How do religions start?

[mistermack]

mistermack , what psychological process do you postulate for Pauls change of mind, given you say he lied about his Damascus road experience? He like you started off believing Christians were liars (or I guess heretics) He went a step further than you and tried to physically destroy them. Then he changed his mind. Why?

You don't know any of that. You're extremely gullible if you believe it. You only know that that is what he wrote. It's still one of the most common lies pushed by christian apologists today '' I used to be and atheist, I was more cynical than you, till I discovered the truth ''.
People used the same lying techniques in Pauls day as they do today.
The 'road to Damascus' story stinks. Paul wanted to be important in the Christian movement, but he had never met Jesus, so how could he compete with people who had actually known him? He solved that with this fiction, which conveniently also makes him the LAST person to meet Jesus.
.

[mistermack]

I think it's fair to say that most modern religions were formed on the back of lies, be they intentional, or as a result of delusion, but I think the origins of the oldest ones - and perhaps those still practiced in less developed parts of the world - are born out of ignorance, and trying to explain the natural world. Taboo and superstition can easily be created by false cause-and-effect correlation (Ug ate from the Pear Tree and then the Volcano erupted and killed half the tribe: the Fire Spirit (who must be watching us to have seen) doesn't like us to eat pears. Perhaps he'll be satisfied if we kill Ug). Combine all these with the concept of something watching, and you have the basis for a superstitious religion. It doesn't have to be a conscious lie - just one borne out of ignorance of any more rational explanation for things.

There could be some truth in that, but I personally credit people in ancient times with exactly the same intelligence as we have today. They didn't have our access to facts, but they were just as capable as we are of being cynical.
We tend to be too influenced by hollywood, and get a picture of people who would believe anything at the drop of a hat.
In fact, their beliefs were entrenched by the handing down from the previous generation, just as modern religious conviction generally are.

When I wrote about lies, I would even include people like the Archbishop of Cantebury, or the Pope. Who really believes that these guys have no doubts about their religion? But they preach as if they are fully convinced. And that goes for practically all preachers.
They may shove the doubt to the back of their mind, but it has to be there, if they are not completely mad.
So a religion could start with a looney, but be kept going and built up by people lying, and exaggerating, in their wishful thinking.
.

[mistermack]

While I agree with you in principle, I'm wondering why you included Buddha in this. He doesn't seem to fit the pattern you describe, though people alleging to represent his teachings centuries later do.

Well, I have to admit I know practically nothing about buddah, so I shouldn't have.
Especially if his words have been bent.
.

[Thinking Aloud]

I think it's fair to say that most modern religions were formed on the back of lies, be they intentional, or as a result of delusion, but I think the origins of the oldest ones - and perhaps those still practiced in less developed parts of the world - are born out of ignorance, and trying to explain the natural world. Taboo and superstition can easily be created by false cause-and-effect correlation (Ug ate from the Pear Tree and then the Volcano erupted and killed half the tribe: the Fire Spirit (who must be watching us to have seen) doesn't like us to eat pears. Perhaps he'll be satisfied if we kill Ug). Combine all these with the concept of something watching, and you have the basis for a superstitious religion. It doesn't have to be a conscious lie - just one borne out of ignorance of any more rational explanation for things.

There could be some truth in that, but I personally credit people in ancient times with exactly the same intelligence as we have today. They didn't have our access to facts, but they were just as capable as we are of being cynical.
We tend to be too influenced by hollywood, and get a picture of people who would believe anything at the drop of a hat.
In fact, their beliefs were entrenched by the handing down from the previous generation, just as modern religious conviction generally are.

I don't disagree - though if you don't have facts, it's seemingly natural to try to make things up. For ancient man, this might have seemed real enough, but at the same time I'd suspect that anyone in a position of "knowledge" rapidly gains power over others - and once that starts rolling, I've no doubt that inventing new things to control would follow!

When I wrote about lies, I would even include people like the Archbishop of Cantebury, or the Pope. Who really believes that these guys have no doubts about their religion? But they preach as if they are fully convinced. And that goes for practically all preachers.
They may shove the doubt to the back of their mind, but it has to be there, if they are not completely mad.
So a religion could start with a looney, but be kept going and built up by people lying, and exaggerating, in their wishful thinking.
.

Oh yes! I think the Archbishop of Canterbury has virtually said so...

[mistermack]

Yet you still sucked in farsight's stuff.

Where's your example?
And ignoring farsight, If I agree with something that someone writes, it's because I thought the same, not because I 'sucked in their stuff'.
.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The secret is revealed:

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

[mistermack]

Anybody else think the OP had just rented "Liar"?

I haven't seen it, and I'm too mean to rent. You should have said 'just borrowed Liar'.
I don't deny there is genuine delusion mixed in with lies, to start and build religions. But I think we hugely under-estimate the proportion of it that is down to lies. And lying to yourself is a huge part of that, people telling themselves they have no doubts. And worse still, imposing it on their children, as if it's all 'gospel truth', when they themselves have doubts. And then they kid themselves it's done with the best intentions.
.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Anybody else think the OP had just rented "Liar"?

I haven't seen it, and I'm too mean to rent. You should have said 'just borrowed Liar'.
I don't deny there is genuine delusion mixed in with lies, to start and build religions. But I think we hugely under-estimate the proportion of it that is down to lies. And lying to yourself is a huge part of that, people telling themselves they have no doubts. And worse still, imposing it on their children, as if it's all 'gospel truth', when they themselves have doubts. And then they kid themselves it's done with the best intentions.
.

"Lying" is a flexible term. Someone might have asked a trusted person "what is thunder?" The person, wearing skins and sitting by a fire in a cave, might have replied, "it's some very big guy beating on a drum." As thunder is related to lightning and rain, the apparent cause and effect becomes "clear" and the mythology is born.

[mistermack]

"Lying" is a flexible term.

Unfortunately, in the field of the supernatural, it's truth that is the flexible term. It's constantly stretched beyond the bounds of reason.
I'm just pointing to the lying that goes on all the time, so much so that we are accustomed to it, and hardly think of it as lying at all.
.

[colubridae]

When I wrote about lies, I would even include people like the Archbishop of Cantebury, or the Pope. Who really believes that these guys have no doubts about their religion? But they preach as if they are fully convinced. And that goes for practically all preachers.
They may shove the doubt to the back of their mind, but it has to be there, if they are not completely mad.

For once MM your thinking and mine completely align.

I cannot believe that such people are completely devoid of doubt, unless they are completely bonkers.

The other thing that occurs to me is that they are frightened to face up to their doubts, It could mean to them that their whole life has been a pathetic falsehood.


One of my closest friends is a CofE Vicar we never talk about religion it might be exsplosive.
I will carefully inquire on depth of belief.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

When I wrote about lies, I would even include people like the Archbishop of Cantebury, or the Pope. Who really believes that these guys have no doubts about their religion? But they preach as if they are fully convinced. And that goes for practically all preachers.
They may shove the doubt to the back of their mind, but it has to be there, if they are not completely mad.

For once MM your thinking and mine completely align.

I cannot believe that such people are completely devoid of doubt, unless they are completely bonkers.

The other thing that occurs to me is that they are frightened to face up to their doubts, It could mean to them that their whole life has been a pathetic falsehood.


One of my closest friends is a CofE Vicar we never talk about religion it might be exsplosive.
I will carefully inquire on depth of belief.

This doubt is why there is so often a 'devil' in religion - it is this devil that puts those doubts there - they are not natural!

It is groupthink - not lies - certainly not deliberate, malicious lies.

Everyone in the tribe believes.
My parents, who love me, believe.
The elders, who are ancient and wise, believe.
But I have doubts.
Why do I have doubts?
The devil is trying to get into my head!
I will not doubt!
I will believe! Believe! BELIEVE!

Religions replicate through shared experience: repetition, ritual, shared songs and prayers. They also evolve - the most sophisticated 'modern' religions began as tribal superstitions - all of the bells and whistles, including the books, were added later. They also mate - one religion picking up pieces of others as once-isolated cultures clash.

There are lies in the mix - of course there are - there are always people that try to build up their own part by claiming to have witnessed miracles. But these are an adjunct to the basis of a religion, not its foundation. Its foundation is primitive, supernatural explanations for physical phenomena that have been reinforced by repetition and childhood indoctrination and perpetuated by a very human need to belong.

[Ronja]

Well put, XC.

[colubridae]

As a startup sequence yep I agree, wholeheartedly.

But what of your view of say The archbish of cant. Does he have doubts, I mean significant doubts.

If he has, is he lying by omission? By demonstrating a firm belief, I mean.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

As a startup sequence yep I agree, wholeheartedly.

But what of your view of say The archbish of cant. Does he have doubts, I mean significant doubts.

If he has, is he lying by omission? By demonstrating a firm belief, I mean.

As I said...

Everyone in the tribe believes.
My parents, who love me, believe.
The elders, who are ancient and wise, believe.
But I have doubts.
Why do I have doubts?
The devil is trying to get into my head!
I will not doubt!
I will believe! Believe! BELIEVE!

The lie is to oneself. And it is made very early in life. Once you convince yourself, lying to everyone else is easy - because it is not really lying at all! Not unless you class passing on hearsay that you truly believe to be true, lying. Personally, I reserve the word "lie" for more deliberate acts of deception.

[colubridae]

As a startup sequence yep I agree, wholeheartedly.

But what of your view of say The archbish of cant. Does he have doubts, I mean significant doubts.

If he has, is he lying by omission? By demonstrating a firm belief, I mean.

As I said...

Everyone in the tribe believes.
My parents, who love me, believe.
The elders, who are ancient and wise, believe.
But I have doubts.
Why do I have doubts?
The devil is trying to get into my head!
I will not doubt!
I will believe! Believe! BELIEVE!

The lie is to oneself. And it is made very early in life. Once you convince yourself, lying to everyone else is easy - because it is not really lying at all! Not unless you class passing on hearsay that you truly believe to be true, lying. Personally, I reserve the word "lie" for more deliberate acts of deception.

A soft version of 1984 and the four fingers

Does he ever examine his beliefs the way you would? especially later in life?