3 ms·

Those civilizations were built in spite of not based off those beliefs. We wouldn't have created anything more than mud huts if we were to rely on adhering to b

by gochi 3y ago

Those civilizations were built in spite of not based off those beliefs. We wouldn't have created anything more than mud huts if we were to rely on adhering to belief systems. You cannot control people while also pushing the limits of humanity, they are mutually exclusive. To ignore this is to ignore religious systems were always about control and order, not progress.

skissane 3y ago
> Those civilizations were built in spite of not based off those beliefs. Islamic civilisation would have never existed without Islam the religion. Even if we suppose the Arabs might have expanded into an empire under someone other than Muhammad, the end result would have looked very different. Islam was the glue that held together an empire composed of many different ethnicities, cultures, languages, tribes; without Islam, they would not have had that glue. > You cannot control people while also pushing the limits of humanity, they are mutually exclusive. To ignore this is to ignore religious systems were always about control and order, not progress. The first few thousand years of human civilisations were all about power and control. They did a perfectly good job of pushing the then-existent limits of humanity despite lacking individualism. It is only as we get into the modern period that individualism began to produce real benefits (new ideas, science, technology); but without that earlier anti-individualism, it would never have had the economic foundation it needed to produce those benefits. Even in the modern period, the benefits of individualism have mainly been something pursued by the upper and middle classes, economically sustained by the exploitation of the working class and by colonialism. We also really don't know what the future holds. The religious fundamentalism of the Puritans led to the founding of the English colony of Massachusetts; maybe decades or centuries from now, religious fundamentalists will end up playing a major role in colonising our solar system – they may have motivations to establish colonies that secular people lack.
rayiner 3y ago
"Control and order" create civilization. Your ignorant view could be forgiven if we didn't have so many 20th century examples showing that principle in operation within a single generation: Japan, Korea, Singapore, China, and Taiwan. Going back further: Puritans, Mormons, Lutherans, etc. The Mormons escaped persecution and settled land nobody wanted and built thriving cities there. I'm not aware of a single civilization where free-thinking turned a poor society into a prosperous one. It's always the other way around: free-thinking individualism is a luxury enjoyed by the descendants of religious, orderly, and well-controlled people. Indeed, ironically, free-thinking individualism is directly rooted in Protestant Christianity, which emphasizes the personal (rather than communal) relationship with God, and having lag people read and interpret the Bible. Do you think it’s a coincidence that the most individualistic societies on earth just happen to be Protestant?

by gochi 3y ago

skissane 3y ago

> Those civilizations were built in spite of not based off those beliefs. Islamic civilisation would have never existed without Islam the religion. Even if we suppose the Arabs might have expanded into an empire under someone other than Muhammad, the end result would have looked very different. Islam was the glue that held together an empire composed of many different ethnicities, cultures, languages, tribes; without Islam, they would not have had that glue. > You cannot control people while also pushing the limits of humanity, they are mutually exclusive. To ignore this is to ignore religious systems were always about control and order, not progress. The first few thousand years of human civilisations were all about power and control. They did a perfectly good job of pushing the then-existent limits of humanity despite lacking individualism. It is only as we get into the modern period that individualism began to produce real benefits (new ideas, science, technology); but without that earlier anti-individualism, it would never have had the economic foundation it needed to produce those benefits. Even in the modern period, the benefits of individualism have mainly been something pursued by the upper and middle classes, economically sustained by the exploitation of the working class and by colonialism. We also really don't know what the future holds. The religious fundamentalism of the Puritans led to the founding of the English colony of Massachusetts; maybe decades or centuries from now, religious fundamentalists will end up playing a major role in colonising our solar system – they may have motivations to establish colonies that secular people lack.

rayiner 3y ago

"Control and order" create civilization. Your ignorant view could be forgiven if we didn't have so many 20th century examples showing that principle in operation within a single generation: Japan, Korea, Singapore, China, and Taiwan. Going back further: Puritans, Mormons, Lutherans, etc. The Mormons escaped persecution and settled land nobody wanted and built thriving cities there. I'm not aware of a single civilization where free-thinking turned a poor society into a prosperous one. It's always the other way around: free-thinking individualism is a luxury enjoyed by the descendants of religious, orderly, and well-controlled people. Indeed, ironically, free-thinking individualism is directly rooted in Protestant Christianity, which emphasizes the personal (rather than communal) relationship with God, and having lag people read and interpret the Bible. Do you think it’s a coincidence that the most individualistic societies on earth just happen to be Protestant?