Norenzayan et al. argue that the development of complex societies leads to the evolution of Big Gods (“powerful, morally concerned deities,” sect. 1, para. 3) as a means of ensuring increasingly necessary prosocial behaviour. This is at variance with the history of religious development and overemphasizes the importance of societal complexity and prosociality. In developing these arguments, it is useful to distinguish between monotheistic and polytheistic religions. Monotheistic religions are closer to the Big Gods model so should develop only in highly complex societies if the authors are right. In monotheistic religions, only one God is worshipped (“monolatry”) or even exists (“monotheism”), He is placated less by ritual and more by obeying His (often moral) commands, He is morally perfect, and group membership is significantly a matter of morality and dogma acceptance. These religions make a binary divide between God and the Devil (who embodies immorality) (e.g., De Benoist Reference De Benoist2004). Polytheistic religions are characterized by the worship of multiple gods and ancestors, gods who have human-like personalities, an emphasis on pleasing these gods through sacrifice and ritual, and ritual and ancestry being of greater importance to religious group membership than dogma and morality.
If Norenzayan et al. are right, then there should be evidence for Big Gods in all city-based societies, and their acceptance level should not fluctuate. Less-complex societies should lack Big Gods or possess less pronounced versions. The authors say that there were numerous deities under the ultimate guardianship of the shangdi in ancient China, and that the Chinese elite wanted to placate shangdi, in particular, with correct moral behaviour, as though they had a mandate from Him, and He could interfere in world affairs. However, shangdi operated only through lesser gods; ordinary mortals could not worship them (only the Shang dynasty, through their departed ancestors, could; Zhao Reference Zhao2010); and the “moral order” was maintained by ritual observance and sacrifice (Schwartz Reference Schwartz2009). Societal membership came through ancestors and ritual, not acceptance of dogmas or worshipping the most “moral” god.
The authors also do not appreciate the historical evidence regarding the development of monotheistic religions. The pastoralist ancient Jews oscillated between monolatry (most pronounced in times of crisis, such as the escape from Egypt) and polytheism, combining the worship of their tribal god Yahweh with worship of Baal. During the Babylonian Exile, after Judah has been crushed by Babylon and Jews were captives there, monotheism developed (Coogan Reference Coogan2009). Mohammed was an orphan of modest status in Mecca, but Islam spread rapidly among pastoralists on the borders of cities (Lapidius Reference Lapidius2002). The god in these religions is much more a Big God than the ultimate guardians in China or the Greek city states. These religions worship a morally perfect God exclusively, and group membership is a matter of worshipping Him and accepting His moral proclamations. He directly punishes the immoral. So, how can the Biggest Gods develop among pastoralists and be even “bigger” among enslaved Jews than those in First Temple Jerusalem?
Various sociologists and anthropologists have argued that extreme monotheism – which has much in common with the concept of fundamentalism – is associated with the socioeconomically disadvantaged and with times of change (Bruce Reference Bruce2002; De Benoist Reference De Benoist2004; Dutton Reference Dutton2008; Weber Reference Weber1993). Firstly, perceiving the greater wealth and power of others, monotheists and modern-day fundamentalists play for status by emphasizing their moral superiority. Secondly, feelings of stress and uncertainty are predictors of religious experience (Persinger Reference Persinger1983; Rambo Reference Rambo1993), which is often at the heart of the monotheistic model (James Reference James1902) and religiousness in general (Inzlicht et al. Reference Inzlicht, McGregor, Hirsh and Nash2009; Kay et al. Reference Kay, Shepherd, Blatz, Chua and Galinsky2010; Peterson Reference Peterson1999), and the socioeconomically disadvantaged can be expected to be higher in stress. Thirdly, negative events such as exclusion tends to increase religiousness (Rutjens et al. Reference Rutjens, van der Pligt and van Harreveld2010), and the socioeconomically disadvantaged, or those on the borders of a more successful society, might be expected to experience these acutely, as might the defeated.
We cannot see how Big Gods are invented to facilitate cooperation in the city states if, in fact, the Biggest Gods are being developed by pastoralists and those in forced exile. That many and even most city states are developing diluted versions of Big Gods is also at variance with the exact hypothesis espoused in the target article.
Rather, we argue that a more realistic hypothesis is that polytheistic societies on the borders of, and often also threatened or dominated by, more developed and successful societies raised people's feelings of uncertainty. They therefore developed a rigid religious system in which there was no room for uncertainty, as all will unfold according to the plan of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-benevolent (to His worshippers) God. This eliminates the uncertainty associated with one or numerous gods with human characteristics. The position of the proto-monotheists may also lead to general negative feelings associated with low socioeconomic status, which may be counteracted by a God who is primarily concerned with morality, and who even regards material success as immoral. This will reduce these negative feelings and possibly embolden believers to dominate the surrounding peoples, certain that they have God's mandate. Already monotheistic societies that experience these conditions would be pushed in an even more monotheistic direction.
This model better explains the available historical evidence. In the case of the monotheistic religions, Big Gods develop as a result of a specific combination of evolved prosociality and the need for accurate proxies for prosociality, which is conceivably only marginally less important for pastoralists than for city-dwellers, and environmentally induced uncertainty and negative feelings. The tendency for negative feelings is known as neuroticism, which is both higher in populations that have produced more complex societies (Rushton Reference Rushton1995) and associated with religious fervour, which is close to fundamentalism (Hills et al. Reference Hills, Francis, Argyle and Jackson2004). This pattern is consistent with our model of why pastoralist or exiled groups developed Bigger Gods than did those in the city states. A model that combines prosociality and stress/negative feelings also explains why, during certain periods of history and in certain places, emphasis on a moral God increases or decreases (see Dutton Reference Dutton2014).
Norenzayan et al. argue that the development of complex societies leads to the evolution of Big Gods (“powerful, morally concerned deities,” sect. 1, para. 3) as a means of ensuring increasingly necessary prosocial behaviour. This is at variance with the history of religious development and overemphasizes the importance of societal complexity and prosociality. In developing these arguments, it is useful to distinguish between monotheistic and polytheistic religions. Monotheistic religions are closer to the Big Gods model so should develop only in highly complex societies if the authors are right. In monotheistic religions, only one God is worshipped (“monolatry”) or even exists (“monotheism”), He is placated less by ritual and more by obeying His (often moral) commands, He is morally perfect, and group membership is significantly a matter of morality and dogma acceptance. These religions make a binary divide between God and the Devil (who embodies immorality) (e.g., De Benoist Reference De Benoist2004). Polytheistic religions are characterized by the worship of multiple gods and ancestors, gods who have human-like personalities, an emphasis on pleasing these gods through sacrifice and ritual, and ritual and ancestry being of greater importance to religious group membership than dogma and morality.
If Norenzayan et al. are right, then there should be evidence for Big Gods in all city-based societies, and their acceptance level should not fluctuate. Less-complex societies should lack Big Gods or possess less pronounced versions. The authors say that there were numerous deities under the ultimate guardianship of the shangdi in ancient China, and that the Chinese elite wanted to placate shangdi, in particular, with correct moral behaviour, as though they had a mandate from Him, and He could interfere in world affairs. However, shangdi operated only through lesser gods; ordinary mortals could not worship them (only the Shang dynasty, through their departed ancestors, could; Zhao Reference Zhao2010); and the “moral order” was maintained by ritual observance and sacrifice (Schwartz Reference Schwartz2009). Societal membership came through ancestors and ritual, not acceptance of dogmas or worshipping the most “moral” god.
The authors also do not appreciate the historical evidence regarding the development of monotheistic religions. The pastoralist ancient Jews oscillated between monolatry (most pronounced in times of crisis, such as the escape from Egypt) and polytheism, combining the worship of their tribal god Yahweh with worship of Baal. During the Babylonian Exile, after Judah has been crushed by Babylon and Jews were captives there, monotheism developed (Coogan Reference Coogan2009). Mohammed was an orphan of modest status in Mecca, but Islam spread rapidly among pastoralists on the borders of cities (Lapidius Reference Lapidius2002). The god in these religions is much more a Big God than the ultimate guardians in China or the Greek city states. These religions worship a morally perfect God exclusively, and group membership is a matter of worshipping Him and accepting His moral proclamations. He directly punishes the immoral. So, how can the Biggest Gods develop among pastoralists and be even “bigger” among enslaved Jews than those in First Temple Jerusalem?
Various sociologists and anthropologists have argued that extreme monotheism – which has much in common with the concept of fundamentalism – is associated with the socioeconomically disadvantaged and with times of change (Bruce Reference Bruce2002; De Benoist Reference De Benoist2004; Dutton Reference Dutton2008; Weber Reference Weber1993). Firstly, perceiving the greater wealth and power of others, monotheists and modern-day fundamentalists play for status by emphasizing their moral superiority. Secondly, feelings of stress and uncertainty are predictors of religious experience (Persinger Reference Persinger1983; Rambo Reference Rambo1993), which is often at the heart of the monotheistic model (James Reference James1902) and religiousness in general (Inzlicht et al. Reference Inzlicht, McGregor, Hirsh and Nash2009; Kay et al. Reference Kay, Shepherd, Blatz, Chua and Galinsky2010; Peterson Reference Peterson1999), and the socioeconomically disadvantaged can be expected to be higher in stress. Thirdly, negative events such as exclusion tends to increase religiousness (Rutjens et al. Reference Rutjens, van der Pligt and van Harreveld2010), and the socioeconomically disadvantaged, or those on the borders of a more successful society, might be expected to experience these acutely, as might the defeated.
We cannot see how Big Gods are invented to facilitate cooperation in the city states if, in fact, the Biggest Gods are being developed by pastoralists and those in forced exile. That many and even most city states are developing diluted versions of Big Gods is also at variance with the exact hypothesis espoused in the target article.
Rather, we argue that a more realistic hypothesis is that polytheistic societies on the borders of, and often also threatened or dominated by, more developed and successful societies raised people's feelings of uncertainty. They therefore developed a rigid religious system in which there was no room for uncertainty, as all will unfold according to the plan of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-benevolent (to His worshippers) God. This eliminates the uncertainty associated with one or numerous gods with human characteristics. The position of the proto-monotheists may also lead to general negative feelings associated with low socioeconomic status, which may be counteracted by a God who is primarily concerned with morality, and who even regards material success as immoral. This will reduce these negative feelings and possibly embolden believers to dominate the surrounding peoples, certain that they have God's mandate. Already monotheistic societies that experience these conditions would be pushed in an even more monotheistic direction.
This model better explains the available historical evidence. In the case of the monotheistic religions, Big Gods develop as a result of a specific combination of evolved prosociality and the need for accurate proxies for prosociality, which is conceivably only marginally less important for pastoralists than for city-dwellers, and environmentally induced uncertainty and negative feelings. The tendency for negative feelings is known as neuroticism, which is both higher in populations that have produced more complex societies (Rushton Reference Rushton1995) and associated with religious fervour, which is close to fundamentalism (Hills et al. Reference Hills, Francis, Argyle and Jackson2004). This pattern is consistent with our model of why pastoralist or exiled groups developed Bigger Gods than did those in the city states. A model that combines prosociality and stress/negative feelings also explains why, during certain periods of history and in certain places, emphasis on a moral God increases or decreases (see Dutton Reference Dutton2014).