Talk:Development of religion/Archive 1

No merge
I don't think the page should be merged. there are many views on the development of religion beyond the sociological -- for example, the Bahai view that religions are born from a series of prophets sent by the One God, and that subsequent prophets bring future revelation. Many others too, all of which will be represented with time. Ungtss 03:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

-

Whoever cleaned up my contributions and put them in context did a grand job. Thanks!
 * Thanks for getting the ball rolling:). Ungtss 23:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article discusses together naturalistic theories of the origin of religion, supernaturalistic theories of the origin of religion, and ideas such as "religion is the opiate of the masses" (which, in my view, is more a negative value judgement about religion than an actual well-developed theory). It reads as if naturalistic and supernaturalistic theories are necessarily incompatible. But, it is possible to study religion in an academic setting from the viewpoint of naturalistic theories, yet still privately (or even publicly when wearing a different hat) believe that religion has a supernatural phenomena. A lot of religiously-inclined social scientists (and physical scientists for that matter too) believe that natural phenomena (including social phenomena such as religion) can have scientific explanations. They see God/whatever-supernatural-thing-they-believe-in as working through naturalistic/scientific means in unseen ways with some purpose in mind. One can believe, for example, that Christianity is the true religion, etc., but still be interested in what scientific theories have to say about how it managed to spread from a small sect in a backwater of the Roman Empire to a major world religion. For such a person, the scientific explanation is only part of the total explanation, which would also include supernatural explanations such as the will of God, but even as only a part of the total explanation it is still useful to know. This is in constrast to atheists who reject all supernatural explanations, and anti-scientific religious people who reject all scientific explanations. It is possible to believe that both the religious and the scientific are useful and valid.

Also I would suggest splitting the naturalistic and non-naturalistic theories out separately, since the first would be an article in the field of the social/psychological sciences, while the second would be an article in the field of comparative religion. -- samuel katinsky


 * all well said -- would you be willing to provide summaries of some academic books or articles exploring the sort of theories you're describing? Ungtss 03:09, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There could be a reference to/interaction with Folk religion.

Likewise, some comments could be added to Women as theological figures.

Jackiespeel 17:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Religion is an hypothesis designed to achieve peace-of-mind.

Definitions usually given for religion are properties of A Religion; not its essence, which is for all of them, an attempt to achieve peace-of-mind.

Yesselman 16:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Evolutionary Theology
At which point is a religion condisidered to be distinct from its predessor? What sepparates one religion from another? Is there an exact distinguishing factor (standard in linguistic or biological classification) or more like any set of varying factors (standard in ethnic/musical classification)? For instance, Christianity and its parent faith of Judaism are considered to be completely and distinct religions, of course. It's not the God Jews and Christians worship that set them apart, though the way they relate to God is very different. Perhaps it's just the fact that most of both faiths have claimed to belong to different religions for several centuries? Many works, including this article, define religion in there own way but few focus on what exactly destinguishes one from another.--J. Daily 04:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Religion"

Jewish Model
From the book "Reincarnation and Judaism: The Journey of the Soul" by DovBer Pinson:

"...the Mishnah proclaims, 'every single Jew has a portion in the world to come.'" page 72

And non-Jews also have a place in the world to come. (See Noahide Laws.)

So I think the last sentence of the Jewish model is wrong. Though I'm not certain how to go about re-writing it in a very brief way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.182.135 (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Charismatic Figures
The last two sections of the article seem rather superfluous. The one relating to established religions amounts to little more than 'many religions have charismatic founders or reformers', which is fairly intuitive. The one relating to NRMs is definately NPOV, containing only an instance where a leader (charismatic or not is unmentioned) has incited his followers to suicide. I'm strongly of the opinion that these two sections should be removed, but wanted to know the consensus. Any ideas?

User: DbSurfeit 03:36, 22 August 2006 (GMT)

Origin of religion - two possible links?
I have two articles about the origin of religion on my site. Please have a look at them and see if they should be included as external links. They are The Origin of Religion and Religion and Language.

Acampbell70 10:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello Anthony, Failed new religions are created too by charismatic leaders and this should be pointed out. The section about Kumaris can be deleted. We had some e-mail conversations. Remember me? Andries 10:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This article makes some interesting comments on the development of religion
 * Rochford, Burke E. Jr. and Kendra Bailey Almost Heaven: Leadership, Decline and the Transformation of New Vrindaban in Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions Vol. 9 nr. 3 February 2006
 * I have access to it but little time.
 * Andries 11:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Link suggestion
Is this link acceptable for this article (link-owner):

Philosophy and religion: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pvosta/pcrhum.htm Pvosta 08:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * this looks like an interesting and useful collection, perhaps especially for history of religion. --dab (𒁳) 07:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The Great Awakening Model
There is no support in the article Great Awakening for the concept of progressively getting closer to the truth. There may at one time have been, but it looks like it was edited out for lack of supporting evidence. As such, I don't believe this section belongs here. --JeffW 16:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * hm, I don't see what "getting closer to the truth" has to do with it? The "Great Awakenings" are (generationally) recurring spasms of religious enthusiasm. --dab (𒁳) 07:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

removing synthesis tag
the synthesis tag is not explained on the talk pagpe. Bringing together many different theories from many different sources or traditions, or schools, or religions is not the same as a synthesis of several theories. There are probably so many competing theories and viewpoints that this article will never be a consistent, well organized overview.

I also think that some material should be moved to theories of religion such as Marx' opiate for the people which, as far as I know, does not explicitly describe how religion originated. I have much other material for the article theories of religion. Andries 17:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would agree. The material would be better served merged into other existing articles, if there is anything salvageable, that is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

reorganization
The sections on development of religion should be merged with anthropology of religion. The article origin of religion should be reinstated. Muntuwandi 05:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That isn't an explanation of your massive edit, which one would expect here, but a repetition of a point you've been rebuked on in every venue you've asked to be heard--see the entry's AfD, the deletion review and the incident noticeboard. Working with this entry, and with editors here is your chance to give it all a fresh start.PelleSmith 12:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am very happy to work with other editors. It is other editors who would rather not work with me because they want to censor information. Muntuwandi 19:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No one wants to censor information. The information isn't relevant to the development of religion.  Your view regarding the inclusion of this information is supported by no one but yourself, and the opposing view is supported by everyone who has had anything to say about it in all the various forums you've been shopping around for opinions.  Persistent editing against consensus to prove a point is against policy and is considered disruptive editing.  Please do not continue down that road, and please, again, use this as an opportunity to consider that "other editors" may in fact have valid objections to your additions.PelleSmith 20:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is inconsistent, first editors claim that the article origin of religion was a content fork of Development of religion, now that I merged the content, editors are saying no you shouldn't merge the content. Can you make up your mind on this. This information is cited from reliable sources, so you need to make up your mind on which article it belongs. My opinion is origin of religion but in the meantime it will remain here. Muntuwandi 23:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Editors claimed that the relevant information was a content fork. Editors also consistently pointed out to you which information wasn't relevant at all to any entry on religion.  There is no contradiction here at all.  Reliable sources have nothing to do with it.PelleSmith 03:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No editor has given an explanation, they only disagree with stuff they do not like. but they haven't bothered to check whether the information falls in line with wikipedia guidelines which it certainly does. there is just resistance to change anti-intellectualism. I have included similar information on other articles with no problems. I worked on origin of language, there was no problem including information about human evolution, Dbachmann never complained he has even given the article a B class grade. I followed the same format with religion and I've got some of the same people screaming irrelevant information. Isn't this hypocrisy. WP:DEMOCRACY states wikipedia is not a democracy. Consensus must be established through discussion of the content. Unfortunately one-lined comments do not constitute a discussion, it just indicates a lack of understanding or knowledge on the part of editors. I am always willing to discuss content not peoples opinions. Until an objective discussion of the content is done, instead of discussing editor behavior, we will not make any progress. Muntuwandi 03:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not the only one who has given you much more than one line comments. You are trying to add general information about evolution that has nothing to do with religion.  What is there not to understand about this?  Sourced content isn't relevant as long as it is about tangential or unrelated information.  Can't you see the problem?  The disputed information is NOT RELEVANT to RELIGION.  I don't know if it is relevant to the origin of language, but this isn't the origin of language, but the development of religion.  You have been entirely unwilling to discuss anything other than your own one liner--that whatever you add is pertinent and whatever someone else says about it is nonsense.  This is now simply disruption.  The next move will have to be seeking some sort of formal mediation or ANI discussion about this disruption if you are unwilling to take a step back.PelleSmith 04:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I had previously proposed mediation, but you were all unwilling. It is impossible to discuss human history without discussing evolution. Unless you believe the earth was created 6000 years ago and that is all the history that you are interested in.
 * The format for the origin of language discusses everything from animal communication, primate communication, archaic hominids and finally modern humans. If we accept that humans evolved from animals then these animals and hominids are the missing pieces of the puzzle. Steven Mithen and Pascal Boyer both explain why we have to rely on evolution to explain the origins or religion. Pascal Boyer states
 * I mention a number of findings and models in cognitive psychology, anthropology, linguistics and evolutionary biology.All of these were discovered by other people, most of whom did not work on religion and had no idea that their findings could help explain religion.This is why, although bookshelves may be overflowing with treatises on religion, histories of religion, religious people's accounts of their ideas and so on, it makes sense to add show how the intractable mystery that was religion is now just another set of difficult but manageable problems.
 * So the notion of disputing the relevance of evolution is unfounded. the best scholars in the field use it. Once again nobody had countered this evidence.Muntuwandi 04:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody is "disputing the relevance of evolution." Where has anyone disputed the relevance of evolution?  Please stick to what is actually being disputed.  Personally I'm a firm believer in evolution, and I also have no problem believing the basic argument for the evolution of behavioral modernity around 50,000 years go.  That however, does not mean that I want to fill this entry or any other with irrelevant (and sometimes inaccurate) information about human evolution.  Again no one has disputed evolution with you, what is being disputed is the addition of information that seems irrelevant to the development of religion, with the emphasis here being on religion and not on general human development.  You have repeatedly evaded this very essential criticism and your song and dance is getting really boring.  It should also be stated that when you sought mediation it was one of your last efforts in a forum shopping expedition during deletion proceedings that weren't going your way.  As at least two of us commented mediation was not appropriate at the time at all.  I am not sure it is appropriate now either but I will at least make an attempt to figure out what is appropriate.PelleSmith 12:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I created an article, the origin of religion, which was meant precisely to deal with religion and its role in human evolution. the editors said it was a content fork of this article. So now that I add the information to this article you say it is irrelevant to the article on development of religion. Once again this is double standards. All the modern scholars who study the origin of religion use the same format that I have used because I copied it from them. this is not my invention but it is the current format for studying the history of human behavior. Boyer himself mentions that evolutionary biology has contributed to the study of religion. If you dispute the information in this article then we should just recreate the article "Origin of religion" that follows the format the established scholars follow. I can quote dozens of sources that use the same format. The same format was used for the origin of language and has no complaints.
 * Religion and language go hand in hand. It is not possible to express abstract concepts such as "God" without language. Nobody, at least anyone I know has ever seen, touched or actually had a conversation with God. That is the same for most people. Hence the concept of "God" is abstract and can only be communicated through the use of language. How would an animal without language express the concept of God. The same goes for other abstracts such as the afterlife or Heaven. Therefore we cannot ignore the evolution of language when discussing the origin of religion. Simple things like a stone tool may seem like irrelevant information to a lay person. But like religion and language, stone tools are completely unique to our genus. No other species on the planet manufactures and uses stone tools. The minute details required to manufacture and teach children to manufacture stone tools require language and intensive social interaction. A lay person would look at stone tools as being primitive. But a trained archaeologist can infer a great amount of detail about human behavior simply by studying these very primitive tools. Unfortunately those are the only materials we have left over from those periods in human evolution. It is from them that we can learn about their behavior and ultimately the origins of our own behavior. Muntuwandi 20:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of essays; that some things affected human developement doesn't make it admissible as an encyclopedic entry; an essay, sure, but encyclopedia articles have a whole different structure than essays. Furthermore, the amount of content you're adding is against the undue weight policy of Wikipedia. Add one or two sentences, that's it. Regards, -- Jeff3000 12:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with fixing grammar, my main interest is content. this is not undue weight because apart from ideas that god created the earth 6000 years ago, there are no other competing theories. Muntuwandi 20:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Try to make your own independent assessments of articles. Chances are if you disagree with me, then you should also have disagreements with Dbachman. Without this, it can be interpreted as favoritism. Muntuwandi 20:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Undue weight is in regards to the number of sources that discuss the development of religion that discuss it in the way that you are organizing the page. Not many.  Please refrain from going against consensus.  Regards, -- Jeff3000 20:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, what is wrong with the number of sources. In fact the more sources we have the less we are discussing undue weight. This is all the more reason to reestablish the article Origin of religion so that the content can have the full weight it deserves. Muntuwandi 22:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a democracy. Consensus has to be discussed. You have not given a reason for the content. You are only hiding behind consensus. Before the war in Iraq most of the senators blindly voted for the war because of "consensus". Now many senators are saying that they made a mistake to vote for the war. I see the same sort of blind consensus here. The information is factual and it is reliably sourced and it is relevant. Please provide an external source that says otherwise. Muntuwandi 22:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

PelleSmith has given enough reasons for why the content is not admissible, throughout all the discussions in the origin of religion page, the afd, and other places. You just fail to accept it, and are sticking to your beliefs. Most texts don't treat the development of religion as you do, and that why the amount of content you are adding is undue weight. One or two sentences of non-synthesis material directly from a source would be appropriate. Regards, -- Jeff3000 00:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right that most sources do not treat the development of religion in this fashion. This is actually the wrong article for this content. The correct article should be origin of religion. However it was consensus that these two articles be merged, which is what I have done. So there is no need to say this is undue weight, because the consensus was that the content should be merged. I would be glad to remove the content and place it in the appropriate article, however most of the editors won't admit that this is the wrong article for the content. This is because they really did not want to merge the articles. They just wanted to delete information they did not understand. Until we find a correct article, the material is relevant and should not be deleted. It is cited from reputable sources that all meet the standard for inclusion in wikipedia articles. The authors cited all meet the WP:PROF test, so the information is not fabricated. There is considerable consistency between all the sources, If i pick any one source they all converge on the same materials, so the notion of a synthesis is unfounded. Muntuwandi 04:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"they just wanted to delete information they did not understand" -- you did not actually consider any of the criticism that was presented in the course of the debate, did you. Your material isn't on the "origin of religion", it is on the paleolithic in general. Btw, I just noted your stealth recreation at Origins of religion. Don't do that. Muntuwandi, it is safe to say at this point that you are a problem editor. Pretty please try to reform and get into the spirit of this "encyclopedicity" and "collaboration" thing you have heard about. --dab (𒁳) 08:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Humans originated in the paleolithic, so if religion emerged with humans, we have no choice but to discuss the paleolithic. There seems to be a desire to believe that religion first appeared when adam and eve were created. This is not so. Evidences suggests that religion has been with humans for more than 100,000 years, writing was not invented then, so they had no way of leaving any deliberate evidence. Therefore we have no choice but to infer indirectly from the fossil record. Unless you can travel back in time to see how people lived. Or if you can bring a Neanderthal into the future for an interview about their religions, we have no other way of learning how and when religion first evolved. If you have any other suggestions on how to approach the origin of religion, i am willing to listen. But from what I have seen archeology is the only way that we can learn about the past before the time of the invention of writing. I have removed the offtopic tags on the burials because they are without merit. Everybody knows that religion plays a key role in the life cycle, Birth, Marriage and Death. Of these three only death may leave a permanent record. The term "Ritual burial" literally implies religion. So Burials are directly relevant to the origin of religion. Muntuwandi 22:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stop erecting a straw man based upon biblical creation. No one has ever to my knowledge made any such arguments with you--nor even insinuated such an argument--yet you repeatedly bring it up as if you are a sole crusader trying to spread the gospel of science against an army of creationists.  Also you should be aware that everybody does not blindly believe "that religion plays a key role in the life cycle, Birth, Marriage and Death."  It is true that most religious traditions from the era of recorded history have made some claims to these moments of human life, but there is no uniformity in emphasis or in practice either historically or cross culturally.  You cannot claim simply that because religions usually deal with death, and known burial practices usually have religious mandate or involve religious actions that the advent of burial practices means the advent of religion.  That is some far fetched WP:OR.  The fact that we can crudely date the advent of intentional burial practices and the fact that burial in recorded history usually relates to what we deem "religion" (in varying capacities mind you) makes the question of the relationship between the advent of burial practices and the origins of religion a fascinating one.  Yet, however fascinating it is, we don't know what the exact link is, and clearly it is more than possible that burial practices pre-date anything we might call "religion."  The kind of associative conjecture you are promoting is very unhelpful to the process of scientific inquiry.PelleSmith 17:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again PelleSmith you should realize that it is not me who has made claims that ritual burial indicates the presence of religion, it is several other scientists such as Mithen, king and Lieberman who I think even you acknowledge are reliable sources. I have just reported what they have said, and they are all in agreement about the relationship between ritual burial and religion. So far I have not come across a scholar who disputes the assertion that ritual burial with grave goods does not signify some sort of belief in the afterlife. Once again you are making personal disagreements with the authors of the study, which you have a right to. But your personal opinions should not carry weight on wikipedia if they are not backed by reliable sources. therefore the relevance of ritual burial to religion is backed by those sources. Muntuwandi 19:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * None of the people you cite make any sustained arguments about this at all ... you just take one liners from their real arguments which are about other things, not what the first burial practices might signify. Again, I find the idea more than likely that ritualized burial practices coincide with belief systems that we might consider religious, and/or that we might consider ritualized burial practices religious actions in and of themselves.  However, systematic burial practices do not necessarily mean ritualized burial practices, and we cannot suppose to know what Neaderthals or early humans believed.  This idea that you are simply rehashing scientific fact is also a straw man.  You are rehashing one-liner conjecture by a couple of scientists.  Besides this you are stressing these conjunctures way too much.  That is why people are calling you on WP:UNDUE, particularly in other places when you also start rehashing information about general human evolution that aren't even related to religion tangentially or conjecturally.PelleSmith 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * undue weight applies. That people write about it doesn't make it acceptable to put that much information in this article. As I noted above, one or two sentences is all that it's worth. -- Jeff3000 21:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What makes you the sole judge of how much weight it should carry. It should carry as much weight as necessary. Wikipedia has plenty of space to store information. Wikipedia guidelines recommend that a good article have about 32kb of readable prose(WP:SIZE). The current article has 18kb of information so it still has plenty of room to spare. Once again Jeff you do not apply any reasoning to your edit, just blindly following what others have done. Muntuwandi 21:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Giving more space to a discussion that it is deserves (as determined by the amount of space given to the disccusion in the majority of reliable sources) is against the neutral point of view policy. Since most sources on the development of religion don't go into paleolitic burials, giving it more space would not be neutral.  Regards, -- [[User:Jeff3000|Jeff3000 21:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If the other sections of the article are poorly sourced, that is not my problem. Just because one member of a team is playing badly, you cannot ask the others to perform badly as well so that they are all in line. Your assertions have no justification, it is just your personal opinion. There are no wikipedia guidelines that limit sourced information to "one or two sentences". Especially since there are volumes of information available on the topic of development of religion. My recommendation is to move the content to its own article so that it can have all the room to deal with its relevant content. Muntuwandi 21:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you can dispute that religion plays a major role in the life cycle at birth, marriage and death. for many people these constitute the few times they ever enter a church. There is baptism at birth, church weddings, and funerals in christianity. Other religions such as Islam and Judaism practice circumcision at birth. They also have specific coming of age rituals such as Bar Mitzvah and marriage rituals such as Hindu wedding. The same with Islamic funerals and Bereavement in Judaism and cremation in Hinduism and Egyptian burial rituals and protocol. In christianity it is customary to place crosses on grave sites, that is the cross of Jesus. Clearly religion does play a role in the life cycle. The importance on rituals of the deceased, as mentioned earlier, is that they leave evidence behind. Our current knowledge of the ancient egyptians would not have been possible without all the evidence from mummies and the grave goods that were left with them to equip them for the afterlife. Muntuwandi 20:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all you again erect a straw man, which evidently is your favorite way to argue. I would never argue that religions, as we know them, are not generally concerned with elements of the human life cycle, or that the life cycle hasn't intruded into religous ritual systems.  That said, your absolutism is way out of touch with the history of ritual practice vis-a-vis religious institutions, and this kind of commonsensical ("clearly this or that") answer is not appreciated.  Church weddings, for instance, were virtually unknown for a majority of the history of Christianity.  The Catholic Church didn't even canonize marriage until the 16th Century.  Burial practices also varied.  Maybe you should have read the entry on Christian burial that you linked above because then you might have come across this: "Very little is known with regard to the burial of the dead in the early Christian centuries. The first Christians likely followed the national customs of the people among whom they lived, as long as they were not directly idolatrous."  When anthropologist Fredrik Barth conducted fieldwork with the Basseri nomads of Iran he discovered that they had no burial practices at all.  They disposed of the dead by leaving them in villages and paying someone else to take care of them--otherwise the Basseri clearly held Islamic beliefs.  In fact, even though religious systems have been known to prescribe them or to co-opt them, to say that rites of passage have mostly religious meanings or religious causes is simply nonesensical.    Arnold van Gennep's classic argument is that rites of passage have mostly a social function.  Such social functions may be wrapped up in religous beliefs, but they don't have to be at all, and if they are they are most likely so after the fact.  In other words the religious beliefs are not causal of the ritual practice.  Burial practices may in fact not really be rites of passage at all, and I think there is a more compelling case about their connection to religious beliefs.  However, this still varies greatly historically and cross culturally.  You simply cannot deduce that the existence of systematic burial means "religion," and  I doubt your sources would stake their bread and butter on this either.  Either way you're simply not right in your appeal to common sense, and again its not helpful.PelleSmith 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess you believe that the study of the origin of religion is a waste of time and scientists shouldn't bother with it. Why do you dispute what scientists have studied. Naturally religions and rituals vary tremendously. The source of most of the religious and ethnic tensions in the world are due to differences in religious practices. All religions are not the same. However they do satisfy a common spiritual need that all humans have had throughout history. Lieberman even mentions that during wars, burial rituals are ignored and burial is done simply for convenience. but he does indicate that burial with grave goods clearly indicates religious thought.. So it does not mean that every person who dies will be given a ritual burial. You are also right about the possibility of burial being for social reason, but according to scientists religion is just another social phenomenon. IF you read barbara king's book, she states that religion is a product of social interaction. She studied the social behavior of the great apes to try to determine what social behaviors could have lead to the evolution of religion. She stated that chimpanzees occasionally show empathy for their dead. Lieberman dedicates an entire chapter to the origins of selfless behavior. Anyway it is not for us to decide the interpretation of ritual burial, It is for us to interpret the behavior. One could explain why some scientists believe religion emerged 50000 and others at least 100,000  year

"Humans originated in the paleolithic, so if religion emerged with humans, we have no choice but to discuss the paleolithic." -- this is completely faulty logic. If the start of hockey, starting with Europeans first colonizing North America, then the history of hockey has to have a history of North America would be an equally faulty statement. The colonization of North America is a seperate article, and so is the discussion of archaeology of the paleolithic era. At most it would be worth minimal sections. Regards, -- Jeff3000 23:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Then how do you propose discussing the origin of religion. Muntuwandi 23:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * eff your restoration of the tags is without merit. You have not even discussed why they should be included. I would suggest you try to think independently. Stop acting like Dbachman is your boss and everything he does is gold. In this case his reasoning is clearly flawed. Muntuwandi 23:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

tags
The tags were place with the intention of discussing the possible creation of an article paleolithic burial. The person who inserted the tags has not offered any discussion on the matter. Another issue is whether paleolithic burial is a valid topic. The paleolithic spans almost all of human history from 2.5 million years ago to the neolithic 11000 years ago. Next is the article paleolithic burial going to discuss religion or just how people were buried in the ground. Is anyone willing to do such pertinent research into such burial practices.

My opinion of the current content relates to only how paleolithic burials can be related to religious thought or behavior. Also how paleolithic burials can be used as evidence to date the emergence of religious thoughts similar to those of our own. This is because of all species on the planet it is only homo sapiens(this classification includes homo neanderthalis) who are known to bury their dead. Muntuwandi 22:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The tags cannot remain in the article indefinitely. Only two options are available. Either the disputed content is removed or the tags are removed. What is interesting is that editors who want the tags in place have not proposed either of the two solutions. I am in favor of having no tags because I believe the material is relevant as per evidence from Lieberman and other sources. In order for the tags to be in place one must recommend the removal of the information. Muntuwandi 22:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As per suggested, I have removed the content. I believe a couple sentences (if it can be placed in an appropriate position in the article) would be appropriate weight given to the subject. Regards, -- Jeff3000 22:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi is just trolling at this point. This article needs serious work, and it is all but impossible to do serious work if you have to prance around with confused pov-pushers at the same time. The joys of Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 08:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have done serious work to add the content to this article. None of the editors complaining be it Dbachmann, PelleSmith or Jeff3000 have added a single external link, source or reference to this article. Absolutely none. The three editors are content with criticizing content but have made no meaningful effort to improve the content of this article. If it were not for the dispute, there would be no edits to this article at all from any of these editors, just view the edit history of this article for proof. Therefore allegations of trolling are in bad faith. The information is sourced from peer reviewed academic journals, how can one be a troll if he sources from academic journals.
 * Since we are unlikely to reach an agreement the solution to this impasse is to go through mediation. I am willing to accept the results of a neutral mediation process. We are polarized because no matter the merits of a source that I provide, the three of you will always dispute it because of me. Since we are polarized on this issue, I would welcome someone who is neutral and willing to dedicate some time and effort to review the merits of both sides of the argument. If you are willing to go through that process I will accept the results of mediation regardless of the outcome. Muntuwandi 17:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann is right, this is simply trolling at this stage. You've tried every venue known to Wikipedia and been rebuked, can you lay this to rest already?PelleSmith 01:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

paleolithic burials
the section removed here was indeed only of tenuous relevance to this topic, but some material may be transferred to prehistoric religion. dab (𒁳) 11:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

ToC, scope
ok, now we slowly seem to be getting over this paleolithic / out of Africa business, how should we arrange this article, and what should be its scope? At present, the article addresses three topics: the three topics are all valid, and all related to notions of "development of religion", but I am not sure they should be discussed on the same page. perhaps we should move this whole thing to origin of religion and refactor it so that the historical part is a summary per WP:SS, and delegate the teleological part to a separate article? thoughts? dab (𒁳) 12:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) origin of religion in human evolution (origin of religion)
 * 2) the development of new religions in human culture (history of religion)
 * 3) the teleological view (revelation)
 * looking through the actual content, I find the "teleological" section was mostly soapboxing about Bahai Progressive Revelation (which has its own article). I shortened it accordingly, and I think in its present state it can well stay around as a summary section per WP:SS. dab (𒁳) 12:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

human evolution and religion
Muntuwandi appears to want to address the topic of human evolution and religion. It is a valid topic, and probably mostly belongs on anthropology of religion (and God gene). His timelines of paleolithic burials belongs on prehistoric religion.

literature on human evolution and religion:

Muntuwandi's references: more:
 * "King, Barbara (2007). Evolving God: A Provocative View on the Origins of Religion. Doubleday Publishing." ISBN 0385521553.
 * (1996) The Prehistory of the Mind: The Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion and Science. Thames & Hudson. ISBN 0-500-05081-3.
 * The Prehistory of the Mind The Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion and Science By Steven Mithen Reviewed by Andy Gorman
 * Religion, empathy and a Brookfield Zoo gorilla: An anthropologist Chicago Sun-Times, Feb 4, 2007
 * Religion, empathy and a Brookfield Zoo gorilla: An anthropologist Chicago Sun-Times, Feb 4, 2007
 * James McClenon. Wondrous Healing: Shamanism, Human Evolution, and the Origin of Religion. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2002
 * George Willis Cooke, The Social Evolution of Religion (1920)
 * E. Washburn Hopkins, Origin and Evolution of Religion (1923)
 * E. Noel Reichardt, Significance of Ancient Religions in Relation to Human Evolution and Brain Development (1942)
 * Philip Hefner, The Human Factor: Evolution, Culture, and Religion, Theology and the Sciences Series (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993).
 * S. R. Parchment, Religion And Its Effect Upon Human Evolution, in: Just Law of Compensation (2005) ISBN 1564596796.
 * Albert Churchward, The Origin and Evolution of Religion (1924) (2003 reprint: ISBN 978-1930097506).

Muntuwandi, you need to understand that your content was deleted not because the topic is invalid, or because your individual references are bad, but because you insisted on coatracking about Out of Africa, paleolithic archaeology, human intelligence, behavioral modernity and evolution in general instead of addressing the actual topic. dab (𒁳) 12:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * one month later... isn't if funny how as soon as the controversy dies down, everyone immediately loses interest in the unspectacular task of actually writing the article... dab (𒁳) 13:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that is just one of the problems that we have. After I made an effort to include some useful information it was censored. But the people who censored have made no attempt to clean up this article. Just as a month ago the rest of the article lacks any footnotes. Muntuwandi (talk) 03:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * your information was not "censored". It was moved to the appropriate place. It now languishes at prehistoric religion with a merge tag to paleolithic burials. If you are interested in writing a great article on paleolithic burials, you are most welcome to develop that article. For some reason, you only appear to be interested in "coatracking" about the paleolithic and OOA on barely related articles, you (almost) never touch the articles on these topics themselves. dab (𒁳) 13:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The topic prehistoric religion is a poor choice for a topic. The term prehistory is no longer widely used in science because it is too general. Prehistory means different things in different regions. There is nothing wrong with discussing how OOA fits in with any and all aspects of human behavior. Unless one has an alternate explanation for human origins, OOA helps to explain many aspects of the evolution of human behavior, including religion. Some people still want to believe that one day religion just dropped from the sky and came into existence. Muntuwandi (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody has bothered to beef up the section on development of religion with footnotes or any information. This means the editors who claim to have an interest here are not sincere. Muntuwandi (talk) 20:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Alternate theory: This means the editors who claim to have an interest here have lives. -- tiny plastic Grey Knight  ⊖  16:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I sometimes think that people who brag that they have lives actually don't. Muntuwandi 05:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Question
I earlier on removed content from the origin of religion. I think this is an important issue that needs to be addressed. The development of religion should deal with how religions develop. An interesting example would be how the Rastafarian religion developed. this is solely a 20th century religion. Someone could analyze how for instance Jamaicans after the legacy of slavery and oppression found it difficult to identify with Gods of the their oppressors. They therefore used various information from oral Ethiopian history that Haile Selassie was a direct descendent of King Solomon an African image was used to replace the europeanized images of the spirit world. I am just using this as an example of the factors that led to the development of a modern day religion. One could make a similar case of how L. Ron Hubbard started the Church of Scientology.

What I am getting at is the development of religion discusses how religions develop, even in the 20th century. These examples could include the aforementioned religions of Rastafarianism and Scientology. The origin of religion is a different topic, because it discusses how and when religion came about. It also asks why of all the animals in the world only humans are the only ones who are religious. I think this is an important question, and I would really appreciate an intellectual answer to this. Muntuwandi 05:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * of course? this is the very topic of this article. dab (𒁳) 15:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You haven't answered the question. Development of religion could mean, Development of Rastafarianism or Development of Scientology. It does not mean origins. There is an active discussion regarding the article at Talk:Evolutionary theories on the origin of religion. Dab did not make any input regarding some of the important and outstanding issues. Therefore it is improper to make any changes without discussion. Muntuwandi (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me but this has been discussed endlessley and you are the only editor on Wikipedia who wants to do it your way. After numerous AfDs and hours of wasted time other editors are simply sick of arguing with you about it.  Please refrain from removing relevant material from this page in order to serve your crusade.  You just don't like the fact that if the info exists here then there is a point to the idea that your other entry is a content fork.  Please stop trying to game the system.  Dbachmann owes you no explanation.PelleSmith (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again, blindly supporting Dieter, have some backbone. The content that is currently in the article bears no relationship to the evolutionary material. No editor has made any effort to even address exactly what material should be in the article "Development of religion". I had posted some comments here regarding the appropriateness of the name of the articles. Yet you have not addressed those concerns, and have only decided that it is convenient that the material should be in this article after Dab's edits. This shows that you are not approaching this controversy objectively. As mentioned before if the authors of the study use the terms "origin of religion" or "evolution of religion" what gives us the right to name the article "Development of religion" when the authors have not used that term in the titles of their articles. This is a legitimate concern. When reasoning fails the only argument left is to go on bandying about obsolete AFDs. As mentioned on the anthropology talk page, this topic is valid on its own. Muntuwandi (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Dieter is an agreement that the topic origin of religion is valid and should be a separate articleDab's comments. Muntuwandi (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not approaching this controversy objectively? You're disruptive behavior simply needs to stop.  I've made every effort to reason with you about absolutely every aspect of this mess from the beginning, well before Dab was every involved.  I'm just tired of your disruptive nonesense.PelleSmith (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * All you ever do is talk about behavior not about content. The editor from the anthropology project is an agreement that this is a valid topic. Even Dab has stated as per above that the content should be in separate articles. I don't see any response to Dab's earlier comments. This is what I believe this is double standards because he clearly states that. You and Dieter know very well that the argument is very valid and are unnecessarily engaging in edit wars instead of addressing actual content issues. Between myself, PS and Dieter, I am the only one who has bothered to add any external links to these articles. You and Dieter have just focussed on deleting and redirecting. I think this is counterproductive and is against the spirit of wikipedia. Everyone knows that Development of religion is a terrible article because it has only 4 footnotes. So attempts to bring the evolutionary material in, which is well sourced, to try to give DOR some credibility. Instead, why not just rewrite it or find the necessary sources. Muntuwandi (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A simple solution that I have just implemented is just to provide a link to the origin of religion as per summary style guidelines. This will keep everybody happy. Muntuwandi (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The people you refer to who know that some of this material is relevant (myself included) also insist that it is relevant to the entries Development of religion, and Prehistoric religion. Everyone other than yourself seems to be in agreement with this.  You simply refuse to work with this idea and insist on having your own entry.  We've been over this a great many times Muntuwandi, and I'm simply sick of it.  I've engaged content discussion too many times to count simply to have you ignore pretty much everything I've tried explaining to you.  I'm not alone in this either.  To come out here and say that all I or anyone else does is comment on your behavior is disengenious.  As of late your behavior has become unbearable and there really isn't much left to say substantively about the material that hasn't been said twelve million times already.PelleSmith (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * On what do you base your decision that the info is relevant to development of religion or prehistoric religion. It seems to me like personal opinion because you have not provided any external source to back up your claim. I have provided external evidence to substantiate my argument, you have not.Muntuwandi (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Mixed soup
This article mixes the development of the Bahai faith religion with possible religious beliefs of another hominid species, the neanderthals. Mixing Teleological development with evolution is utterly ridiculous. you can go to a seminary to learn about Teleological development, However you need a laboratory with radio carbon dating equipment to study Neanderthal behavior. The two sets of information couldn't be more different, why some editors insist on mixing these unrelated topics up I don't know. This is disjointed mixing of information that has no flow. What does Swami Vivekananda have in connection with upper paleolithic religious beliefs. What do Jesus, Martin Luther, Saint Francis of Assisi, John Calvin, Joseph Smith have in relation to the subject of Behavioral modernity and stone tools. This is all about ego not reason. Muntuwandi (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Origin of religion
One of the few real theories I've ever seen put forward regarding the real "origin of religion" was in Robert Holdstock's novel Lavondyss, which I believe indicated that it was an emotional reaction to a parent having to sacrifice one of his/her children for the greater good during a food shortage. I'm not sure whether that would be relevant for inclusion here, although it wouldn't be the first time an author put forward a theory in fictional form. Fred Hoyle, and to a lesser extant several other SF authors, are noted for having done similar things. John Carter (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That is a possibility, since evidence of ritual cannibalism has been found in many paleolithic sites. Muntuwandi (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

ok, I've collected what material we have at origin of religion. This should be considered a strict WP:SS daughter article summarized here. The scope of this article extends to development of religions in historical times and is not restricted to the question of the earliest origin of religion during human evolution. dab (𒁳) 18:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Title
There isn't a justification to have information duplicated across articles, therefore I am refactoring evolutionary content in accordance with summary style.Muntuwandi (talk) 08:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Palamism
I removed the following statement from the article:

"'A historical example of doctrinal evolution in medieval Christianity based on theological argument, not revelation, is the doctrine of Palamism, accepted in Eastern Orthodoxy but rejected in Roman Catholicism.'"

Not only is the statement uncited, it is innacurate. First of all, each of the Church Fathers who expounded the doctrine referred to based their arguments upon scriptural foundations (i.e., the various theophanies in the Bible, especially to Moses and Elijah). See Vladimir Lossky (1944), The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (reprinted in English, 1976, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, Crestwood NY, ISBN: 0-913836-31-1). Second of all, according to Orthodox theology, both Sacred Tradition and the accurate statements of the Church Fathers are believed to be inspired by Divine grace, and are thus a part of Divine revelation. I might also add that the very term "Palamism" is a bit of a misnomer (the link in the disputed sentence is actually a redirect to Tabor Light). Gregory Palamas did not invent anything new, but continued in the teaching tradition of Pseudo-Dionysius (The Divine Names), Gregory of Nyssa (Life of Moses), Gregory Nazianzen (On the Canticle of Canticles), etc. The disputed sentence above would seem to be based upon speculation by those unfamiliar with Orthodox theology. MishaPan (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggest splitting this article up
This article, in its present state, appears to be essentially a original research synthesis bringing together a large number of theories on what are really quite different topics, weaving them together, and presenting them as if they formed a coherent whole. It might be useful to split this article up into a number of smaller article, since most of the individual sub-topics appear to be notable and repersent coherent subjects by themselves. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This article has three main sections: Origin, History and Development (the Teleological section should really be part of the Development section). The Origin and History sections are actually summaries of existing articles, so I don’t see that they could rightly be called original research synthesis.


 * As to whether the DNR section constitutes original research synthesis, I would compare it to the article on Nature Versus Nurture, which presents a number of different approaches to answering a question that has long been debated. Although that article brings together a number of disparate theories, it does not serve to advance an editor’s position, and thus does not constitute a synthesis.


 * I agree that this section and the article as a whole needs work, but I don’t see where it constitutes original research synthesis. Could you comment on how you see this section as advancing a particular position? Mmyotis (talk) 10:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It is already in proper WP:SS format. I am not sure whether it should be split, but if kept, I don't see any problem in terms of WP:SYN. dab (𒁳) 14:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * this article is terribly filled with original research. It was a created as a sham compromise that resulted in an article that has no scientific backing. the above comments are correct, "a large number of theories on what are really quite different topics, weaving them together, and presenting them as if they formed a coherent whole". There is no scientific literature where one will find a mixture of evolutionary theories with theological studies. Muntuwandi (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Since there are a number of ways of thinking and theorizing about how religions develop, it is only natural that this article will reflect a number of different theoretical points of view. Could you be more specific about what you think should not be included in an article on the development of religion and why? Mmyotis   ^^o^^  19:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes there are a number of ways of theorizing about how religions develop. Each major way of theorizing should have its own article, as these will be derived from separate disciplines. There is just too much information on religion to try and cram random titbits of unrelated material into one article. here is a potential list. Muntuwandi (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Theology theories- from a religious perspective
 * Theories derived from the social sciences such as psychological, sociological, and Anthropological theories
 * Historical should cover chronological facts of religions with no theoretical approaches.
 * Evolutionary theories on the origin of religion should cover the human evolution and should have no theology and should not pay particular attention to any specific religions.
 * Biological theories.

the lead says "The development of religion (religiopoiesis) can refer to the gradual emergence of religious behaviour during human evolution out of pre- or proto-religious ritual (origin of religion), or to the "crafting of religion" as part of the history of religion within a given culture."

I cant find any scientific literature where this topic of the development of religion is defined by as the way it is by the lead. It therefore constitutes original research. Muntuwandi (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

what is this article about
What is this article about. I think it has no foundation and is original research. I suggest a real evaluation of what this article should be, and whether it should even exist. Muntuwandi (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Duplication
There was a tremendous amount of duplication of information so I have removed redundant information that is already present in other articles. I have moved material that is quite unrelated to new articles such as the development of new religions and the teleological development of religion. Muntuwandi (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * that split is tremendously artificial, as already evident from the awkward article titles. I am tempted to undo the split, but will wait for third opinions. Your continued erratic moves and edits create a large overhead, but it is perfectly unclear what you are trying to achieve. You seem to be pushing some agenda, but you're doing it in such a confused way, that it doesn't become clear what it is supposed to be. dab (𒁳) 10:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If I am interested in an overview on the subject of the development of religion, I need an article that will give me that overview. This revision completely destroys what was an informative overview. I don't know what's motivating it, but the reasons given certainly do not explain it. The deconstruction of this article is antithetical to the concept of an encyclopedia and it completely ignore the consensus of the other editors who have worked so hard to improve it. Mmyotis   ^^o^^  14:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, there was significant duplication of information. The same themes were found in up to four other articles. In some cases, the same paragraphs word for word. For anyone interested in the subject 'development of religion', technically there is none. Google searches don't yield any generalized articles that deal with the development of religion. It is always more specific ie development of Christianity, development of Islam or development of African American religion. it is therefore original research to combine random aspects of the bahai faith with the religions of homo erectus.
 * In addition I dispute that any hard work was done by editors to improve this article. The material that has been moved to Development of new religions and Teleological development of religion even after a whole year still has no references. That doesn't sound like hard work to improve an article. Muntuwandi (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this may only be useful as a link to other articles, so I put in a header which is why we now have the slightly odd related articles and see also sections Timpo (talk) 07:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)