“A good theory generates many testable hypotheses.  A really good theory passes at least some of these tests.”  -David Sloan Wilson (1)

Is it science?

The previous chapters of this book could be called exercises in evolutionary psychology.  I have attempted to describe how human instincts acquired in our primate past could play a role in the more recent and even current tendency for people to believe in a god.  I have referred to this as “my thesis.”  I don’t know if I’d call it a “theory,” for I am well aware there is more to religion than explained by my conjectures.  What I do believe is that our primate heritage plays an essential role in the forms of religion we observe.

Many critics view evolutionary psychology in general as not-quite-science.  And they have a point.  Much of the endeavor consists of making ad-hoc explanations that generate no testable/falsifiable hypotheses.  Indeed, how could a person go back in time to alter the course of events and then determine if things would be different now?  Equally implausible is de-activating specific “primitive” genes to determine how they influence present behavior.

Is evolutionary psychology not a science?  The answer depends upon how you define science.  Years ago I formulated and presented this brief synopsis to the students taking my psychology courses.

SCIENCE IN A NUTSHELL

What is Science? My own evolving understanding of it has led me to formulate this definition:

Science is (1) the collection and analysis of data*
(2) in order to test hypotheses** and replicate previous findings
(3) and to evaluate old theories*** as well as form new ones.

[Notes: *information that is in the least potentially measurable,
**a hypothesis is a proposed relationship between variables
(objects/events),
***a theory is a set of statements (a conceptual framework) that (a)  explain the processes/mechanisms behind the workings of some aspect of the universe, and (b) allows for testable predictions]

“Doing science” can mean any or all of #1-3.  A, quote, “real scientist” may specialize in one of the three elements, but will certainly acknowledge and respect the other two.  Also, the “real” or formal scientist subjects her work to peer review and practices clarity and transparency in their work.(2)

So does the evolutionary psychologist do real science?  My short answer: if he or she collects and analyzes data to do any of the following: replicate a finding, test a hypothesis, evaluate a preexisting theory or inform the development of a new one.

Rather than thinking and speaking of an intellectual endeavor qualifying as real science or fake, I prefer to think in terms of strength.  While some fields are practices could be called strongly scientific, others might be categorized as weakly scientific.  In my view, the strength designation relies largely upon the quality and quantity of the data used, as well as on the reasonableness of the claims made relative to that data.

The field of psychology in general is a bit weak–at a bit of a scientific disadvantage–for a couple reasons.  First, human behavior, thought, and emotion are complex and difficult to isolate and measure.  Variables are too often clustered and inseparable, measures must be made indirectly because there are serious ethical limitations to what kind of experiments can be performed on humans.  Second, the field is more personal and thus bias-prone.  Psychology is more personal than, say, chemistry, because we are what we study.  Any worldview we hold can be threatened and supported by data we choose to accept or deny.  No scientist is completely free of bias.  As Robin Wright has written, “Like a lawyer, the human brain wants victory, not truth.”(3)

In other words, we value being right more than we appreciate learning we have been mistaken.  The primary psychological mechanism by which we wrongly convince ourselves we are right is known as the confirmation bias.  Briefly, this consists of the human tendency to notice and acknowledge information that supports their belief while ignoring and/or neglecting information that disconfirms it.  What can be done to counter-act this pervasive and pernicious intellectual habit?  I can think of two things.  Both rely on practicing skepticism and intellectual diligence.

First, the practice of personal skepticism and intellectual diligence.  Skepticism is far too often applied to the ideas of other people.  But it must start at home.  The popular saying of my youth goes, “Question Authority.”  Because are own feelings and beliefs are the most salient influences in our own lives, the questioning should start there.  In terms of intellectual diligence, we must follow in the footsteps of Charles Darwin.  In his autobiography, Darwin shared a “golden rule” of his intellectual habits.  He jotted down any and all bits of information—particularly observations—that clashed with and thus challenged his way of thinking.  He wrote,

“I had found by experience that such facts and thoughts were far more apt to escape from memory than favourable ones.”(4)

When I learned that about Darwin, my admiration for him grew even more.

The second way we can combat personal bias and error involves relying on the skepticism and intellectual diligence of others.  In fact, this is an essential element of the scientific process.  Call it peer review.  Ideas are put “out there” for evaluation and possible correction.  This practice definitely requires thick skin, but it is crucial to learning.  Although the response can feel insulting and can challenge our perhaps beloved conclusions, it is actually a win-win scenario.  At least intellectually.  We can happily discover that other minds see how our ideas make sense and are supported by the evidence.  In a sense, this is a test by minds rather than by experiment.  To pass a test is a good thing.  We may also less-happily discover that other minds don’t see how our ideas make sense and/or determine that the evidence we use is insufficiently supports our position.  Which is also a good thing, albeit a good thing belonging in the category of “tough love” or “sour medicine.”

Of course, self-skepticism and peer feedback should be involved at multiple stages in the scientific process.  And yet, we can’t allow the skeptical attitude and public criticism cripple us.  For scientific advance begins with a creative act.  On the leading edge of what we know, and sometimes far beyond, hypotheses and theories must be developed.  For the good of science, which advances by not confirmation and success alone.  Rather, near-blind stumbling, dead-ends, and outright mistakes play an important role.  Science advances thanks to both advancing the valid as well as subtracting the invalid.  Without the generation of new ideas at the risk of being wrong, there is no advance.

Certainly, other steps can be made to move an intellectual endeavor from a state or para- or pre-science to something more strongly scientific.  While measurement and data accumulations is essential, so too is language use.  In the very least, how we define our variables—the words we use—helps others to better understand what we are talking about.  It also allows us to refine and isolate the factors involved in the phenomenon we seek to understand.

Sometimes defining terms can be difficult.  Loose or undefined terms will “let in” more observations and hence evidence.  Even poor evidence, even irrelevant evidence.  Using poorly defined terms can be like trawling with wide nets.  Yes, you may catch more tuna, but you will also catch assorted other fish and perhaps a dolphin or two.  And just because you caught these others with your “tuna” net, that doesn’t mean they are truly tuna.

In his book, In God’s We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion, Scott Atran adroitly noted, “Because there is no such entity as ‘religion,’ it makes no sense to ask how ‘it’ evolved.”(5)

What?  No such entity as religion?  Well, yes and no.  As a general term, sure there clusters of activities and artifacts we speak of as belonging to the category of ‘religion.’  But a catch-all term like that is something like a taxonomical designation.  There is no such entity as primates, rather, there are species we place within that category.

So can we not study religion and how it evolved?  I think we can.  But we have to be clear what we mean by the word.  We may have to break it down into key, constituent elements, and focus on those.

As for my own definition of “religion,” I agree with the wording Daniel Dennett gave it in his, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon:

“Tentatively, I propose to define religions as social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought.”(6)

No, a person doesn’t practice religion in isolation.  In ultra-independent America, individuals will often claim they aren’t religious, but spiritual.  This usually means they entertain religious-like ideas and perhaps engage in behaviors borrowed from one religion or another, but they don’t go to church.  (Because then you aren’t acting as a free, autonomous individual. And Americans value freedom.)  But in my book, you can’t have religion without the involvement of others, in person or in mind.  Crucially, at least one of those others must be a supernatural agent.  Where I differ from Dennett’s wording is the “whose approval is to be sought” element.  Human social relations, after all, include varieties not dependent upon approval.  Some Calvinists, for example, believe that their god’s approval cannot be sought.  You are either saved or you aren’t. For my own definition, there must instead be a perceived relationship between the believer and the supernatural agent.  For something to qualify as a religion, at minimum, the relationship between a believer and their god must be of a creator/greater (father-ish figure), with that of the lesser/offspring.

Because my definition of religion relies upon social behaviors—outward actions, feeling states, beliefs—it is possible to scientifically inquire as to what type and what degree these exist among contemporary believers.  And to then look for antecedents of these behaviors in closely related primates.

Does belief in a god rely upon a human being extended his/her social instincts into the realm of the imagined?  I think so.  I also believe that we can find the roots of this “relating to the imagined” in the behavior on non-human primates.  Can these belief be tested?  If they can’t, at least indirectly, how could a person reasonable consider them scientifically valid?

They couldn’t.  But maybe there are tests that, having generated positive results, could support my thesis.  When put to the test, would the results support the notion that human belief in gods depends upon the social instincts of a primate?

Doing science is more than lab work.  In fact, it starts with acts of creativity, with visualizing how observations fit together.  But science mustn’t stop after this initial step.  It must go further.

—

(1) Wilson, D.S. Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society, University of Chicago, Chicago, 2002, p.80
(2) http://evolvingmind.info/blog/science-in-a-nutshell/
(3) Wright, R., The Moral Animal: Evolutionary Psychology and Everyday Life, Vintage, NY, 1995, p. 280
(4) Wright, R., 1995, p. 280
(5) Atran, S., In God’s We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion, Oxford University Press,Oxford, 2002, p. 15
(6) Dennett, D., Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, Viking, New York, 2006, p. 9

The threshing floors will be filled with grain; the vats will overflow with new wine and oil. (Joel 2:24)

To promise an abundance of food, there must either be a preexisting surplus to command, or a power capable of generating it. The successful alpha will become known for providing sustenance, whether the instances under its control occurred at in a statistically significant manner (vs. chance levels), or if the instances were beyond its control and merely rubber-stamped with its name.

As mentioned previously, the first food alphas were likely cousin primates such as the chimpanzee. Individual males are capable of controlling the sharing of meat, even when they don’t catch it themselves. They merely commandeer it from lower-status individuals. Then they share the meat they now possess.(11) Other chimps gather round to beg.

In his book on the evolution of primate behavior, Christopher Boehm lends his support to the idea that political clout originated in the hunting of large game and the valued surplus it provided the entire group by way of sharing.(12) To the entire group go the spoils, but to the disperser (if not the provider) goes the prestige.

For a god to be given ultimate responsibility for bounty is a clever way for that agent to maintain a respected place in the group. On a individual level it can also make psychological sense in terms of the perception of control. If you want and need something, and perceived control is small–uncertainty thus large–it is comforting to be able to do something that increases one’s perception of control. Need rain? Try prayer: do some quasi-begging to the mighty force above. As a brief tangent here, it is no surprise that in an arid land of unpredictable rains, a god would get the nod for providing it. There are dozens of verses in the Bible mentioning this aspect of worship. My guess is that a god of the rainforest would not have the same quality.

For this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: “The jar of flour will not be used up and the jug of oil will not run dry until the day the LORD gives rain on the land.” (1 Kings 17:14)

Of course, it does not make sense to the human being’s social brain to get something for nothing. And so individuals cannot pray and pray alone to feel deserving of receiving their desired something. They must also believe, they must follow, they must behave according to group standards, they must be loyal. Not coincidentally, this provides real benefits to the group. Which a god serves.

If you are willing and obedient, you will eat the best from the land; but if you resist and rebel, you will be devoured by the sword.” For the mouth of the LORD has spoken. (Isaiah 1:19-20)

“If” indeed.

The terms I commanded your forefathers when I brought them out of Egypt, out of the iron-smelting furnace.’ I said, ‘Obey me and do everything I command you, and you will be my people, and I will be your God. Then I will fulfill the oath I swore to your forefathers, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey’-the land you possess today.” I answered, “Amen, LORD.” (Jeremiah 11:4-5)

A land ‘flowing’ with milk and honey? Talk about bounty! To those within the near reach of hunger, why wouldn’t you feel full of thanks? Religion directs those thankful feelings to a supernatural agent, to a social innovation that helps unite and stabilize a social group.

—

(11) McGrew, W. C., Marchant, L. F. & Nishida, T., Great Ape Societies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1996, p. 127
(12) Boehm, C., Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999, p. 62

“Eventually Mike [a chimpanzee] calmed down and became a benign alpha. He was exceptionally generous in sharing meat.” (4)

Whenever the day came for Elkanah to sacrifice, he would give portions of the meat to his wife Peninnah and to all her sons and daughters. (1 Samuel 1:4-5)

The human being is an animal. Like our close relative, the chimpanzee, we engage in meat sharing. And like other primates, when hungry we will beg for a share.

“Ape beggars hold out their hand, palm upward, very much as human beggars do on the street.”(5)

If you don’t have enough food, you can ask for more. Whom do you ask? An agent who has more or has control of ‘more.’

Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. (Genesis 9:3)

Besides being essential to survival, and perhaps because of it, food is a commodity. It can be traded up front, such as when male chimpanzees will give meat to fertile females in exchange for “access.”(6) A gift of food can also be used to invest in a future return on that investment. You give food to ‘get on the good side’ of another. Which means in the future you will be treated favorably.

While other apes show only a rudimentary ability to plant seeds of favor with food gifts, human beings excel at this. Consider the historically widespread practice of making food gifts to deities. Or, in a more everyday sense, we have the custom of bringing a bottle of wine or some other treat to the house of a party host, as hosts sometimes give departing guests a little something to take with them.

Beyond parent and dependent child relationships, food sharing is actually quite rare in the wild. Among chimpanzees it is the exception rather than the rule.(7) Give food to another . . . why? The social payoff must be greater than the immediate nutritional benefit. And this explains why food sharing is much more common among humans. It isn’t just a case of human nature, but of human food production as well. Put briefly, where there is surplus, the immediate value of a food resource diminishes, increasing the value of potential trade.

When we think of food surplus, we tend to think of crops, of agricultural production. Yet perhaps there is a more ancient type. The finding or felling of a large animal also provides a surplus of food. What individual could eat a whole antelope itself? With the successful hunt of a large animal, we have surplus, at least in the near term. That immediate surplus plays no small role in food sharing. Christopher Boehm has noted that among human groups of hunter-gatherers:

“Large game is shared by the entire band, and the resulting prestige lends itself to political ascendancy.”(8)

The prestige, of course, goes to the provider of the rare and rich food resource. The new, the scarce — the exciting — why wouldn’t others be interested and eager to have some? Jane Goodall has recounted many an observation in which one “brave” individual chimpanzee steals something from the human camp, and other chimps gather round for a share of the novel item. Filched pieces of cardboard and an entire wool sweater proved particularly appealing to chimpanzees, who seemed to appraise their value by chewing and sucking on them.(9)

Of course, the more individuals you can impress, the greater the impact on your prestige. In the Old Testament, Elisha feeds a hundred men with “twenty loaves of barley bread baked from the first ripe grain along with some heads of new grain.” (2 Kings 4: 42-43) Later in the Bible, Jesus ups the ante and prestige factor by feeding . . . FOUR THOUSAND! with a mere seven loaves (Matthew 15:36-38). That’s one huge piece of cardboard.

In today’s relatively affluent communities, food is not scarce, nor is it a readily threatened resource. With local Albertson’s and Publix supermarkets, the idea of god as the deliverer of food has become more metaphorical — he provides food for the soul — if not outright quaint.

But the old time gods, they created the world and the world was the source of all sustenance. As this verse about the Egyptian god Ra tells:

You place every man in his place,
You make what they need,
So every one has his food,
His lifespan counted. (10)

Roughly two thousand years later we find verses like this from a nearby part of the world:

I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. (Genesis 1:29)

Yet who gets their food directly from the land today? Thanks to the world economy, local droughts don’t cause the same level of religion-enflaming concern they once did. No rain for weeks? There may be water use restrictions enacted. Can’t do the regular washing of your car. Lawns may die. But hunger? Most of the time, it is droughts in other parts of the world that will impact the consumer. In terms of higher prices, which is not quite life-threatening.

It then seems that many verses in the Bible were addressed to farmers.

Then I will send rain on your land in its season, both autumn and spring rains, so that you may gather in your grain, new wine and oil. I will provide grass in the fields for your cattle, and you will eat and be satisfied. (Deuteronomy 11:14-15)

So few people today have gardens, particularly gardens they depend upon to feed their families. And so, again, while they may relate to the following Bible passages in a superficial fashion, I suspect they don’t relate to it as deeply as subsistence farmers would.

Isaac planted crops in that land and the same year reaped a hundredfold, because the LORD blessed him. (Genesis 26:12)

As to why a mythical agent would promise his people rain bountiful crops — this is because he speaks to the primate mind. The chimpanzee who shares food does not do so arbitrarily. He or she is much more inclined to share with family, individuals of ‘shared’ blood. Then come friends — members of the extended, pseudo-blood group. Finally, chimps will share food as a commodity of trade. Implicit with a gift is indebtedness, of favor owed. When you fail to act favorably toward the gift provider, you will fail to receive future gifts.

If you follow my decrees and are careful to obey my commands, I will send you rain in its season, and the ground will yield its crops and the trees of the field their fruit. (Leviticus 26:3-4)

Follow his decrees. Why? That will maintain social order, an order advantageous to him. Praise him. Why? That will help him maintain his social position. At the top. If you have a friend in that agent at the highest place, you will benefit.

—

(4) Goodall, J. The Chimpanzees of the Gombe: Patterns of Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986, p. 75
(5) de Waal, F. Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are, New York, Riverhead Books, 2005, p. 197
(6) Jolly, A. Lucy’s Legacy, 1999, p. 173
(7) de Waal, F. Peacemaking Among Primates, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989, p. 209
(8) Boehm, C., Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999, p.7
(9) Goodall, J., My Friends the Wild Chimpanzees, National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C., 1967.
(10) Quirke, S. The Cult of Ra: Sun-Worship in Ancient Egypt, Thames & Hudson, New York, 2001, p. 161

Before answering that question, let me explain what I mean by ‘keepers of the garden.’ No primate species but one will cultivate and tend a garden. Yet many if not most will defend a territory — not because they win Monopoly money for doing so, but because any territory worth defending contains gardens of the naturally occurring sort. Food sources.

Dominant males are also keepers because they fight not to lose what they have. Lastly, our own species qualifies as keepers in terms of tending to it in order to insure and optimize food production. In this regard females play a significant role, the size and importance of that role depending upon the particular culture.

Why do males tend to be ‘keepers’? Male primates tend to be larger and stronger. Which makes for a good defender. Additionally, males are more expendable. Evolutionary speaking. If you lose a female, you lose more than one individual. You also endanger if not lose dependent children, as well as lose the potential production of more offspring. The social group that has 5 females to every male will grow more quickly than will the opposite. To put it bluntly, wombs are limited resources. In contrast, as a naturalist friend of mine put it, “sperm is cheap.”

Why alpha’s? In terms of physical power and aggressiveness, alphas tend to be “at the top.” Perhaps more importantly, in terms of social power, they are definitely at the top of the heap. They are more likely to have others follow them and thereby multiply the muscle available for a task. Indeed, as Jane Goodall and others have documented, dominant males tend to take the lead in defending a “feeding territory for all members.”(1)

But why would a territory need to defending? Because resources equate to survival. They are valued for a reason. And can be stolen. As evidenced by these . . . Bible verses [emphasis added].

The sons of Jacob came upon the dead bodies and looted the city where their sister had been defiled. They seized their flocks and herds and donkeys and everything else of theirs in the city and out in the fields. They carried off all their wealth and all their women and children, taking as plunder everything in the houses. (Genesis 34:27-29)

So the LORD our God also gave into our hands Og king of Bashan and all his army. We struck them down, leaving no survivors. At that time we took all his cities. There was not one of the sixty cities that we did not take from them—the whole region of Argob, Og’s kingdom in Bashan. All these cities were fortified with high walls and with gates and bars, and there were also a great many unwalled villages. We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city—men, women and children. But all the livestock and the plunder from their cities we carried off for ourselves. (Deuteronomy 3:3-7)

Gardens need to be protected from vandals and other threats. Yet can you protect a garden from plagues and drought? Well, you can try. And when it comes to food, to not do everything in your power to protect it — that would be crazy. So maybe the many Bible verses that evidence attempts at assuring a healthy garden — while they are misguided — are not so crazy.

Let us fear the LORD our God, who gives autumn and spring rains in season, who assures us of the regular weeks of harvest. (Jeremiah 5:24)

What brings the rains that nourish your garden? If your understanding of nature is rudimentary and/or you have a hyperactive tendency to attribute events to the work of agents (related to the theorized human HADD – hyperactive agency detection device (2)).

Of course, a great leader-god gets credit for the good, because he is loving and/or pleased with his people. So be sure to please him. Refrain from behavior that could anger him. But when plagues strike, when rains don’t come and plants wither, this is also a god’s doing. But the bad does not reflect poorly on his nature. Rather, a bad turn of events will be attributed to a people’s bad actions, which provoked their god. Just ask Pat Robertson. This renown preacher from a more modern age informed people that the reason for the hurricane of 2005 that wrecked havoc on the city of New Orleans — bringing way too much of those nurturing rains — was that people had sinned. The nation had been too soft on the issue of abortion.(3)

A productive garden must be nurtured. And protected. This is why religion speaks to the issue so often. Food is indeed sacred — though in a fully mundane, evolutionary way.

—

(1) de Waal, F. B. M., (ed.), Tree of Origin: What Primate Behavior Can Tell Us About Human Social Evolution, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001, p. 19
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion
(3) http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1953778_1953776_1953771,00.html

In a time of uncertainty, what individual wouldn’t welcome a leader who satisfied real hunger?

At twilight you will eat meat, and in the morning you will be filled with bread. Then you will know that I am the LORD your God. (Genesis 16:12)

The actions of gods in all religions reflect human concerns. As with all animals, for the human primate food ranks at the top of concerns, followed by reproduction and others. No, these issues are not transcendental, but fundamental.

Bread. What a fantastic commodity. It staves off hunger and provides the necessary energy to stand up and do what needs doing. To be daily provided with bread—what fortune! It is no surprise that the word bread appears in the Bible 250 times (New International Version). Of course, there are other terms that appear throughout the Bible and reflect this basic need. For example, famine appears 94 times, and crop(s) 60 times. Not to mention the many verses about a god as the provider of rain (such as Psalms 65:9).

As telling is the how the “promised land” granted to a god’s children is described.

Go up to the land flowing with milk and honey. (Genesis 33:2-3

But it doesn’t stop there.

And because of the abundance of the milk they give, he will have curds to eat. All who remain in the land will eat curds and honey. (Isaiah 7:22)

You will have plenty to eat, until you are full, and you will praise the name of the LORD your God, who has worked wonders for you. (Joel 2:26)

Plenty to eat. And honey no less! If hunger were a real occurrence in our lives, and there was a possibility of starvation, I imagine that the thought of being granted abundant food would just about make you fall to your knees. In thanks . . . to what? The government? As social animals, our instincts favor the thanking of an agent, even one of the imaginary sort.

In the New Testament, written during a more modern time–one of trade and markets–there is less talk of a god as the provider of food. Still, it appears in a number of places. Such as the “Lord’s Prayer.”

Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil. (Matthew 6:9-13)

Notice that in the prayer first comes praise, then an appeal. Chimp primates will “ask” (beg) for food from others with an extended hand, palm up. With this prayer, are humans asking for food by pressing their palms together?

I also discern in the prayer a sort of inverse hierarchy of needs. First comes food, sex/procreation is skipped, then we get to social needs. Help me get along better with others, for belonging to a social group is a real resource.

But back to the New testament. Jesus performs a number of food and hunger-related miracles. Okay, there was the water into wine thing. But you can’t use food stamps on wine, for good reason. So scratch that one. But there are least two beloved stories of him feeding many with food for a few. The fish and loaves thing.

Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. (Matthew 14:19-20)

Elsewhere, Jesus helps men catch an abundance of fish–a miraculous amount following hours of failed attempts by the experienced fishermen. And at the last supper, Jesus informs his followers that their high spiritual act will be to honor him by eating his body and drinking his blood. Weird? Not really. First, there are the numerous religious precedents that this idea is based upon. It didn’t come out of nowhere. Second, we have this mundane verity: Religion and food are intertwined because religion is a human invention, fully reflecting the concerns of an intelligent species of primate.

“Territories are typically established to protect or monopolize resources, mates, or offspring, and animals may defend territories against a wide variety of potential competitors.” (22)

The human animal is no exception. In fact, we excel at drawing group lines and defending our groups. Furthermore, we often seek to expand our group and to even eliminate competing groups when they get in our way or threaten us. As these Biblical verses testify:

Our sister, may you increase to thousands upon thousands; may your offspring possess the gates of their enemies.” (Genesis 24:60)

“Our sister.” One of us. Where there is an ‘us,’ there is a ‘them.’

I will grant peace in the land, and you will lie down and no one will make you afraid. I will remove savage beasts from the land, and the sword will not pass through your country. You will pursue your enemies, and they will fall by the sword before you. (Leviticus 26:6-7)

Who wouldn’t want a powerful ally like this? Who wouldn’t accept this Lord as their leader?

Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield. (Genesis 15:1)

While a supernatural agent has no real ability to protect you from harm, being part of a strong social group can. By encouraging individuals to follow a mighty leader, individuals gain strength in numbers.

—

(21) Wilson, D.S. Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society, University of Chicago, Chicago, 2002, p. 217
(22) Ehrlich, P. R., Human Natures: Genes, Cultures, and the Human Prospect, Island Press,Washington, D.C., 2000, p. 177

With God we will gain the victory, and he will trample down our enemies. (Psalms 60:12)

Human concerns and needs are reflected in the characteristics of the god they worship. We can chalk up the many faces and changing nature of “most high” supernatural agent in the monotheistic religions to this fact: gods are designed and revised to meet the needs of a people. As a group leader, a god an lead his people in many ways. One way is in war.

As Karen Armstrong and many others have pointed out, “Yahweh was the god of war.”(13) In fact, that was the original specialty of the high god of the Old Testament. And it created a problem. As Armstrong relates, “He had no expertise in agriculture or fertility, and so many Israelites, as a matter of course, performed the ancient rituals of Baal and Anat to ensure a good harvest, because Baal was the power that fertilized the land.”(14) This provoked jealousy in Yahweh (i.e., the supporters of this god).

Why would the Biblical god be so concerned about warfare in some books of the Bible, unconcerned in others? Times and social environments change. For example, during Jesus’ time, the issue wasn’t so much about a boundary war, but about a revolution within that boundary.

Primate alphas lead their group in war. The ‘most powerful man on earth’ was once considered to be the president of the United States. Why? Because of the great resources he could control, including military might. Even today the U.s. president serves as the commander-in-chief. As for the Bible alpha, in early incarnations he definitely led his people on campaigns to attack and defeat the others. As expressed in verses such as these:

Blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand.” (Genesis 14:20)

The LORD will fight for you; you need only to be still.” (Exodus 14:14)

All these kings and their lands Joshua conquered in one campaign, because the LORD, the God of Israel, fought for Israel. (Joshua 10:42)

Worship the LORD your God; it is he who will deliver you from the hand of all your enemies.” (2 Kings 17:39) (15)

As a mighty, supernatural alpha, a god is also capable of empowering his earthly captains. Messiahs justify and buttress their own roles by declaring they have a god on their side. They have a special relationship. And so they draw upon preexisting sentiments within their group, and the innate instincts of primates in general, to their own advantage. Chimpanzees, baboons, macaques, and humans all take more seriously other primates that have a close alliance with an alpha. So Jesus didn’t say, “I am god.” Rather he spoke of being the very special “son of.” That way he could justify his actions as a religious revolutionary. This very old tactic is still used today. “I have a special relationship with the greatest one.”

The god-as-war-leader phenomenon is not exclusive to the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tree of belief. For example, in the 5^th century BCE these words were spoken about the Egyptian god Ra (also Anum-Ra):

“Hail Ra in your rising,
Anum, the Might of the Gods….
You pass by the sandbank of the waving water, and your enemies are felled.” (16)

Now that’s a god you’d want to follow. Provided your needs included battling enemies.

Why do gods sometimes have the face of warriors? Because the creators of gods are primates. Primates are group-living social species with the need and instinct to protect their territory and resources. What’s more, we tend to forget that in ‘primitive’ cultures there was no distinct line between religion and politics. In fact, you might say that religion served as the rudimentary form of government. As Scott Atran wrote, “In tribal cultures, religion was inseparable from polity.”(20) Even today, it seems many citizens are unwilling to make a complete separation. Why? My guess is that people tend to relate better to the idea that do’s and don’ts and should’s and shouldn’ts appropriately come from an entity with parent-like connotations: a committed concern for it’s ‘children’ and unquestionable authority.

There may, in fact, be a link between the war-god (outside-threat-oriented) and the law-making, moralizing (do’s and don’ts, inside-threat oriented). That link is group size coupled with the existence of competing groups. As Frans L. Roes and Michel Raymond have outlined in their paper, “Belief in Moralizing Gods,”

“Cross-cultural analysis support this line of thought: more competition between societies is found in environments rich in resources and larger societies tend to occupy these environments, large societies engage in external conflicts at higher rates and are more often characterized by beliefs in moralizing gods . . . we speculatively picture the historical chain of events giving rise to a belief in moralizing gods.”(21)

The moralizing god says, “You must behave in a way that maintains group harmony. And you must help protect the group.” This second element of a god as war-leader and troop-recruiter is reflected in these two verses from different religious trees:

“If, however, you do not fight this religious war, then you will certainly incur sins for neglecting your duties and thus lose your reputation as a fighter.” Bhagavad Gita, 2:33 (19)

“Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world’s life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward.” Qur’an, 4.74 (20)

What of those today who worship a god with the face of a war general? They are likely living in a setting where there is a real or perceived enemy to their way life. And so the call upon their most high commander-in-chief to lead them. The almighty.

—

(13) Armstrong, K. The Great Transformation: The Beginning of our Religious Traditions, Knopf, New York, 2006, p.45
(14) Armstrong, K. The Great Transformation: The Beginning of our Religious Traditions, Knopf, New York, 2006, p.64
(15) See also: Genesis 35:5, Genesis 49:8, Deuteronomy 9:3, Deuteronomy 11:23-25, Joshua 21:44, Judges 20:35, 1 Samuel 7:10, 2 Samuel 7:23, 2 Samuel 8:6, 1 Kings 5:3, 2 Kings 19:34-35, 1 Chronicles 14:14-15, 2 Chronicles 14:13-15, Psalms 18:17, Psalms 18-29, Psalms 44:5, Ezekiel 30:22
(16) Quirke, S. The Cult of Ra: Sun-Worship in Ancient Egypt, Thames & Hudson, New York, 2001, p. 61
(17) Atran, S., In God’s We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002, p. 120
(18) Roas, F. L. & Raymond, R., “Belief in Moralizing Gods,” Evolution and Human Behavior, Vol. 24(2), 2003.
(19) Prabhupada, A.C. Bhaktivedanta, Bhagavad Gita As It Is, Collier Books, NY, 1972.
(20) http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=114839

You might say that chimpanzees are a xenophobic species. They notice unfamiliar individuals and go on alert mode. They recognize a “them,” and appropriately don’t trust the foreigner. Not initially, it’s too dangerous. Chimpanzees will threaten, chase and fight strangers. Not because they like to. But because unaffiliated-with-us individuals pose a real threat to resources: to mates, to infants, to territory, to food.

So deep runs this propensity to be alarmed by the strange that chimpanzees will attack members of their own group who merely act strange. For example, during a documented polio epidemic – yes, chimpanzees share that with us as well – a few chimpanzees became partially paralyzed and consequently started moving differently. Strangely. They were subsequently attacked by their own group members.(8) Unfamiliarity, alarm, and fear can do that.

Among humans, in-group members tend to behave similarly. Speech is a form of behavior. Whether an American male is more likely to use the word dude or sir while addressing another male reflects their current and past social group. Group members also often share dress, customs, diet, and more. How else can you recognize an “us”? “Them,” on the other hand, have foreign ways; they act strangely.

Pants cinched well below the waist, visible tattoos and piercings, long, untrimmed beards – these are strange only relative to a particular audience.(9) If a non-idiosyncratic behavior strikes you as strange, chances are it ‘belongs’ to an outsider. Where behaviors are different, it is easy for the human mind to conclude “stranger.” Yet the “to me” goes unsaid. When there is more than one stranger with shared qualities, we can designate a “them.”

The types of ‘thems’ human beings are capable of perceiving is quite varied. Here is a short list of potential us/them categories: ethnic, linguistic, racial, sex-based, sexual orientation-based, national, political, age-based, and even sports team-based.(10)(11)

To reinforce the boundary between “us” and “them,” outsiders get painted with less noble traits, insiders more noble. This psychological tendency is the likely wellspring of ethnocentrism.

Us/them distinctions go deeper than idle opinion and abstract thought. As evidence, consider the results from a psychological experiment published in the journal, Evolution and Behavior. Pairs of men were made to compete in a ‘friendly’ game. When competing, there was a measured rise in their testosterone and cortisol levels. The increase in hormone levels was more pronounced when the competition involved between-village contestants than within-village contestants.(12)

Turning to the Bible now, a revision in how the us/them boundary is drawn around believers can be seen to progress through its books (reflecting the time written and the corresponding social context). In Exodus there are many references to “the God of Abraham.” Oh, that god. Are you a member of the group that worships that god, are you one of us? In Exodus we read references to the god of the Hebrews. In Kings and Chronicles and many other books of the Old Testament, the most high god is frequently referred to as a god of Israel. Other religious-identity references include “the god of” David/Jacob/your-fathers. In the New Testament books the most high god is spoken of a number of ways, including: the god “of your ancestors,” “of Israel,” “of your fathers,” and there are also those few mentions “of Jew and Gentile.”

I am the God of your father Abraham.(Genesis 26:24)
This is what the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, says: Let my people go. (Exodus 9:13)
This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says…(1 Kings 11:31)
For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him. (Romans 10:12)

In a practical sense, the god of a specific people has become the supposed god of all people. Some maintain that this god was always the god of all. I suspect it is because they do not want to recognize the tribal nature of gods. Whether or not you include everyone as part of your tribe, that nature remains.

—

(8) Goodall, J. The Chimpanzees of the Gombe: Patterns of Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986, p. 330
(9) As a tangent here, I imagine that suburban white boys adopt the ways of ghetto blacks to make themselves mildly alarming to others. By dressing and acting in a foreign fashion, they draw attention to themselves and perhaps feel dangerous and more potent within their own group. Their novel dress with fox-in-the-henhouse overtones (unpredictable outsider) may slightly alarm others. And that is the point. Strangers are alarming because the strange alarms us. When the potential to attract attention and put others on notice completely wears off, this type of behavior wanes. It brings to mind the image of a juvenile or perhaps mid-status-level chimpanzee walking around with it’s shoulder fur in a state of semi erection. “Look out, I could be dangerous, give me room” (to move up in status).
(10) Wrangham, R. & Peterson, D. Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence, Houghton Mifflin, NY, 1996, p.196
(11) I imagine that cultures in which there is a significant difference in the appearance and behavior of the sexes, members of the opposite sex are more likely to be perceived as a “them.” Or maybe another species altogether, for they have really strange ways. At least according to the audience of my sex and our customary behavior. Maybe each sex could even perceived to be from different planets altogether. You think?
(12) Wagner, J. D., Flinn, M. V., & England, B. G. “Hormonal Response to Competition Among Male Coalitions,” Evolution and Human Behavior, Volume 23, Issue 6, November 2002, 437-442.

A logical consequence of having an in-group is the existence of out-group others. By creating an ‘us’ a not-us is generated in consequence. The boundary of a group separates inside from out. And outsiders can be dangerous: they can usurp resources; they can upset group stability. So chimpanzees are wary of them. As Barbara king has noted in her book on the African great apes -

“Community membership is apparently meaningful to the chimpanzees, because boundaries are patrolled. Patrollers, typically males, silently walk the perimeter of their communities, seeking the presence of noncommunity individuals. Although some members may switch communities at certain times in their lives, intercommunity interaction, when it occurs, tends toward the aggressive, and sometimes even the lethal.” (5)

In fact, in the social psychology of chimpanzees we can discern the origins of human xenophobia and perhaps even genocidal behavior. For decades our kind has been quite naïve about the psychological and social complexity of other primates. As an illustration, consider this anecdote:

“In West Africa the fist hint of intercommunity violence came in 1977, within Senegals’s Niokola-Koba National Park, when conservationist Stella Brewer brought a group of ex-captive chimps into the forest with hopes of reintroducing them to a wild existence. But repeated attacks by native chimpanzees, including a terrifying nighttime raid of the camp by a gang of four adults, finally forced Brewer to shut her experiment down.” (6)

Other episodes of chimp ‘gang violence’ have also surfaced. In the Mahale Mountains National Park, it was documented that in wild groups of chimpanzees, one group, the ‘K-group’ seems to have been exterminated by another group, the ‘M.” (7) Or at least the males were killed; the females were likely incorporated into the winning group. In other words, inter-group hostility is not a strictly human thing.

This verse from Deuteronomy (21:10-11) readily comes to mind:

When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.

Likewise, the inclination to view us as good (safe) and them as bad (threatening), extends farther than the human species. This us-them propensity has even been extended to the supernatural realm.

The nations will hear and tremble; anguish will grip the people of Philistia. The chiefs of Edom will be terrified, the leaders of Moab will be seized with trembling, the people of Canaan will melt away; terror and dread will fall upon them. By the power of your arm they will be as still as a stone—until your people pass by, O LORD, until the people you bought pass by. (Exodus 15:15-16)

It may be true that the Old Testament alpha more closely resembles a male chimpanzee in its temperament. Yet that is likely due to the similar social environments of the chimpanzee and of the semi-nomadic bands of early Israelites living among bands of foreigners. Potentially hostile foreigners.

—

(3) Bourne, H., The Ape People, Putnam, New York, 1971.
(4) Jolly, A. Lucy’s Legacy, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999, p.166
(5) King, Barabara. The Dynamic Dance: Nonvocal Communication in African Great Apes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2004, p.25
(6) Wrangham, R. & Peterson, D. Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence, Houghton Mifflin, NY, 1996, p.20
(7) de Waal, F. B. M., (ed.), Tree of Origin: What Primate Behavior Can Tell Us About HumanSocial Evolution, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001, p. 17

“Having a protector clearly reduces stress.” – Dorothy Cheney and Robert Seyfarth, Baboon Metaphysics (1)

He is a shield for all who take refuge in him. (Psalms 18:30)

Just as there are costs and benefits to being a group alpha, there are likewise costs and benefits to having a group alpha. One of the benefits is protection. A strong leader will protect his group. From what? How? We’ll get to that.

Of the Bible non-supernatural alphas, King David is legendary. What did he do to deserve the pedestal? As Isaac Asimov noted in his erudite book about the Bible, David became the ‘master’ of a the combined, twelve tribes of Israel and Judah.(2) David united a great group of people and, with their necessary loyalty and assistance, secured and enlarged an expansive homeland. David protected his people from skirmish both internal and eternal. The internal harmony being crucial to waging war against external threats.

But all Israel and Judah loved David, because he led them in their campaigns. (1 Samuel 18:16)

No doubt, David was revered not because he led them on campaigns, but on successful campaigns. King David, however, did not accomplish this all on his own. He had yet another mighty agent on his side -

And [David] became more and more powerful, because the LORD God Almighty was with him.(2 Samuel 5:9-10)

A significant amount of biblical material relates the theme of human masters being supported and assisted by their heavenly master. There are those verses, however, that have a people’s god acting as an agent itself, without a human intermediary, to the benefit of all group members.

Of course, different groups at different times have had different concerns; they experienced differing threats to their well-being. In a great-father role, a god is capable of delivering his children from all manner of harm; at least he is capable of being perceived as having the ability and actually delivering thanks to rationalizing hindsight. And so many verses in the Bible hint at this “general protector” god. Psalms, in particular, speaks of this facet of god worship. Besides multiple mentions of “the Lord is my shield,” there is this:

The LORD will keep you from all harm—he will watch over your life. (Psalms 121:7)

In the New Testament we see a number of verses manifesting the them of “general protector.” This one, from 2 Timothy, hints at the more primitive origin of the need for protection from threat:

And I was delivered from the lion’s mouth. The Lord will rescue me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom.(4:17-18)

Of course, the “lion’s mouth” is largely metaphorical. Unless of course, you were a Christian thrown in an actual den of lions by Romans. Yet the roots of Christianity to run into deep time, a time that predators and other wild animals posed a real risk to human beings. Consider these verses:

The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth. (Genesis 9:2)

Rescue me from the mouth of the lions; save me from the horns of the wild oxen. (Psalms 22:21)

Yet both then and now the wildest of the wild animals — the species that poses the greatest threat to us — is our very own. We are our biggest enemies. Scratch that: “they” are our biggest enemy, those other groups of our kind, yet strangers unto us, that stand in our way. ‘They’ can want what we have; they can hurt us, even annihilate us. And so you will find much material in the Old Testament about identifying the dangerous others and achieving protection and respite from them.

Rise up, O LORD, confront them, bring them down; rescue me from the wicked by your sword. (Psalms 17:13)

How we hate those that threaten us. Religion provides an antidote to this type of psychological threat. Religion assures us that a supernatural agent that can help us. Our god may even harm them, if not obliterate them in this life or the next. Isn’t that good news?

—

(1) Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. Baboon Metaphysics: The Evolution of a Social Mind, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2007, p.60
(2) Asimov, I., Asimov’s Guide to the Bible: The Old and New Testaments, Wing Books, New York, 1969, p. 305