It's been said by some anthropologists that the architecture of the brain gears us toward religious belief - which completely fits what we observe in the natural world cross culturally, and throughout time. It's also been said that we have a natural tendency to attribute many random natural events to someone or something. This attribution of many events to other beings with consciousness may have helped us throughout time understand that other people have an effect on us, and to see things through others eyes. Why religious belief was even better at helping us cooperate during hard times, and work together better, is because it put two or more believers in sibling like relationships with others in their community. This formed very tight bonds between even people with no blood connection. It's not surprising that religion has worked as an adaptive tool - even if it was originally a bi product of the architecture of our brains - it worked to bond groups together in very cohesive cooperative groups. This is not nessisarily a renounceing of religion. Just because it works and there is a good explanation does not mean that beliefs could not be true - which brings me to my next point: The need to belong to a group and to get along has a very stong effect on what we are willing to say is possible or not. Even the scientists that have come up with these convincing theories are not willing to say that anyone could be wrong, because it would seperate them from the group. This is a very powerful thing, and can shape what we are willing to say that we believe.

Agreed, let's not dwell on all the atrocities religion has caused throughout history.

So, are you arguing that some other form of 'belonging to a group' that didn't involve wild fantasies couldn't have been more successful than religion?

Mistaking a tree for a potential threat means that we will accidentally be afraid of a tree for a second. Not too bad.

Mistaking a real threat for a tree, however, could mean death.

Erring on the side of caution, as always, is the safer route. It doesn't make the tree a danger, it just makes it better for us to assume that it is, before we wise up, see that it is just a tree, and relax.

This is a scientific way of looking at the psychological/mythological concept of an "archetype." Archetypes are ideas that show up in all cultures in all eras, and religion certainly falls into that category. Each religion is a set of archetypes but there are a number of basic ones that they all share, predominantly a belief in the supernatural.

Archetypes: A fatalist could say that our instinct to create religion is the result of random combinations of synapses in our brain that we just happened to inherit from a choke point in the stream of evolution, such as Lucy and her family.

A scientist could say that at some point in our past religion was a survival trait in the face of some weird threat that we'll never know about, and the people who didn't have it died off.

A mystic could say that religion is something that the Goddess breathes into us on our way down the birth canal.

My wife says it's really simple: Religions are always invented my men, so we never have to answer a question with "I don't know." :)

I think it was the philosopher Mortimer Adler who observed that none of the great religions were created by Western civilization. I forget the explantion that he offered but it is curious that intellectual tradition and religion rose up separately.

paulfr:

What about Indo-European polytheism? Though it is no longer a great religion, practically every European was a pagan until 300 AD, and paganism remained a force in Europe until the early half of the second millennia AD.

I think Freud's idea that the baby first "thinks" it commands the universe (cry get milk, etc) then believes that its mother controls every thing, is all powerful, etc. but only for a few years, until the shock that she is just another idiot comes and the pre-teen then feels lost, at the mercy of chance events, etc. This is a shaking realization (unconscious usually). Then around 5 or 6 child is offered hope by his elders, who say: - "True we humans are not all powerful, but God is."
This is more of the reason why religion is so universal than “brain architecture“. Few want to give up this offered hope. I am agnostic I suspect for this reason.

As Pascal said: If there is no God, then it does not matter if you think there is one, but if there is one, then it matters what you believe and do.

I also think this desire for "hope" is why one finds no atheists in foxholes when mortar shells are falling near by.

I think it was the philosopher Mortimer Adler who observed that none of the great religions were created by Western civilization. I forget the explantion that he offered but it is curious that intellectual tradition and religion rose up separately.

The Monotheisms took a dim view of any other beliefs, including each other's. The monotheism - after some early resistance - were soon seen to provide control of the population (through strict training, belief in the afterlife, collusion between church and state, division between the spiritual and physical realms) and fit perfectly well with empire building, colonization, oppression of creative people - potential leaders - and so on.

Once in position the conquerers could steal any ideas from the conquered. Western Civ has partly been built on theft and oppression. Organizing armies, making weapons and coopting the creative and generally more pagan 'citizens' work are the primary skills used.

I think it was the philosopher Mortimer Adler who observed that none of the great religions were created by Western civilization.What, Protestantism is suddenly not a "great religion"?I forget the explantion that he offered but it is curious that intellectual tradition and religion rose up separately.The Jews have had no trouble at all nurturing an intellectual tradition.I also think this desire for "hope" is why one finds no atheists in foxholes when mortar shells are falling near by.Yes, and they say that if you fall out of a fifteenth-floor window, you might as well flap your arms and try to fly.

When was this survey done on religion in foxholes? I'd like to see the notes from the interviews, please. This strikes me as the battlefield analog of an "urban legend." The "fog of war" is so chaotic that (according to the soldiers) they can't tell the difference between shooting an attacking enemy in self defense and raping an unarmed child in her home. Yet they can tell us that "almost all soldiers discover that they believe in god when they're under attack"? Yeah sure.

My wife says it's really simple: Religions are always invented my men, so we never have to answer a question with "I don't know." :)

Your wife speaks truth! :p

"some anthropologists that the architecture of the brain gears us toward religious belief"

While that statement can be said to be true, its also not much help. Its like say, the brain gears us toward eating an apple, or the brain gears us toward walking, or the brain gears us toward breathing. What some people do, does not explain why some people do it.

I've been doing a lot of research into the way the brain processes information (for well over 2 decades). Religious beliefs needs to be reverse engineered, so we can identify its component parts. Ironically I've just published a 57 page document summaries over 2 decades of my research into how the brain processes information. A part of that work is about religious perception. Here's a quick section of it...

“All major religions have three main aspects in common. There's a community aspect, a moral aspect and a spiritual aspect.

The community aspect is very interesting, as science shows we are pack animals. It makes a lot of evolutionary sense to work as a group and be there to support each other. Like the old saying “many hands make light work” and there are times in life, when people need the help and support of others.

The moral aspect is also fascinating, because for any community group to be able to work together, there needs to be rules of behaviour, so people are fair to each other. While each religion expresses different lists of moral behaviour, they are all basically saying the same sort of things, about how to be good to each other, which makes complete sense.

The spiritual aspect is also very interesting. When you compare the spiritual beliefs between religions, this is the one aspect where each religion says something different, often very different. But what's even more fascinating, is the believers of each religion, believe their set of spiritual beliefs are the one set which is correct. If two people believe something different, then they cannot both be correct. But with spiritual beliefs, the believers fail to see this.

If you are interested in reading my work, then its at openingtheglassbox.com (I would like to have posted a short cut web link, but I'm new here, so I can't post links yet ... Anyway my work is about reverse engineering the brain, down to an including the neuron level, rather than just beliefs).