I’ve read a nice book from a French skepticism popularizer trying to explain the evolutionary origin of cognitive bias, basically the bias that fucks with our logic today probably helped us survive in the past. For example, the agent detection bias makes us interpret the sound of a twig snapping in the woods as if some dangerous animal or person was tracking us. It’s doesn’t cost much to be wrong about it and it sucks to be eaten if it was true but you ignored it. So it’s efficient to put an intention or an agent behind a random natural occurence. This could also be what religions grew from.
What I read is that religion was a way to codify habits for survival. Pork meat that spoils quickly in a dessert climate is a health hazard, but people ate it anyway, but when the old guy says it angers the gods the chances of obeying is a lot bigger. That kind of thing. Of course when people obey gods there are those that claim to speak for the gods.
You’re both wrong and you’re both right. A religion is just everything people think is important and needs to be believed by everyone. The “one single cause of religion” is that humans pass on knowledge. They teach each other. Obviously, this will result in socially organised systems of belief, AKA religions. And if you’re asking “why is the content of religions incorrect”, it’s because human beings weren’t born with omniscience. Your theories apply to why the content of religions is what it is, but not to why religion itself exists.
I’ve read a nice book from a French skepticism popularizer trying to explain the evolutionary origin of cognitive bias, basically the bias that fucks with our logic today probably helped us survive in the past. For example, the agent detection bias makes us interpret the sound of a twig snapping in the woods as if some dangerous animal or person was tracking us. It’s doesn’t cost much to be wrong about it and it sucks to be eaten if it was true but you ignored it. So it’s efficient to put an intention or an agent behind a random natural occurence. This could also be what religions grew from.
What I read is that religion was a way to codify habits for survival. Pork meat that spoils quickly in a dessert climate is a health hazard, but people ate it anyway, but when the old guy says it angers the gods the chances of obeying is a lot bigger. That kind of thing. Of course when people obey gods there are those that claim to speak for the gods.
For sure this explains a lot of religious rules but I think agent illusion is also a big contributor.
You’re both wrong and you’re both right. A religion is just everything people think is important and needs to be believed by everyone. The “one single cause of religion” is that humans pass on knowledge. They teach each other. Obviously, this will result in socially organised systems of belief, AKA religions. And if you’re asking “why is the content of religions incorrect”, it’s because human beings weren’t born with omniscience. Your theories apply to why the content of religions is what it is, but not to why religion itself exists.