Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
So do I, but it's completely irrelevant to the question of how religion evolved.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How did religion evolve?
- Thread starter Sententia
- Start date
tariqkhwaja
Jihad Against Terrorism
Overtime as man has evolved so have the religious laws pertaining to his existence. As evil emerged itself with new faces so, too, did new laws sent to us by God.
As an example, we see Judaism with its statement "A tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye". Which does make a lot of sense given the state of Jews at the time for Moses. For during his time the Jews lacked courage in the face of the Pharoah. They were persecuted and did not know how to stand up. Giving Jews a hint of forgiveness would have resulted in Jews forgiving everyone ... even those who ruefully bullied them. So this was the perfect law for them.
But as time progressed the Jews became hardened of heart and to undo that they were sent Jesus Christ. He taught them forgiveness. If someone slaps you on one cheek present the other. If someone grabs your collar, offer him your shirt. A hint of revenge at the time of Jesus and the Jews would have chosen revenge. And so, Jesus softened their hearts. But, once again, while this law made sense for its time it did not make sense for all time. What if humans were to be subjected to bullies again? Would they revert to the situation of Jews with regards to Pharoah?
Enter: Islam which perfected laws because humans had evolved to a stage where they could comprehend a complete perfect law. And so it was ordained that:
As an example, we see Judaism with its statement "A tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye". Which does make a lot of sense given the state of Jews at the time for Moses. For during his time the Jews lacked courage in the face of the Pharoah. They were persecuted and did not know how to stand up. Giving Jews a hint of forgiveness would have resulted in Jews forgiving everyone ... even those who ruefully bullied them. So this was the perfect law for them.
But as time progressed the Jews became hardened of heart and to undo that they were sent Jesus Christ. He taught them forgiveness. If someone slaps you on one cheek present the other. If someone grabs your collar, offer him your shirt. A hint of revenge at the time of Jesus and the Jews would have chosen revenge. And so, Jesus softened their hearts. But, once again, while this law made sense for its time it did not make sense for all time. What if humans were to be subjected to bullies again? Would they revert to the situation of Jews with regards to Pharoah?
Enter: Islam which perfected laws because humans had evolved to a stage where they could comprehend a complete perfect law. And so it was ordained that:
I would like to issue, here, a challenge to anyone who can bring a better law than that about forgiveness and revenge. That is how religion has evolved over time.
Mystical experiences/experiences of god are the basis for religion and at least for my understanding they are glitches in the brain, i.e. side effects of our brain's complex system.
Some further merit to my explanation I gave earlier I found in a recent article on the "Key to all Optical Illusions".
Key to All Optical Illusions Discovered
Note: in regard to some people arguing about why Religion evolved. I think it's safe to say Religion was born from trying to make sense/rationalize of human experience which included the forces of nature, human biology and the sort of illusions/images that the brain sometimes creates. Of course such rationalizing was occurring within Upper Paleolithic human society. Such necessary explanations were then culturally ingrained through rituals and practices. As human cultural complexed so did religion, which was used as all cultural institutions are done for, to keep group cohesion and hostility towards non-group members (and in further complexity it became hostility toward those who wouldn't become part of the group).
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Are you referring to the spandrel theory that Sunstone mentioned? Because, while that's almost certainly an influencing factor, I don't think it's the whole story.
I think that's the whole of their origin (hence I admit why I am an atheist/agnostic), but that origin is not the whole of their influence and power, as I pointed out in my last post. To put in terms of relation it's a spandrel, but a spandrel that's culturally turned into an atom bomb.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
How much do you know about neurotheology? I'm using "mystical experience" in the very precise terms of that discipline, and I don't think that what I'm talking about can be considered a spandrel.
As for my understands of neurotheology, it was part of my course work in my Senior level Methods and Theory course in Theology. So I think I have at least a fair to beginners understanding of it. I am one who takes the side that it's theology as there is cultural perception through religion involved, yet I take the belief that there is no actual divine/metaphysical activity involved. I know I can't prove that without a shadow of a doubt, but I see no need in getting gods and demons involved.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Probably better than mine, then, cool
I just don't see how you can consider such a complex neurological event as a spandrel. Would you care to explain further?
No, to reject God is ignorance in its self. However, I don't blame people who become atheist because of over bearing *** wipe bible pushers that do not know what there talking about... That those people do no understand that the Bible was written by man, imperfect men who DID SPEAK about the word of GOD and his message. BUT while speaking about that, they added there own intolerant bias to women, gays, races, other religions, etc.
Probably better than mine, then, cool
I just don't see how you can consider such a complex neurological event as a spandrel. Would you care to explain further?
My original post on this thread (post # 14 I think) and I listed some texts from the course I took that touch on the matter. The three most important perhaps are:
David Lewis-Williams- The Mind in the Cave
Kevin Seybold- Explorations in Neuroscience, Psychology and Religion: Ch. 6 Brain and Religion
Stewart Guthrie- Animal Animism: Evolutionary Roots of Religious Cognition
The spandrels are the optical and sensory illusions that the brain creates, which as theists or atheists we've all experienced (usually in situations of some deprivation of senses, which Lewis-Williams hints at regarding the "religious experiences" depicted in cave art, i.e. being in a dark cave holding a burning torch will provide a number of alterations from normal experience in itself). What is not a spandrel is that mechanism in the brain that developed in humans to allow the sort of perception of self and death that most other organisms don't have (though quite a few mammals have seemed to develop some mechanisms not too far from ours). Where the spandrel and the brain mechanism then meet in human experience is culturally (the ability to have culture is dependent on man's evolved abilities of complex language and memory) interpreted and there we then have religion (or at least the beginning of it)
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
OK, I've noted the books, and I do know what a spandrel is. What I don't understand is how you classify trance states, with their unique and complex neurology, as spandrels.
Well, I don't really see where trances are an evolutionary adaptation/mechanism. Their relevance toward analytic study/psychology is obvious in how they can open up parts of the human mind that are repressed for one reason or another. Yet, I don't see how it provides any sort of difference in survival (save for perhaps the humorous notion that those who trance more often are more susceptible to predation) save for when it is culturally interpreted. So I see it as a spandrel, a consequence of evolution that provides no immediate benefit for natural selection.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
OK, I can see that. I think it's a pretty broad definition, but it does make sense.
My answer is that they're the mechanism we're evolving to perceive God, but I know that has nothing to do with science.
OK, I can see that. I think it's a pretty broad definition, but it does make sense.
My answer is that they're the mechanism we're evolving to perceive God, but I know that has nothing to do with science.
Right and there is the atheist/theist divide which cannot be proven one way or another (especially if arguments about materialism/dualism/idealism are thrown in). I perfectly respect anyone who thinks we evolve in a certain way so we can perceive something like God. I cannot find any proof against that, though I take the opposite belief that they is no need of thinking about an actual god (In part I stand with Freud and others who have pointed toward God concepts having their origin in our concepts of parents). However (and I'm sure this isn't the case with you) there are problems of trying to wedge doctrinal religions like christianity, islam, judaism and others (though hinduism is so large scooping that just about anything can go with it) with the actual evolutionary mechanisms.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
But that leaves out animism, which is one of the earliest forms of religion.
I'd really then suggest trying to get your hands on the Stewart Guthrie article I suggested. Though as I've mentioned before I view Religion as cultural, which means it can change and mutate far faster than genetic codes do. For example christian and islamic concepts of god I would say have a lot to do with middle-east notions of family and parents, though this has changed with each religion in different ways depending on where it traveled to and how the local culture influenced it. In the beginnings with Animism there was a hunter-gather society and I would say that influenced their notions of the gods.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
I don't suppose you have a link to it?
Oh, uncontested.
Uncontested again. I just didn't follow the jump from the origin of religion to the nature of current religion.
arthra
Baha'i
Well I for one applaud the scientific approach to exploring the origins of religion... Maybe more can be learned about the early religions of mankind prior to written languages and such.
We Baha'is accept that God has sent Messengers and Manifestations over the vast span of human occupation on the earth.... All religions we believe have a Common Source and are spiritually one but the ordinances change according to the requirements and we also believe that important advances in human history had inspiration from a Divine Source.
- Art
We Baha'is accept that God has sent Messengers and Manifestations over the vast span of human occupation on the earth.... All religions we believe have a Common Source and are spiritually one but the ordinances change according to the requirements and we also believe that important advances in human history had inspiration from a Divine Source.
- Art
???
You can't prove true the divine or divine inspiration but you use divine inspiration as a basis to deterimine whether another religion is true? This makes no sense.
Here's some quick history: YouTube - Myth of Religion; The Solar Messiahs God's Sun Christ Horus
tariqkhwaja
Jihad Against Terrorism
Firstly, I got 4kbps download speed here so excuse me from YouTube videos.
I am not sure I understand what you are saying. I believe you CAN prove whether someone has actually been Divinely inspired or not. Or wait, no you CAN'T. Well ... its a bit more complex than that ... please restate what you are asking so I am sure what I am answering. Thanks.