If religion was the ancient's way of understanding the world around them...

[Phasmid]

then how come it doesn't make more sense?

For example, if the ancients didn't understand that Earth revolves around the Sun, why invent a fantastic notion of a gian Scarab beetle moving it about? Why not simply admit ignorance on the subject and try to understand it through observation and applied reason? If I were an ancient, I wouldn't understand that Earth moves around the Sun, so instead I might make the erroneous claim that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Sure it's wrong, but it fits limited observation... later cultures may then think, "Ah, I see why they came to that conclusion...". But instead we see stories, which can't possibly be true e.g. the Scarab/Sun example... why? Surely the ancients had reason as well? Did they take it literally? If not, then why bother with the odd... ness...?

Sorry, I doubt I'm making much sense (very late here). I guess the question is, why didn't they keep it simple?

 

[Quagmire]

Maybe their attitude amounted to, "Hey, we don't have any clue what's going on here, so lets have some fun with it".

 

[CarlinKnew]

"Spiritual" plants no doubt played a large role. The guy having a bad trip was thought to be communicating with the gods. A human's primate brain is both solipsistic and creative; add some toxic, "mystic" herbs to the mix, and there's no telling what sort of nonsense you'll get -- "I'm telling you, dude, it's a giant friggin' Scarab up there, man, pushin' the Sun around and stuff! Pass me a pidgeon-on-a-stick, man; I got the munchies."

 

[Sunstone]

The notion that religion is some kind of primitive or failed science designed to explain the universe is a discredited late 1800s idea that is still quite popular in some quarters. The best evidence we have today very strongly suggests that religion is not a primitive or failed science. It did not get it's start trying to explain why natural phenomena are as they are. Today there are two or more viable theories of how religion got its start -- but the 1800s theory has been shown to be inadequate.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

later cultures may then think, "Ah, I see why they came to that conclusion...". But instead we see stories, which can't possibly be true e.g. the Scarab/Sun example... why? Surely the ancients had reason as well? Did they take it literally? If not, then why bother with the odd... ness...?

Hmm, the sun moves across the sky. Something's got to be pushing it along because if you push a spherical object it'll eventually come to rest yet the sun keeps going. The only thing I've seen push a spherical object around with such persistance is a scarab beetle with it's dung ball.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

It did not get it's start trying to explain why natural phenomena are as they are. Today there are two or more viable theories of how religion got its start -- but the 1800s theory has been shown to be inadequate.

Oh. Linkage please!

 

[Herr Heinrich]

then how come it doesn't make more sense?

For example, if the ancients didn't understand that Earth revolves around the Sun, why invent a fantastic notion of a gian Scarab beetle moving it about? Why not simply admit ignorance on the subject and try to understand it through observation and applied reason? If I were an ancient, I wouldn't understand that Earth moves around the Sun, so instead I might make the erroneous claim that the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Sure it's wrong, but it fits limited observation... later cultures may then think, "Ah, I see why they came to that conclusion...". But instead we see stories, which can't possibly be true e.g. the Scarab/Sun example... why? Surely the ancients had reason as well? Did they take it literally? If not, then why bother with the odd... ness...?

Sorry, I doubt I'm making much sense (very late here). I guess the question is, why didn't they keep it simple?

Wouldn't you want some explanation for why things work? Also remember back then society was generally agricultural. They didn't have need to know the correct answer to things irrelevant to daily life. Basically if it wasn't about farming, hunting, or fertility they didn't care. Also Socrates had the same problem about the whole not admitting ignorance thing. The Socratic Method is used to lead the person to contradicting themselves and getting them to realize that they don't know.
Socrates said something along the lines of "Surely it is better to know I am ignorant, than to be ignorant of my ignorance."

Also if you look at "modern" religions such as Christianity you will see many stories that are obviously made up. The whole Old Testament is basically mythology.

 

[Sunstone]

Oh. Linkage please!

Check out these two books:

In Gods We Trust by Scott Atran

Darwin's Cathedral by David Sloan Wilson

There are other contemporary theories besides those two, but those are two of the more exciting theories.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

Check out these two books:

In Gods We Trust by Scott Atran

Darwin's Cathedral by David Sloan Wilson

There are other contemporary theories besides those two, but those are two of the more exciting theories.

but I'd have to read them to find out!

Isn't there a diagram with disney characters smiling and pointing to the pictograms I have to pay attention to somewhere?

 

[Quagmire]

but I'd have to read them to find out!

Isn't there a diagram with disney characters smiling and pointing to the pictograms I have to pay attention to somewhere?

Just do what I do, Scarlett; read the book reviews in wiki and throw a cpl quotes around here and there so people will think you've actually read the books.

Actually, I think you may have answered the OP; people came up with wild symbolism and outrageous literary pictograms because they're a lot easier to pay attention to and remember;

"Hey kids! The Sun comes up in the east and sets in the west"!

"*YAAaaaaaaaawwwwwnnnnnn* that's great uncle Og "

Or

"Hey kids! The sun moves across the sky on the back of a giant Dung Beetle"!

"EEeeeeeeEWWWW!!! Tell us more uncle Og"!!!


​

 

[Herr Heinrich]

Genius :bow:

 

[Sunstone]

but I'd have to read them to find out!

Isn't there a diagram with disney characters smiling and pointing to the pictograms I have to pay attention to somewhere?

I wish there were, but I myself have never been able to quickly and accurately sum up the arguments. I think someone could do it. It's just that it's beyond my writing skills. Here's the best I an do:

Both Atran and Wilson argue for an innate, genetic basis to human religiosity. They see religious behavior as something that evolved in humans according to the laws of evolution. So, the two differ in some details -- enough to call their theories two separate theories -- but both represent a naturalistic approach to the question of "why is there religion?", and both assert that the answer lies in our genes.

 

[kai]

I wish there were, but I myself have never been able to quickly and accurately sum up the arguments. I think someone could do it. It's just that it's beyond my writing skills. Here's the best I an do:

Both Atran and Wilson argue for an innate, genetic basis to human religiosity. They see religious behavior as something that evolved in humans according to the laws of evolution. So, the two differ in some details -- enough to call their theories two separate theories -- but both represent a naturalistic approach to the question of "why is there religion?", and both assert that the answer lies in our genes.

so an enquiring mind and the predisposition to provide answers to unanswerable questions is in our genes?

and the thing is lets take the Norse pantheon it made sense to Norsemen when it was extant didn't it? the Egyptian book of the dead made sense to the ancient Egyptians didn't it?

Is it our willingness to accept explanations that's in our genes? or the ease at which we "make up " such explanations. if the answer is in our genes then the failed science is true because we are predisposed to invent science to suit our questions---no?

 

[Sunstone]

so an enquiring mind and the predisposition to provide answers to unanswerable questions is in our genes?

and the thing is lets take the Norse pantheon it made sense to Norsemen when it was extant didn't it? the Egyptian book of the dead made sense to the ancient Egyptians didn't it?

Is it our willingness to accept explanations that's in our genes? or the ease at which we "make up " such explanations. if the answer is in our genes then the failed science is true because we are predisposed to invent science to suit our questions---no?

Unfortunately, you're way off what the theories are saying. But that's my fault. I haven't done a good job summing them up. I very much urge you to read the books. They're fascinating.

 

[kai]

Unfortunately, you're way off what the theories are saying. But that's my fault. I haven't done a good job summing them up. I very much urge you to read the books. They're fascinating.

Its not unusual for me to be way off what people are saying Lol

I will look into them they sound fascinating

 

[DadBurnett]

What the ancients knew and believed?
Just as knowledge has "evolved" over time, so has the capacity to imagine. The ancients imagined (as do we) what we can somehow relate to.

 

[Sunstone]

Its not unusual for me to be way off what people are saying Lol

I will look into them they sound fascinating

Please humor me while I give it another try. What Atran is saying is something along these lines: Humans have evolved various psychological traits that amount in practice to an innate, genetically based predisposition to see deity in things and events. Wilson is arguing for something similar, although the two disagree on some interesting points.

I have probably just muddied the waters by trying one more time to summarize their points of view. I think I could do it if I had a few pages, but getting at the gist of it in a few words is proving to be difficult for me.

 

[Willamena]

then how come it doesn't make more sense?

For example, if the ancients didn't understand that Earth revolves around the Sun, why invent a fantastic notion of a gian Scarab beetle moving it about? Why not simply admit ignorance on the subject and try to understand it through observation and applied reason?

The Scarab Beetle (constellation) pushing the Sun like a dung ball isn't meant to be explanation of "why the sun moves through the sky," but to symoblize "the sun moves through the sky." It's a portion of a much larger cultural narrative.

 

[DadBurnett]

The Scarab Beetle (constellation) pushing the Sun like a dung ball isn't meant to be explanation of "why the sun moves through the sky," but to symoblize "the sun moves through the sky." It's a portion of a much larger cultural narrative.

Right on!

 

[MSizer]

I think the problem is that it's too broad to say that religion is the product of one thing. I think for example that belief in god has several factors (mostly genetic IMO) while "religion" also encompasses cultural practices too, which are distinctly different from believing in god. I think since science was so primitive earlier in humanity, religion was used to try to fill gaps in knowledge becuase we have an innate curiosity and we have a very hard time accepting lack of knowledge. I think our minds are often more comfortable espousing a theory that is irrational than to have no theory at all.