Religion was made up for early humans to “cope”?

[Amanhasnoname]

I see this written a lot and want some discussion in a better place than atheist forums. What are your opinions on early humans making up religion to cope better or to explain unanswered questions?

 

[Adstar]

Why do people think early humans would even think of a place other then earth?
Why would people think humans would even think up the idea of there being a God?
Why would there being a God make things more easy?
God is by definition perfect and has strict standards that are hard to live up to.. Thus it would be easier to cope in this world if people did not believe in God..
Thousands of people who want to live ""free"" lives reject the Idea of God because the Idea of God makes them just created beings here to serve God..

 

[1stcenturylady]

"Early" humans walked with God. Why would they need to make anything up?

 

[SeventyOne]

I see this written a lot and want some discussion in a better place than atheist forums. What are your opinions on early humans making up religion to cope better or to explain unanswered questions?

That's nothing more than an excuse people tell themselves so they can feel smarter than "those" people, and also to feel justified in rejecting God for themselves. Just an expression of pride really.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Exactly as the person above stated. Its basically something said by non-christians to make themselves feel better as if they are smarter then christians in not believing in God. Because fact is humans cope with things in many ways. For some its jogging, for others its gaming, for other it could be drawing or even drinking. But christianity is not done in order to cope. If anything you have nothing to fear when a christian because you know you have God watching over you and your future is safe.

Where as a non-christian does not "cope" well in general because to them life is meaningless and that makes them afraid. Heck one of their "coping" mechanisms is to insult people and project on others so they feel better and can "cope" with the fact they are lost and that God may actually be real and that, if anything, scares them the most.

 

[Halbhh]

I see this written a lot and want some discussion in a better place than atheist forums. What are your opinions on early humans making up religion to cope better or to explain unanswered questions?

Most all religions were/are attempts to find that Something we sense at times -- God.

That's not necessarily easy to do, and many could not find Him, because for one thing they did not have a combination of faith and desire for righteousness as Abram did, for instance, and only ended up not able to find Him, and then had only guesses and inventions, in time.

But most all the religions began at that initial moment as someone trying to find that Something -- God.

That Something we at times sense, and seek, and long for -- what we now know is the one true God.

It makes sense that God choose a man, Abram, of great faith, and of deep desire to be righteous, and willing to follow Him.

For those that as Peter said:

34 Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.

For such, God can be found.

Christ even said this (!) --

7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened."

!!

In a way, this is one of the most dramatic things anyone has ever said I feel. To find the One, true God!

To Israel, when enough time had passed in captivity for their wrongs, He said --

11 "For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. 12 Then you will call on me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you.

13 You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. 14 I will be found by you,” declares the Lord, “and will bring you back from captivity."

 

[ViaCrucis]

I see this written a lot and want some discussion in a better place than atheist forums. What are your opinions on early humans making up religion to cope better or to explain unanswered questions?

"Cope" seems like a strong word that I wouldn't use.

But it does make sense that human beings would assign to a mind (or rather minds) to the world around them. Why does lightning hurl itself from the sky? Why does it rain at this time of the year but not at this time of the year? As creatures with a theory of mind (the ability to recognize that there is a mind outside of ourselves, which is why we can exist in such complex societies) means that we find it fairly easy to assign intelligence to natural phenomenon.

Religion, broadly speaking, can in some sense be explained in this way. But religion is certainly more than that too. We have evidence of our closely related kin, neanderthals, practicing ritual burial; the significance of this is still a mystery, but it does seem to indicate spiritual beliefs of some sort, perhaps even a belief in life after death (though this is speculation at this point). But death is a major existential crisis that confronts us as a species, and naturally we want to find some way to explain and address it.

But then, religion is a lot more than simply a confrontation of the existential crisis of death; religion is diverse and varied, addressing all sorts of deep questions about the universe and our place in the universe.

And I think that's at the heart of religion: our deep probing question of what it means to be human, in relation to ourselves, to others, to the world around us, the universe at large, and whatever Intelligence there might be that is greater than ourselves. And that can't be answered so simply as man ignorantly assigning intelligence to lightning and earthquakes, or fear of death--there is a deeper question that lingers in us that demands to understand who and what we are, and our place in the cosmos--questions that express themselves in religion, philosophy, and in science which are different ways of asking these questions and different ways of approaching these questions.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[redleghunter]

I see this written a lot and want some discussion in a better place than atheist forums. What are your opinions on early humans making up religion to cope better or to explain unanswered questions?

It's an atheist straw man assertion because they see religion in every civilization in early history.

So they either see early man as so disillusioned as mankind is today or somehow what we have today as some vast improvement. Which we know is false as modern man needs drugs whether legal or illegal to cope with this schizophrenic relativistic society.

 

[SkyWriting]

I see this written a lot and want some discussion in a better place than atheist forums. What are your opinions on early humans making up religion to cope better or to explain unanswered questions?

Check with the source for questions:
Answered Prayer - Steps 1, 2, & 3

 

[JackRT]

Humans have always had an insatiable curiosity about our world. "What caused that?" "How does that work?" "Why?" "Why?" "Why?" While they were keen observers of nature (they had to be to survive) they did not have the intellectual infrastructure to take a systemetic (scientific) approach to understand our world. It would be entirely understandable to suggest that natural phenomena were caused by "something" that they could not see or understand or control. That "something" would have to be beyond the natural, something that maybe they could appease or maybe even mitigate. We didn't even figure out germs till just 200 years ago, before that it was demons.

 

[SkyWriting]

Humans have always had an insatiable curiosity about our world. "What caused that?" "How does that work?" "Why?" "Why?" "Why?" While they were keen observers of nature (they had to be to survive) they did not have the intellectual infrastructure to take a systemetic (scientific) approach to understand our world. It would be entirely understandable to suggest that natural phenomena were caused by "something" that they could not see or understand or control. That "something" would have to be beyond the natural, something that maybe they could appease or maybe even mitigate. We didn't even figure out germs till just 200 years ago, before that it was demons.

I have called on naturalists to explain why life exists
rather than rock and minerals found in the rest of the
Cosmos. What natural laws suggest life should form?
Nothing has been suggested.
Chemical, thermal, vibrational, whatever.
Why is there no law "for life"?

 

[JackRT]

I have called on naturalists to explain why life exists
rather than rock and minerals found in the rest of the
Cosmos. What natural laws suggest life should form?
Nothing has been suggested.
Chemical, thermal, vibrational, whatever.
Why is there no law "for life"?

The study of abiogenesis, the origins of life, is in its infancy.

 

[SkyWriting]

The study of abiogenesis, the origins of life, is in its infancy.

Not really. We've been here a while, and we are sitting pretty deep in a puddle of life. You should be able to step outside and rattle off 10 good observations of life forming on it own from inanimate matter.
Or at least point to one life forming principle that explains why life would form. Chemical, thermal, social, vibrational, any sector of science that would "push" life to form. Or pull it into existence.

I'm not seeking an exact process. Just a reason why any process would form at all.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I see this written a lot and want some discussion in a better place than atheist forums. What are your opinions on early humans making up religion to cope better or to explain unanswered questions?

A lot of humans today make up or promote religion to cope. It might help them to cope, < shrugs > ,
but it won't help anyone to be cleansed of sin directly,
and it fails to save anyone if man makes it up, or promotes manmade religion.

There's no salvation at all in manmade things or efforts.

 

[JackRT]

Not really. We've been here a while, and we are sitting pretty deep in a puddle of life. You should be able to step outside and rattle off 10 good observations of life forming on it own from inanimate matter.
Or at least point to one life forming principle that explains why life would form. Chemical, thermal, social, vibrational, any sector of science that would "push" life to form. Or pull it into existence.

I'm not seeking an exact process. Just a reason why any process would form at all.

As a retired scientist (nuclear physics and mathematics) I suspect that new life arises from natural causes all the time but is not observed by us because it is promptly swallowed up by the very successful life forms already in existence in every nook and cranny of this world.

As for your "why question" there is one hypothesis that I like. Back in the 1950's the Jesuit priest and paleontologist Pere Tielhard DeChardin wrote a book in which he attempted to reconcile evolution and theology. It is called "The Phenomenon of Man". He posits that intelligence and consciousness are tied to the complexity of the entity, starting with elementary particles and on up. For example, an atom would have more consciousness than its component protons, neutrons and electrons. At the atomic and molecular level the degree of consciousness is still too small for us to detect. He also suggests certain critical ‘quantum jumps’ like when a very complex hydrocarbon molecule becomes a living cell. To cut to the chase, he suggests an "Omega Point" when humanity is so linked that the planet itself becomes a living organism of a higher order. The comparison is made to a beehive. The individual bees display a low order of intelligence and consciousness but, when we consider that of the hive as a whole, it is orders of magnitude above that of its components. The hive itself behaves as an intelligent and conscious entity. Is this the fate of humanity? Is it possible that the internet itself might be the very sort of linkage by which such a quantum leap might be facilitated? Are we approaching Tielhard's Omega Point? This suggestion has met with a very skeptical response.

 

[SkyWriting]

As a retired scientist (nuclear physics and mathematics) I suspect that new life arises from natural causes all the time but is not observed by us because it is promptly swallowed up by the very successful life forms already in existence in every nook and cranny of this world.

I get really sad when somebody thinks credentials help their argument. It gives the impression that I would think less of my dad who could barely read or write. But being brainwashed, I forgive you. Very few at his funeral last weekend knew he was illiterate, especially his pilot buddies from the airfield. He was very good with engines. Surprising to me he died from old age.

 

[SkyWriting]

As for your "why question" there is one hypothesis that I like. Back in the 1950's the Jesuit priest and paleontologist Pere Tielhard DeChardin wrote a book in which he attempted to reconcile evolution and theology. It is called "The Phenomenon of Man". He posits that intelligence and consciousness are tied to the complexity of the entity, starting with elementary particles and on up. For example, an atom would have more consciousness than its component protons, neutrons and electrons. At the atomic and molecular level the degree of consciousness is still too small for us to detect. He also suggests certain critical ‘quantum jumps’ like when a very complex hydrocarbon molecule becomes a living cell. To cut to the chase, he suggests an "Omega Point" when humanity is so linked that the planet itself becomes a living organism of a higher order. The comparison is made to a beehive. The individual bees display a low order of intelligence and consciousness but, when we consider that of the hive as a whole, it is orders of magnitude above that of its components. The hive itself behaves as an intelligent and conscious entity. Is this the fate of humanity? Is it possible that the internet itself might be the very sort of linkage by which such a quantum leap might be facilitated? Are we approaching Tielhard's Omega Point? This suggestion has met with a very skeptical response.

I am amused that I support the direction you are heading.
I have read, imagine this, the flip side of your theory.
It was that the earth is already one big organism and
that life is it's biology. That life formed becasue the
earth is already a living thing and we are the growing details.

 

[JackRT]

I get really sad when somebody thinks credentials help their argument.
It gives the impression that I would think less of my dad who could
barely read or write. But being brainwashed, I forgive you.

Thank you for your very thoughtful and kind Christian assessment. If any other scientists had read my post they would have had a good chuckle. Because, you see, nuclear physics and mathematics are only distantly applicable to the life sciences. All that aside, being brainwashed, I no longer tell dirty jokes.

 

[SkyWriting]

Thank you for your very thoughtful and kind Christian assessment. If any other scientists had read my post they would have had a good chuckle. Because, you see, nuclear physics and mathematics are only distantly applicable to the life sciences. All that aside, being brainwashed, I no longer tell dirty jokes.

They would laugh, becasue they mistakenly associate training with good insight.
My father told dirty jokes and that is just what one must deal with growing up.

Benjamin Franklin (January 17, 1706 – April 17, 1790).
Franklin was a renowned polymath and a leading author, printer, political theorist, politician, freemason, postmaster, scientist, inventor, humorist, civic activist, statesman, and diplomat. As a scientist, he was a major figure in the American Enlightenment and the history of physics for his discoveries and theories regarding electricity. As an inventor, he is known for the lightning rod, bifocals, and the Franklin stove, among other inventions.[2] He facilitated many civic organizations, including Philadelphia's fire department and the University of Pennsylvania, an Ivy League institution.[3]

 

[JackRT]

I am amused that I support the direction you are heading.
I have read, imagine this, the flip side of your theory.
It was that the earth is already one big organism and
that life is it's biology. That life formed becasue the
earth is already a living thing and we are the growing details.

Actually that is a current idea in new age or neo-pagan thought. This is the Gaia hypothesis:

The Gaia hypothesis is an ecological hypothesis proposing that the biosphere and the physical components of the Earth (atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere) are closely integrated to form a complex interacting system that maintains the climatic and biogeochemical conditions on Earth in a preferred homeostasis. Originally proposed by James Lovelock as the earth feedback hypothesis, it was named the Gaia Hypothesis after the Greek supreme goddess of Earth. The hypothesis is frequently described as viewing the Earth as a single organism. Lovelock and other supporters of the idea now call it Gaia theory, regarding it as a scientific theory and not mere hypothesis, since they believe it has passed predictive tests.

see Gaia Hypothesis