Response to Sarah's post "First Church of Darwin Environmentalist"

I just read Sarah's post on environmentalism, and I saw major coorelation with Alex Fairchild's post "Defining Religion." Alex questions the definition of religion, and concludes by saying that he always keeps "the scientific method in the background" when analyzing religion. I see this as being very similar to the mindset of those who take environmentalism as a religion.

The question of how you define religion is important here becuase one must avoid contradictions. The term "secular religion" is one of these contradictions. Secular by definition means not religious. With that in mind I think that environmentalism can be called a real religion. It has all of the effects as what most think of as religion.

Response to Caro's post on Ethiopia

I think Caro makes a very good point in noticing the differences between Ethiopian culture and our own, but I think she may have overlooked an important detail. Women distinguish themselves as being Christian by marking there foreheads. However, in this society, women who do not mark their foreheads are therefore distinguishing themselves as not being Christians. A society where religion is so prevalent must put pressure on those who are unsure or do not believe in Christianity. Anyone who has read Milgram's Obedience to Authority has at least some insight into the power conformity has over individuals.

I think it is great that women in Ethiopia are very open about being Christian, but I am hesitant to accept that everything is as it appears. Distinguishing oneselve as being of a particular religious persuation strengthens the community within the religion, but can comprimise the stability of interactions between people of different beliefs.

Do We Still Need Religion?

In a few of my earlier blogs I have disscussed the issue of identity, and how religion has developed as a tool to build communities. However, there are many other tactics humans have developed to accomplish the same goal. Nationalism sticks out as being one of the more prominent ways to strengthen identity. Why then did nationalism develop so much later in human history than religion? Nationalism is quite old but, compared to religion, did not develop nearly as early or fast.

One theory might be that nationalism requires a much larger set of complex variables, such as governmental and economic structure, traditions, knowledge of surrounding geography, etc. Religion on the other hand, really only requires a group of people forming common beliefs in higher power(s) or morals.

Assuming religion developed solely to strengthen community, we now might ask: Do we still need religion? Other vehicles such as nationalism have developed that can build identity, many times much better than religion. Realistically humans will most likely never give up religion under the premise that other things just build community better, but it is an interesting way to think about it.

Response to "Peace in the Middle East?"

This is a response to Margaret's Post.

Margaret proposes in her blog that "Democracy is the government of choice because it does not allow for one man to run unchecked and uncontrolled by the people he governs" and that combining Islam with democracy will lead to peace. She is responding to the Sam Harris article and his view that Islam and peace can never co-exist.

I think that changing the governmental system in the Middle East will not necessarily affect this specific issue. Harris's argument is that it is fundamentally a problem with Islam, not with the government of Islamic states. I definitly agree that a change ito the political nightmare in the Middle East, is necessarily a change for the better, but I think it is unrelated to Harris's point.

The only way I see this idea changing the situation in Harris's eyes would be a fundamental change to Islam. Perhaps if Islam had more democratic foundations Harris would not think the way he does.

Evolution (both biological and religious) leads to Stronger Identity

In my previous blog entitled “Why Hitler was as powerful as a Religion” I discuss the importance of humans’ emotions in harnessing the power of large populations. Religion is effective at building communities because it uses this power to create a common identity among people. However, after reading and discussing the Kebra Negast, I believe that the issue of identity/community and how it relates to religion is more complex than I originally perceived.

As we discussed in class, nationalism is a tool that also uses humans’ emotions to build identity. In this sense, nationalism and religion are very similar, and can have very similar results such as war, monument construction, etc. Thus in the interest of building community it would be advantageous to combine the powers of nationalism with those of religion.

The combination of religion and nationalism is essentially what Kebra Negast achieves for Ethiopia and Christianity. A direct connection is made between the country of Ethiopia and Christianity in the section entitled “Concerning the Division of the Earth.”


“From the middle of Jerusalem, and from the north thereof to the south-east is the portion of the Emperor of Rom; and from the middle of Jerusalem from the north thereof to the south and to the Western India is the portion of the Emperor of Ethiopia. For both of them are the seed of Shem, the son of Noah, the seed of Abraham, the seed of David, the children of Solomon.” Kebra Negast Pg. 16


This passage clearly links Ethiopia directly with important Christian history. This connection strengthens and distinguishes the identity of Ethiopian Christians.

So how does this change the way I view the relationship between religion and community? An evolutionary approach to human development has lead to the idea that religion is a product of natural selection. It builds identity among groups of people which encourages individuals to act in the interest of ‘the many’ rather than ‘the few’. It is important to recognize then that religion was only evolutionarily advantageous because it instilled a sense of community in humans. One could then make the argument that religion does not directly benefit humans’ survival. Religion has survived natural selection only because its byproduct of exceptional community/identity building directly benefits humans’ survival. I therefore conclude that anything that leads to a stronger identity is, from a survival standpoint, similar to religion. Combining any of these identity builders with religion will result in more faith.

The Problem with Humans

In his chapter “The Problem with Islam” Sam Harris says that Islam is inherently violent, and that all Muslims are truly vicious towards non-believers. However, I will argue that humans are inherently violent but also peaceful at the same time, and in understanding this one can achieve a more objective understanding of religion as a whole and find inconsistencies in Harris’s argument.

Harris argues that “Islam, more that any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death.” (Harris pg.123) He suggests here that it is the religion itself that is the sole source of the violence. Thus, it is important to recognize that in order to make an argument against Harris one must show that humans are violent and peaceful completely independent of religion. This is possible using previous works we have read for class.

It is easy to find examples of human violence that is not fueled by religion. The book of lamentations, while a religious text, describes the secularly driven Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem. Another example that perhaps better shows the inescapability of violence in humans was discussed in class, the extinction of the Neanderthals. Humans slaughtered the Neanderthals when they did not pose any threat.

Despite a tragically apparent violent nature, humans are also peaceful beings. Robin Marantz to some extent explains this in his article “Why do we Believe,” arguing for the idea of group theory in humans. Group theory says that altruism is beneficial to the survival of a species and is therefore part of their ‘hardware’. The existence of altruism eliminates competition within a species. One could argue that the elimination of competitive survival is what humans have come to call peace.

I am proposing that in analyzing any religion one must take this into account; humans are both innately good, and innately bad. Major world religions cater to these strengths and weaknesses, and exist to reduce negatives and bring out the good in people. In some ways they are tools for altruism—tools for peace.

What does this have to do with Sam Harris’s argument? Harris says that people act violently because of Islam itself and uses many examples from the Koran. However, he completely disregards all of the positive elements of the religion. Violent acts committed by Muslims cannot be used to generalize all of Islam. Islam recognizes the innate violence in humans, however, acknowledging this does not mean that it supports it. Harris has grossly missed the point, and while many of his arguments are good, they are completely one-sided.

Response to "Defining Religion"

Alex Fairchild's recent blog "Defining Religion" is very insightful, and poses an interesting question: "can a person live an entirely non-religious life?" His motivation for this question comes from analyzing the definition of religion, as displayed on Dictionary.com. However, I think this question is based on the fact that Dictionary.com gives multiple definitions of religion. The Argument I would like to make is that according to some of the definitions given by the website, yes, someone can live an entirely non-religious life. One cannot assume that all the definitions for religion can be applied simultaneously. In fact, there are most likely some that are contradictory.

With what I have come to accept as my own personal definition of religion, I would argue that a person cannot live an entirely non-relgious life. My idea of religion is more aligned with dfn #6 from dictionary.com, where religion is something governed by the individual. The others, however, imply that there must be a group of people, or a mutual acceptance of an idea.

To truly analize whether a person can live an entirely non-religious life based on the definitions in a dictionary, one must pick a single definition and stick to it.

I don't think Alex really did that, but I just thought it was an important distinction to make.

Shakespeare and Lamentations

(In this analysis I am taking the book of Lamentations literally and not the way Origen describes it. An excellent argument explaining a large portion of my rationale in this decision can be found in Carissa’s post The Function of Allegory.)

The second scene of Act I in William Shakespeare’s King Lear is a dialogue between a father, Gloucester, and his two sons Edgar and Edmund. Edmund lies and warns his father (behind Edgar’s back) that Edgar is planning to assassinate him. Gloucester is of course upset with this news and, being superstitious, passes along the blame of his misfortune, proclaiming:


“These late eclipses in the sun and moon por-
tend no good to us. Though the wisdom of nature
can reason it thus and thus, yet nature finds itself
scourged by the sequent effect.” (King Lear, Act I scene 2)


In this passage Shakespeare, a master of human nature, hits a human characteristic that I will argue, in a secular analysis of religion, is the inspiration behind the book of Lamentations. Gloucester’s speech here reveals a fundamental human habit to assign explanations. In King Lear Gloucester excuses and explains his son’s plot to murder him with movements of celestial bodies. I argue that this human characteristic is the driving force behind the book of Lamentations, because the entire book describes and attempts to rationalize the fall of Jerusalem by placing blame/responsibility on the supernatural. The book makes God guilty of (or responsible for) the fall Jerusalem, and the evil and misfortune that plagues its citizens. In other words, the sack of Jerusalem is like Edgar’s supposed plot to kill his father, and divine intervention in Lamentations is like Gloucester’s set of astrological excuses and explanations.

I want to end this post with another quote from King Lear that is the direct response to the passage cited earlier. However, I would first like to clarify that the following quote is not meant to reflect my personal belief in the origins of religious writings. I merely find this to be an interesting perspective on the origin of humans’ explanations/excuses for all things, religion and religious works included.


“This is the excellent floppery of the world, that,
when we are sick in fortune, often the surfeit of our own
behavior, we make guilty of our disasters the sun, the
moon, and the stars; as if we were villains by necessity;
fools by heavenly compulsion; knaves, thieves, and
treachers, by spherical predominance; drunkards, liars,
and adulterers, by an enforced obedience of planetary
influence; and all that we are evil in by a divine thrusting
on.” (King Lear, Act I scene 2)

Body Painting

One very important issue that Mithlen is quick to dismiss in his book The Singing Neanderthals is that of body painting. Mithlen’s entire thesis seems to be based around his unique idea of the ‘hmmmmm’ and that the Neanderthals were incapable of symbolic thought, and the existence of body painting would be a threat to his theories.

Mithlen makes two arguments against the use of symbolic body painting. The first is that the paint was most likely used for camouflage. (230) This makes sense, as the Neanderthals were hunters and it would have been an advantage in the wilderness. However, the use of body paint of camouflage does not in anyway suggest that it was not used for symbolic painting. Mithen has not proved anything with this point

The second argument Mithlen makes is that “Had the Neanderthal pigment use been for symbolic purposes… [we] would expect to see a wider range of pigments at their sites, especially modules of ochre used to create red paint.” (230) I find this argument to be even weaker than the first. There is no rule that says symbols must be drawn in more than one color. Also, in regards to the lack of red pigment, is it not completely possible that the Neanderthals may have used their own blood? Their autopsies show that they experienced traumatic wounds. Maybe some of these wounds were self-inflicted. This might also explain why the injured were looked out for so well.

I do not think my ideas to be the truth. I am merely pointing out the flaws in Mithlen’s immediate dismissal of symbolic body painting. His arguments are illogical. If Neanderthal’s did practice symbolic body painting, our image of them changes drastically especially in the realm of religion. We concluded in class that symbolic thought is what differentiates humans from Neanderthals, but his conclusion was only based on the far from rigorous exploration and conclusions of Steven Mithlen.

Technology and Burial Mounds…

What makes a religion or religious customs change? It’s a big question, but the second to last paragraph in the fifth chapter of Indian Mounds of Wisconsin by Robert Birmingham and Leslie Eisenberg may provide some insight. The paragraph attempts to explain why the Native American effigy mound construction came to an abrupt halt around 1200 A.D. Birmingham and Eisenberg agree with Robert Hall’s idea which explains the phenomenon as such:



“Robert Hall believes that the end of the period of burial mound construction (which was supplanted in Oneota culture by large belowground cemeteries with individual graves) occurred as ceremonialism shifted emphasis from world renewal in general, symbolized in various ways by the periodic construction of mounds, to new agriculturally based concerns about the fertility of the earth, which became a matter separated from the death ritual. In short, culture had dramatically changed, and the building of earthen mound ceremonial centers was s custom that was no longer needed.”(141)



This passage describes the specific case of the Native Americans quite well, but I believe there is also a larger concept put forth about general change in religious or ceremonial behavior.
It is suggested in the passage that the Native Americans stopped building the effigy mounds because they did not fit into their changing views of the earth. There society was becoming more focused on agriculture, a change considered by most to be an advance in technology and sophistication. From this perspective, one might conclude that the change in the religious or ceremonial behaviors of the Native Americans (not building effigy mounds) was a direct result from a technological advance in there society.

Applying this concept to major changes in religious or ceremonial behavior in different cultures and religions helps to validate the idea. Two examples are the Catholic Church’s stance on science and modern Muslim mosques. The Catholic Church is fairly obvious in that over time scientific advances have changed the churches ‘official stance’ on the nature of things. The big bang theory is a good example of this. The example of the mosques may seem a little less significant, but before modern speaker technology the muezzin (leader of the prayer call or adhan) was required to sing atop the minarets. Electronic speaker systems now allow the muezzin to sing into a microphone which is then projected to the surrounding area.
While advances in technology may not be the only cause of change in a religion or culture, one can see that it is a very present force. It is what compelled the Native Americans to discontinue building ceremonial effigy mounds. One only need to look at changes in other cultures and religions to see the influence of technology.

While advances in technology may not be the only cause of change in a religion or culture, one can see that it is a very present force. It is what compelled the Native Americans to discontinue building ceremonial effigy mounds. One only need to look at changes in other cultures and religions to see the influence of technology.

Religious Beliefs Can’t Disprove Scientific Explanations

(a response to Scientific Explanations Can’t Disprove Religious Beliefs, a post by Carrisa)

I first would like to say that I agree with what Carissa argues in her post. She states that “Science and religion are separate entities, science dealing--by definition--with the physical world, and religion (and philosophy) dealing with the metaphysical.” In making this distinction one must realize that by definition, science will never be able grasp religion in its entirety.

The focus of Carissa’s post is on the limits of science in religion. She also briefly touches on the limits of religion in science, but I would like to develop this side of the argument in more detail.

In order to interpret scientific data, one must leave all religious ideas at the door. Science deals with the physical world and our observations of it, not how we think we ought to see it. There are many examples where people interpret scientific results so that they agree with their own religious beliefs (big bang, evolution, etc.). People have every right to do as they wish, but interpreting science to fit within a religious belief system changes the science itself to the extent that it is no longer science. I would argue that when individuals take the liberty of doing such an act, they in essence are changing science so that it no longer accurately depicts the physical world.

This is not an argument against Carrisa’s post, merely an addition. I do not believe this contradicts what she has previously stated, and it is not meant to. I am a religious person, but I make an effort do draw a distinct line between my religious beliefs and science.