My Excruciating Opinion on the Origin of the God Concept

[Sunstone]

Cognitive scientists and others have come to the general agreement that human religiosity is the outgrowth of brain architecture that evolved early in human history. That is, our religiosity is very old. Older even than @Jayhawker Soule (although perhaps not by much).
It seems there is also a general consensus among scientists that the specific brain architecture responsible for our religiosity consists of several psychological mechanisms (sometimes called "modules") common to virtually all humans and even to @lewisnotmiller. Depending on who you're talking to, these modules range in number from a few to perhaps two dozen mechanisms, and have attractively sexy names like "agent detection", "etiology", "Theory of Mind", "respect for elders", etc. Working severally or together, they give rise to various aspects of human religiosity.

Yet, it seems to me that these modules cannot account for at least some very prominent and important aspects of human religiosity.

For instance, they seem to fall short of accounting for at least some notions of deity. Among other things, I cannot figure out how the notion that god is an "all", or a "one", or a "oneness" came about on the basis of the modules alone. The notion that there is a god that can be described in those terms appears to be fairly common. It's by no means the only notion of deity humans have invented, but it is one of the more popular notions, so far as I know. Yet how can it be accounted for as a product of such things as agent detection, etc?

I would suggest that it can't. Rather, I think the notion that god is an all, a one, or a oneness is derived from the mystical experience.

Now, the mystical experience is a relatively rare phenomenon in humans that apparently arises when someone's subject/object perception comes to an abrupt end while some form of experiencing continues. That is, it comes about when a person ceases to experience the world as divided between what is them and what is not them, and instead experiences the world as some kind of unity -- as an All, a One, or a Oneness.

During normal subject/object perception, I and the tree I see are two separate things. During a mystical experience, the perception of discrete things ends, and is replaced by a perception that everything within my perceptual field is in some sense the same thing, is in some sense one.

I would now suggest that the mystical experience accounts for some aspects of human religiosity not entirely accounted for by the modular theory, especially the notion found in at least many cultures that god is an all of some sort, a unity, a one, or a oneness of everything.

Comments? Observations? Rants? Offers of money to go away?

 

[bobhikes]

My only comment is that the Mystical Experience is actually very common. I equate it to a software bug on the computer. The brain for a moment gets lost and either observers something that isn't there, doesn't observe something that is there or momentarily disconnects from its self. People don't always equate it as mystical but it is the source of most peoples mystical experiences. Minor forms include Deja view, Day dreaming and blank stares, which I would guess everyone gets.

 

[Sunstone]

My only comment is that the Mystical Experience is actually very common. I equate it to a software bug on the computer. The brain for a moment gets lost and either observers something that isn't there, doesn't observe something that is there or momentarily disconnects from its self. People don't always equate it as mystical but it is the source of most peoples mystical experiences. Minor forms include Deja view, Day dreaming and blank stares, which I would guess everyone gets.

There are numerous "mystical experiences" -- at least sixteen different kinds, according to one count. However, the experience that I call THE mystical experience is as I describe it in the OP. That is, its hallmark is the dissolution of subject/object perception and its replacement with a perception of the one or the oneness of all things. Physiologically, it seems to involve a suppression of activity in the parietal lobe of the brain, among other changes.

This is a relatively rare experience. Out of the seven or so billion people alive today, perhaps a hundred million (by some estimates) have had the experience. In my book, it is not conflated with deja vu, day dreaming, etc.

Of course, you are perfectly free to define the term "mystical experience" however you want to, as am I.. But please don't confuse your definition with mine.

 

[sun rise]

Religiosity and mystical experience are two separate things. We've even had at least one thread here on that topic Any Atheists Ever Had A "Spiritual" Experience?

Often I think people have such an experience but it does not overwhelm them. Just one example: I once was dancing when suddenly my sense that I was dancing almost disappeared and I felt that the music was dancing us as we flew around the dance floor. It's often called "being in the zone".

 

[sun rise]

One example of what I mean from HuffPo

“There’s this focus that, once it becomes intense, leads to a sense of ecstasy, a sense of clarity: you know exactly what you want to do from one moment to the other... Sense of time disappears. You forget yourself. You feel part of something larger.”

What Is 'Being in the Zone'? -- the Fascinating Psychology of Super Productivity | HuffPost

 

[Sunstone]

Religiosity and mystical experience are two separate things. We've even had at least one thread here on that topic Any Atheists Ever Had A "Spiritual" Experience?

Often I think people have such an experience but it does not overwhelm them. Just one example: I once was dancing when suddenly my sense that I was dancing almost disappeared and I felt that the music was dancing us as we flew around the dance floor. It's often called "being in the zone".

I think you're defining "mystical experience" differently than I am. That's fine. You have every right to do so. However, please don't confuse what you are referring to with what I am referring to.

 

[osgart]

God is an outcry for those who love life so much, that they never want to die.

God is an outcry to the need for fairness.

God is also mankind reasoning that they must have been created by someone.

From there imagination took over imo. And it gained great power in influence.

I wouldn't know how that correlates to brain architecture. Many children grow up without believing the conception whatsoever.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I think that at least in addition to the mystical state, the idea of a oneness/whatever arises from the intellectual realization that people "other than us" describe very similar environments and entities, including 'spirits' and 'gods,' and similar mystical experiences, and therefore there needs to be an explanation...which is that it's all really about one universal (given that the universe of the ancients was very small), all-encompassing deity.

That is, being connected does not immediately or directly mean Unity or overal-allness.

 

[crossfire]

A simpler approach: tribal polytheism = mascots.
wiki for Mascot

"A mascot is any person, animal, or object thought to bring luck, or anything used to represent a group with a common public identity, such as a school, professional sports team, society, military unit, or brand name. Mascots are also used as fictional, representative spokespeople for consumer products, such as the rabbit used in advertising and marketing for the General Mills brand of breakfast cereal, Trix."​

Tribal polytheism might account for the unity of "the people" (or "humans" as the term tribes have used for tribal members was "human" (the people) and other tribes were refered to as "non-human" (not the people.) So, the idea of a god universal to "the people" (read "humans") might be very old. It's just that our idea of "people" and "human" has broadened over time.

After tribal gods were established, then gods or "dæmons" representing the "universal spirit" of abstract concepts (such as Ares-god of war, and Aphrodite-goddess of love) were recognized. The establishment of these gods/dæmons of "universal" abstract concepts helped to expand the idea of "human" beyond just members of the tribe. "Don't they also love and value their children, and teach them, and don't they also believe in helping the members of their own tribe? Heck, one of them gave me a drink of water the other day!"

Put these two concepts together, and over time, one might come up with monotheism extended to "all humans." (Depending upon what one sees as "human" and what one sees as "degenerate.")

 

[Sunstone]

I think that at least in addition to the mystical state, the idea of a oneness/whatever arises from the intellectual realization that people "other than us" describe very similar environments and entities, including 'spirits' and 'gods,' and similar mystical experiences, and therefore there needs to be an explanation...which is that it's all really about one universal (given that the universe of the ancients was very small), all-encompassing deity.

That is, being connected does not immediately or directly mean Unity or overal-allness.

That's an interesting point of view. I disagree with you, but it's interesting.

 

[Sunstone]

A simpler approach: tribal polytheism = mascots.
wiki for Mascot

"A mascot is any person, animal, or object thought to bring luck, or anything used to represent a group with a common public identity, such as a school, professional sports team, society, military unit, or brand name. Mascots are also used as fictional, representative spokespeople for consumer products, such as the rabbit used in advertising and marketing for the General Mills brand of breakfast cereal, Trix."​

Tribal polytheism might account for the unity of "the people" (or "humans" as the term tribes have used for tribal members was "human" (the people) and other tribes were refered to as "non-human" (not the people.) So, the idea of a god universal to "the people" (read "humans") might be very old. It's just that our idea of "people" and "human" has broadened over time.

After tribal gods were established, then gods or "dæmons" representing the "universal spirit" of abstract concepts (such as Ares-god of war, and Aphrodite-goddess of love) were recognized. The establishment of these gods/dæmons of "universal" abstract concepts helped to expand the idea of "human" beyond just members of the tribe. "Don't they also love and value their children, and teach them, and don't they also believe in helping the members of their own tribe? Heck, one of them gave me a drink of water the other day!"

Put these two concepts together, and over time, one might come up with monotheism extended to "all humans." (Depending upon what one sees as "human" and what one sees as "degenerate.")

Again, interesting thoughts. Thank you for those. I do not, however, think you and I are talking about the same things at all.

 

[bobhikes]

There are numerous "mystical experiences" -- at least sixteen different kinds, according to one count. However, the experience that I call THE mystical experience is as I describe it in the OP. That is, its hallmark is the dissolution of subject/object perception and its replacement with a perception of the one or the oneness of all things. Physiologically, it seems to involve a suppression of activity in the parietal lobe of the brain, among other changes.

This is a relatively rare experience. Out of the seven or so billion people alive today, perhaps a hundred million (by some estimates) have had the experience. In my book, it is not conflated with deja vu, day dreaming, etc.

Of course, you are perfectly free to define the term "mystical experience" however you want to, as am I.. But please don't confuse your definition with mine.

The one you explain, I've had more times than I can count. I find it odd that the numbers are so low. Of course I've had hallucinations, premonitions and deja vu pretty regularly since I was a child so maybe, I'm just lucky. I do know some of this stuff runs in my family so maybe its hereditary.

 

[YmirGF]

I would now suggest that the mystical experience accounts for some aspects of human religiosity not entirely accounted for by the modular theory, especially the notion found in at least many cultures that god is an all of some sort, a unity, a one, or a oneness of everything.

Not surprisingly, I quite like this, @Sunstone

Even with it's limitations, I still think that modular theory is promising but still far from hitting the mark.

As far as the concepts and experience of oneness. Hmmm. How to put it?

I agree that thoughts of gods arose from mystical experiences due to a wrinkle inherent in human psychology that existed eons before the term was coined though it was not recognized clearly as such. For me, it was the lack of highly structured thought that gave rise to the idea of god(s) and was perhaps one of our first attempts, as a species, in identifying and labeling aspects of our experience that originated in areas not directly in observable range. It marked our first attempts to order the universe, as we saw it, in ways that were comprehensible to others.

That said, the experience of Oneness can be a daunting experience after the experience has faded. It is incredibly hard to describe and to grapple with both from a psychological viewpoint and an intellectual viewpoint. Intellectually, one is struck at how utterly difficult it is to describe the experience, in a way that is clearly understood, as with other ideas, to other people. For an experience that has such a profound emotional impact on the individual one would think that expressing the raw experience was fairly easy and yet it almost defies description save through allegory and metaphor which instantly distorts the experience.

From the psychological standpoint, the individual can be left in a muddle by the experience. One can accept the experience at face value and not fall into the pitfall of trying to quantify it, which is difficult to resist due to the almost evangelical emotional impact. (It is such an astounding experience that one feels compelled to talk about it, however poor their communication skills be.) One can accept that this is a natural part of awareness, of being a sentient being, a logical progression in consciousness, and keep their council to themselves because they understand that they can't really express it properly and decided it's better to say nothing (or little).

Then you have another personality type that accepts the experience, but rejects the idea that this is part of what they are personally. They divorce themselves from the experience and create a barrier. They create a god that granted them the experience which makes them special but certainly not the totality of the experience, which in such limited terms would have made them god. This idea of an external god is fairly easy to impart to others and it nicely explains the experience they cannot otherwise describe and the authoritarian messenger is born. The beauty of this flavor of personality type is that they can express the emotional aspects of the experience in terms that are readily understood.

(I'm sure we could talk about how various others have assimilated the raw data of the oneness experience till the cows come home, but the above is a good start in very general terms.) Then again, I could be wrong. LOL.

 

[sun rise]

I think you're defining "mystical experience" differently than I am. That's fine. You have every right to do so. However, please don't confuse what you are referring to with what I am referring to.

Now, the mystical experience is a relatively rare phenomenon in humans that apparently arises when someone's subject/object perception comes to an abrupt end while some form of experiencing continues. That is, it comes about when a person ceases to experience the world as divided between what is them and what is not them, and instead experiences the world as some kind of unity -- as an All, a One, or a Oneness.

You forget yourself. You feel part of something larger.”

I don't see how "part of something larger" is different from "experiences the world as some kind of unity". But if you want to split intellectual hairs, be my guest. To me, it's the same thing expressed differently.

 

[crossfire]

Oh gee wiz! I posted a reply, but the post duplicated itself on the thread, and when I deleted the duplicate, it deleted both! If you could undelete the post @Sunstone , it would be much appreciated! Thank you.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't see how "part of something larger" is different from "experiences the world as some kind of unity". But if you want to split intellectual hairs, be my guest. To me, it's the same thing expressed differently.

Perhaps. But I'm habitually cautious about such things. People use that phrase, "being part of something larger", to describe all sorts of things that do not possess the hallmark of the mystical experience -- a perception of the One or oneness. You might be right, but I prefer caution.

 

[Sunstone]

Oh gee wiz! I posted a reply, but the post duplicated itself on the thread, and when I deleted the duplicate, it deleted both! If you could undelete the post @Sunstone , it would be much appreciated! Thank you.

Unfortunately, the software does not allow a deleted post to be undeleted -- I can read it, but I can't undelete it.

 

[crossfire]

Unfortunately, the software does not allow a deleted post to be undeleted -- I can read it, but I can't undelete it.

OK, thanks. I'll leave it to you to decide if it is worthy for me me to redraft it, or if it is "too far out there" even for mystics. Let me know if it is worth my trouble, or if it is a distraction.

 

[Sunstone]

OK, thanks. I'll leave it to you to decide if it is worthy for me me to redraft it, or if it is "too far out there" even for mystics. Let me know if it is worth my trouble, or if it is a distraction.

By all means, please feel free to express your opinions! I don't necessarily agree with you, but you do have fascinating opinions.

 

[crossfire]

Again, interesting thoughts. Thank you for those. I do not, however, think you and I are talking about the same things at all.

I understand what you are talking about with the dissolution of subject and object in the mystic state. Unfortunately, one can easily overlook the individual subjective minds of other individuals, recognize that it is the hallmark of sentience, and cherish it as being precious and rare. Narcissists often don't recognize and appreciate individuals and their personal boundaries. However, sentience, or having a subjective mind makes an individual subject to confusing the objective for the subjective--and confusing the subjective for the objective is what we call delusion. Appreciation for sentience and individual subjective minds leads towards compassion towards the delusional. Even the most primitive cultures spared the delusional during their period of delusion.

Those who say "all is one" are also vulnerable to attack from those who recognize individuals, but don't appreciate individual sentient beings as unique individuals, and were vulnerable to being wiped out in the genocide that was rampant during the agricultural revolution.

There are some, such as Carl Jung and Drunvalo Melchizedek who assert that humanity is in a transitional state of evolution--going from "no separation between subject and object" to the appreciation of sentient beings with unique subjective minds. Right now, we still have the "oneness" of the dissolution between subject and object, but also the recognition of the uniqueness of individuals, but not necessarily the appreciation of he individual subjective minds that are the hallmark of sentient beings.

Tool has a song called Forty Six & 2 that touches on this, with the evolutionary process dependent upon taking resposibility for clearing out the delusion and junk from ones own subjective mind, and appreciation of individual subjective minds for what they are, as well as having compassion for oneself and others who are caught in the delusion a subjective mind is vulnerable to.

Here is a link to the wiki article for the concept, as well as a link to the song by Tool. I'll hide the links so as not to distract.

Spoiler

Forty Six & 2 - Wikipedia

Tool song addressing above theory