Religions were created for many reasons, but one of them was dealing with constant war and conflict. And humans are still fighting and in conflict. We’re not more enlightened than any other point in recorded history.
Well, we may know how to kill each other more effectively.
Sorry I don’t understand your point. The question was about enlightenment. One doesn’t necessarily need religion to walk towards it.
Also religion is a terrible way to deal with war. It’s simply a form of groupism that just brews more conflict. But that’s a separate discussion and off topic to the question I feel.
I interpreted your question as are we more morally advanced than 100 years ago. Moral advancement is enlightenment. Many religions are about moral advancement. We’ve had religion for thousands of years. And one reason was to mitigate wars in some cases (the ones I listed). But we still have war. So, we have not advanced morally, we’re not enlightened, anymore than we were thousands of years ago, let alone 100.
Ok. I understand what you mean now, but I disagree on the correlation.
If someone is not religious, they could still be morally advanced. In the modern world people are tending to prefer reason over faith. I would even argue it is way better now that people are directly discussing philosophies rather than following the constructs of religion around it.
If someone is religious in the true sense, their way of life following faith in God also advances them morally. How this works depends on the religion of course. But as I mentioned earlier this tends to create a form of groupism.
So a person being religious or not doesn’t directly mean they are morally advanced or not. I’d say lack of moral advancements are due to other factors, like the evolution of society on top of technology.
No no no no no no no. I can’t say no enough.
Religions were created for many reasons, but one of them was dealing with constant war and conflict. And humans are still fighting and in conflict. We’re not more enlightened than any other point in recorded history.
Well, we may know how to kill each other more effectively.
Sorry I don’t understand your point. The question was about enlightenment. One doesn’t necessarily need religion to walk towards it.
Also religion is a terrible way to deal with war. It’s simply a form of groupism that just brews more conflict. But that’s a separate discussion and off topic to the question I feel.
I interpreted your question as are we more morally advanced than 100 years ago. Moral advancement is enlightenment. Many religions are about moral advancement. We’ve had religion for thousands of years. And one reason was to mitigate wars in some cases (the ones I listed). But we still have war. So, we have not advanced morally, we’re not enlightened, anymore than we were thousands of years ago, let alone 100.
Ok. I understand what you mean now, but I disagree on the correlation.
If someone is not religious, they could still be morally advanced. In the modern world people are tending to prefer reason over faith. I would even argue it is way better now that people are directly discussing philosophies rather than following the constructs of religion around it.
If someone is religious in the true sense, their way of life following faith in God also advances them morally. How this works depends on the religion of course. But as I mentioned earlier this tends to create a form of groupism.
So a person being religious or not doesn’t directly mean they are morally advanced or not. I’d say lack of moral advancements are due to other factors, like the evolution of society on top of technology.