The Social Origin of the Concept of God.

@Grimlock,

Grimlock,

Yes, it's long, isn't it, and I'm not done yet I'm afraid. More tomorrow. If I could make the argument without having to cite sources and show proofs it would be shorter - but then I'd get blasted for unfounded assertions, and not considering the alternatives. (Wow, that sounds a bit snidey and critical, but it's not meant to be - I'm just explaining.) It's a big topic and covers a lot of ground, cuts through hundreds of philosophical controversies, historical debates and passes by questions and events just off the main track, and ...ah, it's endless. That so I can only seek to establish the main dynamics of the argument as firmly as possible - under fire. That said, I wouldn't have it any other way, so let's get on.

Quote:

are there not many possible ways that man moved from the small tribal association to larger, more communal civilization?

I think the ubiquity of religion to society is the point here - that the two are almost synonymous throughout history all around the world, whereas, if war were the tactic for society building then no God is necessary. We know that the harrapan cultures of the indus valley, sumerians, egyptians, greeks, romans - even the ancient britons and native americans had thier god concepts. I think God as objective authority for social law allows two tribes to come together without one explicitly submitting to the will of the other. It's bringing tribes together that I want to explain, and this will become significant later.

I don't doubt that there are many other factors, and different factors in different reegions, like rivers as sources of water, prime hunting grounds, wood for fires and so on that would cause people to congregate - especially in more harsh terrains where such sources are scarce, but still...

This 'creative explosion' idea doesn't really allow for a division of labour explanation for art and artifacts, because there was a sudden change in behaviour from around 30,000 years ago, art appears out of nowhere, but no change in social structure we know of, until around 10,000 years ago.

As I said to DT - I think the development of language accounts for the delay, for I don't see society developing until verbal communication is possible, and it's possible to broadcast an idea to unite people in their conception of reality. To put in another way, and draw all this together, I see the idea of God as enabling the transition from HG to mutli-triabl and social group, and acting as the central coordinating mechanism of the social group.

So, as always, yes and no, I see it this way because...

Thanks for having the patience to read it. It took a lot longer to research and write, but it's only by being read it has meaning.

regards,

iconoclast.

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

The appearance of art need not go along with a change in social structure, nor with anything, in particular, other than the thought: "I think I'll carve a sweet ivory horse now!", or its equivalent in grunts and gestures. And my flippant twiddling-thumbs hypothesis needn't be correct.

Perhaps the development of art preceded (or proceeded from) a direct cognitive shift in prehistoric man, but I see no necessity for such, at least not in the sea change way that we're talking here. I mean, really:

"That horse."

"Rock like horse."

"I make."

Or were you right at least about art and god being intimately connected? I'm still not sure you're giving Ares enough credit, but he holds his own well enough without me.

2 Replies

@Grimlock,

Quote:

Okay then, we disagree. I've explained myself - you've explained yourself, and we do not find agreement. I can live with that. But in relation to our overall disagreement, think what this means. It put's the concept of God right there at the dawn of human intellect, and as instrumental to human society. It fully acknowledges the great spiritual significance of the concept, though organized religion will be heavily critisized as this argument continues. Does this not accord to some degree with your own position?

If you are going to oversimplify the concepts, then no, this does not accord with my own position.

And if you assert that the source of God is only the artifact-artificer relationship, then you have asserted a gross oversimplification in spite of the evidence.

Thus, you are building upon faulty premises which will necessarily shatter the integrity of your conclusion from those faulty premises.

0 Replies

@Grimlock,

Grimlock,

You didn't read it, did you?

iconoclast.

2 Replies

@iconoclast,

Ddiymos Thomas,

If your criticisms are irrelevent then don't expect me to account for them.

If you don't understand my assertions how can your criticisms be relevent?

iconoclast.

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

Quote:

If your criticisms are irrelevent then don't expect me to account for them.

Well, so far all you've done is assert that my criticisms are irrelevant.

Quote:

If you don't understand my assertions how can your criticisms be relevent?

I think I understand perfectly well. In that I've read your words, and, as written, they paint an unfortunate over generalization of early notions of god. This over generalization is part of your greater argument's foundation, therefore, your greater argument stands upon unstable terrain and is sure to fall.

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

I read it; I'm just don't agree with all of it after the first swig. It's a noble project even to attempt such a hypothesis, but you're up against the Gorgon here. We can't even look right at it.

I simply don't agree that the process of social interactions necessary for the early growth of human "civilization" needed religion to proceed. It may be so, but I don't see it as an imperative. You offer a long list of ancient societies that we know had religion, but these societies had war, as well.

As criticisms go, mine is completely oblique. I'm not challenging your assertion that the creation or art or artifacts was directly tied in some way to the genesis of religion and the whole "truth" business in human thinking. In fact, my gut tells me there's a real kernel of truth there, and I want to hear more. I'm just not sure what the significance of religion really is to the development of human society. Your assumption of such seems to be a bald assertion at this point. Correlation does not imply causation. Religion could just as easily be an absurd sideshow.

Perhaps that explains why I seemed to be ignoring your points?

1 Reply

@Grimlock,

Quote:

I simply don't agree that the process of social interactions necessary for the early growth of human "civilization" needed religion to proceed. It may be so, but I don't see it as an imperative. You offer a long list of ancient societies that we know had religion, but these societies had war, as well.

I'm not sure that early growth needed religion any more than progress today, and in the future, needs religion. Man has a spiritual nature, so religion wasn't needed any more than civilization; religion and the move to civilization are simply natural to our creature, man.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas,

Quote:

And if you assert that the source of God is only the artifact-artificer relationship, then you have asserted a gross oversimplification in spite of the evidence.

What evidence? Are you talking about archeological evidence of the 'creative explosion' which is what I'm actually explaining or are you waiting in the wings with evidence of the sky-god/mother earth thing? Were you hoping I'd refute it? Sorry to disppoint but I can accept your assertions because they are irrelevent to the point I'm making. That's what you don't understand.

Quote:

Well, so far all you've done is assert that my criticisms are irrelevant.

No, I've tried to explain and tried to agree to disgree, but you're intent on spoiling my argument again aren't you.

2 Replies

@iconoclast,

Quote:

What evidence? Are you talking about archeological evidence of the 'creative explosion' which is what I'm actually explaining or are you waiting in the wings with evidence of the sky-god/mother earth thing? Were you hoping I'd refute it? Sorry to disppoint but I can accept your assertions because they are irrelevent to the point I'm making. That's what you don't understand.

You are trying to provide an explanation as to the origin of notions of god. As an explanation, you present the realization of the artifact-artificer relationship. The problem is that this relationship does not adequately account for the origin of the earliest gods known to man, thus said relationship does not adequately explain the origin of the notions of god.

Quote:

No, I've tried to explain and tried to agree to disgree, but you're intent on spoiling my argument again aren't you. For a supposed Christian, you're an awful person. Is this why you bang on about religion all the time? Because you lack spiritual values of your own? There's no grace or soul in you, is there? Is that why you seek it seconhand?

We can agree to disagree. Nothing I say can stop that, as I agree that you have the right to disagree with whatever you like, for whatever reason you like, or for no reason at all. Have fun with it.

I'm an awful person? For what? Bringing objections to your argument. Boo hoo. Do you not make objections? Wait a minute, this sounds vaguely familiar... do you want me to leave you alone again?

0 Replies

@iconoclast,

Grimlock,

Sorry mate, I'm letting DT get to me again. He drives me up the wall. Everywhere I go, there he is - everything I say is wrong. I'm the bee in his bonnet apparently, and if you don't think a mod would behave like this, check out 'The Most Important Question of our Age?' - 'A Cold Hell' or any thread I've contributed, right back to 2007. It's harassment, and it get's me down, and I've taken it out on you, sorry.

iconoclast.

2 Replies

@iconoclast,

No worries, Ike. I have no desire to follow the thread of someone else's war, but I know that it's not worth losing your sense of humor over.

0 Replies

@iconoclast,

I totally agree with you iconoclast. People always wonder about how things were created and whenever they don't understand how it was created they resort the beliefs and religion that are totally made up. That are not true. They don't look at things scientifically. Science is true, religion just isn't. Unless anyone can prove to me that religion is true. Also everyone don't tell me that there is no point to truth because where would we be today is society without truth from science. We wouldn't be as technologically advanced now would we. Do we gain intelligence and technologies through religion, belief in god or through science? Obviously science. So how could religion be true because there just isn't any proof to supporting that.

2 Replies

@astrotheological,

astrotheological wrote:

That are not true. They don't look at things scientifically. Science is true, religion just isn't. Unless anyone can prove to me that religion is true. Also everyone don't tell me that there is no point to truth because where would we be today is society without truth from science.

All semantics, my good man, it's true. Nothing to see here.

0 Replies

@iconoclast,

DT,

No, don't go. I'm not done with you yet. I'm going to show you heaven and show that you have rennounced it. I'm going to strip you naked and set your little black heart in your hands for you to see. Metaphorically speaking, of course. If someone said to me I have no soul or grace I'd be furious, but you're untouched because there's nothing there to touch.

Quote:

I'm an awful person? For what? Bringing objections to your argument. Boo hoo. Do you not make objections? Wait a minute, this sounds vaguely familiar... do you want me to leave you alone again?

Don't pretend to some intellectual motive. Objections, arguments, alternatives - yes, no problem, but this:

Quote:

therefore, your greater argument stands upon unstable terrain and is sure to fall. Thus, you are building upon faulty premises which will necessarily shatter the integrity of your conclusion from those faulty premises. I'm not sure what you are building towards, but the first premise is faulty

Quote:

I'm an awful person? For what? Bringing objections to your argument. Boo hoo. Do you not make objections? Wait a minute, this sounds vaguely familiar... do you want me to leave you alone again?

Don't pretend to some intellectual motive. Objections, arguments, alternatives - yes, no problem, but this:

Combined with your unbelievable persistence is harassment, pure and simple. And you will be punished. No, don't leave me alone now -

Quote:

therefore, your greater argument stands upon unstable terrain and is sure to fall. Thus, you are building upon faulty premises which will necessarily shatter the integrity of your conclusion from those faulty premises. I'm not sure what you are building towards, but the first premise is faulty

Combined with your unbelievable persistence is harassment, pure and simple. And you will be punished. No, don't leave me alone now -

iconoclast.

Quote:

***Moderator*** This post has not been modified but this type of behavior is not allowed on this forum. User has been warned and this post will more than likely be removed. - Justin

1 Reply

@astrotheological,

Quote:

They don't look at things scientifically. Science is true, religion just isn't. Unless anyone can prove to me that religion is true.

First, science isn't always true. Herbert Spencer, the social scientist coined the phrase "survival of the fittest" and theorized that economic success was part of the biological process of evolution. He was sorely mistaken. Science is always being revised and improved upon, religion, too.

As for religion being true - what do you mean, true? Do you mean true as in having some message that is helpful to humanity? Do you mean true as in objectively provable?
Religion has truth - religion conveys meaning. Homer is still recognized as containing a great deal of truth about humanity, even though Homer no longer provides the foundation to our faith traditions. All religion has something true about it.

Quote:

Do we gain intelligence and technologies through religion, belief in god or through science? Obviously science. So how could religion be true because there just isn't any proof to supporting that.

Of course technology isn't improved through religion - religion isn't the right tool for developing technology.
But we do gain intelligence from religion. We gain from the wisdom imbedded in scripture, be it ancient scripture no longer used as the basis of our faith traditions (like Homer) or scripture still in common use, like the Bible, Koran or the Mahabharata.

Iconoclast -

Quote:

No, don't go. I'm not done with you yet. I'm going to show you heaven and show that you have rennounced it. I'm going to strip you naked and set your little black heart in your hands for you to see. Metaphorically speaking, of course. If someone said to me I have no soul or grace I'd be furious, but you're untouched because there's nothing there to touch.

Or maybe I'm untouched because I feel sorry for you because you cling so tightly to ideology, whereas I would be happy to have someone convincingly refute my beliefs? Who knows. You certainly do not know because you do not know me. Funny how people make accusations as if they were actually acquainted with someone. How people make personal accusations against people they've never met. Silly, isn't it?

It's more than silly, it's ad hominem.

Quote:

Don't pretend to some intellectual motive. Objections, arguments, alternatives - yes, no problem, but this:

Quote:

therefore, your greater argument stands upon unstable terrain and is sure to fall. Thus, you are building upon faulty premises which will necessarily shatter the integrity of your conclusion from those faulty premises. I'm not sure what you are building towards, but the first premise is faulty

Combined with your unbelievable persistence is harassment, pure and simple. And you will be punished. No, don't leave me alone now -

Maybe you have not noticed, but this is a discussion forum where everyone is welcome in all threads. Somehow my involvement in a thread is harassment?

Punished! My goodness, what shall I do? I know, I'll call you on it. Punish me.

2 Replies

@iconoclast,

astro,

You're right - religion is not true. It's all made up. Ask Ddiymos, and he'd agree with you on that. They don't look at things scientifically, and that's important because science is true. Instead they use the truth of science in the cause of the lie that is religion - and that's why the world's so messed up.

We need to replace God with sceince, worship and obey scientific truth - and we can sort it all out, energy, climate, overpopualtion and the environment. No problem if we worship science, rather than some poxy myth from ages past.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

First, science isn't always true. Herbert Spencer, the social scientist coined the phrase "survival of the fittest" and theorized that economic success was part of the biological process of evolution. He was sorely mistaken. Science is always being revised and improved upon, religion, too.

As for religion being true - what do you mean, true? Do you mean true as in having some message that is helpful to humanity? Do you mean true as in objectively provable?
Religion has truth - religion conveys meaning. Homer is still recognized as containing a great deal of truth about humanity, even though Homer no longer provides the foundation to our faith traditions. All religion has something true about it.

I talking about the intelligence that is useful in understanding how things were created, or just about how ...

1 Reply

@astrotheological,

Quote:

I talking about the intelligence that is useful in understanding how things were created, or just about how ...

Questions regarding the physical process of something - this is the realm of science. But the human mind has greater needs than understanding the physical process.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Of course technology isn't improved through religion - religion isn't the right tool for developing technology.
But we do gain intelligence from religion.

I have to agree with that. Religious thought has been very instructive to mankind, even now as we increasingly react against it.

1 Reply

The Social Origin of the Concept of God.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know