What distinguishes early philosophy from religion when both involve unknown forces?

[Chiclayo guy]

I am involved in a discussion about the origin of religion. I made the statement that the very early humans who were speculating about the causes of things that frightened them and that they did not understand (wind, thunder, earthquakes) were engaged in philosophy and science. Their exercise did not become religion until those early humans concluded that the cause(s) were some mystical guiding force.

One response was that there are laws of physics we don’t understand (gravity, electromagnetism, quarks,) so what is the difference between them and a god of thunder?

I am struggling to come up with a sensible response to this argument. I’d appreciate any help.

 

[Amrator]

Tell them that we understand electromagnetism, quarks, and gravity very well. Science is an ongoing process. Otherwise, they are commiting a god of the gaps fallacy.

 

[Vanadium 50]

IBTL

First, this is a good example of why we don't allow philosophy here. While this is not philosophy, it suffers from the same problem - rejecting all the scholarly work out there by "it seems to me".

Second, the origins of religion are still a subject of investigation. One of the reasons is that religion appeared on the scene millennia before writing. However, virtually (and I am only using that word to cover my butt) no scholar holds to your theory. It is virtually (that word again) universally acknowledged that ritual and individual experience (e.g. spirit-walking) predated any sort of theology, again, by millennia. You will find this in virtually (third time's the charm) introductory text on the anthropology of religion.

 

[Mark44]

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/physics-forums-global-guidelines.414380/#post-3929007

all religious debates are off limits

Thread closed.