
Complex societies precede moralizing gods throughout world history - richardhod
https://www.archaeology.wiki/blog/2019/03/28/complex-societies-precede-moralizing-gods-throughout-world-history/
======
didgeoridoo
Quickly scanned through the references and didn’t see one interesting
perspective: Julian Jaynes’ theory of the “breakdown of the bicameral mind” in
response to increasing societal complexity.

His idea is that the voices of “gods” in premodern societies were literal
command hallucinations experienced by members of these societies, in the place
of having self-identified conscious thought. In a way, he argues, premodern
peoples could be considered to be “not conscious”, as they had no inner locus
to consider or contradict the voices they heard. This contrasts with the
“conscious” experience, in which we personally identify with a sort of
homunculus inside our heads that is watching and judging its surroundings.

Jaynes argues that societal upheaval and complexity led to changes (maybe
cultural, maybe biological) that caused the “voices” to disappear, becoming
absorbed into a new “conscious” stream of self-identified thought. From the
perspective of societies experiencing this change, their inner gods would have
been thought to have gone silent, leading to greater identification with (and
societal organizing need for) externalized, idolized god figures.

~~~
msamwald
The hypothesis is completely implausible, and it is quite irritating that it
keeps popping up in discussions in the 'hacker' sphere.

There is simply no way that bicameralism would be the dominant phenotype only
a few thousand years ago, and be completely absent in any present-day
population, anywhere. We would still see it in isolated populations.

~~~
conskdkdo
What I find interesting about this hypothesis is that consciousness is just a
stream of thoughts which we do not control. Like whenever you think something
it just arrives to your mind. Often we experience thought as spoken words in
our mind but we don't know where they come from. They come from the
subconscious but we are not aware of that part of ourselves. In dreams we have
information expressed to us from the subconscious through symbolic
representations. What if we could talk to our subconscious mind? When thinking
about this I allways remember how John Nash described his paranoic ideas
comming from the same voice his mathematical ideas came from.

~~~
sajid
Nash said "the same way", not the "the same voice":

“the ideas I had about supernatural beings came to me the same way that my
mathematical ideas did. So I took them seriously.” - Sylvia Nasar, "A
Beautiful Mind"

~~~
conskdkdo
Thanks. Fair enough, but he did say "they came". And if you think about it he
does not specify "the way". I remember that he heard voices. Because he said
that to get cured he just stop listening to the voice or voices.

------
josquindesprez
It's important to take this with a grain of salt. Looking at the fit of the
model itself, it seems to be a bit overconfident/overfit to the current
configuration of society:
[https://twitter.com/babeheim/status/1108737930804293632](https://twitter.com/babeheim/status/1108737930804293632)

~~~
jerf
That seems a pretty devastating critique. The model is so confident it takes
hardly any concrete data points that don't match to disprove it. (Note I'm
speaking math in that sentence, not English.)

------
jkingsbery
I haven't read the paper yet, but this idea shouldn't be terribly surprising.
Augustine of Hippo did a pretty thorough analysis at least of the Greco-Roman
gods in the early 400s and wrote about how pagan gods generally aren't
moralizing, and how the punishments or favors they give often have little to
do with how moral a particular person is and the behavior of the Greco-Roman
gods is also not an example worth following. One of the arguments that he and
others made in favor of Christianity is that in our faith, the religious and
moral come together, and that this was a mostly novel concept at the time.

~~~
leftyted
Greco-Roman gods absolutely punished immoral behavior. It's just that "what is
moral" has changed a lot over time. For example, the classical Greek period
was a time when pederasty and war were considered perfectly moral. It's often
pointed out that pre-Christian morality seems to differ considerably from
post-Christian morality.

Also, Ancient Greece/Rome definitely count as "complex societites".

~~~
sonnyblarney
I think the OP's point is crudely valid. Greek gods basically wanted you to
pray and appease them, more or less. Jesus and the Buddha wanted you to be a
fundamentally better person, moreover, they were themselves enshrined in a
metaphysical spirituality.

I always found it odd that Greek philosophers spoke of 'spirit' and 'soul' but
that seemed for them to be a completely separate domain from Zeus et. al.

Here's chapter 1 of 'Plato's Republic' [1]

Talk of 'soul' and 'appeasing the just/unjust god's' seem to be a different
kind of subject material, whereas in most modern religions they are inherently
related.

I often wonder if there's a populist bent to that: a 'soul' is an abstract,
intellectual concept, removed from our daily lives. It'd be hard to get the
plebes even to pay attention to such haughty ideas. But give them some Gods
and Goddesses warring at each other's throats, tales of jealousy, death,
intrigue ... now there's something they can buy into.

[1]
[http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.2.i.html](http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.2.i.html)

~~~
leftyted
> I think the OP's point is crudely valid. Greek gods basically wanted you to
> pray and appease them, more or less. Jesus and the Buddha wanted you to be a
> fundamentally better person, moreover, they were themselves enshrined in a
> metaphysical spirituality.

"Being a better person" means different things in different moral frameworks.
Plato fought in wars. Jesus didn't. We don't live under a moral framework
where "dying in battle is the ultimate virtue, regardless of which side you
were on". The Greeks did, though.

It's unclear to me how anyone familiar with Greek mythology could make the
claim that the Greek gods were unconcerned with morality. The story of
Sisyphus is a moral lesson. Greek myths are full of that stuff: characters are
punished for some sin or rewarded for some virtue.

~~~
sonnyblarney
I don't think anyone is suggesting that Greek mythology is absent any kind of
moral impetus.

But the Greek Gods seem fairly petty, jealous, vain etc..

Their description in the Ilyad puts them as 'superhumans' more than anything,
there is definitely no overarching metaphysical appeal to either morality, or
towards stoic search for meaning of life etc.. It's like they're just the
superhuman overlords humans have to deal with.

~~~
ABCLAW
Homer wasn't the only person writing in the classical period. His
contemporary, Hesiod, depicted gods as immortal arbiters of justice in _Works
and Days_.

The Ilyad clearly has struck some narrative gold, but was in no way the only
manner in which the pantheon was portrayed.

------
classicsnoot
I haven't read the paper yet, but the headline/summary keeps getting bandied
about reddit, imgur, facebook, and twitter.

The implication seems to be that because complex society formed without
complex religion(s), said religions are superfluous and maybe even unnecessary
or deleterious to said society. I may be reading the implication incorrectly.

If I am not, then I'm quite puzzled by this line of inference. If complex
society formed prior to complex religion, and the only complex societies still
around* today hold, or used to hold until very recently, a complex religion as
a core element of societal identity, would the implication be that complex
religion is an evolved trait of successful complex societies?

*Around of their own volition, not relegated to reservation regions or whose cultural pelt is being worn by its vanquisher.

~~~
boomboomsubban
You're moving the argument too far. As complex societies developed without a
moralizing god, religion is not necessary for morality. You can't use this to
then say religion is unnecessary, as nobody has said morality is the only
reason for religion.

Even today, many religious people will say that atheists are incapable of
having morals. This is evidence showing that claim is ridiculous, not an
attack on religion.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Atheists can certainly act morally, and many do. But I would say that atheists
don't have a basis for having morals.

dictionary.com says that morals have to do with "right conduct". But in
atheism, there is nothing with the authority to give you a definition of
"right". There's nothing _absolute_ in the way that, say, the Christian God is
absolute, except the universe, and the universe doesn't tell you what right
conduct is. (I mean, there are the laws of physics, but that doesn't really
help.)

So the atheist usually takes something non-absolute and makes it an absolute -
society, or the human race, say. The choice is probably whatever corresponds
most closely to the atheist's innate sense of moral right and wrong. And that
gives that particular atheist a basis for morals within their own thinking.
But "I chose this standard because it matches my sense of what's right, and
then I think my conduct is right if it matches the standard" is, essentially,
"I do what I decide is right". It's something weaker than what I think of as
morals.

~~~
ABCLAW
>But I would say that atheists don't have a basis for having morals.

>So the atheist usually takes something non-absolute and makes it an absolute

Okay, so that's a basis. The only issue here being that you don't consider a
non-absolute basis to be valid. However, the deity of choice isn't absolute
either - you have to deem it so in the same way that the atheist does. So
either way there's no perfect ontological solution provided by either path.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
> The only issue here being that you don't consider a non-absolute basis to be
> valid.

Well, it's not just me. A lot of people have, going back at least to Plato.
Plato thought that you needed to have something absolute for there to be
morals, but his problem was that his gods weren't big enough to proved that.

> However, the deity of choice isn't absolute either - you have to deem it so
> in the same way that the atheist does.

Yes and no. Yes, you have to deem the Christian God, say, to be absolute in
order for Him to provide an absolute basis for your morals. (This is true
whether or not that God exists.)

But the Christian is not in the same position as either Plato or the atheist.
Within the Christian's position, God _is_ absolute, and therefore can provide
a rock-solid basis for a moral standard. In contrast, Plato's gods were
inadequate as a moral basis, both in theory and in practice (that is, in
practice they often behaved in ways that were not very moral).

The atheist has an absolute (at least, I think most atheists do) - the
physical universe. Within (most flavors of) atheism, that's the only thing
that can be really absolute, but it provides no moral standard whatsoever. (C.
S. Lewis remarked that "what the universe is doing" is working toward the
final and irreversible extinction of all life forms, and taking that as a
moral standard would leave suicide and genocide as our only moral values. It
seems better to just say "there's no moral standard there".) The atheist can
pick a different basis for a moral standard and ascribe validity to it - say,
the human race, or the atheist's society, or whatever. But the atheist has
made a somewhat arbitrary choice - there's nothing within the atheist's
position that compels that particular choice of moral basis. What's more, the
atheist knows it. This is very different from the Christian's position, where
there is one clear moral basis that can only be accepted or rejected.

~~~
tkxxx7
It seems like you're making an implicit distinction between deciding to be a
Christian and accepting God

> But the Christian is not in the same position as either Plato or the
> atheist. Within the Christian's position,

Yes, the position they just chose. It's like saying after you've made a
choice, you can either take it or not

~~~
AnimalMuppet
> It seems like you're making an implicit distinction between deciding to be a
> Christian and accepting God

I wasn't intending to, but perhaps I should have been. A Muslim has the same
situation as a Christian - somewhat different morals, but the structure of the
situation is the same. The distinction I was drawing was between polytheistic
gods and a monotheistic, absolute God.

> Yes, the position they just chose. It's like saying after you've made a
> choice, you can either take it or not

I see the "choosing the Christian position" as parallel to "choosing the
atheist position". But my point is that, when you choose the Christian
position, that defines morals for you. When you chooses the atheist position,
that does _not_ define morals for you.

~~~
boomboomsubban
> see the "choosing the Christian position" as parallel to "choosing the
> atheist position". But my point is that, when you choose the Christian
> position, that defines morals for you. When you chooses the atheist
> position, that does not define morals for you

The parallel to "choosing the atheist position" would be "choosing the theist
position," which would not define your morals either. From there, you can
choose from a massive range of Christian positions which have different
morals.

------
Geee
Most Eastern belief systems don't have moralizing gods. So, there are multiple
ways how societies can virtualize authority.

~~~
hliyan
This is correct. However, these belief systems do have a concept of good and
bad karma. It may be thought of as an authority that is not personified.

------
growlix
Link to PDF:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19462452](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19462452)

------
rjf72
Why is it not self evident that cooperation is driven by self interested
paired with intelligence? Animal A sees animal B in its territory. This tends
to result in an immediate battle where both animals expose themselves to risk
of death. Higher intelligence would instead tell you _' hey if I cooperate
with this guy, not only can we both keep all this land - but we can go take
over the land owned by animal C'._

There's plenty of evidence of this happening in animals with greater levels of
intelligence. For instance chimps tend to join up into groups and then go
engage in war with other groups. But they, in turn, lack that intelligence to
go even one step further. The same logic of '2 individuals can go kill 1
individual and take their land' leads to 'two groups can join up to go kill
one group and take their land.' Presumably some outlier will eventually manage
to start realizing this at which point you're well on your way to to the
evolution of another highly intelligent species spreading themselves all over
the place.

I also think there's even evidence of this in society today. When social order
collapses, for instance due to a natural disaster, we turn to some pretty
nasty behavior quite quickly even when it's in no way necessary. This seems to
suggest cooperation, in and of itself, is not innate - but rather something
else drives that cooperation. We can even see it in higher order systems.
Corruption is a regular part of all societies at all levels. And that is
people simply determining that they can get more by working outside the
interests of society than working within it. It's quite easy to see how the
same intelligence can drive both corruption and cooperation. Once again, self
interest driven by intelligence enabling an accurate assessment of probable
outcomes. Do I work just for myself, or do I work with this guy?

\---

One argument against this are simple creatures that possess no semblance of
higher order thinking, yet cooperate. Examples would include most types of
ants. But I think there are too many differences to start considering these
sorts of species. They tend to be extremely short lived and have extremely
minimal needs relative to the quantity of resources out there -- that's unlike
anything we can imagine. Imagine if a single banana could feed thousands of
chimps for days. That rather reduces any motivation or incentive for
competition. Well, except for when your thousands of other familiars run into
a group of thousands of unfamiliars - which does happen and can lead to 'ant
wars'.

~~~
TheRealPomax
Because "self-evident" doesn't hold up to analysis. Just because you see a
pattern, and you decide that it's obvious and common sense and everyone would
recognise it, doesn't mean you're right in any of those assertions.

Without formulating hypotheses and then proving (i.e. testing) those
hypotheses, your assertions are opinions; good for the pub, questionable-at-
best for basing arguments on.

Especially when dealing with "common sense": don't believe yourself. The
moment you go "but it's obvious that", actually prove it to yourself. And if
you can't (and very often, we can't) then by all means keep thinking it
_might_ be true, but that you have no true basis to believe that and you can't
use it to back up arguments.

~~~
rjf72
You surely appreciate that I absolutely could formulate various toy
experiments to prove this hypothesis. And I'd of course also concede that you
could similarly form toy experiments to disprove it.

This is ultimately the problem with social science. You can prove, or
disprove, whatever you want with anything short of non-toy experiments. But
non-toy experiments tend to be either impossible or unethical to execute. And
even if we set ethics aside, there are so many confounding variables that even
these unethical experiments don't necessarily resolve the question. E.g. -
would isolated individuals completely separated from humanity since birth
behave differently in a favorable climate, unfavorable climate, in areas with
rich natural resources, or with minimal resources, etc. And then you even get
into genetic questions on top of it. Ultimately, you're not really going to be
able to prove anything in these fields. Consider that > 60% of psychology
studies in well regarded journals cannot be successfully replicated. And
psychology is more of a 'personal' science. Introduce a social scale to these
studies and it's all just a grand demonstration of pseudo-scientific bias
confirmation.

------
MockObject
> “Our results suggest that collective identities are more important to
> facilitate cooperation in societies than religious beliefs,” says Harvey
> Whitehouse.

Then it's pretty awkward that the West is engaged in a long program to
critique and dismantle its collective identity.

~~~
ABCLAW
The West isn't dismantling its collective identity. It is refactoring it. Key
elements of what construe western identity are restated in more defensible,
universal terms through the process of critique.

Human dignity is a stronger foundation for our system of thought than a few
statements from the first council of Nicaea or some other arbitrary religious
authority.

------
richardhod
Paywall, but there's a good abstract. I hope someone has a workaround.

In the meanwhile, here's a couple of blogs with a little more description.

[https://www.archaeology.wiki/blog/2019/03/28/complex-
societi...](https://www.archaeology.wiki/blog/2019/03/28/complex-societies-
precede-moralizing-gods-throughout-world-history/)

[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190320141116.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190320141116.htm)

~~~
dang
Since that summary appears to contain more information than the abstract, I've
changed the url above from
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1043-4](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1043-4).
Thanks!

------
eruci
In the beginning there is no God.

