3 ms·

It's my philosophy - if our ancestors were strongly religious, it was because it was necessary for survival. If they were attached to particular religious theor

by meric 9y ago

It's my philosophy - if our ancestors were strongly religious, it was because it was necessary for survival. If they were attached to particular religious theory for a long period of time it's because that particular theory held society together. If they preferred religion over Aristotle it was because Aristotle's philosophy was outdated and mostly baloney. I believe our ancestors are intelligent human beings who did their best to live as I do. These days humanity is preferring observation/evidence to religion because the latter has become dogma and the former is helping us survive. People in each time try to do the best in their time. Our evolution involves both our physical bodies and DNA as well as the knowledge we are passed down from our ancestors. I am wary of the modern perspective that everything old is obsolete. These days people are more cautious about avoiding removing their tonsils or appendix unnecessarily than in trying to keep the experience and mystical knowledge our ancestors have given to us, because we assume their knowledge is old and must be obsolete. Personally I am not a Christian and I'm religious and spiritual, at least I try to be. But I do believe Christianity was given to us because we needed it, and we ought to be careful when discarding our religions and practices we don't do it too quickly in a rushed manner. Just because our appendix seems extra and have some obvious disadvantages and no obvious advantage doesn't mean we have to rip it out of every newborn. Can singularity be reached before humanity collapse in disaster? I think it depends a lot on our spirituality. Anyway, personally I'm content to live with and pray with my wife each day, raise a family together, and just enjoy the sights we see, the sounds we hear and the food we eat until the day we pass.

dredmorbius 9y ago
Keep in mind that path dependencies can lead to outcomes -- peacocks have tails and songbirds specific songs not because those specific patterns or sounds are necessary to survival, but because the dyanmics set up promote them. (Evolution is not teleological. Self-selection and trend-propogation occur.) That said, multiple societies, and virtually every major empirical society (Egyptians, Persians, Hittites, Greeks, Romans, Muslims, Indians, Chinese, European, Aztec) have had some form of religion, though the specific form (polytheistic, monotheistic, ancestor-worship, mystic, meditative) has varied considerably. (I'm not sure if the Mongol civilisation had a core religion ... a quick check suggests that Genghis Khan himself was shamist and the culture generally was permissive: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Mongol_Empire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Mongol_Empir...) But the thought occurs that where literate knowledge and communications were limited, religion provided critical social structure. I'm aware of some research and literature on this, mostly Weber and Durkheim. I'm meaning to explore further. I find your thoughts interesting, though I'd like to find more substance. I'm also fairly certain a collapse of some nature is inevitable. Spirituality probably won't change that, though it may affect the outcome. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_(book) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_(book) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_religion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_religion
eveningcoffee 9y ago
>if our ancestors were strongly religious, it was because it was necessary for survival. If they were attached to particular religious theory for a long period of time it's because that particular theory held society together. If they preferred religion over Aristotle it was because Aristotle's philosophy was outdated and mostly baloney. One does not follow from another. Christianity that formed was mostly an aggressive militant political system that did not leave much room for dissent [0]. The same can be observed in our modern world where violence against religious dissent has become systematic and open in many parts of the world. [0] For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxon_Wars#Religious_nature_of_the_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxon_Wars#Religious_nature_of... Saxons then continued on their own to push the same ideology to the east.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  A better argument would be to show a 1) large and 2) long-lived 3) nontechnological culture which 4) had no significant religious cultural component.
  - eveningcoffee 9y ago
    What do you mean by nontechnological? I could not make sense out of your proposition. Could you please extend it a little? I am arguing that comparing single philosopher to a large organized socio-political system is not sensible.
    - dredmorbius 9y ago
      For practical purposes, "non-technological" == pre-19th century. Rationale: technological societies have mechanisms, most especially transport and communications, which obviate the reliance on social structures for establishing trust. Put another way, the ability to micro-manage and surveil workers, citizens, residents, etc., reduces the need to rely on their innate behaviour. The thought's occurred to me that this is itself a swapping of information for trust. My 19th century boundary is early (most of the technologies and adoption post-date 1800, many considerably), but sufficient to clearly demark a before/after point. Following 1800, you'll see an increasingly significant set of cultures which don't have to rely on cultural and religious protocols and regulation. My request then translates to: show me a massive (continent-scale, or at least wide-ranging) culture, prior to 1800, which didn't have a significant religious component to its culture.

by meric 9y ago

dredmorbius 9y ago

Keep in mind that path dependencies can lead to outcomes -- peacocks have tails and songbirds specific songs not because those specific patterns or sounds are necessary to survival, but because the dyanmics set up promote them. (Evolution is not teleological. Self-selection and trend-propogation occur.) That said, multiple societies, and virtually every major empirical society (Egyptians, Persians, Hittites, Greeks, Romans, Muslims, Indians, Chinese, European, Aztec) have had some form of religion, though the specific form (polytheistic, monotheistic, ancestor-worship, mystic, meditative) has varied considerably. (I'm not sure if the Mongol civilisation had a core religion ... a quick check suggests that Genghis Khan himself was shamist and the culture generally was permissive: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Mongol_Empire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Mongol_Empir...) But the thought occurs that where literate knowledge and communications were limited, religion provided critical social structure. I'm aware of some research and literature on this, mostly Weber and Durkheim. I'm meaning to explore further. I find your thoughts interesting, though I'd like to find more substance. I'm also fairly certain a collapse of some nature is inevitable. Spirituality probably won't change that, though it may affect the outcome. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_(book) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_(book) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_religion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_religion

eveningcoffee 9y ago

>if our ancestors were strongly religious, it was because it was necessary for survival. If they were attached to particular religious theory for a long period of time it's because that particular theory held society together. If they preferred religion over Aristotle it was because Aristotle's philosophy was outdated and mostly baloney. One does not follow from another. Christianity that formed was mostly an aggressive militant political system that did not leave much room for dissent [0]. The same can be observed in our modern world where violence against religious dissent has become systematic and open in many parts of the world. [0] For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxon_Wars#Religious_nature_of_the_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxon_Wars#Religious_nature_of... Saxons then continued on their own to push the same ideology to the east.

dredmorbius 9y ago
A better argument would be to show a 1) large and 2) long-lived 3) nontechnological culture which 4) had no significant religious cultural component.
- eveningcoffee 9y ago
  What do you mean by nontechnological? I could not make sense out of your proposition. Could you please extend it a little? I am arguing that comparing single philosopher to a large organized socio-political system is not sensible.
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    For practical purposes, "non-technological" == pre-19th century. Rationale: technological societies have mechanisms, most especially transport and communications, which obviate the reliance on social structures for establishing trust. Put another way, the ability to micro-manage and surveil workers, citizens, residents, etc., reduces the need to rely on their innate behaviour. The thought's occurred to me that this is itself a swapping of information for trust. My 19th century boundary is early (most of the technologies and adoption post-date 1800, many considerably), but sufficient to clearly demark a before/after point. Following 1800, you'll see an increasingly significant set of cultures which don't have to rely on cultural and religious protocols and regulation. My request then translates to: show me a massive (continent-scale, or at least wide-ranging) culture, prior to 1800, which didn't have a significant religious component to its culture.