Religion has contributed to our world massively

[McKenzie]

and in a very concrete way (sorry for the awful pun; the reason for it will become apparent in a moment or two).

I'm posting this after responding to a post that asked DU'ers to name something that would only have happened through faith. I use the term "faith" because it is THE driving factor that underpins the architectural, and artistic, legacy we have today.

All societies create their own architecture which is a response to simple needs such as shelter but also as the physical manifestation of something from within. That "something" is a desire to create something that represents the desires of various faiths, belief systems, call it what you will, to put what they felt inside into physical form. The key point is that in the absence of faith, or any other powerful driver, it's unlikely that we would have such a wonderful cultural legacy.

The Incas created their great temples out of faith. The Buddhist shrines and images were the product of faith. The great medieval cathedrals of Europe emanated from religous power and the medieval church commissioned great illuminated manuscripts. Islamic buildings are some of the most beautiful buildings in the world and contain some of our most precious, artistic artefacts. I could go on but I shall not. These few examples illustrate the point which is basically a counter to the person who asked what religion has achieved for humanity.

In the absence of any compelling reason to create such a wealth of wonderful architectural and cultural arefacts it is extremely doubtful that a purely secular society would have felt driven to build, and create, what we see today. Would a purely rational society have felt compelled to do what those of faith did? I doubt it because one would then have to ask where the impetus would have came from. Societies with great faith strove to translate what they felt within into physical manifestations of their faith, regardless of its hue.

I have spent over 20 years studying historic architecture because I conserve buildings for a living. Despite having no religous belief system of my own I acknowledge the great debt that all humanity owes to the world's religions in the context of cultural development. In response to the OP who challenged DU'ers to name one thing that would not have happened if religions were not practised I would recommend that he, or she, picks up any of the standard architectural history books and looks at the physical manifestations of belief systems. I for one am glad they built and created what they did. Thank you great religions of the world; you have enriched my life immeasurably.

[SteppingRazor]

1. But would a purely rational society...

have done the Crusades? The Inquisition? The current round of ME violence? The Holocaust? Ad infinitum?

[ContraBass Black]

3. Sadly, the absence of religion is not the presence of rationality.

Would that it were that easy.

[Inland]

29. True as a matter of definition and history.

Witnessing the communist experiment, based ostensibly on rationality and science.

[Goblinmonger]

36. I assume you are only speaking of Russia

and not China, since China is still pretty much alive and kicking. And anybody who is following world economics realizes that China is setting up to be the next world superpower ahead of the US. We know now that we could not beat China in a war.

[rockymountaindem]

44. That doesn't mean China is a loving, tolerant society

as some atheists around here would portray atheistic society to be. The poster who brought up the USSR wasn't trying to state that absence of religion was responsible for that country's breakup, merely that said absence didn't exactly contribute to the humanity of, say, Stalin and his cronies.

[Inland]

45. Rather, the absence didn't guarantee rationality or any other nice thing.

I guess someone could argue that Stalin would have been even worse if he didn't run an officially atheist country with an officially atheist ideology, and I'm not even going so far as to dispute that. I'm just saying that the absence of religion didn't in itself prevent Stalin, didn't guarantee a nice leader. A small point, hardly worth making but for a few revisionists.

[Goblinmonger]

48. I will savor the irony

of you calling out revisionists.

I am not arguing at all that Stalin was a good guy. But it does get frustrating when revisionists say that Stalin is an example of the largest mass murderer and he was atheist. As Trotsky points out elsewhere on this thread, the deaths under Stalin were primarily from lack of food and other resources, not genocide/murder as with Hitler, et al.

[Goblinmonger]

49. It seemed to me that the point of the poster

was to show that an atheistic society was unworkable as was shown by evidence and history. I just wanted to remind people that the communist "experiment" as Inland liked to call it, was hardly complete.

Is China the great, tolerant society of the world? No. They have major problems. As does the religious, capitalistic experiment here in the US.

So you think a society that was founded as an atheistic society, as compared to a society that banned religion once in power, as in the case of China and Russia, would be a bad society? You don't think things like the Inquisition, Crusades, Salem Witch Trials could be avoided with the absence of religion?

[rockymountaindem]

51. You pick very specific examples which suit only your purposes

The inquisition, certainly, was a religiously based atrocity. Without religion, it would not have happened. The same with the Salem Witch Trials. The Crusades were for wealth and power as much as religion, but without religion as a central organizing force, they would not have happened either.

However, paranoia, hatred and greed do not stem solely from a religion. Lenin, Stalin and Pol Pot claimed no religion, yet they killed millions. Despite religous overtones, worldwide colonialism was pursued for economic gains. This too resulted in untold numbers of deaths. While religion has been the basis for many crimes, other equally tragic mass murders have arisen despite the absence of religion.

Even if nobody on earth had ever believed in God, we still would have found reasons to kill each other.

[Goblinmonger]

53. Hello Pot, this is Kettle, umm, you're black, too

The crusades and the inquisition are SPECIFIC examples. How many centuries of xianity did they span?

And you, trying not to do what you chastise me for, pick Lenin, Stalin, and Pol Pot as your "atheist" leaders. Here are a couple thoughts:

1. Pol Pot. Yeah, I got nothin here. He killed 1.6 million in the killing fields and was an atheist. Gotta eat that one.

2. Lenin. Was raised Jewish, so by Inlands criteria, you gotta blame his religious upbringing, too. The estimates of deaths by Rummel are 3.284 million during Lenin's "reign." Problem is, unlike Pol Pot, Lenin did not have the VAST majority of these people killed. They died in a vicious civil war. If that counts against atheists, then I want to pin all the deaths in the US Civil War on Lincoln who was xian. I don't think you can show me that Lenin was a mass murdere like Pol Pot. Kinda fucked in the head? Sure, I'll give you that.

3. Stalin. Again, I have some problems with him being labeled an atheist. Sure he "banned" religion in the USSR, but I don't know that there is anything which shows he denounced his belief in god that he was raised with. Indeed, Wikipedia indicates that even the role of the church in Stalinist USSR was varied:

Stalin's role in the fortunes of the Russian Orthodox Church is complex. Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had been levelled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were killed. During World War II, however, the Church was allowed a partial revival, as a patriotic organization: thousands of parishes were reactivated, until a further round of suppression in Khrushchev's time. The Church Synod's recognition of the Soviet government and of Stalin personally led to a schism with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia that remains not fully healed to the present day. Just days before Stalin's death, certain religious sects were outlawed and persecuted.

So, I don't know that your claims of atheism are entirely correct for purposes of the discussion of what the world would look like without religion.

Onto his death toll. Again, Stalin was a bastard. I am not arguing otherwise, but remember that the death toll numbers for Stalin are not like Pol Pots. He was not EXECUTING millions. Many, many, many people died because of his policies, the war, economic/resource problems, etc. as shown again in Wikipedia.

It is generally agreed by conventional historians that if war, famines, prison and labor camp mortality, and state terrorism (deportations and political purges) are taken into account, the number of deaths occured under Stalin is in the millions....

[trotsky]

38. Did you bother to read what you responded to?

ContraBass Black said: Sadly, the absence of religion is not the presence of rationality.

Meaning, the absence of religion (in the Soviet Union) was no guarantee that they were going to act rationally. The history of the Soviet Union pretty much proves that point.

Your post hinges on the word ostensibly, since the Soviet Union's government was neither rational nor following the principles of science. But I have to wonder if that's how you meant it.

Millions died under Stalin. How many did he execute, versus how many died as a result of starvation or poor planning? If you're going to blame Stalin (and atheism, apparently) for all of it, then Hoover and FDR have to take the blame for people who died here in the Depression.

[papau]

5. A rational society trying to spread rational thinking via war? - sounds

like something one could be talked into. Indeed the atheist society of Stalin caused a few deaths as it brought the benefits of rational thing to the masses.

Granted Stalin was not all that good at reasoning and doing that which was best for society - but he did his rational best - eh?

[manic expression]

20. The Greeks were quite rational

as well as religious. Rationality and religion are not mutually exclusive, and oftentimes go hand-in-hand.

Actually, look at the remaining writings that pagans did against the early Christians. They criticize the Christians for rejecting logic, and therefore, truth. It is very interesting.

[JerseygirlCT]

47. Look a little more closely and I don't think you'll really

see religion itself behind those. You'll see people using religion for their own ends -- usually a combination of hatred and a pathological thirst for power.

And faith and reason are not opposing ideas at all. I don't think the idea that a rational society would not include religion can really be supported.

[Dr. Jones]

2. It's nice to see

a post that recognizes the positive role of religion in our society. I think what people stumble over is the fact that it's not the religion itself, it's the MISuse of religion that causes strife.

[Yollam]

4. You forgot the death and destruction it's contributed.

Oh yeah, not to mention the torture, repression and forced worship. Witch burning, holy wars,etc. etc.

Yes, religions have build splendid structures and works of art. Just think how many people might have been saved from hunger and cold over the centuries if all those energies had gone into building homes for people, or procuring food for them.

Ah, but that wouldn't have satisfied your desire for grandeur, would it. And that's much more important.

The trappings of religion are exactly the same as the beautiful trappings of royalty. They are a psychological tool for framing the oppressor as something beautiful, otherworldly and better in the minds of the oppressed, so that they will be that much less likely to rise up and overthrow those who have kept them in shackles.

To hell with religion and royalty too. I wouldn't give a rats ass if every single religious and royal artifact on earth through all the centuries were melted down into gold ingots to be used to feed the poor. Photos could be saved digitally. It's only STUFF.

Until we as a race realize that, we will continue to be in the world of shit we are in.

[manic expression]

21. Not so

Not only would the Parthenon, the Pyramids of Giza, all the temples of the world and more be lost, but so would the mass of wealth that developed through religion. And no, I don't mean mere "things", I mean the Iliad, I mean Greek drama (developed for religious purposes), I mean real things of worth. I mean, even "royalty" innovated the first novel (Japanese court writing).

Don't forget that even the Pyramids were built to, among other things, energize the Egyptian economy. The Ziggurats were built to be cultural and trade centers as well as religious buildings. If you want them to go, then say goodbye to trade and culture as well.

Religious buildings often have a role in society that should not be understated. Yes, there are MANY excesses and abuses, but there is something to be said for not only how religion has encouraged the progression of many arts, but also how the function of religious architecture is very important to a culture and people. I don't disagree that people need to be helped and society needs to look after everyone, but to condemn art is unnecessary to this end.

And torture and repression is not inherent in religion. It happens occasionally to many religions, but I think there is a real difference between MANY religions and the ones that are intolerant in mindset and action.

[Goblinmonger]

37. Are you talking about something like this?

[jrw14125]

6. you guys are missing the point

All this post set out to do was "name something that would only have happened through faith."

I think the author made that argument.

Let's not act like freepers here.

[Book Lover]

7. Two points (moving away from architecture to art in general)

While the Church of the European Middle Ages did train over several centuries illuminators who created beautiful art, there are many extant examples of manuscripts and art that are mundane and poorly made, even amateurish. I am sure we can both agree that religious faith alone is not enough to create art.

I also have to say that from my POV (strong atheist artist), it sounds as if you are saying that there is only artwork inspired by faith. I'm sure that's not what you meant, though. Are you making a distinction between the individual artist/craftsman and the society s/he lives in (and what society will support)?

[Boojatta]

8. The psychology of selling

In the absence of any compelling reason to create such a wealth of wonderful architectural and cultural arefacts it is extremely doubtful that a purely secular society would have felt driven to build, and create, what we see today. Would a purely rational society have felt compelled to do what those of faith did?

Would it be possible to distinguish between the following?
1. secular
2. rational
3. lack of interest in aesthetics

If religious institutions had enforced some kind of orthodoxy concerning aesthetics, then would it have been possible for people dominated by religious institutions to create works of great aesthetic merit?

Given that religious institutions do enforce some kind of orthodoxy, is there reason to believe that there is a connection between aesthetic achievements and the doctrines of religious institutions? Did the doctrines have aesthetic consequences or were beautiful objects arbitrarily paired with what was being sold?

Would you argue that the automobile industry has performed a great service for the human race because it sought out and found beautiful women to pose with the automobiles in automobile advertisements?

[kwassa]

9. Your point is unclear to me

"Given that religious institutions do enforce some kind of orthodoxy, is there reason to believe that there is a connection between aesthetic achievements and the doctrines of religious institutions? Did the doctrines have aesthetic consequences or were beautiful objects arbitrarily paired with what was being sold?"

Great art is not art that is merely beautiful, or has nice aesthetic qualities, but also qualities of expression and meaning within itself. It seems that you see it simply as superficial advertising for the particular religion, when it clearly can have much more meaning than that.

Am I misunderstanding you? This is what I am drawing when you compare it to automobile advertising.

[Boojatta]

11. "seems that you see it simply as superficial advertising"

Have you ever heard the saying about a work that is both good and original, but the good parts are not original and the original parts are not good?

Please quote where I claim that the aesthetic achievements are insignificant.

My question is: what is the connection between the doctrines and the aesthetic achievements?

Consider "Joy of Man's Desiring" by J. S. Bach. In how many different ways could you modify the lyrics? If you started with the lyrics and had no knowledge of the instrumental part, then would you be able to reconstruct the instrumental part? If you started with the instrumental part and had no knowledge of the lyrics, then would you be able to reconstruct the lyrics?

In fact, it would be wrong to claim that the connection between the instrumental part of a piece of music and the lyrics is completely arbitrary. If you are writing lyrics, then you have to pay attention to rhythm.

However, if you knew the sounds of many words in a language, but had no knowledge of the meaning of those words, then what would prevent you from writing completely meaningless lyrics?

[kwassa]

13. Your point becomes even less clear to me.

Asking ME more questions really doesn't clarify YOUR point of view.

"My question is: what is the connection between the doctrines and the aesthetic achievements?"

Answer: The connection varies depending on the art work. Religious art is sometimes used to express specific doctrines, but often used to tell stories or make points derived from the religious text. These are not doctrinal in nature, but are illustrative of the text itself or a point to be drawn from that text.

The aesthetic achievement is both derivative of what acceptable expression is within a particular culture, and independent expression, at least in Western art. The aesthetic ideal is part and parcel of the religious culture.

[Boojatta]

17. "The aesthetic ideal is part and parcel of the religious culture."

Is that a claim about the meaning of the term "religious culture"?

You could have some fun with the Bible:

I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of our religious culture will by any means be abolished. The yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees is, of course, part and parcel of our religious culture. Understand that I am not talking about an ingredient in bread. The yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees is part and parcel of our religious culture.

[Boojatta]

12. Maybe religious institutions see arts as superficial advertising

Some religious institutions have seen various kinds of art (visual art, music, etc.) as things that are different from and in competition with religion and have been intolerant of them.

Do religious institutions have a good record of encouraging art for art's sake or do they use art to help achieve their institutional goals?

[kwassa]

14. Art for art's sake is a recent historical concept.

Many cultures don't even recognize the profession of "artist".

Historically, most art is seen as an expression of a higher purpose than "art for art's sake". The secularization of art is a comparitively recent process. I don't think that any religious institution has seen art as superficial advertising, as advertising itself is also historically recent.

At least not its primary purpose. In earlier times, much of the populace was illiterate, so pictures were a way of spreading the message to the faithful.

[Boojatta]

15. "advertising itself is also historically recent"

Evidence for that claim? I presume that you are not merely saying that advertising on the radio historically came after the invention of the radio.

[kwassa]

16. Your willful obscurantism has lost me.

Bye.

[Inland]

34. What do the buldings have to be connected to "doctrines"?

Maybe there's no connection between the cathedral and the Nicene Creed, but religious INSTITUTIONS don't get to shuffle off bad acts because there's no "doctrinal" connection.

The same insitution that built the nice church flogged heritics in the basement, whether it was called for by doctrine or not. It's not that big a point.

[sinkingfeeling]

10. Not in the mood to argue, but I can't accept your statement that

there are no 'compelling reason(s)' to create architecture or art without religion. I, for one do not ascribe to religion of any type, however, I am motivated as a human being to produce art. Wish I could say the same for architecture, but that's not my line of work. I am restoring a 148 year-old Victorian house and doing it without any religion as well.

Do you not think that secular government buildings, the WH, Supreme Court Building, etc. are beautiful examples of architecture? And what about all those corporate-built sky-scrappers? There are many beautiful buildings in the world that were not built because of faith.

[Zenlitened]

22. Aqueducts. They were all about bringing water from great distances away...

... for use in the holy baptismal fonts. :sarcasm:

[trotsky]

32. The aqueducts, Reg?

But apart from the aqueducts, what have the Romans done for us?

[Zenlitened]

56. Tee hee. Had to Google it, but I should have known...

... it was a Monty Python reference.

Sometimes I think Python has had a more pervasive influence on our culture than the Christian Bible, Homer and Shakespeare combined! :D :hi:

[Inland]

33. Our federal architecture

is an excellent example of secular building.....borrowing from greek and roman temples to their gods.

It's all good.

[trotsky]

18. Secular individuals write songs.

They paint, they sculpt, they dance and laugh. I see no evidence whatsoever that the great creators of religious faith would have been any less creative if not for that faith. (In fact, they might even have created more without it, since the church often set down strict guidelines for what was or was not allowed. Islam does this even today.)

Or do you think inspiration can only come from religion?

[Boojatta]

19. We have to wait and see. Soon there might be a massive contribution

to holocaust cartooning (an obscure but important branch of art) inspired by Iranian theocracy.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

23. Thank you, McKenzie

As one who has been a choral singer since childhood, I once answered a DUer's assertion that "all Christian music is crap" (I think the person was referring to contemporary Christian music) by pointing to choral music, a genre in which most non-religious music is either soupy sentimental or bombastic.

To call religious music "advertising" is to sell it short. Someone who has been exposed to the sublime tones of Tallis or Byrd or later religious composers such as Poulenc or Howells know that there's something bigger going on. Performing the music well sends one to a different plane, and hearing a heartfelt performance in a congregation of like-minded souls is another, yet equally transforming experience.

When I compare older buildings to modern buildings, whether religious or non-religious, I see depth and imagination and an attention to detail that are lacking in your typical Mies van der Rohe knock-off. This is especially true of older religious buildings, whether in the U.S., Europe, or Japan. For want of a better term, they look as if they're built with love and wonder.

Of course, not everything is a masterpiece, but when people go to Europe, many of the most famous buildings are churches, and in Japan, almost all the famous buildings are temples or shrines.

Yes, a secular person can be an artist, but in most pre-modern societies, art is inseparable from religion. (Look at African or Native American masks, Arabic calligraphy and mosaics, Hindu and Buddhist carvings, Balinese dance, Indonesian shadow puppets, medieval mystery plays, Russian icon painters, even Greek tragedies). An atheist who is an artist today is building upon traditions that were originated and developed by religious people over thousands of years.

[Dorian Gray]

24. I don't think ALL Christian music is crap

I quite enjoy Haydn's messiah! Although today's Christian Contempo-Pop is NOT my thing at all! :)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

25. Errr, it's Handel's Messiah and Haydn's

Creation. :-)

[Dorian Gray]

35. You are, of course, right....

I am on lots of cold medication, hence my silly mistake! But, Handel's Messiah is one of my favorites to listen to during the Holidays, and it isn't crap. I'm not overly familiar with Haydn's Creation, though!

[Boojatta]

26. I apologize for the words "great service" in my question about automobile

advertising. I should have asked not about the amount of value in the advertising itself, but whether or not there exists any value in it.

To call religious music "advertising" is to sell it short.

Is your point about the connotations of the word "advertising"? Are you concerned about a possible suggestion of insignificance by association?

Someone who has been exposed to the sublime tones of Tallis or Byrd or later religious composers such as Poulenc or Howells know that there's something bigger going on.

Would those composers have been offended if someone had suggested that they used their art in the service of their religion?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. You're determined to engage in recreational arguing

from the standpoint of someone who is bigoted against all religions. I've stated my case. I don't do flame wars, and if you think I'm illogical and deluded, that's your problem, not mine. Good night.

[Boojatta]

27. This thread might explain why some people like theocracy.

Suppose a theocratic government arrests someone on a charge of murder, conducts a trial, and then punishes the convict with death.

Case 1: The accused was guilty. Credit goes to the religious institution for ensuring that the killer would not kill again. Religion has helped us.

Case 2: The accused was not guilty. Blame goes to the particular officials who declared that the accused was guilty. Those officials might even be heretics. In any case, the religion is not to blame.

[Inland]

31. Yes, some of the most common arguments for theocracy are architectural.

Seriously, this post has nothing to do with theocracy. The OP doesn't make any point about religion to "not to blame" for anything. It's pretty telling that a person can't admire a church without being accused of being a fellow traveler with theocrats. Imagine what you would have said if he actually admitted to kneeling inside one of those buildings!

[Boojatta]

39. Had the religious institutions that built medieval cathedrals not existed

then what buildings would have been built?

Yes, some of the most common arguments for theocracy are architectural. Seriously, this post has nothing to do with theocracy. The OP doesn't make any point about religion to "not to blame" for anything.

From the OP:

The Incas created their great temples out of faith. The Buddhist shrines and images were the product of faith. The great medieval cathedrals of Europe emanated from religous power...

Were all great Inca temples created by non-governmental Inca religious organizations? Were all great medieval cathedrals of Europe created by non-governmental European religious organizations?

Does the quoted passage refer to some architectural achievements that are to be credited to theocracies?

If we don't know what architecturally impressive buildings would have been created had various theocracies not existed, then how can we claim to know whether the effect of theocracies was to increase or decrease the amount of architectural achievement?

[Inland]

46. Who knows, and it's not the point.

I assume that other buildings would have been built, just as I assume that people would have found some reason to fight wars and torture each other. It's difficult to imagine an alternative reality that's missing a, if not the, primary motivating rationale.

My only point is that if you are going to ask, who's to say that other buildings wouldn't have been built, you should also ask, who's to say that the thirty years war wouldn't have occurred anyway? You can't both blame religion for everything bad and refuse it credit for the good. The same people who built the church tortured people in the basement from time to time.

[Inland]

30. Religion contributed to who we were and are, good and bad.

Religion was so pervasive in previous centuries it simply can't be blamed for everything that happened that was bad without giving it credit for what was good. Whatever humans were, it was. Crusades and Cathedrals, charity and war, kindness and inquisition.

In a thousand years, some wags are going to be telling us how national identity was the source of evil and some are going to be saying it was the source of anything good that Americans did. They'll both be right. When something is a pervasive motivating source, and we are still human, it can't be unraveled to just doing the good or just doing the evil. Humans do it all.

[Goldensilence]

40. i think what is missing is this

religion and art are a byproduct of culture. Not the other way around.

[Goblinmonger]

41. Careful

You will make quite a few people mad here if you start talking about religion being a social/cultural construct instead of a necessity handed down by god. Of course, I have just engaged in Christian bashing for typing this, so I am worse than you are.

Welcome to DU. Let me know how you like the fireworks here in R/T.

[Zenlitened]

42. Well said. Interesting way to put it.

:hi:

In a sense, all these things -- religion, art, architecture, etc. -- arise from something basic called culture, rather than being the source of it.

[Inland]

43. Or ARE culture.

Either way, up until very recently it was tough to distinguish between them. Now some fine ART as ART is actually contrary to culture in some ways, that is, meant to be esoteric and unapproachable, and secular buildings come up due to secular institutions like corporations. The biggest building in town today is the office building. Courthouses and churches look a lot like offices too.

[Goblinmonger]

50. I knew it would be you

I should have found somebody to give me odds that you could not let a comment that religion was a social construct pass through your computer.

So you think the pop art of the 60s was religious? It must be since you claim that secular art is meant to be esoteric and unapproachable and pop art movement was deliberately anti-esoteric. I would like to see how that is true. You think Frank Lloyd Wright got his inspiration from religion? Again, I was under the mistaken assumption that he got his inspiration from nature and other environment surrounding his structure, but it must have been religious or otherwise his art iw unapproachable.

[Goldensilence]

52. well define culture

I'm going to go with the dictionary.com one

Culture:
1.

A.The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.
B.These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population: Edwardian culture; Japanese culture; the culture of poverty.
C.These patterns, traits, and products considered with respect to a particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of expression: religious culture in the Middle Ages; musical culture; oral culture.
D.The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group or organization

[Inland]

55. Sounds good to me.

I'm just quibbling about causality, as I don't think that one can somehow entirely take away things "caused by" religion, or what "causes" religious practices, or disengaging religious motives from others. So its a sort of alternative universe even more difficult to imagine than the one where the Nazis win WWII or, if I can recommend an interesting read, "Years of Rice and Salt", where the bubonic plague wipes out the entirety of the European population circa 1500.

[Boojatta]

54. Given some contribution, who or what gets credit for the contribution?

Suppose a child lived in a poor country had a poor family. The child was academically gifted, but was about to be withdrawn from school to do menial work to help support the family. A rich foreigner said that if the child passed three tests, then the rich foreigner would pay for the child to go to school and would also make periodic payments to the family equal to the wages that the child would have earned.

The child would have three weeks to learn a random sequence of three thousand digits. On each of the three days after those three weeks, the child would have one hundred minutes to recite the sequence, with pauses allowed but no errors allowed. Suppose that the child passed all three tests and then succeeded in school and got a good job related to the schooling.

True or false: that random sequence of 3000 digits made a massive contribution to that child's life?