History of God : Chapters 1 & 2 [ Edited ]

[Joseph_F]

 You keep saying this but there is no real response because your question misunderstands how evolution works. Just because something is inherent to humanity, it does not mean that there is an evolutionary advantage. I can only keep saying that evolution is not a guided process and that not all pieces will end up having a "purpose".  It is fairly easy to postulate some causes of religion if you see it as a side effect of evolutionary advantages (higher intelligence, self-awareness, desire for patterns), which is in fact that theory Armstrong offers. If you insist on asking a question that doesn't make sense within the theory of evolution, you're not going to be able to get a sensible answer within the theory of evolution.

---

Everyman wrote:

Well, actually it is how evolution works.  But that's not the real point. The point is that if every successful human society shows a particular trait, and none that lack that trait have been successful, it's a pretty safe bet that that trait was evolutionarily important. 

---

Message Edited by Joseph_F on 05-11-2009 11:25 AM

[Everyman]

your question misunderstands how evolution works.

Obviously one of us misunderstands how evolution works. 

Neither of us is an expert in the field.  You are obviously convinced that you understand the principles of social evolution better than I do, without so far having offered anything other than "it is what it is because I say it is."  (Which is a tack you have taken on other occasions, also, so it's no great surprise to me.) 

And I frankly don't think you understand it better than I do, because I simply don't agree with you that such a universal social practice as religion would have survived as such a central aspect of the social development of all successful societies if it didn't have some evolutionary benefit. 

So until we get an evolutionary sociologist in here to discuss the topic, it seems that we will just both have to keep believing what we believe.

I continue to think it is a valid question, and that if Armstrong doesn't address it anywhere in the book it is a significant weakness of her work, but I understand that you disagree with me.  

Meanwhile, there's no point in your keeping repeating that you are dismissing my question because you disagree with the premise.  I understand that to be the case, and simply repeating it another dozen times will get us no further.

If others agree with me about the premise of the question, I will be glad to discuss it further with them.  If not, the question will die off of its own accord.  

---

Joseph_F wrote:
 You keep saying this but there is no real response because your question misunderstands how evolution works. Just because something is inherent to humanity, it does not mean that there is an evolutionary advantage. I can only keep saying that evolution is not a guided process and that not all pieces will end up having a "purpose".  It is fairly easy to postulate some causes of religion if you see it as a side effect of evolutionary advantages (higher intelligence, self-awareness, desire for patterns), which is in fact that theory Armstrong offers. If you insist on asking a question that doesn't make sense within the theory of evolution, you're not going to be able to get a sensible answer within the theory of evolution.

---

Everyman wrote:

Well, actually it is how evolution works.  But that's not the real point. The point is that if every successful human society shows a particular trait, and none that lack that trait have been successful, it's a pretty safe bet that that trait was evolutionarily important. 

---

Message Edited by Joseph_F on 05-11-2009 11:25 AM

---

[Jon_B]

---

Everyman wrote:

a universal social practice as religion would have survived as such a central aspect of the social development of all successful societies if it didn't have some evolutionary benefit. 

---

Why not? What would have eliminated it?

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that that societies with religion or spirituality were successful while those without religion or spirituality died out.  

The first part is easy enough to prove, but the argument also depends on the second part, and there is little evidence of atheistic societies in the past, let alone societies that can be shown to have died out due to their atheism.  While the idea of atheism is certainly old and there have long been atheist individuals or atheist subsections of societies, I can't think of a single example of a past society whose mainstream culture truly lacked any sort of religion or spirituality.   

In order for religion to be shown to be of evolutionary benefit (socially speaking) we'd have to see a consistent pattern showing that societies lacking this trait have perished due to this lack.  Can you think of some societies for which this has been the case?

I realize, of course, that definitions of atheism vary.  In talking about societies I was referring to "lacking religion or spirituality" and again it is hard to find evidence of past societies for which this was true.  

If we soften the definition to "lacking belief in god(s)" or even "lacking belief in a personal/creator deity" there are many societies that fall under these examples.   Societies for which the dominant philosophies are Confucianist or Buddhist, for example, lack the necessity of belief in gods and thus to some people can be considered atheist.  Of course, many of these societies have not died out and in fact continue to thrive, so they probably wouldnt' work so well with the evolution argument.

Message Edited by Jon_B on 05-11-2009 01:05 PM

[Joseph_F]

Thanks Jon. You raise some good points.

As you point out, there is a problem of trying to define a society without religion since the term "atheist" has meant a lot of different things. Armstrong mentions in the book that Jews used to be considered atheists because they didn't believe in the Greek gods. Furthermore, as you point out, not all religions have a belief in gods. Confucianism, certain forms of Taoism, certain forms of Buddhism: religions? Yes. But atheist religions. 

I agree, without examples of societies without religions that did not survive, there is no reason to think that religion developed as an evolutionary advantage rather than as a side effect of other aspects of humanity.

Message Edited by Joseph_F on 05-11-2009 04:16 PM

[Adelle]

In order for religion to be shown to be of evolutionary benefit (socially speaking) we'd have to see a consistent pattern showing that societies lacking this trait have perished due to this lack.  Can you think of some societies for which this has been the case?

While yes, if we somehow had knowledge that societies lacking religion perished due to the lack of that trait, yes, that would tend to indicate that relgion was of some evolutionary benefit in the societies had religion and that survived.    

But, respectfully,  the lack of non-religious societies does not necessarily show that religion wasn't a benefit.  

Maybe there just weren't EVER any early societies without a religion aspect.  In which case the lack of such societies would prove nothing.  

Or, to look at a similarly structured statement:

In order for blue eggs to be shown to be of evolutionary benefit to robins, we'd have to see a consistent pattern showing that robins lacking this trait have perished due to this lack.  

There's just no way of knowing whether there ever were any non-blue robin's eggs or any societies without any religious aspect.   

So while in and of itself it doesn't PROVE blue eggs or religion were a benefit, still, we're left thinking that there must be some good reason why robin's eggs are blue and why early societies had some religious aspect. 

At least, that's how it seems to me.

[Jon_B]

---

Adelle wrote:

So while in and of itself it doesn't PROVE blue eggs or religion were a benefit, still, we're left thinking that there must be some good reason why robin's eggs are blue and why early societies had some religious aspect.  

---

Absolutely.  And I think there are many good reasons.  And the question of whether or not religion benefits society is a larger one - I personally think it does - but it doesn't fit into an evolution argument unless it's shown to be necessary for survival.  

Again, this also depends on the definition of religion.  If philosophies such as Confucianism or Buddhism are included in that definition, than the term religion really includes a large number of philosophies which may or may not involve the existence of deities.  In that sense one could say that all societies have of necessity developed such philophies not as a means of survival in the biological sense, but in the sense that they are part what makes a society a society.  But again, this involves a much wider definition of religion to the point where people who don't believe in anything supernatural would still fall under the category of "religious", and a number of other philosophies not always considered "religious" would fall under it. 

Message Edited by Jon_B on 05-11-2009 01:47 PM

[Everyman]

Why not? What would have eliminated it?

Fair question.  Of course, not having been there, I have no definitive answer.

But the argument is that religion, particularly in certain cultures, took an enormous amount of social resources.  Building the pyramids, for example. Commiting scarce resources (food, treasure, even lives in the case of those cultures which engaged in ritual sacrifice) to the gods. 

If there were no social benefit to religion, it seems fair to argue (not proof, I agree, but everything about the social customs of the ancient past is educated speculation -- have you ever read Motel of the Mysteries?) that at least some cultures would have abandoned it and thrived without it.   This is not a few people engaging in a practice, but whole cultures committed to this expenditure of resources. 

And no, I don't know of any societies (other than the Soviet Union) which expired due to abandonment of or failure to develop religion.  But (assuming as we are here the validity of evolution) recorded human history, and even archeological history, really covers such a short portion of human existence that we can't know what went on before.  I'm not aware of any successful civilization, for example, which didn't have tool making, hadn't discovered fire, hadn't learned to construct shelter.  Does this mean that we can fairly argue that none of these developments were important to the evolution of successful societies?   That's the argument you're making.  Is it one you're prepared to stick with?

Ovbiously I'm making some educated guesses about the past.   We have no other way to discuss the social environment of pre-historical times.  But I think the theory I'm offering is more likely than its opposite -- that every single successful culture developed a form of religious practice which consumed scarce societal resources without those religious practices being in any important to their success as societies.

---

Jon_B wrote:

---

Everyman wrote:

a universal social practice as religion would have survived as such a central aspect of the social development of all successful societies if it didn't have some evolutionary benefit. 

---

Why not? What would have eliminated it?

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that that societies with religion or spirituality were successful while those without religion or spirituality died out.  

The first part is easy enough to prove, but the argument also depends on the second part, and there is little evidence of atheistic societies in the past, let alone societies that can be shown to have died out due to their atheism.  While the idea of atheism is certainly old and there have long been atheist individuals or atheist subsections of societies, I can't think of a single example of a past society whose mainstream culture truly lacked any sort of religion or spirituality.   

In order for religion to be shown to be of evolutionary benefit (socially speaking) we'd have to see a consistent pattern showing that societies lacking this trait have perished due to this lack.  Can you think of some societies for which this has been the case?

I realize, of course, that definitions of atheism vary.  In talking about societies I was referring to "lacking religion or spirituality" and again it is hard to find evidence of past societies for which this was true.  

If we soften the definition to "lacking belief in god(s)" or even "lacking belief in a personal/creator deity" there are many societies that fall under these examples.   Societies for which the dominant philosophies are Confucianist or Buddhist, for example, lack the necessity of belief in gods and thus to some people can be considered atheist.  Of course, many of these societies have not died out and in fact continue to thrive, so they probably wouldnt' work so well with the evolution argument.

Message Edited by Jon_B on 05-11-2009 01:05 PM

---

[Everyman]

Adelle wrote:  In order for blue eggs to be shown to be of evolutionary benefit to robins, we'd have to see a consistent pattern showing that robins lacking this trait have perished due to this lack.  

There's just no way of knowing whether there ever were any non-blue robin's eggs or any societies without any religious aspect.   

So while in and of itself it doesn't PROVE blue eggs or religion were a benefit, still, we're left thinking that there must be some good reason why robin's eggs are blue and why early societies had some religious aspect.

Very nicely put.  

---

Adelle wrote:

In order for religion to be shown to be of evolutionary benefit (socially speaking) we'd have to see a consistent pattern showing that societies lacking this trait have perished due to this lack.  Can you think of some societies for which this has been the case?

While yes, if we somehow had knowledge that societies lacking religion perished due to the lack of that trait, yes, that would tend to indicate that relgion was of some evolutionary benefit in the societies had religion and that survived.    

But, respectfully,  the lack of non-religious societies does not necessarily show that religion wasn't a benefit.  

Maybe there just weren't EVER any early societies without a religion aspect.  In which case the lack of such societies would prove nothing.  

Or, to look at a similarly structured statement:

In order for blue eggs to be shown to be of evolutionary benefit to robins, we'd have to see a consistent pattern showing that robins lacking this trait have perished due to this lack.  

There's just no way of knowing whether there ever were any non-blue robin's eggs or any societies without any religious aspect.   

So while in and of itself it doesn't PROVE blue eggs or religion were a benefit, still, we're left thinking that there must be some good reason why robin's eggs are blue and why early societies had some religious aspect. 

At least, that's how it seems to me.

---

[Everyman]

This discussion of the importance or value of religion to societies is interesting (at least to me, and has sparked some discussion), but I also see that it has strayed a bit from direct discussion of Armstrong's book.  Perhaps, Jon, you might consider moving this discussion into its own thread?  After all, it might have "legs" even after we finish with Armstrong and get into other books.

[Choisya]

And no, I don't know of any societies (other than the Soviet Union) which expired due to abandonment of or failure to develop religion. 

The 'abandonment' of religion had precious little to do with the failure of Soviet society!  Political (particularly agricultural) mismanagement, Cold War economics, Gorbachev, Reagan et al but not the lack of religion.  There are also those who would say that belief in God was temporarily exchanged by the masses for belief in Communism which could be construed as an alternative religion.

---

Everyman wrote:

Why not? What would have eliminated it?

Fair question.  Of course, not having been there, I have no definitive answer.

But the argument is that religion, particularly in certain cultures, took an enormous amount of social resources.  Building the pyramids, for example. Commiting scarce resources (food, treasure, even lives in the case of those cultures which engaged in ritual sacrifice) to the gods. 

If there were no social benefit to religion, it seems fair to argue (not proof, I agree, but everything about the social customs of the ancient past is educated speculation -- have you ever read Motel of the Mysteries?) that at least some cultures would have abandoned it and thrived without it.   This is not a few people engaging in a practice, but whole cultures committed to this expenditure of resources. 

And no, I don't know of any societies (other than the Soviet Union) which expired due to abandonment of or failure to develop religion.  But (assuming as we are here the validity of evolution) recorded human history, and even archeological history, really covers such a short portion of human existence that we can't know what went on before.  I'm not aware of any successful civilization, for example, which didn't have tool making, hadn't discovered fire, hadn't learned to construct shelter.  Does this mean that we can fairly argue that none of these developments were important to the evolution of successful societies?   That's the argument you're making.  Is it one you're prepared to stick with?

Ovbiously I'm making some educated guesses about the past.   We have no other way to discuss the social environment of pre-historical times.  But I think the theory I'm offering is more likely than its opposite -- that every single successful culture developed a form of religious practice which consumed scarce societal resources without those religious practices being in any important to their success as societies.

---

Jon_B wrote:

---

Everyman wrote:

a universal social practice as religion would have survived as such a central aspect of the social development of all successful societies if it didn't have some evolutionary benefit. 

---

Why not? What would have eliminated it?

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that that societies with religion or spirituality were successful while those without religion or spirituality died out.  

The first part is easy enough to prove, but the argument also depends on the second part, and there is little evidence of atheistic societies in the past, let alone societies that can be shown to have died out due to their atheism.  While the idea of atheism is certainly old and there have long been atheist individuals or atheist subsections of societies, I can't think of a single example of a past society whose mainstream culture truly lacked any sort of religion or spirituality.   

In order for religion to be shown to be of evolutionary benefit (socially speaking) we'd have to see a consistent pattern showing that societies lacking this trait have perished due to this lack.  Can you think of some societies for which this has been the case?

I realize, of course, that definitions of atheism vary.  In talking about societies I was referring to "lacking religion or spirituality" and again it is hard to find evidence of past societies for which this was true.  

If we soften the definition to "lacking belief in god(s)" or even "lacking belief in a personal/creator deity" there are many societies that fall under these examples.   Societies for which the dominant philosophies are Confucianist or Buddhist, for example, lack the necessity of belief in gods and thus to some people can be considered atheist.  Of course, many of these societies have not died out and in fact continue to thrive, so they probably wouldnt' work so well with the evolution argument.

Message Edited by Jon_B on 05-11-2009 01:05 PM

---

---

[Redcatlady]

---

Adelle wrote:

{I enjoyed reading the postings, but life got in the way of my getting back to this board for a while.}

First, thank you for the kind words. I am trying to be thoughtful, to engage with the book.

Choisya wrote:

Do you apply this [the idea that man can not ever understand God] to the New Testament too? I thought that Jesus came to explain things, to make humans understand more? Also, even if the Bible is the 'word of God' one has to ask why God bothered to reveal himself in words, if it was not to make humans understand him better? Not altogether, but better.

Hi Choisya, I found this to be a most intriquing question. It's the expressed thought or question of yours that I was most drawn to respond to. And...well, you did ask.

My understanding has never been that God/Jesus came to explain things to make humans understand God better. But then you went on to ask "why?"; and that's such a legitimate question; and I didn't have any ready explanation.

Sigh. If only I had studied my Bible more. But I'll make an attempt. MY interpretation---which, of course, is the only interpretation I can offer----is that Jesus came not to help us understand God, or even to help us understand God better {an impossibility}, but ... to provide us with a better connection to God...AND to require more of us.

I'm only a lay person, remember. My take is that the "Old Testament" (which didn't really even exist back then....There was the Torah, and writings on the Torah) had become so rigid, so rule-encrusted, that it had become difficult for people to make a connection with God and thus lead good spiritual lives. (Jesus: "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. John 10:10.)

It seems to me that Jesus was saying that the people were paying attention to the RULES and not paying attention to the source/ importance behind the rules. (Rather like the image Joseph had given us of the pointing finger. It's not the finger that's important.)

Many people were going about their lives: "yeah, yeah, yeah, I followed all the rules, etc. 'All these things I have kept from my youth.' " But following the rules is only external/secular behaviour. God values the internal/spiritual. {And if you have the internal Mmm. If you do something for your child and you receive a routine thank you, or if you have to prompt your child to say Thank you....the thank you is not as valuable as a heartfelt Thank you. God is concerned with our hearts.

An analogy that rather works for me is that when God established his convenant with Abraham, the spiritual connection was akin to that of an electrical connection. Abraham and his descendants could spiritually feel God's presence.

But as time went on the priests tried to codify God. Face it, written rules are easier to enforce ... and easier to follow ... and mean less .... than rules/life concepts that have been derived through individual struggle.

But just as corrosion on an electrical cable diminishes the connectivity, so also the accumulation of human-priest-Pharasee rules and regulations strongly tends to diminish one's spiritual connection to God.

Jesus came to strip away the outer "rules" ... and, really, require more of us ... the last half of Matthew 5 is pretty much Jesus saying: You know that it is written; but that's not enough ... "Love your neighbor." Not enough. "I say, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you.."

Choisya wrote: Also, even if the Bible is the 'word of God' one has to ask why God bothered to reveal himself in words, if it was not to make humans understand him better?

I do have some thoughts on this, but I think it belongs with Chapter 3 material. And I hesitate to post regarding Chapter 3 or 4.

---

I find I agree with you on this, especially about the Pharasees and their attempts to force rules that had once only been for the priest class down the throats of ordinary people. It never works. I always wondered why they never realized that.

Redcatlady

Message Edited by Joseph_F on 05-12-2009 08:13 AM

[Joseph_F]

Chapter 2: One God

A few quick discussion questions:

1. Here again we see the idea that the basis of monotheism is separation. There is humanity, and then there is God: immutable, removed, fundementally different from us. We are made in God's image, but we are not God. Armstrong says here that the word "holy" itself originally was a word used to describe "otherness". Thoughts?

2.  She also repeats here another of her basic themes, that descriptions of Gods are merely attempts to put into human tongue experiences that simply cannot be described with words. She refers to Isaiah's vision of God's throne as an "attempt to describe the indescribable" by "reverting instinctively to the mythological traditions of his people". What do you think? Is it possible that if a Buddhist was given the same divine experience as Isaiah, he would come away describing a scene out of Buddhist mythology? 

3. Described in this chapter are the prophets, who live in ways that separate them from society (by doing or saying socially unacceptable things) in order to push their people back to God. Why do you think it was important that they be outsiders to society rather than work within it as powerful leaders or clergy? Is there a role that can only be played by the revolutionary outsider? And what does this have to do with the idea of separation as holy?

4. I found it very interesting her explanation of idolotry, that the statues were never worshipped as themselves but as symbols that pointed to the divine. Most religions have such physical objects, including Judaism, which makes the Biblical fury towards idolotry interesting. What is it about the use of physical objects to represent gods that was so dangerous?

5. Another of Armstrong's themes is that monotheism was a very new idea, and a idea that the Bible sometimes seems to have not heard of. How do you interpret Psalm 82, which she quotes, and which seems to describe quite clearly a speech given by God to several other gods in a counicl of gods? Still monotheism or no?

6.  What do you think about this quote: "Even though monotheists would insist that their God transcended gender,he would remain essentially male"? Also, she didn't mention this I believe, but the Shekinah, one of the aspects of God described in Rabbinic Judaism, is often represented as the female aspect of God.

7. I found fascinating her explanation of Psalm 137 ("How can we sing of the Lord in a strange land?" ) as a holdover from pagan gods whose power only extended to their physical territories. It was an interpretaion that had never occured to me.

Message Edited by Joseph_F on 05-12-2009 08:30 AM

[Everyman]

We could discuss this, but in the right place, not in a discussion of Armstrong.

---

Choisya wrote:

And no, I don't know of any societies (other than the Soviet Union) which expired due to abandonment of or failure to develop religion. 

The 'abandonment' of religion had precious little to do with the failure of Soviet society!  Political (particularly agricultural) mismanagement, Cold War economics, Gorbachev, Reagan et al but not the lack of religion.  There are also those who would say that belief in God was temporarily exchanged by the masses for belief in Communism which could be construed as an alternative religion.

*removed the lengthy quote for readability purposes  - Joseph*

---

Message Edited by Joseph_F on 05-12-2009 01:00 PM

Message Edited by Joseph_F on 05-12-2009 02:23 PM

[Choisya]

Also, she didn't mention this I believe, but the Shekinah, one of the aspects of God described in Rabbinic Judaism, is often represented as the female aspect of God.

There is a reference to the 'feminity of' Shekinah (God's presence) in the chapter The God of the Mystics, where KA mentions that in the Kabbalah the Shekinah becomes the 'female aspect of God' and is  identified with the Gnostic figure of Sophia, who represents wisdom.  The Zohar links this with the fall of Adam as recounted in Genesis.  'It says that Adam was shown in the 'middle sefiroth  in the Tree of Life and the Shekinah in the Tree of Knowledge. Instead of worshipping the seven sefiroth together, he chose to venerate the Sekinah alone, sundering life from knowledge and rupturing the unity of the sefiroth. The divine life could no longer flow uninterruptedly into the world, which was isolated from its divine Source.  But by obseving the Torah, the community of Israel could heal the exile of the Shekinah and reunite the world to the Godhead.' 

I guess this will be relevant to our forthcoming discussion of Genesis and creation myths. 

[Peppermill]

It is relevant to carefully distinguish between evolution (of species,  of life, within species...), which is dependent on (random) changes in chemical structure of DNA along with subsequent breeding and inbreeding, versus what our language/word usage may refer to as "social  evolution."

I am not at all certain that the analogy is valid, but one that occurs to me is whether government is an evolutionary necessity or source of survival?  I am not certain that question has anything to do with evolution per se either, although certainly traits that underlie or support the creation and support of goverments may have evolved.

Personally, I certainly would turn to writers other than Karen Armstrong if I were to attempt to explore the relationship of religion to evolution.  I do not see those issues as the focus of her explorations that she attempts to articulate. Sometimes it strikes me that KA tries to use information to obtain revelations of God not available to her in the ways attested by the mystics of history.

---

Everyman wrote:

your question misunderstands how evolution works.

Obviously one of us misunderstands how evolution works. 

Neither of us is an expert in the field.  You are obviously convinced that you understand the principles of social evolution better than I do, without so far having offered anything other than "it is what it is because I say it is."  (Which is a tack you have taken on other occasions, also, so it's no great surprise to me.) 

And I frankly don't think you understand it better than I do, because I simply don't agree with you that such a universal social practice as religion would have survived as such a central aspect of the social development of all successful societies if it didn't have some evolutionary benefit. 

So until we get an evolutionary sociologist in here to discuss the topic, it seems that we will just both have to keep believing what we believe.

I continue to think it is a valid question, and that if Armstrong doesn't address it anywhere in the book it is a significant weakness of her work, but I understand that you disagree with me.  

Meanwhile, there's no point in your keeping repeating that you are dismissing my question because you disagree with the premise.  I understand that to be the case, and simply repeating it another dozen times will get us no further.

If others agree with me about the premise of the question, I will be glad to discuss it further with them.  If not, the question will die off of its own accord.  

---

Joseph_F wrote:
 You keep saying this but there is no real response because your question misunderstands how evolution works. Just because something is inherent to humanity, it does not mean that there is an evolutionary advantage. I can only keep saying that evolution is not a guided process and that not all pieces will end up having a "purpose".  It is fairly easy to postulate some causes of religion if you see it as a side effect of evolutionary advantages (higher intelligence, self-awareness, desire for patterns), which is in fact that theory Armstrong offers. If you insist on asking a question that doesn't make sense within the theory of evolution, you're not going to be able to get a sensible answer within the theory of evolution.

---

Everyman wrote:

Well, actually it is how evolution works.  But that's not the real point. The point is that if every successful human society shows a particular trait, and none that lack that trait have been successful, it's a pretty safe bet that that trait was evolutionarily important. 

---

---

[Choisya]

I agree that it is important to distinguish between the evolution of the species by natural selection and social evolution P.  I also agree that KA is not attempting to explore the relationship of evolution to religion.  That is not her thesis in this book, nor in her other books so there is no 'significant weakness' there.  She does admit in several of her books that her research sometimes became a quest to find the God of the mystics, the God that she entered a convent to find. 

I think I am right in saying that religious people believe that God has always been present in the lives of homo sapiens, that it is an article of faith.  However, this cannot be proved any more than the origin of religion can be proved.  It is therefore useless to blame Armstrong for not trying to prove something which is unprovable either from a religious or an evolutionary standpoint.  We must deal with her book as history as she saw it after conducting intensive historical research into the origins of the major religions, travelling in the Middle East, consulting rabbis, priests, scholars etc.  She is not trying to disprove the existence of Yahweh/God/Allah and she clearly believes in the value of religious belief, if not in religious orthodoxy.     

---

Peppermill wrote:

It is relevant to carefully distinguish between evolution (of species,  of life, within species...), which is dependent on (random) changes in chemical structure of DNA along with subsequent breeding and inbreeding, versus what our language/word usage may refer to as "social  evolution."

I am not at all certain that the analogy is valid, but one that occurs to me is whether government is an evolutionary necessity or source of survival?  I am not certain that question has anything to do with evolution per se either, although certainly traits that underlie or support the creation and support of goverments may have evolved.

Personally, I certainly would turn to writers other than Karen Armstrong if I were to attempt to explore the relationship of religion to evolution.  I do not see those issues as the focus of her explorations that she attempts to articulate. Sometimes it strikes me that KA tries to use information to obtain revelations of God not available to her in the ways attested by the mystics of history.

---

Everyman wrote:

your question misunderstands how evolution works.

Obviously one of us misunderstands how evolution works. 

Neither of us is an expert in the field.  You are obviously convinced that you understand the principles of social evolution better than I do, without so far having offered anything other than "it is what it is because I say it is."  (Which is a tack you have taken on other occasions, also, so it's no great surprise to me.) 

And I frankly don't think you understand it better than I do, because I simply don't agree with you that such a universal social practice as religion would have survived as such a central aspect of the social development of all successful societies if it didn't have some evolutionary benefit. 

So until we get an evolutionary sociologist in here to discuss the topic, it seems that we will just both have to keep believing what we believe.

I continue to think it is a valid question, and that if Armstrong doesn't address it anywhere in the book it is a significant weakness of her work, but I understand that you disagree with me.  

Meanwhile, there's no point in your keeping repeating that you are dismissing my question because you disagree with the premise.  I understand that to be the case, and simply repeating it another dozen times will get us no further.

If others agree with me about the premise of the question, I will be glad to discuss it further with them.  If not, the question will die off of its own accord.  

---

Joseph_F wrote:
 You keep saying this but there is no real response because your question misunderstands how evolution works. Just because something is inherent to humanity, it does not mean that there is an evolutionary advantage. I can only keep saying that evolution is not a guided process and that not all pieces will end up having a "purpose".  It is fairly easy to postulate some causes of religion if you see it as a side effect of evolutionary advantages (higher intelligence, self-awareness, desire for patterns), which is in fact that theory Armstrong offers. If you insist on asking a question that doesn't make sense within the theory of evolution, you're not going to be able to get a sensible answer within the theory of evolution.

---

Everyman wrote:

Well, actually it is how evolution works.  But that's not the real point. The point is that if every successful human society shows a particular trait, and none that lack that trait have been successful, it's a pretty safe bet that that trait was evolutionarily important. 

---

---

---

[Adelle]

  

Joseph, I’m unaware of what the procedure is for posting book-related, but not discussion question-related, thoughts …   or what the procedure is for opting out for a while.   So I’m just posting here and you can delete or move the post.  And I’m sorry for being so wordy.

Thank you for allowing me to participate in your discussion, but I think I’ll be dropping out until Chapter 9 – The Enlightenment.   Armstrong has more familiarity with religions than I ever will; but she’s failing to convince me of her viewpoints.  

I must confess [good word choice regarding a book on religion, yes?] that I’m having difficulties with Armstrong’s book: I’m not sure my interest outweighs the effort at this point:  I have to keep looking stuff up because I don’t quite trust her. 

Example: on page 40 Armstrong writes “As Isaiah prayed in the Temple shortly after King Uzziah’s death, he was probably full of foreboding; at the same time he may have been uncomfortably aware of the inappropriateness of the lavish Temple ceremonial.  Isaiah may have been a member of the ruling class, but he had populist and democratic views and was highly sensitive to the plight of the poor.  As the incense filled the sanctuary […] he may have feared that the religion of Israel had lost its integrity and inner meaning.”   

I just don’t know where she got this information from.  I went back to Isaiah and I couldn’t find support for it.   It strikes me as being full of supposition. 

Likewise, I was very put off by how on the bottom of page 49/top of page 50, Armstrong offers up a supposition (“the worship of ‘false’ gods, inspires something akin to nausea.  It is a reaction that is, perhaps, similar to the revulsion that some of the Fathers of the Church would feel for sexuality”)   and then builds on that supposition as though it were a fact (“As such…it is expressive of deep anxiety and repression”).   

To take the first paragraph of page 41 (because I don’t want to overly bore people by going on and on)(and I’m trying Joseph, to follow your admonition not to get too far removed from Armstrong's actual points…but if I don’t agree with her basis for her points I feel I have to address that)… I had difficulty with her writing of “the immense gulf that had suddenly yawned between man and the divine world.”   In her quote from Isaiah, she includes Bible line, “His glory fills the whole earth,” which to me implies a connection, not a separation.

I tried to research the word kaddosh on Jewish blogsites, and what I gleaned was that while it means  “otherness,” it doesn’t necessarily mean, to quote Armstrong, “a radical separation.”   One site’s definition: “Kadosh doesn’t only mean that He, Himself, is non-physical or immaterial, but that He is totally UNLIKE any physical thing.   He does not have any physical or material attributes or qualities, neither essential nor accidental.”   

My rough analogy for this was to think of humans as, well, humans, and God as an immense ocean or as the very atmosphere.   On one level, humans are nothing like water or air, and yet we are totally and constantly immersed.  “His glory fills the whole earth.”   So I don’t see Armstrong backing up “a radical separation.”  Sure, we’re not the SAME as God, but we already knew that.        

  

Nor, still on page 41, can I agree with her statement that “The apparition of Yahweh on Mount Sinai had emphasized” the above mentioned separation.     To my way of thinking, Yahweh’s…personal meeting (for want of a better term; and I’m sure a better term exists but is beyond my reach right now) with Moses was anything but a radical separation.   It was, to my mind, the opposite: it was a connection.     A connection in SOME sort of physical sense (Moses was there; the voice of God was there; the cloud representing/or covering God was there) and a connection in a caring sense (God is giving to Moses the principles which, if adhered to, will provide the foundation for a good life for the people).  

   And lastly, I had to look numinous up because I didn’t know what it meant. 

From a  Brookline academic edu site: Background: Otto's VocabularyIn The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into the Non-rational Factor in the Idea of the Divine and its Relation to the Rational, Rudolph Otto identifies and explores the non-rational mystery behind religion and the religious experience ("non-rational" should not be confused with "irrational"); he called this mystery, which is the basic element in all religions, the numinous. He uses the related word "numen" to refer to deity or God. 

When Armstrong writes, “There is nothing rational about this overpowering experience,” my take is that she is strongly implying---although, granted, she doesn’t

actually say---that the experience is irrational.       

From Wikipedia:  According to Otto the numinous experience has two aspects: mysterium tremendum, which is the tendency to invoke fear and trembling; and mysterium fascinas, the tendency to attract, fascinate and compel. The numinous experience also has a personal quality to it, in that the person feels to be in communion with a wholly other.

   

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the thrust of her position, but if so, I’m not inclined to do the work necessary to understand it….Smile…until Chapter 8 or 9 which look fascinating.  

  

I can tell that a number of people on this site have a much more extensive reading background in this field than I do and I shall enjoy reading their backandforth thoughts on Armstrong.    I’m just throwing out my thoughts for what they're worth.   Thanks.

[Joseph_F]

---

Adelle wrote:
  

Joseph, I’m unaware of what the procedure is for posting book-related, but not discussion question-related, thoughts …   or what the procedure is for opting out for a while.   So I’m just posting here and you can delete or move the post.  And I’m sorry for being so wordy.

---

The discussion questions are just there to get people talking. Everyone is welcome to bring up discussion points themselves.  

---

Likewise, I was very put off by how on the bottom of page 49/top of page 50, Armstrong offers up a supposition (“the worship of ‘false’ gods, inspires something akin to nausea.  It is a reaction that is, perhaps, similar to the revulsion that some of the Fathers of the Church would feel for sexuality” )   and then builds on that supposition as though it were a fact (“As such…it is expressive of deep anxiety and repression” ).   

---

 Of course you don't have to read anything you don't want to read! It's a voluntary discussion But I thought I'd respond to some of your ponts. For instance here, the Fathers of the Church and their revulsion towards sexuality is not something that she is supposing but is something that was written about extensively. Later on she mentions one who castrated himself. Others went their whole lives celibate to remain pure. The last part is of course her own psychological interpretation of a newly monotheistic religion in a polytheistic world and a newly (not sure the word here, but not-into-sex-as-a-whole) religion in the not so innocent Roman Empire.

---

To take the first paragraph of page 41 (because I don’t want to overly bore people by going on and on)(and I’m trying Joseph, to follow your admonition not to get too far removed from Armstrong's actual points…but if I don’t agree with her basis for her points I feel I have to address that)… I had difficulty with her writing of “the immense gulf that had suddenly yawned between man and the divine world.”   In her quote from Isaiah, she includes Bible line, “His glory fills the whole earth,” which to me implies a connection, not a separation.

---

The gulf she dicusses here is not one of physical distance (rather she argues continually the opposite, that we find God within) but of states of being. Previously, Gods were part of the same spectrum as humans. In the same way that humans were to dogs, gods were to humans. Concievably even, an extraordinary human being could become a god. The Israelite religion (and other religions at the time) changed that, making God an entirely separate being, outside of the spectrum of our world. This is what she means by radical separation.

---

I tried to research the word kaddosh on Jewish blogsites, and what I gleaned was that while it means  “otherness,” it doesn’t necessarily mean, to quote Armstrong, “a radical separation.”   One site’s definition: “Kadosh doesn’t only mean that He, Himself, is non-physical or immaterial, but that He is totally UNLIKE any physical thing.   He does not have any physical or material attributes or qualities, neither essential nor accidental.”   

---

Which is exactly what this blogsite you've found is saying. That the separation implied is otherness, not one of distance. Although since she is dealing with an ancient meaning of the word, Hebrew scholars would be a better source than modern Jewish interpreters. 

---

Nor, still on page 41, can I agree with her statement that “The apparition of Yahweh on Mount Sinai had emphasized” the above mentioned separation.     To my way of thinking, Yahweh’s…personal meeting (for want of a better term; and I’m sure a better term exists but is beyond my reach right now) with Moses was anything but a radical separation.   It was, to my mind, the opposite: it was a connection.     A connection in SOME sort of physical sense (Moses was there; the voice of God was there; the cloud representing/or covering God was there) and a connection in a caring sense (God is giving to Moses the principles which, if adhered to, will provide the foundation for a good life for the people).  

---

So in summary she is not saying anything about an uncaring God or a physically distant God, but a God that is entirely unlike us. As you say, now "we all know that", but Armstrong's point is at that time this idea was revolutionary.  

---

When Armstrong writes, “There is nothing rational about this overpowering experience,” my take is that she is strongly implying---although, granted, she doesn’t

actually say---that the experience is irrational.       

---

That is exactly what she's saying, but she doesn't mean it in a negative way. Faith is irrational, because that is what it is meant to be. It wouldn't be faith if it required logic to back it up. And the religious ecstacy she describes is even more irrational because it is simply beyond reason; it does not need to be proven or disproven, it exists by the simple powerful fact of the experience. If all aspects of a religion are 100% rational, one would have to wonder if that really even counted as a religion. 

---

 Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the thrust of her position, but if so, I’m not inclined to do the work necessary to understand it….Smile…until Chapter 8 or 9 which look fascinating.  

---

 I guess we'll see you then

Message Edited by Joseph_F on 05-15-2009 06:39 AM

[Everyman]

Personally, I certainly would turn to writers other than Karen Armstrong if I were to attempt to explore the relationship of religion to evolution.  I do not see those issues as the focus of her explorations that she attempts to articulate.

I agree.  My point was that in presenting a history of God without (at least so far as I have gotten in the book) addressing (in other than the most general terms) the question why these historical acts took place and what their societal importance was, her approach to history is a quite limited one, and not in line with the  prevailing current approach to history, which seeks to answer not only the what but the why and the so what.  

That doesn't make her wrong, or useless.  It just points out that her approach seems intentionally very limited, almost akin to minutely examining and describing every needle of a pine tree without ever recognizing that there is a purpose to their being on the tree in the first place, and that the tree has a role to play in the ecology of the world.  

But again, I have to keep being clear that these observations (as probably are those of most of us) are based on reading to the point of our present discussions.  She may get into these issues later in the book, though I see no evidence that she intends to. 

[Everyman]

Adelle wrote:  Armstrong has more familiarity with religions than I ever will; but she’s failing to convince me of her viewpoints.  

I'm curious -- what do you think are the viewoints she's trying to convince you of?  

---

Adelle wrote:
  

Joseph, I’m unaware of what the procedure is for posting book-related, but not discussion question-related, thoughts …   or what the procedure is for opting out for a while.   So I’m just posting here and you can delete or move the post.  And I’m sorry for being so wordy.

Thank you for allowing me to participate in your discussion, but I think I’ll be dropping out until Chapter 9 – The Enlightenment.   Armstrong has more familiarity with religions than I ever will; but she’s failing to convince me of her viewpoints.  

I must confess [good word choice regarding a book on religion, yes?] that I’m having difficulties with Armstrong’s book: I’m not sure my interest outweighs the effort at this point:  I have to keep looking stuff up because I don’t quite trust her. 

Example: on page 40 Armstrong writes “As Isaiah prayed in the Temple shortly after King Uzziah’s death, he was probably full of foreboding; at the same time he may have been uncomfortably aware of the inappropriateness of the lavish Temple ceremonial.  Isaiah may have been a member of the ruling class, but he had populist and democratic views and was highly sensitive to the plight of the poor.  As the incense filled the sanctuary […] he may have feared that the religion of Israel had lost its integrity and inner meaning.”   

I just don’t know where she got this information from.  I went back to Isaiah and I couldn’t find support for it.   It strikes me as being full of supposition. 

Likewise, I was very put off by how on the bottom of page 49/top of page 50, Armstrong offers up a supposition (“the worship of ‘false’ gods, inspires something akin to nausea.  It is a reaction that is, perhaps, similar to the revulsion that some of the Fathers of the Church would feel for sexuality”)   and then builds on that supposition as though it were a fact (“As such…it is expressive of deep anxiety and repression”).   

To take the first paragraph of page 41 (because I don’t want to overly bore people by going on and on)(and I’m trying Joseph, to follow your admonition not to get too far removed from Armstrong's actual points…but if I don’t agree with her basis for her points I feel I have to address that)… I had difficulty with her writing of “the immense gulf that had suddenly yawned between man and the divine world.”   In her quote from Isaiah, she includes Bible line, “His glory fills the whole earth,” which to me implies a connection, not a separation.

I tried to research the word kaddosh on Jewish blogsites, and what I gleaned was that while it means  “otherness,” it doesn’t necessarily mean, to quote Armstrong, “a radical separation.”   One site’s definition: “Kadosh doesn’t only mean that He, Himself, is non-physical or immaterial, but that He is totally UNLIKE any physical thing.   He does not have any physical or material attributes or qualities, neither essential nor accidental.”   

My rough analogy for this was to think of humans as, well, humans, and God as an immense ocean or as the very atmosphere.   On one level, humans are nothing like water or air, and yet we are totally and constantly immersed.  “His glory fills the whole earth.”   So I don’t see Armstrong backing up “a radical separation.”  Sure, we’re not the SAME as God, but we already knew that.        

  

Nor, still on page 41, can I agree with her statement that “The apparition of Yahweh on Mount Sinai had emphasized” the above mentioned separation.     To my way of thinking, Yahweh’s…personal meeting (for want of a better term; and I’m sure a better term exists but is beyond my reach right now) with Moses was anything but a radical separation.   It was, to my mind, the opposite: it was a connection.     A connection in SOME sort of physical sense (Moses was there; the voice of God was there; the cloud representing/or covering God was there) and a connection in a caring sense (God is giving to Moses the principles which, if adhered to, will provide the foundation for a good life for the people).  

   And lastly, I had to look numinous up because I didn’t know what it meant. 

From a  Brookline academic edu site: Background: Otto's VocabularyIn The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into the Non-rational Factor in the Idea of the Divine and its Relation to the Rational, Rudolph Otto identifies and explores the non-rational mystery behind religion and the religious experience ("non-rational" should not be confused with "irrational"); he called this mystery, which is the basic element in all religions, the numinous. He uses the related word "numen" to refer to deity or God. 

When Armstrong writes, “There is nothing rational about this overpowering experience,” my take is that she is strongly implying---although, granted, she doesn’t

actually say---that the experience is irrational.       

From Wikipedia:  According to Otto the numinous experience has two aspects: mysterium tremendum, which is the tendency to invoke fear and trembling; and mysterium fascinas, the tendency to attract, fascinate and compel. The numinous experience also has a personal quality to it, in that the person feels to be in communion with a wholly other.

   

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the thrust of her position, but if so, I’m not inclined to do the work necessary to understand it….Smile…until Chapter 8 or 9 which look fascinating.  

  

I can tell that a number of people on this site have a much more extensive reading background in this field than I do and I shall enjoy reading their backandforth thoughts on Armstrong.    I’m just throwing out my thoughts for what they're worth.   Thanks.

---