Consider that religious tradition may have formed societal norms such as 'appropriate attire'.
A very clear impact of mysticism is mathematics. For instance the Maya Numerals.
It might seem like a silly notion, but the inspiration for mathematics according to ancient testimonies is 'divine'. — Shamshir

Similar to Bitter Crank's example of architecture and art, this just proves that material culture can be related to religious traditions, but not necessarily religious or mystical in themselves.

As far as math goes- indeed pure mathematics as it was formed in Ancient Greece by the Pythagoreans were inspired by religious concepts. This might be the idea behind Plato's Forms. The idea that there is a symbolic pattern that can describe the physical manifestation of an object. But, I actually think this formation of math from religion was simply a misapplication of knowledge by the original Pythagoreans. What they stumbled upon was the idea that proportions and patterns can be represented and computated, and thus could be separated out from engineering or use, into pure principles and axioms. Thus they stumbled upon pure mathematics, but the amazing idea that patterns can be symbolized and computed seemed to have a mystical quality to these early mathematicians and they even made whole religious orders out of this discovery. Plato took it to the next level with his Forms.. which I can fathom was a culmination of ideas of symbolized patterns that started with the Pythagoreans.

I won't speak on the application of mathematics, but their purpose appears to be mystical.
Such as: Why are there mathematics? Why can one apply mathematics, like the Fibonacci sequence to a lifeform?

It is when asking questions like that, that it appears odd and mystical.

Whereas when applied, it is quite mundane.

Mathematicians in Maya, Egyptian, Chinese, etc culture were essentially priests.
And they credit the discovery of math to divine beings.

Theory on Why Religion/Spirituality Still Matters to People — schopenhauer1

Because people still look to others (like extradimensional aliens) to give them purpose, or meaning. They are too weak to create their own purpose.

Computers, electronics, electrical systems, construction, engineering, medicine, scientifically-based technologies are complex, exacting subjects to master and understand. Yet our industrial world is composed of just these things that demand exacting minute understanding of complex processes (minutia mongering). This understanding is not accessible to all. Even if you understand it "conceptually", not everyone can actually participate in each or sometimes any of these aspects. — schopenhauer1

Ridiculous. Look at everyone that owns an iPhone. Every time they use their phone they are performing science in testing the scientific theory the technology is based on. The person who finds that their iPhone doesn't follow the theory will be famous.

The logic that directs the scientific method is rational and ineluctable at all times and in all circumstances. This quality of science transcends the differences which in other fields of endeavor make one period incommensurate with another, or one cultural expression (like religion and spirituality) untranslatable in another context. Science knows no contextual limitations. It merely seeks the truth.

The reason anyone finds science to computers, electronics, etc. complex simply doesn't have the inclination to learn about it (they'd rather learn more about the lives of Hollywood celebrities), or the mental capacity (IQ) to learn it. That is to say that thinking is hard. It requires effort and time to think thoroughly and logically.

However, God and the mystical world are accessible to everyone. Anyone can think they are a master of knowledge in the realm of mysticism. It provides a sort of mastery of our understanding and of our place in the universe, without doing the heavy lifting. — schopenhauer1

Preposterous. I was a Christian raised as one. I was baptized and saved from my sins. I prayed but never hear anything from God. What I thought was God, wasn't. It was just an imaginary concept I used in order to give myself meaning and to ease my feelings of loss and unfairness. In other words, it was something I used to make myself feel better, not provide me any real knowledge about the world as it is. As I began to seriously question what I had been raised to believe due to all of the inconsistencies, I found that science provides a much better explanation as to what I am, how I came to be, and what my purpose is (if it really makes sense to talk about purpose in this universe).

The reason why religion/spirituality still matters is because people would rather just believe what makes them feel good and important and anything that doesn't make them feel important (science) must not be true.

The reason anyone finds science to computers, electronics, etc. complex simply doesn't have the inclination to learn about it (they'd rather learn more about the lives of Hollywood celebrities), or the mental capacity (IQ) to learn it. That is to say that thinking is hard. It requires effort and time to think thoroughly and logically. — Harry Hindu

You are making my point, not refuting it.

Preposterous. I was a Christian raised as one. I was baptized and saved from my sins. I prayed bu never hear anything from God. What I thought was God, wasn't. It was just an imaginary concept I used in order to give myself meaning and to ease my feelings of loss and unfairness. In other words, it was something I used to make me feel better, not provide me any real knowledge about the world as it is. As I began to seriously question what I had been raised to believe due to all of the inconsistencies, I found that science provides a much better explanation as to what I am, how I came to be, and what my purpose is (if it really makes sense to talk about purpose in this universe).

The reason why religion/spirituality still matters is because people would rather just believe what makes them feel good and important rather believing what their own senses show them. — Harry Hindu

This is making my point again, not refuting it. Not sure how you didn't pick up that this assessment accords with exactly what my argument is.

Not sure how you didn't pick up that this assessment accords with exactly what my argument is. — schopenhauer1

Your OP contradicts what you say are the points you are making now. Your OP is what I responded to, not the points you made afterwards that contradict it.

Your OP contradicts what you say are the points you are making now. Your OP is what I responded to, not the points you made afterwards that contradict it. — Harry Hindu

Okay, where did you think you saw that? I'll tell let you know how that was probably misinterpreted.

Did I not just say that I was responding to the OP? I did place the quotes of yours that I was responding to in my first post. Are you blind?

Are you blind? — Harry Hindu

Hey, a bit unnecessary no?

Computers, electronics, electrical systems, construction, engineering, medicine, scientifically-based technologies are complex, exacting subjects to master and understand. Yet our industrial world is composed of just these things that demand exacting minute understanding of complex processes (minutia mongering). This understanding is not accessible to all. Even if you understand it "conceptually", not everyone can actually participate in each or sometimes any of these aspects. — schopenhauer1

You said:

The reason anyone finds science to computers, electronics, etc. complex simply doesn't have the inclination to learn about it (they'd rather learn more about the lives of Hollywood celebrities), or the mental capacity (IQ) to learn it. That is to say that thinking is hard. It requires effort and time to think thoroughly and logically. — Harry Hindu

Seems to align with what I was saying.

However, God and the mystical world are accessible to everyone. Anyone can think they are a master of knowledge in the realm of mysticism. It provides a sort of mastery of our understanding and of our place in the universe, without doing the heavy lifting. — schopenhauer1

Preposterous. I was a Christian raised as one. I was baptized and saved from my sins. I prayed but never hear anything from God. What I thought was God, wasn't. It was just an imaginary concept I used in order to give myself meaning and to ease my feelings of loss and unfairness. In other words, it was something I used to make myself feel better, not provide me any real knowledge about the world as it is. As I began to seriously question what I had been raised to believe due to all of the inconsistencies, I found that science provides a much better explanation as to what I am, how I came to be, and what my purpose is (if it really makes sense to talk about purpose in this universe).

The reason why religion/spirituality still matters is because people would rather just believe what makes them feel good and important and anything that doesn't make them feel important (science) must not be true. — Harry Hindu

You put it into terms of importance, I put it in terms of accessibility.. STEM concepts is difficult, religion becomes more easily accessible, so the "feel" they have more understanding and control. Large, impersonal systems based on hard-to-understand systems of scientific principles and engineering are too much for many to want to really get into. It's a lot of minutia to cover and comprehend.

For example, understanding the complexities of Second Temple Judaism and the historical Jesus vs. the Jesus of what becomes the mythologized version of orthodox Christianity is quite lacking in most conversations. Same goes for the development of any religion really. None of them came out as perfectly christaline specimens — schopenhauer1

This is the point I am making re. mythology. People need to frame things in mythological terms and bare bones Christianity took on the mythological elements of the day. But that is all very well if it helped Christianity to take hold in the Roman Empire. Without the mythological packaging it might never have caught on. It is really the practical value of mythology that matters.

You put it into terms of importance, I put it in terms of accessibility.. STEM concepts is difficult, religion becomes more easily accessible, so the "feel" they have more understanding and control. Large, impersonal systems based on hard-to-understand systems of scientific principles and engineering are too much for many to want to really get into. It's a lot of minutia to cover and comprehend. — schopenhauer1

The way I see it, both religion and science operate on two main levels: there is an easily accessible level, which is underdeveloped and based on old information; and there is also a hard to understand level, which is complex and requires a multi-dimensional awareness - a developed ability to interrelate several pieces of information in the mind at once.

Religion in church on Sunday is not the same as advanced theology, just as popular science is not the same as, say, advanced physics. But if one has an aptitude for STEM, they have a tendency to understand religion at little more than a church on Sunday level, and likewise those with a strong theological background tend to understand popular science, but then struggle with the technical details. Some of us struggle with developing this capacity for multi-dimensional awareness, and must rely on simpler explanations of both in the meantime.

I’m overgeneralising, of course. There are some people who make a concerted effort to develop both approaches. One of the hardest obstacles we need to overcome is the centuries-old myth that science and religion don’t mix, and the need to then prioritise one or the other. In my own struggles, I have found that the two have the potential to converge at the forefront of their studies, if given the freedom to do so. In my opinion, Philosophy, delving as it does into both fields of study with the capacity for multi-dimensional awareness, is well placed to assist and promote this convergence.

This is what brought me to TPF. I have, on the whole, not been disappointed.

Our material lives are not sustained by religious tradition or mystical knowledge, but by electrical systems, construction principles, engineering principles, manufacturing principles, scientific principles, and the maintenance principles that maintain them. This is an immense undertaking, requiring millions of people with specialized, complex, and difficult-to-obtain knowledge. Many people are alienated from these processes, and even those who are highly engaged with them (let's say a measily computer programmer), they are but a small part.

However, religion is a system that offers less technical knowledge. — schopenhauer1

No one can master all aspects modern technology that sustains our material lives. As you say, it requires millions of specialists, such as messily programmers. Is studying to be a programmer easier than studying to be a priest? In some cases I’m sure that programming would be easier. Is it possible to master all known religious disciplines or would that be similar to mastering all technologies? Also, in regard to user experiences, is using an iPhone any harder than attending a religious service?

My point is that I don’t see the huge disparity in accessibility that you seem to.

You put it into terms of importance, I put it in terms of accessibility.. STEM concepts is difficult, religion becomes more easily accessible, so the "feel" they have more understanding and control. Large, impersonal systems based on hard-to-understand systems of scientific principles and engineering are too much for many to want to really get into. It's a lot of minutia to cover and comprehend. — schopenhauer1

I also said that everyone that owns an iPhone is testing the scientific theory that the technology is based on. You perform a scientific act every time you use modern technology.

I also said that I prayed and never received answers. Was I not being religious enough? So yes, if you cherry-pick my original post then you can support your claim that I just reiterated your own position.

Technically, to do science, all you have to do is observe the world and try to make sense of your sensory evidence (which is the nature of reason). The act of looking under a rock or into a telescope is the quintessentially scientific act. So is the act of observing and thinking about your own mental processes. When you use your smartphone you're testing for yourself whether the theory still works or not. Proof of one's conclusions to others comes later, but that is argumentative, not inquisitive.

Babies are born as scientists, not religious. Exploring and experimenting and asking a lot of questions. Their worldview is often shaped by the answers they receive to those questions. Mine was. But I eventually found my way back to science when I realized that I couldn't integrate the sensory evidence of what others and the Bible would tell me about God, creation, and the existence of evil, etc. with the rest of what I saw of the world.

Maybe it's just because I'm more inquisitive than others and willing to integrate information from any observational source without concern for it's consoling effect. Maybe it just depends on the person on how they are willing to investigate the world and be intellectually honest with themselves - not a black and white matter of "science is hard and religion is easy". Science isn't hard. We do it every day. And religion isn't easy for those that tend to ask a lot of questions and demand consistency in the answers.

They probably matter because the human mind is both rational and emotional.

However, God and the mystical world are accessible to everyone. Anyone can think they are a master of knowledge in the realm of mysticism. It provides a sort of mastery of our understanding and of our place in the universe, without doing the heavy lifting. — schopenhauer1

No, only what seems to be little more than fiction on God and related mumbo-jumbo is accessible to everyone, the only real difference being that most people with the exception of a large number of children recognise fiction for what it is. On the contrary, there's no reasonable grounds for believing that God is accessible to anyone, for what seems to be the same reason for there being no reasonable grounds for believing that invisible faeries are accessible to anyone.

And a master of gullibility isn't someone who deserves admiration.