The nature and dynamics of world religions: a life-history approach

Abstract

In contrast with tribal and archaic religions, world religions are characterized by a unique emphasis on extended prosociality, restricted sociosexuality, delayed gratification and the belief that these specific behaviours are sanctioned by some kind of supernatural justice. Here, we draw on recent advances in life history theory to explain this pattern of seemingly unrelated features. Life history theory examines how organisms adaptively allocate resources in the face of trade-offs between different life-goals (e.g. growth versus reproduction, exploitation versus exploration). In particular, recent studies have shown that individuals, including humans, adjust their life strategy to the environment through phenotypic plasticity: in a harsh environment, organisms tend to adopt a 'fast' strategy, pursuing smaller but more certain benefits, while in more affluent environments, organisms tend to develop a 'slow' strategy, aiming for larger but less certain benefits. Reviewing a range of recent research, we show that world religions are associated with a form of 'slow' strategy. This framework explains both the promotion of 'slow' behaviours such as altruism, self-regulation and monogamy in modern world religions, and the condemnation of 'fast' behaviours such as selfishness, conspicuous sexuality and materialism. This ecological approach also explains the diffusion pattern of world religions: why they emerged late in human history (500-300 BCE), why they are currently in decline in the most affluent societies and why they persist in some places despite this overall decline.

Neighborhood Deprivation Negatively Impacts Children’s Prosocial Behavior

“…This pattern of results may be explained by an analysis of the costs and benefits of acting prosocially toward others: many accounts of moral behavior indeed emphasize that prosocial behaviors that improve one’s moral reputation can give access to the long-term benefits associated with future cooperation (Barclay, 2011; Baumard et al, 2013). In harsher environments with fewer resources and less resource security, it can be dangerous to invest large amounts in one’s cooperative reputation with strangers with whom one might never interact again (Baumard and Chevallier, 2015). …”

Spiritual care as a response to an exaptation: how evolutionary psychology informs the debate

“…On the contrary, the explanatory power of the concept of natural selection rests largely on its flexibility and applicability at the level of individual proteins, cells, organs, individuals, and communities: the basic logical operations can be brought to bear in each case. In relation to the case under discussion, we may plausibly conclude that, as well as spiritual intuitions having adaptive significance, the religious‐organizational expressions and vehicles for these intuitions in concrete historical and social communities are liable to selection pressures, which themselves may vary over time (Baumard & Chevallier, ). In other words, some religious expressions are liable to survive better than others, by a process both of community selection and cultural selection.…”

“…First, it is not at all surprising that researchers who specialize in the cognitive architecture of individual minds will be particularly appreciative of the evolutionary pressures on those cognitive architectures themselves, at the individual level: it is no criticism of a scientist to say that they will see first what is in their field of view. Secondly, one does not need to widen that field of view very far to find a long tradition of advocates of a contrary opinion to the effect that religion is adaptive , in social anthropology and psychology of religion, but also among cognitive scientists themselves (Morewedge & Clear, ; Sosis, ; Pyysiäinen & Hauser, ; Johnson, ; Norenzayan et al ., , ; Peoples & Marlowe, ; Norenzayan, ; Baumard & Chevallier, ). Indeed, for some reason Paley neglects to add that Murray and Goldberg themselves identify two distinct schools of thought, although they consider the ‘adaptationists’ to be in the minority among evolutionary theorists of religion at the time they are writing (Murray & Goldberg, , p. 183).…”

“…3 Furthermore, population-level selection will be influenced by the need to adapt to cultural, environmental, and technological conditions (Norenzayan, 2013) which entails the need to take account of particular religious and social backgrounds when offering spiritual care to individuals: the socioreligious context cannot be 'bracketed out' of spiritual care. 4 Nevertheless, interpopulation selection promotes 'prosocial' values and practices (such as mutuality and reinforcing rites) which favour the survival of the group as a whole, even potentially at cost to the personal survival of the individual (Morewedge & Clear, 2008;Norenzayan et al, 2012;Baumard & Chevallier, 2015). Consequently, there are some shared values held by most if not all persistent religious organizations which reinforce the belonging and security of the individual and therefore need to be taken into account in person-centred care generally.…”

Life History and Multi-Partner Mating: A Novel Explanation for Moral Stigma Against Consensual Non-monogamy

“…In other words, though fast life history traits can help individuals cope with an unpredictable environment (Figueredo and Jacobs, 2010;Frankenhuis et al, 2016;Young et al, 2018), they may conflict with the optimal social strategy pursued by slow life history strategists. Baumard and Chevallier (2015) argue that fast life history behaviors may be moralized to the extent that slow strategists promote cooperation, self-regulation, and restricted sociosexuality, and condemn "fast" behaviors such as selfishness, conspicuous sexuality, and materialism. By espousing moral values that promote delayed gratification, sexual monogamy, and altruism, slow life history strategists may condemn multi-partner mating to create stable, cohesive communities that invest in long-term reciprocity and extended prosociality.…”