Skip to main content
Log in

The Goldberg Exaptation Model: Integrating Adaptation and By-Product Theories of Religion

  • Published:
Review of Philosophy and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The literature on the evolution of religion has been divided by a fundamental debate between adaptation theories, which explain religious traits as products of selection for religion, and byproduct theories, which explain religious traits as products of selection for other, non-religious functions. Recently, however, a new position has emerged in this debate, as an influential new theory based on cultural selection claims to integrate adaptation theories with byproduct theories, yielding a single, unified account. I argue that the proponents of this view do not say enough about how integration is actually supposed to work, from a logical point of view. Basic questions arise from the assumptions required for unifying these apparently conflicting approaches, which the authors of the account do not address. In response to these questions, I provide a model of the religious phenotype, the Goldberg Exaptation Model, which shows that adaptation and byproduct theories are consistent, and explains how they are positively related, over and above mere consistency. On this view, the religious phenotype is best understood on analogy with a Rube Goldberg device: it is assembled by selection for religion, but using parts designed by selection for other, non-religious functions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For article-length versions, see: Norenzayan et al. 2016; Atran and Henrich 2010; Henrich et al. 2010.

  2. For dual-inheritance theory in general, see: Richerson et al. 2015; Chudek et al. 2013; Henrich et al. 2008; Richerson and Boyd 2005.

  3. No trait is produced solely by natural selection, of course, since other sources of evolutionary change—mutation, migration, sexual recombination, drift, etc.—are needed to generate the variation on which selection acts.

  4. For an alternative instance of broad adaptationism, and an adaptationist framework that is even broader than the dual-inheritance approach, see Jablonka and Lamb (2005).

  5. For a more technical analysis of these factors, see Richerson et al. 2015, Section 2.1

  6. Norenzayan (2013) documents in great detail the range of psychological mechanisms involved in connecting supernatural beliefs with prosocial behavior.

References

  • Atran, Scott. 2002. In Gods we trust: The evolutionary landscape of religion. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atran, Scott, and Joseph Henrich. 2010. The evolution of religion: How cognitive by-products, adaptive learning heuristics, ritual displays, and group competition generate deep commitments to prosocial religions. Biological Theory 5(1): 18–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atran, Scott, and Ara Norenzayan. 2004. Religion’s evolutionary landscape: Counterintuition, commitment, compassion, communion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27: 713–770.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, Justin L. 2004. Why would anyone believe in God? Plymouth: AltaMira Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumard, Nicolas, and Pascal Boyer. 2013. Explaining moral religions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17(6): 272–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumard, Nicolas, Jean-Baptiste Andre, and Dan Sperber. 2013. A mutualistic approach to morality: The evolution of fairness by partner choice. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(1): 59–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumard, Nicolas, Alexandre Hyafil, Ian Morris, and Pascal Boyer. 2014. Increased affluence explains the emergence of ascetic wisdoms and moralizing religions. Current Biology 25: 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, Adrian V., Peter J. Richerson, and Richard McElreath. 2012. Culture rather than genes provides greater scope for the evolution of large-scale human prosociality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(42): 17671–17674. doi:10.1073/pnas.0903232106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bering, Jesse. 2006. The folk psychology of souls. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29(5): 453–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bering, Jesse. 2011. The belief instinct: The folk psychology of souls, destiny and the meaning of life. New York: W. W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, Paul. 2004. Descartes’ baby: How the science of child development explains what makes us human. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, Paul. 2007. Religion is natural. Developmental Science 10(1): 147–151. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00577.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourrat, Pierrick. 2015. Origins and evolution of religion from a Darwinian point of view: Synthesis of different theories. In Handbook of evolutionary thinking in the sciences, ed. T. Heams, P. Huneman, G. Lecointre, and M. Silberstein. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, Robert, and Peter J. Richerson. 2005. Solving the puzzle of human cooperation. In Evolution and culture, eds. Pierre Jaisson and Stephen Levinson.

  • Boyer, Pascal. 1994. The naturalness of religious ideas: A cognitive theory of religion. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, Pascal. 2001. Religion explained: The evolutionary origins of religious thought. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bulbulia, Joseph. 2009. Religiosity as mental time-travel: Cognitive adaptations for religious behavior. In The believing primate: Scientific, theological, and philosophical reflections on the origin of religion, ed. J. Schloss and M.J. Murray. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, David M., Martie G. Haselton, Todd K. Shackelford, April L. Bleske, and Jerome C. Wakefield. 1998. Adaptations, exaptations, and spandrels. American Psychologist 53(5): 533–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chudek, Maciek, and Joseph Henrich. 2011. Culture-gene coevolution, norm-psychology and the emergence of human prosociality. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 15(5): 218–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chudek, Maciek, Wanying Zhou, and Joseph Henrich. 2013. Culture‐gene coevolution, large‐scale cooperation and the shaping of human social psychology. In Cooperation and its evolution, ed. Kim Sterelny, Richard Joyce, and Brett Calcott, 1–28. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, Daniel C. 1995. Darwin’s dangerous idea. New York: Touchstone.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, Ernst, and Urs Fischbacher. 2003. The nature of human altruism. Nature 425(6960): 785–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey-Smith, Peter. 2009. Darwinian populations and natural selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, Stephen J., and Richard C. Lewontin. 1979. The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 205: 581–598. doi:10.1098/rspb.1979.0086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, Stephen J., and Elisabeth S. Vrba. 1982. Exaptation: A missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology 8(1): 4–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, Paul E. 1993. Functional analysis and proper functions. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44(3): 409–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, Jonathan. 2012. The righteous mind. New York: Pantheon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, Joseph. 2004. Cultural group selection, coevolutionary processes and large-scale cooperation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 53(1): 3–35. doi:10.1016/S0167-2681(03)00094-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, Joseph, Richard McElreath, Abigail Barr, Jean Ensminger, Clark Barrett, Alexander Bolyanatz, Juan Camilo Cardenas, et al. 2006. Costly punishment across human societies. Science 312(5781): 1767–1770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, Joseph, Robert Boyd, and Peter J. Richerson. 2008. Five misunderstandings about cultural evolution. Human Nature 19(2): 119–137. doi:10.1007/s12110-008-9037-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, Joseph, Jean Ensminger, Richard McElreath, Abigail Barr, Clark Barrett, Alexander Bolyanatz, Juan Camilo Cardenas, et al. 2010. Markets, religion, community size, and the evolution of fairness and punishment. Science 327(5972): 1480–1484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irons, William. 2001. Religion as a hard-to-fake sign of commitment. In Evolution and the capacity for commitment, ed. Randolph M. Nesse. New York: Russell Sage Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jablonka, Eva, and Marion J. Lamb. 2005. Evolution in four dimensions: Genetic, epigenetic, behavioral, and symbolic variation in the history of life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick, Lee. 2008. Religion is not an adaptation: Some fundamental issues and arguments. In The evolution of religion: Studies, theories, and critiques, ed. J. Bulbulia, R. Sosis, E. Harris, R. Genet, C. Genet, and K. Wyman. Santa Margarita: Collins Foundation Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krasnow, Max, Leda Cosmides, Eric J. Pedersen, and John Tooby. 2012. What are punishment and reputation for? PloS One 7(9), e45662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, E. Thomas, and Robert N. McCauley. 1990. Rethinking religion: Connecting cognition and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCauley, Robert N. 2004. Is religion a rube goldberg device? Or oh, what a difference a theory makes! In Religion as a human capacity, ed. Light Timothy and Brian C. Wilson. Boston: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norenzayan, Ara. 2013. Big Gods: How religion transformed cooperation and conflict. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norenzayan, Ara, Azim Shariff, Aiyana K. Willard, Edward Slingerland, William M. Gervais, Rita McNamara, and Joseph Henrich. 2016. The cultural evolution of prosocial religions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 39(1): 1–65.

  • Pinker, Steven. 2006. The evolutionary psychology of religion. In Where God and science meet: How brain and evolutionary studies alter our understanding of religion, ed. P. McNamara. Westport: Praeger Perspectives.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, Russell, and Steve Clarke. 2012. Religion as an evolutionary byproduct: A critique of the standard model. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 63(3): 457–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richerson, Peter J., and Robert Boyd. 2005. Not by genes alone. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richerson, Peter, Ryan Baldini, Adrian Bell, Kathryn Demps, Karl Frost, Vicken Hillis, Sarah Mathew, et al. 2015. Cultural group selection plays an essential role in explaining human cooperation: A sketch of the evidence. Behavioral And Brain Sciences 39: 1–68. doi:10.1017/S0140525X1400106X.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sosis, Richard. 2009. The adaptationist-byproduct debate on the evolution of religion: Five misunderstandings of the adaptationist program. Journal of Cognition and Culture 9(3): 315–332. doi:10.1163/156770909X12518536414411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sosis, Richard, and Candace Alcorta. 2003. Signaling, solidarity, and the sacred: The evolution of religious behavior. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 12(6): 264–274. doi:10.1002/evan.10120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterelny, Kim. 2016. Cooperation, culture, and conflict. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science: axu024. doi:10.1093/bjps/axu024.

  • Taves, Ann. 2009. Religious experience reconsidered: A building-block approach to the study of religion and other special things. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurow, Joshua C. 2013. Does cognitive science show belief in god to be irrational? The epistemic consequences of the cognitive science of religion. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 74(1): 77–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, David S. 2002. Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, religion and the nature of society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Taylor Davis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Davis, T. The Goldberg Exaptation Model: Integrating Adaptation and By-Product Theories of Religion. Rev.Phil.Psych. 8, 687–708 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-016-0321-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-016-0321-4

Keywords

Navigation