I think, originally, it started with paranormal experiences such as visions, apparitions, premonitions, telepathy, out-of-body and near-death experiences, and the like, that led people to believe, and in some cases to be convinced, that there is a metaphysical world out there that is inhabited by spiritual entities in much the same way the material world is populated with material things or beings.

It’s interesting you say that and tend to agree. We know from early history and earlier civilisations there was a need to predict or understand when for example floods or famines arose and the natural need to understand the seasons and time for planting, harvesting etc. The early pantheons suggest that there were different aspects attributed to different beings or gods and interesting it was deemed there would be an all father or supreme being. This is all very understandable because of human societies and families evolved. The expression god made man in his own image is really the reverse when you think about it. Man made god in his own image or variations based on what their intrinsic beliefs are e.g. Egyptian reverence of the cat and this god’s in like image. Along with philosophy there has always been this thirst in human’s to understand the why. This seems natural but quite why the assumption that there is something else, hidden, unseen that needs an explanation and was attributed to some entity with agency in particular outside human’s own sense of being able to determine their own futures once it became clear humans can shape and control their own destiny I.e. building shelter, finding food and progressing from Hunter gatherer tribes to agricultural societies and the birth of civilisation. This agency beyond I guess is the key point you make but it’s still an unexpected result of presumably thinking to explain a cause. Of course scientific method that developed much later led to a tool for discovery and confirmation without the need for this external agency - I guess the start of the science v religion debate.

Magical thinking. 'Making shit up' is far easier than struggling to find out what is and is not the case. The brains of h. sapiens are adapted for survival and not truths; therefore, parochial myths (re: anti-anxiety-placebo fetishes & rites) and heuristics (taboos, tribalism) have worked well enough for over a hundred millennia such that human development consists in believing long before thinking and thinking poorly long before, if ever, thinking well enough to prefer evidence-based stories over, or to the exclusion of, faith-based stories. Magical thinking (e.g. religion) is as insidious as any retrovirus. Only smart, hyper-imaginative, loquacious apes would be neurotic enough to propitiate invisible friends (e.g. with animal/human sacrifices) for protection from invisible enemies ... " :fire: "

Yes but of course it has to be accepted to by the masses and no different than a modern day meme and in particular where social media can propagate it. Of course each individual should make their own mind up. But this idea in its very early stages was accepted by many and of course the expression that religion was a vehicle to ‘control the masses’ maybe has some basis in truth. I am not really commenting on that one way or another. I know that early religion was probably word of mouth long before the ‘written word of god’ but still find it curious (probably the wrong word) that religious texts were written, of course by humans and presented as truth. Whilst the bible is in part a history and probably to an extent other religious texts too but it’s making claims of the ‘truth’ of these extraordinary entities of omniscience and omnipresence which is extraordinary to think about. I am not knocking belief or faith but just intensely curious as to why it came about in the first place.

Whilst the bible is in part a history and probably to an extent other religious texts too but it’s making claims of the ‘truth’ of these extraordinary entities of omniscience and omnipresence which is extraordinary to think about. I am not knocking belief or faith but just intensely curious as to why it came about in the first place. — David S

I think we need to distinguish between private and public religion. Private religion is a way by which the individual attempts to explain the world and connect with what he or she believes to be a higher power.

Public religion is a different story. It may be used by the ruling class to enforce law and order and inculcate certain moral values. But there is nothing wrong with law and order or morality. On the contrary, it helps keep society together and enables it to function in ways that are beneficial to itself and its citizens. From this perspective, there is nothing wrong with belief in spiritual entities, "extraordinary" or otherwise.

I’d agree and it is a very valid point about private versus public. I am not of course saying there is anything right or wrong. Again it is really trying to understand the why where your original answer is very much a great starting point as it can and should be very individual and some people’s own reasons can be very profound and important and gives them the belief and faith that is important to them.

I know the basic question has been asked many time and in different ways but what I would like to hear and discuss from others the why of religion or more exactly why do humans have the belief that there is some entity or entities outside of their own species that have influence and determination of their being something after the physical death of a human. — David S

Religion is mankind’s first attempt to explain the world around them, born of fear of the unknown. Fear of death is at the foundation of religion and from that fear comes a need for comfort.
So, fear and comfort.

It always seems like a backwards kind of question to me. It just seems an obvious way to respond to the environment to animate it with the same kind of being that one finds in oneself. I have thoughts desires awareness and emotion; why would I not assume that tigers, olive trees, rivers, and volcanos are similarly endowed? You can still hear the same thinking on the news daily, about how the virus is trying to outwit the vaccine, the storm is threatening to do serious damage, and so on.

Ask yourselves rather why you refrain from such ideas. I rather ask if you do refrain? Who has not given their car a damn good thrashing when it refuses to start?

:up:

:sweat: Guilty!

Cause of Death. Even if it's clear still humans can't comprehend with the end though they know it sunce their birth they still can't really accept that they will end. So they need to use their Ego as the antidote for Death.They desperately want to feel that their Existance actually matters for someone "out there" and what more convenient for that someone to be a powerful God exists who cares and has plan for them. Plus they will have someone to ask for things and not demand from their own self only.Great excuse for them. For me death and God are the two sides of the same coin. And Ego is the coin.

the why of religion or more exactly why do humans have the belief that there is some entity or entities outside of their own species that have influence and determination of their being something after the physical death of a human. — David S

For one, I doubt that many who profess to believe in such an external powerful entity actually believe in it. I know many monotheists, but there isn't a single one for which I could confidently say that they actually believe in God.

It seems that monotheistic religions were developed for the purpose of justifying the exploitation of humans, animals, and the planet at large. Not to explain physical phenomena or the "mystery of life". You can see this by the function of religion: it's there to justify demanding from others, to justify taking from others.

Personally I am a Taoist. So I can believe there is a natural order to things. We can see it in the natural nature of animals and plants. I guess the science explains this via evolution though is yet to explain the ‘spark of life’. Why does a primordial chemical soup give rise to life. The mystery and complexity of DNA and the replication and sex giving rise to differentiation and the idea of natural selection and the evolution of species. It can still seem a mystery that for example the genetics of an animal at birth has it coded in its genes for a natural behaviour. But all animals can learn as well. Is there something in human dna that gives rise to the idea of religion. I can see it starts by asking questions, the why? Is it natural then for those answers to come up with the idea of a god then? Or gods. Taoism just explains it as the Tao and the duality of Yin and Yang giving rise to the 10,000 things. Just a basic way of saying it creates everything. It does not need a concept or idea of god (though of course certain branches of Taoism do create a myriad of gods or spirits.) It is true that all animals have a natural tendency to be competitive. Again a lot of explained by the competitive gene . The competition for mates and territory. Humans evolved to give rise to Emperors and Kings but also Priests. Emperors were assumed to be gods and I can understand this concept. It is the abstraction up to the external agency which still puzzles me. I am also not sure but I guess history can shed a light is did this idea start with monotheism or the pantheon of beings. It would seem reasonable to assume that it was the pantheon that came first or was it natural to imagine that all the various elemental forces were all as the result of one powerful being? Whichever it starts with that idea or concept and then we have religion and the things it brings for the good or Ill of mankind. Maybe it was inevitable but Taoism does not require it, potentially Buddhism too which did have a central figure, just not a god.

From what I can gather Hinduism is one of the oldest religions but in the beginning started as a belief system but was later codified by the religious texts. It appears to be Zoroastrianism the ancient Persian religion that was the first to propose a monotheism concept. This was influential for the development of Judaism and the abrahamic religions.

It does not really explain the why of the idea other than the assumption there must be one.

For one, I doubt that many who profess to believe in such an external powerful entity actually believe in it. I know many monotheists, but there isn't a single one for which I could confidently say that they actually believe in God. — baker

I have often thought this too, but for different reasons. Religions are social clubs and come with a set of 'off the rack' beliefs, so you don't need to work at independent thought. God 'belief' is the price you pay for admittance and because the idea is ineffable, you need not engage with it.

Probably just using "god" as a justification to a philosophy/way of living using "appeal to authority" fallacy to people who are not a bright and use exagerations or lies to get more followers. (Much like politics)

It’s pretty much a ‘given’ that an individual’s view of his religion will have been influenced in the environment and beliefs of his / her parents. At some point they may seek their own views. I think as Apollodorus states there is private and public religion. It’s the question if an individual once old enough can consider in their own mind if they can accept that their god is real for them in whatever form. This will always be personal although public religion can have a strong influence on how an individual is supposed to find their own personal god within the ‘teachings’ that are delivered.

"..why do humans have the belief that there is some entity or entities outside of their own species that have influence and determination of their being something after the physical death of a human."

I think the reasons depend on whether it is a true belief or not. If it's false, then perhaps humans are a bit crazy and have a tendency to believe any old nonsense. On the other hand, if it is true, then it could be because humans have considered the evidence and happily arrived at the correct conclusion. So to answer the question we have to first work out whether it's true or not. Then the fun begins.

For the original OP, I think it is true - i.e. many billions I guess do believe. I posed the question to my daughter (24 year old) did she think that an afterlife is true for all living animals at which point the answer was no. I was not about to extend that further but it assumes that for some the ‘something after’ only applies to humans. The other point to is does a belief in life after death have to assume or invoke the idea of god or gods? Clearly for Buddhism no (unless I miss something here). The original question was why humans (or at least as far as we know) conceived this idea of there being a higher power or being. I can understand early man looked for answers for certain things he observed that made him / her think. It’s the conclusion that is the mystery. Again the why unless it was better to invoke this idea to have some one to appease (sacrificial offering) or blame or maybe both.

'Making shit up' is far easier than struggling to find out what is and is not the case. — 180 Proof

But there are entire universities devoted to theological study and millions of pages of analysis have been provided by thousands of individuals over the millennia attempting to answer all sorts of questions. How is that far easier than mixing a few chemicals in a lab and charting your results? Seems like sometimes the theological system is more complex and sometimes the scientific study is more complex, but I don't know that one per se requires greater intelligence or work than the other.

“The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.” ― Albert Einstein

Hey angry atheist!

Are you trolling people's threads again?

No matter how vast the pile of fairytales, fact-free scriptures, testimonial anecdotes, and "scholarly" pursuits of the wrong, or pseudo, questions, IMO this mountainous accumulation is conspicuously insubstantial (except as contributory data points to cultural anthropology & social psychopathology) in comparison to libraries and laboratories of evidence-based studies and research (pursuing answerable questions) on what is and is not the case. Make believe whatever you like, sir; reality is not faith-based, or subject to magical thinking.

Are you trolling people's threads again? — 3017amen

No, troll, why are you trolling me? Rub a raw nerve, have I? Troll is as troll does, I suppose. Must be Monday ...

Don't take this the wrong way, but are you resentful about something? Just an observation, you use a lot of ad hominem and other derogatory language when it comes to defending your Atheism.

Likewise, your idiocy is on full display with every one of your posts. Works both ways, troll. Third parties, of course, will have to judge for themselves which of us is the more egregious sophist and bs-artist. Glad the mods still keep your ilk around like a ghost of piñatas past – I'll come back later when I'm bored enough to give you a few good whacks just for shitz-n-giggles. Now go run along, 3017, and diddle someone else or yourself. :yawn:

Evolutionary psychologist have theorized it to be a byproduct our our brain's cognitive ability to see patterns in nature and theory of mind (empathy), along with ability excellence in the ability to pass information/knowledge next generations.

Pattern seeking brains allows us to see design in nature (recognition of paw of a lion saves life by avoiding a path in Savanah, so does recognition of a fruit by providing food). Theory of mind allows sees intent in nature. It explains away causal relationship between events and things. It creates that other entity who designed the nature and has an intent for our survival. It warns us through floods or thunderstorms etc. Since our brain uses short cuts to survive, believing there is a higher entity with agency monitoring our every move was useful evolutionary byproduct.

In post agriculture revolution era, more organized religious beliefs were born out of it to help governing the exploding population that now had to live closer together and engage in trade etc.

your idiocy is on full display with every one of your posts — 180 Proof

There's another example of your trolling threads, just to seemingly disparage people, and otherwise add more ad hominem.

We can't help but wonder why you keep doing this. Why are you so emotionally distraught or defensive about your Atheism? (Was Einstein right?)

No matter how vast the pile of fairytales, fact-free scriptures, testimonial anecdotes, and "scholarly" pursuits of the wrong, or pseudo, questions, IMO this mountainous accumulation is conspicuously insubstantial (except as contributory data points to cultural anthropology & social psychopathology) in comparison to libraries and laboratories of evidence-based studies and research (pursuing answerable questions) on what is and is not the case. Make believe whatever you like, sir; reality is not faith-based, or subject to magical thinking. — 180 Proof

This isn't responsive though to our discussion. You may be correct that the mountain of theological literature doesn't amount to a hill of beans and that a single middle school experiment might trump all that was thought to be the case by religion, but that doesn't address your comment that making shit up is easier than scientific study. The tangled web the theologians may have weaved might be horseshit, but that doesn't mean it's simple.

I do like that you called me sir though. Such respect is well overdue.

... but that doesn't address your comment that making shit up is easier than scientific study. — Hanover

As if that was all my first post stated or concluded. Take sentences out of context to make them inexplicable, or indefensible, to what end? Well, you've already conceded enough, sir, so I'm good.

If only you would / could properly use "ad hominem" in a sentence. :roll:

If only you would / could properly use "ad hominem" in a sentence — 180 Proof

Thanks! What method then would better capture your personal attack on people?

Then after you answer that question, can you logically defend your belief system?

I think it's caused by a combination of fear and self-love, if left unmastered.

You will get an answer (one of many answers of course) to your question very shortly. Be patient. I'll give you a hint: the limbic system :grin:

We won't let 180 troll your thread much longer. Just watch how he'll eventually fade away...