Is man 'programmed' to seek a 'god'?

[Kyriakos]

When i mentioned that god is a "simple idea", i gave an example of the antithesis of a simple idea, which would be a complex idea, that of the minotaur, a synthesis of two ideas.
I termed god a simple idea not to take anything from the personal complexity of the notion in individuals, just so as to support my view that it may be innate, or date from prehistory. On the contrary a complex idea is more likely to date from historical periods, if for no other reason then because it could not have existed as itself originally, for it is synthesized by two or more ideas which in turn may or may not have existed innately

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yet Neanderthals believed in such "Gnarb" - a supernatural entity. They buried their dead in embryonic positions - which indicates that they believed in afterlife (when you place a dead body in embyonic position, it's more than obvious that you expect this person - or his / her soul - to be born again).

It is a proof that yet Neanderthals - a different species of humans than we are - regarded death as a beginning of new life!

I'm not so sure; perhaps they didn't want to dig a big hole. Digging holes with sticks and rocks is hard work and a curled up person fits into a smaller hole.

 

[Domen]

I'm not so sure; perhaps they didn't want to dig a big hole. Digging holes with sticks and rocks is hard work and a curled up person fits into a smaller hole.

No comment... What about everyday objects and various "decorations" (funerary gifts) discovered in Neanderthal graves?! Why to put everyday objects into someone's graves? Dead people don't need them! The only explanation is that those who buried them believed in afterlife.

And "tombstones" (barrows) made of rocks - like in case of a grave of a Neanderthal family (a man, a woman and a child, all buried together and all skeletons were intentionally positioned in a certain way) discovered at Sima de las Palomas - required a lot of effort, so I don't think that Neanderthals didn't want to dig big holes due to some "laziness", considering that they had enough will to build "tombstones" - which require more effort than holes...

And for example in a Neanderthal grave in Shanidar (northern Iraq) archaeologists found - apart from a body in embryonic position - also remnants of flowers - cornflowers, hyacinths, cornelians and mallows - which were intentionally placed inside the grave. These were not just simple decorations, because all these flowers have medicinal / healing properties... So might have been useful for the dead in his afterlife (maybe he died due to some disease).

 

[Domen]

Care to expand on this? Did human spirituality develop independently of the "agency gene"/god gene, if one such gene exists?

There is no any "agency gene", considering that not all people believe in Gods / God and that various people completely change their views (sometimes many times during lifespan) from deistic / theistic to atheistic (or even antitheistic - as I would call some fanatic atheists), etc. - or inversely.

 

[Kyriakos]

There is no any "agency gene", considering that not all people believe in Gods / God and that various people change their views (sometimes many times during lifespan) from theistic to atheistic, etc. - or inversely.

It might be though that all people have a built-in idea of a god, otherwise they would not have had overruled it so readily since it would make them a larger impression (a bit like unknown math makes to a student).

Which is why i spoke of innate and non-complex (on the surface) ideas, for synthesis of ideas can exist without them, eg someone who controls the skies and is powerful and lives in Olympus=Zeus. But if all there was to an idea of a god were the synthesis of non-godly elements, then i guess very few people would bother with belief of religious icons.

 

[strijder20]

Yet Neanderthals believed in such "Gnarb" - a supernatural entity. They buried their dead in embryonic positions - which indicates that they believed in afterlife (when you place a dead body in embyonic position, it's more than obvious that you expect this person - or his / her soul - to be born again).

It is a proof that yet Neanderthals - a different species of humans than we are - regarded death as a beginning of new life!

Thanks to the advanced X-rayscanning techniques of the Neanderthals, they knew what exactly the embryonic position was

 

[Domen]

they knew what exactly the embryonic position was

Why shouldn't they? Roman legionaries who ripped the bellies of pregnant Gallic women in Alesia or Jewish in Jerusalem also knew it...

When a pregnant woman died they also could easily learn this - not necessarily by checking what's inside. From an unborn baby-skeleton too.

Moreover - when a baby is born, it is being born in embryonic position... - in case if you didn't know this.

Infants also "like" to adopt embryonic position (while sleeping) even few weeks after they were borned, as this is the only position they know.

It might be though that all people have a built-in idea of a god

Why not all monkeys and all pigeons too?

with belief of religious icons.

What do you mean by "belief of religious icons"? Icons, sculptures and such are just corporeal representations - not actual, proper objects of belief.

 

[peter grimes]

Domen, while I agree with you that it's likely Neandertals had a rich inner mental life, I find much of the way you arrive at that conclusion to be a bit of a stretch - calling a grave position 'proof' of a specific belief in an afterlife... No [rigorous] archaeologist would agree with that.

I don't think one can conclude on the basis of the gravegoods you mentioned that these people had a belief in an afterlife. To do so is forcing your own beliefs onto the evidence. But clearly this does show that these people had a capacity for more complex mental states than other apes and earlier Homo varieties.

As for the AG*, how would you propose to explain the fact that every human society studied has been found to share elements of a belief in the supernatural? If it's not a genetic result of the way our neurological modules are wired up, then what's it from?

*abbreviation (not a new word) meaning 'Agency Gene', which is itself an abbreviation of the more accurate term: suite of genes that are associated with the phenotypic behavoir that causes people to tend to believe there is an active agent behind natural events, such that the carriers become more represented in the population relative to those who don't carry it.)

 

[Kyriakos]

Why shouldn't they? Roman legionaries who ripped the bellies of pregnant Gallic women in Alesia or Jewish in Jerusalem also knew it...

When a pregnant woman died they also could easily learn this - not necessarily by checking what's inside. From an unborn baby-skeleton too.

Moreover - when a baby is born, it is being born in embryonic position... - in case if you didn't know this.

Infants also "like" to adopt embryonic position (while sleeping) even few weeks after they were borned, as this is the only position they know.



Why not all monkeys and all pigeons too?


What do you mean by "belief of religious icons"? Icons, sculptures and such are just corporeal representations - not actual, proper objects of belief.

I wondered earlier in the thread if other animal life on earth has an "idea" of a god, at least something resembling a basic idea. Obviously we cannot know now, and maybe never will.

As for icons, i used it metaphorically, as in "persons" or "entities" which are iconic.

 

[El_Machinae]

There is no any "agency gene", considering that not all people believe in Gods / God and that various people completely change their views (sometimes many times during lifespan) from deistic / theistic to atheistic (or even antitheistic - as I would call some fanatic atheists), etc. - or inversely.

I don't find that to be a good counter. I'd suggest that we're genetically designed to be heterosexual, that there's heritable aspect that makes heterosexual tendencies likely. The fact that there are asexual and homosexual people doesn't discredit this idea. It just suggests that there's variance in the phenotype. People can be prone to different spiritual worldviews.

A great example of the genetic component would be males and females. Males are much more likely to be atheistic and non-spiritual. This suggests that the Y-chromosome influences spiritual outlook, even if it doesn't solely determine it. But nearly none of our genetics are sole determinants of most phenotype. Rarely is anything ever a single 'gene', even if it's determined through genetics.

 

[Birdjaguar]

As for the AG*, how would you propose to explain the fact that every human society studied has been found to share elements of a belief in the supernatural? If it's not a genetic result of the way our neurological modules are wired up, then what's it from?
[/I]

Within the framework of Hinduism and Sufism "God alone is" and any AG would find its roots in that fundamental belief/fact. The unity of all things is merely being manifested though genetics and then into our lives. People then apply this genetic tendency in ways that fit with their culture. The AG is a source of curiosity, questions and searching, not of answers.

 

[Souron]

I'd point out that ceremonial burial does not necessarily imply the belief in an afterlife. It does imply a level of agency or consciousness or personhood. For example, today, atheists still ceremoniously bury the dead.

 

[Angst]

I'd point out that ceremonial burial does not necessarily imply the belief in an afterlife. It does imply a level of agency or consciousness or personhood. For example, today, atheists still ceremoniously bury the dead.

But isn't that just a cultural remainder or leftover from a time the rituals had religious purposes? As in a social act, where faith has incorporated into culture and become a norm? People want to follow the norm, you know.

 

[warpus]

God is not such a simple idea at all, at least for those who are not satisfied with simple answers.

Yes, each religion has made the idea of God a lot more detailed, but the idea as a whole is a fairly simple one: powerful entity that created the world.

Can you elaborate more on this?

"God save the Queen"

To my knowledge royalty (or rather "political doctrine" of that time) only claimed that their power is legitimated by "God's will" or by God.

But it was not like they personally (as certain persons) being legitimated by God as rulers - it was more complex (i.e. the general idea of the existence of any supreme authority - hereditary royalty in most of European states - was legitimated by God / by God's will, according to those views).

Yep, that's pretty much what I meant. The ruling class having ties to the supernatural.

But I don't think this view is completely valid.

For example today people who believe in God do it from different reasons than the ones you mentioned - that's because today people generally seek for answers of questions about the unknown in science (not in God), yet many of them still believe in God - so they must do this from different reasons.

I was talking about the origins of realigion and the idea of God, and how all of this claptrap got started.

 

[Kyriakos]

We could see this from the opposite perspective, that is how humans would have evolved if there was no idea of a god at all.

To me the very basic idea of god seems to contain the sense of a "greater being" or rather "different, and superior, being, somehow related" to man. Imagine a humanoid with an IQ of 666 ( ), surely such a being would seem like a god to an average human. In fact such a being might be occupied with routinely creating humans, as biological "machines". Would this make it what we see as a god?

I think that even then the idea of god goes past such a being. It seems to be about a holistic approach to creation, creator of the universe, or the universes, of that beyond the universes, or that beyond the beyond etc etc

 

[warpus]

We could see this from the opposite perspective, that is how humans would have evolved if there was no idea of a god at all.

I'm not sure if that's possible. I mean.. At some point somebody was bound to ask: "So.. how come we're here? Who put us here?" and humans, being the naive beings that we are would naturally lead to the answer of "Well, somebody must have put us here"

To me the very basic idea of god seems to contain the sense of a "greater being" or rather "different, and superior, being, somehow related" to man. Imagine a humanoid with an IQ of 666 ( ), surely such a being would seem like a god to an average human. In fact such a being might be occupied with routinely creating humans, as biological "machines". Would this make it what we see as a god?

Well, I don't think that a human with such a high IQ would be considered a god. He'd be super intelligent, but wouldn't have any powers. He'd be able to figure out nuclear fission in his head maybe, but wouldn't be able to shoot lightning out of his hands or walk on water.

 

[timtofly]

I'm not sure if that's possible. I mean.. At some point somebody was bound to ask: "So.. how come we're here? Who put us here?" and humans, being the naive beings that we are would naturally lead to the answer of "Well, somebody must have put us here"
Well, I don't think that a human with such a high IQ would be considered a god. He'd be super intelligent, but wouldn't have any powers. He'd be able to figure out nuclear fission in his head maybe, but wouldn't be able to shoot lightning out of his hands or walk on water.

The brain generates electricity, being able to harness that is plausible. How much brain power are we talking about in terms of an IQ that high? Having a high IQ would not just mean able to calculate. If the brain figured out how to control the body via the conscience, there is no telling what could be done. We have a sub-conscience for a reason.

 

[Kyriakos]

The brain generates electricity, being able to harness that is plausible. How much brain power are we talking about in terms of an IQ that high? Having a high IQ would not just mean able to calculate. If the brain figured out how to control the body via the conscience, there is no telling what could be done. We have a sub-conscience for a reason.

Although some mystics claim that indeed humans have super-powers (orthodox saints among them) it is not needed for these to exist so as to explain why we have a subconscious, and an unconscious. The latter is said to be vastly larger than our conscience, and i agree that in theory it can be utilized more, become more conscious. But i am of the view that we need this huge unconscious in order to have a consciousness, for nothing in our realm of thought is really "human", being mathematical in essence. Even language is said to be mathematical, some languages more so than others, the geometry of language is one of the main philosophical issues of the philosophy of the mind, and also very crucial in Psychology

 

[timtofly]

Although some mystics claim that indeed humans have super-powers (orthodox saints among them) it is not needed for these to exist so as to explain why we have a subconscious, and an unconscious. The latter is said to be vastly larger than our conscience, and i agree that in theory it can be utilized more, become more conscious. But i am of the view that we need this huge unconscious in order to have a consciousness, for nothing in our realm of thought is really "human", being mathematical in essence. Even language is said to be mathematical, some languages more so than others, the geometry of language is one of the main philosophical issues of the philosophy of the mind, and also very crucial in Psychology

Langauge, though is part of our conscience. When we dream, langauge is not used. It may be "realized" as an outward effect. That does not take away from what you said. My point was other than getting board with the mundane of having to consciensously decide every bodily function, the brain controls a miniature machine that a lot of scientist would love to be able to be in control of. I am not even talking about science fiction. I am talking about the ability to create electricity. The ability to harness how thoughts are even produced. The ability to manupulate DNA in real time. There are all sorts of things that one does sub-consciously that the field of biology has yet to even imagine. There is programmed into us a lot of things, even the ability to not need a God.

Sorta along the lines that eventually a robot will not need a creator. Seems as our programmer also programmed us to not need a creator, yet limited enough to seek after one?

 

[peter grimes]

@ Timtofly and Kyriakos:
I think you guys are writing about consciousness, not conscience. The thing that's related to our sense of self doesn't have an 'n' and is spelled with an 'ou'. Not sure if there's a trick to remember it or not, but it's an important distinction. So I hesitate to respond too strongly, since I'm not sure which you mean.

If the brain figured out how to control the body via the conscience, there is no telling what could be done. We have a sub-conscience for a reason.

You've got it backwards - the body (and the brain within it) control our consciousness. There have been experiments that show the subconscious and other non-conscious circuits in the brain activating *before* a conscious decisive act, like moving a finger, happens. I've linked to it before and I'm not afraid to do it again

Langauge, though is part of our conscience. When we dream, langauge is not used. It may be "realized" as an outward effect.

Language certainly is something that we can consciously manipulate, but I suspect most of language processing happens on a lower level than conscious thought. I haven't read about that, so I could be wrong.

But what do you mean that language isn't used when we dream? I certainly have the impression that many of my dreams involve speaking, listening to other speak, and so on. Is this what you mean by an outward effect? If so, what is it an outward effect of?

The brain generates electricity, being able to harness that is plausible.

But the electrical signals in the brain are dozens of orders of magnitude less than that required to pass through air. I don't think it's plausible. Not to mention the sort of tissue damage that would result!... for that matter, how would the charge be stored until the necessary voltage is achieved? You'd need a host of anatomical changes to accompany the ability to precisely tune the brain's EM waves... No, not at all plausible.