Are religions, our tribes within tribes, now redundant and a costly moral and financi

[FindersKeepers]

That was my point much earlier and was true up until ancient Greek and Roman times as evidenced by the vast research of Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges in his The Ancient City: A Study of the Religion, Laws, and Institutions of Greece and Rome.

But religion extends back to paleolithic hunters and gatherers. You won't find a more scientific study than Hunter-Gatherers and the Origins of Religion--here's just the abstract, the entire paper is at the link:
All this religion for 100s of 1000s of years FK dismisses as superstitution and not religion at all.

Just for $#@!s and giggles, let's assume I agree with your definitions of religion and superstition. Okay. Done.

You still haven't explained how early man could have created religion but not laws and moral codes.

You want to claim that laws and codes came from religion -- but here's the kicker -- even if they did, man created the religion from which they came so man is still the creator of laws and moral codes.

Are you beginning to understand that?

Are you beginning to see how your argument cannot succeed?

[Chris]

Just for $#@!s and giggles, let's assume I agree with your definitions of religion and superstition. Okay. Done.

You still haven't explained how early man could have created religion but not laws and moral codes.

You want to claim that laws and codes came from religion -- but here's the kicker -- even if they did, man created the religion from which they came so man is still the creator of laws and moral codes.

Are you beginning to understand that?

Are you beginning to see how your argument cannot succeed?

You still haven't explained how early man could have created religion but not laws and moral codes.

You want to claim that laws and codes came from religion...

It's difficult to respond when you attribute two different even contrasting views to me, neither of which I've argued. What I have argued is religion, law, and morality were all organically connected throughout primitive religion right up to Greek and Roman times.

...but here's the kicker -- even if they did, man created the religion from which they came so man is still the creator of laws and moral codes.

I have pointed out several times that nothing I have said has argued anything about the source of religion, laws, or morality. I have only argued that religion permeated man's view of the world, was an integral part of man's life, right on up to Greek and Roman times. IOW, I'm not arguing about God here.


And that is why this discussion is pointless. You don't even understand in the least what I'm saying.


Another reason is this. I have presented recognized and accepted authorities on religion to back up what I say. You claim to have show this, that and the other thing when in fact all you have presented in support is 19th Century anthropologists, Lewis Henry Morgan and Edward Tylor framed cultural evolution into three stages -- savagery, barbarism, and finally, civilization. I've already pointed out they were progressives during the Progressive Era admired by the likes of Marx. Here is some additional criticism of their view called "unilinear social evolution": Social Evolutionism

In the early years of anthropology, the prevailing view of anthropologists and other scholars was that culture generally develops (or evolves) in a uniform and progressive manner....

...Tylor maintained that culture evolved from the simple to the complex, and that all societies passed through the three basic stages of development suggested by Montesquieu: from savagery through barbarism to civilization. “Progress,” therefore, was possible for all.

To account for cultural variation, Tylor and other early evolutionists postulated that different contemporary societies were at different stages of evolution. According to this view, the “simpler” peoples of the day had not yet reached “higher” stages....

...unilinear social evolution – the notion that culture generally develops (or evolves) in a uniform and progressive manner. It was thought that most societies pass through the same series of stages, to arrive ultimately at a common end. The scheme originally included just three stages (savagery, barbarism, and civilization), but was later subdivided in various manners to account for a greater amount of sociocultural diversity.

That to establish we're talking about your two 19th century anthropologists and their theory of unilinear social evolution. Now to criticism:

Morgan believed that family units became progressively smaller and more self-contained as human society developed. However, his postulated sequence for the evolution of the family is not supported by the enormous amount of ethnographic data that has been collected since his time. For example, no recent society that Morgan would call savage indulges in group marriage or allows brother-sister mating. In short, a most damning criticism of this early social evolutionary approach is that as more data became available, the proposed sequences did not reflected the observations of professionally trained fieldworkers.

A second criticism is for the use by Tylor, McLellan, and others of ‘recurrence’ – if a similar belief or custom could be found in different cultures in many parts of the world, then it was considered to be a valid clue for reconstructing the history of the development, spread, and contact among different human societies. The great weakness of this method lay in the evaluation of evidence plucked out of context, and in the fact that much of the material, at a time when there were almost no trained field workers, came from amateur observers.

The evolutionism of Tylor, Morgan, and others of the nineteenth century is rejected today largely because their theories cannot satisfactorily account for cultural variation. Why, for example, are some societies today lodged in “upper savagery” and others in “civilization.” The “psychic unity of mankind” or “germs of thought” that were postulated to account for parallel evolution cannot also account for cultural differences. Another weakness in the early evolutionists’ theories is that they cannot explain why some societies have regressed or even become extinct. Also, although other societies may have progressed to “civilization,” some of them have not passed through all the stages. Thus, early evolutionist theory cannot explain the details of cultural evolution and variation as anthropology now knows them. Finally, one of the most common criticisms leveled at the nineteenth century evolutionists is that they were highly ethnocentric – they assumed that Victorian England, or its equivalent, represented the highest level of development for mankind.

“[The] unilineal evolutionary schemes [of these theorists] fell into disfavor in the 20th century, partly as a result of the constant controversy between evolutionist and diffusionist theories and partly because of the newly accumulating evidence about the diversity of specific sociocultural systems which made it impossible to sustain the largely “armchair” speculations of these early theorists” (Seymour-Smith 1986:106).

Anthropology today rejects their BS.

[FindersKeepers]

It's difficult to respond when you attribute two different even contrasting views to me, neither of which I've argued. What I have argued is religion, law, and morality were all organically connected throughout primitive religion right up to Greek and Roman times.
I have pointed out several times that nothing I have said has argued anything about the source of religion, laws, or morality. I have only argued that religion permeated man's view of the world, was an integral part of man's life, right on up to Greek and Roman times. IOW, I'm not arguing about God here.
And that is why this discussion is pointless. You don't even understand in the least what I'm saying.

If this is accurate, then perhaps you just don't know how to get your point across. Just in this thread, in Post 9, you were responding to Common Sense's post (6) concerning laws against "murder, theft, and lying" (post 5) and how they came about. You said, "Those laws originate in religion alone."

When I posted that laws and morality developed in spite of not because of religion, you posted:

"You go back far enough to early Roman and early Gree times and you find religion was all there was and out of that came most laws and morality."


So, yes, you did post exactly what I said you posted, and you did not post what you claim to have posted.

That's incredibly hard to argue against because you say one thing and then you claim you didn't. If, as you now say, you didn't mean those things, then you should have been more careful in your wording when you posted them.

Just saying.

Another reason is this. I have presented recognized and accepted authorities on religion to back up what I say. You claim to have show this, that and the other thing when in fact all you have presented in support is 19th Century anthropologists, Lewis Henry Morgan and Edward Tylor framed cultural evolution into three stages -- savagery, barbarism, and finally, civilization. I've already pointed out they were progressives during the Progressive Era admired by the likes of Marx. Here is some additional criticism of their view called "unilinear social evolution": Social Evolutionism

You think that's beneficial, but that's actually the source of one of your problems. Think for yourself. You're very good at copy/paste, in much the same manner as MidCan, but it doesn't mean jack $#@!. You have to be able to explain why you believe something someone else said. You don't do that. You simply post their thoughts and think that bouys your argument. It doesn't.

I posted one simple idea from Morgan and Tylor--an idea that cultural evolution was such that early man progressed intellectually through stages, and that earliest stages were not conducive to forming religions.

That's it. I didn't post anything else from their ideas, yet you thought it was a good debate tactic to undermine their basis. Here's the thing--unlike you, I actually think for myself. I agree with the idea of intellectual evolution of early man--that does not mean I agree with everything Morgan and Tylor wrote. Good gawd, man, what sort of lame argument is that?

That to establish we're talking about your two 19th century anthropologists and their theory of unilinear social evolution. Now to criticism:
Anthropology today rejects their BS.

There you go again. You even go so far as to say "your two 19th century anthropologists..." as if I have some sort of claim on them. How incredibly anti-intellectual is that? I gave you one simple concept from them--a concept that stands on its own independent of them, and this is how you react.

Okay. All that aside, because it's just your way of deflecting from your failed argument.

Let's get back to the nuts and bolts...

Despite your claims in this post, you have made comments indicating laws and morals come from religion. That claim would be absolutely fine coming from Mister D, or Peter, or anyone else who is religious, because the basis of their argument is that the same god(s) that made humans also made laws. I get that argument. I don't agree with it but I get it.

You cannot use that argument because you claim to be atheist. Being an atheist removes that specific argument from your repertoire.

For any honest atheist, it's understood that laws and morals come naturally from humans since there is no outside influence to bring them. Period. There is no further argument. Human created laws, morals, and religion. Period. Religion created nothing because it does not stand alone. It is a creation of humans, therefore everything it contains is a creation of humans. Period.

So, let's just stop this silliness. You've argued yourself into a corner and you can't get out.

[Gnostic]

[QUOTE=FindersKeepers;3596178]

For any honest atheist, it's understood that laws and morals come naturally from humans since there is no outside influence to bring them.

[QUOTE]

I agree, and that might explain why people, including atheists, are more law abiding and peaceful.

Stats show that the less religiosity in a nation, the better behaved the people are.

Regards
DL

[Chris]

If this is accurate, then perhaps you just don't know how to get your point across. Just in this thread, in Post 9, you were responding to Common Sense's post (6) concerning laws against "murder, theft, and lying" (post 5) and how they came about. You said, "Those laws originate in religion alone."

When I posted that laws and morality developed in spite of not because of religion, you posted:

"You go back far enough to early Roman and early Gree times and you find religion was all there was and out of that came most laws and morality."


So, yes, you did post exactly what I said you posted, and you did not post what you claim to have posted.

That's incredibly hard to argue against because you say one thing and then you claim you didn't. If, as you now say, you didn't mean those things, then you should have been more careful in your wording when you posted them.

Just saying.



You think that's beneficial, but that's actually the source of one of your problems. Think for yourself. You're very good at copy/paste, in much the same manner as MidCan, but it doesn't mean jack $#@!. You have to be able to explain why you believe something someone else said. You don't do that. You simply post their thoughts and think that bouys your argument. It doesn't.

I posted one simple idea from Morgan and Tylor--an idea that cultural evolution was such that early man progressed intellectually through stages, and that earliest stages were not conducive to forming religions.

That's it. I didn't post anything else from their ideas, yet you thought it was a good debate tactic to undermine their basis. Here's the thing--unlike you, I actually think for myself. I agree with the idea of intellectual evolution of early man--that does not mean I agree with everything Morgan and Tylor wrote. Good gawd, man, what sort of lame argument is that?


There you go again. You even go so far as to say "your two 19th century anthropologists..." as if I have some sort of claim on them. How incredibly anti-intellectual is that? I gave you one simple concept from them--a concept that stands on its own independent of them, and this is how you react.

Okay. All that aside, because it's just your way of deflecting from your failed argument.

Let's get back to the nuts and bolts...

Despite your claims in this post, you have made comments indicating laws and morals come from religion. That claim would be absolutely fine coming from Mister D, or Peter, or anyone else who is religious, because the basis of their argument is that the same god(s) that made humans also made laws. I get that argument. I don't agree with it but I get it.

You cannot use that argument because you claim to be atheist. Being an atheist removes that specific argument from your repertoire.

For any honest atheist, it's understood that laws and morals come naturally from humans since there is no outside influence to bring them. Period. There is no further argument. Human created laws, morals, and religion. Period. Religion created nothing because it does not stand alone. It is a creation of humans, therefore everything it contains is a creation of humans. Period.

So, let's just stop this silliness. You've argued yourself into a corner and you can't get out.

Laws for murder, theft, lying do originate in religion. But to be clear, I mean religion extending back to prehistoric times, onto early Greek and Roman times,, not your narrow 6000-year view.

Yes, I did say "You go back far enough to early Roman and early Gree[k] times and you find religion was all there was and out of that came most laws and morality." But to be clear, I mean religion extending back to prehistoric times, onto early Greek and Roman times, not your narrow 6000-year view.

I have not denied posting any of those things. You have misinterpreted them because you're stuck on religion implying God.

You think that's beneficial, but that's actually the source of one of your problems. Think for yourself.

That's a stupid argument. If only because you yourself claim to have shown your claims true by posting 19th century theorists.

Here's the difference, I cite modern, contemporary anthropology to support my claims. You cite quacks whom modern anthropology have rejected.

Making claims and citing scientific authorities to back up those claims is making an argument.

Despite your claims in this post, you have made comments indicating laws and morals come from religion. That claim would be absolutely fine coming from Mister D, or Peter, or anyone else who is religious, because the basis of their argument is that the same god(s) that made humans also made laws. I get that argument. I don't agree with it but I get it.

But I am talking about religions that are paganistic from prehistory to early historical times. Those are not religions D or Peter or others believe in. Those are not religions that had a God or gods.

The claims I make for religion are religion without God.*

And, yes, I can and do make those claims because those claims are made by anthropologists who themselves are not religious.

...laws and morals come naturally from humans since there is no outside influence to bring them.

What you fail to understand is that back when these originated religion was an organic, inseparable, integral part of man's life and being. You fail to understand this because you impose anachronistically a modern view onto what came before modernity, a modern view that has separated and abstracted out every aspect of life.

Human created laws, morals, and religion.

Now you've shifted your entire argument. Earlier you argue law and morality and civilization all came first and religion came about only as an afterthought. Now you argue they all came about together, which is closer to the anthropological view--my view.

But, your claim that man "created" these things is something that you must demonstrate through the only evidence available, anthropological evidence.

But you cannot do this. For one, you have declared citing authorities is not permitted, that you must think (somehow) for yourself. For another, you are an atheist and you have declared atheists making claims about religion is out of bounds. So how are you going to manage to demonstrate man created these things?

Seems to me you're the one who's painted themselves into a corner.


*My argument does not presuppose God...but then neither does it presuppose not God.

[FindersKeepers]

Since this discussion is going nowhere fast, and your argument hinges on you creating new definitions for terms, such as "religion," I'm only going to respond to a single statement of yours, because my response covers everything.

But, your claim that man "created" these things is something that you must demonstrate through the only evidence available, anthropological evidence.
.

Since we've both agree that no supernatural god or gods exist, that leaves only a single manner in which any law, moral code, or religion could be come into existence--through and by humans.

Once that is accepted and understood, there really is no further discussion because even if a law is a byproduct of a religion, the religion itself is a creation of man, so the law was still created by man.

'nuff said.

Now, unless your next proposal is that aliens brought us laws and religion, it appears we're done.

[Chris]

Since this discussion is going nowhere fast, and your argument hinges on you creating new definitions for terms, such as "religion," I'm only going to respond to a single statement of yours, because my response covers everything.





Since we've both agree that no supernatural god or gods exist, that leaves only a single manner in which any law, moral code, or religion could be come into existence--through and by humans.

Once that is accepted and understood, there really is no further discussion because even if a law is a byproduct of a religion, the religion itself is a creation of man, so the law was still created by man.

'nuff said.

Now, unless your next proposal is that aliens brought us laws and religion, it appears we're done.

I think one problem you have with forum discussion is you view it narrowly as one-on-one dialog without consideration of the many reading and some thinking, for example, wait a minute, as a theist, FK's "demonstration" demonstrates nothing but merely begs the question.

IOW, FAIL!

Creation is a possibility just as inspiration is, and so is emergence, so is discovery--as in Aquinas' natural law is that much of divine law man discovers by right reason, accident, and so on.

[Chris]

I agree, and that might explain why people, including atheists, are more law abiding and peaceful.

Stats show that the less religiosity in a nation, the better behaved the people are.

Regards
DL

Sources?

[FindersKeepers]

I think one problem you have with forum discussion is you view it narrowly as one-on-one dialog without consideration of the many reading and some thinking, for example, wait a minute, as a theist, FK's "demonstration" demonstrates nothing but merely begs the question.
IOW, FAIL!

That might just be one of the most nonsensical things you've said so far--and you've said plenty of nonsensical things.

Talk about a fail.

Creation is a possibility just as inspiration is, and so is emergence, so is discovery--as in Aquinas' natural law is that much of divine law man discovers by right reason, accident, and so on.

Well, well...isn't that interesting. The declared atheist proposes "creation."

What type of creation, pray tell?

If there is no outside supernatural being or entity, the creation must come from man. Hence, man made.
The same with "inspiration" and "emergence." In a world where there is no deity, all those things are man made.

Aquinas, by the way, was a believer. His concept of "natural law" derived from God. "Divine law" means the same thing--from God.

Face it, Chris. You're through.

Actually, you've been through for a few pages now, you just don't want to admit it.

LOL

[Chris]

[/COLOR]
That might just be one of the most nonsensical things you've said so far--and you've said plenty of nonsensical things.

Talk about a fail.


Well, well...isn't that interesting. The declared atheist proposes "creation."

What type of creation, pray tell?

If there is no outside supernatural being or entity, the creation must come from man. Hence, man made.
The same with "inspiration" and "emergence." In a world where there is no deity, all those things are man made.

Aquinas, by the way, was a believer. His concept of "natural law" derived from God. "Divine law" means the same thing--from God.

Face it, Chris. You're through.

Actually, you've been through for a few pages now, you just don't want to admit it.

LOL

That might just be one of the most nonsensical things you've said so far--and you've said plenty of nonsensical things.

Such as? I mean really. I might point out a claim of yours is nonsense but I point to a specific claim and explain it why it's nonsense, such as it depends on rejected 19th century anthropology and it defies modern anthropology. I don't just make declarations, I present arguments.

Well, well...isn't that interesting. The declared atheist proposes "creation."

Actually, FK, you proposed creation. Creation by man. When I say "Creation is a possibility," I am referring to your claim man created laws, morality, and religion.

The problem you have is you are triggered by the word creation. You forget you said it and I'm referring to what you said. Instead, into your mind pops creation by God. You seem obsessed with God.

Not once in this thread have I made any reference to God other than to say I'm making not claims about God.

Aquinas, by the way, was...

Yes, I've read him and know who he is.

If there is no outside supernatural being or entity, the creation must come from man. Hence, man made.
The same with "inspiration" and "emergence." In a world where there is no deity, all those things are man made.

To this babbling I say again that when I say religion is the origin of law and morality that I am making no claim about God. None whatsoever. My claims about religion are based on scientific, anthropological evidence.

It is you who keeps interjecting God.

I guess you think you have some infallible argument there. Basically, what you argue goes like this:

Premise: An atheist denies God.
Conclusion: Therefore, man created law, morality, religion.

There is an obvious problem with your premise that an atheist's denying God implies it's true. IOW, your atheism is plainly a shallow and simplistic begging of the question for you have done nothing at all to demonstrate the truth of your premise. It's the stuff of anti-theism, not a-theims.

Most atheistic thinkers I've come across with reading and listening to are skeptics.



All that in response to your injecting God into this time and again.



My only claim in this thread is that religion was all-pervasive, an organic, integral, inseparable part of man's life from prehistoric times up to ancient Greeks and Roman times, and that it was out of that religion that morality and laws emerged.

I make no claim about God whatsoever.