Interesting subject matter. And one of those that shows how different religion and belief in God are, I think.
It seems to me that the further back in history one goes as far as beliefs, the less they become "religious" and "supernatural" and the more they become "realistic". Animism, Panentheism, and Shamanism all represent aspects of some of the earliest beliefs that were present as far back as hunter-gatherer, cave-dwelling times. Most early beliefs contain at least some similar elements to these. All seem to make more sense to me than the other faiths such as Christianity.
I basically agree. Early on, religion was more concrete, more aimed towards immediate goals and decisions. And, quite frankly, far less interested in endless theological controversy with little practical relevancy.
On the other hand, concrete decisions often end up being more divisive and controversial than ethereal goals that are usually postponed to some speculative future date. For that reason, Abrahamic faiths (and arguably some other major religions) have better political influence than paganism ever had. I would even say that the transition from paganism to Abrahamic faiths is intrinsically tied to the desire of a bigger, more influent community; paganism is best suited to a way of life where, so to speak,
everyone knows each other by name. It subtly emphasizes individual interpretation and oral tradition in a way that makes more sense on an individual level and is in many ways more meaningful, but in so doing it lets go of most conditions that might allow for building a bigger empire.
Abrahamic faiths, by contrast, all encourage the individual to forget about his individual goals to a degree and instead dedicate himself to a greater cause of some sort: Judaism presents itself as the faith of the people chosen by God, Christianity was born among the Roman Empire as a promise of a far greater, Heavenly kingdom, Islam is even in name the submission to God's will. Even the Bahai Faith prides itself on being organized in a global level and present in all continents.
There are, of course, various arguments both in favor and against both approaches. Just as naturally, different people show different degrees of afinity and compability with either. In a very broad stroke, earth-based religion is about learning about the world to negotiate one's way through it, while faith-based religion is about dreaming with a better world to shape one's path to it.
In some sense this distinction resembles and is related to the one between LHP and RHP religions, recent as that concept is. It is a basic choice between being a person who earns its place in the world by learning how the world works and going through the demanded rituals of acceptance and pertinence and being a person who would rather serve a greater cause than rule its own being and its own worldview, albeit in a localized scale.
This clash of religious goals happened with Eastern faiths in a slightly different way, as well, although apparently in a somewhat less decisive way, perhaps because the association between faith and government was somewhat less emphasized there. Or perhaps because eastern faiths, even Hinduism, never really adopted the belief in a central God with anything resembling the impressive (and perhaps questionable) emphasys that the Abrahamic faiths did choose. While some people associate religious faith with belief in God, going so far as to retroactively interpret animistic spirits and other spiritual entities as either some sort of gods or its "enemies", there is in reality very little relation between religion and belief in God. Not too many faiths actually
have a concept of God comparable to Abraham's, and quite frankly, it often seems that even in the Abrahamic faiths it is very much a challenge for many followers to actually believe in God.
In Animism, it is believed that all things have "spirit" and are "animated". When you look at it from a scientific perspective, this is very true. All things are comprised of energy that is constantly moving and changing form. All things have this energy and even a stone has "vibrational" energy. Scientists just prefer not to call it "spirit energy". They have not scientifically "proven" it yet, but I think that most realize something more to "discover" is always out there as well.
I would rather say that animism built a provisional substitute for scientific knowledge, myself. When one undestands science's goals and method it all comes together. Religion is not really about obtaining scientific knowledge, but it
does sometimes offer more applicable advice because it (at least originally) emphasized actual answers to concrete decisions, which science simply isn't about.
Of course the ancient peoples did not know what energy or bacteria, or viruses were, but they understood that "something" was there and that whatever it was affected everything that existed. Even the plants and the animals, and the sun and the moon had their own "energy" or "medicine" about them. The old beliefs seem natural and realistic. I would rather believe in the natural existing energies, spirit or otherwise, of all things, than in some fear driven "God" that lives beyond the pearly gates of "heaven" and looks kinda like Santa Claus. Oddly enough, that christian "God" of love and mercy killed and destroyed more people and creatures than His "adversary" the "Devil" did! I would rather worship trees. At least a tree won't try to kill me, I don't think.
Don't the old beliefs just make more sense? Please don't take this personally, I believe that all things have at least some truth to offer. This is just my opinion. I would like to hear yours......
Opinions anyone?
It seems to me that in a very general sense you're making an appeal to the "personal journey" model of religious practice, where one learns about it's own skills, personal tastes and innermost goals and values and goes on from there. There is much to be said about the wisdom of knowing who you are and who you really want to eventually be before dedicating yourself to a Higher Cause of some sort.
