Are religions evolving themselves out of existence?

[charles brough]

Until now, all religions were based on the belief in “spirits,” but the structure of religion and its ability to carry out its function and succeed has nothing to do with “spirits.” It has to do with the level of technology enabled by the religion and its ability to bond the largest number of people together into a single society and do it for a good many centuries.

The first phase of the development of religion evolved with speech and became common among hunting/gathering groups. It lasted from when anatomically modern human beings appeared some 195,000 years ago to about 40,000 years ago in the mainstream. That is some 155,000 years.

The competition between hunting gathering groups during all that time encouraged the evolution of religion to where it finally developed into its second phase. It became able to bond hunting-gathering groups together so they could go after big game in large number and, at the same time, gradually kill off or drive out the remaining hunting-gathering groups and the Neanderthals in the main stream. The hunting/gathering groups still survived in peripheral ares of the earth.

The new, large-group, religion was based on hunting technology and was responsible for the cave paintings. That religion lasted from about 4,000 years ago to about 5,000 years ago. That is, it lasted some 35,000 years.

The third and last phase began about 5,000 years ago when religion had so developed that it could bind people into huge cities, city states and even immense empires beginning in Sumer and Egypt.

The next phase has yet to appear, but it will unite the world into one nation.

[Cainkane1]

Religion will always be around in one way or another.

[charles brough]

Religion will always be around in one way or another.

Well, that is correct, but they don't and won't always be built around "spirits." Religion evolves. That means the old ones are obsolete and when they are, we need something better. We need a religion based on science---not on 18the century secular faith or aa 19th century economic-philosophy "science" of Marxism but on real science.

charles

[AkuManiMani]

Well, that is correct, but they don't and won't always be built around "spirits." Religion evolves. That means the old ones are obsolete and when they are, we need something better. We need a religion based on science---not on 18the century secular faith or aa 19th century economic-philosophy "science" of Marxism but on real science.

charles

Really depends on what culture you're looking at. Some conditions probably favor more "woo-ish" religious beliefs than others.

[Safe-Keeper]

I can perfectly well see religion in its current form be watered out and disappear in Norway in the coming 50 years, replaced by New Age religions and modern superstitions (chakras, aura photography, the power of magic gems, channeling, fortune-telling, etc.).

Still... maybe the better science education gets, the more this, too, will disappear. Time will tell.

[Dancing David]

Until now, all religions were based on the belief in “spirits,” but the structure of religion and its ability to carry out its function and succeed has nothing to do with “spirits.” It has to do with the level of technology enabled by the religion and its ability to bond the largest number of people together into a single society and do it for a good many centuries.

The first phase of the development of religion evolved with speech and became common among hunting/gathering groups. It lasted from when anatomically modern human beings appeared some 195,000 years ago to about 40,000 years ago in the mainstream. That is some 155,000 years.

The competition between hunting gathering groups during all that time encouraged the evolution of religion to where it finally developed into its second phase.

Wow, are you sure?

What competiton occured between hunter and gatherers at such low levels of population?

Hmmmmm?

It became able to bond hunting-gathering groups together so they could go after big game in large number and, at the same time, gradually kill off or drive out the remaining hunting-gathering groups and the Neanderthals in the main stream. The hunting/gathering groups still survived in peripheral ares of the earth.



Yeah, right, any evidence that hunter gathering groups practice warfare?

Nope.

Oh, you are looking at what, HG groups that are horticultural? Or in contact with agrarian societies?

Did you make a time machine?

Warfare, as opposed to coup/raiding comes about with agriculture.

Do you know what economic theory is, do you know what genocide is?

Did the Romans extinguish the Gauls, or the Persians their neighbors?




The new, large-group, religion was based on hunting technology and was responsible for the cave paintings. That religion lasted from about 4,000 years ago to about 5,000 years ago. That is, it lasted some 35,000 years.

Wow, you sure read a lot into very little data.

No large scale religion is not the organizing influence in pre-agrarian cultures.

Family, movement on land to exploit resources is.

You are just speculating into areas that you have no evidence for.

Every indication we have from HG, horticultural and pre-agrarian groups is what?

NO ORGANIZED religion at all, shamanic groups with little political power. Small 'petty' chiefs that 'rule' at the sufferance of the population.

I call you out again, no data, no evidence.



The third and last phase began about 5,000 years ago when religion had so developed that it could bind people into huge cities, city states and even immense empires beginning in Sumer and Egypt.

Nope backwards again, religion seems to be associated with what?

The rise of agrarian societies and what else? Storage technologies.

The siting forces are
Water, food, resources and then access to trade.

Are you sure you know the difference between science and mythology?


The next phase has yet to appear, but it will unite the world into one nation.

Sorry, you are wandering around in your own mind creating structures that have little bearing on history or archaeology.

You might want to try again.

[phantomb]

The next phase end of religion has yet to appear, but it will unite the world into one nation.

I'm putting my money on this.

Edit: And by that I mean I think it would be more likely, or at least a more likely first step. I don't think that were all religion to disappear tomorrow, the world would be united into one nation.

[This Guy]

I agree with Dancing David.

I see a lot of claims, but no supporting evidence.

Care to back up your claims with some facts?

I'd be interested in seeing them!

[I Ratant]

...
Yeah, right, any evidence that hunter gathering groups practice warfare?

...
.
I've read about active but mostly ceremonial warfare in New Guinea, with much posturing and threat sharing between neighboring tribes which escalates until one or more of the warriors gets injured.
Afghanistan is notorious for the inter-valley emnity between warlords.
Sectarian dissent in Iraq isn't in a hunting-gathering society, but it sure comes across a nephew of turf warfare.

[Andronicus]

This thread reminds be of Futurama: Bender's Big Score which aired a few nights ago, the priest/minister of the First Amalgamated Church opens a wedding ceremony with "We are gathered here before one or more gods or fewer...".

Religion has been around for (at least) 6 thousand years and depending on what source you read, (at least) 75% of people call themselves religious. I don't see religion ceasing to exist in the next thousand years.

[Safe-Keeper]

Religion has been around for (at least) 6 thousand years and depending on what source you read, (at least) 75% of people call themselves religious. I don't see religion ceasing to exist in the next thousand years.Agree on that one. It'll more likely be a regional thing, in my layman eyes. The Republic of Iceland is one example of a small, close-knit population (300 000) with little religious belief. I theorize that places like this one, unless they receive significant immigration or something really bad happens, could perfectly well become faithless, save from isolated pockets of believers.

But the whole world? That is bound to take a while, methinks, and if it happens, I don't think (keep in mind I'm not an anthropologist) it'll happen through atheists 'preaching' or science education getting better. As far as I know, religion is proportional to education and income - which demonstrates, in my eyes, that the better you do, the less you need God. So in the spirit of freeing the human race of superstition, let us all hope for a better world;).

[Darth Rotor]

Are religions evolving themselves out of existence?
Not yet.
Until now, all religions were based on the belief in “spirits,” but the structure of religion and its ability to carry out its function and succeed has nothing to do with “spirits.”
Indeed, the Muslims officially don't drink. Makes getting into the spirit of Ramadan a real sumbitch.
It has to do with the level of technology enabled by the religionWTF?
The first phase of the development of religion evolved with speech and became common among hunting/gathering groups.
Ah, so speech is technology, if I grok the charlesian framework du jour.
It lasted from when anatomically modern human beings appeared some 195,000 years ago to about 40,000 years ago in the mainstream. That is some 155,000 years.
Give or take 10,000.
The competition between hunting gathering groups during all that time encouraged the evolution of religion to where it finally developed into its second phase. It became able to bond hunting-gathering groups together so they could go after big game in large number and, at the same time, gradually kill off or drive out the remaining hunting-gathering groups and the Neanderthals in the main stream. The hunting/gathering groups still survived in peripheral ares of the earth. You treat religion as a sentient being. I think that's a perceptual error, Charles. "It" is a collective activity, not a sentient being.
The new, large-group, religion was based on hunting technology and was responsible for the cave paintings. That religion lasted from about 4,000 years ago to about 5,000 years ago. That is, it lasted some 35,000 years.
Give or take 5,000 years.
The third and last phase began about 5,000 years ago when religion had so developed that it could bind people into huge cities, city states and even immense empires beginning in Sumer and Egypt.
I see, it was the chicken who came first, not the egg, and who lit the cigarette for the both of them. Thanks. Sumerian Strike, fine tobacco. Our dear Chalres, puttin' the F into WTF JREF.
The next phase has yet to appear, but it will unite the world into one nation.
You left out the middle part, Charles. Uniting the world into one nation is

Woo.

We discussed this before.

The West is declining and falling all over itself. Unless it changes its mind (oh, damnit, I am making the West into a sentient being, how easy a trap that is to fall into!) it will be overwritten by the East, which is where the momentum is swinging to. The East knows enough to not end a sentence with a preposition. See how deeply the declining and falling is perpetuating itself?

See also demography. In fifty years time, red heads will be much sought after due to their rarity. I'd buy into the red heads futures market, were I you, to ensure your great-grandchildren have some dough for college.

DR

[charles brough]

Really depends on what culture you're looking at. Some conditions probably favor more "woo-ish" religious beliefs than others.

"Cultures" are just an expression or facet of the religion that is the foundation of a society. All the old "spirit"-based religions need to be replaced. Science has become far more accurate and is needed to built a new and better one.

[charles brough]

You treat religion as a sentient being. I think that's a perceptual error, Charles. "It" is a collective activity, not a sentient being.

Mainstream "religion" is a special kind of belief system that answers a definite list of questions in (when first started) an advanced-for-the times way and which is self-consistent enough to become a closed system of thinking and appealing enough to spread, end in its own government and territory and be successful. Being all that, it is able to endure for centuries---Christendom, Islam, the Hindu world, etc. Other "religions" are, by comparison, mere cults.

And speaking just for myself, I sure wish anyone commenting would just stick to the point and not give such long quoted answering posts which make themselves seem like bickering over irrelevant points. Lets make it easy on ourselves . . .
DR[/QUOTE]:)

[charles brough]

This thread reminds be of Futurama: Bender's Big Score which aired a few nights ago, the priest/minister of the First Amalgamated Church opens a wedding ceremony with "We are gathered here before one or more gods or fewer...".

Religion has been around for (at least) 6 thousand years and depending on what source you read, (at least) 75% of people call themselves religious. I don't see religion ceasing to exist in the next thousand years.

Right on! But new ones will replace old ones and they will leave behind the old belief in "spirits."

[JoeTheJuggler]

Until now, all religions were based on the belief in “spirits,”

Quite a few Buddhists of one sort or another would strongly disagree with that premise.

Also, I think predicting the "next phase" in religion is about the same as predicting the "next phase" of human evolution.

It doesn't work that way.

[charles brough]

The Republic of Iceland is one example of a small, close-knit population (300 000) with little religious belief. I theorize that places like this one, unless they receive significant immigration or something really bad happens, could perfectly well become faithless, save from isolated pockets of believers.

But the whole world? I don't think it'll happen through atheists 'preaching' or science education getting better. As far as I know, religion is proportional to education and income - which demonstrates, in my eyes, that the better you do, the less you need God. So in the spirit of freeing the human race of superstition, let us all hope for a better world;).

Yes, let us hope.
Our education is secular, meaning it is based on a secular ideology. It has partially supplemented Christianity in Iceland. Also, the country has a cohesive population bonded by a long and interesting mythological lore.

To me, we need something for the rest of us that can replace both the old religions and as well the secular beliefs because they are not doing the job. The world is divided among them and pushing for its diminishing resources. We already got the Iraqi oil industry and most of the profits now go to international investors. We push them and they strike back. We are going to have more trouble with Marxist China down the line and there is basis for war between Hindu India and Muslim Pakistant. . .

[Mister Agenda]

Anyone here familiar with Michael Dowd? He's not making much in the way of predictions, but he is evangelizing for reformation of religion to make it more compatible with science. I think what he winds up with is a sort of pantheism with an overlay of traditional religion as metaphor. I can't help but think it would be an improvement.

[RandFan]

Until now, all religions were based on the belief in “spirits,” but the structure of religion and its ability to carry out its function and succeed has nothing to do with “spirits.” It has to do with the level of technology enabled by the religion and its ability to bond the largest number of people together into a single society and do it for a good many centuries.

The first phase of the development of religion evolved with speech and became common among hunting/gathering groups. It lasted from when anatomically modern human beings appeared some 195,000 years ago to about 40,000 years ago in the mainstream. That is some 155,000 years.

The competition between hunting gathering groups during all that time encouraged the evolution of religion to where it finally developed into its second phase. It became able to bond hunting-gathering groups together so they could go after big game in large number and, at the same time, gradually kill off or drive out the remaining hunting-gathering groups and the Neanderthals in the main stream. The hunting/gathering groups still survived in peripheral ares of the earth.

The new, large-group, religion was based on hunting technology and was responsible for the cave paintings. That religion lasted from about 4,000 years ago to about 5,000 years ago. That is, it lasted some 35,000 years.

The third and last phase began about 5,000 years ago when religion had so developed that it could bind people into huge cities, city states and even immense empires beginning in Sumer and Egypt.

The next phase has yet to appear, but it will unite the world into one nation.Charles, your ideas seem at best speculative. This is a subject that I've had some interest in and you seem to be making a number of unwarranted assumptions and commiting some causal error.

I don't mean to be rude but I think you need a lot more background of the subjects. I don't think religion, per se, enabled technology. There have been religions that have facilitated technology but your claim is a bit dicey and raises a number of questions that I think we can dispatch without a lot of debate. I would highly recomend Jared Diamonds Guns, Germs and Steel. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel) I provided the wiki link but if you are serious about this I would highly recomend the book. As an aside, I would highly recomend Napoleon Chagnon's book Yanomamo (Case Studies in Cultural Anthropology) (http://www.amazon.com/Yanomamo-Case-Studies-Cultural-Anthropology/dp/0155053272) as a great primer into the dynamics of non-western human culture (for lack of a better term. When I was at University the term often used was pre-civilized but I think that has become anachronistic).

As in the other thread, I don't mean to be rude but your conclusions seem to bear out that your understanding of anthropology is cursory at best. I know you claim that you've spent many hours in research. Perhaps you have focused on the wrong books and source material. I think you should seriously consider remedial courses in sociology and anthropology.

Please don't take this as any intent to offend. I think you have a sincere desire to understand the subject. You need to do some work however and not simply dismiss the past efforts of social anthropologists the way you did in the other thread. We really do stand on the shoulders of giants who came before us. It's perfectly fine to question held positions but your criticisms have got to be based on sound and objective study and backed up by logically valid and compelling argument.

[Safe-Keeper]

I would highly recomend Jared Diamonds Guns, Germs and Steel. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel) The PBS documentary is on Youtube for whoever is interested.

[RandFan]

The PBS documentary is on Youtube for whoever is interested. Google Video also (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4008293090480628280). Note that is only part one of three.

Peter Coyote narrates. It's really great.

[charles brough]

Anyone here familiar with Michael Dowd? He's not making much in the way of predictions, but he is evangelizing for reformation of religion to make it more compatible with science. I think what he winds up with is a sort of pantheism with an overlay of traditional religion as metaphor. I can't help but think it would be an improvement.

Oh, one can go to the Universalist Unitarian "church" (fellowship) and get the same thing. It is nice to join something no matter what your beliefs so that you feel apart of a group. We are, after all, evolved primates used to living in groups for the last few millions of years!

But a good religion needs to do a lot more than that! We need one that sets real goals for us---not just "spiritual" platitudes or nonsense. It needs to forge us into a united body of people dedicated to controlling population growth, saving the environment, overcoming racism, building a new and scientific civilization and expanding out into and colonizing the universe. It needs a better moral system also, one superior to the some 600 obsolete injunctions and orders in the Bible.

[charles brough]

Charles, your ideas seem at best speculative. This is a subject that I've had some interest in and you seem to be making a number of unwarranted assumptions and commiting some causal error.

I don't mean to be rude but I think you need a lot more background of the subjects. I don't think religion, per se, enabled technology. There have been religions that have facilitated technology but your claim is a bit dicey and raises a number of questions that I think we can dispatch without a lot of debate. I would highly recomend Jared Diamonds Guns, Germs and Steel. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel) I provided the wiki link but if you are serious about this I would highly recomend the book. As an aside, I would highly recomend Napoleon Chagnon's book Yanomamo (Case Studies in Cultural Anthropology) (http://www.amazon.com/Yanomamo-Case-Studies-Cultural-Anthropology/dp/0155053272) as a great primer into the dynamics of non-western human culture (for lack of a better term. When I was at University the term often used was pre-civilized but I think that has become anachronistic).

I would hate to say that all that is based on the assumption that I believe ALL religions are technological! Do you have any basis for claiming that the first religion was not a way to explain and pass on hunting skill and tool technology? or that the Kurgan herding way of life and technology of pre history was not based on and did not explain and carry on herding technology? or that agriculture was not explained and passed on in the form of a mother-goddess fertility religion?

The historical religions have not been one-technology oriented but multi-technology. They all had to support enough new technology to enable their societies to grew. That is part of social evolution.

As in the other thread, I don't mean to be rude but your conclusions seem to bear out that your understanding of anthropology is cursory at best. I know you claim that you've spent many hours in research. Perhaps you have focused on the wrong books and source material. I think you should seriously consider remedial courses in sociology and anthropology.

Please don't take this as any intent to offend. I think you have a sincere desire to understand the subject. You need to do some work however and not simply dismiss the past efforts of social anthropologists the way you did in the other thread. We really do stand on the shoulders of giants who came before us. It's perfectly fine to question held positions but your criticisms have got to be based on sound and objective study and backed up by logically valid and compelling argument.

As far as going back and reading more of Jared Diamond, I have read his works. In his case, a decade ago. I have been reading academic literature for many decades. I don't want to be rude either, but please do not ask me to read what you do not put into your post yourself. All we can do here is try to be logical. I am handicapped also because all that I write about is logically put in order, step by step, in my second book, something I cannot do here. But I do not just claim it as a reference and without trying to make my points as well as I can.

Also, I have read about the Yanomamo too. The effort that was made to discredit the Alpha male nature of their society is an example, to me, of how it bothers social scientists to have a tribal society so savage and based upon Alpha male nature. They like to believe all those societies are good, natural and should be "saved." That protects their field from disappearing and justifies their studying it. Myself, the tribal bywaters of human religion and society is of little interest as I deal only with the mainstream ones which are the center of social evolution.

[Mister Agenda]

Oh, one can go to the Universalist Unitarian "church" (fellowship) and get the same thing. It is nice to join something no matter what your beliefs so that you feel apart of a group. We are, after all, evolved primates used to living in groups for the last few millions of years!

But a good religion needs to do a lot more than that! We need one that sets real goals for us---not just "spiritual" platitudes or nonsense. It needs to forge us into a united body of people dedicated to controlling population growth, saving the environment, overcoming racism, building a new and scientific civilization and expanding out into and colonizing the universe. It needs a better moral system also, one superior to the some 600 obsolete injunctions and orders in the Bible.

Yes, well, maybe with a little less structure. :)

That's asking quite a lot of a religion. Do we really need to be so unified? I'd rather live in a society where everyone is free to do their own thing as long as they're not hurting anyone. Would the Universal Science Church consider me a heretic?

[Dancing David]

"Cultures" are just an expression or facet of the religion that is the foundation of a society.

More assertion without evidence. So the rest is also what?


All the old "spirit"-based religions need to be replaced. Science has become far more accurate and is needed to built a new and better one.

See, see, see, there is more of that Zoroasterian/Hellenistic, 'good/bad' sort of thinking. Science is about models that approximate the behavior of reality.

Your montheism is showing.

That and the fact that you not have demonstrated your premise that somehow social sciences are submissive to religion.

This is not bickering, it is pointing out you haven't demonstrated your main premise.

[Dancing David]

But a good religion needs to do a lot more than that! We need one that sets real goals for us---not just "spiritual" platitudes or nonsense. It needs to forge us into a united body of people dedicated to controlling population growth, saving the environment, overcoming racism, building a new and scientific civilization and expanding out into and colonizing the universe. It needs a better moral system also, one superior to the some 600 obsolete injunctions and orders in the Bible.


Wow, that is just amazing.

Why do you need religion at all?

[AkuManiMani]

"Cultures" are just an expression or facet of the religion that is the foundation of a society. All the old "spirit"-based religions need to be replaced. Science has become far more accurate and is needed to built a new and better one.

The problem is that the vast majority don't base their religious views on scientific evidence. Coherence with the scientific understandings of the day most likely has little to no selective effect on religious views. In fact, one of the defining characteristics of virtually all religions is the belief in some kind of like-after-death which requires some kind of spirit-based beliefs.

[charles brough]

Do we really need to be so unified? I'd rather live in a society where everyone is free to do their own thing as long as they're not hurting anyone.

What a people want is shaped by their belief system. What you and most everyone else in our society want is shaped by the belief system you now live in. You are one of the Secular Humanism faithful! But "everyone doing their own thing" is setting us up for ever growing problems and our secular system is not dealing well with them. This last Administration is an example! We all hope our new leader will be able to solve the medical, Afghanistan, Iran, Russian, nuclear proliferation, economic crisis, environmental, energy problems, but do you really think he will last long enough to make effective progress against them? I'll wager that the Christian militants will return and make things even worse.

charles
http://atheistic-science

[westprog]

Well, that is correct, but they don't and won't always be built around "spirits." Religion evolves. That means the old ones are obsolete and when they are, we need something better. We need a religion based on science---not on 18the century secular faith or aa 19th century economic-philosophy "science" of Marxism but on real science.

charles

If it's based on science, it won't be religion, it will be science.

[charles brough]

Wow, that is just amazing.

Why do you need religion at all?

As you surely know, we evolved as small-group primates through millions of years of evolution. When we could develop speech, we used it to build common (alpha male dominated) beliefs which evolved better by competition between hunting/gathering groups. Then, some 40,000 years ago we became crowded enough in the Old World to need to form and live in much larger groups. We were not social-instinct adaptive to that. The only way we managed to adjust to such crowding was by evolving a religion that could enable us to feel as safe and secure individual in it as our ancestors did in their small some 40 member size groups. We had evolved a type of religious system that had the ability to bond virtually unlimited numbers of us into a single society.

That is why we have always had religions and always will. Islam is the last "spirit"-based one. Secular Humanism is a sort of "bridge" or "supplement" religion that is able to superficially unite and bridge the various old religous-bonded societies together---such as Islam, Christendom, the Hindu and Marxist worlds.

charles
http://atheistic-science.com

[charles brough]

If it's based on science, it won't be religion, it will be science.

No, science seeks to provide understanding. Religion is a system of belief able to bond people in much larger groups than the small hunting-gathering size ones we evolved our social nature and to live in. Religions are answer system. They do not want you to think science and thus change them. Their benefit is that they last centuries and even tens of centuries. Since they serve the bonding function, we can explain why we have always head them and that we will always need to. It is just that when Secular Humanism has more clearly failed to supplant the old religions, that we will have to develop a new one based on science information, not "spirit" thinking.

charles
http://atheistic-science.com

[charles brough]

The problem is that the vast majority don't base their religious views on scientific evidence. Coherence with the scientific understandings of the day most likely has little to no selective effect on religious views. In fact, one of the defining characteristics of virtually all religions is the belief in some kind of like-after-death which requires some kind of spirit-based beliefs.
Religions serve a function not by whether or not they include belief in "spirits" but rather because they bond us small-group evolved primates to live in huge combinations called "nations" and "societies." Thus, East Asian Marxism is a religion too. If it serves the same function, it is a "religion." The wrongness of the dictionary definition is the result of the public not being willing to accept that religion is not "the Truth" but is merely an evolution-evolved process that enables societies to exist by binding people all up in them. Marxism, however, is a miserable religion and deserves needs to be replaced as much as the old and "spirit" based ones.

charles
http://atheistic-science.com

[charles brough]

The problem is that the vast majority don't base their religious views on scientific evidence. Coherence with the scientific understandings of the day most likely has little to no selective effect on religious views. In fact, one of the defining characteristics of virtually all religions is the belief in some kind of like-after-death which requires some kind of spirit-based beliefs.

"Religion" is the belief in such things only because our dictionaries say it is. Yet, that self serving definition keeps us from realizing that East Asian Marxism is also a religion even though it is atheistic. "Religion" is, in my work, a word that is not used. I use "world-view and way-of-thinking." Even Secular Humanism is a type of ideology. Everyone wants to believe they have "the Truth" but all we have is information that is more (or less) accurate than what we used to believe.

[charles brough]

More assertion without evidence. So the rest is also what?

See, see, see, there is more of that Zoroasterian/Hellenistic, 'good/bad' sort of thinking. Science is about models that approximate the behavior of reality.

Your montheism is showing.

That and the fact that you not have demonstrated your premise that somehow social sciences are submissive to religion.

This is not bickering, it is pointing out you haven't demonstrated your main premise.

You are really something! What is all that nonsense for? Do you really think I am a monotheist? You accuse me of all sorts of things without evidence; but complain that what I write lacks evidence.

Unless you can do better than that, why bother me, and why should I bother you? We should ignore each other. Why are you so intent on "wasting your time" in this thread?

[This Guy]

There are several ideas you present that I have problems accepting.

1. It has to do with the level of technology enabled by the religion and its ability to bond the largest number of people together into a single society and do it for a good many centuries.

Could you give some examples of religion enabled technology? Can you provide some reference that indicate it was religion, and not other social/economic factors that bound early groups together?

2. It appears to me that early humans assigned gods for that which they did not understand. This resulted in many early groups assigning Gods to the sun. Sun worship appeared in just about every inhabited area of the earth, at one time or another, since the beginning of recorded history. Other Gods were assigned to other areas of the unknown. As knowledge increased, it seems to me, the mysteries started to be replaced by knowledge, and the need for Gods to explain things lessened. Perhaps I'm wrong. I welcome references to counter this claim, which I understand to be fairly widespread. If I am correct in my assessment, it appears to me that these facts disprove the major idea of your opening post. Religion did not enable technology. Technology (knowledge) replaced religion. Of course it is not a done deal. There are still many religions. I suspect there always will be. But as our knowledge has increased, our need for religions to explain the unknown has diminished. If anything, I think it is better said that religion has hindered technology, not advanced it. It has been the most religious in the US that have pushed so hard to stop the teaching of evolution. Our increased knowledge of evolution has led to many medical advances. How much more might we have learned at this point had there not been the attempt to stop the teaching of evolution by the religious? I wonder what other advances we might have made if stem cell research had not been limited in the US, primarily on religious grounds.

3. You speak of a "Secular Humanism faithful". You also indicate that most of us live in a belief system. As an Atheist, I try to avoid faith. I do trust that the laws of nature will not suddenly cease to function. I feel pretty confident that the sun will rise in the AM (OK, of course the sun sits still and the earth rotates, but you know what I mean, I think ;). I give little thought to the possibility that I will hop out of bed, only to find that the laws of gravity have been repealed, and I will find myself flying up to the ceiling. I don't consider it faith that keeps me from worrying about this, it is simply an understanding of the basics of gravity. There is not much, if any, faith in my normal dealings with the world around me. There is a lot of expecting things that I understand to work on certain principles to continue to work that way, barring any major changes to the earth, and the physical laws that things work under. I suspect many, if not most, Atheist live their lives without faith, or a "belief system", but expect the natural laws to continue to function. I don't see this as a "belief system". To me, a belief system implies belief in things that can not be explained by natural events.

I'm pretty sure I can find some references to back up my major claims, if you need them. I again ask that you provide some evidence to support your claims.

ETA: On the assumption that your book deals with your major claims, is it not possible to copy/paste some of the references from it's bibliography to provide some references for your claims?

[charles brough]

There are several ideas you present that I have problems accepting.

1. Could you give some examples of religion enabled technology? Can you provide some reference that indicate it was religion, and not other social/economic factors that bound early groups together?

The technology religions were in prehistory and dealing with it involves a wealth of clues only. From the many clues I am only able to Postulate:

The first mainstream religion that enabled humans to live in groups much larger than the hunting/gathering size groups they evolved in was based beginning some 40,000 years ago on a hunting and weapon making technology. I postulate that their religion gave "spirit" reasons why certain rocks and wood were better for making certain tools and hunting weapons. We always need to explain thing and "spirits" served that function then. Once they accepted the "spirit" concept, they from then on dealt with it logically and practically---as we always have and do to this day.

Agriculture was probably based on the mother goddess religion which served to provide them with a reason why seeds had to be planted at a certain depth. If they did not, She "punished" them with a low harvest.

The technology of these and the Kurgan herding system spread as religions.

2. It appears to me that early humans assigned gods for that which they did not understand. This resulted in many early groups assigning Gods to the sun. Sun worship appeared in just about every inhabited area of the earth, at one time or another, since the beginning of recorded history. Other Gods were assigned to other areas of the unknown. As knowledge increased, it seems to me, the mysteries started to be replaced by knowledge, and the need for Gods to explain things lessened.

I agree with this entirely. The historical mainstream societies were not based upon a specific technology as were the prehistory ones. The civilization-type societies beginning about 5,000 years ago were doctrinally shaped to enable technological growth in many directions. It is only when science and technology outgrow the old religion that the system (the society) begins to all break down.

3. You speak of a "Secular Humanism faithful". You also indicate that most of us live in a belief system. As an Atheist, I try to avoid faith.

I do too! But Secular Humanism is a faith. It is not even science, and you speak of science as though it had laws and was facts---that it is "the Truth." It is all theory that is more accurate than anything we used to believe in. That is why science has and always will be with us; we must forever improve its accuracy but will never find "absolute Truth" and, hence, know everything!

I would love to load you up with citations, but in the book they are listed alphabetically. Besides, the whole book is social theory. It is putting together a faithless, totally non-"spirit" based scientific approach to the reinterpreting of some twelve different social and natural sciences and explaining social evolution (such as why civilizations rise and fall).

Once anyone accepts the simple logic that we did evolved through millions of years as a small group primate, the rest follows. We have religions because we are social instinct-evolved to be subliminally stressful and hostile if placed in a larger group unless we have a common, language-based belief system to bind us into it. The stress shows up in social and health problems and the hostility in rising crime rates and going to war.

[AkuManiMani]

The problem is that the vast majority don't base their religious views on scientific evidence. Coherence with the scientific understandings of the day most likely has little to no selective effect on religious views. In fact, one of the defining characteristics of virtually all religions is the belief in some kind of life-after-death which requires some kind of spirit-based beliefs.

"Religion" is the belief in such things only because our dictionaries say it is. Yet, that self serving definition keeps us from realizing that East Asian Marxism is also a religion even though it is atheistic. "Religion" is, in my work, a word that is not used. I use "world-view and way-of-thinking." Even Secular Humanism is a type of ideology. Everyone wants to believe they have "the Truth" but all we have is information that is more (or less) accurate than what we used to believe.

Hmm.. well I would argue that religions could be consider a category of ideology and that strains of Marxism have overlap with religions fundamentalism in being dogmatic ideologies.

Oh, and if you don't mind my ask, what field do you work in? :)

[This Guy]

So you are saying that your' some what radical ideas on early religion are just postulations on your part, and you either don't have the references you base these postulations on in an easily transferable format, or you are not familiar enough with them to be able to pick a few out to lend credence to your postulations? Is that a valid assumption on my part?

Since your major ideas deal only with pre-historical times, really any references you have would be "best guess" information limited to the knowledge that can be gained by examination of the physical relics we have managed to find I suppose.

Someone else suggested you read Guns, Germs, and Steel. I also recommend it. There has been an amazing amount of evidence accumulated via genetic studies performed on plant and seed remains found in pre-historic digs. This along with other accumulated evidence indicates that factors other than religion had the largest amount of influence on the formation of early towns/cities....

I don't know your educational back ground. I would bet it far surpasses mine, so I will not attempt to say your simply wrong. I don't know. However, there are other explanations available for the things your ascribe to early religions. From the research I've done, I find your explanations lacking in evidence and believability.

I do not consider myself a "Secular Humanist". Actually, I've never read the definition of the term, and have only a vague idea what it even means. But I don't think I'm one ;). I'm just a guy that does not believe in any gods. The only things I have faith in, is that nature will, by and large, continue to do those things that nature does. Again, I don't really consider it a matter of faith. It's more an expectation that minus any radical changes to my environment the known laws of nature will continue to work as they always have.

I do speak of laws and facts. I'll give ya $50 US to hop off the nearest 1000 foot cliff or so, and defy the laws of gravity (with nothing but a set of standard shirt/pants/socks/shoes on)! I do understand the limits of our current knowledge (for those areas that I have an interest in). Science is simply the best explanation we have for why things do what they do under the conditions we have tested or observed them in. However, for me and those things I'm likely to do, and places I'm likely to go, I think the accepted laws of nature will likely hold true. Should I be offered a ride in a dimensional travel machine, or a fast trip through a worm hole, I suspect these known laws may break down. I'll worry about that when the time comes :).

I have no problems with "Social Theories". Many of us have ideas about the nature of "some things" that we can not prove, and that may be ideas that defy the accepted or prevailing theories. The thread started with statements that appeared to be factual statements. I think if you had said "It is my learned opinion that...." I don't think you would have met the objections you have. Hell, I believe JC intended to get the Jews to practice the laws of Moses from the heart rather than from the word, and he couldn't have cared less for the gentiles. But, that's an opinion. I do have a few bits of bible to back it up, but there are also some that dispute it. But you won't find me claiming this as a fact (unless I am able to find explanations for the disputing verses, and more support than I have gathered so far:)).

Anyway, Now that we have cleared up the fact/theory issue, I'll sit back and consider what you have to say. I'd still like to see some kind of evidence though, and I don't think a Secular, science based religion will ever replace the belief in the invisible sky daddy, and I can't really see why we would want such a "religion" anyway.

[charles brough]

Hmm.. well I would argue that religions could be consider a category of ideology and that strains of Marxism have overlap with religions fundamentalism in being dogmatic ideologies.

Oh, and if you don't mind my ask, what field do you work in? :)

Yes, a society-binding ideology . . . including defective Marxism. I never specialized in any social science but did all my study and research on them outside of the good-old-boy academic fraternity in order to keep my objectivity.

I had to periodically strip myself of the stilted, academic obscutative style of writing as you cannot help but pick it up as you go. It is their badge of prestige---like that held by Confucian scholars a century ago. I have had all sorts of careers and a marriage that enabled me to do a lot of travel, live abroad, and work on my research at the same time.

I got so used to their writing that I was able to collect almost two dozen of their word-use stratagems which enabled them to seem objective while they were rationalizing.

[AkuManiMani]

Yes, a society-binding ideology . . . including defective Marxism. I never specialized in any social science but did all my study and research on them outside of the good-old-boy academic fraternity in order to keep my objectivity.

I had to periodically strip myself of the stilted, academic obscutative style of writing as you cannot help but pick it up as you go. It is their badge of prestige---like that held by Confucian scholars a century ago. I have had all sorts of careers and a marriage that enabled me to do a lot of travel, live abroad, and work on my research at the same time.

I got so used to their writing that I was able to collect almost two dozen of their word-use stratagems which enabled them to seem objective while they were rationalizing.

Yea, I've gotten the same impression myself. As an intellectual pursuit, the social sciences are laudable but the field, as it is currently, seems to lack some objective grounding.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

What a people want is shaped by their belief system. What you and most everyone else in our society want is shaped by the belief system you now live in.

What do you mean by the "belief system now live in" ? If you mean my own belief system, then yes of course. but at the same time I don't want to impose my belief system onto anyone else, and I don't want anyuone else to impose their belief system onto me.

I'm with Mister Agenda when he says: [I]"Do we really need to be so unified? I'd rather live in a society where everyone is free to do their own thing as long as they're not hurting anyone."

People don't need religion. Some want it and AFAIC are free to indulge themselves in it. I don't have a religion and do not want one.

[Dancing David]

You are really something! What is all that nonsense for? Do you really think I am a monotheist? You accuse me of all sorts of things without evidence; but complain that what I write lacks evidence.

Well so far you have yet to demonstrate anything that you say is true, that either social sciences are subverted to relion and that religion is the predominant organizing structure of society.

As to being a monthiest. i said that monthiesm pervades the way many people structure their thoughts and beliefs in that they feel there is 'one right way'.

In the following quote you displayed many of those qualities:

Posted by CB
But a good religion needs to do a lot more than that! We need one that sets real goals for us---not just "spiritual" platitudes or nonsense. It needs to forge us into a united body of people dedicated to controlling population growth, saving the environment, overcoming racism, building a new and scientific civilization and expanding out into and colonizing the universe. It needs a better moral system also, one superior to the some 600 obsolete injunctions and orders in the Bible.


You display fanaticism along with a lack of understanding of religion and it's role in society.
I am not saying the religion is good in all cases, nor that it is bad in all cases. You seem to want to have things your way without regard for diversity and freedom. Such 'religion' as you propose is just as dangerous as backwards racist ideology. yes it might possibly be a source of good but it coukld also be crushing to all humanity in the extreme.

That is my point, you want to replace fanatic beliefs in religion with your beliefs in your religion.

The point is that you don't need religion to transform society, you can do it beside religion.


Unless you can do better than that, why bother me, and why should I bother you? We should ignore each other. Why are you so intent on "wasting your time" in this thread?

Did i say 'wasting my time'?

You still have yet to show that religion is the dominant force in society, you have yet to show that social science are subverted to religion.

Please continue, i will continue to call you on your assertions without evidence.

When and how will you demonstrate that religion is the dominant shaper of culture and society, rather than a reflection of society.

Have you done that yet?

Have you shown that social sciences are subverted by religion?

Have you done that yet?

[Dancing David]

I would hate to say that all that is based on the assumption that I believe ALL religions are technological! Do you have any basis for claiming that the first religion was not a way to explain and pass on hunting skill and tool technology? or that the Kurgan herding way of life and technology of pre history was not based on and did not explain and carry on herding technology? or that agriculture was not explained and passed on in the form of a mother-goddess fertility religion?

How do you know that is was?

You haven't demonstrated that any current form of religion teaches technology, have you?

So in your mind space , yes. Evidence?

Was fertility worship part of making plows and fokken sticks, how about horticulture?


The historical religions have not been one-technology oriented but multi-technology. They all had to support enough new technology to enable their societies to grew. That is part of social evolution.

As in the other thread, I don't mean to be rude but your conclusions seem to bear out that your understanding of anthropology is cursory at best. I know you claim that you've spent many hours in research. Perhaps you have focused on the wrong books and source material. I think you should seriously consider remedial courses in sociology and anthropology.

Right, you who never quote anything to substantiate a single claim, now tell someone else to do what you should have , right?

Please don't take this as any intent to offend. I think you have a sincere desire to understand the subject. You need to do some work however and not simply dismiss the past efforts of social anthropologists the way you did in the other thread.

Why was their work valid of more mind space stuff? The caves in France show nothing about religion. Did you know that? They show that people drew pictures of things, unlike the mother figures any conclusions drawn are just extremely tentative, as opposed to the mother figures which are mostly tentative. they could be commemorative, they could be initiatory, they could be sympathetic magic. guess what, we don't know.
And like cave bear worship they may be flat out wrong, there was no 'cave bear alter', just as there were probably no burial with marijuana.

We really do stand on the shoulders of giants who came before us. It's perfectly fine to question held positions but your criticisms have got to be based on sound and objective study and backed up by logically valid and compelling argument.

None of which you have provided.
Some giants were wrong especially the interpretive speculations of Claude Levi-Strauss. It is a great way to try to understand the meanings conveyed in the metaphors of myth and society. But he also goes way past that.

Did you know the Magdelenian revolution is most likely the result of preservation and not real?


As far as going back and reading more of Jared Diamond, I have read his works. In his case, a decade ago. I have been reading academic literature for many decades. I don't want to be rude either, but please do not ask me to read what you do not put into your post yourself. All we can do here is try to be logical. I am handicapped also because all that I write about is logically put in order, step by step, in my second book, something I cannot do here. But I do not just claim it as a reference and without trying to make my points as well as I can.

Also, I have read about the Yanomamo too. The effort that was made to discredit the Alpha male nature of their society is an example, to me, of how it bothers social scientists to have a tribal society so savage and based upon Alpha male nature.

Unquoted social scientists, most anthro boffos I know find the book to be a travelouge with little inherent material in it. The Yanomamo are perceieved to be that way by the author. But much of it is his interpretation. They are no time and motion studies to interpret the economic investment in raiding vs. other thinsg. And so they are hard to compare to anything else. It is often a travelouge in many respects.
The author also excludes women from most of his study, so it is not balanced.

They like to believe all those societies are good, natural and should be "saved." That protects their field from disappearing and justifies their studying it. Myself, the tribal bywaters of human religion and society is of little interest as I deal only with the mainstream ones which are the center of social evolution.

Another imaginary concept, social evolution, do you mean what, transmission of technology?

[charles brough]

This seems to be the only thread I started that is persisting right through
Christmas!

In responding to several posts, I postulated the nature of prehistory religions because it is the general scientific consensus the there were prehistory religions. I am supposed to provide evidence that there was no hunting religion or agricultural faith. Is that because, according to you, they had no religion at all? or that it had nothing to do with hunting or agriculture? Then, if the did, do you question me because you know what they did, instead, believe in?

It is generally recognized by anthropologists and other social scientists that religions go back probably as long as we have had speech. I do not dispute that because the old religions served a function. Some of you claim you have no "religion" but you do have an ideology. All of you. You believe in Secular Humanism, a modern add-on ideology that now supplement the old religions all over the world.

What is Secular Humanism? It is comprised of the belief in "democracy," capitalism, rights, freedoms, etc. It is also made up of the current theories in science. In other words, it is theories and ideals. Perhaps you believe it is all "Truth" and that it will be the world view and way of thinking for mankind forever. Or perhaps you recognize that just as it came, so it will eventually go. Human progress is measured in the change of beliefs.

You seem to say you do not have common beliefs. Yet you all believe in Secular Humanism. Like all belief systems, it is a closed way of thinking. No matter where I jab it, there is a pat answer or response. Each ideal is a bias that protects the others. It is a paridygm all its own.

If you really want to deal with this, I wish all or any of you would be so kind as concentrate on this:

You all know the scientific consensus is that we evolved through millions of years as small group primates. Is that so? Alright, doesn't that mean that we are instinctively programmed by our biological evolution to fit into small groups? . . . such as we find in church, or a motorcycle gang, in a classroom or an orchestra, or even in a squad and platoon? We also find it in football, baseball, soccer and other teams. They all chase leather encased balls as a "game"---as if they were hunting teams. Or, in the case of the military squad, a war party.

These teams are competitive with other teams or groups because we identify with "our" side. If we do not feel we can be part of a group, we feel isolated, abandoned, lonely, and suffer a lot of stress.

So, just what would it be like if we had no religions and, now, a supplemental ideology, Secular Humanism, to enable us to form larger groups? It is hard to imagine because it has never happened before. It would not be possible to form governments or corporations. We would be isolated into small war-lord controlled groups or manors.

I am accused of providing no evidence. I, instead, accuse you, Dancing David, of not knowing your social science data. If you did, you would know that everyone I post is consistent with it. All I do is interpret it differently, objectively. I re-interpret it. That is why it is so strange to you.

You do not know that the consensus is that religion goes back tens of thousands of years? Just because I am an atheist does not mean I have to claim we haven't had religion all along and hence that we don't need it! It has to serve a function to be always with us. What is important is being rational and trying to find out WHY religion has always been with us and still is even now. Not only that, but is getting more militant and dangerous in places like Iran, the US, Pakistan, even in India---most of it all because of terrorism. Modern secularism is showing an inability to deal effectively with it. So, we need something that will.

Right now, the pressure is off and Obama is set to solve our problems. The real problem is that there are too many problems. Many have become unsolvable. The religious fanaticism in the US will return.

[This Guy]

You opening statement did not declare the age of religion. I'm not sure that anyone here has claimed that religion is not almost as old as humans. Your opening statement was (in part)

Until now, all religions were based on the belief in “spirits,” but the structure of religion and its ability to carry out its function and succeed has nothing to do with “spirits.” It has to do with the level of technology enabled by the religion and its ability to bond the largest number of people together into a single society and do it for a good many centuries.

For my part, I question the bolded part of your opening statement, but as you are making a "postulation", and not a statement of fact, it's all cool with me. I also question the italicized section of your OP. I believe there is fairly good evidence that other factors played a larger role in the formation of early communities than religions did.

If you wish to convince me of the validity of your postulations, it will have to be supported by evidence that explains your postulation better than, say, Diamond's evidence explains his theories. While you appear to discount Diamond's theories, he does offer evidence to back his theories up. You offer no evidence that I have seen. Generally the best explanation for a given event is the one that best explains the evidence.

There is evidence that early societies formed first as hunter gatherers, then, where the conditions were conducive, formed larger agriculture based societies which were able to support the inventors and writers and what have you. This in turn led to advances in technology. While no doubt religions were also present there is little, if any, evidence to support that it was more a function of religion than it was the changes made available via agriculture and pure geographic luck and the availability of animals that could be domesticated, and used to assist the members of those societies.

So, IMHO, the bottom line is that there is an opposing theory to your postulations. The opposing theory not only has evidence, but appears to explain the evidence. Until you can explain the available evidence better then the opposing theory, I'm afraid I will not put much stock in your ideas.

So, feel free to express your ideas! But, don't expect them to be believed unless you offer some evidence to support them.

[This Guy]

In your last post, charles brough, you said You do not know that the consensus is that religion goes back tens of thousands of years? Just because I am an atheist does not mean I have to claim we haven't had religion all along and hence that we don't need it! It has to serve a function to be always with us. What is important is being rational and trying to find out WHY religion has always been with us and still is even now. Not only that, but is getting more militant and dangerous in places like Iran, the US, Pakistan, even in India---most of it all because of terrorism. Modern secularism is showing an inability to deal effectively with it. So, we need something that will.

I'm ignoring the bolded portion.

As for the rest: IMHO, religion has always served one or more functions, and will likely always serve one of these. First, it offers an explanation for the unknown. "God did it". As we have advanced our knowledge the need for this answer has diminished. There is much less that needs this explanation now then there was 50,000 years ago.

Second, religion offers a hope for the "here after". Our bodies may die, but our souls will live on, in the glory of our invisible sky daddy. This function will, I suspect always be attractive to those that can not, or will not except the possibility that there will come a day when our bodily functions will cease, and we will, for all intents and purposes cease to be.

I suspect that there are explanations for the more militant religious folks out there. Some possibilities - As science has stripped away much of the need for the "God did it" answer, some feel their religion is being threatened, and for some their religion is a major part of their lives. Seeing the facts that dispute their religious world, and the tenets of their religion being ignored via abortion, and the teaching of evolution, and who knows what other imagined wrongs, they feel they have to stand up and fight for those beliefs to protect them. Of course this applies mostly to the US brand of militant religious. There are also religious militants in other areas of the world as we all know.

Could it be that in the lands were the local customs and religions have been ignored, and lands conquered, or resources removed by foreigners, there has been a build up of hatred and resentment? Could it be that if there is a religion that is both popular, and also offers a message that can be viewed to support physical opposition to the forces that would plunder and rape your lands, that this religion would become a common attractor of the oppressed and conquered?

In case it's not obvious, I worded the last bit as a modern Muslim might view things, not as I might.

Anyway, I don't see why some "enabling of technology", for which I see no evidence, offers a better reason for religion than the ones I have suggested.

[Dancing David]

This seems to be the only thread I started that is persisting right through
Christmas!

In responding to several posts, I postulated the nature of prehistory religions because it is the general scientific consensus the there were prehistory religions. I am supposed to provide evidence that there was no hunting religion or agricultural faith. Is that because, according to you, they had no religion at all? or that it had nothing to do with hunting or agriculture? Then, if the did, do you question me because you know what they did, instead, believe in?

I have not disputed the existance of religion, so that is shifting the goals posts. I will look for the specific quotes you made this evening, but that was not the assumptions that you made without basis.

So try again. The role that religion had /has with agriculture is what i am questioning.

You said that religion was the dominant organizing principle. I say families, economics are stronger organizing principles.



It is generally recognized by anthropologists and other social scientists that religions go back probably as long as we have had speech. I do not dispute that because the old religions served a function. Some of you claim you have no "religion" but you do have an ideology. All of you. You believe in Secular Humanism, a modern add-on ideology that now supplement the old religions all over the world.

Red Herring, and often debated here, sidetracking.


What is Secular Humanism? It is comprised of the belief in "democracy," capitalism, rights, freedoms, etc. It is also made up of the current theories in science. In other words, it is theories and ideals. Perhaps you believe it is all "Truth" and that it will be the world view and way of thinking for mankind forever. Or perhaps you recognize that just as it came, so it will eventually go. Human progress is measured in the change of beliefs.

You seem to say you do not have common beliefs.

More assertion without evidence.

Yet you all believe in Secular Humanism. Like all belief systems, it is a closed way of thinking. No matter where I jab it, there is a pat answer or response. Each ideal is a bias that protects the others. It is a paridygm all its own.

I am a pagan buddhist nihilist myself.


If you really want to deal with this, I wish all or any of you would be so kind as concentrate on this:

You all know the scientific consensus is that we evolved through millions of years as small group primates. Is that so?

Most likely. Size of groups is usually related to exploitation of resources.

Alright, doesn't that mean that we are instinctively programmed by our biological evolution to fit into small groups?

Sort of, depends on which traits you want to say have a biological basis.

. . . such as we find in church, or a motorcycle gang, in a classroom or an orchestra, or even in a squad and platoon?

How much is biological and how much is the tremendous amount of learning after the fact?

We also find it in football, baseball, soccer and other teams. They all chase leather encased balls as a "game"---as if they were hunting teams. Or, in the case of the military squad, a war party.

That doesn't mean it is part of natural selection through reproductive success, some likelihood but not really a good way to explain it. Sort of like the 'we evolved intelligence' vs. 'we evolved narrow pelvises which led to increased brain development'.


These teams are competitive with other teams or groups because we identify with "our" side. If we do not feel we can be part of a group, we feel isolated, abandoned, lonely, and suffer a lot of stress.

So, just what would it be like if we had no religions and, now, a supplemental ideology, Secular Humanism, to enable us to form larger groups? It is hard to imagine because it has never happened before. It would not be possible to form governments or corporations. We would be isolated into small war-lord controlled groups or manors.

So you are new to these debates, aren't you. I will not analyze this statement further. As stated i will go through this this evening and come up with a list of your unsupported assertions.

You are making new ones in this posts as well.


I am accused of providing no evidence. I, instead, accuse you, Dancing David, of not knowing your social science data. If you did, you would know that everyone I post is consistent with it. All I do is interpret it differently, objectively. I re-interpret it. That is why it is so strange to you.

Nope, you still haven't shown your evidence, sorry try giving examples other than just vague allusions and metaphors.


It is strange to me because you don't seem to know how to support your statements. You are now engaging in what is commonly called 'arm waving'.

It doesn't realy help your case.

here is an example of something you can think about:

In hunter gatherer societies there is a form of operational egalitarianism, items of wealth seem to be passed around by the members of the society. Certain status marks are usually associated with specific individual acts, but the items of high value are traded around rather frequently. This seems to be a possible way of increasing social bonding and decreasing possible friction.

From history there seems to be a ;leader by consensus' in these societies as well, they are marked by long, long discussions on any decisions that involve the group and all members are allowed to participate in the decision. leaders are often 'petty cheifs' they are members who rule by consensus of the population and they have very marked , limited and specific roles as leaders.

Sometimes they have to undergo ritual torture or other acts to show their commitment to the group prior to the assumption of the role.

This is in marker contrast to societies with higher levels of resources.

Now , later we can discuss the roles of shamans and healers in that society. Also how is most information preserved and transmitted. What organizing role does the religion play in that society

In general family groups and ancestral lineages are very important.


You do not know that the consensus is that religion goes back tens of thousands of years?

Arm waving and shifting the goal post.

Just because I am an atheist does not mean I have to claim we haven't had religion all along and hence that we don't need it!

having it and needing it are two seperate issues, neither of which I commented on.

It has to serve a function to be always with us.

Not really, it might but that does not mean it does.

What is important is being rational and trying to find out WHY religion has always been with us and still is even now. Not only that, but is getting more militant and dangerous in places like Iran, the US, Pakistan, even in India---most of it all because of terrorism. Modern secularism is showing an inability to deal effectively with it. So, we need something that will.

way off track and yet further unsupported conclusions. What roles does politics have in those situations?



Right now, the pressure is off and Obama is set to solve our problems. The real problem is that there are too many problems. Many have become unsolvable. The religious fanaticism in the US will return.

It has never left, duh.

Equal amounts fanatics and keep it away from me in the US.

You seem to be roaming far and wide here.

And not really saying anything to defend your original statements.

[charles brough]

DANCING DAVID & the GUY:

You seem to have the impression that I need to provide you with data that proves what I have been writing. Actually, the way I have interpreted the data stands. If you can find any specific social science data that contradicts any of the theory I put down here, I would be delighted to know about it. But I am under no obligation to supply you with all the data of the some twelve social and natural sciences involved so you can judge if the way I re-interpret the consensus social theoriy contradicts any of it!

But I have been remiss on one point: I have not used the word "religion" as you folks do. In my work, had to develop a glossary because so many social science terms are defined in deceptive ways. The best example is "religion." In my work, I really do not use the term because it only describes OLD religions and not its function. I use "world-view and way-of-thinking" or WV for short. The evolutionary function of WV systems is that of binding people into larger groups than the small, hunting-gathering sized groups they evolved in through millions of years of evolution.

[charles brough]

What do you mean by the "belief system now live in" ? If you mean my own belief system, then yes of course. but at the same time I don't want to impose my belief system onto anyone else, and I don't want anyuone else to impose their belief system onto me.

I'm with Mister Agenda when he says: [I]"Do we really need to be so unified? I'd rather live in a society where everyone is free to do their own thing as long as they're not hurting anyone."

People don't need religion. Some want it and AFAIC are free to indulge themselves in it. I don't have a religion and do not want one.
Well certainly we all have a belief system. I call it a "world-view." The old ones are popularly called "religions." Even Free Thinkers have a world view now. Its called "Secular Humanism." That is your belief system. You are unaware of it because you think of it as "the Truth," but it is, instead, a group of ideals and what has been called "glittering generalities." You believe in them as well as most everyone else. Even those who are militant believers of the old faiths believe them somewhat. The two ideologies have been sort of patched together even tho they are totally inconsistent. And as a result of this common belief, you are free to do what you want, but what you want is determined by the general belief system.

[This Guy]

DANCING DAVID & the GUY:

You seem to have the impression that I need to provide you with data that proves what I have been writing. Actually, the way I have interpreted the data stands. If you can find any specific social science data that contradicts any of the theory I put down here, I would be delighted to know about it. But I am under no obligation to supply you with all the data of the some twelve social and natural sciences involved so you can judge if the way I re-interpret the consensus social theoriy contradicts any of it!

But I have been remiss on one point: I have not used the word "religion" as you folks do. In my work, had to develop a glossary because so many social science terms are defined in deceptive ways. The best example is "religion." In my work, I really do not use the term because it only describes OLD religions and not its function. I use "world-view and way-of-thinking" or WV for short. The evolutionary function of WV systems is that of binding people into larger groups than the small, hunting-gathering sized groups they evolved in through millions of years of evolution.

You don't find it strange that everyone uses our common language wrong, but you?

Interesting "world view" you have. :)

You are of course correct. You have no obligation to provide anything to back up what you say. Luckily, at the same time no one has any obligation to pay your ramblings any attention.

I contend that there is an opposing theory for what you try to explain. I contend the other theory fits nicely with the evidence.

You on the other hand offer no evidence.

Which do you think a reasonable person would lean toward?

Normal protocol would be that the person(s) offering a radical new view on a subject would offer evidence to support the new view. Obviously that is an old "world view", and doesn't apply in your world.

You don't have to answer. Just thinking out loud here.

I wish you luck in your writing.

Until you decide to offer something more than your words to back up this idea, I'll try to stay a silent observer of this thread. No promises though ;)

[Dancing David]

DANCING DAVID & the GUY:

You seem to have the impression that I need to provide you with data that proves what I have been writing.

Well CB, that is the way it works.

If you made the statements "Social science does not take a stance on the existance of Bigfoot." Then it is up to you to defend your claim.

Actually, the way I have interpreted the data stands.

Which data have you interpreted to show that Hunter Gatherers engage in lethal warfare with the goal of driving out other groups?

If you can find any specific social science data that contradicts any of the theory I put down here, I would be delighted to know about it. But I am under no obligation to supply you with all the data of the some twelve social and natural sciences involved so you can judge if the way I re-interpret the consensus social theoriy contradicts any of it!

Wow are you some sort of what? This is not religion we engage here in the JREF, this is a sceptics forum, you have made a claim. the burden is on you.

That is not the way science works at all.

The burden of proof is on you, the one making the claim.

I have stated repeatedly that family structure is the dominant social organizer in HG societies, there is a lot of data to support that.

Economics effects the transactions and living locations and migration patterns after that.

So you have aid that religion organizes HG societies and drives their technology, no data yet from you.



But I have been remiss on one point: I have not used the word "religion" as you folks do. In my work, had to develop a glossary because so many social science terms are defined in deceptive ways. The best example is "religion." In my work, I really do not use the term because it only describes OLD religions and not its function. I use "world-view and way-of-thinking" or WV for short. The evolutionary function of WV systems is that of binding people into larger groups than the small, hunting-gathering sized groups they evolved in through millions of years of evolution.

Nope you are about to relegate yourself to the dusbtbin here CB, so far you might as well be promoting yet again some or another whacky idea that they all refuse to defend.

You made the claim, if you don't want to be numbered amongst those who pretend they have disproved relativity (they are the higher class sort of woo troll around here), but refuse to share their rationale , it is time for you to pony up.


So far i have acted as though you are not a woo troll, and I am still doing so, however, the first sign of woo is this:

1. I don't have to defend my statements, you have to disprove them.

[Dancing David]

From the OP

Until now, all religions were based on the belief in “spirits,” but the structure of religion and its ability to carry out its function and succeed has nothing to do with “spirits.” It has to do with the level of technology enabled by the religion and its ability to bond the largest number of people together into a single society and do it for a good many centuries.


-Buddhism is not based upon a belief in spirits.
-You have not demonstrated that technology is enabled by religion.


It became able to bond hunting-gathering groups together so they could go after big game in large number and, at the same time, gradually kill off or drive out the remaining hunting-gathering groups and the Neanderthals in the main stream.

-You have not shown that hunter gatherers have to have religion to bond to hunt large game.
-You have not shown that they kill or drive off other HG groups

So hey Charles, why don’t you start with those okay, simple steps for you to do.

You do know how science works don’t you?

[charles brough]

I am dismayed that you folks go to such length making such long and involved posts filled with what you do fill it with! Why? I look at some of the stuff and wonder what I'm doing here!

take the statement that Buddhism doesn't believe in "spirits." I never stated it does, but of course, it really does. You never take what I say literally but insist on reading into it what you like. Buddha was a secular phenomena but his "way" was turned into a religion. It was corrupted by religious reaction---such as has and continues to happen to Secular Humanism.

I was once in the Temple of the Jade Buddha in Thailand and our friend even invited my wife "to give her troubles to Buddha." Don't YOU think she figured Buddha as a "spirit"? You both typically make statements contrary to evidence.

Here is from the Wikapedia:
""The Supernatural in Buddhism

While Buddhism does not deny the existence of supernatural beings (e.g., the devas, of which many are discussed in Buddhist scripture), it does not ascribe powers, in the typical Western sense, for creation, salvation or judgement, to the "gods". They are regarded as having the power to affect worldly events in much the same way as humans and animals have the power to do so. Just as humans can affect the world more than animals, devas can affect the world more than humans. While gods may be more powerful than humans, none of them are absolute (unsurpassed). According to the Pali Canon they have powers to affect only so far as their realm of control allows them. Gods, like humans, are also suffering in samsara, the ongoing cycle of death and subsequent rebirth. In this sense therefore, they are probably no wiser than humans. A dialogue between the king Pasenadi Kosala, his general Vidudabha and the historical Buddha reveals a lot about the relatively weaker position of gods in Buddhism[2].

The Pali Canon also attributes supernatural powers to enlightened beings (Buddhas), that even gods may not have. In a dialogue between king Ajatasattu and the Buddha, enlightened beings are ascribed supranormal powers (like human flight, walking on water etc.), clairaudience, mind reading, recollection of past lives of oneself and others. Yet, according to the Buddha, an enlightened person realizes the futility of these powers and instead unbinds himself completely from samsara through discernment.""

[This Guy]

I am dismayed that you folks go to such length making such long and involved posts filled with what you do fill it with! Why? I look at some of the stuff and wonder what I'm doing here!

take the statement that Buddhism doesn't believe in "spirits." I never stated it does, but of course, it really does. You never take what I say literally but insist on reading into it what you like. Buddha was a secular phenomena but his "way" was turned into a religion. It was corrupted by religious reaction---such as has and continues to happen to Secular Humanism.

I was once in the Temple of the Jade Buddha in Thailand and our friend even invited my wife "to give her troubles to Buddha." Don't YOU think she figured Buddha as a "spirit"? You both typically make statements contrary to evidence.
Here is from the Wikapedia:
""The Supernatural in Buddhism

While Buddhism does not deny the existence of supernatural beings (e.g., the devas, of which many are discussed in Buddhist scripture), it does not ascribe powers, in the typical Western sense, for creation, salvation or judgement, to the "gods". They are regarded as having the power to affect worldly events in much the same way as humans and animals have the power to do so. Just as humans can affect the world more than animals, devas can affect the world more than humans. While gods may be more powerful than humans, none of them are absolute (unsurpassed). According to the Pali Canon they have powers to affect only so far as their realm of control allows them. Gods, like humans, are also suffering in samsara, the ongoing cycle of death and subsequent rebirth. In this sense therefore, they are probably no wiser than humans. A dialogue between the king Pasenadi Kosala, his general Vidudabha and the historical Buddha reveals a lot about the relatively weaker position of gods in Buddhism[2].

The Pali Canon also attributes supernatural powers to enlightened beings (Buddhas), that even gods may not have. In a dialogue between king Ajatasattu and the Buddha, enlightened beings are ascribed supranormal powers (like human flight, walking on water etc.), clairaudience, mind reading, recollection of past lives of oneself and others. Yet, according to the Buddha, an enlightened person realizes the futility of these powers and instead unbinds himself completely from samsara through discernment.""

First, this may in fact be the first time I have ever typed the word Buddha, or anything that uses it as a root. Buddhism is just another religion as far as I'm concerned. May have some powers of explanation for things that people have done, or will do, but has no relevance to my life, that I can see.

Second, That was interesting, but I'm not sure what it has to do with your postulations about religions being the force behind technological advancement and the formation of groups.

Third, Please quote my statement(s) that are contrary to evidence.

Forth, need I mention your lack of evidence yet again?

Fifth, I didn't promise to stay quite! ;)

[Dancing David]

I am dismayed that you folks go to such length making such long and involved posts filled with what you do fill it with! Why? I look at some of the stuff and wonder what I'm doing here!

take the statement that Buddhism doesn't believe in "spirits." I never stated it does, but of course, it really does. You never take what I say literally but insist on reading into it what you like. Buddha was a secular phenomena but his "way" was turned into a religion. It was corrupted by religious reaction---such as has and continues to happen to Secular Humanism.

I was once in the Temple of the Jade Buddha in Thailand and our friend even invited my wife "to give her troubles to Buddha." Don't YOU think she figured Buddha as a "spirit"? You both typically make statements contrary to evidence.

Here is from the Wikapedia:
""The Supernatural in Buddhism

While Buddhism does not deny the existence of supernatural beings (e.g., the devas, of which many are discussed in Buddhist scripture), it does not ascribe powers, in the typical Western sense, for creation, salvation or judgement, to the "gods". They are regarded as having the power to affect worldly events in much the same way as humans and animals have the power to do so. Just as humans can affect the world more than animals, devas can affect the world more than humans. While gods may be more powerful than humans, none of them are absolute (unsurpassed). According to the Pali Canon they have powers to affect only so far as their realm of control allows them. Gods, like humans, are also suffering in samsara, the ongoing cycle of death and subsequent rebirth. In this sense therefore, they are probably no wiser than humans. A dialogue between the king Pasenadi Kosala, his general Vidudabha and the historical Buddha reveals a lot about the relatively weaker position of gods in Buddhism[2].

The Pali Canon also attributes supernatural powers to enlightened beings (Buddhas), that even gods may not have. In a dialogue between king Ajatasattu and the Buddha, enlightened beings are ascribed supranormal powers (like human flight, walking on water etc.), clairaudience, mind reading, recollection of past lives of oneself and others. Yet, according to the Buddha, an enlightened person realizes the futility of these powers and instead unbinds himself completely from samsara through discernment.""

Thanks Charles, i am well aware of the varieties of buddhism and their manifestation, such is the nature of a side note.

Most impressive how you devoted, 3097 words to a side comment which is a subject of much debate.

However I direct you back to what you are avoiding with such side show grandstanding and arm waving,

1. You have not demonstrated that buddhism is based upon a belief in spiritis, it may possess sect which have such beliefs but i do not find in the four truths, nor the eightfold path mention of spirits.

and you are still not doing anything to support your case on:

-Buddhism is not based upon a belief in spirits.
-You have not demonstrated that technology is enabled by religion.
-You have not shown that hunter gatherers have to have religion to bond to hunt large game.
-You have not shown that they kill or drive off other HG groups

So far you are batting zero for zero, are you sure you know what the phrase 'based upon' would mean.

Is the core practice of buddhism the four noble truths and eightfold path ?

[Dancing David]

I also did a cursory look for what you mentioned, but since you did not reference it (Why am I not suprised?), I am thinking you mean the
Samannaphala Sutta, which I link to here and thusly
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html

And ask is this what you mean?

In it there is some foolishness, yes but does it imply spirit, what does hearing the divine mean anyway?

I take it you mean this passage?

Having been one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, and mountains as if through space. He dives in and out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on water without sinking as if it were dry land. Sitting cross-legged he flies through the air like a winged bird. With his hand he touches and strokes even the sun and moon, so mighty and powerful. He exercises influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds

Which I think refers to the imaginary events of the body of light or mind body.

Is this your reference.

i never said that buddhism and the teachings of the buddha did not contain foolishness.

I still maintain that buddhism as such is not dependent upon or derived from the notion of spirits.

:)

Welcome to pedantry of myself.

[Dancing David]

To explain the critique of 'buddhism along with all other religions is based upon a belief in spirits'.

based upon

or

accepting of, tolerant of, neutral upon, indifferent to... etc...


Einstein developed many different theories as did Niels Bohr;

The theory of relativity (invariant speed of light) is based upon the Ten Commandments,
quantum mechanics (the Copenhagen interpretation) is based upon speaking Danish,
the theory of relativity (increase in mass approaching c) is based upon listening to music,
the theory of quantum mechanics (explanation of covalent chemical bonding) is based upon sailing a boat...

What do you mean by 'based upon'?