Who would want to be a PM in the UK right now? Every household knows you need to balance the budget. We lived through the period of austerity and cuts. Global issues like Covid and war in Ukraine impact on energy prices. Rising interest rates. Rising inflation. It was a big mistake not to cost the budget properly but printing money is also not a proper answer.

The reality is a better progressive tax system. The job of government is to support everyone to provide the required services a modern society needs and provide support for proper investment in infrastructure and maximising business opportunities in a fair way.

Globally however the normal expectation of continued gdp growth fuelled by consumer spending and the reality of growth fuelled by energy and the modern reliance on oil and hydrocarbons to support unsustainable growth given we are at peak oil means overall sadly for the majority standards and quality of life will be reduced with no easy answers.

Historically it has been those with power and money that have provided for themselves and close friends and political allies that maintain their position.

For sure democracy and voting with the one person one vote seems on paper the right idea but you get the government you vote for. Those with the wealth and power are still the minority yet the majority voting are arguably still getting it wrong so we end up with the government we voted for setting aside the recent vote to change pm.

The biggest issue for the tories is no obvious leader with the right ideas and enough support to plan and implement it. Manifestos become wish lists to fool voters. Yes who would want to be a pm in those circumstances but no political party would ever be able to solve all these problems.

Individuals can help themselves by doing their own budgets and working out how to get by with the basics. Inflation although the problem is going to face the stark reality of falling demand as we cut back as the majority will focus on just spending on the essentials. I expect certain industries like tourism and arts and entertainment, the luxuries will suffer the most.

There are other questions you might tackle involving qualities or abstractions related to owning objects, for instance, status/luxury or how much is enough.

@Tom. Yes I think for me you hit the nail on the head there. In particular how much is enough. The comfort factor re essentially Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is potentially becoming a big issue for a sizeable portion of people (although I hope it won’t be) so basic food if energy bills escalate or shelter (home repossession) if I can’t afford higher interest payments. So assuming these needs met. And yes these same people will potentially still cling to their phones. But even if we have one or two nice things we possess why might we still feel dissatisfied, assuming we do?

It’s interesting to explore. Not arguably a new phenomenon either, far from it arguably. If there is archaeological evidence that ancient civilisations had the trappings of belongings like jewellery etc there is something that is still very much a thing. There is no doubt there is satisfaction but the underlying reasons may be many faceted.

I guess a very ubiquitous example these days is mobile phones. The utility of which is arguably but not quite able to totally quantified explicitly. Not that may be important anyway.

The idea however that owning “stuff” leads to satisfaction is probably undeniable. I just find it curious why as much as I do enjoy the possessions I have it’ surprisingly difficult to explain simply why.

I am reminded of a nice reminder from the series TV series Kung Fu. When Caine passes the test set by Master Kan to “snatch the pebble from his hand” when Caine retains it after having focused on obtaining it for so long Master Kan remarks that there is another ‘pebble’ that Man has saught after over the ages ….. “the Earth “.

It may be an extreme way to look at it but valid non the less.

Tom, I don’t believe so but accept the argument that you cannot possibly understand the Eastern philosophy unless you have submerged yourself or of course are brought up with the language and heritage. I made the references for some context and background. But in same way each individual can find his own experience of what different cultures or experience ignites in them. Taoist writing does make you think in a different way. I guess I don’t get hung up on a romantic notion but the best way is to try and practice what you take from your understanding of the teaching. There is a lot to be said for learning from a teacher and yes that would be ideal. But like us all we live with our current status with family and responsibilities.

From my perspective I have taken an interest in both Western mysticism and ceremonial magic with a study of the Tarot and it’s relationship to the Tree of Life. At the same time exploring the I Ching as a system of injury. An interesting parallel between the two systems of divination. Symbology rules.

Personally I do not worry about what may be missing or interpreted incorrectly but in the reading I do appreciate the skills of the translator. I think the ‘voice’ of the original author can still be heard.

Firstly apologies. I was not so familiar with the site and replying directly to a commented post. Thanks for your carefully considered reply.

We can agree the approaches are indeed different.

It’s odd you say the question is biased. I guess phrasing it as meaning and purpose of life. I was just trying to use one question or area to start the conversation. I agree there are different ways to look at it. Agree too that the Eastern way of thinking would not really think in terms of purpose meaning of life. It’s my view that there is an over focus on this in the western way of thinking in 21st C. You could take mindfulness as an example. It’s arguable that the East v West has a different way of thinking about some fundamental things.

Time is one. The western leaning can be very short term. The East tend to thing for longer term. I possibly argue this makes for better strategic thinking and planning. We have the East to thank for the Art of War and The Book of five rings. I am born in the West but from a young age had a certain interest in the Far East. In part from exposure to programs like the Water Margin and Monkey.

But quite a lot to do with Bruce Lee and David Carradine of Kung Fu fame. I am sure you know that the idea originated from Lee but they wanted an American actor. Carradine in reality I think was a better choice. But to finish thanks for your reply and insight. I assume you favour the Eastern over the Western. That is my leaning too. I have an interest in martial arts and internal styles in particular Tai Chi which has its own classics and principles and seeks to develop both health and spiritual developments.

I don’t think I was ignoring anyone. What gave you that idea?

This interesting comment from Cary F. Baynes in her Translator’s preface to “The Secret of the Golden Flower” translated by R. Wilhelm and C. G. Jung. Both of course were close to the I Ching and the Translation R. Wilhelm provided. It is clear Jung had a deep respect for the I Ching and R. Wilhelm’s translation.

Excerpt - (It must be noted that, as C. G. Jung correctly points out, Chinese mentality, at least up to very recent times, has been essentially different in some fundamental respects from that of Europeans.

The teachings of the Eastern Mystery traditions from ‘translations’ of what may have been oral teachings will always leave a doubt arguably as to the original meaning. This is true for any ancient text but for one I am grateful and thankful they have come down to us in particular where certain rulers have been at pains to eradicate such knowledge. “The knowledge is Power” expression must have been a factor.

All we can do is try and learn from these texts but in turn take from an interpret our own meaning and sensibilities from them.

I have always appreciated the two different ways of answering the same general inquiry. One difference for me is for the Western approach it has always appeared to be focused on individual inquiry. Very much the question based on the I. This is understandable as it is the person inquiring who presumably wants to know. The Eastern mystery traditions do seem to consider the general nature of existence and being. It still has inquiry by an individual but the answers tend to cover a wider encompassing response applicable to all. My own Eastern mystery tradition is in the Oriental mystery traditions and Taoism in particular. Buddhism I do not know as much of but again the answers are probably more widely applicable. I think too I feel that Eastern mystery traditions tend to learn more from the observation of nature in general and animals more specifically. A lot of this is through observation. Western Classical philosophy has tended to be questioned and answered more around humanity, not exclusively of course as there are many great conversations like epistemology or logic or metaphysics.

Such areas do not seem to be in the scope of the Eastern mystery traditions or at least not in the direct sense.

Yep. I want your opinion on something that's bothering me for as long as I can remember. The Taoist harmony principle between opposites (hot-cold, good-bad, and so on), to my reckoning, implies the existence and, shockingly, the necessity for disharmony (the counterbalancing force of harmony). This, as far as I can tell, means there should be discord/strife/struggle/chaos in the universe. If so, what's the point at all of seeking balance/equilibrium? — TheMadFool

I missed this response from the original but had not been visiting the forum. I consider myself a Taoist. Taoism isn’t implying a necessity for imbalance but that there exists a duality, the Yin and Yang and also interestingly suggests that there is no absolute of one over the other so each has the seed or the potential of the other. The I Ching book of changes describes the 64 Hexagrams composed of the combinations of the 8 trigrams. Each trigram has a meaning related to it’s construction and assignment to basic assignments. Each hexagram has changing lines Yang to Yin or vice Versa. There is the mention of the 10,000 things but this just a way of describing all things. What Taoist tries to explain is that nature naturally seeks a balance.

There may be extremes but everything naturally finds a balance. This is true in general when we look at nature and animals. Humans however do not normally work with nature. Early civilised society probably did so e.g. Native American Indians but man has always worked to control and change nature, you can argue overall for the better but lately the debate with global warming and burning fossil fuels. It is not that there should be disharmony but it exits after all chaos (increasing entropy) exists. At first I found that counter intuitive as gravity you can argue increases order because from e.g gas you have stars form and planets but the overall entropy apparently is still higher as there is ‘information’ lost in this ‘apparent order’.

This is an aside but it is true in general nature will achieve balance. An eco system if left undisturbed balances itself predators and prey for example. Mankind has always had an impact on natural order. In pre history this did not have an impact but arguably since the industrial revolution it has. I strayed a bit but the message of Taoism is to try and follow the Tao which means letting the natural flow of things happen and balance and recognise extremes of Yang or yin and let them balance each other, after hard work Yang, rest yin.

On topic - if you follow the Tao you don’t need morals. Acting in accordance with the Tao (with nature).

@T Clark. Very useful reference. My take away from it is there is a natural bias from birth to like those that might treat others better and also are similar to you. It was surprising that it seems we might also have a preference to punish those that are bad to others. It is not really a moral code but an inborn instinct. What also was interesting is in younger children there is not a sense of altruism so it appears we learn to be possessive of things. The experience of teaching young toddlers they should share. The fact too your children will forego a larger share of something if it means others benefit too. The older a child gets the fact of shared value equally or even foregoing a larger share so altruism or a sense of fairness appears to increase. I don’t know but assume it’s ‘learned’ behaviour but learning by experience rather than being taught so it seems whilst we might have some natural moral code to favour those like us but also develop selfishness until older and the benefits of sharing and fairness.

It seems therefore a natural moral code develops but there is also the inherited tendency to favour those like us with maybe a natural tendency to prejudice those that are different. I guess this is why an external set of codes being taught may be necessary probably. Interested to hear views on this aspect.

I think in part it comes from the fact we are social animals, not uniquely so of course but the co-operative element necessary in particular the long period relative to most other animals for a young infant to be fully physically and mentally developed relying on the family unit and the extended community. Language and codification of laws from both verbal and written teachings. Most will learn of the Ten Commandments but other traditions in far east like Taoism and Confucianism and Indian texts.

Parents of course are important as are teachers to impart the strong sense of right and wrong. Most children learn what the word no means very early. There is a course an argument that in later life this can set a limitation on what an individual can achieve for their life but the early instruction is no doubt necessary and of value.

In part I think morals are also part of the expression treat others as you would like to be treated. It is a simple statement but humans sense of self and once the theory of mind is developed at an early age knowing your views, thoughts and actions are different to others creates the internal thought process of how you act has a bearing on others, I guess the tap root of an individuals on sense of morals.

The experience then of situations with others and outcomes from those relationships naturally develops an individuals own sense of behaviour and personal morals.

I didn’t think I needed to ‘qualify’ the ‘human’ when referring to morals. Inherent I guess in the way I phrased the question is what is instinct from birth versus what is learned. I know there is a good lot in the learned so language, understanding even teaching (or the assumption of a common understanding.) I already said I believe it is the latter, so learned. There are consequences I suggest if that is true. That is where I assumed the conversation might go.

Yes exactly - aside from some natural instinct / behaviour for attracting a mate animals are not body conscious at all. They do not worry how they look as long as they understand where they fit in, The pecking order and of course can challenge that. But other than worrying about food, threats or a mate - ie sex they do not appear to worry.

Interesting views. I agree with the comment on agency. We should not think that we as humans are not animals though and somehow separate and apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. We of course act like that due to agency. I think it is the development of language and thus forming Dialog that can be understood by others that allows ideas and thus conversation on right and wrong and this leads to formal constructs like ethics and morals.

As a Taoist hunter / gatherer was closer to how animals naturally live and of course in tune with nature. There is no doubt about the benefits for health, longevity and and and … but I guess being able to buck nature and where we are in terms of climate change it is looking decidedly difficult. Intelligence will probably find answers but the dead trees and dinosaurs might have been better left where they are. At least renewables might provide a better longer term outcome but as all energy realistically is generated from the Sun the hunter / gatherers just followed instinct but yes intelligence too. It was man’s destiny to evolve and learn and in particular pass on knowledge so it could accumulate. It’s more than likely it will continue to evolve and survive but it feels some sort of reset a la extinction event or ice age may still have Mother Earth have the last word. For sure life on Earth will always exist in some form but maybe it will be beyond Earth but still man where a distant future where man has solved it happens.

Sadly I don’t think they exist. There was a time when ‘undiscovered’ was just that. I do think a hunter / gatherer strategy would probably work, meaning the planet can provide what a family unit or small tribe would need, but, and it’s a big but - that lifestyle or general way of living has long since been crowded out. There is probably still the romantic possibility of living off the land and there are probably many that do - we would not classify them as hunter / gatherers though - the big issue is we are all pretty much consumers. People who still grow their own veg or fruit etc recognise the pleasure of doing so. But on one really hunt and gathers in this sense unless some army type exercise or artificial event. The romantic in me laments the loss of that. There is a multitude of reasons why the hunter / gatherer was never going to survive with its competition - in some ways the loss of that is maybe just the inevitable outcome of progress but there may be a lot that no one will ever appreciate was lost in that way of living in those early times - very much closer to how animals lived.

I guess provision of food and water too of course was a given, it is no accident I guess that most early populations of what were pre human ended up naturally along areas where food / water were readily accessible. I guess it is no accident that for most countries the major rivers tend to be the areas that develop bigger populations. The Fertile Crescent well named probably made agriculture easier but there are other developments like moving from the Stone Age to the Iron Age eg ploughing made food production much easier and later on the industrial revolution - these are much further down the track where I still thing the biggest early impact may have been increases in population which you assume made it inevitable it would attract more people. At some point too the concept of work to provide for yourself and maybe family too had to be one factor, after all land still in general needs some human agency to realise it’s potential- sure nature can produce a lot of food and in abundance with the right conditions but adding some direction and cultivation made the difference. It is still not clear if agriculture was inevitable. I assume most historians would argue it is. It is still fascinating that to think that this principal was discovered in different areas and at different times and different food stuffs that suited particular environments would arise. But we do reach a point where surplus was happening and maybe the biggest real impact of that was population expansion. The debate will probably always be was it too fast, too soon and agriculture surely has a pretty key role to play in that. It’s probably fair to say the bigger any system gets the more complex it becomes. Human ingenuity and innovation drives new discoveries, in some ways I don’t think we can help ourselves as a species in that regard, necessity I think will always be the mother of invention - another thread that would be useful to have people comment on.

It shows the issue with language and words. I guess I used wealth when I talked about surplus - the better word. Yes there is good discussion to be had on the benefits of that surplus and it’s a good point made that the demonstration of how (insert appropriate word for wealth, rich, whatever) that was used and the main purpose - altruistic or selfish.

It is interesting to hear the arguments for whether agriculture was forced on certain populations or was collaborative. For sure history has always had when groups gather of leaders and followers. Without opening the real fact of slavery for labour purposes it is assumed that ensuring a plentiful food supply helped population growth and the birth of towns from villages and then cities. Cities are a different subject but for sure an outcome. What I was proposing was that the arrival of agriculture gave rise to surplus and this accumulation led to wealth meaning that there was power and influence over this wealth. Once money or the early concept of exchange for value this surplus then became a tool or weapon depending on your point of view. It may not necessarily have been the only thing but it is one most people will recognise. Douglas Adams of Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy game put it well when he observed about arguing over little pieces of green paper. That aside and back on point is the creation of a surplus an issue in itself but it is how this is used and controlled that is at the heart of the opening post and at least agreeing that agriculture was pretty central in uniformly creating this surplus and resultant wealth off the back of it.

excellent referral, thanks

If it is assumed that ‘religion’ of any denomination or origin is conceived by man but has an external agency (message, vision, feeling) then we can look at the outcomes (whilst still debating the root cause) and like with a lot of ‘big ideas’ there is the good and the bad in everything that is a human construct or idea. This even applies to technology - but it is the application that creates the outcomes. Faith and morals and a compass if you like are positive outcomes of religion. Arguably love too but whilst an aspect of all religions it is more central I would argue in some e.g. Buddhism and many would argue Christianity (the love of Christ and love of god giving his only son etc).Sacrifice of self or others has also been a feature e.g. Abraham’s sacrifice. This can contain the idea of both a vengeful god (the Old Testament) but a loving one (the New Testament). There are of course ‘divisions’ too in major religions so again the human agency creates the interpretations. There is no real overall answer if the net benefit of religion is positive or negative in part because it can depend on the impact at the individual level. It is still arguably one facet of the rise of civilisation that as part of that it gave rise to religion and through history has shaped the modern world and continues today. I am not certain that religion was necessary to give us our morals and a way of living. Elders could have and probably did that as did education and upbringing. It’s a human thing and a result of our consciousness and ability to abstract.

It is curious as well that Christian religion adopted what were pagan celebrations of Easter rebirth and Christmas and it’s symbology of course e.g. the egg and the Tree as they had to bring those worshipers into the fold, that or burn them at the stake for witchcraft. The important point it was important clearly to absorb these ways of worship into ‘the story’. Of course it is writing that was important to establish the word for most religions and sure metaphysical texts as well. We are all used to questing the validity of news stories but interpretations of religious texts can vary and thus potentially be moulded to fit a new narrative.

The origins of Christianity lies in the immorality of the times. My hunch is other religions too had similar beginnings. — TheMadFool

Sadly almost certainly true. Even pre Christian pagans had sacrifices. The aztecs too. Warfare and debauchery and slavery too off the back of conquests. I made the comment earlier that the expression Man made God in his own image is probably true. The problem is that the image was clearly not the right one. At least as far as the common man and woman goes.

Also what evidence do you have that in the modern world we are more removed from our true natures than in the past? It could be argued, with good reason, that people are much more likely in this current comparatively wealthy time of education and free time (and bookshops and on line) to find themselves. This kind of searching has certainly been a hallmark of the middle class West for the past 50 years. — Tom Storm

No hard evidence. It is not that I would go looking for some. Maybe the mindfulness movement that has been around for some time now. But again I would not necessarily think there has been a rush either to things like meditation classes. Of course there are more subtle things like days away in the country, or a stroll along the beach, or lying on the grass in a low light pollution area on a clear, dark, cloudless night.

I think it is true to that the younger generation are more likely to be distracted by technology with social media being a blessing and a curse in equal measure. Again if you are after hard based facts and evidence I am sorry to disappoint. I can ‘feel’ this might be true and be sad for it.

Astrology which many debunk argues that mankind is now in the Age of Aquarius.

Astrologers believe that an astrological age affects humanity, possibly by influencing the rise and fall of civilizations or cultural tendencies.

Traditionally, Aquarius is associated with electricity, computers, flight, democracy, freedom, humanitarianism, idealism, modernization, astrology, nervous disorders, rebellion, nonconformity, philanthropy, veracity, perseverance, humanity, and irresolution.

A common position expressed by many astrologers sees the Age of Aquarius as that time when humanity takes control of the Earth and its own destiny as its rightful heritage, with the destiny of humanity being the revelation of truth and the expansion of consciousness, and that some people will experience mental enlightenment in advance of others and therefore be recognized as the new leaders in the world.

Another view suggests that the rise of scientific rationalism, combined with the fall of religious influence, the increasing focus on human rights since the 1780s, the exponential growth of technology, plus the advent of flight and space travel, are evidence of the dawning of the Age of Aquarius.

These are not necessarily my views though Astrology has been a feature of mankind’s thinking along with scientific discovery as a way to understand the world and themselves.

For sure humanity does take some significant leaps forward. The age of information and data has been with us for years.

For sure the next 5 to 10 years should be interesting but most likely the division of the wealth and it’s unequal distribution will continue to widen.

Maybe for some seeking a way to find their own peace will remain as it always has done a very private endeavour.

I get your point about ‘spiritual but not religious’, although in time I think you will identify one particular such tradition that really is the one for you, and when you do, I think you will find it has some ineluctably religious elements to it. But, that’s OK! No need to be phobic about religion. — Wayfarer

I have a good friend from early school days. He became a PhD doctor in Mathematics and teaches in Australia. He is a catholic. I remember when we were around 18 years old on a return from University we had a long discussion about our respective beliefs at the time. After many hours he concluded that we had a lot we could agree on and were like minded on. The Taoist and The Catholic.

Hmmm... but what is 'spirituality'? It's not a word that resonates with me at all and can mean anything you want. And I am not sure that the notion of 'a deep understanding of what life is' is anything more than a phrase. — Tom Storm

Tom, I guess that is the problem with language. Understanding. I try and keep it simple. “Spirituality’ for me is reaching a place where you know your own ‘true self`’. I think in particular in the modern world we can be so removed from our true nature. I also like the stoic view and the expression there are only two things an individual can control. “How you think”, and “how you act.” It may take a lifetime but finding your ‘true self’ and ways of thinking and acting can lead you there. I believe that this ‘true self’ everyone has and the search for finding it within yourself is spiritual. Many of course find religion is their path.

It means that they are descriptions of different manifestations of the Ultimate; and as such they do not conflict with one another. They each arise from some immensely powerful moment or period of religious experience, notably the Buddha’s experience of enlightenment under the Bo tree at Bodh Gaya, Jesus’ sense of the presence of the heavenly Father, Muhammad’s experience of hearing the words that became the Qur’an, and also the experiences of Vedic sages, of Hebrew prophets, of Taoist sages. — John Hick, Who or What is God?

This is very much in tune with how I think these all come from the same source you term the Ultimate and the Taoist in me considers the Tao.

I just think it is sad (understated word) that these different interpretations and for some in particular have been ‘at war’ with each other even within the same basic beliefs, so the divisions in Islam, the many divisions in Christianity. So much lives lost over the different views of this one Universal ultimate.

The deification or more correctly this supranatural dimension is still the interesting one. In literature there are many examples but my favourite is the works of Tolkien. As much as he hated allegory in all its forms his own creation myth with Eru Iluvitar.

Eru was the supreme deity of Arda. He was the single creator, above the Valar, but delegated almost all direct action within Eä to the Ainur. The music of the Ainur and the discord in the music creating the division, the Yin to the Yang. There is a parallel in the concept of Archangels and angels with the Ainur. This is similar to the Greek and Norse pantheons with different powers attributed to different gods.

The one god concept seems to be a way of competing with this multi faceted view, another oddity so not worshiping ‘false gods’ - how is this reconciled with the idea of Archangels and such, messengers of the gods but still supranatural.

The Taoist of course have the Yellow Emperor who is considered I guess ‘God Like’ and also the 8 Taoist Immortals. These are not competing with each other but just examples of enlightened beings similar to Buddha.

Spirituality therefore rather than religion is a positive for everyone in terms of finding an ‘inner peace’,that is very close perhaps I suggest to what the original idea behind the origins of gods, the deep understanding of what life is.

Okay, trying to get back on topic. I know my opening OP set the question of the origins of the belief in supra natural beings in a religious context as arguably they go hand in hand. But the question was really why our species came up with this idea. Some replies have suggested it may be part of human dna, the questioning part. Or it may have been used to understand disasters, or explain why we die, or maybe a mystical experience. I was trying to understand the early origins from pre history. It was maybe Zoroastrianism that first came up with a monotheistic God {this may have been a google search}. But irrespective I was looking for maybe answers that are not directly tied to religion.

The reason is to try and filter out that of course a firm religious belief may come from family or upbringing or cultural background. This has been referred to as Public religion here and a good distinction. Of course for adults in particular who have found wether from birth or upbringing or maybe in later life their own private religion of whatever denomination it is why you believe that this omniscient and omnipresent being {if that is what it is to you} exists. It’s not questioning your belief or faith but what your spirit (or soul if you will) let’s you emphatically believe that is true. I mentioned I am Taoist myself where the origins and where we come from and where we go is explained in the 3 main Taoist texts and to an extent the I Ching too {not a religious text but an important classic of Confucian and Taoist teaching}.

There are many replies that focus on religion versus atheism but that was not what I was asking from the original post. [mea culpa as I tied the supra natural entity or God if you like to religion because I guess that is how most people think about it.

So I guess for your private religion and if you have that belief for whatever denomination I would appreciate you sharing and do hope your replies are not countered by others strongly opposed for whatever reason to this idea.

I think we can understand the ‘adoption’ from the family / community from young of a ‘strict’ religion. It can take courage and / or intelligence to ‘buck the trend’. If people are given the time and opportunity (and to be honest in this day and age that is far from easy - mobile phones begone) is there that ‘voice’ or ‘feeling’ that makes you think there is this ‘supernatural entity’ out there that can help / hinder you? Of course certain individuals throughout history have ‘felt this presence, voice or whatever’ to assume it is from such an entity. It does not seem though that this is common place. Of course if you already have a belief it will be natural to ‘feel it’. Faith after all is very powerful.

I don’t want to derail my own post by putting another ‘obvious’ question (better for another discussion) but in the way I set it out, without influence or pre conceived notions or influences, and with the sort of time we rarely have (the mountain mystic) can you say you would ‘feel’ the existence of this supernatural entity? Your own guardian angel (but this is different anyway as it is your own self). Independently I would think not. But as ever look forward to hearing your own views, in particular if you have had your own experience that is not influenced by others.

It’s an interesting thing. Not to generalise but most people like to think they can determine their own destiny. Be their own person. Not be controlled or ruled by others. Of course the majority of us are social animals. The family unit has been argued to be a human thing. Of course COVID-19 has put the spot light right on that. Yet it is the case, and in our social groups we can follow norms. We do our best to fit in, to follow the rules. In modern society and in modern civilisation we have little choice. Of course there are pockets of differences, at times that impact an entire country. Some of them as big as you can get. So yes free will is not in the gift of all. Communities can and do have a strong influence. Not all or maybe few have the best intentions of the many, but look after the few. But it’s a strange thing to concede that to a higher power. And I mean a higher power that is not worldly, at least not as far as modern science can confirm. For sure there are things that we do not know, things we cannot know, things that will forever be beyond the ken, irrespective of how supra intelligent we evolve to become. But being ourselves, our true selves, and not giving that up to any uncertain and potentially capricious power seems intuitively wrong though it looks we are almost certainly wired to seek it or need it. Strange indeed.

I am rereading, for the nth time (I never finish it), JM Roberts History of the World. He notes in pre history Neanderthal times that there is the first evidence of burial and thus the idea of there being life after death and thus the tap roots of religion. Of course the Neanderthal and homo erectus were to be out evolved by Homo sapiens. But this idea of a life after death as evidenced by burial and when we get to the sophistication of Egyptian burial. Of course the ancient Egyptians had already the concept of gods and the idea that the pharaoh was this ‘god amongst us’ similar to the Roman emperor view but both were men rather than some supernatural entity so although thought of as gods it is not necessarily what we are looking for in terms of understanding albeit that the belief in an afterlife and where we may go and who ‘rules’ is definitely touching on the seeds we are looking for.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/541158

Nice explanation Sir and I think along the lines that I think might have been the case. It’s tricky too as for a lot of pre history it almost certainly would not have come from one person but a collective thing. It would have started with the idea and developed into a more concrete idea. It may also be true that early humans were more receptive to the idea of some higher power.

For the original OP, I think it is true - i.e. many billions I guess do believe. I posed the question to my daughter (24 year old) did she think that an afterlife is true for all living animals at which point the answer was no. I was not about to extend that further but it assumes that for some the ‘something after’ only applies to humans. The other point to is does a belief in life after death have to assume or invoke the idea of god or gods? Clearly for Buddhism no (unless I miss something here). The original question was why humans (or at least as far as we know) conceived this idea of there being a higher power or being. I can understand early man looked for answers for certain things he observed that made him / her think. It’s the conclusion that is the mystery. Again the why unless it was better to invoke this idea to have some one to appease (sacrificial offering) or blame or maybe both.

It’s pretty much a ‘given’ that an individual’s view of his religion will have been influenced in the environment and beliefs of his / her parents. At some point they may seek their own views. I think as Apollodorus states there is private and public religion. It’s the question if an individual once old enough can consider in their own mind if they can accept that their god is real for them in whatever form. This will always be personal although public religion can have a strong influence on how an individual is supposed to find their own personal god within the ‘teachings’ that are delivered.

Personally I am a Taoist. So I can believe there is a natural order to things. We can see it in the natural nature of animals and plants. I guess the science explains this via evolution though is yet to explain the ‘spark of life’. Why does a primordial chemical soup give rise to life. The mystery and complexity of DNA and the replication and sex giving rise to differentiation and the idea of natural selection and the evolution of species. It can still seem a mystery that for example the genetics of an animal at birth has it coded in its genes for a natural behaviour. But all animals can learn as well. Is there something in human dna that gives rise to the idea of religion. I can see it starts by asking questions, the why? Is it natural then for those answers to come up with the idea of a god then? Or gods. Taoism just explains it as the Tao and the duality of Yin and Yang giving rise to the 10,000 things. Just a basic way of saying it creates everything. It does not need a concept or idea of god (though of course certain branches of Taoism do create a myriad of gods or spirits.) It is true that all animals have a natural tendency to be competitive. Again a lot of explained by the competitive gene . The competition for mates and territory. Humans evolved to give rise to Emperors and Kings but also Priests. Emperors were assumed to be gods and I can understand this concept. It is the abstraction up to the external agency which still puzzles me. I am also not sure but I guess history can shed a light is did this idea start with monotheism or the pantheon of beings. It would seem reasonable to assume that it was the pantheon that came first or was it natural to imagine that all the various elemental forces were all as the result of one powerful being? Whichever it starts with that idea or concept and then we have religion and the things it brings for the good or Ill of mankind. Maybe it was inevitable but Taoism does not require it, potentially Buddhism too which did have a central figure, just not a god.

From what I can gather Hinduism is one of the oldest religions but in the beginning started as a belief system but was later codified by the religious texts. It appears to be Zoroastrianism the ancient Persian religion that was the first to propose a monotheism concept. This was influential for the development of Judaism and the abrahamic religions.

It does not really explain the why of the idea other than the assumption there must be one.

I’d agree and it is a very valid point about private versus public. I am not of course saying there is anything right or wrong. Again it is really trying to understand the why where your original answer is very much a great starting point as it can and should be very individual and some people’s own reasons can be very profound and important and gives them the belief and faith that is important to them.

Yes but of course it has to be accepted to by the masses and no different than a modern day meme and in particular where social media can propagate it. Of course each individual should make their own mind up. But this idea in its very early stages was accepted by many and of course the expression that religion was a vehicle to ‘control the masses’ maybe has some basis in truth. I am not really commenting on that one way or another. I know that early religion was probably word of mouth long before the ‘written word of god’ but still find it curious (probably the wrong word) that religious texts were written, of course by humans and presented as truth. Whilst the bible is in part a history and probably to an extent other religious texts too but it’s making claims of the ‘truth’ of these extraordinary entities of omniscience and omnipresence which is extraordinary to think about. I am not knocking belief or faith but just intensely curious as to why it came about in the first place.

It’s interesting you say that and tend to agree. We know from early history and earlier civilisations there was a need to predict or understand when for example floods or famines arose and the natural need to understand the seasons and time for planting, harvesting etc. The early pantheons suggest that there were different aspects attributed to different beings or gods and interesting it was deemed there would be an all father or supreme being. This is all very understandable because of human societies and families evolved. The expression god made man in his own image is really the reverse when you think about it. Man made god in his own image or variations based on what their intrinsic beliefs are e.g. Egyptian reverence of the cat and this god’s in like image. Along with philosophy there has always been this thirst in human’s to understand the why. This seems natural but quite why the assumption that there is something else, hidden, unseen that needs an explanation and was attributed to some entity with agency in particular outside human’s own sense of being able to determine their own futures once it became clear humans can shape and control their own destiny I.e. building shelter, finding food and progressing from Hunter gatherer tribes to agricultural societies and the birth of civilisation. This agency beyond I guess is the key point you make but it’s still an unexpected result of presumably thinking to explain a cause. Of course scientific method that developed much later led to a tool for discovery and confirmation without the need for this external agency - I guess the start of the science v religion debate.