How much further scientific and technological would we be if

>>8981756
Well since religion is the only reason most of the information in the European "dark ages" were kept around and were the incentive behind the formation of record keeping for many societies probably good bit behind where we are now.

Drugs and intoxicants are the same thing, there is a theory with some pretty strong backing that the only reason agriculture developed was to make alcohol reliably.

The real question is how much further would we be if brainlets weren't a thing?

Religion doesn't necessarily mean we would advance as a species towards a scientifically positive direction. People will occupy their time in any activity that they want to do, regardless of piety.

Intoxication is unavoidable. You can achieve an affect from medicine which is furthered by science. Your questions would better be converged into a single question, "what would the world be like without ignorance and immediate gratification"

The retards will find another way to hold us back, not much more needs said. The ignorant will ignore and find ignorant things to partake in regardless of what's available. It really all goes as >>8981786 said.

Not to mention, humans are not rational creatures by default. I know how much people will push that religion is not needed to uphold morality, but that's only for the rational person. An irrational person still needs some kind of imaginary threat and imaginary chance at redemption, and by default we are all irrational.

science is hard man, people don't like to do hard shit
I think it'd be the same, people would just replace those things with other things

>>8981756
Not to stick up for religion but for much of human history the only place to learn how to read and write were from religious institutions, and that's were the scientific breakthroughs came from.

The ones who bear the greater responsibility for the mass ignorance of human civilization are the elite members of society who own the majority of the resources.

>>8981796
This guy gets it.

Moreover religion was the fulcrum around which societies were formed into hierarchies with specialisation, from the original semi organised villages.

>>8982221
This, im atheist but you can't deny that religion is a very human trait, it is what it is.

>>8981756
Without religion, science would never have been pursued; the beginnings of science were intrinsically mystical.

And drugs have been the primary focus of biology. Without alcohol nobody would have invented biology to figure out why alcohol made you drunk. And without religion nobody would have made up the story that you were possessed by spirits when you drank spirits, which pissed off enough people who wanted a real answer and would invent biology as a result.

The fact that you made this thread is indicative of the fact that you're way too young and haven't the faintest idea what anything in the world is/was/will be. You're a narcissist fucking fedora who thinks the world would be better if people were more like you. And that's why you get no pussy.

>>8981756
>How much further scientific and technological would we be if religion and intoxicating drugs/drinks were never a thing?

science as we know it has a beginning and a specific place in the history of ideas that must have had the necessary preceding ideas for it to develop

>>8981756
>How much further scientific and technological would we be if religion and intoxicating drugs/drinks were never a thing?

it's not possible to answer that question...

Many scientific advancements were created by christians and drug users/drunks.

>>8982253
>Without alcohol nobody would have invented biology to figure out why alcohol made you drunk.

>There's literally no motivation to study biological processes other than drunkeness

>That last paragraph

My God, you're a retard