How did the gods of early human society evolve into the God of today?

[BurtWorm]

We all have our theories, I'm sure. What interests me, however, is what people who believe in the God of today think about this, assuming they agree that there was some evolution from those gods to this one. (Or do you agree? If you think this God is sui generis, then why do you think so many make the mistake of seeing an intellectual lineage between belief in the early gods and belief in this one?)

This is what has been bothering me lately and maybe you can help me with this: We have an image, correct or not, of ancient or early "theology," if you will, as being rather concrete. The volcano blows, therefore, the god who controls the volcano must be angry; we must propitiate the god to appease his anger and make the volcano stop blowing. The Greeks and Romans, if you read their myths and epic poetry, had just such an idea about the gods. Judaism apparently also grew out of a tradition in which you made offerings to God to keep him happy. Prayer is a direct descendant of this view of god as able to be bargained with. Clearly, our ancestors viewed God, or the gods, as persons of a sort--not humans, of course, but as intentional beings.

We now know that volcanos can't be propitiated by spilling chicken blood or what have you--or most of us in the modern world know this. And many of those who believe in God no longer feel comfortable using the word "person" to describe it. They've become very sophisticated in their view of God's intentional stance and "mind." They are careful to remove as many crumbs of personhood as possible from their description of God so as not to be mistaken for the primitives, if you will, who literally believed the gods heard them with something like ears and could be bribed with things the gods "liked" or "wanted" into not doing things that harmed humans and their property.

So what bothers me is this: If this sophisticated modern God is real, where was it for all those years of human history when people were worshiping things that weren't really God? Why is this age privileged with the first view into the real God? What's so special about the modern theist that he or she can see this real God when all those other poor saps couldn't? Looked at another way, how can the modern theist be certain that they're not just as much of a sap as all those pious ancestors?

[Taverner]

1. Have you read any Joseph Campbell?

If not - he hits that nail on the head in a way I could barely attempt to describe

If so - You know what I mean

[BurtWorm]

10. You mean the mythos was always the same?

The early believers thought the religion was about keeping the gods happy but it was really about a quest for the heroic, or something like that, which is just what believers of today believe in?

[Taverner]

11. Not Exactly

But the idea that the hero has endured through the ages, but changed to match our values of that time...

[BurtWorm]

12. I'm sorry, I keep getting distracted by Edie Sedgwick.

Or is that Nico?

[Taverner]

14. It's Edie with a little leg

I understand - Miss Leopard Skin Pillbox Hat kind of does that

[BurtWorm]

16. Now her I could believe in.

[Taverner]

17. Yes, true that...

[madrchsod]

15. it`s edie...i checked the image

[damntexdem]

2. If a god or gods are real, then she or it are. Unchanging -- who knows?

On the other hand, human conceptions of such god or gods, whether or not she or they exist, have evolved with human societies. A rational believer who accepts evolution can easily agree with this; as, of course, can a rational unbeliever. The issue for the theologian is how any god or gods may have first of all influenced humans to conceive of the divine and then, second, influenced the resulting concepts.

As to being a sap, how can the unbeliever know whether or not he or she is a sap to not believe in a god or gods that actually exist? To me, as an agnostic, it seems reasonable to just accept sapdom, of whatever form, and get one with life.

[targetpractice]

3. Propagation of the written holy texts...

The religions with the best "books" and best printing and distribution methods for their books propagated more efficiently than others.

[damntexdem]

5. But for almost all of human history, it was this process with oral tradition.

And only more recently with actual writing. And with only a brief bit of time with printing presses.

[targetpractice]

22. The widespread proliferation of monotheism is fairly modern

Printing is more efficient and "higher-fidelity" than oral story-telling.

I'm just speculating... but, the monotheistic religions Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all summarize their religions nicely in comprehensive holy books... which are extremely efficient at spreading the word... much faster than conveying all that information orally... mush faster.

It's not just that the big three are summarized in holy books, but the practice of these religions emphasize constant use of the holy books themselves as an authoritative guide.

It seems that other polytheistic religions throughout history were localized, perhaps due to the difficulty of spreading the word far and wide without printing.

[Nay]

4. Of course, as an atheist, I think the modern theist is "as much of a

sap" as all his ancestors. The notion of god(s) throughout the ages changed as the humans who made them up changed, and as soon as unscrupulous men found they could order around other people by using god, then religion really got cemented into everything. It's as diabolical a way to control others as has ever been devised, even if the original gods were thought up only as explanations for natural events.

[damntexdem]

8. And many believers see atheists as the saps.

So get over it and accept that we can all turn out to be saps. Big deal.

[alphafemale]

6. Government/Ruling class intervention

Whatever may have once been there was long ago corrupted beyond recognition.

[rug]

7. The practice of medicine has evolved. Biological facts have not.

[damntexdem]

9. Hear, hear!

But we have accessible ways to ascertain biological facts -- even though those ways are not foolproof, so that what we accept as facts often change. There still remains a massive increase in biological knowledge. It is far from the same with theology; but we can only do the best we can with any discipline.

[Ozymanithrax]

13. I am the lord thy God. Though shalt have no other God before me.

If that is really the commandment of God, it presupposes the existence of other Gods.

Monotheism developed over a long period of time. The early Jews recognized that there were other Gods, but they were the Gods of other tribes and nations. Soloman allowed his wives from other nations to worship their own Gods and got in trouble over it.

The thing we should remember about religion, no matter how many gods were worshiped, is that it did not come without acoutraments. Religion in early times was a unifying factor that held tribal groups together. Laws existed because they were handed down by the God or Gods. You didn't screw your neighbors wife because God said that was bad. (It was also bad for group coheision and would rip tribes apart.) Religon within a tribe is such a good unifying factor among primative peoples that if a God didn't exist they would have made one up.

[Critters2]

18. Girard's theory:

http://www.imitatio.org/mimetic-theory/account-of-mimet...

[Jim__]

29. I agree with his claim that:

Limitless vengeance will destroy the species unless some antidote appears. But, I don't see the antidote. Do you?

[Critters2]

30. Yes, I do. The antidote is positive mimesis--choosing a non-violent

model to imitate, rather than the culture's violent mimetic models.

[Jim__]

32. My concern with that is that I'm not sure violence is cultural.

Some aspects of it may be cultural; but, in general, I think violence and a tendency toward vengeance is a human characteristic. I am aware that you can point to certain non-violent models, say Ghandi and MLK. But, I think Ghandi was in a particular circumstance where he could reasonably argue that violence would not work, not even in the short term. Some of MLK's followers were turning to violence even before he was assassinated.

I'm not opposed to pacifism; I just think it takes well-trained and well-disciplined people to make it work; and so it is limited to relatively small groups. To avoid the destruction of the species that Girard talks about, we need effective, short-time tactics. For instance, the world appears to be on a trajectory to significantly increase the number of nuclear armed nations, and so, to significantly increase the nuclear threat. Rather than an attempt to reach a generally non-violent population, this threat has to be specifically, and quickly, addressed. If we fail at this, then we may actually see Girard's destruction of the species.

[Critters2]

33. Girard says that violence is the consequence of negative mimesis.

People imitate behavior which leads to violence. He says in _Things Hidden_ that the antidote to this is behavior which imitates non-violence. It isn't violence that is a human characteristic. It's mimesis, imitation. The problem is that we imitate behavior which builds toward violence. We are capable of imitating behavior which does not lead to violence.

The antidote to negative mimesis is positive mimesis.

[Jim__]

34. This sounds somewhat like a nature/nurture argument.

Based on what I've read on these arguments, it's always an entanglement of nature and nurture. I can't find a whole lot on the internet about his theory, is Things Hidden a book where he describes this?

I definitely believe that humans have an innate tendency toward violence. One book that I can remember is Demonic Males that describes human violence and violence among chimpanzees as being very similar, particularly wars between primitive peoples and "wars" between neighboring troops of chimpanzees.

[Critters2]

35. _Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World_ is one of Girard's many books.

Two others worth reading on this are _The Scapegoat_, and _Violence and the Sacred_.

As far as nature/nurture, it is our nature to be mimetic. It is not a given that that mimesis will lead to violence (and the sacrificial mechanism which is the basis of most religion). Again, one can engage in positive mimesis, which will lead away from violence, and violently based religion.

[TransitJohn]

19. You should specify which "god of today" you are referring to.

I assume you mean the Judeo-Christian Yahweh/Islamic Allah. But there are many other gods actively worshipped today, in the Far East, North America, and lots of other places.

[BurtWorm]

20. I meant the modern god we usually talk about in this forum.

I realize that people have different conceptions about it and might be said to be worshipping different (unique) gods, even among those who worship the monogod named Yahweh by the Jews and Allah by Islam. But the god idea I'm talking about is the one even Hindus and theistic Buddhists and other mystics talk about, despite the fact that each person's god-idea is probably actually unique to themselves no matter what tradition they ostensibly belong to.

[TransitJohn]

23. Okay

So you are wondering how the conception of deity or godhead in human collective conscious and collective unconscious has evolved? It has evolved as humankind has evolved. From animistic and totemic nature spirits, to maternal worship, ancestor worship, and since about the bronze age to a paternal form. At least in the judeo-christian milieu of spirituality. It's a lot different for a Maori or Pawnee. And definitely a lot different for a Buddhist. At least this is how I conceive an answer to your question.

[BurtWorm]

26. So Maori and Pawnee are less evolved theologically speaking?

[TransitJohn]

27. Huh? What?

Pfffffft.

[BurtWorm]

28. I know. That wasn't fair.

You weren't saying anything about a hierarchy of beliefs or a positive evolution of ideas. I'm just irritated with the idea that sophisticated humans have a more sophisticated belief and taking it out on you. It was a cheap shot.

[laconicsax]

25. Minor point--"yahweh" is a 19th century invention.

Someone took the Tetragrammaton and approximated a pronunciation using the placeholder vowels for another word meant to be substituted when read.

[laconicsax]

21. Does that necessarily change the question?

Are there any theistic religions that have never changed over time?

[RC]

24. Humans make their gods in their own image.

As Humans advance and change so do their gods.

It is when they hear their gods speaking to them in their heads that the trouble starts.

[Odin2005]

31. Continued abstraction of naive primitive Animism.

Early people projected their social reality onto the physical world in the form of "spirits" and "gods", like how people still today accuse malfunctioning equipment of having nefarious intentions. As societies became more advanced the "god" notion just became more and more abstract, but it is still fundamentally based on that delusional naive Animism.