The origins of religious belief

[Willamena]

No one said anything about a story. They witnessed the life force leave the body, but could not see where it went. So they concluded that it was an 'invisible' force, or "spirit". And that it went into the air. And if it could leave one body perhaps it could enter another. Which explained, for them, some manifestations of illness, and various behavioral anomalies. These were not stores. They were actual experiences, and the conclusions that primitive people all over the world drew from them. And still do in some remote places.

That "conclusion" is made up.

 

[osgart]

The appearance of an intelligent creation was apparent to the first humans. Being alive seemed like magic. The question arises naturally.

For me i still believe there is natural intelligence in nature. It is a fringe phenomenon though. I see no moral code to nature. People associate me with god beliefs, but that aint me. But there is a cosmic force out there. Its nothing special though.

People are storytellers though, and myth was a form of entertainment. One side would test their power of influence in the group. So religion would have been a political action as well as an honest belief.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Our brain is "wired" to have transcendental/spiritual experiences. Whether you believe that is just coincidence or not is up to you. Either way, you could erase all religious knowledge and we would soon again have it.

Some of us wouldn't.

 

[Mock Turtle]

When you sit down and quiet the mind, stuff happens. As you do this repeatedly, more stuff happens. Truths are discovered from within. Humans, throughout the ages, pondered where this process would lead to. So they did it ages ago, and still do. It's not a 'thinking' process.

So, delusions don't originate in the mind?

 

[Mock Turtle]

The appearance of an intelligent creation was apparent to the first humans. Being alive seemed like magic. The question arises naturally.

For me i still believe there is natural intelligence in nature. It is a fringe phenomenon though. I see no moral code to nature. People associate me with god beliefs, but that aint me. But there is a cosmic force out there. Its nothing special though.

People are storytellers though, and myth was a form of entertainment. One side would test their power of influence in the group. So religion would have been a political action as well as an honest belief.

So, not ascribing agency to things or events that didn't have any?

 

[PureX]

That "conclusion" is made up.

All conclusions are "made up". It's what we do.

 

[Vinayaka]

So, delusions don't originate in the mind?

Mind is vast. So sure they do. but not in the phase/area of mind I was referring to.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Mind is vast. So sure they do. but not in the phase/area of mind I was referring to.

Not sure some of us can tell the difference though.

 

[Vinayaka]

Not sure some of us can tell the difference though.

I agree. Yes it takes some training. Most people don't study mind at all, let alone have the inner perception to understand what's going on.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I agree. Yes it takes some training. Most people don't study mind at all, let alone have the inner perception to understand what's going on.

So how can one tell illusions or delusions, from conclusions?

 

[Vinayaka]

So how can one tell illusions or delusions, from conclusions?

It's complicated. There are five minds, I'll give you the take of my Hindu sampradaya ... conscious, subconscious, subsubconscious, subsuperconscious, and superconscious. Delusion would come from the subconscious, coupled with ego. Conclusions would come spontaneously from the superconscious, coupled with clarity and lack of ego, or personal reasons. For me, clarity would be key factor, and it would persist. When people calmly realise that they just 'know', that would be it. There would be no ego need to share whatsoever. It's in silence. If you've ever had a strong intuitive sense that you just have to do something, that's the superconscious mind working ... filtering through into the conscious mind.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It's complicated. There are five minds, I'll give you the take of my Hindu sampradaya ... conscious, subconscious, subsubconscious, subsuperconscious, and superconscious. Delusion would come from the subconscious, coupled with ego. Conclusions would come spontaneously from the superconscious, coupled with clarity and lack of ego, or personal reasons. For me, clarity would be key factor, and it would persist. When people calmly realise that they just 'know', that would be it. There would be no ego need to share whatsoever. It's in silence. If you've ever had a strong intuitive sense that you just have to do something, that's the superconscious mind working ... filtering through into the conscious mind.

Interesting stuff I'll admit - when I get a strong intuitive sense to do something I often get a slap.

It is something that I've never really investigated I'll admit - never felt the need - and I'm sure there is a lot for me to discover if I did so.

 

[Willamena]

All conclusions are "made up". It's what we do.

Once--long, long ago, in a land far, far away land called Scotland--there lived a boy named David Hume. Davy was a staunch empiricist, by which I mean that he believed that everything we know is based on prior things we have learned by experience. When we see a billiard ball rolling straight towards another, it is experience that tells us that the first ball will strike the second, and inference that tells us that the second ball will land in the pocket. Why does the second ball fall to inference, you may ask? Well, it's because between the time of setting the first ball in motion and the time second ball may fall in the pocket significant events will occur, any of which might alter the trajectory of the second ball. Things can be done to better a successful pocketing, but nothing guarantees it. Nothing. And those things that might alter the trajectory of the second ball still must fall within the realm of experience.

That's empirical conclusion. It is sound, logical and reliable. It stands in contrast to making stuff up, like fairies and demons, and invisible pink entities. The difference is that an empirical mind cannot add any information in drawing a conclusion, it can only combine things that have been previously experienced.

It would take an impressive argument to convince me that early humans were less empirical than Davy.

 

[PureX]

Once--long, long ago, in a land far, far away land called Scotland--there lived a boy named David Hume. Davy was a staunch empiricist, by which I mean that he believed that everything we know is based on prior things we have learned by experience. When we see a billiard ball rolling straight towards another, it is experience that tells us that the first ball will strike the second, and inference that tells us that the second ball will land in the pocket. Why does the second ball fall to inference, you may ask? Well, it's because between the time of setting the first ball in motion and the time second ball may fall in the pocket significant events will occur, any of which might alter the trajectory of the second ball. Things can be done to better a successful pocketing, but nothing guarantees it. Nothing. And those things that might alter the trajectory of the second ball still must fall within the realm of experience.

That's empirical conclusion. It is sound, logical and reliable. It stands in contrast to making stuff up, like fairies and demons, and invisible pink entities. The difference is that an empirical mind cannot add any information in drawing a conclusion, it can only combine things that have been previously experienced.

It would take an impressive argument to convince me that early humans were less empirical than Davy.

Someone should have explained to Davy that billiard balls have no self-will. And so can only do what they have been made to do by external forces. But life forms have self-will, and can do all sorts of things both in keeping with and in contradiction to the motivating forces that surround them. Which effectively tosses logic right out the window, and for no good reason at all. Or, certainly for no universal, absolute reason that anyone has ever been able to ascertain.

 

[Willamena]

Someone should have explained to Davy that billiard balls have no self-will. And so can only do what they have been made to do by external forces. But life forms have self-will, and can do all sorts of things both in keeping with and in contradiction to the motivating forces that surround them. Which effectively tosses logic right out the window, and for no good reason at all. Or, certainly for no universal, absolute reason that anyone has ever been able to ascertain.

Why do you think it is that you don't believe the "made up conclusion" of the billiard balls?

 

[PureX]

Why do you think it is that you don't believe the "made up conclusion" of the billiard balls?

What we believe is not particularly relevant to what is. I understand this, so I try not to take what I believe at any given time as absolute reality.

 

[Punta Piñal]

I think early humans were probably more empiricist than we are today. While lacking the accumulated knowledge we have, they were intimately familiar with terrain, biology, weather, climate, etc., for they relied on these factors every day. Failure to read the indicators meant the difference between life and death. Knowledge was integrated in small bands, not isolated. Early hunter-gatherer "religious" belief was more closely linked to reality than any "advanced" religions that came later. Today we have maniacs blowing themselves up to get free sex with seventy-two heavenly virgins, and all sorts of people, even politicians and generals, who do insane things based on stuff that's in their heads, wholly separate from reality. ("If we don't bomb the Russians or Iranians to kingdom come, Christ's return will be delayed, the gathering of the Jews to Israel won't happen, and the one-world communist government will take our guns and precious bodily fluids!") Early hunter-gatherers lacked the luxury to be wrong. They needed to base their views based on all available facts, and facts only. Arguably, today's humans have figuratively devolved as their "civilisation" has "advanced" since the rise of agriculture. We are more unequal, paranoid about each other and sex, and militarily aggressive, competitive, and violent than ever before, to not mention overpopulated.

 

[Willamena]

What we believe is not particularly relevant to what is. I understand this, so I try not to take what I believe at any given time as absolute reality.

Okay. But some people believe in reality.

 

[PureX]

Okay. But some people believe in reality.

We all do, I suppose, to some degree. What choice do we have? We have to live in the reality that we experience/perceive.

But we don't have to defend it as "The Truth". In fact, we'd be fools to do so.

 

[Willamena]

We all do, I suppose, to some degree. What choice do we have? We have to live in the reality that we experience/perceive.

But we don't have to defend it as "The Truth". In fact, we'd be fools to do so.

There is noting else to defend as the truth.