RETRACTED ARTICLE: Complex societies precede moralizing gods throughout world history

Abstract

The origins of both religion and complex societies represent evolutionary puzzles [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] . The moralizing gods hypothesis offers a solution to both puzzles by proposing that belief in morally concerned supernatural agents culturally evolved to facilitate cooperation among strangers in large-scale societies [9][10][11][12][13] . While previous research has suggested an association between presence of moralizing gods and social complexity 3,6,7,[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] , the relationship between the two is disputed 9,10,13,19,20,23,24 , and attempts to establish causality have been hampered by limitations in the availability of detailed global longitudinal data. To overcome these limitations, we systematically coded records for 414 societies spanning the last 10,000 years from 30 regions around the world, based on 51 measures of social complexity and four measures of supernatural enforcement of morality. Our analyses confirm the association between moralizing gods and social complexity but reveal that moralizing gods follow, rather than precede, large increases in social complexity. Contrary to previous predictions 9,12,16,18 , powerful moralizing "big gods", and prosocial supernatural punishment more generally, tend to appear only after the emergence of "megasocieties" with populations of greater than around a million. Although moralizing gods are not a prerequisite for the evolution of social complexity, they may help to sustain and expand complex multiethnic empires after they have become established. In contrast, rituals facilitating the standardization of religious traditions across large populations 25,26 generally precede the appearance of moralizing gods. This suggests that ritual practices were more important than the particular content of religious belief to the initial rise of social complexity.Supernatural agents that punish direct affronts to themselves (e.g. failure to perform sacrifices or observe taboos) are commonly represented in global history, but rarely are such deities believed to punish moral violations in interactions between humans 2 . Recent

Why did pre-modern states adopt Big-God religions?

“…Thus, the various components of religious investments -on conversion, on morality, on legitimacy -appear to co-evolve with one another as well as with state capacity, albeit differently across different levels of religiosity. The higher incentives to invest in morality when the number of believers is high appear consistent with the recent empirical findings of Whitehouse et al (2019) who argue that "moralizing" gods typically follow by centuries a society's measured level of complexity, but one would need to look closer to the underlying data to make a better informed determination about that. 4 More generally, the fact that Big-God religions that were adopted by Eurasian rulers have multiple tendencies -the tendency to seek converts, to emphasize ruler legitimacy and largesociety morality as well as their complementarity with building greater state capacity -indicate that Big-God religions have a "package" of attributes.…”

Exploration of Youth’s Digital Competencies: A Dataset in the Educational Context of Vietnam

“…Knowledge sharing, open access to data and information are also aligned with the current movements in the academic world that resulted from better communication and connection concerning international collaboration in research, transparency of data processing, and Open Science [31,32]. It is not unusual nowadays that studies with groundbreaking findings are attained by large research groups from all over the world, such as the picture of the black hole [33] or the large dataset of societies [34]. All these changes will ultimately address the global sustainable development goals of United Nations.…”

A New Kind of Relevance for Archaeology

“…The second approach is cross-cultural analysis. As with traditional synthesis, there is a long and varied tradition in this sort of work, in both cultural anthropology and archaeology (Murdock, 1949;Driver and Massey, 1957;Oliver, 1962;Carneiro, 1967;Jorgensen, 1980;Ember and Ember, 1994;Peregrine, 2003;Gell-Mann, 2011;Whitehouse et al, 2019). Much of it has involved extraction of nominal or ordinal variables from primary ethnographic and archaeological literature that was rarely created of written for this purpose.…”