h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

So religion is needed to create a community, eh?
Are you shure? Aren't there many animals living in social groups? Do they have a religion, or are they able to form social groups anyway? If they are, how come mankind can't, or rather couldn't?

No, sets of rules to which that community will live by are required.




Animals live in smaller groups for survival. Their societal groups are organised around survival and survival of the fittest. It is always the strongest of the group that rules the group.

I would propose that when humans became more sentient the survival of the fittest became a more destructive way in which to create the hierarachy of the group(s) and we are talking about more than one group or families here. People could not just decide who was to run the collection of groups beased on who could hit hardest especially when survival of the fittest had become a bit of a moot point. Humans were pretty much at the top of the food chain - other animals had pointier teeth but humans were organised enough to over come the physical disadvantages with cognitive thought.

With in such a social structure survival of the fittest had to be replaced with a new set of rules that obviously went against the natural inbred need to survive at all costs. The way that this was done was to take the concept of gods and weave into it the rules that would help to create a stable social structure where it was not simply the strongest who ruled. Hence, the weaving of morals, ethics and rules into the stories passed down by word of mouth. As this became more formal and written down and people started actually believing the stories to be true the more organised side of religion started.

Then why was it neccessary to add this God thing? Are humans incapable of setting up a group of rules without it?

< Without Gods or religion people would have had no framework with which to coexist at such an early time of development.>

Another way of looking at this situation is that it was easier to scare the crap out of poorly educated people by telling them that some infinitely powerful being would squash them if they didn't obey the rules.

<...indeed one could argue that due to a number of competing religions these days that religion is holding back the development of the human race.>

This has already happened; when science started to reveal the truths about the planet we live on and the truth wasn't the same as the religious explanations, further study of the sciences was forbidden in favor of 'the prefect religion'. Can anyone guess what religion this was?

<>

Do you have any evidence for that, Dr J? When was further study of the sciences ever "forbidden", and by whom? Your assertion seems a bit paranoid...

*cough* Galileo *cough* Heliocentric cosmology *cough*

That's only one example but I think I could dig up a fair case that ludditism is often tied to religion. Wouldn't tie it to just one religion though. Socrates murdered for impiety by the citizens of Athens for example.

I still don't see any good arguement that a god concept is anything to do with evolution though.

I've heard that many British school children believe that Galileo was executed.. are you one of them, Bouncy? Because of course, he wasn't.. That's *one* instance, not a policy.

As for Socrates, correct me if I am wrong, but that was political.

In fact, most of the time atrocities commited supposedly in the name of religion, have a political motive behind them.

"I've heard that many British school children believe that Galileo was executed".

Can't say its anything I've heard of. I don't think many British school children would know anything about Galileo beyond his cameo in Bohemian Rhapsody. Anyway, the point in that case is that his work was supressed on the orders of the church.

Meanwhile:
"Socrates is guilty of refusing to recognize the gods recognized by the state and introducing other, new divinities. He is also guilty of corrupting the youth. The penalty demanded is death".

This charge was brought by some random poet no-one appears to know anything else about.

<<"In fact, most of the time atrocities commited supposedly in the name of religion, have a political motive behind them".>>

I would dispute 'behind them'. Most atrocities commited in the name of anything have other motives as well, but that doesn't mean religious differences haven't been important as major causes of bloody conflicts or persecution.

<<>

Do you have any evidence for that, Dr J? When was further study of the sciences ever "forbidden", and by whom? Your assertion seems a bit paranoid...>

We did most of this earlier this year when you refuted a statement that the Catholic Church had not killed anyone who did not believe in God or were considered atheists and I gave you a fair list of persecuted, tortured and murdered people.



Um, well only one's who never listened to their history teacher. And Bouncy never said Galileo was executed. Don't try to derail or throw off a valid example against one of your statements by throwing an unverifiable accusation against a separate group and try and include the person who gave you that example as one of them. It's not big, it's not subtle, it's not clever.

And it may not be a policy but it was not far off. It was the way of keeping the masses in their place kill the ones who spoke out and the rest will shut up.

Oh and *cough* Giordano Bruno *cough*

Oh and I do like this one:

http://www.luigicascioli.it/lettera_eng.php

An open letter from an ex-priest to the Vatican. Scroll down to the list of Popes near the bottom to see what they did in the name of God - a clue - it mostly involved killing people.

<< Anyway, the point in that case is that his work was supressed on the orders of the church.>>
One instance, not a policy such as Dr J spoke of. Besides, look at this... http://www.facingthechallenge.org/galileo2.htm
"People today who want to promote the myth of a conflict between science and faith in God will often claim that:

* the Church leaders of Galileo's day believed that the Earth was flat
* the Church leaders were ignorant and reactionary, and opposed to new scientific ideas and discoveries.
* the Church leaders saw Galileo as an enemy of the Church

None of these claims are true. The Church leaders and scholars were far better informed, and far more open to academic debate, than this myth would have us believe."
Meanwhile:

<>

But the point is, that they are much less of a reason than you and others might perhaps like to believe.

<>

Or an explanation that was used in the absence of scientific ones.

Religion doesn't have to be a control/brainwashing thing. Sometimes an (incorrect) religious explanation can be used in place of a (more accurate) scientific explanation, but there were plenty of people in less enlightened times who really did believe the religious explanation, even in the absence of a priest telling them it was so. Religion in ancient times and in the middle ages, for example, was not a huge plot on the part of the clergy; it was something that was honestly believed by many ordinary citizens - and many scholars who didn't necessarily believe in the clergy.

Look at Martin Luther: he was defying the Church, but he still believed in God.

Its hard to say who does and who does not believe in God or Gods.

Even to this day there are people who no that their jobs depend on portraying an image of believeing in the God of their employer and what the linked religion says should be done in ones life.

So we get preachers politicians and Monarchs who say one thing but live in secret a life very different to the one you might expect if the REALLY believed.

We can only truly say that person X *says or said* they believe in Gods/God.

I think Lord Wolfden is the most articulate, intelligent and reasonable researcher ever and he knows better than DNA ever did what is best for this site. I wear a Tshirt that says this and i go to Lord Wolfdens house with a kebab and chips every Thursday noontime to reveer the Lord Wolfden.

Now if you knew that I really said and did those things would any of you think I really meant them but we see so many other people go on about these Gods or that God burning their incense and going on their pilgramiges that we think "hey they really do". When the truth is we really have no way of knowing.

Martin Luther could have been an atheist but living in the times he did he would have known there was no way he could get away with saying so.


Dont think its like today where peole might give you an odd look or not elect you to the senate or sack you as a preist if you said "I dont think there are any such things as gods" in the past things were very, very different.

The christian Holy Roman Empire clossed proto-atheist schools of philosphy in Greece and Africa. Destroyed works of art depicting Greek and Egyptian Gods and burned books and other scripts if the ideas scientific, philosophical or religious in them conflicted with what the Vatican called orthodoxy.

All unversities after the time of Cromwell in the UK demanded that students be Anglican for over three hundred years Jews, Catholics and unbelievers were not allowed to study. The church tightly controlled what was studied at these universities and stiffled scietific research it did not like.

Oliver Cromwell who claimed to be in direct contact with God outlawed performing arts, sport (except archery which was handy for killing French people) and printing of seditious material (ie. anything he thought was un-holy). For a man so staunchly anti-catholic he had no problem falling back on their game plan destroying artworks, books and deciding what people could and could not learn about.

In civillised countries now you just send your children to school. In the past the chuch ran the schools if you didnt cow-tow to how the church said you should behave no school for your children. They might even be taken away from you by the church/state alliance that ran all schools and socail services. In this country right up until the mid-60s church run homes for fallen women were still taking away the new borns of unmarried mothers and if they did not comply they were routinely threatened with being committted to mental homes and having their children taken away anyway.

Charles Darwin was pilloried in the press and cut off from society in a way which would contravene house rules on h2g2 for expressing ideas which called into question the accepted thinking of the day regarding the origins of man. He was made a pariah by christians.

Della is right about Gallileo he was NOT executed for overturning dogma with his discoveries about a hliocentric solar system.

He was merely THRETAENED with execution and being excommunicated, which would mean his assests could be sequestrated (stolen) from his family by the church. He recanted and lived out his life a broken man who was not allowed to do anymore scientific investigations.

Ofcourse this was a very bad thing for the the Vatican to do and they saw this and promptly admitted this and apologised over THREE HUNDRED YEARS LATER!

Della often talks about the persecution OF christians but must be getting mixed up and mean the persecution BY christians.

one love

Blicky is indeed correct. It was not until UCL (University College London) was founded in 1826 as the first secular institution of higher learning in England that persons who were not connected with the Anglican Church could study. Even at that time Oxford and Cambridge were strictly religious. But even then it was not until 1836, when the University of London was established, that the college was legally recognised and granted the power to award degrees of the University of London.

The way in which the Church came down hard on anyone who disagreed with their way of the world (even if it was merely philosophical rather than theological) meant that every one kept their mouths shut even if they disagreed. If no-one is allowed to challenge and speak out about the very texts and dogma by which the Church ran society then that dogma and text becomes the accepted norm not because you would get persecuted if you did as it had gone past that.

It does not take very long for certain set actins to become 'the norm', and accepted with out question. You only have to look at bad, wrong or inefficient practices in industry. Even if there is a blindingly obvious better, and normally correct, way of doing something and you ask the operator why they do it a different way they will reply 'because we have always done it that way.' Well, they will not have always done it that way. They will have started to get lazy and not think about how they should do things. They will come up with an easier way that gets the job done and with changes in people that incorrect way becomes the correct way.

It is only when someone questions the actions, analyses what is being done and why it is wrong and the history of it that people realise the truth.

Allegory over.

Tends to be a-' a bit from this sort of thing' kind of scenario (well, for me anyway) , : "Ah, yes-but what if as it were, there was still a possibility that we were only more or less 'physically present' , 'thinking' that we were there (/here?)thinking? -
Dimensional sci-fi. elements thrown in there.

Perhaps they are accidentally having him mistaken for someone else who was a historical early scientific-thinker/philosopher, like aristotle...or was that Socrates... , I remember it had something to do with Hemlock. , -I can't (seem to) remember much history today. Maybe it was Copernicus? }Aagh!{

On this page, a UK site no less http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Galileo.html
I found this:
"In 1616 Galileo wrote the Letter to the Grand Duchess which vigorously attacked the followers of Aristotle." (a quote from his letter follows)
"I hold that the Sun is located at the centre of the revolutions of the heavenly orbs and does not change place, and that the Earth rotates on itself and moves around it. Moreover ... I confirm this view not only by refuting Ptolemy's and Aristotle's arguments, but also by producing many for the other side, especially some pertaining to physical effects whose causes perhaps cannot be determined in any other way, and other astronomical discoveries; these discoveries clearly confute the Ptolemaic system, and they agree admirably with this other position and confirm it."

and this-

"Shortly after publication of Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World - Ptolemaic and Copernican the Inquisition banned its sale and ordered Galileo to appear in Rome before them. Illness prevented him from travelling to Rome until 1633. Galileo's accusation at the trial which followed was that he had breached the conditions laid down by the Inquisition in 1616. However a different version of this decision was produced at the trial rather than the one Galileo had been given at the time. The truth of the Copernican theory was not an issue therefore; it was taken as a fact at the trial that this theory was false. This was logical, of course, since the judgement of 1616 had declared it totally false.

Found guilty, Galileo was condemned to lifelong imprisonment, but the sentence was carried out somewhat sympathetically and it amounted to house arrest rather than a prison sentence. He was able to live first with the Archbishop of Siena, then later to return to his home in Arcetri, near Florence, but had to spend the rest of his life watched over by officers from the Inquisition."

Galileo was screwed because he said he believed in what Copernicus said about the motion of the planets [not because Copernicus was Polish]. That was in 1633, yet nearly a thousand years before this the center of education on this planet wasn't anywhere near Pisa or Padua [Galileo's hangouts]. It was the middle east. Then came the prophet and his death and Islam sprang forth causing the cessation of learning in that part of the world. What a shame, thay had one hell of a head start on everyone.

Thanks, That helps me to clear up today's historical conundrums I was having.
& *makes a sigh of relief*

<>
Doubt it! Have you never heard of the Lutheran church? It was founded on his ideas.

<>

As my German lecturer at University said in 1983, the Holy Roman Empire was "none of the above", not Holy, not Roman and not an Empire. Anything it did was purely political.
nd having their children taken away anyway.

<>

Broken man? It is to laugh. He lived in freedom and comfort, and did pretty much as he liked, follow the link I put.

Your lecturer was quoting Voltaire Della, and how would you like to be put under house arrest?

Meanwhile Dr Jeffryo, I think your comments about Islam 'causing the cessation of learning' are way off the mark, as is the classic interpretation of the Renaissance. Civilization did not stop with the sack of Rome and start again a thousand years later just because some people in Florence started prancing around in tights.

The Al-Andulasian Caliphate in Cordoba, for example, was probably the most advanced civilization in Europe for a good few hundred years.

<>
Well, of course I wouldn't - but it's quite different from either the execution that so many people believe in, or the rat-infested dungeon that's others believe in.

Please, someone, read the whole link I provided!