Well, I don't know why the posts about the Telegraph article [telegraph.co.uk] were taken down, but since I went to the trouble of responding, I'm going to post it anyway. Thanks to @VictoriaNotes for providing links to the article and to the study. [colorado.edu]
Click-bait titles are designed to increase clicks, not to give a fair assessment of the actual content. The truth is often the diametric opposite of what is suggested in the eye-grabbing title. The Telegraph title says "Religion has been dividing human society for 2,000 years, say scientists". This title suggests two things; one, that existing societies, as a rule, everywhere, for the last two thousand years are torn down by "religion", and two, that "Science" has determined this to be a fact.
The actual study tells a much more complex and nuanced story:
"In the lower Río Verde Valley, we argue that religion constrained innovations that might have led to greater political centralization."
"In contrast to the lower Verde, however, we find religion in the OaxacaValley was less constraining and instead fostered political change."
"Finally, data from both regions demonstrates that religion could generate tension and conflict rather than the cohesion so often assumed in models of early complexity. Our results suggest that it may be productive in cases of early political centralization to consider whether religion is, in fact, a source of conflict to be overcome rather than a unifying ideology."
OK? So instead of religion tearing down existing societies by sowing discord, it's more like religion strengthened small societies which slowed their political unification into larger societies. And instead of it covering "human society" everywhere for the last two millennia, it's actually a single study about two specific regions in Mexico, over a specific period of time ending in 250AD. And instead of science declaring it all a fact, these particular scientists speak as real scientists do, in terms of "religion COULD generate tension", and "our results SUGGEST", and "IN CASES OF early political centralization", and "to CONSIDER whether religion is, in fact, a source of conflict".
I find it entirely fascinating that atheists and agnostics use the same kind of uncritical thinking that theists do to shore up their existing worldviews. We want it to be a certain way, so we spin, spin spin. We must all be human or something.
13
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
13 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.What is so fascinating? It's obvious:
Smaller societies went to war over religion AND economics, power, culture, race, etc., just as they do today.
The WINNERS absorbed the losers into their (now larger) society and thus expanded, but it wasn't JUST religion which caused conflict in the first place, but a host of factors.
In conflicts between sects of the same religion (and culture, race, etc.), this absorption would relatively 'easy' and complete. Nations were the end result.
Between DIFFERENT cultures (and, later, nations) conflict (and, later, war) would be much harder; complete assimilation all but impossible.
The bottom line is, one factor (religion) cannot be viewed in isolation and said to be THE reason for conflict and war between societies.
At best religion can be a useful way to chart and document the success of a militarily victorious society over a vanguished one, because it gets to write the history, establish the dominant culture and religion, etc.
In some EXTREME cases, the victorious society might even be able to create and establish a totally NEW religion, as it is argued by some the Romans did with Christianity.
Storm1752
Level 8
Jan 1, 2020
0
Interesting, but my post isn't about history. It's about the difference between click-bait titles and actual article content, and how humans, of all stripes, are willing to bend the evidence to support their existing worldview.
@skado That's funny, isn't it? 90% of your content was about whether or not religion caused cohesion or disintegration, but you were talking about process.
Well, be that as it may, I stand by my observations....and I wonder why you went into such minute detail to make such a minor and mundane point.
Why, something similar keeps happening to me! The other day, I wanted to find out what morbid things they discovered when they drained the American side of Niagra Falls, so I leafed through about 20 'clicks' to find out they found...not much, just the remains of two people who'd jumped/fell in over the years.
Of course, the GOAL was to keep me clicking past all those ads, hoping something would suck me in!
Who knew?
I think it's probably just the beginning.
Not to be negative, but it'll get worse.
Now we're all hooked on these things, we're at their mercy. Wow, all we need now is eerie music!
It's...it's...a nightmare!
I am pretty certain that the evidence of human history would indicate that religions have overwhelmingly served to divide humans, and cause hostility and tension.. i think it's very nice that you found ONE example where that wasn't the case...
In2TheJourney
Level 3
Dec 31, 2019
0
Many centuries ago, Muslims were very innovative and conducted loads of progress in many aspects of society. Another aspect that might have not been in consideration is, somewhere along the line, that same religion started being used for mass manipulation and, for the sake of interests, that innovative attitude began to cease. Now, this is only an opinion, that might be wrong. Might also have been a factor to take in consideration.
Paddypereira
Level 7
Dec 30, 2019
2
Great post. I dislike click bait and spin but it can keep us on our toes 
.
silverotter11
Level 9
Dec 30, 2019
4
Another common problem with news coverage of science is the strong tendency to conflate association with cause and/or proof, to conflate one previously unknown data point with conclusive evidence, to conflate some achievement in the lab with a current or imminent commercially viable product, etc.
There's also the fallacy that the particular factor under study is un-influenced by any other factors, or that statistic correlations necessarily (or even often) determine causality, or that it isn't easy to get causality exactly backwards.
mordant
Level 8
Dec 30, 2019
4
Yes!
Exactly. If it’s tabloid press check it’s sources and look for the originals. If it’s more respectable press the source will be clearly identified.
I think these "scientists" are straining hard to drag in religion and ignoring other factors with equal or greater impact, for example most of these cultures overran their fuel/ food resources.
AnneWimsey
Level 9
Dec 30, 2019
4
We all have the same human frailties and proclivities, regardless of our religious beliefs or lack of. Not having a belief in god does not exempt us from indulging in editing the facts to confirm our own views.
Marionville
Level 10
Dec 30, 2019
4
Thanks for posting this Skado. It’s yet another example of some journalist with an agenda grabbing a scientific study and twisting and embellishing it to support their own purposes. I suspect that the main purpose is to create fear, anger and dissension. They think that doing so will give them control and bring in revenue.
WilliamFleming
Level 8
Dec 30, 2019
2
Mostly the revenue I suspect. I saw this study reported by at least three different news outlets and they all twisted the headline in a similar direction. It’s how they grab eyeballs.
There always have been pros and cons to religion. The thing is that there was no avoiding it. It is psychology in its developmental stage, without which we would not be where we are now. What I'm struggling to say is that there was never a choice back in primeval land about whether religion be accepted or not - it is in the very fabric of our consciousness and for that reason it will never disappear. It can only be transformed into psychology.
brentan
Level 8
Dec 30, 2019
2
It is human nature to look for supporting facts for the things we already believe. While we would like to think that atheists and and agnostics would be above that, we are not. Thanks for posting the links!
GreatNani
Level 8
Dec 30, 2019
8
SCal:
There is no such thing as human nature. What you are referring to are cognitive biases, which are tricks our brains play on us to try to use less energy to deal with all of the stimuli.
But many other animals do this too. So reinforcing is not simply due to our humanity.
@Donotbelieve yes it is. Thanks
SCal:
@Donotbelieve Possibly, I'm just not aware of proof that other species do not do this.
You're describing the use of cognition. Humans appear to do that at higher levels than other known species. But cognition is not unique to humans.
I got what she was saying, and I agree that humans do this. But the terms human instincts or human nature are false premises. All behavior is learned.
That's all I was getting at.
Google humans raised by animals and you will quickly learn that high cognition is not innate.
SCal:
@Donotbelieve Did not take it as a knock. I took your reply as thoughtful.
@BryanLV
Just because my nature is similar to your nature does not mean I don’t have a nature.
And...
All behavior is not learned, or our dogs would surely be telling us we’re good boys by now.
SCal:
@skado Pretty weird perspective, but okay. Name one thing humans do that other species do not do in some capacity. Humans have the same senses found throughout the animal spectrum. We don't have any special senses.
Your dog learned all of its behavior, as did you. Just because your dog does not speak, does not mean it does not learn and dogs certainly learn how to communicate with humans. Plus, there are humans that do not speak or use verbal language. Does that mean they are less human? Of course not.
Your position fails basic logic.
SCal:
@Donotbelieve I get the same reaction quite often.
I added more clarification just so you knew the context I was coming from. Not to be disagreeable.
My apologies if I come across that way.
@BryanLV I do think humans have the capacity to think about and wonder about other humans that they have never met. Not sure animals have that capacity. But then we will probably never know. And that capacity to think about ideas, concepts and people that are theoretical seems unique to humans. No?
@BryanLV
I'm making two separate points. First point is that even if all of our traits were shared in full with all other species, it would not mean that we didn't have a nature. Having a nature does not mean having a unique nature. We are how we are, regardless of how many others are like us. If ants and cockroaches look for supporting facts for the things they already believe, so be it. It is still our nature to do that too.
The second point is that the varying degrees to which we share those traits (dogs may communicate to us but they don't write sonnets in cursive) are consistently unique to various species. If that were not true, there would be only one species, or maybe none. That's exactly how we categorize species; by their differences. It is human nature to encode complex thoughts and feelings into written symbols. That doesn't mean an individual human couldn't lose the skill if not nurtured by other humans, but it does mean that no matter how well nurtured dogs are, they are not going to start creating their own original written poetry anytime in the next few hundred thousand years. We have that potential whether we nurture it or don't, whereas dogs do not have that potential. It is not their nature.
Which brings us to the element of time. Things change over time. Human nature today is not human nature of two million years ago, nor of two million years hence. "Nature" equals how we are now, in terms of degree as well as in terms of absolutes.
SCal:
@skado All people do noy write or read. If reading and writing were innate, noone would have to learn to read. Thus, it is a learned behavior.
Your definition of nature is unclear, but the dictionary definition is pretty clear and does not match your definition. If you're simply going to make up your own definitions, then communication will be difficult.
We are not just, "are how we are." That is a huge misnomer. We learn all of our traits. Our dna also learns and exhibits learned behavior. Are differences all fall within specific variations defined by our dna and genome sequencing. The difference between human and the dna of other species is not all that different. And all humans share the exact same dna with variations betwee instructions. All dna in all species is made up of the same materials.
We are not so different from any other species, even cockroaches. We utilize many of the same structures and all animals and living structures react to and process stimuli in nearly identical ways. Many insects sing to each other(communicate) and give gifts.
Humans do not have a nature unique to them. We simply replicate what all of nature does. We are not unique and all behavior is learned. A bigger brain gives us capability, thumbs give us ability, but we do not possess the largest brains and thumbs and hands are not unique to humans. Complex thought is simply not and singing are not unique to humans. There is no way that you could possibly even prove that statement to be positively true.
Its fascinating how many holes there are in your reasoning that you simply refuse to see or educate yourself on. There is no human nature. There is human accomplishment of complexity, but the accomplishments are that of repeating natural phenomenom at scale. The things we do are done throughout the animal kingdom.
@BryanLV
ok
SCal:
"I do think humans have the capacity to think about and wonder about other humans that they have never met."
Evidence for this ability has never been shown or recorded throughout the entire history of man. So if you can provide evidence that is reputable, I would be forced to accept it.
"capacity to think about ideas, concepts and people that are theoretical seems unique to humans. No?"
Elephants and several other land and sea animals have been shown to have these abilities. They are not unique to humans. The theoretical part im not sure can be proven unless we learn to better communicate with animals on that level. But no evidence ive seen shows conclusively that no animal is capable of these sorts of thoughts.
Man, you can't help being obtuse while defending the undefensible, your interpretation of the article is baloney, just look at the evidence beyond the study, the millions of deaths caused by religions trying to prove theirs is the only real one. Troll your support of religion somewhere else.
Mofo1953
Level 9
Dec 30, 2019
2
Religion has been the root cause of very few wars—in some cases religion has played a secondary role.
Think of all the wars fought by the US. What percentage were fought over religion?
Creating false propaganda in support of your zealous belief is counterproductive long term.
@WilliamFleming really? Afghanistan wasn't a religious war? We were attacked by islamic fundamentalists. Isis, Boko Haram, the holocaust was not religious, murdering 6 million jews just for being jews, Iran vs Saudis (sunnis vs shiite), who's kidding who?
@Mofo1953 [en.m.wikipedia.org]
This Wikipedia article lists well over a hundred wars in which the US has been involved, and only a few of them have had any religious element at all. You are grasping at straws to claim that WWII was fought over religion. You must be kidding me.
@WilliamFleming It may not have been fought in the name of religion and I never said that, what I said clearly is that "millions of deaths were caused by religion" and here is a quote from several in Mein Kampf where Hitler uses god as an excuse "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord [p. 60]." I don't kid with facts. This is history, not "false propaganda." What you are falling for is the false propaganda propagated by the different religions trying to hide the millions of deaths caused by religions, but the truth can't be hidden, all of the deaths in the middle east are caused by religion, the Israelis and the Arabs, and let's not even talk about the crusades, the inquisition, the Spanish Conquistadors trying to "convert" natives and killing in the name of Jesus, the asian genocides, all caused by some religion trying to disappear other religions, so who is being gullible here?
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
Memes R Us
3036 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.