Veblen's evolutionary economics of religion and the evolutionary psychology of religion

Abstract

Purpose

Because belief in a supernatural agent with extraordinary power is rooted in psychology, Veblen's instinct psychology was the essential basis for his evolutionary economics of religion. The innate behavioral traits that Veblen called instincts in human nature are now recognized in evolutionary psychology as domain-specific mechanism that evolved as adaptations to enable human survival and reproduction. The authors aim to explain how the modern evolutionary psychology of religion provides a modern psychological basis for Veblen's evolutionary economics of religion.

Design/methodology/approach

First, the authors review how Veblen's theory of an evolved human nature of instincts was applied to explain the origins of religion in primitive societies and remained a resilient force despite evolutionary erosion of institutional religion as science advanced. Second, the authors note how evolutionary psychology explains the origins of religion in terms of the functioning of domain-specific psychological mechanisms that evolved as adaptations for purposes other than religion.

Findings

The similarities between Veblen's instinct psychology and the explanation of religion as by-products of domain-specific psychological mechanisms are sufficient to allow the conclusion that the evolutionary psychology of religion provides a modern psychological basis for Veblen's evolutionary economics of religion.

Originality/value

An evolutionary economics of religion has a great social value if it provides credible explanations of both the origins of religious belief and innate tendency for religious belief to continue even as science refutes elements of religious doctrines. With a modern psychological basis, Veblen's evolutionary economics of religion accomplishes that purpose.

Citation

G. Leathers, C. and Patrick Raines, J. (2014), "Veblen's evolutionary economics of religion and the evolutionary psychology of religion", International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 146-161. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-02-2013-0045