Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
True enough today, but you leave out an important point . Much of the issue with those folks today, like creationists or Trump supporters , IS religion . Per the OP this influence has been eliminated , so we cant fall back on " look at all the stupid religious people alive today who don't get it ".
If a Stone Age tribe can manage to deal with nature without developing gods to explain things , or a medieval Asian culture , then most any society with a better understanding of science than a Stone Age culture would be even better equipped .
So we are back to the OP . IF religion is unknown, would it develop in a day in which anyone wondering why volcanos erupted or earthquakes happened or floods came would have those answers available through science , with no need to assign these actions to angry gods trying to communicate with humans ? Pat Robertson does, but he does so BECAUSE religion already exists .
Exactly where I was expecting you to go next - which is the chicken, and which is the egg? Are people who are both ignorant and religious religious because they're ignorant, or are they ignorant because they're religious? Obviously that's somewhat of an oversimplification of what appears to be your position, but for the sake of discussion I think it makes a reasonable summary.
And the answer to the "chicken or egg" question is, I don't think either of us can know for sure. I think it's very safe to say that it's a little of both - that some people cling to illogical religions simply because they're not bright enough to relate to any other worldview, and some people are willfully ignorant of basic science because their religion instructs them to be. Which is the more prevalent factor is just going to have to come down to opinion. Your opinion appears to be that very few people who believe in a god (or gods) would have come up with that belief set on their own, that if it hadn't already been written down for them they never would made it up by themselves. And I think you're right about that one.
Now, would a theistic religion ever become prevalent if it were starting from scratch in a highly advanced civilization? I suspect it would not. But with ~7.5 billion people on the planet, I think it's highly likely that a fairly sizable number - not percentage, but overall number - would come up with the idea, and that a number of them would come together with likeminded people to form a religion. But I seriously doubt it would ever grow to the degree we see in our world today.
It is happening NOW because religion is NOW currently known and a cultural phenomena.
My OP addresses the issue on the basis that no such thing exists , which your responses fail to address . What happens now, in a time in which religion is highly prevalent , has no connection to what would happen if the concept were unknown in a time in which scientific knowledge were at present levels to explain things , and so would have to be invented in modern times with modern scientific knowledge .
Thus, you aren't addressing the actual premise of the OP.
Somebody would invent a Religion...if for no other reason than as a "product" to sell.
And people would buy it...like they always have.
Heck...I would invent it and sell it!
CHA-CHING!!
Somebody would invent a Religion...if for no other reason than as a "product" to sell.
And people would buy it...like they always have.
Heck...I would invent it and sell it!
CHA-CHING!!
But the question is, given current scientific knowledge that explains the natural phenomena original religion was based upon trying to explain, on what basis would people grasp or care or believe in the concept of invisible supernatural beings who influence human life and demand certain things from humans ?
Exactly where I was expecting you to go next - which is the chicken, and which is the egg? Are people who are both ignorant and religious religious because they're ignorant, or are they ignorant because they're religious? Obviously that's somewhat of an oversimplification of what appears to be your position, but for the sake of discussion I think it makes a reasonable summary.
And the answer to the "chicken or egg" question is, I don't think either of us can know for sure. I think it's very safe to say that it's a little of both - that some people cling to illogical religions simply because they're not bright enough to relate to any other worldview, and some people are willfully ignorant of basic science because their religion instructs them to be. Which is the more prevalent factor is just going to have to come down to opinion. Your opinion appears to be that very few people who believe in a god (or gods) would have come up with that belief set on their own, that if it hadn't already been written down for them they never would made it up by themselves. And I think you're right about that one.
Now, would a theistic religion ever become prevalent if it were starting from scratch in a highly advanced civilization? I suspect it would not. But with ~7.5 billion people on the planet, I think it's highly likely that a fairly sizable number - not percentage, but overall number - would come up with the idea, and that a number of them would come together with likeminded people to form a religion. But I seriously doubt it would ever grow to the degree we see in our world today.
I went there precisely because it was necessary to go there , as your argument was based on the mindset and reactions of people today who have pre existing religions to influence them and affect their understanding .
We obviously cannot know for sure as the situation can never actually exist , but my point is an exploration on what people think such a religion would be based upon given that we don't need to assign natural phenomena to invisible gods anymore . That science would return is obvious and has not been questioned . But on what would a completely new and original belief in invisible supernatural beings be based upon in a modern scientific society ?
Last edited by wallflash; 06-26-2016 at 01:02 PM..
my point is really more of an exploration on what people think such a religion would be based upon given that we don't need to assign natural phenomena to invisible gods anymore.
There is still very much that we don't know about in spite of scientific progress. Everything we know about outside of our solar system only comes from earth-based observations and studies.
So, if someone wanted to, they could easily start a religion that teaches the existence of spirit beings inhabiting other planets just like some cultures believed in gods inhabiting mountains.
But the question is, given current scientific knowledge that explains the natural phenomena original religion was based upon trying to explain, on what basis would people grasp or care or believe in the concept of invisible supernatural beings who influence human life and demand certain things from humans ?
the "purpose of religion" that you describe is simplistic and superficial and condescending. it shows a lack of depth in understanding the role of religion. for that you would need to actually listen to people talk about the role of religion in their life, instead of talking at people and talking down to people. for that you would need to recognize the flaw in your basic premise that people who have religion are ignorant and superstitious. my observation is that you have a substantial ego investment in seeing those with religion as inferior.
does science address the importance of being humble?
[note: when i say "you" it is addressing the mindset represented in the posts, not any specific individual person]
the "purpose of religion" that you describe is simplistic and superficial and condescending. it shows a lack of depth in understanding the role of religion. for that you would need to actually listen to people talk about the role of religion in their life, instead of talking at people. for that you would need to recognize the flaw in your basic premise that people who have religion are ignorant. my observation is that you have an ego investment in seeing those with religion as inferior.
does science address the importance of being humble?
My observation is that a simple civil discussion appears to be beyond your capabilities .
I never said the role of religion TODAY was the appeasement of gods or explaining natural phenomena . I said that is the original basis for religion in times past, and that if this need were removed how would religion begin in modern times in a modern society . Religion has indeed advanced beyond this in some areas, but maybe not as many as the religious would like to pretend . Most religions today are based on doing things to please a supernatural being and avoid this beings eternal punishment . Yes or no ? A few are concerned solely or mostly with the spiritual development of the individual without threat of eternal punishment for failure , but these are not the majority .
Please remove the chip from your shoulder and simply address the OP as stated and not based on what you want to believe you think I intend . The point of the OP is very obvious and without subterfuge , even though it may not speak well of religions in general .
Right now...people in this world that are highly educated, that were previously Atheist, and many being exposed to Religion for the first time, are adopting Religion by the millions.
By your logic...they would not do that. But they, in fact, are.
However, many times more people are leaving religion than adopting religion, at least in the developed world.
85% of scientists are atheist. That is very telling. Why do you think that is?
But the question is, given current scientific knowledge that explains the natural phenomena original religion was based upon trying to explain, on what basis would people grasp or care or believe in the concept of invisible supernatural beings who influence human life and demand certain things from humans ?
The same reason millions of highly educated people in Shanghai and Hong Kong that have all the Science and Tech info are embracing the Religious concepts they are just hearing about.
They don't reject it...they LOVE it.
Many Religious Philosophies are beautiful, man!
I'm not Religious at all, and never have been...and I am fully apprised of the science behind natural phenomena...but I post as "GldnRule".
Selling Religion would probably be even easier than selling porn.
The same reason millions of highly educated people in Shanghai and Hong Kong that have all the Science and Tech info are embracing the Religious concepts they are just hearing about.
They don't reject it...they LOVE it.
Many Religious Philosophies are beautiful, man!
I'm not Religious at all, and never have been...and I am fully apprised of the science behind natural phenomena...but I post as "GldnRule".
Selling Religion would probably be even easier than selling porn.
That's fine . You don't grasp the point of the OP, and since I have tried to explain it as simply as I can with no apparent understanding on your part I am not going to bother trying any further .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
