Is the origin and development of religion primarily rooted in the deliberate manipulation of people by those in power, or does it arise more fundamentally from a natural human need to seek meaning, purpose, and understanding in life and the universe?
I would certainly say that religion has been used by those in power, and I expect specific religions have been created/formed to gain power and/or maintain power over others.
While some may disagree on whether it is an actual religion, the situation in North Korea highlights this.
I would say though, that while it can certainly be argued that religion as a concept has often been used in this way, it would not be possible to say that it is in all cases.
Even adding the conditional âprimarilyâ doesnât help if one considers that even if a particular religion is true, it still means there are thousands that are false, and the false religions would likely have a different purpose to the true one if such did/does exist.
1 Like
Yes, AND, inevitably, some adherents to a âone true religionâ will have very different and incompatible interpretations / dogmas / emphases such that they will insist that many or even most others are âdoing it wrongâ. The endless debate between Calvinism and Arminianism in Christianity comes to mind ⌠or Protestants vs Catholics, resulting in the Troubles in Ireland, attempts at forced conversion or lesser forms of coercion between such sects; and let us not forget the reform movements in just that one umbrealla (Protestants, Mormons, JWs all claim to preserve or recover some âlostâ orthodoxy as intended by God, to the point that the latter two examples particularly are viewed by some as cults or heresies with mere pretensions to orthodoxy, as they donât fully embrace the historic creeds, nor claim to).
Some rigour needs to be injected here.
That human beings possess an innate desire to seek meaning in their lives, is a separate question to the question of origin and purpose of religion.
The view I presented here in the past, is that religion is the result of our first - and failed - attempt to provide an explanation for our surroundings, which was based upon projecting our capacity for intent onto said surroundings, without knowing if said projection was actually warranted. Past humans considered events occurring around them, particularly spectacular events that persisted in memory, as being the product of a version of themselves - a big, powerful and invisible version of themselves. Or multiple versions thereof. Variations thereof ranged from various pagan nature spirits, to the Greek Pantheon and variations thereof extant in other civilisations, to the single entity of the Abrahamic religions.
None of these, of course, are accompanied by any actual evidence for their existence, and in the case of the modern Abrahamic religions, are instead accompanied by worthless apologetics of varying levels of inanity and duplicity.
At some stage, past humans moved on from the idea that these entities merely existed, to the strange, and ultimately dangerous, idea, that these entities were attempting to tell us something via their actions. That none of these entities actually showed up in person in an unambiguous manner to do this, didnât provide a moment of pause for those entertaining this idea. But logic was a topic that didnât exist in the human mind, sadly, until long after the business of fabricating magic entities had been launched.
It wasnât long before the supposed âmessageâ that these fabricated magic entities were purportedly presenting to us, was extended to moral imperatives, and that is when the rot started, so to speak.
When you have merely asserted and fabricated magic entities supposedly telling you how to behave, and no proper, rigorous means of finding this out for yourself, then you are, if you treat this idea as something other than risible nonsense, ripe for exploitation by the duplicitous. The existence of every priesthood can be traced to someone, named or unnamed, declaring the possession of âspecial insightâ in this manner, and using that purported âspecial insightâ to acquire power over others.
Indeed, in the 19th century, Susan B. Anthony presciently rendered that above concept thus:
So it has always been, since the dawn of the existence of religions, and the evidence is not difficult for the diligent to locate.
The idea that an ethical framework needs to be in place to provide guidance, in order to avoid all manner of suffering and harm, is not in itself a troublesome idea, indeed the opposite is the case. What becomes troublesome, is when that framework is based upon unsupported assertions about fabricated magic entities, and the supposed imperatives being handed down thereby. Again, I refer everyone to Susan B. Anthony above, and the large body of evidence we now have that she is correct on this matter.
This is where the problem lies. Any proper ethical framework should be based upon postulates that enjoy evidential support from observational reality, and proper tests of precepts to determine their genuine ethical value. One example of the latter I propose, is to ask the question âwhat benefit or harm is dispensed to the recipients of a given action?â, because the people that matter are those on the receiving end of a supposed âmoralâ declaration, a point that many self-appointed moralists either ignore, or twist to suit mendacious ends.
At this point, it should become clear that ethics is a minefield that we are all forced to tread, frequently without proper mine detectors. Developing said mine detectors is possibly the most difficult intellectual activity we will all be called upon to engage in. That difficulty is not eased by bogus information from those seeking to impose mythological assertions upon the rest of us.
After the above lengthy preamble, and I make no apologies for spending time ensuring that what I present exhibits at least an attempt at rigour, the following should be clear. Religions are our first, and failed, attempt to provide an understanding of our surroundings, which were soon after hijacked by the duplicitous. Before presenting that succinct encapsulation, prior explanation was necessary.
I hope this helps.
1 Like
Exactly, and the âethicsâ of theists is often based instead on the notion that the only person that matters is their deity, who clearly considers anyone on the âreceiving endâ to be expendable or at least irrelevant.
That is why I call this the âfailed epistemology of religious faithâ â it is rooted in bare assetions / claims / commands on behalf of an authoritarian despot in the sky. And the resulting moral framework is inherently corrupt, even if some theists manage to cherry pick it in a way that allows them to live up to the better parts of their dogma that most Christians give mere lip service to â the parts about protecting the vulnerable, healing the sick, feeding the hungry, loving your neighbor. But ultimately those are all hand-waved away in the service of various ideological purities. The fish rots from the head.
2 Likes
Exactly, finding subjective purpose or meaning in oneâs life, does not in any way suggest there is an overarching purpose to life existing. What is more this innate desire might well instil a bias in favour of such an idea that should be checked by critical and objective reasoning.
It is both. Humans are pattern seeking animals, and religions seek to make meaning and explanations to natural phenomena. It did not take long for the charlatans to realise it was work without the heavy lifting or dangerous hunting, to claim divine authority
Initially perhaps, but they seem intent to peddle woo woo about a magic realm that exists outside of natural physical reality. Even one that delves into this physical reality without leaving any definitive objective evidence.
Any ideology has to have a raison dâetre. Something that it, uniquely, can provide. And for the Abrahamic faiths, that used to be:
- Group belonging and protection
- An eternal existence of bliss
- A special relationship with the deity involving protection from harm and even prospering in various ways.
- A moral compass, or at least a superior one
I think that in a more secularized world has largely removed (1) since civil society has (until now at least) done more than the church every did for the common man. By implication, this also diminishes or removes (3) since, again, a functioning culture and society tangibly helps people, but you always have to explain why god allows bad things to happen to good people.
It doesnât seem like modern Christian fundamentalism really seriously is trying to maintain (4) anymore.
So that leaves (2) â the ever-popular ultimate âimmortality projectâ. And secularism erodes that because people are given permission to call bullshit on it.
So itâs easy to see why they hate education, and love to control peopleâs sexuality and so forth.
I think it started out on the basis of the second question that you had and then became used by people like the Roman emperor Constantine for domination and control over the masses for political reasons. Many religions today have succumbed to this politicization though most religious leaders really do believe theyâre doing âthe Lordâs work.â
Laws have been used for control of the masses for much longer than that. See for example Assyrian law from the bronze age, where much of the archaeologically recovered law texts concern lust, sex, marriage, and divorce. It was similar to Sumerian and Babylonian law, but more brutal. The laws were particularly harsh against women, e.g.
A40 Married women, widows, and Assyrian [18] women must not have their heads uncovered when they go out into the street. Daughters of status [35] must be veiled, whether by a veil, a robe, or a [mantle]; they must not have their heads uncovered. When âŚ, âŚ, orâŚâŚ they need not be veiled, but when the go into the street [alone] they are to be veiled. A concubine [36] on the street with her mistress is to be veiled. A hierodule who has gotten married must be veiled on the street, but a single hierodule must have her head uncovered; she may not be veiled. A harlot is not to be veiled; her head must be uncovered. Any man who sees a veiled harlot is to apprehend her, produce witnesses [37] and bring her to the palace entrance. Although her jewelry may not be taken the one who apprehended her may take her clothing. She will be caned (fifty stripes), and have pitch poured on her head. If a man sees a veiled harlot and lets her go rather than bringing her to the palace entrance, will himself be caned (50 stripes). The one who turned him in may take his clothing. His ears will be pierced, threaded with a cord tied behind him, and he will be sentenced to a full monthâs hard labor for the king.
Slave-girls are not to be veiled either. Any man who sees a veiled slave-girl is to apprehend her and bring her to the palace entrance. Her ears will be cut off, and the man who apprehended her may take her clothes. If a man sees a veiled slave-girl and lets her go rather than bringing her to the palace entrance, and he has been charged and convicted, he is to be caned (50 stripes). His ears will be pierced, threaded with a cord tied behind him, and he will be sentenced to a full monthâs hard labor for the king.
A55 If a man has taken and raped another manâs virgin daughter, dishonoring her (she was living in her fatherâs house, was not engaged, and her hymen had not been penetratedâsince she had not been married), and no one had a claim on the fatherâs house, [46] the father is to take the rapistâs wife and allow her to be raped, and keep her, not returning her to her husband. It does not matter if the (original) rape was in the city, the open country, at night in the street, in a granary, or at a city festival. The father may give his raped daughter to her rapist. [47] If the rapist has no wife, his to give âthe thirdâ in silver (the virgin-price) to her father. [48] Then her rapist is to marry her, and will not be allowed to divorce her. [49] If the father does not approve he is to be given âthe thirdâ in silver for her virginity, and give her to whomever he wants.
This law is a clear parallel to Deuteronomy 22:28-29, which states that â28If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.â
A59 Other than prescribed penalties for a manâs wife, a husband may beat his wife, pull out her hair, or mutilate and twist her ears, . There is no injunction against this.
The ideas werenât original with ancient Judaism but they certainly embraced, amplified and gave credibility to them. It reminds me of how Christianity accepted human slavery as a matter of course, and rather than oppose it, gave guidelines on how much slave-beating was too much.
1 Like
I see religion more as an addictive cult. People are taught that it gives their lives meaning, when it really doesnât. It acts more as a placebo if anything. The only reason it works for them is because they believe that it does. Like Dumbo and his feather.
I might use that Dumbo feather analogy myself when dealing with some of the usual suspects. 
3 Likes