NationStates Jolt Archive

(For those familiar - smilie left off due to sensitivity of the issue - not due to acquiescence to your objections - you know who you are.)

While most people believe in one or another type of deity I would like to know – if you can just imagine - that our world had never developed any type of religion; any type of belief in a deity and – this will be the hardest part for most to imagine – a universe where there really wasn’t any type of superior being.
Once you get a handle on that – my question….
Where do you think this world would be in relation to technology; medicine and the like?
Just consider all the roadblocks and destruction to progress that has been placed in the name of organized religion.

If this wandering offends you, I apologize but I like to think – caution cliché coming - “out of the box” and – while we all pretty much believe our beliefs are correct - there has been a lot done throughout history to stifle science by ignorance or greed or both.

(For those familiar - smilie left off due to sensitivity of the issue - not due to acquiescence to your objections - you know who you are.)

*does victory dance*

While most people believe in one or another type of deity I would like to know – if you can just imagine - that our world had never developed any type of religion; any type of belief in a deity and – this will be the hardest part for most to imagine – a universe where there really wasn’t any type of superior being.

Actually the majority of people on this forum tend to be atheist so it won't be too hard.:)

Once you get a handle on that – my question….
Where do you think this world would be in relation to technology; medicine and the like?
Just consider all the roadblocks and destruction to progress that has been placed in the name of organized religion.

Technology, medicine etc. would probably be ahead, politics would be considered more important. Interestingly though, while technology would develop quicker it might not begin to develop so early as religion was an important point in the formation of most early civilisations.

As a culture people would probably be more liberal sexually. I'm sure there would be far more effects but I'm not really awake enough to think of them at this moment.

I often think of things like this. If i'm pessimistic I'd say religous morals helped us get out of the barbaric phase and helped us develop a good moral code where it isnt ok to just do what you want most of the time and kill pretty much anyone who you dont like.

If i'm optimistic I'd say we'd be much further ahead by now if we were free of the religous zealots who have opposed anything new.

At the moment I'd say somewhere in between. We would be a bit further ahead in technology and science but at the cost of an even more cut thoat society.

Even though I'm a stubborn atheist(or athiest as some people prefer to write) I have to confess that religion has been useful. In the early centuries, there simply was no other way to make people do things and be organized unless you threatened them with God or Allah or someone.

*does victory dance*



Actually the majority of people on this forum tend to be atheist so it won't be too hard.:)



Technology, medicine etc. would probably be ahead, politics would be considered more important. Interestingly though, while technology would develop quicker it might not begin to develop so early as religion was an important point in the formation of most early civilisations.

As a culture people would probably be more liberal sexually. I'm sure there would be far more effects but I'm not really awake enough to think of them at this moment.

Sorry to wake you so early...but thanks, I failed to incorporate religious effects of social formation into my thoughts. Do you not think that the political end of society would not have filled the void? After all both are either - depending on your views - providing protection from our fears (real or not) or rely on these fears to give itself strength and the ability to propagate and control.

Interesting thing to think about over breakfast. I disagree with you that religion has been a road block to progress. I think our curiousity and reverence for the gods--the world beyond this one--has been the fuel for most of man's motives and actions. I know at least from a Christian perspective, if you remove God from the universe, everything good (love, humility, holyness, grace, mercy, etc.) would also be removed. Even if one does not believe in God, there are still major benifits to living in a world that does. Art and architecture are just one clear example!

I often think of things like this. If i'm pessimistic I'd say religous morals helped us get out of the barbaric phase and helped us develop a good moral code where it isnt ok to just do what you want most of the time and kill pretty much anyone who you dont like.

If i'm optimistic I'd say we'd be much further ahead by now if we were free of the religous zealots who have opposed anything new.

At the moment I'd say somewhere in between. We would be a bit further ahead in technology and science but at the cost of an even more cut thoat society.

If you look through history you will see that organized religion at times was as barbaric as any barbarian.
When you speak of religious morals you must be speaking of a moral religion. Religion throughout history - to the current times - has not shown itself to be moralistic at all times. Beheading was common in many religions. Stoning an unfaithful wife (moral?) happens to this day. Book burning, new ideas trashed, torture, death, genocide were all considered moralistic at one time or another.
While you may be right - somewhere in between - but it is a shame that so much was lost due to ones fear and anothers ability to manipulate that fear.

No religion or higher power?

I'm with the poster above, religion was vital in organising and regulating societies, helped to contribute to the idea that 'rules', abstract principles (e.g. justice, mercy, etc etc), can guide human and societal affairs. At numerous times, clergymen of any given religion were among the most educated of the day, aided learning and the 'build-up' of a society's knowledge base.

Without religion of some sort, some manner of belief in higher, abstract powers, it would have been very diffiult to build and regulate any sort of lasting society, to keep it coherent across territory more than as day's travel away on foot. We'd live in villages, nomadic horsemen would be the terror of us all, and life expectency outside the tribe's elite would be about 35-40, I reckon.

Interesting thing to think about over breakfast. I disagree with you that religion has been a road block to progress. I think our curiousity and reverence for the gods--the world beyond this one--has been the fuel for most of man's motives and actions. I know at least from a Christian perspective, if you remove God from the universe, everything good (love, humility, holyness, grace, mercy, etc.) would also be removed. Even if one does not believe in God, there are still major benifits to living in a world that does. Art and architecture are just one clear example!

Everything has it's benefits. Murder reduces the population. Robbery - in most cases - transfers wealth from those that have it to those that don't. Assault increases income for hospitals and feeds a policemans family.

I agree there are many a fine piece of art religiously inspired but conversley it gets locked up in the Vatican while they plead for pennies to feed the poor - but that's another story. But what about the art and architecturethat has been destroyed in the name of God?

Elgesh']No religion or higher power?

I'm with the poster above, religion was vital in organising and regulating societies, helped to contribute to the idea that 'rules', abstract principles (e.g. justice, mercy, etc etc), can guide human and societal affairs. At numerous times, clergymen of any given religion were among the most educated of the day, aided learning and the 'build-up' of a society's knowledge base.

Without religion of some sort, some manner of belief in higher, abstract powers, it would have been very diffiult to build and regulate any sort of lasting society, to keep it coherent across territory more than as day's travel away on foot. We'd live in villages, nomadic horsemen would be the terror of us all, and life expectency outside the tribe's elite would be about 35-40, I reckon.

I may be wrong but I believe that the majority of "most educated of the day" had a tendency to keep it to themselves and when they diseminated it to the common people it was done in a manner to control and/or convert.

Sorry to wake you so early...but thanks, I failed to incorporate religious effects of social formation into my thoughts. Do you not think that the political end of society would not have filled the void? After all both are either - depending on your views - providing protection from our fears (real or not) or rely on these fears to give itself strength and the ability to propagate and control.

It isn't early, I'm just tired anyway. Too many late nights. :)

Religion offered a common unity which made it much easier to form people into a cohesive civilisation, the Roman Empire's schism was caused by a conflict between Christianity and Paganism within the empire itself and this led to it forming into the Eastern and Western empires.

Without any religion people would have been more individualistic and harder to form into the foundations of civilisation.

I may be wrong but I believe that the majority of "most educated of the day" had a tendency to keep it to themselves and when they diseminated it to the common people it was done in a manner to control and/or convert.

Yes, you are wrong :) Education tended to get spread along with religion.

Of course I can only say 'tended' - we're talking about a subject that spans 30,000 years, of which only the last 8000 are recorded at all well!

I'm actually going to go out on a limb here and say that humanity evolving without religion is somewhat unrealistic. It seems to be a natural part of any culture.

I'm actually going to go out on a limb here and say that humanity evolving without religion is somewhat unrealistic. It seems to be a natural part of any culture.

I believe you do have a point - that religion of one sort or another - seems to be a natural part of any culture. Isolated tribes with no outside influences that can be determined (nothing can be guaranteed 100%) develop their own forms of religion. So is this inherent because there is a diety or just a response to fear?
Maybe there are three choices of response to fear - Fight; Flee or Religion....hmmmm

Where do you think this world would be in relation to technology; medicine and the like?Possibly we would never have gotten along long enough to start cities. Cities need rules, and a god laying down the rules is a good way to 'enforce' them.
Consider God Hobbes' Leviathan.

Where do you think this world would be in relation to technology; medicine and the like?

To quote Pratchett: "humans need fantasies to be human".
Without fantasies and imagination, we would still be sitting around the tree that got hit by lightning yesterday, enjoying that warm "fire" thingy in front of our cave. Gods are a logical first fantasy.

Humans also tend to be selfish - and without some reason to work together forming a society would be almost impossible. Religion provides such a reason which is easily accepted outside the intellectual elite.

Belief in deities is simply the extension of belief in other supernatural phenomena. The human mind will always come up with stories and explanations for things not understood. Gods, God, faerie, leprechauns, nymphs, angels, etc. all have come out of the human mind’s need to create and entertain. I don’t think it would be possible to have humans without superstition.
Our intelligence and creativity also allows us to constantly look for comfort and the easy way out. Comfort for most of us is a set of rules that are absolute, that relieves us of the problem of having to look at the particulars of any given situation. Religion fits that need perfectly.

Possibly we would never have gotten along long enough to start cities. Cities need rules, and a god laying down the rules is a good way to 'enforce' them.
Consider God Hobbes' Leviathan.

What about government without a diety - the laws would be there less religion as well as enforcement.
AND...If there were government without religion would government be a religion?

To quote Pratchett: "humans need fantasies to be human".
Without fantasies and imagination, we would still be sitting around the tree that got hit by lightning yesterday, enjoying that warm "fire" thingy in front of our cave. Gods are a logical first fantasy.

Humans also tend to be selfish - and without some reason to work together forming a society would be almost impossible. Religion provides such a reason which is easily accepted outside the intellectual elite.

I would tend to disagree about Gods as a first fantasy - wouldn't that bolt of lightening be looked at as some kind of monster instead?

What about government without a diety - the laws would be there less religion as well as enforcement.
AND...If there were government without religion would government be a religion?

I don't understand what you mean. There would be little in the way of government without religion because there would be very little in the way of 'society'. There would be family government and might makes right government, but without the ideas of abstract-concepts-can-dictate-human-action that religion provides so well, there'd be very little scope for the growth of 'government' as we see it today.

Without the creativity/imagination we have that _neccesitates_ our building of religions at points of our societal development, I doubt we'd actually be 'human' as we understand the term.

I would tend to disagree about Gods as a first fantasy - wouldn't that bolt of lightening be looked at as some kind of monster instead?

Early cultures tended to believe in nature spirits rather than gods as such.

Belief in deities is simply the extension of belief in other supernatural phenomena. The human mind will always come up with stories and explanations for things not understood. Gods, God, faerie, leprechauns, nymphs, angels, etc. all have come out of the human mind’s need to create and entertain. I don’t think it would be possible to have humans without superstition.
Our intelligence and creativity also allows us to constantly look for comfort and the easy way out. Comfort for most of us is a set of rules that are absolute, that relieves us of the problem of having to look at the particulars of any given situation. Religion fits that need perfectly.

Sci-fi author Arthur C. Clarke believes religion and belief in God more like a virus spread from primitve ignorance (the flash of lightening previously mentioned for example) getting more engrained as the human mind developed via tales, embelleshments, greed, desire for power, fear of retribution and just simply echoing of families beliefs.
Most simply follow in the ways they grew to know when young and impressionable never really - really understanding any other way of life. After all by turning your back on the deity you were raised to believe would have some real serious ramifications in the afterlife.

(For those familiar - smilie left off due to sensitivity of the issue - not due to acquiescence to your objections - you know who you are.)

While most people believe in one or another type of deity I would like to know – if you can just imagine - that our world had never developed any type of religion; any type of belief in a deity and – this will be the hardest part for most to imagine – a universe where there really wasn’t any type of superior being.
Once you get a handle on that – my question….
Where do you think this world would be in relation to technology; medicine and the like?
Just consider all the roadblocks and destruction to progress that has been placed in the name of organized religion.

If this wandering offends you, I apologize but I like to think – caution cliché coming - “out of the box” and – while we all pretty much believe our beliefs are correct - there has been a lot done throughout history to stifle science by ignorance or greed or both.


Technology and medicine would probably be very primitive, since many sciences were founded by religious believers looking for the patterns that a logical creative God put into the universe, and many hospitals have been founded by organized religion, not only in developing countries, but in western countries as well.

My late father had years added to his life after his first heart attack because of the hospital they took him to, which was founded by the 7th day Adventists, so no religion, no hospital, no dad.

Elgesh']I don't understand what you mean. There would be little in the way of government without religion because there would be very little in the way of 'society'. There would be family government and might makes right government, but without the ideas of abstract-concepts-can-dictate-human-action that religion provides so well, there'd be very little scope for the growth of 'government' as we see it today.

Without the creativity/imagination we have that _neccesitates_ our building of religions at points of our societal development, I doubt we'd actually be 'human' as we understand the term.

So you would have a "might makes right" form of government with low morals and probably lower mercy but some of the most oppressed peoples were ruled by the religious in their own "might makes right"
For sure we wouldn't be the same as we are now but I believe a society would have developed - just maybe not to your liking...or mine.

Technology and medicine would probably be very primitive, since many sciences were founded by religious believers looking for the patterns that a logical creative God put into the universe, and many hospitals have been founded by organized religion, not only in developing countries, but in western countries as well.

My late father had years added to his life after his first heart attack because of the hospital they took him to, which was founded by the 7th day Adventists, so no religion, no hospital, no dad.
I am happy that your dad received the help that kept him with you longer. It has to be the number one gift one can receive for we are noone without our family.
Don't get me wrong - I believe in God and I respect your feelings on hospitals but so much has been wasted and destroyed throughout the ages for the sole reason (even though later proved true) that the idea clashed with the then current beliefs. You could go on and on for decades listing the atrocities done in the name of religion - it is really sad. Everything from the orbit of the earth to people burned as witches; from terrorist bombings to ancient icons destroyed.
For all the good there seems to just as mch on the opposite side - if not more in terms of lost life, art, science and time.

It is common today to say that religion has put roadblocks in front of progress especially in regards to science. This was not always true. The best historical example of religion and science working hand in hand can be found in the first few centuries of the religion founded by the Prophet Mohmmed. The Islamic culture was instrumental in advancing scienctific knowledge during its early and golden years. It was only later after Islam became stuck in its man-made traditions that it opposed the advancement of science.

The same is true of all previous religions including Christianity. At first the outpourings of the religions founder inspired advances in aquired knowledge, including science. True religion is not the enemy of science. Rather they are helpmates, like two wings on one bird.

So you would have a "might makes right" form of government with low morals and probably lower mercy but some of the most oppressed peoples were ruled by the religious in their own "might makes right"
For sure we wouldn't be the same as we are now but I believe a society would have developed - just maybe not to your liking...or mine.

It would be a very primitive society, but yes, I'm agreeing with that!

Might makes right - I would add that there's a fundamental difference between basic 'brutality' and 'brutality because xyz'. Neither is any fun if you're being brutalised, but the second one allows the possibility of change, development, and an ending to the brutality - if there's a reason beyond 'I'm doing this because I can and I'm bigger than you', you can change this situation without _sole_ recourse to getting 'bigger' yourself! Of course getting a little bigger _helps_ in seeking to change the brutal situation, but it's aided immensely by other, mopre abstract factors of the sort promoted by religion.

It is common today to say that religion has put roadblocks in front of progress especially in regards to science. This was not always true. The best historical example of religion and science working hand in hand can be found in the first few centuries of the religion founded by the Prophet Mohmmed. The Islamic culture was instrumental in advancing scienctific knowledge during its early and golden years. It was only later after Islam became stuck in its man-made traditions that it opposed the advancement of science.

The same is true of all previous religions including Christianity. At first the outpourings of the religions founder inspired advances in aquired knowledge, including science. True religion is not the enemy of science. Rather they are helpmates, like two wings on one bird.

Agreed, Gallileo dedicated his work to God and genetic inheritance was discovered by a monk. True religion and true science do not conflict but there has been too little true religion in the world.:(

Agreed, Gallileo dedicated his work to God and genetic inheritance was discovered by a monk. True religion and true science do not conflict but there has been too little true religion in the world.:(

Each of the Messengers or Founders said they would return one day when the world or age ended and a new age or world began. I believe that day has come and can be found on Mt Carmel, Hafia Israel.

*does victory dance*



Actually the majority of people on this forum tend to be atheist so it won't be too hard.:)



Technology, medicine etc. would probably be ahead, politics would be considered more important. Interestingly though, while technology would develop quicker it might not begin to develop so early as religion was an important point in the formation of most early civilisations.

As a culture people would probably be more liberal sexually. I'm sure there would be far more effects but I'm not really awake enough to think of them at this moment.

As far as science and technology go: Later, but faster. Organized religion was the first place people could go to learn things, read books, and think up philosophies, but once that gave birth to independent thought and scientific inquiry that the Church couldn't control or put a stop to instantly with the label of 'heresy', they freaked out at the horrible Frankensteinian monster they had unleashed, and spent the next five or six hundred years trying to shove the genie back into the bottle, with little success.

BUT, though their out-and-out successes were few and far between, the pervasive pressure they applied, the hold they had over people and governments, and their constant efforts with their not-inconsiderable resources at putting a damper on the Enlightenment did definitely slow down and put roadblocks in front of development. So, as I said, major progress would have started later, but gone faster.

Sociopolitically, I'd think we'd be in a much better position now. Early civilizations were held together (initially, at least) by religion, rather than politics. The god-king called for the deaths of all thieves and His Will Be Done. Later, the feudal nobility had power checked only by each other in a system held up by religion. Only in the past three or four centuries, and earlier, before the Dark Ages in the times of the Greeks and Romans, did politics run things. If instead the first civilizations had arisen based on reality-based social structures and simple, chosen-for-function governance systems, things would have been run politically rather than theocratically much sooner, we would have missed the Dark Ages alltogether, and feudalism would have been, I think, shorter-lived, more complex and egalitarian, and more enlightened. By this time, we'd have much more experience running secular sociopolitical systems, and would be better off politically.