Some Biological Origins of Religion
by
Charles Graves
My theory concerns the hypothetical earliest 214 syllables or phonemes spoken by homo sapiens 50,000 years ago as these syllables were determined by eleven subject-object relations between homo sapiens and his/her environment. (see www.iverpublications.ch under title ‘Isolating the Earliest Human Speech’). As this human primate developed the mind-mouth relations through synapses in his brain, early man, according to my theory, considered the ‘object’ as entering the mouth first and then the brain. The main incentive to utter speech was the possibility of finding something to eat and drink, thus satisfying the most basic human private need, more important than shelter, companionship, sex or other needs.
We suppose, also, that some of the earliest workings of homo sapiens brain concerned where to find food and water, the problem of foraging. When the stomach was filled the creature was happy and when lacking food, it was unhappy. Happiness was related to something unknown, and perhaps in the early development of homo sapiens’ mind the question of God was already present in the form of the doubt about whether the food would be available or not. If there is a God, then concerns about the intention of God himself / herself would be: ‘how can I convince early homo sapiens that I ‘exist’ so he/she will respect me as the source of food that is so necessary?’ From the point of view of humans the question would be: ‘how can I make it certain that I will always have a supply of food for myself and my loved ones?’ and ‘where is this certainty?’. This, obviously, raised the issue of ‘the great provider’: is there an eternal ‘person’ who provides?
Within such a perspective, God, ‘the provider’ would be in a certain place (organized religion began with this need). The Holy Communion or Eucharist (happiness-provider) may be based, biologically, upon this early identification of eating with a necessary acknowledgement of a provider for the possibility to eat. Going to church, partaking of the bread and wine of the Holy Communion may be a ‘reversion’ to the primitive state of humans who foraged for provisions (in East Africa a million of years ago). Christianity may have arisen to prove to mankind that God has acted, and will always in future act, to feed them. This aspect of the appeal of Christianity in its early days should be further investigated.
A parallel event in the life of early homo sapiens was the development of speech. My theory is that speech came because the earliest experiences of homo sapiens (and of other human species such as the Neanderthal) came by the mouth and this mouth reacted in a subject-object encounter, by speaking. Sometimes the syllables were automatic and sometimes the experience was ‘recorded’ in the brain before the syllables were uttered through brain-mouth nerve connections. These were in my proposed cases of ‘muse/music’, ‘expressive’, ‘remembering’ and ‘quizzical’ (four out of the eleven proposed categories of subject-object relations). But for ’opposing’ or ‘loving’ as categories of the subject-object relations, the speech was instantaneous uttered in syllables created by the mouth.
Thus, not only was the mouth, the provisions for the mouth, or the provider of these provisions contemplated as homo sapiens developed the synapses in his/her brain, but also there was an element of speech involved in the procedure. The brain began to function together with the mouth as the subject-object encounters multiplied in the foraging process. Here, perhaps, we have the origin of the ‘hocus pocus’ (hic est corpus) aspect of Holy Communion. Words are involved in preparing for, as well as eating the body and drinking the blood’.
The promise in the Christian Holy Communion is that the believer will be united to God and his/her fellows. It involves the ‘foraging’ (coming to the church), the eating (of the Mass) and the unity with the God through the eating process. One might say that this reflects a very early experience in the life of homo sapiens based on the need to feed oneself, and at the same time to acknowledge the one who provides the food. In religions, it is not simply the food that is provided that is important, but the uniting of oneself with the provider of the food i.e. unity with God.
But, from the point of view of traditional theology, what if humans, in searching for food and provisions, do not acknowledge any god as the provider, and believe that only by his/her own efforts in foraging, do they satisfy their hunger, or it was by good luck or chance they found provisions? In this case there was no ‘god-consciousness’ but simple animal necessity at work. This could have, logically, been the case with a large number of homo sapiens creatures. Theology, therefore, has always included as one of its important elements the concept of ‘sin’. ‘Sin’ is the aspect of human beings rejecting any concept of god or of an ‘other-worldly’ provider. According to theologians this rejection is named ‘sin’ (probably from the Latin word sons, sontis – guilt, criminal, or sontinus - heavy, important).
I do not believe that before he/she had a fairly large brain that homo sapiens experienced ‘sin’ or any ‘separation from god’ (who provides food and drink). But when the idea of ‘god’ appeared in consciousness then the idea of ‘no-god’ also appeared, i.e. living without provisions or god. So, ‘sin’ is the opposite side of the coin from God. And it became a reality which early homo sapiens had to face. This means that as ‘religion’ (belief in god) grew, so also the idea of ‘no god’ grew. This was (later) defined as sin, i.e. a burden of guilt which faced early homo sapiens even though these early persons did not create or cause it. For some reason the early belief in god who may ‘provide’ provoked the existence of ‘no-god’ and its burden.
But what happens when the need for food is ended – when the body dies, as any primate could see all the time around himself/herself? What need does the dead body have for food, or for ‘god the provider’ (if one believes in god). The idea may have arisen then that god provides also for the dead person in a ‘heaven’, an ‘after-world’. But what if that dead person did not believe in a god; what if that person lived in the realm of ‘no-god’? Then, that person may be bereft of provisions in ‘heaven’ as he/she was without god while they were a living creature. Who could take care of such a case of ‘sin’ (no-god)? Then, the idea of a ‘savior’ appeared in religious history – a person who could save that loved person from being a victim of his/her life in ‘no-god’ (which provided nothing for their life in ‘heaven’). A savior-person, guru or guide became part of almost every religion.
How was the savior-person going to ’save’ the person who had lived in ‘no-god’ all his/her life long? It would have to enter the realm of ‘no-god’ to see what happens there, and in order to plan the program of ‘salvation’. This is what all religions which have savior-gods or guides to religion, propose.
What shape does this really take in the biology of the brain of early homo sapiens? Perhaps it takes place in the hypothalamus where such a reaction of the person to ‘no-god’ might take place. Here, the concept of a ‘savior’ should appear, be actualized, be present. The no-god must be turned into god for the individual- the ‘sin’ must become ‘salvation’. If the person concerned has the possibility of believing in god then it is easy for him/her to believe that it is God who came into his/her hypothalamus and ’saved’ him/her. In other words, it was ‘divine’ intervention into the brain. The god overcame the no-god (sin) in that individual.
But can the synapses of the brain act independently of ‘divine intervention’ and overcome the no-god - replacing it by god in the individual? This apparently happened in early homo sapiens and was the beginning of religious consciousness. From some part of the emerging, growing brain of homo sapiens, a series of synapses was established which, in the hypothalamus, contradicted the impact of emotions arising from the meeting of the individual with the realm of no-god. Thus, the possibility of ‘saviors’ was established biologically in early men and women. These provocative substances, indigenous to humans, must have been hormones. This is probably the only way (seeing hormones as the saviors) that we can understand the existence of historical saviors or religious guides biologically-speaking. Just as adrenalin hormones allow humans to have an increment of strength in brain activity in order to face dangerous situations in life and overcome such dangers, so the human body also has hormones one of whose function may be to overcome the reality of no-god. These are perhaps the hormones related to sexuality of both male and female tendency. The problem with some hormones (such as oxytacsin for example) is that they can also cause depression (which is then attached to ‘no-god’ and makes things worse for the sufferer).
The question of how ‘god-consciousness’ arose in homo sapiens has been discussed by scientists with no philosophically or scientifically--based certainty. But the uncertainty does not take away the possibility that there should be certainty somewhere. Was god-consciousness biologically-based? This is the question. One possible solution to this conundrum is to state that hormones themselves are the ‘saviors’ that religions propose.
But this hormonal activity must confront the idea of death, since the problematic of humans facing ‘sin’ or no-god arises because, at death, the possibility of no-god faces the individual. Since there is no longer need for food (the body is dead) what kind of life does a person have after death? In other words, does no need for food equal no need for god? Thus, the after-death situation is without ‘god the provider’ and can be termed no-god. When this is faced before or after death, the savior is needed (since no-god is a completely unknown experience to be faced without some kind of savior). The hormones will provide the solution and meet the experience of no-god to which the synapses have brought the human either before or after death. These hormones merge with the experience of no-god and provide ‘salvation’: i.e. the savior of some religion. And such a savior continues to exist in the human brain both before and ‘after’ death).
So, people can ‘eat’ after death. In Christianity they ‘eat the body’ and ‘drink the blood’ of Jesus Christ. In other religions the savior leads them in paradise or among heavenly spirits.
How did early humans express the above reality in speech? In my hypothesis of the 214 original syllables in eleven categories of subject-object relations, the two categories of ‘opposing’ / ‘mildly-opposing’ and ‘loving’ / ‘mildly loving’ should be considered. When early humans opposed something which was an object confronting them as subjects, certain phonemes and syllables were uttered; when they loved the object, others were used. So, when a savior was encountered, the syllables should fall into the ‘loving’ category, when ‘no-god’ was encountered, the syllables should be in the ’opposing’ category. Thus, speech is a symbol of what may be happening in the hippocampus of the brain. The events in the brain are communicated to Broca’s or Warnecke’s areas of the brain in order to establish the words, using motor nerves tied to mouth muscles. These words are stored in Warnecke’s area to be used whenever the neurons leading from the hypothalamus signal that such a set of syllables could be used to describe the process of ‘what is going on’ (in the hippocampus) as the individual reacts to no-god and ‘savior’ (if it is a positive experience of ‘love’ with a savior) or if there is no savior (experienced as a negative experience of simple ‘opposition’).
These formations of phonemes and syllables arising from ‘religious experiences’ located in the hippocampus determine religious language used in churches, mosques and temples. Mainly, the emphasis is upon ‘god the savior’ because that is what has happened biologically - no doubt in the hippocampus.
But the ‘will-power’ of humans also plays a role in this scenario. Early homo sapiens understood that he/she could change history and regulate how he/she sought food. The ‘provider’ was not only god but also oneself. And will-power could influence events taking place biologically. Humans could ‘block’ the activity of the savior acting through the hormones. How does such blockage occur?
The question is, therefore, how can we block the intervention of sexually-related and other hormones in the procedures of the hypothalamus? By willful intervening when these hormones (whose effects are supposedly beneficial) begin to act within the brain to bring ‘salvation’. It involves a non-recognition of a natural process which religions may call an unhealthy ethical activity. The god is prevented from acting on behalf of the individual by the very activity of this human being himself or herself. The human is thus deprived of what is his or her best hope for living ‘eternally’ with divine provisions, and is relegated to living in a no-god arena. Human history is filled with billions of such unnatural unethical decisions but apparently that is one of the ’objectives’ of a divinely-created universe – to see how humanity treats the possibility of salvation by the salvation-oriented hormones.
Religions have been obliged to deal with this reality and they treat it under the rubric ‘ethics’ and, more specifically, ‘apokatastasis’ – can a human being block the divine intervention by the hormones indefinitely. Will there be a ‘judgement’ over such human activity of blockage?
Within the subject-object relation of human endeavor is a reaction by the subject of opposing the object. In this perspective what is opposed could be unpleasant (mildly opposing) or harmful (opposing). What is harmful to primitive ‘believing’ man or woman would be the no-god; death, etc. It was obvious that early humans dealt with enemies in nature in general and also among their fellows in society. A way had to be found to integrate the latter into the correct belief – they needed ‘redemption’ – paying someone or something so these would be ‘turned around’. Therefore, sacrifices began. The idea grew that the only way for all to ‘believe in god’ was to sacrifice something valuable for their sakes. The ‘cement’ of society would be self-sacrifice of some on behalf of the survival of the group.
Burning something like incense or animal sacrifice took care of this human need to have everyone believe in the same values.
Regarding the creation of gods among the early humans, perhaps the operation of the male and female hormones as saviors within persons could be transferred into male and female deities exterior to humans by a kind of ‘idealization’. The external effect of the hormone became an entity in itself and it was satisfactory as a god because it was also a ‘savior’ – saving from the realm of no-god (where there would be no provision of food).
With such an idealization of a hormone’s effect, the concept arose that the idea-god could solve the problem mentioned above, namely the need for a sacrifice. That is, some of these ‘gods’ could be intermediaries to solve societal problems of non-belief and bad ethical behavior. Such were the founders of religions – shamans and gurus of all sorts. Their job was to assure the unity of society by being intermediaries in a positive sense between members of the society and ‘no-god’.
More on ‘Free will’
In Christian theology ‘redemption’ happened when the redeemer (Jesus) died and this ‘sacrifice’ allowed ‘sinners’ to go back to god (rather than living in ‘no-god’). They could eat and drink his body and blood as signs of eating and drinking which was a symbol of being with ‘god’. The sacrifice had been made thus the original state of the homo sapiens was found again.
The church is the instrument of ‘the sacrifice’, ‘the redemption’ and the ’renewal’. Again, why was this sacrifice necessary? How does it relate to the biology of homo sapiens?
Hence the discussion on ‘free will’- What is homo sapiens ‘free will’? It was a two-partied creature: man and woman. Also, in each individual there were two types of sexual hormones: male and female. Moreover, children could be of either sex. So both 1=2 and 2=1 were possible in the history of homo sapiens. There was always the possibility of two answers, two solutions, two ideas. From the beginning man or woman could chose – a mate, a plan, a destination, an ideal. Also man or woman could always chose or deny the existence of a hormone which would impact his or her activities. This choice or denial was related to the fact that homo sapiens was two different sexes. Free will may have been base based upon this duality.
A ‘savior’ was possible if all the hormones could act correctly in a person when the person faced ‘no god’ (i.e. a world where god didn’t exist). As long as the savior (in the hypothalamus) was there i.e. the correct hormones were present, the person would ‘be saved’ and that permanently. This ‘savior’ was within homo sapiens from his/her origin. But if the individual denied the exit of these hormones from the hypothalamus (preventing the activity of the savior) the no-god (or exclusion from god) occurred and the person did not have such a ‘savior’.
By ‘eating the body’ and ‘drinking the blood’ of Jesus the correct balance of the hormones could be received from the hypothalamus in order to equilibrate the individual and his/her individuality.
The same may be true in other religious liturgies dedicated to the Great Creator or First Principle.
The correct dosage of the hormones in the body is the aim of all the religions. This correct dosage is called ‘love’ as all the faiths proclaim. To love yourself and your neighbor as yourself is all that is required in a believer. ‘Love’ is the effect of the hormones acting ‘normally’ vis à vis a person’s necessities.
Redemption, then, is effectuated by the Holy Communion whereby the correct synapses are creating the ‘savior’ in the hippocampus. Which in turn facilitates ‘love’ This is the ‘holy spirit’ in action. It is related not to ‘no-god’ but to god.
What shape does this really take in the biology of the mind of early homo sapiens? It must take place in the hippocampus where the reaction of the individual to ‘no-god’ takes place. Here the concept of a ‘savior’ must appear, The no-god must be turned into god and for this individual the sin must become salvation. If the individual concerned has the possibility of believing in a god then it is easy for him/her to believe that it is god who came into his/her hippocampus and saved them. In other words, it was ‘divine’ intervention into the brain. The god overcame the ‘no-god’ (sin) in them.
But can the synapses of the brain act independently of ‘divine intervention’, and overcome the no-god and replace it by ‘god’ in the individual? This apparently happened in early homo sapiens and was the beginning of ‘religious consciousness’. From some part of the emerging, growing brain of homo sapiens a series of synapses was established which, in the hippocampus, contradicted the reality of the meeting of the individual with the realm of no-god. Thus the possibility of ‘saviors’ was established biologically in early men and women. These provocatory synapses, indigenous to humans, must be created by hormones. This is the only way we can understand the existence of ‘saviors’ or religious guides biologically speaking. Just as adrenalin hormones allow humans to have an increment of strength in brain activity in order to face dangerous situations in life and overcome such danger, so apparently the body also has hormones to overcome the reality of ‘no-god’. They could be the hormones related to the sexuality of both male and female tendency or other hormones.
But ‘willpower’ of humans also plays a role in this scenario. Early homo sapiens understood that he/she could change history and regulate how they might seek food. The provider was not only god but also oneself. And willpower could influence events taking place biologically in the hippocampus, hypothalamus and other organs in the brain. How does such blockage occur? The question may come down to blocking the sexually-related or other hormones whose activity is provoked in the hypothalamus and whose activity is beneficial and which could bring ‘salvation’. It involves a non-recognition of a natural process, which religious leaders may call an unethical decision. The god is prevented from acting on behalf of the individual concerned by the very decision of this individual himself/herself. In which case the human being is deprived of what is best for ‘living eternally’ with divine provisions and is relegated to living in a no-god arena. Human history is filled with billions of such unnatural, unethical decisions but apparently, that is one of the objectives of a divinely-created universe – to see how humanity treats the possibility of salvation by the salvation-oriented hormones.
Religions have been obliged to deal with this reality and they discuss it under the rubric ‘ethics’ and, more specifically, under apokatastzasis – can a human being ‘block’ divine intervention by the hormones indefinitely. Will there be a ‘judgement’ passed over such human activity of blockage?
Within the subject-object relation of human beings, there exists the reaction of ‘opposing’ the object by the subject. In this perspective what is ‘opposed’ could be unpleasant (‘mildly opposing’ category) or harmful (‘opposing’ category). What is harmful to primitive man or woman would be ‘no-god’, death, etc. It was obvious that early humans dealt existentially with events both in the natural world and among their fellows in society. A way had to be found to integrate the latter into the correct belief – society needed ‘redemption’, i.e. paying someone or something so that society could be brought back onto the right path. Therefore ‘sacrifices’ began. The idea apparently grew that the only way for all to ‘believe in god’ was to sacrifice something valuable. The unity of society, they began to believe, would require the self-sacrifice of some members of the society to secure the survival of the group.
Eventually, animal sacrifices or burning something like incense took care of the human need to have ‘redemption’ arising because certain individuals did not believe in the divinity-based values.
Regarding the ‘creation of gods’ among early humans, perhaps the operation of the male and female hormones as ’saviors’ within individuals could be ‘idealized’ into male and female gods. The ‘effect’ of the hormone in bringing salvation began to be considered as an entity in itself and it could be considered as a god because it was also a ‘savior’ from the realm of no-god’ (where there would be no provisions to sustain life). With such an idealization arising from the effect of the hormones in the hippocampus, another concept arose, namely that the idealized gods could solve society’s problems and could be redemptive units vis à vis non-belief and bad ethical behavior. Such were some of the founders of religions – shamans and gurus of all sorts. Their job was to ensure the unity of society by being intermediaries and reconcilers between members of society, positive aspects of their hippocampi and the negative aspects related to ‘no-god’.
The categories of subject-object relations among homo sapiens include the relations f opposition or mild opposition. Therefore, these are elements in the world to be ‘against’ such as threatening animals or dangerous elements in the nature. There are also those objects to which love is shown or ‘mild love’: objects of attraction of happiness. Moreover, there are objects towards which a quizzical stance is taken. Among the three ‘objects’ there is a possibility one of them or two might be ‘a liar’. We are reminded of Jung’s ‘archetypes’ – primeval entities which lie at the root of human ethics and language. Such entities may personify ‘sin’ and no-god and help explain why, in the world of homo sapiens, events such as ‘redemption’ and ‘salvation’ are necessary elements. Lies are a part of the universe, so also redemption must exist to counteract them. The liar (or devil) is allowed thus in the universe to entice individuals to live in the world of no-god. but since it is no-god (a bad situation for humans because it implies ’no-provision of food’) homo sapiens may have had a lingering fear of following the lie, no matter how much it was appealing because of the freedom attached
.
As homo sapiens is caught thus between god and no-god, between being satisfied by his/her choice towards love or being dubious by his/her choice toward the lies, an escape was programmed. Without such a liar ‘devil’ the inhabited world would be a paradise where all desires would be satisfied but with the liar-devil in existence within the universe the inhabited world become a place not of permanent peace but of continual ethical choices. The ‘liar’ can determine the path that homo sapiens takes to fulfill his/her needs. The choice about which path to take is in the brain but that which in the brain is influenced by an exterior guide which may be a lie (which god allows). On the other hand, a saviour / redeemer is also provided within the brain. It is an impact of the ‘love of the redeemer’ making it possible that the neurons and synapses allow such love to change the hippocampus and the memories stored there. Memories of ‘no-god’ orientation in the hippocampus can be replaced by memories of the ‘love of god’. The liar’s impact upon the hippocampus can be modified through ‘subject-object relations’ of the individual homo sapiens indicating love and not opposition.
Charles Graves
We suppose, also, that some of the earliest workings of homo sapiens brain concerned where to find food and water, the problem of foraging. When the stomach was filled the creature was happy and when lacking food, it was unhappy. Happiness was related to something unknown, and perhaps in the early development of homo sapiens’ mind the question of God was already present in the form of the doubt about whether the food would be available or not. If there is a God, then concerns about the intention of God himself / herself would be: ‘how can I convince early homo sapiens that I ‘exist’ so he/she will respect me as the source of food that is so necessary?’ From the point of view of humans the question would be: ‘how can I make it certain that I will always have a supply of food for myself and my loved ones?’ and ‘where is this certainty?’. This, obviously, raised the issue of ‘the great provider’: is there an eternal ‘person’ who provides?
Within such a perspective, God, ‘the provider’ would be in a certain place (organized religion began with this need). The Holy Communion or Eucharist (happiness-provider) may be based, biologically, upon this early identification of eating with a necessary acknowledgement of a provider for the possibility to eat. Going to church, partaking of the bread and wine of the Holy Communion may be a ‘reversion’ to the primitive state of humans who foraged for provisions (in East Africa a million of years ago). Christianity may have arisen to prove to mankind that God has acted, and will always in future act, to feed them. This aspect of the appeal of Christianity in its early days should be further investigated.
A parallel event in the life of early homo sapiens was the development of speech. My theory is that speech came because the earliest experiences of homo sapiens (and of other human species such as the Neanderthal) came by the mouth and this mouth reacted in a subject-object encounter, by speaking. Sometimes the syllables were automatic and sometimes the experience was ‘recorded’ in the brain before the syllables were uttered through brain-mouth nerve connections. These were in my proposed cases of ‘muse/music’, ‘expressive’, ‘remembering’ and ‘quizzical’ (four out of the eleven proposed categories of subject-object relations). But for ’opposing’ or ‘loving’ as categories of the subject-object relations, the speech was instantaneous uttered in syllables created by the mouth.
Thus, not only was the mouth, the provisions for the mouth, or the provider of these provisions contemplated as homo sapiens developed the synapses in his/her brain, but also there was an element of speech involved in the procedure. The brain began to function together with the mouth as the subject-object encounters multiplied in the foraging process. Here, perhaps, we have the origin of the ‘hocus pocus’ (hic est corpus) aspect of Holy Communion. Words are involved in preparing for, as well as eating the body and drinking the blood’.
The promise in the Christian Holy Communion is that the believer will be united to God and his/her fellows. It involves the ‘foraging’ (coming to the church), the eating (of the Mass) and the unity with the God through the eating process. One might say that this reflects a very early experience in the life of homo sapiens based on the need to feed oneself, and at the same time to acknowledge the one who provides the food. In religions, it is not simply the food that is provided that is important, but the uniting of oneself with the provider of the food i.e. unity with God.
But, from the point of view of traditional theology, what if humans, in searching for food and provisions, do not acknowledge any god as the provider, and believe that only by his/her own efforts in foraging, do they satisfy their hunger, or it was by good luck or chance they found provisions? In this case there was no ‘god-consciousness’ but simple animal necessity at work. This could have, logically, been the case with a large number of homo sapiens creatures. Theology, therefore, has always included as one of its important elements the concept of ‘sin’. ‘Sin’ is the aspect of human beings rejecting any concept of god or of an ‘other-worldly’ provider. According to theologians this rejection is named ‘sin’ (probably from the Latin word sons, sontis – guilt, criminal, or sontinus - heavy, important).
I do not believe that before he/she had a fairly large brain that homo sapiens experienced ‘sin’ or any ‘separation from god’ (who provides food and drink). But when the idea of ‘god’ appeared in consciousness then the idea of ‘no-god’ also appeared, i.e. living without provisions or god. So, ‘sin’ is the opposite side of the coin from God. And it became a reality which early homo sapiens had to face. This means that as ‘religion’ (belief in god) grew, so also the idea of ‘no god’ grew. This was (later) defined as sin, i.e. a burden of guilt which faced early homo sapiens even though these early persons did not create or cause it. For some reason the early belief in god who may ‘provide’ provoked the existence of ‘no-god’ and its burden.
But what happens when the need for food is ended – when the body dies, as any primate could see all the time around himself/herself? What need does the dead body have for food, or for ‘god the provider’ (if one believes in god). The idea may have arisen then that god provides also for the dead person in a ‘heaven’, an ‘after-world’. But what if that dead person did not believe in a god; what if that person lived in the realm of ‘no-god’? Then, that person may be bereft of provisions in ‘heaven’ as he/she was without god while they were a living creature. Who could take care of such a case of ‘sin’ (no-god)? Then, the idea of a ‘savior’ appeared in religious history – a person who could save that loved person from being a victim of his/her life in ‘no-god’ (which provided nothing for their life in ‘heaven’). A savior-person, guru or guide became part of almost every religion.
How was the savior-person going to ’save’ the person who had lived in ‘no-god’ all his/her life long? It would have to enter the realm of ‘no-god’ to see what happens there, and in order to plan the program of ‘salvation’. This is what all religions which have savior-gods or guides to religion, propose.
What shape does this really take in the biology of the brain of early homo sapiens? Perhaps it takes place in the hypothalamus where such a reaction of the person to ‘no-god’ might take place. Here, the concept of a ‘savior’ should appear, be actualized, be present. The no-god must be turned into god for the individual- the ‘sin’ must become ‘salvation’. If the person concerned has the possibility of believing in god then it is easy for him/her to believe that it is God who came into his/her hypothalamus and ’saved’ him/her. In other words, it was ‘divine’ intervention into the brain. The god overcame the no-god (sin) in that individual.
But can the synapses of the brain act independently of ‘divine intervention’ and overcome the no-god - replacing it by god in the individual? This apparently happened in early homo sapiens and was the beginning of religious consciousness. From some part of the emerging, growing brain of homo sapiens, a series of synapses was established which, in the hypothalamus, contradicted the impact of emotions arising from the meeting of the individual with the realm of no-god. Thus, the possibility of ‘saviors’ was established biologically in early men and women. These provocative substances, indigenous to humans, must have been hormones. This is probably the only way (seeing hormones as the saviors) that we can understand the existence of historical saviors or religious guides biologically-speaking. Just as adrenalin hormones allow humans to have an increment of strength in brain activity in order to face dangerous situations in life and overcome such dangers, so the human body also has hormones one of whose function may be to overcome the reality of no-god. These are perhaps the hormones related to sexuality of both male and female tendency. The problem with some hormones (such as oxytacsin for example) is that they can also cause depression (which is then attached to ‘no-god’ and makes things worse for the sufferer).
The question of how ‘god-consciousness’ arose in homo sapiens has been discussed by scientists with no philosophically or scientifically--based certainty. But the uncertainty does not take away the possibility that there should be certainty somewhere. Was god-consciousness biologically-based? This is the question. One possible solution to this conundrum is to state that hormones themselves are the ‘saviors’ that religions propose.
But this hormonal activity must confront the idea of death, since the problematic of humans facing ‘sin’ or no-god arises because, at death, the possibility of no-god faces the individual. Since there is no longer need for food (the body is dead) what kind of life does a person have after death? In other words, does no need for food equal no need for god? Thus, the after-death situation is without ‘god the provider’ and can be termed no-god. When this is faced before or after death, the savior is needed (since no-god is a completely unknown experience to be faced without some kind of savior). The hormones will provide the solution and meet the experience of no-god to which the synapses have brought the human either before or after death. These hormones merge with the experience of no-god and provide ‘salvation’: i.e. the savior of some religion. And such a savior continues to exist in the human brain both before and ‘after’ death).
So, people can ‘eat’ after death. In Christianity they ‘eat the body’ and ‘drink the blood’ of Jesus Christ. In other religions the savior leads them in paradise or among heavenly spirits.
How did early humans express the above reality in speech? In my hypothesis of the 214 original syllables in eleven categories of subject-object relations, the two categories of ‘opposing’ / ‘mildly-opposing’ and ‘loving’ / ‘mildly loving’ should be considered. When early humans opposed something which was an object confronting them as subjects, certain phonemes and syllables were uttered; when they loved the object, others were used. So, when a savior was encountered, the syllables should fall into the ‘loving’ category, when ‘no-god’ was encountered, the syllables should be in the ’opposing’ category. Thus, speech is a symbol of what may be happening in the hippocampus of the brain. The events in the brain are communicated to Broca’s or Warnecke’s areas of the brain in order to establish the words, using motor nerves tied to mouth muscles. These words are stored in Warnecke’s area to be used whenever the neurons leading from the hypothalamus signal that such a set of syllables could be used to describe the process of ‘what is going on’ (in the hippocampus) as the individual reacts to no-god and ‘savior’ (if it is a positive experience of ‘love’ with a savior) or if there is no savior (experienced as a negative experience of simple ‘opposition’).
These formations of phonemes and syllables arising from ‘religious experiences’ located in the hippocampus determine religious language used in churches, mosques and temples. Mainly, the emphasis is upon ‘god the savior’ because that is what has happened biologically - no doubt in the hippocampus.
But the ‘will-power’ of humans also plays a role in this scenario. Early homo sapiens understood that he/she could change history and regulate how he/she sought food. The ‘provider’ was not only god but also oneself. And will-power could influence events taking place biologically. Humans could ‘block’ the activity of the savior acting through the hormones. How does such blockage occur?
The question is, therefore, how can we block the intervention of sexually-related and other hormones in the procedures of the hypothalamus? By willful intervening when these hormones (whose effects are supposedly beneficial) begin to act within the brain to bring ‘salvation’. It involves a non-recognition of a natural process which religions may call an unhealthy ethical activity. The god is prevented from acting on behalf of the individual by the very activity of this human being himself or herself. The human is thus deprived of what is his or her best hope for living ‘eternally’ with divine provisions, and is relegated to living in a no-god arena. Human history is filled with billions of such unnatural unethical decisions but apparently that is one of the ’objectives’ of a divinely-created universe – to see how humanity treats the possibility of salvation by the salvation-oriented hormones.
Religions have been obliged to deal with this reality and they treat it under the rubric ‘ethics’ and, more specifically, ‘apokatastasis’ – can a human being block the divine intervention by the hormones indefinitely. Will there be a ‘judgement’ over such human activity of blockage?
Within the subject-object relation of human endeavor is a reaction by the subject of opposing the object. In this perspective what is opposed could be unpleasant (mildly opposing) or harmful (opposing). What is harmful to primitive ‘believing’ man or woman would be the no-god; death, etc. It was obvious that early humans dealt with enemies in nature in general and also among their fellows in society. A way had to be found to integrate the latter into the correct belief – they needed ‘redemption’ – paying someone or something so these would be ‘turned around’. Therefore, sacrifices began. The idea grew that the only way for all to ‘believe in god’ was to sacrifice something valuable for their sakes. The ‘cement’ of society would be self-sacrifice of some on behalf of the survival of the group.
Burning something like incense or animal sacrifice took care of this human need to have everyone believe in the same values.
Regarding the creation of gods among the early humans, perhaps the operation of the male and female hormones as saviors within persons could be transferred into male and female deities exterior to humans by a kind of ‘idealization’. The external effect of the hormone became an entity in itself and it was satisfactory as a god because it was also a ‘savior’ – saving from the realm of no-god (where there would be no provision of food).
With such an idealization of a hormone’s effect, the concept arose that the idea-god could solve the problem mentioned above, namely the need for a sacrifice. That is, some of these ‘gods’ could be intermediaries to solve societal problems of non-belief and bad ethical behavior. Such were the founders of religions – shamans and gurus of all sorts. Their job was to assure the unity of society by being intermediaries in a positive sense between members of the society and ‘no-god’.
More on ‘Free will’
In Christian theology ‘redemption’ happened when the redeemer (Jesus) died and this ‘sacrifice’ allowed ‘sinners’ to go back to god (rather than living in ‘no-god’). They could eat and drink his body and blood as signs of eating and drinking which was a symbol of being with ‘god’. The sacrifice had been made thus the original state of the homo sapiens was found again.
The church is the instrument of ‘the sacrifice’, ‘the redemption’ and the ’renewal’. Again, why was this sacrifice necessary? How does it relate to the biology of homo sapiens?
Hence the discussion on ‘free will’- What is homo sapiens ‘free will’? It was a two-partied creature: man and woman. Also, in each individual there were two types of sexual hormones: male and female. Moreover, children could be of either sex. So both 1=2 and 2=1 were possible in the history of homo sapiens. There was always the possibility of two answers, two solutions, two ideas. From the beginning man or woman could chose – a mate, a plan, a destination, an ideal. Also man or woman could always chose or deny the existence of a hormone which would impact his or her activities. This choice or denial was related to the fact that homo sapiens was two different sexes. Free will may have been base based upon this duality.
A ‘savior’ was possible if all the hormones could act correctly in a person when the person faced ‘no god’ (i.e. a world where god didn’t exist). As long as the savior (in the hypothalamus) was there i.e. the correct hormones were present, the person would ‘be saved’ and that permanently. This ‘savior’ was within homo sapiens from his/her origin. But if the individual denied the exit of these hormones from the hypothalamus (preventing the activity of the savior) the no-god (or exclusion from god) occurred and the person did not have such a ‘savior’.
By ‘eating the body’ and ‘drinking the blood’ of Jesus the correct balance of the hormones could be received from the hypothalamus in order to equilibrate the individual and his/her individuality.
The same may be true in other religious liturgies dedicated to the Great Creator or First Principle.
The correct dosage of the hormones in the body is the aim of all the religions. This correct dosage is called ‘love’ as all the faiths proclaim. To love yourself and your neighbor as yourself is all that is required in a believer. ‘Love’ is the effect of the hormones acting ‘normally’ vis à vis a person’s necessities.
Redemption, then, is effectuated by the Holy Communion whereby the correct synapses are creating the ‘savior’ in the hippocampus. Which in turn facilitates ‘love’ This is the ‘holy spirit’ in action. It is related not to ‘no-god’ but to god.
What shape does this really take in the biology of the mind of early homo sapiens? It must take place in the hippocampus where the reaction of the individual to ‘no-god’ takes place. Here the concept of a ‘savior’ must appear, The no-god must be turned into god and for this individual the sin must become salvation. If the individual concerned has the possibility of believing in a god then it is easy for him/her to believe that it is god who came into his/her hippocampus and saved them. In other words, it was ‘divine’ intervention into the brain. The god overcame the ‘no-god’ (sin) in them.
But can the synapses of the brain act independently of ‘divine intervention’, and overcome the no-god and replace it by ‘god’ in the individual? This apparently happened in early homo sapiens and was the beginning of ‘religious consciousness’. From some part of the emerging, growing brain of homo sapiens a series of synapses was established which, in the hippocampus, contradicted the reality of the meeting of the individual with the realm of no-god. Thus the possibility of ‘saviors’ was established biologically in early men and women. These provocatory synapses, indigenous to humans, must be created by hormones. This is the only way we can understand the existence of ‘saviors’ or religious guides biologically speaking. Just as adrenalin hormones allow humans to have an increment of strength in brain activity in order to face dangerous situations in life and overcome such danger, so apparently the body also has hormones to overcome the reality of ‘no-god’. They could be the hormones related to the sexuality of both male and female tendency or other hormones.
But ‘willpower’ of humans also plays a role in this scenario. Early homo sapiens understood that he/she could change history and regulate how they might seek food. The provider was not only god but also oneself. And willpower could influence events taking place biologically in the hippocampus, hypothalamus and other organs in the brain. How does such blockage occur? The question may come down to blocking the sexually-related or other hormones whose activity is provoked in the hypothalamus and whose activity is beneficial and which could bring ‘salvation’. It involves a non-recognition of a natural process, which religious leaders may call an unethical decision. The god is prevented from acting on behalf of the individual concerned by the very decision of this individual himself/herself. In which case the human being is deprived of what is best for ‘living eternally’ with divine provisions and is relegated to living in a no-god arena. Human history is filled with billions of such unnatural, unethical decisions but apparently, that is one of the objectives of a divinely-created universe – to see how humanity treats the possibility of salvation by the salvation-oriented hormones.
Religions have been obliged to deal with this reality and they discuss it under the rubric ‘ethics’ and, more specifically, under apokatastzasis – can a human being ‘block’ divine intervention by the hormones indefinitely. Will there be a ‘judgement’ passed over such human activity of blockage?
Within the subject-object relation of human beings, there exists the reaction of ‘opposing’ the object by the subject. In this perspective what is ‘opposed’ could be unpleasant (‘mildly opposing’ category) or harmful (‘opposing’ category). What is harmful to primitive man or woman would be ‘no-god’, death, etc. It was obvious that early humans dealt existentially with events both in the natural world and among their fellows in society. A way had to be found to integrate the latter into the correct belief – society needed ‘redemption’, i.e. paying someone or something so that society could be brought back onto the right path. Therefore ‘sacrifices’ began. The idea apparently grew that the only way for all to ‘believe in god’ was to sacrifice something valuable. The unity of society, they began to believe, would require the self-sacrifice of some members of the society to secure the survival of the group.
Eventually, animal sacrifices or burning something like incense took care of the human need to have ‘redemption’ arising because certain individuals did not believe in the divinity-based values.
Regarding the ‘creation of gods’ among early humans, perhaps the operation of the male and female hormones as ’saviors’ within individuals could be ‘idealized’ into male and female gods. The ‘effect’ of the hormone in bringing salvation began to be considered as an entity in itself and it could be considered as a god because it was also a ‘savior’ from the realm of no-god’ (where there would be no provisions to sustain life). With such an idealization arising from the effect of the hormones in the hippocampus, another concept arose, namely that the idealized gods could solve society’s problems and could be redemptive units vis à vis non-belief and bad ethical behavior. Such were some of the founders of religions – shamans and gurus of all sorts. Their job was to ensure the unity of society by being intermediaries and reconcilers between members of society, positive aspects of their hippocampi and the negative aspects related to ‘no-god’.
The categories of subject-object relations among homo sapiens include the relations f opposition or mild opposition. Therefore, these are elements in the world to be ‘against’ such as threatening animals or dangerous elements in the nature. There are also those objects to which love is shown or ‘mild love’: objects of attraction of happiness. Moreover, there are objects towards which a quizzical stance is taken. Among the three ‘objects’ there is a possibility one of them or two might be ‘a liar’. We are reminded of Jung’s ‘archetypes’ – primeval entities which lie at the root of human ethics and language. Such entities may personify ‘sin’ and no-god and help explain why, in the world of homo sapiens, events such as ‘redemption’ and ‘salvation’ are necessary elements. Lies are a part of the universe, so also redemption must exist to counteract them. The liar (or devil) is allowed thus in the universe to entice individuals to live in the world of no-god. but since it is no-god (a bad situation for humans because it implies ’no-provision of food’) homo sapiens may have had a lingering fear of following the lie, no matter how much it was appealing because of the freedom attached
.
As homo sapiens is caught thus between god and no-god, between being satisfied by his/her choice towards love or being dubious by his/her choice toward the lies, an escape was programmed. Without such a liar ‘devil’ the inhabited world would be a paradise where all desires would be satisfied but with the liar-devil in existence within the universe the inhabited world become a place not of permanent peace but of continual ethical choices. The ‘liar’ can determine the path that homo sapiens takes to fulfill his/her needs. The choice about which path to take is in the brain but that which in the brain is influenced by an exterior guide which may be a lie (which god allows). On the other hand, a saviour / redeemer is also provided within the brain. It is an impact of the ‘love of the redeemer’ making it possible that the neurons and synapses allow such love to change the hippocampus and the memories stored there. Memories of ‘no-god’ orientation in the hippocampus can be replaced by memories of the ‘love of god’. The liar’s impact upon the hippocampus can be modified through ‘subject-object relations’ of the individual homo sapiens indicating love and not opposition.
Charles Graves
Photograph: ‘rock painting’ in Australia photographed by Graeme Churchard, Bristol (UK)
