Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Creating God

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Creating God

    Those of you who know me reasonably well know that I listen to a lot of podcasts. I pretty much always have an earbud in my ear as I work, drive, eat, etc. It comes out only when I am engaged with others socially. Today I was listening as I drove home, and this came on. The podcast is about a paper that looks at the patterns of emergence of religions in history. It suggests that religions of small groups, both in the distant past and in modern times (i.e., aboriginal tribes) tend to "trickster" gods, animal totems, etc. But as groups begin to grow, the religions begin to change - and they begin to develop "punisher gods."

    The authors theorize that what is happening can be explained by looking at trust and cohesion within the group. When groups are small, everyone knows everyone else and that familiarity makes it difficult for any one person to deceive the group or take advantage of them. But when the group grows to a point where everyone cannot possibly know everyone else, it becomes more possible for rogue elements to join the group (or arise within the group) and for them to take advantage of some or all of the group. The evolutionary response to this is the development of a religion focused on a "punisher god" that helps to restore cohesion to the group. They cite multiple parallel studies that provide some evidence for this theory.

    It caught my ear because it fits well with what I have found in the course of my journey from devout Christian to atheist. It adds another stick on the pile of evidence about how religions emerge, the functions they serve, and why we are seeing some of the changes we are seeing today.

    I'd be curious to have others, especially those with religious beliefs, listen (or read) the episode and comment.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

  • #2
    Source: NPR article

    He says the vibrant panoply of religious rituals and beliefs we see today – including the popular belief in a punishing God – emerged in different societies at different times as mechanisms to help us survive as a species.

    © Copyright Original Source


    I'm reading through Ezekiel right now, and there are a lot of punishments meted out. And is there a real God who metes out punishments? That would be the question I would ask--and the Israelites did indeed go into exile, and many perished from the sword, famine and plague. There is enough evidence that the God of the Bible is real, that I can believe there is a God who punishes, and who rewards.

    And this would be for our benefit, to keep people on the right track, and to keep society in order.

    Source: 1 Timothy 1:8–11 (NIV)

    We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Blessings,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      Source: NPR article

      He says the vibrant panoply of religious rituals and beliefs we see today – including the popular belief in a punishing God – emerged in different societies at different times as mechanisms to help us survive as a species.

      © Copyright Original Source


      I'm reading through Ezekiel right now, and there are a lot of punishments meted out. And is there a real God who metes out punishments? That would be the question I would ask--and the Israelites did indeed go into exile, and many perished from the sword, famine and plague. There is enough evidence that the God of the Bible is real, that I can believe there is a God who punishes, and who rewards.

      And this would be for our benefit, to keep people on the right track, and to keep society in order.

      Source: 1 Timothy 1:8–11 (NIV)

      We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

      © Copyright Original Source



      Blessings,
      Lee
      That is basically the authors thesis - that such religions arose specifically because it provided for social stability when "personal familiarity" could not do so.

      He also suggests that the diminished impact we see of religions in modern times is because society has, in the past few hundred years, developed governments and institutions that provide a similar type of structure, diminishing the need for a "punisher god" to maintain social order. The thesis seems to fit the available facts. Indeed, it seems to me that we would even see a period of increased discord as we move from a theo-centric "accountability" model to a more social one using institutions and governments.
      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
        The thesis seems to fit the available facts.
        And the facts seem to fit the thesis I offered, as well, that there is a living God who disciplines nations.

        Indeed, it seems to me that we would even see a period of increased discord as we move from a theo-centric "accountability" model to a more social one using institutions and governments.
        I'm not sure why that would be the case?

        Blessings,
        Lee
        "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          And the facts seem to fit the thesis I offered, as well, that there is a living God who disciplines nations.


          I'm not sure why that would be the case?

          Blessings,
          Lee
          Except that this is not the pattern of history - or modernity. Tribes that are small in number consistently don't have such religions. That is true historically, and even in the modern day. "Punisher god" religions ONLY appear when the society grows beyond the point where the individuals can all know one another intimately. How do you interpret that reality...?
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            Except that this is not the pattern of history - or modernity. Tribes that are small in number consistently don't have such religions. That is true historically, and even in the modern day.
            Don't the animists try to appease the spirits?

            "Punisher god" religions ONLY appear when the society grows beyond the point where the individuals can all know one another intimately. How do you interpret that reality...?
            I would question whether they only appear under these conditions. I would even contend that God has revealed himself to humankind from the beginning:

            "Cain said to the Lord, 'My punishment is more than I can bear.' " (Gen. 4:13)

            Blessings,
            Lee
            "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
              Don't the animists try to appease the spirits?
              Not in general. IIRC, most animist religions are basic "nature" religions. They honor their gods, and offer gifts to their gods (your appeasement?), but they do not see the animist gods as "punishers." They see them as guides - mentors - advisors. Not punishers.

              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
              I would question whether they only appear under these conditions. I would even contend that God has revealed himself to humankind from the beginning:

              "Cain said to the Lord, 'My punishment is more than I can bear.' " (Gen. 4:13)

              Blessings,
              Lee
              You can question this if you wish, but that would require you to look at their accumulated evidence and find a way to discredit it, or offer an alternate. I don't think quoting scripture is going to accomplish that. This is a scientific look at religions and their emergence. It requires a scientific response.
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                Not in general. IIRC, most animist religions are basic "nature" religions. They honor their gods, and offer gifts to their gods (your appeasement?), but they do not see the animist gods as "punishers." They see them as guides - mentors - advisors. Not punishers.
                But surely the fact that nature can be cruel did not escape their notice.

                Originally posted by lee_merrill
                Originally posted by carpedm9587
                "Punisher god" religions ONLY appear when the society grows beyond the point where the individuals can all know one another intimately.
                I would question whether they only appear under these conditions.
                You can question this if you wish, but that would require you to look at their accumulated evidence and find a way to discredit it, or offer an alternate.
                Well, let's hear the accumulated evidence for your claim!

                Source: Encyclopedia Britannica--animism

                Tylor’s believers are “armchair primitives” (the creatures of armchair anthropologists), not real individuals caught in the toils of discord, disease, and fear of perdition.

                © Copyright Original Source



                Emphasis mine, reference here.

                Blessings,
                Lee
                "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                  But surely the fact that nature can be cruel did not escape their notice.
                  As best I can tell, animism sees "gods" in "nature." These gods are/were largely capricious and fickle, wanting to be appeased and honored. They were not defining "moral behavior" but rather wanting attention and ritual and sacrifice in return for "good weather" and "good crops" and so forth. Ergo, the people of that age believed that certain rituals/rites could be used to influence these gods and produce the natural outcome they wished. When they did not get the required outcomes, it was presumed that the rite/ritual was improperly done.

                  Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                  Well, let's hear the accumulated evidence for your claim!

                  Source: Encyclopedia Britannica--animism

                  Tylor’s believers are “armchair primitives” (the creatures of armchair anthropologists), not real individuals caught in the toils of discord, disease, and fear of perdition.

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  Emphasis mine, reference here.

                  Blessings,
                  Lee
                  The sentence you picked up is badly out of context. Here is the larger context:

                  Tylor asserted that people everywhere would be impressed by the vividness of dream images and would reason that dreams of dead kin or of distant friends were proof of the existence of souls. The simple belief in these spiritual beings, independent of natural bodies, would, he thought, expand to include more elaborate religious doctrines, accompanied by rites designed to influence powerful spirits and so control important natural events.

                  While Tylor offered no special theory for this expansion and so avoided most of the traps of early social evolutionism, he taught that cultures moved, though not along any single path, from simpler to more complex forms. The direction of movement was shown by the survival of animism in muted but recognizable forms (including most “superstitions” and many expressions such as “a spirit of disobedience” or common words such as genius) in the advanced civilization of his own day. This “development theory” he championed against the so-called degradation theory, which held that the religion of remote peoples could only have spread to them from centres of high culture, such as early Egypt, becoming “degraded” in the process of transfer. Tylor showed that animistic beliefs exhibit great variety and often are uniquely suited to the cultures and natural settings in which they are found.

                  In retrospect, Tylor seems more balanced in his judgments than later writers who constructed the problem of “minimal religion” in a narrower frame. Tylor’s greatest limitation was self-imposed, since he narrowed his attention to what may be called the cognitive aspects of animism, leaving aside “the religion of vision and passion.” Tylor took animism in its simplest manifestation to be a “crude childlike natural philosophy” that led people to a “doctrine of universal vitality” whereby “sun and stars, trees and rivers, winds and clouds, become personal animate creatures.” But his cognitive emphasis led him to understate the urgent practicality of the believer’s concern with the supernatural. Tylor’s believers are “armchair primitives” (the creatures of armchair anthropologists), not real individuals caught in the toils of discord, disease, and fear of perdition.


                  Note that the sentence at the end is not claiming that the real individuals of the time had all of those characteristics, and does not offer any basis for thinking so. The focus of the statement is about "armchair primitives" versus "real individuals," not a defense that they "believed in perdition."

                  Note the first segment I emphasized, which speaks to my point above.
                  Last edited by carpedm9587; 11-03-2018, 02:06 PM.
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                    Don't the animists try to appease the spirits?
                    In the sense of trying to curry favor for a desired nature-related outcome (e.g., good crops - good weather, etc.)

                    Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                    I would question whether they only appear under these conditions. I would even contend that God has revealed himself to humankind from the beginning:

                    "Cain said to the Lord, 'My punishment is more than I can bear.' " (Gen. 4:13)

                    Blessings,
                    Lee
                    Again, Lee, you cannot quote a text that is the product of an organized religion to deal with the scientific issue at hand: the evolution of religions and the data that supports the conclusions.
                    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      As best I can tell, animism sees "gods" in "nature." These gods are/were largely capricious and fickle, wanting to be appeased and honored.
                      And if you don't appease them?

                      Tylor asserted that people everywhere would be impressed by the vividness of dream images and would reason that dreams of dead kin or of distant friends were proof of the existence of souls. The simple belief in these spiritual beings, independent of natural bodies, would, he thought, expand to include more elaborate religious doctrines, accompanied by rites designed to influence powerful spirits and so control important natural events.
                      But I don't see how this supports a point you have made...

                      But his cognitive emphasis led him to understate the urgent practicality of the believer’s concern with the supernatural. Tylor’s believers are “armchair primitives” (the creatures of armchair anthropologists), not real individuals caught in the toils of discord, disease, and fear of perdition.


                      Note that the sentence at the end is not claiming that the real individuals of the time had all of those characteristics, and does not offer any basis for thinking so. The focus of the statement is about "armchair primitives" versus "real individuals," not a defense that they "believed in perdition."
                      But surely the believers here represents the animists, real individuals who believed in perdition.

                      Blessings,
                      Lee
                      "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        And if you don't appease them?
                        In general, you don't get what you want. It's not about punishing behavior that is detrimental to the community (e.g., morality). It's about controlling natural outcomes with ritual/rite.

                        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        But I don't see how this supports a point you have made...
                        My point was about the animist religions being about controlling nature by ritual/rite designed to please the "nature gods," which is what the statement says.

                        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        But surely the believers here represents the animists, real individuals who believed in perdition.

                        Blessings,
                        Lee
                        There is no reason that I have found to believe that animists believed in "perdition." As far as I know, that concept does not exist in animist religions, even in modern-day tribes. They do believe in a spirit world of some sort, but the concept of "perdition" in the classic sense (i.e., a state of eternal punishment and damnation into which a sinful and unpenitent person passes after death) is not present in these religions). Indeed, that is the entire point of the author cited in the OP - that this concept arises in later religions, which form when societies exceed the size that makes one-to-one relationships between all members impossible.

                        Perhaps my OP is a little misleading. The author is not talking about creating the idea of god/gods per se - these ideas exist in the earliest known cultures. It is specifically the notion of a punisher god that is an evolutionary development that appears to be linked to the size of the societies.
                        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                          In general, you don't get what you want. It's not about punishing behavior that is detrimental to the community (e.g., morality). It's about controlling natural outcomes with ritual/rite.
                          Well, I think if the outcome is that my crops fail, I would consider that a punishment.

                          My point was about the animist religions being about controlling nature by ritual/rite designed to please the "nature gods," which is what the statement says.
                          Fair enough.

                          There is no reason that I have found to believe that animists believed in "perdition."
                          Well, that's what he just said.

                          As far as I know, that concept does not exist in animist religions, even in modern-day tribes. They do believe in a spirit world of some sort, but the concept of "perdition" in the classic sense (i.e., a state of eternal punishment and damnation into which a sinful and unpenitent person passes after death) is not present in these religions). Indeed, that is the entire point of the author cited in the OP - that this concept arises in later religions, which form when societies exceed the size that makes one-to-one relationships between all members impossible.
                          And I still am waiting for the evidence for this claim!

                          Blessings,
                          Lee
                          "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            Well, I think if the outcome is that my crops fail, I would consider that a punishment.
                            If I fail to put the oil in my car correctly, and the engine seizes - am I being punished? Or am I just experiencing the natural consequences of not doing things correctly? In the case of animism, failure to execute a rite/ritual correctly (or not at all) means I don't get what I wanted. Is that punishment? Or just a natural outcome of not doing the ritual correctly (or at all?).

                            What you are missing, Lee, is the link to social behaviors that threaten the group (e.g., morality). That is what the "punisher god" is all about. If you act immorally - then you are punished in the afterlife (and possibly this life).

                            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            Fair enough.

                            Well, that's what he just said.
                            Go back and look at the context, Lee. That's not what it says. And there is no evidence I know of that any animism religions believe in perdition as it is defined by modern religions.

                            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            And I still am waiting for the evidence for this claim!

                            Blessings,
                            Lee
                            Then I suggest you listen to the podcast and/or read the article, and then read the paper. That's why I linked it - for those who are interested. It is here.

                            As for further evidence, I have found no source on animism that makes any reference to beliefs in perdition as being part of the faith. Outside of this paper and its implications, that's the best "evidence" I can provide you with. You are, after all, asking me to prove a negative.
                            Last edited by carpedm9587; 11-04-2018, 07:11 PM.
                            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                              If I fail to put the oil in my car correctly, and the engine seizes - am I being punished?
                              No, but if my crops fail because I failed to propitiate a deity, then I would consider that a punishment.

                              What you are missing, Lee, is the link to social behaviors that threaten the group (e.g., morality). That is what the "punisher god" is all about. If you act immorally - then you are punished in the afterlife (and possibly this life).
                              If my crops fail, that could threaten the group, though. Negligence on my part can be morally culpable.

                              Go back and look at the context, Lee. That's not what it says.
                              'Tis too!

                              Then I suggest you listen to the podcast and/or read the article, and then read the paper. That's why I linked it - for those who are interested. It is here.
                              Well, it required me to subscribe, so I read as far as I could before making a contribution. I was hoping you would give me some relevant data.

                              You are, after all, asking me to prove a negative.
                              Yep! Because you made a negative claim.

                              Blessings,
                              Lee
                              "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                              14 responses
                              42 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                              21 responses
                              129 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                              78 responses
                              411 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post tabibito  
                              Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                              45 responses
                              303 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Working...
                              X