[Petrochemicals (OP)]

In many mythologies and religions there is a golden age/garden of Eden and then the illnesses come (Pandora opens her box).

Now all of these things have one thing in common, they are the beginnings of society, bringing social norms, outlining prescribed non bestial ways of behaving. Darwin on the other hand says survival of the fittest and let the beasts run riot.

Has the advent of society led us to destroy ourselves?

[Bored chemist]

Darwin on the other hand says survival of the fittest and let the beasts run riot.

Did you not read Darwin's work, or did you not understand it?

It would have been impossible for religion to exist before we had a society that was "rich" enough to support a bunch of preachers.

[alancalverd]

Religion features very high among the list of killers, in some countries comparable with some cancers. It requires a vector, but there is no shortage of gullible people with guns and knives.

It is unique in being an avoidable, transmissible  entirely man-made and continually evolving disease of the brain that promotes physical harm to others who are presumed to suffer from a different strain.

[varsigma]

It would have been impossible for religion to exist before we had a society that was "rich" enough to support a bunch of preachers.

I've thought about the recent archaeology around the Anatolian mountains; Catalyohuk, Gobekle Tepe, to name two of them.
These were built during the Neolithic and supported by hunter gatherers, presumably they were coerced into doing this.

Later, all these settlements, which arguably were some of the first temples and the first elite societies, were all buried and not by natural means. It was deliberate.
It's remarkable that Neolithic peoples went to all that effort building them, sustaining the people who chose to live there and not hunt, and then burying them. You have to ask about what the motivation was.

Religion is a modern word, it probably started out when the Romans adopted Christianity. The idea of a state religion or religious practice wasn't novel back then, but the Romans of course exploited people's beliefs. Before Christianity, Romans  were quite ambivalent about the intentions of their gods.

[alancalverd]

Later, all these settlements, which arguably were some of the first temples and the first elite societies, were all buried and not by natural means. It was deliberate.
It's remarkable that Neolithic peoples went to all that effort building them, sustaining the people who chose to live there and not hunt, and then burying them. You have to ask about what the motivation was.

There is no evidence of irrationality or superstition in Neolithic structures. Personal grave goods and food make sense "just in case" the corpse revives, or as an indication to later generations of the previous status of the corpse, or even Norse and Gypsy traditions of burning everything so the next generation thinks forwards rather than backwards,  but the careful alignment of buildings with solar and siderial events points to their importance in long-distance seasonal trade, where calendar synchronisation is essential to success. 

[Bored chemist]

It would have been impossible for religion to exist before we had a society that was "rich" enough to support a bunch of preachers.

I've thought about the recent archaeology around the Anatolian mountains; Catalyohuk, Gobekle Tepe, to name two of them.
These were built during the Neolithic and supported by hunter gatherers, presumably they were coerced into doing this.

Later, all these settlements, which arguably were some of the first temples and the first elite societies, were all buried and not by natural means. It was deliberate.
It's remarkable that Neolithic peoples went to all that effort building them, sustaining the people who chose to live there and not hunt, and then burying them. You have to ask about what the motivation was.

Religion is a modern word, it probably started out when the Romans adopted Christianity. The idea of a state religion or religious practice wasn't novel back then, but the Romans of course exploited people's beliefs. Before Christianity, Romans  were quite ambivalent about the intentions of their gods.

So?

[Zer0]

Has the advent of society led us to destroy ourselves?

I think it's quite the Opposite.
Grouping in a way, makes Us Flourish.

So many people during the ages have made various doomsday predictions, pointing to different causes n reasons, with Only one Commonality...They were all False!

Donno if the God/s are Real or figments of Imaginations...but No doubt it worked out well for Us.

ps - pandora's jar.

[varsigma]

It would have been impossible for religion to exist before we had a society that was "rich" enough to support a bunch of preachers.

I've thought about the recent archaeology around the Anatolian mountains; Catalyohuk, Gobekle Tepe, to name two of them.
These were built during the Neolithic and supported by hunter gatherers, presumably they were coerced into doing this.

Later, all these settlements, which arguably were some of the first temples and the first elite societies, were all buried and not by natural means. It was deliberate.
It's remarkable that Neolithic peoples went to all that effort building them, sustaining the people who chose to live there and not hunt, and then burying them. You have to ask about what the motivation was.

Religion is a modern word, it probably started out when the Romans adopted Christianity. The idea of a state religion or religious practice wasn't novel back then, but the Romans of course exploited people's beliefs. Before Christianity, Romans  were quite ambivalent about the intentions of their gods.

So?

So, if the modern version of whatever it was when we first started doing it, is exemplified by Christianity and how it, evolved, as the cultural idiom saw fit; then has that religious doctrine, the churches in Rome and Constantinople and all the history meant the end of civilization, or made any difference? Compare what Romans believed before and after certain events, including the end of the Empire, but not the Church.

It became a powerful enough institution that it could dictate to kings about what they were allowed to do. So that must have all been quite influential, I'd say.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Survival of the fittest?

[Bored chemist]

Survival of the fittest?

Did you not read Darwin's work, or did you not understand it?

[Bored chemist]

It would have been impossible for religion to exist before we had a society that was "rich" enough to support a bunch of preachers.

I've thought about the recent archaeology around the Anatolian mountains; Catalyohuk, Gobekle Tepe, to name two of them.
These were built during the Neolithic and supported by hunter gatherers, presumably they were coerced into doing this.

Later, all these settlements, which arguably were some of the first temples and the first elite societies, were all buried and not by natural means. It was deliberate.
It's remarkable that Neolithic peoples went to all that effort building them, sustaining the people who chose to live there and not hunt, and then burying them. You have to ask about what the motivation was.

Religion is a modern word, it probably started out when the Romans adopted Christianity. The idea of a state religion or religious practice wasn't novel back then, but the Romans of course exploited people's beliefs. Before Christianity, Romans  were quite ambivalent about the intentions of their gods.

So?

So, if the modern version of whatever it was when we first started doing it, is exemplified by Christianity and how it, evolved, as the cultural idiom saw fit; then has that religious doctrine, the churches in Rome and Constantinople and all the history meant the end of civilization, or made any difference? Compare what Romans believed before and after certain events, including the end of the Empire, but not the Church.

It became a powerful enough institution that it could dictate to kings about what they were allowed to do. So that must have all been quite influential, I'd say.

None of that in any way undermines my observation;
"It would have been impossible for religion to exist before we had a society that was "rich" enough to support a bunch of preachers."
 does it?


So why quote me?

[paul cotter]

Religion starts with man's yearning to answer some of the perennial questions for which there are no simple answers, such as what is the nature of conscientiousness, what happens after death, how did the universe arise, etc, etc. This all good, in my opinion, but the trouble starts when a cult develops with leaders who start dishing out dogma and it then goes downhill.

[varsigma]

"It would have been impossible for religion to exist before we had a society that was "rich" enough to support a bunch of preachers."

Ok. Your observation might need some actual history, though. As in, how did a society become rich? What constituted wealth during say, the early Neolithic before agriculture was around? How did hunter-gatherer societies become settled, or why did they?

[alancalverd]

Civilisation is specialisation. There are hunter-gatherers who don't specialise but live in forests where fruit is easily available and fish or small animals are abundant,so any sharp stick will feed you. In less favorable environments you need more sophisticated weapons, cooking pots, permanent buildings, and so forth, and these are more efficiently produced by specialists so you need to establish trade between the makers and the hunters. Problem is that some people are just bloody useless parasites so they invent reasons why you should continue to feed them as adults, and they become politicians, lawyers, philosophers and priests..

[Bored chemist]

"It would have been impossible for religion to exist before we had a society that was "rich" enough to support a bunch of preachers."

Ok. Your observation might need some actual history, though. As in, how did a society become rich? What constituted wealth during say, the early Neolithic before agriculture was around? How did hunter-gatherer societies become settled, or why did they?

Unless you are suggesting that the Lord provided food and shelter directly to the priests, it figures that someone else did.
So society must have been able to support preachers in order for preachers to exist.

People will have had all sorts of odd beliefs about their world, but it's when you get specialists in such faith that you get "religion" as a thing..

[Zer0]

Survival of the fittest?

Your personal definition of ' fittest ' to me is Unknown.

As per Darwin, i personally think, We have cracked open n split apart his definitions.
(reproduction)


Thou important to note, the essence of his Theory remains fragrantly intact.

" The 1 most adaptable to Change, is the 1 that Survives. "
C.D.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Survival of the fittest?

Your personal definition of ' fittest ' to me is Unknown.

As per Darwin, i personally think, We have cracked open n split apart his definitions.
(reproduction)


Thou important to note, the essence of his Theory remains fragrantly intact.

" The 1 most adaptable to Change, is the 1 that Survives. "
C.D.

Well, for example heart problems. I personally know of 2 families who have heart problems in the male lineage, going back generations none made it to 50 up until recently, brothers uncles etc. As is seen in footballers, heart problems are usually exposed under duress, or fitness testing.

[Zer0]

Having a lineage of hereditary conditions & still managing to continue existing for Generations does not fit into my description of
' Survival of the Fittest ' .

I guess Love doesn't care a Damm about Eugenics.