any reccs on naturphilosophie/theology + origins of religion

[Anonymous No.18009850]

unsure if this is a retarded question or not, but i am interested in how God (and/or the rising potencies of nature) guided the phylogeny of the human species so that we became beings that sought out the divine...

i don't really want like creationism (synchronic creationism where God created everything in literally 7 days, as opposed to diachronic where God is time, and gradually developing the universe) or evo psych stuffs as they don't seem that insightful to what i am going to do. like the latter form of analysis is fine and all, but it doesn't say much that is specially helpful for my purposes

[Anonymous No.18009907]

Deist theology's probably what you're looking for

[Anonymous No.18010048]

>>18009907
ah thanks for the pointer... any books in mind?

also glancing at it, im not quite sure how well this fits unless it gives proper teleological explanations... also by evolution im referring less to natural selection, but more specifically one that involves an evolution in consciousness as well

[Jesus No.18010971]

>>18009850
religion is science, origin is the same: curiosity and desire to be healthy, desire for power.

[Anonymous No.18010990]

>>18009850
check out teilhard de chardin "the phenomenon of man", it's a wild read

[Anonymous No.18011103]

Pseudo-Dionysus and Eriugena might be good places to start since they try to combine Christian theology and neoplatonic metaphysics+cosmology. Also check out the Victorines (especially Hugh of St. Victor). Maybe also Marsilio Ficino and Pico della Mirandola.

The main problem you'll have is finding philosophy or theology that maintains a personalist element. Most neoplatonic cosmologies veer into impersonalism, even the Christian ones - Eriugena clearly wants to maintain the beauty and harmony of the Greek emanationism even when it is occluding the specifically Christian aspects of his narrative, like the Trinity. Perennialist demi-Christians will likely do the same, turning Christ into just-another-stage of the emanation of the One.

And of course most people who come from the opposite direction will be fideists who insist on the personal element to the exclusion of the metaphysical. A lot of modern Jews are like this, emphasising that we cannot know God, we can only submit and be grateful for Him. Christian "neo-orthodoxy" is similar, because it sees every metaphysical form of Christianity as a crypto-atheist deism/pantheism.

There are a lot of interesting mixed elements in Judaism as well though. It has its own neoplatonic heritage but it has a different "feel" whenever I've encountered it. Some Jews seem maintain more of the personalistic and (for lack of a better term) "messy" aspects of gnosticism's heyday, they have more of a willingness to talk about levels and layers of heaven and hell, mix talk of their individual personal God with talk of metaphysical realms and processes and so forth, in a way that doesn't easily distinguish between allegory, literal truth, and "I saw this in a mystical vision so it's true even if it's garbled," but combines all three.

If you want something even more like that with the personalist aspects maintained, Rudolf Steiner's Anthroposophy has an entire occult history/theological meta-history aspect to it, with good and evil gods that are in some sense necessary parts of the development of the world but in other senses not guaranteed to succeed.

For something less occult and more "clean," Bergson's Creative Evolution and his later turn toward mysticism.

>>18010990
Seconding this too.

[Anonymous No.18011143]

>>18009850
Hypershit is fucking disgusting.

[Anonymous No.18011754]

>>18009850
Evo psych as in cultural mems that survived based on current techs and climates?

[Anonymous No.18011914]

>>18009850
>30000 BC
>Potter's apprentice is fucking around
>makes a fat woman, shows his annoying sister "hey look i made a statue of you"
>they fight, whatever, but the apprentice decides to keep it around since it's one of his first crafts
>32000 years later
>THE ANCIENTS WORSHIPPED FAT WOMEN

[Anonymous No.18012143]

>>18011914
main thing is hips and boobas. fat signifies she's well off and extra fertile
>>18011754
more like "religion evolved as an outcome of X cognitive faculty" or "religion evolve to cope with Y"
>>18010990
will add ty
>>18011103
ty anon, will check these out later
>turning Christ into just-another-stage of the emanation of the One
i can sort of agree with this. only to the extent that the full metaphysical profundity of God's existence couldn't have been grasped by ancients, so there is some extra dialectic left, though not completely sure what
>Rudolf Steiner's Anthroposophy has an entire occult history/theological meta-history aspect to it
>The anthroposophical view of evolution considers all animals to have evolved from an early, unspecialized form. As the least specialized animal, human beings have maintained the closest connection to the archetypal form;[58] contrary to the Darwinian conception of human evolution, all other animals devolve from this archetype
damn this is a fascinating inversion. i also like the idea that there are "evil gods" (though i prefer monotheism) which play some essential role
>his later turn toward mysticism
im somewhat familiar with bergson. how did he turn towards mysticism?

[Anonymous No.18013063]

>>18009850
bumpu