(July 9, 2018 at 5:06 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Theories such as the one you propose tend to fit only a small slice of recent religions. But the history of religion is much more diverse than that, and doesn't even fit that description, for example, for the African tribes who believe in witchcraft, and for whom, the purpose of religion is determining who is cursing your fields and how to protect against them. In my view, there was no intentional creation of religion, its origins are much more organic, being built on our natural cognitions as a social species, and serving multiple functions in any society. Different people posit different singular theories of why religion developed, yet they all seem to fail when looking back at the vast variety that the religious impulse has taken. I would be hard pressed to apply your idea to the bulk of Hindu and Buddhist thought. Yes, we have the laws of Manu, but I don't think they fit what you're describing.
All religions follow the same format. A few con men get authority over the sheep and get out of doing any real work because they live off of the
sheep's money. They get to walk around in fancy robes looking important and acting as if they have their favorite deity on speed dial.
