The REAL state of the USA : Fact vs Fiction

[HoonDing]

"Can you name a civilization that was built without a religious base?"

 

Mongol Empire

[Hurlshort]

"Can you name a civilization that was built without a religious base?"

 

Mongol Empire

 

Nope.  I mean, not even close.  They had a native shamanistic religion, and then adopted all sorts of beliefs as they spread their empire.  The most unique thing about them was how many different belief structures they embraced as they grew, instead of adopting one.  But that speaks to their fairly fluid cultural identity during their century of dominance.  

[Zoraptor]

Mongols were Tengri when they founded their empire, and it was reasonably important for them- can't remember the exact detail but it was a sky god and there was lots of horse related stuff which still persists on the steppe to this day.

 

China is reasonably close to an empire with no founding religion, though from the little that is known it may have been because Qin wouldn't brook any challenge from anyone.

[Valsuelm]

"Can you name a civilization that was built without a religious base?"

 

Mongol Empire

 

Empire /= Civilization

[HoonDing]

Actually ancient Rome had no religious foundation either, the Romulus and Remus myth wasn't connected with Aeneas until Virgil.

[BruceVC]

Interesting debate around religion and great civilizations

 

Aren't we getting confused about a few things, almost all  religions came into existence as a way for man to explain things  in the world they didn't understand  and to basically justify certain global  events and phenomena 

 

 

So the sun setting and rising was in fact a god  according to the Greeks and Romans...an eclipse was " the gods are angry " 

 

So where am I  going with this? Man created religious belief as part of there view of how the world operated...its always been like this. Ancient civilizations have probably always had religions but  religion is just part of what defines the reason for the creation of civilizations 

[Meshugger]

Actually ancient Rome had no religious foundation either, the Romulus and Remus myth wasn't connected with Aeneas until Virgil.

 

There wasn't one religion until late in the Roman Empire with Constantine. But religion as such was definately one of the foundations of the Roman Republic of old:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mos_maiorum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietas

[213374U]

 

Define "civilization" and "religion", I guess?

 

How can you disagree that there hasn't ever been any great civilization without a founding religion, if you don't even have a definition yourself of what "civilization" and "religion" is?

 

He probably has definitions for both, but asking what others understand by each is a pre-emptive measure to stop the inevitable goalpost shifting that is bound to happen down the road.

 

In fact, it has already happened: the original claim is "no civilization exists that isn't based on a founding religion". But in just a few posts it has already changed to "no civilization exists or develops in a religious or spiritual vacuum", i.e. with this therefore because of this.

 

What was the religion the Byzantine culture was based on? The polytheism-ancestor worship of the Roman kingdom? Christianity? Whatever the ancient Romans may have inherited from the Etruscans? Heh.

 

As long as people fear death and cannot explain <phenomenon>, religious/mystical explanations are going to appear. This doesn't mean cultures are based on religions any more than they are based on languages, agricultural techniques, or military doctrines.

[obyknven]

 

Define "civilization" and "religion", I guess?

 

How can you disagree that there hasn't ever been any great civilization without a founding religion, if you don't even have a definition yourself of what "civilization" and "religion" is?

 

Yes i can. Soviet civilization as a proof.  

[Hurlshort]

Mesh made a very simple statement, and aluminium called it BS without giving any evidence as to why.  Then he used some fancy words, asked some vague questions, and disappeared.  

 

 

 

 

Define "civilization" and "religion", I guess?

 

How can you disagree that there hasn't ever been any great civilization without a founding religion, if you don't even have a definition yourself of what "civilization" and "religion" is?

 

He probably has definitions for both, but asking what others understand by each is a pre-emptive measure to stop the inevitable goalpost shifting that is bound to happen down the road.

 

In fact, it has already happened: the original claim is "no civilization exists that isn't based on a founding religion". But in just a few posts it has already changed to "no civilization exists or develops in a religious or spiritual vacuum", i.e. with this therefore because of this.

 

What was the religion the Byzantine culture was based on? The polytheism-ancestor worship of the Roman kingdom? Christianity? Whatever the ancient Romans may have inherited from the Etruscans? Heh.

 

 

First, I don't think it is moving the goalposts to have an evolving (or devolving, if you prefer) religious identity for each civilization.  The impetus is on you or aluminum to show a civilization without a founding religion.  

 

As long as people fear death and cannot explain <phenomenon>, religious/mystical explanations are going to appear. This doesn't mean cultures are based on religions any more than they are based on languages, agricultural techniques, or military doctrines.

 

 

I would say this is only one aspect of a religious foundation that appears throughout civilizations.  When you look at the traits of a civilization, they are intertwined with the religion.  Separating it out is a very modern concept, which we don't see until the spread of secularization.   

[Meshugger]

 

 

Define "civilization" and "religion", I guess?

 

How can you disagree that there hasn't ever been any great civilization without a founding religion, if you don't even have a definition yourself of what "civilization" and "religion" is?

 

What was the religion the Byzantine culture was based on? The polytheism-ancestor worship of the Roman kingdom? Christianity? Whatever the ancient Romans may have inherited from the Etruscans? Heh.

 

Well...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justinian_I

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Juris_Civilis

 

 

Legislation about religion

Numerous provisions served to secure the status of Christianity as the state religion of the empire, uniting Church and state, and making anyone who was not connected to the Christian church a non-citizen.

 

Laws against heresy

The very first law in the Codex requires all persons under the jurisdiction of the Empire to hold the Christian faith. This was primarily aimed against heresies such as Nestorianism. This text later became the springboard for discussions of international law, especially the question of just what persons are under the jurisdiction of a given state or legal system.

 

Laws against paganism

Other laws, while not aimed at pagan belief as such, forbid particular pagan practices. For example, it is provided that all persons present at a pagan sacrifice may be indicted as if for murder.

Edited May 23, 2016 by Meshugger

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Mesh made a very simple statement, and aluminium called it BS without giving any evidence as to why.  Then he used some fancy words, asked some vague questions, and disappeared.

 

 

Surprising as it may sound, one may find better use of one's time than arguing about something that's literally impossible to prove or disprove.

 

 

The impetus is on you or aluminum to show a civilization without a founding religion.

 

 

That's not quite how proving statements work. If the claim being debated is "all civilizations are based on a founding religion" (implying that this is a universal rule and no civilization could ever emerge without one, versus "all sophisticated historical civilizations we know of had a founding religion", which is closer to what Mesh originally said, but irrelevant to the debate at hand), the onus is on the side making the claim to prove the necessity of religion.

 

Also worth considering: if one's definition of "civilization" only includes a fairly small number of cultures, keeping in mind the confidence level derived from one's sample size when making sweeping universal statements is generally prudent.

 

 

As long as people fear death and cannot explain <phenomenon>, religious/mystical explanations are going to appear. This doesn't mean cultures are based on religions any more than they are based on languages, agricultural techniques, or military doctrines.

 

Thank you.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

What was the religion the Byzantine culture was based on? The polytheism-ancestor worship of the Roman kingdom? Christianity? Whatever the ancient Romans may have inherited from the Etruscans? Heh.

 

Well...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justinian_I

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Juris_Civilis

 

Legislation about religion

Numerous provisions served to secure the status of Christianity as the state religion of the empire, uniting Church and state, and making anyone who was not connected to the Christian church a non-citizen.

 

Laws against heresy

The very first law in the Codex requires all persons under the jurisdiction of the Empire to hold the Christian faith. This was primarily aimed against heresies such as Nestorianism. This text later became the springboard for discussions of international law, especially the question of just what persons are under the jurisdiction of a given state or legal system.

 

Laws against paganism

Other laws, while not aimed at pagan belief as such, forbid particular pagan practices. For example, it is provided that all persons present at a pagan sacrifice may be indicted as if for murder.

 

 

I think you might have missed the point ("how do you define the continuity of a culture?").

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

Religion can be a trickier one to define.  But I believe Mesh was being fairly general in his use of the word, meaning any system of faith or worship would qualify.  I don't recall any agnostic civilizations before the modern age.

 

I just think the agnostic-religious dichotomy is a bit of a red herring here. What you need is a common frame of reference, and a certain level of anthropocentrism is pretty much unavoidable because in the absence of information to the contrary, it feels intuitive.

 

 

Are you a philosophy major, by chance?

 

No.

 

Was the question relevant to the discussion at hand in any way, shape or form?

[Malcador]

Are you a philosophy major, by chance?

Nah I think he took a useful major. Edited May 23, 2016 by Malcador

[Guard Dog]

Not relevant to the flow of discussion but to answer the question asked in Mr. Hurlshot's history class I'm raising my hand:

 

Carthage. Carthage was founded by phoencians fleeing the Greeks in Syracuse and later bolsterd by Trojans fleeing Troy. Both followed the classical greek religious ethos but it wasn't a big part of their culture as I understand it. During it's highpoint Carthage exclusively Zoroastrianisim but that was much later.

 

And I didn't cheat by resorting to the internet! I was playing Rome TW2 yesterday,  that is what made made think of it.

[Hurlshort]

 

 

Are you a philosophy major, by chance?

 

No.

 

Was the question relevant to the discussion at hand in any way, shape or form?

 

 

It would explain why you seem more concerned with verbiage than the actual history.  

 

My next guess was you were president of the debate club.

 

Extra credit points for GD.  Carthage is a good one to examine.  I'd throw in the Kingdom of the Vandals as well.  Looking at civilizations that arose out of a rejection of another culture might be a great approach to the question.

[Gorth]

This is all based on the assumption that the civilisation has a religious foundation... wouldn't it be possible to happen the other way around, a civilisation developes or adapts religion to suit its values? Not quite a chicken and egg question, but it's the only comparison i can think of from top of my head. I.e. which one came first. I can't think of any civilisations that spawned in isolation, nor religions. More like both evolved and morphed over time (and both seems to have existed since people decided to live in the vicinity of each other).

[Hurlshort]

Our best examples of isolated civilizations are going to be the ones in Central and South America.  

 

I do agree that it may be possible to find civilizations that developed religion to suit their needs, I'd assume most do that to an extent.  It's tough for us to really go back to day 1 of a civilization.  Rome wasn't built in a day.  

[HoonDing]

Carthage followed Phoenician pantheon led by Tanit and Moloch.

[Meshugger]

Carthage followed Phoenician pantheon led by Tanit and Moloch.

 

Wasn't it Baal? Or is it the same with a different name?

Edited May 23, 2016 by Meshugger

[obyknven]

 

Carthage followed Phoenician pantheon led by Tanit and Moloch.

 

Wasn't it Baal? Or is it the same with a different name?

 

 

Baal = Master. Any Phoenica malel god have such name - Baal Hammon, Baal Hadad etc

[213374U]

 

What was the religion the Byzantine culture was based on? The polytheism-ancestor worship of the Roman kingdom? Christianity? Whatever the ancient Romans may have inherited from the Etruscans? Heh.

Well...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justinian_I

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Juris_Civilis

 

 

So... whatever is made by law to be the official state religion at a random point in its history, is now "the founding religion a civilization is based on"?

 

That's exactly the kind of goalpost shifting I was alluding to -- if anyone thought I was being a tad too cynical, your post has invalidated any such objections.

 

Even better, your own reasoning provides a counterexample to your theory in the shape of:

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you look at the traits of a civilization, they are intertwined with the religion. Separating it out is a very modern concept, which we don't see until the spread of secularization.

This is hard to dispute. Acknowledging religious influence in the development of societies isn't quite the same as claiming that all civilizations are based on a founding religion, though. Maybe it's because I'm not a native speaker but putting it that way gives it... undue weight, in my opinion.

Edited May 23, 2016 by 213374U

[aluminiumtrioxid]

It would explain why you seem more concerned with verbiage than the actual history.

 

I don't think trying to nail down exactly what criteria are responsible for a bunch of people with a common cultural frame of reference to graduate to being "a civilization" (do tribes count? city-states? historical empires only? are we admitting cultures based on technological advancement? geographical area? organizational complexity in their system of governance? cultural achievements? some? all?) is pointless sophistry.

[Hurlshort]

 

It would explain why you seem more concerned with verbiage than the actual history.

 

I don't think trying to nail down exactly what criteria are responsible for a bunch of people with a common cultural frame of reference to graduate to being "a civilization" (do tribes count? city-states? historical empires only? are we admitting cultures based on technological advancement? geographical area? organizational complexity in their system of governance? cultural achievements? some? all?) is pointless sophistry.

 

 

I disagree.