The opening line of Psalm 27, as discussed in the footnotes in The Book of Psalms, invokes the spirit of a speaker that is petitioning God for help. It discusses the lack of worry or urgency in the speakers tone, knowing that God is helpful in all situations grave. If we examine next the excerpt from the Bay Psalm book…

We can see a manipulation of language in order to better fit the needs of the new world Catholics. We see critical word choice changes from “rescue” to “health” and from “whom shall I fear” to “what shall make me dismayed”. These subtle changes in language dramatically warp context of the speaker of the psalm. For instance, where one needs rescue is when they are imperiled. Health, as mentioned in the Bay Psalm book version, invokes a soundness of body and mind already achieved through God. Dismay happens when one loses conviction in what they believe as a result of fear. Yet if we can avoid losing this resolution, you avoid fear and therefore are encouraged in faith.  This is more direct and confident sounding than Alter’s translation.

The Bay Psalm version is an extra 5 lines longer than the Alter translation. These lines stress the importance of courage in the face of enemies and the strength renewed by means of faith in God. These lines are absent from Alter’s translation, and for what reason I do not know. I can speculate that these were maintained in the Bay Psalm just like the earlier sentiments that the individual is strengthened by his or her own faith and does not need to fear if they already believe.

The differences between Alter’s translation and the Bay Psalm book are noticeable in language and context. The meanings expressed in the latter translation are much more impassioned with the concept of individual faith and strength found in faith. The faithful have a predisposition not to fear since their faith in God will protect them. These ideas seem also to fit with many Puritan ideals, such as mans relationship with God only and no mention of the "church' or papal authority.

Cahokia Temple Mound Builders

Much like our inability to determine just what group of Homo sapiens traveled northward towards Europe during the Cultural Revolution, and returned the species we bear a direct evolutional link to, we know very little about the society of the Cahokia. When anthropologists talk about the Cultural Revolution, we know that weather patterns, leadership and resources played a role in the massive migration northward from the savanna to the plains. Not surprisingly, these are exactly the factors that lead to the migration of the Mississippian peoples away from the Midwest and back to the southeast where it remained “until the appearance of the Europeans” (Birmingham 163).

The complex jump from tribal, organized religion which had at most possibly 100 people to a large society of over 10,000 is astonishing, to say the least. The complex interactions that are intimately tied to this size of civilization, large public works, well defined boarders and localized leadership or chiefdom. Not to mention the farming, clothing and trading that went on to gather the needed properties to thrive. The Mississippian peoples influence was also, therefore, widespread in its need for goods as well as its valued exports from farm yields.

 All of the sudden, this magnificent sophistication of people seemingly disappears transparently as they organized and began. The hundreds and hundreds of years of influence were lost on the tribes that inhabited that area when settlers eventually moved out towards Wisconsin and other Midwestern states. What remains of their culture includes the massive temple mound constructions, some so complex like flat top pyramids are considered the largest prehistoric construction. There is also evidence of large ceremonial practices by the chiefdoms like the Green Corn Ceremony. The strangest thing about this tribe is the amount of information we have about them. It may seem like anthropologists can know a lot from these reliquaries but we cannot know what we consider the most basic facts, the name of these people, where they saw themselves in relation to the world around them and what drove them towards developing into such a large culture.

Ritualistic Earth Renewal

R. Clark Mallam discusses the Wisconsin effigy mounds and their intimate relationship with ritualistic practices that were a major part of Native American culture.  After consulting Geertz definition of religion, many of the rituals Mallam describes in Indian Mounds of Wisconsin promote a “general order of existence”.  These rituals, Mallam theorizes, were made in order to “maintain a balance and harmony with the natural world (Birmingham 113). He further reasons that effigy mounds, therefore, were important settings for spiritual renewal.  Based on evidence of symbolic offerings at ritual burials, diversity of effigy mound shapes, Native American effigy building is reflective of Geertz’s definition.

Burials underneath effigy mounds consisted of symbolic offerings including “colored soils, mucks, charcoal and ash” (Birmingham 127). These offering are a continuation of older traditions of earth renewal ceremonialism. The preservation of identity through these practices is a major part of Geertz’s definition of religion. Another critical feature of Native American effigy builders is their seeking to balance the world around them by constructing the mounds. In water-logged eastern Wisconsin the water spirit effigy mounds were offset with an air spirit, and vice versa in the western part of the state. The central area of the state had a mix of all three domains (sea, air and land). This this practice of seeking to define the world around themselves through the supernatural fulfills the Geertz definition.

The Late Woodland period saw much development of religious practices given the reliance on farmed sustenance and reliance on groups of at most 100 to travel between seasonal camps. Effigy mounds were built places of abundance of resource (Birmingham 113). I think it is interesting that Mallam proposes that Native Americans sought physical renewal at the effigy mounds as well as spiritual renewal. Their effigy mound building is a symbolic system like Geertz’s definition describes.

Ur-Religion

Ur-religion, humanities first religion, is a concept many believe is inaccessible to modern man. However, scientists continue to study the Upper Palaeolithic era in an effort to understand, however vaguely, our roots in religion. Due to a lack of living consultation and a large body of evidence, Clottes and Williams are able to overcome some, but not all of the major epistemological skepticism towards studying this period. We can be sure that prehistory hominids had a rich diversity in the way they supposedly interact with each other, the world around them and the spirit realm. The universal trait that seems to unite them is their leap in thought towards semantic construction. For whatever reason, as we can’t say for sure without evidence, Homo sapiens began to grasp at a larger sense of being, of explanation and influence in the world around them.

The article does make an effort to approach the concept from multiple perspectives of the natural sciences rather than the social. It is too often, the article claims, that we apply too much of our own understanding of the world to studying early humans. For example our understanding of the cave paintings at Lascaux--Scientists theorized that these painting were representations of the outside world to early man. We now theorize that they are representations of the cosmos, as complex a religious understanding of the world not unlike our modern religions in nature.

Religion is a way many cultures are able to keep their traditions as well as a link with ancestry throughout their cultural history. Ur-religion may be a concept scientists seek for reasons of explaining religion, but it is also out of a sense of desire to understand where we came from. In many ways, searching for Ur-religion is like reestablishing a link between modern man and prehistory Homo sapiens. Just like early man sought to understand his cosmos through his religion, we seek to understand him through this very same religion.

Is Religion important?

The article, “Why We Believe” examines religion anthropologically and discusses believe in religion in the context of evolutionary theory. Gould, Dawkins and Atran have different opinions on the role of religion in society but all seem to allow the logical possibility of a God and therefore do not see benefit in elimination of religion. Sam Harris’ CNN interview, although much more brief and less informative, suggests that religion does not serve an important purpose and negatively impacts society. To take a middle route, I agree that there is a place for moderate practice of religion as well as scientific thought.

Harris’ argues that religious issues consume governments’ time and money better spent solving energy, education and security issues.  He ineffectually demonizes religion as the sole institution that promotes genocide other major forms of human suffering. Harris neglects to mention that scientific thought, as his organization seeks to endorse, is an institution which has motivated several instances of human rights violation, such as the anthropological justification of the Holocaust. It seems morally deviant behavior finds modes of expression in the institutions of both religion and science.

 Gould and Dawkins argue about whether religion and science can mutually exist and be allowed to guide human behavior. It seems to me, however, that both lack the explanatory power to independently lead us to less suffering. In other words, neither holds the singular duty of guiding our every action. Therefore, we have a practical use for both in an even balance and a responsibility to use them correctly. Moderate trust in science and religion can lead to the human fulfillment all of the above parities desire.