Why did certain religions ban pork?

[Ryokan]

The disease effect would not be immediate enough to make the connection.
The disease effect is too hit or miss to look related to pork because lots of people who eat pork wouldn't have any symptoms.

It doesn't take a genius to notice that Tribe A, who raises and eats pigs, gets sick in a specific way a lot more than Tribe B, who raises and eats sheep. It only takes people noticing it once to be passed down.

Not saying that happened, but it's not exactly far beyond belief that it could have happened.

 

[Ryokan]

The fact pigs are currently raised by the world's poorest societies, and that pigs were raised by other groups in the same area the pig taboo emerged suggests hypotheses of the animal being costly to raise are likely to be false.

In many of those poor societies, the pigs are fed with the waste of rich society. That's a resource that wasn't around in ancient times.

In societies where even waste is scarce, the goat is prefered most of the time.

 

[Elind]

Your food facts are false, people back in that day had no clue about trichinosis, and trichinosis isn't symptomatic in a lot of cases so it would be impossible for even a keen observer to notice there was a connection to eating pork. I don't know how you figure pork spoils faster than beef. Pork chops seem to last longer than steak in my fridge.


Us vs them is a well known socio-cultural phenomena.

This is a fairly thorough discussion of causal factors in food taboos and I see an interesting point. The health risk would have had to be immediate and if a person had a shellfish allergy, that could explain the development of the shellfish abomination.

Your food facts are not facts and you make the common assumption that ancient people were stupid and had no concept of cause and effect. There is no need to understand parasites in order to know that there can be something bad in certain foods.

As to how stuff does in your fridge, have you experimented with the same materials outside the fridge, in summer?

This us v them simply makes no sense. Who were "them" that illicited such a major tenent of a religion/culture, based on a few food items, as if that would give them an identity that other things didn't?

Regarding allergies, that is just plain silly. How many other foods could be banned for everyone because a very few found that they regularly got sick if they ate one?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ay yi yi.

@ everyone griping at me:

My main contention is to quit repeating memes based on the criteria, "it sounds good" or "it sounds logical". Find the frigin evidence before drawing a conclusion based on nothing more than, "I heard." It's no different from, "I heard vitamin C is good for a cold."

As for, why do I get to naysay the health hypothesis, it's because I know that field very well and the hypotheses are not consistent with the facts. If you have a particular expertise, by all means, apply it here. Just stop looking at "it makes sense" as if that is evidence.

An hypothesis is not evidence.

Beyond that, I don't have time to address all the unsupported conclusions in this thread. Maybe later I'll give a few of the false assumptions a go.

 

[StankApe]

let them! Last thing we need is another bacon famine!

 

[ArmoredDragon]

I think muslims just found them to be more attractive than women, so they banned them to make sure there weren't any around, that way they could grow their population.

 

[angrysoba]

Ay yi yi.

@ everyone griping at me:

My main contention is to quit repeating memes based on the criteria, "it sounds good" or "it sounds logical". Find the frigin evidence before drawing a conclusion based on nothing more than, "I heard." It's no different from, "I heard vitamin C is good for a cold."
As for, why do I get to naysay the health hypothesis, it's because I know that field very well and the hypotheses are not consistent with the facts. If you have a particular expertise, by all means, apply it here. Just stop looking at "it makes sense" as if that is evidence.

An hypothesis is not evidence.

Beyond that, I don't have time to address all the unsupported conclusions in this thread. Maybe later I'll give a few of the false assumptions a go.

I contend that you are doing nothing more than repeating a meme because you think it sounds good and because you heard it and I think you have no evidence for it. You are right that a hypothesis is not evidence, and as far as I can see you have nothing more than a hypothesis. So, where is your evidence?

I contend you are attacking positions that I do not have and you have not addressed the issue I do have.

In short, your hand-wavy attempts to explain that you know best fail.

 

[porch]

I contend that you are doing nothing more than repeating a meme because you think it sounds good and because you heard it and I think you have no evidence for it. You are right that a hypothesis is not evidence, and as far as I can see you have nothing more than a hypothesis. So, where is your evidence?

I contend you are attacking positions that I do not have and you have not addressed the issue I do have.

In short, your hand-wavy attempts to explain that you know best fail.

Ditto. All counts.

And I'd like to repeat that even if, for the sake of argument, the tribal identification model ends up fully explaining everything there is to know about the preservation and propagation of food taboos, it will still not be a competing hypothesis for the origin of food taboos.

 

[ddt]

It doesn't take a genius to notice that Tribe A, who raises and eats pigs, gets sick in a specific way a lot more than Tribe B, who raises and eats sheep. It only takes people noticing it once to be passed down.

Not saying that happened, but it's not exactly far beyond belief that it could have happened.

I agree with you it doesn't take a genius. But let's test it with the available evidence. The available archaeological evidence says that only the Hebrews had a pork taboo, while all surrounding tribes did eat pork.

Let's give them names:
Tribe A = the Phoenicians, a cosmopolitan, sea faring, trading tribe in nowadays Lebanon.
Tribe B = the ancient Hebrews, illiterate goat herders in the Canaanite hill country.

Which of those two tribes would be the far more likely to notice the difference. The one who sailed regularly over the whole Mediterranean, or the one where visiting a neighboring town is quite a voyage?

I'm maybe exaggerating a bit, but not by much. The ancient Hebrews were by far not the most advanced tribe on the block. Phoenicians, Hittites, Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians etc. all had much more advanced societies and - if there were such a health risk - that had not gone unnoticed to them.

So, I think we can clearly rule out the health risk theory.

 

[ddt]

As to how stuff does in your fridge, have you experimented with the same materials outside the fridge, in summer?

See my post #83. A French mess officer in 1836 did, and found that in temperate climate (read: France, I presume) beef and pork keep well for the same amount of days. He didn't test goat meat, but if sheep is an appropriate proxy - it did half as well as beef or pork.

 

[tsig]

I think muslims just found them to be more attractive than women, so they banned them to make sure there weren't any around, that way they could grow their population.

Well the alternative was pigs in burqas.

 

[Belgian thought]

I agree with you it doesn't take a genius. But let's test it with the available evidence. The available archaeological evidence says that only the Hebrews had a pork taboo, while all surrounding tribes did eat pork.

Let's give them names:
Tribe A = the Phoenicians, a cosmopolitan, sea faring, trading tribe in nowadays Lebanon.
Tribe B = the ancient Hebrews, illiterate goat herders in the Canaanite hill country.

Which of those two tribes would be the far more likely to notice the difference. The one who sailed regularly over the whole Mediterranean, or the one where visiting a neighboring town is quite a voyage?

I'm maybe exaggerating a bit, but not by much. The ancient Hebrews were by far not the most advanced tribe on the block. Phoenicians, Hittites, Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians etc. all had much more advanced societies and - if there were such a health risk - that had not gone unnoticed to them.

So, I think we can clearly rule out the health risk theory.

That is why the JREF is here.

Now I am glad I still have no fixed belief as to why 'pork is bad', but your input has added more images and layers to the question.

Thank you.

I used to take the 'medical' avenue as a reason but your post has raised many points.

I am now tending to the social behaviour of this then 'new' religion. This allowing the feeling of superiority and righteousness - i.e. we don't do the same as them etc..

For Judaism and Jews, their religion allows them to distinguish themselves from the 'non-believers', ditto Islam and Muslims - by not eating pork, Christianity and Christians , buy not chopping bits of foreskin - this again argued by many, for and against, based on medical reasons.

 

[Elind]

Except there's a flaw in your hypothesis when you try to turn that into an actual connection between health and the taboo.

First, the connection between upsetting the virgin and the crops failing was purely superstitious. So sure, a superstitious reasoning could be behind the taboo.

But if you want to then go on and say the superstition was based on the connection between pork and trichinosis, it fails on many levels which I've already pointed out. An observer at the time, without modern medical science and microscopes would not see any connection between pork and disease.

The disease effect would not be immediate enough to make the connection.
The disease effect is too hit or miss to look related to pork because lots of people who eat pork wouldn't have any symptoms.

You keep making this argument, if you can call it that, and you have pointed out nothing.

It is trivially simple to imagine that small groups of people sharing certain foods falling ill together would not see a connection. Why do you insist that all early humans were stupid?

 

[Elind]

I agree with you it doesn't take a genius. But let's test it with the available evidence. The available archaeological evidence says that only the Hebrews had a pork taboo, while all surrounding tribes did eat pork.

So does it take a genius to ask why Muslims adopted the same taboo (which says nothing of why the Hebrews had it in the first place)?

 

[angrysoba]

So does it take a genius to ask why Muslims adopted the same taboo (which says nothing of why the Hebrews had it in the first place)?

The prohibition on pork in Islam is derived from the Jewish prohibition. Some Christian sects also prohibit pork.

 

[marplots]

Does anyone know of similar prohibitions (not just food) in newer religions where we might still be able to see how they arose? Mormons, Scientologists, Raelians, others?

I know this doesn't mean that ancient religion food taboos arose the same way, but I think it would still shed light on the issue.

 

[Elind]

The prohibition on pork in Islam is derived from the Jewish prohibition. Some Christian sects also prohibit pork.

Sure, Islam is cribbed from previous religions, just as Mormonism is a mishmash of all the previous ones.

This however does not have any explanation of why the prohibitions arose in the first place, meaning that the us v them stuff is rubbish.

Meat is a key source of food for humans, probably significant in the evolution of homo sapients. Why any people would make a commandment against such a source of energy has to be more obvious than a stupid reference to cultural taboos of unknown source.

ETA, needless to say, you didn't address my post at all, even though you responded to it.

 

[Brainache]

Sure, Islam is cribbed from previous religions, just as Mormonism is a mishmash of all the previous ones.

This however does not have any explanation of why the prohibitions arose in the first place, meaning that the us v them stuff is rubbish.

Meat is a key source of food for humans, probably significant in the evolution of homo sapients. Why any people would make a commandment against such a source of energy has to be more obvious than a stupid reference to cultural taboos of unknown source.

ETA, needless to say, you didn't address my post at all, even though you responded to it.

They didn't ban all meat, just some "Unclean" varieties. How they decided what was "Unclean" and what was "Kosher" is subject to debate, but I think calling the "Us V Them" idea rubbish is a bit strong.

I think it is likely to be a combination of things to do with the early Hebrews' nomadic lifestyle and wanting to keep themselves apart from the other people living in the area at the time.

They also had/have lots of rules against marrying outside the tribe or converting away from Judaism, it wasn't just the no pork rule that was used to separate the Jews from everyone else. Not to mention the whole "God's chosen people" malarky.

 

[Jon.]

Meat is a key source of food for humans, probably significant in the evolution of homo sapients. Why any people would make a commandment against such a source of energy has to be more obvious than a stupid reference to cultural taboos of unknown source.

Ah, but there are religions that ban the eating of meat - minor ones, to be sure, but religions nonetheless. Jainism comes to mind, where some adherents are so dedicated to not taking life that they wear masks so that they don't breathe in, and therefore kill, insects. Some Hindus and Buddhists are also vegetarian for religious reasons.

 

[Halfcentaur]

I was just thinking about how awesome and delicious pork in its many manifestations is, and then I remembered that at least two of the world's major religions prohibit consumption of it. What a shame I thought, that so many people will never know how good bacon or or other porcine based dishes are.

At some point in the distant past some high religious mucky-muck must have decided that his own tastes and preferences were somehow a "command from God" and convinced other people that this should be a law, and not a personal choice.

Is that it, or is there any other conceivable reason?

I always thought it was because they looked like naked white people, essentially relatively hairless mammals, they look indecently exposed.