The Scientific Origin of Religion
Welcome to my world. For the next few minutes you will see the world through my eyes and begin to know my thoughts (which may or may not be lucky for you the reader/listener). :) These particular views are not set in stone and unchanging, however, at the present time they are the most orderly and convincing to me, and as such are the most important to me.
In this discussion of the interaction of the supposed differing topics/fields of "science" and "religion" it is important to explain what each of the two terms has come to mean to me - the writer
Science here is defined as any organized study that is based on logical relationships (particularly cause and effect relationships). This means that science may include not only areas of inquiry that may be tested currently but also includes analysis and study of observations and analyses made upon subjects that may no longer be available for study. An illustration of this might include the study and/or reinterpretation of observations made on the Dodo bird that no longer exists. Since observations may no longer be made some would say that seeing as we cannot replicate experimental or observational data it is not scientific to examine this prior evidence any longer. I disagree with this mode of thought.
Religion is defined as a framework (that appears to be, for all intents and purposes, necessary for humans at this point in time) designed to organize and explain the significance of past and present observations made of the world by humanity. Additionally, many religions point to a close tie in the past and/or present between a more powerful force and humanity. Interaction with this force has at times lead to a greater revealed view of "reality" than is possibly apparent at present. Such interaction is termed "revelational," since generally it cannot be proven one way or the other whether the human involved had any interaction with a greater force (although byproducts of some interaction might be apparent).
Now, what indications do we currently have of the origins of various religions? Approximate dates of origin for seven of the major religions of the world are given by Warren (1996) as Hinduism - 2000 BCE, Judaism - 1500 BCE, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism - 500 BCE, Christianity - 30 CE, and Islam - 622 CE. Dalton Jr. High School provides simple descriptions of the founder(s) and teachings of various religions.
As the oldest living religion Hinduism is described as having had no single founder. Rather, it was an accumulation of centuries of teachings of "religious" teachers or "gurus." Each teacher had a personal interpretation and taught such. For this reason the religion covers a wide range of beliefs and has no single belief system. However, one central idea held by all is that the ultimate goal is liberation from the endless cycles of reincarnation. Many gods are worshiped.
Buddhism on the other hand has a single founder who formulated a world view following escape from his father's protective care - thus solving the mystery of human suffering. Due to its origin it focuses on elimination of human suffering, and such a state of painlessness is considered the ultimate goal. No god is elaborated upon.
Taoism follows along the same lines as Buddhism. It focuses on modification of the inner thoughts (having by not having, activity through inactivity . . .) and strives for harmony between all living things.
Confucianism on the other hand is basically a system of ethics and a way of life designed to bring stability and continuity to a nation/government. Life stages and processes are explained and matched with rituals.
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all closely related. They claim one god and trace the interaction of that one god through the history of the Jewish people. The ultimate goal for these groups is for there to be a reestablishment of the relationship between the god and humanity that has broken down subsequent to humanity's creation. (However, much larger views of the interaction of the god with the entire universe are held by some groups.)
These are extremely brief descriptions of the religions. However, two classes of religion can be distinguished. One class deals with the interactions of humans with other humans and other living things, while the other class includes human interaction with a greater power. Actually the distinction may be quite artificial, and most religions may to some degree or another recognize a greater power. So where did such an idea come from? Is it just some mental need that evolved within humans? Is it just a way of trying to explain what cannot be logically or mechanistically explained in other ways?
For many people the answer to this last question is, "Yes!" If I or other humans cannot understand something or why it occurs it must be due to some greater power than I. This is understandable. From birth and through their development humans ask questions of other humans that know more than themselves. The ability to answer questions is usually tied in some way or another to greater power or control. So if humans cannot answer questions the answers must be held by a greater power.
This developmentally derived explanation of why religion exists is held by many. However they disagree on whether monotheism or polytheism is the most primitive form of religion (Hume 1757, Jones 1986, McCabe, Speckhardt 1996). Some have used the study of isolated small groups to represent original religion. Whether or not this is an appropriate application of the studies is not known (although many claims are made). What is known is that as far back as anything can be recovered about any humans, religion has always been a part of life. The religious life was not separated from any other part of life.
Now, how might we go about determining the ultimate origin of religion when it is not recorded? One means is through examination of how and why new religious ideas come about. (Another might be through pure unfettered speculation. However, since there is no practical means of testing the hypotheses produced through this method it is quite useless.)
When and where do new ways of thinking develop? The most obvious answer to this question is a cliché: "Necessity is the mother of invention." When ideas held do not mesh with what is observed a change must and will be made.
What is convincing about science? What is reassuring about religion? Hmmm. . . . . Might the answer be the same? The explanatory consistency of scientific ideas and the consistent ability of religion to explain what the practitioners encounter in life is of utmost importance. Without this shared characteristic neither would continue. So why are there so many varieties of religion? The answer would seem to lie in the living conditions (environment) of the practitioners. A consistently warm and dry environment is much different from a well defined cyclical pattern of seasons. Since both science and religion seek to explain why things occur, various human experiences will lead to differing explanations and views of reality. Since religions and cultures are geographically derived and based, is it any great wonder that when those from differing locals come together there are conflicts? The views of the politically correct (social workers and liberals) that diversity within a nation is inherently and intrinsically good are false. Religions and cultures do not develop in a static vacuum. There are reasons for the development of beliefs, practices, and customs. When those practices are taken out of their context their value declines precipitously.
As an example, when the great white missionaries entered the deep dark jungles they met up with some rather scantily clad people. How terrible, evil, and degraded the poor souls were. What they needed were some clothes and some activities to participate in so they might be like the religious missionaries. If they were to be converted to the truth they must certainly "look" like Christians. I dare say that the ideas presented concerning the character of the god in question were of greater importance and interest to the natives than personal appearance. However, to the missionaries one must prove one's acceptance and show one's belief by changing not only perceptions of the god but by also incorporating the lifestyle of the country that brought the new ideas. If wearing a covering of black below the waist, white above the waist, and hard coverings around the feet were really beneficial within the environment wouldn't the people have previously found a way to accomplish such before the arrival of the missionaries? (Or is intelligence and ability to learn dependent upon the belief system? . . . Maybe. . . .) What ideas about the god must the natives have derived from the insistence of the missionaries on their appearance. (Possibly a nice god that is still a little arbitrary in demands and requirements.)
Now, more practically, what should religion here and now, at this point in time, in this country, be based upon? An interesting and thought provoking book was written by Arthur J. D'Adamo (1997) entitled, "Science Without Bounds: A Synthesis of Science, Religion and Mysticism." In his book he looks at science's way of knowing things (how information accumulates and under what conditions) as well as the traditional means by which religions are characterized as knowing or arriving at information. While his description of religion's way of knowing seems a little harsh at times I cannot disagree with it too strongly when I examine the expression and practice of religions around me. He contends that religion's way of knowing is based on "revelational" knowledge. This means that a god revealed the information to those who wrote and that the words written are exactly what the god intended and are a completely accurate depiction of ultimate reality. Additionally, there is a great emphasis on "only believe!" I was once again reminded of this just this morning as the TV sat on channel 56. There was one of religious persuasion encouraging people to just believe, step out in faith, and pledge $1000 or more to help the Lord's work. If you will just believe and have faith, God will give you the money that you have pledged and more besides. (Interestingly, during the entire half-hour the program was on that was the sole topic of consideration.) However, even here there was an appeal to the scientific nature in all of us. We learn through personal experience as well as through observation of others (or hopefully this is the case). For this reason there periodically appeared recorded testimonials of how after pledging large sums of money to the Lord's work the individual acquired amazing increased wealth. However, a report of how many pledges went unfulfilled was not given.
How many relationships and social interactions are based upon "only believe/just trust me?" What happens when there is such an interaction between people and at least one of the two perceives some discrepancy? Decisions and belief based on lacking evidence are not promoted or condoned in any other aspect of life than religion (unless you take into account certain political ideologies which may be alternatively termed religions). If religion is just something that you believe without evidence what is the point? For the thinking, religion is a means of organizing and bringing meaning and substance to life. However, it cannot be disputed (too strongly anyway) that there are many preoccupied unthinking people in the world.
Fortunately there are many people who contend that faith and belief must be intelligently based on an educated knowledge of the past and the present (D'Adamo 1997, Gilliard, Powderly 1998 Now we may ask, "Is science void of faith?" I think NOT! If there was no faith involved in even the most pure scientific endeavor how much progress do you really think would be made in acquisition of new knowledge? No productive scientist goes back and repeats all experiments related to their field to be sure that they are basing their latest hypothesis on valid assumptions. There is a very great faith in the work of scientists who have gone before. As has been mentioned previously, some work done by scientists in the past can no longer be checked even if though desire might arise. The same is true of religion.
So what might we use to determine which religious ideas are profitable and which are not - which are true and which are false? Evidence. This is all we have, and all we ever will have. It is all that is available to us as humans. Those who do not use their ability to analyze and logically reason through evidence as it is made available are considered less than fully developed as humans. They are considered lazy and incompetent, useless and imbecilic. Individuals who do not make use of their "power to think and to do" and expand their work to include more than the limited study of what others have said and done, are often a detriment to society and themselves.
An intelligent study both of what has been recorded in the past as well as what is happening at the present is necessary. Consistency between what are currently held religious teachings and natural principals have been identified and the search must continue. Any religion that fails to match its teachings with what its members experience as reality throughout their daily lives will ultimately fail and bring ruin to many lives.
D'Adamo (1997) provides an couple of interesting
illustrations looking at two possible means of acquiring information:
". . . Brad and Dan are seven years old. Brad believes his town has a very good mayor because his father says so; Dan believes the town's mayor is incompetent because that's his father's opinion. Brad and Dan have just discovered they hold different beliefs. Who's right? Can they decide rationally?
No, they cannot. They have no basis for deciding if the mayor is good or not. All they can say is 'I'm right, you're wrong,' or 'My father's right, you're [sic] father's wrong.' Not surprisingly, too, the same dynamics have often occurred on a much larger scale: religious disagreements have led to much bloodshed.
If they were more mature, Brad and Dan might decide to respect each others faith. 'I believe this, you believe that. Each faith is worthy of respect. Let's not discuss the matter further.' This is often the religious situation today, perhaps because people are more mature about religious matters, or perhaps because religion no longer matters very much to most people. After all, people are still quite willing to fight and kill for things that really matter to them: political idealogy [sic] or material resources, for example.
In contrast to religion's way of knowing, science's way allows the
discussion and resolution of differences. If they were older, Brad and Dan
might discuss their criteria for judging the mayor. Of course, they still might
disagree; Brad might value the city's financial state, while Dan might rate
city services the best measure of the mayor's ability. However, each would be
able to rationally discuss, to have a give and take, and, most importantly, to
change their mind if they decide they were wrong. In contrast, the younger Brad
and Dan can only cling to the 'faith of their fathers.'"
And . . .
"The Tale of the Scientific Alchemists and Religious Newtonians
. . . About three hundred years ago, when alchemists were still vainly trying to turn lead into gold, Sir Isaac Newton discovered some fundamental equations that accurately describe the physical world. In our tale, let's give Newton's discoveries to people who regard them religiously. We'll call these people 'religious Newtonians.' The religious Newtonians are religious because they follow the revelational method of knowing truth. They're Newtonians because they accept Newton's theories.
And let's give Alchemy to people who regard it scientifically. We'll call these people 'scientific Alchemists.' The scientific Alchemists are scientific because they follow the scientific way of knowing truth; they are Alchemists because they accept the theories of Alchemy.
So 'religious' or 'scientific' indicates the way of knowing, the way of finding new knowledge. And 'Newtonian' or 'Alchemist' indicates the theories currently accepted as true. Our tale will illustrate that the method used to find and test beliefs may be more important than the initial beliefs themselves.
Our tale opens in the seventeenth century. The religious Newtonians believe in calculus and the basic laws of Newtonian physics. They worship Newton as a god and venerate his writings as divinely inspired and perfectly true. Following the ideas and theories in his writings, in 'holy scriptures,' the religious Newtonians are beginning to understand the natural world. New discoveries in mathematics, mechanics, astronomy, and navigation are being made almost daily.
The beliefs of the religious Newtonians are substantially correct and many centuries of progress await them.
Our other group, the scientific Alchemists, follow not Newton but Aristotle, particularly his theory of the four basic elements: earth, water, fire, and air. According to Aristotle's ideas, it's possible to turn lead into gold. And that's what the scientific Alchemists are trying to do. Into their crucibles, flasks, mortars, and pots, they put eggs, toads, snakes, herbs, urine, entrails, lead, mercury, sulfur, and saltpeter. They grind, mix, filter, hammer, and heat them. They describe their experiments with bizarre symbols such as toads, dragons, birds, stars, crowns, keys, and planets.
The beliefs of the scientific Alchemists are wrong and their quest is doomed to failure.
Notice that we've given the religious Newtonians a lot of correct physical knowledge. We've given them an kind of head start in the race toward more and more truth about the physical world. But we've given them a poor way of knowing, a way that binds them to a 'divine and unchanging' truth.
In contrast, we've given the scientific Alchemists a serious handicap in the form of erroneous physical theories. But we've given them a better way of knowing, a way that allows revision and progress. Which will prove more important in the long run, the knowledge currently accepted as true, or the method of testing current knowledge and discovering more knowledge? Let's return to our tale.
As time passes, the scientific Alchemists slowly and independently discover some laws of nature that the religious Newtonians believe to be divine and unchangeable truth.
'You've found,' say the religious Newtonians, 'but a tiny portion of our divine Dogma. Surely, your mortal, imperfect minds will never uncover all of our complete and perfect truth. God gave us our revelation. It's far beyond what we fallible humans can find, alone and unaided. Why then do you not give up your slow, painful search for truth and embrace our Truth?'
'Never,' reply the scientific Alchemists.' Truth is to be earned, to be understood. You are satisfied to follow blindly, without understanding. We are not. Even though some of our truths now match your faith, one day we may find other truths of which you are ignorant.
As the decades pass, the scientific Alchemists independently uncover, test, and accept more and more of the truths held by the religious Newtonians.
'For many decades now,' say the religious Newtonians, 'our sacred scriptures have held the full and complete truth. Ignoring these writings, you have been winning, bit by bit, through much labor and suffering, what was already fully given to the fathers of the fathers of our fathers. Our way to truth, the way of divine revelation, the way of our fathers, is ancient and sure. Why then do you not cease your needless searching and accept out divine revelation?'
'Never,' reply the scientific Alchemists. 'No book can hold the full and perfect truth. Our way of knowing is a never-ending process of observation, hypothesis, theory, and experiment. Even as knowledge is limitless, the search for knowledge must be unending. This is our way of knowing. One day our knowledge shall surpass yours.'
By the end of the nineteenth century, the scientific Alchemists have independently found and verified all the beliefs of the religious Newtonians.
'For centuries now,' say the religious Newtonians, 'you have groped in the dark while we, following the divine knowledge given in our holy scriptures by our god, have lived in the light. Now, after much error and effort, you have finally reached the Truth. Will you not now admit the inspired nature of our religion and join us in our worship?'
'Never,' respond the scientific Alchemists. 'Your way of blind acceptance is not our way. We are pledged to follow the truth; you to follow your holy books and god. We are free to go wherever the truth leads; you are bound to a fixed, limited knowledge now hundreds of years old. One day we shall go beyond your knowledge.'
So for centuries, the religious Newtonian[s] have gone nowhere, they've stayed bound to their 'holy and eternal' truth. But the scientific Alchemists have outgrown their initial 'knowledge' and have acquired - earned - a truer, more accurate knowledge. One way of knowing has led nowhere, the other has discovered more and more knowledge.
In the early twentieth century, a thinker named Einstein claims the theories now accepted by both religious Newtonians and scientific Alchemists are not actually true, but only a near approximation of the truth. He proposes radically different theories, superior only in that they explain the orbit of the planet Mercury a bit better. The new theories demand, however, a drastic, new view of space and time.
'Blasphemy!' shout the religious Newtonians. 'Heretical, perverse, mind-twisting ideas of an iconoclastic rebel. Surely our Holy Faith, the faith of our fathers, will prevail against such diseased drivel!'
'It seems to be the truth!' reply the scientific Alchemists. 'We shall test it and, if true, we shall accept it. We are long accustomed to molding ourselves to the truth, not molding the truth to ourselves.'
Twenty years later, the two camps welcome the theory of Quantum Mechanics in much the same manner. The religious Newtonians reject Quantum Mechanics as heretical nonsense; the scientific Alchemists test and then accept it. Using the Theory of Relativity and, more significantly, Quantum Mechanics, the scientific Alchemists begin to surpass the religious Newtonians in their understanding and control of the physical world. Using Quantum Mechanics they discover atomic energy, semiconductors, lasers, and computers. The religious Newtonians, bound as they are to a way of knowing that limits what they can know, refuse to accept or use the new discoveries. The world beyond their holy scriptures, the world of computers, lasers, nuclear energy, and space-time, is a world which they, as believers, can never enter.
Our tale attempts to dramatize that a way of knowing can be more important than initial beliefs. The scientific Alchemists were given a lot of erroneous beliefs based on Alchemy. But they were given the scientific way of knowing. Since their method of acquiring and testing knowledge was sound, they eventually corrected their initial misconceptions. The religious Newtonians, on the other hand, were given a lot of accurate physical knowledge based on Newtonian physics. But they were given a religious way of knowing. Since their method of acquiring and testing knowledge was faulty, eventually their beliefs became outmoded, a hinderance [sic] to finding more truth.
So even if scripture is eternal and inerrant truth (and this is debatable), the religious way of knowing hinders the search for more truth. And even if science's ideas are all wrong (this, too, is debatable), its way of knowing leads to more and more truth.
Our tale compared the scientific way of knowing, the way of knowing accepted
by science, with the revelational way of knowing, the way of knowing often
accepted by religion. It showed the scientific way of knowing the superior
method - at least, for understanding the natural world. Is it a better way for
understanding the 'supernatural world' too?"
Whether or not you wish to believe in the scientific (trial and error), observational and developmental approach to religion depends to a great extent on what you perceive the humans that first devised religion to have been like. If you believe them to have been very different from humans today you may rightly hypothesize that other origins of religion are probable. However, in my view, using the evidence that is available to me (historical accounts left by earlier humans) I contend that humanity developed the first religion in the same way and for the same reasons that religions exist and are evolving currently. As far as I can tell, religions are not purely revelational in nature, but are influenced by the scientific evidence that surrounds the community. There does, however, appear to be a strong tendency within organized religion toward restriction of free and open religious inquiry.
Religion and science are really not so different. They are both based on observations of the world around us. Both seek for answers to questions that enter into the minds of man. They can either complement or antagonize each other, depending upon the presuppositions that the search is started under. Revelational knowledge must be tested just as any other new information that science provides. As Christians we accept the Bible not because it says it is inspired, but because we look at the evidence. Did religion begin in the Garden of Eden or is the story of man's fall a metaphor for man's discovery that there is more to life than is seen in the physical realm. Either way the spiritual realm is clearly an intrinsic part of human life. Just as science was born when humans began to seek to understand the world around them, so to religion entered when people began to seek to understand.
----------------------------------------------------------
Works Cited
Brow, R. 1996. Religion: Origins and Ideas. JLP Digital Productions. Web address: http://collection.nlc-bnc.ca/100/200/300/brow/religion/religion.html
Carrier, R. C. [date unknown]. A Fish Did Not Write This Essay. Web address: http://www.columbia.edu/~rcc20/fish.html
Custance, A. C. 1997 (January 14). Evolution or Creation. Doorway Publications. Web address: http://www.custance.org/evol/index.html
D'Adamo, A. J. 1997. Science Without Bounds: A Synthesis of Science, Religion and Mysticism. Web address: http://www.adamford.com/swb/index.html
Dalton Jr. High School. [date unknown]. Buddhism - Basic Teaching. Web address: http://www.dalton.jr-high.dalton.k12.ga.us/DPS/Buddhism.html
Dalton Jr. High School. [date unknown]. Hinduism - Basic Teachings. Web address: http://www.dalton.jr-high.dalton.k12.ga.us/DPS/Hinduism.html
Dalton Jr. High School. [date unknown]. Islam Religion Basics. Web address: http://www.dalton.jr-high.dalton.k12.ga.us/DPS/Islam.html
French, D. 1999. The Open Bible. Web address: http://www.quiknet.com/~dfrench/
Gaskin, S. 1974. Hey Beatnik! This is the Farm Book. The Book Publishing Company, The Farm, Summertown, TN. Web address: http://www.gaia.org/events/susconf/gaskin/index.html
Genesis. 1978. New International Version of the Holy Bible. Zondervan Bible Publishers, Grand Rapids, MI. Web address: http://www.audio-bible.com/
Gilliard, K. [date unknown]. An Intelligent Faith or "Don't check your brain at the door." Web address: http://www.tidalwave.net/~blufunk195/filedatabase/intell.html
Hume, D. 1757. The Natural History of Religion. Web address: http://www.utm.edu/research/hume/wri/nhr/nhr.htm
Jones, R. A. 1986. Excerpt from Emile Durkheim: An Introduction to Four Major Works. Web address: http://eddie.cso.uiuc.edu/Durkheim/Summaries/forms.html
McCabe, J. [date unknown]. The Story of Religious Controversy. Web address: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/religious_controversy/
Powderly, K. G. Jr. 1998. Landing on Our Rumps in the Post-Christian Era: A history-of-ideas look at the late 20th century western view of reality. Web address: http://www.calvarychapel.com/riorancho/Library/Landing/landg_main.htm
Powderly, K. G. Jr. 1998. A Letter to the Church of the 21st Century: A series of verse by verse essays through First Corinthians for the post-modern Christian. Web address: http://www.calvarychapel.com/riorancho/Library/1Cor_21st/1co21cmain.htm
Speckhardt, R. 1996. The Progressivist Bible. Web address: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8234/bible.html
Warren, P. 1996. What Was Israel Doing When the World Religions Emerged? Plim Report, September/October. Web address: http://plim.org/wreligions.html
