How human society became Religious Society
In the below Blog I have tried to capture the essence of what created the religion as we see it today. Everyone have their own belief system and it is not one's right to disregard others belief unless it is harm to human society. This is an Unopinionated blog which I have created after days of research and all the points presented here are not my own but are available in various public domains. I tried to understand how religion as concept came into existence and how it became what it is today. I have not included the discussions of Gods, science and various mythology/History. Religion's contribution to society and how individually they evolved from scratch to present. We will talk about religions particularly some other day. For now lets dive into our topic.
Before gods had names and temples rose up, humans were small hunter-gatherer bands, males and females that shared the first need, survival. Those people lived tens of thousands of years back. They roamed vast, open landscapes to the rhythm of migration for animals and depended on plants for food, shelter, and safety. Life was communal- not just physically but spiritually. The oldest known burials, like the ones discovered at Qafzeh Cave in Israel, around 100,000 years ago, might suggest that even the earliest Homo sapiens had some inkling of the sacred: bodies were buried in red ochre and other symbolic objects, presumably as part of a ritual or respect for the dead.
![]() |
Qafzeh cave Burial https://journals.openedition.org/paleo/4848 |
Many natural phenomena were beginning to be endowed with ever greater significance as human culture developed, chiefly following the cognitive resolution (70,000 years ago). The ones found in Lascaux, France (17,000 BCE) depict animals and hunting scenes upon the walls of caves that, probably for ritualistic, mnemonic, or magical purposes rather than mere ornamentation, served as sites for the display of early symbolic thought-the capacity to impute meanings to objects, sounds, or stories that extend beyond their immediate practical utility. Cultures began emerging around shared memory, myth, and custom.
![]() |
Lascaux Painting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascaux |
As farming and settling began to take root, humans' relation with nature started to change and their spiritual connection deepened. The forest, the river, the mountain, all being unpredictable and powerful. Without science to explain natural phenomena, nature was viewed as possessing agency. Rain could be a blessing or a punishment; a disease could be the work of a spiteful spirit. Such beliefs led to the formulation of animism, probably the oldest spiritual concept in the world.
Animism
does not equate with religion in a modern, organized sense. Rather, it is an
understanding of the world wherein all living things and sometimes inanimate
objects like plants, animals, rivers, rocks, and the very wind itself are
thought to be imbued with spirit. It is relational and holistic. Early in the
19th century, anthropologist E.B. Tylor maintained that animism represented
religion in its more uncomplicated form giving human inclination of
attributing life and intent to things. Modern cognitive scientists such as
Justin Barrett have confirmed that humans are evolutionarily hardwired to see
agency where it does not exist (for instance, attributing human features to
clouds or ghostly testimonies from the wind). This cognitive bias thus made the
animistic worldview intuitive and widely accepted.
![]() |
Read Primitive Culture by EB Tyler at https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.42334 |
![]() |
Mark Nodea – Rainbow Serpent (one of the original paintings from Aboriginal Australia) |
![]() |
Amaterasu, one of the central kami in the Shinto faith |
![]() |
The Concept of Panchtatva in Hinduism |
As societies transitioned from a nomadic existence based on hunting and gathering to one of settled agriculture, the people began to understand the world around them in ever deeper symbolic and psychological dimensions. Life was precarious in these early stages, dependent upon the fickleness of weather, on animals that refused to cooperate, on diseases that ruined human and animal lives, and on the specter of death, none of which could be altered by human activity. The early humans, caught in this uncertainty, developed a worldview based on animism: spirits in everything: animals, rivers, mountains, trees, and the wind. This was not really a religion in our sense. It was rather a psychological construct for survivalism, wherein nature was seen as alive, meaningful, and responsive to human endeavors.
These animistic beliefs were the first expressions of collective human meaning. They created meaning for events such as droughts, illness, or good harvests, but most importantly, they enacted communal practices: rituals, seasonal festivals, and funerals. Over generations, these practices became the very foundation of culture: shared systems of behavior, identity, and social order. From the Australian Aboriginal Dreamtime to the animistic celebrations of early Siberian, African, and Native American peoples, these systems exemplified how the human mind attempted to weave spiritual significance straight into the fabric of everyday existence. As fixity and stratificational tendencies in community life intensified, new levels of culture grew. In the course of its stratification, political organization emerged chiefs, elders, shamans, kings setting forth the desire to formalize. This is where culture started shifting into religion.
Things started changing with the introduction of Abrahamic religions in the world. The three Abrahamic religions-Judaism, Christianity, and Islam-were the primary forces molding society before culture, as we know it today, came into being. Starting out as separate beliefs based on the idea of a single, all-powerful God, these religions were the first to transcend tribal practices, thereby becoming formal institutions. In the case of Judaism, the early Israelites practiced animism and polytheism like their neighbors, but later these beliefs evolved into monotheism with a central code of law, namely, the Torah. This legal system became the lifeblood of Jewish society, transforming the formerly tribal culture into an organized religious system governing both spirituality and practical living.
![]() |
Original photo of oldest available Torah |
The trajectory of Christianity was similar to that of Judaism but with a radical departure in the concept of salvation as faith in Jesus Christ. Jews practicing old Jewish customs became Christians within this covenant. But Christianity began an emergence as a different religion with the formal establishment of Christian theology and with the emphasis laid by Paul on faith and grace over ritual law. Within no time, this religion became European faith, intermingling not just with the spiritual but also social, political, and cultural environment, especially with its adoption within the Roman Empire. Roman King Constantine accepted Christianity as religion into his kingdom. That was from where the church had started embracing institutionalized power, hierarchically structured. Also it was the first time when religion was institutionalized into political structure of the society.
![]() |
Roman King Constantine conversion to Christianity |
Just as it was with Christianity and Judaism till then, the seventh century saw the emergence of a religion set forth by Prophet Muhammad, with Islam being its name. In contrast to all preceding cultures, which philosophically regarded religion as one of the many things that constitute a larger culture, Islam instituted in a theocratic paradigm; it has a general paradigm wherein religious principles (of what is provided in the Qur'an and Hadith) would bind not only matters of the spirit but also join laws for society, governance, social relations to all human life. The rise of Islam as a formalized religion spread very far and wide so much so that the entire culture and even artistic practices (from art to architecture) came much later than the establishing influence of the religion. Thus, the scope of the concept of religion in Islam was even more important in determining a person's belief. This ensured a different form of religious culture that made history in shaping the future of the Middle East, North Africa, and the various countries in the world.
The early forms of animism, wherein religious beliefs were intermingled with the cultural practices and social order of the society, This has now given way to a clear separation between religion and culture via the Abrahamic faiths. For these traditions, religion served as the foundation, establishing moral codes, laws, and systems of governance before the cultural identity of the societies emerged. The emergence of these monotheistic religions marked a change from a culture-driven belief system into religion-driven societies, where doctrines of faith dominated the construction of personal identity and the societal framework.
Christianity and Islam moved in different contexts of state systems to offer new spiritual teachings and entire concepts of social organization supported by the growing empires. Their spread was more than simply a theological event, it was a cultural change. Unlike earlier belief systems integrated into daily life as part of local customs, the Abrahamic faiths introduced a more centralized, codified, and exclusive model of belief. This model, with its strong backing from institutions, had far-reaching consequences: it relentlessly pushed many older, largely decentralized cultures, intertwined with spirituality but devoid of institutional norms towards either transformation or extinction.
Through
this, the spiritual and cultural landscape of vast regions got redrawn. In
Europe, Christianity advanced and systematically erased Celtic, Norse, and
Slavic traditions. In 632 AD Islam emerged as the monotheistic faith against a
backdrop of diverse animistic, tribal, and Zoroastrian beliefs in the Middle
East and North Africa. The Egyptian cultures flourished independently elaborated pantheon with temple-based rituals and were advanced in astronomical and
spiritual systems. But they were erased with the advancement of Islam. Mayans-were left in tatters by colonialism conquest, or
religious imposition and remain scattered in fragments. These were not
"religions" in the modern sense; they were ways of life with
interconnected spiritual, ecological, social, and political systems. Their
removal meant not just the loss of belief but also the death of the whole
society.
The
Persians were once into Zoroastrianism, which had a pretty great influence on
later ones, especially in the above beliefs regarding heaven, hell, and final
judgment. It was culture, belonging
to the endorsed states, and it was centered on light, truth, and purity of
ritual." Later it was systematically sidelined following the Islamic
conquest in Persia within the seventh century CE. Though small communities
still keep it alive (like the Parsis of India), it never recovered its previous
cultural or geographical dimensions. Just like through the astonishment of
their own mathematical, astronomical, and ritualistic sophistication, the
Mayans were totally devastated by the European conquest and the diseases to
which they were converted to the European faith. Their ceremonial centers were
pulled down, their scriptures burned and denied, and their cosmological view
supplanted with the Christian one.
At least
some ancient systems succeeded in institutionalizing themselves sufficiently to
endure the pressure of what we now know as organized religions. Hinduism for example, never been a single religion-the term is simply a convenient
socio-political moniker for a wide spectrum of localized rites, deities, and
philosophies. It slowly began moving into institutional shape through the
solidifying texts, primarily the Vedas, Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita, in
response to the Islamic and later British colonial pressures. Similarly,
Buddhism, Jainism, and Shinto had to pull themselves up by the codification of
their beliefs and organizational structures so that they could still subsist
amid competing religions or modern secular states.
Especially
with the rise of European imperialism from the fifteenth century onward, the
need to control, categorize, or convert other people's religions has helped
shape Western thinking about religion. It is only during this period and in
this mode that different belief systems began to be classified into various
religions. The whole idea of defining boundaries of religion came into being,
especially in the minds of Westerners seeing it as contrasting with infinite
other domains of life, such as culture, kinship, work, state-customs, and
land-laws problems not imagined by them in a monolithic way. By contrast, this
Western classification has, even further, served to create the modern idea of
religion as something that has distinct boundaries, a scripture, and a
clergy, something ancient cultures never set out to achieve.
Many
organized and monotheistic religions, such as Christianity and Islam, challenged
many other animistic cultural-spiritual systems, forcing them to extinction or reformation.
Where once Akhenaton worship was practiced there is now largely forgotten; on
the other hand, those that survived were often reverted into institutional
forms that lay outside traditional notions of culture. And that is how all the culture transformed into becoming a religion itself.
Ah yes, the entire history of religion condensed into a single blog post - move over, historians, we've got a new oracle in town! While enthusiasm is appreciated,a little fact-checking wouldn't hurt. For starters, judaism didn't casually morph from animism to monotheism overnight-- centuries of theological development, exile and priestly politics played a part. And no, christianity didn't simply "replace" judaism because paul said so ; early christians were a splinter group for quite a while before Rome got involved.
ReplyDeleteThen there's the bit about islam "erasing" entire civilizations ; might want to differentiate between conquest , cultural assimilation, and outright destruction. Not everything before islm was wiped off the map like chalkboard. Also the idea that religions like Hinduism only institutionalized in response to invasions? That ignores a few thousand years of internal philosophical evolution.
oh, and let's not forget the claim that westernrs "invented" the concept of religion-as -category. That's a popular academic trope, but its more nuanced than that - non western societies also drew lines between sacred and secular in thier own ways.
So KUDOS for the ambition, but next time, maybe less world-building and more reading? Just a thought.
Hey rishi,
Deletewhile I understand your fury, I would like to clarify that it was already mentioned i am not writing about any religion individually. we are solely discussing how religion as concept we see in todays world arrived (Institutionalized religion).
1. Yes their were years of progression of Israel to adopt Judaism but that was not the point. We were discussing when a monotheistic religion came into existence, and how it affected the existing cultures.
2. Yes u were right about the splinters I have read about that to but the point was how a formal religion was in making and Paul was one of the central figures. Apart from that Roman king Constantine adopting Christianity was the first ever incident in the world where religion as a concept was Institutionalized. (It is not my opinion but fact.)
3. About Persian conquest U might wanna check the most basic knowledge tool - Wikipedia. (it is even controversial to say if it was an Arabic conquest or Islamic conquest) again this is not my belief but a point taken from credible source, and also I would like to draw your attention that after years of fighting Sassanian empire fall in the battle of nahavand in 642. I just merely stated the fact that with Fall of Sassanian empire. Persian conquest was over and after that till today the local culture got erased. The only known Zoroastrians (Parsis) now reside in good numbers is in India. ( Again not my opinion but fact)
4. Yes u are right that every religion have their own centuries of evolution between sacred and secular. But again that was not the point the point was Institutionalization of religion. The cultural practices of so called Hinduism was way of life in India it was not a religion as we see today. Same goes for Japanese Shinto or Jainism or Buddhism or Egyptians, Greeks and even romans before Christianity.
5. It is not my claim that westerners invented concept of religion. The fact that every religion is named by westerners is itself sufficient to prove that it was not local who invented religion as it looks like today. The words like Hinduism, Shintoism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism. Who put an "ism" behind these words. All the cultures that survived were named and that is why we don't see the fallen cultures in category of religions.
Again Rishi I understand the reasons of your rage but instead of questioning my research u could have understood the topic that we were discussing. If u would have read without biases u could have understood that this blog was completely unopinionated and unbiased. But still thank You for you opinion. I believe i will be researching harder from next time and be ready for any questions.
Let me clarify my earlier sarcastic comment straightforwardly: attempting to condense over 3,000 (arguably 10,000+) years of religious evolution into a single blog post is certainly ambitious. But in doing so, some critical nuances were oversimplified, and in a few cases, fact-checking was missing. Regarding your suggestion that I’m biased against your article I’m actually an atheist who sees religion as a human concept. So I’m genuinely glad we’re having this discussion.
DeleteNow for the problem statements :
1. calling early Israelite religion animistic is a bit of a stretch, infact they were polytheistic or henotheistic(worshipping one main god while acknowledging others), to be honest Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten (14th century BCE) is one o the earliest adopters of monothiesm( only one god) , it took 6oo years for judaism to develope into strict monotheism.
2.No institutional religion existed long before Constantine, Ancient Egyptian religion had an elaborate priesthood, temple economy, and state rituals thousands of years earlier. For that matter even indian history predates most of these claims.
3. The key difference between cultural assimilation (where existing cultures are integrated into new systems) and outright destruction (where everything is erased or wiped off the map).The Persian culture did not disappear. Instead, it merged with Islamic culture, especially in Iran, where the Persian language and cultural traditions continued to thrive under Islamic rule. Again this is a vast topic and oversimplifying them is problematic.
4. I think you are confusing institutionalised religion and naming religion, the name and modern framing of Hinduism, as a single, unified “religion” comparable to Christianity was shaped by British colonial scholars. The practices themselves are deeply rooted and institutionalized across thousands of years of Indian history.
We’re dealing with a topic that cuts across multiple academic disciplines like History, Anthropology, Religious Studies, Sociology, Philosophy, and Postcolonial Studies, to name a few. And with a topic so vast, precision matters. Oversimplification and unchecked generalisations do a disservice to the very complexity we’re trying to understand.
Let’s keep discussing—but let’s also keep the facts tight.
'Sapiens' by Yuval Noah is actually a good place to start.
DeleteThanks rishi,
Deletewill surely check sapiens.
I myself believe religion as a human concept but still, I think U are confusing between Institutionalized religion (where one have to join or convert) and culture (might show various aspects similar to institutionalized religions eg. religious schools, spiritual priest etc) Their similarities often led people to believe that the all are same but in different era or practice.
The main purpose of institutionalized religion is to and dominate the state according to the religious doctrines while culture assimilate the way of life into spirituality. (Again we will not discuss which is right and which is wrong as both have their own ways of injustice to the world)
Coming to Egypt - First of all there was no formal way to convert or join Egyptian religion breaking first nuance of formal institutionalized religion. Further Just Because Egyptians have gods and pharos and their culture woven into statehood doesn't make them Institutionalized religion.
The concept of institutionalized religion start with written or oral doctrine( shared code of law & morals) towards god to navigate the people of faith. Surely Egyptians had the books of faith found in the pyramids or their burials but we cannot consider them as scripture or doctrine, hence there is no evidence of code of conduct or morals towards gods that Egyptians must follow or would be punished by state and thus we cannot prove them as a religion. I am not denying their faith towards their god or their philosophy noe i am denying priestly politics but it simply does not fit into modern concept of religion where u have to join or convert. On internet it might show Egyptians as a ancient religion but if you try to put them in modern religions definition they don't fit in that. same goes for Hinduism we had Bhagwad Gita as one of the holy books but it was not a doctrine that every Hindu must follow or would be punished by the state, as Hinduism was not an institutionalized religion in ancient India and yet it was assimilate in gurukuls, temples and in state. Even the kings practiced Vedic rituals but that doesn't necessarily proves that it was a religious institutionalized state. Therefore it shows clear distinction between culture and religion, Which most of the times world would confuse itself in differentiating them. I am not saying the gods or faith didn't exist we are talking about religion as statehood and the need to convert or join.
As far as blog is concerned i would still stick to my point that how modern religions were formed and how the world which was largely dominated by animistic cultures changed after the introduction of Abrahamic religions. But still I will surely research more and keep the window of possibilities open.
And I am really glad this time instead of criticizing u are discussing.
u can read about Egyptians in the below link which is quite a credible source
https://www.britannica.com/topic/ancient-Egyptian-religion
it talks about ancient Egyptian religion but if u read it entirely carefully it is not that difficult to differentiate between Egyptian culture and religion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNo, religious institutionalisation does not require conversion, but conversion is common in many institutionalised religions. Let me explain. Religious institutionalisation means organising a religion with clear rules, leaders (like priests), rituals, and teachings. Many such religions do have a process for people to officially join, like conversion in Christianity or Islam. But conversion is not necessary for a religion to be called institutionalized. What really matters is having a proper system to guide how people follow the faith. For example, Shinto in Japan and traditional Hinduism have temples and rituals but don’t require people to convert. So, while some organized religions ask people to join officially, being institutionalized mainly means the religion is well-structured, not that it needs people to convert.
ReplyDeleteEgyptian religion doesn’t fit modern missionary religion models, but it does qualify as institutionalized religion in an ancient, state-linked context.
Both ancient Egyptian religion and the Indian caste system used religious institutions to justify social hierarchy based on birth. In Egypt, divinity was linked to kingship and priesthood, while in India, later religious texts like the Manusmriti codified caste roles, making birth the deciding factor for access to religious knowledge and societal rights.
Importantly, neither system explicitly stated that being born into a particular class made someone morally right or wrong. However, by structuring access to power, knowledge, and religious practice around birth, they implicitly judged individuals’ worth and roles based on lineage rather than actions or merit. Thus, even without directly saying who is right or wrong, both systems institutionalised judgment by birth, limiting social mobility and reinforcing inequality for generations.
Regarding the blog I dont have any problem except for the fact checking part ,In the early world, most people followed animistic beliefs, where nature and spirits were deeply respected. As societies grew, religions became more organized, especially in ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, and India. These religions were closely tied to kings and priests, and often created social hierarchies based on birth. In India, for example, the caste system decided who could access religious knowledge or rituals, and in Egypt, priests and pharaohs held power passed down through families.
When Abrahamic religions like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam emerged, they introduced one universal God, written laws, and the idea that anyone could join by faith, not by birth. This attracted many people who were treated unfairly in the older systems, like lower castes or slaves. These religions grew fast by offering spiritual equality and a sense of community. But while they challenged old hierarchies, they sometimes created new forms of control through strict rules and religious authorities.
I guess this is never ending. But still a last try,
DeleteI never denied the gods, kings, priests or even fanatism's of ancient cultures. I simply reject the Idea of them being religions as we see today.
Yes there are many similar aspects between culture and religion but you cannot classify something thousands of years old into a concept created centuries ago. yes modern world do consider older cultures as religion but as for them(people of older cultures) the concept of religion simply didn't exist. Imagine if you go back in time of maybe chadragupt maurya and ask him what is you religion. There would be no answer. OK i understand religion is an English word but if u ask him what is you dharma. He might say things that of righteousness. Because the word dharma means righteousness not religion. Hence in spite of gods, temple's, priest's and gurukul's the concept of religion didn't exist in India and this same goes for other ancient cultures.
Lets end it here and here is my conclusion, before that, I have to answer that gupta era's question, you might have asked him which god they have faith in or which cast do you belong to (unfortunately this still exists)
DeleteReligion, as we define it today , with organised doctrines, conversion, and identity, did not exist in ancient times. Instead, people followed deeply rooted ways of life, spiritual philosophies, and cultural practices that were tied to their communities. Even though there were tensions and rivalries, such as between Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains, these were usually non-violent and centered on philosophy, temple control, or royal support, not religious identity in the modern sense.
When we look at history, most wars weren’t fought because of religion itself, but because of power, politics, land, or control, often using religion as a tool. Religion offered a strong emotional and social identity, which rulers could use to unite or divide people. Even today, religion is often not the root cause of conflict ,it’s exploited by those in power to fuel divisions and justify violence.
So, while faith-based disturbances did exist centuries ago, and religion has been involved in many wars, it is more accurate to say:
Religion is not inherently the cause of war, it becomes a reason when people use it to gain power, control, or dominance.
The real cause is usually human ambition and conflict, with religion serving as the flag under which battles are fought.
Religion, as we define it today , with organized doctrines, conversion, and identity, did not exist in ancient times. Instead, people followed deeply rooted ways of life, spiritual philosophies, and cultural practices that were tied to their communities. Even though there were tensions and rivalries, such as between Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains, these were usually non-violent and centered on philosophy, temple control, or royal support, not religious identity in the modern sense.
DeleteOnly this was the point of blog, for others things i don't disagree with you just different perspective and weren't point of my blog
And just a little correction Chandragupta Maurya wasn't from Gupta era he was founder of Maurya Dynasty. Guptas came a lot after him.
Had a great discussion with you expecting same for coming blogs!!
Oh yes, of course, because nothing says peaceful co-existence like the slow erasure of Buddhism from India, temple desecrations between rival sects, and religious debates where the loser was sometimes exiled or worse. Sure, they weren’t officially labeled “religious wars,” but when kings were funding only their preferred gods and philosophical schools were tearing each other apart in court-sponsored debates, it wasn’t exactly a kumbaya moment either.
DeleteLet’s not romanticise the past too much; just because swords weren’t always drawn doesn’t mean there wasn’t violence, suppression, or power politics at play. Power struggles cloaked in spiritual language are still power struggles.(Sarcasm Intended)
Also, you are right, I got confused about the Maurya Empire and Gupta Empire. And that’s the thing with history, isn’t it? No one can truly grasp it without digging deeper,because if we go by surface-level narratives or romanticised versions, we end up repeating myths, not understanding realities. History demands context, not just nostalgia.
Brother, I really admire the way you’re diving deep to understand the root causes behind these issues. I’d be happy to join you in exploring and contributing to your future blogs , looking forward to many more insightful discussions together!