The variable “High Gods” of the Ethnographic Atlas and the Standard Cross Cultural Sample allows gods to be coded as either moralizing or not moralizing. In other words, gods do or do not give instructions on how to behave. This is a clear and straightforward dichotomy, yet the decision how to code a particular religion can be problematic. It is interesting to read how Norenzayan et al. (sects. 3.2–3.2.3) challenge some ideas in this regard. Here I mention six hypotheses about moralizing gods, and I try to explain why I feel uncomfortable with terms like prosocial and antisocial.

Hypotheses or theories about a belief in moralizing gods can be grouped in descriptions of ecological or social conditions. An example of the first is Snarey's (Reference Snarey1996) claim that a belief in moralizing gods is more often found in societies where water is scarce. Other examples are Botero et al. (Reference Botero, Gardner, Kirby, Bulbulia, Gavin and Gray2014), who found this belief to be more prevalent among societies that inhabit harsh environments, whereas Baumard et al. (Reference Baumard, Hyafil, Morris and Boyer2015) argue that increased affluence explains the emergence of moralizing religions.

An example of a hypothesis describing social conditions is Marxist theory, which argues that moralizing gods are used, if not created, by the rich to manipulate the poor. In another theory, moralizing gods function to keep competing members of society together, so one society can more effectively compete with other societies. Roes and Raymond (Reference Roes and Raymond2003) found support for both of these hypotheses. Finally, there is the idea (Roes Reference Roes2014) that paternity confidence is more important in patrilocal societies, and moralizing gods function to sequester women. Notice that in the last three hypotheses, moralizing gods are associated with competition between human groups – namely, between (a) socioeconomic classes, (b) different societies, and (c) the sexes.

The words prosocial (as used in the title of the target article) and antisocial sound like moral qualifications, which is one reason I would refrain from using them as scientific terms. Who wants to be known as an antisocial individual? However, a prosocial person is not, as the word suggests, someone who is indiscriminately nice to everybody else. He or she is nice in relation to a certain group. A mafia member is considered prosocial by his colleagues if he abides by the “omertà” code of silence, whereas the rest of the larger society considers him antisocial. So someone can be pro- and antisocial at the same time, depending on the perspective taken. This might be confusing, and I believe George Peter Murdock was right in designing the variable “High Gods” the way he did, because even a god cannot be both moralizing and not moralizing at the same time. Two of the target article authors mention in another publication (Shariff & Norenzayan Reference Shariff and Norenzayan2011, p. 85) the term counternormative behavior. I prefer this term to antisocial behaviour, because it is more neutral and also poses the question about which norms are being violated. I imagine a similar alternative for the word prosocial can be found.