The origins of religion

[TagliatelliMonster]

Other threads have prompted some random thoughts on this subject.

I look back on my own Catholic upbringing and consider how much influence it had over my perspective for many years while growing up. A lot of ideas about God and religion were drilled into me at an early age - as it has been for generations for thousands of years. So, with many of us, it just becomes part of our upbringing and the overall culture around us.

Of course, some people overcome this and do not believe in the existence of some supernatural deity or deities.

I'll admit I'm no expert on the history of religion, but I was wondering at what point did humans go from having no religion to conceiving that such a thing might be possible. I'm not thinking of any particular religion today, but more along the lines of ancient religions which have possibly fallen into the dustbins of history.

I can see how it might happen, perhaps when early humans were faced with natural phenomena they couldn't understand or explain. And humans can be very creative and imaginative. Humans make stuff up.

Someone in another thread asked where the universe came from, because (in the OP's opinion) "it must have had a starting point." I guess I'm asking the same thing about religion.

Was religion even necessary in human social and cultural development? Would human civilization be more advanced today if religion never existed?

I think that to answer this question, we need to dig deeper to find out what religion is at its core. I'm guessing plenty of theists will disagree here, but from my perspective, the very core of religion is superstitious beliefs.

So to me the real question is, why are humans prone to engage in superstitious beliefs?

One possible answer, that I find very compelling btw, is psychology and evolution. And not just human psychology, because plenty of animals seem to be prone to engaging in superstitious beliefs (cfr: the pidgeon experiment).

Us animals, especially those that tend to be the target of dangerous predators, are extremely prone to making type 1 cognition errors. The so called "false positive".

There's this illustrative example I came across several times, to show how this works.

Consider this setting:
You are a primitive human ancestor on the plains of Africa, eating some berries. You here a rustling in the bushes behind you. Is it just the wind? Or is it a dangerous predator sneaking up on you?
What is your response?

You can do several things:
- assume it's a predator and run like hell.
- assume it's just the wind and continue eating your berries
- approach the bush to gather more data to confirm if it's indeed the wind or a predator

If it's a dangerous predator and you didn't run as a first reaction, then you are lunch. You're dead. You won't be spreading your genes.
If you DO run - then you live, no matter if it was a predator or not.

If you run and there was no predator, then you have just comitted a type 1 error: the false positive. You assumed the predator was there while it wasn't.

We humans are descendents of those that are more prone to make that error.

There's more.... It's not just a false positive here. We infuse "intent" and "agency" into that rustling in the bushes. We assume it's a predator out to get us. This is where god-beliefs come from. We attribute seemingly random events around us to an agent and assume we are the target of that agent.



The idea is, that both of these factors (the false positive and the tendency to infuse intent and agency into events) form the foundation for the birth of religions.

Eventually, as religions and societies developped, a lot more stuff was added to it and it became rather central in how societies got organized, or how it informed culture etc. At the very core though, that's what it is, imo.

Cognition errors and a tendency to infuse intent and agency in seemingly random events, leading to a to holding (and inventing) superstitious beliefs.


I can't call belief in the supernatural, anything other then superstition.

 

[Augustus]

What's irrational about it?

The fact that it isn't based on reason or evidence, just ideological prejudice.

Even today, much religion is clearly a scam operated for the benefit of clergy. Just look at the american megachurch phenomenon. Just think of the buzz that mullahs must get when they send thousands to do murder.

As for the rest it's more like a chain letter where most of the perpetrators are victims themselves. Even when the originators of the scams have been dust for millemia.

Religion is one of the most ubiquitous things in human societies, and primitive religions were not remotely comparable to US megachurches.

The idea that these all began because thousands of stone age scoundrels fancied free chickens from their neighbours and consciously made up a religious narrative that they knew to be false out of narrow, calculated self-interest and then everyone else just went "cool story bro, have a chicken" is inane.

 

[Augustus]

And what do those have to do with religion?

They facilitate social cooperation between large groups of people.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I believe on other planets having life as well. I don't believe there is life on every planet, as Baha'is do, but somewhere, sure. But as to the nature of perception of God out there, who knows? I dislike projcting beliefs onto other people here, let alone to other planets. I think this life form we're experiencing here on this planet to be relatively unique, and we'd need a planet quite similar to this one to have similar experiences as the soul gets here in these dense physical bodies.

We’ll find out sooner or later I guess.

 

[Vinayaka]

We’ll find out sooner or later I guess.

We? The Baha'i? You and me? Souls? Individuals in these bodies?

Find out what?

 

[loverofhumanity]

We? The Baha'i? You and me? Souls? Individuals in these bodies?

Find out what?

Oh sorry. Thanks for picking me up. I was referring to intelligent beings on other worlds. That when we develop the capability to reach the stars and planets then we’ll find out if there’s similar life to us out there or not.

 

[Vinayaka]

Oh sorry. Thanks for picking me up. I was referring to intelligent beings on other worlds. That when we develop the capability to reach the stars and planets then we’ll find out if there’s similar life to us out there or not.

So the 'we' was intelligent beings on other planets? I still don't understand it, unless you're claiming you're a space alien.

The pronoun 'we' is used by other Baha'i here, and it's really confusing for me, and maybe some others. It seems as if you are projecting your Baha'i beliefs onto all folks. I personally don't believe that humanity as it stands on this planet today will ever find out, other than the planets of this solar system, which, according to Baha'i are all inhabited. I believe this planet will be destroyed before that happens.

 

[Quintessence]

The question is challenged by the problem of defining what "religion" means. To no small degree, the way in which English-speaking (Western) folks think about religion is strongly shaped and biased by what religion looks like in their cultures. As has been mentioned off-and-on elsewhere in the thread already, religion as understood through Abrahamic monotheistic norms doesn't track well outside of that framework. So when we ask about the origins of religion, which religions do we mean? What is religion?

Whatever religion is, the phenomena is generally regarded as an inevitable and inseparable facet of all human cultures throughout history - at least as far back as can be documented. In that respect, to ask if it was necessary is besides the point. Religion simply must be and barring some some very fundamental evolutionary changes of the human species, it will always be.

 

[Looncall]

The question is challenged by the problem of defining what "religion" means. To no small degree, the way in which English-speaking (Western) folks think about religion is strongly shaped and biased by what religion looks like in their cultures. As has been mentioned off-and-on elsewhere in the thread already, religion as understood through Abrahamic monotheistic norms doesn't track well outside of that framework. So when we ask about the origins of religion, which religions do we mean? What is religion?

Whatever religion is, the phenomena is generally regarded as an inevitable and inseparable facet of all human cultures throughout history - at least as far back as can be documented. In that respect, to ask if it was necessary is besides the point. Religion simply must be and barring some some very fundamental evolutionary changes of the human species, it will always be.

I dare say you are correct. However, all this has no bearing on whether any religion is true. You would wind up with the same result if religion comes from some miswiring of our brains. It doesn't follow that we are obliged to put up with it.

 

[Marcion]

The question is challenged by the problem of defining what "religion" means. To no small degree, the way in which English-speaking (Western) folks think about religion is strongly shaped and biased by what religion looks like in their cultures. As has been mentioned off-and-on elsewhere in the thread already, religion as understood through Abrahamic monotheistic norms doesn't track well outside of that framework. So when we ask about the origins of religion, which religions do we mean? What is religion?

Whatever religion is, the phenomena is generally regarded as an inevitable and inseparable facet of all human cultures throughout history - at least as far back as can be documented. In that respect, to ask if it was necessary is besides the point. Religion simply must be and barring some some very fundamental evolutionary changes of the human species, it will always be.

Religion should not be confused with spirituality. We can well do without religions as they are mainly an imaginative or cultural invention within the Abrahamic way of thinking. So the question should rather be 'what is spirituality?' or 'what are spiritual practices?'. The origins of spirituality have both Tantric (more practical) and Vedic (more theoretical) roots and the latter are much less important because their effects on the spiritual development of individuals are less significant.

 

[Quintessence]

I dare say you are correct. However, all this has no bearing on whether any religion is true. You would wind up with the same result if religion comes from some miswiring of our brains. It doesn't follow that we are obliged to put up with it.

Indeed. For the most part, though, the function and importance of religion isn't really about truth value - or at least not in the sense that I wager you probably mean. That is to say, religions are more in the business of creating truth value in mythos sense than a logos sense. In case it isn't clear what I mean from that, I'm borrowing some lingo from Armstrong:

"In most pre-modern cultures, there were two recognised ways of attaining truth. The Greeks called them mythos and logos. Both were crucial and each had its particular sphere of competence. Logos ("reason; science") was the pragmatic mode of thought that enabled us to control our environment and function in the world. It had, therefore, to correspond accurately to external realities. But logos could not assuage human grief or give people intimations that their lives had meaning. For that they turned to mythos, an early form of psychology, which dealt with the more elusive aspects of human experience."
Metaphysical mistake | Karen Armstrong​

The distinction becomes especially important because while the truth value of logos is generally going to be constant (that is, gravity is gravity no matter what you believe about it), the truth value of mythos is very cultural and/or personal in nature. In this sense, asking if a religion is "true" makes less sense, because the truth value is dependent on the individual person. What works (or is true) for one is not for another.

Religion should not be confused with spirituality. We can well do without religions as they are mainly an imaginative or cultural invention within the Abrahamic way of thinking. So the question should rather be 'what is spirituality?' or 'what are spiritual practices?'. The origins of spirituality have both Tantric (more practical) and Vedic (more theoretical) roots and the latter are much less important because their effects on the spiritual development of individuals are less significant.

Personally, I don't recognize any distinction between "religion" and "spirituality." I take this position in no small part because I do not believe religion equates to "Abrahamic way of thinking." The whole "religion versus spirituality" thing emerged within the last two centuries in Western thought because of dissatisfaction with organizational and dogmatic structures of Christian traditions. It does not apply well outside of that framework, and as a non-Abrahamic (and by extension non-Christian) I find little reason to abide by the distinction.

 

[Marcion]

Personally, I don't recognize any distinction between "religion" and "spirituality." I take this position in no small part because I do not believe religion equates to "Abrahamic way of thinking." The whole "religion versus spirituality" thing emerged within the last two centuries in Western thought because of dissatisfaction with organizational and dogmatic structures of Christian traditions. It does not apply well outside of that framework, and as a non-Abrahamic (and by extension non-Christian) I find little reason to abide by the distinction.

Well, we must agree to disagree on this point. Outside of the Abrahamic way of thinking the idea of religion simply did not exist before let's say two centuries ago. People focussed on dharma, which is something quite different from religion. Of course there is also spirituality within religious settings, but spirituality does not need religion as a frame. The growing awareness of this difference between the two in the West is to be applauded. People are realising more and more that it matters not if you adopt a religious framework in your life or not.

 

[InChrist]

Where does a cell get its nourishment? You are not thinking in terms of life but of humanity.

Of course I'm thinking of humanity. You said..."We are born blank, spiritual and religious thought are learned from parents, friends, schooling etc.". So where did the first humans who were born blank learn spiritual and religious ideas from?

 

[JChnsc19]

Other threads have prompted some random thoughts on this subject.

I look back on my own Catholic upbringing and consider how much influence it had over my perspective for many years while growing up. A lot of ideas about God and religion were drilled into me at an early age - as it has been for generations for thousands of years. So, with many of us, it just becomes part of our upbringing and the overall culture around us.

Of course, some people overcome this and do not believe in the existence of some supernatural deity or deities.

I'll admit I'm no expert on the history of religion, but I was wondering at what point did humans go from having no religion to conceiving that such a thing might be possible. I'm not thinking of any particular religion today, but more along the lines of ancient religions which have possibly fallen into the dustbins of history.

I can see how it might happen, perhaps when early humans were faced with natural phenomena they couldn't understand or explain. And humans can be very creative and imaginative. Humans make stuff up.

Someone in another thread asked where the universe came from, because (in the OP's opinion) "it must have had a starting point." I guess I'm asking the same thing about religion.

Was religion even necessary in human social and cultural development? Would human civilization be more advanced today if religion never existed?

There’s an excellent YouTube lecture on this titled Why We Believe In Gods by Andy Thompson. I know he’s a psychiatrist, not sure what else

 

[ChristineM]

Of course I'm thinking of humanity. You said..."We are born blank, spiritual and religious thought are learned from parents, friends, schooling etc.". So where did the first humans who were born blank learn spiritual and religious ideas from?

Humanity evolved. Ultimately from a single cell.

 

[Looncall]

Of course I'm thinking of humanity. You said..."We are born blank, spiritual and religious thought are learned from parents, friends, schooling etc.". So where did the first humans who were born blank learn spiritual and religious ideas from?

Those ideas were made up to cope with their ignorance, assisted by innate, but practical, errors of thinking, such as assigning agency where there is none.

 

[InChrist]

Humanity evolved. Ultimately from a single cell.

I don't believe humans evolved from a single cell, but nevertheless, how, when, or who came up with the first idea of God or spiritual thoughts?

 

[InChrist]

Those ideas were made up to cope with their ignorance, assisted by innate, but practical, errors of thinking, such as assigning agency where there is none.

In general, it seems people don't usually consider themselves ignorant. Most people seem to think of themselves as capable, intelligent, and in control of their lives. Why would people make up such an idea of a God who is more powerful, who they couldn't see, or to whom they would be accountable? I don't think it is reasonable that anyone would come up with such an idea or Being.

 

[ChristineM]

I don't believe humans evolved from a single cell, but nevertheless, how, when, or who came up with the first idea of God or spiritual thoughts?

Belief is just that, belief, evidence on the other hand is overwhelming.

How? Perhaps a development of ancestor or animal worship?

When? It seems from writings that the first god were envisioned around 3200 bc

Who? I dont know his name but the god(ess) was Inana, the Sumerian goddess of fertility and war although there may be Hindu gods that predate the Sumerian gods

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Common sense tells me that man was not an accident. I know that our existence is not accident.

It's not an accident. We are here because the parts added up and here we are. Ever play with molecular toys, like balls and sticks and stuff where you can make your own molecular models? Well, life is like that: there are only so many configurations and source materials. We are what you get when those things are there. It's not an "accident", even if it's not guided by sentience. An accident would be to have 2 hydrogens and an oxygen and get gold out of it. It will never happen. It's not how atoms work.

As to the OP, religion seems to be a fixation on certain assumptions about reality, starting with the most basic: walk this way to get this result and walk that way to get that result. That kind of thing. It doesn't matter if how you walked was the deciding factor. You assumed so therefore it was. Once life started showing you exceptions, you couldn't decide walking wasn't the factor, so you add on that a person of some sort must also sign off on it somehow.

I suspect that religion arose when prehistoric scoundrels found they could escape the daily grind of survival by pretending to talk to gods.

It's more likely that tribal leaders or cultural heroes or inventors were simply deified after death. There are people with Trump is Jesus bumper stickers out there right now and he isn't even dead yet. You go from liking to honoring to worshiping.

Remember, gods weren't omnimax back in the day. They were more limited both in power scope and jurisdiction. That they even HAD jurisdictions tells me we're dealing with tribal fixations about a certain leader or something. A chieftain saying they are a god didn't mean they created the universe. They usually just meant they were an awesome fighter or they made something cool or they allowed a city to grow or whatever. The god bar was set kinda low.

And where did the first ones who were born blank learn spiritual and religious ideas from?

Like our psychology, there's likely a maturation process combined with learned/evolved behaviors.

Antilopes don't have a religion, do they?

How are we going to ask? Even if we can find a common language, given that religions vary wildly, we couldn't be sure we are on the same wavelength regarding assumptions, priorities, etc. We may think an antelope is religious if it believes in life after death. They might just pray for big horns.

And what do those have to do with religion?

A single person would likely be an animist. A small group of people might worship a parental god(dess) with authority over a small group of spirits/gods/whatever. A giant group, like a city, will need "heavenly" examples of how to structure society, so "myths" will be born to use as examples.

So where did the first humans who were born blank learn spiritual and religious ideas from?

From their barely-human parents.

Why would people make up such an idea of a God who is more powerful, who they couldn't see, or to whom they would be accountable?

That didn't seem to be the first gods.