What is the meaning of religion

[Alias]

This desperation for the after life is the same powerful force [of the zombie parasite] that drive the evolution of religions [from polytheism to monotheism] to deal with that inevitable existential crisis. All other purpose [other than basic survival and reproduction] that follow are secondary.

Yes, I understand that. Also that the drive is stronger and has more economic clout in some cultures than in others, in some periods of one culture than in other periods.
That's no excuse to ignore or deny the secular forms of expression of scientific knowledge and political power.

[Burning ghost]

The true "meaning", or rather "purpose", of religion is evolution. Religion was invented as a means to help men evolve themselves - to become better people in general, and to acquire new powers which we do not already have "by default", including, ultimately, the power to be "immortal", at least to the extent that this is possible. Religion was supposed to help men find happiness, acquire conscience, acquire special powers to help their fellow man and themselves, and ultimately to understand how to live on after the death of the physical body. This was the original purpose and intent of religion.

I guess this is true to some extent in regard to "religion" as an institution. I think this is not really getting to the heart of the issue of "religion" as a human discovery more than an invention. Politically individual attitudes have culminated in the form of an agreed institution initiated by the commonality of man.

I have heard the argument before that if all books were destroyed and all human knowledge erased that humans would still come to use scientific method and the laws of nature would not change whereas the words in the religious texts would never be repeated.

This is only half true. We can see around the world that cultures develop with a very blatant set of traditions and cultures that are approximate. Ideas of love, war, greed, learning, destruction, evil and the whole spectrum of human emotions well up into each culture in the form of various powerful narratives that echo across the ages the psyche of mankind. To me that is "religion" in its purest nascent form, not some political institution built to fit into economic and geographic models that suit the civic climate of the times.

We most certainly don't go around saying science is that which is born of institution. It is merely a feature of human understanding in general, as is religion. Science necessarily keeps the "life world" (meaning the immanent subjective feeling) at arms length.

For the above reasons I cannot agree with your conclusion that religion is about how to "live" after death. Although metaphorically I would agree that it certainly is about facing that over all narrative of death and rebirth (but most certainly not in a purely physicalist, material and/or objective sense, not in a "scientific" sense.)

[Alias]

As to living on, there are versions that have nothing to do with burial rites or barrows: transmigration is fairly popular; so is transubstantiation.
As to the original impulse to awe, it, too has many non-institutional expressions.
As to how a belief in the supernatural came about, I suspect it wasn't religious in any sense that modern institutional religions would comprehend -
people talked to the woods and water and eagles, and to their absent parents. They still do.

[LuckyR]

Ok, let's suppose you're right and there is little if any difference between the amount of diversity of authoritative information on the Big Questions of the day for ancient and modern folks. Why then is atheism much more common as science took off? Coincidence?

Not coincidence; marketing. That's when the religious authorities gave non-believers a special name, so that they could be identified as "those bad people who reject our divine truth".
I can conjecture, without having the statistics, that every culture had its skeptics, its non-conformists and its rejectors of the official party line.
I know that, since civilized societies instituted state religions as adjuncts to the ruling power-structure, non-adherence has been more or less severely punishable, more or less wise to keep quiet about. I know that since secular law-making and religious tolerance in constitutions, it's been safer to be openly atheist or agnostic - just as it's been safer to be openly Catholic or Protestant in countries where the dominant religion was the other one. (Muslim and Jewish, rather less so.)
What I don't know is how tolerant primitive peoples were of those members of their tribe who didn't believe in the ancestors' ghosts, or the midnight owl-spirit or the Valkyries, and how safe anyone might have felt about saying so, out loud.

PS pyramids were not merely about life after death. They were also about engineering and shows of wealth and power. Superstition/ Knowledge /Control.

Kudos on a very well written and thought out piece. And I agree with you that it is not absolutely known how non-believers were treated in ancient times. But I envision a push/pull situation where not only did relaxation of persecution of non-believers pull atheists out of the shadows but having a whole field of exciting scientific thought to wrap one's mind around would push folks towards a secular belief system. So we're likely both right.

[Burning ghost]

Lucky R -

It is also possible you're appropriating some idea of "religious belief" onto ancient peoples that serves as a kind of bias. The "non-believers" would simply be the law breakers, the outcasts, the one's who destroyed the social construct - maybe to replace it, and maybe not.

Alias -

I would say the very same thing in the bias of the modern day view of "spirits" and "ghosts". Modern meaning in within the scientific mindset not the "prescientific" (I know this is a very hard term to explicate so forgive my laziness of using the expression so loosely.)

As an attempt to explain what is meant by "prescientific" I will say it is that attitude toward "life world" as a finite non-material existence. The event of the theoretic attitude toward the "life world", meaning the establishment of universal systems, created an infinite material world and objectified our being as a bodily being in the world rather than "about" the world.

note: I think I'll have to take this up in another thread in the future. Really need to attempt a better explication of Husserl and his significance.

[Alias]

Lucky R -

It is also possible you're appropriating some idea of "religious belief" onto ancient peoples that serves as a kind of bias. The "non-believers" would simply be the law breakers, the outcasts, the one's who destroyed the social construct - maybe to replace it, and maybe not.

And maybe faith wasn't a requirement for the social contract - only good behaviour was.
Also, I draw a very definite line between civilized and pre-civilized societies, as well as some greyish ones between pastoral and urban civilizations - with the understanding that there are long periods of organic transition in some, while others are created suddenly, through conquest or usurpation of a crown.
Organized religion follows the changes in social organization, as a tool of social control; religious institution is always in service to the established power.
This is what I mean by shifts in the function and purpose of "religion", where the word is used loosely enough to cover all forms of transaction between humans and supernatural entities.
This may be, too, why "atheism" only has significance in the context of a pervasive Abrahamic religious dogma.

As an attempt to explain what is meant by "prescientific" I will say it is that attitude toward "life world" as a finite non-material existence. The event of the theoretic attitude toward the "life world", meaning the establishment of universal systems, created an infinite material world and objectified our being as a bodily being in the world rather than "about" the world.

I have an idea this notion of "scientific" - as a code or world-view - is a result of the major shift in religion from spiritual connection to nature to separation from and hostility toward nature, to utter rejection of all things physical and animal which comes to full fruition in christian mysticism. Only after those separations have taken place can man's approach to the natural world be as utilitarian and mechanistic as modern science is. There was lots of science before, and always - but it wasn't always established as a distinct form of knowledge, with its own institutions, canon and hierarchy of practitioners.

[Burning ghost]

Alias -

There are several directions I could branch into here but I think we'll be going over old ground we've covered elsewhere. Simply put, I find Colin Renfrew to be a very balanced source in regards to anthropology.

note: I'll try and annoy you again with Husserl sometime next year. Got a couple of books to get through first. No doubt you'll be covering your ears and running for cover when I harass you with that!

[Alias]

...Or i may just surprise you and try to read it.

[Atreyu]

......For the above reasons I cannot agree with your conclusion that religion is about how to "live" after death. Although metaphorically I would agree that it certainly is about facing that over all narrative of death and rebirth (but most certainly not in a purely physicalist, material and/or objective sense, not in a "scientific" sense.)

Well, living on after death is not considered a possibility in ordinary science. So of course the methods and principles of how to achieve that are not going to exist within its boundaries.

Nevertheless, I can assure you that "immortality" was definitely one of the primary goals and principles of all ancient religions, although this "immortality" certainly did not entail the continued existence after death of the physical body...

[Spectrum]

Nevertheless, I can assure you that "immortality" was definitely one of the primary goals and principles of all ancient religions, ....

I agree with you totally on this. If we research into all religions including very modern ones, "immortality" is the most common expectations [in various forms] within the believers.
This expectation and hope is due to one's own psychological compulsions.

... although this "immortality" certainly did not entail the continued existence after death of the physical body...

The Abrahamic religions expect to continue their existence after death with the same substance [soul] with the same human form albeit made of different materials. Some Buddhists [not core Buddhism] believe in rebirth while Hindus believe the soul transmigrate into different forms of living creatures or are released from moksha.

In all cases, the majority of religious believers are driven desperately to deal with an inherent unavoidable existential crisis. Show me one religion that do not highlight & mention death as a critical issue in their doctrines and provide their solutions. That is the ultimate cause and root meaning of all religions.

[Alias]

Nevertheless, I can assure you that "immortality" was definitely one of the primary goals and principles of all ancient religions, although this "immortality" certainly did not entail the continued existence after death of the physical body...

How ancient is ancient?
Why did so many kings and chieftains, from so many different pre-Abrahamic cultures, stock their graves with wine, jewellery, chariots and slave-girls?
Even poor men were buried with their best tools or weapons and a penny for the ferry.

[Atreyu]

Nevertheless, I can assure you that "immortality" was definitely one of the primary goals and principles of all ancient religions, although this "immortality" certainly did not entail the continued existence after death of the physical body...

How ancient is ancient?
Why did so many kings and chieftains, from so many different pre-Abrahamic cultures, stock their graves with wine, jewellery, chariots and slave-girls?
Even poor men were buried with their best tools or weapons and a penny for the ferry.

Don't judge ancient religion by the actions of the self-important kings and chieftains. Nor by the actions of the simple peasants. This is like judging modern religion by the actions of tele-evangelists, Catholic priests, or people who abuse children in the name of "spare not the rod...". There will always be clowns to subjugate the true principles of religion for personal motives, and such knuckleheads will always be in the vast majority.

I can assure you that there were always true practitioners of religion throughout ancient times, although they were in the minority and lived in relative obscurity. And those who truly understood the principles of their own religion knew quite well that what could live on after death was that which was intangible, not that which is tangible/physical. What could live on after the death of the physical body was their awareness, in intact form, and a certain "finer" material which co-existed with the physical body during life, but which separated from it at death, which they called the "soul".

Men who truly understand their own religion are never stupid enough to think that life-after-death is going to be anything at all like this life here on Earth....

[Burning ghost]

......For the above reasons I cannot agree with your conclusion that religion is about how to "live" after death. Although metaphorically I would agree that it certainly is about facing that over all narrative of death and rebirth (but most certainly not in a purely physicalist, material and/or objective sense, not in a "scientific" sense.)

Well, living on after death is not considered a possibility in ordinary science. So of course the methods and principles of how to achieve that are not going to exist within its boundaries.

Nevertheless, I can assure you that "immortality" was definitely one of the primary goals and principles of all ancient religions, although this "immortality" certainly did not entail the continued existence after death of the physical body...

Well, there is the difficulty of facing the obviousness of this assertion. It can be faced, and it can be found wanting. This is something all anthropologists guard against, something archeologists do their damn best to put aside completely, and what others (including anthropologists) would look at in light of historicism.

As a useable example of this we could refer to Achilles and his "fame" being his "immortality" rather than some more modern conception of an ethereal "spirit". To look back into the unobtainable past as if they lived like us is a common and easy mistake we should guard against as much as possible (simply because no matter what we do we'll always drag our current day view with us, it being a constituent of our very being in the present day.)

By this I hope I've managed to convey the outline of the ever present "mythos" of the an age. We cannot shed ourselves of our world view and because of this we are naturally bound within the current "mythos" of the common view of the world.

As a generalization of understanding, based upon our general common world view and framed only within a mindset of "as now, so then" (in regard to language use and cultural attitudes toward the "life world"), I can agree with what you say though if I chose to; but I don't. That is essentially what religion, as a politic force, is about. Choosing to agree look at the world as everyone else does in order not to disrupt the status quo.

I could say that you cannot possibly disagree with what I am saying, but only misunderstand it. That is a very telling statement, in and of itself, about the human condition.

-- Updated September 26th, 2017, 1:47 am to add the following --

Nevertheless, I can assure you that "immortality" was definitely one of the primary goals and principles of all ancient religions, although this "immortality" certainly did not entail the continued existence after death of the physical body...

How ancient is ancient?
Why did so many kings and chieftains, from so many different pre-Abrahamic cultures, stock their graves with wine, jewellery, chariots and slave-girls?
Even poor men were buried with their best tools or weapons and a penny for the ferry.

Habit? They probably had no real idea why they did such things and just happen to copy those before them (that is a common pattern of human behavior.)

I could just as well ask you why you slap yourself on the forehead and tut to yourself when you forget to turn off the lights or forget to perform some required task. It is a social habit and it is what is done. (Note: You'll perform such "pantomimes" when alone too out of the habit of trying not to look like a madman who just stops dead in the street and turns around to go home and switch the lights off. Humans act out an unbelievable amount of pointless actions out of sheer habit. Over time the meaning becomes obscured or lost and then new ideals are often attached to them almost completely, or completely, consuming the original purpose; putting up Christmas trees would be one example of an annual habit many people do completely oblivious to it's origin in their cultures traditions.)

[Alias]

Don't judge ancient religion by the actions of the self-important kings and chieftains. Nor by the actions of the simple peasants.

Pardon? Do not judge a cultural practice by its leaders or its followers --- then by whom? By what?

This is like judging modern religion by the actions of tele-evangelists, Catholic priests, or people who abuse children in the name of "spare not the rod...".

The majority are the ones who believe or say that they believe what those prelates at the top tell them; the ones who go to those churches, tell their children those same stories, send money to those televangalists, repeat those same prayers, quote that same book, pay their tithes and shut down womens' health facilities, in case somebody in there might be plotting birth control.

There will always be clowns to subjugate the true principles of religion for personal motives, and such knuckleheads will always be in the vast majority.

.
No, you got the numbers wrong. The power elite do not believe, but 'interpret' and apply religion to exert their will on a society; the majority of knuckleheads - mostly decent, law-abiding, god-fearing, death-fearing people - are their well-managed subjects.

I can assure you that there were always true practitioners of religion throughout ancient times, although they were in the minority and lived in relative obscurity.

A handful of "true Scotsmen"? O-kay.

Men who truly understand their own religion are never stupid enough to think that life-after-death is going to be anything at all like this life here on Earth....

Nice for them. But they live in a cave, eat juniper berries and have no influence.

-- Updated September 26th, 2017, 8:48 am to add the following --

[Alias" -
Why did so many kings and chieftains, from so many different pre-Abrahamic cultures, stock their graves with wine, jewellery, chariots and slave-girls?
Even poor men were buried with their best tools or weapons and a penny for the ferry.]

Habit? They probably had no real idea why they did such things and just happen to copy those before them (that is a common pattern of human behavior.)

You're describing culture.
And you're telling me that carrying one's dead father a hundred kilometers to the sacred river, or petitioning the bishops and cardinals over a decade for dispensation to have a suicide reburied in the churchyard amounts to the same thing as turning off a light-switch, you're really stretching credibility.
Look. If people didn't believe that the practices of their religion meant anything, and yet spent so much of their resources on burial rites just out of blind habit, then by what criteria can you possibly tell which part of their religious practice was done from real belief? Or is done from belief now?
Just the bits a revisionist apologist chooses for the 21st century?
I'm not buying it.

putting up Christmas trees would be one example of an annual habit many people do completely oblivious to it's origin in their cultures traditions.)

Yet, they keep fighting over whether one should or should not be put up in front of the courthouse; whether a creche should be on display in front of city hall.
Symbols matter. Religious symbols, rituals, icons, talismans matter to people quite a lot.

[Burning ghost]

Alias -

People do "strange" things all the time without even thinking about questioning what they are doing. I am most certainly not just describing culture. I think this goes deeper than we're capable of grasping just yet.

It is not "cultural" to behave in the way I expressed above in reference to how you act out "as if" in a social group. That is just a surface example. There are greater depths of mimicry and complex dynamics involved we're barely beginning to stratch the surface of.