This article addresses the debate over whether religion is an evolutionary adaptation or a simple social phenomenon. It argues that religion helps us solve existential problems and strengthens social cohesion, but that it is limited as an adaptation, and that the psychological stability and social role it provides is more of a deception.
There are many different religions in the world, including Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam, which together have about 4.3 billion adherents, or 62% of the world’s population. So what are some of the characteristics of religion that have allowed it to spread so widely?
Before we discuss, let’s define the concept of adaptation. There are two main types of adaptation: evolutionary adaptation and social adaptation. Evolutionary adaptation is more fundamental in nature, where genes change in response to the environment through a process called natural selection. Social adaptation, on the other hand, is an abstract concept that refers to the change in lifestyle of a person or group of people in response to their social environment. In this article, we will limit our discussion of “adaptation” to evolutionary adaptation.
The proposition that “religion is an adaptation” is linked to the claim that “there is a gene that causes us to choose religion, and that gene has been passed down through natural selection.” In fact, the latest cognitive science research suggests that religion and consciousness of supernatural beings is a byproduct of a combination of cognitive and emotional mechanisms evolved by natural selection to perform everyday tasks. Conversely, some argue that religion is merely a “gimmick” to compensate for deficiencies in our evolutionary development.
Brockman, author of Intelligent Thought, falls into the latter camp. He argues that religion is not an adaptation, and that there is no gene that can explain it. In other words, the explanation that religion is an adaptation “designed” by our ancestors to fulfill a specific task is not plausible. He says that people turn to transcendent beings when they are faced with existential issues like death and morality that they cannot solve. In the case of moral judgments, what is right cannot be broken down into scientific criteria, but humans instinctively know what is right. To explain this, the introduction of a transcendent being is necessary, and religion thrives because it fulfills the emotional thirst within us and the moral needs of society. In Brockman’s view, religion is not an adaptive outgrowth of our ancestry, but a trick to overcome existential limitations.
I agree with Brockman that religion is not an adaptation. Religion is a social phenomenon and cannot be explained by adaptation, which is a scientific tool. Scientifically, adaptation is closely related to reproduction. Organisms adapt to their environment in order to preserve and spread their genes. Therefore, the argument that religion is an adaptation must be supported by the argument that a human’s choice of religion is beneficial to reproduction. In other words, just as in the animal kingdom, a mother’s instinct to protect her offspring or avoid the danger of predators is beneficial to the preservation of genes. Religion and genes may seem unrelated, but human survival is deeply tied to our mental state, so if religion has a positive effect on our mental state, there is some connection. Here are some of the positive functions that religion provides for the human mind.
First, religion is an escape from existential limitations. This is a valid argument for the position that religion is not an adaptation. Almost all religions deal with existential problems, and as mentioned earlier, the introduction of a transcendent being makes these problems solvable. For example, the concepts of heaven in Christianity and nirvana in Buddhism help believers turn their fear of death into a positive state. Compared to non-religious people who have a greater fear of death, believers can be said to be enjoying some sort of benefit.
Second, religion provides a tight-knit community. In the rapidly civilized societies since the industrial revolution, isolation has increased, and many people have suffered from mental illnesses such as depression. Religion provides a refuge for these people, where believers share rituals and bond closely under a transcendent presence. The Christian culture of calling each other “brother” and “sister” is an example of the function of religious community. Going back to primitive societies, primitive beliefs such as totemism were often the only means of binding people into tribes.
Based on these functions of religion, we can say that there is some correlation between religion and genetic preservation. However, these functions alone do not explain the nature of religion. Some may argue that religion originated as a mutated gene, meaning that a religious gene arose by chance, and its functions helped us survive and spread to the present day. However, a mutant gene explanation for religion is not possible because religions have arisen and spread in common across the globe. It’s illogical to explain religion as a mutated gene because mutated genes can’t occur that often. If a religious gene did exist, it would most likely have been inevitably expressed by environmental factors. As such, any attempt to link the function of religion as a gene to the origin of religion is a logical contradiction.
In the words of evolutionary biologist George Williams, “We can only conclude that a trait is an adaptation if we can show that it is the function of the trait that produces the effect, that is, that it was designed by natural selection to increase the fitness of the ancestors.” It is difficult to conclude that the benefits provided by religion are unique to religion, making it even more illogical to consider religion an adaptation.
The existence of a religious gene may also explain why the percentage of modern people who choose to be religious is around 80%. The strong cohesion of religious groups can also be interpreted as an adaptation. In other words, the argument goes, those who are not religious are left behind by natural selection, which is why more and more people are choosing religion. However, in modern societies, there is a growing second generation of non-religious people, which is a major weakness in the logic of explaining religion by genes. This suggests that religion is simply a social phenomenon.
If religion is a social phenomenon, then its transmission can be categorized into voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary religion is when an individual chooses a religion out of necessity, while involuntary religion is when an individual chooses a religion because of external pressure. Another example is when children inherit the religion of their parents’ generation. Given that religions were founded on deception, all of these transmission processes are part of the “deception”. These methods of propagation are powerful and resemble adaptation, which is why the rapid spread of religion may seem like an adaptation.
For this explanation to be plausible, it requires the assumption that “religion is based on deception”. Since prehistoric times, human societies have struggled with existential questions. Prehistoric people were frightened by the unknown, such as lightning and fire, and modern people are frightened by the unknown, such as death. Religion provides an escape from these problems, but it is not a real solution. Nevertheless, believers believe that it does solve them. It’s a kind of “trick” in which people find solace in the transcendence of something they can’t understand.
Athron also says that deception serves a cultural purpose, citing examples like makeup and perfume, which have diversified and grown in popularity over the generations. Religious rituals also treat deception as sacred, he says, strengthening group cohesion. In reality, believers believe the stories in their scriptures to be true, but there is no way to prove it, meaning that religion is a concept without substance, and the benefits it provides are just that, something without substance. Philosopher Phil Zuckerman conducted in-depth interviews with citizens in Scandinavian countries and concluded that “the argument that less religiosity makes societies more dangerous is false; it can actually make them more moral and prosperous.” This suggests that religion’s function as a group cohesive force is unlikely. From this perspective, we can conclude that, to borrow a phrase from George Williams, “religion is not an adaptation”.
The question of whether religion is an adaptation has been studied by many philosophers for a long time, but the answer is still unclear. Neither argument is scientifically proven, and I think this question connects to the substantive question of religion: does God exist? The answer to this question is still ambiguous because the answer to the origin of religion remains unclear. Nevertheless, based on this discussion, I argue that the “religion is not an adaptation” argument is more compelling than the “religion is an adaptation” argument.
