Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA22119 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 17 Nov 2000 15:13:06 GMT Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745B1C@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: religion/spirituality Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 15:11:05 -0000 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
<<Vincent:
> First, people in polytheist religions don't follow all the gods, but tend
> to
> follow particular ones (or groups of gods), and preferencing one god (or
> set
> of gods) over another is a major factor in ancient social conflict.>>
>
<Derek:
> Do you have any concrete examples of this?>
>
I'd have to get back to you on that one. My ancient history is a
little rusty, but I think there are examples in classical Greece and Rome
(although I may be misremembering myths rather than actual events). Doesn't
the political turmoil in Medina linked to idol worship count as an example?
<I think that ancient Rome was
> _less_ prone to religious civil strife than the Christian Europe that
> succeeded it.>
>
Well, I'm not sure about that since political strife in Rome was
often conflated with religious strife as would-be emperors declared
themselves god etc. Maybe I'm thinking more of the fall of the Roman
Republic (which is the bit of Roman history I studied a little of). But you
may be right.
> <How do you explain the Donatist controversy, which broke out
> even before Christianity had become the official religion of the Empire?>
>
I have to put my (ignorant) hands up here, and say I don't know
anything about this (which probably invalidates all my comments in this
regard).
<The relatively tolerant Romans had seen nothing like that before.
Maybe you
> can prove me wrong on that one. I'd be interested to know. In any case,
> avoidance of social conflict is not a strong evolutionary selective
> pressure, as benefits at the level of the individual will always subvert
> the
> good of the group as a whole. Monotheism may (although I doubt it)
> maintain
> social cohesion, but it won't persist for that reason alone, as it isn't
> an
> evolutionarily stable state (ESS).>
>
Well, perhaps it's not so much avoidance of social conflict, but the
better in terms of directing it externally, rather than internally? In
other words, helping to clarify us and them between city-states and others,
rather than within a city-state, a la Medina? Pure speculation on my part
here. I should probably shut up...
>
<<Vincent:
> The less complex the basic elements of the religion the broader base it
> can
> potentially reach. This doesn't mean it will though.>>
>
<Derek:
> But if it doesn't, would you accept that this invalidates your
> proposition?
> I'm wondering if your sentence 'The less complex the basic elements of the
> religion the broader base it can potentially reach.' is an a priori or
> whether you believe it to be derived from empirical data.>
>
Well, no I'm not basing it on empirical evidence, so again perhaps I
should shut up... but I was just suggesting that, to put it at its broadest,
that one element in a concept's successful transmission may be its
simplicity. At a very superficial level, monotheism is a more simple belief
system than polytheism. I have no basis for demonstrating this though.
<<Vincent:
> the judeo-christian-islamic body of religions ..... success was
> undoubtedly
> the
> unifying aspect of the monotheism,>>
>
<Derek:
> Well, it depends what you mean by monotheism. There's no doubt that the
> first and the third are strictly monotheistic, but Christianity? Early
> Christianity was a mixture of Pharisaic mystical Judaism with Platonism
> and
> Mithraism. >
>
Well, at the very superficial level of it meaning there is only one
god, not many. That may be an entirely specious interpretation of the term,
and if so apologies, but that's how I take it.
<<Vincent:
> just as the 20th century saw political
> ideologies of fascism and communism utilise similar appeals to unity
> through
> a single 'correct' path.>>
>
<Derek:
> Hmm..... but was that really how Christianity spread through the Roman
> world? It's been estimated that after the Diaspora in the late first
> century, as many as one in 10 of the Roman Empire's population were Jews,
> at
> a time when there were only a few hundred Christians at most. If the
> Roman
> world was ripe for conquest by a monotheistic religion, why didn't Judaism
> do it?>
>
Yes, now that is a fascinating question. I was thinking more in
terms of why it spread through the Jewish population, but you're quite right
it doesn't explain it's eventual appeal in the Roman Empire.
Vincent
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 17 2000 - 15:14:35 GMT