The true nature of religion in civilization's development

[Drregaleagle]

Not exactly.

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

Aristotle also believed in an unmoved mover(a god), but he still had plenty of valuable lessons to teach.

It depends on the specific flaw of the premise. In Augustine's case, his premises were from his perception of the world around him and he worked from there. He made mistakes of course, but he also made correct observations including the fact that man made governments cannot determine one's spiritual salvation. Eventually, this became critical for people to rebel against totalitarian institutions. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church ignored that observation from Augustine.

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.

Knowing that something exists is a crucial part to understanding it. Can you truly understand something without knowing whether or not it exists?

Edited August 21, 2010 by Drregaleagle

[dream_weaver]

Can you truly understand something without knowing whether or not it exists?

The only things that you can come to truly understand are those things which exist.

[Drregaleagle]

The only things that you can come to truly understand are those things which exist.

I think you're right, but thoughts and fantasies exist, though they aren't real. One can understand the plot of Star Wars even though it never happened because the story is real. So can one understand God even though it doesn't exist, because it is a concept.

[dream_weaver]

Thoughts and fantasies are quite real. We can identify thoughts via introspection. We can identify fantasies via introspection. We can identify in what ways they correlate with the perceptual, and in what ways they differ.

Fiction, fantasy, myth, etc. are terms under which we categorize stories to distinguish them from documentaries, biographies, autobiographies, etc.

That is why Objectivism recognizes that the concept God refers to nothing in actuality that actually exists - the arbitrary; i.e., a myth, fantasy, fiction, etc.

Edited August 22, 2010 by dream_weaver

[Drregaleagle]

Thoughts and fantasies are quite real. We can identify thoughts via introspection. We can identify fantasies via introspection. We can identify in what ways they correlate with the perceptual, and in what ways they differ.

Fiction, fantasy, myth, etc. are terms under which we categorize stories to distinguish them from documentaries, biographies, autobiographies, etc.

That is why Objectivism recognizes that the concept God refers to nothing in actuality that actually exists - the arbitrary; i.e., a myth, fantasy, fiction, etc.

But someone can still understand the fictitious. This seems to come down to Aristotle's solution of infinite universals. He concluded that actual infinity did not exist, but potential infinity did exist. Infinity is instantiated as a potential. If this is the case, and I think it is, then it still exists as a potential. This suggests that the concept of God exists, even though God does not exist in any tangible sense. It's also why religion cannot be ignored as a factor contributing to the development of civilization.

[dream_weaver]

But someone can still understand the fictitious. This seems to come down to Aristotle's solution of infinite universals. He concluded that actual infinity did not exist, but potential infinity did exist. Infinity is instantiated as a potential. If this is the case, and I think it is, then it still exists as a potential. This suggests that the concept of God exists, even though God does not exist in any tangible sense. It's also why religion cannot be ignored as a factor contributing to the development of civilization.

From Aesops Fables to Atlas Shrugged, fiction is often used to convey a message. It is understood because it relies on its relation to as well as its departure from reality.

It is not surprising that infinity continues to be invoked in conversations involving God despite the lack of evidence for either that can be produced and epistemologically validated.

The concept of God does exist, albeit, an invalid one.

Religions contributions to the development of civilization have been more in its hinderance, than its progression. At times, it has preserved and maintained it, but it seems that those are more incidental than the fundamental role that it has played into the stagnation and oppression of the use of the mind in apprehending truth from fantasy.

[Drregaleagle]

It is not surprising that infinity continues to be invoked in conversations involving God despite the lack of evidence for either that can be produced and epistemologically validated.

Okay, let's talk about two topics. The first topic is Calculus. Calculus provides the mathematics necessary to run our civilization. With it, we can relate the abstraction of a point to the reality of motion. How could you not say that the abstraction of a point exists if you use Calculus? The religious background surrounding calculus is clear. The original problems perceived by Newton and Leibniz were integrally(npi) tied to religious issues. They were both contemplating infinity and dealt with God conceptually as an infinitely powerful being. This spurred calculus' development.

The other topic is imaginary numbers. Imaginary numbers are used to make alternating current possible. Without alternating current, most of us would not have the electricity required for the internet or to manufacture computer chips. Since the abstraction of imaginary numbers is used to produce real phenomena of alternating current, how can one disregard imaginary numbers while consistently using alternating current?

Edited August 30, 2010 by Drregaleagle

[dream_weaver]

Funny, I thought the topic was The true nature of religion in civilization's development: Driving Force of Civilization

[Drregaleagle]

Funny, I thought the topic was The true nature of religion in civilization's development: Driving Force of Civilization

Calculus and alternating current make our present day civilization possible. Discussion of their development is critical to the larger topic.

[Greebo]

Calculus and alternating current make our present day civilization possible. Discussion of their development is critical to the larger topic.

Religious inspiration certainly *helped* inspire new advances - but to argue that those advances depend upon the *religious* inspiration is as baseless as me asserting that without science fiction writer Isaac Asimov developing his rules for robots, we'd never have developed automatic welding equipment. There is correlation - not causality.

Your argument is that without religion, those developments would never have occurred. You are basically asserting that without religious inspiration NO inspiration would occur.

To defend this argument, you've been spending a lot of time in this thread posing occasional examples of technologies and techniques that came about as the result of some religious inspiration, and attempting to prove the point that religion is therefore critical for civilization. This is your "empirical support".

But to BE empirical support, the support must be consistent. An experiment which yields the same result whether or not a certain part of the experiment is present is an experiment that does not need THAT part of the experiment. In other words, add water to iron, you get rust. Add water to iron while there's a latex balloon in the water, you still get rust. The balloon has no impact on the reaction, and thus is irrelevant. Add salt, and you get rust faster (I think...) making the salt a (potential) catalyst TO the reaction, NOT a critical component OF the reaction.

Today, our civilization depends heavily upon, for example, medicinal fighting of infections. The use of antibiotics is a key factor in the development of our modern society, and yet Penicillin's discovery, which led to a massive industry and major change in our quality of life, was nothing more than a random accidental discovery. Three was no religion behind the discovery - it was a simple chance accident in which Mr. Flemming found that mold repelled his culture of disease bacteria.

Since he made a substantial discovery that is critical to a major component in civilizations development *without* religion, it is thus demonstrated that religion is not crucial to civilizations development. It may be a catalyst, but it's not a critical component.

[dream_weaver]

Calculus and alternating current make our present day civilization possible. Discussion of their development is critical to the larger topic.

If discovering the true nature of religion in civilizations development, investigating the development of religion should provide a more valuable source of information to draw upon?

Could you possibly have the question turned around: The true nature of civilization in religion's development? Of course, that may appear a little uncivilized from time to time.

Then there is a question of which religion? Are you considering religion the common conceptual denominator of the diversity of different denominations we are so 'blessed' with today?

[Drregaleagle]

Today, our civilization depends heavily upon, for example, medicinal fighting of infections. The use of antibiotics is a key factor in the development of our modern society, and yet Penicillin's discovery, which led to a massive industry and major change in our quality of life, was nothing more than a random accidental discovery. Three was no religion behind the discovery - it was a simple chance accident in which Mr. Flemming found that mold repelled his culture of disease bacteria.

Since he made a substantial discovery that is critical to a major component in civilizations development *without* religion, it is thus demonstrated that religion is not crucial to civilizations development. It may be a catalyst, but it's not a critical component.

First of all, mold has been used to treat infections since Ancient Greece, India, and China. Fleming studied medicine quite thoroughly before he observed that penicillin broke the cell wall of staphylococci. He was studying staphylococci deliberately. To say it was a complete accident is ignorance. I doubt you could have reached Fleming's conclusions had you been in his laboratory. The simple fact remains that religion is simply a wrong answer to a question dealing with the abstract notion of "everything". Just because the answer is partially wrong, doesn't mean there isn't merit in it that is useful to us.

Just as Physics has gone from Aristotle to Newton to Einstein, so has religion evolved to attempt explanations.

Edited September 1, 2010 by Drregaleagle

[Black Wolf]

The other topic is imaginary numbers. Imaginary numbers are used to make alternating current possible. Without alternating current, most of us would not have the electricity required for the internet or to manufacture computer chips. Since the abstraction of imaginary numbers is used to produce real phenomena of alternating current, how can one disregard imaginary numbers while consistently using alternating current?

Who says we have to disregard "imaginary numbers"?

[Steve D'Ippolito]

The fact that the numbers are named "imaginary" doesn't imply that they are in any way useless or fictitious, it implies that the guy who named them did a really poor job of doing so. And to be more specific: Actually electrical engineers use something called a "complex" number, which is a real number added to a complex number, e.g., 4 + 4i or -3.7 - 1.4i, and they will talk about a complex number's real and imaginary components. If you want to visualize these numbers, you can put them on a Cartesian plane at (4,4) and (-3.7, -1.4) respectively; given this you can also express them in polar coordinates (and that's the form most commonly used by electrical engineers), this is called a phasor (not to be confused with anything out of Star Trek) because doing so highlights the phase of the electrical current or voltage described by the number.

[spectrum92]

on topic. i think it's worth noting the atheistic states in modern history: USSR, Nazi Germany, Khmer Rouge, North Korea, People's Republic of China (sounds like a country out of Atlas Shrugged lol). I think religion definately has an influence on society, and existence of God aside, i think it's fair to say most godless societies have some serious issues.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Nazi Germany wasn't godless. Hitler was on record as calling himself a Christian (Catholic to be specific) and the buttons on the soldiers' uniforms read "Gott mit uns" ("God is with us").

[Black Wolf]

on topic. i think it's worth noting the atheistic states in modern history: USSR, Nazi Germany, Khmer Rouge, North Korea, People's Republic of China (sounds like a country out of Atlas Shrugged lol). I think religion definately has an influence on society, and existence of God aside, i think it's fair to say most godless societies have some serious issues.

Define "Godless societies".

Also, do you consider countries like Jamaica, Uganda, and the majority of countries in the Middle East to be devoid of "Serious issues"?

[JayR]

I think religion definately has an influence on society, and existence of God aside, i think it's fair to say most godless societies have some serious issues.

Looking at history, and not thinking in terms of essentials, it would appear that youre right. But if you look at those "goddless societies" that you refer to from a proper objective perspective youll see that they all have something essential in common. Theyve replaced "god" with "society". The intrinsic good of gods commandments has been replaced by the intrinsic "common good" of the people. Concepts like "justice", and "rights" are completely blown apart when an arbitrary intrinsic "good" must be enforced at gunpoint.

[dream_weaver]

Just as Physics has gone from Aristotle to Newton to Einstein, so has religion evolved to attempt explanations.

The application of Aristotilian logic to the observation of physical phenomena in the case of Newton's induction of gravitational force (discovery) augmenting our understanding of the universe in which we find ourselves differentiates itself from the 'evolution' of religion modifying its rationalizations to continue to appear viable in the face of its credibility being undermined by discoveries which challenged the veracity of religious positions to prevent its becomming irrelevant.

[Drregaleagle]

The fact that the numbers are named "imaginary" doesn't imply that they are in any way useless or fictitious, it implies that the guy who named them did a really poor job of doing so. And to be more specific: Actually electrical engineers use something called a "complex" number, which is a real number added to a complex number, e.g., 4 + 4i or -3.7 - 1.4i, and they will talk about a complex number's real and imaginary components. If you want to visualize these numbers, you can put them on a Cartesian plane at (4,4) and (-3.7, -1.4) respectively; given this you can also express them in polar coordinates (and that's the form most commonly used by electrical engineers), this is called a phasor (not to be confused with anything out of Star Trek) because doing so highlights the phase of the electrical current or voltage described by the number.

The concept of the complex number necessitates the concept of the imaginary number. The imaginary number part of the complex number is the part that doesn't tangibly exist. Phasor diagrams are visual interpretations but unlike other vector diagrams, we never see natural phasor diagrams. Rather, we apply the phasor diagram to oscillations to describe the motion without having to draw the repetitively moving object.

You are right about the fact that imaginary numbers are very useful. However, in Objectivist Epistemology, the usefulness of a principle does not make a principle true because the truth is inherently objective and not altered by the human mind. Only William James' epistemology "Pragmatism" would justify the existence of imaginary numbers based on their use in engineering. (Benjamin and Charles) Peirce's later anti-nominalist "Pragmaticist" epistemology denies the "existence" of imaginary numbers but affirms the "reality" of the imaginary number, vaguely meaning that it exists only as a concept of the mind(it's actually more complicated but I don't want to go into his elaborate theory of signs). Either way, Objectivism has historically repudiated both of those philosophies. Also, the law of the excluded middle poses problems for the complex number.

The application of Aristotilian logic to the observation of physical phenomena in the case of Newton's induction of gravitational force (discovery) augmenting our understanding of the universe in which we find ourselves differentiates itself from the 'evolution' of religion modifying its rationalizations to continue to appear viable in the face of its credibility being undermined by discoveries which challenged the veracity of religious positions to prevent its becoming irrelevant.

You're only looking at the weak side of religion. Your model fits Catholic acceptance and even promotion of evolution, their support of interracial marriages, their calls for marital equality, and their eventual recognition of a heliocentric solar system. However, it doesn't explain when religion has evolved on the basis of logical thought and philosophy without science. It doesn't explain the "hard" religion of the Stoics, the Lutherans/Calvinists, and Vaisheshika Hindus. These "hard" religions evolve to advocate a certain primacy of logical thought much more than the Thomist religions regarding one's moral conduct and goals. These religions didn't evolve because of scientific discoveries. In fact in Democritus and Kana-bhuk's case, scientific theories evolved against Aristotle's science because of their theologies! Protestant theological ideas motivated Euler, Faraday, Riemann, and many others and they pushed science and forced it to change. These developments and also the logical thought of mathematicians have ultimately discredited religion as I know it.

With the Stoics and Vaisheshika atomists extinct, it is probable that Enlightenment ideas came from Protestant ideas and not Aquinas directly. Almost every single Enlightenment philosopher of lasting consequence came from a Protestant background, but became Deist later or remained Christian. It is quite clear that Locke based his pro-individual views on Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex and also George Buchanan's thought for instance. David Hume and Thomas Paine clearly considered Aquinas as inferior to Jonathan Edwards. Rand's philosophy is good, but her and Peikoff's views of the history of religion fly in the face of every bit of historical evidence.

Nazi Germany wasn't godless. Hitler was on record as calling himself a Christian (Catholic to be specific) and the buttons on the soldiers' uniforms read "Gott mit uns" ("God is with us").

Nazi Germany certainly wasn't godless; you're absolutely correct. Socialist societies are always theistic because they always worship the state by definition. Socialists believe the state to be infinitely powerful and 'God' by definition is infinitely powerful. The basic syllogism is completed with the conclusion that the state is omnipotent.

Hitler was professedly Catholic, but he was probably a closet pagan because he made plans to eradicate Christianity and replace it with "Ariosophy".

Edited November 21, 2010 by Drregaleagle

[Black Wolf]

Imaginary numbers certainly exist.. just not in the sense of quantity. Negative numbers are as existant as compelx numbers. You can't have negative 3 apples, and you can't have 3 + 4i apples. However, they can be applied as concepts. You can have negative money, in the sense that you owe. Concepts are not tangible objects, no, but they are the resultants of a process. Mathematics is a process. Use of concepts that are useful in establishing relationships is not pragmatism - pragmatism is rejecting moral principles for the sake of convenience. There are no moral consequences for relying on mathematics or complex numbers.

But I'm not sure where exactly you are getting that religion plays a significant role in mathematics - yes, many mathematicians were religious people (And I'm not going to say they were Christians, because people such as Pascal have taken credit for what Chinese/Middle Eastern mathemaicians already discovered), but the connection is unclear. Perhaps I've missed your earlier explanations, but I may need to be refreshed. If you're only trying to illustrate that religious people aren't always adverse to reason, then I doubt anyone is arguing that. You can be a religious person and be reasonable, but you can't reconcile religion with pure reason. You can't claim to rely solely on reason if you integrate arbitrary data.

At best, religion can only be acknowledged as an inspiration.

[dream_weaver]

With the Stoics and Vaisheshika atomists extinct, it is probable that Enlightenment ideas came from Protestant ideas and not Aquinas directly. Almost every single Enlightenment philosopher of lasting consequence came from a Protestant background, but became Deist later or remained Christian. It is quite clear that Locke based his pro-individual views on Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex and also George Buchanan's thought for instance. David Hume and Thomas Paine clearly considered Aquinas as inferior to Jonathan Edwards. Rand's philosophy is good, but her and Peikoff's views of the history of religion fly in the face of every bit of historical evidence.

While I have read Human Understanding, I am not as familiar with Samuel Rutherford's contributions. As to Locke, while religious in many ways, I do not view him as an attempt on the religious establishment to be a 'driving force of civilization', rather someone who attended church, and attempted to understand how the human mind comes to grasp the world via the application of reason. Aquinas was an example of a rationalist who in the face of Aristotilian data, attempted to renconcile faith by getting Aristotle's views to fit the religious conclusion Aquinas had already accepted as incontrovertable by that time in his life.

As Christianity tries to take credit for the formulation of these United States, a crass attempt at revisionist history, its attempt to do so should become a part of the historical evidence, and ultimately the relationship between history and religion will allow us to look for religion in the one place it deserves to be found: in history.

[Drregaleagle]

Imaginary numbers certainly exist.. just not in the sense of quantity. Negative numbers are as existant as compelx numbers. You can't have negative 3 apples, and you can't have 3 + 4i apples. However, they can be applied as concepts. You can have negative money, in the sense that you owe. Concepts are not tangible objects, no, but they are the resultants of a process.

What would you call an apple made of anti-matter? Anti-matter has a positive mass but it does annihilate upon contact with it's analogous "normal" matter. The visualization of 3+4i apples in a spatio-temporal realm is very difficult for me. At times, I've thought it might be possible by representing it as a negative component of an apple, but I don't think that works anymore.

Mathematics is a process. Use of concepts that are useful in establishing relationships is not pragmatism - pragmatism is rejecting moral principles for the sake of convenience. There are no moral consequences for relying on mathematics or complex numbers.

I was referring to a philosophy of logic called "Pragmatism" and a related philosophy called "Pragmaticism".

But I'm not sure where exactly you are getting that religion plays a significant role in mathematics - yes, many mathematicians were religious people (And I'm not going to say they were Christians, because people such as Pascal have taken credit for what Chinese/Middle Eastern mathemaicians already discovered), but the connection is unclear. Perhaps I've missed your earlier explanations, but I may need to be refreshed. If you're only trying to illustrate that religious people aren't always adverse to reason, then I doubt anyone is arguing that. You can be a religious person and be reasonable, but you can't reconcile religion with pure reason. You can't claim to rely solely on reason if you integrate arbitrary data.

At best, religion can only be acknowledged as an inspiration.

I'm arguing that reasonable philosophy evolved from primitive, religious philosophies, just like Rand argued. However, I contend that the order is backwards. Objectivists tend to ignore Stoic philosophies role in evolving human reason. Peikoff's history basically goes like this:

Rome falls with Christianity-->Dark ages for 1000 years-->Thomas Aquinas brings back Aristotle-->yay Renaissance and Enlightenment-->USA-->Industrial Revolution in USA shows basic Objectivists like Cornelius Vanderbilt and Andrew Carnegie. In the classic Objectivist view, Aristotle just naturally leads to Enlightenment with nothing in between.

My history of Europe would go like this:

Rome falls because it's rulers were hedonistic jerks with no respect for the individual-->Dark ages for 1000 years-->as Dark Ages end, proto-markets develop and Aquinas produces influential logical tracts using Aristotle-->Renaissance produces artwork that emphasizes individual idealism like Michelangelo's David-->Art, being expensive and never contributing to long term production, forces artistic patrons like the Medici to tax everyone else to maintain their wealth-->Thomist Papacy degenerates into hedonism-->Occamist Martin Luther, infuriated by the degeneracy of the Papacy, modifies Christianity to emphasize the pursuit of moral perfect. Jean Calvin, to escape sodomy charges and ease his conscience, soon follows suit-->With rationality eventually being considered a part of moral virtue, thorough philosophical and scientific studies explode in Protestant countries-->A type of Deism and later Atheism takes hold where morality and productivity are sought, but irrational religious beliefs are neglected upon discovering their irrationality-->USA-->Industrial revolution by which time most industrialists are atheists-->By the 1920s, urban America is atheistic and American culture is born, yay!

An obvious criticism of my view(and Peikoff's) is that Judaism, which has Maimonides in place of Aquinas, isn't covered. This is a valid point, but I think the Jews positive role has more to do with their ethnic culture that emphasizes success to shield against persecution than their particular religious beliefs.

Edited November 21, 2010 by Drregaleagle

[Drregaleagle]

While I have read Human Understanding, I am not as familiar with Samuel Rutherford's contributions. As to Locke, while religious in many ways, I do not view him as an attempt on the religious establishment to be a 'driving force of civilization', rather someone who attended church, and attempted to understand how the human mind comes to grasp the world via the application of reason. Aquinas was an example of a rationalist who in the face of Aristotilian data, attempted to renconcile faith by getting Aristotle's views to fit the religious conclusion Aquinas had already accepted as incontrovertable by that time in his life.

Locke was not a Christian, but he was clearly influenced by the fundamentalist Christianity of Samuel Rutherford. That is the crucial point. Locke's family fought for Oliver Cromwell.

[dream_weaver]

Locke was not a Christian, but he was clearly influenced by the fundamentalist Christianity of Samuel Rutherford. That is the crucial point. Locke's family fought for Oliver Cromwell.

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Locke's family were Puritans. At Oxford, Locke avoided becoming an Anglican priest. Still, Locke's nineteenth century biographer Fox Bourne thought that Locke was an Anglican and Locke himself claimed to be an Anglican until he died.