Recently, I have discussed my belief that "religion" is a broad concept that is not limited to belief in a specific God and the rituals that go with all that. In Evolving God,* the anthropologist Barbara J. King agrees, citing in part the works of Karen Armstrong (some time ago, I read her history of God, also reading her take on the Genesis ... the former got a bit tedious when dealing with more mystical and psychological understandings of God, the latter a nice little analysis). As she noted in a useful Salon interview, she thinks "religion is all about emotional engagement and social action." A matter of "belongingness" that is an outgrowth of our evolutionary development.
King studies primates, which are basically our cousins -- we are not "evolved from apes," but are related by a common ancestor. Thus, they can tell us something about the origins of religion. Basically, chimps and gorillas have the basic core qualities that led to religion -- meaning making, imagination, empathy and rule making. Religion is basically our means to formulate a place -- a sense of belongingness if you like -- in this world, growing out of a need and the ability to carry out a means to meet it. When you say "religion," some people think going to church or prayer. But, for many -- including many Jews and Moslems -- it is a way of life and not so easily cabined. And, those who speak of "value voters" and such will tell you the term is broadly defined as well.
I personally think this universal way of looking at "religion" is a good policy. King refuses to say if she believes in God -- seeing that as personal -- but does note she is "spiritual," in part by her connection with nature and even in such small acts as kindness to pets and animals she passes by in nature. Of course, her life work is dealing with primates, but she clearly does not mean "spiritual" as a matter of "spirits" or such, though early humans clearly often took a pantheistic view of life (studies of "primitive" societies suggest as much). Cave paintings (the most famous ones are from around 17 thousand years ago, but some evidence of much older paints are evident, use of red paint on artifacts especially) also suggest not only a complex mental life (art and music can be quite spiritual or religious acts), but also shamanistic qualities such as fantastical animals and man/animal hybrids.
Homo sapiens came on the scene around two hundred thousand years ago, but the chimp/ape comparisons provide insights on the qualities earlier humanoids had. These people -- a word surely applicable to the genus "homo" -- for instance, made some relatively complex tools (vis-a-vis other animals, even other primates). Developments in tool making do not occur in a vacuum. As our ability to make tools develop, so did other things. This includes our mental life generally. By 65 thousand years ago, Neanderthal burial sites are evident. As with body ornaments, which was also evident by this time, this suggested some symbolic mindset. Some meaning, if only respect for the dead, though she thinks some understanding of an afterlife is probable as well.
She does not go into the afterlife point, but does reference her leanings in the interview. Armstrong btw once defended the use of idols by ancients -- something ridiculed by some Jews at the time -- by noting that they did not think the idols were in themselves divine. They served as a sort of conduit to the divine, something that surely is evident to let's say Catholics, who often favor relics or instruments like rosary beads or statutes of the Virgin Mary. Perhaps, you can say even if such things are not "real," they serve a quite real value by symbolically serving a purpose. Like a flag represents something (or a wedding ring ... such items can be "sacred," having special meaning even standing alone), symbols are an important part of human development and basic survival/happiness.
Giving meaning to life is at the core of religion as are such ritualistic acts and items. King also argues that one cannot separate religion and science into two compact categories. Religion is part of our existence, so a scientist cannot ignore its development and existence. I'd add that God is understood as part of nature, in fact, many would say nature is infused throughout by God. How can we totally separate the two? The word "supernatural," therefore honestly confuses me. If aliens exist, they are extraterrestrial ... but those who believe in a spiritual universe generally think it exists here as well.** Some polls suggest over 90 percent think God exists -- scientists are not all from that ten percent. And, again, "religion" in broadly defined in this book.
As with religion as a broad way of life, King also opposes the idea there is any one "God gene," religion in fact a sum of many parts, parts that at times needs development to grow and thrive. Such is the case with maternal instinct in various primate -- the possibility is there, but it needs development. It is also interactive. Thus, when two apes interact, they build off how each other acts, just as we in various ways alter our communications by the responses we receive. Life is like that -- it is not a one plus one equal two affair, but an ever changing complex equation. Science surely is, especially when dealing with incomplete evidence and ever changing -- in small ways and large -- understandings of that evidence, new evidence of human existence earlier than previously thought coming as King was working on this very book.
So, the book ends on a somewhat agnostic note, professing that no clear understanding of just how religion originated can really be offered, but stating the evidence does offer some useful answers and clear possibilities/probabilities all the same. This lack of evidence at times might lead the reader to be a bit disappointed, since we just do not know a lot about the details, but it is reassuring as well. A wise man once said that wisdom comes from knowing what one does not know, and a humane expression of the fact -- while teaching what one does -- comes out of this book as well.
---
* I find the subtitle a bit pretentious -- A Provocative View on the Origins of Religion. Not only does the book shy away from make crisp conclusions on how exactly religion "originated," the word "provocative" is a bit too cute -- if literally correct. Are we now in a state where books have to shout out that they are "provocative" and controversial/thought provoking?
** Many who believe in God do so for some quite tangible ways -- some offer "arguments from design" or note the positive results of their faith and religion. Or, perhaps, accept an argument from authority -- we always followed this path -- which is something honored in many other areas as well. The fact that this often is a dubious enterprise, leading to assumptions like the earth as the center of the universe and so forth, does not erase the fact that religion is pretty common in this respect. "Faith" suggests some leap, but blind faith is less evident than some imply.