The true nature of religion in civilization's development

[brian0918]

I don't want to hijack the thread so I'll answer this good question on another thread.

I await your response on this.

Religion and the relationship of inductive, deductive, and the still uncovered abductive reasoning have historically gone hand in hand. After all, it was Thomas Aquinas who reintroduced Aristotle to the west and this was only possible because of Muslim philosophers, the Faylasufs.

I would instead say that religion has always existed, and religious individuals have used reason throughout history, often "in the name of religion" or to "become closer to God". But that is just a motivation. Reason was necessary to actually make the progress. Had they used some other alleged means of acquiring knowledge - e.g. divine revelation, we would have not progressed.

Edited July 29, 2010 by brian0918

[Drregaleagle]

I await your response on this.

You'll get it either tomorrow or Sunday. I've been busy.

I would instead say that religion has always existed, and religious individuals have used reason throughout history, often "in the name of religion" or to "become closer to God". But that is just a motivation. Reason was necessary to actually make the progress. Had they used some other alleged means of acquiring knowledge - e.g. divine revelation, we would have not progressed.

This is mostly true, and a bit of it is reasonable speculation. How would an ancient desert person rationalize hallucinations, emotions, and a need for meaning in his life? While it is true that these ancient people made logical errors no doubt, they were still undoubtedly trying to interpret experiences and these attempts contributed to religion.

[Drregaleagle]

You are contradicting yourself.

Where? If you think the idea that religions were the products of attempts to rationalize the universe yet institutionally later attacked reason, let me explain. The Catholic Church attacked the idea of logical consistency long after it was institutionally established. Many religions were created to attempt reason and logic. I never said that is how they were/are maintained; in fact, the opposite is true.

[dream_weaver]

Where? If you think the idea that religions were the products of attempts to rationalize the universe yet institutionally later attacked reason, let me explain. The Catholic Church attacked the idea of logical consistency long after it was institutionally established. Many religions were created to attempt reason and logic. I never said that is how they were/are maintained; in fact, the opposite is true.

A primitive form of philosophy. Philosophy being the true driving force of civilization.

[Mindy]

I'd like to point out that I find it odd that the front page of objectivismonline has an article about the history of religion that is pretty good, but makes no mention of Protestantism or the Protestant Reformation. Also uncovered was the radical difference between monotheism and polytheism, the advent of Deism and Unitarianism, and the numerous general theists with no particular religious leanings.

Really? So it is correct to assume that your car battery will always die in cold weather because it died in cold weather once?

1+1=2

A space alien would be or would have been alive.

0.99999999...=1

Ok, educate me teacher. What is induction? Sorry about the typo in my statement by the way.

Have you studied the history of religion? It doesn't look as if you had.

There has always been knowledge apart from religion. Religion began as an effort to persuade the assumed anthropomorphic controller of weather and fertility, etc., to give us the conditions we wanted and needed, but didn't know how to provide.

The more things men learned to do, the less they went to priests for charms and ceremonies, etc. Knowledge worked reliably, and religion was always a hit-and-miss proposition. Ignorance financed religion. Knowledge made religion unnecessary. The more man learned, the stranger and stranger religion became in order to have something to offer him. Original sin and chits into heaven, etc., are crafted to maximize financial contributions to the church, and exploit what ignorance and fears remain common.

True, it is a priestly imperative to insinuate themselves into as much of life as possible. But to find religion should be credited for civilization/logic/reason is an atrocious error.

-- Mindy

[Drregaleagle]

A primitive form of philosophy. Philosophy being the true driving force of civilization.

I'd drink to that.

[Drregaleagle]

Have you studied the history of religion? It doesn't look as if you had.

There has always been knowledge apart from religion. Religion began as an effort to persuade the assumed anthropomorphic controller of weather and fertility, etc., to give us the conditions we wanted and needed, but didn't know how to provide.

The more things men learned to do, the less they went to priests for charms and ceremonies, etc. Knowledge worked reliably, and religion was always a hit-and-miss proposition. Ignorance financed religion. Knowledge made religion unnecessary.

Then it really all comes down to epistemology doesn't it?

[Mindy]

Then it really all comes down to epistemology doesn't it?

It comes down to exploitation, seems to me.

[Drregaleagle]

It comes down to exploitation, seems to me.

Many of religion's prophets appear to have lived by their professed creeds. Why did they right thousands of pages on their religion if they didn't care about it? There are much easier ways to deceive people.

[dream_weaver]

Why did they right thousands of pages on their religion if they didn't care about it?

Because the pages were wrong, or should not have been on the pile to the left, for left pile was for written pages?

[Mindy]

Many of religion's prophets appear to have lived by their professed creeds. Why did they right thousands of pages on their religion if they didn't care about it? There are much easier ways to deceive people.

By that standard, Scientology would best the Bible. Do you not suppose that priests preferred to live off the group rather than farm or hunt? And do you really think priests, etc., lived by the precepts of their religion? History is chock full of contradictions to your suppositions.

Mindy

[Drregaleagle]

Because the pages were wrong, or should not have been on the pile to the left, for left pile was for written pages?

I admit that my typo was inexcusably atrocious; it really was. That being said, my question still stands. Why did theologians write thousands of pages on religion if most religious followers were not going to read them and if they didn't truly believe all of what they were writing?

[Drregaleagle]

By that standard, Scientology would best the Bible. Do you not suppose that priests preferred to live off the group rather than farm or hunt? And do you really think priests, etc., lived by the precepts of their religion? History is chock full of contradictions to your suppositions.

Mindy

Many seem to have lived by their religion. Catholic and Mormon priests didn't always, but the evidence of some religious leaders, like Augustine, insincerely preaching or writing is scant.

[Mindy]

Many seem to have lived by their religion. Catholic and Mormon priests didn't always, but the evidence of some religious leaders, like Augustine, insincerely preaching or writing is scant.

I don't think anyone has ever lived by religion. One can't live by a contradiction. Do you practice "eye-for-an-eye" justice or "turn-the-other-cheek" tolerance? Do you really look on newborn babies as disgustingly sinful? It's not possible outside a pathological personality.

Could St. Augustine have been a sincere, benevolent person? I suppose so. He had to reject much of established religion, and set himself to straighten out its errors. That he didn't see all its errors is not a condemnation. But he would have had to be a rebel in his heart, if not in his public persona. And that means he did not live by the religion of his day, even if he bowed to the social/political need to appear to do so.

Mindy

p.s. I've been assuming Christianity is the religion in question. Regarding the Eastern religions, it does appear that some religious figures have lived by their precepts, meditating and begging and wandering throughout their lives. Were you considering such people?

Edited August 14, 2010 by Mindy

[dream_weaver]

Why did theologians write thousands of pages on religion if most religious followers were not going to read them and if they didn't truly believe all of what they were writing?

Is it the belief that something is true the criteria for it being so?

Prior to the relationship between concepts and existence being objectively aligned by Miss. Rands observations and identifications, the theologians were trying to articulate their grasp of the universe as they envisioned it. With the breach between their concepts and existence unidentified, their commitment of thoughts to paper permitted the storage of ideas for recollection, and preserving what they had come up with.

[dream_weaver]

Many seem to have lived by their religion. Catholic and Mormon priests didn't always, but the evidence of some religious leaders, like Augustine, insincerely preaching or writing is scant.

Mother Theresa might be considered an interesting example.

Papers revealed after her death, seem to indicate that even during years of questioning the validity of her beliefs, she continued to act as to not betray those thought to those around her. This would suggest a facade that did not align with the underlying beleifs.

Did Augustine have his moments of questioning that surface to the light of scrutiny?

Do most people question their beliefs at some point in time, or are the ones that do, just a minority?

[Grames]

Many seem to have lived by their religion. Catholic and Mormon priests didn't always, but the evidence of some religious leaders, like Augustine, insincerely preaching or writing is scant.

Augustine had two lives, one before and one after the moment he began taking Christianity seriously. During his first life he had a lover and a child which he gave up for social connection via an arranged marriage to a child.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo

[Drregaleagle]

p.s. I've been assuming Christianity is the religion in question. Regarding the Eastern religions, it does appear that some religious figures have lived by their precepts, meditating and begging and wandering throughout their lives. Were you considering such people?

Christianity is the majority religion of the United States so I've been talking about it the most, but most religions apply here. Hinduism, Buddhism, Platonism/Neo-Platonism, Islam, many types of Judaism, Gnostic varieties, Shinto(ism?), and other religions are also extremely relevant however.

[Drregaleagle]

Augustine had two lives, one before and one after the moment he began taking Christianity seriously. During his first life he had a lover and a child which he gave up for social connection via an arranged marriage to a child.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo

Yes, but I think it's interesting how he became so committed to Christianity at his mother's request and changed faith. Augustine was not an atheist prior to conversion, but a Manichean and his lifestyle was motivated by that religion. I consider his transition to Christianity a part of human evolution.

[Grames]

... I consider his transition to Christianity a part of human evolution.

I consider it part of his individual psychological evolution.

[Drregaleagle]

I consider it part of his individual psychological evolution.

How so?

[Greebo]

How so?

He was an individual, not a species.

[Grames]

How so?

By elimination. When he stopped having sex and caring about his children his participation in "human evolution" came to an end. Apparently that was even before he converted.

[Drregaleagle]

By elimination. When he stopped having sex and caring about his children his participation in "human evolution" came to an end. Apparently that was even before he converted.

His psychological evolution influenced the psychological evolution of many other people who raised kids. This is how he still caused civilization to evolve. His teachings on divine grace helped individuals understand their life's intrinsic value.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Drregaleagle

[Greebo]

His psychological evolution influenced the psychological evolution of many other people who raised kids. This is how he still caused civilization to evolve. His teachings on divine grace helped individuals understand their life's intrinsic value.

Not exactly.

If someone teaches you something based on flawed premises, even if what they teach is correct, you do not really understand anything.

If I teach you that the speed of light is limited to 182,000 miles per second in space because space is thick and slows light down, then you don't really understand the concept, even if you have the speed limit right.

Likewise, if I teach you the golden rule, but base the teaching on "CAUSE GOD SAID SO", again, you don't *understand* the rule - you just know that the rule exists.