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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
One my my guilty pleasures was reading “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind” by Julian Jaynes.
Evidence suggests that early humans likely developed religious beliefs as a way to explain natural phenomena, such as the sun, moon, and natural disasters, and to make sense of their place in the world. Religion emerged with certainty in the Upper Paleolithic around 50,000 years ago.
It's curious and weird you'd rate my last post as "optimistic" @Madsaac.
Are you the sort that believes that a home builder can make a house solely with materials derived from themselves? Perhaps this is the case if the house is built only in their imaginations, but if they want to build a house that non-imaginary humans live in? Doesn't the home builder have to use materials derived not from themselves, but from the greater-than-human world around them? It is "optimistic" to recognize this dependency of human endeavors on non-human others for all of its affairs?
Seriously, though, this is a grossly overlooked aspect of how religions (and the present state of the human condition just in general) came to be. It didn't come out of nothing. Because nothing we do does. It all comes from life experiences - which inherently involve other-than-human aspects of reality unless you believe all reality is some simulation of the human brain (silly, but it is a thing some folks believe). In some cultures, experiences with those things led to deeply valuing them and deification which is why there is routine deification of nature and its aspects. But no matter the interpretation, the dependency upon and relations with non-human others is inherent and everywhere and unavoidable.
That said, not gonna pretend I'm not biased as someone studied in ecology, environmental science, and Druidry. Recognizing interdependence is just part and parcel of those studies. I'm gonna have trouble understanding the "lone wolf" (which are not actually a thing in nature, ironically) mentality of "I did this 100% on my own with no help or inspiration from anything outside of myself whatsoever." I don't believe that ever happens.
I think you're mischaracterizing how animism and polytheism work here (it really isn't about "explaining" things), but that is not atypical for those who were indoctrinated into the more common Western intellectual/religious traditions. I would encourage you to spend some time listening to animists and polytheists if you're interested in understanding these theologies on their own terms. Or not. Most folks just opt for not, so that's okay too. I'm used to these being routinely mischaracterized such that I just can't afford to care about it.
How do you know we didn't? How do you know that animals - some of whom mourn and hold funerals - don't believe in gods either?
I think you're mischaracterizing how animism and polytheism work here (it really isn't about "explaining" things), but that is not atypical for those who were indoctrinated into the more common Western intellectual/religious traditions. I would encourage you to spend some time listening to animists and polytheists if you're interested in understanding these theologies on their own terms. Or not. Most folks just opt for not, so that's okay too. I'm used to these being routinely mischaracterized such that I just can't afford to care about it.
I don't understand the point of this question or its relevance. But, just as I'm used to these things being routinely mischaracterized I'm also, sadly, used to them being routinely dismissed out of the conversation with questions like this. Sure, just ignore everything I write then. Because it, like anything else any human write about anything, "IsNt rEpReSeNtAtIoNaL."
I don't understand the point of this question or its relevance. But, just as I'm used to these things being routinely mischaracterized I'm also, sadly, used to them being routinely dismissed out of the conversation with questions like this. Sure, just ignore everything I write then. Because it, like anything else any human write about anything, "IsNt rEpReSeNtAtIoNaL."
I see where you're coming from, but here's the thing.
New Age stuff and neo-paganism is far too adapted to modern ideas to be considered anything like the Ancient Paganism, much less like the animism that was humanity's first religion. Even New Age animism is just far to accommodating to modern thought to be a good source for knowledge on ancient human religion.
I see where you're coming from, but here's the thing.
Which group makes sense to use as a frame of reference for understanding animism and polytheism:
In spite of the first being the obvious answer, many insist the second of these two is somehow the more sensible frame of reference. Which is just frustrating. Doubly frustrating since the notions outsiders project onto these demographics aren't any less modern. Yet somehow we're supposed to defer to their assessments of what we're practicing today?
- Modern day animists and polytheists (aka, cultural insiders)
- Modern day non-animists and non-polytheists (aka, cultural outsiders)
Nah, man, not buying it. That'd be like listening to my Pagan interpretation of Jesus' resurrection and somehow considering that more relevant and authoritative than what actual practicing Christians have to say. That's dumb, why would we do that?
No human being is completely objective. Certainly some people are more irrational than others. But we all have biologically built into us certain patterns of thought that are simply instinctual and don't hold up under testing. Becoming aware of these irrational tendencies can help a person overcome them.
I think you're mischaracterizing how animism and polytheism work here (it really isn't about "explaining" things), but that is not atypical for those who were indoctrinated into the more common Western intellectual/religious traditions. I would encourage you to spend some time listening to animists and polytheists if you're interested in understanding these theologies on their own terms. Or not. Most folks just opt for not, so that's okay too. I'm used to these being routinely mischaracterized such that I just can't afford to care about it.
The same is true of monotheism.
Science isn't necessarily a tool that can measure the spiritual. Studying the social patterns of animals might turn up some behaviors, such as funerals and mourning, that indicate some belief in spirituality.
Ah, so an adherent of scientism it seems - "science" is the sole purveyor of truth and knowledge? Definitely not a fan - it ironically undermines the very sciences it worships - but to each their own and that's neither here nor there. It somewhat explains the challenge in understanding ways of knowing beyond the limitations of the sciences, though.