• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is it important to know, when humans started believing in God?

These times might be up for debate but you get the drift.

Isn't it a coincidence that humans only started to believe in 'God' when we our brains reached a certain size for intelligence and consciousness, something like 50,000 years a go.

Humans had been around for a long, long time before that.

So why didn't we believe in God then?

Did humans make God up themselves?
One my my guilty pleasures was reading “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind” by Julian Jaynes.

It's an interesting take on consciousness and religion but very entertaining. I like how the hallucination ideas he had then are now being talked about similarly with AI.

I hope all is well!
 

Ajax

Active Member
Do you have different time when humans started believing in a God/Gods?
Evidence suggests that early humans likely developed religious beliefs as a way to explain natural phenomena, such as the sun, moon, and natural disasters, and to make sense of their place in the world. Religion emerged with certainty in the Upper Paleolithic around 50,000 years ago.
Prehistoric religion - Wikipedia
 

Madsaac

Active Member
It's curious and weird you'd rate my last post as "optimistic" @Madsaac.

Are you the sort that believes that a home builder can make a house solely with materials derived from themselves? Perhaps this is the case if the house is built only in their imaginations, but if they want to build a house that non-imaginary humans live in? Doesn't the home builder have to use materials derived not from themselves, but from the greater-than-human world around them? It is "optimistic" to recognize this dependency of human endeavors on non-human others for all of its affairs?


Seriously, though, this is a grossly overlooked aspect of how religions (and the present state of the human condition just in general) came to be. It didn't come out of nothing. Because nothing we do does. It all comes from life experiences - which inherently involve other-than-human aspects of reality unless you believe all reality is some simulation of the human brain (silly, but it is a thing some folks believe). In some cultures, experiences with those things led to deeply valuing them and deification which is why there is routine deification of nature and its aspects. But no matter the interpretation, the dependency upon and relations with non-human others is inherent and everywhere and unavoidable.

That said, not gonna pretend I'm not biased as someone studied in ecology, environmental science, and Druidry. Recognizing interdependence is just part and parcel of those studies. I'm gonna have trouble understanding the "lone wolf" (which are not actually a thing in nature, ironically) mentality of "I did this 100% on my own with no help or inspiration from anything outside of myself whatsoever." I don't believe that ever happens. :shrug:

Yeah maybe that was incorrect. I think humans obviously needed the environment and social interactions to evolve to what we are now, the relationship with nature in all it's grandeur was/is vital for us to live and understand the world.

However, this relationship is for us to live a fruitful existence, not to 'worship' something because we didn't understand or because it was 'special'. However if a belief exists to help aspects of the world, like the environment, then that's great.

But at the end of the day humans made this stuff up (Gods, spirits, rituals, ceremonies, etc) because we couldn't explain something or understand it. Not saying it's wrong*. Now we know it's just science.
 
Last edited:

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Yeah maybe that was incorrect. I think humans obviously needed the environment and social interactions to evolve to what we are now, the relationship with nature in all it's grandeur was/is vital for us to live and understand the world.

However, this relationship is for us to live a fruitful existence, not to 'worship' something because we didn't understand or because it was 'special'. However if a belief exists to help aspects of the world, like the environment, then that's great.

But at the end of the day humans made this stuff up (Gods, spirits, rituals, ceremonies, etc) because we couldn't explain something or understand it. Not saying it's wrong*. Now we know it's just science.
I think you're mischaracterizing how animism and polytheism work here (it really isn't about "explaining" things), but that is not atypical for those who were indoctrinated into the more common Western intellectual/religious traditions. I would encourage you to spend some time listening to animists and polytheists if you're interested in understanding these theologies on their own terms. Or not. Most folks just opt for not, so that's okay too. I'm used to these being routinely mischaracterized such that I just can't afford to care about it. :shrug:
 

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
Isn't it a coincidence that humans only started to believe in 'God' when we our brains reached a certain size for intelligence and consciousness, something like 50,000 years a go.

Humans had been around for a long, long time before that.

So why didn't we believe in God then?

Did humans make God up themselves?
How do you know we didn't? How do you know that animals - some of whom mourn and hold funerals - don't believe in gods either?
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I think you're mischaracterizing how animism and polytheism work here (it really isn't about "explaining" things), but that is not atypical for those who were indoctrinated into the more common Western intellectual/religious traditions. I would encourage you to spend some time listening to animists and polytheists if you're interested in understanding these theologies on their own terms. Or not. Most folks just opt for not, so that's okay too. I'm used to these being routinely mischaracterized such that I just can't afford to care about it. :shrug:

Can't really speak to the OG animist though, can we. Are you suggesting that we should talk to New Age animists and pagans and see that as being representative of the beliefs and attitudes of the first human animists?
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Can't really speak to the OG animist though, can we. Are you suggesting that we should talk to New Age animists and pagans and see that as being representative of the beliefs and attitudes of the first human animists?
I don't understand the point of this question or its relevance. But, just as I'm used to these things being routinely mischaracterized I'm also, sadly, used to them being routinely dismissed out of the conversation with questions like this. Sure, just ignore everything I write then. Because it, like anything else any human write about anything, "IsNt rEpReSeNtAtIoNaL." :shrug:
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I don't understand the point of this question or its relevance. But, just as I'm used to these things being routinely mischaracterized I'm also, sadly, used to them being routinely dismissed out of the conversation with questions like this. Sure, just ignore everything I write then. Because it, like anything else any human write about anything, "IsNt rEpReSeNtAtIoNaL." :shrug:

The OP is essentially asking when did beliefs in gods and deities begin and so I see my comment as relevant. You suggested talking to animists and polytheists to get an understanding of animism and polytheism, however, I would be skeptical of the notion that a modern's reasoning and attitude towards adopting animism or polytheism is at all representative of the motivations, reasoning, and attitudes of the ancient person or peoples that first developed animistic or polytheistic beliefs. Just my two cents.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
The OP is essentially asking when did beliefs in gods and deities begin and so I see my comment as relevant. You suggested talking to animists and polytheists to get an understanding of animism and polytheism, however, I would be skeptical of the notion that a modern's reasoning and attitude towards adopting animism or polytheism is at all representative of the motivations, reasoning, and attitudes of the ancient person or peoples that first developed animistic or polytheistic beliefs. Just my two cents.
I see where you're coming from, but here's the thing.

Which group makes sense to use as a frame of reference for understanding animism and polytheism:

  1. Modern day animists and polytheists (aka, cultural insiders)
  2. Modern day non-animists and non-polytheists (aka, cultural outsiders)
In spite of the first being the obvious answer, many insist the second of these two is somehow the more sensible frame of reference. Which is just frustrating. Doubly frustrating since the notions outsiders project onto these demographics aren't any less modern. Yet somehow we're supposed to defer to their assessments of what we're practicing today?

Nah, man, not buying it. That'd be like listening to my Pagan interpretation of Jesus' resurrection and somehow considering that more relevant and authoritative than what actual practicing Christians have to say. That's dumb, why would we do that? :coldsweat:
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Can't really speak to the OG animist though, can we. Are you suggesting that we should talk to New Age animists and pagans and see that as being representative of the beliefs and attitudes of the first human animists?
New Age stuff and neo-paganism is far too adapted to modern ideas to be considered anything like the Ancient Paganism, much less like the animism that was humanity's first religion. Even New Age animism is just far to accommodating to modern thought to be a good source for knowledge on ancient human religion.

You can examine Hinduism to get a sampling of authentic polytheism, but polytheism of course is not the same as animism.

However, what you CAN do is examine the animism from hunter gatherer tribal peoples that still practice this, or you can read about recent hunter gatherer tribes that were investigated by anthropologists in the field. This indeed would give you a sense what humanity's original religion was like.
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I see where you're coming from, but here's the thing.

Which group makes sense to use as a frame of reference for understanding animism and polytheism:

  1. Modern day animists and polytheists (aka, cultural insiders)
  2. Modern day non-animists and non-polytheists (aka, cultural outsiders)
In spite of the first being the obvious answer, many insist the second of these two is somehow the more sensible frame of reference. Which is just frustrating. Doubly frustrating since the notions outsiders project onto these demographics aren't any less modern. Yet somehow we're supposed to defer to their assessments of what we're practicing today?

Nah, man, not buying it. That'd be like listening to my Pagan interpretation of Jesus' resurrection and somehow considering that more relevant and authoritative than what actual practicing Christians have to say. That's dumb, why would we do that? :coldsweat:

A practicing Christian lacks objectivity though, right? Whether it be Catholic, JW, LDS, Baptist, Quaker, UU, etc, is it our expectation that their view of Christianity will be completely non-biased and objective, or will it be heavily flavored by their particular take on Christianity?

So, nah man, not buying it. Not seeing the modern Pagan as coming from the same place, the same mindset, as that of someone 3,000 years ago, 5,000 years ago, etc.
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
New Age stuff and neo-paganism is far too adapted to modern ideas to be considered anything like the Ancient Paganism, much less like the animism that was humanity's first religion. Even New Age animism is just far to accommodating to modern thought to be a good source for knowledge on ancient human religion.

You can examine Hinduism to get a sampling of authentic polytheism, but polytheism of course is not the same as animism.

However, what you CAN do is examine the animism from hunter gatherer tribal peoples that still practice this, or you can read about recent hunter gatherer tribes that were investigated by anthropologists in the field. This indeed would give you a sense what humanity's original religion was like.

I think this opportunity is lost to us in this day and age. Yes, we can look at the historical record of first contact by Western Europeans, and that does give us some insights, although through the biased lens of 18th and 19th century Westerner's who weren't operating under Star Trek's Prime Directive, to say the least. :)
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
A practicing Christian lacks objectivity though, right?
No human being is completely objective. Certainly some people are more irrational than others. But we all have biologically built into us certain patterns of thought that are simply instinctual and don't hold up under testing. Becoming aware of these irrational tendencies can help a person overcome them.

The following video series examines each of these instinctual thought processes, one per video, giving the valid scientific research that has shown these kinds of assumptions to be quite contrary to what reality actually is. The videos include:
  • informational influence
  • insufficient justification
  • confirmation bias
  • misinformation effect
  • compliance techniques
  • hallucinations
  • projection
  • need for closure
  • agenticity
 

Madsaac

Active Member
I think you're mischaracterizing how animism and polytheism work here (it really isn't about "explaining" things), but that is not atypical for those who were indoctrinated into the more common Western intellectual/religious traditions. I would encourage you to spend some time listening to animists and polytheists if you're interested in understanding these theologies on their own terms. Or not. Most folks just opt for not, so that's okay too. I'm used to these being routinely mischaracterized such that I just can't afford to care about it. :shrug:

I probably won't but I'm willing to admit I have limited knowledge on the animism and polytheism. However, the fact remains that a giant leap of faith is required to believe in it, considering there is no 'scientific' evidence supporting it's existence.

It doesn't sound too bad because you guys would care for the environment?
 

Madsaac

Active Member
How do you know we didn't? How do you know that animals - some of whom mourn and hold funerals - don't believe in gods either?

Don't know for sure but if you consider all of the evidence (Don't ask me because I don't know) from the experts in the field, scientists etc, and all things being equal, it is very unlikely animals believe in god
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I probably won't but I'm willing to admit I have limited knowledge on the animism and polytheism. However, the fact remains that a giant leap of faith is required to believe in it, considering there is no 'scientific' evidence supporting it's existence.
The same is true of monotheism.
 

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
Don't know for sure but if you consider all of the evidence (Don't ask me because I don't know) from the experts in the field, scientists etc, and all things being equal, it is very unlikely animals believe in god
Science isn't necessarily a tool that can measure the spiritual. Studying the social patterns of animals might turn up some behaviors, such as funerals and mourning, that indicate some belief in spirituality.

So I don't think we've much reason to say that it's unlikely; it wouldn't be worship like we worship, but that means very little.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
I probably won't but I'm willing to admit I have limited knowledge on the animism and polytheism. However, the fact remains that a giant leap of faith is required to believe in it, considering there is no 'scientific' evidence supporting it's existence.

It doesn't sound too bad because you guys would care for the environment?
Ah, so an adherent of scientism it seems - "science" is the sole purveyor of truth and knowledge? Definitely not a fan - it ironically undermines the very sciences it worships - but to each their own and that's neither here nor there. It somewhat explains the challenge in understanding ways of knowing beyond the limitations of the sciences, though.

I wouldn't describe my religion as faith-based at all - I actually arrived at it through a combination of love for sciences and the arts plus a whole lot of life experience. For me it was absolutely grounded in reverence for nature, though that is not necessarily the case for all who adopt a polytheistic or animistic perspective. As with all religion, there's a lot of diversity within indigenous and Pagan traditions as well. In at least some cases, practicing Pagans don't even consider what they do a religion, though I tend to view that as partially symptomatic of how Western (specifically, Protestant Christian) notions of religion have really biased our notions of what religion is.

Wherever your path of truth and meaning takes you, enjoy the journey!
 
Ah, so an adherent of scientism it seems - "science" is the sole purveyor of truth and knowledge? Definitely not a fan - it ironically undermines the very sciences it worships - but to each their own and that's neither here nor there. It somewhat explains the challenge in understanding ways of knowing beyond the limitations of the sciences, though.

I wouldn't describe my religion as faith-based at all - I actually arrived at it through a combination of love for sciences and the arts plus a whole lot of life experience. For me it was absolutely grounded in reverence for nature, though that is not necessarily the case for all who adopt a polytheistic or animistic perspective. As with all religion, there's a lot of diversity within indigenous and Pagan traditions as well. In at least some cases, practicing Pagans don't even consider what they do a religion, though I tend to view that as partially symptomatic of how Western (specifically, Protestant Christian) notions of religion have really biased our notions of what religion is.

Wherever your path of truth and meaning takes you, enjoy the journey!

Hi Quintessence,

I know I'm the new guy and this reply is not to me but I am confused. You don't like science? Can I give you a quick example to ponder? The values of fundamental physical constants like the strength of gravity, electromagnetism, and the masses of elementary particles also seem finely calibrated. Super calibrated. If the Big Bang just happened and there was no "dark energy" then the universe wouldn't have halted expanding long enough for us to come about. Technically I think dark energy grew enough to overcome gravity but not sure its important. (It's a super good argument for god btw like the universe seems designed for us... we are carbon-based creatures and carbon came about when? etc etc)

So I think one of the current popular ways out of this problem is the multiverse theory where many universes exist with all things tuned differently and you don't need to look for why our universe is tuned this way it's just where we happen to find ourselves. The other universes are out there but we can't go there. It's an unfalsifiable theory and those types of theories tend to stall all science. (Although like the ancient Greeks, many modern scientists have become poets rather than what we're used to in other fields)

One example that comes to mind is Darwin. He didn't get caught up in predicting alien life or future species of finches but just laid out a basic theory that explains why all life on Earth is changing in the way that is. (I haven't explored this topic in years but I think he also came up with humans were simultaneously evolving with our fellow animals and the markers are forever trapped in our bodies or something like that)

This is all a long-winded post of Why don't you think science holds the answer? I want to know why the universe is so finely tuned for us and find the multiverse explanation so powerful but there is nothing there to explain our situation except something like all possible values were tried and this is the one you are in.

Not attacking you but curious.

Hope all is well!
 
Last edited:
Top