolving.
