Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Evolution of God.. moved from the Debate thread...
Options
-
18-12-2009 5:58pm#1Moved from hereI would be happy to discuss this further in another thread
OK then lets do just that
If supernatural concepts are the product of the evolution of the human mind, and all humans are very closely related to each other (100,000 years ago there were only 4,000 to 15,000 humans alive on Earth), why would they have developed varying and differing concepts?
Well yeah, that is sort of the point.
These are universal concepts, produce by the human brain. We can study them as such. Christians don't have a brain vastly different to Hindus or Native Americans.
We know in fact left to their own devices children will produce "gods" from their own imaginations and assign the same properties to them that are common throughout world religions, if the concepts are not implanted in them first by parents.
Because we are all human and humans are very closely related to each other. These concepts are the product of the human mind, and the human mind is pretty much the same across the species.
It is the same as language, different world languages may be structurally different but the vast majority of them work on the same basic principles because the vast majority of humans have evolved the same basic mental processes for structuring language.
If all that is true then that goes completely against the view posited by Robert Wright in his book: The Evolution of God. He posits the idea that monotheism was something that came late in the day after many meanderings from sun Gods, to star gods, to wind gods to thunder gods and so on. Do you side with Wright on this one or Richardson? Did the idea of a Supreme God evolve over time? If so, then how come, according to Richardson, so many disparate and geographically unconnected cultures evolved the same idea very early on?0
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
The most supported theory is that viewing agency in nature originated as a survival method. It helps to see the trees moving or a sound in the bushes not as nature but as a something coming to get you because it might actually be something coming to get you.
Another theory I've come across that sort of ties into that is that it was too much work and hassle to evolve two ways of viewing the world, viewing the world of people and human interaction and viewing the world of purposeless nature. Instead to save brain power we used different bit, the bits that work out a tree is about to fall are similar to the bits that work out that a person is about to jump of a bridge, and thus there is criss cross between the two (the tree is about to fall because of this human like reason ie the tree god commands it)
Not sure I buy that. It assumes a lot and relies heavily on a lot of faith in order to accept it fully. But theoretically it is quite plausible I suppose.My own understanding, and I'm not familiar with Richardson's book, is that the earliest known religions were polythestic. But that doesn't matter so much for your question, how can diverse cultures evolve the same concept. The answer to that is easy, because we are all human and humans are quite similar.
That is a good answer but if we all started out with say; many different God's and then some cultures evolved or devolved to worship just one God but yet we still have religions that have many God's, probably more than religions which are monotheistic, then why this side road into monotheism when polytheism worked quite well? I think the best explanation is that God actually exists and the Bible record is this God's clear record of Him and our part in His story, and that from the very beginning our memory traces of Him splintered off into many different aspect of His nature and resulted in the many polytheistic world views we see today.
I know, coming from a Christian that sounds like a very biased position to take but it also makes quite a lot of sense. I mean evolution usually adds on things over time, as in the case of simple celled organisms evolving into more complex life forms and then from this more complex form to growing limbs, organs and so on. They usually start out simple (i.e. monotheism) and end up very complicated organisms (i.e. polytheism). For me it simply doesn't make sense even looking at it from a natural evolutionary perspective, that we would start out with many Gods and over time evolve a simpler worldview eventually morphing into monotheism and then eventually atheism If I were an atheist and expressed this view I would be viewed as being very biased toward my worldview in drawing that conclusion. But the simple fact remains, evolutionary theory always starts with the simple and branches out into the more complicated, so if religion did evolve then even if God doesn't exist it naturally follows that monotheism came first. I might be wrong but I think what I've said has a lot going for it from a just from a common sensical point of view.Well I haven't read Richardson's research. From Googling I think Richardson was trying to say that all world religions start off with a concept of not only a monotheistic god but the Hebrew God and that this was embedded in them from the start (he seems pretty popular on Creationist websites probably because of this theory).
Well I suppose he was trying to show the merits of Christianity and that it wasn't simply an offshoot of one of the polytheistic religions, as some have claimed. Maybe he was trying to balance the books. But even if he was wrong about the those religions having Hebraic attributes they still display monotheistic attributes, be they Hebraic or not. The conclusion I draw (and I know this is biased on my part) is that the reason they were monotheistic is because of their memory traces from their ancestors from the garden on wards. But even if that is false it makes more sense to assume that we started out monotheistic and added on more God's as time went by.Given that Richardson (according to Wikipedia) is not an historian or archeologist, rather a Christian missionary, and given that his work seems (from what I've read) to be based on interpretations of the stories of East Asian tribes within the context of Christianity, I would be some what skeptical of his claims. Again I'm only reading the other side, I haven't read his book I wouldn't want to completely dismiss what he wrote without ever reading it but at the moment I don't see his work as having over turned the generally held historical view that religions start off as polythestic.
Well it's not just him who's saying it, Anthropologists Dr. Wilhelm Schmidt, The Origin and Growth of Religion also expounds on this idea. Plus the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics concurs.
Excerp from an artilce on Probe.org - full article here
Examples of Original Monotheism
Here are just a few examples. The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics states that the Chinese culture before Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism, 2600 years before Christ, worshipped Shang Ti. They understood Him to be the creator and law-giver. They believed that He was never to be represented by an idol. When the Zhou Dynasty controlled China during the years 1066-770 B.C., the worship of Shang Ti was replaced by the worship of heaven itself, and eventually three other religions were spawned in China.
In a region north of Calcutta, India, there lived the Santal people. They were found worshipping elements of nature. However, before these practices developed, they worshipped Thakur Jiu, the genuine God who created all things. Although they knew Thakur Jiu was the true God, the tribe forsook worshipping Him and began entering into spiritism and the worship of lesser gods who ruled over some aspect of creation.
In Ethiopia, the Gedeo people number in the millions and live in different tribes. These people sacrifice to evil spirits out of fear. However, behind this practice is an older belief in Magano, the one omnipotent creator.
The Incas in South America also have this same belief. Alfred Metraux, author of History of the Incas, discovered the Inca's originally worshipped Viracocha, the Lord, the omnipotent creator of all things. Worship of Inti, the Sun God, and other gods are only recent departures from this monotheistic belief.
These examples follow Paul's description in Romans 1 where he states that men departed from worship of the creator to the worship of the creation."I appreciate that this is not your words, but I think it needs some clarification. The historical idea that this is how religion developed is not "just so". It is the most supported historical theory. It wasn't just made up by atheists as the author of that comment seems to imply.
But wouldn't you agree that the view that religion and the one supreme God idea simply evolved from man's mind is as biased a position to take for an atheist (because it fits in with the atheistic worldview) as what you seem to be suggesting might be the case for Don Richardson's view (as it fits in with the monotheistic worldview) above. I understand your hang ups, but it works both ways doesn't it?Also viewing the progression from polytheism to monotheism as progress is some what short sighted. Monotheism is not consider to reflect a more advanced form of religion. After all while the Hebrews were running around the desert the Greeks and Romans were taking over the world. Polytheisms didn't seem to do them much harm and polytheistic religions still survive and are very popular to this day.
Well that is precisely my point. I don't hold to the view that monotheism is a progressive outgrowth from polytheism at all. I believe the opposite view is most likely the case, that the more advanced polytheism came from the more primitive monotheism, a position that is in agreement with general evolutionary theory.Again from reading about Richardson's theory (rather than the theory itself) it seems some what lacking in support.
Also while I can say this was Richardson's motivation it does seem to have been grabbed up by those who feel the standard historical theory is counter to their religious beliefs, and the idea seems some what agenda driven.
So all that would make me skeptical of the idea. Is there anyone else who has confirmed Richardson's theory, using the standard ancient civilisations around the furtile cresant
Well in the absence of any refutation of his findings I don't see why we should not accept them. Plus I have given you other sources which do support his findings and one of them was the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. But even without all these books, I personally cannot reconcile what we have come to accept from general evolutionary theory which always starts with the simple and progresses to the more advanced, to then turn around and accept the complete opposite when it comes to religion. It's very move-the-goal-posty if you ask me.0 -
It doesn't rely on any faith (though given how we all seem to define those types of words different I'm not sure :pac:) in the sense that it is based on scientific research. It is certainly not conclusive yet, but it seems a reasonably well supported theory.Soul Winner wrote: »Not sure I buy that. It assumes a lot and relies heavily on a lot of faith in order to accept it fully. But theoretically it is quite plausible I suppose.
Why do some cultures play football and others play Rugby? There are a lot of different ideas about how monotheism came about. It was most likely cultural shifts.Soul Winner wrote: »That is a good answer but if we all started out with say; many different God's and then some cultures evolved or devolved to worship just one God but yet we still have religions that have many God's, probably more than religions which are monotheistic, then why this side road into monotheism when polytheism worked quite well?
An important point is that this is cultural evolution, not biological evolution. The brains that produce polytheistic religions are pretty much the same as the ones that produce monotheistic religions.Soul Winner wrote: »I think the best explanation is that God actually exists and the Bible record is this God's clear record of Him and our part in His story, and that from the very beginning our memory traces of Him splintered off into many different aspect of His nature and resulted in the many polytheistic world views we see today.
Well yeah but isn't that all faith (something you criticised only a few minutes ago).
For example can you demonstrate we actually have a "memory trace" of him to begin with? What is the science behind that?
Can you explain why both polytheistic and monotheistic religions appeared before Moses (ie the first written record of the Hebrew God). Where were the Egyptians getting their religion from, given that it is quite different in structure to the Hebrew religion.
I mean "God did it" can be used to explain anything and everything if you are prepared to just start speculating as to what you think God did. A person could just as easily say that all world religions are explained by the Greek gods and then start speculating as to what they did to bring these religions about.
The whole point of taking a more measured critical look at this is that you don't start wildly speculating using a supernatural deity, because you can basically make up any explanation for anything and you have no idea if you are correct or not.
Not really, with either biological evolution (Darwinism) or cultural evolution. When it comes to the evolution of cultural ideas things can easily go the other way, start of complex and get similar. For example one theory of how monotheism caught on was that it was becoming more difficult to explain religions as people moved around (eg. slavery), and as such the religions themselves became less complicated and more stream lined as people simply stopped including the more complicated details.Soul Winner wrote: »I mean evolution usually adds on things over time, as in the case of simple celled organisms evolving into more complex life forms and then from this more complex form to growing limbs, organs and so on. They usually start out simple (i.e. monotheism) and end up very complicated organisms (i.e. polytheism).
Well thankfully that is a bit of a straw man position. The mistake the Amazon poster was making was viewing evolution as a progression, that monotheism is "better" than polytheism.Soul Winner wrote: »For me it simply doesn't make sense even looking at it from a natural evolutionary perspective, that we would start out with many Gods and over time evolve a simpler worldview eventually morphing into monotheism and then eventually atheism If I were an atheist and expressed this view I would be viewed as being very biased toward my worldview in drawing that conclusion.
This is the same mistake people make with biological evolution, thinking that a human is some how "more evolved" or "better evolved" than a bacteria. That doesn't hold.
There is nothing objectively "better" about monotheism over polytheism, in the same way there is nothing objectively better about soccer than rugby.
No, not true. Evolution will often make things less complicated and more steam lined (in a couple of thousand years you probably won't have your little toe)Soul Winner wrote: »But the simple fact remains, evolutionary theory always starts with the simple and branches out into the more complicated
But also need to be clarified, that is biological evolution (Neo-Darwinian evolution). That explains the evolution of the brain to the point of humans creating religion.
The differences between monotheism and polytheism have happened in a blink of an eye in terms of biological evolution so it is very difficult to say that this occurred because of biological changes in humans.
It most likely occurred due to cultural changes, and as such Darwinian evolution becomes less relevant (unless you want to get into the topic of memes, which I don't think is necessary)
So even if that idea that evolution always makes things more complicated (it doesn't) that would actually be some what irrelevant.
Just wanted to clarify that point.Soul Winner wrote: »The conclusion I draw (and I know this is biased on my part) is that the reason they were monotheistic is because of their memory traces from their ancestors from the garden on wards.
Well you can draw any conclusion you want, the question is though can you support that conclusion? Otherwise someone else from another religion could draw a similar conclusion back to their creation myth. It means nothing ultimately if you can't start verifying if you are in any way correct?
This is an issue atheists face all the time. You may think its great that your religion fits and explains this, but that is because you only seriously consider your religion and it's explanation, because you're a Christian.
Myself though I've no reason to consider your religion's explanation as any more true an explanation than any other religion and I have to consider all of them.
So it is only when you get into verifying and testing can you actually start saying you have an accurate explanation. Otherwise you are just picking arbitarily, and explanation.
The links you have linked to are interesting, when I've studied them I'll reply more.Soul Winner wrote: »But wouldn't you agree that the view that religion and the one supreme God idea simply evolved from man's mind is as biased a position to take for an atheist (because it fits in with the atheistic worldview) as what you seem to be suggesting might be the case for Don Richardson's view (as it fits in with the monotheistic worldview) above.
Not really, since the idea that religion is the product of human evolution is a theory that can be studied and tested, where as saying something like that God implanted a memory in all of us really can't (as far as I can tell).
I've seen a lot of scientific research showing how humans produce religious like behavior due to how our brains have evolved for survival and hunting. I mean people aren't just making this stuff up.
Another important point is that from a scientific point of view we start with a blank slate, a "we don't know what causes this behavior" position. We don't start with a position that it was God until we demonstrate otherwise. In science you don't assume that a phenomena like religious behavior is cause by the things people believe in until demonstated otherwise.
"God did it" is just another competing theory, one that no one can come up with tests or models. As such it is a very weak theory with very little support. If other theories that can be tested and can be verified are also explaining the phenomena of religious behavior then these are naturally going to be consider better theories.
The purpose of science is to explain the phenomena (religious behavior), not to demonstrate that it isn't what religion X claims it is. If someone wants to try and show that religion X's claim is accurate go ahead. But they have to do so to the same standard as everyone else.
At the moment what ever its faults the idea that religious behavior is the product of how the brain evolved is miles ahead of religious idea simply by virtue that it is a proper scientific theory that can be studied and tested and modeled and verified.
Well that is precisely my point. I don't hold to the view that monotheism is a progressive outgrowth from polytheism at all. I believe the opposite view is most likely the case, that the more advanced polytheism came from the more primitive monotheism, a position that is in agreement with general evolutionary theory.Soul Winner wrote: »Well in the absence of any refutation of his findings I don't see why we should not accept them.
That isn't really how it works. It is up to the person putting forward the idea to have it confirmed by others in order to be accepted, rather than accepted as is until it is refuted.
The reason for this should be obvious, the fact that no one has refuted it doesn't mean it is a good theory it just means no one has refuted it for what ever reason. For example, if I publish on my personal website my theory on how the moon was formed by a space ship hitting Mars the fact that no one has bothered to refute that means nothing for the accurate of the theory. What would mean something with regard to the accuracy of the theory would be if someone else verified my results.
So I'm not really interested in the absence of refutation, I'm interested in the abundance of confirmation. Though you have linked in your previous post that I'm going to study.Soul Winner wrote: »But even without all these books, I personally cannot reconcile what we have come to accept from general evolutionary theory which always starts with the simple and progresses to the more advanced
Leaving aside that Darwinian evolution doesn't really apply with regard to the change from poly to monotheism, that isn't even what Darwinian evolution says.
Things do not get more advanced or less advanced. They get more adapted. Getting more adapted can be getting similar or getting more complex.0
Advertisement