Animalism/tribalism/else: religion from the start?

[Max Sinister]

Originally posted by TechWins
To start all Civ's off as animistic is to assume religion takes an evolutionary process, in which case is a Western view to promote the elitism of monotheism. Religion is not evolutionary, although it would seem that it could be put into an evolutionary outlook.

Especially since you could conclude from that that the next logical step in the line of animism (everything has a soul, or spirit - even swords and stones) - polytheism - monotheism would be atheism (or the religion of prudence).

[Addled Platypus]

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

just post them when you not busy


just dont forget us

[Terra Nullius]

and geomod says i'm slow!!

[TechWins]

Originally posted by Max Sinister


Especially since you could conclude from that that the next logical step in the line of animism (everything has a soul, or spirit - even swords and stones) - polytheism - monotheism would be atheism (or the religion of prudence).

I am not sure what you mean by that statement; would you mind rephrasing for me? Thank you.

[GeoModder]

Originally posted by lebensraum
and geomod says i'm slow!!

In drinking you obviously are.

Trying to lure me in again, do you?

[Maniac]

Originally posted by TechWins
The terms used to categorize several different religions were more generic Christian concepts.

Yeah sorry for that. Some meaning may have been lost or shifted in my translation from Dutch to English. Also, if you want to compare two things, I guess you have to either invent new words, or use words from one of the things you’re comparing and which you’re more familiar with, which of course might carry with it connotations that are not intended.

I should have said: "Maniac, religion could (not would) be evolutionary from the view of it being used as a tool to control the masses -- sociologically and psychologically." Following that, because a religion may be more useful for controlling the masses certainly does not mean it is better suited for complex civilizations.

Can’t follow your train of thought here I must admit.
Btw, “controlling the masses” may be putting it bad. Perhaps saying “allowing them to live together” would be better.

The Mayans and Incans both had very complex civilizations; forms of animism worked out perfectly fine for them and their great empires would be here today were it not for the advent of gunpowder.

I don’t know that much about those civilizations, so unfortunately I can’t reply here much.

On a general note though, giving a couple examples of animist or tribal religions still surviving today (Hinduism partly I guess) or in large civilizations a couple centuries back is as far as I can judge not a proof that religion is not evolutionary from a sociological-functionalist point of view. Of course, the world isn’t a 100% “universalist religious”, nor are all religions a 100% universalist. But I dare say that when comparing the world between 500 BC and now, universalist religions are now much more widespread. In other words, though not a perfect one, an evolution has happened.

To go back to eg the Aztecs and Incas, weren’t those still young and growing empires? Who knows how their religion could have evolved should their civilization not have been destroyed by the Spanish? I remember now… I saw a documentary once about the Incas, and IIRC how they were in the process of forming one religion out of the different tribal religions. So who knows what could have happened further.


lebensraum

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.

I never claimed those two required each other.
Also I never said revelation (sorry for the Christian word) had to be divine. Some dude whose words are given higher authority (Siddharta, Zoroaster, Confucius, Lao Tzu) also fits the bill. Can you give many examples of mythological religions supposedly having one guy who founded the religion?

i would argue that moral systems are inherently metaphysical.

Ho wait. Do you mean with ‘metaphysical’ that it has to contain supernatural elements such as a god or a higher reality/idea-lity? If so, are you saying that any monist materialist moral system is in fact NOT a moral system?

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??

We can never know anything conclusively. The only thing science allows us to do is say that something might probably be more probable than something else.

my initial impression was that you were veering towards one of those "religion is the source of all evil" tirades.

I don’t think that. That would be a rather odd position btw, since what is “evil” is usually defined by religions or other moral systems…

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.

Well duh. Who else shaped human history than humans? Do you actually believe gods exist and that they guided human history, or are just making some purely hypothetical philosophical argument??

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

Sure, it’s a possibility, just like the existence of deities. But the existence of Martians, trolls and wizards is also a possibility. As said above, science doesn’t allow us to give certainty, but it can give an indication of what’s more probable than other stuff. And the possibility of human history being affected by humans seems in my humble opinion infinitely more probable than the possibility of it being guided by deities, aliens (though those could very well exist of course) or who knows what else one can imagine.

So, you know, as said I’m busy now, so I’m not gonna spend my time discussing about religion with (I assume) someone who believes in god(s). I'd advise to read a good book about scientific methodology first.

Sorry if I sounded harsh.

[Maniac]

"CIV IV - As if Arguments About Religion Weren't Already Annoying Enough!"

[TechWins]

Can’t follow your train of thought here I must admit. Btw, “controlling the masses” may be putting it bad. Perhaps saying “allowing them to live together” would be better.

A religion, though it may be well suited to controlling the masses, does not mean it is better suited for complex civilzations, and that is when (IIRC) I mentioned the Incan and Mayan civilizations.


Well, the discussion is now longwinded, and I think I'm done with it.

[planet]

Yes, bring in the shaman/wise or whattever

[Paddy]

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Maniac
Also I never said revelation (sorry for the Christian word) had to be divine.

fair enough, but your terms are a bit loose. in theological terms, revelation refers to that which is revealed by god(s). if you are talking about something passed from human to human, "teaching" would be probably a better word to use.

Can you give many examples of mythological religions supposedly having one guy who founded the religion?

nope, if it's important to you i'll fish around for some examples.

Ho wait. Do you mean with ‘metaphysical’ that it has to contain supernatural elements such as a god or a higher reality/idea-lity? If so, are you saying that any monist materialist moral system is in fact NOT a moral system?

"metaphysical" has nothing to do with god, or belief therein. it refers to that which cannot be aprehhended by the senses. for example, a circle is metaphysical.

a materialist system is still based on concepts. concepts are not physical objects. i would argue that materialist morals are just as metaphysical as more acsetic systems.

of course, i have a friend who determinedly argues that all human behaviour is determined by a process of chemical reactions. according to his point of view, everything is purely physical and there is no such thing as metaphysics.

Well duh.

ohhh. now you've hurt my feelings!!

Who else shaped human history than humans? Do you actually believe gods exist and that they guided human history, or are just making some purely hypothetical philosophical argument??

nope, i'm just pointing out that your argument hinges on your belief that gods did not shape the course of human history. i'm not saying that isn't possible. i'm just pointing out that it's one possible viewpoint and it strikes me as a very western one at that. if you're going to start analysing other peoples' cultures, don't you think you should start by considering their viewpoint first?

i just don't like your point of view because it strikes me as really limited and boring. personally it fascinates me to try and understand all the different explanations people have for how we came to be where we are. i do think the fabric of reality is far more subtle than you suggest.

what is more problematic to me, from a purely rational point of view, is the historicity of your argument.
you're writing your own little troll story. it's all "once upon a time, in a far distant land, the people were very silly. they believed in many, many gods.
everyone got along just fine because they thought it was normal.
then, one day, the evil princesss monotheism showed up and it all went downhill from there."

the possibility of human history being affected by humans seems in my humble opinion infinitely more probable than the possibility of it being guided by deities, aliens (though those could very well exist of course) or who knows what else one can imagine.

i don't have a problem with your opinion. i just think it lacks sensitivity. reality is a very subtle phenomenon.

So, you know, as said I’m busy now, so I’m not gonna spend my time discussing about religion with (I assume) someone who believes in god(s).

oooh, i must tell my mum. she'll be soo pleased.

I'd advise to read a good book about scientific methodology first.

now you're being silly. what really makes me laugh is that you think you're the one being scientific!

most of our disagreement stems from the fact that i'm coming at this from a philosophical/theological point of view, while you're coming at it from a sociological point of view. and, well of the two, i'm inclined to think that theology is a far more precise science than sociology.
this is bound to offend someone, but isn't sociology more of an art than a science?

Sorry if I sounded harsh.

you call that harsh, boy?!!

god!! my butt didn't even get warmed up over that one!

now where's my @#$% beer

[Terra Nullius]

this discussion seems to have died a natural death.

i don't think there's any need to revive it. looking back over the discussion, though there are a few points that i feel i should clarify before we bury it forever.

re: dogmatism & revelation

Originally posted by Maniac
I never claimed those two required each other.

it was strongly implied in your original post.

if the words come from God, you can't change them anymore

if you want to change your point of view, fair enough. but yes, you did suggest that one depended on the other.

Who else shaped human history than humans?

this point deserves better explanation than i have given it so...
the problems i see with your argument are

1) "religion" has not been defined. so let's start with "the relationship(s) between individuals, their society and their god(s)."

yes, i know, you'll disagree with that. since you haven't proposed a definition of your own, however, that leaves you in the position of having to show reason why you disagree with the above.

from a theological perspective, god(s) have a higher order of being than humans. it therefore stands to reason that god(s) would have at least as much influence on the relationship as humans.

if you started out defining religion as a purely sociological phenomenon, you would avoid this source of contention. as it is, any general use of the term "religion" necessarily pre-supposes some kind of relationship to god(s).

i'm not making a statement here about the existence or otherwise of gods. i'm simply pointing out that your argument is too generalistic to be logically sound. you have left key terms undefined, and as any good programmer will tell you - undefined variables are nothing but trouble.

2) your original thesis reads like a peice of conspiracy theory. this part in particular

In that setting of increasing complexity and interaction, the tribal beliefs no longer succeeding in streamlining behaviour of all the geographically and culturally different peoples in the empires.

again i'm not saying that gods had anything to do with it. but your language seems to imply a conscious intention on the part of some unnamed (human) powerbroker to go out and control the masses.

this was probably unintentional on your part, and you have already retracted the "controlling the masses" part. however my point stands - i do not see the development of religion as some sort of conspiracy. (at least not on the part of the humans involved - maybe the aliens did it )

of course if you do see it as a sort of conspiracy, feel free to state your opinion. but would you please back it up with rational argument and evidence of some kind?

3) the key term, "evolution" has not been defined. again you seem to be implying several different things at once.

In that setting of increasing complexity and interaction

assuming that god(s) do not exist, and that the universe is purely mechanical in nature, your interpretation of "evolution" seems to contradict the physical law of entropy. if the universe is purely mechanical, how do you explain your idea that society and religion are of ever increasing complexity?

again, i'm not saying that there are not suitable arguments to defend your point of view, but whatever they may be, they are certainly not obvious, and you have made no attempt to clarify them.

in summary
as you can see, none of my argument actually hinges on the existence of god(s) or otherwise. i criticise your argument for it's lack of logical consistency. so if you feel like apologising for jumping to conclusions, go right ahead.

So, you know, as said I’m busy now, so I’m not gonna spend my time discussing about religion with (I assume) someone who believes in god(s). I'd advise to read a good book about scientific methodology first.

the problems i see with this statement are;

1) i have not stated what my beliefs actually are. you have not taken the trouble to ask. yet you are already acting on what you assume. what are we telepathic now?

2) my own beliefs are simply not relevant to the topic at hand.

3) if you only ever discuss things with people who have the same point of view as you do, that's up to you.
edit: * omg - lebensraum's turning into a raving lunatic too!

4) considering the wealth of logical inconsistencies, lack of evidence, gross generalisations and ideological taint of your arguments, you've got to admit, it's pretty arrogant for you hand out advice about scientific method.

edit: * omg - see above

Sorry if I sounded harsh.

no problem.

now it's my turn...

omigod, i was right all along!

maniac's whole argument really is one of those "religion is the source of all evil" rants.

how disappointing!

now if anyone wants to take the trouble to actually define "evolution" and "religion," maybe we can have a discussion about whether or not religion is evolutionary

as it is, i'd have to say the arguments so far proposed are just one big waftam

i'm inclined very much to agree with tech wins on two points.
i) religion is not really evolutionary
ii) this discussion is getting long-winded. i'm done.

[Daddy-O]

from: lebensraum

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.

Sorry. You are wrong.
How could it be that the Roman Catholic Church developed this dogmatic truth "in the early 20th century" when Pope Pius IX made the Feast of the Immaculate Conception a holy day of obligation in 1854? One of the reasons for his decision was that sinless state of Our Mother had been Church Dogma for centuries.

Please read:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

Even if you misspoke and meant 19th century, your point that this is invented or changed dogma is silly. It would be like saying that just because the Catholic Church recently started to observe Divine Mercy Sunday, the Church only recently accepted the mercy of God as dogma.

Dogmas are the basic TRUTHS of a religion. These cannot be changed. The way people celebrate, the rituals, the prayers might change. Dogma does not - by definition.

Religions and political mov'ts cannot go changing their truths without invalidating those same truths.

[Daddy-O]

enough with the funny stuff.
this sort of cult mentality is just plain dangerous.

Which is exactly why I voted banana. I thought some form of religion component would be good for the game, but that religion should be able to be named by the player - "Skrobism - a way of life" would be an excellent name choice. The player could make it polytheistic or monotheistic. Then watch it spread across the borders, or whatever...

I really am uneasy about playing a religious game and role playing on the web if the names of the religions are actual. There will be a lot of upset parties.

Go Banana!

[Kuciwalker]

I really am uneasy about playing a religious game and role playing on the web if the names of the religions are actual. There will be a lot of upset parties.

Except there's zero distinction between the religions beyond name, so there's nothing to be offended about...