Minds of gods and human cognitive constraints: socio-ecological context shapes belief

ABSTRACT

What believers say about gods’ thoughts, concerns, and dispositions reflects both the minds of believers and the societies in which they live. A review of the psychology of religion literature reveals a paradox: individuals benefit from belief in divine benevolence, while groups benefit from belief in divine punishment. We propose that a resolution to this paradox lies in the combination of cognitive systems and culturally-transmitted social norms. We suggest that, as access to reflective thinking capacity is depleted, unreflective thinking driven by culturally-transmitted decision rules that are themselves shaped by local environments (e.g., norms, schemas, and scripts) play a central role in shaping beliefs about the minds of gods. We first review the psychological literature and examine how cognition and social norms might combine to favor certain patterns of beliefs around what gods know, care about, and do. We use a cultural evolutionary lens to indicate ways that various beliefs about gods’ minds may confer adaptive benefits to individuals or groups across various socio-ecological contexts, focusing on three cultural strategies: honor, face, and dignity. Along the way, we draw from existing data to predict what shapes gods’ minds may take and suggest ways to test predictions drawn from this review.

KEYWORDS:

• Supernatural punishment
• supernatural agent beliefs
• Dual Processes
• cultural evolution

Acknowledgments

We thank the anonymous reviewers who provided helpful feedback on earlier drafts of this chapter, and to Kim Sterelney and Carl Brusse for the invitation to contribute. The Centre for Applied Cross-Cultural Research at Victoria University of Wellington, the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, and the Cultural Evolution of Religion Research Consortium (CERC) have supported us throughout the preparation of this manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 We take this effortful processing capacity available to religious specialists as an exception rather than the rule, with most people applying their cognitive resources elsewhere.

Additional information

Funding

CERC is financially supported by grants from SSHRC and the John Templeton Foundation.