Letters to the Editor
-
On the Origins of Religion
Religion was not initially developed as a mechanism for social control. For starters, the roots of what could be called 'religion' reach back to a time when social order was determined by ability and lineage- no control mechanism was needed. The only argument you could make for relgion-as-authority would be a subset of social order- the medicine man or high priest or what have you- whose authority was derived from his cleverness in acquiring and holding the position, and was not in general the final authority of the group.
We have already attributed wonder and awe at the natural world, and especially those things whose animating forces are not immediately obvious to the simple mind- we can call this 'spirituality'.
Another component of religious tradition is the ritual of worship. This would be the first 'learned' aspect of religion (as 'spirituality' is innate), where certain actions, movements, or protocols are passed down as mental traditions (as opposed to genetic traits). Worship is as instinctive as physical attraction or motherly love; do you never find yourself lifting your face up to the sun on a cold winter day, feeling it's unseen warmth through your closed eyelids? Have you never bent by a stream to lift the water with your hands? We do these things by nature, by virtue of our place in the universe. Music is also closely tied to worship, spirituality, and nature. Many contemporary bush-tribes (not that Bush) use song and dance to incite delusions or trances, or to pray to whatever for rain, or someone's health- to appeal to that which we cannot control. This latter aspect we can also attribute to the decline of religion in the face of modern science and the technological ability it provides us.
So I would reject the simplistic notion that religion came to be simply as a mode of social control- our anger, contentiousness, greed, selfishness, and aggression sorted that out long before we could grunt, or as the author points out, before we were even human. Indeed these are still the physiological motivations behind religious practices, though perhaps much more subliminally. I would posit that religion-as-authority was second-tier in almost all societies up until the fall of the Roman Empire. Religion was certainly a powerful mode of control, and at least for the ancient Hebrews the final authority- but overall the priests and medicine men advised the kings and chiefs, they did not command them. I say after the Roman Empire because this was one of the first empires to assimilate an established religion into its sovereignty, and the first to have its authority retained by the Church after the empire collapsed.
I am no historian, these are just the conclusions I am able to reach with my limited knowledge. And yes, I like to read the sound of my own voice.