Speculations on the Sources of Religion
Why does religion exist? The most evident answer is that it serves many human needs. One of
our primary needs is having a means to deal with our mortality. Because we and our loved ones
must die, we have to face the pain of death and the inevitable questions it brings about whether
there is any soul, afterlife, or rebirth. People often look to religion for the answers. Religion can
help us cope with death, and religious rituals can offer us comfort. Human beings also desire
good health, a regular supply of food, and the conditions (such as suitable weather) necessary to
ensure these things. Before the development of modern science, human beings looked to religion
to bring about these practical benefits, and they often still do.
Human beings are also social by nature, and religion offers companionship and the fulfillment
that can come from belonging to a group. Moreover, religion often provides a structure for caring
for the needy.
Human beings have a need to seek out and create artistic forms of expression. Religion
stimulates art, music, and dance, and it has been the inspirational source of some of the most
imaginative buildings in the world. Religion not only makes use of multiple arts but also
integrates them into a living, often beautiful whole.
Perhaps the most basic function of religion is to respond to our natural wonder about ourselves
and the cosmos—our musings on a starry night. Religion helps us relate to the unknown universe
around us by answering the basic questions of who we are, where we come from, and where we
are going.
Issues relating to the origins of religion have engaged thinkers with new urgency ever since the
dawn of the age of science. Many have suggested that religion is a human attempt to feel more
secure in an unfeeling universe. The English anthropologist E. B. Tylor (1832–1917), for
example, believed religion was rooted in spirit worship. He noted how frequently religions see
“spirits” as having some control over natural forces and how commonly religions see those who
die—the ancestors—as passing into the spirit world. Fear of the power of all these spirits, he
thought, made it necessary for people to find ways to please their ancestors. Religion offered
such ways, thus allowing the living to avoid the spirits’ dangerous power and to convert that
power into a force that worked for the good of human beings. Similarly, the Scottish
anthropologist James Frazer (1854–1941), author of The Golden Bough, saw the origins of
religion in early attempts by human beings to influence nature, and he identified religion as an
intermediate stage between magic and science.
A so-called Chac-Mool figure, used in sacrifice, sits in front of the ruins of the Pyramid of
Kulkulkán in Chichén Itzá, Mexico.
© Royalty-Free/Corbis RF
Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) theorized that belief in a God or gods arises from the long-lasting
impressions made on adults by their childhood experiences, in which their parents play a major
part; these adults then project their sense of their parents into their image of their God or gods.
According to Freud, these experiences—of fear as well as of security—are the basis for adults’
attempts to deal with the anxieties of a complicated present and an unknown future. Freud argued
that since a major function of religion is to help human beings feel secure in an unsafe universe,
religion becomes less necessary as human beings gain greater physical and mental security.
Freud’s major works on religion include Totem and Taboo, The Future of an Illusion, and Moses
and Monotheism.
Another psychologist, William James (1842–1910), came to his ideas on religion via an unusual
course of study. Although he began his higher education as a student of art, he made a radical
switch to the study of medicine. Finally, when he recognized the influence of the mind on the
body, he was led to the study of psychology and then of religion, which he saw as growing out of
psychological needs. James viewed religion as a positive way of fulfilling these needs and
praised its positive influence on the lives of individuals. He wrote that religion brings “a new
zest” to living, provides “an assurance of safety,” and leads to a “harmonious relation with the
universe.” 5
Who are we, where do we come from, and where are we going? Each religion offers answers to
these questions, and graveyards often hint at believers’ visions of what happens after death.
© Thomas Hilgers
The German theologian Rudolf Otto (1869–1937) argued in his book The Idea of the Holy that
religions emerge when people experience that aspect of reality which is essentially mysterious.
He called it the “mystery that causes trembling and fascination” (mysterium tremendum et
fascinans). In general, we take our existence for granted and live with little wonder, but
occasionally something disturbs our ordinary view of reality. For example, a strong
manifestation of nature—such as a violent thunderstorm—may startle us. It is an aspect of reality
that is frightening, forcing us to tremble (tremendum) but also to feel fascination (fascinans). The
emotional result is what Otto called numinous awe. 6 He pointed out how often religious art
depicts that which is terrifying, such as the bloodthirsty Hindu goddess Durga. 7
Carl Gustav Jung (1875–1961), an early disciple of Freud, broke with his mentor because of
fundamental differences of interpretation, particularly about religion. In his books Modern Man
in Search of a Soul, Psychology and Alchemy, and Memories, Dreams, Reflections, Jung
described religion as something that grew out of the individual’s need to arrive at personal
fulfillment, which he called individuation. According to Jung, many religious insignia can be
seen as symbols of personal integration and human wholeness: the circle, the cross (which is
made of lines that join at the center), and the sacred diagram of the mandala (often a circle within
or enclosing a square), which he called “the path to the center, to individuation.” 8 He pointed out
that as people age, they can make a healthy use of religion to understand their place in the
universe and to prepare for death. For Jung, religion was a noble human response to the
complexity and depth of reality.
The view of Karl Marx (1818–1883) about religion is often cited, but it may have been softer
than that of the Russian and Chinese forms of Marxism that emerged from it. While many types
of Marxism have been strongly atheistic, Marx himself was not so militant. He indeed called
religion an opiate of the masses. But for him religion had both a bad and a good side. Religion,
he thought, emerged naturally because people felt poor, powerless, and alienated from their
work. On the other hand, Marx also thought that religion gave great consolation, for it spoke of a
suffering-free life after death. For Marx, religion was a symptom of the sickness of society. The
need for religion, he thought, would dissolve when society improved.
Some recent theories do not look specifically at religion, but their wide-ranging insights are
applied in the study of the origin of religions, as well as in many other fields. Among these
theoretical approaches are structuralism and post-structuralism, along with the technique of
deconstruction. We will look at some of these ideas and applications later.
Various scholars have attempted to identify “stages” in the development of religions. Austrian
ethnographer and philologist Wilhelm Schmidt (1868–1954) argued that all humankind once
believed in a single High God and that to this simple monotheism later beliefs in lesser gods and
spirits were added. The reverse has also been suggested—namely, that polytheism led to
monotheism. Influenced by the notion of evolution, some have speculated that religions “evolve”
naturally from animism (a worldview that sees all elements of nature as being filled with spirit or
spirits) to polytheism and then to monotheism. Critics of this view feel it is biased in favor of
monotheism, in part because it is a view originally suggested by Christian scholars, who
presented their belief system as the most advanced.
Scholars today hesitate to speak of any “evolution” from one form of religion to another. To
apply the biological notion of evolution to human belief systems seems biased, oversimple, and
speculative. Even more important, such a point of view leads to subjective judgments that one
religion is more “highly evolved” than another—a shortsightedness that has kept many people
from appreciating the unique insights and contributions of every religion. Consequently, the
focus of religious studies has moved from the study of religion to the study of religions, a field
that assumes that all religions are equally worthy of study.
Patterns Among Religions
When we study religions in a comparative and historical sense, we are not looking to validate
them or to disprove them or to enhance our own belief or practice—as we might if we were
studying our personal religious tradition. Instead, we want to comprehend the particular religions
as thoroughly as possible and to understand the experience of people within each religion. Part of
that process of understanding leads us to see patterns of similarity and difference among
religions.
Religion is the substance of culture, and culture the form of religion.
Paul Tillich, theologian 9
Although we do look for patterns, we must recognize that these patterns are not conceptual
straitjackets. Religions, especially those with long histories and extensive followings, are usually
quite complex. Furthermore, religions are not permanent theoretical constructs but are constantly
in a process of change—influenced by governments, thinkers, historical events, changing
technology, and the shifting values of the cultures in which they exist.