Societal Evolution: With or without religion?

[chessguy]

My friend and I have been arguing over this topic for the last couple of weeks. The question is, if religion had never existed, would society have been able to evolve to where it is today? For the purposes of this argument, I'm classifying religion as the organization of some set of myths as a social institution.

He insists that religion has only retarded societal progress, while I disagree. I have argued that although today the world may be better off without religion, religion was necessary for society to develop to where it is today.

My main point is that evolution in society (referring here to not the strict cross-generational biological evolution, but to just the idea of something changing with respect to time) occurs along slow inclines, small steps, and it doesn't happen in cliffs and large steps. It seems to me that across the development of human society, there has been an evolution of the mean level of curiosity of the day, i.e. at some point we went from wondering what is behind that tree because we were concerned about threats to our immediate survival to wondering what is behind that tree simply because we would find it rewarding to know. Religion seems to me to be the first organization of a system for explaining things which humans are curious about in order to accomplish goals other than immediate survival. We want to understand why the sun operates the way it does, so we call it a God and muse on His daily schedule, and then preach that to our children.

The question I usually put to my friend is, explain to me how you go from a survival-concerned ape to a creature with an understanding of the scientific method without religion as a middle step? What could be an alternative middle step?

Let me know what you think about the topic. We have been searching for clarity on this argument for a while.

[Angry Citizen]

The question I usually put to my friend is, explain to me how you go from a survival-concerned ape to a creature with an understanding of the scientific method without religion as a middle step? What could be an alternative middle step?

Simple. Just cut out the middle step. We know for a fact that man discarded the God myth long before Mankind as a whole. We see it in the predictions of Thales - and it can be reasoned that he was not the first.

[chessguy]

Yes. But society began long before the time of Thales. Organized religion has been around since before the first settled human societies.

And isn't Thales a grotesque outlier? How much responsibility can one early secular philosopher claim for the development of modern, scientific, secular society?

[Angry Citizen]

Yes. But society began long before the time of Thales. Organized religion has been around since before the first settled human societies.

And isn't Thales a grotesque outlier? How much responsibility can one early secular philosopher claim for the development of modern, scientific, secular society?

My point is that it's possible for a society to exist on secular curiosity. Naturally I can't point to any society that was purely secular for the entire span of human history, but this is all academic, is it not?

[chessguy]

Well I agree wholeheartedly that it's possible for a society to exist on secular curiosity. But the question is whether a secular and curious society could have existed if religion had never existed. In the time of Thales, religion had already come into existence long before so pointing out the doubting Greek philosophers is as moot a point as pointing out the secular scientists of today. Both cases speak equally little to the potential of curiosity without religious foundation.

[Void Serpent]

Yes. But society began long before the time of Thales. Organized religion has been around since before the first settled human societies.

And isn't Thales a grotesque outlier? How much responsibility can one early secular philosopher claim for the development of modern, scientific, secular society?

Although the people of Hammurabi's time had gods and myths their societal structure was not built on it the way you imply society built on myths as a whole. the Babylonian gods were mere observers with no care for mortal men, like two co existing nations. yet they built a lawful society. Greeks can even claim a small adherence to this with their mythological beliefs if you read Plato's Euthyphro it appear more that myth was the product of civilization, science, yearning and thought. Socrates never claims the myths to be cohesive in there appliance to the world but more like a reflection to man's own intelligence. God hate who you hate, so instead of religion evolving society, societies changes evolved religion.

[Angry Citizen]

Well I agree wholeheartedly that it's possible for a society to exist on secular curiosity. But the question is whether a secular and curious society could have existed if religion had never existed. In the time of Thales, religion had already come into existence long before so pointing out the doubting Greek philosophers is as moot a point as pointing out the secular scientists of today. Both cases speak equally little to the potential of curiosity without religious foundation.

We have no idea when religion came to be. Indeed, we have no idea if religion can be observed in lower animals as well. Thus, it is difficult to know whether it's possible for a species to be completely irreligious or not.

[Jack]

Religion seems to me to be the first organization of a system for explaining things which humans are curious about in order to accomplish goals other than immediate survival.

Understanding doesn't necessarily assure survival. For example: I know people die when they venture too close to the edge of the volcano. I've seen them die. I can safely assume that getting too close to the volcano is deadly without any understanding of the mechanics of either volcanoes or death. Understanding or ascribing reasons for events is not something you do in the heat of the moment, it's more a reflective activity. It's something you might do looking back at an event in an effort to make sense of it. Philosophy isn't vital to our lives but it does enrich them.

I say the primary benefit religion has provided to the evolution of human societies and culture is financial. Scientists and artists both benefitted from the patronage of the church and church leaders. I'm not saying the church's motives were pure in making sure the best scientists and artists were on its payroll, and I'm not saying the church didn't play a role as the censor of many blasphemous theories and works of art. It certainly could have done a better job of supporting science and the arts had the church no agenda, but even as imperfect as its patronage system was it did manage to allow ideas to survive that might not have otherwise.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

Well I agree wholeheartedly that it's possible for a society to exist on secular curiosity. But the question is whether a secular and curious society could have existed if religion had never existed. In the time of Thales, religion had already come into existence long before so pointing out the doubting Greek philosophers is as moot a point as pointing out the secular scientists of today. Both cases speak equally little to the potential of curiosity without religious foundation.

Honestly, I think that man's innate curiosity of the world around us could drive us just as religious curiosity has in our history.

Perhaps if our focus would have been on secular subject rather than religious ones, that our tools would have developed faster than they did. and while religion has driven discovery in the past, it has done more to stifle progress than progress it.

[chessguy]

yes but the question im asking is not whether secular society progresses faster and better than religious society, im asking, could the scientific method, and the institutions of education, and secular justice systems and secular government, and all of the facets of organized curiosity that make us atheists all fuzzy on the inside have come about from our survival-based curiosity without our misinformed curiosity in between?

religion has many things in common with science, it makes claims about the world around us, attempts to create a coherent viewpoint which explains natural phenomena, and uses evidence to support these claims. Now, in the case of religion, it isn't good evidence, but evidence nonetheless, like praying to the rain god three times, and receiving rain the next day. Don't take this as me advocating the massive numbers of logical fallacies which are inextricably linked to such reasoning, but I don't think any of us are expecting medieval people to differentiate between a strong sample size and a weak one, and for them it was evidence, just as for us today, the data we observe and examine in controlled studies is evidence.

in these ways I see religion and science as being so similar and so linked, that it becomes hard to see religion as anything other than the primitive precursor to science.

Humans asked questions.
First they answered them hastily, and supported their hasty answers.
Then they questioned their answers, and began to question the questioning of their answers, and
Then they realized how to differentiate between good answers and bad answers, and how to find the good ones.

Now, all of this, to me, seems like a totally logical progression. i dont understand how removing whats in underline is logical at all.

[Medensis]

As far as I'm aware, in historical societies like the Mayan, Incan, or Egyptian, divine right or theocracy allowed the state to collect taxes and labor. To defy divine political heads was to defy the gods and render yourself meaningless. I dont think that back in this time that there was any scientific suppression, I'm certain there was quite a few issues with the treatment of people and their rights, which of course has echoed through time.

We can start to see religious development with cro-magnon in prehistory by the discovery of elaborate burial methods and placements. Religion or at least spirituality came much much before the time of civilization.

All in all, I think religion would have had to of come first. Student first, teacher second. Wonder before resolution.

So, to answer the topic, religion wasn't necessary, it was natural. Though, I think we would have been better off without it.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

yes but the question im asking is not whether secular society progresses faster and better than religious society, im asking, could the scientific method, and the institutions of education, and secular justice systems and secular government, and all of the facets of organized curiosity that make us atheists all fuzzy on the inside have come about from our survival-based curiosity without our misinformed curiosity in between?

religion has many things in common with science, it makes claims about the world around us, attempts to create a coherent viewpoint which explains natural phenomena, and uses evidence to support these claims. Now, in the case of religion, it isn't good evidence, but evidence nonetheless, like praying to the rain god three times, and receiving rain the next day. Don't take this as me advocating the massive numbers of logical fallacies which are inextricably linked to such reasoning, but I don't think any of us are expecting medieval people to differentiate between a strong sample size and a weak one, and for them it was evidence, just as for us today, the data we observe and examine in controlled studies is evidence.

in these ways I see religion and science as being so similar and so linked, that it becomes hard to see religion as anything other than the primitive precursor to science.

Humans asked questions.
First they answered them hastily, and supported their hasty answers.
Then they questioned their answers, and began to question the questioning of their answers, and
Then they realized how to differentiate between good answers and bad answers, and how to find the good ones.

Now, all of this, to me, seems like a totally logical progression. i dont understand how removing whats in underline is logical at all.

I was answering yes, and giving a mechanism on how it could have actually been sustaned.

and what is underlined is the basis for the scientific method, essentially. learning how to ask effective and revealing questions and how to get to good answers.

And I disagree that religion and science are linked, and its a fundamental difference that makes me say that. The emphasis on objective evidence that science has, that religion refuses. its a basic standard that is entirely different between the two.

for most religious people, a vague feeling that they can interpret as their god is enough evidence for them, but when asked to produce objective evidence that can actually be used to potentially convince ANYONE, they balk and claim its personal experience.

Its the difference between trusting ones own perception as infallable versus not. science is repeatable, and the results potentially examinable by anyone. the same cannot be said of religion