Belief versus paradigm evolution Part Three

The story of the evolution of religion is intimately tied to the overall evolution of paradigms. Paradigm evolution is evocative of the old computer game of Eliza. This computer program began by asking you to think of something for it to guess. It would then ask, “Is it living or non-living?” If you answered “Non-living” it would respond with “Is it a rock?” to which you would usually reply, “No” unless you were thinking of a rock. The program would then ask you what you were thinking of and how it was different from a rock. If you were thinking of the ocean you might respond with “Is it wet?” and that your answer to that question would be “Yes”. The program would then store your question and answer. The next person to run the program who also chose a non-living thing would now be asked “Is it wet?” If the person responded “Yes” then the program would ask “Is it the ocean?” and, if the response was “No” it would then ask, “Is it a rock?” If the answer was “No” the person would be asked to provide a discriminating question and their response. In this way the program would ultimately ‘learn’ how to correctly guess any object that was part of its experience.



Through the course of human evolution we have also asked an increasingly complex series of questions in order to unravel the mystery of “life, the universe and everything”. We have expanded our understanding of our inner and outer environments by testing our understanding against the evidence around us. If our solution to a problem fell short in a particular area – if it failed to account for a significant exception – we would work to refine our understanding to make it more inclusive and reflective of our observations and experience. If we believed the world was flat but couldn’t explain why ships disappeared over the horizon, we would have to come up with a paradigm concerning the shape of the earth that accounted for this phenomenon. If we believed that the crow of a rooster made the sun come up in the morning and an avian epidemic wiped out all the roosters followed by the sun continuing to rise, we would have to find some other explanation for the phenomenon.



In some cases in the evolution of the religious paradigm, it is not the shortcomings of a current belief that affects change but the encounter with cultures who tell a better story. Thus it was that the cosmology of the Romans capitulated almost in its entirety to that of the newly conquered Greeks. Because the Greek pantheon of gods and heroes was richer in its scope and more coherent in its representation of the mysteries of the natural world, it supplanted the more primitive narrative of the Etruscans and early Romans. The focus moves from divination derived from animal entrails to an attempt to correlate and reconcile the will of the gods with ones perception of the world.



In other cases, the evolution is sui generic as with the ascendancy of Aton in Egyptian mythology or the emergence of El as the sole god of the Israelites (evolved from the dual Canaanite gods, Baal and El). Aton was championed by the pharaoh Akhenaten and his tenure as a solitary god was short-lived, because his position came about as the result of one man’s religious evolution rather than through the shared advancement in religious thought by the priestly class or some large portion of the populace. El’s ascendancy was more permanent because his rise to solitary deity seems to have been more a product of consensus among his Israelite adherents. El eventually became Yahweh and his earlier polytheistic manifestation remains discernable only in the occasional reference in Genesis and in the name Isra-el (one who strives – wrestles with – El). Although the Bible attempts to rid itself of its polytheistic roots, references in Genesis and Exodus reflect a jealous god whose hold on exclusivity is not assured. Even the first commandment handed to Moses forbids the worship of other deities:



“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; Do not have any other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.”



The new deity, Jehovah, does not explicitly say there are no other gods, he simply promises grave consequences for those who venerate them.



So why this movement from multiple deities to a single patriarchal strongman? It is interesting that the emergence of the Israelites coincides, roughly, with the transition form the Bronze Age to the Iron Age. (Let me say at this point that I am not a paleontologist so my ramblings are largely conjecture. I will let you be the judge as to whether there is any sense to what I propose.) Just as the move from hunter gatherer societies to primitive agriculture had seen a realignment of deities in favour of those with a green thumb, the increased organization of societies in the iron age would have brought tribal and regional gods into direct conflict with one another. The Israelites are thought to have been a subgroup of Canaanites who turned from nomadic herding to a more settled agrarian existence. The Canaanite pantheon had already been whittled down to, basically, two so the consolidation in one seems a natural progression for a splinter group.



From here on, the proliferation of a monotheistic system seems inevitable and yet the exponential growth of the religion only came about with the emergence of Christianity and, later, Mohammedanism. The wrathful, primitive god of the Israelites doesn’t seem to have made much headway until the more humanist ethic of the Christian and Muslim added love to ameliorate the heavy hand of the creator. In the process, by the way, Christianity again became polytheistic with the ascension of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and even Mary (to some extent) to a level sometimes higher than that of God the Father. Add to this the huge mass of saints and archangels and you have an array of lesser gods that would rival any primitive polytheistic religion.



So how is this an evolution of the religious paradigm? The development of religion parallels and lags slightly behind the evolution in human societies. As societies become more complex and knowledge increases, there are fewer mysteries and a greater need for cooperation and social organization. The hierarchical structure of medieval society is therefore reflected in the hierarchical structure of, not only the Church, but of its objects of worship. As we proceed through time to our current day, the focus appears to have shifted from that very structured pyramid with God the Father as its pinnacle to a more Christ centered pattern of worship. In effect what I see is a gradual movement away from the strict dogmatic aura of a G.T.F. religion to a more humanistic, reflective Christ centered religion.



Of course there will always be fanatics who wield their crucifixes like a broadsword a la Tea Party adherents but, I have to believe that the evolution of human consciousness is inexorable and will drag religion, kicking and screaming, to a higher plane.