The Origins of Religion

[+Sherapy]

4 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Whereas my parents were among the best inthe world and not only we children, but many others the y took under their wings, loved and resected them.  I never feared my parents, never hated them always loved and respected them BECAUSE they modelled this to us; love and respect;  discipline without etion punishment of the behaviour while loving the miscreant.  The y never lost their temper or self control were always rational and logical , always explained things to us, always gave us a chance to give  our side of a story   BUT there were known rules and known punishments for breaking those rules We understood the purpose of the rules as we got older. Punishment was a reminder of the rules and of consequences for behaviors we chose   Of course here were a lot worse punishments than a couple of whacks with a cane,  like banning t or making us go to bed an hour earlier  Or for really bad infractions missing out on the matinee movies on saturday or the drive in on ranch night   Personally i think psychological punishment by isolation, deprivation, or other consequences, is far more harmful and cruel than  being whacked on the fingers or backsicde with a cane.  The only punishments that really stuck in my memory were the psychologically cruel ones like removing a toy for misusing it.  Even then i understood them and didn't get angry.  After alll my parents had a right and duty to teach me self control and obedience. If they had not loved me they could have allowed me to behave as i pleased and to grow up undisciplined and uncaring of others.  But such psychological punishments lasted days or weeks. while a caning lasted a few seconds.  Psychological studies show that adolescent males would rather be physically punished tha go though a lecture and far prefer the immedaite consequence of a physical punishment to a prolonged ongoing one like a grounding  To them once the punishment is administered the incidenti is over and forgotten.  it is thus far LESS likely to build up resentment and anger with parents than a prolonged and lasting punishment like the withdrawal of privileges Girls are a bit different. 

God help me for asking, but how do you misuse a toy and require a few whacks from the cane for it? Or do I not want to know?

[Mr Walker]

14 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

 

Maybe you don't realize it, but you are trying to convince me of your beliefs, it is not a reality that we share. I walk the path of an agnostic/Buddhist. If I am in need of intervention I don't turn to God or angels, I face reality for what it is, now this would not be for everyone, but for me it works the best. 

 NO i dont have beliefs I am trying to convince you of a physical reality which you believe is a belief because you believe MY physical reality is impossible.    I dont give a damn if you believe in gods or not, but i think you have a right to know that at least  one exists. I dont care if you BELIEVE smoking is dangerous or not, but i do want you to KNOW that it is. 

  If it happens It wont be  a matter of what you want, but of what this entity/god wants . That is because this god is not a product of your belief which can be held at bay by disbelief,  but is  its own independent physical being.   You could be a total atheist but if god physically manifests in your life you have two choices  Deal with it and adjust to it, or live in denial and go crazy.  

But don't worry, statistically you are more likely to die of cancer than to have a physical manifestation of god in your life  

[+Sherapy]

5 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

 NO i dont have beliefs I am trying to convince you of a physical reality which you believe is a belief because you believe MY physical reality is impossible.    I dont give a damn if you believe in gods or not, but i think you have a right to know that at least  one exists. I dont care if you BELIEVE smoking is dangerous or not, but i do want you to KNOW that it is. 

  If it happens It wont be  a matter of what you want, but of what this entity/god wants . That is because this god is not a product of your belief which can be held at bay by disbelief,  but is  its own independent physical being.   You could be a total atheist but if god physically manifests in your life you have two choices  Deal with it and adjust to it, or live in denial and go crazy.  

But don't worry, statistically you are more likely to die of cancer than to have a physical manifestation of god in your life  

Well if you don't give a damn what I believe why are you trying so hard to convince me of your beliefs? 

No need to answer, just some food for thought for you, 

[Mr Walker]

2 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

God help me for asking, but how do you misuse a toy and require a few whacks from the cane for it? Or do I not want to know?

lol lots of ways. I guess the most common would be to break it (carelessly or deliberately )  We didnt have much money and without my grandmother's war pension would have had no things like outings comics or lollies Mum and dad saved for months to buy a toy for us  (because they bought quite good and interesting ones) and we usually only got them on birthdays and christmases  We had to respect them and make them last  This was also true for other things like clothing books etc  

But, from memory throwing them at a little sister was not approved of. Blowing them up with crackers was definitely frowned on   leaving them where grandma might trip over them was serious, while wrecking a machine  by stuffing the toys into it, also was. I used to put a bucket of small metal cars etc up on our bedroom door with a string attached, so that if anyone entered the room the y were covered in descending toys. This was ok unless it was mum who got hit.  Oh, leaving a bike or toy in the drive way was serious, as it was likely to be destroyed, and also do damage to someone's car.  Flying a kite near power lines was serious  we broke a few bikes jousting on the town oval  or testing parachute drag brakes, but usually manged to repair these ourselves. And if we made a toy ourselves, there was more leeway with it. 

 Fair wear and tear was expected and dad was an excellent mechanic. 

[Mr Walker]

13 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Well if you don't give a damn what I believe why are you trying so hard to convince me of your beliefs? 

No need to answer, just some food for thought for you, 

I am not trying to convince you to believe in god and angels,  just  letting you know that  god and angels actually exist  What you do with that knowledge is up to you. 

 Belief is something we have freedom to indulge in  

Reality is not a matter of what we choose, but what is..

You can disbelieve in gods and angels as much as you like (and i encourage you to do so) but you can't wish them into non existence.

 As I've said many times,. truth is important because it is real, and, being real, has real effects on every human being .

 "God "  and angels are real.

They do exist.

They do intervene in human lives and destinies. Every day, everywhere .  

They may NEVER intervene in yours,  but,then again, if they have reason to, they will, and your disbelief will offer you no protection at all. .  . 

[Dhurfjooydig]

13 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

 NO i dont have beliefs I am trying to convince you of a physical reality which you believe is a belief because you believe MY physical reality is impossible.    I dont give a damn if you believe in gods or not, but i think you have a right to know that at least  one exists. I dont care if you BELIEVE smoking is dangerous or not, but i do want you to KNOW that it is. 

  If it happens It wont be  a matter of what you want, but of what this entity/god wants . That is because this god is not a product of your belief which can be held at bay by disbelief,  but is  its own independent physical being.   You could be a total atheist but if god physically manifests in your life you have two choices  Deal with it and adjust to it, or live in denial and go crazy.  

But don't worry, statistically you are more likely to die of cancer than to have a physical manifestation of god in your life  

So what you're telling us is that:

1. there is a 'god'.

2. this 'god' is an "independent physical being"

3. this 'god' may decide to "physically manifest" in anyone's life at any time if it wants to

4. you're trying to convince Sherapy of the existence of this 'independent physical being' 

5. everyone has a "right" to know that this 'god' may "physically manifest" in their life anytime with no warning

6. people shouldn't worry that this will happen to them because it is very rare.

7. but you don't have beliefs

Did I get that right?

 

 

[Dhurfjooydig]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

I am trying to convince you of a physical reality [gods and angels] 

 

39 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I am not trying to convince you to believe in god and angels

hahaha! Wheeeee! 

Edited May 28, 2017 by No Solid Ground

[+Sherapy]

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

lol lots of ways. I guess the most common would be to break it (carelessly or deliberately )  We didnt have much money and without my grandmother's war pension would have had no things like outings comics or lollies Mum and dad saved for months to buy a toy for us  (because they bought quite good and interesting ones) and we usually only got them on birthdays and christmases  We had to respect them and make them last  This was also true for other things like clothing books etc  

But, from memory throwing them at a little sister was not approved of. Blowing them up with crackers was definitely frowned on   leaving them where grandma might trip over them was serious, while wrecking a machine  by stuffing the toys into it, also was. I used to put a bucket of small metal cars etc up on our bedroom door with a string attached, so that if anyone entered the room the y were covered in descending toys. This was ok unless it was mum who got hit.  Oh, leaving a bike or toy in the drive way was serious, as it was likely to be destroyed, and also do damage to someone's car.  Flying a kite near power lines was serious  we broke a few bikes jousting on the town oval  or testing parachute drag brakes, but usually manged to repair these ourselves. And if we made a toy ourselves, there was more leeway with it. 

 Fair wear and tear was expected and dad was an excellent mechanic. 

Ha ha ha ha ha ha "leaving them where grandma might trip over them was serious." 

How any siblings did you have?

[+Sherapy]

6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I am not trying to convince you to believe in god and angels,  just  letting you know that  god and angels actually exist  What you do with that knowledge is up to you. 

 Belief is something we have freedom to indulge in  

Reality is not a matter of what we choose, but what is..

You can disbelieve in gods and angels as much as you like (and i encourage you to do so) but you can't wish them into non existence.

 As I've said many times,. truth is important because it is real, and, being real, has real effects on every human being .

 "God "  and angels are real.

They do exist.

They do intervene in human lives and destinies. Every day, everywhere .  

They may NEVER intervene in yours,  but,then again, if they have reason to, they will, and your disbelief will offer you no protection at all. .  . 

MW, ha ha ha ha ha how are you "not" trying to impose your personal beliefs on me? 

 

 

[+Sherapy]

6 hours ago, No Solid Ground said:

So what you're telling us is that:

1. there is a 'god'.

2. this 'god' is an "independent physical being"

3. this 'god' may decide to "physically manifest" in anyone's life at any time if it wants to

4. you're trying to convince Sherapy of the existence of this 'independent physical being' 

5. everyone has a "right" to know that this 'god' may "physically manifest" in their life anytime with no warning

6. people shouldn't worry that this will happen to them because it is very rare.

7. but you don't have beliefs

Did I get that right?

 

 

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha you captured Walker brilliantly. 

BTE is gonna love it. 

[markdohle]

On 10/5/2015 at 0:05 PM, Anomalocaris said:

 

The Origins of Religion: How Supernatural Beliefs Evolved

 

 

 

In the past, people like today had NDE's, OBE"s, moments of experiencing more etc.  What is being written about and studied today has always been with us.  "Death Bed Visions" for instance, in the past were considered normal and expected, in the last few centuries they are something 'new'.......our ancestors were just as intelligent as we were, even the so-called cave men. 

 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

14 hours ago, No Solid Ground said:

15 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I am trying to convince you of a physical reality [gods and angels] 

 

15 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I am not trying to convince you to believe in god and angels

hahaha! Wheeeee! 

Edited 14 hours ago by No Solid Ground

   I'm voting this post the most awesomeness post of the century.   

8 hours ago, Sherapy said:

MW, ha ha ha ha ha how are you "not" trying to impose your personal beliefs on me? 

 

 

 (Sarcasm alert) but Sheri, they're not beliefs,  it's actual reality. You know the kind of actual reality that doesn't have to have actual proof to actually show that it's actual Reality, but has the lack of proof, like subjective belief.   But since one particular individual feels it's actually them knowing it's actually Reality then everyone has the right to know it!  And in this case, that right is actually 'you don't have a choice'!  ( sarcasm alert off )  

 This is why I don't bother reading all of his post and even answering him at all. It's a waste of time for me. (*shrugs*) 

 

 Sorry Sheri,  I hope you don't mind my little bit of crazy right there.     

 

 

3 hours ago, markdohle said:

In the past, people like today had NDE's, OBE"s, moments of experiencing more etc.  What is being written about and studied today has always been with us.  "Death Bed Visions" for instance, in the past were considered normal and expected, in the last few centuries they are something 'new'.......our ancestors were just as intelligent as we were, even the so-called cave men. 

 

 I like this and it kind of makes sense for me. Also and how this feeds and keep it going because I have heard so many of these experiences. 

[+Sherapy]

59 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

   I'm voting this post the most awesomeness post of the century.   

 (Sarcasm alert) but Sheri, they're not beliefs,  it's actual reality. You know the kind of actual reality that doesn't have to have actual proof to actually show that it's actual Reality, but has the lack of proof, like subjective belief.   But since one particular individual feels it's actually them knowing it's actually Reality then everyone has the right to know it!  And in this case, that right is actually 'you don't have a choice'!  ( sarcasm alert off )  

 This is why I don't bother reading all of his post and even answering him at all. It's a waste of time for me. (*shrugs*) 

 

 Sorry Sheri,  I hope you don't mind my little bit of crazy right there.     

 

 

 I like this and it kind of makes sense for me. Also and how this feeds and keep it going because I have heard so many of these experiences. 

Nope, don't mind at all.

MW, cannot bare that in the vast pool of subjectivity, he is just hyponitized and in his case fooled by his disjointed vision of reality. He just can't deal with the realization none of us are really that big of a deal in the scheme of things, that it really is okay to meditate just to meditate, we each find our way, he just immerses himself in the fantasys he creates.  To each his own. 

Of course he will be here shortly to defend, deny, and polish his ego, but he is just a silly human being human just like the rest of us. 

 

 

Edited May 29, 2017 by Sherapy

[Stubbly_Dooright]

26 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Nope, don't mind at all.

MW, cannot bare that in the vast pool of subjectivity, he is just hyponitized and in his case fooled by his disjointed vision of reality. He just can't deal with the realization none of us are really that big of a deal in the scheme of things, that it really is okay to meditate just to meditate, we each find our way, he just immerses himself in the fantasys he creates.  To each his own. 

Of course he will be here shortly to defend, deny, and polish his ego, but he is just a silly human being human just like the rest of us. 

I agree, and I think you're right. 

Though, I would be interested on the replies to MarkDohl's post. I think that puts a different spin onto this thread's point.  

[back to earth]

11 hours ago, Sherapy said:

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha you captured Walker brilliantly. 

BTE is gonna love it. 

[back to earth]

51 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I agree, and I think you're right. 

Though, I would be interested on the replies to MarkDohl's post. I think that puts a different spin onto this thread's point.  

 

Alright then   ....      

[back to earth]

5 hours ago, markdohle said:

In the past, people like today had NDE's, OBE"s, moments of experiencing more etc.  What is being written about and studied today has always been with us.  "Death Bed Visions" for instance, in the past were considered normal and expected, in the last few centuries they are something 'new'

True Mark !    The issue  being hotly discussed ( and well proven IMO )   is one of definition   ( and sorry to sound like a broken record  but ) ;  our modern propensity to judge others ,and other times by ,    a limited personal and present perspective .

Regarding such things being 'new'  , yes  ...  a heap of things that nowadays pass as some New Age discovery or practice are rehashed and misunderstood things from the past.  See my next post . 

Quote

 

 

.......our ancestors were just as intelligent as we were, even the so-called cave men. 

 

 

Indeed !   And brilliant at adapting their limited technology to the task at hand . Still, today many of their 'engineering feats'  mystify the modern person , and seem impossible ! 

Edited May 29, 2017 by back to earth

[back to earth]

Well said NSG on   … let’s just call it , ‘keeping one’s education up to date ‘  …..  or   ‘breaking out of a 1950s mind set ‘  .

Great job on putting up all the refs and various sources and acclamations  from scholars and professionals   ( although I note one elderly random internet poster disagrees with all of them     ) 

 

  A few times I offered to put my proof here, but my offer has not been taken  up.

Since the whole theory has been disputed here … and  claimed that it is not academic or any theory at all    (its actually a whole ‘movement’ through many fields of study and ‘the soft sciences’  - but you know that )   I will put it up anyway  .

Of course , some  (updated)  background is needed to understand …. Just like anything else , be it working on electrical circuitry , plumbing,  etc.

(The following is what I put up before when this topic arose – it is from a series of lectures in religious studies designed to identify the components of religion which cause diverse religious peoples to be able to accept each other and live together in peace , and what components in religion cause the opposite . Curious how some have seemed to forget it has all previously been explained before ! )

Firstly, some definitions; what is religion?

~  Analysing the word itself;  Religion , respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods, obligation, the bond between man and the Gods is derived from the Latin religiō, the ultimate origins of which are obscure. One possibility is derivation from le-ligare, "read", i.e. re (again) + lego in the sense of "choose", "go over again" or "consider carefully". Modern scholars such as Joseph Campbell favour the derivation from ligare "bind, connect", or … "to reconnect," which was made prominent by St. Augustine.

According to Max Müller, the root of the English word "religion", the Latin religio, was originally used to mean only "reverence for God or the gods, careful pondering of divine things,   Müller characterized many other cultures around the world, including Egypt, Persia, and India, as having a similar power structure at this point in history.

What is called ancient religion today, they would have only called "law".

Many languages have words that can be translated as "religion", but they may use them in a very different way, and some have no word for religion at all. For example, the Sanskrit word dharma, sometimes translated as "religion", also means law.

[back to earth]

(Cont. ) 

There is no precise equivalent of "religion" in Hebrew, and Judaism does not distinguish clearly between religious, national, racial, or ethnic identities. One of its central concepts is "halakha", sometimes translated as "law"", which guides religious practice and belief and many aspects of daily life.

But what exactly IS religion?

 

Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values. Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.

The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system. Some religions have organized behaviours, clergy, a definition of what constitutes adherence or membership, congregations of laity, regular meetings or services for the purposes of veneration of a deity or for prayer, holy places (either natural or architectural), and/or scriptures. The practice of a religion may also include sermons, commemoration of the activities of a god or gods, sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trance, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, music, art, dance, public service, or other aspects of human culture.

 However, there are examples of religions for which some or many of these aspects of structure, belief, or practices are absent.

The development of religion has taken different forms in different cultures. Some religions place an emphasis on belief, while others emphasize practice. Some religions focus on the subjective experience of the religious individual, while others consider the activities of the religious community to be most important. Some religions claim to be universal, believing their laws and cosmology to be binding for everyone, while others are intended to be practiced only by a closely defined or localized group.

Anthropologists John Monoghan and Peter Just state that, "it seems apparent that one thing religion or belief helps us do is deal with problems of human life that are significant, persistent, and intolerable. One important way in which religious beliefs accomplish this is by providing a set of ideas about how and why the world is put together that allows people to accommodate anxieties and deal with misfortune."

One modern academic theory of religion,         social constructionism,     says that religion is a modern concept that suggests all spiritual practice and worship follows a model similar to the Abrahamic religions as an orientation system that helps to interpret reality and define human beings, and thus religion, as a concept, has been applied inappropriately to non-Western cultures that are not based upon such systems, or in which these systems are a substantially simpler construct.    ~

[back to earth]

(Cont.)

Several theorists argue that the concept of “religion” is not a cultural universal but rather emerged under particular historical and political conditions in the modern post-Reformation west.  

‘The Ideology of Religious Studies’ -  Timothy Fitzgerald  *

 “ In recent years there has been an intensifying debate within the religious studies community about the validity of religion as an analytical category. In this book Fitzgerald sides with those who argue that the concept of religion itself should be abandoned. On the basis of his own research in India and Japan, and through a detailed analysis of the use of religion in a wide range of scholarly texts, the author maintains that the comparative study of religion is really a form of liberal ecumenical theology. By pretending to be a science, religion significantly distorts socio-cultural analysis. He suggest, however, that religious studies can be re-represented in a way which opens up new and productive theoretical connections with anthropology and cultural and literary studies. “

https://books.google.com.au/books/about/The_Ideology_of_Religious_Studies.html?id=R7A1f6Evy84C&redir_esc=y

Preview ;

  https://books.google.com.au/books?id=R7A1f6Evy84C&pg=PA262&lpg=PA262&dq=The+Social+Construction+of+“Religion”+Timothy+Fitzgerald&source=bl&ots=_N_TJPCCkN&sig=PzcqCQm8RR6l-VrjYOsxT4QNBXs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjn5I3mzJHUAhUDJZQKHaooAakQ6AEIWTAJ#v=onepage&q=The Social Construction of “Religion” Timothy Fitzgerald&f=false

 

No doubt someone will run to google and try to cite the other side of this academic debate … which is pointless, as my issue was to prove it is a valid academic theory , which was hotly and mockingly disputed here  ….. so I shall pre-empt them  

I will choose this one as , the protests against the theory here seem to be similar to  these specific criticisms .   

One of the problems in acceptance of this theory seems to be the issue of  throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

That is , even if people don’t realise it ,  they are seeing the obvious problem with the 4^th main point (the bathwater ) , which is clearly unnecessary to the theory itself . The  3  first and main points of the theory , here , are the baby , and IMO and many others , seems to have value and  be proven  ( even the detractors of the theory accept  the first 3 points , and not the  4^th  - see  Schilbrack  ^   ;     )  

So to avoid the ‘usual criticisms ‘ in this forum,  I shall use this source also , since it is critical of the theory.  ( My highlighting and bolding )

But first , Schilbrack’s criticism;  “  My paper is a critique of that project. I agree that “religion” is a social construction. I will argue nevertheless that “religion” is descriptively and analytically useful, and it is useful because there really are religions that exist “out there” in the world. “

Just because something can be   “ descriptively and analytically useful,” does not mean it must be accurate , and of course , it WILL be useful to those making the descriptions and observations from their OWN perspective within their own social constructions .

Some see this issue easily , some have difficulty with it and some ‘flail’ against it  ( I seen the ‘flailing ‘ with some at Uni.   – in the religious studies courses but NOT in the anthropology courses       ‘interesting’ that   - if you get what I mean     .  )

Our point all along has been  that since,  we developed the term it has had  descriptive usage, for us in a modern context but is not an accurate description of ‘back then’ , in the times of the older religions themselves .   This is similar to one being told that there was no ‘Hindu religion’ in 1700 and responding with “ Well … there IS now , everyone knowns that, and it started 1000s of years ago ! “

Yes it is a handy and useful term for us to continue ‘understanding’ older cultures within our own social constructs !

This position seems to have been cast in cement for ‘some’ here .  They just cannot see beyond their own social constructs as them being the only ones valid !

*

The  first 3 points of Fitzgerald’s paper ;

“   The first and central aspect of Fitzgerald’s position is his claim that the concept of “religion” is a social construction. Other cultures lack the concept: as Wilfred Cantwell Smith has shown, there is no word in classical Sanskrit for the concept and so “religion” does not appear in Hindu scriptures. There is also no word in Pali and so it also does not appear in Buddhist scriptures. There is no term for religion in Chinese or Japanese or Egyptian or in Native American languages (Smith 1962: ch. 2).

There is not even a word for religion in the Hebrew Bible or in the Greek New Testament. One may speculate about whether Europeans in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries developed the concept of “religion” because of the fragmentation of the Christian church in wake of the Reformation or because of the explosion of information about non-European cultures, but in any event it is only modern European Christians who generalized or abstracted from their own practices and developed the word “religion” as a term for sorting a certain kind of activity. Call this the social constructivist claim; agreeing with this claim suffices to make one a social constructionist.

[back to earth]

“Second, though other social constructionists have focused only on the emergence of “religion,” one of the distinctive themes of Fitzgerald’s work is his claim that the conceptual boundaries of religion cannot be drawn without simultaneously drawing the boundaries of non-religion. The concept of “religion” therefore emerged in conjunction with the concept of “the secular;” the two are flip sides of a single coin. This contribution to the debate is important, I judge, in that it lets us see how those who label others either as religious or as lacking religion are simultaneously engaged in the construction of their own status. Call this the reflexive claim.

“The third and most distinctive aspect of Fitzgerald’s position is that he argues that the deployment of the new concept of “religion”—or more exactly, the deployment of the religion/secular pair of concepts—was central to the western attempts to justify colonialism. Call this the colonialist claim. In my judgment, only David Chidester (1996) focuses more on the use of the label of “religion” as a justification for the subjugation of non-western people. Notably, however, Chidester argues that European colonizers typically reserved the label “religion” for themselves and withheld it from Africans whereas Fitzgerald argues that the west has categorized itself as secular, rational, and progressive and used the concept of “religious” to label its other superstitious and backwards. These two approaches do not contradict each other, in my view, since both Fitzgerald and Chidester can be right and both may be needed to appreciate the variable uses of such a powerfully loaded term.

“Thus, to enumerate the elements in Fitzgerald’s approach, (1) the concept of “a religion” and of its pluralization “religions” is not recognized universally but is rather a product of European modernity, (2) this concept emerged in conjunction with its opposite, “the secular,” and (3) the emergence of the religious/secular dichotomy served the justification of colonialism and is therefore a crucial part of modern Western ideology. I consider these social constructionist, reflexive, and colonialist claims the heart of Fitzgerald’s project. “

We could even remove point 3 and it need not effect points 1 and 2 .  But so Fitzgerald’s main critic actually agrees with him , he isn’t arguing against  religious constructivism at all … here is his complaint :

The criticism of point 4 :     “ (4) the concept of religion has no descriptive or analytical value. As he succinctly puts it: the word “religion” “picks out nothing and clarifies nothing” and should be abandoned “

This is the bathwater , yes, I agree it can and should not be thrown out as most people  within our social construct  know and understand  what I mean, generally, when I say ‘religion ‘ . Obviously I prefer to write the word religion here instead of   a long definition each time.  BUT usage of the word in ancient context is technically incorrect and does lead to faulty conjectures and impositions , especially in the depths of academic study. THAT imposition should ne removed.

 

 However, this does not affect the first 3 points .   Point 4 is not a foundation, it is something added to the side of the construction, It can be removed  without the whole construct tumbling – as Schilbrack seems to think it does .

 

I am sure by  now enough info and references have been put up. The context and understanding, on an academic level however also  relates to the WAY and ORDER in which it is approached  … that is why academic courses and units are structured with an order , the way they are .  

In this case, for a clear understanding ,  FIRST  one needs to understand the history of the changes in psychological ‘western’ paradigm  1400 – 1600, its causes and implications ( and  before that , some psychology ).  Also some ancient history and early cultural  anthropology , then some comparative religion,  then  some ‘ social constructionism’ ….   then apply that to religion .

Read the materials, and the criticisms and come to your own conclusions …. But to just try to rubbish the research and all the background work … when one was not even being aware of it  in the first place …   -  declaring it does not even exist academically ,  or even seeing the academic proof and the praise  that has been acclaimed for some of the works written and   merely declare it is invalid ……   reminds me of those silly people that walked out of lecture at Uni in a huff  ( thus blowing the rest of their learning and evolving process). 

 

The thing is    -    when studying anything , be it comparative religion or ancient cultures, it pays to be conversant with the academic theories presented ... and NOT to just dismiss them out of hand as they do not pander to one's own prejudices . 

 

[Mr Walker]

18 hours ago, No Solid Ground said:

So what you're telling us is that:

1. there is a 'god'.

2. this 'god' is an "independent physical being"

3. this 'god' may decide to "physically manifest" in anyone's life at any time if it wants to

4. you're trying to convince Sherapy of the existence of this 'independent physical being' 

5. everyone has a "right" to know that this 'god' may "physically manifest" in their life anytime with no warning

6. people shouldn't worry that this will happen to them because it is very rare.

7. but you don't have beliefs

Did I get that right?

 

 

Absolutely And so far you are about the only person on Um who gets it,  although I realise you probably don't  accept it,  and i wouldn't expect you to. 

I've never been able to  take things on faith (which is what a belief is)  maybe because of my upbringing.  I either know something or i don't know it and if i dont know it I keep an open mind suspending both belief and disbelief  and try to accumulate evidences.  The one exception is  where i voluntarily GIVE my trust faith or belief IN someone like my wife or a person to whom i lend money.  I trust them, which is a conscious act of faith or belief

 To explain a little. if someone asked you if you believed you had a mother,  what would you say? Logically this question is not answerable because in knowing you have a mother neither belief nor disbelief is available to you. Allowing thatt god is simply a label or name, i know that there is a powerful physical entity who teaches me, protects me, and gives me power skills and abilities   This entity  is as independently real and physical as my mother or father and thus not something i can either believe exists or disbelieve exists

[Mr Walker]

42 minutes ago, back to earth said:

“Second, though other social constructionists have focused only on the emergence of “religion,” one of the distinctive themes of Fitzgerald’s work is his claim that the conceptual boundaries of religion cannot be drawn without simultaneously drawing the boundaries of non-religion. The concept of “religion” therefore emerged in conjunction with the concept of “the secular;” the two are flip sides of a single coin. This contribution to the debate is important, I judge, in that it lets us see how those who label others either as religious or as lacking religion are simultaneously engaged in the construction of their own status. Call this the reflexive claim.

“The third and most distinctive aspect of Fitzgerald’s position is that he argues that the deployment of the new concept of “religion”—or more exactly, the deployment of the religion/secular pair of concepts—was central to the western attempts to justify colonialism. Call this the colonialist claim. In my judgment, only David Chidester (1996) focuses more on the use of the label of “religion” as a justification for the subjugation of non-western people. Notably, however, Chidester argues that European colonizers typically reserved the label “religion” for themselves and withheld it from Africans whereas Fitzgerald argues that the west has categorized itself as secular, rational, and progressive and used the concept of “religious” to label its other superstitious and backwards. These two approaches do not contradict each other, in my view, since both Fitzgerald and Chidester can be right and both may be needed to appreciate the variable uses of such a powerfully loaded term.

“Thus, to enumerate the elements in Fitzgerald’s approach, (1) the concept of “a religion” and of its pluralization “religions” is not recognized universally but is rather a product of European modernity, (2) this concept emerged in conjunction with its opposite, “the secular,” and (3) the emergence of the religious/secular dichotomy served the justification of colonialism and is therefore a crucial part of modern Western ideology. I consider these social constructionist, reflexive, and colonialist claims the heart of Fitzgerald’s project. “

We could even remove point 3 and it need not effect points 1 and 2 .  But so Fitzgerald’s main critic actually agrees with him , he isn’t arguing against  religious constructivism at all … here is his complaint :

The criticism of point 4 :     “ (4) the concept of religion has no descriptive or analytical value. As he succinctly puts it: the word “religion” “picks out nothing and clarifies nothing” and should be abandoned “

This is the bathwater , yes, I agree it can and should not be thrown out as most people  within our social construct  know and understand  what I mean, generally, when I say ‘religion ‘ . Obviously I prefer to write the word religion here instead of   a long definition each time.  BUT usage of the word in ancient context is technically incorrect and does lead to faulty conjectures and impositions , especially in the depths of academic study. THAT imposition should ne removed.

 

 However, this does not affect the first 3 points .   Point 4 is not a foundation, it is something added to the side of the construction, It can be removed  without the whole construct tumbling – as Schilbrack seems to think it does .

 

I am sure by  now enough info and references have been put up. The context and understanding, on an academic level however also  relates to the WAY and ORDER in which it is approached  … that is why academic courses and units are structured with an order , the way they are .  

In this case, for a clear understanding ,  FIRST  one needs to understand the history of the changes in psychological ‘western’ paradigm  1400 – 1600, its causes and implications ( and  before that , some psychology ).  Also some ancient history and early cultural  anthropology , then some comparative religion,  then  some ‘ social constructionism’ ….   then apply that to religion .

Read the materials, and the criticisms and come to your own conclusions …. But to just try to rubbish the research and all the background work … when one was not even being aware of it  in the first place …   -  declaring it does not even exist academically ,  or even seeing the academic proof and the praise  that has been acclaimed for some of the works written and   merely declare it is invalid ……   reminds me of those silly people that walked out of lecture at Uni in a huff  ( thus blowing the rest of their learning and evolving process). 

 

The thing is    -    when studying anything , be it comparative religion or ancient cultures, it pays to be conversant with the academic theories presented ... and NOT to just dismiss them out of hand as they do not pander to one's own prejudices . 

 

This is an entirely different argument, about the naming and labelling of  things and the parameters and classification of social forms.  A desert aboriginal might not have had a name for sails or boats but they existed    Very simply, religion is ANY form of codified and ritualised belief so a shaman  meditating and sacrificing to catch the spirits of an animal and make it easier to kill is practising a religion.  Religions don't need gods and many early religions were based around the spiritual nature of all things and around  human connection to that nature via our own sense of spirituality 

It is one thing to argue that the WORD religion as we know t was first used by/about  medieval christians and another to argue that  this was the first actual religious form, so that religion and worship never existed before this time or outside of this form. That is precisely the argument used which began this discussion.   it was stated that religion and worship did not exist before a cetin date (around 1300 i think.)

 it was then stated that christianity constructed both, and imposed them on humans who had no concept of them in their own lives.  

While they had no concpet of christianity before christianity came to them, EVERY human had a spiritual and religious connection between themselves and their environment. It was the only possible way a human could make sense of, and live in, a world where he lacked any real understanding of self or nature. apart from that which could be gained by observation.  

Until science allowed a factual knowldge, there WAS no separation between divine and secular in people's lives EVERYTHING was a combination of the material and the spiritual  To say this makes them non religious or non spiritual is specious and ridiculous It makes them MORE spiritual and religious than someone who has a scientific understanding of the reality of nature . 

WE have a need to divide life into religious and secular Early peole needed no word for religious because life was religious. There was no division between religious and secular or sacred and profane.  Of course they didn't realise this but, looking back, we can    One might argue that while always religious humans only became aware of religion when it could be separated for the non religious  and only aware of the sacred when it became separated from the non sacred. Thus we stopped thinking of a beer or a brick as having a spiritual or religious element and placed them in the non religious category it took longer to put plants and animals in the non sacred or spiritual category   Most ealry people including sumerians babylonians and egyptians believed that all things included a spirit or an elementt of life .  

Edited May 29, 2017 by Mr Walker

[Dhurfjooydig]

7 hours ago, markdohle said:

In the past, people like today had NDE's, OBE"s, moments of experiencing more etc.  What is being written about and studied today has always been with us.  "Death Bed Visions" for instance, in the past were considered normal and expected, in the last few centuries they are something 'new'.......our ancestors were just as intelligent as we were, even the so-called cave men. 

Yes. If this state of existence we call "I" can generate the experience we commonly call 'dreams' then there's no reason why it can't generate NDE and OBE experiences also. I have no experience with OBEs or NDEs but I have very detailed and vivid dreams that are as fully 'real' as my awake experiences ... smells, sounds, temperature, color, emotions, varied and complex environments / narratives / event / characters / conversations. 

Consider also the ancient ideas of rebirth and past lives. These are dismissed as woo woo by scientific minds who lack a clear understanding of how ancient people thought, and described their experiences ... but tilting the mind just so, these ideas can be viewed through a scientific lens.  Western people have the absurd notion that they are born and self-exist as completely independent beings ... tabula rasa (blank slates) ... individuals ... but when we factor in Lamarckian inheritance, genetic memory, and transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, it's clear that we don't arrive here tabula rasa. And how could we? Two organisms got together, did the slippery, merged egg and sperm, which grew an organism. By what mental hoola hoops do we arrive at the idea that this biomanufactured organism isn't an extension of everything that the two manufacturing organisms are and ever experienced? This convergence of elements and essences I refer to as "me" out of convenience includes my parent's personalities, their gestures, their likes and dislikes, their health risks, etc. I laugh just like my father, raise my right eyebrow when I detect bs just like my mother and her father. Looking even deeper into our 'self' we see that this thing we are also includes our parent's traumas and emotional tendencies, even their styles of perception and data processing. The reality is that ... we are our parents ... literally. They are us. They are as much a part of us as our bones, tissue, organs, and blood. They did the slippery and one of them spit out a merged walking talking growth of themselves ... which is us. 

Within this context, let's get back to rebirth and past lives ... we now know memory exists stored in electromagnetic packets in DNA. We also know that the effects of experiences and environment  are encoded epigenetically in organisms. We know that the effects of experiences are epigenetically transferred transgenerationally ... epigenetic transference has been tracked in up to 14 generations of offspring in lab animals so far.  There is a growing body of research that supports human epigenetic transference of stress / trauma  over generations. Scientists speculate that the mechanics of genetic memory / epigenetic transference could be linked with phobias, anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorders, as well as other neuropsychiatric disorders, in humans.  Scientists don't deal in happiness and love much, but these states of experience too likely transfers from generation to generation.

All this reminds of a central idea in the ancient understanding of past lives / rebirth ... that what we think and experience in this ( passing ... soon to be 'past' ) life will shape who we are in the 'next' life ... the 'next' life being what I described above ... two organisms manufacturing and spitting out a "next" extension (rebirth) of themselves out their own blood and flesh and memory / experience encoded DNA. So when ancient people, whose minds weren't as cluttered, distracted, and externally focused as modern minds, referred to past lives memories ... it's entirely within the realm of possibility that they cultivated states of mind that enabled genetic memories (past life experiences) to inform their consciousness. In this way ancestors would 'speak' to them by way of random memories, sensations, images (not conversation). This isn't woo woo or 'religion' or mysticism or 'spirituality'. Just the cultivation of a depth and breadth of awareness, that extends to genetic memory / transgenerational effects through the practice of acute attention. Who knows how far back ... through how many previous generations of epigenetic transfer ... an acutely attentive mind could reach?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational_epigenetic_inheritance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_memory_(psychology)

 

 

 

Edited May 29, 2017 by No Solid Ground

[Dhurfjooydig]

41 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

It is one thing to argue that the WORD religion as we know t was first used by/about  medieval christians and another to argue that  this was the first actual religious form, so that religion and worship never existed before this time or outside of this form. That is precisely the argument used which began this discussion.   it was stated that religion and worship did not exist before a cetin date (around 1300 i think.)

And this is nearly exactly my position (BTE's position and mine are somewhat different, as is evident if you reread his posts and mine throughout the thread) ... though I would modify this:

"it was stated that religion and worship did not exist before a cetin date (around 1300 i think.)"

... to this:

"it was stated that the concepts of religion, supernatural, and worship did not exist before a cetin date (around 1300 i think.)