I think that about sums up my point of view. The brain in this sense is much like a computer, it has all of the hardware but it still has to learn to use the different circuits. A computer learns through the code put into it, humans learn through experience.

To be fair Eliade makes it pretty clear he is talking about Shamanism not shamanism - as in not the true name associated with Siberia but a global phenomenon. — I like sushi

Yes, true, thanks of the embellishment. Yet the term "shamanism" - rather than witch-doctor or medicine-man for example - does originate in the Siberian region. From best recollections: This together with the interpretation of the shaman initially leaving the village where he becomes a type of outcast, then there being ripped to shreds by the spirits and deities till all that is left is his bones, wherein he is considered to be dead yet still spiritually living, then needing to reassemble himself as a living person (a time and phase traditionally termed "special" insanity), then after having healed himself (and presumably the spirits that surround) reentering the village as a bona fide shaman. Certain Australian Aboriginal mythoi can be likened to hold similar general accounts but here they will be a multifaceted singular jewel remaining rather than the bone (upon which the flesh and skin is attached). One can find a similar enough mythos in the Ancient Egyptian story of Osiris - who was cut into innumerable pieces and then reassembled by the goddess Isis. If find all such accounts - which, as Eliade illustrates, can be quite global - to symbolically describe ego-death and one of its potential aftermaths. All the same, shamanism as previously just described is, tmbk, specific in its origins to the Siberian region. I'd gladly accept being corrected on this, though.

[Edit: JC's wanderings about in the desert and the Buddha's near starvation under a tree could each likewise be likened to a type of such shamanistic experience, else of ego-death - such that, for one example, the individual in each case was tempted in a plethora of ways away from "enlightenment" by the spirits that surrounded. And after their enlightenment/revelation/personal-apocalypse (i.e., unveiling of truth) they then walked back into their respective village, so to speak. But I nevertheless have a very hard time in then addressing either individual as "shaman" ... this largely due to the connotations the term tends to hold. At any rate, since I was already opining ... :smile: ]

I think I see where you are slightly misunderstanding what I am saying. This is why I tried to steer clear of one particular example. The story is the competitive element here NOT the personhood. — I like sushi

I'm by no means one to shy away from or else deny the role of competition in the evolution of ideas. Still, to be concise about things, I do find that there often occurs a bifurcation when it comes to competition: on one hand there is competition for the benefit of one's ego (which often is unconcerned for underlying truths, say akin to ancient sophistry) and on the other there is competition for the benefit of greater understanding of truths, if not of Truth with a capital "T" (which often deems the welfare of one's ego to be of a secondary importance, if even that much). Empirical scientists of today all compete, for a more concrete example, but while some compete for the sake of status or financial profit, in short for greater "power-over" (and thereby sometimes twist if not fabricate truths :cough: those who deny global warming :cough:) all those with sincere interest in their profession compete cooperatively for the sake of better uncovering truths, this for the sake of obtaining a type of "power-with" (such as in relation to the scientific community at large, if not for the sincere benefit, and hence increased power, of all humanity). It to me seems to only be in this second sense that anyone can in any way be competing with their own selves for optimal discovery (pushing themselves harder, so to speak, toward this end).

To the extent this generalized (and I grant, likely oversimplified) perspective is granted, I then doubt that egotists' sophistic competition for new ideas can lead to improved reasoning anywhere near as much as the sincere hunt for the truth(s) that await to be found, both physical and metaphysical. The very same overall dichotomy I'd then ascribe to humanity's history of conceptualizations regarding divinity, or spirituality, or god/s. Some emerged out of competitions for power-over others and yet others emerged out of competing views, competitions to this extent, for what is genuinely true - such that truth (and thereby awareness of what is real) becomes the prize that is to be won (and not an ego's greater power-over that which is other which bolsters one's magnitude of egoism). And, of course, there then can be rivalry galore between these two overall ambitions and resulting forms of respective competition.

In short, I don't find that all notions of divinity, spirituality, and god/s are there strictly due to oneupmanship - which, if true, would entail that all such accounts are strictly about granting some egos more power over other egos and that none of these concepts were in any way obtained via sincere inquiries into what is true and thereby real. Most interpretations of Buddhism, as one example, don't in any way strike me as being about oneupmanship - but, instead, as addressing being about as egoless as is possible.

I am unsure what is controversial. We absolutely have an innate capacity for language. There are instances where individuals have no, or minimal, language and manage to pick it up even in later life.

I guess it is good to have some controversy in areas that seem obviously true. I do have my own way of viewing language and by 'language' I mean something that is probably not the same as how many others use the term. So, yeah, disagreements will arise due to use of the term probably.

To the extent this generalized (and I grant, likely oversimplified) perspective is granted, I then doubt that egotists' sophistic competition for new ideas can lead to improved reasoning anywhere near as much as the sincere hunt for the truth(s) that await to be found, both physical and metaphysical. The very same overall dichotomy I'd then ascribe to humanity's history of conceptualizations regarding divinity, or spirituality, or god/s. Some emerged out of competitions for power-over others and yet others emerged out of competing views, competitions to this extent, for what is genuinely true - such that truth (and thereby awareness of what is real) becomes the prize that is to be won (and not an ego's greater power-over that which is other which bolsters one's magnitude of egoism). And, of course, there then can be rivalry galore between these two overall ambitions and resulting forms of respective competition.

In short, I don't find that all notions of divinity, spirituality, and god/s are there strictly due to oneupmanship - which, if true, would entail that all such accounts are strictly about granting some egos more power over other egos and that none of these concepts were in any way obtained via sincere inquiries into what is true and thereby real. Most interpretations of Buddhism, as one example, don't in any way strike me as being about oneupmanship - but, instead, as addressing being about as egoless as is possible. — javra

I cannot really disagree here either. I probably am just more curious about it having a bigger effect than we would initially think.

Before any search for truth I think this is a likely candidate that helped develop an initial search for the truth.

As a kind of counter argument to what I am thinking, I am aware that we are born with certain rational faculties. I read this several years ago. Maybe someone else will find it interesting enough to read too:
The Scientist in the Crib

This is me making a pig's ear of this topic and rambling on :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlXj9cBTpVU&t=901s

I tried! I will keep trying :D Not sure if it makes anything I am talking about more clear OR less clear?

I've taken the time to watch the first six minutes and "embellishment" comes to mind as a pertinent word for what you are getting at.

And I would say yes, I think the human tendency towards embellishment has played a large role in the development of religious claims. I think we naturally develop subconscious recognition of the sorts of things that make stories more interesting, and this subconscious recognition tends to influence our storytelling whether we are conscious of it or not.

It seems plausible that in a culture without an understanding of a scientific method, and consequently with less recognition of the negative aspects of the human tendency to embellish, embellishment plays a particularly large role in the way beliefs get propagated.

Bart Ehrman's book, How Jesus Became God, goes into this with regards to the development of Christian beliefs.

I do go on to suggest that is may be this kind of process that refined our reasoning too. Not sure if you got to that point or lost the will to live listening to me tripping over nearly every word I said :D

Thanks for reference. Doubt I will be able to find a copy of that book though. Does he make any cross-references with other religious traditions?

I do go on to suggest that is may be this kind of process that refined our reasoning too. Not sure if you got to that point or lost the will to live listening to me tripping over nearly every word I said — I like sushi

:lol:

If I was prone to losing the will to live in response to people struggling to articulate their thoughts, I'd have murdered myself a long time ago.

However, at the moment, the desire to maintain my social status as a responsible adult in the eyes of my coworkers is interfering with me watching more.

If I was prone to losing the will to live in response to people struggling to articulate their thoughts, I'd have murdered myself a long time ago. — wonderer1

:grin: :up:

the concept of God arose through a combination of competitive story telling (one-upmanship) fed into real life boasting to the point where slowly a Higher Being came into fruition — I like sushi

Most of the commentary in this thread seems mutually compatible and complimentary to your idea here.

Gods are definitely inflated and deflated by human rivalry/competition. The divine right of kings is an example of leveraged belief to secure/conserve power. One invokes the bigger fish of spirit as a representative of official sanction.

"The doctrine asserts that a monarch is not accountable to any earthly authority (such as a parliament or the Pope) because their right to rule is derived from divine authority." — wiki: Divine right of kings

One can imagine the endless stories that serve to secure or depose one who enjoys the blessings/curses of a high status positions. If gods are not born from politics per se, they certainly evolve through it.

In Mandrills, sexual competition between males results in a hormone feedback cycle. Successful males gain a phenotype change. The troop leader is adorned by a phenotypic aura of color and shape, which serves as a signal to all others. Now throw story telling into the mix. His color might be a sign of his divine right as a king. If he may potentially be deposed by a rival, there is "always another Mandrill" to take his place. One may fantasize about the other (if fantasy is possible) and dream of all kinds of unsettling surreal exaggerations. These stories generate from all tellers, all dreamers, and are shaped by desire and fear. Mutually recognized/affirmed status between unequal members might favor the perpetuation of a shared story from shared desire. A rival might seek to subvert consensus belief for personal advantage.

Little reboot of this topic in a way. Some other ideas and research attached to how religions evolved from Robin Dunbar:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_BRofevrCw&t=1s

Have FINALLY managed to get a copy of his book too :)

Since the topic of the thread is the origin of the concept of gods, it bears mentioning that the issues of godly omnipotence and omniscience are relatively modern ones. The original gods were definitely superhuman, but often not dramatically so. Thus in my opinion their origin story is more likely to explain unexplainable natural phenomena
such as sickness and say, lightning.

Thus in my opinion their origin story is more likely to explain unexplainable natural phenomena such as sickness and say, lightning. — LuckyR

A common theory. Maybe there is something in this, but I am not convinced it is as big a deal as some make out. We know for a fact that stories were told to pas on knowledge and that mnemonics with fantastical beings helped retain such memories. For this reason I think the heart of the matter of the God concept is due to a break in the means of passing on knowledge and/or uninitiated people misconstruing the stories - basically mistaking the map for the landscape.

For this reason I think the heart of the matter of the God concept is due to a break in the means of passing on knowledge and/or uninitiated people misconstruing the stories - basically mistaking the map for the landscape. — I like sushi

Still seems like a reductive conclusion, in light of the cool responses in this thread. Are you just saying the God concept is just another meme, like everything else that might replicate through a game of telephone? It's very Dawkinish/Dennetish. The misconstrual is at times intentional, the flourish of a will to subordinate, teach or delight others, like telling your kids a fat man in a red suit delivers gifts globally to deserving children on Christmas Eve (because your parents did it to you).

Suppose we look into the heavens and see our cultural constellations as gods, with narrative exploits attached to them. We've connected the dots of known stars in familiar patterns as a shared mnemonic/coordinating device for potential navigation. Imbuing those patterns with a godly/sacred significance, story, might serve useful functions from an evolutionary point of view.

We are still sharing consensus dreams (myths) insofar as our maps can never fully close in upon the landscape.

Circles don't exist either, just like the gods. They are just another mathematical meme or organizing principle in a game of telephone. Ok...

Look at Lynne Kelly. That is a major part of how religion developed.

There is a lot more to mnemonic techniques that people realise because literacy changed things and the internet more so.

In this thread I was speculating about another possible factor. The oneupmanship is more or less an idea that could have also had a wider effect on theological and ethical discussions. If I am looking at a particular point where it was most significant I guess it would be pre axial revolution maybe? Because theological debate did not really exist - I mean it as a significant factor as possible precursor to true theological discourse.

It is speculative, but not blindly. Make sense?

The oneupmanship is more or less an idea that could have also had a wider effect on theological and ethical discussions. — I like sushi

Javra's distinction of "power over" versus "power with" in terms of competition and collaboration is appropriate. There is just as much room for the evolution of gods/God within mundane collaborative activities, like in the simple retelling of a story which the audience curates through feedback. I suppose you could say wanting to appeal to an audience is a kind of one upmanship of the self, even when there is no direct competitor involved. If everyone has heard the same old story a hundred times before, acceptable novelty might be encouraged.

The capacity to dream up supernormal stimuli and automatic conceptual fusions also may furnish the first abstract ontological dualism (spirit versus matter). The gods may just as well fall out of the dream world, if it is taken as evidence of a whole hidden world-in-itself.