You’ve heard of terms like mayor, sheriff, reeve, bailiff, baron, count, duke, right? The whole reason feudalism was invented was to solve the issue of governing large territories. Government from the local level all the way up to the level of monarch absolutely did exist in the middle ages.
Don’t spread false “facts” that support religious talking points. Religion has enough support on its own without needing to rely on atheists promoting its lies.
You’re both having entirely the wrong conversation. Similarly to science in those periods, it is nearly impossible to split the two. It is also unimportant.
Religion was often the motivation for scientific theories or study. Many of the early scientists investigated the natural world because they viewed it as a way to understand god/gods. Religion was fundamental to early science, but importantly, it is not a necessary feature of religion. Take astrology for instance, it was both a religious or supernatural exploration and also a somewhat scientific one. Astronomy was later taken out of it while ditching the baggage. To say that we should always have just had astronomy is like saying we always should’ve just had the iPhone. It took progress to get there. Religion was part of that progress until it wasn’t.
Same thing here. Morality is discoverable and reasonable. Early religion WAS morality. It’s like if I say to my toddler that Santa watches to see if they’re naughty. We don’t need to do that. But if I say that a story of Santa didn’t contribute to their morality as an adult, I’d be lying to myself.
All this to say, early morality and religion are inseparable. People followed the rulers that you spoke of because they claimed to be religiously appointed. It contributed to order. Is it necessary? We now know that it isn’t. But that’s why it doesn’t matter. It was used back then and it was effective because for better and for worse, it helped cooperation within a population.
That doesn’t address anything that I said, and you’ve just added even more of the same utterly false religious talking points into the mix that I was objecting to in the original post. The point I initially objected to was OP’s absurd claim that there was a time when law and order didn’t exist, but religion made people better.
To address what you said; early religion was not morality. Morality and religion are two entirely different things, despite religious peoples’ insistence that they are the same. Religion is and always has been just another form of authority. It has its own rules and laws, just like political authority does. None of it has anything to do with morality. Morality is intrinsic to the human species, and where morality and religion intersect, it is because religion has co-opted morality and then claimed credit for and authority over it.
You’ve heard of terms like mayor, sheriff, reeve, bailiff, baron, count, duke, right? The whole reason feudalism was invented was to solve the issue of governing large territories. Government from the local level all the way up to the level of monarch absolutely did exist in the middle ages.
Don’t spread false “facts” that support religious talking points. Religion has enough support on its own without needing to rely on atheists promoting its lies.
You’re both having entirely the wrong conversation. Similarly to science in those periods, it is nearly impossible to split the two. It is also unimportant.
Religion was often the motivation for scientific theories or study. Many of the early scientists investigated the natural world because they viewed it as a way to understand god/gods. Religion was fundamental to early science, but importantly, it is not a necessary feature of religion. Take astrology for instance, it was both a religious or supernatural exploration and also a somewhat scientific one. Astronomy was later taken out of it while ditching the baggage. To say that we should always have just had astronomy is like saying we always should’ve just had the iPhone. It took progress to get there. Religion was part of that progress until it wasn’t.
Same thing here. Morality is discoverable and reasonable. Early religion WAS morality. It’s like if I say to my toddler that Santa watches to see if they’re naughty. We don’t need to do that. But if I say that a story of Santa didn’t contribute to their morality as an adult, I’d be lying to myself.
All this to say, early morality and religion are inseparable. People followed the rulers that you spoke of because they claimed to be religiously appointed. It contributed to order. Is it necessary? We now know that it isn’t. But that’s why it doesn’t matter. It was used back then and it was effective because for better and for worse, it helped cooperation within a population.
That doesn’t address anything that I said, and you’ve just added even more of the same utterly false religious talking points into the mix that I was objecting to in the original post. The point I initially objected to was OP’s absurd claim that there was a time when law and order didn’t exist, but religion made people better.
To address what you said; early religion was not morality. Morality and religion are two entirely different things, despite religious peoples’ insistence that they are the same. Religion is and always has been just another form of authority. It has its own rules and laws, just like political authority does. None of it has anything to do with morality. Morality is intrinsic to the human species, and where morality and religion intersect, it is because religion has co-opted morality and then claimed credit for and authority over it.