Ben Stein Expelled

[Arakkis]

Originally Posted by Gryeyes

That spirituality is the glue that holds social animals together? Ya i understand what you are saying...its just stupid.

I guess if "validity" is determined by ones ability to spew an opinion then yes. Otherwise id have to say no. How does one go from "a concept of spirituality" to that concept being the integral factor that you have stated is REQUIRED for society to exist. Which seems really odd since creatures without spirituality let alone religion (as far as we can determine) have society.

NO U

Whether you want to admit it or not, religion was integral in the building of CIVILIZATION not SOCIETY. Do you see the distinction there?

civilization >>>>>> society

Originally Posted by Gryeyes

Translation please.

Even Xakk can agree on this point. I don't understand what your hang up is.

[voodoochile78]

Originally Posted by Arakkis

NO U

Whether you want to admit it or not, religion was integral in the building of CIVILIZATION not SOCIETY. Do you see the distinction there?

civilization >>>>>> society

One of the other creationists in this thread started this tangent by talking about society, not civilization.

But anyways, shortly after humans evolved into existence, we started believing in magical sky fairies and the like. We also built civilizations. I'd argue that's a case of correlation without causation, where you'd argue the opposite. I'd say that ancient man also all had beards, so I could say that civilization was caused by beards.

What it really comes down to is laws. Civilization is built on laws. Religions usually provide laws, and that's where people like you say that you can't have civilization without religion. I strongly disagree, as even other animals have "laws," in the form of behavioral taboos. Most of the "laws" you think are necessary for civilization (don't kill, steal, etc) can be found in the social taboos of other species.

[Bizanich]

Originally Posted by voodoochile78

What it really comes down to is laws. Civilization is built on laws. Religions usually provide laws, and that's where people like you say that you can't have civilization without religion. I strongly disagree, as even other animals have "laws," in the form of behavioral taboos. Most of the "laws" you think are necessary for civilization (don't kill, steal, etc) can be found in the social taboos of other species.

I'd actually agree with the religious fans on this one. Most religions provided a scary "or else" to try and mandate people into doing good things.

Imagine if it wasn't an invincible God or pantheon of Gods....

"Biz said to not kill or murder or else he'll punish us....when he goes to sleep tonight, we'll cut his throat."

Not the same kind of weight to it.

Of course, the smarter people saw religions true role in this, hence fun things like the Crusades or regime change, but eh....

[Xakk]

Originally Posted by Gryeyes

Translation please.

Religion was the foundation and the central force which drove a lot of early civilizations. It was the main focus of Mesopotamians and Egyptians inspiring laws, government, art, literature and science.

1) provided satisfactory explanations for the operations of the universe
2) helped ease fear of death
3) justified traditional rules of morality (law considered sacred--commands of god)
4) united people in common enterprises needed for survival
5) promoted creativity in art & literature
6) power of rulers derived from religion (regarded as gods or agents of gods)

In this instance religion is good. It gives peace of mind and stimulates creativity.

However the difference between the Mesopotamian religion and Egyptian religion is vast. Mesopotamians were in constant fear of their gods who they believed would get piss drunk and cause the rivers to overflow and kill everyone.

The Egyptians loved their gods since the Nile was very fertile and it could be predicted when it would flood. However both had leaders that used religion to gain power for themselves and dominate others. Is it religions fault? No. Man usually fucks everything up. Greed rules the world.

There was Scholasticism that tried to merge Aristole's works with the bible. There was a philosopher (I don't remember his name) who believed the way to find god was to be logical and use reason. The church has deemed many people who were truly trying to do good as heretical throughout the ages.

Other aspects are required for civilization as well:
1) division of labor (specialization)
2) monumental architecture
3) organized government and a complex religious structure (all civilizations had religion)
4) system of writing

Fear dominated early cultures which is why religion was the main focus. The Mesopotamians were at the whims of nature in regards to when and how devastating a flood would be.

[Zerai]

Past civilizations is probably one of the best arguments against the truth in religion. If there was a creator that had a hand in our development...wouldn't religion be relatively consistent? Compare the world religions now and throughout time and they are so vastly different that there is clearly no single thread in them. Monotheism vs Polytheism. Buddha vs Jesus. Killing is good vs killing is bad. Sacrifices to appease gods. Just all over the map. The most dominant religions are dominant not because of resounding beliefs, but because those cultures were the ones with the most military might and conquered the most. These days it's the ones with money/diplomatic skill.

[Bizanich]

Originally Posted by Zerai

The most dominant religions are dominant not because of resounding beliefs, but because those cultures were the ones with the most military might and conquered the most. These days it's the ones with money/diplomatic skill.

Don't forget it's also due to rules like the one this family obviously supports.

Mom pregnant with 18th child - Mother's Day Guide - MSNBC.com

Contraception is evil, mmkay.

[Jedah]

Originally Posted by Xakk

Religion was the foundation and the central force which drove a lot of early civilizations. It was the main focus of Mesopotamians and Egyptians inspiring laws, government, art, literature and science.

1) provided satisfactory explanations for the operations of the universe
2) helped ease fear of death
3) justified traditional rules of morality (law considered sacred--commands of god)
4) united people in common enterprises needed for survival
5) promoted creativity in art & literature
6) power of rulers derived from religion (regarded as gods or agents of gods)

In this instance religion is good. It gives peace of mind and stimulates creativity.

However the difference between the Mesopotamian religion and Egyptian religion is vast. Mesopotamians were in constant fear of their gods who they believed would get piss drunk and cause the rivers to overflow and kill everyone.

Fear dominated early cultures which is why religion was the main focus. The Mesopotamians were at the whims of nature in regards to when and how devastating a flood would be.

Several of your points seem to be contradictory, most prominently that religion was a means to ease existential tension, and yet: "Mesopotamians were in constant fear of their gods who they believed would get piss drunk and cause the rivers to overflow and kill everyone."

Also, how are supernatural explanations of natural phenomenon remotely satisfactory when they are both counterfactual and counterintuitive, given that nothing supernatural exists?

[Mimirswell]

Originally Posted by Jedah

Several of your points seem to be contradictory, most prominently that religion was a means to ease existential tension, and yet: "Mesopotamians were in constant fear of their gods who they believed would get piss drunk and cause the rivers to overflow and kill everyone."

They are not contradictory. Different religions filled different purposes in those individual societies.

Also, how are supernatural explanations of natural phenomenon remotely satisfactory when they are both counterfactual and counterintuitive, given that nothing supernatural exists?

Prior to means to conclusively prove otherwise, they were generally accepted explanations.

[Jedah]

Originally Posted by Mimirswell

They are not contradictory. Different religions filled different purposes in those individual societies.

Right, but the conventional wisdom that religion makes everyone feel better seems at odds with how capricious and careless the gods could apparently be with people's lives, at least according to Xakk's interpretation.

[Mimirswell]

Originally Posted by Jedah

Right, but the conventional wisdom that religion makes everyone feel better seems at odds with how capricious and careless the gods could apparently be with people's lives, at least according to Xakk's interpretation.

Some religions make individuals feel better about death, some do not. However, they do provide certainty to uncertainty and that is comforting even when the answers are not positive. For instance, a child is kidnapped. Five years later, the body is found yet despite the negative outcome, the family is relieved. They are not happy that she is dead but they are happy to "know".

[Xakk]

Originally Posted by Jedah

Right, but the conventional wisdom that religion makes everyone feel better seems at odds with how capricious and careless the gods could apparently be with people's lives, at least according to Xakk's interpretation.

It explained why it occurred and creates some order to the chaos. They believed that the rivers overflowed due to the Gods and would try to appease the Gods to prevent it.

[Jedah]

Originally Posted by Mimirswell

Some religions make individuals feel better about death, some do not. However, they do provide certainty to uncertainty and that is comforting even when the answers are not positive. For instance, a child is kidnapped. Five years later, the body is found yet despite the negative outcome, the family is relieved. They are not happy that she is dead but they are happy to "know".

That hardly seems like a socially cohesive worldview for a society to take; not that I think you're wrong: I agree to a certain extent, but when talking about religion as some sort of comfort blanket as posters in these threads are wont to, it seems less reasonable that a religious system that gave birth to the concept of Ragnarok, wherein everybody and everything dies at the end of time, could be used to artificially and consciously keep society in order or fulfill any of the other tasks mentioned.

[Jedah]

Originally Posted by Mimirswell

Prior to means to conclusively prove otherwise, they were generally accepted explanations.

But why? The supernatural doesn't exist; why was something that doesn't exist, that has no bearing on reality conceived of, and on a cultural level almost universally?

[Mimirswell]

Originally Posted by Jedah

That hardly seems like a socially cohesive worldview for a society to take; not that I think you're wrong: I agree to a certain extent, but when talking about religion as some sort of comfort blanket as posters in these threads are wont to, it seems less reasonable that a religious system that gave birth to the concept of Ragnarok, wherein everybody and everything dies at the end of time, could be used to artificially and consciously keep society in order or fulfill any of the other tasks mentioned.

Not everyone dies at the end of Ragnarök. Two humans, Líf and Lífthrasir, hide inside the forest of Mimir (my namesake: Mimir's well) and carry on civilization. Vidar and Váli (sons of Odin) and Magni and Modi (sons of Thor), survive the final battle. Baldr and his brother Höd will be resurrected and join the sons of Odin and Thor and dwell in a rebuilt Valhalla. The new generation of humans will then worship the new pantheon and at it's head will be Baldr, the heir of Odin. In fact, since all the ancient evils will be vanquished, this new era will be one of great prosperity and happiness.

[Jedah]

Originally Posted by Mimirswell

Not everyone dies at the end of Ragnarök. Two humans, Líf and Lífthrasir, hide inside the forest of Mimir (my namesake: Mimir's well) and carry on civilization. Vidar and Váli (sons of Odin) and Magni and Modi (sons of Thor), survive the final battle. Baldr and his brother Höd will be resurrected and join the sons of Odin and Thor and dwell in a rebuilt Valhalla. The new generation of humans will then worship the new pantheon and at it's head will be Baldr, the heir of Odin. In fact, since all the ancient evils will be vanquished, this new era will be one of great prosperity and happiness.

But the problem is twofold then if you're walking into the discussion presupposing that religion is a social control mechanism: the event has been predestined down to the very specific survivors and everyone else still dies.

I'll be forward about my point so we can avoid misunderstandings: the prevalent theory of religion as a social control mechanism seems reductionist and doesn't, in my view anyways, take account of just how varied different belief systems are. Though it still fulfills the basic death and rebirth myth, theres nothing approaching the promise of universal salvation we see with modern Christianity.