@Storm1752 Yeah Gaia was trending back in college even, but then it seemed less of a "god" concept I think than it is now. Or maybe I am seeing differently.

@itsmedammit I don't know...depends on who you're talking to, I guess.

I think it had more to do with the Romans forcing it down everyone's throat and then the monarchs of Europe liking the idea that a god justified their rule through the Catholic Church. I don't think it was any kind of natural progression at all. There were religious wars, Christianity won in Europe and they spread it across the globe by force of arms. Same as Islam in north Africa except different leaders.

It is more democratic in the bullshit it supports. For example, Hinduism has both powerful Gods and Godesses. One of the Gods is also a hermaphrodite sometimes.

@Spongebob As entertaining as it all is, it's all still bullshit.

I don't think it works that way. The Paterfamilias rules the roost, so if anyone steps out of line, he or she gets slapped down, period.
It WOULD be better in terms of division of labor, though...God has an awful lot to do, lots on his plate, so being able to delegate responsibility here and there--Poisedon gets the sea, Thor gets the weather, and so on--would take a lot off his omnipotent shoulders.
Plus, it's just more interesting to have a whole cast of characters with colorful, idiocyncratic personalities.. who wants to deal with boring Odin all the time?

Dear Sgt Spanky, Let me begin by saying that my statement of response is a non personal philosophical response;I acknowledge that just because you label yourself Sgt does not necessarily connote that you are a military person ; Sgt could refer to a position in a legislature or even pacifist freemasonry. My first thought however was of Military rank;

so isn't obedience to the USA (foreign) policies "the act of worshiping non-existent things and holding irrational ideas and superstition over reality "

@pgrobinson You're drawing a parallel between two disassociated things -- religion and politics. This is a religious discussion. Try to stay on topic.

Very good.
Spoken like a true agnostic.

Monotheism is sheep mentality. Polytheism gives more choice in your preferred bullshit

Why does one make "a lot more sense" than the other or an indicate "advancement"?

I would argue that once a community accepts the concept of gods, it would be more a matter of environment and culture as to whether monotheism or polytheism is a benefit or not. A monotheistic approach might make sense for a small nomadic tribe in the desert, where a polytheistic approach would facilitate a city and it's local trading partners.

In the a nomadic community in the desert, their daily lives would mirror each others much more, facilitated by a single god that everyone gets their marching orders from for survival of the community. These religious rules keep them alive and the rules are enforced by god as people die when they aren't followed.

Where as in a city with farming communities nearby, the farmer would develop different needs for it's "gods" than the fisherman or the store keeper. The powers that be allowing the various groups the ability to "worship" the gods the way they want would facilitate the smooth functioning of the city's operations.

So I don't see any evidence that monotheism is any measure of "advancement" from an objective perspective. I can see how it would work if you live in a society which has accepted that concept, but that's hardly evidence that it actually does make more sense or any sign of advancement.

@redbai I can agree up to a point. If your concept of god is some fanciful being with human-like features and supernatural powers, existing in space and time, then it doesn’t matter if you believe in just one god or in a bevy of them.

The unified god concept though is more in accord with a philosophical God. For example, in the Hindu tradition there are various gods and goddesses, but superimposed upon those mythical gods and goddesses was developed a religious philosophy embracing ultimate reality and the non duality or unity of all being. I consider that to be a definite advancement in insight and understanding.

Any form of religion is a blatent lie, and the people expounding it know this. Just to be able to control a society using a religion does not make it a good or useful thing.

@davers It's not a lie. It is clear to us now that it has many false ideas in it but that's not necessarily the same thing. Religion is an ancient form of philosophy. It developed to help people understand their place in the world. On a social and cultural level, it helped people interact with each other. Its value to the development of civilisation today has been enormous. Granted, it might be past its sell-by date by now but it got us where we are.

@brentan Judeo-Christianity, especially, has played a major role in getting us to where we are, the Christian part in particular in the last 200 or so years, and then secular moral theorizing in roughly the last 100 or so. But as you say about the expired "sell-by" date, perhaps religion is now the biggest hindrance to getting us where now need to go. But I wonder too, how likely is that the foundations of what got us to this point could have been some other religion but by the accidents of history.? Thoughts?

@Rossy92 I wonder too. I think the Judeo-Christian heritage is so bound up with Western civilisation that I can't see us getting here with a different civilisation. From what I've read and how I understand it, it seems that our civilisation is rooted in the focus on reason, compliments of the Greeks and if that had not happened, we might have had a more intuitive civilisation like the Eastern world.

@brentan "Its value to the development of civilisation today has been enormous" Isn't that another assumption that more progress has been made with religion than without?

It will always be an apples to oranges comparison, as ancient civilizations made fantastic progress......but..... but it seems that they had "religion" in their cultures too.

So many wild card factors. The only way I can play it, is to imagine where the world might be in the year 2,000 NOT by crediting religion with progress, but by trying to understand how many great minds and ideas were destroyed and warped in the last 2,000 years....or in the whole of recorded civilization by religion, including political and cultural pressure supported by dominant religions.

And that takes way more brains, research and knowledge than I can conjure up

Have a good day !

@brentan America is different. As of 1776 America put an end to the Divine Right of Kings, the rule of religious tyrants. I'm sorry but you are stating another assumption here.

What kind of "advanced" society did they really create in Europe? A few big castles? In that regard they were many centuries behind Meso America, (Incas, Aztecs...others) parts of Asia, India, Egypt to name just a few from my limited knowledge.

The Founding Fathers looked to ancient Rome and Greece as models of republican ideals....not to the repressive, old dead in the water, class system of system of Europe and other religious states.

To understand the present, one must learn the past.

Did religion create morality or did morality create religion? I believe that there have always been mores, normalcy, laws if you will, that guide a culture, a society. They are formed into enforcement by couching them in religion and appointing a high judge, namely a judge. The progression of society has been accompanied by the progression of their gods. Look at Zeus or Odin. Those were gods in times when men, and the patriarchy, were rampantly virile and war was a daily reality. Compare to the Jesus of today, a meek and mild man, lover of children and against war of the fifities. The current transformation of god is towards vengeance, claiming his kingdom with a flaming sword. It is the most interesting structural transformation because it is not increasing membership, but losing it.

@twill You certainly could waste your time wondering how many good minds were destroyed while missing out on all the great minds that came together, both secular and religious, to give us the culture we have now. Good day to you too!

@twill I don't think you have learned much more than to downplay what you're prejudiced against and over play your biases. We were't discussing European culture per se- we were discussing European heritage along with our Judeo-Christian tradition. I know you have no castles but try not to be so bitter!

@Kymmacg Seems like man is as much woven in your narrative as "god" is

@Kymmacg I've just listened to Mark Vernon say the same thing about the modern church in his analysis of Circle 4 in Dante's Inferno. It's at 8.00 minutes.:

Who was talking about "religions"? This is about whether or not there was any viability in the argument that monotheism is an advancement over polytheism, not the relative value of religion.

@redbai I was speaking to the thread, not the OP.

@davers that was non-responsive.

@brentan I love the line "How spirtitual yearning can somehow morph into spiritual materialism."
Thanks for the vid.

@davers, @twill no, you're missing the point. we have some mental barriers that must be addressed when we band together in little societies. establishing little colonies as man did when we progressed from small hunter-gatherer groups to larger agrarian ones required some construct for the necessary social bonds to keep us from attacking or stealing from one another. in other primates they use grooming. but grooming only works up to around 40 or 50 individuals before the time it takes detracts from eating and sleeping. humans developed other tools to allow greater numbers when they reached limits around 150 (the fabled "dunbar" number) where gossip doesn't let us track everyone properly for security satisfaction (see Yuval Harari "Sapiens" ). This is where religion comes in ... the mythos that was used for personal narratives was expanded to include rules and identification for social order. This purpose remained even after we didnt believe in sun gods and the like to explain the universe around us.

@Kymmacg I was speaking to @JeffMesser. I happen to agree with your comment.

@Kymmacg, @JeffMesser There's nothing to demonstrate the progression as you describe except your assumptions. Why couldn't religion, over long periods of time, assumed positive cultural and social norms to become accepted and over generations people simply associated them with the religion because of social and political pressures? There is nothing about religions that specifically generate positive social norms and nothing you've presented demonstrates that.

Thank you JeffM,
This is an encouraging and informative conversation.
I have a phrase which I use; ' IF 2 or more people agree about the Mystery of the Universe , then they are wrong. Well Thank you again

@redbai nothing except an entire academic discipline in social psychology. again you need to read "Sapiens" by Yuval Harari.

@brentan Sorry, but you kind of went off track when you said Judeo- Christian. 2 separate things, 2 different religions. Another assumption on your part based on "what people say."

So tell me I'm wrong, when you never had it right in the 1st place? Again, the story starts 1000's of years ago, not in the muddled present. Especially the muddled presence of America's Christian Nationalism. Please get it right. That bullshit does need more perpetration as some sort of truth.

@JeffMesser "no"....what? I am not clear on what point of mine you are re-butting. Please verify. thanks

@redbai Well, you can read Emil Durkheim or any structuralist on the formation and progression of religion juxtaposed against ethical mores and codes. Functionalism also deals quite intrinsicially with the subject matter. Here is a paper that might get you started. Don't be afraid to download it, it is a clean copy. [mdpi.com]

I wonder what you'd end up with it you synthesized all the world's religions into one?
It might be progress, anyway. Fewer wars, less blaming the other guy's god for everything wrong, etc.

@Storm1752 if your uncle was a woman she'd be your aunt. I'm sorry but that's just dumb. there are regional differences that dictate differences in the social mores supported by religion. you have to understand it's a social tool.

@JeffMesser When people tell me I need to go and read something, they are making the incredibly naive assumption that I would get the same thing from the reading as they did and that is not the case and simply a way of avoiding actually articulating their point.

@redbai whatever. your choice. you can dwell in ignorance or you can educate yourself. thats your choice. I choose to seek truth.

@pgrobinson all our lives we keep coming up with narratives and we must compare them to events happening around us and in our past. if they don't survive muster then we must adapt and change them. if not we are living a delusion.

@JeffMesser You can't articulate a reason for your assertions and have the hubris to define that as a lacking in me. Pompous much?

@redbai I can't articulate a reason why religion is used as a social tool? if you can't comprehend that from above then turn to yuval harari.

@JeffMesser I never questioned why religion is used as a social tool, I questioned your assumption that religion was a "requirement" for the advancement you attribute to it.

@redbai and I said your question was moot and irrelevant. they do use it, have used it, and continue to use it and the fact that ALL human cultures do so strongly suggests we have an internal need for some type of narrative that religion fulfills. then I directed you to the brilliant Yuval Harari who wrote an amazing book that was on the NYT bestseller list for years and is a common resource in social psychology. So if you can't decipher anything from that then I believe you have other issues more pressing than this.

@JeffMesser Wow. Again putting your inability to do something on my shoulders. Do you do that with everything that you assume and cannot demonstrate. Shove the burden onto others with vague references to books they should read.

Your dismissal, without explanation, is simply self-serving. Nothing in your diatribe defines that it was "necessary" and if it wasn't necessary, then your whole rant is just your baseless assumptions.

@redbai pretty sure I mentioned the dunbar number. I think you just have a reading comprehension problem. are you like a TOEFL taker?

@JeffMesser The dunbar number does it necessitate religion.

@redbai ok whatever.

I seem to remember being "taught" that it was a step up from polytheism, but I don't remember any logical or practical reason given for the premise. It was one of those scenarios where i were supposed to have the right answer on a test and that was the right answer. Back then I assume the "right answer" on a test meant it was true. Since then I've changed that assumption.

@redbai Immanuel Kant describes it as the step up from the conditioned to the unconditioned. Jordan Peterson describes it as the step up from from type to archetype. Both are talking about the development of our reasoning powers.

Not necessarily. I would think all that is needed is a good imagination and a pretty good story teller. I would agree that assumptions are the building blocks of "religion", but myths are just stories and a person only has to make assumptions in them if they think the myths are true.

@redbai ..."but myths are just stories and a person only has to make assumptions in them if they think the myths are true." I meant for what I said to apply as if the person believes the myth to be true. Sorry, if I was too brief

Philosophy is trying to conceptualise what religion is symbolising. – Arthur F. Holmes, Wheaton College.
Here's my take on the relationship between myth, religion and philosophy:
Religion is trying to conceptualise but has been limited to expressions of symbols. Symbols are similar to metaphors but involve the subject in the target ideas. For example, the symbol of the crucifix points to the death and resurrection of the Christ, a death his followers are involved in sharing. Myth was trying to do exactly the same thing but didn’t see the subject as an integral part of the spiritual world, just a person trying to survive against the power of the gods.

@brentan "Philosophy is trying to conceptualise what religion is symbolising. " Is philosophy trying to chase the tail of religion here? Why isn't religion symbolizing philosophy? Why does philosophy owe religion anything, specifically trying to figure its shit out .
Is an assumption being made that one is greater than the other?

@twill Yes, from myth to religion to psychology.

@brentan I think you mean myth to religion to philosophy (which I don't necessarily agree with), as it's a big jump from religion to psychology.

@redbai It is a big jump but I think that's what happened.

@brentan I see no relationship between religion and psychology. Religion positively addresses NO psychological issues, it creates new ones, like giving credibility to delusions.

@redbai I'm thinking of descriptions of psychology such as we find at dictionary.com. The common denominator seems to be mental processes and that's where I think religion comes in. It has been a type of conduit of mental processes for such a long time. I suggest myth fulfilled the same role before religion. How do we think and why? Not arbitrarily, I think, but through distinct channels that I think could only exist a priori, as Kant might say. He might also suggest that's no coincidence, thinking of God but the concept of a god might just be a placemat for a question mark.

@brentan We apparently disagree on how religion affects mental processes. I do not see it as a "conduit" but as a barrier. I see it limiting the ability to act and think rationally as someone would if those religious barriers were not forced into place at a young age as the mind is being developed. If there is a "priori" as you suggest, I would argue that religion blocks it's natural course and forces it through courses that are unnatural.

@redbai My guess is that while you think religion affects mental processes, I think religion is mental processes, or at least has been for a long time. I think we can do better than that now. I’ve been reading Kant for a good while now and if I’ve got anything from it, I would say that rationality demands religious thinking. The faculty of reason, by its very nature, knows no bounds until it reaches the infinite and for millennia that bound is described as God. Kant does argue that reason is over-stretching its capabilities but that’s its nature so it can’t help it. We need to control and direct our reason so as not to go too far with its conclusions so we’re trying to replace religious ideas with secular alternatives but we haven’t got too far with it yet. Humanism is a great idea but so far it hasn’t really caught the public imagination.

@brentan "I think religion is mental processes"

How can an artificial social construct (religion) be a mental process? Saying it's a mental process implies that it is endemic to the concept of mind and there is nothing that I am aware of that demonstrates that in the least. And it also implies that being non-religions is not the default, but something that must be achieved. I don't see how any of that is demonstrable, so I don't see how it's credible.

I'm also not sure about your claim that, I assume, social pressures are being applied to "replace religious ideas with secular alternatives" and I don't see that either. The ideas of community and positive social interaction are not "religious ideas", they've just been incorporated into religions to facilitate social acceptance of it's dogma. I'm assuming your not talking about replacing beliefs in gods with secular alternatives as there is no need to do that at all.

Kant would say that religion is not a social construct. Now to be sure we’re on the same page, I hope we’re not talking about organised religion. I think we’re talking about god as a concept, which would mean religious observance is the expression of the concept. Kant says we can’t help believing in the concept. He says reason works by taking ideas that are conditioned by nature (like the syllogism about Socrates is mortal) and abstracting the natural from the proposition until we’re talking about absolutely everyone and everything and immortality instead of mortality. He goes on to say that reason is going beyond the bound of sense when it does this so it needs to be watched, because it can’t be stopped doing this because that is how reason works. If he is right, this means that the aspiration to religious ideas is inherent but they are entirely unprovable because reason doesn’t recognise its limitations.

The other comment about social pressure is a misunderstanding. I just meant that I don’t think secular humanism is making much impact. Nonetheless, I do think secular humanism is about replacing biblical values with secular alternatives.

@SeriouslyNobody IF these quarks gather together gravitationally first into atoms and then into more and more complex life forms, so too consciousness would become more and complex.
Perhaps human beings are the most complex forms here, but evolution continues, so too consciousness would continue to evolve.
So if your '1' represents consciousness at the quark level, maybe we're a '20' ever evolving, becoming more complex.
Some extraterrestials may be a '50,' some higher. To us, they might have appeared in the past to have god-like powers, be gods.
The exact numbers are unimportant; the idea itself seems to have some small degree of plausibility.

@SeriouslyNobody
Big difference in level of consciousness between an inanimate speck of dust and us!
If consciousness equals god, we're MORE 'god' than it is.
Among humans, the ones with telepathic powers or genius IQs or some other highly-refined talent might contain more god as well!
An alien of a extraterrestial super race would put any human to shame, god-wise...

@SeriouslyNobody Hey...! Just saying...according to this...line of reasoning...yes, everything would be 'god,' but if you stop there, NOTHING would also be god, so why call it god in the first place? That's what you're saying, right?
And I'M responding, just to wildly speculate further, maybe consciousness, like energy, cannot be created or destroyed; in fact, may BE a form of energy.
This is a major bone of contention among people getting paid to think about things like this. (Must be nice, right?).
So our consciousness may also be impervious to breakdown, and just change it's characteristics depending on whether it's concentrated in a complex, organized structure (body) along with other 'god particles,' or undifferentiated in space. But once it's concentrated, does it become un-concentrated again, or stay integrated?
It may just fly apart, but then what about reincarnation (which has been circumstantially proven, in my mind at least)?
If it stays concentrated, it could go anywhere, into another body, to another planet or dimension, whatever.
Scattered about, then, particles would have very little consciousness, or 'god,' but aligned together, much more so.
In other words, we may be calling beings with a more evolved consciousness than us, 'god,' when all they really are is more advanced technologically. That technological sophistication may even lead to a type of immortality, if you want to go way out there into sci-fi land!
But sci-fi USED to be going to the moon, so who knows?

It's a question you can ask theists to piss them off. When they say "...but god has no creator, he's always existed" I like to counter with "so why does the universe need a creator, can't it have always existed?"

But you're right, interjecting a creator doesn't help anything.