Organized Religion gave birth to Civilization

GracieRuth

GracieRuth

Permanent Fixture
MBTI
INFJ
Enneagram
7
I have just finished reading the June edition of National Geographic. The Cover Story is "The Birth of Religion" and is about the oldest known temple: Goebekli Tepe (located in Turkey).

What is striking about this artical is that its thesis is that organized religion gave birth to civilization. Apparently, this idea has now become conventional wisdom among archaeologists.

When I was a kid growing up, I was taught the standard line that emerging agriculture drove the Neolithic Revolution. Farming meant the ability to stay in one place rather than be nomadic. Civilizations that grew up around these proto-cities developed Religion to bring coherency and order to society. Apparently this is ass-backwards! Organized religion gave cause for cities to develop, and farming was fostered once there were cities.

All I can say is... WOW.

If you wanna read... http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/06/gobekli-tepe/mann-text
 
The positive influence of religion on people is always downplayed/overlooked.


Most of our historical literature was preserved by monks transcribing and maintaining libraries after the empire collapsed; and most of the musical and other artistic development of Europe in the last thousand years was prompted and commissioned by ecclesiastical patrons. Even our current system of universities had their origin in the medieval Cathedral Colleges/Universities.

It seems striking to me that given the entire history of our civilisation - that our major steps forward were connected to our religion - that we should accept so easily the post revolution French dogma that religion should only ever be a private affair, with no connection to our society (separation of Church and State).
 
Certainly this article is from The Onion or some other parody site. Organized religion has only served to stagnate and oppress humankind at every turn! /sarcasm
 
I was going to say that civilization gave birth to organized religion. But, what is disorganized religion? The religion of the uncivilized? I mean, really, we might look down on the religions of primitive societies, but isn't it all the same thing at its most basic level?
 
That's an awfully nice theory you have there... ssssss

I find that we tend to pretend that people in the past were stupid/dumb because knowledge was not very readily available. In fact, when we look at the evidence they were pretty ingenious and would have understood that all things are simply a consequence of attempting to manage, understand and define our changing reality.
 
One would also have to look at what one means exactly by "civilization"...when does a society become civilized. A good part of religious systems simply seeks to connect with deep, inner human aspirations to understand and to connect with the world and each other. Most of this originates through a great deal of observation....in time observation congeals into religious thought or even dogma in that certain principles are held in common. I really don't think religion, when done well, is about control. How do we raise/nurture our young/our families? What types of behavior builds up society/community/tribe and which are destructive? How do we care for our sick or troubled? How do I relate to the physical world I live in? What is the intrinsic value of the human person? What is "the good path?" All these questions (I think) would naturally arise within human groupings and even individuals. That this native reaching for meaning and connection would generate large scale shifts towards civilization doesn not seem a stretch. Dispersed groupings or tribes probably would communicate and over time begin to align around some shared principles and commonalities....this could then become a civilization.
 
GracieRuth said:
What is striking about this artical is that its thesis is that organized religion gave birth to civilization. Apparently, this idea has now become conventional wisdom among archaeologists.

When I was a kid growing up, I was taught the standard line that emerging agriculture drove the Neolithic Revolution. Farming meant the ability to stay in one place rather than be nomadic. Civilizations that grew up around these proto-cities developed Religion to bring coherency and order to society. Apparently this is ass-backwards! Organized religion gave cause for cities to develop, and farming was fostered once there were cities.

All I can say is... WOW.

If you wanna read... http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/06/gobekli-tepe/mann-text
Click to expand...

For years evolutionary psychology has been positing that as humans moved away from their nomadic wilderness livelihoods and into farming communities they felt more removed from the religious affects of the wilderness and created idols to hold their religious projections.

This article seems no more or less filled with contemporary projections than any other set of theories on the origins of civilizations.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
The positive influence of religion on people is always downplayed/overlooked.


Most of our historical literature was preserved by monks transcribing and maintaining libraries after the empire collapsed; and most of the musical and other artistic development of Europe in the last thousand years was prompted and commissioned by ecclesiastical patrons. Even our current system of universities had their origin in the medieval Cathedral Colleges/Universities.

It seems striking to me that given the entire history of our civilisation - that our major steps forward were connected to our religion - that we should accept so easily the post revolution French dogma that religion should only ever be a private affair, with no connection to our society (separation of Church and State).
Click to expand...

Very true, the hospital takes even its name from the knights hospitallers and their vows of hospitality towards pilgrims, the philosophical works which most modern secularists consider the polar opposite to spirituality often are over laid with religious content which is down played, for instance the role accorded to fortune by stoics, it is often considered a metaphor or play on words by modern readers but its as likely to be a consideration of divine intervention or pre-ordained destiny.

Religion must be very, very threatening to a lot of people for it to provoke such historical revisionism and hatred.
 
One thing I would say is that historians are likely to continually swing between the Marx-Weber thesis, Marx's being that the means and mode of production change first, mandating things like religious mores, norms and development, Weber's being that its precisely the opposite, cultural (including religious) mores, norms and development is a prerequisite to changes or development in the means and mode of production.

To be honest I think that some specific historical epoch has to be identified before any speculation can take place, some periods or epoches of history appear to vindicate Marx more than Weber and some vice versa. For instance some sort of material surplus beyond subsistence had to exist to allow for religions to develop but religions themselves no doubt pre-dated that and may have played a role in its development. So Marx may be more valid when looking at first or original development, Weber more accurate for speculating about further and future developments.
 
bickelz said:
You mean overshadowed by all the terrible things it has caused? The number of people who have died for it?
Click to expand...

I mean downplayed/overlooked. The overshadowing thing is isolated to some few particular places and events. I'm talking about the big picture.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
The positive influence of religion on people is always downplayed/overlooked.


Most of our historical literature was preserved by monks transcribing and maintaining libraries after the empire collapsed; and most of the musical and other artistic development of Europe in the last thousand years was prompted and commissioned by ecclesiastical patrons. Even our current system of universities had their origin in the medieval Cathedral Colleges/Universities.

It seems striking to me that given the entire history of our civilisation - that our major steps forward were connected to our religion - that we should accept so easily the post revolution French dogma that religion should only ever be a private affair, with no connection to our society (separation of Church and State).
Click to expand...

To add to your examples of steps forward.

The abolition of the slave trade:Christian conscience and political action
 
Flavus Aquila said:
I mean downplayed/overlooked. The overshadowing thing is isolated to some few particular places and events. I'm talking about the big picture.
Click to expand...

You mean the crusades? Inquisition? Witch burnings? Stoning the gays?

I'm talking about the big picture too and the picture I see says that religion isn't necessary for humanity to move forward. It may have helped in the past but it is largely outdated and unneeded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top