@littlek,
I liked the experiment where children were tempted to cheat, and the experimenters recorded if they resisted the temptation, depending on whether they
didnt believe they were watched, they
were watched, or
weren't watched but believed they were.
Two details in the evolutionary part of Mr. Bering's story suggests to me that Mr. Bering didn't do his homework.
(1) It isn't enough to hypothesize that religion might be an evolutionary adaptation. You also have to ask, an adaptation of and for
whom? For example, every human culture has the common cold, just as every human culture has religion. And although it's true that the common cold is an evolutionary adaptation, it belongs, not to humans, but to the bacteria that spread it. If Mr. Bering had done his homework, he would have looked at beneficiaries of religion
other than believers.
(2) Even without religion, there are perfectly good Darwinistic explanations for cooperation if the cooperators are close relatives, or if they are likely to meet frequently so that cooperators can reciprocate to each other (or retaliate against leeches). Our ancestors have spent most of their evolutionary past in small hordes, where both conditions were usually true. A genetic rule like "always initiate cooperation, and always reciprocate it" would have worked with or without religion. Since our ancestors left this environment, our genes simply haven't had enough time to adapt and turn mean again.
Both insights are fairly old. For example, Matt Ridley's
Origins of Virtue (1998) discusses them at length. I find it suspicious that Mr. Bering isn't even mentioning them, let alone discussing them. My overall impression is that he's on firm ground with the nuts and bolts of his psychological experiments, but not with the big-picture stuff.