Another thing about psalms.

However repetitive this may be, I was more fascinated by the purpose of the psalms than their actual content.  They are a collection of artificially clumped songs or poems which repeat the same messages in slightly different fashions.  While the psalms were originally written in Hebrew, they have been applied to several different denominations of Christianity.  This is possible because of the all-encompassing and pleasant wording that lends itself to multiple interpretations and translations.  The Book of Psalms is a means for many people of different religions to develop a more personal connection with God.
Their original purpose was also to create a sense of community within Judaism.  They discuss how God as they worship it is the only proper God, and that the Jewish people are the chosen people of that God.  This is ironic because while the Psalms bring people together, they also cause conflict between the different religions that employ it.  The forgiving language lends itself to a broader audience, while also leading people to reject each other's inevitable differentiated interpretations.  This is the tragic flaw of religion as discussed in our first New York Times reading, that while it creates an aura of factuality, that aura is very judgemental and intolerant.

Discrepancies

Reading the two books of Psalms side by side exposes huge differences in translation.  The very first line of Psalm 2; "Why are the nations aroused, and the peoples murmur vain things"  vs. "Why rage the heathen furiously, muse vain things people do" develops a vastly different connotation, the latter being from the Bay Psalm book of 1640.  This initial assymetry displays the inflammatory and harsh wording of the Bay Psalms, before the comma especially.  It is realized that the modern psalm book cannot be trusted completely with objectivity.  However, throughout the introduction and lengthy explanations within the text in the edition translated by Alter, one is led to believe it is as analytical and well researched as possible.  The religious turmoil centuries before regarding the Book of Psalms is clearly represented by the Bay Psalms and its language in reference to differing religions.
At the same time,  there are some discrepancies that matter very little to the total meaning of the psalms.  Without quoting anything specific, Psalm 8 is worded differently but with a very similar emotion between the two books.  Both discuss the the world and God's strength within it, describing all the different men and animals in the order of Genesis.  The process by which God displayed his majesty on Earth, based upon this psalm, has been consistent throughout hundreds of years.
The interesting part lies within the biases of the original texts we are not supplied with; something like the ur-religion of the Book of Psalms.  In Psalm 23 on line 3, the Bay translation says "Restore my soule doth hee" when the newly translated book arrives at "my life He brings back."  A soul provides greater importance for religious people than a simple life on Earth.  But does the original text written by or for David discuss soul restoring or returning one's life?  In class it was mentioned that the Psalms were written by a myriad of people for a myriad of different worshippers.  They are about finding the right voice for each person, hence the repetition with minor changes in word choice, not designed to cause uproar between differing religions.  The translational differences are a result of trying to grasp wholly each individual who reads them in whatever time period.  Religion is a malleable concept, mainly based upon changes in current events.

Lametown, USA

I was pretty skeptical when I first heard we would be studying the Indian mounds of Wisconsin. Since I live on Little Lake Butte des Morts and have been in a Wisconsin public school, teachers have seemingly been trying to portray these mounds as numbingly dull as possible.  I have never been exposed to any real information regarding these tiny hills, apart from the fact that Indians made them a really long time ago.  Besides displaying how absurdly ignorant I am,  I feel this ties into our discussion of the longstanding racism whites established when they first arrived in North America.
The explorers who discovered the mounds covering the Midwest landscape did not believe the natives were competent enough to build them, and thus developed other far more outlandish rationalities for the earthworks' existence. Without discussing the Atlantis or ten lost tribes theories,  I find it amazing how a group of people could collectively repress an even larger group of people immediately.  The Native Americans did not  have records or necessarily accurate understandings of the mounds' origin either, but they were written off far more severely than they deserved.  As is later revealed by this book (among other things), they had a very meaningful process of burying the dead and ceremonial rituals suggesting a strong sense of religion.  I can only assume that the explorers who came to America might have respected these practices if they took the time to study them, given the impact of religion upon Europe at the time.  Alas, the very tolerance on which our country is founded exposes our opposite and very serious intolerance issues.  We could have significantly more accurate and interesting things to report about the Native Americans atleast hundreds of years ago had the early visitors been less focused on gold and publishing pseudoscience.  My education would have made me more well-rounded and accepting of cultures, instead of assuming anthropological studies are inherently dull.

Effigy mounds

"A system of symbols" is the framework upon which a religion is designed.  It is the "webbing," a term we used in class, that provides a group of people with emotional comfort and stability.  In the case of Native Americans thousands of years ago, their effigy mounds and the values from which this practice stems were a clear source of that stability.  This action occurred over many generations, suggesting that their religion was not provoked to change for a long time.  The system of symbols associate with burying the dead and piling a hill of dirt over the bodies was a solid one.
The process itself over time became very specific.  It was originally simple and disorganized mass grave sites in the Copper Age. Steadily, evidence was exposed for later sites in which people were placed in definite positions for their burial.  Often people were buried and re-buried for ceremonial reasons.  In the case of the large mound complex at Hopewell, the intricate log-lined crypts contained very organized piles of bones and space for newer bodies, in addition to repositories to act as "waiting rooms"  for a spot in the crypts.  Some bodies were even cremated, and the mounds were burned and made taller after they were full. Many individuals were laid down with valuable objects and little symbols of animals, which suggests a religious connection to nature.  There were many other rituals associated with dying including smoking and ceremonies that need not be mentioned specifically.

What all these practices amount to is a reasonable theory for religious inclinations of ancient Americans.  They had developed a system of symbols animals, different types of stones, and a death ritual.  The first provided was a way to receive protection in this life and the next.  In the theory of totemism, different individuals would have the separate characteristics of each animal; carnivores could be strong and cunning, herbivores might be agile or patient.  These added supports helped establish a sense that nature was on the Native Americans' side, and that they would have the protection of the same "animal people" of their community.  The obsidian, pottery, and other objects found with bodies in burial mounds told these people a similar story about the order of existence.  Theorized not to be a measure of the deceased's family wealth, the elaborate trinkets were given by many members of the community (generosity was a much more important than maintaining wealth, probably a religious virtue) as offerings for a respected end of life.  The intricate symbols on silver, copper,  pottery, etc would not have been buried with the dead if they had no religious purpose.  Large sites in conical and otherwise shaped forms were not just a funny thing to do in one's spare time, they were a religious commitment done to feel a sense of security in what happens to loved ones post-death.  The Native Americans had developed a system by which they could feel safe in sending people into the unknown, and recognize an order in which different rituals had to occur for a given order of existence.

Free blog week 1

I really identified with the spandrel theory after reading Monday's article.  This is probably because of the lack of evidence for adaptationist theory, but the concepts of voids that need filling was very comprehensive.  Before this class, I believed in the simple explanation for religion that it provided a set of answers for the unknown and a sense of security.  The staircase metaphor coincides with this very succinctly; we have survival skills that lead us to a better life, and what we do with "the underside of our staircase"  is our choice.  This allowed for a myriad of different religions over time, which of course yielded a myriad of different conflicts throughout the world as we discussed in class.  While I believe now that we cannot necessarily just "ditch" religion for biological reasons, the question I gather is this; can we fill that void with a similar belief in more scientifically established concepts?  We talked about how Harris and Dawkins were almost "fundamental atheists" in their thought processes, but I do not feel that is what they are trying to proselytize.  Their time is spent knocking down religion as a whole instead of providing an alternative.  I feel as modern social engineers they are looking to stir up trouble more than anything else, a stalemate which is proving itself a common phenomenon and the cause of much social unrest and a general lack of advancement.

Believe vs Ditch

There are many people in America and across the world that are frustrated with politics.  It is clear that nuclear proliferation, poverty, and genocide, as Harris lists, are more crucial discussion topics to the world's survival than social issues like gay marriage and abortion.  With the economic turmoil America faces, we should not be diminishing the issues that could displace the balance of world power by belaboring controversial topics for religious extremists.  That said, it is unfair to declare that religion is the downfall of politics as Harris does.  The New York Times article discussed the cognitive desire for answers to the unknown, saying  it was an evolutionary byproduct of survival skills.  Our opinions and "leaps of faith" come from an insatiable desire to feel confident in the unknown, and they may be more or less counter intuitive based upon each group's imagination and emotional strife.  This has caused many religious wars that inevitably introduced the governments and politics of many nations.  The governments, however, were also involved in these conflicts for economic and strategic reasons.  The Crusades were not just about getting the Holy Land, but trade and a power struggle throughout Eurasia.  Atran suggests that religion is the "tragedy of human cognition," which is far less extreme than to say people who take certainty from uncertain situations are usually plain wrong in their beliefs.  The former is more palatable but also much more accurate and allowing of other cultures, for which we as a species must allow. 

Coming from a non-religious background, I feel there are very useful parts to having a framework of religion in one's life.  It provides a set of morals and motivation with which to help others (less than Tom Cruise may require) and maintain a high quality of life.  It also creates dissonance among people with its absolute terms and intolerance.  A utopian idea of religious society would include allowance for other beliefs on specifics and the afterlife.  While a Jewish person may not eat pork, he should not necessarily preach to others to follow him.  Religion should be used as a tool to instigate improvement in world conditions and focus on issues like genocide and nuclear proliferation, not to distract from the big problems.  As discussed in the first day of class, religion is separate from spirituality, and almost secular in what should be its inclinations towards international stability.