paarsurrey

Hi

Thank you for your input. At least we get an important point from your post that most if not all history is probability . This might be a quotable quote or might not be; but we understand from it that though we humans do acknowledge valuable efforts of historians, anthropologists, archaeologists and other sociologists, we must understand their limitations. We thankfully read with suspense their accounts of research yet we must not follow them blindly because we understand that historic accounts are only probabilities while we might be discussing issues which are for the most part pre-historic where the light shown by them is ever more dim or obscure or in the dark.

If we claim notions written by them as facts this would not be a statement of facts as they themselves would reject it to be truthful. Let us be very careful with that. Social sciences are not as exact as the natural sciences verifiable under a lab. We often read in social sciences “other things remaining the same” and we know that in this complex world other things don’t remain the same, they keep on changing, and we only get a range of exactness with large gaps in between.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim; searching for truth in differing opinions, with respect.

crispy

Obviously we cant go back to when religion was first thought up and see if it was a one god or many gods type of religion. But we can't either use biased text. Of course the bible and the other books will assert that there always have been one god and the only people who believe in more than one do so because they are pagans, ie. they once believed on the REAL god, but then was let astray by 'false' gods. This is what monotheistic religions will assert, so your examples from these books are no good at all for two reason:

1. they are biased.
2. they are just writings by a couple of people.

What do we have then? Maybe we can look at some old cave paintings, stone age (or w/e) art and see if they had one or more gods. If you are interested in the history of religion(s) you should sincerely research it, and not read some old biased book.

If you want hear how i think religions came about then read on:

At some point man began to wonder about the world. What makes the sun go up and down? How come i am unlucky in hunting sometimes? Why wont my gal get pregnant?

To answer these questions gods came along as explanations. A guy for pulling the sun over the sky, a guy for good hunt and woman as god of fertility. Of course you wouldnt think that the 'force' that pull the sun over the sky is the same 'force' that makes a woman pregnant.. but thats just me. You probably have another idea, but the point is that i do think like this, so why shouldnt some of the first people to make gods think like this also?

spamandham

A 'fact' is a tidbit of knowledge with an associated high degree of certainty. 'Knowledge' is information obtained through observation and inductive reasoning.

Knowledge with a low degree of certainty is a 'hypothesis'.

An 'opinion' is a preference.

paarsurrey

Hi

Thank you for you input.

We understand from wikipedia a useful write-up on history and prehistory:

Human prehistory differs from history not only in terms of chronology but in the way it deals with the activities of archaeological cultures rather than named nations or individuals. Restricted to material remains rather than written records (and indeed only those remains that have survived), prehistory is anonymous. Because of this, the reference terms used by pre-historians such as Neanderthal or Iron Age are modern, arbitrary labels, the precise definition of which is often subject to discussion and argument.
The date marking the end of prehistory, that is the date when written historical records become a useful academic resource, varies from region to region. In Egypt it is generally accepted that prehistory ended around 3200 BC whereas in New Guinea the end of the prehistoric era is set much more recently, 1900.Unquote

Now the issue under discussion might relate to the period of prehistory, I think, for which no written records are available by definition. Archaeological finds would also be dumb for that period as they, I think; they would also give only an obscure picture of the physical side, not the thinking side of the humans of that period.

So, what would be the picture of facts, knowledge, hypothesis and opinions etc in your mind as you have defined?

This is no formal debate, so please feel free to express yourself.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim; searching for truth from differing opinions with respect.

spamandham

I don't understand your point. We really don't know much about human culture in pre-history, but we know quite a bit about it at the dawn of history.

Are you trying to say that in pre-history, monotheism reigned? If so, what could be the possible basis for that, when we know from recorded history how the modern concept of a monotheistic god evolved from ancient astronomy to ancient polytheism to more recent monotheism.

In cases where we have come across more primitive cultures, those cultures have been universally polytheistic as well, with god concepts also rooted in astronomy.

DrewDiggler

I believe the God called "Procreation" was the first God. Often manifest as "the family" it was and is worshipped by all living creatures (not just one that thinks it is elite). It is still worshipped today and many belief systems associate themselves with the familiy believing it is the highest form of divinity.
Evidence is our existence. Although procreation temples also abound where the living creature has architectural abilities.

A Stable Flux

The case still has to be made about what are the most reasonable facts, which any reasonable person would believe. Unless you can make a reasonable argument why monotheism is the most probable original variety of religion you haven't said anything of substance. Every time a counterargument comes along you can't just say "well, since there is a degree of uncertainty in this science I'll stick with my ideas, despite the arguments against them" and regard yourself as reasonable. Just because something has some probability that doesn't mean it's a respectable or reasonable idea. Unless a person's ideas can be reasonably argued to be superior, or at the very least equal, to rival ideas the person can't be considered reasonable for holding his/her ideas.
Until I see reasonable claims made for monotheism being the original religious variety and reasonable claimed made against animism and ancestor worship being the original religious variety I won't consider monotheism as the first kind of religion. Faith-based knowledge (Bible, Qur'an, Vedas etc.) excluded. Arguments that that atheists, Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc. would agree upon because the arguments are pure reason (that is, value neutral. "A view from no where").

bleubird

You just will not get IT.
Myth has evolved with man.
It is all about death.
And how we have tried to deal with it.
Abrahamic religions are some of the last ways .
Please read some more.
I cut my skeptic teeth on Joe Campbell.
The masks of god books are required.

AFAIAC.

bleu

Civil1z@tion

Or animist (which is a bit different) but you are correct, no primitive culture that we have found (at least that I know of) has ever been monotheistic.