Primitive Indigenous People Convert Christian to Atheism

[Wolfman]

Not only no numbers but, "no fixed terms for color, no concept of war, and no personal property". Very interesting.http://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/daniel-l-everett/dont-sleep-there-are-snakes/#review

Sorry, but I'm skeptical of this, and the 'atheist' claim. I myself work with a very remote Chinese ethnic minority, the Mosuo (I established a non-profit organization to help them), and the number of bullcrap claims about them that I see repeated in the media (including by prominent anthropologists, and in major scientific/anthropological publications) is quite depressing. They are a matriarchal/matrilineal culture, and thus tend to attract the attention of feminists the world over...generally so that those feminists can 'prove' the superiority of a female-dominated society. 'Truth' has little to do with it...it's all about a political/social agenda.

Claims about the Mosuo include:

* They have no words for murder or rape, because in their culture, those things don't happen. First part is technically true...they don't have a specific word for murder or rape. Instead, they have a word for kill and for assault. So "murder" is expressed as "intentional killing", and "rape" is expressed as "sexual assault". More to the point, murder and rape absolutely do happen (although from what I can tell, rape at least happens with lower frequency than in many other cultures).

* They are a pacifist people who refuse to go to war. Complete nonsense. They used to battle regularly with other ethnic minorities in the area, including carrying out raiding parties to steal resources. And there's a valley where they had a huge battle with the Tibetans hundreds of years ago, and where a great many people (on both sides) died. Nobody will live in that valley, because they believe the ghosts of the dead are still there.

* They are an Amazonian-style lesbian culture. I've seen a few people promote this one...that the women are all lesbians, and have sex with men only when they want to breed. Again, complete and absolute rubbish.

Just because someone said it doesn't mean its true...and I've found that these remote minority groups tend to be exploited by others to 'prove' whatever point they wish to make. Since they are so remote, it is difficult for anyone else to test or evaluate such a claim; and if they can get a few other people repeating it, it takes on a veneer of 'truth', which then gets repeated by even more people.

 

[Gazpacho]

There are people who pigeonhole and idealize the Pirahã too, namely anarcho-primitivists and (briefly) the OP. But just as the Mosuo are matrilineal regardless of what else a feminist imagines about them, the Pirahã language does lack symbolizations that linguists took for granted.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Just because someone said it doesn't mean its true...and I've found that these remote minority groups tend to be exploited by others to 'prove' whatever point they wish to make.

I've wondered if Margart Meade was guilty of this. Our culture is full of noble savage myths and they need all to be viewed critically.

I don't think animism is theism if there's no creation myth, but it 's still not skepticism, nor is it scientific.

 

[Humanzee]

Indeed. After reading a few googled links I have found I was not very critical or skeptical in my initial enthusiasm. I confess to a latent bias against missionaries which was more prevalent then I accepted. Thank you for your reply.

(oops, was meant to be a reply to Wolfman)

 

[Delvo]

I don't think animism is theism if there's no creation myth, but it 's still not skepticism, nor is it scientific.

What is skeptical, or would tend to promote a skeptical way of looking at and reporting things, is their verb conjugation system. That former missionary not only reported that the verbs are this way but even (at least partially) attributed his own loss of faith to it.

To conjugate a verb in that language, you must choose from a few suffixes which indicate the source of the information you're stating. So instead of just "some monkeys ate the fruit from that big tree", a strictly complete translation would have to be either "I saw some monkeys eating the fruit from that big tree", or "Someone else told me that (s)he saw some monkeys eating the fruit from that big tree", or "I've seen other evidence from which I infer that some monkeys ate the fruit from that big tree". You don't really have ways to conjugate the verb without giving the information's source, any more than we have a way of conjugating one without giving the event's time (we can do "eat(s)", "ate", "has eaten", "will eat", and such, but lack any form that conveys the concept of eating without including some kind of time reference).

This got his religious preaching into trouble because he was trying to convince them of things that he hadn't seen for himself, didn't know anybody else who had seen them, and didn't have any evidence to infer them from.

 

[Mark6]

Animism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. They could be both.

How can they be not mutually exclusive?

The Pirahã of the Amazon seem to live completely without imaginary friends

If they are animists, they have imaginary friends.

 

[Wolfman]

In regards to the whole animism thing, I have some experience with this with the Mosuo, also. They have their own religion, called Daba, which is likewise an animist religion. But to complicate it, they were conquered by Tibet several hundred years ago, so they also practice Tibetan Buddhism (the two religions co-exist quite easily).

Now, one of my best friends among the Mosuo is a Daba priest, and we've talked at length about his beliefs. Getting rid of the Tibetan stuff, the animist Daba religion doesn't have 'gods' as such; instead, it ascribes spirits to pretty much everything that exists. Trees have spirits, rocks have spirits, Fires have spirits, etc. The Daba religion focuses on maintaining harmony among this great diversity of spirits.

So, one could argue that there are no gods, and thus it is atheist (or an approximation thereof).

However, I disagree...and have my own theory in this regard. First, within the Daba religion, there are spirits of varying power...some much more powerful (and dangerous) than others. A family's 'heart' resides in the fire in their house's hearth, and must never be allowed to go out...and the longer it's been burning, the stronger the spirit (and if a fire goes out, the house's spirit is dead, and they often are required to abandon the house and build a new one).

There is, therefore, a hierarchy of spirits. And at the top of that hierarchy, for the Mosuo, is the "mother spirit", which resides in a large, distinctive mountain that is the center of Daba worship.

Now, although the Mosuo don't say they believe in 'gods', this "mother spirit" has pretty much all the attributes of a god. They just don't call it a god. And this is where my theory comes in. I think that originally, all religions were animist. People just believed in different spirits, some weaker, some stronger.

But then, over time, some of those spirits gained higher and higher status, becoming more and more powerful in the believers' minds, until they acquired powers that effectively made them a god.

Now, that was all fine and dandy so long as they lived in complete isolation. But what happened when they ran into another group...one that had different spirits? Well, then it became like a real-life game of Supernatural Pokemon. They'd go to war with each other, and whichever side won, would 'prove' that their spirit/god was more powerful than the one they'd vanquished. And they'd then ascribe even more power to that spirit, until it became an actual god.

Of course, being numerous spirits, there were numerous gods. And those gods, like humans, waxed and waned in power over time. As the game of Supernatural Pokemon continued, the gods that won out were ascribed greater and greater powers...until finally someone hit on the idea of the "super-god"...the monotheistic god of the Jews, who was all-powerful, all-knowing, etc. Nobody could make a god more powerful than this god because this god was infinite. From that point on, monotheism became the theme of the day...not just "my god is stronger than your god", but "my god is the only god".

So, back to the question of animism and theism; there may not be a specific 'god' that one can point to...but belief in spirits, as practiced in animism, is simply (in my opinion) a precursor to more developed 'god beliefs'. It absolutely believes in a supernatural realm.

And the whole "they only believe what they see" thing...the Mosuo would say much the same thing. It is one of the things I've discussed with my Daba priest friend. Ask him to 'prove' the reality of spirits, and he'll look at you, a little mystified, and point to a tree, a river, or something else...there it is! It's right in front of you! For them, physical objects and spirits are one and the same...thus, 'reality' confirms the existence of spirits.

While I can fully understand this kind of thinking, I cannot for a moment consider it to be either atheistic, nor scientific. Anyone trying to claim otherwise is, in my opinion, guilty of letting their own biases and agendas color their interpretation of the evidence.

 

[Ryokan]

How can they be not mutually exclusive?

Animism doesn't necessarily include gods, just spirits. Atheism only says something about your stance on whether you believe in gods or not.

 

[Wolfman]

Animism doesn't necessarily include gods, just spirits. Atheism only says something about your stance on whether you believe in gods or not.

To expand on my post above...I think you're playing with semantics here. "Spirits" are just less powerful supernatural entities than "gods". They still deal with belief in supernatural entities that operate outside the natural realm. While the strictest interpretation of 'atheist' might support your argument, I think that most atheists would consider the term to mean a rejection of all supernatural entities...not just one particular kind.

 

[geni]

The Pirahã of the Amazon seem to live completely without imaginary friends

Well we don't know. A tribe of practical jokers who's language is spoken by only one westerner. Not exactly a great situation in which to aquire data.

 

[geni]

But then, over time, some of those spirits gained higher and higher status, becoming more and more powerful in the believers' minds, until they acquired powers that effectively made them a god.

Now, that was all fine and dandy so long as they lived in complete isolation. But what happened when they ran into another group...one that had different spirits? Well, then it became like a real-life game of Supernatural Pokemon. They'd go to war with each other, and whichever side won, would 'prove' that their spirit/god was more powerful than the one they'd vanquished. And they'd then ascribe even more power to that spirit, until it became an actual god.

Of course, being numerous spirits, there were numerous gods. And those gods, like humans, waxed and waned in power over time. As the game of Supernatural Pokemon continued, the gods that won out were ascribed greater and greater powers...until finally someone hit on the idea of the "super-god"...the monotheistic god of the Jews, who was all-powerful, all-knowing, etc. Nobody could make a god more powerful than this god because this god was infinite. From that point on, monotheism became the theme of the day...not just "my god is stronger than your god", but "my god is the only god".

Except jews were mostly a minor tibe on the edge of civilisation for at least the first 13 centuries of their existance. Thing to remeber is that polytheists don't have a vast problem with other people's gods. After all within the polytheist world view the idea of a god you haven't heard of isn't a significant problem any more than a saint you haven't heard of is an issue in christanity.

 

[yy2bggggs]

While the strictest interpretation of 'atheist' might support your argument, I think that most atheists would consider the term to mean a rejection of all supernatural entities...not just one particular kind.

I don't buy that. You make it sound like "atheism" is some kind of a club and us "atheist-members" voted out people because they believe in spirits.

 

[Wolfman]

I don't buy that. You make it sound like "atheism" is some kind of a club and us "atheist-members" voted out people because they believe in spirits.

I'm sorry...

...if you want to classify people who pray to trees and mountains, begging their spirits to help them (or leave them alone if they've angered them) are atheists, you can feel free to do so. For myself, I kinda' rejected that whole "entreating higher powers for help" thing when I became an atheist.

 

[Wolfman]

Except jews were mostly a minor tibe on the edge of civilisation for at least the first 13 centuries of their existance. Thing to remeber is that polytheists don't have a vast problem with other people's gods. After all within the polytheist world view the idea of a god you haven't heard of isn't a significant problem any more than a saint you haven't heard of is an issue in christanity.

I'm not quite sure what your "except" there means, since I don't see anything that contradicts what I said. In fact, Judaism most like started as a polytheistic religion (note that the early OT refers regularly to other gods as if they are real)...and as their power grew, so did their god...until eventually it became the all-powerful One God.

 

[geni]

I'm not quite sure what your "except" there means, since I don't see anything that contradicts what I said. In fact, Judaism most like started as a polytheistic religion (note that the early OT refers regularly to other gods as if they are real)...and as their power grew, so did their god...until eventually it became the all-powerful One God.

The point is that monotheistic skygods didn't win out against polytheism for an awfully long time. As a result you can't really say it became the theme of the day. There is also the issue that best we can there there wasn't much conflict between Zoroastrians and polytheists.

 

[yy2bggggs]

I'm sorry...

...if you want to classify people who pray to trees and mountains, begging their spirits to help them (or leave them alone if they've angered them) are atheists, you can feel free to do so.

Actually, that's not what I had in mind. Whether they should count as atheists or polytheists is another matter, and I think I'd want to know more before I personally lump a category onto them.

But what you stated in the post I replied to is the wrong idea; they don't disqualify as atheists simply because they believe in supernatural things. A person who believes in no gods, but believes in telepathy or ghosts would still be an atheist; and I challenge your claim that most atheists would consider the term to apply to a rejection of everything supernatural.

For myself, I kinda' rejected that whole "entreating higher powers for help" thing when I became an atheist.

This sounds unrelated to what I am supposed to hold the term atheist to mean.

 

[The Nimble Pianist]

I'm not going to add anything to the prior remark that they are "possibly based on Everett." Who was a theist at one time. Maybe that makes him tainted in your view. I don't know.

Sorry, but I'm skeptical of this, and the 'atheist' claim. I myself work with a very remote Chinese ethnic minority, the Mosuo (I established a non-profit organization to help them), and the number of bullcrap claims about them that I see repeated in the media (including by prominent anthropologists, and in major scientific/anthropological publications) is quite depressing. They are a matriarchal/matrilineal culture, and thus tend to attract the attention of feminists the world over...generally so that those feminists can 'prove' the superiority of a female-dominated society. 'Truth' has little to do with it...it's all about a political/social agenda.

Claims about the Mosuo include:

* They have no words for murder or rape, because in their culture, those things don't happen. First part is technically true...they don't have a specific word for murder or rape. Instead, they have a word for kill and for assault. So "murder" is expressed as "intentional killing", and "rape" is expressed as "sexual assault". More to the point, murder and rape absolutely do happen (although from what I can tell, rape at least happens with lower frequency than in many other cultures).

* They are a pacifist people who refuse to go to war. Complete nonsense. They used to battle regularly with other ethnic minorities in the area, including carrying out raiding parties to steal resources. And there's a valley where they had a huge battle with the Tibetans hundreds of years ago, and where a great many people (on both sides) died. Nobody will live in that valley, because they believe the ghosts of the dead are still there.

* They are an Amazonian-style lesbian culture. I've seen a few people promote this one...that the women are all lesbians, and have sex with men only when they want to breed. Again, complete and absolute rubbish.

Just because someone said it doesn't mean its true...and I've found that these remote minority groups tend to be exploited by others to 'prove' whatever point they wish to make. Since they are so remote, it is difficult for anyone else to test or evaluate such a claim; and if they can get a few other people repeating it, it takes on a veneer of 'truth', which then gets repeated by even more people.

While very slightly off topic, I really appreciate your contribution to this tread. I've tried to do a little armchair research on this group of Amazonian people and it seems almost every popular publication about them is authored by the same Daniel Everett. Most of what I'm finding has little to do with religion, which gives me a bit of hope for his academic credibility, but I'm naturally skeptical of his conclusions about these people with regards to religious beliefs given his, very personal, religious deconversion.

I find it very hard to believe that an indigenous peoples would have no religious beliefs whatsoever, and that they'd be (as Dr. Everett portrays in this video) full blown cynics. It seems more likely to me that they were very skeptical of Jesus, in the same manner that Christians are skeptical of Mohammed. Not our religion, not our business.

I'm very open to the idea that there are atheistic tribes out there, but I expect such tribes to lack metaphysically supernatural beliefs in order to be "counted" among our "atheists".

Does this tribe have any sort of superstitious behavior? If so, WHY? Is there some sort of underlying metaphysical explanation for their behavior? Has Dr. Everett studied this?

 

[Wolfman]

Actually, that's not what I had in mind. Whether they should count as atheists or polytheists is another matter, and I think I'd want to know more before I personally lump a category onto them.

First, you seem to consider 'polytheist' and 'theist' to be separate categories here? Whereas I'd consider 'polythiest' to be simply a sub-set of 'theist' (and neither being an 'atheist').

But what you stated in the post I replied to is the wrong idea; they don't disqualify as atheists simply because they believe in supernatural things. A person who believes in no gods, but believes in telepathy or ghosts would still be an atheist; and I challenge your claim that most atheists would consider the term to apply to a rejection of everything supernatural.

I didn't say because they believe in supernatural things; I said because they believe in supernatural entities. So the telepathy thing has nothing to do with this conversation.

Furthermore, as should be obvious, I was talking about such entities within the context of an animistic religion. That is, as I said, spirits to which these people pray. And that is why I would consider them not to be atheists, regardless of the label you attach to the entities they are praying to.

In regards to the 'ghost' thing, those atheists I'm aware of who believe in ghosts don't consider them to be supernatural (or telepathy, for that matter); they tend to consider them to be natural phenomenon that we don't yet understand (entities in another dimension, untapped mind abilities, etc.). If you can point me to people who claim to be atheists, but actually believe in a supernatural realm, I'd be happy to examine their claims.

This sounds unrelated to what I am supposed to hold the term atheist to mean.

And yet it is entirely relevant to the OP, and the discussion: to whit, should we consider these people -- who apparently follow an animist religion -- to be atheists? And I'd say that not only believing in such spirits, but praying to them, puts them in a category well outside of what I'd consider "atheism" to contain.

"Oh, if you pray to a supernatural entity that you label as 'god', then you're a theist; but if you pray to a supernatural entity that you label as a 'spirit', then you're an atheist'.

I will readily concede that you may be able to raise some sort of situation or belief that is irrelevant to the topic of the OP; but in regards to the topic being discussed here, I'll continue to maintain that animists are not atheists.


ETA: since we're concerned with semantics to some degree here, perhaps you could define what the difference is between a 'spirit' and a 'god' in your mind? In my experience working directly with a group who are animists, a 'spirit' is simply a less powerful 'god'. Particularly when comparing animist 'spirits' with polytheist 'gods', there seems little difference between them, except the extent of their claimed powers. If you're going to make such a huge differentiation between them, I'd appreciate a clearer explanation of exactly what that difference is.

 

[Wolfman]

Does this tribe have any sort of superstitious behavior? If so, WHY? Is there some sort of underlying metaphysical explanation for their behavior? Has Dr. Everett studied this?

Quoted above, from one of his books (his own words describing them):

As I learned, the Pirahãs change names from time to time, usually when individual Pirahãs trade names with spirits they encounter in the jungle.
...
Spirits can tell the village what it should not have done or what it should not do. Spirits can single out individuals or simply talk to the group as a whole.
...
The Pirahãs, I learned, have no concept of a supreme being or creator god. They have individual spirits, but they believe that they have seen these spirits, and they believe they see them regularly. When we looked into it, we saw these aren't invisible spirits they're seeing. They are entities that take the shape of things in the environment.
...
Pirahãs see spirits in their mind, literally. They talk to spirits, literally. Whatever anyone else might think of these claims, all Pirahãs will say that they experience spirits.

It seems a curious differentiation to me...that "seeing" their spirits, or "literally talking to them" in their mind, reflects a skeptical, non-theistic viewpoint...but those people who claim to "see god", or "literally talk to god" in their minds...those people are deluded theists.

I'm sorry, but this just sounds like someone desperate to prove a hypothesis, and manipulating evidence to support it...rather than examining the evidence, and letting it lead to a rational conclusion.

 

[Gazpacho]

If anyone is manipulating evidence it is certain validation-seeking atheists, and not Everett who never made any claim that Pirahã are atheists or scientists. He said that they're empiricists "in a way," that of segregating direct experience from indirect knowledge, and that he is an atheist as a result of living with them.