Why Religion Exists

ContextThinker

This is my theory on why Religion exists. Any comments and deliberations are greatly appreciated

The Evolutionary Coping Mechanism Theory: A Comprehensive Perspective on Religious and Scientific Development

The human experience is inherently marked by existential queries. Our species has grappled with the mysteries of life, death, and the unknown since the dawn of time. In seeking answers, we've developed complex belief systems – religion and science. But what drives this development? This essay proposes the Evolutionary Coping Mechanism Theory, suggesting that intelligent species create religion and science as adaptive responses to existential threats and uncertainties.

At its core, the Evolutionary Coping Mechanism Theory posits that as cognitive abilities increase, so does awareness of mortality and uncertainty. This heightened awareness triggers existential anxiety, prompting species to develop coping mechanisms. Religion and science emerge as two primary responses, evolving through cognitive, social, environmental, and cultural interactions.

Cognitive development plays a crucial role in this process. As species' cognitive abilities advance, they become increasingly aware of their own mortality and the uncertainty surrounding their existence. This awareness sparks existential anxiety, driving the development of coping mechanisms. Social learning theory supports this notion, suggesting that individuals learn behaviors and beliefs through observation and interaction with others (Bandura, 1977).

Religion, in this context, serves as an initial coping mechanism. It provides meaning, purpose, and reassurance in the face of uncertainty. Terror Management Theory (Greenberg et al., 1997) substantiates this claim, demonstrating that religion mitigates existential anxiety by offering a sense of control and significance. Religious beliefs and practices provide a framework for understanding the world, alleviating fears and anxieties associated with mortality.

However, as cognitive abilities continue to advance, science emerges as a complementary coping mechanism. Science provides an alternative framework for understanding the world, addressing existential questions through empirical evidence and rational inquiry. Cognitive dissonance theory explains how individuals reconcile conflicts between religious and scientific beliefs, often integrating or compartmentalizing these perspectives (Festinger, 1957). Scientific inquiry offers a methodical approach to understanding the world, reducing uncertainty and anxiety.

Environmental pressures and cultural transmission also influence the development of religion and science. Ecological factors, such as resource scarcity or natural disasters, can exacerbate existential anxiety, driving the evolution of coping mechanisms. Cultural transmission, in turn, shapes the expression and interpretation of these mechanisms, as seen in the diverse range of religious and scientific traditions across human societies (Geertz, 1973).

The Evolutionary Coping Mechanism Theory integrates insights from various disciplines, including social learning theory, evolutionary game theory, and cognitive dissonance theory. This framework acknowledges contextual and cultural contingencies, recognizing that religion and science are dynamic, adaptive systems. By considering the interplay between cognitive, social, environmental, and cultural factors, this theory provides a comprehensive understanding of the complex dynamics driving human belief systems.

Implications of this theory are far-reaching. It suggests that intelligent species, faced with existential threats, will inevitably develop coping mechanisms.

While this theory remains speculative, it offers a compelling perspective on the intertwined evolution of religion and science. I think further research should investigate correlations between intelligence, existential awareness, and religious/scientific development.

In conclusion, the Evolutionary Coping Mechanism Theory provides a nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between religion and science. By acknowledging the adaptive nature of these belief systems, we can better appreciate the shared human experience that underlies our quest for meaning and understanding.
Sources

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Prentice Hall.

Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.

Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books.

Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., & Pyszczynski, T. (1997). Terror Management Theory. Psychological Review, 104(2), 223-245.

Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (2004). Evolutionary Dynamics. Harvard University Press.

Count Timothy von Icarus

At its core, the Evolutionary Coping Mechanism Theory posits that as cognitive abilities increase, so does awareness of mortality and uncertainty. This heightened awareness triggers existential anxiety, prompting species to develop coping mechanisms. Religion and science emerge as two primary responses, evolving through cognitive, social, environmental, and cultural interactions.

Cognitive development plays a crucial role in this process. As species' cognitive abilities advance, they become increasingly aware of their own mortality and the uncertainty surrounding their existence. This awareness sparks existential anxiety, driving the development of coping mechanisms. Social learning theory supports this notion, suggesting that individuals learn behaviors and beliefs through observation and interaction with others (Bandura, 1977).

Religion, in this context, serves as an initial coping mechanism. It provides meaning, purpose, and reassurance in the face of uncertainty. Terror Management Theory (Greenberg et al., 1997) substantiates this claim, demonstrating that religion mitigates existential anxiety by offering a sense of control and significance. Religious beliefs and practices provide a framework for understanding the world, alleviating fears and anxieties associated with mortality.

Well, I see one problem here:

How does this explain, say, Calvinism where man has to be constantly worried about whether or not he is elect or destined to eternal damnation? Generally, in this religion, one has absolutely no ability to determine whether one will be saved or not, and one also knows that the overwhelming odds are that one is destined for eternal torment. There are also, traditionally, no ways to know for sure if one is truly elect.

Or how does it explain the many early religions in which the Gods are largely capricious and cruel? I am not sure how believing in an extremely powerful sky rapist who likes transforming into animals before committing his infamies is "reassuring."

I find this particularly unconvincing as respects "afterlife" beliefs because many ancient visions (and the dominant modern vision) of the afterlife seem significantly more unpleasant than just ceasing to exist.

tim wood

By considering the interplay between cognitive, social, environmental, and cultural factors, this theory provides a comprehensive understanding of the complex dynamics driving human belief systems. — ContextThinker

And that understanding is?

ContextThinker

Existential anxiety, stemming from increased intelligence and self-awareness, drives the development of religious beliefs. Even seemingly harsh or capricious deities provide a sense of purpose and meaning, transcending instinctual survival. This reason to live, despite potential unpleasantness, surpasses mere existence. Religion addresses the evolutionary conundrum of intelligent life: finding significance beyond mere survival.

ContextThinker

And that understanding is? — tim wood

.1. Existential anxiety: Intelligence fosters awareness of mortality, prompting questions about life's purpose.
2. Religious purpose: Beliefs provide meaning, even if uncomfortable, beyond instinctual survival.
3. Evolutionary adaptation: Religion helps intelligent species cope with existential concerns.
By providing a higher purpose, religion mitigates existential anxiety, encouraging individuals to live beyond mere existence.

tim wood

Intelligence fosters.... Beliefs provide.... Religion helps.... Religion mitigates. — ContextThinker

Sounds very theoretic to me, but the question was to the "comprehensive understanding of the complex dynamics driving human belief systems." Assuming there are dynamics and they're complex, what is the comprehensive understanding provided?

Your Evolutionary Coping Mechanism Theory (ECMT) seems to me a pretty reasonable account of some distinctive phenomena; you nail its weak heel here:

While this theory remains speculative, — ContextThinker

I happen to buy the notion that science does not begin to kick in until c.1600, Galileo and Francis Bacon, the kick coming from, out of, the ascension of Nominalism over Scholastic Realism. (From a book, The Theological Origins of Modernity, Michael A. Gillespie.) Much more said, here:
https://www.amazon.com/Theological-Origins-Modernity-Michael-Gillespie/dp/0226293467

Wayfarer

↪ContextThinker

There have been various reductionist and biologically-based attempts to explain or rationalise religion in terms of evolution. Evolutionary adaption is said to account for everything about human existence. Notable was Daniel Dennett's 'Breaking the Spell' (the New York Times review of which caused a bit of uproar).

Notice that none of the references provided are actually about religion, presumably indicating the conviction that religions have no content other than providing imagined solace or comfort from existential dread. Presumably the question of whether they can be in any sense true is put to one side.

Science provides an alternative framework for understanding the world, addressing existential questions through empirical evidence and rational inquiry. — ContextThinker

Modern scientific method excludes from consideration factors that are not amenable to objective measurement and analysis. Science’s framework was intended to provide knowledge through observation, experimentation, and rational analysis, with an emphasis on objectivity and reproducibility. That framework has been hugely successful in advancing our understanding of physical and biological phenomena, but until recently, it has never really engaged directly with existential questions.

The quoted passage instead suggests the 'conflict thesis', which generally casts religion as an outdated or superseded cognitive mode especially when viewed against the background of scientific progress. According to this view, science and religion are fundamentally at odds: science is seen as the domain of rational, evidence-based inquiry, while religion is framed as an artifact of cognitive biases or a tool for coping with existential anxiety. The implication is often that religion has no genuine insights to offer about reality or the human condition and so can only be understood in Darwinian terms, never mind that it is primarily a biological theory about the evolution of species.

But the times they are a'changing. In recent years there’s been a notable shift, particularly with the intersection of disciplines like cognitive science, neuroscience, and contemplative science, which are beginning to engage with questions of consciousness, well-being, the nature of meaning, and genuine philosophical enquiry. People like John Vervaeke are at the forefront of this movement, questioning the traditional limits of scientific inquiry and suggesting that cognitive science, in particular, is poised to explore existential questions more rigorously, in so doing entering into dialogue with many religious and spiritual philosophers and practitioners.

References: Awakening from the Meaning Crisis, John Vervaeke (Video playlist).

Andrew Newberg and 'Neurotheology' (website)

Mind and Life Institute (website)

T Clark

Welcome to the forum. Some thoughts.

At its core, the Evolutionary Coping Mechanism Theory posits that as cognitive abilities increase, so does awareness of mortality and uncertainty. This heightened awareness triggers existential anxiety, prompting species to develop coping mechanisms. Religion and science emerge as two primary responses, evolving through cognitive, social, environmental, and cultural interactions. — ContextThinker

The idea that religion and science are methods by which humans attempt to deal with fears of uncertainty and death is commonplace. How is what you've described different? It doesn't really seem like a theory at all - it's more of a platitude.

Religion, in this context, serves as an initial coping mechanism... However, as cognitive abilities continue to advance, science emerges as a complementary coping mechanism. — ContextThinker

As far as I can see, there is no reason to believe it takes more advanced cognitive abilities to develop and apply a scientific understanding than it does a religious one.

Ecological factors, such as resource scarcity or natural disasters, can exacerbate existential anxiety, driving the evolution of coping mechanisms. — ContextThinker

Are you saying that "existential anxiety" can drive the evolution of cognitive capabilities? That seems unlikely to me.

It suggests that intelligent species, faced with existential threats, will inevitably develop coping mechanisms. — ContextThinker

All biological organisms; plants, animals, fungus; faced with existential threats will inevitably develop coping mechanisms. That's what evolution by natural selection means.

180 Proof

Why Religion Exists ... — ContextThinker

I think (your) "Evolutionary Coping Mechanism" overstates the case with an underdeveloped "theory". Consider the following old threads:

(2021) The why and origins of Religion ...

Magical thinking. 'Making shit up' is far easier than struggling to find out what is and is not the case. The brains of h. sapiens are adapted for survival and not truths; therefore [ ... ] — 180 Proof

(2022) Roots of religion ...

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 [ ... ] — 180 Proof

ContextThinker

Your Evolutionary Coping Mechanism Theory (ECMT) seems to me a pretty reasonable account of some distinctive phenomena; you nail its weak heel here: — tim wood

Thank you for recognizing the potential of this theory. My goal is not to oversimplify the complexities of human belief systems, but rather to explore the profound and enduring presence of religiosity across human cultures. I seek to understand the underlying drivers of this phenomenon and uncover whether an evolutionary perspective can shed light on the diverse belief systems that have emerged throughout our species' history."

ContextThinker

The quoted passage instead suggests the 'conflict thesis', which generally casts religion as an outdated or superseded cognitive mode especially when viewed against the background of scientific progress. According to this view, science and religion are fundamentally at odds: science is seen as the domain of rational, evidence-based inquiry, while religion is framed as an artifact of cognitive biases or a tool for coping with existential anxiety. The implication is often that religion has no genuine insights to offer about reality or the human condition and so can only be understood in Darwinian terms, never mind that it is primarily a biological theory about the evolution of species. — Wayfarer

While it's true that modern scientific method emphasizes objective measurement and analysis, this doesn't necessitate excluding non-empirical aspects of human experience. ECMT doesn't dismiss the value of religion itself but rather seeks to integrate insights from cognitive science, neuroscience, and contemplative science to understand religiosity's persistence.

The conflict thesis oversimplifies the complex relationship between science and religion. ECMT acknowledges that science provides a superior framework for understanding physical and biological phenomena but argues that religiosity serves distinct purposes, addressing existential concerns and promoting social cohesion.

ECMT posits that religiosity evolved to mitigate existential anxiety, foster cooperation, and provide meaning – functions that aren't necessarily incompatible with scientific inquiry.

ContextThinker

The idea that religion and science are methods by which humans attempt to deal with fears of uncertainty and death is commonplace. How is what you've described different? It doesn't really seem like a theory at all - it's more of a platitude. — T Clark

While it's true that the idea of religion and science as coping mechanisms for existential anxiety is not new, the Evolutionary Coping Mechanism Theory (ECMT) provides a distinct, empirically grounded framework for understanding their emergence and interplay.

ECMT differs from previous notions by integrating insights from cognitive science, neuroscience, and evolutionary biology to explain the adaptive functions of religiosity and scientific inquiry. It's not merely a platitude, but a testable theory that predicts specific patterns of cultural and cognitive evolution.

Regarding cognitive abilities, ECMT doesn't suggest that science requires more advanced cognition than religion. Instead, it proposes that as cognitive abilities increase, so does the complexity and nuance of coping mechanisms. Science and religion serve complementary functions, addressing different aspects of existential anxiety.

ECMT acknowledges ecological factors, such as resource scarcity and natural disasters, as exacerbating existential anxiety. However, it also highlights the role of cognitive and social factors in shaping coping mechanisms.

Lastly, ECMT doesn't imply that existential anxiety drives the evolution of cognitive capabilities. Rather, it suggests that existential anxiety is a selective pressure that influences the development of coping mechanisms within existing cognitive frameworks.

Your observation that all biological organisms develop coping mechanisms in response to existential threats is correct. ECMT builds upon this fundamental principle, providing a detailed explanation for the emergence of complex, culturally-mediated coping mechanisms in humans.

Tom Storm

How does this explain, say, Calvinism where man has to be constantly worried about whether or not he is elect or destined to eternal damnation? Generally, in this religion, one has absolutely no ability to determine whether one will be saved or not, and one also knows that the overwhelming odds are that one is destined for eternal torment. There are also, traditionally, no ways to know for sure if one is truly elect.

Or how does it explain the many early religions in which the Gods are largely capricious and cruel? I am not sure how believing in an extremely powerful sky rapist who likes transforming into animals before committing his infamies is "reassuring." — Count Timothy von Icarus

You raise salient points. Although I don’t fully accept the original post, it could be argued that humans have an innate desire to understand and create a framework for supernatural realities—even if those frameworks are harsh. This need can provide reassurance by offering a way to make sense of our experiences and establish guiding principles for navigating the world. If our deities are perceived as cruel and unpredictable, might that not reflect the inherent harshness and unpredictability of nature itself? Our dream life doesn't have to be all sweetness and light for us to find reassurance, purpose, and a sense of predictability in the world.

BitconnectCarlos

Scientific inquiry offers a methodical approach to understanding the world, reducing uncertainty and anxiety. — ContextThinker

How exactly does science quell existential anxiety?

Science provides an alternative framework for understanding the world, addressing existential questions through empirical evidence and rational inquiry. — ContextThinker

The biggest existential question is probably "what happens after death?" which science does not and cannot claim as its territory -- the most it can do is describe the decomposition process of the body. Science explains the physical. When it comes to matters of the soul or the afterlife or eschatology science is silent. Science does not provide an "alternative framework" it simply zeroes in on the physical domain and seeks to explain it to a T.

Man is just as in the dark concerning these existential questions as they've ever been. How has science shed any light on this? You can go back to ancient literature thousands of years old and they opine about the same essential questions: Why not just live life to maximize enjoyment given how fleeting it is? Please, let me know how science assuages this existential anxiety.

Janus

This essay proposes the Evolutionary Coping Mechanism Theory, suggesting that intelligent species create religion and science as adaptive responses to existential threats and uncertainties. — ContextThinker

So species which do not create religion and science cannot be intelligent? I would agree with you if you had said instead "intelligent species which are capable of symbolic language". A creature no matter how intelligent could not create religion or science without first possessing symbolic language.

↪Tom Storm

:up:

frank

↪ContextThinker

Yes, religion is the 'opium of the people.'. An anesthetic can support functionality when times are tough. I think that's one reason for the endurance of some religions. Religions serve other purposes as well.

Wayfarer

ECMT posits that religiosity evolved to mitigate existential anxiety, foster cooperation, and provide meaning – functions that aren't necessarily incompatible with scientific inquiry.
2h — ContextThinker

Agree, but does it acknowledge that religions might make valid truth claims?

Moliere

Implications of this theory are far-reaching. It suggests that intelligent species, faced with existential threats, will inevitably develop coping mechanisms. — ContextThinker

I want to attack the notion that this idea is an evolutionary adaptation.

All species develop coping mechanisms, from viruses to us. Some of the species die in the process of natural selection and thems who chose the environmentally-conditioned adaptations which effect reproduction positively for the species are thems who developed the coping mechanisms that passed on.

But evolution has nothing to do with religion, in my opinion. Once we acquired the ability to speak language -- well, I think that's more in the ballpark of why religion exists. But it's pretty hazy since it's not like any of us were there at the dawn of talking/writing.

Wayfarer

↪Moliere

:100:

Gnomon

This essay proposes the Evolutionary Coping Mechanism Theory, suggesting that intelligent species create religion and science as adaptive responses to existential threats and uncertainties. — ContextThinker

A somewhat different perspective might postulate that truly "Intelligent species" cope with evolutionary pressures by finding practical solutions, not by "making sh*t up" as one poster put it. From the beginning of complex societies, Religion was been intertwined with Politics and Science. For example, the Pagan Nature Gods were typically metaphorical attempts to understand the vagaries of weather & climate & human interactions. They were early "theories" of how the world works. And "adaptive responses", if you will.

Since Nature seemed to be pretty well organized, a king-like god was proposed to mandate the laws of nature that make things work smoothly and predictably. For thousands of years, in most cultures, their religion has provided a pragmatic basis for political and technological problems . . . not perfect, but workable. Also, the human subjects of tyrannical kings probably feared their flesh & blood rulers more than the imaginary deities. Relatively primitive people built artificial mountains (pyramids), not by the magic powers of priests (or aliens), but by learning how gravity works.

Around 500BC though, the Greeks began to express Nature's regularities as more abstract and less anthro-morphic principles : Logos instead of Zeus, First Cause instead of Fates. These principles appealed more to Reason than to Emotion. Our modern Science has continued that trend away from anthro-metaphors toward pure abstractions like intangible Energy, which is said to transform magically into Matter. In fact the current fundamental reality, replacing Atomism, is the notion of a purely mathematical Quantum Field. That imaginary expanse is a metaphorical reference to a field of wheat with a stalk of grain at each point.

So, we continue to refine our labels and metaphors to enhance our artificial power over the natural powers-that-be. Admittedly, some of our scientific metaphors, such as Aether --- which served as an early account of what we now call the Electrical Field --- simply exchange one metaphor for another. Even our modern democratic/oligarchic Politics has a prominent role for a god-like ruler who promises to Make Reality Great Again. Pragmatic voters will choose the propaganda image that seems to provide practical benefits (answers to prayers, such as keeping demonic immigrants at bay), in the here & now, not in some remote life-after-life. If that "adaptation" doesn't work, we can try again in four years. :smile:

T Clark

It's not merely a platitude, but a testable theory that predicts specific patterns of cultural and cognitive evolution. — ContextThinker

Your OP (original post) and subsequent posts provide almost no specific information. They include a vague and undetailed description of the elements of your ECMT and it's supporting information. You claim it is testable and makes specific predictions but you don't describe any specific hypotheses or how they might be tested.

ECMT acknowledges ecological factors, such as resource scarcity and natural disasters, as exacerbating existential anxiety. However, it also highlights the role of cognitive and social factors in shaping coping mechanisms. — ContextThinker

Again, no detail is provided. "Acknowledgment" and "highlighting" do not constitute evidence or methods of testing.

Lastly, ECMT doesn't imply that existential anxiety drives the evolution of cognitive capabilities. Rather, it suggests that existential anxiety is a selective pressure that influences the development of coping mechanisms within existing cognitive frameworks. — ContextThinker

"Selective pressure" is a technical term for factors that drive evolution by influencing differential reproductive success and survival of populations.

ECMT builds upon this fundamental principle, providing a detailed explanation for the emergence of complex, culturally-mediated coping mechanisms in humans. — ContextThinker

Again, you have provided almost no detail.

Count Timothy von Icarus

↪Tom Storm

Yes, I did think of that, and I agree with you that it might be plausible in some contexts. Animism is the norm both in early cultures and early childhood, e.g. "the river floods because it wants to." And there is a clear path from this to positing supernatural entities.

But the idea that this is an "adaptive coping mechanism," then makes no sense in terms of some later religious developments, because they make the world both terrifying and unintelligible, the result of an unfathomable God who is beyond all human notions of good and evil, totally obscured by total equivocity. In these extreme voluntarist theological contexts God has also revealed that God intends to consign most of humanity to eternal torment, saving a small remnant, based on "His own good pleasure," for reasons "beyond human comprehension." And to top it all off, God has predestined everything, including our own acts and thoughts, according to his unfathomable will, which is, as mentioned, beyond all human comprehension (save miraculous illumination).

This is not only not reassuring, it makes man entirely helpless, and it makes all of reality bottom out in the completely unintelligible and unfathomable. Through the obsession with divine sovereignty, all of existence becomes a pantheistic expression of the divine will, which is itself beyond comprehension.

It seems to me like the opposite of a coping mechanism. "Nightmare fuel," would be a better term.

But my understanding of ancient Near Eastern afterlives is that they are not necessarily all that much better. If you're a slave in this life you go on to be a slave for eternity. I suppose this explains the purpose of one's life at least, to be a slave (whereas in the aforementioned theology God's reasons for making man are inscrutable).

Count Timothy von Icarus

↪Wayfarer

I suppose one way to "cope" with a lack of meaning could be to actually uncover to true meaning of life, how to "be a good person," or "life a good life," etc. :grin:

I think most active religions would readily acknowledge that people often come to them precisely because they are suffering from lack of meaning, existential angst, moral anguish, or just plain suffering, so there is agreement on this point. But I think they might object to "cope" as the term.

Wayfarer

I suppose one way to "cope" with a lack of meaning could be to actually uncover to true meaning of life, how to "be a good person," or "life a good life," etc. :grin: — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yeah I had the idea philosophy had something to do with that. Evolutionary biology, maybe not so much.

I like sushi

↪ContextThinker

For starters, just because the Western traditions are obsessed with an existential threat (death) it does not mean other traditions are. They are not. The Japanese and Chinese cultures had to invent a term to refer to the Abrahamic traditions because they had no equivalent word for "religion" - this was in the latter part of the 19th Century.

When faced with existential threats our sense of individuality is brought into sharp focus usually because unconscious mechanism begin to rise into conscious awareness in a rather unfiltered manner (eg. NDEs and other general ASCs).

Tom Storm

But the idea that this is an "adaptive coping mechanism," then makes no sense in terms of some later religious developments, because they make the world both terrifying and unintelligible, the result of an unfathomable God who is beyond all human notions of good and evil, totally obscured by total equivocity. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Not entirely sure why you've ended up here or which god you are thinking of but I wouldn't arrive at this conclusion. A god may be irascible or capricious and above human comprehension, but simply knowing this is the case and having an identity for this god, a knowledge of its presence and some imperfect rituals to assist us in pleasing such a god, as best we can, is surely enough?

This is not only not reassuring, it makes man entirely helpless, and it makes all of reality bottom out in the completely unintelligible and unfathomable. Through the obsession with divine sovereignty, all of existence becomes a pantheistic expression of the divine will, which is itself beyond comprehension. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Which god/s are you thinking of that work like this?

I like sushi

Scientific inquiry offers a methodical approach to understanding the world, reducing uncertainty and anxiety. — ContextThinker

Understanding can undermine meaning. Lack of meaning can cause anxiety.

I like sushi

↪ContextThinker

You therefore believe in the axial revolution as coming about due to cognitive development? If yes, why? If not, why not?

BitconnectCarlos

↪Tom Storm

He's talking about Calvinism, a religious movement which turns God into a total psychopath.

Tom Storm

He's talking about Calvinism, a religious movement which turns God into a total psychopath. — BitconnectCarlos

Know it well, it's the religion of my father's family. But execrable gods are a dime a dozen. I fail to see how this worldview doesn't provide people with purpose and explanatory power. No matter how horrendous the religion's tenets, people always find a way to integrate them into how they make sense of the world at large.

I like sushi

↪180 Proof

This is a super simplistic view. All 'religions' stem from specific instances of alter states of consciousness. Experiences in these states are felt as being more real than what was previously regarded as reality.

It is from exposure to these experiences that all religions developed. The question of why religion exists now in its current state has clearly branched off into many areas. The fundamental features of all religions orbit these experiences though.

What they are and how they alter out perception of reality is a more important question for me personally. Although it is interesting looking into the various lines of inquiry into how religion has manifested in different environments and how it has adapted to social needs.

What we call 'religion' today has inevitably sprung forth for a variety of reasons including animism, memory, literacy, population explosion, etc.,. The list is almost unending. The very concept of God is of no real significance to some 'religions' whilst being at the heart of others (eg. Islam and Daoism/Taoism). Confucianism is also loosely defined as a 'religion' in modern parlance, yet God is irrelevant. Many traditions in Buddhism have no concern with Gods either.

Also, some cares more about 'souls' and other far less so. The same goes for a whole array of views surrounding religion, such as afterlife, rebirth, scripture, ancestors and connections to nature in general.

The only common feature I have found is in traditions that involve altered states of consciousness, initiation and mnemonics (lost mostly through the advent of literacy).

Why Religion Exists

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions