Editorial: Science, Religion, Cooperation, and Social Morality

Mark Bekoff

Few scientists and religious scholars have seriously pondered how science and religion can be reconciled. But times are changing. Not long ago I attended two meetings that brought together scientists, theologians, and religious scholars to discuss just that issue. The first gathering was part of the Science and the Spiritual Quest II program (www.ssq.net) sponsored by the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences in Berkeley, California. The other was organized by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Participants at both of these meetings spoke freely about science (evolutionary biology, ethology, neuroscience, anthropology, psychology), theology, religion, and God, and made a lot of progress in their interdisciplinary efforts to address the confluence of religion and science.

Social morality is a subject at the intersection of religion and science, one that can unite people from different disciplines. Many people—laymen, theologians, scientists—wonder whether some nonhuman animal beings (hereafter animals) have codes of social conduct that regulate their behavior during social encounters. Charles Darwin’s ideas about evolutionary continuity—that behavioral, cognitive (intellectual), and emotional variations among different species are differences in degree rather than in kind—are often invoked in such exercises.

The study of the evolution of cooperation and fairness is closely linked to science, religion, theology, spirituality, and perhaps even different notions of God, in that ideas about evolutionary continuity and discontinuity (the possible uniqueness of humans), individuality, and freedom need to be considered in detail. In many different species, social cooperation and fair behavior facilitate the formation of groups: In other words, individuals agree to work in harmony with other individuals. The important point is that cooperation is not merely a by-product of tempering aggressive and selfish tendencies by attempts at reconciliation. Rather, cooperation and fairness have evolved because they are important in the formation and maintenance of social relationships. This view contrasts with that of those who see aggression, cheating, and selfishness as driving the evolution of sociality.

In my own research on social play behavior in animals, I’ve been concerned with the notion of behaving fairly. I’ve observed that, during play, while individuals are having fun in a relatively safe environment, they learn the ground rules for acceptable behavior and social etiquette—how hard they can bite, how roughly they can interact—and how to resolve conflicts. There is a premium on playing fairly and trusting others to do so as well. Codes of social conduct regulate what is permissible, and the existence of these codes speaks to the evolution of social morality and fairness. Individuals might even generalize codes of conduct learned in play to other situations such as sharing food, grooming, or providing care.

During play it is difficult to cheat: Individuals can simply refuse to play with cheaters and choose to play with others. Play doesn’t happen if individuals choose not to engage in the activity. The sort of cooperation and egalitarianism implied by such choices are thought to be preconditions for the evolution of social morality in humans. From whence did they arise? Truth be told, we really do not know much about the origins of cooperation and egalitarianism.

Studies of the evolution of social morality are among the most exciting and challenging projects faced by behavioral scientists, theologians, and religious scholars. Cooperation among representatives from different disciplines, combined with broad and holistic worldviews, will surely help us learn more about the evolution of morality and species uniqueness. The time has come to rise to the task before us rather than dismiss summarily and unfairly the moral lives of other animals. Fair is fair.

When scholars and other interested parties talk freely with one another, much progress can be made. We will discover that science and religion are not incompatible. Open discussions about science, spirituality, and God will enable us to come to terms with who we are in this splendid and awe-inspiring universe.

back to BioScience Editorials