Singing Neanderthals

In the book chapter “Singing Neanderthals,” the author presets a fairly convincing case for a lack of language in Neanderthal society--with several interesting parallels to our discussions of religion and the spiritual nature of humans.

One of the main evidences that the author presents in support of his argument is that Neanderthals lack symbolic objects. If the capacity (language) was available to the Neanderthals for over 200,000 years, the author (and I) find it hard to believe that they would have chosen not to use it throughout their existence.

This also fits in with our discussion about the religious nature of modern man, and what positive effects it may have on our survival. This need for greater accountability (in an authority higher than our own species), a hope for a better tomorrow, and comfort from the fear of death seem to be, if not inevitable, highly desirable characteristics for a species capable of formulating religious traditions and dogma. This desirability seems to provide greater evidence for the fact that, if Neanderthals were capable of modern speech, they would have formulated religious institutions and left behind a large amount of objects which served little utilitarian purposes, but rather were primarily symbolic in nature.

The second evidence cited by the author is the immense cultural stability--referring to the fact that customs and techniques stayed relatively stagnate throughout the existence of Neanderthals. The author states that “language is a force of change” and he is correct in that assertion. Without the ability to communicate complex, new ideas to others within your community, those ideas will inevitably die with the individual--hoping to be rethought in some future generation. With this cycle repeating itself indefinitely, no technological progress is ever made--leaving the same traditions and skills already present in the previous generation as the only transmittable knowledge available to their young.

This combination of lack of symbolic objects and lack of cultural change both seem to indicate that the authors proposition that no assumption should be made of the Neanderthal’s linguistic ability (and in a greater relation to this class--their inability to formulate complex religious systems to follow). As the author discusses in his opening, there might have been a sad Neanderthal, a happy Neanderthal, and even a singing Neanderthal, but, by my estimation, their downfall might have come from the fact that there apparently wasn’t a praying Neanderthal.

Why We Believe?

Just to start with a little bit of background. I am a non-denominational Christian (not that I attend a church which touts its lack of affiliation-which I have in the past), but I attend an Assemblies of God Church here in Appleton. I believe in the basics of Christianity, and see the majority of the extensive variety of Christian denominations as differences in style of implementing those basics. Now on to the reading...

Besides the fact that the style was not the most appealing, the content of the New York Times Magazine article "Why Do We Believe?" (by Robin Marantz Henig) was quite fascinating. I was most intrigued by the author’s apparent surprise with the stance taken by Justin Barrett. Even stating at one point that "Barrett's faith might seem confusing. (78)” I felt that this clearly demonstrated the author's either personal lack of belief, or the perceived audience dominated by non-believers--a situation which seems highly improbable because he cites earlier in the article the overwhelming number of American's who believe in a personal God (39).

As Barret states, a recognition of the innate nature of human beings to believe in a higher power does not erase the plausibility of such a belief, but also can be used to show that God built us to believe. I was quite relieved to see that this point of view was included in the article since it had been lingering in my mind as I read through the arguments by those of varying levels of atheism describing how they believed the nature to believe had developed.

I feel that this article demonstrates the tendency for some atheists to view that those who have sincere religious beliefs follow a blind and scientifically/intellectually ignorant faith. Not only is that assumption wrong and insulting, it demonstrates their own ignorance of the global religious community.

This may sound a bit angry and may not be the intended sentiment in the article, but this section of the article has lent itself to a discussion of a problem I have witnessed over the past few years.

See you all in class!