reading back almost my whole shift here in the office. A lot of comments i've read are objective reasoning and/or subjective. meaning. they only believe in facts.
However, based on the technology we have right now, do you think with all those tools for investigating and finding factual proof, we find evidence of another entity such as God himself?
I too is a born catholic and raised one, but it never slipped my mind being objective. (i don't believe in everything that was taught of me) As to me, there are reasons behind everything, The bible and The religion. Science however seems to have a connection with religion and the bible itself. for example.
The origin of man in the bible says "we came from dust"
thus science says, we came from micro organism from billion years ago evolved to everything around us.
you see the connection?
my question is.
to Religious people. how does this affect your faith?
to non-Religious people. how will this affect your faith?
to me since i was raised catholic. If this theory is proven, then we are not far from proving what really or Who really God is. and to me IMHO, it is the duty of Science, scientist, geologist, paleontologist,.. etc. to prove what has not been proven, right?
A team should be as happy as a meal - TEAM HAPPYMEAL
EDH - UWGrand Arbiter Agustin IV UBW Oloro, Ageless Ascetic Modern - Mono U tron / Polymorph / NFTW (ninja for the win)GR tronGR
Buy All the planeswalkers!!!
Buy All the Dual Lands!!!
Buy All the fetches!
Create tons of EDH Decks!!!
Eat Nothing but Oats!! (LOL, not true)
Train MMA!!!
Marry My girlfriend!!!
Get her Pregnant only Once!
Teach my Son/Daughter Sports and magic cards!!!
Continue my legacy son!!!/Daughter!!
This doesn't affect me at all. It seems like weak correlation at best. What is far more interesting is the anthropological study of ancient religions and seeing how those correlate to the body of knowledge that the west has today.
reading back almost my whole shift here in the office. A lot of comments i've read are objective reasoning and/or subjective. meaning. they only believe in facts.
There's a funny thing about facts: you don't have to believe them for them to be true.
However, based on the technology we have right now, do you think with all those tools for investigating and finding factual proof, we find evidence of another entity such as God himself?
No, I don't think we will, because we've never found proof of the supernatural.
I too is a born catholic and raised one, but it never slipped my mind being objective. (i don't believe in everything that was taught of me) As to me, there are reasons behind everything, The bible and The religion. Science however seems to have a connection with religion and the bible itself. for example.
The origin of man in the bible says "we came from dust"
thus science says, we came from micro organism from billion years ago evolved to everything around us.
you see the connection?
No, I don't see the connection. I understand what you're trying to say, that "dust" is somehow "bacteria" or even non-living precursors to life, but that's a creation all your own. This is the same type of thing that people do with Nostradamus, and what I used to do when I was still searching for reasons to retain my Christianity.
to Religious people. how does this affect your faith?
to non-Religious people. how will this affect your faith?
I don't have a "faith", so it doesn't affect it...even if I did, I'm not sure what you're trying to say? Are you asking what effect your texas sharpshooting is having on people's faith?
to me since i was raised catholic. If this theory is proven, then we are not far from proving what really or Who really God is. and to me IMHO, it is the duty of Science, scientist, geologist, paleontologist,.. etc. to prove what has not been proven, right? however if not proven, then i will stick to my religion for it has given me wisdom to find truth
What theory?
So, you sound excited that you think scientists might be able to prove the existence of a god, but it doesn't matter because you will stick to your religion anyways. So what would be the point of hoping for your proof?
It's also interesting that you're not interested in the answer of whether or not there is a god, and then whether or not it's the god you think you pray to (as opposed to numerous gods or really anything other than "God"), but rather what/who God is.
What is far more interesting is the anthropological study of ancient religions and seeing how those correlate to the body of knowledge that the west has today.
How what correlates, exactly? I think you'd find that, relative to the knowledge we have today, they knew very, very, very little.
The origin of man in the bible says "we came from dust"
thus science says, we came from micro organism from billion years ago evolved to everything around us.
you see the connection?
What connection could you possibly see in that?
Do you think a bunch of wandering shepherds and goatherds millenia ago had any idea about space dust?
Do you think "the elements that make us up came from stars" is similar to "we come from dust that God breathed life into"?
I mean, that we turned out to come from spacedust is a nifty thing, don't get me wrong. Truly boggles the mind. But to say that we should somehow regard the authors of the books of the Bible as having knowledge of modern science is false.
If this theory is proven,
What theory are you talking about here?
then we are not far from proving what really or Who really God is.
How what correlates, exactly? I think you'd find that, relative to the knowledge we have today, they knew very, very, very little.
I'm going to address this in a roundabout way and say that if a standardized IQ test was made in the Mojave aboriginal culture, or the Zulu culture, or the Ya̧nomamö culture, that the average citizen of a western culture would score very poorly. Even a scientist would score poorly on such a test. I hope this gets my point across.
I'm going to address this in a roundabout way and say that if a standardized IQ test was made in the Mojave aboriginal culture, or the Zulu culture, or the Ya̧nomamö culture, that the average citizen of a western culture would score very poorly. Even a scientist would score poorly on such a test. I hope this gets my point across.
Here, we see a fundamental misunderstanding of what IQ actually is.
IQ is your capacity to find solutions to new problems, and to see patterns and formulate logical conclusions based on such. It is a process in which culture has no bearing. The aboriginal IQ test would have such questions, and as such, you would score equally as well as you would here.
Here, we see a fundamental misunderstanding of what IQ actually is.
IQ is your capacity to find solutions to new problems, and to see patterns and formulate logical conclusions based on such. It is a process in which culture has no bearing. The aboriginal IQ test would have such questions, and as such, you would score equally as well as you would here.
So replace IQ test with knowledge test, which is what I was getting at.
I'd postulate that religion provided virtually no benefit for the progression of mankind.
I guess in the middle ages, almost all art was only affordable by the church, but I don't know if that would have killed art.
I postulate that religion was a key factor in advancing society, perhaps secondary only to the agricultural revolution, the ability to reason, memory, and the discovery of tools. I think almost any anthropology professor would agree with me to a certain extent. The above is my opinion, but what is certain is that religion very much played an important part in the progression of mankind.
I postulate that religion was a key factor in advancing society, perhaps secondary only to the agricultural revolution, the ability to reason, memory, and the discovery of tools. I think almost any anthropology professor would agree with me to a certain extent. The above is my opinion, but what is certain is that religion very much played an important part in the progression of mankind.
For example...?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I think religion is only important in the context of human history because it was and is a common gathering force. Religion is something that has historically brought people together, and de-facto enabled collaboration and discussion.
had there been no religion instead, people still would have assembled and still would have collaborated and discussed and synthesized and moved society forward.
What I'm saying is that religion is co-correlated with progress: both are just end-results of humanity's social nature.
Gah, google is completely useless when trying to actually find things of scholarly merit; I'm having a hell of a time finding relevant citations. Type 'witch' into google and you'll be flooded with witch trial and witch craze websites, but what I was looking for as an example is the observed role that the witch as an archetype plays in maintaining a healthy society as observed in indigenous cultures. The pariah role established by the belief in witches helped the healthy binding of cultures unto themselves, etc.
Frankly I really don't care to dig further for citations just so that some of the less prudent readers of the debate forum can attempt to nitpick their way through all of them in some effort to justify their views. Go to your local university and ask an anthropology professor
The fact of the matter is that religion and culture were inseparable in the vast majority (if not all) of the worlds indigenous cultures, and we cannot credit one and discredit another for the advancement of human societies. In the anthropologica study of religions, one does not dismiss them as primitive, outdated, or irrelevant, just like the other aspects of societies.
Gah, google is completely useless when trying to actually find things of scholarly merit; I'm having a hell of a time finding relevant citations. Type 'witch' into google and you'll be flooded with witch trial and witch craze websites, but what I was looking for as an example is the observed role that the witch as an archetype plays in maintaining a healthy society as observed in indigenous cultures. The pariah role established by the belief in witches helped the healthy binding of cultures unto themselves, etc.
I think the deal here is you're using sociology and maybe some Jungian stuff to describe the witch as an archetype, and ignoring the fact that what you're saying would be entirely foreign to the thought process of anyone in ancient Europe or anywhere else.
No, I'm pretty sure those people thought of witches or shamans or what-have-you as important roles in society due to the fact that they had magic or could commune with spirits or whatever. Their roles in society were based on the belief that they could appease spirits or ensure the success of hunts or bring rain or communicate with the dead or predict the future.
Maybe as an indirect result they created things like a sense of community or cultural identity or whatever, and that might be their primary role now in our more scientifically educated culture, but that certainly wasn't their primary role then.
We need look no further than our own culture for great examples of this. Consider fortune tellers, palm readers, astrologers, ghost hunters, and UFO researchers. What is their function to a person who doesn't buy into them, versus what is their function to a person who very much believes in them?
Go to your local university and ask an anthropology professor
But the question is not so much whether what you're saying does or does not have basis from an anthropological perspective, so much as whether or not the anthropological perspective allows us to understand the mindset of, say, a Celtic man in 300 B.C.?
The fact of the matter is that religion and culture were inseparable in the vast majority (if not all) of the worlds indigenous cultures, and we cannot credit one and discredit another for the advancement of human societies. In the anthropologica study of religions, one does not dismiss them as primitive, outdated, or irrelevant, just like the other aspects of societies.
This is because anthropology concerns itself with what beliefs people have, not the truth value of those beliefs.
However, this thread IS concerned with the truth value of those beliefs.
Religion is one of the more important factors in world history.
I would rank the factors as such,
1. Economics
2. Politics
3. Military (could be combined with Politics...)
4. Nationalism (fairly new development)
5. Religion (Depending on time, this can be switched with Nationalism)
*4 and 5 could be considered culture.
Religion is similar to nationalism in that it has been used to fulfill larger goals. It is a tool which has been used to combine people under a common banner.
It is important, but the other factors higher on the list vastly outweigh it in influence and importance. History of China/Asia in general do not have the focus on religion like Western history does.
It is important, but not the defining aspect of humanities advance through the ages.
Please note that for the most part of this concern on the impact religion has had on the advancement of societies that the arguments I make aren't original. They're pretty much what is taught in university.
Maybe as an indirect result they created things like a sense of community or cultural identity or whatever, and that might be their primary role now in our more scientifically educated culture, but that certainly wasn't their primary role then.
Really, the mindset of the people of the time is irrelevant when observing the role that religion has played in advancing society.
Type 'witch' into google and you'll be flooded with witch trial and witch craze websites, but what I was looking for as an example is the observed role that the witch as an archetype plays in maintaining a healthy society as observed in indigenous cultures. The pariah role established by the belief in witches helped the healthy binding of cultures unto themselves, etc.
Until I've seen a more in-depth argument, color me suspicious. What you've described here smells like a possible correlation-causation error leading into a just-so story: this society believes in witches, this society has cultural cohesion, so let's hypothesize about how the former facilitates the latter.
What you really need to do is objectively compare cultures that don't have witch beliefs to those that do. And I don't read a lot of anthropology, so I hate to say it, but what I do read seldom has even that level of scientific rigor. (Which really is bare bones. Ideally you'd double-blind the study somehow: make sure that those evaluating a culture for cohesion don't know whether or not it's one with witch beliefs, and those who check for witch beliefs don't have any idea about its cohesion.)
The fact of the matter is that religion and culture were inseparable in the vast majority (if not all) of the worlds indigenous cultures...
Which is a problem, actually. No null or control groups. It's like you're saying, "All primates have five fingers per hand, so clearly five is a better number than four or six." Maybe five is a terrible number that we just got stuck with. Or maybe it doesn't matter at all how many fingers we have. Until we find a differently-numbered population and study it very carefully, we just can't tell.
In the anthropologica study of religions, one does not dismiss them as primitive, outdated, or irrelevant, just like the other aspects of societies.
That is because the anthropological study of religions, even when on its best behavior rigor-wise, is concerned with understanding religions on their own terms and as part of their existing cultures, not with answering the question of whether religion leads to better or worse cultures. It'd be like asking a ballistics expert his opinion on the merits of gun control: his expertise can certainly provide facts to inform the argument, but he's not specially qualified to decide it, since his field is physics rather than public policy.
Religion is one of the more important factors in world history.
I would rank the factors as such,
1. Economics
2. Politics
3. Military (could be combined with Politics...)
4. Nationalism (fairly new development)
5. Religion (Depending on time, this can be switched with Nationalism)
*4 and 5 could be considered culture.
You make no claim that any of these factors are always or usually positive in their influence.
I postulate that religion was a key factor in advancing society, perhaps secondary only to the agricultural revolution, the ability to reason, memory, and the discovery of tools. I think almost any anthropology professor would agree with me to a certain extent. The above is my opinion, but what is certain is that religion very much played an important part in the progression of mankind.
You know, when you describe something as second only to four other things, it makes it fifth, right?
But, more substantially, the notion that religion was or is a key factor in advancing society is utter bunk. Religion has on occasion worked for the advancement of society. It has far more often tried to hold it in place, or worse, push it backwards. Religion is by its nature conservative; it wants things to be as they are (or as the holy book of choice says it should be); people questioning exactly how you fit two of every animal on a boat, or why the holy book contradicts itself; people wanting to cut up the dead to work out how to heal the living or to question what exactly orbits what - all these sorts of things are frowned upon. (and by "frowned upon" I mean "get you tortured to death potentially")
As a tool for the advancement of society, science thrashes religion like a marine with an assult rifle thrashes a slow witted cow; the cow has its uses but it ain't advancing anything except my enjoyment of steak.
Religion is, essentially, a science - in the same way the astrology or numerology is a science. Which is to say: It isn't, even slightly, but it's goals are essentially the same. It's just that religion 's method - make some things up and punish anyone who disagrees in perpetuity - isn't actually very good for learning how the universe works.
however if not proven, then i will stick to my religion for it has given me wisdom to find truth
This. This right here is the problem. You should be saying "Until my religion is proven, why should I believe it, because otherwise how would I know it is true?" I am not sure what "wisdom to find truth" even means in the context of what you wrote. What truth? What wisdom?
thus science says, we came from micro organism from billion years ago evolved to everything around us.
Correction evolutionist says that. Last time I looked Abiogenesis is a hotly debated topic and nowhere near proven. Evolutionist does not speak for science anymore than ID proponents speak for science.
Their are quite a few conflicting explanations for how life came into existence on this planet and to think that a host of disciplines as diverse as science teaches evolutions seems rather disingenuous. (To say the least)
The OP should do himself a favour and google why scientism is a self defeating epistemology. His fist comment stinks of it.
But, more substantially, the notion that religion was or is a key factor in advancing society is utter bunk. Religion has on occasion worked for the advancement of society. It has far more often tried to hold it in place, or worse, push it backwards. Religion is by its nature conservative; it wants things to be as they are (or as the holy book of choice says it should be); people questioning exactly how you fit two of every animal on a boat, or why the holy book contradicts itself; people wanting to cut up the dead to work out how to heal the living or to question what exactly orbits what - all these sorts of things are frowned upon. (and by "frowned upon" I mean "get you tortured to death potentially")
As a tool for the advancement of society, science thrashes religion like a marine with an assult rifle thrashes a slow witted cow; the cow has its uses but it ain't advancing anything except my enjoyment of steak.
Religion is, essentially, a science - in the same way the astrology or numerology is a science. Which is to say: It isn't, even slightly, but it's goals are essentially the same. It's just that religion 's method - make some things up and punish anyone who disagrees in perpetuity - isn't actually very good for learning how the universe works.
My only area of disagreement is perhaps one of semantics. Early religion helped foster tribalism and worked for early humans as a psychological tool for understanding the universe. I'd say over all it did do quite a bit to hinder human growth and understanding. But it did have some early advantages. Course..so did stone tools compared to things before things. We've moved on from religion's stone tools well.......somewhat.I do think in a world in which tribalism becomes more and more detrimental and where things like nuclear weapons exist. That it's time for us to give up the ghost of religion so to speak.
Dropping it wont usher us into some sort of grand utopia or anything. But it can help us.
Correction evolutionist says that. Last time I looked Abiogenesis is a hotly debated topic and nowhere near proven. Evolutionist does not speak for science anymore than ID proponents speak for science.
Their are quite a few conflicting explanations for how life came into existence on this planet and to think that a host of disciplines as diverse as science teaches evolutions seems rather disingenuous. (To say the least)
"Evolutionist" is the term Christians use to label a fictional group of people who take evolution as a gospel. Evolution is as proven as something can be. Yes, it's the Theory of Evolution but "theory" doesn't mean in science what you might think it means. For instance, we still call it the "Theory of Gravity". There is no debate among the scientific community about evolution. The only real hold-outs are fringe groups and religion. Also, evolution speaks *NOTHING* on abiogenesis or the beginnings of life. This is a common misunderstanding among the less scientifically-literate.
Evolutionist does not speak for science anymore than ID proponents speak for science.
Their are quite a few conflicting explanations for how life came into existence on this planet and to think that a host of disciplines as diverse as science teaches evolutions seems rather disingenuous.
Just a heads up, I don't think you're going to get very far arguing against evolution on the internet. It's a rather established fact, accepted even by the Catholic church, and I'm sure people here would be happy to supply you any number of wiki articles, TED talks, scientific papers, videos, and so on to help you understand why. It is inarguably true - arguing against it is like arguing for a flat earth.
Most of the "greatest works" tend to set about a framework in thinking. It acts like Swiss cheese where there's a ready made form, but people eventually fill in those slots with their own thinking. It spurs thought forward, but considering the structure of the cheese doesn't always lend itself to creating a diverse framework.
To the credit, though, of early religious scholars they did pick up from pagan philosophers and other religions. You can see the people I have the largest problem with are those that tend to only read from a few select works as their ideological framework. Those are more well read are able to have the flexibility to combat changes, but with enough rigidity like bamboo to flex back into good form and keep reaching for the sky.
As BS mentioned in another thread with occassionalism and it's brethren that stops at the "I don't know" or "this is all we will ever know" stops advancement. There was a time when Islam was a very progressive religion rather than playing "catch up" with the West and now the East.
Also, with that said Christianity isn't always necessarily a problem as seen with the Eastern Roman Empire. They outlasted the Western Roman Empire and had it been not for the Plague of Justinian it is very likely that the empire would have been reborn. The problem, though, comes from forms of fundamentalism like Occassionalism creeps into the system such as with the Iconoclasm Controversy that stopped advancement and adaptation among other issues such as economic within Byzantium. However, if one reads some of the original texts or even glances at the heights of the Byzantine Empire and their ability to deal with unstable territory, advancing enemies, and still remain a considerable power with a long tradition dating back to Greece is something to be admired more than they are today. One of the ironies that I rarely see people talk about America as the "new Rome," but I have yet to see one Christian try to make the case about American resiliency stemming in part towards a revival like that of the Byzantine Empire. Perhaps it stems from the "small government" types in the states, however they were a Christian nation that did help keep roving hoards out of Europe.
So the "narrative" that religion is an anathema to civilization is patently false and true at the same time, as it can help to give people structure and a commonality whilst equally destroying and stifling new forms of growth and identity.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
As BS mentioned in another thread with occassionalism and it's brethren that stops at the "I don't know" or "this is all we will ever know" stops advancement.
"I don't know" doesn't stop advancement, it's the "we can't know", or "we know, and it's God" that stops advancement. The words "I don't know" are quite familiar to scientists, because it's the area encompassed by "I don't know" that is frequently fertile ground for new research.
There was a time when Islam was a very progressive religion rather than playing "catch up" with the West and now the East.
Yes, and then a movement began that demonized science and sent them back centuries. Baghdad was essentially the intellectual capitol of the world, and then suddenly wasn't, due to religion. We see some of the same things happening with the evangelical movement in the US, which is scary to many, and the US has lost ground.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
However, based on the technology we have right now, do you think with all those tools for investigating and finding factual proof, we find evidence of another entity such as God himself?
I too is a born catholic and raised one, but it never slipped my mind being objective. (i don't believe in everything that was taught of me) As to me, there are reasons behind everything, The bible and The religion. Science however seems to have a connection with religion and the bible itself. for example.
The origin of man in the bible says "we came from dust"
thus science says, we came from micro organism from billion years ago evolved to everything around us.
you see the connection?
my question is.
to Religious people. how does this affect your faith?
to non-Religious people. how will this affect your faith?
to me since i was raised catholic. If this theory is proven, then we are not far from proving what really or Who really God is. and to me IMHO, it is the duty of Science, scientist, geologist, paleontologist,.. etc. to prove what has not been proven, right?
EDH - UWGrand Arbiter Agustin IV
UBW Oloro, Ageless Ascetic
Modern - Mono U tron / Polymorph / NFTW (ninja for the win)GR tron GR
Buy All the Dual Lands!!!
Buy All the fetches!
Create tons of EDH Decks!!!
Eat Nothing but Oats!! (LOL, not true)
Train MMA!!!
Marry My girlfriend!!!
Get her Pregnant only Once!
Teach my Son/Daughter Sports and magic cards!!!
Continue my legacy son!!!/Daughter!!
There's a funny thing about facts: you don't have to believe them for them to be true.
No, I don't think we will, because we've never found proof of the supernatural.
No, I don't see the connection. I understand what you're trying to say, that "dust" is somehow "bacteria" or even non-living precursors to life, but that's a creation all your own. This is the same type of thing that people do with Nostradamus, and what I used to do when I was still searching for reasons to retain my Christianity.
I don't have a "faith", so it doesn't affect it...even if I did, I'm not sure what you're trying to say? Are you asking what effect your texas sharpshooting is having on people's faith?
What theory?
So, you sound excited that you think scientists might be able to prove the existence of a god, but it doesn't matter because you will stick to your religion anyways. So what would be the point of hoping for your proof?
It's also interesting that you're not interested in the answer of whether or not there is a god, and then whether or not it's the god you think you pray to (as opposed to numerous gods or really anything other than "God"), but rather what/who God is.
How what correlates, exactly? I think you'd find that, relative to the knowledge we have today, they knew very, very, very little.
What connection could you possibly see in that?
Do you think a bunch of wandering shepherds and goatherds millenia ago had any idea about space dust?
Do you think "the elements that make us up came from stars" is similar to "we come from dust that God breathed life into"?
I mean, that we turned out to come from spacedust is a nifty thing, don't get me wrong. Truly boggles the mind. But to say that we should somehow regard the authors of the books of the Bible as having knowledge of modern science is false.
What theory are you talking about here?
I have no idea how you're getting to this here.
I'm going to address this in a roundabout way and say that if a standardized IQ test was made in the Mojave aboriginal culture, or the Zulu culture, or the Ya̧nomamö culture, that the average citizen of a western culture would score very poorly. Even a scientist would score poorly on such a test. I hope this gets my point across.
Here, we see a fundamental misunderstanding of what IQ actually is.
IQ is your capacity to find solutions to new problems, and to see patterns and formulate logical conclusions based on such. It is a process in which culture has no bearing. The aboriginal IQ test would have such questions, and as such, you would score equally as well as you would here.
So replace IQ test with knowledge test, which is what I was getting at.
I guess in the middle ages, almost all art was only affordable by the church, but I don't know if that would have killed art.
I postulate that religion was a key factor in advancing society, perhaps secondary only to the agricultural revolution, the ability to reason, memory, and the discovery of tools. I think almost any anthropology professor would agree with me to a certain extent. The above is my opinion, but what is certain is that religion very much played an important part in the progression of mankind.
This just plain isn't true.
For example...?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
had there been no religion instead, people still would have assembled and still would have collaborated and discussed and synthesized and moved society forward.
What I'm saying is that religion is co-correlated with progress: both are just end-results of humanity's social nature.
Gah, google is completely useless when trying to actually find things of scholarly merit; I'm having a hell of a time finding relevant citations. Type 'witch' into google and you'll be flooded with witch trial and witch craze websites, but what I was looking for as an example is the observed role that the witch as an archetype plays in maintaining a healthy society as observed in indigenous cultures. The pariah role established by the belief in witches helped the healthy binding of cultures unto themselves, etc.
Frankly I really don't care to dig further for citations just so that some of the less prudent readers of the debate forum can attempt to nitpick their way through all of them in some effort to justify their views. Go to your local university and ask an anthropology professor
The fact of the matter is that religion and culture were inseparable in the vast majority (if not all) of the worlds indigenous cultures, and we cannot credit one and discredit another for the advancement of human societies. In the anthropologica study of religions, one does not dismiss them as primitive, outdated, or irrelevant, just like the other aspects of societies.
Define "religion."
I think the deal here is you're using sociology and maybe some Jungian stuff to describe the witch as an archetype, and ignoring the fact that what you're saying would be entirely foreign to the thought process of anyone in ancient Europe or anywhere else.
No, I'm pretty sure those people thought of witches or shamans or what-have-you as important roles in society due to the fact that they had magic or could commune with spirits or whatever. Their roles in society were based on the belief that they could appease spirits or ensure the success of hunts or bring rain or communicate with the dead or predict the future.
Maybe as an indirect result they created things like a sense of community or cultural identity or whatever, and that might be their primary role now in our more scientifically educated culture, but that certainly wasn't their primary role then.
We need look no further than our own culture for great examples of this. Consider fortune tellers, palm readers, astrologers, ghost hunters, and UFO researchers. What is their function to a person who doesn't buy into them, versus what is their function to a person who very much believes in them?
But the question is not so much whether what you're saying does or does not have basis from an anthropological perspective, so much as whether or not the anthropological perspective allows us to understand the mindset of, say, a Celtic man in 300 B.C.?
This is because anthropology concerns itself with what beliefs people have, not the truth value of those beliefs.
However, this thread IS concerned with the truth value of those beliefs.
I think he is right to an extent.
Religion is one of the more important factors in world history.
I would rank the factors as such,
1. Economics
2. Politics
3. Military (could be combined with Politics...)
4. Nationalism (fairly new development)
5. Religion (Depending on time, this can be switched with Nationalism)
*4 and 5 could be considered culture.
Religion is similar to nationalism in that it has been used to fulfill larger goals. It is a tool which has been used to combine people under a common banner.
It is important, but the other factors higher on the list vastly outweigh it in influence and importance. History of China/Asia in general do not have the focus on religion like Western history does.
It is important, but not the defining aspect of humanities advance through the ages.
Really, the mindset of the people of the time is irrelevant when observing the role that religion has played in advancing society.
My stance was stated in my first post, here I'm just repsonding to a different thing altogether, brought up by glurman's second post.
Until I've seen a more in-depth argument, color me suspicious. What you've described here smells like a possible correlation-causation error leading into a just-so story: this society believes in witches, this society has cultural cohesion, so let's hypothesize about how the former facilitates the latter.
What you really need to do is objectively compare cultures that don't have witch beliefs to those that do. And I don't read a lot of anthropology, so I hate to say it, but what I do read seldom has even that level of scientific rigor. (Which really is bare bones. Ideally you'd double-blind the study somehow: make sure that those evaluating a culture for cohesion don't know whether or not it's one with witch beliefs, and those who check for witch beliefs don't have any idea about its cohesion.)
Which is a problem, actually. No null or control groups. It's like you're saying, "All primates have five fingers per hand, so clearly five is a better number than four or six." Maybe five is a terrible number that we just got stuck with. Or maybe it doesn't matter at all how many fingers we have. Until we find a differently-numbered population and study it very carefully, we just can't tell.
We can't really credit or discredit either if we can't study them properly.
That is because the anthropological study of religions, even when on its best behavior rigor-wise, is concerned with understanding religions on their own terms and as part of their existing cultures, not with answering the question of whether religion leads to better or worse cultures. It'd be like asking a ballistics expert his opinion on the merits of gun control: his expertise can certainly provide facts to inform the argument, but he's not specially qualified to decide it, since his field is physics rather than public policy.
You make no claim that any of these factors are always or usually positive in their influence.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You know, when you describe something as second only to four other things, it makes it fifth, right?
But, more substantially, the notion that religion was or is a key factor in advancing society is utter bunk. Religion has on occasion worked for the advancement of society. It has far more often tried to hold it in place, or worse, push it backwards. Religion is by its nature conservative; it wants things to be as they are (or as the holy book of choice says it should be); people questioning exactly how you fit two of every animal on a boat, or why the holy book contradicts itself; people wanting to cut up the dead to work out how to heal the living or to question what exactly orbits what - all these sorts of things are frowned upon. (and by "frowned upon" I mean "get you tortured to death potentially")
As a tool for the advancement of society, science thrashes religion like a marine with an assult rifle thrashes a slow witted cow; the cow has its uses but it ain't advancing anything except my enjoyment of steak.
Religion is, essentially, a science - in the same way the astrology or numerology is a science. Which is to say: It isn't, even slightly, but it's goals are essentially the same. It's just that religion 's method - make some things up and punish anyone who disagrees in perpetuity - isn't actually very good for learning how the universe works.
This. This right here is the problem. You should be saying "Until my religion is proven, why should I believe it, because otherwise how would I know it is true?" I am not sure what "wisdom to find truth" even means in the context of what you wrote. What truth? What wisdom?
Correction evolutionist says that. Last time I looked Abiogenesis is a hotly debated topic and nowhere near proven. Evolutionist does not speak for science anymore than ID proponents speak for science.
Their are quite a few conflicting explanations for how life came into existence on this planet and to think that a host of disciplines as diverse as science teaches evolutions seems rather disingenuous. (To say the least)
The OP should do himself a favour and google why scientism is a self defeating epistemology. His fist comment stinks of it.
My only area of disagreement is perhaps one of semantics. Early religion helped foster tribalism and worked for early humans as a psychological tool for understanding the universe. I'd say over all it did do quite a bit to hinder human growth and understanding. But it did have some early advantages. Course..so did stone tools compared to things before things. We've moved on from religion's stone tools well.......somewhat.I do think in a world in which tribalism becomes more and more detrimental and where things like nuclear weapons exist. That it's time for us to give up the ghost of religion so to speak.
Dropping it wont usher us into some sort of grand utopia or anything. But it can help us.
"Evolutionist" is the term Christians use to label a fictional group of people who take evolution as a gospel. Evolution is as proven as something can be. Yes, it's the Theory of Evolution but "theory" doesn't mean in science what you might think it means. For instance, we still call it the "Theory of Gravity". There is no debate among the scientific community about evolution. The only real hold-outs are fringe groups and religion. Also, evolution speaks *NOTHING* on abiogenesis or the beginnings of life. This is a common misunderstanding among the less scientifically-literate.
Just a heads up, I don't think you're going to get very far arguing against evolution on the internet. It's a rather established fact, accepted even by the Catholic church, and I'm sure people here would be happy to supply you any number of wiki articles, TED talks, scientific papers, videos, and so on to help you understand why. It is inarguably true - arguing against it is like arguing for a flat earth.
/inbefore20otherpeoplequotethispost
Edit: Wasn't even the first one. :/
To the credit, though, of early religious scholars they did pick up from pagan philosophers and other religions. You can see the people I have the largest problem with are those that tend to only read from a few select works as their ideological framework. Those are more well read are able to have the flexibility to combat changes, but with enough rigidity like bamboo to flex back into good form and keep reaching for the sky.
As BS mentioned in another thread with occassionalism and it's brethren that stops at the "I don't know" or "this is all we will ever know" stops advancement. There was a time when Islam was a very progressive religion rather than playing "catch up" with the West and now the East.
Also, with that said Christianity isn't always necessarily a problem as seen with the Eastern Roman Empire. They outlasted the Western Roman Empire and had it been not for the Plague of Justinian it is very likely that the empire would have been reborn. The problem, though, comes from forms of fundamentalism like Occassionalism creeps into the system such as with the Iconoclasm Controversy that stopped advancement and adaptation among other issues such as economic within Byzantium. However, if one reads some of the original texts or even glances at the heights of the Byzantine Empire and their ability to deal with unstable territory, advancing enemies, and still remain a considerable power with a long tradition dating back to Greece is something to be admired more than they are today. One of the ironies that I rarely see people talk about America as the "new Rome," but I have yet to see one Christian try to make the case about American resiliency stemming in part towards a revival like that of the Byzantine Empire. Perhaps it stems from the "small government" types in the states, however they were a Christian nation that did help keep roving hoards out of Europe.
So the "narrative" that religion is an anathema to civilization is patently false and true at the same time, as it can help to give people structure and a commonality whilst equally destroying and stifling new forms of growth and identity.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
"I don't know" doesn't stop advancement, it's the "we can't know", or "we know, and it's God" that stops advancement. The words "I don't know" are quite familiar to scientists, because it's the area encompassed by "I don't know" that is frequently fertile ground for new research.
Yes, and then a movement began that demonized science and sent them back centuries. Baghdad was essentially the intellectual capitol of the world, and then suddenly wasn't, due to religion. We see some of the same things happening with the evangelical movement in the US, which is scary to many, and the US has lost ground.