Is the "Bicameral Mind" the origin of religious faith?
967715
It seems to make sense to me. If we think about it, this could be a reason why we tend to see the Virgin Mary on toast and rabbits in clouds - or minds evolved to do that. Living in caves, when we heard a tree branch snap, we mistook it for a wandering lion approaching - it served to keep us alert and alive. Mistaking a lion for a tree branch isnt so useful to survival... So I can see how the mind could have adapted a beleif in external forces affecting our lives.
937621
Not really.\n\nMost religions use an external belief in a 'God' or 'Jesus' to develop love and morality in their minds.\n\nBuddhists believe it is up to the individual to develop these traits. That's why Buddhism is sometimes called 'mind training' or a philosophy and not a religion.
172659
NO, NO!  \n\nWhat is the origin of the Trinity doctrine?\n\nThe New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.\n\nThe New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”\n\nIn The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching\n\nDoes the Bible agree with those who teach that the Father and the Son are not separate and distinct individuals?\n\nMatt. 26:39, RS: “Going a little farther he [Jesus Christ] fell on his face and prayed, ‘My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.’” (If the Father and the Son were not distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless. Jesus would have been praying to himself, and his will would of necessity have been the Father’s will.)\n\nJohn 8:17, 18, RS: “[Jesus answered the Jewish Pharisees:] In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me.” (So, Jesus definitely spoke of himself as being an individual separate and distinct from the Father.)\n\nDoes the Bible teach that all who are said to be part of the Trinity are eternal, none having a beginning?\n\nCol. 1:15, 16, RS: “He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth.” In what sense is Jesus Christ “the first-born of all creation”? \n\n, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals.\n\nDoes the Bible teach that none of those who are said to be included in the Trinity is greater or less than another, that all are equal, that all are almighty?\n\nMark 13:32, RS: “Of that day or that hour no ones knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Of course, that would not be the case if Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were coequal, comprising one Godhead. And if, as some suggest, the Son was limited by his human nature from knowing, the question remains, Why did the Holy Spirit not know?)\n\n1 Cor. 11:3, RS: “I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” (Clearly, then, Christ is not God, and God is of superior rank to Christ. It should be noted that this was written about 55 C.E., some 22 years after Jesus returned to heaven. So the truth here stated applies to the relationship between God and Christ in heaven.)\n\nDoes the Bible teach that each
488184
You say that primitive people invented religions to explain the world around them when their evolved minds became capable of asking questions of their origins.  At least I think that's what you were trying to say.  \n\nYou are a great example of why I believe the opposite.  \n\nTruth, as revealed by the Creator, has always been on the earth from the beginning.  You and people like you claim that religion is invented because you would rather allow your "devolving" (i.e., degenerate, deteriorating), primitive-seeking mind to turn you into mush.  That is always the case with weak-willed, weak-minded individuals.  You would rather your body controls your destiny than your mind or spirit.  \n\nTruth is all around you yet you actively choose not to see it!  To you, truth is what you think it is.  In other words, truth is relative to you.  It changes with your change of mind or with what you can see, hear, touch/feel, taste and smell.  You have become carnal (body controls you), sensual (you perceive with your senses only) and devilish (blown here and there by every hint of change in your life and feeling to scoff at those who know what you do not).  To you, ignorance truly is bliss and you revel in it.\n\nI'll admit to following the pattern you describe in your statement.  I guess the difference is, when I realized that I could choose for myself what to believe in, instead of discarding everything (as you seem to have done), and also not wanting to blindly believe what my parents had taught me, I decided to find out for myself if what I had been taught was true.  You see, my mind was "evolving", and that's why I say your mind is "devolving."  I was rationally testing my faith.  You irrationally discarded yours.\n\nThey say that you always know a tree by it's fruits, and if the fruits are not rotten, then it must be a good tree, right?  Well, I implemented certain principles into my life and found that the fruits were good.  Most importantly, I went to the source of truth.  If there is a God, and he does teach true principles, and if he is the source of all truth, then why not ask him?  If he loves his children, why wouldn't he answer their prayers, if they have the faith necessary to come to him with questions?  \n\nYou ask "Why do you believe a religion?"  I believe because I went to the source in humility and faith and asked my questions.  I know there is a God, because he answered my prayer in a way I cannot deny.  I cannot explain it to you, nor would I really want to.  It's deeply personal and your degenerate mind wouldn't understand it anyway. \n\nSomeday, hopefully, something will happen to you that draws out of you your need to believe in something greater than yourself or something greater than you'll find in this world.  I hope it's sooner than later for you.  Unfortunately, the world currently breeds narcissists who cannot see truth when it's all around them because they cannot see past themselves.  \n\nIgnorance is not truly bliss, but knowledge of truth truly is.  With knowledge comes power, and then the ability to choose for yourself, rather than letting others or your carnal self choose for you.  Wake up!  Be a man (or a woman)!  \n\nDon't take this all personally.  If you feel attacked, it's your mindset I attack, not your personality. Your personality will never change that much, but your mindset can be influenced and changed (truth, when obtained and tested, has an amazing way of helping this process along) and it is the root of your character, which is all you will take with you when you leave this earthly existence.  I know it's hard to change, but it is possible to do.  I encourage you to do so.\n\n"Seek, and ye shall find; ask, and ye shall receive; knock, and it shall be opened unto you."  These are not just words, but truth.  It's a good place for you to start.
734439
It actually occured over time.  I was raised a Methodist, but by the time i was in Sixth Grade (now 27 years ago), I began to see there was more out there, at least from the scientific side.  I began to be pretty heavy into science in high school, then began to study religions in the last two years I was in high school.  I had an English teacher than encouraged me to continue to study about them (as a comparative-type study, not a theological path).  \n\nWhen I went to college, I took a major in religion.  I mainly wanted to study world religions, but wound up taking a lot of classes in the Bible.  By the time I had left college, I had read quite a few of the sacred texts of the world's religions (including most of the Bible).  I had even read some of the apocryphal Bible (Old and New Testaments).  I began to believe in Deism during college, but didn't really have a name for it.  \n\nI am a firm believer in Deism today and I really can say I have no nagging questions.  It is a very logical, reasoned religion without a sacred text.  For me, it works.
355259
Not essentially. It's important to BELIEVE in what you believe, but being Religious is a whole different thing.\n\nA belief is just a statement which an individual holds to be true. A faith is a strong belief in that statement. A religion is a man-based form of worship of the deity/thing mentioned IN that statement, and due to corruption.\n\nIt's important to believe, not be religious. That's missing the whole point.
1163224
Not much to think about. Deism recognizes, albeit vaguely a supreme being. One step from agnostics. By the way, contrary to popular belief, our country was founded on deistic tenants, and not Christianity.
1112161
FYI I'm a Christian...if you read any history at all, religion has been around since humans became in existence.  Every culture discovered by archeologist's has had some form of a God.  From the ancient Aztecs, ancient Egyptians, and the Mesopotamians. The Majority of humans on this earth (87%) believe in one God or another...their "religion".  It is only the Atheist who do not believe in any power greater than themselves.  Pretty weird.
1044186
I think your on the right track my friend, but just expand your thinking a little bit on this subject. One of the most interesting theories I've heard about this subject comes from a book "Stalking the Wild Pendulum"- (written by a self taught Astrophysicist!)It asserts that where there is matter there is consciousness and where there is consciousness there is an aspect of "God"  Rather then God having a self encapsulated ego, god can be thought of all that is and all that is not.  This is often referred to as the "god head" or the "Prime Mover."  There may be some unification between the belief in God and in Evolution.  "God" emerged from the void realized "Himself" through "His" creation and then returned to the void.\nIn terms of your question regarding Homo Sapiens- our predecessors didn't evolve from the apes- although prehistoric man was "ape-like"  Homo Erectus started to use tools to break open bones for the fat rich marrow inside to feed a very large and developing brain.  Apparently big brains require lots of energy!  The brain of our strain of primates distinguished themselves by all that Grey matter up there, unlike our "ape" cousins.
246265
NO, NO\n\nWhat is the origin of the Trinity doctrine?\nThe New Encyclopædia Britannica says: “Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord’ (Deut. 6:4). . . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since.”Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126.\nThe New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”\nIn The Encyclopedia Americana we read: “Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching\nDoes the Bible agree with those who teach that the Father and the Son are not separate and distinct individuals?\nMatt. 26:39, RS: “Going a little farther he [Jesus Christ] fell on his face and prayed, ‘My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.’” (If the Father and the Son were not distinct individuals, such a prayer would have been meaningless. Jesus would have been praying to himself, and his will would of necessity have been the Father’s will.)\nJohn 8:17, 18, RS: “[Jesus answered the Jewish Pharisees:] In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is true; I bear witness to myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness to me.” (So, Jesus definitely spoke of himself as being an individual separate and distinct from the Father.)\nDoes the Bible teach that all who are said to be part of the Trinity are eternal, none having a beginning?\nCol. 1:15, 16, RS: “He [Jesus Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth.” In what sense is Jesus Christ “the first-born of all creation”? \n, the expression “the firstborn of” occurs upwards of 30 times in the Bible, and in each instance that it is applied to living creatures the same meaning applies—the firstborn is part of the group. “The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals.\nDoes the Bible teach that none of those who are said to be included in the Trinity is greater or less than another, that all are equal, that all are almighty?\nMark 13:32, RS: “Of that day or that hour no ones knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Of course, that would not be the case if Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were coequal, comprising one Godhead. And if, as some suggest, the Son was limited by his human nature from knowing, the question remains, Why did the Holy Spirit not know?)\n1 Cor. 11:3, RS: “I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” (Clearly, then, Christ is not God, and God is of superior rank to Christ. It should be noted that this was written about 55 C.E., some 22 years after Jesus returned to heaven. So the truth here stated applies to the relationship between God and Christ in heaven.)\nDoes the Bible teach that each of those said to be part of the Trinit
883244
It is absolutely true that every single feeling, emotion, belief that we have is a function of the brain. Even the denial of this fact from the other people answering your question is a product of complex neuronal interactions. \n\nReligion is not in itself hardwired into the brain. However, the underlying psychological processes which religion exploits - of learning (in religion's case, largely childhood indoctrination), trust, have given humans during their evolution a survival advantage. \nThere is no "God" gene. Belief in God does not provide a survival advantage. Community cohesiveness does, and religious belief is one mechanism of creating that.  \n\nA lot of the world's problems are due to people's inadequate understanding of science. If science (as a methodology for thinking about the world critically) was taught with the same vigour as the religious indoctrination and blind faith were encouraged then we would all be in a much better place!
652223
The more eccentric a religion is the more they need to "push" it onto others.  If you feel that you are constantly being "convinced" about religion, maybe it is time to revisit your faith.
460440
It is interesting that, with the exception of the Mormons (an off-shoot of the Christian religion), no major religion has been formed since the age of modern science. Think about it! All major religions were created before people knew that the Earth is round. There was one fellow in Texas that tried to start a new religion. His name was David Koresh. We know how that turned out.
596759
I was baptized Catholic and attended Catechism a few times but even at the age of 7 I didn't believe in "God". I believe the "higher Power" is within each of us and that we are all connected on a subconscious level. Now I worship nature.
976138
Hi,  I am Rational Spirituality\n\nMy mind evolved throughout the existence of my consciosness which first developed in jurrassic times, when my self-awareness was born, and it grew with every subsequent incarnation.\n\nThe more evolved the Soul, the greater the consciousness, and the greater the mind.  The origins of all Souls, or minds, are not the same.\n\nStatistically speaking, the majority of people in incarantion are trial and error existences whose minds are not more than a compilation of information and patterns of the processing of this information, acquired during their present lifetimes.\n\nLeonardo Da Vinci,  Michelangelo Buonarroti, and Mozart were great minds derived from highly evolved Souls of previous genius.  Mozart wrote his first compositions before he was 7.  It is clear that he brough the gift with himself, and in the lifetime as Mozart, he tapped into a knowledge he already had before.\n\nShould you be interested in the mechanics of the birth and growth of the consciousness, read Rational Spirituality on the Dhaxem website.  Only conveyed in February 2006, it is already a major force amongst the thinking people with regards to realization.
834791
For many of us, tradition, morality, religion and superstition and sometimes even patriotism is all a jumble.  Everything is all tangled up together in an old  incomprehensible dusty mess of stuff we were told to do.  That's my impression of religion-- a human construct for socio-cultural purposes.\n\nSpiritual geniuses like Buddha, Mohammed and Jesus all came across the same immutable truths that we need to follow.  These truths sound simple at first-- don't kill each other, you're all interconnected, think about what your're doing, etc.\n\nOver they centuries the efforts at explaining and simplifying this have done quite the opposite, sadly, and have even been used as platforms for political agenda, prejudice and hatred.\n\nI like to tell people that I belong to the Church of the Good Person (just made that name up), which stresses not whom you believe in, but how kindly and fairly you treat each other.
1146932
I think you've opened a *huge* can of worms here! But never being one to avoid discussion, I'll dive in......\n\nI agree.\nI think that religion was a device created by early mankind to explain the unexplainable, to create some social order and it was exploited by some people who had various socio-political agendas. \nI'm not denying that many, many people find their religion a source of comfort and I would not deny them their faith. I feel that religion has evolved with time, although some of the dogma has remained in the past.\nI'm sure lots will disagree, but that's just my own tuppenth worth.