11 Feb 08
Imagine all people and knowledge were wiped out of the face of the Earth.
Well.. all people except a few children with no memory of what happened and that could give continuity to mankind.
I am sure of these: Today's science would be rediscovered (maybe with different language or formality), and today's religions would never come up again. There would be religion, but very different from what it is today.
This shows religion is dependent of history and society. It's not absolute. Only reality is absolute. Science is the study of reality, therefore it's the best guide we have to live our lives.
12 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by serigadoIt is interesting, in light of your post, that it was a Christian who developed the scientific method (Bacon). And that the scenario which you imagine here occurred in the book of Genesis (Noah).
Imagine all people and knowledge were wiped out of the face of the Earth.
Well.. all people except a few children with no memory of what happened and that could give continuity to mankind.
I am sure of these: Today's science would be rediscovered (maybe with different language or formality), and today's religions would never come up again. There would be e. Science is the study of reality, therefore it's the best guide we have to live our lives.
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesIt is interesting, in light of your post, that it was a Christian who developed the scientific method (Bacon)
It is interesting, in light of your post, that it was a Christian who developed the scientific method (Bacon). And that the scenario which you imagine here occurred in the book of Genesis (Noah).
What's that got to do with anything? Newton was a devout Christian, Einstein quite religious too, and Feynman the greatest atheist that ever lived. All of them were great scientists. One must know how to contextualize, and you didn't.
And that the scenario which you imagine here occurred in the book of Genesis (Noah).
No. Previous knowledge of religion was kept, with Noah. That's quite different from what I said.
12 Feb 08
2 edits
Originally posted by serigadoI think we'd see a similar progression in religion as what has already happened - animism to polytheism to monotheism to various sects of monotheism. This will follow the natural social progression of tribe/gang to independent cities to kingdoms and then power struggles between kingdoms.
Imagine all people and knowledge were wiped out of the face of the Earth.
Well.. all people except a few children with no memory of what happened and that could give continuity to mankind.
I am sure of these: Today's science would be rediscovered (maybe with different language or formality), and today's religions would never come up again. There would be e. Science is the study of reality, therefore it's the best guide we have to live our lives.
As social/governmental/violent power is concentrated, the religious ideas will follow. First some spirits will be recognized as Gods, greater than the others. Then one god's religion will become dominant, and will suppress competetition...he will be a jealous god...brutally oppressive as Yahweh is said to be...
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungMost likely that's true. But i meant the specific religions we have, not the types of religion.
I think we'd see a similar progression in religion as what has already happened - animism to polytheism to monotheism to various sects of monotheism. This will follow the natural social progression of tribe/gang to independent cities to kingdoms and then power struggles between kingdoms.
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by serigadoNah, it wouldn't be the same in the details in the same way science would be the same in the details. Science actually refers to something real. With religion the details are fairly arbritrary, though rooted in human psychology so it will be similar to what we see now.
Most likely that's true. But i meant the specific religions we have, not the types of religion.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
12 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by serigadoI expect that once they have reached a high intellectual maturity, they would begin to develop ideas like the First Cause, in which a monotheistic God is postulated. Inevitably, some religious dimension would be attached to this, as we have done. And because these survivor-children would share the same universal human experiences (hunger, sexual attraction, disease, etc), there would be similarities between their religions and the ones that exist now: probably some prophetic messianic figurehead, or something. They would probably use similar metaphors about God as life, love, food, wine, a garden, etc. So their religion would not be radically different to ours.
Imagine all people and knowledge were wiped out of the face of the Earth.
Well.. all people except a few children with no memory of what happened and that could give continuity to mankind.
I am sure of these: Today's science would be rediscovered (maybe with different language or formality), and today's religions would never come up again. There would be e. Science is the study of reality, therefore it's the best guide we have to live our lives.
However, it is doubtful they would, by intellectual deduction alone, reconstruct our modern religions in every exact detail. But this is a trivial observation. All Christians recognise that their religion is based on divine revelation, and not abstraction from scientific evidence. I expect that Muslims and Jews do as well. And, as well as that, they would probably expect God to reveal himself again, if human civilisation was annihilated.
But I do not see why that should mean that religion is not "absolute". Just because religions are based on historical events should not diminish their propositional value. I happen to think that all religions are mostly false, not because they rely on history, but because their historical sources are dubious.
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by Conrau KWell posed.
I expect that once they have reached a high intellectual maturity, they would begin to develop ideas like the First Cause, in which a monotheistic God is postulated. It is inevitable that some religious dimension should be attached to this. And because these survivor-children would share the same universal human experiences (hunger, sexual attraction, disea ...[text shortened]... tly false, not because they rely on history, but because their historical sources are dubious.
That's the point I wanted to reach. Religion is born from the needs of people: nothing more. At first, the need to survive, the need to rely on someone, the need to get answers, the need to not be alone, etc.
I want theists to recognize the context of mankind when their prophets appeared. How is it would be to create something that seemed divine at that time. With enough centuries, no one could confirm or deny it, and it would only remain the legend of a misconception. Some would believe and pass the word, some would not.
The Old Testament was done in this context. It's incoherent, and full of errors. Am I the only one to clearly see this?
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by serigadoWhat if all people and knowledge were wiped out....... but one copy of the Lord of the rings remained?
Imagine all people and knowledge were wiped out of the face of the Earth.
Well.. all people except a few children with no memory of what happened and that could give continuity to mankind.
I am sure of these: Today's science would be rediscovered (maybe with different language or formality), and today's religions would never come up again. There would be ...[text shortened]... e. Science is the study of reality, therefore it's the best guide we have to live our lives.
Would this become the new word of god for those susceptible to religion?
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by serigadono it does not show anything like your interpritation, as your question seems to be one sided, what if they the children then saw someting (as you say only knowledge is wiped out) then worshiped that does that prove that there is in all of us a deep need for faith and is in your words absolute.
Imagine all people and knowledge were wiped out of the face of the Earth.
Well.. all people except a few children with no memory of what happened and that could give continuity to mankind.
I am sure of these: Today's science would be rediscovered (maybe with different language or formality), and today's religions would never come up again. There would be ...[text shortened]... e. Science is the study of reality, therefore it's the best guide we have to live our lives.
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by timebombtedthey wouldn't know how to read... probably they would just burn it as wood when they discovered fire... sacrilege..
What if all people and knowledge were wiped out....... but one copy of the Lord of the rings remained?
Would this become the new word of god for those susceptible to religion?
12 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by stokerThe point is not one sided. It's quite independent: "If all were to start from scratch again, how would it be?" - this is the point.
no it does not show anything like your interpritation, as your question seems to be one sided, what if they the children then saw someting (as you say only knowledge is wiped out) then worshiped that does that prove that there is in all of us a deep need for faith and is in your words absolute.
what if they the children then saw someting (as you say only knowledge is wiped out) then worshiped that does that prove that there is in all of us a deep need for faith and is in your words absolute.
I wouldn't say "prove". I think people have a need to connect and a need to be something more. Faith here is not the basic issue. Why did those children started to worship the moon or the sun? Was it a need to believe something, or the need to get an explanation?
I don't think "faith" is a basic need, but "to understand" is.
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by stokerFaith is believing something without proof. Believing something is true or that something will happen, independent of its confirmation or verosimility.
well i think faith is a basic, the concept is basic throout all cultures
Those come from more basic things.
Faith by itself clearly is not a need. It comes as the easy solution to some needs of some people.
I can live without faith.
12 Feb 08
Originally posted by serigadoIt isn't that faith is believing without proof, but being able to prove.
Faith is believing something without proof. Believing something is true or that something will happen, independent of its confirmation or verosimility.
Those come from more basic things.
Faith by itself clearly is not a need. It comes as the easy solution to some needs of some people.
I can live without faith.
Kelly