So, aside from the gratuitous snark, how’s about positing that path, pal?
There’s nothing gratuitous about it. You’re asking for something which was not even remotely implied by the post you were quoting.
Look up post hoc fallacy. Everything you just posted falls victim to it.
I’ve got to go with PunditLisa on this one, for the most part. Both science and religion originate from the same source: our drive to understand the world around us. Religion came first, because our earliest ancestors did not have the tools or the necessary knowledge base to explain most of what they observed. So they invented religion. The only way they could not have invented religion, is if we, as a species, lacked the curiosity that makes us want to understand, and the cleverness to develop ways of figuring it out. And if we didn’t have those qualities to begin with, we never would have invented science.
So to answer the OP’s question, if there was no religion, humans would be just another not-very-remarkable species of African plains ape. Not because religion is what makes us human, but because the things that make us human require that we invent religion.
It’s sweet that you think that. Not as sweet as if you believed in the Tooth Fairy, but sitll enough to make me worry about cavities.
If we were not divided by religous beliefs, it would be something else. Frequently it is. Genus Homo–hello, order Primates–thrives on division. It’s built into our genes as surely as guys thinking that boobs are purty.
I’ve got an idea: how about, when you don’t understand what I’m asking for, you don’t respond to my question? That works for everyone. The post I was responding to mentioned “food and resources” so I asked about the transition between a semi-human mind that was focussed on such essentials to a fully human mind capable of abstract thought but which has NOT spent hundreds and thousands of generations distracted by the shiny, bright object that is religion. I asked, and am asking, for a model that doesn’t involve religion–what it would look like, how it might function, etc.
If you still have no response, other than carping at me, then please STFU, 'kay?, **Q.E.D. **. No one needs your brand of vapid bullshit, thanks very much anyway.
The Galadhrim, of course. Everybody knows there was never a single rape in all of Lothlorien.
I understood what you were asking, but now it’s apparent that you don’t. The post you were quoting was merely stating in the absence of religion, humans would find some other issue to war over. Period.
All this means is that curiosity is a motivator for both religion and science. This is true, but it doesn’t mean that religion is a necessary intermediary step to science.
Right. Further, religion is predicated on the brain being wired to believe things with little or no empirical evidence–the so-called human belief engine; science requires the precise opposite. Any emerging intelligent species which lacks this particular wiring but is humanlike in all other intellectual capacities, including curiosity, will almost certainly develop science well before religion, assuming the latter even develops at all.
And where is the rule that states that one is prohibited from quoting another’s post mentioning two basic attributes for the purpose of inquiring into a subject different from the poster’s point, but still entirely germane to this subject of discussion?
You have been asked by various parties here, including me, to speculate on how humans would ever develop the scientific mindset without passing through a long stage of thinking that, at best, could be called quasi-science, i.e. religion, which attempts to explain the universe in the absence of any hard data and in the presence of much imaginative misinformation.
Instead of so speculating, you’re just snarking at everyone’s posts here, uselessly and redundantly. Kindly be quiet when you have nothing to add, which is most of the time.
There’s no rule such as you ask about. However, asking someone to defend a position they haven’t advocated is kinda dumb.
Because it means that everyone else is worshipping a false god or demons.
Since religion is crazy, I don’t believe that for a moment. Everything done in it’s name is going to reflect that craziness.
That is simply an excuse made up by apologists for religion. As usual, it’s an attempt to claim that the bad effects of religion aren’t it’s fault. Generally by people who don’t hesitate to give religion the credit for anything good that happens.
Religion creates divisions that would simply have no reason to exist without it.
What I was going to say.
The precursors of science weren’t the priests telling people to have faith in myths and gods that don’t exist, with no evidence for any of it. The precursors of science were the people who did things like shove funny looking rocks in fires to see what would happen, or who stuck feathers on arrows because if it works for birds, maybe it’ll work for arrows. The people who used reason and experimentation, not the ones who took things on faith.
Religion isn’t about “inquiry”, or wanting to know how the world works. It’s about faith, about making things up and refusing to consider that they might be wrong. It’s what kept science from developing far sooner than it did. Eliminate faith, and we’d probably have developed science millennia ago, and never developed religion as anything more than a wild speculation that no one but a few stone Age primitives ever took seriously.
Maybe I’m thinking off in left feild here but application of rudimentary scientific method could IMHO be applied to something as simple as early man finding ways to make better pointy sticks and flint tools. Some of this would probably predate significant spoken language, making shared religion kinda difficult concept at best.
Are we really sure religion came first?
of course Der Trihs insinuates the same thing a little more eloquently right before I post.
By this logic, wouldn’t a claim that there is no God also demand intolerance, since it would mean that everyone who worships is worshipping a false God?
It’s not “intolerance” when it’s true, when all the facts support you. Intolerance only comes into it when it’s a matter of opinion, or when you use force to enforce your beliefs.
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.
I made no such demand. I simply asked if someone could posit a way for scientific inquiry to develop without having gone through a protracted period of quasi-scientific thought, which is what religion is in developing a cosmology without access to scientific methods. How could people possibly have thought provisionally on cosmological issues while bypassing religious thought? I’m asking what that would have looked like–if you’re positing that we could have developed science without having developed religion first, you should be able to cough up a few exemplary hairballs for me.
There would have been a lot more people saying “We don’t know”, instead of saying “gods did it”. And all of their beliefs would have been open to question, not held as articles of faith - that’s very different than religion.
OK, but is that model in keeping with your idea of human nature? Uneducated, primitive people saying “I don’t know” for generations instead of inventing myths to explain natural phenomena? Why? Because they sensed that in a few dozen thousand years, we would certainly develop a way to actually get some satsifying answers? I don’t see it.