The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanishads v1.c11.s3.1

v1.c11.s3.1

A further error engendered by the belief in the uniformity of religious development is the theory that it is possible on empirical grounds to determine the origin of religion. The mistake is again a logical one: the origin of religion is a question of philosophy,² and a fundamental one, the solution of which is far from probable. The hopelessness of any decision on empiric grounds may be seen from the diametrically opposite results which can be attained by arguing from the same facts. One theory, that of animism in one of its aspects,³ as expounded by Herbert Spencer, which was perhaps most interestingly developed by Hugo Elard Meyer, and which in recent times has found a most determined supporter in Prof. Ridgeway and S. Eitrem,¹ holds that all religion originates in the honour and respect shown to the spirits of the dead: from this belief and respect for these spirits is easily derived the view that there are potent spirits in natural phenomena, whence develops nature worship. It is, on the other hand, asserted with equal insistence that, while no doubt honour is paid to the spirits of the dead and this source has been a fruitful one in the development of religion, none the less religion is more than that and springs from a direct recognition in nature of powers akin to but superior to those of men.² Such a view can arise prior to any clear discrimination of spirit and body: that view is later in development and more reflective: prior perhaps to animism, and in any case independent of it, there is in fact a stage preanimistic or animatistic or naturalistic, when man conceives of natural objects as living powers, not as objects filled with souls *ab extra*.³ Logically⁴ the second view appears in itself the more plausible, but it is obvious that the reconstruction is purely hypothetical, and admits of no proof. We do not know of any religion existing at any time of which we could certainly and convincingly affirm that an idea of the deity had been framed when a knowledge of the difference between body and spirit was not known,⁵ and Dr. Marett’s own treatment⁶ of religion as including the whole field of the supernormal is so vague as to be of no positive value, a criticism equally applicable to Mr. Clodd’s⁷ conception of power, or rather many powers, as the basis of nature and spirit worship alike.