As we have argued before, there is no scientific principle that can be used to deduce the existence of gods, supra-systems, or supernatural creation myths from the observation of nature. This is why no two peoples on Earth came up with the same religion — even though they observe the same natural phenomena. While there are similarities among the earliest religions, such as the belief in a divine Sun or in a god of thunder, these beliefs are never identical in the way mathematical laws, for example, are identical across cultures. We will now explore several factors that may have contributed to the creation of religions.
Personification
When the Chelyabinsk meteor hit Russia in 2013, even an atheist could consider something supernatural behind it.CC-BY Aleksandr Ivanov
One of the earliest reasons for religiousness might have been the desire to describe nature. Prehistoric humans were threatened in ways we can hardly conceive of today: They had similar bodies, but primitive technology gave them only minimal protection from the environment and predatory animals, and virtually no remedies for injury or other health problems. A toothache could end in death.1 As they faced these harsh environments, people developed their own understandings of these natural phenomena. In this process, they may have crossed the borderline between the inanimate and animate relatively easily. For example, take the following sequence of sentences:
The Sun rises every day.
The Sun has the habit of rising every day.
The Sun wants to go to the highest point of the sky at noon, and hence, it rises continuously during the first half of the day.
In this sequence, we go from a purely physical, inanimate, and descriptive observation (“the Sun rises every day”) to one that involves intention (“the Sun wants to go to the highest point of the sky at noon”). It is at this point that the Sun receives human-like attributes, and becomes personified. From here, it is only a small step to assigning the Sun further human attributes:
The Sun rises because it wants to give us light and warmth, and this can be achieved best by rising as high in the sky as possible.
The Sun gives us light, and hence, it is our friend.
In the same way, early peoples likely personified the Moon, the Earth, the stars, and the forces of nature by endowing them with human traits. Once these human traits had been hypothesized, it was very hard to get rid of them: We cannot prove that a star does not harbor some undetectable wants and feelings. As the experienced reader will by now correctly conclude, this makes such statements unfalsifiable, and hence, supernatural claims. The entities of nature have thus become gods in the literal definition of the word. Becoming a god, then, is not a physical process. It just means that people have ascribed supernatural attributes to an entity.
Now that it has fallen, the meteorite does not look so scary after all.
in the State History Museum of South Ural, Chelyabinsk, Russia
At first, gods were most likely personifications of one particular entity of nature (e.g., a single mountain, river, or tree)2. As societies grew, people tended to abandon local gods in favor of gods whose power encompassed a larger territory, such as a kingdom or trade basin3. These gods were no longer only personified entities of nature, but now also personified concepts, such as the god of love, the god of beauty, and the god of war. In today’s world religions, the gods have become even more abstract, and now include the god of the Universe, the gods of beginning, maintenance, and end, or other equally abstract concepts.
All major religions and mythologies stem from early humanity’s attempt to understand what we now call astronomy, geology, and the atmosphere.
Personification today
As we have seen, the personification of the entities of nature may have given rise to the first supernatural beliefs. But the attribution of human traits to inanimate objects is not restricted to early humans. It is a common phenomenon to this day — called anthropomorphism4.
The two triangles, the box, and the circle in the Heider-Simmel experiment.
The first scientific study of anthropomorphism was conducted in the 1940s by Austrian psychologist Fritz Heider and German-American psychologist Marianne Simmel. In the study, people were shown an animation in which a small triangle moved around a box, repeatedly bumping into a larger triangle (see figure). When participants were asked to describe what they saw, nearly all resorted to giving the shapes human attributes, as in “The big triangle wants to protect the box, and fends off the small triangle”, “The small triangle is angry at the big one and tries to get into the box”, or “The triangles fight over the box” — even though there was no intentional being involved5.
The Heider-Simmel experiment thus showed that people have a tendency to infuse events and objects with meaning, intention, and agency — a trait that American science writer Michael Shermer calls agenticity6, American cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett calls the intentional stance7, and American psychologist Justin Barrett calls hyperactive agency detection8. In the same vein, people also tend to suspect that a computer has feelings and intentions — a phenomenon known as the Eliza effect (named after a chatbot designed in 1966 by German-American computer scientist Joseph Weizenbaum)9.
Several reasons have been proposed for the human tendency to anthropomorphize. Heider and Simmel, for example, proposed that describing the moving objects in their study in purely geometrical terms would have been difficult, long, and barely comprehensible. Therefore, their participants resorted to human characteristics to describe the objects. In the terminology of this book, these human characteristics can be understood as auxiliary notions that simplify the discourse. (We used the word “intention” in the same way when we talked about bacteria.) The idea that anthropomorphisms are mainly simplifications of discourse was also brought forward by Daniel Dennett, English biologist Charles Darwin, and Canadian psychologist Donald O. Hebb10. However, there may also be psychological reasons for anthropomorphizing. People may tend to anthropomorphize because notions of human characteristics are more easily available to them (as opposed to technical notions), because they are primed by cultural experiences where anthropomorphisms abound, because they perceive a similarity between the objects they describe and themselves, or because they tend to see the world in an egocentric fashion10. Michael Shermer has argued that the tendency to detect an agent when there is none may even have had an evolutionary advantage: It is better to avoid an imaginary predator than be killed by a real one6.
When adults anthropomorphize inanimate objects, they are mostly aware that they are using the human characteristics as a mere metaphor to describe the object or event at hand. However, as soon as they extrapolate these metaphors to imbue the objects with human-like intentions, they commit what is called the anthropomorphic fallacy — not so different from when early humans personified the natural phenomena around them.
Influencing nature
Once we see the Sun as human-like, it is only natural to start trying to influence it, perhaps by talking to it: “Please, Sun, come back and give us spring again!” This communication is, in every sense of the word, a prayer: a monologue with a supernatural (or supernaturally personified) entity with the intention of obtaining favor from that entity. These monologues are not so different from the prayers of today’s world religions, wherein a human talks to a supernatural entity and thinks that the entity listens or responds. Today, we know that pleas to the Sun have no effect on its behavior. We also know that pleas to today’s gods go unanswered. Still, people pray.
People do not just talk to gods, they also perform rituals to appease them. Humans have performed rain dances to convince the rain to come, made sacrifices to please the god of war, and asked shamans to make the gods heal an illness. Of course, these rituals did little to bring rain, appease an abstract god, or heal an illness. In the very same way, adherents of today’s major religions sing to their gods, sprinkle water on their babies, light candles, or burn joss sticks. Today, as in the past, these rituals have no effect on reality. However, once a ritual is established, it is very hard to abolish it, because people are afraid to lose the perceived benefit of said ritual — however rare, small, or hypothetical that benefit may be. In this way, the worship of the supernatural, once established, continues.
What is the difference between worshiping the Sun and worshiping God?
The Sun actually exists.
Explaining nature
In some European religions of the Bronze Age, a divine horse pulled the Sun across the sky.
in the National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark
Another reason why people invented supernatural entities may have been the desire to explain the workings of nature. For example, some human civilizations of the Bronze Age believed that the Sun was drawn across the sky by a chariot (pictured). Others believed that the seasons were caused by the goddess of spring going to the underworld in winter.
With such stories, people could give reasons for seemingly unexplainable phenomena. From a technical point of view, of course, such explanations are not really explanations: They do not compress information. In other words, if you learn that the Sun is drawn by a chariot, you still know nothing more about the real world than you did before (namely that the Sun moves across the sky). In addition, the story makes predictions that are outright false (most notably that there would be a chariot in the sky). This is because the story is what we have called a ghostification: It spins a supernatural story around an observable natural phenomenon. The core of the story does correspond to the observations (the Sun does, indeed, move across the sky), but the story also adds in new entities and assumptions that have nothing to do with reality. This is one more way in which the belief in supernatural entities may have started or intensified.
People may have originally come up with such stories because they could not explain natural phenomena in any other way. How else could the Sun move, they might have reasoned, if it were not drawn by a chariot? This method of deduction is called the Argument from Ignorance: If we do not know the reason for something, and we can imagine one, we assume that what we imagine is true. This reasoning is, of course, invalid. Just because we do not know how something in nature works, it does not follow that it must work in the way that we imagine it — even if we cannot imagine it any other way. Nature is not bound by our imagination.
Today, we understand that the Sun moves across the sky due to the Earth’s revolution around it. With this knowledge, there is less of a need to attribute the Sun’s movement to a sun god. In general, the more a person knows about the Universe, the less they are inclined to suspect divine intervention.
God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.
Explaining nature today
Early humans created stories about the natural phenomena they observed because they could not imagine how such phenomena would otherwise occur. While this may appear primitive to a modern reader, such arguments from ignorance are still applied by people across the world today. Whenever we do not know how something works, some people are ready to see it as a proof for the supernatural. In these cases, a god literally falls from the sky. Here are some examples:
Immanuel Kant
The German Enlightenment philosopher argues, in his Critique of Pure Reason, for the rationality of a belief in God: “The whole course of our life must be subject to moral maxims; but this is impossible, unless [...] reason connects [...] all conduct that is in conformity with the moral law [to] an issue either in this or in another life [...] that is in exact conformity with our highest aims”. In other words, Kant held that rational people must desire a moral and happy society (what he calls “our highest aims”) but cannot do so unless they believe that moral actions actually lead to such a society. The surprise comes later in the passage: “Thus, without a God and without a world, invisible to us now, but hoped for, the glorious ideas of morality are, indeed, objects of approbation and admiration, but cannot be the springs of purpose and action.”11
William Lane Craig
The contemporary American philosopher writes on his website ReasonableFaith.org: “The inference to a Designer is not an inference to any particular deity. This is not to say that we can infer nothing about the Designer of the Universe on the basis of the specified complexity of the cosmos. [The surprise comes here:] Principally, what we can infer is that there exists a personal, and, hence, self-conscious, volitional being of inconceivably great intelligence who designed the universe.”12
Hans Küng
The Swiss theologian writes in his book The Beginning of All Things: “What is the purpose of it all? Where does it come from? From nothing? Does nothingness explain anything? Can that satisfy our reason? [The surprise comes here:] The only serious alternative, which reason cannot prove (like so many things), but for which there are solid reasons, [is] an answer that is quite reasonable: The whole does not stem from a big bang, but from an origin: from this creative reason of reasons, which we call God, the creator.” 13
These are just a few examples of arguments that fall in the category of the God of the Gaps Arguments. We have seen many more of them in the Chapter on the God of the Gaps. They all argue that God must exist because we cannot imagine any other explanation for this or that phenomenon of nature. Of course, these arguments are as invalid as the argument that the Sun must be drawn across the sky by a chariot: Just because we do not know something, we may not infer that it must be what we believe it is.
“I don’t know, therefore God”
is not a valid argument.
Suspecting intention
One consequence of the human tendency to anthropomorphize inanimate objects is that humans are more ready to assume that some event is caused by an intentional being than the evidence suggests8. In other words, we refuse to accept that the events around us are the result of inanimate (and largely random) processes. Rather, we tend to believe that they must be intentionally caused by someone or something — a phenomenon called promiscuous teleology14.
For this reason, we always keep searching for an intention behind the events of life. Religion can satisfy this (unjustified but innate) search in several ways:
Most major world religions assure us that our life has a purpose — that we do not just exist simply because we were born, but because some supernatural being (or the Universe) wants us to behave in a certain way, fulfill a specific role, or achieve a certain goal.
The Indian religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism) know the concept of Karma, by which bad deeds in this life will result in unfortunate events in the next. In this system, unfortunate events can be assumed to occur for a reason.
The Abrahamic religions posit a benevolent and all-powerful god. To then explain why bad things happen to good people, they can argue that God has an ultimately good reason for it.
In each case, religion responds to our search for an intention behind life’s events. One hypothesis is, thus, that humans invented religions to satisfy this need814.
So this man starts to ask himself questions. “This world”, he says, “so who made it?” Now, of course he thinks that, because he makes things himself. So he’s looking for someone who would have made this world. He says, “Well, so who would have made this world? Well, it must be something a little like me. Obviously much much bigger. And necessarily invisible. But he would have made it. Now why did he make it?” Now we always ask ourselves “why?” because we look for intention around us; because we always intend — we do something with intention. We boil an egg in order to eat it. So we look at the rocks, and we look at the trees, and we wonder what intention is here even though it doesn’t have intention.
Veneration of the dead
Another factor that may have led to the imagination of supernatural entities is the veneration of the dead. Starting from around 34,000 BCE, we find that humans buried some of their dead with grave goods. It is tempting to interpret this as a sign for the belief that the dead would live on after their burial. Our earliest explicit mention of this belief dates to a compilation of Ancient Egyptian religious beliefs known as the Pyramid Texts, written around 2400 BCE: They describe the pharaoh’s ascent to Heaven. — much like it is in today’s large Abrahamic religions. The East Asian religions believe that the dead become spirits, while the Indian religions assume a rebirth in this Universe. Indigenous American, Maori, and African cultures also believe in a transcendent soul15. In all of these systems, we find a recurring belief in some form of life after death. Several possible reasons have been proposed. One theory is that some people may have dreamed about the deceased. The fact that dead people can appear in dreams could then have been the origin of the belief in a transcendent soul15.
Another reason for the belief in life after death could be psychological: Our brain seems hardwired to always expect and predict the next moment. This process continues until we die, and hence, it is natural to predict also what will happen to us in the moments that follow. In this way, we extrapolate life into death16. We have thus invented the afterlife.
The belief in the afterlife can also be a byproduct of our evolved cognition: One essential tool in our mental toolkit is the ability to think about other people’s thoughts, beliefs, feelings, and intentions — even when these people are absent17. This ability allows us to imagine the thoughts and feelings of a person also when that person died. Once we do so, our imagination has given them some life after death.
Yet another theory, called terror management theory, hypothesizes that belief in the afterlife has evolved as a means to deal with the fear of death181920. In general, fear evolved because it induces an animal to avoid danger. Once the animal evades said danger, the fear subsides. Humans, however, fear also their own natural death but have no physical means to evade it. Hence, belief in a supernatural afterlife evolved as a psychological adaptation to that fear.
Still today, around 70% of people in the economically developed world believe that the mind of a deceased person somehow continues to exist. Even some avowed atheists cannot avoid imagining that a dead person is somehow still there.17 These beliefs are largely independent of religion: Rather than articulating concepts such as Heaven and Hell, people talk in vague terms about there being “something” after death. This lack of theological correctness has led psychologists to see beliefs in an afterlife as largely intuitive rather than learned17. Religions then piggyback on this innate desire to see a world beyond death. Since there cannot be any evidence to the contrary, they populate the afterlife with their own gods, angels, demons, saints, and the like — and thereby establish themselves as essential components in a person’s worldview.
Ancestor worship must be an appealing idea for those who are about to become ancestors.
Spiritual experiences
We have seen several psychological factors that may entice people to believe in the supernatural. These factors apply, more or less, to everyone: All people wonder about the nature of the Universe, and all people wonder about death. But there are some factors that aren’t universal, and that apply to a much smaller group of people: those who report personal experiences with the supernatural. In some cases, such spiritual experiences have inspired prophets to found a religion.
Such experiences can have several (natural) explanations:
Dehydration
Many personal spiritual experiences have taken place in the desert. In particular, the prophets of the Abrahamic religions all had their contact with the supernatural in the desert. The extreme heat, exhaustion, and dehydration that people experience in the desert can then lead to hallucinations. Dehydration, in particular, can lead to delirium21. Such experiences may then have been interpreted as spiritual in nature — even though they are just the biological consequence of heat and thirst.
Mental illness
Several other mental conditions can induce experiences that can seem supernatural. Psychosis, for example, is an abnormal condition of the mind that involves a loss of contact with reality22. Psychosis can result in hallucinations (sensory perceptions in the absence of external stimuli), delusions (false beliefs that a person holds on to, without adequate evidence), or megalomania (a belief that the person themself has special powers or skills). The causes of psychosis can be psychiatric in nature (e.g., schizophrenia or personality disorders), or medical (e.g., nutritional deficiency). It can also be caused by epilepsy23. It is not without reason that the ancient Greeks believed that epilepsy brought people in contact with the gods. Temporal lobe epilepsy, in particular, is associated with Geschwind syndrome — a clinical diagnosis that can present as hyperreligiosity and irritability24. Such conditions have been proposed as reasons for the religious experiences of the Abrahamic prophets Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, and Saint Paul25.
Jerusalem Syndrome
People can also develop fantasies when they are overwhelmed emotionally. For example, every year, a dozen or so people who visit the city of Jerusalem in Israel are so overcome by the historical, cultural, and religious significance of the place that they start believing that God is speaking to them. This phenomenon is known as Jerusalem Syndrome26.
Dreams
As we have discussed above, dreams about the dead may have given rise to the belief in a transcendent soul15. More generally, dreams have often been interpreted as signs of the supernatural: Ancient Greek philosopher Plato thought that dreams were divine messages27, and the same concept can today be found in Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Spiritism28.
Idealization
People sometimes idealize their past, remembering it as better than it really was. For example, students can score between 200 and 800 points for each section of the SAT test. When asked their results a year later, students tended to boost their scores by around 50 points for each section. Interestingly, the students were neither lying nor exaggerating. They simply enhanced their results a little until they started to believe the new score themselves29. In the same way, the prophets may have enhanced their experiences, in retrospect, until they started believing themselves that they had had a supernatural encounter.
Other spiritual experiences
People may also have “true” supernatural experiences in the sense that they perceive something as supernatural. American neuroscientist (and militant atheist) Sam Harris has proposed the following explanation for this phenomenon30: No information from the outside world (except olfaction) runs directly from a sensory receptor to the cortex (the part of the brain where consciousness is conjectured). There are always intermediate points on the path, where information from other areas of the brain is factored in before the information reaches our conscious. This type of signal distortion is at the heart of the working of certain drugs. It could also induce experiences that are perceived as supernatural.
Today, when a person starts having religious experiences, we usually do not take them seriously. New prophets rarely find acceptance31. (Wikipedia maintains a list of Messiah claimants, most of whom were not successful32.) On the contrary, when someone says that God talks to them, we usually subject them to psychological treatment. Likewise, people with Jerusalem Syndrome are not usually seen as prophets. Rather, they are hospitalized. At the time of the Abrahamic prophets, however, such an experience could have led to the foundation of a religion — for reasons that we discuss in the Chapter on Following Religion.
People who talk to God are OK.
If they say that God talks back to them, watch out.
Fraud
Throughout history, several people have reported spiritual experiences in which a god spoke to them. However, there have always been critics who doubted the revelations and held that the prophets reported their spiritual experiences merely for their own benefit.
Throughout history, the following prophets have been accused of dishonesty:
Joseph Smith
The founder of Mormonism has been accused of making up his prophecies33. One reason is the following episode34: According to Smith, an angel gave to him a book written by God on golden plates. However, the angel would not allow him to show it to others. So, he dictated the book to a scribe sitting behind a curtain (such that the scribe could not see the book). When the wife of the scribe stole the first 100 pages of her husband’s dictation and challenged Smith to reproduce them exactly, he could not34. Instead, Smith produced a different version. Furthermore, Smith wrote that the American Indians had had horses in antiquity35. However, there were no horses in the Americas prior to the arrival of the Europeans. Smith also stands accused of using the revelations for his own benefit. For example, Smith announced that he had received a revelation that he had been ordained to higher priesthood. When his friends also started receiving such revelations, Smith received one that said that only his revelations were right and true. He also received revelations that declared him the boss of a city, that his followers should invest in his bank (which later went bankrupt), and that polygamy was virtuous. He used this latter revelation to propose to the wives of his friends. He was imprisoned for robbery, arson, and treason36 — all of which, critics argue, shows that he was not an honest person.
Muhammad
The founder of Islam was accused of making up his revelations as well3738, as the Quran records[Quran 25:4-6]. One reason is that, according to Muslim tradition, Muhammad was tricked several times by his enemies (e.g., in the Expedition of Al Raji[Bukhari 5:59:412] and the Massacre of Bir Mauna[Muslim 4:1433]). He also led the Siege of Taif, but then abandoned it unsuccessfully[Bukhari 5:59:615]. Had Muhammad really been in contact with an omniscient god, his critics reasoned, God would, for sure, have told Muhammad of these outcomes beforehand. When it came to Muhammad’s own wishes, in contrast, the “Lord hasten[ed] in fulfilling [them]”, as Muhammad’s second wife noted[Bukhari 6:60:311], and others have also observed3940: One revelation allowed him (and only him) to have as many wives as he wanted[Quran: 33:50]. Others declared that his wives (specifically) were not allowed to leave his house[Quran 33:30-33], that they were to obey him[Quran: 33:30-31], and that they were subject to divorce and replacement by “better wives” if they did not abide[Quran 66:1-5]. Again other revelations declared that Muhammad was allowed to put aside his wives whenever he liked[Quran 33:51] and absolved him of any sin when he married the wife of his adopted son[Quran 33:37]. Yet more revelations declared that all adherents must obey him[Quran 5:92, 64:12, 53:13, 48:17, 4:69], that it is he who decides the distribution of the spoils of war[Quran 8:1, 59:6], and that anyone who waged war against him should be crucified[Quran 5:33]. During his raids and conquests394142, Muhammad also received revelations that authorized his fighters to take war booty[Quran 8:1], to torture[Quran 8:12, 5:33], kill[Quran 8:57, 8:67], and enslave[Quran 16:71] the enemies, and to use the enslaved women as concubines[Quran 4:24, 23:5-6, 33:50, 4:3, 70:29-30]. This, Muhammad’s Christian critics believed, was not what a good and all-powerful God would command his messenger to do43. They wondered: Do true prophets come with a sword?44
Jesus Christ
The main prophet of Christianity was considered a fraud as well. This is because, in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE, numerous self-declared prophets claimed to be the son of a god. To educated Greek and Roman minds of the era, Jesus was just one more of them45. “It is an ordinary custom”, wrote 2nd century Greek philosopher Celsus, for these prophets to claim that the world is being destroyed, and that they are the only way to salvation46. There are so many men, he wrote, who “wander about begging and roaming around cities and military camps”, babbling about the End Times, that Jesus does not stand out. Third Century Roman philosopher Porphyry of Tyre pointed out that if a god had really sent a prophet to save humanity from eternal damnation in Hell, he would not have waited for several millennia to do so. Porphyry considered Jesus just one of the many magicians who wandered around and made money by showing tricks that seemed like miracles to gullible people.47 Indeed, accounts in which the blind were healed and the lame could walk were perennially popular in the ancient Greco-Roman world — possibly because such healings were easiest to fake45. But also, making food appear and walking on water were standard staples of ancient magicians, as the spells in the Greek Magical Papyri reveal. With all this, critics contended, Jesus was just one more scammer who claimed to be a prophet.45
L. Ron Hubbard
The founder of Scientology stands accused of creating the religion mainly for his own financial benefit4849. This is because his proposed procedure to achieving spiritual health, as well as the necessary training, can only be bought from Hubbard and his organization — to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars for each adherent49. As a result, Hubbard ended up presiding over a religion that was also a multi-million-dollar business (which it still is today). Indeed, Hubbard himself said to American science fiction writer Lloyd A. Eshbach in 1949: “I'd like to start a religion. That’s where the money is!”50
The Fox Sisters
The sisters Margaret and Catherine Fox, who gave rise to the religion of Spiritualism, admitted themselves that they were frauds51. Spiritualism’s story began when the girls reported mysterious rappings in their New York home. They said the rappings were signals from a spirit, and that they could be used to communicate with the spirit. The girls became famous and gave séances all over the United States, with hundreds of attendees. Soon others started communicating with the spirits, and an entire religion arose around these phenomena. Later, the sisters admitted that they had produced the mysterious rappings themselves by swishing their fingers or toes.
If we accept that one or more of these prophets were dishonest, then we see that fraud can be one more way in which a religion can be founded.
The only evidence that the prophets brought for God
were the voices in their own heads.
Mythologization
Another way in which religious stories can evolve into religions is through mythologization — i.e., by converting a real story into a supernatural one.
One example is the story of 16th century Spanish missionary Francis Xavier (1506-1552), who spent many years preaching in India, China, and Japan. Many miraculous claims circulated about him, one of which was that he had the “gift of tongues”. It was claimed that over the course of his travels he spoke to various tribes with ease in their own languages. It was even claimed that when he addressed multiple tribes at the same time, each heard the same sermon in their own language. This was, in fact, one of the reasons for his canonization in 1622, as mentioned in the Bull of Canonization issued by Pope Urban VIII on August 6, 16235253. In reality, however, we know from Xavier’s letters that he struggled with foreign languages and was barely able to express the creed, commandments, and prayers in Tamil and other native languages. Instead he relied on impromptu translators, and was never completely sure he had accurately communicated his message54. Thus, Xavier acquired his supernatural gift mainly through hearsay.
Lady Godiva riding naked through the streets of Coventry to make a point against high taxes. Sadly, this event never happened. John Collier, 1897
Human history abounds of such myths. Lady Godiva (pictured) was an 11th-century Anglo-Saxon noblewoman who was married to the Earl of Mercia. Legend has it that, in order to convince her husband to reduce the oppressive taxation on his tenants, she rode naked through the streets of Coventry. This story, however, dates to the 13th century, with no accounts of the tale appearing before then55 — suggesting that the event never happened. In reality, she might have ridden in the white garment of a penitent, which was perceived as underwear at the time — and became nudity in later versions of the story. Or consider the tales of a monster in the Scottish lake Loch Ness. They are most likely based on sightings of large eels. The South American fabled city of gold known as El Dorado, for its part, was likely extrapolated from accounts of gold in the region. In each of these cases, someone added supernatural, magical, or simply false elements to a true story. These elements were then picked up and proliferated, giving rise to a conviction that something magical had happened.
This process can be easily illustrated with the Telephone Game, in which a message is whispered from person to person. In the game, as in reality, we find that the final message rarely corresponds to the initial one. Information changes quickly as it passes through different people, intentionally or unintentionally. Now imagine this process taking place not between five friends, but between hundreds of people, over several centuries, and across different languages. It is only natural that the story would be altered, and entirely possible that it would have acquired supernatural elements. For example, it’s easy to envision how a popular warrior, who really existed, came to be glorified over the centuries and then deified. This is, indeed, one way in which the Indian god Krishna could have been conceived56.
Mythologization today
One might think that the creation of myths belongs to the past. And yet, it happens even in modern times. One recent example is the beatification of Mother Teresa, an Albanian nun who lived from 1910 to 1997 CE and worked for charity in India. For beatification, the Catholic Church requires a miracle. In this case, an Indian woman was found healed from cancer after praying to Mother Teresa. Even though the treating doctor insisted that the woman had not initially presented with a late stage cancer, and even though the woman’s husband explained that she had been healed by conventional means, the Vatican still declared her remission a miracle, and went on with the beatification57.
Myths are quickly created even in nonreligious contexts. Here is an example of a myth that appeared on the news in Germany in 2014:
The mysterious monk Screenshot of Die Welt, 2014-07-04
In 2014, in Rottweil, a small city in southwest Germany, a strange creature started appearing in the parks: a man clothed like a monk (pictured). Whenever he appeared, people got scared and ran away. Children had nightmares; one girl even had to be hospitalized. Some said the creature had a knife. Finally, even traces of blood were seen. Soon the creature was dubbed “the war monk”. More and more sightings were reported and the police began an investigation.58
As it turns out, there was no “war monk”. There was simply a man who dressed up as a figure from the video game Assassin’s Creed. Furthermore, he turned himself in to the police on the very same day he was first noticed. There was no knife and no blood. And contrary to reports, he had walked through the park only once. Since dressing up as a monk and going through a park is not a crime, no charges were brought against him.59
We thus see that reality and fiction can get mixed very quickly. In particular, falsehoods get proliferated more easily than the truth — possibly because they are more emotionally charged60. An additional reason has been proposed by American cognitive anthropologist Pascal Boyer. He proposed that stories are memorized more easily if they contain a minimally counterintuitive concept, i.e., a concept that is slightly contrary to common sense but not entirely absurd61: a house made not of stone, but of gingerbread; a man who is in every aspect a human, but with supernatural strength; etc. (In computer science terminology, Boyer hypothesized that what makes a concept attractive is a contradiction of one of its properties with the properties inherited from a top-level super-concept.) Boyer’s hypothesis has since been confirmed in scientific studies62. Since stories with such minimally counterintuitive elements have a higher chance of being remembered, they also have a higher chance of being passed on. Supernatural stories, in particular, benefit from this bias14.
Once a supernatural story caught on, it is very hard to get rid of it. This is because, unlike the stories of the war monk or of Lady Godiva, supernatural stories cannot be proven wrong. Their unfalsifiability shields them from inquiry, and preserves them for the generations to come.
Proliferation of Religions
How do religions spread?
We have seen that religious beliefs can be born from several phenomena, including mythologization, spiritual experiences, the personification of nature, or the veneration of the dead. Now the question is: How do these beliefs spread between and among groups of people?
Unlike most religious beliefs, a scientific idea, at its core, may arise independently among different peoples. Ironworking, for example, was invented independently in several distinct geographic regions. This was possible because a scientific theory is a factual description of nature and nature is the same everywhere. Religion works differently. A supernatural belief has no proof in nature, and therefore, is rarely developed independently by several peoples. For example, people do not by themselves spontaneously begin to revere Jesus Christ. They do so only if Christian missionaries intervene. In other words, religious beliefs spread exclusively by human communication. They spread from one geographical region to another by travelers, books, and (in modern times) the Internet. We will now discuss different ways in which this can happen.
By far the most important variable determining your religion is the accident of birth. The convictions that you so passionately believe would have been a completely different, and largely contradictory, set of convictions, if only you had happened to be born in a different place.
Tradition
By far the most common way in which religion spreads is through the education of children. If the parents are religious, the child will likely follow suit. As British biologist Richard Dawkins observed, the vast majority of people follow the religion of their parents instead of any of the other available religions63.
The mechanism behind this phenomenon is simple: As a child, we are biologically wired to follow what our parents teach us. For example, if a parent says, “Crocodiles are dangerous, because they can eat people!”, then a child’s best bet is to avoid crocodiles. They would not go and verify that theory by experiment — they would just trust their parents. And this is a good thing from an evolutionary perspective. Children have the benefit of all the experiences of those who came before them. Now imagine that the parents say to the child: “There is an invisible being in the sky who wants you to avoid pork meat”. Then, in the very same way, a child will believe this theory. They will never verify whether crocodiles really eat humans, or whether there really is a god who forbids the consumption of pork. They will just believe63. As they grow, they may eventually find out that some theories are wrong and abandon them. For example, we nowadays know that Pluto is not a planet, even though this was once taught in schools. However, religious theories can never be proven wrong. This is because they are unfalsifiable. Therefore, religious theories continue unchallenged through the generations.
In many countries, the transmission of religion is also a part of the state-sponsored educational system, such as it is in Algeria, Indonesia, Tunisia, Germany, and the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, specifically, the Education Act of 2002 requires “religious education for all registered pupils at the school”64. In all of these countries, children are taught religious concepts at a young age. And since the religious classes are usually run side by side with the secular classes, children do not learn to see the difference between the two. They are thus led to accept religious concepts as part of their worldview.
In most religions, the transmission of religious beliefs to children is part of the religious system itself, ensuring the proliferation of said religion.
It takes twenty years to grow a Baptist
and twenty minutes to lose one.
Proselytism
Once someone is convinced that the supernatural exists, she or he may want to share this discovery with their peers. So, the person goes and preaches the beliefs to others. This is what we call proselytism.
The person may also believe that this religion will lead them to Heaven (or a comparable post-mortal state) and that not believing leads to Hell (or any analog thereof). In this case, it is possible that this person has a true desire to “save” their friends and family from Hell and help them to reach Heaven.
For some religions, the duty to preach the faith is part of the moral framework of the religion itself. This is most visible for Jehovah’s Witnesses, who are known for their extensive proselytizing efforts. However, technically, that duty is also part of Christianity and Islam.
Natural selection builds child brains with a tendency to believe whatever their parents or tribal elders tell them. It is not surprising, then, to find religious leaders in every part of the world hitting upon the extra authority provided them by their taking on the title “Father”.
Self-serving proselytism
If someone honestly believes that his or her friends will go to Hell unless they become believers, then it is only natural that this person will proselytize for this end. However, there may also be more selfish cases of proselytism, in which the believer acquires a material or social advantage from converting others to the faith, or (for the non-proselytizing religions) from keeping someone in the faith.
Examples of people and institutions that benefit from keeping or converting a believer are as follows:
Televangelists
Televangelists are people who preach the (Christian) faith via television, mainly in the United States. Some of these preachers accumulate tax-free donations from adherents to finance their own lavish lifestyle. They make millions of dollars every year and spend it on Rolls Royce cars, houses, or private jets, for example656667. In Brazil, likewise, it is not uncommon for Evangelical preachers to become millionaires68. The more adherents such a preacher has, the more money flows. He thus has a material interest in increasing the number of adherents.
African super-pastors
In Africa, so-called “super-pastors” make millions of dollars on the tithes and other offerings that the faithful shell out in the hope of blessings from on high. “You tithe, he blesses”, as they say. Some pastors have accumulated wealth in the order of $150 million69. Some of the more enterprising priests sell miracles: Blessed ballpoint pens to help you pass exams, miracle bricks to help you acquire your own home, etc.70 These pastors have a financial interest in people following them. Hence, they have one more reason to spread the word of their religion.
Pilgrim sites
Pilgrims visit places that have a special sacred status for many reasons, including for spiritual purification, enlightenment, or in the hopes of forgiveness for their sins. Pilgrimages generate a considerable income for the places that are visited. For example, in the 2010’s, Africans who visited Christian pastor Temitope Balogun Joshua’s services in Nigeria each spent upwards of $1,700 for travel and accommodation expenses69. Similarly, Muslims who pilgrimage to Mecca (for Hajj) easily pay more than $10,000 for travel and accommodations, including to businesses around the holy site, travel agencies, and the Saudi government71. In the early 2000s, pilgrimage to San Giovanni Rotondo in Italy (the site of the mystic saint Padre Pio) brought in roughly $57 million in revenue for the town72. The town of Lourdes in France (where the Virgin Mary supposedly appeared) has a budget of $23 million — mostly from visitor donations. In total, pilgrimage tourism amounts to more than $8 billion a year globally.72 This money comes from donations, but it is also spent on hotels, restaurants, transportation, services, entrance fees, and tourism shops. In these cases, the shrines, churches, towns, and cities have a financial interest in promoting the legends and religions that lend their support to these pilgrimage sites. Therefore, it is in their interest to maintain the myth of their locations.
Scientology recruiters
Scientology is a new religious movement that lets new adherents pay a fee (usually in the tens of thousands of dollars) to receive preaching, training, or study material. People who recruit new members get a commission, and the organization itself advertises that recruiters can make a living just from these commissions: “You send your preclear into a nearby org, and she buys an Academy Training package for $8,000. You receive a 15% commission on those services, which is payable when she arrives at the Org to do them ($1,200). If you were to send 20 preclears a year into the org for similar packages, you would have $24,000 in income just from selecting your public to train”.73 This way, adherents have a financial interest in spreading the religion. The recruits, in turn, will try to recruit again others to cover the cost of their own training — in effect building a giant pyramid scheme. Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, for one, made millions of dollars from the system, and the current head, David Miscavige, possesses several multi-million-dollar mansions49. Thus, the founder, the current leader, and the adherents all have a direct financial interest in spreading the religion.
The Christian Churches
In medieval times, the Catholic Church made a fortune selling indulgences, i.e., certificates that assure liberation from Hell for people or for their late loved ones. One peddler of these certificates, German preacher Johann Tetzel, frightened congregations into paying up by conjuring visions of their dead parents wailing for mercy while being tortured by demons74. The practice of selling indulgences ceased with the Reformation in the 16th century. However, still today the Church is a multi-billion-dollar organization. The American Catholic Church alone has a budget of $170 billion. The Vatican Bank owns €700 million in equity, including gold worth over $20 million held by the American Federal Reserve. Money flows in from individual donations, government grants, the Church’s own investments, and corporate donors. According to Georgetown University, the average weekly donation of an American Catholic to the Church is $10. There are 85 million Catholics in North America, meaning each week the Catholic Church pulls in approximately 850 million.7576 In Germany, the Catholic and Protestant Churches together own around €500 billion in assets77, supplemented by government payouts of €500 million per year as a compensation for the expropriation of Church property in the 19th century78. The Church of England has an endowment of $14 billion79. This system pays the salaries for priests, bishops, and staff, as well as housing and (in Catholicism) the daily operations of the State of the Vatican. Hence, these people all have a material interest that their adherents continue to pray and pay.
Ancient preachers
In many ancient religions, some figureheads took on the care of believers, including priests in the Israelite cults, shamans in central Asia and the Americas, and the Brahmins in India. In most cases, these figureheads lived on the goods believers brought as sacrifice. The Bible exemplifies this, saying, “You are to give the right thigh of your fellowship offerings to the priest as a contribution”[Bible: Leviticus 7]. Obviously, these priests had an interest in people continuing to bring them offerings. (In fact, they or their predecessors were probably the ones who wrote this passage of scripture in the first place80.) The same goes for the priests of Ancient Egypt, who accepted sacrifices on behalf of the gods so that, among other blessings, the Nile River would flood. Of course, the Nile floods annually anyway.
Today’s preachers
“A giver is always beloved.”
in Chiang Mai, Thailand
Still today, religious figureheads take care of their believers. In most cases, these figureheads live on the donations of their adherents. In Raëlism, adherents are asked to give a percentage of their income to their leader81. In the Balkans, Orthodox preachers organize weddings and baptisms, and can be paid in cash by the recipient of these ceremonies with a sum that can be fixed at the preacher’s discretion. Protestant, Anglican, and Catholic priests, too, are often paid exclusively through the Church. In Judaism82 and Islam as well, the rabbis and imams usually live on government support or donations of the faithful. In Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism, preachers also live on donations. Every Shinto prayer involves a donation83 — and some of these pay for the salaries of the priests. In all cases, if the number of adherents decreases, the livelihood of these figureheads is endangered. Thus, every one of them has also a financial interest in maintaining and increasing their flock of believers. American author Roy Sablosky goes so far as to argue that any organized religion is essentially a scheme to transfer money from religious adherents to religious professionals.
The position of a religious figurehead also comes with respect and certain privileges within the religion: Depending on the denomination, leaders can have access to the confessions of adherents, forgive sins, dictate or formalize marriage, declare fatwas or excommunications, advise adherents, interpret the holy sources, and hold sermons. They also may hold the authority to decide what is good and what is bad according to divine will. The leader obviously wants to keep this position, and thus, has a personal interest in maintaining and increasing the number of believers.
Atheism directly threatens the livelihood of the men who depend on religion for their income. They are angry, not because the atheist doesn’t “share their faith” but because the atheist is suggesting a boycott of their only product.
Domination
In some cases, people are pressured to adhere to a religion because it becomes a dominant force in their society. Particular instances of this phenomenon are:
The Muslim expansion
Between the 7th and 13th century CE, Muslims conquered a wide expanse of land from Spain to India. During this Golden Age of Islam, the display of non-Islamic religious symbols was forbidden, church bells were not allowed to ring, public manifestation of non-Islamic religions was prohibited, non-Muslims had to give up their seats for Muslims; proselytism of religions other than Islam was prohibited; and churches could not be built or repaired. These practices were codified in the Pact of Umar84 (upheld in various variations and to varying degrees between the 9th and 20th century CE85). Furthermore, as stipulated in the Quran, Muslim women could not marry non-Muslim men[Quran: 2:221, 60:10], and Christians and Jews under Muslim rule had to pay a special tax (“jizya”) as material proof of their submission[Quran: 9:29]. Non-Muslims were also not allowed to enter the holy city of Mecca (a restriction that is still upheld today)86. The Sharia further stipulated that non-Muslims were to wear special signs on their clothing, not walk in the middle of the street, and not be greeted like Muslims87. Jews, in particular, were required to wear distinctive clothing beginning in the 8th century — a practice later adopted by medieval Catholic Europe and, more recently, by the Nazis88. While non-Muslims could still continue to practice their own religions, from the above examples, it is clear they had no lack of incentive to convert to Islam. And even if those who converted did not truly believe in their new faith, they would have still behaved like Muslims in public and passed these practices onto their children, who, over time, would eventually have come to adhere to the faith89.
Dominating religion
In general, the dominant religion of a nation or state will have some advantages over the nondominant ones. Implicitly, the dominant religion is understood to be the norm and, therefore, defines the morality, worldview, and social codes of that society. People who differ may encounter suspicion or discrimination. For modern Christianity, this phenomenon is known as Christian Privilege90. Such a dominance does not directly lead to conversions but rather gives that religion an advantage if ever someone should consider changing their religion. This soft power can extend beyond the heartland of the religion. Christianity, for example, has a disproportional presence in television, politics, economy, music, and art all over the world. While this does not directly spread Christianity, it makes its concepts and philosophy known to a large audience: A Christian would be hard-pressed to name any Hindu festival, while most of the world knows of Christmas. Even the Gregorian calendar carries the notion of Jesus’s supposed birth year to all places on Earth. Islam, too, spreads its soft power outside its heartland: Notions of the veil, Halal food, and the prohibition on drawing the Prophet Muhammad have all well arrived in Western societies.
Restrictive laws
Some countries recognize only a handful of religions. Indonesia, for example, demands that people declare themselves an adherent of one of six religions, Egypt’s constitution makes room for only three faiths, and in Israel, marriage is celebrated only by State-approved religious institutions. In countries with religious education in schools, only a handful of denominations are usually allowed to be represented . While these laws do not force anyone to adhere to the dominant religion(s), they do make life difficult for those who don’t. For the non-adherents, is more cumbersome to apply for a passport, to marry, to have equal representation in school, or to receive services from the state. Thus, these systems have the effect of mainstreaming citizens into the accepted religion(s).
It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
Imposition of Religions
Imposition
As we have seen, religion can spread through societal domination, which is when a religion comes with so many societal advantages that people start adhering to it. However, a religion can also be outright imposed. This, of course, does not square well with our modern understanding of faith, which holds that it is impossible to force a person to believe in something they don’t believe in. Yet, as we will later argue, a belief in the theological statements of a religion is not necessary for said religion to prosper. It is fully sufficient if, by virtue of being forced, adherents profess their adherence to the religion, follow the rites and rules, and pass the religion on to their offspring. In effect, such a society will be indistinguishable from one in which people are true believers. Furthermore, offspring, having been exposed to only the imposed religion, may really come to believe.
This process was perhaps most obvious in medieval Europe, when Christianity was imposed upon basically everyone and abandoning the faith was persecuted as heresy. Christianity was also brought by force to colonized nations. The Catholic Inquisition tortured and killed thousands of people across Europe, and later Asia and the Americas, in an effort to convert them to Christianity or keep them in the official version of the faith. Still today, religions are sometimes imposed by the State, most notably in some Muslim countries. In 12 Muslim-majority countries (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Malaysia, and others), apostasy is punishable by death. Such a system makes all citizens adherents of the religion.
There are several reasons why the ruling classes of a country may find it convenient to make their subordinates follow a particular religion, and we discuss them in the following sections.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
Grace of God
An anonymous 19th century artistic depiction of Inca genealogy identifies the Sun and the Moon as the parents of the first Inca king.
in the Museo Pedro de Osma, Lima, Peru
One reason why leaders and heads of nations may find it convenient to impose a religion upon their subjects is that it justifies their rule through the divine. Here are some examples:
The Chinese Empire and Chinese religions
In China, from around 1000 BCE, the “Mandate of Heaven” gave emperors the divine right to rule91. Confucianism, in particular, was a convenient religion for the government as it teaches loyalty to the authorities[Analects: 17:8] — one aspect of the principle known as Zhong. It is to be assumed that the Mandate from Heaven ceased with the installment of a republic in 1912, and at the latest, with the arrival of (atheist) communism in China in 1949.
Japan and Shinto belief
Shinto belief held that the Japanese imperial family were the offspring of the sun goddess Amaterasu92. During the Second World War, the emperor rose to divine status in popular opinion. However, when Japan was defeated by the allies in the Second World War, he was forced to clarify he had no such divinity.93 He is still considered a descendant of the gods, though94.
Indian monarchs and Hinduism
Hinduism also knows the concept of divine kings: The Laws of Manu declare that kings are sanctified, that they get a 6th of every income[Laws of Manu: 2:302-308], that the first king was created by God[Law of Manu: 7:3], and that kings are divine[Law of Manu: 7:8]. Different from the Christian god, the Hindu gods are not necessarily perfect beings (they are capable of sin). Hence, a simple claim of divinity did not confer unassailability. Rather, the king was obliged to maintain a good relationship with the priests (the Brahmins) in order to have the support of the people and maintain his divinity.95 India was colonized by the British in 19th century, and became independent (and a republic) in 1947.
The Inca Empire and religion
The Inca Empire ruled the Andes Mountain chain from roughly 1200 CE on. The Inca religion held that the emperor was the descendant of the male sun god Inti and the female moon god Mama Quilla (see picture). This divine descendance did, unfortunately, not protect the Inca Empire from the invasion of Europeans, who captured, tortured, and killed the emperor Atahualpa in 1533 CE96.
Constantine the Great and Christianity
Constantine the Great was a Roman emperor who converted to Christianity around 313 CE. For his Christian subjects, Constantine became the embodiment of the righteous King David. Constantine further consolidated his power by putting in place a system whereby government theology and secular power each supported the other. He thus had an interest in the success of Christianity and sponsored episcopal committee meetings during which the bishops formalized the creeds of the religion.97
European kingdoms and Christianity
In Portugal, kings reigned by the grace of God98 until the Revolution of October 5, 1910, which created the First Portuguese Republic.
in Sintra, Portugal
From the time of Charlemagne (742-814 CE) on, Christian kings claimed to rule by the “grace of God”, i.e., as God’s representatives on Earth99. This concept was based on the Bible, which declared that any government is installed by God[Bible: Romans 13:1-7]. Jesus also said “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s”[Bible: Mark 12:17]. This verse has been used from Roman to medieval times to justify and enforce taxation. Still today, the kings and queens of Denmark100 and the United Kingdom101 claim to rule by the grace of God. And the British king or queen is not just the head of state of the Commonwealth countries, but also the head of the Anglican Church, the official Church of England.
Nazi Germany and Christianity
The Reichskonkordat was a 1933 treaty between the Holy See and Germany negotiated during the country’s transition to Nazi Germany102. The treaty guaranteed the rights of the Roman Catholic Church within the country’s borders. At the same time, it required bishops to take an oath of loyalty to the governor or president of Nazi Germany. It is clear that this treaty benefited both parties. On the one hand, it consolidated the power of the religion in Germany (guaranteeing, for example, religious teaching in state-funded schools). On the other, it made sure that religious leaders would not openly oppose the government. The treaty remains in force to this day.
The Pope and Catholicism
The Pope is not just the head of the Catholic Church. He is also the political leader of a state. The Pope derives his power directly from Jesus (who is, in the Christian faith, divine)103. He has, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913, “supreme and universal primacy, both of honor and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ” as the “guardian of [Jesus'] entire flock in His own place”, and acts as the “Vicar of Christ [, a title] which he bears in virtue of the commission of Christ and with vicarial power derived from Him”103. He “hold[s] upon this earth the place of God Almighty”104.
Thailand and Buddhism
The Grand Palace in Bangkok, Thailand, is a mix of palace buildings and temples.
In Thailand, Buddhism is the majority religion, and the religion and the monarchy are closely intertwined. An inscription at the royal palace names the king the “the Buddhist upholder”, a role for which he vows to provide protection and maintenance for Buddhism. And the king has every interest in doing so: In a reflection of the traditions of Ancient India, the king is considered a Devaraja (“living god”) in Thailand105.
Afghanistan and Islam
In order to overcome the profound sense of tribal identity among Afghan people, the first internationally recognized Afghan king, Emir Abdul Rahman Khan,(1880) took the title of “Protector of the nation and of the religion”. Ruling by “grace and will of Allah”, he fulfilled the dual role of leader and interpreter of Islam and Islamic law. To make sure his enemies did not declare a jihad (“holy war”) against him, he decided that he was the only person qualified to declare a jihad.106
The Ottoman Empire and Islam
In the Ottoman Empire, Muslim religious leaders were core members of the nobility, and played a large role in central and provincial administration. They submitted to the power of the sultan but obtained in return ample economic privileges in the form of lucrative employments, tax exemptions, and religious endowments that controlled vast tracts of land.106
Morocco and Islam
The King of Morocco, too, derives his authority from his descendance from the Prophet Muhammad107. The constitution styles him as the “Commander of the Faithful” and the protector of Islam108.
Such a link with the divine gave the ruler an unassailable authority that others could not aspire to. Hence, rulers had an interest that people believed their stories of divine authority. Hence, they took care that people were religious.
Religious preachers, in turn, stood to benefit from a ruler’s grace and money if they propagated said ruler’s narrative of divine appointment — leading to a mutually beneficial relationship between reign and religion.
Oppression
A religion can also be used to consolidate and justify the dominance of a particular social class and the oppression of another. Here are some examples:
Slaves in Christianity
From 1619 until the end of the American Civil War in 1865, millions of Africans were brought to North America and forced into slavery109. For the slave-holding class, the Bible was a convenient warrant for what they understood to be their divine right to own slaves: Slaves were born to be slaves[1 Corinthians 7:20-21], they had to obey their masters[Colossians 3:22], and this was God’s will[Matthew 24:45-46]110. Preachers, too, supported the idea that slaves owed absolute obedience to their owners, just as they did to God. They also justified the punishment of slaves’ “misdeeds”, which could be of unimaginable cruelty. Anglican missionaries worked especially hard to ensure that their religion supported the orderly, hierarchical world of slave labor to meet the needs of their white, plantation-owning supporters111. The Catholic Church, for its part, condemned individual instances or aspects of slavery but upheld it in principle, stating as late as 1866 that “slavery itself is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law”112. Evangelical denominations of Christianity, too, authorized and defended slavery. What is more, the enslaved people themselves were introduced to the Christian faith, so that they, too, were made to believe that their role was God-given. It is clear that all these teachings were convenient for the slave-holding class. The United States abandoned slavery in 1865 and 100 years later, the Catholic, Anglican, and Southern Baptist Churches also decided that slavery was now contrary to divine law.
Slaves in Islam
The Quran describes enslaved people as those “whom your right hand possesses”[Quran: 24:32, 16:71, 2:178, 16:75]. It does not mention a punishment for the capture or ownership of slaves, and the Prophet Muhammad himself bought, sold, captured, and owned slaves113[Sahih Bukhari 3:34:351][Sahih Bukhari 9:89:296]. The Quran also allows for men to have sex with their female slaves[Quran: 23:5-6, 70:29-30, 4:24] (without requiring the consent of the slave, obviously), which justified the practice of holding female slaves as concubines in harems113. Under Islamic law, people could be legally enslaved only when defeated in a war or when born into slavery113. However, non-Muslim lands were by default considered territories at war114115116. Hence, Arabs captured and traded slaves from these regions from the Islamic Golden Age in the 8th century on, and the Ottomans continued the practice until the 19th century113117. From the 17th century on, the Barbary corsairs (pirates authorized by the Barbary States in North Africa) raided European ships and cities, from the Mediterranean Sea to places as far as Denmark and Iceland, leading to the enslavement of an estimated 1 million people118119, the depopulation of coastal areas in Europe for fear of the slave raids, and the payment of large amounts of ransom. Slaves were used to row the corsair galleys, to work on state projects or in agriculture, or to serve as concubines.118120121 The religious interpretation that permitted slavery thus clearly suited the slave holders and the governments of the Barbary States.
The slave trade gradually ended in the 19th century with the wars that the United States fought against the Barbary States, the colonization of Algeria by France in 1830122, British interception of slave trading ships, and internal and external pressure113117123. Today, all interpretations of Islam, except for the most extremist, prohibit slavery.
Women in Islam
Historical interpretations of Islam subordinated women to men based on scripture that says women should be obedient to their husbands[Quran: 4:34, 4:3, 2:221, 60:10, 2:228, 4:11, 2:282, 33:33]. To this date, no mainstream interpretation of Islam gives women the same rights as men. For example, while Muslim men are allowed to marry non-Muslim women, women do not have the same option. Via the faith, male dominance is enshrined in laws across much of the Arab world124, and most Muslims in Muslim-majority countries still enforce a wife’s obeyance of her husband125. Like in other systems of power, it is clear that those in power (in this case, men) have reason to uphold the belief system.
The “Untouchables” in Hinduism
Hinduism knows the concept of castes, i.e., social classes into which a person is born that come with certain privileges and duties[Bhagavad Gita: 1.40-43, 4.13, 18.41-44][Laws of Manu: 1.87-91]. The caste system was implemented in varying ways throughout India’s history and remnants of it are still in place to this day. In all variations, the members of the higher castes had more privileges than the members of the lower castes. Outside of the system, below the lower castes, were the “Untouchables”. Still today, Untouchables are beaten, humiliated, raped, and killed in India, often with tacit support by police, village councils, and government officials126. Clearly, this stratification benefits the higher castes.
Jews in Christianity
According to the Bible, the Jewish people accepted responsibility for Jesus’s execution by chanting “His blood be on us and on our children!”[Bible: Matthew 27:24-25], a charge echoed in Saint Paul’s letters[Bible: 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15]. These passages allowed early Christianity to deflect the blame for Jesus’s death at the hands of the Romans (with whom it needed a cordial relationship at that time) onto the Jews. Thus, the faith held that the Jewish people will be eternally and collectively responsible for Jesus’ death (an idea known as “Jewish deicide”)127. Although some secular and ecclesiastical authorities protected the Jews, the Church Fathers, theologians such as Thomas Aquinas, the Fourth Lateran Council (1215 CE), religious education, and papal bulls (e.g., Cum nimis absurdum, 1555) all promulgated antisemitism (hatred of Jews)128. Martin Luther, the initiator of the Protestant strain of Christianity, condemned Jews as a “whoring people [...] full of the devil’s feces”129. In this general climate of antagonism, Jews suffered discrimination, persecution, expulsions, massacres, and brutal executions with hundreds of thousands of victims throughout the Middle Ages128. This had an economic advantage for the Christians: First, they could plunder the Jews' belongings130. Second, since usury was prohibited for Christians, Jews served as moneylenders, and their extermination erased any held debt74131. Jews also served as collective scapegoats for catastrophic events132, including the Black Death — a claim that must have been convenient for the rulers at the time, as it allowed them to explain the pandemic without challenging their authority. After millions of Jews were killed in the Holocaust in the early 20th century, the Catholic Church formally renounced the charge of deicide133 and the Lutheran Churches distanced themselves from Martin Luther’s antisemitic teachings134.
Jews in Islam
Early verses of the Quran confirm the Biblical story of God’s preference for the Jews[Quran: 2:47ff] and stipulate respect for the Jewish people[Quran: 2:47, 2:62, 5:69, 2:256]. However, verses that were revealed later135 accuse the Jews of worshiping rabbis[Quran: 9:31], breaking the covenant with God, denying Mary, and boasting to have killed Jesus[Quran: 4:153ff]. The Quran calls upon Muslims not to take Jews as guardians[Quran 5:51] but to “fight those who do not believe in Allah [...] from among those who were given the Scripture, until they pay the tax, willingly submitting, fully humbled”[Quran: 9:29]. Like many Quranic verses, these verses are subject to intense debate today, as to whether they apply to an individual context or are general commandments. Be that as it may, they exemplify how the early Muslims treated Jews: According to Muslim tradition, Muhammad’s army itself conquered a Jewish tribe (the Banu Qurayza), killed the men, and sold the children and women into slavery even though the tribe had already surrendered4142. Under Muslim control from the Islamic Golden Age to the Ottoman Empire (i.e., from the 8th to 20th centuries CE), Jews lived as Dhimmis, second-class citizens who had to pay a special tax, could not marry Muslim women, could not own Muslim slaves (although the reverse was allowed), received less blood money (or restitution) in cases of murder, could not build new places of worship, and had to wear distinctive clothing136. (While this “special status” of Dhimmis is sometimes hailed as a “protection of the Jews” by modern apologists, Muslims would be appalled if the same treatment were bestowed upon them today in non-Muslim lands.) This system clearly benefited the Muslim majority.
Palestinians in Judaism
In the Hebrew Bible, God promises the land of Canaan to the Jews[Bible: Exodus 6:4, 23:31, Numbers 31:1-15, Deuteronomy 1:6-8Joshua 1:4, Ezekiel 47:13-20, Genesis 15:18-21], a claim that is echoed in the Quran[Quran: 5:20-26, 17:100-104]. This story has given rise to the idea that today’s region of Israel and Palestine is the God-given homeland of the Jews. This belief gave Jews a religious motivation to immigrate to Palestine beginning in the late 19th century, to drive out a large part of the local Palestinian population137138, and to establish the Jewish State of Israel on what were previously Muslim and Christian Palestinian lands. Today, the story is used to justify the occupation of the Palestinian West Bank by Israel139 and the segregated and often violent establishment of Jewish settlements there140141. In the occupied territories, the Palestinians are encircled by 9-meter-high concrete barriers142, and live in apartheid-like conditions143144 under a permanent military rule “without rights, without equality, without dignity and without freedom”, according to the UN, where extrajudicial killings, collective punishment, and torture are regularly practiced by the Israeli authorities145. Palestinians suffer violence from Israeli settlers, including shooting with live ammunition, torching of fields and livestock, theft and vandalization of property, trees and crops, stone-throwing and tenacious intimidation of herders and their families — sometimes while Israeli security forces stand by146. The occupation of the land and the continuous harassment of the Palestinians clearly suits the Israelis who settle there, as well as the government of Israel147. What is more, the settlements are supported politically and financially by American Jews and also Christian Evangelicals, who believe that the return of Jews to Palestine is a prerequisite for Jesus' return to Earth148149.
In all of these cases, religion was or is used to justify the subordination of a certain group of people. Those who benefit from this subordination thus find it useful to propagate their interpretation of the religion.
Religion is a pretty smart business model. It sells you an invisible product, and blames it on you if the product does not work.
Unification
State religions: Christianity (blue), Islam (black), and Buddhism (red) CC0 Smurfy, cropped
Another reason why a leader may impose a religion is that said religion can implant shared values and beliefs within a society. As American historian Jared Diamond has argued: “A shared ideology or religion helps solve the problem of how unrelated individuals are to live together without killing each other — by providing them with a bond not based on kinship”150. Shared rituals, stories, and terminology foster a sense of belonging and unity. This sense of unity, in turn, facilitates collaboration, sharing, and trust151.
Examples are:
Medieval European countries
In medieval Europe, kings strove for religious unity across their kingdoms, regarding it as the foundation of political unity. They thus came to equate orthodoxy with obedience and religious dissent with rebellion. Those subjects who did not subscribe to the official creed and church of their polity could not claim all the privileges of full citizenship, and against them, the harshest regimes could bring the charge of treason when they felt threatened. Christianity thus succeeded in supplying governments with official ideologies, and in providing large, geographically dispersed communities with common symbols and values that became a defining aspect of political identity.106
Poland
Sweden occupied Poland in the middle of the 18th century. The Poles came to see the struggle against the Protestant invaders as a defense of their own Catholicism — thereby lending their effort a divine sanction, and linking patriotism with Catholicism.106 To this date, Catholicism provides Poland with an identity that distinguishes it from neighboring Northern Germany (Protestant) and Russia (Orthodox).
Saudi Arabia
Wahhabism, the puritanical Islamist movement created by Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1792), was not important in his own time. Yet, Abd al-Wahhab was linked to the Saud dynasty, and the Sauds succeeded in uniting diverse groups into a movement that eventually conquered most of Arabia. They established the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932, and then used Wahhabism to consolidate a Saudi national identity and enforce their legitimacy.106
Iran
The present form of the Shiite denomination of Islam was largely conceived by the Safavid rulers of Iran as a convenient ideology of nation-building vis-à-vis the rival Ottoman Empire. The religion gave Iran a specific ideological distinction and national identity. As part of the official ideology, the Safavids cursed the first three caliphs considered holy by the Sunnis and claimed descent from the seventh imam, which gave them impeccable religious credentials. The consequences of this split between two main strands of Islam, each viewed by the other as heretics and enemies, have been carried over into the present time.106
The United States
The United States is officially a secular country in that its constitution says the state may not interfere with matters of religion. However, in the wake of the Cold War, the phrase “In God We Trust” became an official motto of the nation in an effort to distinguish the country as Christian, differentiated from the atheist, socialist world they were fighting against.
Muslim countries
Several political rulers (e.g., in Egypt, Sudan, Algeria, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Iraq) have used Islam to deflect criticisms, entrench their power and privileges, or bolster their nationalist credentials. But the reference to religion can also work the other way: The opposition can always portray the leader as a decadent, impious, and sinful monarch who has strayed away from the true path of Islam.106
Other countries
To this day, around 30 countries have an official state religion (see figure). Religion is thus still considered useful to consolidate national identities.
— Do atheists mind having “In God We Trust” on their money?
— If atheists had enough votes to put “Religion is bunk” on their money, would theists mind? They should be able to generalize from that.
War morale
A priest in the Italian army during the First World War
in the Palazzo Blu in Pisa, Italy
Religion can also be used to uphold morale in war. As Jared Diamond has argued, religion can give people a motive, other than genetic self-interest, for sacrificing their lives on behalf of others. At the cost of a few society members who die in battle as soldiers, the whole society becomes much more effective at conquering other societies or at resisting attacks.150
Several factors can work in this direction:
Identification
A religion can be used to create a shared identity and an “us-versus-them” feeling. Identification with one’s country is a crucial ingredient for war because, otherwise, people would not be able to distinguish friend from foe. Still today, war is often fought along religious lines.
Ethical justification
A religion holds the claim to the highest ethical authority. This means that if religion is the justification for war, then adherents will have no moral dilemma fighting in it. This mechanism was at work during the Christian crusades, the conquests of the Islamic Golden Age, and the conquests of the Islamic State. Maybe less known is that it was also at work during the Second World War with Buddhism: When Japan conquered China, Buddhist priests encouraged Japanese soldiers to go to war152. More recently, in 2022, the Russian Orthodox Church supported Russia’s war against Ukraine, claiming that death in battle washed away all sins153.
Moral support
CC0 Remas6
Religious ceremonies and personnel can be used to encourage and appease soldiers. In the Second World War, both sides used Christian priests to fulfill the spiritual needs of their soldiers. For example, German soldiers had “Gott mit uns” (“God with us”) written on their belts. Of course, if God really was with the Germans, it would be rather macabre in retrospect.
Promise of Heaven
The most basic (and maybe most effective) strategy in which religion is wielded in war is its promise of Heaven to those who die in battle. This strategy has been used extensively throughout history, such as during the Crusades, when killed soldiers were celebrated as martyrs. The strategy was (and is) also used in Islam: The Quran stipulates that God will grant a place in Heaven for those who die for the cause of Islam. In some readings of the scripture[Quran: 78:33, 56:22], male martyrs can expect large-breasted virgins awaiting them. No wonder this is perceived as an encouragement.
Faith is powerful enough to immunize people against all appeals to pity, to forgiveness, to decent human feelings. It even immunizes them against fear, if they honestly believe that a martyr’s death will send them straight to heaven. What a weapon!
Justifying and enforcing laws
Another reason why rulers might impose (or even invent) religions was proposed in the Sisyphus fragment, an Ancient Greek text of unknown authorship. In it, the mythical villain Sisyphus proposes that gods were invented by policymakers in order to enforce moral rules154:
“Henceforth, then, he introduced the divine, [saying] that there is a divine power [who] hears everything spoken among mortals, and will be able to see everything being done. Even if you plan some evil [deed] in secret, this will not escape the notice of the gods.”
And indeed, in ancient societies, the legal code was often ascribed to the gods. This had two advantages: First, the arbitrariness of the law was hidden. If the laws came from a god, no one could ask who made the laws, why they were the way they were, and why they were not different. In this way, religion can help establish rules of conduct (such as food rules, hygiene rules, or societal rules) that are reasonable but too complicated (or even impossible) to explain with limited scientific machinery. Second, once a rule is in place, religion can help enforce it: People are much more likely to follow a rule when they believe that someone (even invisible) is watching them151. This effect is amplified when people fear a (supernatural) punishment for not obeying. Belief in Hell, for example, is known to curb unethical behavior155. Religion is thus a potent mechanism to enforce rules. It is not without reason that Italian Renaissance philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli recommended the king foster religious faith in his country, as “a kingdom without the fear of God must fall to pieces”156.
Evolutionary reasons
We have listed several reasons why rulers may have found it convenient to impose a religion upon their subjects. In short, it is easier to rule people who adhere to a shared religion than it is to rule over a society with diverse worldviews: A society that shares values and procedures is more efficient at reaching its goals than a divided society; a society that believes in transcendence may be more ready to engage in work that will be finished only generations later; a society that believes its laws are sacred may be more inclined to follow them; a society in which people are willing to collaborate and share will be more successful than a society filled with distrust; and in war, a society that believes its warriors will go to Heaven has an edge over a society that fears death. All of these factors translate into a competitive advantage for the society150, and they may even have nurtured a process of natural selection whereby more religious societies prevailed over the less religious ones.14151
The same goes for the individual. Historically, people who were open to religious belief may have been fitter for their environment than the less religious. They may have been less afraid of death and may have enjoyed psychosocial comfort through satisfying explanations of the world and a better integration in society. Religious people may also have had better health and higher fertility than comparable groups without strong religious convictions14. While these phenomena do not prove religious beliefs to be true, they may have granted an evolutionary advantage to religious people — and perhaps a reason for the existence and proliferation of religion.
Today, the evolutionary advantages of being religious are less evident. It turns out that the most successful societies (in terms of wealth, life expectancy, peacefulness, rule of law, and happiness) are more atheist — a phenomenon that we will explore later on.
.jpg){kind=link}