very fascinating and informative lecture. However, why does the camera just show the speakers but not the slides which contain all the info about the lecturer's notes?
I don’t think that they intended for this to be solely a UA-cam video. It was first and foremost a lecture/talk for the audience present in the auditorium. The UA-cam thing was an afterthought, granted it could have been edited with the slides later.🫤
Problem with my former religion is that it severely constrained my freedom. I had to leave because of my need for freedom, to loosen up unbearable constraints.
Dunbar's number, and all the rest of it. Very interesting. So glad this topic is being explored more scientifically. Maybe the benefits of it can be incorporated into secular communities.
"wokism'" ( not early woke but what it's evolved into) is quite similar- to my knowledge there isn't trance states and not one guru, but the community, the conviction, guilt .. guilt issomething he didn't mention, but is a key factor in many- if not ask- religions
@@Gr88tful What has "wokism" evolved into, really? A right-wing authoritarian boogie man? Another thing to demonize? Soft-targets? I don't recall the history books being filled with world wars motivated by any form of "wokism". Unquestionable authoritarian right-wing propaganda, on the other hand, if one can look past the pretty uniforms, fills history books.
Prof Dunbar, i have an alternative reasoning why hunter gatherers were living in groups 20-50 people. Its a lot to do with food & sheltering resources that limits the range of how far they could forage. Only with the advent of agriculture 8-9K years back that they could build villages & and raise the carrying capacity of the group into the hundreds and later into the thousands which led to towns & cities in Mesopotamia, Uruk, Aztecs, Mohenjo daro-Harappa & even at the Yellow River, China. For your kind reconsideration. But to i support your hypothesis of >50 member hunter gatherer groups disintergrating becoz of social stress...that stress was the food & shelter limitations that were above the 'Carrying Capacity' of that population.🙏
I believe food and shelter played a minor role in the size of human bands or groups . It is human quarrelsome nature and passions whiich determined the size of the group. Some tribes like the Yanomami in the Amazon Jungle have still no chief and no concept of private property which results in deep jealosies and constant fights. Murder was very common as well as cannibalism .
You would be surprised how successful hunting and gathering groups can be. When resources are abundant and people are able to move to go where the food is, it's a very successful way to survive without hierarchies... which started with the advent of agriculture. The ones at the top prospered, and the field hands barely survived. Hence... today. Secondly, small groups build amazingly strong social bonds and protect each other as do kin. Unlike today! Research has shown that beyond about 200 individuals, people lose familial type bonds.
This dung beetle has rolled a big ball of (bull)shit that looks nice and sounds plausible . (Cow shit, or shit of any ungulate works too.) Unfortunately, he has filled it with his Own eggs that will hatch and roll more shit. The main thesis here was set out by Emile Durkheim in 1915 in his “Elementary Forms of the Religious Life”, so mostly nothing new here. Nor true.
why humans developed religion: 1. Agency attribution (the noise in the bushes.) 2. Fear of the unknown, particularly death 3. Grief over the loss of loved ones 4. Promotes social cohesion, including parent and mate bonding and hierarchies. That's no different now from 10,000 BC. Only the details have changed to reflect changes in science and social structure.
The promise of a life after death in a Heavenly Realm, with Divine Justice for the evil-doers is a strong incentive. What member of an oppressed class would not have a burning desire for this to be true?
Don't forget maintenance of social hierarchies and power structures. Religion is very useful for keeping those at the top safe and those at the bottom compliant.
We no longer need to fear the dark We know death better and life better We understand them psychology of grief We have many ways to promote social cohesion The main details of change is that we have evolved beyond religion.
Maybe the point is “opting to make a firm commitment” gives peace - taking away many stresses - to the uncertainties humans face; it allows constant worries to take a nap, so to speak. Events may come along to revive the uncertainties but can be calmed again.
@@ElizabethHalloway-nz7wb I was trying to find a way to agree with the message without being an all out advocate for any religious practice. I am no longer religious but people do still seem to seek it out as an option. Nothing against zen…whatever works.
@@sharonhearne5014can I ask what u put faith in for day to day life then… I’m struggling with finding anything for myself my Brian just won’t let me enjoy anything
@@jordancollings5379investigate mindfulness meditation, perhaps. Find joy in what is actually happening that you can rely on. The moment you are actually alive in.
Not really sure what you are getting at? Are you equating sports to the meaning of life. Is it a religion? I do not think I quite get the context of what you are saying? Help
I've had a lot of contact with the psychology profession and they say, universally that humans are social animals. This always confused me since being around people always made me uncomfortable. I kept my mouth shut but felt to be a bit of a freak. Professor Dunbar is the first I'v hear say we're NOT social beings. It makes me feel just a slight bit more normal. I thank you very much, I think I'll go out and make a friend.
Not exactly, human nature is very complicated and of fusion-fission social character. Besides, the chemical for social bonding is not Endorphin, but Oxytocin, which comes by through touching or grooming.
Prof. Dunbar: you mentioned in this excellent talk that the cults/groups that last the longest are the ones that forbid the most things that people tend to like doing. Do you have any data on why that is?
@@jordancollings5379Those religions has laws to say their God allow or don't allow certain things, and because it's a God Law, that most of them willingly complied. And so, social justice and happiness is maintained.
@@invictus9976How do you know it a delusion? 1) if a watch needs a watchmaker, then the watchmaker would need a greater watchmaker 2) the watchmaker, "God", has had 14 billion years since the birth of the universe to clean up his mess, and has failed to do so, despite supposed, total power 3) neuroscience says that human consciousness is not possible without functioning brain tissue, 4) human beings come in too many shades of grey to get credibly segregated into Heaven or Hell, 5) No credible "God" would blame the sad state of creation upon the created. Religion is sanctified superstitions, no better than a lucky horse shoe or rabbit's foot. Religion is organized neuroticism. Religion is a stench in the nostrils of rationality.
One omission in this great presentation was the place religion has played in the development of society beyond the simple village. Up until the 1800s a religious class (clerics) in tandem with the ruling order has regulated society. Not only has religion instructed individuals in how to behave ethically and morally but it has justified a ruling class order as being part of a divine order. For example, the mystique of King Charles's coronation in his holy oil anointing. I consider religion as an essential ingredient in the evolution of human society and civilization. The big question is whether we have superseded it and got rid of it. When I see the rise of authoritarian governments and extreme ideologies I do wonder. As people seek an all-encompassing cosmology (life's grand purpose & meaning) I do wonder if we should look deeper into humanity's religious impulse. Is it easy to live without this ultimate meaning and purpose? Dunbar's picture is partial. His intent is verifiable-data limited. Other fascinating dimensions werte not discussed.
Ethically? The same ones that say works don't matter, good works won't get you heaven? The way to Heaven is the corrupt way things get done in Corrupt/Communist countries - if you have the right contacts one gets ahead Billions of Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists - entire families, women, children, even babies - will be set apart based on religion and callously dumped into gas chambers in hell! Nazi ideas OPENLY promoted! And you are totally blind to all this
"I consider religion as an essential ingredient in the evolution of human society and civilization" I wonder what the "cultures" that enjoy their life peacefully in America before "religion" may think about that statement.
@@joshuatoledo8844 This comes from a slave mentality - ancient people living under Kings, Dictators used them as a template for God - think Putin Their goal - Heaven - pleasures of the flesh And guess who says - "you get that only if you go thru me"? Reason why they say Heaven is GIVEN, not EARNED! In a World where we look down upon yes-men, sycophants, prostitutes for begging their way to the good life - these religions say that is the way to go & amazingly even the best of minds, most moral of minds blindly nod! Hence - Religion ie God is essential or else how are we supposed to get that easy lazy life in Heaven?
@@joshuatoledo8844 The Native Americans had and have their own religions. Also, even a cursory glance at the history of Native American tribes before the advent of European settlement/conquest would show you that their lives were anything but peaceful. They were just as warlike as any other human society on the planet.
An extremely informative lecture. I learned a lot. But WHY did it evolve ? Being a student of history myself, I was waiting for Professor Dunbar to describe the moment💥in time when an ancestor of ours suddenly realized that they themselves were going to die someday. That all life had a limited time-span. Then they realized that they didn’t want to leave it all behind - leave the experience of living. They were not able to accept that. “Don’t worry though, there is an afterlife.”, they said.
Clearly Christianity did not "evolve" as it was founded by Jesus of Nazareth, and there is plenty of evidence for his existence. There are of course many "natural religions", where individuals have sought, through reason, something beyond their own existence and come up with ideas of what this could be. Some elements of these natural religions are relevant, some are either just impossible or even dangerous, and they should rightly be rejected in this respect. There is clearly in human history a desire in the human spirit to find something beyond the self (Dunbar calls this the "psychological quintessentially human impulse"), but this should not just be rubbished or dismissed by a purely rational-based thought process (e.g. an atheist ideology with intent etc). To do so is to minimise human potential and stifle the human spirit to search using both faith and reason (also used in the scientific method). This is a dangerous and very dark road that people like Dunbar want to take people down! Dunbar's "psychological basis for the quintessentially human impulse" which feeds into his "mystical stance" theory is somewhat relevant, in that the human spirit, unlike the animal world, is capable of looking beyond the self and searching for a "higher being", but to apply this to the concept of "religion" (i.e. all religions) is just inaccurate and wrong on both a faith and rational basis, because for Christianity there is written evidence of the miracles of Christ, so faith in Christ is based on both faith and reason (or faith and evidence). This takes Christianity out of the realms of the atheist's evolutionary agenda on why "faith" exists as either an 'impulse' or a mere 'stance'.
Religion emerges in deep jungles and on desert islands. Maybe its a response to something real in nature. But the reason people turn to religion in civilization is that the secular society is somehow inadequate or intolerable. That's why the secularization hypothesis holds true only in some modernized places and not others. When the secular society is so well run that people don't need anything else they don't need religion. So do it in the right order.
I think that’s a very valid point. Scandinavia where there’s the highest mean and average standard of living and happiness levels have been very secular for a while. Now in the uk and US but also throughout Europe and other continents too as societies are disintegrating, there’s a popular resurgence in religious involvement.
Organized Religion evolved from folk practices which was practiced by all tribes globally. Folk practices started worshipped whatever they feared to start with and whatever it helped them. Organized religion evolved with the intention to control the population so that it is easier to extract money and power. In this the pioneer is Zoraster who first invented the theory of heaven and hell. Judaism,Christianity, Islam all copies of it tweaking it. Why people are religious is because of conditioning from the day they were born. It's time religion is relegated to museums. If not now will happen in the coming century.
It's been that time for a long time, hasn't it? Yet it persists. Why does organised religion persist is his exact question, & he gathers data to understand this phenomenon. You, in contrast, with no evidence other than your gut reaction, assert your great wisdom as the superior prognostication. Do you comprehend the distinction between a theory supported entirely by anecdote & one sustained by data & formal scholarship? I suspect not. This is one reason why academics adopted formal attire & behaviour, so that a distinction may be evident between ppl that formally study things & those that simply assert opinions. Not to say that opinions have no merit, since formal study inevitably starts there; but that's the point - it STARTS there. The modern trend is for informality in all things, so now recognition of the value of scholarship rests upon the perception of the audience. Ppl now assert that their opinions have value equal to the conclusions đrawn from extensive formal disciplined study; which is to say that in failing to understand their own ignorance they instead assert it as fact. The term idiocracy defines & describes the kind of system of knowledge & governance that results from such absurd self promotion of opinion over studious truth seeking.
Ancient people lived under Kings, dictators & used them as a template for God Hence we get all the - get down on our knees, beg, grovel, blindly obey(Kill my OWN innocent son? yes Master - and from that we got Terrorism - "God wants you to kill those unbelievers they are against God, kill them and God will be pleased") sing his praises and hope for a reward - eternal pleasures of the flesh sitting around doing nothing shamelessly sponging off God Think Putin - think any dictator how they reward their yes-men, sycophants and prostitutes These are the top Gods in the 21st century!
Great and entertaining talk by Dunbar. He concentrated his talk mainly in events / histroy in Europe and Britain. He did not give an explanation to the phenomenon of mega-churches in US and large and enduring cults in US (e.g. Scientology) , South Korea (e.g. Unification Church, Shincheonji, and many, many. SK seems to be filled with cults / fringe religions), China (Fa Lun Gong, and knowing some Chinese culture and history I do see why this cult is so successful), and other places (now Africa seems to be breeding many Christianity-related cults) other than a passing mention of hero worship. I am sure that he has his theory and explanation of these phenomenon. Hope he will be interviewed or give talks on those subjects.
@@cypherknot Exactly, that is why I said: "I am sure that he has his theory and explanation of these phenomenon. Hope he will be interviewed or give talks on those subjects."
Mass Churches are, I believe, a symptom of mass delusion syndrome -- the more crazies you put together the more the size of the craziness grows, like a football crowd which irrationally stampedes to their death.
I love the use of the word Cult If I told you there was an organization that allowed pedophiles to freely molest little kids of their followers, would you not call it a cult? If I told you that this organization has much blood on their hands - they mass murdered a lot of innocent people for not sharing their delusions, would you not call it a Cult? But hey, get enough members and now you are a respected organization Might Makes Right - that's all
The prof states that “ no one joins a religion for theological reasons, only emotional, or your born into it. Well, that’s simply not true. Many westerners, such as myself, joined Vedanta for “ theological” reasons, not emotional. Vedanta has a very sophisticated metaphysical system which isn’t based on devotion (necessarily) or emotion.
So humans invent religions originally to explain the natural world they had to deal with in order to survive. Then, as human societies evolved, the religions evolved to match...human society becomes settled, you get settled religions. Human society becomes hierarchical, the gods become hierarchical. Shows pretty clearly what religion is.
It's an idea that has come under a lot of criticism and contradiction. Clearly Christianity did not "evolve" as it was founded by Jesus of Nazareth, and there is plenty of evidence for his existence. There are of course many "natural religions", where individuals have sought, through reason, something beyond their own existence and come up with ideas of what this could be. Some elements of these natural religions are relevant, some are either just impossible or even dangerous, and they should rightly be rejected in this respect. There is clearly in human history a desire in the human spirit to find something beyond the self (Dunbar calls this the "psychological quintessentially human impulse"), but this should not just be rubbished or dismissed by a purely rational-based thought process (e.g. an atheist ideology with intent etc). To do so is to minimise human potential and stifle the human spirit to search using both faith and reason (also used in the scientific method). This is a dangerous and very dark road that people like Dunbar want to take people down! Dunbar's "psychological basis for the quintessentially human impulse" which feeds into his "mystical stance" theory is somewhat relevant, in that the human spirit, unlike the animal world, is capable of looking beyond the self and searching for a "higher being", but to apply this to the concept of "religion" (i.e. all religions) is just inaccurate and wrong on both a faith and rational basis, because for Christianity there is written evidence of the miracles of Christ, so faith in Christ is based on both faith and reason (or faith and evidence). This takes Christianity out of the realms of the atheist's evolutionary agenda on why "faith" exists as either an 'impulse' or a mere 'stance'.
The thing that is missing in the Dunbar lecture is how the secular world has emerged as a powerful force after thousands of domination by religious beliefs.
lol. The concept of the "secular" is a product of the theology of St Thomas Aquinas (1225 - 1274), he invented the idea and it is he drew a famous distinction between what is known by reason and what is known by revelation, concerning the natural and the supernatural worlds. Atheism ironically owes its existence to a Catholic saint!
An excellent and most entertaining talk. i am most fortunate in sharing one great thing with Professor Dunbar. He and I both exist in each others 'Dunbar number' having been close friends for over 50 years.
Much as I respect Dunbar’s work, I find the attitude here (and he’s not always like this, because I’ve heard him in conversation with some of our indigenous thinkers here) infuriating in its oversights and omissions, and its implicit condescension. The whole notion of evolutionary psychology, along with allied notions of stage development and civilisational progress, borders on the colonial/imperialist. He seems to be relying on orthodox hypotheses of development/change that, amongst others, Graeber and Wengrove have taken a blowtorch to (The Dawn of Everything). His epistemological disposition is disembodied, deracinated, and decontextualised, striving to draw useful generalisations about ways of knowing and experiencing that are opaque to the limited paradigm of scientism. Which is unsurprising, so smug and self-satisfied are we with our technology and presumed intellectual superiority. Like, what can we really determine of the animate world when our insentience, our brutality and our technology has caused it to retreat from us? If you cut down all the sacred groves, what do you seriously expect will happen to the other-than-human entities instantiated in the web of life there? (If that sounds too woo-woo, just think mycelium.) We have trespassed gravely - so gravely that how and upon what has become invisible to us. What is intrinsic to religions is not just mystical froth and bubble, not just social inclusion, and certainly not just a prosthetic aide for the psychologically crippled. It’s got something to do with our responsibility and duty in the network of planetary life with which we have horrendously interfered. The problems we face today as a culture derive from the failure to rightly situate ourselves in the world, to fully acknowledge, respect and participate in an interdependent ecosystem of different voices and agencies. We will not get out of this one by defining targets and measuring metrics; and we will not get out of it by utilitarian models as limited as the one Dunbar uses. We must find more viable and enlivening modes of thinking, feeling and living where belonging again becomes sacred, embedded in the Animate Everything. I’d suggest that spiritual sensibilities and practices can hold some key to what life requires of us at a time of profound trouble, when being grown up demands we come to understand obligation and responsibility. None of this is a blanket defence of religions, past or present; but it is a plea for epistemic humility: to approach them with some respect and to take heed of their better inclinations wherever we might find them.
Yes, infuriating to have a smart guy so blithely assume that nothing that happens in a trance has any significance beyond the social behavior that it facilitates.
@@gooddaysahead1the world doesn’t need to become rational, it’s TOO rationally based. It hangs its hat on being rational. What it needs become and shall become is itself. No amount of brain mass or lack thereof interferes with becoming ourselves. Stick around, we are interesting but not because we think but rather because we are and neither you nor I has or will stop us from being and becoming our beingness. Go outside and watch a bird fly and feel it (don’t wonder about its thoughts, notice it being). And if that is not sufficient for you to understand my simple words, go outside and feel the wind and watch it ripple through the trees. Do not wonder what it is thinking, just notice it being, being and becoming. Religion and religiosity is about thinking, it’s okay to think and of course to think rationally however it is NOT WHO WE ARE. Thinking and doing does not explain us, being and becoming expresses who we are. I’m using thoughts, concepts, words but really at its essence I’m communicating my beingingness to your beingingness. Allow. If more humans used telepathic ways of communicating I would not even need to express these words to you. Again, it’s fine to think and communicate thoughts, it’s simply not the ultimate way of being whether its rational thoughts or irrational thoughts. Be, become.
You’ll enjoy picking this apart! LOL The masculine (yep masculine energies) took over the planet and projected the rationale for the take over onto the feminine energies. It tells us when to jump and how high.The masculine perpetrated and has perpetuated that we are not one and thereby we have to reconcile fear and self preservation by taking action against “the other” while trying not to destroy everyone and everything. A take over cannot be rampant, it must be controlled. Control must be done mostly through competition and a warring way of interacting, which by definition is hate thy neighbor. The masculine by default had to come up with all types of ways to regulate fear and self preservation so as to prevent annihilation and complete collapse. And it bolstered itself by distraction and nonsense. Control and distraction came in the various forms of religion, govt, policing, monitoring, taking control of medicine (healing modalities) and food production (land, sea, and air) as well as reproduction. Control is in part the basis for every religion, every form of govt, every man made bastardized technology (rather than utilization of the pure technologies of earth and the universe), every relationship and every fiber that exists in the physical world. These days it has been scientifically observed that toxic substances have infiltrated every living cell that has been investigated. Again, we are ultimately one. Nothing exists as it’s self if every other part of the whole does not exist. Additionally nothing in essence can truly be destroyed so everything has value and that specific value is what we humans call eternal. We are returning to the feminine (harmony within being), nothing will stop it because everyone is sick of the distortion of power, control, loss of sovereign being, terror, horror and slow, painful ways of usurping the self. Yes, I put this entirely at the feet of the oppositional masculine (of which is primarily embodied by males but everyone has bought into it to an extent). Not to knock you personally but I highly doubt this will clear things up for you as to what I mean by “ultimately who we are”. Either you know this in your core or you are mentally processing. Regardless, you won’t be left out.
@@gooddaysahead1 You cannot understand my simple words, as you put it rational words. Did I say do not use rationality? I said rational thought is not the end all be all. Why do so many who say they want rational thought to predominate throw out the baby with the bath water? We are being and becoming. Our rational way of explaining ourselves does NOT in anyway diminish this truth. Don’t let it diminish you any further. Get outside more and breathe and be.
Collections were made to help poor women who had kids and their husbands had died. The Catholic Church keeps making those collections exactly the same way, as it did 2000 years ago, it's the same Church after all.
Fascinating talk. Thank you. And as evolution is an ongoing process.. all this nuggets of info are particles of evolutionary atoms as building blocks for whats to come..
In one of his videos on UA-cam, he had a slide that listed Confucianism and Taoism with other religions. The "West" have a deep misunderstaning of these 2 things since the early Western scholars and Christian missionaries reported it that way back to their homeland. This is a complicated subject to explain is a comment. Suffice to say, Confucianism is definitely NOT a religion. The classic texts of Confuscianism did not invole thenselves with religion, god, creator, or dieties. They are not religious texts. From reading the texts, one could surmise that they perceived that there was some power above superior to humans in the realm of天, which mean sky; this is a concept that has been "taken for granted" throughout history of that land. Since it is not in the realm of human activities, it is not of any interest to the scholars who formed the Conduscious school of philosophy. They were involved in morals, ethics, political philosophy, and the "proper ways" to behave in life and the "proper ways" to govern a society and for rulers to behave, decorum and rituals in the Royal Court...etc. in order to achieve a peaceful and stable society. Taoism is a philosophy, and the classic Taoist texts are NOT religious texts. Later some indigenous folk religons usurped the the term Taoism and formed an amalgamation of folk beliefs, folk dieties, and some Taoism phiolosophy into a mess known as Taosim the religioin.
The Confucianism is just >550yrs BC. China was well under an Agricultural Innovation a few thousand years before. It is a far cry from the Hunter Gatherer Society. So i think he has no reason to try to lump that theory into the Chinese Civillisation. I agree with you that Confucianism is not a relligion👍🙏
@@mukeshsharma-iq8dp It was my bad for not clear enough. He was referring to the "Axial Age": Confuciansim, Taoism, Hinduism, Janism, Buddhism, Zorastrianism, Judaism.... etc. However, since he was talking about "Axial Age", he really should have separate lists of philosophies and of religions. But on that slide, he only had one list which lumped Confucianism and Taoism with a bunch of religions an no mention or list of the other major philosophies that emerged at that time. Since that was a talk on "emergence of religion", it could give a lot of people who are not knowledgeable of China and Asia the wrong impression that Confucianism and Taoism are religions since that has been the "treaditional/ "popular view in the West. Dr. Dunbar most likely knows better and he just designed the slide poorly. I don't know on an academic level how one should call the "religion" Taoism since those people call themselves "Taoism", but in fact that "religion" is just an amalgamation of folk beliefs, folk dieties, with some Taoism phiolosophy thrown it.
@@CKWong-jk5st I totally agree with you. Thank you for sharing a detailed explanation that in itself helps people to understand the Chinese Culture & Philosophy🙏
Taoism, A Mystical Philosophy, as written in The Tao Te Ching: -VII- Heaven and Earth are long-enduring. The reason Heaven and Earth are able to long-endure and continue is because they do not live of, for, or by themselves. This is how they continue and endure. -X- When the intellect and soul are held together in one embrace, they can be kept from separating. When one gives undivided attention to the vital breath, and brings it to the utmost degree of pliancy, one can become as a tender babe. When one has cleansed away the most mysterious insights of the imagination, one can become without a flaw. -XXV- There was something undefined and complete, coming into existence before Heaven and Earth. It was still and formless, standing alone, undergoing no change, reaching everywhere, and in no danger of being exhausted. It may be regarded as the Mother of all things. I do not know Its name, and I designate It the Tao, the Way, or the Course. Making a further effort to give it a name, I call it The Great, and passes on in a constant flow. Passing on, it becomes remote. Having become remote, it returns. Therefore the Tao is Great; Heaven is Great; Earth is Great; and the true sage is also Great. In the Universe there are Four that are Great, and the true sage is one of the Four. Man takes his law from the Earth; Earth takes its law from Heaven; Heaven takes its law from the Tao, and The Law of the Tao is: ' 'That-It-Is' ' and the Being of ' 'All-That-Is' '.
TAOism is really about universal logic, in fact, if you go deeper into it you'll realize that the Yin Yang principle represents the GUT that science is still searching for. Traditional TAOism is just too obscure to be understood for what it is by most materialistic scientists (paradoxically since it scientifically speaking materializes everything including what is usually termed "spiritual", in the name of universal Oneness). Niels Bohr was very fascinated with traditional TAOism and his theories about quantum physics was probably for a good part inspired by it, but he didn't really seem to realize though that Yin Yang (polarity) is the fundamental principle in physics that explains everything else. The American philosopher Walter Russell did understand this however. Back in 1921 has was given complete insight into the logic of the universe through a 39 day long divine revelation, and he spent the rest of his life creating a complete "new age" science based on that insight. In reality this science is plain TAO logic explained in modern scientific terms, and he and his wife seemed to realize that at some point, as she changed her name to Lao after Lao Tzu. Nikola Tesla seemed to be the only scientist at that time who fully understood and recognized Russell's ideas, but he told Russell to "lock down his knowledge for a thousand years for humanity wasn't ready for it yet". Russell was considering this but decided not to do it anyway, so his works are available today but still not widely recognized or understood.
There are three causes of religion. The first is fear of death, so all religions promise “life after death,” be it heaven, Valhalla, reincarnation etc. The second is insurance against catastrophe. “Please God doctors say my son will die, please perform a miraculous healing, as you have before!” The third reason is loneliness. When you’re so boring that nobody wants to talk to listen to you, God always listens and with a little imagination, will speak to you.
“The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man - state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world... Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo. Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.” ― Karl Marx
Not true. Look at the older Judaism of the Hebrew Bible. They did not have a concept of the afterlife. The new testament mentions the Sadducees sect did not believe in life after death either
Nope. Judaism consistently avoided the after-life sometime around the time of the temple getting destroyed a second time, in that case, by the Roman empire. Even to this day, you just don’t find Jews dwelling on an afterlife.
However, religion often makes the life to come even more fearful than current life, with a universal day of eternal judgment. That is frightening enough to want many of us to wish that religion is not true.
@@musicmasterplayer4532 I don't disagree. The thing I take issue with is the assertion that all religions promote an afterlife. This is demonstrably false, as I described above.
Typical ill-informed idea! Clearly Christianity did not "evolve" as it was founded by Jesus of Nazareth, and there is plenty of evidence for his existence. There are of course many "natural religions", where individuals have sought, through reason, something beyond their own existence and come up with ideas of what this could be. Some elements of these natural religions are relevant, some are either just impossible or even dangerous, and they should rightly be rejected in this respect. There is clearly in human history a desire in the human spirit to find something beyond the self (Dunbar calls this the "psychological quintessentially human impulse"), but this should not just be rubbished or dismissed by a purely rational-based thought process (e.g. an atheist ideology with intent etc). To do so is to minimise human potential and stifle the human spirit to search using both faith and reason (also used in the scientific method). This is a dangerous and very dark road that people like Dunbar want to take people down! Dunbar's "psychological basis for the quintessentially human impulse" which feeds into his "mystical stance" theory is somewhat relevant, in that the human spirit, unlike the animal world, is capable of looking beyond the self and searching for a "higher being", but to apply this to the concept of "religion" (i.e. all religions) is just inaccurate and wrong on both a faith and rational basis, because for Christianity there is written evidence of the miracles of Christ, so faith in Christ is based on both faith and reason (or faith and evidence). This takes Christianity out of the realms of the atheist's evolutionary agenda on why "faith" exists as either an 'impulse' or a mere 'stance'.
I do wonder if religions and other belief systems (including material rationalism) are metaphoric. They are pointers. They are humanity's best efforts to approximate what ultimate reality and certainly are about. We are mistaken to think they will potentially give us existence's full truth. This is no excuse not to try but the humbly appreciate what we are about.
I found it somewhat relevant, but also misleading. Clearly Christianity did not "evolve" as it was founded by Jesus of Nazareth, and there is plenty of evidence for his existence. There are of course many "natural religions", where individuals have sought, through reason, something beyond their own existence and come up with ideas of what this could be. Some elements of these natural religions are relevant, some are either just impossible or even dangerous, and they should rightly be rejected in this respect. There is clearly in human history a desire in the human spirit to find something beyond the self (Dunbar calls this the "psychological quintessentially human impulse"), but this should not just be rubbished or dismissed by a purely rational-based thought process (e.g. an atheist ideology with intent etc). To do so is to minimise human potential and stifle the human spirit to search using both faith and reason (also used in the scientific method). This is a dangerous and very dark road that people like Dunbar want to take people down! Dunbar's "psychological basis for the quintessentially human impulse" which feeds into his "mystical stance" theory is somewhat relevant, in that the human spirit, unlike the animal world, is capable of looking beyond the self and searching for a "higher being", but to apply this to the concept of "religion" (i.e. all religions) is just inaccurate and wrong on both a faith and rational basis, because for Christianity there is written evidence of the miracles of Christ, so faith in Christ is based on both faith and reason (or faith and evidence). This takes Christianity out of the realms of the atheist's evolutionary agenda on why "faith" exists as either an 'impulse' or a mere 'stance'.
The definition of religion is: ‘That to which we are bound.’ So it appears to be in the human DNA. It is expressed as allegiance to or worship of an intelligence that is greater than human intelligence and in which humans and all of nature shares. Atheists do not believe that there is any intelligence greater than human intelligence and nature is seen as just elemental; arising from elements without intelligence as materialism; matter without intelligence, or everything occurring randomly without a prototype. Atheism come up with ideologies in place of religion; there is eliminative materialism and also now talk of trans humanism or humans embedded with technology.
Clearly Christianity did not "evolve" as it was founded by Jesus of Nazareth, and there is plenty of evidence for his existence. There are of course many "natural religions", where individuals have sought, through reason, something beyond their own existence and come up with ideas of what this could be. Some elements of these natural religions are relevant, some are either just impossible or even dangerous, and they should rightly be rejected in this respect. There is clearly in human history a desire in the human spirit to find something beyond the self (Dunbar calls this the "psychological quintessentially human impulse"), but this should not just be rubbished or dismissed by a purely rational-based thought process (e.g. an atheist ideology with intent etc). To do so is to minimise human potential and stifle the human spirit to search using both faith and reason (also used in the scientific method). This is a dangerous and very dark road that people like Dunbar want to take people down! Dunbar's "psychological basis for the quintessentially human impulse" which feeds into his "mystical stance" theory is somewhat relevant, in that the human spirit, unlike the animal world, is capable of looking beyond the self and searching for a "higher being", but to apply this to the concept of "religion" (i.e. all religions) is just inaccurate and wrong on both a faith and rational basis, because for Christianity there is written evidence of the miracles of Christ, so faith in Christ is based on both faith and reason (or faith and evidence). This takes Christianity out of the realms of the atheist's evolutionary agenda on why "faith" exists as either an 'impulse' or a mere 'stance'.
Yeah . . . the problem with this godder stuff is that no one mentions non-belief, which has always been there too. My family ditched the godder stuff beginning around 1790.
Wrong. The Gospels deal directly with non-belief. A man came to Jesus asking for healing for his daughter. Jesus answers you must believe to be healed. The man answers, "I believe, Lord. Help my UNBELIEF". And there is much more in the Bible regarding human struggle for faith demonstrating that it is a normal condition. Jesus heals the man's daughter anyway showing that God does not expect perfect belief, nor faith in his people.
@@lauriemayne7436 You are so very welcome. Should I say, Laurie Partridge of The Partridge Family fame? Clearly, you remember me and I hope you have moved on with better thinking and logic.
Historian and poet Barbara Mor---the clapping/singing/dancing group raises energies in their own midst that becomes to each a kind of experience of Divinity (immanent in Nature and the body); and the rituals and values that emerge from this become the beliefs of a particular group. The more those become divorced from Nature, the body and direct/shared experience, the more dead the religion becomes. So our deep discontent with "established" religion is still in our bones, and that's a good thing.
I gave up belief in god or any religion by age 23. I am now 80 and have felt no need to believe in anything supernatural. This is the last time I will spend any more brain power on studying about religion because I think it is all made up and has no validity in the real world. This lecture made no sense to me at all. Plus this person is a horrible speaker with much stuttering so I could not follow his train of thought. “God is on my side” is the battle cry of all warring nations and is responsible for so much suffering and death through the ages. Many say that to be moral, we must follow religious teachings of the Bible, and I wonder if they have ever read it!! That “book” recounts horrific tales of murder.
Mortality denial softens your brain, so to speak. Our urge to live is in conflict with the reality of our inevitable deaths. We are vulnerable to any irrational idea that can soothe the cognaitive dissonance. Don’t fear death, it will be just like before you were born.
Religion and religious behavior is usually given to rituals, ideas and doctrines that are complex and can not be explained in simple terms! This means religion is a glomerate of many diverse issues and things. Now, to study something, it is important to define it in first place otherwise many diverse things are being studied and hope to make sense of sonething common and deep in us!
Ancient people lived under Kings, Dictators and used them as a template for God Hence we get the - get down on our knees, beg, grovel, blindly obey, sing his praises and hope for a reward(Heaven - eternal pleasures of the flesh) No different from yes-men, sycophants, prostitutes who beg, grovel, blindly obey and sing the praises of the rich & powerful hoping for a reward - a life of ease & comfort Sad you can see none of this
Just read ‘The Evolution Of God’ by Robert Wright. He explains in detail how it went from Hunter Gatherers belief and fear in the power of nature and their dependence on a benefactor that they might in some small way be able to communicate with, the gods of wind, rain, sun etc through to modern day religion. I find this talk to be a little unfocused and confusing.
Religion filled the social and emotional comfort and guarantee for individuals when the close bonded hunter gather social life gradually faded. Acceptance of science, getting defined answers of live issues and commerce supporting needs of life, emotions are neglected to be rediscovered. Knowledge or meditative practices had rescued some but too difficult for masses.
Clearly Christianity did not "evolve" as it was founded by Jesus of Nazareth, and there is plenty of evidence for his existence. There are of course many "natural religions", where individuals have sought, through reason, something beyond their own existence and come up with ideas of what this could be. Some elements of these natural religions are relevant, some are either just impossible or even dangerous, and they should rightly be rejected in this respect. There is clearly in human history a desire in the human spirit to find something beyond the self (Dunbar calls this the "psychological quintessentially human impulse"), but this should not just be rubbished or dismissed by a purely rational-based thought process (e.g. an atheist ideology with intent etc). To do so is to minimise human potential and stifle the human spirit to search using both faith and reason (also used in the scientific method). This is a dangerous and very dark road that people like Dunbar want to take people down! Dunbar's "psychological basis for the quintessentially human impulse" which feeds into his "mystical stance" theory is somewhat relevant, in that the human spirit, unlike the animal world, is capable of looking beyond the self and searching for a "higher being", but to apply this to the concept of "religion" (i.e. all religions) is just inaccurate and wrong on both a faith and rational basis, because for Christianity there is written evidence of the miracles of Christ, so faith in Christ is based on both faith and reason (or faith and evidence). This takes Christianity out of the realms of the atheist's evolutionary agenda on why "faith" exists as either an 'impulse' or a mere 'stance'.
he is conflating cults with religions, also the social bonding effect is interesting and important but religion has way more meaning. they 'did the research' but the research was focusing on a tiny sliver of the phenomenon therefore he doesnt have anything to say about religion
@@supplican Not just time. Size is key. The larger the body of believers the greater the chance of it being classed as a religion rather than as a cult.
Re: Opening summary. I wonder if there was a period before animist beliefs, when humans had no concept of the supernatural. Our most remote ancestors did not differentiate between the living and the not living? They did not really understand life? Consider a stream for instance - it could "die" during the dry season and be "reborn" again during the rainy season.
Typical ill-informed idea! Clearly Christianity did not "evolve" as it was founded by Jesus of Nazareth, and there is plenty of evidence for his existence. There are of course many "natural religions", where individuals have sought, through reason, something beyond their own existence and come up with ideas of what this could be. Some elements of these natural religions are relevant, some are either just impossible or even dangerous, and they should rightly be rejected in this respect. There is clearly in human history a desire in the human spirit to find something beyond the self (Dunbar calls this the "psychological quintessentially human impulse"), but this should not just be rubbished or dismissed by a purely rational-based thought process (e.g. an atheist ideology with intent etc). To do so is to minimise human potential and stifle the human spirit to search using both faith and reason (also used in the scientific method). This is a dangerous and very dark road that people like Dunbar want to take people down! Dunbar's "psychological basis for the quintessentially human impulse" which feeds into his "mystical stance" theory is somewhat relevant, in that the human spirit, unlike the animal world, is capable of looking beyond the self and searching for a "higher being", but to apply this to the concept of "religion" (i.e. all religions) is just inaccurate and wrong on both a faith and rational basis, because for Christianity there is written evidence of the miracles of Christ, so faith in Christ is based on both faith and reason (or faith and evidence). This takes Christianity out of the realms of the atheist's evolutionary agenda on why "faith" exists as either an 'impulse' or a mere 'stance'.
The only issue I have with this is the poor audio quality due to on-scene speaker feedback causing that damn high-pitched ring every time he speaks clearly into the microphone. Their sound engineer must be deaf.
Clearly Christianity did not "evolve" as it was founded by Jesus of Nazareth, and there is plenty of evidence for his existence. There are of course many "natural religions", where individuals have sought, through reason, something beyond their own existence and come up with ideas of what this could be. Some elements of these natural religions are relevant, some are either just impossible or even dangerous, and they should rightly be rejected in this respect. There is clearly in human history a desire in the human spirit to find something beyond the self (Dunbar calls this the "psychological quintessentially human impulse"), but this should not just be rubbished or dismissed by a purely rational-based thought process (e.g. an atheist ideology with intent etc). To do so is to minimise human potential and stifle the human spirit to search using both faith and reason (also used in the scientific method). This is a dangerous and very dark road that people like Dunbar want to take people down! Dunbar's "psychological basis for the quintessentially human impulse" which feeds into his "mystical stance" theory is somewhat relevant, in that the human spirit, unlike the animal world, is capable of looking beyond the self and searching for a "higher being", but to apply this to the concept of "religion" (i.e. all religions) is just inaccurate and wrong on both a faith and rational basis, because for Christianity there is written evidence of the miracles of Christ, so faith in Christ is based on both faith and reason (or faith and evidence). This takes Christianity out of the realms of the atheist's evolutionary agenda on why "faith" exists as either an 'impulse' or a mere 'stance'.
Classic British university type lecture. Really capable research academics being done but absolutely zero training being given to teach the academics how to communicate clearly. You can be sure that the gent has a very strong grasp of his subject. But his lecture is illogical and incoherent. Points are constantly being alluded to but not followed through. It’s very frustrating to listen to and leaves you thinking that you’re not quite being connected with. The narrative is somewhere in the background of the speakers mind but only sporadically elucidated. Such a shame because I’m totally with him in his thesis, if I grasp it, which seems to be that religion has strong psych-social benefits and functions as well as very destructive effects and we need to understand the former in order to mitigate the latter or remove it altogether.
The camera work is TERRIBLE, but not unusual for these kinds of presentations. Why can't the camera people figure out that the visual presentation is essential to the whole presentation. It's so obvious to anyone, except of course, the people running the cameras.
And even then when you go deep in to the Abrahamic religions we see they have similarities with those like Bhuddism - it is just a lack of understanding of what underlies religion@@bernardhurley6685
He talks a lot about trance but has not understood the psychology and physiology of its impact and purpose, has he considered reading Carl Jung for insight in to why people are religious? The subconscious mind is barely understood, the path of human development is barely understood, and the role of archetypal psychology often not recognised to atheists and this is their pitfall in why society has religion in this time.
Clearly Christianity did not "evolve" as it was founded by Jesus of Nazareth, and there is plenty of evidence for his existence. There are of course many "natural religions", where individuals have sought, through reason, something beyond their own existence and come up with ideas of what this could be. Some elements of these natural religions are relevant, some are either just impossible or even dangerous, and they should rightly be rejected in this respect. There is clearly in human history a desire in the human spirit to find something beyond the self (Dunbar calls this the "psychological quintessentially human impulse"), but this should not just be rubbished or dismissed by a purely rational-based thought process (e.g. an atheist ideology with intent etc). To do so is to minimise human potential and stifle the human spirit to search using both faith and reason (also used in the scientific method). This is a dangerous and very dark road that people like Dunbar want to take people down! Dunbar's "psychological basis for the quintessentially human impulse" which feeds into his "mystical stance" theory is somewhat relevant, in that the human spirit, unlike the animal world, is capable of looking beyond the self and searching for a "higher being", but to apply this to the concept of "religion" (i.e. all religions) is just inaccurate and wrong on both a faith and rational basis, because for Christianity there is written evidence of the miracles of Christ, so faith in Christ is based on both faith and reason (or faith and evidence). This takes Christianity out of the realms of the atheist's evolutionary agenda on why "faith" exists as either an 'impulse' or a mere 'stance'.
“The earliest formula of Wisdom promises to be the last - God, Light, Freedom, Immortality.” This despite all the dry academic ‘research’ of these religion analysts like Prof Dunbar who remind me of the proverbial 6 blind men assessing an elephant.
It seems religion started fairly early on. From what I can gather it was not the original purpose for humans. It may have been necessary at one time for one people that were chosen. I do not believe it is necessary anymore. Because I think we are back to where we started to some extent at least for those who believe in Jesus.
that religions fragment is not such a big deal; that each faction proclaims to be the ONLY true path has become the defining issue behind most o' the worst conflicts in modern human history. i would also posit that capitalism has become a religion o' sorts; maybe not in theory, but in practice...
Why are people religious because humans are spiritual and something more and something different then anything else in this universe just life on this planet seems very different than any other planet. For those who have no spiritual experience and see things only physical and know nothing else is very sad but many people have known and seen spiritual things even oldest tribes believed in spirit without religion. Religions created to control and rule over people is different than what there really is but there really is something more then just what we see if you believe it or not The reason religions got created is because there is more then just physical it also helps to keep Trace of history ancestry which is what all religion narrows down to created by mother father an ultimate male and female what this life here all really came from is the question people want to know not just a possible evolution of things.
What is the purpose of the man on the chair bang in the middle of the stage? If he is the moderator, they usually sit on the side, not exactly in the middle obstructing the screen behind.
The three great monotheistic religions happened to to come by people's of the deserts. Its easy to imagine that only one deity can lurk in the desert. If god appears on earth today a lot of popes, muftis and rabis will lose their jobs. Most religions dont preach the existence of god but that of the devil. If only the existence of god was the issue religions ould not survive very long
There are so many different views and opinions within both science and psychology so expecting one "true" expression of religion is kinda ridiculous. Clans and tribes grew all over the globe in different times and places. Religion reflects this, and who is to say each negates the others and something integral cannot be achieved?
Have you missed out one of the key factors in the need for/success of religion? That they provide the framework for the success of families. We know that society works best irf children have two parents etc. We also know that enduring pair-bonding does not come naturally: women crave more powerful, richer, stronger men and men crave younger, fertile women. Left to our own devices we get what we see in modern western society - the collapse of secular society. The beliefs offered by religions and philosophies across the world are different, but their rules regarding families are remarkably consistent.
"We also know that enduring pair-bonding does not come naturally: women crave more powerful, richer, stronger men and men crave younger, fertile women." That's a false dichotomy and the first half is simply not true. Humans have conflicting impulses regarding sex, bonding and families. Religion does play a role in regulating that, but so do many other social institutions, like marriage and parental rights.
Not sure what you mean by 'the success' of families? Are you talking about the social institution of marriage? Sure, it encourages marriage. Two-thirds of the prison population of the USA identify as Christians, so might as well also say it encourages crime.
Families predate religion by a long ways. Religion provides explanatory myths that maintain status quo, especially hierarchies, including patriarchy. Religions generally don't encourage the "nuclear" families that many religious people presume today. The Abrahamic religions in particular consider the basic family to be an extended, patriarchal, polygamous group. Marriage is used to cement membership, rank, and create alliances with other patriarchal groups - the ones getting married have little voice in it. The current Western fashion for monogamous marriages is a product of the European manorial system of the high middle ages. The idea that this monogamous family unit is the basis of society is a product of the late 19th century, second industrial revolution. As these ideas became normal, people reinterpreted their religion to make out that it was "always" that way.
Your talking like Atheism is anti family. I can think of a lot of families hurt by religion. Hate to tell you but most atheist will agree that a stable family is good for children. How does a Christian killing another Christians parents for heresy help with family stability.
@@njhoepner, marriage is a middle age concept....it won't take long to read a few verses of Genesis, which I believe was written before the time you stated.
(*^^*) This is an artistic proof of a created universe. When you paint a shadow it's the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it.
It's easy -- people don't want to accept personal responsibility for their own actions. By embracing invisible metaphysics which cannot be tested, measured or proved, that puts the blame on something other than themselves.
Why humans believe in god religion and supernatural? They don't want to accept finality of death. Wants to continue herafter or living and enjoying life one way or other! Hence heaven and hell! Reincarnations!
As always Dunbar is simply wonderful in his tone, kindness, and respect for the evolution of religion.Many elites, lots of academics types, have contempt(superiority) for those involved in religion.Dunbar doesn't have that.Religion is very human, bonds us and makes us feel good and helps with suffering.....so go to church.lol:)
How British monarchy evolved and why it endures? Shouldn't you get rid of it? Rather than explaining or defending it as some sort of eternal devine law?
There is definitely a lot to say for these insights and might even help humanity on its path for knowledge of self and better ability to live and work together.
It's amazing how many people posted that this video is in support of religion. He shows that religion can have a positive influence so argument done. Sigh. Skipping the issues on data collection, its a pretty good argument on why religion came into being and why it has persisted. As a humanist organization and his joke to the audience regarding all that you have been mising as non relgious, i assume he felt no need to express any of the many problems with religiin and the many reasons it is not needed. What it really broke down to is that it is still around because it is a familair methad to many to feel good. Which does help people live longer. But it is also without conscience as the rules of religion defy community union as it invariably alienates bewtween 15 and 80 percent of a community. You will feel better about yourself joining such a group but only if you are willing to harden your heart to certain other types of people.
No, this does not answer the fact that the archetypes are common not only across time but on every inhabited continent, and they're invariably associated with the planets. Yet in our current sky there's nothing particularly feminine about Venus, nor masculine about Mars yet this gender differentiation is consistent. There is no reason why this would be so given our current celestial environment, leaving no alternative but the conjecture that we once lived under a *very* different sky. The conventional notions of animism simply don't cut it.
So this man, I am sure a learned guy. But, he starts with the question (if I understood correctly) why people are religious in other words I thought he would go as the title of his talk boldly displayed on the screen says; how did religion evolve? So, to me the answer should be an attempt to provide the reason(s) why religion really got started. Instead, this "learned" man goes into telling us about the different forms of religion. This is what then I would call learned schmuckery!
Religion was born in a funeral home. Inconsolable grief can only find comfort in fantasy. Religion thrives by the grace of many a bitten tongue. Who wants to contradict a person who is suffering from inconsolable grief? But when, then is there room for truth? Maybe here, in comments of a UA-cam video.
As someone who was religious until my mid-thirties, religion was not any form of comfort or did it help in any way in dealing with reality but fostered a sick and deluded vision of reality that kept me in a mental state of thinking there existed magical beings that watched everything I did and thought and one who was constantly tempting me to do awful things that would upset the other one. It taught me to be intolerant of certain other people and look down on them and to verbally abuse them for being who they were. I always was uncomfortable with those feelings. Discovering the real truth behind human god beliefs and the religion I had been brought up to believe, I became a far better person, kinder and far more comfortable living in the real world that now is so obviously awesome as it really is, including the nasty bits of it too. The planet and the universe cares nothing about me or anything it holds within it. We have to care about each other because that's truly all we have to rely on in this one and only life we get.
Religion was a trap, and used for keeping the downtrodden from being violent. Emperors and his council studied Psychology and figured that most people are Insecure and need to know there's a supreme being with super powers that loves you, and if you follow his rules, and you do good deeds, you get a ticket to the Golden amusement park in the sky... I believe that people in power have always had their way.
muslim start their journey by learning "what is desire" and grow on how to handle bad desire, greed etc. and keep handling@managing our lust-bad desire-greed etc till the day we die
One reason he believes that it's just an emotional response, is because he's never had a spiritual response. He speaking on something which he doesn't have a clue about he might have some information, but he doesn't know what that information means he just thinks he does.
@@behtereen4187 Spiritual - relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things. Emotional - relating to a person's emotions. Emotions are a physical manifestation of a spirit reflected by reactions of the body and brain.
Religion binds. That which binds is finance. It is the opposite of faith, which divides. The Abrahamic faiths do not identify extortion as a sin. Adam Smith advises that this extortion is the substance of the practice of capitalism. The faiths are swindles of the capitalist religion of extortion for tribute, a practice obtaining for 15,000 years upon the Mongolian prairies.
1 Corinthians 5:11 "...you should not associate with a person who calls himself a believer but is immoral or greedy...". Pretty clearly stating that extortion is wrong!
@@DB-qw6xq Why then did all the churches abandon socialism instead of building it? They will deal with secular capitalists and secular fascists, but disavow the secular socialists. All the world's scriptural faiths fell to the last temptation.
So, why is there anything instead of nothing? Whatever a person believes about the answer to that question, it is a religious belief, i.e. a matter of faith.
@karlmahlman while faith is usually associated with religion, it is not exclusively so. Most non-religious people also have faith (in something, someone some theory, etc.).
@@wernerstapela4616 Well, I agree. For the Atheist who believes the universe has no creator, that is definitely a matter of faith. And to say Atheism is not a religious belief, is a distinction without a difference. So, I'm always a bit put off by speakers like this who talk condescendingly about other people's beliefs, when they themselves are obviously devout in what they believe.
@@karlmahlmann The presentation generally had holes in it, more focus on "origin", less on "endurance". On the subject of atheism I disagree, a non-belief cannot become a belief system. I don't believe in Peter Pan, I would hardly term that non-belief a belief system or faith.
very fascinating and informative lecture. However, why does the camera just show the speakers but not the slides which contain all the info about the lecturer's notes?
Major fault with these types videos.
I don’t think that they intended for this to be solely a UA-cam video. It was first and foremost a lecture/talk for the audience present in the auditorium. The UA-cam thing was an afterthought, granted it could have been edited with the slides later.🫤
...not so in the first 11 minutes...
Super informative. Thanks!
He is right when he says that social life can be stressful, people can be really nasty and horrible.
Create in me a clean heart, O God and renew a right spirit within me.
Thanks!
Problem with my former religion is that it severely constrained my freedom. I had to leave because of my need for freedom, to loosen up unbearable constraints.
Dunbar's number, and all the rest of it. Very interesting. So glad this topic is being explored more scientifically. Maybe the benefits of it can be incorporated into secular communities.
The oldest secular civilisation is Australian Aboriginal's dated at least 65,000 +years, Do some research outside your own racist ignorance please.
"wokism'" ( not early woke but what it's evolved into) is quite similar- to my knowledge there isn't trance states and not one guru, but the community, the conviction, guilt .. guilt issomething he didn't mention, but is a key factor in many- if not ask- religions
@@Gr88tful What has "wokism" evolved into, really? A right-wing authoritarian boogie man? Another thing to demonize? Soft-targets? I don't recall the history books being filled with world wars motivated by any form of "wokism". Unquestionable authoritarian right-wing propaganda, on the other hand, if one can look past the pretty uniforms, fills history books.
early religions were fear and ignorance, christianity and islam were deliberately created purely for control
Bring introduced to Dunbar number gives me an idea on what made modern humans migrate so quickly out of Africa
Prof Dunbar, i have an alternative reasoning why hunter gatherers were living in groups 20-50 people. Its a lot to do with food & sheltering resources that limits the range of how far they could forage. Only with the advent of agriculture 8-9K years back that they could build villages & and raise the carrying capacity of the group into the hundreds and later into the thousands which led to towns & cities in Mesopotamia, Uruk, Aztecs, Mohenjo daro-Harappa & even at the Yellow River, China. For your kind reconsideration. But to i support your hypothesis of >50 member hunter gatherer groups disintergrating becoz of social stress...that stress was the food & shelter limitations that were above the 'Carrying Capacity' of that population.🙏
I believe food and shelter played a minor role in the size of human bands or groups . It is human quarrelsome nature and passions whiich determined the size of the group. Some tribes like the Yanomami in the Amazon Jungle have still no chief and no concept of private property which results in deep jealosies and constant fights. Murder was very common as well as cannibalism .
You would be surprised how successful hunting and gathering groups can be. When resources are abundant and people are able to move to go where the food is, it's a very successful way to survive without hierarchies... which started with the advent of agriculture. The ones at the top prospered, and the field hands barely survived. Hence... today.
Secondly, small groups build amazingly strong social bonds and protect each other as do kin. Unlike today! Research has shown that beyond about 200 individuals, people lose familial type bonds.
@@luisgalleguillos4868Please show resources. There is much information that would disagree with your position.
It's multifaceted
This dung beetle has rolled a big ball of (bull)shit that looks nice and sounds plausible . (Cow shit, or shit of any ungulate works too.) Unfortunately, he has filled it with his
Own eggs that will hatch and roll more shit.
The main thesis here was set out by Emile Durkheim in 1915 in his “Elementary Forms of the Religious Life”, so mostly nothing new here. Nor true.
why humans developed religion:
1. Agency attribution (the noise in the bushes.)
2. Fear of the unknown, particularly death
3. Grief over the loss of loved ones
4. Promotes social cohesion, including parent and mate bonding and hierarchies.
That's no different now from 10,000 BC. Only the details have changed to reflect changes in science and social structure.
The promise of a life after death in a Heavenly Realm, with Divine Justice for the evil-doers is a strong incentive. What member of an oppressed class would not have a burning desire for this to be true?
Don't forget maintenance of social hierarchies and power structures. Religion is very useful for keeping those at the top safe and those at the bottom compliant.
Other reasons religious leaders can pretend they believe to get power, control and money...especially today
We no longer need to fear the dark
We know death better and life better
We understand them psychology of grief
We have many ways to promote social cohesion
The main details of change is that we have evolved beyond religion.
@@josephbelisle5792 And someday enough of us will realize it.
Maybe the point is “opting to make a firm commitment” gives peace - taking away many stresses - to the uncertainties humans face; it allows constant worries to take a nap, so to speak. Events may come along to revive the uncertainties but can be calmed again.
I prefer zen
@@ElizabethHalloway-nz7wb I was trying to find a way to agree with the message without being an all out advocate for any religious practice. I am no longer religious but people do still seem to seek it out as an option. Nothing against zen…whatever works.
@@sharonhearne5014can I ask what u put faith in for day to day life then… I’m struggling with finding anything for myself my Brian just won’t let me enjoy anything
@@jordancollings5379investigate mindfulness meditation, perhaps. Find joy in what is actually happening that you can rely on. The moment you are actually alive in.
The earliest and most lasting bonding agent is sport, a form of competition watched and participated by large groups .
Not really sure what you are getting at? Are you equating sports to the meaning of life. Is it a religion?
I do not think I quite get the context of what you are saying? Help
It'd have been good to see the slides
The videoman should zoom closer to the slides. I hardly can see anything, unless maybe if I see through a laptop.
I've had a lot of contact with the psychology profession and they say, universally that humans are social animals. This always confused me since being around people always made me uncomfortable. I kept my mouth shut but felt to be a bit of a freak. Professor Dunbar is the first I'v hear say we're NOT social beings. It makes me feel just a slight bit more normal. I thank you very much, I think I'll go out and make a friend.
Not exactly, human nature is very complicated and of fusion-fission social character.
Besides, the chemical for social bonding is not Endorphin, but Oxytocin, which comes by through touching or grooming.
Just Watched. Absolutely Brilliant !!! Talk .I . learned SO Much!!!! Very Funny at times as Well. Thankyou. Mr.R.Dunbar!!!
Prof. Dunbar: you mentioned in this excellent talk that the cults/groups that last the longest are the ones that forbid the most things that people tend to like doing. Do you have any data on why that is?
Because it lets a person expierence more Awh naturally and moments of Awh create god
@@jordancollings5379Those religions has laws to say their God allow or don't allow certain things, and because it's a God Law, that most of them willingly complied. And so, social justice and happiness is maintained.
I think most don't care whether it's true or not, they just like the comfort the delusion brings.
According to Lacan, reality can only be faced through fantasy.
trying to build a fake evidence... Humanity is just a cover.. wa can't be a good human without God. Simple truth that you don't want to accept...
And how do you know that it's a delusion?
Yeah… i feel you are right
@@invictus9976How do you know it a delusion? 1) if a watch needs a watchmaker, then the watchmaker would need a greater watchmaker 2) the watchmaker, "God", has had 14 billion years since the birth of the universe to clean up his mess, and has failed to do so, despite supposed, total power 3) neuroscience says that human consciousness is not possible without functioning brain tissue, 4) human beings come in too many shades of grey to get credibly segregated into Heaven or Hell, 5) No credible "God" would blame the sad state of creation upon the created.
Religion is sanctified superstitions, no better than a lucky horse shoe or rabbit's foot. Religion is organized neuroticism. Religion is a stench in the nostrils of rationality.
One omission in this great presentation was the place religion has played in the development of society beyond the simple village. Up until the 1800s a religious class (clerics) in tandem with the ruling order has regulated society. Not only has religion instructed individuals in how to behave ethically and morally but it has justified a ruling class order as being part of a divine order. For example, the mystique of King Charles's coronation in his holy oil anointing.
I consider religion as an essential ingredient in the evolution of human society and civilization. The big question is whether we have superseded it and got rid of it.
When I see the rise of authoritarian governments and extreme ideologies I do wonder. As people seek an all-encompassing cosmology (life's grand purpose & meaning) I do wonder if we should look deeper into humanity's religious impulse. Is it easy to live without this ultimate meaning and purpose?
Dunbar's picture is partial. His intent is verifiable-data limited. Other fascinating dimensions werte not discussed.
Ethically? The same ones that say works don't matter, good works won't get you heaven?
The way to Heaven is the corrupt way things get done in Corrupt/Communist countries - if you have the right contacts one gets ahead
Billions of Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists - entire families, women, children, even babies - will be set apart based on religion and callously dumped into gas chambers in hell!
Nazi ideas OPENLY promoted!
And you are totally blind to all this
"I consider religion as an essential ingredient in the evolution of human society and civilization" I wonder what the "cultures" that enjoy their life peacefully in America before "religion" may think about that statement.
@@joshuatoledo8844 This comes from a slave mentality - ancient people living under Kings, Dictators used them as a template for God - think Putin
Their goal - Heaven - pleasures of the flesh
And guess who says - "you get that only if you go thru me"?
Reason why they say Heaven is GIVEN, not EARNED!
In a World where we look down upon yes-men, sycophants, prostitutes for begging their way to the good life - these religions say that is the way to go & amazingly even the best of minds, most moral of minds blindly nod!
Hence - Religion ie God is essential or else how are we supposed to get that easy lazy life in Heaven?
@@joshuatoledo8844 The Native Americans had and have their own religions. Also, even a cursory glance at the history of Native American tribes before the advent of European settlement/conquest would show you that their lives were anything but peaceful. They were just as warlike as any other human society on the planet.
Essentially it's about exerting power and control without reverting to too much violence.
An extremely informative lecture.
I learned a lot.
But WHY did it evolve ?
Being a student of history myself, I was waiting for Professor Dunbar to describe the moment💥in time when an ancestor of ours suddenly realized that they themselves were going to die someday. That all life had a limited time-span. Then they realized that they didn’t want to leave it all behind - leave the experience of living. They were not able to accept that. “Don’t worry though, there is an afterlife.”, they said.
It's said in the book in one of the early chapters.
Yes, it’s explained in the book. I recommend you read it, very interesting.
Clearly Christianity did not "evolve" as it was founded by Jesus of Nazareth, and there is plenty of evidence for his existence. There are of course many "natural religions", where individuals have sought, through reason, something beyond their own existence and come up with ideas of what this could be. Some elements of these natural religions are relevant, some are either just impossible or even dangerous, and they should rightly be rejected in this respect. There is clearly in human history a desire in the human spirit to find something beyond the self (Dunbar calls this the "psychological quintessentially human impulse"), but this should not just be rubbished or dismissed by a purely rational-based thought process (e.g. an atheist ideology with intent etc). To do so is to minimise human potential and stifle the human spirit to search using both faith and reason (also used in the scientific method). This is a dangerous and very dark road that people like Dunbar want to take people down! Dunbar's "psychological basis for the quintessentially human impulse" which feeds into his "mystical stance" theory is somewhat relevant, in that the human spirit, unlike the animal world, is capable of looking beyond the self and searching for a "higher being", but to apply this to the concept of "religion" (i.e. all religions) is just inaccurate and wrong on both a faith and rational basis, because for Christianity there is written evidence of the miracles of Christ, so faith in Christ is based on both faith and reason (or faith and evidence). This takes Christianity out of the realms of the atheist's evolutionary agenda on why "faith" exists as either an 'impulse' or a mere 'stance'.
You could say any social dancing community creates numerous friends and good health
Religion emerges in deep jungles and on desert islands. Maybe its a response to something real in nature. But the reason people turn to religion in civilization is that the secular society is somehow inadequate or intolerable. That's why the secularization hypothesis holds true only in some modernized places and not others. When the secular society is so well run that people don't need anything else they don't need religion. So do it in the right order.
I think that’s a very valid point. Scandinavia where there’s the highest mean and average standard of living and happiness levels have been very secular for a while. Now in the uk and US but also throughout Europe and other continents too as societies are disintegrating, there’s a popular resurgence in religious involvement.
The good life is not what you think.
Don't tell me, the families finally ran out of plates.
Organized Religion evolved from folk practices which was practiced by all tribes globally. Folk practices started worshipped whatever they feared to start with and whatever it helped them.
Organized religion evolved with the intention to control the population so that it is easier to extract money and power.
In this the pioneer is Zoraster who first invented the theory of heaven and hell. Judaism,Christianity, Islam all copies of it tweaking it.
Why people are religious is because of conditioning from the day they were born.
It's time religion is relegated to museums. If not now will happen in the coming century.
Religion started from people wondering where their dead relatives went to.
Dunbar's theory is a bit more convincing that yours!
It's been that time for a long time, hasn't it? Yet it persists.
Why does organised religion persist is his exact question, & he gathers data to understand this phenomenon.
You, in contrast, with no evidence other than your gut reaction, assert your great wisdom as the superior prognostication.
Do you comprehend the distinction between a theory supported entirely by anecdote & one sustained by data & formal scholarship? I suspect not.
This is one reason why academics adopted formal attire & behaviour, so that a distinction may be evident between ppl that formally study things & those that simply assert opinions.
Not to say that opinions have no merit, since formal study inevitably starts there; but that's the point - it STARTS there.
The modern trend is for informality in all things, so now recognition of the value of scholarship rests upon the perception of the audience.
Ppl now assert that their opinions have value equal to the conclusions đrawn from extensive formal disciplined study; which is to say that in failing to understand their own ignorance they instead assert it as fact.
The term idiocracy defines & describes the kind of system of knowledge & governance that results from such absurd self promotion of opinion over studious truth seeking.
@@chrisfreebairn870 that's a lot of unsupported verbiage mr scholar. Hint: if you have a point, make it.
Ancient people lived under Kings, dictators & used them as a template for God
Hence we get all the - get down on our knees, beg, grovel, blindly obey(Kill my OWN innocent son? yes Master - and from that we got Terrorism - "God wants you to kill those unbelievers they are against God, kill them and God will be pleased")
sing his praises and hope for a reward - eternal pleasures of the flesh sitting around doing nothing shamelessly sponging off God
Think Putin - think any dictator how they reward their yes-men, sycophants and prostitutes
These are the top Gods in the 21st century!
Great and entertaining talk by Dunbar. He concentrated his talk mainly in events / histroy in Europe and Britain. He did not give an explanation to the phenomenon of mega-churches in US and large and enduring cults in US (e.g. Scientology) , South Korea (e.g. Unification Church, Shincheonji, and many, many. SK seems to be filled with cults / fringe religions), China (Fa Lun Gong, and knowing some Chinese culture and history I do see why this cult is so successful), and other places (now Africa seems to be breeding many Christianity-related cults) other than a passing mention of hero worship. I am sure that he has his theory and explanation of these phenomenon. Hope he will be interviewed or give talks on those subjects.
There is only so much time for a talk. The entire world of a subject can't be covered in that limited time.
@@cypherknot Exactly, that is why I said: "I am sure that he has his theory and explanation of these phenomenon. Hope he will be interviewed or give talks on those subjects."
Mass Churches are, I believe, a symptom of mass delusion syndrome -- the more crazies you put together the more the size of the craziness grows, like a football crowd which irrationally stampedes to their death.
I love the use of the word Cult
If I told you there was an organization that allowed pedophiles to freely molest little kids of their followers, would you not call it a cult?
If I told you that this organization has much blood on their hands - they mass murdered a lot of innocent people for not sharing their delusions, would you not call it a Cult?
But hey, get enough members and now you are a respected organization
Might Makes Right - that's all
Would you prefer that he speak from a position of ignorance?
The prof states that “ no one joins a religion for theological reasons, only emotional, or your born into it. Well, that’s simply not true. Many westerners, such as myself, joined Vedanta for “ theological” reasons, not emotional. Vedanta has a very sophisticated metaphysical system which isn’t based on devotion (necessarily) or emotion.
Sounds like your feelings led you to become a Hindu perhaps?
This guy is very challenged by the logic of cause and effect. Typical of those whose entire world view is based on false assumptions
Which false assumptions?
And, what are your assumptions and beliefs relevant to this topic?
@@larryparis925 The false assumption that religions are created by people only, for starters. A very naive humanist conceit.
So humans invent religions originally to explain the natural world they had to deal with in order to survive. Then, as human societies evolved, the religions evolved to match...human society becomes settled, you get settled religions. Human society becomes hierarchical, the gods become hierarchical. Shows pretty clearly what religion is.
How do people study this and no end up depressed
Congrats on getting everything wrong. Did you watch the video?
@@jordancollings5379 Why would we be depressed?
@@VisibleMantra-c1x OK, prove it...what did I get wrong?
It's an idea that has come under a lot of criticism and contradiction. Clearly Christianity did not "evolve" as it was founded by Jesus of Nazareth, and there is plenty of evidence for his existence. There are of course many "natural religions", where individuals have sought, through reason, something beyond their own existence and come up with ideas of what this could be. Some elements of these natural religions are relevant, some are either just impossible or even dangerous, and they should rightly be rejected in this respect. There is clearly in human history a desire in the human spirit to find something beyond the self (Dunbar calls this the "psychological quintessentially human impulse"), but this should not just be rubbished or dismissed by a purely rational-based thought process (e.g. an atheist ideology with intent etc). To do so is to minimise human potential and stifle the human spirit to search using both faith and reason (also used in the scientific method). This is a dangerous and very dark road that people like Dunbar want to take people down! Dunbar's "psychological basis for the quintessentially human impulse" which feeds into his "mystical stance" theory is somewhat relevant, in that the human spirit, unlike the animal world, is capable of looking beyond the self and searching for a "higher being", but to apply this to the concept of "religion" (i.e. all religions) is just inaccurate and wrong on both a faith and rational basis, because for Christianity there is written evidence of the miracles of Christ, so faith in Christ is based on both faith and reason (or faith and evidence). This takes Christianity out of the realms of the atheist's evolutionary agenda on why "faith" exists as either an 'impulse' or a mere 'stance'.
The thing that is missing in the Dunbar lecture is how the secular world has emerged as a powerful force after thousands of domination by religious beliefs.
lol. The concept of the "secular" is a product of the theology of St Thomas Aquinas (1225 - 1274), he invented the idea and it is he drew a famous distinction between what is known by reason and what is known by revelation, concerning the natural and the supernatural worlds. Atheism ironically owes its existence to a Catholic saint!
An excellent and most entertaining talk. i am most fortunate in sharing one great thing with Professor Dunbar. He and I both exist in each others 'Dunbar number' having been close friends for over 50 years.
Dunbar Domination #1. Nice.
Please explain why HE left out Australian Aboriginals , so your as racist as he is, FUBOTH.
Is this data applies to British churches, because in America the numbers in tens of thousands
Much as I respect Dunbar’s work, I find the attitude here (and he’s not always like this, because I’ve heard him in conversation with some of our indigenous thinkers here) infuriating in its oversights and omissions, and its implicit condescension.
The whole notion of evolutionary psychology, along with allied notions of stage development and civilisational progress, borders on the colonial/imperialist.
He seems to be relying on orthodox hypotheses of development/change that, amongst others, Graeber and Wengrove have taken a blowtorch to (The Dawn of Everything). His epistemological disposition is disembodied, deracinated, and decontextualised, striving to draw useful generalisations about ways of knowing and experiencing that are opaque to the limited paradigm of scientism. Which is unsurprising, so smug and self-satisfied are we with our technology and presumed intellectual superiority.
Like, what can we really determine of the animate world when our insentience, our brutality and our technology has caused it to retreat from us? If you cut down all the sacred groves, what do you seriously expect will happen to the other-than-human entities instantiated in the web of life there?
(If that sounds too woo-woo, just think mycelium.) We have trespassed gravely - so gravely that how and upon what has become invisible to us.
What is intrinsic to religions is not just mystical froth and bubble, not just social inclusion, and certainly not just a prosthetic aide for the psychologically crippled. It’s got something to do with our responsibility and duty in the network of planetary life with which we have horrendously interfered. The problems we face today as a culture derive from the failure to rightly situate ourselves in the world, to fully acknowledge, respect and participate in an interdependent ecosystem of different voices and agencies. We will not get out of this one by defining targets and measuring metrics; and we will not get out of it by utilitarian models as limited as the one Dunbar uses. We must find more viable and enlivening modes of thinking, feeling and living where belonging again becomes sacred, embedded in the Animate Everything. I’d suggest that spiritual sensibilities and practices can hold some key to what life requires of us at a time of profound trouble, when being grown up demands we come to understand obligation and responsibility.
None of this is a blanket defence of religions, past or present; but it is a plea for epistemic humility: to approach them with some respect and to take heed of their better inclinations wherever we might find them.
Yes, infuriating to have a smart guy so blithely assume that nothing that happens in a trance has any significance beyond the social behavior that it facilitates.
@@gooddaysahead1the world doesn’t need to become rational, it’s TOO rationally based. It hangs its hat on being rational. What it needs become and shall become is itself. No amount of brain mass or lack thereof interferes with becoming ourselves. Stick around, we are interesting but not because we think but rather because we are and neither you nor I has or will stop us from being and becoming our beingness. Go outside and watch a bird fly and feel it (don’t wonder about its thoughts, notice it being). And if that is not sufficient for you to understand my simple words, go outside and feel the wind and watch it ripple through the trees. Do not wonder what it is thinking, just notice it being, being and becoming. Religion and religiosity is about thinking, it’s okay to think and of course to think rationally however it is NOT WHO WE ARE. Thinking and doing does not explain us, being and becoming expresses who we are. I’m using thoughts, concepts, words but really at its essence I’m communicating my beingingness to your beingingness. Allow. If more humans used telepathic ways of communicating I would not even need to express these words to you. Again, it’s fine to think and communicate thoughts, it’s simply not the ultimate way of being whether its rational thoughts or irrational thoughts. Be, become.
You’ll enjoy picking this apart! LOL The masculine (yep masculine energies) took over the planet and projected the rationale for the take over onto the feminine energies. It tells us when to jump and how high.The masculine perpetrated and has perpetuated that we are not one and thereby we have to reconcile fear and self preservation by taking action against “the other” while trying not to destroy everyone and everything. A take over cannot be rampant, it must be controlled. Control must be done mostly through competition and a warring way of interacting, which by definition is hate thy neighbor. The masculine by default had to come up with all types of ways to regulate fear and self preservation so as to prevent annihilation and complete collapse. And it bolstered itself by distraction and nonsense. Control and distraction came in the various forms of religion, govt, policing, monitoring, taking control of medicine (healing modalities) and food production (land, sea, and air) as well as reproduction. Control is in part the basis for every religion, every form of govt, every man made bastardized technology (rather than utilization of the pure technologies of earth and the universe), every relationship and every fiber that exists in the physical world. These days it has been scientifically observed that toxic substances have infiltrated every living cell that has been investigated. Again, we are ultimately one. Nothing exists as it’s self if every other part of the whole does not exist. Additionally nothing in essence can truly be destroyed so everything has value and that specific value is what we humans call eternal. We are returning to the feminine (harmony within being), nothing will stop it because everyone is sick of the distortion of power, control, loss of sovereign being, terror, horror and slow, painful ways of usurping the self. Yes, I put this entirely at the feet of the oppositional masculine (of which is primarily embodied by males but everyone has bought into it to an extent). Not to knock you personally but I highly doubt this will clear things up for you as to what I mean by “ultimately who we are”. Either you know this in your core or you are mentally processing. Regardless, you won’t be left out.
Evolutionary psychology and colonialism. Really? They don't even occur in the same centuries. Your moralistic posturing reeks of religious zealotry.
@@gooddaysahead1 You cannot understand my simple words, as you put it rational words. Did I say do not use rationality? I said rational thought is not the end all be all. Why do so many who say they want rational thought to predominate throw out the baby with the bath water? We are being and becoming. Our rational way of explaining ourselves does NOT in anyway diminish this truth. Don’t let it diminish you any further. Get outside more and breathe and be.
religion: the oldest grift
Collections were made to help poor women who had kids and their husbands had died. The Catholic Church keeps making those collections exactly the same way, as it did 2000 years ago, it's the same Church after all.
@@invictus9976They stoned women and men, after street accusations. The good they have done pales in comparison to the evil they hide.
Fascinating talk. Thank you. And as evolution is an ongoing process.. all this nuggets of info are particles of evolutionary atoms as building blocks for whats to come..
In one of his videos on UA-cam, he had a slide that listed Confucianism and Taoism with other religions. The "West" have a deep misunderstaning of these 2 things since the early Western scholars and Christian missionaries reported it that way back to their homeland. This is a complicated subject to explain is a comment. Suffice to say, Confucianism is definitely NOT a religion. The classic texts of Confuscianism did not invole thenselves with religion, god, creator, or dieties. They are not religious texts. From reading the texts, one could surmise that they perceived that there was some power above superior to humans in the realm of天, which mean sky; this is a concept that has been "taken for granted" throughout history of that land. Since it is not in the realm of human activities, it is not of any interest to the scholars who formed the Conduscious school of philosophy. They were involved in morals, ethics, political philosophy, and the "proper ways" to behave in life and the "proper ways" to govern a society and for rulers to behave, decorum and rituals in the Royal Court...etc. in order to achieve a peaceful and stable society. Taoism is a philosophy, and the classic Taoist texts are NOT religious texts. Later some indigenous folk religons usurped the the term Taoism and formed an amalgamation of folk beliefs, folk dieties, and some Taoism phiolosophy into a mess known as Taosim the religioin.
The Confucianism is just >550yrs BC. China was well under an Agricultural Innovation a few thousand years before. It is a far cry from the Hunter Gatherer Society. So i think he has no reason to try to lump that theory into the Chinese Civillisation. I agree with you that Confucianism is not a relligion👍🙏
@@mukeshsharma-iq8dp It was my bad for not clear enough. He was referring to the "Axial Age": Confuciansim, Taoism, Hinduism, Janism, Buddhism, Zorastrianism, Judaism.... etc. However, since he was talking about "Axial Age", he really should have separate lists of philosophies and of religions. But on that slide, he only had one list which lumped Confucianism and Taoism with a bunch of religions an no mention or list of the other major philosophies that emerged at that time. Since that was a talk on "emergence of religion", it could give a lot of people who are not knowledgeable of China and Asia the wrong impression that Confucianism and Taoism are religions since that has been the "treaditional/ "popular view in the West. Dr. Dunbar most likely knows better and he just designed the slide poorly.
I don't know on an academic level how one should call the "religion" Taoism since those people call themselves "Taoism", but in fact that "religion" is just an amalgamation of folk beliefs, folk dieties, with some Taoism phiolosophy thrown it.
@@CKWong-jk5st I totally agree with you. Thank you for sharing a detailed explanation that in itself helps people to understand the Chinese Culture & Philosophy🙏
Taoism, A Mystical Philosophy, as written in The Tao Te Ching:
-VII- Heaven and Earth are long-enduring. The reason Heaven and Earth are able to long-endure and continue is because they do not live of, for, or by themselves. This is how they continue and endure.
-X- When the intellect and soul are held together in one embrace, they can be kept from separating. When one gives undivided attention to the vital breath, and brings it to the utmost degree of pliancy, one can become as a tender babe. When one has cleansed away the most mysterious insights of the imagination, one can become without a flaw.
-XXV- There was something undefined and complete, coming into existence before Heaven and Earth. It was still and formless, standing alone, undergoing no change, reaching everywhere, and in no danger of being exhausted. It may be regarded as the Mother of all things. I do not know Its name, and I designate It the Tao, the Way, or the Course. Making a further effort to give it a name, I call it The Great, and passes on in a constant flow. Passing on, it becomes remote. Having become remote, it returns. Therefore the Tao is Great; Heaven is Great; Earth is Great; and the true sage is also Great. In the Universe there are Four that are Great, and the true sage is one of the Four. Man takes his law from the Earth; Earth takes its law from Heaven; Heaven takes its law from the Tao, and The Law of the Tao is: ' 'That-It-Is' ' and the Being of ' 'All-That-Is' '.
TAOism is really about universal logic, in fact, if you go deeper into it you'll realize that the Yin Yang principle represents the GUT that science is still searching for. Traditional TAOism is just too obscure to be understood for what it is by most materialistic scientists (paradoxically since it scientifically speaking materializes everything including what is usually termed "spiritual", in the name of universal Oneness). Niels Bohr was very fascinated with traditional TAOism and his theories about quantum physics was probably for a good part inspired by it, but he didn't really seem to realize though that Yin Yang (polarity) is the fundamental principle in physics that explains everything else. The American philosopher Walter Russell did understand this however. Back in 1921 has was given complete insight into the logic of the universe through a 39 day long divine revelation, and he spent the rest of his life creating a complete "new age" science based on that insight. In reality this science is plain TAO logic explained in modern scientific terms, and he and his wife seemed to realize that at some point, as she changed her name to Lao after Lao Tzu. Nikola Tesla seemed to be the only scientist at that time who fully understood and recognized Russell's ideas, but he told Russell to "lock down his knowledge for a thousand years for humanity wasn't ready for it yet". Russell was considering this but decided not to do it anyway, so his works are available today but still not widely recognized or understood.
There are three causes of religion. The first is fear of death, so all religions promise “life after death,” be it heaven, Valhalla, reincarnation etc. The second is insurance against catastrophe. “Please God doctors say my son will die, please perform a miraculous healing, as you have before!” The third reason is loneliness. When you’re so boring that nobody wants to talk to listen to you, God always listens and with a little imagination, will speak to you.
Wow you are brilliant. You solved the mystery.
@@mairca80pais96Another smug atheist. They always have the facts.
“The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man - state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world...
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.”
― Karl Marx
Would have been better if we could have seen the slides! Excellent lecture however,
Humans invented religion for one reason... They're afraid to die. Every religion provides for pie-in-the-sky eternal life.
Not true. Look at the older Judaism of the Hebrew Bible. They did not have a concept of the afterlife. The new testament mentions the Sadducees sect did not believe in life after death either
Nope. Judaism consistently avoided the after-life sometime around the time of the temple getting destroyed a second time, in that case, by the Roman empire. Even to this day, you just don’t find Jews dwelling on an afterlife.
However, religion often makes the life to come even more fearful than current life, with a universal day of eternal judgment. That is frightening enough to want many of us to wish that religion is not true.
@@musicmasterplayer4532 I don't disagree. The thing I take issue with is the assertion that all religions promote an afterlife. This is demonstrably false, as I described above.
Typical ill-informed idea! Clearly Christianity did not "evolve" as it was founded by Jesus of Nazareth, and there is plenty of evidence for his existence. There are of course many "natural religions", where individuals have sought, through reason, something beyond their own existence and come up with ideas of what this could be. Some elements of these natural religions are relevant, some are either just impossible or even dangerous, and they should rightly be rejected in this respect. There is clearly in human history a desire in the human spirit to find something beyond the self (Dunbar calls this the "psychological quintessentially human impulse"), but this should not just be rubbished or dismissed by a purely rational-based thought process (e.g. an atheist ideology with intent etc). To do so is to minimise human potential and stifle the human spirit to search using both faith and reason (also used in the scientific method). This is a dangerous and very dark road that people like Dunbar want to take people down! Dunbar's "psychological basis for the quintessentially human impulse" which feeds into his "mystical stance" theory is somewhat relevant, in that the human spirit, unlike the animal world, is capable of looking beyond the self and searching for a "higher being", but to apply this to the concept of "religion" (i.e. all religions) is just inaccurate and wrong on both a faith and rational basis, because for Christianity there is written evidence of the miracles of Christ, so faith in Christ is based on both faith and reason (or faith and evidence). This takes Christianity out of the realms of the atheist's evolutionary agenda on why "faith" exists as either an 'impulse' or a mere 'stance'.
Fabulous🗝️
love this
I do wonder if religions and other belief systems (including material rationalism) are metaphoric. They are pointers. They are humanity's best efforts to approximate what ultimate reality and certainly are about. We are mistaken to think they will potentially give us existence's full truth.
This is no excuse not to try but the humbly appreciate what we are about.
Not the most organised nor engaging of speakers but I found it informative nevertheless. Thank you.
I found it somewhat relevant, but also misleading. Clearly Christianity did not "evolve" as it was founded by Jesus of Nazareth, and there is plenty of evidence for his existence. There are of course many "natural religions", where individuals have sought, through reason, something beyond their own existence and come up with ideas of what this could be. Some elements of these natural religions are relevant, some are either just impossible or even dangerous, and they should rightly be rejected in this respect. There is clearly in human history a desire in the human spirit to find something beyond the self (Dunbar calls this the "psychological quintessentially human impulse"), but this should not just be rubbished or dismissed by a purely rational-based thought process (e.g. an atheist ideology with intent etc). To do so is to minimise human potential and stifle the human spirit to search using both faith and reason (also used in the scientific method). This is a dangerous and very dark road that people like Dunbar want to take people down! Dunbar's "psychological basis for the quintessentially human impulse" which feeds into his "mystical stance" theory is somewhat relevant, in that the human spirit, unlike the animal world, is capable of looking beyond the self and searching for a "higher being", but to apply this to the concept of "religion" (i.e. all religions) is just inaccurate and wrong on both a faith and rational basis, because for Christianity there is written evidence of the miracles of Christ, so faith in Christ is based on both faith and reason (or faith and evidence). This takes Christianity out of the realms of the atheist's evolutionary agenda on why "faith" exists as either an 'impulse' or a mere 'stance'.
The definition of religion is: ‘That to which we are bound.’ So it appears to be in the human DNA. It is expressed as allegiance to or worship of an intelligence that is greater than human intelligence and in which humans and all of nature shares.
Atheists do not believe that there is any intelligence greater than human intelligence and nature is seen as just elemental; arising from elements without intelligence as materialism; matter without intelligence, or everything occurring randomly without a prototype.
Atheism come up with ideologies in place of religion; there is eliminative materialism and also now talk of trans humanism or humans embedded with technology.
Clearly Christianity did not "evolve" as it was founded by Jesus of Nazareth, and there is plenty of evidence for his existence. There are of course many "natural religions", where individuals have sought, through reason, something beyond their own existence and come up with ideas of what this could be. Some elements of these natural religions are relevant, some are either just impossible or even dangerous, and they should rightly be rejected in this respect. There is clearly in human history a desire in the human spirit to find something beyond the self (Dunbar calls this the "psychological quintessentially human impulse"), but this should not just be rubbished or dismissed by a purely rational-based thought process (e.g. an atheist ideology with intent etc). To do so is to minimise human potential and stifle the human spirit to search using both faith and reason (also used in the scientific method). This is a dangerous and very dark road that people like Dunbar want to take people down! Dunbar's "psychological basis for the quintessentially human impulse" which feeds into his "mystical stance" theory is somewhat relevant, in that the human spirit, unlike the animal world, is capable of looking beyond the self and searching for a "higher being", but to apply this to the concept of "religion" (i.e. all religions) is just inaccurate and wrong on both a faith and rational basis, because for Christianity there is written evidence of the miracles of Christ, so faith in Christ is based on both faith and reason (or faith and evidence). This takes Christianity out of the realms of the atheist's evolutionary agenda on why "faith" exists as either an 'impulse' or a mere 'stance'.
42:39 just finished flicking through slides
Yeah . . . the problem with this godder stuff is that no one mentions non-belief, which has always been there too. My family ditched the godder stuff beginning around 1790.
Wrong. The Gospels deal directly with non-belief. A man came to Jesus asking for healing for his daughter. Jesus answers you must believe to be healed. The man answers, "I believe, Lord. Help my UNBELIEF". And there is much more in the Bible regarding human struggle for faith demonstrating that it is a normal condition. Jesus heals the man's daughter anyway showing that God does not expect perfect belief, nor faith in his people.
@@glennsimonsen8421 This is all hearsay, not evidence.
Great talk - thank you. I am very pleased to have escaped.
Alice
Me to!
Alice? Of Wonderland fame? I never thought we'd hear from you again. Welcome back from the rabbit hole!
@@lauriemayne7436 You are so very welcome.
Should I say, Laurie Partridge of The Partridge Family fame?
Clearly, you remember me and I hope you have moved on with better thinking and logic.
@@alicedeen720 Moved on? From where? I wasn't down the rabbit hole. At least I don't think I was. It's hard to tell.
@@lauriemayne7436 OK be well.
Historian and poet Barbara Mor---the clapping/singing/dancing group raises energies in their own midst that becomes to each a kind of experience of Divinity (immanent in Nature and the body); and the rituals and values that emerge from this become the beliefs of a particular group. The more those become divorced from Nature, the body and direct/shared experience, the more dead the religion becomes. So our deep discontent with "established" religion is still in our bones, and that's a good thing.
I gave up belief in god or any religion by age 23. I am now 80 and have felt no need to believe in anything supernatural. This is the last time I will spend any more brain power on studying about religion because I think it is all made up and has no validity in the real world. This lecture made no sense to me at all. Plus this person is a horrible speaker with much stuttering so I could not follow his train of thought. “God is on my side” is the battle cry of all warring nations and is responsible for so much suffering and death through the ages. Many say that to be moral, we must follow religious teachings of the Bible, and I wonder if they have ever read it!! That “book” recounts horrific tales of murder.
Mortality denial softens your brain, so to speak. Our urge to live is in conflict with the reality of our inevitable deaths. We are vulnerable to any irrational idea that can soothe the cognaitive dissonance. Don’t fear death, it will be just like before you were born.
Religion and religious behavior is usually given to rituals, ideas and doctrines that are complex and can not be explained in simple terms! This means religion is a glomerate of many diverse issues and things. Now, to study something, it is important to define it in first place otherwise many diverse things are being studied and hope to make sense of sonething common and deep in us!
Ritual is part of our nature, why we have award shows
Ancient people lived under Kings, Dictators and used them as a template for God
Hence we get the - get down on our knees, beg, grovel, blindly obey, sing his praises and hope for a reward(Heaven - eternal pleasures of the flesh)
No different from yes-men, sycophants, prostitutes who beg, grovel, blindly obey and sing the praises of the rich & powerful hoping for a reward - a life of ease & comfort
Sad you can see none of this
Great lecture. But could you not arrange it in such a way that we could see his slides clearly as well?
Just read ‘The Evolution Of God’ by Robert Wright. He explains in detail how it went from Hunter Gatherers belief and fear in the power of nature and their dependence on a benefactor that they might in some small way be able to communicate with, the gods of wind, rain, sun etc through to modern day religion. I find this talk to be a little unfocused and confusing.
Watched all of it 52:08
Religions are the mother of consciousness…
Religion filled the social and emotional comfort and guarantee for individuals when the close bonded hunter gather social life gradually faded.
Acceptance of science, getting defined answers of live issues and commerce supporting needs of life, emotions are neglected to be rediscovered.
Knowledge or meditative practices had rescued some but too difficult for masses.
Clearly Christianity did not "evolve" as it was founded by Jesus of Nazareth, and there is plenty of evidence for his existence. There are of course many "natural religions", where individuals have sought, through reason, something beyond their own existence and come up with ideas of what this could be. Some elements of these natural religions are relevant, some are either just impossible or even dangerous, and they should rightly be rejected in this respect. There is clearly in human history a desire in the human spirit to find something beyond the self (Dunbar calls this the "psychological quintessentially human impulse"), but this should not just be rubbished or dismissed by a purely rational-based thought process (e.g. an atheist ideology with intent etc). To do so is to minimise human potential and stifle the human spirit to search using both faith and reason (also used in the scientific method). This is a dangerous and very dark road that people like Dunbar want to take people down! Dunbar's "psychological basis for the quintessentially human impulse" which feeds into his "mystical stance" theory is somewhat relevant, in that the human spirit, unlike the animal world, is capable of looking beyond the self and searching for a "higher being", but to apply this to the concept of "religion" (i.e. all religions) is just inaccurate and wrong on both a faith and rational basis, because for Christianity there is written evidence of the miracles of Christ, so faith in Christ is based on both faith and reason (or faith and evidence). This takes Christianity out of the realms of the atheist's evolutionary agenda on why "faith" exists as either an 'impulse' or a mere 'stance'.
According to Wikipedia, on September 3, 2023, the utopian commune of new harmony was centered in Indiana, not Nebraska as the lecturer indicates.
he is conflating cults with religions, also the social bonding effect is interesting and important but religion has way more meaning. they 'did the research' but the research was focusing on a tiny sliver of the phenomenon therefore he doesnt have anything to say about religion
Some religions ARE cults & attempt to indoctrinate communities
The only difference between a cult and a religion is time.
@@supplican
Not just time.
Size is key. The larger the body of believers the greater the chance of it being classed as a religion rather than as a cult.
If he is so right, why are people abandoning religion like never before?
Not true
Yours is a naive and provincial view. Christianity is growing rapidly in Africa, Asia and South America.
Is that you, Grandpa? I thought you were in Heaven? Oh, wait, that's right, Heaven is bullshit. You're just dead. Great talk.@@glennsimonsen8421
True. Also Islam is growing very fast around the world.@@glennsimonsen8421
Can the slides be reproduced separately?
Re: Opening summary.
I wonder if there was a period before animist beliefs, when humans had no concept of the supernatural. Our most remote ancestors did not differentiate between the living and the not living? They did not really understand life? Consider a stream for instance - it could "die" during the dry season and be "reborn" again during the rainy season.
THIER IS NO GOD NO HEAVEN WHEN YOU DIE ITS THE END
Typical ill-informed idea! Clearly Christianity did not "evolve" as it was founded by Jesus of Nazareth, and there is plenty of evidence for his existence. There are of course many "natural religions", where individuals have sought, through reason, something beyond their own existence and come up with ideas of what this could be. Some elements of these natural religions are relevant, some are either just impossible or even dangerous, and they should rightly be rejected in this respect. There is clearly in human history a desire in the human spirit to find something beyond the self (Dunbar calls this the "psychological quintessentially human impulse"), but this should not just be rubbished or dismissed by a purely rational-based thought process (e.g. an atheist ideology with intent etc). To do so is to minimise human potential and stifle the human spirit to search using both faith and reason (also used in the scientific method). This is a dangerous and very dark road that people like Dunbar want to take people down! Dunbar's "psychological basis for the quintessentially human impulse" which feeds into his "mystical stance" theory is somewhat relevant, in that the human spirit, unlike the animal world, is capable of looking beyond the self and searching for a "higher being", but to apply this to the concept of "religion" (i.e. all religions) is just inaccurate and wrong on both a faith and rational basis, because for Christianity there is written evidence of the miracles of Christ, so faith in Christ is based on both faith and reason (or faith and evidence). This takes Christianity out of the realms of the atheist's evolutionary agenda on why "faith" exists as either an 'impulse' or a mere 'stance'.
The only issue I have with this is the poor audio quality due to on-scene speaker feedback causing that damn high-pitched ring every time he speaks clearly into the microphone.
Their sound engineer must be deaf.
Hypocrisy is a reason why people become hostile to religion.
Humans are inherently sinful. Christianity acknowledges this. Obviously we are hypocrites because we are human.
Clearly Christianity did not "evolve" as it was founded by Jesus of Nazareth, and there is plenty of evidence for his existence. There are of course many "natural religions", where individuals have sought, through reason, something beyond their own existence and come up with ideas of what this could be. Some elements of these natural religions are relevant, some are either just impossible or even dangerous, and they should rightly be rejected in this respect. There is clearly in human history a desire in the human spirit to find something beyond the self (Dunbar calls this the "psychological quintessentially human impulse"), but this should not just be rubbished or dismissed by a purely rational-based thought process (e.g. an atheist ideology with intent etc). To do so is to minimise human potential and stifle the human spirit to search using both faith and reason (also used in the scientific method). This is a dangerous and very dark road that people like Dunbar want to take people down! Dunbar's "psychological basis for the quintessentially human impulse" which feeds into his "mystical stance" theory is somewhat relevant, in that the human spirit, unlike the animal world, is capable of looking beyond the self and searching for a "higher being", but to apply this to the concept of "religion" (i.e. all religions) is just inaccurate and wrong on both a faith and rational basis, because for Christianity there is written evidence of the miracles of Christ, so faith in Christ is based on both faith and reason (or faith and evidence). This takes Christianity out of the realms of the atheist's evolutionary agenda on why "faith" exists as either an 'impulse' or a mere 'stance'.
Classic British university type lecture. Really capable research academics being done but absolutely zero training being given to teach the academics how to communicate clearly. You can be sure that the gent has a very strong grasp of his subject. But his lecture is illogical and incoherent. Points are constantly being alluded to but not followed through. It’s very frustrating to listen to and leaves you thinking that you’re not quite being connected with. The narrative is somewhere in the background of the speakers mind but only sporadically elucidated. Such a shame because I’m totally with him in his thesis, if I grasp it, which seems to be that religion has strong psych-social benefits and functions as well as very destructive effects and we need to understand the former in order to mitigate the latter or remove it altogether.
The camera work is TERRIBLE, but not unusual for these kinds of presentations. Why can't the camera people figure out that the visual presentation is essential to the whole presentation. It's so obvious to anyone, except of course, the people running the cameras.
got the same thoughts
How does Buddhism fit into this schema. Seems it doesn't very neatly.
Neither do religions like Daoism and Mohism. The schema seems to fit the Abrahamic religions best.
And even then when you go deep in to the Abrahamic religions we see they have similarities with those like Bhuddism - it is just a lack of understanding of what underlies religion@@bernardhurley6685
& zen can solve all this, lol
Organised religion allows a sense of common interest to develop beyond kinship, linguistic and national groups.
He talks a lot about trance but has not understood the psychology and physiology of its impact and purpose, has he considered reading Carl Jung for insight in to why people are religious? The subconscious mind is barely understood, the path of human development is barely understood, and the role of archetypal psychology often not recognised to atheists and this is their pitfall in why society has religion in this time.
Thanks for the " sin eaters"! Thats fascinating and ( could be said to ) has evolved into "body of christ"
Clearly Christianity did not "evolve" as it was founded by Jesus of Nazareth, and there is plenty of evidence for his existence. There are of course many "natural religions", where individuals have sought, through reason, something beyond their own existence and come up with ideas of what this could be. Some elements of these natural religions are relevant, some are either just impossible or even dangerous, and they should rightly be rejected in this respect. There is clearly in human history a desire in the human spirit to find something beyond the self (Dunbar calls this the "psychological quintessentially human impulse"), but this should not just be rubbished or dismissed by a purely rational-based thought process (e.g. an atheist ideology with intent etc). To do so is to minimise human potential and stifle the human spirit to search using both faith and reason (also used in the scientific method). This is a dangerous and very dark road that people like Dunbar want to take people down! Dunbar's "psychological basis for the quintessentially human impulse" which feeds into his "mystical stance" theory is somewhat relevant, in that the human spirit, unlike the animal world, is capable of looking beyond the self and searching for a "higher being", but to apply this to the concept of "religion" (i.e. all religions) is just inaccurate and wrong on both a faith and rational basis, because for Christianity there is written evidence of the miracles of Christ, so faith in Christ is based on both faith and reason (or faith and evidence). This takes Christianity out of the realms of the atheist's evolutionary agenda on why "faith" exists as either an 'impulse' or a mere 'stance'.
“The earliest formula of Wisdom promises to be the last - God, Light, Freedom, Immortality.”
This despite all the dry academic ‘research’ of these religion analysts like Prof Dunbar who remind me of the proverbial 6 blind men assessing an elephant.
It seems religion started fairly early on.
From what I can gather it was not the original purpose for humans. It may have been necessary at one time for one people that were chosen.
I do not believe it is necessary anymore. Because I think we are back to where we started to some extent at least for those who believe in Jesus.
that religions fragment is not such a big deal; that each faction proclaims to be the ONLY true path has become the defining issue behind most o' the worst conflicts in modern human history. i would also posit that capitalism has become a religion o' sorts; maybe not in theory, but in practice...
Why are people religious because humans are spiritual and something more and something different then anything else in this universe just life on this planet seems very different than any other planet. For those who have no spiritual experience and see things only physical and know nothing else is very sad but many people have known and seen spiritual things even oldest tribes believed in spirit without religion. Religions created to control and rule over people is different than what there really is but
there really is something more then just what we see if you believe it or not
The reason religions got created is because there is more then just physical it also helps to keep Trace of history ancestry which is what all religion narrows down to created by mother father an ultimate male and female what this life here all really came from is the question people want to know not just a possible evolution of things.
Punctuation has left the chat.
23:00 As far as I know, the chemical for social bonding is not Endorphin, but Oxytocin, which comes by through touch or grooming.
Do the mean the church that a dominating King made? ;-) This was an illuminating talk. I loved the book.
What is the purpose of the man on the chair bang in the middle of the stage? If he is the moderator, they usually sit on the side, not exactly in the middle obstructing the screen behind.
He is the High Priest of Humanism and has to be centre stage !?😅
Surely Atheist Communism is a 'grift'?!
The three great monotheistic religions happened to to come by people's of the deserts. Its easy to imagine that only one deity can lurk in the desert. If god appears on earth today a lot of popes, muftis and rabis will lose their jobs.
Most religions dont preach the existence of god but that of the devil. If only the existence of god was the issue religions ould not survive very long
There are so many different views and opinions within both science and psychology so expecting one "true" expression of religion is kinda ridiculous. Clans and tribes grew all over the globe in different times and places. Religion reflects this, and who is to say each negates the others and something integral cannot be achieved?
Have you missed out one of the key factors in the need for/success of religion? That they provide the framework for the success of families.
We know that society works best irf children have two parents etc. We also know that enduring pair-bonding does not come naturally: women crave more powerful, richer, stronger men and men crave younger, fertile women.
Left to our own devices we get what we see in modern western society - the collapse of secular society.
The beliefs offered by religions and philosophies across the world are different, but their rules regarding families are remarkably consistent.
"We also know that enduring pair-bonding does not come naturally: women crave more powerful, richer, stronger men and men crave younger, fertile women." That's a false dichotomy and the first half is simply not true. Humans have conflicting impulses regarding sex, bonding and families. Religion does play a role in regulating that, but so do many other social institutions, like marriage and parental rights.
Not sure what you mean by 'the success' of families? Are you talking about the social institution of marriage? Sure, it encourages marriage. Two-thirds of the prison population of the USA identify as Christians, so might as well also say it encourages crime.
Families predate religion by a long ways. Religion provides explanatory myths that maintain status quo, especially hierarchies, including patriarchy.
Religions generally don't encourage the "nuclear" families that many religious people presume today. The Abrahamic religions in particular consider the basic family to be an extended, patriarchal, polygamous group. Marriage is used to cement membership, rank, and create alliances with other patriarchal groups - the ones getting married have little voice in it.
The current Western fashion for monogamous marriages is a product of the European manorial system of the high middle ages. The idea that this monogamous family unit is the basis of society is a product of the late 19th century, second industrial revolution. As these ideas became normal, people reinterpreted their religion to make out that it was "always" that way.
Your talking like Atheism is anti family. I can think of a lot of families hurt by religion. Hate to tell you but most atheist will agree that a stable family is good for children. How does a Christian killing another Christians parents for heresy help with family stability.
@@njhoepner, marriage is a middle age concept....it won't take long to read a few verses of Genesis, which I believe was written before the time you stated.
(*^^*) This is an artistic proof of a created universe. When you paint a shadow it's the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it.
to control dummies by violence of fear
It's easy -- people don't want to accept personal responsibility for their own actions. By embracing invisible metaphysics which cannot be tested, measured or proved, that puts the blame on something other than themselves.
What a really excellent talk. Will get the book.
Why humans believe in god religion and supernatural? They don't want to accept finality of death. Wants to continue herafter or living and enjoying life one way or other! Hence heaven and hell! Reincarnations!
As always Dunbar is simply wonderful in his tone, kindness, and respect for the evolution of religion.Many elites, lots of academics types, have contempt(superiority) for those involved in religion.Dunbar doesn't have that.Religion is very human, bonds us and makes us feel good and helps with suffering.....so go to church.lol:)
How British monarchy evolved and why it endures? Shouldn't you get rid of it? Rather than explaining or defending it as some sort of eternal devine law?
This is just boring, I can't watch it all
There is definitely a lot to say for these insights and might even help humanity on its path for knowledge of self and better ability to live and work together.
Not with lucrative invented bias
It's amazing how many people posted that this video is in support of religion. He shows that religion can have a positive influence so argument done. Sigh.
Skipping the issues on data collection, its a pretty good argument on why religion came into being and why it has persisted. As a humanist organization and his joke to the audience regarding all that you have been mising as non relgious, i assume he felt no need to express any of the many problems with religiin and the many reasons it is not needed. What it really broke down to is that it is still around because it is a familair methad to many to feel good. Which does help people live longer. But it is also without conscience as the rules of religion defy community union as it invariably alienates bewtween 15 and 80 percent of a community. You will feel better about yourself joining such a group but only if you are willing to harden your heart to certain other types of people.
No, this does not answer the fact that the archetypes are common not only across time but on every inhabited continent, and they're invariably associated with the planets. Yet in our current sky there's nothing particularly feminine about Venus, nor masculine about Mars yet this gender differentiation is consistent. There is no reason why this would be so given our current celestial environment, leaving no alternative but the conjecture that we once lived under a *very* different sky. The conventional notions of animism simply don't cut it.
Woooo. Hocus pocus, cross your heart and say a prayer then. 🤣
@@MeMyself-jz9ms Is that really all you've got??
So this man, I am sure a learned guy. But, he starts with the question (if I understood correctly) why people are religious in other words I thought he would go as the title of his talk boldly displayed on the screen says; how did religion evolve? So, to me the answer should be an attempt to provide the reason(s) why religion really got started. Instead, this "learned" man goes into telling us about the different forms of religion. This is what then I would call learned schmuckery!
Religion was born in a funeral home. Inconsolable grief can only find comfort in fantasy. Religion thrives by the grace of many a bitten tongue. Who wants to contradict a person who is suffering from inconsolable grief? But when, then is there room for truth? Maybe here, in comments of a UA-cam video.
Faith and Religion help people cope with reality and have hope. It also gives people justification for opinions they already have.
Is science not the same thing then
As someone who was religious until my mid-thirties, religion was not any form of comfort or did it help in any way in dealing with reality but fostered a sick and deluded vision of reality that kept me in a mental state of thinking there existed magical beings that watched everything I did and thought and one who was constantly tempting me to do awful things that would upset the other one. It taught me to be intolerant of certain other people and look down on them and to verbally abuse them for being who they were. I always was uncomfortable with those feelings. Discovering the real truth behind human god beliefs and the religion I had been brought up to believe, I became a far better person, kinder and far more comfortable living in the real world that now is so obviously awesome as it really is, including the nasty bits of it too. The planet and the universe cares nothing about me or anything it holds within it. We have to care about each other because that's truly all we have to rely on in this one and only life we get.
Religion was a trap, and used for keeping the downtrodden from being violent. Emperors and his council studied Psychology and figured that most people are Insecure and need to know there's a supreme being with super powers that loves you, and if you follow his rules, and you do good deeds, you get a ticket to the Golden amusement park in the sky... I believe that people in power have always had their way.
muslim start their journey by learning "what is desire" and grow on how to handle bad desire, greed etc. and keep handling@managing our lust-bad desire-greed etc till the day we die
Economic states depends on that theory to be proved by outcome of the upcoming generation.
One reason he believes that it's just an emotional response, is because he's never had a spiritual response.
He speaking on something which he doesn't have a clue about he might have some information, but he doesn't know what that information means he just thinks he does.
Kindly define "Spiritual" as differentiated from "Emotional".
@@behtereen4187
Spiritual - relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.
Emotional - relating to a person's emotions.
Emotions are a physical manifestation of a spirit reflected by reactions of the body and brain.
@@stewartpink3117
Okay I see.
And do you see "Spirit" or "Soul" as an non-material entity that survives after death ?
@@behtereen4187
Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.
42:57 not the only canonized child + parents christian saints
Religion binds. That which binds is finance. It is the opposite of faith, which divides. The Abrahamic faiths do not identify extortion as a sin. Adam Smith advises that this extortion is the substance of the practice of capitalism. The faiths are swindles of the capitalist religion of extortion for tribute, a practice obtaining for 15,000 years upon the Mongolian prairies.
1 Corinthians 5:11 "...you should not associate with a person who calls himself a believer but is immoral or greedy...". Pretty clearly stating that extortion is wrong!
@@DB-qw6xq Why then did all the churches abandon socialism instead of building it? They will deal with secular capitalists and secular fascists, but disavow the secular socialists. All the world's scriptural faiths fell to the last temptation.
And there you have it. Another clever boy, a secret king.
Religious evolved because is a real good Cartel business and they all benefit with this lucrative lies
People became religious because they fear dying and unexplained phenomena.
Overly simplistic. There's more to it than that.
Bart D. Ehrman should be invited.
These people are talking about a shadow of Religion that they think they understand. Only the dedicatet, patient silent thinker may know it.
You mean delusional people 🤔
Yeah, bc wtf does endorphin know about anything right?!
So, why is there anything instead of nothing? Whatever a person believes about the answer to that question, it is a religious belief, i.e. a matter of faith.
@karlmahlman while faith is usually associated with religion, it is not exclusively so. Most non-religious people also have faith (in something, someone some theory, etc.).
@@wernerstapela4616 Well, I agree. For the Atheist who believes the universe has no creator, that is definitely a matter of faith. And to say Atheism is not a religious belief, is a distinction without a difference. So, I'm always a bit put off by speakers like this who talk condescendingly about other people's beliefs, when they themselves are obviously devout in what they believe.
@@karlmahlmann The presentation generally had holes in it, more focus on "origin", less on "endurance". On the subject of atheism I disagree, a non-belief cannot become a belief system. I don't believe in Peter Pan, I would hardly term that non-belief a belief system or faith.