In this blog post, I will explore in depth whether religion is a product of adaptation that emerged during the process of human evolution or a cultural trick to overcome existential limitations.
There are various religions in the world, including Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam, and the number of believers in these three religions alone is about 4.3 billion, accounting for 62% of the world’s population. Religion has thus been spread far and wide. What characteristics of religion have made this possible?
Before discussing this, I would like to define the concept of “adaptation” clearly. There are two main types of adaptation: evolutionary adaptation and social adaptation. Evolutionary adaptation is a concept that has a more essential meaning, in which genes change to adapt to the environment through a process called “natural selection.” On the other hand, social adaptation is an abstract concept in which the lifestyle of a human or a group changes to adapt to the social environment. In this article, we will discuss the concept of “adaptation” by limiting it to evolutionary adaptation.
The proposition that “religion is adaptation” is linked to the claim that “there is a gene that makes us choose religion, and that gene has been passed down through natural selection.” In fact, the latest cognitive science research suggests that religion and awareness of supernatural beings are the result of the combination of various cognitive and emotional mechanisms that have evolved through natural selection to perform daily tasks. On the other hand, there are also those who argue that religion is just a kind of “trick” to make up for the deficiencies that arose during the process of human evolution.
Brockman, the author of “Intelligent Thought,” belongs to the latter. He argues that religion is not an adaptation and that there is no gene that can explain it. In other words, the explanation that religion is an adaptation “designed” to perform specific tasks of our ancestors is not valid. He says that when people are faced with existential problems such as death or morality that they cannot solve, they turn to a transcendent being. In the case of moral judgment, what is right cannot be divided by scientific standards, but humans instinctively judge it to be right. To explain this, the introduction of a transcendent being is necessary, and the flourishing of religion is due to the fulfillment of our inner emotional thirst and the moral needs of society. Brokeman’s position is that religion is not an adaptive product passed down from generation to generation, but a trick to overcome existential limitations.
I agree with Brokman’s opinion and believe that religion is not an adaptation. Religion is a social phenomenon and cannot be explained by the scientific tool of adaptation. Scientifically, adaptation is closely related to reproduction. Organisms adapt to the environment to preserve and spread their genes. Therefore, the claim that religion is an adaptation must be supported by the argument that humans choose religion to benefit their reproduction. In other words, just as in the animal kingdom, the instinct of a mother protecting her young or avoiding the danger of a predator, religion should also be beneficial for the preservation of genes. Religion and genes seem to be unrelated at first glance, but since human survival is deeply connected to mental states, religion can be considered to be somewhat related to genes if it has a positive effect on mental states. The following are the positive functions that religion provides for human mental states.
First, religion becomes a liberator that allows humans to escape from their existential limitations. This is a valid logic even from the standpoint that religion is not an adaptation. The problems that almost all religions deal with are existential problems, and as mentioned earlier, the introduction of a transcendent being makes these problems solvable. For example, the concept of heaven in Christianity and paradise in Buddhism encourages believers to turn their fear of death into a positive state. Believers can be said to enjoy some kind of benefit compared to non-religious people who have a great fear of death.
Second, religion provides a tightly-knit community. In a rapidly civilized society after the Industrial Revolution, the sense of isolation has deepened, and many people have suffered from mental distress such as depression. Religion provides a shelter for these people, and believers share rituals and bond closely under a transcendent being. The culture of calling each other “brother” and “sister” in Christianity is an example of the function of religious communities. Going back to primitive society, primitive beliefs such as totemism were also the only means of uniting people into tribes.
Based on this function of religion, there is a certain correlation between religion and genetic preservation. However, it is difficult to explain the essence of religion based on these functions alone. This is because the origin of religion and the meaning of rituals cannot be explained. Some may argue that religion originated from a gene that was created by mutation. In other words, a religious gene occurred by chance, and its functions helped survival, which led to its spread to the present day. However, it cannot be overlooked that religion has occurred and spread in common throughout the world to explain religion as a mutant gene. It is illogical to explain religion as a mutant gene because the frequency of mutant genes cannot be that high. If there is a religious gene, it is likely that it was inevitably expressed by environmental factors. Attempts to link the function of religion as a gene and the origin of religion eventually fall into logical contradictions.
In the words of George Williams, a master of evolutionary biology, “We can only say that a trait is adaptive if we can demonstrate that it functions to produce that effect, that is, if we can show that the trait was designed by natural selection to increase the fitness of its ancestors.” In light of this, it is difficult to conclude that religion provides a function that is unique to religion. Therefore, it is even more illogical to consider religion as an adaptation.
It can also explain to some extent the fact that, assuming that there is a religious gene, the percentage of modern people who choose religion is about 80%. The strong cohesion of religious groups can also be interpreted as a temperament that religion has adapted to. In other words, the argument is that people who do not choose religion are left behind in natural selection, so the number of people who choose religion is increasing. However, in modern society, the number of second-generation non-religious people is increasing, which is a major weakness in the logic of explaining religion as a gene. This suggests that religion is simply a social phenomenon.
If religion is a social phenomenon, the ways in which it is spread can be divided into voluntary and involuntary methods. The voluntary method is when an individual chooses religion because they feel the need to do so, and the involuntary method is when an individual chooses religion due to external pressure. In addition, the fact that young children inherit the religion of their parents’ generation can also be seen as an involuntary method. Given that religion began as a kind of deception, these processes of propagation can all be considered part of the “deception.” This method of propagation may seem powerful and similar to adaptation, which is why the rapid spread of religion may seem like an adaptation.
For this explanation to be valid, the assumption that “religion is based on deception” must be made. Since prehistoric times, human society has suffered from existential problems. People in prehistoric times were frightened by unknown things like lightning and fire, and in modern society, people are frightened by problems like death. Religion is a release from these problems, but it is not a practical solution. Nevertheless, believers believe that religion solves problems. This is a kind of “trick” that people use to find comfort by considering something that they cannot understand as a transcendent being.
Atran also says that deception serves a cultural purpose, citing examples such as makeup and perfume, which become more diverse and used by more people as generations pass. Religious rituals also consider deception to be sacred, strengthening group cohesion. In fact, believers believe the stories in the scriptures to be true, but there is no way to prove it. In other words, religion is a concept without substance, and the benefits it provides are nothing more than something without substance. Philosopher Phil Zuckerman conducted in-depth interviews with citizens of Scandinavian countries and concluded that “the claim that society becomes more dangerous as religiosity weakens is wrong, and rather, a more moral and prosperous society can be created.” This makes it difficult to see religion as having the function of group cohesion. From this perspective, we can conclude that “religion is not an adaptation,” in the words of George Williams.
Many philosophers have studied for a long time whether religion is an adaptation, but the answer is still not clear. Neither of these claims is scientifically proven, and I believe this question is connected to the real issue of religion: “Does God exist?” The reason we cannot give a definite answer to this question is that the answer to the origin of religion is still unclear. Nevertheless, I argue that the claim that “religion is not an adaptation” is more convincing than “religion is an adaptation” based on this discussion.
