Animalism/tribalism/else: religion from the start?

[Maniac]

Hmm, already some new replies. Gotta go to sleep now though. Some quickies:

Originally posted by TechWins
To help support Maniac, maybe you are misinterpretting what he meant by human society? When Maniac says society I would happen to believe he/she (?) means when civilizations began to develop, not just Neathandrals and the like.

Yep.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Maniac, though, there's no way any religion-specific bonuses will get in, even for something as general as "more universalist" or whatever. It's too controversial.

There will be a +1 happiness bonus (whatever that may mean) for cities that have the same religion as your state religion.

Anyway, I'm not arguing for religion-specific bonuses. The point I'm trying to make is that animism, totems, magical and mythological religions shouldn't be included as religions just like the more universalist religions that currently are included. Thinking of those mythological religions etc as the religion that every civ has default at the start of the game (when they're so called religion-less in game terms) is in fact rather realistic I'd say.

Though of course even those magical and mythological religions gave meaning to people's life. So therefore I think the ideal solution would be that there is one city improvement (the good old 'temple') that doesn't require any "universalist religion" and represents whatever local belief or pantheon you can imagine, while all other religious city improvements that come after it do require one of the seven universalist religions included in the game.

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Platypus Rex its been found that even the late Neaderthals burried their loved ones

just for the sake of my own curiosity, where did you get your evidence from?

who is to say when human understanding of death started

indeed.

i've seen footage of elephants returning, years afterward, to the skeletons of loved and respected matriarchs. they caress the old bones with genuine tenderness. even the young calves seem to recognise a certain significance there.

scholastic view
from a scholastic (catholic) point of view, animals are not capable of metaphysical speculation. in other words, they have no capacity to understand death or it's consequences. the same principle may apply to neanderthals.

this does not mean that they cannot express grief. but i'll have to do some research before i can explain that one very effectively.

let me point out that humans do not understand death. it is only by the grace of god and by god's acts of revelation that humans have knowledge of the meaning of death.

buddhist view
there is no real distinction between animals, neanderthals and humans. they all experience joy and suffering.

at this point, i should introduce a couple of terms;
the principle of dependent origination
no phenomenon exists by and of itself. everything which is, has it's existence only as part of a larger whole. although we speak of things, actions, thoughts as me, you, it, my, his, etc. on closer inspection, these things all turn out to be just a part of a complex web of interactions. the idea of a fundamental distinction existing between one phenomenon and another is an illusion.
a corollary to this is the idea that no phenomenon arises without pre-existing conditions
nothing comes from nothing, nothing ever could (/julie andrews)
no phenomenon has an absolute beginning or end.

conventionally designated reality
if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then, as far as you and i are concerned it is an ornithorynque.
although there is no 'real' distinction between phenomena, we daily make use of convention, probably because it's just more practical and it avoids getting known as "that @nally retentive b@stard"
if an object looks like a pen, if i can pick it up and write with it, if we both understand one another when you say "hey pass me that pen", then that object has a conventionally designated reality as a pen.

according to this view, "religion" has no real beginning or end. when you see the same behaviour portrayed by humans, neanderthals, elephants, there is nothing surprising about this.

modern view
depends on the pholisopher and how much they've been smoking. many of them would point out that "religion" is just a word game that is played within society. it has no real meaning.
anybody who is not a leotard, hi-digger or derider is probably so bound up in societal mores that they are incapable of developing an intelligent opinion on death or meaning anyway.

personally
i stand by my original point. archeological evidence so far shows humans developing elaborate burial practices around the 5000bc mark.

it is still speculation to say that this is conclusive evidence of "religion or moral systems." it may be a reasonable assertion, but it's only an educated guess.

humans were actually around for some time before this. so to say that

religion or at least moral systems have always been present in human society

is just speculation.

when did humans first develop an understanding of death?
what is the difference between superstition and organised religion?
how to play the flute?
what really is that strange stuff that collects in your navel?

answers to all these questions and more in our next, thrilling installment of...

Animalism/tribalism/else: religion from the start?

[Addled Platypus]

quote:
Originally posted by Platypus Rex its been found that even the late Neaderthals burried their loved ones

just for the sake of my own curiosity, where did you get your evidence from?

Digital Science channel, here in the USA

or go here

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Neanderthal_man

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Maniac
New religions arose, who all to a certain degree had some characteristics that could appeal to the people living in those new society surroundings, and bind them together. These characteristics are:
3. Dogmatism: As said above, if the words come from God, you can't change them anymore after writing them down. Opposed to mythology, which was flexible.

Originally posted by lebensraum
this only applies to christianity, islam and some judaic sects

Originally posted by TechWins
I would say it maybe relates to the powers in place through those religions as opposed to the religion itself. Not to say the religion doesn't promote dogmatic ways, but I think the churches themselves are the ones who have provided the inornamate amount of dogmatism.

there are just so many places to go with this one...

some definitions of dogma;

Dogma is belief or doctrine held by a religion or any kind of organization to be authoritative or beyond question.

A generally held set of formulated beliefs.

A teaching or doctrine which has received official church status as being the truth. In the Roman Catholic Church it is a definitive teaching that is regarded as infallible.

Doctrine that has been infallibly defined by the Church; it is what Catholics must believe in order to be Catholic.

@techie
i'd agree that the temporal power of the church, especially in mediaeval times is a significant factor in the promotion of dogma. it certainly has a political element of "for us or against us"

@maniac
you are right. some buddhist sects can also be quite dogmatic.

mythology wasn't necessarily flexible.
i think you are trying to say that faiths which characteristically transmitted their teachings through mythology had a more accepting attitude towards alternative faiths.

if so, that is probably a fair statement, but not one which i would be prepared to accept as factual.

in terms of that statement, there are a few points to consider

dogmatism does not require revelation
as you said, some buddhist sects are quite dogmatic
however, the teachings of the buddha are not considered as divine revelation. the buddha was just a mortal human, same as you or me. his teachings are considered to be the result of thought and meditation, not god-given

revelation does not require dogmatism
the bible was developped by the catholoc church.
protestant sects accept the bible as being a divine revelation. they do not, however accept the authority of the roman church to interpret that revelation.

mythology is not necessarily flexible
hinduism is based on whaqt could be referred to as mythology. yet, as you say, many aspects of hinduism are dogmatic in the sense that they consider those myths to represent 'absolute' truth
songlines passed on by generations of koori tribes are taught strictly. again, they are mythological in character, but they are not subject to variation. each wor dmust be memorised with precision

dogmatism is not necessarily inflexible
the doctrine of the immaculate conception was developed by the catholic church in the early 20th century. it is now dogma. previously it was not.

there is a nexus to consider between church, revelation and dogma. the three are certainly related, but i do not think it is as simple as you imply.
further i'm not at all sure that the existence of dogma sustains your argument that religion is evolutionary.

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by lebensraum

judaism - "thou shall have no other god before me"
this is by no means conclusive, but it does suggest the existence, or at least the possibility of "other gods."
it does not say "everyone else is wrong." it just says, "if you worship me, it's gotta be me and only me"

Sorry, this is wrong. God=idols.

[Terra Nullius]

ahh, ghent,..
if you happen to run into gerda anytime, you can tell her from me - i still think she's a hottie.

Originally posted by Maniac
Actually I don't really understand what's the point you want to make.

oh good. i'm not the only one then.

i agree i sort of got lost in just being contrary there. i have yet to express an opinion on your original point "that religion is evolutionary." i just felt that your argument was poorly reasoned and inconclusive. by the time i finished, i was more involved with analysing the logical or empirical inconsistencies than actually making any sort of argument about it myself.

my apologies

Basically I was just repeating in short what I had been taught in university during history of philosophy classes. If you disagree with what I say, go argue with my professor.

no problem. where does he drink??

oh and since you're on your way to the bar, make mine a kwak.

re: definitions of religion

ceremonial burial is the quoted as the first archeological evidence of a recognisable religious practice. it doesn't mean that humans had religion then. it just looks like the sort of thing that can reasonably be associated with religious practice.

I guess humans, while not having some organized religious system, would always have had some basic moral values (which don't have to be metaphysical as far as I can see

i would argue that moral systems are inherently metaphysical.

do basic moral values predate organised religions?
from a humanist point of view, that is probably a reasonable suggestion.
i could see cause for argument from a theistic point of view.

it still hinges on what you consider to be basic moral values. there is a distinction to be made here between "moral sytems" and "moral values." certainly, from a scolastic point of view, humans inherently possess moral freedom, and therefore moral values.

from that point of view, as soon as a being possesses humanity, it also possesses a capacity for moral judgement. it would make sense to say that "moral systems" and "organised religion" came along afterwards.

personally
i tend to think that making unqualified statements about early human history is unwarranted.
i. it's unacademic - the evidence for any thesis is very sketchy at best. we can paint pictures of what might have happened, but can we know conclusively??
ii. it's subject to religious speculation - different religions and philosophies have different explanations for things. even in strict philosophical terms, going back to the very beginnings of human consciousness will throw up many, many different points of view.
iii. arrrgh!! creationists!! @#$% - nobody wants that!
iv. oh god, here come the scientists - from an anthropological point of view, it's like trying to investigate the big bang. the closer you get to it, the less you understand. and let's face it, i'd rather deal with an honest fool of a creationist than some physicist/philosopher.

paganism
your statement seems to me like a bit of a jumble of many different ideas and causes.

The religions were also very localized.

transport was very limited, social interaction was limited what effect did this have on the localisation of beliefs?

in comparison with todays standards of transport and communication, wouldn't you consider that religions were in fact quite widespread and uniform? (if, for example whole regions of europe had similar religious practices in 3000bc, how does that compare?)

ancient pagan beliefs seem to have held that different gods presided over different places/times. in the case of europe, it would seem that religions were very widespread, but gods were very local.

One tribe could have their own gods to worship, while a tribe a few kilometers further could have a set of others.

true, but both tribes might have been part of the same "religion."

again, you seem to be leaning on pagan beliefs, which did not necessarily reflect greater tolerance. this god rules that river, those gods inhabit these hills. the tribe living in the hills is subject to a different god and that determines their religious practice.

do those practicing paganism today do anything different?

the same behavioiur can be seen in the "evolved" religions, many modern religions live side to side today. were ancient times more tolerant, more warlike, or no different at all.

overall, this part of your argument seems like a strongly humanist-leaning historical narrative.

you have not shown that humans determined the course of religious development. i do not believe that the argument is historically sound. i disagree with the "once upon a time" feel of your narrative. some of your points are worthwhile, but i have seen plenty of evidence for animist practices still going on today that are no different, so the "evolution" narrative does not convince me.

It was considered normal for everyone to have their own different gods.

yes, pagans considered it normal for different places and hence different tribes to be presided over by different gods.

it was not necessarily considered normal for someone to be other than pagan. if you showed up preaching monotheism in stone-age europe, you would probably have been considered very un-normal indeed.

just because it was considered normal, does not mean the relationship was one of tolerance and non-violence.
"sire it is normal for those heathens to worship their cruel war-god thor... therefore we must destroy them and take their land. "

it is still considered normal many religions live side by side in mant parts of the world.

enough for now, i need a ciggie, i'll get back to the rest later. oh and where's my beer?!!!
#$%& belgians....

[Terra Nullius]

re: goddess figurines

the evidence of similar figurines found distributed over large distances may indicate that many different tribes had similar religious practices. they may have all been used to represent similar beliefs. they may have represented different gods within the same religion. they may have arisen by pure accident. they may have had no religious significance whatsoever.

nontheless, there is a distinct possibility that religious beliefs were not as localised as you suggest.

re: ho hum...
as if that needs any further explantion?!!
it's perfectly clear to me!!

as i said above, the idea that "this didn't cause problems" is rather tenuous. i don't think there's any evidence that ancient religions caused any fewer problens than modern ones.

as far as "this was considered normal"
normal to whom??
have you conducted a 'phone survey of late stone-age tribes and analysed the data?

yes, i deny that egyptian and indian cities all had their own god.
egyptian and indian boogers all had their own god.
gods for harvest, gods for sowing, gods for peeing, god for the little dribble of pee you just can't get rid of, gods for smallpox, gods for plague, the list goes on

In the great cultural areas of those days large empires started forming ... , the tribal beliefs no longer succeeding in streamlining behaviour of all the ... different peoples in the empires. New religions arose, ... that could appeal to the people living in those new .. surroundings, and bind them together.

the part i really don't like about this is: you are getting really stuck into the humanist historical narrative again.

now, i don't have a problem if you want to say "i don't believe in the action of deities or metaphysical forces. i don't believe that gods had any effect in shaping human history, or the history of religion."

if that is your belief, you are quite entitled to it.

but if you are trying to put a rational argument, you should state your assumptions. your narrative seems to assume that humans or the forces of human civilisation shaped religious history.

that may be so, and i do not reject the possibility. but i cionsider it to be just one of many possibilities.

as far as the expansion of religions goes, it really is a more complicated matter than you seem to suggest.

i'll skip that and the question of hinduism as a tribal religion for now.

as far as the "silly polemic" bit goes

like i said your argument is very humanist. i don't think it is an example of sound theology. my initial impression was that you were veering towards one of those "religion is the source of all evil" tirades.

as far as "your own prejudices"
we all have them. i'm prejudiced too ( don't get me started about modern philosophers or john howard!!)
like i said your argument did not seem at all like sound reasoning so much as humanist dogma.

there was no intention to cause offence. i think it was the schmoo who pointed out elsewhere: these things are called posts, not term papers. so i was trying to keep things as short as possible.

sorry if i sounded harsh, from my point of view there is nothing wrong with having prejudices. i just think it's helpful to be able to recognise them when necessary.

[GeoModder]

Originally posted by lebensraum
ahh, ghent,..
if you happen to run into gerda anytime, you can tell her from me - i still think she's a hottie.

I'll do that.

oh and where's my beer?!!!
#$%& belgians....

Be quicker, the guy on the stool next to you already finished it.

[Mace]

Originally posted by lebensraum
i wanna chain my hostages to the altar and devour their living organs. and whatever protestant pc poof came up with the list of starting faiths is gonna be first up against the brazier!

LOL! organ devouring is always a plus

Yeah I brought up animism in the other thread. But I don't think there should be any starting religion. You should have to learn tech for them all.

[Terra Nullius]

yep, at this point, you still have to research ceremonial burial before you can start lining up the lambs.

i like maniac's point that you should be allowed to build temples without having a "universalist religion" (his term - not mine). on the other hand, if there's no rioting in c4, maybe the whole 'happy people' part of the game doesn't figure in anymore.

#$%& belgians....

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Lord Nuclear
Sorry, this is wrong. God=idols.

oh, don't you start!!

not that i'm trying to be a source-nazi, but i'd would appreciate an authorative interpretation on this one. and so, i have to ask...

what's your sauce?

[GeoModder]

For more then one reason.

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by lebensraum

oh, don't you start!!

not that i'm trying to be a source-nazi, but i'd would appreciate an authorative interpretation on this one. and so, i have to ask...

what's your sauce?

Italian Ranch.

[Maniac]

Sorry for lack of quick replies. I'm kinda busy...

[TechWins]

Originally posted by Maniac
Sorry for lack of quick replies. I'm kinda busy...

Unacceptable!!!