Sure, their power relies on us not understanding, what else are they supposed to tell us? Why does religion still hold humanity in its grasp and why is it so hard for most people to see through obvious truths? — enqramot

There is nothing wrong with myth. But you cannot use myth when good explanations exist.

There is nothing wrong with myth. But you cannot use myth when good explanations exist. — Jackson

Maybe one of these days I'll come across one of these explanations.

You have just built a self interpreting system. As such, it cannot fail, because it is closed. It is a frequent mistake in philosophy. This way you can explain everything with everything: it will just work, always. You can say that the roots of religions are, let’s say, dogs, or tomatoes, or maths. Once the starting idea is made, it will be a matter of moments to build a whole working system.

Your post isn't based upon empirical fact, but it is a speculative etiological myth, written to provide you a better understanding of your world. You just did what you objected to the religious as having done, only the stories of the religious are better thought out, more interesting, and filled with more wisdom.

Your post isn't based upon empirical fact, but it is a speculative etiological myth, written to provide you a better understanding of your world. You just did what you objected to the religious as having done, only the stories of the religious are better thought out, more interesting, and filled with more wisdom. — Hanover

The Big Bang is infinitely more inspiring than God did it. Not because science is more true, but it gives an explanation we can use. God causing the universe explains nothing.

God causing the universe explains nothing. — Jackson

:100:

Why does religion still hold humanity in its grasp and why is it so hard for most people to see through obvious truths? — enqramot

We're natural beings. Paths of least resistance constitute the regularities – processes – of nature. Making shit up (versus figuring shit out) is a path of least cognitive resistance. (Human) brains are survival, not "truth", engines; we natural beings are born magical / wishful / group / non thinkers, which for (too) many people, no amount of numeracy, literacy or lived experience can exorcize this fetish for fantasy (worship) in denial of facts aka "religion".

You have just built a self interpreting system. As such, it cannot fail, because it is closed. It is a frequent mistake in philosophy. This way you can explain everything with everything: it will just work, always. You can say that the roots of religions are, let’s say, dogs, or tomatoes, or maths. Once the starting idea is made, it will be a matter of moments to build a whole working system. — Angelo Cannata

I'm just proposing an explanation in the spirit of Ockham' Razor. When there's a very simple explanation of something right there in front of your eyes, why would you look further unless for entertainmemt purposes? Admittedly, I haven't witnessed what I describe, but you can find many analogies in everyday life. I don't claim that what I said somehow disproves God's existence or for that matter proves that his left leg is slightly longer than his right.

Your post isn't based upon empirical fact, but it is a speculative etiological myth, written to provide you a better understanding of your world. You just did what you objected to the religious as having done, only the stories of the religious are better thought out, more interesting, and filled with more wisdom. — Hanover

Are we talking about the same wisdom that leads to persecution of gays, jews, representants of other faiths, atheists, women, requiring people to live strictly according to some arbitrary "teachings" of people who claim to represent God? Or the wisdom that leads to terror attacks?
Anyway, there's a difference. I don't claim my words to be absolute truth. When artificially created notion of God doesn't make my life any better and in many respects more complicated - the logical choice is to reject it. Not only do I find religious stories completely unconvincing, full of contradictions and naive, I can also understand possible practical motives behind their creation. End of story. Conclusion: I'm not buying it.

We're natural beings. Paths of least resistance constitute the regularities – processes – of nature. Making shit up (versus figuring shit out) is a path of least cognitive resistance. (Human) brains are first and foremost survival, not "truth", engines; we natural beings are born magical / wishful / group / non thinkers, which for (too) many people, no amount of numeracy, literacy or lived experience can exorcize this fetish for fantasy (worship) in denial of facts aka "religion". — 180 Proof

I tend to agree with you there. Sad but true.

Why does religion still hold humanity in its grasp and why is it so hard for most people to see through obvious truths? — enqramot

The core of it is tribalism, a survival strategy, and though religion may be the most potent expression of this it exists in many forms.

The core of it is tribalism, a survival strategy, and though religion may be the most potent expression of this it exists in many forms. — praxis

Tribalism always entails the enemy as the outsider.

Tribalism always entails the enemy as the outsider. — Jackson

Heretics and infidels. :death:

Having had many experiences in the Art of Dreaming years ago, I recall the first thing I thought of when I was first successful was, "Now I understand how religion really started!"

Shamans, prophets, and others capitalized on this variant of consciousness to establish what later became organized religion - far, far removed from its origins.

Just my thoughts on the subject. It may be hard to understand unless you've had the experience. And the experience, of course, may establish a trajectory of thought that is possibly incorrect!

The core of it is tribalism, a survival strategy, and though religion may be the most potent expression of this it exists in many forms. — praxis

:up:

...thinking hard how you can capitalise on their backwardness — enqramot

That's about you, perhaps. It's not the approach most folk would take.

That's about you, perhaps. It's not the approach most folk would take. — Banno

No, I specifically meant church as an organization akin to mafia, imho. They got really rich, you know, especially in certain countries.

Why does religion still hold humanity in its grasp and why is it so hard for most people to see through obvious truths? — enqramot

Oh, does it? Or are people just thinking hard how they can capitalise on the backwardness of others?

Oh, does it? Or are people just thinking hard how they can capitalise on the backwardness of others? — baker

Both. The mechanism is universal, of course, not restricted to religion. The more educated society, the less of an effect.

The more educated society, the less of an effect. — enqramot

Pffft. Educated villains are all the rage now.

Pffft. Educated villains are all the rage now. — baker

But maybe less of a prey to choose from? Stronger resistance?

Poor and symplistic analysis based on biases you carry.

I came to the same basic conclusion. Many questions are still unanswered/unknown but it certainly a position that contends strongly with any other when it comes to the ‘origins of religion’.

I do think there is something to basic human greed and fallacies that have led to ‘opiate of the masses’ and other such views. I do not see these positons as the instigators though. Shamanism, and shamanic traditions, are imbued across all religions yet shamanism is not a ‘religion’.

Altered states of consciousness seem to be where the whole landscape of ‘religion’ stem from. Nothing supernatural but certainly something deeply obscured.

Poor and symplistic analysis based on biases you carry. — I like sushi

Care to justify your opinion?

@OP, You mean like Star Wars, technologically advanced but still in the grips of medieval thinking - (jedi) knights, (light)sabers, emperors, and so on? There was something really appealing about our past, romanticism notwithstanding.

We don't learn, do we? Too bad.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. — George Santayana

Mark my words, we'll soon be back at square one.

I'm just proposing an explanation in the spirit of Ockham' Razor. — enqramot

Occam liked nice efficient explanations, but he also liked explanations that accounted for reality.

The world's religions have very deep roots, going back to very ancient times. Any contemporary religious operation may seem (and actually be) corrupt, but I think it is safe to say that religions didn't begin as a scam.

Humans need some kind of explanation for the world they live in. They need some way to give meaning to their existence, replete with joys and sorrows. If rationality is plentiful, we use rationality, If poetry, myth making, story telling, and ritual are plentiful, that's what we use.

The roots of religion began in pre-rational very ancient milieus. Rationality would come, but not yet. Tree gods, river gods, animal spirits, mountain spirits, and so on likely came first. Sky gods, earth gods, storm gods, fertility gods, and so on came later, but didn't replace the earlier worship.

We are very familiar with sky gods: Zeus, for instance, and his various relatives. Christianity descended from the monotheism of the Jewish sky god.

The sky gods tended to be strongly associated with the power elite of the society in which they were worshipped--more so than animal spirits and tree gods. Think of the Roman state and its official pantheon. Eventually, the humble Jesus was adapted to the needs of the Empire, and the Church and Empire became fellow travelers. Bad business.

So, may I suggest you really look at the roots of religion, rather than this year's crops of wormy produce.

The radices of religion. :chin:

Off the top of my head:

1. The hunger for explanations (storm gods, fire gods, etc.).

2. The desire for control over our destiny (prayer, sacrificial offerings, etc.).

3. The need for a loyal, reliable ally/benefactor (Sky daddy)

4. The need for a moral enforcer (God as judge, jury and executioner; karma)

You presented a one-dimensional position with no attempt to offer up any other explanations for the existence of ‘religions’.

Your entire argument starts on the assumption that people started religions for purely selffish/nefarious means. That could be true of course, but I see no attempt made to consider any other possibility. Hence, you are arguing/asking from a position of clear bias.

↪enqramot
You presented a one-dimensional position with no attempt to offer up any other explanations for the existence of ‘religions’.

Your entire argument starts on the assumption that people started religions for purely selffish/nefarious means. That could be true of course, but I see no attempt made to consider any other possibility. Hence, you are arguing/asking from a position of clear bias. — I like sushi

Thanks for clarification. I never suggested this to be a comprehensive explanation. I meant what I said to simply highlight one aspect which is important but often omitted and which is crucial (IMO) for any serious discussion about religion. I understand this is a multifaceted topic and did not attempt to discuss possible valid use cases for religion nor deny that such may exist. Maybe I should start using disclaimers.

The world's religions have very deep roots, going back to very ancient times. Any contemporary religious operation may seem (and actually be) corrupt, but I think it is safe to say that religions didn't begin as a scam.

Humans need some kind of explanation for the world they live in. They need some way to give meaning to their existence, replete with joys and sorrows. If rationality is plentiful, we use rationality, If poetry, myth making, story telling, and ritual are plentiful, that's what we use. — Bitter Crank

Yes, definitely there is some genuine need that religion responds to (which doesn't mean that as humanity progresses other, better ways of addressing such needs won't render religion obsolete, which I'm sure is already the case with some people). However, that puts those in charge of organizing and coordinating religious activities in a position where they can easily manipulate people for personal gain and there's nothing to suggest that it was any different in ancient times. The fact that religion addresses genuine needs doesn't preclude scam, as you seem to argue.

By "ancient" I mean Paleolithic -- of the Stone Age, hunter-gatherers; very small scattered groupings of people. In conventional terms, the "ancient world" begins with Sumer or Egypt, very early writing, early use of metal (copper). By that time, " those in charge of organizing and coordinating religious activities were in a position where they can easily manipulate people for personal gain" as you say.

There is no evidence of organized religion, or organized civil society, before around 8,000 years ago when the first cities were built, after early agriculture developed. There are cave paintings of unknown meanings, and a few carvings of what we suppose are fertility figures from around 20,000 years ago. Before that, the most we have is almost nothing.

You might like the book AGAINST THE GRAIN, A deep history of the earliest states 2017 by James C. Scott. He argues that people were coaxed into agricultural labor and early village life by a nascent elite that saw opportunity in settled society to cultivate their own power and wealth. Religion would certainly have played a role in this scheme (if it is true).

The urge or need to create sacred activities might be a feature of our evolution and are still seen in individual non-communal private acts.