Reflections on the Origin of the Problem of the Origin of Religion

In theological studies, religion is sometimes regarded as supernatural and transcendental, and sometimes in the form of ontology, functionalism, naturalism, and phenomenology, religion is considered artificial or terrestrial. The search for the origin of religion and the causes of its emergence and tendency towards it has been prominent in the West since the eighteenth century. According to this, religion is a human and social phenomenon and it is necessary to see when and where and based on which imaginary need man has invented religion or from what inner traits (ignorance, fear, sexual complexes, capitalism, alienation, and aspiration) religion has emanated. These attitudes are often atheistic, and the lack of distinction between different aspects of religion has led them to epistemic fallacies and methodological slippages. The truth and falsehood of religions are not related to the right or wrong origin of the inclination towards it and the truth of religion is very different from the affirmation of religion (religiosity). In assessing the truth of religion and religious propositions, only philosophical components are involved, not sociological and psychological components and criteria. Reliance on historical narratives, the interplay of atheistic presuppositions, the unification of all religions, the magnification of believers’ slips in religious orientation tend to be among the other errors in the approach that reduces the affirmation of religion to the factors of primary tendency to religion. Of course, the emergence of superstitions and innovations in religion and historical deviations in human religiosity cannot be denied. However, both religious texts and leaders have denunciated these deviations. In addition, these deviations are not linked to the principle of religion from a logical point of view. Using an analytic method, this research, with no recourse to critical narratives, elaborates on the general challenges of such an approach, including the inadequacy of the aforementioned knowledge types to validate religious beliefs, and reveals the inherent fallacies in them.