Over that last two years, I’ve spent a lot of time trying to understand the sacred. First I collected a list of things that people say correlate with our treating things as sacred, and then I looked for general theories that could explain why humans might have a behavioral pattern with these correlates. In the story I prefer (a story proposed by others, extended by me) humans long ago evolved a general capacity that functions primarily to bind groups together by their shared view of certain special things. Different groups treat different things as (more vs less) sacred, and it matters less what a group treats as sacred than that that group treats the same things that way.
I recommend DS Wilson's book Darwin's Cathedral on this topic, along with the relevant parts of Haidt's The Righteous Mind. They make a compelling case that religiosity evolved to foster collective action. And true believers don't have to go through the kind of cost-benefit calculation they otherwise would when thinking about whether to contribute to public goods.
I’ll add another option from my faith tradition (LDS). Rather than an ancestral longing for God, we have a longing for God derived from each individual’s pre-mortal experience with God. We all lived with Him as spirits in a pre-mortal existence and now, though we don’t remember that, we naturally have an innate yearning to return to His presence, and to experience a spiritual connection with Him on Earth.
I see the stars as being sacred, not because I worship them, but because they're a manifestation of the pure energy of the universe from which we came; actively live in; and will return to once we die. Our ancestors seemed to grasp this better than we do now, which of course explains why cosmic symbolism appears throughout various religions and why the ancients always focused on the sky--it's where we came from billions of years before.
"Sacred geometry" is another example of this: specific, intricate patterns and shapes that appear throughout history, religion, nature, and the cosmos. They're linked to us, down to our very microscopic makeup. Truly sacred things is anything that remind us of our true nature, where we came from and who we really are: expressions of the universe.
Humans, like other social species, evolved mechanisms to promote group cohesion and group cooperation. The mechanisms that support this are as complex as the rest of us; some evolved via natural selection but many are cultural methods to solve the problem of how to bind group members. I suspect belief in sacred objects is a cultural invention. Professing belief in a sacred object is an example of wider practices (such as performing rituals) whose goal is to convince your group that you are a true believer and thus a group member in good standing. Group members then get group membership benefits. The purpose of sacred objects can't be revealed because then it could more easily be gamed.
Robin, your insightful post on "Truly Sacred Things" illuminates the complex relationship between human evolution and the concept of the sacred. I've been following your posts on this topic and noticed an intriguing area for further exploration: the intergenerational aspects of sacredness. Specifically, the role of age in shaping and perceiving what is considered sacred seems to be a missing piece in the current discourse.
The journey through different life stages significantly alters our perception of sacred concepts. Older generations, with their wealth of experience and connections to tradition, often view sacredness as a legacy, a link to the past that must be preserved. This perspective is crucial in maintaining the integrity of sacred beliefs.
During the rebellious years of youth, there's a natural tendency to question and challenge established norms, including sacred beliefs. This period of life is marked by exploration, questioning, and often, the reshaping of what is considered sacred. It's a time when individuals start to form their own understanding of the world, which can lead to significant shifts in how sacred concepts are perceived and valued.
Younger generations, positioned at the vanguard of societal change, often reinterpret sacred concepts, reflecting the dynamic nature of human societies. Their fresh perspectives can challenge traditional views, leading to an evolution of what is considered sacred.
Considering these points, a deeper examination of how different age groups interact with and influence the concept of the sacred could enrich our understanding of its role in human societies. This intergenerational perspective might reveal the dynamic nature of sacred beliefs, showing how they are not only preserved but also transformed and revitalized, ensuring their relevance in an ever-evolving world.
They're extremely skeptical and don't believe in invisible deities or anything they cannot see personally. Attempts at Christianizing them all failed because once they learn the missionary hasn't met Jesus in person, and thus that this belief is from hearsay, they immediately lose interest. They also have almost no mathematical understanding, and don't care for it. On the flip side, they all claim they can see spirits, and when describing such spirits, their descriptions match as if they're literally seeing with their own eyes said spirits doing whatever, whereas Westerners looking at the spot they're all pointing to see and feel literally nothing at all.
I've observed some interesting things myself in different contexts. One that I find particularly intriguing are rites involving alcohol consumed by channeler-priests in African-derived syncretic religions down here in Brazil. Basically, when in channeling trance, "incorporating" an alcohol-drinking spirit, they gulp down massive quantities of hard liquor brought by the faithful, sometimes two or more bottles. Then, less than an hour later, once the presumed spirit "dis-incorporates", the channeler-priest shows absolutely no sign of drunkenness, being completely sober. They say the visiting spirit takes the liquor's intoxicating effect with them when they depart. This is a very usual sight and studied in academic papers and thesis published here, e.g. https://repositorio.ufc.br/handle/riufc/10498 (no English version, alas). The tentative explanations vary a lot, but they're all speculative at best, and no one really knows what's going on with that, and with other unusual things seen in such contexts.
These are two examples of likely ancient sacred relations that still are going on. If you're interested in figuring out what the baseline sacred impulses from which others arise are, reading in depth about those would likely provide further insights.
But the most sacred thing could be yet discovered, right?
To use the analogy of sweetness = sacredness. We have evolved to recognize sweetness. But the sweetest thing can be a new invention. So the original sacred things that were important developed in us a sense towards the sacred. But the most sacred thing can be completely new.
Dr. Hanson, I've been following your "sacred" journey for a while now, and I have to say that I saw this conclusion coming. Here's how: your conclusion about the origin of the "shaper" is right on the edge of Islaamic creed. There are a handful of terminologies & definitions you used that Islaam wouldn't accept, but the direction these terminologies & definitions are heading in are leading you in a straight path to the Attributes of this "Shaper" (which is one of God's Names in Islaam, btw) that are established in Islaamic creed. Keep one thing in mind, though: *perfection* must be maintained.
This necessitates perfect hearing, sight, power, dominion, speech, and *knowledge*, and perfect knowledge takes care of your "must have had substantial experience" parameter in the following way: most ex-Christian atheists do not move beyond a Christian doctrinal concept of the parameters of the Shaper/Creator, so because Christians believe God didn't understand humans (which He created??) without becoming a human (??), ex-Christian atheists base their criticisms of the concept of the Shaper/Creator on that parameter (for example). So, an atheist will say something like "if God made Himself ignorant therefore..." because Christians taught them that God & ignorance (i.e. imperfect knowledge) can mix. But this *clearly*, *inarguably* contradicts perfect knowledge! Perfect knowledge = knowledge of *everything*, no exceptions, which means God/Shaper/Creator *by definition* understood exactly who & what we were when He "shaped" us, which goes back to your conclusion:
"For humans to have been shaped long ago" (yes) "to treat the sacred in its appropriate sacred manner," (which is what God in Islaam wants) "the sacred must have been around long ago," (yes, God is older than everything) "and important enough then to shape our natures." (yes, as the Shaper, this is exactly what happened) "That is, if the sacred is real, it must be big and ancient." (good starting point, which is what Islaam (not Christianity) asserts with intellectual, self-evident proof. You're right on the edge of Islaam).
After sucessfully/unsuccessfully experiencing the sacred/unsacred in uncounted attempts, I am currently living the SACREDNESS by recognizing that I as well as all of existence is Sacred... No more searching... THIS IS IT... ALL OF OF IT, VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE, KNOWN AND UNKNOWABLE IS SACRED...
There is a good candidate for such an ancient, conserved, powerfully shaping force: aesthetics
We know that deeply conserved aesthetic preferences encode not only a great deal of features relevant to survival, health, perfection and orderliness, but also features that could be considered evolutionary spandrels, and ones that are a result of runaway competitive spirals.
If sacredness-detection hitches a ride from aesthetic preference, then we would expect to see similar dynamics in how candidate sacrednesses could acquire wide recognition based solely on their ‘ring of sacredness-ness’, and a similar response of fashionability (or not) as a response to changing conditions (or not) (see, for example, Sarah Perry on the very novel advent of child-sacredness), whilst also enabling quite arbitrary idolatry (which can be purposed for the social cohesion role), and also for the aesthetic evaluation of entirely personal and internal metaphysical stances.
The god shaped hole is the shape of our attentional schema. The way mammalian conscious attention is wired means its contents are in constant flux, unsatisfactory, and without the possibility of direct human control or apprehension. We posit the existence of something that is the inversion of these properties: permanent, wonderful, and a human shaped controller.
Regardless of whether one is a Christian or a Buddhist or a New Atheist, modern humans' worldviews and narratives of what is important are filled of abstract concepts.
Sacred objects, in any tradition, serve a purpose of making these intangible things feel concrete.
The group evolution thing sounds like it makes sense too, but it seems to me like observed behaviour around sacred objects is fully explained by us being beings who value abstract things yet are built to work with mostly tangible ones.
I recommend DS Wilson's book Darwin's Cathedral on this topic, along with the relevant parts of Haidt's The Righteous Mind. They make a compelling case that religiosity evolved to foster collective action. And true believers don't have to go through the kind of cost-benefit calculation they otherwise would when thinking about whether to contribute to public goods.
I’ll add another option from my faith tradition (LDS). Rather than an ancestral longing for God, we have a longing for God derived from each individual’s pre-mortal experience with God. We all lived with Him as spirits in a pre-mortal existence and now, though we don’t remember that, we naturally have an innate yearning to return to His presence, and to experience a spiritual connection with Him on Earth.
it's only god-shaped after you throw it in, not before
I see the stars as being sacred, not because I worship them, but because they're a manifestation of the pure energy of the universe from which we came; actively live in; and will return to once we die. Our ancestors seemed to grasp this better than we do now, which of course explains why cosmic symbolism appears throughout various religions and why the ancients always focused on the sky--it's where we came from billions of years before.
"Sacred geometry" is another example of this: specific, intricate patterns and shapes that appear throughout history, religion, nature, and the cosmos. They're linked to us, down to our very microscopic makeup. Truly sacred things is anything that remind us of our true nature, where we came from and who we really are: expressions of the universe.
Humans, like other social species, evolved mechanisms to promote group cohesion and group cooperation. The mechanisms that support this are as complex as the rest of us; some evolved via natural selection but many are cultural methods to solve the problem of how to bind group members. I suspect belief in sacred objects is a cultural invention. Professing belief in a sacred object is an example of wider practices (such as performing rituals) whose goal is to convince your group that you are a true believer and thus a group member in good standing. Group members then get group membership benefits. The purpose of sacred objects can't be revealed because then it could more easily be gamed.
Robin, your insightful post on "Truly Sacred Things" illuminates the complex relationship between human evolution and the concept of the sacred. I've been following your posts on this topic and noticed an intriguing area for further exploration: the intergenerational aspects of sacredness. Specifically, the role of age in shaping and perceiving what is considered sacred seems to be a missing piece in the current discourse.
The journey through different life stages significantly alters our perception of sacred concepts. Older generations, with their wealth of experience and connections to tradition, often view sacredness as a legacy, a link to the past that must be preserved. This perspective is crucial in maintaining the integrity of sacred beliefs.
During the rebellious years of youth, there's a natural tendency to question and challenge established norms, including sacred beliefs. This period of life is marked by exploration, questioning, and often, the reshaping of what is considered sacred. It's a time when individuals start to form their own understanding of the world, which can lead to significant shifts in how sacred concepts are perceived and valued.
Younger generations, positioned at the vanguard of societal change, often reinterpret sacred concepts, reflecting the dynamic nature of human societies. Their fresh perspectives can challenge traditional views, leading to an evolution of what is considered sacred.
Considering these points, a deeper examination of how different age groups interact with and influence the concept of the sacred could enrich our understanding of its role in human societies. This intergenerational perspective might reveal the dynamic nature of sacred beliefs, showing how they are not only preserved but also transformed and revitalized, ensuring their relevance in an ever-evolving world.
Anthropology provides interesting sources of confusion on this topic. One I find fascinating are the Pirahã people of the Amazon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_people
They're extremely skeptical and don't believe in invisible deities or anything they cannot see personally. Attempts at Christianizing them all failed because once they learn the missionary hasn't met Jesus in person, and thus that this belief is from hearsay, they immediately lose interest. They also have almost no mathematical understanding, and don't care for it. On the flip side, they all claim they can see spirits, and when describing such spirits, their descriptions match as if they're literally seeing with their own eyes said spirits doing whatever, whereas Westerners looking at the spot they're all pointing to see and feel literally nothing at all.
I've observed some interesting things myself in different contexts. One that I find particularly intriguing are rites involving alcohol consumed by channeler-priests in African-derived syncretic religions down here in Brazil. Basically, when in channeling trance, "incorporating" an alcohol-drinking spirit, they gulp down massive quantities of hard liquor brought by the faithful, sometimes two or more bottles. Then, less than an hour later, once the presumed spirit "dis-incorporates", the channeler-priest shows absolutely no sign of drunkenness, being completely sober. They say the visiting spirit takes the liquor's intoxicating effect with them when they depart. This is a very usual sight and studied in academic papers and thesis published here, e.g. https://repositorio.ufc.br/handle/riufc/10498 (no English version, alas). The tentative explanations vary a lot, but they're all speculative at best, and no one really knows what's going on with that, and with other unusual things seen in such contexts.
These are two examples of likely ancient sacred relations that still are going on. If you're interested in figuring out what the baseline sacred impulses from which others arise are, reading in depth about those would likely provide further insights.
But the most sacred thing could be yet discovered, right?
To use the analogy of sweetness = sacredness. We have evolved to recognize sweetness. But the sweetest thing can be a new invention. So the original sacred things that were important developed in us a sense towards the sacred. But the most sacred thing can be completely new.
Did I misunderstand?
Dr. Hanson, I've been following your "sacred" journey for a while now, and I have to say that I saw this conclusion coming. Here's how: your conclusion about the origin of the "shaper" is right on the edge of Islaamic creed. There are a handful of terminologies & definitions you used that Islaam wouldn't accept, but the direction these terminologies & definitions are heading in are leading you in a straight path to the Attributes of this "Shaper" (which is one of God's Names in Islaam, btw) that are established in Islaamic creed. Keep one thing in mind, though: *perfection* must be maintained.
This necessitates perfect hearing, sight, power, dominion, speech, and *knowledge*, and perfect knowledge takes care of your "must have had substantial experience" parameter in the following way: most ex-Christian atheists do not move beyond a Christian doctrinal concept of the parameters of the Shaper/Creator, so because Christians believe God didn't understand humans (which He created??) without becoming a human (??), ex-Christian atheists base their criticisms of the concept of the Shaper/Creator on that parameter (for example). So, an atheist will say something like "if God made Himself ignorant therefore..." because Christians taught them that God & ignorance (i.e. imperfect knowledge) can mix. But this *clearly*, *inarguably* contradicts perfect knowledge! Perfect knowledge = knowledge of *everything*, no exceptions, which means God/Shaper/Creator *by definition* understood exactly who & what we were when He "shaped" us, which goes back to your conclusion:
"For humans to have been shaped long ago" (yes) "to treat the sacred in its appropriate sacred manner," (which is what God in Islaam wants) "the sacred must have been around long ago," (yes, God is older than everything) "and important enough then to shape our natures." (yes, as the Shaper, this is exactly what happened) "That is, if the sacred is real, it must be big and ancient." (good starting point, which is what Islaam (not Christianity) asserts with intellectual, self-evident proof. You're right on the edge of Islaam).
After sucessfully/unsuccessfully experiencing the sacred/unsacred in uncounted attempts, I am currently living the SACREDNESS by recognizing that I as well as all of existence is Sacred... No more searching... THIS IS IT... ALL OF OF IT, VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE, KNOWN AND UNKNOWABLE IS SACRED...
I surprised Robin didn't try to publish his article about this in a more prestigious sociology journal (or did he?).
There is a good candidate for such an ancient, conserved, powerfully shaping force: aesthetics
We know that deeply conserved aesthetic preferences encode not only a great deal of features relevant to survival, health, perfection and orderliness, but also features that could be considered evolutionary spandrels, and ones that are a result of runaway competitive spirals.
If sacredness-detection hitches a ride from aesthetic preference, then we would expect to see similar dynamics in how candidate sacrednesses could acquire wide recognition based solely on their ‘ring of sacredness-ness’, and a similar response of fashionability (or not) as a response to changing conditions (or not) (see, for example, Sarah Perry on the very novel advent of child-sacredness), whilst also enabling quite arbitrary idolatry (which can be purposed for the social cohesion role), and also for the aesthetic evaluation of entirely personal and internal metaphysical stances.
Really interesting topic.
The word in Hebrew for holy really means separate, sacred.
Evolutionary psychology isn't the only way to explain the world.
The god shaped hole is the shape of our attentional schema. The way mammalian conscious attention is wired means its contents are in constant flux, unsatisfactory, and without the possibility of direct human control or apprehension. We posit the existence of something that is the inversion of these properties: permanent, wonderful, and a human shaped controller.
“If the sacred is real, it must be big and ancient.” Truth.
Regardless of whether one is a Christian or a Buddhist or a New Atheist, modern humans' worldviews and narratives of what is important are filled of abstract concepts.
Sacred objects, in any tradition, serve a purpose of making these intangible things feel concrete.
The group evolution thing sounds like it makes sense too, but it seems to me like observed behaviour around sacred objects is fully explained by us being beings who value abstract things yet are built to work with mostly tangible ones.