When you say "religion likely added nothing new," do you just mean Christianity (or maybe more accurately early Judaism)? I'm guessing so given the reference to prior religions. It just struck me as odd.

Anthropologically, I think one of the problems with modern science vs. religion debates is that we draw these separations that are very culturally grounded. Between religion and science, religion and philosophy, even religion and politics. That can be fine and useful, but I'm also sometimes suspicious of claims about "religion" doing X or not doing Y, because I'm not sure there is any real clean division between "religion" and any other major feature of human culture. As an example, are the 10 commandments strictly religious? I think the entirety of Hebrew religion as described in the Bible is grounded in socio-political conditions, hence all the markers of ethnic identity and ongoing warfare with other ethnic groups in the region.

One of the more interesting books I've read on the New Testament goes into detail about the political connotations of the "good news" of Christ -- the term was already in wide use in political propaganda of the Roman empire.

That's all venturing well astray of your point, of course, especially if you did just mean Christianity.

We'll get there. I'll need to do some studying.
I'm glad we can have this discussion here though. All the other times I tried to have it the threads got locked for no fault of my own.

I believe Cuepee's argument is that religion "plagiarised" them from prior philosophical works, not vice versa. So, the germane question if you're making the argument that religion is a fundamental part of human nature would be "are the 10 commandments strictly secular?" IMO.

Never been in a car accident, seen plenty in my rear view mirror, though.

Where I began that post was in pointing out that "religion plagiarized from prior philosophical works" is a weird statement, as it were. "The Hebrews plagiarized from prior religious and philosophical works" makes more sense, I think. Do you see what I mean?

I definitely don't disagree about the "plagiarism," although I think it's just normal cultural diffusion and would prefer a neutral term most of the time.

The rest was just musing on the difficulty in conceptualizing religion in a general way.

Does religion not just describe some aspects of human nature, and play on others?

I haven't really been following the discussion following the period where it seemed implied that because we don't know the meaning of life science = a religion.

Yeah - sorry, your into didn't fully click - FYI, you might have missed Cuepee's original convo with lagtight on the matter, but he referred to the Bible being a work of plagiarism specifically, not "religion". I think he probably just overgeneralised or misspoke in the post to which you replied.

I agree with this characterisation.

I think are views are not really that divergent.

Expanding on what I meant I guess I would say 'religion really offered nothing unique'. Religion is one voice of many that simply interpreted or communicated what were common themes, understandings and beliefs that formed in societies whether there was religion or not.

There are basically some innate tendencies 'man' and 'societies' will tend towards naturally for their own good, and that philosophers (whether religious or other) would codify or extrapolate on for the 'greater good' or as a 'set of truths'. It does not 'require' religion nor did religion bring anything uniquely valuable to these concepts. They did contribute to recording them though and disseminating them.

Kind of. Yes.

Back and forth plagiarism in many aspects but also just 'writing out common sense concepts' that had not been written down in many areas prior, but that does not mean they are unique or enlightened thoughts.

And yes.


This cuts the closest to what I was thinking.

Take a concept like 'Thou shall not kill" and extend it out to its broadest interpretations.

Is that new and profound wisdom?

NO. I would suggest that concept was understood long before man even developed written language or speech.

But wait, one might say. early tribes warred with one another and killed often.

Yes but they had generally had peace within their tribes and greater community and had cost for killing within them.

The concept is actually a very libertarian one of 'the best way for me to not get violence visited upon myself (which I consider a negative) is to not visit it upon you', and us agreeing to that.'

As you move from your family unit, to your greater tribe, to your city and country and in each case you want to extend that 'protection' out it is because YOU want that protection.

Generally speaking many people cannot see the value of such compromises when they feel like they are more powerful and will NOT be the recipient of such aggression and when they solely benefit from it, but philosophers consider it more broadly. Understanding that power shifts and therefore it is better for all if we agree to this concept "though shall not kill' regardless.

A religious or other philosopher may one day write down the concept and explain its need to the masses but its not like such social contracts do not arise naturally without them.

No "like" button here, so just +1 to all this. Great post again.

Is there a single person here who thinks that if instead of US/European Whites being the dominant people on the planet at the period of time that slavery originated in the US, if instead there were dominant African nations who sailed and set foot on American shores and introduced themselves as they checked out the strengths and vulnerabilities of this emerging new people, ...that the US citizens would have really quickly found the morality to argue why slavery was wrong? Why any person forcibly taking another and owning them would be wrong?

That morality existed and was there, even if people in POWER at the moment and who stand to benefit greatly by denying it, rationalize it away.

Yep agreed, and is why there is a distinction between instincts, emotions, and morals. Religion tries to claim that they are responsible for all three, which is just ****ing stupid. But here we are.

i'm all for bashing religion but to claim that it never added anything of value is just stupidity lol

religion was the easiest way to control the general populace and there have been many great empires backed by religion

If you could go back in time with the knowledge you currently have, what would be the easiest way to upscale humanity?

Tell them that eating pigs is dangerous and can kill you? or just tell them that they would go to hell if they did it?

What value did that add, IYO?

"All truth is God's truth."

Actually, this is probably the best example of why science is nothing like religion. A completely unfalsifiable statement asserted as truth.

Religion is a tool and as a tool it is only as valuable as the people who wield it and for what purposes.

The main purpose of religions and their rising were to give a counter power structure to the power of Kings and Birth Right.

For much of time if not born to the right blood lines you could only accumulate so much power and go so far. Many smart people did not like that especially when the people in power, with undying loyalty were literal idiots and terrible people but ...Dat Birth Right D'oh.

Religion allowed for a competing structure with powers of taxation, that could also allow for private armies. Sometimes that taxing (donations) was voluntary and other times not (obligatory tithing).

Does religion sometimes, and often seek to uplift its supporters? To help them make good decisions for all? Of course. That is good for the community, produces general wealth and the religion is rewarded as a result with more tax revenue.

So I am not saying religion does not provide anything. It does. Any organized efforts can and do. It provides the collective wisdom that were often there regardless. And yes, sincerely it can benefit society but just don't assume they have exclusive providence to bringing those benefits or to them forming within society.

agreed.

Why is there a need to have a god anyway , thats what I don’t understand .
And why not 2 gods that create the universe .....
I mean the track record of religion is so bad on almost anything it said it supposed to know scientifically I just don’t see how today a lot of people still believe in that ...

Long time ago , they believed killing someone help bring the rain for harvesting.
Then the solar eclipse was a sign of the god .
Etcétéra...

The only move religion had right was to backpedal as science progress ...

I mean really , throughout history , there is hundreds of gods that been born and died to be replace by others and today of course we have the right true one !

I mean the god that religion talk about is the least probable of all .

Statistically A lot more chance jesus was an alien ( this explaining the miracles through technology) instead of being the son of god ...

Seem the saying of : the bigger the lie the more people will believe it .

basically everything we have now?

civilisation in general wouldn't exist

So is your position that we wouldn't have civilisation without religion? Why do you think that? I can't see a reason why humanity couldn't have accomplished what it has without a belief in a preternatural deity.

So is the idea in QFT that there is no collapse of the wave-function, and that what we consider particles are simply states with higher levels of energy?
And if so, how does that work to adequately explain the phenomena seen in double slit type experiments where a detector is added?

The need to have answers to any and all questions is one of the most base and instinctual needs man has had. Particularly early man.

Why do these hurricanes come and kill us? Why do these volcanoes erupt and kill us?

No answer is far more scary than an answer. No answer means a randomness we cannot predict and thus can never feel secure.


Science sees the smartest of us seeks those answers in truth, testing and theory.

Religions sees often the dumbest amongst or, or probably more fairly (at the top) the most manipulative amongst us, seek to fill that void with answers that can be used to manipulate the masses, who are often the least informed (sorry but true).


That hurricane, that plague, that volcano, is God's wrath as you. You need to submit yourself to the church, give the church money and power and we can help protect you. That is until those things happen again which is just more proof that you did not listen, were wicked and need to do more penance and give us, the Church, more money.

Manipulating peoples fears is one of the oldest and easiest ways to grab power (see Trump now) and the Churches have always been masters of it. To their great enrichment.

Churches referring to their congregations as their Flock was not a mistake. They did see them as Sheep, needing to be lead. Give them a shiny bobble to focus on and the flock will follow. And they will voluntarily sheer themselves, handing over their fleece.

Lagtight seems rather conspicuous by his absence considering this is his thread.