Continuing on in this inquiry into what is religion, others jumped in to share their views.
Anekantavad offered up this response:
The issue I take with Anekantava’s approach there is he’s locked into looking at very modern times and here doesn’t acknowledge people’s inherent religiosity. Instead he’s coming at religion as some sort of strategy those in power impose on the people, rather than religion organically rising among and within us down here on the ground, dating all the way back in human history.
Then Matt (0ThouArtThat0) had this to share:
In this line-up, I personally got a lot out of Matt’s video and his way of explaining the origins of religion as one of the earliest products of humans, it being one of the major features that distinguishes humans from the rest of the animal kingdom. Here religion is discussed as existing on a continuum spanning throughout human history that is indicative of our unfolding consciousness leading up to modern scientific exploration. He explains it well enough that I won’t attempt to summarize it any further than that.
And Prof. Corey Anton’s reply to Matt’s video:
Those of us who refer to worshiping science probably should more accurately use the term scientism, which isn’t about worshiping the scientific method but rather “bad science” in a dogmatic fashion (as prof. Anton explains there).
I find the new popular debate between atheists and creationists to be a foolish waste of time since creationists hold extreme views that most religious persons do not embrace, yet that caricature is being applied blanketly to all religious devotees. Beyond this being offensive, it’s a straw-man of religiosity, making that focus very unproductive. It discourages people from engaging in meaningful dialogue when one side paints the other in such a wacky way. The religious impulse (or whatever we want to call it) has been with humans since the dawn of our species and it’s a part of our core psychological makeup, whether we acknowledge this or not. Seems nowadays it’s more of a question of what we place faith in rather than people entirely losing faith altogether. The focus shifts while the impulse remains, and because of the shift in focus to secular concerns and scientific analysis, the truth of our religiosity is being obscured. But it has not left us. It’s a question of what we do with it and where we allow it to take us. Humans have been down dark rabbit holes in chasing religion many times over, and I don’t believe we’ve come to the end of doing so just because the game looks today like nothing that’s ever come before. I argue that the game really hasn’t changed as much as we might like to think, because we humans haven’t changed as much as we may like to think.
Thousands and thousands and thousands of years of being sculpted by primitive tribal conditions can’t be done away with in a mere 4,000 years, no matter what technologies we create or how sophisticated our reckoning has become. This is one of those fundamental truths that many humans seem to be running from, but I’m not convinced we’ll be able to run fast enough. Truth has a way of circling back around and showing itself, whether we like it or not.
And the natural world is about striving for the power to overcome, not about seeking truth. So this truth-seeking ambition we humans are embracing is running up against the drive for power among us, and I get the impression power will win out, even if ultimately humanity’s detriment. Not that Truth necessarily could save us anyhow, seeing as how so much can’t help but boil down to subjective perspectives, particularly in our social realms. While some seek Truths, others seek power over the rest. Ideological narratives do prove helpful toward the power-seeking end.
That’s enough to say about this for now.