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.
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
Maybe that guy isn’t a jerk; maybe he’s just low on oxytocin.
A new study conducted on macaques has generated this proclamation:
Oxytocin, the “love hormone” that builds mother-baby bonds and may help us feel more connected toward one another, can also make surly monkeys treat each other a little more kindly. [article source]
In the experiment, macaques in the experimental group were administered oxytocin–a hormone we humans share–via an inhalation mask. Relative to the control group, these monkeys displays greater pro-social behavior, as gauged by their willingness to give some sweet juice to their cohorts.
I wonder: would outfitting automobile air conditioners with an oxytocin injector eliminate road rage?
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
“Silverback gorillas use pig grunts to stop fights, and dominant chimpanzees routinely pacify the quarrels of subordinates.” (40) - Christopher Boehm
Where you find clever, aspiring and ultimately selfish social primates, you will also find episodes of discord and conflict. In ancient communities with a size sufficient to dilute and confuse family bonds—neighbors unrelated to one another—what could be done to keep personal disputes from escalating into something more serious, something that could disturb and harm the entire community and potentially ripping it apart?
“Sure, your family’s elder, your grandfather, says the cattle belongs to you because you found it. But my grandfather says it belongs to me because it is the offspring of my cow.”
Wouldn’t it be nice if an entire community could share a grandfather? Wouldn’t it be handy to have an elder of undisputed authority and free of family bias to fill the role of social referee? Before books and legal systems and agencies to enforce the rules, what could a community do?
Enter religion. In a god one acquires a truly great grandfather, an agent capable of filling the role of mediator, judge and corrections officer rolled into one. Of course, you can’t see him. But he has his spokesmen, and they know his rules and values; “grandfather” speaks to them, and his words are right there: contained in mysterious marks on a roll of parchment.
A god is a judge beyond reproach, distant enough from individuals to be impartial, but with vested interest in the group. In this light, we can see how an imagined alpha can bring benefit to a group. A god is an invention that can help squelch squabbles, mediate conflict, and manage contested resources—just as, to some degree, a primate alpha can.
Squabble Squelcher
As Jimoh left adolescence and matured, the females in his group began acknowledging his superiority. From lowest ranking to high, they bowed down to him, simultaneously vocalizing their deference. Eventually, even the highest ranking female bowed before the greatness that was Jimoh. Among the males, his status likewise increased. He eventually took on a “control role.” An alert individual, Jimoh was often observed quickly “breaking up the smallest squabbles before they [would] get out of hand.”(41)
Jimoh was a chimpanzee. And while he was an exceptional individual within his group, you could not say that his type was not unique for all groups primates, that he was one-of-a-kind. Consider these anecdotes about other primate ‘masters’:
“Luit’s leadership was a significant improvement. Remarkable peace and playfulness reigned, even among the older females, who normally never gallop around uttering the throaty chimpanzee laugh. Luit took the so-called control role, acting as arbitrator in disputes with great authority and impartiality.”(42)
“Compared to Spickles and other rhesus leaders I know, Mephisto takes a more central position. While dominant rhesus males stay pretty much out of female affairs, Mephisto breaks up disputes among females and never fails to protect youngsters in need…. After major disputes Mephisto is always groomed by some of the antagonists, often of both sides. Everyone recognizes his influence.”(43)
When his father-in-law saw all that Moses was doing for the people, he said, “What is this you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit as judge, while all these people stand around you from morning till evening?” (Exodus 18:14)
In a primate community, an alpha can exert maximum social control: as arbitrator, mediator, judge. With one present, conflicts can be mitigated if not outright prevented. For human primates a behavioral sensitivity to “who is in the room,” begins early. Developmental psychologist Jerome Kagan has noted,
“Each person remains continually sensitive to the presence of individuals who are more potent than self, whether the source of the potency is size, intellectual talent, strength, beauty, wealth, status, or endurance. When there are a large number of these more potent individuals, the child or adult may inhibit initiations that might be implemented if the more powerful persons were absent.”(44)
In terms of religion, many new readers of the Bible—at least those that venture beyond the more warm-and-fuzzy passages—might be surprised by the inclusion of fear as a central component to the spiritual life. What? Isn’t that contradictory? Well, no. It depends on what kind of deity you worship.
In passages such as Psalms 111:10 we see the connection:
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding.
What is wise about fearing your leader, your god? First, on a personal level, you will avoid wrath consequences for stepping out of line. Just as high-ranking chimpanzees will quell within-group conflict by making threat displays (45)—in effect telling the others to “chill” or there will be hell to pay—the god of the Bible will threaten natural disaster, invasion by foreigners, personal calamity, hellfire.
On a group level, it is wise to fear the lord, for with him “in the room” of your consciousness (it is believed/felt) then you are less likely act selfishly and cause social unrest in your community; you are less likely to spoil group cohesion.
In a section of my book, The Naked Bible, I argued that although there are many verses in the Bible that contain both the concepts of love and god/lord, fifty percent or less of these are clearly about a god loving his people. The Bible god also demands to be loved.(46) Spiritual love can be both from and for a god. But when it comes to fear—that is a fully one way emotion. The Bible is unambiguous about this point: if fear belongs in the spiritual life, it is of a people fearing their god.
Why do bad things happen? Because you do bad things. So behave.
This happened [the murder of his family] because of the sins Jeroboam had committed and had caused Israel to commit, and because he aroused the anger of the LORD, the God of Israel. (1 Kings 15:30)
In recent times, television evangelist Pat Robertson has gained notoriety by claiming that select natural calamities such as hurricane Katrina, and the earthquake that devastated Haiti, were caused by people behaving badly. And a god’s response.
A god is the most powerful agent recognized by members of a religious group. Like a parent pulling squabbling children apart, or threatening them not to begin in first place, a most high alpha can bring greater peace to you and your group by diminishing disturbances to it. As the following few verses exemplify:
Let the trees of the forest sing, let them sing for joy before the LORD, for he comes to judge the earth. (1 Chronicles 16:33)
“Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and does evil, and I put a stumbling block before him, he will die. (Ezekiel 3:20)
May the LORD judge between you and me. And may the LORD avenge the wrongs you have done to me, but my hand will not touch you. (1 Samuel 24:12)
He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore. (Isaiah 2:4)
—
(40) Boehm, C., Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999, p. 155
(41) de Waal, F. B. M., “Conflict as negotiation,” in McGrew, W. C. , Marchant, L. F. & Nishida, T., Great Ape Societies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1996, p. 167
(42) de Waal, F., Peacemaking Among Primates, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989, p. 64
(43) de Waal, F., 1989, p.156
(44) Kagan, J., The Nature of the Child, Basic Books, New York, 1984, p.274
(45) Boehm, C., Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999, p.26
(46) Bernardin, A., The Naked Bible, CreateSpace, 2010, ch. 15, “The Myth of the Loving God.”
Recent Comments