Evolution of thought systems, myths and beliefs in history.

[sen-no-sen]

I inaugurate this topic on the evolution of the belief systems, to avoid the pollution of other subjects ...

Here a blog post Homofabulus on the emergence of religions and moral philosophies:

The question of the day is: why in one fell swoop, in about 400 BC, do we see appearing similar religions insisting on self-discipline and moral behavior in three regions of the world as far apart as the Ganges valley, the Mediterranean region and China? Why have we gone from religions that until now have postulated gods that must be feared but do not say what is right and wrong to do to religions postulating moralizing gods?

An article recently published in the journal Current Biology suggests a hypothesis based on the theory of life history traits that we have already discussed on this blog. We know that an individual's wealth affects his motives and his "reward systems". Someone who lives comfortably is more likely to set long-term goals, move away from so-called "fast" strategies (get resources quickly, replicate quickly ...) and refer to a more "slow" strategy that includes more cooperative, long-term behaviors, favoring self-control over impulsivity. The study shows precisely that during the axial period, the energy capture in the three above-mentioned regions (Ganges valley, China and Eastern Mediterranean) has increased dramatically, exceeding 20 000 kcal / day / while traditional hunter-gatherer societies do not exceed 4000 kcal and large archaic societies such as Egypt or Sumerians peak at 15 000 kcal.

Evolution of energy capture in different regions of the world during the axial period
http://homofabulus.com/pourquoi-les-dieux-sont-devenus-moraux-tous-en-meme-temps/

PS: I can not find a graph on the evolution of the amount of energy dissipated by type of society since prehistory (if a charitable soul hear me!), Because it appears that there is a obvious report between dissipated energy level and belief system.
In the pre-modern period, researchers tend to reason in terms of caloric intake, but if this point is interesting, it does not allow to link sufficiently the level of complexity of a society and religious category (monotheism, polytheism etc ...)

[thibr]

little question
By energy capture, must we understand the energy devoted to the religious fact by the society in question?

[phil12]

Bonjour,

As the subject will lead to a rat race of the style

Debate closed in the advanced state of our knowledge!

Too bad you will not be able to eat watts and gut you, but it's better for the planet!

[sen-no-sen]

little question
By energy capture, must we understand the energy devoted to the religious fact by the society in question?

No it's simply caloric intake per person / day.

[sen-no-sen]

Bonjour,

from a purely scientific point of view it exists since science has not yet been able to demonstrate by a mathematical demonstration or a reproducible experiment, that it did not exist.

God is a concept. Everyone is free to believe it or not, it is a matter of belief.
By definition, scientific study can not determine the existence / nonexistence of god because it is supposed to escape the scientific methodology.
On the other hand, the study of belief systems shows very clearly that religions, myths and other ideologies (this also applies to economic liberalism) are correlated with the structure of society, and therefore by its dissipation in energy ... which allows to have elements of answer on the "divine" question, ie consequence rather than cause of environmental modifications.
It is not hard to imagine that the representation of the world of a Neolithic human is not the same as that of a cadre working in defense today.

[phil12]

> By definition scientific study cannot determine the existence / non-existence of god because it is supposed to escape scientific methodology.>

So by definition in some areas science has its methodological limits that make it obsolete CQFD!
Too bad for some of our counterparts who only judge by it!

[GuyGadebois]

Who says more wealth (never distributed equitably), says more inequalities, who says more inequalities says more social tensions. It is therefore necessary to find a "moral system" (even if this morality is at several speeds and therefore becomes immoral) which controls the crowds. Inventing an immanent "supreme being" who orders man becomes an artifice which works on a hypothetical post-mortem reward (and the fear of not receiving it) and allows the crowds that have become believers (obedient, subject to dogma). It is a hypothesis.

[GuyGadebois]

> By definition scientific study cannot determine the existence / non-existence of god because it is supposed to escape scientific methodology.>

So by definition in some areas science has its methodological limitations that make it obsolete CQFD! <<< Well no, I don't see how science could confirm or deny a pure fantasy, a human mental construction ...
Too bad for some of our counterparts who only judge by it! <<< If I am targeted, know that I have a hyper-active spirituality since the age of 7 years, approximately. From then on, I never needed religion. In addition I do not devote any worship to science.

QED? What did you show?

[sen-no-sen]

<<< Well no, I don't see how science could confirm or deny a pure fantasy, a human mental construction ...

What we see is that the idea of ​​god evolves in time according to a rather simple scheme:The greater the degree of complexity (and thus the dissipated energy) of a human society, the less the number of revered deities is important.
The first human society were animists, then came the appearance of polytheism following the rise of civilization, then (where appropriate) the rise of the Monolatry(1), then finally monotheismthe techno-industrial era is dominated by structural atheism (2).


1)Monolatryreligious doctrine, form of polytheism, which recognizes the existence of several gods but who venerates one of them preferably, even to the exclusion of others.
2)Structural atheism: atheism induced by the societal structure, to differentiate from philosophical atheism.
It must be understood that it is the society that is atheistic and not necessarily its sub-elements (humans), however by retro-action it is found that the number of believers worthy of the name has been declining for a century in the industrialized countries.

[Janic]

however, by retro-action we note that the number of believers worthy of the name has been declining for a century in the industrialized countries

I think we must distinguish a belief, even non-religious, and a practice.
We can very well believe in the need to reduce our carbon footprint, it is a belief, and practically to be removed because the means proposed are not appropriate, according to the individuals. This site easily shows all the differences concerning the ecology for example.
Other point! the notion of god is less a concept (which must then be defined according to our cultural criteria) and a postulate that does not have to do so. For example the concept of life after death based on what criteria, and a postulate that requires no form of concept. There is or there is not, and it can not be conceived before it.