The fundamental element of religion is easily defined, yet is harder to explain and qualify . The most rudimentary definition can be thought of as the belief in another being or beings. However, what is interesting about the study of the ur-religion, at least to me, is how our ancestors began believing in an outside being and how their beliefs fit in with their culture, society and politics.

It was made clear in the article called Paleolithic art and religion that seeking out and explaining the first religion is a daunting task that most deem impossible. But the author firmly states that the historical, religious and ethnographic advances would be too great to pass up. I agree with the author that while most, if not all, theories may be wrong about the source of religion, it is of the utmost importance to study.

The author's main theory on the cave and rock surface art concerned shamanism. While I wont reiterate what was said, I would like to share my opinions on the spirit world. It could be going too far to say this, but I came up with an argument somewhat against the author's theory. If paleolithic religion came from shamans taking hallucinogens and recording the spirits they observed on their trip either below or above ground, then how can we suppose religion is real? A drug trip does not make gods/spirits real. It's understandable that the 'cave men' would think that the visions were real, but if modern religion is based on this, how do we know it's not a farce? I'm not trying to say that all religion is false, just critiquing the author's theory. I definitely encourage classmates to respond as I have probably missed a key point in the reading that explains this discrepancy.