Dear Banjo Paterson,

«It should be recalled that religion originated as a strategy for survival of our early ancestors.»

What do you mean by "recalled"?
Have you been there at the time?

This statement is just a figment of your imagination, a baseless assumption.

And anyway, what kind of a "strategy for survival" could religion be when 100% of our early ancestors, including all religious ones, did not survive?!

«It does not necessarily depend on the existence of a god or gods but, it definitely depends on the belief that there is a god or gods.»

Religion does not depend on any belief.
While certain beliefs can be incorporated into one's religion as a bonus, that is not mandatory.

The reason religion seems to depend on belief in your eyes, is your own prior expectation for it to be there, so when you observe religious people who do not hold to a particular belief, you fail to recognise and count them as religious.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

1. « It should be recalled that religion originated as a strategy for survival of our early ancestors.
What do you mean by "recalled"? »
.

I was referring to what I wrote to mhaze on page 8 of this thread on Tuesday, 3 December 2024 8:02:19 AM. Here is the link :

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10517#366107
.

2. « This statement is just a figment of your imagination, a baseless assumption. »
.

Not exactly, Yuyutsu. It is based on what the English anthropologist, Sir Edward Burnett Tylor, in his work Primitive Culture (1871), termed animism.

Tylor argued that Darwin’s ideas of evolution could be applied to human societies; he classified religions according to their level of development.

He defined Animism as a belief in souls: the existence of human souls after death, but also the belief that entities Western perspectives deemed inanimate, like mountains, rivers, and trees, had souls.

Animism was, in Tylor’s view, the first stage in the evolution of religion, which developed from Animism to polytheism and then to monotheism, which was the most “civilized” form of religion. From this perspective, Animism was the most primitive kind of religion, while European, Protestant Christianity was seen as the most evolved of all religions.

But Tylor was not the first to make this argument. Scottish philosopher David Hume, for example, made a very similar argument in the “Natural History of Religion” in 1757. Tylor was, however, the first to use the term Animism and the classification scheme as part of what was then the nascent field of anthropology, the scientific study of human society.

It’s very interesting reading. I thoroughly recommend it.
.

3. « Religion does not depend on any belief. While certain beliefs can be incorporated into one's religion as a bonus, that is not mandatory. »
.

The OED defines religion as follows, Yuyutsu :

« Belief in or acknowledgement of some superhuman power or powers (esp. a god or gods) which is typically manifested in obedience, reverence, and … »

.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Here is the link to Sir Edward Burnett Tylor’s book “Primitive Culture” (1871) :

http://books.google.fr/books?id=AucLAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr#v=onepage&q&f=false

And here is an excerpt from David Hume’s book, “A Natural History of Religion” (1757) :

« There is an universal tendency amongst mankind to conceive all beings like themselves, and to transfer to every object those qualities with which they are familiarly acquainted, and of which they are intimately conscious. We find human faces in the moon, armies in
the clouds; and by a natural propensity, if not corrected by experience and reflection, ascribe malice and good will to everything that hurts or pleases us. Hence … each grove or field is represented as possessed of a particular genius or invisible power, which inhabits or protects it. Nay, philosophers cannot entirely exempt themselves from this natural frailty; but have oft ascribed to inanimate matter the horror of a vacuum, sympathies, antipathies, and other affections of human nature. The absurdity is not less, while we cast our eyes upwards; and transferring, as is too usual, human passions and infirmities to the deity, represent him as jealous and revengeful, capricious and partial, and, in short, a wicked and foolish man, in every respect but his superior power and authority. No wonder, then, that mankind, being placed in such an absolute ignorance of causes, and being at the same time so anxious concerning their future fortunes, should immediately acknowledge a dependence on invisible powers possessed of sentiment and intelligence. The unknown causes, which continually employ their thought, appearing always in the same aspect, are all apprehended to be of the same kind or species. Nor is it long before we ascribe to them thought, and reason, and passion, and sometimes even the limbs and figures of men, in order to bring them nearer to a resemblance with ourselves.

[Note : I have copied (and slightly abridged) this from paragraph 2, page 18, section III entitled “Origin Of Polytheism”]

.

Hi Foxy,

Your belief and my belief in God may differ but one is as valid as the other.

You say; "To a believer a God is simply there. To a non-believer
a God may be many other things. But most of
all to a non-believer a God is simply not there."

I agree when you say "there" as in a physical space, yes I don't believe God exists in a physical sense, but in a spiritual sense.

In a child's mind there may exists a belief in a physical Santa Clause, but over time reality sets in and the truth becomes evident that there is no physical Santa Clause. At one time the belief to the child was as real as any belief adults have today, including the belief in the existence of a physical God, existing somewhere in the cosmos.

Man thought firstly why are we here, then man attempted to explain the unexplainable, reasons for his own existence, believing there must be a purpose in life, that's where the myths of an all seeing, all doing greater deity (gods) became the reality. Over time man extrapolated all sorts of things from that original idea of a god the creator. That's where we are today full of all kinds of fanciful religious beliefs.

Dear Banjo,

So you seem to shake off personal responsibility for that poor statement about the presumed origins of religion, placing it instead squarely on the lap of some Sir Edward Burnett Tylor, David Hume and the Oxford dictionary:

Well while these sources may be very knowledgeable in their own fields, such as anthropology, science and technology, they have no clue about religion: at best they are just ignorant, or otherwise they were deliberately smearing that which they do not like.

No doubt ancient people were fearful of nature.
No doubt they attempted to mitigate their physical dangers in various ways, including by believing in various superstitions, including polytheism and monotheism.
These are facts, but religion has nothing to do with fear and worldly survival.
The religious themselves were never a party to such derogatory anti-religious definitions.

Dear Paul,

To me God transcends the physical.

For me, my beliefs have provided hope.
They've provided a certain sense and connection to
something greater than myself. I was raised to believe
in following rules and the law, because it's the right
thing to do.

Believing in something or someone supports hope.
Hope is on which human life
exists. We believe there is a tomorrow so we go to
sleep with the hope of living.

I'm not a theologian. And I can only speak for myself.
Perhaps my views are simplistic. But they're mine.
And of course as I said earlier - our views are subjective.
They shape how we think and act.

If only we could all learn to live and let live.