DiscussMormonism.com

I just finished a facinating book called "A Short History of Myth" by Karen Armstrong. The premise is that over the last 20,000 years, humans that have believed in the supernatural have been selected out, and (we) have therefore evolved with a tendency to believe in mythologies and spiritualities.

Particularly during the transition from the paleolithic to the neolithic periods, marked by our ability to grow non-meat food, it was symbolically apparent that there was much that demonstrated a cycle of life. Death led to re-birth (seeds planted in the earth began to grow life again), and that sign led people to believe that human death followed a similar process. The common belief was that there was a separate "spirit" or "soul" that left the body to live again somehow, somewhere...and there were many millennia where the brain wrestled with its ability to reconcile "logos" (logic) and myth. Aren't we still doing that today?

In other words, the "spiritual" part of the brain that we may be identifying today may have evolved many thousands of years ago due to a need to survive day to day with a purpose and hope that there was more than life on earth only...and we are the offspring (ie, recipients) of their mythology.

It makes some sense to me that "spiritual experiences" are seen as so powerful and real to humans today, and serves to convince them (us) that they have a unique connection to "God," despite that "witness" being unique to them -- and often absolutely contradictory to each other.

Humans are unlike any other animal we know of.

We are the only species that is aware of our own mortality. We have been asking about the purpose of life and what happens after we die for ages.

As to why we hold these beliefs more deeply than other beliefs, I'm not sure.

If I had to guess, it is less of a survival tactic and more of an emotional one. Since we all lose loved ones, we desperately want a chance to be reunited with them. In order to do this, we must create an afterlife.

Personally, I believe that most religions stem from the belief of some kind of afterlife. After this is established, there must be some sort of ruler (or rulers) of the afterlife. After all, that is the way it is on Earth. It would make sense for the governing bodies to be the same in the afterlife.

Then, these rulers, called gods, start to interact with our lives. The unexplainable can now be explained. Since much of the unexplained is powerful natural events, gods take on extraordinary powers, if not all powerful.

Each religion then starts to take on a life of it's own. Gods are cruel and/or kind. They punish enemies while blessing your tribe. They evolve until they finally end up with what we have today.

Scottie wrote:Humans are unlike any other animal we know of.

We are the only species that is aware of our own mortality. We have been asking about the purpose of life and what happens after we die for ages.

As to why we hold these beliefs more deeply than other beliefs, I'm not sure.

If I had to guess, it is less of a survival tactic and more of an emotional one. Since we all lose loved ones, we desperately want a chance to be reunited with them. In order to do this, we must create an afterlife.

Personally, I believe that most religions stem from the belief of some kind of afterlife. After this is established, there must be some sort of ruler (or rulers) of the afterlife. After all, that is the way it is on Earth. It would make sense for the governing bodies to be the same in the afterlife.

Then, these rulers, called gods, start to interact with our lives. The unexplainable can now be explained. Since much of the unexplained is powerful natural events, gods take on extraordinary powers, if not all powerful.

Each religion then starts to take on a life of it's own. Gods are cruel and/or kind. They punish enemies while blessing your tribe. They evolve until they finally end up with what we have today.

Yes, and it seems to me that we may be in a transition to a new "logos." Now that we know that the powers of nature (thunder, wind, etc.) have a natural source, we may be altering our perception of that whole "purpose of life" thing. I actually think it may be a very positive evolution, as it should make us understand how our actions affect each other, and that we don't have to continue fighting each other for rights to be "God's chosen people." Unless those doing that kill us all off first!

Good points, very plausible but what would cause those of a religious nature to be better at breeding? I think I hav ea few ideas but id like to hear yours first.

Mercury wrote:Good points, very plausible but what would cause those of a religious nature to be better at breeding? I think I hav ea few ideas but id like to hear yours first.

I don't think they are better at breeding. They are better at wiping out non-religious types to appease their god.

I just finished a facinating book called "A Short History of Myth" by Karen Armstrong. The premise is that over the last 20,000 years, humans that have believed in the supernatural have been selected out, and (we) have therefore evolved with a tendency to believe in mythologies and spiritualities.

Particularly during the transition from the paleolithic to the neolithic periods, marked by our ability to grow non-meat food, it was symbolically apparent that there was much that demonstrated a cycle of life. Death led to re-birth (seeds planted in the earth began to grow life again), and that sign led people to believe that human death followed a similar process. The common belief was that there was a separate "spirit" or "soul" that left the body to live again somehow, somewhere...and there were many millennia where the brain wrestled with its ability to reconcile "logos" (logic) and myth. Aren't we still doing that today?

In other words, the "spiritual" part of the brain that we may be identifying today may have evolved many thousands of years ago due to a need to survive day to day with a purpose and hope that there was more than life on earth only...and we are the offspring (ie, recipients) of their mythology.

It makes some sense to me that "spiritual experiences" are seen as so powerful and real to humans today, and serves to convince them (us) that they have a unique connection to "God," despite that "witness" being unique to them -- and often absolutely contradictory to each other.

Aren't these origin myths, the attempts of modern man to create stories and explanations for things he otherwise does not understand, interesting? What, however, about empirical verification and falsification (was Lucy "spiritual"?)?

Coggins7 wrote:

I just finished a facinating book called "A Short History of Myth" by Karen Armstrong. The premise is that over the last 20,000 years, humans that have believed in the supernatural have been selected out, and (we) have therefore evolved with a tendency to believe in mythologies and spiritualities.

Particularly during the transition from the paleolithic to the neolithic periods, marked by our ability to grow non-meat food, it was symbolically apparent that there was much that demonstrated a cycle of life. Death led to re-birth (seeds planted in the earth began to grow life again), and that sign led people to believe that human death followed a similar process. The common belief was that there was a separate "spirit" or "soul" that left the body to live again somehow, somewhere...and there were many millennia where the brain wrestled with its ability to reconcile "logos" (logic) and myth. Aren't we still doing that today?

In other words, the "spiritual" part of the brain that we may be identifying today may have evolved many thousands of years ago due to a need to survive day to day with a purpose and hope that there was more than life on earth only...and we are the offspring (ie, recipients) of their mythology.

It makes some sense to me that "spiritual experiences" are seen as so powerful and real to humans today, and serves to convince them (us) that they have a unique connection to "God," despite that "witness" being unique to them -- and often absolutely contradictory to each other.

Aren't these origin myths, the attempts of modern man to create stories and explanations for things he otherwise does not understand, interesting? What, however, about empirical verification and falsification (was Lucy "spiritual"?)?

No, Lucy was more animal than human. Like you.

I recently read a book that posited that stable cultures are all built around a satisfying religion. Those societies that do not have answers to the 'great and terrible' questions don't tend to last long. It's possible it is a survival mechanism though of course I consider it to be much more then just that.

The Nehor wrote:I recently read a book that posited that stable cultures are all built around a satisfying religion. Those societies that do not have answers to the 'great and terrible' questions don't tend to last long. It's possible it is a survival mechanism though of course I consider it to be much more then just that.

Basically, that's what Karen Armstrong says. In a time when life was so fragile, those that had "answers," despite whether they were true or myth, would have hope, purpose and reason to live another day. This is the process of natural selection -- those that had the ability and wiring to survive, then procreate (passing on the traits), would develop the "spiritual center" of the brain.

The simple analysis of whether the spiritual thinking was accurate or not involves logos (logic). By comparing the various cultures that held strong to their spiritual conviction, we find that the mythologies were vastly disparate, despite results that indicate their deep belief; ie, sacrificing human life for the cause -- even today in many cultures.

I think it's just a matter of the placebo affect being so strong and powerful that those that submitted to it had more "spirit" and tended to thrive more easily than people who were more realistic about their ignorance.

Plus, there's much to be said about social animals tending to develop characteristics that support the group. Religion has been around so long that people actually think it informs their morals, when in reality, the moral sense is already there; the religion is an afterthought. At its roots, religion is just a way of articulating and codifying morals, and is about as useful as a dictionary written by a child.