Ancient religions had not evolved to be unfalsifiable like modern ones have. The Aztecs believed that they could get something by earning favor - and since they weren't actually getting anything, they were factually wrong in a way no modern religion can manage.
Is it true the Aztecs didn't get anything, though? A religion sacrificing people is a show of power likely to keep any common citizens rebelling against the priesthood. In modern times we have police kneeling on the necks of people until they die from lack of air. Both are just a means to kill powerless people to keep the powerful people in power. Our modern rulers put non-religious names on things, like "The War on Drugs", but it's the same thing.
I in general agree with most of your points in this thread and disagree with the claim that you've been disrespectful (to GP and to the Aztecs :)), but I do think there's an interesting and important space between your idea re. Aztec rituals and those who'd say your view is "disrespectful".
It's plausible, in my opinion, that evaluating the Aztecs' ritual sacrifice practice in terms of the modern scientific POV leads to a categorically incorrect analysis. I.e. the questions--whether the Aztec gods exist, whether unfalsifiable claims "make sense" or can be operative, etc--might not be relevant or interesting.
I.e. the function describing the relationship between how closely our actions align with true facts as we understand them intellectually and broad outcomes in quality of life (defined however you want) is almost certainly not monotonic.
I guess in short all I'm saying is that our conscious, intellectual understanding of the world is not the only useful motivator. And I don't mean this in some sort of supernatural, metaphysical, spiritual way: I mean that objectively rational behavior sometimes results from subjectively irrational behavior.
whatshisface|5 years ago
lnanek2|5 years ago
idolaspecus|5 years ago
It's plausible, in my opinion, that evaluating the Aztecs' ritual sacrifice practice in terms of the modern scientific POV leads to a categorically incorrect analysis. I.e. the questions--whether the Aztec gods exist, whether unfalsifiable claims "make sense" or can be operative, etc--might not be relevant or interesting.
I.e. the function describing the relationship between how closely our actions align with true facts as we understand them intellectually and broad outcomes in quality of life (defined however you want) is almost certainly not monotonic.
I guess in short all I'm saying is that our conscious, intellectual understanding of the world is not the only useful motivator. And I don't mean this in some sort of supernatural, metaphysical, spiritual way: I mean that objectively rational behavior sometimes results from subjectively irrational behavior.