The Origin of Religion

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

snip...

Possibly, but you're talking about specific religions. If you look at religions slightly less mainstream, not all of those charges can be laid. Not all religions are about control, let alone the desire for it. But the superstition charge can be levelled at all of them, because religion is, at bottom, simply superstition writ large. I don't think that argument helps you.

Don't confuse a discussion about religion with a discussion about Christianity or Islam. There are far older religions than those around, and some of them aren't subject to your classification.

Paganism. Wicca. Buddhism.
That is all.

More importantly, however - it must be addressed that a Religion is nothing more than a group of people gathered together with a unifying dogma and doctrine. Those are the two core similarities that all religions have in common.

 

[Unwardil]

Stuff

I'd accept that completely actually. Nicely explains people like Ghandi too so, shut my mouth on the violence thing.

In which case, the origin of religion would simply be the charismatic figure, coupled with people's basic tendencies to want to be lead by a charismatic person. Violence is obviously going to lead to a religion with more longevity but is by no means a necessary element in the formation of said religion.

 

[Guardian Angel]

snip...

Possibly, but you're talking about specific religions. If you look at religions slightly less mainstream, not all of those charges can be laid. Not all religions are about control, let alone the desire for it. But the superstition charge can be levelled at all of them, because religion is, at bottom, simply superstition writ large. I don't think that argument helps you.

Don't confuse a discussion about religion with a discussion about Christianity or Islam. There are far older religions than those around, and some of them aren't subject to your classification.

We can agree then that it depends on the religion. Therefore to say that the origin of religion is superstition is not accurate. Yes, they might all have superstition in common, but not necessarily as an origin, because the origin can be control, with the superstition as the vehicle. Or the origin could be superstition. And if you look at the major ones, you can easily see things which could be classified as control, and I don't think it would be unreasonable to hint that control was precisely the aim in the first place. In fact, it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that the origin of all religions is a desire for control, and that the major religions are the ones that have succeeded in their aim, while the minor ones haven't.

Being against a religion or religions in general is one thing, but to say that the origins of all religions is superstition isn't accurate. The same applies to other things, such as media, education, etc. To say that the origins of those things is to inform or to enlighten is to confuse the origin with a symptom.

 

[Baranduin]

Many historians believe early religions based on matriarchs and fertility rites and whatnot,

Except that this is discredited nowadays. Quoting from wikipedia (which is quoting Encyclopà¦dia Britannica):

In 19th century Western scholarship, the hypothesis of matriarchy representing an early stage of human development,now mostly lost in prehistory, with the exception of some "primitive" societies,enjoyed popularity. The hypothesis survived into the 20th century and was notably advanced in the context of feminism and especially second wave feminism, but this hypothesis of matriarchy as having been an early stage of human development is mostly discredited today, most experts saying that it never existed.

Scrolling down to "History/20th c" there are some arguments of why Gimbutas and Murray (the ones I'm a bit familiar with, as a skeptic) are wrong, but basically, they've built a narrative that fits their preconceptions and probably their poetic sense, but it's wishful thinking supported by scarce (and biased) 'evidence'.

especially as evidenced by little fertility totems and the like.

The totems are evidence that they were able to carve stone into totems. But it doesn't follow that they're fertility totems; they could be dolls, mementos from the bride, pornografic material, or sexual toys, for all we know.

This theory also accounts for the fact that religions based on female figures and 'traits' are pretty rare these days. If you are going to accept us females as equals, you've got to accept that god might exist as a she.

This raises the question of why patriarchy would spread suddenly throughout the world while things like agriculture didn't. Gimbutas proposes it only for the PreIndoEuropean societies, driven away by the Kurgan Expansion. Whilst the Kurgan Expansion is a consensus among scholars, the depiction of the preindoeuropean cultures doesn't holds, and falls very short from being a "no words for X" kind of argument (no sign of weapons, thus pacifist, thus feminist, if you get what I mean; of course, she forgets to mention that there were as many weapons before Kurgan than after!).

Theories that Catholocism adopted Mary as a psuedo-goddess just to appease pagan recruits.

I've always though this was a bit of Intentional Stance. I'm going with converted pagans paying more attention to Mary, by analogy with their Goddesses, and that being very well established or widespread for the church to attack. Since those ex-pagans would also form part of the church, they probably also were common in its hierarchy, which could have guaranteed their survival instead of following the path of arrianism or gnosticism.

 

[Nordmann]

Hi Baranduin

Ireland has produced classic examples both of the fertility "totems" mentioned and of altering the christian doctrine in order to facilitate earlier religious beliefs in which the object of deity worship is more female than male. As opposed to what a lot of people might presume this female "deity" in Irish christianity wasn't traditionally Mary (though the BVM also gets a higher profile in Ireland than other catholic societies) but Bridget. Bridget-worship is still very strong actually. Bridget has a pretty well researched and credible link with a goddess associated with several pre-Roman tribes in the area, such as the Brigantes in northern England for example, and some more speculative links with tribes further afield in France and Germany.

The fertility totems are known now as "Sheila-na-Gigs". If you're familiar with their common design and the etymology of the term you'll see that they were undoubtedly associated with fertility. Dismissing fertility totems as merely pornographic is a failure to understand their context and function. Stimulating erections in men is a feature of the process, whether you dismiss it as purely for pleasure or allow it served a role in a belief system which valued procreation and birth.

 

[nemesiss]

not sure if there is A specific origin of religion, but several origins of religions... similar how the ability of flight has evolved several time in different types of species.

im quite curious how the gods of the vikings are related to the gods of egypt and i doubt it is anything like in stargate SG-1

 

[Baranduin]

Ireland has produced classic examples both of the fertility "totems" mentioned and of altering the christian doctrine in order to facilitate earlier religious beliefs in which the object of deity worship is more female than male.

The difference being that Marian advocations predate the ecumenical councils, when the Church started establishing dogmas and condemning other groups and proselytizing. So the cult for Mary was present from the beginning, developed without the influence of a Catholic Church trying to appease or appeal pagans.

The fertility totems are known now as "Sheila-na-Gigs". If you're familiar with their common design and the etymology of the term you'll see that they were undoubtedly associated with fertility. Dismissing fertility totems as merely pornographic is a failure to understand their context and function. Stimulating erections in men is a feature of the process, whether you dismiss it as purely for pleasure or allow it served a role in a belief system which valued procreation and birth.

I was unaware of that name, but I'm familiar with the concept. Sexual depictions in capitals and other structural elements are far from being exclusive to Ireland! They are also common in the Spanish and French romanic (you can see a sample in this slideshow of a Navarran church), and for what I'm reading, predate the Irish examples. The explanation I'd heard my whole life is that the intention was the very opposite than what you state: those grotesque, deformed figures intended to represent demons or condemned, and deter the faithful from lust (and/or to scare lust spirits and protect the faithful, just like any other gargoyle). Not much about fertility, and not very pagan. Many of those samples (as you can see in the slideshow) were vandalized, often by the own ecclesiastical authorities, during the modern age, but that was also a common trend throughout Europe.
Continental capitals also contain references to mythic creatures (Santiago Cathedral being a major example), and not for that we assume that they are a remnant of an underlying greek mythology (which was not present in Galicia).


And that's the main problem. We know why people during the XII c put those figures there: we have a lot of information about their culture and philosophy, we have their reasons written by them, etc, so we can discuss, test, and refute. We don't have that many information about Bronze Age cultures, and even less about the preIndoEuropean substrate. Sadly, that doesn't deter Murray, Graves and their folk to cherrypick their examples, ignore the rest, ascribe whatever fits their needs to those cultures, and make an irrefutable claim. Venuses are evidence that they carved femalish figures, but the reason why they did so are unknown, and probably will always be. Any claim that those are fertility cults has as much evidence as the claim that they are dolls, fetishes, mementos...

not sure if there is A specific origin of religion, but several origins of religions... similar how the ability of flight has evolved several time in different types of species.

I'm with this. While the underlying reasons for religions are probably universal, there's no need to postulate one single origin to all of them. Humans don't come from a single clan of people, but from a lot of different clans which occasionally interbred. Every clan could have given the step from mere superstition to establish religion by their own.

im quite curious how the gods of the vikings are related to the gods of egypt and i doubt it is anything like in stargate SG-1

In principle, germanic gods descend from the indoeuropean gods (that is, share a similar origin with the slavic, greek, roman and celtic pantheons, and are related to the hinduist one), while the egyptian gods are semitic (related to other middle east mythologies, including YHWH). As for the existence of a possible common origin (called nostratic), that's controversial, and no such a proposal has being widely accepted.

I'm also skeptic about Von Däniken being right

 

[RedYellow]

Just my personal musing on the subject:

I think that of course realization of death is a big factor in creating religlion, and then there's the 'evolution' of God.

The human brain is hard-wired to "anthropomorphize" the world around us, primarily to help us identify other members of our species, being a highly social one. Like any tool, this can be applied to things besides it's primary purpose, such as animals, inanimate objects, and even conceptual constructs, hence, fictional characters.

Now people didn't want to think that bad things happened to them for no reason they could control, and so over time they looked for patterns in the way events played out in their lives, and reacted to those patterns, coincidences, etc. And thus, superstition, God's primitive form, is born. Superstition was a way for people to feel as though they had an 'inside scoop' on the perilous world of circumstance and eventual death to which they were permanently bound. They could spy on the unseen entities which surely conspired against their happiness in the world. And who was worse among those than death? And so, rituals are born, God is fashioned into our own image, and you can see how it evolves and diversifies from there.

Religion and God are likely by-products of natural human reason in the absence of abundant information about the world. I mean let's face it, human intelligence exploded from nature, it soared miles above it. It's only natural that such a thing would have drawbacks, flaws, etc.

 

[Nordmann]

I was unaware of that name, but I'm familiar with the concept. Sexual depictions in capitals and other structural elements are far from being exclusive to Ireland! They are also common in the Spanish and French romanic (you can see a sample in this slideshow of a Navarran church), and for what I'm reading, predate the Irish examples. The explanation I'd heard my whole life is that the intention was the very opposite than what you state: those grotesque, deformed figures intended to represent demons or condemned, and deter the faithful from lust (and/or to scare lust spirits and protect the faithful, just like any other gargoyle). Not much about fertility, and not very pagan

Hi Baranduin

The explanation you heard your whole life (I assume you mean concerning such representations in other cultures with which you are more familiar) does not conform with the standard assessment of the Sheela-na-Gig representations, at least in Ireland, though you are correct in saying that there was a concerted effort by the catholic church to destroy them in the period after its reestablishment in the modern era in Ireland. However their history most definitely predates the arrival of christianity and the folklore (which also associates them with fertility and procreation, even when it underwent christian adaptation) is assumed to have its roots back then too. There is no consensus that they represented the opposite, though it is quite likely that such a theory may well have been proposed in the short period in which they were condemned by the church. This in no way is meant as a contradiction of your opinion, especially regarding other cultures. I speak only about what I know and have studied, and that is the Irish case.

I am aware of the Marian devotion within the christian church whose pedigree predates Late Roman / Early Byzantine doctrinal decrees designed in part to subdue it. My point about Ireland is that this is what makes this particular historical christianisation of a culture unique in that respect. In Ireland the Marian cult has a quite late origin but the Bridget cult can be traced back to the conversion of the culture and belief system to christianity, and even beyond it. If you study the Bridget cult you'll readily see the stark difference between the two. It is rightly regarded as one of the few "pagan" vestiges which has survived to the present day and has more or less survived all attempts by tyhe church to assimilate it and make it conform to doctrine. In that sense it serves as a kind of cultural fossil, all the more remarkable for having survived in the face of one of the most emphatic and thorough propaganda machines ever applied.

 

[Andiferous]

Thank you Unwardil. To some extent, I tend to think this dicates many of the beliefs on the planet (no matter what they are and who they come from). Essencially, I do believe many religions have served as pseudio-polical organisations, conquered by (sometimes immoral) political means.

Nordmann: I really love reading you. I've been through intensive study of the Catholic church myself, and occasionally even within that self-same study, we've discussed the 'cult of the saints' or 'cult of Marian' (though I must admit, I rather like the title for personal reasons. )

It seems the best way to swallow up an enemy religion is to assimilate it and overpower it.

When most popular denominations appear like nothing more than a spin on popular belief, it's hard to prove or disprove them, which makes this topic hard to argue. As well, there is a definitive difference between 'religious organisation' and spirituality.

As this is about the origin of religion, I rather think this essential to the discussion.

 

[kenandkids]

I think that many of you are far over complicating the issue, if the issue is the origin of superstition and religion.

Imagine a tribe of people, still having only rudimentary language, hunting on a plains or at least in the open. A chance storm springs up. A lightning strike hits and people die, except a couple that fell to their knees in terror. Having no capacity to work out philosophy or fallacy or scientific reasoning, they choose their kneeling as a reason for continued life, and it is. Just not the way they thought. They carry the idea that kneeling, being penitent, is a way to avoid random death by nature. Still, some people occasionally die, so something else must be at work. They decide that fear is also a reason for continued life. Those who die didn't fear enough or bow correctly. Welcome to religion.

By the way, this hypothesis also works well for fires, which are other hazards early humans faced.

 

[Nordmann]

Hi kenandkids

Other animals also display abasement characteristics involving relative height in their relationship with fellow members of their species. I would imagine the notion of kneeling or bowing as a sign of submission is related to this rather than avoiding being hit by lightning. Penitence, which you mention also, is actually quite a leap in any case even if your "origin of kneeling" theory was correct. The concept of penitence implies a causality rooted in morality. It is contrition for a "wrong" perceived to have been done, which in itself suggests prior development of a moral code whereby the wrong has been defined, has been socially recognised as such by a critical majority of the community, and where the concept of contrition has been expanded to include social conventions governing physical displays of atonement or its intention. The transition from being "spared" being hit by lightning to such a development is not actually described in your synopsis above.

The notion of kneeling to avoid a fire is one I admit I have never heard of before. Sounds counter-intuitive. I'll check with the local fire station however - maybe it's a new technique.

 

[kenandkids]

Hi kenandkids

Other animals also display abasement characteristics involving relative height in their relationship with fellow members of their species. I would imagine the notion of kneeling or bowing as a sign of submission is related to this rather than avoiding being hit by lightning. Penitence, which you mention also, is actually quite a leap in any case even if your "origin of kneeling" theory was correct. The concept of penitence implies a causality rooted in morality. It is contrition for a "wrong" perceived to have been done, which in itself suggests prior development of a moral code whereby the wrong has been defined, has been socially recognised as such by a critical majority of the community, and where the concept of contrition has been expanded to include social conventions governing physical displays of atonement or its intention. The transition from being "spared" being hit by lightning to such a development is not actually described in your synopsis above.

The notion of kneeling to avoid a fire is one I admit I have never heard of before.

In a flash prairie fire, when natural fires are allowed to keep much vegetation from growing too thickly, "turtling" with a heavy cloak or cover can allow you to survive.

My illustration was primarily for the arguments above that seem to assume formation of religion was preceded by society. There might have been a perfectly natural cause that had unintended side effects well before any conscious efforts at civilisation.

 

[Nordmann]

Which of course begs the question of what you class as "society". The smallest of social groups can be so described - as long as a set of agreed conventions apply then the number is immaterial. As few as two people can be said to constitute a society in that respect, though I grant that the concept of early human social behaviour is more traditionally typified by larger social groupings based primarily on blood relationship.


What you're really addressing therefore is not religion (and I use the term in its meaning as an organised and codified set of superstitions and articles of blind faith etc etc) but of superstition itself, something you say could well pre-date society. I agree in the sense that any one individual can originate any number of superstitions, and in fact we all still do - it's an inherent part of our psychological profile as cognitive beings. In fact superstition in the sense of a belief resulting from ignorance is a prerequisite to subsequent investigation and analysis of everything aound us. All of us in reality have been born in this state and our ongoing cognitive analysis of our environment can in part be said to be triggered at least in part by an innate dissatisfaction with having to rely on superstition and the logical anomalies such reliance presents.

So you are right to postulate that the individual who escapes danger through dumb luck but ascribes it to an unassociated action or unreal cause is behaving superstitiously, that this misapprehension is independent of his or her membership of society, and therefore was almost definitely a feature of human behaviour long before larger organised communities came into being.


However we are still left with a missing part of the process - whereby individuals' propensity for superstitious beliefs developed into the obvious requirement to "standardise" such beliefs and practises in the form we now identify as "religious" behaviour and thought. This, I would maintain, is most definitely linked to the evolution of sophisticated communities and societies, and all that such development inferred along the way by way of imparting knowledge, establishing conventions and (crucially) enforcing and controlling both of these things within the broader community. Further - since "religion" actually represents an insistence that we retain a reliance on superstition (ie. it apparently contradicts the natural requirement of enhancing our survival prospects, both as individuals and as a species, through deductive reasoning), it would appear to be something therefore which in fact represents a threat to survival, yet portrays itself as the opposite. And the fact that this is not only present and tolerated to the extent that it is but is also endemic throughout the species itself is a glaring contradiction of the other simplistic notion often expressed that we have arrived at a level of sophistication and intelligence way more advanced than our prehistoric ancestors.

This is not therefore a state of affairs with a simple explanation in terms of origin. The origin of superstitious behaviour may be simply expressed. But the roots of religion are diverse and extend into many other aspects of human behaviour. Social control figures highly in that, and that must ipso facto parallel the arrival and development of the concept of society.

 

[kenandkids]

Religion is nothing more than codified superstition. As it develops, like everything, it get's more complex. In my example, superstition is that they can magically avoid the danger, the religious portion is introducing the superstition to the tribe and convincing them that it matters or works. Eventually they will need someone to explain why it doesn't always work, and someone to monitor whether or not people are applying the superstition correctly.

 

[Nordmann]

Precisely. Religion is the bit that comes after society's formation (the "tribe" within which the code is agreed and established). Prior to that it was simply erroneous superstitious belief which, as long as it escaped codification and was limited to an individual to experience, assess and utilise, could in fact be considered a potential starting point if not quite the basis of honest and rational enquiry in itself.

This is exactly therefore what complicates the search for religion's actual roots. Why, for example, does the communication of superstition apparently expose a human requirement that it must then be codified and even forcibly adopted by the tribe's members? The answer to this does not lie in the intrinsic value or lack of it within any faith system but in the human psyche itself, and especially when humans function as conscious members of a group.

 

[Andiferous]

Has anyone here attempted a course at sociology?

Granted, it's dead boring, but it presents a semi-fluid type society and culture joined by various commonalities (including religion). Yes of course, this assimilation happens from any micro- to macrocosm of society.

But at the personal level, I think we have to probe a bit deeper , including understanding why these things appeal to people on a mass scale.

Personally, I find the current usage of the word superstiious somewhat ridiculous given this context and its' potential users. We all like to validate things by claming the opposiite ridiculous. Ridiculous is really, after all, the best method of identifying a problem (without too much accuracy) and with spitfire.

 

[kenandkids]

Has anyone here attempted a course at sociology?

Granted, it's dead boring, but it presents a semi-fluid type society and culture joined by various commonalities (including religion). Yes of course, this assimilation happens from any micro- to macrocosm of society.

But at the personal level, I think we have to probe a bit deeper , including understanding why these things appeal to people on a mass scale.

Personally, I find the current usage of the word superstiious somewhat ridiculous given this context and its' potential users. We all like to validate things by claming the opposiite ridiculous. Ridiculous is really, after all, the best method of identifying a problem (without too much accuracy) and with spitfire.

Actually, yes I have, and passed with an A.

Superstition is the concept that through some undefined power or magic you can alter reality or effect the future or a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary. Nothing more and nothing less. It is a very accurate description of religion and it's practise.

 

[Andiferous]

Has anyone here attempted a course at sociology?

Granted, it's dead boring, but it presents a semi-fluid type society and culture joined by various commonalities (including religion). Yes of course, this assimilation happens from any micro- to macrocosm of society.

But at the personal level, I think we have to probe a bit deeper , including understanding why these things appeal to people on a mass scale.

Personally, I find the current usage of the word superstiious somewhat ridiculous given this context and its' potential users. We all like to validate things by claming the opposiite ridiculous. Ridiculous is really, after all, the best method of identifying a problem (without too much accuracy) and with spitfire.

Actually, yes I have, and passed with an A.

Superstition is the concept that through some undefined power or magic you can alter reality or effect the future or a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary. Nothing more and nothing less. It is a very accurate description of religion and it's practise.

I commend you, because I really hated it.

Sociology would never actually use the term 'superstion' however, as to use it would reveal bias. There are such types as 'taboo' and whatnot that in theory, that describe what keeps the societal wheel rolling. My main question here is: what is trolling? Because if we cannot all agree to an answer, then there's not point in punishing for misunderstanding. If we can get a universal definition on 'superstition' and 'trolling,' then we're golden.

Such is my only objective. The rest, I leave to human nature.

 

[kenandkids]

Sociology would never actually use the term 'superstion' however, as to use it would reveal bias. There are such types as 'taboo' and whatnot that in theory, that describe what keeps the societal wheel rolling. My main question here is: what is trolling? Because if we cannot all agree to an answer, then there's not point in punishing for misunderstanding. If we can get a universal definition on 'superstition' and 'trolling,' then we're golden.

Such is my only objective. The rest, I leave to human nature.

I use terms that apply, not necessarily what are most suggested in sociology and anthropology.

Can you decide what obscene is? Because some would disagree.
Can you decide what "acting like a mod" is? Because some would disagree.
Pornography? some would disagree.

We live in a grey world with grey tones and grey decisions. Get together and make lists of known troll behaviours and whatnot and then compile them, adding new examples when found. There is no better method. The only way to really screw it up is when a person becomes ban happy and makes unilateral decisions. As long as a consensus can be reached and behaviours compared AND an explanation of concern is presented to the suspected troll, fear not and reach a conclusion.