Reflections on the Origins of Religious Thought

© Thomas A. Baillieul, 2008(5)

Introduction

Religion, as a set of both practices and beliefs, has been a characteristic of human cultures throughout recorded history. Indeed, as a human enterprise, religion has been with us longer than agriculture, longer than there have been towns and cities. Unequivocal evidence of religious behavior goes back 35, 000 years, with other evidence suggesting that it goes back at least twice that far. Excavations at the Gobekli Tepe site in S. E. Turkey show evidence of highly sophisticated monumental construction (1,000 -8,000 B.C.E.) predating domestication of animals and plants (Curry, 2008). The required support for the large labor pool required to construct this ceremonial site over a period of decades and even centuries suggests that religion (in the sense of creating a place of worship) may have been the stimulus for settled agriculture and herding in the region. Even today religion is often a dominant force in human interactions - sparking armed conflicts around the world, and frequently dominating political debates. Why are we religious, and what is the source of religion’s lasting hold on our species? Is this some evolved trait, controlled by our genes - or a cultural phenomenon passed on from generation to generation like many other forms of knowledge? Or is it something else entirely?

Religion is a uniquely human activity not observed in other animal species. Over the last 70 millennia - and perhaps longer - our species has displayed a range of behaviors which distinguish us from every other species that ever lived. Chimpanzees, dolphins, and elephants have been shown to be self-aware (Reiss, and Marino, 2001 and Plotnik, et al., 2006) . Dolphins have brain to body mass ratios on par with modern humans and are known to behave intelligently. Elephants have been observed to display apparent grief over the death of a family member. Chimps have been shown to have a sense of humor, to transfer cultural knowledge, and to possess basic aspects of culture (Whiten and Boesch, 2001; Goodall, 2001). Goodal (201) suggests that chimpanzees in the wild experience the awe that we associate with religion; although it is difficult to distinguish the chimps’ response to a natural occurrence, such as a thunderstorm, from the normal threat response to a leopard or other predator. King (2007) does not consider chimps and gorillas to exhibit religious behaviors, but believes that modern humans’ tendency toward religion has its roots in the social behaviors of our primate ancestors. To the extent that we can put ourselves into the minds of other species through observation of physical behavior, no other animals appear to ponder their origins, the meaning of life, or the existence of the divine.

Pinpointing the moment that human beings began to reason symbolically - and thus could have entertained religious “thoughts” - is fraught with significant difficulty. What are the physical evidences for the existence of a symbolic culture? They include: personal ornaments, decorated tools, use of natural pigments, engraved bones and stones, burials, grave goods, systems of notation, musical instruments, and complex bone and wood technologies. D’Errico, et al. (2003), in a synthesis study, gathered the latest archeological data and research findings from Europe, Africa, and the Near East with the aim of tentatively tracing the major steps in the diversification of languages in Europe during the Upper Paleolithic through the analysis of symbolic objects functionally equivalent to language. There are hints that hominid species ancestral to modern humans may also have had the capacity for complex communication, and imagination. The collection and use of natural pigments for body adornment (or other forms of decoration) may date as far back as 400,000 years B. P. at the Twin Rivers site in Zambia. Homo neanderthalensis sites from the Late Stone Age in Europe show evidence of body ornamentation (shell and bone beads), complex tool making, musical instruments, and intentional burials. However, these physical traces all occur after the time of contact between Neanderthals and modern humans, so that the significance is uncertain. Some research on Neanderthal habitation sites has determined that dwelling patterns suggesting gender segregation, not only physically but in terms of resource consumption, implies that homo neandethalensis had thought processes very different from those of modern humans. Other human species ancestral to our own (e.g., homo erectus, homo ergaster, homo heidelbergensis) apparently did not deal in symbols, at least as far as we can tell from the physical traces they left behind.

Anatomically modern humans arose in Africa somewhere between 160,000 and 200,000 years ago, and their remains have been found in the Levant, dated to around 100,000 years ago. However, modern anatomy and modern behaviors did not necessarily coincide. From sites dating to around 75,000 years ago we start seeing objects in associated with homo sapiens remains which strongly suggest a new way of thinking about themselves and the world around them. From the Blombos Cave on the Cape Coast of South Africa come a set of worn shell beads indicating an interest in bodily adornment. From the same site also comes the first known human artwork, a piece of ochre engraved with a geometric linear pattern. In a time span covering the next 40,000, years and from sites throughout Africa, the Middle East, Australia, and Europe archeologists have uncovered an increasing treasure trove of artifacts demonstrating that early homo sapiens possessed self-awareness, imagination, abstract thinking, and the ability to communicate symbolically. By 35,000 years ago (and possibly earlier), art and spiritual expression were in full swing, represented most dramatically by cave paintings and rock engravings in western Europe, Africa, and Australia. This art included fantastical creatures, part animal, part human - evidence of fully modern imaginative ability.

A growing area of investigation in the fields of evolutionary biology and anthropology is the origin of religion as a human institution. Two distinct schools of thought have emerged: the adaptationists who conclude that religious beliefs and practices were biologically-derived traits which gave early humans a survival advantage; and the behaviorists who argue that religion comprises a set of learned behaviors with no specific adaptive advantage and no biological “cause.” As with most polarized debates, the answer probably lies somewhere in between.

Our species created art, music, bodily adornments, stone tools with aesthetics rather than simple utility in mind, and complex social structures. We buried our dead with care and placed in these graves food, jewelry, and weapons, strongly suggesting a belief in an afterlife. The abundant physical evidence homo sapiens left behind is a clear indication of our early ability to think and communicate symbolically. As Ian Tattersall (2002) points out, only modern humans have the demonstrated ability to divide up the world around them into a huge number of discrete elements - and then to name those elements. This allows us to rearrange those elements in our minds and imagine a variety of different realities. It is this ability to question and imagine that has allowed us to achieve mastery over our environment. How did this ability come about? Tattersall believes that it arose as homo sapiens began to express this understanding of the world in ever more complex language. Language - words and syntax - is the mechanism of our conscious thoughts. Complex language, in turn, required the combined action of multiple brain centers, and a larynx located low in the throat, giving us the ability to make a wide range of vocalizations.

While we cannot know for certain what the earliest forms of religious thought were like, two lines of evidence are available to us. First, there is the physical evidence left by our earliest ancestors in the form of habitation sites with manufactured artifacts and burials. Second, we can examine the religious beliefs and practices of aboriginal peoples (a.k.a. “First Peoples”) in various parts of the world today. While these modern beliefs undoubtedly are evolved beyond, and are more “sophisticated” than, the first human religious beliefs, they provide a window into the minds of humans living in the rhythms of the natural world.

Religion Defined

Before we go much further, there is a basic question which needs to be answered - what is religion? The answer is not as simple as one might think. For some people, religion is the connection to God - or gods - or some transcendent spirit. For others, religion equates to a specific set of rituals and practices, some of which have origins now lost in the mists of time. For yet others, religion equates to a physical church with members who are of the same social standing, sharing common behaviors and world views. Like beauty, or pornography, everyone will have an idea of what that term means for them. It turns out, though, that there is no consistent, universally applicable definition that covers all religious traditions. As pointed out by the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance (www.religioustolerance.org) , all commonly used definitions of “religion” contain at least one deficiency. Some might exclude beliefs that are widely perceived to be religious. Those that focus only on belief in a god or gods exclude non-theistic religions such as Buddhism or Unitarian Universalism. Definitions which equate religion only with Christianity deny the beliefs of nearly 2/3 of the planet’s inhabitants. Other definitions include areas of study such as Ecology or Cosmology which are more correctly regarded as scientific disciplines.

Students of theology tend to approach the subject of religion from their own experience; however, modern religions are as much as 100,000 years removed from the first stirrings of religious thought. As noted by Carl Sagan, the eminent scientist and philosopher, over the course of human history there have been as many religions as there have been separate human communities to conceive of them. This equates to hundreds of thousands of conceptions of the divine, and of religious “truths”. Even today, there are over 1,000 distinct religions actively embraced by cultures around the world.

Rather than try and create yet another complicated and cumbersome definition, I decided on a different approach. What are the functions, if any, that religions, past and present, all have in common? To answer this question, I could not look at faith and practice through the lens of any specific tradition and the bias that would create. Instead, it was necessary to set aside for the moment the familiar religions of today with their trappings of ritual, hymns, architecture, mythology, and pronouncements. I imagined a time before any currently known religion existed, and tried to look at religion in its most elementary form. What I discovered is that all religions serve multiple functions in the lives of individual people and human communities. 

The six basic functions associated with religion can be described succinctly:

•          providing answers (or paths to answers) for ultimate questions (e.g., the nature of death; the purpose of life)

•          providing methods for interceding or connecting with the supernatural

•          giving explanations of the natural world

•          providing a context and rules for moral behavior

•          supporting individual and group identity

•          supporting community and social stability

Taken together, answers to Ultimate Questions, explanations of the natural world, and ways of interceding with the divine, result in beliefs. The three remaining functions relate to the social contract that exists between an individual and society. While religious beliefs are largely unique to an individual, religion, in the larger sense, is a group activity. Not all faith traditions pursue each function to the same degree. Systems such as Confucianism and Shinto place strong emphasis on harmony and community stability while leaving the pondering of Great Questions up to the individual. Buddhism places a strong emphasis on moral behavior and encourages individuals to seek their own path to transcendence (connecting with the supernatural).

Some scholars would raise ritual to an essential characteristic of religion - and certainly most faith traditions engage in ritual practices. However, under the scheme described here, rituals derive from higher level functions or attributes - in this case, methods for interceding with the supernatural, and creating strong individual and group identity. Others argue that the giving of joy or a sense of tranquility are a function of religion. Again, these feelings - which vary from individual to individual - are the secondary effects of higher level functions. Being accepted into a religious community strengthens our personal identity, frequently leading to feelings of contentment and happiness. Feelings of joy or ecstacy associated with religious expression are the result of practices, developed over millennia, which allow practitioners to achieve altered states of consciousness - related to the search for ways to connect with the supernatural (discussed more fully below).

The functions provided by religion tend not to be stand-alone attributes, but are interrelated, often in complex ways. Each of these attributes also can be provided by other societal institutions and functions. Philosophy, shorn of specific religious trappings, addresses the Great Questions of human life. Various meditative practices outside of any formal religious context can provide the practitioner with a sense of connection to a higher plane of existence. Science has been shown to do a much better job than religious beliefs and traditions when it comes to understanding the natural world. However, science fails as a tool when it comes to answering “ultimate questions”. Cavanaugh (2007) shows convincingly that many human social systems and philosophies - such as nationalism, communism, rationalism, fascism - can mimic religion in promoting individual or community identity and stability, and imposing specific required behaviors. These “-isms”, however, fall short when it comes to answering Great Questions or providing methods for interceding/connecting with the divine. Thus, while religion is not necessary for a full, meaningful life, it is the only human institution which addresses all six functions in one set of practices.

Death and Other Ultimate Questions

Why the traits of imagination and symbolic reasoning - the ultimate underpinnings of religious thought - evolved in our species is still a matter of heated discussion between archeologists, anthropologists, neuro-scientists, and sociologists. Certainly the ability to think abstractly, and to communicate complex thoughts would improve group cooperation and transmission of knowledge, and thus aid survival. Imagination, too, would have endowed a survival advantage. Early humans could visualize a future that had not yet come to be, using their knowledge of the world to predict storms, know when the floods came or when the mountain pass would be closed by snow, and know which trees would have ripe fruit in the different seasons. They could also put themselves into the minds of the animals they hunted in order to understand the movements and migrations of the great herds. But, visualizing the future doesn’t stop with immediate practical applications. Once this ability arose, early peoples could look to the future and project other happenings, including their own deaths. Not that anyone, then or now, can predict the specific timing and circumstances of their demise, but we can imagine a future in which we won’t be present. This is apparently a uniquely human trait, and for many, it is terrifying.

Psychologists have long known that one of, if not the most fundamental needs we all have is for identity - to belong and to know that we exist. It’s part of our awareness of self: self-awareness = consciousness = identity. Most of us derive this identity from our social groups. I am... and I belong to... are extremely comforting sentiments. Early people derived their identities through association with their families and tribal groups, much the same way we derive ours from family, friends, job, church, clubs, schools, and communities. This is why banishment was, and still is, such an effective punishment amongst tribal groups. If you are banished from the only group that gives you your identity, you became a non-entity. In those traditional cultures that still practice banishment, the usual end result is that the banished individual loses all will to live, and literally curls up and dies.

Death is the ultimate loss of identity - the great unknown - a fundamental driver of fear. At the same time, death was a common experience to early hunting and gathering peoples. The hunter’s prey went from vital and struggling one moment to inert the next. And so too it was with people. A person or animal who died never came back again. But, paradoxically, life came from death. When the great kudu died it meant that the hunters’ family would continue to eat and thrive. Green shoots were seen to spring forth from the ashes of a wild fire. Leaves reappeared on the winter skeletons of trees. Truly, death was a deep mystery and a source of awe and fear. These observations led to the greatest of the Great (or “ultimate”) Questions - what happens to us when we die? When grandma closed her eyes for the last time, and the warmth left her body, where did her life force go? What happened to her stories? Her memories? Was grandma only the flesh and bones of the person we knew; or was there something more? Surely these important people just didn’t disappear - for if they did, that would mean that we too, in our time, just disappear.

Intentional burials, whether with specific material “offerings” or not, are a sign of deep reflection on the nature of death, and the importance of the deceased in the lives of the group. Clearly, burials are not just a desire to dispose of a corpse. That can be done simply by dragging the body out into the forest or the vedlt and letting nature’s efficient recycling services go to work. Instead, our ancestors could imagine their own inevitable futures; how would we want our remains dealt with? There was always the possibility that the life spirit or animating force still resided somewhere within the cold flesh. Or, what about early counterparts of modern foraging peoples who believe that consuming certain parts of an animal transfers that animal’s abilities or spirit to the eater? The body needed to be kept intact and away from scavengers - just in case. In modern foraging societies, death is not viewed as the cessation of the life spirit, but is usually considered to result in the joining of the deceased’s spirit with a body of ancestral spirits who very much still have an existence. It is not unreasonable to imagine that similar belief systems were created by our earliest ancestors to explain, and overcome the fear of, death. This is religion at its most basic.

Besides death, other ultimate questions also occupied our ancestors’ minds. Where does my life spirit come from? Why am I here and is there a purpose to life? Why do bad things happen to good people (and vice versa)? An ultimate question is one which cannot be answered by factual, objective information; by observation and testing. Answers to ultimate questions thus become matters of faith.

It is a curious thing about people, with our imaginations and ability to construct questions. We are never satisfied with the answer, “I don’t know.” In the absence of evidence we even prefer made-up explanations to the uncertainty posed by an open question. Perhaps this is a response to the apparent capriciousness of nature. Of course, there can be multiple answers to each Ultimate Question; some of which are very unsatisfying: What happens when we die? Nothing - we just come to an end. What is the purpose of life? There isn’t any. Why am I here? No particular reason, just chance. For many this set of answers is fearful stuff in that it denies our need to feel significant. Religion exists (in part) to provide acceptable answers to these questions, to

calm the fears of the unknown and unknowable. We want to believe that we matter. We want to believe that “someone” is in charge; someone who holds the answers to these questions; someone who won’t let the flame go out when we die.

Interceding with the Supernatural

Early people, seated at night around a fire, were convinced that there were forces that controlled the natural world. How else could the sun set, the moon rise, and the rain fall? What made the thunder, and caused the return of life to the trees after the winter’s cold? Some natural phenomena are regular and predictable (e.g., sunrise, the phases of the moon, the change of seasons); others are sporadic and even threatening (e.g., tornados, floods, wildfires). The capricious nature of nature must have struck a resonant chord with our ancestors. Regularity broken by short sporadic bursts of anger were characteristic of a basic human temperament. It was easier to understand the vagaries of the natural world if it was assumed that these controlling forces - or “spirits” - were imbued with human characteristics (including our own foibles). Lightning was known for its power to kill, and the thunder was terrifying; but lightning also gave fire. Fire gave people greater control over the world in which they lived, and as a result, lives became safer, longer and more comfortable. Thus, the spirit behind the lightning was at once both fearsome and benevolent. However, control of fire required very specific actions; constant feeding, and protection from the rain. If it went out, a major effort was required to rekindle it. The fire “spirit” needed to be coaxed and appeased in specific ways. Being able to control fire would have resulted in search for control over other aspects of nature as well. People sought ways to intercede with different aspects of the supernatural.

Why would we think that appeasement of, or a connection with these forces would be possible? As noted by astronomer, Carl Sagan, in one of his Gifford Lectures, presented in 1985 (Sagan, 2006, pp 177-178):

“We all grow up in the land of giants when we are very small and the adults are very large. And then, through a set of slow stages, we grow up, and we become one of the adults. But still within us, surely, is some part of our childhood that hasn’t disappeared and hasn’t grown up. It’s just there. In your formative years, you then learn from direct experience, absolutely incontrovertibly, that there are much larger, much older, much wiser, and much more powerful creatures in the universe than you. And your strongest emotional bonds are to them. And, among other things, they are sometimes angry with you and then you have to work through the anger. And they ask you to do things that you may not want to do, and you must propitiate them, you must apologize, you must do a set of things. Now, how likely is it that after we are all grown up we’ve fully detached ourselves from this formative experience? Isn’t it much more likely that there remains a part of us that is still in the practice of this kind of childhood dealing with parents and other adults? Could that have something to do with prayer specifically and with religious beliefs in general?”

Once humans did the very human thing of assigning personalities to the forces controlling the natural world (and this is the form of religious consciousness of all current groups of First Peoples), then it was a minor step to consider these powers larger than our own to be like the adults when we were children. It made these forces easier to comprehend and to deal with. They set expectations for our behavior, and had rules which we needed to learn. They were given to occasional outbursts of anger when we transgressed, and we needed to appease them and ask forgiveness.

According to the BaMbuti People (a.k.a., Pygmies) of the central African Ituri rain forest:

“the forest is a father and mother to us, and like a father or mother, it gives us everything we need - food, clothing, shelter, warmth... and affection. Normally, everything goes well, because the forest is good to its children, but when things go wrong there must be a reason.”

“Normally everything goes well in our world. But at night when we are sleeping, sometimes things go wrong, because we are not awake to stop them from going wrong. Army ants invade the camp; leopards may come in and steal a hunting dog or even a child. If we were awake, these things would not happen. So, when something big goes wrong, like illness, or bad hunting, or death, it must be that the forest is sleeping and not looking after its children. So, what do we do? We wake it up. We wake it up by singing to it, and we do this because we want it to awaken happy. Then everything will be well and good again. So, when our world is going well, then we also sing to the forest because we want it to share our happiness.” (Turnbull, 1961)

Some adults would embrace us with unconditional love, and others only conditionally. We had to learn how to navigate this world that we could not fully comprehend. Communication between children and adults is pretty straight forward - after all, they share language if not meaning. Communicating or connecting with an unseen spirit or force - regardless of how human-like we imagine it to be - is more of a challenge. This is a challenge that confronts most of us today as much as it did our ancient ancestors.

In addition to the ability for abstract thought and imagination in personalizing the forces of nature, the modern human brain is capable of generating transcendental experiences. When adaptationists talk about religious beliefs and practices, they are usually referring to the observed human ability to achieve a transcendental state of mind through the mechanisms of trance, psychoactive substances, deep meditation, rhythmic patterns (e.g., drumming), or strenuous physical movement (e.g., dance), or some combination.

Four association areas of the brain which evolved for fuller perception of the world are involved in experiencing the transcendental as well - some by being activated, some by being diminished or shut down. When we have balanced perception, the brain centers work in concert. During religious “experiences”, the brain centers become unbalanced, with the specific form of the imbalance determining the nature of the experience (Newburg, et al., 2001). It is also interesting to note that the brain centers most involved in feelings of transcendence are those associated with sexual arousal and response.

Newburg et al. (2001) have shown that part of our sense of identity is the physical knowledge our brains hold of our body’s position in space. This is the ability to know where “we” end and the rest of the universe begins. This sense of physical orientation is controlled by the superior posterior parietal region of the brain. Measurements of brain activity during deep meditation or trance states show diminished activity in this area. In deep meditation the distinction between self and everything else is reduced, often being reported as a “oneness with God,” or a connection with one’s true self, or being “at one with the universe”. Transcendental experiences are interpreted differently by the individuals experiencing them. Similar experiences become whatever a person’s memories, cultural background, belief systems and wishes dictate. Other brain areas also give rise to religious feelings. The temporal lobe is associated with verbal and abstract conceptualization. Studies of individuals with temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) have shown that stimulation of this part of the brain can give the TLE patient what has been described as a “religious experience”. Individuals with TLE also have a heightened response to religious language and icons. Ellen White, who’s ecstatic visions gave rise to the Seventh Day Adventist movement, was, in all likelihood, the victim of Temporal Lobe Epilepsy caused by a traumatic head injury during her youth (Hodder and Holmes, 1981).

There are a number of methods by which brain centers can be either stimulated or suppressed. The temporal lobe can also be stimulated with low frequency magnetic fields, resulting in sensations characterized as religious feelings in up to 80% of the non-epileptic subjects tested. Buddhist monks utilize quiet and deep meditation to reach a transcendental state. Healers in a Zhu/twasi family group connect with the spirit realm by means of vigorous, rhythmic dance, possibly aided by smoke inhalation. In many cultures, rhythmic dancing, or even swaying side-to-side, can convey a limited feeling of connection with the divine to participants. The Shakers of 19^th Century America, the Garifuna of Central America, and the Sufi dervishes are examples of cultures which use rhythmic movement to alter brain states and achieve a transcendent state. Various psychoactive drugs have been used for millennia to help shamen and healers to achieve a trance state. It is also possible that the alterations to brain chemistry from prolonged fasting could have a similar effect.

When they became ill, early humans - not knowing anything about germ theory - assumed that malevolent spirits had entered their bodies. In traditional, earth-centered religions, the shaman or holy woman channel for, or hold a direct personal link to the supernatural spirits. A tribe’s healer would do battle with the evil spirit in an attempt to drive it from the victim’s body. Treatment took many forms depending on the diagnosis and the traditions followed by each healer. In addition, healing might take the form of the laying on of hands, muttered incantations, or the use of dance or psychoactive botanicals to induce trances in an effort to channel/communicate with the spirits. Healers would also apply herbs and potions - some of which actually had a beneficial pharmacological effect. The mystical knowledge and rituals in these types of cultures are passed along from the holder of divine knowledge to an apprentice.

The one condition that could not be cured, of course, was death. Death was permanent. The light that went out in the old man’s eyes could not be re-kindled by any effort. The body remained as complete as it was in life, but cooled slowly. What force was it that kept the body warm, that gave energy to its actions? There must be something, some invisible force or spirit, that animates us and makes us who we are. Answers came from visions or feelings of transcendence/unity that were the result of the integrated actions of several brain centers, as described above. “Grandma’s life force still dwells “somewhere” because I’ve felt that place.” Ritual and myth helped to re-inforce these feelings by providing fleeting glimpses of this transcendence (e.g., trance dances of the Zhu/twasi; the rhythmic dancing of the Garifuna of Central America; or the peyote ceremonies of the Kiowa and other Native Americans). Just like the rocks and trees and winds were thought to be animated by spirits, so too was each person assigned a personal spirit. This was the beginning of “dualism”; the concept of a soul separate from the physical body. The ritualistic burials of early homo sapiens, with anointed corpses, flowers, tools, jewelry, and more are proof not only of deep thoughts about the meaning of death, but also of attempts to influence the forces associated with death. These were religious rituals. In addition to direct contact with the spirit world, some religions, both ancient and current use art as a tool to represent the spirits that control important aspects of nature (e.g., ancient cave and rock art, Native American sand painting, Tibetan Mandalas).

The concept of disease being caused by supernatural entities, that is, “evil spirits”, lasted well into the 19^th Century in the industrialized world (and is still prevalent in many parts of the world). In each case, the nature of the spirit cause of disease is determined by a community’s religious traditions. Westernized societies, even with public recognition of the advances in modern medicine, are not far removed from earlier superstitious beliefs. Americans in growing numbers believe in ghosts and the healing powers of crystals or homeopathic therapies. Possession of the body by the devil is still a popular theme with Hollywood, and with the public as evidenced by box office receipts.

One important consequence of the brain’s capacity to achieve a transcendental state - even if only partially - is that it confirmed for many that the supernatural existed, and that it could be “touched” by those with the right knowledge, training, and/or stimulation. The great mystics of history (Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad, and others), those who were able to achieve the highest level of transcendental state, all concluded that we are one with ALL. Most people, however, neither seek nor want to be one with all things and all people. Such an idea goes against basic human nature - and is, frankly, terrifying. To achieve such a state means loss of self - the greatest innate fear of our species. The “it’s about me” attitude is incompatible with the Buddhist goal of “there is no me.” Most people would rather hold to a simple belief that there is a personal god, having approachable human characteristics, who will both answer supplications for assistance and act as a threat of punishment if we (or others) behave badly. We impose our identities on the animate and the inanimate around us. Invisible spirits are given human characteristics to make them easier to intercede with (aka “agent detection” in the vernacular of psychologists).

“Revealed truths” spoken by charismatic or authoritarian individuals in every age provided answers to each ultimate question, although the answers differed from culture to culture. Revelations coming to specific persons might have been the result of deep meditation, use of psychoactive substances, starvation by fasting, frenetic, rhythmic movement (as in trance dancing), or brain damage/abnormalities (e.g., temporal lobe epilepsy). It is interesting to note that the founders of the world’s major religious traditions achieved transcendent states, and had their greatest revelations following periods of prolonged fasting.

Given the abundance of differing ways to view the divine that have come and gone over the course of human history, it is clear that there is no single Truth. We create “God” or gods according to the dictates, needs, and experiences of the culture in which we live. We are not “hard-wired” to believe in God as some researchers maintain - otherwise there would not be so many people around the world who reject the existence of a deity. Rather, we have the brain circuitry that allows us, under the right circumstances, to feel connected to something larger, and to project our desires for this connection. Does this mean that there is no God? No. The existence or non-existence of a supreme deity is one of the Ultimate Questions that can’t be answered by any tools of logic or observation.

Early on in the Jewish tradition the most learned rabbis held that their god could not be named. This view was driven, not by fear of offending the deity, but by a recognition that the instant one puts a label on the transcendent, it is diminished. The divine, the transcendent, the infinite, the “unknowable unknown”, remains outside the human ability to comprehend. Any attempt at comprehension requires consideration within a human frame of reference and symbolism - which immediately makes the infinite finite, and thus incomplete. It is not even possible to state that the transcendent exists outside of our imaginings and longings. The intellectual recognition that a transcendent deity must be beyond human comprehension is strongly at odds with the idea of a personal god who has human characteristics and is approachable through prayer, sacrifice, or other rituals. Just as most people do not want to have an intense transcendental experience - the total loss of self-ness - so too, they look for a god or spirit who is accessible and is interested in their well-being.

Explaining the Natural World

The lives of early peoples were dominated by natural forces. Rainfall meant life or death. The changing seasons were marked not only by changes in the length of a day, but also changes in temperature, by migrations of the great herds, and the ripening of fruit and grains in the places where they were found. The patterns of the seasons were also marked by the movements of the sun, the moon, and the stars. Much of nature followed predictable rhythmic patterns - but not all. Natural disasters: floods, droughts, storms, earthquakes, volcanoes, came without warning and could have dire consequences for the family group. Natural cycles also brought the great mysteries of birth, death, and sickness.

Humans’ highly evolved ability to perceive and imagine the world around them provided a distinct survival advantage. However, it also resulted in a compulsion to explain why everything is the way it is. Curiosity gives rise to both scientific exploration, and religious reasoning (myth making). When data are available, logic provides a cause and effect explanation. When data are lacking, incomplete, or equivocal, we still want answers - and this leads to speculation, to projection of human characteristics, and to beliefs.

In 17^th Century Europe, the method of investigation we now call Science came into being. In part, this new way of looking at the world was a result of the Protestant Reformation which demonstrated the fallibility of religious authority. Scientific investigation was also spurred on by the acceleration of international trade, exploration, and conquest. These forces drove advances in: mathematics, astronomy, and chronometry for navigation; optics; material science for new trade goods and better tools; mining; and industrial processes. Increasing knowledge of how the world works became the underpinning of a new socio-economic system that continues to this day.

The scientific method was based on what was initially a religious premise -

•          God is rational, not capricious;

•          nature operates by a fixed set of unvarying principles which can be studied and understood; and

•          all natural phenomena have a cause which can be deduced logically from the processes of the natural world.

Mathematics became the key to understanding nature, and the most powerful demonstration of the age was Newton’s ability to predict precisely the motions of the planets.

The results of the scientific revolution are obvious. Every major technological innovation and convenience we take for granted in our daily lives is the result of scientific exploration of the universe following a structured process of prediction, testing, observation, and validation. However, despite the fact that our modern lives depend on it, Rationalism, the idea that the universe can be studied and explained by the methods of science, never really caught on with the majority of humans. It comes too close to saying “you can’t have a personal god.” People want to believe that they can influence events in their lives by supplication to a supernatural power. Rationalism places responsibility for our actions back on the individual. There is no appeal (in either sense of the word).

People see natural events as somehow personal, and purposeful. When explanations of the natural world become interwoven with, and integral to, answers for Ultimate Questions, or the nature of the divine, then conflicts arise. Various faith traditions have given physical dimensions to deities, mythical events, and promised end times which are unsupportable by scientific investigation. If one aspect of a belief system is called into question - or is negated by scientific observation - then it can call into question the entire belief system. If the Garden of Eden did not exist, then the story of original sin is just that, a story. And if original sin is a fiction, how can there be salvation? And without salvation, how can there be eternal life? Once one part of a mythic tradition collapses, the entire fabric of belief can unravel - unless reinforced by other rationalizations.

Evolutionary biologist, Stephen J. Gould, proposed that science and religion constituted separate and separable ways of knowing - “non-overlapping magisteria”. In this conception, the two approaches to knowledge need never be in conflict as they address different areas of human inquiry. The reality is very different than this ideal. It is significant that at the start of the 21^st Century nearly 90% of Americans profess a belief in a god, and 50% don’t know that the Earth revolves around the sun and takes one year to complete a circuit (Scientific American, 2007). According to a 2001 survey by the National Academy of Science, nearly 70% of Americans do not understand the basics of the scientific method. In 2004, the National Science Foundation Science reported that the public’s knowledge of science in the United States is not improving. Survey respondents' ability to answer most questions about science has remained essentially unchanged since the 1990s, with one exception: more people now know that antibiotics do not kill viruses. Belief in pseudoscience - astrology, extra sensory perception, crystal healing, alien encounters - is on the rise.

Rules for Moral Behavior

Like religion, moral behavior can be difficult to define in a way that all would agree. Morality and moral conduct also are typically defined in terms of right and wrong behaviors, or good and evil. These terms only have meaning in a human context and cannot legitimately be ascribed to other social species, or to nature at large. Often, morality means a code of conduct held to be authoritative, whether by society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience. According to this view, moral behavior is not absolute, but arises in response to cultural norms and expectations. Every human culture for the past 75,000+ years has had to figure out how to balance the needs of the group with the selfish desires of individual group members, creating the “Social Contract” (Ardrey, 1970). To this end, every human culture has developed rules for proper behavior - within that culture.

Sometimes these rules are ascribed to the gods and set out in myths; sometimes they are the edicts of rulers and priestesses; sometimes the origins of any given rule may be lost to memory. Many religions also impose specific rules of conduct on their followers: the Shariya (Law) in Islam; the “Laws of Moses” in Conservative Judaism and Christianity; Papal decrees for modern Catholics; or revelations of the President of the Church of Latter Day Saints. Tradition and belief hold that these rules are handed down by God through the agency of one or more prophets/authorities. Along with the imposed rules comes the implied or explicit threat of punishment for disobedience. Sometimes this punishment is meted out immediately by religious authorities; at other times the punishment is deferred to the afterlife. In the end, however, all moral codes ever spoken or written have come from the minds and hands of human beings. Regardless of the divine inspiration we may choose to assign to any set of moral principles, we make up the rules our society needs for any set of circumstances. In a modern, pluralistic society it is possible to have multiple moral viewpoints and behaviors - all valid.

All social species have behaviors that promote the stability and security of the immediate group. These behaviors include dominance hierarchies, mating preferences, access to specific foods, defensive response to external threats, and leadership of group movement. These behaviors appear uniformly to be “hard wired” into individuals, although in certain hominids social behaviors sometimes apparently are learned. In some of our closest relatives we have observations of food sharing, use of simple tools to improve food supply and quality, and various coercive measures by females to reduce male aggression (e.g., in bonobos).

What were the forces driving the development of human moral behavior? When did morality arise among the hominids? We know that homo erectus lived in groups, made and used stone tools, probably hunted small game (as well as scavenging the kills of other animals), and eventually learned how to control fire. This implies a complexity of social organization beyond present day non-human primates. Homo neanderthalensis apparently cared for elderly and injured individuals (Tattersall, 1995). Clearly this shows more than rudimentary moral behavior long before our species arrived on the scene.

Homo sapiens have been able to dominate the planet, and to live and thrive in more environments than any other higher plant or animal species (bacteria are at home in more places across the globe than humans). This is because we evolved the ability to work together in small social groups for the common benefit. In humans, imagination allows us to predict multiple outcomes for any specific action. Individual humans, in seeking to maximize personal gratification or status, exercise a much broader range of actions matched to varied social situations than members of other hominid species. This range of intentional actions is what philosophers and theolgians would term “free will”. There is constant tension between the desire of the individual for personal benefit and gratification, and the group for cohesion and stability. This social contract has necessitated the development of complex social rules to govern complex, non-“hard-wired” behaviors.

The pre-frontal cortex of the brain is the center of our moral conscience as shown by studies of individuals who have suffered traumatic brain injuries. This area of the brain mediates the emotional responses arising from the strictures of our mid-brain. Also, the pre-frontal cortex - the center for higher thought - is strongly associated with our feelings of empathy towards others.

Anthropologist, Richard Lee (1979) proposed the concept of “resource exchange” as the basis behind much of modern human moral behavior. When we look at other primate species we note that individuals act primarily in their own self-interest when it comes to the daily activities of food gathering and consumption. Food items are consumed on the spot, and rarely does any sharing take place. Human foraging groups, however, operate on a totally different model. Individuals go out daily to gather plant foods or to hunt and, while some food may be consumed on the spot, most is collected and brought back to camp where it is shared out in an equitable fashion among all group members.

Two factors made this foraging strategy possible - one physical, one cultural. Species ancestral to homo sapiens developed the ability to walk upright - bipedalism. This freed up the hands to carry tools and foraged foods. But, our hands can’t carry all that much, especially when considering many mouths to feed. Somewhere in the distant past some clever individual in our own or an ancestral species of homo created a carrying device. This device might have been a flexible animal skin, a big leaf, a large piece of bark, or a rudimentary net woven of vines or sinews. With such a device an individual could transport far more food items than can be carried in two hands. One person could gather and transport enough food to feed 4 or 5 group members. Now, a group of males could go out hunting for meat, an activity with a low probability of success (maybe 1-in-4 on any given day), but a high return in food value when successful. The hunters would know that, successful or not, there would be a nourishing meal waiting for them back at camp at the end of the day. The resource exchange also allowed for specialization in skills within a group (the herbalist and healer, the weaver, the arrow maker). Child rearing was enhanced, as was the care for the sick and elderly. People also gained leisure time to devote to activities not immediately related to subsistence - story telling, art, personal adornment, music, crafts of all sorts.

These remarkable adaptations had a number of positive consequences for our species (and probably for ancestral human species as well). The development of an exchange economy paved the way for more and more complex societies and methods of subsistence. These complexities in turn drove the development of equally complex rules of behavior to retain the cohesion of the basic human group.

We can’t know the specific social rules our remote ancestors lived by, or when they first came into existence. We can, however, get a hint of the diversity of moral and ethical systems that must have existed around the world by looking at today’s foraging peoples. Aboriginal Australians tend toward patrilocal (male dominated) societies. Their moral system is based on their intimate link to the natural world which supplies all their needs. Daily life for the aborigines is a continuation of their creation story. In the remote past, during a period which has been translated into western languages as “The Dreamtime”, the spirit ancestors caused the world to come into being and, as these ancestral spirits moved over the face of the Earth they “sang” into existence all of the natural features we see around us today - the rocks, hills, lakes, rivers, plants, animals, and people. When the time of creation was complete, the spirits merged with the natural forms they created, and dwell there still. From these stories the aborigines have assumed the obligation to respect and care for the natural world as they respect and care for each other. In the words of Jim Barripang custodian of the Golpa Tribe’s territory and traditions:

“Aborigine can’t make law. It come from long time ago; from the First Time. It can never change; always the same. Our culture can never change, our Law can never change. Only people can change. They born... they die. But the law stays the same. Each person is responsible for Law; for culture.”

The Zhu/twasi of the Kalahari have a well developed cosmology and set of beliefs, but their approach to setting rules of conduct for individuals and the group is based on practical reality, not divine edict. When asked about where their rules of behavior come from, a member of the group will answer that, “it’s custom”, or “that is the way it has always been done.” There is little concept of ownership amongst these desert dwellers as we think of the term in western cultures. Being nomads who carry on their backs all their worldly possessions, the Zhu/twasi do not have a sense of private property - of “mine vs. yours.” Handcrafted items are exchanged freely and with regularity - this open exchange being an important component in cementing cooperation among members of a group. A group that inhabits a particular range consists of a family core, the k”ausi, that belong to that particular territory. This type of ownership is hereditary. If one Zhu/twasi group enters the resource area of another group, custom dictates that they ask permission to gather food or, especially, water. Permission is almost never refused, but reciprocity is expected. Family decisions are based on consensus, and more weight is given to experience and wisdom than to gender when making a decision. Both men and women can be healers, going into trances to enter the spirit world where they seek to drive out the source of affliction in a group member taken ill. Women have the principle role in rearing young children, but fathers display great affection for their offspring, playing with them and lavishing them with physical attention. Acts of violence (e.g., murder, rape) between group members, while not unheard of, are rare. The group uses shame and ridicule to keep individuals from acting in a selfish manner.  

Neuropsychologist, James W. Prescott (1975) examined attributes related to violence in 49 traditional cultures as well as 20^th Century Americans. He found that societies which give their infants the greatest amount of physical affection, and those which accept or tolerate premarital sexual freedom for young people have less theft and violence among adults. Cultures which inflict pain on infants and condemn premarital and extramarital sex are much more likely to: practice slavery, polygyny, and wife purchase; experience interpersonal violence (including rape); demean women; substitute drugs and alcohol for sexual pleasure; and believe that pain helps build strong moral character. Rigid values of monogamy, chastity, and virginity strongly correlate with high levels of physical violence in a society. Cultures practicing physical affection tend to have more open and accepting religious beliefs. Cultures which engage in regular physical punishment of children and shun physical affection between adults are much more likely to worship an angry, punishing deity.

A further definition of morality goes beyond the pragmatic and refers to an idealized code of conduct, one which would be embraced in preference to alternatives by all rational people. However, people rarely behave rationally, at least not for very long, nor have we ever been able to escape our cultural imprinting. Interestingly, all the world’s major religions of the present day promote a consistent moral doctrine. We know this doctrine as The Golden Rule - “what you don’t want others to do to you, don’t do to them.” As the great Rabbi Hillel, a contemporary of Jesus of Nazareth, noted: “This is the entire Law, all the rest is commentary.” The Golden Rule neither prescribes nor proscribes specific actions. Rather, it calls upon individuals to understand how their actions affect others, and to determine how best to work for the good of the group. The Golden Rule calls for respect, not fear, of others and for the ways they meet common human needs and aspirations.

This ideal moral doctrine, while easy to state, has proven incredibly difficult for any society to implement. Unlike every day moral systems, the Golden Rule must be embraced by each individual as an inherently right form of behavior; it cannot be imposed or coerced by outside authority. While the Golden Rule admonishes us not to fear others, our basic human nature drives a fear response to people who are not part of our immediate group. Often, adherence to the explicit rules of a faith tradition conflicts with actions that would be expected under the Golden Rule in the world of diverse cultures and traditions. There is often broad latitude in interpretation of the rules and their applicability to meet the expectations of the culture within which the religious community resides. A set of rules that are valid and necessary in one age may become unwieldy or inappropriate as a society and its composition changes. This means that our specific moral codes will change over time as the nature and complexity of our social organizations changes. For examples of the evolution of moral systems and modern religions from earlier traditions, see The Great Transformation by Karen Armstrong (2006).

Identity - Individual and Group

In ancient cultures there was no distinction made between religious identity and social group identity. This of course was because there would be a uniformity of beliefs throughout the local community or group. Nor did early humans have alternative social groups to give them identity, as we do today. . Shared rituals, dress/ornaments, incantations, and stories (myths) strongly supported both individual and group identity. “I am a member of the Bear Clan.” “We are the children of the Mother Goddess.” The shaman - or intercessor with the divine - served all equally

Playwright and student of primate behavior, Robert Ardrey, published several books in the 1960s and 70s which synthesized the state of knowledge in socio-biology. In his book, The Social Contract (1970), Ardrey examined the structure of primate communities and related them to human societies (modern as well as “primitive”). In primate groups, individuals have the capacity to develop close relationships with 30-50 other group members (although recent research with baboons indicates that stable group sizes of 80 individuals are possible - Cheney and Seyfarth, 2007). These relationships are important for recognition of kin and for establishing the group’s “pecking order”. As the group size approaches 50 individuals, it becomes increasingly difficult for the primate brain (including ours) to process and hold on to all of the subtle details and nuanced interactions between group members that are so necessary for maintaining group cohesion and individual well being. These numbers hold whether we are talking about baboons of the African savannah, groups of hunter gatherers, or modern city dwellers. Once a family troop, or club, or any other body of primates approaches 50 members, it begins to split in two. The split may be even or uneven, but the result is that the two new groups return to that comfort zone of close interaction and support. Maintaining a tightly knit group has a strong evolutionary basis. The closest primate groups are usually those with the most closely shared genes. Individuals are more likely to behave altruistically toward those with whom they have the closest ties, thus protecting a common gene pool. Other factors related to group cohesion are discussed in the above section on Moral Behavior.

The down-side of a strong group identity is that it often becomes the basis of xenophobia, the fear of people who are somehow different from “us”. Strangers could de-stabilize the close-knit group structure, and they represented a threat to the group’s food and water resources, as well as being a potential threat to physical safety. The greater the difference of one group from another in terms of behaviors and physical appearance, the greater the perceived threat. Close kin groups, those with whom mates were exchanged on a regular basis, represented very little threat, and could even be called upon for aid in times of need (drought, famine, conflict). However, someone who spoke differently, wore different ornaments and dress, worshiped different deities, or had different physical features, was merely a competitor for food or mates. The simple expedient was to chase such strangers away, or simply kill them. This is the way homo sapiens has behaved for 95% of our history. Seventy millennia ago, being able to distinguish between group members and outsiders was a highly advantageous ability as it protected a specific set of genetic characteristics and a finite set of physical resources. However, in an age of global trade and the ability to wage global war with weapons of mass destruction, this tendency toward xenophobia is not only counterproductive, it’s downright dangerous. Humans have come up with some remarkable systems for controlling behavior so that we can live and work together in large communities (religion being one example) - but we haven’t left or basic primate natures behind.

Another important aspect of self-awareness in homo sapiens is that everything is personal (aka “it’s all about ME”).“ We reject the impersonal in the forces acting on our lives. If I get cancer, I want to know why - what event or act caused this to happen to me? I don’t want to hear that I’m just one of the 3% of the population who statistically will develop this type of cancer sometime in their lives. I’m not a statistic - I’m me! This personalized world view also leads to “magic thinking.” The odds of wining the lottery may be 175,000,000 to one, but I’ll go ahead and buy $10.00 worth of tickets because I’m feeling lucky. We believe we are deserving of positive outcomes because we are important. Also, positive outcomes are self-reinforcing; that’s what causes gamblers to keep shoving coins into the slot machine, even though they know the odds always favor the house. A negative outcome requires rationalization. I didn’t win because: I lost my lucky rabbit’s foot; the number combination was for next week’s lotto drawing; I’m being punished for running that stop sign; the ritual wasn’t performed correctly and the deity rejected the offering; the stars weren’t aligned; bad mojo.” Unacceptable answers include: “chance favors no person” and “I am no more worthy than anyone else.” Rationalizations for a failed outcome can be endless.

In modern times, the shared identity provided by religious affiliation is one of the strongest forces in peoples’ lives. Prayer, when ritualized, as in church services, pilgrimages, before civic meetings, or at the dinner table, serves also to strengthen group identity. Ritualized prayer can also promote xenophobia, especially when it often promotes and reinforces the “us vs. them” mentality. The more a faith tradition defines and clings to a rigid doctrine, then the more other faith traditions - with different doctrines and beliefs - are viewed as threatening. How can one be assured of having the absolute truth if you have to acknowledge the existence (and possible validity) of competing truths? This was not so much a problem before the time of Columbus when world populations tended to be isolated from the realities of the larger world. Certainly, there had always been contact between cultures across the globe, but for most people, there was no need to confront alternative belief systems. The Crusades introduced Europe to the culture of the Islamic world, and the wonders of trade with distant lands. However, before the invention of the printing press (1460 C.E.) The Christian church was able to put their own “spin” on the beliefs of these foreigners. In the 15^th Century C. E., the Chinese Ming Dynasty launched seven voyages of trade and exploration under Admiral Zheng He with the goal of establishing trade with and cataloguing the diverse cultures around the Indian Ocean and the southern Pacific. Unfortunately, later Ming imperial courts chose to take their land into isolation, and most records of these voyages were destroyed as the empire fell into decline. The shock of confronting other belief systems was a consequence of the European exploration of the Late Renaissance, even though the church took pains to destroy non-Christian icons, temples, and ways of worshiping wherever they were encountered.

Given the plethora of religious traditions, beliefs, and practices that have occurred across the globe over the breadth of human history, it is clear that there has never been one singular Right Way or Truth. Each culture has defined for itself what is meaningful, and the people of that culture have established their personal identities accordingly.

Community and Social Stability

One of the most significant benefits of religion for people is the sense of community cohesion and support. Humans after all are a highly socialized species of animal. We thrive in association with family and friends, and suffer when isolated. Research by staff of the Duke University Center for Spirituality, Theology, and Health bears directly on this point. People with strong religious beliefs and regular church attendance were shown to have lower blood pressure, stronger immune systems, lower mortality rates from cancer and heart disease, and slower mental decline when diagnosed with Alzheimer’s Disease. Regular church goers also recovered faster from depression and were less likely to become seriously depressed (Koenig, 2007). Clearly, organized religion provides measurable benefits in some people’ lives. However, another study by this same group of researchers looked at 748 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention or elective catheterisation in nine medical centers in the U.S. In the study 371 patients were prayed for and 377 received no prayer (at least no prayer from the assigned intercessors assigned in this study). The findings indicated no difference for those prayed for (vs. not prayed for) on the likelihood of in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events. Similarly, the investigators concluded that neither distant intercessory prayer nor touch therapy had discernable effects on: the rate of healing after surgery; 6-month readmission rates, or death; or 6-month major adverse cardiovascular events (Krucoff, et al., 2005) . The true value of religion apparently lies in the sense of shared community, and positive mental attitude that it fosters, and not intercession with the supernatural.

Many social factors can affect the health of an individual, and institutions beyond an organized religion or church can play a comparable role in providing a sense of community. Several studies have found that people who hold multiple social roles tend to exhibit better physical or mental health, although these effects are not necessarily consistent across different socio-economic or ethnic groups, and can vary by gender as well. Also, the nature of the various roles is an important determinant of any health benefit (see for example: House, Landis & Umberson, 1988). Certain types of employment have a strong influence on health, as does marriage (although to a lesser degree). Parenthood is not an independent measure of health status and must be considered along with factors such as marriage status or financial security. The pattern seems to be, the more connected we are, the more comfortable we are in our social roles, and the more we feel financially secure, the less stressed we are. And reduced stress is an important contributor to good health.

Putting it all Together

Religion provides for many human needs, but often our religious beliefs prevent us from confronting who we really are. We cannot escape our roots. Sure, we can change our names, our place of residence, our jobs, even our religious affiliation; but we can’t change the reality that we are just an evolved primate. Look at our closest simian relatives; we differ from them in quantitative, not qualitative, ways. This is also confirmed by comparison of the human genome with those of the great apes. Our supposedly “modern” thought processes and actions, whether as individuals or groups, are built on 5 million years of evolved behaviors. It is hard to conceive that the human brain’s ability to achieve a transcendental state conferred a survival or reproductive advantage on our early ancestors. After all, going into trances or imbibing psychoactive substances is not a normal state of being. Nor would all members of a family or tribal group participate in the process - someone has to stand watch. Beliefs and rituals do not stave off predators in the night or enhance food gathering abilities. Rather, the ability of the human mind to achieve a transcendental state on occasion must simply have been a coincidental by-product of our highly evolved brains and sensory organs. Religion apparently was an unavoidable consequence of those evolved traits that do provide survival advantages.

The functions served by religion correspond to needs that define us as human beings. We wouldn’t be human if we didn’t question the world around us, and our place in it. We wouldn’t be human if we could survive easily without a stable social group. We wouldn’t be human if we didn’t occasionally push the envelope of acceptable behavior and implore the forces controlling the world to make our personal wishes come true.

For nearly 60,000 of the past 70,000 years homo sapiens lived by following a foraging lifestyle. Religious beliefs and practices then likely fell within the range of belief systems expressed by present day foraging groups. It can be supposed that the earliest humans regarded the supernatural in much the same way that aboriginal Australians, the Zhu Twasi of southern Africa, or the BaMbuti of central Africa do even today. For these people, every tree, flower, hill, stream, and lake is inhabited by an ancestral spirit - a deity from the time of creation who still keeps watch over the world. Far from being “primitive” or un-enlightened, these ancient belief systems would have shown great depth of thought and complexity. The move from hunting and gathering to an economy based on settled agriculture did not occur suddenly, but was affected by a slow transition over the course of several millennia at several centers around the globe (Balter, 2007). As religions became integrated with civic authority - a result of the gradual development of settled agriculture - the role of the religious leader changed as well. The intercessor with the divine became a priest; the temple priest/priestess became a guide to ritual practices, and no longer provided a linkage through their person directly with the divine (J. Campbell, 1988). Rituals became codified in scriptural texts as belief systems grew into organized religions. Ritual practices included sacrifice to, and appeasement of, the spirits or gods; prayer and requests for personal intercession; ritual washing; and communion with, or consuming of, the god spirit itself.

Joseph Campbell also points out the recurrence of mythic elements and themes across time and across cultures. The tale of Moses in the Old Testament parallels the legends surrounding King Sargon of Akkad. Virgin birth, immaculate conception, death and resurrection are found both in the story of Jesus and in some of the first millennium B.C.E. stories associated with the Persian God Mithras. Figurative consumption of the flesh and blood of the deity is an outgrowth of the idea that eating specific animals or their organs will confer special powers and abilities.

Religions evolve and take on the character of the cultures which adopt them. The idea of a singular god is a relative newcomer on the human scene. One of the earliest conceptions was the abortive venture into monotheism by the ancient Egyptians under New Kingdom Pharoah Akhenaton, a.k.a. Amenhotep IV (1352 - 1336 B.C.E.). Even the early Hebrews acknowledged polytheism - the legends restated in the books of Genesis and Exodus talk of “elohim” (gods in the plural sense), and of having “no other god before me.” A truly monotheistic concept does not appear in Biblical texts until the 6^th Century B.C.E. with the Book of Second Isaiah. Islam incorporated into the rituals of the Haj the icons and practices from earlier pagan beliefs found in the Arabian Peninsula. Hinduism repeatedly has absorbed other belief systems into its practices. Many African Christians have created a blend Christian doctrine and traditional ancestor worship along with other aspects of ancient animist belief systems. The basic concepts of Buddhism have been modified with the trappings of earlier belief systems in Tibet and elsewhere. Scriptural texts written to address social conditions at a specific point in history may have little relevance to a later era.

Nearly all humans have the capacity to achieve transcendental states, and indeed, many cultures from First Peoples to Hindus to Buddhists actively seek the experience. Other religions discourage their members from practicing mysticism and direct contact with the divine. These tend to be authoritarian faiths such as fundamentalist Christianity, Judaism, Islam or Hinduism. For these faith traditions the ideas of personal revelation - of competing interpretations of scriptural texts - of multiple possible “truths” - cannot be tolerated. To do so would risk schism and questioning of doctrine. Certainly it would weaken centralized authority and the promises it has made to its adherents. As Elaine Pagels (2003) notes eloquently when commenting on the multiple and competing sects of early Christianity:

“This act of choice - which the term heresy originally meant - leads back to the problem that orthodoxy was invented to solve: How can we tell truth from lies? What is genuine, and connects us with one another and reality, and what is shallow, self-serving or evil? Anyone who has seen foolishness, sentimentality, delusion, or murderous rage disguised as God’s truth knows that there is no easy answer to the problem that the ancients called discernment of spirits. Orthodoxy tends to distrust our capacity to make such discriminations and insists on making them for us. Given the notorious human capacity for self-deception, we can, to an extent, thank the church for this. Many of us, wishing to be spared hard work, gladly accept what traditions teaches.”

Rationalists in the 17^th and 18^th Centuries rejected the concept of a personal god and embraced the previously heretical notion that the goal of human life should be happiness. By the end of the 19^th Century, thought-leaders such as Nietzsche and Freud predicted that traditional religion would disappear as the world of science unraveled the mysteries of the universe. Clearly that has not happened. In 21^st Century America 90% of the population professes some form of religious belief. What is the staying power of religion in the human experience? Why is it still such a dominant force in the lives of 21^st Century people? The simple answer is that the attributes of religion are as important in peoples’ lives today as they were to our ancestors. Religion is, at its heart, a response to fear - fear of the unknown, fear of death, fear of strangers, fear of uncertainty, fear of loneliness. We are bombarded by electronic images from all around the world and across the street which, if viewed uncritically, can convince us that humanity is headed into chaos. The larger world is a terrifying place to many with its complexity. We want simple answers, we want the comfort of community and a set of rules that do not require our interpretation.. For many, we want to believe that “someone” is in control, someone who is there when we call, and who is watching out for me.

A problem arises when the purposes of religion - the functions it serves in human lives - get out of balance. Religion promotes individual and group identity, community stability, and proper norms of behavior. On the plus side, belonging to, and being accepted by, a group improves health and the quality of life, and also addresses some of our most basic psychological needs as a species. However, identifying strongly with one group often makes people see themselves as “better” than others - classic xenophobia. A continuing tension exists between strengthening community and individual identity and the call to respect all people and their varied belief systems.

Religion is beneficial when it:

•          promotes questioning and imagination - in a safe, supportive community;

•          recognizes the importance of ALL rituals in human life, not just those of one distinct group;

•          recognizes the needs which all humans have in common;

•          recognizes and affirms multiple truths; and

•          promotes common values and ways for all people, from all traditions, to come together.

Religion becomes dangerous when:

•          a set of beliefs become ossified;

•          ritual and imposed doctrine/practice - not questioning - become the source of individual identity;

•          external authority becomes more important than internal reflection;

•          differences (beliefs, rituals) are emphasized over similarities - driving xenophobia; and

•          one faith tradition tries to force its beliefs and practices on people outside that tradition.

Many faith traditions (extinct as well as current) have promoted themselves as being in possession of the absolute TRUTH, or of the final revelation of the divine spirit. These traditions consider themselves to be the chosen people of their deity. All others, by exclusion, are either lost, or heretics, or evil, or some other pejorative. Of course, if one steps back and looks at the great panoply of religions that have come and gone, it is clear that absolute TRUTH has never existed.

How does promotion of an absolute truth threaten peace and social justice? As noted earlier in this discussion, all of the functional elements of religion are interlinked. If one considers that they are in possession of the absolute truth, then all claims to the truth by practitioners of other traditions must be rejected as false. “If I accept that your truth may be valid, then it weakens the absoluteness of my truth - and that threatens my very identity.” In this world view, only one set of answers to the Great Questions, and only one set of rituals for interceding with the divine can be correct. Only one set of prayers, rituals, symbols, and texts can be accepted. All other practices and beliefs, to the extent that they differ, are blasphemous. Only one interpretation of the sacred texts and scriptures can be accepted as correct - usually the interpretation of the current authority figure for that faith group. Only one explanation of the natural world is correct. This is one reason why, in the age of Science, the majority of humans still cling to superstition (with some even calling for their superstitions to be taught as science in the public schools). For adherents of a strict faith tradition, only those who demonstrate allegiance to that tradition’s beliefs and practices can be accepted as part of the community. Discrimination against outsiders is tolerated, and may even be promoted - this in spite of the fact that the founders of most of the world’s current denominations called for embracing all people as equals.

Certainly our primate brains often lead us to seek the comfort of a close group identity and the exclusion of “others”. But at the same time, our human brain, with its large pre-frontal cortex, seat of moral and ethical thought, allows us the opportunity to move away from these more primitive behavioral responses and to embrace the wondrous diversity of the world around us. We are given a choice as to the shape religion takes in guiding our lives.

The only close-to-universal moral principle (a.k.a. truth) comes in the form that we recognize as “The Golden Rule”. This is the moral kernel that sits at the center of all the world’s major religious traditions. As the Rabbi Hillel, a near contemporary of Jesus of Nazareth, said, “this is the sum of the wisdom of the Torah, all the rest is commentary.” It is a truth that, if practiced sincerely and fully, would result in universal respect for people, their values and traditions, their hopes, and their beliefs.

References

Ardrey, Robert, 1970, The Social Contract: A personal inquiry into the evolutionary sources of order and disorder, Atheneum, New York, 448p.

Armstrong, Karen, 2006, The Great Transformation: the Beginnings of Our Religious  

Traditions, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, N.Y.

Balter, Michael, 2004, “Seeking the Key to Music,” Science, Vol. 306, pp. 1120 - 1122.

Balter, Michael, 2007, “Seeking Agricultures Ancient Roots”, Sceince, Vol. 316., no. 5833, pp. 1830 - 1835.

Blundell, Geoffrey, ed., 2006, Origins: the story of the emergence of humans and humanity in Africa, Double Storey Books, Cape Town, 168p.

Campbell, Joseph, 1988, The Power of Myth (with Bill Moyers), Doubleday, New York,   235p.

Cavanaugh, William T., 2007, “Does Religion Cause Violence?” Harvard Divinity            Bulletin, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, Spring-Summer 2007, pp. 2-35.

Curry, Andrew, 2008, “Seeking the Roots of Ritual”, Science, Vol. 319, pp. 278 - 280.

d’Errico, Francesco, and Christopher Henshilwood, Graeme Lawson, Marian Vanhaeren, Anne-Marie Tillier, Marie Soressi, Frederique Bresson, Bruno Maureille, April Nowell, Joseba Lakarra, Lucinda Backwell, and Michele Julien, 2003, “Archaeological Evidence for the Emergence of Language, Symbolism, and Music — An Alternative Multidisciplinary Perspective,” Journal of World Prehistory, Vol. 17, No. 1, March 2003, 71p.

Goodall, Jane, 2002, “Rain Dance”, Science and Spirit Magazine.

Henshilwood, Christopher, Francesco d’Errico, Marian Vanhaeren, Karen van Niekerk, Zenobia Jacobs, 2004, “Middle Stone Age Shell Beads from South Africa”, Science, Vol.204, pp. 404.

Hodder, Delbert H., and Gregory L. Holmes, 1981, “Ellen G. White and the Seventh-day  

Adventist Church Visions or Partial-Complex Seizures?” abstract presented at the 1981 meeting of the American Academy of Neurology held in Toronto, Canada.

House, JS, Landis KR, and Umberson D., 1988, “Social relationships and health”, Science, vol. 241, pp. 540-545.

King, Barbara J., 2007 Evolving God: A Provocative View on the Origins of Religion,     Doubleday, New York, NY, 272 p.

Koenig, H. G., 2007, Religion and remission of depression in medical inpatients with heart failure/pulmonary disease, Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, vol.195, pp. 389-395.

Krucoff MW, Crater SW, Gallup D, Blankenship JC, Cuffe M, Guarneri M, Krieger RA,

Kshettry VR, Morris K, Oz M, Pichard A, Sketch MH, Jr., Koenig HG, Mark D, Lee KL, 2005, Music, imagery, touch, and prayer as adjuncts to interventional cardiac care: the Monitoring and Actualisation of Noetic Trainings (MANTRA) II randomised study. Lancet; 366(9481):211-217.

Lee, Richard Borshay, 1979, The !Kung San: Men, Women, and Work in a Foraging Society, Cambridge University Press, New York, 526p.

Marshall, Lorna, 1976, The !Kung of Nyae Nyae, Harvard University Press, Cambrudge, MA 433p.

Newburg, Andrew, Eugene d’Aquili, and Vince Rause, 2001,Why God Won’t Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief: Ballantine Books, New York, 234p.

Pagels, Elaine, 2003, Beyond Belief:The Secret Gospel of Thomas, Random House, New York, pp. 181-185.

Plotnik, Joshua M., Frans B. M. de Waal, and Diana Reiss, 2006, Self-recognition in an Asian elephant, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 103, no. 45, pp. 17053–17057.

Prescott, James W., 1975, “Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence,” The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, November, 1975, pp. 10-20; reprinted from The Futurist, April, 1975.

Reiss, Diana and Lori Marino, 2001, Mirror self-recognition in the bottlenose dolphin:

A case of cognitive convergence, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 98, no. 10, pp. 5937 - 5942.

Sagan, Carl, 2006, The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search             for God, Ann Druyan, editor, The Penguin Press, New York, 282p.

Scientific American, 2007, “Should Science Speak to Faith” a debate between Lawrence M. Krauss and Richard Dawkins, July 2007, Vol. 297, No. 1, pp. 88-91.

Shreeve, James, 2005, Beyond the Brain, National Geographic, Vol. 207, No. 3, pp. 2 - 31.

Tattersall, Ian, 1995, The Last Neanderthal: the rise, success, and mysterious extinction of             our closest human relatives, Nevraumont Publishing Company, New York, 208p.

Tattersall, Ian, 2002, The monkey in the mirror : essays on the science of what makes us    human, Harcourt, New York.

Turnbull, Colin M., 1961, The Forest People: A study of the Pygmies of the Congo, Touchstone Books, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY, 295p.

Thomas, Elizabeth Marshall,1959, The Harmless People, Vintage Books (reprint by Alfred A. Knopf), New York, 266p.

Van der Post, Laurens, 1988, The Lost World of the Kalahari, William and Morrow Co., Inc., New York, NY.

Voight, Anna and Nevill Drury, 1998, Wisdom from the Earth: the Living legacy of the   Aboriginal Dreamtime, Shambala, Boston, 192p.

Wells, Spencer, 2002,The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey, Allen Lane, The Penguin Press,240p.

Whiten, Andrew, and Christophe Boesch, 2001, “The Culture of Chimpanzees”, Scientific             American, January, 2001, p. 61-67.