it's an interesting point, and i don't think it can be resolved quite so neatly. to the people building such monuments, or writing such texts, the activity may have been closer to what we now refer to as "history" or "natural philosophy" (or even "civic infrastructure").
the fact that _now_, we have independent traditions referred to by those terms, and so categorize the ancient practices under "religion" is quite confusing, and it may be productive to make the distinction clear.
for a modern example, suppose we build a skyscraper in such a way that it lines up with, or reflects the setting sun on the solstice. we would regard this as "architecture", not "religion". i would be quite offended if, some thousand years from now, the aesthetic decision is dismissed as primitive superstition.
> i would be quite offended if, some thousand years from now, the aesthetic decision is dismissed as primitive superstition.
Why? I can't imagine being offended if people today, ignorant of the true motivations, dismissed it as primitive superstition, let alone a thousand years from now when I'm long dead.
> The concept of "religion" was formed in the 16th and 17th centuries. Sacred texts like the Bible, the Quran, and others did not have a word or even a concept of religion in the original languages and neither did the people or the cultures in which these sacred texts were written
That said, GrowingSideways is mistaken. He is confusing the thing with the category of the thing.
> or even a concept of religion in the original languages
IMO this and the sources it cites are wrong. A huge chunk of the Old Testament is about how God had to keep sending prophets to tell the Israelites to stop worshipping other deities. So while they may not have had a single word that was equivalent to 'religion,' they clearly possessed the same concept. They would just use the phrase "worshipping other gods."
You are confusing the thing with the category of the thing.
Religion the category is only a few hundred years old. The things that fall under that category go back at least as far as Neanderthal times.
The conceptualization of religion as a category, is actually quite a bit older. The idea that it was created recently was, well, created recently.[1]
Casadio details it going back thousands of years across cultures.[2]
[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-religion/index.ht...
[2] https://api.pageplace.de/preview/DT0400.9780191045882_A29773...
it's an interesting point, and i don't think it can be resolved quite so neatly. to the people building such monuments, or writing such texts, the activity may have been closer to what we now refer to as "history" or "natural philosophy" (or even "civic infrastructure").
the fact that _now_, we have independent traditions referred to by those terms, and so categorize the ancient practices under "religion" is quite confusing, and it may be productive to make the distinction clear.
for a modern example, suppose we build a skyscraper in such a way that it lines up with, or reflects the setting sun on the solstice. we would regard this as "architecture", not "religion". i would be quite offended if, some thousand years from now, the aesthetic decision is dismissed as primitive superstition.
> i would be quite offended if, some thousand years from now, the aesthetic decision is dismissed as primitive superstition.
Why? I can't imagine being offended if people today, ignorant of the true motivations, dismissed it as primitive superstition, let alone a thousand years from now when I'm long dead.
1 reply →
cf. "The Map is not the Territory"
What?
Wikipedia says similar [1]:
> The concept of "religion" was formed in the 16th and 17th centuries. Sacred texts like the Bible, the Quran, and others did not have a word or even a concept of religion in the original languages and neither did the people or the cultures in which these sacred texts were written
That said, GrowingSideways is mistaken. He is confusing the thing with the category of the thing.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_religion
> or even a concept of religion in the original languages
IMO this and the sources it cites are wrong. A huge chunk of the Old Testament is about how God had to keep sending prophets to tell the Israelites to stop worshipping other deities. So while they may not have had a single word that was equivalent to 'religion,' they clearly possessed the same concept. They would just use the phrase "worshipping other gods."
1 reply →
[dead]