Talk:Origin of religion

Paleolithic religion

we need to be careful not to turn this back into the paleolithic religion article. All we need to state here is that religious behaviour predates human phylogenetic separation some 150ka ago. Further archaeological particulars should go to a paleolithic religion article. dab (𒁳) 19:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

However circumstancial or controversial, all evidence of the earliest forms of religion comes from the paleolithic. the article already discusses some of these elements such as the neanderthal burials. The key issue in this case centers around "the continuity hypothesis" or punctuated equilibrium of religion. That is did religion appear suddenly around 50,000 years ago with behavioral modernity or has religious or proto-religious behavior been gradually evolving since the time of homo-erectus. Those who subscribe to continuity or the gradual evolution of symbolic behavior and henceforth religion believe that the burials in the paleolithic before behavioral modernity are evidence of the continuous and gradual evolution of religion. Those who support the big bang theory argue that the lack of incontrovertible art or grave goods during this period indicate that there was no religious behavior during this period. Muntuwandi (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Religious beliefs about the origin of religious beliefs

Why does this article ignore this crucial facet of its subject matter? I'm sure most religions have explanations for their own origin and/or the religions of others or religion in general. Seems like a major omission. Abyssal leviathin (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

no, this is not the topic of this article. We may have a titling issue here, but what you are looking for is the revelation article, and the Development_of_religion#Teleological_development section. Simple matter of disambiguation, at best. dab (𒁳) 16:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

To address Abyssal's concerns the article should from the outset stress that the its content is evolutionary in nature and not teleological. Muntuwandi (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology of religion

The article in current form leans heavily towards evolutionary psychology. I believe that the Evolutionary psychology of religion is deserving of its own separate article. A simple google search yields the following.

• Google
• google books
• Google scholar

I suggest moving some of the content and adding more to the article evolutionary psychology or religion. Additional details could include some of these mechanisms.

• Memes- favored by Richard Dawkins
• Predator agency detection [1]
• Reciprocal altruism
• group or kinship theories
• Many more of these mechanisms are found in this article Toward an evolutionary psychology of religion page 11 or page 931 onwards.

Because they are several mechanisms that are still at the hypothesis level some may even say speculative, there inclusion in origin of religion would give them undue weight, but they would be perfectly legitimate in an article [2]

Then the article "origin of religion" should give a summary of the evolutionary psychology.I am aware traditionally the study of religion was strictly the realm of psychology and sociology, so many will be uncomfortable with any other approaches. However these traditional approaches lacked the wealth of scientific knowledge that is currently available to scientists. For example, Steven Mithen is not a psychologist but an archeologist. Barbara King is also not a pyschologist but an anthropologist who has specialised in primatology. All these scholars bring different aspects to the origin of religion. Hence the article should reflect this interdisciplinary approach. Muntuwandi (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

There is still adequate information and sources available from the article User:Muntuwandi/The_evolutionary_origins_of_religion that can be used to build upon this approach. Muntuwandi (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

So expand the Anthropology section with notable referenced information. Likewise, make the primate section actually have some relevance to this entry, because as it is it simply discusses ape behavior.PelleSmith (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I had added my suggestions to here to the talk page. According to WP:CONSENSUS, silence means consensus

In essence silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community.

Since nobody responded to the suggestions I went ahead and added the content. The major issue is that evolutionary psychology of religion is indeed its own discipline on its own with scholars dedicated to it. Whereas the origin of religion is a much broader topic covering all aspects but not limited to pyschology.Muntuwandi (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Except what you wrote above doesn't even begin to explain all the changes you made.PelleSmith (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact the above only barely explains the addition of the primate section and foreshadows the fact that you cut down the psychology section. There is hardly any claim here to consensus for the majority of what your edit did--readding information about Paleolithic religion and large sections of unreferenced original research. Those are exactly the types of information that got your original entry deleted and has sparked repeated controversy between you and the rest of the world ever since. SO again I ask you to use the talk page (see below) to discuss the changes you wish to make. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

attestations

I have a problem with this word. We are writing for laypersons: the original meaning of the word 'encyclo-paedia' implies 'everything for children.' As a copyeditor, though well-informed in genetics, evolution, psychology, etc, I find 'attestations' obfuscatory. I realise it has a technical meaning in the academic field, but to the layperson it implies that someone is attesting to something: who is attesting and why? and How did we determine this? Maybe it's better to use a word like 'evidence' or similar? I will not quibble, but I feel a less arcane word would be better. Or we could write: 'written attestations by members of the early polytheistic religions'. Or something. See what you think.Lgh (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss changes first

Muntuwandi,

When you decide to alter an entire entry and completely re-write the lead in one fell swoop you should really attempt to discuss it first. In this large edit you managed to change the entire lead, to readd large block quotes that other editors had condensed into the actual entry text, and to readd types of information that only you believe belongs to an entry like this one (types of information that sit at the heart of all the earlier controversies and AfDs). All I'm asking at this point is that you make a good faith effort to discuss these types of changes before making them, particularly when you know where the controversy lies.PelleSmith (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have changed alot of these edits back to the previous edition noting in the edit summaries why I did so. In short, you seem again to be attempting to restore the version of this entry that you prefer with all of its superfluous discussion of Paleolithic religion and WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Given that these issues have been discussed time and time again you really should make an effort here on the talk page before simply trying to resurrect your old version.PelleSmith (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

this version states in the lead

The appearance of religious behaviour in the course of human evolution is probably relatively recent (Middle Paleolithic) and constitutes an aspect of behavioral modernity most likely coupled with the appearance of language.

This is incorrect because religion may not be a relatively recent event if we take into account burials that occurred 300000 years ago. This is why I presented both sides of the argument, big bangs who believe in religion being a recent event and Continuity theorists who believe religion emerged much earlier and included all the evidence. Muntuwandi (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

How on earth are you going to dispute this given that most of the sources you use yourself believe strongly in the idea that religion could not develop without language? You can't contradict yourself every time you want to disagree with everyone else, its not a productive way to argue.PelleSmith (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you think there is a clearer way to phrase this, or a more accurate way to do so then rephrase it. Replacing an entry with an entirely different version, with a completely different lead, is not a productive way to go about things. When wholesale rewrites are done productively they are done so away from the main entry and are discussed by several editors so that a good consensus can emerge. Now other than the fact that the version you wish to introduce includes information that the community believes doesn't belong do you have any reason not to try consensus building first?PelleSmith (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

the "relatively recent" is certainly negotiable -- because, as it says there, it's "relative". And as such probably depends on what you did expect. The Middle Paleolithic is "relatively recent" in terms of the history of Homo, but it is very early in terms of the history of Homo sapiens (more precisely, the Middle Paleolithic corresponds to the first 90% of the history of Homo sapiens). If this is a problem, we can just say that religious behaviour probably emerged over the course of the Middle Paleolithic and be done. dab (𒁳) 11:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Development of religion

On doing a google search I find that actually there is no specific discipline entitled "Development of religion" that deals with the general development of religion. In most cases the search results deal with a specific religion or groups of religion such as Development of religion in South India or "Development of religion in Japan".

• Basic google search
• *title search
• Google scholar title search

Basically there does not seem to be any specific discipline that targets the development of religion from a general perspective but always from a perspective of one particular religion or groups of religion. Hence the statement: 'The further development of religion spans Neolithic religion and the beginning of religious history with the first polytheistic religions of the Ancient Near East.' Gives the impression that the development of religion deals specifically with the Neolithic. When one looks at the article Development of religion, apart from the obviously duplicated content from this article, there is no such mention of the neolithic or how religion may have developed. The lead statement does not mention what is different about Neolithic religion, some of the details that I have included such as the institutionalization of religion. Furthermore it is incorrect to state that the first polytheistic religions emerged in the Ancient Near east because monotheism is the exception rather than the norm. Almost all primal religions have a form of polytheism.Muntuwandi (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? I don't read it that way at all and I think your interpretation of the use of the phrase "development of religion" is very peculiar and rather illogical given the context of the sentence and the presentation of the phrase. It is just a descriptive phrase using basic English words not a reference to a specific discipline. Of course to dig deeper into your commentary I should note that the foundation of religious studies and of the social scientific study of religion (in both Anthropology and Sociology) rests on prominent theories about religion's origin and development, in the general sense, but we've been over that a million times. Since then other theories about the origin and/or development of religion have come into existence, and particularly as of late some of these have utilized evolutionary mechanisms to explain the early development of religion. Are you trying to argue for the use of the word "evolution" as opposed to "development"? Development is a more neutral term than evolution for several reasons, some historical and some contemporary and I think it is preferable. As to your second point about the Ancient Near East I simply do not follow. How does monotheism being an exception to the norm problematize a statement about the history of religions beginning with the first polytheistic religions in the Near East?PelleSmith (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that there is no general subject entitled "development of religion". All topics using this term are specific, development of christianity for example. Hence that article seems to be original research. For example there is indeed a subject titled Anthropology of religion that is taught in Universities such as,

• University of west florida curriculum
• palomar univeristy

However, I cannot find any university that offers a course entitled "Development of religion". After doing some research on the internet, I believe such a general topic does not exist. Hence I would suggest deleting all the content from development of religion and either converting to a disambiguation page that links to articles that are more specific.

The ancient religions in the near east were not the first polytheistic religions, since almost all religions are polytheistic. The origin of religion has its roots in human evolution, this fact is not present in the article. Muntuwandi (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence makes no claim to Near Eastern religions being "the first polytheistic religions" ever, but that religious history starts with the first religions of the Near East, which happened to be polytheistic. "Polytheistic" is simply an adjective used to add depth to the accurate portrayal of the first religions in written "history." I find your twisted interpretation of what the sentence means dubious at best. BTW, in your line of reasoning any human phenomenon has its roots in "human evolution" since the origin of any human phenomena occurs at some stage of human evolution. That fact in and of itself is not very interesting or notable. Theories explaining why, at a certain stage of evolution, certain human phenomena develop are interesting. You are and have always been welcome to develop such notable theories here. Also shouldn't you take your arguments about the Development of religion entry to Talk:Development of religion? There is absolutely no need for a discipline called "development of religion" to justify the usage here (see above). I would argue that its not needed on the main entry either, but such an argument belongs on the proper talk page.PelleSmith (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

deceptive edit summaries

• Human natures Religious ideas can be traced to the evolution of brains large enough to make possible the kind of abstract thought necessary to formulate religious and philosophical ideasPaul R. Ehrlich
• Boyer, Religion Explained Indeed, the Greeks had already noticed that people create gods in their own image.Pascal Boyer
• The evolutionary origins of belief One would have to understand that the two pieces serve different purposes, and imagine how the tool could be usedLewis Wolpert
• The evolutionary origins of belief Belief in cause and effect has had the most enormous effect on human evolution, both physical and cultural. Tool use, with language, has transformed human evolution and let to what we now think of as belief

I added refs from these noted scholars regarding evolution of religion. When Dbachmann rewrote this article, I don't recall him consulting anybody. Muntuwandi (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann created the entry anew, and brought the content inline with the consensus established through many, many discussions on talk pages but also at the AfD of the original entry. What you are doing is wholesale reverting this version of the entry back to the one that was deleted by adding exactly the types of information that lead to its deletion. I've now brought this up several times on this talk page and on your talk page. Could you please engage the issue instead of dancing around it? Debachmann's creating of this page does not justify your edits at all. His version of this entry has not been deleted through community consensus but your version has. What's wrong with working through the sections you would like to add or change here on the talk page? What's wrong with building consensus? You can't simply make those kinds of large scale changes, especially if you are going to resist defending any of them when the issue is brought up. I'm still waiting for your explanation of why we need the neolithic and paleolithic material in here, of how the primate section relates to religion, and of why you refuse to work within the current sections (like the psychology section for the material related to cognition and the anthropology section for the the material related to archeology). Lets here it.PelleSmith (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann has only three comments on the talk page. I don't see how that constitutes working with others. Obviously you have continued your pattern of blindly supporting whatever Dbachmann does and criticizing whatever I do. Being the editor who initiated this article and who has been most consistently involved with this article, a consensus that does not include me is not a true consensus. I would consider your views but the problem is you have no academic interest in this topic, you are just out to frustrate me, some kind of a personal vendetta. As Bruceanthro stated you should be supportive of editors who do research and bring new content to the article. Instead you just go about reverting or proposing deletions. I think your behavior is extremely problematic and childish. This is a well researched topic, there is no need for us to go through as much fuss over this article as we have. As for me I would like to see a complete article on the origin of religion so that I can move on to editing other articles, but you seem to enjoy playing childish immature games. Eventually we will have such an article so there is no need to put temporary stumbling blocks along the way. The ball is in your court as to whether we get there with a lot of fuss or without fuss. Grow up.Muntuwandi (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the page you initiated, which included the material you are choosing not to discuss, was deleted exactly because of that material. During the many discussions initiated by your edits, and the AfD of the original entry several editors agreed that the topic itself is notable. You know as well as I do that these same editors were NOT in favor of the material you refuse to let go of (see above) that I am begging you to discuss here. In other words they agreed that the topic is notable but that your version of this entry had to be seriously edited and/or completely rewritten. The version of the entry that you are trying to rewrite with your own version actually reflects quite well (if only as a starting point) the notable aspects of this topic--the aspects that other editors agreed to being notable and worth working on. You simply refuse to build this entry from that starting point, instead insist on reverting it to the version no one supported but yourself--not Dbachmann, not Bruceanthro, not anyone. I'm glad that you think my desire to have civilized discussion about content issues is childish, but I wont stop insisting on it.PelleSmith (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

PelleSmith, you have no interest in this article, you would have been happy to have it deleted, when it was deleted you never made any efforts to pursue the matter, It is for this reason I can only view your approach is being of personal vendetta.Muntuwandi (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I may have only three comments on this talk page. However, I have discussed this with you, at great length, at other talkpages. I have nothing to add to what I said there. You know how it stands. You are welcome to contribute, but if you're just going to revert to your private essay, we'll see no land here. dab (𒁳) 19:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann, rarely discusses, he merely says what should be done according to him.Dbachmann, the version you propose is as much your private essay and even containing some original research which I have highlighted. I have no problem with other editors refactoring or working on the material if one disagrees with my style of prose. All I am concerned is getting the relevant material in. The goal that we should have is to have an article that is complete and discusses all the aspects of the origin of religion that are found within contemporary studies. I don't say that the version I propose is perfect, but it has more information from reliable sources than the one you propose. I see no reason why we should remove info from noted scholars such Pascal Boyer, Paul R. Ehrlich, Lewis Wolpert, Steven Mithen some of the most influencial scholars in the field as I have noted above. I know that there is an inherent bias amongst wikipedians against having an evolutionary explanation about religion or anything about human social behaviors. I have mentioned before that Dbachmann's idiosyncratic approach is that of a splitter, his approach to articles is always dividing them into smaller articles. That is the approach he consistently uses but he has to understand that splitting is not always the best approach particularly when dealing with interdisciplinary fields. Dbachmann and others have a bias towards the social sciences when it comes to religion. But that is the old way, times have changed, and interdisciplinary evolutionary sciences are one of the fastest growing fields. I am aware of this bias because each time I mention tools, artwork or burials there is extreme discomfort from other editors. But this is the way forward.

• Boyer discusses Neanderthals

Mithen begins his book by first posing and then answering the question, ÒWhy ask an archaeologist about the human mind?Ó As he describes, there are many fields of study that can contribute to the discussion of the human mind. These include psychologists, philosophers, neurologists,primatologists, biological anthropologists, social anthropologists, and computer scientists. Mithen argues that people from all of these domains can, and indeed should, contribute to the discussion. So how does the archeologist fit into the discussion? What can they contribute? Mithen responds with the following answer: ÒWe can only ever understand the present by knowing the past. Archeology may therefore not only be able to contribute, it may hold the key to an understanding of the modern mind.Ó (p. 10) By studying the archeological record of our ancestors and understanding the selective pressures that our ancestors faced, Mithen reconstructs the evolution of the human mind. Of course,archeology alone can not solve the mystery. Mithen draws from the work of an assortment of experts from many fields, but uses archeology to ground these diverse viewpoints. The Prehistory of the Mind The Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion and Science By Steven Mithen Reviewed by Andy Gorman

bed to verse

This article interests me in that it appears to be worse every time I look at it from a copy-edit POV. It seems to have become a forum for conflict for three or four powerful voices. As I implied before, let us imagine an interested and reasonably informed lay reader coming to the article: and try to present this person with a comprehensive yet balanced screed of helpful information at moderate academic level. At the moment it is a mish-mash of styles and somewhat piecemeal in structure. Or maybe, like politics, the 'origin of religion' is something that simply should not be discussed at a dinner table (joke). Lgh (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I am pleased that you are interested in the article, I would be even happier if you could highlight some of the concerns you have so that we can find a way to make this article into a simple, readable and yet comprehensive discussion of the origins of religion. Muntuwandi (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of the problem seems to be that so little can be known about what people believed before they started writing it down. It is an interesting topic though. Northwestgnome (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Most theories of religions that I wrote also treat the origins of religions, so there should be a big overlap between the articles, but there is no overlap. So this article is very suspect to me. Andries (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I propose re-structuring this article into four major topics

• historical origins
• psychological
• social
• genetic, though this is somewhat out of the mainstream of religion studies, but it may be mainstream in another fields

Andries (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

primate section

I edited this section adding information that went along with what the original arguments made, but also adding information to connect the primates topic with religion. Before there was nothing really concrete that connected the two topics which put the relevance to the section in question, but now I feel like the section makes sense tied in with the entire argument and should be left.--Amurray8 (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Origin of Religion

Is there any article that discussed the general topic of the origin of new religions? Does the origing of new religions shed light on the more general subject of the origin of religion? And finally, should this article be the place to discuss the origin of new religions? Mmyotis (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Primates and religion

This section had some synthesis of material that I hope I have removed. In the end only by shortening it did it seem possible to make sense of the section, and to connect it with the rest of the article. I am certainly open to comment.(olive (talk) 02:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)) I also removed the tag.(olive (talk) 02:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC))

Additional information and reorganization

I have introduced some additional information and done some reorganization to better reflect current scientific consensus on the issue. Muntuwandi (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to be blunt, but your prose is awful, your style is rambling and uncencyclopedic, and if there is anything of value in your additions, I am not sure it is worth the cleanup effort necessary to salvage it. As, of course, we have discussed numerous times before. Your original article has flunked two deletion debates, and yet here you are trying to go back to your piece for the third or fourth time. dab (𒁳) 14:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind bluntness. I will be the first to admit that i do not have good prose, what should matter is the content reflects the reality of studies. Prose can always be fixed. there was nothing untruthful about the deleted articles, however the latest article is still different from the deleted articlediff. It should be judged on its own merits. Dieter, you made this article essentially out of the article I originally created. So it makes no sense to discredit the material that i included, when it is the very same material you have used, not only in this article, but in several other related articles. All you did was chop and change the prose and remove some material. I am not against reorganizing prose. but the content of the version you propose lacks a lot of important substance. 15:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I had included some of the most recent studies into the origin of religion, from respected scientists.

• The Science of Good and Evil,2004, by Michael Shermer on the evolution of morality and religion, from early primate ancestors to modern religions.
• Lewis Wolpert on from his book the evolutionary origins of belief, 2006, on his theories on how tool use influenced religion.
• Supernaturalizing Social Life: Religion and the Evolution of Human Cooperation 2007

All these articles have plenty of relevant information not included in the article. I don't see why some want to block the inclusion of this information.Muntuwandi (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead

The lead starts with: The historical origins of religion are to be distinguished from their psychological or social origins.[1] The first religious behaviour appeared in the course of human evolution is probably relatively recent (Middle Paleolithic) and constitutes an aspect of behavioral modernity most likely coupled with the appearance of language.

The further development of religion spans Neolithic religion and the beginning of religious history with the first polytheistic religions of the Ancient Near East.

• Why do we define the origin of religion by stating what it is not. Should we define a "car" as "not a bicycle".
• The first religious behavior is probably a recent event. Isn't this speculation and POV. What is meant by the term "recent".
• "the further development of religion spans religion"-What happened to the upper paleolithic. Were paleolithic religions monotheistic. And what about the rest of the world outside the Ancient Near east.

These are my concerns about the lead. Muntuwandi (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Genetics and byproduct theory

Why is byproduct subsection covered under the genetics section. Totally unrelated and sloppy. Anyway, why is the byproduct theory the only mechanism covered in the article. At present it is not thought to be the mainstream mechanism that drove the evolution of religion. Adaptationist theories are more mainstream. therefore its inclusion as a subheading and a lack of discussion of other mechanisms is WP:undue weight to. I propose a summary of the two most noted mechanisms and shift the details to evolutionary psychology of religion using WP:SS.

Byproduct theories are preferred by antireligion activists because they do not see religion as having any adaptive value. So these theories should not be given undue weight.Muntuwandi (talk) 04:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Psychology of religion

This section basically duplicates, triplicates or even quadruplicates the byproduct theory adaptationist themes. There is too much redundant information. Muntuwandi (talk) 05:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

well, yes, we need to find a better structure for organizing the material. dab (𒁳) 12:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Tag team

Whats with the tag team. Dieter above you agree that we need a better structure for organizing the material. Muntuwandi (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Silence

I have voiced my concerns about the article as per discussions above. If there are no responses to these concerns I will assume WP:SILENCE. Muntuwandi (talk) 16:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Muntuwandi/Origin of religion

Why is Muntuwandi transferring his own private article onto WP mainspace without discussion? This seem to be a major disruption of the normal editing procedures of wikipedia. Is there not a problem of WP:OWN here? Mathsci (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not a private article, it is just a draft working space thats all. I have placed my concerns above since you haven't cared to read them. Neither you or dab are engaging in any meaningful discussion just reverting. Classic tag teaming. This is an unnecessary conflict. Non of you is even discussing the content. Muntuwandi (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

indeed. You keep editing against consensus and throwing fits at people. You are welcome to help building the article step by step, since nobody claims it is even remotely "finished". You are not welcome to just dump your personal piece instead. dab (𒁳) 19:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Whenever I make suggestions, nobody responds. I made my suggestions above. You only respond when I make changes that I have suggested not when I make the suggestions. The suggestions such as a section on evolution of morality have been present for several days now. This doesn't sound like trying to work with other editors. In fact it is you who is imposing a version that contains material that is unsourced, duplicated and in some cases untrue. Everything I have added is verified by sources, which are included. As mentioned earlier. if there is no response to a suggestion then silence implies consensus as per WP:SILENCE. Blind reversion without paying attention to the facts is not good for wikipedia, it is not good for this article. Muntuwandi (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

this is futile. You are obviously unable to collaborate. You have now reverted the 3RR, and may be reported at WP:AN/3RR, which will result in a block (only, I'm too lazy to report you atm). --dab (𒁳) 21:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The lead

The historical origins of religion are to be distinguished from their psychological or social origins. The first religious behaviour appeared in the course of human evolution is probably relatively recent (Middle Paleolithic) and constitutes an aspect of behavioral modernity most likely coupled with the appearance of language. The further development of religion spans Neolithic religion and the beginning of religious history with the first polytheistic religions of the Ancient Near East.

Neither development of religion or Neolithic religion mentions anything about the Neolithic. Religions of the Ancient Near East refers to Bronze Age religions. Hence there are some factual inaccuracies. Manikongo (talk) 07:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Frans de Wall

Who is Frans de Wall. I've never heard of him. Manikongo (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Primatologist Dr. Frans de Wall recognizes primate sociality, which he describes as the nonhuman primate behaviors of empathy, the ability to learn and follow social rules, reciprocity and peacemaking, as a precursor of human morality. Arguing that human morality has two additional levels of sophistication with respect to primate sociality, he suggests only a distant connection between primate sociality and the human practice of religion. To de Wall, religion is a special ingredient of human societies that emerged thousands of years after morality. Commenting for an article in the New York Times he said, “I look at religions as recent additions [whose] function may have to do with social life, and enforcement of rules and giving a narrative to them.

Wouldn't be great to know what the two additional levels of sophistication the so named Dr de Wall is referring to. Manikongo (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Anthropology

The evolution of religion is closely connected with the evolution of the mind and behavioral modernity.[3] Evidence for paleolithic burials is often taken as the earliest expression of religious or mythological thought involving an afterlife. Such practice is not restricted to Homo sapiens, but also found among Homo neanderthalensis as least as early as 130,000 years ago. The emergence of religious behaviour is consequently dated to before separation of early Homo sapiens some 150,000 years ago. The earliest evidence of symbolic ritual activity besides burials may be a site in South Africa dated to 70,000 years ago.

The sentence The evolution of religion is closely connected with the evolution of the mind and behavioral modernity [4] is true but not supported by the reference or the quote from the reference.

Such practice is not restricted to Homo sapiens, but also found among Homo neanderthalensis as least as early as 130,000 years ago. The emergence of religious behaviour is consequently dated to before separation of early Homo sapiens some 150,000 years ago.

This sentence lacks references. Secondly the divergence of Homo neanderthalensis from homo sapiens is currently thought to be 600,000 years ago not 150,000. 150,000 years ago is simply the coalescence point for Mitochondrial Eve. The speciation of homo sapiens is at least 200kya. So once again, this statement is factually incorrect. Manikongo (talk) 08:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Psychology of religion

Evolutionary psychology is based on the hypothesis that, just like hearts, lungs and immune systems, cognition has functional structure that has a genetic basis, and therefore evolved by natural selection. Like organs, this functional structure should be universally shared and should solve important problems of survival. Evolutionary psychologists seek to understand cognitive processes by understanding the survival and reproductive functions they might serve.

I haved tagged this section because the term religion isn't used and no connection is made between evolutionary psychology and religion. Manikongo (talk) 07:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think a good case has been made. I believe all the articles relating to the history of religion do need an overhaul. Headlessrider (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Blanking the talk page

Blanking a talk page is not encouraged by wikipedia. [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chikwangwa (talk • contribs) 05:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC) agreed. Gandinga mondongo (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

This seems to be a dispute between User:PelleSmith and the blocked User:Muntuwandi. Due to the manner in which the dispute has degenerated, the actual content of the article has been neglected. The article needs the attention of the wider wikipedia community, to remain neutral and to enable other editors to get engaged without worries of being caught up in a two person dispute. Michael g funky (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Muntuwandi is banned indefinitely. He is now editing abusively, avoiding his block by means of numerous sockpuppets. This is a case for administrative action and not, at this point, for dispute resolution. Muntuwandi had ample opportunity to address his concerns constructively in the past. He is now banned and has no business editing Wikipedia, and thus cannot legitimately be in a dispute with any other user. If you want to argue individual points of content for Muntuwandi, feel free to do that, but unless you want to become involved topically, I see no reason for this RfC. dab (𒁳) 08:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Dab, that user is another Muntuwandi sock. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

MW made numberous attempts to address these concerns administratively. However PelleSmith and Dab consistently ignored these attempts. Amicus meus (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Somebody made a good point a while back; why do you bother to refer to yourself in the third person when doing these? --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 17:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a typo in the Cognitive Studies section - the word after the drops for fnn 11-13. "Sch" should be "such", but I am not eligible to make the change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.57.237 (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

3rd person is acceptable in context. Da mi basia (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit protection?

{{editprotected}}
If the lead sentence is going to meet WP:MOS then could an administrator please replace it with "The historical Origin of religion are to be distinguished from their psychological or social origins" Also while I'm here. Is anyone aware that User:Speedy la cucaracha is changing links from Origins of religion to Evolutionary origins of religion? I realise I've probably come in on the tail end of some kind of edit war, but both pages look like they could do with some actual work? Any chance of getting the edit protect lifted so that Wikipedia the Encyclopedia that anyone can edit can be edited by me? I've put several pages revolving around this topic on my watch list. I can help revert any vandalism if needed.--Sting Buzz Me... 07:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a WP:GHBH issue with this article. Can we arrange for an WP:ArbReq to look into this matter? As it definitely smells fishy to me. The protection log saga on this article is ridiculous.--Sting Buzz Me... 10:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you request and admin make the necessary changes, or simply make them in user space and wait for a few days. A user has been attacking this page with socks steadily now for over a week, and that is why it was fully protected.PelleSmith (talk) 10:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've already made the request (see above). The matter will be taken further.--Sting Buzz Me... 10:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, what are you saying vis-a-vis WP:GHBH? I only see a bad hand here, maybe you can enlighten us?PelleSmith (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

At ArbCom it can be discussed further. It needs attention from a wider audience.--Sting Buzz Me... 11:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Y Fixed; I changed the sentence to "The historical origins of religion are to be distinguished from their psychological or social origins." This format allows for a natural sentence while not unnecessarily bolding things: you don't always need the literal title as the bolded bit in the lead, and especially not with strange capitalization. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 13:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.--Sting Buzz Me... 14:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see above section for deleted discussion of the lead. Monsieur Muntuwandi (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, no one ever deleted any of your legitimate contributions to any talk pages. On the other hand when you troll talk pages with sock puppets you engage in exactly what you've been banned from doing. Contributing to this encyclopedia. Socks are reverted on site, that's standard practice. Quite acting like a victim. You victimized yourself when you decided you'd rather be disruptive than try to contribute collegially. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose merging some of the content of Evolutionary origins of religion (might need to check history if reverted to redirect?) to this article. Possibly two stand alone articles if handled correctly?--Sting Buzz Me... 11:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That entry doesn't exist. It redirects here. What you were exposed to was banned user Muntuwandi recreating deleted content in that entry and then trying to redirect everything over there. Because of his socking in this entry this entry has been protected temporarily. I suggest you figure out what content you think actually would improve this entry and then come back in a week when the protection expires.PelleSmith (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC) I also suggets explain

Yeah I can do that. Lay off Evolutionary origins of religion until I can see what material we can use at this article please. There is some useful stuff hidden away in the article history that can be merged here.--Sting Buzz Me... 11:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sting, you can work from the page history. There is absolutely no reason you need the content to be active in order to see it. Just click on an older version. It stays deleted for now because such a consensus was reached many times, at AfDs and deletion review.PelleSmith (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I needed the page active because with a "merge" notice discussion will need to be carried out. That's just part of the process buddy. Better if we can nut out what needs to be merged and what doesn't. Also need to take a good hard look at the histories of several other related articles. Looks like the same sort of thing has been going on in other areas. This is going to be big.--Sting Buzz Me... 11:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, no offense, but you just stepped into a situation where a user was banned for disruptively editing warring over that version of the entry, and has been socking for weeks to disrupt this entry. While I am perfectly willing to assume good faith and to accept that there may be useful information in that other version, you have to accept that this is sensitive ground and that taking it slow is the only good way to proceed with this matter. Keeping that page live is pretty much the same as letting Muntuwandi's socks have their way, and serves no purpose here at all, especially while this page is protected.PelleSmith (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest moving a version of it to your userspace and working on it there. When this page is unprotected you can bring the discussion here about merging important pieces of information.PelleSmith (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This will come up at ArbCom as well. I'll be asking for that article (and others) to be looked over as to edit history, people involved etc.--Sting Buzz Me... 13:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Be my guest but I doubt anyone is going to take this up at Arbcom.PelleSmith (talk) 13:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Old discussions

there are some older discussions here;

• Talk:Origin of religion
• Several deleted pages of Talk:Origin of religion, which should be made available
• Talk:Origins of religion
• Talk:Development of religion
• Talk:Prehistoric religion
• Deleted pages of Talk:Evolutionary theories on the origin of religion
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of religion
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 16

I am glad that someone has finally began to smell a rat here. PelleSmith and Dbachmann have engaged in the worst anti intellectual campaign I have seen on wikipedia. They never discuss content even though I have always done so. All they ever do is cry that Dbachmann's version is a consensus version. They never bother to discuss the flaws with what dab proposes nor do the bother to discuss improvements. They have co-opted unsuspecting admins into their anti-intellecutal campaign. I believe I have acted in good faith with the best interests of the article, only to be frustrated by these editors. This is the only reason why I have resorted to being a Sisyphus, whatever that is. Monsieur Muntuwandi (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You know what Muntuwandi, I'm going back on the indefinite wikibreak I tried to take a few weeks ago but couldn't stick to. Its this type of nonsense that made me want to do so in the first place. Someone else can deal with your disruption.PelleSmith (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Blame wikipedia when things aren't going your way. I'm pretty sure you won't be gone for long. Yours and Dbachmann's behavior on this article has been deplorable. I have worked with several editors on several articles and I have never had any major problems because the discussion has always been about content. You have not posted any content related discussion on this talk page in maybe more than six months. When you realized that there was nothing wrong with my proposals, you began to skillfully manipulate some admins in believing that there is some kind of consensus. You have also taken advantage of the fact that there have been very few users editing this article, basically myself, dab and Pellesmith.

A clear example of how dab and Pellesmith don't really care about content can be seen here Origin_of_religion#Primate_behavior. Someone keeps referring to Frans de Waal as Frans de Wall. Anybody who has read on primatology would recognize this spelling mistake, of which i have continued to remind them, but they don't care. As long as its from Muntuwandi, its not consensus. This clearly shows that they are not actually reading the content, but just claiming a false consensus. They manner in which I have been treated is unfair, because I have acted in good faith and I am hoping that my conduct, as well as the conduct of PelleSmith and Dbachmann, be reviewed. Mr. Muntuwandi (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

With regards to Dbachmann, this is an interesting editor. In public he has consistently disagreed with Muntuwandi's proposals. Yet when nobody is paying attention, Dbachmann obtains information from Muntuwandi's proposals and inserts them in several articles. This has been an ongoing trend that I have noticed for several months now. In my opinion, This is hypocritical. When MW was pushing to get this article created, dab was silent, yet he knew very well that the material was legitimate. When MW was blocked for creating the article here, he used the same material to recreate this article here, though inserting some of his original research, and formed a tag team with PelleSmith to effectively prevent MW from contributing to this article. PelleSmith who was against the idea of an article "origin of religion" all of a sudden was for it simply because it was created by dab, and not Muntuwandi. I am pretty sure that had Muntuwandi created the article using the same words as dab, PelleSmith would have opposed it. My basic contention is that dab knows very well that my edits are in good faith, but he refuses to be supportive or even to engage in consensus building on the talk page. When MW posts suggestions on the talk page, dab or PS do not respond. When I implement suggestions on the talk page, all of a sudden they appear to revert. It is out of my frustrations from such behavior that we are in this position —Preceding unsigned comment added by Octuwandi (talk • contribs) 13:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Taking a break

I am taking a short break for a while, but not before one last incoherent ramble. Seeing that some editors have decided to review this dispute and the events that lead up to it, I will take a step back and see what they come up with. However, should they decide to ignore or forget about this, I will most certainly be back.

I continue to maintain, that I have acted in good faith with the best interests of this article at hand. One year ago, there was no article that discussed the evolutionary origins of religion, now there one. This is largely due to my insistence, for which I have been blocked on numerous occasions. I used my own personal time to research the material in libraries and online. I thought I had presented a fair reflection of some of the best scholars and the most recent studies and peer reviewed journals related to the origins of religion. So it is quite a slap in the face when other editors tell you that the material you are presenting is rubbish. Its even more insulting when one realizes that the people saying this either, have not bothered to verify the information, or for lack of a better term, are ignorant. There is a discussion on a deleted talk page where PelleSmith is questioning that grave goods represent a belief in the afterlife. Unfortunately, many relevant talk pages have their history deleted. This is why I was quite upset that dab used his admin privileges to delete the edit history here. He got away with it because I was the bad guy, but what he did was wrong and he knows it. Protecting an article for which he is involved in a dispute was borderline, but deleting the history was sinister. Sting au was supportive of a merger, and dab did not want the support to be evident.

One problem I have with administrators is that they are too routine and procedural, they often fail to look at the big picture. Because admins deal with thousands of articles, they have little time for content. Maybe this is official policy and maybe its good for wikipedia as a whole, but it hasn't been good for this dispute. Speaking to an admin about content is like having a conversation with a grasshopper about nuclear physics. This is where PelleSmith and dab, were able to take full advantage. Whenever they failed a content related argument with me they would simply point to an obsolete AFD and the admins would buy it, because they follow procedure and are always looking for the easiest decision, sometimes not the best decision, to solve a problem. Sam Korn has executed procedure par excellence.

The problem with procedure is that systems do fail. When an admin confronts a problem, they will assume that the last decision, such as block, made by other admins was fair and correct. If wikipedia was entirely fair and all admins were flawless, then this system would work fine. However we know that this is not the case. I will give a small analogy from the credit meltdown of the Subprime mortgage crisis. Institutions in the secondary market for mortgage backed securities were comfortable trading in these securities because credit rating agencies approved these securities as sound, when in fact, they were not. Businesses trusted these credit rating agencies and made bad decisions. By the same token, one can assume that I am a trouble maker based on my block log, with the exception of my recent use of multiple accounts, my block log is an exaggeration.

My point is I have been indefinitely blocked and by all procedural measures, it is a legitimate decision. But the bigger picture, Muntuwandi has been blocked for being too enthusiastic about creating good articles on evolutionary theories of religion. Dab and PelleSmith have been the spoilsports. They claim consensus, yet they don't even read the article, for months leaving the misspelled Frans de Wall. Dab did a copy and paste from Psychology of religion placing the material here Origin_of_religion#Psychology_of_religion. He didn't bother to read it or verify because the only part that is referenced is the first half of the paragraph at Origin_of_religion#Cognitive_studies which was written by Muntuwandi. In addition the sections on psychology are all subsections of anthropology, super sloppy if you ask me. Such carelessness just irks me, and to believe that the admins are supportive of such makes me want to pull the hair off my bald head.

Abusive husbands continue to abuse their wives because they know that their wives are too ashamed to discuss with friends or family. As long as nobody else knows, abuse continues behind closed doors. This is how dab and PelleSmith managed to game the system. As long as there were no committed knowledgeable editors, they could do whatever they wanted without question, and Muntuwandi, the initiator of the article was shoved to the side. If indeed, as has been said, some editors are looking into this article objectively, I would be happy to step aside and spare everyone my mumbo jumbo. Peace Rambling Muntuwandi (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I know. I consider your block somewhat sad, since your original good faith and dedication is undisputed. But you failed to react to warnings, and your behaviour just deteriorated over time. You failed to learn how to cooperate. You were blocked for a month. After that, you began to evade the block by disruptive sockpuppetry, which is a sure way to get yourself banned for good. This has happened now, and your block stands, and your continued failure to appreciate where you went wrong justifies it as the right decision. Naked good faith that is blind and deaf isn't enough. Wikipedia editors also need a certain minimal ability to interact and learn. dab (𒁳) 18:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If you really want to have any of your content in, then you need to stop undermining your own position. Repeatedly reverting to your version not only doesn't make anyone want to keep it, it has the exact opposite effect on editors who might otherwise be sympathetic. I don't know if you realise that you're making your goals harder to achieve, but that is the case. It would be better to concentrate on trying to persuade other users why they should support individual changes to the article; that actually stands a chance of succeeding.

I'll don't pose any opinion on the actual content you want in, but your method of trying to get it there really sucks. Wikipedia is only a website, there's no need to create a whole carry-on over the contents of one page of it. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 09:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

exactly. You keep shooting yourself in the foot as it were. --dab (𒁳) 11:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposals

I just want to rehash some of the proposal I have been suggesting. For the record I have repeated some of these suggestions already in several threads above. If you look at the threads one will see no responses from dab or PS at least regarding content. So MW believes it is unfair to criticize him for not engaging in consensus building.

User:Muntuwandi's proposals

Lead 2 The historical origins of religion are to be distinguished from their psychological or social origins. The first religious behaviour appeared in the course of human evolution is probably relatively recent (Middle Paleolithic) and constitutes an aspect of behavioral modernity most likely coupled with the appearance of language. The further development of religion spans Neolithic religion and the beginning of religious history with the first polytheistic religions of the Ancient Near East. Why do we define the origin of religion by stating what it is not. Should we define a "car" as "not a bicycle". Stating that origins of religion are to be distinguished from the psychological and sociological origins early in the article is incorrect. This is because later on in the article there is a section Origin_of_religion#Psychology_of_religion. This is contradictory. That is why I propose removing those references. The first religious behavior is probably a recent event. Isn't this speculation and POV. What is meant by the term "recent". "the further development of religion spans Neolithic religion"-To start with, the links to these two articles mention nothing about the development of religion during the Neolithic. Follow the links for yourself and you will see. So this statement constitutes original research. Secondly, the progression from middle paleolithic skips the upper paleolithic straight to the neolithic, eliminating some 40,000 years of some of the most important events of human evolution. Were paleolithic religions monotheistic. And what about the rest of the world outside the Ancient Near east. I therefore propose eliminating the original research. Primate behavior Scenarios employing primatological evidence for the evolutionary development of religion are somewhat controversial.[6] This uses weasel word "somewhat". In addition, the article cited makes no mention of the controversy. I propose removing it but using information from the reference in other parts of the article. Primatologist Dr. Frans de Waal recognizes primate sociality, which he describes as the nonhuman primate behaviors of empathy, the ability to learn and follow social rules, reciprocity and peacemaking, as a precursor of human morality. Arguing that human morality has two additional levels of sophistication with respect to primate sociality, he suggests only a distant connection between primate sociality and the human practice of religion. To de Wall, religion is a special ingredient of human societies that emerged thousands of years after morality. Commenting for an article in the New York Times he said, I look at religions as recent additions [whose] function may have to do with social life, and enforcement of rules and giving a narrative to them. [7] This paragraph is relatively fine by me, except the first phrase in bold says human morality has two additional levels of sophistication relative to primate sociality. Wouldn't it be nice to know what those two additional levels of sophistication are. This is an incomplete sentence. Evidence of religious behaviour in pre-Homo sapiens early humans is inconclusive. Intentional burial, particularly with grave goods may be one of the earliest detectable forms of religious practice since, as Philip Lieberman suggests, it may signify a "concern for the dead that transcends daily life.[8] Though disputed, evidence suggests that the Neanderthals were the first hominids to intentionally bury the dead. Exemplary sites include Shanidar in Iraq, Kebara Cave in Israel and Krapina in Croatia. Some scholars, however argue that these bodies may have been disposed of for secular reasons.Evolving in their graves: early burials hold clues to human origins - research of burial rituals of Neanderthals Likewise a number of archeologists propose that Middle Paleolithic societies such as Neanderthal societies may also have practiced the earliest form of totemism or animal worship in addition to their (presumably religious) burial of the dead. Emil Bächler in particular suggests (based on archeological evidence from Middle Paleolithic caves) that a widespread Middle Paleolithic Neanderthal bear cult existed. why is this whole section under primate behavior. Though, technically, humans are primates, in general we do distinguish between hominids and primates. The hominid lineage begins 2.5 million years ago with Homo habilis, whereas primates include monkeys whose lineage extends up to 20 million years ago. So I propose removing it from primates and placing it into a paleolithic or archaic hominid section. Lastly totemism and bear cults of Neanderthals are fringe theories that are generally omitted by most mainstream literature, which focuses on burials. Anthropology 2 Main articles: Anthropology of religion and Indigenous religion The evolution of religion is closely connected with the evolution of the mind and behavioral modernity.[9] for paleolithic burials is often taken as the earliest expression of religious or mythological thought involving an afterlife. Such practice is not restricted to Homo sapiens, but also found among Homo neanderthalensis as least as early as 130,000 years ago. The emergence of religious behaviour is consequently dated to before separation of early Homo sapiens some 150,000 years ago. The earliest evidence of symbolic ritual activity besides burials may be a site in South Africa dated to 70,000 years ago.[10] The evolution of religion is closely connected with the evolution of the mind and behavioral modernity. is not supported by the reference[http://www.metanexus.net/conference2005 /pdf/rossano.pdfEvidence] The sentence The evolution of religion is closely connected with the evolution of the mind and behavioral modernity [11] is true but not supported by the reference or the quote from the reference. Such practice is not restricted to Homo sapiens, but also found among Homo neanderthalensis as least as early as 130,000 years ago. The emergence of religious behaviour is consequently dated to before separation of early Homo sapiens some 150,000 years ago. This sentence lacks references. Secondly the divergence of Homo neanderthalensis from homo sapiens is currently thought to be 600,000 years ago not 150,000. 150,000 years ago is simply the coalescence point for Mitochondrial Eve. The speciation of homo sapiens is at least 200kya. So once again, this statement is factually incorrect and involves original research. Psychology of religion 2 Once again, this section is largely a cut and paste from Psychology_of_religion#Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion. In that article, it has no references, however it was dumped into this article without verification. The child of zen buddhist stuff is kind of irrelevant.

I have placed these proposals in a collapsebox for the benefit of readers; I am of the opinion that very long talkpage proposals should go in such boxes. --Grey Knight ⊖ 20:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Rationale for progress

The reason, why I made changes, was to address these issues I have mentioned above. Unlike my adversaries, I have actually read through both versions thoroughly, following through on each and every reference. I want to be fair in my criticism and give credit where it is due. What I propose involves addressing the above concerns and including additional information.

This includes further information on animal sociality and altruism. Demonstrating that morality, which was initially thought of as uniquely human, has several precursors in other animals. I had included other information on the role of symbolism in religion and the evolution of the brain

In my proposal have included a section on the invention of writing because everything that we know from a theological perspective, whether its about christianity, judaism, or hinduism stems from this seminal event. I have included the events that lead up to the invention of writing, which was the invention of agriculture. I have also tried to clarify evolutionary psychology of religion. There is potentially a lot of detail here, but this debate centers around two theories, religion as an adaptation or religion as an evolutionary accident. The rest of the stuff is mere speculation of which each particular scholar has their own preferences. Better to shift those debates to evolutionary psychology of religion and avoid giving undue weight to any one specific model.

Finally the current version has 16 references, whereas the version I proposed maintains those 16 references but adds on an additional 15 references, a cumulative total of 31. More references means a better article. These additional references are from some of the best scholars and peer reviewed journals too. What I propose also results in more text, according Dr pda, ( importScript('User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js'); //User:Dr_pda/prosesize.js in monobook.js).

I therefore see these efforts as beneficial, there is no harm done to the article. I don't see why there should be resistance to improving an article. This is not the first time I have made suggestions, many of these are cut and paste from above threads. Unless these suggestions are complete nonsense, feedback on them would be important. Because according to WP:SILENCE, no response implies consensus and agreement. Protuwandi (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The first thing stated in the body of WP:SILENCE is: "Consensus can be assumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing).". Your edit was reverted, that counts as a disagreement. I have left a suggestion on your actual user talk page which I would like you to take on board. Please respond to it straight away. --Grey Knight ⊖ 21:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I am tired of being attacked by a banned user on this page. My behaviour has not been "deplorable". Some of Mw's suggestions were perfectly reasonable, some of them were not. I have been open for constructive collaboration from the beginning. It was Mw who proved completely unable to work with people. If there are individual points of content brought up for discussion, fine. But it is improper to use this page to keep harping on Mw's procedural complaints that have been answered over and over again, and eventually led to his block because he could not understand the way Wikipedia works. So can we please go back to discussing the article. If there is any open issue regarding procedure, blocking policy or user conduct, take them to user talkpages, WP:AN, the arbcom or Jimbo Wales. Thanks. --dab (𒁳) 07:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Neuroscience studies

I suggested some results of neuroscience studies to the neurotheology article, which may be relevant here, perhaps for the psychological processes section:

• Transcranial magnetic stimulation of the temporoparietal junction in the brain induced out-of-body experiences.
• Some forms of epilepsy are known to elicit "religious" experiences.

I think that a "physically-induced" propensity for religion may have been evolutionary adaptive before modern times.Rabend (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

Would it be possible for people working on this article to provide descriptive edit summaries? Just doesn't seem to be much of it happening? Also starting to smell like fish again.--Sting Buzz Me... 11:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and edits being marked as minor when they are anything but.--Sting Buzz Me... 11:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to provide editing summaries in reverting clear socks. No offense, but are you going start slinging around accusations again? I note that you have done nothing to improve this entry. Now that Muntuwandi returned to revert to his version once again and was reverted once again you show up to start whining about fishy smells. FYI, he has used his own talk page and has said nothing about anyone else pretending to be him so these socks are clearly Muntuwandi and no one else. I took offense the first time you started making accusations and will take offense once again. Unless you are interested in improving the page I suggest you take a step back and think twice about just smearing people with these insinuations. There is nothing fishy about a stubborn and blocked editor using socks to make his point. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh and reverting the same sockmaster over and over and over again who does nothing but show up and wholesale revert to his favorite version of the page, does become "minor."PelleSmith (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Your edits were not marked as reverts. Once again could you please use edit summarys to explain what it is you are doing.--Sting Buzz Me... 12:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I will gladly use edit summaries if you refrain from unfounded insinuations.PelleSmith (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sting au, if you take 30 seconds to look into article history and/or this talkpage, you will see what is going on here. dab (𒁳) 17:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Mw version

here is Mw's version: [12]. Since Mw has given up any attempt to contribute constructively, we'll need to try and recover elements that may be of value in his version without him. I'll try to recover pertinent references that were lost by the reverting. The problem with his version was that he insisted on diverging on general topics of human evolution and the paleolithic all the time, but there are some aspects of his version that are actually superior to the current article. In this sense, I understand his frustration, but by his sock orgies he has of course blown any chance to be considered an editor in good standing by now. My issue with the current article ToC would be the "anthropology" section and its rather unmotivated h3 subsections. dab (𒁳) 10:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policies and guidelines at WP:POLICY states

Policies and guidelines express standards that have community consensus. Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature. Both need to be approached with common sense: adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the rules, and be prepared to ignore the rules on the rare occasions when they conflict with the goal of improving the encyclopedia. Those who edit in good faith, are civil, seek consensus, and work towards the goal of creating a great encyclopedia should find a welcoming environment.

I think there is general agreement among all those concerned that Mw's contributions are useful to improving the article as per comments of dab above and also those of others. MW idiosyncratic manner of editing may be unorthodox or unconventional and this maybe unsettling to most other editors. But the wikipedia's official guidelines indicate that editors should "adhere to the spirit rather than the letter of the law. For this reason I shall proceed to implement some of MW's proposals. Endless cycle (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Knowing that Muntuwandi's edits were controversal, what you should do is post suggested edits here on the talk pages, reach consensus, and then edit the article. That is the conventional method for making good faith edits to articles with a history of controversy. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 03:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"Endless cycle" is Mutuwandi, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved from article

I moved this paragraph here, it seems to be rambling, and is uncited, and doesn't seem to have anything to do with the sub-heading it was under (cognitive science). I don't disagree with it, but it doesn't say much at all about the origin of religion, just about socialisation spreads current religions.Yobmod (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"Religious persons acquire religious ideas and practices through social exposure. The child of a Zen Buddhist will not become an evangelical Christian without the relevant cultural experience. While mere exposure does not cause a particular religious outlook (a person may have been raised a Roman Catholic but leave the church), nevertheless some exposure is required - this person will never invent Roman Catholicism out of thin air. One single person cannot invent a complex religious system like Roman Catholicism. However, simpler religious cults can be created by an individual, like Scientology, which was made up by a fantasy fiction writer. Cognitive science may help understanding of the psychological mechanisms for these manifest correlations. To the extent that acquisition and transmission of religious concepts rely on human brains, the mechanisms are probably open to computational analysis. If all thought is computationally structured, then such an approach can also shed light on the nature of religious cognition. It is plausible to think that the physico-cognitive brain structures are the result of evolution over long periods of time. Like all biological systems, the mind is continually being optimised to promote survival and reproduction. Under this view all specialised cognitive functions broadly serve those reproductive ends. "

Proposing merger

This article tackles a topic which is interdisciplinary to two fields. Someone has recently gone throughout the religion portal deleting large numbers of articles, often replacing them with blind redirects. As people coming from the other involved fields are not looking for a page involving German philosophy I feel that either leaving the extant pages intact or merging them into an interdisciplinary page would be a better approach. Note that a lot of unregistered editors have strong feelings that their personal religion, lack of religion, or academic approach to religion, each seeing their own as the only possible truth. They often visit Wikipedia then make edits that, while correct to themselves, are not germane to Wikipedia's style guide. Replacing a large number of articles with blind redirects, as was done in this case, only results in problems for the other pages that have already linked in. Because of this such changes must be treated as vandalism. I'm endeavoring to replace some of the deletions with merger proposals. 23.116.49.179 (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not think there is even any need to discuss this, as the page is a clear CFORK as it stands, and its recreation is apparently due to an anonymous edit back in October [13]. The correct course would have been just to roll back the anon immediately rather than generating yet another "case". There are historical religions, prehistoric religions, and prehistoric origins of religion, but there is clearly no "historical" origin of religion, as religions appear fully-formed at the dawn of history in the city-states of the Near East. This article is also de-facto discussing the evolutionary origin of religion, which has long had its own page, and this title was redirecting to it. --dab (𒁳) 10:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)