Religion: Obsolete science? The first big scam?

[Guv]

The following was posted to another Thread.

Religion started out in the earliest of settlement known to man, it started when man became sentient. There was a void of knowledge that man wanted to understand but didn't have the tools to. So he attributed to a higher instance, something beyond his grasp and comprehension. And that sufficed.

All the world religions come forth from that idea. It still hasn't changed. Man has always used the supernatural idea to explain unknown things around him. Religion has for over 3000 years filled that knowledge gap admirably.

The bolded part of the above quote bugged me. Religion has historically done a poor job of explaining anything except theology, and I do not think it has done much of a job with theology. For example: Without much effort, I could do a better job supporting creation theory vs evolution than some of the poor efforts I have seen on this issue.

It is probably true (but unknowable) that prehistoric man invented the concept of gods or spirits or what ever to explain phenomena which were beyond his ability to comprehend. This probably started soon after language was developed. Lightening, thunder, the seasons, the growth of plants, rain, wind, and all sorts of other phenomena were surely beyond his ability to understand or explain.

I have always viewed religion as obsolete science. When better explanations became known to the smarter men, the average person clung to the old explanations. At some point, science and religion went their separate ways. Religion tends to claim that ancient knowledge is superior to modern knowledge, while science strives to improve on its explanations.

I suspect that not long after superstitious explanations were developed, the first shaman or mystic appeared on the scene. I have often wondered if the early shaman was the first scam artist. He was supported by the tribe, and did not have to work hard or takes chances hunting. As time went by, he built a powerful organization, providing himself with power, prestige, and wealth. Were those early mystics sincere or were they the first successful scam artists?

While I have always respected the sincerity of low level clergy (priests, ministers, rabbis, whatever), those higher up in a religious organization seem suspicious to me. The higher ups have power, prestige, and often wealth. Oddly enough, a religious organization is ideal for a scam artist. I wonder how many have out right lied to get or stay where they are. Do any of you remember Oral Roberts? Do you think he was sincere when he said god informed him that he would be called to heaven if not enough $$$ were collected? How about the Swaggart organization? Does god really need them to collect ten million or more per month? A huge percentage of that is spent on buying TV & radio time, paying big salaries, and paying for all sorts of overhead. How many of you have listened to Peter Popoff?

I have often imagined some devout faithful priest in the middle ages being passed over in favor of a charlatan who claimed that god was talking to him. The devout one would not lie, and might never suspect that the other one was lying. Think about a highly intelligent person born into a low station in the 5th to 12th century. The only way for him to get ahead was to become a priest, Lying about his faith if need be. Once he became a priest, why not work his way up via lies, intrigue, et cetera?

[Tygur]

Well, the bible itself predicts that "false prophets" would show up. I'm sure scam artists and similar ones fit the category very well.

Being a religious person myself, I don't believe all religion is/was falsehood and just thought up to fill gaps in knowledge. In fact, I'm not sure that religion truly fills those gaps. Simply stating that a God or gods out there made (or control) everything doesn't really explain much. There's still the question of how, and I think that's what science tries to answer. As a simple example, most, if not all, religions claim that everything was somehow created. Science pulls out the big bang.

I would say that religion ignores the knowledge gaps, instead of filling them.

[cafeenman]

To quote U2:

"God isn't short of cash, Mr."

I agree with you that "lower level" ministers and such have their hearts in the right place. I don't agree that religion is an "obsolete science." I don't consider mythology, superstition, fairy tales, witchcraft, deity worship or talking to the dead to be science.

Generally speaking, religion is good because there are a lot of stupid or lost people out there who need something to keep them in check and religion does a pretty good job of it. Otherwise, religion is nonsense.

I think it would be a really bad idea to take it away because what "truths" are you going to replace it with?

[Wally Pipp]

Did you also read the rest of the midnight musings thread Guv ?