Religious Impact on Ancient Man?

[Axis Kast]

Lately, I’ve been having several discussions over the topic of religion’s impact in medieval Europe and the ancient world in general. The basic contentions revolve around three camps:

(1) The Traditionalists

Basic interpretations of pre-modern humans as fearful adherents to religion are accepted as true in almost every case. While they acknowledge that political, economic, and cultural questions frequently color all situations even where religion is a key factor, there is no denying for this school that religion, mysticism, or worship dominated absolutely the life of ancient man. Key among their arguments behind the power of religion are examples of massive projects otherwise ridiculous without religious pretexts (ie, the Pyramids of Giza) and the near-universal appeal of Christianity in Europe after the Fall of Rome.

(2) The Revisionists

Led by an increasingly vocal group of historians, anthropologists, and archeologists, this circle of thought promotes the notion that religion was merely an identifier and that most views of ancient man as “primitive” or “easily manipulated” are patently false. While religion motivated some, they argue, it was for most more an institution and source of identification. The Catholic Church of pre-Reformation Europe was so powerful, they suggest, because it was (A) a universal identifier and (B) a source of immense wealth, education, and stability through tradition for so many. The power of the Papacy, they argue, was founded mostly on the fact that Catholicism was the least transitory of all movements or organizations in the medieval world. Protestantism, they argue, was intrinsically a tool of politicians seeking to limit Rome’s secular reach rather than an actual backlash against the Church. Religion was, by and large, a pretext for political, economic, or military action. The average peasant is remembered as devout primarily out of inevitability; Revisionists argue that modern historians mistake the attractiveness of the Church for its spiritual rather than secular component.

(3) The Scientists

The newest and most basic faction, they argue that science has progressively worked to battle the appeal of religion worldwide. Most important among their examples is that of the modern world. Religion and mysticism, they argue, are least powerful where mixed with technological, scientific, and secular political achievement. This has been a constant, though the high rate of recent scientific progress is shifting what were long universal proportions of believers and non-believers. Many consider this the “East vs. West” argument.


In what camp do you stand?

I’d have to acknowledge that I buy into the Revisionist point of view. I can trace little fundamental differences between the average farmer of the Middle Ages and the average human being of today in terms of sophistication of religious thought. The reach of the Church was in my mind so significant because the Catholic and Protestant power structures smacked of supreme permanence. Religion is chiefly an identifier or appeal to authority rather than a spiritual force to which ancient man devoted nearly all endeavors.

[Frank Hipper]

I'm a little traditionalist with a healthy dose of revisionist thrown in. You can't simply say that ancient man was motivated purely by religion, different periods felt different degrees of religiosity. You couldn't compare the Helenistic period to Egypt, for example. Egypt was the most conservative civilisation to have ever existed, while the Helenistic Greeks and Near-East were quite a bit more secular in outlook. And interestingly, they were coming to influence as Egypt was dying.....

[InnerBrat]

bah, i thought this thread was going to about REAL ancient man. I had my Neanderthal symbolism angle all worked out...

[NapoleonGH]

religion seems to not play as much of a continuous role in people's lives as those suggesting a traditionalist point of view suggest. Look at Rome, in the early days they were religious, then in the period begining with the Gracchi (so 133bc) to actium (31bc) religion's importance became almost non-existant. It was only when Octavius took over completely that he brought about a religious rebirth, for very obvious political reasons. So the revisionist point of view can be seen as heavily supported by the history of rome.

[personanongrata]

I would hardly call the people of midieval people "Ancient".

But, for what it's worth... Until recently, religion, in all forms drove humanity to where it is today. All the ancient civilizations centered their lives around their belief systems.

I'm not sure what exactly changed that in this century. Possibly scientific advances, the development of real democracy and freedom of thought and religion... seperation of church and state, or what. But, especially, in the last 40 years, religion has become less of a pillar of civilization, and more of an added flavor. Now, money is the factor driving most decisions and lifestyles.

[NapoleonGH]

But, for what it's worth... Until recently, religion, in all forms drove humanity to where it is today. All the ancient civilizations centered their lives around their belief systems.

I'm not sure what exactly changed that in this century. Possibly scientific advances, the development of real democracy and freedom of thought and religion... seperation of church and state, or what. But, especially, in the last 40 years, religion has become less of a pillar of civilization, and more of an added flavor. Now, money is the factor driving most decisions and lifestyles.

well you are actually quite wrong, no offence. First off, as already was pointed out, in the Hellenistic age religion played a much reduced role, same is true for as i pointed out, first century BC rome as well as later imperial rome prior to the forced adoption of christianity. Secondly, it isnt this century, you had this little thing called the "enlightenment" in the 17th and 18th centuries that was quite non/anti religious.

Plus you can also view religion's "influence" as less of an actual influence and more of an excuse. Look at the English Civil war, they used the whole puritan vs anglican etc argument as an excuse for a war which was primarily about the rise of the Bourgeois class and its attempt to gain power in the face of the feudal aristocracy.

Plenty of other examples of this as well. The french catholic vs huegonot strugle was more about creating a nation-state where all frenchmen could be said to have certain attributes and be united as one, Louis XIV said as much.

There is lots of evidence to support the view that religion was the excuse, not the actual cause of all these historical acts. Look at the Crusades, on the surface they were about christianity vs infidels, but if you look a little deeper you will see that the Roman Emperor sent a request for aid to the Roman Pope, because the muslims were posing a serious threat to the empire, the pope saw all the power he could gain as a secular ruler by expanding his influence into that area, while protecting his power over europe by preventing the spread of islam into europe proper by defending the empire.

While Karl Marx's political theory was idealistic and utopian, he was a genius at analysing history, specifically in viewing politics AS A FUNCTION of economics and by looking at the economics of an event and seeing how it was the economic factors which prompted the political change. For a perfect example of this read "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Boneparte", in which marx follows the history of the second french republic from birth to death and shows how large the roles of class conflict and economics were to the events as they progressed.
I would tend to agree with marx that religion and other factors at best are secondary influences to economic and social factors in the history of man.

[Johonebesus]

well you are actually quite wrong, no offence. First off, as already was pointed out, in the Hellenistic age religion played a much reduced role, same is true for as i pointed out, first century BC rome as well as later imperial rome prior to the forced adoption of christianity. Secondly, it isnt this century, you had this little thing called the "enlightenment" in the 17th and 18th centuries that was quite non/anti religious.

Plus you can also view religion's "influence" as less of an actual influence and more of an excuse. Look at the English Civil war, they used the whole puritan vs anglican etc argument as an excuse for a war which was primarily about the rise of the Bourgeois class and its attempt to gain power in the face of the feudal aristocracy.

Plenty of other examples of this as well. The french catholic vs huegonot strugle was more about creating a nation-state where all frenchmen could be said to have certain attributes and be united as one, Louis XIV said as much.

There is lots of evidence to support the view that religion was the excuse, not the actual cause of all these historical acts. Look at the Crusades, on the surface they were about christianity vs infidels, but if you look a little deeper you will see that the Roman Emperor sent a request for aid to the Roman Pope, because the muslims were posing a serious threat to the empire, the pope saw all the power he could gain as a secular ruler by expanding his influence into that area, while protecting his power over europe by preventing the spread of islam into europe proper by defending the empire.

You are right that religion is often a pretext for purely political actions. It is irritating to listen to people go on about how Christianity is inherently flawed because it was used as a excuse for terrible crimes. The crusades were not originally about religion. However, it is easy to go to the other extreme, and underestimate the importance of religion. Would the knights and barons of Europe have gone on the crusades if the Western Emperor had called them instead of the Pope? What motivated the peasants to go, or to send their children in 1212? Would the crusaders have been successful if they didn't believe in the various miracles, like the ghost army?

While Karl Marx's political theory was idealistic and utopian, he was a genius at analysing history, specifically in viewing politics AS A FUNCTION of economics and by looking at the economics of an event and seeing how it was the economic factors which prompted the political change. For a perfect example of this read "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Boneparte", in which marx follows the history of the second french republic from birth to death and shows how large the roles of class conflict and economics were to the events as they progressed.
I would tend to agree with marx that religion and other factors at best are secondary influences to economic and social factors in the history of man.

The trouble with a Marxist approach is that it is too simplistic and narrow minded. Economics are important, but that is not the only important factor in all events. That's the problem with narrow materialists. They don't seem to be able to appreciate the religious sensibility. Many people have deep religious feelings or profound religious experiences which can greatly shape their attitudes and actions. Was economics behind the spiritualist movements of the nineteenth century? Is it economics that has driven millions of people to religious shrines for thousands of years? Why did the Ephesians build the great temple to Artemis? Sure, there was plenty of economic gain for the city, but did the average citizen think about that when he willingly and gladly helped to build and maintain the temple? What about the Medieval king who risked revolt by his nobles when he converted to Christianity. Where was his economic gain? What was to be gained by Russians who refused to give up Christianity under the Soviets? Was it pure economics or politics that drenched the Pyramid of the Sun in blood? The fact is that religious feelings can be a powerful motivation, sometimes powerful enough to convince entire populations to do absolutely irrational and self destructive things, as when half of the Athenians died because they trusted the god when he told them to hide behind wooden walls.

[Johonebesus]

As for the original question, the very issue results from an absurd modernist attitude that contrasts smart, enlightened us against silly, superstitious primitives. The truth is many people have a deep seated need to have spirituality in their lives, and as formal religion has declined in social significance new-age mysticisms and astrology and quasi-religious beliefs in U.F.O.'s have arisen to fill the void. Many people need religion, because deep down they feel that there is something out there and they want to understand it or search for it. Modern rationalist materialists are too quick to dismiss the impact that a religious sensibility can have on a person and a society.

The revisionist are narrow-minded to reject the power of spirituality, and the traditionalists are ignorant to create this dichotomy between enlightened us and superstitious them.

[SyntaxVorlon]

I acknowledge all camps. Though I sit in favor of the Revisionists and Scientists, because of my sociological upbringing and I've read a bit about Neitzsche so I understand the scientists view point.