Impetus

Wednesday, February 24, 2010
There's an article in this week's Kindle edition of Newsweek entitled History in the Remaking. It details the discovery of an extremely old temple found in Turkey called "Göbekli Tepe," which means "potbelly hill" in Turkish. And when I say "old," I mean really old. Like 11,500 years old.

That's 7,000 years before the Great Pyramids. 6,000 years before Stonehenge. These ruins predate villages, pottery, domesticated animals, and agriculture.

The archeologist in charge of the dig, Klaus Schmidt, believes the discovery proves his own theory about how humanity approached the civilizing process: That religion came first, rather than permanent settlements and agriculture leading to more organized forms of religion.

I find this idea intriguing, and in my completely unqualified opinion, the evidence does suggest it to be so, at least in this isolated instance.

Interesting, as it implies a larger beneficial role for religion in our civilization than I had previously thought. Not that I don't think religion hasn't played a huge role in the cultural evolution of humanity - I am an irreligious person, but I trust I'm also an intellectually honest one. It would be disingenuous to suggest religious tradition hasn't had an enormous impact on humanity as a whole, so what's interesting to me is that this theory would move the balance scales more to the "positive impact" side than they were previously, at least in my own mind.

If religion really was the impetus for permanent settlements and agriculture, then the natural evolution of our societies as a whole have unequivocally benefited from the influence of religion rather than otherwise.

It's good to have your world-view challenged periodically, yes?

10 comments:

vince said...

Actually, what's good is people who don't run like they're being chased by ravenous velociraptors being chased by a T. Rex when their world view is challenged.

Steve Buchheit said...

I think he needs a little more than what he's got to go that far. Overturning theories, sure. It pushes back timelines. It's an example of one of the earliest structured sites for religious purposes. However, I don't think the whole "first there was civilization and then organized religion" argument has been as a clear cut as the article makes it appear.

The Venus of Willendorf is 26,000 years old (and the product of entrenched mythologies of the feminine and fertility and an example of abstract thought). Lascaux was created earlier than this site, and was also the place of continual (generations) of human religious activity. There's even discussion about early man in europe, contemporaries of Neanderthals, showing signs of beliefs in spirits or a continuation of life after death (through the existence of drilled human teeth that were worn as decoration, and the creation of symbolic items). Early hunting cultures show distinct reverence and worship of the animals they're dependent on. And yet, those didn't lead to permanent settlements and large scale agriculture (the use of seeds and gardens is a distinct possibility in these hunter/gatherer cultures). All these show a continuity of belief passing through generations, including the use of ritual spaces (standing stones, caves, circles, etc) and abstract thought and concepts (use of symbols and symbolic attachments).

So, what's the difference here? From the article I'm not seeing it except in a post hoc, ergo prompter hoc manner. At best, he's making a point that there was organization in religion before permanent settlements, but we already knew that (see above).

Formalized agriculture (the mass growing of cross and domestication of animals) is needed before permanent settlements can happen. That hunter/gatherers/nomads have religion, even organized religion isn't new.

So, what's the difference here?

Janiece said...

Vince, well, yeah.

I had a devout friend ask me once if I would change my mind about creationism/evolution if there was definitive proof. My response was "of course!"

The difference between a true skeptic and a denier, I expect. Also the problem with taking things on blind faith, at least in my opinion.

Steve, you make some good points, but (as I noted in the post), I'm completely unqualified to provide intelligent critique. However, as his thesis states, "it was the urge to worship that brought mankind together in the very first urban conglomerations. The need to build and maintain this temple, he says, drove the builders to seek stable food sources, like grains and animals that could be domesticated, and then to settle down to guard their new way of life. The temple begat the city." That assertion makes no claims about religious belief prior to the construction of Göbekli Tepe, nor does he make any claims about the early religious observance you reference. He may be making too much soup from that stone, but I'm unsure what your issue is with his thesis, based as it is on motivation, rather than outcome.

In any event, my own thesis is more along the lines of how keeping an open mind can (and should) result in looking at the world in a new way. Which is a good thing.

Eric said...

Janiece, there should be absolutely no doubt that religion has had an enormous and mostly positive impact on our species. It hasn't been wholly positive, but there's certainly something to be said for the proposition that religion not only was a driving force behind civilization but, at times, almost the sole preserving force of civilization (e.g. the Renaissance couldn't have occurred without the efforts of the Roman Catholic Church to preserve elements of Greco-Roman civilization from the Fifth Century to the Fourteenth).

I think fellow-atheists who try to paint the influence of religion on the entirety of human existence to this date as entirely pernicious are dead wrong.

But it also doesn't follow from this that the influence of religion now is wholly or even mostly good. With a sort of apology to religious family and friends, I personally see religion as being analogous to a booster on a multistage rocket. Up to a certain point in a rocket's flight, a spaceship is going nowhere without the booster, just as religion offered human tribes cohesion, identity, history, culture, art, music and education. But beyond a certain point in the rocket's trajectory, the booster becomes dead weight that can drag the vessel to the ground--just as religion now tends to generate fractiousness and, in my frank view, preserve prejudices and constricting traditions that no longer serve useful purposes and hobble our species' imaginative and intellectual growth. (And I regret that this view may be insulting or cause injury to a number of people I love and/or respect, but I feel I must call some things as I see them.)

Janiece said...

Eric, there is no doubt about religion's contributions from an historical perspective, at least in my mind. But as history continues, religion's "contributions" continue to push the scales in a more negative direction (again, in my mind, and with apologies to my readers of faith).

I'm listening to an interesting book right now by Robert Wright, The Evolution of God. He makes some interesting points about the evolution of morality as a component of religious belief, and that the main contribution of religion has been the expanding of the concept of "tribe." That's a gross simplification, of course, since he also notes that religion's inclusiveness is directly related to what the creed gets out of the deal at the moment, but he provided a new (to me) way of looking at some issues.

Eric said...

Haven't read The Evolution of God, but I find Wright to be very hit-and-miss. Personally, I find his philosophical speculations interesting and his historical descriptions dubious (I have to repeat the "personally" there because, as someone who majored in history and could have minored in Philosophy/Religion instead of Asian Studies, I have to wonder if someone who majored in Philosophy and minored in History would find Wright's philosphical speculations batshit and his history enlightening...).

Along those lines, I've noticed in some of Wright's work a tendency to take his own wishful thinking as fact--there is nothing wrong with being an ecumenical optimist, but I think his tendency to try to be hopeful and all-inclusive leads him to blinker himself against facts that don't quite mesh with how he wants things to be.

Indeed, I think one of Sam Harris' critiques of religion goes right to the heart of Wright's hope that religion expands the definition of tribe--sectarianism is no longer adequate or acceptable in a world in which mass transportation, mass communication and weapons of mass destruction make the necessity of understanding that we are one species on one rock paramount against any tribalistic considerations. I suspect that Wright has hope of religion becoming a kind of warm fuzziness in line with his own vaguely spiritual agnosticism, but that seems as unlikely as the entire world abruptly embracing a Dawkinsesque rational atheism. (What's my answer? Sadly, I think my answer is we're all right fucked. Hope I'm wrong.) Of course, Sam Harris is as much an irrational twit as Wright is, bless his well-meaning heart; with the added spin that at least Wright's flakiness is warm and fuzzy, as opposed to Harris' inability to discern the beams in his own eyes (Harris' Buddhism is no more rational than the religions he disparrages), occasional fatalism and toxic flirtations with torture and religious profiling--so take Harris with an equal measure of salt if you take him at all.

Janiece said...

Eric, I tend to think of Sam Harris as a self-righteous prig, although his ideas do sometimes give me food for thought. I find the two situations are not mutually exclusive.

As for Wright (and pretty much any writer who tries to climb the mountain of sociological analysis of religious belief), I take ALL their writings with a grain of salt. I find such analysis interesting, as it usually gives me a new way of looking at problems, but as for taking it as gospel, if you'll excuse the pun, no. Just no.

Wright does indeed indulge in some wishful thinking, but he also has some interesting ideas on how the Abrahamic scriptures were written. Since I'm not a religious historian, I suspect there are probably better authors (and books) out there, but I don't know who they'd be. Do you have a recommendation?

Eric said...

That's a good question, and I don't have a recommendation off the top of my head. I've been out of the academic loop too damn long.

Stupid career. :)

And I agree with you about Harris.

Anne C. said...

Fascinating discussion, Janiece. I agree wholeheartedly (as I'm sure you know), that opening one's mind to ideas that challenge you is one of the best ways to refine and strengthen it.

As I consider a majority of archaeology to be a relatively soft science and religion to be a interesting tool for social engineering and life structure, I'll leave much of this conversation un-commented upon except Eric's assertion that religion "tends to generate fractiousness." I would point out that religion is a human construction (except to the religious) and is therefore constructed out of human intentions. Without religion, there is still nationalism, racism, politics, greed, fear, and a host of other rationalizations to be "fractious."

Janiece said...

Anne, unfortunately, I think we can all agree that people will always find something to argue about. Even if they have to make it up whole cloth.