What need do religions fulfill?

[DIKL]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I still agonize over how a rational mind could develop purely through an accident of biology. I have to be careful I do not impose my desire for an outside influence, but I see no other viable explanation.

This comment is exactly on the spot. My feeling is that maybe humans honed reasoning skills through evolution. Other predators got faster and deadlier. We got smarter, we developed languages that allowed us to operate more effectively as a group. (Here we have the chicken-egg problem, as always. What came first? Did we for example develop languages consciously in order to coordinate hunting/gathering? Or did better group cooperation lead to languages? My guess is this is a positive feedback system.)

Your agony over the possibility that reasoning arose by chance through evolution is quite interesting. My experience is that an overwhelming majority of people interpret the following observations as incredibly unlikely, and therefore as strong evidence for a supernatural structuring being/force and as strong evidence against chance playing a role in our universe:
a) mankind being able to reason
b) life existing
c) complexity of the universe

My question is then: WHAT IF chance does play a significant role in our universe? What if there have billions of universes with the wrong conditions for life to arise, and this is just one of the universes where life could arise? THEN I draw the conclusion that we humans don't feel comfortable with explanations that include chance. We are meaning-seeking creatures. We ask "What is the meaning of life", assuming it must/should have a meaning. And a meaningful universe should be based on cause and effect, where the ultimate cause should be an ultimate beings will, not randomness and chance.

If one counts Buddhism, then this is not an accurate conclusion.

Maybe we are misunderstanding each other here. My question was why religions arising LATER in history than the five world religions haven't taken hold. For example scientology? (Well, it's quite well-spread, but I don't think it can challenge the 'big' religions.)
Anyway, this was not my main point (although I am very interested in the topic per se). I wish to concentrate on my other question: if there might be a single driving force in man causing the advent of both personal religion and science?

Well, and I hesitate here, self-awareness is an interesting critter. On the one hand, the only thing animals can know is self (and possibly the Divine, but on a different level than humans). On the other hand, I think self-awareness as applied to humans has a bit different meaning. Not only do we understand we are cold, tired or hungry, but we are also "consciously" aware that we can drive ourselves towards things we desire, be it another piece of pie or a multi-million dollar mansion. Or to learn how to Tango.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Can you please elaborate a bit on this?

I see this inherent intuitive "reach" beyond our limited self as being the foundation of rational thought. Problem is, I can't prove it.

Hmm, really interesting thought! If I understand you correctly, even before man was capable of rational thought, the urge for understanding was already there. And this urge was the root and driving force of rational thought.
Hmm...have to think about this. A spontaneous question is: Couldn't it possible for man to feel the need for being rational without feeling the need for more knowledge? If there's a causality, in which direction does it go?

If anyone could 'prove' their beliefs there wouldn't be much going on at CR.
Seriously now, this leads to another reflection I've had. What would happen if science was to prove, say, universe is a product of chance?
My guess: there would be massive emotional resistance to this idea, as it collides with the need for meaning we have. The proof would be scrutinized and criticized like no other in history.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, DIKL!

Thank you for your thoughtful post!

Originally Posted by DIKL

This comment is exactly on the spot. My feeling is that maybe humans honed reasoning skills through evolution. Other predators got faster and deadlier. We got smarter, we developed languages that allowed us to operate more effectively as a group. (Here we have the chicken-egg problem, as always. What came first? Did we for example develop languages consciously in order to coordinate hunting/gathering? Or did better group cooperation lead to languages? My guess is this is a positive feedback system.)

Desmond Morris in his book "The Naked Ape" says about as much. Language is by its nature difficult to trace in pre-historic times. The closest we have to "writing" prior to the cuneiform developed in Sumeria is the cave paintings found in many places in Europe (and a handful of places in China). A few artifacts have been found, like the Venus of Willendorf, give us an eye into how early humans thought. I have also seen photos of geometric designs etched on an artifact (a stone?) that pose interesting questions, especially since it is attributed to Neandertal (no longer generally considered ancestral to modern humans). Interestingly, to me anyway, is that the cave paintings very often depict the hunt. I wonder whether this was a teaching tool for a successful hunt, or a memorial of (a) specific hunt(s). Perhaps both.

Your agony over the possibility that reasoning arose by chance through evolution is quite interesting. My experience is that an overwhelming majority of people interpret the following observations as incredibly unlikely, and therefore as strong evidence for a supernatural structuring being/force and as strong evidence against chance playing a role in our universe:
a) mankind being able to reason
b) life existing
c) complexity of the universe

My question is then: WHAT IF chance does play a significant role in our universe? What if there have billions of universes with the wrong conditions for life to arise, and this is just one of the universes where life could arise? THEN I draw the conclusion that we humans don't feel comfortable with explanations that include chance. We are meaning-seeking creatures. We ask "What is the meaning of life", assuming it must/should have a meaning. And a meaningful universe should be based on cause and effect, where the ultimate cause should be an ultimate beings will, not randomness and chance.

I get a little antsy with "what if" questions. I mean, we can imagine all kinds of "what if" scenarios. Where does reality end and fantasy begin? I like to try to stay within the bounds of what we "know," what we have learned and what we can logically predict as realistically possible from what we have learned.

In fairness, I realize "random / chance" is the accepted mantra in science, so to that much I must answer. IF random chance could somehow be proven, then I suppose like all drastic changes brought about by scientific revelation, there would be short term resistence, even perhaps violent at times. But as the realization of "proven fact" settled in, in time, religious and spiritual outlooks would find a way to merge the new information. Of course, how does one go about proving "random / chance?" It seems to me, the nature of the concept leaves itself open. In other words, random / chance also means "all things are possible." Philosophically if not scientifically.

I wish to concentrate on my other question: if there might be a single driving force in man causing the advent of both personal religion and science?

Well, that would seem to be in line with my pursuit of the beginning of rational thought and personal religion. Of course, I am of the opinion that "science" in the broadest sense of being able to manipulate nature to our will came considerably later, and in the more secular sense I believe began in Taoism (or its predecessor). I am reasonably certain there are / were analogues in Sumeria, considering developments like the wheel, metallurgy and thrusting weapons.

Originally Posted by jt3

Well, and I hesitate here, self-awareness is an interesting critter. On the one hand, the only thing animals can know is self (and possibly the Divine, but on a different level than humans). On the other hand, I think self-awareness as applied to humans has a bit different meaning. Not only do we understand we are cold, tired or hungry, but we are also "consciously" aware that we can drive ourselves towards things we desire, be it another piece of pie or a multi-million dollar mansion. Or to learn how to Tango.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Can you please elaborate a bit on this?

I am speaking of the dawn of consciousness. Perhaps rational thought is a separate issue, but I see the two as synonymous. Thinking requires consciousness and foresight, or so it seems to me.

Have you ever looked into the transcripts of conversations with Koko the gorilla? Look closely at what Koko actually says, not the glowing interpretations by her handler. Koko, like all animals except humans IMO, is not operating with "rational" thought, she is reacting to her surroundings and situation. Abstract conceptions are beyond her ability.

Another example would be training a dog to do tricks. It is a matter of reward and / or punishment, not thinking through a problem to come to a solution. In fairness, animals like dogs can seek solution to pressing desires like how to get the cookie jar off of the counter or to get out of a pen. But this is still immediate gratification to immediate problems with no outlook towards consequence. Animals, including humans, learn by experience (hindsight), the difference being humans can look for solution with foresight and realize consequence. If I get polluted with alcohol, I will have a hangover, experience. If I continue as a habit to get polluted with alcohol, I will destroy my liver, foresight.

It is this "little" matter of consciousness that is the puzzle. With consciousness, we can set a goal for ourselves and work towards that goal. I think I will learn to Tango today. OK, look in the phone book, find an instructor, place a call, book an appointment...and one day if I apply myself and have any talent I will be able to Tango. Animals do not reason in such a way, they have no comprehension of "future."

If I understand you correctly, even before man was capable of rational thought, the urge for understanding was already there. And this urge was the root and driving force of rational thought.

Hmmm. My gut reaction is to say yes in the same way I just described with the dog in looking to get at the cookie jar. But there is a tremendous gap to cross, foresight, to get to where humans are.

Couldn't it possible for man to feel the need for being rational without feeling the need for more knowledge? If there's a causality, in which direction does it go?

Good question. Yet, like your feedback loop analogy, thinking feeds knowledge feeds thinking... Knowledge without reason (rationality) is pretty limited, and confined to experience.

What would happen if science was to prove, say, universe is a product of chance?
My guess: there would be massive emotional resistance to this idea, as it collides with the need for meaning we have. The proof would be scrutinized and criticized like no other in history.

You mean like how the earth really isn't flat, or that the earth isn't the center of the universe? The catch is, can you prove the Creator did not use chance as the method for creation?