Talk:Development of religion/Archive 1

message: I don't think the page should be merged.  there are many views on the development of religion beyond the sociological -- for example, the Bahai view that religions are born from a series of prophets sent by the One God, and that subsequent prophets bring future revelation.  Many others too, all of which will be represented with time.  Ungtss 03:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for getting the ball rolling:).  Ungtss 23:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: all well said -- would you be willing to provide summaries of some academic books or articles exploring the sort of theories you're describing?  Ungtss 03:09, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No merge

message: At which point is a religion condisidered to be distinct from its predessor? What sepparates one religion from another? Is there an exact distinguishing factor (standard in linguistic or biological classification) or more like any set of varying factors (standard in ethnic/musical classification)? For instance, Christianity and its parent faith of Judaism are considered to be completely and distinct religions, of course. It's not the God Jews and Christians worship that set them apart, though the way they relate to God is very different. Perhaps it's just the fact that most of both faiths have claimed to belong to different religions for several centuries? Many works, including this article, define religion in there own way but few focus on what exactly destinguishes one from another.--J. Daily 04:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolutionary Theology 

message: From the book "Reincarnation and Judaism: The Journey of the Soul" by DovBer Pinson:
"...the Mishnah proclaims, 'every single Jew has a portion in the world to come.'" page 72
And non-Jews also have a place in the world to come. (See Noahide Laws.)
So I think the last sentence of the Jewish model is wrong. Though I'm not certain how to go about re-writing it in a very brief way.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.182.135 (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish Model 

message: Is this link acceptable for this article (link-owner):
Philosophy and religion:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pvosta/pcrhum.htm
Pvosta 08:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: this looks like an interesting and useful collection, perhaps especially for history of religion. --dab (𒁳) 07:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link suggestion 

message: There is no support in the article Great Awakening for the concept of progressively getting closer to the truth.  There may at one time have been, but it looks like it was edited out for lack of supporting evidence.  As such, I don't believe this section belongs here.  --JeffW 16:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hm, I don't see what "getting closer to the truth" has to do with it? The "Great Awakenings" are (generationally) recurring spasms of religious enthusiasm. --dab (𒁳) 07:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Great Awakening Model 

message: the synthesis tag is not explained on the talk pagpe. Bringing together many different theories from many different sources or traditions, or schools, or religions is not the same as a synthesis of several theories. There are probably so many competing theories and viewpoints that this article will never be a consistent, well organized overview. 
I also think that some material should be moved to theories of religion such as Marx' opiate for the people which, as far as I know, does not explicitly describe how religion originated. I have much other material for the article theories of religion. Andries 17:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree. The material would be better served merged into other existing articles, if there is anything salvageable, that is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: removing synthesis tag

message: the section removed here was indeed only of tenuous relevance to this topic, but some material may be transferred to prehistoric religion. dab (𒁳) 11:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: paleolithic burials

message: ok, now we slowly seem to be getting over this paleolithic / out of Africa business, how should we arrange this article, and what should be its scope? At present, the article addresses three topics:
#origin of religion in human evolution (origin of religion)
#the development of new religions in human culture (history of religion)
#the teleological view (revelation)
the three topics are all valid, and all related to notions of "development of religion", but I am not sure they should be discussed on the same page. perhaps we should move this whole thing to origin of religion and refactor it so that the historical part is a summary per WP:SS, and delegate the teleological part to a separate article? thoughts? dab (𒁳) 12:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: looking through the actual content, I find the "teleological" section was mostly soapboxing about Bahai Progressive Revelation (which has its own article). I shortened it accordingly, and I think in its present state it can well stay around as a summary section per WP:SS. dab (𒁳) 12:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ToC, scope

message: Muntuwandi appears to want to address the topic of human evolution and religion. It is a valid topic, and probably mostly belongs on anthropology of religion (and God gene). His timelines of paleolithic burials belongs on prehistoric religion. 
literature on human evolution and religion:
Muntuwandi's references:
*"King, Barbara (2007). Evolving God: A Provocative View on the Origins of Religion. Doubleday Publishing." . 
*(1996) The Prehistory of the Mind: The Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion and Science. Thames & Hudson. . 
*The Prehistory of the Mind The Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion and Science By Steven Mithen Reviewed by Andy Gorman
*
*Religion, empathy and a Brookfield Zoo gorilla: An anthropologist Chicago Sun-Times,  Feb 4, 2007  
more:
*James McClenon. Wondrous Healing: Shamanism, Human Evolution, and the Origin of Religion. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2002
*George Willis Cooke, The Social Evolution of Religion (1920)
*E. Washburn Hopkins, Origin and Evolution of Religion (1923)
*E. Noel Reichardt , Significance of Ancient Religions in Relation to Human Evolution and Brain Development (1942)
*Philip Hefner, The Human Factor: Evolution, Culture, and Religion, Theology and the Sciences Series (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993).
*S. R. Parchment, Religion And Its Effect Upon Human Evolution, in: Just Law of Compensation (2005) .
*Albert Churchward, The Origin and Evolution of Religion (1924) (2003 reprint: ).
Muntuwandi, you need to understand that your content was deleted not because the topic is invalid, or because your individual references are bad, but because you insisted on coatracking about Out of Africa, paleolithic archaeology, human intelligence, behavioral modernity and evolution in general instead of addressing the actual topic. 
dab (𒁳) 12:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that is just one of the problems that we have. After I made an effort to include some useful information it was censored. But the people who censored have made no attempt to clean up this article. Just as a month ago the rest of the article lacks any footnotes. Muntuwandi (talk) 03:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: your information was not "censored". It was moved to the appropriate place. It now languishes at prehistoric religion with a merge tag to paleolithic burials. If you are interested in writing a great article on paleolithic burials, you are most welcome to develop that article. For some reason, you only appear to be interested in "coatracking" about the paleolithic and OOA on barely related articles, you (almost) never touch the articles on these topics themselves. dab (𒁳) 13:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The topic prehistoric religion is a poor choice for a topic. The term prehistory is no longer widely used in science because it is too general. Prehistory means different things in different regions. There is nothing wrong with discussing how OOA fits in with any and all aspects of human behavior. Unless one has an alternate explanation for human origins, OOA helps to explain many aspects of the evolution of human behavior, including religion. Some people still want to believe that one day religion just dropped from the sky and came into existence. Muntuwandi (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody has bothered to beef up the section on development of religion with footnotes or any information. This means the editors who claim to have an interest here are not sincere. Muntuwandi (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternate theory: This means the editors who claim to have an interest here have lives. --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 16:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I sometimes think that people who brag that they have lives actually don't. Muntuwandi 05:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: human evolution and religion

message: I earlier on removed content from the origin of religion. I think this is an important issue that needs to be addressed. The development of religion should deal with how religions develop. An interesting example would be how the Rastafarian religion developed. this is solely a 20th century religion. Someone could analyze how for instance Jamaicans after the legacy of slavery and oppression found it difficult to identify with Gods of the their oppressors. They therefore used various information from oral Ethiopian history that Haile Selassie was a direct descendent of King Solomon an African image was used to replace the europeanized images of the spirit world. I am just using this as an example of the factors that led to the development of a modern day religion. One could make a similar case of how L. Ron Hubbard started the Church of Scientology. 
What I am getting at is the development of religion discusses how religions develop, even in the 20th century. These examples could include the aforementioned religions of Rastafarianism and Scientology. The origin of religion is a different topic, because it discusses how  and when religion came about. It also asks why of all the animals in the world only humans are the only ones who are  religious. 
I think this is an important question, and I would really appreciate an intellectual answer to this. Muntuwandi 05:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: of course? this is the very topic of this article. dab (𒁳) 15:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't answered the question. Development of religion could mean, Development of Rastafarianism or Development of Scientology. It does not mean origins. There is an active discussion regarding the article at Talk:Evolutionary theories on the origin of religion. Dab did not make any input regarding some of the important and outstanding issues. Therefore it is improper to make any changes without discussion. Muntuwandi (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me but this has been discussed endlessley and you are the only editor on Wikipedia who wants to do it your way.  After numerous AfDs and hours of wasted time other editors are simply sick of arguing with you about it.  Please refrain from removing relevant material from this page in order to serve your crusade.  You just don't like the fact that if the info exists here then there is a point to the idea that your other entry is a content fork.  Please stop trying to game the system.  Dbachmann owes you no explanation.PelleSmith (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, blindly supporting Dieter, have some backbone. The content that is currently in the article bears no relationship to the evolutionary material. No editor has made any effort to even address exactly what material should be in the article "Development of religion". I had posted some comments here regarding the appropriateness of the name of the articles. Yet you have not addressed those concerns, and have only decided that it is convenient that the material should be in this article after Dab's edits. This shows that you are not approaching this controversy objectively. As mentioned before if the authors of the study use the terms "origin of religion" or "evolution of religion" what gives us the right to name the article "Development of religion" when the authors have not used that term in the titles of their articles. This is a legitimate concern. When reasoning fails the only argument left is to go on bandying about obsolete AFDs. As mentioned on the anthropology talk page, this topic is valid on its own. Muntuwandi (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Dieter is an agreement that the topic origin of religion is valid and should be a separate articleDab's comments. Muntuwandi (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not approaching this controversy objectively?  You're disruptive behavior simply needs to stop.  I've made every effort to reason with you about absolutely every aspect of this mess from the beginning, well before Dab was every involved.  I'm just tired of your disruptive nonesense.PelleSmith (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All you ever do is talk about behavior not about content. The editor from the anthropology project is an agreement that this is a valid topic. Even Dab has stated as per above that the content should be in separate articles. I don't see any response to Dab's earlier comments. This is what I believe this is double standards because he clearly states that. You and Dieter know very well that the argument is very valid and are unnecessarily engaging in edit wars instead of addressing actual content issues. Between myself, PS and Dieter, I am the only one who has bothered to add any external links to these articles. You and Dieter have just focussed on deleting and redirecting. I think this is counterproductive and is against the spirit of wikipedia. Everyone knows that Development of religion is a terrible article because it has only 4 footnotes. So attempts to bring the evolutionary material in, which is well sourced, to try to give DOR some credibility. Instead, why not just rewrite it or find the necessary sources. Muntuwandi (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A simple solution that I have just implemented is just to provide a link to the origin of religion as per summary style guidelines. This will keep everybody happy. Muntuwandi (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The people you refer to who know that some of this material is relevant (myself included) also insist that it is relevant to the entries Development of religion, and Prehistoric religion.  Everyone other than yourself seems to be in agreement with this.  You simply refuse to work with this idea and insist on having your own entry.  We've been over this a great many times Muntuwandi, and I'm simply sick of it.  I've engaged content discussion too many times to count simply to have you ignore pretty much everything I've tried explaining to you.  I'm not alone in this either.  To come out here and say that all I or anyone else does is comment on your behavior is disengenious.  As of late your behavior has become unbearable and there really isn't much left to say substantively about the material that hasn't been said twelve million times already.PelleSmith (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On what do you base your decision that the info is relevant to development of religion or prehistoric religion. It seems to me like personal opinion because you have not provided any external source to back up your claim. I have provided external evidence to substantiate my argument, you have not.Muntuwandi (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: This article mixes the development of the Bahai faith religion with possible religious beliefs of another hominid species, the neanderthals. Mixing Teleological development with evolution is utterly ridiculous. you can go to a seminary to learn about Teleological development, However you need a laboratory with radio carbon dating equipment to study Neanderthal behavior. The two sets of information couldn't be more different, why some editors insist on mixing these unrelated topics up I don't know. This is disjointed mixing of information that has no flow. What does Swami Vivekananda have in connection with upper paleolithic religious beliefs. What do Jesus, Martin Luther, Saint Francis of Assisi, John Calvin, Joseph Smith have in relation to the subject of Behavioral modernity and stone tools. This is all about ego not reason. Muntuwandi (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mixed soup

message: One of the few real theories I've ever seen put forward regarding the real "origin of religion" was in Robert Holdstock's novel Lavondyss, which I believe indicated that it was an emotional reaction to a parent having to sacrifice one of his/her children for the greater good during a food shortage. I'm not sure whether that would be relevant for inclusion here, although it wouldn't be the first time an author put forward a theory in fictional form. Fred Hoyle, and to a lesser extant several other SF authors, are noted for having done similar things. John Carter (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a possibility, since evidence of ritual cannibalism has been found in many paleolithic sites. Muntuwandi (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of religion 

message: There isn't a justification to have information duplicated across articles, therefore I am refactoring evolutionary content in accordance with summary style.Muntuwandi (talk) 08:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: I removed the following statement from the article:
"A historical example of doctrinal evolution in medieval Christianity based on theological argument, not revelation, is the doctrine of  Palamism, accepted in Eastern Orthodoxy but rejected in Roman Catholicism."
Not only is the statement uncited, it is innacurate. First of all, each of the Church Fathers who expounded the doctrine referred to based their arguments upon scriptural foundations (i.e., the various theophanies in the Bible, especially to Moses and Elijah). See Vladimir Lossky (1944), The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (reprinted in English, 1976, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, Crestwood NY, ISBN: 0-913836-31-1). Second of all, according to Orthodox theology, both Sacred Tradition and the accurate statements of the Church Fathers are believed to be inspired by Divine grace, and are thus a part of Divine revelation. I might also add that the very term "Palamism" is a bit of a misnomer (the link in the disputed sentence is actually a redirect to Tabor Light). Gregory Palamas did not invent anything new, but continued in the teaching tradition of Pseudo-Dionysius (The Divine Names), Gregory of Nyssa (Life of Moses), Gregory Nazianzen (On the Canticle of Canticles), etc. The disputed sentence above would seem to be based upon speculation by those unfamiliar with Orthodox theology. MishaPan (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Palamism

message: What is this article about. I think it has no foundation and is original research. I suggest a real evaluation of what this article should be, and whether it should even exist. Muntuwandi (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: what is this article about