Lausten I'll make this easy for both of us. Do you believe that humans were or are hardwired for religion?No. But maybe you are defining in that some way that I could agree with, if you took a few sentences to explain yourself. Principle of Charity]
Lausten I'll make this easy for both of us. Do you believe that humans were or are hardwired for religion?No. But maybe you are defining in that some way that I could agree with, if you took a few sentences to explain yourself. Principle of Charity] Ok. I believe we are hardwired for religion.(or superstition, or woo, or trying to explain our fears of the unknown.) If we aren't or weren't hardwired for religion, then we as atheists must come up with a reason why religion formed or took root in the first place. Because as atheists, obviously we don't think we are imbued with it from some spirit or god. So the concept had to start someplace. In a scientific-naturalist sense. Now we have to go back far into history, past history. Past homo-sapiens. Somewhere along the way proto-humans were able to become more advanced in their perceptions of their surroundings and their own consciousness.(and this didn't happen overnight either-it probably took thousands of years-evolution of genes and psychology.) Maybe it was lightning and thunder, maybe it was Earthquakes, maybe the Stars and the Sun and the Moon, but something started proto-humans and humans into thinking there was more to life than just mortality. They saw life and birth and death and began to develop a consciousness about it. This is the beginnings of religion. Which undoubtedly was a proto-science. It was mostly wrong, but hey! it was progress. It was an advancement of society. And it only created more and more questions. It started organized observations of the stars. It started more advanced social groupings and cultures and mores. It started customs. It created rules. Now you can't say that this would have happened anyways. You just can't. For reasons which should be obvious. That's the way it happened. It's social and psychological evolution from the very beginning of proto-human and human consciousness. Religion was proto-science. It attempted to make sense of the natural world. It built societies. It built courts and rules. It's not a matter of it being a coincidence, or an alternative. It is what is. And it lasted(slowly disintegrating) right up until the Age of Enlightenment. Now that was along time ago. Where does the hardwiring come into play now? Social and psychological evolution move faster than genetic evolution. Is the hardwiring still there? Yes. I think it is. But we have evolved mentally enough now where we don't have to engage those instincts.(this is getting off track..and is a good topic too.) So we can see that there was no choice, no coincidence. Religion happened. And it was a force for progress. For advancement. For knowledge. Not always the right knowledge...but where does even wrong knowledge lead? To the right knowledge! And make no mistake, lot's of it wasn't wrong knowledge. But aside from that, and far more importantly, for better or worse, that was one of the vehicles in which the human mind drove forward with into the future. I hope this makes sense. I'm glad you gave me the opportunity to explain it better. You have to think hard wired. For the times 10s of thousands of years ago. Obviously cavepeople weren't going to come up with General Relativity. But the human mind is incredibly powerful. Those first superstitious glances at the sea or the Sun were the precursors of science. The excuses or gods that we made to explain those phenomena were the precursors to science. And better social systems. etc etc.
Lausten I'll make this easy for both of us. Do you believe that humans were or are hardwired for religion?No. But maybe you are defining in that some way that I could agree with, if you took a few sentences to explain yourself. Principle of Charity] Ok. I believe we are hardwired for religion.(or superstition, or woo, or trying to explain our fears of the unknown.) If we aren't or weren't hardwired for religion, then we as atheists must come up with a reason why religion formed or took root in the first place. Because as atheists, obviously we don't think we are imbued with it from some spirit or god. So the concept had to start someplace. In a scientific-naturalist sense. Now we have to go back far into history, past history. Past homo-sapiens. Somewhere along the way proto-humans were able to become more advanced in their perceptions of their surroundings and their own consciousness.(and this didn't happen overnight either-it probably took thousands of years-evolution of genes and psychology.) Maybe it was lightning and thunder, maybe it was Earthquakes, maybe the Stars and the Sun and the Moon, but something started proto-humans and humans into thinking there was more to life than just mortality. They saw life and birth and death and began to develop a consciousness about it. This is the beginnings of religion. Which undoubtedly was a proto-science. It was mostly wrong, but hey! it was progress. It was an advancement of society. And it only created more and more questions. It started organized observations of the stars. It started more advanced social groupings and cultures and mores. It started customs. It created rules. Do you have an archaeology to back this up. If not, it is fiction
Now you can't say that this would have happened anyways. You just can't. For reasons which should be obvious. That's the way it happened. It's social and psychological evolution from the very beginning of proto-human and human consciousness. Religion was proto-science. It attempted to make sense of the natural world. It built societies. It built courts and rules. It's not a matter of it being a coincidence, or an alternative. It is what is. And it lasted(slowly disintegrating) right up until the Age of Enlightenment.Blocks of statements like this are why I say you are unreasonable.
Not always the right knowledge...but where does even wrong knowledge lead? To the right knowledge!Um, no.
I hope this makes sense.It doesn't
So I guess you think god imbued us with knowledge of himself then?
So I guess you think god imbued us with knowledge of himself then?No I think "god" Is a placeholder term that we used to fill the gaps in our knowledge when we woke up as conscious beings in a universe that we didn't understand. How that meme has been used and abused is the story of our struggle to cope with that universe that is slow to give up its secrets. Not because it has consciousness and desires to be slow, but because it has no mind at all and can only be what is, not caring if it is discovered or not.
Lausten-The idea that religion in general and Christianity specifically aided progress toward civil society is pretty well ingrained in the culture. I don’t think it’s a commonly held belief due to it being true, rather it’s due to the question remaining unexamined.I guess you should catch up with the rest of us and start examining things more. Most of us have already examined this. It's definitely been found to be true.
That's exactly the kind of cruel and meaningless thing that comes out of the mouths of religious believers. Not evidence, not support, not explanation, not even a decent authority, just "you're not getting it, go back and do it right, then you'll see what I see".Lausten-The idea that religion in general and Christianity specifically aided progress toward civil society is pretty well ingrained in the culture. I don’t think it’s a commonly held belief due to it being true, rather it’s due to the question remaining unexamined.I guess you should catch up with the rest of us and start examining things more. Most of us have already examined this. It's definitely been found to be true.
You’ve been given multiple examples of how religion has been a vehicle for advancing society. This disproves your statement.
You've been given multiple examples of how religion has been a vehicle for advancing society. This disproves your statement.You don't understand the difference between an assertion and evidence. I've pointed out several assertions. Pick one and explain to me how it is not an assertion. GdB mentioned the early universities, but the link I provided addresses that. You provided the Columbus example, which I compared to the invention of rockets and you correctly pointed out that rockets were the result of multiple cultures discovering a variety of things that came together. That would be what science does. Religion claims it knows more than you and you can either join them or live somewhere else, or sometimes, you can just die. What I can't believe you failed to see is that building ships and sailing them into uncharted water is also something that resulted from the efforts of many cultures. You also failed to consider the superstitious nonsense about the earth being the center of the universe that held back those efforts of exploration. What are you going to say now, that "real" Christians didn't believe that nonsense? That it was proto-religion?
Edit: or are you looking for something that is originally Christian, that inspired science? However, you then have the burden of explaining what counts as originally Christian. One of the distinctive characteristics of modernity is the clear distinction between different human areas like science, religion, art, work, politics, philosophy etc. When you look back on history to a time in which these distinctions were not yet clearly made, you create a distorted view of the pastThe burden of coming up with something originally Christian is on you. Descartes was original, Spinoza was original, Newton was original. They lived in a world where Christianity was pretty much required, and before Darwin or Quantum physics, so I can excuse the use of terms like "Maker". But there is no connection between their religion and their discoveries, other than they are all part of creation. Religion didn't figure out there is a creation, it just came up with an argument from ignorance about where it came from. Then, sometimes, not always, it tortured people who didn't believe them. There were always reasonable people who questioned that and said it was wrong. So both types of people were always there, which ones are responsible for the progress? Clear distinctions, yes, but also connections, philosophy sets the rules for truth, considers the possibilities, science gathers the evidence and tells us how likely something is true, politics is necessary when a decision needs to made but the science isn't there yet, art expresses the feelings and sometimes passes on ideas that come from any of the above. Religion, maybe at one time it helped hold communities together, but at what cost? And if it refuses to critique itself and grow, then someone needs to do that for them.
You don't understand the difference between an assertion and evidence. I've pointed out several assertions. Pick one and explain to me how it is not an assertion.Here I'll pick an assertion for you:
Lausten-The idea that religion in general and Christianity specifically aided progress toward civil society is pretty well ingrained in the culture. I don’t think it’s a commonly held belief due to it being true, rather it’s due to the question remaining unexamined.That's an excellent example of an assertion. An excellent example of evidence that counters your assertion is citing the christian funding of various Universities or explorations.
You don't understand the difference between an assertion and evidence. I've pointed out several assertions. Pick one and explain to me how it is not an assertion.Here I'll pick an assertion for you:
Lausten-The idea that religion in general and Christianity specifically aided progress toward civil society is pretty well ingrained in the culture. I don’t think it’s a commonly held belief due to it being true, rather it’s due to the question remaining unexamined.That's an excellent example of an assertion. An excellent example of evidence that counters your assertion is citing the christian funding of various Universities or explorations. Obviously not what I meant. But to compare, my choice of words is much more open than yours ("I think" rather than "it is what it is"). Also I've followed up twice with nuanced explanations. No point in repeating myself. Fine, I'll give you the funding thing. At least they didn't spend all their money copying Bibles. Whoopee ding. What did they teach though? What great research came out of those schools? What great literature? What happened when Aquinas tried to introduce the idea of reason leading to knowing God? Another thing that cries out for explanation, The Condemnations of 1277.
Has anybody ever brought up the fact that God does not meet the definition of life?
The burden of coming up with something originally Christian is on you.No, no... Nobody can show this, and that is because your burden is too high when you use your definitions of (Christian) religion and science. If I mention some idea proposed by a theologian that was a positive factor for the development of science, then you say 'but that is not essentially Christian!'. So you take the liberty to define what Christianity as a cultural and historical phenomenon was, using modern, philosophical distinctions. So you do not look at what Christianity really was, but what it essentially was (according to your modern definition.) Everything Christianity also was, is filtered out by your definition.
Descartes was original, Spinoza was original, Newton was original.Descartes original? Partially, yes. But his Cogito Ergo Sum can be found by Augustine, his proof of God's existence (!) smells heavily after Anselm (especially that existence is a form of perfection). And of course you know that Newton spent more time on alchemy and theology than on physics?
I don’t know what you mean by “define Christianity … using modern distinctions". What Augustine did in the 4th century was to take the parts of the Bible that say not to be curious and say they are more important than others. (Confessions, Book 10). This is not some isolated trope. It was made the law of the land. Before Constantine, Christians and Jews “discussed" the nature of Christ, sometimes actually fighting occurred, thus the first Council of Nicea. But at that time, Constantine had made a law for religious tolerance, which included Christianity among others. By 386, Theodosius was tearing down temples and burning books and saying you had to be a certain type of Christian. John Chrysostom and Libanius spoke out against this in their time, just like I am doing it now. This is no modern interpretation.
And this continued, even into Protestantism when Calvin wanted a rival put to death for his interpretation of some obscure statement about the Holy Spirit. People were Christian because there were armies that were enforcing the correct worship of Christianity. So when you point to some person who was a Christian who did something progressive, no I don’t accept that as evidence of the value of Christianity. I only ask that you explain what, within the teachings or philosophy of Christianity, led that person to do or say what they did. If I asked you to explain why Buddhism teaches peace, I think you could do that, but when I ask you how Christianity teaches reason, you think I’m doing some philosophical twist.
And I have provided more examples than you, by the way. Chrysostom and Erasmus are excellent examples of how to interpret the gospels peacefully. It’s not that it’s not possible, you just have to use secular reasoning to dismiss some of the text. You have to put some of it in historical context and find the expressions of common values in other parts. And in a few cases, the Bible does that very well. But from 400 AD up through the wars with Lutherans, that is not what Christians in power were doing. To claim that Christianity was a positive force for scientific development and progress toward civil rights and tolerance, you have to claim that most of the Popes and emperors they anointed were wrong. I would agree with doing that, but I would not bother going back to the pre-4th century arguments about what Christianity gets right, because we have improved on all that and have better ways for discovering truth.
Fear and fantasy. LoisPartly. Power being key. Sometimes through fear. And power is the only way society progresses. Power being money, leadership, counsel, academia, courts, etc. And fantasy as well I guess. Those pyramids were progress on so many levels. And it was based in part on fantasy. We can approach Lausten's(and your's) refusal to see the impact of religion on civilization both good and bad in 2 different ways. The empirical, historical record. Which indubitably points towards a connection. Or the more societal-evolutionary way.(which I briefly hinted at in my initial post in this thread.) In this way we can see that religion and progress were inextricably entwined as almost one. This can be traced back to the very origins of history, and beyond I'm sure. In fact there are many I'm sure who wouldn't bother differentiating between the two. Myself included. I would view the origins and subsequent development of religion as progress. A natural progression.(see progress is right in the word there.) In this view it is redundant or useless to think of any other possible timeline. That's the way it happened. And it falls back on the historical reference for good measure. I didn't refuse to see the impact of religion on civilization, either good or bad. My point is that if the historical record points to religion advancing the progress of civilization, it should also be seen as causing its retardation. You can't just see the positive while being blind to the negative--but that's what religious apologists try to do. I don't see any possible impact for good as being substantial. The negative impact has been much greater. You overlook the fact that religion itself has been responsible for wars, torture, millions of deaths and the destruction of civilization and didn't seem to prevent any of it. The historical record shows this to be true. It's much harder to document any impact for good. Lois
A natural progression.(see progress is right in the word there.) In this view it is redundant or useless to think of any other possible timeline. That’s the way it happened. And it falls back on the historical reference for good measure.This is the kind of thinking that makes a discussion with VYAZMA pointless. Why he thinks that putting natural and progression together somehow makes his ideas true, I don't know. Then he says how it's silly to think any other way but how he thinks. It just is. Then, that any work that historians actually do is just icing on the cake. Once you've decided what's true, you can make whatever you find fit that. This shows he doesn't really even understand what I'm talking about in the first place, that is, a world where we first investigate what we can find in reality, then we consider what that evidence is telling us. This is the exact opposite of religion. Both ways of seeking truth may start with a natural curiosity about why the world is how it is, but the similarity ends there. The "religion influences progress" thesis fits for him because he has decided that curiosity and desire to know how nature works IS what religion is. Only in the most rudimentary, pantheistic, early civilization would I say that is a good definition. I think it very quickly became what the anthropologist at Bru-Na-Boinne said, when you can manifest the experience of the divine for people, you can control them.
Lausten,
I don’t know if you realise it, but summing up examples of oppression by Christianity is no counter argument against my arguement. It seems you really do not understand my point.
Other religions then Christianity and Islam might not have absorbed Aristotle and other ancient Greeks, and so even that the ideas of trying to explain phenomena were not originally Christian, Christianity may very well have been a factor in their survival in our culture. Trying to know God by trying to understand his Creation was the motivation.
It is e.g. difficult to imagine how a polytheistic religion, where every phenomenon is ad hoc explained by some story about gods, could incorporate the drive of rationally understanding our world.
Also, if you are doing things by coincidence, then we wouldn't have rockets if it weren't for the Nazis. That of course is absurd, just like we wouldn't have discovered America if not for the Catholic Church.Yes, that would be absurd. But it would also be absurd to state that the Nazis were not involved in developing rockets. I hope we can agree that Christianity was involved in the developing of science. The next question then would be if Christianity was necessary for the development of science, i.e. would science have developed in cultures with another kind of prevailing religion. That of course dives into the difficulties of explaining historical phenomena. Just read the recent background articles about what the 'real cause' of WW I was. It is difficult to replay history with some different parameters, and see what happens then. So this becomes partially a philosophical question: do we see connections between some Christian ideas and the slowly arising of scientific thinking? ('Slowly', maybe because overall Christianity might be very well have been more oppressive than supportive for such ideas. But what when not even a single theologian would have supported such ideas?) And one other thought about what is 'essentially Christian'. As and example: what does belong essentially to your identity? Where did you get your ideas? Did you have them originally? Or did you learn them later? Or do they just belong to your identity because you have accepted them and use them now in your daily life? With Christianity I have the same view: if Aristotle was 'absorbed' by some Christian theologians, based on their religious convictions, and via this way became part of western culture, then Christianity was a factor in the developing of scientific thinking. That these views were not supported by the ones who were in charge in Christian organisations really does not matter.
I agree, summing up examples of oppression would not be an argument, which is why I don’t do it. I think I understand your point, it just isn’t very well developed. You say the development of science is, in part, inspired by the desire to understand God’s creation and then later by the Protestant ethics. You use a capital “G", so you imply the Christian God was instrumental. I have been supplying specific names, times, laws and writings that led to specific changes in culture and thought. You barely respond to any of this. So I think it is you who is having trouble understanding.
It is only your lack of imagination that has trouble with polytheism, since there are pagans who developed science and reported inspiration from their deities.]
You get the question of “necessary" right, but you dismiss the volumes of work by historians as simply “difficult". Apparently what is difficult is for you to pick up a book. You ask the right question about connections, but you ignore every one that I have made. If you want to discuss them, why don’t you respond to any one of the connections I have proposed and tell me what else was going on at that time in history and why I am wrong?
Your philosophical questions about identity are silly. Of course my identity is shaped by my culture. That is my whole thesis, that the people of the 5th and 6th century had no idea of earlier Greek philosophy because it had been made anathema and carted off to the East and they no longer taught the language it was written in. In the other words, that’s how Theodosius changed the course of history.
I’ve done enough work here and am getting tired of your broad brush statements that need correcting. Christianity did not “absorb" Aristotle, they first rejected it, then when the majority of his writings were reintroduced 700 years later, they resisted it. If what the ruling powers support doesn’t matter, then what does? Why vote? Why care about how my taxes are spent? Why contribute to public radio? Why care what they teach in Universities? Why do people drop money in the collection plate every Sunday?
I think you are like a lot of modern Christians. You want to believe that Christianity is what you think it is. Any manifestation of it throughout history is just some anomaly of the ignorance of that age, or some other forces of greed outside of what God really wants. If others would just get Christianity the way you do, everything would be okay. Sounds nice, but that’s what religion is “think like me and we’ll all be okay". It doesn’t work.
You've been given multiple examples of how religion has been a vehicle for advancing society. This disproves your statement.We have been given not one valid example of how religion is a vehicle for advancing society. We have been given myths, outright lies. And hogwash. Nothing you or any religionist has said disproves the statement. Lois