[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

Disagree. Religions had their place in time where they were overwhelmingly more beneficial than detrimental. Prior to the scientific revolution in the 15th century, we had no better general toolsets or language better than religion to understand the world. Evolution theory is only since the 1800s. We can argue that religion is now more detrimental than beneficial, but I do not think you can objectively say that for all of humanity, religion was always more detrimental than beneficial.

This even before we get to the actual study that basically concludes that the term "religion" vs cult vs superstition and other categories and what is associated with it, is actually highly arbitrary.

It's very possible that human tools are not supposed to be topical, but chronological.

Religion/culture was version 1.0 the tool used to transcend time beyond a single human generation.

Science and Maths were version 2.0 the tool used to transcend time beyond a hundred or thousand generations.

Perhaps we don't have a tool yet that will be version 3.0 that will be used to transcend time beyond 100,000 to a million generations.


Like, how do we know what a billion is without counting it out? We were taught some form of condensed logic that allowed us to understand. If we were given a wide enough viewing range at a long enough distance, could we see a light/laser beam travel slowly across the sky rather than flicker? (ie: We know it can take a really damn long time for light to reach the earth from another sun or supernova, is there a situation where we could watch it parallel to us vs perpendicular?)

The tools might be different, but the results the same. Understand something in a condensed form that we would not be able to understand from scratch. This logic that allows information to be compressed, understood and transcend a single human time interval.


Like, I honestly don't know and I won't waste my life caring too much about it. But it seems things once started off simply that life was about survival in this realm. But then due to philosophy, metaphors etc. it seems more complex than that.

Additionally, many cultures independently brought up thought experiments about whether "something" exists after death. Many concluded independently from each other that "something" does exist after death. Not all agreed upon sentience in those alternate "realms" after death and not all agreed if those sentients could "reach" into our realm and affect it. Is this the nature of human stupidity, or is there some deeper logic that has deemed there's the potential of such a thing, and science merely is in a certain state of infancy where it doesn't have the language and tools to describe it and allow the data to transcend a human time interval yet?

Have you read Asimov? If not, go pick up Foundation immediately. You missed "economics" as a step, for the record.