I would say yes but, man created religion and the scriptures are, as we are told, inspired by God. So I would say there is some meaning in the ancient writings but people over time have used them to their own benefit and in doing so created religions.
Idk if any of you have seen the episode if through the wormhole where they talk about god, I think it might be the first episode. Here's a link to it http://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-shows/through-the-wormhole/videos/through-the-wormhole-the-god-experience.htm In the video they talk about this brain activity they observed that occurs when people are praying or communicating with god, in the right side of the brain. They hypothesize that this activity may potentially be what they refer to as a presence or god experience. They hypothesize that when humans evolved to become self aware we also became aware of our own demise. This ultimately created a lot of anxiety and stress which are not good for organisms survival. Over time they believe that the right part of the brain developed a sense to combat the anxiety that results from being aware of death. This sense almost had to be something that was infinite and could exist at every point for all time and never end. This sort of brain activity or presence of an infinite thing, god like being, soothed the anxieties created from becoming so self aware as a species. Essentially this idea of god gave man a reason not fear our ultimate end, by feeling that there was something beyond us which could never end. I think this theory is very plausible especially when you consider the evolutionary aspects. I think nature resulted in the idea of god in mans head, through evolution, ultimately to give us a reason to get out of bed and not fear death. I think later on down the line man tried to create religion to satisfy this ultimate being and gain his respect or blessings. People then learned to use religion to keep the masses at bay and for their own selfish reasons. At the end of the day,I don't believe that one man created the idea of god, but that rather evolution and the natural order resulted in men eventually believing in god. However, I believe in a solely materialistic and deterministic world so I may be very biased. Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
I believe that most religion was created out of fear. The fear of dying and the fear of the unknown. The real logic is that we were created by the stars, everything was created by that process and it will continue long after we are gone. But what created that in the beginning, that is the real question.
When I read this thread the first thought that came to mind was this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8P1Y1a7-L4 Gotta love Carl Sagan for getting me into science! Hahahaha It is relevant to the topic though and is in line how I view religion. Speaking of religions... "Scientology" BWAHAHAHAHAHDFSd@#!@#@!$RFDSFSDF<3( . )( . )iesHSDSKJLDFSLKFND Always makes me laugh.
yes...religion is the ultimate comfort for those terrified of the unknown,but thats just a small part of a bigger picture.
"If God does not exist, it would be necessary to invent him" - I forgot who said this Sent from my GT-I8190N using Grasscity Forum mobile app
Religion was needed when human beings had no other plausible way to understand the universe they lived in, there was no "scientific method," or centuries of research to rely on. What we had were amazing imaginations and events happening around us that couldn't be captured by our language at the time. So I think it really behooves us to learn the language of today (science) and not dwell on old knowledge (religion) to the point we incorporate it into our lives. Religion is a terrible fit when it comes to modern humans, its like a chick trying to squeeze into jeans that are clearly several sizes too small.
More like a way to explain the things that happened in nature that earlier people lacking science could not explain. Then it probably evolved into a way to control people.
You're confusing mythology for religion. The Gods of mythology were literary expressions to describe the natural necessities, as well as social and political realities. Mythology was created to make sense of the world and Man's place in the universe and it was designed purely through philosophical methods. Religion, on the other hand, was brought about through revelation and was simply explained with philosophy. It wasn't created with the intention to control the masses or to explain the mysteries of our universe. In fact, it does quite the opposite; mystery is a fundamental aspect of religion. The obscurity of God and of faith are prime examples of this. Religion deals with why things happen, not with how they happen.
Early humans needed comfort when thinking about death and voila a God and afterlife came about. Organized religion on the other hand was made by some smart early men that wanted to control the masses. They did a good fucking job my mom still gives money to the church every week :/
I get what you're saying with how they created a god for all kinds of things to explain them...but pretty much every religion with a god or gods have a creation story... with the monotheistic religions (belief in only 1 god), which are the most popular religions in the world, they believe their god created everything...they do the same thing as the greek and roman myths, they just do it with 1 god...like in christianity they believe god created everything in 6 days...look into young earth creationist for the most extreme example Creation stories deal with exactly that...how things came to be... Faith is mostly you can't prove god is real, you can't see or touch it, but you believe it anyway...but in religions god is always the answer, how and why... (And I know buddism doesn't worship a god, but it also doesn't fit the dictionary defintion of the word religion)
That's a good point, and you're essentially right; but you're not entirely accurate. The story of Genesis is written in a highly mystical language; it's certainly not a literal account of how Man came into being, and its intent wasn't to quench people's curiosity. Genesis is very difficult to interpret and that's why it's been taken in so many different ways over the centuries. Augustine even said, in 5th century, that we (Christian's) should be willing to change our minds on how Genesis should be viewed when new information (evolution can been seen as an example here) is found. The Jews (and later on, the Christian and even Muslims) viewed God as the first principal. But the way they divined this was different from the Greek and Egyptian philosophers. It didn't come from speculating on the intelligible world. It came from Earth-shattering enlightenment (whether or not this revelation is, in fact, God reveling Himself to Man, or if it has a purely logical and psychological background is irrelevant. The only important issue here is that it is a fact that people undergo these intense experiences). Therefore, God choices to revel His nature (or, at least as much as can be understood by men). By accepting these experiences, then, the religious go about philosophy in an almost entirely reversed method then how the Greek philosophers did; instead of struggling to fit a plurality of different gods into a reality which they have conceived through nothing more than a primitive understanding of their universe, the religious declare that, whatever the nature of reality may be, its reveled religious principals must, by necessity coincide with its philosophical principals. The question of "how"--how did God create us; how did God design the universe; etc--becomes much less important than the "why". To put it straight, religion doesn't pretend to be a science. It didn't bother with question like how earthquakes are created or why does it rain or anything like that. Unfortunately, early theologians, when creating religious philosophies to explain their experiences, had to rely on Greek philosophy, because, at the time, that was the only philosophy around. So naturally outdated science, such as the sun revolving around the Earth, etc. became infused in much of middle-age philosophy. This was due to the overwhelming influence people such as Aristotle and Plotinus had on theologians. And when science and religion came in conflict, people felt much more comfortable telling scientists that their wrong instead of telling theologians that they need to go back to the drawing board. I'm sure I did an awful job of explaining this, but I hope it clarified some things.
"The story of Genesis is written in a highly mystical language; it's certainly not a literal account of how Man came into being, and its intent wasn't to quench people's curiosity. Genesis is very difficult to interpret and that's why it's been taken in so many different ways over the centuries. Augustine even said, in 5th century, that we should be willing to change our minds on how Genesis should be viewed when new information (evolution can been seen as an example here) is found." - Very true. Good point. http://forum.grasscity.com/religion-beliefs-spirituality/1290768-evolution-idea-islamic-discovery.html
If I had anxieties over death, I would not strive to alleviate them by subscribing myself to the belief that beneath my feet a world of flames and terror lay waiting for my soul after I had died, so to answer your question, no.
I'm not confusing anything actually, and all you're using is semantics to try to claim myth and religion aren't the same thing but they actually overlap. (http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Religion_and_mythology.html) Religion has no more validity or credibility than myth. Nothing can be proved in mythology and nothing can or has been been proved in religion. In my humble opinion its all garbage, and anything less than facts take away from the human condition.
I'm not arguing semantics. I was pointing out the fundamental difference between mythical literature and Biblical literature; a difference you confused in your post I quoted, and a difference you still don't seem to grasp. The link you provided doesn't argue against my point. If anything, it helps make it clearer; the origins of religion are entirely different than that of mythology and its functions are entirely different, as well. Can mythology be an aspect of religion? Sure. And so can philosophy. But religion is different than both mythology and philosophy. And when was I saying religion can be demonstrated? Also, I'm not trying to convert you, so that last sentence seems a bit superfluous.
Actually that article doesn't make your point at all. Did you read it? And whether you're trying to convert me is irrelevant to my point. Myth and religion overlap and equal the same thing to me, so although there are some differences both are an early means of communication and are not relevant to modern humans as we have a well developed vocabulary and the scientific method.
Yes, I did read the article. I believe it says, quite clearly, that mythology is a component of religion, but religion is much broader. I headily agree with this. But I don't see this conversation going anywhere. If you want to go on refusing to believe religion is more complex and convoluted than you feel you should have to give it credit for that's fine. You'd be wrong to do this, but you can believe it if you want.