“Religions are like different maps whose routes all lead to the collective good of society. Some maps take their followers over rugged terrain. Other maps have easier paths […] The maps were made by the people who went first and didn’t die. The maps that survive are the ones that work.” – Scott Adams, 2004.
Abstract – This paper will outline the emergence of God as an evolutionary-psychological based system for cooperation. This paper will examine how evolution discredits the belief in a metaphysical God, whilst offering a new understanding of a psychological-pragmatic “God”. This article will argue that God serves as a third-party sovereign that assures survival and reproductive success among individuals, thus allowing reciprocal relations within human groups to form. This argument will draw from the logic presented by Hobbes in his work “Leviathan” and modern findings in evolution and “Game Theory”. Only then, can a better discussion of religion in the 21st century take place in light of this new perspective on the notion of God.
Introduction:
In the past few centuries, as secularization has become more and more widespread in the western world, God has gradually been forgotten as the source of knowledge and morality. Starting in the 17th and 18th century, the spokesmen of the enlightenment declared “rationality” as the prime source of wisdom and ethics. Immanuel Kant began his influential essay “What is Enlightenment?” with the answer: “Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity.” (Kant, 1784). “Immaturity” in this context refers to the reliance on others:
It is so easy to be immature. If I have a book to serve as my understanding, a pastor to serve as my conscience, a physician to determine my diet for me, and so on, I need not exert myself at all. (Kant, 1784).
This essay, considered one of the hallmarks of 18th century thought, points to the general declining belief in God amongst Enlightenment thinkers, or at the very least, as the sole authority for moral conduct. When man is truly independent, there is no need for a “pastor” to guide one morally. When math, physics and astronomy can explain the movement of the stars, when morality is based on a consensual agreement between rational agents (as Hobbes and Rousse have established) – what place is there for an all-knowing being?
This decline was unequivocally sped-up with the notion of “natural selection” presented in Charles Darwin’s 1859 “Origin of Species”. This book and the ideas it contains tell a completely different story than the one found in the Bible. Although many have attempted to dismiss the theory of natural selection, the stark accumulation of evidence found in the fossil record, real-world examples (such as viruses) and basic logic, have made this idea inexcusable for any well-educated person to ignore.
Natural selection elegantly explains the changes between species by the process known as “the survival of the fittest”. Essentially, in the timeline of millions of years, small yet noticeable changes in species’ characteristics have made some animals more likely to survive and reproduce than others. Thus, the most “useful traits” of organisms in a giving environment are passed on to their decedents, and the cycle continues indefinitely.[1] Although Darwin himself was oblivious to the existence of genes, his ideas still had a massive effect on modern culture and the decline of God (Dennett, 1995).
This is only a simplified version of all the nuanced intricacies that characterize the Darwinian Theory. There are many more factors that influence the survival of organisms which are not determined by each trait’s “merits”. For example, we could conceive of an individual case where an animal, such as wolf, is genetically “superior” to all others male wolves in his pack by all measures and standards. This wolf is stronger, fiercer, cleverer and healthier than all the rest of his pack. Yet, despite his many genetic advantages, he might still one-day wonder off and be killed by a huntsman that happened to be passing by. His death resulted from chance alone, unrelated to his genetic makeup. Thus, all the genes that have allegedly ensured that wolf’s survival and reproductive success have been stopped in an instant. He will never pass his favorable genes on to his own line of descendants.
This example illustrates of the uncertain nature of nature. Yet, observing such a case individually is extremely misleading. Despite the factor of “external luck” which is present in nature at all times, genes do still grant “statistical advantage” over long stretches of time. The main principle of evolution is not hindered in any way by the fact that “uncertain luck” may cause premature deaths. It is best to think of evolution in terms of statistical odds. Certain traits are passed down because they favor higher odds of survival and reproduction, even though they cannot guarantee certain success. When speaking of evolution, survival is not limited to one instance at a time, but rather thousands and millions of different cases where certain traits, overall, make more organisms thrive over others. Unlike the way many people think of natural selection – evolution is not “blind luck”, it is a statistical advantage spanning over many different organisms.
Bearing in mind the process of natural selection, both today and in the 19th century it is near impossible to interpret the verse on human creation literally: “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). Although many have attempted to reconcile the creation of man with Darwinian selection, there remains no sufficing account in favor of holding both ideas simultaneously. Being a “creationist scientist” is a rare phenomenon, as further back as 1990, only 5% of scientists identified themselves as creationists (Robinson, 1995), and since then, the number has surely dropped.
Yet, as for 2006, a surprising 31% of Americans believe that God aided the process of evolution (Harris, 2006, page 2). These numbers represent either a widespread misunderstanding of natural selection or a very allegorical interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2.[2] Despite these numbers, it is not a mistake to conclude that the prevalence of atheism, especially amongst scientifically literate academics, is a growing phenomenon. Even the fact that a book with the title “God is not Great” (Hitchens, 2007) can be published, let alone become a best-seller, is a sign that God has lost his impenetrable sanctity in large parts of the Western world. This becomes insurmountably clear once the contents of Hitchens’ book are compared with the writings of the Middle Ages. Then, even the faintest suggestion that God is insufficient in any way could have very well resulted in the speaker’s torture and execution
As for the moral realm, Nietzsche is most often quoted as announcing the death of God in The Gay Science (1882). The exact lines of his infamous statement are as follows:
God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him […] What festivals of atonement, what holy games will we have to invent for ourselves?… Do we not ourselves have to become gods merely to appear worthy of it?” (Nietzsche, 1883, page 120).
The philosophy of Nietzsche focuses heavily on the ramifications of a God-ridden world. Saying that it is “we” that are the murderers puts the blame on us, forcing us to deal with the consequences of morality shifting from the transcendent to the worldly. Nietzsche makes us consider the problems and dangers that will arise within human societies lacking the moral guiding-force of God. How will societies look once humans are in charge of their own morality? What will this transition take place? Will humanity need to replace the role of God altogether? If so, in what way? All these questions are, to a great extent, intentionally unanswerable.
Yet it is clear that lacking the moral decree of God, humans will need to find an alternative to maintain a stable society of cooperation. This cooperation will have to be derived from new foundations, which are neither the church nor the holy texts. Nietzsche poses the possible problems that may appear as a result of the declining conception of the old literal conception of god. A world lacking the moral guiding-force of God, is one in which morality is dependent upon an individual human whim, irrationality, and constant change.
The point of interest in this paper is to offer a new understanding of the belief in “God”. as an immensely potent historical-conceptual force, which has guided human evolution (that is, the belief in God, not the actual metaphysical God), allowing cooperation between individuals. I will call this entity “Game-Theory God” (“GTG” for short). Such a conceptualization of God as explaining historical and evolutionary changes should not devalue His importance for individuals or society. Rather, by making God compatible and consistent with evolutionary reasoning, than the dogmatic and often damaging conception of a literal God that created the world in 7 days (which many still believe), can be discarded. This paper will demonstrate the emergence of the notion of an all-powerful being over human history, and the evolutionary process to which it became entrenched in the human psyche.
This paper will not concern itself directly with the actual experience of belief, for such a question is the issue of endless books in theology, philosophy, psychology and neuroscience. The goal of this paper is to provide an evolutionary framework for belief in the divine that explains its universality and its importance for people around the world. Moreover, by understanding this theoretical framework, one can better understand why belief is so ingrained in both human psychology and culture. Thus, a more informed discussion on the place of religion in the modern world can take place.
Hobbes’s “Social Contract”
Before diving into the specifics of Game Theory, it is useful to look at Hobbes’s theory of the “social contract” as it is presented in the classic political treatise Leviathan (1651). There Hobbes explains the necessity of humans to voluntary form a “covenant” by submitting themselves to a third party, namely the government. This is the only way to escape “the natural state” of being “where every man is enemy to every man… the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (Hobbes, 1651, page 78). As long as people prize their freedoms and are prone to act in their own self-interest, they are forever doomed to fight one another. Bertrand Russel summarizes his thought as follows: “In a natural state before there is any government, every man desires to preserve his own liberty, but to acquire dominion over others; both these desires are dictated by the impulse to self-preservation” (Russel, 1945, page 550).
If two parties lack any form of consensual agreement, they would not be able to cooperate. This is even truer if both parties are aware that the other might strike. Thus, the safest strategy demands the first to strike as early as possible. Despite it being better for both agents to act passively, the inability to communicate and cooperate in the state of nature causes unnecessary conflicts. This problem came to be known as the “Hobbesian Trap” (Pinker, 2011 page 38). Since there is no intermediary (the government, or “Leviathan”) to allow the two agents to discuss terms and agreements, no form of third-party enforcement, there is no way to secure safety. Therefore, man does whatever is in his power to ensure his survival, even at the expense of hurting others and endangering himself.
Yet it is important to stress that although Hobbes realized the necessity of government, he favoured a form of monarchy where there “is no limitation of sovereignty”. There is no right of rebellion, and there are no free elections (Russel, 1945, pages 551-553). This is in stark contrast to any form of a modern liberal democracy that is familiar in the 21st century. Moreover, Hobbes did not base his theory on History, Game Theory (a field that did not exist in his time) or Darwin’s principle of Natural Selection.
The Prisoner’s Dilemma
It is only recently that Hobbes’s theory has gained a scientific-theoretical basis in the domain of Game Theory and experimentation. Leaving the realm of 17th-century political philosophy, Game Theory attempts to understand human decision making in mathematical terms. Unlike psychology, Game Theory assumes that all participating agents are acting rationally. That is to say, they are not influenced by ideals, emotions or morals. Though it is definitely possible to argue that morals are connected to rationality, this fact is irrelevant to the premises and methodology of Game Theory. The basic assumption is that each agent acts as to maximize his own well-being and success.
The most important and illuminating discoveries of Game Theory come from the famous “prisoner’s dilemma”. Though the versions vary, the basic premise is as follows: you (Prisoner A) and your accomplice (Prisoner B) have been caught and are now are both put into questioning in separate rooms. You are both given a choice: confess and “defect” on your friend, or keep your silence by denying involvement. Depending on your partner’s choice, each decision would result in a better or worse outcome. This game is played under the assumption that you want to receive the minimum amount of years, and your emotions, morals or relationship with the other prisoner are not factors that should be considered. Furthermore, you have no way to communicate with the other prisoner. The chart looks as follows:
If you both choose to confess on each other, you will both serve for 3 years (a fairly bad outcome). If you confess whilst your partner keeps his silence, you get the minimum sentence of 1 year, while he has to sit for 10 years (the best outcome). If you decide to keep your silence and your partner confesses, the outcome is reversed – you have to serve for 10 years, while he only has to serve for only 1 year (the worst outcome). Lastly, If you both keep your silence and cooperate you are only sent for 2 years (a fairly good outcome).
In Game Theory, there is a rule of thumb called “Nash equilibrium”. According to it, the best strategy to ensure the minimum number of years of sentence demands of the agent (anyone of the prisoners) to accuse the other. Since there is no way to predict how the other prisoner will act, one should always choose to accuse. If both agents are rational, this line of thinking will occur to both of them, and the end result is that they will both confess. The risk of serving for 10 years does not justify the risk of serving only for 2 years if both choose to cooperate. Yet in total, the end result is not optimal for both players. If only they could cooperate, their sentences would be much shorter. Yet, if they could find a way to communicate, it may be possible for them to agree to cooperate.
Yet even then, the problem persists. Even if both players could have found a way to communicate, what is there to stop one from confessing and accusing the other? The mere act of communication is not enough to ensure that both will keep their silence. Some may even use the alleged “agreement to cooperate”, so as to confess, thus serving less time than they would otherwise have to.
A better and safer strategy to ensure cooperation, than simple communication, is the act of a promise – a “moral agreement”. If both players promise one another that they will not confess, the chances of cooperation, when push comes to shove, are that much higher. Many people, though not most, highly value their “word” and they do not allow themselves to defect on someone after they have promised to do otherwise. Despite this being a better way than talking with the other, it still does not guarantee cooperation. One or both players can still choose to accuse the other, despite their promise.
The very best way to ensure cooperation is by having a third-party forcible system that punishes anyone who chooses to confess. If both believe that confession will cause the third-party to punish them, causing them more harm than the confession, then they are both very likely to cooperate. This third party has to be forcible and believable enough that both players will fear it enough to cooperate with one another.
This third-party system is for all intents and purposes, Hobbes’ “Leviathan” discussed in part 1. Hobbes describes how people seek to escape the harsh state of nature, which inevitably causes people to act selfishly and violently. In the state of nature, that is their only way to ensure their own safety. For them to escape the endless cycle of violence, they must subscribe to the state – the Leviathan. They must allow him to punish each person who attempts to hurt or cause disarray in the state. In the prisoner’s dilemma, this Leviathan (state, government or sovereign) serves as the third-party punishment system that ensures that both players choose to cooperate. Without a legal forcible system of punishment, it is inevitable that the players of the game will choose to defect on one another.
Recurring Games
Even if both players are unable to formally communicate, or rely on a third-party punisher, they can still choose to cooperate with one another. This can be done by changing “The Prisoner’s Dilemma” from a single one-time game, to one that is played successively multiple times. By doing so, the line of reasoning changes. There is no longer the option of defecting on your partner knowing that you will never encounter one another. By playing more than a single game, the player needs to take into consideration the future retaliation options by the second player.
Indeed, by playing multiple games, people change their strategy of “always defect”, to a more cooperative strategy. The best strategy to deal with an unknown, random player, is called “tit-for-tat”. It is, for all intents and purposes, a modern equivalent of the biblical rule of “eye for an eye”. The strategy consists of first to choose to cooperate, then to copy the last action done by the other player. If last time he defected, now you defect. If last time he cooperated, then you should cooperate as well. This strategy ensures cooperation if the other person is cooperative, and “punishment” whenever he may misbehave. If both strategies are played with one another, over a span of 100 games, we would expect them to always cooperate!
This strategy can be seen as the basic logic behind the evolving notion of “justice”, albeit only a primitive and simplistic form of “justice”. The feeling to avenge a person that has caused you harm is based on this implicit advantage of such an action. Potentially, extracting vengeance upon a criminal that has wronged you, would halt any other attempt he may have in the future to hurt you for their own benefit. Of course, the human dynamics of justice are much more complicated than this formula outlined here. Human actions are not so black and white as to always “behave as the other has behaved before”. Yet, it appears to be a universal trait to be intolerant towards intolerant people, and polite towards polite people. This is how we can see the general logic of “tit-for-tat” apply to human intuition (Dawkins, 1976).
Unlike the single “prisoner’s dilemma”, the “recurring prisoner’s dilemma” is much more similar to real-world conditions, especially amongst our hunter-gatherer ancestors. In most small prehistoric communities of Homo sapiens, the “Nash Equilibrium” does not hold. Every action has a consequence for the future. If one steals from his neighbor, it may very well lead the neighbor to retaliate. This is most definitely the evolutionary origin of the feelings of guilt, love, trust and decency (Frank, 1988). This theory explains to a great extent, the beneficiary and worthwhile tendencies of humans to cooperate. These feelings as viewed as the prime motivators for social action make perfect evolutionary sense when put in the evolutionary context of the recurring prisoner’s dilemma.
For example, to explain the feelings of vengeance you only need to look as far as the logical, “mathematical” advantage of making it work as strategic deterrence. Whilst the danger of vengeance looms in the background of human interaction, it serves as an implicit regulatory force between individuals. It is unwise, in the evolutionary sense (or any sense for that matter), to steal, hurt or defect in any way on another, if there is a high chance that the other would retaliate with his vengeful wrath.
The significance of this discovery has yet to be fully fleshed out. Today it is common practice in the psychology of personality to analyze a patient by the Five Factor Model, (Digman, 1990). With the standard IQ test, which measures intelligence, one can outline a person by using these five main criteria, on a scale ranging 1 to 100 relative to the general population. Each of the five traits of personality includes: Openness to experience, Contentiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism (OCEAN for short). Each of these human aspects has all an evolutionary explanation since essentially, personality is a strategy for survival and reproduction. Of course, the education and culture one grows in shape one’s respective personality to a great extent, but even then – his personality remains quite stable throughout his lifetime. The evidence of the FFM being a biological-evolutionary process is that it is both universal as it appears in many different cultures, (McCrae & Costa, 1997), as well as being heritable (Rachel, 2009).
Fear of retribution, also an evolutionary regulatory force, may stop one from hurting another when otherwise such an action could potentially benefit him. If for example, a prehistoric hominid had committed a murder, but did not take into consideration the feeling of vengeance he would provoke at the deceased’s kin – he would surely have not survived long. Even if, for the sake of argument, the kin or other tribesmen were too afraid to avenge their fellow cave dweller, other forms of punishment would have been quick to ensue. From that moment forward, that person would have been branded as a “murderer”. He would have aroused antagonism and mistrust amongst the other members of the tribe. They would, most likely, have ceased to trade or cooperate with someone as dangerous as the killer. This is roughly the reason a notion of “reputation” has evolved. The way one appears in the eyes of other has great bearing on one’s ability to survive and reproduce.
Despite the dangers evolved in murder – one could argue that it is valid under certain circumstances. This is exactly why the murder rate of prehistoric man was so high. Being a tyrannical murderer who dictates his rule based on his wrath and power is, in some cases, a valid evolutionary strategy that can prove successful. But it is not stable nor widespread, and with time, as the regulatory forces of human psyche have evolved, the murder rate has indeed declined.
Thus, we can conclude that the social community of Homo sapiens is analogous to the “recurring prisoner’s dilemma”. When in a community, actions that may benefit one in the present at the expense of another occur because they may beneficial, but with time, as the regulatory-biological process has evolved, “violence and crime” have declined. First thanks to the basic feelings of love, vengeance, trust, then to more abstract notions, such as justice and reputation (Dawkins, 1976). These two are also deeply ingrained in our biology. With time, this decline of violence was further dropped by the formation of the first civilizations (Pinker, 2011).
The homicide rate amongst hunter-gatherer societies is staggering. Although the number of samples is scarce, more than 13.4% of deaths are believed to be caused by murder, rather than natural causes (Pinker, 2011 page 51,). In comparison, modern day Israel, which is infamous for its common terrorist attacks, has a murder rate (politically motivated or otherwise) of 2.4 per 100,000 people. That is, 0.0024% of the total population. The notion that 1 out of every 8 deaths is a result of murder, is too ridiculous to entertain in modern circumstances.
Yet for this discussion, these numbers are misleading. Of course, once compared to civilized societies, hunter-gatherer societies appear to be extremely violent and dangerous, and they most certainly were. Yet, when talking about the emergence of cooperation amongst humans, one must not compare the past to the present, rather the past to the further past. Since the general trend of human history tends to become less and less violent (see Pinker, 2011), these numbers should not come as too much of a surprise. Rather, they prove that social institutions of law and punishment, throughout history have had a net-positive effect on the murder rate within human societies. This should be said with important caveats: violence has decreased in relation to the general population (Pinker, 2011). The decrease in violence mainly refers to violence and murder within groups. Advancements in technological weaponry have caused many deaths that were not possible in past. Thus although the death rate (compared to the general population) has decreased, the total amount of deaths overall has increased, since there are simply more people to kill and die.
Kin-Selection
Another significant aspect that is necessary to explain the rise of evolutionary cooperation is “kin-selection”. The theory of kin-selection helps explain why it is genetically valid to help one’s brothers, parents and cousins; despite the price, one may need to pay with resources of food, time and energy (Dawkins, 1976, Pinker, 1997). Since they all carry his genes, it is “worth-while” for him and his brothers, to help one another since they both share 5 Kin-Selection
0% of his genes. However, this is only true to a certain point. This point is determined based on their level of relatedness, or in other words, a number of genes they both share. A genetic strategy to “sacrifice” oneself for a brother that shares 50% of one’s genes is not worthwhile. It is best to give up to 50% of one’s time and resources to the brother, but never to exceed that point. Pinker cites the replay of the evolutionary biologist, J.B.S. Haldane, to the question whether he would lay down his life for his brother: “No, but for two brothers or eight cousins.” (page 279-280, Pinker 2011). This is to illustrate that evolutionarily speaking; people tend to help their kin in proportion to their relatedness. Brothers share roughly 50% of one’s genes, thus saving two brothers is like saving 100% of one’s genes. Thus, as far as genes are concerned, it makes sense to sacrifice oneself for the sake of two brothers. It should be noted, the way in which this evolutionary tendency is presented here is true only for certain animals in the animal kingdom, and is an oversimplification. Certainly, other important factors dictate the amount of help that we should expect amongst kin. These factors include age, strength, intelligence, sex and anything else that may increase or decrease one’s odds of reproductive success. Yet these numbers serve as a useful benchmark to predict help amongst kin.
Having acknowledged the effect of kin-selection and the relatively high rates of murder of prehistoric communities, we can account for the effects of altruism amongst non-kin. Which is best explained by the logic of the “recurring prisoner’s dilemma”. It is the solution to the problem of human altruism. The “recurring prisoner’s dilemma” explains this reciprocal relationship amongst Homo sapiens, whilst also transcending the logic of kin-selection.
Game Theory in Evolution – The Evolutionary Foundations of Morality
There is reason to devote some attention to the discussion on the relations of morality and evolution. This is because articulating a new psychological conception of God requires us to think about its effects on our current morality. Just as understanding moral intuition of the evolutionary past can inform, for better or worse, the current conception of morality, the same is true for the current understanding of God.
Our moral intuition is founded upon our humanoid ancestors, as they attempted to survive and reproduce by socializing with one another. That is not to say that our morality should be based on our evolutionary habits. Nonetheless, it should inform us to be aware of intuitive-biological tendencies that affect morality. The attempt to derive morality from our evolutionary ancestry was deemed “the naturalistic fallacy” (Curry, 2006), and had been used in the past in horrific ways. Most notably, “the naturalistic fallacy” was used by Nazi Germany to justify the mass murder of millions. This is known to be a result of a misinterpretation Darwin’s theory of the “survival of the fittest”. This will forever serve as a reminder of the dangers of such logic that is based on a distorted understanding of science.
Yet when we discuss universal “moral intuition”, the only fitting place to search is within the field of evolution. This is because much of our understanding of “right” and “wrong” is a result of our evolutionary history (Haidt, 2012). There is of course also the norms of one’s culture, religion and rationality that shape one’s morality, yet it is accepted amongst different psychologists to attribute much of human behavior to evolutionary morality (Haidt, 2012).[3]
I would argue that most, though not all, of our moral intuition, should continue to guide us today. Both the love for our family and our endless search for happiness, are evolutionary strategies for survival and reproduction that we do not want to dispose of. Yet there are evolutionary tendencies that are unsuited, and even harmful, for a modern and moral society. Just as once craving sugar was a healthy and necessary strategy for survival, today it is a leading cause of obesity and heart disease. The abundance of high fructose syrup in many of our drinks and foods was never “planned for” by our evolutionary upbringing. Despite the benefits of the past to consume as much sugar as possible, in modern times, this intuition is counter-productive and even deadly.
There is also evidence to suggest that somewhere in our evolutionary past; rape was a valid strategy for reproduction. To conclude from that that we should return to our “natural selves” and continue our evolutionary heritage is absurd (Harris, 2010). Thus, we can conclude that we must examine the origin of our moral intuition, but be extremely wary of its implications on modern conceptions of morality. This same logic also applies to an evolutionary conception of God. I would argue that in many respects, the belief in God is natural and can be traced back to evolutionary reasoning. Then, I would like to remind, that simply because the belief in God may be “natural”, it does not follow that it is necessarily “good” or “bad”. Any moral conclusion should be preserved only after further investigation has taken place. The difference between “natural morality” of our evolutionary past, and our current “ideal morality” are not one and the same, although they are in many ways, unequivocally related.
The Synthesis – how Hobbes’s Leviathan, game-theory and Evolution explain the Emergence of God
All the ideas at this point, from political philosophy, game-theory, evolution and kin-selection, all explain, in different degrees the same phenomenon – the reason for human cooperation. By adopting the Darwinian perspective, which is concerned only with reproductive success, we observed how it could be “rational” to cooperate with another, despite the alleged sacrifice of time and resources one may need to pay. The last step requires seeing how these fields of knowledge come together to form a Darwinian explanation for the belief in an all-powerful being.
Yuval Harari of the Hebrew University discusses the question of the surprising survival success of Homo sapiens species in the last 100,000 years, over their Neanderthal cousins (Harari, 2014). Despite the Neanderthals being stronger, more athletic, and with bigger skulls (which would indicate their brain mass was larger), they became extinct around 40,000 years ago. Meanwhile, the ancestors of modern humans, the Homo sapiens, kept thriving until their eventual conquest of the world. There are several reasons for the survival of Homo sapiens Neanderthal’s were unable to deal with certain European climates, or perhaps they had lesser hunting options than their Homo sapiens counterparts.
Thus, Harari begins to develop the main thesis of his book: the ability of humans to cooperate via “myth”. Other than the ability to talk with one another, which according to Harari developed around 70,000 years ago, Homo sapiens were unique in one aspect – their ability to imagine “myths”. “Myth”, as Harari seems to use the term, refers to any conceptual idea which has no obvious material existence in the real world, yet is extremely influential in shaping human culture and history. “Myth” is any set of symbols, concepts, narratives or stories we tell ourselves in order to cooperate with one another. It ensures trust between strangers that have never met before. Money is exactly such a “myth”, having no “real” value materially. The decision to make the U.S.A. dollar the choice of currency is, to a great extent, arbitrary. The dollar itself has no value or meaning, but rather it is humans which imbue it with value. Then, once trust in a certain chosen currency is established, trade and prosperity can ensue.
This logic of “myth” is relevant in many different human institutions: McDonald’s is a “myth”, Israel and Zionism are “myths” since they all exist within the heads of people, not in the objects of the world. It may be countered that the term “myth” is misleading because it seems to indicate falsity. Yet this depends on one’s definition of truth: if one believes that reality is nothing more than material objects, then “myth” is relevant. If one believes that reality is also valid to describe human thought, ideas and so forth, then the term for “myth” is not suitable. Either way, all these human ideas are based on the belief in reciprocal relations rather than anything concrete.
Harari illustrates this point with a thought experiment. A person is alone on an island to fight a chimpanzee. The chimpanzee, being on average stronger and faster than the average human, would most probably win. Meanwhile, on an identical island nearby a fight is about to take place between 1000 chimpanzees and 1000 humans – would the result be the same as on the first island? Given the possibility of both humans and chimpanzees to form familial bonds (see section on kin-selection), we might expect to see no difference. Yet humans have a distinct attribute that allows them to cooperate on such a large scale – the joint “myth” they produce and believe in. If they all believe that they are all fated to end together in hell if they do not cooperate, or heaven if they do – they would certainly choose the ladder. Yet on the other side of the island, the 1000 chimpanzees would never be able to form any coalition the size of the humans. This is because one cannot persuade a chimpanzee to give up his banana by promising him infinite bananas in his “monkey-heaven”. People, on the other hand, give up their “bananas” (time and resources) for future and for others. Believing in the same ideas, ideology or religion, people are willing to sacrifice their time, money, resources for others they have never met. There is no need for a human to actually meet and inspect closely all 1000 people before deciding to work with together against their common enemy. All he needs to know is that the others believe what he believes and fear the same outcome he fears.
This “myth” is exactly the same social-psychological force outlined throughout this paper. Yet it appears to me, that like Moral intuition, the capacity to believe in the transcendental is biological in nature (Newberg, 2008). That is why it is a universal phenomenon. Though there are cultures where the belief in God has never existed (China for example), it is only the three monotheistic Religions that have reached such a staggering domination over the world population. With 2.2 billion Christians worldwide and over 1.6 Billion Muslims (and 14 million Jews) – the potency of the belief in a divine God is hard to contend with.
Evolutionary Game Theory, just like Hobbes’s “Leviathan” provide the necessary theoretical and scientific basis for the “advantages” of such a belief to develop in the first place. God is the punishing force of society. He is the Moral Law. Before such a law would actually be formally written in civilized law, God served as the metaphysical explanation, as well as the ethical justification, for much of human social conduct. When societies form fearing the wrath of God, they cooperate. The enforcement of such punishments can come in the form of the forces of nature such as the story of the flood or the ten plagues on Egypt. Both are examples of God’s retribution. Yet these holy punishments are not only natural catastrophes. The “sins” of men, the people who defect on the accepted moral code of religion, may be punished via other members of the group. These types of punishments are explained as God’s “will. Thus, whilst the notion of God looms in the background, civilizations are able to form with relative stability, escaping the harsh Hobbesian “state of nature”. That is to say, the shared belief in a single deity is an evolutionary valid strategy for survival. It makes cooperation and punishment a day-to-day reality and helps keep in-group struggles to a minimum.
Consequences and Implications of this Perspective
This explanation of God as a social-evolutionary force should serve as a suggestion for an alternative view to the anthropomorphic-metaphysical God which is still widespread in the 21st century. As Harris (2004), Dawkins (1986), and Hitchens (2008) all point out – many of these beliefs are based on a misunderstanding of science and cause much social and political mayhem. Christianity, for example, was founded at a time where people understood the world by the forces of Aristoteles’s four elements as opposed to the detailed periodic table. The notion of divine providence was established when there was no knowledge the earth orbited the sun. The story of Genesis was written before Darwinian selection ever came a viable explanation for the origins of human beings. Most importantly, the ideas of a secular utilitarian morality, as established by Jeremy Bentham and John Stewart Mill, were never developed. People spoke of morality, not in terms of human well-being or human suffering, but rather in terms of “just” and “unjust”, “pure” and “impure”. Even if such a morality was more sophisticated and humane than any alternative one of the time, it still lacked crucial insights on humans’ relations to the cosmos, as well as to the significance of human suffering.
This paper argues that the “morality” religion espouses, can be, and in fact was, the best way of ensuring human success and flourishing. Yet, with the positive stability religion offers, comes the price of tyranny, dogmatism and an inability to remain flexible in light of the rapid changes and discoveries of modernity. This perspective on God is mainly social and psychological rather than ontological (that is to say, existing outside one’s consciousness). This is in accord with different psychoanalytical conceptualizations of God, such as those offered by Freud and Jung. The belief in a metaphysical God is at present incompatible with many of the discoveries of science, most notably with evolution. Yet, by viewing God as a psycho-phenomenological phenomenon (occurring inside one’s consciousness), one can still retain an understanding of God which is in harmony with science.
Thus, the question of the existence of God becomes dependent on one’s definition of reality. For the materialistic perspective, God is no different from any other “myth” that ensures social cooperation. If however, one views the psychological-subjective experience as a necessary component of reality, then understanding the belief in God is essential in understanding the human condition. In other words, one should consider the definition of “reality” and “truth” as consisting of what happens inside human beings, within consciousness. Philosophically speaking, “truth” is not necessarily limited to what is out there. Rather it can be argued, “reality” includes the experience itself. This type of “reality”, is not limited to a single individual, but rather manifests itself over the span of many different persons and cultures. This conception of God, though very different from the classical conception of God, in a sense, can still be dubbed “true”.
Summary
At the beginning of this paper, the groundwork was laid to demonstrate the gradual declining belief in a literal-metaphysical God. One of the major forces of which was attributed to Darwin’s theory of natural selection. According to it, one can explain the origins of life absent of any form of an omniscient being. Next, Hobbes’ concept of a third-party sovereign was introduced to explain the role of voluntary cooperation as the alternative state of nature. This theory was expanded upon by the mathematical logic of Game Theory, as it appears in the prisoner’s dilemma and the recurring prisoner’s dilemma.
Afterwards, the discussion proceeded to deal with kin-selection as one of the main alternative theories of explaining cooperation, taking into account its prevalence and importance in shaping care between humans. With that theory being acknowledged, the conversation moved forward to the role of moral intuition and its biological origins. That too was based on similar logic to that of Game Theory, where it is often better to cooperate, if even for purely “selfish” Darwinian reasons than to act immorally.
Then Harari’s term for “myth” has been adopted to explain cooperation between vast amounts of people. That gave to the conclusion that the role of God is an evolutionary socio-psychological phenomenon that is beneficial in facilitating cooperation in certain societies of the past. The belief in God is so deeply embedded in the cultural psyche, that I speculate that it may have far deeper roots. I speculate that the belief in the divine was selected for at a time when unification was needed. In our prehistoric ancestry, whoever believed in the divine was that much more likely to survive than whomever did not. This is because belief leads to cooperation, and cooperation leads to survival and reproduction. From this social and psychological understanding of God, a short conversation proceeded as to the significance of such a perspective on the morality and culture in the 21st century. This synthesis can be viewed as one answer to the age-old question: “Does God exists?”. By synthesizes knowledge from different disciplines: philosophy, evolutionary theory, Game theory and psychology, a new perspective on the notion of God is offered. This God, I will name: “Game-Theory God”.