Is religion a delusion?

[tolman]

So what war-derived tech would we have died out from the lack of if there hadn't been wars?

Weapon-wise, we are apparently capable of killing creatures up to and including whales using basic hunting tools (spears and clubs), so we don't obviously need war-derived weapons to defend us from the rest of the animals.

War doesn't seem to have given us many otherwise unobtainable advances in medicine, food production or general hygiene either, so I'm wondering what lines you're thinking on.

Certainly, war can accelerate the development of some kinds of technology, but it's always easier to point to actual or alleged spin-offs than to point to things that didn't get made because people were busy doing military work.

[SorryImPsychic]

This is ridiculous nonsense - the other posters have beaten me to it - but let us be clear - ridiculous....

Religion serves no survival value to the species per-se -

However, it is likely that being a good hunter (for example) was a bigger plus....

It is difficult for me to continue a discussion when what I say is considered as ridiculous nonsense. But I will have one more shot at supporting my argument:

Religion has served to form the philosophical and administrative framework for Politics and social organization (no matter what the religious persuasion is). Once the Politics were in place we can have those "non-religious wars" you mentioned).

I mentioned earlier that religion -> conflict and the conflict drove neuronal activity. Consequently this forged neuronal paths that "grew our brains". You cannot underestimate the role that mental conflict plays in human advancement, and religious conflict was and still is the strongest driving force in the human. e.g. Capernicus in proving the phenomena.

By conflict, I mean both internal and external. And as soon as the human though of a power above - they could began to think, and think hard, about everything in between.

[tolman]

It is difficult for me to continue a discussion when what I say is considered as ridiculous nonsense.

But surely, you must have had a great deal of practice?

[SorryImPsychic]

But surely, you must have had a great deal of practice?

This comment is rude and uncalled for

[SorryImPsychic]

That seems extremely hard to support, unless you make a deliberate choice to define 'human' as happening just at the point where language had developed to the point where people could explain/enforce religion on other people, and relegate any previous inventions (tools, fire?), etc to being pre-human ones.

Has there ever been a species that could not communicate within its own species? So do not assume that significantly developed language was the beginning of human communication and religion.

Can you name the first human invention? (remembering that fire is a discovery and the development of stones to tools is manufacturing.).

[Tony Williams]

Can you name the first human invention? (remembering that fire is a discovery and the development of stones to tools is manufacturing.).

Those are false distinctions. Stone tools had to be invented before they could be manufactured. The potential of fire may have been a discovery but methods of starting one had to be invented.

[SorryImPsychic]

So what war-derived tech would we have died out from the lack of if there hadn't been wars?

....we don't obviously need war-derived weapons to defend us from the rest of the animals.

What warfare has done is create situations which necessitate technological development/advancement. In peace there would be no need to do so.

One of the most significant war-derived technologies is witnessed by the advancement of surgical procedures necessitated by warfare.

If the human had proceeded on peaceful paths we could survive on clubbing our dinner to death.....but we would not be inclined to become technologically advanced people either. We'd be primitive and have compromised survival capabilities.

My point is that religion has served (evolutionary tool) to create the greatest conflicts, and it is "conflict" rather than "peace" that drives neuronal activity and thus technological/scientific advance which equals (believe it or not) survival.

[SorryImPsychic]

Those are false distinctions. Stone tools had to be invented before they could be manufactured. The potential of fire may have been a discovery but methods of starting one had to be invented.

Oh gosh - its semantics now .

Stone tools are simply modified raw materials....for more efficient use. There are many well documented accounts of non-human primates using raw materials as tools e.g. Chimpanzees use of twigs as tools to extract termites. I don't think primitive humans use of tools can be classified as inventions - but it does come down to semantics I suppose.

Lighting a fire necessitated discovering how - not inventing how to light a fire. If they came up with matches then that would be an invention.

So, I ask again, can you name the first human invention?

[Nic]

SorryI'mPsychic,


Just a question, do you view religion from a neutral point of view and only support its validity in terms of human development, science and technology, or do you also perceive it as an individual's personal experiences?


In short, do you conform any religion and, if so, what are the basises of such beliefs, if any.

[SorryImPsychic]

SorryI'mPsychic,


Just a question, do you view religion from a neutral point of view... or do you also perceive it as an individual's personal experiences?


In short, do you conform any religion and, if so, what are the basis of such beliefs, if any.

Hi Nic - I have just finished responding to your post on Mulder's "I was a complete skeptic until..."

I view Religion from a biased point of view, rather than neutral one, because I do not believe in any religion myself and am very inclined to argue about religious beliefs.

[Nic]

Hi Nic - I have just finished responding to your post on Mulder's "I was a complete skeptic until..."

I view Religion from a biased point of view, rather than neutral one, because I do not believe in any religion myself and am very inclined to argue about religious beliefs.

Just another question, where does the Psychic bit in your username feature in your beliefs?

[SorryImPsychic]

Just another question, where does the Psychic bit in your username feature in your beliefs?

Nowhere - being psychic is a dubious claim.

[Nic]

Nowhere - being psychic is a dubious claim.

I'm not familiar with your history, are you a psychic?

[SorryImPsychic]

... are you a psychic?

Is the member Pebble a pebble?

[Tony Williams]

What warfare has done is create situations which necessitate technological development/advancement. In peace there would be no need to do so.

Well, your thesis seems OK except for two minor issues:

1. Religion is not the source of all warfare - battles over territory (and the resources in it) are both older and more important.

2. Warfare is not the source of all technological development - it just provides a temporary boost in certain specific areas. Consider astronomy (with giant telescopes and Hubble) or the LHC at CERN (for fundamental physics research). Even with the development of aircraft in the 1930s, the first modern stressed-skin retractable monoplanes weren't warplanes - they were US commercial aircraft deigned to get a speed advantage over their rivals. Warplanes lagged years behind.

I do admire perseverance as a virtue, but once a notion has been as comprehensively blown out of the water as yours has, it is not admirable to keep plugging away at it - quite the reverse.