Is it possible to develop early society without developing religion as a side effect?

Question

When intelligent beings are first evolving and starting to explore the world there are a lot of unexplained things. Scary things, strange things, wondrous things. In trying to explain those things a natural first step is religion.

Why does thunder happen? Thor did it. Why do people get sick? Evil spirits are attacking them. What happens when we die? We go to a nice place.

Those explanations are seized on by people to create and maintain power for themselves. Shamans, priests, religions, all building power for individuals out of those first fumbling movements towards understanding.

But is there an alternative? We know of no human societies that have not created religion in their first attempts to explain the world, even if some have then moved on. What differences in the nature of humans or in human society would be needed to have those religions either not form or fade away rapidly as new explanations are discovered.

Answer 1

Yes.

I'm assuming you're looking for an early society that values the scientific approach. From your last sentence you say the people should let old explanations "fade away rapidly as new explanations are discovered". I see that as a not-religion approach mainly due to what I view as the primary difference between religion and science. Namely, science seeks new explanations to meet the facts, while religion seeks facts to explain its old explanations.

However.

What you're describing is not Religion, it's superstition. Religion is a set of superstitions that someone, or a group of people, has decided are the correct superstitions. Then people agree or submit to this invented authority and become a member of this religion.

Preventing superstition is much more difficult to do. I think it actually arises from the same thing that made people discover and use science in the first place. It arises from that thing inside people that keeps them looking for patterns and connections between events. The filter that people put in front of that process makes it into either superstition or science.

Preventing religion is easier to do. The change in human nature would be to value evidence over conviction of faith. Humans would need to value discussion and realize that questions are not an attack, they're a cooperative effort to determine the Truth. A stronger natural skepticism will allow humans to agree that there are some things we don't know yet, and we can have ideas about what the answers might be, but we need to be willing to let go of those ideas if they don't appear to fit new information.

An early human society that values the ideas of others as much as their own will likely not develop a religion, though they may have varied superstitions from person to person.

Answer 2

Religion is a hard word to define. It seems easy, until you actually try to do it. Consider the challenges faced in the US right now regarding what should be a "protected" religious belief, versus what is a "belief" from a sham religion.

Dictionary.com provides a definition I like:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Breaking this down:

• "A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"
  • Religions answer the tough questions about existence
• "especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies"
  • Agency is a very particular word, implying entities which have "freewill" and can act on the universe around us
• "usually involving devotional and ritual observances"
  • Doing things "because the religion says so" and "to demonstrate to others our beliefs"
• "and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs"
  • Moral codes provide definition to "good" and "bad"

The creation of moral codes seems to be one of the sticking points. In fact, expanding the topic even larger than morality, religion seems to be one of the single most effective tools humanity has invented and/or been given by a deity. Methods of teaching soft skills such as "kindness" are often handled through religious channels because they're good at it.

However, I would like to focus on the first two points. It is human nature to wonder about the universe around them, and in fact, the more successful we are at building models of how nature works. Cultures that do not build models of the universe get overridden by those who do. Once you have a model of how the universe works, it is very difficult not to begin picking up the other traits of a religion.

Consider science. Science is often considered to be the alternative to religion. It explains much of the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe (though not all!), just like a religion. However, unlike religion, science does not include any superhuman agency... at least at first glance. Listen in on the musings of two Quantum Physics professors bantering back and forth, and you start to pick up words of agency used to describe quantum scale particles (these words are a side effect of our inability to see nor change some quantum values in tandem). Likewise, you will hear science weigh in on "when life begins," which is heavily entwined with human agency, and it is very difficult to go too far down that road before you wonder about superhuman agencies, such as those of mob mentalities and nations. These issues rapidly produce a moral code of their own!

The last step towards science meeting that definition would be the presence of devotional rituals. Consider the repetative practice at the scientific method in school or the act of blind faith of landing in a foreign city with nothing but a GPS and the internet (or perhaps even the blind faith of getting on an airplane in the first place). These may not qualify as rituals in your own lexicon, but you have to admit that they are on a slippery slope.

And if society's alternative to religion looks this much like a religion, that suggests that it would be remarkably difficult to handle the development of an early society without accidentally treading on it. In fact, I think it would be tricky to accomplish, even if you started the society with the expressed intent of sidestepping this particular definition of religion. Things just happen, especially when they are beneficial.

Answer 3

That depends on whether or not the religious beliefs are actually true, something people here do not seem to be considering.

If the religious beliefs are false, then sure, it is probably possible to develop society without those beliefs. I even believe it likely that religion would not develop in such a case. I won't elaborate since the point of my answer is the opposite case.

If the beliefs of a religion are true, then it very well might be impossible to develop a society without them given the nature of the religion.

Take the following case for example:

If the universe was intelligently designed, then if that designer created people, put on them on Earth, had introductions with the people, and those first people (and possibly various people thereafter for a while) interacted on a personal level with their God, and if God really was a (or the) God and made that abundantly apparent, then no, it would not be possible at all to develop initial society without the existence of these religious beliefs.

All it takes for competing religions to pop up everywhere is for usurpers to prey on their neighbors; that part is likely inevitable if there is already an initial religion, regardless of the truthfulness of that initial religion.

I would elaborate on my case, but it seems rather straightforward and self-explanatory. If religion is accurate, if God exists and demonstrates such, religious development is unavoidable.

Answer 4

Religion is created by Fear. The Unknown doesn't lead us to the religious believes its the Fear of it.

I think if a Species/Civilization has following characteristics then they are most likely not to develop religious believes:

1. They don't fear anything (They just don't posses an ability to be afraid)
2. All of them are Equal (No one is weak or strong)
3. They live in a balanced Society

As already been mentioned that fear of unknown is a factor which causes civilizations to start develop religious believes. For the sake of survival a rational mind would develop some scenario in which the subject would survive by the intervention of some powerful creature who can handle the danger which could be in the unknown so that the subject may live calmly until the danger actually presents itself.

Second point being the fear of known. If some creatures are powerful than others in that case a possibility exists that in some scenarios powerful would try to exploit the weak. In this case too creatures would develop a belief system which would result in their survival/favor. Like It happened in every Human Civilization. Weak chose someone strong & good to protect them against someone strong & evil. That could a God, a King or a Military leader.

My Last point about society being balanced. If both of the previous conditions are met then society would very much tend towards the balanced one. But if it isn't then it would be a very odd society where few who have less than others would blame the ones with more. But everyone is equally strong and no one is afraid of anything so the weak ones or even the strong ones can develop some believe system that they are being kept down by some entity or they are being blessed by some entity respectively.

NOTE: The 3rd point isn't really necessary as it happens in our civilization too. Where this unbalance is sometimes tackled by Marxist believes or Capitalistic ones where entity that is holding you back or blessing you is associated with secular entities rather than religious ones.