Are religions biologically based and natural or supernaturally based?

[Igel]

6. Limited set of hypotheses.

Better set:
all religion is from biology (i.e., DNA)

predisposition to religion is biological but religion itself comes from purely human sources

one or some religions are supernatural, some are formed in accordance with a natural predisposition

all religions are supernatural

the above set, but instead of "biology" read "psychology", leaving open the idea that understanding of natural causes can affect psychology--biological but not really genetic.


I find interesting the following observation in the psych literature. (It's in the psych literature which, of course, means there's a 90% chance at p = 0.05 that it cannot be replicated.)

If you take people and ask them to evaluate their affinity for a religion or set of doctrines you get a nice spread. If you evaluate their brand loyalty, you notice a negative correlation. Increased brand loyalty (we're talking commercial, trademarked brands--Dawn, Doritos, Heinz) --> reduced doctrinal commitment. If you do things to manipulate brand loyalty and increase it you manipulate doctrinal commitment downward.

Authority is authority is authority. A god-king is a natural outgrowth of human psychology; in the absence of a king you create a god; in the absence of a god you create a king. "God" can be a supernatural-like deity, it can be nature, it can be a set of equations, it can be an ideology, it can be oneself or one's clan.