Dear Banjo,

I agree, as I do with the following:

My understanding is that primeval man invented elementary arithmetics (and geometry) as an explanation of quantitative aspects of observed reality. The concept allowed him to develop a strategy for survival based on it. He did everything he could with these "conceptual constructions" in order to better understand and conquer his environment .

That was a process which had its beginnings about five to seven million years ago when, according to present day palaeontologists, we human beings branched off from our common ancestor with the chimpanzees.

I am inclined to think that prior to primeval man’s invention of elementary arithmetics (and geometry), there was nothing that could be called mathematics. If abstract mathematical concepts now exist, it must be because they are the consequence of the invention of elementary arithmetics (and geometry) of primeval man five to seven million years ago.

I consider that concepts of elementary arithmetics, as understood by primeval man (only counting), to be archaic and no longer sufficient to explain physical phenomena. Nor do I attribute any value to the strategy of survival developed by our primeval ancestors based only on their knowledge of what later developed into contemporary mathematics (and science).

-

Nevertheless, this does not imply anything about the usefulness or not of this or that part or feature of contemporary mathematics or its ability or not to explain physical reality.

Perhaps something similar could be said about primitive vs contemporary, including philosophically sophisticated, attempts to understand human existence and its purpose, when seen as part of a reality that is not reducible to its physical manifestations.

In one of my many books I remember reading that primitive man had on actual language that described anything past three. Most primitive Hunter Gatherers, even to day, have only, "one, two, three, many." Most don't have "God or Gods" as described in, for the want of a better word, a "civilized" concept. They have stories explaining "things" around them in "their" world. e.g.; the Australian Aborigine. Some, further up the chain, have "spirits" that govern things that happen in nature.

Would you call these people "atheists?" as they don't really have a modern concept of "God" as we do. Just a thought.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

So long as there is one person who believes in a god or gods, then atheism and theism exist and are logical absolutes. They are not reliant on the usefulness or validity of religion.

Furthermore, logical absolutes exist whether or not we are even there to conceive of them. So, since animals are technically atheists (implicit atheists), one could argue that theism and atheism still existed as logical absolutes in prehistoric times, it’s just that no-one or no-thing was a theist (you could argue that an entity requires a consciousness of some sort to have the label of ‘atheist’ but it wouldn’t detract from what I’m saying).

The concept of a theist didn’t pop into theoretical existence when the first human ancestor conceived of the concept of a god. Let’s say, for example, that in some post-apocalyptic civilisation in the future (in which humans have become very superstitious again), they invent a mystical concept known as ‘Woogiejabba’; we may not have conceived of Woogiejabba yet, but we are still all a-woogiejabba-ists because we lack the belief in it.

In fact, we are all an infinite number of a-something-or-others, and this is - ultimately - why theists bear the burden of proof.

Theodicies can explain human problems in many ways.
The Hindu doctrine of reincarnation deals with
suffering and evil by extending the life span
indefinitely; one's present existence becomes merely
a tiny link in an endless chain, in which death and
misery seem only temporary and insignificant.

The mysticism of Buddhism or Taoism offers the
believer salvation at a spiritual level, where earthly
cares become unimportant. Christian theodicy holds out
the hope of eternal salvation in heaven in recompense for
ordeals on earth.

The Zoroastrian theodicy sees the universe as a
battleground between the evenly balanced forces of good
and evil, with the misfortunes of humans stemming from
their failure to throw their weight on the side of good.

In Shintoism, which focuses on ancestor worship, one's
sorrows and the idea of death are made tolerable by
the knowledge that one's life will be remembered and
celebrated by one's descendants forever.

Our discussion of theodicies implies that religion does
have some function in social life; and, in fact, the
functionalist perspective offers many insights into the
role of religion in society.

Emile Durkheim, one of the earliest functionalist
theorists was the first sociologist to apply the
perspective to religion in a systemiatic way. Durheim
believed that the origins of religion were social, not
supernatural. He pointed out that, whatever their source,
the rituals enacted in any religion enhance the
solidarity of the community as well as its faith.

Religious rituals such as baptism, bar mitzvah, weddings,
Sabbath services, Christmas mass, and funerals - rituals
like these serve to bring people together. To remind them
of their common group membership; to reaffirm their
traditional values; to maintain prohibitions and taboos;
to offer comfort in times of crisis; and, in general, to help
transmit the cultural heritage from one generation to the
next.

In fact, Durkheim argued, shared relgious beliefs and the
rituals that go with them are so important that every society
needs a religion, or at least some belief system that seves
the same functions.

Foxy - thank you for sharing all that; its was very good.

.

Dear George,

.

That is a fairly good – not quite perfect – but nevertheless amusing attempt at a parody. It almost mirrors my logic but faulters on a couple of occasions in order to arrange your affair – which it does quite nicely.

Allow me to add that your signature at the bottom of the post is superfluous. Nobody else could possibly have written those final two paragraphs, George. You are inimitable.

Please be assured that under no circumstances could I imagine that you might, some day, arrive at the conclusion that primeval man’s brilliant invention of “the supernatural and god” should, in the final analysis, be recognized simply for what it is: a conceptual error.

So what? Let us continue to perpetuate it, rearrange it, modify it, adapt it, embellish it, and reinvigorate it in order to maintain its pertinence for those who need it, for as long as possible.

All I ask, in return, is that I be allowed to parody Foxy’s message on page 11 of this thread, by misquoting Durkheim’s argument in the following manner :

« … shared illusions and the rituals that go with them are so important that every society (and many individuals within society) need them … »

And to conclude: such is human nature.

.