A new theory on the evolution of religion

Why?

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree. If the tendency towards the practice of scapegoating functions to maintain social stability, then why the need for religion to mediate the moral outrage at scapegoating, and so maintain social stability? Either scapegoating leads to social stability or it doesn't. If it causes moral outrage, then it clearly doesn't. Also let's just call it the practice of sacrifice, since that is more universal. I don't think it has anything to do with maintaining stability. It comes about when external forces already make the society unstable, by droughts, floods, or plagues, or other natural disasters.

The Christian religion IS exactly scapegoating. Instead of sacrificing gifts to the gods in return for our wishes, we have created a permanent universal scapegoat in the form of a one time voluntary sacrifice of a perfect human being. It used to be virgins or perfect farm animals. Therefore, many modern religions are an evolution from a more ancient form of sacrifice to particular gods. Many gods become one, and the sacrifices become virtual.

The origin of earlier religions can be more easily explained as the creation of myths to explain what we don't know. There are better explanations for the origins of modern religion, such as, (as the OP hinted), the need to codify social rules, especially in societies that are too large for simple reputation and shunning to be effective.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thank you for making a rational and reasoned argument.

Stability is not something that is accomplished once and we are done with it. There is constant tension between the individual and the group.

The practice of sacrifice happens for many reasons. Natural disasters are one potential cause. But the victim isn't the cause of a natural disaster and is still sacrificed, nonetheless.

Originally, humans were sacrificed. Later animals were used. See Leviticus. Later Christianity and the universal scapegoat was conceived. Yet scapegoating clearly still exists in the world.

Why do we need scapegoats in the first place? Why do humans use the scapegoat mechanism?

The creation of myths builds upon and reinforces pre-existing religious belief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Since there is a lack of clarity one can assume your main purpose was to spark controversy, especially on religious grounds, and start from there.

 

The practice of scapegoating actually involved stoning a goat to death: each person would take a stone and name a sin they have committed, and then by throwing the stone at the goat, believed they were cleared of the sin as the sin had been passed onto the goat.

Scapegoating is a form of blaming others for one's own failings. Generally, people have a limited capacity for acknowledging their failings and for changing their behavior. Acknowledging their failings and changing their behavior would typically require considerable effort and a blow to one's self-esteem. So in order to preserve their time and other resources, as well as their self-esteem, people blame others.

 

I endeavor to please.

One cause could be the victim was not liked or mentally ill, or non-conformist, and sacrifice does bring back stability. In this case, it is unlikely that the majority would object.

But the other thing to consider is that people didn't know that the victim wasn't the cause of natural disasters. People in some countries today still believe in witchcraft and are ignorant of basic science. In other words, religion is an evolution of superstitious ideas.

 

I have enjoyed our brief conversation very much. However, I cannot continue at this time due to circumstances beyond my control. I am sorry. Perhaps we could take this up at some future date.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think that the first religions where all sort of voodoo religions. People some how noticed that some people affected others. Different groups made different versions of what we think of as voodoo.

The ptb use druidism, which is just a more advanced form of voodoo that africans used.

I reckon all ptb groups are using different forms of voodoo.

The different groups just have different names for it.

The white people running the west think theres is best as they have dominated the world. Its just a very advanced form of voodoo that is used in africa today.

The whites running the west call theres druidism though.

At the top of all religions is a form of voodoo. The white people running the west think theres is best as they are dominating the world. But who knows what secrets they have. There voodoo version is far more advanced than the african version people think off.

This is the only real religion that all groups have used. Manipulating energies, mankind has found in all groups works to some extent.

There really where children of the sun, there really are people who are somehow connected more with the sun than others. This would of been the first priests. They would of been able to bring out the sun, and others could not. Some people are just more connected with the sun.

There really where children of the sun.
Today they call themselves the iluminati, but off course there is a minority outside there group who are illuminated too.
The stuff those illuminati people do though is very advanced, and like you hear is done over long family lines. Its way more advanced than the african voodoo you hear off.
So you hear about skull and bones, all they do there is white peoples voodoo.

So at the top of all religions are people that are very good at voodoo.
They just give it different names.

The groups know something is playing them off against each other, but the whites that run the west thing there druidism(voodoo) is best, or most advanced.

Its all voodoo groups.

p.s this is the only real choice you get. You either goto the light or goto the dark.

 

So things are going pretty much as you planned then.

Oh, and re an earlier remark, when you state in multiple places that you are conducting an experiment and then state you are not conducting an experiment, most people would consider that lying. Perhaps the Group who are scapegoating you here can club together (Freudian blow, I mean slip) and buy you a dictionary.

 

Do you even read what you write? How can the evolution of religion not be about religion?

Straw man, as I never implied anything about Girard's intelligence, and an appeal to authority, seemingly assuming "scholarly books" are demonstrative of validity. In science, only evidence is demonstrative of validity.

You proffered to make those changes. I never asked for any changes, other than a suggestion to quell your bellyaching about a catch-22 of your own making.

No, you are equivocating mimetic rivalry as being substantially different from mimetic desire even though it is a trivial fact that conflict is caused by desire.

That article made no such connection.

Scott R. Garrels [the author] is adjunct professor in the School of Psychology at Fuller Theological Seminary - http://www.mimetictheory.org/bios/garrels.html​

No mention of any useful research methodology.

No mention of its interest to research.

I have already pointed you to criticisms of his work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Girard#Criticism I agree with the majority of these.

The overall objective with this grant project is to initiate cross-fertilization of research findings between mimetic scholars and empirical researchers concerning the foundational role of imitation for human motivation, behavior, development, social & cognitive functioning, and religious & cultural evolution. - http://www.mimetictheory.org/about.html​

In other words, the theory has not yet met with empirical results.

More empty straw men. You have offered no evidence other than appeals to authority.

If you want to accept Garrels credentials that is your business, but quit putting words in my mouth.

There is no opinion about it. You have continued to demonstrate hack characteristics, even when told how to avoid doing so.

So religion is now science fiction?

I am wondering why you do not see criticism as valid discussion. If you wish to take up and defend any point in the link of criticisms I gave you, I will discuss that, but I will not "prove you wrong", as that is an intellectually dishonest shifting of the burden of proof.

 

i was going to respond to the above until i read the following:

:crazy:

 

Someone may have already asked this but what about the cultures where ‘desire’ itself is regarded as ‘undesirable’?

 

Or if not, the original post is extremely bad and unscientific.

If you plan a deduction from these premises you might as well turn back the clock to Aristotle, assuming four fundamental substances earth, fire, water and air.

In short, your "theory" was dead before the first paragraph.

 

By positing that religion is a kind of generic phenomenon, much like any ideology or philosophy, and that as such, generalizations apply.

Something like comparing pots, plates, vases, ornaments etc. made of clay, and concluding that in the analysis of pots, plates, vases, ornaments etc. made of clay, the only relevant thing to consider is the clay.

 

No one is claiming they are. Girard's nature as an apologist is mentioned for a purpose:

In other words, the complaint isn't "He's an apologist, therefore he's wrong," it's "Because he's an apologist, he twists the texts until they affirm his position, and as a result he is wrong." It's sort of like that scene from Dumb & Dumber...

[video=youtube;KX5jNnDMfxA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX5jNnDMfxA[/video]

Again, no one is saying it does. Also, oral fixations and personal hygiene are not analogs for Christian apologetics. Sucking one's thumb or having a foul odor isn't going to interfere with or influence one's studies or conclusions; being a Christian apologist can, and very much did in this case.

That's an awfully rosy interpretation of religion. I can't think of any examples of religion successfully promoting selflessness or their cooperative groups actually working toward a beneficial goal, and so I can see no reason to assume it ever served such a purpose, let alone more effectively than secular societal influences. It doesn't follow that adaptive behavior is beneficial just because the adapting species is still around. I mean, what's the benefit of slaughtering hundreds to appease a rain god?

I don't think the ethical filter was extant in the times Mr. Rossano is talking about.

 

If that were so then he should have been talking about morality in general, instead of sin, guilt, and religion.

 

You mean he is inept, or, he's beating around the bush and only pretending to be inept in order to to save face and profess that this thread was all an "experiment."

Thread should be locked IMO.

 

Uh. The dude himself said he has Asperger's / autism.
What you see in this and other threads of his is an example of how people with autism sometimes reason. They might question things that most other people take for granted; they will see things in contexts that most other people don't.

 

He can speak for himself.

All you've implied is that no one should take him seriously anyway.

 

True, but he seems unable to communicate for himself.

That seems a valid implication. I am willing to entertain the possibility that he has a defect (let's not beat about the bush) that's makes participation in normal society impossible and participation in sciforums difficult. Whether we accept or deny that, his premises are flawed, his logic is faulty, his evidence is contrived and his conclusions are silly. He should probably stick to drumming: you can beat it.