we understood death better than other animals — christian2017
I'm sure i'm far from the first to have this idea but perhaps religion began because humans have more
complex speech/communication than most animals, and....
thus
1. we understood death better than other animals in terms of communicating decomposure and physical details associated with it.
2. we feared death more because abstract thought tends to encourage severe depression. (how many animals commit suicide?)
3. we were a social animal so we felt the need to encourage good behavior in these small tribes. Primitive people are more prone to resort to religion to encourage ethics. — christian2017
that shared fictions like religion or money help to bind groups in cooperative behavior and that this has proven to be an extremely successful survival strategy. — praxis
I'm sure i'm far from the first to have this idea but perhaps religion began because humans have more
complex speech/communication than most animals, and....
thus
1. we understood death better than other animals in terms of communicating decomposure and physical details associated with it.
2. we feared death more because abstract thought tends to encourage severe depression. (how many animals commit suicide?)
3. we were a social animal so we felt the need to encourage good behavior in these small tribes. Primitive people are more prone to resort to religion to encourage ethics.
— christian2017
1. If we understood death, we wouldn't need religion. Religion is a knee-jerk knowledge-gap-filler. When our ancestors didn't understand something (which was a lot), they asserted a religion.
2. Exactly. We fear what we don't understand. Religion alleviates that fear for a lot of people still today
3. Absolutely. As Praxis pointed out,
that shared fictions like religion or money help to bind groups in cooperative behavior and that this has proven to be an extremely successful survival strategy.
— praxis
But then this raises another question: Is religion a viable source of encouraging ethical behavior today? If not, then what changed - the religions, or us?
4. I'm adding another point as to the origin of religion: Humans are inherently self-centered. We believe the world was made just for us, and that there is a plan, or purpose, made just for us.
↪praxis It seems to me that ethics, rights and political ideology also fall into that same category of "fictions that help bind groups in cooperative behaviors." What about science? Is science a shared fiction? Has science proved to be an even better survival strategy? If so, then maybe "extremely successful" isn't a proper characteristic of the outcome of shared fictions. How do we know that we wouldn't have been more successful if our ancestors adopted science instead of religion? — Harry Hindu
I didn't say, "selfish". I said self-centered. There's a difference. It seems to me an inherent human quality to think oneself as "important", or "valuable". These are subjective, mental properties that we project onto the world that isn't important or valuable. It just is.The hunter gatherers had limited knowledge so saying they are just simply selfish is an oversimplification. — christian2017
They didn't "understand" death. They were aware of it, but didn't understand it. There's a difference. If they understood it, then how did they understand it other than how their religion described it?They understood death better than the animals that were less verbally talented but they didn't understand death the way you or i do. — christian2017
By making observations of the world and making sure that they aren't projecting their wants and needs (like being accepted in the social group) onto what it is they are observing.How would our ancestors have adopted science (considering scientific understanding is a spectrum?)? — christian2017
At root, science identifies and integrates sensory evidence (which is the nature of reason). Science is essentially based, not on experiment, but on observation and logic; the act of looking under a rock or into a telescope is the quintessentially scientific act. So is the act of observing and thinking about your own mental processes--a scientific act is completely private. (Proof of one's conclusions to others comes later, but that is argumentative, not inquisitive.) Science is willing to accept and integrate information from any observational source, without concern about persuading other people.In the beginning it was hard to get writing materials and a phonetic alphabet came with time and these two things are very important for science. The Native Americans didn't have these as far as i know which is why just like everyone else they resorted to religion. — christian2017
The hunter gatherers had limited knowledge so saying they are just simply selfish is an oversimplification.
— christian2017
I didn't say, "selfish". I said self-centered. There's a difference. It seems to me an inherent human quality to think oneself as "important", or "valuable". These are subjective, mental properties that we project onto the world that isn't important or valuable. It just is. — Harry Hindu
They understood death better than the animals that were less verbally talented but they didn't understand death the way you or i do.
— christian2017
They didn't "understand" death. They were aware of it, but didn't understand it. There's a difference. If they understood it, then how did they understand it other than how their religion described it?
Also, language isn't needed for understanding. Understanding is needed in order to learn a language, so understanding is prior to language-use. — Harry Hindu
How would our ancestors have adopted science (considering scientific understanding is a spectrum?)?
— christian2017
By making observations of the world and making sure that they aren't projecting their wants and needs (like being accepted in the social group) onto what it is they are observing.
In the beginning it was hard to get writing materials and a phonetic alphabet came with time and these two things are very important for science. The Native Americans didn't have these as far as i know which is why just like everyone else they resorted to religion.
— christian2017
At root, science identifies and integrates sensory evidence (which is the nature of reason). Science is essentially based, not on experiment, but on observation and logic; the act of looking under a rock or into a telescope is the quintessentially scientific act. So is the act of observing and thinking about your own mental processes--a scientific act is completely private. (Proof of one's conclusions to others comes later, but that is argumentative, not inquisitive.) Science is willing to accept and integrate information from any observational source, without concern about persuading other people. — Harry Hindu
It seems to me that art, ethics, rights and political ideology also fall into that same category of "fictions that help bind groups in cooperative behaviors." What about science? Is science a shared fiction? Has science proved to be an even better survival strategy? If so, then maybe "extremely successful" isn't a proper characteristic of the outcome of shared fictions. How do we know that we wouldn't have been more successful if our ancestors adopted science instead of religion? — Harry Hindu
:up:I'm thinking that the 'glue' of a shared fiction is in the perceived value or 'promise', if you will, that it contains. Things like money and religion are very different things, yet they function to provide cooperative behavior across the globe, and I imagine the common denominator is value, or rather, the 'promise'of value. [ ... ] If a group of sapiens all agree to act in a particular way, to cooperate across the globe, that is obviously very powerful. — praxis
I’ve read Sapiens.
1) I suppose that’s true.
2) Prolonged anxiety may have a tendency to lead to clinical depression. Sapiens may be unique in our capacity for existential angst.
3) Social critters encourage 'good behavior' without utilizing religion, as did sapiens prior to developing it. 'Advanced' societies utilize religion and other shared fictions.
Not sure where this is going or what the point may be. The gist of Sapiens is the theory that shared fictions like religion or money help to bind groups in cooperative behavior and that this has proven to be an extremely successful survival strategy. — praxis
How would you prove social critters don't have some irrational or fictional beliefs related to images considering they can't communicate with us. I'm not saying they have religion but they do have irrational or fictional beliefs. — christian2017
At the very least you could say they aren't the best at survival nor can they predict certain things as well as we can. — christian2017
As to "where this is going": we are all supposed to keep an open mind or rational people tend to push people off of sites like this. — christian2017
Considering atheism argues for an eternity without feeling, i'm not sure there would be negative repercussions to find out there was no god or afterlife. — christian2017
How would you prove social critters don't have some irrational or fictional beliefs related to images considering they can't communicate with us. I'm not saying they have religion but they do have irrational or fictional beliefs.
— christian2017
I'm sure social animals can be conditioned to have maladaptive responses to situations and in that way be considered irrational. And social animals can communicate with us. My dog and I communicate daily with body language and verbally. We don't philosophize about the existence of God together but our communication has the virtue of lacking all human bullshit, at least from his side.
At the very least you could say they aren't the best at survival nor can they predict certain things as well as we can.
— christian2017
Just looking at dogs, it's estimated that there are almost a billion in the world. There are 7.8 billion sapiens. So canine survival ain't too shabby by comparison. In some ways, dogs are better predictors than we are because their minds aren't preoccupied with ruminating about human bullshit. Dogs pick up on subtle patterns that most people would miss and respond instantly to them.
I think you mean abstract thought or mental simulation rather than prediction.
As to "where this is going": we are all supposed to keep an open mind or rational people tend to push people off of sites like this.
— christian2017
It is a philosophy forum, after all.
Considering atheism argues for an eternity without feeling, i'm not sure there would be negative repercussions to find out there was no god or afterlife.
— christian2017
The repercussion is commonly believed to be, in a word, nihilism.
Not sure what you mean by "atheism argues for an eternity without feeling." — praxis
Considering atheism argues for an eternity without feeling, i'm not sure there would be negative repercussions to find out there was no god or afterlife.
— christian2017
The repercussion is commonly believed to be, in a word, nihilism.
Not sure what you mean by "atheism argues for an eternity without feeling." — praxis
Many would say when you die you don't feel or feel pain or happiness. — christian2017
Many would say when you die you don't feel or feel pain or happiness.
— christian2017
But not necessarily atheists, who hold that a god or gods don’t exist. An atheist may subscribe to a metaphysics that in some way allows for a continuation of being after death, for instance. Maybe something like simulation theory, or Buddhism minus the gods. — praxis
I'm really not sure we can say that atheists don't subscribe to faith and not even in the sense that they are at all different from religionists. — christian2017
I'm really not sure we can say that atheists don't subscribe to faith and not even in the sense that they are at all different from religionists.
— christian2017
I agree that an atheist can be just as irrational as any theist, if that’s what you’re suggesting. And we do indeed all have shared fictions, some deeper and more influential than others. Religion tends to cut deep. I assume that’s because it offers structure, ultimate authority, and big promises. — praxis
I highly recommend reading ‘The Sacred and The Profane’ by Mircea Eliade if you haven’t already. — I like sushi
The Q, the question, is simply, "whence all this?" — TheMadFool
Perhaps if we come at this from a Q & A perspective, it'll leave us with a different impression.
The Q, the question, is simply, "whence all this?" This question seeks, if nothing else, an explanation, for all there is - the whole of existence from the atom to the universe - and the evidence, that this was the burning issue for "primitive" people, is that early religions were simply personifications of nature (nature worship?)
The A, the answer, depends on our place in the timeline of history. For "primitive" people, god(s) was/were the perfect answer(s) to the question posed above. Not so for the modern man who, on the whole, finds the divine explanation less than satisfactory and seeks answers elsewhere - perhaps in science.
Ergo, in terms of the question, there's no difference between a shaman living 10,000 years ago and a modern, highly educated scientist but only in terms of the answer, does the distinction "primitive" vs "modern" make sense. — TheMadFool
I actually almost completely agree with this. A regular engineer has 94.blah blah blah percent accuracy and a NASA engineer is above 99. blah blah blah percent accuracy. Minor details can destroy a system. The modern scientist while much less prone to error can still make huge mistakes by missing critical details. NASA isn't perfect its just much much much less prone to error. — christian2017
I actually almost completely agree with this. A regular engineer has 94.blah blah blah percent accuracy and a NASA engineer is above 99. blah blah blah percent accuracy. Minor details can destroy a system. The modern scientist while much less prone to error can still make huge mistakes by missing critical details. NASA isn't perfect its just much much much less prone to error.
— christian2017
Well, I was hoping you'd say the error in the answer was less important than the question itself. — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.