Response to Dave

Dave commented on the poem ‘On the Road Home’ and speculated about the lines
“It was when you said
The idols have seen lots of poverty,
Snakes and gold and lice,
But not the truth";
Dave thought that the lines might mean, “that religion have had various effects or perhaps that religion is a tool for amassing inequality as the idols, here, have seen both poverty and gold.” I thought that the lines might mean that the idols have seen many different types of religion and to them all of it was wrong ‘poverty’ that none of it was the truth. The different types of religion were classified and compared to snakes (sneaky, swindling), gold (of false value), and lice (infestations of peoples minds but in the end, of little real value).

Sunday Mornings

I thought the Wallace Stevens poems were very interesting. His comments on death and beauty were thought provoking. In paragraph V of ‘Sunday Morning’ he comments that ‘Death is the mother of beauty’ and in section VI questions ‘Is there no change of death in paradise? Does the ripe fruit never fall?’ I think that there are two meanings to ‘death is the mother of beauty.’ The first meaning is that following death there is rebirth. There is rebirth of nature every spring following the ‘death’ of the plants, flowers, and leaves in late fall. The new plants that grow in the spring are aesthetically beautiful. I think that he also means that death makes us appreciate what is around us. When we have a life threatening experience our one of our first responses is to start bargaining for our life. We are naturally somewhat afraid of death and therefore want to stay alive. When we feel like our life is going to be taken away from us we value what we have and our want for life is increased. After we survive the threatening experience, at least for a little while, we take in everything around us and appreciate it for what it is. The grass that was once seen as ‘just grass’ suddenly becomes a fabulous green field that smells and appears to be fantastic as is blows in the wind. In that way we find beauty through the threat of death upon our own lives. In response to Stevens’ question ‘Is there no change of death in paradise? Does the ripe fruit never fall?’ I would say if there is no death there could be aesthetic beauty of the ‘ripe fruit that never falls’ but the praise and obsession over the beauty of the fruit will never be reached. It’s hard to notice static things that are unchanging but just because something’s beauty isn’t noticed, it doesn’t mean that it’s beauty does not exist.

Adam and Eve

Catrina makes an interesting observation noting the irony about the then and now view of clothing from the time of Adam and Eve to now. God looked down at Adam and Eve when they began to cover themselves and now the Queen of England is scolding today’s youth for not covering themselves enough. I notice the lack of the leader’s control in both of these situations rather than the leaders’ objection to the extent of how clothed his or her people are. I find the ‘Adam and Eve scolding’ from God the beginning of the unspoken social rules. Adam and Eve never told God they were going to start wearing clothes but together started a change in the way the society (Adam and Eve) did things. This is the way that human beings interact socially with one another. People are very socially in-tune with one another and when they encounter a situation in which they are unsure of how to behave they look to what the other people around them are doing. In this way a group of people can sometimes change under their leaders nose. It seems that sometimes people need something more tangible to rely on for support and acceptance rather than a leader who is far away or a God that they cannot touch.

I was reading Oliver’s latest post and what caught my attention was that he referenced the 5 points that responded to a critic (See Oliver’s post). Those 5 points also stood out to me while I was reading “Paths to the Absolute” and in particular the second point: 2) This world of the imagination is fancy-free and violently opposed to reason. To me this point doesn’t make much sense the way it is written. I would think that what is meant by the statement is that art is to be expressed and created through the experience of the creation of the piece. There are no rules to how the piece is created but rather the creation of the piece is an extension of the artist’s thoughts and feelings at the time of the creation. If the statement is intended to be interpreted this way I can see the creation of the piece of art as religion because the artist is creating his or her own world and expressing this world within their mind through their production. However, the point still makes me feel like there is a contradiction within the statement because in order to be opposed to something isn’t it necessary to oppose due to reason?

I thought Catrina's blog on Red was very thought provoking. Catrina said in her blog two things that I found very interesting; "The family survives on self deceit, as clearly the daughter knows about her father's affair. They choose to live life ignoring its imperfections, so to undermine that structure would be wrong. " and "No situation is straight forward, no person is as they seem, and there can be no single truth." These were very powerful statements to me and I feel like everyone can take these messages in and see how they fit within humanity and their own lives. To choose to live a life that ignores its imperfections is in a way a perfect life. As it is commonly said ignorance is bliss. If someone chooses to live their life in a way that ignores everything that would be an imperfection to them and get them down or feel anything less than positive would be a very uplifting way to live life. If all of the imperfections could actually be ignored life and the world around us would be 'bliss.' The other remark that Catrina made "No situation is straight forward, no person is as they seem, and there can be no single truth" is scary but true. The fact that there may be no single truth keeps this world more open minded and it keeps people from being what they seem. Without a single truth people can always be deceitful and not as they seem because they don't have to be one way or another, they can do whatever they want and get away with it. So is the price that we pay for freethinking and no right answer is that we can trust no one?

Religion in Art

I feel like it is hard to decipher specific religious views of an artist. So much of the art we have been looking at lately is vague to the viewer. There are little to no signs of distinctive religious symbols and even if there were, the other objects in the artwork don’t clearly show an action or state of being. I think that the religion in the artwork is found in its creation. The artist has a religious experience when creating the artwork. An experience that is so personal that final images within the artwork have great meaning and symbolism that evoke certain feelings for the artist but not for the viewers. A religious experience can be retold but the listener will never feel the full strength of the experience like the person to whom it happened. I think that the experience of making art can be religious in that the artist can devote themselves to the work and discover new ideas about themselves in the course of the project and let their thoughts and feelings about religion be expressed through each brush stroke or line drawn. The religion in the artwork can be very difficult to see as an outsider looking into the artwork but the piece is still a bundle of religious experience and meaning tied together through color, brush strokes, and the artists mind all displayed on one piece of canvas. Art can be interpreted by each individual viewer and the interpretation may be similar to the ideas of the artist but the artwork and it’s meaning will carry exactly the same meaning to someone else. I also think that a viewer may find an understandable idea within the artwork and interpret its importance and meaning according to the artist, incorrectly. In this way, I believe that art is not created for others for it’s aesthetic value, but rather art is created in order for the artist to capture their experience and give them a window through which to return to that idea later on.

Red

Outside of class I ran into Dave and we briefly discussed the movie Red. Dave shared with me his ideas of how he saw the movie as religious. He mentioned that he saw the old Judge as God because he was omniscient (by listening to everyone’s phone calls), a judge (makes the final judgment on people), and can see the future (dream about Valentine’s future happiness). I had not thought that the movie was strikingly religious in any way before talking with Dave. The points that Dave argues make sense to me that the judge could be seen as God, however, there were some very humanistic qualities that the judge had that I thought were not like God at all. The judge felt remorse for spying on his neighbors after meeting Valentine and turned himself in to the police. As far as we know God is the highest power and no one shows God that he made a blunder. In the scene where Valentine first meets the judge he is indifferent about the return of his dog and he says that he cares about nothing and Valentine suggests that he stop breathing. As we see later in the movie, one of the reasons the judge is so unfeeling is because he lost the woman he loved and he never got over it. Of what I know about God, God is both caring and forgiving neither of which the judge appears to be in this scene. I liked Dave’s argument for the judge to be seen as God but I think there is too much evidence that the judge has faults and cannot meet the criteria of God.

Response to Tammi

Tammi wrote that she did not see Jane Addams’ mission with the Hull House as religious but more aimed towards teaching women ‘how to live life to the fullest and basic survival skills.’ I would agree with this argument. I think that the website was set up in a way that allows for a person to interpret the website as religious but I don’t think Jane Addams’ mission was religious. Addams was raised as a Quaker and more nondenominational which to me keeps an open mind towards the thoughts of others but in no way pushes certain beliefs unto others. Aside from the caption of a photo in the time line describing that Addams was wearing a cross no other strikingly religious ideas are conveyed from what we can see about Jane Addams. I would think that she was pushing a feminist movement in teaching the women skills they would not otherwise have the opportunity to experience such as sewing, and singing as a group as pictured in the time line with the women gathered around a piano. She was giving support to women rather than showing them a religious path.

The timeline of Jane Addam’s life on the website ‘Urban Experience in Chicago’ stood out as religious to me as I was browsing along. The use of pictures with little text captions reminded me of the Stations of the Cross. This timeline is an image-based journey that shows Jane Addam’s road to saving the poor in Chicago through the development of her Hull House and her acquired fame for such a humane act. This is like the Stations of the Cross in that the stations depict Jesus’ journey to saving all people by his death on the cross through images of his struggle. Although, Jane Addam’s timeline also includes pictures of people that influenced her life and helped her along on her mission and her earlier family life is also described whereas Jesus’ stations focus only on his greatest effort to save humanity. The timeline shows Jane Addams as a hero and celebrity figure, similar to Jesus, by picturing Jane in almost every photo and when using photos that include other people set Addams as the spotlight figure, one in which everyone is looking to and listening to. One photo in particular that illustrates Addams’ popularity and distinction is the photo taken in 1934 near the end of her life picturing Jane Addams’ at the foot of the steps outside what looks to be the Hull House, in front of a crowd of children all intently listening to Addams speak. Another photo that showed her importance and status in the community was a picture taken at her wake. The picture is an aerial photo that shows a portion of a street in Chicago crowded with people wanting to say a last good bye to their hero, Jane Addams. The crowded street shows Addams’ impact on the entire city as one of importance and worthy of a gathering after her death.

Yesterday evening I spent some time in the greenhouse while a friend watered the plants. As I walked up and down the isles of the greenhouse visiting different beds of plants I felt at peace. The silence of the greenhouse reminded me of our demonstration of the traditional Quaker meeting we conducted in class. Obviously the plants weren’t ever going to break the silence and discuss an epiphany about God, but the presence of the plants kept me from feeling alone in the greenhouse. More than anything the presence of the plants that surrounded me made me feel a connection with nature and with life. As silly as it sounds I felt like I was having a religious experience just by taking a moment to be at peace with the plants. The lively existence of the plants reminded me of a higher power that has brought life into existence on this planet. I think that the Quaker meetings serve a religious purpose in two ways, to bring living things together for a shared moment, and to feel the presence of God or a higher divine being. I shared a moment with the plants in the greenhouse and felt a connection to life. The importance of the connection I felt towards life serves as a reminder that as human beings here on earth we have the ability to feel greater than life and all powerful when we create new inventions and materialistic luxuries but also less than life when we feel unimportant, unaccomplished, and depressed. What is most important though is that we remember that we are living creatures. Life is a gift that we should not take advantage of or neglect. The silence also generates a feeling of the presence of something bigger than our selves because in our daily lives we are always trying to work on something, accomplish something. To sit in silence is not a typical way of accomplishing anything so I think that our brains justify and feel that as we are sitting in silence something greater is coming upon us and in that way we imagine that we feel the presence of God.

I really enjoyed reading Thomas' post about the 'sweat' ritual of the Indians of South Dakota. The sweat ritual sounds really different and exciting. During our meditation today I thought about the purpose of prayer other than for personal requests or repentance. I think that the 'quiet time' used for prayer further solidifies the idea that God is real. In our busy lives we try not to waste time and we like to feel like we are always accomplishing something important. When taking the time to be quite and peaceful it makes sense that we would be justifying this moment with a connection with something bigger than ourselves or feeling the presence of God. I think that prayer as a ritual and routine definitely strengthens faith or belief in God because we maintain a relationship with the idea that we are connecting with something bigger on a regular basis.

As much as I would call myself a feminist and 100% in favor of women’s rights and activism I have to disagree with most of the points that Margaret Fell makes for the favorable rights, respect, and importance of women in the bible. Some of the examples she uses to indicate the presence and importance of women from passages in the bible are of little value or far fetched. She argues:

That ‘Jesus owned the Love and Grace that appeared in Women, and did not despise it: and by what is recorded in the Scriptures, he received as much Love, Kindness, Compassion, and tender Dealing towards him from Women, as he did from any others.’

“Also, there was many Women which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him, and stood afar off when he was Crucified… Yea even the Women of Jerusalem wept for him, insomuch that he said unto them, Weep not for me. Ye Daughters of Jerusalem but weep for your selves, and for your Children.”

To me this is a pointless argument for women’s importance in Jesus’ life. Of course women are going to be mentioned in the bible because they existed. Lots of other life forms are mentioned in the bible because they existed at the time. Does mentioning camels in the bible mean that camels are very important and respected and sent from God to be mentioned in the bible so that later on in life someone can interpret the bible in a way that says, ‘camels were mentioned in the bible, we should probably give them the right to vote’

In another passage Fell argues that women are as important as men according to the bible because they were blessed ‘out of their Tenderness, and Bowels of Love, who had received Mercy, and Grace, and Forgiveness of Sins, and Vertue, and Healing from him’ because they got to carry the message regarding Jesus’ burial and resurrection to the other people. In the passage that Fell uses to make these claims is :

Jesus said unto them, Be not afraid, go tell my Brethren that they go into Galilee, and there they shall see me. (3)

Jesus used the women to send a message to the people. He did not seek out women to deliver this message to the people, he told them to deliver the message because they were the only ones there and he wanted the message delivered. It had nothing to do with the fact that he wanted this message to be specifically delivered to the rest of the people by women.

Religion Culture Connection

Daniel makes a comment about the relationship between culture and religion of Etheopia that argues that the religion in Etheopia developed out of the culture. I would agree with this in that the rules established through the religion serve the purpose of justifying and further solidifying the legitimacy of the way of life in Etheopia. I think that the relationship between religion and culture should be strongly connected in almost any society. The way that people live their lives is never going to be correct to everybody but people can feel ok about the things that they do by turning to the 'book' that they follow. Every religion has its own rules and guidelines as to what is morally right and good, as does every society guided by its government. The more closely related the government/culture and the religion followed by the people within the government, the better the people of the society get along and more smoothly the society runs.

Some Records...

I thought "Some Records of Ethiopia" gave a very negative view of the Ethiopian culture. As we discussed in class I am sure there are more positive aspects to their culture but those shown make me want to stay away from Ethiopia. The citizens were presented in a way that made them look very untrustworthy and acting in a way that benefits them most at the time (selfish and conniving). These feelings towards the culture steam from sections in the text describing characteristics of their personalities:
"Nevertheless their are ordinarily changeable and inconsistent and so today they are with the lord and tomorrow will leave him and take another. They readily swear to any agreement and then break it as if they had not sworn. Hence arises incessant rebellions and most often, if things go badly for the rebel and his followers, they ask the Emperor's pardon and obtain it. They are soon admitted to honorable posts at court, even some who have lapsed into the crime of treason two or three times." (58)
The Ethiopians seem to me to be people who do what they want when they want to do it and always get away with it. In another section of the reading cheating in marriage is discussed and to make up for the infidelity things of monetary value are exchanged. In our culture even to the smallest degree of a promise is broken people get upset with one another and forgiveness does not come instantly even with bribery. I would imagine that the peoples of Ethiopia would be more compassionate and feel a sense of moral obligation to aspects of their life although the author does not seem to present them this way.

Response to Imtiaz Metropolis Post

I agree with Imtiaz's comments about Metropolis as a "brilliant science fiction movie, targeted towards the richer people of society" to remind them of the consequences of oppression but in terms of religious interpretation I did not see Joh Fredersen as God. Although the son of Joh Fredersen highly resembled Jesus coming down to the people of the lower class to act as a mediator and give them hope I thought that Joh Fredersen was too 'evil' to be God. He was the ruler of the city but was too neglecting towards the lower class. If the message of the movie was to remind the upper class citizens of the time the dangers of oppression on the lower class and to direct people to act appropriately in society I don't think God would have been represented in such a way as to be shown as the leader of the oppressors and distrusting of his son. I viewed Joh Fredersen as any power hungry sinner who had not yet been saved by Jesus.

Kebra Commandments

In the section of the Kebra Nagast entitled "Concerning the Ten Commandments" I was surprised and reminded of an aspect of religious belief that turns me off and pushes me away:

And thou shalt not take to wife a maiden and her sister so as to make them jealous each of the other, and thou shalt not uncover their shame, nor the same of the one or the other as long as the first sister is alive. Thou shalt not go to a menstrous woman, until she is purified, to uncover her shame whilst she is still unclean. And thou shalt not go to the wife of thy neighbor to lie with her, and thou shalt not let they seed enter her... And thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman, for it is pollution. And thou shalt not go to a beast and thou shalt not lie with it so as to make thy seed go out upon it... (60)

There are many aspects about this passage that push me away from organized religion and think that it is a joke. For one thing the author is writing to men about what not to do and in this passage is not concerned with women whatsoever other than mentioning that a man should not embarrass a women by sleeping with her sister while she is still alive, he should not sleep with a woman during her menstrual cycle, and he should not sleep with his neighbors wife. Who ever thought of making these ideas a part of the 10 Commandments is obviously infatuated with the idea of these things. I think to say live a morally conscience life and have sex to procreate implies don't do stupid things that will get you into trouble. God did not send an angel down from heaven to tell people these things. I think that too often "angels" are coming down to guide people into battle and doing things in the name of God that will hurt other people to give people a conscience excuse for their wrongdoings.

Leadership

It caught my attention right away in the beginning of the Kebra when the 'fellowship' of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit decided to create man. I was raised Catholic and know very few bible stories but I was always under the impression of one God, the creator. To me the Kebra is a document that serves to keep people within the lines of society, to live in a way that is not disruptive to the greater good, to live morally. It is very powerful to use a document as the foundation of a religion to be something that everyone within the religion will if not interpret literally, will view the document in some way in relation to their own lives. To have the introduction of the Kebra discuss a fellowship directing creation, I think is a strong message towards democracy. Although, throughout the reading God dominates in making decisions about who to punish it still includes the Son and Holy Spirit in the hierarchy of leadership. The Son and the Holy Spirit may be extensions God, or God in different forms, but to suggest that God was not the only one making decisions about how to make the world good is powerful in using this document to establish a government in accordance to the reading.

Framework

From the reading Conceptual Blending and Analogy I see the message of blending different things, ideas, or events in order to set up a framework in which to proceed to do anything whether it be development of a thought or an activity. For me setting up a framework using all of the influences on my life, friends, family, teachers, culture, etc. allows me to create a religion in my life. In using a metaphor towards my religious views, it’s a lot like team building. In team building it is important to check on everyone around you, look out for them, stay in balance, and work toward a common goal. Physically the framework comes together and can be seen like at a ropes course, where 5 people walking across a tight rope at the same time to cross a stream. The 5 people are like all parts of life influencing one another, must keep all parts together and interacting with one another to reach the goal. For me all of the influences upon my life mold together to create a framework for my beliefs in God. There is a constant pushing and pulling from different parts of my life that manipulates the total framework and the pushing and pulling in certain directions can change my ideas. Religion is not the sole focus of my life but this framework of balance between the day-to-day interactions and thought processes that occur within my life shapes everything that I am.

Crow Indians

I thought that in terms of comparing the message of the article on the Crow Indians to the message of hope in Lamentations was interesting but to say that there is hope for the Crow Indians to regain their culture and religion is impossible. Over and over again in the Crow article courage, honor, and bravery of the Crow warriors was said to define the tribe and the families within the tribe, “Girls as well as boys derived their names from a famous man’s exploit. Women danced wearing scalps, derived honor from their husbands’ deeds, publicly exhibited the man’s shield or weapons.” I think that even with strong government help to give the tribe back their land it cannot give back the culture. The tribe cannot go back to living in a hunting and scalping way of life and although the Crow Indians remember their past and may grieve the loss of their culture they will not want to return to their old traditions and leave the luxuries of today’s society. So I think what the article was really doing was shaking its finger at our government for destroying the culture of the Crow people although sadly there is seemingly nothing that can be done about the restoration of the culture.

In Catrina's blog on lamentations she discusses that lamentations is sending a message of hope that God has a higher plan for people in devastating circumstances. I would agree with this interpretation of lamentations and I also think that lamentations shows the undivided following that the people have for God. Today, not everyone would brush off a disastrous situation with "I will let this happen to me and not rebel against it because God will take care of me and everything will be alright." I think the extreme following of God can be seen from this reading because of the apparent process of emotions that is observed; 'I'm angry that you let this happen God, I'm sorry that I've sinned, this is my fault; God you are so wonderful I know you will always be there for me." If there was not such an extreme following of God I think the people would have stopped at why did you let this happen, you did this on purpose, I needed you and you were not there for me, I'm not going to follow you any more.

Lamentations

I thought it was very interesting that through this devastation the people remained firm followers and believers in God. At first God was responsible for what happened and the people were angry with ‘him’, then the people began to accept responsibility for what happened attributing the devastation to their own sins, the people then take comfort that God will take care of them and praise his greatness, and then become impatient with God and wonder if God is still upset with them that he may not be helping them get back to where they were and rebuild their civilization.

Lamentations seems to take on different narrations in the 5 different sections. First narrator is upset with God for the impoverished state of the society. The narrator speaks from a first person point of view and talks about God doing these/letting these terrible things happen to the city. The narrator is very upset and spiteful with God.

The second narrator discusses how God destroyed the city, God’s wrath and gave no protection to the city from their enemies. The narrator speaks to God.

The third narrator talks about God’s wrath and the devastation of the city, questioning “—does the Lord not see it? Who can command and have it done, if the Lord has not ordained it? Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come? Why should any who draw breath complain about the punishment of their sins?”
This narrator is saying that the trouble they are experiencing on earth is due to God because God determines good and evil and that the reason they are experiencing their destroyed state is because they are being punished for their sins.
“Let us test and examine our ways, and return to the Lord. Let us lift up our hearts as well as our hands to God in heaven. We have transgressed and rebelled and you have not forgiven.” The people are trying to return to God’s favor and accept responsibility for what happened as their own fault because they sinned. They are moving in a direction that praises and exalts God. “You came bear when I called on you; you said, “Do not fear!” The narrator in this section also speaks to God.

The fourth narrator discusses the state of the ruined city and the people in it, “but my people has become cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness.” This narrator writes as a warning to other cities with a mocking tone, “Rejoice and be glad, O daughter Edom, you that live in the land of Uz; but to you also the cup shall pass; you shall become drunk and strip yourself bare.”

The fifth narrator speaks to God about poor conditions and a want/pea to restore themselves to God, with a little impatience “Restore us to yourself, O Lord, that we may be restored; renew our days as of old—unless you have utterly rejected us, and are angry with us beyond measure.”

After reading through some blogs I really liked what Alavi Karim had to say pertaining to the reading The Nature of Paleolithic Art Part II. I was also in the biological anthropology class that Alavi mentions and I felt that I could relate to looking to past humans and even primates to explain why we do some of the things we do. I am a biology major and have not been very exposed to creationism. I find creationism fascinating because it is such a different way of thinking about things than I am used to but the way that I see it is we definitely have a tie to basic instinct to survive and some of the tactics that we use to ensure that survival, although we live in a very controlled environment where we all have much more than we need, are much like those of animals.

The end of the construction of effigy mounds as a cultural tradition for Native American peoples of Wisconsin was not unlike an incidence where Native peoples of Australia with a prion disease gave up their reliance on religious views to cure disease for the miracle medicines of the British. In both cases new technologies that could prolong the lives of the peoples replaced earlier cultural practices that had been important in maintaining the identity of the tribe. I believe that the effigy mounds served as important symbolic markers of the status of a tribe in the hierarchical system of the native people, a way of communicating the spiritual beliefs of the tribe, and a way in which the people connected themselves with the land as a part of the earth. The effigy mounds are clear markers of the history and symbolic beliefs of the native tribes of Wisconsin. The loss of the mound-building tradition does not necessarily mark a loss in the strength of their religious beliefs but I think that it does make for a loss in the identity of the tribe. Robert Hall mentioned that doing away with the mound building was due to the ‘concerns for the fertility of the earth’ where agriculture had become a large part of the lives of the native people, was a ‘custom that was no longer needed.’ Although the end of the effigy mounds may have been helpful to produce more yield from the land, but as we look at the land today we can see that the land has been destroyed by agriculture. The loss of the effigy mounds to agricultural practices indicates that when seemingly better forms of technology are introduced to a population more may be at stake to the culture than would be predicted.

Strength in Numbers

From The Nature of Paleolithic Art Part II I gathered that beliefs and religion developed overtime with expanding groups. Belief in a higher power was not always programmed into people. Evidence of this development of religion in later times can be seen by looking at the artwork of the earlier Paleolithic people. The early artwork consisted of drawing things in the natural world in straightforward manner not trying to depict it any differently than it really was where as the later artwork noted in the text, focused on more social aspects and local myths. It is in the nature of all creatures to live in way that best ensures their survival, but when humans began to form larger communities, they gained a sense of power over the earth. They gained this sense of power by cultivating the land and storing materials in order to ensure our survival in a time when we would naturally die out because of lack of resources. Since they didn’t have to worry about their survival as much because of their newfound power over the land, they started to focus their attention on social aspects. The peoples learned that survival was increased when living in a group because it gave protection from the earth (storms, food shortages, wild animals etc.) I think that when the peoples realized the power of the larger group, they were able to focus their attention on staying within the larger group by interacting with others on a more emotional level. The peoples most likely still kept innate feeling of trying to survive, but it was easy to become greedy within the group and to start to manipulate others in the group and form alliances against other groups that were not part of their own. The peoples did not want to share their food because would decrease their own chances of survival so they became enemies with other groups. I think that because they were always trying to ward off other groups, over time a fear became instilled within them that things could be taken away from them and this fear made them discomforted so for reassurance in the ability to hold on to what they had they looked to ‘gods’ for comfort. I think the idea of a god may have been a common idea but defining what the powers of that ‘god’ could do may have developed much like ideas of monsters, or robbers do in the imaginations of little kids having a sleepover. When one kid gets scared or pretends to get scared the other kids also get scared and feed off of one another’s feelings creating a situation that is not real. Not to say that God is necessarily unreal but the parameters in which we define Him may be.

Singing Neanderthals Continued...

Since the Neanderthals didn't advance in their tool making or ways of life it seems to me that they were more or less living mindlessly. Their methods of tool making were passed on exactly and they continued their technologies of the past through imitation so it could be argued that the Neanderthals were surviving by going through the motions of life but without a reason like religion. I think that had the Neanderthals had the mental capabilities of being a religious group more change would have occurred in their lifestyles throughout their life history.

Singing Neanderthals

The articles on Neanderthals presented speculation about methods of communication between Neanderthals. With a lack of cognitive fluidity and a heavy facial structure speech was very unlikely but in place of speech they were able to create a large range of sound with perfect pitch in a “Hmmmm.” Although their advancement as a species was difficult without a vocabulary they were able to survive for a long period of time through their “singing” and most likely dancing. I found it fascinating that the Neanderthals could live a life that did not mechanically advance much farther than the way it started and stay in existence for such a long time. The article discusses the importance of communication in the development and rearing of offspring and the organization for group hunting. I believe that it would be possible for the Neanderthals to live and communicate through body language and singing because both dancing and singing are very emotional forms of communication and I think almost everything that needs to be communicated within a community can be represented through singing and dance. Also mentioned in the article is reliance on imitation for learning and carrying on methods of tool making. Since all of the tools looked exactly alike it would be easy to see that imitation is a large part of survival and even though they did not advance beyond where they started as a population, they could get by and survive on passing on methods that had worked for their peoples in the past. It seems that for the Neanderthals, speech was not necessary and they were just as capable with singing and dancing in place.

Why Do We/Did We Believe?

Of the three main arguments in favor for humans being hardwired to believe in God presented by psychologist Justin Barrett in the article Why Do We Believe, I thought the mental module that causes us to always look for the presence of an agent in our world was most convincing for a belief of God or the supernatural in our “hardware”. Other arguments for hardwiring discussed were causal reasoning, and folkpsychology. Causal reasoning means we are constantly looking for an explanation for things that happen to us, and folkpsychology is described as our “ability to anticipate the actions of others and to lead others to believe what we want them to believe.” I thought the idea that we are always looking for the presence of an agent in our world seemed most convincing because the way that this argument was presented in the text made it seem like it was an innate, almost reflex reaction like our fight or flight response. An example of this from the text is that many people mistake a rock for a bear but few people mistake a bear for a rock. This means that we are usually assuming that something is more powerful and capable of acting more than it really is and to me if we are always overestimating the capability of things we would naturally believe in a higher power than ourselves at the suggestion of it with minimal evidence to support it.
In reading Genesis 1-4 I thought it was interesting that the messages of how to behave implied in the reading are only recently starting to change. Ideas that human kind is made in Gods image, that God made mankind to “let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air…” and that God made woman for man have shaped the way that human beings have behaved and conducted themselves for centuries. Only lately have been questions been risen as to whether behaving according to these ideas impressed in Genesis is the right way to live. It is easy to see now that living according to the egotistical thought that human beings are “God-like” and can control and do with the earth and its creatures what they want leads to our global catastrophe of wiping out keystone species and destroying natural systems that are crucial to the survival of the planet and its habitants. On a more social level, women are finally getting a voice and more of equality in status with men. It seems like the actions towards change away from the ideas from the reading are in the right direction for our society but if our old ways were mostly implemented because of Genesis 1-4 does that mean we are evolving away from religion and our possibly “natural” beliefs in a higher power? It also makes me wonder if until now were the ways that people interacted with one another solely based on the ideas from the bible?