Cultural selection and genetic adaptation theories of supernatural punishment differ fundamentally

Evidence

There are important similarities between this hypothesis and the framework in this book that is grounded in cultural evolution. Both see supernatural punishment as a key driver of human prosociality, both are grounded in evolutionary logic, and both draw from some of the same evidence I have been reviewing in this book. However, the two also differ in several key details. First, whereas in the cultural evolutionary framework Big Gods were culturally selected for the advantages they afforded social groups, the supernatural punishment hypothesis argues for an innate fear of divine retribution that is a genetic adaptation; these beliefs function to restrain individuals from defection or cheating that would incur fitness costs. In the cultural evolutionary scenario, gods become more powerful and morally involved as anonymity invades relationships; in the supernatural punishment hypothesis, there is no such prediction. Instead, the idea is that supernatural punishment is a human universal. — Norenzayan, Ara, Big gods - how religion transformed…, 443

Categorization

• DEFINE: Distinguishes the genetic/innate supernatural punishment hypothesis from Norenzayan’s own cultural-evolutionary Big Gods account.
• XREF: Matters to the reader because the fumi-e scenario fits the cultural-evolutionary prediction (gods matter MORE as anonymity rises) but could test the universalist claim. — connects to: Norms disciplined by communal punishment drove genetic evolution toward human docility. — Joseph Henrich, The Secret of Our Success: How Culture…, 49; Natural selection shaped psychological mechanisms that determine which cultural beliefs persist. — Joe Henrich and Robert Boyd, The Evolution of Conformist…, 3; Third-party punishment can stabilize any cultural trait within a group — Joe Henrich and Robert Boyd, The Evolution of Conformist…, 117