That's exactly my point.. I was just saying that Confucianism is a perfect example that societies can succeed without believing in a god. If it were a religion, me using it as an example to prove societies can function without a religion wouldn't make any sense.

You forget why Confucianism is a religion. Confucianism is a philosophy in practice, a method of 'ultimate transformation'. It also has beliefs of spirits and the Asian version of Tartarus, etc. So you pulled one bad example to show your feelings.

Also, that is way off topic at the same time. Of course societies NOWADAYS (timeframe is important), can function without religion. Do you see Bibles as your textbook in school?

I think without a doubt science and human progress has been held back by religion. Banned books, preventing the release or discussion of contradictory ideas: even the slightest bit makes a huge difference and various Churches have historically been proponents of such activity. Men like Galileo, the foremost example, are beyond rare, and the work he could have accomplished in 30 years without having to deal with the pompous fools of the church would almost undoubtedly have been staggering.

I don't doubt that religion helps those in primitive societies to act morally, but I think it stands to reason that we crossed that "primitive threshold" long before religion stopped influencing public policy. Religion still has a drastic influence in the American government, like it or not, and I don't see that going away anytime soon. It's been shown time and again that those who live secularly are no less lawful than those who live highly religious lives, and many studies find the opposite true. Yet, churches still tout non-believers as murderers, liars, followers of Satan, whatever. And the public ignoramuses lap it up and preach it. If you consider moral behavior to be largely synonymous with lawful behavior, there is no further discussion possible. If not, the burden of proof is certainly not on secularists.

Religion allows humans to unite- divisively. Just as small minds love to classify others by a certain race or identity, such people categorize people by their religion. Those in power have seized on this as a uniting force for centuries: "us against them," and this continues to the present. Hell, a large, ignorant part of the United States still thinks Muslim and Iraqi are synonymous with terrorist, or that communist is synonymous with Nazi or Atheist. The government and media will never do anything to alter these foolish depictions, and so they persist. How can intelligent discussion on governmental structure possibly occur, nevermind have such envisioned societies be actualized, when a large portion of the public has a negative opinion and complete subjectivity before consideration even begins? Is religion fully to blame for such closed-mindedness, of course not, but the exploited connections are obvious and I don't even begin to understand how one can contend that religion hasn't held back human progress in the past. Indeed, it continues to do so even in the present.

Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism all have philosophical concepts but you can argue if it is/is not a religion.
I agree with what rayNimagi has said where at this point you have to establish what qualifies as a religion.
Personally I think Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion.

All religions are belief systems, surely?

Even when the society in which a religion has predominated becomes secular it bears significant marks of the religion which has shaped its development. The 'religious' (as in the Latin 'religio', meaning worship or reverence) aspects of the belief system of the religion are pruned away over time leaving behind the values and morals espoused by it. These values and morals are selectively (i.e. the useful ones) adopted by secular society. It is easier to do this with some religions than others.

One could argue some of these morals (not killing each other, not stealing, and others), would have come into place regardless if religion put them in place or not. There are some morals that are universally accepted across the different religions (excluding the fanatics). One could argue some of these morals are wired into ourselves and religion was a natural conduit to spread the message around to those who were viewed as "savage."

Without religion, the state of art would be less developed than the state of science.

That's about it, we'd lose a bunch of pretty pictures and statues, and be up a few theorems and conjectures.

What makes you think Science has no relation to Art? What evidence do you have on that?
I believe Science didn't just develop for the sake of science. Science developed because there was a need for it. And back in the medieval ages, Churches promoted education and spread literacy- which is before the time of Universities and way before standard education. I don't even think we'd be at the technological level we are right now if it were not for religion.

religion was developed as a coping mechanism, and helps explain the unexplainable.

Jews developed Judaism due to being discriminated against, and generally having a shitty life. Thus, they developed the concept of a "better place" in the afterlife. They also developed a somewhat vengeful and angry god too. Other religions which developed around the tigris and euphrates managed to develop similar chaotic "life has to be better after death" ideas. If you look at the Egyptian empire, they were much more structured (probably due to the nile), and while the afterlife existed for them, they were more focused on the now.

I consider religion to be an excellent way to teach people how to live their lives. Most religions get the general theme of "be nice to people" across. However, it's kind of significant that every civilization has a religion, no matter how small or savage. One of the major reasons Christianity was so well spread was that it tells people to care for everyone, no matter what, and to lead by example. I think Judaism started this, since they are typically very submissive, but were unfortunately not that nice to gentiles. Hinduism is really only a major religion due to the size of India. Islam is essentially christianity, but I don't know enough about Islam to make any more vague accusations.

If we didn't have religion, we wouldn't be human. Humans want to explain the unexplained, and science can't possibly explain everything. Even if religion has held us back, certainly there should have been religionless civilizations. Obviously they aren't here now. We needed religion to survive without going insane. There are certainly a few times that religion has held us back, as stated in this thread, but I find it difficult to believe that science would have developed on its own without us being naturally curious in trying to explain everything.

As for the debate on whether or not buddhism/etc is a religion: if there is an afterlife of any kind (reincarnation, purgatory, etc...) it is a religion.

This is not a strong argument because 1 quality does not always determine the outcome of the whole. If I believe in an afterlife but not in the religious doctrines does that really make me religious? (Let say there is a paper that is part black and part white. If you claim that just because one part is black therefore the whole paper is black?)

So just because it has afterlife concepts, you disregard the metaphysics and the epistemology?

This argument also somewhat works for Taoism and Confucianism. (actually afterlife in Confucianism is not heavily addressed)

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 23 2009, 12:18 am by MasterJohnny.

Confucianism is a philosophy-- it was/is exercised at the same time as the indigenous Chinese polytheism and Japanese Shinto.


During the Middle Ages, Europe made very little technological advances. After the fall of the Roman Empire, it was the Muslim Caliphates, Mongols, and China that made most of the world's technological advances (until the Renaissance). It was through diffusion that the Europeans acquired eastern technology (i.e paper, gunpowder, windmills, etc.) and adapted it to their needs. Thus we would still be around our current technological level without Christianity in Medieval Europe. But I do agree that the Catholic Church provided somewhat of a centralized (although sometimes ineffective) force during a period of disunity.

The northern/reformed renaissance was for the most part a Christian renaissance. It was the northern renaissance that had the mathematical and scientific advances, whereas the italian renaissance focussed on art. Beforehand, the Roman Catholic church essentially prevented the spread of knowledge in Europe. Once Christianity came back to europe, the Northern Renaissance began.

I'm too lazy to get citations but if people want them, I'll look around.

Yes I would like citations, I remember the northern renaissance as the rise of humanism not anything relating to Christianity.

Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Renaissance
'The Northern Renaissance was also closely linked to the Protestant Reformation...'
However, that and other sources say that humanism also contributed, but it was a very religion-focussed humanism, unlike the italian renaissance. So both of us are right.

It does if I say it does.
You'd have to define religious. One can have a religion and not be religious.
Yes. Otherwise we'd have to call each religion by something else, and none of them could be religions, since they would all be christianity, judaism, taoism, buddhism, etc.... If you define a paper as being black if any part of it is black, then that paper is black. The whole paper isn't black, obviously, but it's a black paper.
Name me a religion which states something along the lines of "You die, and nothing happens. You have no soul, your body just stops functioning." Alternatively, name me something which would not normally be considered a religion and it says something about an afterlife. I promise I will be open minded, and I really want to know if you know of any. Also note that most cults are religions IMO, and that a cult is just a form of a religion (but I won't try to define a cult).

Epicureanism is usually regarded as a philosophy even though it has religious concepts and when you die there is no afterlife. The soul just disappears perhaps returned to the earth? I have been taught some of Epicurus's philosophy in my philosophy class.

Well, you sort of proved my point. No afterlife, no religion. It seems Epicureanism, much like general agnosticism, believed in gods, but didn't really pay attention to them. I think the only reason Epicurus acknowledged the gods was due to the prevailing religion of the time.

I believe an afterlife is an integral part of any religion. Perhaps I'm just right for the wrong reasons.

Actually I am not sure if Epicureanism was a good example because its also like Buddhism with religious and philosophical concepts bound together.
Deism might be a better example...

Ironically, every religion is bound to a philosophy. Seeing as philosophy is a way of thinking, the question to truth, and literally meaning 'love of knowledge'.

A philosophy is an idea or claim that cannot be currently proven.

Every religion is a means to give human life purpose. Most of these religions require humans to perform some act or do some ritualistic thing to ensure their salvation after death, but this isn't a universal factor. Basically, all religions try to answer: "Who are we, why are we here, and where are we going?".

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Nov 26 2009, 9:31 pm by CecilSunkure. Reason: Removed bad example.