An Almighty Alpha

He sees you when you’re sleeping
He knows when you’re awake
He knows if you’ve been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake. (64)

Although the above words are about a supernatural being, that being is not considered a god. Maybe a saint, but not a god. Yet the watching is god-like. Besides Santa Claus, personal gods tend to have the ability to monitor behavior. They can watch you and judge your behavior as bad or good. Because there is no limit to their seeing, you will not get away with violating the rules of your religion. As the Biblical character Job laments, Will you never look away from me? (Job 7:19)

In any primate group their must be a balance between behavior that is directly self-serving and behavior that serves to maintain group integrity. There are thus checks and balances, including the instinct to be vigilant for cheaters—you can’t trust them, can you?—and to punish violators. A good example of this are the many economic/psychological studies employing the “ultimatum” game. In an extreme version, two complete strangers–individuals not of the same group past or future–must divide a sum of money. One stranger decides upon his cut of the money, say a total of $100. He or she then slides the remaining amount under the door to the unseen and unknown other. If the other accepts that amount, they both get to keep the money. If not, neither gets any money. Manifesting just how social a species we are, most individuals in this scenario will split the money equally or near-equally and slide 40 or 50 dollars under the door. Both players walk away richer. When the money is unevenly divided, however, the risk for rejection of the sum rises dramatically, the result being that both players walk away with nothing gained. And it happens more often than you would think. Many an individual receiving a 20 dollar cut will refuse the free money. He or she will instead punish the unfairness, in effect punishing themselves as well. No one likes a cheater.

In her paper on the evolution of cheater detection, Denise D. Cummins wrote, “[C]heater detection plays a broader role in social coordination as a fundamental, primitive cognitive adaptation to dominance hierarchies. . . . In order to maintain priority of access to resources, dominant individuals monitor the behavior of subordinates and aggress against those who “cheat” (violate social norms).” (65)

As a super-dominant being, you would expect a god to monitor the behavior of all of its subordinates and punish those caught cheating. Even in social groups where rules and laws have not been codified by religion, and where a single, supreme alpha has not been designated, you will often find invisible spirits that take an interest in ‘who does what.’ (66) Why would these para-normal entities care? Because, in some way, they are one of us; we are them. One characteristic that distinguishes the religious from the paranormal is consistent involvement and interest of the invisible party. Thoughts of a door-banging and chain-dragging kind of ghost may be spooky, but they fail to incite social emotions as readily as the holy-ghost kind of invisible entity. Only one of these kinds of ghosts will make us wonder if “they” know about our recent behavioral transgression.

In his book on evolutionary underpinnings of religion, anthropologist Scott Atran notes that if we want to enforce a social contract made between individuals, get more people involved. Make social contracts a community affair. For then there will be more eyes watching for violation and a greater probability that a wronged party will have someone to back them up in a dispute. What typically makes social contracts a community affair? Religion. Atran writes, “Displays of commitment to supernatural agents signal sincere willingness to cooperate with the community of believers.” (67)

Not only do invisible alphas provide a super-member for a group to form around, as dominant beings they are especially good at catching cheaters, and thus, presumably, at deterring cheating. Psychological experiments conducted on human primates have found that when adopting a status of high-rank, an individual will be more vigilant for cheating than when adopting a position of low rank.(68) It seems we innately expect for more dominant individuals to watch over less.

When a king sits on his throne to judge, he winnows out all evil with his eyes. (Proverbs 20:8)

And so we invite a super-being into our social circle to help us be good, to get along. In her ruminations about the origins of church-going rituals, Karen Armstrong notes that from early Biblical texts it can be surmised that early, semi-nomadic Israelites carried the “home” of their god with them—the Ark of the Covenant. In tent-walled temples, they renewed their commitment to Yahweh, their number one, and through him, to one another. (69)

Is this a reason for church-going behavior today? Do individuals gather together to acknowledge their number one? Does church-going strengthen individual commitment to a group, does it remind members of important social rules? Do the texts and teachings inform them they are being watched, and if they violate the special rules they will receive not coal in their Christmas stocking, but something worse?

Do you really want to risk being bad? You better watch out.

—

(64) “Santa Claus is Coming to Town” by John Frederick Coots and Haven Gillespie
(65) Cummins, D. D. “Cheater Detection is Modified by Social Rank: The Impact of Dominance of the Evolution of Cognitive Functions,” Evolution and Human Behavior, Volume 20, Issue 4, July 1999, 220-248.
(66) Wilson, D.S. Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society, University of Chicago, Chicago, 2002, p. 64
(67) Atran, S., In God’s We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002, p.16
(68) Cummins, D. D., July 1999, 220-248.
(69) Armstrong, K. The Great Transformation: The Beginning of our Religious Traditions, Knopf, New York, 2006, p.43

“In addition to serving as an explanation for the creation of our universe, our world, and ourselves, God became the ultimate enforcer of rules, the final arbiter of moral dilemmas, and the pinnacle object of commitment.” (57) — Michael Shermer

Then they will follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. They will be my people, and I will be their God. (Ezekiel 11:20)

While religion can provide a undisputed alpha for a people to follow, there is a problem that comes with the nature of a supernatural being. Namely, “he” resides “up there.” Above. In the heavens. You can’t see him as being “right here,” part of the group. And as the saying goes, “When the cat is away, the mouse will play.”

When your alpha is remote, how might he or she be capable of influencing individual behavior and adequately rule a group? For one, you can make vision uni-directional. No, you cannot see him. But he can see you. He is always watching. He knows everything. In the next section I’ll address this scenario. In this section, however, I’ll discuss a second way a physically absent alpha can exert control on his group. In brief, like a parent who leaves a to-do list for children when leaving the house—admonishing the youth that these things must get done, perhaps with stated repercussions if they do or don’t—a god can dictate rules for his people. Or call them laws.

“Because of Moses’ traditional role in what was, in actual fact, a set of laws that developed slowly over the centuries, the whole is termed the ‘Mosaic law’ or, more simply still, ‘the Law.’ The Hebrew word for the first five books is ‘Torah,’ which is the Hebrew word for ‘law.’” (58)

One might call Moses the first administrative assistant to Yahweh. He dictated laws delivered from above. And much of the Old Testament is, in fact, about laws: about when to apply them, and what happens if you violate them. “Deuteronomy” means second law; in the Pentateuch, the first five books of the OT, (the Torah) there is mention of over six hundred laws.(59) Or call them commandments. Rules. Decrees about how to behave to keep your god’s favor, and, not incidentally, to help maintain social cohesion. Rules help people to not only know what to do, but what to expect.

I remember your ancient laws, O LORD, and I find comfort in them. (Psalms 119:52)

Many of the rules in the Bible may seem arbitrary at first blush. Consider Exodus 17:10:

I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.

Rules can serve many functions: for helping people get along, for establishing and maintaining group identity, and for propping up the status of the alpha via symbolism.

Any astute reader of the Bible will notice that the “New Covenant” Jesus presents is much less law-like than what we find in the older texts. As Elaine Pagels pointed out in her book, The Origin of Satan: “Whereas Moses’ law prohibits murder, Jesus’ ‘new Torah’ prohibits anger, insults, and name calling; where Moses’ law prohibits adultery, Jesus prohibits lust.”(60) In a sense, this seems like stroke of spiritual genius, turning from behavior to the feeling states that can precede and precipitate it. Yet this turn may have been out of necessity. Jesus preached in more of a cultural crossroads that already has established law. There was Roman law “on the books” and members of Jewish churches had their own sets of laws. So as not to usurp or violate pre-existing laws, and to prevent both alienating individuals in other groups he may otherwise be able to recruit and inciting the wrath of these other groups by stepping on their toes, Jesus went more abstract. Rather than concretely outlining how individuals must “clean up their act,” Jesus instructed his followers and crowds of prospective followers to “purify their hearts.”

Oh sure, there may have been some Carl Rogers-type humanism behind his ways. But we mustn’t forget how strongly our social environment will influence our psychology.

[A]nd whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (Romans 13:9)

In their paper, “Belief in Moralizing Gods,” published in the journal, Evolution and Human Behavior, Frans L. Roes and Michel Raymond present the case that a type of god, namely one that cares about the behavior of his people—a “moralizing god”—likely serves as a social tool. And tools are invented and employed where a need exists. They write:

“In the case of hostile neighbouring societies, this means cooperation for defensive reasons and, in that of recurring droughts, the maintenance of irrigation networks and restraint in water usage. Cooperation between large numbers of people invariable means moral rules regulating relations between them and prescribing what is right and what is wrong, and with these recurring threats, the moral rules should be imposed with authority. How better than by a moralizing god?” (61)

The god-concept can be a very useful tool for a number of reasons. As Roes and Raymond point out, 1)a god has a potentially unlimited lifespan, 2) because the rules come from a god, group members are more likely to perceive them as impartial, and 3) “Belief in these gods signals acceptance of the rules.”(62) Given a large social group, with little individual knowledge of one another, that last reason could be tremendously helpful. Want to know what rules a person lives by? Determine what god they accept as their leader.

Of course, in terms of actual belief and behavior, it is more complicated than that. For example, the rules a religious person ascribes to tends to govern their behavior when within group. Outside of the group, not so much.(59) Which is not surprising, as social psychology 101 will inform us. But it does highlight the fact that at least originally, religion evolved as a social tool. It isn’t as personal as modern minds have us suppose.

—

(57) Shermer, M. The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule, Times Books, New York, 2004, p.47
(58) Asimov, I., Asimov’s Guide to the Bible: The Old and New Testaments, Wing Books, New York, 1969, p.17
(59) Dennett, D., Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, Viking, New York, 2006, p.335
(60) Pagels, E., The Origin of Satan, Vintage, New York, 1995, p. 82
(61) Roes, F. L. & Raymond, R., “Belief in Moralizing Gods,” Evolution and Human Behavior, Vol. 24(2), 2003.
(62) Roes, F. L., and Raymond, M., March 2003, Pages 126?135.
(63) Wilson, D.S. Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society, University of Chicago, Chicago, 2002, p. 180

“Aggression can be triggered during any interaction between two individuals when a conflict of interests is involved: in males competing for mating rights or meat; in females squabbling over food…” (52) – Jane Goodall

God is wise. The wisest being there could be, for he is omniscient. One of the things a god gives his people is wisdom. What does his wisdom consist of? In knowing the right thing to do. The right thing for what? For assuring group members get along, stay together, and for protecting and promoting the aspirations of the people. Sure, it often seems that religion provides the key for attaining divine reward. But that is largely a promise used to encourage “wise” behavior.

When human beings live in close proximity, there will be conflict. Not because we are by nature a combative bunch, but because resources are finite. And the individual who doesn’t care about getting their share will perish. Their genetic endowment will come to nothing; the specific genes responsible for their lack of caring do not find their way into the next generation.

Many genes, however, are shared by group members. Therefore, the evolutionary success of one at a cost to many may actually hurt the success of particular genes. Genetically speaking, putting all your eggs in one basket, so to speak, is a bad bet. Additionally, even beyond the statistical genetic payoff they can provide, helpful social relationships are a resource. The individual with constructive relationships will better survive and reproduce than the individual without.

Human beings are supremely social creatures, adept at understanding how relationships can be mutually beneficial. Trade, for example, may be one of the most important cultural/behavior innovations ever. And yet we retain what we might call more primitive instincts. Like adult male chimpanzees who habitually grab more bananas than they could ever eat at a communal feeding station (53), pro-social behavior can take the back seat. Where there is more than one individual, there is potential for conflict. Who gets what land? Who gets access to what womb and fruit thereof? Who gets what portion of the food?

While the problem is most apparent where there is great difference in rank, it is rife within a group. Sure, within the animal kingdom, the biggest and baddest individuals will seize the fattest slice of a resource pie.(54) Yet even among near equals the problem of resource “who gets what” will rear its head.

The infamous Biblical tale of Solomon and the baby is a superb example. 1 Kings 3:16-28 relates the tale of two prostitutes coming before the king. In heated dispute, they explain that they live in the same house and bore children about the same time. One baby died. Each mother now claims the living child as her own. To settle the conflict, the king cleverly gives the command for the child to be cut in two, so each may have half. One woman cries, “No, spare the child!” relinquishing her claim on it. The other shows no such concern. The king gives the child to the first.

Notice that in this case the dispute is not one of a dominant individual exploiting a lesser. Rather, it is between prostitutes, of the same house–two individuals with equally low social status.

The tale is illustrative in an additional way. The valued resource being fought over is a child. Children are perhaps the most valued human resource there is. Which is why so much Biblical content is about sex and family. About making more children–with fidelity ensuring that they are one’s own–about raising and protecting them.

In Religion Explained, Pascal Boyer notes that in most cultures marriages are flamboyant affairs. Privately conducted “union” ceremonies are atypical.(55) Sure, we may think we celebrate weddings because they are happy events, but that is circular reasoning. We make them happy in a particularly explicit fashion. Why? To not only encourage couples to form a union, but, perhaps equally importantly if not more, for the community to become aware of and acknowledge who belongs to whom. For the sake of group harmony.

In what social arena do are marriages traditionally made? Who blesses the union? Traditionally, a revered alpha in the sky via an earthly reverend. In today’s secular society the bond may be witnessed instead by a justice of what? A justice of the peace.

Sex is rife with potential conflict, for not only the hugely important resource it produces, but because post-act ripples of ramifications can impact other individuals, and through them the community as a whole.

Today expressions like “a deeply religious person,” or “dedicating my/his/her life to Christ,” bring connotations of behavior and temperament that will make no disruptive waves in a community. Can you be spiritual and also be a perturbing force in your already established group? No. (Sure, you might want to be disruptive if you are attempting to form a new group and/or upset another.) It is no coincidence, then, that such things as vows of chastity, and living in a sexually segregated house of worship (i.e., a monastery) are considered signs of deep spirituality.

These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb. No lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless. (Revelation 14:4-5)

As a final exercise in exploring a god’s wisdom as it pertains to group harmony, let us take a look at probably the most famous list of behavioral prescriptions said to be authored by a god. In the Ten Commandments (my own paraphrase) will we find evidence of concern for group harmony?

1. You will have no other gods before me.

Translation: All members of the group must “be on the same page,” recognizing me as their alpha, their number one.

2. You will not make any graven images (of other things you may want to worship).

Don’t even worship secondary spiritual agents. They may lead you astray. Furthermore, if the graven images you consider sacred differ from your neighbors,’ that would not be good for group cohesiveness.

3. Do not speak my name in vain.

If you use my name, such as in an oath, you better stick to it. Otherwise, my name, and the very idea of me weakens in power. Also, people who do not fulfill their promises are not good group members. So be true to your word.

4. Remember my day and keep it sacred.

A weekly reminder of an unseen agent will help you keep him in mind. Also, keeping the day sacred entails gathering as a group in recognition of it. By worshiping me you will reestablish and reaffirm your connection to each other.

5. Honor your father and mother.

Honor those above you. It is a good practice, and one that may be generalized for those above the above. It will help stabilize the group via structure and organization.

6. Do not kill a neighbor.

Live and work together peaceably.

7. Do not commit adultery.

By having sex with a person you are not joined with, you create scandal, potentially confuse paternity, and arose emotions such as socially disruptive emotions such as jealousy.

8. Do not steal.

How can community members trust one another, and work together, when their things go missing, when the fruit of their labor can be taken from them?(56)

9. Do not bear false witness.

When in a court of law, tell the truth. Being dishonest about your neighbors and/or your dealings with them will only weaken your group. Distrust destabilizes.

10. Do not desire your neighbor’s stuff.

Wanted your neighbor’s possessions, first and foremost his wife, can lead to bad things. So don’t even think about it. That could lead to acting on it. It can also make you resent someone in your community.

In conclusion: the wisdom of “God” largely consists of a high mouthpiece from which pro-social values and standards can be broadcast.

—

(52) Goodall, J. The Chimpanzees of the Gombe: Patterns of Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986, p.321
(53) Goodall, J., My Friends the Wild Chimpanzees, National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C., 1967
(54) Wilson, D.S. Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society, University of Chicago, Chicago, 2002, p.21
(55) Boyer, P. Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought, Basic Books, New York, 2001, p.248
(56) I have recently learned that this commandment may have originally meant something more akin to “do not kidnap (abduct),” meaning do not take and possess people who aren’t yours—slaves and maybe children and wives. See, http://www.myjewishlearning.com/Glossary/kidnapping.htm

It is God who judges: He brings one down, he exalts another. (Psalms 75:7)

“The word ‘judge’ is here used in the sense of ‘ruler’ since in early cultures, the chief function of a tribal ruler in peacetime was that of judging disputes and reaching, it was to be hoped, some just decision. This had the crucial purpose of preventing internal feuds and disputes that would weaken the entire population in the face of some always waiting outer enemy.” (47) -Isaac Asimov

Alphas are not just bullies. They can bring benefits to all members of a group. Sure, some dominants can be invariably despotic, but others are not at all. Most individuals at the top likely have traits of both, or at least the potential to manifest them, depending on the circumstances.

A major benefit an alpha can bring to a group is taking on the role of adjudicator.Two squabbling individuals can cause ripples of unrest through the group. If left to the group to resolve, besides being very inefficient, schisms may form based on blood and favors owed, possibly resulting in a widening of the conflict, perhaps to the breaking point.

A single judge, meanwhile, one preferable above and beyond all individuals, could more efficiently arbitrate conflicts, better keeping the dispute neatly circumscribed. This type of arbitration is more likely to result in a ruling both acceptable and heeded.

The “preferably above and beyond” characteristic of a judge is important. These characteristics play a prominent role in the Bible. The greatest judge is definitely above, with power and status beyond dispute. Who could question a ruling either made or prescribed and thus sanctioned by the Almighty? The greatest judge would also be beyond exclusive ties to individuals in the group, thus would be capable of showing impartiality. (In the Old Testament the almighty does favor one group, his chosen, and thus does display favoritism for them over the other nations. An imagined great alpha could only be as perfectly impartial as could the person breathing life into it.)

Even among otherwise highly despotic chimpanzees, this phenomenon of alpha-as-conflict-mediator can be observed. As Frans de Waal has written:

“If top-ranking individuals can be so problematic, why have them at all? Well, to settling disputes, for one. Instead of having everybody take sides, what better way to handle the situation than by investing authority in a single person, council of elders, or a government to serve the greater good by keeping order and finding solutions to disagreements?”(48)

As previously mentioned, violent disputes are more likely to break out among primates of similar status. You might say, when the question of who should defer does not have a clear answer. The truth is, primate hierarchies are not single-file ‘pecking orders’ with each member always subordinate to those above, dominant to those below. There are many factors involved, including the resource contested, the presence or absence of allies, etc.

The primatology alliance of Toshisada Nishida and Kazuhiko Hosaka wrote this in their article about alliances among chimpanzees:

“Only the highest two and the lowest three ranks were unequivocal.” (49)

In the Bible verse opening this section, we read of a judge adjusting the positions–or more importantly, the aspirations–of two parties at odds. In this case he equalizes the contestants, sending the message that neither has won, or lost. Status is a resource, and by taking that out of the equation–making parties equal or establishing on as clearly superior to the other–peace can be more readily achieved.

For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 18:14)

Alpha chimpanzees can fill the role of social referee by mitigating conflict. Sometimes they will “back” the weak against the strong. Other times, to step between more evenly matched others.(50) Of course, some are better at this than others. Among primate leaders, the Biblical King Solomon was had a reputation for wisely mediating resolving disputes. As has also been noted about a significantly hairier ‘lord’ of a chimpanzee social group. In the words of de Waal–

“As alpha, Luit seemed to place himself above the conflicting parties, his intercessions aimed at the restoration of peace rather than at aiding his friends.”(51)

As among chimpanzees, the existence of an human alpha can bring positive things to subordinates. Reflecting this theme, we find many Biblical verses about how a great judge in the sky, a supernatural Luit, mediates conflicts. Sometimes generally, sometimes more specifically.

Honest scales and balances are from the LORD; all the weights in the bag are of his making. (Proverbs 16:11) & The LORD detests differing weights, and dishonest scales do not please him. (Proverbs 20:23)

Casting the lot settles disputes and keeps strong opponents apart. (Proverbs 18:18)

Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body. (Ephesians 4:25)

If you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.” (Mark 11:25)

If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:39)

A greatest alpha to adjudicate conflict and help keep a collection of family groups in harmony? Brilliant. Necessity as the mother of invention? In this case, the mother gave birth to a grand father. Group need will bear solutions. Religion is one. Not a perfect one, and one largely if not fully outmoded today, but religion does offer solutions to many a social need.

—

(47) Asimov, I., Asimov’s Guide to the Bible: The Old and New Testaments, Wing Books, New York, 1969, p.230
(48) de Waal, F. Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are, New York, Riverhead Books, 2005, p. 77
(49) Nishida, T., and Hosaka, K., “Coalition strategies among adult male chimpanzees of the Mahale Mountains, Tanzania” in McGrew, W. C. , Marchant, L. F. & Nishida, T., Great Ape Societies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1996, p.118
(50) de Waal, F., 2005, p. 77
(51) de Waal, F. , 2005, p.78