An understandable assumption, but not entirely consistent with the science. We are biologically predisposed to certain components of religious thinking and religious behavior. The local specifics have to be taught but just as our capacity for language is biological, our capacity for religion is too.

@skado

But capacity is different than actuality.

We're also all born capable of being killers, but it is our society and environment that turns us into killers. The same with religious capacity versus religious belief.

@Krish55
It's true that capacity is not actuality, but it is also true that the best evidence we have so far indicates that there has been an unbroken thread of religious or proto-religious behavior in humans for at least as long as anatomically modern humans have existed, and likely before that. Such proto behaviors are observed today in chimpanzees.

@skado When you are born you have no belief in any gods. You have to be taught religion.

@xenoview
You have to be taught the specifics of your local religion, like you have to be taught the specifics of your local language. But you are born with the capacity for, and the inclination toward, both speech and agency detection.

@skado It seems to me that primitive man's lack of rational explanations for natural events probably gave rise to all kinds of beliefs, including the birth of ritualized relgions. If it be true that nature abhors a vaccum then some belief usually fills it.

There is no need to hijack biology and use it as a basis to explain the origin of mankind's myths. Before you know it there will be some people saying that they have discovered a gene for Liberalism, Conservatism, Socialism, etc etc.. A very slippery slope indeed.

@ASTRALMAX
That's an understandable assumption to make, but I'm not hijacking anything, just reporting the science. I have never seen a scientific study that framed the development of religion as a way to explain natural events. I'd love to see them if you know of any. All studies I've come across support the general development of religion as a biological or biocultural phenomenon, related mostly to the need for pro-sociality and co-operation in large groups.

@skado I would not call it that. Rather I would say that any intelligent brain understands fear, and fear of the unknown leads to superstition. Religion uses that superstition to push its own agenda.

@Petter
That's a reasonable thing to assume, but science doesn't proceed by reasonable assumptions. Show me the science.

@skado We have the capacity for superstition in order to feel control. However, that only led to organized religion when classes and exploitation developed. As the latter are eliminated, religion will decrease. Scandinavia is not very religious precisely because its social democracy provides economic security.

@Krish55
Show me the science.

How can one be born an atheist-,-i.e., with the belief that there is no God? Rather at birth one has no concept of God but having the concept is a prerequisite for the belief either way. I guess most do get the concept from older believers, if EVERYBODY ALWAYS has then there would be no way to account for the belief of the first believer. Or so it seems to me.

@skado I’m convinced that religion comes from nurture, not nature. Would have to read any studies that contradict this. Also depends on the “certain components” you mention.

Seems we are born agnostic, then develop from there.

@Canndue
The problem is... there’s no clear dividing line between nature and nurture. Nature made us to nurture. An example that is often cited as a likely biological precursor to religious behavior is hyperactive agency detection. You can google HADD and read all about it. If you’re interested in a deeper understanding of the biological side of religious inclination, I would recommend reading John Wathey’s “The Illusion of God’s Presence: The Biological Origins of Spiritual Longing”. It cites many studies that illuminate how and why religion developed in Homo sapiens, and precursors are currently observed in chimpanzees.

@skado Science of what? Explain what you feel lacks support..

@Krish55
“ We have the capacity for superstition in order to feel control.”

“However, that only led to organized religion when classes and exploitation developed.”

“ As the latter are eliminated, religion will decrease.”

And first you have to define “religion” and good luck with that. Nobody else has been able to.

@skado

#1: That's how psychologists explain it. For example, sailors are superstitious because of increased insecurity on the sea. Superstitions help them feel in control. Similarly with athletes who have lucky charms or outfits.

#2: You're already conceded this point but I'll repeat: Organized religion developed at the same time as classes and exploitation and justified these with its theology.

#3: Scandinavia shows this

And as before, I am speaking of organized religion

We are “born” to want to understand. Not being able to find an answer/explain to our satisfaction, triggers our predisposition to attribute unexplainable phenomena to something/one that is “bigger” than ourselves, as we view ourselves as the “top shelf” of living entities. The need to understand can be “beaten” out of us and replaced with specific religions, which are exploitative.

@skado I buy clannish/tribal behaviors, being part of the group and all even desire for rituals. Hell, cats are ritualistic. But the second you mention religion, that is strictly introduced by others. IMHO

@Canndue
There are lots of different definitions of "religion", with no scholarly consensus. We may not be talking about the same thing.

@skado probably not, life is to short to worry about…

Once upon a time a weakling that was a bit more clever than the other chimps came up with the idea of religion and so we still have it.

Are you replying to someone who has hidden themself from me when you write "lifestyle with electricity and an Internet connectionx. I simply do not see that written anywhere.

Is that from your own ego?

Turn about is fair. Does your opinion have a link to evidence or is it merely a conclusion of your ego?

@MrDragon, @yvilletom "Wonderful beautiful people." is my opinion.& Conclusion drawn from extrapolating the information supplied.

The questions are merely idle curiosity and a possible conclusion. So if you wish to conclude that I have a curious ego & one that draws conclusions please feel free to do so.

@FrayedBear thank you for giving me that liberty.

Is that because alienbeings have no sense of imaginination or wonder in the now?
I amazed that you did not mrntion the lack of social hierarchy or is that because they would probably be incredulous at the reality that not only are you not better than them or less dull but in fact that you are meaningless to them for having such beliefs.

They are not living in our modern society. So they have their own ways of entertainment.

@FrayedBear Your comment makes no sense at all. With no drawings or numbers it is the tribe in question that obviously has no imagination.

As usual, your attention to detail is lacking.

@Krish55 What "entertainment" are you referring to? It sounds as if they merely exist.

@Alienbeing That is a gross stereotype. How do you think our own ancestors entertained themselves 300 years ago..? They were the entertainment for each other!

If people tell jokes, stories, sing, and dance. We have lost those important skills that are even better than our technology-based entertainment.

@Krish55 When I said "dull" I didn't mean they had no enjoyment. Perhaps I should have said dim witted. It seems to me that a group with no drawings and no numbers doesn't bother to think very much.

I don't give a damn how they may or may not entertain themselves.

@Alienbeing Yes, they don't play chess or scrabble, which I love! But were I or you born there, we would be happier than we are in modern capitalist society.

@Krish55 As I already said my post did not mean to cover any entertainment they may or may not have.

We all know you are an avid Socialist, and since there is no hope for you, I won't bother to remind you of the benefits of Capitalism.

@Alienbeing There is hope for me. Maybe some daiy I'll find Jesus! Christianity will lead me to Capitalism...

@Krish55 Not only are you a hopeless Socialist, you try to make connections where there are none.

If you thought about it, Christianity much more closely resembles Socialism than Capitalism. Your oversight is not a surprise, Socialists are OK at recognizing problems, but horrible in finding solutions.

Gods are not an accompaniment of civilization itself but of class-based civilization. They developed to justify the exploitation of the upper classes.

As modern civilization becomes more egalitarian and capable of providing better for all, gods disappear.

However, when capitalist exploitation and wars create chaos and inequality, the gods and religion make a resurgence...

@Krish55
I hear a lot of individuals voicing that opinion, but I haven't seen any scientific studies that support that notion. I'd be happy to look at any you might be aware of. The science I have seen so far relates monotheism to pro-sociality and co-operation in agricultural societies. I haven't seen a single study that relates it to exploitation. But I'm certainly open to seeing it if you could direct me there. Thanks.

@skado

The issue is organized religion, which predates the specific form of monotheism.

It's common historical knowledge , readily seen in texts and documentaries, that the rise of cities and classes was accompanied by the priestly class which, together with the nobility, had power over the slave and farming classes.

@Krish55

Saying that one class exploited another class and used religion to do it is not the same thing as saying religion was developed expressly for that purpose.
All human systems of modernity have been co-opted for nefarious purposes at one time or another. But I have not seen any credible evidence that organized religion was developed for that particular use.

@skado You are right. That was not the only reason. Religion persists because it serves many purposes. That is one of the purposes of organized religion.

@Krish55
That’s like saying one of the purposes of judicial systems is to incarcerate innocent people. The flaws and failures of a system are not properly characterized as “purposes”.
One of the purposes of hammers is NOT smashing skulls.

@skado From the beginning, organized religion justified class division with its theology. This theology was not some mutant by-product of religion but rather one integral part of it.

@Krish55
Can you put a date on that “beginning”?

@skado The development of Early River Valley Civilizations: 4,000 BC to 2,500 BC. I taught this class for 30 years. The info in in the textbooks...

@Krish55
Again, to say that organized religion justified class division is not to say that religion was developed for the purpose of establishing class division. Religion is not something some individuals invented for nefarious purposes. That's not in the textbooks.

@skado

As I said before, exploitation wasn't the only reason organised religion developed. But it was one.

And religion wasn't invented, it developed and evolved slowly.

From the very beginning of civilization, the priestly class used their power to get wealth from the farmers in the form of offerings to the gods at the temple. You will find that in the textbooks.

It doesn't have to be nefarious to be exploitative. The priests may have indeed believed their BS. But they were thinking and acting in their class interest at the expense of the lower classes.

By simplifying, exaggerating, and misstating what I said, you are engaging in the straw man fallacy in order to attack this historical fact.

Being a skeptic is one thing. However you're merely reacting repeatedly in an oppositional, intellectually nihlistic manner. Instead of again reacting just to be contrary, try reading some serious history on this topic….

@Krish55
I haven’t attacked you personally or impugned your motivations or your methods. Let’s keep it about the ideas, ok?

If you really think I’m spending my time doing this just to be oppositional, I beg you not to communicate with me further, because I wouldn’t engage you or anybody I suspect is not sincere.

If you care to continue the conversation, let’s examine where we’re missing each other, and iron out the wrinkles.

I’m not saying the facts you’re presenting aren’t true. I’m saying they don’t address my point.

You say “exploitation wasn't the only reason organised religion developed. But it was one.”

What, specifically do you mean by “developed”?

If you mean exploitative purposes arose alongside religion and used it like it uses everything else humans touch, and that exploitative purposes may have contributed to the establishment of and continuance of religious hierarchies, I have no quarrel with that, but it doesn’t address my point.

If you mean exploitative purposes were a significant component of the causal forces that generated organized religions to start with... then I would like to hear a suggestion of a specific source where I can read about that. I haven’t been able to find it and I’ve been looking for years.

Does “development” mean add to, or originate? Are you saying the intent to exploit grew alongside religion, or religion was created, in significant part, for the purposes of exploitation?

@Krish55 You say much, but back up little if anything.

Or is that merely the conclusion of your ego?

@FrayedBear what do you mean?

It's actually pretty typical of pre-agricultural societies.
[ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

@MrDragon I read the same post , I hope, that has no mentioned link, as you. I had no problem accepting the information as true or with the exceptions that I mention, as being unrealistic. I therefore apart from the questions that I have do not have need for a link.

@FrayedBear I don't take anything as true without verification.

@FrayedBear, @skado thanks. I was just curious about no drawings or words for numbers thing or not being concerned about the past or future.

@MrDragon verification: aren't there times when your life experience makes certain statements self evident?Eg. If you put your hand on a red glowing electric stove element your skin will burn.
That was how I embraced most of the information given. I did have a query arising from deductive process.

@FrayedBear as the learning process goes children learn by doing and thereby verify what they are told, thus burning their hand when they put it in the fire.

@MrDragon some of us didn't. We simply had the nouse to extrapolate from observing the bread burn into brown & black toast to realise that our skin would do the same thing on the red glowing element.

@FrayedBear you must be a prodigy.

@MrDragon I don't think so.

@FrayedBear ahh, but you never put your finger in the flame of a match when you were but 1 and a half to two years old even when you were told by your parents not to?? You don't give yourself enough credit then.

@altschmerz thank you, I'm also curious about how they don't have any kind of social hierarchy.