8 ms·

>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

>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 If they preferred religion over Aristotle it was because Aristotle's philosophy was outdated and mostly baloney.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.

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.