Monotheism paved the way for analytical thinking?

[Taraz]

I've considered this view for some time and I think it has some merit. If you believe in only one God, then there must be some grand design to the universe and, theoretically, we should be able to understand some of this design. If you believe in many competing Gods, things are more unpredictable as you never know who is going to win out and how all these forces interact.

It could also work the other way I suppose. Perhaps when we realized that things had an order and were predictable, a singular deity made more sense. I found a random quote that deals with the issue:

[ QUOTE ]
The idea of a single God has a powerful influence in restricting magical thinking and enhancing intelligence. It exalts the reality principle over the pleasure principle since the hidden atheism of monotheism (if you worship a God you cannot see, you worship a God who is not there, or no God at all) gives monotheistic peoples a training in reality testing unknown to other religious groups. By denying the existence of a variety of gods, demons, and spirits who had jurisdiction over various natural phenomena, monotheism paved the way for the acknowledgment of ignorance, and thus for the investigation of natural phenomena, with the subsequent discovery of truth. Thus, monotheism greatly enhances the power of objective thought, with important consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that religion and science have always been on good terms or anything like that. But maybe monotheism was an instrumental step in our understanding of the world. Any thoughts?

[Phil153]

Definite no. Strong points against:

- The Greeks, Romans and Egyptians had the most advanced civilizations in the history of Earth while killing monotheists. Their civilization was more philosophically, scientifically and technically advanced than the following 1500 years under monotheism. And arguably significantly more analytical than any of the Christian pigs who came after them. Most modern thought derives directly from the ancient Greeks and Romans.

- Islamic people, who are monotheistic, did not have notable achievements when compared to the Hindus. They even had a similar fable book to the Christians and Jews.

- The atrocities committed in the name of religion during the middle ages, and extremely bizarre beliefs (witches, blasphemy, the flood), are pretty strong evidence of monotheism suppressing rational analysis. This was superstition and hysteria.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
Definite no. Strong points against:

- The Greeks, Romans and Egyptians had the most advanced civilizations in the history of Earth while killing monotheists. Their civilization was more philosophically, scientifically and technically advanced than the following 1500 years under monotheism. And arguably significantly more analytical than any of the Christian pigs who came after them. Most modern thought derives directly from the ancient Greeks and Romans.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that the Greeks and the Romans provided the precursors to much of what we have achieved.

[ QUOTE ]

- Islamic people, who are monotheistic, did not have notable achievements when compared to the Hindus. They even had a similar fable book to the Christians and Jews.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno, they seemed to have achieved a lot. Anesthesia, the injection syringe, advances in algebra, and the scientific method seem pretty big. I can't say I've read much about the Hindus though, I'll check up on that. Edit: It seems like the Muslims were the ones who preserved a lot of Greek and Roman texts throughout the dark ages while Europe was going to [censored]. That should count for something /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[ QUOTE ]

- The atrocities committed in the name of religion during the middle ages, and extremely bizarre beliefs (witches, blasphemy, the flood), are pretty strong evidence of monotheism suppressing rational analysis. This was superstition and hysteria.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would really, really prefer not to get into a debate on how much religion was a hindrance to scientific matters. I think we're all aware of how much suppression there was at the hands of the church. I'm not really interested in whether monotheism hurt more than it helped, but rather if it helped at all.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Definite no. Strong points against:

- The Greeks, Romans and Egyptians had the most advanced civilizations in the history of Earth while killing monotheists. Their civilization was more philosophically, scientifically and technically advanced than the following 1500 years under monotheism. And arguably significantly more analytical than any of the Christian pigs who came after them. Most modern thought derives directly from the ancient Greeks and Romans.

- Islamic people, who are monotheistic, did not have notable achievements when compared to the Hindus. They even had a similar fable book to the Christians and Jews.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're comparing monotheistic people of one era vs. polytheistic people of the same era, when what you need to compare is people today if monotheism were not widespread vs. people today after monotheism has been widespread, if you want to address the OP. One group of people being stronger or more advanced doesn't necessarily mean that the weaker group couldn't still believe things that might have some unintended positive effect on the way people think, and thus on what the future generations will be capable of.

I think the OP has presented an interesting idea, and I don't think those examples do much to speak against it.

[MidGe]

I think that either polytheism, non-benevolent monotheism, or atheism, are much more aligned with the experience of life. I suspect they would be better candidates for helping analytical thinking. They requires no blinkers about the facts of life and therefore truly pave the way for analytical thinking! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[luckyme]

"Guns, Germs and Steel" deals with the problem of straight-across comparison. "they were tall. they did well. therefore tall is good." without a deep understanding of all the factors involved.

Likely the number of gods or random spirits is not the main factor in which way a culture moves. Religion tends to spin out of the social structure a group is in, so we'd be better looking at the tenets of a religious view and leave off the nose count.

Interesting idea.

luckyme

[Peter666]

"Their civilization was more philosophically, scientifically and technically advanced than the following 1500 years under monotheism. And arguably significantly more analytical than any of the Christian pigs who came after them."

What a dumb and ignorant historical analysis. The great ancient civilizations at their height had come to develop a monotheistic conception of a single all powerful deity (Egyptian Ra, Plato's and Aristotles Prime Mover, the Roman adoption of the Christian God).

And then it was the Christians who preserved the learning of the ancients amidst barbarian hordes, and Christians again who surpassed the technical, philosophical, and scientific achievements of the ancients, after converting and civilizing those same barbarian hordes.

Your irrational and emotional hatred of Christian "pigs" has completely distorted your analysis, which would surely embarass the ancient stoics.

[andyfox]

"If you believe in many competing Gods, things are more unpredictable as you never know who is going to win out and how all these forces interact."

I don't think this accurately describes civlizations that had many Gods. They were not necessarily "competing." And they often interacted in harmony, yielding a much more orderly world than, for example, Christians did when they saw a hideous and desolate wilderness where the natives saw a beneficent and nurturing nature.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
"If you believe in many competing Gods, things are more unpredictable as you never know who is going to win out and how all these forces interact."

I don't think this accurately describes civlizations that had many Gods. They were not necessarily "competing." And they often interacted in harmony, yielding a much more orderly world than, for example, Christians did when they saw a hideous and desolate wilderness where the natives saw a beneficent and nurturing nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm basically just parroting things that I have heard regarding this issue. But I think the idea was that instead of having to understand the workings of many actors, you only have to understand one. Theoretically a reduction in the number of forces acting on any given thing should make it easier to figure out, no?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Theoretically a reduction in the number of forces acting on any given thing should make it easier to figure out, no?


[/ QUOTE ]


I think that to do science you have to believe there is order in nature, for whatever reason. Belief in a personal God who created the universe with a plan and in accordance with reason gives a foundation for believing in natural law. I think the Creator aspect is more important than monotheism, per se.

[Arnold Day]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Theoretically a reduction in the number of forces acting on any given thing should make it easier to figure out, no?


[/ QUOTE ]


I think that to do science you have to believe there is order in nature, for whatever reason. Belief in a personal God who created the universe with a plan and in accordance with reason gives a foundation for believing in natural law. I think the Creator aspect is more important than monotheism, per se.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you guys are overrating the role of philosophy in science. All you really need to believe in is experiments.

[Siegmund]

One more vote for the idea that monotheism is antithetical to analytical thinking. Monotheism is about there being one true answer to questions about where we came from / how the world works / etc ... it encourages people to put on blinders and at times it has enforced those blinders by branding everyone who took them off as heretics.

It's a much smaller leap from "which of several gods made that happen? Let's review the evidence of who made sacrifices to whom this week.." to "which of several possible explanations for this phenonemon is right? Let's review the evidence..." than it is to make the same leap from "It was God's will, period."

I am tempted to characterize the rise of Christianity as a thousand-year setback to both math and science... this might be a bit unfair of me as the various other factors that contibuted to the downfall of the Roman Empire also hurt the intellectual climate - off the top of my head, it seems that there aren't any more great discoveries in the last 200 years of Rome than there are in the dark ages.

It's also a valid criticism that a lot of the Greek/Roman 'natural philosophers' did too much speculating and not enough experimenting -- but this was not universal, as there are SOME experiments from the classical era.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

One more vote for the idea that monotheism is antithetical to analytical thinking. Monotheism is about there being one true answer to questions about where we came from / how the world works / etc ... it encourages people to put on blinders and at times it has enforced those blinders by branding everyone who took them off as heretics.

It's a much smaller leap from "which of several gods made that happen? Let's review the evidence of who made sacrifices to whom this week.." to "which of several possible explanations for this phenonemon is right? Let's review the evidence..." than it is to make the same leap from "It was God's will, period."

I am tempted to characterize the rise of Christianity as a thousand-year setback to both math and science... this might be a bit unfair of me as the various other factors that contibuted to the downfall of the Roman Empire also hurt the intellectual climate - off the top of my head, it seems that there aren't any more great discoveries in the last 200 years of Rome than there are in the dark ages.

It's also a valid criticism that a lot of the Greek/Roman 'natural philosophers' did too much speculating and not enough experimenting -- but this was not universal, as there are SOME experiments from the classical era.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about Zoroastrianism, Islam, Judaism, etc.? I'm not talking about Christianity really.

[andyfox]

Maybe a reduction in the number of forces acting on a particular thing would make it easier to figure it out. But a belief in a reduction in the number of forces acting on a particrular thing might make it impossible to figure it out, blinding you from facts that diverge from your one true force. See Galileo.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
The atrocities committed in the name of religion during the middle ages, and extremely bizarre beliefs (witches, blasphemy, the flood), are pretty strong evidence of monotheism suppressing rational analysis. This was superstition and hysteria.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Wrong. Christian monotheism is a world view and Christian monotheists acted according to its strictures. You have a world view and act according to yours.

Two secular ideologies: Nationalism Socialism and Soviet Communism did as much harm if not more. Neither was religious.

[reup]

you would like the book 'sprial dynamics', but you don't know why you would like the book yet. so you'd either have to go out and get the book on a stranger's recommendation, or i'd have to write a review of the book and then you could see if you're interested, also dependent on if i was capable of writing an adequate review.

i'm not going to do that though, so i'm recommending that you take my word on blind faith and buy the book which i'm going to set at a 75% fail rate, that you aren't going to buy the book. actually i think it's a little higher probably 85-90%.

ok i will say that i believe the book provides a method for explaining the answer to your question though. obv that's what made me think of it, it's too complex to dumb down.

ok fine ... Spiral Dynamics present a new framework for understanding the dynamic forces at work in human affairs -- business, personal lives, education, and even geopolitics.

It's not another hard-edged and simplistic 'types of people' model nor a soft, 'everybody's beautiful' egalitarian approach. Based in decades of research, real-world applications, and the latest findings of both organizational theorists and neurobiology, this book lays out a very specific ToolKit for managing the deepest differences in people. These core intelligences exist like strange attractors below our values, beliefs, and ethical structures. By applying the right tools at this base level rather than to surface symptoms, any bright, curious human being can, quite simply, change the world...

ok now i give 75% fail rate.

[GoodCallYouWin]

I think atheism, not any sort of theism, paved the way for analytic thinking; after all, you can just fall back on 'God did it'.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe a reduction in the number of forces acting on a particular thing would make it easier to figure it out. But a belief in a reduction in the number of forces acting on a particrular thing might make it impossible to figure it out, blinding you from facts that diverge from your one true force. See Galileo.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a decent point. It could definitely go that way. My thinking was along the lines of "if it's all this one guy's plan, maybe all I need to figure out his plan". But if you submit to a singular God that is unknowable, then it doesn't really help you out at all.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
I think atheism, not any sort of theism, paved the way for analytic thinking; after all, you can just fall back on 'God did it'.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't tell if you're joking or not, but atheism as a widespread belief is very, very new historically speaking. Perhaps you mean humanism or something similar.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
you would like the book 'sprial dynamics', but you don't know why you would like the book yet. so you'd either have to go out and get the book on a stranger's recommendation, or i'd have to write a review of the book and then you could see if you're interested, also dependent on if i was capable of writing an adequate review.

i'm not going to do that though, so i'm recommending that you take my word on blind faith and buy the book which i'm going to set at a 75% fail rate, that you aren't going to buy the book. actually i think it's a little higher probably 85-90%.

ok i will say that i believe the book provides a method for explaining the answer to your question though. obv that's what made me think of it, it's too complex to dumb down.

ok fine ... Spiral Dynamics present a new framework for understanding the dynamic forces at work in human affairs -- business, personal lives, education, and even geopolitics.

It's not another hard-edged and simplistic 'types of people' model nor a soft, 'everybody's beautiful' egalitarian approach. Based in decades of research, real-world applications, and the latest findings of both organizational theorists and neurobiology, this book lays out a very specific ToolKit for managing the deepest differences in people. These core intelligences exist like strange attractors below our values, beliefs, and ethical structures. By applying the right tools at this base level rather than to surface symptoms, any bright, curious human being can, quite simply, change the world...

ok now i give 75% fail rate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will check it out. Thanks for the suggestion.

[reup]

noooo does that mean my 75% fail rate was wrong or you just hit the 25%?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
noooo does that mean my 75% fail rate was wrong or you just hit the 25%?

[/ QUOTE ]

By check it out, I didn't mean that I'd actually buy the book. I'll read up on it and buy it if it looks interesting. All is not lost yet . . .

[vulturesrow]

Taraz,

I highly recommend you check out a work called Science and Creation: From Eternal Cycles to an Oscillating Universe , by Father Stanley Jaki. Before anyone jumps in, I suggest they check out the man's bio and CV ( Stanley Jaki (http://pirate.shu.edu/~jakistan/). He has actually done a lot of work along these lines but the particular title I quoted examines seven ancient cultures specifically. But many of his other works explore the thesis that you are talking about. Also, he doesnt look at it from a monotheistic standpoint, but a Christian one.

Here is the bio from the above website:

[ QUOTE ]
Stanley L. Jaki, a Hungarian-born Catholic priest of the Benedictine Order, is Distinguished Professor at Seton Hall University, South Orange, New Jersey. With doctorates in theology and physics, he has for the past forty years specialized in the history and philosophy of science. The author of almost forty books and over a hundred articles, he served as Gifford Lecturer at the University of Edinburgh and as Fremantle Lecturer at Balliol College, Oxford. He has lectured at major universities in the United States, Europe, and Australia. He is honorary member of the Pontifical Academy of Science, membre correspondant of the Academe Nationale des Sciences, Belles-Lettres et Arts of Bordeaux, and the recipient of the Lecomte du Nouy Prize for 1970 and of the Templeton Prize for 1987.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to preempt some of the usual Christianity stifles science I see flung about this forum on a regular basis. Let me just throw some names at you: Kepler, Boyle, Galileo, William of Ockham, Newton. This is but a smidgen of names that I can cite.

And for the person that said you dont need to know the philosophy of science, you couldnt be further from the truth. I'll let others elaborate. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Arnold Day]

[ QUOTE ]

And for the person that said you dont need to know the philosophy of science, you couldnt be further from the truth. I'll let others elaborate. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this was me. I am not sure what you mean by philosophy of science, but I think philosophy is one of the worst things that a scientist can study.

[reup]

of course.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The atrocities committed in the name of religion during the middle ages, and extremely bizarre beliefs (witches, blasphemy, the flood), are pretty strong evidence of monotheism suppressing rational analysis. This was superstition and hysteria.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Wrong. Christian monotheism is a world view and Christian monotheists acted according to its strictures. You have a world view and act according to yours.

Two secular ideologies: Nationalism Socialism and Soviet Communism did as much harm if not more. Neither was religious.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say both were religious, they just didn't believe in God. The things religion and Stalinism had in common, thats the enemy.

[reup]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The atrocities committed in the name of religion during the middle ages, and extremely bizarre beliefs (witches, blasphemy, the flood), are pretty strong evidence of monotheism suppressing rational analysis. This was superstition and hysteria.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Wrong. Christian monotheism is a world view and Christian monotheists acted according to its strictures. You have a world view and act according to yours.

Two secular ideologies: Nationalism Socialism and Soviet Communism did as much harm if not more. Neither was religious.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say both were religious, they just didn't believe in God. The things religion and Stalinism had in common, thats the enemy.

[/ QUOTE ]

monotheism has never suppressed anything that didn't deserve it. the monotheist? oh ok.

[Arnold Day]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And for the person that said you dont need to know the philosophy of science, you couldnt be further from the truth. I'll let others elaborate. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this was me. I am not sure what you mean by philosophy of science, but I think philosophy is one of the worst things that a scientist can study.

[/ QUOTE ]

Specifically what I am saying is that I can think of numerous cases when philosophy has ruined a scientist or caused him to make a major error but I really can't think of an instance where it has helped a scientist.

Probably the most famous example of this would be Einstein's rejection of quantum mechanics based on his belief that randomness could not be part of the fundamental laws of nature.