Was religion invented by man?

[Lion_IRC]

For a long time, you simply couldn’t be an atheist in public or you were faced with punishment and exclusion.

No, I believe you have the horse before the cart there my friend.
Atheism isn’t rare because it is unpopular, it’s unpopular because it is rare - an aberration.
This is herd mentality 101. (In group / out group)

I asserted that atheism was/is rare and that if any religion was an invention, atheism is the strongest contender for that crown. And I maintain that atheism - at its heart - is simply the idea that God(s) might not exist.

…Secondly, the fact that many people across the globe have some sort of religious experience, doesn’t erase the obvious contradictions between religions and revelation.

The problem is that biggest contraction of all is the one between those who claim God exists and those who claim He does not. THAT is biggest, most irreconcileable difference we see.

Sure, we can point to a lot of other differences across the entire spectrum of belief but the biggest one of all is the gulf between atheist versus theist - where ALL theists agree that some form of divinity is probably/definitely true.

…It also doesn’t exlude the possibility that they all are mistaken.

Isn’t it possible, if not probable, that among all of the many claims about God, the one most likely to be mistaken is the infrequently held belief that God might not exist? (AKA atheism)

In order for religion/theism to be true, as opposed to being merely an imaginary invention, there need be only one theistic claim to be right. Whereas in order for atheism (the no-God hypothesis) to be true, EVERY SINGLE tenet of every single religion that has ever been throughout human history must all be completely falsified.

…Which, given the limitations of God in various scriptures (like divine revelation not being more knowledgable than what was known at the time) seems most likely.

I’m interested in your claim that divine revelation (biblical) hasn’t surpassed what was already known. Did Bronze Age shepherds already know about the germ theory of disease?

 

[Vouthon]

In my case, such an instinct has never been there. I’ve never been religious and I don’t feel I’m suppressing some kind of religious inclination.

Science says different.

There is increasing evidence that the “religious”/“spiritual”/“theistic” impulse, whatever you call it, is a direct product of evolution and hard-wired into the human brain:

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3366295/Are-hardwired-religious-EVOLUTION-Fear-God-led-humans-operate-gave-edge-animals.html

**Are we hardwired to be religious because of EVOLUTION? Fear of God may have led humans to co-operate more which gave us an edge over other animals

Oxford University professor said fear of gods helped to shape humankind

He said it enforced moral rules that allowed our ancestors to co-operate

This suggests religion is in fact a product of evolution rather than a rival

He presents his theory in a new book called God is Watching You…

Professor Dominic Johnson, an expert in evolutionary biology and international relations at the University of Oxford, believes this may be why fear of God is such a dominant feature in world religions.

In his new book, God is Watching You, he said that belief in divine punishment is actually hardwired into us by evolution and so led to the development of the world’s religions.

He suggests that rather than being an opposing theory of the world to the ideas of evolution by natural selection put forward by Charles Darwin, religion is actually a product of it.

‘The ability to anticipate rewards or punishments arising from our behaviour would clearly have been favoured by Darwinian natural selection, because it promoted survival and reproduction,’ he said.

'I argue this extended to the anticipation of supernatural reward and punishment.
'God-fearing people were better able to avoid raising the ire of their fellow man, lowering the costs of real world sanctions, and raising the rewards of co-operation.
‘It offers a striking twist on the old science and religion debate - religion is not an alternative to evolution, it is a product of evolution.’

Professor Johnson added the reason why fear of punishment has become such an important force in religion rather than other aspects like love and altruism, which are also promoted in the major religions like Christianity, is mainly due to the way our brains our wired.**

This is the reason why a majority of “irreligious” people report bring ‘spiritual,’ ‘having faith in a higher power’ or tend to adhere to a range of superstitions that belie complete scepticism and rationalism. Their mind might say “this is all hogwash and made-up carp” but a part of them still longs for it and seeks it, since its hard-wired, instinctual, beyond their cognitive control and a priori to any conscious thought processes on their part.

The convinced atheists are a minority.

It was advantageous, based upon natural selection, for the human species to develop a belief in omnipresent ‘gods’ or a ‘god’ that would scrutinize their actions and punish or reward them.

For this reason, religion is innate and evolutionary. It helped our ancestors survive, form cohesive communities beyond the level of mere kinship, maintain order and behave so as to keep oneself and the wider society in the good graces of the deity/deities.

As the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council put it in Nostra Aetate:

**From ancient times down to the present, there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history; at times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or even of a Father. This perception and recognition penetrates their lives with a profound religious sense.

Religions that are tied up with cultural progress strive to solve these issues with more refined concepts and a more precise language**

 

[Vouthon]

A passage from the book by that aforementioned Oxford professor on this…

**A friend of mine works in a big London investment bank. One day he went with his colleagues for a certain kind of ice cream—a Magnum bar—while waiting to hear the outcome of their first million-dollar deal. Ever since, when a deal was on the line, they were compelled to find exactly the same ice cream. When Magnum bars were hard to find, they experienced tangible panic and nervousness, a nagging fear that the deal will fall through. Something felt out of whack.

Sometimes such superstitious beliefs occur subconsciously and we are not even aware of them. But everyone, at one time or another, displays some kind of superstitious beliefs and behaviors as we go about life, much to the delight of anthropologists. Baseball players carry out careful rituals, such as tapping home plate with the bat a certain number of times or jumping over the baselines as they run on to the field. Soccer players point up to the sky when they score. President Franklin D.

Roosevelt assiduously avoided having thirteen guests for dinner or travelling on the thirteenth of the month. Winston Churchill stroked black cats to get good luck. Harry S. Truman hung a horseshoe in the White House, and Admiral Lord Nelson nailed one to his mast. Jennifer Aniston must step right-footed onto a plane and tap the outside. Gun’s N’ Roses’ singer Axl Rose would never play a concert in a town beginning with M (he thinks the letter is cursed). President Barack Obama carried a lucky poker chip during the 2008 presidential campaign. And so on.

Such beliefs and rituals may seem bizarre, but they are important to people and hard to break We may not readily notice or acknowledge them in our own lives, but they crop up all over the place in everyday activities, from wearing lucky charms to crossing our fingers to knocking on wood.

There can be a powerful feeling that if one omits or changes the ritual, the universe will conspire against us. Many of these secular superstitious beliefs seem to carry no moral content, and thus differ from religious beliefs, which generally do. But the point is that all such beliefs stem from a common underlying expectation: If I don’t do what I think supernatural forces require—whatever those forces and requirements may be—I will face payback.

Adding morality into the equation only seems to increase the likelihood and severity of punishment. Suddenly it has ethical valence, and the social obligation adds to its power. In countless everyday events from whispering a little prayer to putting on a lucky shirt to avoiding walking under ladders, we all find ourselves beholden to some greater force of nature that we would find hard to explain to a psychologist trying to account for our beliefs and behavior, or to an economist trying to account for our use of precious time, energy, and resources…

Most indigenous cultures do not debate the existence of God (or gods) the way we do. There is no question of whether supernatural agents exist or not. Instead, what we describe as religion is part and parcel of everyday thinking and living. There is little division between what is religious and what is nonreligious. There is no pressing search for evidence of supernatural agents as if they were a hypothesis to be tested, but rather a search for ways to live alongside them, just as you have to live alongside the cycle of the seasons or your neighbors.

**

 

[Bradski]

Also, the islamic god does not seem to realize that He created Northern Scandinavia, a place where the sun doesn’t go down in the summer. That would mean certain death for any muslim trying to follow Allah’s law in that region.

This I like. It’s the first time I have come across it. It’s a kinda ‘why didn’t I think about that’ moment.

Now having looked it up, it seems that a lot of Muslims living far from the equator ‘cheat’ by using the sunrise and sunset times of Medina.

 

[Bradski]

A passage from the book by that aforementioned Oxford professor on this…

You do realise that the good professor is saying that religion and belief in the supenatural are nothing more than an evolutionary product. If he is correct, then the supernatural doesn’t exist, it is just a belief that our genes have ‘encouraged’ as a means for survival.

Personally, I think he’s on the right track. Guilt is a very strong emotion that is required in order to be able to fit into society. And funnily enough, we generally feel it more when we have been discovered doing something ‘wrong’.

So it’s a small step to believe that someone IS always watching. Especially when that belief is encouraged.

 

[tonyrey]

You do realise that the good professor is saying that religion and belief in the supenatural are nothing more than an evolutionary product. If he is correct, then the supernatural doesn’t exist, it is just a belief that our genes have ‘encouraged’ as a means for survival.

Personally, I think he’s on the right track. Guilt is a very strong emotion that is required in order to be able to fit into society. And funnily enough, we generally feel it more when we have been discovered doing something ‘wrong’.

So it’s a small step to believe that someone IS always watching. Especially when that belief is encouraged.

It’s a very small - and very convenient - step to believe no one is ever watching.

“If God doesn’t exist everything is permissible” unless an arbitrary excuse can be found. There are plenty of criminals in high society and positions of power because it is a distinct advantage to be unscrupulous in the human jungle…

 

[inocente]

Personally, I think he’s on the right track. Guilt is a very strong emotion that is required in order to be able to fit into society. And funnily enough, we generally feel it more when we have been discovered doing something ‘wrong’.

So it’s a small step to believe that someone IS always watching. Especially when that belief is encouraged.

Not sure guilt is a component of most religions (it isn’t in mine), but there’s certainly evidence that the illusion of being watched affects moral behavior.

*“We examined the effect of an image of a pair of eyes on contributions to an honesty box used to collect money for drinks in a university coffee room. People paid nearly three times as much for their drinks when eyes were displayed rather than a control image. This finding provides the first evidence from a naturalistic setting of the importance of cues of being watched, and hence reputational concerns, on human cooperative behaviour.”

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1686213/
scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-illusion-of-being-observed-can-make-you-better-person/*

 

[Vouthon]

You do realise that the good professor is saying that religion and belief in the supenatural are nothing more than an evolutionary product.

Yes and from a strictly scientific (non-faith) point of view, I agree with him. The point remains, the aforementioned poster is wrong to claim that the religious impulse is not innate.

In fact, strong evidence points to the conclusion that evolution has hard-wired it in us because it proved highly conducive to our collective survival as a species.

Marx erred in calling it an opiate. It is not a drug. It is an innate survival instinct born of natural selection.

Marx seemed to infer that religion may be a harmful man-made construct. This scientist’s research, by contrast, indicates that religious beliefs and behaviors evolved precisely because they help us. It is an evolutionary adaption, not an evolutionary accident.

Religion was favored by Darwinian natural selection because it improved the survival prospects and reproductive success of believers in our ancestral past.

If it worked then, it likely still works now - even if belief in the supernatural is an illusion.

If he is correct, then the supernatural doesn’t exist, it is just a belief that our genes have ‘encouraged’ as a means for survival.

I do not see why this statement is a necessary corollary of this theory of evolutionary religious development.

It can be both that and something willed by a Supreme Being by means of evolution, to a religious person.

The scientist makes no claim as to the existence or not of the supernatural. He is simply dealing with the fact, as his research indicates, that the belief in the supernatural is an evolved instinct/trait that was important for human survival.

Personally, I think he’s on the right track. Guilt is a very strong emotion that is required in order to be able to fit into society. And funnily enough, we generally feel it more when we have been discovered doing something ‘wrong’.

Indeed, which is why natural selection favoured the generation of offspring with the “religious impulse”, since the belief in an omnipresent, all-seeing set of supernatural deities or deity proved to be the ultimate way of making people feel that they were being observed in their actions - at ALL times.

So it’s a small step to believe that someone IS always watching. Especially when that belief is encouraged.

Yes, it is a small and apparently “natural” step.

 

[PRmerger]

I am convinced that religion was invented by man and I think that because almost every single religion I’ve come across is so incredibly local.

Some religions, yes.

There was a wag who once said, “How realistic is it to expect someone from outer Mongolia to become a Southern Baptist?”

But not all religions are incredibly local.

Think Catholicism:

http://www.novusordowatch.org/jp2_indian.jpg



(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Cheiron]

Then what are you doing at Catholic Answers if you are not yourself answering your instinct to discover the supernatural or to justify your defiance of your own instinct?

The same reason I became a member of the humanist association in my country: to have my worldview challenged. I like the debate. I thrive on that. And although my humanist friends can be excellent Devil’s advocates, they just don’t have the knowledge and experience that catholics on this forum have. I also think Christians on this forum are more honest than the Christians I meet in my life. Most of them are a bit iffy about God or their religion.

No, I believe you have the horse before the cart there my friend.
Atheism isn’t rare because it is unpopular, it’s unpopular because it is rare - an aberration.
This is herd mentality 101. (In group / out group)

I asserted that atheism was/is rare and that if any religion was an invention, atheism is the strongest contender for that crown. And I maintain that atheism - at its heart - is simply the idea that God(s) might not exist.

Then I misunderstood you the first time. This is something I somewhat agree with. During the Cold War atheism became almost the same as communism and being a patriotic American also meant being a pious Christian. On 9/11, America wasn’t attacked by the faithless, but by pious muslims. There has been an enormous increase in islamic violence ever since. And then there is ofcourse the child abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. It’s no coincidence that atheist books sprang up like mushrooms after all that evil. But all this indicates that religiosity depends on political and social expediency and not on truth.

The problem is that biggest contraction of all is the one between those who claim God exists and those who claim He does not. THAT is biggest, most irreconcileable difference we see.

Sure, we can point to a lot of other differences across the entire spectrum of belief but the biggest one of all is the gulf between atheist versus theist - where ALL theists agree that some form of divinity is probably/definitely true.

I agree with this too. The split between atheist and theist is much wider than between theists themselves, with the possible exception of unitarian universalists ofcourse. And it still bothers me that the concept of God - let alone the number of gods - differs so much between theists. It seems to me that God needs to be vaguer and vaguer in order to become more and more plausible. This arouses suspicion.

Isn’t it possible, if not probable, that among all of the many claims about God, the one most likely to be mistaken is the infrequently held belief that God might not exist? (AKA atheism)

No, if I thought atheism was probably false, I wouldn’t be an atheist.

In order for religion/theism to be true, as opposed to being merely an imaginary invention, there need be only one theistic claim to be right. Whereas in order for atheism (the no-God hypothesis) to be true, EVERY SINGLE tenet of every single religion that has ever been throughout human history must all be completely falsified.

Not all religious tenets are equally important. There are some core beliefs that can cause the whole edifice to crumble if they’re proven to be false. For example, in a thread in the non-catholic religions section, I briefly sparred with hasantas about science in the Qu’ran, because I know that if the Qu’ran contains even one mistake, it can’t possibly be a revelation from God. And then Islam crumbles. Christians wisely have avoided this claim that the Bible is a direct revelation from the Almighty.

I’m interested in your claim that divine revelation (biblical) hasn’t surpassed what was already known. Did Bronze Age shepherds already know about the germ theory of disease?

They probably knew some basic facts about hygiene and sanitation, but they didn’t know about bacteria or viruses. The guy who figured out that bacteria exist was Antonie van Leeuwenhoek. (1632-1723).

Science says different.

There is increasing evidence that the “religious”/“spiritual”/“theistic” impulse, whatever you call it, is a direct product of evolution and hard-wired into the human brain:

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3366295/Are-hardwired-religious-EVOLUTION-Fear-God-led-humans-operate-gave-edge-animals.html

I’ve read other studies on this and there is not a scientific consensus on this yet. Even if it’s true, Bradski is still right that the professor points to a purely natural explanation. The theory of evolution, as it currently stands, does not involve God. I wish I could explain more, but discussing evolution is banned, unfortunately.

This I like. It’s the first time I have come across it. It’s a kinda ‘why didn’t I think about that’ moment.

Now having looked it up, it seems that a lot of Muslims living far from the equator ‘cheat’ by using the sunrise and sunset times of Medina.

Thank you. I’ve heard that cheat too, so I looked up the injunction to fast. It’s verse 2:185 till 2:187. When you read these verses, things become much worse for the muslim apologist:

And eat and drink until the white thread of dawn becomes distinct to you from the black thread [of night]. Then complete the fast until the sunset.

Nowhere does it say that muslims can use the sunrise and sunset times of Medina. If muslims have to ignore the Qu’ran in order not to die from Allah’s divine law, then how could they possibly believe the Qu’ran is divine at all? I’ve never heard a muslim explain this point. Also, the ramadan is one of the five pillars of Islam. It’s not a small thing, which makes it even more troublesome.

 

[Ben_Quincy]

Thread Warning:

Discuss the topic, not each other.

 

[Cheiron]

This I like. It’s the first time I have come across it. It’s a kinda ‘why didn’t I think about that’ moment.

Now having looked it up, it seems that a lot of Muslims living far from the equator ‘cheat’ by using the sunrise and sunset times of Medina.

I had no more characters left, but there is a corollary. The islamic calendar is based on the moon, which means that it’s about 10 days short. Mohammed’s birthday, for example, was on both jan. 3rd of 2015 as well as december 24th 2015. Now, this also means that the Ramadan isn’t fixed and moves forward a bit. After several years, Ramadan will start somewhere in December, which is good news for muslim in Scandinavia, Alaska, Canada and other places where the sun doesn’t rise for weeks or months!

To me, this is the perfect example that Islam is an invention of someone who didn’t know about Scandinavia and the axial tilt of the Earth. And I often find similar examples in other religions. One is enough, because divine revelation, by its nature, has to hit the bulls eye every single time.

 

[goout]

To me, this is the perfect example that Islam is an invention of someone who didn’t know about Scandinavia and the axial tilt of the Earth. And I often find similar examples in other religions. One is enough, because divine revelation, by its nature, has to hit the bulls eye every single time.

What do you mean it has to hit the bulls eye evry time?

 

[Cheiron]

What do you mean it has to hit the bulls eye evry time?

I mean that if a holy book, like the Qu’ran, is indeed revelation, then it should not contain such glaring scientific errors. In fact, it should not contain even one error, because that would mean God is not omniscient. I don’t think that’s holding God to too high a standard.

 

[inocente]

I mean that if a holy book, like the Qu’ran, is indeed revelation, then it should not contain such glaring scientific errors. In fact, it should not contain even one error, because that would mean God is not omniscient. I don’t think that’s holding God to too high a standard.

Holy books are not science textbooks, and Muslims might respond along similar lines as the following scientist.

*“The writers of the Bible were illuminated more or less — some more than others — on the question of salvation. On other questions they were as wise or ignorant as their generation. Hence it is utterly unimportant that errors in historic and scientific fact should be found in the Bible, especially if the errors related to events that were not directly observed by those who wrote about them . . . The idea that because they were right in their doctrine of immortality and salvation they must also be right on all other subjects, is simply the fallacy of people who have an incomplete understanding of why the Bible was given to us at all.”

“Should a priest reject relativity because it contains no authoritative exposition on the doctrine of the Trinity? Once you realize that the Bible does not purport to be a textbook of science, the old controversy between religion and science vanishes . . . The doctrine of the Trinity is much more abstruse than anything in relativity or quantum mechanics; but, being necessary for salvation, the doctrine is stated in the Bible. If the theory of relativity had also been necessary for salvation, it would have been revealed to Saint Paul or to Moses . . . As a matter of fact neither Saint Paul nor Moses had the slightest idea of relativity.”

Monsignor Georges Lemaître - catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847*

 

[Cheiron]

Holy books are not science textbooks, and Muslims might respond along similar lines as the following scientist.

*“The writers of the Bible were illuminated more or less — some more than others — on the question of salvation. On other questions they were as wise or ignorant as their generation. Hence it is utterly unimportant that errors in historic and scientific fact should be found in the Bible, especially if the errors related to events that were not directly observed by those who wrote about them . . . The idea that because they were right in their doctrine of immortality and salvation they must also be right on all other subjects, is simply the fallacy of people who have an incomplete understanding of why the Bible was given to us at all.”

“Should a priest reject relativity because it contains no authoritative exposition on the doctrine of the Trinity? Once you realize that the Bible does not purport to be a textbook of science, the old controversy between religion and science vanishes . . . The doctrine of the Trinity is much more abstruse than anything in relativity or quantum mechanics; but, being necessary for salvation, the doctrine is stated in the Bible. If the theory of relativity had also been necessary for salvation, it would have been revealed to Saint Paul or to Moses . . . As a matter of fact neither Saint Paul nor Moses had the slightest idea of relativity.”

Monsignor Georges Lemaître - catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8847*

Christians can say this, because Christians acknowledge that the Bible was written by men. Men inspired by God, but still men. Muslims, however, enjoy no such liberty, so the it’s more of a problem for them.

 

[inocente]

Christians can say this, because Christians acknowledge that the Bible was written by men. Men inspired by God, but still men. Muslims, however, enjoy no such liberty, so the it’s more of a problem for them.

No one except adherents can speak meaningfully about a faith, but it doesn’t appear to be any kind of a problem, for instance here’s the first hit on google:

“All Muslim scholars agree that whenever there is perpetual day or perpetual night for 24 hours or more, the prayer times during the affected days should be approximated. This is because the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “There will come a time when there will be a day like a year, a day like a month, and a day like a week…” The people asked him if during the day like a year, should they offer each prayer only once. He replied: “You should approximate the times.” [Sahîh Muslim]” - en.islamtoday.net/artshow-384-3955.htm

 

[Cheiron]

No one except adherents can speak meaningfully about a faith,

I totally disagree with this. You don’t have to be a member at all to speak meaningfully about a faith, as many professors around the world prove.

but it doesn’t appear to be any kind of a problem, for instance here’s the first hit on google:

“All Muslim scholars agree that whenever there is perpetual day or perpetual night for 24 hours or more, the prayer times during the affected days should be approximated. This is because the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: “There will come a time when there will be a day like a year, a day like a month, and a day like a week…” The people asked him if during the day like a year, should they offer each prayer only once. He replied: “You should approximate the times.” [Sahîh Muslim]” - en.islamtoday.net/artshow-384-3955.htm

That is just a cheat, invented by muslim scholars because they know perfectly well that following Allah’s law in Norway will lead to either death (summer) or no fasting at all (winter). Secondly: Consensus among muslims scholars can’t bypass what Allah has supposedly revealed. Thirdly: The Qu’ran is as clear as day: you can only eat from dusk till dawn. 2:187:

And eat and drink until the white thread of dawn becomes distinct to you from the black thread [of night]. Then complete the fast until the sunset.

There is no verse in the Qu’ran that allows muslims to do what those scholars recommend. I do thank you for bringing that rebuttal to my attention. Those scholars invoking Mohammed to bypass the Qu’ran reveal what I long suspected to be the case: that Islam is actually the personality cult of Mohammed and he is more important than God.

And it doesn’t address the issue at hand, which is that the islamic injunction to fast proves that the islamic god seems to be less knowledgeable about cosmology than humans today. That is odd for a god.

 

[PRmerger]

I totally disagree with this. You don’t have to be a member at all to speak meaningfully about a faith, as many professors around the world prove.

Fair enough.

So I take it that you believe that you don’t have a problem with, generally, having an opinion about what a woman can do with her body?

 

[Cheiron]

Fair enough.

So I take it that you believe that you don’t have a problem with, generally, having an opinion about what a woman can do with her body?

That’s correct yes. Ofcourse it helps to be woman, but a man can offer a meaningful opinion about a woman’s body too. There are many male gynecologists. Ron Paul comes to mind.