Agnostic.com

5 7

What are the major differences between government - especially in a more ancient context - and religion? We tend to think of the two as being different sorts of entities, but I suspect that the reason for this is that religions have existed in concert with governments. But ancient societies where a culture had not been conquored by a neighboring one merged the two concepts together to institute rules for members of their communities to live by and to live together by. That living by essentially agreed upon rules (even if the agreement was coerced by real or imagined threats, or enticed by rewards of the same nature) does have a survival advantage for our species. Cooperation of members within a group allows for much greater protection from harm, allows for greater collective successes in providing food and shelter for more of the group than they could expect on their own.

One obvious difference in our understanding of government and religion would be the supernatural element of the lawgiver. Here is a thought on tbis subject. When rules within a society were attributed to human sources, they were too easily challenged destablizing the results they intended to provide. Lawgivers even when greatly respected and revered wouldn't live forever and had to be replaced by others with perhaps lesser skills and insightfulness. When rules became attributed to more supernatural sources, they perhaps became more difficult to challenge - just as anyone who attempts to challenge the dogma of a church has likely discovered. Religions often fall back on what their Gods wanted or had instituted no matter how unreasonable the demand was for a particular situation. This concept might provide a survival advantage since what has worked in the past is likely to work in the present so long as the conditions and circumstances remain more or less the same as in the past.

Now we might ask what were to happen when one culture conquors another which has develop a kind of religious based government? We know from history that some very successful conquorors accomodated the systems conquored neighbors already had in place. In effect, they sidestepped the fear and retaliation that could be triggered be challenging the conquored people's established rules which included threats of harm to them if these rules were broken. In allowing these rules to exist, we see what could be the beginning of duel systems existing together of government and religions.

As a sidenote, I wasn't certain which category this post belonged in. This one seemed to fit best.

RussRAB 8 Feb 5
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

5 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Conquored? Conquorors? Perhaps you need to conquer English prior to posting such a large opinion piece of speculative nonsense.

1

@RussRab Insightful post!

Religion has an advantage over mortal (patently human) authority in that it's harder to refute, as you said. The advantage accrues to the authority that is in control.

Whether that authority is good or bad for (strengthens or weakens) the society as a whole is another matter. I'd argue that more democratic institutions steer a better course. And that means a big thumbs down to divine right and religious authority.

Nothing irks me more than preachers who "know" what God wants you to do.

1

I'm not sure what you're posting about, bar perhaps to share sooner thoughts. But my impression on reading it was:

  1. A concern that you use the word "religion" (and are not alone there) where the word "myth" works better. If you substitute it, you might find that myth remains a dominant force in society and governance to this day, and is indeed unifying. Religion is, to my mind, distinct from myth and is to myth, perhaps as government is to laws in a way, an institution vs a tool for conserving order and harmony if you will.

  2. A concern that you are rolling in a very hypothetical or speculative way with your post, musing, and wondering publicly. Alas, while nice, it amounts to little without an evidential basis. Of course, including such, moves from a social media post to an essay or article style, citing formative references, that a reader might consult.

3

I don't really know why you posted this as a question, since that seems to be quite a good summing up of the history anyway. Unless you are being purely rhetorical .

I would perhaps however add that, religion was probably quite late on the scene when it came to making rules to live by. Firstly, because it was of much more interest to tribal secular leaders to have a well regulated society, than it was for priests. Since no chief/king/queen/democracy wants divisions among the subjects, whereas religion can profit from them. ( At a comic silly level for example, if Ug falls out with Og then she goes to pay the priest for a curse. ) And secondly, because religion was much more concerned and busy with controlling the supernatural forces, to ensure good hunts and harvests etc.. Early religion is usually thought by historians to be largely morality free.

It may be a perspective of the Abrahamic religions that morality is an inevitable part of religion, but many early religions were amoral. And if you remember the moral codes, in the Abrahamic traditions first enter with Moses and the so called Exodus plus the captives of Babylon. Neither of which may have literally happened, but it is probable that the early Jews had a lot of contact, at around that time, with more advanced states like Egypt and Babylon who already had established moral laws, and not having an organized secular government of their own, were forced to turn to the witch doctors/priests, as the only tribal organization available.

It also has to be said that in many early states such as Egypt, government and religion was one and the same embodied in the kings. And so it may have been with the early patriarchs of nomadic peoples such as the early Jews, who had little tribal organization beyond the wise man at the head of the extended family. A big part of the OT if you think about it, is about how the early patriarch government of the desert nomads separated into specialists kings and priests, and the conflicts which went on during that process.

I have had this general thought for a while but it wasn't well formulated. Recent discussions here about evolution of religion kind of stirred up the thoughts again. This was a first attempt to put my thought is some kind of organized written form. I started by asking the question because I was interested in what other thoughts on the idea were (like yours) and I don't think I necessarily have a good grasp on my own concept. The question was as much wanting input as asserting my own idea.

I would agree the rules of conduct preceded religion probably by a lot. My observation of having read Jane Goodall's research on chimps and loving natures shows is that all social animals have certain rules they live by and roles individuals fullfil within their groups. With the discoveries that certain cultural aspects exist between certain groups within a single species, we need to recognize that certain behaviors are learned and then taught to subsequent generations. While I doubt we could honestly describe these social "rules" within these species as government or religion, I think it could be in the very most bone bones sort of way the root that could develop in what we formed within our own species. That might be quite a stretch; I don't know. I am not opposed to the idea.

I would also agree that moral codes would likely have developed after other aspects of a religion. I hadn't thought about moral codes in my original post (see why I was looking for input?) but come follow my direction to stay warm, eat better, and find a mate would seem to me to be initially more beneficial than the rules to not mess around with your neighbors mate or his daughter, and don't take your neighbors things as your own. Allieviating jealousies and other aspects of ordering a society would be a secondary concern to survival and reproduction.

When same sex marriage was a big issue in the US, I was also researching and on my way out of religion. I did a bit of research on sexuality and moral systems. I came across some interesting things. One that comes to mind was among the Inuit (or perhaps another Arctic people). What I read was that it was completely acceptable to have sex with your neighbor's wife. It was also perfectly acceptable for the neighbor to come and kill you if you kept her for too long. Such a moral code allowing adultery and murder was at such odds with anything I had been taught in our judeo-Christian Western moral codes, but it apparently worked for this society.

@RussRAB I think you are making good progress with your thoughts. Another one that you may like to consider is the role played by trade in the building of early societies. Our instinctive moral frame work evolved, as I think most people would agree, to help improve the survival of extended families who shared genes in common. How did they then become extended into larger groupings ? I think that trade was probably was the thing which created the first social networks, emerging from the trade networks.

For example. Say that the people who live on the beach start to trade some of their shells, used for tools and their fish, with the people who live in the hills, for their furs to keep warm in the winter. Then they will soon get to recognize individuals, knowing them and valuing them, especially if they trade fairly, as assets. Then the first time that, say a person from the beach sees a person from the hills in need, it could be hunger a threatening wild animal or some other danger, they will act. In part because they value a good trade partner as an asset, and in part because, through trade they have got to see this individual as literally, a familiar face, and therefore effectively an member of a now further extended family. So for the first time moral behaviour extends beyond the genetic family.

I think that the role played by trade in the development of early society has not yet been fully realized.

@Fernapple - I hadn't considered it but we know it went trade went on. I recall reading a long time ago that seashells were found incorporated into jewelry made by people who high in the mountains. These shells were likely traded to intermediaries to reach the destination where the jewelry was made.

I think there was probaby more intermarriages and exchanges of members between friendly tribes and clans. It's not all that unusual among social animals that an individual might leave his group and join another. With lions, the prides are typically made up of related females. Young males are typically driven out of a pride when they reach a certain age to live on their own or with another probably a sibling until they either take over a pride or die.

Things happen in nature that leaves a individual without the members of his group. Disease, raid from hostile neighbors, etc. Since survival is enhanced when one belongs to a group, it would be likely that individuals who lose significant portions of their primary group would find another to become a part of. It may work out and it may not, but we have evolved to enjoy certain health benefits when we associate with other human beings.

I think our transition to living in larger groups had a lot to do with agriculture. Growing our food had several advantages over relying on hunting and gathering. Farming allowed us to have greater control over a harvest. We knew with new mouths to feed, we needed more fields planted. With foraging, we had to rely on what we could find. Domestication of animals could have a similar effect unless we needed to follow our herd's migration. Agriculture also allowed us to stay put which meant we could improve our shelter and didn't have live in make shift dwellings or structures we could easily haul around. Larger structures could serve to protect more individuals.

@RussRAB Yes agriculture certainly played a major part, and especially towards the end, if you think about it irrigation, which was much needed in many of the often dry river valleys where the larger states often began. Since irrigation meant large scale planning and the allocation of both duties and rights. Irrigation may indeed have been the very first agricultural technology, even before ploughing and sowing, people may have noticed that pouring water from wells and rivers on to the dry ground, made more stuff grow, providing more green food and seeds for both humans and livestock as well as attracting wild game to hunt.

1

Here's a pretty simple difference: one is based in fact and the other one isn't.

You can try and compare all entities to each other just because they're entities but only one of them is completely based in fantasy.

You could just as easily say what's the difference between religion and the game Monopoly? You have to follow the rules to play the game and in the end the richest person wins. Parker Brothers made the rules and everyone buys their game so they can play and worships the Parker Brothers until they buy a different game

lerlo Level 8 Feb 5, 2022

I don't know I completely agree that governments of all sorts are based on facts. We know that in our (or mine, anyway) American government, even some of those I respect have been caught telling outright lies. It's an unfortunate fact, I think, that public opinion can be influenced by falsehoods regardless of their intent, and opinion based on falsehood can garner a great deal of support.

Government based on fact would seem to be far and above more preferable than the alternative. Right off, I can't think of a downside.

@RussRAB The entity itself is factual.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:649025
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.