The Nature Of Religion Origins, former use, and modern application

[morosophos 0]

I beg and plead, before proceeding, the reader to keep an open mind in thinking upon or posting anything here.

 

Religion is obviously a strong force in the world, and it has been for a long time. However, I have three questions about religion, upon each of which I shall give my own answer, in hopes of hearing others:

What is the origin of religion?

What has been the use and purpose of religion?

Ideally, what ought to be the nature (perspective, application, or otherwise) of religion in the modern world?

The Origin of Religion

 

The first humans on earth were very primitive, both in physical evolution and mental development. However, they observed the various phenomena around them, including both everyday events such as the rising and setting of the sun and natural disasters such as earthquakes. Being curious creatures, humans wondered what the source of these things was. The very first conclusion, a very important one, to which the human came was that he himself was not the cause of the mystery. Many years later, perhaps, when humans at last begin a sort of interdependency with each other, the human discovers that others are not the cause of the mystery. Naturally, then something else must have been the cause of mystery. The "cause of mystery" is called the Devine.

 

It's not enough to say that simply believing in the devine, however, is religion. Religion includes many more things than simply believing that there is some force or being that is ultimately the cause of mystery. Humans began to give the Devine human characteristics, such as the idea that the gods were pleased by gifts. Sacrifices come from this belief, and eventually many other types of behaviour are associated with positive or negative feedback from the Devine. Obviously, in order to do what's best overall, a homologous society formed a unique and uniform code for activities.

 

 

 

Past Uses and Purposes of Religion

 

Society, having a clear (though not necessarily written) set of laws, has the basis for a system of rule. Religious statutes do not mandate a ruler per se, but there was probably the need for one or more overseers to regulate the proceedures of religious rite and ceremony. These early priests became the first governmental leaders.

 

Let's analyse other uses of religion that didn't necessarily apply to early mankind. Throughout history there have been corrupt leaders who've used religion as either a tool of propaganda or a weapon to tame the masses in order to achieve their own ends. Two examples from American historyone earlier, one more recentto exemplify this. The social attitudes and philosophies of early North America in respect to the Natives are commonly referred to as ideas of "manifest destiny," the premise being that God having made America a prosperous affair thus far, it must be His will that we go ahead and do what is best for America, without reguard to anything else. Colonists brutally snatched-up Native American territories because of this dillusion. Apropos to contemporary times is the 9-11 attack on America. An organisation is able to command followers of fanatic loyalty primarily on account of religion. In either example, religion has been used to make the enemy lesser or to threaten those who won't obey those empowered.

 

On a lighter, more positive note, religion also gives a form of social identity. The Romans, for instance, arguably did not believe in their own gods and goddesses. If anything, they were animists. However, the charade of polytheism gave them a wealth of sources for fine literature, culture, and hence social identity. Even when the religion was forced upon no one, its effects were certainly heavy upon the Roman Empire. Religion has commonly been a source of custom and folklore, both of which are treasures to any society.

 

 

 

The Ideal Nature of Modern Religion

 

The best use of religion in contemporary times expresses itself through the needs evident in the world. A world at war begs for peace, a growing gap between rich and poor asks for social justice, and nature in decline needs respect for the natural world. By these needs, it's apparent that what is important in a religion is not directly what the beliefs themselves are, but rather what the beliefs accomlish. I say directly because it is quite likely that the content of the beliefs holds a large amount of weight with what is accomplished. If I believe that the rich are benefited with their affluence from a devine source, I may be lacking in my social justice department. However, if I'm a pantheist, my respect for nature will be quite strong.

 

What are your opinions, O ye of humility?

[truefusion 3]

First of all, it's 'Divine' not 'Devine'. Devine is a city in Texas.

 

In your 'origin of religion', you state the "first humans". Since you mention evolution, without claiming what kind, i assume you mean macro-, so the first humans would have to be cave-men, or some form of ape that were tall enough, and looked somewhat human (like "big-foot" ). If that's so, they are far too primitive to even be able to ask the question: "How did this all come about?" And if they are able to ask such a question, then it must mean they're not as primitive as we thought they are, cause they are capable of doing what we can, and cannot become extinct so easily. Meaning, we (modern humans) are the first humans.

 

In response to: "a homologous society formed a unique and uniform code for activities," although, human hands did write this "code" down, it does not need to be written down in order for it to be followed. Since, some of these things are pre-installed in the mind, and some our parents teach us cause of their experiences with certain things.

 

In your 'purpose of religion', you mention religion is based on "folklore and customs". Keep in mind, Science has to do with this also. Yet, Science isn't supposed to be acknowledging a Divine Being.

 

In your 'ideal nature of modern religion', i dont believe you answered your own question:

Ideally, what ought to be the nature (perspective, application, or otherwise) of religion in the modern world?

Also, i dont believe you took every aspect, in order to answer your three questions. Such would have required a lot more work, and a lot more writing. Edited June 10, 2006 by truefusion (see edit history)

[morosophos 0]

"In your 'origin of religion', you state the "first humans". Since you mention evolution, without claiming what kind, i assume you mean macro-, so the first humans would have to be cave-men, or some form of ape that were tall enough, and looked somewhat human (like "big-foot" laugh.gif). If that's so, they are far too primitive to even be able to ask the question: "How did this all come about?" And if they are able to ask such a question, then it must mean they're not as primitive as we thought they are, cause they are capable of doing what we can, and cannot become extinct so easily. Meaning, we (modern humans) are the first humans."

 

I never mentioned evolution. My "first humans" are the creatures who may have first been considered human, that is, capable of thought at a higher level than simply self-sustenance. Whereas evolution may have played a part in order for these creatures to exist, it is of very little concern to the matter at hand. Evolution is another topic, and one which you seem to be very keen on rebuking (many apologies if I'm mistaken, truefusion).

 

At any rate, the first humans are very primitive. They certainly don't ask the question How?... but rather, they have a very simple and unsophisticated curiosity in what occurs around them. An early human child learns to walk, then perhaps the child sees a bird and tries to fly. However, the human learns he cannot fly, and that flying is something that's birds do and humans do not. The human also witnesses things like the rising and setting of the sun. Is the sun some sort of animal? What's with the light? What are those speckles of light when the sun goes away? These are the sorts of questions that the human asks. My statements show that the human very gradually progresses in understanding, from the point where he realises that he himself is not the source of these mysteries to the point where he realises that these things draw their natures from something completely outside humanity. It's not too far-fetched a concept, and something even a primitive creature would be able to do, especially one with a growing capability of logical deduction.

 

"In response to: "a homologous society formed a unique and uniform code for activities," although, human hands did write this "code" down, it does not need to be written down in order for it to be followed. Since, some of these things are pre-installed in the mind, and some our parents teach us cause of their experiences with certain things."

 

Of course, we both agree that the code does not have to be written down. Writing is still a relatively new development in human history. Oral tradition probably played a larger role in maintaining the social values and statutes. One has to be carefull with what is and isn't "pre-installed in the mind," since most of the mind?even the subconscious?is affected by the environment in which it was raised. The human brain is born with very few natural instincts, and everything else must be learned by various means. Any creature incapable of motor skills from the start certainly has no concept of higher morality or metaphysics until learned.

 

"In your 'ideal nature of modern religion', i dont believe you answered your own question:

'Ideally, what ought to be the nature (perspective, application, or otherwise) of religion in the modern world?'

 

Also, i dont believe you took every aspect, in order to answer your three questions. Such would have required a lot more work, and a lot more writing."

 

Aha! I think it would be extremely difficult to compile all the aspects of something so complex as religion in one go. Especially on a forum. I certainly don't presume that I can write down everything in a few keyboard strokes. But hopefully you (and other readers) can see where there is an openness for where we can go with religion. Ultimately the last of my questions asks "What do you want to do with religion? Where should all this go?" The question is for you. What do you think?

[truefusion 3]

[1]I never mentioned evolution. [...] [2]Evolution is another topic, [3]and one which you seem to be very keen on rebuking (many apologies if I'm mistaken, truefusion).

[1]Yes you did. To be precise, you said "physical evolution". To me, that's basically the same thing as macro-evolution. Since they were primitive in physical evolution. Did you mean something else? If so, please specify, so i can get a better understanding.[2]Actualy, no, this topic is more than fine for it, that it is practically perfect for it. The theory of evolution has turned into a religion. Although, i like to think, ever since Darwin brought it up (again), it was a religion.
[3]I only rebuke macro-evolution. I take into consideration, however, micro-evolution.

[1]Aha! I think it would be extremely difficult to compile all the aspects of something so complex as religion in one go. Especially on a forum. [2]I certainly don't presume that I can write down everything in a few keyboard strokes. But hopefully you (and other readers) can see where there is an openness for where we can go with religion. Ultimately the last of my questions asks "What do you want to do with religion? Where should all this go?" The question is for you. [3]What do you think?

[1]Yes, yes it would be. [2]Indeed.
[3]I think we should keep an open mind to an extent. Always keeping an open mind is not a good thing, i believe. Nor do i think it's possible. But, there's more things to be discussing rather than religion.

[Blacklaser 0]

[2]Actualy, no, this topic is more than fine for it, that it is practically perfect for it. The theory of evolution has turned into a religion. Although, i like to think, ever since Darwin brought it up (again), it was a religion.

Evolution is not a religion... it is a scientific theory based on evidence, developed by a scientist after considering evidence he gathered. Intelligent Design on the other hand is a rewritten religious story and then somebody takes a huge *BLEEP*ing hammer to make the evidence fit. Of course some poeple will always defend evolution rigorously, even religiously, and if those poeple don't have the necessary knowledge it may seem like evolution is also juts another belive, but it ain't.

And to point number [3], this is from an earlier post of mine:

If you accept microevolution as science and scientific theory you can not but also accept macroevolution as the same, because if you line up enough enough microevolutionary changes you have macroevolution. That is the way macroevolution works: It is an enormous amount of microevolutionary changes which combine in such a way that they form a macroevolutionary result. This works on the premise that nature is selective (survival of the fittest) and that only the microevolutionary changes which give the most advantage keep surving and evolving thus making it possible, through a excrutiatingly long process of microevolutionary changes, to yield macroevolutionary results.

[truefusion 3]

Evolution is not a religion... it is a scientific theory based on evidence, developed by a scientist after considering evidence he gathered. Intelligent Design on the other hand is a rewritten religious story and then somebody takes a huge *BLEEP*ing hammer to make the evidence fit. Of course some poeple will always defend evolution rigorously, even religiously, and if those poeple don't have the necessary knowledge it may seem like evolution is also juts another belive, but it ain't.

 

And to point number [3], this is from an earlier post of mine:

 

Evolution (decent with modification, aka Darwinism) is a religion. Ever since all icons of evolution have been refuted, the only people that continue to believe in them are those that stick to the books. I can show many similarities that Darwinists have with other religions. One of which is: they all have a book they follow. Unfortunately, most of these books they follow are outdated. Many biologists know that these things are no longer to be taken into consideration. These "evidences" never really supported the claims that Darwinists state. However, they were made to seem like they did.

 

Also, you seem to be forgetting the evidences Abrahamic religions have. Because of which, the books they follow are believed to be true. And they take all of it into consideration.

 

Microevolution is more believable because it's more observable. However, they haven't evolved into anything (something visible with the naked eye) before our eyes yet, nor do they seem like they will. The only form of macroevolution i am willing to take into consideration is the aging process. "Decent with modification," the way Darwin(ists) explain(s) is unthinkable, and are just theories piled upon other theories. The only true information we have is on these microscopic organisms. I can fully consider microevolution without having to fully consider macroevolution.

Edited June 22, 2006 by truefusion (see edit history)

[Blacklaser 0]

Evolution (decent with modification, aka Darwinism) is a religion. Ever since all icons of evolution have been refuted, the only people that continue to believe in them are those that stick to the books. I can show many similarities that Darwinists have with other religions. One of which is: they all have a book they follow. Unfortunately, most of these books they follow are outdated. Many biologists know that these things are no longer to be taken into consideration. These "evidences" never really supported the claims that Darwinists state. However, they were made to seem like they did.

 

Also, you seem to be forgetting the evidences Abrahamic religions have. Because of which, the books they follow are believed to be true. And they take all of it into consideration.

 

Microevolution is more believable because it's more observable. However, they haven't evolved into anything (something visible with the naked eye) before our eyes yet, nor do they seem like they will. The only form of macroevolution i am willing to take into consideration is the aging process. "Decent with modification," the way Darwin(ists) explain(s) is unthinkable, and are just theories piled upon other theories. The only true information we have is on these microscopic organisms. I can fully consider microevolution without having to fully consider macroevolution.

 

That, by far, is the biggest Cee Ar Ae Pee I ever read...

First: Evolution has not ben refuted

Second: Evolution doesn't have "icons", it has evidence, incomplete evidence, but there is no evidence at all against it

Third: Evolution does not follow a book, it is a scientifc theory, proposed by a man, Darwin, but nobody follows it blindly, it is constantly adjusting to fit the evidence at hand, also Darwinism and the theory of evolution are 2 slightly different things

Forth: Abrahamic religions have illusions, nothing more, all evidence they have can be rationally explained without any doing of any god

Fifth: Of course nothing will evolve before you naked eye... becuase you won't live long enough

Sixth: In a german lake studies and DNA tests have shown that spcies of shrimp living in that lake have adapted since the 1960's to changing level of pollutants in that lake i.e. they have devleoped natural resistance against the pollutants and modified bodyshape to cope with the increased amounts of algae in the lake. This is a clear exemple of macroevolution since it deals with an mullti-celled organism who has developed a new bodyshape.

Seventh: I suggest you get your facts straight

Eighth: Of course Darwin's original work is full of flaws, but the overall idea is correct, the flaws have been corrected and been found to further support his theory

Edited June 22, 2006 by Blacklaser (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

First: Evolution has not ben refuted

Second: Evolution doesn't have "icons", it has evidence, incomplete evidence, but there is no evidence at all against it

Third: Evolution does not follow a book, it is a scientifc theory, proposed by a man, Darwin, but nobody follows it blindly, it is constantly adjusting to fit the evidence at hand, also Darwinism and the theory of evolution are 2 slightly different things

Forth: Abrahamic religions have illusions, nothing more, all evidence they have can be rationally explained without any doing of any god

Fifth: Of course nothing will evolve before you naked eye... becuase you won't live long enough

Sixth: In a german lake studies and DNA tests have shown that spcies of shrimp living in that lake have adapted since the 1960's to changing level of pollutants in that lake i.e. they have devleoped natural resistance against the pollutants and modified bodyshape to cope with the increased amounts of algae in the lake. This is a clear exemple of macroevolution since it deals with an mullti-celled organism who has developed a new bodyshape.

Seventh: I suggest you get your facts straight

Eighth: Of course Darwin's original work is full of flaws, but the overall idea is correct, the flaws have been corrected and been found to further support his theory

 

[1]You're putting words "in my mouth". I said the icons of evolution has been refuted, not evolution as an entirety.

[2]Every now and then i see these icons appear whenever a discussion about evolution appears. These incomplete evidences shouldn't be enough to be bringing up theories, cause the theories will be incomplete. And maybe the evidence isn't against it anymore.

[3]Evolution does follow a book. Infact many colleges have these books.

[4]Then explain to me the Pharoah's body that was found in the location that the book of Moses, Exodus, said it would be, which is in some museum. Explain the linen cloth that was wrapped around Jesus's dead body that no-one has been able to make a duplicate of, which is in some church. Explain to me the discovery of Noah's Ark, which is being studied by archaeologists. Abrahamic religions are historically accurate, and the evidence proves it.

[5]They can't speed up the process?

[6]Anything can adapt. Like human, when they eat a lot, may become fat, depending on what they eat. Or like someone exercising, they shape muscles. For the shrimp in Germany, remove most of these pollutants and algae, and you may see these shrimp revert to their old selves.

[7]Likewise for Abrahamic religious evidences.

[8]However, the adaptations to the species will only last as long as the environment remains to be abnormal. Which can't really be forever, unless it's handled otherwise.

Edited June 22, 2006 by truefusion (see edit history)

[Blacklaser 0]

just a few facts:
1. The ark has not been found (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_ark)
2. There are multiple working explanations on how the image on the shroud formed and replicas have been made more than once https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
3. your statement as to point 6 proves that you don't even understand the theory of evolution. shrimp don't live 40 years. their body shape is not going to revert back... their new shape has evolved over many generations and it's not just gonna change back, just like you won't suddenly developpe infrared vision, but over many many generations humans might if for some reasons cicumstances call for it (whateer those might be and I'm not saying we will, just a possible exemple).

You don't even know the name of the "linen cloth that was wrapped around Jesus' dead body"... I stick to my very first statement of my last post... ludicrous...

Edited June 22, 2006 by Blacklaser (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

just a few facts:

1. The ark has not been found (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_ark%23The_search_for_Noah.27s_Ark)

2. There are multiple working explanations on how the image on the shroud formed and replicas have been made more than once http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

3. your statement as to point 6 proves that you don't even understand the theory of evolution. shrimp don't live 40 years. their body shape is not going to revert back... their new shape has evolved over many generations and it's not just gonna change back, just like you won't suddenly developpe infrared vision, but over many many generations humans might if for some reasons cicumstances call for it (whateer those might be and I'm not saying we will, just a possible exemple).

 

[4]You don't even know the name of the "linen cloth that was wrapped around Jesus' dead body"... I stick to my very first statement of my last post... ludicrous...

 

[1]Why did you direct me to information on expeditions to Mount Ararat? That's not where i was talking about.

 

[2]There are multiple counter-explanations to these explanations. It can, basically, go either way.

 

The "duplicates" mentioned in the source given, weren't exact duplicates, however. They required extra work in order to bring about just an image, but still couldn't match up to the actual shroud.

 

[3]When did i say shrimps lived for 40 years, or why did you mention that?

 

And it's a possibility that their body shape can revert back. If they evolved cause of one simple change in their environment, they would evolve back into their old selves, if the environment would change back into how it was before. Since shrimp eat algae, a bigger supply of it would mean much more healthier shrimp, in this case a better body shape. It's like when a person eats. If a person eats mostly fatty foods, they're bound to get fat. Or if a person sticks to a healthy diet, they're bound to stay lean.

 

As for pollutants, i believe all animals have an immune system. This is where microevolution takes place. If the pollutants weren't strong enough, and they "infected" the shrimps at a slow rate, their (the shrimps') immune systems would be able to defend against the attack, and in turn gain more experience. And with all this algae, it makes the shrimps' immune system more able to fend off foreign attacks.

 

I think the case with Darwin's finches is similar (about reverting back).

 

[4]I choose not to call it "the Shroud of Turin," because i don't believe Turin, Italy is of its origin.

 

P.S. What about the Pharoah's body?

Edited June 23, 2006 by truefusion (see edit history)