Salvia and Religion

For my final paper, ill try and write about something a little less mundane. I recently read an article in Gentleman’s Quarterly on Salvia, a strong (the strongest natural known to man) yet legal hallucinogen that many refer to as “the Jesus drug.” Salvia is plant, found mainly in the forests of Oaxaca Mexico. Traditionally, it is taken along with magical mushrooms and used by shamans for religious purposes.
When I tried the drug, my mind expanded into a different reality. The ceiling of my room was overcome with patterns of a colorful kaleidoscope. I stepped outside my own body, and was able to ask myself (or my mind rather) questions of extreme importance—ex: what is the meaning of life? During the trip, was that I never actually was able to answer any of the important philosophical questions. Salvia makes you aware of an answer, but prevents the mind from articulating it. At one point in my trip, I felt that I knew the meaning of my existence.
In many ways, I feel religion serves a similar purpose as a Salvia trip. Understanding religion is impossible. There are clues (religious texts) that allow one to grasp the most basic aspects of religion, but understanding religion as a whole many times is a mere feeling. For me, Religion (like a Salvia trip) does not provide immediate answers to life’s questions, but reaffirms my belief that the answers exist in many forms.

I enjoyed class, learned a great deal, and enjoyed the way we approached religion as a class.

The Stars of Tallapoosa

The Stars of Tallapoosa gave me an overwhelming religious feeling. Many times I don’t contemplate exactly what constitutes my religion (protestant), but I instead try and internalize it as a feeling. After reading this poem, I just felt religious. When the poem notes that “there is no moon” I pictured a completely different (almost Star Wars like) yet heavenly world. I think the poem illustrates an important point about religion. For me, the poem’s imagery was a key mechanism in conveying a religious aura. Many times, religion is merely a mental image. Despite the fact that we have been studying religion in a broad sense (paying special attention to how religion as a whole provides a framework by which to live), we ignored the idea that sometimes religion is a mere feeling. This was illustrated somewhat by the artwork we studied last week, but I think it comes out most in Stevens’ poetry. I guess I felt an almost magical feeling when reading The Stars of Tallapoosa. Magic (in my opinion) would be one of the broadest concepts that relates to religion, but nevertheless magic relates to the unknown. As I said before, sometimes religious feelings come from the unknown.

Rothko and developing one's own Abstactionist view of Religion

Rothko’s painting Omen of the Eagle says a great deal about the philosophy behind abstractionist art. The picture does not illustrate any particular incident in the [Hellenistic] drama but is “concerned with the spirit of myth which is generic to all myth at all times” I would argue that this concept relates directly to the view we have been discussing in class.
Rather than paying particular attention to the quirks of different religions, we have been developing a sort of ethos/framework that is applicable to a variety of situations. Abstractionist art highlights the idea of religion being in “the unknown.” In Rothko’s response to a New York Times writer who was puzzled by the meaning of his work, he noted, “art is an adventure into an unknown world that can only be explored by those who take risks.” Rather than developing a specific narrative, such as the one developed by Christian Ethiopians, abstractionism presents an alternative framework—a framework that is not exclusive to a specific culture or mindset.
Rothko also says in his letter that “it does not matter what you paint as long as it is well painted.” I believe that the specifics of a certain religion are unimportant compared to the overall mechanism which is developed in order to contribute/encourage a meaningful existence. Just as Rothko defines the world of art as a world exclusive to those who take risks, I believe that taking an abstractionist approach to religion entails equal risk. The generic and ambiguous nature of abstractionism would be incompatible with certain mainstream religions. People enjoy having a set of rules/religious guidelines to follow. If one were to approach religion in an abstractionist manner (defining an individualistic religious mechanism), there would be no assurance about the afterlife, or any other aspects common in organized religion. One would have to live with considerable risk, and be confident that their individual mechanism for living was suitable for the god/gods/deities they believe in. Abstractionism demonstrates that religion is possible in an individualistic sense, rather than the collective approach we have been studying.

The Importance of Interpretation

I really enjoyed what we talked about in class today. I think Pollock’s artwork suggests that religion can be recognized not only through association w/ the common motifs we have discussed in class (social cohesion, narrative), but also through an innate sense. Even without knowing the title of the painting we studied in class, most felt it was related to religion. Pollock’s work resurfaced an issue that was talked about on Monday (in reference to the film). Is it possible to exist without the religiously influenced framework we have developed throughout our course? Pollock’s work does not present a mechanism that an average person can understand or interpret. Despite the ambiguous and undecipherable meanings of many of his paintings, individual interpretation served a marked purpose. Christianity and other organized religions many times construct a black and white philosophy for its followers to uphold. Pollock presents just the opposite.

Pollock’s work reminds me of the music I listen to. James Mercer, the leader singer of The Shins, writes lyrics that are meaningful only to him (someone mentioned in class that Pollock had a special meaning for each painting). Two years ago I met James Mercer, and asked him about his lyrical techniques (which I had been trying to decipher). I was right about some of his influences, but most of the lyrics are relevant to his own life. Ironically enough, each song he writes seems to relate to me in some way. Pollock’s art and the music from the Shins are an example of how common framework is not necessary to understand religion. Sometimes you have to craft your own ideas of spirituality in a way to is most prevalent to your own life. Individual interpretations of art and music lead to different social/cultural groups and fraternity. A set mechanism for existence is not always an initial necessity. Developing individual mechanisms are equally powerful tools for social cohesion. People who share a similar view of Pollock or James Mercer’s song lyrics grow together and work off each others individual interpretations to develop of collective mechanism for understanding. Artwork and music are excellent examples that depict the power of individualistic interpretation.

Pollock, Psychology and Religion

The most interesting part of the article was the references to Jungianism. The ideals behind Jungianism (which are rather cultish but interesting never the less) relate to religion as a whole. As a religion, Jungianism accuses Christianity of causing many of the problems that the western man faces. Jungianism is based around Freudian ideas, and posits that aggression and the libido are the driving forces of man. Christianity (as Jungianism states) has “sex based” laws that prevent man from living in a natural way. Jungianism provides an alternative mechanism by which to live. Unlike Christianity, which promotes self control and a strict moral etiquette, Jungianism embraces/promotes the innate instincts of libido and aggression. In a way, Jungianism provides a framework almost opposite to that of most national religions. Ironically, Freud’s ideas of the unconscious expand into religion (Jungianism), and promote controversial theories, just as they do in psychology.

Hull-House and Religion

Though the formation of the Hull house may have not been specifically influenced by religion, the house bonds cultures together (social cohesion), and in that way, serves a purpose similar to that of most religions. This was especially clear after looking at the website about the urban experience in Chicago. Looking at the photographs on the website, it is apparent that the Hull house was a refuge for many different cultures.





The picture above depicts “Wares from the various art and manual training classes were sold at the annual Hull-House fiesta." The Hull house provided immigrants with the skills they needed to succeed in American (such as manual training skills), but did not deprive them of their traditions. The best way for a culture to acclimate to a new environment is to mix new tradition with old, rather than convert wholly to new. The Hull-house provided an atmosphere where maintaining certain non-American traditions was possible.

If compared to religion in general, the Hull-house would not be “staunch” or “conservative.” In fact, it would be considered quite the contrary-- “tolerant” and “liberal.” Religion, in my opinion, should not provide guidelines so strict that there is no room for innovation or change. The Hull-house was an interesting example, and perhaps one of the first true examples, of an institution that accepted other cultural ideals. It was a place where cultures could mold their own identity by mixing old tradition with new. If the ideals of the Hull house were to be expanded into a spiritual scenario, they would provide a good baseline for a religion—the liberalness would not mold the religion around specific rules but rather a mix of different ideologies.

Exceptions to the Frame

This blog is response to our class discussion yesterday. We determined that most people’s lives are regulated by some sort of religious frame (a frame that deals with social cohesion and explaining aspects of life etc.) Daniel commented that a low-level atheist would not be governed by this frame, and I was about to bring up another idea, but never got the chance to. How does a religious frame govern a person who is completely narcissistic? If someone sees themselves as the center of the world, and pursues every aspect of life in a hedonistic way, they would seemingly not need a framework for their life. They (themselves) serve as their lifes frame, and have no need for social cohesion, or the need to understand why things happen they way they do. The idea of a broad social frame (that follows the basic aspects of religion) to guide everyone’s lives is an interesting idea. I still think there are exceptions to the rule. I would argue that for most people who conform to their societies norms, their lives are regulated by a frame that contains all the aspects of religion.

Religion and the Hull-House

By way of illustration he showed me a beautiful little church which had been built by the last slave-trading merchant in Bristol, who had been much disapproved of by his fellow townsmen and had hoped by this transmutation of ill-gotten money into exquisite Gothic architecture to reconcile himself both to God and man. His impulse to build may have been born from his own scruples or from the quickened consciences of his neighbors who saw that the world-old iniquity of enslaving men must at length come to an end. The Abolitionists may have regarded this beautiful building [Page 140] as the fruit of a contrite heart, or they may have scorned it as an attempt to magnify the goodness of a slave trader and thus perplex the doubting citizens of Bristol in regard to the entire moral issue.

I think this quotation illustrates the two possible ways religion may connect to the formation of the Hull-house. On one hand, Jane Adams may have extended her childhood fears of “entering a fiery hell” into her later life. Like the slaveholder who builds the church, the Hull-house may have been an act of egoistic altruism (as ironic as that sounds). Adams may have empathized with others (empathy is when you place yourself in other people shoes) and formed the house in order to relieve her own pain (that she felt through the psychological connection with others). In psychology, this concept is called oneness. On the other hand, just as the abolitionists may have regarded the church as a beautiful building (or accepted the slave-owners benevolent intentions), Jane Adams may have started the Hull house with purely altruistic intent. Religion as a whole does not play a specific role in the development of the Hull-house, but the intentions Jane Adams had were most likely influenced by her religious background.

The Validity of Fell's Argument in Todays Society

The article on women’s speaking interested me. I think an important aspect to discuss is how valid the argument would be, depending on the period in history. Obviously this article was written some time ago when religion (as we discussed in class) was not passive, but rather a driving factor that affected everyday life. Whereas the article may have provided a convincing argument at the time, because of the use of direct evidence from the bible, I think it would be less valid in today’s society. I say this for a number of reasons. One, culture is not influenced by the bible as much as it once was. Two, interpretation of the bible has become increasingly liberal. What I mean by that is people have learned (perhaps for selfish reasons) that the scriptures of the bible can be manipulated in almost anyway. For example Fell notes that, “when Jesus was risen, the first Day of the Week, he appeared first unto Mary Magdalene” in an attempt to illustrate the importance of Jesus’ mother, and in turn, women in general. One could make multiple arguments to retort Fell’s point. Perhaps Jesus did not return to Mary, and Mary just happened to be around the tomb when Jesus was resurrected. That’s a poor example I admit, but the point is that the bible is used by people who (when making an argument that involves the bible) selectively expose information that seems to support their argument. I agree women should have the right to talk and give sermon in Church (obviously), but Fell’s argument would be somewhat obsolete in today’s society, mainly because it would look (to a critical and modern day citizen) that she used select scriptures from the bible to mold an argument about women’s speaking rights. Since our modern day culture is not driven by the bible, Fell would have better luck constructing an argument that is more applicable to our culture.

Does Religion retard or promote social growth?

I would argue that religion acts as a double edged sword in relation to social growth.

In one respect, religion contributes to the formation of social groups by providing common guidelines/norms the members can unite under. These norms, which in many cases have underlying moral premises, contribute to the formation of common ways of life. People who live similarly bond to form groups, and from an evolutionary perspective, acceptance (and in many cases survival) depends on how well an individual can adapt to the customs associated with the group. Since religion lays down set guidelines for certain customs, it is easy for people to form groups based on these clear and unambiguous customs. In turn, survivial (at least in a social respect) is made easier by the implmentation of religion.

On the other hand, religion also causes social separation. To put it coarsely, participating in the social aspects of religion is many times analogous to being in a cult (or exclusive society). The very customs that help form groups also exclude others from admittance. Even in Christianity, the customs of one denomination may cause a prejudiced view of an almost identical denomination. The degree of social separation has a direct relationship with the degree of difference of religious customs; social separation increases as the difference in religious customs increases. This was especially illustrated in the article about Portugal’s view on Ethiopia. Though both Christian nations, the difference in Ethiopian customs seemed to make Portugal almost unrelated to Ethiopia. Religion may serve as an important evolutionary tool (to unite people over common customs), but it also increases the social gap between societies.

Cross Cultural Smoking

One thing that strikes me as interesting is the marijuana use in Rastafarian religion-- especially how the idea of “the herb” is linked to specific scriptures in the bible. Most of the links between pot and the bible seem rather far fetched, and overly general. For example, in Genesis, marijuana is not the only “herb that yields seed,” and man can eat “many herbs of the field.” An herb serving as “the service of man” could mean many other things besides the pleasant affects of marijuana. Herbs can be used as medical remedies, food, etc. Though the link between marijuana and specific bible scriptures holds little validity, the important role the drug plays in the Rastafarian movement should not be overlooked.

In America, Marijuana is considered a drug, which is usually looked down upon for its immediate “high.” In contrast, the Rasta’s use the “high” as a means to charter religious energy. The different ways of using marijuana cross culturally have created stereotypes about the drug and its users. For example, America has the stigmatized image of a “stoner”—someone who smokes all the time, eats, remains lazy, does poorly in school, and talks in a certain dubbed-down lingo. In Jamaica, smoking is religious, and a rather common occurrence. The image of the Rastafarian differs sharply with that of a typical American “stoner.” The effects of marijuana are the same cross culturally, but the way people act in accordance to those effects determine how pot is portrayed. Perhaps it wouldn’t be illegal to smoke if America was smart enough to treat pot as a positive medium for expression. The American “stoner” image is so ingrained into our culture that it seems impossible to illustrate the positive effects of Marijuana.

The Hakluyt Society and the Heart of Darkness

I would argue that a strong parallel can be drawn between Richard Conrad’s Heart of Darkness and the article written about Portuguese opinion on Christianity—specifically, how the “superior culture” develops ethnography of the “primitive culture” using the comparison of societal norms (some associated with religion.)
When Marlowe is going about his journey, he notices a group of African natives and states, “It was unearthly, and the men were—No, they were not inhuman. Well, you know, that was the worst of it—the suspicion of their not being inhuman. It would come slowly to one. They howled and leaped, and spun, and made horrid faces; but what thrilled you was just the thought of their humanity—like yours—the thought of your remote kinship with this wild and passionate uproar. Ugly. Yes, it was ugly enough; but if you were man enough you would admit to yourself that there was in you just the faintest trace of a response to the terrible frankness of that noise, a dim suspicion of there being a meaning in it which you—you so remote from the night of first ages—could comprehend.” This quotation emphasizes how Marlowe stereotypes the Africans as an “inhuman” species. Only briefly does Marlowe accept the notion that the Africans might have some form of “humanity” or “kinship.” Marlowe develops the barbaric stigmatization about the natives because he compares them to the norms associated with colonialism. The “howling, leaping and horrid faces” of the natives is by no means acceptable in European culture. In many ways, Marlowe’s ethnographic technique is similar to the one used in the article The Hakluyt Society.
The author of The Hakluyt Society develops his view of Ethiopia by comparing their religious traditions to those of his own culture. His biased analysis categorizes certain customs as “strange, novel and peculiar,” and like Marlowe, he casts a negative opinion of any custom that are foreign or irreverent to Portugal. (57) In relation to the big picture, the author of The Hakluyt Society makes the purpose of religion clear. Religion holds the pieces of society together. If someone of a different culture cannot understand the religion of a particular society, they are unable to see how the pieces of society mesh, and many times revert to judging the society like Marlowe or the author of The Hakluyt Society. A true judgment of a society can only come when the observer understands (and more important does not judge) a societies religion or the norms associated with it.

Linking Christianity to Culture through Narrative

It interested me that both Ethiopian culture and Anglo-Saxon culture used similar strategies to link Christianity to their culture—the use of lineage and idea of cultural superiority. The second reading of the Kebra Negast notes how, “the land that is ours is the land of inheritance, which God hath given unto us according to the oath that HE swore to our fathers, and a land flowing with milk and honey…” (44) It is clear that the idea of heritage is strong in this passage. Similarly, the Anglo-Saxons note that they are “the children of Israel” and the “inheritors of the Promises of God.” This struck me as interesting because both cultures link their culture to Christianity through the idea of cultural superiority. Both cultures use narratives that combine the origins of Christianity to their culture. If the narrative is unrealistic or lacking evidence (as the Anglo-Saxons call their narrative a “great story”), this is obsolete. Through the means of propaganda (the magazine), Anglo-Saxon culture was able to spread the narrative even more. Though their narrative (at least from what the magazine said) seemed unrealistic, stating that the “Anglo-Saxons everywhere” were the children of God, the appealing ideas of the narrative (that Anglo-Saxons are God’s divine children) seems enticing, and does not need evidence to gain popularity. In hindsight, though both cultures use the idea of lineage for evidence of their link to Christianity, the ideas are so enticing for the culture it is directed at, evidence is seldom necessary.

Cross- Cultural Manipulation of Christianity

This blog is in response to an idea that was brought up in class today by Daniel-- the comparison of manifest destiny to the Kebra Negast, and more generally--how people tend to change the origins of Christianity to make them relevant to their particular culture. The Queen of Shiba is used to make a connection between Christianity and Ethiopia—“And our lord Jesus Christ, in condemning the Jewish people, the crucifiers, who lived at the time, spake, saying “The queen of the South will rise up on the Day of Judgment and shall dispute with, and condemn and overcome this generation who would not hearken unto the preaching of my word.”(16-17) This quotation illustrates how the origins of Christianity are linked to a specific individual in Ethiopian culture. More importantly, the development of early Christianity foreshadows why future cultures acted they way they did in terms of religion and economic expansion. Many cultures, including the Ethiopians, create links between their culture and Christianity to make their own culture seem divine. Similarly, Eastern Europeans developed the idea of Manifest Destiny, which gave them a reason to expand and conquer without regretting the countless American Indians they killed in the process. Egocentrism, (the idea that the norms in one culture are the same in all cultures- or ego about ones culture) tends to fuel a uniform idea in almost all Christian cultures—that their version of the Christian religion is undoubtedly correct. Even if many cultures do not express this idea forthright, the changes made in each culture in order to better mesh with the origins of Christianity illustrate how egocentrism is a driving cross-cultural force.

Metropolis, Religion and Cinematography:

I previously watched Metropolis in a film class I took senior year of high school. The specific shot that I find most interesting is the one where Rotwang rises out of the trapdoor leading down to the catacombs, and Maria scampers back against the wall in fear. The shot is an OTS (over the shoulder) from behind Rotwang (who is in a rather hunched position-close to the separation between the upper ground and underground). The lighting in the shot exemplifies the features of Maria’s face, making her the only lit object in the shot. The shot not only illustrates the dichotomy between good and evil, but also connotes an image that deals with the battle between God and the Devil. Maria, being the holy object in the picture looms above Rotwang, who is rising up from the dark ground (hell). The camera work does an excellent job of creating a visual line between the upper ground (heaven) and underground (hell). Though Rotwang initially physically overpowers Maria, her superior stance in the shot (her lofty position in the frame) foreshadows her victory over Rotwang and his evil tendencies.

Religion and Grandiose

I though the most interesting of the reading was a single line in the article. It struck me as fantastic—“What minority, even a radicalized one, isn’t generally “tolerant” of the majority for most of its career? Even avowed terrorists and revolutionaries spend most of their days just biding their time” (115) This line relates the larger picture of religion. I think religion as a whole contributes to grandiose—exaggerated belief in ones important. Particularly with the “fundamentalist” sections of each religion, I believe that the idea of a higher power is many times the driving factor that contributes to destructive behavior. If one believes that his/her actions are being carried out for a benign reason (that of god/gods or a higher deity), they may be prone to ignore “core motives” of culture-- motives that are universal cross culturally. Grandiose, becomes a problem for fundamentalists because they fail to consider that possible repercussions of their actions. The idea of egocentrism (regarding the self as the center of all things) starts to apply to fundamentalist sections of religion, and negative occurrences such as religious war can result from such delusions. I agree that there are many benefits to religion, but there can also be extreme consequences when religious extremes preside over the norms of society.

Expanding "How to look at Torah" into the Context of our Classroom Philosophy

In the section “How to look at Torah” there were a few lines that I thought were particularly relevant to our technique of studying religion—in relevance to the “big picture.” The lines “look only at the soul, root of all, real Torah! In the time to come they are destined to look the soul of the soul of Torah!” I found particularly interesting because they illustrate the importance of studying the historical context of religion. The “soul of the soul of the Torah” seems to emphasize viewing the Torah from a historical perspective- a perspective similar to the one we have adopted in order to examine religion. The Zohar also notes, “The soul of the doul is the Holy Ancient One. All is connected, this one to that one.” (44) This line struck me as even more important because of the phrase “all is connected, this one to that one.” The articles we have been discussing seem to build upon one another--each new article contained certain elements that were prevalent in previous articles. The study of Neolithic, Paleolithic and Holecene art is a good example. Along with each cultures evolution of artwork, spirituality seemed to evolve along with it. When the Zohar notes that “all is connected, this one to that one,” it make me realize that despite the stark differences among religious cultures and denominations, it seems that religion has stemmed from a common background- a background that took place over thousands of years and was built by hundreds of different cultures. To me, that is the big picture.

Plato and Augustine

At first, Saint Augustine seems Platonic when he discusses bible interpretation, but eventually alludes to a less Platonic philosophy. Augustine notes that to achieve inner knowledge a person must have “spiritual freedom.” (75) He also mentions how people “judge sins not by the strength of actual lust, but by the standard of their own practices.” He seems to look condescendingly upon those who manipulate the bible based on their own cultural norms. Just as Plato lays out a well defined path to achieve an ideal society, Augustine voices his view on how to properly address and interpret the scriptures in the bible. For instance, he notes that the phrase, “Behold today I have established you over nations and kingdoms to uproot and destroy to lat waste and scatter” is “entirely figurative” which illustrates how Augustine has a specific philosophy that everyone should apply when interpreting scripture. (78) This specificity is also seen in Plato’s Republic as he argues for and attempts to define what aspects make up a harmonious society.

Augustine seems to become less Platonic, and more liberal as the article proceeds. Eventually, he notes how there are “sometimes not just one meaning but two or more meanings that are perceived from the same words of the scripture” (86) Plato would most likely disagree about the idea of multiple interpretations (not in the bible, but rather as a philosophy in general). In Plato’s ideas society, interpretation would seemingly disrupt the duties that each member must execute with orderly precision. Perfection, the underlying motive that drives Plato’s argument, would be undermined by Augustine’s idea that things have multiple interpretations.

Plato and Augustine

At first, Saint Augustine seems Platonic when he discusses bible interpretation, but eventually alludes to a less Platonic philosophy. Augustine notes that to achieve inner knowledge a person must have “spiritual freedom.” (75) He also mentions how people “judge sins not by the strength of actual lust, but by the standard of their own practices.” He seems to look condescendingly upon those who manipulate the bible based on their own cultural norms. Just as Plato lays out a well defined path to achieve an ideal society, Augustine voices his view on how to properly address and interpret the scriptures in the bible. For instance, he notes that the phrase, “Behold today I have established you over nations and kingdoms to uproot and destroy to lat waste and scatter” is “entirely figurative” which illustrates how Augustine has a specific philosophy that everyone should apply when interpreting scripture. (78) This specificity is also seen in Plato’s Republic as he argues for and attempts to define what aspects make up a harmonious society.

Augustine seems to become less Platonic, and more liberal as the article proceeds. Eventually, he notes how there are “sometimes not just one meaning but two or more meanings that are perceived from the same words of the scripture” (86) Plato would most likely disagree about the idea of multiple interpretations (not in the bible, but rather as a philosophy in general). In Plato’s ideas society, interpretation would seemingly disrupt the duties that each member must execute with orderly precision. Perfection, the underlying motive that drives Plato’s argument, would be undermined by Augustine’s idea that things have multiple interpretations.

I thought that the grizzly man had a rather etic view (a view developed by someone who is not immersed in the culture he is evaluating) on the bears he lived with. I know this may sound negative and condescending, especially because the grizzly man did seem to be pursing what he truly loved, but there are a few specific reasons for my generalization.

The curator of the museum, noted how the grizzly man “provided more harm than benefit” for the bears. At first this struck me as an uncalled for criticism, but then the curator noted how “his relatives for thousands of years left the bears unharmed and did not involve themselves with them.” My view of the grizzly man changed immediately. He did seem to give protection to the bears through the means of educating the public, but I do not think the benefits outweighed the costs to the grizzly species. His etic view seemed to omit the possibility that the presence of a human being (him) would make the bears to accustom to the presence of all humans- which in turn would make them vulnerable.

Furthermore, I agree with Brad Hoh’s blog. I think that even though the grizzly man had the future of the bears in his best interest, he was using them as a means to forget his past drug and alcohol additions. Brad noted, “I know for many people their faith or religious beliefs are what get them through hard times such as drug addition or death. The only way this is possible is with the help of a supernatural essence.” I think that the grizzly man was using the bears a form of spirituality- specifically a means to forget his past and devote his time to helping a species that he assumed needed a guardian or protector.

An Increase in Development, Complexity and Interpretation

Origen’s commentary on Lamentations highlights an important concept dealing with the evolution of religion (or the big picture). As the human species developed, the documentation of religious ideas or legends (the bible) increased in complexity, making interpretations about religion equally complex.
In surveying the Paleolithic era all the way up to the development of bible, it is apparent that the style of religious and spiritual documentation developed in complexity. The lack of “cognitive fluidity” in the Paleolithic period (which prevented early humans from expanding their cognitions into any type of elaborated art form) was bridged in the Holecene period, where “selective elaboration” was common. Finally, religious texts (the bible) were constructed, and evoked the most elaborate interpretations of all.
The increasing complexity of religious documentation (from primitive art forms to specific legends and commandments – Bible/other religious texts) is an important concept because it suggests the possible origin of diverse religious groups. Whereas, spirituality was once only seen in primitive art forms, which as Guthrie would argue had only a naturalistic, and hence one-dimensional meaning, religious texts provided a more ambiguous medium for spiritual understanding. Though a religious text may seem more concise and easily interpreted than a picture of a mammal, I would argue that Origen proves otherwise. He believes Lamentations illustrates “the soul in captivity of demons” and a “merciful God” who held “no wrath or vindictiveness.” (74) Origen concentrates the specific nature of God (mercifulness) and attaches a direct meaning to Jerusalem (the soul). Plainly, the complexity of this interpretation far exceeds that of Paleolithic art, which suggests that humans had developed individualized opinions about the meanings contained in religious texts.
Different interpretations of exceedingly complex religious texts may have contributed to the development of diverse religious groups. For example, the different denominations in Christianity are usually separated by only negligible differences in opinion. Even in today’s society, people interpret the bible in hundreds and even thousands of ways. As human developed, so did their means of religious expression, and their ability to create their own interpretations about spirituality and religion.

Cultural Relativism and its Relation to a working Deffintion of Religion

Cultural Relativism and its Relation a our working Definition of Religion:
A response to Margaret R:

Margaret R. noted an important concept in her blog post; we define culture and what entails a 'civilization' broadly across different nations of the world. Margaret’s idea relates loosely to cultural relativism- the idea that individual beliefs should be interpreted in terms of his or her own culture. I would argue that Paleolithic art and Native American rituals are both lenses in which we can look through to speculate on the origins of spirituality. But I would also argue that the idea of cultural relativism holds true, and there are some broad conclusions (as Margaret asserted) we cannot make because we hold as etic viewpoint (the view one holds outside a specific cultural context).

One problem I had while reading the “Effigy Mound” article was the number of assumptions made about Native American culture. The idea of cultural relativism comes into context when the article notes that “much conjecturing on the mounds had been done from a Euro-American world view” (112) If an attempt is made to define religion, how can we truly compile a list of commonalities every religion must consist of? The ideas behind cultural relativism make it impossible for religion to have a concrete definition. I wanted to share my opinion on this subject, because I didn’t get to express it on the first day of class.

Practice Theory and its Relation to the Orgins of Religion

In the second reading of “The Nature of Paleolithic Art,” David Guthrie alludes to, but does not explicitly state, that religion may have evolved from what is known now in anthropology as the practice theory. The Practice theory “recognizes that individuals within a society or culture have diverse motives and intentions and different degrees of power and influence.” (Kottak 48) It specifically focuses on how “varied individuals-through their ordinary and extraordinary actions manage to influence, create and transform the world they live in.” Guthrie mentions a specific instance that made me think immediately of the practice theory.

After the Paleolithic-Holocene shift, “tribes were associated with more abstract power that was overtly and unequally distributed according to strength, resources and birth.” (Guthrie 420) Unlike the previous hunting clans, tribes developed a social hierarchy, and hence certain individuals in society were able to influence and alter cultural norms (especially the upper class) Guthrie notes how, “The successes of the tribal program freed the upper classes from daily labor and removed them from the vicissitudes of life. The upper echelon of society “was allowed to expand their mythology and the rhythms of their art.” (431) Unlike Paleolithic art, which was practiced by almost all members of society, post-Paleolithic art was practiced only by a select few. Just as social structures started to become prevalent in tribal culture, art forms transformed. Shamen’s began to “inflate” the feats of their ancestors, and the switch from natural to supernatural art seemed to reflect their interest in worlds other than their own. As a whole, religion was quite possibly a result of the higher social classes attempting to influence and transform their society.

I believe the upper class (which seemingly held the greatest influence) had the intention of using religion as a tool to harness social power. Social power, which was a new concept (because hunting tribes were mainly composed of equal or no social classes), may have been extremely desirable for those who understood its value. Though Guthrie never directly supports this claim, I believe that the primary seeds of religion sprouted from what we now call the practice theory.

Paleolithic Art

After considering the evidence in the article, I would argue that Paleolithic art is not in anyway a representation of spirituality among early humans, but rather a way for them to create aesthetic social identities among one another.

First, it is important to examine why Paleolithic art does not seem to illustrate spirituality. If art was found outside a cave, it was commonly discovered amidst the remains of a campsite. As Guthrie suggests, “art was not made for and confined to a sacred site, and nothing suggests that these campsites (where art was excavated) were consecrated or sanctified.” Paleolithic art was crafted and developed in a social environment, which makes it seem more of a casual activity than a sacred right. Furthermore, Paleolithic art that was discovered in stereotypically sacred areas (such as caves) contained the same subject matter, namely “naked women and large mammals.” This suggests that the Paleolithic art found in caves was just an extension of social behavior in an alternative environment, rather than a separate spiritual ritual. Additionally, early humans in the Paleolithic period were driven by “wit, logic and wise decisions based on embedded empirical experience.” Paleolithic art, if used to represent religion, would be promoting something highly unempirical, and this would go against the characteristics of the early human in the Paleolithic period.

It is also important to develop an idea about the importance Paleolithic art played the culture of early human beings. Most images found in Paleolithic art consistently dealt with large mammals. Since “successful hunting of large mammals was the social currency for male status, marriage and health” it seems viable to claim Paleolithic art was used by men to convey their status in society. Men would carve images into their spears, which may have made them seem aesthetically pleasing and powerful. Many times, Paleolithic art was “not literal” and contained “selective exaggeration.” It seems as if early humans used art as a means to display or even embellish their accomplishments. In an age where every aspect of society was required to serve a marked purpose, it seems valid to suggest that art was a tool to determine social identity rather than promote spirituality.

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.