Many of us have been taught the idea of "religious evolution": Animal-skin-clad, unintelligent, cartoonishly fearful primitive man hides in his cave as lightning strikes, trying to make sense of it all, and anthropomorphizes the storm into a "storm spirit". From this point, religion "evolves" from animism through polytheism to culminate in monotheism.
Sounds believable. But where's the evidence?
In contrast original monotheism argues the evidence shows if you look far enough back you will find, in most cultures, that the most ancient identifiable belief was monotheistic: a single good, original, creator God, addressed by many names (as the ancient Hewbrews did) presided over a hierarchy of lesser spirits; good actions were favored over bad ones, a substitutionary sacrifice forgave sin, and the soul was judged after death.
This definitely matched up with what I had learned in the several Chinese history courses I've taken: I found that much ancient Chinese poetry and other writings spoke, endlessly about "heaven" -- and moreso the further back we studied. Curious about this -- where are we getting "heaven" without God -- I inquired further and discovered this phrasing was a holdout from an older, almost-Jewish system of belief featuring a single good, monotheistic god and emphasizing right and wrong behavior.
When I studied what I could find of ancient India, I discovered something similar.
Most of us are aware that many American Indian/Native American (pick your favorite term) tribes believed in a good, providential "Great Spirit", although I've noticed this fact seems to have been omitted from the museum exhibits I've seen lately.
Finally, being a Christian and having met and heard from missionaries, I'm aware that many found their efforts to explain the gospel to certain people groups had already been 'paved' by ancient tribal stories and beliefs.
In contrast with religious evolution, original monotheism argues the evidence suggests a priestly class would arise, realize they could create their own followings to gain wealth and power, and thus would fragment monotheism into polytheism or animism, for example by emphasizing one of God's aspects or names at the expense of others and thus creating, in effect a new god, or proposing novel ideas.
In light of that, I find it extremely interesting that the Hebrew God explicitly, repeated forbade the Hebrew priests ("Levites") from owning or possessing land -- the means by which wealth was accumulated in ancient societies.
This is interesting for two reasons: (1) If followed it would amazingly prevent, among those priests, the aforementioned fragmentation. (And indeed, it seems to have: The main threat was from foreign gods, not domestic heresy.) (2) It raises the fascinating question: What priestly caste would invent a religion which put them at a disadvantage, compared to their peers?
Now, to explain why we've discussed all this:
I used to think liberalism, or leftism (and conservatism, for that matter) was just a random collection of ideas. But over the years, I've gradually but increasingly become persuaded there is a definite psychological aspect to leftism, at least among leftist leaders.
I realized if that were true then you'd expect to see, over all time and history, evidence of these same mechanisms at work: Although the specific beliefs embraced might vary, you'd expect to see some similar phenomenon even operating in the most primitive people-groups.
But who were the ancient equivalents?
All these ideas congealed and snapped together neatly just a few hours ago when I encountered the story in this letter this letter from a reader of psychologist Dr. John Ray:
It has occurred to me that Derrida and his cohorts are in some ways similar to the List Makers of Ancient Ur.
The priests and temple scribes of that ancient city were separated from the peasant mob largely by virtue of their skill at reading and writing. It was an arcane and little-understood skill. The skill was almost entirely used in making and maintaining lists - store inventories, tax rolls etc.
These guys spent their lives immersed in this list-making, for which they were highly regarded, but still servants. They were the eo-experts: always on tap, never on top.
Over time they became so enamoured of their precious lists that they imbued special powers to them. Which was fortunate, because although they still weren't getting the respect and power they deserved they were able to run a nice little earner on the side making up 'magic lists' and selling them to the gullible.
A large proprtion of the surviving lists are just these 'magic lists'.
Our modern day scribes, locked up in the academy, spending all their days immersed in books ('texts' in post-modern speak) have become so enamoured of them that they are imbueing them with special power - the 'text', the 'narrative' is the reality - all else is flimsy conjecture, etc.
And, like the List Makers of Ur, they are trying to get the respect they so richly deserve by peddling this textual snake-oil to the gullible.
It isn't so much the "magic list" narrative which caught my eye, though I think he's probably right in suspecting the same underlying psychological motivation, but rather the idea that magical or priestly leadership operates using the same strategies found in modern leftism.
Consider what a primitive priest would need to gain a following: He would have discovered a hiterto-unknown truth about God, or a new god -- and you would, uniquely, have to rely upon his elite wisdom and power to radically change your life or improve your society. Or he would give you a worldview which gave you psychological permission to do 'fun' things (e.g. temple prostitution, drunken orgies) condemned by the stodgier creator-god.
Put the priest into power, and he'd make the right things happen.
Further Reading
A mixed bag of links of varying quality...
I grew up as an Indian, sorry for the non-pc term, my Grandmother was very spiritual. She shared stories from her childhood and I know these were passed down from generations past. I understood that these were the same that my Sunday school teacher taught us. Maybe not the exact same language, but the same spirit. I know quite a few people that don't believe in God per say but think that even though there are many scientific reasons for everything in the world, there has to be a reason. As to what or who or why????
I hold today the belief that people who hold the high "office" in a church setting, should not be paid. Well at least not higher paid than anyone else in the "congregation". I have had so many people tell me that I am wrong in my beliefs. I however keep the thought that if you pay a man for his insight, you end up with a person who will give you the insight that you want. Suppose that is true with most things, Esp. politics.
Posted by: Marie on October 30, 2004 12:41 AM