Jump to content

Religion factor


sanjibseo
 Share

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, MigL said:

Would we even have civilization without religion's influence ?

Substitute a system where there is no hierarchy of worthiness, one that reveres all life as necessary and meaningful, not just intelligent life. Instead of making up non-observable deities to explain nature, we study it and accept that we should try to mirror nature's diversity as strength. If we understand that we have the capacity to act like other animals, but also the capacity to think of better alternatives, perhaps we could have done a better job of being so smart. Instead of continuing to ask questions and find the best possible explanations, we let the holy people make up their own answers. We shouldn't be surprised by what ignorant  people can pull out of their asses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Phi for All said:

we let the holy people make up their own answers. We shouldn't be surprised by what ignorant  people can pull out of their asses.

t doesn't change the fact that some of mankind's earliest societal structures that led to civilization were based on religion.
It did have some use; even if only to control our animalistic and instinctive anti-social urges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MigL said:

Would we even have civilization without religion's influence ?

That's a weird question to even contemplate. The briefiest look at history will tell you that the early religions that were around when civilisation was in it's infancy were hugely vicious and destructive in nature. Just like the rest of society was back then. Even if you could isolate one or two that were less agressive and destructive, that doesn't convey credit on religion as a whole.

Of course we would have civilisation without religion. Probably much sooner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

I disagree.
Religion imposed structures on early tribal societes.

I see you've offered no evidence. Primitive tribal societies had power structures, imposed by the politicians of the day. And they would use religion to keep control whenever the chance presented itself. But primitive tribes usually had shamanist disorganised beliefs, and structure in religion didn't appear till society got bigger. And society got bigger because of farming, not religion.

Religion just fed off what was there, there's no evidence that it led the way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i offered as much evidence as you did.

Ancient Sumerian societies did develop towns based on agriculture in the fertile crescent, but the town grew around temples.
Most 'political' leaders were also religious leaders.

"Sumer was divided into many independent city-states, which were divided by canals and boundary stones. Each was centered on a temple dedicated to the particular patron god or goddess of the city and ruled over by a priestly governor (ensi) or by a king (lugal) who was intimately tied to the city's religious rites."

From        Sumer - Wikipedia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Religion imposed structures on early tribal societes.

And before religion, tribal cultures, mores, and triggers for ostracization from groups did the same thing. 

Religion borrowed from existing neural and social structures already long ago in place, one’s long before imposed, and ones which arguably apply also to non-human animals, ant colonies, bee hives, schools of fish, bacteria, and maybe even the rules of combination within chemistry itself. 

Basically: So what?

Religion taking credit for something seen throughout the world and throughout the entire entire animal kingdom doesn’t mean said credit was earned nor was ever even warranted. The deference so many expect others offer to religion is IMO too often undue. 

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, MigL said:

Would we even have civilization without religion's influence ?

Let me add a few thoughts from an entirely godless entity who next monday will be celebrating his 19th wedding anniversary to a devout Christian.

Everybody needs some sort of world model within their heads to assess the consequences of their actions before they commit to them. Some models give different results in different aspects of life. But they are vital since they are integral part and parcel of the full package of that person's personality. Trying to deprive an adult of such a vital part of their being can only diminish them. My wife is more than I deserve as the full package and therefore I have learned to respect her religious views, as she has learned to accept my entirely materialist world view.

A second lesson I have learned is that while her religion tends sometimes to give her a more optimistic attitude than I might feel certain situations merit, that isn't such a bad thing. It does at least make me examine whether I'm taking too safe an approach at times. The diversity of viewpoints is a good thing and makes us stronger together than apart. 

And there are areas where I know her judgment is simply better than mine. Particularly in assessing the dynamics going on between the people around us and how they are likely to respond to our activities. Science is as yet generally a very poor guide in such matters.

Of course organised religion must be strongly opposed where it tries to prevent the proper teaching of sciences, etc., but I think we should take care when we consider beeing so vehement towards individuals who differ from us only in their private personal philosophy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just want to throw in here (as an uninvolved reader) that you all seem to be tacitly equating religion with theism. But these are not the same things at all - not all religions are theistic in nature. I think it is important to distinguish these concepts more carefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

Just want to throw in here (as an uninvolved reader) that you all seem to be tacitly equating religion with theism. But these are not the same things at all - not all religions are theistic in nature. I think it is important to distinguish these concepts more carefully.

Good point, Markus. Buddhism being the most obvious example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Just want to throw in here (as an uninvolved reader) that you all seem to be tacitly equating religion with theism. But these are not the same things at all - not all religions are theistic in nature. I think it is important to distinguish these concepts more carefully.

I'm not sure there is any sort of distinction between a thiestic and non thiestic religion, both require a leap of faith at some point; karma for instance, require a belief that the nasty b'stard will sufer appropriately (without your witness), which could be argued is easier to believe with some sort of diety.

12 hours ago, mistermack said:

That's a weird question to even contemplate. The briefiest look at history will tell you that the early religions that were around when civilisation was in it's infancy were hugely vicious and destructive in nature. Just like the rest of society was back then. Even if you could isolate one or two that were less agressive and destructive, that doesn't convey credit on religion as a whole.

Of course we would have civilisation without religion. Probably much sooner. 

Well, your Hitler arguement basically shoot's this argument in the foot. 

"The briefiest look at history will tell you that the early religions that were around when civilisation was in it's infancy were hugely vicious and destructive in nature."

Until Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha etc. came along

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm not sure there is any sort of distinction between a thiestic and non thiestic religion, both require a leap of faith at some point; karma for instance, require a belief that the nasty b'stard will sufer appropriately, which could be argued is easier to believe with some sort of diety.

Yes, I also think that distinction between religion and theism is only technical. What is distinct for the purposes of this discussion, I think, is a human institution vs fairy tales. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Genady said:

Yes, I also think that distinction between religion and theism is only technical. What is distinct for the purposes of this discussion, I think, is a human institution vs fairy tales. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0012fnc

Well worth a listen...

Isn't a fairy tale a human institution?

In that Reith Lecture, the question is asked "What would allow a human to live in a world without work?"

Some human's can, Buddha for instance, not only can but has the ability to teach others.

What other human institution, tries???

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Isn't a fairy tale a human institution?

Yes, it is. Perhaps I should've said, "religion as a human institution vs religion as a bunch of fairy tales."

PS. Sorry, I like to read but I avoid listening because of APD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.