Talk:Origin of religion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A summary of this article appears in development of religion.
 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Charles Darwin This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biology.
Start rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

we need to be careful not to turn this back into the paleolithic religion article. All we need to state here is that religious behaviour predates human phylogenetic separation some 150ka ago. Further archaeological particulars should go to a paleolithic religion article. dab (𒁳) 19:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

However circumstancial or controversial, all evidence of the earliest forms of religion comes from the paleolithic. the article already discusses some of these elements such as the neanderthal burials. The key issue in this case centers around "the continuity hypothesis" or punctuated equilibrium of religion. That is did religion appear suddenly around 50,000 years ago with behavioral modernity or has religious or proto-religious behavior been gradually evolving since the time of homo-erectus. Those who subscribe to continuity or the gradual evolution of symbolic behavior and henceforth religion believe that the burials in the paleolithic before behavioral modernity are evidence of the continuous and gradual evolution of religion. Those who support the big bang theory argue that the lack of incontrovertible art or grave goods during this period indicate that there was no religious behavior during this period. Muntuwandi (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)



Contents

[edit] Religious beliefs about the origin of religious beliefs

Why does this article ignore this crucial facet of its subject matter? I'm sure most religions have explanations for their own origin and/or the religions of others or religion in general. Seems like a major omission. Abyssal leviathin (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

no, this is not the topic of this article. We may have a titling issue here, but what you are looking for is the revelation article, and the Development_of_religion#Teleological_development section. Simple matter of disambiguation, at best. dab (𒁳) 16:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
To address Abyssal's concerns the article should from the outset stress that the its content is evolutionary in nature and not teleological. Muntuwandi (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolutionary psychology of religion

The article in current form leans heavily towards evolutionary psychology. I believe that the Evolutionary psychology of religion is deserving of its own separate article. A simple google search yields the following.

I suggest moving some of the content and adding more to the article evolutionary psychology or religion. Additional details could include some of these mechanisms.

Because they are several mechanisms that are still at the hypothesis level some may even say speculative, there inclusion in origin of religion would give them undue weight, but they would be perfectly legitimate in an article [2]

Then the article "origin of religion" should give a summary of the evolutionary psychology.I am aware traditionally the study of religion was strictly the realm of psychology and sociology, so many will be uncomfortable with any other approaches. However these traditional approaches lacked the wealth of scientific knowledge that is currently available to scientists. For example, Steven Mithen is not a psychologist but an archeologist. Barbara King is also not a pyschologist but an anthropologist who has specialised in primatology. All these scholars bring different aspects to the origin of religion. Hence the article should reflect this interdisciplinary approach. Muntuwandi (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There is still adequate information and sources available from the article User:Muntuwandi/The_evolutionary_origins_of_religion that can be used to build upon this approach. Muntuwandi (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

So expand the Anthropology section with notable referenced information. Likewise, make the primate section actually have some relevance to this entry, because as it is it simply discusses ape behavior.PelleSmith (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I had added my suggestions to here to the talk page. According to WP:CONSENSUS, silence means consensus
In essence silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community.
Since nobody responded to the suggestions I went ahead and added the content. The major issue is that evolutionary psychology of religion is indeed its own discipline on its own with scholars dedicated to it. Whereas the origin of religion is a much broader topic covering all aspects but not limited to pyschology.Muntuwandi (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Except what you wrote above doesn't even begin to explain all the changes you made.PelleSmith (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
In fact the above only barely explains the addition of the primate section and foreshadows the fact that you cut down the psychology section. There is hardly any claim here to consensus for the majority of what your edit did--readding information about Paleolithic religion and large sections of unreferenced original research. Those are exactly the types of information that got your original entry deleted and has sparked repeated controversy between you and the rest of the world ever since. SO again I ask you to use the talk page (see below) to discuss the changes you wish to make. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] attestations

I have a problem with this word. We are writing for laypersons: the original meaning of the word 'encyclo-paedia' implies 'everything for children.' As a copyeditor, though well-informed in genetics, evolution, psychology, etc, I find 'attestations' obfuscatory. I realise it has a technical meaning in the academic field, but to the layperson it implies that someone is attesting to something: who is attesting and why? and How did we determine this? Maybe it's better to use a word like 'evidence' or similar? I will not quibble, but I feel a less arcane word would be better. Or we could write: 'written attestations by members of the early polytheistic religions'. Or something. See what you think.Lgh (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please discuss changes first

Muntuwandi,

When you decide to alter an entire entry and completely re-write the lead in one fell swoop you should really attempt to discuss it first. In this large edit you managed to change the entire lead, to readd large block quotes that other editors had condensed into the actual entry text, and to readd types of information that only you believe belongs to an entry like this one (types of information that sit at the heart of all the earlier controversies and AfDs). All I'm asking at this point is that you make a good faith effort to discuss these types of changes before making them, particularly when you know where the controversy lies.PelleSmith (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have changed alot of these edits back to the previous edition noting in the edit summaries why I did so. In short, you seem again to be attempting to restore the version of this entry that you prefer with all of its superfluous discussion of Paleolithic religion and WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Given that these issues have been discussed time and time again you really should make an effort here on the talk page before simply trying to resurrect your old version.PelleSmith (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

this version states in the lead

The appearance of religious behaviour in the course of human evolution is probably relatively recent (Middle Paleolithic) and constitutes an aspect of behavioral modernity most likely coupled with the appearance of language.

This is incorrect because religion may not be a relatively recent event if we take into account burials that occurred 300000 years ago. This is why I presented both sides of the argument, big bangs who believe in religion being a recent event and Continuity theorists who believe religion emerged much earlier and included all the evidence. Muntuwandi (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

How on earth are you going to dispute this given that most of the sources you use yourself believe strongly in the idea that religion could not develop without language? You can't contradict yourself every time you want to disagree with everyone else, its not a productive way to argue.PelleSmith (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, if you think there is a clearer way to phrase this, or a more accurate way to do so then rephrase it. Replacing an entry with an entirely different version, with a completely different lead, is not a productive way to go about things. When wholesale rewrites are done productively they are done so away from the main entry and are discussed by several editors so that a good consensus can emerge. Now other than the fact that the version you wish to introduce includes information that the community believes doesn't belong do you have any reason not to try consensus building first?PelleSmith (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
the "relatively recent" is certainly negotiable -- because, as it says there, it's "relative". And as such probably depends on what you did expect. The Middle Paleolithic is "relatively recent" in terms of the history of Homo, but it is very early in terms of the history of Homo sapiens (more precisely, the Middle Paleolithic corresponds to the first 90% of the history of Homo sapiens). If this is a problem, we can just say that religious behaviour probably emerged over the course of the Middle Paleolithic and be done. dab (𒁳) 11:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Development of religion

On doing a google search I find that actually there is no specific discipline entitled "Development of religion" that deals with the general development of religion. In most cases the search results deal with a specific religion or groups of religion such as Development of religion in South India or "Development of religion in Japan".

Basically there does not seem to be any specific discipline that targets the development of religion from a general perspective but always from a perspective of one particular religion or groups of religion. Hence the statement: 'The further development of religion spans Neolithic religion and the beginning of religious history with the first polytheistic religions of the Ancient Near East.' Gives the impression that the development of religion deals specifically with the Neolithic. When one looks at the article Development of religion, apart from the obviously duplicated content from this article, there is no such mention of the neolithic or how religion may have developed. The lead statement does not mention what is different about Neolithic religion, some of the details that I have included such as the institutionalization of religion. Furthermore it is incorrect to state that the first polytheistic religions emerged in the Ancient Near east because monotheism is the exception rather than the norm. Almost all primal religions have a form of polytheism.Muntuwandi (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? I don't read it that way at all and I think your interpretation of the use of the phrase "development of religion" is very peculiar and rather illogical given the context of the sentence and the presentation of the phrase. It is just a descriptive phrase using basic English words not a reference to a specific discipline. Of course to dig deeper into your commentary I should note that the foundation of religious studies and of the social scientific study of religion (in both Anthropology and Sociology) rests on prominent theories about religion's origin and development, in the general sense, but we've been over that a million times. Since then other theories about the origin and/or development of religion have come into existence, and particularly as of late some of these have utilized evolutionary mechanisms to explain the early development of religion. Are you trying to argue for the use of the word "evolution" as opposed to "development"? Development is a more neutral term than evolution for several reasons, some historical and some contemporary and I think it is preferable. As to your second point about the Ancient Near East I simply do not follow. How does monotheism being an exception to the norm problematize a statement about the history of religions beginning with the first polytheistic religions in the Near East?PelleSmith (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
My concern is that there is no general subject entitled "development of religion". All topics using this term are specific, development of christianity for example. Hence that article seems to be original research. For example there is indeed a subject titled Anthropology of religion that is taught in Universities such as,

However, I cannot find any university that offers a course entitled "Development of religion". After doing some research on the internet, I believe such a general topic does not exist. Hence I would suggest deleting all the content from development of religion and either converting to a disambiguation page that links to articles that are more specific.

The ancient religions in the near east were not the first polytheistic religions, since almost all religions are polytheistic. The origin of religion has its roots in human evolution, this fact is not present in the article. Muntuwandi (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence makes no claim to Near Eastern religions being "the first polytheistic religions" ever, but that religious history starts with the first religions of the Near East, which happened to be polytheistic. "Polytheistic" is simply an adjective used to add depth to the accurate portrayal of the first religions in written "history." I find your twisted interpretation of what the sentence means dubious at best. BTW, in your line of reasoning any human phenomenon has its roots in "human evolution" since the origin of any human phenomena occurs at some stage of human evolution. That fact in and of itself is not very interesting or notable. Theories explaining why, at a certain stage of evolution, certain human phenomena develop are interesting. You are and have always been welcome to develop such notable theories here. Also shouldn't you take your arguments about the Development of religion entry to Talk:Development of religion? There is absolutely no need for a discipline called "development of religion" to justify the usage here (see above). I would argue that its not needed on the main entry either, but such an argument belongs on the proper talk page.PelleSmith (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] deceptive edit summaries

I added refs from these noted scholars regarding evolution of religion. When Dbachmann rewrote this article, I don't recall him consulting anybody. Muntuwandi (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann created the entry anew, and brought the content inline with the consensus established through many, many discussions on talk pages but also at the AfD of the original entry. What you are doing is wholesale reverting this version of the entry back to the one that was deleted by adding exactly the types of information that lead to its deletion. I've now brought this up several times on this talk page and on your talk page. Could you please engage the issue instead of dancing around it? Debachmann's creating of this page does not justify your edits at all. His version of this entry has not been deleted through community consensus but your version has. What's wrong with working through the sections you would like to add or change here on the talk page? What's wrong with building consensus? You can't simply make those kinds of large scale changes, especially if you are going to resist defending any of them when the issue is brought up. I'm still waiting for your explanation of why we need the neolithic and paleolithic material in here, of how the primate section relates to religion, and of why you refuse to work within the current sections (like the psychology section for the material related to cognition and the anthropology section for the the material related to archeology). Lets here it.PelleSmith (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Dbachmann has only three comments on the talk page. I don't see how that constitutes working with others. Obviously you have continued your pattern of blindly supporting whatever Dbachmann does and criticizing whatever I do. Being the editor who initiated this article and who has been most consistently involved with this article, a consensus that does not include me is not a true consensus. I would consider your views but the problem is you have no academic interest in this topic, you are just out to frustrate me, some kind of a personal vendetta. As Bruceanthro stated you should be supportive of editors who do research and bring new content to the article. Instead you just go about reverting or proposing deletions. I think your behavior is extremely problematic and childish. This is a well researched topic, there is no need for us to go through as much fuss over this article as we have. As for me I would like to see a complete article on the origin of religion so that I can move on to editing other articles, but you seem to enjoy playing childish immature games. Eventually we will have such an article so there is no need to put temporary stumbling blocks along the way. The ball is in your court as to whether we get there with a lot of fuss or without fuss. Grow up.Muntuwandi (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that the page you initiated, which included the material you are choosing not to discuss, was deleted exactly because of that material. During the many discussions initiated by your edits, and the AfD of the original entry several editors agreed that the topic itself is notable. You know as well as I do that these same editors were NOT in favor of the material you refuse to let go of (see above) that I am begging you to discuss here. In other words they agreed that the topic is notable but that your version of this entry had to be seriously edited and/or completely rewritten. The version of the entry that you are trying to rewrite with your own version actually reflects quite well (if only as a starting point) the notable aspects of this topic--the aspects that other editors agreed to being notable and worth working on. You simply refuse to build this entry from that starting point, instead insist on reverting it to the version no one supported but yourself--not Dbachmann, not Bruceanthro, not anyone. I'm glad that you think my desire to have civilized discussion about content issues is childish, but I wont stop insisting on it.PelleSmith (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
PelleSmith, you have no interest in this article, you would have been happy to have it deleted, when it was deleted you never made any efforts to pursue the matter, It is for this reason I can only view your approach is being of personal vendetta.Muntuwandi (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I may have only three comments on this talk page. However, I have discussed this with you, at great length, at other talkpages. I have nothing to add to what I said there. You know how it stands. You are welcome to contribute, but if you're just going to revert to your private essay, we'll see no land here. dab (𒁳) 19:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Dbachmann, rarely discusses, he merely says what should be done according to him.Dbachmann, the version you propose is as much your private essay and even containing some original research which I have highlighted. I have no problem with other editors refactoring or working on the material if one disagrees with my style of prose. All I am concerned is getting the relevant material in. The goal that we should have is to have an article that is complete and discusses all the aspects of the origin of religion that are found within contemporary studies. I don't say that the version I propose is perfect, but it has more information from reliable sources than the one you propose. I see no reason why we should remove info from noted scholars such Pascal Boyer, Paul R. Ehrlich, Lewis Wolpert, Steven Mithen some of the most influencial scholars in the field as I have noted above. I know that there is an inherent bias amongst wikipedians against having an evolutionary explanation about religion or anything about human social behaviors. I have mentioned before that Dbachmann's idiosyncratic approach is that of a splitter, his approach to articles is always dividing them into smaller articles. That is the approach he consistently uses but he has to understand that splitting is not always the best approach particularly when dealing with interdisciplinary fields. Dbachmann and others have a bias towards the social sciences when it comes to religion. But that is the old way, times have changed, and interdisciplinary evolutionary sciences are one of the fastest growing fields. I am aware of this bias because each time I mention tools, artwork or burials there is extreme discomfort from other editors. But this is the way forward.
Mithen begins his book by first posing and then answering the question, ÒWhy ask an archaeologist about the human mind?Ó As he describes, there are many fields of study that can contribute to the discussion of the human mind. These include psychologists, philosophers, neurologists,primatologists, biological anthropologists, social anthropologists, and computer scientists. Mithen argues that people from all of these domains can, and indeed should, contribute to the discussion. So how does the archeologist fit into the discussion? What can they contribute? Mithen responds with the following answer: ÒWe can only ever understand the present by knowing the past. Archeology may therefore not only be able to contribute, it may hold the key to an understanding of the modern mind.Ó (p. 10) By studying the archeological record of our ancestors and understanding the selective pressures that our ancestors faced, Mithen reconstructs the evolution of the human mind. Of course,archeology alone can not solve the mystery. Mithen draws from the work of an assortment of experts from many fields, but uses archeology to ground these diverse viewpoints. The Prehistory of the Mind The Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion and Science By Steven Mithen Reviewed by Andy Gorman

[edit] bed to verse

This article interests me in that it appears to be worse every time I look at it from a copy-edit POV. It seems to have become a forum for conflict for three or four powerful voices. As I implied before, let us imagine an interested and reasonably informed lay reader coming to the article: and try to present this person with a comprehensive yet balanced screed of helpful information at moderate academic level. At the moment it is a mish-mash of styles and somewhat piecemeal in structure. Or maybe, like politics, the 'origin of religion' is something that simply should not be discussed at a dinner table (joke). Lgh (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I am pleased that you are interested in the article, I would be even happier if you could highlight some of the concerns you have so that we can find a way to make this article into a simple, readable and yet comprehensive discussion of the origins of religion. Muntuwandi (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Some of the problem seems to be that so little can be known about what people believed before they started writing it down. It is an interesting topic though. Northwestgnome (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Most theories of religions that I wrote also treat the origins of religions, so there should be a big overlap between the articles, but there is no overlap. So this article is very suspect to me. Andries (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I propose re-structuring this article into four major topics
  • historical origins
  • psychological
  • social
  • genetic, though this is somewhat out of the mainstream of religion studies, but it may be mainstream in another fields
Andries (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] primate section

I edited this section adding information that went along with what the original arguments made, but also adding information to connect the primates topic with religion. Before there was nothing really concrete that connected the two topics which put the relevance to the section in question, but now I feel like the section makes sense tied in with the entire argument and should be left.--Amurray8 (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of Religion

Is there any article that discussed the general topic of the origin of new religions? Does the origing of new religions shed light on the more general subject of the origin of religion? And finally, should this article be the place to discuss the origin of new religions? Mmyotis (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Primates and religion

This section had some synthesis of material that I hope I have removed. In the end only by shortening it did it seem possible to make sense of the section, and to connect it with the rest of the article. I am certainly open to comment.(olive (talk) 02:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)) I also removed the tag.(olive (talk) 02:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC))