Notes on the Origin of Religion

I recently read a very interesting book, Anaximander and the Birth of Science, by the Italian physicist Carlo Rovelli. It’s not so much a history of Anaximander himself, since we know very little about him with any certainty. Rather, it is a series of observations on the philosophical and historical implications of the theories of this very early Greek scientist.

The book was full of interesting observations, and I was delighted that I found it worthwhile even in the areas where I was bracing myself for the impact of philosophical nonsense. In a chapter that addresses the growth of knowledge and how, for example, Einstein’s ideas supersede Newton’s, Rovelli briefly mentions Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn, and I thought, “Here it comes.” But what followed was not the usual thinly disguised philosophical skepticism you get from academic philosophers. Instead, he offered a sophisticated and intriguing view similar to what we would call, in Objectivist philosophy, contextual certainty. It was, in fact, more detailed and sophisticated than anything I’ve heard from Objectivist philosophers, which makes me think that there is a lot of valuable new work to be done to fully understand this issue.

Maybe I will explore that at some future time, but it is not what I am writing about today. My observations today are touched off by what I thought was the least valuable chapter of the book, in which Rovelli offers up some speculation about the origins of religion. What he came up with was not very compelling, but the question was interesting enough to spark some thoughts of my own.

---

First, why is this important? Rovelli brings it up because one of Anaximander’s big breakthroughs is the idea that events in the world have natural causes rather than being caused by gods. What caught my attention is Rovelli’s observation that this idea, revolutionary when Anaximander first advanced it roughly 2,500 years ago, is still in many respects a minority viewpoint today. So why is a religious perspective so persistent?

One of the reasons I’m interested in this question is because there is a long-standing argument among religious conservatives—Brent Orrell used it on me here—that this persistence of religious belief must mean that humans have a basic need for some form of religious belief. It can be shunted into other channels (“wokeness” is religion under a secular guise), but ultimately it cannot denied.

This got me thinking about why religion developed, why it seems to be such a universal and unavoidable starting point in human thinking, whether it is unavoidable, and whether it is necessary.