Or they represented the fickle justice of lightning and forest fires and simple unguided luck.
Of course, the fact that dieties as a rule tend never to be associated with natural phenomena like storms, lightning, or the sun disproves my position.
Isn’t “I’ve always seen ____ as…” a pretty unscientific way of deciding what to believe about something?
He just described the conclusion he’s reached, not the reasoning that led him to it. I mean, he can’t have literally meant he’s always thought that, from birth onwards, can he?
That’s kind of what I meant. The Pagan mindset gave them personalities and the capricious forces of nature just doing what they do took on a somewhat sinister tone. If there is a real personality directing these forces it must be mean.
Well, are we talking about ancient deities which almost universally were associated with such ideas? Zeus represented power, pure unadulterated power. Apollo represented the Sun, Athena represented wisdom; cold and aloof. Minor deities and demigods tended to be more specific, IE, the God of that particular river.
Thank you. That’s correct. “I’ve always seen…” is a figure of speech. I can see alternative ways religion has come about or evolved. But more or less, the conclusion I’ve reached with the deity based faiths has to do with an attempt to control masses; furthermore to supply consequences far more fearsome and horrific one might receive on earth if the believer does wrong. In short, it’s an attempt to inject a conscience into the unconscionable.
GOD IS ALWAYS WATCHING YOU.
If I were creating a religion from scratch, I would probably do Santa Claus-ism. No big deal for most of the year, but someone’s keeping a naughty or nice list, and at some point in the year everyone gets together and exchanges gifts in the name of the deity.
Oh, I just recreated the US. Sorry.
If I were starting a religion, I would start and stop with the Golden Rule.
Most of them do, at least they attempt to.
Then tribalism, greed, dogma and xenophobia set in.
This is Universalist dogma that has no basis in fact. Most religions don’t start and stop with the golden-rule nor do they attempt to. Most religions recognize the idea of reciprocity, which is an immutable fact of nature, not really a value judgment.
Then there is also the fact that the golden rule is not a basis for morality in any shape or form. If I want to be tied up and spanked should I be able to tie everyone else up and spank them? Obviously not.
So no, not all religions are based on that grossly over-simplified moral teaching, nor should that grossly over-simplified moral teaching be the basis for anything.
Excellent first one. If you need a second, try
“Trust but verify”
which is kind of the implementation of the first.
Didn’t the First Foundation set up a religion of science to help control the yokel planets?
I’d have to take issues with both of these statements. Science is not based on evidence, per se, but rather, a system of rationalizing the world by taking evidence and testing it against falsifiable hypotheses to understand the underlying causal mechanisms. There is plenty of ‘evidence’ in (most) religions, but followers are expected to take this evidence and the rationale for it “on faith”, i.e. accept the official dogma. Religions vary on how much variance from dogma is permitted, from traditional Catholic and fundamentalist Christian and Islamic sects that require strict adherence to a literalist interpretation of the official line, to a more questioning and sometimes scholarly approach (Reform Judiasm, liberal Baptist, Taoism), and then there are what I call “Build Your Own” kit religions like UU and the Buddhist-flavored ancestor worship animism practiced throughout Southeast Asia.
Again, I disagree on both counts. A rational, humanistic approach based upon scientific principles of hypothesis and falsification can give us a working morality based upon any set of core principles you like. For instance, if your core principles are to improve the quality of life (better health, less stress and violence, higher standard of living) for the spectrum of your population, then it is easy to concoct a system of rules that support that morality without invoking any invisible supernatural entities throwing down tiles or spontaneous combustion of unoffending shrubbery. Science will not give the core principles, of course; that is for society at large to agree to.
The historical purpose of religion is, in fact, to provide some kind of answer as to why things happen. Be they the pantheon of salacious Olympians, the spirits of ancestors, or a single jealous, pathologically petulant Judeo-Christian god, the existence of a supernatural Creator gives meaning to a world that seems to dispatch young and old, good and bad, friend and foe alike without reason. In this, it provides a sort of comfort (well, except for the God of the Biblical Old Testament, who seems to be unreasonable at the best of times). Now that we have the ability to peer in to the recesses of the smallest particles that act in a fashion consistent with classical mechanics, and are even prodding the veil of the quantum world and basic cognition, we can characterize to a significant extent most of the phenomena that affects our daily lives, and no longer need gods to be pitching lightening bolts across the sky to explain thunderstorms.
This end of mysticism is decried by many who feel that there is a loss in unweaving Newton’s rainbow, but those familiar with the cutting edge of the natural sciences, particularly in molecular biology, neuroscience, astrophysics, cosmology, and quantum mechanics know that the mysteries are even greater than ever, and while perhaps more explicitly and qualitatively defined, hint at even richer and more marvelous theories of how things work. In comparison, saying “goddidit” is a puerile and prosaic (not to mention wrong) explanation.
If we were starting a society anew given current knowledge, I would argue that there is no real place or need for religious belief per se. However, many of the communal and ceremonial activities that come along with religious practice have great benefit in and of themselves, and are poorly replicated by New Age-isms or secular practices. So while I think we could dispense with much of the harmful and divisionary beliefs that come with religions, we would probably still want some kind of quasi-mystical and ceremonial practices that take the place of religious worship, but are more convincing and fulfilling than, say, yoga classes.
Stranger
Yeah, that was the first thing I thought of when I saw the thread title. Come to think of it, I’m surprised Hari Seldon hasn’t posted in this thread yet. 
Its amazing what you can dig up in 5 seconds on google.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm
The Golden rule is based into our nature. Reciprocation and fair treatment of those within your social unit are part of our innate psychology given to us by evolution. Plus the golden rule implies empathy, which is a necessary component to leading a moral life.
Note that many historic religions didn’t really say much of anything at all about morality. Shintoism, for instance, says nothing about morality beyond, “You ain’t stupid, think, and you’ll figure out how to not act like a dick.” And I think you’ll find that Japan before Buddhism wasn’t a terribly immoral place compared to anywhere else.
Thank you for summing up my life code. 
I agree with all of them (especially 9).
Everything that I’ve read about at least the major religions of the world supports the idea that they have their own versions of The Golden Rule – a principle of compassion. From the Religious Tolerance link:
How strange for a scientist to lump people together in such a way. I have no idea what “sort” of people you are talking about. Religious people come in all sorts.
When did that happen?
And if you believe it because you heard the Law in a physics class or read it in a science book or had it explained to you, but you didn’t do any of the mass and motion experiment yourself, what then?
Have you tested your hypothesis? It stinketh. Collect more data. Form new hypothesis.
Right, in other words directly in line with what I said. Reciprocity is a component of all social systems, including religions, but not necessarily their foundation.
Depends upon your perspective. That people were executed for looking at each other wrong might be considered by some to be pretty immoral.
I’m not specifically sure what you’re referring to, the accuracy of it, nor that it is something which existed in Japan pre-Buddhism (which does have more structured ideas of morality). And let me note that Buddhism has been a large force in Japan since say…the 8th century.
I think you might be referring to the idea that looking at a Samurai wrong could get you beheaded. Again, I’m not sure if that’s true (it might be), how prevalent it was if it did happen, what time period that would have been during, or how lasting a phase it was. Samurai were first created in the 8th century, so if this is what you intended, then you’re not discussing Shinto-era Japan.
On the other hand, I know for sure that dueling to the death was decently common in Christian Europe starting from perhaps the Middle Ages and certainly lasting into the 19th century. So can you say for certain that Japan was honestly less moral than anywhere else?
Of course they do, but all religious people have a key component: Faith. Also, why is it strange for any scientist to organize people into groups? They (and not only scientists) do it all the time. It’s human nature.
Religion became archaic not at specific moment, but certainly since the dawn of modern science. Simply because billions of people still practice religious beliefs, doesn’t mean it’s not archaic. It only goes to show how insidious and prolific a faith can be, once the toothpaste has been let out of the tube.
The earth, the atom, the cosmos tells us a very different (and indifferent!) story than any theistic faith that’s out there.
Religion filled certain needs according to certain times. Those times are gone now. Far gone. And what we’re left with is limp, but stubborn dogma, that does almost as much damage as good.
Challenge my conclusion then. How lazy to just dismiss it and say I’m wrong. How so?