Thursday, November 28, 2002 10:47 AM: Damien Sullivan On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 10:33:55AM -0800, Penney, Sean wrote: >> I wonder - is it possible for a civilization to develop to a "high" state >> without religion? The South American civilizations, the Egyptians, >> Sumerians (O.T. - I've read that the Sumerians were matriarchal) - all these >> civilizations used religion as a catapult to greatness. The pyramids of >> Egypt and the ziggurats of S. America would not have been built without >> faith in something. >This cuts both ways. "Oh no, we wouldn't have built giant useless piles of >rock without religion!" Not sure what you're saying here - if I take out the negatives I think it means "because of religion we have built giant monuments". I think this is what I stated above. >Do you consider modern Western civilization to be 'high'? Religion is still >prominent, but has been decreasingly relevant for motivating large projects >(Hoover Dam, English Chunnel, moon landings) or the science, wealth, and >technology which are our real claim to highness. I guess it depends on the measuring stick. I would try not to compare modern civilization to the ancient ones I mentioned - at least I would not measure them with the same stick. >Certainly there aren't older examples of religion-less high civilizations -- >but there aren't older examples of religion-less civilizations, period. Well that's pretty much what I was asking - can a civilization attain a state beyond that of mud huts and root grubbing without religion? Is religion necessary as a catalyst to great works in architecture, social engineering and art? All evidence seems to point towards religion being an intrinsic part of the formula. I was wondering if anyone knew of any exceptions. FYI - I am most certainly not a proponent of religion in any form.