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.

Place Your Order Here!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *