Forums → WEPR → The studies to prove/disprove a god's existence
| 71 | 29522 |
Alright, after a long time off of this wonderful sight, I decided to come back on and pose a question from a different debate I'm participating in.
I would like to ask: Is/Are there any studies, experiments or otherwise known physical laws, mathematical formulas or the like which explicitly prohibit and exclude the existence of a god (which one is not important for this question) or explicitly prohibit all things in existence being the result of a god?
this is the quote from one of the theists on the thread. so the question is: does any formula or theory disprove/prove a god in any way?
- 71 Replies
beliefs, which include religion are necessary to bind people with differences,
I agree with this statement, but not with the emphasis I think you're trying to imply. Common beliefs and values are necessary for a cohesive unit of people to form. However, religion is only one type of belief and value, and it is not necessary to have there.
if you look at the dawn of civilization around the world like the ancient settlement of Gobeklii Tepe, Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa, they always contain temples to worship their god, the first is even an exclusive religious settlement. coincidence? maybe not.
Of course you're going to find those sorts of things. That was how those people explained the world around them. They believed in various superstitions and built monuments which they believed would help them. However, it's a false causation to argue that the societies formed because the religion brought them together - the beliefs would have only congealed into one more common one after a significant number of people were already staying in close proximity to each other and living together in civilization. Religion is a by-product of civilization which takes societal values, culture, and diverse beliefs, conglomerates them into a dogmatic structure, and spreads itself through reproduction and violence. It's a social ill, not the seed of civilization.
let's assume that there is 20 people in a tribe, one person from the tribe kills its fellow tribesmen etc...
This is a long, drawn out version which uses religion as synonymous with law and purpose, and also ignores that these tribes were perfectly capable of existing without a religion to begin with. It's also ironic how you use religion as a tool of the chief to gain power that leads to conflicts, which was the entire purpose of creating a religion in the first place if you recall.
what proof you had that society isn't built upon religion?
Because it isn't. Religion reflects the society and changes with it. Religion always lags behind societal advancements and then plays catch-up. Religion is an organized system of beliefs in a structured format. You can't have the house before you have the bricks. Thousands of years ago when the first civilizations were forming, these would have been extremely diverse groups of isolated people who came together and saw the advantages of living in close proximity. Each person would have had their own ideas on why things happened, and they told these to other people, and eventually one won.
Religion didn't cause civilization to start. Religion was born from civilization.
the belief that god exist, even if he doesn't, is the "glue" that unify people from different backgrounds.
It can be. It isn't always.
the same god means the same right and wrong, same norms, same rules in life and most importantly the same entity for one to prove that he/she is righteous
I guarantee you I can ask any two Christians and find many different, important aspects of their religion they disagree on. Even if they're from the same denomination or family. Religion is all about how an individual interprets it as relevant to themselves.
did hermits exist from the dawn of civilization
Yes. There are always people who would rather be by themselves than with a larger group, for whatever reason.
if you would like to show me your atheistic way of thinking, name me one hermit living solitary because he just wants to be alone and compare it with the ones that isolates himself for religious purposes.
I would absolutely love to live in solitary if I could, and the only reason behind that is because I simply don't enjoy being around other people. I'm not going to look up people who went to live alone because that's what they wanted to do, and honestly, I'm not sure how I would even go about doing that.
what society exist first with government first then religion later?
The very first ones at least. You can't have religion from a bunch of individuals with different beliefs. They would have had to gather and stay together first before their ideas could spread to one another. At that point they're already a society of sorts and their ideas disseminate while remaining in close proximity until one main belief wins out and that gets adopted as their religion, which is constantly changed as new influences come.
if you are looking at the present age when all religion are equal (tolerance), then that is a pretty recent event because once people kill each other for different beliefs.
Yeah...no. Fish covered how this just isn't true. Religious violence is a huge issue in many parts of the world.
actually Atheism is belief of the absence of deities and god. so yes, it IS a type of religion, because you BELIEVE in the nonexistence if god, even if you can't prove the actual absence of god.
Incorrect. Atheism is a descriptor word for the "no" answer to the question, "Do you have a belief in a supernatural entity?" It is the lack of a belief in a deity. It makes no claims.
You also are misusing the word religion. Even if you want to argue that atheism is a belief (which it's not) it's not an organized group of people who adhere to common rituals and traditions. There are religious atheists, but they aren't religious because they're atheists.
What you explicitly referred to is known as Gnostic Atheism, ie, claiming that one can prove that a god does not exist. This is a positive claim, and is just as groundless as theism. Agnostic Atheism is not claiming to know whether a supernatural entity exists, but not thinking there is one because insufficient evidence is available to rationally believe that. I'm an agnostic atheist in general, but I believe specific claims can be evaluated such that I'm confident to assert that the being as described in the Bible, for example, certainly does not exist.
any about proof this?
A person who lost their whole family and lived alone would be a hermit, albeit unwillingly.
i pretty sure i said usually. yes of course there are those that want to be alone purely, but it is in far lower number than those that have religious purposes. take Buddhist monks for example. a good number of them preferred living solitary as in hermits to acquire greater links to their belief(like by meditating or praying and so forth).
Don't you think it's counterproductive to argue that religion is the major force behind people not wanting to be with other people when arguing that religion is what causes people to live together?
Or at the very least, not relevant?
Human beings are social creatures. We group together and form hierarchies. That's what we do. People have a psychological need to be around other people (usually). The people who isolate themselves for religious purposes are doing so for their belief, not because they really want to. The few people who isolate themselves willingly not for religious purposes do so because they want to.
Religion didn't cause civilization to start. Religion was born from civilization.
This. Most ancient cultures do come with temples and such, this is true, but that only testifies for the tight link between civilization and religion. That does not mean that religion had to be there before. And also, Kenneth, I can't see where you would have answered my question. I still see no reason preventing a group of social people to organize themselves without divine aid.
( remember, atheism is also a belief like religion, the latter came first )
Ignoring the first fallacy and considering that every living being is born without beliefs, hence atheist, I have a hard time agreeing with your chronology there.
Aryan people
wut
no it's not, they regard their deities as god and enforce them on the conquered tribe. after careful assimilation, they can make the conquered tribe to feel as a part of a larger circle rather than a part of a defeated tribe
What you describe would be one of the rarest aftermaths of any religious conflict ever. If I'm not mistaken, when one tribe of fourth-world peoples conquers another for whatever reason, the most likely outcome is the death or enslavement of the defeated party. Furthermore, you stated that the Zulu tribe "acquired guns and then use them to take over other tribes that didn't have guns until they form a large body of society". Ergo, tribe + guns = society (a good NRA slogan, at that). You then state that they "strengthen the bond between the fellow tribesmen using both religion and effective decentralization of power", clearly indicating that the involvement of religion is secondary to social organization, and even then is only one of two reinforcements.
[...] (a precursor to god, animism)
Animism is the first belief system created by us humans that pre-date other types of religion.
it's not a religion because the belief in the presence of spirits inside nonliving objects is very varied among different body of people.
So, animism (a type of religion which holds that deities can manifest in and empower inanimate objects) is different from other religions in that this religion is not a religion. Well, that clears up everything.
For example, if i was to believe in Animism, i would believe that my Great-great grandmother lives inside this rock. but you wouldn't believe that.
Well, no, you wouldn't. Most animistic religions have some tribal fetish which represents their deity and is believed to be imbued with said deity's power. Also, if my belief is the deciding factor of what is and isn't a religion, you may as well enshrine the sacred emblem of Skorgg and pray to it right now.
actually Atheism is belief of the absence of deities and god. so yes, it IS a type of religion, because you BELIEVE in the nonexistence if god, even if you can't prove the actual absence of god.
No, actually, it isn't. It is theological skepticism. Belief â religion. Disbelief â belief.
so it's like in Christianity, where you believe in the presence of god, even though you can't prove the actual existence of god. pretty similar right?
Wrong.
but that secular belief exist only later in history. the first unifying belief is religious, not secular
Wrong.
[...] before the massive migration of the Aryan people, they all believe in Animism and Dynamism. but after the subsequent migration and assimilation with the Dravida people ( indigenous people), they invented Hinduism and later Buddhism [...]
How interesting and totally to the point. From this obviously unbiased and scientifically sound account, it appears that anything occuring in a region after a historical event must be a direct product of said event. This means that the first nomadic tribes to settle in North America are personally responsible for the Declaration of Independence! Step aside Lincoln, we need to make room on the Rushmore monument!
if you look at the dawn of civilization around the world [...] they always contain temples to worship their god
Do you have any proof of this?
[...] but it is in far lower number than those that have religious purposes.
Or this?
[...] they are inhabited by indigenous people practicing Animism [...]
Or this?
well what I'm trying to say, is that most people today are encouraged to be tolerant to other people with different religions, which is pretty recent in history
Which is in no way pertinent to the discussion.
except you're implying that Iceland is previously not habitable previously before the subsequent colonization by the vikings which is false, since Gaelic monks have lived there before in an effort to live as a hermit
On the contrary, you appear to be assuming that Iceland was unsettled until the arrival of said monks.
I would absolutely love to live in solitary if I could, and the only reason behind that is because I simply don't enjoy being around other people. I'm not going to look up people who went to live alone because that's what they wanted to do, and honestly, I'm not sure how I would even go about doing that.
Same here.
Of course you're going to find those sorts of things. That was how those people explained the world around them. They believed in various superstitions and built monuments which they believed would help them. However, it's a false causation to argue that the societies formed because the religion brought them together - the beliefs would have only congealed into one more common one after a significant number of people were already staying in close proximity to each other and living together in civilization. Religion is a by-product of civilization which takes societal values, culture, and diverse beliefs, conglomerates them into a dogmatic structure, and spreads itself through reproduction and violence. It's a social ill, not the seed of civilization.
yeah, i see your point, but any proof about this? you still don't explain of how the hell those people come together in the first place in huge numbers ( >1000 plus) without splitting apart into smaller tribes. don't try using secular beliefs though, since that is pretty recent
Because it isn't. Religion reflects the society and changes with it. Religion always lags behind societal advancements and then plays catch-up. Religion is an organized system of beliefs in a structured format. You can't have the house before you have the bricks. Thousands of years ago when the first civilizations were forming, these would have been extremely diverse groups of isolated people who came together and saw the advantages of living in close proximity. Each person would have had their own ideas on why things happened, and they told these to other people, and eventually one won.
how would they see the advantages of living together in the first place? they don't exactly have a role model, or a clear advantage over nomadic tribes. it is even very clearly (in the first) disadvantageous, they need more food, disease pretty rampant, and presents a ticking time bomb of internal conflicts and breakaways. if you would want to deny it, take a crash course in the Papua new Guinea and it's west side. also how can you say that people that makes society first don't have any religion? that implies that the first society don't have a religion
and the next is later. i got to get back to class. see you
yeah, i see your point, but any proof about this?
Why are we the only ones required to have proof? This is a disturbingly popular trend among theists.
you still don't explain of how the hell those people come together in the first place in huge numbers ( >1000 plus) without splitting apart into smaller tribes.
Thousands of years ago when the first civilizations were forming, these would have been extremely diverse groups of isolated people who came together and saw the advantages of living in close proximity. Each person would have had their own ideas on why things happened, and they told these to other people, and eventually one won.
Human beings are social creatures. We group together and form hierarchies. That's what we do. People have a psychological need to be around other people (usually).
Kenneth, this is Kasic. Kasic, Kenneth. You are now formally introduced.
don't try using secular beliefs though, since that is pretty recent
That's essentially telling us we can't use facts because they conflict with fiction.
they don't exactly have a role model, or a clear advantage over nomadic tribes.
Role model: Hunters/warriors, the tribal leader in particular.
Advantage: Agriculture, although nomadic tribes are also societies. Tribes have advantages over lone individuals as well, such as cooperation, division of labour, and strength in numbers.
it is even very clearly (in the first) disadvantageous, they need more food, disease pretty rampant, and presents a ticking time bomb of internal conflicts and breakaways.
No. The advantages far outstrip the costs. Also, the food requirement is a greater detriment to individuals than it is to a group. Many people can feed themselves if resources are easy to gather, but when it comes to hunting large game and eating it before it spoils, you must have a group.
also how can you say that people that makes society first don't have any religion? that implies that the first society don't have a religion
If it does imply this, it is only due to its being true, and should not be misconstrued as anything more.
you still don't explain of how the hell those people come together in the first place in huge numbers ( >1000 plus) without splitting apart into smaller tribes.
It wouldn't have begun in that large of groups. Tribes of people would have formed by smaller groups, most likely families, encountering each other. They would have stayed together for mating and protection by numbers. Early humans wouldn't have had language or writing to communicate beyond grunts and common gestures. A common belief system could not have possibly formed until the basic aspects of civilization were already in place.
These tribal groups would either have joined other groups, or enlarged themselves through reproduction over time.
how would they see the advantages of living together in the first place?
How do monkeys see the advantages of living together? How do wolves see the advantages of living together? How do dolphins, whales, deer, giraffes, birds, fish, or any other animal that forms social connections see advantages of living together?
The primary motivation would be to have an available mate and herd survival. Predators are less likely to kill you when there's more of the same all around.
Or do you think animals adhere to religious beliefs? We can induce superstitious behavior in animals and they can exhibit it on their own, but it's not a part of their social grouping.
they don't exactly have a role model, or a clear advantage over nomadic tribes.
Agriculture was the dawn of civilization. When people realized they could grow their own food and raise their own livestock, that completely revolutionized the hunter/gather lifestyle. If you have more people to work the fields and watch/protect the animals, you have many more people to fall back on in case of sickness, injury, or disaster. People also have an innate social need to be in groups. Staying in one place also allows the building of optimal shelters and raising of children in a secure location.
Belief has absolutely nothing to do with any of this if you haven't noticed.
also how can you say that people that makes society first don't have any religion? that implies that the first society don't have a religion
Every individual would have had their own beliefs, but that wouldn't have played into the creation of society. People wouldn't have been able to communicate their ideas clearly to one another and develop doctrines and common beliefs until after living together long enough to establish a common means of communication.
The first society definitely had a religion. It would have had more than one. And those religions would have only been able to form after people came together.
Kenneth, I'm seeing two major things. First, you're using the term "civilization" as synonymous with advanced societies only. The second is that you're using "religion" as "belief" when they are not the same thing.
The first society would not have been a village made of mud and stick huts with a temple for their god. That doesn't just . . . pop up because a bunch of random people suddenly have this common belief in a god. It makes absolutely no sense to think that it would. People have to come together first. They have to be able to communicate first. Then religion is born because they share these ideas and start following common ideas and rituals. It can't happen before that's met. Religion can't spontaneously emerge to bring a group together if that group hasn't formed yet. You're reversing cause and effect.
Why are we the only ones required to have proof?
That's an unfortunately easy question to answer. Theists launch all of their questions from the assumption that a god already exists.
Advantage: Agriculture, although nomadic tribes are also societies. Tribes have advantages over lone individuals as well, such as cooperation, division of labour, and strength in numbers.
Strength in numbers is good for protection against bandits and invaders, and eventually walls are being built. Just look at many old cities in Europe, they are built at rivers and river bends, or on top of hills, which are more easily defendable places.
Agriculture especially leads to people aggregating around good spots, like an oasis or (wait for it) the Nil! And what do we find all along the Nil? Egyptian civilization.
Why are we the only ones required to have proof? This is a disturbingly popular trend among theists.
I'm not trying to follow the current trend in theist, But, obviously you need proofs in presenting your argument or comparisons, i was taught that's the way to present argument and i tried to stick to it. well maybe some i used a poor anecdotal, but i tried my best in presenting this case.Btw, how many of 18 y.o out there that are active in this forums?
That's essentially telling us we can't use facts because they conflict with fiction.
i'm pretty sure i don't tell you that secular beliefs ARE fictitious, they emerge later in history. Secular beliefs don't exist in tribes and nomadic bands or chiefdom. just look at the modern tribesmen now. google it. do THEY have secular belief?
Role model: Hunters/warriors, the tribal leader in particular.
that is the role model for small tribe, what i'm looking for is a much, much bigger number of people.
Advantage: Agriculture, although nomadic tribes are also societies. Tribes have advantages over lone individuals as well, such as cooperation, division of labour, and strength in numbers.
well all tribes in the past starts about the same numbers, so they don't really have advantage of numbers. division of labor? that's a pretty later concept which existing only in the chiefdom stage of civilization. true they have advantage over lone individuals, it is obvious. but what really compels them to group up?
No. The advantages far outstrip the costs. Also, the food requirement is a greater detriment to individuals than it is to a group. Many people can feed themselves if resources are easy to gather, but when it comes to hunting large game and eating it before it spoils, you must have a group.
Yes you need a group, but the bigger a group the more dyad accumulate, conflicts and tensions built up between the members. have you ever seen the history of the Papuan Archipelago? they are heck full of internal conflicts, tribe wars, and disability to form chiefdom. i see one tribe in verge of becoming a chiefdom breaking apart due to simple conflicts then started killing each other, splitting into numerous tribelets and right now their once powerful tribe is in a brink of extinction
It wouldn't have begun in that large of groups. Tribes of people would have formed by smaller groups, most likely families, encountering each other. They would have stayed together for mating and protection by numbers. Early humans wouldn't have had language or writing to communicate beyond grunts and common gestures. A common belief system could not have possibly formed until the basic aspects of civilization were already in place
still no explanation of how they avoided conflicts and tensions from building up and wedging the tribe into 2 or 3 or 4 and so forth.. yes they can pair up and build up due to reproductions and combining from other tribes. the true question is HOW they stay united.
How do monkeys see the advantages of living together? How do wolves see the advantages of living together? How do dolphins, whales, deer, giraffes, birds, fish, or any other animal that forms social connections see advantages of living together?
The primary motivation would be to have an available mate and herd survival. Predators are less likely to kill you when there's more of the same all around.
Or do you think animals adhere to religious beliefs? We can induce superstitious behavior in animals and they can exhibit it on their own, but it's not a part of their social grouping.
the ones you're mentioning are still in the Human "tribe" numbers. they do band in some numbers maybe numbering 500 plus or so, but that's pretty temporary mostly. even fishes like sardines might number in 1000 or more, but they do that for increased survival chances during their migration, so not really permanent. they also break apart at some time and becoming smaller as times past their initial migration or mating season or to take advantage of the huge number of available food, then peaking again when the times is right. just look at wolves and lions, they frequently fight each other ( wolf pack vs wolf pack, lions pride vs lions pride is what i meant by fights), also, after their pup or "kitten" approaches maturity, they are kicked out mostly. even deers do that to the "bull" if you know what I'm talking about
Agriculture was the dawn of civilization. When people realized they could grow their own food and raise their own livestock, that completely revolutionized the hunter/gather lifestyle. If you have more people to work the fields and watch/protect the animals, you have many more people to fall back on in case of sickness, injury, or disaster. People also have an innate social need to be in groups. Staying in one place also allows the building of optimal shelters and raising of children in a secure location.
Belief has absolutely nothing to do with any of this if you haven't noticed.
yes the belief has nothing to do with those above. but that "dawn of civilization" you're talking about is not relevant to the ones I'm talking about. what i really meant is the dawn of "civilization" as in large organized groups of people far more than a single tribe. in other words, i'm not talking of the tribes like in Papuan islands, that is civilization too i know that, but i'm talking of the ones capable of building something like Gobekli Tepe or the StoneHenge or the Nasca lines. that could hardly be attributed with a single tribe or a loose collection of tribe coming together without some kind of strong ethical conduct binding
also i agree that we humans are social creature.but we also have a tendency to be selfish and inconsiderate, which could be the ticking time bomb I'm talking about. otherwise, we wouldn't have any wars, how do they fix that tendency? well you have to create some kind of rules and norms, and also a belief system to enforce that. don't you get it? that's the point I've been trying to emphasize. what i learned from history at school is basically that
Every individual would have had their own beliefs, but that wouldn't have played into the creation of society. People wouldn't have been able to communicate their ideas clearly to one another and develop doctrines and common beliefs until after living together long enough to establish a common means of communication.
The first society definitely had a religion. It would have had more than one. And those religions would have only been able to form after people came together
oops sorry what i meant is not religion what i meant is belief system, i was typing in a hurry at that time. but it presents the same idea so whatevs. sorry anyway.
common means of communications are already present within an area, because ancestral language already exist, which can be readily used to communicate in a area. language barriers only exist after thousands of thousands of years in an area settlement with poor connections or powerful geographical barriers, as like what we see in the Indonesian Archipelago, hosting like about 200+ different tongues and branches from the Austronesian languages ( in my history book, the largest collection in the language group), so in like the fertile crescent where geographical challenges is pretty nonexistent, except in relation with the low grounds, you may assume they have the same language at that time.
also all tribe have a belief system of sorts but they conflict with each other due to differences that can't be resolved because of their differing beliefs. take a look at the modern isolated tribesmen like in Papua archipelago and you'll see what i meant
that's why you need to create a new unifying belief, which would unify those tribes and propel them to the unity of chiefdom. unless you can explain why did those papuan hundreds of tribe didn't group together despite the "obvious" advantage of becoming a much bigger tribe or chiefdom
Kenneth, I'm seeing two major things. First, you're using the term "civilization" as synonymous with advanced societies only. The second is that you're using "religion" as "belief" when they are not the same thing.
The first society would not have been a village made of mud and stick huts with a temple for their god. That doesn't just . . . pop up because a bunch of random people suddenly have this common belief in a god. It makes absolutely no sense to think that it would. People have to come together first. They have to be able to communicate first. Then religion is born because they share these ideas and start following common ideas and rituals. It can't happen before that's met. Religion can't spontaneously emerge to bring a group together if that group hasn't formed yet. You're reversing cause and effect.
i don't know how you can refute that conclusion based on what i have posted. what i really meant with civilization is a body of people large enough to create monuments, division of labor and long lasting , which is not pretty advanced if you think about it(in my views). religion as belief? I think i have been taught that religion is belief but belief is not religion. so yes, according to my current education i would consider a religion as a belief, except you are implying that what my teachers taught me at school is false.
I'm not implying that the religion appears out of the blue to bind groups of people. I'm trying to imply that religion( i would say belief system if not for my mistake) is created by unstable groups of people to stop them from splinting apart. and I'm not saying this to offend you, but i don't think i said anything about "the same belief in god popping out from the blue" thing. i don't even talked about monotheism yet, it's still pretty early in history so i knew that monotheism existing in that time statement is pure bull**** (again sorry for the swearing, not trying to offend, just a matter of speech). I'm saying that the same belief or norms or rules are needed to bind people, which would stabilize it long enough to gain strength in numbers to form much bigger bodies of people a.k.a civilization
That's an unfortunately easy question to answer. Theists launch all of their questions from the assumption that a god already exists.
Don't think that I'm an atheist, but i don't really assume that god is pulling the strings to make civilizations. we created the concept of it, so why think the concept of god's existence be used to explain anything that nature or knowledge can pretty much explain better? I'm not like those over devout theist. so never think that i am launching my assumption that beliefs and religion are necessary to form society from the fact that God exist and He will deep-fry me in hell for not believing so. I'm basing all this on all that i have learned and known historical accounts, so don't ever making fun of my effort in applying logic here, because you are doing that right now with your last comment.
Strength in numbers is good for protection against bandits and invaders, and eventually walls are being built. Just look at many old cities in Europe, they are built at rivers and river bends, or on top of hills, which are more easily defensive places.
Agriculture especially leads to people aggregating around good spots, like an oasis or (wait for it) the Nil! And what do we find all along the Nil? Egyptian civilization
and how those raiders form i wonder? isn't it by making a belief system that would unite them together? Also according to both of you about being social is human nature and strength in numbers, how that explain why does there are the said raiders and defenders side and why do they not combine into one?
i know I'm. young and inexperienced as in I'm only 18. but i tried to apply what i learned at school and my common knowledge here. that's the good part in talking to you atheists, because your mind is pretty much more logical and i think much more knowledgeable, a true mental workout. well I'm done for today, see you later
.
i'm pretty sure i don't tell you that secular beliefs ARE fictitious, they emerge later in history. Secular beliefs don't exist in tribes and nomadic bands or chiefdom. just look at the modern tribesmen now. google it. do THEY have secular belief?
This is not making any sense at all. You asked for proof which doesn't involve secularism (the fact) because, according to you, it didn't exist then (the fiction).
Analogy: Yes, they do have secular beliefs. Oh, and if you want to prove otherwise, don't mention religion, because religion doesn't exist.
that is the role model for small tribe, what i'm looking for is a much, much bigger number of people.
A new tribe isn't founded by several thousand people. They have to start with a local group and build up to it, as you yourself state immediately afterward. Therefore, that is a valid role model.
well all tribes in the past starts about the same numbers, so they don't really have advantage of numbers.
Two (2) average people have the advantage against one average person (as you yourself state shortly afterward). Three (3) average people have the advantage against one average person or two average people. The trend continues up to the millions.
division of labor? that's a pretty later concept which existing only in the chiefdom stage of civilization.
Which is a very early stage; the second, if not the first stage. Division of labour would be the third or fourth at most.
true they have advantage over lone individuals, it is obvious. but what really compels them to group up?
That and everything else that I mentioned in conjunction with it.
Yes you need a group, but the bigger a group the more dyad accumulate, conflicts and tensions built up between the members.
1. People don't need to be in a group to have a conflict.
2. Groups can, and do, establish laws and regulations to control this, where isolated people cannot.
Therefore, your whole argument about group-induced violence is absurd.
have you ever seen the history of the Papuan Archipelago? they are heck full of internal conflicts, tribe wars, and disability to form chiefdom. i see one tribe in verge of becoming a chiefdom breaking apart due to simple conflicts then started killing each other, splitting into numerous tribelets and right now their once powerful tribe is in a brink of extinction
Okay. Are any of these warring tribes atheistic?
yes the belief has nothing to do with those above. but that "dawn of civilization" you're talking about is not relevant to the ones I'm talking about. what i really meant is the dawn of "civilization" as in large organized groups of people far more than a single tribe.
Therefore, you are not talking about the dawn of civilization.
[...] but i'm talking of the ones capable of building something like Gobekli Tepe or the StoneHenge or the Nasca lines. that could hardly be attributed with a single tribe or a loose collection of tribe coming together without some kind of strong ethical conduct binding
Now you're trying to twist the argument using an unworkable definition. If you set temple building as the standard for "civilization", all you are arguing is that religion is prerequisite to the establishment of sites of worship. Nothing more.
Agreed. Case closed. On to the next order of business.
But, obviously you need proofs in presenting your argument or comparisons,
You're not providing proof though. You just throw out examples of cultures that have a religion and say, "Religion is what made them a society and without it there wouldn't be society because there would be nothing to hold them together." It's a logical fallacy where called, "Begging the Question."
Begging the Question
Btw, how many of 18 y.o out there that are active in this forums?
I'm 20.
Secular beliefs don't exist in tribes and nomadic bands or chiefdom. just look at the modern tribesmen now. google it. do THEY have secular belief?
Kenneth, it's a circular argument to say that religion is the cause of society because religion is not a secular belief and society has religion. I've repeatedly pointed out how you cannot have an organized system of belief (religion) without first having a group of people.
Yes, they had religion. No one is disputing that.
that is the role model for small tribe, what i'm looking for is a much, much bigger number of people.
You're arbitrarily picking a number of people, but that doesn't matter anyways. People have ideas. They shares these ideas with other people. As they live together they adapt common ideas. This becomes religion. It's a process that happens because of society. It does not logically compute that a bunch of random people independently come to a complicated belief system and then just happen to encounter each other and stay together because of it.
conflicts and tensions built up between the members
Because of differing beliefs.
Religion is not a unifying force. It's the exact opposite.
but what really compels them to group up?
The advantages they gain and the innate psychological desire to be around other people.
still no explanation of how they avoided conflicts and tensions from building up and wedging the tribe into 2 or 3 or 4 and so forth..
Uh, what? There were conflicts and tensions. People would have fought. For the most part, these things would have been resolved internally through negotiation and trade.
the ones you're mentioning are still in the Human "tribe" numbers.
Your point? They're still forming groups without a religious purpose. The only reason they aren't bigger is because of competition and lack of resources.
what i really meant is the dawn of "civilization" as in large organized groups of people far more than a single tribe
Religion comes coincident with groups of people. By the time you would have reached the level you're talking about, of course there's religion. But that's not what brought them together, and it's not why they stay together. Yes, religion could be and has been used for that purpose, but it's not necessary.
but i'm talking of the ones capable of building something like Gobekli Tepe or the StoneHenge or the Nasca lines.
Those are all religiously motivated works.
Religion didn't spur the creation of houses. It didn't spur agriculture. It didn't spur any invention that contributed to the survival and well being of people. All it did was waste time and resources in superstitious events.
also i agree that we humans are social creature. but we also have a tendency to be selfish and inconsiderate, which could be the ticking time bomb I'm talking about. otherwise, we wouldn't have any wars, how do they fix that tendency? well you have to create some kind of rules and norms, and also a belief system to enforce that. don't you get it? that's the point I've been trying to emphasize. what i learned from history at school is basically that
Kenneth, religion was and is a major cause of conflict. Rules and norms come even without religion. Religion isn't the source of order.
We still had wars even with religion. A lot of them.
common means of communications are already present within an area, because ancestral language already exist, which can be readily used to communicate in a area.
I think you're extremely confused about what time period is being talked about and what conditions would have been present. You go on as if only civilizations that have reached the point where they're building large scale monuments are "civilization" but then fall back to saying tribes would have formed together, when tribes already are civilization.
Basically, you're attaching an arbitrary definition to religion and defining it based on whether they've already established a major religion that plays into their society. It's a self fulfilling argument that ignores everything we're saying.
that's why you need to create a new unifying belief, which would unify those tribes and propel them to the unity of chiefdom.
You have cause and effect reversed Kenneth. People first come together. Then they have conflicting ideas. Over time these conglomerate and join together, and you have a new main belief.
The belief isn't created beforehand and then everyone just accepts that.
what i really meant with civilization is a body of people large enough to create monuments, division of labor and long lasting
As I said earlier. You're creating your own arbitrary definition of what a civilization is and using that to justify your assumption that religion is necessary to reach this point because you notice the correlation of religion already being present. This is circular reasoning.
I think i have been taught that religion is belief but belief is not religion.
That's correct. Now if you would stop equivocating belief to religion, that would be nice.
I'm trying to imply that religion( i would say belief system if not for my mistake) is created by unstable groups of people to stop them from splinting apart.
Ah. Here's the root of the false causation argument. Religion isn't created by unstable groups of people to stop them from splintering apart. Religion is a by-product of people exchanging ideas with one another. It doesn't affect the cohesiveness of a unit by definition.
People naturally view their own group as preferable and comfortable. That's basic psychology. They stay together because they know the people around them and feel safe, and because they don't know what else is out there. That's why people would have stayed together in ancient times - sharing a common belief is just a correlation because they were raised to believe it.
What you need to understand is that correlation does not imply causation.
In this case, our variables are "Level of Civilization" and "Presence of religious beliefs."
I guarantee you that if you quantified the progress of a society based on presence of factors, and graphed that against whether a religious belief was present, you'd see one straight line and one line constantly going up. There is no relation between the presence of religion and progress of society, even if they exist simultaneously.
I'm basing all this on all that i have learned and known historical accounts, so don't ever making fun of my effort in applying logic here, because you are doing that right now with your last comment.
I was talking about his question on why theists are always asking for proof but never give any themselves. It didn't necessarily apply to you.
This part applies to you: You're not using logic. There are several serious logical fallacies in your arguments, which I have pointed out, explained, and linked for you. I'll recap them.
Begging the Question: "Society exists because religion binds them together and without religion society could not exist" does absolutely nothing to support your position. It's a baseless assertion that assumes the statement is correct, but falls apart when you take a closer look at it.
Circular reasoning: "Society has religion (step1) religion binds people together (step2) people who live together are in a society (go back to step 1)." You can keep going around and around forever like that. It doesn't prove anything.
Also according to both of you about being social is human nature and strength in numbers, how that explain why does there are the said raiders and defenders side and why do they not combine into one?
Psychology. It would take a long time to explain all of it. However, it appears you're trying to interpret history without any education at all in psychology.
It doesn't help that you're comparing two groups that are already opposed to each other. If you gave these two people a common belief they would still hate and kill each other because of standing tensions. They'd probably just be even more pissed because they would have another point to argue and hate each other over.
@Kasic
I enjoy reading your well-written debate. It stays factual, on-point, and isn't making unsubstantiated assumptions based on personal belief. Thanks for that. =)
Circular reasoning: "Society has religion (step1) religion binds people together (step2) people who live together are in a society (go back to step 1)." You can keep going around and around forever like that. It doesn't prove anything.
1. Person leads society; has good ideas/given good ideas by god.
2. Person dies.
3. Time passes.
4. Person becomes mythologised, as do their ideas.
5. This is religion.
1. Person leads society; has good ideas/given good ideas by god.
2. Person dies.
3. Time passes.
4. Person becomes mythologised, as do their ideas.
5. This is religion.
Or,
1. Events occur that people build mythology around.
2. People invent a person to build mythology around.
3. mythology becomes compounded and more fanciful with each retelling.
4. This is religion.
And these steps I just mentioned are even documented to have happened. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult
First off, I've thoroughly enjoyed reading the debate so far. Everyone has been kind and charitable throughout and there are some well thought out arguments on offer. But I feel like there is some back and forth that is more a red herring. Though interesting, I'm not sure these points about early societies or civilisation are doing any work to answer the question in a satisfying way.
As noted by several of you, the notion of civilisation on offer is wholly unclear. But let's suppose we could nail down a clear and principled definition here - we would still have to provide a satisfying definition of religion. (On a side note, there seems to be a confusion about what constitutes a secular belief.) But let's suppose the following obtains: we agree on a definition of society/civilisation, religion, and we determine that religion is a necessary condition for societies to form. What have we shown?
Relating the current conversation back to the question, it looks as though the line we are taking is one that 'roves' the existence of animistic deities. I certainly hope this isn't the claim on offer, so I'm not sure what the argumentation is meant to show.
There is another point to consider. Those that are arguing against kenneth are trying to show that religion isn't required or even needed for healthy societies to form. I find this position agreeable - whether or not it is, in fact, the case. But now we're left with a different sort of problem. If religion isn't needed for any practical reason, this might speak in favour of some sort of deity. In other words, it would speak less to the notion of religion being invented, where the notion of an invention implies some goal (e.g. resolving a particular problem, making something easier to do, etc.). Instead, it would seem that religion is some sort of unavoidable consequence of the human experience. This might suggest the presence of a deity to which we lack proper epistemic access. Thus early religions are simply an attempt to gain that access and understand the nature of this deity.
You must be logged in to post a reply!