Mass hysteria of early hominid self awareness led to the creation of religion.

[Eurotrash]

I'm not sure how the leap from not being self aware to being self aware would happen so suddenly that it would be frightening. I imagine that was a pretty gradual process. But, what do I know? I can't reference scientific facts that prove this. Nor can anyone here. So it's pointless. (I am being sardonic here, inspired by some of the commenters in "What Happens When We Die?")

 

[Napoleon]

Not needed so much as just still the proverbial bad penny.

Depends on the person. As Nietzsche pointed out, killing God set us adrift in an existence devoid of any meaning or purpose - unmoored to any objective truth or universal values. Camus and Sartre offered options for living with that but some people can’t face the truth so use religion as a form of escapism. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[soylentgreen]

Depends on the person. As Nietzsche pointed out, killing God set us adrift in an existence devoid of any meaning or purpose - unmoored to any objective truth or universal values. Camus and Sartre offered options for living with that but some people can’t face the truth so use religion as a form of escapism. Nothing wrong with that.

Not sure why ignoring a fake god means there are no objective truths or universal values.
And as I pointed out that there are a few forms of escapism now. Religion is just the oldest one.

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't think there was a "eureka" moment when a hominid suddenly became self aware. It was more likely a very gradual process, not unlike how human children slowly become self aware over the course of many years, only dragged out over millions of years when it comes to hominids slowly evolving into humans. Since there is no moment of "hysteria" when a child is suddenly faced with existential reality all at once, it doesn't make sense to assume that there was for early humans either. As their understanding slowly develops, they start to attribute more abstract and often anthropomorphic ideas to the world around them. Magical thinking seems to be the default evolved state of humans, not some conscious artificial invention in order to ease a flood of existential fears that hit some early hominid all at once. That we as adults in 2022 are aware that magical thinking functions in this way on human psychology does not mean that children with imaginary friends or early humans were aware of this, nor does it imply that magical thinking requires a conscious choice.

Right on.

The idea of some consciousness-altering state of "hysteria" that sets humanity on a developmental path depends IMO too much on having a series of circumstances duplicate themselves over time again and again, in different times and climes.

Let's say, for sake of argument, that we know that language begins with a small collection of African tribes that we generally call "Austraolopithecus." Let's also say that the geography of their haunts is rich in psychotropic plants. Prior to developing language, the hominids would probably be able to experience anxiety over bad circumstances, just as any animals can. But what would make them experience existential uncertainty? Did it start with "good trips," in which psychotropics make the user feel a kinship with the universe, thus spawning a curiosity about the ways of other beings, particularly other animals? (At least some anthropologists believed that the earliest gods with personifications of other living creatures.) Or did it start as hominids began to gather some partial understanding of the way in which particular physical forces worked--you scrape a spear with a sharp stone, and you can make the point sharp again-- and then started to expect that the rest of the universe ought to make sense? This didn't necessarily mean a purely naturalistic understanding of things; if they speculated about where the world came from, they might just assume it was born like other things were born: from an egg laid by a cosmic bird, perhaps.

Also, unless everyone has the same good trip, why would one man's good trip mean anything to anyone else? Didn't the budding shaman have to have language in order to convince anyone else that he's communed with the gods?

So many factors, so little time...

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I am doubtful that such drugs had any useful benefit when used on the masses. Apart from being a fun party drug they rarely offer wisdom.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/wx8agw/the-bread-that-made-an-entire-island-hallucinate

Another point I would make is to ask you if you have ever had the personal experience of talking to someone who is tripping on LSD while you are not. Because your suggestion that it would improve communication suggests not.

All psychoactive substances are not the same, nor do they work the same, nor do they act upon all the same centers in the brain.
As to your other point, in all my forays into psychedelics I made it a point to sometimes act as the sober guide with others who were tripping, while I was not.

Also, as an Aspie my childhood felt like living in a windowless concrete room. People were objects.
Psychedelics is part of what I credit with rewiring my own outlook on the world, by pushing my mind into a new world where interacting with others, which allowed me to gain a better understanding, mainly that people were not objects at all.

I suspect my experience with psychoactive substances probably eclipses yours, as I had my first trip in 1972.

By the way, are you aware that modern medicine is now experimenting with psychedelics as a form of therapy for depression?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

There is no evidence that supports that kind of brain growth. The brain did not "grow" through evolution, it would be more correct to say the brain became more complex as hominids had to deal with a changing environment.
You would think the humans that have lived and evolved for a couple of million years and more would have figured out which plants can do what. Far more likely such plants were the property of a shaman or to party.
Unfortunately his point is based on a poor opinion that has no basis. Archeological evidence points to a rich spiritual belief system. Modern indigenous people also can tell you of spirits and gods in there story telling.
Simply assuming we are lost till jesus showed up is arrogance, not a good point.

Not sure where you gathered much of what you're saying but I guarantee you it wasn't anything in my post.
You sound as if I pictured the process as something that happened overnight.
That would be your assumption and it would be a wrong one.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I don't think there was a "eureka" moment when a hominid suddenly became self aware.

I never said that either so I have to agree.
Yes, gradual...quite so.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I'm not sure how the leap from not being self aware to being self aware would happen so suddenly that it would be frightening. I imagine that was a pretty gradual process. But, what do I know? I can't reference scientific facts that prove this. Nor can anyone here. So it's pointless. (I am being sardonic here, inspired by some of the commenters in "What Happens When We Die?")

I don't think anyone said "sudden" unless sudden translates into millennia.

 

[Napoleon]

Not sure why ignoring a fake god means there are no objective truths or universal values.

Because they aren’t rooted in anything. Values become totally subjective and arbitrary. Have you read your Nietsche, Camus, and Sartre?

 

[Eurotrash]

Imagine this: A human being no different than a dog that lives in the moment is dependent on nature, instinct, and has no thought of "self" or language. Then, through however means, the first human(s) somehow becomes self-aware of their own existence.

All of a sudden a being is now aware they exist but there are no words, thoughts, explanations, or history to explain what they are experiencing. I would assert the only logical reaction to this would have been hysteria. Wouldn't this reaction eventually give way to the rise of religion (God) that is the complete opposite of the hysteria the being was feeling.

Early man: Scared, unsure, purposeless, without a history, without a meaning, without a goal.
God: All powerful, all knowing, knows the past, present and future, has a goal for Itself and humanity.

This is my opinion. What say you ?

Well, there is that "All of a sudden a being is now aware" there. That's what I was referring to.

 

[Eurotrash]

I don't think anyone said "sudden" unless sudden translates into millennia.

I think the op said "sudden." See my post above.

 

[multivita-man]

LOL hysteria? That's like akin to mental illness.

I disagree. Religion came about because people needed answers to their questions about the world around them. It's part of human nature to be curious. Since science wasn't invented yet, they needed an explanation as to why the sky was blue and all that. In the end, religion is about telling stories.

I generally subscribe to this as well. The earliest evidence of religious ritual is found in paleolithic burials, which show signs of having some sort of carefully ritualized preparation of the deceased, going as far back as 200,000 years ago or more. It's as if there's the belief in the possibility of life beyond this one.

But that's only one aspect of religion, which is not only preoccupied with the dead but also with the living. Religion is also a binding cultural force, which I believe is something that's expressed through not only rituals but also songs, dances, paintings, and other forms of artistic expression. There's a symbolism that is expressed in religion, a symbolism that communicates the message "This is who we are, this is how we live."

In evolutionary terms, religion gave homo sapiens some advantages over other species, and perhaps over other hominids, including Neanderthals. My own hypotheses are (I think) similar to what the OP expressed: religion's initial advantage is that it enabled humans to overcome their heightened awareness of the dangers around them, and their heightened awareness of their own mortality.

Whenever we finally learned to communicate - through grunts, drawing lines in the dirt, or however else - the idea that one day we will die (and oh by the way, that could be in the middle of the night if some pack of hyenas are around)..whenever we came to that level of awareness, we needed some way to deal with it. Maybe we succeeded over other hominid species because of this ability. We're finding in DNA tests that there are several 'ghost species' - species of hominids that were comparable to humans, and almost certainly interbred with us, but for whatever reason, died out. Maybe this is the reason. We were more intrepid than they were, and maybe our spirituality enabled us to achieve what we have.

But on top of that, I go back to the community thing. For most of our evolutionary history, survival was a team sport. Spirituality made the bonds of kinship that much tighter. It inspired a togetherness that is seen in what they left behind on walls in France, and in what they left behind in how we care for our families and closest friends. Over time, that became hardwired as a survival advantage.

 

[soylentgreen]

All psychoactive substances are not the same, nor do they work the same, nor do they act upon all the same centers in the brain.
As to your other point, in all my forays into psychedelics I made it a point to sometimes act as the sober guide with others who were tripping, while I was not.

Also, as an Aspie my childhood felt like living in a windowless concrete room. People were objects.
Psychedelics is part of what I credit with rewiring my own outlook on the world, by pushing my mind into a new world where interacting with others, which allowed me to gain a better understanding, mainly that people were not objects at all.

I suspect my experience with psychoactive substances probably eclipses yours, as I had my first trip in 1972.

By the way, are you aware that modern medicine is now experimenting with psychedelics as a form of therapy for depression?

Only by a few years and I started smoking weed around 72.
Psychedelics was merely a party drug to me. Read the proscribed books, leary, castaneda, thompson, crumb etc. They were more a source of inspiration than any drug I took.
Experimented with most of the drugs of the 70's prescription , natural and concoctions.

Yes, mushrooms are back in favour.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/psychedelic-therapy

Reminds me of an old saying of the 70s, I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

 

[soylentgreen]

Not sure where you gathered much of what you're saying but I guarantee you it wasn't anything in my post.
You sound as if I pictured the process as something that happened overnight.
That would be your assumption and it would be a wrong one.

I made an observation about what you said in this post of yours.

I'd be inclined to agree.
In fact, that's actually a brilliant observation.

Simply assuming we are lost till jesus showed up is arrogance, not a good point. Or as you put it in bold.

By the way, the "through however means" appears to just be access to higher quality proteins and also a diet rich in certain vitamins and minerals that promoted brain growth.
My pet theory is that access to certain edible vegetation with at least mild psychoactive properties may have also contributed to both self-awareness and the attendant mass hysteria.

There is no evidence that supports that kind of brain growth. The brain did not "grow" through evolution, it would be more correct to say the brain became more complex as hominids had to deal with a changing environment.
You would think the humans that have lived and evolved for a couple of million years and more would have figured out which plants can do what. Far more likely such plants were the property of a shaman or to party.

I am not sure if "hysteria" is the most appropriate or accurate word but your point is well taken nonetheless.

Unfortunately his point is based on a poor opinion that has no basis. Archeological evidence points to a rich spiritual belief system. Modern indigenous people also can tell you of spirits and gods in there story telling.


All I have done here is reprint my previous post but hopefully this time pointing to exactly why I made each statement by breaking your post down.

 

[soylentgreen]

Because they aren’t rooted in anything. Values become totally subjective and arbitrary. Have you read your Nietsche, Camus, and Sartre?

Those values that belong to gods aren’t rooted in anything.
Even these philosophers held values. The irony there is that some hold the words of such philosophers as objective truths.

 

[Ouroboros]

Those values that belong to gods aren’t rooted in anything.
Even these philosophers held values. The irony there is that some hold the words of such philosophers as objective truths.

An atheist who doesn't believe that gods have any reality must perforce consider them projections of their worshippers.

So logically it does not matter whether the projection assumes the existence of a god or the existence of an objective system of truth.

 

[soylentgreen]

An atheist who doesn't believe that gods have any reality must perforce consider them projections of their worshippers.

So logically it does not matter whether the projection assumes the existence of a god or the existence of an objective system of truth.

Would depend on why a person would assume an existence of a god. Just an added complication that would be unnecessary to the atheist.

 

[Ouroboros]

Would depend on why a person would assume an existence of a god. Just an added complication that would be unnecessary to the atheist.

An anthropomorphic projection serves the same purpose as a non-anthropomorphic projection, as a medium for abstract conceptions.

 

[Jacksprat]

Imagine this: A human being no different than a dog that lives in the moment is dependent on nature, instinct, and has no thought of "self" or language. Then, through however means, the first human(s) somehow becomes self-aware of their own existence.

All of a sudden a being is now aware they exist but there are no words, thoughts, explanations, or history to explain what they are experiencing. I would assert the only logical reaction to this would have been hysteria. Wouldn't this reaction eventually give way to the rise of religion (God) that is the complete opposite of the hysteria the being was feeling.

Early man: Scared, unsure, purposeless, without a history, without a meaning, without a goal.
God: All powerful, all knowing, knows the past, present and future, has a goal for Itself and humanity.

This is my opinion. What say you ?

I could not understand what point you were making. God is necessary?

 

[soylentgreen]

An anthropomorphic projection serves the same purpose as a non-anthropomorphic projection, as a medium for abstract conceptions.

No, it really does not as adding a projection into the argument simply adds an unnecessary layer to that argument.
And what would supposedly pass as a non-anthropomorphic projection?

 

[Deuce]

Archaeological evidence tells us that human species has been around for a couple of million years.
There is strong evidence through cave paintings and remains in burial grounds that for much of that time man had a sense of the spiritual.
However the type of god you are referring to the only evidence we have of that kind of religious thinking goes back only as far as the first signs of civilisation. The oldest church so far found is about 11,000 years old.
There is a direct correlation between the beginning of religion and the beginning of civilisation.
Where as for most of the millions of years humans have been around there is little evidence of gods except through a few effigies. Their beliefs were more spiritually based.

What's the evidence for this? They were "more spiritually based" because they didn't build a church?

Pre-"civilization" is harder to gather evidence about because they don't leave much evidence behind. This isn't an indication that they weren't religious, we just don't have evidence to gather. They didn't leave behind stone structures or written language that could be understood thousands of years later. They could have been gathering three days a week for a five hour religious ceremony, but we'd have no way of knowing that happened because they didn't chisel their schedule into a stone tablet.

 

[Ouroboros]

No, it really does not as adding a projection into the argument simply adds an unnecessary layer to that argument.
And what would supposedly pass as a non-anthropomorphic projection?

It only seems unnecessary to moderns who have a philosophical history of non-anthropomorphic abstractions.

Plato’s World of Forms is an example of an abstraction that attempts to dispense with any human-like entities in charge. Even if Plato may on occasion use terms like “god” in some demiurge like way, clearly he doesn’t mean it the way storytellers spoke of a bunch of aristocratic deities lounging around Olympus. But the end of both is a vision of order in the universe. If an atheist suggests that scientific em principles are enough order for him, he’s entitled to hold that belief, but he’s missed the entire point of positing a system that includes an anthropocentric order rather than seeing humanity as secondary to physical phenomena.

 

[soylentgreen]

What's the evidence for this? They were "more spiritually based" because they didn't build a church?

Pre-"civilization" is harder to gather evidence about because they don't leave much evidence behind. This isn't an indication that they weren't religious, we just don't have evidence to gather. They didn't leave behind stone structures or written language that could be understood thousands of years later. They could have been gathering three days a week for a five hour religious ceremony, but we'd have no way of knowing that happened because they didn't chisel their schedule into a stone tablet.

Cave paintings and ancient burial sites is the evidence used.
Not because they did not build churches. Again archeological evidence indicates they used shrines and would have had places or natural objects of wonder.

Most of the things you would think of as religious would have existed. The difference between religion and spirituality is really one of attitude and the purpose of both. For example that can be seen in carvings and paintings. Early human painting gave more detail to the animals that were stronger and provided more. Pictures of mammoths painted in colour and 3D which any artist will tell you is not that easy. While drawings of humans are usually small and done as simple stick figures. The ancient humans through art saw themselves as being just another spirit among the many spirits in the world.

The oldest temple at 11000 years old tells a different story through art. The pillars that hold up the temple roof are carved in the shape of humans while the walls have a few small animal heads carved into them. This gives the impression that humans have now become important imaged as holding up the roof of a church. and animals are assigned a lesser role, simple figures on a side wall. .

The difference between the millions of years of spirituality and the short time of religion is that in the former humans counted themselves as being just another spirit among many such. While religion gave us, in the words of a christian god.
“Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

 

[soylentgreen]

It only seems unnecessary to moderns who have a philosophical history of non-anthropomorphic abstractions.

Plato’s World of Forms is an example of an abstraction that attempts to dispense with any human-like entities in charge. Even if Plato may on occasion use terms like “god” in some demiurge like way, clearly he doesn’t mean it the way storytellers spoke of a bunch of aristocratic deities lounging around Olympus. But the end of both is a vision of order in the universe. If an atheist suggests that scientific em principles are enough order for him, he’s entitled to hold that belief, but he’s missed the entire point of positing a system that includes an anthropocentric order rather than seeing humanity as secondary to physical phenomena.

You give atheism far to much credit. People are quite capable of abstract thought. Atheism is merely a response to theism not a ban on thinking up weird stuff.
Read post 48 for your words in bold.

Interesting that we both see each other as the one who is secondary to physical phenomena.

 

[Deuce]

Cave paintings and ancient burial sites is the evidence used.
Not because they did not build churches. Again archeological evidence indicates they used shrines and would have had places or natural objects of wonder.

Most of the things you would think of as religious would have existed. The difference between religion and spirituality is really one of attitude and the purpose of both. For example that can be seen in carvings and paintings. Early human painting gave more detail to the animals that were stronger and provided more. Pictures of mammoths painted in colour and 3D which any artist will tell you is not that easy. While drawings of humans are usually small and done as simple stick figures. The ancient humans through art saw themselves as being just another spirit among the many spirits in the world.

The oldest temple at 11000 years old tells a different story through art. The pillars that hold up the temple roof are carved in the shape of humans while the walls have a few small animal heads carved into them. This gives the impression that humans have now become important imaged as holding up the roof of a church. and animals are assigned a lesser role, simple figures on a side wall. .

The difference between the millions of years of spirituality and the short time of religion is that in the former humans counted themselves as being just another spirit among many such. While religion gave us, in the words of a christian god.
“Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

Thank you for proving my suspicion about how you were drawing a line between spirituality and religion. You're very specifically defining it based on Christianity, and that's laughable. You're also just making up an entire belief structure based on cave paintings.