The Importance of Spirituality

The Importance of Spirituality:
An Examination of the Neanderthal species and its ability to conceptualize religion

Though the author of The Singing Neanderthal posited that Neanderthal culture was based on “intelligent decision making and social cooperation,” he did not mention the practice of organized religion. It interested me that he did not give his view on the subject of Neanderthal spirituality. Based on how the Neanderthal species was portrayed in the article, it seemed they did not have the capability to develop any type of religious/spiritual practices.
The author noted that that the Neanderthals possessed “domain specific” mentalities and had trouble altering natural materials into tools which would serve their social domain. If the Neanderthals could not wield their knowledge of the natural world in a way that could be socially beneficial, it’s hard to believe they could have developed a spiritual system. It is not unreasonable to argue that Neanderthals had the capacity for spiritual thoughts, but their certain lack of “cognitive fluidity” seemed to inhibit the manifestation of any concrete religious ceremonies or customs in their social world. Even if they were able to conceptualize the basic aspects of spirituality, it is impossible to find valid documentation of it.
The fact that Neanderthals seemed to lack spirituality brings up another interesting point. If the need to seek out a spiritual deity is an innate human instinct (as some adaptationists would argue), when did it develop and why? The Neanderthals seemed to live in a socially fluid society without the aid of religion. The article even mentioned the compassion they shared for one another, and how an injured Neanderthal received “food, water and extensive care” from his peers. Is religion really necessary for society’s members to live and flourish? If the Neanderthals truly lacked a religious backbone in their culture, why didn’t they become extinct sooner than later? After all, the Neanderthals lived longer than almost any other homo species.

Entry 1

I found that the most fascinating part of the article dealt with the socio-cultural aspects of religion. Henig notes that we have innate tendencies to develop language, but the specific language we learn is shaped by our culture. Language, in many respects, is analogous to religion, which according to Paul Bloom is “culturally shaped.” As discussed in class, we noted that culture plays a pivotal role in determining whether one embraces or rejects religion. One student (I can’t remember her name) asserted that though both her parents were Jewish, her predominantly Christian neighborhood seemed to make her less involved with religion. Culture also relates to the relationship between social groups and religion.

The article poses an interesting socio-religious question. Wilson inquires, “Why religious groups are any different from a group of fraternity bothers, or, Yankees fans?” Religion, which creates strong social support groups, seems to many times serve as an innate defense mechanism that helps germinate human love and connection. But Wilson has a point. What makes religious groups so different than other social organizations? Many social groups are capable of feeling love and compassion for one another without an underlying devotion to a spiritual deity. Don’t other social organizations develop their creed around friendship and devotion to others? And doesn’t that devotion serve to create feelings of love amongst the members? Some would argue that religion “generates greater belief commitment because [it] depends on belief rather than proof.” Others would argue that religion is a means to explain our “brutish and short existence” because it elucidates “mysterious and unusual events.” As for me, I think religion presents ambiguous, but many times meaningful ideas that give a sense of meaning and perspective on life.