Did the Great Apes invent religion?

[Clivedurdle]

Jobar linked to this thread

Lord of the Apes (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=33255)


What are the views about this now? I do not think the original thread adequately discussed these ideas.

For the sake of conversation I'd like to state a couple of observations and then make a giant leap founded on them.

Jane Goodall used to put out bunches of bananas to lure chimps into her camp so that she could observe them from the comfort of her tent. The Alpha Male would usually take most of the bananas. One day a Beta Male found an empty five-gallon tin can in camp. He went into a display, banging the can loudly as he ran screaming through the camp. This tremendously upset the rest of the group. After he stopped his racket all the other chimps wanted him to comfort them. Not only that but he got all the bananas. He had become a Pseudo-alpha.

Second observation: Researchers in Africa have found that the best places to look for fossils of early man is at the edge of where the forest used to be. Not because early man lived there, but because they were a food source of leopards who would drag them into trees to eat.

Jump to conclusion based on scanty evidence: Since early man was prey to leopards Darwinian evolution would favor those that were afraid of the big cats rather than those who said "here kitty, kitty, kitty." Leopards hunt at night while humans are diurnal. Eventually a fear of leopards prowling around in the dark would be instilled in the entire species of human. (Please notice the similarity of medieval Roman Catholic demons to leopards.) Just as the Beta-male chimp instilled fear of the empty tin can in his troop and then "saved" them from it Beta-male early humans could take advantage of the innate leopard fear. By telling their troop that there were leopards where there were none they could become the "saviors" by making the non-existent leopards go away. This would enhance their status and make them Pseudo-alphas, false silver backs.
The problem would come when humans were a bit more advanced than bonobos. That problem would be the inability of Pseudo-alphas to make actual leopards go away. The real Alpha-males would take it out of your hide if you didn't get rid of them as promised. The solution to the problem of real "devils" is a fake god. Now the Beta could claim to get rid of imaginary leopards (or any other imaginary problem) through the aid of the fake god. Real problems still would not be solved. But now that would be because the fake god was angry with the Alpha-male and not through any short comings of the Pseudo-alpha. Now instead of being punished for failure the Pseudo-alpha would be rewarded. The actual Alpha would make offerings to the fake god to stop it from being angry, which the Pseudo-alpha would benefit from.

So religion is the abuse of a completely Darwinian survival trait.

[Sensei Meela]

Abuse of evolutionary survival mechanisms? Yeah, probably. [Though the described explanation is pretty dubious, if for no other reason that it's a gross oversimplification*]

In any case, the answer to the question seems to be "yes;" if religion did not come from our hominid ancestors, then it likely originated with us modern humans, as so did indeed come from the Great Apes. :Cheeky:

[*They would've of course, probably started with ancestor worship and animism, or sympathetic magics, rather than gods and devils, but that's another matter.]

[Clivedurdle]

Why is it a gross simplification? Maybe some things that seem as complex as our religious behaviour have very simple beginnings - exploit existing fears by creating a false fear and then say you have the antidote to the false fear. Everything else is a classic co-evolutionary arms race.

[whichphilosophy]

Jobar linked to this thread

Lord of the Apes (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=33255)


What are the views about this now? I do not think the original thread adequately discussed these ideas.

I would say philosophy of sorts was the first thing that came to mind where they started looking outside their normal routine. However certainly our own species just 50,000 years ago were thinking profoundly. It would seem that where we travelled other species of human (from different ape lineage by the way died out).

Our first step was to go beyond the constraints of the environment and to think ahead. From philosophy came sciences and religion. If we look at the ancient religions like the vedhas etc, they included a lot of early scientific concepts. I suppose religion science and philosophy gradually divided. In the last few hundred years psychology split from philosophy.

So as man advanced they evolved religion :Cheeky: and the sciences. :wave:

[whichphilosophy]

Why is it a gross simplification? Maybe some things that seem as complex as our religious behaviour have very simple beginnings - exploit existing fears by creating a false fear and then say you have the antidote to the false fear. Everything else is a classic co-evolutionary arms race.

I think its more homosapien behavior. We are a primative human who advanced rapidly in 50,000 years which is more than any of our predecessors.

I think the more qualified anthropologists would confirm this even today. As Martin Luther King once said, "........we have guided missiles and misguided men."

With our ability to build great civilisations and now an increasing level of technological development, we also have the ability (and have done) wipe out what we have achieved.

[BioBeing]

Can't decide if this belongs in GRD, or E/C. All I know is that it doesn't belong in S&S. So, on the flip of a coin...

BioBeing,
S&S Moderator

[Sensei Meela]

Why is it a gross simplification?I attempted to clarify the term with my use of the asteric; the "religion" they developed wouldn't have started out with the relatively simple "god vs devil" of monotheistic traditions, but a much richer tapestry of supernatural entities (tree spirits, ancestor spirits). I was also thinking of the specifics (ie overemphasis on leopards).

Even still, I think the 'snake oil theory' (fake solutions to fake problems) is a bit too reductionist. The 'rain-bringer theory' (fake solutions to real problems) is probably distinct enough to compliment the other nicely, more fully explaning the causes of religious behaviour. [IOW, a more accurate depiction would have them preying on our fears and playing to our hopes.]

Thus endeth the wild-ass speculation. :Cheeky:

[Darth Dane]

The advent of speech, secured the lie, lies can be used to abuse others by their fear of X.

It isn't a circumvention of Darwinian theory, as I see it, rather a refined form. Suddenly brute strength wasn't the be all of survival.

[Biff the unclean]

Even still, I think the 'snake oil theory' (fake solutions to fake problems) is a bit too reductionist. The 'rain-bringer theory' (fake solutions to real problems) is probably distinct enough to compliment the other nicely, more fully explaning the causes of religious behaviour. [IOW, a more accurate depiction would have them preying on our fears and playing to our hopes.]

Oh…sorry, I’m Dr S…or rather I was two computer system replacements ago.

The problem with fake solutions to real problems is that they don’t always work and you can get into real trouble. I brought up Mike the chimp (that’s the Beta male I was talking about) because he solved the problem in essence by no longer causing the problem. This would be the most primitive religion imaginable. It would have no Gods in it, only the "bad" and the "saving" from the bad…followed by the improved status for having done the saving.
Fake solutions to real problems would be more advanced but riskier. If you couldn’t make it appear that you had solved it you would lose status…you might even be set upon and harmed. This is where Gods would come in. As a buffer between you and the consequences of failure. If the problem resolves itself the God gains status. Since there is no God it is you who profit. If the problem is not resolved the God needs to be appeased. Since there is no God you once again profit.
The God also works on fake problems. Gods are the Swiss army knife of cons and that is why they are almost universally used. However the convoluted-ness of this is beyond the level of chimps. They are almost there, but not quite.
In any case, the answer to the question seems to be "yes;" if religion did not come from our hominid ancestors, then it likely originated with us modern humans, as so did indeed come from the Great Apes.
Gods would have come from our human ancestors. But I’m pretty certain that Mike shows that the basic framework that the Gods were an improvement on was already in place.

[capsaicin67]

I believe it was the Mediocre Apes..... :Cheeky:

[Biff the unclean]

It isn't a circumvention of Darwinian theory, as I see it, rather a refined form. Suddenly brute strength wasn't the be all of survival.

In fact it would be one of the first instances where intelligence on its own would best strength.

[Mageth]

The problem with fake solutions to real problems is that they don’t always work and you can get into real trouble. I brought up Mike the chimp (that’s the Beta male I was talking about) because he solved the problem in essence by no longer causing the problem. This would be the most primitive religion imaginable. It would have no Gods in it, only the "bad" and the "saving" from the bad…followed by the improved status for having done the saving.
Fake solutions to real problems would be more advanced but riskier. If you couldn’t make it appear that you had solved it you would lose status…you might even be set upon and harmed. This is where Gods would come in. As a buffer between you and the consequences of failure. If the problem resolves itself the God gains status. Since there is no God it is you who profit. If the problem is not resolved the God needs to be appeased. Since there is no God you once again profit.
The God also works on fake problems. Gods are the Swiss army knife of cons and that is why they are almost universally used. However the convoluted-ness of this is beyond the level of chimps. They are almost there, but not quite.

I favor the "sympathetic magic" (combined with the origin of a belief in "spirit") source for gods and religions. In this scenario, our ancestors first believed that things (e.g., people and animals) could be manipulated by images of the things (figurines, pictures, etc), by parts of the things (such as feathers or claws), and/or by imitations of the things (costume dances, simulated thunder and rain, etc.). (Strong residuals of this manipulative form of magic remain even today in our religions - e.g. prayer, crucifixes, shrines, the Eucharist, etc.) Early "shamans" were expected to be able to directly use sympathetic magic to manipulate the weather, cause crops to grow, make the hunt successful, heal the sick, etc. Oftentimes they would appear to be quite successful by, for example, performing their rituals to cause the yearly rains to begin, and voila! the rains would start - quite naturally, of course, but the shaman did do the thunder-and-rain ritual just before the rains started!

In any case, the power to perform the magic, and thus any failure, resided directly in the shaman. Shamans that had the misfortune to be unsuccessful in their attempts at sympathetic magic (which happened quite often, with naturally occurring droughts and such) were kicked out of the tribe, or possibly even killed. Some new shaman would be found to take their place - a position of power, but of great risk. A tribe in a tough region could go through a lot of shamans.

Well, along comes some clever shaman who wants to avoid this almost inevitable fate. Perhaps he or she recognizes that the magic doesn't really work, or at least is bound not to work sooner or later; who knows? So the shaman comes up with an idea. "I'm not directly manipulating the rain; I'm appealing to the god of thunder and lightning. And, if my appeal does not work, it's not my fault; it's yours. The tribe, or some individual in the tribe, has angered the great god of thunder and lightning!" This gets the shaman off the hook, and puts the blame squarely on some offense that someone else has committed. And sacrifice to appease the god(s), either human, animal, or even crop offerings, blame-casting, guilt, and god-imposed moral law (revealed through the shaman, of course) comes along soon thereafter. And thus religion was born.

At first, these gods/powers may have been mostly thought of as creatures like us that lived somewhere else - up in the sky, or on a mountain, or something. But, eventually, the notion arose that they were incorporeal, or "spirit", like the "spirit" that appears to animate our bodies.

As to the explanation as to where the notion of "spirit" came from that enabled the notion of invisible "spirit gods". Simple, really. Our ancestors at some point began to wonder what it was that left an animated body upon death. One day this guy was breathing, moving and talking, the next day he's lying there, cold and motionless like a rock. What was left was not Oog! Oog had gone! Something was missing; something had left that animated the body, that gave it personality (if it was human). But no one saw anything leave. The body is no longer breathing, which all live animals do, so it must have been the breath that left. Breath is invisible. Breath is there when alive, but leaves on the instant of death. Breath became "spirit", and the notion of an invisible presence/entity/spirit that leaves us when we die was born. And, eventually, gods became spirits as well (possibly of dead ancestors), instead of physical entities, and the spirits that left bodies went to live somewhere else, in some spiritual realm or in some other creature, or hung around to haunt you in some cases.

[Biff the unclean]

Sympathetic magic appears indistinguishable from obsessive-compulsive disorder.

The scenario you present seems awfully advanced, with a lot of beliefs already in place, to be considered a source. You have to have already established the belief of "spirit."
The fake solution to a fake problem requires nothing more that a Silverback group survival strategy and a certain level of intelligence that would be much lower than that required for sympathetic magic to take hold.

[Mageth]

Sympathetic magic appears indistinguishable from obsessive-compulsive disorder.

I don't quite get that. But then, is obsessive-compulsive disorder a possible source for sympathetic magical beliefs? ;)

The scenario you present seems awfully advanced, with a lot of beliefs already in place, to be considered a source.

The scenario is that religion/god-belief was sourced from belief in sympathetic magic. It does not posit, or try to explain, the source for sympathetic magic. So that's a shortcoming, I guess. But one could speculate on the source for magical beliefs. Who knows? Some guy notes that thunder and lightning comes with rain. So, in the spring, before the rains come, he gets a bright idea and waves around a torch, sprinkes some water, and bangs a drum to attract the rain. Voila! the rains come. Gotta do it next year or maybe the rains won't come. It worked for rain, so paint a bison or make a clay model to attract the migrating bison. Or one guy dresses up in a hide and another simulates killing him to insure a successful hunt. And so on. It doesn't take much to imagine how such beliefs could take hold in the imaginative human mind.

You have to have already established the belief of "spirit."

No; the notion of "spirit" could come later and be incorporated into the "religion"; or it may have come before or concurrent with the magical beliefs. The order does not matter; the point is that, at some time, the two merged. In any case, even Neanderthals are known to have buried their dead, which implies, but does not prove, that spirit-belief may have had a quite early start.

The fake solution to a fake problem requires nothing more that a Silverback group survival strategy and a certain level of intelligence that would be much lower than that required for sympathetic magic to take hold.

I agree that it's a good alternative explanation. But the truth is that any such scenario is speculative at this point, both the one you provide and my alternative. We simply don't know what the source of beliefs and religions are. I just find it rather fun to speculate.

The clever shaman scenario makes a lot of sense to me as to how religion and, in particular, god-fearing religion began. It has the advantage of not having to go back quite so far for an explanation. But perhaps that's also a disadvantage, as it does require a higher level of intelligence, so cannot go back quite as far. But does the source of religion really have to go back that far?

[Biff the unclean]

I don't quite get that. But then, is obsessive-compulsive disorder a possible source for sympathetic magical beliefs?
The association of unrelated actions with an outcome.
For instance OCS=if I touch every parking meter as I walk down the street like TV’s Monk that will keep something terrible from happening to me. Sympathetic magic= if I turn clockwise twice and kill a chicken while reciting certain words good things will happen to me.

The scenario is that religion/god-belief was sourced from belief in sympathetic magic.
My gripe is that this religion is already advanced enough to have Gods in it

It does not posit, or try to explain, the source for sympathetic magic. So that's a shortcoming, I guess. But one could speculate on the source for magical beliefs.
Well being primates our brains are evolved to seek out patterns. Oft times, as you’ll notice with our ID friends, we’ll make associations/see patterns where they do not exist.
OCS is pattern recognition gone wild.

No; the notion of "spirit" could come later and be incorporated into the "religion"; or it may have come before or concurrent with the magical beliefs.
Well that’s the imaginary leopard I was talking about. We were a source of it’s food and they would hunt us at night. We would sense them stalking us but not see them (until it was too late)
Look at the gargoyles on medieval cathedrals and how many of them look like leopards.

In any case, even Neanderthals are known to have buried their dead, which implies, but does not prove, that spirit-belief may have had a quite early start.
I’m talking about a much earlier start than that, Australopithecus is more like I had in mind. Just a hair more advanced that modern day bonobos.

I agree that it's a good alternative explanation. But the truth is that any such scenario is speculative at this point, both the one you provide and my alternative. We simply don't know what the source of beliefs and religions are. I just find it rather fun to speculate.
Oh of course. I’m not even taking my inferences from the same species

But does the source of religion really have to go back that far?
I’m trying to find evolutionary factors to a behavior. Your speculation makes a great deal of sense and is supported by primitive societies in our own time. But even something so primitive still arrives carrying a lot of baggage. It’s a great deal for them to come up with out of whole cloth.
Mike the chimp used only fear and deceit. No gods, no supernatural just an evolved survival strategy that centers around an Alpha male who gets rewards and a little hysteria on his friends part. That’s about as simple a behavior as you can get and still have any components of what we call religion.

Now excuse me while I line up all the paper clips on my desk before something dreadful happens.

[Jobar]

I didn't realize you were Dr S, Biff. Though now that you say so, I suppose I might should have seen that, from your style and wording. In any case, I'm glad to know that the author of that thread is still about; it was one of only a handful from my time as a mod on EoG, which I thought was really original. What do we call this search for the deep roots of religion, by the way? Paleoanthrotheology? :)

I think we have to look at our ability to make models and abstracts of reality. What do you think the first hominid who managed to make astronomical predictions from his (or her) observations felt? Their model of reality- say of the motion of the sun through the course of the year- allowed them to seem to control the movement of the very heavens! I guess that it's understandable that they would claim that control, since it would give them awesome power in their own society.

Our languages depend on our ability to abstract; I'd say religion and magic are both cases of pushing that ability too far.

A fascinating topic, but I'm too tired for it right now. Another day... J.

[Biff the unclean]

I didn't realize you were Dr S, Biff.
Yeah that’s what happens when you are too clever by half with your password and then change from a PC to a Mac, it’s easier to just start over.

Though now that you say so, I suppose I might should have seen that, from your style and wording.
I do have the honor of being Irish so I’m given to putting sentences together inside out.

What do we call this search for the deep roots of religion, by the way? Paleoanthrotheology?
That sounds good. It sounds better than “guessing.� My conjectures are based on behavior of modern day apes and the gnawed condition of our ancestors bones found in the Riff Valley from when they were at a similar level of development…so that might mean not a guess but a rather wild guess.

The question is, what is the most basic part of religion? Not God or the Devil, these are just part of the story and they change from story to story.
The most basic part would be the story itself. And not what the story says as that changes too, but what it does, that doesn’t change…it’s a scary story. The next basic element is what is the common purpose a scary story serves. You must overlook what the story says and look at what effect it has in the real world. And that common effect is that the storyteller’s social status improves.
True I spend most of my time with gorillas and tend to see the world through gorilla colored glasses. Their society revolves around the silverback…he gets the food, he gets the sex, he has the status. In time of danger he stands his ground to give his troop time to get to safety. If he has to die he will for love of his family. It’s just a simpler telling of the Christ story, same basics less window dressing.
Having the status of being a silverback/Christ is great, though the dying part sucks big time. But if you tell the story of a fake silverback/Christ (not mentioning the fake part of course) and him saving you from a fake danger the storyteller gets the status without the risk. Oh there will be plenty of stories about risk and how other storytellers died just like silverback/Christ but it’s all just stories.

[Clivedurdle]

I wonder if it is possible to take the invention of religion even further back in evolutionary time?

There is more and more discussion of the existence of "cultures" in other species - the elephant and the whale come to mind immediately. Some birds have dialects in their song?

Is religion something - like the eye - that might have evolved separately several times?

The classic anthropological type view of religion is assuming very high levels of complexity - these must have evolved as well.

Should religion be understood as a tool to enable resources to be directed towards you and your kin? Herbivores eat grass, carnivores meat, parasites eat the thing they live in, religivores use emotions and ideas to catch their meals!