So about two years back when I was still in school I wrote a paper on religion and handed it in, then got it back a couple of weeks later with a lot of scribbles in the marginals. One of the comments the teacher had written referred to a part of the text which, because I was reading Neal Stephenson Snow Crash at the time, toyed with the idea of religion as a means of getting some kind of working civilization going, an idea my teacher dismissed as being a "typically western opinion". Now this bit has been silently gnawing away at my mind since then. I would be the first to admit I'm not an expert on the early civilizations or what part religion played in it, but I do know more than the average Swede, and I can't see any obvious faults with the idea.
For example, it's pretty common knowledge that sects use the "do as I say or you won't be saved"-technique to force followers into submission and sustain some kind of law and order, and seeing as most cults consists of one major nutcase bossing a bunch of mentally unstable people around, well, I'm fairly sure they had nutcases in Sumer as well...
To clarify some things, my teacher was a diehard christian of the "I've seen miracles"-school (which, as we all know, makes awesome religion teachers), and the bit about "typically western opinion" was not simply an implication that the idea of religion as a means for civilization is more common in the western world, but rather an implication that westerners shouldn't fool themselves into believing they know anything at all about religion and are entirely unfit to have any opinions at all.
Re:Question about a "typically western opinion"...
« Reply #1 on: 2004-04-05 19:56:25 »
As a church (Baptist) attending atheist, I must say that in my experience, our view of civilation is highly dependent upon religion. It was only last week that Pastor Smith said "We are wasting our time attempting to teach the Islamic countries about Democracy as Democracy is a Christian invention and is impossible with the guidance of Jesus". I did not protest of course, but the first thing that came to mind was: "I didn't know the Greeks of 2000 years ago were Christian folk. Nor did I realize that some of the most thriving countries in the world, Japan for instance, were Christian either." It looks to me like the "Christian value of Democracy" is easily transplantable.
As for historical religion - I cannot for the life of me think of a time or place where religion was not a fundamental aspect of civilization - regardless of the religion. People need religion as the animals we are, so we find it. Sure, there was the communist experiment, but aside from China, Communism has failed - and it's secularism has been slowly asurped by the religions that used to be in the same area. I think of religion as a necessity for almost everyone. I would not wish my atheism on anyone except those that would embrace it. It's too much for most people to live with and they are better off simply believing and following the advise of moderate religious leaders whom they trust.
One thing I am sure of is that communal social experiments that lack religion - or for that matter have religion, all fail due to a lack of communication and exchange with other groups. Whether secular or religious, the information that a society collects in their continual exploration of life is vital to the survival of the group. Without a means to collect new information, a small enough population will decline to primitivism without social contact with other groups.
I did not read the book you speak of, but I cannot image a civilization surviving the long haul without the animals that make up that society behaving like the animals they are. And that means that religion will be at the roots of all civilization - if not THE roots of all civilization.
Not a good or bad thing in my opinion, just the reality of our nature.
Re:Question about a "typically western opinion"...
« Reply #2 on: 2004-04-10 14:20:34 »
[Durazac15] As for historical religion - I cannot for the life of me think of a time or place where religion was not a fundamental aspect of civilization - regardless of the religion. People need religion as the animals we are, so we find it.
<snip>
I did not read the book you speak of, but I cannot image a civilization surviving the long haul without the animals that make up that society behaving like the animals they are. And that means that religion will be at the roots of all civilization - if not THE roots of all civilization.
[rhinoceros] I can see what you mean -- it looks that way throughout history. But there are a lot of places today where religion is not a fundamental aspect of civilization and even more places where religion is used as a pretext.
So, social standards for morality and codes of conduct can work without the need for religion today, and this is no worse than places where religion plays this role.
That said, I don't vindicate destroying someone else's working social network which is based on religion from outside just because I can do without a religion. However, I don't see any reason to avoid rational criticism of non-coherent to me religious beliefs either.
One of our transhumanist celebrities once equated "God" with "spackling paste" in an online text . I find it very smart. Looking at the pattern of how scientific knowledge has been replacing parts of the belief systems of our ancestors previously occupied by God, it seems that people always liked to maintain coherent belief system, with or without spackling paste.
The same argument can be extended to the way religious doctrine builds its stories and its morality dogmas. We can do better today, because we understand somewhat better how it all works.
Re:Question about a "typically western opinion"...
« Reply #4 on: 2004-04-11 18:02:26 »
Well put Rhinoceros,
Quote:
So, social standards for morality and codes of conduct can work without the need for religion today, and this is no worse than places where religion plays this role.
I agree, and certainly hope that as humanity moves forward, a better understanding of human nature leads us to secular governments that assure equality for everyone, while not disturbing the religions that so many people seem to need. Though I suspect that all societies start with a heavy religious background - I do agree societies can develop fair, rational and humane social structures that lack a religious dimension. Like they say, "It takes all kinds"
Saw a "science program" on tv the other night about neurotheology, you know, that thing where they stimulate the temple lobes with magnetic fields to create religious experiences. Some of the science still seems a bit dodgy in the eyes of other scientists, which I guess is standard procedure with anything that claims to conduct scientific research on mysticism, but they seem to have their facts in order.
Anyway, experiments showed, among other things, that some people (namely those suffering from some degree of epillepsy) are (physically and neurologically) better at having religious experiences (or, if you will, worse at not having them), and one of the theories on why this is the case was pretty much that it makes a good starting point for a working civilisation. Of course, to make sure they didn't piss off ninety percent of the worlds population they then basically pissed it all away by saying "Well, this doesn't counter-proof the existance of God; maybe it's just God's way of communicating." or something like that, which of course the creationists would have come up with sooner or later of course, but it's never a good idea to provide the enemy with ammunition
So in my own lite private research of a "typically western opinion" I've found quite a bit of proof but not a single counter-proof. Of course, religious people tend to approach these things from an entirely different perspective, which is the entire problem with religion vs science debates, but still...
Author
Logged
