The threshing floors will be filled with grain; the vats will overflow with new wine and oil. (Joel 2:24)
To promise an abundance of food, there must either be a preexisting surplus to command, or a power capable of generating it. The successful alpha will become known for providing sustenance, whether the instances under its control occurred at in a statistically significant manner (vs. chance levels), or if the instances were beyond its control and merely rubber-stamped with its name.
As mentioned previously, the first food alphas were likely cousin primates such as the chimpanzee. Individual males are capable of controlling the sharing of meat, even when they don't catch it themselves. They merely commandeer it from lower-status individuals. Then they share the meat they now possess.(11) Other chimps gather round to beg.
In his book on the evolution of primate behavior, Christopher Boehm lends his support to the idea that political clout originated in the hunting of large game and the valued surplus it provided the entire group by way of sharing.(12) To the entire group go the spoils, but to the disperser (if not the provider) goes the prestige.
For a god to be given ultimate responsibility for bounty is a clever way for that agent to maintain a respected place in the group. On a individual level it can also make psychological sense in terms of the perception of control. If you want and need something, and perceived control is small--uncertainty thus large--it is comforting to be able to do something that increases one's perception of control. Need rain? Try prayer: do some quasi-begging to the mighty force above. As a brief tangent here, it is no surprise that in an arid land of unpredictable rains, a god would get the nod for providing it. There are dozens of verses in the Bible mentioning this aspect of worship. My guess is that a god of the rainforest would not have the same quality.
For this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: "The jar of flour will not be used up and the jug of oil will not run dry until the day the LORD gives rain on the land." (1 Kings 17:14)
Of course, it does not make sense to the human being's social brain to get something for nothing. And so individuals cannot pray and pray alone to feel deserving of receiving their desired something. They must also believe, they must follow, they must behave according to group standards, they must be loyal. Not coincidentally, this provides real benefits to the group. Which a god serves.
If you are willing and obedient, you will eat the best from the land; but if you resist and rebel, you will be devoured by the sword." For the mouth of the LORD has spoken. (Isaiah 1:19-20)
"If" indeed.
The terms I commanded your forefathers when I brought them out of Egypt, out of the iron-smelting furnace.' I said, 'Obey me and do everything I command you, and you will be my people, and I will be your God. Then I will fulfill the oath I swore to your forefathers, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey'-the land you possess today." I answered, "Amen, LORD." (Jeremiah 11:4-5)
A land 'flowing' with milk and honey? Talk about bounty! To those within the near reach of hunger, why wouldn't you feel full of thanks? Religion directs those thankful feelings to a supernatural agent, to a social innovation that helps unite and stabilize a social group.
---
(11) McGrew, W. C., Marchant, L. F. & Nishida, T., Great Ape Societies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1996, p. 127
(12) Boehm, C., Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999, p. 62
“Eventually Mike [a chimpanzee] calmed down and became a benign alpha. He was exceptionally generous in sharing meat.” (4)
Whenever the day came for Elkanah to sacrifice, he would give portions of the meat to his wife Peninnah and to all her sons and daughters. (1 Samuel 1:4-5)
The human being is an animal. Like our close relative, the chimpanzee, we engage in meat sharing. And like other primates, when hungry we will beg for a share.
“Ape beggars hold out their hand, palm upward, very much as human beggars do on the street.”(5)
If you don't have enough food, you can ask for more. Whom do you ask? An agent who has more or has control of 'more.'
Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. (Genesis 9:3)
Besides being essential to survival, and perhaps because of it, food is a commodity. It can be traded up front, such as when male chimpanzees will give meat to fertile females in exchange for "access."(6) A gift of food can also be used to invest in a future return on that investment. You give food to 'get on the good side' of another. Which means in the future you will be treated favorably.
While other apes show only a rudimentary ability to plant seeds of favor with food gifts, human beings excel at this. Consider the historically widespread practice of making food gifts to deities. Or, in a more everyday sense, we have the custom of bringing a bottle of wine or some other treat to the house of a party host, as hosts sometimes give departing guests a little something to take with them.
Beyond parent and dependent child relationships, food sharing is actually quite rare in the wild. Among chimpanzees it is the exception rather than the rule.(7) Give food to another . . . why? The social payoff must be greater than the immediate nutritional benefit. And this explains why food sharing is much more common among humans. It isn't just a case of human nature, but of human food production as well. Put briefly, where there is surplus, the immediate value of a food resource diminishes, increasing the value of potential trade.
When we think of food surplus, we tend to think of crops, of agricultural production. Yet perhaps there is a more ancient type. The finding or felling of a large animal also provides a surplus of food. What individual could eat a whole antelope itself? With the successful hunt of a large animal, we have surplus, at least in the near term. That immediate surplus plays no small role in food sharing. Christopher Boehm has noted that among human groups of hunter-gatherers:
“Large game is shared by the entire band, and the resulting prestige lends itself to political ascendancy.”(8)
The prestige, of course, goes to the provider of the rare and rich food resource. The new, the scarce -- the exciting -- why wouldn't others be interested and eager to have some? Jane Goodall has recounted many an observation in which one "brave" individual chimpanzee steals something from the human camp, and other chimps gather round for a share of the novel item. Filched pieces of cardboard and an entire wool sweater proved particularly appealing to chimpanzees, who seemed to appraise their value by chewing and sucking on them.(9)
Of course, the more individuals you can impress, the greater the impact on your prestige. In the Old Testament, Elisha feeds a hundred men with "twenty loaves of barley bread baked from the first ripe grain along with some heads of new grain." (2 Kings 4: 42-43) Later in the Bible, Jesus ups the ante and prestige factor by feeding . . . FOUR THOUSAND! with a mere seven loaves (Matthew 15:36-38). That's one huge piece of cardboard.
In today’s relatively affluent communities, food is not scarce, nor is it a readily threatened resource. With local Albertson’s and Publix supermarkets, the idea of god as the deliverer of food has become more metaphorical -- he provides food for the soul -- if not outright quaint.
But the old time gods, they created the world and the world was the source of all sustenance. As this verse about the Egyptian god Ra tells:
You place every man in his place,
You make what they need,
So every one has his food,
His lifespan counted. (10)
Roughly two thousand years later we find verses like this from a nearby part of the world:
I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. (Genesis 1:29)
Yet who gets their food directly from the land today? Thanks to the world economy, local droughts don't cause the same level of religion-enflaming concern they once did. No rain for weeks? There may be water use restrictions enacted. Can't do the regular washing of your car. Lawns may die. But hunger? Most of the time, it is droughts in other parts of the world that will impact the consumer. In terms of higher prices, which is not quite life-threatening.
It then seems that many verses in the Bible were addressed to farmers.
Then I will send rain on your land in its season, both autumn and spring rains, so that you may gather in your grain, new wine and oil. I will provide grass in the fields for your cattle, and you will eat and be satisfied. (Deuteronomy 11:14-15)
So few people today have gardens, particularly gardens they depend upon to feed their families. And so, again, while they may relate to the following Bible passages in a superficial fashion, I suspect they don't relate to it as deeply as subsistence farmers would.
Isaac planted crops in that land and the same year reaped a hundredfold, because the LORD blessed him. (Genesis 26:12)
As to why a mythical agent would promise his people rain bountiful crops -- this is because he speaks to the primate mind. The chimpanzee who shares food does not do so arbitrarily. He or she is much more inclined to share with family, individuals of 'shared' blood. Then come friends -- members of the extended, pseudo-blood group. Finally, chimps will share food as a commodity of trade. Implicit with a gift is indebtedness, of favor owed. When you fail to act favorably toward the gift provider, you will fail to receive future gifts.
If you follow my decrees and are careful to obey my commands, I will send you rain in its season, and the ground will yield its crops and the trees of the field their fruit. (Leviticus 26:3-4)
Follow his decrees. Why? That will maintain social order, an order advantageous to him. Praise him. Why? That will help him maintain his social position. At the top. If you have a friend in that agent at the highest place, you will benefit.
---
(4) Goodall, J. The Chimpanzees of the Gombe: Patterns of Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986, p. 75
(5) de Waal, F. Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are, New York, Riverhead Books, 2005, p. 197
(6) Jolly, A. Lucy’s Legacy, 1999, p. 173
(7) de Waal, F. Peacemaking Among Primates, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989, p. 209
(8) Boehm, C., Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999, p.7
(9) Goodall, J., My Friends the Wild Chimpanzees, National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C., 1967.
(10) Quirke, S. The Cult of Ra: Sun-Worship in Ancient Egypt, Thames & Hudson, New York, 2001, p. 161
Why do alpha males tend to be keepers of the garden?
Before answering that question, let me explain what I mean by ‘keepers of the garden.’ No primate species but one will cultivate and tend a garden. Yet many if not most will defend a territory -- not because they win Monopoly money for doing so, but because any territory worth defending contains gardens of the naturally occurring sort. Food sources.
Dominant males are also keepers because they fight not to lose what they have. Lastly, our own species qualifies as keepers in terms of tending to it in order to insure and optimize food production. In this regard females play a significant role, the size and importance of that role depending upon the particular culture.
Why do males tend to be 'keepers'? Male primates tend to be larger and stronger. Which makes for a good defender. Additionally, males are more expendable. Evolutionary speaking. If you lose a female, you lose more than one individual. You also endanger if not lose dependent children, as well as lose the potential production of more offspring. The social group that has 5 females to every male will grow more quickly than will the opposite. To put it bluntly, wombs are limited resources. In contrast, as a naturalist friend of mine put it, "sperm is cheap."
Why alpha’s? In terms of physical power and aggressiveness, alphas tend to be "at the top." Perhaps more importantly, in terms of social power, they are definitely at the top of the heap. They are more likely to have others follow them and thereby multiply the muscle available for a task. Indeed, as Jane Goodall and others have documented, dominant males tend to take the lead in defending a "feeding territory for all members."(1)
But why would a territory need to defending? Because resources equate to survival. They are valued for a reason. And can be stolen. As evidenced by these . . . Bible verses [emphasis added].
The sons of Jacob came upon the dead bodies and looted the city where their sister had been defiled. They seized their flocks and herds and donkeys and everything else of theirs in the city and out in the fields. They carried off all their wealth and all their women and children, taking as plunder everything in the houses. (Genesis 34:27-29)
So the LORD our God also gave into our hands Og king of Bashan and all his army. We struck them down, leaving no survivors. At that time we took all his cities. There was not one of the sixty cities that we did not take from them—the whole region of Argob, Og's kingdom in Bashan. All these cities were fortified with high walls and with gates and bars, and there were also a great many unwalled villages. We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city—men, women and children. But all the livestock and the plunder from their cities we carried off for ourselves. (Deuteronomy 3:3-7)
Gardens need to be protected from vandals and other threats. Yet can you protect a garden from plagues and drought? Well, you can try. And when it comes to food, to not do everything in your power to protect it -- that would be crazy. So maybe the many Bible verses that evidence attempts at assuring a healthy garden -- while they are misguided -- are not so crazy.
Let us fear the LORD our God, who gives autumn and spring rains in season, who assures us of the regular weeks of harvest. (Jeremiah 5:24)
What brings the rains that nourish your garden? If your understanding of nature is rudimentary and/or you have a hyperactive tendency to attribute events to the work of agents (related to the theorized human HADD - hyperactive agency detection device (2)).
Of course, a great leader-god gets credit for the good, because he is loving and/or pleased with his people. So be sure to please him. Refrain from behavior that could anger him. But when plagues strike, when rains don't come and plants wither, this is also a god's doing. But the bad does not reflect poorly on his nature. Rather, a bad turn of events will be attributed to a people's bad actions, which provoked their god. Just ask Pat Robertson. This renown preacher from a more modern age informed people that the reason for the hurricane of 2005 that wrecked havoc on the city of New Orleans -- bringing way too much of those nurturing rains -- was that people had sinned. The nation had been too soft on the issue of abortion.(3)
A productive garden must be nurtured. And protected. This is why religion speaks to the issue so often. Food is indeed sacred -- though in a fully mundane, evolutionary way.
---
(1) de Waal, F. B. M., (ed.), Tree of Origin: What Primate Behavior Can Tell Us About Human Social Evolution, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001, p. 19
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion
(3) http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1953778_1953776_1953771,00.html
If you delve into specifics, people today ‘hunger’ for a god for reasons that poorly overlap with more ancient reasons. At least in areas of the world with amply stocked supermarkets and respected borders. Today we enjoy relative peace and little hunger. Years ago -- not so much. And so hundreds of verses in the Old Testament speak of a god as one who not only could vanquish the enemy, but also alleviate hunger. In fact, the Biblical drama all began in the Garden of Eden.
In a time of uncertainty, what individual wouldn’t welcome a leader who satisfied real hunger?
At twilight you will eat meat, and in the morning you will be filled with bread. Then you will know that I am the LORD your God. (Genesis 16:12)
The actions of gods in all religions reflect human concerns. As with all animals, for the human primate food ranks at the top of concerns, followed by reproduction and others. No, these issues are not transcendental, but fundamental.
Bread. What a fantastic commodity. It staves off hunger and provides the necessary energy to stand up and do what needs doing. To be daily provided with bread—what fortune! It is no surprise that the word bread appears in the Bible 250 times (New International Version). Of course, there are other terms that appear throughout the Bible and reflect this basic need. For example, famine appears 94 times, and crop(s) 60 times. Not to mention the many verses about a god as the provider of rain (such as Psalms 65:9).
As telling is the how the “promised land” granted to a god’s children is described.
Go up to the land flowing with milk and honey. (Genesis 33:2-3
But it doesn't stop there.
And because of the abundance of the milk they give, he will have curds to eat. All who remain in the land will eat curds and honey. (Isaiah 7:22)
You will have plenty to eat, until you are full, and you will praise the name of the LORD your God, who has worked wonders for you. (Joel 2:26)
Plenty to eat. And honey no less! If hunger were a real occurrence in our lives, and there was a possibility of starvation, I imagine that the thought of being granted abundant food would just about make you fall to your knees. In thanks . . . to what? The government? As social animals, our instincts favor the thanking of an agent, even one of the imaginary sort.
In the New Testament, written during a more modern time--one of trade and markets--there is less talk of a god as the provider of food. Still, it appears in a number of places. Such as the "Lord's Prayer."
Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil. (Matthew 6:9-13)
Notice that in the prayer first comes praise, then an appeal. Chimp primates will “ask” (beg) for food from others with an extended hand, palm up. With this prayer, are humans asking for food by pressing their palms together?
I also discern in the prayer a sort of inverse hierarchy of needs. First comes food, sex/procreation is skipped, then we get to social needs. Help me get along better with others, for belonging to a social group is a real resource.
But back to the New testament. Jesus performs a number of food and hunger-related miracles. Okay, there was the water into wine thing. But you can't use food stamps on wine, for good reason. So scratch that one. But there are least two beloved stories of him feeding many with food for a few. The fish and loaves thing.
Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. (Matthew 14:19-20)
Elsewhere, Jesus helps men catch an abundance of fish--a miraculous amount following hours of failed attempts by the experienced fishermen. And at the last supper, Jesus informs his followers that their high spiritual act will be to honor him by eating his body and drinking his blood. Weird? Not really. First, there are the numerous religious precedents that this idea is based upon. It didn't come out of nowhere. Second, we have this mundane verity: Religion and food are intertwined because religion is a human invention, fully reflecting the concerns of an intelligent species of primate.
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.
Recent Comments