Cycling UK Forum

Question away.
Most of it is self evident, though possibly the vocabulary is poorly defined.

I can not think of any major civilisation which was founded without a religious framework as its foundations. I cant think of any which has relinquished or banned religion and survived much longer after doing so.

I am perfectly willing to apply Darwin's evolution theory to civilsations just as to species, it is after all just a theory which seems to work empirically, I think that holds for civilisations.
As an example ants and bees, like humans have evolved beyond individual entities into civilisations and evolution has selected individuals which survive and possibly can only survive as a part of that grouping.
So evolution must extend beyond individuals physical properties to the groups which they exist in.

meic wrote:Question away.
Most of it is self evident, though possibly the vocabulary is poorly defined.

I can not think of any major civilisation which was founded without a religious framework as its foundations. I cant think of any which has relinquished or banned religion and survived much longer after doing so.

You are assuming cause and effect i.e. that it is the religious beliefs that are causing the society to be successful rather than other factors causing success and religious beliefs being incidental.

I would argue that to claim religion is the reason for a societies success you need to demonstrate the relative importance of other factors (e.g. resources, location, numerical systems, technological innovation, etc.). There are many possible factors affecting the development and success of a society and to claim it is religion requires some evidence (not of "God" but that it is religion causing the success rather than the many other factors).

meic wrote:......
I am perfectly willing to apply Darwin's evolution theory to civilsations just as to species, it is after all just a theory which seems to work empirically, I think that holds for civilisations.
As an example ants and bees, like humans have evolved beyond individual entities into civilisations and evolution has selected individuals which survive and possibly can only survive as a part of that grouping.
So evolution must extend beyond individuals physical properties to the groups which they exist in.

You are confusing the world "evolve" with the word [Darwinian] Evolution. You can apply the word "evolution" to all sorts of things that are not relevant to "Darwinian Evolution" (e.g. galactic evolution). At this time of night I'm not going to start explaining the nature of species, evolutionary principles, etc. and the processes. Try researching Kin Selection a bit to appreciate e.g. ants and bees and Evolution by Natural Selection (but it does still all tie back to your (or close to your) genes getting into the next generation).

Ian

Here is the interesting tv programme I have been referring to - "Did Jesus Die?"

is an hour long but worth the effort

https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/did-jesus-die/

You are assuming cause and effect i.e. that it is the religious beliefs that are causing the society to be successful rather than other factors causing success and religious beliefs being incidental.

No, I am not.
You are doing the theorising, I am just doing the observation.
It is only that civilisations which are successful all have a religious base. It is perfectly compatible with religion only being a tiny part of the civilisation's success but that tiny part gives it enough of an advantage over the ones that do not, so far at least.
Clearly technological advances (for military reasons) have been the most prominent feature of successful civilsations over the past few millennia.

mercalia wrote:Here is the interesting tv programme I have been referring to - "Did Jesus Die?"

is an hour long but worth the effort

https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/did-jesus-die/

One point I have just picked up on, it seems that the socalled ascension was not there in not just Mark

meic wrote:

You are assuming cause and effect i.e. that it is the religious beliefs that are causing the society to be successful rather than other factors causing success and religious beliefs being incidental.

No, I am not.
You are doing the theorising, I am just doing the observation.
It is only that civilisations which are successful all have a religious base. It is perfectly compatible with religion only being a tiny part of the civilisation's success but that tiny part gives it enough of an advantage over the ones that do not, so far at least..

Evidence for that assertion ?

And again you have not understood Darwinian Evolution and are applying it based on flawed assumptions (i.e. "As an example ants and bees, like humans have evolved beyond individual entities into civilisations and evolution has selected individuals which survive and possibly can only survive as a part of that grouping").

I terms of theorising I am questioning the factors that make a society survive, is it religion that causes that survival or other significant factors like resources/raw materials, technology, communications, suitable fertile land, etc., etc. You are asserting it is religion that is very important - I'm asking for the evidence fro that.

Ian

You are asserting it is religion that is very important - I'm asking for the evidence fro that.

I am not asserting that, in fact I have explicitly said it is a less important factor.
I am asserting that it gives societies an advantage, my evidence is that all successful societies have a religious base to them.
Humans have evolved with a sense of smell it is not very important but those with it have an advantage over those who do not.

I know that societies evolution is not exactly the same as genetic evolution and it works through a different mechanism but the general theory applies in both cases the ones with the advantages out live those without and survival is the sole arbiter of what works and what doesnt.

meic wrote:

You are asserting it is religion that is very important - I'm asking for the evidence fro that.

I am not asserting that, in fact I have explicitly said it is a less important factor.
I am asserting that it gives societies an advantage, my evidence is that all successful societies have a religious base to them.
Humans have evolved with a sense of smell it is not very important but those with it have an advantage over those who do not.

I know that societies evolution is not exactly the same as genetic evolution and it works through a different mechanism but the general theory applies in both cases the ones with the advantages out live those without and survival is the sole arbiter of what works and what doesnt.

err, I think it was rather important ...
I'm giving up on this. You decline to present any evidence for your assertions. You fail to understand Darwinian Evolution (and don't seem prepared to research when pointed to relevant aspects). So I'm giving-up.

Ian

You are incapable of arguing a point with somebody who is coming at it from another angle.
I DO understand Darwinian evolution but unlike you I can see BEYOND it.
"Survival of the Fittest" is not limited to your genetic make up, it can be extended as a general principal to other aspects of survival, for non-biological systems. In fact it pre-dates darwinism.

To quote Bovlomov "dont knock down a wall until you know why it was built".

Actually it doesnt matter why religion was built, the fact was that it worked, nothing more nothing less.
If a society would be better fitted for survival without it, then it would not be so ubiquitous. What more evidence can somebody need than its continued existence? I am only putting this idea forward because of that evidence, it is entirely observation based with no attached theory or principal which I have invested my belief in.
Just show me a single successful non-religious society past or present and I will waver a little about that evidence.

meic wrote:You are incapable of arguing a point with somebody who is coming at it from another angle.
I DO understand Darwinian evolution but unlike you I can see BEYOND it.
"Survival of the Fittest" is not limited to your genetic make up, it can be extended as a general principal to other aspects of survival, for non-biological systems. In fact it pre-dates darwinism.

To quote Bovlomov "dont knock down a wall until you know why it was built".

Actually it doesnt matter why religion was built, the fact was that it worked, nothing more nothing less.
If a society would be better fitted for survival without it, then it would not be so ubiquitous. What more evidence can somebody need than its continued existence? I am only putting this idea forward because of that evidence, it is entirely observation based with no attached theory or principal which I have invested my belief in.
Just show me a single successful non-religious society past or present and I will waver a little about that evidence.

I said I'd give-up on this (and I should).

So galactic evolution is "seeing beyond Darwinian Evolution" ?

When you say religion "worked" it is a far far more complex situation because historically religion was often completely mixed up with political leadership; in effect the religion being used to provide power and authority to the leader. So can one tell in such cases if it was the belief in the deity that caused the society to survive or that it provided power and authority to the leader or that it was irrelevant because there was a powerful leader (who had grandiose images of him/herself). To make the assumptions you are making you have to look in more details at those societies.

And I think there are long surviving societies without belief in a God.

Ian

When you say religion "worked" it is a far far more complex situation because historically religion was often completely mixed up with political leadership; in effect the religion being used to provide power and authority to the leader. So can one tell in such cases if it was the belief in the deity that caused the society to survive or that it provided power and authority to the leader or that it was irrelevant because there was a powerful leader (who had grandiose images of him/herself). To make the assumptions you are making you have to look in more details at those societies.

Not at all, it is all a case of religion working, it doesnt matter a hoot if that is because of belief in a deity or as a tool for a powerful leader, though of course the latter relies too much on an individual and will be very short lived, unless they establish a secure dynasty.

meic wrote:

When you say religion "worked" it is a far far more complex situation because historically religion was often completely mixed up with political leadership; in effect the religion being used to provide power and authority to the leader. So can one tell in such cases if it was the belief in the deity that caused the society to survive or that it provided power and authority to the leader or that it was irrelevant because there was a powerful leader (who had grandiose images of him/herself). To make the assumptions you are making you have to look in more details at those societies.

Not at all, it is all a case of religion working, it doesnt matter a hoot if that is because of belief in a deity or as a tool for a powerful leader, though of course the latter relies too much on an individual and will be very short lived, unless they establish a secure dynasty.

But with many societies and cultures we have no idea how important the fact that the leader claimed divine approval was. It might be the population were not even aware the leader was claiming divine authority.

And then you have the societies who are successful and don't believe in a God. What explains their success?

Ian

And then you have the societies who are successful and don't believe in a God. What explains their success?

I've missed them, name one and I'll rethink about it.

Or do you mean sub-societies like the society of physicists who are living under the protection of a national society. I did say there are plenty of vocabulary problems in this debate. That is a different use of the word society to the use which I am making of it.

meic wrote:

And then you have the societies who are successful and don't believe in a God. What explains their success?

I've missed them, name one and I'll rethink about it.

......

Buddhist societies?

Ian

Psamathe wrote:

meic wrote:

And then you have the societies who are successful and don't believe in a God. What explains their success?

I've missed them, name one and I'll rethink about it.

......

Buddhist societies?

Ian

Like in Myanmar?