Computers10 mins ago
Religion, A Benefit To Mankind? Or Not?
198 Answers
Would mankind now be better off had religion not been invented? supporting reasons for your opinion can be as controversial as you think the AB thought police will allow.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jomifl. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I fear that it's perhaps overly simplistic to say that Science would be far more advanced now in a world without religion. There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, it's hard to say that a secular world would have done much to stop the Roman Empire from existing, advancing, and essentially dragging to a halt the advancement of Science and Mathematics in the Ancient Greek world (although even here it may have played its part, when the Roman Empire became Christian, so we might need to check the timing more carefully). Secondly, after this it was primarily the Christian Scholars in the West (and the Muslims in the Middle East) who were engaged in copying and preserving the knowledge of the Greeks, and while especially in the West it wasn't really taken any further, it might not have been preserved at all without this drive and need to copy it all down, again and again, preserving it for the future. How important or not the religious aspect was to all this is difficult to know, but it is true that most of the copying went in in monasteries or the equivalent.
Thirdly, it can be argued that the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake is a far less powerful motivation than the pursuit of knowledge through which you can know better the works of God. This was most powerful in the Islamic world, and indeed for a very long time the most advanced Science, Maths and Medicine went on there. Incidentally, this was also possible perhaps precisely because of the aggressive nature of early Islamic doctrine -- without such a powerful drive to conquer the world and bring enlightenment to others, would there ever have occurred the fusion of Indian and Greek Mathematics that was necessary to drive the subject forward to the heights it would achieve later?
This last is especially important, I think. Like so much else about this post, it's speculative at best, because we can't really know what the History of the world would have been without religion. It depends greatly on what would have replaced it. But it is certainly true that one of the most important events in the History of Science and Mathematics is the fusing together of the Geometry of Greece and the arithmetic-algebra of the Eastern world, and if this event had never happened, or happened much later, then Science would be many generations further back than it actually is.
It would be one of the world's greatest ironies if all the bloodshed of religious war had such a profound influence on driving Science forward.
Thirdly, it can be argued that the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake is a far less powerful motivation than the pursuit of knowledge through which you can know better the works of God. This was most powerful in the Islamic world, and indeed for a very long time the most advanced Science, Maths and Medicine went on there. Incidentally, this was also possible perhaps precisely because of the aggressive nature of early Islamic doctrine -- without such a powerful drive to conquer the world and bring enlightenment to others, would there ever have occurred the fusion of Indian and Greek Mathematics that was necessary to drive the subject forward to the heights it would achieve later?
This last is especially important, I think. Like so much else about this post, it's speculative at best, because we can't really know what the History of the world would have been without religion. It depends greatly on what would have replaced it. But it is certainly true that one of the most important events in the History of Science and Mathematics is the fusing together of the Geometry of Greece and the arithmetic-algebra of the Eastern world, and if this event had never happened, or happened much later, then Science would be many generations further back than it actually is.
It would be one of the world's greatest ironies if all the bloodshed of religious war had such a profound influence on driving Science forward.
Perhaps, but that's unlikely. Not because a different form of maths doesn't exist, but because where would the motivation come from to develop it?
All I'm saying is that the statement "Science would be more advanced today without religion to hamper it" is at least too simplistic. The progress would, after all, still have to overcome the greatest challenge of all, which I'm constantly reminded of on this site, which is the hubris of man. This wouldn't change all that much in a secular world, so at the very least it's hard to see that the rate of Scientific progress would be much increased. It's a question, then, of whether the role of the religion was to delay the starting time or to bring it forward. And that's not so easy to answer. In Renaissance Europe there was some resistance to the new Science from the Church, and this could have slowed things down; but then there were also the events I've described earlier, that brought things forward again. In truth, it's impossible to say
. And perhaps something worse would have replaced it, which would be some form of "static tribalism" where, whilst there is no strife, there is no mixing of culture and ideas either. This might be a more peaceful world, but it wouldn't be a more knowledgeable one. History is tied too closely together to be able to unravel it all and say that this particular aspect of society, over centuries, was the deciding factor.
My gut feeling is that it's far more likely that, absent religion, we'd just be having this conversation about something equally pernicious.
All I'm saying is that the statement "Science would be more advanced today without religion to hamper it" is at least too simplistic. The progress would, after all, still have to overcome the greatest challenge of all, which I'm constantly reminded of on this site, which is the hubris of man. This wouldn't change all that much in a secular world, so at the very least it's hard to see that the rate of Scientific progress would be much increased. It's a question, then, of whether the role of the religion was to delay the starting time or to bring it forward. And that's not so easy to answer. In Renaissance Europe there was some resistance to the new Science from the Church, and this could have slowed things down; but then there were also the events I've described earlier, that brought things forward again. In truth, it's impossible to say
. And perhaps something worse would have replaced it, which would be some form of "static tribalism" where, whilst there is no strife, there is no mixing of culture and ideas either. This might be a more peaceful world, but it wouldn't be a more knowledgeable one. History is tied too closely together to be able to unravel it all and say that this particular aspect of society, over centuries, was the deciding factor.
My gut feeling is that it's far more likely that, absent religion, we'd just be having this conversation about something equally pernicious.
Sometimes halts to progress in Science come in the most bizarre ways. I've seen the claim that the Chinese, for example, who for a long time were so far ahead of everyone else at just about everything, were held back in large part by their mastery of ceramics! Why? I think the argument goes that they were so good at working with ceramics that there was never any need to develop glass or metalwork to such a great extent -- the result being that there was never any opportunity to learn about electricity early. I only know vaguely about this argument, so it's possible that I've misunderstood or misrepresented it, or indeed that the point itself is wrong. But to some extent it doesn't matter too much, other than to illustrate that it's entirely possible for progress to be stymied in many other ways than by religion.
With regards to the Church's persecution of people such as Galileo, Copernicus, Bruno etc., it's also not quite right to portray this as religion v. Science. Bruno was a friar, after all, and some of the strongest opposition to Copernicus came from essentially an early Scientific point (roughly speaking, something close to "you can't do Science that way"); the Catholic church as a whole waited until much later to reject his views. Galileo's sin wasn't so much Science, meanwhile, as arrogance and tactlessness; and neither Copernicus nor Galileo could be called atheist anyway. So the debate was far more about one kind of religion v. another -- or, indeed, those in power against those who seemed to be challenging that. Such debates aren't confined to religion.
Religion is so deeply tied into our history in so many ways, and at best we can only say with confidence that it would be a very different world without it. Perhaps the world would be more peaceful, but at other costs; or perhaps something even more terrifying would take its place.
On the other hand, if it's true that a secular world would be a much more peaceful place, I think most people would say that it's worth sacrificing some progress in knowledge in order to live in a less violent world.
With regards to the Church's persecution of people such as Galileo, Copernicus, Bruno etc., it's also not quite right to portray this as religion v. Science. Bruno was a friar, after all, and some of the strongest opposition to Copernicus came from essentially an early Scientific point (roughly speaking, something close to "you can't do Science that way"); the Catholic church as a whole waited until much later to reject his views. Galileo's sin wasn't so much Science, meanwhile, as arrogance and tactlessness; and neither Copernicus nor Galileo could be called atheist anyway. So the debate was far more about one kind of religion v. another -- or, indeed, those in power against those who seemed to be challenging that. Such debates aren't confined to religion.
Religion is so deeply tied into our history in so many ways, and at best we can only say with confidence that it would be a very different world without it. Perhaps the world would be more peaceful, but at other costs; or perhaps something even more terrifying would take its place.
On the other hand, if it's true that a secular world would be a much more peaceful place, I think most people would say that it's worth sacrificing some progress in knowledge in order to live in a less violent world.
jim; excellent posts, congratulations! With regards to the lack of development of glass technology in China; I read a review of a book which dealt in part with this subject several years ago, I think they had glass but failed to develop the technology and therefore were unable to make the lenses and laboratory instruments so important scientific discovery in the West.
Also the point should be made that the monastic and clerical life*, gave time for exploration, an asset which many tied to a grinding daily existence did not have.
*and indeed unearned income from investment in the Empire for gentlemen.
Also the point should be made that the monastic and clerical life*, gave time for exploration, an asset which many tied to a grinding daily existence did not have.
*and indeed unearned income from investment in the Empire for gentlemen.
Khandro, I don't think lack of time has inhibited the acquisition of an understanding of the natural world. After all some cultures have enough spare time/resources to spend it all on ornamentation, decoration and even 'art'. It's an old cliché but necessity does seem to be the mother of invention. Regular bouts of warfare in some cultures kept the population small enough so that developing agriculture, plant breeding and machinery wasn't necessary.
jomifl; // some cultures have enough spare time/resources to spend it all on ornamentation, decoration and even 'art'.//
I'm not sure which cultures you have in mind, I suppose the South Sea Islanders had an easy time of it, all they needed to live in their benign climate was to lift a fish out of the sea, and pluck some fruit from a tree. It might go to support your point that they produced little art or science, - maybe they were just too busy screwing all the time :-)
Meanwhile the rest of the world didn't have it quite so easy, for the vast majority in Europe, simply surviving was something of an achievement.
I'm not sure which cultures you have in mind, I suppose the South Sea Islanders had an easy time of it, all they needed to live in their benign climate was to lift a fish out of the sea, and pluck some fruit from a tree. It might go to support your point that they produced little art or science, - maybe they were just too busy screwing all the time :-)
Meanwhile the rest of the world didn't have it quite so easy, for the vast majority in Europe, simply surviving was something of an achievement.
Religion has for almost two thousand years dictated the status quo, and therefore it must have had some influence on progress. Darwin in the ‘enlightened’ 19th century delayed publishing his findings for 20 years for fear of upsetting the establishment and I have to wonder how many people in earlier times kept their ideas to themselves for fear of ending their days burning at the stake. Even today you will be very hard pushed to find an Islamic scientist who is prepared to contradict the proven wonky science of the Koran. Without religion men would still think – they’d just be freer to do it.
-- answer removed --
Yes, sometimes religion has directly or otherwise stifled knowledge. I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that this wasn't always the case, or at least that sometimes it has indirectly helped to drive knowledge forward, and that working out which was a bigger effect is difficult. And some of the major issues blocking free thought aren't just the consequence of religion, but of arrogance or the paranoia of power in general. Untangling religion from history and saying that without it we'd definitely be more advanced, therefore, seems to be perhaps too simplistic a view of history.
The fusion of Greek and Indian mathematics was, however, at best an unintended consequence of religion. The conquering armies of Islam weren't motivated by some desire to bring two schools of thought together. They just wanted to conquer. It was lucky that they didn't also want to destroy the knowledge of the peoples they conquered. So perhaps the fusion would have happened anyway, in different circumstances. But if we can't know much about the future following from actual events, surely we can know even less about the future following the purely hypothetical.
Even so, I think it's safe to say that the world would be a better place without religion. It's so divisive, and less division can only be a good thing. It promotes a world view that is both often very aggressive: "we must spread the good word on to others, and if they don't listen we should kill them". And, perhaps most importantly, it's wrong.
The fusion of Greek and Indian mathematics was, however, at best an unintended consequence of religion. The conquering armies of Islam weren't motivated by some desire to bring two schools of thought together. They just wanted to conquer. It was lucky that they didn't also want to destroy the knowledge of the peoples they conquered. So perhaps the fusion would have happened anyway, in different circumstances. But if we can't know much about the future following from actual events, surely we can know even less about the future following the purely hypothetical.
Even so, I think it's safe to say that the world would be a better place without religion. It's so divisive, and less division can only be a good thing. It promotes a world view that is both often very aggressive: "we must spread the good word on to others, and if they don't listen we should kill them". And, perhaps most importantly, it's wrong.
-- answer removed --
I see Religion as a form of Social Control which fitted the Unitary concept of Society like a glove. Since many of the wars branded as religious had other causes its difficult to blame a theistic belief systems for most human suffering.
If such systems had not existed it would have been necessary to find alternatives.
If such systems had not existed it would have been necessary to find alternatives.
/ for the vast majority in Europe, simply surviving was something of an achievement/
only because of the depradations of the aristocracy and the church.
The pyramids, Easter Island statues and Benin metal foundries weren't essential to surival. There are many examples of arts and crafts throughout the world that were in no way eccential to survival, as I'm sure you are aware Khandro.
only because of the depradations of the aristocracy and the church.
The pyramids, Easter Island statues and Benin metal foundries weren't essential to surival. There are many examples of arts and crafts throughout the world that were in no way eccential to survival, as I'm sure you are aware Khandro.
jomifl; I've no wish to exonerate the role played by the aristocracy and church in the oppression of the masses. But with the dissolution of the monasteries it didn't suddenly become jam for everyone did it? and neither did it with the advent of communism and removal of the church in the USSR.
//The pyramids, Easter Island statues and Benin metal foundries weren't essential to survival//
Not a good choice with the first, as survival into the next world is what they would seem to have been about. We shall never know the meaning of the Easter Island statues, but I think it safe to assume they had some religious significance, and the Benin sculpture could be non-religious, no one is clear as to whom they portray, possibly of, and most likely commissioned by, the rulers, but in concept and process influenced by Europeans. In other words, none were made as 'hobbies' by people with time on their hands.
//The pyramids, Easter Island statues and Benin metal foundries weren't essential to survival//
Not a good choice with the first, as survival into the next world is what they would seem to have been about. We shall never know the meaning of the Easter Island statues, but I think it safe to assume they had some religious significance, and the Benin sculpture could be non-religious, no one is clear as to whom they portray, possibly of, and most likely commissioned by, the rulers, but in concept and process influenced by Europeans. In other words, none were made as 'hobbies' by people with time on their hands.
/In other words, none were made as 'hobbies' by people with time on their hands. /
who said they were? My suggestion was that perhaps better use could have been made of the resources, both time and material. I knew an artist who could paint pictures but not window frames.. Picture frames are s0d all use for replacing rotten window frames.
who said they were? My suggestion was that perhaps better use could have been made of the resources, both time and material. I knew an artist who could paint pictures but not window frames.. Picture frames are s0d all use for replacing rotten window frames.
Latest Posts
News20 mins ago
Crosswords21 mins ago
Crosswords24 mins ago
Someone Tell Macca He Can't Sing...
News27 mins ago
Surely They Can Weed Out These Sadistic...
News31 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.