I recently read Stephanie Zastrow's first post which expresses her views on religion, and I felt inclined to respond in some way, or at least express my own opinion on the subject.
I'll start by giving a brief description of how I was raised with respect to religion. I attended an Episcopal church for about eight years (during my formative years, I suppose), and before that was raised Christian from the get-go. Although I attended church, I would not have called myself spiritual, I basically went through the motions, not really questioning what I was being told. After my family moved I stopped going to church and began to try and figure out what exactly I did believe. I suppose I really want to believe there is a God because that option is so much more pleasant than the alternative- that I have no purpose, I'm just a speck in the Universe. However I'm still searching for a set of beliefs that I can accept and live with, without feeling constrained by them. I have a lot of trouble accepting ideas that cannot be proven so a belief in an all-powerful being seems completely ridiculous, I need to work on the "faith" concept.
Ok, back on track. Stephanie Zastrow's post definitely made me think about religion in a different way. In class, we had mostly discussed the unifying power of religion, and barely touched on the dividing effects of it. It is impossible for me to imagine a world without religion so I cannot infer whether the world would be a "better" place without it. I feel like if people never even imagined that they had a larger purpose in life or something to aspire to, they would have much less reason to live. In that case, morals would be much less prevalent (non-existent?), and individuals would lead selfish, meaningless lives. Though I'm not really sure that would be the case (it is a difficult scenario to imagine), but a world without religion seems much less favorable to me than a world with multiple clashing religions. If only we could all realize that all beliefs are inherently the same so there is no logical reason to fight about "contesting" ones, the world would be great!
I'm not really sure where I ended up with this post, but at least now I have more to think about (is that a good thing?). Thanks Stephanie for the interesting post.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Neanderthals and Spirituality
While reading "The Singing Neanderthals", I started to notice inherent similarities between aspects of that article and the New York Times article "Why Do We Believe?".
The Neanderthals were presented as a very spiritual people who communicated through singing, body-language and vocalizations rather than a set language. Though this prevented them from any cultural evolution, they survived for about 300,000 years before dying out, thanks in large part to their incredible cultural stability. Since they lived in small social groups, "Neanderthals had detailed knowledge about the life histories, social relationships and day-to-day activities of all the other members of their group, and rarely came into contact with 'strangers'"(Mithen 225). This intimate knowledge of one another enabled them to communicate successfully, and even to pass down knowledge of complicated weapon-building without language.
This inherent cultural spirituality affected the actions of individuals within a social group significantly. Instead of abandoning an injured comrade, as would seem the "best" option in terms of evolution and survival of the fittest, fellow social group members would nurse the injured one back to health. This reflects a group altruism that seems to connect closely with the "Why Do We Believe?" article's possible explanation for the evolution of religious belief. Instead of individuals acting only with their own interests at heart, group altruism enabled an entire Neanderthal social group as a whole to benefit. Though religion itself was not mentioned in either Neanderthal article, there is evidence of it in their way of life. (I'm taking religion to be defined as any set of beliefs one lives by, either formal or informal.)
Besides taking care of injured friends, Mithen hypothesized that Neanderthals would also use 'music therapy' as a way to reduce stress of those in pain and also ceremoniously buried their dead. These are a few more examples of non-individual centric actions, but instead brought the group closer together and enabled them as a whole to survive longer. These altruistic actions stemmed from a religion of sorts, albeit undefined, that permeated a social group. From this religion of sorts, Neanderthals lead longer, happier, more stable lives than they could have without it (and with their lack of fluid thought).
Ultimately, the Neanderthals are an interesting example of an early belief system and how it was evolutionarily favorable to possess those beliefs.
The Neanderthals were presented as a very spiritual people who communicated through singing, body-language and vocalizations rather than a set language. Though this prevented them from any cultural evolution, they survived for about 300,000 years before dying out, thanks in large part to their incredible cultural stability. Since they lived in small social groups, "Neanderthals had detailed knowledge about the life histories, social relationships and day-to-day activities of all the other members of their group, and rarely came into contact with 'strangers'"(Mithen 225). This intimate knowledge of one another enabled them to communicate successfully, and even to pass down knowledge of complicated weapon-building without language.
This inherent cultural spirituality affected the actions of individuals within a social group significantly. Instead of abandoning an injured comrade, as would seem the "best" option in terms of evolution and survival of the fittest, fellow social group members would nurse the injured one back to health. This reflects a group altruism that seems to connect closely with the "Why Do We Believe?" article's possible explanation for the evolution of religious belief. Instead of individuals acting only with their own interests at heart, group altruism enabled an entire Neanderthal social group as a whole to benefit. Though religion itself was not mentioned in either Neanderthal article, there is evidence of it in their way of life. (I'm taking religion to be defined as any set of beliefs one lives by, either formal or informal.)
Besides taking care of injured friends, Mithen hypothesized that Neanderthals would also use 'music therapy' as a way to reduce stress of those in pain and also ceremoniously buried their dead. These are a few more examples of non-individual centric actions, but instead brought the group closer together and enabled them as a whole to survive longer. These altruistic actions stemmed from a religion of sorts, albeit undefined, that permeated a social group. From this religion of sorts, Neanderthals lead longer, happier, more stable lives than they could have without it (and with their lack of fluid thought).
Ultimately, the Neanderthals are an interesting example of an early belief system and how it was evolutionarily favorable to possess those beliefs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)