Religion and Evolution: A Theory of Altruism John Schaub August 8th 2006 Evolution and Design

In his book The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins raises an example of species-level selection. The example is taken from a theory by Egbert Leigh, and concerns the possibility of altruism as an evolutionary trait. The theory states that there are some species where what is best for an individual is also best for the species, and there are some species where what is best for the individual differs widely from that which is best for the species. Of the two, the first type is more likely to succeed, and individuals of that species will see their acts of self-sacrifice as ultimately best for themselves. Dawkins explains that “[w]e could then see apparently unselfish individual behavior evolving, because species selection has favored those species in which individual self-interest is best served by their own apparent altruism.” (Dawkins, p. 268.) Dawkins, the proponent of the “selfish gene” theory of evolution, has called this an “apparent” kind of altruism because it implies that humans only act altruistically out of self-interest; there is an expectation that one will inevitably benefit from their selfless actions, and thus the selfless action is expected to eventually result in some action that will benefit the selfless actor. This kind of altruism is known in sociobiology as “reciprocal” altruism. In reciprocal altruism, there is the expectation that altruistic actions will be reciprocated. Even in its most selfless form, then, human behavior is dictated by calculated self-interest rather than true noble acts. As William Irons describes it, “[t]he various theoretical issues and hypotheses that fall under [sociobiology] are in fact attempts to predict the form of behavior from the basic premise that behavior is genetically selfish.” (Irons, p.14) This suggests a very self-absorbed view of mankind. The sociobiological question posed by altruism theory is this: how can something that reduces personal fitness evolve under natural selection? The theory is driven by the idea that the genes deliver the goods. If a man works to improve his brother’s overall fitness by lowering his own, he is still promoting the continuation of half of his own genes. It is of benefit to this man to act altruistically on behalf of others within his own gene pool, because by doing so he increases the fitness of his own genes, meaning the chances of his genes passing on to another generation, including the genes that have encouraged him to act altruistically. (Becker, p. 818) Although situations may arise that cause an organism to decrease its personal chances at reproduction by acting altruistically, by doing so it may increase its chances at genetic representation by saving

kin. In kinship theory this is expressed as the cost in the altruistic act must be less than the overall benefit to the recipient times the relative amount of shared genes, or C < r B, where C is the cost, r is the fraction of related genes, and B is the benefit of the altruistic action. The action taken does not have to be on behalf of the kin specifically in order for the benefit to favor the kin of the altruistic actor. Irons presents an often used example that illustrates this “return benefit theory”. When a bird sees a predator, it gives out a warning cry to the rest of the flock. This decreases the bird’s chance of survival by drawing the predator’s attention. At the same time the bird’s warning call will be reciprocated in the future, and therefore by warning the flock it has increased its overall genetic fitness. The warning cry, like a bitter tasting insect, thwarts predators by informing them that such an organism is not worth hunting, or eating in regard to the insect. Though the warning giver or insect may in fact lose its life, it has still succeeded in improving its genetic fitness, and the lives of its kin will be saved by similar acts of altruism by the remaining members of the species. If an animal assists another, and that assistance is not reciprocated, the assisting animal will learn not to provide help for the assisted animal again. In the case of humans, this is a fairly easy concept to understand. A team wins a competition by the input and participation of all team members. Members of a team easily come to recognize a player that does not play well or plays selfishly, and will grow to distrust and ostracize that member. When the non-reciprocating player is discovered, he is punished and cut from the team, and will not enjoy the spoils of a victory. Instances of altruism and non-reciprocation are easy for humans to grasp because “…the functions of language, accurate memory, and high intelligence among human beings… enable people both to agree on complex exchanges of benefits and to monitor one another’s behavior closely.” (Irons, p. 24) While in animals altruism between parent and child ceases once children are reared, in human society altruism extends throughout adult life. Human altruism also extends beyond kinship to the degree of social history shared between members of a society. How is it that man can extend beyond kinship theory to act altruistically on behalf of another? Society is built upon systems of trust that signal to others within a society

that a member will act reciprocally based not on past performance alone. How are these systems of trust built? Economists seem to be as interested in altruistic behavior as sociobiologists, since both “…rely on competition, the allocation of limited resources--of say food and energy--efficient adaptation to the environment, and other concepts”. (Becker, p. 818) While sociobiologists explain altruistic behavior along the lines of genetic advancement, economists rely solely in individual rationality to explain human behavior. As far as morality within human societies is concerned, “[a] number of authors have speculated on the desing features required for a moral system to work, including conformity, docility, detection of cheating, [and] punishment of cheating [.]” (Wilson, p. 26) Cheating can be recognized by broken trust, so therefore a system of trust must exist for humans to recognize those that are trustworthy. The economist Robert H. Frank has developed a theory that indicates how trust is built within human interaction, or before human interaction. To illustrate the theory, take a population where some members are honest and some are not. It would be best for honest members to work with other honest members, but there is no indication to tell who is honest and who is not. For an honest member to work with a dishonest member, the dishonest member achieves more than if he were working alone or with another dishonest member of society, and the honest member achieves less than if he were working alone. If there is no indication of who is honest and dishonest, then an honest person has more incentive to work alone because it is safer than being cheated. If everyone is dishonest, then nobody achieves anything, because they are all detrimental to each other, and if everybody works alone, then there is no society and nothing is achieved. However, if two honest members do happen to find each other, they can achieve much more together than apart, so it is in honest people’s best interest to work together. For society to function properly, then, there must be what Frank calls a “sorting process whereby interacting pairs form.” (Frank, 598) In a society where everybody needs to act altruistically to get along, there must be a safety net. The safety net is a cost that a person, dishonest or honest, will have to make in order to prove to others that they are honest. It must be costly to fake being honest. That cost will have to be represented somehow, to display to others that the investment in the honesty has been made. Those

with the highest values displayed will naturally work with others who have similarly valued displays. People who are honest but cannot or have not yet afforded the cost will work alone, as they have no chance to find another honest person who has not made that cost, and dishonest people will also work alone, as they have not chance of working with an honest person. The higher the value of the display, the better chance there is of that person being honest, and therefore those with the highest values will find each other, and have incentive to keep their value high. David Sloan Wilson describes Frank’s theory in sociobiological context. He describes that scientists choose to simplify people into two groups: those who are selfish and those who are altruistic actors. They interact randomly in pairs with the others and, just as Frank’s theory proves, “altruists outperform pairs of selfish individuals.” (Wilson, p. 189) Wilson also suggests that humans have developed certain “tells” that give away dishonest behavior, such as the propensity for some to blush when lying. This signals to others that the person can be trusted because it is too easy to tell when they should not be trusted. Economics aside, what cultural signs can be shared to represent commitment to the values of a given society, and a willingness to work cooperatively? Religion offers a number of examples. To pray five times a day in a specific direction is a sign of devotion, or an amount of labor invested in studying, or undergoing a sort of pain upon initiation are all signs of devoutness that offer acceptance to the person who pays the cost to a specific society. These displays of devotion are fairly hard to fake. Religion facilitates the achievement of proof that is required for people within a society under that religion to trust one another. Furthermore religions monitor the honesty of initiates by providing them promises of other-worldly rewards or punishment for their actions throughout a lifetime. Only by continuing to show devotion and acting within the codes of a codified structure can one be assured of the rewards a society offers. If morality can be defined as good behavior that is expressed or taught, then these tests of trustworthiness and honesty could be what defines morality. Religions each hold different tests that require different proofs of honesty, and by following the rituals and moral codes, one gains the advantages of being accepted by that society, and the main facilitation of such acts and codes of morality is religious belief. Though some may

argue that the position of religion is to explain how the world came to be and to describe to us what may happen after life, one only has to look at history and world religions to find that religion does not actually primarily serve these purposes, as “the Nuer thought little about an afterlife, despite their fear of death, and no one could look forward to the afterlife imagined by the Greeks and Romans. Even Judaism, the religion from which Christianity is derived, focuses more on establishing the nation of Israel on earth than on what happens after death.” (Wilson, p. 155) Judaism, therefore, focuses mainly on the proper functioning and establishment of a society, wherein people act together and altruistically. By forming a society that works well together under a moral code, moral rules will ensure increased genetic fitness of those who follow the societal morals. Although Christianity holds the belief in an afterlife where one joins their deceased friends and family again, “the central fact and interpretation of Christ’s death makes altruism the defining feature of being Christian.” (Wilson, p. 155) While I have shown that religion focuses and facilitates altruistic acts, there has been nothing shown yet that supports the theory that religion evolved from an innate altruistic tendency in humans. Why could it not be that religion arrived, and that is what caused man to act altruistically? Perhaps only those that followed the rule of a certain god have survived and that is why today we see only altruistic tendencies in humans? To explain why religion must have evolved from altruism we have to look first at more primitive cultures without such complicated structures as religious societies have developed. In hunter gatherer societies, prosocial behavior is regulated not by the dictates of a certain god, but by what Chris Boehm called “reverse dominance”, which is a situation wherein selfish acts are controlled by other members of the group. A selfish actor could hope to beat off the efforts of perhaps one or two other group members, but the group as a whole can easily overwhelm an offender. Even when a specific hunter makes a great kill, his family receives only the same portion of the meat that the other families of the tribe will receive.(Wilson, p. 21) This is dissimilar of other animals, which even during collective hunting work on a first-come-first-serve basis, as well as on an each-man-for-himself mentality. Working as a team increases the chance of survival, and therefore the yearning to belong to a group is probably what initially brought our hunter-gatherer ancestors together, as “to be an outcast was a virtual death warrant.”

(Wilson, p. 172) Furthermore it is not religion that places persons in positions of altruistic authority. Some studies show that such people innately act altruistically, and there is nothing that exists per se that gives them their compulsion to act on behalf of others. In a study on rescuers of Jews in Europe during the Nazi regime, both rescuers and nonrescuers were interviewed. Their backgrounds were examined, and all were very diverse. There was not commonality in background between those that chose to rescue nor of those who chose not to rescue. Those that rescued Jews also had no encouragement nor support group that was allowing them to save Jews, because to form a cohesive underground was too dangerous to their individual causes. In a number of cases, heavily organized Jew saving groups were turned in to the Nazis, so it became best to isolate rather than cohere. The only strong commonality the researchers found between the rescuers was the fact that all said in so many words “There was nothing else I could do. They had to be saved.” None of these people expected they would ever receive any benefit to themselves nor their kin, so reciprocal altruism was not a factor in their actions. Nor was religion. It was a simple compulsion to save people, and if they had been found out their only reward would be a quick death. This implies that altruism exists without the existence of religion or any other social tools to encourage it, but religion can be used to create a generalized system for altruisms promotion. Non-rescuers had in common the fact that they all said in one way or another “What could I do? One person against the Nazis?” The remaining group, of course, are the actual persecutors of the Jews, the Nazis themselves. One can see here a gradient in altruistic tendencies. Some people simply behave altruistically, and so in these people an inherited trait is so strong that they simply are compelled to save lives. On the second tier are people who need encouragement to act altruistically, who will not act a certain way unless a majority of people are doing so. Perhaps religious organizations are led by the purely altruistic minority to lead the second tier majority towards better overall genetic fitness. This kind of unconditional altruism is rewarded in religion, for example sainthood is bestowed on prime examples of selflessness and good in the Catholic religion. Raymond F. Piper describes altruistic action as observed by the ideal Hindu man.

In the first stage of life the Hindu as a student studies and serves his teacher. He remains chaste to ensure the health of children when he is ready to have them. In the stage of marriage his duties are to practice honoring his wife and “…hospitality, industry, truth, honesty, liberality, [and] charity.” (Piper, p. 178) In the final stage of his life, he is to give away all of his worldly possessions, and go live as an example of his religion. This is all altruistic behavior for the sake of perpetuating altruistic behavior. Christianity has a deep foundation in sacrifice, and the Old Testament offers examples of “…freewill offerings, thank offerings,…peace offerings, sin and guilt offerings.” (Hefner, p. 413) Like Christianity, Hinduism offers a better afterlife as a reward for such altruistic actions. Both religions present selflessness as the path to a higher state. Hindus believe that one will be reincarnated as something more pure, and Christians believe that good deeds will save one a place in a euphoric heaven. As a result of this tool, the Romans found that Christian charities flourished, while those set up in honor of the pagan gods did not do as well as cultural institutions. This is due to the difference in reward systems offered by religions. While the Romans believed that everybody went to the same dismal afterlife, the new Christian religion built on the theory of an afterlife by offering a life better than the current one as incentive for altruistic actions. Eventually belief in pagan gods was superseded by the new Christian religion, with an improved afterlife as one of the adaptations that allowed for its selection. Scott Atran points out that “Christians were able to expand their membership beyond the Jewish community and into the heart of gentile Rome through several converging group-evolutionary strategies.”(Atran, p. 229) These included controlling sex for maximum propagation of the group and by universalizing altruism and practicing it. People have a yearning to find groups, and often do so by joining a church, or following the dictates of some religion, thus providing a way to recognize and socialize with others of the same group. Once a member of a group, an individual is always encouraged to act selflessly, and on behalf of others towards a greater good. Religions encourage the abandonment of self-will, and teaches that “those who care least about themselves prosper most, as long as they live among like-minded individuals.” (Wilson, p. 176) While Roman gods and goddesses all had their individual quirks and imperfections, the Christian God was perfect and benevolent in all respects. Wilson

suggests that the purpose of a perfect God is to encourage the “like-minded” individuals to work altruistically in the service of something great and perfect, rather than on account of an “imperfect-neighbor.” A god that is widely believed in also helps to assure the reliability that somebody is telling the truth. In social competition there is always competition, and as Scott Atran puts it, “[s]upernatural agents contribute to maintaining the cooperative trust of actors and the trustworthiness of communication by sanctifying the actual order of mutual understandings and social relations as the only morally and cosmically possible one.” (Atran, p. 117) This suggests that it is a human need to see an order in everything, and the idea of an omnipotent creator is the best way for humans to justify why things are how they are. Gods also act as a reassurance that everybody under one god’s roof can be trusted, which also helps explain why there has always been so much religious fanatical warfare. The Old Testament in fact instructs the Israelites to “…subjugate far-off cities obedient to unknown deities, and to annihilate all groups worshipping false gods in the lands where Israelites sought to dwell.” (Atran, 228) In a society that is so large that one encounters many strangers, it is hard to act altruistically. There is little chance of kinship altruism or of reciprocal altruism. Reciprocal altruism relies on the idea that the person receiving the benefit will soon be able to directly altruistically on the part of the original actor. In a society that is so widespread that strangers are often encountered, such an interaction is unlikely to occur. There is a greater chance of actions being taken advantage of, and for cheaters to prosper. However, a belief in the same God may encourage acts of altruism, if one can be assured that another holds the same values under the same god. It is similar to the costly item that ensures honesty. The altruism in this case may be indirect, but all members of the society who display their honesty as hard to fake can expect to receive help when they need it. Atran describes this as indirect altruism, and it “…occurs when individual X knows that individual Y cooperates with others, and this knowledge favors X’s cooperating with Y.” This kind of altruism, among a group, is known as group selection. Many sociobiologist look at group selection skeptically. One would have to show that acts of altruism on the individual level benefit the group at a group level, to such a degree that the overall fitness of the group rises above the overall fitness of another group.

Group selection would imply that religions act competitively to out-survive each other, and therefore religion itself is a cause for the selection of certain groups of humans. Atran also links this to the concept of reputation, wherein the value of somebody’s reputation rises when they help others, and therefore they are more likely to receive help when they need it. A religion may have a good reputation for altruistic acts, and therefore even those who do not practice may be more inclined to act favorably on the participant’s behalf. Though humans may not represent purely kin altruism nor reciprocal altruism, it cannot be said that humans do not function without altruism. In fact, it can be said that humans cannot function without altruism. Religions have evolved and come to organize and get the best out of human altruistic inclination. Religion can be seen as a result of organized altruistic behavior. It helps to weed out the dishonest cheaters who would exploit the altruistic acts of others from the honest. It creates an umbrella for the practice of altruism in societies that have outgrown the immediately familiar bounds of huntergatherer groups and circles of kinship. Religions encourage their members to look beyond themselves and towards the whole, and in so doing they will receive rewards beyond their comprehension. Religion encourages the support of ones own kin, and assures religious believers that through altruistic behavior, one’s self or one’s own kin will eventually experience the benefit of that behavior. Religion evolved from the original actions of altruism and has resulted from the actions of altruism that nature has selected for in man. Gods exist as the examples of what humans are capable of and have evolved from earlier stages of religious understanding. Altruism exists without religion, but religion exists because of altruism. Man has created religion as a means to facilitate altruism most effectively, and therefore to promote and expedite his own evolution. Religion itself has changed forms and still exists in many, and all hope to best lead man on a path to altruism, and promise rewards. If man did create religion out of a need to facilitate basic social functions, then his creation is what has lead to the current state affairs. Today men need to justify why they exist, and how everything came into being. Our cognitive functions are such that we are able to think about our purpose, and need a reason for life, whether there is one or not. It could be that the very thing that allowed man to reach this point of intelligence,

altruism, has resulted in the thing that puzzles man most, his existence. Perhaps there is no reason, and the search for that answer that does not exist, and for the endless toil towards goodness and holiness, is really nothing more than genetic fitness at its best.

References Cited: Atran, Scott. In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion. Oxford University Press. New York, New York (2002) Becker, Gary S. “Altruism, Egoism, and Genetic Fitness: Economics

and

Sociobiology” Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association (1976) Frank, Robert H. “If Homo Economicus Could Choose His Own Utility Would He Want One with a Conscience?”, The American Economic Association

Function,

American Economic Review,

(1987)

Irons, William. Evolutionary Biology and Human Social Behavior: An Anthropological Perspective. Wadsworth, Inc. Belmont,

California (1979)

Monroe, Christen. Barton, Michael. Klingemann, Ute. “Altruism and

the Theory of

Rational Action: Rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe” Ethics, The University of Chicago Press (1990) Piper, Raymond F. “In Support of Altruism in Hinduism” Journal of

Bible and

Religion, American Academy of Religion (1954) Wilson, David Sloan. Darwin’s Cathedral. University of Chicago Press. (2002)

Chicago