Searching for GOD...

[Gonnagle]

Dear Stranger,

Well, I'm not an expert in the ancient history of religion but I haven't seen the claim that monotheism came first before. Does Armstrong (or anybody else) have any evidence? Do you have a link or reference?

I will certainly check which book mentions this and get back to you, one thing for sure Armstrong is the experts expert, the experts turn to Armstrong for answers, some say she is a atheist others say she leans towards Judaism, one thing I know her books are thoroughly researched and a cracking read if you want to know more about the history of religion.

Well modern man at least aspires to be far, far batter than (for example) some of the actions of the OT god - who ordered and directly committed what would now be called crimes against humanity.

Some modern men, there are some who can see the direction we are heading and trying to warn us about our greed and the way we treat this planet, as for the OT God, you have to read deeper into the subject to find out why man, yes man! Portrayed God as some vengeful seeking God.

Then there are those who commit atrocities today, in the name of their gods.

No argument there!

I don't deny "man's inhumanity to man"  but I'm really not sure that the god concept is helping.

For me ( my opinion ) all about asking what does God want, I am still asking

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Rhiannon,

I can get to everything being god, I am a pantheist after all, but then what does that mean? Probably nothing except that I think that all of it is sacred. Sometimes I say that I see an animating energy that runs through everything and that is god too. But take the energy away and you still have everything being god.

Can't accept that the universe is god trying to find itself, that implies a mind, and I don't experience a god with a mind or a personhood.

Everything is sacred, can I be a Pantheist Christian

God trying to find itself? To answer this you need a Horsethorn, something about God still trying to figure it all out himself

Gonnagle.

[wigginhall]

I can get to everything being god, I am a pantheist after all, but then what does that mean? Probably nothing except that I think that all of it is sacred. Sometimes I say that I see an animating energy that runs through everything and that is god too. But take the energy away and you still have everything being god.

Can't accept that the universe is god trying to find itself, that implies a mind, and I don't experience a god with a mind or a personhood.

I think some Eastern religions get rid of the universe as a separate thing, so all you are left with is experience itself, and then that seems mindful, and there is nothing objective.   But this is too radical for Christianity, which has to keep the objective world, and an objective God, I suppose.   Sri Ramana Maharshi expressed this stuff very well.   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramana_Maharshi

[Gonnagle]

Dear Stranger,

Here goes old son

According to Armstrong you need to read some old book ( 1912 ) written by a Father  Wilhelm Schmidt called The Origin of the idea of God, he state that primitive man practised a early form of monotheism.

Of course this guy being a Father, he might just have had an agenda.

Armstrong then goes on to explain that among some indigenous tribes of Africa they also practice monotheism ( Sky God ) much the same as the Christian God, made the Heavens and Earth.

Armstrong also states that anthropologists suggest that this idea of one God has been replaced by more attractive gods of the pagan pantheons.

Anyway, the above is taken from Armstrong's a History of God, a cracking read, well if you are at all interested in the history of religion.

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

According to Armstrong you need to read some old book ( 1912 ) written by a Father  Wilhelm Schmidt called The Origin of the idea of God, he state that primitive man practised a early form of monotheism.

Well, I looked him up: Wilhelm Schmidt. That page links to his belief in primitive monotheism or Urmonotheismus which tells me this:

By the 1950s, the hypothesis of primitive ethical monotheism was rejected by the academic establishment, so its proponents of Schmidt's "Vienna school" rephrased it to the effect that while ancient cultures may not have known "true monotheism", they at least show evidence for "original theism" (Ur-Theismus, as opposed to non-theistic animism), with a concept of Hochgott ("High God", as opposed to Eingott "Single God").

I have done some searching around the subject of prehistoric/earliest religion (trying to concentrate on reference or education sites and avoiding the overtly religious) and have found much talk of animism, animal worship, shamanism, totemism, and ancestor worship with little mention of more abstract theism. It's not exhaustive - so I'm happy to pointed at other sites, or better still an expert on the subject (who doesn't have a religious agenda of their own). There seems to be universal agreement that the very earliest evidence of religious belief is in the form of burial of the dead, often with artefacts, but there is no way of knowing what sort of beliefs these practices were associated with.

So, I'm very far from convinced that humans have been struggling with what god (singular) is since they "stepped out of the cave" (#26438). Still less convinced that their tendency to see deliberate agency behind natural or random events is anything more than a byproduct of an evolutionary survival mechanism (#26440).

[Gonnagle]

Dear Stranger,

Very interesting stuff, but first, what is this hash thing you are using, it looks much easier to use, when did we start this?

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Stranger,

Very interesting stuff, but first, what is this hash thing you are using, it looks much easier to use, when did we start this?

Gonnagle.

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=14960.0

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sane,

Cheers.

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

Very interesting stuff, but first, what is this hash thing you are using, it looks much easier to use, when did we start this?

Unfortunately, while it's very user friendly, it's a bit of a faff make. It's just a link to a message. You make links like this:

[url=http://example.com/]An Example[/url]

which displays as: An Example.

To use it for a specific messge, you need to find the message, click on its title (usually "Re: some topic name"), copy the address from your browser's address bar, paste it into the [url=] tag, then copy the # message number as the text that goes in between the [url=] and [/url] tags.

 

[Gonnagle]

Dear Stranger,

Thanks but I think I will stick to the old quote button

 (trying to concentrate on reference or education sites and avoiding the overtly religious)

Just to clarify, although Armstrong is deeply passionate about all things religious the only agenda I can see from her books is religious unity between all religions and a deep heart felt need to show that compassion for all is uppermost, saying that Christians are not big fans of Armstrong.

Your link although interesting but you have not said anything about the second example I gave, indigenous tribes of Africa practising a religion similar to monotheism, don't forget the out of Africa theory.

I have another example of this but can't find any links so far, I posted a long time ago about a tribe from Papua New Guinea who somehow manage to escape unhurt from a tsunami that had hit their island ( not important ) the important part for this discussion is that they had been cut of from western civilisation since forever, they too practised a similar religion to monotheism.

I have done some searching around the subject of prehistoric/earliest religion (trying to concentrate on reference or education sites and avoiding the overtly religious) and have found much talk of animism, animal worship, shamanism, totemism, and ancestor worship with little mention of more abstract theism. It's not exhaustive - so I'm happy to pointed at other sites, or better still an expert on the subject (who doesn't have a religious agenda of their own). There seems to be universal agreement that the very earliest evidence of religious belief is in the form of burial of the dead, often with artefacts, but there is no way of knowing what sort of beliefs these practices were associated with.

Armstrong delves very deeply into ancient religions, the one I remember most is about some paintings found in french caves, a Shaman is seen crying over a beast that the tribe have just killed, Armstrong points out that this is still practised today today by some African tribes, the theory being that all life is sacred and the Shaman is trying to ease the passage of the beast into the after life.

So, I'm very far from convinced that humans have been struggling with what god (singular) is since they "stepped out of the cave"

For me ( my opinion ) it makes complete sense, why worship a whole host of deities when one will do, remember we are talking about very early man and as Armstrong points out when early man found that worshiping this one God was not working they would change over time and find a God more suited to their needs, yes! like most things, religion has evolved and is still evolving.

Still less convinced that their tendency to see deliberate agency behind natural or random events is anything more than a byproduct of an evolutionary survival mechanism (#26440).

Not sure where you are going with this, I have no problem with evolutionary survival mechanisms, man worshiping the sun because it is life giving, man worshiping the man in the moon because they see a face, man worshiping the god of crops because they need crops to survive, as I have said religion evolves and is still evolving.

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

Just to clarify, although Armstrong is deeply passionate about all things religious the only agenda I can see from her books is religious unity between all religions and a deep heart felt need to show that compassion for all is uppermost, saying that Christians are not big fans of Armstrong.

While I have no problem (quite the reverse) about emphasising compassion, being "deeply passionate about all things religious" and "unity between all religions" sounds rather like an agenda to me. Not quite sure how the claims about monotheism would fit with unity between all religions, either.

Your link although interesting but you have not said anything about the second example I gave, indigenous tribes of Africa practising a religion similar to monotheism, don't forget the out of Africa theory.

The problem here is, as you say, religion changes (evolves) over time. Just because these tribes have that sort of belief now is not evidence of their earliest beliefs.

Armstrong delves very deeply into ancient religions, the one I remember most is about some paintings found in french caves, a Shaman is seen crying over a beast that the tribe have just killed, Armstrong points out that this is still practised today today by some African tribes, the theory being that all life is sacred and the Shaman is trying to ease the passage of the beast into the after life.

Not sure what this has to do with monotheism.

For me ( my opinion ) it makes complete sense, why worship a whole host of deities when one will do...

Is the reality of the situation (the actual existence of one, several, or no gods) not important? I also don't get this whole worship thing - why would a god require all that bowing and scraping?

...remember we are talking about very early man and as Armstrong points out when early man found that worshiping this one God was not working they would change over time and find a God more suited to their needs, yes! like most things, religion has evolved and is still evolving.

Well, the claim we started this discussion with was this:

Earlyman definitely thought God was real, in fact ( well according to K.Armstrong ) earlyman man thought there was only one God it was only when we started giving God human traits, anthropomo ( that long word ) that we started making up gods for thunder, the sea, the sky.

As far as I have been able to discover, the claim that the earliest religious beliefs were about one god is not a view that is generally accepted. I didn't find a single site in my searches that supported the idea.

Not sure where you are going with this, I have no problem with evolutionary survival mechanisms, man worshiping the sun because it is life giving, man worshiping the man in the moon because they see a face, man worshiping the god of crops because they need crops to survive, as I have said religion evolves and is still evolving.

The point is more about the tendency of humans to assume a deliberate agency, even where there is none (our brains don't cope well with randomness). This makes sense from a survival point of view but is not a good instinct to rely on when trying to establish the reality of a situation.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Is the reality of the situation (the actual existence of one, several, or no gods) not important? I also don't get this whole worship thing - why would a god require all that bowing and scraping?


The point is more about the tendency of humans to assume a deliberate agency, even where there is none (our brains don't cope well with randomness). This makes sense from a survival point of view but is not a good instinct to rely on when trying to establish the reality of a situation.

If I can neither prove nor disprove a supernatural concept, establishing reality seems an impossible goal. And discarding something I can't prove seems counter-productive if the philosophical possibility creates worthwhile benefits for an individual or community. The resulting religion adapts and evolves with the culture it is a part of. Depending on the individuals practising the religion it may provide benefits as well as costs.
 
For example, not sure about other religions but my understanding of Islam is that the bowing and scraping to a supernatural entity or concept is considered beneficial to the Muslim's outlook or perspective. E.g. in theory the 5 times prayers is a way of taking time out briefly, getting the blood flowing through bowing and prostrating and standing, thinking about your mortality, becoming more disciplined in thought and action, reminding yourself of moral accountability etc. Of course it is possible to pray mechanically and not think about any of those things.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Stranger,

The problem here is, as you say, religion changes (evolves) over time. Just because these tribes have that sort of belief now is not evidence of their earliest beliefs.

Well I have already given you two examples of early religion being monotheistic, Armstrong mentioning African tribes still practising a form of monotheism and my reference to the Papua New Guinea tribe.

But a quick trawl through the internet, three sites which mention early monotheism.


https://www.britannica.com/topic/High-God

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism

http://www.humanreligions.info/monotheism.html

They all talk about a high God who was inaccessible, remote, so it takes no stretch of the imagination to see why early man abandoned this God for more accessible Gods, Gods who were more like them, Gods who could wage war, be sad, be on their side.

Is the reality of the situation (the actual existence of one, several, or no gods) not important? I also don't get this whole worship thing - why would a god require all that bowing and scraping?

Bowing and scraping, well this is where Armstrong excels, this lady taught me how to worship God, she opened up the teachings of Our Lord Jesus to me ( probably inadvertently ) in one of her books she mentions a Rabbi being asked what is the greatest commandment, that rang a bell with me, Jesus was asked the very same question.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22:34-40

This is how you worship God, not by bowing and scraping but by, Loving your neighbour as yourself, the Golden Rule, which Armstrong points out runs through almost every religion on this planet.

As far as I have been able to discover, the claim that the earliest religious beliefs were about one god is not a view that is generally accepted. I didn't find a single site in my searches that supported the idea.

Well I think I have already covered this.

The point is more about the tendency of humans to assume a deliberate agency, even where there is none (our brains don't cope well with randomness). This makes sense from a survival point of view but is not a good instinct to rely on when trying to establish the reality of a situation.

Once again, I have no problem with the above, my only comment would be, what we know about the human brain is like a grain of sand on a Saltcoats beach

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

If I can neither prove nor disprove a supernatural concept, establishing reality seems an impossible goal.

Surely the more pertinent question is what reasons are there (arguments, evidence) to take the idea seriously? As Russell pointed out, if I were to claim that there is a teapot in orbit around the sun between Earth and Mars, you could neither prove nor disprove it - but why would you entertain the idea at all?

I see a similar total lack of reasons to take the, many, varied, and contradictory ideas about god(s) seriously.

And discarding something I can't prove seems counter-productive if the philosophical possibility creates worthwhile benefits for an individual or community.

The problem with this (apart from discarding of any notion of seeking the truth of the matter) is that, whereas religion undoubtedly benefits some individuals and communities in some ways, it is also a source of division and conflict. They can inspire some to great self-sacrifice and others to prejudice, discrimination, and even atrocities.

For example, not sure about other religions but my understanding of Islam is that the bowing and scraping to a supernatural entity or concept is considered beneficial to the Muslim's outlook or perspective. E.g. in theory the 5 times prayers is a way of taking time out briefly, getting the blood flowing through bowing and prostrating and standing, thinking about your mortality, becoming more disciplined in thought and action, reminding yourself of moral accountability etc.

I don't really see why these things require the action of grovelling to a (probably imaginary) deity. I also don't really see why an almighty god (if such a being exists) would require this sort adoration, why not just proscribe some time out to exercise and contemplate the things you mention. For an almighty god it seems very needy and insecure...

[Gonnagle]

Dear Gabriella,

Peace be with you

For example, not sure about other religions but my understanding of Islam is that the bowing and scraping to a supernatural entity or concept is considered beneficial to the Muslim's outlook or perspective. E.g. in theory the 5 times prayers is a way of taking time out briefly, getting the blood flowing through bowing and prostrating and standing, thinking about your mortality, becoming more disciplined in thought and action, reminding yourself of moral accountability etc. Of course it is possible to pray mechanically and not think about any of those things.

So would you liken it to a form of meditation?

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Stranger,

Russell's fecking teapot, well done for losing my interest in the whole debate.

Dear God,

Please spare me from atheist argument, oh sorry you already do

Amen.

Gonnagle.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Surely the more pertinent question is what reasons are there (arguments, evidence) to take the idea seriously? As Russell pointed out, if I were to claim that there is a teapot in orbit around the sun between Earth and Mars, you could neither prove nor disprove it - but why would you entertain the idea at all?

I see a similar total lack of reasons to take the, many, varied, and contradictory ideas about god(s) seriously.

The problem with this (apart from discarding of any notion of seeking the truth of the matter) is that, whereas religion undoubtedly benefits some individuals and communities in some ways, it is also a source of division and conflict. They can inspire some to great self-sacrifice and others to prejudice, discrimination, and even atrocities.

I don't really see why these things require the action of grovelling to a (probably imaginary) deity. I also don't really see why an almighty god (if such a being exists) would require this sort adoration, why not just proscribe some time out to exercise and contemplate the things you mention. For an almighty god it seems very needy and insecure...

If I was just considering the existence of a god then yes I would agree with you about the teapot. If a teapot exists that has no impact or influence on my life and if a god exists that has no impact or influence on my life, the comparison works.

But taking the existence of a god in conjunction with religions, rituals, social bonding and ethics, the concept of god as part of a religion can affect my behaviour, perspective and goals, unlike the orbiting teapot. I've found it has had a positive influence, if it didn't I would chuck it - I've been an atheist before so there's nothing scary about being an atheist. I just prefer my life as a Muslim- which involves believing in a god.

Regarding the grovelling - I am not sure if the word means the same thing to you as it does to me - but I became a Muslim as part of a process of trying to make some changes in my life - adopting new behaviours and tactics. I was a very arrogant person. I still am an arrogant person, but less arrogant than before. I attribute the process of me becoming less arrogant and more restrained to the grovelling. So, grovelling to a supernatural entity or concept has had a positive outcome for me - but that's my story. May not be the same for other people.

In Islam, according to my understanding, Allah has no need of our worship. We do it for our benefit. The belief is that the contemplating works better on you if you believe you are commanded to do it by a superior entity and incorporate identical rituals and face the same direction etc. 

Yes religion is a source of conflict, in so much as I think the conflict arises in trying to control resources and gain power and religion is one way of controlling people. E.g. by turning them into a mob or army against others who either follow a different religion or who follow your religion but not in the exact way you command it to be followed in other words people who might stand in the way of your greed or ambitions for power. But you don't need a supernatural god to control people in this way - some spin about people being a threat to your culture or way of life can serve just as well.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Dear Gabriella,

Peace be with you

So would you liken it to a form of meditation?

Gonnagle.

Dear Gonnagle

And Peace be with you 

Yes meditation but it is hard to not let your mind wander rather than focus on the meaning of the words I am reciting in Arabic while praying. But amongst the reciting in Arabic you have the opportunity to contemplate your short-comings and your place in the world and feel gratitude and ask for help e.g. patience in your struggles - so yes prayer can take only a few minutes or be a longer period of meditation and the effect it has on you is a reflection of the thoughts you put into it.

[Stranger]

Well I have already given you two examples of early religion being monotheistic, Armstrong mentioning African tribes still practising a form of monotheism and my reference to the Papua New Guinea tribe.

I have already pointed out that what these peoples practice today isn't, of itself, evidence of what they believed thousands of years ago.

But a quick trawl through the internet, three sites which mention early monotheism.


https://www.britannica.com/topic/High-God

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism

http://www.humanreligions.info/monotheism.html

I don't doubt that monotheism is old - I was questioning your claim that it dates from when humans 'stepped out of the cave'. I was searching for prehistoric religions and the earliest religions.

There is also some debate as to exactly how old this 'high god' concept is, your link to Britannica says: "Some scholars consider the conception of the High God to be very old, preceding the creation of particular pantheons; some see the High God as secondary, both in importance and in chronology; and some see him as a very recent development stimulated by Christianity."

Your Wikipedia link says that "Quasi-monotheistic claims of the existence of a universal deity date to the Late Bronze Age..."

In contrast, this article from Britannica (one of the ones I found before): Prehistoric religion, says "The oldest known burials can be attributed to the Middle Paleolithic Period. The corpses, accompanied by stone tools and parts of animals, were laid in holes in the ground and sometimes the corpses were especially protected." (the Middle Paleolithic Period, according to Wikipedia, is from 300,000 to 30,000 years ago) and "The oldest burials that attest to a belief in life after death can be placed in the period between about 50,000 and 30,000 BCE." It also goes into some detail about earlier beliefs.

[Stranger]

Russell's fecking teapot, well done for losing my interest in the whole debate.

Why the extreme reaction (I will resist the temptation to speculate)?

[Enki]

Just to add to what Gonners and Stranger said on the idea that religion had monotheistic beginnings, I think it is unclear where Karen Armstrong sets the mark for the beginnings of theistic thought. Many people would include totemism, ancestor worship and animism, for instance, as very early forms which led to fully blown theism.

It is also worth mentioning that in the very first paragraph of Chapter 1 of her book 'The History of God', Armstrong states clearly that the earliest ideas of a god were that of a prime mover whose very remoteness and exaltedness led to it eventually being discarded or ignored.

She does go on to say, of course,(in her second paragraph),

That is at least one theory, popularised by Father Wilhelm Schmidt

but then spends most of the this paragraph developing Schmidt's theory of 'One Supreme Deity' and there is little doubt that she prefers this theory above any alternatives.

Being a scholar of some reputation, she obviously feels she has to put her(and Schmidt's) ideas into some sort of balanced setting, so, by the third paragraph she admits that her(and Schmidt's) constructions can be subject to challenge,

It is immpossible to prove this one way or the other. There have been many theories about the origin of religion.

Hence, I am left wondering what merits/disadvantages she sees in these other theories as she  never bothers to go into any detail on these alternatives.

This doesn't stop me thinking that she is an author of some authority and worth, of course, and her ideas are always interesting and show great scholarship(her book on 'Islam, a Short History' I found very worthwhile) but, sometimes, I feel, she can be rather frustrating.

[Rhiannon]

I have already pointed out that what these peoples practice today isn't, of itself, evidence of what they believed thousands of years ago.

I don't doubt that monotheism is old - I was questioning your claim that it dates from when humans 'stepped out of the cave'. I was searching for prehistoric religions and the earliest religions.

There is also some debate as to exactly how old this 'high god' concept is, your link to Britannica says: "Some scholars consider the conception of the High God to be very old, preceding the creation of particular pantheons; some see the High God as secondary, both in importance and in chronology; and some see him as a very recent development stimulated by Christianity."

Your Wikipedia link says that "Quasi-monotheistic claims of the existence of a universal deity date to the Late Bronze Age..."

In contrast, this article from Britannica (one of the ones I found before): Prehistoric religion, says "The oldest known burials can be attributed to the Middle Paleolithic Period. The corpses, accompanied by stone tools and parts of animals, were laid in holes in the ground and sometimes the corpses were especially protected." (the Middle Paleolithic Period, according to Wikipedia, is from 300,000 to 30,000 years ago) and "The oldest burials that attest to a belief in life after death can be placed in the period between about 50,000 and 30,000 BCE." It also goes into some detail about earlier beliefs.

Agree very much with this. Even if we look at Gonner's links there's polytheism, animism etc running alongside at the same time as early monotheism.

I'm not sure where this 'stepped out of the cave' idea comes from either, as though thought only began after prehistory. Hardly.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Rhiannon,

I'm not sure where this 'stepped out of the cave' idea comes from either, as though thought only began after prehistory. Hardly.

All me, it is just an expression, like "since the dawn of time" I am not actually saying that man was thinking about God the minute he stepped out of the cave, he might have not stepped out of a cave, what about if I said "since man first fell out of the tree" although there is some evidence that our earliest cousins also practice religious rituals.

Just an expression

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

But taking the existence of a god in conjunction with religions, rituals, social bonding and ethics, the concept of god as part of a religion can affect my behaviour, perspective and goals, unlike the orbiting teapot. I've found it has had a positive influence, if it didn't I would chuck it - I've been an atheist before so there's nothing scary about being an atheist. I just prefer my life as a Muslim- which involves believing in a god.

I have to admit that find this kind of attitude very difficult to understand. The existence or otherwise of one or more gods must be a matter of fact - they either exist or not. I don't see how one can just decide to believe or not based on utility.

I simply don't find any of the arguments, or supposed evidence, for any gods to be in the least bit convincing, so I don't believe. I cannot see how it can be a choice - I cannot change what I find convincing.

Yes religion is a source of conflict, in so much as I think the conflict arises in trying to control resources and gain power and religion is one way of controlling people. E.g. by turning them into a mob or army against others who either follow a different religion or who follow your religion but not in the exact way you command it to be followed in other words people who might stand in the way of your greed or ambitions for power. But you don't need a supernatural god to control people in this way - some spin about people being a threat to your culture or way of life can serve just as well.

To an extent, I agree in this particular sort of conflict situation but many religions involve believing that your faith is true and other people are (at the very least) mistaken - which is a situation ripe for exploitation. If not direct exploitation for conflict, it can lead to more low level prejudice.

There may also be (depending on the particular religion, denomination, or cult) problems with wider society regarding attitudes to, for example, sexual orientation, contraception, or the role of women.

The other problem is that as soon as you open the door to belief (in the objective truth of something) without adequate evidence or reasoning, then who can tell the 'extremists' that they are wrong? I recall David Cameron as PM, after some terrorist atrocity, confidently declaring that the perpetrators "did not serve any god" - eh? Has he got a list of "true gods"? What would that even mean - that they all exist? It's nonsense - the terrorists have just as much 'reason' (none at all) to believe in their god as the 'moderates' have to believe in theirs.

[SusanDoris]

Catching up as usual after the hours of page can't be displayed... *sigh*

Stranger

Agree with all you say.