In this blog post, we will look at whether human religiosity is an instinct imprinted in our genes or a meme created in culture.
When people are asked what distinguishes humans from other animals, they usually cite intelligence, tool use, creativity, and religion. Intelligence and creativity come from a large and developed brain, and tool use comes from the freedom of both hands gained through bipedal walking. All of the above are biological features that humans have acquired through evolution. So, what about religiosity? Can it be said that human religiosity is also a product of evolution? It is believed to be a product of evolution in many ways, including the fact that religiosity is one of the things that distinguishes humans from other animals and that it helps humans survive. However, it is not clear whether religiosity is directly written in genes or is an indirect product of genes, and this is still a subject of debate.
Scott Atran expressed his views on the origin of religion in his book In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion. Atran took the position that religiosity is not an element engraved in genes, but an indirect product created and maintained based on genetic nature. The important point here is that religion is indirectly influenced by human genes, but not directly determined by them. Atran argues that religion began as an effort to recognize and understand dilemmas such as huge problems that humans cannot solve or differences in moral ideas. Therefore, religion is a “endeavor” and not something inherent in genes, which is his main position.
On the grounds that religiosity is not directly expressed from genes, he cited the fact that religion is advantageous for the survival of groups but not for the survival of individuals, and that religion may have been selected and transformed by surviving humans, rather than being the result of survival of the fittest, because it made human survival more favorable.
First, let’s look at the doctrines of various religions and the actions of their followers. Looking at past religious practices in particular, we can see that religion is often unfavorable to survival. Atran pointed out the cases of American Indians cutting off their fingers for their dead warriors and the practice of sacrificing livestock or humans. Offering a livestock animal as a sacrifice is giving up food that is essential for survival, and cutting off a finger is damaging to an individual’s health. Not to mention the case of offering a human being as a sacrifice. Such religious practices clearly interfere with an individual’s survival, and therefore, they can be evidence that religion is not inherent in genes.
Next, let’s talk about the process of choosing a religion. It is not fair to say that human religiosity has survived the fittest because most successful civilizations in history were based on religion. Only the surviving civilizations think that they have been chosen by God, and the defeated civilizations lose their faith. Atran argues that religion has helped us survive and that survival of the fittest has led to the creation of religion, but it is difficult to believe that religion is inherent in the human genome because religion is sometimes created or chosen by humans. In other words, religion is more likely to exist outside of genes.
I agree with this claim by Atran. To add to his argument, the concept of a meme makes this claim easier to understand. A meme is a concept that cultural or social phenomena are copied and spread among humans like genes, and it is an evolutionary concept applied to cultural phenomena. The concept of memes sees cultural phenomena as spreading through learning and imitation from person to person and from thought to thought. If memes are understood like genes, the time during which an individual or group has a particular thought and the actions that follow are maintained can be said to be the generation cycle of a meme. In addition, memes spread through conversations between individuals or new thoughts and mutate like a virus. Compared to genes (especially human genes), meme generations are very short, the transmission speed is incredibly fast, and the mutation rate and generation frequency are also high. Because of these characteristics, the interpretation that religion is a meme seems to be the most suitable candidate for the “outside of genes” mentioned above, as it can explain the limitations of the gene origin theory while maintaining the existing evolutionary perspective.
It is easier to understand the relationship between memes and genes as a symbiotic relationship. Let’s take herbivores as an example to explain this. Herbivores do not produce enzymes that digest plants directly. These enzymes are produced by microorganisms that live symbiotically in the intestines of herbivores. Herbivores crush plants with their molars, creating an environment in the gut that is easy for microorganisms to live in, and the microorganisms provide the nutrients that herbivores need through enzymes. This symbiotic relationship also affects the genes of herbivores, causing them to evolve to have stronger and wider molars, longer intestines that are more suitable for microorganisms. The same is true of the relationship between religion and humans. The imagination and developed cognitive processes that humans possess make it easy for them to imagine abstract beings like gods. This has led to the creation of religion and its development into a form that helps humans survive.
I mentioned earlier that religion can be detrimental to an individual’s survival. Let’s assume that the religious gene was first expressed in a human being. However, belief in God does not provide much benefit to an individual. Even if religion develops into a level of prayer or ritual, it can be a hindrance to survival by wasting time and material resources. Of course, there are also benefits to religion, such as setting moral standards and uniting a group, when considering group living. However, considering that the average life expectancy in primitive societies was 40 years and that a generation lasted about 15 years, it would have been difficult for a group with religious genes to form naturally. These characteristics of individual loss and collective gain cannot be explained by genes.
Then, let’s interpret religion as a meme. Suppose a religious meme is first created by a human. Memes spread quickly through interactions between people. Thanks to its speed of propagation, a large group of people will share the meme before a generation of humans has even passed. Thanks to the quickly formed group, religion can provide collective benefits from the very beginning.
There is also a counterargument that religion is not completely useless for individual survival, so the genetic theory cannot be denied. Religion is a means of coping with problems that humans cannot understand, and it helps them survive. For example, when faced with disaster or psychological distress, faith in God reduces fear or psychological shock. This aspect of religion is believed to have been imprinted in the genes because it helps humans survive. However, this is not evidence that religion is directly imprinted in the genes. Memes are a part of human nature, which is rooted in our genes. Memes originate from human thought, which is derived from both genetic traits and acquired experiences. Even people who do not have a religion can respond to problems through interpretations such as bad luck, so this ability to respond is more a strength of the human cognitive mechanism than a strength of religion.
Finally, I would like to mention the study on the correlation between the VMAT2 gene and religious belief, which was discovered by Dr. Hammer. People tend to believe that religion is related to genes because Dr. Hammer claimed that he had examined the relationship between about 1,000 genes and religious belief, and found that the VMAT2 gene contributes to religious belief. However, based on Atran’s argument, the VMAT2 gene is only a determinant of certain thinking styles necessary for choosing a religion, but not a direct reason for having a religion. The cognitive characteristics of VMAT2 may be advantageous to people who generally believe in religion, but they are not the decisive factor in making them believe in religion.
Religion is not something that is selected or cultivated by genetic factors like VMAT2, but rather something that is akin to a meme that has arisen due to the differentiating factors of human society. Religion has developed through the interactions and experiences of people in a specific social context, and individual beliefs and behaviors play an important role in this process. This shows that religion is not simply determined by genetic factors.
In conclusion, it is more reasonable to understand religiosity as a meme that is created and maintained due to various factors that are beneficial to human survival. It is not something deeply imprinted in human genes, but rather a product of culture, and can be seen as originating from the human thought mechanism that has developed along with human history. Religion can contribute to survival and prosperity by providing answers to problems that humans face in common and by strengthening the sense of solidarity in the group.
The existence and evolutionary aspects of religion still require much discussion and research. The process of understanding how religion affects society and individual lives should be done through various academic approaches, including anthropology, psychology, and biology, which will allow us to gain a deeper understanding of the nature of human existence.
