Should we thank God for civilzation?
ConversazioniLet's Talk Religion
Iscriviti a LibraryThing per pubblicare un messaggio.
Questa conversazione è attualmente segnalata come "addormentata"—l'ultimo messaggio è più vecchio di 90 giorni. Puoi rianimarla postando una risposta.
1rrp
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530142.800-should-we-thank-god-for-civil...
But just because spirituality may have led to civilisation, it doesn't follow that it should lead it now. If religion did have an early founding role, we must acknowledge this, learn from it – and move on.
Archeological evidence is mounting that religion was the cause if civilization, and not the other way around as is generally thought. But what I found interesting in this New Scientist article was the need to editorialize, mixing the science "religious influence on the rise of civilization" with opinion "we must move on".
Why do they feel the need to add the unscientific opinion to the science?
But just because spirituality may have led to civilisation, it doesn't follow that it should lead it now. If religion did have an early founding role, we must acknowledge this, learn from it – and move on.
Archeological evidence is mounting that religion was the cause if civilization, and not the other way around as is generally thought. But what I found interesting in this New Scientist article was the need to editorialize, mixing the science "religious influence on the rise of civilization" with opinion "we must move on".
Why do they feel the need to add the unscientific opinion to the science?
3hf22
>2 theoria:
Not a fan of Civilization?
It was a good computer game, many years ago, if nothing else :)
Not a fan of Civilization?
It was a good computer game, many years ago, if nothing else :)
4timspalding
>3 hf22:
STILL a good computer game!
>2 theoria:
Your bio says you live in Park Slope. Isn't that rather civilized?
STILL a good computer game!
>2 theoria:
Your bio says you live in Park Slope. Isn't that rather civilized?
5southernbooklady
>1 rrp: Why do they feel the need to add the unscientific opinion to the science?
Because it is an op ed piece?
The archaeologists who found it interpreted these as having a ceremonial purpose: a "cathedral on a hill", as one put it.
It's almost all speculative when we talk about ancient cultures, but I would have thought that the need to imprint ourselves on our environment -- to mark that we were here or record what we experienced, is basically a spiritual need. The inclination to make art certainly pre-dates agriculture. Our self-awareness pre-dates agriculture, doesn't it? So it seems like "spirituality" would be a motivating factor in our collective will.
But if "civilization" is defined as a collective, stationary group in a more or less permanent residence, engaged in a series of divided tasks that cooperatively act for the benefit of the survival of the group...well I suppose in the end we'll find that necessity has been the mother of invention, even to the point of inventing "civilization."
Because it is an op ed piece?
The archaeologists who found it interpreted these as having a ceremonial purpose: a "cathedral on a hill", as one put it.
It's almost all speculative when we talk about ancient cultures, but I would have thought that the need to imprint ourselves on our environment -- to mark that we were here or record what we experienced, is basically a spiritual need. The inclination to make art certainly pre-dates agriculture. Our self-awareness pre-dates agriculture, doesn't it? So it seems like "spirituality" would be a motivating factor in our collective will.
But if "civilization" is defined as a collective, stationary group in a more or less permanent residence, engaged in a series of divided tasks that cooperatively act for the benefit of the survival of the group...well I suppose in the end we'll find that necessity has been the mother of invention, even to the point of inventing "civilization."
6timspalding
It's almost all speculative when we talk about ancient cultures
Boooooo! There are real gaps in what we can know from archaeology, and how definitively we can know it, but, still, "it's almost all speculative when we talk about ancient cultures" is both wrong and very very common—usually as compared to science, which is wrong on the other end too.
It needs a name of its own, really. Mishistoria? Historiphobia?
Boooooo! There are real gaps in what we can know from archaeology, and how definitively we can know it, but, still, "it's almost all speculative when we talk about ancient cultures" is both wrong and very very common—usually as compared to science, which is wrong on the other end too.
It needs a name of its own, really. Mishistoria? Historiphobia?
7southernbooklady
Well I did say "almost"! :-)
12rrp
>5 southernbooklady:
Because it is an op ed piece?
I don't have my copy here, but I am quite sure it was in the "news" section, not the editorial / opinion section up front, which is what made it seen so odd.
Because it is an op ed piece?
I don't have my copy here, but I am quite sure it was in the "news" section, not the editorial / opinion section up front, which is what made it seen so odd.
13southernbooklady
Well the link you provided says "Opinion" in the header
16rrp
Sorry if I got it wrong. So it is "opinion". It still strikes me as odd. The New Scientist is not exactly pro- religion, but it is usually more nuanced than " we must move on".
17nathanielcampbell
>14 theoria: I know you to be a generally intelligent and thoughtful person, which makes such face-palm moments at this idiotic one-liner all the more gob-smacking.
18timspalding
>17 nathanielcampbell:
My money is on "weird joke."
To the OP, I've read about Göbeklitepe elsewhere. The notion that an early uptick in cooperative building was spurred by religion, not secular economics, does not really surprise me. Obviously I can't say yes or no, but the suggestion is perfectly reasonable. What's unreasonable has been the long-running tendency to remake the past as if religion was never a real factor, but always something secondary and weak. So we got the Crusades without religion, the Pilgrims without religion, and on and on. It's good to see that fading.
My money is on "weird joke."
To the OP, I've read about Göbeklitepe elsewhere. The notion that an early uptick in cooperative building was spurred by religion, not secular economics, does not really surprise me. Obviously I can't say yes or no, but the suggestion is perfectly reasonable. What's unreasonable has been the long-running tendency to remake the past as if religion was never a real factor, but always something secondary and weak. So we got the Crusades without religion, the Pilgrims without religion, and on and on. It's good to see that fading.
19prosfilaes
>18 timspalding: Didn't you make a fuss once about how the 30 Years War wasn't simply a war about religion?
20rrp
>19 prosfilaes:
The 30 Years War wasn't simply a war about religion. Why would anyone need to make a fuss about that?
The 30 Years War wasn't simply a war about religion. Why would anyone need to make a fuss about that?
21timspalding
>18 timspalding:
Nor is religion always "about religion" either—here too no doubt. I don't remember making that fuss, although I don't think anything could disagree with it.
Nor is religion always "about religion" either—here too no doubt. I don't remember making that fuss, although I don't think anything could disagree with it.
