This theory is premised on the rather absurd notion that you could never get people to willingly fight others for a cause unless they were totally protected from risk. Sure, the Viking religion probably helped inspire the Vikings to be more rapacious (since dying in battle was the only sure way to attain a non-sucky afterlife), but plenty of other countries and tribes have gone to war for purely greedy, or even purely ideological reasons without any definate assurance of paradise.
—I don’t think so; I think that given that there’s a part of the brain that provides the stuff that goes into feeding religious impulses for some people, positing a universe without religion requires that that part of the brain does not exist. Suggesting that while this brain structure exists, it does not lead to a conceptualisation of the divine for anyone strikes me as being incredibly implausible.—
But now, as you might notice I said in my previous post, you’re asking a very different question from “what would the world be like if there were no religion.” You’re instead saying “given that we have such brain structures, I don’t think we could then have a world without religion.” At least realize the vast gap between those two subjects: the first is a hypothetical that does not take as a given those brain structures, but neither is it talking about stripping them away from existing people.
As to your new direction: “Suggesting that while this brain structure exists, it does not lead to a conceptualisation of the divine for anyone strikes me as being incredibly implausible.”
That’s because you are simply assuming the modern concept of “the divine” backwards throughout all human history. I’m saying: we have no idea what possible interpretations of the effects those brain structures had on people could have been that could have come to dominate the association instead of religious. So what you are doing is simply assuming that these are unquestionably “god experiences” when they are very far from being demonstrated as necessarily being so. After all, these experiences do nto come with the label “god” on them: that label is given to the experience by people who ALREADY have a concept of what a god is, how it should interact with people, etc.
So I think your argument misses the whole point of this hypothetical because you simply assume that “god experience” is the only concept that could ever have been predominately attached to the experience.
— Religion comprises a huge set – more a superset, really – of symbols, modes of thinking, approaches to the universe, and points of inspiration; it seems even sillier to me to presume that there is nothing in there that might be of value----
As has been pointed out to you over and over and over, it may well be that there is no necessary reason why those particular modes of thinking HAD to become associated with particular characteristics that we now call “religious.” You are simply assuming that this is so, when the whole point of the hypothetical is to imagine what would have been had it NOT been so. You seem to be assuming something akin to that if there had not been Orthodox Judiasm, there would have been no complex, rigorous, and dogmatic system of thought by which people might come to hone their minds. But you can’t just assume this. You can’t use what is, remove the aspects in question, and then present the remainder as “what would have been.” Instead, you have to think about alternate possibilities, perhaps those that would arise out of the same deep human drives to learn and express, but that needn’t necessarily do so in the context of a supernatural religion.
No, I am not assuming that. I am pointing out that it is one plausible result, quite likely one of the MORE plausible results. (Even pigeons are superstitious.) And I have given examples, such as those of Orthodox Judaism producing certain types of thinkers pretty consistently, that show that the modes of thought that grew out of religious practice can, in fact, be useful outside of the context of manipulating that sort of symbol-set, in order to counter the idea that the skills of religion serve no “practical” purpose if the realm of religion is discarded.
I must admit to curiosity as to what you think “the modern concept of ‘the divine’” is; my personal suspicion is that it’s something I think is nonsense, especially in light of your last sentence: my religion contains nothing supernatural.
Lilairen, FWIW, I agree with you and I think you argue your points well. I think your car analogy was right on. After all, the main question here is “Would the world be better off if there was no religion?” As an example “Would the world be better off if there were no cars?” As you point out, there are two sides to the argument.
Maybe there’s just too much argument going on here and not enough understanding. Some of the other posters do not understand the beauty and simplicity of religious experience.
Also, most of the them do not realize the extent to which their very thoughts and beliefs, the very ideas that they use to argue against you, were derived from religious thoughts, beliefs, and ideas.
It’s precisely because you are dealing with “some random person” that it doesn’t matter if they insuate that you’re a “close-minded ass”. You know you’re not.
I do think it’s both fair and important to point out that I rather believe that there are points of view, both simple and beautiful, that I probably can’t see from the angle afforded by my religious experience – whether other religious experiences, non-religious experiences, or anti-religious experiences.
Personally, I tend to file that under “Think of the oatmeal shortage” rather than get wound up about it, but I’m endlessly fascinated by the results that come from looking at things from different angles than my own, and would think it rather tragic if I didn’t have such opportunities.
(Before someone asks, the line is more fully, “How terrible it would be if we were all the same! Think of the oatmeal shortage!”)
I seem to be the only person arguing fo this so: I guess I am wrong, you all are right. Christianity has had no part in the evolution of science or society. It’s part was only tenuous, and “something” else would have come along and taken its place, thus allowing society and science to reach the exact same conclusions and discoveries that we have today. Ethics would be the same, philosophy would have “conformed” into something similar, music would not be changed in any fashion.
Huge wars that the stability a unified church prevented would have been prevented by some other “force” that would have appeared in religions place, and libraries and universites that would have gotten destoryed like the one in alexandria would have been saved by that other force.
Religions have been nothing but a pox, and no good has come from them. Damn them Christians, Islams and Jews that didn’t influence science and society. The held back the chineese, who had it going for them, a wildfire that was ready to sweep the world with innovation after innovation, ideal after ideal. The Church was behind it all.
I’ll just go back to my red cars and handwaving, change into some pants, and let the SDMB take the credit for alleviating my sweeping ignorance.
You would have to do away with God in order to do away with religion. Religion is only the form used to worship/honor God. I don’t think it would be practical to try to separate the two.
—Christianity has had no part in the evolution of science or society.—
Look, for the last time: I am not saying that Christianity has had no part in science or society. I don’t think ANYONE here is or should be maintaining that position, because it’s plain silly. You are failing utterly to distinguish between what DID happen and what MIGHT have happened. The latter is what is being ultimately discussed, with the former being important place to draw insights, but not in the way you are doing so (assuming that just because it did, things couldn’t have happened any other way)
—And I have given examples, such as those of Orthodox Judaism producing certain types of thinkers pretty consistently, that show that the modes of thought that grew out of religious practice can, in fact, be useful outside of the context of manipulating that sort of symbol-set, in order to counter the idea that the skills of religion serve no “practical” purpose if the realm of religion is discarded.—
I can’t figure out why you think I’ve said anything about the ability of particular religions to accomplish certain things, and play their role in these respects very well. I’ve said no such thing. What I am discussing is whether, if these religions had not existed, there would have been other means to the same ends. You have added to the discussion the question whether, given certain aspects of human biology, it is even POSSIBLE to imagine a world without religion, which is quite a different question, and to which I gave some very different sorts of responses.
—I must admit to curiosity as to what you think “the modern concept of ‘the divine’” is; my personal suspicion is that it’s something I think is nonsense, especially in light of your last sentence: my religion contains nothing supernatural.—
Okay then: maybe we should explain what we mean by “religion” so that we can understand exactly WHAT we are thinking about when we imagine an alternate history in which there was no religion. I’m using a definition that includes supernatural gods and beliefs. If your religion doesn’t, I understand, though that is not what most people generally mean by “religion.” Is your concept of “religion” is so broad that almost anything philosophical or emotional fits into it?
It is you who does not understand. We are having a debate on whether the world would be better off if there were no religion, and specifically, I am responding to assertions made that certain things would be impossible without religion. Both you and Lilairen seem to have taken it as a personal affront to your beliefs. To question whether the same goals can be acheived with or without religion is NOT to say that we wish to abolish religion, or that we think religious people are stupid, or anything of that sort. I’m not sure why the 2 of you are having such a hard time grasping this. I suspect it may be because you both have such an emotional investment in your beliefs, that you see any discussion of them as an attack.
So, again, this is not an attack, but you and Liairen seem to want to introduce your personal perceptions of beauty and simplicity into the debate, yet cry foul when anyone responds to your assertions.
That is the very thing that we are debating, and I have already presented arguments against what you are saying, which you have not addressed in any way. A good strategy would be to ARGUE your point, not merely blithely assert “you don’t understand my point”. We understand it; we just disagree.
I think that religion is the only thing which causes people with a written language to fight against each-other. ‘Maybe’ religion might be necessary in some evolutionary sense. In terms of the education religion has provided, I would suggest that it has only sought to wreak havok on any aspiration of equality and any application of logic with which to apply it’s ideals even if one accepted them.
Here it is again. What MIGHT have happened(in place of religion) is a pointless debate that can add nothing to any logical discussion. Since something did happen, and somebody mentioned taking that something away, I said “we would be nowhere near where we are today” and “we owe everything we have to religion”. While perhaps overstated, you and (more so) blowero come in saying that is wrong. You offer NO alternative theories except some modern political examples that were flawed. Yes, they are flawed because they are MODERN examples, we are talking about examples in the PAST. Did the right mindset exist in 1500 for people to be thinking about socialism? I think not.
Blowero has stated things several times without backing up anything.
Really, sorry you think so, but what the greeks were practiciting were a far cry from modern science. If you have a CITE perhaps you would like to provide it.
A CITE on a your statement about christianity signalling a step backwards would be nice too, perhaps from a historian or two.
A cite on how christianity signaled a backwards step for the chineese would be nice too.
You don’t see any casual influence from Greek mytholgy on it’s “science” is too bad, what about it’s philosophy? WTF do you think science is?
If you want to say what MIGHT have happened without {organised} religion, China is a great example. See the greatness they rose to? It only took them six thousand years instead of the thousand or so it took Europe once a unified church was formed. They started to get somewhere, what 8 times and fell back into barbariansim? Thats nothing. I am sure much information, libraries and universities got destroyed.
All we have to do to think of what MIGHT have happened is look at history before the church and organized religion. It is a bleak history, of war, destruction, book burnings, library razings, etc. Not one that is good for preserving history, promoting philosophy and allowing stability.
Your belief that rational athiests would rule the world much better is supported by what history, by what logic? (not modern history, which is so rife with the influence of the church it is pointless to suggest)
Rule the world in it’s place at the time. I would agree that with our past as is, getting rid of organized religion in the modern era is not a bad idea.
Ahh, but all my arguments are straw men no doubt. More than likely you (blowero) will go on believing what you want, which makes this debate similar to trying to discuss evolution with a creationist.
No, YOU asked for examples of educational institutions that were not funded by religion. I gave you examples. And I explained quite clearly why your insistence on EXAMPLES (you did not say “theory” as you do now) from a time in the past when the church controlled everything is ridiculous. I am not going to re-state my argument; you can go back and look at my post. Your whole argument boils down to: “This is how it happened, so it couldn’t have happened any other way.”
You seem to have a bizarre notion that without religion, the natural human tendency towards inquisitiveness would shrivel up and die. You state it like it’s an indisputable fact, and that we must somehow prove you wrong. If you believe it to be the case, the onus is on YOU to prove it, not just post a bunch of long-winded links and telling us to read up on it.
Hello, Pot? Kettle on line 1.
Well then if we are limiting ourselves to “modern” science, then I could make the argument that it did not exist UNTIL society became secular. Did religion fund Einstein? Quantum mechanics? Microchip technology?
You want to go back to an arbitrary point in history when the Catholic Church happened to control scientific and educational institutions, and then disallow anyone to look at any period in history before or after the one YOU have selected.
I didn’t say there was no influence, I said there was not a “causal relationship”, i.e. the mythology was not NECESSARY in order to develop scientific ideas. If you disagree, by all means show us that causal relationship (don’t merely assert it) and I will be more than happy to rethink what I said.
Easy, there - YOU made the assertion that we owe EVERYTHING to religion. The onus is on you. Nobody said anything about “atheists ruling the world”, for Pete’s sake. All I’m saying is that I disagree with your belief that we owe everything to religion. You are confusing a tangential relationship with a causal relationship.
See, that’s the point. You can envision existing without religion, yet you insist that such existence would have been impossible in the past. The development of science was a gradual process; it wasn’t some sort of magic instantly put into place by the Catholic Church, and which could never have happened without it. Science didn’t start in the middle ages, and it hasn’t stopped in modern times.
No, of course your arguments are not ALL straw men. You have made some excellent points. I was referring to your last post, which seemed more like a rant of frustration than a well-reasoned argument. Stuff like this:
See, THAT’S a strawman argument, because nobody said those things. It sounds like you just got frustrated and started being sarcastic. That’s what I was referring to.
I personally tend to define a religion as a set of practices of an individual or culture, which has defined forms and practices (thereby distinguishing itself from “spirituality”), usually containing some code of appropriate behaviour (often mistaken by some of its practitioners for “morals”); this structure generally includes either a conceptualisation of states and beings which are not of the same type as typical humans, and either means of interacting with them (propitiation, worship, discipledom, petitioning, prayer, summoning, and banishment are the ones I can think of off the top of my head) or means of aspiring to similar state (meditation, reincarnation “upwards”, ecstatic practices).
Some religions include the concept that that “not the same type” is somehow superior or supernatural; personally, I think that’s rot. “God” is as real as “justice”; some people like to believe their justice is external, some people like to believe their justice is internal, some people don’t care, some people don’t believe it exists, and nobody can really prove much of anything. Deciding to call “justice” by the name “Minerva” doesn’t suddenly turn it supernatural, by my book.
Of course, alot of OUR instutions are not funded by religion. I am not refering to examples of universities in modern day, because the influence of our modern day ideals comes from the past. I was asking for examples of what could fund universities in a past that didn’t have organized religion funding them.
No, I have a bizzare notion that without the controbutions the church has made, we would not be WHERE WE ARE TODAY, which is exactly what I said. You put the other connotations in there.
[quote]
Well then if we are limiting ourselves to “modern” science, then I could make the argument that it did not exist UNTIL society became secular. Did religion fund Einstein? Quantum mechanics? Microchip technology?
[quote]
No, religion did not fund Einstien. However, he had a rich and deep education, of which many ideals, processes, and philosophies were directly associated with religion. That is what I am saying, Einstein could not have made any of his discoveries without the background that he had. Stuff just doesn’t come from nowhere. What are you suggesting? That all that scientific method stuff just popped out of thin air?
Before is just fine, by all means, provide some examples, links, etc. After is pretty pointless because all the examples use a background that has the religious influence as a foundation. Do you not understand this tenant? Is it so hard to understand that?
I provided a history of philosophy link and suggested it to be read. The specifically mention that Greek philosophy had a background of mythology, that the mythos evolved into what became what it was in greek mythology. Take away the mythos, and the evolution cannot continue huh? Seems pretty casual to me. If one of our distant ancestors, as in the race, died off, we could not continue to evolve, hence no mankind. Unless of course, a new breed of man just happened to pop up at the same time and continue in its place.
[quote]
You are confusing a tangential relationship with a causal relationship.
[quote]
Well, if B came about because of the influence of A, it only seems perfectly logical that if you take away A, B would have never came about. Makes perfect sense to me, what confuses me is how obstinate you are in seeing that connection.
but I am not saying that. I am saying that we would not be what we are today if religion did not exist in the past. That is so much different, I wonder where your mind is at and what point you are trying to make. I am not saying it is not impossible, I am saying that if it didn’t exist, we WOULD NOT BE WHERE WE ARE TODAY!!
Yes, I am getting frustrated because I am not a master debater, I am trying to discuss a point which seems obvious, yet must not be because you are not getting my point. If religion did not exist, things would be ENTIRELY different. Better, worse- doesn’t matter, we would not be where we are today, and I am not talking about planet earth.
I know it’s not considered PC to point out spelling errors, but you keep writing “tenant” when you mean “tenet”, and “casual” when you mean “causal”.
O.K., I went back and looked at the first of your links, and based on that, I think your point as to the influence of religion on science and philosophy is well-taken. But my reading of the essay is also that he is saying the reason cultures such as China, India, etc. did not develop “science” as quickly as Western Europe was because their religious ideas HINDERED them from doing so. For example, he asserts that the cyclical view of time inherent in certain religions prevents the cause-and-effect thinking necessary for a scientific outlook. So I’m still not seeing how science owes its development to religion, since religion obviously can just as easily hinder as it can help. I can see the case for the influence of religion (positive and negative), but I do not see the case for the necessity of religion.
But that’s merely a tautology. We could re-state it as: “If things weren’t the way they are, they would be different”. Duh.
Yes. Just like the world is better off not burning witches. Superstition should be removed from the world and replaced by knowledge and understanding. Not to say that their is no intelligent designer, just that what we know of such a thing should be based on observable data & repeatable tests rather than rhetoric, wishful thinking, and ancient memetic power struggles (which seems to be all that most religious folks offer in the place of knowledge and truth).
Thank you, I was not aware I was making those mistakes. I don’t see how it is unpc unless it detracts from the debate, which it didn’t.
True enough, religion can hinder. I think the evidence points that in the case of the development of modern day science and it’s method had help from christianity though. Of course I have no hardcore evidence because I am not a historian, I only have read several books that suggest this to be. I don’t think religion is necessary for development into science, just that in our case it did.
It seems to me the number one factor that allowed western thought to flourish was the church. The church allowed stability for science to flourish, branches of its theology and philosophy influenced thought which led to ideas that was the foundation for scientific philosophy. The stability of Europe might have occured by an agent other than the unified church, though it just seems improbable given the seeming bloodlust most of Europe displayed in those times. (How many times were wars prevented because the church used its leverage to keep rulers from invading other countries and provinces)
Of course this is speculation which could be wrong, I admit.
Put that way it does seem foolish.
I also appologize for allowing my frustration to leech into this debate. I will learn from it and keep my anger and sarcasm out of them, or try my damndest.
Some say it is better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you are a fool than open your mouth and prove it, but I say open your mouth, get proven a fool, and learn from it so next time they may think you are wise.
Fair enough. In fact, I am going to do a very rare thing and admit that you have made me re-think what I said. I tend to think of the “Dark Ages” and learning being stifled and all that, but it sounds like you have done a lot of reading on the subject, and that was not necessarily the case. History is not my best subject, so I’ll gladly concede the point that the church didn’t JUST stifle science, but also set up conditions that helped its development.
