• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How & why did religion evolve?

Dawkins has the best explanation for this; it is evolutionary in nature. This is just a theory but it makes sense.

Caveman A walks past a bush. He hears a rustle in the bush. Fearing attack from an unseen and unknown presence, he flees and lives to both tell his tale and spread his genes into the gene pool.

Caveman B walks past a bush and hears a similar rustle. Seeing no predators or danger, he asserts the wind caused the rustle. A predator eats him. He is thus unable to spread his genes.

Caveman A spreads his acceptance of the unknown into the gene pool. These folks tend to live longer because they are more fearful. These folks also thus spread this to the gene pool. The rustle, to them, takes on a supernatural quality and gives rise to the notion of unseen powers at play, encouraging the creation of gods and other things through superstitious nonsense.

Xenophobia and paranoia, within limits, are certainly survival enhancers. Of course, there's also B.F. Skinner's "Religious pigeons". While that helps explain the formation of religion, it doesn't explain the spirituality of man. I think IQ figures into too. Some people just accept there are things that they will never understand about existence, say their prayers, sing their songs and go home. Others wonder about the deeper aspects of existence.
 
The origins of religion will never be known as it began before recorded history.
I think a fair assumption is that it was an explanation by some of why how things happen that was beyond their understanding. Those who gave these explanations discovered that it gave them a certain amount of power over others who sought not just answers to how and why the world was as it was but advice on how to make it better or avoid it getting worse, thus religions began.

The formation of civilization required humans depart from natural instinct. According to science and evolution, humans had been migratory hunters and gatherers and then herders, for a long time; million years. To go from these instinctive ways, to living in a fixed artificial location; civilization, required something that could alter the inertia of natural instinct. Religion was part of a counter POV; frontal lobe, that offered a way to alter the inertia of instinct.

The story of Adam and Eve, in paradise, before the fall, was when humans were connected to natural instinct. Natural instinct allows all our choices to be optimized and made for us. What changed this; fall from paradise, was conscious knowledge of good and evil. This was a countering POV, that starts to inhibit the old ways of instinct. Morally neutral instinct, becomes polarized, and subject to choice.

Civilization had many startups before it finally stuck. There is evidence of very early civilization startups, thousands of years before Mesopotamia. However, all these early start ups, were aborted. This observation suggests that the first countering change in human nature, was not strong enough to overcome instinct. The brain continued to default back to natural instinct. The Tree of knowledge of good and evil; law, was there before Adam and Eve. It was not a problem early on. The first civilizations tried law, but were not successful; permanent.

The invention that coincides with the time scale of Genesis and the fall of Adam and Eve (from instinct); 6000 years, is the invention of writing. Spoken language came thousands of years before written language. Writing language coincides with the first stable civilizations. Once things were written down, the dynamics became different from the spoke traditions of law. This is when civilization stuck.

Word of mouth; spoken language and ideas, will change with time, as people recollect differently and/or embellish the story. Writing is different, in that even if we change the spoken story, a written copy brings us back to step one. The carved in stone approach, was strong enough to overcome the inertia of instinct, which will alter the spoke story.

Spoken traditions could form civilization, but as the story; knowledge, changed with time, an abortion would happen. The founders could begin the civilization, but as their offspring disagreed on the rules, procedures and laws, decline begins to happen. Written language changes the confusion of memory recollection. Written language led to a deeper repression, that could not heal; reverse, as had been the case of spoken law. Written law caused a repression, that animated the brain; spirits of polytheism.

Today in modern times, science has no clue what natural human behavior is. It condones relative morality and choice, since choice means money, though the selling of goods and services. Bad choice means big bucks. Human DNA is conservative, therefore the repression of instinct remains, relative to a natural DNA baseline. Religion is way to deal with this civilization based repression. It helps get close to natural instinct. This was the role from the beginning. Adam and Eve fall fro paradise; repression. However, God remains with them, to gradually help then come home; tree of life.
 
Last edited:
Xenophobia and paranoia, within limits, are certainly survival enhancers. Of course, there's also B.F. Skinner's "Religious pigeons". While that helps explain the formation of religion, it doesn't explain the spirituality of man. I think IQ figures into too. Some people just accept there are things that they will never understand about existence, say their prayers, sing their songs and go home. Others wonder about the deeper aspects of existence.

There is no scientific evidence for "spirituality." There are emotions and emotional responses due to the chemical responses to stimuli in the brain. Brian Cox has a fascinating view on how particle physics dismisses the notion of a spiritual realm thanks to the way particles interact.
 
Dude, you ask for an example and I gave you one not a thesis on religion and spirituality. The bottom line here is that in industrialized nations the dogmatic religions are losing favor, but atheists are only ticking up slightly. Mostly among the young but the majority are still seeking spiritual fulfillment. "Why?" is the all important question.

My theory is that most people, on the order of over 90%, sense there is more to existence than eating, sleeping, ****ing and dying.

I didn't ask for an example I questioned whether the 90% claim was correct I freely acknowledge I dont know. Your link didn't support that claim, I posted counter links which I admit dont answer the question either but are closer than the link you posted.
As to your theory, whether it is 90% or 10% it doesn't change the fact that it is still belief one way or the other. I am not sure why it is relevant, I questioned it because as I say anecdotally I wouldn't give it that high a number
 
The formation of civilization required humans depart from natural instinct. According to science and evolution, humans had been migratory hunters and gatherers and then herders, for a long time; million years. To go from these instinctive ways, to living in a fixed artificial location; civilization, required something that could alter the inertia of natural instinct. Religion was part of a counter POV; frontal lobe, that offered a way to alter the inertia of instinct.

The story of Adam and Eve, in paradise, before the fall, was when humans were connected to natural instinct. Natural instinct allows all our choices to be optimized and made for us. What changed this; fall from paradise, was conscious knowledge of good and evil. This was a countering POV, that starts to inhibit the old ways of instinct. Morally neutral instinct, becomes polarized, and subject to choice.

Civilization had many startups before it finally stuck. There is evidence of very early civilization startups, thousands of years before Mesopotamia. However, all these early start ups, were aborted. This observation suggests that the first countering change in human nature, was not strong enough to overcome instinct. The brain continued to default back to natural instinct. The Tree of knowledge of good and evil; law, was there before Adam and Eve. It was not a problem early on. The first civilizations tried law, but were not successful; permanent.

The invention that coincides with the time scale of Genesis and the fall of Adam and Eve (from instinct); 6000 years, is the invention of writing. Spoken language came thousands of years before written language. Writing language coincides with the first stable civilizations. Once things were written down, the dynamics became different from the spoke traditions of law. This is when civilization stuck.

Word of mouth; spoken language and ideas, will change with time, as people recollect differently and/or embellish the story. Writing is different, in that even if we change the spoken story, a written copy brings us back to step one. The carved in stone approach, was strong enough to overcome the inertia of instinct, which will alter the spoke story.

Spoken traditions could form civilization, but as the story; knowledge, changed with time, an abortion would happen. The founders could begin the civilization, but as their offspring disagreed on the rules, procedures and laws, decline begins to happen. Written language changes the confusion of memory recollection. Written language led to a deeper repression, that could not heal; reverse, as had been the case of spoken law. Written law caused a repression, that animated the brain; spirits of polytheism.

Today in modern times, science has no clue what natural human behavior is. It condones relative morality and choice, since choice means money, though the selling of goods and services. Bad choice means big bucks. Human DNA is conservative, therefore the repression of instinct remains, relative to a natural DNA baseline. Religion is way to deal with this civilization based repression. It helps get close to natural instinct. This was the role from the beginning. Adam and Eve fall fro paradise; repression. However, God remains with them, to gradually help then come home; tree of life.

You can and have had nomadic civilizations with religion
History of Mongolia - Wikipedia
Culture of Mongolia - Wikipedia
 
There is no scientific evidence for "spirituality." There are emotions and emotional responses due to the chemical responses to stimuli in the brain. Brian Cox has a fascinating view on how particle physics dismisses the notion of a spiritual realm thanks to the way particles interact.
When you get older, perhaps graduate from college, you might learn that science only covers the Natural Universe and what's inside it. Not the Super-Natural, what is outside of physical existence.

OTOH, you are free to believe you are simply a meat computer responding to "chemical responses" and of no more value than the sum of your physical components. This explains why atheists like Stalin and Mao have no problem butchering millions of people. After all, in the atheist point of view, they have no value except what they can do in the present, physical universe.
 
I didn't ask for an example I questioned whether the 90% claim was correct I freely acknowledge I dont know. Your link didn't support that claim, I posted counter links which I admit dont answer the question either but are closer than the link you posted.
As to your theory, whether it is 90% or 10% it doesn't change the fact that it is still belief one way or the other. I am not sure why it is relevant, I questioned it because as I say anecdotally I wouldn't give it that high a number

You gave links but obviously didn't read them since you gave a mix of religion and spiritual links. If you have a credible link saying that more than 10% of the global population believes that we are nothing more than biological robots and "when you're dead, you're dead", I'd love to see it. So far you haven't provided any such link.
 
An old German anthropologists (forget his name) that discovered ancient lost cities his entire lifetime, himself an atheist, said when he found the oldest stone city ever - predating prior discoveries by thousands of years, said that discovery answered his #1 question: "What caused humans to shift from simple societies that were hunter-gatherers to having highly complex societies with permanent cities made out of large stone structures, which require major unified social effort.

His answer? Religion. That in every ancient stone city he found at the city center is a temple, which also is linked to government authority. In his opinion, religion was the unifying factor that could unit people to one commonality - and thus one common goal. This allowed structuring a large population towards singular authority, universal set of rules and goals all under the authority of god/the gods.

From this, far greater efficiency in time became possibly by specialization and in a sense, assembly line work. This greater efficiency allowed leisure time and exploration time. In addition, pondering about god/gods lead to exploring nature, which in turn lead to exploring science and technology. In his opinion, it was religion that allowed small groups and bands of humans to be unified to a single authority - whether voluntary or involuntary - with a universal authority and universally applied set of laws - all which are needed for a large, organized society.

Simply, in his opinion the decisive shift in the nature of the human race came with the advent of complex religion - which lead then to complex, large societies becoming possible. Since god/gods are immortal, this also encouraged building structures out of stone since the life of god/gods extends beyond the current generation.

Backing that up is simply pointing out their has been NO enduring atheist empire or major country that endured for long historically. All major empires - whether Mayan, Spanish, Islam or the USA - all were highly religious and driven by religious dogma. Indeed, most claimed their religion (ie their god/gods) is what made them most powerful. Even for the USA, the slogan for explanation was "manifest destiny" - that God had ordained that the USA controls all of the Americas and is destined to become a great empire.
 
Last edited:
When you get older, perhaps graduate from college, you might learn that science only covers the Natural Universe and what's inside it. Not the Super-Natural, what is outside of physical existence.

OTOH, you are free to believe you are simply a meat computer responding to "chemical responses" and of no more value than the sum of your physical components. This explains why atheists like Stalin and Mao have no problem butchering millions of people. After all, in the atheist point of view, they have no value except what they can do in the present, physical universe.

You're conflating two entirely separate theories. Morality and religion are not synonymous, but in your example, taken to their logical conclusion they are one in the same? Unless you can prove (Even hypothetically) that religion and morality are fundamental human characteristics mutually inclusive, you'll have a hard time convincing me.


Tim-
 
You're conflating two entirely separate theories. Morality and religion are not synonymous, but in your example, taken to their logical conclusion they are one in the same? Unless you can prove (Even hypothetically) that religion and morality are fundamental human characteristics mutually inclusive, you'll have a hard time convincing me.


Tim-
Incorrect; I've been pointing out that Religion and Spirituality are not synonymous. I readily agree that religion and morality may not be synonymous but do believe that spirituality and morality can be synonymous.

You seem to be under the misconception that I'm religious. Let me clear that up: I'm not religious.
 
You gave links but obviously didn't read them since you gave a mix of religion and spiritual links. If you have a credible link saying that more than 10% of the global population believes that we are nothing more than biological robots and "when you're dead, you're dead", I'd love to see it. So far you haven't provided any such link.

I did read them and I admit they are not great answers but with the limited time I was willing to spend on it the best I could find and all were better than your link to deal with the question at hand.
I really dont see what the big deal is either way though
 
Dude, you ask for an example and I gave you one not a thesis on religion and spirituality. The bottom line here is that in industrialized nations the dogmatic religions are losing favor, but atheists are only ticking up slightly. Mostly among the young but the majority are still seeking spiritual fulfillment. "Why?" is the all important question.

My theory is that most people, on the order of over 90%, sense there is more to existence than eating, sleeping, ****ing and dying.

Yes, there is, but it is not in the realm of make believe. For example, the discussions and debates we engage in here are not essential to our survival. A lot of things we pursue are physical but don't fall under your straw man view of being non religious/spiritual/superstitious. But unfortunately, none of us avoid dying. But in the meantime, our physical existence has plenty of non essential to survival activities that make life more than your over simplified straw man take of how people can view life without adding something make believe.
 
Yes, there is, but it is not in the realm of make believe. For example, the discussions and debates we engage in here are not essential to our survival. A lot of things we pursue are physical but don't fall under your straw man view of being non religious/spiritual/superstitious. But unfortunately, none of us avoid dying. But in the meantime, our physical existence has plenty of non essential to survival activities that make life more than your over simplified straw man take of how people can view life without adding something make believe.

Yet you deliberately chose the username "Devil David". LOL

Dude, I was asked a question and gave my opinion. No need for drama from you about my answers.
 
Last edited:
When you get older, perhaps graduate from college, you might learn that science only covers the Natural Universe and what's inside it. Not the Super-Natural, what is outside of physical existence.

OTOH, you are free to believe you are simply a meat computer responding to "chemical responses" and of no more value than the sum of your physical components. This explains why atheists like Stalin and Mao have no problem butchering millions of people. After all, in the atheist point of view, they have no value except what they can do in the present, physical universe.

I've not seen a single shred of evidence that anything supernatural exists. I think people don't adequately understand what coincidence and happenstance and odds are.
 
I've not seen a single shred of evidence that anything supernatural exists....
Me neither. No one has. Of course, there's no evidence of life off Earth either. Certainly not intelligent life despite decades of looking. Do I believe life exists elsewhere in the Universe? Yes, I do. You? I suspect you do even though you have no evidence.


....I think people don't adequately understand what coincidence and happenstance and odds are.
A rookie mistake on your part. Yes, people do understand the difference. Many people do. At a guess, I'd say at least 50%. Highly probable that anyone who has a STEM degree understands it so I fail to see why you think you're the only one.
 
Me neither. No one has. Of course, there's no evidence of life off Earth either. Certainly not intelligent life despite decades of looking. Do I believe life exists elsewhere in the Universe? Yes, I do. You? I suspect you do even though you have no evidence.


A rookie mistake on your part. Yes, people do understand the difference. Many people do. At a guess, I'd say at least 50%. Highly probable that anyone who has a STEM degree understands it so I fail to see why you think you're the only one.

I find it hard to believe 50% of people understand what a coincidence is, and I also think a lot of folks attribute circumstance or coincidence to the supernatural.

Moreover, life is a measurable quantity. Supernatural means are not.
 
I find it hard to believe 50% of people understand what a coincidence is, and I also think a lot of folks attribute circumstance or coincidence to the supernatural.

Moreover, life is a measurable quantity. Supernatural means are not.

Well, at least you stopped claiming everyone but yourself understands the difference so that's an improvement. :)

Yes, life is measurable and there is no measure on the supernatural.
 
Well, at least you stopped claiming everyone but yourself understands the difference so that's an improvement. :)

Yes, life is measurable and there is no measure on the supernatural.

In my estimation this means there is no evidence for supernatural anything. It is far more likely that coincidence, happenstance or random causality is misconstrued as supernatural.
 
In my estimation this means there is no evidence for supernatural anything. It is far more likely that coincidence, happenstance or random causality is misconstrued as supernatural.

You've said this three times now and, now, I'm agreeing for the third time that there is no evidence. Writing off human spirituality as just "coincidence, happenstance or random causality" without evidence is equally silly.
 
Yet you deliberately chose the username "Devil David". LOL

Dude, I was asked a question and gave my opinion. No need for drama from you about my answers.

And I gave my opinion of your opinion which you did not respond to. This is what we do here. There was no drama to my post.
 
Well, at least you stopped claiming everyone but yourself understands the difference so that's an improvement. :)

Yes, life is measurable and there is no measure on the supernatural.

You can't measure the make believe.
 
Me neither. No one has. Of course, there's no evidence of life off Earth either. Certainly not intelligent life despite decades of looking. Do I believe life exists elsewhere in the Universe? Yes, I do. You? I suspect you do even though you have no evidence.


A rookie mistake on your part. Yes, people do understand the difference. Many people do. At a guess, I'd say at least 50%. Highly probable that anyone who has a STEM degree understands it so I fail to see why you think you're the only one.

What does physical life off of earth have to do with make believe supernatural? Nothing.
 
When you get older, perhaps graduate from college, you might learn that science only covers the Natural Universe and what's inside it. Not the Super-Natural, what is outside of physical existence.

OTOH, you are free to believe you are simply a meat computer responding to "chemical responses" and of no more value than the sum of your physical components. This explains why atheists like Stalin and Mao have no problem butchering millions of people. After all, in the atheist point of view, they have no value except what they can do in the present, physical universe.

Outside of physical existence is make believe.

There is no such thing as a meat computer.

Butchering people has been done by believers as well. Beliefs don't prevent it. Lack of beliefs don't facilitate it. Power does.
 
Back
Top Bottom