How many gods have humans invented and what purpose do they serve?

[southernhybrid]

I know there has been talk and some evidence that there is a little part in our brain stem that allows people to believe in gods. I found an article that explains it and I'll look for some more, but the current idea is perhaps our beliefs in gods are somehow related to altruism. Of courses, somebody needs to explain why so many religious people are hateful assholes, if that's the case and why the more patriarchal religions often deny people basic civil rights and are often judgmental towards those who are minorities, as well as those outside of their fold. The one that comes to mind today is the hatred toward the LBGTQ community, after reading about some of the Christians in Florida.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...ed by humans since our species first appeared.

• At least 18,000 different gods, goddesses and various animals or objects have been worshipped by humans.
• Spirituality, or religiosity, has been mapped to a brain circuit that was centered on a brain region called the periaqueductal grey.
• This brain circuit, and the apparent importance of the periaqueductal grey, may have evolved to encourage altruistic behaviors and reduce fear.

Source: Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay
Anthropologists estimate that at least 18,000 different gods, goddesses, and various animals or objects have been worshipped by humans since our species first appeared. Today, it is estimated that more than 80 percent of the global population considers themselves religious or spiritual in some form.
The neural substrates of religiosity or spirituality are under investigation by neuroscientists. Evolution has clearly selected a brain that can accept a logically absurd world of supernatural causes and beings. Spirituality must offer something tangible that enhances procreation and survival. Otherwise, evolution should have selected against such costly beliefs and behaviors as making gigantic pyramids to house the dead, blowing oneself up for the pleasures of paradise, or sacrificing one's children as a measure of devotion to one’s deity.

Religious beliefs, spirituality, and the need to worship a deity of some kind are undoubtedly durable traits. Some gods were worshipped for very long periods and then virtually disappeared from the historical record. For example, the sun god Ra was worshipped by many different cultures for thousands of years and then completely disappeared. If historical precedent holds, many of the gods worshipped today will be forgotten and quickly replaced by others.

During the past few years, neuroscientists have developed an area of study called the neuroscience of religiosity to understand the neurobiology of this fascinating aspect of human behavior.
The neural substrates of religious belief are an intriguing though contentious topic. Neuroscientists are often reductionistic and would like to explain religiosity by brain wiring. After all, the tendency to religiosity or spirituality and brain-wiring patterns that underlie specific personality traits are considered inheritable.

So, how long will it take for the patriarchal religions to disappear? Are the brains of atheists a little bit different from the brains of those who believe in gods? If religion is imbedded in our brains, why do some people suddenly deconvert after a tragedy, like for example my former neighbor, who suddenly lost his god beliefs following the death of his toddler son?

 

[southernhybrid]

I found an article with a little different take. Oddly enough this one says that about 90% of humans have a god belief, while the former article in the OP says about 80%.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-human-brain-evolved-to-believe-in-gods

So how does evolution explain religion?

Leading scholars propose a two-phase hypothesis (here, here): First, our ancestors evolved certain mental abilities, useful for survival and reproduction, which predisposed them to religious beliefs. Then, from the multitude of beliefs that emerged, particular religions spread and persisted because their deities and rituals promoted cooperation among practitioners.


In my next post, I’ll discuss phase two. Here, let’s review evidence for phase one, the idea that religion is an accidental by-product of cognitive capacities, evolved for other reasons.

Psychological Prerequisites for Religion​

Many mental ingredients are necessary for religion as-we-know-it. But scholars emphasize three tendencies in particular, which are pronounced in humans, but minimally expressed in other species: We seek patterns, infer intentions and learn by imitation.

These are cognitive adaptations that helped our ancestors survive. For example, it’s obviously useful to notice paw prints (a pattern) laid by a lion planning to eat you (an intention), and to deter the predator with tactics others have successfully used (imitation, at least before you could read how-to online). However, people overextend these tendencies. We also find patterns in randomness — like reading tea leaves — ascribe intentions to nonexistent beings — like blaming disasters on angry deities — and copy others even when it’s costly — like fasting and sacrifice. In this way adaptive mental abilities could have led to religious beliefs.

 

[southernhybrid]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...-believers-and-non-believers-work-differently

A recent study investigated which resting-state brain circuits are utilized by religious non-believers, as compared to religious believers. Previous studies have demonstrated that a resting state analysis is objective, stable, and capable of revealing individual differences in how the brain functions. Essentially, the analysis provides a kind of "neural fingerprint" of which brain regions are involved in the processing of emotions, memories, and thoughts.


The believers (n=43) self-identified as Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu. The non-believers (n=26) self-identified as atheist or agnostic. The believers and non-believers did not significantly differ with regard to gender(only slightly more were female), standard markers of intelligence, social status, a predisposition towards anxiousness, or emotional instability.


Not believing in a God is due to the activation of distinct higher-order brain networks. The results demonstrated that religious believers are more likely to use more intuitive and heuristic reasoning and that religious non-believers are more likely to use more deliberative and analytic reasoning. For example, non-believers are more likely to process sensory information, such as something they see, in a more deliberative manner that involves higher cortical areas, called top-down processing, involved in reasoning. In contrast, religious believers are more likely to interpret visual information in a more emotional or intuitive manner, called bottom-up processing, that involves more ancient brain systems. Religious believers share this bottom-up processing bias with people who believe in the supernatural or paranormal activity, such as telekinesis or clairvoyance.


The authors noted that although the neural traits they identified are considered highly stable, it is possible to convert a believer into a non-believer, or vice versa, via the use of neurofeedback, meditation, and repeated training.

The relatively recent increase in the number of religious non-believers may also be due to the brain's response to dramatic shifts in our culture as well as scientific explanations for natural phenomena that once depended on the intervention of mythical beings.

I guess my childhood church friend was right when I told her that we had been fooled into believing in Christianity and she told not to think too much.

 

[southernhybrid]

I didn't realize that there is actually something referred to as neurotheology, a science that is trying to explore the relationship between the brain and religious beliefs. I'll post a link about it, and a small sample, if anyone is interested. I'm just trying to figure out why people believe in mythology and why some of us don't, and what are the differences in our brains that lead us one way or the other.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3968360/

Neurotheology, also known as “spiritual neuroscience”1, is an emerging field of study that seeks to understand the relationship between the brain science and religion.2 Scholars in this field, strive up front to explain the neurological ground for spiritual experiences such as “the perception that time, fear or self-consciousness have dissolved; spiritual awe; oneness with the universe.”3 There has been a recent considerable interest in neurotheology worldwide. Neurotheology is multidisciplinary in nature and includes the fields of theology, religious studies, religious experience and practice, philosophy, cognitive science, neuroscience, psychology, and anthropology. Each of these fields may contribute to neurotheology and conversely, neurotheology may ultimately contribute in return to each of these fields. Ultimately, neurotheology must be considered as a multidisciplinary study that requires substantial integration of divergent fields, particularly neuroscience and religious phenomena. More importantly, for neurotheology to be a viable field that contributes to human knowledge, it must be able to find its intersection with specific religious traditions.4 For instance, Islam is powerful, growing religion that would seem to be an appropriate focus of neurotheology. After all, if neurotheology is unable to intersect with Islam, then it will lack utility in its overall goal of understanding the relationship between the brain and religion. Obviously, these resulting changes of behavior would lead to a better understanding or perception of the world around us creating better harmonious, functional individuals, who can be the driving force behind change and on a larger scale of family and society as well.

I do wonder if any of these studies try to explain why religion often becomes extremist, causing hatred, and punishment towards those who don't believe in the same myths. I'd find that interesting.

 

[Swammerdami]

I think there are several disjoint types of religion or god. Has someone categorized them?

The earliest (animist?) religions weren't antithetical to science: they were primitive attempts at science. Demons were invented to explain otherwise-inexplicable dangers. Friendly spirits were invented for the opposite purpose. If a tasty fruit was toxic it was easier to speak of a god's command than to apply a non-existent science of chemistry.

Some religions developed from ancestor worship. Respect for living ancestors evolves into respect for dead ancestors, which evolves into respect for ancestors who are long-dead and mythical.

Am I wrong that the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as a way to help impose political control? Although the Abrahamic religions have their "patriarchs" (especially Abram/Abraham and Jacob/Israel) they have little relationship to ancestor-worship or animism.

What are the other types and modes of religion? I don't think a general discussion of religion is possible until a classification is defined.

 

[ideologyhunter]

As for the number of "known" deities, I used to use the figure of 7,000 to 8,000. Just now a simple google search brought up a figure of 18,000. So, it's in the thousands.
Purposes? Whole shelves of books on that one. And the purposes change over time, as man learns more and customizes his god narratives. In my life? The same purpose as a fictional character in a novel. Interesting to think about, but not to confuse with an empirical entity.
For, say, Kenneth Copeland? My gosh, a lot of purposes: a $6.3 million mansion on 1500 acres (tax-free, as a parsonage); a $20 million private jet, one of a fleet of five, I believe; five boats; a net worth in 7 figures. Now that's a purpose-driven life.

 

[Jarhyn]

I think there are several disjoint types of religion or god. Has someone categorized them?

The earliest (animist?) religions weren't antithetical to science: they were primitive attempts at science. Demons were invented to explain otherwise-inexplicable dangers. Friendly spirits were invented for the opposite purpose. If a tasty fruit was toxic it was easier to speak of a god's command than to apply a non-existent science of chemistry.

Some religions developed from ancestor worship. Respect for living ancestors evolves into respect for dead ancestors, which evolves into respect for ancestors who are long-dead and mythical.

Am I wrong that the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as a way to help impose political control? Although the Abrahamic religions have their "patriarchs" (especially Abram/Abraham and Jacob/Israel) they have little relationship to ancestor-worship or animism.

What are the other types and modes of religion? I don't think a general discussion of religion is possible until a classification is defined.

I mean, I posted a thread on the subject of g-o-d trying to investigate the various categories and views taken through history from the perspective of the structures of simulation theory?

There might be others usages that I'm missing there and I would be thrilled to discuss them with someone willing to approach the subject as seriously as I do.

 

[Swammerdami]

I think there are several disjoint types of religion or god. Has someone categorized them?

The earliest (animist?) religions weren't antithetical to science: they were primitive attempts at science. Demons were invented to explain otherwise-inexplicable dangers. Friendly spirits were invented for the opposite purpose. If a tasty fruit was toxic it was easier to speak of a god's command than to apply a non-existent science of chemistry.

Some religions developed from ancestor worship. Respect for living ancestors evolves into respect for dead ancestors, which evolves into respect for ancestors who are long-dead and mythical.

Am I wrong that the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as a way to help impose political control? Although the Abrahamic religions have their "patriarchs" (especially Abram/Abraham and Jacob/Israel) they have little relationship to ancestor-worship or animism.

What are the other types and modes of religion? I don't think a general discussion of religion is possible until a classification is defined.

I mean, I posted a thread on the subject of g-o-d trying to investigate the various categories and views taken through history from the perspective of the structures of simulation theory?

There might be others usages that I'm missing there and I would be thrilled to discuss them with someone willing to approach the subject as seriously as I do.

There is more than one way to categorize religions (or "gods") and your approach is very different from mine. I started by identifying what I thought of as the two OLDEST types of religion: animism and ancestor worship (which developed into the early Neolithic religions). Beyond that I didn't know how to categorize present-day religions. Why is Buddhism lumped with Hinduism as a "Dharmic" religion rather than lumped with Taoism? Where would Zoroastrianism fit?

Your categorization was quite different and, frankly, would have been easier to follow if you focused on explication rather than invective! For example, to review your fourth and final category I must first wade through . . .

internally contradictory logically impossible nonsense beings believed in by religion,

This tells us more about your view of category 4 than what it actually is!

 

[Jarhyn]

internally contradictory logically impossible nonsense beings believed in by religion,

This tells us more about your view of category 4 than what it actually is!

Well, that's the thing. To such religions, the definition of God is literally "a thing that exists that is not bound by the most fundamental rule of discussing existence (logic)".

See also the actual descriptions people give of Ohr Ein Sof, or "the set of all sets", if we're going to use the formulation in math.

Of course there are ways to define "universe", as a Grothendiek Universe for example wherein we define this as a system wherein all the operations of math are possible, however this is not itself the set of ALL sets, because as implied by the use of A rather than THE in this definition, these cannot be quantified or isolated as a definitive set in the first place.

There's just no way in math to define U, and trying to yields a contradiction, and this is the SAME problem with trying to define Ohr Ein Sof: it's literally defined as a contradiction.

Accepting the existence of a contradiction trivializes the system and allows anything, even something that is false, to also be true.

That's why I define it that way, because unless some religion defines their g-o-d as a god-of-this-world (many do), or as a "god" (such as is the case with Mammon cults), or as a god (which makes for a pretty useless religion since you and I are both each of us a god by this schema of definition), generally they attempt to conceptualize Ohr Ein Sof and/or conflate it with one of the other things.

 

[Elixir]

Creationists say evolution is a religion. Did it get counted?

 

[ideologyhunter]

Yes, and its god is..............DARWAHN THE DESTROYER.

 

[Jarhyn]

Creationists say evolution is a religion. Did it get counted?

If evolution were a thing assigned to the utterance g-o-d, it would be a "god". Technically, evolution itself is more a function of "systems theory", an emergent property of a number of different forms of system, and the "instantiation" of a related entity would be stood up and emulated as an act of social puppetry. This would, through this instantiation, have real influence on the course of evolution through modification to the selection pressures (such as artificial preference, through such social effect, of enforcing 'law of jungle' over 'scientific advance', depending on how doctrine characterizes 'correct evolution').

As such, it could be crafted into such, but this is more going to be local and confined within the system of doctrines about the prerogatives of the "god" they create parallel to the principle they worship.

Most people concerned with biological evolution don't impart such doctrinal nature on the principle, so little anthropomorphic expression happens around the concept, if any.

 

[Elixir]

If evolution were a thing assigned to the utterance g-o-d, it would be a "god". Technically, evolution itself is more a function of "systems theory", an emergent property of a number of different forms of system, and the "instantiation" of a related entity would be stood up and emulated as an act of social puppetry.

Yeah yeah yeah, but that doesn’t matter to the people calling evolution a religion, and saying evolutionists worship it as a god.
It’s like, I might not consider VooDoo as a religion, but some people do, and there’s presumably a god involved, so technically its god, like evolution, which some people claim to be some people’s god, numbers among the “gods people have invented”. Even if the people inventing it think that only other people believe it, it’s still a god invented by humans, right?

 

[Jarhyn]

If evolution were a thing assigned to the utterance g-o-d, it would be a "god". Technically, evolution itself is more a function of "systems theory", an emergent property of a number of different forms of system, and the "instantiation" of a related entity would be stood up and emulated as an act of social puppetry.

Yeah yeah yeah, but that doesn’t matter to the people calling evolution a religion, and saying evolutionists worship it as a god.
It’s like, I might not consider VooDoo as a religion, but some people do, and there’s presumably a god involved, so technically its god, like evolution, which some people claim to be some people’s god, numbers among the “gods people have invented”. Even if the people inventing it think that only other people believe it, it’s still a god invented by humans, right?

Strangely, yes. It's a "god" with respect to the people who invent it as such, generating a "Tinkerbell effect" where their own belief, often comic misunderstanding such that it is, actually starts instantiating a sort of "planchette effect" where their unconscious actions create an outcome.

One such situation is the mask mandate... Christians deny evolution, but think evolution is a law of the jungle, a force "others" believe would dictate that the strong and the weak must be selected by the environment. This in turn becomes a back-of-mind thought that is then picked up by back-of-mind processes that if a disease is allowed to run rampant, their own superiority would mean the best thing to do is to let this 'god' have sway and do some "selecting", because they would not be selected; their "god" is more powerful, after all.

So, they create some perverse reality where the law of the jungle visits us in our homes and natural selection is given its day in the sun, but for artificial reasons.

They have thusly created an act of "god", of the "god" of evolution, and they will quickly learn that this particular "god" is a fucking asshole.

 

[Elixir]

Strangely, yes. It's a "god" with respect to the people who invent it as such, generating a "Tinkerbell effect" where their own belief, often comic misunderstanding such that it is, actually starts instantiating a sort of "planchette effect" where their unconscious actions create an outcome.

So much better said!
Kudos.

 

[southernhybrid]

I think there are several disjoint types of religion or god. Has someone categorized them?

The earliest (animist?) religions weren't antithetical to science: they were primitive attempts at science. Demons were invented to explain otherwise-inexplicable dangers. Friendly spirits were invented for the opposite purpose. If a tasty fruit was toxic it was easier to speak of a god's command than to apply a non-existent science of chemistry.

Some religions developed from ancestor worship. Respect for living ancestors evolves into respect for dead ancestors, which evolves into respect for ancestors who are long-dead and mythical.

Am I wrong that the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as a way to help impose political control? Although the Abrahamic religions have their "patriarchs" (especially Abram/Abraham and Jacob/Israel) they have little relationship to ancestor-worship or animism.

What are the other types and modes of religion? I don't think a general discussion of religion is possible until a classification is defined.

I mean, I posted a thread on the subject of g-o-d trying to investigate the various categories and views taken through history from the perspective of the structures of simulation theory?

There might be others usages that I'm missing there and I would be thrilled to discuss them with someone willing to approach the subject as seriously as I do.

There is more than one way to categorize religions (or "gods") and your approach is very different from mine. I started by identifying what I thought of as the two OLDEST types of religion: animism and ancestor worship (which developed into the early Neolithic religions). Beyond that I didn't know how to categorize present-day religions. Why is Buddhism lumped with Hinduism as a "Dharmic" religion rather than lumped with Taoism? Where would Zoroastrianism fit?

Your categorization was quite different and, frankly, would have been easier to follow if you focused on explication rather than invective! For example, to review your fourth and final category I must first wade through . . .

internally contradictory logically impossible nonsense beings believed in by religion,

This tells us more about your view of category 4 than what it actually is!

I respectfully disagree. The thing I'm trying to figure out is why have humans always believed in mythology, gods, goddesses, animal gods, people gods, like Jesus etc. It doesn't matter what type of religion we're thinking of. It's all about the gods and why people believe in supernatural stuff, like... you know.....gods?

 

[southernhybrid]

So, other then the links I posted, does anyone have some more ideas as to why our brains seemed to have evolved to believe in bullshit.

I'll see what else I can find. Who here has heard of neurotheology? Anyone?

 

[Jarhyn]

So, other then the links I posted, does anyone have some more ideas as to why our brains seemed to have evolved to believe in bullshit.

I'll see what else I can find. Who here has heard of neurotheology? Anyone?

That's the thing... I don't think it's entirely that we evolved to believe in bullshit other than Ohr Ein Sof, an attempt to maximize knowledge to understand everything.

When I discuss simulation theory, you'll notice that I don't actually consider "gods" to be bullshit, but real (socially driven) phenomena, that I don't believe gods to be bullshit at all (insofar as I am one, albeit with the definition I offered in the thread I made on the subject), nor even a Spinozan God, one of which I'm holding in my hands and which is a very useful device indeed.

The problem is that people wanted to think about the aspects of simulation, and so developed language that started to approximate around the discussion.

Then, people who are only on the very cusp of being able to understand (but not quite over the edge) take fairly good or close approximations and theories and then butcher the fuck out of them for personal gain, and those who are simply looking to understand the truth of those things but are nowhere near being able to understand on their own lap up these "right seeming" discussions and become suckers.

 

[rousseau]

There is more than one way to categorize religions (or "gods") and your approach is very different from mine. I started by identifying what I thought of as the two OLDEST types of religion: animism and ancestor worship (which developed into the early Neolithic religions). Beyond that I didn't know how to categorize present-day religions. Why is Buddhism lumped with Hinduism as a "Dharmic" religion rather than lumped with Taoism? Where would Zoroastrianism fit?

To answer your question on Buddhism, it's really a dharmic religion through and through. Buddhism and Hinduism have identical roots, and the worldview even in their later iterations (Zen vs Advaita Vedanta) are extremely similar. Taoism is really only a part of Chinese Buddhism, and predominantly Zen which is just one lineage.

Your categorization was quite different and, frankly, would have been easier to follow if you focused on explication rather than invective! For example, to review your fourth and final category I must first wade through . . .

Categorizing Gods is the wrong way to go about it IMO, I like phrasing it as 'metaphysic possibilities'. Religion, like politics and economics, aims at explaining / controlling the environment, either literally or psychologically, which is why surviving writing from the ancient period was so commonly either religious or political (these two institutions had economic impact). Where the possibilities come into play, is that any coherent doctrine that can exist, eventually will. Originally there was a scope of possible religious approaches that people could conjure, and we gradually did.

Consider all of the possible approaches that don't exist, what they have in common is that they don't convince / satisfy our religious needs. Where all the doctrine that does exist serves that need.

 

[southernhybrid]

This might have some new info in it. According to at least the study in the link, which is an except from a book, there are some benefits to meditation or prayer. Read more. I don't feel like I need to meditate to clear my mind and help my memory, but I can accept it may work for some people. Some people obviously need some woo or some rituals to help them. "This is your Brain on Religion".

https://www.npr.org/2010/12/15/132078267/neurotheology-where-religion-and-science-collide