The Evolutionary History of Religious Behavior
Some but not all human behaviors have evolved in ways that allow one to look for the same behaviors (called homologous behaviors) in lower organisms. To do this, one has to look for behavior that has the same form, rather than the same function. This is similar to looking for the same anatomical forms, such as the bones of the human arm and hand, in lower organisms. Finding homologous forms in ancestors allows one to establish the relationship between two species as well as trace the evolutionary history of the form. In biology phylogeny is the term for tracing the evolutionary history of a form. The single chapter (Chapter 5) in Part Two traces the evolutionary history of religious behavior that can be defined by its form. It also explores the other reli-gious behaviors whose forms are variable and therefore can be defined only by their functions.
CHAPTER 5
The Evolutionary History of Religious Behavior
Jay R. Feierman
Human evolutionary history involves tracing human features back over time. When the features are passed across generations by DNA, this is called biological evolution and the tracing process is called phy-logeny. Darwinian natural selection is the most common form of bio-logical evolution.1 When the features are passed across generations by social learning, this is called ‘‘cultural evolution.’’ The two are interrelated.2All of the features of any organism can be divided into forms (also called ‘‘structures’’) and functions. Only forms, which have structural or architectural mass, can be directly traced back through evolutionary time either biologically or culturally. Functions cannot.3 Throughout this chapter the terms ‘‘form’’ and ‘‘structure’’ are used interchangeably. As an example, a leg has form or structure but walk-ing is a function. This relationship between form and function will be important to keep in mind in trying to understand the evolutionary history of religious behavior.4
Nobel Laureate ethologist (behavioral biologist) Niko Tinbergen said that to fully understand any behavior one has to understand four things about the behavior, which are often called the four questions of Tinbergen:5 (1) What is the behavior’s evolutionary history?
(2) What is the behavior’s developmental history over the life span of the individual? (3) What are the behavior’s causes within the life span of the individual? (4) Does the behavior have survival value or adap-tiveness? These four questions also form the part headings of this
book. This chapter will be concerned with the first question of Tin-bergen. However, before that is undertaken, more needs to be said about religion and behavior in general.
RELIGION
Religion is so broad a concept that most definitions fail, as there are always exceptions. However, religion can be described. Ethologist Robert A. Hinde describes most religions as containing at least some of the following elements: structural beliefs, narratives, and rituals;
prayer, sacrifice, and other aspects of religious practice; a code of per-sonal and group conduct; religious experience; and social aspects.6For simplicity in this chapter these elements will be reduced to religious behavior, beliefs, values, moods, and feelings. When one does this, religious beliefs, values, moods, and feelings become contributing causes of religious behavior.7
BEHAVIOR
There are many ways that behavior (the movement of an individual) can be divided into categories. Each way may be useful for a different purpose. For the purpose of understanding human religious behavior from a behavioral biology perspective, the following classification, which is derived from previous work of the author,8is useful.
Type I Behavior: Definable by form and function in a natural environ-ment and species-universal in form.
Type II Behavior: Describable by form and definable by function in a natural environment and not species-universal in form.
Because the terms describable and definable are used above as one of the ways to differentiate between Type I and Type II Behaviors, it may help to clarify the differences between them and then show how this applies to behavior. When something is defined, it is first put into a recognizable general category; then one says how it is different from the other items in the same general category. A good definition allows one to identify or recognize something without missing it or without confusing it with something else that is similar. In addition, a defini-tion tells what something is by equating the definidefini-tion with its referent by using the verb ‘‘to be.’’
In contrast, a description is a transformation of some of the perceiv-able features of what is being described using a different format. For example, what is seen visually gets transformed into a verbal represen-tation of some of the visual features. The more words that are used to describe something, the more likely it is that one will be able to recog-nize what is being described and not confuse it with something that is similar. Definitions are what create categories with sharp boundaries in science.
To define behavior by its form, one states ‘‘the change of positions of parts of the body relative to other parts and to environmental coor-dinates.’’9Then one states how this movement is different from other movements that are a similar change of position in reference to the same reference points. When behavior shows lots of variation in form when repeated by the same or different individuals, it can only be defined by its function, although its form can still be described. For example, imagine a child is ‘‘playing,’’ which is a functional character-ization of the child’s behavior. One cannot define ‘‘playing’’ by its form because there are too many behaviors that can be used when a child is playing. Yet, for any specific example of a particular child playing, one can easily describe the child’s behavior.
The other concept used to understand behavior is function. Both Type I and Type II Behaviors can be defined by their function. A function can be thought of as the nonstructural result or outcome of one form (or structure) interacting with another form (or structure) in space and over time where at least one of the two forms (structures) is a part of the behaving individual. For example, ‘‘clapping,’’ which is a function, is the result or outcome of the palm of one hand briskly contacting the palm of the other hand in a rhythmic manner. The type of function referred to above has been called the nonhistorical, causal role (CR) type of function. Another synonym is proximate (meaning near) use function.10 This CR concept of function is in contrast to what is called the selected effect (SE) type of function in which the function of a trait, often called the trait’s adaptive function or ultimate function, is considered the same as its evolutionary purpose or the rea-son why the trait evolved by natural selection. In this chapter when the term ‘‘function’’ is used, it only refers to CR or proximate function, which is its meaning when used by comparative anatomists and phys-iologists when they study the forms and functions, respectively, of the various structural organs of the body. The form and function of behavior (movement) can be studied biologically in ways similar to how the form and function of structural organs of the body are
studied.11This similarity is what allows us to study religious behavior from a biological perspective.
It may be useful to say more about Type I and Type II Behaviors that will help when these terms are applied to religious behavior. First, the instructions for executing Type I Behavior biologically evolve and are passed across generations by DNA. In contrast, most of the instructions for executing Type II Behavior culturally evolve and are passed across (and within) generations by social learning.
There are actually two types of Type I Behaviors: reflexes and coordi-nated motor patterns. A coordicoordi-nated motor pattern is in-between a reflex and the more flexible types of behaviors seen in humans.
Reflexes tend to be independent of mood, whereas coordinated motor patterns are mood dependent. Reflexes also tend to be all or none and only exhibit variation in intensity with muscle fatigue or in neurologi-cal disorders. In contrast, coordinated motor patterns have more variation in intensity from the subtle smile to the ear-to-ear grin. Spe-cific stimuli in the environment can ‘‘release’’ speSpe-cific Type I Behav-iors whether they are reflexes or coordinated motor patterns.12 These principles will be applied to Type I religious behavior in the next section of this chapter.
Type I Behaviors are seen in all vertebrates (animals with back-bones) from bony fish to humans. All of the instincts of animals are executed by Type I Behaviors.13Common examples of Type I Behav-iors (coordinated motor patterns) can easily be seen in one’s family dog: wagging the tail, fetching something that is thrown, burying a bone or food, baring the canine teeth when aggressive, lying on the back when submissive, etc. In humans common examples of Type I Behaviors are the various facial affects (happy, sad, anger, surprise, disgust, fear, and neutral)14as well as much of our courtship,15 mat-ing, maternal-infant care, and dominance and submissive behaviors.16 As one moves up the evolutionary tree of life from bony fish to humans, the individual has more volitional control over the execution of Type I Behavior.
All societies have what are called ‘‘display rules,’’17which regulate the context and intensity for Type I Behaviors, such as where and how displays of anger can be shown. Different societies also have dis-play rules for which of several variations on a common theme of a Type I Behavior are shown. For example, bond-establishing and maintaining rites (greeting and departing ceremonies) have many local variations on a common theme.18The common theme is some type of reciprocated mirrored behavior in close proximity that is a part of our
universal human ‘‘social grammar.’’19However, the variations on the common theme can be different across societies as in the American handshake, the European kiss on both cheeks, the Japanese bow, the Inuit kunik, and the Maori hongi. This concept of intersocietal varia-tion on a common theme will be important in terms of understanding the local variations in Type I Behavior across different religions.
Type II Behaviors are not seen in all vertebrates. They have been described, although not by the name ‘‘Type II Behaviors,’’ in some primates, sea mammals, and birds. Type II Behaviors are all behaviors (movements) that are not Type I Behaviors. When a species that is only capable of executing Type I Behavior learns, only the timing, ori-entation, intensity, and function of the coordinated motor pattern gets modified. The behavior’s form remains the same. In contrast, the actual form of Type II Behaviors can be modified through learning.
In humans postinfancy maternal caring behavior (a functional charac-terization of behavior) is an example of Type II Behavior. Think of all of the forms of behavior that a human mother uses to care for her tod-dler, preteen, and teenage child. Many of these behaviors are ‘‘flexi-ble’’ in their execution and only have one thing in common—the function of postinfancy maternal caring. All of the behaviors that are used in vocally articulating as well as in writing human symbolic lan-guages are Type II Behaviors.
It helps to realize that so-called present participle verbs that end in
‘‘ing’’ are functions. Examples include such things as playing, throw-ing, dancthrow-ing, hidthrow-ing, cookthrow-ing, baptizthrow-ing, and praying. Functions are ephemeral (temporary) states rather than more permanent, structural traits. Features or characteristics that can only be defined by their function do not have mass. One cannot hold them in one’s hand.
Because only forms (structures) can be traced back in biological evolu-tion, one cannot trace the biological evolutionary history of functions per se. There is a reason for this. The information that is passed across generations through genes (DNA) is structural information. Most active genes code for the instructions to make structural proteins, which are enzymes that control specific biochemical reactions. It is an old principle in biology that genes code for structures and then the structures have functions. The functions of the structures that genes code for can change through the developmental lifetime of a single individual as well as over the evolutionary history of the species.
Therefore, Type II Behavior (the movement of individuals) that can only be defined by its function cannot have the same type of biological evolutionary history as the Type I Behavior that can be defined by its
form and structure. As will be seen, most religious behaviors are Type II Behaviors.
Having given some general background about behavior and how to categorize and conceptualize it in terms of form and function, the next step is to apply this understanding to religious behavior. The next two sections will address Type I and Type II religious behaviors.