Purpose and motivation behind the creation of religion

[an anarchist]

So, what is the scientific opinion behind the creation of religion?
I put this in the science and religion section because this OP will assume that no religion is divinely inspired.
(My opinion) When Zoroaster started Zoroastrianism, he wasn’t really in contact with “God” himself like he claims. Is it supposed he was delusional? Or, was there a specific purpose behind creating the religion? Like, is it assumed religions came to be out of cultural and political necessity? Zoroastrianism teaches to do good thoughts, good words, and good deeds. Was there perhaps a cultural necessity for this teaching?
Is there ill intent involved? Those who wrote the pages of the Bible, did they intend to mislead masses of people into believing the book was from God Himself? What about Mohammed and the Quran? Was he delusional, or was his religion necessary to unite the Arab tribes under one banner?
What is the scholarly opinion of how and why religions came to be?
I’ve been a theist up until recently, so I always generally assumed that people who created religions were genuinely divinely inspired. Now that I don’t believe that really, I’m left scratching my head wondering how and why these religions came to be.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Genuine confusion and desperation, along with fear.

Religious thoughts (what happens to our consciousness after we die? How does lightning happen? Why are summers hot and winters cold? How did the first of our ancestors come to be? How (and why) did all of these berry bushes come to be? Etc….) seem to have originated tens of thousands of years ago.
Lacking answers, stories were made up.

These fanciful tales have grown over the millennia, until writing was invented. Then they started to get jotted down into initial drafts of what we call “religions”. Since the books were more permanent than just ‘the stories the elders tell us’, they could be reliably transmitted from place to place, and those who disagreed could be ‘educated’ or otherwise ‘dealt with’ . The more successfully widespread writings became dogma.

 

[vulcanlogician]

The religions you mentioned are highly developed religions. The short answer about how some religions were "created" is that they grew out of more basic pagan or animistic belief systems. In the case of a religion with a founder, like Zoroaster or Mohammed, it's up for scholars to debate on why they settled on the doctrines they did.

It's hard to prove something like "ill intent" or "mental instability" in an ancient religious figure. But that doesn't mean we should take them at their word either.

 

[Heyo]

So, what is the scientific opinion behind the creation of religion?
I put this in the science and religion section because this OP will assume that no religion is divinely inspired.
(My opinion) When Zoroaster started Zoroastrianism, he wasn’t really in contact with “God” himself like he claims. Is it supposed he was delusional? Or, was there a specific purpose behind creating the religion? Like, is it assumed religions came to be out of cultural and political necessity? Zoroastrianism teaches to do good thoughts, good words, and good deeds. Was there perhaps a cultural necessity for this teaching?
Is there ill intent involved? Those who wrote the pages of the Bible, did they intend to mislead masses of people into believing the book was from God Himself? What about Mohammed and the Quran? Was he delusional, or was his religion necessary to unite the Arab tribes under one banner?
What is the scholarly opinion of how and why religions came to be?
I’ve been a theist up until recently, so I always generally assumed that people who created religions were genuinely divinely inspired. Now that I don’t believe that really, I’m left scratching my head wondering how and why these religions came to be.

As far as I know there is no consensus about the matter, nor that there has to be a single cause.

That said, my favourite hypothesis is that from prehistoric times on there were people who exploited the superstitions of their fellow tribes folk. They realized that, by claiming to know what they couldn't, they could gain prestige and food ("sacrifices").
This secret from the early shamans evolved into the priesthood of the first historic civilizations and culminated into the mega churches and "prosperity gospels" of today.

 

[Nimos]

Is there ill intent involved?

I don't think the religions had ill intentions originally, I do however think that in certain cases, humans being humans figured out how to exploit them and the power and influence that could come with them.

But I think religion in ancient times served a lot of purposes and could also be seen as a precursor to science, despite not following any method, I think religions were how they in many ways could explain the world they lived it. Imagine a society where people didn't go to school, universities and only a very little part of the population would have something we could refer to as being an education. Sharing knowledge and ideas were an extremely slow process, so all in all, I really think that they believed that it was the best explanation for how the world worked, also given that we see religions all over the world, could indicate that if it were all just a "scam" it would be weird if this worked everywhere and we see a huge difference in what these people believed in.

Another think is that it obviously helped controlling people to follow certain rules, it also unite them in terms of traditions and rituals/ceremonies etc. So I think people were very much into it and took it very seriously, but even today we have people that claim to have interacted with God(s) etc. And I don't think it were any different back then, it might even have been more common I would think.

Without knowing it, I think people would have discussed religions and Gods a lot more than we do today and over time these ideas turned into rules and "knowledge" about the Gods. It might even have served as a sort of entertainment as well, sharing stories and tales etc. But probably also to some degree highly political, in terms of what set Gods would accept and not accept, what would they think were justice, moral etc.

Looking at the bible for instance and even ancient Egyptian religion, we can see ideas of medicine and hygiene. For instance they have found ancient Egyptians art showing circumcision, which could indicate that the Jews got the idea from them.

The bible is filled with history, laws and epic tales, morality, creation etc.

So at least to me, it could look like religions served a whole lot of different purposes, which were simply combined into one huge thing or a guideline for a society. But as we have people today that can figure out how to exploit the laws and other people, I think they would have done the same.

 

[sun rise]

What is the scholarly opinion of how and why religions came to be?

Some thoughts. First, look at the creation of cargo cults. People saw what looked like magic including delivery of tasty food etc and created a religion in order to try to ensure that the goodies would come again. The pilots of the planes were not trying to create a religion.

Also look at what happens with celebrity culture. Someone becomes famous and is adored by people who then imitate the star because they want to be like their idol. So people start dressing like the famous person, acting like that person etc. This shows up as repetition of things that the founder did during his lifetime without knowledge of why the founder did what he did and with the assumption that what was done then should continue to be done through all eternity.

Then later on we have ordinary people with ordinary motives who see in the religion a way to get power, wealth, sex etc and twist the teachings to satisfy their desires.

As I've seen in Star Trek culture, people also start fighting over what is true Star Trek and what is not. People like me who enjoy Trek and watch it have seen fights over what is "real" Trek and what is "JJ Trek"

Whatever one thinks of Jesus, Buddha etc, a lot of what we see in religion can be attributed to the nature of people at the time the person lived and afterwards.

I'm not arguing that those who a religion is based on were not divine, far from it. And I'm not arguing that they did not have teachings that they wanted people to follow. But I am trying to dissect those teachings from the religions that sprang up after them.

 

[MikeF]

So, what is the scientific opinion behind the creation of religion?
I put this in the science and religion section because this OP will assume that no religion is divinely inspired.
(My opinion) When Zoroaster started Zoroastrianism, he wasn’t really in contact with “God” himself like he claims. Is it supposed he was delusional? Or, was there a specific purpose behind creating the religion? Like, is it assumed religions came to be out of cultural and political necessity? Zoroastrianism teaches to do good thoughts, good words, and good deeds. Was there perhaps a cultural necessity for this teaching?
Is there ill intent involved? Those who wrote the pages of the Bible, did they intend to mislead masses of people into believing the book was from God Himself? What about Mohammed and the Quran? Was he delusional, or was his religion necessary to unite the Arab tribes under one banner?
What is the scholarly opinion of how and why religions came to be?
I’ve been a theist up until recently, so I always generally assumed that people who created religions were genuinely divinely inspired. Now that I don’t believe that really, I’m left scratching my head wondering how and why these religions came to be.

You might be interested in the book "The Evolution of God" by Robert Wright. The thesis of the book is to show the evolution of religious thought from our earliest Animistic beliefs to the present day monotheistic traditions.

I see religious thought as a product of humanities fear of the unknown and a compelling need to control the uncontrollable. What form religious thought takes evolves and grows over time with our growing understanding of how the world works. It seems to represent the boundary of our understanding.

 

[vulcanlogician]

As I've seen in Star Trek culture, people also start fighting over what is true Star Trek and what is not. People like me who enjoy Trek and watch it have seen fights over what is "real" Trek and what is "JJ Trek"

Are you saying that JJ Trek deserves equal consideration with real Trek?

Infidel!

 

[InChrist]

So, what is the scientific opinion behind the creation of religion?
I put this in the science and religion section because this OP will assume that no religion is divinely inspired.
(My opinion) When Zoroaster started Zoroastrianism, he wasn’t really in contact with “God” himself like he claims. Is it supposed he was delusional? Or, was there a specific purpose behind creating the religion? Like, is it assumed religions came to be out of cultural and political necessity? Zoroastrianism teaches to do good thoughts, good words, and good deeds. Was there perhaps a cultural necessity for this teaching?
Is there ill intent involved? Those who wrote the pages of the Bible, did they intend to mislead masses of people into believing the book was from God Himself? What about Mohammed and the Quran? Was he delusional, or was his religion necessary to unite the Arab tribes under one banner?
What is the scholarly opinion of how and why religions came to be?
I’ve been a theist up until recently, so I always generally assumed that people who created religions were genuinely divinely inspired. Now that I don’t believe that really, I’m left scratching my head wondering how and why these religions came to be.

I think various religions came about because religion is one of satan’s chief tools to distract humans from a living relationship with the Creator of heaven and earth. By inspiring people to come up with religious ideas or practices, satan gets people focused on rituals, rules, effort, power, control, division, and many other things, rather than knowing God and His love.

 

[ChristineM]

From my understanding from the study of early European modern humans (cro magnon) who lived 10,000 or more years before the more modern religions got a foot hold there religion was nature and animalism. They praised what gave up its life to feed and clothe them. Even before that, Neanderthal worshipped ancestors burying them in special places along with important items from their life.

I see no reason this was not the case in the middle east too.

Later religion i think was built out of greed and power over the people.

 

[Mock Turtle]

So, what is the scientific opinion behind the creation of religion?
I put this in the science and religion section because this OP will assume that no religion is divinely inspired.
(My opinion) When Zoroaster started Zoroastrianism, he wasn’t really in contact with “God” himself like he claims. Is it supposed he was delusional? Or, was there a specific purpose behind creating the religion? Like, is it assumed religions came to be out of cultural and political necessity? Zoroastrianism teaches to do good thoughts, good words, and good deeds. Was there perhaps a cultural necessity for this teaching?
Is there ill intent involved? Those who wrote the pages of the Bible, did they intend to mislead masses of people into believing the book was from God Himself? What about Mohammed and the Quran? Was he delusional, or was his religion necessary to unite the Arab tribes under one banner?
What is the scholarly opinion of how and why religions came to be?
I’ve been a theist up until recently, so I always generally assumed that people who created religions were genuinely divinely inspired. Now that I don’t believe that really, I’m left scratching my head wondering how and why these religions came to be.

As with so many others, I think that religions developed for a number of different reasons, with one being that humans do have a tendency to look for meaning and explanation in so many areas - as to which no doubt being why we have developed so much more than most or all other species (given that we have provided so many answers) - to the extent of dominating over other life to a great extent. Whether such explanations were factual or not possibly hardly matters if they were more useful than having no such explanations. This is debatable however.

But the fact that many more now can live without these beliefs possibly indicates that we (they) have matured enough to accept that we can live with more unknowns than we could ever do before. And one advantage of such understanding is that this probably tends to give us more freedom - as to what we might want to see as any future for humans (and other life) - unlike so many religious beliefs that are essentially tied to the past. And where so many do conflict.

Of course we will not all have the same vision as to how we would want to see human progress, and religions are hindering such cohesiveness to a large extent, but that is just one effect of having our needs as to explanations and meaning fulfilled - the desire to have such even over any truths. But if we weren't so beholden to religions then we might possibly become more aligned as to what we do want.

 

[Native]

So, what is the scientific opinion behind the creation of religion?

It´s almost given in advance with this posted question. Modern science is in general not even inclined to judge this at all.

"Purpose and motivation behind the creation of religion"?
The word "religion" describes a "mutual connected relationship": "re" and "legion"

"Religion" in itself is not "a creation" but the empirical result of humans all over the world, noticing the terrestrial and celestial rhythms and how natural seasons provides all goods for humans.

The very purpose is individual and tribal survival and growth in a sustainable way. This natural balance hasn´t succeeded in many cultures, and it is also threatened in this actual time.

The mutual relationship-connection with nature is about to be lost, hence "science" must have more natural philosophical approach and not least, more empathy for nature on planet Earth.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, what is the scientific opinion behind the creation of religion?
I put this in the science and religion section because this OP will assume that no religion is divinely inspired.
(My opinion) When Zoroaster started Zoroastrianism, he wasn’t really in contact with “God” himself like he claims. Is it supposed he was delusional? Or, was there a specific purpose behind creating the religion? Like, is it assumed religions came to be out of cultural and political necessity? Zoroastrianism teaches to do good thoughts, good words, and good deeds. Was there perhaps a cultural necessity for this teaching?
Is there ill intent involved? Those who wrote the pages of the Bible, did they intend to mislead masses of people into believing the book was from God Himself? What about Mohammed and the Quran? Was he delusional, or was his religion necessary to unite the Arab tribes under one banner?
What is the scholarly opinion of how and why religions came to be?
I’ve been a theist up until recently, so I always generally assumed that people who created religions were genuinely divinely inspired. Now that I don’t believe that really, I’m left scratching my head wondering how and why these religions came to be.

I don't think there's any science underpinning such things.
At best, there's science that can explain things like why animals (not just humans) are prone to superstitious beliefs - which religious beliefs would fall under. Like type 2 cognition errors and alike and why animals (especially those that are the favorite lunch of some dangerous predator) are prone to engage in it.


Having said that, I think you ask the wrong question. The correct question, imo, is why people tend to engage in magical thinking; self-delusion etc. And the answer would idd be found in those psychological "shortcomings", like being prone to cognition errors (for very good survival reasons).


And having said that..... in my opinion the vast majority of people who start religions or who claim to be prophets in already existing religions etc, are quite sincere. I think they really believe what they say and claim. I think those who are deliberate con-men are a minority - and those certainly also exist.


I think most people for the most part are always sincere when it comes to such things.
Take claimed alien abductees. Sure, some of them are just attention seekers. Many aren't. They REALLY believe that they have been kidnapped by aliens. To the point that they will pass lie detector tests.

People are honestly mistaken and delusional all the time. For various reasons.

Sometimes it's just psychological error (like cognition errors), other times it's medical (somatic induced hallucination), other times it's hallucination due to drugs, other times it's good old sleep depravation. Even fever can give you hallucinations.

Any of these are common, and plausible, explanations for the fantastical claims people make and the fantastical beliefs that they hold.

 

[Native]

I don't think there's any science underpinning such things.
At best, there's science that can explain things like why animals (not just humans) are prone to superstitious beliefs - which religious beliefs would fall under. Like type 2 cognition errors and alike and why animals (especially those that are the favorite lunch of some dangerous predator) are prone to engage in it.


Having said that, I think you ask the wrong question. The correct question, imo, is why people tend to engage in magical thinking; self-delusion etc. And the answer would idd be found in those psychological "shortcomings", like being prone to cognition errors (for very good survival reasons).

And having said that..... in my opinion the vast majority of people who start religions or who claim to be prophets in already existing religions etc, are quite sincere. I think they really believe what they say and claim. I think those who are deliberate con-men are a minority - and those certainly also exist.

I think most people for the most part are always sincere when it comes to such things.
Take claimed alien abductees. Sure, some of them are just attention seekers. Many aren't. They REALLY believe that they have been kidnapped by aliens. To the point that they will pass lie detector tests.

People are honestly mistaken and delusional all the time. For various reasons.

Sometimes it's just psychological error (like cognition errors), other times it's medical (somatic induced hallucination), other times it's hallucination due to drugs, other times it's good old sleep depravation. Even fever can give you hallucinations.

Any of these are common, and plausible, explanations for the fantastical claims people make and the fantastical beliefs that they hold.

There you go again, showing off your ignorance and simply repeating what other non spiritual beings have expressed, just because they´ve cut off the right side part of their brains.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There you go again, showing off your ignorance and simply repeating what other non spiritual beings have expressed, just because they´ve cut off the right side part of their brains.

Great empty assertion comeback to a post where I honestly express my opinion while explaining the reasoning.

Not that I expected anything else from you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't think there's any science underpinning such things.
At best, there's science that can explain things like why animals (not just humans) are prone to superstitious beliefs - which religious beliefs would fall under. Like type 2 cognition errors and alike and why animals (especially those that are the favorite lunch of some dangerous predator) are prone to engage in it.


Having said that, I think you ask the wrong question. The correct question, imo, is why people tend to engage in magical thinking; self-delusion etc. And the answer would idd be found in those psychological "shortcomings", like being prone to cognition errors (for very good survival reasons).


And having said that..... in my opinion the vast majority of people who start religions or who claim to be prophets in already existing religions etc, are quite sincere. I think they really believe what they say and claim. I think those who are deliberate con-men are a minority - and those certainly also exist.


I think most people for the most part are always sincere when it comes to such things.
Take claimed alien abductees. Sure, some of them are just attention seekers. Many aren't. They REALLY believe that they have been kidnapped by aliens. To the point that they will pass lie detector tests.

People are honestly mistaken and delusional all the time. For various reasons.

Sometimes it's just psychological error (like cognition errors), other times it's medical (somatic induced hallucination), other times it's hallucination due to drugs, other times it's good old sleep depravation. Even fever can give you hallucinations.

Any of these are common, and plausible, explanations for the fantastical claims people make and the fantastical beliefs that they hold.

But there is even more. It is a part of it, yes.

 

[Native]

Great empty assertion comeback to a post where I honestly express my opinion while explaining the reasoning.
Not that I expected anything else from you.

May I recommend you to read your own reply-post in question and note if there is anything positive and constructive in it? (I mean positive and constructive for you fellow debaters)

 

[cladking]

So, what is the scientific opinion behind the creation of religion?

There can be no scientific opinion of religion because religion springs from pre-history and no evidence survives and no scientific method can be applied. Linguistics is not science in any way shape or form.

Even were we able to understand something from pre-history the simple fact is that without understanding the nature of the consciousness that created it or even consciousness itself the results are meaningless.

You might as well ask what Sisyphus dreamed of at night or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Consult an Egyptologist. I'm sure any of them could spin a yarn that goes the whole nine yards replete with ibids and et als.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

May I recommend you to read your own reply-post in question and note if there is anything positive and constructive in it? (I mean positive and constructive for you fellow debaters)

I respond in kind.

You reap what you sow.
The day you put some effort and intellectual honesty in your responses to me is the day I will return the favor.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Even were we able to understand something from pre-history the simple fact is that without understanding the nature of the consciousness that created it or even consciousness itself the results are meaningless.

The consciousness' that created those religions were humans and we have a pretty good grasp on the psychology of humans.

And it's not like ancient pre-historic times were the only times that humans came up with new religions........
Plenty of religions were invented / expanded right before our eyes during our lifetime, as well as in the very recent past.