The evolution of Religion

[Skarr]

Most of the world's religions are old and out dated, based on archaic and arcane concepts and a world view that was limited at best and they did not have the complex vision of the world that the modern human being has in terms of the Earth, space, the ecology, environment and the global consequences of our actions and its long term effects on generations to come.

 

Most of the religions evolved due to political reasons and when I say political, it is in the context of giving legitimacy to rule, a divine blessing or sanction as it were, of the leader's right to rule, to chastise, to punish and to generally do whatever is necessary for the 'good' of the state.

 

Certain religions (Buddhism as an example) sought to placate the endless questioning of the humans to know their purpose, their reason for existence and were more mystical, philosophical and sought to address the needs of the individual, not the state. Christianity, Islam etc. were more aimed at providing rulers and the state a divine shoulder to lean on or point to, whenever their actions were questioned. Religion was no longer aimed at just one individual but at the masses and therefore, common ritual, group participation and rigid adherence to principles and beliefs without question became the norm. The final arbiters were only those who were members of the privileged club and this continues today in some form with the Pope and others and in the case of Islam, the mullahs and for Judaism, the rabbis. I realize that there are many variations again and am generalizing.

 

In my mind, these religions have no place in our modern world view and I believe that faith or religion is purely a matter of the individual. A single and unique, direct contract between a human being and his belief in what is termed god, the divine, a higher power whatever. This is a private affair and should be pursued in the confines of one's own private 'worship' (like your daily exercise routine or something of that nature).

 

Yet, we have these hangovers from the past, where organizations and groups use these ancient religions and as Primus rightly points out, have 'bastardized' these to suit their own purposes.

 

In time, I believe that most religions will fade into obscurity and while there are many who will fight for the survival of their particular brand of worship or faith etc., most of the religions are nothing but ancient dinosaurs and the morphing is going on as we speak. The weak, the ignorant and the less than strong minded will continue to be a prey to the attractions and the 'salvation' promised by certain religions but ultimately, it is important to realize that every human being's salvation depends on himself or herself and the responsible manner in which they choose to conduct themselves. If people had to wait for religion to tell them this simple fact in this day and age, then they are already deluded and religion then becomes a crutch or something that people use as a convenience, nothing more than that.

 

Genuine faith requires no labels, no contracts, no membership and no publicity. It is a private matter between one individual and his or her god and that's it.

 

Here's my 2 c on this topic.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I mostly agree with Skarr, but insofar as ignorance is a necessary part of growing up, won't there always be religious zealots eager to indoctrinate the young with their dogma? And if so, how many generations will it take before people get wise to this game?

[Ursus]

I agree with Skarr that religion should be a private affair, a concern of individuals and closed communities rather than the state.

 

However, I don't agree that religion is a dinosaur on its last legs. That's only true of certain religions like mainstream Protestantism. The truth is the world at large is becoming more religious, and new religions are being invented every generation.

 

We aren't evolving to a world depicted in "Star Trek" where organized religion is a thing of the past and everyone lives under the peaceful aegis of science. We're actually evolving to a world more like the crusades, only with high tech weapons.

 

Objectively speaking, whatever notorious ills organized religion brings, it also brings some traits most people find desirable. A sense of identity and purpose. A support structure. Religious groups are often more efficient and more genuinely concerned about providing charitable and social services to their members than the State. Some of the major religions like the Catholic Church are more efficient at providing basic social services liked education and hospitals.

 

Really, if there is a dinosaur waiting to die I think it's the modern Nation-State as we know it, which was always an artificial construction. As the modern nation-state increasingly fails to deliver identity and social services to its people, it most likely will be replaced by supra-national organizations. Religion will be one of them.

 

Despite what Nietzsche said, "God" is not dead. At least not outside of postmodern university towns in the US. Cheers.

[Ursus]

By the way, this could be an interesting discussion, but it really has nothing to do with Rome specifically, so I split the topic and sent it to afterhours lounge where it can have a certain latitude.

[Favonius Cornelius]

Science is a religion, and the new religion is Science.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Science is a religion, and the new religion is Science.

 

Not for scientisists it isn't.

[Virgil61]

That's a cynical, condescending and almost misanthropic point of view isn't it Skarr? I'm not really a believer, yet I still attend mass, and I don't consider myself a hypocrite believe it or not. I'm an Italian-American and for me Catholicism is a tie-in to what it means to be Italian, as a reminder of my family roots and to the culture that my family lived in for 2,000 years. I'm not alone in this, one of my closest friends has two Phds and conducts cancer researc in NC. She's Russian, an atheist, and yet she's baptized her children and raised them in the orthodox church for similar reasons to mine--a cultural connection to their heritage.

 

Your criticism of Popes, common ritual and son on falls somewhat off the mark in that much of the construct of Christianity, certainly Catholicism, was inherited in large part from its pagan predecessors. Religion played no less of a role in the Republic or the Empire both as symbols of political power and community as well as individual yearnings.

 

I don't believe religion is an artificial construct grafted upon societies for political reasons. No one will ever convince me there isn't a very strong evolutionary-biological component to it that supplies much of its drive. And Ursus' point is correct, the world doesn't seem to be getting less religious but more so, especially the developing world. It's precisely the lack of involvement and growth in mainline Protestantism and Catholicism which he's pointed out, which have made a sort of peace with secularism, and the trend towards fundamentalist sects that concern me.

 

I detest utterly the involvement of organized religion in American politics, the imposition of their biblical morality on the rest of us, but I'm not about to throw labels 'ignorant' and 'less strong minded' out at everyone who chooses to practice. Especially if that leaves nothing in the vacuum but a cold, nihilisitc view of the world, one that can be just as destructive in its own way. Although I see the point that religion should be personal, there's strong communal aspect to it as well. I'm not sure what the answers are, I'm a strong proponent of the sciences, but they fail abysmally in answering the spiritual aspects of life.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I don't believe religion is an artificial construct grafted upon societies for political reasons. No one will ever convince me there isn't a very strong evolutionary-biological component to it that supplies much of its drive.

 

These aren't mutually-exclusive positions, Virgil. It's possible that the mind was shaped to be religious *because* it offered a political advantage. Historically, religious belief has correlated with increased status and therefore sexual access; we also know that religiosity (like suggestibility and empathy) is heritable; therefore, as long as religious belief confers status, it is biologically likely to predominate in the population over time.

 

To increase the prevalence of atheism through a similar biological mechanism, it would be important to improve the reproductive potential of atheists by undercutting the social status of religious belief (e.g., through ruthless mockery) and by increasing the status of non-religious belief (e.g., through money, power, and prestige).

 

Whether this evolutionary scenario is correct or not, I don't know. But it is possible that both of you are correct--religion exists for both political and biological reasons.

[Skarr]

Well, I guess that any post about religion is bound to attract controversy as everyone views this differently, bringing into mind the point I made about this being so personal and unique as it is tied to the meaning of existence itself and in a way seeks to answer the fundamental questions.

 

Each and every thinking human being must have wondered about their own existence and the world around at some point. I think it is an inevitable by product of thought, of self awareness, of everything that distinguishes our species from the rest of the living species that inhabits this planet. Awareness of oneself and one's mortality are in a way dependent on other questions - namely the why or how of it all? How is this universe possible? How and why are we here? These are the great mysteries that religion sought to address, to give meaning to one's life and Virgil, I think you make a good point in that while religion should not interfere with statehood, it may perhaps be difficult or impossible to keep this an entirely private affair.

 

To that existence, I may have unwittingly postulated an Utopian ideal that may be nothing short of a pipe dream and I concede that point to you, especially as regards the communal aspects.

 

As a student of ancient societies and the evolution of civilization, I think the gregarious aspect of human contact cannot be ignored. We were not built to survive on our own and lead solitary lives. The existence of shamans and mystical type of persons in every tribe or group attests to the fact that most groups depended on a special person, one who could interpret signs and other things which were not understood. Part healer, part magician and part priest, this is how religion would have evolved, to satisfy basic human needs, channel some mysteries and funnel expression through mystical experiences, which often required everyone in a tribe to participate. I think this reinforced the sense of belonging, to preserve identity and also keep the group united. Symbols played a big role in such societies and so did myths, which sought to explain compex topics such as creation of the Earth, of the creatures in it and specific acts which possibly served as a kind of moral map, to tame the wild passions of man and promote harmony in the group. The first laws were preservatory in nature, the injunctions not to kill, not to steal and not to harm one another or another's property. These were basic survival rules that were necessary to keep the group together as one unit.

 

Later, as societies grew much larger, the sense of mystery also deepened and simple ritual had to evolve into more complex beliefs, with a structured approach that led to the formalization of religion. To the ancient mind, the power of nature and its forces were mysterious, unpredictable and any disaster of scale was viewed as a divine act of revenge for the failings of humans. Therefore, it is natural to speculate that atheism is a more modern approach and while atheists may rely on science to explain some of life's mysteries, on the other hand, science itself has barely scratched the surface and has only uncovered more mysteries. It seems that the deeper you dig, the more questions are unresolved.

 

To my mind, there are no easy solutions in sight and perhaps there aren't any. Life's true mysteries are very much out there and the current religions do not explain it and neither does science. Atheism makes no sense to me as you cannot deny the existence of something you have no knowledge of.

 

Well, bottom line - I'm thoroughly confused and am not ashamed to admit it either. I'm as ignorant as the rest and claim to no special knowledge. However, I'm far from misanthropic and rather, I'm the complete opposite as I truly believe in individuals, in the inherent power of each and every human being, as we are all unique. Each of us has an entire universe within us and I have respect for everyone, as that potential exists in everyone. I'm not cynical either but quite the opposite. I'm filled with hope and I do hope that someone, some day, will figure this out and will be gracious enough to share his or her insight. The key word here is share not preach. Lastly, I'm not condescending and the reason for this long post is my desire to share my views frankly and openly. If it offended anyone or seemed condescending, I apologize as that was not my intention.

Edited January 7, 2006 by Skarr

[Virgil61]

...

Well, bottom line - I'm thoroughly confused and am not ashamed to admit it either. I'm as ignorant as the rest and claim to no special knowledge. However, I'm far from misanthropic and rather, I'm the complete opposite as I truly believe in individuals, in the inherent power of each and every human being, as we are all unique. Each of us has an entire universe within us and I have respect for everyone, as that potential exists in everyone. I'm not cynical either but quite the opposite. I'm filled with hope and I do hope that someone, some day, will figure this out and will be gracious enough to share his or her insight. The key word here is share not preach. Lastly, I'm not condescending and the reason for this long post is my desire to share my views frankly and openly. If it offended anyone or seemed condescending, I apologize as that was not my intention.

 

You certainly didn't offend me, I appreciate both the original post and your honesty on this one. Your original post was a bit stark though.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The existence of shamans and mystical type of persons in every tribe or group attests to the fact that most groups depended on a special person, one who could interpret signs and other things which were not understood. Part healer, part magician and part priest, this is how religion would have evolved, to satisfy basic human needs, channel some mysteries and funnel expression through mystical experiences, which often required everyone in a tribe to participate.

 

I think shamans were simply ancient drug-dealers (including healing drugs), and the rest was for show. Paracelsus, I think, said he learned everything he knew about medicine from the witches, and it seems likely to me that once the various functions of the shamans became independent professional specialties, the uselessness of the shaman's religious mumbo-jumbo became increasingly more apparent.

 

I'd also like to challenge the notion that religion offers some sort of unique cultural experience. There are plenty of substitutes now and historically, including museums, dance, theater, sports, and the like. I think a Rome without Roman sculpture, architecture, theater and sports would have been much less Roman-feeling than a Rome without Sanctified Bird-watchers and Holy Barbeques.

[Andrew Dalby]

The existence of shamans and mystical type of persons in every tribe or group attests to the fact that most groups depended on a special person, one who could interpret signs and other things which were not understood. Part healer, part magician and part priest, this is how religion would have evolved, to satisfy basic human needs, channel some mysteries and funnel expression through mystical experiences, which often required everyone in a tribe to participate.

 

I think shamans were simply ancient drug-dealers (including healing drugs), and the rest was for show. Paracelsus, I think, said he learned everything he knew about medicine from the witches, and it seems likely to me that once the various functions of the shamans became independent professional specialties, the uselessness of the shaman's religious mumbo-jumbo became increasingly more apparent.

 

You may be right. But it's worth remembering that Roman poets considered that 'vates' or seer was a possible alternative name for their profession -- and it's worth reading Horace, Odes book 2 no. 20 and considering how close Horace is there to concepts that belong to 'shamanism'. Or is it all for show? I'm not so sure!

[M. Porcius Cato]

[You may be right. But it's worth remembering that Roman poets considered that 'vates' or seer was a possible alternative name for their profession -- and it's worth reading Horace, Odes book 2 no. 20 and considering how close Horace is there to concepts that belong to 'shamanism'. Or is it all for show? I'm not so sure!

 

I understand your point about poets seeing themselves as 'seers' strongly implying that one of the functions of the shamans was as a poet/story-teller (in addition to being a drug-dealer/healer). That's not an unimportant function by any means (I love Roman poetry!), but I do think it's independent of the religious function. True, the stories told by poets often were riffs on the mythology (like the story of Icarus), but the very variability of the mythology undercuts its potential as a monolithic source of religious authority (unlike, say, Hebrew mythology which was canonized).

 

I wonder if the evolution went from shaman to mysteries to public religion. Seems like the mysteries fulfilled functions of both the shamans and the priests, but I don't know of any evidence that would put the origins of the mysteries prior to that of formal religion and posterior to that of shamanism.

[Pertinax]

I wish to suggest that shamans were/are 1. drug dealers and healers (physical/spiritual/amatory) 2. ritual psychotherapists 3. passable dancers. 4. inspired seers -or possibly quacks .

The longer Ive been involved with medicine the more I have come to the conclusion that people know they are "ill" (whatever that may be:-usually apart from direct physical injury, it tends to be inappropraite eating/drinking or an inability to actually make a life changing decision that will cause difficulty and upset (eg: get divorced , leave lousy job that pays well ) or stop letting other people make decisions for them. The latter point is the key one, a lot of people want to be "given permission" to act and take control of themselves as capable adults, in my experience this is seriously difficult -because a lot of people want someone else to decide for them ( be it a medicine intruding into the body or a belief system). A shaman/priestly caste/interpreter of omens/ witch/jungian therapist is a good way for sizeable portions of society to rationalise the irrational whilst also getting practical advice , from people, who are obliged to carry the weight of others expectations . This doesnt mean that the shaman is a fraud ,(he/she might be , but just as well may not) , what one nations shaman pronounces may be laughable to another nation, but this doesnt deny the need for the "interpreter of signs". There is also a strong tie in to the human desire to be given rules of proper conduct , defining appropriate behaviour and reassuring people of relative status. MPC is I think not innacurate concerning Paracelsus, but this doesnt stop societies needing a Paracelsus , nor does it stop a person of learning and discretion making unpalatable "prescriptions" (actual or psychological) to a needy person.

 

Of course if you are a Jungian you would say (in classic Swiss/Germanic psychotherapeutic accent) " ah , but I am my own Shaman and seer! Now what is for dinner?"

 

phew!

Edited January 7, 2006 by Pertinax

[Ursus]

Of course if you are a Jungian you would say (in classic Swiss/Germanic psychotherapeutic accent) " ah , but I am my own Shaman and seer! Now what is for dinner?"

 

 

And that's pretty much the essence of New Age "paganism."