"THE ORIGIN OF RELIGION...A...DARWINIAN VIEW"

I may have discouraged drop-in discussion...why don't you pop-in...add some more quotes...link us to an article, book review, etc.

I'm caught in the Chaos of Christmas at the moment. Substantial posting will resume as the festivities wear down.


timber

This is the sort of discussion on religious belief and practice which I find interesting... what 'functions' can we see these elements fulfilling in social arrangements (though the psychologist/analyst will have another valid view to advantages for the individual psyche).

Animist socieities (likely what those before refer to with the term magical) are different in the sense that social hierarchies tend not to be associated with the world view. But they do evidence well-established agreements regarding how the group ought to function - what is sacred and what profane and how are each to be dealt with by everyone. There is clear pedagogical value to associating for example, snakes with the profane and telling stories to kids that scare hell out of them regarding snakes. Further to this, there is really the axiomatic principle that any group needs agreements to be a group. This in itself promotes survival.

It is not a new notion that theistic faiths are intimately connected to legitimation of existing social hierarchies, but it is still the best notion floating around, I believe.

Dupre

The book you mention by Girard is one I will immediately search out. Thank you very much for that post.

I LEAVE FRIDAY ON A FAMILY TRIP, SHOULD BE BACK TO ATTEND TO THREADS ON SATURDAY, JAN. 4.

blatham, I think you will find Girard provocative, if perhaps impossible to swallow whole. Some of the nibbles are quite satisfying in themselves, however, and I use a bit of his recipe in cooking up my own philosophy.



timber

timber

Well, perhaps I have low standards, but that seems a normal and acceptable limitation in a book, or even in an essay or passage, for that matter. The only bit of literature I've ever been able to swallow and digest whole and without upset was that famous movie review written for the film 'The Bible' - to wit, "The book was better."

Coming late to the party, but i would like to point out that much of the underpinnig of Jaynes' book was ancient momunment petroglyphs and literature--and he fudged some of that data, entirely misconstrued other portions, ignored entire sections of history and entire regions of the world, and neglected to mention ancient literary fragments which would not have tended to support his thesis. I haven't looked into it since i read it in the mid-1980's. I do recall that a philosophy professor for whom i moonlighted doing his bookkeeping and tax records commented that he found the arguments concerning consciousness and the human psyche weak (for example, Jaynes' comments on the view of self as protrayed in Illiad), while i objected to his historical/literary references. In all of this, i was reminded of a passage in Carl Sagan, in which he describes meeting someone at a party who had just read Velikovsky, and was impressed by his astronomical arguments, but that his citations of ancient literature were wholely false--Sagan laughed, saying Velikovsky's astronomy was fanciful and without foundation, but that he had always been impressed by the literary and historical references. I came to the conclusion that one should always critique a "multi-disciplinary" thesis by looking for the consensus of those who have reviewed the work in each field (discipline) touched upon. Basically, i came to the conclusion that although Jaynes' work was interesting, he had not provided substantiating citations.

Setanta, I sort of agree with you, but I find much of Jaynes quiite plausible. The work has its shortcomings to be sure, and of course presses its own agenda. In a 1990 Afterword included in current editions of the work, Jaynes addressesses some issues brought up by his critics, and to some extent clairifies or further substantiates certain of his assertions. As with any such work, in itself it is not "The Answer", but bits and pieces of answer may be found in it, and basis for further questions. To me, that would approach a definition of the purpose of scholarship.



timber

Setanta: You may remember me by another name. I'm the one who sent you a book via UPS: The History of the World. I changed my name due to some abuzzards. I was so pleased to see you signed up here!

Have you ever read any Herbert Muller? In Freedom in the Ancient World he starts with prehistory and magic, takes religion through the village stage to city-states through to empires. He makes a distinction between the higher religions and lower religions, and between religion as it is practiced by an organization and as it is experienced by the individual. He incorporates economics, philosophy, technology, education, and diffusion of culture throughout. His continuing theme is how the individual's freedom of thought, movement, and creativity is impacted by the development of civilization and its institutions. In his book he refers to the first use of the word "freedom" in any language.

I've read it several times, but not since having received my formal education four years ago. I'm returning to it again, and I now have a friend who can help me with the philosophical references.

How would you answer the question on this thread? I find I cannot separate out passages from my book, because the links in logic are tightly woven. I'd have to republish the entire work. <sigh>

blatham: Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World is set up like a question and answer string of essays with the questions being posed by a psychologist and, I think, a philosopher. It really was hard for me to absorb. Years ago, on the internet, through google, I did find some published parts of this work and learned that he published a followup to it that was not set up in a question/answer format. Although, since you mentioned psychology in your response, I assume you have some knowledge in that area and that you will probably not have much trouble with the book.

Very useful, and here, very germaine observation. Eclecticism is very much to the point in studying something so amorphous as the consciousness of the individual, or religion in society.

We also find the concept of royalty in many cultures. I wonder if the origin of religion had the same roots? Seeking some hierarchy in animals is not limited to the homo sapiens. c.i.

c.i., i would posit the same origin for both institutions. The desire to increase group prosperity through organization; specifically, the creation of "higher authority" with which to create and manage division of labor.

c.i., I submit that "Royalty", "Authority", and "Religion" were at one time in our development indistinguishable, and remain today essentially slightly individualized manifestations of the same basic instinct, or as Setanta put it, "need and desire".



timber

...The way Wilson described religion, it sounded like the Mason's, or a fraternity. Which is about the way most of them function. The way most religions work today, the leaders are controllers with an agenda, and the laymen are lazily seeking comfort and salvation. I believe religions started out earnestly, and evolved to the present states.
...I was raised baptist, but that tree of knowledge thing really bothered me. It made God look stupid. (Here's a brain, but don't use it!) So I studied most all religions and philosophies, I encountered. I believe the purest forms were in the orient, and Africa; no preachers,no certain days to practice, and a minimum of rituals.
...What I found was that there is a certain thread of ideas, that permeate all religions, and philosophies. From there a person can further enlighten himself through meditation....This is like gathering all the info, and then using your mind as a sifter and blender. From here it is possible to eventually get a true idea, or feeling of what the esscence of our exsistence is. But it can't be put into words. After discovering this, I stumbled across an oriental saying, that I currently use , as a signature line.

Here's a link to anthroplogists' theories on the origin of religion with critisicms included. I sort of fell into Durkheim's version of totemism as a reflection of society's power, but . . . they shot it down.

Here's the link. What do y'all think?

http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:vrZy1yHOo5wC:www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/papers/vol1/510209-The_Origin_of_Religion_in_the_Race.htm+%22origin+of+religion%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

An interesting read, dupre. I would fault its presentments in that "Religion" is seen therein essentially as an intellectual phenomonon. It is my contention, and that of many others, that "Religion" rather predates Intellect and is in fact integral with the pre-primitive instinct for Authority and Structure which at root forms the basis of our ability to function as a society. Humankind did not invent Religion ... it has always been a feature of the subconscious, or even more so the protoconscious, of the critter that eventually became human. "Religion" as a Stand-Alone Concept is a remarkably recent development.

I might add I find the piece's references not particularly representative of the disciplines represented, and note specifically the absence of consideration of or reference to a number of works and authors mentioned elsewhere in this thread. Too, it seems to me at least to subtly presuppose and purport the existence of a deity.



timber

timberlandko: Thanks for your response. I thought it an interesting, albeit brief, summary of earlier religions. The concept of "mana" was new to me. And, I don't see how you came to the conclusion that this early concept of mana negates a pre-primitive instinct, or that "mana" is not a feature of the subconscious, or that the article presupposes the existence of a deity. Mana only reflected the concept that some early primitive people recognize the existence of power beyond their control. I'm searching for "mana" now, so that I can better understand the concept.

Interesting to me that all social creatures have a system of "Authority and Structure," and with the possible exception of elephants who hold their deceaseds' remains in high regard, only humans show signs of a religious belief system.

Which would be a logical extension of manifestation of cognitive recognition of and adaptation to a precognitive instinct, to my thinking.



timber