I have no idea of what primitive psychology was like, if you can even apply the term. It would be like 'pet psychology' today. The people of the era that I reference had a sense of self, but none of sociology. They had no idea of what they were 'supposed to think'; they just did what they wanted, and if someone objected they got whapped with a stick. After enough people got whapped with enough sticks, they started to formulate rules of interaction. The art of communication arose from that, and with it the ability to begin laying the groundwork for theology.zoobyshoe said:If you have a concept of what primitive psychology was like its as much a modern concept as anyone elses and, by your own logic, just as invalid.
Tameness in a cat is not 'natural', but they've been domesticated for so long that they're now born that way.zoobyshoe said:Seems to me if you're going to propose it has become a genetic memory you're going to have to completely toss the idea it's not natural.
So back to the first item. That would be an example of primitive psychology, or as close as any modern-born person could achieve.zoobyshoe said:Obviously. So....?
Yet again, you are the one who is supposing that the person would think in terms of a 'spirit' at all. You're essentially quoting Hypatia on something that she said the opposite of.zoobyshoe said:The real question is, would it be "natural" for anyone to start supposing the "spirit" was some kind of "superior" being?
That's exactly what I said in the first place, so what the hell are we arguing about?zoobyshoe said:Well, of course a homonid isn't going to jump to the concept of transubstantition right off the bat. The more complex the religious concept the more time it takes to develop, and the more people that need to give imput.
Again, this is an unsubstantiated assumption. It's never been observed.zoobyshoe said:But the lone wild human could easily start performing the basics of religion by him or herself.
Hypatia's last 2 posts pretty much sum up what I would have said if I'd been here, so I'm not going to do any more quoting right now. It seems to me, Hypnogogue, that you are interchangeably using the concepts of 'god-like' and 'transcendental' which are not the same thing. I have had one or two 'peak experiences', and they were 'transcendental'. Not for the briefest moment did the concept of anything supernatural cross my mind. Feeling oneness with nature, including the whole rest of the universe, does not in any way indicate the existence of a supreme being. Someone who had never been exposed to the concept of a supreme being in the first place would be even less likely to think of it.