Jason, If you've been following this conversation to this point, you should know that, when I said "religion probably didn't come about because any gods revealed their existence to our ancestors," I was responding to a previous post by William Silvert, who has been consistent about equating "god" with a personal being and "religion" with worshipping such a god and following the commandments attributed to that god. Religion did not arise because a supernatural person jumped down from heaven, shooting thunderbolts and handing out mandates.
I don't think it's accurate to say that every "eureka" moment or "naturalist's trance" is, subjectively, a revelation of a god. I've had many such experiences, and I rarely even imagine that any god is behind them. Doesn't that meant that, subjectively, the experience is not a revelation of a god? That said, if I understand the point you're really making here, I agree with you halfway. Are you saying that religion probably originates from these trance-like or epiphany-like experiences, and from people trying to make sense of such experiences? I think that's likely to be the case. Are you also saying that such experiences typically reveal some objectively real order to the universe that we did not previously perceive? I doubt that. They can, but they can also reveal patterns that aren't objectively real, which would suggest that "god" is the order we perceive in the universe, not the order that's actually there. Your post also raises the possiblity (to me) that science can be seen as a religious or spiritual pursuit, and not just for those who see it as revealing the order of God's work. Most significantly, it provides a sense of purpose, and like a religious quest, it is a search for truth. An atheistic scientist just sees no need to pursue (or invent) truths beyond the natural world, which is quite wonderful enough as it is. Science does have its necessary commandments, too. Thou shalt not cherrypick thy data. Thou shalt not fudge thy results. Thou shalt not anthropomorphize. That sort of thing. We know why we have these rules, but we also mostly follow them without question. Jim On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Jason Hernandez < [email protected]> wrote: > I have waited to say anything to this, because it was too interesting to > see where the conversation went, but now the below has struck me. He said, > "religion > probably didn't come about because any gods revealed their existence to our > ancestors." I suppose that depends on how you define gods, and whether you > are speaking objectively or subjectively. We need only look around us to > see that the majority of human beings percieve the world subjectively. How > often has a harmless encounter with some wild animal been transformed in the > retelling into a "close call"? The "victim" was afraid for hisher life; > therefore the animal must have been trying to kill himher. How many wars > have been fought because each side sees the other as invading lands which > are rightfully theirs? (The Mexican-American war comes to mind) > > So if a human being experiences something like the "naturalist's trance," > or some similar type of "eureka" experience, then, subjectively speaking, it > is an epiphany, i.e., a revelation of a god. The question then becomes, how > likely are other human beings to experience the same? If the members of an > isolated culture, in a prticular environment, all have a similar collection > of experiences, it sees likely to me that their "eureka" moments will have > much in common. At least enough to form a fairly coherent vision of what > god is. > > At this point is when the issue becomes one of how we define a god. If we > go with the modern, sophisticated theologians' view, of God as some personal > Being, then none of the above necessarily has anything to do with God. But > most people through human history have not been sophisticated theologians. > But if I may be so bold as to suggest that god may be thought of > scientifically as the underlying order in the universe -- the order which we > glimpse piecemeal in scientific laws -- then to the extent that subjective > experiences or "epiphanies" awaken the human awareness to the laws of the > universe, religion may to that extent be considred to originate with "gods" > revealing themselves to our ancestors. None of this requires that we see > such "gods" as personal beings; but of course, subjectively, non-scientific > humans have tended to do so. > > Jason Hernandez > M.S., East Carolina University > > --- On Thu, 5/20/10, ECOLOG-L automatic digest system < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > I, too, appreciate Jane's contribution to this conversation. We can only > speculate on the origins of religion, since religion originated long before > written language, or even cave art (if neanderthal and modern human > religion > have a common origin; though I will agree with William Silvert that > religion > probably didn't come about because any gods revealed their existence to our > ancestors). > > > > > > -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (734) 474-7478
