What do chimp ‘temples’ tell us about the evolution of religion?

[Thomas II]

I think this is relevant...

 

[Angry Floof]

I think this is relevant...

I think that's relevant to the Father God concept, but mainly to give a supernatural belief system a patriarchal form. I would say the function of superstition lies in the cognitive considerations I described earlier:

[recognition of] a significant event, ignorance of how that event occurred, emotion (fear, amazement, gratitude), and the ability to assume agency or intention in things external to the self

So a matriarchal society, or an egalitarian, or some other form, if combined with brains with these capabilities, would almost certainly form belief systems that might be just as superstitious and erroneous as any father-god system but wouldn't look like any patriarchal system.

All human societies form belief systems this way also. There are war and warrior belief systems among peoples who have had to fight a lot, and mother goddess systems, and animist systems, and on an on, depending on the environment and experiences of the people, what they end up valuing and fearing.

In my mind, the form is secondary and determined by social constructs in changing environments while the development of superstition and magical belief seems to be universal or nearly so, mainly due to how brains and nervous systems work in any environment or social structure.

 

[braces_for_impact]

From what I know so far, and I'm obviously no expert, it seems calling these behaviors a "proto-religion" is a bit of a stretch. With more data who knows? Perhaps we'll discover such with our closest related species one day. It wouldn't be tremendously surprising to me. Humans seem unique in that they take these social functions to a much higher degree than other animals.

Chimps have been observed making war, showing empathy, and displaying their own morality. It seems obvious to me that our own sense of right and wrong is just an advanced form of the same chimp behavior, but a lot of religious people would disagree. If a proto-religion of sorts were observed among chimps, there could be a lot to be learned about how religion evolves from such a discovery. A scientific world view can easily take new information like this in stride, but some theologies may struggle with such a revelation.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think this is relevant...

Religion is the ascription of unnatural cause - aka bullshit/ignorance - to obviously natural events and behaviors. So religion is just another clearly natural behavior that itself gets selected for/against.

If you shut off the narration in this video what do you see? If you tape a church service and then play it back without any sound, what do you see? You become a behaviorilist trying to quantify what you see, eventually trying to make sense out of it. And you will, and you will never see or suppose anything unnatural, or anything so-called supernatural, or an woo.

 

[Sarpedon]

What is the difference between 'ritual' and 'proto-religion?'

 

[Thomas II]

Animals displaying religion?
I thought we were all born atheist. Who taught the monkeys there's a God?

It's superstition, which doesn't need a deity. What is needed to develop a superstitious beief is a significant event, ignorance of how that event occurred, emotion (fear, amazement, gratitude), and the ability to assume agency or intention in things external to the self.

If other primates' brains work as ours do in terms of assuming agency and intention in the actions of others, then it would be no surprise at all to find that those primates also apply those same kinds of assumptions to events that appear to be actions of trees (or weather or inanimate objects, doesn't matter really).

I have no idea if the research described here is any good, much less the suggested conclusion, but if they are on the right track in explaining the primates' behavior, it is evidence of natural, not supernatural, events in ordinary primate brains.

So, not only NOT evidence of God, but more evidence that minds create Gods.

This is the fact! Minds create Gods.

http://bigthink.com/videos/big-think-interview-with-lionel-tiger

 

[Thomas II]

I think this is relevant...

Religion is the ascription of unnatural cause - aka bullshit/ignorance - to obviously natural events and behaviors. So religion is just another clearly natural behavior that itself gets selected for/against.

If you shut off the narration in this video what do you see? If you tape a church service and then play it back without any sound, what do you see? You become a behaviorilist trying to quantify what you see, eventually trying to make sense out of it. And you will, and you will never see or suppose anything unnatural, or anything so-called supernatural, or an woo.

True. Religion is the ascription of WILL to natural events and behavior...(Got to go. More later) This is fascinating stuff.

 

[Sarpedon]

Is it? I think of religion as being a social disease.

Imagine this. A chimp remembers a place where a loved one died. Chimp does something that it associates with that dead chimp in that place. Not too far fetched, mourning behavior has been observed in animals with complex social groups and good memories, such as chimps and elephants. Other chimps imitate the first chimp. (again, something chimps are known to do) Without language, the other chimps don't know why the first chimp does it. First chimp dies, and other chimps continue to imitate the behavior. Eventually, of course the behavior will probably die out. But it resembles human religion more than a little bit.

 

[Angry Floof]

To add to these very nuanced and insightful thoughts on religion, I see religion first as any ideology: stories and symbols overlaying human endeavor, articulations of real experiences and thoughts about the experiences.

Like human experience and environments, ideology changes constantly.

Only some stories, particularly the ones about human nature, good/evil, whatever we can call transcendent or ineffable in all that, become powerful in and of themselves due to the infectious nature of emotional ideology (as Sarpedon pointed out) often with little or no regard to the original experiences that spawned them.

Sometimes those stories are held as absolute truths, and some stories show themselves to be useful and powerful tools in controlling and organizing groups of people, and thus begin the efforts to rend and twist human experience into the shape of the story. This is in opposition to reality and nature, but the other way around - connecting human nature to the natural environment rather than fighting to subdue nature and force absolute stories onto it - invites uncertainty and fears of chaos.

As environments and experiences change and change and change, the more the absolute story bangs its head against the brick wall of reality.

Like the monkeys imitating each other and not knowing why, we carry on the conditioning and indoctrination that keeps the story alive even as it shows itself to be questionable and even depraved in its lack of relevance.

Take the RCC as an example. Is there anything remotely humane left in that gargantuan, archaic, incoherent, monstrous fraud of an organization? The RCC off its pedestal (a pedestal created of millions of minds and thousands of years) looks a lot like a naked and brain-damaged Frankenstein octopus with tentacles reaching into heads and societies all over the globe. All because of that memetic urge to make something solid and absolute out of sand.

 

[Angry Floof]

OOOOH here's a creepy yet artful little short film about the relationship between religion and fear of death/unknown. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXMdFGxrWik&ebc

 

[Thomas II]

To add to these very nuanced and insightful thoughts on religion, I see religion first as any ideology: stories and symbols overlaying human endeavor, articulations of real experiences and thoughts about the experiences.

Like human experience and environments, ideology changes constantly.

Only some stories, particularly the ones about human nature, good/evil, whatever we can call transcendent or ineffable in all that, become powerful in and of themselves due to the infectious nature of emotional ideology (as Sarpedon pointed out) often with little or no regard to the original experiences that spawned them.

Sometimes those stories are held as absolute truths, and some stories show themselves to be useful and powerful tools in controlling and organizing groups of people, and thus begin the efforts to rend and twist human experience into the shape of the story. This is in opposition to reality and nature, but the other way around - connecting human nature to the natural environment rather than fighting to subdue nature and force absolute stories onto it - invites uncertainty and fears of chaos.

As environments and experiences change and change and change, the more the absolute story bangs its head against the brick wall of reality.

Like the monkeys imitating each other and not knowing why, we carry on the conditioning and indoctrination that keeps the story alive even as it shows itself to be questionable and even depraved in its lack of relevance.

Take the RCC as an example. Is there anything remotely humane left in that gargantuan, archaic, incoherent, monstrous fraud of an organization? The RCC off its pedestal (a pedestal created of millions of minds and thousands of years) looks a lot like a naked and brain-damaged Frankenstein octopus with tentacles reaching into heads and societies all over the globe. All because of that memetic urge to make something solid and absolute out of sand.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

http://bigthink.com/videos/morality-without-religion

 

[Angry Floof]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

http://bigthink.com/videos/morality-without-religion

I've seen that and the other one you posted, but I opened them in new tabs so I can watch them again anyway. Thanks!

 

[Thomas II]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

http://bigthink.com/videos/morality-without-religion

I've seen that and the other one you posted, but I opened them in new tabs so I can watch them again anyway. Thanks!

 

[KeepTalking]

What is the difference between 'ritual' and 'proto-religion?'

A ritual is just a ceremony, or observance, though it is often religious in nature, it is not necessarily religious.

Consider a baseball team that has a sign that reads "Go Team!" in their dugout above the exit onto the field, and players touch the sign as they exit onto the field for luck. Touching the sign is a ritual, but has no religious significance. Such rituals are rife in sports, from rally hats to playoff beards, there are just a ton of examples.

 

[Sarpedon]

And?

Again, I have trouble seeing the difference between any ritual you just mentioned and the rituals of accepted religions. I guess what I am asking is what distinguishes a religion from a mere accretion of rituals? Do not certain religions prohibit the shaving of beards? Do not members of religions touch special objects for luck and good fortune?

Imagine you have a group of people with a number of superstitious rituals. Then you have a clever person in the group invent a story that explains these rituals. Would that not be a religion? Thus, wouldn't the superstitious rituals themselves be the 'proto-religion?'

 

[KeepTalking]

And?

Again, I have trouble seeing the difference between any ritual you just mentioned and the rituals of accepted religions. I guess what I am asking is what distinguishes a religion from a mere accretion of rituals? Do not certain religions prohibit the shaving of beards? Do not members of religions touch special objects for luck and good fortune?

Are you asking what the difference is between a ritual which has no religious significance, and one that does? If so, I think the answer should be fairly obvious.

Imagine you have a group of people with a number of superstitious rituals. Then you have a clever person in the group invent a story that explains these rituals. Would that not be a religion? Thus, wouldn't the superstitious rituals themselves be the 'proto-religion?'

It depends on the story that is invented. Going back to the dugout example, if the made up explanation is "At one game our pitcher was walking out of the dugout, and the sign fell down and knocked him out, so we do that to make sure the sign is securely in place.", that ritual does not become a religion. Just because something can give rise to religion does not make it proto-religious, I would think that it actually has to do so to be considered proto-religious.

 

[Sarpedon]

Are you asking what the difference is between a ritual which has no religious significance, and one that does? If so, I think the answer should be fairly obvious.

If it is obvious from your point of view, please explain it. It is not obvious from mine. If we are discussing how non-religion becomes religion, I think the difference is as important as the distinction between a cell and an oily bubble is in biology.

"At one game our pitcher was walking out of the dugout, and the sign fell down and knocked him out, so we do that to make sure the sign is securely in place."

IF it is a rational action, it is not a superstitious ritual. We were talking about superstitious rituals not being the same as religious rituals. How is an irrational, isolated, meaningless ritual different?

 

[KeepTalking]

If it is obvious from your point of view, please explain it. It is not obvious from mine. If we are discussing how non-religion becomes religion, I think the difference is as important as the distinction between a cell and an oily bubble is in biology.

One has religious significance, and the other does not, that is the difference.

"At one game our pitcher was walking out of the dugout, and the sign fell down and knocked him out, so we do that to make sure the sign is securely in place."

IF it is a rational action, it is not a superstitious ritual.

Well, now you have inserted the word 'superstitious' in front of ritual. That a ritual need not be superstitious is my point.

Further, the ritual may have begun as a rational action, or it may not have, the current practitioner does not know. That someone provides a post-hoc rationalization does not mean that the ritual was initially a rational act, and just because a ritual act is not rational does not make it religious.

We were talking about superstitious rituals not being the same as religious rituals.

No, you asked what the difference was between a 'ritual' and a 'proto-religion'. My answer is that a 'ritual' does not necessarily have religious significance, while a 'proto-religion' acquires religious significance at some point.

How is an irrational, isolated, meaningless ritual different?

The baseball ritual I described was irrational, isolated, and meaningless. It is different from a religious ritual because it is not related to the worship of, or belief in, a deity. It is different from a proto-religion because there is still no religious element to it even after a post-hoc explanation for the ritual is provided.

 

[Sarpedon]

Ok, so your non-superstitious ritual, what is it? Even your baseball sign explanation ritual is sort of superstitious: If they took the time to firmly attach the sign, there would be no need to check it every time, so the supposedly rational ritual becomes irrational. What is the difference between a superstitious ritual and a non-superstitious, irrational ritual? I inserted superstitious, simply because I feel that rituals tend to be that way, and that there's no clear distinction between 'superstitious' and 'irrational' in this case.

Deities are not necessary in religion. They are common in them, because (I think) as religions become social structures, religions with deities are more useful to societies power brokers. However, if we are discussing the origin of religions, we must be at least open to the idea that early precursers might not resemble them closely. Just as it would be faulty to reject a thing for being a precurser to life if it has a different replicating chemical than DNA or RNA.

I am positing that seemingly meaningless rituals MIGHT be a precursor to religion. Since you seem to discount that, I'd like to know your reasons. So for my purposes, to say that a ritual with no religious significance is obviously different than one with significance isn't good enough. You are assuming that religious significance is a thing, when I am interested in what makes the thing.

It seems to me that rituals are a by-product of our learning process. When we do something, and it is rewarded, we do that thing again. And we don't do something again that brings a negative result. A ritual can be thought of a mistake in this learning process: An action is flagged as rewarding or negative mistakenly, and the action is repeated or avoided erroneously. Could such errors lead to religion? I'm trying to break it down to its simplest components.

 

[KeepTalking]

I am positing that seemingly meaningless rituals MIGHT be a precursor to religion. Since you seem to discount that, I'd like to know your reasons.

This may be the crux of our misunderstanding. I don't discount that a ritual MIGHT be a precursor to religion. My position is that it is not necessarily so.

If a ritual does not give rise to a religion, it is just a ritual. A 'proto-religion', on the other hand, is something that gives rise to religion, whether it is a ritual, or not.

Therefor, a 'ritual' and a 'proto-religion' are not the same.