Evidence for God from Science

A recent National Geographic article now points to major evidence that religion gives rise to civilization and not the other way around. Now history books have to change . The evidence comes from the oldest temple in the world in Turkey which was built by HUNTERS AND GATHERERS (no indication that domesticated plants or animals were used around the site) .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe

Any reactions?

I don't think that's all that new a concept although I don't know in detail what the evidence they're speaking of. There are even atheist and agnostic social evolutionists who are willing to concede or consider that religion may have played a role in influencing the success of societies or civilization orders.

The way I was taught(World History Connections to Today Ellis, Esler Published by Pearson Prentice Hall) was that complex religion was a byproduct of permanant settlement along with writing and complex art and permanant settlementsthemselves resulted from agriculture and surpluses of of food which causes populations to grow. This complex temple built 11600 years ago had no evidence of domesticated plants or animals in the vincinity and instead was built by hunter gatherers over and over again( this became the first pilgrimage site which attracted visitors from many places to come and come back for centuries rebuilding it iver and over). So it is sort of counter intuitive that this would appear in these conditions. This leads credence to idea that religion drives civilization.

"At present, Göbekli Tepe raises more questions for archaeology and prehistory than it answers. We do not know how a force large enough to construct, augment, and maintain such a substantial complex was mobilized and rewarded or fed in the conditions of pre-Neolithic society. We cannot "read" the pictograms, and do not know for certain what meaning the animal reliefs had for visitors to the site; the variety of fauna depicted, from lions and boars to birds and insects, makes any single explanation problematic."

It may be explained as the birthplace of wheat cultivation:
"Schmidt and others believe that mobile groups in the area were forced to cooperate with each other to protect early concentrations of wild cereals from wild animals (herds of gazelles and wild donkeys). This would have led to an early social organization of various groups in the area of Göbekli Tepe. Thus, according to Schmidt, the Neolithic did not begin on a small scale in the form of individual instances of garden cultivation, but started immediately as a large-scale social organisation ("a full-scale revolution.)"
Agriculture and religion evolving side by side instead of one leading to the other.

Well, I completely agree with the concept that religion was a major factor for development of human civilization. I base that on the idea that religion was a great way for early groups of hunters and gatherers to find common ground and develop a set of rules and expectations for living together. Let's face it, religion in and of itself was originally a way of doing two things: 1) Explain phenomena in nature that they couldn't explain themselves, and 2) Describe a way of moral and practical living, as laid out through allegorical and metaphorical stories.

I think that regardless of how you look at it, religion was likely a key reason for people to live together and maintain structure among ever larger groups of people. When you have a unifying purpose of belief system outside of the need for basic survival, that unity can be converted into a useful purpose in society. A way of teaching the young basic moral and practical concepts that everyone (or mostly everyone) in the group agrees on.

It's a rather utilitarian way of looking at it, but I think it makes sense anyway.

btw I wasn't really taught much about this subject to be honest...in high school history we learned about early civilization and their religions, but I guess the connection never really got put together at all. I put together the above idea based on my way of thinking and stuff I've read in scientific/anthropological journals. And Nat Geo, of course.

Ivellious wrote: I base that on the idea that religion was a great way for early groups of hunters and gatherers to find common ground and develop a set of rules and expectations for living together. Let's face it, religion in and of itself was originally a way of doing two things: 1) Explain phenomena in nature that they couldn't explain themselves

I believe this is a faulty perspective. It is hard to believe that ancient people cared much for pure knowledge, but instead religion was a source of wonderment to people and grew on its ability to amaze. By explaining things with the goal of wonderment religion started the roll of deep philosophical thought and stuff like that. Even science grows and is refined by wonderment at first and then practicality and pure knowledge. The people didn't pose philosophical questions this and then put religion to fill the whole, but instead religion put the wonderment in people to actually think about these things and then religion grows based on philosophical inquiry. Even this Temple in the National Geographic article was described as a "neolithic disneyland". If I may add, as Ravi Zacharias tells in his podcasts, it is only God that can ultimately fill the deep need for wonderment as human beings.

wrain62 wrote:A recent National Geographic article now points to major evidence that religion gives rise to civilization and not the other way around.

This observation may show that religion preceded civilization, but dies it show that religion gave rise to civilization? [And how is civilization defined?] The wikipedia link doesn't go into details.
Off the top of my head, this site seems to show that the people who built it must have stayed in the area year round and not been nomads.

It's not that I'm saying they just wanted knowledge, but humans are naturally curious in my opinion. When people today see something amazing that they cannot explain, be they laymen or scientists or philosophers or whatever, we have a natural inclination to try to figure out what it is. Heck, the first question usually posed is "What was that?" It's not necessarily being driven by a pure desire for knowledge, but just the explanation of the world around us. Early people, not knowing why the sun came up and down regularly, why seasons changed, why weather happened, etc, were almost certainly baffled by it at first. These things in particular might have interested them for a very practical reason, as agriculture and hunting and so on relied heavily on these forces of nature. By extension, it makes sense to me that these were the first types of things that early religions explained.

I guess my only question to your hypothesis is, why would this amazing concept of religion be started in the first place? Just as you point out that early civilization likely had little time to contemplate philosophy and and the accumulation of knowledge for the sake of knowledge, I find it hard to believe people would spend much time at all on developing religion without some purpose or reason for it to develop. Again, the earliest religions focused heavily on explaining events vitally important to the survival of early civilization, so I think it's perfectly reasonable to infer that religion was the tool (bad word choice, I know) that early people used to explain the world around them, and, by extension, gave groups of people a common ground outside of pure survival to gather together and form societies. From that possible scenario, it is easy to then infer that religion was the catalyst for later development of philosophy and science.

But of course we obviously can't really know for sure what happened, and either view (religion as a byproduct of curiosity, or curiosity as a byproduct of religion) can easily be followed to today's world very easily. I just personally see the curiosity and need to explain things coming first because otherwise I don't see much of a point to religion without the desire to explain first. For example: Why begin to explain the sun, the moon, the stars, and so on if you weren't curious about it first?

sandy_mcd wrote:

wrain62 wrote:A recent National Geographic article now points to major evidence that religion gives rise to civilization and not the other way around.

This observation may show that religion preceded civilization, but dies it show that religion gave rise to civilization? [And how is civilization defined?] The wikipedia link doesn't go into details.
Off the top of my head, this site seems to show that the people who built it must have stayed in the area year round and not been nomads.

Would it be illegal if I just posted the National Geographic article online? I just put the wikepedia for background information.

No, you can post whatever you want on here...well, anything legal. If it's free and public, or you quote and cite it properly, it's fine.

Ivellious wrote:It's not that I'm saying they just wanted knowledge, but humans are naturally curious in my opinion. When people today see something amazing that they cannot explain, be they laymen or scientists or philosophers or whatever, we have a natural inclination to try to figure out what it is. Heck, the first question usually posed is "What was that?" It's not necessarily being driven by a pure desire for knowledge, but just the explanation of the world around us. Early people, not knowing why the sun came up and down regularly, why seasons changed, why weather happened, etc, were almost certainly baffled by it at first. These things in particular might have interested them for a very practical reason, as agriculture and hunting and so on relied heavily on these forces of nature. By extension, it makes sense to me that these were the first types of things that early religions explained.

I guess my only question to your hypothesis is, why would this amazing concept of religion be started in the first place? Just as you point out that early civilization likely had little time to contemplate philosophy and and the accumulation of knowledge for the sake of knowledge, I find it hard to believe people would spend much time at all on developing religion without some purpose or reason for it to develop. Again, the earliest religions focused heavily on explaining events vitally important to the survival of early civilization, so I think it's perfectly reasonable to infer that religion was the tool (bad word choice, I know) that early people used to explain the world around them, and, by extension, gave groups of people a common ground outside of pure survival to gather together and form societies. From that possible scenario, it is easy to then infer that religion was the catalyst for later development of philosophy and science.

But of course we obviously can't really know for sure what happened, and either view (religion as a byproduct of curiosity, or curiosity as a byproduct of religion) can easily be followed to today's world very easily. I just personally see the curiosity and need to explain things coming first because otherwise I don't see much of a point to religion without the desire to explain first. For example: Why begin to explain the sun, the moon, the stars, and so on if you weren't curious about it first?

Well original curiosity does spark the religion I suppose. But i would argue that people were not really baffled by certain quirks of nature, but instead just accepted the phenomena of the universe as unknowable or irrleevent to their lives. The curiosity must have started with relevence like what happens after I die or my family dies. How can I get more food/water/shelter? How can I protect myself with more security? Then religion starts with rituals and answers to solve these problems. Lore over such answers in turn whets the appetite for more knowledge and philosophy and wonderment. This is my view.

Well, that is basically my thinking. The basic curiosities about people's lives developed over time into ways of explaining it (religion) which led to the growth of the breadth of our curiosity. So I guess our ideas aren't all that different after all.

wrain62 wrote:Would it be illegal if I just posted the National Geographic article online? I just put the wikepedia for background information.

You can do (I believe) brief portions or an abstract for a review or discussion, but I would not post the entire article. It is presumably copyrighted. From their site:


Can I reprint all or part of an article that originally appeared in NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, WORLD, TRAVELER, or ADVENTURE?

To request permission to reprint an article, please call or write
National Geographic Society
Image Collection Office
1145 17th Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20036-4688
U.S.A.
Telephone: +1 202 857 7537
Fax: +1 202 429 5776
E-mail: images@ngs.org

You can link to an article so that people can go on the original site to view it, if it is publicaly viewable in that manner.

As Sandy mentioned, you can cite portions under fair use. You can't just put up a full copyrighted article on our site however without permission from the copyright owner.

wrain62 wrote:A recent National Geographic article now points to major evidence that religion gives rise to civilization and not the other way around. Now history books have to change . The evidence comes from the oldest temple in the world in Turkey which was built by HUNTERS AND GATHERERS (no indication that domesticated plants or animals were used around the site) .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe

Any reactions?

Yes... Interesting it was found just a few miles north of Israel...

Gman wrote:

wrain62 wrote:A recent National Geographic article now points to major evidence that religion gives rise to civilization and not the other way around. Now history books have to change . The evidence comes from the oldest temple in the world in Turkey which was built by HUNTERS AND GATHERERS (no indication that domesticated plants or animals were used around the site) .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe

Any reactions?

Yes... Interesting it was found just a few miles north of Israel...

Few hundred though. But that is irrelevant because Abraham was a chaldean anyway.