spiritual_evolution andru235 either a) spirituality showed up, out of nowhere, in the early tribes of mankind, and in nearly every tribe just happened to take some form of reincarnation as a fact, by dint of some astronomically improbable coincidence; or b) spirituality existed in man even before language existed because most reputable archaeologists agree that people had scattered across the eastern hemisphere 50,000 + years ago, predating language, and minimizing the probability of 'religious' proliferation due to travel time, else, see a) if (A) is correct, then spirituality presents an absurd anomaly in human development, in that it necessarily proceeded from nothin to the relatively complex notion of reincarnation almost (in geologic terms) instantaneously. reincarnation is complex fourfold: 1)it involves an understanding of time that includes the present-ness of existing, the end of that present-ness, and a resumption of present-ness in the future 2)it usually invokes the notion that actions in this life affect the next life, thus, 'past-consciousness' 3)it 'incorporates' the notion of persistent individualism; the idea that one is oneself and will continue to be oneself 4)it acknowledges, addresses, and attempts to explain the big ol' "mystery" of death NOW. my argument is not whether these specifics are correct or not. the anomaly is this: [[[in music, did they start with orchestras? no, they started with a flute here, a drum there. it took a long time, evolving gradually, to reach symphonicism. in math, did they start with calculus? no, it began with counting to ten. it took a long time, evolving gradually, to reach calculus. in metallurgy, did they start with uranium-enrichment? no, it began by shaping readily available ores into a different shape. it took a long time, evolving gradually. literature: did the trilogy come first? no, writing probably occurred in the dirt and dust for thousands of years before the first stone slab, etc. dancing: straight to samba? no, ages of dervish. medicine: pills from the start? no, plants plants plants.]]] if a) is correct, there is surely no value to induction, extrapolation, or abstraction, but of course, there is value to all three. so, what about b)? b) implies there was something understood beforehand, such that when people scattered about, they retained whatever notions nature had instilled in them, and as they came to language, began communicating about these things and: *presto* 50,000 scarcely connected tribes suddenly discussing life, death, and reincarnation. "but you don't know that they were all reincarnationists!" i never said 'all', i said most. aborigines and natives of papua, the amazon and the congo still readily accept it; the native americans, prior to 'mono-think-ism', observed a wide array of reincarnatory concepts; the european druids and celts irritated the romans endlessly with their roaming and reincarnationist thinking; siberians, prior to 'officialized atheism' were regular practitioners of reincarnitory rites; etc, etc, etc. in the west, we ask, were is the proof of reincarnation? in the east, we ask, were is the proof against reincarnation? so, did it suddenly show up in peoples all over the place, or did it exist for eons beforehand? "well maybe it spread from a common tribe in [wherever] as language developed." maybe, for of course there are possibilities c) d) e) ad infinitum, such as alien assistance, someone casting a spell of 'mass believe reincarnation', or something in the water. but if reincarnation spread from a common tribe as language spread, it brought little else with it. and the question of gradual evolution or sudden inspiration remains; and the date of sudden inspiration in the source time still assuredly predates our estimates of the earliest languages beyond varied gruntings, calls, soothing tones and giggling (etc). 050418 ... z an infinite regress of therefores 050419 ... z see: meme 050419 what's it to you? who go blather from