History Becomes Religion

Science vs. Religion Part III(a)

In this instalment I’d like to move backward in time and examine how I think it is that history influences the formation of religion. Once again I’ll use a biblical story we all know that has parallel stories in every culture around the globe.

Every culture not only has a creation story of some kind, but they also share a myth or legend that concerns a great flood. Everywhere from the ancient stories of Scandinavia, through Egypt and Mesopotamia, China, Australia, North America, South America etc has one. Basically, name a place and you’ll find a similar legend. All these legends have another commonality in that at least one human being was somehow spared and managed to repopulate the race somehow. They all speak of purification of one kind or another and in every case it was caused by some god or gods, and it was these gods that saw the righteousness of certain individuals and saved them. Usually by getting someone to build a boat of some kind. Or, in the case of one story from China a couple just happened to find a canoe and managed to paddle around until they bumped into a mountain. Now how lucky’s that? The only real point around which some differ is that a few provide that a great deluge (an extended period of rainfall) was the cause, while most tend to lean towards the oceans rising or water coming out of nowhere. I believe there is a good reason for that and that an historical case can be made.

Despite what some may think, the old testament as we know it is a reasonably good historical reference where ancient history is concerned, so using the old testament as an historical record rather than a spiritual one, science can prove that there’s absolutely no geological record to support that there was a great flood as written in the story of Noah. This is where science becomes a little narrow minded in maintaining the argument, I think. Let me explain.

The general consensus is that there’s about 4000 years of human history tied up in the old testament one way or another. That means that Noah existed only about 2000BC. The problem I have with this is that we can only trace Yahweh back about 5700 years, which actually places Noah at about 1700BC. Of course, there’s evidence to suggest that monotheism of sorts (the God of Gods, Lord of Lords thing, the singular rules over the plural) goes back much further than that. Every pantheon has it’s top god after all, but that doesn’t change the fact that around the time of Noah as it’s interpreted from the bible, things were pretty stable and there probably wasn’t any flood at all.

Given what we know of earth history though, this could also indicate that we may have made a mistake in estimating how old some of these stories actually are. If that’s the case, and I believe it is, then the reference in time we attribute to the historical data contained in the old testament is hazy at best, even though the data itself is reasonably accurate. It could very well be that the stories were actually written down for the very first time about 4000 years ago, that seems to be about when written languages started becoming popular after all, but man has been around a hell of a lot longer than that. The problem with what we call pre-history is that it wasn’t written down, or if it was it’s been lost, hence the term.

We know that the earth came into existence about 4 billion years or so ago, via the interplay of astronomical forces, and that man is a relative youngster at about 400,000 years in one form or another, due to evolutionary change and upheaval. We can also prove, via geological records (or for more links, here) and records locked in ice cores (or here even), that the earth suffers from an extended cycle of ice ages, with periods of major glacial activity where glaciers grow and retreat quite rapidly.

The popular theory is that we are currently still in the grips of an ice age that began around 40 million years ago, or so the above records would seem to suggest. The problem with ice and particularly glaciers is that they scour the landscape and make interpretation of the data collected from the these sources difficult. We can’t be sure for instance, that the ice caps have ever truly disappeared once they formed for the first time, but that’s the benchmark we use to denote an ice age. One thing we can be sure of however, is that the last major glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago.

When the earth experiences a major glacial period, water is locked into ice, some land becomes uninhabitable but ocean levels drop markedly which causes other land, closer to the tropics, to be exposed. Naturally, when the glaciers melt, the opposite occurs but with some changes evident afterwards. Generally, what used to be high ground has been ground down a bit by the relentless action of the ice and the tailings of the grinding get deposited elsewhere, sometimes hundreds of miles from their point of origin.

The evidence that exists in cores and the geological record from both the start and the end of the last glacial period, would suggest that both events happened fairly rapidly by geological standards. 25 to 50 years for both events. This means two things: That ice covers and uncovers landscapes in about half a single lifetime when the freeze begins, and about 10,000 years later, water inundates the lower lying regions in about half a single lifetime when the melt occurs.

Considering the size of the planet, that much melt in that short a time will make for some very fast moving and very large volumes of water that will spend very little time filling any low lying area. Consider also that man has always felt the need to settle near water and I believe we find the source of this particular and very common tale. Massive volumes of fast moving water are going to make for devastating floods in coastal areas all around the globe. The other result of course, what with all that moisture having been released in such a short time, would be that in some parts of the world, there’d be a hell of a lot of rain where there probably wasn’t much before.

What this probably means as far as the legends go is that Noah, Gilgamesh, Dardanus, Deucalion and his wife and the survivors of Samothrace and a myriad others are all one in the same. They are simply the survivors of the great melt that occurred in a very short period about 10,000 years ago and caused massive upheaval in many human settlements around the world. Of course, the other thing that all these stories have in common is that once they’d found high ground and prayed fervently for deliverance and seemingly received it, they set up monuments to and created rituals for the edification of whichever god it was that delivered them from the pestilence.

I’ll just quickly gloss over the end of the world while I’m here too, as it’s intimately related. We have a major ice age or a major meteor strike or a major volcanic upheaval, or bit of everything about every 100,000 years or so. This is something else we have gleaned from the geological and ice records. During an ice age like we’re in now, we experience periods of major glaciations about 10,000 years after the previous melt. The glaciation, or "ice age", is always preceded by a short period of increased global warming. That means that all this death and pestilence happens every so often and has done since before man learnt to talk. It’s no real surprise then that a story of death and pestilence like this one exists. It’s a serious problem that threatens our existence as a race. It’s happened before, at least four times in the last 100,000 years or so, so it’s bound to happen again. Now, thanks to science, we know that it will happen again, we also know about how often it happens and we know that we’re almost due for it to happen again and that there’s nothing much we can really do about it.

So in conclusion, I think it’s fairly obvious that the story of the flood is entirely plausible, and I also think that science has proven that there was a “great flood”,  but not in the context and time frame we tend to think of it. I think all these stories, especially those from the first five books of the old testament, are much older than we give them credit for and are simply, like the Grimm collection of folk tales (no, not the fairy tales), a major collection of stories of the history of man and the planet as experienced and told by man throughout the ages. They all seem to take the format of stories in verse that can easily be passed on from generation to generation and let’s face it, every culture makes provision for a person who’s job it is to keep the lore, which basically means they remember the local stories and traditions and pass them on. The fact that at the time we had no science or point of reference to use to explain what was actually happening meant the only plausible explanation, especially considering our superstitious nature and the fact that people prayed and were seemingly delivered, means that not only must god have caused it, but god must have saved us, therefore god must be real so just to be sure we don’t upset him again, we’d best try to appease him.

It is in this way, or so I seem to think, that simple human history becomes the stuff of religion.

4:39 AM - 23/6/2006 - post comment

Good to see you back

Thanks Plonka. That was a very eloquent, informative read. I hope you write more Science v Religion posts.

Edited by gryphonn on 22/6/2006 at 3:18 PM

gryphonn - 6:28 AM - 23/6/2006

Oh, ok, You've sucked me in... but this is going to be a long one.

As to the rising and falling of sea levels on this planet... of course it happens. Of course it's been proven... yes, proven, religious zealots. You can pah pah all you like and say that this is all speculation and that science is nonsense, but that's just because you don't want to admit that you've been taken for a ride all your life... you don't want to believe that your god is the result of a fertile imagination... and a need to believe that we don't have to be responsible for our own actions... because there is 'something controlling us'. I've had certain people argue with me that science is nothing but poppycock... because "my bible says so, and that's the end of the argument". That there were no ice-ages, that there were no cavemen (or, god forbid, dinosaurs or anything), no primeordial soup, no fish crawling out of the sea to become land-dwelling animals, now missing link, no evolution, that the theories behind astronomy are just theory... etc. Yet they swallow what is, in essence, a 2000 year old myth (or fairytale, if you prefer) about some all-knowing, all-compassionate, all-vengeful being that has A) created us for his own pleasure, and B) has the ability to control the lives and destinies of some 6,523,841,006 people that (presently) inhabit this world... As at 22:19 GMT (EST+5) Jun 22, 2006 (This is US time), not to mention the unknown numbers that have come before us. I won't get into why I think they want to do this... nor will I even start on the hypocrisy of the whole 'Red Sea VS Reed Sea' argument... nor the belief that it was actually a tsunami caused by the crashing of a meteorite that was the salvation of Moses and the slaves of Egypt... because if I do, this comment is going to go on for a very long time. Instead, I'll get back to sea levels...

Now, take for example the city of Venice. Why is it half-submerged? It's not because the original founders of this city sat down and decided "Woah man, wouldn't it be really cool if we built a city in the MIDDLE of the river". They didn't invent some form of ancient scuba-diving equipment that would allow them to dive down and lay the foundations, lay the bricks and mortar, etc. The city was originally built on a parcel of very low-lying land... but land that was, at the time, dry land. Water levels have risen, thus the city is now inundated with water. That is a sane, sensible and completely believable explanation. If we are to believe in religion... well, that's all bull. We don't know exactly what did happen, but, well, we don't need to know because god had his reasons, and whatever they are doesn't matter, because they must be good reasons, and we'd probably never understand what they are anyway, because he's a supreme being and we are nothing but lowly sheep. Sheesh....

Ok then, since I'm here... let me cover evolution quickly...
Evolution also has been proved, as far as I am concerned. Let me give you a couple of examples here. Take our country. Why do we have koalas, and kangaroos, and platypus... animals that are native to Australia and nowhere else in the world? Why don't we have tigers, and elephants, and polar bears? This is because of evolution. Australia is essentially a great big island. We've been cut off from the rest of the world for a lot longer than any of these animals have been around. There's also our environment... it is so vastly different to other parts of the world. So, our wildlife has evolved differently over time to suit our particular environment... the weather, the types of food available, and the land itself. Now, how do we prove this? It may take thousand, or even millions of years for evolution to change a species, right? So how can any of us prove this? Well... we as humans prove it all the time. We breed animals to have certain characteristics ALL the time... and it doesn't take all that long to do. Take dog breeds. The only true original dog breeds are dogs such as dingos and wolves. All other breeds have come about because of a form of speeded-up, human-created evolution. Since early humans began to take wolves and domesticate them, they have encouraged the unusual traits in these animals to become more and more prevallent... a purely black wolf was unusual, and so more sought after... then someone wanted a really big one, so bred the larger animals together... then someone decided that a tiny one would be cool, so took all the smaller dogs and bred them together. We've had this idea of using evolution for millenia... but we called it breeding. For a specific example of speedy evolution... take a dog like the Miniature Doberman. It has all the characteristics of a full-sized doberman, but it's not much bigger than a chihuahua. And this species (or breed) of dog is a relative newcomer in the whole scheme of things.

So taking all that into consideration, non-evolutionists suddenly look kind of foolish, don't they? But I guess if I suddenly had proof that something I had believed all my life... and my parents had believed all their lives... and their parents..... I guess I wouldn't want to admit to my gullibility either, so I might just argue the point, no matter how stupid my arguments appear to everyone else. And if I had a great job with a wealth of bonuses and respect attached to it, and someone came along who suddenly proved that my job was now defunct and completely unnecessary... Well, I suppose I might decide that I just don't want to go out and get a new job, especially if I'm old and have no other experience at doing anything else. I suppose I might therefore feel like I wanted to fight for my job by any means possible... maybe even by encouraging other people to make stupid arguments for me and my job. I guess, in essence, that's just human nature.

But that's a whole nother argument though, isn't it...?

Oh, as a matter of interest that is completely unrelated to this argument, the world population now... as at 23:29 GMT (EST+5) Jun 22, 2006 (US time) is 6,523,850,921

tinacee - 8:43 AM - 23/6/2006

Edjumacation.

Plonka, you're better than the Discovery Channel!

I didn't know all cultures had a flood story, that's really interesting. It's also interesting (tho much less significant) that all cultures have a Cinderella story too! Hmm...

With the threat of glaciers, meteors, slumbering volcanoes, nuclear/biological warfare, global warming, peak oil and the relentless expansion of the Krispy Kreme empire, it's a wonder we manage to get up in the morning. Best not to think about it...

Edited by agnosticreligion on 23/6/2006 at 1:34 AM

agnosticreligion - 4:44 PM - 23/6/2006

Untitled Comment

Hi all,

Top notch post again Ted - you seem to be a real history buff. I've just added you to my 'blogs that rule' list. Sorry it took me so long getting round to it. Great comment by Tinacee by the way. Right on buddy!

Whilst flood myths may have been based on true events, I don't think it really requires the grandiose events you've outlined here. A couple of twits drowning in a pond would probably do. Then, the myth creation machinery can take over, whereby stories are exaggerated to an extraordinary degree over the generations. Such oral histories are completely useless. It's like a game of Chinese whispers (or telephone, as the Americans call it) played over centuries.

As far as religion v. science goes, the problem is that religious people take this completely absurd Noah's Ark story as truth. There is, as far as I'm concerned, a measure of insanity in such beliefs. This page is a good one to refer people to (let's see them wiggle their way around these arguments):

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

ajscanlan - 7:17 PM - 23/6/2006

History is important...

Hi all,

I've added some more links to the essay for those who may be interested in learning a little more about the geological and meteorological history of our fabulous planet, and to further back a couple of my arguments.

Gryph,

Thanks. You know I try to be entertaining, but it's even better if you found it informative. I've got at least one more planned, but thanks to Tinacee, I'm probably going to have to sneak in an extra one before I sum it all up now. Stay tuned...

Tina,

Nice one as always and as Adam says, "Right On!!!" I wasn't gonna do one on the events that occurred during the exodus, but I'm going to have to now thanks to your prompting with the Red Sea/Reed Sea thing. There are so many other myths and legends from around the world that include many of the same things that Moses and his mob endured on their little trek that make me think that perhaps I should, just to put it all in context so I can justify my time frame argument.

"and a need to believe that we don't have to be responsible for our own actions"

Tina, that is a beautiful sentence and I really must thank you for it...:-)

Agnosticreligion,

Thanks. It is one of my favorites, along with Discovery Science, History and Nat Geo. Anything that deals with ancient history from time to time will get my patronage though..:-)

"all cultures have a Cinderella"

Actually, Australian Aboriginals don't but they are one of the few. The Grimm brothers collection of folk tales, NOT the fairy tales, that was the watered down version, is really quite amazing. They were the first to discover common stories that spanned continents.

Stay tuned though. I'll do one on some of the events that happened during the Exodus which might help you put it into better perspective as you read... But then, maybe not...:)

Adam,

I'm seriously flattered. Thanks for that. I have to get my page sorted out a little better so I can include a link to yours, which I've found to be excelent. A link to Dikii's wouldn't go astray either...

You're right, I do enjoy my history and have made a personal life long study of it. No formal education in it, but just try sneak a history book past me! I can sniff 'em out, novel or reference, it doesn't matter...:-)

"Such oral histories are completely useless"

For once though, I'm going to have to disagree with you. These stories are not so much exaggerated as dressed up to suit a particular culture (the inclusion of a hero that spoke to god is much better than something like "we were shit scared and ran like cowards till we found some high ground"). They exist in the first place because the events that cause them to be told are devastating and threaten our existance as a race, so they serve to remind us of what we should do next time. Every single one of those stories includes a mountain or high ground, it's specifically mentioned and in some cases doesn't even fit the rhyme in the native tongue, so the message is clear, find high ground when the melt starts. Most would say DUH! But there are those... The rest is just dross to make sure it's not forgotten. A nation always remembers it's heros after all...

"Chinese whispers (or telephone, as the Americans call it)"

It doesn't always happen, especially if a culture uses rhyming verse instead of a rambling story. It's much easier to remember and once it's remembered is difficult to forget, but more impotantly, it's much more difficult to embelish without changing the whole thing.

"Noah's Ark story as truth"

Unfortunatley that's so true... But, as I said in a comment to one of yours and I'll say it again, thanks to Douglas Adams: "Proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing" said God. It's not so much a willingness to believe the story, I think, as it is a fear of losing faith and therefore the connection to god and more importantly, heaven...

Talkorigins is a goodun' ain't it...:-)

Edited by plonka on 23/6/2006 at 6:59 AM

plonka - 9:38 PM - 23/6/2006

Hi Ted

I have read all your updates including the science and religion parts. Whilst I think there is accuracy of your statements about history and the mythology of the times, I cannot say your conclusive statements are as accurate or in anyway an effective reflection of your topic.

We have a philosophical difference about the meaning of life and hence why I find your conclusions exceptionally limited and in some ways biased towards your scientific/historical interest/s. You see Ted, there is more to this world and us as humans, than your way of thinking or reasoning.
Your thinking seems confined to a rationalist/observational perspective where many people such as me find reflective of the pro critical rationalist age we are in. What is glaringly missing from your discussions is this...The spiritual truth or love aspects, which cannot be proved or analysed with such scrutiny as Scientists demand we do. For example, its like someone asking we me to prove that I loved my father. I can't prove it, but I know in my heart I loved him and he loved me. The spiritual connection, which can't be seen or measured by science or discussed in a measurable sense, was between my father and I. As it is between many whom love God and Jesus Christ.

I know about the flood story and other mythology themes, which circumvented early or mid age history. But I believe this knowledge is not as important compared to the values and life lessons, which can be harnessed from the spiritual truths of the Bible.
There are enough bad traits in the world.
Lets be honest.... Apart from the capacity of love, what’s the common trait of humans?
We are sinful ....ie imperfect.
Evil is manifest in this world and has been working efficiently since Adam was enticed by Eve to eat the apple.

The beauty of our God is that he is not a dictator and gives us freedom of Choice to believe in him or not. It is said this is a free gift we can take. Atheists say this is a mistruth or something along those lines, but the questions must be asked if over half the world's populations believe in God?
How could be believing in something so profoundly good in a world we observe time and time again as evidently bad, be an infliction?
Why shouldn’t we at least investigate this opportunity with our hearts open and our critical minds closed? If we are truly to receive the wholesome benefits of loving someone, we cannot do this we a questioning mind. We must love holistically.
Sometimes, I think its easier not to believe in God, not only because we are not held fully responsible for our actions, but our our society breeds a cynical and questioning public ever cautious of leading with our hearts.

What we are lacking is believing in whats most right. It's Christ's lessons which from my way of thinking are the most righteous aspects to life I have learn't and will endeavour to be more like.
If your discussions concentrated more on why humans believe in God and the faith and harmony which is created from that, then I think your discussion would be more well rounded in the 'critical' or academic sense.

However, if you are looking at the issues from a journalistic/popular opinion point of view, then I think you are well on your way.

Matt K

matthewrichmond - 6:35 PM - 24/6/2006

Great Comment

Matthew,

Excelent comment, thanks. I'll try and address all the points you make here so if I miss anything, please let me know...

"accurate or in anyway an effective reflection of your topic"

Ok, so what was the first thing Noah did when he set foot on dry land? He set up an alter and he and his family made sacrifices and praised God for deliverence.

(References from Bible.com)
Genisis 8:20 - And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

Which raises the question of how those particular beasties managed to repopulate, but we'll ignore that here for brevity's sake.

Then not long after, what did God do?

Genisis 9:9 - And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you...

God then goes on to explain that he's sorry and promises Noah that he won't do it again and makes a rainbow to remind both man and God of what happened and of the covenant. Then God goes ahead and lays down a bunch of rules (including laws and rules for worship) for Noah and his kin to follow as part of the covenant.

If, as I believe and you seem to concede, the flood myth is simply a story of survival, what we see there in Genisis, I think, illustrates my subject perfectly. A covenant is a deal between God and man, with rules to make it work. What else can that be but a new religion?

As to the other 4 books, I'll concede that that's pure conjecture at this stage, but stay tuned for some of the events that occurred before and during the Exodus...

I agree that you and I have a fundemental difference of opinion, but:

"biased towards your scientific/historical interest/s"

I've tried to approach this philosophically, but I'm probably guilty as charged...

"You see Ted, there is more to this world and us as humans, than your way of thinking or reasoning."

I guess this is where our difference is born out because I'm afraid I'm going to be pedantic here and ask you to prove that in some sort of conclusive manner. As Tina says, "Because my bible says so" or "Because I said so" simply isn't good enough anymore. I can disprove it just by witnessing the lack of any tangible effect.

"pro critical rationalist age we are in"

That's a brilliant statement, but there's a good reason why. As Adam says, when religion makes testable claims (creation, Noah's ark. etc.), we will have conflict. That's because we are a curious bunch, so someone will test them sometime. If a story is subsequently proven to be false, that calls into question the authenticity of the entire doctrine. We have no choice but to ask; "ok then, so what else is false?" That's because in a very real sense, we've been lied to and because of the lie we risk being conned, and no-one likes to be conned or lied to.

My omission - "The spiritual truth or love aspects"

The reason for that is that I don't think there's anything spiritual or even remotely romantic in a tale that was invented to remind us of what happened during and how to survive a major upheaval, but I'll try and address it anyway.

Love apects are one thing. I would dispute that you can't prove your love for your father. The real and testable truth is more likely to be that you prove it every day with your words and actions. My discorse is concerned with science v religion as an argument, whether that argument is valid and what causes the argument in the first place.

Spiritual truths are another thing entirely. I spent a bit of time being invloved in a number of churches and I'm yet to find out what these "spiritual truths" are exactly. No-one who has ever mentioned this to me has managed to articulate what even one could be, let alone any unspecified number.

The other problem with "spiritual truths" as I see it, is that because they seem to be a matter of belief, that means they are entirely notional ie, they can only be true (whatever they are) as long as you believe them to be so.

"We are sinful ....ie imperfect."

In what way? That we are not christlike? If so, that's hardly surprising. Try and follow his example, it really is quite impossible for your average mortal.

"since Adam was enticed by Eve to eat the apple"

Another common myth and one of the saddest indictments of the old testament, I feel. This story simply seems to imply that women are weak and easily tempted, are therefore evil and are not to be trusted. I have to admit, even in my most fervent days, I never really thought much of it. Distasteful is what it is.

"The beauty of our God is that he is not a dictator"

Are you sure? Ask the Philistines, the Canaanites, the folk of Soddom or Gomorrah, the list goes on. All of these people were allowed to live any way they liked, so long as they liked "God's" way. If not, a spot of smiting seems to have been the order of the day, and most these people were sumarily consigned to the celestial equivilent of the gas chamber. That's real harsh I know, but I won't apologise for it. In the old testament, it's perfectly acceptable for kings to wipe races off the face of the globe, so long as god told them to. That's god's way. There are no mistruths here, it's simply a load of cods-wollop.

"over half the world's populations believe in God?"

Which one? Jewish, Christian or Islam? He's supposed to be the same, I know, but he behaves very differently for each. But why should I or the collective "we" ask these questions? You may need to ask them for yourself, but I don't. I'm happy with my spirituality. Using an argument like that is like saying that I should believe the bible because it's the biggest bestseller of all time. I once had an RE teacher that tried that. "Xavier Hollander - Call Me Madam", the cronicals of a high class prostitute, is the second best bigseller of all time, closely followed by the Height Report, a contemporary public report into human sexuality. Do we believe in the teachings in them as well? The Height Report is the only one of the three that makes claims backed by any demonstrable facts, but it doesn't sell as well. Hmmm...

"with our hearts open and our critical minds closed"

That is very dangerous thinking and is exactly what caused the problems that led all the good folk at Jonestown down the path to partake of the sacred Coolade.

"We must love holistically"

I couldn't agree more, but it doesn't mean you have to stop thinking. Try this, think about the love you feel, scrutinise it and analyse it. You will be very surprised by what you find, I think.

"I think its easier not to believe in God"

I wish...:) Do you have any idea how much research and work I've done on this over the years? Having done both though (the one having lead to the other), I can tell you it's much easier to just point at the bible and say "because that book there says so..." But in another sense you are more than right. It is extremely difficult to have faith.

"What we are lacking is believing in whats most right"

I have to agree, but until we know what's right, we won't know exactly what to believe, will we?

Righteousness and spirituality have nothing much at all to do with religion. Religion is all about ritual, dogma and control. I once had a pastor that taught us to get away from "religiosity" and get back to christ. He (and the AOG church at the time) taught that dogma and ritual are tools of the devil and should be avoided at all costs. Considering that Jesus left us NO ritual whatsoever (having dinner doesn't really count as ritual), I have to say that it was one thing that I managed to agree with him about.

"If your discussions concentrated more on why humans believe in God and the faith and harmony which is created from that"

Then I'd also have to spend quite a bit more time concentrating on the various miseries it leaves in it's wake. I don't really see and never really experienced that much harmony you see. Except when we were all in tune of course...:)

"I think your discussion would be more well rounded in the 'critical' or academic sense."

When in actuality it would only be more rounded in a spiritual sense, in my opinion.

"looking at the issues from a journalistic/popular opinion point of view"

Sorry, but there's really nothing popular about my point of view on this. I'm not the first catastrophist to publish my views. Read a bit about Immanuel Velikovsky and see how the scientific community tore him apart rather than disprove his theories. Some of his theories were a bit out there, I'll admit, but they could easily have been disproven or proven using a little math. That example is a little extreme I guess, but you get the picture.

Thanks again for your comment Matthew and I hope you continue to comment here. Because what I've been talking about and trying to prove with logic and a logical progessions of events with no real physical proof other than ancient records in rocks and ice, I live to be shot down...:-)

Edited by plonka on 24/6/2006 at 5:04 PM

plonka - 4:44 AM - 25/6/2006

Oh Ted... You know not what you have done.

Why am I doing this? Why have I chosen to enter another comment on this subject? Why am I even considering expanding on this in my own blog? I don't feel that strongly about this argument... honestly. I have always been one to allow people their own beliefs regarding religion, whatever they may be. I never really cared that much about whether or not someone wanted to be gullible, as long as they didn't try to force me to see their gullibility as truth. Nonetheless... here I am. Let me warn you though, Ted. You'd better not be dragging me into this discussion, only to tell me at the end of this series that you're some kind of rampant religious fisherman, and then try to show me how you can save me. I would be so disapointed... and, frankly, so would you. :o)

However, if I may, I'd like to reply just to one part of Matt's comment. I know you commented on it yourself, but I'd like to add my input. The paragraph in question is this bit:

"The beauty of our God is that he is not a dictator and gives us freedom of Choice to believe in him or not. It is said this is a free gift we can take. Atheists say this is a mistruth or something along those lines, but the questions must be asked if over half the world's populations believe in God?"

I'm going to flip it around though, and respond to the last sentence first. Now, I have a couple of theories as to why so many people believe in god (although, like you Ted, I'm not sure that 'over half the world's populations' believe in god... 'a' god, maybe...).

My first theory... christians are generally of the belief that contraception of any kind is a sin. That by planning the number of children you have you are defying god's wishes. This leads to many christian families having multitudes of children, which is something that churches encourage in order to boost the numbers of 'believers'. Now, I don't believe in telling someone that they can't have 16 children, if that's what they truly want, but I don't particularly think that god is a good enough reason to bring one child into this world, let alone 16. (Oh, there are so many side-arguments that I could bring into this... but I won't... for now) But my point is, this does boost the numbers.

My second theory... through history crusaders have scoured the globe, taking war and destruction to peoples and lands that are not their own, screaming words to the effect of "Conform or die!" So the people in these invaded lands then fell into one of two catagories. The first lot conformed, followed christian law and were 'saved'. Whether they did this because of the validity of christian beliefs, or simply out of fear is irrelevent. They learnt to believe in the word of god and learnt to pass these beliefs down to their descendants. This in itself boosted the numbers of christians in the world. The second lot stood against the crusaders and said 'Stuff you matey, this is my land and these are my beliefs.' These peoples were attacked relentlessly and, in most cases, conquered and put to death. Hence a lowering of the numbers of believers in their particular faith. So... if the crusaders hadn't been so brutally scary in the first place... and if christians were encouraged to choose the number of children they produce based on reasons other than god's word... do you think there would still be so many christians today?

Now that takes me to my next point... that "god is not a dictator and gives us the right to choose to believe in him or not". So why has it been so important to christians through history to fight in the name of god? This is hypocrisy, as far as I can see. "Believe in my god or else..." Ok, so we can't do that any more... or can we? George Bush uses god as his reason to invade 'heathen countries', as do other world leaders. Religion seems to be the main reason for war, even today. Let's not get started on that one. But today, it's much more common for god's war to be fought on our own doorstep... literally. How many times have we answered the door to find someone standing there with a bible in their hand? And how many times, when we tell them that we have our own beliefs and don't want theirs, have we been brow-beaten and preached to by these same people. Not as violent an argument maybe, but still an argument nonetheless. And this is exactly what they're taught to do. This tells me that god does, in fact dictate to his followers and doesn't quite give us as much freedom of belief as he would like us to think.

Oh... and while I'm on the subject... how many children have come home from an RE class at school terrified... with tears in their eyes, even... and begged their parents to "please let's go to church on Sunday. I don't want you to burn in hell because I'll never see you again"? Is this the freedom of choice that Matt is talking about? Or is it the freedom of christians to terrify the children of non-believers that he's referring to? What a wonderfully christian thing to do to a child... scare them into submission.

Finally, it is true that "it is said this is a free gift we can take". It is also said that Woolworths will give you the 'free gift' of a discount on petrol. The problem is that you have to spend money at Woolworths first, in order to get that discount. So really, this is not entirely a free gift, is it? Another analogy comes to mind... those windows that pop up when you open certain ad-filled web pages, that say "Congratulations, you've just won a trip to Bermuda. Click on this button within the next two minutes". When you do click on that button you find that in order to claim that prize you have to first pay for one ticket, then you can claim another 'for free'... as long as you go between the dates of xxx and xxx, you have to travel by horseback and eat only McDonalds burgers, all while wearing a red pair of underpants on your head and singing the star spangled banner. Then you close the window with great disappointment... and your mail box gets filled with spam for the next 6 months.

Oh, by the way. Yes... I do know that the above example is not really an actual prize for an actual competition, but I'm using it as an example... What I am saying is that you can call it a free gift all you like... but in the end it usually turns out not to be an entirely free gift after all. Now, as an athiest, I wouldn't say it's a mistruth, as such... but I would say that it's a half-truth. And I, at least, understand that just because something is 'said' doesn't mean that it's necessarily true.

tinacee - 11:15 AM - 25/6/2006

Untitled Comment

Hello everyone,

Fantastic comments Ted and Tinacee. Whilst the two of you have already covered a lot of great points regarding Matthew’s comment, I hope you don’t mind if I add a few of my own (I just can’t resist). I’m not sure what your policy is regarding comments Ted. If you feel I’m being overly antagonistic, and would prefer to keep things nice and friendly, please feel free to remove this comment.

Matthew,

I really have to thank you; some of your comments were hysterically funny. They’d make for excellent satire of religious arguments. Sadly, I think you may have been serious. Take this for instance:

“Your thinking seems confined to a rationalist/observational perspective…”

Wow! By a process of elimination, should Ted take an irrational, non-observation based approach in future? Would you have him make up whatever crazy rubbish he likes, publish it, and claim its truth? Or, in other words, follow religion’s modus operandi?

“…reflective of the pro critical rationalist age we are in.”

When the hell did that happen? If we lived in a pro-critical, rationalist age, people would no longer believe in absurd fairy tales concocted by superstitious primitives thousands of years ago. Also, legions of loonies, quacks, nutbags and politicians would be out of a job. A world without professional frauds (psychics, astrologers, priests etc etc); you’ve just described my wildest dreams buddy.

“What is glaringly missing from your discussions is this...The spiritual truth or love aspects, which cannot be proved or analysed with such scrutiny as Scientists demand we do.”

What a load of rubbish. Sure, subjective experiences such as love cannot be measured by science. Once you step outside the subjective realm of the individual’s mind however, everything else in the entire universe is fair game for the scientific method – included whether or not Gods exist (here’s a hint – they don’t). Human feelings have nothing at all to do with what exists or occurs in external reality. You know reality – it’s that pesky thing that is completely ignored by the world’s religions.

“We are sinful ....ie imperfect.”

Pack your bags people, we’re going on a guilt trip. We are only sinful within the framework of religious beliefs – beliefs that many here do not share. Such beliefs are not backed by a single shred of evidence. Not only that, but they contradict mountains of facts in just about every area it is possible for them to do so. To be blunt, they’re a load of bullshit.

You can use the word imperfect to describe humanity if you like, and on that I can but agree. But the concept of human perfection is completely meaningless. By what standards should we measure perfection? Based on whose subjective judgment? Saying we are all imperfect is therefore just as meaningless as saying we are all perfect.
(NOTE: please do not make me laugh and say we should judge perfection by comparison with Jesus. The guy supported slavery, said he came not for peace, but for the sword, and said he who does not hate his family cannot be a disciple. Oh, and one other thing – just a small thing: the guy thought he was the son of a non-existent, all powerful creator of the entire universe. In other words, he was batshit insane. To be fair, he did say many truly wonderful things as well).

“Atheists say this is a mistruth or something along those lines, but the questions must be asked if over half the world's populations believe in God?”

We call this a logical fallacy, specifically the argument from popularity. As I said previously, human feelings and beliefs often have very little to do with what actually exists in reality. The problem you’ll run into with this argument is that a many people believe in a lot of silly nonsense; not just religion. Here are a couple of examples: Something like 50% of the population believes psychic powers to be real. Does that make them true? No, all psychics are either frauds or delusional. If they really had such powers, they could very, very easily prove this in double blind experimentation. They can’t – ever. A religious example: upwards of 60% of Americans deny evolution in favor of creationism. Does that mean that evolution is wrong and creationism is correct? Hell no – evolution is a fact that is supported by mountains upon mountains of evidence. Creationism is a load of crap and is supported by precisely zero evidence, and contradicted by most of those mountains I referred to in the previous sentence. Reality, I’m afraid, is decidedly undemocratic and is not a matter of opinion.

Tinacee already went into some great reasons for why people believe in God. I think we can boil it down a little further to two main reasons:
1. Children are taught to believe it (indoctrination/brainwashing). The proof of this is easy to find: almost all Americans are Christian, almost all Iraqis are Muslim etc etc.
2. Ignorance (and, not necessarily stupidity, but it helps). Scientific education on this planet is woefully inadequate. People are taught what to think in school, but not how to think, which is vastly more important. We focus on the theories resulting from the scientific method, rather than the methods themselves. The scientific method, critical thinking, logic, and all the other tools of skeptical enquiry should be taught to all children. In my view, this is almost as important as basic writing and arithmetic. Sadly, it is not being taught at all.

“Why shouldn’t we at least investigate this opportunity with our hearts open and our critical minds closed?”

This sentence is absolutely mind-boggling to me, and to be quite honest, had myself and several of my friends rolling around on the floor in hysterics last night (after several drinks, I should add). It pretty much sums up the utter and complete stupidity of religious arguments perfectly. How the hell can you investigate anything with your critical mind closed? Judge truth by how it makes you feel? That, my friend, is insane. The only reliable method for assessing truth is the scientific method. Let the evidence speak for itself. Without evidence, how the hell can you possibly know if something is true or not? Here is a related question you will not be able to answer. Why believe Christianity over Islam, or polytheism, or astrology, or the tooth fairy? All of these beliefs are faith based beliefs that have not a shred of evidence in favor of them (all are contradicted by logic and evidence and all are pretty much equally likely to be true). By what basis can one choose one over any other? The only logical thing to do is discard (or embrace, but that’s crazy) all faith based beliefs.

“However, if you are looking at the issues from a journalistic/popular opinion point of view, then I think you are well on your way.”

I just can’t believe you think the atheistic viewpoint is a popular opinion – it’s just stunning. Christian persecution complex perhaps? Like those assholes in Washington who think there’s a war on Christmas and religion, whilst Christians/Republicans control the entire government. Recent surveys in America have put atheists as the least trusted group in the country. When you consider all the bullshit ‘war on terror’ rhetoric in the US in the past few years, atheists being trusted less than Muslims is an absolutely mind-boggling result.

The science v. religion debate has nothing to do with personal opinions. It’s about facts and evidence. Religion has no facts and no evidence backing it, but much contradicting it. Science is exclusively built on facts and evidence. In truth, it was game over for religion centuries ago. People do cling desperately to their delusions though, don’t they?

ajscanlan - 3:47 PM - 25/6/2006

Thunder

Tina,

"Oh Ted... You know not what you have done"

I think I'm, beginning to understand. I didn't mean to make more work for you, honest... And comment as much as you want, you know I love it...:-)

And don't worry, those days are well and truly behind me.

Adam,

My policy on comments is: Have at it and say what you like. Just try and keep it as clean as possible (the odd expletive is perfectly acceptable however), my kids might visit.

I can't remove that one, it's already a classic...:)

To both,

Excelent comments and feel free to keep them coming if you feel you want to. As I said, I love it.

Take care,

Ted.

Edited by plonka on 25/6/2006 at 6:00 AM

plonka - 9:10 PM - 25/6/2006

Untitled Comment

The funny thing is that matt hasn't commented back yet... He's probably deleting whitepage out of his favorites (lets pray otherwise) because we can't be converted.

Anonymous - 10:07 PM - 25/6/2006

Untitled Comment

I agree with everyone (except Matt). Religion was created by three bored, particularly curious and creative guys, sitting in a hut wondering "I wonder who invented all this...?" and because all of us need an answer, they then proceded to create the gods, told everyone they could find, who then went and told everyone else, and so on and so forth in that manner.

I would also like to add to what tina said. Jesus happened to arrive at a time and place called Jerusalem, 0 BCE (or thereabouts). Who was in charge? The Romans. Who accepted christianity as their state religion? The Romans. Who ended up conquering half the known world (at the time)? the Romans. If Jesus had been born in a city that Rome hadn't conquered already, christianity would be nowhere near as powerful as it is today, in my humble opinion.

arseface - 10:35 PM - 25/6/2006

Sad but true

Anon,

Well, I didn't pray but perhaps I should have. It seems that Matt has taken his blog and left us here at Whitepage. That's a shame really, I've still got a ways to go with this series.

Probably even more now that Arseface brought Rome into it. Thanks dude, nice comment...:)

plonka - 3:10 AM - 26/6/2006

Aaah, Rome...

Funny you should mention that, arseface. It seems that we're on the same page again. That is indeed another thing that I discussed privately, and something that I considered throwing into the mix in my last comment. But I guess I also figured I'd already added more than my fair share to this discussion. It seems I just can't help myself though. :o)

But you're absolutely right. The Roman empire also had a lot to do with the spread of christianity... eventually. I'd have to do a lot more research (what do I mean more... I haven't researched anything so far really... I hate research) before I commented too much on this one though. Another reason I dread the idea of taking this into my own blog. I'm not really all that big on the facts as far as religion goes, so up until now my thoughts have been just that... thoughts, so if I get anything wrong here, please tell me.

Now, I'll try to keep this one short... At the time of the Roman conquests, and while the Roman empire was becoming the biggest thing since sliced bread... I believe they still worshipped multiple gods. But the fact remains that they did conquer most of the known world. They took civilisation to many parts of the world, including Britain and the countries of Europe, which is where most... well no, all, I guess... of the white peoples of the world have originated from (now I specifically mention them as being white because these are the peoples that have spread across the globe the most in the meantime). So... over time, when the Romans accepted christianity, they also insisted on the conquered lands and peoples of the empire accepting it as well. So the base of christianity was wide-spread. Then when people started exploring for unsettled lands (eg, Australia, America, etc) they took their religion with them. Most of the early explorers (who were predominantly white) came from countries that had originally been a part of the Roman empire. Thus christianity spread further afield. They in turn took example from their forebears and conquered the peoples in those lands and did just the same thing as their forebears did... gave the peoples the ultimatum to "Conform or die". Thus christianity spread even further. It might not have been the nicest way to do things, but I guess it worked, did it not?

tinacee - 9:28 AM - 26/6/2006

Floods mark 13

You're quite right about all this re-telling of the flood story.

But as Confucius noted (think it was Confucius, could be wrong about this), there are only 7 stories that can be told.

Which also explains the lack of interesting ideas in Hollywood lately.

dikkii - 10:12 PM - 27/6/2006