Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[JackDaydream]

I am thinking about this in connection with reading, 'The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and Why it Endures' by Nicholas Wade. He looks at the way in which for around 50,000 years human beings practiced religion. The definition of religion which he offers is, 'Religion is a system of emotionally binding beliefs and practices in which a society implicitly negotiates through prayer and sacrifice with supernatural agents, securing from them commands that compel members, through fear of divine punishment, to subordinate their interests to a common good.'

Wade argues that the issue of the evolution of religion is different to the question of whether gods, or God, exists. It is about the relationship between religious beliefs and human nature. He sees it as being closely related to the 'moral instinct', drawing upon Darwin's ideas and Durkheim's understanding of the social functions of religion. He also sees it as being connected to the nature of language itself, as well as looking at the question, 'Is religion adaptive or just a by- product of evolution?'

I am interested in this area of thinking and the anthropological aspects in understanding of the nature of religion. I do see it as being separate from the question of the metaphysics exploration, although I am aware that one's metaphysical ideas may influence the angle from which this is approached? So, how do you understand the evolution and origins of the history of religious traditions and ideas?

[Samana Johann]

I am thinking about this in connection with reading, 'The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and Why it Endures' by Nicholas Wade. He looks at the way in which for around 50,000 years human beings practiced religion. The definition of religion which he offers is, 'Religion is a system of emotionally binding beliefs and practices in which a society implicitly negotiates through prayer and sacrifice with supernatural agents, securing from them commands that compel members, through fear of divine punishment, to subordinate their interests to a common good.'

Wade argues that the issue of the evolution of religion is different to the question of whether gods, or God, exists. It is about the relationship between religious beliefs and human nature. He sees it as being closely related to the 'moral instinct', drawing upon Darwin's ideas and Durkheim's understanding of the social functions of religion. He also sees it as being connected to the nature of language itself, as well as looking at the question, 'Is religion adaptive or just a by- product of evolution?'

I am interested in this area of thinking and the anthropological aspects in understanding of the nature of religion. I do see it as being separate from the question of the metaphysics exploration, although I am aware that one's metaphysical ideas may influence the angle from which this is approached? So, how do you understand the evolution and origins of the history of religious traditions and ideas?

There is a precise list of all kinds of possible views/philosophies/religions (sure it doesn't include Spagetti monster): "The Brahma net"

[Lagayscienza]

This is a fascinating topic. Wade is on the right track. Religion was not about whether gods really existed (although it has become about that) but about how to survive in the face of knowledge that our lives were ephemeral. Religion probably was an adaptation. There was a probably fitness payoff in outsourcing such worries to gods and priests.

[JackDaydream]

To Samana Johann,
One question here may be to what extent can Buddhism be seen as a religion? It does not have beliefs about a 'God' in the anthropomorphic sense. Nevertheless, it does have some underlying idea of some higher consciousness. It does not have worship and prayer, but meditation. It advanced from Hinduism but is far more fitted to the secular understanding of life.

[JackDaydream]

This is a fascinating topic. Wade is on the right track. Religion was not about whether gods really existed (although it has become about that) but about how to survive in the face of knowledge that our lives were ephemeral. Religion probably was an adaptation. There was a probably fitness payoff in outsourcing such worries to gods and priests.

Wade's perspective draws upon the way in which human beings sought connection with the 'supernatural' as a way of finding solutions and he sees dance and music as a means of evoking higher states of consciousness in this.

One book which he discusses is Julian Jaynes' The Bicameral Mind: The Origins of Consciousness. Jaynes speaks about the way in which it is likely that human beings in ancient times did not have a clear distinction between inner and outer aspects of consciousness. They saw the inner aspects as being a direct source of 'divine' consciousness, such as the revelation of the Ten Commandments to Moses.

Wade also looks at the way in which ancient people in former times may have looked at dreams as a source of wisdom. I understand that The Book of Revelation was based on dreams. However, as the book has been a source of difficulty historically, it shows how hard it is to interpret, with so much potential for confusion. Attempts were made to try and pinpoint a specific Antichrist. The problem may where what is consider to be 'divine' revelation is taken too concretely as opposed to being symbolic.

[Pattern-chaser]

I am thinking about this in connection with reading, 'The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and Why it Endures' by Nicholas Wade. He looks at the way in which for around 50,000 years human beings practiced religion. The definition of religion which he offers is, 'Religion is a system of emotionally binding beliefs and practices in which a society implicitly negotiates through prayer and sacrifice with supernatural agents, securing from them commands that compel members, through fear of divine punishment, to subordinate their interests to a common good.'

If one wishes to discuss religion, then one needs a definition of what it is that is being discussed. Fair enough. But the phrase I have highlighted does not sit well with my own perspective on religion. But that's not what you're asking. Your topic title wonders why, and how, did religious ideas and beliefs evolve?

I think perhaps the "why" is more easily addressed than the "how". And the "how" is almost a non-question. There isn't really a 'how'; I think we just did it. But why? In an attempt to understand, and maybe influence, the world around us...?

[JackDaydream]

I am thinking about this in connection with reading, 'The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and Why it Endures' by Nicholas Wade. He looks at the way in which for around 50,000 years human beings practiced religion. The definition of religion which he offers is, 'Religion is a system of emotionally binding beliefs and practices in which a society implicitly negotiates through prayer and sacrifice with supernatural agents, securing from them commands that compel members, through fear of divine punishment, to subordinate their interests to a common good.'

If one wishes to discuss religion, then one needs a definition of what it is that is being discussed. Fair enough. But the phrase I have highlighted does not sit well with my own perspective on religion. But that's not what you're asking. Your topic title wonders why, and how, did religious ideas and beliefs evolve?

I think perhaps the "why" is more easily addressed than the "how". And the "how" is almost a non-question. There isn't really a 'how'; I think we just did it. But why? In an attempt to understand, and maybe influence, the world around us...?

So, is it the idea of divine punishment that you are uneasy with? This is a variable which may vary considerably with different forms of religion. I was brought up as a Catholic, and the idea of hell worried me so much. At 13, I got in a panic about the passage about ' the unforgivable sin' , and convinced myself that I may have committed it and was destined for everlasting hell. Even after teenage years, I worried so much about hell, as did my mother and some of my friends. If you grew up with a Christian background and have escaped this fear, you are fortunate.

The why did religion develop is the main focus of my question and the how is probably to do with the specifics, such as education and cultural transmission. In particular, the roots of religious perspectives may have common origins, including the Egyptian ideas. Generally, I was taught the ideas in the New Testament, but, at the moment, I am learning about Judaism as the root of this because I have got to know a number of Jews since moving to a new area. As you know, I am interested in comparative religion, and this is partly through knowing Muslims and Hindus and many other groups. The perennial aspects of religion may be important, as including the basis for moral thinking, as well as overall perspectives on ideas of purity and taboos.

[Gertie]

I am thinking about this in connection with reading, 'The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and Why it Endures' by Nicholas Wade. He looks at the way in which for around 50,000 years human beings practiced religion. The definition of religion which he offers is, 'Religion is a system of emotionally binding beliefs and practices in which a society implicitly negotiates through prayer and sacrifice with supernatural agents, securing from them commands that compel members, through fear of divine punishment, to subordinate their interests to a common good.'

Wade argues that the issue of the evolution of religion is different to the question of whether gods, or God, exists. It is about the relationship between religious beliefs and human nature. He sees it as being closely related to the 'moral instinct', drawing upon Darwin's ideas and Durkheim's understanding of the social functions of religion.

That works with his particular sociological definition of the function of religion, but there are other definitions which would place the existence of god(s) as central. Wade's kinda creating a definition which embodies his own explanation here.

He also sees it as being connected to the nature of language itself

How so?

as well as looking at the question, 'Is religion adaptive or just a by- product of evolution?'

What's the difference between them he's pointing to?

I am interested in this area of thinking and the anthropological aspects in understanding of the nature of religion. I do see it as being separate from the question of the metaphysics exploration, although I am aware that one's metaphysical ideas may influence the angle from which this is approached? So, how do you understand the evolution and origins of the history of religious traditions and ideas?

I'm basically with Wade about religion.  While all religions wouldn't fit his definition (note I could invent one tomorrow about my curtains manifesting god's messages in their folds, and if enough people believed me - bingo a new religion!),  they're all an expression of human psychology and environment factors imo.

The alternatives to Wade's approach are that we can discover god(s) through empiricism, reason or revelation, and construct religion appropriate to what we discover. None of those work well enough to look more credible to me than Wade's approach. (They easily could do if gods weren't 'hidden' in unfalsifiable ways - then my curtains contender could be tested and I'd be on telly and people would finally realise how special I am!)

[JackDaydream]

I am thinking about this in connection with reading, 'The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and Why it Endures' by Nicholas Wade. He looks at the way in which for around 50,000 years human beings practiced religion. The definition of religion which he offers is, 'Religion is a system of emotionally binding beliefs and practices in which a society implicitly negotiates through prayer and sacrifice with supernatural agents, securing from them commands that compel members, through fear of divine punishment, to subordinate their interests to a common good.'

Wade argues that the issue of the evolution of religion is different to the question of whether gods, or God, exists. It is about the relationship between religious beliefs and human nature. He sees it as being closely related to the 'moral instinct', drawing upon Darwin's ideas and Durkheim's understanding of the social functions of religion.

That works with his particular sociological definition of the function of religion, but there are other definitions which would place the existence of god(s) as central. Wade's kinda creating a definition which embodies his own explanation here.

He also sees it as being connected to the nature of language itself

How so?

as well as looking at the question, 'Is religion adaptive or just a by- product of evolution?'

What's the difference between them he's pointing to?

I am interested in this area of thinking and the anthropological aspects in understanding of the nature of religion. I do see it as being separate from the question of the metaphysics exploration, although I am aware that one's metaphysical ideas may influence the angle from which this is approached? So, how do you understand the evolution and origins of the history of religious traditions and ideas?

I'm basically with Wade about religion.  While all religions wouldn't fit his definition (note I could invent one tomorrow about my curtains manifesting god's messages in their folds, and if enough people believed me - bingo a new religion!),  they're all an expression of human psychology and environment factors imo.

The alternatives to Wade's approach are that we can discover god(s) through empiricism, reason or revelation, and construct religion appropriate to what we discover. None of those work well enough to look more credible to me than Wade's approach. (They easily could do if gods weren't 'hidden' in unfalsifiable ways - then my curtains contender could be tested and I'd be on telly and people would finally realise how special I am!)

In a way, I have been inclined to focus on the various angles of thinking about religious rather than the philosophical question of God's existence. That is because I am not sure that the rational arguments for and against the existence of God seem to go far enough other than being an attempt to justify one's perspective. I see a multidisciplinary approach as being most useful, including the sociology of religion. The ideas of Marx and Weber are important for thinking of the political underpinnings. In addition, the psychological aspects are essential, including Freud's ideas, in 'Totem and Taboo' and other writings.

Part of the reason why I see the psychosocial and and anthropological aspects as being important is an underlying awareness of cultural relativism. For example, I grew up with the Catholic faith, which I did not question until adulthood. If I had been brought up in a Muslim society I would have accepted those beliefs in a similar way. I am not suggesting that looking for the 'truest' set of ideas is not just as important, but that is harder, if there is one approach which is the closest approximation to truth as knowledge and ideas exist in human minds, even though they are intersubjective.

[Pattern-chaser]

Religion is a system of emotionally binding beliefs and practices in which a society implicitly negotiates through prayer and sacrifice with supernatural agents, securing from them commands that compel members, through fear of divine punishment, to subordinate their interests to a common good.

If one wishes to discuss religion, then one needs a definition of what it is that is being discussed. Fair enough. But the [proffered definition] does not sit well with my own perspective on religion.

[My edit.]

So, is it the idea of divine punishment that you are uneasy with? This is a variable which may vary considerably with different forms of religion. I was brought up as a Catholic, and the idea of hell worried me so much. At 13, I got in a panic about the passage about ' the unforgivable sin' , and convinced myself that I may have committed it and was destined for everlasting hell. Even after teenage years, I worried so much about hell, as did my mother and some of my friends. If you grew up with a Christian background and have escaped this fear, you are fortunate.

Yes, indeed. But the thing that makes me uneasy is the tone of the definition that Wade offers. It is coercive compulsion, operating by fear of violent retribution for 'wrongdoing'. This is the sort of definition of religion that an atheist might create. And, in fairness, it reflects the kind of thinking upon which the three Abrahamic religions are based. Christianity and Islam cover just more than half of our entire human population, so perhaps that's fair? I'm not sure. For this picture that is being painted of religion is a typically Abrahamic 'hellfire and brimstone' one.

Widespread though it is, I reject this picture of religion, just as I reject the perspective of the Roman Catholic cultists who raised me, and you too. For me, if no-one else, religion is simply a search for understanding. An understanding akin to science, perhaps, but in addition, a moral understanding. Religion offers moral guidance to its adherents, and the guidance that my religious beliefs offer me are the reason I believe as I do. My beliefs offer nurture and support, not eternal punishment.

And this is why the starting point that Wade offers seems to me to be biased as an atheist might put it. This topic is about religious ideas, but I think it is flawed from the start, with a highly-polarised view of what religion, as a whole, is.

I think perhaps the "why" is more easily addressed than the "how". And the "how" is almost a non-question. There isn't really a 'how'; I think we just did it. But why? In an attempt to understand, and maybe influence, the world around us...?

The why did religion develop is the main focus of my question and the how is probably to do with the specifics, such as education and cultural transmission. In particular, the roots of religious perspectives may have common origins, including the Egyptian ideas. Generally, I was taught the ideas in the New Testament, but, at the moment, I am learning about Judaism as the root of this because I have got to know a number of Jews since moving to a new area. As you know, I am interested in comparative religion, and this is partly through knowing Muslims and Hindus and many other groups. The perennial aspects of religion may be important, as including the basis for moral thinking, as well as overall perspectives on ideas of purity and taboos.

I find it interesting that the 10 Commandments are easily derivable from previous religious scriptures, perhaps Egyptian.

The 42 Laws Of Ma'at

The 42 Laws Of Ma'at are sometimes referred to as "The Negative Confessions" or "The Declaration Of Innocence."

I have not committed sin.
I have not committed robbery with violence.
I have not stolen.
I have not slain men or women.
I have not stolen food.
I have not swindled offerings.
I have not stolen from God/Goddess.
I have not told lies.
I have not carried away food.
I have not cursed.
I have not closed my ears to truth.
I have not committed adultery.
I have not made anyone cry.
I have not felt sorrow without reason.
I have not assaulted anyone.
I am not deceitful.
I have not stolen anyone’s land.
I have not been an eavesdropper.
I have not falsely accused anyone.
I have not been angry without reason.
I have not seduced anyone’s wife.
I have not polluted myself.
I have not terrorized anyone.
I have not disobeyed the Law.
I have not been exclusively angry.
I have not cursed God/Goddess.
I have not behaved with violence.
I have not caused disruption of peace.
I have not acted hastily or without thought.
I have not overstepped my boundaries of concern.
I have not exaggerated my words when speaking.
I have not worked evil.
I have not used evil thoughts, words or deeds.
I have not polluted the water.
I have not spoken angrily or arrogantly.
I have not cursed anyone in thought, word or deeds.
I have not placed myself on a pedestal.
I have not stolen what belongs to God/Goddess.
I have not stolen from or disrespected the deceased.
I have not taken food from a child.
I have not acted with insolence.
I have not destroyed property belonging to God/Goddess.

Perhaps you need to go farther back than Judaism, in your search? As you have already intimated in your words.

[JackDaydream]

Religion is a system of emotionally binding beliefs and practices in which a society implicitly negotiates through prayer and sacrifice with supernatural agents, securing from them commands that compel members, through fear of divine punishment, to subordinate their interests to a common good.

If one wishes to discuss religion, then one needs a definition of what it is that is being discussed. Fair enough. But the [proffered definition] does not sit well with my own perspective on religion.

[My edit.]

So, is it the idea of divine punishment that you are uneasy with? This is a variable which may vary considerably with different forms of religion. I was brought up as a Catholic, and the idea of hell worried me so much. At 13, I got in a panic about the passage about ' the unforgivable sin' , and convinced myself that I may have committed it and was destined for everlasting hell. Even after teenage years, I worried so much about hell, as did my mother and some of my friends. If you grew up with a Christian background and have escaped this fear, you are fortunate.

Yes, indeed. But the thing that makes me uneasy is the tone of the definition that Wade offers. It is coercive compulsion, operating by fear of violent retribution for 'wrongdoing'. This is the sort of definition of religion that an atheist might create. And, in fairness, it reflects the kind of thinking upon which the three Abrahamic religions are based. Christianity and Islam cover just more than half of our entire human population, so perhaps that's fair? I'm not sure. For this picture that is being painted of religion is a typically Abrahamic 'hellfire and brimstone' one.

Widespread though it is, I reject this picture of religion, just as I reject the perspective of the Roman Catholic cultists who raised me, and you too. For me, if no-one else, religion is simply a search for understanding. An understanding akin to science, perhaps, but in addition, a moral understanding. Religion offers moral guidance to its adherents, and the guidance that my religious beliefs offer me are the reason I believe as I do. My beliefs offer nurture and support, not eternal punishment.

And this is why the starting point that Wade offers seems to me to be biased as an atheist might put it. This topic is about religious ideas, but I think it is flawed from the start, with a highly-polarised view of what religion, as a whole, is.

I think perhaps the "why" is more easily addressed than the "how". And the "how" is almost a non-question. There isn't really a 'how'; I think we just did it. But why? In an attempt to understand, and maybe influence, the world around us...?

The why did religion develop is the main focus of my question and the how is probably to do with the specifics, such as education and cultural transmission. In particular, the roots of religious perspectives may have common origins, including the Egyptian ideas. Generally, I was taught the ideas in the New Testament, but, at the moment, I am learning about Judaism as the root of this because I have got to know a number of Jews since moving to a new area. As you know, I am interested in comparative religion, and this is partly through knowing Muslims and Hindus and many other groups. The perennial aspects of religion may be important, as including the basis for moral thinking, as well as overall perspectives on ideas of purity and taboos.

I find it interesting that the 10 Commandments are easily derivable from previous religious scriptures, perhaps Egyptian.

The 42 Laws Of Ma'at

The 42 Laws Of Ma'at are sometimes referred to as "The Negative Confessions" or "The Declaration Of Innocence."

I have not committed sin.
I have not committed robbery with violence.
I have not stolen.
I have not slain men or women.
I have not stolen food.
I have not swindled offerings.
I have not stolen from God/Goddess.
I have not told lies.
I have not carried away food.
I have not cursed.
I have not closed my ears to truth.
I have not committed adultery.
I have not made anyone cry.
I have not felt sorrow without reason.
I have not assaulted anyone.
I am not deceitful.
I have not stolen anyone’s land.
I have not been an eavesdropper.
I have not falsely accused anyone.
I have not been angry without reason.
I have not seduced anyone’s wife.
I have not polluted myself.
I have not terrorized anyone.
I have not disobeyed the Law.
I have not been exclusively angry.
I have not cursed God/Goddess.
I have not behaved with violence.
I have not caused disruption of peace.
I have not acted hastily or without thought.
I have not overstepped my boundaries of concern.
I have not exaggerated my words when speaking.
I have not worked evil.
I have not used evil thoughts, words or deeds.
I have not polluted the water.
I have not spoken angrily or arrogantly.
I have not cursed anyone in thought, word or deeds.
I have not placed myself on a pedestal.
I have not stolen what belongs to God/Goddess.
I have not stolen from or disrespected the deceased.
I have not taken food from a child.
I have not acted with insolence.
I have not destroyed property belonging to God/Goddess.

Perhaps you need to go farther back than Judaism, in your search? As you have already intimated in your words.

I do think that I need to go back further than Judaism to Ancient ideas in my reading and on this thread topic. The history of ancient religion does need to include ideas, such as the Egyptians and many diverse ones. There be a lot which has also been lost, especially as it is possible that a matriarchy preceded a patriarchy. The basis for this may be lacking in solidity, with the notion of a matriarchy being based on archaeological and anthropological images of goddesses. Some of this may have been in conjunction with paganism and suppressed.

The politics of religious views skews so much and ideas of divine punishment are interconnected with this. But, it may not be limited to the Abrahamic religions because the idea of reincarnation and karma were a central way in which the Hindu caste system was maintained and justified.

Religion should be about the search for 'truth' in line with genuine philosophical exploration and, unfortunately, human weakness may be a large stumbling block. It may be that the way in which Wade approaches the topic puts him in the camp of atheism. Both atheism and theism can become aggressive, with both sides projecting onto the opposite set of beliefs which may make thinking and discussing the nature of religion a difficult one. The ideas are so emotive because they are bound up with the core essentials of understanding the nature of reality, culture and what it means to be human.

[Lagayscienza]

I doubt much can be said about the ultimate source of religion. It's lost in the mists of time.

I suspect that, as our ancestors grew in intelligence, they started asking questions about the existence of the world and themselves and the idea came to one or more of them that someone immensely powerful must have created it all. This idea may have spread mimetically throughout a population, and then further developed into creation stories and became part of a cultural tradition. The first gods were probably aspects of nature like the sun and moon and important features in the landscape.

We're are unlikely ever to discover the details but I suspect the development of religion went something like that.

[JackDaydream]

I doubt much can be said about the ultimate source of religion. It's lost in the mists of time.

I suspect that, as our ancestors grew in intelligence, they started asking questions about the existence of the world and themselves and the idea came to one or more of them that someone immensely powerful must have created it all. This idea may have spread mimetically throughout a population, and then further developed into creation stories and became part of a cultural tradition. The first gods were probably aspects of nature like the sun and moon and important features in the landscape.

We're are unlikely ever to discover the details but I suspect the development of religion went something like that.

What you may be important in the idea of human beings as asking questions is the nature of symbolic aspects of human experience. This involves the source of magic and mythology. These appear to be universal to a large extent, as the forerunners of religion and interconnected with the origins of art, song and poetry. Language itself may have arisen in connection with symbolic ideas.

Also, it is hard to know to what extent ancient people were similar or different to the human beings of today. It does seem that they were advanced in Egypt and some other cultures and the experience of the supernatural and gods does need to be considered in relation to that. In particular, there is so much uncertainty about the way in which the pyramids were built.

Some thinkers have gone as far as to suggest that there may have been gods or beings from other planets involved. The most known writer of such thinking was van Daniken, and it would be consistent with ideas such as the Nephilim beings who were meant to be advanced beings who mated with human beings. This would be consistent with the ideas of Madame Blavatsky and theosophy, as an alternative angle on evolution. However, there may be a misunderstanding of symbolic understanding here, as suggested by Jung, in his conception of aliens and flying saucers as aspects of imaginary realities.

[LuckyR]

I doubt much can be said about the ultimate source of religion. It's lost in the mists of time.

I suspect that, as our ancestors grew in intelligence, they started asking questions about the existence of the world and themselves and the idea came to one or more of them that someone immensely powerful must have created it all. This idea may have spread mimetically throughout a population, and then further developed into creation stories and became part of a cultural tradition. The first gods were probably aspects of nature like the sun and moon and important features in the landscape.

We're are unlikely ever to discover the details but I suspect the development of religion went something like that.

Yes. Basically, imagine you're intelligent but not of royal birth (ruling out political leadership) and are not physically strong (ruling out military leadership), but you crave power. What are your options in antiquity? Well, you could predict an eclipse, declare you've got a communication directly with the gods and you're off to the races. Even the emperor would be leary of taking you on. Voilà.

[Alter2Ego]

I am thinking about this in connection with reading, 'The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and Why it Endures' by Nicholas Wade. He looks at the way in which for around 50,000 years human beings practiced religion. The definition of religion which he offers is, 'Religion is a system of emotionally binding beliefs and practices in which a society implicitly negotiates through prayer and sacrifice with supernatural agents, securing from them commands that compel members, through fear of divine punishment, to subordinate their interests to a common good.'

Wade argues that the issue of the evolution of religion is different to the question of whether gods, or God, exists. It is about the relationship between religious beliefs and human nature. He sees it as being closely related to the 'moral instinct', drawing upon Darwin's ideas and Durkheim's understanding of the social functions of religion. He also sees it as being connected to the nature of language itself, as well as looking at the question, 'Is religion adaptive or just a by- product of evolution?'

I am interested in this area of thinking and the anthropological aspects in understanding of the nature of religion. I do see it as being separate from the question of the metaphysics exploration, although I am aware that one's metaphysical ideas may influence the angle from which this is approached? So, how do you understand the evolution and origins of the history of religious traditions and ideas?

JackDaydream:

I am curious as to how Nicholas Wade came up with 50,000 years as the length of time humans have been practicing religion. According to Bible chronology and secular history, humans have only existed for 10,000 years.

You are relying a great deal on Nicholas Wade in you OP. You said in paragraph 2 of your OP that Nicholas Wade draws upon Darwin's ideas and Durkheim's understanding of the social functions of religion. If Wade is relying on the ideas of Charles Darwin and Émile Durkheim, that in and of itself raises the question of whether Wade really knows what he's talking about.

Alter2Ego