I believe it started with a sense of security. Don’t worry, there’s a reason and someone is in control of this shit show. Feels better than we’re on this crazy freight train called life that is almost completely out of control, no one knows where we’re going, no one knows how we’re going to get there, and we basically have no control over any of it.
There’s a degree of just feeling viscerally like the supernatural is around us, too. Not everyone has that, but some people certainly do. Then yeah, we also want to answers the big questions in a satisfying, even comforting way. Particularly modern monotheism has a deep component of offering a way the world is fair, actually, despite all appearances.
It looks like religion is a thing that started with modern humans, just based on archeological finds, but I don’t know why or if it was adaptive. Some scholars will talk about the beginning of religious finds as a beginning of abstract thought, but it seems to me that even a damn dog can make a creative guess about how the world works, so that’s not it.
I mean, depending on how profound you need it to be. I had my dog jump into a neighbor’s car once. Clearly, he figured a different one would take him fun places if the usual one did, generalising the concept.
I don’t find it surprising given that the vast majority of people don’t research the claims that other people make. For example, during the GameStop short squeeze, people came to the conclusion that corruption or collusion was at play, when in reality it wasn’t for the most part.
People would rather listen to a guy who says something confidently than a guy who says “I don’t know.” The former gets to spread their word, and the latter gets ignored.
In my view, there are two components to “religion”.
1 - it typically starts with an attempt to explain why and how things are
2 - it becomes a human administration - this becomes more about politics than “religion”
Most of the problems with religion stem from the second part. I see the politics as the far bigger problem there. So people that want to create political movements around “science” are absolutely no better in my view.
If you read the question being asked in this thread critically, do you find it a scientific question? A political one?
Human politics are always going to be human politics. Religion is usually just an excuse to do what everyone wanted to do anyway. Science is what happens when you inquire about how why and how things are honestly and thoroughly, though, so I don’t think the former is harmless.
If you read the question being asked in this thread critically, do you find it a scientific question? A political one?
Probably political, or at least personally motivated. I suppose it’s possible OP genuinely has no ideas, but I think that’s unlikely. I still stand by my answer.
Alternative ways of explaining the world have been around for like a century and a half, and religious conversion is slow.
Why we did religion in the first place instead of just “I dunno where stuff came from or why” is a much more interesting question IMO.
I believe it started with a sense of security. Don’t worry, there’s a reason and someone is in control of this shit show. Feels better than we’re on this crazy freight train called life that is almost completely out of control, no one knows where we’re going, no one knows how we’re going to get there, and we basically have no control over any of it.
Oh someone is in control don’t worry about that!
That’s just the Catholics. We’re talking about all religions.
If this is referring to Buddhism, I believe that’s considered a philosophy and not a religion. I think you need a god for it to be a religion.
Or both, idk it’s all up for interpretation? Just looked it up and “they” can’t agree. 🤷♂️
There’s a degree of just feeling viscerally like the supernatural is around us, too. Not everyone has that, but some people certainly do. Then yeah, we also want to answers the big questions in a satisfying, even comforting way. Particularly modern monotheism has a deep component of offering a way the world is fair, actually, despite all appearances.
It looks like religion is a thing that started with modern humans, just based on archeological finds, but I don’t know why or if it was adaptive. Some scholars will talk about the beginning of religious finds as a beginning of abstract thought, but it seems to me that even a damn dog can make a creative guess about how the world works, so that’s not it.
…it can?
I mean, depending on how profound you need it to be. I had my dog jump into a neighbor’s car once. Clearly, he figured a different one would take him fun places if the usual one did, generalising the concept.
I don’t find it surprising given that the vast majority of people don’t research the claims that other people make. For example, during the GameStop short squeeze, people came to the conclusion that corruption or collusion was at play, when in reality it wasn’t for the most part.
People would rather listen to a guy who says something confidently than a guy who says “I don’t know.” The former gets to spread their word, and the latter gets ignored.
Yeah, we seem to just be gullible on average, when it comes to certain things.
In my view, there are two components to “religion”.
1 - it typically starts with an attempt to explain why and how things are
2 - it becomes a human administration - this becomes more about politics than “religion”
Most of the problems with religion stem from the second part. I see the politics as the far bigger problem there. So people that want to create political movements around “science” are absolutely no better in my view.
If you read the question being asked in this thread critically, do you find it a scientific question? A political one?
Human politics are always going to be human politics. Religion is usually just an excuse to do what everyone wanted to do anyway. Science is what happens when you inquire about how why and how things are honestly and thoroughly, though, so I don’t think the former is harmless.
Probably political, or at least personally motivated. I suppose it’s possible OP genuinely has no ideas, but I think that’s unlikely. I still stand by my answer.