Learning Anthropology questions?

[grannymh]

You can’t determine spirituality from fossils, but I know they gauge the emergence of consciousness from the first evidence of art, tool making, and burying of the dead. Even the Neanderthals buried their dead, in fetal position, or at least some of them. So at the least it was essential to our evolution and survival…I dunno

The difficulty in research papers is the usage of the word consciousness without defining human nature per se. Scientifically, the emergence of consciousness, in practical terms, covers every animal from ants to humans. There are a few animal species which make “tools” to gather food. Some animal species bury the dead because the smell would attract predators. Actual art, not decoration, is a more recent activity in comparison to the claims for “tools”.

Scientists are hard-working, sincere people who deserve respect.

What is happening is that interpreters are adding their own spin.

 

[grannymh]

I am an anthropology student looking into spiritual paths, but from an Anthropological perspective I’m having trouble finding anything spiritual in spirituality.

I want to try to believe that it is real, but it’s so hard to try to believe that from this perspective.

The more I analyze your dilemma, the more I can sympathize with your position in a world dominated by the latest in science.

Coming from a scientific position, my suggestion is to look at the real benefits of scientific research especially in the medical realm. In addition, anthropology covering early human civilizations is important for understanding where we are now. Is there a good reason for us to go back to being vegetarians, for example. Did environments contribute to immunity from certain diseases is another example. Anthropology intertwines with many other disciplines especially genetics.

And then, in fairness, we must look at the limitations of natural science when it comes to understanding human nature and its unique origin. Where does “spirituality” and spiritual paths fit in? Answers depend on how one looks at spirituality. Is “spirituality” simply a non-material component of material human nature?

What I have been presenting here and in other posts is the need to look at a human from the point of her or his human nature as defined by Catholicism. One can believe in God and still believe in natural science because natural science is a gift from God.
Still, in fairness, one has to take into consideration that the domain of science is the natural world of the material/physical. Catholicism teaches that we live and share our lives within the material/physical world; but, in fact, we are spiritual beings in that we can share in the life of our supernatural Creator, a transcendent pure spirit without restrictions.

Catholicism teaches one Adam and one Original Sin. Once we understand that the shattering of the relationship between the creature Adam and his Creator resulted in a wounded nature, we can understand, but not condone, the evil in society. We can also understand that migrating descendants of Adam and Eve eventually lost touch with the basic history of Adam. Being spiritual in nature, ancient humans sought answers about their beginning. That is why different traditional stories arose which eventually led to different forms of religion.

Because the Catholic Church puts its trust in the Divinity of Jesus Christ, it can go backwards to the dawn of human history and sort out the Divine Revelation regarding the true origin of humanity which includes the fully complete human nature.

 

[MPat]

Because they could just have evolved as a survival mechanism?

How? To evolve something you need that the ones with this “something” would survive more often then the others (or, at least, that that this “something” wouldn’t hurt their chance of survival). How does spending resources to have a capacity to believe in some sort of spirits help one’s chances of survival, if no such spirits exist? That was the question. And you cannot answer a question “Why is X a survival mechanism?” by “It evolved as a survival mechanism.”.

 

[WonderWorld]

How? To evolve something you need that the ones with this “something” would survive more often then the others (or, at least, that that this “something” wouldn’t hurt their chance of survival). How does spending resources to have a capacity to believe in some sort of spirits help one’s chances of survival, if no such spirits exist? That was the question. And you cannot answer a question “Why is X a survival mechanism?” by “It evolved as a survival mechanism.”.

Because believing in a life after death, or anything supernatural would help someone live life better in this world. From that basic start it could be used to set up morals and rules so that others don’t kill others or steal from others, ect. Believing a God, or gods, or ancestor spirits are watching you and or judging you, and waiting for you, or are just there would make people behave a certain way, mostly…

 

[MPat]

Because believing in a life after death, or anything supernatural would help someone live life better in this world. From that basic start it could be used to set up morals and rules so that others don’t kill others or steal from others, ect. Believing a God, or gods, or ancestor spirits are watching you and or judging you, and waiting for you, or are just there would make people behave a certain way, mostly…

Actually, that shows that it is better to live where everyone is religious. But, if your hypothesis is correct, there should have been a period when only a part (and probably a small part) of human population were religious (or “potentially religious”), What was the benefit then? Benefit for them, not for everyone else. After all, the inability to be religious must have been selected against.

For, well, at the moment it looks like you have found something that at least weakly implies that there is some truth in some religion, and yet you treat it as if it was completely disproving that same thing.

 

[WonderWorld]

Actually, that shows that it is better to live where everyone is religious. But, if your hypothesis is correct, there should have been a period when only a part (and probably a small part) of human population were religious (or “potentially religious”), What was the benefit then? Benefit for them, not for everyone else. After all, the inability to be religious must have been selected against.

For, well, at the moment it looks like you have found something that at least weakly implies that there is some truth in some religion, and yet you treat it as if it was completely disproving that same thing.

I don’t know, you’re confusing me
Anyways it’s not my hypothesis, it’s what I’m getting from being and Anthropology student who really wants to believe there is life after life in a supernatural metaphysical kindof way, not just a scientific “all energy can not be destroyed” ect kinda thing, and that everything has just evolved in certain ways from our environments and for our survival or benefit some way. Everyone also has to remember that even a survival mechanism that has been helping for a long time in a population or species can end up also being a bad thing later as environments or situations change.

 

[Birdmanman]

I don’t know, you’re confusing me
Anyways it’s not my hypothesis, it’s what I’m getting from being and Anthropology student who really wants to believe there is life after life in a supernatural metaphysical kindof way, not just a scientific “all energy can not be destroyed” ect kinda thing, and that everything has just evolved in certain ways from our environments and for our survival or benefit some way. Everyone also has to remember that even a survival mechanism that has been helping for a long time in a population or species can end up also being a bad thing later as environments or situations change.

It doesn’t matter if religious belief is a survival mechanism, influenced by the subconscious, or beneficial to society in a utilitarian way; the question is whether or not it is true. (For a survival mechanism can exist and be based on a false belief or a true belief and still be a survival mechanism).
Look into the miraculous evidence I had told you about earlier in this thread; read philosophical arguments for the soul and for God’s existence.

 

[grannymh]

I don’t know, you’re confusing me
Anyways it’s not my hypothesis, it’s what I’m getting from being and Anthropology student who really wants to believe there is life after life in a supernatural metaphysical kindof way, not just a scientific “all energy can not be destroyed” ect kinda thing, and that everything has just evolved in certain ways from our environments and for our survival or benefit some way. Everyone also has to remember that even a survival mechanism that has been helping for a long time in a population or species can end up also being a bad thing later as environments or situations change.

Now I am confused.

How about the belief in a supernatural, transcendent Pure Spirit without restrictions commonly known as God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible?

How about the belief in one Lord Jesus Christ and the belief in the Holy Spirit?

Of course, one would have to participate at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass on Sunday in order to learn about the Blessed Trinity and the Profession of Faith. (Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed)

How about the belief that God created the material/physical universe and the non-material, immortal, rational, spiritual soul in humans so that we can share in His life?

How about being a Catholic?
Catholicism teaches that eternal life, after death, is really real.

 

[MPat]

I don’t know, you’re confusing me
Anyways it’s not my hypothesis, it’s what I’m getting from being and Anthropology student who really wants to believe there is life after life in a supernatural metaphysical kindof way, not just a scientific “all energy can not be destroyed” ect kinda thing, and that everything has just evolved in certain ways from our environments and for our survival or benefit some way. Everyone also has to remember that even a survival mechanism that has been helping for a long time in a population or species can end up also being a bad thing later as environments or situations change.

Yes, I know it is not really yours, but I cannot think of a much better name…

Anyway, about survival mechanisms. First you assume that religion (or spirituality) is a survival mechanism and now you see that it is not that easy to show how exactly did it help the believers to survive. Well, maybe you shouldn’t be that certain that it is a survival mechanism in such case…?

Also, you seem to get from “Religion is a survival mechanism.” to “Religion is wrong.” very easily. That’s why I was asking if you know many other survival mechanisms that are based on something completely wrong. For example, as Lorenz and Tinbergen have shown, little turkeys have a survival mechanism that causes them to run from the “hawk model” and not from the “goose model” (in both case the actual model was the same - “hawk/goose model” -, just the direction of movement was different). After hearing that, do you instantly conclude that this survival mechanism is completely wrong and young turkeys are hunted by geese and not by hawks? No, you will probably assume that the survival mechanism is a good heuristic, wrong in that specific case (neither model was an actual predator), but mostly correct. So, why the contrary conclusion in case of religion?

Finally, I don’t like the idea that you are treating the Catholic doctrine as if it was somehow less trustworthy than Anthropology. After all, Anthropology is just a “soft science”! Read Feynman’s “Cargo Cult Science” - for example, calteches.library.caltech.edu/3043/1/CargoCult.pdf - and maybe you will start mistrusting everything your professors tell you, instead of Catholic doctrine…?

 

[Ion]

As far as I know, there was no atheistic society. The most simple societies had a shaman or some way to connect with the “spirit world”.