Which came first? Civilization or Religion?

a reply to: nwtrucker
I'm going to share another Sam Harris quote as it addresses what you said concerning secularism:

"According to the United Nations’ Human Development Report (2005), the most atheistic societies—countries like Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United Kingdom—are actually the healthiest, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, per-capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate, and infant mortality. Conversely, the fifty nations now ranked lowest by the UN in terms of human development are unwaveringly religious. Of course, correlational data of this sort do not resolve questions of causality—belief in God may lead to societal dysfunction, societal dysfunction may foster a belief in God, each factor may enable the other, or both may spring from some deeper source of mischief. Leaving aside the issue of cause and effect, these facts prove that atheism is perfectly compatible with the basic aspirations of a civil society; they also prove, conclusively, that religious faith does nothing to ensure a society’s health."

a reply to: Tangerine

Let's go with the etymology of the word. re: again and legere: read which for me implies learn.

That seems to cut through to a common denominator that excludes nothing and no one...

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Simply put, practical?

Is this a chicken and egg question? Ok, I'll play. I say civilization, without someone to share ideas with how could the idea of a god even be debated? Let alone established.

That is a no brainier. Of course people gathered together before they had problems from being together and making rules to abide by. You don't make rules as a society before problems exist. If people live alone not in a community. No stucture for laws on others.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Frankly, I don't buy that report. Secularism pretty much owns the U.N. and, as most are aware of, runs on an agenda that have disaffected many.

I have seen, not only a drop in morals in North America as secularism has expanded, I've also seem a huge drop in the education levels as well. Health, included. far more serious is the morals, we now have Corporations, gov'ts, all levels of society less concerned with others and self-indulgent..

I rebut, please articulate any pearl of wisdom that has originated from Secularism that has improved the lot of mankind.

all I see is a bigger mess than ever.....

a reply to: nwtrucker

If you want to view it that way Then sure. Practical.

Lets take a step back and assess the moral merit of Jahweh.

His best moral solution to eradicating creation he himself made, that he came to regret, was a genocidal global flood. One in which killed god knows [no really he does] how many innocent babies and toddlers... and puppies and baby raptors or whatever you believe lived then.

Or how about Sodom and Gomorra? Yahweh carpet bombed two major cities with brimstone fireballs because they were all immoral. Really? Those cities would have also been filled with children. Infants, babies, toddlers, young teens... they were all so immoral they deserved to get their faces crushed and melted?

We can surely pick bits and pieces out of the Bible that are morally sound. No argument there. Someone would have to have a very peculiar moral compass however to not see the immorality that's also contained in the pages.

That or you follow Divine Command Theory. Which to me is one of the worst religious beliefs, and a terrible offense to morality.

a reply to: nwtrucker

You should conduct a study to refute it then. As it stands I see more reason to favor the credulity of that study over your sentiment it's inaccurate.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

I can't argue your points in the bible. Clearly beyond my level of moral understanding....

Also, I never claimed the Judeo-Christian moral code was 'perfect'.

Apparently workable, if for no other reason, than the resultant western civilization and it's persistence.

It's on the wane and I propose it's the degradation of that code that can be pointed to as a basic cause. Just my thoughts on it..:

a reply to: nwtrucker

I rebut, please articulate any pearl of wisdom that has originated from Secularism that has improved the lot of mankind.

My first post. That morally impressive quote from Jainism. It preceded Judeo-Christinaity and they hold no belief in god or some divine entity as core to their philosophy.

Then there is the Golden Rule [ethic of reciprocity] that was mentioned earlier from a Christian.

It's found throughout Greek philosophy. All preceding its appearance in Judeo-Christianity.

Hard to asses in ancient times as most people were religious in one way or another.

There are plenty of atheists/secularists in our modern world that share insight on the topics of morality & ethics via books and lectures and Ted Talks, etc.

Morality doesn't depend on religion.

a reply to: Jonjonj

Good point. I am leaning to the symbiotic view that both assist each other. I still, maintain, however, that a civilization is hard to establish without a moral code that allowed sufficient trust for co-operation to occur.

The question the becomes is religion the source of moral codes? Are there exceptions?

a reply to: nwtrucker

I think you have a phiolosophical assumption that must be dealt with before this question can even be addressed. Can an objective moral law exist without a Supernatural lawgiver?

The assumption made in the OP is that what is considered moral and immoral can come from a human source knowledge, but ultimately that causes one to fall to irrationality as the the nature of truth will break that world view to pieces.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Hmm, I didn't say all moral codes originated with Christianity. I also see no evidence that the golden rule originated from religion or not. Nor whether that version was the first articulation of that concept.

Sharing insights, as you say, by atheists/secularists doesn't translate into any sweeping insight that has raised mankind to new levels that I can see.

"Morality doesn't depend on Religion". My experience at age 64 leans me to believe that religion provides the conduit, if not the original source, for morality.

We shall have to agree to disagree. A pleasure ,sir...

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Can an objective moral law exist without a Supernatural lawgiver?

This is addressed in Sam's Ted Talk. It's 20 mins and in my opinion quite compelling. It's not charged with antitheism as is his normal modus operandi. It's really just about the issue of objective morality more or less.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Then you omit incremental truths? Evolution of those morals? Be those of human origins or divine inspiration via humans?

My premise is workability. Not source or perfection.

It's hard to argue the logic behind the value of a moral code and it's worth in allowing co-operation. From cave-dwellers to a civilization is quite an evolution.

Did religion, or at the minimum, it's moral code play a part is causing that evolution?

Beyond what I learned from the posters- a symbiotic relationship at the least, I have no clue as to the answer....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Jonjonj

Good point. I am leaning to the symbiotic view that both assist each other. I still, maintain, however, that a civilization is hard to establish without a moral code that allowed sufficient trust for co-operation to occur.

The question the becomes is religion the source of moral codes? Are there exceptions?

I don't believe that morality is necessary for the establishment of a society, I rather think that necessity trumps morality every day.
As such, morality is irrelevant as the base for establishing society, I believe that morality comes into play once society is established and rules need to be put in place.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

He lost me in the first five minutes. His example of adding cholera to drinking water as not a good idea...unless the science say we are 'overpopulated', therefore this act is 'moral'.( my caveat, not his).

Science gives us our weapons, improving almost daily, to a point where conventional weapons, in some cases, exceed nuclear weapons in destructive capability.

The morals of the scientist dictate his scientific conclusions. Inescapable.

The morals of the scientist are fundamental to the interpretation of the morality of his science.

"Science" as is "Religion" equally subject to perversion. If one can subvert a religion, one can subvert anything.

Sorry, Trash bin...

a reply to: nwtrucker

Most of what you said is not reflective of what he said.

A full viewing of the Ted Talk [and comprehension of it] is required.

Sorry but I don't respect the review of someone who watched 5 minutes and determined that was sufficient to understand the full scope of what his position/points were.

So throw it in the trash if you must. Such is your prerogative.

a reply to: Jonjonj

OK, I could buy into that. Let me rebut with this. Rather than necessity trumping morality-and it surely does, at times-can not necessity also dictate morality as well?

a reply to: nwtrucker

i would say religion ..............when the first man made the first fire he was no longer scared at night he sat up and thought about other than his survival for the first time ....first thought where did i come from .....birth of religion ..stone age