Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.

Donate to Project Reason

Join the Mailing List

Sign up to receive email updates from Project Reason.

Log in

 
not a member? Join here.
Forgot your password?

Twitter and Facebook

Follow Project Reason on Twitter

The Scripture Project

Browse the Bible, Qur’an or Book of Mormon for scriptural criticism, insights and careful annotation.

Most Recently Updated Passages

Religions owe their success to suffering martyrs

Bob Holmes
Posted: May 27, 2009.

Print: NewScientist

WHAT is the difference between Jesus Christ and Superman? The content of religions and popular tales is often similar, but only religions have martyrs, according to an analysis of behavioural evolution published this week.

When religious leaders make costly sacrifices for their beliefs, the argument goes, these acts add credibility to their professions of faith and help their beliefs to spread. If, on the other hand, no one is willing to make a significant sacrifice for a belief then observers - even young children - quickly pick up on this and withhold their own commitment. “Nobody takes a day off to worship Superman or gives money to the Superman Foundation,” points out Joseph Henrich, an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada.

The more costly the behaviour, the more likely it is to be sincere: few would willingly give their life for an ideal they did not believe in, and devotees who take vows of poverty or chastity are clearly putting their money where their mouth is. Such credibility-enhancing displays are even more effective if performed by a high-status individual such as a priest or other leader, says Henrich.

Once people believe, they are more likely to perform similar displays themselves. Henrich created a mathematical model to test his ideas and showed that this self-reinforcing loop can stabilise a system of beliefs and actions, and help them persist through many generations (Evolution and Human Behavior, DOI: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.03.005).

This dynamic helps explain why so many religions involve costly renunciations. For example, Henrich notes that the persecution of early Christians by Roman authorities may have spread Christian beliefs by allowing believers to be martyred for their faith - the ultimate credibility-enhancing display.

The principle applies to other social movements too. Studies of 19th-century utopian communes such as Hutterites and Shakers show that those making the strictest demands on their followers were most likely to persist, says Henrich. “You can see the changes in action. The number of those costly commitment rituals increases over time.”

Henrich’s analysis fills an important hole in our understanding of the rise of religions, says Richard Sosis, an anthropologist at the University of Connecticut in Storrs.

The hypothesis still needs to be tested, for example with lab experiments on belief transmission, and historical studies of religions. But if Henrich is right, churches that liberalise their behavioural codes may be sabotaging themselves by reducing their followers’ commitment. This may explain why strict evangelical Christian churches are expanding in the US at the expense of mainstream denominations. “To be a member you’ve got to walk the walk and talk the talk,” says Henrich. “And this transmits deeper faith to the children.”

Read the full article | Print this article

Comments (9)

That can be seen in different sects of religions, just like (at least in Puerto Rico) Juan21 movement which is similar to Opus Dei.  They maintain a strict catholic lifestyle by promoting a lot of church activities.  They hold frequent outings and their members are forbidden to use any type of contraception (the 3 people I know, all doctors, have 9, 5 and 4 kids… and counting.) among other prohibitions.
It’s a shame there is no after life….they never realize they wasted their life.

posted on May 28, 2009
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

alopiasmag wrote: “It’s a shame there is no after life….they never realize they wasted their life.”
For me statement such “there is no afterlife…” is a statement of faith rather that rational idea. I am asking here: is there any scientific proof that afterlife does not exist? I am agnostic and I agree with authors of this website on the subject that religions are unreasonable and often ridiculous, however, atheism seems to me just another form of faith or religion.

posted on May 28, 2009
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Meg, I didn’t know science was in the business of proving the non-existence of things.  Can science prove that a beforelife does not exist?  Can science prove that anything outside of nature not exist?  Not to sound like a huckster, but come on.  Not believing in an intervening god does not constitute a religion.  Atheism doesn’t assert the idea of God.  It stays in the realm of the natural, not the supernatural.  So, unless the “afterlife” is natural, why should science overreach its bounds?
Which definition of faith?
  1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
  2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
  3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one’s supporters.
  4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will.
  5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
  6. A set of principles or beliefs.

posted on May 28, 2009
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

4. anthony David Jacques

@meg & sean

To sum it up, you can’t prove a negative.

I can’t prove that a billion years ago there weren’t flying cars. Reason suggest this, and no evidence is available to support the opposite (that there were flying cars a billion years ago) so I believe that to be the case. But that’s not a faith statement. It’s a safe assumption in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Atheism becomes a safe assumption in the sam way.

Assumptions are good things, mind you. As James Randi points out, you don’t walk into a theater and check the safety of your seat before you sit down. You sit down because it’s a safe assumption you seat will not collapse under you. That’s how they are designed. Not the best example, but it’s the best I can think of at the moment.

Anyway, I always cringe at the notion that atheism is a faith or a lack of faith. It’s neither.

posted on May 28, 2009
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@Sean & Anthony D. Jacques

As far as I understand science, there is always room for new ideas there. According to Sean’s definition:
“Confident belief in the truth”, if someone is confident that nonexistence of afterlife is a truth, it must be a faith, don’t you think?
I think it must some kind of paradox. You are right that we have got safe assumption on plenty of unknown things and ideas. We do not discuss them on a daily basis. Since atheism become more popular idea lately people feel sometime forced to declare their position on the subject. Hence, if someone firmly insists there is no God or afterlife, it is a declaration of faith, not just safe assumption. Reason says: I do knot know.
Alopiasmag said: “It’s a shame there is no after life….” and that is his/her confident believe, which defines faith.
As agnostic, I leave room for that idea. I do not know ether way, if afterlife exists or not. Nobody knows for sure, but people who had NDE are confident that there is afterlife. However, again, it is of matter of faith to believe in their testimony or not.

posted on May 29, 2009
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Why does an agnostic not feel the need to decide about an afterlife, either way? Probably because it seems to be too irrelevant….. and therewith any answer would tend towards the negative. What about a previous life ... has anyone experienced one? Never mind, issues of faith by definition of being unprovable can never be wrong, assumptions can.

posted on May 29, 2009
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Clearly, Meg, our language might be limited here.
According to the dictionary definitions laid out in my last post, the first one would define what anthony David Jacques says is a “safe assumption in the absence of evidence to the contrary”. Confidence might be a better word than faith in regards to what we are talking about.  I am not confident about the existence of an intervening god and as a self-described agnostic, you are not confident that one exists either.  Our lack of confidence doesn’t a faith make. Skepticism is not a faith.
Here’s a good question.  Is there a difference between not believing there is a god and believing there is no god?

posted on May 30, 2009
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

@Meg

Non of these people (from what i can tell) needs faith to believe there is no afterlife due to the fact there simply is no substantial evidence there is one. If some kind of evidence arises in the future and shows that there is a decent chance of an after-life or god, i assume these members would change their views.  I don’t need faith to believe there isn’t a Santa Claus… it’s just a ridiculous claim.  Just because the afterlife is a more desirable fallacy doesn’t make it any more probable.

posted on June 1, 2009
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

The prioblem with truth is that originates from the “moralists” in order to get power. Better to accept that we like to lie to ourselves and to others a bit. Even science is contaminated by Platonic convictions! If we posit a “truth”, that truth makes the things associated unchangeable, that a being (human) exists and stays the same that he is sincere all the time, criminal all the time etc…, that ethics are unmovable set of rules about behaviour and that cause and effect are the only way to “explain things”. Religion is a nice story for children, that keep their mouth shut for a while, but we are supposed to grow up, question reality and interpret it. We may need a boat (religion) to cross a river, but once we’ve achieved that, the boat is left by the shore. We are mopre than religion, actually we invented it!  For some, religion is a step, for many is salvation and I’ve always wonder from “what”? I’ve never seen a burning soul, nor measured its level of pain or any other potential way to proove it exists at all!
Opus Dei has a grip on the obedient professional crowd of members they manipulate, with access to their money and intelligentia and exploiting their secret sexual lives passing onto them as much gilt as possible. Only a good confession can relief the poor decrepits Survivors of Opus Dei can be found in ODAN.org, interestying stories on how people entered and left the “organization”. The dead leader ( a saint!) was a narcisist that had a very good life at the expense of its members. That is no different from political oppresive regimes. They all look for power at the end.
As Marcus Aurelius pointed out many centuries ago: Forget about afterlife, focus on today because yesterday and tomorrow do not exist, on your friends because we enjoy their company, on your work, because we need to create and on your family to give them a better future.

posted on November 24, 2009
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.