Religion - A builder or destroyer? (page 2)

hippikon

historical edifices

So What – What usefull purpose do they serve – How many people died building those blody things

Larc, I agree that most wars of the so-call "first world" powers are driven by economics. I also suspect that the economics of generosity could have a great deal of influence on other wars that have been mentioned.

Simon and Francois - I don't dispute the role that religion has played in wars in the past few centuries. When I say that religion gave a "jump start" motivation to science, technology and culture, I'm referring WAY back, to the very beginnings of what we refer to as "civilization" when and where they began in the "Fertile Cresent" from Egypt and Mesopotamia in the region of ancient Babylonia. These were the very beginnings, the root of modern civilization, particularly of the western world. Again, example would be the ziggurats and pyramids that tell us so much about those early civilizations. Was it not religion that motivated such awsome and mysterious constructions, without which we might know little or nothing about those early civilizations?

Hipikon: The towering structures that embodied extraordinary efforts to build and the artistry incorporated is how we learn much of what we know about the former cultures and know how scientifically advanced they were. How they achieved constructing some of these magnificant structures is baffling to modern scientists and archaeologists. We know from these that they had an advanced system for mathematics and other sciences, as well as writing and art. We are still learning from them. I tend to think these achievements were motivated by religious conviction, rather than political. And in the course, science and technology developed and has eventually come to dominate.

philo

It is not religion that has developed highly destructive weapons for war

That's literally true, but not the whole story. Colonial missionary zeal was borne of Christinity and was more deadly to cultures like those of various pacific islands, and 'native americans' cultures than the atomic bombs were to the Japanese. Check Alan Moorehead's Fatal Impact.

philo

Zero

But Philo, Christianity came long long long after the beginning of science, technology and culture. Why are people having a problem understanding that my reference is to the roots of civilization, not long into its development? Think ancient Mesopotamia - "the cradle of civilization", etc.

philo

Zero,

I wanted to get you a link to d'holbach's Priests, an article in The Encyclopedie compiled by Diderot, but I needed to pay for the privilege, so I will quote from it instead.

You choose to put Christianity to one side, fine. This puts you far enough back to the times of religious inspired human sacrifice.

[Priests] made men tremble for fear of the punishments with which the angry gods menaced rash people who would dare their mission or discuss their doctrine. To establish their empire more securely they painted the gods as cruel, vindictive, and implacable…Then human blood flowed with great torrents on the altars; the people, subjugated by fear and intoxicated with superstition, believed they could never pay too dearly for celestial benevolence. Mothers delivered with dry eyes their tender children to the devouring flames. People submitted to a multitude of frivolous and revolting practices that were, however, useful to the priests, and the most absurd of superstitions extended and consolidated their [the priests] power.

D'holbach didn't need to personalize it so much, he could have replaced 'the priests' with 'priesthood' or even 'religion', but I think he makes a good point. And what he describes is to be found in mesopotamia, egypt, america, everywhere in the ancient world.

Did these religions tend to serve the causes of humanity? Hardly. What about the cause of science or human knowledge per se? After all, the priests were educated, and the educated were virtually all priests. D'holbach continues

Free from cares, and assured of their empire, these priests, with a view to charming away the boredom of their solitude, studied the secrets of nature, mysteries unknown to the average man; hence the highly praised knowledge of Egyptian priests…medicine has been practiced by the same men. The priest's usefulness to the people was bound to consolidate their power…The study of physics: furnished the means to strike the imagination with dazzling works. People considered them supernatural because they were ignorant of the causes…Astonished human beings believed that their sacrificial priests controlled the elements…and commanded favours from heaven.

I think he goes too far in what he says, but I agree in so far as saying religion has broadly locked up scholarship and all new knowledge for its own reasons. It still would if it had any, that came to an end in the 18th Century, imo, hence my use of D'holbach.

Philo

"It is an absurdity to believe that the Deity has human passions, and one of the lowest of human passions, a restless appetite for applause." [David Hume]

larc

Zero,

It seems to me that religion and science began at the same time to address the same questions asked by the earliest of mankind. Simple questions of where, why, what, and when, about themselves and the world around them. In the beginnig, most if not all the questions about the unknown posited a God that did it. For example, where does lightning come from. A God above the clouds does it. As science advanced, more and more was explained by a better understanding of the natural world as learned from scientific inquiry. As a result, less and less was left over to be explained by religion and/or faith.

Zero

Hi, Larc:
Of course there's no way of knowing for sure whether the chicken or the egg came first. But its my impression that the first things that we might consider technologies and early sciences involved creating huge structures (temples) which required design and organization of great numbers of workers. This drive to please the gods is what motivated people in groups and numbers to pool their creative powers to accomplish great feats. Most things of great achievement, as it appears in civilization beginnings, were great monuments and structures that related to worship. I may be wrong, but that's the general impression I get. You might be very right that science and religion developed symoltaneously, but I tend to think religion preceded technology. jmo.

philo

Your impression that pooling of creative effort happened through religious activity rather than suppression of same, what do you base this on.

philo

"Opinions not based on facts pass the time nicely, but make little impression" [philo]

Zero

Like I've already stated:
The huge structures that have survived to our time were thought to be for relious purposes (ziggurats, pyramids). What else can I say?

Religion - A builder or destroyer?

Share this