If you were alive 500 years ago...

[HedonismBot]

Would you believe in a Christian god? (assuming you do not believe now). Or, would you believe in whatever religion was prevalent in the area? I'm pretty sure I would, what do you guys think.

[cambraceres]

Your question seems to be about the effect of circumstance on religious conviction. In your specific example, the answer is nearly self evident. The culture and customs taught and reinforced throughout young life will have a decided edge over the more exotic ideals and strange beliefs of those outside your normal range of experience.

Note that in today's world my reasoning is invalid, as modern man is exposed to a delimited range of information and entertainment, bounded only by his/her basic computer literacy.

A parent's effect on a child with respect to values and ideals is huge, just obscene in it's pure efficiency. There is little coincidence in the correlation between the religious belief of a Jewish father and the same of his jewish son. It does not take intricate analysis or complex reasoning to deduce the cause of an entire family being christian. 500 years ago, one would be relegated to a certain belief structure by a process of indoctrination. Your family, friends, and acquaintances would all be accomplices in this heist of the mind's rational faculty.

What else could have such a pervasive effect to change a basic value against the tide of everything familiar?

I'll say that it is possible to just be intellectually incapable of relgious belief, and that is not limited to any creed or color, but to change religions mid-stride would be a novel action. Hopefully this came out in a somewhat coherent fashion.

Cam

[madnak]

It would probably depend heavily on my background. I think I'd be much more likely than most to be an agnostic or atheist (or lunatic).

[Copernicus]

I think the answer is self-evident in the history of man and his beliefs. From the earliest written and oral records religion appears to be nearly universal (every culture has its version of God or the Gods, creation etc). Heretics were those who believed in something different, with little if any evidence of non-believers existing.

As science began to explain more of what gods were used to explain, there is more evidence of non-belief in god, and I dont think its debatable that there are more agnostics/atheists/naturalists now than there ever were.

So any individual 500 years ago is far more likely to have been religious than he is now.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you believe in a Christian god?

[/ QUOTE ] good question.

I was very young, raised in a mild catholic family when I first balked at "who made me. God made me. Who made god? god always was and always will be." I don't remember running across anything that stimulated that reaction, just it's own weakness.

There were atheists at all times in history, (outside of the atheist cultures), so it's likely just a matter of whether my natural skepticism happened to get aroused in that area. Poor logical claims about religion may stimulate it into action, whereas the 'blind faith' justifications may keep it in check.

Not being free to exchange thoughts on the topic would likely stiffle it in most cases, so the odds are that a lot of todays atheists would be xtrian in the past. Perhaps I'd end up in a 'God is Dead' position and live through it that way. The 'you can't explain X' argument was starting to fall away 500 years ago, so there may have been more support for an atheist view than we tend to think.

[Andrew Karpinski]

Without constantly being exposed to books as a child there's no way I could have doubted God.

[CityFan]

[ QUOTE ]
As science began to explain more of what gods were used to explain, there is more evidence of non-belief in god, and I dont think its debatable that there are more agnostics/atheists/naturalists now than there ever were.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. We now have knowledge of scientific theories that supercede religion, by explaining the world without recourse to God and predicting future events more reliably than any religious work.

Though religious people will tell us we have no "proof" of God's non-existence, He is neither necessary nor useful in understanding the world around us.

500 years ago non-belief in God would leave a lot of holes in one's model of the universe.

[bisonbison]

If I was born 500 years ago, I would have died before my 1st birthday.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
As science began to explain more of what gods were used to explain, there is more evidence of non-belief in god, and I dont think its debatable that there are more agnostics/atheists/naturalists now than there ever were.


[/ QUOTE ]
All the arguments for not believing in god were well understood before science came about. Many of those who don't believe in god because of science are just the same as those who believed in god before science - its nothing whatsover to do with reason as science in no way makes god less (or more) likely.

chez

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you believe in a Christian god? (assuming you do not believe now). Or, would you believe in whatever religion was prevalent in the area? I'm pretty sure I would, what do you guys think.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this question might be a little more interesting than I thought at first. I'm almost certain that I would be more likely to be religious, though I think even then I would have serious doubts. I would not be open about it though given the treatment of atheists throughout history.

I also think that I would be most likely to believe in the religion of the area (if I were religious).

[Case Closed]

[ QUOTE ]
If I was born 500 years ago, I would have died before my 1st birthday.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sad story.

[bisonbison]

Sad story.

It is humbling every 7 months or so when I think about it.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">its nothing whatsover to do with reason as science in no way makes god less (or more) likely.
</font>

Please correct me if I'm taking it out of context, but this has to be wrong.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">its nothing whatsover to do with reason as science in no way makes god less (or more) likely.
</font>

Please correct me if I'm taking it out of context, but this has to be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
It has to be right. There's no scientific result that could ever make any difference to whether or not god exists.


Further, there are no arguments for not believing in god that don't predate science. (edit; that's a bold claim because there could be, but I've never heard of any and have faith in the greeks and the enlightnement)

It can be argued that if god exists then science provides a handle on the way god works.

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
There's no scientific result that could ever make any difference to whether or not god exists.

[/ QUOTE ]
That seems true enough. Perhaps science puts some constraints on the attributes a god may have??

[ QUOTE ]
It can be argued that if god exists then science provides a handle on the way god works.

[/ QUOTE ]
It science sticks to natural explanations of the ways of the universe, it seems difficult to come up with a crossing point. Wouldn't it be excluded by definition?

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue">its nothing whatsover to do with reason as science in no way makes god less (or more) likely.
</font>

Please correct me if I'm taking it out of context, but this has to be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
It has to be right. There's no scientific result that could ever make any difference to whether or not god exists.


Further, there are no arguments for not believing in god that don't predate science. (edit; that's a bold claim because there could be, but I've never heard of any and have faith in the greeks and the enlightnement)

It can be argued that if god exists then science provides a handle on the way god works.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Would you make the same claim if the generic "god" were replaced with "Judeo-Christian God?"

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
That seems true enough. Perhaps science puts some constraints on the attributes a god may have??

[/ QUOTE ]

In theory I think this is true, but in reality scientific explanation seems to have barely mitigated the tendency of religious people to attribute events to divine intervention, whether or not it makes any sense to do so.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's no scientific result that could ever make any difference to whether or not god exists.

[/ QUOTE ]
That seems true enough. Perhaps science puts some constraints on the attributes a god may have??

[ QUOTE ]
It can be argued that if god exists then science provides a handle on the way god works.

[/ QUOTE ]
It science sticks to natural explanations of the ways of the universe, it seems difficult to come up with a crossing point. Wouldn't it be excluded by definition?

[/ QUOTE ]
I just mean things like:

If god exists and choose to create man then science tells us that the method he chose to use is evolution.

Agreed there must be a no crossing point like how having chosen evolution god causes an evolutinary world to exist. At some point we get stuck with the wave of a mighty hand /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed there must be a no crossing point like how having chosen evolution god causes an evolutinary world to exist. At some point we get stuck with the wave of a mighty hand

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not limited to god(s). Some people, even atheists, seem in much more need of holding a special place in the universe and balk at the idea of there not being a 'mighty hand' being waved at some stage of empirical investigations. Preserving Mystery or some such.

Our pyschology guides a good chunk of our philosophy. ??

[purnell]

If I had been born 500 years ago, my myopia would have made survival to adulthood very unlikely. I would have been a peasant who lived a short life full of fear and ignorance. And of course I would have been religious.