Let’s start with a question: Why is there such a thing as religion? Let’s imagine the hypothetical twenty-first century person who somehow made it to adulthood without being exposed to religion, gods, magic, mythology, Harry Potter or any mention or allusion to the supernatural. Let us further suppose that this person was not raised by wolves, but had access to modern education, technology and science. Would this hypothetical person have any inclination toward ascribing unexplained events to the spirit world? Would this person even have any conception of the spirit world at all? Does the supernatural objectively exist or is a cultural artifact resulting from millennia of speculation and confirmation bias?
Most religions that we are aware of today credit their origins to some supernatural event, whether the receiving of the stone tablets by Moses on the mountain or White Buffalo Woman giving the Plains people their sacred objects or even Prometheus bringing fire to man, there is some intervention for “on high” that introduces the gods or the supernatural to humans. Evolutionary biologists however, look for evidence in the fossil record and archeology to determine how and why religion developed. Two main prerequisites are put forth for the development of religion: speech and tool use. The manufacture of complex tools requires creating a mental image of an object that does not yet exist before actually making it. Furthermore, one must understand how the tool would be used once made, which requires an understanding of causality. Accordingly, the level of sophistication of stone tools is a useful indicator of causal beliefs. Religion also requires a system of symbolic communication, such as language, to be transmitted from one individual to another. Tool use and language alone would not necessarily lead to religion, although they seem to form a required base for its growth. What really must have spurred the genesis of religious belief was curiosity about the world, a desire to know how and why things happened beyond the purely practical.
While most animals display only a casual interest in the dead of their species, at some point humans began to treat their dead with a kind of reverence, evidenced by careful burial practices as well as an apparent belief or hope that the dead would either continue to live in some other place, or that they would at some point be brought back to life. It isn’t coincidence then that early attested forms of religious observance were ancestor worship. Initially this was not an issue of praying to deceased family, but merely continuing the familial duties that took place during life. Naturally customs would build around this reverence for the departed that would develop into family or clan rituals, the forerunners of religious observances. Once the idea of some kind of continuing life after physical death was recognized and institutionalized it would not be that great of a leap to imagine other entities inhabiting this other world, this land of the dead.
Another direction that early religion took was animism. Early humans were dependent upon various animals, crops or forces of nature and at some point saw success in hunting as dependent upon a good relationship with the spirit of the hunted animal. In some cultures in fact one can see a progression from a deity being represented first as a particular animal, later as a human-animal hybrid and finally anthropomorphically with an animal “familiar”. Reverence passed eventually from spirits of the individual animals, to an overarching animal spirit to a god or goddess of that specific animal. As gods and goddesses of various animals became established, the next logical step was to deify other parts of nature – the wind, rain, the sun or the rivers, and of course the Earth itself as Mother. Cultures which had moved past the hunter-gatherer stage of civilization and had become more pastoral and later agricultural saw more specialization in individual tasks and also a differentiation in the roles of various spirits and deities; each deity had its own “job”. People began to tell stories about their gods, to ascribe to them genealogies and relationships, as well as hierarchies and legends about their deeds. In some cultures it seems like the exploits of real flesh and blood people became legendary and passed into myth, becoming indistinguishable from the gods of the sky and goddesses of the land.
In our culture, religion tends to be “organized” in some fashion, although there is each year more and more who identify as “spiritual”, but “not religious”. The origins of the organization of religious beliefs can be attributed to the need for the “leaders” to exert a measure of control over the rest of the group. While individuals who claimed to have a superior connection to the spirit world can be traced back to the tribal shaman, medicine man or priest, generally these practitioners where honored for only as long as they produced some kind of tangible results. As tribal societies evolved into kingdoms and empires and later into nation-states, ethical and moral standards became conflated with religious ritual and spirit/otherworld contact and the shamans were replaced by a professional caste of priests, arranged in a hierarchy with the king (or a high priest chosen by the king) at the pinnacle of the pyramid. What better way for a ruler to control his people than divine ordination? If the king has been chosen directly by the gods, then who were the people of the kingdom to argue? Pantheons began to reflect the hierarchal view of the world, certain gods within each culture were “promoted” to chief, king or father of the gods. An example of this is the Norse Odin, who was not always the Allfather and ruler of the Aesir, but was a wandering, messenger god, a psychopomp (one who conducted the dead to the otherworld) and only later, as the culture evolved, did he become the head god of the Norse gods. It was in this milieu that the religion that we later identify as Judaism came into the world.
The religions based on the Bible, like many religions, claim that their beliefs sprung fully grown from the words of their god. Their rituals and customs existed from the beginnings of the human race according to their mythology. However, it is apparent from archeology that Israelite religion was similar in most respects to the religions of the surrounding Canaanites, i.e. a varied pantheon of nature, war and fertility deities. Over the course of centuries the various gods in the Israelite pantheon became absorbed into one. There is abundant evidence that Yahweh and El were originally two separate deities; even in the Bible itself there is recognition of other gods, even though they are painted as inferior to the god of Israel and in the gospels as demons. This is called henotheism or monolotry, the recognition of multiple gods while worshipping or ascribing headship to only one. Eventually this belief moved toward a view that there was only one god and that Israel was this one god’s special people. However, even based on a literal reading of the Bible, this was something that took centuries as the monotheistic factions eventually became ascendant. Nonetheless, this was still just a national religion.
During the years in which Christianity had its start there was a shift in what constituted a religion. Various mystery cults and ecstatic groups sprung up outside of the framework of ethnic and national religions. The sprawling nature of the Roman Empire brought many religions and their adherents into regular day-to-day contact with each other outside of the context of war. So now we had a growing religion that was not connected with any of the tribal religions and despite its roots in the religion of the Jews, was a universal faith that spread by proselytizing. Christianity’s Jewish origins gave it the conviction that its god was the one true god, the creator and father of all, its place in the greater Roman culture gave it access to spread the word in an unprecedented way.
As the new belief grew in secular power, it’s paradigm became the rule, rather than the exception, and with the advent of Islam some centuries later, the monotheistic religions each strove for world domination, with the old religions seen as bumps in the road to be smoothed over and eliminated. While polytheistic and indigenous religions managed to survive, most, with the notable exception of Hinduism, have been sidelined and marginalized by the Abrahamic religions. For centuries, most, if not all, innovations in religion took place within the context of Christianity or Islam. Each had its own sphere of influence and each became the default spirituality on its own turf.
During the 1960’s the United States and Great Britain, due to some high profile entertainers, became more aware of Eastern religions; a decade earlier the repeal of the Witchcraft laws in the United Kingdom spurred the founding of (or the publicizing of them, depending on who you believe) numerous Wiccan and neo-pagan groups; in the United States a renewed interest in Native American spirituality became popular. Despite initial popularity and steady growth of these minority or non-mainstream religions, the culture in the United States is still overwhelmingly Christian, “good person” or “religious” is still equated automatically with “Christian” and our politicians get points by emphasizing “family values” that is equivalent to “Christianity” and a definition of “American” that excludes religious minorities.
Time and time again I have seen people speak proudly of being irreligious, eschewing all trappings of religion and not acknowledging the majority religion in any way only to turn to Christianity later in life. Sometimes this change of heart happens when the person is near death, sometimes when children have been brought into the world, sometimes when a decision to make some change in lifestyle has been made. But more often than not the decision is based on the assumption in the United States that being moral, being a “good person” equals being a Christian. Even among those not steeped in dogma, who don’t know a thing about Jesus or the Bible accept as a given the biblical premise that “God” is somehow running things and that “good” people “believe in God”. A common defensive response by the non-religious is “But I believe in God”. So why do most people who are seeking to change for the better in some fashion, or even who are frightened by impending death, turn, not to the wide diversity of paths available but to Christianity?
Well a Christian will naturally tell you “Because it’s true!” but I suspect that the reason is really because it’s commonplace, it’s the cultural norm, because it’s easy. I doubt you’ll find a Christian who would agree with that last statement, bringing up so-called secular assaults on their faith that they believe are taking place. Many Christians paint this religion that is being practiced, or at least claimed, by the vast majority of our country, as a persecuted minority. They will put forth that the majority who say that they are Christians are not real Christians. But if you want to become religious, there is no easier way to do it than become a Christian. Our culture is already geared to assume that there is one god, that there is a heaven and a hell, basic premises of Christianity. There is an abundance of Christian churches and inter-denominational organizations ready to take you in. If you think one flavor of Christianity is too ritualistic, too liberal, too dogmatic, too milquetoast, too whatever, there’s always another one across the street waiting to take you in. On the other hand joining another religion generally takes a little work, starting with finding them for some groups. Then you have to actually do a little work to find out what they believe and how they practice their faith. It sounds exhausting. Way too much work for most people.
The Abrahamic religions, sometimes referred to as “people of the book”, point to their particular book as evidence that their religion is the true one, claiming that it was given or inspired by their god and offering as proof the fact that it says in the book that the book was given by their god. Sometimes the mention of historical places or events is given as proof that the book is true (although when known history disagrees with the book, the book is wrong) – which would only make sense if I concluded that Shogun isn’t fictional because Japan is a real country and samurai really existed. There is no other reason to conclude that any holy book is inerrant truth other than the claim in the book itself that it’s inerrant. Can you say “circular reasoning” boys and girls? It was that exact thought, concluded upon ten years ago that led me to put aside Christianity in favor of exploring other options. Since I have no reason to suppose that the Bible is the repository of truth, I am free to believe or disbelieve anything in it. I am free to fashion my philosophical, ethical, moral and yes, religious beliefs in light of my experience and rational thought rather than being limited to the cultural norms. My own experiences are in no way inferior to the experiences of the fallible humans who wrote the Bible, the Koran or any other “holy” books.
So, in a perfect world, which would include everyone thinking in a perfectly rational manner, how would people go about choosing the philosophy by which they would live their lives? And how should we judge among the different religions and philosophies? Should we choose based on which among them is “true”? If so, what aspect of “truth” shall we evaluate? The creation myths? The exploits of the legendary heroes? The rituals? The taboos? How about choosing based on what works for the individual, choosing what resonates and makes sense within, rather than succumbing to cultural pressure. In this perfect world there would be no looking askance at those who dance to their own drummer, there would be no whisperings about whether a Mormon or an atheist could be president, or public musings about how good, ethical person equated with church-going, orthodox Christian.
So, what about that hypothetical person in the introduction? We’ll never meet that person, will we?
