Religion Evolution of religions since prehistory and relations between religious beliefs

Maciamo

Veteran member
Admin
Messages
10,043
Reaction score
3,418
Points
113
Location
Lothier
Ethnic group
Italo-celto-germanic
I wrote this article in response to the thread What is an atheist?.

Look at the pie chart below to understand better the relationships between the 6 main groups of religious believes :
A-Ag-De-The-Po-An Chart (letters = beginning of each word)

religions-chart.gif


I have arranged each belief diametrically opposite to the most diverging belief.
The chart is adjanced according to the historical cycle of religions, turning clock-wise, from the no-religion of primitive socities, to the Animist tribes of the neolithic, to the polytheism of the bronze and iron age civilisations, to the monotheism of antique, medieval and modern civilisations, to the deism of the 18th-century Enlightenment, to 20th century agnosticim and modern atheism (which can be called "philosophical" or "rational" atheism).

It is not known whether prehistoric people were ever atheistic. Most likely, they were all animistic, as signs of rituals have been found in caves and other prehistoric sites. Primitive people feared the forces of nature (e.g. thunder, waterfall, huge trees...) or were in awe in front of them (e.g. sun, moon...). They thought of them as gods of the spirits of nature. This is why animism and polytheism are very close. Real polytheism is more developed though, as it incorporates a mythology with gods that have human forms and attributes, and gods for things associated with (antique) civilisations, such as agriculture, wisdom, strategy or commerce.

Then came a "super-god" more powerful than all the polytheists gods that declared that only him had to be revered. This actually started within a polytheistic religion, in Egypt, with the monotheistic cult of Amon-Ra (the Sun God). We can see a connection with the Japanese Shinto Goddess Amaterasu (Sun Goddess) as supreme deity, although the Japanese kept her as a leading figure within animistic Shinto (quite unusual combination of near monotheistic elements in an animism). Usually, this was done to assert the legal rights of a ruler, be it the Pharaohs of Egypt, the Kings of Babylon, or the Emperors of Japan.

The Jewish people was a kind of exception for their time. Being a small tribe between two big empires (Egypt and Babylon), they had to create something that both justified their rights to live in their "chosen land" and give them the moral strength to resist their neighbours. So they became the chosen people of the only true god, and thus created the first strong monotheism in order to survive captivity, slavery, invasions, and much later, the diaspora. It still works to this day (!)

After that Christianity and Islam had an open path to base their legitimity on the strongest available monotheism, and claim that other religions were wrong in order to convert as many people as possible. This was originally done for survival and out of faith, but soon to accumulate power and control the masses (no wonder Christianity chose Rome as the seat of their power, as from the start some envisioned it to replace the Roman Empire, and indeed the Roman Empire crumbled a bit over 100 years after Christianity became the official religion).

Monotheism expanded through the Middle Ages in Europe, North Africa and West Asia. Islam entered India in the 16th century. Christianity entered the Americas at the same time. After it became a race to convert as many people as possible, resulting in most of Europe, America and Oceania to become Christian, West and Central Asia, and big chunks of South and South East Asia to become Muslim, and Africa divided between the two and the original animist religions.

Christianity being older and Western civilisation more advanced, from the 18th century, educated people have started questioning its vailidity. This was called the Enlightenment, and resulted in the French Revolution. Deism (Cult of the Supreme Being) became the official religion of France under Roberspierre, then it turned back to Christianity soon after under Napoleon. But this was a first sign of mentalities changing.

After WWII, many disillusioned Europeans started questioning again the existence of a providential and loving god, or any god at all. Many people became agnostic when looking back at the pst atrocities committed in the name of religion. People just couldn't accept that their god would allow such things to happen and stopped believing in distrust. Sciences also demonstrated that many of the most fundamental dogmas of the Church were totally wrong. Some people rejected the Old Testament and only kept the teachings of the New one. They became known as the Hippies ("peace and love").

Others went further and analysed all the logical errors of Christianity and theism as a whole. They became the (strong) Atheists. Other just lost interest in religion as it was not needed in their now prosperous lives. They became religion-less people or "weak Atheists".

I want to stress the big difference between weak and strong atheism. I only realised that after coming to Japan though. Strong Atheists are typically logical and rational people who question everything and are thirsty for knowledge. Weak Atheists, though, are usually easy going people who don't care much about "serious subjects" such as politics, religion or philosophy. However "weak Atheists" are potentially theist (usually deist) people and typically superstitious, while strong atheists are neither.


Now let's have a look at the relations between opposite.

Deism >< Animism : Deists believe in only one god, who only did one thing "create the universe", and does not interract with human lives. Animists are the exact opposite. They believe in an unlimited number of very minor gods (e.g. just a stone, or a tree), which don't have much or any power, but interract with humans on a daily basis.

Agnosticism >< Polytheism : Agnosticists are reluctant to believe in one or many gods because of lack of proofs. Polytheists believe in one or several of many gods according to their mood and the situation. Their proof is that they are the gods of "something" (e.g. love, good luck...) and if they wishes are granted, it "proves" the existence of the deity. They are the exact opposite in the way that Agnosticist are very skeptical and don't believe in something easily, while Polytheists believe anything that may act as a proof (even if it isn't) or invent proofs where they lack.

Atheism >< Monotheism : Monotheists typically believe in one almighty god that created the universe, decide when it ends, and judges whether people go to heaven or hell. It is the ruler-type of religion that intervenes in our every action and thought. Everyday events only happen by the will of god and not because of direct cause and effect. Atheists reject any possibility that any supernatural power exist, do not believe the universe was created or will end, nor in parralel (supernatural) dimensions such as heaven and hell. Nature is as it is, and they do not believe in man-made or man-centered tales explaining why things happen the way they do. Only sciences and reason can explain nature.
 
Keep in mind that atheists are not really atheists in a sense. If they believe Nature=Reality or Nature=God, that basicly makes them pantheistic and many religions are based off pantheistic.
 
"Some people rejected the Old Testament and only kept the teachings of the New one. They became known as the Hippies ("peace and love")."

I never knew hippys were New Testament Christians, though hippys were atheist. In a sense Jesus was a hippy, at least the peace and love aspect of it ;).
 
Silverbackman said:
Keep in mind that atheists are not really atheists in a sense. If they believe Nature=Reality or Nature=God, that basicly makes them pantheistic and many religions are based off pantheistic.

Yes, we could further divide the Atheists into materialistic atheists (Nature=Reality) and the spiritual atheists (Nature=God), the latter being the pantheists. Indeed the true original Buddhism without gods is closer to pantheism. But it's really a matter of definition and personal feelings. The conception of the world and reasoning are basically the same.
 
Silverbackman said:
"Some people rejected the Old Testament and only kept the teachings of the New one. They became known as the Hippies ("peace and love")."

I never knew hippys were New Testament Christians, though hippys were atheist. In a sense Jesus was a hippy, at least the peace and love aspect of it ;).

You cannot really call them Christian anymore as they reject half of Christianity (otherwise the Jews are also Christians, that reject the other half). I was careful to use the word "teaching" of the NT, and not just NT, because many hippies as you say might not believe in god at all or be deist. Yet they were heavily inspired by the values taught by Jesus.
 
I want to stress the big difference between weak and strong atheism. I only realised that after coming to Japan though. Strong Atheists are typically logical and rational people who question everything and are thirsty for knowledge. Weak AC:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Favorites\BBC NEWS News Front Page.urltheists, though, are usually easy going people who don't care much about "serious subjects" such as politics, religion or philosophy. However "weak Atheists" are potentially theist (usually deist) people and typically superstitious, while strong atheists are neither.

I suppose your strong sense of classification would cause something.
I'm too irrational to answer that.
 
pipokun said:
I suppose your strong sense of classification would cause something.
I'm too irrational to answer that.

Actually, this classification isn't mine. Just have a look at the well-reputed Wikipedia : - Weak Atheism

Wikipedia said:
Weak atheism also called negative atheism or implicit atheism is the lack of belief in any god or gods, without a positive denial of the existence of any god or gods. Weak atheism contrasts with strong or explicit atheism, which asserts that no gods exist, and theism, which asserts that there is at least one god.
...
Some weak atheists may be familiar with the concept of a god or gods, yet hold no opinion on their existence or non-existence.
...
Some implicit atheist are dismissive of religious beliefs, while some may be of a non-theistic religion such as Secular Buddhism or Confucianism. Others may have no knowledge or exposure to theism, and therefore cannot hold beliefs.
...
Weak atheists often argue that their position is the default one: that every person is born without belief in any god or gods, and must be taught the concept before they can become theistic. Ergo, any person who has never been exposed to theism is by default an weak atheist.

- Srong Atheism

Wikipedia said:
The strong atheist positively asserts, at least, that no God or gods exist, and may go further and claim that the existence of some or all gods is logically impossible. For example, strong atheists commonly claim that the combination of attributes which the Christian God is asserted to have (for example, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, transcendence, omnibenevolence, and so forth) is logically contradictory, incomprehensible, or absurd, and therefore that the existence of the Christian God is 'a priori' impossible.
...
Some strong atheists qualify their position by stating what specific conception of god they think does not exist. They may believe that specific gods, such as the Judeo-Christian-Muslim god, do not exist, based on the description of the gods provided by their followers. They may believe certain gods to be logically impossible based on these descriptions, or they may be swayed by one or many of the arguments against the existence of certain conceptions of god (for example, the problem of evil). It is not unusual for a person to be a strong atheist with respect to particular gods, but to be a weak atheist with respect to other gods. Indeed, one may be (and in fact the majority of people are) theist with respect to one, or several, gods, and an strong atheist with respect to all other gods. For example, Christians typically believe that God exists, but believe that Zeus, Thor, Krishna, and so forth, do not. A typical strong atheist joke is that there is only a small difference between himself and a Christian: they agree on a very long list of gods that don't exist, and only disagree about one of them.
...
Another argument for strong atheism as opposed to weak atheism is that refusing to believe in the nonexistence of gods while believing in the nonexistence of ghosts, Santa Claus, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn is inconsistent. Strong atheists maintain that the existence of gods is no more likely than the existence of these other beings, and that it is no less justifiable to deny the existence of gods than it is to deny the existence of these other things
 
What an extremely interesting post, Maciamo. :)

There is one section which seems to me to have a question mark over it (referring to Monotheism):

Everyday events only happen by the will of god and not because of direct cause and effect.

I would dispute that that is a fixed feature in Monotheism; maybe in some monotheistic religions it is the belief, but in other monotheistic religions I think people can believe that "everyday events" can actually happen by human actions/intervention, and that although their deity would be aware of past+present+future actions and consequences, it would not necessarily intervene directly because that would interfere with the concept of human beings having free will and choice even within a world created by one single deity.

For instance, many people who are monotheistic do not believe in a god who "wants" or "causes" suffering, yet accept that suffering exists in the world, both for reasons of science (natural disasters etc.) and from the actions of humans (deliberate cruelty etc.). That is considered by some people not to disprove the existence of a deity, but as a result of human beings having free will.

I sound a little confused there, I hope you understand what I mean. :bluush:
 
Kinsao said:
I would dispute that that is a fixed feature in Monotheism; maybe in some monotheistic religions it is the belief, but in other monotheistic religions I think people can believe that "everyday events" can actually happen by human actions/intervention, and that although their deity would be aware of past+present+future actions and consequences, it would not necessarily intervene directly because that would interfere with the concept of human beings having free will and choice even within a world created by one single deity.

For instance, many people who are monotheistic do not believe in a god who "wants" or "causes" suffering, yet accept that suffering exists in the world, both for reasons of science (natural disasters etc.) and from the actions of humans (deliberate cruelty etc.). That is considered by some people not to disprove the existence of a deity, but as a result of human beings having free will.

Yes, you are right. I was referring to the most extreme (and therefore most interesting and relevant) case of monotheism. I understand that many people who consider themselves monotheists are in fact slightly more toward the deist side (i.e. god does not intervene in human affairs), and others on the polytheist side (e.g. those who believe in and pray the saints for their supernatural power to help us, such as the pure/traditional Catholics).
 
I suppose I am a sort of animistic, pantheistic, atheistic confusion. I believe in nature - that it came about through random happenings, that we can understand it through scientific method, that we may never understand some aspects of it, that it deserves our awe and respect. I have some 'animistic' rituals, as they give me some way to express the respect I feel for nature, even if I don't believe I am making an offering to some 'entity'.
 
This looks like a pretty well thought out, in-a-nut-shell write up Maciamo.

I really know what you mean about the 'weak atheist' thing, and how you really came to kind of know about it after having arrived here in Japan. When looking into so many of the 'social' functions, many traces can be seen to Shinto especially, and it has appeared interesting to me when asking some about those things which no longer carry any religious meanings--just going through the motions. The harvest festivals for most all of the younger, and even those of my age, are just carnivals--no religious depth at all--although
for the Shinto people there must still be some religious emotion left.

When I get the time, I'll see if I can offer any more in this line of thought, but as the Fall/Winter semester really takes off, I'm gonna be 'posting time' poor. See you guys later on !! I really like that my dear imoto from Mars !!! :cool:
 
Mars Man said:
This looks like a pretty well thought out, in-a-nut-shell write up Maciamo.

I totally agree, Mars Man. Well done, Maciamo!

Rest assured that after I've printed this one down and analyzed the questions posed ... I shall respond.

Fascinating topic! ... and one dear to my heart, I suppose!

?W????
 
To me at least, the religious aspects of Japan have undergone so many changes, that even the 'Buddhist' Obon holidays seem to make little sense in Buddhist theology. So if a soul is reborn, and lives in someone else, how then do they come back for three days during Obon? Does the reborn soul vacate the it's current body, and operate on auto-pilot?

I'd simply call myself an agnostic at them moment. All in all, any theology that brings happiness to the self and others is a good theology. The theology should be as free from material and sensual conditions as possible. That's as I see it anyways.
 

This thread has been viewed 434 times.

Back
Top