Theology and Evolutionary Psychology, Chapter 8: Vengeance Psalms and the Dark Side of Reciprocity

In the last post we looked at the good side of reciprocity, the role it plays in fostering cooperation. Today we'll look at the dark side of reciprocity: Vengeance and revenge.

Communal reciprocity (the Pay it Forward World I've written about) is vulnerable to the free rider problem. Free riders are those communal cheats who take advantage of the communal reciprocity norm. That is, they take and take and take but never do they reciprocate (hey, that rhymes).

Free riders are a threat to the Darwinian equilibrium that selects for reciprocity. That is, if free riders are globally successful in exploiting those who share then the free riders will eventually out-compete their neighbors. Reciprocity would be a less successful strategy than free riding and, thus, free riding will proliferate causing reciprocity to vanish.

But reciprocity doesn't vanish because it has a dark side. The positive side of reciprocity is the familiar "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours." But the dark side of reciprocity is "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."

The good side of reciprocity is cooperation and sharing. The dark side of reciprocity is revenge and vengeance.

Revenge and vengeance are adaptive because they evolved to deal with the free rider problem. That is, due to the dark side of reciprocity free riding is costly if not dangerous. In the literature, punishing cheaters and free riders is called moralistic aggression.

The point here is that moralistic aggression is intimately tied up with our sense of justice (it is called lex talionis, or the law of retribution). Thus, when we experience moralistic aggression we feel justified in acting aggressively and vengefully. Moralistic aggression feels, due to our evolutionary history, very natural and normal to us. Very moral and right.

Moralistic aggression is common in the bible. The easiest place to see it is in the vengeance psalms. For example:

Psalm 109: 1-15
O God, whom I praise,
do not remain silent,
for wicked and deceitful men
have opened their mouths against me;
they have spoken against me with lying tongues.

With words of hatred they surround me;
they attack me without cause.

In return for my friendship they accuse me,
but I am a man of prayer.

They repay me evil for good,
and hatred for my friendship.

Appoint an evil man to oppose him;
let an accuser stand at his right hand.

When he is tried, let him be found guilty,
and may his prayers condemn him.

May his days be few;
may another take his place of leadership.

May his children be fatherless
and his wife a widow.

May his children be wandering beggars;
may they be driven from their ruined homes.

May a creditor seize all he has;
may strangers plunder the fruits of his labor.

May no one extend kindness to him
or take pity on his fatherless children.

May his descendants be cut off,
their names blotted out from the next generation.

May the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the LORD;
may the sin of his mother never be blotted out.

May their sins always remain before the LORD,
that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth.


Psalm 137
By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept
when we remembered Zion.

There on the poplars
we hung our harps,

for there our captors asked us for songs,
our tormentors demanded songs of joy;
they said, "Sing us one of the songs of Zion!"

How can we sing the songs of the LORD
while in a foreign land?

If I forget you, O Jerusalem,
may my right hand forget its skill .

May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth
if I do not remember you,
if I do not consider Jerusalem
my highest joy.

Remember, O LORD, what the Edomites did
on the day Jerusalem fell.
"Tear it down," they cried,
"tear it down to its foundations!"

O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you
for what you have done to us-

he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.


This language is shocking, but we can identify with it. We get it. We understand what it feels like. Thus, when we read or watch A Time to Kill, we understand the father's actions. They don't need to be explained to us. We find his anger completely comprehensible. We sympathize with him. And we feel, in our bones, that the father was justified in what he did. The entire novel and movie is leveraging off of our Darwinian moral psychology. Without an innate sense of moralistic aggression the movie loses its psychological core.

That feeling, that A Time to Kill dynamic, is the morality of our Darwinian heritage. And like we've seen in the last few posts, Jesus keeps pinpointing--like a heat seeking missile--the very tenets of our Darwinian morality and pushes us to transcend them. We have already seen Jesus hit kin selection and reciprocity. Here's his take on moralistic aggression:

You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.

This entry was posted by Richard Beck. Bookmark the permalink.

12 thoughts on “Theology and Evolutionary Psychology, Chapter 8: Vengeance Psalms and the Dark Side of Reciprocity”

  1. Hello, Richard.

    You may know me vaguely as a member of Highland and an ACU student. I know you as the celebrated psychology professor, risk-taking chapel speaker, and blogger. At least 4 different people have told me to read this blog, so I think I will.

    One question: You mentioned a survival of the fittest model where the free-riders displace all of those who follow communal reciprocity, but how could the free-riders survive is they "killed off" all those who follow communal reciprocity? If 10,000 Abilineans decided to quit their jobs tomorrow and beg for money on the streets, it wouldn't take long for most of them to realize that there is too much competition for "free-riding," and that it would be easier to go start working again. Only a certain percentage of the population can be free-riders before it is no longer profitable to do so. Wouldn't nature find this equilibrium even without instilling the fear of vengeance in the free-riders?

  2. Hi Joshua,
    Yes, you're correct. Free riding wouldn't kill off cooperation completely. That's an overstatement on my part. What I was trying to convey is that free riding bursts the bubbles of cooperation fairly quickly. That what gets destroyed is not reciprocity per se, but the communal tone it creates. Another way to say it is that free riding tends to plague any utopian dreams, politically, socially, and ecclesially.

    However, a part of this problem is that humans are way more complex than the model here. People are not strictly a reciprocator or strictly a free rider. People pick and choose their spots. Thus, opportunistic free riding--doing it when safe from observation or consequences--can come to dominate. Most laboratory data suggests that this is the strategy most people play (i.e., it is the dominant strategy). Publicly be responsible, but cut corners if no one's looking.

    Welcome to the blog!

  3. Sorta off-topic, but I was thinking about altruism this morning. "God is the mechanism behind altruism" seems kind of "God of the gaps" and Kirk Cameronish to me, so some other possibilities:

    It may be that the ability to empathize is a byproduct of humans' big brains ... in particular, a byproduct of the ability to imagine a scenario and insert oneself in place of the other.

    Or, altruism may be memetic rather than explicitly genetic, and built on top of the empathy feeling.

    Or, it may be that the compulsion to help another member of the species, without expectation of future reward, helps the species (potential mates?) and could actually be propagated by a known evolutionary mechanism.

    Anyhow, I'm not yet convinced that altruism is transcendent in the sense of "not reducible to biological imperatives". =)

  4. Matthew (and Co.),

    I would consider TRUE altruism transcendent (in the sense that most altruism found in nature can eventually be shown to be selfish) and really particularly human in the rare instances true altruism occurs. We are the only species that I know of that will willingly risk our lives for non-kin (everyone correct me if I'm wrong on this point). The interesting question becomes, do Christians make decisions potentially harmful to their fitness more often than non-Christians? Or even more generally, do religious persons (holding to any belief in the supernatural) engage in risky fitness choices more often than non-religious persons. My sense is, probably not (but maybe). I've been teaching a course on 1 John--a letter steeped in the obligation to love one another. Love in this sense is agape (sacrificial...we might say fitness-decreasing)and is obligatory in the eyes of the author. "Beloved, love one another for love is from God [...} God is love". I see this as another example of a Christian imperative to transcend the biological imperative and do something non-selfish (in this case, sacrificial love) because it is part of out nature inherited from God.

    Richard,
    I am particularly enjoying the view of scripture and of Jesus in these conversations. I had not considered before how we can view Jesus' desires for our lives as truly transcendent.

    Best, Matt Dowling

  5. I hadn't thought about opportunistic free-riders. That certainly does complicate things...

    Another few questions about the last post, if you have the time:

    How do we separate casting lots in the benevolent sense that you have described from dragon bones, ouija boards, and tarrot cards? Also, if we say to God, "heads if you want me to be a preacher, tails if I should teach high school," we have asked him a terribly "either or" question. What if he wants you to be a stay-at-home dad, or a plumber, etc.? What if he really wants you to stop worrying about the future altogether? Will he use his powers to make the coin stand on it's side, or will it fall through a crack in the floor or shatter into a million pieces when you slap it on your wrist?

    As for modern-day examples of casting lots, my dad's Bible class used to draw lots to decide who would lead the ending prayer, and I've heard of some summer camps having prayer meetings before drawing names to put small groups together.

  6. Question-are you an "educated critic of Christianity"?

    Question--why do you use Darwin evolution over scripture when Darwin
    evolution has not been proven and scripture is?
    Further, you base all you comments on this false premise. Therefore your
    conclusions are not valid because they are based on a false premise.

    Question--why do so discount the harm concept of amarital or extra marital
    sex when there is abundant evidence that it is harmful? That is why Paul in
    1 Corinthians 6 says that a man who joins himself to a prostitute sins
    against himself.

    You took Christ's comments totally out of context to say that he considered
    family a Darwinian black hole. His principle was to go beyond the currently
    taught concept to love those who love you to love your enemies. Family was
    only alluded to to show that all mankind love those who love them--i.e. if
    that is all you do--you are no better than the gentile.

    "The theological implication for all this is simple: Family is a Darwinian
    locus. Bluntly, family is selfish (genetically speaking). That is, all the
    time, love, and effort I spend on family is, from a Darwinian perspective,
    the epitome of selfishness. I'm simply working to propagate my genes in the
    gene pool. Family life is in the Darwinian Hall of Fame.

    This situation is very ironic given the focus on family in American
    churches. It really is darkly funny. The people so upset about evolution
    being taught in schools are the very people touting "family values." It's
    like denying the reality of the electron while being an electrician.

    I point all this out not to be mean or mean-spirited. I'm just trying to
    educate the Christian witness. To trumpet family values to the larger
    culture strikes educated critics of Christianity as the height of silliness.
    Christians would do well to seek another platform.

    And I think Jesus would agree with me. One of the embarrassing things about
    Jesus for the Religious Right is how suspicious Jesus was of family. I think
    Jesus instinctively knew that family was a Darwinian black hole, sucking up
    most of our time and resources. As Jesus stated, "What credit is it to you
    if you greet only your brothers and sisters?" Exactly. Family isn't a moral
    demonstration."

    david_dallas

  7. Hi David_Dallas,

    Here are some responses to your comments:

    1. Question-are you an "educated critic of Christianity"?

    Well, as a Christian I'd like to say I'm an inside and constructive critic. That is I'd like to think I'm pointing out strong spots and weak spots in the Christian witness, wanting to improve that witness over time.

    2. Question--why do you use Darwin evolution over scripture when Darwin
    evolution has not been proven and scripture is?
    Further, you base all you comments on this false premise. Therefore your
    conclusions are not valid because they are based on a false premise.

    Well, I'm not using evolution as a premise in any argument. I'm not arguing for anything per se. I'm taking both evolutionary psychology and theology as givens and then looking, experimentally, for areas of convergence and divergence. Speaking plainly, evolution might be false and there may be no God. But neither of those outcomes are relevant to what I'm doing here. (Note, I believe in God. I'm simply pointing out that if you focus on the truthhood or falsity of evolution--or if an atheist were to log on and bust me for believing in God--you would be grossly missing the point of the series.)

    3. Question--why do so discount the harm concept of amarital or extra marital
    sex when there is abundant evidence that it is harmful? That is why Paul in
    1 Corinthians 6 says that a man who joins himself to a prostitute sins
    against himself.

    There is a difference between something being psychologically harmful versus sinful. That is, I can accept the fact that amartial sex is sinful and it not being harmful. The reason I'm thinking through the harm narrative is that I think it weakens the Christian witness. As I wrote to someone today on this topic:

    I think that the Christian witness has lost cultural credibility by selling sex as intrinsically harmful (e.g., sex is bad). Thus, I'd like to rework what I call "the harm narrative" and justify Godly sex with different warrants. In my blog I'm seeking, experimenting and thinking, trying to look for new warrants. I think these newer warrants can revive the Christian witness regarding sex in our modern culture. That is, we would appear to be making sense and not coming off as prudes.

    Phrased another way, it is culturally insufficient (and thus irresponsible) to simply say sex must be restrained to marriage because God say's so. Because very smart Christians and non-Christians want to know God's warrant. Why does He make this demand? Either God's a prude or He's got reasons. I think He has reasons. So, what are they? Currently, the Christian communities offer only one: Sex psychologically damages you. And my sense is that the culture just doesn't buy that. Thus, if we stick to that warrant our only choice is to try to convince the culture that, truly, sex is really bad for you. I find this conversation very unproductive. It means the Christian witness is stuck trying to convince people that sex is harmful.

    Think of it this way. Even if the harm narrative were true, non-Christians don't find the story convincing. So, am I not to be applauded in exploring alternative arguments that might be more convincing to the culture?


    4. You took Christ's comments totally out of context to say that he considered
    family a Darwinian black hole. His principle was to go beyond the currently
    taught concept to love those who love you to love your enemies. Family was
    only alluded to to show that all mankind love those who love them--i.e. if
    that is all you do--you are no better than the gentile.

    "The theological implication for all this is simple: Family is a Darwinian
    locus. Bluntly, family is selfish (genetically speaking). That is, all the
    time, love, and effort I spend on family is, from a Darwinian perspective,
    the epitome of selfishness. I'm simply working to propagate my genes in the
    gene pool. Family life is in the Darwinian Hall of Fame.

    This situation is very ironic given the focus on family in American
    churches. It really is darkly funny. The people so upset about evolution
    being taught in schools are the very people touting "family values." It's
    like denying the reality of the electron while being an electrician.

    I point all this out not to be mean or mean-spirited. I'm just trying to
    educate the Christian witness. To trumpet family values to the larger
    culture strikes educated critics of Christianity as the height of silliness.
    Christians would do well to seek another platform.

    And I think Jesus would agree with me. One of the embarrassing things about
    Jesus for the Religious Right is how suspicious Jesus was of family. I think
    Jesus instinctively knew that family was a Darwinian black hole, sucking up
    most of our time and resources. As Jesus stated, "What credit is it to you
    if you greet only your brothers and sisters?" Exactly. Family isn't a moral
    demonstration."

    I don't know if I took Jesus out of context. I think I've represented his views correctly, particularly given how he speaks of family in other places (e.g, Luke 9:61-62; Luke 12:51-53; Matthew 10:36-38; Matthew 12:46-49; Matthew 19:28-30; Mark 10:28-30; Luke 2:47-49; Luke 11:26-28).

  8. Hi Joshua,
    I really don't know about the metaphysical mechanics of casting lots or if it should be a modern Christian practice.

    The point of the post was to contrast the psychological profiles of petitionary prayer with casting of lots. My interest in the contrast is that those profiles seem different and I was wanting to mediate on just what was different and if that difference was psychologically illuminating. Maybe there is no real difference or maybe the difference isn't interesting. I just posted on it to think the idea through. (Readers should note that I'm thinking as I write.)

  9. Hi, Richard

    Thank you for your comments in regard to mine.

    When you say the following: "I'm taking both evolutionary psychology and theology as givens"--I believe that you are operating from the premise that evolutionary psychology is true. That is my understanding of the word--given as I consult the dictionary. And the point is: If that given is not truly a given but false--then conclusions based on that premise are false.

    I understand what you are trying to do with the series--but can't agree with some of the conclusions that you suggest and am at loss to understand why use evolutionary psychology to come to a better understanding of the issues you are thinking through.

    Where would one find documentation that the Christian witness is that sex is intrinsically bad?

    I believe that when Paul said that one who joined to a prostitute was sinning against himself was referring to the psychological harm from such an act. Not that sex is intrinsically harmful but that is violates all of what he said in Ephesians 5:25-32 in regard to the husband wife relationship. But note that he says he is really talking about the church. Family is important to our understanding what God wants Christ's body to be. [Not a Darwinian black hole]

    In my experience- because God said so or the harm idea are not the only reasons given by Christians for abstaining from premarital or extramarital sex. Even if that were so--it does not leave the only option-- sex is bad.

    But if "it is culturally insufficient (and thus irresponsible) to simply say sex must be restrained to marriage because God say's so."---wouldn't it then follow that it is culturally insufficient (and thus irresponsible) to teach the through Christ's blood is the only way to salvation? or any number of things that our culture thinks is insufficient? It seems to me that you need to think it through more sufficiently.
    We don't need to apologize for truth. We will get no where until we convince that God is truth--then any number of things will not be culturally insufficient.

    I respectfully submit that you are interpreting the scriptures you cited about family from your all ready arrived at viewpoint that he was saying that family is a darwinian black hole. I would suggest reading them again for the first time using our rules: When, to whom, context, what does it say to us today.

    Blessings,

    David Dallas

  10. Hi David,
    We may have to agree to disagree on the evolution issue. Although you say it is false, you have to admit is has lots of evidence behind it. It is a very persuasive argument. So many people in the world believe in it. As they take evolution as a given, it seems reasonable to begin the God-conversation where they are, not where we are. Just from an effectiveness perspective this seems wise. Plus, many Christians believe in evolution as well. As do many Intelligent Design thinkers. Consequently, it seems like a good idea to think through possible theological scenarios were evolution be true. But I respect your right to disagree.

    I would like to suggest that this series is very interesting, even if you disagree with evolution. That is, in post after post I use evolution to paint a view of human nature. And in every case we've seen how Jesus calls us to transcend that exact evolutionary facet of our nature. Now, how cool is that? Using evolution to point to the transcendent wisdom of Jesus. Using evolution to argue for the divinity of Christ and the inspiration of Scripture. I mean, even if you disagree with evolution, are you not slightly intrigued?

    I guess my hope is that even if you disagree with evolution, you've found these insights novel, thought-provoking and supportive of the Christian faith.

    Regarding sex. I agree that the bible does not claim that sex is harmful. I said that Christian communities make that claim as warrant for sexual prohibitions. I think the bible is fairly mute on warrant. So, my discussion about the harm narrative was not a biblical discussion but a discussion about how the Christian witness is functioning in the world.

    I'd also note that your comment that "we don't need to apologize for the truth" misses lots of stuff. First, to give warrant is not to apologize. Second, if there is no warrant then the thing you believe is not self-evidently true to outsiders. Third, you don't KNOW if you have the truth. You BELIEVE you have the truth (i.e., you have faith). That is, you can't demonstrate that God exists. The best you can do is offer evidence for why you believe in God. I'm doing the same here about biblical ethics, offering evidence for God's vision. I'm unwilling to wander into the world with lists of Do's and Dont's with little justification to follow. I'd sound addled if I did that.

    Regarding family. The "Darwinian black hole" comment is a metaphor. A black hole, as we know, due to its gravitational attraction can suck everything into its center. But not necessarily so. A space traveler, knowing it's location, could steer around it. So, my metaphor was to say that family can suck from the life of the Kingdom. I used the "black hole" to indicate that this tendency is stronger than many American Christians think.

    Now, given that I've unpacked the metaphor, I think my meaning is exactly the meaning Jesus had: Beware of family being a black hole for Kingdom efforts. If you read through all those passages I cited in my earlier response, how can you not agree that Jesus and I are making the exact same point?

  11. Richard,

    You are correct, we will have to agree to disagree on the evolution issue. However, I would note that you are not just starting where you perceive a lot of people to be--but it appears from where you are yourself--If not then different wording needs chosen in several places.
    And the idea that our human nature comes
    from evolution is giving complete credence to evolution ["And in every case we've seen how Jesus calls us to transcend that exact evolutionary facet of our nature."] Further, it would seem to say that Jesus who caused or at least allowed us to evolve these bad traits is calling us to transcent them.
    Four years ago, I retired from teaching Biology for 34 years in a junior college [state school]. In all of those years, there was only about 3% who believed in evolution. And also of interest is that most strong proponents of evolution in the science field do not believe that evolution and God are compatible in any way. They believe there are only two choices: evolution or divine creation.

    Your definition of evolution would be of interest. Because I can say that I believe in evolution if it is simply defined as change. But if one means that the first life originated by chance evolution and all life since then is descented from that first life--I cannot agree with that. Natural selection does occur in nature but there is no evidence that any new species has originated that way. And the change in human size and shoe size shows evolution--but we are still Homo sapiens!

    "Beware of family being a black hole for Kingdom efforts. If you read through all those passages I cited in my earlier response, how can you not agree that Jesus and I are making the exact same point?" If you simply use the black hole metaphor without Darwinian in front-I can accept that. Poor Darwin did not know about black holes--he did not deal with how the universe came into being--in fact he did not even know Mendelian genetics!

    In referring to truth--I was not talking about a list of do's and don'ts. We must and should deal with Jesus' I am statements--truth being one of them.

    I feel that I have a good concept of what works to take Christ to unbelievers. Several years of taking Christ into the county jail and seeing what worked to bring even the "vilest" offenders to Jesus makes me confident that the experimental lab approach is for only a limited few.

    I do find your series interesting, but probably only because I have the level of education that I have achieved.
    And probably some of our disagreement goes back to "we are what we were when"
    Your travel through the social science and mine through the "pure" sciences makes for different perspective. However, our spiritual travel has probably also been considerably different. I have widened my view from the church of the 50's--so don't have simplistic answers or have all the truth.

    Enough ramblings--but probably quit here

    David

Leave a Reply