WRBS: Origins of Religion

WRBS: Origins of Religion

Religion is one of the most influential things in our life that shapes every individual that is a member of a religion. Religion gives the wisdom, peace, self-fulfillment, purpose and belonging that every member of any religion needs, of any group or sector. Every religion has its own set of beliefs and ideals, but that does not mean it changes the goal and desire of every religion to its members. In today’s modern times, whether it is from the past, future, or the present – religion continues to play very significant roles in our the 21st century world politics. Religion for example, The Catholic Church, influence and plays many crucial roles in politics. The Church gives Rules, The Church orders and suggest specific laws for discipline like for example, Murder is forbidden and is a grave sin that punishable within God’s eyes and the human law. Whereas with that people will be reminded to not try or commit murder of any form or you will be reprimanded and will be severely punished in greater form. You may be even punished by the “Eye for an Eye Law” from the bible verse "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. “(Matthew 5:38-42) Where you will be punished accordingly to what sin you have done. The Church suggests changes and gives its opinions, The Church plays an important role in the society if the Church found something troubling major problems that needed to be taken into account the Church can make changes and voice out its claims by making a direct communication to the government concerning about the issue that is needed to be immediately resolved. Giving their own opinions about the certain matter that is related to the social issue. For example, in this case from an social issue long ago about “EJKs” or Extra Judicial Killings, where the government and the police have gone into a mad slaughter of Drug Lords, Drug Users, Drug Pushers, Criminals and Suspected Users of Drugs. The Government and the Police Violated and neglected without interest in caring about the human rights. This makes the Catholic Church to drive and act – voicing out its concerns and complaints to solve the problems at hand. Religion creates a strong backbone that helped shape the importance of peace, knowledge, Justice equality, toleration, and brotherhood. Religion becomes a person’s foundation to live his life by obtaining peace, love, friends, and family. Religion can make a person’s life better, but it still depends on the circumstances that a certain individual is facing. Kindness and Beauty can also be cruel, Religions promotes peace and camaraderie inside its territory but outside of its enclave – because of the differences and diversities of any religion within their own ideals, interests, and beliefs. To be aware, Religious ideas have also helped inflame animosity and discord that shapes conflicts and give rise to oppression and tyranny. So, to say things out loud religion is not only for the good stuff. It has its own problems and consequences. Religion can sometimes be hypocritical and can turn into politics. Some religious leaders desire great power, and some people forces their own ideals that is far from the good things their own religion is teaching. Believing their things in a way that suggest one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case or just being hypocritical! 

Everything in the world has its own origins or place where they come from. It can be either Animal Fossils, Ancient Artifacts, Ancient Civilizations or People. Everything has their own origins or place of their own birth. Everything and everyone start from a piece of scratch where we start small then one day, we would grow big that people will remembers us, being part of a great history and we will become an amazing memory. Just like many wise people in history says, “Allow yourself to be a Beginner, No one starts off excellent.”

Everything has its own origins, even religion has its own. Archaeologists believe that they have discovered elements of religious belief practiced by Homo sapiens almost 60,000 years ago. Humans are social and very curious creatures. People will always find a way to things, to make themselves alive and make their life worth living. And because of that Ancient People in Ancient Civilizations makes religions. People have become curious and ponder questions like, “What are we?”, “What am I?”, “What is the purpose of life?” and “Who created me? Who created the world? Is there a God?” To soothe themselves out and cope out their feelings people started to build a religion and do worship. And the Origins of Religion comes from different ways. There are many studies about the origins of religion in the world. There are plenty of Theories, Research, and Hypothesis on how religion started. But I will tell you that there are many origins of religion and those origins all depends to the places or specific regions where a certain group is located and the time of origin, the estimated date of events or date of origin. The world is very big! And with that there are also plenty of different religions. And in this time, I will tell you my opinion of 2 origins of religion from the most feasible and the most impossible origin of religion. 

The most feasible or possible origin of human religion from my own opinion would be the “Nature-Worship Theory”. 

“The Nature-Worship Theory is a system of religion based on the veneration of natural phenomena—for example, celestial objects such as the sun and moon and terrestrial objects such as water and fire. In the history of religions and cultures, nature worship as a definite and complex system of belief or as a predominant form of religion has not been well documented. Among the indigenous peoples of many countries, the concept of nature as a totality is unknown; only individual natural phenomena—e.g., stars, rain, and animals—are comprehended as natural objects or forces that influence them and are thus in some way worthy of being venerated or placated. Nature as an entity in itself, in contrast with human society and culture or even with God, is a philosophical or poetic conception that has been developed among advanced civilizations. This concept of nature worship, therefore, is limited primarily to scholars involved in or influenced by the modern (especially Western) study of religion.” Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/nature-worship. 

Human beings first developed their religions from observations of the forces of nature. Early people became aware of the regularity of the seasons, the tides, and the phases of the moon, and began personalizing them by giving them names, describing their activities with tales that that transformed into mythology. Primitive people identified the forces in nature, personified them, created myths, and developed religions around them. This is my most feasible or possible origin of religion? Why? Because people of the ancient world will often worship things, they found mighty and celestial by observing our nature. They will venerate and worship things and beings that are helping them and what provides them. People are naturally thankful and will worship the Nature that is giving them home and safety. They will worship the – Sun, because it gives people heat and light, They will worship the – Moon, because it is very mystical and serves as the guardian of the night, They will worship the – Rain, because it brings fresh water to plants and people etc. These things are the most common examples why nature worship is the most feasible origin of religion. It is because in the past before any gadgets, tools, and devices are even made. Nature serves us our home and way to survive. Nature serves as our own natural habitat the same as animals. Basically, for humans to live long in the past humans are nature-dependent beings. And we cannot live without the blessings and fruits of nature – whether it is Animals, Plants, Trees, Water etc. We need our mother nature to survive. So as gratitude the people of the past makes a nature-based religion to worship the events and natural forces of nature. Perhaps, to make mother nature give people more blessings. 

And the next, for my most impossible origin of religion would be the Wish-Fulfillment Theory by Karl Heinrich Marx or better known as “Karl Marx” he is famous German philosopher and sociologist. And the father of Communism and the one who developed the Labor Theory. And Sigmund Freud a famous Austrian neurologist and the founding father of psychoanalysis. 

The Wish-Fulfilment Theory of Karl Marx says that “Religions were developed by the few to control the masses and suppress revolution because of the continuing struggle between classes. Rulers and allied priests wished to control all wealth, so they had to create a scheme of gods, heavens, and hell. Masses were persuaded to accept poverty and be obedient to inherit bliss in another life. And on the other hand, The Wish Fulfilment by Sigmund Freud states that “Religion originated from the guilt of that individuals supposedly feel in hating their fathers. All males’ posses a similar tendency to desire our mothers and hate our fathers. As a result of this subconscious hatred and ensuing guilt, a great father image was projected in the sky called God. A healthy mature person can face problems without the need for gods or religions.”

For more information about the Wish-Fulfilment Theory, Underneath is an article from https://www.bethinking.org/does-god-exist/god-as-wish-fulfilment 

“Is God really there? Or is our sense of his existence nothing more than a secret hope that our greatest longings might be fulfilled? Is God for real – or is he just an illusion, like a dream in the night? These questions have long been debated within western civilisation. In recent years, however, the idea that God is simply some kind of human wish-fulfilment has gained credibility, and is increasingly used in anti-Christian propaganda. The two writers who are especially associated with this development are Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-72) and Sigmund Freud (1856-1939). We shall consider their contributions, before evaluating their conclusions.

Feuerbach's chief work is The Essence of Christianity (1841),in which he argues that the idea of God arises understandably, but mistakenly, from human experience.[1] Religion in general is simply the projection of human nature onto an illusory transcendent plane.[2] Human beings mistakenly objectify their own feelings. They interpret their experience as an awareness of God, whereas it is in fact nothing other than an experience of themselves. God is the longing of the human soul personified.

We yearn for a being that will satisfy all our desires and dreams – and, by doing so, invent such a being. For Feuerbach, the doctrine of the resurrection of Christ is nothing more than an echo of the deep human longing for immediate certainty of personal immortality. Scripture tells us that God created human beings in his image; Feuerbach declares that we have made God in our image. `Man is the beginning, the centre and the end of religion.' God is a human wish fulfilled and sustained by an illusion. Christianity is a fantasy world inhabited by people who have failed to realize that when they think they are talking about God, they are simply disclosing their own innermost hopes and fears.

What are we to make of this approach, which is developed in so significant a direction in the writings of Karl Marx (see pp.201, 206)? A number of points need to be made. First, the context in which Feuerbach develops his ideas needs to be examined. Feuerbach was writing in the heyday of the great German liberal theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher (1736-1834). Schleiermacher's theological system rests upon an analysis of human experience, supremely the experience of being dependent.[3] Whatever the undoubted merits of this approach might be, it has the effect of making the reality of God dependent upon the religious experiences of the pious believer. Theology becomes anthropology, as an understanding of God becomes reduced to an understanding of human nature.

Feuerbach's analysis represents a brilliant critique of this approach, which continues to be influential in western liberal Christianity. The existence of God is held to be grounded in human experience. But, as Feuerbach emphasises, human experience might be nothing other than experience of ourselves, rather than of God. We might simply be projecting our own experiences, and calling the result ‘God’, where we ought to realize that they are simply experiences of our own very human natures. Feuerbach's approach represents a devastating critique of humanity-centred ideas of Christianity. But what of those more reliable versions of the gospel which insist that faith is a response, not to human experience, but to an encounter with the Word of God? Schleiermacher's approach may be faithful to the biblical insight that Christianity affects our experience. But it seems to have lost sight of an entire dimension of biblical Christianity: that God confronts us in saving judgment through his Word.

The recovery of an emphasis upon the Word of God outside us, rather than upon our internal religious experience, has been one of the more welcome developments in the twentieth century. For example, consider the writings of Karl Barth, perhaps the sternest critic of Schleiermacher in the western theological tradition.[4] For Barth, the reality of God is prior to and independent of human experience of that reality. Neither Christian faith nor theology is a response solely to some subjective human experience. They arise from an encounter with God through Christ, mediated through Scripture. Feuerbach, interestingly, has not the slightest interest in the identity or history of Jesus Christ. For him, the character portrayed in the New Testament is simply a fantasy figure who endorses human hopes and aspirations. But traditional Christian theology portrays Christ as challenging our hopes and aspirations, bringing home the reality of sin (an idea which Feuerbach conveniently overlooks) before the joy of redemption can be fully appreciated.

Second, Feuerbach generalizes hopelessly about religions. He assumes (without any cogent argument or careful scholarship) that all the world religions have the same basic core components, which can all be explained on the basis of his atheistic projection theory. All gods, and hence all religions, are simply projections of human desires. But what of the non-theistic religions – those world religions, such as Theravada Buddhism, which explicitly deny the existence of a god?

Third, Feuerbach's hypothesis is nothing more than a hypothesis. It does not rest upon a rigorous experimental foundation, but represents a series of dogmatic assertions about how we come to believe in God. His theory has not been proven, and cannot be stated in a form which can either be verified or falsified. For example, he argues that the wish is father to the thought. In that human beings wish for God, their longing is satisfied by their invention of that God by a process of projection. But do all human beings long for the existence of God? Take, for example, an extermination camp commandant during the Second World War. Would there not be excellent reasons for supposing that he might hope that God does not exist, given what might await him on the day of judgment? And might not his atheism itself be a wish-fulfilment? On the basis of Feuerbach's analysis, it is not simply Christianity, but atheism itself, which can be regarded as a projection of human hopes.

But perhaps the most serious objection relates to the logic of Feuerbach's analysis. At the heart of Feuerbach's atheism is his belief that God is only a projected longing. Now it is certainly true that things do not exist because we desire them. But it does not follow from this that, because we desire something, it does not exist. Yet this is the logical structure of Feuerbach's analysis. Eduard von Hartmann pointed this out nearly a century ago, when he wrote: ‘it is perfectly true that nothing exists merely because we wish it, but it is not true that something cannot exist if we wish it. Feuerbach's entire critique of religion and the proof of his atheism, however, rest upon this single argument – a logical fallacy.’ [5]

Furthermore, the Christian doctrine of creation, studiously ignored by Feuerbach, has an important contribution to make here. If we are indeed created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27), is it entirely surprising that we should wish to relate to him? Might not a human desire for God be grounded in the fact that he brought us into being with an inbuilt capacity to relate to him? [6]

Feuerbach's basic ideas found new life, however, in the writings of the psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud.[7] In fact, it is probably fair to say that the `projection' or 'wish-fulfilment' theory is best known today in its Freudian variant, rather than in Feuerbach's original version. The most powerful statement of Freud's approach may be found in The Future of an Illusion (1927), which develops a strongly reductionist approach to religion.[8] For Freud, religious ideas are `illusions, fulfilments of the oldest, strongest and most urgent wishes of mankind.’[9]

To understand Freud at this point, we need to examine his theory of repression. These views were first made known generally in The Interpretation of Dreams (1900), a book which was initially largely ignored by the critics and the general reading public. Freud's thesis here is that dreams are disguised fulfilments of wishes that are repressed by the consciousness (the ego), and are thus displaced into the unconsciousness. In The Psycho pathology of Everyday Life (1904), Freud argued that these repressed wishes intrude into everyday life at a number of points. Certain neurotic symptoms, dreams, or even small slips of the tongue or pen – so-called `Freudian slips' – reveal unconscious processes.

The task of the psychotherapist is to expose the repressions which have such a negative effect on life. Psychoanalysis (a term coined by Freud) aims to lay bare the unconscious and untreated traumatic experiences, by assisting the patient to raise them up into consciousness. Through persistent questioning, the analyst can identify repressed traumas which are having a negative effect upon the patient, and enable the patient to deal with them by bringing them into the open.

By the time Freud had finished, however, psychoanalysis was no longer primarily a form of therapy, designed to liberate people from the hidden tyranny of repressed traumas. In the spirit of the Enlightenment, it had virtually become a global hypothesis, capable of explaining just about anything.[10] A substantial doctrinal system evolved, centring on such issues as the Oedipal complex, the theory of instincts, and narcissism. It was hardly suprising when Freud declared that religion could also be explained on the basis of this new system.[11]

The first major statement of Freud's views on the origin of religion – which he increasingly came to refer to as `the psychogenesis of religion' – may be found in Totem and Taboo (1913). Developing his earlier observation that religious rites are similar to the obsessive actions of his neurotic patients, Freud declared that religion was basically a distorted form of an obsessional neurosis.

Freud's views on the origin of religion need to be considered in two stages: first, its origins in the development of human history in general, and second, its origins in the case of the individual person. We may begin by dealing with his account of the psychogenesis of religion in the human species in general, as it is presented in Totem and Taboo.

Freud believes that the key elements in all religions are the veneration of a father figure (such as God or Jesus Christ), faith in the power of spirits, and a concern for proper rituals. Freud traces the origins of religion to the Oedipal complex. At some point in the history of the human race, Freud argues, the father figure had exclusive sexual rights over females in his tribe. The sons, unhappy at this state of affairs, overthrow the father figure, and kill him. Thereafter, they are haunted by this secret and its guilt. Religion has its origins in this prehistorical event, has guilt as its major motivating force, and attempts to expiate this guilt through various rituals. This explanation will strike most readers as unconvincing. Perhaps for this reason, most atheistic appeals to Freud concentrate upon his account of the origins of religion in the individual, to which we now turn.

In an essay on a childhood memory of Leonardo da Vinci (1910), Freud sets out his explanation of individual religion.

Psychoanalysis has made us familiar with the intimate connection between the father-complex and belief in God; it has shown us that a personal God is, psychologically, nothing other than an exalted father, and it brings us evidence every day of how young people lose their religious beliefs as soon as their father's authority breaks down. Thus we recognize that the roots of the need for religion are in the parental complex. [12]

The veneration of the father figure has its origins in childhood. When going through its Oedipal phase, Freud argues, the child has to deal with anxiety over the possibility of being punished by the father. The child's response to this threat is to venerate the father, identify with him, and to project what it knows of the father's will in the form of the superego.

Freud explored the origins of this projection of an ideal father figure in The Future of an Illusion. Religion represents the perpetuation of a piece of infantile behaviour in adult life. Religion is simply an immature response to the awareness of helplessness, by going back to one's childhood experiences of paternal care: `My father will protect me; he is in control.' Belief in a personal God is thus little more than an infantile delusion. Religion is wishful thinking.

How are we to respond to this approach to religion? We may begin by noting that Freud has unquestionably been influenced here by a series of writings, such as W. Robertson Smith's Lectures on the Religion of the Semites (1898), which argued that the essence of religion was not so much a set of beliefs or doctrines, but sacred actions, rites or cults. It must be remembered that Freud was writing at a time when the ethnographical explanation of religion was taken very seriously and seemed to possess impeccable scientific credentials. That situation, however, has radically changed since then, with such simplistic and reductionist theories being generally abandoned as unworkable. But in Freud's day, they seemed to point the way ahead. In effect, Freud has aligned himself with a scholarly theory which, though significant in its own time, is no longer taken with any great seriousness.

Second, Freud's theory of the psychogenesis of religion predates his study of religions; it does not arise out of that study. He had, in effect, already decided on his theory before beginning to engage with the literature relating to the field. Ernest Jones, one of Freud's most distinguished and perceptive biographers, draws attention to a letter in which Freud grumbles about having to read his way through a great many tedious tomes relating to religion. It is rather pointless, he comments, as he already instinctively knows the answer to his question about the origin of religion. `I am reading books without being really interested in them, since I already know the results; my instinct tells me that.’[13] Freud's atheistic view of the origin of religion comes prior to his study of religion; it is not its consequence.

Third, Freud's theory concerning the origins of religion in the individual is, like that of Feuerbach, generally incapable of being tested. It is a hypothesis, not a fact. Freud could be said to lend psychoanalytical support to Feuerbach, but not to provide the crucial experimental data which would convert a hypothesis into a fact. On the relatively few points at which Freud's hypothesis is capable of being tested experimentally, it is generally accepted that it is wrong. For example, overlap between people's notions of `God' and `father' seem to occur only where the father is the preferred parent, with most people tending to model God on their mother.[14] Like Feuerbach's projection theory, Freud's psychoanalytical atheism must now be regarded as a hypothesis that has not been, and indeed cannot be, proved. The apologist has excellent reasons for challenging naive appeals to the Freudian explanation of faith, which rests upon distinctly shaky foundations.

So be confident at this point. Press home those hard questions. Where do Freud's ideas come from – hard experimental evidence, or his own atheist prejudices? Where is the historical evidence that Christianity owes its origins to a father complex, and can we accept anyway such a deeply sexist approach to religion? And why should Christians be expected to abandon their faith on account of Feuerbach's projection theory, a hypothesis which, in the end, rests on a logical error.” Source: https://www.bethinking.org/does-god-exist/god-as-wish-fulfilment

I believe that the Wish-Fulfilment Theory is the most impossible in my opinion because of 3 things, First, Are the flaws, The Wish-Fulfilment is just a theory and there are no proven evidences. Second, Hypothesis, The Wish-Fulfilment theory is just an educated guess of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud about their own views of religion. And the Third is, The Wish-Fulfilment Theory is full of claims, we cannot say that what the theory is pertaining about to be factual. Because there are many religions beside Catholicism and Christianity. The Theory claims that religion is just a waste of time and just serves as a coping mechanism for our desires and it claims that God is just viewed as a father because of our desire for our own Mother. For the Wish-Fulfilment Theory, we cannot say things in here are true. That is simply because of the other influences of other religions and the different ideals, beliefs and POVs every religion possesses. 

Every religion has its own origin and foundations. But always remember the world is large and a confusing place. So, it is better to just stay where you are and practice your own religion. And if you are an atheist, just be a good person and help people in times of need. 

“Everyday is not a grand adventure, sometimes it is better to have quiet and peaceful days” 

Blessed Be God Forever!