While Dr. Hammer’s research suggests that the VMAT2 gene contributes to religious belief, it is only a determinant of the mindset that leads to religious choice, not a direct cause of religious belief. Religion should be understood as a meme that has arisen due to genetics as well as other factors in human society, and has evolved throughout human history as a product of culture. Religion serves to strengthen survival and social cohesion, and its existence and evolution should be explored through a variety of disciplinary approaches.
When people are asked what distinguishes humans from other animals, they often cite the presence or absence of intelligence, the use of tools, creativity, and religiosity. Intelligence and creativity come from a large and developed brain, and tool use comes from the freedom of both hands that comes from walking upright. These are all biological traits that humans have acquired through evolution. But what about religiosity? Is human religiosity also a product of evolution? Religiosity is considered a product of evolution in many ways, including being one of the things that distinguishes us from other animals and helping us survive. However, it’s not clear whether religiosity is directly written into our genes, or whether it’s an indirect product of our genes, and this is still a matter of debate.
In his book, In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion, Scott Athron offers a view on the origins of religion. His position is that religiosity is not something that is written into our genes, but rather an indirect product that is created and maintained based on our genetic nature. The important point here is that religion is indirectly influenced by our genes, not directly determined by them. Athron argues that religion arose out of an effort to recognize and understand dilemmas, such as huge problems that humans cannot solve or differences in moral ideas. Therefore, his main position is that religion is a product of effort and is not inherent in our genes.
As evidence that religiosity is not directly expressed from genes, he cites the fact that religion is favorable for group survival but unfavorable for individual survival, and that religion may not be a survival of the fittest, but rather a selection and modification of religion by surviving humans.
Let’s start by looking at the doctrines of different religions and the behavior of their adherents. Especially if we look at past religious behavior, we can see that religion is often unfavorable to survival. Athron points to the practice of American Indians cutting off fingers for dead warriors and the sacrifice of livestock and humans. Sacrificing livestock means giving up food that is essential for survival, and cutting off fingers harms the individual’s health. Not to mention human sacrifice. These religious practices clearly interfere with an individual’s survival, and thus provide evidence that religion is not hardwired into our genes.
Next, let’s talk about the selection process of religion. Just because most successful civilizations throughout history have been based on religion doesn’t mean that human religiosity is a survival of the fittest. Only the surviving civilizations believe they are chosen by the gods, while the defeated ones lose their faith. Athron argues that some civilizations won because they believed in religion, but others chose religion because they won. Given that religion helps us survive, and that it is often the survival of the fittest, but that religions can be created or selected by humans, it is hard to believe that religion is inherent in our genes, meaning that it is likely to exist outside of our genes.
I agree with Athron’s argument. To add to his argument, the concept of a meme can help us understand it better. Memes are the idea that cultural and social phenomena, like genes, are copied and reproduced among humans, applying evolutionary concepts to cultural phenomena. The idea is that cultural phenomena spread from mouth to mouth, from idea to idea, as people learn from each other, imitate each other, and spread. If memes are understood like genes, the length of time that an individual or group of people think a certain way and maintain a certain behavior is the generation cycle of a meme. Memes also reproduce and change like mutations through conversations between individuals or new ideas. Compared to genes (especially human genes), memes have a very short generation cycle, propagate incredibly fast, and have a high mutation rate and frequency of creation. Because of these features, the meme interpretation of religion seems to be the best candidate for the “outside the gene” explanation mentioned above, as it can explain the limitations of the genetic origin theory while maintaining a conventional evolutionary perspective.
The relationship between memes and genes can be better understood as symbiotic. To illustrate this, consider the example of herbivores. Herbivores don’t make their own enzymes to digest plants. These enzymes are produced by symbiotic microorganisms in the herbivore’s gut. The herbivore crushes the plant with its molars, creates a favorable environment for the microbes in its gut, and the microbes provide the herbivore with the nutrients it needs through enzymes. This symbiotic relationship also affects the herbivore’s genes, causing them to evolve to have harder, wider molars and a longer, more microbe-friendly gut. The relationship between religion and humans is similar. Our imagination and developed cognitive processes make it easy for us to imagine abstract beings like God. This is how religion arose and evolved to help humans survive.
We mentioned earlier that religion can be detrimental to an individual’s survival. Suppose the religious gene was first expressed in some humans. However, belief in God does not provide much of an advantage to the individual. Even if religion evolves to the level of prayer or ritual, it can be a waste of time and material resources, which can hinder survival. Of course, when considering group life, there are certainly benefits to religion, such as providing moral standards and binding groups together. However, given that the average life expectancy in primitive societies was 40 years, with generations lasting only 15 years, it would have been difficult for groups to form naturally with religious genes. These characteristics of personal harm and collective benefit cannot be explained by genes.
So let’s think of religion as a meme. Suppose a religious meme was first created by a human. The meme spreads quickly through human interaction. Thanks to its speed of propagation, a large group of people share the meme before a single generation of humans has passed. Thanks to the rapid formation of groups, religion is able to provide collective benefits from the start.
Another counterargument is that religion is not completely useless for individual survival, so it cannot negate the gene theory. Religion helps us survive by providing a response to problems that we don’t understand. For example, in the face of disaster or psychological distress, belief in God can reduce fear or psychological trauma. The idea is that religiosity must be hardwired into our genes because these aspects help us survive, but this doesn’t prove that religion is directly in our genes. Memes are a product of human nature, or genes. Memes start with human thinking, which is a combination of genetic traits and acquired experiences. Even non-religious people can respond to problems by interpreting them as bad luck, so this responsiveness is more of a strength of human cognitive mechanisms than a strength of religion.
Finally, I’d like to mention Dr. Hammer’s discovery of the VMAT2 gene and religious beliefs. People tend to believe that religion is genetic because Dr. Hammer examined the relationship between nearly a thousand people’s genes and their religious beliefs and claimed that the VMAT2 gene contributes to religious beliefs. However, based on Athron’s argument, the VMAT2 gene is only a factor in determining the specific mindset needed to choose a religion, not a direct reason for being religious. The cognitive properties of VMAT2 may favor people who are religious in general, but they are not the determining cause of religious belief.
In this way, religion is not selected for or cultivated by genetic factors like VMAT2, but is more of a meme that has arisen due to the variability of human society. Religions have evolved through human interactions and experiences in specific social contexts, and individual beliefs and behaviors play an important role in that process. This shows that religion is not simply determined by genetics.
In conclusion, it makes more sense to understand religiosity as a meme that is created and maintained by a number of factors that favor human survival. Rather than being deeply imprinted in our genes, it is a product of culture, which means that it stems from human thought mechanisms that have evolved over the course of human history. Religion can contribute to survival and prosperity by providing answers to problems that humans face in common and by strengthening group solidarity.
The existence of religion and its evolutionary aspects still require much discussion and research. The process of understanding how religion affects society and individual lives should be done through a multidisciplinary approach, including anthropology, psychology, and biology, which will lead us to a deeper understanding of the nature of human existence.
