Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T05:03:02.784Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

We need behavioural ecology to explain the institutional authority of the gods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 June 2005

Chris Knight
Chris Knight*
Affiliation:
Anthropology Department, School of Social Sciences, University of East London, Barking Campus, Dagenham, Essex RM8 2AS, United Kingdomhttp://Homepages.uel.ac.uk/C.Knight/
*
Chris.Knight@uel.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Atran & Norenzayan (A&N) rightly criticize cognitive theories for failure to explain sacrifice and commitment. But their attempt to reconcile cognitivism with commitment theory is unconvincing. Why should imaginary entities be effective in punishing moral defectors? Heavy costs are entailed in enforcing community-wide social contracts, and behavioural ecology is needed to explain how and why evolving humans could afford these costs.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 27 , Issue 6 , December 2004 , pp. 742
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)