analyses of historical data together with experiments. Religious groups show higher levels of cooperation, often over longer periods of time, than many other organized, but non-religious groups. Religious groups also tend to last longer as groups than non-religious organizations or institutions. Cooperation among religious groups 1s often facilitated by punishment or the implication of punishment from a deity. In a study of 186 societies by the biologist Dominic Johnson, analyses showed that those who believed in a strong moralizing god, capable of doling out punishment, engaged in higher levels of cooperation, including paying taxes, complying with norms, and repaying loans. These observations are complimented by experiments showing that people are more generous about giving away their money ina bargaining game, and less likely to cheat, when they think about words associated with religion — divine, God, spirit, sacred, prophet — than when they think about neutral words. For example, in the dictator game, involving two anonymous players, one decides how much of a pot of money to give to the other. The recipient has no say, and is thus stuck with whatever the donor offers. In general, donors give either nothing or about half. When primed to think about religion, donors are more likely to give than keep the entire pot, and give more as well.
The implication of these results is that the religiously-minded feel that they are being watched. Cueing up words that are indicative of their religious beliefs, heightens their vigilance and their moral obligations. Religion fuels altruism and fends off the temptation to cheat.
All of the observations and experiments discussed above are fascinating and relevant to understanding the role of religion in past and present societies. But this evidence is irrelevant for understanding the evolutionary origins of religion. It is irrelevant because it can’t determine whether religion originally evolved to solve the problem of large scale cooperation among strangers or whether it evolved for other reasons but was then used in the context of cooperation. This alternative explanation sees religion as an exaptation. No one doubts that religion provides social cohesion. No one doubts that religion also sends a buzzing reminder to the brain’s moral conscience center. But from a description of what it does today, or even in the distant past, we can’t conclude that it evolved for this purpose. That religious organizations show higher levels of cooperation than non-religious groups doesn’t mean they evolved for cooperation. We also can’t conclude that religion’s effectiveness as social glue relies on uniquely religious psychological thoughts and emotions. Though the creation of and belief in supernatural powers may be unique to religion, other foundational beliefs and emotions are shared across different domains of knowledge: young children attribute intentions, beliefs and desires to unseen causes, including the movement of clouds and leaves; non-religious moral systems use punishment to embarrass, recruit regret, and fuel shame; like many religions, non-religious institutions also attempt to reprogram the thoughts and beliefs of its members — think of all the global rebel operatives that brainwash innocent
children into becoming child soldiers. Religion helps itself to non-religious psychology. The utility of
Hauser Chapter 1. Nature’s secrets 25
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012771