You should be able to hold yourself to beliefs you openly choose to impose on yourself, and help others who choose similarly without external coercion, but the moment choice is absent or removed, its legitimacy evaporates.
It can be an effective for social cohesion in juvenile societies, but has a use-by date that rivals raw milk.
Religion was necessary to get us to this point, so I don’t know how you can call it a destructive invention unless you’re arguing that civilization was a mistake. Its use-by date was in the thousands of years, it was very useful as a technology to organize society for a very long time. It has lost its usefulness, and become backwards compared to newer technologies, but it was a great idea.
Kind of, but religious law wasn’t just about the afterlife. People believed their gods would punish them in this life if they didn’t follow religious law, and that their gods would reward them in this life if they were obedient and followed all the right rules. It helped that the punishment of the gods would be literally carried out by soldiers or executioners. Religious law was also government law.
The skycake was a later development. In the early days, the law of the gods was the law of the land.
You got a source for that claim? Also by your logic slavery or monarchy got us where we are; just because something has historical relevance doesn’t make it good or acceptable in present or future society.
I’m not really sure what you want as a source. The only civilizations in human history that developed beyond the gens/clan/tribe had some kind of religious law, so there’s numerous field examples of this phenomenon. I supposed it could just be a coincidence that it happened over and over, and that there aren’t counterexamples? That actually seems like the more extraordinary claim.
This is all value neutral, by the way. I am not saying religion, or slavery, or feudalism, or capitalism are good. I’m only saying that they were stages of historical development that lead us to this point. If history could develop a different way, there’s no way to really test for it. Maybe we’ll find aliens some day that never went through a religious phase of historical development?
humans existed for hundreds of thousands of years before recorded history; I think your hypothesis really applies to the previous 4000 years, and not so much on the lack of counterexamples.
Yes, and it was the invention of religion in the previous 4000 years that allowed humans really take off as a planetary species. That only reinforces my point - hundreds of thousands of years as hunter gatherers with very little change, then only a few thousand years later and we’ve basically conquered the world. Religion doesn’t have to be real to be a useful tool for organizing civilization.
It’s all made up, but it was a useful fiction when we were still in the nascent stages of historical development.
I consider religion to be the most destructive human invention because most of the destructive actions performed by humans are inspired, influenced, or justified by it.
Destruction isn’t inherently a bad thing in moderation, but no one can legitimately claim religion has a track record of moderation.
I think fire has religion beat. People stopped burning witches, but they still burn people for entirely secular reasons.
Also, you know, forging blades, firing guns, running combustion engines, etc. Fire enabled war on a scale religion could never match, and as religion wanes fire remains supreme.
The technology to create fire is absolutely an invention. Let me guess, you don’t think electricity, nuclear fission, or antibiotics are inventions either? They exist in nature, after all, so they’re merely discoveries. 🙄
Religion is the most destructive human invention.
You should be able to hold yourself to beliefs you openly choose to impose on yourself, and help others who choose similarly without external coercion, but the moment choice is absent or removed, its legitimacy evaporates.
It can be an effective for social cohesion in juvenile societies, but has a use-by date that rivals raw milk.
Religion was necessary to get us to this point, so I don’t know how you can call it a destructive invention unless you’re arguing that civilization was a mistake. Its use-by date was in the thousands of years, it was very useful as a technology to organize society for a very long time. It has lost its usefulness, and become backwards compared to newer technologies, but it was a great idea.
this is the skycake theory right?
because otherwise I’m dubious
Kind of, but religious law wasn’t just about the afterlife. People believed their gods would punish them in this life if they didn’t follow religious law, and that their gods would reward them in this life if they were obedient and followed all the right rules. It helped that the punishment of the gods would be literally carried out by soldiers or executioners. Religious law was also government law.
The skycake was a later development. In the early days, the law of the gods was the law of the land.
so we got religion, therefore civilization?
I don’t buy it.
I think we got civilization despite religion. Religion has been fighting progress all along.
Religion was how we organized civilization beyond blood relations. Religious law was the first law.
You got a source for that claim? Also by your logic slavery or monarchy got us where we are; just because something has historical relevance doesn’t make it good or acceptable in present or future society.
I’m not really sure what you want as a source. The only civilizations in human history that developed beyond the gens/clan/tribe had some kind of religious law, so there’s numerous field examples of this phenomenon. I supposed it could just be a coincidence that it happened over and over, and that there aren’t counterexamples? That actually seems like the more extraordinary claim.
This is all value neutral, by the way. I am not saying religion, or slavery, or feudalism, or capitalism are good. I’m only saying that they were stages of historical development that lead us to this point. If history could develop a different way, there’s no way to really test for it. Maybe we’ll find aliens some day that never went through a religious phase of historical development?
humans existed for hundreds of thousands of years before recorded history; I think your hypothesis really applies to the previous 4000 years, and not so much on the lack of counterexamples.
it’s all skycake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55h1FO8V_3w
Yes, and it was the invention of religion in the previous 4000 years that allowed humans really take off as a planetary species. That only reinforces my point - hundreds of thousands of years as hunter gatherers with very little change, then only a few thousand years later and we’ve basically conquered the world. Religion doesn’t have to be real to be a useful tool for organizing civilization.
It’s all made up, but it was a useful fiction when we were still in the nascent stages of historical development.
you’re welcome to your beliefs but we don’t have examples of civilizations that failed because they lacked organized religion. so I’m dubious.
Just because it was the first laws/human organization, doesn’t mean it has a place in today’s society.
I consider religion to be the most destructive human invention because most of the destructive actions performed by humans are inspired, influenced, or justified by it.
Destruction isn’t inherently a bad thing in moderation, but no one can legitimately claim religion has a track record of moderation.
I think fire has religion beat. People stopped burning witches, but they still burn people for entirely secular reasons.
Also, you know, forging blades, firing guns, running combustion engines, etc. Fire enabled war on a scale religion could never match, and as religion wanes fire remains supreme.
What a thoroughly fascinating non sequitur.
Fire was a discovery, not an invention.
The technology to create fire is absolutely an invention. Let me guess, you don’t think electricity, nuclear fission, or antibiotics are inventions either? They exist in nature, after all, so they’re merely discoveries. 🙄
So flint is an invention. Or rubbing sticks together.
Cultivation of fire and intentional use of fire are certainly technologies.