Norenzayan et al. argue that religious beliefs and practices originally arose as non-adaptive by-products of innate cognitive biases – in particular, a bias towards mentalizing. Religions with “Big Gods” (powerful deities that monitor behaviour) were then preferentially selected for in a process of cultural evolution, with selection occurring because a Big God facilitates a social group's success by increasing cooperation in warfare, defence, and economic ventures. Although Norenzayan et al.’s argument covers a continuum from polytheistic to monotheistic religions, the proposed selection advantages of a Big God apply most strongly to monotheistic religions with an omnipotent, all-knowing, moralising God: religions such as Christianity and Islam. Norenzayan et al.’s proposal is thus, at heart, an account for the success of monotheistic religions. For simplicity I use monotheism to refer to religions with Big Gods. I avoid Norenzayan et al.’s unfortunate choice of the term prosocial because of its implicit suggestion that other religions are somehow antisocial.
Norenzayan et al.’s proposal will have widespread appeal, particularly among monotheistic adherents. There are, however, serious problems. One problem concerns Norenzayan et al.’s account for the origins of religion in a bias towards mentalizing. This bias causes people to overextend the “theory of mind” and imagine that natural phenomena in some way have minds. This bias gives a natural account for the origin of religions with a range of “local” gods, each representing the overextension of mentalizing to some specific aspect of life or the natural environment. This account does not explain, and indeed is in opposition to, the origin of monotheistic religious systems. This is because, if people have an innate bias towards mentalizing, we would expect them to repeatedly create different “local gods” (in different acts of overextended mentalizing) rather than one single god. Further, such innate biases do not just “go away”: if people had that bias 5,000 or 10,000 years ago, they presumably still have it today. Although Norenzayan et al.’s origin story for religion naturally explains the creation of polytheistic systems, it does not predict the creation of monotheistic “Big Gods.”
How, then, can a monotheistic religion arise from polytheistic systems produced by innate biases? I consider two possible accounts for the origin of monotheism: by politics and by absorption of other religions. Importantly, these accounts can explain not only the origins of monotheism but also the spread and differential success of monotheistic religions.
In a political account for monotheism, monotheism is seen as originating as a form of propaganda for kingly states. In this account, when one state conquers a neighbouring state, the family god of the conquering king is seen to be more powerful than the god of the conquered state. As an act of propaganda, this royal god is presented as more powerful than the gods of other states and, in the end, becomes the Big God of monotheism. This process has been proposed for the origins of Judaism in the kingdoms of Judah and Israel (Smith Reference Smith2001). This political account also provides a mechanism whereby monotheistic religions spread and become dominant: because it is politically advantageous for a dominant state to have a dominant god, we would expect dominant states to have Big Gods. This view sees monotheism spreading through the decisions of powerful rulers. Perhaps the most striking example of this is the Edict of Thessalonica, 380 CE, which ordered all subjects of the Roman Empire to adopt the Christian faith (Brown Reference Brown2003). This edict was probably the dominant cause for the spread of Christianity in Europe, contrary to Norenzayan et al's argument: Christianity was not adopted as the state religion of the Roman Empire because Christian adherents were more economically successful, had higher rates of reproduction, or were more successful militarily; instead, the adoption of Christianity was a political decision.
Another account for the origins of monotheism sees monotheism beginning in a process that subsumes or absorbs one religious tradition within another. In polytheistic religions, foreign gods are often worshipped in parallel alongside the native polytheistic pantheon. This type of parallelism means that polytheistic religions are not taking part in a competition for adherents. Monotheistic religions, however, typically do not allow this form of parallel worship. Instead, they can subsume the gods and holy places of their polytheistic competitors. This form of subsumption was an explicit strategy of the Christian Church from around 700 CE, referred to as “interpretatio christiana”: the practice of converting native pagan practices, culture, religious imagery and sites to Christian uses (Brown Reference Brown2003). This process leads naturally to the extension of the power of the subsuming gods, and so it can explain both the origins and the spread of monotheism.
How do these alternatives compare with Norenzayan et al.’s account? In Norenzayan et al.’s proposal, a religion spreads when adherents of that religion are more successful than others in warfare, defence, expansion, and economic ventures. Monotheism facilitates success in this competition, and so monotheistic religions tend to spread. However, there are a number of cases of polytheistic religions whose adherents were clearly outperforming their monotheistic neighbours in these fields, but in which those polytheistic adherents rapidly converted to monotheism. One such case is the Vikings, adherents of a polytheistic religion who in the period 800–1000 CE were extremely successful in warfare, defence, expansion, and economics (founding militarily strong and economically rich kingdoms in England, Ireland, Normandy, and Russia). Despite being notably more successful than their neighbours, the Vikings also converted rapidly to Christianity in the same period, with Viking rulers converting to Christianity for political reasons, and with the pagan religion of their subjects being subsumed within the monotheistic Christian tradition (Jones Reference Jones2001). This goes against Norenzayan et al.’s argument, in which the Viking's success should have caused their Christian neighbours to convert to the Viking religion, not vice versa.
You have
Access
Norenzayan et al. argue that religious beliefs and practices originally arose as non-adaptive by-products of innate cognitive biases – in particular, a bias towards mentalizing. Religions with “Big Gods” (powerful deities that monitor behaviour) were then preferentially selected for in a process of cultural evolution, with selection occurring because a Big God facilitates a social group's success by increasing cooperation in warfare, defence, and economic ventures. Although Norenzayan et al.’s argument covers a continuum from polytheistic to monotheistic religions, the proposed selection advantages of a Big God apply most strongly to monotheistic religions with an omnipotent, all-knowing, moralising God: religions such as Christianity and Islam. Norenzayan et al.’s proposal is thus, at heart, an account for the success of monotheistic religions. For simplicity I use monotheism to refer to religions with Big Gods. I avoid Norenzayan et al.’s unfortunate choice of the term prosocial because of its implicit suggestion that other religions are somehow antisocial.
Norenzayan et al.’s proposal will have widespread appeal, particularly among monotheistic adherents. There are, however, serious problems. One problem concerns Norenzayan et al.’s account for the origins of religion in a bias towards mentalizing. This bias causes people to overextend the “theory of mind” and imagine that natural phenomena in some way have minds. This bias gives a natural account for the origin of religions with a range of “local” gods, each representing the overextension of mentalizing to some specific aspect of life or the natural environment. This account does not explain, and indeed is in opposition to, the origin of monotheistic religious systems. This is because, if people have an innate bias towards mentalizing, we would expect them to repeatedly create different “local gods” (in different acts of overextended mentalizing) rather than one single god. Further, such innate biases do not just “go away”: if people had that bias 5,000 or 10,000 years ago, they presumably still have it today. Although Norenzayan et al.’s origin story for religion naturally explains the creation of polytheistic systems, it does not predict the creation of monotheistic “Big Gods.”
How, then, can a monotheistic religion arise from polytheistic systems produced by innate biases? I consider two possible accounts for the origin of monotheism: by politics and by absorption of other religions. Importantly, these accounts can explain not only the origins of monotheism but also the spread and differential success of monotheistic religions.
In a political account for monotheism, monotheism is seen as originating as a form of propaganda for kingly states. In this account, when one state conquers a neighbouring state, the family god of the conquering king is seen to be more powerful than the god of the conquered state. As an act of propaganda, this royal god is presented as more powerful than the gods of other states and, in the end, becomes the Big God of monotheism. This process has been proposed for the origins of Judaism in the kingdoms of Judah and Israel (Smith Reference Smith2001). This political account also provides a mechanism whereby monotheistic religions spread and become dominant: because it is politically advantageous for a dominant state to have a dominant god, we would expect dominant states to have Big Gods. This view sees monotheism spreading through the decisions of powerful rulers. Perhaps the most striking example of this is the Edict of Thessalonica, 380 CE, which ordered all subjects of the Roman Empire to adopt the Christian faith (Brown Reference Brown2003). This edict was probably the dominant cause for the spread of Christianity in Europe, contrary to Norenzayan et al's argument: Christianity was not adopted as the state religion of the Roman Empire because Christian adherents were more economically successful, had higher rates of reproduction, or were more successful militarily; instead, the adoption of Christianity was a political decision.
Another account for the origins of monotheism sees monotheism beginning in a process that subsumes or absorbs one religious tradition within another. In polytheistic religions, foreign gods are often worshipped in parallel alongside the native polytheistic pantheon. This type of parallelism means that polytheistic religions are not taking part in a competition for adherents. Monotheistic religions, however, typically do not allow this form of parallel worship. Instead, they can subsume the gods and holy places of their polytheistic competitors. This form of subsumption was an explicit strategy of the Christian Church from around 700 CE, referred to as “interpretatio christiana”: the practice of converting native pagan practices, culture, religious imagery and sites to Christian uses (Brown Reference Brown2003). This process leads naturally to the extension of the power of the subsuming gods, and so it can explain both the origins and the spread of monotheism.
How do these alternatives compare with Norenzayan et al.’s account? In Norenzayan et al.’s proposal, a religion spreads when adherents of that religion are more successful than others in warfare, defence, expansion, and economic ventures. Monotheism facilitates success in this competition, and so monotheistic religions tend to spread. However, there are a number of cases of polytheistic religions whose adherents were clearly outperforming their monotheistic neighbours in these fields, but in which those polytheistic adherents rapidly converted to monotheism. One such case is the Vikings, adherents of a polytheistic religion who in the period 800–1000 CE were extremely successful in warfare, defence, expansion, and economics (founding militarily strong and economically rich kingdoms in England, Ireland, Normandy, and Russia). Despite being notably more successful than their neighbours, the Vikings also converted rapidly to Christianity in the same period, with Viking rulers converting to Christianity for political reasons, and with the pagan religion of their subjects being subsumed within the monotheistic Christian tradition (Jones Reference Jones2001). This goes against Norenzayan et al.’s argument, in which the Viking's success should have caused their Christian neighbours to convert to the Viking religion, not vice versa.