"Religion" is "race" prior to race theory perhaps? There is a pretty strong correlation between Hindu:Indian::Protestant:Nordic::Jew:Jew:: Buddhist:East Asian, etc. It works out about the same, and surely did back in the old days. Every identifying badge that you get is gotten about the same time as your DNA...

It works out about the same, and surely did back in the old days.

do you read history? who do you think german protestants and catholics were killing during the 30 years war? other germans. yes, if someone is a hindu the chance they are south asian is extremely high, but 1/3 of south asians are muslim, and the largest number of muslims live in south asia (400 million brown muslims out of 1.2 billion muslims means that 1/3 of muslims are brown). who do you think muslims and hindus kill during communal rioting? other brown people. i expect a little more sophistication from a gnxp reader. your theory is worthy of a dull elementary schooler.

All it would take is a modest correlation between an "identify" (of whatever sort) and genes. Your term "other Germans" is losing some important facts in the limited abstraction "German". It's an important accident that culture and race follow one another around.

Names = Platonic categories (forms).

Buddhism is South Asian in origin, but survives there only in Sri Lanka. Buddhism pervades Chinese culture, but so do Confucianism and Taoism. Serious Buddhists are a small minority in China, though the majority pay some lip service. There are Chinese who throw Jesus and Muhammed into their pantheon too.

19th Century Mormons were more polytheistic than modern Mormons, who have de-emphasized the future godhood of current humans. It is true that Mormons consider the members of the trinity to be three distinct individuals, but trinitarian views in mainstream Christianity have always struck me as a post-hoc argument against claims of polytheism.

Perhaps it's my own Mormon upbringing, coupled with my current agnostic viewpoint, but multiple gods has always struck me as more plausible than a single god. (e.g., a race of super-scientists, rather than single being who has no beginning or end)

multiple gods has always struck me as more plausible than a single god

That's because your view of god is as a super-being, rather than that which resolves the paradox of existence, or that which gives meaning to life, or the "prime mover". Super-beings just move the questions up one level.

Your term "other Germans" is losing some important facts in the limited abstraction "German".

no. you're being stupid about germans (you could rebut me with specifics about germans, but i see you didn't do that, you just asserted vaguely, which isn't realy going to increase your credibility with me since i take an interest in the phylogeographic literature). and second, "Fst" for religion is far greater than race. it is ludicrous to posit the former as a primitive version of the latter when the former usually exhibits far crisper intergroup differences.

david's point is apropos. but re: multiple gods, let us recall that operationally most religious believers had always had a polycentric tendency in their foci of religious energies. e.g., even in islam the reason that the salafists needed to "reform" islam was because of the ubiquity of the "veneration" of "saints."

Names = Platonic categories (forms).

sure. but this point needs one elaboration: ideal forms actually have essential characteristics. they aren't historically contingent. religions or political parties are. for example, the democratic party of 2007 is very different from that of 1800 or 1861 or 1900. the name remains the same, but the underlying characteristics have changed quite a bit in a fluid manner. this is perhaps less true of religion on the surface, but i think fundamentally the point that the name is bounded by historically contingent characters is what i was trying to get across. in contrast, "salt" as the romans understood it is salt as we understand it. on the other hand, i think it can be argued that judaism or christianity as the romans understood (perceived) them were qualitatively very different from what we see around us.

“…psychological and anthropological study has unmasked the reality that the vast majority of humans who subscribe with deep sincerity to "higher religions" do not truly conceptualize with any clarity the metaphysics to which they accede and profess as distinctive elements of their creed.”

I’ve noticed that too. Which puts an interesting light on the meaning of “sincerity.”

The same lack of clarity applies to all creeds with large numbers of adherents. Like atheism. Metaphysical clarity is largely irrelevant to daily life.

The kernel of truth in Onetwothree’s remark is that religions are treated much like flags. The associated metaphysics is secondary to the potentiation of collective action. Once a flag gets carried across a tribal border, be it a tribal flag, a national flag, a religious flag or whatever in the home context, across the tribal border it’s generally a de facto tribal flag.

The kernel of truth in Onetwothree’s remark is that religions are treated much like flags. The associated metaphysics is secondary to the potentiation of collective action. Once a flag gets carried across a tribal border, be it a tribal flag, a national flag, a religious flag or whatever in the home context, across the tribal border it’s generally a de facto tribal flag.

yes. the flag analogy makes my point more clear and crisp.

Here on the Blackfeet reservation a split developed early (late 1800's) between those who stuck to the old ways (and religion), living in the more remote settlements, and those who were produced by white fathers with NA wives. These children, esp. the boys, were sponsored along by the fathers and sent to schools often run by Jesuits but also by the government. The full-blood children tried harder to evade school and when they got there ran into the problem of language.

This split has persisted and been aggravated by differences in prosperity, location and religious affiliation, particularly because the government had the idea that "faith-based" agents would not be so corrupt. Therefore, they assigned the Blackfeet to the Methodists, so that being Protestant meant being aligned with the agent and the government. Protesting Blackfeet either stuck to the old ways or became Catholic.

When white people came, mostly as agents of the government or as teachers, they tended to be Presbyterian or Methodist until to be white on this reservation was to be automatically Protestant. Then the old full bloods (except for the oldest ones who continued on with their ceremonies secretly) went Pentecostal.

Gradually, with hard work, the Catholics began to build up a constituency among the mixed bloods who supplied country guitar bands and respectable school board members to admnister Communion. But along in the background have remained a few full-bloods, no longer old, who have introduced Pentacostal styles into both the Methodist and the Catholic churches.

But now the new generation of educated adults, conversant to some degree with post-colonial theory, have decided to return to full-blood ways (whether or not they actually ARE) and have renewed the old ceremonies with what they claim is complete accuracy. (I was there with the old people in the Sixties and they are NOT replicating it, but coming close and doing their own version for their own reasons.) The most enthusiastic are NA's with white wives, often lawyers. They tend to be childless.

As a Unitarian educated in the history of religions and a long-time observer of the rez scene, I find Razib's interpretation not only valid but enlightening. It seems to me that societies go back and forth between dualities and unities, with the transitions being quiet, multiple, and economic -- sometimes not attracting any attention until the movement is entrenched and has a base from which to operate.

Prairie Mary

ideal forms actually have essential characteristics. they aren't historically contingent

That is true. My point, though, wasn't to say something about Plato's philosophy, but to make the point that your complaint about names is the same as your complaint about platonic categories. And there is a reason for this: Platonic categories are embedded in the way language works, thus in higher-level thinking. We don't use platonic categories to throw a ball, but we use them to talk about throwing a ball.

There is some question among Jews and Muslims whether Trinitarian Christians are monotheists

Who cares?

Who cares?

"Some". Some people are interested in the metaphysics of their creed, otherwise their wouldn't be any. Other people are interested in the metaphysics of creeds in general, if only from a defensive standpoint.

The interaction of metaphysics and those that care about metaphysics has an influence of the survival of particular species of metaphysics. It's like the interaction of a virus and a host operating system. Sort of. "Higher" level operating systems need a metaphysics. It's a part of the operating system, part of the virus protection.

That said, I follow your sentiment as to the silliness of much religious metaphysics once you get outside of it. Different species of stupid-but-dangerous.

I'd agree about the flag stuff, but with reservations.

If one watches boys play, one will be amazed at how they turn the most unsuitable objects that they pick up in the backyard into guns. They are quite ingenious at imagining stuff guns that have no business being imagined guns, though they are generally pretty good at picking the least most unsuitable object as their gun. Some things or religions make better flags than others, but necessity is the mother of invention, and if men want a flag, they'll find one amongst whatever is close to hand.

Occidental man generally thinks this tendency a flaw in humans or something men would be better off without, a screaming obvious fact about occidental man is that he's a bit weird in this regard, this is not the default setting on the human dial though occidental man often slips back to it, and one might wonder how he got this way.

As for going without metaphysics, what does a man who completely eschews metaphysics think about the 'world'. Let's see.

David Hume is right about the notion of 'cause'. A cause is the answer to a why question,

Q:Why 'effect'?
A:Because 'cause'.

Hume points out that when we see billiard ball A hitting billiard ball B we only see billiard ball B moving, we don't 'see' billiard ball A 'causing' billiard ball B's movement, we infer that we 'see' it because (that pesky word again) we see the world through heavily tinted cause colored glasses as it were. This doesn't mean that our mostly unconscious, but not really subconscious, inference isn't correct, it's just not something we 'see' or can 'see' happening. A hard bitten positivist, someone who only believes in the reality or 'quiddity' of things he can see/hear/smell/touch/taste, doesn't believe in 'cause'.

Or does he? Let's go to Descartes.

Cartesian doubt is a train of thought whereby Descartes starts doubting stuff and ends up with the 'Cognito ergo sum', or that since he's there doubting he must exist, since where do his doubts about say the reality of his thoughts he considers to be 'sensible experiences' come from. He doubts that what humans normally consider as the 'cause' of their sensible experiences really is the cause of his sensible experiences, an evil demon who wanted to deceive him might be causing them. The 'Matrix' movies are dead centered on Cartesian doubt. But Descartes never doubts his notion of 'cause', when he says he must exist it is because (that pesky word again) he insists his doubts need a cause, if he did, he'd get an uncaused train of thought, or 'there are thoughts.... and nothing else' including himself, his mind, and matter, the 'real' world being something we posit to exist as the explanation or cause for our category of contingent thoughts we call 'sense' experiences, and that's all there is.

This is what someone who completely eschews metaphysics thinks. I'm not sure, but this is what I think that 'a gotten to the end of the program', 'little raft' or elite Buddhist actually believes, what one must think if all one is willing to say is 'what is, is' and then one comes to a full and complete stop. I've never heard a Buddhist describe it that way, they always sort of say that in order to understand Buddhism one has to be one, but since I can't help but reject that, I cannot but help think that most Buddhists really don't understand Buddhism all that well, given that I'm pretty sure I understand that perfectly, it's just that I don't believe it. I also cannot help sort of thinking that any meditation regime that could get one 'there', actually believing that, can be best described as brainwashing. I also think it's a bit ironic that getting to Buddhahood, which generally is translated as 'enlightment' but have read and without any particular linguistic knowledge, I'm just guessing, can better be translated as 'awake' the Buddha was the man who first fully 'woke up'. I think describing such a state of belief as 'fully awake' is a bit paradoxical, but such things often are.

If I'm right about my description of Buddhism though I suppose I might not be, any society that channeled it's best minds into this isn't going to be coming up with empirical science. Listening to some scientist (scientism I guess would be better word) type yammer on about the stupidity or pointlessness of metaphysics, with this thought in mind, is a bit like listening to fingernails on the chalkboard.

"With reservations..." ie Mary's excellent comment? Everything is of course oversimplified or truncated to fit the small frame here.

Could you clarify what you mean by "Occidental Man" and the flawed tendency? I can't quite resolve your line.

"With reservations"...

It took me a while to see it, but as for that being a willful pun, well it took me a while, I'm not that clever :).

Per Occidental man, I think Occidental man is 'weird', not 'unique' in this regard. I'd say that having a religion/metaphysic that one needs to at least use one's imagination to craft into a 'flag' is the exception, not the rule. The metaphysics/religions adhered to by most civilizations and human groups in history make much better 'flags' under which one does the usual 'attack one's neighboring tribe, take his women and his lands and his livestock' sort of thing, they seem to almost be designed for that. What would an evo psych dude have to say about that.

Men being very ingenious as the are, if all they have to hand for a 'flag' is Christianity say, they'll make it work, but Odin works better, just like a toy plastic gun is better than a stick, and Odin is a more typical god, historically.

Per Swift, which end one cracks an egg from will do though, none of this hasn't been discussed before, it's pretty well trodden ground.

Mark,

Who cares? "Some".

Are you sure that some care? I am very old but have yet to meet a Jew or a Muslim who cares if Trinitarian Christians are monotheists or not.

What do you think of this , coming from a practicing Mormon.....

I would say that we are both polytheistic and monotheistic. We believe in the existence of other "Gods", but we only worship One.

I'm not a regular on this forum, and most of the conversations I've read are pretty deep, but I would like to see what people think.

I would say that we are both polytheistic and monotheistic. We believe in the existence of other "Gods", but we only worship One.

the term for that is henotheism. in any case, please note that the muslim profession of faith is that "there is no god but god, and muhammad is his prophet." in other words, it is an assertion of is, not "there are gods, and we worship one god...." so from a muslim perspective the focus upon one god is irrelevant, you are still dividing the nature of god into a multiplicity.

some things or religions make better flags than others

yes. cultural selection has operated so that "higher religions" sweep local religions before them. the only cultures which have been successful in resisting the god of abraham are ones with their own sophisticated idols (e.g., china, india, ec.).

Henotheism, thank you Razib. What about from a "Christian"(as in those who don't consider us Christian) perspective?

Let me clarify my first comment. Although we do believe in the possibility of other "Gods" outside of the God head e.g; God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, they do not have any place in our worship. We worship God the Father through Christ (who himself worshiped God the Father). We believe that Christ is our Savior and through him we are able to be returned to God the Father after this mortal existence, no one else can do that for us. Therefore we do all things in Christ name becoming followers of him, and follow his example of only worshiping God the Father.

So, technically, there is no other God before us, only the Father.

What about from a "Christian"(as in those who don't consider us Christian) perspective?

the "traditional" christian perspective in the 4th century rome when elite paganism existed was that other gods were either false idols (illusions) or demons. if you accept the possibility that the other gods might exist, and that they are not demons, then you probably deviate from a christian conception of monotheism. some christians might contend that your description of your relationship to your particular god in concert with openness to division in the theistic principle is no different than many pagan mystery cults which focused only on one divinity, though accepting the reality of a multiplicity. finally, the explicit acknowledgment by mormons that the father, son and holy ghost are separate entities without the obscurantism of trinitarian philosophy would be objectionable to most christians. now, i do grant that many jews and muslims (and non-christians in general) find the christian contention that they are not tritheists sophistry, but christians nevertheless do believe they are not tritheists because of the nuance of the athanasian formula (there are a few arian and unitarian christian sects, but they were recent post-reformation developments).

Early Jews were henonists, as well. While the OT teaches, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," it was accepted that other tribes had their gods, too. Just don't have anything to do with them or יהוה(YWH) will destroy you.

Actually, there have been Unitarians all the way back to the invention of the Trinitarians. As soon as there are "three", some objected and insisted on "one." Some say that for a while there were "two" -- father and son -- which gives too (!) clear a contrast with one, so the third (Holy Ghost) was tossed in there just to fuzz up the argument. Eventually, it became a nice category to allow the ladies to haunt (!) the argument.

I object to the whole "theos" deal, which I think was only a reflection of a world of tribes and nation-cities with kings. This causes some to say that a person like me is an A-theist, but I'm not, because that would imply an entity to reject. I just don't address the issue, so I'm told I'm not doing "theo-logy" because a "theos" is necessary. I'm just doing philosophy, they say. Those who control the fiber tip, the white board, and the categories think they have won.

Anyway, most "Christians," like most other people, don't believe what they are "supposed" to believe.

Prairie Mary

Going back to the original post Razib, the mental model of supernatural agency seems a human universal.

Not to quibble, but I don't subscribe to that model, so it's not "universal" exactly...

What I think is universal is an extended sense of empathy based on "mirroring." We have a mental model of agency as a default. Humans anthropomorphize other humans of course, but we also anthropomorphize both god and dog.

It's "only" a default, and therefore it can be superceded.

Allah is another good example of the importance of names. It allows Christians to more easily separate in their minds their god from the Muslim god when in reality they are supposed to be the one and the same, God.

Seriously, if the press started using God instead of Allah in an Islamic context and using only Yahweh in a Jewish context, I think it's not impossible that could at least in some small way change public opinion.

Mark:

For Man, anthropormorphism is a universal; we can recognize it and allow for its tendency to lead into certain errors but cannot completely "overcome" it; it is our indwelling "frame of reference."

I'd not conclude that "agency" (implying a--possibly anthropomorphized--"agent" is as necessarily universal as a more fundamental perception of cause. I don't think it a given that "cause" should neccesitate recognition of an anthropomorphized "agent" unless, for some reason, it is thought that the two are the same. (Though I will acknowledge the tendency of some--sociobiologists come to mind--to impute the elements of rational behavior--action--to stuff of microscopic dimensions).

I tend to the belief that an indwelling and universal capacity to perceive cause and effect is a logical (and temporal) precedent of all those responses to environmental stimuli not subsumed by what we refer to as automatism or reflex--including those of cognition, thinking, acting, etc. In that particular respect, it would be entirely correct to view reason and the action guided by it as an instinctual behavior of humankind.