Dear Eliezer,
First and foremost,I am a very eager reader and follower of your work on the Overcoming Bias and SIAI sites,which I find to be extremely insightful and inspiring,from Bayesian Calculus to Transhumanism.
Thanks for sharing your work with those of us who, may not have had access to the very challenging intellectual topics you,Mr Hanson and fellow bloggers regularly debate,if it wasn’t for the Internet.
I’ve happened upon Mr Hay’s database and avidly read your older posts too.
I don’t know if you may receive my comment,but it is based on your January 05th 2008 post,”A failed Just-So-Story”on the evolutionary significance of religion.
I do not question your analysis,which I find to be,in measure with the general tone of your work,prudent,pragmatic and well balanced.
I do not either propose a viewpoint which I would call”scientific”,or”rational”,in the manner which I understand you use those terms in most of your work.
I wanted nevertheless to present to you,my modest attempt at wild guessing a”Just-So-Story”,to explain the need for religion;I would be grateful,if you were to find the time for it,to receive your rational evaluation of it.
In his book”The Golden Bough”,Sir James George Frazer identifies primitive hunterer-gatherers groups religious rituals,as almost systematically involving the belief in the possibility of communication with the Dead.
Those communication channels once”operational”, would thus open avenues for guidance about hunting,harvesting,even justice among the community members,division of labor between gender and age groups,ethical and moral rules,etc…
In other words,necromancy would have covered a vast array of social functions and duties.
Its authority would have depended on the faith of the group in the”shaman”’s gift for channelling the advice of the”departed”from another”realm”of consciousness,during those”spiritual”ceremonies.
As population grew,those principles and edicts became less and less directly transmitted by the”Shamen”and became more or less socially codified,until they became passed down purely orally without a need for the ceremonial”magical” ritual of the”Shamanic”ceremony.
As tribal groups evolved into varying branches,geographically,ethnically,politically,the hunter-gatherers initial”skillset”also became more complex(forgive me for the huge innacuracies in chronology and anthropology)and further removed from its original nature and function.
Soon the advent of the Agricultural Revolution swept the last remnants of the hunter-gatherer economic mode,leaving only the”shamanistic”ethical/moral framework to regulate socio-political interaction and provide the”naive”answers to the Bigger Questions,which later would become the domain of pre-Modern and Modern science.
My hypothetical conclusion would be that religion would have had its root in the hunter-gatherer belief in the existence of supernatural forces,which would co-exist on the same plane as humans,that it would have been believed,in those communities,that those”forces”could be”transacted”with for moral,political and economic benefits and that the orchestrator of this”religious”modus operandi would have been the”Spirit-conjurer”or”Shaman”,the Modern equivalent of which,would have been the Middle-Ages to 16th century”English witches”model.Clearly,that social function really ran out its course just before the Age of Enlightenment.
Although I appreciate that I’m most likely not”explaining”anything per se,I would be very grateful for any”corrections”you could contribute to this”Just-So-Story”.
With many thanks for all your publishing work,
Andy Bay.
Dear Eliezer, First and foremost,I am a very eager reader and follower of your work on the Overcoming Bias and SIAI sites,which I find to be extremely insightful and inspiring,from Bayesian Calculus to Transhumanism. Thanks for sharing your work with those of us who, may not have had access to the very challenging intellectual topics you,Mr Hanson and fellow bloggers regularly debate,if it wasn’t for the Internet. I’ve happened upon Mr Hay’s database and avidly read your older posts too. I don’t know if you may receive my comment,but it is based on your January 05th 2008 post,”A failed Just-So-Story”on the evolutionary significance of religion. I do not question your analysis,which I find to be,in measure with the general tone of your work,prudent,pragmatic and well balanced. I do not either propose a viewpoint which I would call”scientific”,or”rational”,in the manner which I understand you use those terms in most of your work. I wanted nevertheless to present to you,my modest attempt at wild guessing a”Just-So-Story”,to explain the need for religion;I would be grateful,if you were to find the time for it,to receive your rational evaluation of it. In his book”The Golden Bough”,Sir James George Frazer identifies primitive hunterer-gatherers groups religious rituals,as almost systematically involving the belief in the possibility of communication with the Dead. Those communication channels once”operational”, would thus open avenues for guidance about hunting,harvesting,even justice among the community members,division of labor between gender and age groups,ethical and moral rules,etc… In other words,necromancy would have covered a vast array of social functions and duties. Its authority would have depended on the faith of the group in the”shaman”’s gift for channelling the advice of the”departed”from another”realm”of consciousness,during those”spiritual”ceremonies. As population grew,those principles and edicts became less and less directly transmitted by the”Shamen”and became more or less socially codified,until they became passed down purely orally without a need for the ceremonial”magical” ritual of the”Shamanic”ceremony. As tribal groups evolved into varying branches,geographically,ethnically,politically,the hunter-gatherers initial”skillset”also became more complex(forgive me for the huge innacuracies in chronology and anthropology)and further removed from its original nature and function. Soon the advent of the Agricultural Revolution swept the last remnants of the hunter-gatherer economic mode,leaving only the”shamanistic”ethical/moral framework to regulate socio-political interaction and provide the”naive”answers to the Bigger Questions,which later would become the domain of pre-Modern and Modern science. My hypothetical conclusion would be that religion would have had its root in the hunter-gatherer belief in the existence of supernatural forces,which would co-exist on the same plane as humans,that it would have been believed,in those communities,that those”forces”could be”transacted”with for moral,political and economic benefits and that the orchestrator of this”religious”modus operandi would have been the”Spirit-conjurer”or”Shaman”,the Modern equivalent of which,would have been the Middle-Ages to 16th century”English witches”model.Clearly,that social function really ran out its course just before the Age of Enlightenment. Although I appreciate that I’m most likely not”explaining”anything per se,I would be very grateful for any”corrections”you could contribute to this”Just-So-Story”. With many thanks for all your publishing work, Andy Bay.