I think it's a mistake to reduce religion to anthropomorphism/explanations and morality/politics. There is a crucial third element -- the human capacity for spiritual (meditative, oceanic, transcendent, pick your favorite adjective) experiences. These experiences are now being studied by psychologists and neuroscientists (look up "neurotheology") and are often connected to experiences in nature.
My hypothesis about the origins of such experiences is partially inspired by a passage from E.O. Wilson's book _Biophilia_. "In a twist my mind came free and I was aware of the hard workings of the natural world beyond the periphery of ordinary attention, where passions lose their meaning and history is in another dimension, without people, and great events pass without record or judgment. I was a transient of no consequence in this familiar yet deeply alien world that I had come to love. The uncounted products of evolution were gathered there for purposes having nothing to do with me; their long Cenozoic history was enciphered into a genetic code I could not understand. The effect was strangely calming. Breathing and heartbeat diminished, concentration intensified. It seemed to me that something extraordinary in the forest was very close to where I stood, moving to the surface and discovery. ... I willed animals to materialize and they came erratically into view." What does this passage, which describes an experience I suspect most members of this list have had, most resemble? It sounds a lot like how practitioners of some types of meditation describe their experience. But what is this "naturalist's trance" good for, other than science? Hunting, gathering and looking out for predators! Maybe, just maybe, this was our ancestors' normal state of consciousness and maybe various religious and spiritual practices arose as a way of recapturing this state as, for biological and social reasons, our minds changed. This is, of course, a guess, but what do you folks think? Jane Shevtsov On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 10:14 AM, William Silvert <[email protected]> wrote: > Another consideration, given that James has brought William of Occam into > this, is that a comprehensive scientific overview of the issue would involve > paying some attention to the question of where religion comes from. If there > were no reasonable alternative explanation, then the idea of gods making > themselves known to people might be the only option. > > There are however plausible explanations for the development of religion > that make sense to an atheist. Since we tend to see the world in > anthropomorphic terms (even contemporary scientists speak of furious storms > and treacherous riptides), no doubt early man associated natural phenomena > with human-like gods or spirits. There were no doubt individuals who claimed > that they understood these spirits and became shamans and priests. > Eventually the priesthood hooked up with the politicians in the powerful > symbiosis that has existed throughout recorded history - priests maintain > the state religion and kings rule by divine right. Priests and ministers > accompanied colonialists to ensure that the minds of those conquered were > enslaved as well as their bodies. > > So there is an alternative explanation that covers most religions, and I > think that should be an important part of scientific thinking about the > relation between science and religion. > > Bill Silvert -- ------------- Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, <www.worldbeyondborders.org> Check out my blog, <http://perceivingwholes.blogspot.com>Perceiving Wholes "The whole person must have both the humility to nurture the Earth and the pride to go to Mars." --Wyn Wachhorst, The Dream of Spaceflight
