This blog post explores whether human religiosity is an instinct hardwired into our genes or a meme created within culture.
When asked what distinguishes humans from other animals, people typically cite intelligence, tool use, creativity, and religiousness. Intelligence and creativity stem from a large, developed brain, while tool use arises from the freedom of both hands gained through bipedalism. All these traits listed above are biological characteristics humans acquired through evolution. So what about religiousness? Can human religiosity also be considered a product of evolution? It is viewed as such in several respects: it is one of the traits that distinguishes humans from other animals, and it has aided human survival. However, whether religiosity is directly encoded in genes or is an indirect product of genes remains unclear and is still a subject of debate.
Scott Atran presented his view on the origins of religion in his book In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion. Atran took the position that religiosity is not an element inscribed in genes, but rather an indirect product generated and maintained based on genetic nature. The crucial point here is that religion is indirectly influenced by human genes, not directly determined by them. Atran argues that religion originated from human efforts to recognize and understand dilemmas, such as unsolvable grand problems or differences in moral concepts. Therefore, his main position is that religion stems from ‘effort’ and is not inherent in genes.
As evidence that religiosity does not directly manifest from genes, he points out that religion is advantageous for group survival but disadvantageous for individual survival. Furthermore, he suggests that it may not be that religiosity made human survival advantageous, leading to natural selection, but rather that humans who survived chose and modified religion.
First, let’s examine the doctrines of various religions and the behaviors of their adherents. Especially when examining past religious practices, it becomes clear that religion often carries significant disadvantages for survival. Atran pointed to instances like American Indians cutting off fingers for fallen warriors or sacrificing livestock or humans. Sacrificing livestock means forfeiting essential food for survival, while cutting off fingers harms individual health. Human sacrifice goes without saying. Such religious acts clearly hinder individual survival, providing evidence that religion is not hardwired into our genes.
Next, let’s discuss the selection process of religion. It’s a stretch to conclude that human religiosity survived natural selection simply because most historically successful civilizations were religion-based. Only surviving civilizations believed they were chosen by their gods, while defeated ones lost their faith. Atran argues that while some groups may have won because they believed in religion, there is also an aspect where they chose religion because they won. Although religion can aid survival and exhibit natural selection, the fact that religion can be newly created or chosen by humans makes it difficult to view religion as inherent in human genes. That is, religion is more likely to exist outside the genes.
I agree with Atran’s argument. To add to his point, introducing the concept of memes makes this argument easier to understand. Memes are cultural or social phenomena that, like genes, are imitated and propagated among humans, applying evolutionary concepts to cultural phenomena. The meme concept views cultural phenomena as spreading through people learning and imitating each other, passing from mouth to mouth and thought to thought. If we understand memes like genes, the time an individual or group holds a specific thought and maintains the corresponding behavior can be considered the meme’s generation cycle. Furthermore, memes propagate and mutate like mutations through conversations between individuals or new ideas. Compared to genes (especially human genes), memes have very short lifespans, spread at an incredibly rapid pace, and exhibit high mutation rates and generation frequencies. Due to these characteristics, interpreting religion as a meme maintains the existing evolutionary perspective while also explaining the limitations of the gene-origin theory, making it the most suitable candidate for the ‘beyond genes’ concept mentioned earlier.
Understanding the relationship between memes and genes as symbiotic makes it easier to grasp. Consider herbivores as an example. Herbivores do not directly produce the enzymes needed to digest plants. These enzymes are produced by microorganisms that live symbiotically in the herbivore’s gut. The herbivore grinds plants into small pieces with its molars, creating an environment favorable for the microbes to live in. In turn, the microbes provide the herbivore with necessary nutrients through the enzymes they produce. This symbiotic relationship also influences the herbivore’s genes, driving its evolution toward molars that are harder and wider, and an intestine that is longer and more suitable for the microbes. The relationship between religion and humans is similar. Human imagination and advanced cognitive processes make it easy to conceive of abstract entities like gods. This gave rise to religion, which evolved into forms that aided human survival.
Earlier, it was mentioned that religion could be disadvantageous to individual survival. Suppose the religious gene first manifested in some humans. Yet belief in a god offers little personal advantage. Even if religion developed to the level of prayer or ritual, it could waste time and material resources, becoming an obstacle to survival. Of course, considering group life, religion clearly has benefits, such as providing moral standards and uniting the group. However, considering that in primitive societies, the average lifespan was 40 years and a generation lasted about 15 years, it would have been difficult for a group possessing the religious gene to form naturally. This characteristic of individual disadvantage and collective benefit cannot be explained by genes.
Then, let’s interpret religion as a meme. Suppose a religious meme first emerged in some human. Memes spread rapidly through interpersonal interactions. Thanks to this speed of transmission, large groups come to share the meme before a single human generation passes. Because of the rapidly formed group, religion can provide collective benefits from the very start.
Some counter that religion isn’t entirely useless for individual survival, so the gene theory can’t be dismissed. Religion serves as a coping mechanism for problems humans cannot understand, thereby aiding survival. An example is how belief in a deity can reduce fear or psychological shock when facing disasters or psychological distress. This perspective holds that religiosity is likely encoded in genes because such aspects aid human survival. However, this too does not constitute evidence that religion is directly imprinted in genes. Memes inevitably originate from human nature, i.e., genes. Memes originate in human thought, which stems from both genetic traits and acquired experiences. Even non-religious individuals can respond to problems through interpretations like misfortune, so this coping ability is closer to an advantage of the human cognitive mechanism than a benefit of religion.
Finally, I will mention Dr. Hammer’s research on the correlation between the VMAT2 gene and religious faith. People tend to believe religion is linked to genes because Dr. Hammer claimed, after examining the relationship between genes and religious faith in about a thousand individuals, that the VMAT2 gene contributes to religious faith. However, based on Atran’s argument, the VMAT2 gene is merely a factor determining the specific mindset needed to choose religion; it is not the direct cause of having religion. The cognitive traits associated with VMAT2 may generally be advantageous for religious believers, but they are not the decisive cause of religious belief.
Thus, religion is not selected or cultivated by genetic factors like VMAT2; it is closer to a meme arising from the distinctive elements of human society. Religion has developed through human interactions and experiences within specific social contexts, with individual beliefs and behaviors playing significant roles in this process. This clearly demonstrates that religion is not solely determined by genetic factors.
In conclusion, it is more reasonable to understand religiosity as a meme that arises and persists due to various factors advantageous to human survival. Rather than being deeply ingrained in human genes, it can be seen as a product of culture, originating from the human thought mechanisms that have evolved alongside human history. Religion can contribute to survival and prosperity by offering answers to problems commonly faced by humans and by strengthening group solidarity.
The existence of religion and its evolutionary aspects still require extensive discussion and research. Understanding how religion influences society and individual lives necessitates diverse academic approaches, including anthropology, psychology, and biology. This will enable us to gain a deeper understanding of the essence of human existence.
