An Almighty Alpha

“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

“Silverback gorillas use pig grunts to stop fights, and dominant chimpanzees routinely pacify the quarrels of subordinates.” (40) – Christopher Boehm

Where you find clever, aspiring and ultimately selfish social primates, you will also find episodes of discord and conflict. In ancient communities with a size sufficient to dilute and confuse family bonds—neighbors unrelated to one another—what could be done to keep personal disputes from escalating into something more serious, something that could disturb and harm the entire community and potentially ripping it apart?

“Sure, your family’s elder, your grandfather, says the cattle belongs to you because you found it. But my grandfather says it belongs to me because it is the offspring of my cow.”

Wouldn’t it be nice if an entire community could share a grandfather? Wouldn’t it be handy to have an elder of undisputed authority and free of family bias to fill the role of social referee? Before books and legal systems and agencies to enforce the rules, what could a community do?

Enter religion. In a god one acquires a truly great grandfather, an agent capable of filling the role of mediator, judge and corrections officer rolled into one. Of course, you can’t see him. But he has his spokesmen, and they know his rules and values; “grandfather” speaks to them, and his words are right there: contained in mysterious marks on a roll of parchment.

A god is a judge beyond reproach, distant enough from individuals to be impartial, but with vested interest in the group. In this light, we can see how an imagined alpha can bring benefit to a group. A god is an invention that can help squelch squabbles, mediate conflict, and manage contested resources—just as, to some degree, a primate alpha can.

Squabble Squelcher

As Jimoh left adolescence and matured, the females in his group began acknowledging his superiority. From lowest ranking to high, they bowed down to him, simultaneously vocalizing their deference. Eventually, even the highest ranking female bowed before the greatness that was Jimoh. Among the males, his status likewise increased. He eventually took on a “control role.” An alert individual, Jimoh was often observed quickly “breaking up the smallest squabbles before they [would] get out of hand.”(41)

Jimoh was a chimpanzee. And while he was an exceptional individual within his group, you could not say that his type was not unique for all groups primates, that he was one-of-a-kind. Consider these anecdotes about other primate ‘masters’:

“Luit’s leadership was a significant improvement. Remarkable peace and playfulness reigned, even among the older females, who normally never gallop around uttering the throaty chimpanzee laugh. Luit took the so-called control role, acting as arbitrator in disputes with great authority and impartiality.”(42)

“Compared to Spickles and other rhesus leaders I know, Mephisto takes a more central position. While dominant rhesus males stay pretty much out of female affairs, Mephisto breaks up disputes among females and never fails to protect youngsters in need…. After major disputes Mephisto is always groomed by some of the antagonists, often of both sides. Everyone recognizes his influence.”(43)

When his father-in-law saw all that Moses was doing for the people, he said, “What is this you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit as judge, while all these people stand around you from morning till evening?” (Exodus 18:14)

In a primate community, an alpha can exert maximum social control: as arbitrator, mediator, judge. With one present, conflicts can be mitigated if not outright prevented. For human primates a behavioral sensitivity to “who is in the room,” begins early. Developmental psychologist Jerome Kagan has noted,

“Each person remains continually sensitive to the presence of individuals who are more potent than self, whether the source of the potency is size, intellectual talent, strength, beauty, wealth, status, or endurance. When there are a large number of these more potent individuals, the child or adult may inhibit initiations that might be implemented if the more powerful persons were absent.”(44)

In terms of religion, many new readers of the Bible—at least those that venture beyond the more warm-and-fuzzy passages—might be surprised by the inclusion of fear as a central component to the spiritual life. What? Isn’t that contradictory? Well, no. It depends on what kind of deity you worship.

In passages such as Psalms 111:10 we see the connection:

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding.

What is wise about fearing your leader, your god? First, on a personal level, you will avoid wrath consequences for stepping out of line. Just as high-ranking chimpanzees will quell within-group conflict by making threat displays (45)—in effect telling the others to “chill” or there will be hell to pay—the god of the Bible will threaten natural disaster, invasion by foreigners, personal calamity, hellfire.

On a group level, it is wise to fear the lord, for with him “in the room” of your consciousness (it is believed/felt) then you are less likely act selfishly and cause social unrest in your community; you are less likely to spoil group cohesion.

In a section of my book, The Naked Bible, I argued that although there are many verses in the Bible that contain both the concepts of love and god/lord, fifty percent or less of these are clearly about a god loving his people. The Bible god also demands to be loved.(46) Spiritual love can be both from and for a god. But when it comes to fear—that is a fully one way emotion. The Bible is unambiguous about this point: if fear belongs in the spiritual life, it is of a people fearing their god.

Why do bad things happen? Because you do bad things. So behave.

This happened [the murder of his family] because of the sins Jeroboam had committed and had caused Israel to commit, and because he aroused the anger of the LORD, the God of Israel. (1 Kings 15:30)

In recent times, television evangelist Pat Robertson has gained notoriety by claiming that select natural calamities such as hurricane Katrina, and the earthquake that devastated Haiti, were caused by people behaving badly. And a god’s response.

A god is the most powerful agent recognized by members of a religious group. Like a parent pulling squabbling children apart, or threatening them not to begin in first place, a most high alpha can bring greater peace to you and your group by diminishing disturbances to it. As the following few verses exemplify:

Let the trees of the forest sing, let them sing for joy before the LORD, for he comes to judge the earth. (1 Chronicles 16:33)

“Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, and I put a stumbling block before him, he will die. (Ezekiel 3:20)

May the LORD judge between you and me. And may the LORD avenge the wrongs you have done to me, but my hand will not touch you. (1 Samuel 24:12)

He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore. (Isaiah 2:4)

—

(40) Boehm, C., Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999, p. 155
(41) de Waal, F. B. M., “Conflict as negotiation,” in McGrew, W. C. , Marchant, L. F. & Nishida, T., Great Ape Societies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1996, p. 167
(42) de Waal, F., Peacemaking Among Primates, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989, p. 64
(43) de Waal, F., 1989, p.156
(44) Kagan, J., The Nature of the Child, Basic Books, New York, 1984, p.274
(45) Boehm, C., Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999, p.26
(46) Bernardin, A., The Naked Bible, CreateSpace, 2010, ch. 15, “The Myth of the Loving God.”

Give up all varieties of religiousness and just surrender unto me; and in return I shall protect you from all sinful reactions. Therefore, you have nothing to fear. (28)

Imagine a large family gathered around a table for a holiday meal. Parents, children, aunts and uncles, grandparents. Were a number of the participants outspoken atheists and others outspoken believers in a god, or, alternatively, were a number outspoken liberals with others conservative, and you have a recipe for verbal discord. When members of a group believe different things, and feel strongly about them, harmony is difficult to maintain. Even among family.

The above quote is from a religious text, but not the Bible. That teaching from the Hindu deity Krishna could have been from any number of prophets. Join my group and you shall be better off. My religion is so true it is not a religion, it is The Way.

We may think that “the way” religions teach are about the explicitly stated goal: enhanced spirituality, enlightenment, heaven. But implicit in such teachings is the goal of group harmony. You will be a better person, you will feel more peace . . . Your community will be better off. More godly. And peaceful. So follow me and my way.

As I have previously argued, an ideally egalitarian group is actually not the most stable and peaceful type of group in practice. Those that do better tend to at least have a virtual leader to follow in the form of a sacred book or political manifesto. Without something to maintain order, particularly beyond blood relations, human behavior is far too dynamic and opportunistic to make peaceful relations a natural state.

Somewhat ironically, research tells that intra-group aggressive behavior is more likely to occur when individuals are of equal and near-equal status. Studies into bullying, for example, find that this type of behavior is significantly more likely to be engaged in by individuals in the fat of a status bell curve, not at the extremes.(29) Roger Gould put it in his aptly titled book, Collision of Wills: How Ambiguity About Social Rank Breeds Conflict:

“Conflict, including violent conflict, is particularly likely to occur in relations that are explicitly symmetrical, such as ‘friend’ or ‘sibling.’”(30)

Social conflict among friends and family? An anonymous stranger bumps your elbow while dining in a restaurant, and your response to his reflex response “oops, sorry,” is likely to be a quick smile and wave of your hand. No problem. Your slightly younger brother does the same and you may actually respond more heatedly. Perhaps you pause a moment—did he intend that?—before giving a smile and poking fun at his clumsiness.

Many people consider the sentiment expressed in the following Bible verse to be the essence of Jesus’ message:

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 13:9-10)

What is the meaning of that message? Be nice? While the overt meaning is one thing, the implicit can be something moderately different. In the above we read an explicit command to “love thy neighbor,” and the explanation that love is good because it does no harm. It fulfills the law, which is a god’s will. Implicit in the message, I propose, we find more subliminal messages, such as: 1) to love is to accept, whatever a person’s status, high and low, 2) to harm is to disturb, and 3) by disturbing an individual you will likely generate ripples of unrest in the community at large, so do your part and behave.

Another key teaching is expressed as “love and honor your family.” But loving your husbands and wives and children does not mean treating as equals. Same goes with loving your neighbors.

For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Corinthians 14:33-35)

Find your place and accept it. Accept the place of others. Order will be maintained. Order is good. It helps a social group function harmoniously, which is beneficial the group, which means it brings benefits to individuals of the group. But not equally.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. (Colossians 3:22)(31)

Order Starts at the Top

To our democratic values the idea of respecting a leader can, at times, seem to be at odds with modernism. And yet the instinct is still there, even if dormant. Recall the political landscape early in this century, post 9/11 and during the invasion of Iraq. We were indirectly instructed that during uncertain times, particularly times of war, we must stick together. We must follow our leader; we must show our allegiance by way of flying flags and not speaking in open opposition.(32)

Still, it is a social reality that though hierarchical positioning is born of struggle, once an order is set there is less need for struggle. Which can generate this seeming paradox: people of lowly status behaving in ways to preserve the status-quo. Although positions within a hierarchy are initially set by way of contest (unless culturally determined), there can be a trade-off. “Obviously, those lower on the scale would have preferred to be higher, but they settle for the next best thing, which is to be left in peace.”(33)

Once an order is set, those with a less advantaged position may in fact protect it, for it is “the next best thing.” Those in positions of advantage would naturally protect it. One way to protect a given social order is to sanctify it. When religion and politics do mix, it is often the case of religion being used to support a given order. Don’t change, that goes against what our god wants.

In ancient Egypt, kings were gods themselves. They had their own divine authority on their side. Later, at the right hand of kings we find high-priests giving consent, we find kingdoms expressing allegiance to one religion or another, to one god, perhaps to one prophet. This is who we are; we must act together to preserve our group.

It times past, gods gave rulers legitimacy.(34) Although this is not fully true in my home-nation today, the United States, try electing an atheist as president. Here in Florida it wasn’t long ago that members of a city counsel walked out on an atheist as he gave the opening convocation. (As mentioned previously.)  Why? Because they refused to listen to someone who didn’t ‘believe in a supreme being.’(35) Which is a telling choice of words. Human beings apparently still carry the feeling that social order best comes from above. Why? Because that is where greater strength resides. And it seems that even the person at the top of a social order can use support from above. To legitimize and stabilize his/her position. From below, many desire a president who bows down to a god. Otherwise, how could we trust him? How could our order be assured?

With religion can come an order-stabilizing mythology coupled with rituals, practices and taught values that help chill the pot of potential social and cultural change.(36) As Jane Goodall has noted: “In the natural habitat the hierarchy, the patterning of all the different relationships within the chimpanzee society, is never static.”(37)

Once a social order is achieved, it will change unless something stabilizes it. It seems both chimpanzees and humans have similar ways to do this. Consider these parallel declarations, one from each world:

“The male hierarchy is heavily formalized, that is, males frequently communicate their status to one another. Among such fierce competitors, formalization is a requirement for relaxed relationships.”(38)

Then the word of the LORD came to Elijah the Tishbite: “Have you noticed how Ahab has humbled himself before me? Because he has humbled himself, I will not bring this disaster in his day, but I will bring it on his house in the days of his son.”

The first is from de Waal, F. Peacemaking Among Primates … The second, 1 Kings 21:28-29)

What can religion do to stabilize the more substantially numbered base of an order? For one, put the fear of the alpha in them. As previously mentioned, primate alphas are better behaved when their position goes uncontested. Order at the middle and bottom influence what happens at the top. So don’t tick off the big guy of there could be hell to pay. Somewhat humorously, Pat Robertson, a human primate from our own times is fond of blaming disasters of all sorts on human beings behaving badly, on not following “the Lord’s” way. Judging by the earthquake, or tsunami, or sickly economy, all that liberal, free-lance behavior must be angering him.

Religion also provides daily and weekly individual reminders of who to keep at the top of the social order how to behave to maintain the peace. Likely as important as the individual acts are the social gatherings and rituals that can help attenuate conflict and keep strong relationships that extend beyond the home. Prayer, Bible readings, cleansing rituals,(29) Sunday services, religions holidays—without these, believers fear, allegiance to the heavenly order will falter. And chaos will descend to earth. Or maybe it will simply roil up from within.

If society is an engine, religion is a means of governing that engine: of keeping it from idling too high, of keeping it from sputtering to a dysfunctional stop.

—

(28)Prabhupada, A.C. Bhaktivedanta, Bhagavad Gita As It Is, Collier Books, NY, 1972
(29) UC Davis study finds popular students — but not the most popular — more likely to torment peers, http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=9749
(30)Gould, R. V. Collision of Wills: How Ambiguity About Social Rank Breeds Conflict, University of Chicago, Chicago, 2003, p. 66
(31) The origin of the word lord includes these meanings: “master of a household, ruler, superior” & “one who guards the loaves.” From “Lord,” Online Etymology Dictionary,
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=lord&searchmode=none
(32) This sentiment was nicely summarized by Ann Coulter’s 2004 book, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism. Her hyper-nationalistic stance continues follow-up books such as this title from 2011—Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America. Her primary message seems to be, “If you aren’t with us, you are evil,” a threat.
(33) de Waal, F. Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are, New York, Riverhead Books, 2005, p. 61
(34) Jaynes, J., The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, HoughtonMifflin, New York, 1976, p.227
(35) http://www.tampabay.com/news/article1063285.ece
(36) Gould, R. V. Collision of Wills: How Ambiguity About Social Rank Breeds Conflict, University of Chicago, Chicago, 2003, p. 109
(37) Goodall, J. The Chimpanzees of the Gombe: Patterns of Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986, p. 410
(38) de Waal, F. Peacemaking Among Primates, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989, p.52
(39) Wilkinson, R.H., The Complete Gods and Godesses of Ancient Egypt; Thames & Hudson, NY, 2003

“Luit [a chimpanzee] proved a wise and mature leader. Under his rule, life was orderly and just.”
- Robin Wright (20)

“Animals seek not only psychological stability but also social stability.”
- Franz de Waal (21) p. 38

Chimpanzees, like human beings, experience less stress when they know what to expect: how others will behave in given circumstances, what consequences their own behavior will yield. Not surprisingly, the items highest on the list of human stressors are social: loss of spouse, divorce, marital separation, imprisonment, death of a close family member. In fact, of the 43 elements on the Holmes and Rahe Stress Scale(22), a mere handful lack clear social consequences. But I suspect that even with these—such as acquiring a “major mortgage,” for example–at least part of the stress could be chalked up to potential social implications. (What is a loan but a social contract, a promise to pay an amount the person does not currently have. And if payment isn’t made, a family may become homeless, one’s status diminished.)

Change is stressful, not simply because we must adapt to something new. When we acquire a new telephone number, for example, and need to put it in memory–in the form of neuronal connections or the magnetic state of a computer chip–it is the potential social ramifications that most rile our emotions. Could the change in telephone number disrupt ongoing relationships?

Back to the Holmes and Rahe Stress Scale. Of the stressors listed, at least a dozen pertain to changes not to one’s self, but to their social group . . . a close friend becoming ill, a spouse starting work, a child leaving home, etc.

To keep calm our inner waters, having tranquil social seas is of huge importance. What can a group do to achieve order and encourage conformity to it?

Order in My Court

“The clearer the hierarchy, the less need for reinforcement. In chimpanzees, a stable hierarchy eliminates tensions so that confrontations become rare: subordinates avoid conflict and higher-ups have no reason to seek it. Everybody is better off.”(23)

Primates are generally interested in moving up, in improving their social status. Why? Power and access to resources. Without something enforcing the current social order there will be change. And with change comes stress. In chimpanzee groups, when the hierarchy is in flux, aggressive acts are much more likely. Richard Wrangham has referred to episodes of potential leadership changes in a chimpanzee group “election time.”(24) As a bald speculation, it seems to me that human leaders become more nasty during election time as well. Moving up or down is at stake and they “go negative” to inflict as much damage as possible on their opposition. Networks of alliances, real and vicarious, tend to join the fracas, if not merely encourage it. Is it possible that political life in the U.S. is becoming dirtier in part because the election cycles are so frequent and long?

I am certainly not the first to suggest that religions have served as political organs. And while it is true that religious thought and behavior has likely helped foment a number of revolutions, and thus seem anti-order, even in these circumstances there must be some sort of order within a multi-player uprising for it to succeed. That said, more often than not, I propose, religion serves to prevent social change. As Walter Burkert put it in Creation of the Sacred,

“[T]he gods are the most persistent guarantors of order, the forceful regulators.” (25)

A social group consist of a network of relationships. Waves of unrest in one area will ripple out to others. As Roger Gould put it in his book, Collision of Wills: How Ambiguity About Social Rank Breeds Conflict -

“Shifts in the political order, including not only revolts and coups but reformulations of the polity undertaken by legal means, set in motion further shifts that in many instances lead to conflict in previously stable configurations of social relations.”(26)

In Sunday School as a youth I learned “The Lord’s Prayer.” Consider it’s implicit message:

Our Father who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us,
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom,
and the power, and the glory,
for ever and ever.
Amen.

This key Christian prayer reflects several concerns of social primates in general. Most obviously, 1) having a strong leader at the top, without threat to his reign, 2) maintaining group harmony (while awaiting his heavenly–unchanging–kingdom). Of course, in the days before vast and reliable food networks, assurance of “daily bread” was also a central concern.

Social stability. Blessed personal tranquility. One of the primary purposes and uses of religion is to cultivate these. If social chaos feels like stumbling through a humid jungle, ruckus all around, religious order is a monastery garden, quiet and well-kept. In the least, when feeling your social life is a sweaty jungle, prayer to a god and the perception of a personal relationship with him, can seem a visit to sunny mountaintop. Ah. Just you and Father Graybeard, replete with serenity and the promise of more.

—

(20) Wright, R., The Moral Animal: Evolutionary Psychology and Everyday Life, Vintage, NY, 1995, p. 252
(21) de Waal, F. Peacemaking Among Primates, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989, p. 38
(22) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holmes_and_Rahe_stress_scale
(23) Wrangham, R. & Peterson, D. Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence, Houghton Mifflin, NY, 1996, p.186
(24) de Waal, F. Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are, New York, Riverhead Books, 2005, p. 60
(25) Burkert, W., Creation of the Sacred: Tracks of Biology in Early Religions, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996, p.33
(26) Gould, R. V. Collision of Wills: How Ambiguity About Social Rank Breeds Conflict, University of Chicago, Chicago, 2003, p. 164

But a man who commits adultery has no sense; whoever does so destroys himself. Blows and disgrace are his lot, and his shame will never be wiped away. (Proverbs 6:32-33)

“God grant me the strength.” As a greater power watching over you, an almighty alpha can provide you with a reminder to behave in line with your pro-social desires (vs. pro-selfish desires). In the least. At best, if you truly believe in this agent, you would want to work for its approval. This is in the interest of the social self, not the impulsive, selfish self. The social self wants to get along with others, to make reliable connections, to perhaps “move up” in the world, and to prevent movement downward. If being close to an alpha is relative heaven, being grouped with the social dregs –that’s hell.

Of course, primates do have selfish interests. For evolutionary reasons they must. The primate that never pursues what it desires doesn’t mate, doesn’t eat well, doesn’t assure its own survival and thriving.

One of the main messages of the Bible could be phrased as, “Control your impulses so you can live peacefully as one of my mine–my group, my following of social animals. Who says? The most high alpha. One who has reigned for ages and will continue to lord over you. So be good. As the alpha in heaven wants it. (And the group collectively here on earth does. But perhaps that second message is too complex to make for a persuasive argument.)

What selfish impulses can wreck group harmony so must be held in check? Not coincidently, highest on the list are those that reflect attaining and protecting desired resources. For a primate these generally are: mates, food, territory, and status through the relationships/alliances it relies upon.

The biggie, naturally, is sex. No sex, no getting your genes into the next generation. While a human primate may not consciously prize sexuality and the procreation it assures, the impulse is there, whether or not they want it. Happily married men with a house full of children will still notice a sexy “MILF.” As will the eyes of wives be caught by other men. Even those who have taken vows of celibacy and distanced themselves from the strongest sexual cues and temptations still experience urges. What to do?

Many a reader of it has noticed just how much sex talk there is in the Bible. Numerous verses concern not simple sex between “unhitched” adults, but adultery. Why? A mate is a valued resource: the mother/father of one’s present and future offspring. Primates will protect this resource. If an individual perceives it is under threat, watch out! Ripples of conflict may rock the whole community.

As so we have Bible teaches like this:

Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you. (Genesis 3:16)

In fact, chapter 7 of Proverbs bears this title: Warning Against the Adulterous Woman.

Yes, this decree reflects a sexist attitude. It is a reminder that the books of the Bible were written by men.(16) From a coupled male’s perspective, his own impulses to stray pose no threat to his reproductive success. On the contrary. Of course, the enlightened male recognizes that these impulses may pose a threat to his group life. But the sexual impulses of your mate? Now that is a threat to one’s own reproductive success. And so the focus on adultery and the evil urges of those sexy wives.(17)

That said, in the Bible there is sporadic recognition that one man can threaten the mated state of another.

So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate. (Matthew 18:6)

Other important resources for primates include food, territory and status.

As for food, I find it curious that the story of Cain and Able has this unstated message: meat is prized over vegetable foods.

Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD. And Abel also brought an offering-fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast. (Genesis 4:2-5)

Just last night, in an autobiography about raising a chimp, I read how the chimp prized red meat above other foods and would stuff her mouth given the opportunity.(18) This reflects other observations of chimps in the wild.

In our contemporary times of plenty (in vast regions of the globe), it is difficult for modern folk to relate to the issue of impulse control as it pertains to food and social harmony. We have stocked supermarkets and food stamp programs for the needy. But that wasn’t always the case. And there are still places in the world in which livestock are currency; they are the equivalent of a bank account and cash.

Whoever steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it must pay back five head of cattle for the ox and four sheep for the sheep. (Exodus 22:1)

“Don’t take what is not yours!”

In terms of territoriality, there is far more material in the Bible about a group’s territory than about an individual’s territory. But there are a few mentions, such as:

Do not move your neighbor’s boundary stone. (Deuteronomy 19:14)

Lastly, we have the realm of status/rank. This might be considered a meta-resource, for it can enable or disable access to other resources. But like paper money, it is treated very seriously. Status can buy you things. With little of it, you are relatively poor.

An individual’s status consists of its relations with others. It is maintained by the ongoing behavior of group members — as it is threatened by behaviors of another sort. Like dishonesty and deceit. So do not tell lies, do not deceive others; instead, behave lawfully and righteously, treat others with respect. Though you might personally benefit from “coloring outside the lines,” this will disrupt group harmony.

The LORD rewards everyone for their righteousness and faithfulness. (1 Samuel 26:23)

Do not steal. Do not lie. Do not deceive one another. (Leviticus 19:11)

For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ (Matthew 15:4)

To assure group harmony, maintain the current order. Accept your status, and manifest that acceptance in your behavior.

No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. (Luke 16:13)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. (Ephesians 6:5)

For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. (Ephesians 5:23)

“Don’t rock the social boat!”

One of primary teachings of the Bible is the importance of fearing the overlord, the alpha.

Fear the LORD your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name. (Deuteronomy 6:13)

Can fear inhibit socially disruptive impulses? I am reminded of my high school years. The best-behaved class I experienced was that taught by a petty tyrant. My history instructor, probably not coincidently the coach of the football team, spent most classes calmly teaching. But he had a reputation. If provoked, he would explode in a fear-inspiring display (he would likely get sued today for the emotional abuse of students). Students in that class resisted the temptation to gossip, to spend too much time looking out the window, to slouch in their chairs. If caught, there could be hell to pay. Fear of the teacher kept students on their best behavior.

In terms of impulse control, a fear of unpleasant consequences could be called “the stick.”

When they first lived there, they did not worship the LORD; so he sent lions among them and they killed some of the people. (2 Kings 17:25)

But sometimes impulse control can be achieved via “the carrot.”(19) A classic psychological experiment had children informed that if they refrained from eating the sweet treat when left alone for 15 minutes, they would receive more when the time was up.

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?” He answered: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
(Luke 10:25-28)

Do not behave badly, treat others well. Do this and the group will achieve its most heavenly state. On earth.

—

(16) While two of the books in the bear the names of women–Ruth and Esther–the authors of these were very likely male.
(17) For more on this topic, see my chapter, “Sexual Primacy, Sexual Jealousy.”
(18) Smith, V., A Chimp in the Family: The True Story of Two Infants–One Human, One Chimpanzee–Growing Up Together, Da Capo Press, 2004.
(19) For more on the carrot/stick topic, see The Risks and Benefits of Following or Not, and From Threatening God to Charismatic God.

“The ancient Egyptians believed that the stability of the created world had to be carefully preserved through the upholding of their deities–for it was the care and sustenance of the gods and the maintenance of cosmic balance which kept chaos and non-being from encroaching upon and overwhelming the world.” – Richard H. Wilkinson (8)

“When [the chimpanzee hierarchy] is at its most stable, overall levels of aggression are likely to be low.” – Jane Goodall (9)

Why is anarchy–chaos of the social sort–so stressful? In a (non-)state of anarchy, it is true that stronger individuals can and do take advantage of weaker without recourse. Yet even near equality between individuals can foster uncertainty. Among baboons, males will engage in “wahoo contests.” Think gorilla chest-thumping, but of the vocal variety. These contests are more likely when the males are not less-equal, but more; their rank is confused. (10) In a book chapter tellingly titled, “Conflict as Negotiation,” Frans de Waal notes that “peaceful coexistence among male chimpanzees depends on a formal clarification of their dominance relationship.”(11) A big part of the primate’s social toolkit is the awareness of relative rank, as well as methods of establishing and maintaining it. A dominant chimpanzee male will, for example, give a subordinate a brief touch of reassurance when first formally “asked.” An open palm is extended and it is stroked. Thus rank is recognized as resolved, behavior more predictable than if it weren’t. Historically, in the court of human dominants, there have been plenty of such reassuring gestures.(12) The subordinate bows, the dominant extending his ring hand to be kissed. This formal ritual is not an empty one; it maintains rank.

Anarchy and Impulse Control

Human beings are born into this world with a rudimentary emotional toolkit. An infant cries and its mother responds. An emotional expression is followed by a social effect–a perfect example of how the social and emotional are intertwined. As individuals grow and age, their toolkit expands. Around the age of 3, the child’s sense of self sufficiently formed, the individual develops what are known as the “social emotions” (is if the others were fully individual!). These include shame and guilt, embarrassment, humiliation, pride and jealousy. What are these emotions for? They help an individual function within a social group. They foster group cooperation and conformity (13)–for the good of the group, which is generally good for the individual.

Guilt and shame can be a good thing? Sure, for the group. Even good for the individual when, say, they help correct behavior after-the fact, or before-the-fact as a threat of bad feelings to follow. The stereotypical Jewish mother brandishes guilt like a master swordsman. Reformed Catholics speak of the shame that permeated the explicit and implicit teachings of their church. Christians are said to be guilty from the get-go, for they enter this world saddled with original sin. Bad Christians! What are you going to do to redeem yourself?

In religions we find teachings aimed at governing socially dangerous emotions. For example, the 16th chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, titled, “The Divine and Demoniac Natures,” lists arrogance, pride, anger, conceit, harshness and ignorance as qualities of a demonic nature.(14) Might we differentiate the divine and the demonic as that which inspires pro- group structure and harmony and that which runs counter to our ideas of these?

Even today in relatively educated America you will hear preachers and believers talk about sinful urges and the devil within. Whether or not these potentially social-group-disturbing forces are personified or not, religion aims to help control them.(15) And whether or not the “accepting a higher power” element works—core to AA and other groups centered around assisting with impulse-control (as it relates to alcohol, drugs, gambling, sex)—in the very least the public identification of undesirable behavior likely promotes specific values and makes group members less likely to express acceptance of them.

Believe in Our Lord and you shall be a better person. You will be less likely to engage in behavior our group has identified as bad. The deity of the Bible had his Ten Commandments; the Buddha included proscriptions such as these in his Eightfold Path to enlightenment: right intention, right speech, right action. Yahweh said, don’t do these, the Buddha, focus on these. Meanwhile, in the following verse of the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna summed up what one Our Lord promises to do:

I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear. (18:66)

Perhaps it is reasonable to translate “sinful reaction” as “socially problematic behavior.”

Primary among human “sinful reaction” (demonic impulses) are those involving the sex drive. The human sex drive is very strong. It can be a home-wrecker, a disruptor of community tranquility. On the national level, it nearly caused a U.S. President to be impeached. It is no surprise that so much religious mythology, dogma and preaching, advise the control of it, if not outright command it. Such as 3:43 in the Bhagavad Gita and 5:28 the Gospel of Matthew:

Thus knowing oneself to be transcendental to material senses, mind and intelligence, one should control the lower self by the higher self and thus–by spiritual strength–conquer this insatiable enemy known as lust.

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Lust, the insatiable enemy. How to control it? Make control a priority to the group. An individual on his/her own is more likely to struggle. But if the individual knows that the group considers it bad, the social emotions of shame and guilt, etc., can help counteract these impulses. Let’s see, if I have sex with him/her, it will feel good. But then I may experience social shame and rejection, or even be severely punished. I may experience guilt for upsetting my family, and that will feel bad.

During the course of their first half-dozen years, children develop self-control, with some degree of success. They progress from “situational compliance” to “committed compliance.” Meaning that they go from not stealing a cookie when they are being watched to not stealing when they aren’t. For those with poor control, and/or very strong impulses, having an imaginary set of eyes above, always monitoring their behavior, might tip the scales of motivation toward the better, on occasion. Maybe those watchful eyes are of the compound variety, consisting of a collection of the eyes of one’s community. Does this strategy work? Not always, that is for certain. Consider sexual abuse crimes by clergy members. Even though they believed they were being watched by their almighty alpha above, within their equally invisible souls lurked a devil . . . ish impulse they were unable to control.

—

(8) Wilkinson, R.H., The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt; Thames & Hudson, NY, 2003, p. 40
(9) Goodall, J. The Chimpanzees of the Gombe: Patterns of Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986, p. 410
(10) Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. Baboon Metaphysics: The Evolution of a Social Mind, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2007, p.54
(11) de Waal, F. B. M., “Conflict as negotiation,” in McGrew, W. C. , Marchant, L. F. & Nishida, T., Great Ape Societies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1996, p.166
(12) Trexler, R. C. (ed.) Gender Rhetorics: Postures of Dominance and Submission in History. Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies, Binghamton, NY, 1994, p.21
(13) Ford, M.E., Motivating Humans: Goals, Emotions, And Personal Agency Beliefs, Sage, 1992, p.150
(14) Prabhupada, A.C. Bhaktivedanta, Bhagavad Gita As It Is, Collier Books, NY, 1972, 16:4
(15) The Buddhist supernatural agent, M?ra comes to mind. According to the entry at Wikipedia, “M?ra is the demon that tempted Gautama Buddha by trying to seduce him with the vision of beautiful women who, in various legends, are often said to be Mara’s daughters. In Buddhist cosmology, Mara personifies unskillfulness, the “death” of the spiritual life. He is a tempter, distracting humans from practicing the spiritual life by making the mundane alluring or the negative seem positive.” In other words, M?ra tests and wrecks an individual’s self-control. Which runs counter to the spiritual life.

My God is my rock, in whom I take refuge. (2 Samuel 22:3)

“Stable social relationships provide the basic condition that the members of a flock will live in a relatively stress-free environment. To remove a sheep or to introduce a strange sheep into a flock is not a good idea because it will destabilize or disrupt dominance-subordination relationships leading to rank determining aggressive conflicts.” (2)

Human beings are emotional creatures. We can be excited by all sorts of events, in welcome ways and unwelcome. From natural calamities that shake our world to subtle social nuances — we not only perceives these, be are affected by them. Emotionally.

In our modern, metropolitan, multicultural populations, the event of encountering a stranger, or group of them, is usually not a reason to get too excited. We see people unknown to us all the time: on television, in the supermarket, commenting on a friend’s Facebook entry, etc. But years ago, or among people living in isolated villages and tribes, that wasn’t the case.

Imagine you are relaxing in your living room, and from the far bedroom of your house comes a person you have never seen before. This person looks different than people you are familiar with — in dress, perhaps skin tone, maybe mannerisms as well. When passing behind you the person says something you don’t understand, for the person speaks a different language. The stranger disappears into your kitchen.

That would likely be an exciting experience. Uncertainty has been provoked in you. Who is this person? I was not expecting that! What will this person do?

Fortunately for our emotional homeostasis, when among those familiar to us we know what to expect. Pretty much. Yet there is still the potential for excitement, for strong emotions to be provoked. Personalities and priorities will clash, even among loved ones.

In the section (chapter) following this one we will be looking at what a god can do about group outsiders — those people we don’t know and are uncertain as to whether we can trust. Are they enemies, will they oppose us or simply compete with us for valued resources? Outsiders can pose a large and looming threat to one’s own group and it’s thriving.

But here we are going to examine what an invisible alpha (in the form of shared thoughts about) can do for a group. Could belief in a god help group members cope with threats from within?

In the above quote about sheep, from a website about how to best keep healthy flocks of them for research, we see that although sheep aren’t primates, they are warm-blooded, emotional mammals. Social animals. While some animals have relatively simple social lives, and the spare “social-behavior toolkit” and more limited emotional repertoire that comes with it, other animals have complex social lives. In fact, there is a growing body of research that links big-brained intelligence with emotion. In terms of evolution, emotion never gets left behind by intelligence. On the contrary. One article, for example, explores the possibility that apes’ cognitive excellence can be explained by their ability to entertain not only “What now?” thoughts/feelings, but also “What if?” thoughts and feelings. (3) And not in a coldly logical way, in a naturally selfish, personal way.

Grossly speculating here, one might attribute some of the dynamic nature of primate social groups to this “what if” element. Even in times of seeming stasis, roiling beneath the surface are machinations for protecting and improving one’s position in the group. Individuals are vigilant about the small events they experience and witness and what they could mean. “What if”s can include hunches about the hidden intentions of others and the personal options one might have. They can also include anticipated changes to one’s access to valued resources. “What if the female I have my eye on starts paying more attention to another male? What if some group members get to the feast ahead of me and most of the good stuff is gone before I can have some?”

Of course, the “what if” is merely a verbal tag we are using to refer to a whole slew of nonverbal experiences and processes. Fundamental among those of hierarchically-oriented species is the protection of one’s status and the seemingly ceaseless aspiration to improve it. (There is likely quite a bit of individual variation in how strongly one aspires to move up, as well as variation in the environmental conditions that foment or dampen the instinct.)

Periods of change are the norm for primate social groups. Individuals become ill and die. Newborns join the group. Outsiders move in, previous members move out. Change is stressful.

In the book, Baboon Metaphysics: The Evolution of a Social Mind, authors Cheney and Seyfarth share an illustrative finding. “Rank upheavals” will cause ripples throughout the group, with the individuals directly involved showing the most stress. Yet even those “potentially affected” (those in a “what if” condition?) were measured as having significant increases in their levels of stress hormones. (4) A more socially and emotionally placid group typically has, “one clearly dominant alpha male and few rising natal or immigrant males.” Social stability and control equate to less stress. (5) Add to this the well-established connection between stress and impulsivity in the psychological literature, and we can see how stress can further propagate within a group. More impulsive individuals behave less predictably than less-impulsive. And that is stressful to others.

Primatologist Allison Jolly concurs:

“The lowest basal stress hormones are found in dominant baboons during stable periods of the social structure, and especially if the male is relatively socially suave, responding with threat or aggression only when truly threatened himself. Unstable dominance relations, or a personal style of flying off the handle, plays hob with baboon stress hormones.” (6)

We can now see how group members would desire “stability at the top” — a clear alpha with a long history and predicted continual reign, one who is in control and under little stress. That’s the optimal group leader. Belief in a most high alpha who can become disturbed by his group’s behavior, and then himself act more unpredictably — this is the projection of primate mind.

In group stability and relative tranquility we find reasons why low-ranking group members would seek and welcome a strong alpha in their lives.

Some people may entertain thoughts that a purely egalitarian society would offer a solution to the seemingly unending potential for rank scuffles among groups of human primates. But, as explored in Chapter13 of this project, “The Egalitarian Ape: All for All and None for One,” equality is not the default state of our species. In a sense, it must be imposed: by group will — monitored and enforced by a majority of individuals — or imposed by an overriding agent or agency and a number of enforcers. And, as I have previously noted, while equality may settle disputes of rank, it does no such thing for conflicts over limited resources. Not every resource can be split evenly, and when there is conflict, violence is actually more likely to break out among near equals than among those with clearly disparate status.

It seems there is no social structure that can prevent all forms and degrees of upheaval.

In a social hierarchy every individual can feel stress. At the bottom you’ve got harassment from above and little control over desired resources. In the middle you’ve got twice the potential for conflict. The direction you can move in rank is twofold. At the top, sure, you’ve got great control over resources and the best access, but you’ve also got the biggest target on your back. You must watch for and prevent unrest and revolution in your ranks. For when the base of a structure is unstable, stress works its way upward.

What to do? Is there a tool that an individual in any social position might use to decrease social unrest and help cope with stress?

He is a shield for all who take refuge in him. (2 Samuel 22:31)

Genius! An invisible alpha is capable of being everyone’s ally, providing that alpha is shared. (So no personal names for your alpha. Call it something generic and speak of it in those terms. At least when being socially inclusive.)

How might an imagined alliance with an invisible alpha provide benefits to all group members? Under the watchful eyes of a strong, unquestioned leader, individuals are less likely to pick fights with one another, more likely to peacefully coexist. The perceived alliance to “a greater” can provide a sense of social stability and support and the emotional comfort that comes with it. At the bottom, you are not alone. You too belong, via a shared relationship. Closer to the top, you’ve got a relationship with a yet more powerful agent, which will help anchor your position.

But a shared-by-all invisible alpha is still imaginary. One might ask, How, really, could it work? Consider a god a placebo. By nature this god is inert. But that doesn’t matter, so long as people believe in it. Their expectations will generate real effects. Thoughts and emotions pertinent to the real world can be extended to the imaginary.

As many psychological studies have demonstrated, a mere change in perception — call it “belief” — has real consequences for the individual.

In the real world, an alliance with a more powerful ally will increase your status and decrease your stress. No matter your position. Someone special “has your back.” With a powerful ally you are less likely to be harassed and stressed. You are socially supported. Even among the more despotic primates, such as the chimpanzee, alphas will comfort and calm group members. It is in their interest. Consider this anecdote -

“Often, too, if Goliath became agitated . . . [the alpha] David would reach out and touch or stroke him, which calmed the nervous, aggressive male.” (7)

Some dominants actually can quell and prevent conflict within the group of lessers they lord over. They can bring peace.

In the New Testament, Jesus reached out to and provided comfort for the lessers of the time.

He will reply, “I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.” Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. (Matthew 25:45-46)

Even omegas had a place in his group — the social outcasts — and were not to be abused. All were to be held accountable for their behavior, whatever their status. What a comforting thought!

In the least, what religions frequently aim to do is to prevent anarchy in the outside world and to foster a more comforting worldview for the inner.

Jesus Calms the Storm

Then he got into the boat and his disciples followed him. Suddenly a furious storm came up on the lake, so that the waves swept over the boat. But Jesus was sleeping. The disciples went and woke him, saying, “Lord, save us! We’re going to drown!” He replied, “You of little faith, why are you so afraid?” Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the waves, and it was completely calm. The men were amazed and asked, “What kind of man is this? Even the winds and the waves obey him!” (Matthew 8:23-27)

—

(2) http://labanimals.awionline.org/pubs/cq02/Cq-sheep.html, Comfortable Quarters for Sheep in Research Institutions, Comfortable Quarters for Sheep in Research Institutions, by Viktor Reinhardt and Annie Reinhardt
(3) Barrett, L., Henzi, P., and Dunbar, R., “Primate Cognition: from ‘what now?’ to ‘what if?’”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Volume 7, Issue 11, November 2003, Pages 494-497
(4) Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. Baboon Metaphysics: The Evolution of a Social Mind, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2007, p. 71
(5) Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M., 2007, p. 56
(6) Jolly, A. Lucy’s Legacy, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999, p. 171
(7) Power, M. The Egalitarians: Human and Chimpanzee, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991, p.164

Like all primates, human beings are social creatures. We have social needs; we have emotional needs (the two are intertwined, if not different sides to the same coin). Sure, we are individuals and, particularly to those of us from western cultures, tend to focus on the person and a POV of an individual agent. Yet working behind the scenes, perhaps even outright determining them, are our social instincts.

The online write-up of a recent study on social acceptance and rejection began with these words -

For proof that rejection, exclusion, and acceptance are central to our lives, look no farther than the living room, says Nathan Dewall, a psychologist at the University of Kentucky. “If you turn on the television set, and watch any reality TV program, most of them are about rejection and acceptance,” he says. The reason, DeWall says, is that acceptance—in romantic relationships, from friends, even from strangers—is absolutely fundamental to humans.(1)

I would bet that the more TV programming than those of “reality” sort have a primary subtext of rejection and acceptance. For example, my interest in football is not about pure score, sterile numbers and faceless feats of athleticism, but about the meaning of scores, the who of the feats. Fandom is about team victories, team losses. My team. My vicarious social group.

But yes, when my wife watches “make-over” reality shows — those worse-before and better-after narratives about self-improvement via fashion, weight loss, home landscaping, you name it — they invariable involve impressing others as an essential element. “So-and-so won’t believe how gorgeous you look!” “Won’t this be a great place to invite friends over for a bar-b-que!”

Our myopic focus on the individual extends to religion. We talk about a god answering individual prayers, about a dogma and worldview that provides comforting answers on an individual level to those asking big questions, about the ability of religious thought to put a positive spin on any undesirable turn of events. True, these are benefits felt at the individual level. Yet there is more to religion than that, as there is more to human beings than individual, isolated needs. In the upcoming posts for this project/category, I will be presenting some of the ways the belief in an almighty alpha can benefit the individual by way of the social group(s) to which he or she belongs. Or, changing focus, we might say that belief in an almighty alpha can benefit a group and thus the individual group members.

In particular, I will be making these three points:

1) Social Stress equals emotional stress. To the degree that belief in a god can be perceived to quell and prevent social upheaval, it will be welcomed as a good thing.

2) Anarchy — the state of population lacking order — causes uncertainty and anxiety. It makes a group a non-group, a dysfunctional collection of individuals. That religions seem to advocate for and maintain a social order reflects the human interest in clearly defined roles and predictable behavior.

3. A primate’s social status and aspirations are dynamic, not static. Like chimpanzees and other primate species, a human’s social status is continually in flux. Abilities change, relationships become stronger or weaker. Individuals remain acutely attuned to perceived changes in social acceptance and rejection. (If you “like” this, please hit that icon . . . oops, that’s Facebook. I mean, comment with your approval.) By creating and following an unchanging most high alpha, a religious social group attempts to attenuate the influence of social aspirations.

Stay tuned . . .

—

(1) Social Acceptance and Rejection: The Sweet and the Bitter, http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/social-acceptance-and-rejection-the-sweet-and-the-bitter.html