The birth of religion??

How do you think religion came to be? Aside from the answer that man was created by god or some diety and therefore it always existed, what other solutions do you think there could be? For me, I think it was evolution, that groups of primordial humans...

with a sense of spirituality were able to work together better than ones who didn't, and therefore they survived while the lone atheist ones died out or were assimilated. And eventually, that spirituality became so strong it was eventually used as a foundation of law and order, instilling fear in those who opposed to keep them in line in fear of eternal damnation, but with a great reward of everlasting life for those who stuck to it. So humans had a better society in the arly days with religion as opposed to those who didn't, were more successful at survival, and therefore had more reproductive success. This is my thought. What is yours?

Since you referred to 'god', I'm going to assume you are referring to monotheism and not animism or other earth religions.

Well, we actually pretty much know how this happened, and it's outlined in much greater detail in The History of God. In a nutshell, it has to do with agriculture. At the dawn of agriculture, the ancients found a need to know the seasons for planting. General weather patterns are not a good enough indicator, because a late freeze is quite common and was enough to kill an entire society. They noticed that they could count the phases of the moon. This was ok, but not very good, since the years are not precisely aligned with phases of the moon.

So, they noticed also that the position of the sun against the backdrop of stars (at dawn or dusk) was an excellent indicator of time of year. Since they were used to the using lunar phases (with approximately 12 cycles in a year), they divided the year long cycle of stars up into 12 segments, and made stories up about those patterns. So one group becomes a bull, even though it really doesn't look anything like a bull. Another becomes the 'water bearer' even though it looks nothing like that, because it's associated with a rainy season, and so on.

These stories were then causally associated with the seasons. Instead of just being a way to remember the rainy season, the water bearer (Aquarius) was associated with *causing* it.

So, the first pantheon of 12 gods was born. Over time, more gods were added to account for the 7 'nonfixed' celestial objects (sun, moon, mercury, venus, mars, saturn, jupiter), and yet more gods added as the patrons of nearly everything imaginable.

Eventually, as the idea that these gods actually existed was entrenched, the simple logic of well, who is the strongest god came about. This resulted in the consolidation of gods until we end up with the modern singular creator god.

Totally Toadaly, very well explained :-)

Mishkadoosh, also bare in mind that ancient people already “knew” the gods were somewhere up there,(Toadaly’s explanation) which made it even more believable when Lightning struck, a hail storm or twisters struck them. To then believe it was a “sign” from their god!
On the other hand, something like rain could then be seen as a blessing from their gods, Only because: This was the most “realistic” explanation they HAD in that time for this Natural occurrences. But they didn’t keep it at that, they took it a bit further by starting to apply the supernatural powers to their every day life’s, from the assumption: If such god is able to send us rain or punish us with hail, then surely he MUST be able to control our life’s! That is where we end up and got stuck!

Through our Holy Prophets.

Nice manmade theory you've made but God Himself in His Word already told us and revealed to us the birth of religion - I accept His version.

Well, it all started with the big bang, then some 30 year old virgin sat in the basement of his parents home, and thought, I think I should create christianity, like in the 1939, and uhh yeah, well that my version of how that started but, the rest, from nature babe,

Nice manmade theory you've made but God Himself in His Word already told us and revealed to us the birth of religion - I accept His version.

Amblessed, sometimes you really make my day. I had a real good gaffaw over this one. Manmade theory? But a book written by ancient uneducated superstitios men has all the real answers? Too bad there is actual evidence to support toadaly's excellent analysis, and there is zero evidence that supports your fantasies.

People need explanations... people have imaginations...

Now I know you said not to answer it through God, but there really is no other answer. Personally I think that evolution supports the fact that God created everything that we can see, hear, or touch. Most people think that evolution is an atheistic point of view, but that is far from it so I am going to ask you a question, why couldn't God create evolution?

Toadaly has pretty much hit the nail on the head.

However, I have a few ideas on how and why some other religions came into fruition and popularity:

~Religion acts as a mass governing system- if everyone in one religious group is cautious not to offend an almighty deity, they will follow whatever rules they think this deity would want them to live by. While a physical justice system may not catch them when they did wrong, a devine justice system which records every bad deed, promising retribution after death for them, would scare most people into living on the straight and narrow.

~Many people fear what happens to them after death. Religion tends to create this elaborate fairy-story answer where there are no answers. It give people a sense of ease to know they'll be spending the rest of time in the clouds with angels, or hanging out with 72 virgins, etc. People tend to fear what they don't know, and this little bed time story helps them to sleep easy.

~Religion was not always a choice. In fact, many people were converted by sword-point, a case of 'believe or die'. So, if people were faced with certain death if they didn't abide by a certain religion, you can rest assured, people converted on the spot.

~Religion can mean huge profits for certain people in the group- look at the church of scientology. L Ron Hubbard (founder of Scientology/Dianetics) said it best when he was questioned about making money as a writer: 'You don’t get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion.’

why couldn't God create evolution?

You are right, god could have created evolution. The easter bunny could have too. Or maybe the flying spaghetti monster. There is equal evidence for all these theories.

There is a problem with reality... it requires an explanation. The problem is that we cannot explain it... beyond this past experience has shown us that a causal chain is also required to explain. We can explain up until a certain point... but then come unto a causal chasm we cannot circumnavigate. I have argued numerous times at FA why Ockham's razor being asserted here is not valid. Others disagree... but all have to agree that currently existence has no explanation in science.

Will it ever?... some say so... but I think that we will have to venture into strange fields of subjective reality to do so... and that will be a radical departure from where most atheists tend to gather on the problem. I think that we will be left to question however.

Religion is offered to answer the unanswered question... Does the validity of the religion invalidate the question?

***There is a problem with reality... it requires an explanation.***

I don't think it 'requires' an explanation, as much as people often simply 'want' an explanation.

***...I think that we will have to venture into strange fields of subjective reality to do so...***

...or maybe an intevention by an outside source...

Jesus was born in Jeurleuseum. When he was in his 30's, he went to Rome and taught people about god. he was then christified with the crown of thorns and no blood left in his body at all. he had to little blood that Jesus said he was really thirsty.

captainassassin:

If reality requires no explanation then we must assume it is the preternatural default in defiance of the laws in and of itself... a supernatural property of something we would only describe as the definition of natural. There is obviously still a problem.

If reality is without cause... why should we not assume anything of reality can exist without cause? Deductive logic would be baseless. No cause could necessarily be assigned to a given conclusion.

If reality requires no explanation then we must assume it is the preternatural default in defiance of the laws in and of itself.

Why must we assume that? reality is really a philisophical concept. Nature is a scientific concept. I think trying to reconcile the two is futile. If you want to talk about reality in scientific terms, I would call it is space and time.

If reality is without cause... why should we not assume anything of reality can exist without cause?

Whether space and time (ST) is infiniate, or had a causal origin from something outside of ST, does not change the physical laws within ST. Nothing has ever been observed within ST that breaks those physical laws. Then there is only one question, and it is unanswerable, is ST infinite?

The bottom line is whether the existence of reality is causal or acausal has no bearing in the physical laws within that reality.

At least that is my take.

Jimahl:

This is nothing more than an observation... and since it is observed by all... but defined by some we can challenge the definition... which I have done... it must either be misdefined or in defiance of its definition...e.g. If we say that all oranges are orange in color... except for this one purple one... then we have to come to one of two conclusions... either the purple one was outside of the definition and requires explanation beyond what is currently given... or we must change the definition of oranges to include for purple oranges and can no longer limit the expectations of future oranges to be orange in color. To change the definition of oranges to read that all oranges are orange except for that one and only purple one is special pleading.

We are discussing reality... not simply space and time here. Since a position must be taken as to the genesis of or progenitor to space and time to limit the discussion to simply space and time will not suffice...reality is the state of that which is real... thus I am limited to and have not trespassed beyond this measure... have I added an attribute to reality that is not observable by all? If not... let us stick with reality.

Whether space and time (ST) is infiniate, or had a causal origin from something outside of ST, does not change the physical laws within ST. Nothing has ever been observed within ST that breaks those physical laws. Then there is only one question, and it is unanswerable, is ST infinite?

The bottom line is whether the existence of reality is causal or acausal has no bearing in the physical laws within that reality.

I disagree. Firstly... The allotment that space and time are infinite and acausal may be beyond measure now... but that is not the case for matter... If ST were static what property therein was the catalyst for the emergence of matter? What precipitated matter to emerge and why must this be a one time event. All have to be accounted for by your definition of space and time. We can on the other hand attribute it to an undefined outside source...[further explanation] or we must conclude that the creation of the material can occur spontaneously... but we have no evidence for this. Again to argue that it is a one and done is special pleading.

The bottom line is whether the existence of reality is causal or acausal has no bearing in the physical laws within that reality.

This statement can only be correct if reality is part of a causal chain. To conclude that reality is acausal is to conclude that the laws that govern reality or ST are part of the package itself... to then say that the laws at one point in time are different now... but do not require added explanation is hypocritical.

***If reality requires no explanation then we must assume it is the preternatural default in defiance of the laws in and of itself... a supernatural property of something we would only describe as the definition of natural. There is obviously still a problem.***

The explanation is no more required, than your resulting assumption lacking requirement. My statement is referring to individual views of the subject. I do not REQUIRE an explanation of the origin of the universe. There are many people like me. In contrast, there are many people who want an explanation (be it right or wrong). Remember, the validity of these various 'explanations' are limited to a process of thought that exists within our human minds, within our universe and reality. How valid can they be when explaining that which is was before/outside the existence of our universe and reality?

***If reality is without cause... why should we not assume anything of reality can exist without cause? Deductive logic would be baseless. No cause could necessarily be assigned to a given conclusion.***

I don't think its without cause... I think the cause is simply beyond human comprehension... meaning beyond any structured process of human thought; deduction, logic, etc.

miscegenymiser,
Your analogy of oranges is not really a valid one. It is... well, apples and oranges...

Purple oranges is something we can see, observe, inspect , and test. We can not do that with things outside of reality. At least not as far as we know today.

Matter, as far we know, is finite. Since matter can neither be created nor destroyed, there must be a finite amount of matter. But the existence of matter may be infinite, or it may have emerged at the time when space and time emerged, if it actaully did. But I still see no paradox between the concept of an infinite space and time and physical causality as we undertand it in our universe.

As always, very interesting discussion.

Have a good weekend all...

***Matter, as far we know, is finite. Since matter can neither be created nor destroyed...***

I always like to add a ''...by MANKIND'' to the end of that statement.

captainassassin:

I am not suggesting that I nor anyone can provide explanation... only that we can notice the problem. Like a bump on a newly sanded table... when we advance our hands over the surface we notice it.. the imperfection... it can't go unnoticed... the same is true with reality. We notice that each effect has a cause... but when taken to its extreme... the impossibility of this law becomes evident. This is all that I am suggesting. Dismissing the ultimate cause as a natural law of reality that is no longer observable is as hypocritical as any explanation I offer.

I don't think its without cause... I think the cause is simply beyond human comprehension... meaning beyond any structured process of human thought; deduction, logic, etc.

I agree... but I still imagine. I consider human ingenuity... creativity... and imagination the godlike attributes. These are our highest qualities and if ever the causal chasm could be breached... it will be only by our imaginations.

People need explanations... people have imaginations...

Concise... I tend to harangue and develop ideas until they become thoroughly incomprehensible.

Jimahl:

Your analogy of oranges is not really a valid one. It is... well, apples and oranges...

I do expect reimbursement for this inevitable one liner... I take debit. Purple Apples?... but I did sort of hang that one right in the sweet spot.

Purple oranges is something we can see, observe, inspect , and test. We can not do that with things outside of reality. At least not as far as we know today.

I consider it valid. I was suggesting something about ignoring anomalies and neither addressing the definition to include this new subset...nor offering explanation for the anomaly as outside current definition. We can observe the problem in the causal chain.

Matter, as far we know, is finite. Since matter can neither be created nor destroyed, there must be a finite amount of matter. But the existence of matter may be infinite, or it may have emerged at the time when space and time emerged, if it actaully did. But I still see no paradox between the concept of an infinite space and time and physical causality as we undertand it in our universe.

But wasn't matter created in the Big Bang? Isn't it destroyed when we detonate nuclear bombs? If spacetime is infinite... then the big bang must have matriculated into it at a given point. Matter is a state of energy... it isn't necessarily constant.

Even if matter were part and parcel with spacetime... we still observe an advance in cause and effect. This is the basis for determinism and chaos theory... the butterfly effect? Why should we suspend cause and effect at one proposed point? Why is it not special pleading to suggest that we should?

Your argument in a nutshell...why we cant just accept that this special occurrence simply happened and be satisfied with it as a one off property of nature.

Nature has groomed my mind so that it starts niggling when something this coincidental is suggested. It defies natural logic.

Have a good weekend yourself... Jimahl. Lay off the sauce! I'm not implying anything.