I realized that this video was really oversimplified, and the connection between religion and civilization is significantly more complicated than I conveyed here. In this video I only examined a single psychological consequence of the idea of gods.
So Gods stood as proxy hallucinations for the Alpha male/female archetype. Which allowed human "Kings" to rule over large populations they could not directly interact with by suggesting they represented the power of God. They wielded the "fear of God" as it were. Correct? You say you've oversimplified, but surely this is far and away the most important aspect of religion's role in helping civilizations grow, no? What would come next if you were to go into more detail?
This brings up an interesting point, which societies maintained the hallucination in earnest vs was used consciously by “faithless” leaders to subordinate. It seems like this happened unconsciously and as our consciousness evolved it was used as a coordination mechanism. That said while it is hard to verify one way or another, many good leaders held the devotion of their gods in earnest.
Been a fan of your channel for a while. Love how humbly you present these ideas with as much attention toward your own biases as toward your passion for the subject matter.
Agreed. But it's not because of "dropping" the instincts that we got domesticated but because through the emerging ego space we became able to dissociate from them and perceive them in a symbolized distilled form [archetypal expression].
Hey there, love your channel! I think there's a missing half of a story here, namely division of labor and cooperation. You recognise that "alpha's" are not just feared but also admired and imitated, and that they're not just tyrants, but I feel like the whole framing of "dominant vs submissive" might be a bit dated, it carries some unhelpful connotations / value judgements. Being "submissive" may just mean dividing roles in a pragmatic way, as well as negotiating power in a social rather than physical way - as in a weak individual may not challenge a stronger individual directly, but will still "resist" them in the form of any pressure they can apply via indirect means (social networking, etc). Being "submissive" in this sense may also be described as developing trust or respect and assuming complementary roles. Framing the whole thing as dominant vs submissive occludes that there are two halves to human society, competitive as well as cooperative. I think we can also see this in monotheism vs polytheism, or "family" pantheons rather than strictly hierarchical ones, which may also reflect family structures?
First the temples were built on holy sites. A Throne for the Gods was provided. People brought offerings. Other people, locals, designated themselves the Priests of the Temples. Soon they began to "speak for the Gods" demanding more offerings, because you know, sins. Eventually they sat on the Throne themselves, and civilization was born. The way for the alpha male to control the resources of the tribe. That is all.
If you keep studying early civilizations along with megalithic structures you might figure out that there existed a civilization at the end of the Ice Age more advanced than we are today. Hunter gatherers are just the tribal people who survived the great cataclysm and started building on top of the structures left behind.
Been a fan of your channel for a while. Love how humbly you present these ideas with as much attention toward your own biases as toward your passion for the subject matter.
