A challenge: Can anyone think of some aspect of culture done first and better by atheists than by theists? Or does culture owe it’s debts chiefly to believers?
I realise this may not be fair, as atheism is a recent invention – how about recent aspects of culture?
remember, we are all born athiests. culture is not an invention of the believer, many aspect of our culture today such as casual sex, prostitution, lying does not come from the believer. culture does not owe its existence to the believers because culture would still exist even if someone guy called jesus did not exist.
I would actually argue that we are all born theists. There is pretty solid neurological and sociological evidence for that.
But, I do think the question needs some refining. After all, pagan concepts of the divine were/are quite different from Abrahamic in both how they interacted with people and how people ought worship them. And what about Henotheistic cultures, like Egypt or India, where individuals become aspects of the divine (and, in some interpretations) or pantheisms? What about cultures where the gods where devalued by the religion (such as in Buddhism) or where gods occupied a much less important place (but spirits of all sorts still played a huge role), such as in China?
I think we need a better definition of ‘believer’ and ‘theist’ before we can meaningfully move forward.
Now, the Aeveteralists have lists of accomplishments so long it would wrap around the world hundreds of times. Indeed, I would have to ask what aspects of culture were done first and better by the Immortalists.
As for the Mortalist end of the equation, there is relatively little because culture is a slow-moving organism and it is a relatively recent phenomenon. The only movement I can think of that has strong mortalist connotations and isn’t just a different take on pre-existing theistic thought, is modern feminism. Granted, that has also had members of the other groups involved.
The problem should also include trend lines, i.e. the direction in which great thinkers were moving relative to the religious culture of their day. Many great thinkers, by todays standards, were theists. But by the standards of their day their beliefs might have been heretical in the extreme. Sure, most people in history have been affiliated with a religion, but if they were relatively non-religious, that’s perhaps more significant than their actual set of beliefs.
I’d like to know what inspired your use of these three terms for the descriptions. Aquinas uses “aeveteral” to describe beings that are created but live forever. (angels) And I’m not sure what is more “immortal” about the Western religions.
Anyway, I think you’re right. I forgot about Eastern religion: they did lots of good stuff first. I also forgot about pre-Christian religion, but some have said Christianity inspires knowing about the world, so maybe I had that in mind somewhere.
I should probably explain what brought me to this question. I was thinking of new art forms of the 20th century and how they were preceeded in other ages by Christian art. I was also thinking how it seems in philosophies, atheists tend to use versions of former theories, materialised for secular use. There are lots of possible counter-examples to my question, it seems – which is why I included the words “and better”. (A matter for debate.)
Spot on with the Aquinas, I think that his three types of beings pretty much encapsulates three distinct types of belief.
The Immortalists hold a belief in an immortal divinity that has neither beginning nor end, like the Christian God or the way some Hindus conceive Brahman. They also probably believe in aeveretal things like Angels, the immortal soul, ect. And, last I checked, most also believe in mortals. You know, you and me.
The Aeveretalists do not think that there is something that lacks a beginning, but recognizes things that do not have ends. Zeus was born, but he wasn’t going to end. Now, the strict Aquinas-type reckoning of aeveretal breaks down a little bit, since Buddhists do hold that Devas are a part of Samsara and the Norse believed that their gods would perish at Ragnarok . . . but I think that as a grouping of religions that lack the concept of something akin to the ‘Unmoved Mover’ or the ‘Primer Mover’, I think the term is apt. I think this category could be further divided into several subgroups, but I think that any of the three groups could be divided, so while I agree that this one is the least clear, I think it is a reasonable grouping. Most of those in this group also believe in mortals.
And Mortalist is probably the most self-explanatory since it just recognizes what is mortal.
As for your inspiration for the thread – I agree with it. But that is the way of history. There is nothing new under the sun, instead what we have is a constant process of refinement.
Couple that with one of his progressive moments:
And I think that you have a pretty good model for how history progresses and how to embrace change without being overwhelmed by it.
Second, Religion and Atheism aren’t two different civilizations or something. You can’t say “look here, atheists got the wheel first”. Religion or lack of it is just one aspect of a society, and one aspect of a person.
On whether culture owes its debts chiefly to believers, I don’t see culture owing any debts at all. Religion may have been the right way to do things back then, but, hey, times have changed. It’s like saying that scythes are better than modern machinery because they were used for harvesting first.
Moreover, just because something came about in a religious society doesn’t mean that the religion helped it come about. Religion may have hindered it, or may have had no effect at all. I can certainly see many examples of religion directly stalling progress, can you give any examples the opposite?
No, everyone started off agnostic (without knowing) which is also technically athiest (without theology) by default. It was agnostics long ago that invented religion. Athiesm was not ‘invented recently’ but it has only been recently that theists have been able to become civilized enough to stop trying to kill anyone who doesn’t agree with them, thiests having been violent, panicky barbarians for thousands of years until now.
Xunzian wrote:
Solid evidence? Oh, you’re refering to how newborn babies start quoting scripture even before the ambilical cord is cut. Darn all those athiest parents who brainwash them into forgetting it all! Seriously though, I’m sure you do believe that there is evidence. That’s the thing about believers, they’ll belive anything they want to.
Xunzian also wrote:
Yep, the one thing that all people on earth have in common is the overwhemling wish not to die. So the Immortalists invent another world to go to when you die, the Aeveteralists invent a system that allows you to be reborn, and the Mortalists invent sanitation and medicine.
Believers are taught to adhere to what they are taught, and are known to fear new areas of inquiry, labeling it as evil and ungodly until they get used to it. Historically, belief based cultures enforce belief systems and punish conflicting opinions. People whose standard position is that it’s god’s will, period, whatever the subject is, do not have a healthily growing culture, in fact such a system is retarding culture development.
The minority of people, those who value thinking over believing, are going to carry the rest of the population, kicking and screaming, into a better future. Just like they’ve always done. (And the believers will assume it was them somehow, just like they’ve always done)
I’ve mentioned others before, but Dr. Newberg is a good source for the evidence that suggests we are hardwired to believe. “Why God Won’t Go Away” is a good lay source on the subject, or you can pubmed it for some meatier articles. Like language, the form that it takes is varied but the function/nature remains the same.
It would also argue against people starting out agnostic, since they are hardwired for belief. They, of course, could not know the specifics of the religion, but they were pre-conditioned to accept it. Pre-religious is not the same as agnostic.
As for your description of man’s quest for immortality, I pretty much agree. Except that a lot of the medical research throughout history has been done by people who held religious beliefs. Indeed, some of the more pragmatic religions even encourage this practice. So, it isn’t as clear-cut as you’d like to make it out to be – otherwise you’d have been able to answer MRN’s initial question, which you have not yet.