what made humans first need to believe in supreme beings? to explain the paranormal(well paranormal to them i.e. lightning etc.)? im just thinking about the first human to believe in a god or other such idea, and it was obviously needed because all across the world it happened. is this a well documented and researched topic? if so does anyone have any good links? i dont want specific information on various indeginous religions.

Perhaps God started that goofy thing.

The instinctual need to commune with the higher, and unseen forces.

Another question is; why is this instinct in decline? It can't be due to advances in rational thought, because all that did was to provide an explanation for lightning. The boundry where the unseen world begins; still exists, it just moved to a better neighborhood, where the phenomena is more complex. Religion, on the other hand, stayed the same, and then started to get rejected.

Cobranaut, I'd look into psychologist Carl Gustav (CG) Jung. He developed the theory that mythology and religion were psychic occurrences, connecting people with the collective unconscious through certain images, or archetypes, in these myths and parables. Sounds confusing at first, but it's best likened (in my opinion) to Tarot cards. Each card represents some concept or happening in Nature, which is objectively a substantial thing, but also subjective to the one who experiences it. Each individual card would be called an archetype. The place where all the Tarot card figures are residing would be the collective unconscious.

I think it'd be an interesting read. In one of the books I'm reading, it says how man looks at the sun and instinctively believes it to be a hero in a chariot blazing across the sky, despite his better judgment. It's practically a reflexive response.

www.cgjungpage.org (http://www.cgjungpage.org)

As to why it's in decline, it might be because we've found technology, or perhaps ourselves, to project these instincts on. This gave birth to Humanism. This, curiously enough, parallels the decline in the quality of existence the world over, both because of economics and politics, and because of social integration and miscegenation. Coincidence? I doubt it.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

Cobranaut, I'd look into psychologist Carl Gustav (CG) Jung. He developed the theory that mythology and religion were psychic occurrences, connecting people with the collective unconscious through certain images, or archetypes, in these myths and parables. Sounds confusing at first, but it's best likened (in my opinion) to Tarot cards. Each card represents some concept or happening in Nature, which is objectively a substantial thing, but also subjective to the one who experiences it. Each individual card would be called an archetype. The place where all the Tarot card figures are residing would be the collective unconscious.



i think i grasp this. i might check out some of his books.

Its in their genetic coding, the same as a child knows its parents, a duckling knows its mother duck etc.

quote:Originally posted by user X:

Another question is; why is this instinct in decline? It can't be due to advances in rational thought, because all that did was to provide an explanation for lightning. The boundry where the unseen world begins; still exists, it just moved to a better neighborhood, where the phenomena is more complex. Religion, on the other hand, stayed the same, and then started to get rejected.

Religion is reliant on culture (and, in many cases, vice versa.) Cultures get more complex, and so religion has to as well.

Unfortunately, once the religion as an institution becomes bigger than the community it involves, then people 'lose touch' with the inner workings.

When that happens, it's anyone's guess.

Schisms, new interpretations, wars, take your pick.

My guess.

I read a few answers to this. One that is beautiful is, there was a higher religion in a time when mankind was so higher, they didn't even need writing, since to them religion was transmitted by telepathy, and it was a natural state of cleaving with higher spheres.

Then it faded away, and all through the generations we have been getting down the ladder in spirituality and more materialistic.

Following that hypothesis, Egyptian religion was one very strong way of first putting that early system in the form of paraboles and mythology. Into a formal religion, that is.

That's why many people turn to egyptian mythology when they go for original religion.

Others turn to chinese, indian, celtic, jewish or african scriptures and oral traditions because, as CG Jung sensed it, there is a collective soul to mankind, and all paths lead to enlightenment for sincere souls, while evil-rooted ones can go through all religions and still be agressive fanatics for all eternity... To those religion is of no avail, it even gives them more justification and self-confidence to wage war against the spirit.

This is why some aspects of religion or spirituality are very carefully transmitted: there are many examples of people learning deep stuff, and eventually turning to be taitors to the cause and to harm the name of religion among the general population ("Hey these nutties don't know even to behave, and they wanna teach me about my soul?").

But the whole thing is interesting. It is true that they found similar legends, symbols and artefacts in remote places really impossible to figure out how.

I remember seeing an abstract artwork of some late 19th or early 20th century painter, and near it in the book, was the -later discovered- molecular structure of some organic substance, totally identical, showing the artist had an intuition that turned out to be conform to some intimate cosmic reality.

Then the assumption is, on a spiritual level, some guys get insights as well, and they build bridges between the old traditions and our times, in other words they turn out to become otherwise missing links between our past and our future.

Interesting perspectives...

Silver Lights: Skinner, Bandura, and Morris all showed that a duckling knows its mother only because of imprinting. Those same ducklings followed a red balloon like an affectionate mother and abandoned their genetic one because the balloon was the first thing they saw.

Not that I don't agree with religion being a part of your genetics; after all, a culture comes from genetic heritage, and religion comes from that culture. I just suggest, for future reference, revising the analogy. =)

UrbnTbone, I wish I knew people that were into Egyptian religion. I think they would be amongst the most interesting of people.

I disagree when you associate aggression, war, and pride with evil. False religions arise when the human being is split into two halves, and one is deified while the other is demonized. I believe Nietzsche taught that.

I posted something on another thread along the lines of "we are both evil and holy. We must first understand our potentials, and then we choose what is necessary." Sometimes our evil is necessary.

BTW, I'm very interested in finding out the name of the artist and painting which was almost identical to the molecular model you found. Under what circumstances did you come across this painting?

[This message has been edited by Tyrant (edited 07-14-2003).]

All I can say is, the Human psyche is fucked up, don't mess with it, or it will wreak havoc on you.

Right now we are in the process of mapping the human genome, and religious beliefs are nowhere to be found. It's not in the genes and not in the DNA. It's all in the head, and it varies depending on what you get exposed to.

Religion is a product of social pressure, childhood brainwash, and geographic location. If you're born and raised in a particular region, you will be predisposed to the religion prevalent at that location, with few people choosing a religion unpopular to the area their society was dominant. The main factor is the parents though. whatever a parent tells a young and impressionable child, the child will believe. They have not fully learned the dynamics of the meme (aspect of psychology where a falsehood gets propagated by reaffirming it. Which is the reason we have churches) or the lie yet.

The expansion of intellectualism is becoming the slow death of faith and belief. They didn't have the internet back then, and I can say, in all honesty, that I would still be a questioning non-denominational Christian to this day if not for one thing: Information. Information made possible by the internet. I am an information seeker, and one could say it was just a matter of time until I happened across or was directed to cold hard facts in a variety of areas from biology to psychology to history to archaeology to theology and many more.

I was already questioning the things I was taught as a kid, but information is what ultimately showed me the way. I guess one could say that the internet was my savior. Savior from ignorance and answerer of the questions I had that noone I asked IRL could ever adequately, if at all, answer.

Once I concluded that my religion was bullshit, all the answers came and all the questions went. It solved so many theological problems I had plaguing my mind. It made perfect sense.

I still have questions that cannot yet be answered, mind you, but they are exponentially less than the ones I had before thanks to parsimony and good ol' fashioned occam's razor.

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

The expansion of intellectualism is becoming the slow death of faith...

"Intellectualism" gives too much credit if you're making a generalization. (Although I wouldn't necessarily argue against it's increase; given the increase in time for recreational endevour.) The older brain centers, that give rise to primitive and instinctual thought (and early religions), still exist. And they still interact with the centers that produce symbolic thought.

Other factors are: an enhanced understanding of the physical world (knowledge, but not necessarily the intellectual analysis of the information), material diversion, and the substitution of nationalism/patriotism in a secular democracy.

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

Right now we are in the process of mapping the human genome, and religious beliefs are nowhere to be found. It's not in the genes and not in the DNA. It's all in the head, and it varies depending on what you get exposed to.

Actually, we've COMPLETED the human genome project 10 years and $2-3 billion ahead of schedule, and we still don't know what each gene does. Not to mention we still haven't even glanced at the mechanics behind combinations or networks of genes.

quote:Religion is a product of social pressure, childhood brainwash, and geographic location.

I doubt the original strain of humanity was pressured into anything. Besides, if the original humans were brainwashed, that implies the religion existed before the human species. Therefore, God existed before them.

quote:If you're born and raised in a particular region, you will be predisposed to the religion prevalent at that location, with few people choosing a religion unpopular to the area their society was dominant.

Explain why Christianity, an ethnically Jewish religion, is not only popular, but practically dominant (politically) in indigenously Indo-European cultures.

quote:The main factor is the parents though. whatever a parent tells a young and impressionable child, the child will believe. They have not fully learned the dynamics of the meme (aspect of psychology where a falsehood gets propagated by reaffirming it. Which is the reason we have churches) or the lie yet.

No, that's the reason we have message boards.

quote:The expansion of intellectualism is becoming the slow death of faith and belief. They didn't have the internet back then, and I can say, in all honesty, that I would still be a questioning non-denominational Christian to this day if not for one thing: Information. Information made possible by the internet. I am an information seeker, and one could say it was just a matter of time until I happened across or was directed to cold hard facts in a variety of areas from biology to psychology to history to archaeology to theology and many more.

None of which ever were intended to:

a) identify faith and belief as a farce,

b) disprove the existence of God, or

c) support nihilistically inspired hedonism.

quote:I was already questioning the things I was taught as a kid, but information is what ultimately showed me the way. I guess one could say that the internet was my savior. Savior from ignorance and answerer of the questions I had that noone I asked IRL could ever adequately, if at all, answer.

Like what? The meaning of life? The purpose of existence? The function of your presence while on this planet? Our individual and collective fates upon death?

quote:Once I concluded that my religion was bullshit, all the answers came and all the questions went. It solved so many theological problems I had plaguing my mind. It made perfect sense.

I still have questions that cannot yet be answered, mind you, but they are exponentially less than the ones I had before thanks to parsimony and good ol' fashioned occam's razor.

To conclude that religion is bullshit based on your own subjective experiences and lack of nurturing in a religion is like concluding blacks must die for the sole reason of a black kid that stole your lunch money when you were five. Which, most likely, he did.

You understood Christianity, the most alien religion of all Vinlandic and European cultures, as a farce and blanketed your experience to the whole of religion? That sounds like a rather erroneous conclusion.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

BTW, I'm very interested in finding out the name of the artist and painting which was almost identical to the molecular model you found. Under what circumstances did you come across this painting? Hi there, it's in a book edited by CGJ, has pictures as part of the explanations. Hard cover, kind of a beautiful art book:

Man and His Symbols - conceived and edited by Carl Jung

Published by Picador 1978 - ISBN 0 330 25321 2

"Contemporary masterwork and international bestseller, this book is the only attempt by the world famous psychologist to explain to the lay reader his theory of the significance of symbolism in dreams and art, and the importance of its comprehension to the full understanding of the unconscious human mind. This was the last piece of work undertaken by Jung before his death in 1961, and provides a unique opportunity to assess his contribution to the life and thought of our time, for it was also his first attempt to present his life-work in psychology to a non-technical public. What emerges with great clarity from this book is that Jung has done immense service to both psychology as a science and to our general understanding of man in society, by insisting that imaginitive life must be taken seriously in its own right, as the most distinctive characteristics of human beings"

* miso.www.com

* www.cgjung.com (http://www.cgjung.com)

* Joseph Campbell - Mythology: www.jcf.org (http://www.jcf.org)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[This message has been edited by UrbnTbone (edited 07-19-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

You understood Christianity, the most alien religion of all Vinlandic and European cultures, as a farce and blanketed your experience to the whole of religion? That sounds like a rather erroneous conclusion.

Not the whole of religion, just Christianity specifically.

I have, however, researched a myriad of other religions, current and past, and none of them have made much sense either to say the least.

Most of them just try to use ignorance to pass off their beliefs, which i am not a big fan of. In order for me to consider something valid, it's claim has to have a basis for confirmation or falsification.

I could spit a million nonsensical things out of my asshole right now and noone would be able to prove/disprove any of them as long as I was careful enough not to make a claim that was capable of being tested for truthfulness.

Doctrines that maintain their strengths in the depths of ignorance rather than through proof, reason, or enlightenment really turn me off to them. They seem to be deliberately fashioned in a manner of which if the system in qwuestion was 100% bullshit, there would be no way to determine so absolutely. There will always be that infintessimally small, yet nonzero chance that the alien cult that said to chop your balls off and commit suicide to hitch a ride on the comet was correct.

It's something inherent in all religious beliefs. If a religion were to actually become validated through logical means, it wouldn't be a religion at all, but rather, science.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

...we've COMPLETED the human genome project, and we still don't know what each gene does. Not to mention we still haven't even glanced at the mechanics behind combinations or networks of genes.

Absolutely right, but this is no defence for the presumption that you made earlier. There is no evidence yet to substantiate your claim. Personally, I doubt that there ever will be.

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

I could spit a million nonsensical things out of my That's what you're doing.

Religion has been and will be the expression of some common sense, that is a sense common to mankind. wether you like it or not, it has given some of the most beautiful and meaningful expressions of human psyche.

Wether it is or not proven scientifically, is not relevant, since its benefits outweigh its historical mistakes as a whole.

Arts would never have been what they are if not for religious spirit and quest.

But hey, you probably dislike arts too, I guess a dark http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)mag cannot accept anything wider than narrow functionality.

[This message has been edited by UrbnTbone (edited 07-18-2003).]

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

I have, however, researched a myriad of other religions, current and past, and none of them have made much sense either to say the least.

Most of them just try to use ignorance to pass off their beliefs, which i am not a big fan of. In order for me to consider something valid, it's claim has to have a basis for confirmation or falsification.

I could spit a million nonsensical things out of my asshole right now and noone would be able to prove/disprove any of them as long as I was careful enough not to make a claim that was capable of being tested for truthfulness.

Doctrines that maintain their strengths in the depths of ignorance rather than through proof, reason, or enlightenment really turn me off to them. They seem to be deliberately fashioned in a manner of which if the system in qwuestion was 100% bullshit, there would be no way to determine so absolutely. There will always be that infintessimally small, yet nonzero chance that the alien cult that said to chop your balls off and commit suicide to hitch a ride on the comet was correct.

It's something inherent in all religious beliefs. If a religion were to actually become validated through logical means, it wouldn't be a religion at all, but rather, science.

You're being rather vague in what specifically is nonsensical or detrimental to cognition "inherent in all religious beliefs."

Besides, religion, inherent in its definition, indicates, as mentioned before, a code of behavior, and therefore a set of traditions (the reason we have churches). You're making it seem like religion is some anti-evolutionary process, when it has been ingrained in human culture since we left the trees.

User X, if you look at anthropological studies, you'll find that certain genetically similar groups usually share similar belief structures. Germanic paganism. Mediterranean paganism. African tribal religions and animal worship. Judeo-Christian-Islamic sects. Isolated sects, covering many different areas of the world, each with relatively unique, but locally similar, religions.

Religion is one application to a culture. Cultures are ethnically determined, unique to each heritage. Heritage is what you have genetically inherited. It's the most logical conclusion I can come to.

quote:Originally posted by Tyrant:

[religion] has been ingrained in human culture since we left the trees.

You've made another incorrect assumption. The capability of abstract thought (requisite to religion); came much later than bipedalism.

quote:...certain genetically similar groups usually share similar belief structures.

Yes, because local populations also share a closed system of social contact. This is not evidence that those beliefs are genetically inherited.

quote:Heritage is what you have genetically inherited.

Only in terms of physiology. Cultural heritage is learned by social exposure during childhood. (only when this knowledge, or mythology is passed down from the elders. In cultures where there is a wider gulf between the generations, heritage is lost a much higher rate.)

Urbn, your're wrong to claim that the splendor of art would be diminished in the absence of religion. Art is an expression of spirituality, just like the ritual of religion is a product of spirituality. The NEED for expression transcends the dogmatic details. Religion would only be absent in minds that were constructed to perceive only the corporal world, so in a world devoid of religion; all other symbols would missing as well.

I suppose the only reason why modern, atheistic art is meaningful, is because human rejection of mystical quest, in the particular field of art, equals to detachment from the petty popular terms of religion, such as reward vs. punishment, and give a fuller range to creative expression.

Not sure it was clear. To double check it: by reject of religion, one can attain some levels in detachment unknown to most religious followers. The reason for that can differ according to individuals though. Some can be just plainly glittering and surfing on the wave before disappearing in the big naught, while others just needed that stage in their soul development and couldn't reach it if they were subjected to organized religion's dogmas.

Yet they already fixed their karmic aspects of revealed religion in an other lifetime, so atheism is no sin to them.

Well that's not any easier.

Whatever. I'm not wrong. I know how to recognize when I'm wrong. Maybe you're right though. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~originally yours:

"UrbnTbone, I wish I knew people that were into Egyptian religion. I think they would be amongst the most interesting of people."

I think egyptian stuff is much deeper than what we usually associate with mythology. It is some very strong insight into the intimate fabric of reality. Not that their imagery was absolutely true, but their codifiers were probably among the finest.

"I disagree when you associate aggression, war, and pride with evil. False religions arise when the human being is split into two halves, and one is deified while the other is demonized. I believe Nietzsche taught that."

There are various ways to accept some observable fact. Actually, what makes agression, pride and war evil, is not the essential nature of their roots in the psyche, rather their scope of application. Example: the islamic concept of Jihad can be very stimulating when used as a tool for individual growth, and become negative when applied to one's surroundings. Self-development (de-)ceases when one starts rejecting the yoke of providence and tries to force reality into particular molds instead of sticking to reality as an ever-changing challenge to the quest.

In other words, if I'm tired of my quest of God, that will show in my anger at those who don't abide to what I believe is the only way to function. That behaviour is typical of a frozen intellect, just as if the quicksilver of the quest had turned into inert lead. Or as if the almost golden result of the work, suddenly turned back to poisonous lead, and I forced others to intoxicate their food with it. Some mountain-climbers get delirious and eventually dangerous at some heights.

Maybe too conceptual or intuitive as an image, but that's the way a a a a I like it.

[This message has been edited by UrbnTbone (edited 07-19-2003).]