Origin of religion

[Winston]

Greetings to all, this is my first thread so patience is appreciated.

-----------------------------------------------------------


While many of the debates and discussions here deal with dogma, morality, ethics, truth, etc. I've not seen any discussion about why humans seem to have a near universal need for some sort of philosophical belief system.

While there is a great range from the mushroom popping naturalism of some native americans cultures to the well defined structure of a catholic mass ceremony of european culture, they all seem to be focused on some underlying need of humans to have "something more".

Why? How does this happen? What is the origin of this need?

One theory I've encountered seem to approach an explanation, but isn't objectively provable to my knowledge.

Unwillingness to accept the unknown .

When events happen to humans that have no apparent explanation, we tend to invent one so we can "compartmentalize" the experiences. It seems humans do not like to admit they do not know, or perhaps find it difficult to exist with out some working explanation of what is unknown.

For example, lightning strikes a tree near a person 20,000 years ago and they do not understand where the lightning came from or why. The person is afraid and doesn't want that lighting to hurt them, so ignoring it is not considered an option. The person does know that it the light seemed to leap out of the sky. So it seems a natural, subjective mental leap to assume "the sky did it". The person can not control the sky. The lightning from the sky was much more powerful than the person. So it is a rational thing for the person to think that the sky caused the lightning and through anthropomorphism assume some person (read "being" here if you like) with more power caused it.

Put more simply, if humans do not know why or how, we just invent a reason as we do not like the feeling of not having a reason.

Assuming this is true, religion proceeded science as a means of explaining things we don't know the answers to.

The persistence of religion comes from this same place, there is still plenty of things we do not know and religion is a means of providing an answer that fills this knowledge void.

I for one do not “know” if there is a supreme being. The idea of one is appealing because it explains things like "why am I here" and "what is the meaning of life". By accepting a religious viewpoint, I know longer have to worry about the answers to these questions. I can accept the answers others tell me. I have knowledge that suits my need.

On the other side of that argument is the debate among philosophers about the meaning of knowledge, what really know, and what we don't. (search "epistemology" to find good examples of this).

So to over simplify my thought: “religion is just a means of avoiding admitting we don’t really know”. One definition of “faith” is “belief that is not based on proof”.

This appears to be the heart of the matter. Religion/Faith does not require proof. Science does.

That of course is not to say that there are not many people who have “faith in science”. They really have no proof, but just believe. The scientific method does not endorse or practice this of course...

Anyone have a better explanation of why humans seem to want religion?



-----------------------------------------------------------

As a disclaimer I did try to find other threads where this topic may have already been discussed, but was unable to locate anything exactly appropriate. Forum moderators, please move the thread if I’ve misplaced it!

[Fiona]

I am not sure there is a universal need for a philosophical belief system, really. I do think human beings are story tellers and that they like to make things up. I also think they like to have shared stories. Control of the stories is quite important if you seek power and being made to think about what does not interest you sucks, frankly. So laziness might be in play, or just different priorities. I agree that much of what we believe is not proved, but we don't have time to find out about everything or even about very much. There is no reason at all why we should not take a lot of things on trust, is there? "Very few things matter much and most don't matter at all", as someone whose name I can't remember once said. Not sure if this is relevant but I can honestly say that although I do try to integrate what I learn with what I already know, I do not find any need to paint the unknowable in other terms, so far as I am aware.

[andyandy]

I would agree that the human need to explain the world around him would have played a part in the development of religion. And it's very easy to see how humans as irrational creatures like to ascribe causality of events when none is there...... and so we have the ritual of the rain dance to end the drought or an animal sacrifice to bring good luck. And of course before science what explanation could be given when the earth moves and flattens the village, or the sea rises up and inundates the land? Tectonic plates and tsunamis were so removed from Neolithic understanding as to make the alternative "God did it" wholly understandable.

But I think underpinning the development of religion is the need for a mechanism to deal with mortality. I think this in itself goes beyond simple human desire to understand the world around him. It strikes at a fundamental psychological need to resolve questions of consciousness, and the question which every self-aware being must come to ask itself, " why am I here?"

So I think that we have an alliance of a psychological need to address mortality and consciousness (the world within) and innate human curiosity which strives to understand the world without. If we then add an apparent propensity for a shared moral framework, through which group affinity can be cultured and " civilising control" administered, then I think we see the main ingredients for the origins of religion.

[Olowkow]

Without the knowledge of our mortality I doubt that religion would have any meaning. So, early man sees his loved ones die, and, not understanding death, takes care to insure that they have another option. Someone thinks up one of any number of immortality schemes, coming back as reincarnation, living forever somewhere in the sky, escaping his pyramid with his stuff, etc. This guy who thought it up is always a big shot in his community. If you disrespect his magic, you risk problems.

But the roots of the supernatural are likely the fear of not being in control of natural events. Man is by nature a control freak. So, in order to be sure that a lion will not eat you, you have to carry the magic stone, because your leader told you that he scared off a lion with a magic stone a while back. You believe because you want to survive the lion. So, why not carry the stone?

The rest of the "sin stuff" and "god will get you if you don't get it right" is just gilding the lily to make a buck.

To me it is simple. But that's just me.

[nonbeliever]

But the roots of the supernatural are likely the fear of not being in control of natural events. Man is by nature a control freak. So, in order to be sure that a lion will not eat you, you have to carry the magic stone, because your leader told you that he scared off a lion with a magic stone a while back. You believe because you want to survive the lion. So, why not carry the stone?

Plus there are a lot of hallucinogenic plants and mushrooms out there. Eat a couple of those and you'll see God, for sure.

[Eskarina]

Religion (emulation of adults by the child) encysts past mythologies: guesses, hidden assumptions of trust in the universe, pronouncements made in search of personal power, all mingled with shreds of enlightenment. And always an unspoken commandment: Thou shalt not question! We break that commandment daily in the harnessing of human imagination to our deepest creativity.

- Frank Herbert

[FireGarden]

I forget who I'm pinching this argument from....

Our intelligence evolved not just to understand the world, but to understand each other. To understand how others see the world and how their view of the world will cause them to act. A result of this is that many non-people things get cast as people in our imaginations.

A river that floods, a volcano that erupts, etc. These non-intelligent agents get credited with motives -- and so we try to find ways to appease them. Some-one takes a look at these rituals and figures out what is going on in people's heads. And how to take advantage of it. "If they believe the Volcano can be reasoned with, then why can't I be the Volcano's representative to them?"

A bit simplistic. And doesn't explain why religion carrys on. Most people will figure out their pets aren't really people. Even more that their computer doesn't respond to swearing or threats. (Assume a link to a video of Basil Fawlty thrashing his car).

[Meadmaker]

I just want to say that, as first threads go, this is one of the best. Congratulations and welcome.



I think the OP is extremely accurate. How often do we hear people, especially religious people, say "Everything happens for a reason." I can't stand that phrase, because I think it is, for all practical purposes, untrue. A few years back the company I worked for had large layoffs, including me. This particular branch had fewer than 100 employees and 20 or so of us were cut, and people knew more were on the way. I heard lots of people saying "Everything happens for a reason." Because they were in obvious distress about losing their jobs, I refrained from saying, "Yeah, we were overpriced and our customers didn't like our stuff."

Sometimes there is even less "reason". Thousands die in a Chinese earthquake, and people say "Everything happens for a reason." What? Stress cracks in the Earth? Antiquated building codes?

People need to feel significant, otherwise they might not bother to reproduce and create more people. When they say, "Everything happens for a reason" they almost always mean that they are supposed to respond in some way to this event.

And of course, if everything happens for a reason, then there must be a reason for death, and if having a "reason" means that we are supposed to react in some way, then non-existence isn't an option.

[Kaizen]

Winston:

I personally look at philosphy as an attempt to organize patterns and distinctions out of personal experience to, at least at the most fundamental levels, ensure and optimize survival and the achievement of personal values. So from that perspective, philosophy is a natural tool to increase effectiveness for the purpose of life. A lot of the more complex philosophical concepts are used to maintain consistency after the basic axioms are accepted as well as account for the new experiences that one will go through in life.


Meadmaker:
I think the idea that "everything happens for a reason" is really just an attempt for people to find an empowering meaning to enhance their chances for finding emotional satisfaction with their life once again either in the moment or some point in the future. It's a tool for coping with accute emotional trauma and with the broader concept of life and a reason to continue on with it. Seems kinda lazy to me.

[triadboy]

Anyone have a better explanation of why humans seem to want religion?


Certain humans 'want' religion because it is instilled from birth. The origin of religion is myth. Religion is misunderstood myth .

The virgin birth is a myth - yet it is key to a religion.

The dying god-man is a myth - yet it is key to a religion.

The 'promised land' is a myth - yet it is key to a religion (and a conflict which reverberates today.)

Religion is misunderstood myth.

[The Atheist]

I would agree that the human need to explain the world around him would have played a part in the development of religion. And it's very easy to see how humans as irrational creatures like to ascribe causality of events when none is there...... and so we have the ritual of the rain dance to end the drought or an animal sacrifice to bring good luck. And of course before science what explanation could be given when the earth moves and flattens the village, or the sea rises up and inundates the land? Tectonic plates and tsunamis were so removed from Neolithic understanding as to make the alternative "God did it" wholly understandable.

But I think underpinning the development of religion is the need for a mechanism to deal with mortality. I think this in itself goes beyond simple human desire to understand the world around him. It strikes at a fundamental psychological need to resolve questions of consciousness, and the question which every self-aware being must come to ask itself, " why am I here?"

So I think that we have an alliance of a psychological need to address mortality and consciousness (the world within) and innate human curiosity which strives to understand the world without. If we then add an apparent propensity for a shared moral framework, through which group affinity can be cultured and " civilising control" administered, then I think we see the main ingredients for the origins of religion.

Saved me a post. Bang on. I'd nominate you for excellence - especially since you found the "shift" key! - but apes aren't allowed.

[fuelair]

Actually, there are large numbers of threads in which the OP topic comes up.

[The Atheist]

Actually, there are large numbers of threads in which the OP topic comes up.

In a religion and philosophy forum?

No way!

:bgrin:

[DeusPhasmatis]

Ah yes, God of the Gaps. Known to closely follow the Moving Goalpost Syndrome. Probably one of the better explanations for fundamentalism and the severe backlash against the concept of Evolution.

Though I found Richard Dawkins' memeplex-evolution explanation to be persuasive. It's in The God Delusion.

[dglas]

The truly odd thing about (at least the triad of monotheisms) is that they actually do, after their fashion, have their fingers on the pulse of humanity in several significant ways. There is a lot of horrid extraneous junk that they've attached onto it, but they appeal to many rather important themes.

(1) The need for a sense of personal protection. We spend a significant portion of our lives under the protection of parents. Habit-forming, comforting and difficult to dismiss when it is no longer the case. What do you do? Posit a parental figure beyond your immediate ones. It is no coincidence that theists often refer to their god as a "father." Why is God a male human? I wonder...
I wouldn't be surprised to discover that the vision of god throughout the ages correlates to what is perceived to constitute a "good" father-figure for a given time.

(2) A sense of community. We seem to be social critters, reliant upon each other for our emotional and physical health and stability. This makes us prone to suggestion. The evolution of Hell is particularly interesting from this viewpoint. We start with death as the punishment for unbelief, move to ostracizing from community and god, and then to an ultimate ostracizing in the form of permanent post-death separation from god (with torment tossed in for the more independently-minded). It seems to be all built on a theme, yes? It's all about being expelled from the "community."

(3) A sense of personal efficacy. While religion does not provide actual efficacy in the way that science does, it does provide a sense of personal efficacy through ritual and emotional dedication. Coupled with a sense of personal efficacy is the idea of a "reason" for events - particularly unpleasant ones. By placing the "reason" for something happening in the hands of a father figure, we again establish, a possible route to a sense of personal efficacy, by being a good child. To maintain a sense of personal efficacy in the face of overwhelming forces, we create an even more overwhelming force (god) that is sympathetic to our plight. We do not always get what we want, but we imagine that it is in our best interests in the long run, because daddy knows best and daddy loves us.

(4) Fear of death. It is interesting to note that religions often emphasize fear (especially fear of death) as a methodology for enforcing orthodoxy. Again the evolution of Hell is instructive. The first attempt, mere death, seems simple and easy compared to the extremes of long-term torment and horror that awaits the unbeliever on death. Let's take a natural fear and heighten it to extremes, We can sell lots of metaphysical band-aids that way.
Side note: For my own part, I have discovered that while I have a healthy respect (read: abject terror :) ) of the pain of death, death itself has no meaning to me except perhaps missing out on some future fun...

(5) A desire to serve. Everyone will laugh at this one, given the kind of society we live in, but I honestly think we, as humans, desire to serve and that this is the essential meaning of our lives. This goes hand-in-hand with a sense of community. I think we live for each other. Religion provides a nuts and bolts method for doing so in the form of its physical presence and a supernatural method for doing so in its subservience to god. I am not saying we should be enslaved or sacrifice personal freedom (that is not the same thing as serving). We do, however, seem to be built for willing service.


Unfortunately, much of the stuff that religion affixes to these human functions (intrinsic evil, subservience to dogma, us-vs-them mentality, etc.) is truly vicious and horrific and demeans and hobbles adult humanity precisely by keeping us children. Skepticism is an adolescent function and science is moving into adulthood.

If non-theistic philosophy is going to advance, and it will, it must recognize the essentials that religion does touch upon, account for them, and pare away the chaff - especially the hurtful chaff. What religion really represents, to my mind, is a ruthless abuse of human nature to promote supernaturalism, horror, exclusion, and orthodoxy in a particular hobbling world-view.

[Complexity]

Why do people want religion?

Constipation.

[Winston]

A very common thread (no pun intended) in this larger world discussion seems to center around coming to terms with non-existence, i.e. death.

From triadboy:
The virgin birth is a myth - yet it is key to a religion.

The dying god-man is a myth - yet it is key to a religion.

The 'promised land' is a myth - yet it is key to a religion (and a conflict which reverberates today.)

One way to look at this is to say that all three derive from death... non-existence.

A virgin birth is a story of creation, of life coming from non-life. It seems to address what happened to make us have this life.

A dying god-man is an attempt to say that all must die, even our gods. Once again the heart of this is about death, no matter who it is that dies.

A promised land seems to point to the desire to not die. Heaven appears to be about "after life" or life that does not end. The setting is probably not as important as the continued existence.

From dglas:
(1) The need for a sense of personal protection.
(2) A sense of community.
(3) A sense of personal efficacy.
(4) Fear of death.
(5) A desire to serve.
Apologies: I only quoted the main points to save space.

(1) We protect ourselves from death
(3) When I die, the impact of my existence carries beyond my awareness
(4) Obviously about death again

At first glance, (2) and (5) can be reduced to "cooperation to avoid death". The recognition that a person will increase their life-span or the effect of their existence through assisting others. (Yes, i'm over simplifying to make another point).

- - - - - - - - - - -

With out religion, we are confronted with an brief period of existence between two infinities of non-existence.

Infinity is hard enough to accept, but the center of the idea is that human lifetimes are very short while the rest of reality seems to have a much longer time to be.

Our drive to gain power, find meaning, help others, etc. may really be about extending our own lives. While we may not conciously think in these terms, the apparent logical effect of our actions is to extend life through other means.

So another logical arguement that seems to answer the question of "why do we have religion" is "we don't want our existence to stop".

[Winston]

Let me post my own first counter arguement to this idea:

Elephants mourn their dead. Therefore elephants are aware of death and it's consequences. By deduction, they may also be aware of their own life and thereby their own death.

If elephants know they will die, where is their religion?

Of course it would be a strange thing to discover elephants had one we humans do not recognize, but at this time there appear to be no indications that elephants have religion.

[Michael C]

Let me post my own first counter arguement to this idea:

Elephants mourn their dead. Therefore elephants are aware of death and it's consequences. By deduction, they may also be aware of their own life and thereby their own death.

If elephants know they will die, where is their religion?

Of course it would be a strange thing to discover elephants had one we humans do not recognize, but at this time there appear to be no indications that elephants have religion.

Elephants mourn their dead, but this doesn't necessarily mean that elephants are conscious of their own mortality.

The awareness of death is probably just the first step towards inventing a religion. First you see other members of your tribe dying. You may mourn them, but this doesn't yet mean that you think you are also going to die. You see others die, but this doesn't prove it's going to happen to you. Only after many generations of knowledge being handed down will it become apparent that nobody seems to live for ever. Once this realisation sinks in, members of the tribe may start to fantasise about not dying, imagining some form of existence that continues somewhere else after physical death.

[Soapy Sam]

How do we know elephants "mourn"?
What does "mourn" mean in this context?

I'd suggest these are animals with big brains who may easily be able to identify another elephant (and probably a human) as an individual presence, and that they are puzzled and curious when that presence simply stops being present.

I've seen a carrion crow sit by the corpse of its mate for two days. Was it mourning, or baffled, or expressing some mental state quite different from any a human might experience?
I don't know. I doubt that anyone knows.

[Primus]

Let me post my own first counter arguement to this idea:

Elephants mourn their dead. Therefore elephants are aware of death and it's consequences. By deduction, they may also be aware of their own life and thereby their own death.

If elephants know they will die, where is their religion?

Of course it would be a strange thing to discover elephants had one we humans do not recognize, but at this time there appear to be no indications that elephants have religion.

Ganesha???

I think it has a lot to do with power myself. If a volcano erupts near a small tribal village and everyone is panicking all it takes is one guy to say "I've spoken to God and he is pissed off, we now all need to do these rituals only I know or it will happen again"
Bingo you're now king of the village.

[Winston]

Hijacking my own thread momentarily...

I think it has a lot to do with power myself. If a volcano erupts near a small tribal village and everyone is panicking all it takes is one guy to say "I've spoken to God and he is pissed off, we now all need to do these rituals only I know or it will happen again"
Bingo you're now king of the village.

Try this translation:

I think it has a lot to do with power myself. If a building falls down near a large city and everyone is panicking all it takes is one guy to say "I've spoken to God and he is pissed off, we now all need to do these rituals only I know or it will happen again"
Bingo you're now president of the country.

[Winston]

You are correct about the elephants.

As a new member, I'm not allowed to post URL's yet, but if you do a google on "elephants mourning dead" the experiments behind how elephants treat their dead can be easily found.

[Winston]

OK, the general idea that religion is started by fear (of death or the unknown or the uncontrollable) seems to be holding some sway in these initial thoughts.

Lets try it backwards. If fear is the motivator for religion, then the only thing that will stop the need for religion is the elimination of fear.

When said this way, the idea sounds less appealing. And more difficult to test or prove.

[FireGarden]

OK, the general idea that religion is started by fear (of death or the unknown or the uncontrollable) seems to be holding some sway in these initial thoughts.

Lets try it backwards. If fear is the motivator for religion, then the only thing that will stop the need for religion is the elimination of fear.

I certainly don't agree with that last bit. I don't recall anyone on this forum claiming to have "eliminated" their fear of death -- yet there are many people here without religion.

As for fear of death being the cause of religion....
I'm not sure I agree.

Certainly, one is present and very often included in the other. But that's not enough to call it a cause.

What makes people believe a Volcano can be reasoned with? I don't see how fear of death produces the response. I could perhaps imagine a parent making up stories to calm a child -- who trusts his parents. But why would the stories continue into adulthood?

So the laws of nature mean that you are going to age and die. How does that lead to making up stories?

Perhaps a better place to go for data would be MRC_Hans' thread on how theists select their beliefs. Finding something that "feels right" was one response.

"strikes an inner chord of recognition " was the phrase, actually:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=111988

[Soapy Sam]

Power. Control. Authority. I missed something... ...oh aye. Cynicism. I can't answer for what goes through other minds, but I never had a religious thought in my life and I doubt many others do. I think a Shaman is someone who probably was the lousiest hunter in the band , so came up with a crock of nonsense to establish his position in the band and gain control over others. But then the meme got away from him... ...or, perhaps, her. Maybe there really was an Eve.


ETA- Winston, while I have considerable respect for the intelligence of elephants, I have just read several of the links Google took me to from your post. They mostly refer to the same study, which shows that the elephants tested showed a preferred interest in an elephant skull over wood and other objects.
Nowhere do I see anything but human speculation to suggest they "mourn". (It wouldn't surprise me if they do feel a sense of loss- I've seen elephants behave in ways that I would characterise as cunning and vindictive,so mournful is perfectly reasonable, but I put that down to my own anthropomorphising, rather than reality. I have no idea what elephants feel and I don't think the researchers quoted have either.)

[Primus]

Also admitting that you have absolutely no idea about something makes some people extrememly unconfortable.
You see it here when someone says I don't know the answer to that they pounce on it like its a direct admission that god did it.

BTW what on earth happenned to the who is your favourite god thread. I started it this afternoon and now I can't look at it because the library net nanny says its porn!!!

[Soapy Sam]

Must be your 'puter Primus. I looked in on it here only minutes ago.

ETA - Try this link- http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=114046

[blobru]

... Anyone have a better explanation of why humans seem to want religion? ...

:eek: "Origin of religion" -- ye gods! That's a huge question. My overpriced $.02:

Dreams, most likely. Dreams appear to primitives as journeys to another world when you sleep. Death looks like sleep (permanent sleep). Not hard to connect the two. So the belief that the dream-self, the soul, journeys to another world after death arises. It's comforting, perhaps; fills in a cognitive blank, at least. That's the internal motive. The unconscious "where do we go when we sleep / die?" motive.

Externally, the conscious "what do we while we're awake / alive?" motive, is largely about knowing your place, your role, how to keep the powers that be happy, yourself happy, the so-called "meaning of life". The earliest religions seem focussed on sacrifice, appeasing the gods. Primitive humans haven't separated themselves from nature yet, and see themselves as just another animal, part of the order of predator-and-prey. The fact that sacrifices are made to the god(s) might suggest early humans saw god as a sort of all-powerful predator. They may even be mimicking the way other animals cull out the weak members of the herd as a sort of 'sacrifice' to predators, or remembering their own proto-human practice (then offering god extra appeasement with young, healthy virgins).

That animals are worshipped in primitive religions is no surprise; each important animal is a god, a potential guide to humans finding their place; later with the Greeks, God [Zeus] often appears to people in animal form (same as in some Amerindian religions, eg.) Of course as life is dependent on it, nature in all its aspects may be worshipped: besides animal gods, weather and crop gods too (esp. after agriculture).

I think with civilization the focus shifts from nature to people and power and one's place therein. The person with the most power is the king; god becomes the deathless human king of heaven -- the heavens linked to the weather gods which civilization still depends on. Other gods embody or propitiate services citizens must provide for the good of all: warrior, blacksmith, weaver, potter, mariner, etc. So the nature gods have been transformed into social gods.

The monotheistic god is intended to resolve all the arguments between the competing social gods, which mirror the competition between various castes and classes, and to unify the 'tribe'. It also allows priests as god's interpreters to speak with a single voice, and give a single account of ethics (in ancient polytheistic societies this task was often taken over by philosophers: Greece, Rome, India, China -- though China more animistic really).

And last but not least, atheism via science, returns to worshipping nature again, only this time not as a predator god so much as an information god, as 'prey' even? -- all in a manner of speaking, that is.

And we still dream too.

:slp:

[triadboy]

One way to look at this is to say that all three derive from death... non-existence.

A virgin birth is a story of creation, of life coming from non-life. It seems to address what happened to make us have this life.

A dying god-man is an attempt to say that all must die, even our gods. Once again the heart of this is about death, no matter who it is that dies.


Disagree. These are stories using nature as a framework. Nature begat myth begat religion.

[Aitch]

I've always thought, possibly with not enough evidence, that Religions go through three main phases:

"Why is the sky blue?" phase.
Religion as an explanation for the unexplained. EG weather, eclipses etc. People who are good at coming up with the required reasons form the basic beginnings of a priesthood.

"God says so." phase.
Things that people enjoy may not be good for the tribe. For example, certain dietary items, promiscuous sex with a smallish gene-pool. So the priesthood,being a bit brighter than the general populous and having noticed this, pass on God's laws about how evil those practices are and punish those who disobey.

"It's good to be a Bishop" phase.
When the tribe looks to a few people for all guidance, those people get powerful, and can lead very comfortable lives.

With a bit of luck there's also...

"Oops, we've been rumbled!" phase.
The rise of rationality and the priests have to work for a living. :)

[FireGarden]

People might find this article interesting:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=science&pagewanted=print

You'll have to get to the bit about agent detection, causal reasoning and theory of mind before it really gets going.

[Fnord]

Origins.

Religion and Religious Leadership: "And the Sky Fairy said unto me, 'Go, tell my people that they have displeased me, but that they can avoid my wrath by giving a tenth of their harvest and seven virgins to my most holy prophet, who is speaking these words to you right now.'"

Politics and Secular Leadership: "I was talking to the wisest among us, and they came up with an idea called 'taxation'. Now this seems like a pretty good idea to me, so if you'll just hand over a tenth of your income and assign seven of your loveliest daughters to me as administrative assistants, I'll see to it that nobody bothers you until the next election."

Anybody who does not see the relationship between religion and politics probably does not really understand one or the other ... or both.

[Ichneumonwasp]

As long as no one mentions (as source of origin) goatse I guess we'll all be OK.

Oh, damn.

[dglas]

Winston, it is possible to reduce anything to a single idea if one defines the idea such that it encompasses all things. Unfortunately, by doing so, one renders the idea meaningless.

I think to reduce everything to fear of death fails to account for one small issue: life and the living of it. I suspect people do more in their lives than wallowing in fear of its end.

[Winston]

While I want there to be a single, simple understanding of what caused religion, perhaps there isn't one.

Thanks for the input everyone!

[I Ratant]

Dglas in post #15 does a good summary.

[DeusPhasmatis]

While I want there to be a single, simple understanding of what caused religion, perhaps there isn't one.

Thanks for the input everyone!

Oh, there is one. Quite simply, it was a memeplex (collection of ideas) that was self-sustaining.

[articulett]

Yep... like a chain letter--

promises of eternal rewards for those who keep (and spread) the faith --(and those who go forth and multiply making newborn faith vectors to insert the faith in)-- the greater the allegiance, obedience, and spread of the "good news", the better your eternity.

Oh, and eternal damnation for those who ask to many questions, doubt, or dare to bite from the tree of knowledge. It's a meme guaranteed to be spread to your loved ones "just in case".

And for good measure-- vilify all those who point out what a virulent little meme virus this is.

[I Ratant]

....

With out religion, we are confronted with an brief period of existence between two infinities of non-existence.

Infinity is hard enough to accept, but the center of the idea is that human lifetimes are very short while the rest of reality seems to have a much longer time to be.

Our drive to gain power, find meaning, help others, etc. may really be about extending our own lives. While we may not conciously think in these terms, the apparent logical effect of our actions is to extend life through other means.

So another logical arguement that seems to answer the question of "why do we have religion" is "we don't want our existence to stop".
.
"With out religion, we are confronted with an brief period of existence between two infinities of non-existence. "
.
This would be better said possibly as:
"With or without religion....."
The preceding and post existence periods are insensible.
.
And, quoting the Bard...
"The evil men do lives after them
the good is oft interred with their bones".
.
The best anyone could hope for is to be remembered for a few years at best as being a good person while alive.
The monsters get remembered forever.

[Darth Rotor]

And, quoting the Bard...
"The evil men do lives after them
the good is oft interred with their bones".
.
The best anyone could hope for is to be remembered for a few years at best as being a good person while alive.
The monsters get remembered forever.
If you'd like, you can become Darth Ratant, be a monster, and get remembered forever. The initiation rite is a bit on the sanguine side, so I hope you have a strong stomach.

You don't know the Power of the Dark Side!

(Actually, it's three phase 440 VAC . . .)

DR

[I Ratant]

I'm going to face the wrath of my girl friend in just a few minutes.
I say "Ha, Ha!" to your 440 volt 3 phase.