What is Religion?

Eventually it might. The earliest religions seem to have been pre-animism (forces), animism(spirits), totemism, and ancestor worship. Deities seem to have made their debut in the late Upper Paleolithic around 13,000 BCE, when animism became more abstract and particular things thought to have spirits became replaced by deities with jurisdiction over a categories of those things. Chimeric statues like the Lion Man of Hohlensten-Stadel and buxom "venuses" are thought to have been indicators of this transition, although know one knows for sure. As humans became sedentary and societies more complex during the Neolithic around 8,000 BCE., the focus of religion shifted to earth mothers, fertility deities, bulls, and the sun and moon. WHAT GODS DID THE NEOLITHIC PEOPLE WORSHIP Mother Earth became prominent at centers like Çatalhöyük in Anatolia--later to make her appearance as the goddess Cybele in Rome. She slimmed down and put on some clothes, but she is still recognizable, accompanied by her pets--two great cats.

I'm not sure how to interpret your statement. Do you mean "real" gods and goddesses have nothing to do with human psychology and sociology? That would probably be true, if there are such things.

 

Well, explanation isn't their only function. Tylor's early study emphasized that, but later studies uncovered other functions: HAD (Hypersentsitive Agency Detection), the tendency to attribute agency and intentionality where it is unlikely to exist (Barrett, 2004); (Boyer, 2001); coping with existential anxieties (Freud, Atran); social bonding (Durkheim); legitmation of rulers and elites, etc.

 

Is it "deities" that you require for religion, or would other supernatural entities count: e.g., spirits, ancestors, totems, mysterious forces?

 

I understand the syllogism, but it misses the point. I think that expertise should carry weight when considering a claim in an area where person B has no knowledge. Much of what we believe is based on reports from trusted experts. We should seek corroborating evidence, and make sure that their opinions are in keeping with those of other experts. You seem to be trying to bring in "appeal to authority", which some folks consider to be a logical fallacy but others do not. Argument from authority - Wikipedia

Obviously, the authorities themselves must base their case on arguments and evidence, and submit the findings to the scrutiny of the scientific community and the public. To say that we should never trust an authority but should always gather and test the information for ourselves is the fallacy of being ridiculous.

 

I don't think I did that. But what does someone in a hard science have to say about prehistoric religion? The hard sciences won't touch religion with a ten foot pole. What can they tell us about foreign or domestic policy? Should we just ignore those, or give the opinion of any dumbass and his dog the same weight as the specialists in the field? If we want to live in a world where the hard sciences are the only ones we trust, and everything else--history, society, politics, religion, etc.-- is something we must either ignore or assume that everybody's pet theory is on the same plane with everybody else's in terms of credibility, I think we'll be taking a major backward step in human knowledge. The hard sciences won't save us.

Of course you have the right to your opinion, meaning the government can't legally put you in jail for it. But that doesn't make your opinion right. An opinion unsupported by reasoned arguments and substantial evidence is simply worthless.

 

I sense we may have evidentiary differences that make it difficult for us to communicate. You seem to require what I consider to be an unreasonably high level of evidence in order to believe anything. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is certainly appropriate where criminal convictions are at stake. We don't want innocent people to lose their lives, liberty or property on the basis of inadequate evidence. And it's important to use a similarly high standard, rendered by panels of experts, where scientific knowledge is at stake, since we need to rely on it for critical decisions. But in areas where lives, liberty and property aren't at stake and solid evidence is hard to come by, I'm willing to accept the best available substantial evidence--an evidentiary level which applies to administrative decisions including safety standards, exposure to hazardous chemicals, and the building of roads and bridges. Substantial evidence is enough evidence to convince a reasonable decision maker, even though other reasonable decision makers might not be convinced. When a majority of scholars in a field of study are convinced that something is more likely than not, I count that as substantial evidence, since they are presumably rational people.

 

Gravity is a natural force that science doesn't fully understand. But I don't think it commands the supernatural awe inspired by mana, wakan, orenda, etc.--spiritual energy and healing power.

That's right, and they could be spirits, too, or mysterious forces. Whole societies revere them as sacred. That's why they're the subjects of religion, as Durkheim, Tylor, Frazer, Freud, Otto, Jung, Eliade, and the rest define it. And your point is? What do they know?

 

Many scholars think religion isn't limited to deities. Spirits, totems, ancestors, and supernatural forces will do.

 

You make it sound so easy. Tylor said that spirits (animism) was an attempt to explain nature. Later scholars added other explanations: Durkheim, social bonding; Rudolf Otto, awe or the numinous; Freud & Scott Atran, coping with existential anxieties; etc.

 

To me, other experts, and other people. Those cave paintings might have resulted from some prehistoric Romeo trying to impress his sweetie. I can hear the echo over the millennia:"Glurka, my darling, I'd climb the highest mountain for you, or penetrate the deepest recesses of a cave. (Come to think of it, that has a double entendre that might make for a good pickup line) But most scholars and I think it seems like way too much trouble for a cave guy to go through when the object of his affections might not be impressed with his etchings. The paintings tended to be in hard to get to, deepest parts of the cave.That's probably why your theory hasn't occurred to anyone else. But hey, you should publish it,share your insights with the scholarly community, and see what they think about it.

Because unless those cave men were supermen, that's what it would have required to paint such magnificent scenes.