The true nature of religion in civilization's development

[Drregaleagle]

A common cry from the so called "Religious Right" is the need for religion in any civilization. Beneath their mythologies and scriptures, lies a practical need for moral stability and consensus for a civilized society to develop. Jews developed so much of their religion around practices that one should just assume that it was adopted for practical purposes. Look at the descriptions of Josiah's reforms in the Bible, study certain appeals to empiricism(Gen. 30:27) in the text, and observe underlying assumptions about human nature in the Bible's numerous Jeremiads. Catholic clergy has always been open about it in frank discussion. Muslims are not currently saying this, but in the time of Avicenna when Muslims actually built civilization, I bet they did. Protestants, having the unique belief in salvation by faith alone, have tended to be much more enigmatic regarding any practicality of their religion, but careful reading shows practicality to be the extreme driving force of their movement. John Calvin and the Puritans(especially Jonathan Edwards) are the best examples of this.

The assertion usually goes something like this:

1)Civilization is good.

2)Civilization requires morality and government.

3)The ruled demand answers from their rulers justifying their decisions and reasons for their supposed morality. The most knowledgeable people would naturally gain the most support in society.

Much of what I've written is common knowledge, but I see something else beneath it that might make me different from Objectivists. Often, the religions of the world have developed not out of superstition, but out of reason. Once developed, these religions have been maintained for the virtuous purpose of maintaining one's national and/or genealogical heritage. Early man likely saw no distinction between science and religion. The emphasis was on the idea of objective truth. In order for one to explain the world around him, he needed answers that were true and clear. The need for answers and axioms from which to reason, gave birth to both science and religion. Religion was intended as a scientific hypothesis and science was supposed to test them.

The only problem was that the Sumerians and Egyptians both quickly found out that science doesn't discover much absolute truth; assuming scientific laws to be absolutely true leads to committing the fallacy of induction. So, one had to develop other ways to test religion. Formalized logic was the answer. With logical reasoning, one can find absolute truth and falsify religions that are logically inconsistent. Religion shouldn't be viewed as synonymous with mysticism. Rather, religion should be viewed as the use of reason and logic. In fact, a fundamentalist Christian told me that John 1:1 correctly translated should read "In the beginning was the Logic(Logos), and the Logic was with God, and the Logic was God." Religion has sought answers through reason historically, but only seems irrational in retrospect because of scientific advancements. In short, rather then viewing religion as a bad thing historically, it should be viewed as a good thing that really was an attempt at logical thinking. Logical religion based on the inductive formation of postulates and deductive reasoning has driven civilization.

We stand on the shoulders of giants and those giants' beliefs were more than just mere superstitions.

[Plasmatic]

The only problem was that the Sumerians and Egyptians both quickly found out that science doesn't discover much absolute truth; assuming scientific laws to be absolutely true leads to committing the fallacy of induction.

Uh chief, you should have posted your nonsense in the debate forum.

[Greebo]

There is some small point to be considered here in the claim that religion developed at least partially out of reason.

Recent discoveries indicate that the human brain has a section in the right hemisphere which, for a large number of people (approx 80%) when induced magnetically, generates a sensation of presence of "others" that feels quite real, while simultaneously contradicting the five senses via which we perceive reality. People experiencing this "presence" report feeling a general calming sensation that 'everything is going to be ok'.

Theoretically, this sense of calming otherness may have developed as a survival mechanism, allowing us to overcome otherwise paralyzing fear in response to situations in which our own death seems certain. By calming our fears, it allows our minds (again, in theory) to find some way to survive the immediate moment.

Now - since our 5 senses CANNOT - or could not until this discovery - explain this *very real* sensation of otherness and protection, it would have been logical for us to seek an answer that fits the available evidence. After all - most people have the potential, at some point or another, to basically hallucinate a sense of an outside presence, and by conferring with each other, they would "confirm" the validity of the sensation, in the same way that we all confirm with each other that the sky looks blue on a clear day.

Now, however, that we know the brain can create this artificial sense of well-being from the "outside", and lacking any evidence aside from the "feeling" of a presence and calming influence, there is no reason to consider this sensation of well being as anything more than internally generated.

So perhaps, at one point, religion served as the answer to resolve this apparent contradiction - but now, like so many other flawed theories in logic, new evidence demands that we re-evaluate old conclusions and discard those that no longer fit all the available facts.

In other words - religion no LONGER makes sense, knowing now what we did not know then.

[JayR]

Jews developed so much of their religion around practices that one should just assume that it was adopted for practical purposes........

Early man likely saw no distinction between science and religion. The emphasis was on the idea of objective truth. In order for one to explain the world around him, he needed answers that were true and clear.

Yes, "early man". Theres no excuse anymore. Religion is no longer "practical", its about controlling people through guilt, advancing a malevolent universe premise, and then preying on peoples fear.

So perhaps, at one point, religion served as the answer to resolve this apparent contradiction - but now, like so many other flawed theories in logic, new evidence demands that we re-evaluate old conclusions and discard those that no longer fit all the available facts.

In other words - religion no LONGER makes sense, knowing now what we did not know then.

Yes.

j..

[Drregaleagle]

Uh chief, you should have posted your nonsense in the debate forum.

There's no nonsense there. Scientific laws, such as "the acceleration of an object near the Earth's surface is 9.8(m/s)/s" are approximations and inductive reasoning can be wrong. The Egyptians and the Sumerians at their peak recognized this. Esagil-kin-apli wrote the "Diagnostic Handbook" outlining the scientific method in Mesopotamia. In it, he recognized the fallacy of induction early. So it isn't fair to call my post nonsense if you're only going to write one line.

[DavidOdden]

Scientific laws, such as "the acceleration of an object near the Earth's surface is 9.8(m/s)/s" are approximations and inductive reasoning can be wrong. The Egyptians and the Sumerians at their peak recognized this. Esagil-kin-apli wrote the "Diagnostic Handbook" outlining the scientific method in Mesopotamia. In it, he recognized the fallacy of induction early.

Your nonsense lies in speaking of the "fallacy of induction", while not decrying the fallacy of deduction. Deductive reasoning can also be wrong, which is to say that man is not infallible. And so what if man is fallible?

You argument is lacking in empirical support (the claim that religion developed out of reason). It is a strictly rationalist position -- conceptually it's imaginable, and equally imaginable that it's false. Your three postulates are arbitrary, even if the first two of the claims happen to be true. Rand sets forth the evidence for (1) and (2), if you care.

The claim that "Religion shouldn't be viewed as synonymous with mysticism" is particularly nonsense. Religion is the essence of mysticism.

[Drregaleagle]

There is some small point to be considered here in the claim that religion developed at least partially out of reason.

Recent discoveries indicate that the human brain has a section in the right hemisphere which, for a large number of people (approx 80%) when induced magnetically, generates a sensation of presence of "others" that feels quite real, while simultaneously contradicting the five senses via which we perceive reality. People experiencing this "presence" report feeling a general calming sensation that 'everything is going to be ok'.

Right hemisphere only? I've experienced a very similar state induced by ocular migraines and possibly non-epileptic seizures, causing synaesthesia and hallucinations. It makes sensory information contradict itself. It also did make me a much more religious person so there is merit to your claim. However, the doctors were concerned with the entire temporal lobe and not just the right hemisphere. Also, the left hemisphere plays a major role in logical reasoning, more so than the right hemisphere according to most neurologists. So the point might be larger than you think.

Now - since our 5 senses CANNOT - or could not until this discovery - explain this *very real* sensation of otherness and protection, it would have been logical for us to seek an answer that fits the available evidence.

Our five senses play tricks on us all of the time. The religious objections to heliocentrism were undoubtedly originally rooted in the senses. When people wrote that the Earth couldn't be moved in the Bible, surely they wrote that because their senses made the Sun appear to orbit the Earth. As a means of preserving tradition, the priests and ministers became adamant geocentrists. However, I contend that it was never logical for Joshua or any priests to adopt geocentrism even though their senses created the illusion. They made logical errors and the mind should subordinate the sense to logic in all things epistemological.

Now, however, that we know the brain can create this artificial sense of well-being from the "outside", and lacking any evidence aside from the "feeling" of a presence and calming influence, there is no reason to consider this sensation of well being as anything more than internally generated.

Isn't that a little premature? Neuroscience is still just budding.

In other words - religion no LONGER makes sense, knowing now what we did not know then.

Some religions, or rather, some parts of old religions, no longer make sense. However, some faith still makes sense. We don't know a whole lot with certainty, like the parallel postulate. I assume the parallel postulate to be true in my daily life, on faith.

There's also the problem of disrespect for one's cultural heritage. Devoutly religious men like Samuel Adams and Paul Revere gave me my country for religious reasons. Faraday and Maxwell unified Electromagnetism out of largely religious reasons. Since my country and electricity are rational, the motivations for their respective foundations and discovery were rational.

[Drregaleagle]

Your nonsense lies in speaking of the "fallacy of induction", while not decrying the fallacy of deduction. Deductive reasoning can also be wrong, which is to say that man is not infallible. And so what if man is fallible?

Deductive reasoning cannot be wrong. A is A. I am what I am. This is always true. If this were not true, reality couldn't be objective.

You argument is lacking in empirical support (the claim that religion developed out of reason). It is a strictly rationalist position -- conceptually it's imaginable, and equally imaginable that it's false. Your three postulates are arbitrary, even if the first two of the claims happen to be true. Rand sets forth the evidence for (1) and (2), if you care.

I have empirical support. I haven't talked about it much yet, but I do have empirical support. For starters, read some of the Bible that appeals to empiricism. Look at many archeological discoveries. Many concern the development of logical reasoning in religion, especially Aristotle's beliefs. Then, read Euler's "Letters to a German Princess". The evidence suggests that my postulates are true as there is evidence to support them and little evidence to deny them.

The claim that "Religion shouldn't be viewed as synonymous with mysticism" is particularly nonsense. Religion is the essence of mysticism.

Mysticism is clinging to a false scientific hypothesis after it has been demonstrated to be false because one has faith in the hypothesis in the absence of evidence. Religion is the belief in a hypothesis that hasn't been proven or disproven; you'd have to be insane to demand proof for every one of your beliefs. I can't prove that it will get dark outside tonight, but I'll believe it for many reasons. Delusion is a belief in a hypothesis that has been proven false like 'Dedekind-Frege set theory is contradiction free'.

[DavidOdden]

Deductive reasoning cannot be wrong.

Nor can inductive reasoning. Tu quoque.

I have empirical support. I haven't talked about it much yet, but I do have empirical support.

If you organise your proof of the thesis and present it here, we can evaluate it. Otherwise, you're advocating mysticism. (See below).

Mysticism is clinging to a false scientific hypothesis after it has been demonstrated to be false because one has faith in the hypothesis in the absence of evidence.

That isn't even close to what mysticism is. Check this out. Maybe the problem is that you just don't know what certain philosophical terms refer to, and this leads to confusion in what you intend versus actually say.

I can't prove that it will get dark outside tonight, but I'll believe it for many reasons.

I assume you're not in Tromsø (because, up there it won't get dark outside tonight, not for another couple of weeks). Is that because you don't actually know why it gets dark; or you don't feel up to the task of giving the proof. It's certainly provable. I'm not insisting that you prove it, just that you recognize that it is provable.

[Drregaleagle]

Is that because you don't actually know why it gets dark; or you don't feel up to the task of giving the proof. It's certainly provable. I'm not insisting that you prove it, just that you recognize that it is provable.

There are an infinite number of conditions that apply so I can't prove it. The Earth could stop rotating, coronal mass ejections to light the sky, or the Sun could move. While they could happen, I'm going to ignore the tiny probability of their occurrence.

The only way to prove an axiom is to establish a self-verifying theory where Godelian incompleteness doesn't apply. In science, the easiest way to do that is to use operational definitions. However, I have not been able to construct a self-verifying theory that is satisfactorily consistent for the Earth's rotation about its axis and the light from the Sun.

Inductive reasoning can be wrong.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Drregaleagle

[DavidOdden]

The Earth could stop rotating,

Where is your evidence that this is possible?

coronal mass ejections to light the sky,

Where is your evidence that this is possible?

or the Sun could move.

Where is your evidence that this is possible?

[Drregaleagle]

Where is your evidence that this is possible?

Natural phenomena that could generate the amount of torque required to stop the Earth from spinning have been observed.

Where is your evidence that this is possible?

Coronal mass ejections like the Northern Lights can light up the sky a little. A different type of coronal mass ejection could light up the sky a lot while toasting us.

[SapereAude]

I've reread your post a few times now and still can't determine what your point is/was.

Is it a declarative statement inviting debate?

Is it a refutation of the atheism that is inherently part of Objective philosophy?

Something else?

[Drregaleagle]

I've reread your post a few times now and still can't determine what your point is/was.

Is it a declarative statement inviting debate?

Is it a refutation of the atheism that is inherently part of Objective philosophy?

Something else?

It is a statement defending the legacy of religions historically, despite their lack of complete veracity.

[Plasmatic]

DavidOdden, on 27 July 2010 - 10:36 AM, said:

Where is your evidence that this is possible?

Natural phenomena that could generate the amount of torque required to stop the Earth from spinning have been observed.

DavidOdden, on 27 July 2010 - 10:36 AM, said:

Where is your evidence that this is possible?

Coronal mass ejections like the Northern Lights can light up the sky a little. A different type of coronal mass ejection could light up the sky a lot while toasting us.

Now ,how did you reach these inductive generalizations?

First , there are many fallacies of deduction and Induction. You said the fallacy of induction!. You then say "induction can be wrong" . So you appear to be equivocating here.You are claiming induction itself is a fallacy. That is to say you are a skeptic of induction itself. Then you say "can be". Which is it?

Your comment:

Deductive reasoning cannot be wrong.

Only strengthens the contrast you wish to employ.

They made logical errors and the mind should subordinate the sense to logic in all things epistemological.

Nonsense! Your rationalism is the main reason why you cant see the obvious errors in your post.

The only problem was that the Sumerians and Egyptians both quickly found out that science doesn't discover much absolute truth; assuming scientific laws to be absolutely true leads to committing the fallacy of induction. So, one had to develop other ways to test religion. Formalized logic was the answer. With logical reasoning, one can find absolute truth and falsify religions that are logically inconsistent. Religion shouldn't be viewed as synonymous with mysticism. Rather, religion should be viewed as the use of reason and logic. In fact, a fundamentalist Christian told me that John 1:1 correctly translated should read "In the beginning was the Logic(Logos), and the Logic was with God, and the Logic was God." Religion has sought answers through reason historically, but only seems irrational in retrospect because of scientific advancements. In short, rather then viewing religion as a bad thing historically, it should be viewed as a good thing that really was an attempt at logical thinking. Logical religion based on the inductive formation of postulates and deductive reasoning has driven civilization.

We stand on the shoulders of giants and those giants' beliefs were more than just mere superstitions.

Where did the generalizations in those deductive propositions come from chief? Ive read lots of fiction stories that where consistent. Reason is the process that uses logic to acquiring knowledge that is consistent with reality. The A-S dichotomy is garbage. There is not two seperate processes.

Comparative Mythology shows the logos was in its original form a physical thing . The visible spoken word/ agent of "creation" in mythology. Not a good example for you to employ.The NT also claims that Jesus was the image"icon" of god. That is the "word-logic" made flesh. How does this help your position? Appealing to fairy tales is not a good method of achieving integration.

So religion was a primitive attempt at causality originally. Religion has maintained a position of anti reason. The use of it by mystics at times does not make religion itself reason based.

. Religion is the belief in a hypothesis that hasn't been proven or disproven; you'd have to be insane to demand proof for every one of your beliefs. I can't prove that it will get dark outside tonight, but I'll believe it for many reasons.

So, one had to develop other ways to test religion. Formalized logic was the answer. With logical reasoning, one can find absolute truth and falsify religions that are logically inconsistent

Looks like you don't know what you think Religion is.

There are so many other dubious things in your post one doesn't have the time to address.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Plasmatic

[SapereAude]

It is a statement defending the legacy of religions historically, despite their lack of complete veracity.

Ok, but why and why here?

Anyone who has studied philosophy and/or science to any degree knows that religion was man's earliest attempt at both.

But you seem to be defending the notion that it is valuable still. (I could be reading you wrong)

The world of the human mind has moved on. To cling to religion at this point would be to cling to an erstaz philosophy.

Again, I don't see what your point is.

Are you concerned that the knowledge gained by religion will fade?

There is very little fear of that- religion should be taught as part of history. Religions' earliest attempts at philosophy & science should be taught as such.

Edited July 27, 2010 by SapereAude

[Drregaleagle]

Now ,how did you reach these inductive generalizations?

First , there are many fallacies of deduction and Induction. You said the fallacy of induction!. You then say "induction can be wrong" . So you appear to be equivocating here.You are claiming induction itself is a fallacy. That is to say you are a skeptic of induction itself. Then you say "can be". Which is it?

This is pure garbage. There are no fallacies of deduction, only false premises. Otherwise, syllogisms wouldn't work. Even the law of identity would not hold true if deductive reasoning didn't yield knowledge. Sometimes, statements general conclusions that are drawn from specific instances are correct and other times they are wrong. This is induction and to assume that a general conclusion drawn from a specific instance is correct, is necessarily specious. If you can't understand this, pick up a basic logic textbook.

Nonsense! Your rationalism is the main reason why you cant see the obvious errors in your post.

So if something looked like an alien, you'd consider it an alien and call the newspapers? The subjugation the senses to logic separates the Associated Press from the National Enquirer.

Comparative Mythology shows the logos was in its original form a physical thing . The visible spoken word/ agent of "creation" in mythology.

No, it doesn't. Philo wrote that the logos was immaterial.

So religion was a primitive attempt at causality originally. Religion has maintained a position of anti reason. The use of it by mystics at times does not make religion itself reason based.

How have all religions throughout the ages maintained positions that were deliberate attacks on reason? Many, or all, have made logical errors, but they acknowledged(acknowledge) the primacy of logic in obtaining knowledge.

[Drregaleagle]

Again, I don't see what your point is.

Are you concerned that the knowledge gained by religion will fade?

There is very little fear of that- religion should be taught as part of history. Religions' earliest attempts at philosophy & science should be taught as such.

I am afraid of that. Religions are philosophies that we have merely outgrown. Many contemporary atheists that I know disregard everything associated with religion including logic and philosophy. The basic questions that religion tried to answer are still around and the answers we come up with evolve from previous answers.

[DavidOdden]

There are no fallacies of deduction, only false premises.

There are also no fallacies of induction, only wrong applications of the method.

Even the law of identity would not hold true if deductive reasoning didn't yield knowledge.

BTW can you demonstrate a piece of knowledge that deductive reasoning (exclusively) yields.

Sometimes, statements general conclusions that are drawn from specific instances are correct and other times they are wrong. This is induction

Aha! There we have it! You don't know what induction is.

[Drregaleagle]

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.

There are also no fallacies of induction...

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

BTW can you demonstrate a piece of knowledge that deductive reasoning (exclusively) yields.

1+1=2

A space alien would be or would have been alive.

0.99999999...=1

Aha! There we have it! You don't know what induction is.

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

Edited July 27, 2010 by Drregaleagle

[SapereAude]

I am afraid of that. Religions are philosophies that we have merely outgrown. Many contemporary atheists that I know disregard everything associated with religion including logic and philosophy. The basic questions that religion tried to answer are still around and the answers we come up with evolve from previous answers.

The problem is you are worried about the wrong thing.

The base of all religion is subjugation of the self and all contain some form of altruism.

It is this basis which has brought about the societal changes that have driven logic and philosophy from our schools.

Early religious did indeed discover logic and did create philosophy and science.

The piece you are leaving out though is that they did it to gain power over others. They did not want their knowledge spread to anyone they did not approve of and they did not allow for any new discoveries that they did not approve of.

You can throw out the bathwater without throwing out the baby.

[Plasmatic]

This is pure garbage. There are no fallacies of deduction, only false premises. Otherwise, syllogisms wouldn't work. Even the law of identity would not hold true if deductive reasoning didn't yield knowledge.

First I did not claim deduction does not yield knowledge. I did not state as you have THE fallacy of deduction. Ever hear of affirming the consequent? here are some more for you:

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/

Look for "deductive fallacies".

So if something looked like an alien, you'd consider it an alien and call the newspapers? The subjugation the senses to logic separates the Associated Press from the National Enquirer.

No ,since I know the proper inductive method I would not do such a thing. Your example reveals your ignorance.

No, it doesn't. Philo wrote that the logos was immaterial.

First I referred to a conclusion based on comparative mythology and you cite a single instance? Not to mention your previous example involve a scripture who's next line is "And the word[logos] became flesh and dwelt among us!

How have all religions throughout the ages maintained positions that were deliberate attacks on reason? Many, or all, have made logical errors, but they acknowledged(acknowledge) the primacy of logic in obtaining knowledge.

Im curious of some examples of such acknowledgments made explicitly by religions..

[DavidOdden]

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

That is an example of an invalid inference. It is analogous to the "deduction"

A->B

B

__

A

1+1=2

You have not shown that this is a deduction. In fact, I know that you cannot prove this deductively.

A space alien would be or would have been alive.

On no level can I even imagine this being an example of a deductive proof. Though I do now see that you don't know what a deductive proof is.

If you can show some evidence that you do actually understand deductive logic and can handle topics in logical with logic, I would be willing to explain the nature of inductive inference. But you first need a basis in formal logic.

[Greebo]

Right hemisphere only? I've experienced a very similar state induced by ocular migraines and possibly non-epileptic seizures, causing synaesthesia and hallucinations. It makes sensory information contradict itself. It also did make me a much more religious person so there is merit to your claim. However, the doctors were concerned with the entire temporal lobe and not just the right hemisphere. Also, the left hemisphere plays a major role in logical reasoning, more so than the right hemisphere according to most neurologists. So the point might be larger than you think.

I am not a neuroscience expert - I am simply aware of a specific scientific study which has focused on the right hemisphere of the brain and the impact of magnetic fields upon it. The brain is, of course, very complex, and we still don't understand it fully - but it has, I think, been conclusively shown that the brain is capable of generating these "spiritual sensations". We don't know every method that triggers them - but we've never seen any tangible evidence to contradict the idea that the sensation of an outside presence is ANYTHING but generated by the brain.

Our five senses play tricks on us all of the time.

Our senses can play tricks on us, sure - but I'm highly skeptical of your rather extreme generalization here suggesting that they're flat out untrustworthy.

The religious objections to heliocentrism were undoubtedly originally rooted in the senses. When people wrote that the Earth couldn't be moved in the Bible, surely they wrote that because their senses made the Sun appear to orbit the Earth. As a means of preserving tradition, the priests and ministers became adamant geocentrists. However, I contend that it was never logical for Joshua or any priests to adopt geocentrism even though their senses created the illusion. They made logical errors and the mind should subordinate the sense to logic in all things epistemological.

Not sure of the relevance but I do agree with your final point.

Isn't that a little premature? Neuroscience is still just budding.

It's new, yes - but millennium of observations have yielded no tangible evidence of any outside presences that otherwise defy the logical order of reality. Newton's theory of Gravity was new once - and may still need refining today - but being logically based on observation, experimentation and reason immediately gave it credibility over all of the theories as to why things fell to the ground that were based on sheer arbitrary speculation.

Some religions, or rather, some parts of old religions, no longer make sense. However, some faith still makes sense. We don't know a whole lot with certainty, like the parallel postulate. I assume the parallel postulate to be true in my daily life, on faith.

False. No argument which is based on faulty premises is valid. Faith is based on arbitrary assumption, which is not a valid premise.

There's also the problem of disrespect for one's cultural heritage. Devoutly religious men like Samuel Adams and Paul Revere gave me my country for religious reasons. Faraday and Maxwell unified Electromagnetism out of largely religious reasons. Since my country and electricity are rational, the motivations for their respective foundations and discovery were rational.

That's like arguing that Newton was disrespectful to his heritage by explaining why apples fall. Yes, our forefathers did great things - but doing the right thing for the wrong reasons does not create any burden or debt on those who follow to give validity to those wrong reasons. The witch doctor gave tree bark to people with headaches because the spirit of the tree would soothe the pain, so he thought. In fact, it was a drug we now commonly refer to as aspirin which is formed in the tree bark. The aspirin is a good thing - but the spiritual reasoning is bunk and there is no reason to give it respect when it's bull.

[volco]

A common cry from the so called "Religious Right" is the need for religion in any civilization. Beneath their mythologies and scriptures, lies a practical need for moral stability and consensus for a civilized society to develop. Jews developed so much of their religion around practices that one should just assume that it was adopted for practical purposes. Look at the descriptions of Josiah's reforms in the Bible, study certain appeals to empiricism(Gen. 30:27) in the text, and observe underlying assumptions about human nature in the Bible's numerous Jeremiads. Catholic clergy has always been open about it in frank discussion. Muslims are not currently saying this, but in the time of Avicenna when Muslims actually built civilization, I bet they did. Protestants, having the unique belief in salvation by faith alone, have tended to be much more enigmatic regarding any practicality of their religion, but careful reading shows practicality to be the extreme driving force of their movement. John Calvin and the Puritans(especially Jonathan Edwards) are the best examples of this.

The assertion usually goes something like this:

1)Civilization is good.

2)Civilization requires morality and government.

3)The ruled demand answers from their rulers justifying their decisions and reasons for their supposed morality. The most knowledgeable people would naturally gain the most support in society.

Much of what I've written is common knowledge, but I see something else beneath it that might make me different from Objectivists. Often, the religions of the world have developed not out of superstition, but out of reason. Once developed, these religions have been maintained for the virtuous purpose of maintaining one's national and/or genealogical heritage. Early man likely saw no distinction between science and religion. The emphasis was on the idea of objective truth. In order for one to explain the world around him, he needed answers that were true and clear. The need for answers and axioms from which to reason, gave birth to both science and religion. Religion was intended as a scientific hypothesis and science was supposed to test them.

The only problem was that the Sumerians and Egyptians both quickly found out that science doesn't discover much absolute truth; assuming scientific laws to be absolutely true leads to committing the fallacy of induction. So, one had to develop other ways to test religion. Formalized logic was the answer. With logical reasoning, one can find absolute truth and falsify religions that are logically inconsistent. Religion shouldn't be viewed as synonymous with mysticism. Rather, religion should be viewed as the use of reason and logic. In fact, a fundamentalist Christian told me that John 1:1 correctly translated should read "In the beginning was the Logic(Logos), and the Logic was with God, and the Logic was God." Religion has sought answers through reason historically, but only seems irrational in retrospect because of scientific advancements. In short, rather then viewing religion as a bad thing historically, it should be viewed as a good thing that really was an attempt at logical thinking. Logical religion based on the inductive formation of postulates and deductive reasoning has driven civilization.

We stand on the shoulders of giants and those giants' beliefs were more than just mere superstitions.

Thank you for an interest debate. If you ever played the GAME civilization IV, the one in which Religions are introduced, the earlier a Civ discovers a religion, the better the chances for winning. When one civ doesn't discover its own religion, it is pretty much doomed as it becomes culturally invaded or dependent on the adopted religion.

I see that in history, the same happens: let's not go farther than 500 years to the Time of Discovery and Reformation.

One half of the New Word was settled by religious dissidents. No matter how influent Jamestown was; so was the Bay Colony. The

Battle hymn of The Republic, that led men fighting for their natural Rights, chants "HIS truth is marching on!"

The

The other half of the New World was, in addition to physically, psychologically raped by the old Roman Church. Latin Americans, in Pat Condell´s words "to this day don't know what hit them". The Church didn't want the Reformation and its bloody consequences (Germany was emptied during the 30 year war) to spread to the New World. It didn't, God save the Holy Office, and that is why people like Samuel P. Huntington consider it a different civilization than the Western: because it didn't experienced the reformation. The same way the Western (in allusion to WESTERN CHURCH) Civilization became so after the schism. The older, unreformed church developing in what is now the slavic Orthodox World.

So not only in mine, but in Sid Meier's and Samuel P Huntington's opinion religion is an very important, even determining, factor for a Civilization to either thrive or stagnate.

In that sense, as a group, religion is a smart tool.

However it is not logic. It is not reasonable and even les rational: What the first humans tried to do with Organized Religion, is to emulate that lost instinct that guided the lives of our forefathers and animals. The same way a Centralized Government tried to, just recently.

In retrospective one can see some "practical" value in Communism: For instance, it is no coincidence that the only Muslim countries were Jews and Women can live and wear trousers are the ones of Central Asia, the Ex Soviet Republics. But that temporal practicality doesn't redeem eithr the unspeakable atrocities committed in those same places by the Soviets, or Communism as a rational idea.

For a group, both religion and communism are a smart solution. For a single human mind, they might temporarily be convenient, but they can never be logical.

That first phrase of Genesis you quoted is wrong: Logos is a word in Greek. The original history is in Hebrew or very possibly in Ancient Egyptian.

Fun Fact: Did you know that "Amen" might be the name of the one god, (Amok) that the jews took from one of Egypts Monotheistic periods? Both Freud and McNall Burns back this theory.