Santa V God

[juantoo3]

I think I might be beginning to discern a really pessimistic POV, with the presumptive paintbrush carrying onto all the rest.

In addition, I see the habit of overlaying modern contexts onto ancient contexts.

During ancient neolithic cave dwelling mastodon hunting ice age era hunter-gatherer societies, there simply did not exist any institutional religious structure to resemble anything like the Vatican or the CoE. There was the shaman, who was probably the most in tune with spirit. And there were the rest, who were still in tune, but to a lesser degree. The shaman was the one the tribe allowed or dedicated to pursuit of spirit. While from what I gather shaman were sometimes hereditary, meaning some families had a tendency or sensitivity, more often shaman were apprenticed. Whoever happened to have an inclination and a proclivity, learned the trade from the shaman. Shaman were not in it for profit, and it was quite inconvenient to also hold political leadership power. IOW, there was no political benefit to being a shaman. It was not unheard of, but pretty rare for the shaman to also be chief. Too many hats to wear.

Now, sure entheogens likely played a role, but I think it is *way* premature to imply that the spirit quest was no more than the result of drug induced hallucinations. Not all hallucinations produce spiritual states, and not all spiritual states are drug induced. Not all shaman made use of hallucinogens.

So, even if we presume the worst as you suspect, and prune out all of those who would abuse the whole process, we still end up with a select group who were legit. Now, and this again is a variation on the same question I have been asking all along...why does the legitimate pursuit of spirit, the shaman, even exist to begin with if there is nothing to pursue? The assumption that it is an hallucinogenic invention is a casual dismissal in order to avoid the facts: if there were nothing to pursue it seems a rather useless and complex fraud to invent in that day and age for the sheer hell of it. There was no appreciable material gain, no political reward, and no incentive to defraud your cousins. These things came much later, when people moved into cities and politics began to take a different form, and religious institutions came into being.

You are not incorrect, but you simply cannot superimpose modern social forms and psychology onto ancient sociological structures. It doesn't work without a lot of manipulative massage, trimming corners and forcing pieces to fit. And the end result is inaccurate, because it is forced.

 

[Tao_Equus]

You are not incorrect, but you simply cannot superimpose modern social forms and psychology onto ancient sociological structures.

With respect I do not. What I attempt to do is to explain the origin and evolution of religious belief in the context of ordinary human ambition. Ambition is a part of the foundational quest to survive and prosper and if any single human characteristic was shared between ancient and modern man it is that. The psychology of survival is very simple and is not a solely human characteristic but an animal one. Early shamans were normally keepers of tribal history and storytellers and thus had a charismatic role in their community. They were greatly valued. Combine that with their medicinal knowledge and their use of hallucinogens to give tribal members a powerful mystical experience and you can see that they clearly were regarded as magicians. Set apart from the herd. I stand by what I say. It is too easy to overcomplicate when there is a simple truth very evident.

tao

 

[seattlegal]

Of course not wholesale. But you have to admit it is human nature to pursue and hold onto any advantage one can gain. Think of Rasputin as relatively recent example. I do not imagine for a moment that every shaman was ruthlessly out only for himself nor that to themselves they were always setting out to be deceptive. But power corrupts. And there were doubtless very many who realised that creating themselves as visionaries was an easy meal ticket.

I'm not denying that there are selfish fakes. There are the examples of the Pharisees in the Gospels.

I also agree that power corrupts. I suspect that might be the reason why so many holy men went to live as hermits. (They were devoured by the mountain? --As mentioned by the Buddha in MN 116: Isigili Sutta)

Well, of course, being able to find a holy man in the building down the street is much more convenient than having to go out into the wilderness looking for one. So, was it the prophets, seeking to control the people, who moved into 'town,' or was it the people, seeking to control the prophets, who moved them into 'town?'

Thats just glib SG, and neither. Most primitive cultures a successor/apprentice was selected by the Shaman to learn the craft. Thus you have the establishment of a tradition of formal structure. I do not place the shamans outside of the community but integral to it.

tao

I dunno, Tao. Legend says that Lao Tzu got fed up with the moral decay of city life and went to leave to go live as a hermit. When he got to the western gate of the city, a guard recognized him and would not let him leave until he produced a record of his wisdom, which supposedly was the Tao Te Ching.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Shaman were not in it for profit, and it was quite inconvenient to also hold political leadership power. IOW, there was no political benefit to being a shaman. It was not unheard of, but pretty rare for the shaman to also be chief. Too many hats to wear.

In some cultures (Inca), holy men did have leadership roles. However, in other cultures holy men were on the periphery of things. They were cave dwellers and wanderers who had very little contact with others. Sometimes they were ostracised, which is functionally equivalent to having no political power.


Consider the Sin Eaters of Scotland (of all places) and England. How does one reconcile this description to Taos's imagery of shamans being socially and politically priviledged:

Abhorred by the superstitious villagers as a thing unclean, the sin-eater cut himself off from all social intercourse with his fellow creatures by reason of the life he had chosen; he lived as a rule in a remote place by himself, and those who chanced to meet him avoided him as they would a leper. This unfortunate was held to be the associate of evil spirits, and given to witchcraft, incantations and unholy practices; only when a death took place did they seek him out, and when his purpose was accomplished they burned the wooden bowl and platter from which he had eaten the food handed across, or placed on the corpse for his consumption.​

Funeral Customs: Chapter IV: Wakes, Mutes, Wailers, Sin-Eating, Totemism, Death-Taxes

To get a grasp on the politically-minded career professionals Tao has in mind, we would need to see detailed biographies that trace how these people sought their positions rather than drift into them even though they were uncomfortable with the responsibilities and unfortunate social consequences.

Finally, I am puzzled that Tao has ignored the fact that two of the most historically important religious leaders - Jesus and Guatama Buddha - articulated very clearly that they were not in the least bit interested in worldly kingdoms. Both were tempted by wealth, power, and priviledge and both refused.

Tao wrote:

They were greatly valued. Combine that with their medicinal knowledge and their use of hallucinogens to give tribal members a powerful mystical experience and you can see that they clearly were regarded as magicians. Set apart from the herd. I stand by what I say. It is too easy to overcomplicate when there is a simple truth very evident.

Evident without evidence.

The trance-journey aspect associated with psychoactive substance use did not have a major role in all shamanic traditions. Moreover, the persons who specialized in the visionary practices that involved substances were not necessarily seen as political figures, medicine men or even spiritualy gifted religious leaders. They were a separate group whose isolated functions were limited to trance-journey practices. I think the monolithic thinking that ignores these distinctions makes for a confusing picture of the anthropology of religion.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Hi and love the new avatar,

I'm not denying that there are selfish fakes. There are the examples of the Pharisees in the Gospels.

I also agree that power corrupts. I suspect that might be the reason why so many holy men went to live as hermits. (They were devoured by the mountain? --As mentioned by the Buddha in MN 116: Isigili Sutta)

Living as a hermit apart from the community does not preclude it is that community that supports him. The hermit shaman would expect 'gifts' from those seeking his wisdom. So while it can be argued that such an individual was not seeking power it can be argued he was seeking an easy life. Whether he knew it or not is another question. You have to understand that I think early shamanism to be an entirely natural response to emergent curiosity and not something deliberately manufactured to deceive That came later.

I dunno, Tao. Legend says that Lao Tzu got fed up with the moral decay of city life and went to leave to go live as a hermit. When he got to the western gate of the city, a guard recognized him and would not let him leave until he produced a record of his wisdom, which supposedly was the Tao Te Ching.

He has my sympathies, I sometimes feel that way about some of the threads I start.


tao

 

[Tao_Equus]

Sorry Netti but you are dancing on the roof tiles but not undermining the foundation of my argument. For every example you present you are looking at highly evolved civilisations not at the origins of humanity. Jesus, Buddha or any other prophet we have the alleged wisdom of is 100s, maybe 1000s of generations removed from when the first people would have perceived an advantage in proclaiming mystical ability.

tao

 

[Netti-Netti]

....we have the alleged wisdom of is 100s, maybe 1000s of generations removed from when the first people would have perceived an advantage in proclaiming mystical ability.

Hi Tao, thanks for your reply.

I was wondering who in particular you have in mind. Who were these people that saw the proclamation of mystic powers as giving them some advantage?

Also, how did their professional practices help validate a G-d concept?

 

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Tao, thanks for your reply.

I was wondering who in particular you have in mind. Who were these people that saw the proclamation of mystic powers as giving them some advantage?

Also, how did their professional practices help validate a G-d concept?

Ordinary self-ambitious people, you think they are a product of the modern era?
Because they used it in their stories to convey a heady mix of a place in eternity/spirit realm for the believer and linked the spirits/gods to natural events and to animals. A whole supernatural world-view was built to give the individual and the tribe an importance in 'the scheme of things'. Over 10s of thousands of years this evolved into complex structures and successive generations were taught it as fact at the campfire. Each generation being given this so young for so many generations has created what we have today, people that believe because people have never done anything else.

Tao

 

[Netti-Netti]

Ordinary self-ambitious people, you think they are a product of the modern era?
Because they used it in their stories to convey a heady mix of a place in eternity/spirit realm for the believer and linked the spirits/gods to natural events and to animals. A whole supernatural world-view was built to give the individual and the tribe an importance in 'the scheme of things'.

I'm interested in the anthropology you mentioned elswehere. References, citations.

It is unclear why you would want to go back to primitive religions.
Long before Buddhism came along, the Chinese had folk religions that involved sorcery and magic. As in the case of the Bon religion in Tibet, some of these pre-Buddhist practices have continued to exist alongside Buddhism. Since they antedated Buddism by hundreds of years, it is unclear how sorcerers' practices helped validate Buddhism.

It is quite possible that the sorcerers of ancient China had lucrative practices from ostensibly manipulating energies and spirits. I don't know that, but let's assume. What does it matter in relation to Buddhism, which some say has no G-d concept at all?

Moreover, what does it matter in relation to the G-d concept of a personal monotheistic deity?

One other thing. How would you presume to know that the sorcerers of ancient China were all just a bunch of money grubbing fakes?

Over 10s of thousands of years this evolved into complex structures and successive generations were taught it as fact at the campfire. Each generation being given this so young for so many generations has created what we have today, people that believe because people have never done anything else.

This is much too simplistic. Religions have been evolving for a long time, rather than simply being passed on without being reworked and modified.

 

[Netti-Netti]

It doesn't work without a lot of manipulative massage, trimming corners and forcing pieces to fit. And the end result is inaccurate, because it is forced.

.... Forced and over-simplified.

 

[cyberpi]

Tao, I'd say that your model of the world is like the internals of a computer. It is easily explained bit by bit from the small to the big, wherein the bits obey the laws and the pathways. The Earth and physical sciences fits the model. So imagine living inside of a computer... for a bit.

It also seems to make sense to reason that people are just bits in this giant computer, because it takes a bit to move a bit. The bits also come and go, some hanging around longer than others. If a person can move a bit, then in that moment he owns the bit.

There is someone in this computer though that is moving around bits on us. Sometimes a few unseen bit changes in far off places combine to make a new situation. How it was known and calculated that the right bits would cause the situation is a mystery to me. I know from science how the small bits can cause a cascade of more bits to move, but someone knew ahead of time what the smaller bits would do and accomplish. People can do this to a limited degree, this estimating and moving around of bits. In fact if they obtain the right keys, so to speak, then they can move around many bits. But from inside of this giant computer I can't see the keys... I only see the bits. I know that the keys work but I don't know how or who or which ones will be pressed next. I can see though that the bits appeared from somewhere and that they do cause changes. I'm not entirely certain which are the key bits. The bits leave this computer too though and I can't see where they go either, like history that faded and left us. Still out there somewhere, but no longer visible here in the present state... of this giant computer.

 

[Ciel]

Tao, I'd say that your model of the world is like the internals of a computer. It is easily explained bit by bit from the small to the big, wherein the bits obey the laws and the pathways. The Earth and physical sciences fits the model. So imagine living inside of a computer... for a bit.

It also seems to make sense to reason that people are just bits in this giant computer, because it takes a bit to move a bit. The bits also come and go, some hanging around longer than others. If a person can move a bit, then in that moment he owns the bit.

There is someone in this computer though that is moving around bits on us. Sometimes a few unseen bit changes in far off places combine to make a new situation. How it was known and calculated that the right bits would cause the situation is a mystery to me. I know from science how the small bits can cause a cascade of more bits to move, but someone knew ahead of time what the smaller bits would do and accomplish. People can do this to a limited degree, this estimating and moving around of bits. In fact if they obtain the right keys, so to speak, then they can move around many bits. But from inside of this giant computer I can't see the keys... I only see the bits. I know that the keys work but I don't know how or who or which ones will be pressed next. I can see though that the bits appeared from somewhere and that they do cause changes. I'm not entirely certain which are the key bits. The bits leave this computer too though and I can't see where they go either, like history that faded and left us. Still out there somewhere, but no longer visible here in the present state... of this giant computer.

Cyberpi, I offer salutations.......
It takes a God mem'brain' to recognize the structure.

- c -

 

[juantoo3]

.... Forced and over-simplified.

Indeed, by the overzealous and improper use of Occam's Razor.

 

[seattlegal]

Ordinary self-ambitious people, you think they are a product of the modern era?
Because they used it in their stories to convey a heady mix of a place in eternity/spirit realm for the believer and linked the spirits/gods to natural events and to animals. A whole supernatural world-view was built to give the individual and the tribe an importance in 'the scheme of things'. Over 10s of thousands of years this evolved into complex structures and successive generations were taught it as fact at the campfire. Each generation being given this so young for so many generations has created what we have today, people that believe because people have never done anything else.

Tao

In your speculative accusing others of imposing their world view, are you not also guilty of imposing your own world-view here?

 

[juantoo3]

With respect I do not. What I attempt to do is to explain the origin and evolution of religious belief in the context of ordinary human ambition. Ambition is a part of the foundational quest to survive and prosper and if any single human characteristic was shared between ancient and modern man it is that. The psychology of survival is very simple and is not a solely human characteristic but an animal one.

I can understand what you are attempting to say, yet I disagree because of context. Ambition does not mean the same thing in a modern context as it would in an ancient context. Ambition in a modern context is above and beyond the "foundational quest to survive." That leads to the presumption of capitalist "and prosper." Prosperity is *not* an animal psychological imperitive, it is distinctly human and modern. Animals might kill a threat to their meal or a rival for their mate, but they do not kill or otherwise disadvantage others to preserve long-term wealth or political status.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

With all respect to everyone participating here, I still don't know what the God that you're proposing exists is. What exactly is it? If it's not something that can be quantified or measured in any objective way, then why does religion seek to interject it into the realm of science? I don't see how there can be anything approaching rational debate about something as amorphous as God, so why not just leave it in the metaphysical realm?

See, I don't think it's about faith or belief at all. I think it's about preserving the cultural and political hegemony of religion because it's such a dandy way to corral and control people. I'm all about live and let live, but I would suggest to my spiritually oriented friends who have a more impersonal definition of God in mind when they use the term that they are abetting a religious power structure which has no other concern than its own self preservation when they fail to differentiate what they mean by "God" from the standard monotheistic conception.

Chris

 

[Tao_Equus]

I can understand what you are attempting to say, yet I disagree because of context. Ambition does not mean the same thing in a modern context as it would in an ancient context. Ambition in a modern context is above and beyond the "foundational quest to survive." That leads to the presumption of capitalist "and prosper." Prosperity is *not* an animal psychological imperitive, it is distinctly human and modern. Animals might kill a threat to their meal or a rival for their mate, but they do not kill or otherwise disadvantage others to preserve long-term wealth or political status.

But animals rarely if ever can be seen to think in the long term in the way that the human brain has evolved to do. As a consequence of being an opportunist omnivore in a complicated hierarchical social environment humans have evolved to a unique degree the sense of foresight. I think to suggest that ambition to be top dog, or at least get a sizeable share of community resources, is a relatively modern phenomenon is frankly ridiculous. It is as I stated before a basic animal instinct and was in the ancestors of Homo Sapiens long before we developed language. It is in all animals and in both sexes even if there is a wide variety of particular expression.

Tao

 

[Tao_Equus]

In your speculative accusing others of imposing their world view, are you not also guilty of imposing your own world-view here?

Not at all. I am doing my level best to present a rational theory for the origin of religion and faith in human society that does not involve any supernatural entity. I am imposing nothing. Since the ancient Greek and Chinese philosophers, and even more so in the past 200-300 years with the birth of modern science we have for the first time in history been able to ponder and truly study causation in a way simply not available to the peoples from which supernatural belief originated. In all that study no rational case has been made for the existence of any entity that has any bearing on our lives. I do not preclude that there is a "universal creator", (though that goes back to the question of what created that), but the notions of spirit and of deity I see in the world around me from out and out hardline doctrinal to wishy washy vague spirituality all stems from the human psyche and not from any evidence that any deity or spirit force exists. It is a cultural heritage not an innate and inevitable experience.

Tao

 

[Tao_Equus]

Cyberpi,

That reminds me of creationist or intelligent design pseudo-science efforts to explain evolution.

Tao

 

[Tao_Equus]

I'm interested in the anthropology you mentioned elswehere. References, citations.

It is unclear why you would want to go back to primitive religions.
Long before Buddhism came along, the Chinese had folk religions that involved sorcery and magic. As in the case of the Bon religion in Tibet, some of these pre-Buddhist practices have continued to exist alongside Buddhism. Since they antedated Buddism by hundreds of years, it is unclear how sorcerers' practices helped validate Buddhism.

It is quite possible that the sorcerers of ancient China had lucrative practices from ostensibly manipulating energies and spirits. I don't know that, but let's assume. What does it matter in relation to Buddhism, which some say has no G-d concept at all?

Moreover, what does it matter in relation to the G-d concept of a personal monotheistic deity?

One other thing. How would you presume to know that the sorcerers of ancient China were all just a bunch of money grubbing fakes?


This is much too simplistic. Religions have been evolving for a long time, rather than simply being passed on without being reworked and modified.

Ok so you want me to write an anthropological thesis to prove such simple and self evident logic. If you insist. But you are going to have to wait a day or two for it. I wonder how you will try to dodge that.

Tao