by smiddy 29 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
There are many religions with out god or gods.
To be honest alot of them had greater sceintific progress.
Other nations with god/gods that distanced themselves from them accepting a more pantheistic society brewed great avancement.\\
Plato etc distanced himself from the gods.
I would highly recomend the movie Agora for those that want to see conflict between science and religion.
I think about the same; religion and belief have positive effects for some people.
If there was never a concept of God or a creator, it would also have to follow that the human propensity for looking for answers as to why things are the way they are would also not be as it is. Science might not have come into being.
The simple insight that things are the way they are for a reason/cause inevitably gave rise to the idea of a creator. Of course the question arises of why didn’t ancient humanity go for the other possible idea of a cause without a reason? When I say reason, I mean non sentient reason, or to use another word, purpose! Sentient beings have purpose, whereas causes constitute reason without a sentient component to them.
Ancient man could have reasoned that things happen because something happened before those, and then something before that in an infinite backwards chain of cause and effect. Why didn’t this essential modern materialistic view become the dominant view back then, as opposed to a `purpose reason` from some kind of sentient being?
This is probably to do with the nature of sentient beings in the first place! When our species made the incremental move from being simply aware of our surroundings, within the programing of instinctive interactions, toward an objective and questioning awareness, then the birth of `self` came about. With this realisation came not just the idea of death but also that of purpose. On a high level of objectivity, the need for understood and objectified purpose came about. Thus purpose and objectivity went hand in hand with each other. In such a matrix of meaning, it was not a leap to suppose that purposes from man had much in common with all things objectified in the human mind. All things that man was starting to objectify included causal reason for why thing work the way they do. At this primitive stage it was not called science, for it was far from being formalised with mathematical precision with that degree of objectivity such as mathematics has. However causes, reason, purpose and objectivity were seen as all connected and as such the idea of a God was born from this fire because reason from a person is called purpose. Reason without reference to a person is called reason without purpose. The best purpose in whatever tribe existed in ancient times undoubtedly gave a survival advantage to that tribe. It gave meaning and a reason to go on, along with a justified reason to learn about how the world worked because doing do was seen to have a purpose not in its own right but in the mind of the God they attributed it to. On top of this it gave a social reason to survive and prosper against other tribes with inferior objectivity, as typified in the beliefs in god systems. This is why science and religion came about together, in evolutionary terms.
The issue of if God really does exist is not the issue here and not relevant to how the idea came about in first place in my view. There is still ample room to see both views as valid even in this stage of human development. However objective thinking’s and concepts about why things are the way they are have as much to do with the philosophical concept of a God as it does to science.
Take one away and the other may never have been born.
Science might not have come into being
Religion is the precise opposite of science. The only answer religion requires of any mystery is "god did it".
It is in the Enlightenment that rational minds dared to challenge the intellectual laziness of faith.
Its isn’t really the precise opposite because both use reason, just different forms of reason. If I decide to start a project, or build something, or get people together for a common cause as with an organisation, then I have reasons for doing so. Such reasons are not related to cause and effect but purposes. These are both reason but different types. A more nuanced view of history shows that the classic showdown between ignorant believers and atheistic materialists is not very accurate a view. Plus the modern enlightenment has nothing to do with ancient time of the human past. The idea of a creator in many instances caused people to believe that laws of nature must exist because they were made by some intellect. So many such people went out in the world to see what they could learn about such laws. On top of this they thought that such laws gave insight into the meaning of life and it provided purpose to their lives. The real historical picture of science and religion is far more complex and interwoven than the modern comic book of popular history. Most professional historians will see it as interwoven, not polarised.
both use reason
Religion is the enemy of reason. It depends on evidence-free dogma, assumed authority, appeals to tradition and threats.
Do I have a reason for being religious?
Yes. Your tendency to be superstitious is greater than your commitment to reason and evidence.
You are at the lower end of the rational bell-curve.
Ok then lol. In that case I’ll let you have the last word as I have nothing to contribute, obviously!
It's not an insult Serpahim don't be huffy.
Religion isn't rational. Celebrate it but don't deny it.
