What I read is that religion was a way to codify habits for survival. Pork meat that spoils quickly in a dessert climate is a health hazard, but people ate it anyway, but when the old guy says it angers the gods the chances of obeying is a lot bigger. That kind of thing. Of course when people obey gods there are those that claim to speak for the gods.
You’re both wrong and you’re both right. A religion is just everything people think is important and needs to be believed by everyone. The “one single cause of religion” is that humans pass on knowledge. They teach each other. Obviously, this will result in socially organised systems of belief, AKA religions. And if you’re asking “why is the content of religions incorrect”, it’s because human beings weren’t born with omniscience. Your theories apply to why the content of religions is what it is, but not to why religion itself exists.
What I read is that religion was a way to codify habits for survival. Pork meat that spoils quickly in a dessert climate is a health hazard, but people ate it anyway, but when the old guy says it angers the gods the chances of obeying is a lot bigger. That kind of thing. Of course when people obey gods there are those that claim to speak for the gods.
For sure this explains a lot of religious rules but I think agent illusion is also a big contributor.
You’re both wrong and you’re both right. A religion is just everything people think is important and needs to be believed by everyone. The “one single cause of religion” is that humans pass on knowledge. They teach each other. Obviously, this will result in socially organised systems of belief, AKA religions. And if you’re asking “why is the content of religions incorrect”, it’s because human beings weren’t born with omniscience. Your theories apply to why the content of religions is what it is, but not to why religion itself exists.