Speculative essay on religion as an evolutionary exaptation with anecdotal Tanzanian marriage anecdote

religion looks like a case of exaptation — an expression of human thoughts and emotions that originally evolved to solve problems other than cooperation, but once in place were swiftly adopted for solving problems of cooperation. Further evidence in support of religion as exaptation comes from a follow-up to the dictator game experiment discussed above. If you swap religious words for non-religious but moral words such as civic, duty, jury, court and police, you get the same results: people give more money when thinking about these morally-pregnant, but non-religious words. It is also the case that if you paste up a photograph of eyes next to a money box for coffee, people give more than with a photograph of flowers. What these two studies show is that words and images that make us think about others, especially the possibility that others are watching, turns us into bigger spenders. These psychological transformations are not, however, specific to religion. Some may think that God is watching, but they and others may also think of a white- bearded, gavel-wielding, atheistic judge. We learn three important lessons from the study of tameness and religion, lessons that will propel our discussion of evil. First, distinguish what something evolved for from what it is used for. Second, dissect complicated traits down into their component parts as the parts, together with their inter- dependence, may have different evolutionary histories. Third, the combination of independently evolved capacities can lead to novel adaptations and possibilities. Some combinations lead to altruistic and humane compassion toward those we don’t know. Others lead to virulent hatred and annihilation of those we do know. The brain’s promiscuity is a driving engine for both the good, the bad, and the ugly. From the shackles of monogamy to the freedom of promiscuity Many years ago, some American friends of mine were married in a small village in Tanzania. After the wedding, they went to a local official who was responsible for providing a marriage certificate. On the certificate were three choices, indicative of the type of marriage: Monogamous, Polygynous, and Potentially Polygynous. My friends chuckled, but aimed their pen with confidence at Monogamous. Before they could ink the certificate, however, several Tanzanian men shouted out “NO! At least Potentially Polygynous. Give yourself the option.” Right, the option. The freedom to explore. Among social animals, only a few species pair bond for life, or at least a very long time. This fact is equally true of the social mammals: less than 5% of the 4000 or so species are strictly monogamous. For these rare species, most of their efforts to think, plan, and feel are dedicated to their partner; what’s left over goes into finding food and avoiding becoming dinner. Life is much more complicated for the rest of the social animals. Their social and sexual relationships are more promiscuous, less stable and less Hauser Chapter 1. Nature’s secrets 26 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012772