Why Religion Exists

At its core, the Evolutionary Coping Mechanism Theory posits that as cognitive abilities increase, so does awareness of mortality and uncertainty. This heightened awareness triggers existential anxiety, prompting species to develop coping mechanisms. Religion and science emerge as two primary responses, evolving through cognitive, social, environmental, and cultural interactions.

Cognitive development plays a crucial role in this process. As species' cognitive abilities advance, they become increasingly aware of their own mortality and the uncertainty surrounding their existence. This awareness sparks existential anxiety, driving the development of coping mechanisms. Social learning theory supports this notion, suggesting that individuals learn behaviors and beliefs through observation and interaction with others (Bandura, 1977).

Religion, in this context, serves as an initial coping mechanism. It provides meaning, purpose, and reassurance in the face of uncertainty. Terror Management Theory (Greenberg et al., 1997) substantiates this claim, demonstrating that religion mitigates existential anxiety by offering a sense of control and significance. Religious beliefs and practices provide a framework for understanding the world, alleviating fears and anxieties associated with mortality.

And that understanding is?

Science provides an alternative framework for understanding the world, addressing existential questions through empirical evidence and rational inquiry.

At its core, the Evolutionary Coping Mechanism Theory posits that as cognitive abilities increase, so does awareness of mortality and uncertainty. This heightened awareness triggers existential anxiety, prompting species to develop coping mechanisms. Religion and science emerge as two primary responses, evolving through cognitive, social, environmental, and cultural interactions.

Religion, in this context, serves as an initial coping mechanism... However, as cognitive abilities continue to advance, science emerges as a complementary coping mechanism.

Ecological factors, such as resource scarcity or natural disasters, can exacerbate existential anxiety, driving the evolution of coping mechanisms.

It suggests that intelligent species, faced with existential threats, will inevitably develop coping mechanisms.

Why Religion Exists ...

Magical thinking. 'Making shit up' is far easier than struggling to find out what is and is not the case. The brains of h. sapiens are adapted for survival and not truths; therefore [ ... ]

We're natural beings. Paths of least resistance constitute the regularities – processes – of nature. Making shit up (versus figuring shit out) is a path of least cognitive resistance [ ... ]

Your Evolutionary Coping Mechanism Theory (ECMT) seems to me a pretty reasonable account of some distinctive phenomena; you nail its weak heel here:

The quoted passage instead suggests the 'conflict thesis', which generally casts religion as an outdated or superseded cognitive mode especially when viewed against the background of scientific progress. According to this view, science and religion are fundamentally at odds: science is seen as the domain of rational, evidence-based inquiry, while religion is framed as an artifact of cognitive biases or a tool for coping with existential anxiety. The implication is often that religion has no genuine insights to offer about reality or the human condition and so can only be understood in Darwinian terms, never mind that it is primarily a biological theory about the evolution of species.

The idea that religion and science are methods by which humans attempt to deal with fears of uncertainty and death is commonplace. How is what you've described different? It doesn't really seem like a theory at all - it's more of a platitude.

How does this explain, say, Calvinism where man has to be constantly worried about whether or not he is elect or destined to eternal damnation? Generally, in this religion, one has absolutely no ability to determine whether one will be saved or not, and one also knows that the overwhelming odds are that one is destined for eternal torment. There are also, traditionally, no ways to know for sure if one is truly elect.

Or how does it explain the many early religions in which the Gods are largely capricious and cruel? I am not sure how believing in an extremely powerful sky rapist who likes transforming into animals before committing his infamies is "reassuring."

Scientific inquiry offers a methodical approach to understanding the world, reducing uncertainty and anxiety.

Science provides an alternative framework for understanding the world, addressing existential questions through empirical evidence and rational inquiry.

This essay proposes the Evolutionary Coping Mechanism Theory, suggesting that intelligent species create religion and science as adaptive responses to existential threats and uncertainties.

ECMT posits that religiosity evolved to mitigate existential anxiety, foster cooperation, and provide meaning – functions that aren't necessarily incompatible with scientific inquiry.
2h

Implications of this theory are far-reaching. It suggests that intelligent species, faced with existential threats, will inevitably develop coping mechanisms.

This essay proposes the Evolutionary Coping Mechanism Theory, suggesting that intelligent species create religion and science as adaptive responses to existential threats and uncertainties.

It's not merely a platitude, but a testable theory that predicts specific patterns of cultural and cognitive evolution.

ECMT acknowledges ecological factors, such as resource scarcity and natural disasters, as exacerbating existential anxiety. However, it also highlights the role of cognitive and social factors in shaping coping mechanisms.

Lastly, ECMT doesn't imply that existential anxiety drives the evolution of cognitive capabilities. Rather, it suggests that existential anxiety is a selective pressure that influences the development of coping mechanisms within existing cognitive frameworks.

ECMT builds upon this fundamental principle, providing a detailed explanation for the emergence of complex, culturally-mediated coping mechanisms in humans.

I suppose one way to "cope" with a lack of meaning could be to actually uncover to true meaning of life, how to "be a good person," or "life a good life," etc. :grin:

But the idea that this is an "adaptive coping mechanism," then makes no sense in terms of some later religious developments, because they make the world both terrifying and unintelligible, the result of an unfathomable God who is beyond all human notions of good and evil, totally obscured by total equivocity.

This is not only not reassuring, it makes man entirely helpless, and it makes all of reality bottom out in the completely unintelligible and unfathomable. Through the obsession with divine sovereignty, all of existence becomes a pantheistic expression of the divine will, which is itself beyond comprehension.

Scientific inquiry offers a methodical approach to understanding the world, reducing uncertainty and anxiety.

He's talking about Calvinism, a religious movement which turns God into a total psychopath.

While this theory remains speculative, it offers a compelling perspective on the intertwined evolution of religion and science. I think further research should investigate correlations between intelligence, existential awareness, and religious/scientific development.

This is not only not reassuring, it makes man entirely helpless, and it makes all of reality bottom out in the completely unintelligible and unfathomable.

Sounds like Calvinism to me.

Gillespie turns the conventional reading of the Enlightenment (as reason overcoming religion) on its head by explaining how the humanism of Petrarch, the free-will debate between Luther and Erasmus, the scientific forays of Francis Bacon, the epistemological debate between Descartes and Hobbes, were all motivated by an underlying wrestling with the questions posed by nominalism, which according to Gillespie dismantled the rational God and Cosmos of medieval scholasticism and introduced (by way of the Franciscans) a fideistic God-of-pure-will, born out of a concern that anything less than such would jeopardize His divine omnipotence. (In other words, a God not bound to observe logic and no respecter of reason.)

Subsequent intellectual history is, in Gillespie's reading, a grappling with the question of free will and divine determinism. Protestantism involved at its core fideistic, denying free will will in order to preserve God's absolute power. However, this in turn culminated in an ambivalence about salvation. If God simply wills whom to save, human action has no real merit (ex. Luther's "sin boldly"). Gillespie's chapter on the debate between Erasmus-Luther was among the most interesting in bringing this out.
Also fascinating is Gillespie's detailed analysis of Rene Descartes and Thomas Hobbes. The latter is usually depicted as an atheist (or his religiosity dubious at best) and his philosophy as chiefly political but Gillespie believes him sincerely religious (if not exactly orthodox) and reveals the underlying metaphysical concerns behind his thought.

And so Gillespie says, even in modern times, we are bequeathed with a similar wrestling between humanity's political ambitions (the expansion of freedom) and the inability to reconcile this with science's inherent determinist worldview. Likewise, in the post-9/11/ confrontation with Islam (which makes a brief appearance at the end) we are again confronted with the fideism and absolutism of Islam which sees the West's assertion of individual autonomy as a challenge to God's omnipotence, for whom our only response ought to be obedience.

Gillespie writes: [i] the apparent rejection or disappearance of religion and theology in fact conceals the continuing relevance of theological issues and commitments for the modern age. Viewed from this perspective, the process of secularization or disenchantment that has come to be seen as identical with modernity was in fact something different than it seemed, not the crushing victory of reason over infamy, to use Voltaire’s famous term, not the long drawn out death of God that Nietzsche proclaimed, and not the evermore distant withdrawal of the deus absconditus Heidegger points to, but the gradual transference of divine attributes to human beings (an infinite human will), the natural world (universal mechanical causality), social forces (the general will, the hidden hand), and history (the idea of progress, dialectical development, the cunning of reason). …

That the deemphasis, disappearance, and death of God should bring about a change in our understanding of man and nature is hardly surprising. Modernity … originates out of a series of attempts to construct a coherent metaphysic specialis on a nominalist foundation, to reconstitute something like the comprehensive summalogical account of scholastic realism. Th e successful completion of this project was rendered problematic by the real ontological differences between an infinite (and radically omnipotent) God and his finite creation (including both man and nature).[/i]

I find this particularly unconvincing as respects "afterlife" beliefs because many ancient visions (and the dominant modern vision) of the afterlife seem significantly more unpleasant than just ceasing to exist.

We’re all caught up in the throes of this, every day.

want to attack the notion that this idea is an evolutionary adaptation.

All species develop coping mechanisms, from viruses to us. Some of the species die in the process of natural selection and thems who chose the environmentally-conditioned adaptations which effect reproduction positively for the species are thems who developed the coping mechanisms that passed on.

But evolution has nothing to do with religion, in my opinion. Once we acquired the ability to speak language -- well, I think that's more in the ballpark of why religion exists. But it's pretty hazy since it's not like any of us were there at the dawn of talking/writing.

Yes, I did think of that, and I agree with you that it might be plausible in some contexts. Animism is the norm both in early cultures and early childhood, e.g. "the river floods because it wants to." And there is a clear path from this to positing supernatural entities.

But the idea that this is an "adaptive coping mechanism," then makes no sense in terms of some later religious developments, because they make the world both terrifying and unintelligible, the result of an unfathomable God who is beyond all human notions of good and evil, totally obscured by total equivocity. In these extreme voluntarist theological contexts God has also revealed that God intends to consign most of humanity to eternal torment, saving a small remnant, based on "His own good pleasure," for reasons "beyond human comprehension." And to top it all off, God has predestined everything, including our own acts and thoughts, according to his unfathomable will, which is, as mentioned, beyond all human comprehension (save miraculous illumination).

This is not only not reassuring, it makes man entirely helpless, and it makes all of reality bottom out in the completely unintelligible and unfathomable. Through the obsession with divine sovereignty, all of existence becomes a pantheistic expression of the divine will, which is itself beyond comprehension.

It seems to me like the opposite of a coping mechanism. "Nightmare fuel," would be a better term.

Consider the cultural context in which these theological developments emerged. They responded to societal pressures, power struggles, or intellectual debates, serving adaptive functions such as social control, emotional regulation, and cognitive resolution. Emphasizing divine sovereignty and predestination reinforced social hierarchies and authority, while the promise of salvation for a select few provided emotional comfort and hope. The notion of an unfathomable God resolved cognitive dissonances surrounding evil, suffering, and uncertainty.

Your OP (original post) and subsequent posts provide almost no specific information. They include a vague and undetailed description of the elements of your ECMT and it's supporting information. You claim it is testable and makes specific predictions but you don't describe any specific hypotheses or how they might be tested.

Yeah. No accusations, but sounds AI-ish, like a corporate memo.