As Most theists would argue ; "Do you think religion is responsible for civilising the modern world".
What I mean to say is that, was religion responsible for taming our "might is right," mentality to a more civilised society. Thus when viewed through the eyes of history would it be justifiable to say that religion was essential historically and without it we would not have arrived at a more moral and civilised society.
(What is argued here is not that we get our morals from religion nor whether it is essential today but rather whether it was essential historically and the lack of it in a more uncivilised time may not have brought us thus far).
The above is an argument mostly given by theists on the merits of religion which I totally disagree with. I believe that christian doctrines per say (christian doctrines were very influential historically but I am not excluding other religions either) may have historically had an important role in modern civilisation but I would argue that they were not essential and rather we may have arrived at modern civilisation anyway with or without religion.
What is your opinion on the matter?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
There is an undocumented story (might not be true) that when Gandhi was asked what do you think about western civilization, he responded "I think it would be a good idea".
I'll be stealing that as my response to the theist question quoted.
My opinion is that civilisation proceeded in spite of religion...not because of it....
It can be clearly demonstrated that the pubescent Christian churches destroyed the intellect of the classical world and shackled Europe to centuries of ignorance ,superstition and darkness.
Libraries...destroyed ,schools ,closed ......books.....burned .... ,ideas strictly controlled ,
""We Don't Need No Education"
"In the person whose mind is sound there is no need for letters."
St Anthony – Christian fanatic from the Egyptian desert – rejects education.
link:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/closure.html
It should also be remembered how the churches fought to keep the ,so called "good news" under their control......confining it to a dead language and not allowing it to see the light of day for centuries ....( a trick also practised by the Islamic world......I do wonder just how many goat herds in the Hindu Kush are actually capable of holding a conversation in Arabic ........ I suppose about the same number of mediaeval peasants who could speak latin...)
No...civilisation owes nothing to religion.
I totally agree. Given that religion dominated most early civilizations if not all of them, we can not know if civilization as we know it would have occurred without it.
I contend that religion didn't cause civilization but rather is one of many products of it. Albeit a perversion, like war and murder.
I don't think if there was no religion there would be bands of roving raping and murdering tribes roaming the world. We have that already and in many case because of religion. Take Boko Haram and Al-Shabaab. Not to mention the US Calvary in the late 19th century that raided murdered and raped innocent native Americans.
So no I don't think that religion was the driving force for civilization. Take for example the KKK which is arguably a very religious group, at least they claim that they are. Incidentally Hitler based his whole career on being chosen by god.
In this role, I see religion as acting as a framework from which civilizations rose up. They served a purpose in the evolution of human culture, as much as people are going to wince reading that. The fact of the matter is that religions unified disparate peoples under the idea of the 'big chief'. If tribal people can't agree on which human they accept as their leader, then there is disorder and anarchy. We see this in the modern world as much as we ever have. (Hutus v. Tutsi, for example) However, once multiple tribes agree that there is a bigger 'chief' over and above any of them, it helps to nullify some intercultural conflicts, especially when people conflate their inherent moral behavior as being mandated by the big chief. Once people of differing but similar cultures agree on the same big chief, it allows them to standardize their laws when people claim their ideas about jurisprudence originated from the big chief. Once these people judge themselves similarly, it allows for other social interaction.
Yes, of course, at any point you can subtract the supernatural element from this equation, but the fact is that the overarching majority of human cultures took the above route.
I totally disagree. Take Greek and Roman history. They were two of the three major framers of civilized society in the western world. They believed in a multitude of gods and even accepted gods from outside their societies. Thus it wasn't their inherent religions that formed the framework of society but rather their governments. IE the Roman Senate, and Athens Democracy. Their religions played second fiddle and actually led to the downfall of their societies. In the major onset of modern civilized society religion was a result of civilization rather than the driving force of those societies.
Remember the Athenians. They followed Athena yet embarked on the idea of a hero..."Ode on a Grecian urn"...! The idea was that "man" controlled his own destiny. This was the beginning of a truly civilized society. When the Greeks forsaked the gods for self rule and self destiny they entered the golden age. the Romans followed suit and took it to a new level. They devised the Senate, thus civilizing every society they came across, by both imposing Roman culture and absorbing the culture that they conquered. Only when Julius Caesar basically abolished the senate and declared himself a god did the Roman empire start to decline. Thus religion destroyed a civilization. It didn't create it.
Since these societies had organized and become relatively civilized they took their religions with them, but it wasn't their religion that cultivated civilization in the lands that they conquered. It was their engineering, their military might, their art, their economy. Religion was a bi-product not a catalyst.
I think you skipped ahead a bit. You talked about how they functioned once they were already settled, and how they came to their end. What I'm talking about is how these civilizations became initially civilized, not how religion tore them down in the end.
It is difficult to remove religion from the equation. I understand social evolution as going through stages. From the band to the tribe, then on to the city state and nation. We had religion all along the way I am sure. The major force in creating the modern state I would say is agriculture. The only real truth I see in the Old Testament is that the stories reflect the rise of authoritative religion as we formed nations out of tribes. I see the story of Esau and Jacob as reflecting the last struggles of the hunter gatherer with the pastoralists and farmers. Esau finally surrenders his birthright and has to settle for a bowl of lentils. Then Moses comes along and ....well you know what happens.
Well in some way superstition might have been needed along the way to enforce what was considered accepted practise at the time and there seems to be no more a cohesive force than religion to enforce certain ideas. I guess it maybe seems inevitable that we would develop religion.
But then again if religion was not present moral societies would still develop as it is the need and based on shifting moralities we would invariably end up at a relatively civilised society anyway.
My argument is that maybe the dogmatic view taken by religion may have impeded the march to modern civilisation rather than shaped it. christianity resisted reform from its archaic laws for far too long and now islam is fallowing a similar trajectory. Maybe they were the dominant morality when they were expressed some 2000 yrs ago but with time they become obsolete but somehow linger with their chokehold over societies.
Aayan Hersi Ali's book "Infidel" is a perfect description of how religion holds us back and liberal secular values create a healthier culture.
Yes, it harnessed the primordial kill or be killed innate in humanity and reworked it to better serve an entire population in the form of an army. That removed man from relying upon violence as his means to survive. From there it became a secular entity operating with the blessing of the clergy, if ancient Rome is to be taken as an example, for conquests where Rome expanded its empire and the church profited from the spoils of the conquered people, including their conversion and financial obligation to the church. Big money in marketing violence whether it's for or against it. Either way it's call protectionism.
On the flip side, there's the religious fundamentalist approach to fulfilling their doctrine. The IS represent the violent approach. Others prepare certain weak-minded people, profiled as missionary hunter-gatherers, to pounce upon any chance they can to convert the world. Before the IS, the high-profiled fundies were the US TV Evangelists looting little old ladies of their savings. Billy Graham is one. Sniper targets, all of them, if my value for them was to be asked. But, not a religioso, I'm still in primordial survival mode.
Charvak, I think that Tzeentch has put a finger on the key to your question. The size of the state seems to be a key point in what we call the advance of civilization. In tribal societies murdering and savaging your traditional enemies (surrounding tribes) brought glory and spoils. Those enemies were never "real" people and you could do with them as you saw fit. However, once a region came under one government, or even an alliance, brutality within that region would be taboo. You had to respect your allies. A king would be ill served by internal wars and strife, and if you savaged a nearby hamlet withing his kingdom you might be hunted down and hanged. Thus, as governments grew larger some semblance of civilization took hold.
However, larger states also meant larger wars and barbarity on a far greater scale. The invention of mass communication also opened up another form of barbarism in large states. Leaders in a shaky position could spread fears of an internal threat from an unpopular minority. Think Hitler. Large states were a mixed blessing.
Today, thanks to modern communication, the whole world is half-way to being one, big family. An atrocity in Pakistan might wind up in millions of living rooms (Internet, TV, newspapers) and embarrasses that government which is in communication with governments all over the world. Even tyrants tend to polish their images, meaning that they often refrain from doing all the harm they might otherwise do. Just about every government wants to project the image that they are civilized. The dirt now gets done in secret. Hence, most people can visit just about any country in the world with reasonable safety, and in many places tourists are welcome. High speed travel and instant communication link people together all over the world and make roads infinitely safer than in biblical times.
The advance of civilization, to the extent that it is not an illusion, seems to be tied to the fact that in our world everyone is on a public stage. It's a world community where everybody is a real person who has basic rights. Minorities can still be persecuted, but the public spotlight, instant communication, and concerned citizens chip away at such persecution. People now have faces and they can often reach considerable audiences.
Religion probably played a role in helping tribes to stay together and in holding large states together. In the hands of caring people (such as some anti-slavery groups) religion could even advance civilization. Unfortunately, religion usually brought out the worst in large-state persecution. Think of all the religious wars in Europe for a starter.
Within a tribe or state, religion usually served the ruler's interest in keeping the peace by giving religious blessings to all the things people would normally do to get along and be helpful to the state. It helped keep the masses in line with threats of divine displeasure or a Christian / Islamic hell. To sum it up, I don't see religion as being primarily responsible for modern civilization, but it has played various roles that may have indirectly contributed at times. What I see are bigger governments and worldwide communication making it more difficult to find neighbors that might be slaughtered with impunity (like in the days of old).