A new theory on the evolution of religion

Go Away

kx000,

Thank you for asking the question about my name earlier. That said, however, I would now like you to go away please. Thank you.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I admit I found the above sentiment funny.

Too bad your new friend is banned -hopefully only for short period.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks, Beer w/Straw. But my comment, though funny, is obviously out of line as well, as far as the forum rules are concerned. I received my first official warning for the statement you just quoted. It should probably not be repeated any further.

FYI, kx000 got a one day ban.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You might as well just delete the thread, then. IMO this theory, or if that is too strong a word, idea, is already where it belongs. This thread is concerned with psychology, cognition, sociology, anthropology, and evolution. My theory is very consistent with much of the current thinking on the subject, and dovetails quite well with widely accepted theories. Please read through the original post to confirm that this is true. It would not fit in Comparative Religion or Religion. That section is for people like kx000 to argue uselessly about their religious opinions. If you move the thread there, I will abandon it.

But if you would like to discuss my theory with me, in this section, that would be cool with me. You seem bright enough to understand it.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Reasons for keeping this thread here:

Here is what is supposed to be included in the Human Science section of this forum:

psychology, cognition, sociology, anthropology, archaeology


Reasons for keeping this thread in Human Science:

1. Much of my theory is based on the work of the great French thinker, Rene Girard on mimetic theory.

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

René Girard (born December 25, 1923, Avignon, France) is a French historian, literary critic, and philosopher of social science. His work belongs to the tradition of anthropological philosophy. He is the author of nearly thirty books, in which he developed the ideas of:

1. mimetic desire: all of our desires are borrowed from other people;
2. mimetic rivalry: all conflict originates in mimetic desire;
3. the scapegoat mechanism is the origin of sacrifice and the foundation of human culture, and religion was necessary in human evolution to control the violence that can come from mimetic rivalry;
4. the Bible reveals the three previous ideas and denounces the scapegoat mechanism.

René Girard's writings cover many areas. Although the reception of his work is different in each of these areas, there is a growing body of secondary literature that uses his hypotheses and ideas in the areas of literary criticism, critical theory, anthropology, theology, psychology, mythology, sociology, economics, cultural studies, and philosophy.

Since the mimetic rivalry that develops from the struggle for the possession of the objects is contagious, it leads to the threat of violence. René Girard himself says, "If there is a normal order in societies, it must be the fruit of an anterior crisis." Turning his interest towards the anthropological domain, René Girard began to study anthropological literature and proposed his second great hypothesis: the victimization process, which is at the origin of archaic religion and which he sets forth in his second book Violence and the Sacred (1972).

If two individuals desire the same thing, there will soon be a third, then a fourth. This process quickly snowballs. Since from the beginning the desire is aroused by the other (and not by the object) the object is soon forgotten and the mimetic conflict transforms into a general antagonism. At this stage of the crisis the antagonists will no longer imitate each other's desires for an object, but each other's antagonism. They wanted to share the same object, but now they want to destroy the same enemy. So, a paroxysm of violence would tend to focus on an arbitrary victim and a unanimous antipathy would, mimetically, grow against him. The brutal elimination of the victim would reduce the appetite for violence that possessed everyone a moment before, and leaves the group suddenly appeased and calm. The victim lies before the group, appearing simultaneously as the origin of the crisis and as the one responsible for this miracle of renewed peace. He becomes sacred, that is to say the bearer of the prodigious power of defusing the crisis and bringing peace back. René Girard believes this to be the genesis of archaic religion, of ritual sacrifice as the repetition of the original event, of myth as an account of this event, of the taboos that forbid access to all the objects at the origin of the rivalries that degenerated into this absolutely traumatizing crisis. This religious elaboration takes place gradually over the course of the repetition of the mimetic crises whose resolution brings only a temporary peace. The elaboration of the rites and of the taboos constitutes a kind of empirical knowledge about violence.

This fundamental focus on mimetic desire would be pursued by René Girard throughout the rest of his career. It is interesting to note that the stress on imitation in humans was not a popular subject when Girard developed his theories, but today there is independent support for his claims coming from empirical research in psychology and neuroscience.


2. My theory is consistent with, and reinforcing of, much of the current thinking regarding the evolution of religion.

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

Humanity’s closest living relatives are common chimpanzees and bonobos. These primates share a common ancestor with humans who lived between four and six million years ago. It is for this reason that chimpanzees and bonobos are viewed as the best available surrogate for this common ancestor. Barbara King argues that while non-human primates are not religious, they do exhibit some traits that would have been necessary for the evolution of religion. These traits include high intelligence, a capacity for symbolic communication, a sense of social norms, realization of "self" and a concept of continuity. There is inconclusive evidence that Homo neanderthalensis may have buried their dead which is evidence of the use of ritual. The use of burial rituals is evidence of religious activity, but there is no other evidence that religion existed in human culture before humans reached behavioral modernity.

Elephants are the only other species known to have any recognizable ritual surrounding death.

Marc Bekoff, Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, Boulder, argues that many species grieve death and loss.

Dr. Frans de Waal and Barbara King both view human morality as having grown out of primate sociality. Though morality awareness may be a unique human trait, many social animals, such as primates, dolphins and whales, have been known to exhibit pre-moral sentiments. According to Michael Shermer, the following characteristics are shared by humans and other social animals, particularly the great apes:

"attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peacemaking, deception and deception detection, community concern and caring about what others think about you, and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group".

De Waal contends that all social animals have had to restrain or alter their behavior for group living to be worthwhile. Pre-moral sentiments evolved in primate societies as a method of restraining individual selfishness and building more cooperative groups. For any social species, the benefits of being part of an altruistic group should outweigh the benefits of individualism. For example, lack of group cohesion could make individuals more vulnerable to attack from outsiders. Being part of a group may also improve the chances of finding food. This is evident among animals that hunt in packs to take down large or dangerous prey.

All social animals have hierarchical societies in which each member knows its own place. Social order is maintained by certain rules of expected behavior and dominant group members enforce order through punishment. However, higher order primates also have a sense of reciprocity and fairness. Chimpanzees remember who did them favors and who did them wrong. For example, chimpanzees are more likely to share food with individuals who have previously groomed them.

Chimpanzees live in fission-fusion groups that average 50 individuals. It is likely that early ancestors of humans lived in groups of similar size. Based on the size of extant hunter-gatherer societies, recent Paleolithic hominids lived in bands of a few hundred individuals. As community size increased over the course of human evolution, greater enforcement to achieve group cohesion would have been required. Morality may have evolved in these bands of 100 to 200 people as a means of social control, conflict resolution and group solidarity. According to Dr. de Waal, human morality has two extra levels of sophistication that are not found in primate societies. Humans enforce their society’s moral codes much more rigorously with rewards, punishments and reputation building. Humans also apply a degree of judgment and reason not otherwise seen in the animal kingdom.


3. My theory factors in the latest research on the moral instinct and mirror neurons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

For the above reasons, and others, this thread rightfully belongs in the Human Science section. Thank you.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Directed at Bells in this thread.

Drected at Bells in another thread:

Futilitist, you've studied pschology. What is the name for this kind of communication contrast? I'm sure it must have a fancy name and you would know it.

 

I can't really say. I posted an objective and quite comprehensive assessment of his character on another thread and was told by a mod to face the wall. At the moment I'm still watching the paint on the wall dry, which is more interesting than reading F.'s posts.

 

Futilitist, simply pasting some of those Wiki articles doesn't validate your posts as science.

 

A interesting and long religious concept. I had a thought that maybe some early people thought god a big person had something to do with weather change, the sun rising and falling made people think hey if I keep showing this great individual up there in the sky the land and such then maybe there won't be much displeasure with me and life will be good for me.

Speaking of gods anyone know of the "blood eagle".

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

was that for a god?


You are still "new" here.

That's Not cool

Again not

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

cool..

I will he don't.
He has changed. And here is a tip, stay calm. And you have a choice, and a privilege... to post. You have almost lost your choice and privilege here. And here is another tip, I have never used it but try your ignore button.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I would say any topic that brings out your sense of humor can't be all bad.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Nothing in the referenced post supports a charge of stupidity.

Nothing in the referenced post supports a charge of insanity.

It is pejorative to your judgment that you would criticize someone for their tone not matching their claims about themselves when in the same line you abuse font and color and claim to be the true representative of professionalism.

Ditto.

Not so obviously. You did not define the term or argue for it with evidence. I'm still waiting for an exposition on ethics from you that does not sound entirely self-serving.

That's a lot of cut-and-paste from a tertiary source. With all your easily visible use of the site software to format your posts, with your alleged professionalism, scholarship and ethics, with your alleged human experiment research, did it ever occur to you to clearly delineate where you were quoting verbatim from your own words? An encyclopedia article, no matter how it is sliced and emphasized, does not make the specific case that this thread belongs in this forum.

Once the NPOV text from Wikipedia is identified and isolated, the remaining text (and abuse of markup tags) seems decidedly less scholarly. And as for the verbal abuse and abuse of font:

 

First.

This seems to be a stab at religion more than any serious "Theory", but let's look.

"Which came first the chicken or the egg.", and the answer would always need to be Egg if we are evolutionists.

Now which came first Religion or Guilt?

If we were to assume people were a bunch of wimps right back to the caveman days then I might even agree this Theory had at least one leg.

However; it is much more natural to assume Religion rose out of fear (self-preservation), as we are taught. The cavemen didn't understand Solar Eclipses, Season change, Natural Disasters, and much more the way we do.

If you were a caveman living in a village and then the ground started shaking because you wasted half of a mammoth kill recently, and then a giant tsunami came to shore and killed your family then perhaps you might think the "Earth" was mad at you. This is how most rational people think religion started.

Religion has survived through many dark ages where people would happily kill with no guilt. It was survival. So I will ask this question?

"Which came first, Guilt or Religion?", and see what most people would say. Guilt has always been a human emotion I would imagine, but to think it somehow made someone invent god is ridiculous.

You say this was supported by thinkers of today. Show a link from anyone else in the world who has this kind of reasoning.

Just one.

I Doubt there is anyone, anywhere on the planet that would support the notion that Religion rose out of guilt.

How about instead of figuring the world out all on your lonesome you pick up a book about the subject and read. This is how most of us learn things. You must learn from the mistakes of others, as life is too short to make them all yourself.

That is without arguing for religion, however I do believe in Positive thinking, Affirmations, and Prayer power as things that do work in our world through some yet undiscovered science. I think that maybe when tribes did rain dances and prayed for rain they got rain, and this helped their beliefs in god which was already established by the natural disaster scenarios.

Guilt causing religion. This should be in a Joke-of-the-day thread.

 

Does anyone think that one man feels guilty for murder, and the next guy really is free'd by that act. One being in their nature, the other maybe overwhelmed simply?

Point being, do you guys understand the psychology of man to the point were we can pinpoint what gets who to go nanners (get religious)? One thing is, be yourself. We should talk about good & evil, this is what religion is probably driven by early on. What about a true faith of a 'God' in ancient times? Maybe a man had a line of reasoning literally "divine."

Futillitist, are you talking about the feeling of religion, singing dancing to something the community shares, or the organized practice of Christianity, and all those which fathered it?

 

IMHO, you are making the argument from astonishment.

My theory is not a stab at religion. I opened with a sardonic, atheistic reader's digest version to get people's attention, as food for thought. But I then clarify the theory quite properly. My personal opinion on religion is separate from my theory, which is clearly based on sound science (mimetic theory, mirror neurons, anthropology, psychology, mythology, linguistics, etc.).

I don't understand what wimpiness has to do with this. Could you please explain this further?

I think that religion arose for more fundamental psychological reasons tied to mirror neurons and the moral instinct common to primates. Also, you say "as we are taught", but perhaps we are taught wrong. Perhaps my theory is so highly controversial here because it challenges some long held and cherished assumptions that are simply false. Perhaps it is an inconvenient truth; i.e. not popular, but true nonetheless. I think that that possibility has to be allowed for.

Also, the physical aspects of the world (solar eclipses, season change, natural disasters) tend to be largely disregarded by animals in favor of worrying about day to day existence. For humans, the social interaction of individuals within the group is a much bigger concern than a solar eclipse. Social interaction is so important to us because we must be focused on it to obtain food, shelter, and sex.

As opposed to irrational people like myself? That is an ad hominem. And I don't think that most humans are especially rational. I think we mostly rationalize.

The physical phenomena you describe are much better explained by science than religion. Why has religion persisted?

Why is it important what most people would say? Without science, most people would say that the earth was flat.

So, in your opinion, guilt would come first. But the second half of your statement is completely unsupported. Why is it ridiculous?

Also, the theory is more complex than the reader's digest version. How guilt and outrage specifically lead to religion is thoroughly explored. It makes logical sense to me. Why doesn't it make sense to you?

I did. Here are the three I linked to before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Girard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?pagewanted=all

And here is a book on the subject called "Mimesis and Science: Empirical Research on Imitation and the Mimetic Theory of Culture and Religion (Studies in Violence, Mimesis and Culture)":
http://www.amazon.com/Mimesis-Science-Empirical-Research-Imitation/dp/1611860237

“René Girard has provided us with an incredibly rich theory of human culture: Mimetic Theory. We must look at human nature as it really is, and not as we would like it to be. Girard’s Mimetic Theory is illuminating because it shows that mimesis has the intrinsic potentiality of driving humans to violence. Any serious neuroscientific attempt to shed light on the truest and deepest nature of the human condition cannot neglect this.”

- Vittorio Gallese, Professor of Physiology in the Department of Neuroscience of the School of Medicine at the University of Parma.

“In brilliantly original works such as Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World, René Girard confronts a possibility that most modern social scientists have shied away from: that bloodshed may be at or close to the heart of all human social life. Only a few thinkers have addressed the problem of violence fully and deeply; yet the threat of it pervades our lives as a species, and we cannot learn to deal with it by drawing back.”

- Melvin Konner, Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor in the Department of Anthropology and the Program in Neuroscience and Behavioral Biology at Emory University.

My theory is very consistent with all of the above. It really isn't my theory at all, since many have already arrived at the same conclusion as me. Basically speaking, this is a real, substantial, actual scientific theory, with much support in the literature. But perhaps I need to brush up on my presentation a bit.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but ditto.

This is a separate question, but I think that those things working is just common sense, based on a strong desire in some for them to be true. Clearly a placebo effect, and not some "yet undiscovered science". Achem's razor.


---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't see what this has to do with the serious theory I am trying to present. Maybe we should open a separate thread for personal complaints.

It is called being provocative, straight forward, and honest. Possibly humorous, depending.

The name for what you are doing is scapegoating, and it provides a good example of that, and mimetic rivalry, for discussion here. Thank you. I would only ask that from here on, we try to stick to the topic of the thread. Please drop the personal vendetta. You are just being hurtful.

There is also a word for distracting and hostile comments on threads in discussion forums. I'll let you guess what that is. Hint: It begins with a T.

I think I'm on a roll!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

---futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

My comment...:

...was supposed to be a compliment to you and your aptitude, in sharp contrast to others who have posted here, and a genuine, friendly invitation to join the discussion. Please do see the context of the remark.

Ophiolite is attempting to convince you that I was being rude to you. I was not. He hopes it will color your ability to fairly and professionally moderate this discussion. He means to use his friendly familiarity with you to trick you into hurting me. You should be much more insulted by his comment than mine.

I have already received one warning on this thread. I have put a lot of work into this presentation. There is no logical reason for me to shoot myself in the foot. Think about it. The last thing I want to do is to ruin my own efforts by inviting moderator action. Ophiolite, on the other hand seems to have a real negative agenda. Please keep this in mind.

By the way, I do sincerely apologize for my remark to you on the other thread. I do see now that I was overreacting to you. It is no excuse, but please try to understand that I am being hounded unfairly by some here. I confess to being a little jumpy on this. I am very sorry for any collateral damage I may have inflicted.

Also, the baby man thing was directed at your avatar, not you. And I like your avatar, too. Sometimes I can't resist a joke, especially a sarcastic one. Someone here mentioned that you are not a man, but, in fact, a woman. If that is correct, please forgive my boorish ignorance.

And my response to kx000 was simply mimetic. I agree that ignore is probably better for such situations. I'll do my best.


---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I am talking about the evolution of religion. Most anthropologists think that goes back at least 50,000 years. Also, much of the theory is about how ancient religions that practiced cannibalism became protomodern religions that rejected cannibalism. That started happening about 10,000 years ago, coinciding with the rise of civilization. Read Leviticus for some clues. All of this predates Christianity considerably, but there are many clues about the dark origins of religion in the new testament, as well. The godman Jesus was ritualistically sacrificed to purge the supposed sins of others. That is a scapegoat ritual. At the last supper, Jesus enjoins his followers to eat his body and drink his blood, an obvious reference to cannibalism.

Good and evil are highly charged terms, like sin. They are not scientific. But from your perspective, as I understand it, and your use of these words, I would say you are on the right track to understanding the basic theory. Concepts of good and evil are at the very root.

---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This has already been covered quite thoroughly here. Please see my comment that acknowledges my wrongdoing. I have not made any comments like that since receiving a warning. I am listening and modifying my behavior, as I should. Your repetition of my comments is not helpful at all, and perhaps might cause further inflammation in others. Please don't beat me like a dead horse.

I hope you are not trying to suggest that I am plagiarizing from wikipedia! I gave a link, immediately followed by text from both articles. And it does, in fact, make a specific case that this thread fits here. I wanted to show support for my theory from respected sources. And the thread fits in Human Science because it is concerned with what the site says Human Science is supposed to be about:

Here is the description of Comparative Religion:

It clearly does not fit there, does it? And there is no definition for the Religion section provided, but I can guarantee that that is the wrong place for this discussion. Please. I made my case. I think we should let the moderators decide.

I am not using crude terms or manipulating people. That is just your characterization. And also, as I understand it, the green color of your screen name signifies that you are not a moderator. Your assessment of how the moderators should treat me is very similar to Ophiolite's comment to Bells, except that I don't think we have ever met before. Stop trying to manipulate the mods. They are perfectly capable of making their own judgements. Thank you.

Are you religious? Are you possibly hostile to the theory on religious, and not scientific grounds?


---Futilitist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

*note---source: sciforums.com, forum page.