universal evolution and the real and living creator god [yes thats right!]

[Alex P]

Awhile ago, I'd of been like; "que?" But, now I'm like.... "si! oigo lo que usted está diciendo"

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Path,

May I first publicly apologise for giving the impression that I think I know better than you what drives your own beliefs. I do not think that I can do that, and nor will I ever think that. I will get to what I did mean in due later.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Perhaps you could elaborate on your methods of validation. My understanding of science (and a lot of others' understanding as well) is that atheism or theism has not much to do with science. You can't validate either the existence or non-existence of God through scientific methods. There is "proof" that supports either belief. Ultimately, it just isn't a very good mechanism for the task.

I agree that science cannot answer the question of whether or not God exists, and not because it is ill equipped, but because 'believers' can and do always move the fence posts. What science can look at in some detail, hypothesise, test and publish results on is the nature and causes of belief in the human psyche. The father of religious psychology, William James (1842-1910), stated that there were two types of religious experience, healthy minded and sick souled and his insight into them remains as relevant today as ever.

I go a step further and say that healthy-minded, despite its benign or even rewarding aspect is still a fictional notion. Jung was a great fan of James and further developed these ideas to include archetypes, themes that crop up again and again in isolation all around the world. Again here Jung was a romantic, its said he could hardly dare cross his door without consulting the I-Ching, and having read a lot of his work I believe that!! He, like Einstein, was loathe to publicly declare either way and proclaimed himself agnostic but throughout his work I believe he declares himself to have beliefs much akin to yours. He was an undefined healthy-minded type.

Based on more recent work into the evolutionary psychology of religion I think it can be fairly demonstrated that belief is factored into the human psyche by a powerful combination of psychological needs that developed as a result of us evolving as social animals with a high degree of self awareness. These are now so profoundly ingrained in us that we can measure them physiologically in the brain as they are stimulated. And what this shows us is that all the activity can be similarly stimulated by pushing the psychological buttons that deal with human relationships, fears, desires, self worth, ambition, etc. In those with neurotic disorders this is especially pronounced as is their tendency to extreme, (sick-souled), religious belief. We have a desire to believe in God, a deep one. But I think it not because we are connected but because we mentally find it a great comfort to do so. But that we can study the reasons why we believe and find in them 'Godless' causation is hard science. So when you say.....

Saying God cannot be found in chaos is not, in part, a definition of God's supposed attributes?

I can with confidence say that God has no attributes as It does not exist except as a human concept.

Definition of absence is, by extension, defining what you expect to see. If you define the absence of God as random chance, then you are implying that God would yield order (and order that you can observe and is universal).

By extension anything can be made to be anything. But it has been the religions, not me, that have sought to define and impose God on mankind. I simply respond to their claims. I fully appreciate that you have developed for yourself a set of beliefs that most religions would scorn and for the same reason they would scorn mine. They cannot make money out of it. And this is another reason religions are so endemic in all societies. Smart sharks understood the psychology of religion and harnessed it to their profit. But that's another tangent.

I am proposing that whether or not someone experiences/observes God depends on how you are defining God (or Its absence). I observe God where you observe natural processes. I am not observing different processes from you, but I am exploring them in different ways- in a way of interaction, connection as opposed to only observation.

My point is that you could substitute "observe/observation" , where you apply it to yourself, with impose/imposition and make it support my stance.

I think to define what is best for another human being is kind of patronizing.

Indeed it is. But to take it personally is to misunderstand the position that I propose from. This position is analytical and from the study of what can be measured. Not from belief alone. And I am not commenting on your individual belief but mankind's propensity toward belief. I and others have called it evangelical atheism but it shares none of the unprovable dogma of evangelical religions. It is based on genuine repeatable studies.

I find it insulting when anyone thinks they have the Right Answer (whether it is a religious or atheistic one) and then thinks the rest of the world is delusional. Similarly, most atheists I know feel it is insulting that religious folks tell them they are "lost" and such like.

I would agree with you wholeheartedly if religions and beliefs of that nature were benign but they are not. My own belief is that the combined threat of Global Warming and the incessant 'shepherding' of the masses behind religious/political groups creates too serious a threat to allow this to continue. Religions have since history began primarily been used for three reasons. To spy on, to tax and to rally the people to war. Belief is not simply your own neutral soft and fluffy idealism. Its a suicide belt, a helicopter gunship, a nuclear arsenal. Its the lives of millions of people held in the most appalling conditions while our greedy selfish leaders rape their lands. Its the lack of an urgent strategy to deal with the real threats of climate change , population control and food production. I dont call those with religion "lost" but I do call them used, abused and downright wrong. It is because I care about people having a real life of some quality on this Earth, now and in the future, and not the promise of a mythical paradise for their suffering today. I dont believe what I believe to score points in some debate but because I feel it is now imperative that mankind wake up to the realities that face us. To do that we need a mass realisation that religions and the beliefs they peddle are fictions. Fictions cleverly developed over centuries by the most ruthless individuals our species has thrown up to control individuals and populations. If there is some way to preserve your kind of Buddhist 'at one' philosophy with which I have much empathy I am all for it. But not at the cost of allowing totalitarian dogmas to take us all to armagedon.


I am afraid I have run out of time There is still much I would like to say on the rest of your post but it will have to wait. I do hope that I have shown you, and anyone else who may have thought I dismiss them as being less than me, that my whole reason for being at CR is because I want to contribute, and not because I want to take from anyone. I present an opinion and that is all.

Regards

Tao

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by wil

These are the thoughts at this moment I reserve the right to completely and utterly reject them in the next moment or when new information arises.

I like this.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

May I first publicly apologise for giving the impression that I think I know better than you what drives your own beliefs. I do not think that I can do that, and nor will I ever think that.

Thanks, Tao. This post explains a lot of your viewpoint, and I'll work on responding. Not sure if I have the time to respond to the whole, so I might do a little and come back later.

I agree that science cannot answer the question of whether or not God exists, and not because it is ill equipped, but because 'believers' can and do always move the fence posts.

I think the difficulty is more in the diversity of believers. Well, and that individuals change. But I still think that science is ill-equipped for a discussion of God, at least in terms of the scientific method. The scientific method has to be altered a bit even to discuss stuff like astrophysics and evolution, because there are some things that simply don't fit in well to the "experiment" or even "observation" methods of discovery. Some times we can only observe or experiment on small intermediate projects that indicate (we think/hope) the larger theory.

I think the concept of an objectivist, positivist science is deeply problematic. Now, if we enlarge how we approach science to include other ways of going about it (thereby granting equal validity to non-Western (folk) science, etc.) then perhaps it would be better equipped. There has been much written from postmodernism on the problems of positivism and objectivism. Unfortunately, I don't think a lot of it has made its way past social science, though it is still a valid criticism elsewhere. But certainly, in issues such as culture, religion, and human cognition, it is valid. Theorists that ignore these critiques are routinely shot down in social science and are often considered either neo-liberal or behind the times by their peers.

I advocate either an expansion of what scientific inquiry entails, or a recognition of its limits. Which is not a new position to take in the least.

What science can look at in some detail, hypothesise, test and publish results on is the nature and causes of belief in the human psyche.

Well, yes (sort of). Without getting into details at this point (lack of time), I will say that I am, in part, a cognitive anthropologist. Anthropology, sociology, and psychology (I think) work best together to explore human cognition and perception. I can speak to some of the universals (or near-universals) of how humans think, and to the diversity. However, I would put forth that neither I nor any of my colleagues claim to have figured this stuff out. I've read this stuff for years and there is a lot it does not explain. We are still far from understanding the nature or causes of belief in the psyche, and of course in reality this is all tied up with cultural conditioning as well as the human brain, so it is one big complicated mess. An interesting mess, nonetheless.

I go a step further and say that healthy-minded, despite its benign or even rewarding aspect is still a fictional notion.

And how do we know this? Again, we can say it is because of a universal human tendency to personify, or to ponder their own existence, or to create God. Or we can say it is because of a universal human tendency to respond to connection, and people are, in fact, reacting to something that has yet to be understood (and may never be). Science gets at the structures in people's brains (sort of, we're still working on perfecting this). It doesn't get at the "why" they are there question.

Now, religion is a different matter for study than spirituality (for lack of a better term)- the individual search for God, or for self-actualization, or for the Universe, or whatever you wish to call it. When it comes to religion, I tend to be rather functionalist first, but acknowledging the individual drivers of the latter in its continuity as an institution. I'm rather fond of analyzing religions as institutions that are tied to the political and economic base of a society. Why? It is the best predictor for what you will find. I find these sorts of theories to be very useful for understanding religion as an institution, but far less so for mythology or analysis of ritual, and still less so for individual spiritual experience.

Based on more recent work into the evolutionary psychology of religion I think it can be fairly demonstrated that belief is factored into the human psyche by a powerful combination of psychological needs that developed as a result of us evolving as social animals with a high degree of self awareness.

This is not really new theoretical stuff. It is essentially functionalism, but in psychology rather than anthropology. It has a lot of limits, but is useful to a degree.

More later... I have to get to the commuter train!

[Ciel]

Alex P,

Que............

And maybe you agree.........

A question from the heart.......

Who put the love in this world as a response factor if it wasn't God......

And would the reply be the same from any other organ?

Que?

- c -

[path_of_one]

OK, I am home now and having spent some time writing on the train, here's my mini-dissertaiton. LOL I do apologize for the length, but there's so much going on here and I did try to be as brief as possible.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Based on more recent work into the evolutionary psychology of religion I think it can be fairly demonstrated that belief is factored into the human psyche by a powerful combination of psychological needs that developed as a result of us evolving as social animals with a high degree of self awareness.

I think there are a number of issues with this. For starters, there is no clearly defined point at which human-enough creatures arise, nor do we have clear evidence of when high degree of sociality (or sufficiently high) arose along with self-awareness (even more difficult to pinpoint) and an element missing in your discussion but very important: language (or more appropriately, symbolic thought). What is a "high degree"? What kind of self-awareness? As it is, the boundaries between ourselves and other apes is a matter of degree and not categorical difference, unless you count philosophy/religion and (arguably, but not clearly) art as the primary differences. The other apes are highly social, they are self-aware, they exhibit attribution, concept of past/future, and the capacity for symbolic thought and rudimentary language. They are able to make tools, to plan for at least the near-future, and exhibit rudimentary culture.

So what makes us so different? What is the degree at which it is a "high degree"? And even more difficult, how can we see this in the fossil or archaeological record?

Evolutionary psychological theory, if not backed by physical evidence from archaeology or osteology, or from genetics, is speculating about the moment at which we gained this degree of self-awareness and its consequences. They are speculating about what caused it, and it is not very satisfying when you consider that other social animals with self-awareness do not wind up with the same drive to ask "why" about everything, to speculate about a world they do not physically observe. In short, I have seen no conclusions in social theory that explain the psychological drive for any of the bits of human cognition and behavior that are not clearly tied to evolutionary advantage (which includes spirituality/religion/philosophy, art, and music). And it is not just me being stubborn. I don't know of any social scientist that isn't lost in love with their own theory that thinks we've found the answers to these issues.

On a more warm-fuzzy note, I would put forth from my own spirituality that I do not think self-awareness is really being self aware. That is, an awareness of ego may not be an awareness of self. In some ways, I think the rest of nature can teach us something in this regard. I think our ego-awareness is more of handicap (leading to fear, greed, hatred, etc.) than an advantage. On the other hand, I have not yet seen any person that had a connected awareness (a view of self as illusory, and as merely a node in the connection to something more) that is not moving out of fear, greed, etc. into compassion and love. Yet, this awareness comes, for most people, from spirituality and not from science. I have my suspicions why this is (both from spiritual and anthropological standpoints). I'll explain briefly below, but it's really quite complex. Some good stuff has been written about it from ecological anthropology.

These are now so profoundly ingrained in us that we can measure them physiologically in the brain as they are stimulated. And what this shows us is that all the activity can be similarly stimulated by pushing the psychological buttons that deal with human relationships, fears, desires, self worth, ambition, etc.

Well, of course the effects can be seen in the brain. I'm not sure how this proves or disproves anything. Perhaps it depends on the spirituality/religion to which you are referring with regard to psychological buttons linked to spiritual ones. Certainly, I would think that love, which is what my spirituality leads me to, would be the same lit-up area no matter what connection I am responding to: human-human, tree-human, dog-human, Gaia-human, God-human, whatever. The basis is the connectedness, the relationship. It is all a manifestation of the same underlying stuff. So my brain processes it in the same way. Likewise, if someone is fearful of hell, it will light up the same way (I would imagine) as being fearful of whatever-else. All of that gets at not a disproving of God, but rather a proof that the human brain has consistent internal organization to deal with emotions (fear, love, whatever) and thoughts (desires, etc.).

We have a desire to believe in God, a deep one. But I think it not because we are connected but because we mentally find it a great comfort to do so. But that we can study the reasons why we believe and find in them 'Godless' causation is hard science.

Is it a comfort? To some, yes. But is it really a comfort to most? I have heard countless people in anguish about sin, about guilt, about hell. They worry about their friends and family's salvation. People are confused, anxious, afraid of other groups. None of that is comforting. Quite a few people find God scary. I think the "comfort" theory is seriously lacking.

I think, as far as social theories go, an attempt for pragmatic action is closer to the mark. If you investigate shamanism and animism, the religious type that was in most societies for most of human history, you find a great deal of emphasis on ecology, healing, and other pragmatic ends. It wasn't so much comfort as a way to provide cohesion in behavior, long-term horizon planning in resource use, medical care, etc.

I think the causation is closer to this pragmatism, which as society changed and grew larger (and more stratified) morphed into other practical ends (that are, I think, often a problem- control, elitism, etc.).

However, these causative theories are still incomplete. This is because though we can point out how spirituality benefits humans, this does not in fact prove its causation. All of this is an effect of spirituality, not necessarily its cause. Spirituality can (though often doesn't) give comfort. But it is not necessarily driven by people's need for comfort. Eating can give people comfort, too, but our innate drive to eat is not to seek comfort. Same goes for sex.

I can with confidence say that God has no attributes as It does not exist except as a human concept.

I was saying that you were assigning certain attributes that in part, define your outcome. I assign different attributes and have a different outcome. Of course, I realize that you don't think God "really" has attributes. But nevertheless, in your own conceptualization of what you disprove, you have defined them.

But it has been the religions, not me, that have sought to define and impose God on mankind. I simply respond to their claims. I fully appreciate that you have developed for yourself a set of beliefs that most religions would scorn and for the same reason they would scorn mine. They cannot make money out of it. And this is another reason religions are so endemic in all societies. Smart sharks understood the psychology of religion and harnessed it to their profit. But that's another tangent.

Depends on how you define religion, and what types of religion you are talking about. I can't see any clear distinctions, on your part, of individual spiritual experience from religion. Religion is an institution; it is social. Two different things and two different implications.

Furthermore, animistic/shamanic religions operate very, very differently from modern monotheistic ones, and you get a range in between. There is a clear and strong pattern that links social-economic-political organization and religious organization. And only some of these types of religion are used to maintain the elite. And even in those types of societies, some religious movements are initially rebellion, not reification of the power structure. There is a whole cycle to it. Shamanic traditions tend to be more individualistic, localized, and egalitarian (but that is to be expected, since they are typically found in relatively egalitarian societies).

[path_of_one]

I would agree with you wholeheartedly if religions and beliefs of that nature were benign but they are not.

Some are, some aren't. It is a grave mistake of categorization to lump all religions and their integration with various societies together. Lots of beliefs are very benign, and in fact, the loss of them have been argued to be part of our current problems with getting people to act in any sort of reliably long-term horizon, group-oriented way. I can give you some references to this with regards to ecology (my own specialization) if you like.

My own belief is that the combined threat of Global Warming and the incessant 'shepherding' of the masses behind religious/political groups creates too serious a threat to allow this to continue.

I agree, but I think this is a problem that is localized in certain cultures, times, and religions. It is not a problem of religion in general.

Religions have since history began primarily been used for three reasons. To spy on, to tax and to rally the people to war.

Actually, this is patently false. Humans were hunter-gatherers for approximately 90% of our history as a species, and religion was predominantly animistic. There were no taxes, there were not wars (violence was incredibly rare), and there was no need to spy (you only lived with a couple dozen people at most).

Religion has been used for these things since the dawn of state level social organization. That is a separate issue.

It is because I care about people having a real life of some quality on this Earth, now and in the future, and not the promise of a mythical paradise for their suffering today.

But you must recognize, here you rail against one particular kind of belief/religion (or a couple kinds). Spirituality can lead to a commitment to a living in the now and striving toward solutions. It has for me, and many others. It has in other cultures and originally was quite now and earth oriented (hence, earth-based traditions). I don’t think we can say it is a problem with religion or spirituality, a problem with the concept of God. It is a problem with how these things sit in our culture. The answer is not in getting rid of religion. Our cultural problems of short-term planning horizon, greed, materialism, exclusivity, and so forth would continue.

In fact, research indicates that people make decisions not based on reason, but rather emotion. If we want people to care about global warming, they must feel a connection with the earth. If we want people to care about war, they must feel a connection with other humans. Generally, people are compassionate because they see the other (be it human, tree, animal) as themselves. Science doesn’t do this. The problem is not just that people are unaware. Most people know they should recycle, they should stop driving large SUVs, they should not invest in companies that profit off war. They do these things anyway because they have not yet an emotional push to do otherwise.

I dont believe what I believe to score points in some debate but because I feel it is now imperative that mankind wake up to the realities that face us. To do that we need a mass realisation that religions and the beliefs they peddle are fictions.

I can say the same. I believe it is imperative that humanity awaken to connectedness. We need a mass realization that it is neither accurate nor useful to believe we are separated from each other, from Nature, from God. Connectedness yields both emotional impetus and a new way to think about the universe that allows for collaborative loving action.

If there is some way to preserve your kind of Buddhist 'at one' philosophy with which I have much empathy I am all for it. But not at the cost of allowing totalitarian dogmas to take us all to armagedon.

To be honest, I don’t see much hope for humankind unless we arrive at a philosophy that is widespread and once again built on here/now and connectedness. It is what served humankind well for most of its history. It was a deleterious shift, I think, to go from that to religious notions that separated humans and God, and humans from one another, and humans from Nature. (I am not saying modern religions are a mistake, but certain aspects of some of them seem to have caused disadvantage to the species and earth in general.) I don’t think rational science will get us there without some serious shift in how people process information and make decisions (which is unlikely unless we have a sudden evolutionary leap forward). Why? Because in place of religion, people could easily put nationalism or any number of other us vs. them philosophies and remain hopelessly stuck in the same course of action.

My viewpoint on this comes from my spiritual experience, yes. But it also comes from my work in decision-making studies and cognition in environmental anthro. Emotion, like it or not, places a huge role in most people’s decision-making process. The more person-like things are to them, they more they sympathize, the more they will make decisions that are inclusive of the well-being of those entities. I would argue that the majority of the modern Western world is up a creek and can’t recognize their paddle is not due to religion necessarily, but rather a lack of empathy. They lack the emotional connection to those around them, to the earth, to peoples of other nations and religions. And so they have little qualm entrusting their fate to some imaginary future, to God, to fate, to whatever and continuing to trash the world now. True love for other beings, true connection, means we recognize that whether or not God exists, whether or not there is a paradise is all irrelevant. What matters is how we express our love now, in either case.

[juantoo3]

Great thread, too much to respond to everybody.

Originally Posted by wil

I don't see why G!d has to be an ideal, or how it limits anything from being ideal. An ideal what? Nor do I see G!d as an entity. Or as everything. I see G!d as the stuff that makes up everything, the space in between everything which allows us to define anything. Everything we see isn't G!d but the expression of G!d, as evolution is as well.

This is pretty close to how I intuit this.

Originally Posted by wil

re: science and G!d, I see them coming ever closer and science being ever closer to understanding what G!d is. According to the agreement G!d/spirituality is still everything science can't explain. And the closer science gets to understanding everything, the amount they don't know increases proportionately.

I've often thought that was a portion of the reason satan was cast aside...for "coming ever closer to understanding what G!d is" to the point of trying to usurp Him. Surely science now stands in much the same position, trying to usurp G-d with fallible logic and faulty reason?

Originally Posted by wil

These are the thoughts at this moment I reserve the right to completely and utterly reject them in the next moment or when new information arises.

Yep.

[juantoo3]

Absolutely awesome post, Path!

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I advocate either an expansion of what scientific inquiry entails, or a recognition of its limits. Which is not a new position to take in the least.

Hear! Hear!

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Anthropology, sociology, and psychology (I think) work best together to explore human cognition and perception. I can speak to some of the universals (or near-universals) of how humans think, and to the diversity. However, I would put forth that neither I nor any of my colleagues claim to have figured this stuff out. I've read this stuff for years and there is a lot it does not explain. We are still far from understanding the nature or causes of belief in the psyche, and of course in reality this is all tied up with cultural conditioning as well as the human brain, so it is one big complicated mess. An interesting mess, nonetheless.

Awesome! Just awesome! I am but a lowly armchair amateur, thank you so much Path!

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Now, religion is a different matter for study than spirituality (for lack of a better term)- the individual search for God, or for self-actualization, or for the Universe, or whatever you wish to call it. When it comes to religion, I tend to be rather functionalist first, but acknowledging the individual drivers of the latter in its continuity as an institution. I'm rather fond of analyzing religions as institutions that are tied to the political and economic base of a society. Why? It is the best predictor for what you will find. I find these sorts of theories to be very useful for understanding religion as an institution, but far less so for mythology or analysis of ritual, and still less so for individual spiritual experience.

Yeah, Tao...what she said. Still luv ya bro! But I've tried to tell you this a lot of times...

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I think there are a number of issues with this. For starters, there is no clearly defined point at which human-enough creatures arise, nor do we have clear evidence of when high degree of sociality (or sufficiently high) arose along with self-awareness (even more difficult to pinpoint) and an element missing in your discussion but very important: language (or more appropriately, symbolic thought). What is a "high degree"? What kind of self-awareness? As it is, the boundaries between ourselves and other apes is a matter of degree and not categorical difference, unless you count philosophy/religion and (arguably, but not clearly) art as the primary differences. The other apes are highly social, they are self-aware, they exhibit attribution, concept of past/future, and the capacity for symbolic thought and rudimentary language. They are able to make tools, to plan for at least the near-future, and exhibit rudimentary culture.

So what makes us so different? What is the degree at which it is a "high degree"? And even more difficult, how can we see this in the fossil or archaeological record?

Evolutionary psychological theory, if not backed by physical evidence from archaeology or osteology, or from genetics, is speculating about the moment at which we gained this degree of self-awareness and its consequences. They are speculating about what caused it, and it is not very satisfying when you consider that other social animals with self-awareness do not wind up with the same drive to ask "why" about everything, to speculate about a world they do not physically observe. In short, I have seen no conclusions in social theory that explain the psychological drive for any of the bits of human cognition and behavior that are not clearly tied to evolutionary advantage (which includes spirituality/religion/philosophy, art, and music). And it is not just me being stubborn. I don't know of any social scientist that isn't lost in love with their own theory that thinks we've found the answers to these issues.

Thank you so very much for this Path, you have greatly expanded my understanding!

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Certainly, I would think that love, which is what my spirituality leads me to, would be the same lit-up area no matter what connection I am responding to: human-human, tree-human, dog-human, Gaia-human, God-human, whatever. The basis is the connectedness, the relationship. It is all a manifestation of the same underlying stuff. So my brain processes it in the same way. Likewise, if someone is fearful of hell, it will light up the same way (I would imagine) as being fearful of whatever-else. All of that gets at not a disproving of God, but rather a proof that the human brain has consistent internal organization to deal with emotions (fear, love, whatever) and thoughts (desires, etc.).

This corresponds well with a few papers I read dealing with the "G-d spot" in the brain. Which served well when atheists argued that love was "only" chemicals in the brain...ahem, so is G-d; and if love is real (to which they readily conceded), then G-d must be real because the exact same chemicals are implicated in even more areas of the brain than love is.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I think, as far as social theories go, an attempt for pragmatic action is closer to the mark. If you investigate shamanism and animism, the religious type that was in most societies for most of human history, you find a great deal of emphasis on ecology, healing, and other pragmatic ends. It wasn't so much comfort as a way to provide cohesion in behavior, long-term horizon planning in resource use, medical care, etc.

I never thought to whittle it down to the essence like this before, thanks.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Depends on how you define religion, and what types of religion you are talking about. I can't see any clear distinctions, on your part, of individual spiritual experience from religion. Religion is an institution; it is social. Two different things and two different implications.

Sound familiar Tao? I got it from William James, the same William James you alluded to earlier.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Shamanic traditions tend to be more individualistic, localized, and egalitarian (but that is to be expected, since they are typically found in relatively egalitarian societies).

I think this may contribute to why shamanism speaks to me at such a core level deep inside. Which is why if I were to ever surrender Christianity, it would be for shamanism.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Lots of beliefs are very benign, and in fact, the loss of them have been argued to be part of our current problems with getting people to act in any sort of reliably long-term horizon, group-oriented way. I can give you some references to this with regards to ecology (my own specialization) if you like.

Would you? Please? If not for Tao, for the rest of us? (well, me anyway, I would dearly love to hear)

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Religion has been used for these things since the dawn of state level social organization. That is a separate issue.

Sound familiar Tao?

Originally Posted by path_of_one

The answer is not in getting rid of religion. Our cultural problems of short-term planning horizon, greed, materialism, exclusivity, and so forth would continue.

In fact, research indicates that people make decisions not based on reason, but rather emotion. If we want people to care about global warming, they must feel a connection with the earth. If we want people to care about war, they must feel a connection with other humans. Generally, people are compassionate because they see the other (be it human, tree, animal) as themselves. Science *doesn’t* do this. The problem is not just that people are unaware. Most people know they should recycle, they should stop driving large SUVs, they should not invest in companies that profit off war. They do these things anyway because they have not yet an emotional push to do otherwise.

Not in any way to discredit the atrocities done in the name of institutional religion, but it seems to me that science if anything feeds this non-emotional detachment. At least certain segments seem to.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I can say the same. I believe it is imperative that humanity awaken to connectedness. We need a mass realization that it is neither accurate nor useful to believe we are separated from each other, from Nature, from God. Connectedness yields both emotional impetus and a new way to think about the universe that allows for collaborative loving action.

In this I still have a great deal to learn.

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I don’t think rational science will get us there without some serious shift in how people process information and make decisions (which is unlikely unless we have a sudden evolutionary leap forward). Why? Because in place of religion, people could easily put nationalism or any number of other us vs. them philosophies and remain hopelessly stuck in the same course of action.

Might I add, an "evolutionary" step backwards would solve the problem too, and at the rate we seem to be going that is looking to me more and more what may come about. And the instruments that will take us down that path are the progeny of science, not religion. Religion will probably build the hysteria needed to wield the awesome weapons of mass destruction, but the bombs themselves are the brainchildren of science.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

OK, I am home now and having spent some time writing on the train, here's my mini-dissertaiton. LOL I do apologize for the length, but there's so much going on here and I did try to be as brief as possible.

I am such a slow typist that to even begin to cover the main themes that we discuss becomes a days work. But I have a real days work to get to so it will have to wait. Good reading though, and a lot to respond too!!


Tao

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

So what hope do any of us have without blind faith?

Real faith.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I dont understand Are you saying God created evolution just so he could tidy it up?

You should ask God. I witness that I have a choice of whether to make use of evolution or not.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I am such a slow typist that to even begin to cover the main themes that we discuss becomes a days work. But I have a real days work to get to so it will have to wait. Good reading though, and a lot to respond too!!


Tao

Sorry, Tao. I tried to be succinct, but I'm trying to cram years of reading and study into sound-bites. (I type 80 wpm, so I'm a quick responder, but I no worries- I realize most people take some time! I won't think you are ignoring the conversation!)

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Might I add, an "evolutionary" step backwards would solve the problem too, and at the rate we seem to be going that is looking to me more and more what may come about. And the instruments that will take us down that path are the progeny of science, not religion. Religion will probably build the hysteria needed to wield the awesome weapons of mass destruction, but the bombs themselves are the brainchildren of science.

Reminds me of another Einstein quote:

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

I will put forth that it is not religion alone that is the problem. Religion combined with nationalism seems to be the biggest problem.

As for references to the value of religion for ecology, off the top of my head, one of the founding works on the matter (and a basic book in the history of cultural ecology) was "Pigs for the Ancestors" by Rappaport. It shows how the religion is the way that long-term ecological cycles, nutrition needs, and violence are organized so as to provide long-term cultural/group survival. There are a ton more. My personal all-time favorite, and a work that caused me to recognize my own spirituality's earth-based and shamanic "flavor," is "Make Prayers to the Raven." Fantastic and detailed treatise on religious rules surrounding virtually every facet of natural resource use and management among the Koyukon people of Canada. Beautifully written, stunning descriptions of the land, extensive notes on the detailed and complex religious rules, and a great explanation of how they all worked to ensure that use levels were appropriate to ecological cycles, populations of wildlife, etc.

For a more state-based centralized religion that used religion to reduce conflict over water management and ensure a good balance between upstream and downstream interests, there is "Priests and Programmers" by Lansing. Interestingly, when the colonists attempted to figure out the water management, they weren't that great at it because they couldn't recognize that all that religious stuff actually was tied into a system of water management and was, in effect, a folk science system as well as a religion. For an exploration of modern decision-making and the deep ecology movement, there is "The Ecology of Emotion" by Kay Milton. Great read, though there are some theoretical glitches I've been working on. I have extensive comments on Milton if anyone is interested. But overall, her work is very good and explains how good decision-making relates to emotion and personification. Finally, and what I would recommend first, is "Ecologies of the Heart" by E.N. Anderson. I know Anderson personally and professionally and have had extensive conversations with him. His work is solid, well-grounded in theory (he's an exceptionally comprehensive reader, and one I can't approach in depth or breadth), and the advantage of his book is that he brings in his studies of multiple cultures as well as an overall discussion of theory relative to ecological decision-making. It's really a great and entertaining read, and inspiring, as well as comprehensive.

Those are some of my "off the cuff" top picks. Of course, there are oodles and oodles more. Ecological anthro. started around 1950 with Julian Steward and now has various different theoretical tracks, so it has a rich literature.