When Did Religions First Begin?

[Sunstone]

Recording that dream in some form probably was the first work of art.

Good point!

 

[Willamena]

Superstitions maybe?

Aren't superstitions spiritual in nature? *grin*

I mean, if we believe that things have the power to happen of their own accord, or that an unseen force is manipulating them... doesn't that sound familiar?

 

[James the Persian]

How do you figure? I'm intrigued.

Because all my experience leads me to the certainty that God exists. In order to abandon those experiences simply because I can't prove them to others would be as irrational as trying to convince myself that I didn't see the gyr falcon in Iceland simply because I was the only one up early enough that morning and nobody else did. I find the idea that all evidence must be validated by a third party to be entirely irrational (after all if that were the case I could never know myself either) and so my personal experience is as good a set of evidence as anything else is. I may not be able to convince other people that my faith is more rational than their disbelief (and nor do I try to) but the disbeliever can never show me that their position is more rational than mine either. For me the evidence for God is so overwhelming as to make denial of His existence utterly irrational, and whether anyone else sees that is utterly irrelevant.

James

 

[darkpenguin]

Aren't superstitions spiritual in nature? *grin*

I mean, if we believe that things have the power to happen of their own accord, or that an unseen force is manipulating them... doesn't that sound familiar?

Not really, they are a human irrationality, that doesn't make them spiritual.

 

[Willamena]

Not really, they are a human irrationality, that doesn't make them spiritual.

Well, as a divinologist, and perhaps at the expense of a few of my fans, I will proudly reclaim them for the spirit, here and now, and hopefully find the time to write an article about it soon.

 

[darkpenguin]

Because all my experience leads me to the certainty that God exists. In order to abandon those experiences simply because I can't prove them to others would be as irrational as trying to convince myself that I didn't see the gyr falcon in Iceland simply because I was the only one up early enough that morning and nobody else did. I find the idea that all evidence must be validated by a third party to be entirely irrational (after all if that were the case I could never know myself either) and so my personal experience is as good a set of evidence as anything else is. I may not be able to convince other people that my faith is more rational than their disbelief (and nor do I try to) but the disbeliever can never show me that their position is more rational than mine either. For me the evidence for God is so overwhelming as to make denial of His existence utterly irrational, and whether anyone else sees that is utterly irrelevant.

James

I think we are going to have to agree to dissagree as I really don't see any middle ground here and it would be pointless to carry on arguing!

 

[darkpenguin]

Well, as a divinologist, and perhaps at the expense of a few of my fans, I will proudly reclaim them for the spirit, here and now, and hopefully find the time to write an article about it soon.

Fair enough, that's your prerogative.

 

[Sunstone]

If spirituality were optional for large numbers of humans, I suspect we would have found a society by now in which it didn't exist.

 

[James the Persian]

I think we are going to have to agree to dissagree as I really don't see any middle ground here and it would be pointless to carry on arguing!

I wasn't arguing. I was explaining my position, which is that ultimately all we know of the world is subjective and that therefore to deny subjective evidence is irrational. I will cheerfully argue with you if you persist in saying that humans aren't innately spiritual as I feel that the preponderance of the evidence of history, archaeology, anthropology and psychology militates against your position, but my previous post was really an aside. You asked me to explain so I did. I don't expect you to swallow my explanation as it clearly does not fit into your (equally subjective) view of the world and I certainly have no intention of trying to convince you that my perception is clearer than yours (however convinced I might be that that is true).

James

 

[darkpenguin]

I wasn't arguing. I was explaining my position, which is that ultimately all we know of the world is subjective and that therefore to deny subjective evidence is irrational. I will cheerfully argue with you if you persist in saying that humans aren't innately spiritual as I feel that the preponderance of the evidence of history, archaeology, anthropology and psychology militates against your position, but my previous post was really an aside. You asked me to explain so I did. I don't expect you to swallow my explanation as it clearly does not fit into your (equally subjective) view of the world and I certainly have no intention of trying to convince you that my perception is clearer than yours (however convinced I might be that that is true).

James

I know but I know if we carry on it will more likely than not turn into an argument given that we havn't really agreed on much recently on the religious front. And I really don't want that, I get warnings when I really argue lol :foot:.
I respect that you see it that way and just because I don't see sense or need religion/spirituality myself I do think the world would be a much more boring place without it!
It just frustrates me that despite how inteligent we are (apparently) and all the technology we have, that we can't find out what exactly happened at the dawn of time and put all our minds at rest.
Who knows, maybe I have got it wrong or maybe not.
I guess we will all find out in some way in due time!

 

[painted wolf]

I would think that "religion" of one sort or another predates humanity.

Neandertals show good evidence of having concepts of an afterlife and ritual behavior.
If religion is a genetic inharitance like tool using culture, then it seems perfectly reasonable to surmise that our last shared common ancestor also had some form of 'religious' thought.

H. erectus and H. heidelbergenis (sp?) both show evidence of caring for the sick and elderly. Thus importance is placed on the life of others. Also some of thier artifacts are made to be 'beautiful'. Though they hadn't yet gotten to proper burials of the dead.

wa:do

 

[doppelganger]

If spirituality were optional for large numbers of humans, I suspect we would have found a society by now in which it didn't exist.

Human society requires a set of recognizable signs to communicate. To use signs to communicate, I have to have an awareness of self. Where there is an awareness of self, there is spirituality.

Thus, where there is society there is spiritual experience.

 

[painted wolf]

wow, so all animals are spiritual then... fits my religion.

wa:do

 

[charles brough]

When did religions first begin?

I personally believe they are as old as our species (at the least), which puts their origins back 160,000 years (at the least). But when do you think they began? Why?

Very close! The latest (2006) figures are that we evolved into our roughly present form almost 200,000 years ago. However, logical would seem to tell us that religion had to come after langauge, and it is possible that language developed much more recently than 160,000 years ago. We would perhaps be safe to say 100,000 years ago.

That all said and done, you raise a good question!

Possibly the Neanderthalls did have a crude religion AND a crude form of language. Being another species, that is another subject.

Language is the key. Even elephants try to take care of and show concern; it is instinctive in some higher mammals; but to attribute religion to them would be anthromorphism.

Are humans instinctively "spiritual"? This seems to be the social science conclusion in their desperate attempt to explain why we have always had religion! They claim we are "hard wired" to supersition, visions, illusions, etc. I don't have any of those things, so it makes me wonder! I once did see a mirage, but that is only a natural phenomenon.

The only reason "spirits" have been apart of religion for all these tens of thousands of years is that until now, we had nothing else that seemed able to explain why we were separate from our bodies and can tell the body what to do! So, it has always seemed to people that everything else must also have a self that tells its visible body what to do! . . . simple as that!

Now, we have science and can do without having that explain why and how we originatded and how we evolved our moral (social) nature. "Spirits" are no longer needed. We find the real cause and effect that runs things now.

charles, http://humanpurpose.simplenet.com (430 hits PER DAY in January!)

 

[Booko]

The first evidenced religion, apparently:-

Archaeologists have found pollen in with burial sites that go back very very far -- an indication that flowers were put in along with the body. I would think that had more of a religious significance than trying to cope with the smells.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

When did religions first begin?

I personally believe they are as old as our species (at the least), which puts their origins back 160,000 years (at the least). But when do you think they began? Why?

It depends on how you define religion.

Belief in God(s) began when the first human realized the sun came up every morning and the moon came up every night. Simple as that.

Institutionalized religion with rituals came about as soon as humans realized that they were prone to die, and religion connected the family(clan) to nature cycles, starting with the sun/moon cycles and advancing on to the complex Egyptian/Myan calendars.

 

[painted wolf]

not nessisarily, many of the 'oldest' religions, like that of the "bushmen"/Dobe don't have gods but a complex network of ancestor spirits.

wa:do

 

[Hema]

The oldest religion - Hinduism began with the Vedas. The Vedas are Shruti texts. Shruti literally means - what is heard. All other texts in Hinduism are Smriti - what is remembered. The Vedas are texts which comprise of information revealed directly from God to the first Saints and Sages on earth. The universe operates in cycles of creation and I have heard that the Vedas renew themselves at the beginning of each cycle.

 

[Withdrawnmist]

Me is hopefully not a contentious sheep.

In the absence of modern understanding and knowledge....it is not surprising to me that religion is old.

Without knowing the reason behind a solar ecipse, a waning moon, an earthquake, a hurricane, a shooting star, Halleys comet !!..etc etc...is it not rational to see how supernatural these events would appear to be to an early civilisation ?

Where else could they manifest themselves but in the realm of the supernatural ?...perhaps a force stronger than your own...maybe even a creator of sorts ?

in MY opinion of course.

hugs ewe

xxx

 

[gnostic]

Since I believed that the world, including mankind, existing long before the Bible's 6000 years, thus 2700 BCE, then I would have to say that prehistorical polytheistic cults are far older than any monotheistic belief.

Judaism itself, only began in the time of Moses, around 13th century BCE. There may have been monotheistic belief before that, in the time of Abraham, but there are no evidence of that except what's written in the Genesis.

Some Muslims theorised that Islam existed in the beginning of time, long before Muhammad, is without basis of fact. This is even more unrealistic than the Bible's 6000 years.

There are evidences of animism and ancestor worship around 150,000 years ago, so I have to agree with JamesThePersian on this.