• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

To foster complex societies, tell people a god is watching

Perspicuo

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
1,289
Location
Costa Rica
Basic Beliefs
Empiricist, ergo agnostic
To foster complex societies, tell people a god is watching
http://news.sciencemag.org/asiapacific/2015/03/foster-complex-societies-tell-people-god-watching

People are nicer to each other when they think someone is watching, many psychology studies have shown—especially if they believe that someone has the power to punish them for transgressions even after they’re dead. That’s why some scientists think that belief in the high gods of moralizing religions, such as Islam and Christianity, helped people cooperate with each other and encouraged societies to grow. An innovative study of 96 societies in the Pacific now suggests that a culture might not need to believe in omniscient, moral gods in order to reap the benefits of religion in the form of political complexity. All they need is the threat of supernatural punishment, even if the deities in question don’t care about morality and act on personal whims, the new work concludes.

People raised in Western cultures find the idea of moralizing high gods—so-called big gods such as the Abrahamic god of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—“really intuitive, and think that they are a common feature of religion, whereas really they’re not,” says Joseph Watts, a doctoral student in cultural evolution at the University of Auckland in New Zealand. Gods in small-scale societies are “a lot more like humans,” he says. Think of the ancient Greek gods, with their romantic entanglements, material concerns, and arbitrary biases, for example.
 
To foster complex societies, tell people a god is watching
http://news.sciencemag.org/asiapacific/2015/03/foster-complex-societies-tell-people-god-watching

People are nicer to each other when they think someone is watching, many psychology studies have shown—especially if they believe that someone has the power to punish them for transgressions even after they’re dead. That’s why some scientists think that belief in the high gods of moralizing religions, such as Islam and Christianity, helped people cooperate with each other and encouraged societies to grow. An innovative study of 96 societies in the Pacific now suggests that a culture might not need to believe in omniscient, moral gods in order to reap the benefits of religion in the form of political complexity. All they need is the threat of supernatural punishment, even if the deities in question don’t care about morality and act on personal whims, the new work concludes.

People raised in Western cultures find the idea of moralizing high gods—so-called big gods such as the Abrahamic god of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—“really intuitive, and think that they are a common feature of religion, whereas really they’re not,” says Joseph Watts, a doctoral student in cultural evolution at the University of Auckland in New Zealand. Gods in small-scale societies are “a lot more like humans,” he says. Think of the ancient Greek gods, with their romantic entanglements, material concerns, and arbitrary biases, for example.

When daddy or leader is not enough invent a God. What an insight. How about invent a social contract? Another Great idea. Distinguish between the two please.

Consider another track. Imagine. We have capacity to identify 300 individuals or more. Is that because it takes a lot of people to compete with mammoths and Sabre-tooth, or, to satisfy any human group living mainly on small rodents and available nuts, seeds, and the like, or, because man became our most dangerous predator, or, is it because of we invented Gaw-ad?

What I don't understand is why language, which it seems, evolved out of tool making, would now be presumed to arise in support of worship and governing? Thoughts?
 
Michel Foucault.

I don't know if Foucault said it (but 4 may be implicit when you say 2+2), but yes, but the deity is the ultimate panopticon, the Hitchensian celestial North Korea.

That's what they're saying. Nevertheless, fromunderinside has a good point too, you need a social contract and many more things. I would add that religion may be a reflection of the type of polity the society lives under. It only fine-tunes it in its nightmarish reach. Not a bare necessity eauther, since countries whose population lives oblivious of the diety, such as Sweden and Czech Republic today, don't necessarily fall apart in anomie.
 
Authorities instill obedience, towards any type of end, cooperation, conflict, niceness, evil.

The God of Abraham commands at least as much violence and conflict as niceness. The key is that such Gods (who demand worship and define "evil" as non-belief in themselves), create clear in-groups and out-groups. They command that outgroups be attacked which is convenient for taking their resources and wealth, and amassed resources contributes to building a more complex society. The same Gods command "order" within the ingroup. This is sometimes "niceness" but just as often order in the form of inequality and hierarchical power structures in which lower casts must obey. Also, the moment an in-group member gets out of line (even if their actions are very "nice"), they are to be treated rather unkindly.
 
True, although during the middle ages religion did it's best to stifle free enterprise, and it did. So in a sense religion got us to a point where we formed primitive societies, but to really take off (as we've done since the early-modern period) we needed to eventually acquire the idea of personal liberty and rights for all outside of religion. Before that time, life revolved around God.
 
True, although during the middle ages religion did it's best to stifle free enterprise, and it did. So in a sense religion got us to a point where we formed primitive societies, but to really take off (as we've done since the early-modern period) we needed to eventually acquire the idea of personal liberty and rights for all outside of religion. Before that time, life revolved around God.

Maybe in the near future when we begin recovering narratives from those who possessed that 2.4 million year old jawbone recently discovered near where Lucy was found we'll get a handle on first thoughts of fear and how beings accounted for it. :joy:
 
True, although during the middle ages religion did it's best to stifle free enterprise, and it did. So in a sense religion got us to a point where we formed primitive societies, but to really take off (as we've done since the early-modern period) we needed to eventually acquire the idea of personal liberty and rights for all outside of religion. Before that time, life revolved around God.

Maybe in the near future when we begin recovering narratives from those who possessed that 2.4 million year old jawbone recently discovered near where Lucy was found we'll get a handle on first thoughts of fear and how beings accounted for it. :joy:

:joy::joy::joy:

^^ that's prehistoric man running as fast as he/she can.

One must wonder who the first human was to introduce the concept of God to language.
 
Maybe in the near future when we begin recovering narratives from those who possessed that 2.4 million year old jawbone recently discovered near where Lucy was found we'll get a handle on first thoughts of fear and how beings accounted for it. :joy:

:joy::joy::joy:

^^ that's prehistoric man running as fast as he/she can.

One must wonder who the first human was to introduce the concept of God to language.

OG obviously. He announced it with either "Skreech" or "Umh?"
 
Back
Top Bottom