Creation and/or afterlife

[pjkeeley]

(I'm basing this discussion on the assumption that religion can be understood merely as a psychological phenomenon)

I am interested to find out which of the following was the original 'purpose' or psychological need out of which spirituality arose at its earliest origins: the concept of god(s) creating the universe, or the idea that god(s) would bestow some form of eternal life/afterlife on worshippers. And further, the question of whether or not one is seperable from the other, and what the implications of that would be (Buddhism for example doesn't have a creation myth but it does have an afterlife of sorts -- I can't think of any religion that has a creation myth but no aferlife).

I come from Australia and grew up learning about (among other things) the spirituality of the Aborigines. Their concept of creation/afterlife is linked, it's quite intriguing (see: dreamtime, dreaming -- those two pages should probably be in the same article but hey). Basically according to various oral traditions the universe was created during the 'dreamtime' (a time which exists outside of time), where a bunch of ancestral spirits wandered around on different paths, singing everything into existence as they went (rocks, trees, etc.) These spirits were neither human nor animal. They were morphing between the two at will. Each of these spirits in turn has their own story, which often resemble classic children's fables (except for the whole anthromorphic animism thing), and there are usually morals to these stories, eg. a spirit who went around laughing at everyone and was generally a huge jerk ended up becoming a kookaburra for eternity (hence the existence of kookaburras).

Somtimes these spirits will become rocks or a particular landmark or something, thus why the Aborigines treat the land as being so sacred. My understanding is a little shaky but basically I'm pretty sure there is no 'afterlife' in the Aboriginal relgions as such, when you die you simply become a part of the landscape (though I think they conceive of you still exerting some form of conciousness, ie. eternally existing, just not in human form anymore). I'm not entirely sure if this generalisation is correct but that's how I've understood it. It's difficult to know because as I said, it's all millennia-old oral traditions and much if it hasn't been recorded.

So when you look at something like that, and compare it to say, the Christian concepts of creation and afterlife, the latter doesn't seem to be as appealing anymore. Why would God create this whole natural world for us, if we're just going to wind up in heaven anyway? I'd much rather believe that the afterlife is an intrinsic part of the natural world than believe in some metaphysical ethereal realm where you wind up after dying.

Not that I believe in either but it's food for thought.

[SteveS]

Hi pjkeeley - interesting post, it really got my gears grinding.  I've often wondered what drove religious belief to come about.  I'll give you my own personal thoughts below.

am interested to find out which of the following was the original 'purpose' or psychological need out of which spirituality arose at its earliest origins: the concept of god(s) creating the universe, or the idea that god(s) would bestow some form of eternal life/afterlife on worshippers.

Eh, I don't really know, I'm no anthropologist, but I do have an opinion anyway (haha).  Personally (and I do stress personally) I've always felt the idea of the "origin of existence" was hugely responsible for people inferring god.  As can be seen posted all over this board, a large part of most theistic arguments is "why does anything exist at all, instead of just nothing?".   They usually infer the existence of god directly from this question, tempered perhaps with a nod to science in the form of "matter and energy are conserved so existence can't create itself from nothing".

Side note: I think the god argument has the exact same problem - if god created existence, why did god exist instead of just nothing?  If there was nothing "before" existence, why wasn't there nothing "before" god?  (I'm quoting "before" because once we're outside of time, what the hell does "before" even mean?).  Now, if god didn't exist at one point, he couldn't have created himself (because he didn't exist) any more than the universe could have created itself, right?  So - if we accept that god has always existed, then why not save the trouble and just accept that the universe has always existed?  (nod to Carl Sagan for this last thought - thanks Carl, we miss you buddy).  Saying god created the universe, and nothing created god because god himself is eternal, is a trivial solution.  A non-explanation.

Warning: amateur philosophical speculation to follow - could be pure B.S.

I have this sort of idea that the theory of god probably has something to do with our theory of mind.  In other words, once we evolved to a state where we are aware of minds we start to see causation everywhere, probably because of social competition within our own species --- being aware of other humans, what actions where caused by them, trying to infer what they're planning, what they're up to, how they're doing it, etc. played a large part in the success of our ancestors.  Honestly, maybe this started with our hunter/gatherer history as well.  Tracking animals by the marks they leave, or how they alter the landscape, gauging the likely amount of time that passed since an animal was present, etc.  Then, this analysis extended to our own kind, only this time we started analyzing social situations.  I think I'm trying to get at the fact that this is a marked contrast to simple behavioral response - we are now at a level of interpretation, prediction, whatever (compared to a lion, say, that's more programmatical - walk to the tall grass or water hole, wait for zebra, move downwind, attack - ignore any zebra footprints you pass on the way, because lion's aren't smart enough to recognize them anyway).  I don't know.  It just seems like we have a huge predilection (and capacity) for analyzing our environment to find causation, infer presence and judge purpose of others (animals or minds), and react to what we find.  Abstract this up a layer, and here we are finding causation in our own existence.  Finding purpose behind everything.  Wondering what god wants us to do.  It seems to me that most gods that people have created have very human charateristics, as if the gods were really just other human minds.

Since a massively large segment of humanity naturally believes in god or gods existing, I think it is something directly about our human nature that causes this, which is why I like my mind/causation theory.  I'm not really emotionally attached to it, I could be speaking total crap, but I think at the end of the day believing in gods is a human characteristic that must come about from some facet of our nature, since almost everybody does it, and almost all cultures from time immemorial appear to have done so.

I think the whole afterlife thing is more emotional - nobody wants to die, so why not lump life-after-death into the large mystery of eternal existence (god exists forever, the universe maybe exists forever, why not us, too?  Plus, an idea this promising helps win over the converts, "I just have to believe, and I get to live forever in paradise?  Where do I sign!").

Anyway, I liked the aboriginal ideas.  Whenever I look at religious beliefs, I always find some things that seem to be "correct" on a high level, like allegorically.  I always thought that some pagans made some sense: the sun as a creator, the earth as mother, these things are sort of appropriate in that stars created the higher order chemical elements, and humans, other animals and plants are all part of the earth (made by the earth).  Pondering the "origin of existence", and the meaning of time, you can't help but notice the aboriginals ran into this same concept with their dreamtime.  Plus, this seemed slightly similar to the Hindu concept of the world being the dream of a god (at least, I think that's a Hindu concept).

Eh, I do ramble on when my interest is piqued.

Not that I believe in either but it's food for thought.

Exactly - and I had fun eating it  :wink:  .

[Huxley]

My two cents:  I beleive the current thinking amongst psychologists is leaning towards religion being ( a now unwelcome) bye product of our long infancy and the need for a big Parent (male or female). It is felt that religion helped form strong bonds in groups who may or may not have bonded otherwise. Of course this would also be the cause of division and seperation.

Big brained children also believe whatever you tell them in the early years. God worship and religion is a side effect of that ability to absorb so much parental influence.

Religious thought still must have been late; we were social primates long before we were human enough to ponder questions that couldn't be answered. We simply look for reasons and patterns and until we find away to investigate, we confabulate.

The Egyptians for instance, didnt really get into an afterlife because they feared death; it was because they loved life so much - they wanted it to continue. It cannot be such a long stretch from remembering someone after death to imagining a new life for them?

[pjkeeley]

I've always felt the idea of the "origin of existence" was hugely responsible for people inferring god. As can be seen posted all over this board, a large part of most theistic arguments is "why does anything exist at all, instead of just nothing?". They usually infer the existence of god directly from this question, tempered perhaps with a nod to science in the form of "matter and energy are conserved so existence can't create itself from nothing".

I think the whole afterlife thing is more emotional - nobody wants to die, so why not lump life-after-death into the large mystery of eternal existence (god exists forever, the universe maybe exists forever, why not us, too? Plus, an idea this promising helps win over the converts, "I just have to believe, and I get to live forever in paradise? Where do I sign!").

Agreed. Another point I was considering recently that links the ideas of creation and afterlife is the reasoning behind the deeper question of existence, which is not actually "why am I here?" (to which the original response must have been "because a god or gods created you"), but "what should I do whilst I'm here" (which I suppose is another way of saying "so... why did God create me?")

And for almost every religion I can think of, the reason we are here --  the reason we were created, and thus what we are actually supposed to do with our lives -- comes down to the nauseating idea that this is all simply a test. We are being tested to see if we can identify right from wrong in a world purposely filled with both, and then act accordingly. So in Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions, this obliges you to live a life in accordance with God's laws in order to be rewarded with eternal paradise. In more existential religions like Buddhism, this comes down to a process of eternal reincarnation until we realise the true nature of existence and rid ourselves of desire so we can find nirvana.

In both cases it's all really just a game, with set rules and a set objective. At least in Buddhism you can't really lose the game, you get unlimited  goes at it (though just to be brutal they make it harder for you the more you screw up, ie. with kharma). In Christianity if you lose it's going to be very unpleasant for you for a very long time.

So are there any religions where life is more than just a 'test'? Perhaps pagan religions like those of the Romans and Greeks (though I find their picture of reality even more absurd... the idea that the gods are simply bored and use Earth as their sandbox!? Hmmm).

If everything is just a game, as atheists, we should at least do as the existentialist philosophers (Nietszche, Satre, Camus etc.) were advocating, and make our own rules and our own objectives. It may not be possible to ultimately win or lose, but at least we can have fun playing!

I beleive the current thinking amongst psychologists is leaning towards religion being ( a now unwelcome) bye product of our long infancy and the need for a big Parent (male or female). It is felt that religion helped form strong bonds in groups who may or may not have bonded otherwise. Of course this would also be the cause of division and seperation.

Makes sense. I've often thought of history itself in these same terms (ie. a period of learning, "childhood" vs. eventual "adulthood" when we start to become a civilized race). If that's the case I think we've been in adolescence for the past couple of centuries, rapidly changing in ways that would have been unimaginable years earlier and to which people are reacting on a highly emotional level -- through the worst violence in our history in a lot of cases. And perhaps like in our teen years it feels like no one understands us and we're doomed to fail... or something (hopefully this metaphor is not getting too ridiculous...)

The Egyptians for instance, didnt really get into an afterlife because they feared death; it was because they loved life so much - they wanted it to continue. It cannot be such a long stretch from remembering someone after death to imagining a new life for them?

Well for them (at least for those few at the top of society), it was really possible to enjoy life -- they didn't waste time on the same kind of ascetic crap that today's monotheistic religions do. Even so, as someone else said in another thread (I dont' remember who), doesn't the belief in an afterlife cheapen the life we have here and now?

Oh, and BTW, props on using the word "confabulate".

[SteveS]

we should at least do as the existentialist philosophers (Nietszche, Satre, Camus etc.) were advocating, and make our own rules and our own objectives. It may not be possible to ultimately win or lose, but at least we can have fun playing!

Yeah, pretty much how I see it.  I think it's important to temper our rules and objective with a reasonable set of ethics, but otherwise, yeah, whatever we each want to do is a go.  Religious people balk at this as "empty", since there is no "ultimate purpose" being served.  But, honestly, I've always wondered what could be better?

We simply look for reasons and patterns and until we find away to investigate, we confabulate.

This thought makes very solid sense to me.