Re: No Roman Invasion?


"Doug Weller" <dweller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:2d02d11f98g3b7s8o685d8gu817ahidfo0@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 10:35:44 GMT, in sci.archaeology,
> nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>>Apparently on date Sat, 9 Jul 2005 22:15:22 +0200, "Michael Kuettner"
>><miksbg@xxxxxxxx> said:
>>
>>>
>>>"Doug Weller" <dweller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>>news:cc10d1hvuq80tehmt14vdipj4738ps6qpg@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>> On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 10:05:35 -0500, in sci.archaeology, Tom McDonald
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Philip Deitiker wrote:
>>>>>> Doug Weller <dweller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> says in
>>>>>> news:se5vc1p129eu5vh5qo8ng340rcp6toflj1@xxxxxxx:
>>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>There are a lot of people who think religion is a fairly modern
>>>>>>>development -- as we conceive of it, religion is something
>>>>>>>separate from secular. It seems likely that for most
>>>>>>>prehistory, our ancestors didn't make this separation between
>>>>>>>the sacred and the profane - religion arose when they did.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A belief in an afterlife does not always go along with religion,
>>>>>>>by the way. And we shouldn't read our understanding of ochre
>>>>>>>into the past.
>>>>>>
>>>Belief in afterlife = religion. Period.
>
> No, I meant region != belief in afterlife -- usually, but not always, eg
> from Wikipedia
> Jehovah's Witnesses interpret Ecclesiastes 9:5 to preclude a living
> afterlife:
>
> "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any
> thing, neither have they any more a reward;for the memory of them is
> forgotten."
>
But, AFAIR, they are only dead until judgement day.
Then they are resurrected.

> It also says some neopagans think the soul's energy joins with the energy
> of all living things, not much of an afterlife there.
>
But an afterlife, nevertheless.
As the Buddhists and Hindus and ....

> However, it seems pretty obvious that you can belief in an afterlife
> without being religious. I'm an SF fan, and the theme of downloading
> one's brain into software which can then be installed in a clone, or a
> robot, or just become free-floating mind, is common. Nothing whatsoever
> to
> do with religion.
>
Recent thinking, Doug.
We can do so _only today_; our ancestors hadn't developed the
distinction.
My comment "Religion = believe in afterlife" was meant strictly in a
(pre-) historical context.

>>
>>I prefer the definition to be dualism.
>>
>>Seems to me the most workable one, there is a real world which we all
>>recognise
>>and live within, can study, manipulate, etc.
>>
>>And then there's potentially an extra component, e.g. rather than just
>>being
>>animals, we may have souls, rather than just dying, we may find there is
>>something afterwards, etc. This would mean two worlds, the real one and
>>"heaven" where different rules apply.
>>
>>This defines quite well in the "is there a religion" question as when a
>>culture
>>is making up things like animal souls or rocks that think as a way to
>>understand or explain the real world, that's not dualism, but just
>>incorrect
>>science.
>>
Well, there are theories about early religious believes; one of the nicest
examples is the dreamtime of the Australian aborigines.
Early doesn't mean primitive, before anyone wants to carp about that.
The nice thing about the AA was that they had an unbroken tradition going
back bignum years until the white man arrived.

>>Where the culture has some evidence to imply dualism, that would be a
>>culture
>>with religion.
>>
Could you define your concept of "dualism" a little more clearly ?
Just so that we avoid the usual Usenet sidetracks.

>>It seems to me also, that when you bury someone with tools, weapons,
>>food, etc,
>>this implies a belief in a possible afterlife because you are giving the
>>impression the buried person may need these things. Within the context of
>>this
>>question, it doesn't imply dualism or religion, merely a lack of
>>knowledge of
>>what may come next and willingness to provide grave goods "just in case".
>>
Religion is the short form for "lack of _knowledge_ of what may come next"
;-)

>>I'm under the impression that grave goods go right back in time to, for
>>instance, a neanderthal buried with them. This would, in your definition,
>>imply
>>that whoever buried this neanderthal had religion, which I think is too
>>far to
>>go on that evidence. To me, it simply implies the burial group were able
>>to
>>identify with the dead man and wanted to treat him (or her) with respect.
>>
The simple answer is : We don't know.
We don't know what ideas made Home N. tick.
We don't know which ideas made the builders of Goebekli Tepe tick.
We can just guess because there's a limit to what archaeology can tell
us.
Your guess might be right or mine might be or none of them.

> True. It's hard, maybe impossible, not to project our way of looking at
> the world onto the past.
I completely agree.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Your Communication Problems
    ... > There does not need to be any conflict between science and religion, ... > as yours is about ethical behaviour, opinions about the afterlife ... faintest idea what aspects of "consciousness" are the ones that are ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is Israel really better off ?
    ... killing innocent members of another religion deserves high ... with to respect the lives of those not of their religion. ... Islam will get these rewards in the afterlife. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: No Roman Invasion?
    ... >>Belief in afterlife = religion. ... No, I meant region!= belief in afterlife -- usually, but not always, eg ... >This defines quite well in the "is there a religion" question as when a culture ... >Where the culture has some evidence to imply dualism, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Revisiting an old friend: Set oRS = Nothing
    ... >> By this reasoning, you should practice every religion that promises ... >> an afterlife to its followers. ... original code exploited a side effect rather than a designed behavior. ...
    (microsoft.public.inetserver.asp.general)
  • Re: On the Origins of Atheism
    ... "default" view of most naive cultures. ... we also speculate about the afterlife. ... hardly a strong argument that mind body dualism is not the default ...
    (talk.origins)