People are nicer to each other when they think someone is watching, many psychology studies have shown—especially if they believe that someone has the power to punish them for transgressions even after they’re dead. That’s why some scientists think that belief in the high gods of moralizing religions, such as Islam and Christianity, helped people cooperate with each other and encouraged societies to grow. An innovative study of 96 societies in the Pacific now suggests that a culture might not need to believe in omniscient, moral gods in order to reap the benefits of religion in the form of political complexity. All they need is the threat of supernatural punishment, even if the deities in question don’t care about morality and act on personal whims, the new work concludes.
[...] Norenzayan notes, “there’s a lot more to religion than moralizing gods.” All-powerful supernatural creators like the Abrahamic god are “at the extreme end of the spectrum” when it comes to beliefs that promote large-scale cooperation and social complexity. Certain rituals and beliefs like karma can also encourage prosocial behavior “without necessarily invoking big gods.”
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @06:48PM
Touch themselves? Huh?
(Score: 5, Funny) by The Archon V2.0 on Friday March 06 2015, @08:12PM
Well, if someone's gonna watch might as well give 'em a show. Writhe around a bit and sing "I don't want anybody else / When I think about Yahweh I touch myself."
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Friday March 06 2015, @09:20PM
Yes indeed:
(put down your coffee first!!)
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ceiling-cat [knowyourmeme.com] (NSFWunlessyourbossandcolleagueshaveasenseofhumour)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Friday March 06 2015, @06:49PM
So that's why middle-eastern Islamic societies lead the world economically, culturally, and technologically! And that's why the USSR was unable to develop any kind of technology or economy and failed after only a few years! And that's why China is such an economic failure right now!
This idea is ridiculous: you can argue it all kinds of different ways, but there's no way to draw any scientific conclusions because just about every society has had religion in some form, and even ones which professed atheism had people secretly practicing religion, such as Russia where the Russian Orthodox church stayed alive during the communist years, and then made a huge resurgence after the communist government collapsed. Can they even point to any societies which really were atheistic?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @06:53PM
Sometimes a person's criticism of an idea says way more about themselves than it does about the idea.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @08:08PM
I hope you're being ironic right now.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday March 08 2015, @10:08PM
Which is what? That I judge societies based on their merits and qualities, and Islamic societies really don't have any positive qualities to speak of? They're backwards, misogynistic, anti equal-rights, they've never developed any technology on their own (despite mostly being in a desert, a challenging environment where you'd think people would develop more technology out of necessity), they even still practice human slavery. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who defends them is even worse than the most ultra-conservative right-wingers here in the US. At least our wacko conservatives here don't demand that women cover their faces in public and refuse to give them equal legal protections, or require a rape victim to have the supporting testimony of four men in order to not be executed for extramarital sex. Anyone who defends an Islamic society has to be a really serious misogynist.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @07:03PM
> Can they even point to any societies which really were atheistic?
In what world does the definition of atheism include, "the threat of supernatural punishment, even if the deities in question don’t care about morality and act on personal whims?" Did you even read the same article I did? The word atheism appears in neither TFS nor TFA. Seriously what the hell are you going on about anyway?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Immerman on Friday March 06 2015, @10:05PM
They're making a claim about the social effects of theism - so where are their control groups?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @10:41PM
> They're making a claim about the social effects of theism - so where are their control groups?
They are making a claim about different types of theism. Your argument is like saying if you want to compare the lubrication effectiveness of water versus oil, it is meaningless unless you use a dry surface as a control. It is just blind scientism designed to rationalize bigotry. Yes, if you aren't familiar with the OP he's got a big hard-on for muslims.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday March 07 2015, @01:40AM
From the summary it sounded like they were saying all different sorts of theism had similar effects - in which case you absolutely need a control to see if there's actually any effect at all, rather than just you projecting your own expectations.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Saturday March 07 2015, @03:27AM
You don't make any sense at all. The article is saying that theism is good for societies. The only way to test that is to look at a control group, an atheistic society. To use your dumb analogy, that's like saying water is a good lubricant, and then not looking at any other lubricants at all to compare.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 08 2015, @05:20AM
I do not need anything to compare something to in order to say that something is overall good. Just because other things may be better does not mean that something is bad. Likewise, just because other things are worse does not mean that something is good.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 08 2015, @01:55PM
I do not need anything to compare something to in order to say that something is overall good.
Sure you do. You can't possibly say something is good if you have nothing to compare it with.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday March 08 2015, @10:17PM
You obviously failed basic science classes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 08 2015, @06:31AM
> The article is saying that theism is good for societies.
Did you read the article? The study had nothing to do with that. The idea, previously postulated, was that a moralizing high god was good for society. This study was about finding out if the moralizing and high parts were important, not if the god part was important.
Apparently your raging hard-on of muslims has drained the blood from your brain, making you illiterate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 09 2015, @05:30AM
They all succumbed to apathy and nihilism and did not survive.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by looorg on Friday March 06 2015, @07:05PM
"god are at the extreme end of the spectrum", the KGB/STASI/whatever eastern-bloc security-agency are just behind "god" on the big-brother-scale, always watching and punishing transgressions. You just need the belief of someone watching willing to resolve transgressions with violence and not an actual God to reach similar effects.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by bob_super on Friday March 06 2015, @07:20PM
Yup. The vast majority of humans are just selfish animals who only cooperate well if the internal/external threat is bigger than their self-interest (or pulsions). We'll just do the weirdest things that go through our heads, if we believe that we'll get away with it, but only need a small chance of getting negatively affected (by the family/group/gods/karma/TLAs) to keep most of us in line.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Friday March 06 2015, @08:58PM
No, life is not so simple. Total selfishness is not the advantage it might seem to be. Economics has this "homo economicus" model of how people should behave in a marketplace. It is not accurate, yet many people believe in it.
Many animals, including us, have an altruistic streak because it is ultimately to our advantage. To the perpetual astonishment of the religious moralists, the sort of people who see sin everywhere and think everyone is a sinner and shove Bibles or Korans or whatever holy book into others faces while preaching moral behavior, many people need neither the threat of a deity watching over our every act and judging us, nor instruction into what moral behavior is, to behave morally. Christians didn't invent the Golden Rule, it was already known long before it was ever written down in the Bible. Animals know it too. While the wild is full of predation and competition, there are also many examples of cooperative, unselfish behavior in the animal kingdom.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by edIII on Friday March 06 2015, @10:17PM
It almost seems, almost, that you are saying some truths could be universal?
There is a lot of unselfish behavior in the animal kingdom, until the threat of scarcity exists. I just learned that deer, of all creatures, have been caught eating small birds caught in nets to supplement their diets. Either that, or we have so much anthropomorphism with deer, that we never realized they are opportunistic omnivores. It's probably not such a good idea to comparing human beings to animals, or at least to most animals out there. Animals operate mostly on instinct and base desires, and simply lack the sophisticated self-referencing awareness that might allow them to feel badly about their interactions with other animals.
You mention economies and a thought I have had lately is that we all have economies inside our heads. Some people on seem to think with fear and only participate with others when they are absolutely certain they will receive equal expenditures of energy back, or even a demand for ROI. Compounded with the threat of time and death that limits the total number of interactions we could possibly have, and it's fairly reasonable that people are hesitant to do much of anything. There is simply so much fear involved on a daily basis; fear of death, fear of loneliness, fear of starvation, fear of loss, fear....
It takes calm rational thought to conclude that altruism might work better in these "economies" that people have. It takes no thought at all though, to simply act out of kindness, mirth, joy, laughter, compassion, mercy, etc. Perhaps, life is simple after all....
Some people are assholes who simply refuse to see anything beyond their base desires and own egos. A self-referencing awareness is essentially wasted on their kind, as they don't act much more than animals, and are perhaps somewhat worse. You might expect such behavior from a solitary predator, but a pack animal like a dog can exhibit great loyalty as part of a pack. We don't get upset about either with respect to their actions, since they are animals. We do get upset at the assholes, since the Universe, God, The Noodly One, blessed them with an amazing organ capable of understanding why they are an asshole and how they might stop being such an asshole. These people operate entirely on an economy of fear, or in essence, their ego runs the show. That creates a pretty broad spectrum of asshole with many categories, all of it pretty much operating according to the article. An asshole must be convinced that his assholery would be limited in the future, if commits a specific series of assholish acts in the short term. It's all about consequences and the loss of pleasure, and a religion is just really useful to create such broad consequences and not-so-fun underworld theme parks to keep these Winning people from sodomizing their fellow man with every breath. Oblivion isn't always effective either, it *must* be endless amounts of time spent in hell.
OTOH, you have people that are just decent normal people. Using that amazing organ, the truth is that it actually doesn't take all that much to conclude how altruism can be beneficial. Likewise, such people are quick to sacrifice the small things, the small pleasures, to aid another person and possibly provide them comfort. How easy is it to break apart that loaf of bread to share with someone over a meal? Most of us simply don't need that much fear in our lives to live happy by helping everybody live happy. Lo and behold, religion is on equal terms with science in this regard. Whether it's empirical reasoning showing us how altruism operates in societal models, or the spiritual knowledge of endless love and acceptance, it's rather easy and obvious to be a decent person. You just get more out of life.
Religion is not itself a causal factor for good and decent behavior, only a limiter on people that are emotionally immature. This study concluded the wrong thing, for the wrong reasons, about a rather simple observation:
Some people are just bastards, and only the threat of the devil sodomizing them for all eternity can get them to stop.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 06 2015, @10:41PM
No, life is not so simple. Total selfishness is not the advantage it might seem to be.
I don't see anyone in this thread so far claiming otherwise, but I haven't checked all the nooks and crannies. Instead what I see are people here and there claiming that people frequently defect from the morals of society when they think they can get away with that and depends to some degree on how much guilt they feel about screwing over other people in the process.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday March 06 2015, @09:21PM
This is what the culture of the society you leave in teach you?
Tell that to lotsa people writing open source. Hell, tell that to the SN dev/admin team.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @09:50PM
He's right, but only for a really, really broad definition of "self-interest."
Society wouldn't exist if it weren't for the innate human motivation to share and cooperate, putting the group ahead of the individual. Hardcore individualists never want to acknowledge that, despite owing their entire existence to the collective action of millions of other people. The greater the amount of social trust, the more a civilization thrives. [forbes.com] It is even self-reinforcing, the most a successful a society, the more the people are inclined to trust one another (and the institutions of the society too).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 08 2015, @05:23AM
Even they have goals that they want to achieve. There is nothing you can do that is not selfish, because in the end you're just doing things because they satisfy your desires.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday March 08 2015, @11:42AM
True-true, Old Georgie, you tryin' to say there no difference between the "selfishness" of open source authors and the "the weak are meat, the strong do eat" type?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Friday March 06 2015, @07:37PM
So that's why middle-eastern Islamic societies lead the world economically, culturally, and technologically!
Well it sort of assumes that the thing god is watching for is people being "nicer to each other". That might be true in some western societies.
Islamic ideologies do not have that as their central "Good".
For them, the preservation and extension of Islam is the central "good", and means and methods have no real consequences in their eyes. Its astounding the things that can be justified these days in the name of Islam, or the things that were justified in the name of Catholicism during the inquisition (although mass murder was not among them).
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @08:26PM
In Islam, those who you have wronged in your life will have a say in your ultimate judgement.
Intentions also matter. If you spent your entire life extending Islam but did so for your own glory then you will still be judged harshly.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 07 2015, @07:24AM
"In Islam, MUSLIMS who you have wronged in your life will have a say in your ultimate judgement."
Fixed it for you...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 07 2015, @09:47PM
I'm assuming he meant that non-Muslims don't count as people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @08:41PM
> For them, the preservation and extension of Islam is the central "good", and means and methods have no real consequences in their eyes.
Jesus h christ! The fact that, like christianity, islam is a conversionary religion does not mean that the means justifies the ends. There is plenty of quranic scripture that says otherwise. The most famous, maybe even the most famous of all verses in the quran, is "There is no compulsion in religion." [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Fauxlosopher on Friday March 06 2015, @10:34PM
... and the verse you reference is abrogated [quran.com] and replaced [quran.com] with later Koranic commands, such as the one found at 8:39 [quran.com]: And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world].
This is an illustration of the "two Korans [newenglishreview.org]", the account of the early peaceful failure of Islam, and the second which details the later wildly successful warlike Islam.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @11:02PM
> Abrogation in Islam
Here's a real good rule of thumb: Anyone who brings up "abrogation" doesn't have a clue what they are talking about, just blindly reciting agitprop from internet bigots.
For example, didn't you notice that the verse you cited beings with "And?"
Of course not, all you did was cut-n-paste from someone using half-truths to rationalize bigotry. The "explanations" in parenthesis really give it away, since those explanations were written by a christian apologetic, not someone even pretending to be impartial.
So lets have a look at the verse before it:
Kind of puts a whole new spin on it, doesn't it?
Verse 8:39 is in the context of those non-Muslims who were hostile to the Muslims back then. With the advent of Islam and the Muslim empire many non-Muslim tribes and kingdoms around it began attacking and waging war against it. All seemingly "violent" verses refer to those who were at war with Muslims/Islam. Anyone who interprets them outside of that context is pushing an agenda.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Fauxlosopher on Friday March 06 2015, @11:19PM
Considering that I referred to one of Islam's "source code" books to describe the concept of abrogation within Islam, I'll give the rest of your taqiyya-like reply all the consideration it deserves.
Those who wish to understand Islam, much like any other concept, would do well to examine the concept's source code for themselves. Historical timelines in conjunction with the source code, if available, can be even more enlightening. One such combined reference (sadly diminished from hosting full HTML, audiobook, and PDF versions) is Prophet of Doom [prophetofdoom.net], still available unabridged in PDF format.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 07 2015, @12:27AM
> taqiyya
Lol. And that's the other word that bigots use to self-identify. What's really funny is that all the bigots (think they) know what taqiyya is, but no actual muslims have even heard the word. It is an obscure principle that says if someone is going to kill you unless you convert to their religion, its OK to lie and tell them you converted. Like the way some jews in spain avoided the inquisition by pretending to be catholics.
Silly people like you turn that into witch-hunt logic where denying that you are nutjob is proof that you are a nutjob, because that's exactly what a nutjob would say!
> would do well to examine the concept's source code for themselves
Religion is not software. The idea that any religion is a program that is literally interpreted is so reductive as to be laughable. If your literalist approach to religion was accurate then anyone who didn't believe the earth was created in 6 days could never be a good christian.
Stick to programming computers man, human culture is clearly beyond your grasp.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday March 08 2015, @10:10AM
Oh, I did say one more word, and he repeated the threat, with a very serious look on his face. I didn't finish the sentence, I believe he was not making an idle threat. It had been quite an interesting and productive discussion up until that point.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by http on Friday March 06 2015, @09:17PM
If you think a Muslim's central concern is preserving and/or extending Islam, you don't have a clue. Here's a hint: the call to prayers (easily overlooked as mere ritual) contains it.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @11:06PM
> Here's a hint: the call to prayers (easily overlooked as mere ritual) contains it.
You should be more clear because that really isn't very informative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adhan [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday March 07 2015, @01:58PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by pnkwarhall on Saturday March 07 2015, @02:57PM
I agree. "Bearing witness" is an essentially evangelical action.
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 2) by pnkwarhall on Saturday March 07 2015, @10:59PM
My favorite part of the morning call to prayer is the "Prayer is better than sleep" line. Amen to that--but the inclusion of that sentiment attests to the battle that is waged daily between the animal and divine sides of humanity.
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 08 2015, @06:39AM
The shia one that makes a call out to Ali cracked me up.
Given that the schism between Sunni and Shia started with a political disagreement about who got to be "pope" after moe died, to put it in the actual prayer seems like petty propaganda writ large. Kind of like if the eastern orthodox church were to talk shit about rome in their version of the lord's prayer.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dyingtolive on Friday March 06 2015, @08:20PM
Maybe the headline was supposed to be "To Foster Societies With A Complex, Tell People a God is Watching"?
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Friday March 06 2015, @08:24PM
They sure as hell did in 1400.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Friday March 06 2015, @09:50PM
Actually, it was more like 800-1100 CE, until Hamid al-Ghazali showed up and ruined it all. Meanwhile, in Europe, the Christians were busy killing each other and trying to survive the Black Death, and the Western world's largest library had about 300 books.
However, there is at least one country in the Middle East where scientific research is highly prized, and Jewish, Christian, and Muslim citizens live in relative harmony: Iran.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday March 06 2015, @10:08PM
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize the fall was that early. Almost as ignorant as the ignorance I'm trying to correct.
At any rate, "the best/most developed current civilization" or whatever is a pretty subjective title that's jumped around the world, from Indus Valley,to Egypt, to China, to India, to Babylon, to Greece, back to China, Rome maybe(China was a beast through the whole Iron age though), back to the Middle East, different countries in Europe, currently North America, maybe China in the future, and every time, it's been the case that people in the dominant civilization justified it by saying "we were always the best and have unique traits that make our people the best"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @10:43PM
I don't think "developed" is a subjective measurement, but "best" certainly is. In this context of discussing complex societies, level of development should be used. Evidence flies in the face of this thesis that religious morality leads to complex i.e. developed cultures. To take an instance, the western world today is the most developed and certainly is the most complex with diverse peoples, cultures, laws, technology, etc. A unified belief in god did not make this happen, a unified tolerance of belief, in part, did.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 08 2015, @05:28AM
Define "developed" in a completely objective, scientific measure. If you try, I'm sure lots of people might agree with your definition, but that does not make it objective.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @10:12PM
> there is at least one country in the Middle East where scientific research is highly prized, and
> Jewish, Christian, and Muslim citizens live in relative harmony: Iran.
I was watching PBS last night, kind of in the background as it is pledge week. They were 'selling' a DVD set of some sort of history of the jews. And one thing that totally blew me away was their description of how the creation of the state of israel royally fucked things up for all the jews who were living in all the other parts of the middle-east. The jews they interviewed said that literally overnight they went from being stable valued members of society to personas non grata. One woman told the story of how her family fled Egypt to go to Iran - not Israel, Iran.
In the long run many of them ended up coming to the US. But the bigger picture of Israel's creation as a safe haven for jews having the unintended consequence of fracturing middle-eastern society making it less safe for jews everywhere else was revelatory. It was a near textbook example of how reflexive thinking exacerbates problems instead of corrects them. Like invading Iraq to stop the terrorists and make the world safer for the US ended up creating Daesh and providing lots more motive and opportunity for terrorists to hone their skills. "Be the world you want to see" in all the worst ways.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday March 08 2015, @11:07AM
Not a few decades back. Did the ayatollah, the spokesperson for god, himself not write:
"""
In Teheran itself, propaganda centers for
Christianity, Zionism, and Bahaism, have been set up for the sole purpose of
luring the faithful away from the commandments of Islam. Is it not our duty to
destroy all these hotbeds of danger to Islam?
"""
I'm curious - are you prepared to extend your list above to include Bahai citizens? Careful how you answer, both barrels are loaded and one is pointing at each of your feet.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Sunday March 08 2015, @02:01PM
My list very specifically did not include Ba'hai. I'm not trying to suggest that Iran is as open and tolerant religiously as, say, Germany, but it is considerably more tolerant of religious minorities than many governments in the area.
One reason Jews and Christians have a much easier time than Ba'hai in Iran is that Mohammed's teachings specifically give them a special status, usually called "People of the Book". People in those categories are understood in Muslim society to be worshiping the same god in a different way, and the rule in the early Muslim conquest was that they had to pay an extra tax but were otherwise supposed to be left alone. For another example of this in action, Jews were generally safer in Muslim Spain than in Catholic Spain.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday March 08 2015, @07:49PM
And yet you wrote a sentence that can only be interpreted as extolling the religious tolerance of Iran?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Friday March 06 2015, @08:50PM
The idea is so ridiculous, that you didn't read TFA?
The study tends to support the hypothesis. Oh - an atheistic GOVERNMENT? Doesn't matter one whit that the USSR professed atheism - it's the people, the culture, being governed that matters. If the PEOPLE believe in a "big god" then the PEOPLE are going to act appropriately.
"Full-blown moralizing high gods were rare in Austronesia; out of the 96 cultures studied, Watts’s team identified only six with big gods, and the family trees suggested that these beliefs were more likely to arise after societies became politically complex—contradicting the idea that moralizing high gods are necessary for that kind of social development, Watts says. Belief in some kind of supernatural punishment—perhaps by ancestor spirits or nature deities—was more widespread. Thirty-seven cultures believed that deities could punish selfish behavior, such as forgoing a sacrifice or disobeying a taboo, the team reports online today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Even though these punishing deities’ concerns were not necessarily moral, the statistics suggested that belief in them was more likely to predate political complexity in a culture, suggesting that it is threat of supernatural punishment—not necessarily faith in moralizing gods—that helps societies grow larger."
Seems a reasonable idea. Whether it be true or not, I haven't a clue. But, the idea is reasonable.
(Score: 2) by moondrake on Friday March 06 2015, @10:07PM
Seems you have been modded up for cheap entertainment. But in all seriousness, you miss the point. Nobody claimed that you need religion to be successful, or that an atheist state cannot be "economically, culturally and technologically" superior. What is claimed however is that religion helps complex societies develop, this is rather to refute (though this is not necessarily a good thing in science).
Besides, somewhat ironically, Islamic societies where the peak of civilization 1000 years ago. USSR and China China did and do have all kinds of problems, some of them are related to forcing atheism on a population (and you could even claim party ideology takes the place of church. I bet you never had to sit through a CP meeting....I do not know about the USSR, but in China they even make you *sign* their 10 commandments).
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Friday March 06 2015, @10:40PM
I bet you never had to sit through a CP meeting.
Child porn? o_O
(Score: 2) by gallondr00nk on Saturday March 07 2015, @12:05AM
Islamic societies did lead the world, for a time. Granted, that was hundreds of years ago.
TFA strikes me as little better than the "noble lies" Straussians thought were so necessary to functional government. The idea of an elite fostering certain myths in order to create civilisation is exactly the sort of nonsense we should be trying to evolve beyond - don't forget that most of humanity has had the spectre of an evil, judgmental (or simply omnipresent) god hanging over it for millenia.
Yes, we formed a complex civilisation. But we also formed disgusting wars, witch burnings, inquisitions, intense sexual and psychological repression, vast inequalities, vile gender discrimination, caste systems, slavery etc. I'm not laying the foundation of all of these ills squarely at the door of religion, but it was the prominent ideological framework at the time, and seemingly had no capacity to solve these problems.
We have had Gods watching for almost as long as we've had patriarchal civilisation itself - it's only very recently that the veil has fallen at all. I'd like to see what we can create *without* these beliefs.
I'm not sure if TFA appreciates the scale of the tremendous oppression it advocates.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday March 07 2015, @03:17AM
TFA strikes me as little better than the "noble lies" Straussians thought were so necessary to functional government.
I completely agree.
don't forget that most of humanity has had the spectre of an evil, judgmental (or simply omnipresent) god hanging over it for millenia.
Exactly. Look at how religious people were during the Dark Ages (pre-Enlightenment). What kind of civilization did they build during that 1000 years? That was a wasted millenium. The Romans did far better with their half-assed worship of their various gods: they had aqueducts, plumbing, real cities, even IP law (they invented trademarks). After their empire fell, Europe sat on its ass for 1000 years while the Catholic Church ran things poorly, and feudal lords warred with each other. It wasn't until the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason when things really turned around and Europeans built great societies again, and of course this is when they turned their back on religion to a fair degree and became much more rational.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Fauxlosopher on Saturday March 07 2015, @12:48PM
I don't claim to know with certainty what was the cause of the continuing Dark Ages. However, a seemingly insightful fellow by the name of Bill Warner has presented information that suggests the cause of the Dark Ages was largely economic as a result of the collapse of the freedom of the sea [youtube.com]. The primary vehicle of commerce was the Mediterranean Sea, and successful new warfare targetted ships. A few days' journey by sea then required substitution with a more secure, but hideously-lengthy and expensive land trip.
(The youtube link is queued to the topical segment in the video, though in my biased opinion watching the entire 45 minutes of "Why We are Afraid, a 1400 Year Secret" is time well spent regardless of the viewer's current viewpoint.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 08 2015, @06:53AM
> watching the entire 45 minutes of "Why We are Afraid, a 1400 Year Secret" is time well spent regardless of the viewer's current viewpoint.
Great yet another guy with a technical degree who thinks he's an expert on religion.
Using "statistical methods" to analyse the meaning of religious texts. What a total knob.
http://www.politicalislam.com/author/ [politicalislam.com]
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Sunday March 08 2015, @11:21AM
You see no value in the fact that more than half of the Qur'an and the Hadiths contains directives not about how Muslims should conduct themselves, but rather about how to deal with non-Muslims? Is there no value in the historical facts that warlike jihad lasted 1400 years and is ongoing to this very day? No value to be seen that the primary targets of warlike Islam are economic in nature (rather than the "traditional" targets of the other guy's army, cities, etc.)? Even so, while you may scoff and say there is no value in a methodical examination of Islam using its own holy books combined with documented historical events, others may appreciate careful analysis of verifiable facts over wading into the tall weeds of debating contradictory imams.
Others may choose to examine the presented information for themselves rather than flippantly attacking the messenger.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 08 2015, @05:34AM
even IP law (they invented trademarks).
"intellectual property" is a propaganda term designed to confuse.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 07 2015, @12:23AM
This is about "primitive" peoples.
(Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Saturday March 07 2015, @07:39PM
The idea is also ridiculous because the Roman empire had an "all you can worship" model without imposing a peeper super punisher, and was a pretty complex society which lasted a bit.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday March 07 2015, @08:09PM
The idea is also ridiculous because the Roman empire had an "all you can worship" model without imposing a peeper super punisher, and was a pretty complex society which lasted a bit.
Roman society lasted for 1000 years (and that doesn't include the eastern half of the Roman Empire that continued for another 1000 years after the western part collapsed), and their religion was basically making offerings to various pagan gods to ask for their favor and assistance. Rome finally fell not that long after they eliminated the pagan gods and adopted Christianity. Hmm...
From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
"The College of the Vestals was disbanded and the sacred fire extinguished in 394, by order of the Christian emperor Theodosius I. Zosimus records how the Christian noblewoman Serena, niece of Theodosius, entered the temple and took from the statue of the goddess a necklace and placed it on her own neck. An old woman appeared, the last of the Vestals, who proceeded to rebuke Serena and called down upon her all just punishment for her act of impiety. According to Zosimus, Serena was then subject to dreadful dreams predicting her own untimely death. Augustine would be inspired to write The City of God in response to murmurings that the capture of Rome and the disintegration of its empire was due to the advent of the Christian era and its intolerance of the old gods who had defended the city for over a thousand years."
Now, how long did it take before Christian-based European society was able to build buildings and public works anything like what the Romans were building 2000 years ago? Maybe having a god looking over you all the time for sinfulness really doesn't produce great societies after all... Also, look at the USA. Sure, it was mostly populated by Christians (and still is), but the guys who led the revolution and founded the government were a bunch of Deists. Europe has good societies now and is very peaceful, and this coincides with them being more irreligious than ever, though all the Muslims are starting to threaten that.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @06:51PM
"Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government."
-- George Washington, Presidential Farewell Address 1796
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @06:59PM
All Praise to the State
(Score: 4, Funny) by NotSanguine on Friday March 06 2015, @07:32PM
--Robert Heinlein
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 5, Interesting) by pnkwarhall on Friday March 06 2015, @08:02PM
I was wandering through the the halls of an elementary school recently, perusing walls covered with children's short writings on various subjects. I was struck by the amount of anti-war, pro-"be nice to each other" sentiment that was communicated by the kids. It seemed to come much more naturally to them, although I did see a few along the lines of "want to grow up and be rich", "want to serve in the army and protect the US", to cite a couple. But in general, the sheer amount of child-like **love** communicated was striking.
It that's the way we start out, why do we grow up and start shelling each other? Most major religions I'm aware of promote peace...
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @08:50PM
> It that's the way we start out, why do we grow up and start shelling each other?
Because as children, we have no concept of where our resources come from - everything comes from the parents. Rarely is there a conflict bigger than argument over which siblings gets the bigger piece of cake. That's not to say children can't be selfish, they certainly can. Its just that the scale is really small.
As we grow up we start to see that the world is more complex and selfishness can make you rich and get you laid. All wars are about resources, when there are religious overtones its just an over-simplification to keep the rank and file in line.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @08:51PM
Humans are mostly peace-loving and exceptionally cooperative. The only life forms that surpass us in cooperation are hive insects. We rarely use violence and that is why it sticks out in our minds. We focus on crime or war because of how much we dislike it, not because it is common. When was the last time someone tried to murder you? When was the last battle you had to fight in over food scraps or people invading your home? Those are incredibly rare events considering how many of us there are.
Even here where all of us are anonymous or very close to it we are generally nice to each other, get along, and communicate for the good of other people. I have nothing to gain personally by posting here. My actions are solely for the benefit of others. In this case hoping that people see humanity's massive majority of peace-loving, cooperative behavior.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday March 07 2015, @12:38AM
Everything you say is true, and it still needs to be seen in context. One violent individual armed with modern weapons can do more damage than 100,000 well intentioned individuals will remedy. This would be true even if most of their attention wasn't on their own lives.
So as well as being the most peaceful species, we are simultaneously the most violent.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday March 06 2015, @09:31PM
While Christianity may promote "turn the other cheek", it's leader promotes "hit the other cheek". Not because you've just taped a 5 year old (that's acceltable behaviour), but because you insulted his mother.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 07 2015, @06:02AM
we learn greed.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday March 06 2015, @08:56PM
As it says in the Bible, God fights on the side with the heaviest artillery. or, the ballsiest sappers.
--Robert Heinlein
Heinlein was a pretty smart guy, but I disagree with a few of his ideas. Some of the heaviest artillery in the world, supported by air and sea power, along with a hellacious armored, airborne, and marine ground force had it's nose bloodied in Vietnam. Afghanistan doesn't make a very good advertisement for the artillery, either.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Friday March 06 2015, @09:35PM
As it says in the Bible, God fights on the side with the heaviest artillery. or, the ballsiest sappers.
--Robert Heinlein
Heinlein was a pretty smart guy, but I disagree with a few of his ideas. Some of the heaviest artillery in the world, supported by air and sea power, along with a hellacious armored, airborne, and marine ground force had it's nose bloodied in Vietnam. Afghanistan doesn't make a very good advertisement for the artillery, either.
You do realize that Heinlein offered that up as a joke, right? It was a humorous repudiation of the idea that "deities" have any impact on the real world. I offered it in that vein as well.
Perhaps a tune up of your sense of humor is in order? Or at least a recognition that sometimes humor isn't explicitly branded as such?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @11:16PM
An internet geek who is excessively literal?
Who would have guessed such a person existed?
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday March 07 2015, @12:42AM
Sorry, that wasn't exactly a joke. It was a paraphrase of Napoleon who said "God fights on the side of the biggest battalions". It's also true, though only statistically, and there are certainly other effects. (E.g., in Vietnam much of the nation and most of the soldiers didn't want to be there, and never understood what purpose the war had, if any. I certainly never did.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Saturday March 07 2015, @03:09AM
Sorry, that wasn't exactly a joke. It was a paraphrase of Napoleon who said "God fights on the side of the biggest battalions". It's also true, though only statistically, and there are certainly other effects. (E.g., in Vietnam much of the nation and most of the soldiers didn't want to be there, and never understood what purpose the war had, if any. I certainly never did.)
Actually, in the context I (and Heinlein) presented it, it is a joke.
The statement can't be true, statistically or otherwise, since "god" does not exist.
Whether or not a particular civilian population or soldiers in service to their associated political entity are especially jazzed about what's going on isn't relevant to the quote or the context in which it was offered.
If you have no sense of humor and/or have delusions about some omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent "sky daddy" then that's likely a problem for you. As for me, I don't suffer from either of those maladies.
Even so, I find your ideas interesting and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday March 07 2015, @08:26PM
Huhhh... I think we're arguing about the meaning of the word "joke". I agree that it's not a true statement, and no god exists in the external world. And it's still just a symbolic way of speaking about probability, not a joke.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by pnkwarhall on Friday March 06 2015, @07:55PM
The Kingdom of God is Inside You, by Leo Tolstoy, has a related perspective on this... suggested read.
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 2) by The Archon V2.0 on Friday March 06 2015, @07:59PM
"The individual desires judgement. Without that desire, the cohesion of groups is impossible, and so is civilization."
and
"God was a dream of good government."
— Morpheus, Deus Ex
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Wootery on Friday March 06 2015, @08:13PM
Morpheus was an excellent 'hidden extra'. I'm fond of these two:
The need to be observed and understood was once satisfied by God. Now we can implement same functionality with data-mining algorithms.
You will soon have your God, and you will make it with your own hands.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @09:31PM
What is the point of quoting video games? I see it a lot on geek websites and it just seems silly it not outright masturbatory.
It isn't like the team of people who created a game have a reputation for expertise on any topic other than a fun game.
It's kind of like asking a football quarterback for a philosophical quote. It gives you insight into who the QB is, but not really all that much into areas of life outside football.
(Score: 2) by The Archon V2.0 on Friday March 06 2015, @09:58PM
> It isn't like the team of people who created a game have a reputation for expertise on any topic other than a fun game.
(Shrug.) It isn't like the writer who created a book has a reputation for expertise on any topic other than a good book.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @10:21PM
Some random work of fiction I would totally agree with you on.
Stephen King, John Irving, etc. Not really quote worthy. Entertaining yes, maybe even emotionally informative. But unless they are talking about how to move an audience, they aren't likely to have anything particularly well thought out.
On the other hand a philosophical text, or speech from someone who has made a career of the topic itself, totally. Bishop Desmond Tutu has something to say about justice and society, chances are his insight is good.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by dyingtolive on Friday March 06 2015, @10:32PM
That raises an interesting question: Can video games be philosophically significant?
I mean, the sole purpose is almost universally accepted as being "to entertain", however, there are plenty of books that are philosophically significant and also do a good job of providing entertainment. Less so, TV does it via documentaries and the like. Why is it also not possible in a newer medium?
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @11:13PM
It is possible. Its just that some random video game is unlikely to. If the "script" is written by someone equivalent to Desmond Tutu then I think there is a really good chance of it being significantly more than entertainment. But joe random video game developer, or worse some anonymous corporate committee? Chances are slim. Regardless of medium, the author needs to have significant experience with the philosophy, not just whatever medium he's working in.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday March 07 2015, @12:47AM
That raises an interesting question: Can video games be philosophically significant?
Chess is a good example. When computer players started beating human players, it challenged what we understood intelligence to mean. And as for MMOs (Massive Mulitplayer Online), I think Eve Online is the starkest example of the "hypercapitalist" economy (set in a outer space future) which is a notorious weak spot for philosophical discussion. For example, I could predict the BitCoin fraud just by looking at what hijinks Eve players had pulled over the years on gullible masses of players. Yet despite this vicious, treacherous environment, people have found a way to cooperate on a grand, game-changing scale.
Another interesting aspect is the creation of social roles and activities in online MMOs, such as tank, healer, DPS, buffer/debuffer, etc for conflict oriented game playing. One can see evidence of such roles in the comic books and table-top RPGs (Role Playing Games), but it has achieved a very formalized structure in many games these days. Play activity also has achieved considerable predictability such as quests/missions, respawning upon death, small group pvp, NPC/PC distinction with dialogue box interaction with the NPCs, and weird player activities (spamming dumb messages, ganking, trade, etc). These are intriguing examples of emergent behavior.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Saturday March 07 2015, @08:07PM
Can films be philosophically significant? There's your answer.
It rather depends what we mean by 'philosophically significant', of course. Can games be 'philosophically significant' in the sense that Nineteen Eighty-Four is? Yes. In the sense of a philosophical treatise? Probably not.
It doesn't do to dismiss out of hand any medium of expression. We don't normally think of video-games/tattoos/graffiti/comics as being intellectual, but it's not an impossibility for them to be thought-provoking.
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Saturday March 07 2015, @11:47PM
That's an interesting question. I'm struggling to think of any that would be on par with, I don't know, The Prince or something. Of course, I can't really think of any books written since the advent of "moving pictures" that really had the significance of a treatise. Closest thing I can think of is Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, and that's definitely closer to the Nineteen Eighty-Four side of things. Maybe Steal This Book? I think that's just me being too generous though.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday March 12 2015, @03:44PM
Really depends what we mean. By 'treatise' I really meant more significant academic works. [wikipedia.org], but your points are well-taken.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Saturday March 07 2015, @01:43AM
On the other hand a philosophical text
See, I take your argument all the way to the end. Even if the guy is a philosopher (however one decides who is and isn't one of those), why does he suddenly "know what he's talking about"? He's just some guy telling us what we should believe. (But from my signature you might have gleaned I'm a Discordian so perhaps the wrong (or perhaps the right?) person to be having this argument with.)
And before you say, "he got a doctorate in philosophy," basically that means "he's a random guy who got his 'right to speak' by listening to other random guys." Oh look, it's recursive.
A philosophical book, or a philosophical movie, or a philosophical game, or a philosophical...visual novel--I don't see the difference.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Saturday March 07 2015, @01:47AM
Who is the one more trustworthy than all the Buddhas and sages? [wikipedia.org]
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday March 07 2015, @02:23AM
Even if the guy is a philosopher (however one decides who is and isn't one of those), why does he suddenly "know what he's talking about"? He's just some guy telling us what we should believe. (But from my signature you might have gleaned I'm a Discordian so perhaps the wrong (or perhaps the right?) person to be having this argument with.)
And before you say, "he got a doctorate in philosophy," basically that means "he's a random guy who got his 'right to speak' by listening to other random guys." Oh look, it's recursive.
A philosophical book, or a philosophical movie, or a philosophical game, or a philosophical...visual novel--I don't see the difference.
I understand your scepticism, It is healthy, keep it up! But as to philosophers, they are selected by the Philosopher's Union, established in Croton, circa 550 B.C. Membership is by invitation only, since the organization is secret. Philosophers do not "suddenly know what they are talking about", it takes years of apprenticeship in critical thinking and argumentation. And philosophers do not tell you what to believe, they try to help you think for yourself so you do not fall prey to erroneous beliefs. Of course, if you are unable to think for yourself, they may suggest you believe in a god, just to make things better for the rest of us.
Doctorates are not the same thing. Some Union Philosophers have academic degrees, not all. But even there, get this: the thinkers they listen to are not random! And yes, there is an objective reason for this. "Philosophical" game, see, this does not really make sense. If it is philosophy, it is not a game. If it is a game, even if the game author has thrown in some profound sayings, like "I took an arrow to the knee", it is still entertainment, not serious, not remotely philosophy. Don't expect an invite from the Philosopher's Union until you can see the difference.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday March 10 2015, @12:38AM
Do you believe that?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday March 10 2015, @04:42AM
Believe what? Everything I have told you is absolutely true. I may have violated confidentiality in doing so, but you seemed like the kind of person who needed to know, and if you handle yourself properly, we may be in touch. Otherwise, just keep thinking that all opinions are somehow equal just by being opinions. That is not a bad thesis to start with. But it does mean that my opinion that your opinion is crap is just as valid as your opinion. (And yes, I know you can take the infinite regress from their, which is why I have such hope for you!) Carry on!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 08 2015, @05:42AM
Is the statement true or is it not? Focus on the content, not the source.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @08:42PM
the purpose of religion was to unite people and get them all working together toward a common goal instead of what is happening today - degeneration, disintegration, and social strife.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @08:55PM
Who is morally superior:
one that does the right thing in expectation to be rewarded or punished based on their actions,
or
one who does the right thing merely because it is the right thing to do?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Friday March 06 2015, @09:50PM
Because that very one is very likely to show you the stick and carrot.
The fact that you don't need them to behave the right way is a bonus for them - they'll use you as an example, maybe have you sanctified or something.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @10:35PM
Why so authoritarian? Moral reasoning exists. [stanford.edu] Use it!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday March 07 2015, @09:51PM
Is that authoritarianism if/when every individual defines what's right by her/himself?
You know, the right to auto-determination, or free will or whatever it is called these days?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by cmdrklarg on Friday March 06 2015, @09:29PM
I question the morality of anyone who only behaves because of the threat of eternal torture.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @09:44PM
I once knew a Baptist who said the only reason he wasn't cheating on his wife, betraying his friends, and killing people who pissed him off was the threat of eternal damnation with extra brimstone and cowbell. I said, "I hope, for the sake of the rest of us, that you do not lose your faith!"
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 06 2015, @09:55PM
> I question the morality of anyone who only behaves because of the threat of eternal torture.
Does it matter? I mean if the end result is the same, who really cares how we got there. I'm not saying I would want them as part of my family. But if that's what it takes to keep them as a relatively productive member of society, then why not?
You might argue that you can't trust such a person, that they would always be looking for loopholes in their theology to justify something selfish on their part. But nobody is perfect, and nor is any particular philosophy, no matter how deeply considered, flawless. Especially in the face of real-world complexity versus textbook scenarios.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 07 2015, @06:28AM
That is exactly the same reasoning that justifies terrorism, killing of innocents, torture, and genocide. The ends justify the means.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 08 2015, @05:46AM
The same reasoning also justifies mass surveillance, molesting people at airports, DUI checkpoints, stop-and-frisk, and other nasty things that violate people's fundamental liberties.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 07 2015, @12:59AM
But they are not.
And they play God and watch others.
That's the part that needs to change in our society before it can foster a beautiful society instead of an unnecessarily complex one.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by danuk on Saturday March 07 2015, @07:43AM
Buddhism works on the premise that to reach enlightenment you need wise/clean/pure thoughts which arise from being good (to animals and each other). Enlightment is a "this world" reward and the Buddha never claimed to be anything other than human or even hinted at the existance of a deity.