"The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there" (L.P. Hartley)
I think Lon is on to a very importatant point here. It is very difficult from our perspective at the beginning of the 21st. Century to look back at history and try to discuss which religion has more positively (or negatively) influenced the development of civilization. The idea of a secular, civil society acting as an umbrella in which different religions co-exist, more or less equally, is a rather novel one, originating in the European movement of the 17th and 18th Century known as the Enlightenment. It is a world-view with which, in my opinion, many of the major religions, in particular the two youngest Abrahamic ones, had and still have major problems. The irony is, of course, that the Enlightenment itself was the product of developments within Christian culture and tradition (eg. the increased focus on the autonomous individual and the supremacy of conscience central to the Protestant Reformation). The basic starting point for our contemporary picture of society is secular and pluralist with regard to religions. Religion is understood as a private, voluntary matter. It is frequently not clear to us that this viewpoint would have been anathema to practically all our ancestors up to a few hundred years ago (for many, even more recently than that). Religion, belief in god(s) was an irreducible part of the "res publica". Nearly two thousand years ago, the authorities in the Roman Empire persecuted the Christians as atheists, because they refused to accept the divinity of the emperor. Christianity has, for most of its history, followed the idea of Christendom, the ideal of a Christian society, a Christian world. This is because God, who is intimately involved in the world, has laid down clear guidelines about how society is to be organised and belief in him by all is an essential part of the blueprint. Faith is true belief and error has, by definition, no rights. Unbelievers are on the road to hell, and it is the duty of believers to save them from this disastrous destiny. There follows conversion by the sword, crusades, enforced missionising, etc. Islam is even clearer on this point. The Sharia recognises no division between secular and civil society and this basic fact informs the teachings of the Wahabi or the Taliban, as well as other groups. The main early divisions within Islam, particularly those following the assassination of Ali, the fourth Caliph - leading to the split between Sunni, Shi'ah and Alawi - were at least as much about secular power issues as they were about issues of doctrine. And, even today, the royal families of Morocco and Jordan base their legitimacy on their lines of descent from the Prophet. It is, in my view, trite for us to try to sit in judgement on the past. Our history is part of what we are, it is where we come from. I do not, however, see this position as being one of relativism. The Enlightenment was, in my view, a major advance in human consciousness, even if one of its (inevitable) results has been increasing schizophrenia within Christianity. I believe Islam needs to go through the same process. Of course, I also think that the continuation of this process, (the increasing maturity of human consciousness) will eventually lead to the situation in which religions have become superfluous, been grown out of. But this will be a long process. To comment briefly on issues being adressed in the "Collective Mentality" thread, I do not think that this "progress" is steady, or inevitable - but I do think that it is worthwhile, probably even crucial for our survival as a species. Religions have been a repository for all sorts of aspects of what one might call the human "spirit" - common memes, tropes - collective consciousness - human identity. With all the best ... and the worst. Our traditions, our histories, where we're coming from. But not necessarily where we're going to. Not, perhaps, to be judged and condemned but rather accepted and transcended. Francis On 28 Apr., 17:34, Lonlaz <[email protected]> wrote: > That's really an odd question. To postulate you'd be able to seperate > say, the Greek Pantheon from Greek Civilization. When did religion > really become into being? > > Today's common definition of Religion automatically makes the concept > stupid. It basically breaks down into: the belief of things that > can't be proved or are untrue. It must be about unprovable things, > elsewise, why would you have to believe, instead of know? I think the > problem today is that we have ways of proving and disproving things, > but they have little to say about how we should behave. And it's > really hard to decide to behave one way or another based on any reason > science gives us. > > Back when, there was not a thing such as Religion (believe in things > that can't be proved). There was just stuff people knew in order to > survive, some of which were true, some were untrue, but not worth > testing, just in case. Gods were just an obvious explanation, it was > Occam's razor for the time. > > When humans went beyond simple survival, Religion was born. Even the > most scientific people deal with belief today, though they may not > include a God. Take global warning... is it real and human caused? > God knows there are scientists out there to prove just that, even if > it is not so. Because, they believe certain things: that nature > should progress with as little human impact as possible. You can't > scientifically prove that something like that is true. You may say > that it is better for human survival, but even that is not exactly > provable, and still requires the belief that our survival is a Good > thing. > > I don't think you can disentangle belief from human kind, history or > future. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
