shafique
Speedhump and I recently had a brief exchange on the nature/need of religion - that got me thinking and reminded me of a book I read a while back, called 'Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge and Truth'. This is available on the web, and I thought I'd just quote a bit of the section that deals with the 'secular' viewpoint of religions/ (how/why religions develop).
I agree with the author's responses/comments on the views expressed below (he argues that religions cannot develop as described, but that some aspects of the argument are true - eg religions being used corruptly), but I'd like first to examine whether the below is a good summary of the views of those here who don't believe in God/or believe religions are created by Man - or is there an aspect that is missing from the description?
(BTW - I also recommend, Richard Dawkin's book - 'The God Delusion' - he covers the material in some depth, and with some humour - but he is a bit of fundamentalist atheist and this aspect lets him down sometimes. He brings out many interesting facts and much of what he concludes I agree with, I just can't make the final leap of faith he makes to conclude there isn't a creator.)
Quote:
THE THEORY OF religious development presented by sociologists and their concept of how belief in God developed, is primarily based on their understanding of social psychology. Having observed the general tendency of man in his social behaviour, they seem to have concluded that man reveres whatever he fears and also adopts a controlled, respectful attitude to what he likes or stands in need of. Their understanding of the 'give and take' motives behind social order is extended to their understanding of religion, incorporating within it the motives of fear and greed.
They believe that ancient man in his naivety, as he stood just a step beyond the dividing line between humanoid and human being, confused and bewildered by all that he saw around him. Thus he failed to comprehend the true nature of things as he ventured to find answers to many a puzzling question. In the hazy light of the dawn of man's intellect, nature's wondrous powers so impressed him that he presumed natural phenomena to be manifestations of superpowers which were beyond his comprehension, yet were capable of influencing his life.
Consequently, he assigned to such forces the status of deities. …
The dangerous animals did not lag behind either, and the beasts of the jungle, the wildcats, the serpents and the scorpions also claimed their share among the assembly of the imaginary gods with evil powers. … Thus his rudimentary ideas of gods began to spiral upwards and gods were classified and arranged in ascending or descending order.
Although today one may criticize early man as over-credulous, the sociologists maintain that this credulity on his part was a natural outcome of his befogged mental faculties as yet unperfected. This in short, is the widely held view of the origin of religion and its subsequent evolution by most of the eminent sociologists.
It is further argued that this primitive thought process eventually evolved to produce the idea of a single Creator. They insist that the image of one God was gradually evolved out of the belief in many gods, but not at their cost. They coexisted in an uneasy equation, struggling for supremacy, permanently locked in a grim battle. Gradually, as the universal clock ticked on, various religions came into being, developing around one concept or another, worshipping one God or many. Little did they realize in their ignorance that they were in effect, worshipping, mere conjectures. It were they who created gods—no God created them. Thus a simple primitive thought process developed, multiplied and proliferated, growing in complexity and generating much bewilderment and confusion around a myriad images of superhuman masters.
This atheistic view of religion has gone one step further in imputing to the founders of religion the act of deliberate falsehood and deception. They claim that at a later stage of its growth, religion no longer remained a jumble of superstitions of the common people. An organized clergy began to evolve. At this stage, the idea of revelation was deceitfully introduced, as a contrivance to further abet the deception of the priestly class. This elite group of religious hierarchy claimed for themselves a special status as the chosen recipients of messages from on high and acquired the exclusive role of the channel of communication between god/gods and men. Many such claimants arose in time, each claiming a close relationship with the powerful supernatural forces shaping the destiny of man.
This is what the sociologists saw reflected in Greek mythology and in the beliefs and practices of many a primitive religion. The genuine search by early man for the solutions to the complex mysteries of nature surrounding him, thus ended in a conscious attempt on the part of the religious hierarchy to deceive and defraud people in the name of god/gods.
Cheers,
Shafique
Berrin
Too bad, event horizon doesn't seems to notice this thread, otherwise he couldn't have missed the section 4 starting with devine revelation and rationallity.. and only then he may have paused to think about his bullshi....
event horizon
Oh, don't worry. Shafique has posted quite a bit from that website. I was still reading shafique's article explaining why humans do not share an evolutionary link with lower primates.
What do you think, Berrin?
Should science be thrown out the window (or distorted) so it does not contradict the texts and teachings of your religion? Do you believe we came from monkeys?
I certainly believe the moon split, Noah lived 950 plus years and we were created from mud.
What about you?
shafique
^You've believed wierder things - like 'women not speaking in Church' does not contradict 'women can be deacons in church', or a Jewish Terrorist who you can't bring yourself to condemn was influenced by the Quran, or that when we agree that the Quran contradicts your interpretation of some verses - we are the ones who are in the wrong for agreeing with you!! :shock:
;)
Cheers,
Shafique
event horizon
Strange things do happen - such as a poster who accuses others of reading 'orientalist' websites after he was caught running to a Muslim missionary website for Bible passages during a debate. Unfortunately for him, it was easy to trace the passages back to the site (passages quoted out of context and all). Strangely, he has not provided any evidence (all it would require is google searching my Ibn Ishaq quote) to show which websites I'm getting the quote from.
But that's a whole other story of some weird poster that managed to kill off the active posters whilst he was moderator of another forum.
I totally believe the stories in the Koran which say the moon split, Noah and some cave dwellers lived very long lives and humans were directly created by mud - as opposed to the 'monkey-man' theory which says humans share common ancestry with lower primates. Don't you?
shafique
I would normally challenge such a post with an examination of the 'absurdities' in the Quran with an examination of the texts and whether there are metaphorical interpretations - but with eh-oh, that would be as useful as hitting one's head against a brick wall!
Let me therefore just refer him/her (do tellytubbies have a gender?) to the skeptics annotated Bible and Quran - for their respective list of quotes of absurdities to be found in both books. eh-oh can amuse himself with comparing and contrasting.
list of absurdities in the Bible:
equivalent list in Quran:
Cheers,
Shafique