eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) (06/02/85)
< science may triumph, but it will take a hell of a long time!!! >
As a former Christian, I always find religion fascinating.
Religions, like languages and species, are constantly evolving
entities, adapting to new social and technological environments.
As always, the origins (first language, life from non life,
first religion, etc) are largely unknown, but natural processes
adequately explain subsequent events.
Religions, the primary antithesis of naturalism and scientific thought,
are themselves subject to the very processes they reject.
Ironic, isn't it?
Micro evolution can be seen in only a few generations.
Consider how easily the creationist re-interprets genesis, redefining 6 "days"
as 6 indefinite periods of time, permitting an old Earth.
Revelations now describes our technological implements of destruction,
and the impending battle of Armagedon.
Of course, verses describing the flat Earth
(and other blatantly wrong concepts) are simply metaphors.
A jewish state is formed, without waiting for the coming Messiah.
The Catholic church bends and squirms on womens' issues.
Even more interesting, I believe, is religious macro evolution.
The earliest religions used idols and graven images,
but these (primarily) did not last. Why not?
A neighboring tribe can always steal your idol, or distroy it.
The builder of the idol cannot believe in its deity for long.
As technology advances, idols, rocks, and trees, are no longer mysterious.
These environments enforced natural selection,
eliminating most "thing" worshiping religions.
The next class of religions involved "unexplainable" events.
A neighboring tribe cannot steal or distroy the sun.
The stars must surely form a perfect Ptolemaic universe, praise God.
The Greek Gods conveniently explained the weather, astronomical events, etc.
Unfortunately, science reared its ugly head again,
describing elliptical orbits and rainbows with remarkable precision.
The religions thriving today are the product of
thousands of years of natural selection.
They center around a hypothesized Deity, somewhere,
who cannot reveal himself, but demands your faith and devotion.
Science can never again distroy religion,
since today's religions center on faith, and produce no
physical affects that might be refuted. Nobody can prove there is no God.
By sweeping things into the afterlife, these religions avoid many
important moral questions: "All suffering will be rewarded later.
All suffering produces good things, as he wills." Romans 8 28
Also, these religions require a Devil, or human evil itself,
to explain the origin of such suffering and anguish. Genesis 3
Of course, there is more to evolution than survival.
The religion must reproduce. In other words, you must convert
people, especially the next generation.
It is therefore not surprising to see extreme intolerance,
and strong missionary doctrines in the surviving religions.
Mark 16 15 Until recently, any conversion tactic was acceptable anywhere,
leading inevitably to the Spanish inquisition, the crusades,
the tribal wars described so vividly in the old testament, etc.
As social morality advanced (and it has progressed considerably;
please don't spread any more bull shit about the good old days),
new conversion schemes were required.
These, primarily psychological, always existed,
but selection has made them stronger.
Heaven (Revelations 21), hell (Luke 16), and love ( 1 Cor 13),
are all powerful tools that convert the uneducated masses.
This is not always bad, since most religions are preferable to
drug/alcohol addiction or a life of crime.
However, I would never prescribe religion for the masses.
Clearly, micro evolution will continue to mold today's religions,
but can we expect any substantial changes in the next 2,000 years?
One possible selecting force is education. As more people are
exposed to biology, biochemistry, astronomy, and especially history,
a loving, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God becomes harder to swallow.
Indeed, Godel may have dealt such a being a death blow already.
Yet, I believe, religions will always remain.
They may retreat, abandoning the flat Earth and creationism,
but the human mind seems to need them. I have personally known people
who depend on this mythical abstract concept for daily strength.
I would guess, that the Christian-like religions will survive,
with some attenuation as (if) education becomes ubiquitous.
Enough of *my* speculative ramblings.
Does anyone have any thoughts on the origin/evolution of religions?
I would like to hear them.
--
Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhadethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (06/04/85)
[] > Does anyone have any thoughts on the origin/evolution of religions? > I would like to hear them. > > Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad Actually this strikes me as even less relevant to net.origins than the history of language. However, I couldn't resist a comment. Neanderthal remains have been found in which the skeleton has been prepared for burial by smearing the bones with a red ochre (presumably the flesh was cremated although other possibilities come to mind). Various artifacts were arranged around the body. This argues that the people who performed the burial had fairly specific ideas about the afterlife (personal belongings, substitute blood). Religion seems to be older than H. Sapiens Sapiens. -- "Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan Department of Astronomy University of Texas
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (06/06/85)
Amazing the things you learn here. Karl Dahlke says: > Religions, the primary antithesis of naturalism and scientific thought, are > themselves subject to the very processes they reject. Ironic, isn't it? Wow! And I thought the numerous references to the process of natural evolution in my religion's holy books were in some way evidence that religion doesn't reject evolution! I though the emphasis on skepticism, and on producing repeatable effects, was in some way compatible with the scientific method! Silly me! Seriously, Karl, you've obviously bought the usual false choice between dogmatism or atheism that is so prevalent in this society. Don't feel bad, I was there for several years myself. The point is that you should study a wider range of religions before you make this kind of generalization. > Even more interesting, I believe, is religious macro evolution. The > earliest religions used idols and graven images, but these (primarily) did > not last. Why not? A neighboring tribe can always steal your idol, or > distroy it. The builder of the idol cannot believe in its deity for long. > As technology advances, idols, rocks, and trees, are no longer mysterious. I hope I never reach a stage where I cannot see the deity and mystery of rocks, trees, and works of art ("idols"). That would be a very drab and limited world indeed! > The next class of religions involved "unexplainable" events. A neighboring > tribe cannot steal or distroy the sun. The stars must surely form a perfect > Ptolemaic universe, praise God. The Greek Gods conveniently explained the > weather, astronomical events, etc. Unfortunately, science reared its ugly > head again, describing elliptical orbits and rainbows with remarkable > precision. A common enough statement, but not supported by evidence. A member of a "primitive" religion of this sort does not think "It is thundering outside because Daddy Thunder is throwing bolts of lightning", but identifies the thundering with the deity. Conceptually this is quite different. It is a conception that each thing in the human sensorium partakes in some way of divine nature. Of course, there do exist systems of weather prediction and influence, medicine, and so on, that are based on pantheonic conceptions, but these never held the central position in religions that modern atheistic thought would like us to believe. The reason this is such a popular conception is because most atheists would prefer that science be considered to supercede religion. To this end, they pretend that religions did nothing more than what science does today, and did it wrong. A good example is alchemy, a meditative/ritual discipline that modern scientists seem to think was a primitive form of chemistry. In part, it was that, but that no more expresses the wholeness of alchemy than a description of computer science as "how to add lists of figures" expresses the wholeness of that field. In short, it is a self-serving reductionism that you put forth. > Of course, there is more to evolution than survival. The religion must > reproduce. In other words, you must convert people, especially the next > generation. It is therefore not surprising to see extreme intolerance, and > strong missionary doctrines in the surviving religions. Mark 16 15 Until > recently, any conversion tactic was acceptable anywhere, leading inevitably > to the Spanish inquisition, the crusades, the tribal wars described so > vividly in the old testament, etc. Finally I agree with you. Still, atheism is hardly exempt from this criticism, though it has rarely achieved the excesses of all the monotheistic religions. Your message itself could be considered an attempt to convert, you know, as could the reductionist models you are parroting. > Clearly, micro evolution will continue to mold today's religions, but can we > expect any substantial changes in the next 2,000 years? One possible > selecting force is education. As more people are exposed to biology, > biochemistry, astronomy, and especially history, a loving, omnipotent, > omniscient, omnipresent God becomes harder to swallow. Indeed, Godel may > have dealt such a being a death blow already. Actually, I consider Godel's work the death knell for absolute rationalism, not religion. Please explain. In any case, you should be aware that many religions do not require belief in a sentience that created the universe. My own feeling is that from certain perspectives large and complex systems such as ecosystems, galaxies, and universes can be considered sentient no less than small and complex systems like the human nervous system. They can also be considered non-sentient from other perspectives. It's not really that important an issue, though it can be mind-bending and is therefore a fun one to consider from time to time. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"