# Is believing in God evolutionarily advantageous? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 31, 2010, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-believing-in-god-evolutionarily-advantageous/552131 "2010-08-31T14:34:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-believing-in-god-evolutionarily-advantageous/552131/1 "2010-08-31T14:34:11Z")
NPR has been running a series called “The Human Edge” about how evolution has given humans a leg up on other species. But the one from yesterday: [Is Believing In God Evolutionarily Advantageous?](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129528196) just struck me as people trying to make the fact of religious belief fit their notions of what could make it advantageous. The basic idea of the story is that people cooperate because they believe in supernatural forces that are watching them. > [@](#): > > In fact, Bering says that believing that supernatural beings are watching you is so basic to being human that even committed atheists regularly have moments where their minds turn in a supernatural direction, as his did in the wake of his mother’s death. > > “They experience it but they reject it,” Bering says. “Sort of override or stomp on their immediate intuition. But that’s not to say that they don’t experience it. We all have the same basic brain. And our brains have evolved to work in a particular way.” > [@](#): > > If God is everywhere and sees everything, people curb their selfish impulses even when there’s no one around. Because with God, there is no escape. “God knows what you did,” Johnson says, “and God is going to punish you for it and that’s an incredibly powerful deterrent. If you do it again, he’s going to know and he is going to tally up your good deals and bad deeds and you will suffer the consequences for it either in this life or in an afterlife.” Now, I recognize that this was a short piece for general consumption, but dayum! There are a lot of assumptions here. They seem to be using only an omniscient, omnipresent god-idea. They are making claims about atheists (that all atheists believe in the supernatural). They are ignoring what seem to me to be easier explanations (which is something god belief does in general, so this is particularly fitting). So, did believing in God or gods help humans evolutionarily? If so, in the way they are positing? ---
**Author:** ![Hello\_Again](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-believing-in-god-evolutionarily-advantageous/552131/2 "2010-08-31T14:44:04Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > NPR has been running a series called “The Human Edge” about how evolution has given humans a leg up on other species. > > But the one from yesterday: [Is Believing In God Evolutionarily Advantageous?](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129528196) just struck me as people trying to make the fact of religious belief fit their notions of what could make it advantageous. > > The basic idea of the story is that people cooperate because they believe in supernatural forces that are watching them. > > > [@](#): > > > > In fact, Bering says that believing that supernatural beings are watching you is so basic to being human that even committed atheists regularly have moments where their minds turn in a supernatural direction, as his did in the wake of his mother’s death. > > > > “They experience it but they reject it,” Bering says. “Sort of override or stomp on their immediate intuition. But that’s not to say that they don’t experience it. We all have the same basic brain. And our brains have evolved to work in a particular way.” > > Now, I recognize that this was a short piece for general consumption, but dayum! There are a lot of assumptions here. They seem to be using only an omniscient, omnipresent god-idea. No, they said, for example, that “karma” is the exact same thing - the idea that some force or observer is tallying your behavior. > [@](#): > > They are making claims about atheists (that all atheists believe in the supernatural). I don’t agree that they made this claim at all. In fact, their claim is that atheists specifically DON’T believe it with their rational mind. However, with their irrational mind, they sometimes experience the _thought or perception_ that some force is observing them. Then they use their rational mind to determine that it is unlikely. > [@](#): > > So, did believing in God or gods help humans evolutionarily? If so, in the way they are positing? I thought their argument, that delegating discipline to a force outside the community avoided certain social problems inherent in the enforcement of norms (ie, retaliation and vendetta against the person who does the enforcing), was quite persuasive. I have to agree with them that when you see a behavior as completely universal as belief in supernatural observers, you have to conclude that there is some advantage to having that belief. If it was a neutral factor, some human social groups would have it, and others wouldn’t. But pretty much every human social group has it (not necessarily every individual). ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-believing-in-god-evolutionarily-advantageous/552131/3 "2010-08-31T14:49:58Z")
A large part of that depends on if there is a God who can be known. If there is no God then the practice of that believe is that of mind control, and can be used to enslave a population. So a advantage for some, at the expense of the others, but they will be more content slaves, giving a more stable oppressive society. Overall I’d say that this would be a disadvantage for society. If there is a God with powers that can be tapped into, then yes it is a advantage to use powers beyond human power. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-believing-in-god-evolutionarily-advantageous/552131/4 "2010-08-31T14:56:31Z")
I thought it was a good story, and I agree with **Hello Again**. The researcher they focused on was an atheist and obviously did not really believe in the supernatural – yet had the uncanny feeling that his mother communicated to him after she died. He wanted to explore what is is about the human mind that draws us to believe in the supernatural, even if many people intellectually reject those feelings they themselves have. I missed the end of the story; I’ll need to go to NPR to hear the rest. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-believing-in-god-evolutionarily-advantageous/552131/5 "2010-08-31T15:00:25Z")
Darwin’s cathedral is supposedly a good book on this subject. Someone on this board once recommended a good book to me about religion and evolution, but I’ve forgotten the title. I can probably search later for it. [![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/55h1FO8V_3w/hqdefault.jpg "Patton Oswalt - Sky Cake") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55h1FO8V_3w) ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-believing-in-god-evolutionarily-advantageous/552131/6 "2010-08-31T15:08:04Z")
> [@Hello\_Again](#): > > No, they said, for example, that “karma” is the exact same thing - the idea that some force or observer is tallying your behavior. > > … > > I thought their argument, that delegating discipline to a force outside the community avoided certain social problems inherent in the enforcement of norms (ie, retaliation and vendetta against the person who does the enforcing), was quite persuasive. I have to agree with them that when you see a behavior as completely universal as belief in supernatural observers, you have to conclude that there is some advantage to having that belief. If it was a neutral factor, some human social groups would have it, and others wouldn’t. But pretty much every human social group has it (not necessarily every individual). Karma is still an omniscient “idea.” But there have historically been lots of god-beliefs that aren’t omniscient at all. And no, not all of us have the feeling of being watched, which the first researcher said was universal. You start claiming X is universal when it isn’t, and the whole house of research cards starts to fall down. Certain optical illusions are universal. Does that mean optical illusions are evolutionarily advantageous, or does it mean those illusions are a byproduct of the way we see? Religious belief can simply be a byproduct of brains that seek explanations and patterns. Bringing in a god as an enforcer might heighten a group’s ability to punish, but other species punish just fine. Other species work in concert just fine. Shunning, physical retribution, etc. are all present even and especially with religious belief, so how in the world can we argue that a god somehow makes human-sourced punishments unnecessary? They are given an added boost, and often an added zeal, through religion, but we don’t just say, “Oh, God’ll get you. I don’t need to judge.” It just strikes me as an added complication with no justification. We cooperate because we’re a social, cooperative species. Other species are social and cooperative without having gods. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-believing-in-god-evolutionarily-advantageous/552131/7 "2010-08-31T15:17:13Z")
I wrote this for a friend a few years ago following a drunken ‘discussion’: > [@](#): > > The capacity for religious belief, and the resultant organisational structures behind the belief, would have been actively beneficial to early humanity, and tribes that followed religious practice would have had an advantage over secular or spiritually anarchic ones. In other words, we evolved the capacity for religious belief: any tribe that had the ability to ascribe divine intervention to the preponderance or scarcity of game for hunting would have coincidentally have been putting in place structures that would strengthen that tribe to the detriment of its secular neighbours, who would fare less well in reproduction and survival. The religious humans would dominate. And, if the recent ‘religious gene’ research is proven true, they would have passed this on to their offspring, with the capacity for religious belief growing to the strength it needed to be, until the point that it was no longer advantageous for it to grow, which would be extremely recently, in my opinion. Far too recent to have any kind of genetic effect - probably beginning around 1789. > > Personally speaking, after some initial hostility, I have now concluded that religion should be tolerated and respected by atheists. It is, after all, an integral part of humanity. It’s the basis for most of our laws and societal customs, even in secular societies. It’s also a means by which public declarations of life-changing events can be celebrated. Also, people’s one-to-one experiences of the divine should be tolerated too, even if one believes they are actually only in the mind - simply out of common decency. > > I get annoyed by intolerant atheists who decline to participate in any religious ceremony. They should accept that religion is built into society, and that public celebration serves a useful sociological purpose. Why should it matter to you if you have to go to a wedding in a church? The church doesn’t have some mystical hold over you, so why shouldn’t you set foot through the door? You don’t believe the words have any power, so where’s the problem in singing the hymns? I don’t seek them out, but when I have to attend, I find participating in forms of worship fascinating, out of casual anthropological interest. I apologise if that sounds patronising. The only time I would decline to participate is if I thought my participation would offend genuine worshippers. > > That I have no faith, and think the capacity for religious belief is an appendage from early evolution, doesn’t negate the strength of religion. If, for horrible example, Al Qaeda and their ilk continue their current highly succesful recruitment drive (no small thanks due to fundamentalist Christian GW Bush and his misguided foreign policy), and manage to cohese huge chunks of humanity into a Wahhabist empire, then perhaps it’s an indication that religion is still a viable evolutionary and sociological tool. > > Facetiously I propose this theory: maybe the Neanderthals died out because they were atheists. ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-believing-in-god-evolutionarily-advantageous/552131/8 "2010-08-31T15:18:22Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > It just strikes me as an added complication with no justification. We cooperate because we’re a social, cooperative species. Other species are social and cooperative without having gods. Since we are also a lying, deceitful, and cruel species, how do we decide on who to cooperate with? A simple rule to follow is that members of my group will be more likely to cooperate with me than members of some strange foreign group. So how do I know who is part of my group? Mice solve this problem easy because all members of the same group smell like the same urine. Humans have a wonderful variety of ways of telling each other we are part of the same group. One of these is religion. Religion and similar cultural characteristics allow people to make the decision to cooperate with a stranger because even though the stranger is unknown, their manner of dress, their religious beliefs, and body art/disfigurements/tattoos help me to know that the stranger is likely to be a potential friend or foe. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-believing-in-god-evolutionarily-advantageous/552131/9 "2010-08-31T15:27:42Z")
Just to clarify my own position: I think there _could_ be an evolutionary advantage to religious belief, I just feel that the examples they chose for this story are flawed. Though, again, that may be an artifact of this story format. For example, the Princess Alice test. They claimed there were three rooms, one with no observer known to the kids, one with an invisible princess, and one with a human observer. Then the researcher says that he gave the same test to adults. So, who did they put in the first room of adults? Because if they had religious beliefs and still cheated, doesn’t that completely invalidate the idea that it’s the existence of a supernatural entity that keeps people from cheating? And what did they tell people about the second room that was a supernatural watcher without being God? Because I don’t think many adults are going to go along with the idea of Princess Alice, the invisible witness. Most adults believe in God, sooo how does this even work? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-believing-in-god-evolutionarily-advantageous/552131/10 "2010-08-31T15:29:39Z")
This falls into the realm of evolutionary psychology, which is not really science. It’s fun to speculate, and you can certainly make some educated guesses, but most, if not all of it, is not falsifiable. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-believing-in-god-evolutionarily-advantageous/552131/11 "2010-08-31T15:31:18Z")
I’ve posted my position on this issue many times. If you want me to believe that there’s a gene that causes religion, tell me where in the genome that gene is and back it up with a study showing that people are religious if and only if they have that gene. If you want me to believe that religion arises from the interaction of multiple genes, do the same for those multiple genes. If you want me to believe that religion arises partially from genes and partially from social or environmental factors, still show me those genes. But, in any case, the particular theory discussed in the NPR article looks like obvious bosh to me. Does religion promote social cooperation? Consider the martyrs of early Christianity. They were willing to face death rather than cooperate with Roman society, because they believed that society was cruel and unjust. They didn’t accomplish anything in favor of social cooperation and they certainly didn’t propagate their genes much by martyrdom either. In my personal opinion I think that evolutionary psychology is on the decline already, based mainly on the unscientific method of observing how often it gets mentioned on the news outlets and message boards that I read. It seems to me that as a group, latte-sipping pseudo-intellectuals are getting bored with it and waiting for the next fad to grab their attention. But there are always a few holdouts in academia who cling to ideas after the rest of the world moves on. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-believing-in-god-evolutionarily-advantageous/552131/12 "2010-08-31T15:46:55Z")
Say that a big chieftan says that he’s inhabited by the Great Spirit and if you don’t do what he says, he’s going to curse you. Now, some percent of the populace will say, “Waaaaahahahaha, whatchoo smoking?” Another percentage will say, “Oh yes, sir. I can see the Greatness in you.” Yet another percentage will not only say, “I can see the Greatness in you.”, but even convince themselves _that they can_. Now, it’s worth mentioning that group A will have a tendency to find themselves assassinated in quick succession. Humans aren’t built to be religious, per se, but it seems likely that we’re built to be credulous and impressionable, and with a good ability for self-deceit when our social position would be risked otherwise. Not to say that people can’t deceive themselves just for fun and games as well. ---
**Author:** ![Hello\_Again](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-believing-in-god-evolutionarily-advantageous/552131/13 "2010-08-31T16:23:13Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Because if they had religious beliefs and still cheated, doesn’t that completely invalidate the idea that it’s the existence of a supernatural entity that keeps people from cheating? I think you wanted this program to be more extreme than it really was. All they ever said was that the “watched” groups cheated _less_. They never said religion in general, or belief in a Watcher specifically, is a panacea against cheating. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-believing-in-god-evolutionarily-advantageous/552131/14 "2010-08-31T16:27:45Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Now, it’s worth mentioning that group A will have a tendency to find themselves assassinated in quick succession. Why? Also, which group is group A? You didn’t label the groups with letters. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-believing-in-god-evolutionarily-advantageous/552131/15 "2010-08-31T16:28:35Z")
> [@Hello\_Again](#): > > > [@jsgoddess](#): > > > > Because if they had religious beliefs and still cheated, doesn’t that completely invalidate the idea that it’s the existence of a supernatural entity that keeps people from cheating? > > I think you wanted this program to be more extreme than it really was. All they ever said was that the “watched” groups cheated _less_. They never said religion in general, or belief in a Watcher specifically, is a panacea against cheating. But he had already said that we all believe we’re being watched, so where did he find people for the first room that aren’t being watched? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-believing-in-god-evolutionarily-advantageous/552131/16 "2010-08-31T16:40:05Z")
**jjimm** , that’s brilliant. ---
**Author:** ![Darwins\_Finch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darwins_finch/32/20304_2.png) [@Darwins\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darwins_Finch)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-believing-in-god-evolutionarily-advantageous/552131/17 "2010-08-31T16:43:29Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > So, did believing in God or gods help humans evolutionarily? If so, in the way they are positing? No. It perhaps had some effect with regard to our social development, but it had nothing whatsoever to do with our biological evolution. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-believing-in-god-evolutionarily-advantageous/552131/18 "2010-08-31T16:53:03Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > > > Now, it’s worth mentioning that group A will have a tendency to find themselves assassinated in quick succession. > > Why? > > Also, which group is group A? You didn’t label the groups with letters. Group A is the ones who (vocally) disbelieve the Big Chief. They die because one does not disagree with the Big Chief. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-believing-in-god-evolutionarily-advantageous/552131/19 "2010-08-31T16:56:29Z")
This was part of a series on the Human Brain, and what sets us apart from other animals. So yes, the focus (except for the very first installment) is about social behavior that results from our big, superior brains. **jsgoddess** , I’m skeptical that you’ve never experienced the [numinous](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numinous) in any way. Not necessarily that something or someone was judging you, but that something - the Universe - knew what you were up to. Maybe you haven’t, but I think you are in the minority. The story was an attempt to explain why that phenomenon is so embedded in every civilization in the history of our race. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-believing-in-god-evolutionarily-advantageous/552131/20 "2010-08-31T17:01:17Z")
The premise is completely fraudulent. Humans are a social species because evolution wires them to be that way. Just like ants or pack wolves. Belief in hoodoos is not necessary to cause people to behave ethically, and we were social before we were religious (or even verbal). Hardwired emotional responses dictate “moral” behavior. Religion is a caveman way to try to explain these emotional responses, just like it tries to explain what happens to the sun at night or what causes disease. One of the most profound ironies of religion is that it can actually be perverted to cause people to behave in ways that are _contrary_ to their biological moral wiring. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-believing-in-god-evolutionarily-advantageous/552131.md?page=2)