CavemanUg

Wow, it took less time than i thought it would to rip apart my little idea. But here is my question to back it up, we as humans, devloped the idea of God(s) for a reason. We could not handle the unknown, the undesrcibable, and as a way to give people a set order of laws that were set by a "higher being". I am actually talking about the devlpment of the human brain. I think that religions are a crutch for those who still cannot (or are not) willing to see the problems with them. But, the question is do people NEED that crutch as far as the devolpment of the brain goes, because, to me at least, it is appearant that at one time humans did need and orginized religon. It really was a question, and I think the general responce is "no", but, at least i started off my first post with a bang and a crackle. But this was a fun first post for me, it gives me a good idea of who to argue against, how to argue, and when it may be futile to argue. And when I said early I mean Percy Bysshe Shelley, Lord Bacon, Sir W. Drummond, etc.

And the Killing of the Jews by Nazi's was a socio-ecinomic thing, not a religious thing, why do you think that in one of the largest German depressions ever the Jewish community had an exces of gold fillings, or why do you think Hitler himeself ran on a Socialist party?

And I understand that all of you understand your surroundings and that is why you are NOT religious, but you do not represent the mass or people that is the world.

Ohh yeah and one more thing, this isnt my actual belief just an idea that i thought was interesting to take into consideration.

-Cave-Dweller

King's Indian

Hello again,
Thanks for answering my question, by the way- I really wasn't sure from where you were starting.
It is an interesting point you make, although I still have some confusion over a couple of things:
1) It's not obvious to me that god(s) are necessary for religions. Stoicism got along just fine without, and I think early Buddhism had no place for a God as such.
2) When talking about "the development of the brain", I think it prudent not too look for something too specific. As conscious beings in the world, we need to make sense of that world, and what it implies for us. This doesn't need religion at all, and may be better defined as faith. Religion, if you like, is its ritualized, social aspect. In this regard, try and get hold of stuff by Mary Midgley, who writes widely on the topic.
3) I'm also not sure that its very useful to describe religions as a "crutch". They tend to start out (although, like you, I don't want to neglect the social and economic aspects) as sincere ways of understanding the world, and our place in it. The trouble seems to be with authority (whether deriving from a priestly caste or from a supernatural entity): the point of authority is that one is meant to take it at its word, and that it is to be the last word (at least until the authority changes its mind). But the truth is that we are always finding out more about the world, or ourselves, in ways which bypass the need for an authority at all. Other ways of dealing with the world, such as science, or philosophy, or even the decision-making we do every day are activities, and are not useful unless we can continue building on them, using our experiences.
Sorry for rambling, but as I implied: this stuff interests me too. By the way, don't be too surprised if this thread gets shunted off to one of the "Religion" headings, although I put my faith in the moderator's niceness of judgment.
Take care.
KI.

Starboy

CavemanUg, I think you would make a great deal more headway if you dropped the supernatural mindset and stuck with the natural. Religion is not a one of a kind of entity. It is a hierarchal human system. The world is full of such systems. In these organizations there is a pecking order, rules, punishments and so forth. This is all part of basic human social behavior. The interesting thing about religion is not its structure with a “supreme” being at the top, it is that the leader is unidentifiable, unapproachable, cannot be replaced and has (allegedly) power over everything and everyone. This resonates with our visceral social notions. Religion is the result of combining our capabilities of imagination with our primate social behavior. We have in essence imagined the perfect leader.

Starboy

Amos

Time will tell. Very nice, but to become a sage religion (??) of some sort is needed. The problems begins when religious people go wrong.

DoubleDutchy

Laotse thinks differently on both these points:
- Abstinence from religion is one of the features that make for a sage.
- Religion as such is the source of problems (origin of folly).

Lots could be said about this but let us keep in mind verse 81 ( the last) :
81.
True words are not fancy.
Fancy words are not true.
The good do not debate.
Debaters are not good.
......

Amos

Yes, but Laotse did not become a sage because he abstained from religion. What he means is that when relgion has served its purpose it must be left behind and this is the most difficult thing to do. Most people fall for the "temptation in the desert" here while they must cause an "upset" in the temple and so leave religion behind.

Yes, religion is the cause of evil (sin) and since all is created in sin religion is good because all that which is created is good. In this way we say that religion is needed for the survival and prosperity of the tribe. Sages have resigned from evil, and from politics because they don't say, or do, or debate because those who are good have left all evil behind like a wasteland.

Did he not say that "those who make too much sense" are also good? If not, he should have.