John Page

I agree that religious societies have been very succesful. So, in a Darwinian sense, religions and creeds contribute significantly to success in competition between societies.

Can we create a new creed to kick religion's butt? Communism was mostly about the organization of society and did not stand the test of time. Ideologies must also compete for the hearts and minds of the people.

As examples:

1. The qualities of Islam gave the Ottoman empire an advantage over rivals but the strength of its culture created an inertia and resistance to change that caused its downfall when other societies exploited industrial and political advances.

2. The Indian caste system created a framework for channeling human resources in a densely populated country but at the same time limited the freedom of its individuals to participate and contribute. It stagnated and could not change quickly enough to resist the spread of the British Empire.

3. The Protestant breakaway from Catholic tradition signaled that the latter's strength of unity was too constraining upon individuals. Those who desired to govern their own beliefs and religious practice eventually cohered to present an organized Christian alternative.

4. The United States is a testament to the benefits of religious freedom and separation of church and state, bringing together a wide number of cultures and religions under a liberal political philosophy that emphasizes the equality of individuals rather than the role of the individual within society. Will the US succeed as a melting pot that will extract the best or will it explode into factions?

So, libertarianism kicks religion's butt and was devised to avoid religious persecution. For how long? What society can create a stronger economy with a better army and happier, smarter people?

David Bowden

Additionally, it seems to me that religions claim to already have the truth, or be the truth; they preach what they believe is the truth, but they do not seek it, if we are to understand "seeking" as meaning "not yet possessing it."

-Wanderer

Ms. Siv

That is not technically a valid statement. What you need to measure is how well a society does with religion alone. Otherwise how do you know that nothing else contributed to the s-called success ?
Also, how do you define this success ? And how do you define religiosity ?

Actually theistic religion is just one form of religion. Communism and Nazism were other forms.

- Sivakami.

[ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: Sivakami S ]</p>

John Page

So is logic. With reference to my statement about the success of societies adopting religions, I agree that I cannot logically prove this - but I still think its true and can you name me a successful society without religion? I think its also true to say that societies with very inconsistent or religions with limited scope are less successful - look at Rastafarianism, Paganism, Druidism. Time will judge but the major religions are just, well, better. Which creed do you think is the one to watch?

Ms. Siv

How so ? What is sacrosanct and unquestionable in logic ?

Can you prove to me that the success of that society was entirely doe to religion ? Can you show me the correlation between religiosity and success ?
Can you now name me one successful society without science ?!

- Sivakami.

John Page

Dear Sivakami:

Repeated are your questions, followed by my responses.

"How so? What is sacrosanct and unquestionable in logic?" Answer: Maybe there is a miscommunications here, nothing is sacrosanct and everything is questionable.

"Can you prove to me that the success of that society was entirely doe to religion?" Answer: No, I don't have a method for that, its my opinion based on the balance of evidence that religion was a very significant factor. I'm not sure I said "entirely" due to religion.

"Can you show me the correlation between religiosity and success?" Answer: In the so-called Holy Wars, one of the religions "won" didn't they?

"Can you now name me one successful society without science ?!" Answer: Science has not always existed and there were succesful societies before that, choose any of them.

Tribalgroove

I think your discussion employs a somewhat anachronistic ambiguity. It is virtually impossible to compare the relative success of ancient civilizations when we cannot escape the lense of modern context. By what universal standard does one gauge success? Longevity? Dominance? Culture?

Where also do we draw the boundaries of civilization, physically and temporally? We assign dates and labels but few civilizations simply cease to exist. Most exist constantly in flux and transition, with no clear beginning or end. By this standard, all succeed and all fail.

Clearly, this is not the only point of contention when assessing religious influence on cultural success. One cannot effectively peel religion's influence apart from the myriad of other influences. Indeed, one cannot even really pull religion away from culture at all. It is a commonality that transcends every created boundary but the human experience.

Even if this were possible, one needs a control group for basis of comparison. A culture devoid of religion would be necessary for perspective. I know of no appropriate example. This leaves one with the ability to establish only correlation, not causality.

John Page

Tribalgroove:

Psssst! Don't tell the Mormons they're the control group.

infidel57

Can't this argument be tested? We can find the most "sinful" of our citizens in prisons. If the moral argument has validity, wouldn't there be a disproportionate number of non-believers in lockup? After all, they have no clergy or good book to guide them. Satan isn't there for them to scare them straight.

Yet, statistics from the Texas Department of Corrections show that only 1.5 percent of the prison population have no religion while more than 30 percent list their religious preference as Baptist, 21 percent as Assembly of God and 16 percent as Catholic. Since the nationwide percentage of nonbelievers is around eight percent of the population, you'd expect a much larger percentage than 1.5 percent of the prison population to be nonbelievers since they have no moral guidance.

Ms. Siv

Not so with religion. Therefore logic is not a religion.

And my opinion is that those societies who adopted science early on did better. Science does not mean guys in white lab coats. Even some primitive hunting methods were scientific.

And another lost, didn't it ?!
Thats no correlation. You have to prove that the more the religiosity in a society the better it fares.

Wrong. Who said they didn't use science. The scientific method can be used in hunting, agriculture, making crude tools, preserving social order ... all aspects of life. And even other primates use crude science.
We've just developed it far better.

- Sivakami.

[ February 28, 2002: Message edited by: Sivakami S ]</p>