3 ms·
> Religion (and philosophy and superstition) is probably just the precursor to science This is first thing. The other is precursor of law and social norms. It
by krzrak 10y ago
> Religion (and philosophy and superstition) is probably just the precursor to science
This is first thing. The other is precursor of law and social norms. It is hard to explain to people, that they shouldn't steal, because "it's wrong" and it hurts society. It's easier, when you tell them they will burn in hell for that.
- 1stop 10y agoIt's actually easier (and more intuitive) to explain it in terms of reciprocity. We have an innate understanding of it.
- tremon 10y agoOur innate understanding of reciprocity is severely limited by our social identity though; it's much easier to empathize with in-group members than with an out-group member. To reciprocate with an out-group member requires considerable training. So I think the GP is correct, once a society encompasses multiple distinct tribes, it is easier to "guide" people with (threats of) in-group punishment than with out-group empathy.
- 1stop 10y agoNot true at all. An out group hits me, innately I want to hit back. An out group shows me empathy innately I show it back. You would have to learn otherwise. The in-group out-group is some higher part of the brain that rationalised our values.
- Razengan 10y agoYes I wrote Science as a catchall, including social sciences. Though, I'm not sure if hive-mind intelligences or strictly hierarchical biologies (e.g. queens/workers/drones) would even need Law or guidance for social conduct, but they may still invent stopgap explanations (religions) on their way to understanding the weather and stars and such.
- jsprogrammer 10y agoHow is, "it's wrong" effectively different from, "you will burn in hell"? Wouldn't it make way more sense to explain why it's wrong? It has nothing to do with hurting society, but another individual.
- krzrak 10y agoFor you it's obvious, but for the medieval peasant - I don't think so.