Why do humans believe? From armchair speculation to the deep study of meaning

Ideas & Philosophy · Published 3 October 2026 Swipe more like this →

In short: For centuries, thinkers have tried to pin down the origin and purpose of religion. Early scholars relied on distant reports to build universal theories, while later anthropologists traded the armchair for long-term fieldwork. Today, the debate continues over whether religion is a social function, a psychological byproduct, or a system of meaning.

The study of religion began with prescientific attempts to categorize belief. Early essentialists like Edward Burnett Tylor (1832–1917) and James George Frazer (1854–1941) sought universal patterns, often relying on second-hand accounts from missionaries and colonial officials. Tylor proposed that religion originated as an attempt to explain natural phenomena through belief in spirits, while Frazer famously distinguished between magic—an attempt to influence the world through laws—and religion, which involves pleading with deities. Critics later labeled these scholars armchair anthropologists, arguing their work was untestable speculation that ignored social context.

In response, functionalists shifted the focus toward the role religion plays in society. Thinkers like Émile Durkheim and Karl Marx examined how religious beliefs serve social or psychological needs. This approach often employs methodological naturalism, rejecting supernatural explanations because they cannot be tested scientifically. However, this perspective has been criticized for neglecting the internal meaning religion holds for its adherents. Scholars like Rudolf Otto and Mircea Eliade argued that religion is an autonomous phenomenon, rooted in experiences of the numinous or a longing for otherworldly perfection that cannot be reduced to mere social functions.

Modern anthropology, led by figures like E. E. Evans-Pritchard and Clifford Geertz, moved away from grand universal theories. Evans-Pritchard’s detailed ethnographic work among the Azande and Nuer demonstrated that religious systems are often logical and consistent within their specific social contexts. Clifford Geertz furthered this interpretive turn, defining religion as a cultural system that establishes powerful moods and motivations by framing a general order of existence. Unlike the search for universal laws, Geertz viewed the analysis of religion as an interpretive task, akin to history, focused on understanding the webs of significance that humans spin for themselves.

General information, not professional advice. Spotted an error? Flag the card or see corrections and complaints.

Intellect Plus is a visual educational discovery platform for exploring fascinating facts and ideas. Brain Food, Not Brain Rot. What is Intellect Plus?

Related

• Why do humans cling to the sacred? The shifting lens of anthropological inquiry.
• Is the human mind biologically hard-wired for religious belief?
• Why the modern concept of religion is a relatively recent Western invention
• Is religion an evolutionary relic, a social tool, or a source of human well-being?
• Is belief in God a logical outcome of human experience?
• Every Thursday quietly honours Thor, the Germanic god of thunder
• Plato was talking about theology centuries before Christianity existed
• China's first rulers were demigods who taught people fire, farming and writing
• Believing in gods comes in more varieties than monotheism and polytheism
• The thurible is a centuries-old vessel designed to carry prayers toward the heavens.
• Cecil B. DeMille’s 1956 epic was the most expensive film ever made at its release.
• The massive linguistic diversity hidden within the Sino-Tibetan family

More in Religion and spirituality · More in Ideas & Philosophy · Latest · A–Z · All topics