Where Did the Idea of Gods Come From?

[the last man]

Quote by: rcne This is one, you can find more cultural anthropological concerning Neanderthal ritual burials by using google. Shaman Cape

thanks man

[Athena]

Quote by: Fonceai @Osborn But what about the first person to conceive of god. Why would they have that idea?

Because it makes sense. All these ideas of gods and fairies and demons begin with an experince, and then an explanation of that experience that makes sense.

You know how we name our computers and cars and talk their personality? Primitive people would do this as well, only their stories about sisters turned to stone, carried survival information. That is where water can be found. This is still practiced today by primitive peoples living as they have for thousands of years, retelling the stories that have been told for thousands of years.

If you live where the soil is fertile and climate is mild, it is easy to love the mother earth who gives all things life. If you live where the weather is violent and deadly snow storms and lightening fall from the ski, it makes sense to fear the sky god who just assume kill pathetic humans. Or if you live in a more arid region, you will call on the power that makes rain and ask for rain.

That power that makes something happen, verses a god, is how different?

And what of language? The language we use is very materialistic and we can easily catagorize things. This was not true of the Sumerian language. They didn't have words for trees, bushes, etc.. It is almost impossible to even image thinking without our vocabulary, but if your language doesn't distinguish one thing from another, you probably live with a spiritual reality, verses a materialistic reality.

Sacred stories carry some kind of survival information, such as there was a flood and then a terrible, very long draught that reduced the river to almost nothing, and then the rains returned, the valley bloomed with life and everyone returned to plant in the fertile soil. Perhaps a hundred years later no living person remembers what happened, but everyone remembers the story. What was talked about because it was an awesome event, is now a sacred story that must be retold.

[Athena]

Quote by: Autolykos Actually, there was a species of giant lizard (like the komodo "dragon") that prowled Eurasia until relatively recent times. Ironically, the Greek origin of the English word "dragon", drakôn, literally meant "seer", and had no connotations with reptiles. Let me amend to what Fonceai and Isherwood have posted. It's a natural human tendency to conceptually divide the world into the Self and the Other. Obviously, the Other is much greater than the Self -- and even contains other Selves, as one (usually) comes to find out. We come to recognize those other Selves as fellow human beings. However, a lot of nonhuman things in the Other also exhibit humanlike qualities. For example, people can move, and plenty of other things can also move. Since people normally move by choice, it stands to reason that the other moving things also move by choice. In other words, just as people's actions are under their own control, other acting things are also under the control of something. But what is controlling them? Here we must make an important conclusion -- there are other Selves that are not human, but humanlike. Indeed, the Other could be said to consist entirely of Selves, some of which are human, and some of which are not. At this point, we've entered the realm of shamanism/animism. My explanation above has simply used the term "Self" in place of "spirit" or "force". Now, the next important conclusion is that there is a hierarchy of Selves. Human Selves occupy but one place in this hierarchy. There are some Selves that are below us, namely the things that we can control. In earliest times, this meant inert physical objects, but soon came to include fire and many (if not most) living things. On the other hand, there are many Selves which we cannot control, which can be said to lie above us. It stands to reason, then, that if we 1) can control the Selves below, and 2) cannot control the Selves above, then those higher Selves control us. Here we have come to the point of formal divinity. One other linguistic tidbit: the word "divine" comes to us from Latin divinus, which in turn came from deus "god". However, this word for "god" originally came from an Indo-European word for "sky"! What is more fundamentally above us than that? - Rob

You explained this very well. Amazing how much easier it is to grasp a concept when it is well stated.

Which reminds me, the Greek gods and goddess are all concepts. Each time the people who believed in many gods, realized a new concept, they named a new god. Greek mythology is actually the language for civilization, as naming things electrons, protons quarts, etc. is a language for quantum physics. The reality of both subatomic particles, and gods is, equally questionable.

Divinity, divine, divide, divination- math is divine and explains divinity. Before going too far in saying myth is from imagination, it also involves math and natural cycles. That is why those who study and understand such things must have power, to help us live in harmony with the forces and protect us from the forces, and the problems that arise when things are not in the right order. Yesterday's priest is today's scientist, and civil engineer. And Bush is a king chosen by God so his judgement can take seriously the warning of others or ignore them. Without this Lion King everything would fall into chaos and we would go hungry.

[Cephus]

Quote by: The_Genius Why don't you try and disprove it?

I don't have to disprove it. You make the claim, you prove it. It's called "put up or shut up".

Otherwise you're just making yourself look like a fool.

[Osborn F Enready]

Cephus said: I don't have to disprove it. You make the claim, you prove it. It's called "put up or shut up". Otherwise you're just making yourself look like a fool.

I fully agree.

[Zhavric]

To jump back to the original question, I've just been re-reading the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and he offers another insight as to where the notion of god may have come from: religion & god as a by-product of something else... and the question "why do we have religion" as the wrong question to be asking.

He begins with the example of moths flying into flames and burning to death. We may be tempted to ask "why are moths committing suicide?" That's the wrong question. We know that illumination at night beyond the moon & stars is a "new" thing. Moths and other insects have evolved to use heavenly bodies as points of navigational reference. It makes sense for the moth to follow the moon a certain distance, then eventually turn around and come back to a safe location. However, the moth's biology cannot tell the difference between the moon and a flame, thus it gets burned.

Once we understand this, we understand "why are moths committing suicide" isn't the question we should be asking. They fly into the flames a by-product of their evolved navigation instincts.

What about the question "where do gods come from?" How does that relate? Dawkins offers that it's a by-product of other biological phenomenon: children. One of the most powerful survival boons we human beings have is our ability to pass massive amounts of information to our offspring quickly & efficiently. Thinking in terms of primitive language enabled hunter-gatherers... a child may be able to learn through personal experience that red berries are poison and high cliffs are dangerous, but children who can learn this from the word of their parents stand a higher chance for survival than ones who need to learn it for themselves.

This is not to say we're meant to be automatons blindly downloading data from our parents. We must acknowledge, though, that we're most likely descended from the kids that listened to mom & dad about the red berries and NOT descended from the kid mom & dad saw eat the red berries & die.

So, in us is this need to take in information from our parents. However, we cannot always distinguish sagely advice from nonsense. The primitive child who hears "don't eat red berries because they'll kill you" and "don't forget to slaughter a goat once a month to avoid earth quakes" has little way of knowing that the first is good advice & the second is a waste of time & goats.

It is from this psychological mechanism that religion has the ability to spring.

[Osborn F Enready]

Zhavric said: psychological mechanism

That is the same thing I have said, except that I alledge it was with motive, and not simply natural.

[The_Genius]

Quote by: Cephus I don't have to disprove it. You make the claim, you prove it. It's called "put up or shut up". Otherwise you're just making yourself look like a fool.

So you are admitting you can't disprove it?

[Fonceai]

@Zhavric

Your explanation is great, but it doesn't really address the topic.

You answered how the idea gets passed on.

But where did it originate?

Granted, I gave an answer that I learned, but since there is no way to prove it, I'm open to other ideas.

Mine is one derived from cause and personification (the rock down the mountain or lightning hitting a tree, etc). I even know why "sky" relates to my explanation (I'll relay that, too, if anyone is interested).

Ironically, in this thought exercise where I, personally, don't care about your belief but am interested in different alternatives, another one that makes sense is the Adam one suggested earlier.

I happen to believe mine, as I had to work to get it and I value it more...

[Cephus]

Quote by: The_Genius So you are admitting you can't disprove it?

You can't disprove unicorns. Are you saying they exist? You can't disprove aliens, the Loch Ness Monster or invisible gnomes sitting on my shoulder. Are they real?

The burden of proof rests solely with the individual making the claim. You claim God exists, you prove it. Until you do, no one has any obligation to take you seriously.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Zhavric To jump back to the original question, I've just been re-reading the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and he offers another insight as to where the notion of god may have come from: religion & god as a by-product of something else... and the question "why do we have religion" as the wrong question to be asking. He begins with the example of moths flying into flames and burning to death. We may be tempted to ask "why are moths committing suicide?" That's the wrong question. We know that illumination at night beyond the moon & stars is a "new" thing. Moths and other insects have evolved to use heavenly bodies as points of navigational reference. It makes sense for the moth to follow the moon a certain distance, then eventually turn around and come back to a safe location. However, the moth's biology cannot tell the difference between the moon and a flame, thus it gets burned. Once we understand this, we understand "why are moths committing suicide" isn't the question we should be asking. They fly into the flames a by-product of their evolved navigation instincts. What about the question "where do gods come from?" How does that relate? Dawkins offers that it's a by-product of other biological phenomenon: children. One of the most powerful survival boons we human beings have is our ability to pass massive amounts of information to our offspring quickly & efficiently. Thinking in terms of primitive language enabled hunter-gatherers... a child may be able to learn through personal experience that red berries are poison and high cliffs are dangerous, but children who can learn this from the word of their parents stand a higher chance for survival than ones who need to learn it for themselves. This is not to say we're meant to be automatons blindly downloading data from our parents. We must acknowledge, though, that we're most likely descended from the kids that listened to mom & dad about the red berries and NOT descended from the kid mom & dad saw eat the red berries & die. So, in us is this need to take in information from our parents. However, we cannot always distinguish sagely advice from nonsense. The primitive child who hears "don't eat red berries because they'll kill you" and "don't forget to slaughter a goat once a month to avoid earth quakes" has little way of knowing that the first is good advice & the second is a waste of time & goats. It is from this psychological mechanism that religion has the ability to spring.

That is an intereisting point. The oil company found out that turtles will follow the lights they have which can direct them away for the ocean when they are hatched, and so during hatching season the company turned off the lights as a effort to save the turtles. The reason is they follow the moon into the ocean.

But what would be the correct question to ask instead of the one used in the O.P. ? I guess in that book the author thought it was important for human survival to teach children about taboos, and that using the idea of a God would give the commandments a greater sense of authority, so that kids will be more apt to "pay attention".

I recall when I was a little kid my mom told me that "God can see me at all times so I should always behave". And so hiding behind the barn where the parents cannot see you is no way to safely find out about the taboos without getting caught. Which was the intended message. So the real question is "why do parents need a higher authority to teach they children right from wrong"? I assume.

But I think that the real question is "why do people think that the Sun is so important". As the Sun was the first symbol for a god that I can think of that would impress primative people. Observing the influence of the sun on nature would be all the evidence they would need to honor the sun with ritual and respect.

Question two: Why do humans feel they need riturals?

I think it springs out of a survival need also, people living in nature in prmitive times were at the mercy of nature. A ritural would give them a sense of power and control over their circumstances. A sense of security that they can have a say-so in what happens. Normally one person in the tribe would claim to have the "secret knowledge" on how to insure the future or how to control nature's wrath. So he would create a ritural for the rest of them to perform at his direction, which gave him a degree of authority over others and greater ego status among his peers - as the "leader".

A famous story is about when the Mormons planted some crops and one day a rash of insects attacked the corp, they could not kill all the millions of insects so they prayed, just then some seagulls arrived and they ate most of the bugs. Now no one can reason with them that a prayer ritual does not work, even if the seagulls always flock to any site when large numbers of insects appear. Their crop dependant survival was insured, they believe.

In human culture we often have a "central control" that over-sees a project ( or something like the police station and the 911 operaters). If we feel our survival is somehow under threat we might write our congressman, which ritural we somehow believe will result in our protection. A religious ritural would be based on a simular belief, that a God is in charge of nature and everything that happens in our life, and so when troubles appear we get on the "God phone" and scream " send the guardian angel's (police of fire department) to rescue us.

In other words. Our survivial is not alway based on independant self-action, but as a collective we depend on each other for "group survival" because that is how we operate as a culture. And a "God" would be like our "President" or "Chief" or "Doctor" when we cannot reach human resourses or when we feel other humans cannot help us due to the nature of the danger we must confront.

It works not because of phychological reasons or because we are stupid enough to believe in something mythological. What happens is this. When we believe that prayer or some other ritual will work we tend to calm down and not panic, as we calm down emotionally our abilty to calmly reason out a solution is more effective. And as well our body can cure it's self better when we are calm, and nature will always find a way to balance things out.

And so for that reason a belief in God or in meditation can effect our survival rate. ( RE: be still and know...).

This could have evolved from more animal like behavorism. A deer or bunny will freeze still when alterted to danger. That way the wolf or whatever will not notice the bunny which blends into it's surroundings, because they look for "motion" when hunting. And so stillness is the God of a rabbits survivial, stillness is God, be still and know God. The idea of God is a by-product of our scientific observations of nature. In fact. God is a scientific theory based on the collective evidence that nature is keep in balance by some sort of influence central to all creatures. Primative scientists (shamans) came up with that theory after observing the workings of nature and by watching the activities in the night sky. And then that science was related to children on their levels with more mythological type texts. The theory might be right?

[The_Genius]

Quote by: Cephus You can't disprove unicorns. Are you saying they exist? You can't disprove aliens, the Loch Ness Monster or invisible gnomes sitting on my shoulder. Are they real? The burden of proof rests solely with the individual making the claim. You claim God exists, you prove it. Until you do, no one has any obligation to take you seriously.

So you admit you can't disprove it...

If you know anything about human history, you know that peoples' belief in God is as old as the mountains. Even today, billions of people believe in God. Atheism is very new compare to theism.

Therefore, you are the one with a new idea against the old, you should be the one trying to disprove the old... Although, you have failed to do so anyway...

:)

[Cephus]

Quote by: The_Genius If you know anything about human history, you know that peoples' belief in God is as old as the mountains. Even today, billions of people believe in God. Atheism is very new compare to theism.

There was a time when most people believed the earth was flat. They were wrong. You have been hitting just about every logical fallacy in the book, your posts are utterly laughable.

[Jack]

Even today, billions of people believe in God. Atheism is very new compare to theism.

So since more people believe in the Christian god than any other that makes them right?
Once there was no life on this planet, once there was no concept of gods. Since believers in gods believe by faith, you have no evidence that the whole concept isn't just a figment of your imagination, a mass hallucination caused by wishful thinking. Atheists encourage you to think for yourself and question your fantasy about gods, but you will not. There is no way to convince you the voices you hear in your head are your own, therefor no way to disprove your gods.

[The_Genius]

Similarly, there is no way to prove God exists since you are 'conditioned to not to believe in God'.

You are too caught up with religion... Flaws in Religions / Holy Books / Theists does not conclusively prove there is no Intelligent Designer.

[Runa216]

as best I can tell, God was created by man because there was much they didn't understand. take the Watch maker argument. you find a watch in the middle of the desert, you assume something created it. Well, what could possibly make the world we live in? there's no way such beauty could just spontaneously erupt from nothingness, so something HAD to make it, right?

Well, God explained all that was unexplainable, and people were gullible (still are) and it was also a good way to use fear to rule.

it was convenient.

[Runa216]

oh, and of course, to this day, nobody is able to DISprove the existence of god, and therefore, the belief has been clung to by 5 Billion people worldwide. lack of disproof is not proof, however.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Runa216 oh, and of course, to this day, nobody is able to DISprove the existence of god, and therefore, the belief has been clung to by 5 Billion people worldwide. lack of disproof is not proof, however.

Nobody has disproven Vishnu either. Or Enki. Or any other god that man has invented for himself to worship. I guess that means they're ALL real, right?

People believe all sorts of stupid, nonsensical things. Using the logically fallacious argumentum ad populum is just silly.

[Jack]

there is no way to prove God exists since you are 'conditioned to not to believe in God'.

Who's conditioned? I was raised Christian and was a devout believer until I was in my 20's. Atheism is the conclusion I reached after a lot of study and contemplation.

...calling religion a myth (whether your claim is true or false) is an excuse to cover up your inability to disprove God's existence

The word mythology (Greek: μυθολογία "story-telling", from μῦθος muthos, "story, legend", and λόγος logos, "account , speech") refers to any body or cycle of myths – stories linked to the spiritual or religious life in the oral tradition of a particular culture, which often involve supernatural events or characters to explain the nature of the universe and humanity.

Mythology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Seems like religion fits nicely into the myth category. My inability to disprove the notion of gods has to do with the theist's inability to provide anything to disprove. And game.

[Athena]

Quote by: Isherwood Who's conditioned? I was raised Christian and was a devout believer until I was in my 20's. Atheism is the conclusion I reached after a lot of study and contemplation. Mythology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Seems like religion fits nicely into the myth category. My inability to disprove the notion of gods has to do with the theist's inability to provide anything to disprove. And game.

We can know a Goddess exist because we exist, and knowledge of this Goddess comes from reasoning. The earth is as a mother to all life. We know that because females give birth. Our mother earth gives us life, and we can exist without her. She will meet all of our needs as long as we treat her well. I do not fear her but love her because she is so good to me.