I was pleasantly surprised to find this article on the “God Gene”. I have never heard this theory from anyone else before. Just yesterday I was sharing an idea I had about religion. In any beginning level anthropology course you learn about what exactly ‘culture’ is. One of the many similarities between all cultures is religion. I was speaking about a time in an anthropology course when I got into a debate with another woman about whether human behavior is more biologically based or culturally based. My point of view is that we are biological creatures first and foremost, but that our secondary trait of a big brain (and the ability to reason) has allowed us to create culture for the well being of the group as a whole. This is by no means a scientific estimate, but I’d put biological based factors to count for at least 60% of our behavior and culturally based factors around 40%. My argument therefore is that if we are biological creatures, and cultures all around the world that have been completely isolated for thousands of years have very similar aspects of culture, doesn’t it make sense that perhaps all those aspects of culture (like religion) would be pushed into creation by biological drivers? I have said in a previous post that I think religion is an innate sense. Perhaps religion is biologically driven after all.
Nicholas Wade, a science reporter for The New York Times (the writer of the article below), is the author of The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and Why It Endures. Based on the article below I think I’d be interested in his book.
The Evolution of the God Gene
IN the Oaxaca Valley of Mexico, the archaeologists Joyce Marcus and Kent Flannery have gained a remarkable insight into the origin of religion.
During 15 years of excavation they have uncovered not some monumental temple but evidence of a critical transition in religious behavior. The record begins with a simple dancing floor, the arena for the communal religious dances held by hunter-gatherers in about 7,000 B.C. It moves to the ancestor-cult shrines that appeared after the beginning of corn-based agriculture around 1,500 B.C., and ends in A.D. 30 with the sophisticated, astronomically oriented temples of an early archaic state.
I’d like to just clarify that the research by Joyce Marcus and Kent Flannery only refers to the coevolution of ritual and society. It mentions that religion is universal, however, does not discuss this “God Gene”. Here is a sample of the original 2004 study “The coevolution of ritual and society: New 14C dates from ancient Mexico”
“Religious ritual is one of the universals of human behavior. No society, ancient or modern, is known to have been without it. The nature of ancient ritual, however, could be vastly different depending on whether the society was a band of hunter-gatherers, an agricultural village with multiple descent groups, or an archaic state with nobles, priests, and commoners. We assume that ritual evolved with social complexity, but we need long, accurately dated cultural sequences to clarify the steps involved.
Our data suggest the following model for the coevolution of ritual and society. The nomadic annual cycle of the Archaic selected for the flexibility of ad hoc ritual, allowing dances, initiations, and courtship to take place whenever the largest group coresided. Once permanent villages were established, solar and astral events could be used to schedule key rituals. Two calendars were in use by 2450 B.P.; both are probably much older.
The first men’s houses served small descent groups excluding only the uninitiated. With emerging social inequality, men’s houses gave way to temples, the more exclusionary rituals of which were controlled by part-time specialists. The increasingly sacred nature of temple activity led to rituals of sanctification, dedicatory offerings, and escalations in bloodletting and human sacrifice.
With the rise of the state, full-time priests (often drawn from the noble stratum) began to live in the temple, creating the need for a second room. Key temples were razed and rebuilt periodically, perhaps on important calendric anniversaries.
14C dates suggest that in Oaxaca only 1,300–1,400 years elapsed between the first men’s house and the first two-room state temple. What we need now are comparable dated sequences from other world regions, allowing us to evaluate the model’s wider applicability.”
“This and other research is pointing to a new perspective on religion, one that seeks to explain why religious behavior has occurred in societies at every stage of development and in every region of the world. Religion has the hallmarks of an evolved behavior, meaning that it exists because it was favored by natural selection. It is universal because it was wired into our neural circuitry before the ancestral human population dispersed from its African homeland.
For atheists, it is not a particularly welcome thought that religion evolved because it conferred essential benefits on early human societies and their successors. If religion is a lifebelt, it is hard to portray it as useless.
For believers, it may seem threatening to think that the mind has been shaped to believe in gods, since the actual existence of the divine may then seem less likely.
But the evolutionary perspective on religion does not necessarily threaten the central position of either side. That religious behavior was favored by natural selection neither proves nor disproves the existence of gods. For believers, if one accepts that evolution has shaped the human body, why not the mind too? What evolution has done is to endow people with a genetic predisposition to learn the religion of their community, just as they are predisposed to learn its language. With both religion and language, it is culture, not genetics, that then supplies the content of what is learned.
It is easier to see from hunter-gatherer societies how religion may have conferred compelling advantages in the struggle for survival. Their rituals emphasize not theology but intense communal dancing that may last through the night. The sustained rhythmic movement induces strong feelings of exaltation and emotional commitment to the group. Rituals also resolve quarrels and patch up the social fabric.
The ancestral human population of 50,000 years ago, to judge from living hunter-gatherers, would have lived in small, egalitarian groups without chiefs or headmen. Religion served them as an invisible government. It bound people together, committing them to put their community’s needs ahead of their own self-interest. For fear of divine punishment, people followed rules of self-restraint toward members of the community. Religion also emboldened them to give their lives in battle against outsiders. Groups fortified by religious belief would have prevailed over those that lacked it, and genes that prompted the mind toward ritual would eventually have become universal.
In natural selection, it is genes that enable their owners to leave more surviving progeny that become more common. The idea that natural selection can favor groups, instead of acting directly on individuals, is highly controversial. Though Darwin proposed the idea, the traditional view among biologists is that selection on individuals would stamp out altruistic behavior (the altruists who spent time helping others would leave fewer children of their own) far faster than group-level selection could favor it.
But group selection has recently gained two powerful champions, the biologists David Sloan Wilson and Edward O. Wilson, who argued that two special circumstances in recent human evolution would have given group selection much more of an edge than usual. One is the highly egalitarian nature of hunter-gatherer societies, which makes everyone behave alike and gives individual altruists a better chance of passing on their genes. The other is intense warfare between groups, which enhances group-level selection in favor of community-benefiting behaviors such as altruism and religion.
A propensity to learn the religion of one’s community became so firmly implanted in the human neural circuitry, according to this new view, that religion was retained when hunter-gatherers, starting from 15,000 years ago, began to settle in fixed communities. In the larger, hierarchical societies made possible by settled living, rulers co-opted religion as their source of authority. Roman emperors made themselves chief priest or even a living god, though most had the taste to wait till after death for deification. “Drat, I think I’m becoming a god!” Vespasian joked on his deathbed.
Religion was also harnessed to vital practical tasks such as agriculture, which in the first societies to practice it required quite unaccustomed forms of labor and organization. Many religions bear traces of the spring and autumn festivals that helped get crops planted and harvested at the right time. Passover once marked the beginning of the barley festival; Easter, linked to the date of Passover, is a spring festival.
Could the evolutionary perspective on religion become the basis for some kind of detente between religion and science? Biologists and many atheists have a lot of respect for evolution and its workings, and if they regarded religious behavior as an evolved instinct they might see religion more favorably, or at least recognize its constructive roles. Religion is often blamed for its spectacular excesses, whether in promoting persecution or warfare, but gets less credit for its staple function of patching up the moral fabric of society. But perhaps it doesn’t deserve either blame or credit. If religion is seen as a means of generating social cohesion, it is a society and its leaders that put that cohesion to good or bad ends. (from:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html)