Is Atheism Incompatible with Absolute Truth?

[Danger]

I don't think it takes a culture to create a religion.

I know that you'd never do it on purpose , but you're actually saying pretty much the same thing that I did. You're still thinking a lot more recently than I am, though. It doesn't require a culture, but it does require communication of ideas. I'm going back to cave-man times here, discovery of fire and all that. All future cultures, and civilizations if there's a distinction, arose from the same initial tribal units. The idea was already ingrained by then.

 

[Huckleberry]

I know that you'd never do it on purpose , but you're actually saying pretty much the same thing that I did.

Did I just agree with Danger on a religious issue? That can't be possible.

You're still thinking a lot more recently than I am, though. It doesn't require a culture, but it does require communication of ideas. I'm going back to cave-man times here, discovery of fire and all that. All future cultures, and civilizations if there's a distinction, arose from the same initial tribal units. The idea was already ingrained by then.

Okay, just a misunderstanding then. Yes, communication is vital to transfer ideas of things like spirits.

I guess it is possible, because I agree with you.

 

[Danger]

I guess it is possible, because I agree with you.

Does that mean that it's time for us to seek therapy?

 

[zoobyshoe]

You're still talking about relatively modern history.

I am? How so?

I'm going back to the advent of language that was capable of conveying abstract concepts.

Nothing I've talked about couldn't have happened to pre-homo sapiens sapiens homonids. As far as I know biologists believe that even animals can hallucinate.

Theology was already established in one form or another long before 'civilization' arose.

Where did the word civilization come into the discussion? I was addressing your concept of primitive social structure.

And I don't doubt that Moses believed that the bush thing happened, but I certainly don't accept that it really did.

It isn't important to my point whether or not you believe it happened. The Moses example was illustrative. It illustrates that a religion is a naturally occurring phenomena, and not an artificial construct created deliberately by people. It happens with no particular intention of it happening. In that sense it is natural, as opposed to artificial.

 

[Huckleberry]

Does that mean that it's time for us to seek therapy?

Only if we are wrong.

 

[Danger]

Nothing I've talked about couldn't have happened to pre-homo sapiens sapiens homonids. As far as I know biologists believe that even animals can hallucinate.

No doubt. But for a religious theory, you have to be able to conceptualize the hallucination.

Where did the word civilization come into the discussion? I was addressing your concept of primitive social structure.

You used the word 'culture', which to me implies the existence of a civilization.

It illustrates that a religion is a naturally occurring phenomena, and not an artificial construct created deliberately by people.

It's not natural, and I never claimed that it's created deliberately. It is, however, created collectively. Hence the need for communication.

 

[zoobyshoe]

No doubt. But for a religious theory, you have to be able to conceptualize the hallucination.

It depends on what you mean by a "religious theory". Here's what you said:

As for the concept of a god in the first place, it was most assuredly a creation of primitive social structures, not something that someone would come up with naturally. I can't see that an isolated person, who had no communication ever with anyone else, would think up such a thing any more than he would develop a theory of economics.

So, your point was that the concept of god had to be created within a primitive social structure. I am arguing that a single individual could easily have an experience that lead him to believe there was a spiritual being more powerful than himself. No social structure necessary. What does the religion consist of? Off the top of my head I'd say that any interaction he tries to have with that being is the minimun requirement for a religion. From there it gets more complex the more people you add to the experience.

You used the word 'culture', which to me implies the existence of a civilization.

No. Culture doesn't require anything as grand as civilization

It's not natural

Then you have to explain what you consider natural. You implied before that natural meant it would happen to an isolated individual:

As for the concept of a god in the first place, it was most assuredly a creation of primitive social structures, not something that someone would come up with naturally. I can't see that an isolated person, who had no communication ever with anyone else, would think up such a thing any more than he would develop a theory of economics.

If arising from a social structure is what makes it unnatural, then it's ability to arise in an individual is what makes it natural.

and I never claimed that it's created deliberately. It is, however, created collectively. Hence the need for communication.

Collective forms are created collectively and individual forms are created individually. Collective forms have their origin in individual forms, as I've illustrated.

 

[Huckleberry]

Definitions are the worst of necessary evils. natural/biological/social, culture/civilization, religion/spiritualism. All difficult terms to explain. No wonder religion is so varied in concepts.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Definitions are the worst of necessary evils. natural/biological/social, culture/civilization, religion/spiritualism. All difficult terms to explain. No wonder religion is so varied in concepts.

These discussions do send you looking into the dictionary. A question like "What is the minimum requirement for something to be called a religion?" could fill 20 books and still not be answered.

 

[Danger]

Then you have to explain what you consider natural. You implied before that natural meant it would happen to an isolated individual:

If arising from a social structure is what makes it unnatural, then it's ability to arise in an individual is what makes it natural.

That's exactly why I'm saying that I do not believe that it would arise in an isolated individual. I don't claim that it's impossible, just extremely improbable.

 

[hypnagogue]

Danger, you might be interested to read the book . The simple fact is that under certain conditions, the human brain/mind tends to experience things that very naturally lend themselves to interpretations of the supernatural or divine. This is a primitive perceptual and emotional experience, the capacity for which seems to be 'built into' the brain in the same way the capacity for feeling overarching emotional mindsets such as boredom or romantic love are 'built into' the brain. These things are not social constructs, but just part of our fundamental makeup. Despite being an ardent atheist, if you ingested the right chemicals or had the right portions of your brain artificially stimulated, you too could experience things that are downright 'God-like.'

Of course, it's not the case that experiencing what we might call God-like feelings entails that one must create a theology. But this sort of experience certainly lends itself to religious concepts readily; for instance, see here. And it is certainly not the case that a simple, core concept of God or spirits need be articulated to any great degree of detail like a theory of economics. Culture undoubtedly plays a massive role in shaping religion qua cultural phenomenon, but in the first instance, the seed for such things is planted by a naturally occurring kind of human experience.

 

[hypatia]

If a isolated individual conceived of a God, yet told no one, this understanding would die with him. So there would be no way of knowing if this ever occurred, before the time of communication skills. As far as I know, no one has ever discovered to have developed there own God, without leaving a trace, even if its scratched into a rock.
Hypnagogue's link{Why God won't go away} is a good read, based in sound facts.
There are several known religions that have risen, due to one persons experiences,Joseph Smith, Jr., Latter Day Saints, is a great example. If he was unable to convince others that he had found the golden plates, the Mormons would not exist today.
Not only did it take communication skills, it took the ability to organise, add concepts and rituals into daily life, and make others think it was cool to do.
Huck's rendition of why the concepts of early Gods/Spirts were so readily accepted, is right on the money. With the addition of the social bonding of a group, which meant the survival of people who thought along the same lines.
Survival of the fittest..ect.

 

[zoobyshoe]

That's exactly why I'm saying that I do not believe that it would arise in an isolated individual.

From what I know of psychology it seems evident that it is much more likely to arise in an isolated person than in one subject to the "grounding" effects of having to deal with other people. Left to his own devices a person can fly off into any fantastic train of thought they are inspired to. Being part of a group dynamic is more likely to restrict their flights of fancy.
I suspect what is behind your assertion is the belief that you yourself, would never concieve of religion in isolation. You probably wouldn't and the same goes for others. But you can't let that color your understanding of how religions do get started. The only way to get an idea of that is to read various histories of the origins of different religions and extrapolate something common to all of them from that. I've picked up a lot of that history casually, but Hypnagogue has done a lot more systematic study of that phenomenon, as you can see from his post above.

 

[Danger]

Danger, you might be interested to read the book . The simple fact is that under certain conditions, the human brain/mind tends to experience things that very naturally lend themselves to interpretations of the supernatural or divine.

Thanks for the links. It will probably be quite some time before I will be able to read that book (the clowns around here won't leave me alone long enough to read my newspaper), but I'll keep an eye out for it. It'll have to be a library thing though; I'm not going to buy it.

But this sort of experience certainly lends itself to religious concepts readily; for instance, see here. And it is certainly not the case that a simple, core concept of God or spirits need be articulated to any great degree of detail like a theory of economics. Culture undoubtedly plays a massive role in shaping religion qua cultural phenomenon, but in the first instance, the seed for such things is planted by a naturally occurring kind of human experience.

This article doesn't say anything that I disagree with. In fact, although I half-read/half-skimmed, it would appear to support my position. It seems to specifically state that only in religious people does the experience indicate a god-like presence. I believe that in order to have become religious people in the first place, they had to have been introduced to the concept by someone else.

As far as I know, no one has ever discovered to have developed there own God, without leaving a trace, even if its scratched into a rock.

Exactly. Although it might have happened a few times, there's no reason to believe that is has.

From what I know of psychology it seems evident that it is much more likely to arise in an isolated person than in one subject to the "grounding" effects of having to deal with other people. Left to his own devices a person can fly off into any fantastic train of thought they are inspired to.

Your knowledge of psychology, however, is based upon modern (post-civilized) concepts. We've come so far from the era that I'm talking about that it could even have become a genetic-memory sort of thing by now. I very much doubt that, though. A hypothetical 'wolf-boy', given the same sort of tests as a businessman, would not likely show anything like the same results.

 

[hypatia]

But would a person who has no understanding{never having met another human} spiritual world, connect this with a God/Spirt? Or would he say, "wow that was really weird". He would still half to develope his own slightly complex language, to be able to reason with himself.

I agree Danger, for a person to put unexplained events in a God like state, they must have a previous understanding of what that state is.

 

[Danger]

I'm off to work now (in a hurry!) I can't wait to see what's here when I get back. Toodles.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Your knowledge of psychology, however, is based upon modern (post-civilized) concepts.

I really have no idea what you are saying with this. Are you saying primitive psychology was so different that we can't apply modern concepts to it? 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.

We've come so far from the era that I'm talking about that it could even have become a genetic-memory sort of thing by now.

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.

I very much doubt that, though.

Not much point in mentioning then.

A hypothetical 'wolf-boy', given the same sort of tests as a businessman, would not likely show anything like the same results.

Obviously. So...?

 

[zoobyshoe]

But would a person who has no understanding{never having met another human} spiritual world, connect this with a God/Spirt? Or would he say, "wow that was really weird".

I'm sure his first reaction would be that it was really weird. Goes without saying. The real question is, would it be "natural" for anyone to start supposing the "spirit" was some kind of "superior" being? If you've read any of the histories of religions it is clear that many of these "spirit" apparitions do come off as much more powerful and commanding than the person seeing them. That seems to be part of how our brains are wired. This happens all the time even today: people start hearing voices out of nowhere that tell them to do things. Psychiatrists call them "Command Hallucinations". There's a guy who lives in the same building as me who hears them. I asked him why he doesn't doubt they're real, since he knows that no one else can hear them. He said "Oh, I suppose if you ever heard them yourself you'd know they're real." The point being, that they are certainly completely convincing.

Now, if instead of hearing "command hallucinations" a person were to see a full blown visual halucination of an angel or spirit that was telling him what to do, I'd say we have all the makings of a religion right there.

He would still half to develope his own slightly complex language, to be able to reason with himself.

Yes, something. I suppose off the top of my head the very minimum requirement would be whatever the apparition might do to communicate that it wanted the person to adopt a certain behaviour or perform a certain act. Chimp mothers teach their kids to crack some nuts open by slowly doing it right in front of them. Maybe, that's a kind of minimum.

I agree Danger, for a person to put unexplained events in a God like state, they must have a previous understanding of what that state is.

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. But the lone wild human could easily start performing the basics of religion by him or herself. He might well spend his whole life as the only member of that religion, and that religion would die with him if he never meets anyone else to tell it too.

 

[hypnagogue]

If a isolated individual conceived of a God, yet told no one, this understanding would die with him. So there would be no way of knowing if this ever occurred, before the time of communication skills. As far as I know, no one has ever discovered to have developed there own God, without leaving a trace, even if its scratched into a rock.
Hypnagogue's link{Why God won't go away} is a good read, based in sound facts.
There are several known religions that have risen, due to one persons experiences,Joseph Smith, Jr., Latter Day Saints, is a great example. If he was unable to convince others that he had found the golden plates, the Mormons would not exist today.
Not only did it take communication skills, it took the ability to organise, add concepts and rituals into daily life, and make others think it was cool to do.

I don't think we need to find evidence for a person who developed a personal religion and never shared it with others in order to support sufficiently the notion that religious concepts begin with natural, personal experiences. The example you cite, Joseph Smith Jr., along with any other number of others (Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, etc.) all suggest the same phenomenon, and I fail to see how the fact that they shared (preached) their newfound ideas with others suggests otherwise. These cases are not exemplified by a process of give-and-take; rather, they are examples of religious institutions that began with a profound individual experience, a 'revelation,' the concepts/insights/etc. of which were taught to a group of followers. The flow of influence seems to be almost unilaterally in the direction from prophet to disciple. Certainly this social process is necessary in order for an organized religion to form; certainly the founding individual must be charismatic in sharing his vision in order for it to 'catch on'; and certainly, the basic ideas coming from the 'revelation' go on to be molded and constructed to a significant degree by a process of social interaction. But we still have a case of fundamental concepts that arise in the mind of a single person as a result of a particular kind of experience.

This article doesn't say anything that I disagree with. In fact, although I half-read/half-skimmed, it would appear to support my position. It seems to specifically state that only in religious people does the experience indicate a god-like presence. I believe that in order to have become religious people in the first place, they had to have been introduced to the concept by someone else.

But where did the religious concept originate from, in the first instance? The major point to take from that article is not that peak experiences are likely to be interpreted in a religious fashion so much as it is that the cognitive/perceptual/emotional set of the experience already incorporates many of the core components of a typically religious or spiritual worldview, e.g. feeling/perceiving the 'divinity' or 'sacredness' of nature, feeling/perceiving time as in the aspect of eternity, feeling/perceiving ego transcendence (my 'self' now feels inordinately small compared to the fundamental 'otherness' of the world, or my 'self' now encompasses and is one with the entire world, etc.), feeling/perceiving that the world is fundamentally good and to be valued (even worshipped!), reconciling oneself with death, etc.

It is vitally important to recognize that in the peak experience, these things are not abstract concepts understood from a distance, but are rather immediately and viscerally 'felt in the bones,' so to speak. To a large extent, the core concepts that all the major world religions seem to share in common are already 'built into' in the raw data of the peak experience itself. It is not the case that these core concepts always entail or lead to a concept of God (for example, the personal revelation of the Buddha yielded an organized religion which is not based around a deity). But nonetheless, the concept of God is a rather small step to take, given the raw materials of the experience.

But would a person who has no understanding{never having met another human} spiritual world, connect this with a God/Spirt? Or would he say, "wow that was really weird". He would still half to develope his own slightly complex language, to be able to reason with himself.

According to my argument above, I don't believe such a person would necessarily even need a complex language in order to form the reasoning processes that lead to a concept of and belief in a God or gods. To a very large extent, much of the conceptual work is already done for him by the experience itself, and he does not need to make any terribly sophisticated judgments in order to get from the direct experience as of divinity, unity, eternity, and perhaps even otherness/animistic spirits in nature, to a lasting belief in such things.

 

[kcballer21]

Despite being an ardent atheist, if you ingested the right chemicals or had the right portions of your brain artificially stimulated, you too could experience things that are downright 'God-like.'

I agree. I know many atheists, including myself, who have had highly emotionally experiences (both positive and negative) that practically forced (for lack of a better word) them to consider supernatural explanations. As time passed the emotions fade and reason takes control. It is no longer difficult to accept that people are spiritual/religious, but it is still hard to relate to those who don't strongly question their believes.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It is no longer difficult to accept that people are spiritual/religious, but it is still hard to relate to those who don't strongly question their believes.

Actually, not questioning your beliefs, assumptions, and preconceptions is more common than questioning them. It's the path of least resistance.

 

[kcballer21]

Actually, not questioning your beliefs, assumptions, and preconceptions is more common than questioning them. It's the path of least resistance.

I never claimed otherwise. The fact that people follow that path is what I can't understand.

 

[hypatia]

I don't think we need to find evidence for a person who developed a personal religion and never shared it with others in order to support sufficiently the notion that religious concepts begin with natural, personal experiences.

Well the topic of isolated people did come up, that's why I addressed it.

I agree that religious concepts begin with neurology-brain functions, and the ability to convince others that your vision is the only correct one. These people who have these experiences, already have a knowledge to some extent of Gods.

Joseph Smith Jr., along with any other number of others (Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, etc.) all suggest the same phenomenon, and I fail to see how the fact that they shared (preached) their newfound ideas with others suggests otherwise.

My post was only about people with no concept of God, and does not infer that this phenomenon doesn't occur.

 

[hypnagogue]

My post was only about people with no concept of God, and does not infer that this phenomenon doesn't occur.

Yes, but where does the concept of God originate in the first place? Very arguably, in the peak experience itself. Already having been introduced to religious ideas could certainly prime one to interpret a peak experience in an explicitly religious fashion, true. But it doesn't seem plausible to deny that one could actually create a conception of God (or at least the fundamental basis for it) just on the basis of the peak experience, even without having been introduced to the idea of God beforehand. In fact, for the reasons I've already mentioned, this seems very likely to actually be the case. (I take 'concept of God' to refer to a very general concept of a higher/divine/supernatural power or being, if that's a point of confusion.)

These people who have these experiences, already have a knowledge to some extent of Gods.

Do you mean to say that pre-existing knowledge about God(s) is a precondition for having a peak experience at all? If so, I don't see any basis for such a claim. One does not need to have a pre-existing notion of God(s) to have a 'God-like' experience anymore than one needs to have pre-existing notions of romantic love or hatred or jealousy in order to experience those cognitive/emotional sets. Isolate a child from birth from all references to religious concepts, then give him the appropriate kind of chemical or brain stimulation in the proper kind of perceptual/emotional setting, and he'll nonetheless have a 'God-like' experience.

 

[hypatia]

My post was only about people with no concept of God, and does not infer that this phenomenon doesn't occur.

Already having been introduced to religious ideas could certainly prime one to interpret a peak experience in an explicitly religious fashion, true.

That was my point, sorry for any confusion.

 

[Danger]

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.

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.

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.

Tameness in a cat is not 'natural', but they've been domesticated for so long that they're now born that way.

Obviously. So...?

So back to the first item. That would be an example of primitive psychology, or as close as any modern-born person could achieve.

The real question is, would it be "natural" for anyone to start supposing the "spirit" was some kind of "superior" being?

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.

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.

That's exactly what I said in the first place, so what the hell are we arguing about?

But the lone wild human could easily start performing the basics of religion by him or herself.

Again, this is an unsubstantiated assumption. It's never been observed.

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.

 

[Huckleberry]

I think a person that had little knowledge could easily interpret these peak experiences as something supernatural. I had a friend who ate some peyote once. He told me he felt like an animal and the experience was completely believable. He had a human body but felt like a predatory animal in the desert. A person with little knowledge of the world and the function of the brain could easily assume that the visions were not transcendental, but real. In my friend's case this would probably take the form of animal spirits had he been an ancient man. He would try to duplicate that experience again and again and again until he develops a set of beliefs and practices, a religion. He would be the guy that goes out in the desert and isolates himself to experience his visions.

Is there another way to explain a peak experience besides drug use? That would be completely hilarious to me if the religions of the world formed in different regions based on the plants that grew there. I feel that peak experiences are only one way that a religion could form. I believe that religions can also be formed from a combination of a lack of understanding and a set of social practices. Making the light that burns could be a religious experience that a person's life depends on. Passing down that belief and practice would ensure survival. Keep in mind that there does not have to be only one way that every religion can form.

 

[hypatia]

yes, there are a lot of different ways to cause the human mind to hallucinate, extreme cold or heat, lack of air, head trauma, mental disorders and deep meditation come to mind.

 

[zoobyshoe]

That's exactly what I said in the first place, so what the hell are we arguing about?

I actually have very little idea what you are trying to say. I'm pretty certain the main point of confusion is what you consider "natural" to mean. It still strikes me as untenable to object to religion on the basis it isn't natural.

Somehow, I suspect, you haven't managed to translate the impuse behind what has come out as "Religion isn't natural" into something more to the point. Like Hypnagogue, I can't locate in your, or Hypatia's posts, the source of this unnatural concept of God. Everything you point to as the source of the concept is natural. Therefore I suspect there is some much better word than "natural" you need to express your objection to religion.

 

[hypatia]

I didn't address anything having to do with a unnatural concept of God, so I'm sure you won't find it in my post.

 

[Huckleberry]

There is something natural about the human mind that makes it inquisitive. Communication is also natural. Humans are social animals. Those are some of the best natural human traits that I can think of and they have the potential to create and spread spiritual beliefs and practices. There are other human tendencies that are not so good. Those get worked in the mix too.

We may have biological (natural) traits that make the creation of a religion a logical (natural) conclusion. But whether the spirits are themselves natural is another story. Do Gods really exist in nature? Could this be the disagreement in the definition of nature?

 

[zoobyshoe]

I feel that peak experiences are only one way that a religion could form.

I really don't have a good idea what the term "peak experience" means, but hallucinations and sensory illusions can certainly arise completely independent of drug use. I know from reading accounts of hallucinations caused by every concievable cause that they are more often taken to be literally true by the experiencer, than questioned. The main reason for that is that they are completely convincing; they can pass every test of their reality you might want to subject them to. The fact is, people are downright resistant to the suggestion they are illusory, and often cling to the belief they're real, even when confronted by twenty other people who swear they don't see or hear them.

If I read what you said correctly the part about the fire was an illustration of the sort of ritual that may take hold because it has a practical value. Native American religions are full of that kind of thing. Agricultural based cultures have a lot of rituals based around planting/harvesting cycles, and such.

There are also, though, a lot of things that are hard to explain as anything but superstition. There are hunting rituals; spirits to be appeased, or attracted, or fooled, that took hold and persisted. This would be an example of the "lack of understanding" you mentioned. People have a basic grasp of the notion that a like situation should produce like results. I think superstitions arise from people trying to control the arrangement of the elements of a situation to produce the same results that happened at some previous time that were good results. They don't understand that the "lucky shirt" they were wearing actually contributed nothing to the prior success. There is some kind of basic inability to assess what's important about a situation, coupled with the need to feel you have, at least, some control, that you can do something to get the outcome you want.

Superstition seems to be a part of most religions, and there are some religions that don't seem to be anything but superstition. Take the Cargo Cults, for example.

So, yeah, there are a lot of naturally occurring promptings to religion, not just the "peak experience" thingy.

 

[Huckleberry]

That all makes perfect sense to me.

The lucky shirt may have no actual effect on a situation, but it could affect a person's confidence if they believed in the power of the shirt. A person's confidence could have an effect on some things. They may try harder just to prove to themselves the power of their shirt.

Superstitious hunting rituals and that sort of thing could be the same. They also bring a group together. If everyone participates in these rituals then it reinforces their actions as a team. It gives them comfort of strength in numbers and purpose.

Even obviously superstitious beliefs have the potential for real results by how they affect the believer.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I didn't address anything having to do with a unnatural concept of God, so I'm sure you won't find it in my post.

Then maybe I misread what this is about:

But would a person who has no understanding{never having met another human} spiritual world, connect this with a God/Spirt? Or would he say, "wow that was really weird". He would still half to develope his own slightly complex language, to be able to reason with himself.

I agree Danger, for a person to put unexplained events in a God like state, they must have a previous understanding of what that state is.

Aren't you saying it would be "unnatural", in the Dangerian sense, for an isolated individual to concieve of "God"?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Even obviously superstitious beliefs have the potential for real results by how they affect the believer.

Exactly true.

 

[hypnagogue]

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.

I intended the term 'God-like' to be evocative of the sorts of experiences / emotions / values that are typical of spiritual and religious traditions. These need not explicitly entail a concept of God in order to be God-like. We can use 'transcendental' instead if you feel 'God-like' is too loaded.

Anyway, that your personal peak experiences have not been evocative of God, or spirits, or whatever is no disproof that others very well could be. For one thing, you describe yourself as being an atheist from a young age, and you've grown up in an era where religion is increasingly falling out of favor (even if it's still going strong in most parts of the world). Those factors undoubtedly had a great degree of influence on how you received your experience. Whereas perhaps you, or someone with a similar mindset, might look back on a peak experience and reason about some strange neurochemical events taking place in the brain, I submit that a naive human in the very early stages of our history would be prone to a very different sort of interpretation, likely a supernatural one. Even if a God is not explicitly conceived in a peak experience, one might be compelled to create one in order to retroactively explain the experience. This would still be a case of a primitive religion (or at least, a set of core religious concepts) coming from the mind of a single individual rather than a society.

For another thing, I do not doubt that you have had a peak experience or two, but realize that what you have experienced is not representative of all variations of such experiences. The degree to which some aspects of the experience are forced upon the experiencer may vary greatly from person to person and experience to experience, and some experiences may even contain aspects that are entirely absent from others. For instance, an aspect of the peak experience which is sometimes reported is that the world seems sacred or divine. This is a more explicit link to the value systems of religion than some of the other aspects of peak experience (eg a sense of the unity of nature), and one which you didn't report.

Thus far I've just mentioned aspects of experience which are evocative of common religious themes, and which might compel one to form a concept of God or spirits. But it is really not implausible at all to suppose that one could form a concept of God or spirits directly from an unusual experience. For instance, certain hallucinogenic drugs (at sufficiently high doses) seem to quasi-reliably induce in the user a sense of actually coming into contact with other beings. Hallucinations involving a felt presence of other beings can also occur in other contexts as well, such as sleep paralysis. And as zooby has mentioned, in still other contexts one might not sense another being's presence, but instead hear an internal voice which one attributes to another being. So it is really quite plausible that not only the recurring religious themes, but even the concept of God or spirits itself, arose directly from personal experience. To categorically deny this is to fail to grasp the range and depth of possible human experiences.

 

[loseyourname]

Many ethologist contend that the elephant's act of burying their dead ceremonially suggests belief in an afterlife. Although they are social animals, they certainly did not require a complex language to develop this belief (if they do indeed hold it).

 

[zoobyshoe]

Many ethologist contend that the elephant's act of burying their dead ceremonially suggests belief in an afterlife. Although they are social animals, they certainly did not require a complex language to develop this belief (if they do indeed hold it).

I have read that it was only recently suspected that elephants "talk" to each other. It's been proven they emit infrasonic noises that carry for miles. That being the case, there is no reason to assume their language, if it is a language, isn't complex. As with whales and birds we really don't know what they're saying to each other. Math Is Hard linked me to some stories elsewhere about some pet parrots that appear to be surprisingly intelligent.

Likewise, no one can say for sure how complex the language of Neanderthal or Homo Erectus might have been. Whatever indications we have today are sketchy, and could be overturned by tomorrows discovery. I don't think it's possible to be confident that homo sapiens are the only creatures that have a complex language.

That being said, and despite it being said, it strikes me as outlandish that anyone would suggest that the way elephant's treat their dead might have anything to do with the way humans treat their dead. We're very far from having anywhere near enough information to suggest something like that.

 

[Danger]

Many ethologist contend that the elephant's act of burying their dead ceremonially suggests belief in an afterlife.

I'm way too tired right now to get back into this thread with any vigour, but I can tell you for sure that elephants do not bury their dead. This is a long-disproven myth brought about by two facts:

1) They show a fascination with the bones and tusks of dead elephants and often play with or examine them.

2) When an older elephant is on its last set of teeth, it seeks out ever-softer foods. Marshes are a prime source thereof, and thus many elderly elephants stay in one until they die. That leads to an accumulation of remains that has nothing to do with any 'ritual'.

Ethologists are experts in the behaviour of humans, but they apparently know nothing of elephants.

I'll check back later.

 

[loseyourname]

I have read that it was only recently suspected that elephants "talk" to each other. It's been proven they emit infrasonic noises that carry for miles. That being the case, there is no reason to assume their language, if it is a language, isn't complex. As with whales and birds we really don't know what they're saying to each other. Math Is Hard linked me to some stories elsewhere about some pet parrots that appear to be surprisingly intelligent.

I guess it's just species bias, but I can't bring myself to believe that elephants, or any species other than humans, can communicate concepts as complex and varied as humans.

That being said, and despite it being said, it strikes me as outlandish that anyone would suggest that the way elephant's treat their dead might have anything to do with the way humans treat their dead. We're very far from having anywhere near enough information to suggest something like that.

Okay, I shouldn't have said "many." It's a fringe position and probably incorrect. I just can't think of any known instances of an animal without a language as complex as that of humans developing a religious belief, so any evidence that suggested it was possible seems the best I can offer. Forgive my zeal.

 

[hypatia]

This Sunday,8:00 PM est. Discovery channel, Jane Goodall, When animals speak.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I guess it's just species bias, but I can't bring myself to believe that elephants, or any species other than humans, can communicate concepts as complex and varied as humans.

The reason I wouldn't feel comfortable closing my mind to the notion is that we don't know what, for instance, birds are saying to each other. Since we don't, and can't really form any idea of how a bird perceives the world, we don't know for sure birds aren't communicating very complex concepts to each other when they chirp back and forth. The discovery of how bees tell each other where the flowers are is a prime example of a level of complexity in communication that startled me when I first read about it. It never occurred to me that something like an insect could communicate the presence of flowers at a specific remote location without physically leading the other bees there.

Okay, I shouldn't have said "many." It's a fringe position and probably incorrect. I just can't think of any known instances of an animal without a language as complex as that of humans developing a religious belief, so any evidence that suggested it was possible seems the best I can offer. Forgive my zeal.

This paper suggests that the "debunking" of elephant burrial may not be as cut and dried as was suggested. I haven't tried to research the subject myself, and I don't know how reputable anyone in the animal world is, but it seems clear from this paper that some professionals believe that the touching of bones is more than just abstract fascination with shape, and that it is a mourning procedure:

Society&Animal Forum - Society & Animals Journal
Address:http://www.psyeta.org/sa/sa12.2/bradshaw.shtml

I can buy mourning with no trouble, but the afterlife thing is too much of a stretch without way, way more information.

 

[Math Is Hard]

This paper suggests that the "debunking" of elephant burrial may not be as cut and dried as was suggested. I haven't tried to research the subject myself, and I don't know how reputable anyone in the animal world is, but it seems clear from this paper that some professionals believe that the touching of bones is more than just abstract fascination with shape, and that it is a mourning procedure:

I've been reading a little bit about elephants lately, and while I haven't found anything definitive on elephant burial procedures, there does seem to be some evidence of elephants' need for mourning their dead and it seems that touching and smelling the bones is something that puts them at ease. I wish I could locate the specific book where I read about an elephant's corpse being removed from a zoo and how the other elephants living there could not be calmed until the zoo keepers returned the bones for inspection. Unfortunately I donated a lot of my books to a local library last summer and I think the one containing this story was among them.

I can buy mourning with no trouble, but the afterlife thing is too much of a stretch without way, way more information.

As far as awareness or spectulation about the afterlife(or lack of it) by non-humans, the closest thing that I can recall is recounted in the stories of Koko, the famous gorilla who was taught sign language. Koko had a pet kitten (whom she had named All Ball) who died. Not long afterwards, her trainers struck up a conversation with Koko about what she thought about death.
from http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20000905.html

When asked, "Do you want to talk about your kitty?"
Koko signed, "Cry."
"What happened to your kitty?"
Koko answered, "Sleep cat."
When she saw a picture of a cat who looked very much like All Ball, Koko pointed to the picture and signed, "Cry, sad, frown."

 

[Moonbear]

Ethologists are experts in the behaviour of humans, but they apparently know nothing of elephants.

Actually, ethologists study animal behavior. However, it is not consistent with ethological studies to attribute meaning to behaviors. Someone who is purely an ethologist records behaviors in a fairly dispassionate way, so I'd question someone who called themself an ethologist who then attributed ritualistic functions to a behavior.

Just as an example of the difference between how a casual observer might describe an event vs how an ethologist would describe it...
Casual observer: The elephant grabbed the bone with its trunk and then buried it in the mud.

Ethologist: Elephant #93283 makes contact of trunk to bone. Trunk is flexed such that it wraps around bone. Head is raised and upper portion of trunk flexed upward while bone is retained by flexed distal portion of trunk. Elephant moves head to the right. Elephant lowers head and trunk and extends trunk. Bone falls onto muddy patch of ground. Elephant contacts mud with trunk and displaces mud. The mud displacement leaves bone covered with mud.

Ethologists catalog behaviors. They'll categorize them into some functional categories, such as mating behaviors (those observed exclusively near the time of mating), or feeding behaviors (those observed only when food is placed into the mouth and swallowed). I've even seen people challenged when they say an animal is "eating" instead of "exhibiting feeding behavior" when they stuck their head into a food bin. Unless you can be certain food was swallowed every time the animal stuck its head into a food bin, you have to call it "feeding behavior," because it could have just been sniffing the food or pushing its nose through it or licking/tasting and spitting it back out. So, while the folks on National Geographic might call burying of elephant bones a sign of mourning, an ethologist ought not attribute an emotional function to a burying behavior.

That all makes perfect sense to me.

The lucky shirt may have no actual effect on a situation, but it could affect a person's confidence if they believed in the power of the shirt. A person's confidence could have an effect on some things. They may try harder just to prove to themselves the power of their shirt.

Superstitious hunting rituals and that sort of thing could be the same. They also bring a group together. If everyone participates in these rituals then it reinforces their actions as a team. It gives them comfort of strength in numbers and purpose.

Even obviously superstitious beliefs have the potential for real results by how they affect the believer.

This sounds like the best explanation to me. What we do know from history is that rituals are borrowed from exising religions and incorporated into new religions. It seems it is the rituals that are the important component of religions (I'm referring to religion as separate from faith or belief; an organized group of people who have similar beliefs and congregate to express those beliefs), and these rituals can serve different functions. Some may stem from superstition or be perceived as a way of controlling nature or of appeasing supernatural beings that in turn control nature on behalf of the worshippers, some may simply be ways to gather people into groups where they have safety in numbers and more success in working as a team than as an individual, and the success reinforces the practice of the ritual. Rituals provide a means for people to bond in situations where teamwork is essential to their survival and don't necessarily require any belief in the supernatural to be practiced or to work.

 

[loseyourname]

Actually, ethologists study animal behavior. However, it is not consistent with ethological studies to attribute meaning to behaviors. Someone who is purely an ethologist records behaviors in a fairly dispassionate way, so I'd question someone who called themself an ethologist who then attributed ritualistic functions to a behavior.

I should be clear and say that I don't know of any instance of an ethologist in a professional aspect claiming that elephant behavior seems indicative of mourning or belief in an afterlife. I have, however, heard of ethologists that make this claim in a personal aspect, as an opinion they have that is almost certainly not scientifically testable. As long as they don't confuse the two modes of making claims, I wouldn't question them. After all, they are human. They're going to speculate about things beyond what they can get published in a journal, and I do think they should have the right to express these.

To be honest, I cannot now remember where I heard these claims, but I am certain that it was not in anything claiming to be scientifically reputable. It's meant only to suggest the possibility that non-human animals might have something akin to spiritual belief (I hesitate to call it 'religious,' with all the attendant ritualistic and organizational structure that word implies) as they do show behavior consistent with that belief. Just saying that it shouldn't be ruled out.

 

[Evo]

I saw a documentary on elephant's ancestral memory. Don't know how fact based it was. They claimed elephants were born remembering where the burial grounds were and where watering holes were.

 

[Gamecubesupreme]

I find it funny people always confuse athiesm with nihilism.