Would humanity have survived without religion?

[Daeledin]

Religions were created by native cultures of people to be a structure for society that everyone can look to that would provide a rational explanation for what is happening around them. Think about what it would be like to live as our ancestors did, and you can pick any geographical conditions you want.

We didn't always know what we know now about how the world works - we didn't know about DNA, we didn't know about what lightening was, or earthquakes, or disease, or any of myriad of things we now are fortunate enough to understand

While people as a collective group can survive without knowledge of these things it does help to have an understanding of how it works. By trial and error anyone can figure out how something works on some level. For example you can play with lenses and understand the effects of refraction on convex vs concave surfaces, you can have those observations even if you don't know how to put it in mathematical terms. Well in a society that has no conceived notions of how to cure the sick and look upon someone who has sores and abscesses all over his body it is easy to think that something attacked him. What else could explain it, and then what would you do? Unfortunately they have no way to detect the bacteria that is responsible for it; if they observed a rash from a plant instead it would be different, then they have a source, but not a culprit. With a source you wouldn't need to have any other reason than to say it was the source's fault and stay away from it.

There are two possibilities for the first scenario. You can investigate with minimum tools and arrive at no conclusion until investigation in other topics can indirectly lead to an answer; or you can make a metaphysical explanation. The later is easier. And actually in honesty it is logical to do.

I have a fascination for New Guinea. In New Guinea they believe in witchcraft. This isn't like European and Salem witchcraft though. The only time someone is accused of witchcraft is when there is disease or a tragedy. They believe that disease is the product of black magic brought on by evil spirits given power through someone living as a host for it (the witch). Accusations of witches lead to that person and their immediate family being removed from the village. There are a few benefits to this.

--Web-relations (I hashed this one out before in this thread http://forums.infjs.com/showthread.php?t=9532)

--Keeps people in line. No one wants to be accused of being a witch.

--Once a group gets too big a witchcraft accusation splits the tribe up. New Guineans live in almost no more than 50 people to a village, the tribes are centered around a vast open valley and each village is roughly 20 miles apart. This split causes the agriculture to be optimized without having to tear down any more of the valley than is necessary for crops (which don't have to be planted in fields).

This stimulates the survival of the tribes. From a survival stand point this witchcraft system is logical to carry out. Therefore they do it. Moving on.

There are four main functions to religion; mysticism, cosmological, sociological, and pedagogical. Religions are supposed to put you in touch with the mystery of life, explain things in the sense of a big picture, keep order, and teach morals and methods of dealing with problems. These functions aren't being met by religions today in our information age society. Our knowledge base has surpassed the religions' long ago. With that the mysticism is really just less mystic. Plus we have institutionalized a teaching system that is independent of religion. Honestly the most a religion is good for now in a society is a social function. Now that the laws are established they set the morals for the next generation. We don't keep laws because a holy book was written to tell us supernatural beings will punish us beyond our imagination to follow them. We have them because we unanimously don't like murder, theft, rape, and vandalism running rampant through society. It's fine with me if they were established by religion, but that religion was written that way for those same reasons then too. So now as a function for individuals it is merely a tool to combat your anomie.


So could have society done without? I believe it can.
Establishing an order is all that we need. Most people are naturally inclined to turn their backs on things they don't like. So if you can't solve a problem based on your laws you oust it from your society; whether it be a criminal or an ill person at risk of infecting more.

What I'd be more interested in knowing about is how well we'd advance scientifically without religion. More, less, stay the same? This is where geographic location actually has an effect. Cultivation favored an axis around the world. Take a wild guess where it centers around.

http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/2401/gw500h270.jpg

Now consider why those cultures developed more than other native peoples. It's all about the germs, guns, and steel. They had access to a mass producible food source and proximity to wild life that granted them more resistance to disease. This allowed them to handle famine much easier than other cultures and with access to natural resources they could begin to make advancements by experimenting with things. Of course organized religious institutions were widespread all over this area so I can't make accurate distinctions about who or what was responsible for advancement and if religion was a factor.

 

[randomsomeone]

this is the most oft quoted myth about christianity.

Not such a myth....religion is about the search for truth and this embraced the sciences (especially as it related to human well-being), although I will agree our knowledge base has progressively moved beyond where religion alone could have taken us. Still, this essential "search for truth" at the heart of religion has actually forced it to find new ways of relating to science in our day.

I would not be one to underestimate the relevance of mysticism in the modern world. Yes, we understand much, but we do not understand much more....and frankly some questions that are addressed in the realm of mysticism haven't even been asked yet. For better or worse, like it or not, the most profound and connected mysticism on the planet (if you really want to "go there") is still found in the realm of religion.

Another thought...if we want to find a culprit responsible for humanity's darker moments, try economic development. Think about it.

One of the biggest factors that has crippled Christianity isn't the faith itself, it is "clericalism." We overlook this, but it is still going on today (and even evolving into new forms) in many churches. Clergy has a role, yes, but it has come to dominate....sometimes by design and sometimes by default. The funniest thing of all is that much of this was addressed and a corrective framework (in theory anyway) was set in place 50 years ago. In large measure this mindset has become only a memory....I hope someday it reignites.

 

[Stu]

Not such a myth....religion is about the search for truth and this embraced the sciences (especially as it related to human well-being), although I will agree our knowledge base has progressively moved beyond where religion alone could have taken us. Still, this essential "search for truth" at the heart of religion has actually forced it to find new ways of relating to science in our day.

this is true, in fact the ability to imagine transcending the mundane enables our ability to have religious or mystical experiences as well as our ability to project the illusion of objectivity necessary scientific thought, never mind theoretical speculations. But the christian creed is anti scientific. The truth seeking in most of its history is accepting the dogmatic truths of the creed leaders.

 

[muir]

Asserting a feeling as truth feels a little like walking out onto thin ice; if you can't support it with evidence how can you test the integrity of it?

Blind faith?

If people need something to believe in then why not believe in people?

That is a practical application of the need to believe in something.

Believe in people and their ability to work together. Believe that our society can and should be better and that conditions for people can and should be improved.

Believe in the potential of people and the potential of society

 

[randomsomeone]

But the christian creed is anti scientific.

The creeds have little to do with science (as we know it)...they are statements of commonly-held understandings in the community. Different thing entirely...more non-scientific than anti.

if you can't support it with evidence how can you test the integrity of it?

The integrity of religion comes from other sources....generally history and experience. Depending on the sources, this is as valid as anything....it's a pity we don't realize this.

Believe in the potential of people and the potential of society

This is at the heart of religion in that religion is in many ways about becoming fully human. Religion addresses the inner aspirations of people, aspirations beyond themselves. These do exist and are of value. Like I said, some of the most alive, engaged, liberated persons that have walked the planet have been religious.

Religion does require faith, I won't deny it....but it is faith based on certan facts and observations. Surely intuitive people get this. There is a lot more than thin air and coersion at work here. In any case, are we really prepared to write off the value of something most barely understand? My, how little we have changed.

 

[Quinlan]

Had the supernatural side of religion not existed but the organisational/motivational/social aspects of it did exist we would perhaps be in a much better place than we are now.

Religion often forces us to set ourselves apart from nature, which will be evolutionary suicide in the long run.

 

[Barnabas]

Asserting a feeling as truth feels a little like walking out onto thin ice; if you can't support it with evidence how can you test the integrity of it?

Blind faith?

I dislike the word blind faith. We are not blind.

No Ice alows level of support, a childs faith is as if walking on water.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

what do you mean by religion, does it includes spirituality?

For spirituality I would say yes. It is necessary for mankind to believe in something that is bigger and greater than him, something to aim for. It encourages to improve your live and the lives of others and fills you with hope and purpose

Just remember that we INFJs (about 1% of the population) are temperamentally disposed to be spiritual. Religion promotes spirituality in whole societies and populations.

Asserting a feeling as truth feels a little like walking out onto thin ice; if you can't support it with evidence how can you test the integrity of it?

Blind faith?

If people need something to believe in then why not believe in people?

That is a practical application of the need to believe in something.

Believe in people and their ability to work together. Believe that our society can and should be better and that conditions for people can and should be improved.

Believe in the potential of people and the potential of society

Asserting a feeling as truth is almost exclusively the doctrine of modern and post-modern philosophy alone. Religion promotes a reverence for the Truth (capital T), without claiming to know the sum of it. Indeed, the number of Dogmatic Truths defined by the Catholic Church is very very small - and can be summarised in a couple of pages - the Nicene creed for one. Religion instead promotes the respect and esteem for abstract goods.

 

[randomsomeone]

Religion often forces us to set ourselves apart from nature

Really? See now my experience has been the exact opposite. There are some very noble traditions in Christianity regarding the natural world...much akin to an animist perspective. Sadly some wonderful elements of Christian tradition have been largely ignored in the contemporary Chrristian scene, but they are not lost altogether.

I must say, I myself draw heavily on the more ancient forms to propel my own faith. I'd be lost if I had to figure it all out from scratch today. In the end, I think if one extracted religion from the human experience altogether, yes, we'd avoid some bizarre episodes, but we'd probably run into a whole list of others even more bizarre (given human nature and the forces of history). We'd also be greatly impoverished in light of the good that religious thought has brought to us....good that is tragically easy to forget.

 

[Roger]

My thinking:

Religion words sounds like discipline for me. We should always try to follow our desired religion. Suppose if you are christian, then try to follow it. I am sure, you will try to do this and this means you are trying to follow discipline.

Following religion is your choice. But i think, there are other types of religion. Now look at people, now a days they are choosing to remain spiritual, including me. This means they want to follow in their different way. Without any boundaries!

 

[acd]

I'm probably going to sound like an idiot in this post, because I'm not exactly sure of what I'm trying to say or what it means. It's a question and also a statement that is difficult to articulate. It's foggy. Oh well. Here is my thought tangent:

Religion is universal to all cultures.. at some point, up until the last few centuries..
When did people first develop the concept of religion? At what stage in our evolution?

I'm just curious as to why we did.. Sure, it helped establish codes of behavior that helped ensure group survival..helped to explain phenomena that had no explanation at that point... But why? Was religion necessary to get us to the point we're at? And it was mentioned that people didn't really become people until they developed religion or spirtuality, but if there is no inherent supernatural--truth or whathave you, then what good did it do us to create a lie only to have to find our way out of it once we learned more about the world?

And how ironic that we created these divine ideas to help us survive, when these ideas end up causing wars and death. I know certain species of animals will fight or kill each other for territory, is that what humans do with religion?
And how strangely embarrassing if it's all for a fallacy.

I guess I'm just asking the same question as May, just a lot more incoherently...

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I'm probably going to sound like an idiot in this post, because I'm not exactly sure of what I'm trying to say or what it means. It's a question and also a statement that is difficult to articulate. It's foggy. Oh well. Here is my thought tangent:

Religion is universal to all cultures.. at some point, up until the last few centuries..
When did people first develop the concept of religion? At what stage in our evolution?

I'm just curious as to why we did.. Sure, it helped establish codes of behavior that helped ensure group survival..helped to explain phenomena that had no explanation at that point... But why? Was religion necessary to get us to the point we're at? And it was mentioned that people didn't really become people until they developed religion or spirtuality, but if there is no inherent supernatural--truth or whathave you, then what good did it do us to create a lie only to have to find our way out of it once we learned more about the world?

And how ironic that we created these divine ideas to help us survive, when these ideas end up causing wars and death. I know certain species of animals will fight or kill each other for territory, is that what humans do with religion?
And how strangely embarrassing if it's all for a fallacy.

I guess I'm just asking the same question as May, just a lot more incoherently...

Abstract goods, such as Goodness, Truth, Beauty, Wisdom, Perfection, etc. are not fallacious. To esteem such goods with a kind of reverence is not foolish - it promotes higher culture. This reverence towards the abstract or remote good is the basis for religion - universally religion seems to focus on a deity/deities which personify or are held to be/possess the perfection of these abstract goods.

Belief in a deity arises principally from three sources:
1)feelings/emotions/superstitions giving rise to a sense of (a) great and powerful being(s) - these get called god(s) or spirits, etc.;
2)scientific/philosophical examination of causality which examines and seeks to understand the CAUSE of existence itself - this cause of the existence of things is variously called the Supreme Cause, the First Mover, the Unmoved Mover, God;
3)revelation - which is believed to be a communication of God's self-knowledge (presupposes a belief that God exists and is intelligent - titles include YHWH, Allah, the Blessed Trinity, etc.

Religions arise principally from the first and third sources, but there have been philosophical religions. Some religions integrate more than one source:

For example, Catholicism is founded on revelation, but has integrated over the centuries philosophical belief, which was found to be compatible with the contents of revelation. However, in recent history (last 40 years) the Catholic Church tried to integrate emotional/feeling/superstitious religiousity into its revelation/philosophical foundation. The results have varied from disasterous, to ridiculous, to sugary sentimentality.

 

[Stu]

Autos de fe? what's the Autos de fe? It's what you oughten to do but you do anyway.

Well, I'll just pop in and say: what about all those pre-Christian religions which involved ritual human sacrifice and massive amounts of slavery? .....
Some modern religions arguably seem a step up from that kind of thing, although I know Christ was supposed to be the ultimate sacrifice to end all sacrifices, and elements of pagan religions are incorporated into Christianity.

Just a quick look on line shows that between the years 1560-1700, it is likely that the total number of humans put to death for religious reasons in the Spanish Inquisition would be between 3,000 and 5,000. This would be at a time period concurrent with the end of the Aztec empire.

Also the Generational Slavery practiced in the modern era by the most christian part of the most christian country in the world gets extra evil credits in the history of humanity.

 

[muir]

Just a quick look on line shows that between the years 1560-1700, it is likely that the total number of humans put to death for religious reasons in the Spanish Inquisition would be between 3,000 and 5,000. This would be at a time period concurrent with the end of the Aztec empire.

Also the Generational Slavery practiced in the modern era by the most christian part of the most christian country in the world gets extra evil credits in the history of humanity.

Don't forget the millions burned as witches around Europe as the church tried to stamp out the old religions and suppress women; and those burned, in the new world, who would not convert as catholicism was spread by fire and sword.

The holocaust of the americas (although many of the deaths were from diseases brought by europeans) seems to be an often overlooked part of history....the deaths could be estimated in the millions.

Not to mention deaths from the slave trade from africa (estimated in the millions) which was enforced by christian soldiers

More souls saved for the almighty?

Or has organised religion provided a sick and hypocritical justification for the power games of elites?

Sure we can blame 'economic development' but every act requires a justification. Organised religion has walked hand in hand with those driving economic development...in fact it has often provided the philosophical engine house to enable the perverted mindset needed to commit various acts

 

[muir]

The creeds have little to do with science (as we know it)...they are statements of commonly-held understandings in the community. Different thing entirely...more non-scientific than anti.

The integrity of religion comes from other sources....generally history and experience. Depending on the sources, this is as valid as anything....it's a pity we don't realize this.

This is at the heart of religion in that religion is in many ways about becoming fully human. Religion addresses the inner aspirations of people, aspirations beyond themselves. These do exist and are of value. Like I said, some of the most alive, engaged, liberated persons that have walked the planet have been religious.

Religion does require faith, I won't deny it....but it is faith based on certan facts and observations. Surely intuitive people get this. There is a lot more than thin air and coersion at work here. In any case, are we really prepared to write off the value of something most barely understand? My, how little we have changed.

Perhaps everything speaks to us of something. Perhaps everything is a language if we can only understand what it is saying to us.

If your religion is giving you the tools to stay tuned to that then great, i wish you all the best.

Religion has however been used as a psychological device to control the masses. Instead of striving to build a better world here and now many people are accepting injusticies in this life for the promise of something better in the next

This ability of religion to quell the anger in people has been recognised by power elites throughout history who have then used religion to pacify the people

The damage done by religion to the minds and the will of the people is incalculable

 

[acd]

Abstract goods, such as Goodness, Truth, Beauty, Wisdom, Perfection, etc. are not fallacious. To esteem such goods with a kind of reverence is not foolish - it promotes higher culture. This reverence towards the abstract or remote good is the basis for religion - universally religion seems to focus on a deity/deities which personify or are held to be/possess the perfection of these abstract goods.

Belief in a deity arises principally from three sources:
1)feelings/emotions/superstitions giving rise to a sense of (a) great and powerful being(s) - these get called god(s) or spirits, etc.;
2)scientific/philosophical examination of causality which examines and seeks to understand the CAUSE of existence itself - this cause of the existence of things is variously called the Supreme Cause, the First Mover, the Unmoved Mover, God;
3)revelation - which is believed to be a communication of God's self-knowledge (presupposes a belief that God exists and is intelligent - titles include YHWH, Allah, the Blessed Trinity, etc.

Religions arise principally from the first and third sources, but there have been philosophical religions. Some religions integrate more than one source:

For example, Catholicism is founded on revelation, but has integrated over the centuries philosophical belief, which was found to be compatible with the contents of revelation. However, in recent history (last 40 years) the Catholic Church tried to integrate emotional/feeling/superstitious religiousity into its revelation/philosophical foundation. The results have varied from disasterous, to ridiculous, to sugary sentimentality.

Thanks for addressing my rambling, FA.

But why must these abstract goods be attributed to a supernatural entity and not ourselves? After all, we are capable of being whatever we deem good.

It's just that it's not natural for humanity to be completely "good" or completely "evil" (For lack of better words). At what point, did people begin to feel it was necessary to deny what came natural to them?


I'm asking a question already assuming that there is no divinity in the universe. Which may or may not be a mistake.


It's just kind of wild to me, the idea that maybe religion is a part of our evolutionary process, helped us to survive.. and yet if there is no god (all reason and evidence up to this point for me personally seems it's likely there is no god)--we're living on a lie. Or a prayer so to speak, thank you Bon Jovi.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Thanks for addressing my rambling, FA.

But why must these abstract goods be attributed to a supernatural entity and not ourselves? After all, we are capable of being whatever we deem good.

It's just that it's not natural for humanity to be completely "good" or completely "evil" (For lack of better words). At what point, did people begin to feel it was necessary to deny what came natural to them?


I'm asking a question already assuming that there is no divinity in the universe. Which may or may not be a mistake.


It's just kind of wild to me, the idea that maybe religion is a part of our evolutionary process, helped us to survive.. and yet if there is no god (all reason and evidence up to this point for me personally seems it's likely there is no god)--we're living on a lie. Or a prayer so to speak, thank you Bon Jovi.

We do attribute goodness and wisdom, etc. to ourselves. However, the concept of the epitomy of goodness, truth, beauty, etc. is never found in one person, or one culture, or any other human construct. Nevertheless, there is something of a belief, or hope, that there is such a thing a perfect goodness, complete truth, absolute beauty. But since perfect goodness includes begninity, it is not unreasonable to personify perfection. Moreover, philosophers attribute existence to a single cause, and revelation (Christian at least) concurs with all these things - that God is one, perfect, good, true, beautiful, etc.

Religion is the expression of love and gratitude consequent upon belief in such a God.

 

[randomsomeone]

Religion is the expression of love and gratitude consequent upon belief in such a God.

This is how I see it, too, this is the model upon which religion is based. If that is not going on something is very much amiss.

So are we prepared to overlook any good that has come into this world because of Christianity? This would require a very limited view of history.

 

[Stu]

^^^^^ for the record I did not say "Religion is the expression of love and gratitude consequent upon belief in such a God." that was Flavius.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

When I saw the misquote, I was laughing, just imagining what your reaction to seeing my words attributed to you might be.