Which came first religion or politics?

[Cmass]

Which came first, religion or politics?
Was religion formed as a response to organized political need for control and conformity or did the rise of organized religion require certain kinds of political leaders to advertise and run it? Or did they arise more or less in unison - perhaps independent of each other?
I think this is a bit tougher than it appears at first glance if you consider documented religious experiences date back tens of thousands of years.....

[Confused]

I think formalized politics existed long before "organized" religions, however the extremely ancient forms of worshipping Gods in response to nature likely existed before formalized politics. That being said, some form of structure had to exist before the existence of even the most ancient forms of worshipping since humanity existed long before we were actually what we now call "human". The earliest forms of mankind are hypothesized to not have had formal speech, yet the general rules for what we consider the "caveman" hunters and gatherers tribes maintained order enough to prevent eliminating all of mankind by killing each other off for percieved intrusions etc....

Now that I am spinning in circles, did that come out clear?

[MagusYanam]

I think formalized politics existed long before "organized" religions, however the extremely ancient forms of worshipping Gods in response to nature likely existed before formalized politics. That being said, some form of structure had to exist before the existence of even the most ancient forms of worshipping since humanity existed long before we were actually what we now call "human". The earliest forms of mankind are hypothesized to not have had formal speech, yet the general rules for what we consider the "caveman" hunters and gatherers tribes maintained order enough to prevent eliminating all of mankind by killing each other off for percieved intrusions etc....

Now that I am spinning in circles, did that come out clear?

Quite clear, Confused. I agree, for the most part.

Either way it happens, I think one follows the other fairly closely. You have, as you pointed out, ancient hunter-gatherer tribes practising politics both internally over distribution of food and externally over territory and migration; you also have beliefs of spirits of various mountains, forests, rivers and the sky, so you have to have priests to read those spirits' wishes, and before too long you have organised religion. But before organised religion happens, you kinda have to have some kind of political structure in place, however rudimentary.

[ST88]

Which came first, religion or politics?
Was religion formed as a response to organized political need for control and conformity or did the rise of organized religion require certain kinds of political leaders to advertise and run it? Or did they arise more or less in unison - perhaps independent of each other?
I think this is a bit tougher than it appears at first glance if you consider documented religious experiences date back tens of thousands of years.....

Since politics applies to chimpanzee and wolf populations, but by all accounts religion does not, I'd have to say that religion is a strictly human trait that got traction because of politics.

[Cmass]

ST88 said:

Since politics applies to chimpanzee and wolf populations, but by all accounts religion does not, I'd have to say that religion is a strictly human trait that got traction because of politics.

I think this is probably the case.
Questioning one's own existence as well as religious experiences likely developed as a result of the rise of consciousness. The conscious manifestation of fantasy, fear and the desire to have some control over one's mortal condition became superstition. Superstition was a new and profound experience. These profound fantasies and associated strong feelings were then used as political weapons to gain power and control - and from there politics and religion developed more or less concurrently. Religion in politics is almost exclusively a mass control mechanism - and a dangerous one at that.
I think the natural next step in our development would be to accept fantasy as a part of brain function but also recognize the difference between fantasy and reality so that - as with a good movie when the lights come up and the credits role - we don't make critical decisions while hallucinating.

[Greatest I Am]

Ancient rulers sacrificed to God and worshipped God.

If politics would have come first then I would think that we would be idolizing an individual instead of a deity. King worship would be the norm.

Since God worship is the norm then we can say that Religion is considered stronger than man made political systems. many including myself follow God with more vigour than I will follow a political system.

In conclusion, shaman and witch doctors where probably the leaders of ancient man. Not the king or strongman.

Regards
DL

[McCulloch]

Could it be that the earliest religions were not distinguishable from the earliest politics?

[Greatest I Am]

Could it be that the earliest religions were not distinguishable from the earliest politics?

They had to be unless God took form.

Regards
DL

[juliod]

Since politics applies to chimpanzee and wolf populations

I think you are anthropomorphing these animal activities a bit too much.

I think religion came before politics.

Artifacts that seem to be religious appear very early. I'm thinking of the "venus" figurines with exaggerated femal anatomy, and are interpreted as some form of fertility mysticism.

Development of social forms that might include government seems to have come later. I've read the Oxford History of Prehistoric Europe. Since about all we know of very early humans comes from burials, they use these to chart the bare-bones (pun) of social development. The key feature is "differentiation" among the graves. Early burial sites have no differentiation, all bodies are buried the same way. Then there came a period when male and female graves differentiated (men were buried with a stone knife, women with beads or other artifice). The came the beginings of social development, the sign being serious differentiation. Most graves had only a few grave goods. Others, a minority, were piled with rich goods. Even if we know nothing about these people, we can see at least that there were apparently "leaders" or "rich" individual. Later still comes the establishment of apparent hereditary status. This is characterized by the burial of children with rich grave goods (the indication that the grave goods were not simply acquired during the lifetime of the individual).

Somewhere in there is the development of government and politics, but it comes later than religion.

DanZ

[ST88]

Since politics applies to chimpanzee and wolf populations

I think you are anthropomorphing these animal activities a bit too much.

I think religion came before politics.

Development of social forms that might include government seems to have come later. I've read the Oxford History of Prehistoric Europe. Since about all we know of very early humans comes from burials, they use these to chart the bare-bones (pun) of social development....

Somewhere in there is the development of government and politics, but it comes later than religion.

Politics doesn't mean exclusively organized governments, it means recognizing power and acting accordingly. My point about animal societies was meant to convey that politics can be accomplished without language or with simple concepts, but religion needs language that can convey abstract concepts.