Origins of Religion

How did religion come to be? Is it a Divine gift, a product of human psychology, or something society created? What, if any, uses does it serve? or is it pathological? I think of it as a multi-functional phenomenon serving a variety of functions for individuals and for society. I welcome other perspectives.

 

Religion as Multi-functional. For centuries, scholars have tried to identify this or that "cause" of religion. Many of these theories seem compelling, but they can't all be right--or can they? A common failing is reductionism, the attempt to reduce a complex phenomenon into a single cause: "the opiate of the people,"(Marx), infantile wish fulfillment (Freud), the human quest for wholeness (Jung), social conditioning (Durkheim), an explanation of life's mysteries (Tyler), deification of natural forces (Mueller), an experience of the holy (Otto, Eliade, James),cognitive patterns (Boyer). Trying to understand it is like the proverbial blind men each grasping a part of the elephant and trying to understand the whole beast in terms of the part they encounter.The answer may be "all of the above". Psychologically, religion may succeed because it is "all things to all men", satisfying one or more of sixteen basic desires humans share. (Reiss, 2016, The Sixteen Strivings for God) And that's just functions for individuals. For society, it's a means of social control. For government leaders, elites , and clerics, it's a source of legitimacy. No wonder it's been so pervasive among human societies for so many millennia. But let's not rule out still another possibility. That people are sensing "Something Big Out There" that is real.

Defining religion is tricky. De Waal defines religion as “the shared reverence for the supernatural, sacred, or spiritual as well as the symbols, rituals, and worship that are associated with it”. That should do as a working definition.

 

humans weren't fully conscious until about 3,000 years ago

I'm skeptical,mainly because the theory remains highly speculative. The hypothesis of a two-chambered brain-mind model, which is now almost fifty years old, has yet to be confirmed empirically-- although there are several interesting brain imaging studies showing that auditory hallucinations emerge in the language areas of the non-dominant (usually right) hemispehre and are perceived in the language areas of the dominant (usually left) hemisphere. Most evolutionary biologists think our brains haven't changed significantly in the past fifty millennia, and the evolutionary psychologists who posit adaptive modules think there are more "modules" than just two. Of course, we have people today who hear unseen voices and whole cultures (e.g. Haitian voodoo) based on spirit possession during rituals. I think the latter phenomenon is better explained by suggestion and hypnotic effects of intense rituals involving lots of drums and dancing. Are these people with prehistoric brains? Is schizophrenia the product of a bicameral brain? Are schizophrenics not conscious? I had a paranoid schizophrenic roommate once who was constantly tortured by his "voices". But he otherwise seemed pretty conscious and intelligent to me. More evidence, please.

Jaynes thought humans weren't fully conscious until about 3,000 years ago. And he seems to think that Greeks in the time of Homer's time were lacking in individual consciousness: "just Gods coming down and telling/making people do things." And that this started to change by the time of Homer's Odyssey. "Odysseus can lie, trick, and deceive." Wow! That was fast! He should have read the Gilgamesh epic and see if he still thinks they lacked individual consciousness and were just guided by the gods.

There are some eyebrow raising statements in the book: that modern humans were the direct descendants of Neanderthals, that the Mayans deserted their cities because of bicameralism (I thought it was drought), that such human achievements as irrigation systems , the pyramids and navigating the Mediterranean were driven by hallucinations , etc. And if the process of transition from bicameralism was complete by 500 B.C.E., how do we explain Muhammed and the Qur'an, alll of which was supposedly dictated word for word to the prophet by Allah?

What do I know? There seem to be others though who have the same reactions as I do:
Ned Block, Professor of Philosophy and Psychology, New York University, book review of The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind in Cognition and Brain Theory (1981).
Andrea E. Cavanna, Michael Trimble, Federico Cinti and Francesco Monaco, in “The ‘Bicameral Mind’ 30 Years On: A Critical Reappraisal of Julian Jaynes’ Hypothesis,” Functional Neurology, Vol. 22, Issue 1 (2007).
W.R. Klemm, Professor of Neuroscience, Texas A & M University, in Atoms of Mind, p. 36.

But we can certainly add it to the list of theories about how religion began. His theory:"The first thing to realize is that the very motive behind their composition around Deuteronomy at this time was the nostalgic anguish for the lost bicamerality of a subjectively conscious people. This is what religion is." Agree?

 

In light of the conversation we recently had on the What Is Religion? Thread about Capra's Tao of Physics and the earlier discussion about conspiracy theories on the same thread, I thought it might be appropriate to start with leading cognitive theories about the origin of religion: what Psychologist Michael Shermer calls "patternicity" and "agenticity" in an article entitled "Why People Believe Invisible Agents Control the World". https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/skeptic-agenticity/ The two are closely linked, but we can start by considering them separately.

Patternicity. The ability to discern patterns was crucial to human evolution, allowing our prehistoric ancestors "to identify poisonous plants, distinguish predator from prey, and interpret celestial events." See the World Through Patterns. This ability today accounts for some of our most impressive breakthroughs in science--the ability to see connections that no one previously saw. This is often a result of insight, (the ability to have) a clear, deep, and sometimes sudden understanding of a complicated problem or situation. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/insight Psychlogists regard this as a primarily intuitive phenomenon, the so-called "Eureka effect", the Aha! moment, or epiphany. Intuition is associated with the cerebellum of the brain, ventromedial prefrontal cortex, and typically the right hemisphere of the brain.Intuition, Gut Feeling, and the Brain: Understanding Our Intuition - Examined Existence. As Einstein put it: "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant." The frontal lobe of the brain is responsible for abstract ideas, theoretical thinking and imagining alternative scenarios. In Religion in Human Evolution, Bellah emphasizes the role of cognitive processes allowing humans to imagine multiple realities different from their everyday existence, including such things as chimeras. When intuition and imaginative scenarios get together, religion isn't far behind. I brought this up with Fritjoph Capra in mind. In the Tao of physics, he was able to, or so he thought, discern, with the aid of a hallucinogenic power plant, a connection between quantum physics and oriental philosophy that some regard as brilliant and others not so much.

Sometimes, we overdo it and see patterns that aren't really there, in random noise. We see faces in clouds, the Man in the Moon, the Virgin Mary in a cheese sandwich, etc. Apophenia is the name given to "he general term for the human tendency to see patterns in meaningless data that may involve visual, auditory, or other senses."Seeing Patterns: What It Means and More This tendency seems to be associated with the neurotransmitter dopamine. Carried to excess, this can manifest itself in psychological disorders like obsessive-compulsive disorders and paranoid schizophrenia.

Agenticity. Agenticity is the tendency to believe that the world is controlled by invisible intentional agents. This was also useful in our evolution. If a prehistoric human came across something that could be an inanimate log or an animate alligator, better play it safe and assume alligator. The skeptical empiricists who held out for further evidence were eliminated by natural selection, so we developed into a species prone to perceive agency. Carried to extremes, we become conspiracy theorists, a phenomenon that seems still to be very much with us.

Schermer believes that together these tendencies make us "natural born supernaturalists". "Together patternicity and agenticity form the cognitive basis of shamanism, paganism, animism, polytheism, monotheism, and all modes of Old and New Age spiritualisms." Michael Shermer talks patternicity and agenticity.

I happen to have a pet theory about this in connection with the origin of religion. Maybe my patternicity is showing. I have a hunch that early on our prehistoric ancestors formed a symbiotic relationship between the apopheniacs and the rationally ignorant. Early on, after people developed the idea of unseen patterns and agents controlling reality, it was natural for them to seek ways to understand and control them. Enter the shaman, the first religious specialists. These were people who naturally, or with the aid of hallucinogens, drumming, physical deprivation, etc., could enter ecstatic trances and, see connections that others couldn't see. Rational ignorance is a term economists and public opinion analysts have given to the decision of large percentages of the population to remain uninformed about current events, politics, religion, etc., so that they can concentrate their energies on areas of higher personal priority: making a living, following the stock market, sports,game shows, sex, or just relaxing. I can imagine back in the day, the tired hunter-gatherer, after a hard day fighting mammoths and sabre toothed tigers or gathering grubs, roots and berries,would just want to chill out by the fire with the spouse and kids and let the shaman figure out how to bring more game. Anyhow, that's one theory.

 

As per eastern religious philosophy, each and every sentient being is considered to be a combination of spirit (purusha) and matter (prakriti). Religion is a tool to enhance the domination of spirit over matter leading to enlightenment. The domination of prakriti (matter) over spirit in turn leads to deep psychological suffering, bondage, weakness, ignorance and inauspiciousness.

The nature of prakriti or mind-body complex is to seek external pleasures (sensory and intellectual) inspite of the factors of impermanence, suffering and saturation that accompanies the pursuit of pleasure.

Religion seeks instead to access the joy or bliss of the Spirit within, which is of a permanent nature and also vastly superior to worldly pleasures.

However, just like intellectual and sensory pleasures, austerity is the price to pay for spiritual bliss as well. This is why present moment awareness, love and compassion, virtuous conduct is emphasized in religion as austerities to be performed as opposed to the current or general norm of unconsciousness, hatred and greed, vicious conduct prevalent in human beings.

 

I don't know whether you've been following the latest discussion on the thread "What is religion?" but Meagain have been having quite a back and forth on Asian religions, of which, I daresay, our perspectives might be a it skewed. Your perspectives would be welcome.

 

...

 

The origin of religion?

Thats easy:

Religio



Dedication from Roman Britain announcing that a local official has restored a locus religiosus[1]

The Latin term religiō, the origin of the modern lexeme religion (via Old French/Middle Latin[2]), is of ultimately obscure etymology.

It is recorded beginning in the 1st century BC, i.e. in Classical

Latin at the end of the Roman Republic, notably by Cicero,

in the sense of "scrupulous or strict observance of the traditional cultus".

In classic antiquity, it meant conscientiousness, sense of right, moral obligation,

or duty towards anything[3] and was used mostly in secular or mundane contexts.[4][5]

Religio - Wikipedia




Examples of usage

Julius Caesar used religio to mean "obligation of an oath" when discussing captured soldiers making an oath to their captors

"Thus the terror raised by the generals, the cruelty and punishments, the new obligation of an oath, removed all hopes of surrender for the present, changed the soldiers' minds, and reduced matters to the former state of war."[12]

The Roman naturalist Pliny the Elder, used the term religio to describe elephants' supposed veneration of the sun and the moon.

"The elephant is the largest of them all, and in intelligence approaches the nearest to man. It understands the language of its country, it obeys commands, and it remembers all the duties which it has been taught. It is sensible alike of the pleasures of love and glory, and, to a degree that is rare among men even, possesses notions of honesty, prudence, and equity; it has a religious respect also for the stars, and a veneration for the sun and the moon."[13]

St. Augustine, following the interpretation given by Lactantius in Divinae institutiones, IV, 28 derived religio from re (again) and ligare bind, connect, probably from a prefix.[6][14]

The medieval usage alternates with order in designating bonded communities like those of monastic orders: "we hear of the 'religion' of the Golden Fleece, of a knight 'of the religion of Avys'".[10]

Cicero connected lego read, i.e. re (again) with lego in the sense of choose, go over again or consider carefully. The definition of religio by Cicero is cultum deorum, "the proper performance of rites in veneration of the gods."[11]

 

Do you have any proof of that?
I dont recall seeing any.

 

...

No, just evidence, which I plan to present on another thread.

 

That might work for the origin of the WORD religion. The phenomenon of religion is much older.