LESSON THREE T H E O R I G I N S OF R E L I G I O N EVOLUTION OR DEVOLUTION? OVERVIEW
2 Where did religion come from? When and how did it originate? Answers to these questions are complicated by several considerations. Chief among these is one's definition of religion. This will provide our starting point, to which we will return in a moment. Other considerations involve questions about the origins of the human race, our planet, solar system, and universe. This lesson will be kept manageable by limiting our investigation to the origins of the human race with a greater emphasis upon the beginnings of human culture and civilization. This lesson will identify the major theories regarding the origin of religion (e.g., burial practices; magic; animism; fetishism; totemism; nature-worship; ancestor worship; polytheism; henotheism) and will attempt to involve the reader in a debate on two competing perspectives. Our probing will begin with the suggested definition of religion given in Lesson One. A STARTING POINT: LESSON ONE'S DEFINITION OF RELIGION In Lesson One religion was defined as "the human impulse toward meaning along with its visible expression" (p. 13). This definition, as previously noted, contains two aspects: (1) the human impulse toward meaning, and (2) its visible expression. In answering the question, Where did religion come from? the second part of our definition provides a more concrete body of evidence. This is due to the fact that it deals with the empirical and external manifestations of the impulse toward meaning. The first part of our definition does, however, deserve some reflection and comment. The "human impulse toward meaning" may have originated in one of two ways. Either it was innate or it was acquired. This could be stated in terms of the nature versus nurture debate. If innate (according to nature) it could be considered as universal to the human species. As universal it could be "located" within our unique physiology or supposed to be present within our spiritual self. If acquired (the result of nurturing or acculturation), then it would be particular to certain homo sapiens (literally, thinking humans). If acquired and particular then a search begins for the means by which this impulse was acquired. If the means were physical, or transmitted genetically, then only those homo sapiens descended from the first to acquire such a trait would have this impulse. If the means were environmental (a result of nurturing) then only those exposed to a particular environment would have this trait. If the means were spiritual then one is left to speculation, or to the authority of some revelation, as to how (and to whom) this trait was transmitted. To date, science has been unable to identify the origin of this impulse toward meaning. Religion offers a variety of theories, often postulating that a Creator imparted to the human race such an impulse. Of significant concern in relation to the above discussion is the issue of the unity of the human race. Are homo sapiens descendents of one original pair (monogenism) or many (polygenism)? This scientific and evolutionary consideration carries with it enormous political implications (e.g., one race might be considered superior to another),
3 and religious implications as well. For example, the Christian doctrines of Original Sin and Substitionary Atonement presuppose the unity of the human race and our descent from an original erring pair. If science were to discover that this was not the case then a major tenet of Christian revelation would seem undermined. In regard to this critical issue the Roman Catholic document Humani Generis (1950) states, "Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion [polygenism] can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own" (cited from Tos, 1963, p. 59). An additional question in relation to the above concerns is whether homo sapiens differ from other intelligent life forms (e.g., the chimpanzee, the dolphin) only in degree of intelligence (an impulse toward meaning being interpreted as a higher form of intelligence) or in kind (i.e., human intelligence represents a completely different order of intelligence than that of any comparable animal species). This inquiry, indeed important, takes us too far afield from any concrete evidence. Hence, we leave our comments and reflections with regard to this aspect of our definition in order to return to more tangible considerations. For a helpful essay pursuing the concerns of this paragraph the reader is referred to Mortimer Adler's Ten Philosophical Mistakes: Basic Errors in Modern Thought-How they came about, Their consequences, and How to avoid them (1985, pp. 156-167). The second half of our definition, "its visible expression," as stated above, offers a more concrete starting point. Nevertheless, the reader is cautioned that a significant degree of speculation and abstraction is also involved. What evidence is there for humanity's earliest "visible expression" of the impulse toward meaning? The evidence may be divided into two categories: (1) Non-literary artifacts; and (2) Analogies presented by present day pre-literary societies. (1) NON-LITERARY ARTIFACTS a. BURIAL PLACES Among the non-literary artifacts that provide a visible expression of the human impulse toward meaning are: bone materials; stone arrangements; animal remains; human skulls; stone figures; cave drawings; and probably of the greatest significance, burial places. With regard to this last mentioned item, evidence for the burial practice (and hence, some form of belief about life after death) of early homo sapiens goes back as far as the time of Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon Man (approx. 50,000-30,000BCE). Numerous pre-historic grave sites have yielded some interesting finds. Neanderthal skeletons were not just left to lie where they had died, or somewhat covered over, as apes are known to do with their dead. The Neanderthal appeared to bury their dead according to an inherited tradition or with deliberate plan and purpose.
4 For example, human skulls have been discovered which appear to have been decapitated and opened at the base in such a way that would suggest that the living had some interest in the removal of the brains of the deceased. Whether this removal was for the purpose of cannibalism or for some type of ritualistic display is purely a matter of speculation. But when taken in conjunction with the fact that other excavations revealed corpses in peculiar positions, implements buried with the dead, and various forms of adorning or embalming, it seems probable that these early humans were reflecting upon the meaning of life in relation to the most significant occasion of its termination. One suggested explanation is that those tribes of early humans, which showed reverence to their elders by ritual burial, were perhaps the most likely to have a chance at survival. The reasoning here seems to be that the act of reverential burial symbolized the importance of what the deceased had contributed to the living in terms of how to survive on this planet. Hence, this suggested "religious" practice could be considered as a mechanism in the scientific theory of natural selection (i.e., nature selected for survival that species which learned to adapt most successfully to its environment). b. CAVE DRAWINGS Although the list of evidence cited at the beginning of this section deserves greater treatment, this lesson will be content with comments and reflections on just one more item, namely, cave drawings. These are usually associated with the Cro-Magnons (approx. 40,000-10,000BCE). Among discoveries are elaborate drawings of the bison, horse, boar, reindeer, cave bear, and mammoth. Drawings of humans are rare, and when found are often simply stick figures. Interpretations of these drawings generally revolve around the notion that they had some "magical" function. A few comments on the nature of magic and its possible relations to religion are in order at this point. Magic has been defined as, "...an endeavor through utterance of set words, or the performance of set acts, or both, to control or bend the powers of the world to one's will..." (Noss & Noss, Man's Religions, ninth edition, 1994, p. 12). The emphasis in magic is upon the practitioner's ability to control or manipulate his/her environment. In primitive times the cave drawings may have functioned somewhat as a prelude to the hunt. When the bison or bear are depicted as falling to the ground pierced through with arrows or spears it may be that the artist was engaging in a sort of prophecy of the event. Hunters might gather to view the drawings in order to instill within themselves confidence, hope, or optimism for a successful hunt. Scholars call this sympathetic magic. The idea here is that by imitating in advance the desired result its success is more than likely guaranteed. A moment's reflection on the underlying operative principle here is revealing. Even today popular psychology instructs us to set goals, get a clear image of what we want to achieve, and then to take appropriate action. This often entails the precise imitation of the patterned action of others who have proven themselves to be successful. For example, athletes study the thoughts, habits, training program, and patterns of action of noted great athletes (e.g., Michael Jordan) in order to achieve similar results. Preachers often become successful by the imitation of other noted successful preachers
5 (e.g., Billy Graham). Similar examples could be multiplied. The point is that this principle of success quite likely goes back to primitive homo sapiens and is foundational to success in all endeavors. Although other types of magic (e.g., aversive, contagious) could be mentioned, along with illustrations (see Noss & Noss, 1994, pp. 12-14), it is sufficient here to note that magical practices may provide a basis for understanding the origin of religion and its development into the present day. Some scholars suggest that primitive attempts at controlling the powers of nature, such as bringing down mighty game, causing the soil to produce, or the clouds to bring forth rain, eventually developed into attempts to persuade, rather than coerce, these powers. This transition could have come at a time when the forces of nature were beginning to become personified, or elevated to the status of willful agents or gods. Magic, then, gives way to religion, once, through the personification of the forces of nature, it began to demand our submission and cooperation. This suggestion receives greater illumination from the discussion of the next category of evidence. (2) ANALOGIES OF PRESENT DAY PRE-LITERARY SOCIETIES Supplementary to the evidence of the non-literary artifacts are the many present day pre-literary societies. These may also be referred to as traditional tribal societies and have been defined as, "a group of people who feel they belong together through sharing a common culture and set of values, a common territory and social organization, and probably a common language. They differ from our modern societies in lacking a literary tradition, and being undeveloped in scientific knowledge, technological skills, and economic life" (Anderson, 1950, p. 19). If the reader is familiar with the 1985 movie "the gods must be crazy" then I need not say more. Otherwise one could refer to the brief case studies in Anderson (1950, pp. 17-31) or Noss & Noss (1994, pp. 20-38). These include studies as diverse as the Ameru of Kenya, the Aborigines of Australia, or the Quechua of South America. Research on such tribes is understood to provide analogies upon which to reasonably reconstruct the type of religious practice among earlier primitive peoples, even those of ancient times. This thesis receives some confirmation in that the practices of many of these present day societies have been corroborated with data (e.g., travelers' notes, letters of missionaries, administrators' reports and descriptions) available from several previous centuries. These cultures reveal evidence of the types of primitive religion believed to exist in ancient times. Among these forms of religion are: a. animism; b. totemism; c. fetishism; d. nature-worship; e. ancestor worship; and f. polytheism and henotheism. Each of these forms will now be defined and briefly commented upon. a. animism Animism refers to the belief that all objects have spirits. The idea here is that in addition to the material characteristics of a given object there is also a spiritual
6 dimension. Animism is often defined simply as a belief in spirits or souls. Edward Tylor (1832-1917), the leading architect of this theory for the origin of religion, suggested that the idea of a soul or a spirit (Latin: anima) occurred to our primitive ancestors as the result of their observations upon basic biological phenomena. Among the phenomena that he identified were sleep, ecstasy, illness, death, dreams, and visions. These phenomena variously portray the principle of life (anima) in isolation from or as separate from the body. For example, the hunter who falls asleep on a river bank after a long and exhausting hunt may dream that he is continuing the hunt, only to find that he is more successful in his dream state. In his dream state he may have climbed the mountain to pursue the eagle, or even entered the bear's cave to pursue the bear. Upon waking he may have wondered how it is that he could have journeyed so far, and successfully, all the while his body rested upon the river bank. This experience, or something like it, is believed to have given rise to the belief in an immaterial aspect to existence, namely, the spirit or anima. Once the human person was viewed to possess a spirit it was only a small step to project this reality upon other animate (e.g., the eagle and the bear) or inanimate objects (e.g., the mountain or the cave). Thus, animism is often considered the foundation of many of the following primitive forms of religion, the logic of which should be apparent in the discussions below. b. totemism Totemism refers to the "special relationships" (Algonquian: ototeman) that are believed to exist between certain tribes, clans, or individuals and spirits of various animals, plants, or inanimate objects. Most readers are familiar with totem poles. These are tall carved and painted poles, often erected near one's dwelling, designed to indicate affinities with a given totem spirit. These affinities are understood to reflect societal roles, marital taboos, food taboos, and the like. Totemism figures prominently in the theories of Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) regarding the origin of religion. Totemism appears to be a developed form of animism. c. fetishism Fetishism refers to the valuing or reverencing of inanimate objects as imbued with some special power (or anima). Again, animism is the presupposition of fetishism. Popular fetishes, both then and now, are such things as bear claws, eagle feathers, rabbit feet, or polished stones. These may be reverenced for the good fortune they may insure. In fetishism animism combines with what is termed contagious magic. That is, magic resulting from actual contact with an object. This form of magic differs from the sympathetic, or imitative, magic discussed above in relation to the cave drawings. Often a given fetish would have some connection with one's totem or that of a significant other. One should begin to see how these primitive forms of religion may have overlapped or developed from each other. A chief advocate of fetishism as the starting point for religion is Auguste Comte (1798-1857).
7 d. nature worship Nature worship, self-evidently, is the worship or reverence of different aspects of nature, the sun, moon, stars, lakes, trees, mountains, etc. The concept of an anima for each of these aspects of nature is certainly compatible with their worship. Max Muller (1823-1900) is significant among theorists who champion nature worship as the origin of religion. Muller was a philologist (an expert in languages). He suggested that polytheism (the idea that there are many gods) and eventual monotheism (the idea that there is only one God) arose from a primitive nature worship. This development may have arisen from a confusion of the grammatical gender endings for the names of inanimate objects for their reality as male or female deities. This process was further complicated by the fact that in certain languages there were many names for the same thing (polynymy) and the same name for different things (homonymy). Muller poses an interesting connection between primitive nature worship and the later polytheism of Hinduism. According to Muller there were three types of cult objects: (1) things which could be grasped (e.g., stones, shells); (2) things which could be partially grasped (e.g., trees, rivers, mountains); and (3) things beyond grasp (e.g., sky, sun, stars). These three categories of nature worship provide a parallel to the early Hindu categorization of gods into three levels, namely, those (1) of the earth, (2) those of the atmosphere, and (3) those of the sky. This classification of the gods provided the Hindu religion with a legitimation of its caste system. The hierarchy in Hindu society was understood to reflect the hierarchy established already among the gods. e. ancestor worship Ancestor worship refers to the worship or reverence of departed spirits. Once again, animism is clearly presupposed. Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) is a chief advocate of this theory. This theory of the origin of religion has obvious connections with the primitive burial practices discussed above. The persistence of ancestor worship is most clearly seen in the religions of China. f. polytheism and henotheism Two theories yet to be commented upon are polytheism and henotheism. Polytheism is the belief in many gods. Henotheism is the belief in the preeminence of a tribal or local god. Henotheism (based on the Greek henos, meaning one, and theos, meaning god) allows for some recognition of the gods of others, but differs from polytheism in that exclusive devotion is given to the particular god of a tribe, nation, or country. Henotheism needs to be distinguished from monotheism (based on the Greek mono, meaning only, and theos, meaning god) which conveys the idea that there is one and only one God. Many scholars would contend that polytheism, and perhaps henotheism, arose from one or the other or a combination of the primitive forms of religion which we have just discussed. Considerable debate exists among scholars as to which form of primitive religion provides the most logical starting point. Animism appears suggestive as its essential concept seems presupposed in the other forms mentioned. This debate,
8 however, is sidestepped at this point in order to allow the reader to enter a related debate on two competing perspectives with regard to the origin of religion. TWO COMPETING PERSPECTIVES The first perspective comes as no surprise. Religion as we know it today evolved from primitive forms. Although debate exists as to which primitive form came first, and how the other forms might be either logically or chronologically related, most advocates of the theories just discussed would argue that present day religions (e.g., Judaism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Christianity, Islam) evolved in some way from these early primitive forms. Monotheism (again, the idea that there is one and only one supreme reality) is often understood as the pinnacle or culmination of the process of the evolution of religion. What may come as a surprise to the reader is that the alternative perspective, advocated classically by the Apostle Paul (Romans 1:18-25), suggests that monotheism, understood as a self-evident truth, provides the starting point for religion, the primitive forms just discussed being understood as distortions of an original monotheism. Hence, monotheism did not evolve from the aforementioned primitive forms. Rather, animism, totemism, fetishism, nature worship, ancestor worship, polytheism, and henotheism devolved from monotheism. The remainder of this lesson will focus on these two competing perspectives by attempting to make sense of each perspective with the help of an insight from modern psychology. Each perspective will be more fully explained and arguments for each perspective will be identified. But first a word about this insight from modern psychology. Psychologists recognize three stages to a person's experience of trauma. The first stage is the shock of the trauma itself. The second stage is some form of partial or total suppression of the reality of the trauma. The third stage manifests itself in some type of substitution. The reality of the traumatic event is suppressed and a substitute reality emerges to take its place. Both the suppression and the substitution may be viewed as coping mechanisms. These may be conscious or unconscious, permanent or temporary, healthy or unhealthy, depending upon the given situation. These three stages will be utilized as a means of understanding each of the two following and competing perspectives. a. PERSPECTIVE ONE In this perspective present day monotheistic religions are understood as having evolved from the primitive forms of religion discussed above. This would include without question the religions of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. These religions are clearly monotheistic. The religions of Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism, Sikhism, and Zoroastrianism might be questioned as representatives of a strict monotheism. But each of these religions, in some of their representative forms, do teach the concept of a single supreme reality, and hence will be included in the discussion here. Monotheism, therefore, is understood here in a broad sense. What evidence is there that
the monotheism (however broadly conceived) of these eleven major world religions evolved from more primitive forms? The evidence may be discovered in either the written traditions or in the living ritualistic practices of each of these religions. All these religions, to a greater or lesser extent, reflect some vestige of one or several of the primitive forms which we have discussed. A few examples will make this clear. Does not the first commandment of the Jewish ten commandments, "...thou shalt not have any other gods besides me..." presuppose the reality of other gods? Wouldn't this indicate that early Judaism was, properly speaking, a form of henotheism? Christianity has often been accused of polytheism, especially by Jews and Muslims, for its Trinitarian conception of God. Couldn't the reverencing of Mary and so many saints be a carry over of a primitive ancestor worship? The Christian sacramental practice of full immersion baptism involves an imitation of the great events of the life of Christ (i.e., his death and resurrection). When the baptismal candidate is submerged into the waters the candidate is, at that moment, understood to be identified with Christ in his death. At the moment of emergence from the waters the candidate is understood to be identified with Christ in his resurrection (cf. Romans 6: 1-4). Is not the imitation of the action of others at the heart of what is termed sympathetic magic? The last of the five great pillars of Islam is the pilgrimage to Mecca. Central to the Meccan pilgrimage rituals is the circumambulation of the Ka'ba stone. The Ka'ba stone is a black meteorite which fell to Mecca long before the time of Mohammed. For centuries it was reverenced as a fetish among the Arab people. Mohammed and later Muslims have given this stone an interpretation that they believe is congruous with monotheism. But the circumambulation (circling seven times) and kissing and touching this stone can be understood as a reflection of, or as a qualified preservation of, an earlier fetishism. The worship of ancestors has always played a significant role in Taoism and Confucianism. Hindus are often noted for their practice of polytheism. The relics of the Buddha are considered as fetishes by several sects of Buddhism. Shinto, which means the "way of the gods," is noted for its emphasis upon kami, which refer to "anyone, anything, or any force that possesses 'superior power' " (Nigosian, 1994, p. 218). Examples could be found in Sikhism and Zoroastrianism as well. Additional examples could be discovered for the religions already illustrated. The point is this: Although the world's religions claim to be monotheistic (worshipping only one supreme reality) they all provide evidence, in a variety of forms and emphases, for a worship incongruous with a strict monotheism. One could argue from the evidence that monotheism evolved out of primitive forms of worship, some religions more successfully eliminating the variety of emphases upon these primitive forms than others. Again, animism might be considered the foundation of monotheism. A simple unifying spirit (anima) was projected upon the whole world or universe, as well as upon its individual animate and inanimate parts. This world spirit is called in religious studies the anima mundi (Latin, for "world"), and oftentimes is considered a synonym for God. How might one utilize the psychological stages of shock, suppression, and substitution to strengthen the argument of perspective one? Well, Sigmund Freud did just this. In his The Future of an Illusion (1928) Freud argued that polytheism, and 9
10 eventually monotheism, developed from our need to personify the terrifying forces of nature. He reasoned that the shock resulting from the uncontrollable natural forces, such as earthquake, flood, and storm, could be suppressed by substituting controllable personalities for these otherwise uncontrollable impersonal phenomena. One could attempt to bribe, appease, or plead with the spirits behind the natural phenomena rather than simply suffer at the hands of merciless nature. Hence, religion arose out of our need to cope with nature. In summary, perspective one argues that the monotheism of the world's religions was preceded by more primitive forms. Based upon the fact that one may detect the persisting presence of these more primitive forms in the literary traditions or in the ritualistic practices of the world's religions one may conclude that monotheism evolved out of these more primitive forms. The logic of an anima mundi provides an additional argument for this perspective. The way that Freud utilizes the stages of shock, suppression and substitution strengthens this position. b. PERSPECTIVE TWO The great champion of perspective two is the Apostle Paul. In his magnum opus (greatest work), the Epistle to the Romans, this position is articulated. A paraphrase of the crucial passage (1: 18-23) is presented here. It is paraphrased for the purposes of this lesson. This paraphrase is based on the author's familiarity with the Greet text. The text referred to is the critical text edited by Aland, Black, Metzger, and Wikgren (1966). It is paraphrased as follows: God is angry with the human race and with good reason. Human beings appear to be suppressing the truth that God has revealed to them. God has made it obvious to everyone with an open mind that He exists. He has done this simply by the fact of creation itself. Anyone with two good eyes, or two good ears, should be able to look around, or listen, and experience the beauty of this world. Clearly, the world did not make itself, and whoever did must certainly be powerful and worthy of our worship. But instead of worshipping God the human race has come up with substitutes. One finds evidence for the worship of created things, like idols fashioned in the likeness of human beings, or animals, or other such things. These practices have shocked God and have had their effects upon the relationship between God and the human race. Anyone who takes the time to look up Romans 1:18-23, or is already familiar with the text, will notice that this paraphrase, while taking some liberties, remains true to the sense of the passage. The three words italicized (suppressing, substitutes, and
shocked) were meant to remind the reader of the three psychological stages discussed above and how they were utilized in arguing for the cogency of perspective one. These same stages, obviously, can be utilized to argue for the opposite conclusion, that of perspective two. The line of reasoning taken here will be fully clarified in a moment. But first, let's consider two other arguments that strengthen the position of perspective two. Initially, perspective two has God and the Bible on its side. Philosophically speaking, Romans 1:18-23 is a popularization of what are called the cosmological and teleological arguments for the existence of God. These arguments are explained in detail in Lesson Five. Essentially, they are arguments that, like the text of Romans, base themselves on inferences that may be drawn from the observations of order, beauty, and purpose in the world. The bottom line of these arguments is that the existence of God should be a self-evident fact. In addition to the philosophical cogency of these arguments (for which see Lesson Five) advocates of this position often appeal to the authority of the Bible. The fact that this position is asserted in Holy Scripture is all that some need to accept its veracity. Perspective two does not rest entirely on the merits of philosophy or religious authority alone. Anthropologists have for years pondered over the dilemma of the pervasive testimony of belief in a high god, or a sky god, among many ancient peoples, and many of the analogous pre-literary societies of today. The "high god," or "sky god," refers to the belief among many tribal peoples that beyond, or above, the existence of all their closer deities, namely, the deities of the earth, mountains, rivers, affairs of society, and so on, exists another deity, remote, and apparently unconcerned, or even perturbed, with the common every day affairs of human beings. This "sky god" appears to have been nearly forgotten by many tribal peoples, their focus being on the gods of practical and everyday concerns. Nevertheless, many ancient tribal cultures gave witness to a distant memory that at one time the "sky god" featured more prominently in their tribe's devotions. The classic treatment of this theory is found in Wilhelm Schmidt's The Origin and Growth of Religion (1931). A popular version of this theory, and more readable for the lay person, is presented by Don Richardson in Eternity in Their Hearts (1981). Both authors present extensive anthropological evidence to substantiate their claims. Hence, perspective two finds additional support from the anthropologists. Finally, perspective two, containing the idea that the primitive forms of religion devolved from an original monotheism, is supported by an appeal to the three psychological stages of shock, suppression, and substitution. Here is how these stages are utilized in arguing for this perspective. Due to the human race abandoning the self evident truth of God's existence the relationship between God and humanity has been strained. This strain can be conceived as producing a trauma or shock within each one of us. This shock takes the form of restlessness and anxiety about the meaning and purpose of life, and perhaps includes some fear and uncertainty regarding death. These are common experiences to human beings. But, as the Apostle Paul would argue, rather than cure our restlessness, anxiety, fear, or uncertainty with a full-orbed theism, human beings have developed the psychologically explainable habit of suppressing the truth of the shocking reality and have come up with substitute realities. The Apostle Paul would argue that the substitute realities take the form of the various primitive religious forms we have discussed. But 11
12 modern day humans may have come up with more sophisticated substitutes. Perhaps scientific atheistic materialism, existentialism, nihilism, or perhaps simple hedonism are the modern day counterparts of primitive religions. The reader has been presented with two perspectives on the origins of religion. Did monotheism evolve from primitive forms of religion? Or, did the primitive forms of religion devolve from monotheism? Or, is there a third alternative? Perspective one and two have been presented, hopefully in an unbiased manner, and the reader is challenged to accept, reject, modify, or suggest alternatives to the arguments that have been presented for each position. To assist the reader in reviewing the key points of this lesson, and in responding to the present challenge, a worksheet is provided on the page following the illustration (figure 3) and references for this lesson. LESSON THREE: R E F E R E N C E S Adler, M. J. (1985). Ten philosophical mistakes: Basic errors in modern thought-how they came about, their consequences, and how to avoid them. New York: Macmillan. Aland, K., M. Black, B. Metzger & A. Wikgren, Eds. (1966). The Greek New Testament. Stuttgart. United Bible Societies. Anderson, N. (1977). The world's religions. (second American printing), Grand Rapids: Eerdman. Freud, Sigmund. (1961). The future of an illusion (1961 English translation from 1928 German original), New York: Norton. Nigosian, S. A. (1994). World faiths. Second edition. New York: St. Martins. Noss, D. S., & Noss, J. B. (1994). A history of the world's religions. Ninth edition. New York: Macmillan.
13 Richardson, D. (1981). Eternity in their hearts. Ventura: Regal. Schmidt, W. (1931). The origin and growth of religion. New York: Dial. Tos, A. J. (1963). Approaches to the Bible: The Old Testament. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice.