The history of "humanity" is a history of error. Early humans--VERY early
humans, might have "seen" themselves as part of the ecosystem far more
clearly than "modern" humans. I remember the story out of Africa shortly
after the Polaroid(R) camera came onto the market; a "westerner" took a
photo of an African (Masai, I believe) man, and when shown "his" picture,
the man could not associate the image with himself.
The earliest known examples of "imagery" are believed to be at least 50,000
years old, (rock art from Australia). The earliest images most likely were
abstract, but images of things we recognize is probably in the realm of at
least 30,000 years old (e.g. cave art in Southern Europe). The older
"realistic" images do not depict human forms (except perhaps those of
hands), but are restricted to those of other animals. Even after human
figures appear, they are not rendered with the care that other animals are.
This invites speculation that anthropocentrism, hubris, and egocentrism
probably were later developments, possibly following domestication of plants
and animals probably sometime around 10,000 BCE, possibly accompanied by
increased emphasis upon the depiction of human forms with greater and
greater levels of skill. This requires a much, much better art historian
than I, and I would welcome a more specific and accurate examination of
these general conclusions, especially if I have made any grievous errors in
my general claims.
But the point I wish to make is that, while early humans might have
interpreted things like lightning and thunder as acts of some god or
another, it is equally possible that they simply accepted Nature as a
continuum that included themselves, with "gods" coming into their mythology
later, perhaps first expressed in "animism," (early art depicts human-animal
combinations (shamans?) which can still be seen in a few cultures or
societies (closer to Nature?) today, later taking human form (super-chiefs
and father-figures, though some of the earliest appearances of human forms
in art depicted female figures and genitalia), as "civilization" began to
appear with the advent of agriculture, urbanization, and the development of
monotheistic religion that tended to equate God with a father-figure, a
protector and defender from the slings and arrows of Nature and human
"nature." Narcissism arose concurrently, and persists to this very day.
As one explores backwards in time, one is forced into more and more
speculation and less and less into certainty. It is the quest for certainty
that gave rise to monotheistic religions centered upon saviors and saints
and priestly hierarchies-and, dare I say, to science itself? Does it not at
least equally follow that the myths of pre-civilization were more, not less
accepting of Nature's "grace" than those which developed later, in the last
five or ten thousand years to the present?
I beg your forgiveness for this extended comment, well beyond 140
characters.
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Silvert" <cien...@silvert.org>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 10:14 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
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
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Crants" <jcra...@gmail.com>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: segunda-feira, 17 de Maio de 2010 16:36
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
If you try to apply the scientific approach to such topics, you are stuck
with either agnosticism (because questions about the supernatural are
scientifically untestable, so we should no pretend we have scientific
answers to such questions) or atheism (because assuming the presence of
supernatural things on top of all we can demonstrate to be true is less
parsimonious than assuming their absence).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2879 - Release Date: 05/17/10
06:26:00
