In this article, the writer, exploring the most important theories of psychologists, anthropologists and sociologists about the origin of religion and roots of religiosity, tries to show that there is no ultimate agreement and explanation about these questions and that the currently working theories are suffering from grave theoretical and/or empirical shortcomings. The writer, however, argues that these theories have not been questioned or rejected. These epistemological observations encourage the writer to go deeper into the discussion based on some recent criticism and approaches. As the first step, the writer suggests that the question of “origin of religion” be separated from the question of “roots of religiosity” and that both be separated from the question of “functions of religion”, a separation which has not been made properly in most of these theories, which blend philosophical and theological presuppositions. By suggesting the ideas of “divine origin of religion” and “natural roots of religiosity”, the writer tries to show that, by obtaining different hypotheses from the presuppositions of others, it is possible to present a new theory which better explains some religions. Although obviously a philosophical-theological theory, it is not dependent on philosophical and theological presuppositions more than any other theory.
Keywords: origin of religion, religiosity, functions of religion, natural roots of religion |
