Atheism, please note the capitalisation❤️

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

To a point, but I don't think it is religion or an alternative. Rather religion is a sub-set of complex societal structures that fit the needs for human societies.

Human intelligence, ability to communicate and ability for abstract thought created a need for complex human societies and gave humans an advantage that put them at the top.

And actually the notion of 'religion' is rather arbitrary - what is it about religion that sets it apart from other societal structure. Presumably some reference to god (although some religions can be non-theist), some acceptance of supernatural elements?

I would say religion comes out of the human ability for abstract thought, which gives rise to the concept of something greater than ourselves - that has more of the abstract qualities we venerate than we do and which has trickled some of those abstract qualities such as morality down to us  - a bit like when we teach a chimp sign language - so something with more wisdom, more justice etc than humans.

It's not exactly surprising, given our very obvious intelligence limitations (and the even greater limitations of animals) if we conceive the possibility of something more than us, since we interact with intelligence less than us.

So way back on the thread there was some discussion of much earlier civilisations - e.g. ancient Greek and Roman. And in this context belief in god (i.e. the religious element) seems to be much more of an optional 'add-on' to the fundamentals of the society. And so an extent this is apparent now in our increasingly secular world - religion is a take it or leave it element but not a fundamental element to societal function. So perhaps we are a little too focussed on the monotheistic religions which were more demanding that people believe and that religion is all important.

Were there civilisations that did not revere abstract concepts that they thought were greater than themselves?

[ekim]

People who never used religion to meet that innate need may see no use for acquiring religion to meet a need if they have already found an alternative way to meet it using some other system or process.

Perhaps 'innate need' could be seen as cycles of desire for what gives pleasure, satisfaction, survival and cycles of fear of what gives suffering, unhappiness, extinction.  The former is judged as 'good' and the latter as 'bad'.  Collectives  could be seen as a means of strengthening the former and mitigating the latter.  There are those who attain 'celebrity' status either by force or persuasion who lead the collectives.  However, there may come a time when it is seen that those 'celebrities' are insufficient and prayer to or surrender to a projected  supernatural power is the only alternative.
However, when you look at the 'mystical' element of a number of 'religions' there is often a method (from metahodos - middle way) between and beyond the cycles of desire, fear and intellectual reasoning and which is inward rather than outward. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Human intelligence, ability to communicate and ability for abstract thought created a need for complex human societies and gave humans an advantage that put them at the top.

I agree. But there is another aspect to this. If new-born human babies popped out already 'pre-loaded' with all the knowledge/intelligence of their parents then there would be no need for complex society. But they don't. New born babies have quite limited actual cognitive ability at birth because the human brain needs a huge degree of neuroplasticity to learn all this stuff. And therefore complex societies are needed to provide the structure for learning and also to protect those young humans until they have developed sufficient knowledge, which takes many years.

I would say religion comes out of the human ability for abstract thought, which gives rise to the concept of something greater than ourselves - that has more of the abstract qualities we venerate than we do and which has trickled some of those abstract qualities such as morality down to us  - a bit like when we teach a chimp sign language - so something with more wisdom, more justice etc than humans.

It's not exactly surprising, given our very obvious intelligence limitations (and the even greater limitations of animals) if we conceive the possibility of something more than us, since we interact with intelligence less than us.

I think it is much more complicated than that. I certainly agree that humans have a curiosity which is linked to learning and knowledge and therefore evolutionary advantage. So humans want to understand stuff. And one element of religion in the past has been about explaining stuff humans don't understand - so someone must have made the world, lightning must be sent down by something in the clouds etc etc. Now this is partly due the completely understandable limitations of tools to study stuff thousands of years ago.

But I think ancient civilisations saw this largely as part of the (material, not that they would have used the term) world they lived in. So there really was a material god throwing down lighting, there really were huge elephants on which the earth rested etc. But as our ability to understand stuff has increased and we can explain far more things in material terms there has been a shift - this distinction that Vlad loves between materialism and the supernatural. Not sure the ancients would have seen that distinction in the same way at all.

On the more than us stuff - well I'm not sure I agree. The point being that most civilisations have come up with gods who are basically just super-humans, so it is merely an extension of themselves rather than something genuinely 'more than'. But the other point is that in most cases these super-humans have a relationship with the particular 'tribe', and if placated can protect that tribe and destroy the 'others'. So rather than a genuine 'more than' (beyond the notion of explaining stuff they don't understand - see above) I think this is also about retaining commitment to the tribe. Our tribe has a relationship with the gods that the tribe over there doesn't. Stick with us because the gods are on our side, don't join them because the gods hate them.
 

Were there civilisations that did not revere abstract concepts that they thought were greater than themselves?

Given that we have very little evidence from human societies for much of the existence of humans over the past 300,000 years or so then I think it is rather difficult to answer that question. Certainly some of the evidence we have from the earliest societies suggest that their focus was on things which were anything but abstract - e.g. cave paintings of animals which are definely not abstract. And it is also unclear whether they 'revered' the things they painted or whether this was more about learning and describing the world in which they lived and they needed to understand to be able to survive as hunter/gatherers.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Perhaps 'innate need' could be seen as cycles of desire for what gives pleasure, satisfaction, survival and cycles of fear of what gives suffering, unhappiness, extinction.  The former is judged as 'good' and the latter as 'bad'.  Collectives  could be seen as a means of strengthening the former and mitigating the latter.  There are those who attain 'celebrity' status either by force or persuasion who lead the collectives.  However, there may come a time when it is seen that those 'celebrities' are insufficient and prayer to or surrender to a projected  supernatural power is the only alternative.
However, when you look at the 'mystical' element of a number of 'religions' there is often a method (from metahodos - middle way) between and beyond the cycles of desire, fear and intellectual reasoning and which is inward rather than outward.

Yes - it makes sense to form a collective to amplify the positive and safeguard against the negative. Presumably pleasures are what help humans thrive - feeling good about your successes including discharging your responsibilities each day, but they also need some pain to thrive. If it was all pain and fear and suffering I imagine that would grind a person down, so humans appear to work best with some balance of both.

Agree it makes sense to look inwards to improve yourself to aspire to whatever humans might conceive and revere as having greater abstract qualities than themselves.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I agree. But there is another aspect to this. If new-born human babies popped out already 'pre-loaded' with all the knowledge/intelligence of their parents then there would be no need for complex society. But they don't. New born babies have quite limited actual cognitive ability at birth because the human brain needs a huge degree of neuroplasticity to learn all this stuff. And therefore complex societies are needed to provide the structure for learning and also to protect those young humans until they have developed sufficient knowledge, which takes many years.

I think it is much more complicated than that. I certainly agree that humans have a curiosity which is linked to learning and knowledge and therefore evolutionary advantage. So humans want to understand stuff. And one element of religion in the past has been about explaining stuff humans don't understand - so someone must have made the world, lightning must be sent down by something in the clouds etc etc. Now this is partly due the completely understandable limitations of tools to study stuff thousands of years ago.

But I think ancient civilisations saw this largely as part of the (material, not that they would have used the term) world they lived in. So there really was a material god throwing down lighting, there really were huge elephants on which the earth rested etc. But as our ability to understand stuff has increased and we can explain far more things in material terms there has been a shift - this distinction that Vlad loves between materialism and the supernatural. Not sure the ancients would have seen that distinction in the same way at all.

On the more than us stuff - well I'm not sure I agree. The point being that most civilisations have come up with gods who are basically just super-humans, so it is merely an extension of themselves rather than something genuinely 'more than'. But the other point is that in most cases these super-humans have a relationship with the particular 'tribe', and if placated can protect that tribe and destroy the 'others'. So rather than a genuine 'more than' (beyond the notion of explaining stuff they don't understand - see above) I think this is also about retaining commitment to the tribe. Our tribe has a relationship with the gods that the tribe over there doesn't. Stick with us because the gods are on our side, don't join them because the gods hate them.

 Given that we have very little evidence from human societies for much of the existence of humans over the past 300,000 years or so then I think it is rather difficult to answer that question. Certainly some of the evidence we have from the earliest societies suggest that their focus was on things which were anything but abstract - e.g. cave paintings of animals which are definely not abstract. And it is also unclear whether they 'revered' the things they painted or whether this was more about learning and describing the world in which they lived and they needed to understand to be able to survive as hunter/gatherers.

I agree that complex societies are a vehicle for learning but I would not limit it to protection of new-borns to learn. I think humans continue learning until they die and complex societies are a way for all to learn from each other - especially in relation to abstract concepts that are more than the material. In the Quran for example the translation of the Arabic is that we are created as nations and tribes so we can know each other.

[ProfessorDavey]

I agree that complex societies are a vehicle for learning but I would not limit it to protection of new-borns to learn. I think humans continue learning until they die and complex societies are a way for all to learn from each other - especially in relation to abstract concepts that are more than the material. In the Quran for example the translation of the Arabic is that we are created as nations and tribes so we can know each other.

Sure - I think our evolutionary advantage as humans is to be smarter (rather than faster, stronger etc) and in order to be smarter we need the potential for intelligence, higher consciousness etc, plus a curiosity to learn and find our stuff. And so a by-product of this may be a human desire to keep learning and finding out more stuff even if that is no longer of evolutionary benefit.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes - it makes sense to form a collective to amplify the positive and safeguard against the negative. Presumably pleasures are what help humans thrive - feeling good about your successes including discharging your responsibilities each day, but they also need some pain to thrive. If it was all pain and fear and suffering I imagine that would grind a person down, so humans appear to work best with some balance of both.

Agree it makes sense to look inwards to improve yourself to aspire to whatever humans might conceive and revere as having greater abstract qualities than themselves.

There is certainly advantage in pleasure and enjoyment as it is likely to make humans more committed to their 'tribe' and potentially more cooperative and effective.

But I think there is a big shift in human societies as we moved from small groups and tribes to much larger societies. In a small group/tribe everyone will have a direct relationship with everyone else and I think these will be quite 'flat' socially, in other words the living conditions of all with be relatively similar.

But as societies got bigger we see a much more arms-length relationship between members - some will know others but there will be many, many more where there is no direct relationship. Also I think we begin to see much greater hierarchy - those at the top massively better off than those at the bottom. This necessarily creates tension and the need for more complex mechanisms of control - largely to keep those at the bottom placated. Now there is the Bread and Circuses approach, but I think religion increasingly became a mechanism for societal control in those larger societies.

So those in elite positions became the custodians of interpreting 'what god wants', and often this is portrayed as effectively do as you're told and know your place in society, often with direct threat of sanction for failing to acquiesce. But the icing on the cake is the promise of an afterlife - effectively 'accept your life is shit and you have no control and you must service us (the elite), but it's OK because if you do as you are told endless paradise is waiting for you once your miserable little life is over'.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

And so a by-product of this may be a human desire to keep learning and finding out more stuff even if that is no longer of evolutionary benefit.

Not sure what you mean by it no longer being of evolutionary benefit? How would we know/ identify what is beneficial in evolutionary terms?

[ProfessorDavey]

Not sure what you mean by it no longer being of evolutionary benefit? How would we know/ identify what is beneficial in evolutionary terms?

Well I guess there are a couple of possibilities. So firstly stuff which is incredibly 'blue sky' - so learning for learning's sake without having any real real-world value.

But also where the learning cannot really be passed onto the next generation to provide evolutionary benefit to them - so if we are dealing with the evolutionary push to perpetuate our own gene pool, circumstances where I cannot have any more children and/or where my offspring are too old to benefit from that learning.

But I guess my point is that where the ability to learn and a drive to curiosity broadly provides evolutionary benefit it will drive more curiosity/learning that doesn't directly provide benefit up to a tipping point where the evolutionary 'cost' of non beneficial curiosity/learning outweighs the evolutionary 'bonus' of beneficial curiosity/learning.

Same really with many evolutionary traits - so for fast running animals - the benefits of ability to run fast (e.g. catching food etc, not being eaten) must outweigh the cost incurred to maintain that trait - need to eat more, maintain muscle etc.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

This necessarily creates tension and the need for more complex mechanisms of control - largely to keep those at the bottom placated. Now there is the Bread and Circuses approach, but I think religion increasingly became a mechanism for societal control in those larger societies.

So those in elite positions became the custodians of interpreting 'what god wants', and often this is portrayed as effectively do as you're told and know your place in society, often with direct threat of sanction for failing to acquiesce.

True that's how it often ends up - those in power taking control of religion backed by their access to power / physical force because they have to control religion to maintain their position of power.

But there has been a tradition of rejecting the structures of authority - for example the Abrahamic religions started as grass roots endeavours, with the person spreading the message of the religion being poor and one of the people, not a member of the elite. Post-Enlightenment in Western civilisation led to a rejection of divine right and unquestioning obedience to authority.

But the icing on the cake is the promise of an afterlife - effectively 'accept your life is shit and you have no control and you must service us (the elite), but it's OK because if you do as you are told endless paradise is waiting for you once your miserable little life is over'.

If there is a life, it makes sense to conceive of an after-life. I don't see that the "service the elite" message is one that has widespread appeal - see above. 

[ProfessorDavey]

If there is a life, it makes sense to conceive of an after-life.

Does it? Not if it means focussing on the perceived benefits of an after-life, rather than focussing on the life someone actually has.

I don't see that the "service the elite" message is one that has widespread appeal - see above.

I agree - which is why the elites in societies have used all sorts of methods (not just religion) to keep the plebs in line, which often means working for the benefit of those in elite positions and ensuring that their elite position isn't challenged.

And with religions this has often involved appeal to higher authority - 'I know you are slaving away to keep me in the manner to which I am accustomed, but hey it isn't me whose making you do this, it's what god wants'. And also the dangling of the promise of an afterlife - 'if you do what you are told (i.e. what I have said god wants you to do), you'll have paradise when you die, even though your current life is awful and benefits me'.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Does it?

The after-life as a concept? Yes, I think it makes sense - assuming you can conceive the possibility of something more than what you currently experience.

Not if it means focussing on the perceived benefits of an after-life, rather than focussing on the life someone actually has.

I don't think it's straightforward - I think it depends on the circumstances and your interpretations of the competing concepts.

When I was a kid (from about ages 5-6yrs) my brother (a year older than me) and I each competed to receive 5p daily each morning depending on who was ready for school first. We were required to be breakfasted, dressed and ready for school by 7.55am every morning to be walked to school with some other kids by a lady who got paid for the service (my parents had jobs to get to so didn't have time).

My grandmother would help us get ready - we had some specific tasks we needed to complete and my brother would invariably ignore my grandmother's admonitions, come up with some excuse (that for some reason my parents would not let me use) to skip some of the tasks, and win the 5p from my parents most mornings. It was ceremoniously dropped into his money box most mornings before we left for school. 

When I complained to my grandmother that he was being rewarded for not following the rules, she said that there was something more important than the 5p, which was the knowledge that you were doing the right thing and doing what you had been entrusted to do by your parents, even if your parents don't seem (from my perspective) to recognise or reward it, because learning the skill to forgo the 5p and value the feeling of doing the right thing will serve you better in the world than caring about the 5p.

That's abstract thinking - doing the right thing for a feeling rather than for recognition or a concrete reward -  5p per day for sweets (back when sweets could be bought for 1/2p) was a lot to forgo to a 5 year old. But she was right - the internal thoughts and feelings and the skills learned in being able to forgo the 5p were a better reward than the 5p. 

I would say that the concept of the after-life that I interpret (e.g. from the Quran) is similar to that feeling or principle that my grandmother explained. That there can be more value in a feeling or an abstract principle than concrete rewards.

I agree - which is why the elites in societies have used all sorts of methods (not just religion) to keep the plebs in line, which often means working for the benefit of those in elite positions and ensuring that their elite position isn't challenged.

And with religions this has often involved appeal to higher authority - 'I know you are slaving away to keep me in the manner to which I am accustomed, but hey it isn't me whose making you do this, it's what god wants'. And also the dangling of the promise of an afterlife - 'if you do what you are told (i.e. what I have said god wants you to do), you'll have paradise when you die, even though your current life is awful and benefits me'.

My understanding of religion is that you learn that you can't control outcomes - the circumstances of your life can be crap and you can try to change your circumstances but there are too many variables beyond your control that will impact the outcome - but you have more control over abstract concepts like your intentions and motivations.

My experience is that I sense/ experience some reward from such abstract concepts. There is reward from knowing you tried to oppose abstract concepts such as tyranny or injustice. It's up to individuals to ponder and decide where they direct their energies and what rewards they aim for.

[ProfessorDavey]

The after-life as a concept? Yes, I think it makes sense - assuming you can conceive the possibility of something more than what you currently experience.

But we aren't discussing the notion of something that might, in a purely abstract hypothetical manner, exist.

No we are talking about something that people were taught to believe actually exists and changed their behaviours on the basis of that belief. That seems to me to be very different. And if that change in behaviour (because someone desires what is claimed and, perhaps more importantly, fears the alternative afterlife) acts against the best interests of the individual, their family and much of society to the benefit of a tiny elite in the real world (rather than the hypothetical after-life) then I see that as a problem.

So for centuries (thankfully less so now) the claims of paradise and hell have been used to control the behaviours of the masses, while those in elite positions maintained their position and the elite controlled the message that god was apparently sending through them to the masses. Divine right of Kings anyone.

Now I cannot really comment on Islam as I don't know enough about it, but this certainly seems to reflect the history of Christianity until fairly recently, not just in Europe but through expansion across the globe.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But we aren't discussing the notion of something that might, in a purely abstract hypothetical manner, exist.

No we are talking about something that people were taught to believe actually exists and changed their behaviours on the basis of that belief. That seems to me to be very different. And if that change in behaviour (because someone desires what is claimed and, perhaps more importantly, fears the alternative afterlife) acts against the best interests of the individual, their family and much of society to the benefit of a tiny elite in the real world (rather than the hypothetical after-life) then I see that as a problem.

So for centuries (thankfully less so now) the claims of paradise and hell have been used to control the behaviours of the masses, while those in elite positions maintained their position and the elite controlled the message that god was apparently sending through them to the masses. Divine right of Kings anyone.

Now I cannot really comment on Islam as I don't know enough about it, but this certainly seems to reflect the history of Christianity until fairly recently, not just in Europe but through expansion across the globe.

And as you said in your earlier post " I don't think it is religion or an alternative. Rather religion is a sub-set of complex societal structures that fit the needs for human societies.".

So without "paradise" and "hell" we would still have elites using complex societal structures to advantage themselves to the detriment of others.

People are taught to believe all kinds of abstract concepts as being real enough to control their behaviour e.g. good and bad, ego and humility, selfishness and altruism, kindness and cruelty etc

[ProfessorDavey]

So without "paradise" and "hell" we would still have elites using complex societal structures to advantage themselves to the detriment of others.

We would and we have. But there is a difference - without 'paradise' and 'hell' you actually have to deliver the treat (bread and circuses) or the threat (punishment) to maintain the authority. The notion of "paradise" and "hell" is fundamentally different - you do not need to deliver them, indeed you cannot deliver them. All you have to do is get people to believe they exist in order to retain control.

People are taught to believe all kinds of abstract concepts as being real enough to control their behaviour e.g. good and bad, ego and humility, selfishness and altruism, kindness and cruelty etc

But again these are different - while they may be subjective, once you have an idea what selfishness and kindness mean (as examples) you have examples that you can draw on from your own experience in the real world of people being selfish or kind to you or to others. The whole point (and perhaps unique) power of "paradise" and "hell" is that you cannot experience them in the real world, but they exist when you die and you will be there for eternity. Or at least if you are taught to believe that to be the case. You can never find out in the real world.

This is where the whole notion of pascal's wager comes from (although it is flawed as it is far too simplistic in not considering the thousands of purported gods with purported attributes).

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

We would and we have. But there is a difference - without 'paradise' and 'hell' you actually have to deliver the treat (bread and circuses) or the threat (punishment) to maintain the authority. The notion of "paradise" and "hell" is fundamentally different - you do not need to deliver them, indeed you cannot deliver them. All you have to do is get people to believe they exist in order to retain control.

Again I would agree with your previous post about how these religious concepts are just subsets - in this case Heaven and hell are a subset of promises of reward and punishment to control people. The elite maintain power until someone (another equally privileged elite or someone less privileged who is being controlled) figures out a way to curtail their power.

People make all kinds of promises about abstracts they can't really deliver on but use to control others - happiness, equality, freedom from want and poverty, freedom to choose, democracy etc. People don't even agree on what these concepts are, in order to be able to ascertain or reach consensus on whether they have been acquired or achieved.

As a sub-set - Heaven is a concept of getting whatever you desire and being free from the struggles of life, and hell is a concept of suffering - the descriptions of these concepts are usually fleshed out with real-world examples of bliss and suffering.

I really don't see the problem of this subset. It's a great way of countering the lure of worldly gains or the fear of worldly loss - those in power are afraid of these concepts because they can't control it. If you're not scared of the pain of your real-world body dying because of some belief in being honoured by generations long after you die, or heaven after you die, then the elite can't bomb you into submission.

But again these are different - while they may be subjective, once you have an idea what selfishness and kindness mean (as examples) you have examples that you can draw on from your own experience in the real world of people being selfish or kind to you or to others. The whole point (and perhaps unique) power of "paradise" and "hell" is that you cannot experience them in the real world, but they exist when you die and you will be there for eternity. Or at least if you are taught to believe that to be the case. You can never find out in the real world.

This is where the whole notion of pascal's wager comes from (although it is flawed as it is far too simplistic in not considering the thousands of purported gods with purported attributes).

Usually religions describe heaven and hell concepts in real world terms - gardens beneath which rivers flow, being with loved ones, abundant food and drink etc etc and the alternative is also real-world e.g. burning, pain, suffering ...so you don't have to use too much imagination to get the gist of it.

[ProfessorDavey]

Usually religions describe heaven and hell concepts in real world terms - gardens beneath which rivers flow, being with loved ones, abundant food and drink etc etc and the alternative is also real-world e.g. burning, pain, suffering ...so you don't have to use too much imagination to get the gist of it.

But the point is that regardless of whether heaven and hell are described in real world terms you cannot experience them in the real world (and nor can you chat to someone who has experience them) - that's the point. That is why they are different to both tangible (the Sydney harbour bridge) and more abstract things (kindness) that can be experienced either first hand or second hand in the real world.

Heaven and hell are kind of uniquely different in that people are taught to believe that they are real, but you will only experience them once you die and that it will be for ever and you cannot get any actual experience of them in the real world.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But the point is that regardless of whether heaven and hell are described in real world terms you cannot experience them in the real world (and nor can you chat to someone who has experience them) - that's the point. That is why they are different to both tangible (the Sydney harbour bridge) and more abstract things (kindness) that can be experienced either first hand or second hand in the real world.

Heaven and hell are kind of uniquely different in that people are taught to believe that they are real, but you will only experience them once you die and that it will be for ever and you cannot get any actual experience of them in the real world.

Not understanding the point you're making - presumably you agree that heaven and hell would be meaningless and would not work as a method of control or influence unless people relate them to real-world experiences?

If you can't imagine it, it can't affect you. People need to relate to a concept for it to generate feelings that influence their behaviour.

Since our discussion is about complex societal structures that fit the needs for human societies in terms of control, influence, cooperation etc then the relatable abstract concept is what exerts that influence. It's irrelevant whether heaven or hell exists and what they are really like - the beliefs about them are enough to create the societal structures that humans seem to need, and as I said - because they are other-worldly and cannot be proved / disproved - they are an effective way of countering the lure of worldly gains or the fear of worldly loss.

[ekim]

The whole point (and perhaps unique) power of "paradise" and "hell" is that you cannot experience them in the real world, but they exist when you die and you will be there for eternity. Or at least if you are taught to believe that to be the case. You can never find out in the real world.

I think that is what distinguishes organised religion from the 'mystical' element.  The mystic tends to claim personal consciousness of an inner 'state' and tries to devise methods to transcend what prevents others from realising it themselves in the present.  They try to convey it using a mythological language which can be confusing.  If I remember correctly. 'paradise' comes from a Greek source 'para deisos' which meant 'beyond form' but took on a more enticing 'Garden of Eden' form.  The method later tended to become lost in a collection of moral rules and regulations with an organisation or authority to impose them (often dressed for the occasion).

[ProfessorDavey]

Not understanding the point you're making - presumably you agree that heaven and hell would be meaningless and would not work as a method of control or influence unless people relate them to real-world experiences?

I think the key point is that people believe they exist - that's what allows them to work as a method of control or influence.

If you can't imagine it, it can't affect you. People need to relate to a concept for it to generate feelings that influence their behaviour.

But surely the whole point it that they go beyond what it imaginable - so, sure you have experienced good stuff in the real world - but heaven is meant to be unimaginably better, unimaginably good. Sure you have experienced bad stuff in the real world - but hell is meant to be unimaginably worse, unimaginably bad.

But the other element which is challenging for people to imagine is the time scale - this unimaginably good stuff or unimaginably bad stuff goes on for ever, to infinity. And for ever/infinity is also something which people struggle to imagine.

So although there is a hook into the imaginable - people can imagine good/bad stuff that goes on for a long time, heaven and hell take that to a new, basically unimaginable level.

But I come back to my first point - the key here is believing that you are going to have unimaginably good/bad stuff for ever. That's what works in terms of control. If you believe it then it would also work if it were really, really good/bad for a really, really long time (but not for ever). It doesn't work if people don't believe heave and hell actually exist.

But the other point that goes along with believing is that no-one can verify this for you - no-one can come along as say 'hey, yes I was in heaven - wasn't really all that it was cracked up to be and they kicked me out after 6 months' or 'hey, yes I was in hell - wasn't really all that bad at all - all the fun people were there'. The point is the unknowable promise and the unknowable threat which is the key to the control as long as you believe in the promise and believe in the threat.

[ProfessorDavey]

Since our discussion is about complex societal structures that fit the needs for human societies in terms of control, influence, cooperation etc then the relatable abstract concept is what exerts that influence. It's irrelevant whether heaven or hell exists and what they are really like - the beliefs about them are enough to create the societal structures that humans seem to need, and as I said - because they are other-worldly and cannot be proved / disproved - they are an effective way of countering the lure of worldly gains or the fear of worldly loss.

Yup - similar point to the one I was making in my previous post, albeit phrased differently.

The key to the control is belief - and control over that belief is the key to power in highly hierarchical societies. Those at the top make the rules and either justify them by reference to the divine or even claim they come directly from the divine. It is those with power, influence (and often affluence) who use belief as a lever to maintain their positions of power, influence (and often affluence).

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think the key point is that people believe they exist - that's what allows them to work as a method of control or influence.
But surely the whole point it that they go beyond what it imaginable - so, sure you have experienced good stuff in the real world - but heaven is meant to be unimaginably better, unimaginably good. Sure you have experienced bad stuff in the real world - but hell is meant to be unimaginably worse, unimaginably bad.

But the other element which is challenging for people to imagine is the time scale - this unimaginably good stuff or unimaginably bad stuff goes on for ever, to infinity. And for ever/infinity is also something which people struggle to imagine.

So although there is a hook into the imaginable - people can imagine good/bad stuff that goes on for a long time, heaven and hell take that to a new, basically unimaginable level.

But I come back to my first point - the key here is believing that you are going to have unimaginably good/bad stuff for ever. That's what works in terms of control. If you believe it then it would also work if it were really, really good/bad for a really, really long time (but not for ever). It doesn't work if people don't believe heave and hell actually exist.

But the other point that goes along with believing is that no-one can verify this for you - no-one can come along as say 'hey, yes I was in heaven - wasn't really all that it was cracked up to be and they kicked me out after 6 months' or 'hey, yes I was in hell - wasn't really all that bad at all - all the fun people were there'. The point is the unknowable promise and the unknowable threat which is the key to the control as long as you believe in the promise and believe in the threat.

Not sure how much theists dwell on the details or the timeframe so I would not generalise - it depends on the theist I guess. As I said before some people take this stuff literally and some people see it as symbolic/ metaphorical/ a philosophical concept.

Regardless, it would seem that it is innate to humans that the human ability for abstract thought leads to the need to organise and control in complex social structures based on subjective intangibles such as beliefs- whether that control is expressed in religious terminology or not.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yup - similar point to the one I was making in my previous post, albeit phrased differently.

The key to the control is belief - and control over that belief is the key to power in highly hierarchical societies. Those at the top make the rules and either justify them by reference to the divine or even claim they come directly from the divine. It is those with power, influence (and often affluence) who use belief as a lever to maintain their positions of power, influence (and often affluence).

I think it's innate to humans to hold beliefs but I don't think only those in power use beliefs to control. That's one way beliefs are used but I think beliefs are very important to those who lack power because beliefs can also allow the powerless to resist those in power even when threatened with force or death. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think the key point is that people believe they exist - that's what allows them to work as a method of control or influence.
But surely the whole point it that they go beyond what it imaginable - so, sure you have experienced good stuff in the real world - but heaven is meant to be unimaginably better, unimaginably good. Sure you have experienced bad stuff in the real world - but hell is meant to be unimaginably worse, unimaginably bad.

But the other element which is challenging for people to imagine is the time scale - this unimaginably good stuff or unimaginably bad stuff goes on for ever, to infinity. And for ever/infinity is also something which people struggle to imagine.

So although there is a hook into the imaginable - people can imagine good/bad stuff that goes on for a long time, heaven and hell take that to a new, basically unimaginable level.

But I come back to my first point - the key here is believing that you are going to have unimaginably good/bad stuff for ever. That's what works in terms of control. If you believe it then it would also work if it were really, really good/bad for a really, really long time (but not for ever). It doesn't work if people don't believe heave and hell actually exist.

But the other point that goes along with believing is that no-one can verify this for you - no-one can come along as say 'hey, yes I was in heaven - wasn't really all that it was cracked up to be and they kicked me out after 6 months' or 'hey, yes I was in hell - wasn't really all that bad at all - all the fun people were there'. The point is the unknowable promise and the unknowable threat which is the key to the control as long as you believe in the promise and believe in the threat.

So out of your suitcase of theories on the workings of religion we have 1) Upbringing 2) Church or temple or mosque attendance and now 3) The promise of reward or punishment....also....4) mental incapacity?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Coming back to the position of atheism, when I was an atheist, it was a rejection of all the demands - all the rules and rituals etc and what I perceived as demands from adherents that I not only believe in the absurd but adopt their OCD activities, which to me seemed to involve little intellectual curiosity from the adherents who spoke to me about their religions. If I asked them why they did/said/thought what they did, many of them did not know and said they were just following what their parents/ family/ community did. What they described sounded absurd, arbitrary and defied logic and at least if they had acknowledged that, I might have felt less inclined to take a stand by stating my position to be atheist as a rejection of their beliefs.

I found it irritating when followers of a religion talked about heaven and hell in the literal sense and combined this with their attempts at emotional manipulation and fear-mongering based on nothing more than beliefs. If I pointed out the harm some of these beliefs could cause, they had no answers or solutions.

It seemed like everything I heard from followers of religion sounded so absurd and irrational and close-minded - as though they had entered a different world or parallel universe - that it prevented me from giving more than a passing thought to the ideas behind religions. The religious were like a barrier to religion and that was the basis of my atheism.