Would we currently be at this point of civilization without religions?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

new atheists like to say religion throughout the course of history has held us back... but it hasn't. at least not Christianity, which most atheists attack the most.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgESPmh-TxY

Actually a very good, and respectful video. Thanks for posting that, Rational AKD.

I was all prepared to attack, but I have a policy of giving everything a fair shake, and I found very little in there with which to quibble (careful selection of which historical eras of deliberate Christian clergy's actions against information they saw as being contrary to the faith, especially in the 4th and 16th centuries being the primary ones), and I hope that other atheists watch it with an open mind.

Being an atheist, I would point out that the benefits of Christianity, as described in the studies and the video, would be well-substituted by any social philosophy--and there is no denying that Christianity, in ideal form, is one such--which had at its core the principles of treating others decently and behaving in a peaceful manner, which is why I promote Secular Humanism.

This objection is something like what I say to the people who point out that teen homosexuals have a higher suicide rate than heteros, pointing to the psychological problems correlated with homosexuality and calling it causality. The question is why do the data suggest such a link. In the case of the teens, a feeling of isolation and social rejection of their inescapable identity at a time when most people are struggling to find a sense of belonging and personality. 

In the case of the religious benefits on society, it is exactly the argument we constantly make: religion benefited our ancestral tribal societies so much it has become ingrained into our genes, by and large, and is so useful to the cohesion of societies that the religions have expanded as the societies did. We notice that it provides a method of control of the average citizen and assimilation of outlying individuals who bow to the conformist pressures. We notice that it is often abused in this role, and that is our primary objection to Christianity (being not the only offender, but the primary local one, the one with power in Western Civilization).

But again, good video, and I don't disagree with much of it. Well-chosen.

[Minimalist]

Well, it contributed much, but I could think of better ways for a creator god to manage affairs.

When I said creator of religion, I meant human, not god

When was this supposed to be?

Whenever a monarch used theism as a base to validate their ruler's rights to rule and the people are buying that? Or even straight-up theocratic nations? I think there are more examples, I just can't think of them right now.

That's not all that long ago in historical terms.

The Tsar thought he was anointed by god right up until the Bolsheviks blew him away.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, it contributed much, but I could think of better ways for a creator god to manage affairs.

When I said creator of religion, I meant human, not god

Forgive my misunderstanding, then.

I'm not sure your premise, that religion brought stability, can be borne out by the evidence.

For all its influence on sociocultural stability, it has also been a destabilizing force, dividing peoples and inciting them to murderous anger, so that you have places like the Middle East or Ireland, the Crusades, the 30 Years' War, the bloody violence in India between Sikh and Hindu, ditto elsewhere in Southeast Asia between Buddhist and Muslim. You also have religion used to strip people of their rights, which is never a force for stability in a society.

There have been many great things which have come from religious folk as a result of their faith -- the music of Bach comes to mind immediately -- so "How Religion Poisons Everything" is perhaps not entirely accurate, but in general I agree with Hitchens that it has been at the very least a drag on our development, and in many, many cases, the prime motivation for retrogression.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

When I said creator of religion, I meant human, not god

Forgive my misunderstanding, then.

I'm not sure your premise, that religion brought stability, can be borne out by the evidence.

For all its influence on sociocultural stability, it has also been a destabilizing force, dividing peoples and inciting them to murderous anger, so that you have places like the Middle East or Ireland, the Crusades, the 30 Years' War, the bloody violence in India between Sikh and Hindu, ditto elsewhere in Southeast Asia  between Buddhist and Muslim. You also have religion used to strip people of their rights, which is never a force for stability in a society.

There have been many great things which have come from religious folk as a result of their faith -- the music of Bach comes to mind immediately -- so "How Religion Poisons Everything" is perhaps not entirely accurate, but in general I agree with Hitchens that it has been at the very least a drag on our development, and in many, many cases, the prime motivation for retrogression.

I'd say that religion is effective-score-neutral in that regard. That is, it has had as many negative influences as it has positive ones, and whether or not it has negative or positive influences has varied like a sine wave through history. For instance, it was in large part the Christian religiousity of Charles Martel that allowed him to rally against the invading Muslims coming through Spain, and which encouraged Charlemagne to promote literacy in a time when it was almost nonexistent. It was the printing of the Bible and the desire of the common person to read it that helped to break the grip the Catholic church on the culture of Europe and eventually led to the Renaissance. For many of the early scientists, it was their love of God that led them to the meticulous work that it was required to understand Creation (see, for instance, Kepler, Mendel, and Newton). Common Christians and lower-level clergy have done amazing things in that regard, inspired by their religion and the effect it had on western civilization.

In contrast, I'd say the work of the religious leadership  has always been net-score-negative, from the burning of the Great Library at Alexandria (to destroy any information that was "against God") to the destruction of the written histories of the Aztecs/Mayans/Incas for the same reason, and the suppression of freethinkers who dared to question the religious dogmas of their day (e.g. Giordano Bruno). 

Saying that religion has a positive effect also ignores that post-Enlightenment secularism, from statements of the rights of man to the "consent of the governed" principle, has done more to rapidly advance our culture than the slowly-creep-forward that occurred under 1500 years of religious domination of the culture.

[Minimalist]

Certainly since humanity gave up the hunter/gatherer lifestyle and settled down to an agricultural existence religion has been part and parcel of the ruling class. 

As Jefferson said:  "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them."


Smart guy, that Jefferson.

[houseofcantor]

In what large sample space are we free to compute these probabilities? I thought the whole point here was to show there is no point in speculating upon what "could have been without religion" because there was no point where there was no religion, and it doesn't look like there's going to be a point where there is no religion. 

[The Grand Nudger]

There actually was such a point, so far as we can tell (or, rather, no trace of it -beyond- a point as we go back).  Been awhile since then though, it seems to be as old as civ.....for example, but that's not really that old in the context of humanity's span. We think, for example, that by 50k years ago people had beliefs about an afterlife, but we don't see evidence of religion as such.

[Minimalist]

In what large sample space are we free to compute these probabilities? I thought the whole point here was to show there is no point in speculating upon what "could have been without religion" because there was no point where there was no religion, and it doesn't look like there's going to be a point where there is no religion. 

We can dream, can't we?

[Shining_Finger]

I would like to believe that the religions that built civilization would be considered rather primitive today.
I would like to Postulate that Religion evolved Alongside Language.
I would like to believe some religion will mention Selfies and Twitter alongside their Deity or Deitys.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I would like to believe that the religions that built civilization would be considered rather primitive today.
I would like to Postulate that Religion evolved Alongside Language.
I would like to believe some religion will mention Selfies and Twitter alongside their Deity or Deitys.

Ha!

"...and thus did the Almighty tweet, unto His Prophet Jack Dorsey..."