Ara Norenzayan’s book Big Gods: How Religion Transformed Cooperation and Conflict is a fascinating work that explores the transformative effects that occurred when certain societies started worshipping “big gods” – meaning all-powerful, all-knowing gods that could always monitor you and hold you accountable for moral transgressions. Norenzayan argues these supernatural monitors created better, more pro-social behaviours that made these societies more likely to prosper and enabled them to outcompete rival societies. This relationship was mutually beneficial so that just as this religious outlook helped the society to succeed, that society’s success helped spread the religious outlook more widely. 

Norenzayan is a cognitive scientist of religion but draws on history, psychology, and sociology and backs his claims up with loads of research and studies. It’s quite a thoughtful work with insights on many pages. Below, let’s consider his main points which suggest certain new religious outlooks transformed our world. 

Image: Dr. Ara Norenzayan, and his book: Big Gods: How Religion Transformed Cooperation and Conflict. Gods.  Source: Amazon, The University of British Columbia.

The Problem with Complex Societies

Norenzayan argues that when societies scale up, they face a trust problem. In small tribal settings, the community can monitor everyone. If you are untrustworthy, you will be known as such. In such close quarters, bad behaviour will be discovered and punished. This, in turn, encourages the kind of pro-social behaviour any community needs.

But as you move into more populated settled villages and eventually large towns, you become anonymous. You can cheat three people in a row but the next person who meets you has no knowledge of this and may be wiling to trust you and get taken advantage of. This creates bad incentives. If dishonesty flourishes, the community will experience a breaking down of trust and trust is the magic ingredient that enables commerce, cooperation, and joint projects like building an irrigation ditch, etc.

But imagine a “technology” (if you will) came along that maybe doesn’t completely solve this problem, but improves it. Now, that would sure help.

Source: Canva.com

Big Gods from a Petri Dish

Human cultures are diverse. Each is its own petri dish, running a cultural experiment. These experiments include diverse religious forms, from the Aztec’s human sacrifice to the dreaming time of Australia’s aborigines.  

But when you say “God” today, most folks don’t think of those diverse cultural experiments. Instead, they think of the Abrahamic god or something similar. This Abrahamic understanding of divinity is culturally rare. Norenzayan cites an anthropological database of over 400 human cultures which records that only about a quarter of these cultures have a god that is active in human affairs and concerned with morality. If you think of the Greek gods like Zeus, they did not care what trifling, irrelevant humans did. In Karen Armstrong’s book, The Great Transformation, the gods of ancient India or ancient China likewise wanted to be worshipped, but they were hardly concerned with human morality. 

So how did this idea – of a big, all-seeing god who was watching you and who cared deeply what you did – come to dominate our globe? 

Source: Canva.com

Big Gods Can Drive Moral Behaviour

Numerous studies show that “watched people are nice people” (19). It’s not surprising that when folks feel visible, they act better. But this instinct doesn’t always require a person standing there. In studies, if you first prime people with the thought of a watching God, they will then more often act with generosity. Even seemingly silly things like putting a pair of eyes on a test paper will decrease cheating. 

There are many studies showing similar results. The more careful ones reveal that being religious does not seem to lead to better morality generally. What matters is being reminded of being watched. (Sadly, studies also show that the threat of divine punishment is more effective than divine reward (43). In religions, sticks are more effective than carrots.) Norenzayan summarizes that moral behaviour is not in the religious person, but in the religious situation (39). 

Source: Canva.com

In short, religion’s frequent reminders create moral contexts that lead us to behave better more often. Forgive this example, but Norenzayan shares that porn usage is not lower in religious American states relative to less religious ones. But it is lower on Sunday (38). And charitable appeals on Sundays are 300% more effective amongst religious folks relative to the non-religious (37). Having religious belief alone will not make you more moral, but engaging in religious activities frequently, will (if it reminds you of a god who is watching your every move). 

The payoff for society is that widespread belief in a big god can generate better, more pro-social behaviour – honesty, generosity, compassion, etc. That is a real boon to how well a large society functions. Norenzayan suggests that in larger societies, religious ideas that feature a watching, judging god, will function better. He shared a study showing that even factors like the prevalence of chronic water shortages led to bigger gods (129). One can see why – such societies need self-sacrifice and trust as the selfish actions of a few could spell disaster for many. Trust and a god willing to punish will help such societies to survive.

In comparison, you don’t find such watching, monitoring gods generally in small hunter-gather societies. They can morally police each other effectively and so they have very different gods that can be tricked or who are unable to see outside the village (123). 

Credibility Displays 

Another cultural experiment that proved popular is what Norenzayan calls “credibility-enhancing displays” (CREDS for short). Put succinctly, cognitive scientists believe humans evolved to be highly sensitive to whether you can trust someone for obvious reasons related to survival. Religions can sometimes engender trust because they demand these CREDS where the person does something that grants credibility because the cost to themselves is so dear – they donate significant resources, sacrifice valuable livestock, deny themselves certain foods, endure hunger by fasting, or forego sexual pleasure. When you encounter a Buddhist monk, you don’t think he’s bluffing.

Source: Canva.com

In addition to earning our trust, that display of commitment can move and even sway us. The sacrifices convey that this person’s path is compelling and must be potent. Such religions are more likely to spread and win converts (98-102). They are also more likely to endure. A study of 83 communes showed that religious communes were far more likely to survive that secular ones (four times more likely). They also demanded more costly sacrifices (CREDs) by members (104-5, 149). When others make big commitments, it bolsters your confidence in the path and makes you more committed when doubts creep in. So, religious commitment earns trust, wins adherents, and yields strong commitment to the group which helps that group endure.

The Trust Machine

Another advantage of CREDs is that they often build group cohesion. The sacrifices are often for the good of the group. The self-discipline too often shows a willingness to deny oneself for the community and its values. This helps create what Norenzayan calls “fictive kin” whereby co-religionists come to seem like brothers and sisters to us. We especially trust them. (Unfortunately, Norenzayan shares the shadow side of this is that religionists often think atheists are less trustworthy (76-86).)

Finally, religion also adds rituals of synchrony, meaning moving in unison. Research in psychology shows moving in unison makes us feel bonded to each other. This development seems to pay off enough that it gets discovered in petri dish after petri dish – virtually every society creates rituals of uniform movement. 

Source: Canva.com

The Payoff – Power

This trust reaps benefits. It enables more trade and commerce, and more cooperation. One study on Islam’s spread in Africa showed that the costly displays of commitment (no premarital or extramarital sex, fasting during Ramadan, praying multiple times a day) earned credibility and Muslims’ trust of one another allowed the granting of credit and shared rules of exchange. These folks prospered, with their commitment and prosperity attracting others and as Islam grew, the economic opportunities expanded (150). For years I’ve read how Pentecostal churches in places like Nigeria and Brazil often foster tight-knit trusting communities that provide services to one another (job training, childcare, support groups) that lead to greater self-discipline, better connections, and more economic rewards. People tithe significantly (showing commitment) but it yields meaningful benefits. These communities are places where people trust one another, cooperate, see others as genuinely committed to the group, and they in turn commit themselves. Hence, Pentecostalism is growing enormously and transforming those two nations.

Source: Canva.com

The Circle of Success

Owing to the above factors, societies with big gods often outcompete other societies. The strong cohesion means they are more likely to endure (see the communes study above), and they excel at growth, displacing rival societies by “conversion, conquest, and assimilation” (148). The religion with its compelling credibility-enhancing displays draws people in. These converts become further allies, broadening the circle of “us.” This large group of cooperating folks, as noted earlier, will have economic and military advantages.

Finally, these societies often enjoy a fertility advantage. Especially versus more secular societies, religionists simply have much higher fertility. The very devout often have the most (e.g. ultra Orthodox Jews have way more children than liberal Jews). This can help spread a religion, partly because more kids are raised in religious homes. But Norenzayan believes genes likely play some part in religiosity. If true, if for generations the devout have more children than their secular counterparts, then you likely get a more religious world. Societies that cannot reproduce themselves lack bright futures.

Source: Canva.com

Does Religion Contribute to Violence?

Norenzayan also addressed this frequently-asked question about violence. He shared two big surveys on the topic. First, the Encyclopedia of Wars surveyed 1800 wars in history and found religion was a driving force in only 10% of these conflicts, a surprisingly low number. A separate study on this question looked at 3,500 years of war and found religion played a part in 40% of conflicts but was rarely the key motivator (158).  

He adds, however, that religion can intensify conflict. Those same forces that create strong social solidarity within the group can lead to dehumanizing outgroups. Nuances really mattered here, especially whether a religious behaviour increased group solidarity. So, for example, regular religious practice at a local house of worship seemed to facilitate easier dehumanizing of anyone deemed a threat to the group. But prayer did not have this effect. Even for group rituals, those that were local and restricted to an in-group could again lead to justifying violent action. But attending the hajj did the opposite. The hajj pulls one out of one’s own community, makes you interact with folks across the world, and many come home with a sense of the brotherhood or sisterhood of all humankind (163-5). The type of ritual and religious practice here is key.

Source: Canva.com

How About Secular Societies

If you need big gods for trust, what do we make of the high-trust but low religious societies of Western Europe? How do you explain Scandinavia? Norenzayan says that over time, some Western societies have created such effective governments, these governments have at, at some level, replaced the big god. 

In countries with effective policing and court systems, people believe there are consquences for wrong-doing, that society is being watched or monitored, and hence they feel they can trust others. The trust benefits that first emerges via Big Gods, now carries on via effective governments.

Effective governments also provide support and address key needs be they medical, income loss, or otherwise, that work to lend stability and replace the need for divine favour. Norenzayan’s work here aligns with that of Pippa Norris and Ron Inglehardt who used big data samples to show that effective governments often foster less religiosity over time.

Source: Canva.com

Conclusion

Norenzayan’s work suggests that a belief in big gods significantly contributed to humans’ ability to engage in large scale cooperation. A surveillance god that rewards and punishes keeps more of us in line, allowing the cooperation you need for commerce, for public works, and for military success. This in turn (along with the CREDS mentioned earlier) might have helped these religions to spread. Today, half the world worships an Abrahamic god that emerged from the water-scarce areas of the Middle East where cooperation was important. These big gods have shaped our world.