What a lovely thoughtful essay you wrote along with a thoughtful article. Thanks,
REH ----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 3:58 AM Subject: [Futurework] Origin and destiny of religion > I think that there is a great deal of confusion when we talk of religion. > This is due to the intermixing of two quite different aspects of the word > -- that is, whether we are talking of the religious impulse or whether we > are talking of organised religions and their theologies. I think that David > Sloan Wilson comes close to the truth in the following where the writer of > the article quoted in my last posting wrote: > > <<<< > His [David Sloan Wilson's] most recent book, Darwin's Cathedral, takes a > serious shot at explaining religious belief in this way. It is, he says, a > biological and cultural adaptation to build cooperation. This does not mean > religious emotions are about cooperation. > >>>> > > I believe that the religious impulse is a mystery that is at as least a > deep a level as our genes and that it is involved with the origin of life > itself in the particular nature of our universe with its unique set of > physical constants and what we call "laws". This set-up allows -- or, > probably, instigates -- life, wherever there is the slightest opportunity > for it to happen. It is certainly very mysterious that life started on > earth at the very instant (on an evolutionary time scale) that conditions > allowed. > > What strikes me as being highly significant is that I, and many of the > friends I've spoken to, feel an overwhelming sense of wonder when we look > at the stars. I think that many of us are deeply deprived in these days of > light pollution in the cities where we cannot see the multitude of stars > above us. I will never forget the experience I had in the Australian rain > forest in Queensland on a night-time walk when, coming to a clearing in the > dense canopy above, the stars suddenly appeared, so bright and clear that > they seemed only to be an arm's length away, but yet impossibly distant. I > also have the same feeling -- though less so -- when I look at distant > mountains. I will never forget the shock of seeing the Himalayas when the > morning mist cleared one day in Nepal. They were a hundred miles away but > seemed only yards. I have the same feeling, though a gentler one, when I am > walking in the rolling countryside around here in the west country, when > coming upon a valley before me with distant hills and woods. > > I think that there's a discrepancy, or an anomaly, of time that's involved > in this sense of wonder. A discrepancy between the time it takes a photon > of light to come from a distant object and the immediacy of the > relationship between me and the object -- even though in the case of a > distant star, the object might not even exist now, having disappeared > millions of years ago. Quantum physics tells us that where two particles > have a relationship then they are capable of affecting one another wherever > they may be with a time lag that might be instantaneous but is certainly > shorter than that of the speed of light. It is this sort of discrepancy > between the relationship of the deep information within the universe and > the finite velocity with which the mechanical world operates -- the world > in which we are transfixed while alive. > > This makes me a believer of some sort although, theologically, I am an > agnostic, for want of a better word. However, I believe that it is this > primary sense of wonder, closely allied to curiosity, that has given rise > to both organised religion and science. They are both attempts at > formulating more detailed explanations of what we observe and what might > lie beyond. Equally, they are both capable of being distorted by baser > instincts and manipulated by individuals with needs for power over others. > > Both science and religion probably arose gradually and in parallel as our > frontal lobes evolved and were able to handle the perceptual abstractions > that our rear cortex was making and putting them together in novel ways. > The signs of both are infrequent for several scores of thousands of years > of early man. They seem so slight to us but were all-important to our > ancestors. In the case of science we see some of the early artefacts and > tools, each innovation being separated by thousands of years. In the case > of religion, we see the arrangements of bodies in their graves, the placing > of flowers and later, and increasingly, the deposition of precious > ornaments and worldy goods with the body. > > Many of the early byproducts of science were weapons and tended to be > appropriated by individuals with aspirations of secular status and power, > while the myths and legends of religion tended to be developed by other > aspirants to power who used more subtle methods to control others. Both > early science and religion were in the nature of collections of disparate > pieces of knowledge and belief without any attempt to harmonise them into > unified systems. The first 'scientific' hominid who devised the first spear > to replace the piece of sharpened rock that was hurled at a prey (or an > enemy) was not thinking in terms of ballistics and guidance systems. It was > just an idea and it worked. It was a huge step forward, nevertheless. But > when, over scores of thousands of years, the spear became the sprung spear > (the atlatl) and then the bow-and-arrow, and then the crossbow then perhaps > scientist man was beginning to think very dimly in terms of underlying > principles. As to religious belief, then it seems to be universally true > that all ancient religions involved a multiplicity of gods or spirits, each > responsible for particular causations. Monotheism took thousands of years > to come about. > > We really only begin to see much tangible evidence of both science and > religion when mankind started to leave his hunter-gatherer ways of life and > built the first cities at around 12,000-10,000BC. We see evidence of a > multiplicity of tools, and we see portrayals of gods in paintings and > pottery And we also see evidence there of two different types of community > starting to form within the city-states, those of the city-chief and the > city-priest respectively. By the time we reach the flowering of city-states > in Sumerian and Egyptian times, both types of organisation were fairly > fully developed, each with their own immediate followers, although both had > political power over the general population. No doubt they clashed often -- > as the evidence from Egypt suggests -- but no doubt they operated in > cahoots for most of the time in order to control and tithe the citizens in > their respective ways. > > Of the two main systems within the cities, the secular leadership would > have been the more unstable. The fact of regression to the mean means that > leadership abilities of dynasties inevitably weaken. Within two or three > generations a king of outstanding intelligence would have been replaced by > descendants of ordinary talents, vulnerable to be overthrown by a new > aspirant. In the case of the religious system, where power had to depend > on mental ability and imagination to control the population rather than > physical threat, the priesthood would always attract the more > intellectually gifted and where there wasn't likely to be a peaceful > succession from one high-priest to another, then an aspirant would be more > inclined to start another religion and worship another god rather than use > force, which he probably didn't possess anyway. > > By about 2,000BC in various centres of civilisation -- in the Middle East, > India and China -- it is likely that the most intellectually creative in > any population had begun to separate themselves as a sort of > super-craftsman class, used by both the secular and the religious control > systems. The secular kings would have wanted better weapons with which to > defeat his enemies; the priest would have wanted some dependable knowledge > of natural events in the skies or the tides or the flooding of rivers in > order to appear to be in touch with the gods and able to forecast the > future and guide the populace. But, because they are, by normal laws of > distribution, scarce within any population, the intellectuals didn't have > any power system of their own, only as much as they could influence the > main political systems individually. However, their time was to come -- and > in spades! > > By the time we reach about 500BC the city-states were large and complex and > nearing the end of their lifetime for the most part (empires were just > around the corner!). This appears to be a time of great crisis in various > regions. There were too many problems of administration, too many problems > with neighbouring cities, too many problems in concerving their > agricultural systems, too many problems of trade, and so on. Also, there > were too many gods to give them clear guidance any longer! The Hebrews had > already overthrown the multiplicity of gods that they absorbed in Egypt and > elsewhere in the Middle East and worshipped one only. Even then, clear > guidance was often hard to come by, and during this era the psalmists sang > poignantly about being forsaken by their god. > > There were parallel crises elsewhere, too, all at much the same time -- > around 500BC -- because they had all reached much the same level of > complexity and simply couldn't govern themselves adequately any longer. And > in some of those regions they went even further than the Hebrews. Instead > of reducing the number of gods to one, they began to throw them out > completely! > > In Greece, they invented a new term -- the 'psyche' -- meaning the > individual mind of man. It would be logical thought and rationality that > must guide them from then onwards. The philosophers began to make a > laughing stock of the Olympian gods that the ordinary people believed in -- > though Socrates went a little too far too quickly and had to drink hemlock! > In India, Siddharta Gautama founded Buddhism, a religion of contemplation > without a god and, although this didn't replace the many gods of Hinduism > in India itself, it flourished in many other parts of Asia. In China, > Kung-fu-dz (the man of the Kung family who is given honour), or Confucius, > founded a 'religion' of secular order and respect for authority -- and > entirely without thought of the existence gods. > > These were cataclysmic changes in the mind of man and society, and all of > the new philosophical strains that started then are still very much active > today, 2,500 years later. The monotheism of the Hebrews has mutated into > many other branches of monotheistic religions. Buddhism is still > influential in Asia. Modern China is governed in pretty well the same way > as the Confucianism of old. The science and rationality of the Greeks, once > again by definition necessarily confined to an intellectual minority of the > population, has had a risky and chequered history, sometimes given freedom, > sometimes persecuted by both secular authorities and religions. However, > science has been very much in the ascendant for the past two hundred years > alongside the rise of the European industrial revolution -- so much so > that, as modern times become almost ungovernably complex again, as at > around 500BC, science is now being increasingly attacked, particularly by > the rapidly growing fundamentalist wings of both the main monotheistic > religions, Christianity and Islam. > > According to the article quoted in "Human nature is a sandwich" David Sloan > Wilson considers religion as important because: > > <<<< > .... it encourages collective action. The emotions that religions build on, > and the conduct they encourage, tend to bind groups and build cooperation. > The worship of a common god, he believes, is really the worship of a common > good, to whom everyone in the tribe or religion must defer. > >>>> > > There is some truth is this because religions are the only form of > organised humanity which has still retained a structure dependant on the > local community -- something that most people miss badly but which is not > encouraged by our present economic system and certainly not by the highly > centralised, very powerful secular governances of today. As times become > harder with the decline of cheap fossil fuels, and as modern living becomes > even more complex and stressful, then religions, particularly the > intellectually superficial fundamentalist ones, will undoubtedly offer a > great deal because they are notionally open to all. Indeed, on present > evidence, they are already growing at a fast rate and must be destined to > grow larger still. > > However, the fact is, whether the fundamentalist religions like it or not, > if humanity is to survive then it is going to be increasingly dependant on > science and technology. And, because of the curiosity of our frontal lobes, > this is now almost as deeply embedded in human nature as our need for > belonging to local community. If mankind gives up on science then it gives > up in large measure to being human also. Something that many fundamentalist > religionists will find difficult, if not impossible, to understand -- never > mind agree with -- is that some areas of science such as astronomy, > genetics and quantum physics are the only adequate source these days of the > most profound sense of religious wonder and awe that we are capable of > feeling. The fundamentalist religions can only touch on the edge of this. > > For this reason, I think that the state of tension between the > fundamentalist religions and modern science and technology will grow in the > coming decades. They'll be increasingly at war with each other. Just how > widespread and destructive this war will be depends only on one thing -- > how much energy will be available per capita in our developed economies in > the coming decades. I think it will be as raw and brutal as that. But, as > I'm sure many biological scientists understand already, if humanity is > going to survive in some countries, or some regions, or some enclaves, and > if mankind is going to have a happy and satisfying life as well as being > able to survive on a sustainable basis, then it had better start organising > the structure of society along much more decentralised lines that are more > compatible with tens of millions of years of evolution of social mammals, > primates, hominids and then ourselves. > > KSH > > Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath, England, > <www.evolutionary-economics.org> > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
