With God we will gain the victory, and he will trample down our enemies. (Psalms 60:12)
Human concerns and needs are reflected in the characteristics of the god they worship. We can chalk up the many faces and changing nature of “most high” supernatural agent in the monotheistic religions to this fact: gods are designed and revised to meet the needs of a people. As a group leader, a god an lead his people in many ways. One way is in war.
As Karen Armstrong and many others have pointed out, “Yahweh was the god of war.”(13) In fact, that was the original specialty of the high god of the Old Testament. And it created a problem. As Armstrong relates, “He had no expertise in agriculture or fertility, and so many Israelites, as a matter of course, performed the ancient rituals of Baal and Anat to ensure a good harvest, because Baal was the power that fertilized the land.”(14) This provoked jealousy in Yahweh (i.e., the supporters of this god).
Why would the Biblical god be so concerned about warfare in some books of the Bible, unconcerned in others? Times and social environments change. For example, during Jesus’ time, the issue wasn’t so much about a boundary war, but about a revolution within that boundary.
Primate alphas lead their group in war. The ‘most powerful man on earth’ was once considered to be the president of the United States. Why? Because of the great resources he could control, including military might. Even today the U.s. president serves as the commander-in-chief. As for the Bible alpha, in early incarnations he definitely led his people on campaigns to attack and defeat the others. As expressed in verses such as these:
Blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand." (Genesis 14:20)
The LORD will fight for you; you need only to be still." (Exodus 14:14)
All these kings and their lands Joshua conquered in one campaign, because the LORD, the God of Israel, fought for Israel. (Joshua 10:42)
Worship the LORD your God; it is he who will deliver you from the hand of all your enemies." (2 Kings 17:39) (15)
As a mighty, supernatural alpha, a god is also capable of empowering his earthly captains. Messiahs justify and buttress their own roles by declaring they have a god on their side. They have a special relationship. And so they draw upon preexisting sentiments within their group, and the innate instincts of primates in general, to their own advantage. Chimpanzees, baboons, macaques, and humans all take more seriously other primates that have a close alliance with an alpha. So Jesus didn’t say, “I am god.” Rather he spoke of being the very special “son of.” That way he could justify his actions as a religious revolutionary. This very old tactic is still used today. "I have a special relationship with the greatest one."
The god-as-war-leader phenomenon is not exclusive to the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tree of belief. For example, in the 5th century BCE these words were spoken about the Egyptian god Ra (also Anum-Ra):
“Hail Ra in your rising,
Anum, the Might of the Gods....
You pass by the sandbank of the waving water, and your enemies are felled.” (16)
Now that's a god you'd want to follow. Provided your needs included battling enemies.
Why do gods sometimes have the face of warriors? Because the creators of gods are primates. Primates are group-living social species with the need and instinct to protect their territory and resources. What’s more, we tend to forget that in ‘primitive’ cultures there was no distinct line between religion and politics. In fact, you might say that religion served as the rudimentary form of government. As Scott Atran wrote, “In tribal cultures, religion was inseparable from polity.”(20) Even today, it seems many citizens are unwilling to make a complete separation. Why? My guess is that people tend to relate better to the idea that do’s and don’ts and should’s and shouldn’ts appropriately come from an entity with parent-like connotations: a committed concern for it's 'children' and unquestionable authority.
There may, in fact, be a link between the war-god (outside-threat-oriented) and the law-making, moralizing (do's and don'ts, inside-threat oriented). That link is group size coupled with the existence of competing groups. As Frans L. Roes and Michel Raymond have outlined in their paper, “Belief in Moralizing Gods,”
“Cross-cultural analysis support this line of thought: more competition between societies is found in environments rich in resources and larger societies tend to occupy these environments, large societies engage in external conflicts at higher rates and are more often characterized by beliefs in moralizing gods . . . we speculatively picture the historical chain of events giving rise to a belief in moralizing gods.”(21)
The moralizing god says, “You must behave in a way that maintains group harmony. And you must help protect the group.” This second element of a god as war-leader and troop-recruiter is reflected in these two verses from different religious trees:
“If, however, you do not fight this religious war, then you will certainly incur sins for neglecting your duties and thus lose your reputation as a fighter.” Bhagavad Gita, 2:33 (19)
“Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward.” Qur’an, 4.74 (20)
What of those today who worship a god with the face of a war general? They are likely living in a setting where there is a real or perceived enemy to their way life. And so the call upon their most high commander-in-chief to lead them. The almighty.
---
(13) Armstrong, K. The Great Transformation: The Beginning of our Religious Traditions, Knopf, New York, 2006, p.45
(14) Armstrong, K. The Great Transformation: The Beginning of our Religious Traditions, Knopf, New York, 2006, p.64
(15) See also: Genesis 35:5, Genesis 49:8, Deuteronomy 9:3, Deuteronomy 11:23-25, Joshua 21:44, Judges 20:35, 1 Samuel 7:10, 2 Samuel 7:23, 2 Samuel 8:6, 1 Kings 5:3, 2 Kings 19:34-35, 1 Chronicles 14:14-15, 2 Chronicles 14:13-15, Psalms 18:17, Psalms 18-29, Psalms 44:5, Ezekiel 30:22
(16) Quirke, S. The Cult of Ra: Sun-Worship in Ancient Egypt, Thames & Hudson, New York, 2001, p. 61
(17) Atran, S., In God’s We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002, p. 120
(18) Roas, F. L. & Raymond, R., “Belief in Moralizing Gods,” Evolution and Human Behavior, Vol. 24(2), 2003.
(19) Prabhupada, A.C. Bhaktivedanta, Bhagavad Gita As It Is, Collier Books, NY, 1972.
(20) http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=114839
Xenophobia. Fear of foreigners. In a sense, to fear the foreign, the strange-to-you, is wise. For what we don’t know can hurt us. And the foreign is less known, more unpredictable. So we prefer the familiar, at least when it matters most.
You might say that chimpanzees are a xenophobic species. They notice unfamiliar individuals and go on alert mode. They recognize a “them,” and appropriately don’t trust the foreigner. Not initially, it's too dangerous. Chimpanzees will threaten, chase and fight strangers. Not because they like to. But because unaffiliated-with-us individuals pose a real threat to resources: to mates, to infants, to territory, to food.
So deep runs this propensity to be alarmed by the strange that chimpanzees will attack members of their own group who merely act strange. For example, during a documented polio epidemic – yes, chimpanzees share that with us as well – a few chimpanzees became partially paralyzed and consequently started moving differently. Strangely. They were subsequently attacked by their own group members.(8) Unfamiliarity, alarm, and fear can do that.
Among humans, in-group members tend to behave similarly. Speech is a form of behavior. Whether an American male is more likely to use the word dude or sir while addressing another male reflects their current and past social group. Group members also often share dress, customs, diet, and more. How else can you recognize an “us”? “Them,” on the other hand, have foreign ways; they act strangely.
Pants cinched well below the waist, visible tattoos and piercings, long, untrimmed beards – these are strange only relative to a particular audience.(9) If a non-idiosyncratic behavior strikes you as strange, chances are it ‘belongs’ to an outsider. Where behaviors are different, it is easy for the human mind to conclude “stranger.” Yet the “to me” goes unsaid. When there is more than one stranger with shared qualities, we can designate a “them.”
The types of ‘thems’ human beings are capable of perceiving is quite varied. Here is a short list of potential us/them categories: ethnic, linguistic, racial, sex-based, sexual orientation-based, national, political, age-based, and even sports team-based.(10)(11)
To reinforce the boundary between "us" and "them," outsiders get painted with less noble traits, insiders more noble. This psychological tendency is the likely wellspring of ethnocentrism.
Us/them distinctions go deeper than idle opinion and abstract thought. As evidence, consider the results from a psychological experiment published in the journal, Evolution and Behavior. Pairs of men were made to compete in a ‘friendly' game. When competing, there was a measured rise in their testosterone and cortisol levels. The increase in hormone levels was more pronounced when the competition involved between-village contestants than within-village contestants.(12)
Turning to the Bible now, a revision in how the us/them boundary is drawn around believers can be seen to progress through its books (reflecting the time written and the corresponding social context). In Exodus there are many references to “the God of Abraham.” Oh, that god. Are you a member of the group that worships that god, are you one of us? In Exodus we read references to the god of the Hebrews. In Kings and Chronicles and many other books of the Old Testament, the most high god is frequently referred to as a god of Israel. Other religious-identity references include “the god of” David/Jacob/your-fathers. In the New Testament books the most high god is spoken of a number of ways, including: the god “of your ancestors,” “of Israel,” “of your fathers,” and there are also those few mentions “of Jew and Gentile.”
I am the God of your father Abraham.(Genesis 26:24)
This is what the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, says: Let my people go. (Exodus 9:13)
This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says…(1 Kings 11:31)
For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him. (Romans 10:12)
In a practical sense, the god of a specific people has become the supposed god of all people. Some maintain that this god was always the god of all. I suspect it is because they do not want to recognize the tribal nature of gods. Whether or not you include everyone as part of your tribe, that nature remains.
---
(8) Goodall, J. The Chimpanzees of the Gombe: Patterns of Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986, p. 330
(9) As a tangent here, I imagine that suburban white boys adopt the ways of ghetto blacks to make themselves mildly alarming to others. By dressing and acting in a foreign fashion, they draw attention to themselves and perhaps feel dangerous and more potent within their own group. Their novel dress with fox-in-the-henhouse overtones (unpredictable outsider) may slightly alarm others. And that is the point. Strangers are alarming because the strange alarms us. When the potential to attract attention and put others on notice completely wears off, this type of behavior wanes. It brings to mind the image of a juvenile or perhaps mid-status-level chimpanzee walking around with it's shoulder fur in a state of semi erection. "Look out, I could be dangerous, give me room" (to move up in status).
(10) Wrangham, R. & Peterson, D. Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence, Houghton Mifflin, NY, 1996, p.196
(11) I imagine that cultures in which there is a significant difference in the appearance and behavior of the sexes, members of the opposite sex are more likely to be perceived as a “them.” Or maybe another species altogether, for they have really strange ways. At least according to the audience of my sex and our customary behavior. Maybe each sex could even perceived to be from different planets altogether. You think?
(12) Wagner, J. D., Flinn, M. V., & England, B. G. “Hormonal Response to Competition Among Male Coalitions,” Evolution and Human Behavior, Volume 23, Issue 6, November 2002, 437-442.
The great ape alpha is a threatening individual. Not only does he threaten his own groups members to get them to defer to him, this master of threat will turn his imposing nature outside the group and protect it from dangers in the external world.(3) What are these external threats? Gorilla males will protect their harem and children not only from predators, but from other males.(4) Male gorillas practice infanticide on the offspring of other males. Foreign males are also a threat to chimpanzee communities. Like the gorilla, the aggressive chimpanzee will take the lead in protecting the group from predators. He will also, like the gorilla, keep his eye out for lurking ‘foreign’ males.
A logical consequence of having an in-group is the existence of out-group others. By creating an ‘us’ a not-us is generated in consequence. The boundary of a group separates inside from out. And outsiders can be dangerous: they can usurp resources; they can upset group stability. So chimpanzees are wary of them. As Barbara king has noted in her book on the African great apes -
“Community membership is apparently meaningful to the chimpanzees, because boundaries are patrolled. Patrollers, typically males, silently walk the perimeter of their communities, seeking the presence of noncommunity individuals. Although some members may switch communities at certain times in their lives, intercommunity interaction, when it occurs, tends toward the aggressive, and sometimes even the lethal.” (5)
In fact, in the social psychology of chimpanzees we can discern the origins of human xenophobia and perhaps even genocidal behavior. For decades our kind has been quite naïve about the psychological and social complexity of other primates. As an illustration, consider this anecdote:
“In West Africa the fist hint of intercommunity violence came in 1977, within Senegals’s Niokola-Koba National Park, when conservationist Stella Brewer brought a group of ex-captive chimps into the forest with hopes of reintroducing them to a wild existence. But repeated attacks by native chimpanzees, including a terrifying nighttime raid of the camp by a gang of four adults, finally forced Brewer to shut her experiment down.” (6)
Other episodes of chimp ‘gang violence’ have also surfaced. In the Mahale Mountains National Park, it was documented that in wild groups of chimpanzees, one group, the ‘K-group’ seems to have been exterminated by another group, the ‘M.” (7) Or at least the males were killed; the females were likely incorporated into the winning group. In other words, inter-group hostility is not a strictly human thing.
This verse from Deuteronomy (21:10-11) readily comes to mind:
When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.
Likewise, the inclination to view us as good (safe) and them as bad (threatening), extends farther than the human species. This us-them propensity has even been extended to the supernatural realm.
The nations will hear and tremble; anguish will grip the people of Philistia. The chiefs of Edom will be terrified, the leaders of Moab will be seized with trembling, the people of Canaan will melt away; terror and dread will fall upon them. By the power of your arm they will be as still as a stone—until your people pass by, O LORD, until the people you bought pass by. (Exodus 15:15-16)
It may be true that the Old Testament alpha more closely resembles a male chimpanzee in its temperament. Yet that is likely due to the similar social environments of the chimpanzee and of the semi-nomadic bands of early Israelites living among bands of foreigners. Potentially hostile foreigners.
---
(3) Bourne, H., The Ape People, Putnam, New York, 1971.
(4) Jolly, A. Lucy’s Legacy, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999, p.166
(5) King, Barabara. The Dynamic Dance: Nonvocal Communication in African Great Apes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2004, p.25
(6) Wrangham, R. & Peterson, D. Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence, Houghton Mifflin, NY, 1996, p.20
(7) de Waal, F. B. M., (ed.), Tree of Origin: What Primate Behavior Can Tell Us About HumanSocial Evolution, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001, p. 17
“Having a protector clearly reduces stress.” - Dorothy Cheney and Robert Seyfarth, Baboon Metaphysics (1)
He is a shield for all who take refuge in him. (Psalms 18:30)
Just as there are costs and benefits to being a group alpha, there are likewise costs and benefits to having a group alpha. One of the benefits is protection. A strong leader will protect his group. From what? How? We’ll get to that.
Of the Bible non-supernatural alphas, King David is legendary. What did he do to deserve the pedestal? As Isaac Asimov noted in his erudite book about the Bible, David became the 'master' of a the combined, twelve tribes of Israel and Judah.(2) David united a great group of people and, with their necessary loyalty and assistance, secured and enlarged an expansive homeland. David protected his people from skirmish both internal and eternal. The internal harmony being crucial to waging war against external threats.
But all Israel and Judah loved David, because he led them in their campaigns. (1 Samuel 18:16)
No doubt, David was revered not because he led them on campaigns, but on successful campaigns. King David, however, did not accomplish this all on his own. He had yet another mighty agent on his side -
And [David] became more and more powerful, because the LORD God Almighty was with him.(2 Samuel 5:9-10)
A significant amount of biblical material relates the theme of human masters being supported and assisted by their heavenly master. There are those verses, however, that have a people’s god acting as an agent itself, without a human intermediary, to the benefit of all group members.
Of course, different groups at different times have had different concerns; they experienced differing threats to their well-being. In a great-father role, a god is capable of delivering his children from all manner of harm; at least he is capable of being perceived as having the ability and actually delivering thanks to rationalizing hindsight. And so many verses in the Bible hint at this "general protector" god. Psalms, in particular, speaks of this facet of god worship. Besides multiple mentions of "the Lord is my shield," there is this:
The LORD will keep you from all harm—he will watch over your life. (Psalms 121:7)
In the New Testament we see a number of verses manifesting the them of "general protector." This one, from 2 Timothy, hints at the more primitive origin of the need for protection from threat:
And I was delivered from the lion's mouth. The Lord will rescue me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom.(4:17-18)
Of course, the "lion's mouth" is largely metaphorical. Unless of course, you were a Christian thrown in an actual den of lions by Romans. Yet the roots of Christianity to run into deep time, a time that predators and other wild animals posed a real risk to human beings. Consider these verses:
The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth. (Genesis 9:2)
Rescue me from the mouth of the lions; save me from the horns of the wild oxen. (Psalms 22:21)
Yet both then and now the wildest of the wild animals -- the species that poses the greatest threat to us -- is our very own. We are our biggest enemies. Scratch that: "they" are our biggest enemy, those other groups of our kind, yet strangers unto us, that stand in our way. 'They' can want what we have; they can hurt us, even annihilate us. And so you will find much material in the Old Testament about identifying the dangerous others and achieving protection and respite from them.
Rise up, O LORD, confront them, bring them down; rescue me from the wicked by your sword. (Psalms 17:13)
How we hate those that threaten us. Religion provides an antidote to this type of psychological threat. Religion assures us that a supernatural agent that can help us. Our god may even harm them, if not obliterate them in this life or the next. Isn't that good news?
---
(1) Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. Baboon Metaphysics: The Evolution of a Social Mind, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2007, p.60
(2) Asimov, I., Asimov’s Guide to the Bible: The Old and New Testaments, Wing Books, New York, 1969, p. 305
He sees you when you're sleeping
He knows when you're awake
He knows if you've been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake. (64)
Although the above words are about a supernatural being, that being is not considered a god. Maybe a saint, but not a god. Yet the watching is god-like. Besides Santa Claus, personal gods tend to have the ability to monitor behavior. They can watch you and judge your behavior as bad or good. Because there is no limit to their seeing, you will not get away with violating the rules of your religion. As the Biblical character Job laments, Will you never look away from me? (Job 7:19)
In any primate group their must be a balance between behavior that is directly self-serving and behavior that serves to maintain group integrity. There are thus checks and balances, including the instinct to be vigilant for cheaters—you can’t trust them, can you?—and to punish violators. A good example of this are the many economic/psychological studies employing the “ultimatum” game. In an extreme version, two complete strangers--individuals not of the same group past or future--must divide a sum of money. One stranger decides upon his cut of the money, say a total of $100. He or she then slides the remaining amount under the door to the unseen and unknown other. If the other accepts that amount, they both get to keep the money. If not, neither gets any money. Manifesting just how social a species we are, most individuals in this scenario will split the money equally or near-equally and slide 40 or 50 dollars under the door. Both players walk away richer. When the money is unevenly divided, however, the risk for rejection of the sum rises dramatically, the result being that both players walk away with nothing gained. And it happens more often than you would think. Many an individual receiving a 20 dollar cut will refuse the free money. He or she will instead punish the unfairness, in effect punishing themselves as well. No one likes a cheater.
In her paper on the evolution of cheater detection, Denise D. Cummins wrote, “[C]heater detection plays a broader role in social coordination as a fundamental, primitive cognitive adaptation to dominance hierarchies. . . . In order to maintain priority of access to resources, dominant individuals monitor the behavior of subordinates and aggress against those who “cheat” (violate social norms).” (65)
As a super-dominant being, you would expect a god to monitor the behavior of all of its subordinates and punish those caught cheating. Even in social groups where rules and laws have not been codified by religion, and where a single, supreme alpha has not been designated, you will often find invisible spirits that take an interest in 'who does what.' (66) Why would these para-normal entities care? Because, in some way, they are one of us; we are them. One characteristic that distinguishes the religious from the paranormal is consistent involvement and interest of the invisible party. Thoughts of a door-banging and chain-dragging kind of ghost may be spooky, but they fail to incite social emotions as readily as the holy-ghost kind of invisible entity. Only one of these kinds of ghosts will make us wonder if “they” know about our recent behavioral transgression.
In his book on evolutionary underpinnings of religion, anthropologist Scott Atran notes that if we want to enforce a social contract made between individuals, get more people involved. Make social contracts a community affair. For then there will be more eyes watching for violation and a greater probability that a wronged party will have someone to back them up in a dispute. What typically makes social contracts a community affair? Religion. Atran writes, “Displays of commitment to supernatural agents signal sincere willingness to cooperate with the community of believers.” (67)
Not only do invisible alphas provide a super-member for a group to form around, as dominant beings they are especially good at catching cheaters, and thus, presumably, at deterring cheating. Psychological experiments conducted on human primates have found that when adopting a status of high-rank, an individual will be more vigilant for cheating than when adopting a position of low rank.(68) It seems we innately expect for more dominant individuals to watch over less.
When a king sits on his throne to judge, he winnows out all evil with his eyes. (Proverbs 20:8)
And so we invite a super-being into our social circle to help us be good, to get along. In her ruminations about the origins of church-going rituals, Karen Armstrong notes that from early Biblical texts it can be surmised that early, semi-nomadic Israelites carried the “home” of their god with them—the Ark of the Covenant. In tent-walled temples, they renewed their commitment to Yahweh, their number one, and through him, to one another. (69)
Is this a reason for church-going behavior today? Do individuals gather together to acknowledge their number one? Does church-going strengthen individual commitment to a group, does it remind members of important social rules? Do the texts and teachings inform them they are being watched, and if they violate the special rules they will receive not coal in their Christmas stocking, but something worse?
Do you really want to risk being bad? You better watch out.
---
(64) "Santa Claus is Coming to Town" by John Frederick Coots and Haven Gillespie
(65) Cummins, D. D. “Cheater Detection is Modified by Social Rank: The Impact of Dominance of the Evolution of Cognitive Functions,” Evolution and Human Behavior, Volume 20, Issue 4, July 1999, 220-248.
(66) Wilson, D.S. Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society, University of Chicago, Chicago, 2002, p. 64
(67) Atran, S., In God’s We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002, p.16
(68) Cummins, D. D., July 1999, 220-248.
(69) Armstrong, K. The Great Transformation: The Beginning of our Religious Traditions, Knopf, New York, 2006, p.43
Recent Comments