Adagia pt. 1

There are so many short phrases and thoughts that fill the last few pages of our Steven Wallace readings that stand out to me. I don't know exactly where to begin. I think I will just comment on a few of them.

"There is nothing in life except what one thinks of it"
This phrase really began to make me think. At first read, it sounds like a wishy-washy quote from a transcendentalist writer. But as I began to think on it, I guess there is some truth to this for a artist rooted in secular expression. Secular artists are not inspired by a deity or a higher being or a greater power. They are merely inspired by themselves. They are inspired by human existence, by experience and by what they observe. We spend so much of our time during the day thinking and pondering, or at least my day is filled with this. To relate it back to our discussion of "big frame arches" in class, I guess I would say that in the case of this quote, the biggest frame arch for Stevens is himself. The individual is the big thing that controls all else. The quote is very humanist in this way. The Humanist belief is that we are what we make of ourselves. We are in control of our own destiny and how we live our lives. Therefore, our lives are what we think of them. We control our opinions, and our viewpoints and our own outlooks on the world. Although many of these things are controlled by the environment/society that we live in, it is what we think of these influences that makes life what it is for us.

Response to Sunday Morning

As I was browsing through people's posts and blogs, I came across Carissa's blogs on the poetry of Wallace Stevens and in particular, Sunday Morning. She brought up a lot of ideas that connected with my own opinions on Steven's secular work. Carissa mentions that she thinks that stevens is not "worshipping nature" but is instead "enjoying the feeling of peace". I would agree with this point. I don't really see Steven's descriptions and embellishments on the beauty of nature as worship or as his own form of religion, as was discussed in class. I don't see his poetry to be religious poetry at all. I think he uses religious images and references to juxtapose his own personal opinions of how one should live their life. I would even go as far to say that Stevens thinks that religious thoughts disrupt the natural peace and serenity that he feels in everyday life. For example, as the speaker of the poem relaxes on a sunday morning, she is surrounded by serene images, such as a "Coffee and oranges in a sunny chair". These peaceful and lovely thought seem to be rudely interupted by the thought of "Palestine, Dominion of Blood and sepulchre". The mood of the poem abruptly shifts from being relaxed and happy to darker and troubled. This pattern continues throughout the poem, with nature images and references being presented in a happier light and religious thoughts interrupting them.
The stanza that stood out to me the most in this beautiful poem was the beginning of the final. The speaker thinks this thought as she gazes upon the water: "The tomb in Palestine/ Is not the porch of spirits lingering. It is the grave of Jesus, where he lay". The quotation suggests that the speaker of the poem is not moved and spiritually inspired by the thought of the tomb of Jesus. To her, it is merely the tomb and nothing more. Instead, she points to real natural images and experiences that she has had that are more tangible and moving to her. She seems to be saying that she is so moved by the nature around her that she need not look anything farther to any metaphysical ideas. She would much rather just "be" and exist.

response to Just Thinking

I would like to further discuss some of the ideas the Oliver brought up in his post "Just Thinking". I think he touched on some topics and general ideas that have been kind of fuzzy in the past few class discussions. First of all, he questions "Is one of [religion's] major functions to create community?". I wouldn't say that creating a community is religion's main purpose. I think it's an incredibley prevalent biproduct of what a religious group offers. People bond over similar interests and beliefs, particularly when it is such a personal decision as religion. I think that religion's main purpose in most cases is to give an individual explaination, reason and comfort. I think a community is built from these common explainations and ideals within a religious faith.

Now, this may be a biased opinion because of my own convictions on religion and the role it plays in my own life, but I don't think that religion is truly that "biggest arch" in one's life. If it were, it would dictate every decision we make, every moment of our lives. I think there are more influencial things in one's life that effect their ways of living to a greater extent, such as personality, social/familial influence or even general, religiously unaffliated morality. One might say that all morality is tied back to a religion, but I don't think this is true. I think there are general morals that are ingrained in our society, religious or not. A good example is the "Golden Rule". This is not a particularly religious motto, but it definitley moral and indicative of how we should live our lives as human beings. I think religion can be the "wrapping" in which these morals are given to us. Certain religions teach these morals in particular ways. But at the same time, I know many people that are not very religious or completley apathetic, who are also morally sound and good human beings. So, I think it is incorrect to say that religion is the most important "arch" in everyone's life. It has the potential to be, but I think there are other aspects of one's life that are more influencial for the general population. It also could be that I took the entire "arch" metaphor the wrong way. :)

A very "religious" weekend

I am currently sitting in the living room of my cousin's house in New York, gorging myself on bagels and lox and pretty much any other food you could possibly think of, all in the name of the Jewish tradition called a "Bar Mitzvah". While sitting in synagogue bright and early this morning, wrapped in my prayer shawl (tallit) and holding a Hebrew prayer book, I found my mind wandering to our discussions of religion in our class. I began to look around at the 100 faces in the sanctuary, some who hadn't been in a synagogue since our last Jewish family event, my own sister's Bat Mitzvah last fall. Why were we all here? And why did I feel so comforted as I glanced around the room at people I knew, and many that I didn't? I reflected back to our idea of community and social identity that religious groups create. Many of the short sermons that were given in the 2 hour service focused on this particular synagogue's quest to create a comfortable relgious family for members. There were many references to the specific role that my uncle, aunt and cousins have played in the community. It seems like each of my relatives have found a place in this community and in particular, my cousin's really identify with this group of people. The walk around the synagogue like it is their own home. I think this is a really great example of how we as human beings strive to find this sense of identity in a community and many find it in their religious group, as my relatives have.

I also noticed that there was a very strong emphasis on the Jewish community as a whole, not just the individual synagogue you are affiliated with. One of the big ideas of the Bar Mitzvah celebration is the pre-teens transition to an adult member of the Jewish community. After your bar mitzvah, you are considered an adult in the eyes of the Jewish religion and you take on new responsibilities, as well as privileges. There was a lot of discussion of how to become this "good" jewish community member, which basically focuses on your sense of helping/giving to others (mitzvot). I really began to see how much religion in general focuses on finding your identity within your specific religion this weekend.

Inspiration for Hull House

As I have been reading Jane Addam's account of her life as the creator of Chicago's Hull House at the turn of the century, I began questioning whether or not religion itself is the main inspiration for the way she lived her life. As we see in the first few chapters, equality is a concept that was deeply engrained in her upbringing by her Father, who I would say is the main inspirational force in her life. The early grasp Addams had on the sense of what equality means within a society and culture is one of the main moral backbones to her Hull House projects. Whether it was through her Father's insistence on their humility with their wealthier upbringing, or his fervent love of the work of Abraham Lincoln and his Emancipation Proclaimation, Jane Addams was surrounded by the equality message throughout her childhood. This liberal and progressive outlook that her Father held may have been influenced by his religious beliefs, Quakerism, which Jane followed as well. Yet I have yet to see many references to God, or any other religious figure that serves as her foundation/inspiration for Hull House. She does not directly connect her work to the message and/or will of God, as we see with religious missionaries. I truly think it was a combination of Addam's upbringing and own approach to her own life style and education (she attended college and recieved a B.A. degree, which was very uncommon of anyone at the time, especially women) that lead her to make the social changes in Urban Chicago that she did. She was progressive in her approach to her own education, and wanted to bring this level of education and progressive thinking to the places that needed it most, poverty stricken city slums. I personally think that Jane Addam's work was incredibly inspiring and innovative for her time. Whether or not her work was an act of religion is very much debatable. I don't see much evidence of it being anything more than moral and ideological.

Response to Religious Expression

"While my background has led me to respect various traditions and institutions set up by organized churches, I find that when these institutions become so prominent the initial belief is lost..."

I felt inclined to respond to Oliver's post entitled 'Religious Expression'. I empathize with some of the frustrations he experiences in common day religious institutions. I often think that different religious sects and institutions become so engrossed in promoting their own individual "message" that they lose sight of what the real purpose of their institution is. In my own personal experience, some of the most religious, devout individuals that I know are also the most hyppocritical and narrow-minded. I really think this is due largely to the focus that the organized religious groups take. I believe that this really relates to Oliver's point that often times people are "unable to separate their theology and the traditions instituted by their organized religious body". They become lost in their emphasized goal to prove that their religion or "way" is the correct, superior way that they act contradicts the morals and lessons taught to them within the ideology of the religion they are preaching. I also think it's interesting that two people from very different religious backgrounds agree and are frustrated with similar things that affect organized religion today. I really think that this overbearing "we are right" mentality is what drives many people away from certain religious groups and also affects devout follower's personalities long term.

Margaret Fell

I think that this excerpt from the writings of "Women Speaking Justified" fits in very well with previous discussions we have had in class about the different ways to read and interpret religious doctrines. In order to best suit a culture, society, time period, or in this case gender, the religious document is revisited and reinterpreted. This is a contributing factor in how religions have evolved over time. In the case of Margaret Fell's work with the Quaker religion back in the 1600's, she argues for the equality of women and how they should be viewed in the church. In this way, she is way ahead of her time. She argues that the Bible never states that women are inferior outright, and in fact there are many passages in which woman are glorified. The example that stood out to me was the reference to the Church of Christ being referred to as a "woman" in the scriptures. Fell points out that the "Church of Christ is represented as a woman; and those that speak against this Woman speaking, speak against the church of Christ, and the Seed of Woman, which is the seed of Christ". Now, this connection does seem a little far stretched to me. But just like in any attempt to interpret the Bible and it's scripture, certain passages are stretched to their breaking point and others are completley ignored. In reality, it depends on the way that you look at the conception of the Bible. If one were to think of it as a document written by a human being, specifically a male, it would make sense to interpret males as the dominant sex and females as the weaker one. Since the writing would be reflective of the times, and they were times where woman were looked down upon and seen as inferior, then it makes sense to interpret the actual text this way. But if a religious person were to assume that the words of the bible were the exact words of God, then it is more up to interpretation. Fell makes a good point that God would not have and doesn't seem to make a definitive statement in terms of the hierarchy of the sexes. There are passages that can be interpreted both ways in terms of the place of woman in society. In general, I do believe that Fell is correct in saying that woman should be able to have a place in the church according to scripture. According to the text, God wants anyone and everyone to follow in him and look to him for comfort, hope and faith. There is no section that restricts this active approach to religion to males only.

ethnography?

I found the reading from the "Some records on Ethiopia" to be very interesting. It is definitely from a biased religious viewpoint, and I almost get the sense that the man writing this entry is looking for things that don't meet up to the "European Standards" of Christian religion. He is expecting them to be more primative and I get the feeling that he initially didn't believe that their form of christianity is actually working "correctly". We see evidence in some of the subchapters within the account, particularly the section about marriage, "weddings and burials". He is very critical of the way Ethiopian married couples handle adultery and turmoil within a marriage. I found the civil terms that these couples seem to come to quite fascinating. It is unimaginable to us nowadays that two people who are no longer in love or together can live together peacefully. The come to a very equal and fair agreement if they can, and I find this to be quite admirable. Yet the speaker seems to be appalled by the way they handle "holy matrimony". When couples cannot work it out and must be completley seperate from one another, they appear before a judge. The judge can then give them consent to be "free" and they can "marry again whomsoever they please". The speaker calls this "abuse" and blames the cultures innability to completley conform to the "holy faith which is generally accepted". I find it somewhat ironic that he finds the annullment of marriage to be abuse, when often times an unsuccessful marriage is far more "sinful" and abusive. It is very clear that this man has a biased religious point of view and even though he says that he likes the people of Ethiopia, I get the feeling that he doesn't see them as a fully "Christian" Society. I also find the comments that he makes towards the Jewish population of Ethiopia. He approaches and views them with a very similar viewpoint that was prevalent in Europe at the time.

Kebra Neghast pt. 2

Our discussion from the other day about how the Ethiopian christian culture has survived so long in it's isolation prompted me to look back at some of the passages from the Kebra Neghast. I was curious to look at the way these passages were written and what connections is makes that cause the Ethiopian people to feel like they have a strong tie to the origins of the Christian religion even in total isolation. One passage in particular that stood out to me is the chapter
"How Solomon asked His Son Questions". This section provides answers to the Ethiopians who may wonder how they fit into the bigger picture and story of christianity. The story of the affair between King Solomon and Queen of Sheba creates a connection to the roots of Judaism and Christianity that would not otherwise have been there. Solomon and the Queen bear a child, his first-born son. This son returns to visit his father and upon his visit, Solomon claims that he is his rightful heir to his kingdom in Judea. Even though he is an ilegitimate child, he is stll his first born son and he feels that he deserves to live as the Prince he believes him to be. Although the son refuses his offer to live as his heir in Judea, it helps to show Ethiopians that this man directly connects them to their holy land. According to the Kebra Neghast, he is a rightful son of Judea and he is also the an ancestor of Ethiopian christianity. This gives the followers of this sect of Christianity reasoning not only to feel deeply connected to the Judaic lineage, but to also feel that they are descendants of royalty. It gives them a reason to believe so strongly in themselves as a chosen christian nation. This may help explain why Christianity has stood the test of time and change in Ethiopia.

reaction to idols post

I was reading through Daniel's latest blog post and I think he made a really great connection between the different "vignette" type biblical tales that we see in the Kebra Neghast and the discussion of dismissing idols. I agree with Daniel that if we look at the description of an idol literally, the Ark of the Covenent is a structure or object fashioned from materials such as wood, stone or even gold that is meant to be worshipped. In fact, God commands the construction of the Ark upon Moses. Yet the true definition of an idol lies in the intention behind the object's creation, as well as how it is treated by the individual once it has been created. The difference between the Ark and the idols that Pagans worshipped before Abraham denounces them is their function. Pagans worshipped the idols themselves, as if the actual material object was a God itself. The Ark was created with the intent that it would hold God's law, which should be worshipped and followed. The actual ark is not what is important. It is merely a means of holding the religious artifacts. This is what separates it from the creations that figures such as Abraham and the Queen of Sheba look down upon. What the ark represents is indeed religious and very spiritual. Yet God does not command us to pray to the Ark. It only matters what is inside. As Daniel says in his post, "This icon is only valuable when viewed as a symbol, and not as just an object."

Metropolis continued

As I was writing my last post, I began to think of less obvious religious references and metaphors that are embedded into the plot of 'Metropolis'. There is the scene where Maria is preaching to the disgruntled workers in the catacombs under the city. She is surrounded by crosses. There is an obvious religious undertone to this scene. It's almost as if she represents heaven, or god, or some higher power. She keeps telling the workers to be patient and to have hope. She tells them to have faith that there will be a change for them and that their suffering will cease. This sounds very much like the teachings of having faith in God. Even when religious people are going through the hardest of times, they find comfort in believing in that higher power. They put their trust in God and that he will protect and empower them through their suffering. This is very much Maria's role in the lives of the workers. She is trying to remove these innocent workers from the horrific work in the depths, which can also be seen as a metaphor for hell and sin. They are buried beneath the city and they are very hellish conditions to work. I also find it very interesting that Freder's mother and Frederson's wife was named Hel. I'm not sure exactly what the connection is here, but I did think it was really interesting. It could possibly be that Frederson's power trip begins when Hel dies giving birth to Freder. It could signify the start of the downfall of the civilization.

reactions to Metropolis

I found this film to be very ahead of its time in terms of its looks at society, as well as it's predictions of what the future would look like. Made in 1927, the images we see in this silent film are surprisingly close to many of the big "metropolis" areas that we see appearing later in the 20th century. There were several interesting religious references scattered throughout the film. One of the most blatent references is to the story of the Tower of Babel. The story is explained in the movie itself, but we see many connections between the function of societal power in both the biblical story and the setting of 'Metropolis'. The Tower of Babel is conceptualized by the people in power, but they ones in power are not the ones that actually build their tower to heaven. They are known as the "Head" in the metaphor carries through the thematic material of the movie. Instead they enlist thousands of workers to do the job for them. The workers are thought of as the "hands". As Maria preachs to the workers of metropolis, the "head" and "hands" cannot communicate. The leaders and workers try to communicate, yet they literally cannot speak each others language. This can be seen as a metaphor for the discord that was occuring between the upper, elite class and the working class. We see this exact same dissonance between the classes in "Metropolis". Joh Frederson and the other upperclass live a life of luxury at the expense of the mistreated working class who work the "depths" of the city. The story of the Tower of Babel is an allegory for the way societies can fall apart. When the social classes of a city are so sharply divided and when there is not a respect for the hard work of the working class, the society cannot communicate. They will fall just as they did in the Tower of Babel. This is a great example of a biblical tale that can be shifted through a societal lens to apply it more appropriately to the nature of our times.

Zohar

In the first passage in the Zohar excerpt "How to read the Torah", I found many references that I immediately connected to the Augustine reading from Monday. The Zohar uses an expanded metaphor of a garment, which represents the literal Torah story, and the body and soul underneath, which represents the "real" Torah. I think the "real" Torah is the underlying message or meaning that can be found when one looks beyond the immediate story written in the books. The book of enlightenment continues by expanded the metaphor even further. The Zohar states that "there is garment and body and soul and soul of soul. I interpreted this as layers. The Zohar suggests that there are multiple layers that are ever changing when one looks at the readings of the Torah. One could just look at the "garment" or the immediate text, while the "righteous" examine it further the body and soul that exists underneath. I think this is a fantastic metaphor that relates back to Augustine's argument that there are ever changing interpretations of the literal/figurative texts within the Bible. It is the responsibility of the follower of the religion to not only look at the literal text, but also look at it in a figurative light and determine what the writers intention truly was. We also must look deeper into the "layers" as the culture surrounding these religions change over time. Both Augustine and the Zohar suggest that one is "foolish" to read the text and not take the time to interpret it.
I also found a cool double meaning passage in the Zohar reading. In this same "How to read the Torah" section, the last passage states the following:
"As wine must sit in a jar,
so Torah must sit in this garment.
So look at only what is under the garment!
So all those words and all those stories---
they are garments!"

This passage struck me because the writer has used a double metaphor. The Torah is wrapped in a garment as it sits in the "Aron Kodesh" or the Ark. Therefore, the text is literally covered by a garment! The passage then continues by mentioning that not only is the Torah actually wearing a garment, but if you simply look under the garment to find the text, you are only to find more "garments" or stories. If you look into it no further, all you will find is more garments and you'll never get to the true meaning. The writer intertwines the real purpose for the garment and the metaphor they have just taken the time to elaborate on in great detail. Pretty sweet.

Augustine

As I was reading through Augustine's look at the Bible and how it should be read and interpreted, there were several arguments that I thought were particularly pertinent to the discussions we have been having about Religion as a whole. There is often confusion between what should be read literally and what should be looked at allegorically, or in the words of Augustine, "figuratively". Augustine makes a point that we as humans are likely to look at the severity of sin in our society not according to the amount of "lust" it has, but by our own standards. In Augustine's opinion, this goes against the practice of really looking at and analyzing the scriptures of the Bible. I can also see how this would be a potential conflict in the basis of religious belief in Christianity. As we have mentioned in class several times, we see religion through a "religious lens". That lens goes through shifts and changes overtime. I also feel like this lens can change for each individual person, therefore altering their own individual perception of the religious texts. That is why we get so many diverse interpretations of what is considered a sin, what sin is a greater sin...etc. This individual lens is also effected by the social implications of the culture and/or time that they are looking at the text and applying to the world around them. As Augustine says, "men of their own time and place tend to blame and condemn, and regard as commendable and praiseworthy, only such actions as are acceptable within conventions of their own society". I think that this is a very true statement. Many people take the Bible stories and filter them through their societal lens, which is not necessarily a bad thing. I think we definitely need to do this with these biblical texts, especially today when we are so far removed from the lifestyle that existed back then. It can also potentially lead astray, as people can misinterpret and take figurative text for literal text. This is where we see Augustine's lines between love/lust and literal/figurative interpretation. Augustine attempts to take these blurry lines that become apparent when one looks at the text and begins to interpret.

Lamentations

While reading excerpts from "Lamentations" in the Bible, I saw some common themes through the passages. One that stood out me in particular was the idea of comfort and the individuals need and desire for it. The word "comfort" is mentioned several times within the first couple of verses (1.16, 1.17, 1.21). These passages refer to the lack of comfort the people in Jerusalem feel, stating that there is "no one to comfort [them]". The speaker in these passages feels overwhelmed by their situation and feels like there is no one to comfort their suffering since God himself is the one who is causing it. The verses allude to the idea that there is true comfort in no one else but God. When you have abandoned the ways of God and his teachings, then you will soon find that you have no one to turn to for consolement. An individual who has been obedient will find the source of comfort that they are looking for when they need it. I don't know if I necessarily agree with this assertion, but I do think that is one of the underlying messages of these verses.

While reading this excerpt, I also began thinking about our initial discussion of Religion and why we feel the need for it so naturally. One point that I really agreed with was the idea that we as humans want to feel comfortable and in control of our environment. We look for ways to explain the things we can't in order to provide ourselves with this consolement. I think that this relates to the function of "Lamentations" and other books of the bible. The stories told in the Bible give Christians a sense of understanding of the bigger moral picture. It also tells the readers that if they are seeking that sense of comfort in their lives, all they need is to turn to God. God will provide that sense of stability and comfort that you may be looking for. Inversely, I also think that this passage also threatens loss of this comfort against "sinners". If you stray from "the path" of God, you will no longer have this sense of divine comfort that God provides you with.

Response 2

I was really impressed with the high level of inquisitive discussion that our class has achieved. I think we do a good job in both our blogs and the classroom really delving into the questions that are posed in the readings in relation to the existence of religion in our society. In particular, I was interested by the connection between social/culture changes on the religion that exists within a society. In studying the Effigy Mounds that are seen throughout the Midwest, researchers found that they were mostly created between 700 and 1200 A.D. We wonder why there was such a rapid decline in their creation after this period of time? Ted brought up a good point today in class refering to changes in societal focus. It is possible that the Late Woodland tribes' desires to become a more agriculture society may have deferred them from taking the time to create these elaborate burial mounds that clearly took many individuals a lot of effort to create. As community focus shifts over time, the culture's expression of religious beliefs could possibly be affected. I am almost positive that we will see similar shifts in religious belief and expression in more recent societies, such as countries dominated by Christianity (United States, Some European countries), or Islam (Numerous MiddleEastern countries).

It seems that the people of the Late Woodland period were experiencing very "rapid" changes in technology, economy and social structure. In the article, it is suggested that this instability may have been the catalyst for this burial ritual, as well as it's demise. These Native American tribes may have feared change, as suggested in the article, but they were also close-knit societies who's first priority was to find newer and more efficient ways to live on their land. These advances in technology, particularly agricultural, are a very logical answer to the abrupt lack of effigy mounds built after 1200 a.d. I completely agree with Ted's blog entry, which points out several examples of similar religious shifts in modern day religions.

Effigy Mounds

While reading the assigned article, entitled "Effigy Mound Builders", I found myself making several connections to modern day religion. In particular, the Late Woodland group's decorative images on their pottery and their distinction between the "upperworld" and the "lowerworld" stood out to me. The "upperworld" is represented by the creatures of the sky, birds or human beings dressed as birds. The "lowerworld" is depicted through less distinguishable "waterspirits" with long tails and often times horns. These distinct earth and sky divisions are also seen in the various effigy mounds scattered across the Midwest, particularly in Wisconsin. This reoccuring theme of the relationship between Earth(bear, buffalo), Sky(thunderbird, various other birds) and Water (lizards, waterspirits) may reflect a somewhat spiritual mentality of these Native American Tribes. It seems like they may have focused a lot on "maintaining balance and harmony in the world" (pg 116). Late Woodland group's spiritual approach to the delicate balance between all the creatures of the Earth that they coexisted with reminds me of some Eastern philosophies on how one should go about living their life. It reminds me of some of the goals of Eastern religions to maintain a similar type of balance in a person's own everyday world. It may not exactly equate to the balance between animals, but I do feel like some Eastern philosophies such as Taoism and Buddism focus on establishing a balanced and harmonious existence, as did these Midwestern Native American tribes.

I also found it interesting that these Native American cultures believed in this division between the "upper" and "lower" worlds. It reminds me of the division between Heaven and Hell that exists in Christianity. The connotations of these two worlds is mostly different in each respective religious mindset. Yet I find that the fact that there is this common division very fascinating. In the Late Woodland groups, the "lowerworld" creatures were possibly in "dynamic opposition" to the powerful "upperworld" thunderbird creatures. Often time, the "waterspirits" of the "lowerworld" were depicted menacingly, with horns and talons. This strongly reminds me of the common description and illustration of hell's demons and even Satan himself. Yet it seems like these creatures were not considered "evil". They were seen as necessary to keep the world in complete order and balance in the environment around them.

Neanderthals vs. Homo Sapiens

While reading the last two assigned writings, I made some distinct connections between the intelligence of both species and how it relates to religious thought. In class on Friday, we discussed whether or not Neaderthals could have had religious beliefs in their time of existence, and what differentiates humans from this very similar species. The article we read for class on Neaderthals clearly focused on the theory that the species did not have the higher intellectual function that the later homo sapiens relatives seemed to have. Although we have no exact proof that this is true, scientists have found very little evidence of Neaderthals ability for symbolic language. They must have had the ability to communicate, or else they would not have been able to function and survive as a social group for as long as they did. Yet we find no evidence of language, which is a crucial sign of a higher intelligence. We find no evidence of expression (other than potentially vocal music). This brings us to human's mental capability for metaphor. We as humans display an ability to see things for more than what they are expected to be. We are able to use things in a different way than may be initially anticitpated. We have found no proof that Neaderthals had this ability to think innovatively, and that is what seperates them from Homo Sapiens. This metaphorical capabilty is what leads to art, science and religion, none of which Neanderthals seemed to have.

Applying this theory of metaphorical thinking and it's influence on religious thought to the other article we read about Paleolithic art, we see plenty of this evidence in the Paleolithic people of our ancestry. Their art is scattered within caves of Southern Europe, and we see forms of expression in these artifacts that indicate an innovative intelligence. The Paleolithic people also showed innovation and expression in their tools and weapons. Unlike the Neanderthals, Paleolithic people made weapons that not only functioned as hunting tools, but they were also shaped and carved decoratively. They also combined materials such as bone, antlers and stone to make more effective weapons. This shows that they had the ability to think metaphorically. They were able to see materials and use them differently than expected. This is a big difference from the more primative work of the Neaderthals. Based solely on these particular characteristics I mentioned earlier,the Paleolithic people's ability to think in ways that we think today (metaphorically, innovatively) indicates the potential for religious thought to have existed for these communities of people.

Relgious "glasses"

I was recently reading through the blog entries of fellow students, and I am intrigued by the many different and strong opinions of my classmates. As I was reading, I came across the point of the relationship between scientific research, discussion and the existence of faith in a person. As a spiritual person myself, I find discussions of the origins of religion and it's continued existence fascinating. It does not mean that I am disowning my faith and my own personal beliefs. I am simply ready to question the function of different religions in cultures around the world. I am also interested to see how religion has changed over time. I try my hardest to not let my own personal bias affect my objective opinions in class, particularly in discussion. It is definitley a challenge to take everything you have been told since you were a small child and put it on the shelf. Yet I believe that we as human beings are instinctively inquisitive and often search for answers in things we don't completley understand. We have that higher level of intellectual function (as we saw discussed in the articles about Neanderthals). Therefore, I feel like this class is an invitation to explore the realm of the unknown that comes with discussions of religion and it's origins. As I was reading Noelle's blog, she brought up a very interesting point that I totally agreed with. She mentioned looking at the class material through many different "glasses", or points of view. I think that that is the most effective way of learning in this class. We have to be open-minded and ready to take on points of view that we never have before. We have to be malleable in that sense. I think there is so much we can learn from each other, and there are many different ways to look at religious ideals. We may be suprised at the commonalities we find in the basic functions and desires in different relgions that have existed through time and that still prevail today.

why do we believe? (take two)

I had to restart my blog account because the stupid thing wouldn't let me log in! So, this is my new blog address and I hope this works. I'm just going to repost my first entry, my second soon to follow!

Robin Marantz Henig's article has truly been an eye-opening one for me. It posed many questions that I have never really considered before in my own personal exploration of religion and spirituality. In particular, there are several ideas, questions and examples that stood out as I was reading. After studying Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene" last year in freshman studies, I began to take interest in the sometimes unexpected evolutionary approach to why we are the way we are, why we fuction mentally and physically in certain ways, etc. I never once thought to apply to the function of religion in society, and I have found the research and theories we read about truly fascinating. I have often wondered what it is that keeps people believing in something that never seems to have much proof. We constantly dismiss the ideas of goblins, zombies, witches, magical creatures such as unicorns and centaurs, and other mythological folklore that has no true evidence of existence, yet most of America (92%) believe in some form of a supernatural being who watches over all of us, a god or gods of some sort. What creates the distinction in what we have faith in and what we refuse to believe? I believe it has to do with our quest to find comfort and reason in our existence and an explanation for our higher intelligence. We are intimidated by the thought of what is out there and what we cannot control. By having the belief that someone is out there watching over and protecting us, it gives us that comfort and reason. When something goes terribly wrong, we often hear things like "God has a reason" or "Maybe it was meant to be". That type of consolation can often give people the motivation to continue when they feel like it's impossible. I also thought the comment about what we do and do not believe mentioned in the article was quite interesting. If things are too realistic, almost past the point of reason, we are likely to dismiss it (for example, the talking, flying, juggling, dancing tree). These strange things are found throughout different religious works, and I believe that they are used to help internalize bigger moral pictures. I believe that many of the details of the old testament are not meant to be taken literally, but instead used to help convey the traditions and beliefs of the religion. i'm sure this is seen in other religious works as well. We then see how these religious details and traditions found in religious works can potentially fill a more cultural role by instilling everyday morals in an individual.