What would it have been like?

[scorpia]

Imagine you could go back in time in some newly-invented time machine, and change the world's history, and prevent anything religious from happening. Ignoring the infalliability of God not allowing this argument, would you presume this changed world to be better or worse, or the same?

[Corvus]

This is really hard for me to call, but I think if no religion existed in the world, the replacement would have to be philosophy. A universal desire to discover some sort of all-encompassing truth instead of being satisfied with what exists might well result in a world vastly different than the current one, though whether better or worse is difficult to say. The Greeks of antiquity seem to have lived in a rather secular society, where, though they had their mytholoy, it did not seem to interject itself into their philosophy or thinking, and they went on to lay the foundation of modern political theory, rights, medicine and other intellectual pursuits. I rather think that if their society continued under the same lines, and the Roman empire lasted another 2,000 years, resulting in further Greco-Roman cultural exportation, things might have been better. With the populaces having no real motivation popes and monarchs could manipulate to their own ends, and no popes or perhaps even monarchs at all, there would be little prospect of something resembling a crusade.

All this is hypothetical, of course, and it's very difficult to give an alternate 2,000 years of history. What happens seems limited only be one's imagination. For that reason, I voted "same".

[potwalloper.]

This is really hard for me to call, but I think if no religion existed in the world, the replacement would have to be philosophy.

Not necessarily. Imagine if the replacement had been science. Thousands of years of unfettered scientific investigation - the resources that were wasted in making churches rich having been spent on science. Who knows where we might be now? The stars? A universal theory? Dead?

I see religion as having held back the advancement of mankind and still trying to do so (eg stem cell research). We do not know just what would have happened had great minds developed scientific investigation rather than wasting their time contemplating a myth...

[scorpia]

But without religion people should have the same moral code, or about. Despite such a lack of religion, there would still be people who would protest to such research such as the stem cell research you have mentioned, perhaps hindering it. And people would be just as distasteful of new ideas or concepts just as much with or without religion.

[Corvus]

This is really hard for me to call, but I think if no religion existed in the world, the replacement would have to be philosophy.

Not necessarily. Imagine if the replacement had been science. Thousands of years of unfettered scientific investigation - the resources that were wasted in making churches rich having been spent on science. Who knows where we might be now? The stars? A universal theory? Dead?

But science is not a system of thought, it is the study of physical reality. Perhaps you could tell me, as a clinical psychologist, do most of your patients feel the need for some cohesive system of thought to give their lives direction? Perhaps this hole might have been filled in distant times by having a life intimately entwined with an alpha male capable of making decisions for them. Perhaps too it is something coming from the opposite side of human nature, really only just a profound egotism and a fear of being insignificant in the universe.

But without religion people should have the same moral code, or about. Despite such a lack of religion, there would still be people who would protest to such research such as the stem cell research you have mentioned, perhaps hindering it.

Perhaps, but I think Potwaller is correct to think opposition will be reduced. I would be interested in seeing statistics for it, but I suspect the majority who oppose stem cell research are the religious right who believe in the concept of a soul. Doing a quick google search, I only found this, which shows opposition to stem cell research is falling dramatically in the U.S. I have to admit, I do not know whether this is due to any moral bankruptcy, but I really don't understand where the problem is with using discarded foetuses. A topic for another thread, I suppose.

[Piper Plexed]

I tend to agree with Potwalloper in that if caveman's primary interest was understanding /controlling his environment lets say from the day he harnessed fire on, well we would most likely be looking at quite a different world today. Though I don't think science would have been able to completely explain to man the nature of the self as science explains a great deal about our physical reality though does little to explain our cognitive reality and self awareness. In terms of self awareness, I tend to think man would naturally search his lineage for an explanation of why we are so different than other animals and where do we come from. The motivation would be similar to how a young child goes to great lengths to map their family tree and to understand their self in relation to the family then community. No matter how I dice it I think man would hit a brick wall in lineage and I wonder if he would be able to accept Poof we are all here? So if I assume the beginning or source of life was a non-issue then we could be a society minus religion and philosophy, plus a great deal of science.

I see religion as having held back the advancement of mankind and still trying to do so (eg stem cell research). We do not know just what would have happened had great minds developed scientific investigation rather than wasting their time contemplating a myth...

I don't necessarily subscribe to this sentiment in that though the two disciplines may be related in the search for truth, I see them as functioning quite independently of each other. Organized religion has often felt itself to be threatened by science though I can't think of a time where science was in the end hindered by religion. In the end mans desire for truth seemed to prevail. I don't think progress can be stopped.

[ST88]

I voted "same" also. I agree with Corvus that without religion something would have taken its place. Without a specific and fictitious mythology that drove adherents to do weird things, we would be looking at some kind of Greco-Roman ideal of society in Western Civilization -- this is assuming the survival of a pagan-at-best Byzantine Empire because of the absence of the Crusades and the lack of a weighty religion to sap its resources. History changes radically at about the 8th or 9th century because this is when the Byzantines really started to flex their religious muscles and evangelize (iconoclasts vs. iconodules, Sts. Cyril & Methodius, the power of the Patriarchate & the contemporaneous rise of the Pope's power in Rome & the Holy Roman Empire in France/Germany). Then things start to look radically different. Though the cohesiveness in the Byzantine Empire was not due to Christianity, it certainly held sway over foreign relations. In the East, we would probably see something like Konfucianism reigning even stronger, without the rivals of Buddhism and Hinduism (& even Shinto), though I don't discount the advent of a truly Atheistic, secular humanist sort of Buddhism. I wonder if behavioral philosophy would have evolved as fast as it did, because there would have been nothing for it to rebel against. There would almost certainly be faster advances in medicine, communication, and economic systems but probably slower advances in things like transportation, industrial processes, and other tools of evangelism. Japan, for example, closed its society because of what it saw as undue Christian influence, so who knows if there would have been a closed, suspicious Japan in the 16th-20th centuries? This would have radically changed the history of this area, and possibly the development of China and Australia.

Without religion, it would be much more difficult to unite different cultures under a single kingdom & keep a nation stable without the distraction of a religion that taught humility and obedience. We might have seen a Greek-style democracy/American-style republic hybrid much sooner than in the current timeline. It's also possible that warrior kings or Platonic philosopher kings would have been more popular -- kings or rulers who actually proved their worth as leaders instead of being selected from an arbitrary family line. Before the succession rules in Britain, kings would need to choose a successor from deputies, advisers, and generals. There are many possibilities.

I imagine that mythologies would be exclusively wrapped up in the deeds of ancestors and that any pantheon of gods would be similar to Greek morality plays at most. This is all assuming that "religion" means organized codes of belief and behavior, and not something like a crude Animism.

Things that may not have changed enough to make a difference are the attitudes towards women, sex, animals, children, food, etc.

I'm sure there's a thread on this in alt.history.what-if somewhere. (I won't look for it because I know I'll get caught up very quickly in American History arcana.)

[Arch]

I am not sure on my vote. Though I think a lot of negativity came from religous stances. I am not quite sure the world would be better without it at least not in the beginning.

I think things would have been more chaotic and maybe even more wars would have came about. As much as some of us hate religon we must admit it is one of the most successful means on controlling the masses.

With the lack of science and education beliefs are the best you get. Now that we are more informed I think it is time to start to supress soem of these beliefs.

When we found out what cause lightning there was no longer a need for THOR.

When we found out that the earth revolved around the sun there was no longer a need for the belief in the GOD that pulled the Sun behind his chariot.

When I found out what caused rain and thunder, I no longer believed it was GOD crying and Angels bowling...lol
HEY I was told that when I was little.

[canadianhorsefan]

Actually, before Islam, the Arabs were a backward people. Since Islam encourages scientific pursuits, the Arabs eventually became quite an advanced people. Much farther ahead than what was going on in Europe. Of course, they didn't know that, and thought the Arabs were barbarians........so they start a crusade much like what Bush is doing in Iraq, having no knowledge of their opponents and no good reason.

[Dilettante]

Without religion the world would be more or less the same. Morality is independent from religion. Good people will always be kind to their fellow humans, and bad people will always hurt other people. And there are good and bad people among believers and unbelievers alike. I don't think prisons contain more atheists than theists, for example. It may well be the other way around, I don't know. Adherence to a set of beliefs doesn't automatically make you a better person. Depending on those beliefs, it could have the opposite effect!