Man

Man, and mankind, is the second necessary ingrediant of religion. The most succinct definition of religion is that it is the institutionalized relationship between man and God. Presumably, the relationship is reversed from the opposite point of view: God and His human worshippers; either is acceptable. Having looked at God, we now turn to man/minkind.

We begin with a definition of man as a species in the taxomonic kingdom of animals. By phylum, class, order, family, genus, species, and variant: Chordata/Mammalia/Primates/Hominidae/Homo/Sapiens/sapiens. There are some number of other subclassifications, but these serve our purpose. This definition is putatively subject to revision only if the scheme itself is revised. It places mankind squarely within the natural life forms observed on Earth, and no evidence has been found to suggest that man has an origin other than that of an evolved life form within the parameters represented by taxonomy. So we will treat man accordingly.

That said, we also observe that man differs in kind from the rest of biology in that he is capable of creating his own environment. This is something no other life form has demonstrated an ability to do. In testament of this, a space vehicle qualifies completely, because it enables man to exist in a meta-environment that offers no support whatever. In principle, such a vehicle can be created that would last and function to specification indefinitely. It is said that, given the opportunity, man will inevitably build thus and so successfully divorce himself (at least in part) from his physical source, the Earth. The fact that this seems theoretically possible provides a basis for exploring man's uniqueness.

Some number of human attributes are given as fundamental thereto, but of interest is how they are related, for we can speculate that it is this that is the key to that uniqueness. We recognize the capacity for language as signatory, but language itself exists in prototypical form as manifest even by class Aves (birds). We recognize the ability to create abstract images, but we have no way as yet of determining that man is alone in that regard. There are other attributes but these two are regarded as most fundamental. Arguably, however, it is the confluence of all these attributes, and a suitably supportive environment as well, that has made possible man's development in this regard

It was thought at one time that the beginnings of history marked the initiation of humanity into its current civilized state, but evidence now repudiates that notion. When we look to the past to determine the point at which this capability manifest, we find ourselves somewhat confused. Evidence of language, tool use, and organization of culture predate history. In fact, as we learn more about our past through modern tools of investigation, the boundaries between prehistory and history grow less distinct, and so we are unable to pin-point the beginning of human uniqueness. We are also thus unable to describe the original nature of that uniqueness.

Further, we can look at others of taxonomic family Hominidae, and discover that we are not alone in some of our signature social behaviors. For many species of the class Mammalia, grouping is the default life style. Families, troops, tribes, packs, clans, herds, etc. provide cooperative living arrangements, though in virtually all cases, based on the parent-offspring relationship. In family Hominidae, however, we find chimpanzees who develop inter-group relationships. Pan trogdolytes (chimps) regularly demonstrate an eagerness to have social contact with other groups, especially on the part of the females. The males are observed to engage in sometimes rather complex political groupings that often change and morph according to the perceived needs of the moment. So human society, even as we practice it today, is not unique to homo sapiens sapiens.

On the more primitive side of collective human behavior where parochialism is the defining aspect of a society, we can find analogous tribal constructs as the default behavior of gorillas: gorilla gorilla and gorilla berengei. The social structure is centered around an alpha male, who defends the group against outsiders, primarily other alpha males. In the former specie, virtually all breeding is done by the alpha male, though in the latter, especially the Mountain gorilla, the gorilla troop takes on the characteristics of a tribe rather than a family, as beta males are also allowed to breed. In either case, we see mirrored human behavior of the more visceral kind.

A popular characterization of human uniqueness is said to be that of tool use. This has been repudiated by evidence of tool use even outside the mammalian classification: birds have been witnessed using twigs as probes! Sometimes tool use is ad hoc, where it is observed and copied by others on a temporary basis, but sometimes tool use is passed from parent to offspring. It is tool creation, however, that is much more limited to mankind. Here, a definition of tool making as opposed to tool obtaining is relevant: how much alteration is required to qualify as tool creation? Arguably, that varies, but it is certainly evident that homo sapiens sapiens far outstrips any other life form in the creation and use of tools.

Human uniqueness is perhaps best described as an evolved capability. This is arguably one of perception, and it leads to the possibility of conception. The essential ingredient here is the capacity for abstraction. To explain: The word 'perception' may be defined as that which is fully grasped, indicating a cognition of that which lies behind the appearances or beneath the surface, of the essence of what is seen. The Latin 'percipere' speaks of gathering in by various means, with an emphasis on the typically Roman vigorous action. The word 'conception' may be defined as that which is deliberately made integral and whole. Here, the Latin 'concipere' speaks of taking in that which has been seized or gathered, of assimilating to oneself. So the notion that perception may lead to conception implies the activity of taking in and making one's own.

Abstraction may be defined as the process of extracting the essence of a thing. Implicit in the above activity of acquiring and making one's own is the transferrence of that essence from the objective thing acquired to the subjective result of the assimilation of that thing. These are admittedly difficult ideas that are not easily embraced, for they do not usually admit of ready comprehension. Which is why the explanation and subsequent elaboration.

Perhaps the best way of illuminating this is to dub it the process of creation. Creation can be understood as the making manifest of that which is not. Creation is the act of generating an object, such that has sufficient integrity to exist independently from the creator. It is a deliberate act, not accidental. As such, it comes into existence as a result of the birth of a concept, and has its gestation in the mind of the creator. It is the consequence of the abstraction and re-expression of an essence, and it is the source of mankind's ability to manifest a completely artificial environment. To understand how this came about, it is necessary to regard the basics of life itself, and we'll start at the very bottom and build rapidly.

The fundamental imperative of life is to survive. Generally that means the survival of the individual, though Dawkins has argued that survival is actually a genetic strategy and so reproduction is the determinator of survival. In any case, it is the individual that is charged with the task. Survival means being able to feed, to remain free from mortal attack, and to reproduce. Given the last as the benchmark, it is feeding that is the most continuous task. So we select that as the operative consideration.

All life requires an environment from which to obtain that which it lacks. The amoeba that swims in a homogeneity of food, needs only extend a pseudopod to embrace what is required. If the food is not homogenous, perhaps cillia or a flagellum is needed to swim to where the best nourishment can be found. If the food is not immediate, then the task is to locate same and situate so as to have access thereto. If the food is stationary, a plant is an adequate lifeform, extending a root into the source of nourishment and whatever else that is required gets suitable response; leaves to receive solar energy as a catalyst, etc. But what if the food is mobile?

Then, the life form must also be mobile and being a plant usually won't do. Hence animals. Now we get to the issue of the range of the available food. Travel capability is important here. But even more important is the stability of the food itself, such that it can be recognized when it is found. Here, we begin to consider the state of the environment itself. Is it, in its own changes, able to provide the stability required for the survival of the food source? We have seasons when animal food is plentiful, and when it is sparse, and animal strategies are mounted to address this.

But at some point, if the environment itself is not sufficiently stable, the food source can disappear, leaving the animal to adapt or die. And so species evolve and go extinct. In all this progression, we note that the need for adaptability governs the complexity of the life form. In general, the more complex the life form, the greater range of adaptability it can display, and so the greater the ability to survive inevitable changes in the environment.

And so we come to mankind. We have noted that mankind is capable of creating a totally artificial environment, and in that capability, we observe some sort of ultimate in adaptability. This places mankind at the top of the proverbial food chain, and leaves him in effective control of his environment as it includes much of the rest of life. We can now ask how all this came to pass, and in doing so, ferret out some of the essence of humanity, mankind.

We note that life develops what is required to respond effectively to its environment. But that response addresses more than just food; it addresses the need to defend against predation by others. It also addresses the need to successfully procreate. Some of this complexification involves physical attributes, but some also involves correct behavior, where correct is defined as successful. And it is the need for correct behavior that is the most important part of acquiring adaptability. Colloquially: It isn't what you have, so much as it is how you use it.

Behavior, at the most primitive level, is hardwired into the nervous system and the programming is generally located as close as possible to the primary sensory apparatus. Most often, that is sight, and so the location of the eyes is also that of the proto-brain. This is the behavior level popularly known as "reptilian instinct". Considerations at that level are the determination of the state of the environment, what is a threat and what is a benefit. Those considerations are reflected in the recognition of hierarchy, and are manifest as ritual. Again, the primary concerns are those of defense, feeding and procreating; in the argot, this is fighting, fleeing, feeding and f***ing, the four Fs. And again, the requirement is that the environment not offer too great a range of change, lest the capabilities enabled by the hard wired nervous system are outstripped.

When that happens, and the possibility that it will must exist, new strategies are required. Now, hardwired response is not adequate to produce all the required behavior, and so some system of self-modification is needed. What evolved was a system of sensory flagging, such that certain sensory data produced heightened responses of alertness. New neural constructs were developed to accommodate these flags. The result was an additional assembly of neural structures at the sight of the proto-brain. So evolved the complex of functionality we call memory, where records of flagged sensory data were collated into the first individually produced artifacts: unique configurations of neural complexes. Collectively, these are popularly called the "limbic system".

Several things resulted. One of those was the creation of a new dimension of perceived reality, that of time. At the beginning was the timeless "now", and it was replaced by "now" and "not now". It was the "not now" that held the keys to the behavior modification that was evoked. The specific nature of the "not now" was irrelevant, it simply needed to provide what hardwired instinct could not: new responses. But it was the effect this had on behavior in general that was most profound. For the first time, continuity could be established, such that phenomenon that transcended the eternal present could become significant. Recognition of progeny, of mate, of family group, etc became enabled as they survived temporary absence. Territory was recognized, as prior visits established recognition flags subsequently activated by return. This was, essentially, a huge step in the development of life forms.

It turns out that class Aves, as well as class Mammalia, displays this development. Which is why certain birds display a startling and sometimes awesome level of real smarts! The concept of recognition itself required this advancement: to re-cognize is to cognize again what was cognized previously. Memory, then, is a fundamental requirement of intelligence. It is important here to realize that memory is not always a matter of the neural constructs that attend the development of the brain; it is the function itself, however accomplished, that is important. In that regard one can then recognize evidence of rudimentary memory in a much wider range of life forms. Indeed, it can be noted in the behavior of nonliving forms as well!

It is, however, the establishment of the sense of time, of continuity, of a form of cyclicity, that enables memory possessing life forms to advance in adaptability. The environment does not have to be contiguous in what it offers. And this enabled most if not all the larger animals to develop. Ultimately, this included the eventual rise of mankind.

In large part, the essence of the importance of memory and what can be achieved as a result is the value of the ability to ramp up one's capacity for response. For it is that extra edge of preparedness that makes survival possible when otherwise it might not be. But this development too has its inherent limitations. Only that which has been encountered in some fashion can offer reason for preparedness. What is entirely and completely new is beyond the scope of that strategy.

All cyclic change that has a longer term than the current length of memory contingency of a species, that is, how many generations can the recognition and behavior be passed down before becoming incomprehensibly corrupt, is beyond the ability of memory to address. The coming of new climate is such a change. The advance and retreat of ice sheets is such a change. Ways to adapt are discovered, or the species dies off, potentially to go extinct. In this, memory by itself is powerless.

The next stage of development occured in its most primitive form in most all of class Mammalia, and in class Aves as well. This required a new level of brain function, and a new type of neural construct. In its most rudimentary form, this new development was the ability to manipulate memory data so that new combinations could be generated and managed. Events and circumstances in memory could be combined in new ways that enabled recognition of variations on what had been experienced. It was this stage that enabled the display of new level of intelligence. It was, and is, the first step towards the grasp of potentiality and possibility. In terms of time, it is the first hint of a new direction, the future.

The evidence of this can be seen in the formation of the next level of brain development, the cerebrum. An insightful activity is to inspect the relative development of the cerebrum in each branch and evolution in classes Mammalia and Aves. Function is more or less directly related to size and complexity, although it is relative, rather than absolute, size, that is relevant here. Apparently, it is only in genus homo that the cerebrum becomes dominant so far as behavior can make evident, though several other species qualify in terms of relative size. Dolphins are one of these.

This, then, is the physical basis for the unique state of humanity. But certain ingredients are missing. What is it that differentiates between mankind and other species where the cerebrum is evidently dominant? The answer to this is only now beginning to clarify, and so far not sufficiently to pin down the particulars. Nevertheless, we have enough information to begin to perceive the larger forms of the picture.

One facet of that picture seems to have been a change in human diet, such that provided more cellular fuel available to the brain on an instantaneous basis. The functionality was there in potential, but to actualize it posited added requirements. In this case, one of those appears to have been a change to a distinctly more glucose rich diet, such that is characteristic of grains. This is arguably the result of the opportunity to engage in agriculture instead of remaining nomadic herdsmen and hunter-gatherers.

Another facet of that picture was evidently opportunity itself, such that was provide by a remarkably stable terrestrial climate. This is an interesting notion for many of us to contemplate: the last few tens of millennia have witnessed a climactic stability observed nowhere else in the records we have available to us. Indeed, the last couple of centuries were even more incredibly stable, and we are just now coming out of a short period of exceptionally mild weather. So we are coming to appreciate the value of such an opportunity in general, as we witness that value in particular.

The result was that human mentation, initially developed in response to the increased pressure for survival adaptability, was set free to perform at need. And the function itself provided those needs. In its most basic state, cerebral mentation is intended to answer a single question: What comes next? The more options developed as potential answers, the more likely a useful answer could be generated, and that enhanced survival skill to an extent never before achieved.

This process is described in the theory of the brain/mind model. The function of the human cerebrum is the creation of optional scenarios from the raw data of sensory input as modified by more primitive and more immediately responsive levels of the brain. These scenarios are the subjective representations of objective reality, or the current state of the environment. Ideally, there is a constant process of correlation that serves to validate or invalidate any given scenario. That process involves checking the predictions of "what comes next" against information received from sensory data. We call this process, when we invoke it deliberately (appropriately enough) a "reality check".

But that only determines the current dominant model that is labelled "real". Other factors are the satisfaction of information that has been already gathered, and there can be any number of scenarios that might accomplish that. Those that do on some extent of continuum, are kept as options, and those that don't are modified or cast aside. However, as civilization developed, the frequency of survival level requirements began to slow down, and so the tests for these scenarios began to comprise an extended range of (potentially non-survival) concerns.

As this more and more increasingly complex range of options were exercised, they became manifest as part of the human environment. Human artifice became a distinct, then a significant, and finally a dominant aspect of the human environment. In the course of this process, the mechanisms at work achieved the ability to create what had never before been contemplated, and the power of the imagination became the principal tool of human survival. Items of attribution like concepts and abstraction took shape, and as they did, aural communication became the medium of language. Words, even in our own experiences, equate to concepts and images. And when communicated, they enabled the development of a collective consciousness, which eventually produced civilization.

Here, then, is a possible telling of the development of modern humanity. The question before us at this point, though, is how this enables the development of religion. The answer is not difficult to discern, though it is now apparently quite difficult to comprehend, because we are now victims of our own intellectual prowess: we have been recreated by our own creations. And one of those creations is religion.

In the segment on the nature of God, it was tentatively concluded that the most probable scenario was that the gods were most likely the memories of real prehistorical people, who brought with them the remembered technology of an earlier period when agriculture and the rudiments of civilization were practiced. When that might have been is probably undeterminable, at least at this point. However, it need not have been as far back as a previous interglacial period.

Consider: One of the most powerful articles of faith that underwrite modern physical science is that physical law is universal. The same elements of matter have been observed to exist in stars billions of years old. This strongly suggests that the laws of physics have prevailed throughout the life of our planet. On that basis, we can suppose that the mean temperature at any seaside location was within the range of habitability at worst, and most probably well within that range in some places; ice water cannot get colder than the freezing point and a body of liquid water will regulate the local temperature thus. And this can be assumed to have been exactly as true in prehistoric times as it is today.

Accordingly, it is reasonable to suppose that seaside locations were as habitable then as they are now. It is a matter of scientific record that the sea level is now higher than it has been in the last 100,000 years. In fact, it rose to this level within the last 20,000 years, achieving near this present level by about 5 millennia ago. Before that time, the coastal area extended out to nearly the edge of the continental shelf. That entire area is now underwater, and under a great deal of silt as well. It is virtually inaccessible to investigation, given current off-the-shelf technology, and is prohibitively expensive in any case. Given that even now the concentration of human population is local to ocean and sea shoreline, it is reasonable to assume that was the case then as well.

So there is ample reason to expect that as the sea levels rose, much of human population was displaced. It seems inevitable that some of that population did not find suitable replacement for their settlement, and so were forced into a semi-nomadic life style. The geological phenomenon of interest here is called the Flandrian Transgression, and it is the rise of the sea level and the incursion of the shore line into areas once well removed from the sea. And the immersion of once habitable dry land. In fact, this phenomenon is known to have occured in the areas of the ancient near east where our civilization is presumed to have begun.

In that regard, a professor at Mississippi State University, Juris Zarins, makes an excellent case for the location of the Biblical Garden of Edin, and he places it in the northern end of the Persian Gulf, now submerged by the Flandrian Transgression. He identifies the Biblical rivers that were said to flow therefrom, and provides a wealth of archaeological data in support of those identifications. In that regard, the two rivers held unidentifiable were the Rivers Pishon and Gihon, the Tigris and Euphrates being well known. Pishon flowed from Havilah, which had been identified as Arabia, and Zarins shows that the Wadis that lead across northern Arabia to the Gulf were once the course of a flowing river when the climate in Arabia was a great deal wetter than now. Gihon flowed from the opposite side, down through what is now southeastern Iraq and was then the land that became that of the Kashites of the Babylon period. The identification that the river flowed from Ethiopia was based in an identification of Kush/Cush with that area. Vowels are alway problematic, and in this case, it should have been 'a' instead of 'u'. The area was then known as Kashshu and the river was still in existence during the Babylon period as the River Kashnu.

As the climate of the area dried up and the once lush lands of the plains (Akkadian: E-din) became desert, the original "paradise" was lost to the sea. Almost certainly, about that time, peoples who had been displaced elsewhere showed up, and some of them were able to mentor the locals into the development of agriculture, and leave them with other sophistications of civilization as well. When the rains came again, those who had been hunter-gatherers and herdsment returned, only to find their range now fenced in by farmers!

And eventually, history began.

It is instructive to note that the Flandrian Transgression thus probably fills the requirement for extensive flooding, especially if the area got catastrophically flooded when a coastal barrier gave way. It's also instructive to note that the same thing may well have happened in the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea as well, though when is not known to this writer.

And so it is that mankind arose once again, and this time with the legacy of a people who brought with them the seeds of modern man. These people were, arguably, the gods. But now, what of the remarkable faculties and/or facilities attributed to them, and why does man now suffer the effects of his own creation?

Part of that story is the tawdry result of the basest parts of human nature. As the gods disappeared, the records state that they left agents, as chronicled in the "descent of kingship". It suffices to say that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It was as impossible then as it is today for any institution in power not to come to put its own existence ahead of the purpose for which it was founded. And so kingship acted for its own survival instead of as the intended steward of the people served. The same is true for those who were tasked with tending to the affairs of the god people themselves, and they became the priests.

In the absence of the god people, kings and priests vied for power, as they have done down through history and continue to do today. Originally, one can imagine, the kings were the designated shepherds of the indigenous folk, the way through which the god people passed their value on to the locals; likewise, the priestcraft was the way the locals passed on to the god people what they required, etc. And as always, the gatekeepers arrogate the power of license, determining what will, and will not, pass through.

Thus religion began right alongside government. Historically, the two have gone hand in hand, neither really potent without the other. Together, they form the basis of virtually every culture and nation that exists, or has ever existed. Including the United States of America. The result is that as we became civilized, we also became indoctrinated with the necessity of religion, for the gods were the source of both.

The recent history of religion has focused on the rise and dominion of the Hebrew religions, as we have said. In each case, they were essentially wrappers for government. Judaism for the Jews, Christianity for Byzantine Rome and eventually Italian Rome as well, and Islam for the Arabs. In each case, we find those wrappers firmly in their original place. Judaism still is the support of the national identity of the Jews, Christianity for the descendants of the remnants of the old Roman Empire, and Islam still centered in (now Saudi) Arabia.

And the last question must be: how can those ancient traditions retain such a strong hold on humanity today? The answer is painfully obvious. It is virtually impossible to completely destroy acculturation acquired from birth. Neuroscience can now show us how that works, as it is a physiological phenomenon involving neural pathways and connections that cannot be destroyed, only disconnected. Religious acculturation is especially intense, because it addresses matters of profound importance to every individual, and so the Dawkinsian memes of religion are connected to the deepest fears of every individual, those that involve death.

Those who have been actively indoctrinated will never be free from those connections, and so must choose to actively manage them as they see fit. Many simply accept them and honor them, however required. Most find a way to ignore them most of the time, but are then not prepared to manage them if it becomes needful to do so. Some few escape that acculturation, but absent intentional inquiry, have no way to affect that acculturation in others.

So it is that, impelled by the fear for a putative immortal soul, otherwise intelligent and reasonable people become zombies in the hands of the institutions of religion, be it Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. And the world as it is now is the result

Our next task to to address the other part of the story: the issue of the putatively immortal soul, and in general, the subject of spirit.