Chimp's Awe Inspired by Waterfall & Some of the Best Things Ever Said in Favor of Human Evolution

5 comments
Elephants caring for a crippled herd member seem to show empathy. A funeral ritual performed by magpies suggests grief. Then there's the excited dance chimps perform when faced with a waterfall – it looks distinctly awe-inspired.

In June 2006, Jane Goodall and I visited the Mona Chimpanzee Sanctuary near Girona in Spain. There we met Marco, a rescued chimp, who dances during thunderstorms with such abandon that he appears to be in a trance. Goodall and others have witnessed chimps, usually adult males, perform a similar ritual at waterfalls. She described a chimpanzee approaching one of these falls with slightly bristled hair, a sign of heightened arousal. "As he gets closer, and the roar of the falling water gets louder, his pace quickens, his hair becomes fully erect, and upon reaching the stream he may perform a magnificent display close to the foot of the falls," she describes. "Standing upright, he sways rhythmically from foot to foot, stamping in the shallow, rushing water, picking up and hurling great rocks. Sometimes he climbs up the slender vines that hang down from the trees high above and swings out into the spray of the falling water. This 'waterfall dance' may last 10 or 15 minutes."

Perhaps numerous animals engage in similar rituals but we haven't been lucky enough to see them. Is it possible that they are marveling at their surroundings - that they feel a sense of awe? "Do Animals Have Emotions?" New Scientist magazine, 23 May 2007

"A chimpanzee comes to a stunning sight in the midst of a tropical forest: A twenty-five foot waterfall sends water thundering into a pool below, which casts up mist some seventy feet. Apparently lost in contemplation, the chimpanzee cries out, runs excitedly back and forth, and drums on trees with its fists. Here we see the dawn of awe and wonder in animals.

"Famed heart surgeon, Dr. Christian Bernard, witnessed a chimpanzee weeping bitterly and becoming inconsolable for days after his companion was taken away for research. Bernard then vowed never again to experiment with such sensitive creatures."
A. J. MATTILL, JR., THE SEVEN MIGHTY BLOWS TO TRADITIONAL BELIEFS

"When Washoe [the chimpanzee] was about seven or eight years old, I witnessed an event that told about Washoe as a person, as well as causing me to reflect on human nature. [The account proceeds to describe the chimp island at the Institue for Primate Studies]...One day a young female by the name of Cindy could not resist the temptation of the mainland and jumped over the electric fence in an attempt to leap the moat. She hit the water with a great splash which caught my attention. I started running toward the moat intent on diving in to save her. [Chimps cannot swim.] As I approached I saw Washoe running toward the electric fence. Cindy had come to the surface, thrashing and submerging again. Then I witnessed Washoe jumping the electric fence and landing next to the fence on about a foot of bank. She then held on to the long grass at the water's edge and stepped out onto the slippery mud underneath the water's surface. With the reach of her long arm, she grasped one of Cindy's flailing arms as she resurfaced and pulled her to the safety of the bank...Washoe's act gave me a new perspective on chimpanzees. I was impressed with her heroism in risking her life on the slippery banks. She cared about someone in trouble; someone she didn't even know that well."
ROGER FOUTS, "FRIENDS OF WASHOE" NEWSLETTER

GORILLA TALK -- "Koko the gorilla has learned the hand signs to over 600 words, and uses them regularly and spontaneously to communicate with others (including another gorilla she lives with, Michael). She also invents her own unique signs. A ring is called a `finger bracelet.' A cigarette lighter is a `bottle match.' Hand signs in Koko's repertoire of abstractions include: bad, imagine, understand, curious, idea, gentle, stupid, boring, and damn. She also understands over a thousand spoken English words and short sentences. She recognizes words that end with similar sounds or start with the same letter, and can `talk' via an auditory keyboard which produces spoken words when appropriate keys are pressed.

"When Koko was 3 1/2 to 4 years old she took several I.Q. tests designed for human children. In her case the tests were administered via sign language, and Koko's scores on three separate tests over a one year period were 84, 95, 85 (which is not an uncommon fluctuation among human children). The scoring even took into account the cultural bias that favored the responses of human children, which was built into the tests, and without which Koko's scores would have been higher. For instance, one question in the test was `Point to the two things that are good to eat.' The depicted objects were a block, an apple, a shoe, a flower, and an ice-cream sundae. Koko, with her gorilla tastes, picked, `apple and flower.' Another asked `Where you would run to shelter from the rain.' The choices were a hat, a spoon, a tree, and a house. Koko picked `tree' instead of `house.' Rules for the scoring required that Koko's responses be recorded as `wrong.'

"Koko `purrs' and makes laughing and chuckling sounds to express happiness. Her laugh is a sort of voiceless human guffaw which she expresses at her own jokes and those made by others. She finds incongruity funny, the way a young child might. Asked `what's funny,' she put a toy key on her head and said it was a hat, pointed to a puppet's nose and said it was a mouth, and signed, `That red,' showing me a green plastic frog.

"Barbara Hiller saw Koko signing, `That red,' as she built a nest out of a white towel. Barbara said, `You know better, Koko. What color is it?' Koko insisted that it was red -- `red, Red, RED' and finally held up a minute speck of red lint that had been clinging to the towel. Koko was grinning.

"Another time, after persistent efforts on Barbara's part to get Koko to sign, `Drink,' Koko just leaned back and executed a perfect drink sign -- in her ear. Again she was grinning.

"She even tells lies, once blaming a broken sink on a human volunteer. Another time, while I [Patterson] was busy writing, Koko snatched up a red crayon and began chewing on it. A moment later I noticed and said, `You're not eating that crayon, are you?' Koko signed, `Lip,' and began moving the crayon first across her upper, then her lower lip as if applying lipstick.

"Koko also cries, a sort of heart- rending wooo-wooo, when she's sad [like when her pet kitten, `All Ball' died], or when she's lonesome. And she's thought about where gorillas go when they die: `Comfortable hole bye.'

"When one of Koko's visitors asked her, `Are you an animal or a person?' Koko answered, `Fine animal gorilla.'"

THE ABOVE QUOTATIONS HAVE BEEN CONDENSED AND EDITED FROM "Conversations With a Gorilla" by Francine Patterson (National Geographic, Oct. 1978); "`Fear, Humor, Commitment, Sorrow' -- Apes Feel Them All" (U.S. News and World Report, July 22, 1985); "Talk to the Animals" by Don Kaplan (Instructor, Aug. 1985); "Sex and the Single Gorilla" by Judith Stone (Discover, Aug. 1988); One of the most careful and thoughtful reports on primate communication is "Language Comprehension in Ape and Child," ed., E. Sue Savage-Rumbaugh, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Number 23 (1993). Savage-Rumbaugh's work is based on rigorous tests and does not rely on anecdotal evidence, yet it supports some of the same claims made above.

"Apes and monkeys have drawn and painted pictures, displaying intense concentration, and appearing to gain satisfaction in the process. Artistically, a chimpanzee makes the same progress, by the same steps, as a human child does, though none have ever been known to get beyond the `simple circle dotted with marks resembling facial features,' i.e., they do not add arms, legs, a body, etc. Still, ape and monkey art takes a lead ahead of children in placing its forms in the center of the page -- they balance their compositions. Apes have also been seen tracing their shadows with their finger, and even using their breath to wet a window pane so they could draw upon it. One famous monkey artist, a Capuchin, began to draw with rough objects in her cage even before anyone showed her how. With most other monkeys and chimps all that human trainers had to do was put a pencil in their hand and paper in front of them. They discovered how to use it soon enough, and even how to hold the writing implement properly. The primates that were tested also knew when their pictures were finished, and enjoyed looking at them afterwards...

"Wild chimpanzees have been observed dancing round an object, employing unique modes of rhythym. They also make drinking cups out of folded leaves, and they pluck a stick clean of leaves to make a feeding-tool they use to extract ants and termites from holes in the ground or wood."
SALLY CARRIGHAR, WILD HERITAGE [quotations have been condensed and edited]

"Forgiveness is not, as some people seem to believe, a mysterious and sublime idea that we owe to a few millennia of Judeo-Christianity. It did not originate in the minds of people and cannot therefore be appropriated by an ideology or a religion. The fact that monkeys, apes, and humans all engage in reconciliation behavior (stretching out a hand, smiling, kissing, embracing, and so on) means that it is probably over thirty million years old, preceding the evolutionary divergence of these primates...Reconciliation behavior [is thus] a shared heritage of the primate order.

"When social animals are involved... antagonists do more than estimate their chances of winning before they engage in a fight; they also take into account how much they need their opponent. The contested resource often is simply not worth putting a valuable relationship at risk. And if aggression does occur, both parties may hurry to repair the damage. Victory is rarely absolute among interdependent competitors, whether animal or human."
FRANS DE WAAL, PEACEMAKING AMONG PRIMATES (see also, Morton Hunt, The Compassionate Beast: What Science is Discovering About the Humane Side of Humankind; and, Alfie Kohn, The Brighter Side of Human Nature: Altruism and Empathy in Everyday Life)

"Studies of food sharing by chimps at Atlanta's Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center [show that]...chimps most often get food from individuals whom they have groomed that day. Dominant males are among the most generous with their food. Fights occur rarely and usually stem from attempts either to take food without having performed grooming services or to withhold food after receiving grooming. Chimps usually kiss, hug, or otherwise make peace after a fight, especially if they need help and cooperation from one another in the future, according to Dr. Frans de Waal."
"CHIMPS REAP WHAT THEY GROOM," SCIENCE NEWS, VOL. 146, DEC. 17, 1994

THE 27 BEST THINGS EVER SAID IN FAVOR OF HUMAN EVOLUTION

MORE OF THE BEST THINGS EVER SAID IN FAVOR OF HUMAN EVOLUTION

Sharing the Good Nudes, and Bad Neuters, of Christianity (& God's love for harp playing male virgins)

10 comments


ABSTRACT
Everything You Wanted To Know About Nude, Virginal, Castrated Men in the Bible, and Men "Undefiled by Women." And Moses's command not to "come at your wives" before meeting God. (Though I don't know if that applies to Southern Baptists heading for their annual convention.) Includes mention of the Adamites and the Skoptzie, along with Augustine's answer to the question, "What if all men should abstain from all sexual intercourse, whence will the human race exist?" All that and more below.

Sixty residents of the Seminole Health Club nudist camp near Miami comprise a Christian mission that worships twice a week in the nude. According to leader Elijah Jackson, "We're not trying to start a cult here, but I think nudity adds something to Christianity." -- News of the Weird, "Weird Clergy"

In the past another group of Christians worshiped in the nude called "Adamites." They believed that Jesus's grace allowed them to draw closer to God in their nakedness, unlike Adam and Eve who were ashamed and withdrew from God in the garden because of their nakedness. They also cited the verse in which Job reminded his listeners that we all entered and exited life naked, and used that to argue that we will all face God naked. Besides which King David lost his robe in a religious dancing frenzy and danced naked for the Lord. The only trouble I can see with worshiping naked in church is having to set the temperature neither too hot nor too cold and keeping the seats from getting sticky.

Christians who worship naked, and the Bible verses they focus upon, are not to be confused with Russian Skoptzie Christians who focused on Jesus's words, "Some have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven." (Mat. 19:12) The Skoptzie avoided the "lust of the eyes" and "of the flesh," via the use of a knife. All for the kingdom. (Another example of a Christian who made himself a eunich for the kingdom of heaven was the early church father Origin. Incidentally, he believed in the restoration of all things, except perhaps for the thing he cut off.) Will we behold in heaven naked dancing genital-less men -- made eunichs either on earth by their own hand, or transformed into genital-less angel-like beings after death by God?

The author of Revelation mentions "144,000 men... not defiled with women; for they are virgins," who are granted a prominent place in front of God's throne to play their harps. That's what God likes most I guess, harp playing male virgins. (Revelation 14: 2-4)

Old Testament authors seem to concur with at least the necessity of celibacy in the presence of Yahweh, since Exodus 19:15,17 taught that Israelite men must "NOT to come at your wives" prior to "meeting the Lord."

Paul likewise hailed celibacy as a holy virtue, but added, concerning those who could not rise to practice such a virtue, "it is better to marry than to burn" (a verse not often heard at Christian marriage ceremonies today, I wonder why, it's biblical):

"It is good for a man NOT TO TOUCH A WOMAN. For I would that all men were even as I myself. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. [i.e., celibate] But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn... I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. Are you loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. The time is short: it remains that they that have wives be as though they had none... He that is unmarried cares for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married cares for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married cares for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your own profit, that you may attend upon the Lord WITHOUT DISTRACTION." (1 Corinthians 7:1,7,8-9,26-27,29,32-35)

But Augustine's commentary on Paul's verses is especially ripe:

"In the first times, it was the duty to use marriage. chiefly for the propagation of the human race. But now, in order to enter upon holy and pure fellowship. they who wish to contract marriage for the sake of children, are to be admonished, that they use rather the larger good of continence. But I am aware of some that murmur, 'What if all men should abstain from all sexual intercourse, whence will the human race exist?' Would that all would. Much more speedily would the City of God be filled, and the end of the world hastened. For what else does the Apostle Paul exhort to, when he says, 'I would that all were as myself;' or in that passage, 'But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remains that both they who have wives, be as though not having: and they who weep, as though not weeping: and they who rejoice, as though not rejoicing: and they who buy, as though not buying: and they who use this world as though they use it not. For the form of this world is passing away.'" (Saint Augustine, On the Good of Marriage, Sections 9-10)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THE LATEST "NUDES" ON THE CHRISTIAN NUDIST EXPERIENCE

Christian Nudist Convocation, Planning their Summer 2008 conference:

The periodic Christian Nudist Convocation took place in July at the Cherokee Lodge nudist camp in Tennessee, and according to a dispatch in Nashville Scene, the group evokes skepticism not only from most Christians (who dislike the flaunting of naked bodies, even if innocently done) but from most Cherokee Lodge members, who see them as too intense for naturism's laid-back attitude. One CNC attendee acknowledged that many Christians would not approve of Cherokee Lodge, but to him "It's Jerusalem." Another compared his work at nudist camps to missionary work: "Some people get sent to Africa, some people get sent to South America and the Lord was like, 'I want you to go to nudist resorts.' And I'm like, 'Wow, what an assignment.'"
SOURCE: News of the Weird

Christian nudists to build village in Florida by Phil Barnoti Wahba (Columbia News Service Dec. 6, 2005)

"Naked Before God," cover story in Nashville Scene. Christian nudists hit the church-and the hot tub-for three days of wet and wild worship in the backwoods of Tennessee by Elizabeth Ulrich

The compatibility of Christianity and nudism is detailed in "Nakedness and the Bible," a self-published book by Canadian author Paul Bowman. The book cites key biblical events, including God's order to the prophet Isaiah to go naked for three years, and states that, contrary to popular belief, Jesus was naked when he washed the feet of his disciples, when he was baptized and when he was crucified and resurrected. "Nakedness and the Bible" states that nothing forbids nonsexual nudity and that misinterpretations of the Bible stem from faulty translations of ancient Hebrew words for nudity. For example, Jim T., Natura's spiritual adviser, and his wife, Shirley, believe the apostle Paul's call for modesty targeted ostentation, not nudity. Besides, said Shirley, 55, women in church wearing "designer clothes and $90 haircuts" are the immodest ones.

Christian nudists have long organized their own services and prayer groups. Carolyn Hawkins of the American Association for Nude Recreation, which was founded in 1931, said most of its 270-member clubs offer Sunday services, including one in North Carolina where they are led by a member who is a Baptist minister. Nathan Powers, a 50-year-old Texan, begins his day praying naked in his backyard. Nakedness intensifies his dialogue with God, he said. "I feel closer to God. It's an act of humility. It is absolutely spiritual."

Jonathan Palmiter was enjoying a recent Sunday morning stroll through a lush yard full of trees and Spanish moss--naked as was Adam in the Garden of Eden. A 59-year-old born-again Christian, Palmiter was visiting Natura, a development 40 miles north of Tampa, Fla., that, when it opens up next summer, will become the first nudist community for devout Christians in North America.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Transgender Televangelist: Sister Paula Nielsen the world's first and only transgender televangelist. Unfortunately, Sister Paula's show is only available on the cable system of -- you guessed it -- West Hollywood.

Genesis 2:4b-20: Man Made From Earth Is Folklore, Conflated River Elements and the Myth of Adapa

16 comments
This Article shows that in the second creation story in genesis the concept of man made from earth pre-existed and spanned cultures and geographical boundaries, has the rivers confused between different geographical areas, and has many elements from prexisting Near Eastern Myths such as "The Myth of Adapa".

* This article and its predecessors in the series are a collection of notes put together from sources that are represented by quick reference links to similar web pages to make it easy to get more information as quickly as possible. The original sources are listed at the end.

A LIST OF PREMISES AS ARTICLES REFUTING GENESIS 1-11 AND ROMANS 5 SO FAR
P1. The Interconnectedness of The Ancients - Demonstrates the robust ancient civilizations at the time and that Canaan, Israel and Judah were central to them. Discusses trade routes, seafaring, the link between whales and the Leviathans of Mythology and how long it would take to get from one civilization to another by sea.
P2. Genesis 1:1-25 Is An Amalgam of Near Eastern Creation Myths. Demonstrates the prior existence of key elements of the story of the creation of the Universe that appears in Genesis.
P3. Genesis 1:26-1:27, Creation of Humans in Near Eastern Myths And The Paleolithic Era. Demonstrates that the physical evidence contradicts the story of the making of the first humans in Genesis.
P4. GENESIS 1:28-2:4a, Be Fruitful And Multiply, Founder Effect and Genetic Diversity. This Article shows that even if the physical evidence didn't refute the special creation of the first humans, Adam and Eve, in Genesis 1:27, the problem of Genetic Diversity known as the "Founder Effect" would eventually lead to crippling genetic mutations or extinction.
P5. Genesis 2:4b-20 Man Made From Earth Is Folklore, Conflated River Elements and the Myth of Adapa. This Article shows that the concept of man made from earth spans cultures and geographical boundaries, the rivers are confused between geographical areas and has many elements from pre-existing Near Eastern Myths such as "The Myth of Adapa.


The criteria for Folklore as described in Alan Dundees book "Holy Writ as Oral Lit" are "multiple existence and variation".

Four major differences in the two creation stories follow, but there are many others that are not covered here.
A. God is referred to by different names in each story. In the first story he is referred to as Elohim (“God”) and in the second story he is referred to as Yahweh (“LORD”) or Yahweh Elohim (“LORD God”).
B. The methods of creation are different. In the first story creation occurs by the spoken word and in the second story creation occurs by physical means (for example, God plants a garden).
C. The order of creation is different in the two stories. The first story follows the order in the Enuma Elish(6) and starts with vegetation and proceeds to animals on to humans, and the second story begins with the male human, then the vegetation in the Garden of Eden, and then the animal kingdom.
D. In the first story, the man and woman are created together, but in the second story, the male is created first, with the female made later from his rib. ("The Book of Genesis", The Teaching Company)

BEGINNING OF THE SECOND STORY OF CREATION

* Multiple stories of Creation are common in all cultures including the Near East(1)
- Egypt, Mesopotamia (although the most widely know is the Enuma Elish(2)) and the Indus Valley all have multiple versions of Creation.
4b. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-
5. and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground,
6. but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground-

* Many myths regard breath as life and regard it as supernatural. The correlation of breath to life is understandable because breathing is the obvious difference between someone sleeping and someone dead. In Ancient Hindu beliefs, the breath and the spoken word were sacred and representative of aspects of life, morality and divinity.(3)
* MAN MADE FROM EARTH: These predate the Torah
- Mesopotamian,
-- the God Bel (a lot of them were referred to as Bel) cut off his own head and the other gods mixed his blood in with the earth to make humans (4)
-- Kingu was killed and his blood was mixed with clay to make humans(5)
* Africa
-- Egypt - khnum molded people out of clay on his potters wheel(6)
-- Shilluks of the white nile, Juok is the god(4)
-- Fans of West Africa(4)
-- Togo-land, West Africa(4)
* Greece
- Prometheus made men out of clay(7)
7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.


The specific dates of origin of these stories are unknown but with the serendipitous mutation of the FOXP2 gene in the isolated population of sub-Saharan Africa about 70,000 years ago, and with the necessity of that gene for language(8), it may be that the story of making humans from clay (as well as other trans-cultural themes in folklore) originated with language.

The Following are various versions from all parts of the world of Man Made from earth or stone, and/or breathed life into them. The latest time of the arrival of the original population can be estimated using the dates of fossil evidence and genetic graphing.

Approximate timeline of origins of cultures that contain humans made of earth or clay as folklore (rounded off)(9,4)
~60000 BCE
* Kumis, Arakan Chittagong India,
* Korkus, India, the god Shiva or Mahadeo,
* Khasis of Assam,
* Mundas, Chota Nagpur, Singbonga the god
* Santals of Bengal, Thakur Jiu asked the god Malin Budhi

~50000 BCE - Indonesia
* Australia - Pund-Jel around Melbourne Australia
* Melanesian legend, Mota, Qat the hero
* Malekula, New Hebrides, Bokor the god,
* Toradjas of central Celebes, i Lai the god, i Ndara the god asked Kombengi the god to make them
* Mihahassa, north Celebes Wailan Wangko and Wangi gods,

* Dyaks of Sakarran in British Borneo, Two large birds made man or the God Salampandai
* Nias, Sumatra, sing a song in couplets like Hebrew poetry, Luo Zaho the god,
* Bila-an, Mindanao, Philippine islands, Melu the god,
* Bagobos, South-Eastern Mindanao, Diwata the God,
* Noo-hoo-roa, kei, Dooadlera the god,

* Pelew Islanders

~40,000 BCE - Eurasain Steppes
* Cheremis of Russia, Finnish people,
* Nui, Netherland Island, Ellice Islands, Aulialia the god

~20,000 BCE - North America
* Eskimo and Indians From Alaska to Paraguay,
* Eskimo of point Barrow, the spirit A Se Lu
* Acagchemem Indians of California the god Chinigchinich
* Maidu Indians of California the god earth-initiate
* The Hopi or Moqui Indians Arizona Huruing Wuhti the god,

* Pima Indians, Arizona,
* Michoacans of Mexico, the god Tucapacha,
* Peruvian Indians,

* Lengua Indians of Paraguay, God in the form of a beetle

THE GARDEN OF EDEN
8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.

* The Story of the Garden of Eden shares elements with the Enuma Elish such as the Following.
- Enki and Ninhursag
-- Seduction with fruit
-- The eating of trees brings a curse consisting of the withholding of life

- Gilgamesh and the Huluppu Tree
-- Tree with Serpent (combined with a demon)

- The Myth of Adapa(10) has some of the same elements as the Garden of Eden Story combined. A list follows.
-- Son is semi-divine, has characteristics of God.
-- The son has done something wrong,
-- The son must answer to the God (Anu) for his misdeeds,
-- God the father warns him not to eat anything or he will die
-- A woman gives him something to eat which could potentially be deadly
-- Because of his choice he doesn't get eternal life and is not allowed to stay in the nice place

--- Excerpt: A summary of the Myth of Adapa from sacred-texts.com follows(2).
"[Summary: Adapa, or perhaps Adamu, son of Ea, had recieved from his father, the god Ea, wisdom, but not eternal life. He was a semi-divine being and was the wise man and priest of the temple of Ea at Eridu, which he provided with the ritual bread and water. In the exercise of this duty he carried on fishing upon the Persian Gulf. When Adapa was fishing one day on a smooth sea, the south wind rose suddenly and overturned his boat, so that the was thrown into the sea. Angered by the mishap, he broke the wings of the south wind so that for seven days it could not blow the sea's coolness over the hot land. Anu calls Adapa to account for this misdeed, and his father Ea warns him as to what should befall him. He tells him how to fool Tammuz and Gishzida, who will meet him at the gate of heaven. Ea cautions him not to eat or drink anything in heaven, as Ea fears that the food and drink of death will be set before Adapa. However, the food and drink of eternal life are set before him instead, and Adapa's over-caution deprives him of immortality. He has to return to Earth instead.]"
9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

* Bible with sources revealed discusses the the literary device of 'wordplay' in the form of puns. Gihon is similar to the Hebrew word Gehon which is "belly" an obvious reference to the snake that will crawl on its belly. Pishon has the same root has the same root letters as Nephesh which means "a living being". Euphrates appears in the same verse as pishon and creates "you shall eat dust". Tigris as a the combination of two words becomes "his hand and take". Adam is a play on the word for ground. Eve's semitic root is snake and a play on the word "sly" (in reference to the snake) appears later as the humans are naked.

* Only the Tigris and Euphrates have ever been close together. The Gihon and the Pishon are in a different area of that region. The author either mixed up the rivers accidentally or did it on purpose to enable the use of wordplay in the story.
10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters.

-- Pishon was in Havilah which is commonly thought to be in Yemen(11), at the southern end of the Arabian peninsula,
11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold.
12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.)

* Kush is in Africa where the Sudan is today(12).
13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.

* The Tigris and Euphrates are in modern day Iraq which was ancient Mesopotamia(13).
14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

* In Near eastern myths, humans served the Gods(14). Though the Hebrews represetation of Gods relationship is noticeably different, in this case Adam was to take care of the domain of the garden of Eden. Here God wants Adam to be the caretaker of the Garden.
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.

* Something to eat that will cause you to die is a shared element with Mesopotamian myth of Adapa
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;
17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

* Adam needed a helper to maintain the Garden.
18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.
21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs [a] and closed up the place with flesh.

And that brings us to Eve being made from Adams Rib.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Quick Reference to material in the sources. For the Quick References, Wikipedia is used liberally because while academics don't consider Wikipedia definitive or acceptable as a source they do consider it generally good enough for quick reference. Please do not confuse quick references with the sources. The sources are where the majority of information came from.

Quick References
1. Creation Myths
2. Enuma Elish Text online
3. Science of Breath
4. Folklore in the Old Testament, Vol. 1 Online
5. Kingu blood mixed with clay
6. Khnum
7. Prometheus
8. FOXP2
9. National Geographic Genographic Project
9a. Man made to serve Gods
10. The Myth of Adapa
11. Havilah
12. Gihon
13. Tigris and Euphrates
14. Man made to serve Gods

SOURCES
1. Human Prehistory and First Civilizations, The Teaching Company
2. Story of Human Language
3. Religion in the Ancient Mediterranean World, The Teaching Company
4. The Bible With Sources Revealed
5. The Book of Genesis, The Teaching Company
6. Great Figures of the Old Testament, The Teaching Company.
7. Alan Dundees Holy writ as oral lit
8. National Geographic Genographic Project
9. Folklore in the Old Testament, Vol. 1 Online, Sir James G. Frazer

Avalos Contra Weikart: Part I: General Problems With Dr. Weikart’s Methods

10 comments
Dr. Hector Avalos responds to Dr. Weikart in what follows:

One of the main goals of Intelligent Design creationists is to undermine the theory of evolution by arguing that it can have catastrophic human consequences. This, of course, involves a fallacious logical argument from consequences. Whether a theory has good or bad consequences is irrelevant to whether that theory is true.

But, this logical fallacy has not deterred Intelligent Design creationists who use it to instill fear of evolution in the public. One of the latest attempts in this fear-mongering effort is the pro-Intelligent Design propaganda film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which paints Darwinism as the main, or only, factor in the Nazi Holocaust.

Suit-and-Tie Atheism: And the “Church-ification” of the Godless

6 comments
Let me tell you about me and my activities on a typical night off work. I wake up around 4 to 5 pm because I usually work nights and those are my hours. I get up and have a glass of iced tea, some sodas, or a few (or more) beers, depending on my taste and mood. Then I’ll grab some take-out food, which usually consists of the greasiest grub I can find (What can I say? My arteries hate me!) I live in a 750-square-foot world where the Fri-Daddy is god, where snacking on chips, whole cashews, chocolate bars, and anything peanut butter is the divine moral order, and where shrimp and bacon are only one step away from being “holy” foods. There are probably more preservatives in me than blood cells! There are as many paper cups, plastic wrappers, and empty junk-food containers in my kitchen as there are strands of carpet in the living room! At my place, it’s an ongoing battle just to keep up with throwing them all away. So it’s safe to say I’m pretty much your exuberant Class-A slob.

When I’m done eating, I go back to doing what consumes most of my pathetically anal and highly obsessive/compulsive life—reading articles, writing articles, and editing articles, both for freelance and for freethought purposes. I spend the first half of the day doing what I want and the last half of the day doing work, which includes maintaining my blogs and answering emails. In between this time, I peruse the web for documentaries, audio clips, and videos, so much so that your typical, shorthand-using, 14-year-old, internet troll has nothing on me! I also love comedy of all kinds, particularly satire, to the extent that I try daily to gratify my ominously dark and disturbing sense of humor.

But I’m always thinking, thinking when my fat ass is hold up on the recliner, thinking when that searingly hot water is running over my head and beading off my back in the shower. And I’m a tactile thinker. I like to feel myself thinking, so it’s not uncommon for me to spend some amount of money on new keyboards that provide a nice, rough feel for the tips of my fingers to motivate me to keep on writing even when I feel like crap (which is often). I love a keyboard just before the keys get shiny as the surfacing begins to rub off from frequent use! I sometimes grit my teeth as I write, whether I’m mad or not. It just feels good. I also spend a decent amount of money collecting flashlights and pens. I love to feel them. Holding them in my hands helps me to think better.

Though not often, I can be moody, but I am always all-or-nothing; what I love I love and what I hate I hate. I love a cloudy or stormy day. I love the wind whipping through my hair. I love hot peppers. I love a well-timed shot of liquor. I love the cold air’s bite on my cheeks. I love the smell of jasmine. I love doing bizarre things, like sharpening backscratchers so that the intensity of the scratch is stronger on my skin. I play with my hair and rubber bands when I’m mind-numbingly bored, and I sculpt when I’m feeling creative. I love a good game of chess. I do other things too that I won’t go into much detail on, primal things that involve members of the opposite sex and me in handcuffs, but you get the picture.

And some days, the futility of existence is just too much for me, so I don’t get out of bed at all. I just lay there until I have a headache and stare up at the ceiling for hours because I can’t find the motivation to get up. I just lay in the dark, groveling on my bed until I can’t stand it anymore. I hate a lot of things too, like cinnamon and heights and mosquitoes and needles. I never lick my fingers and I hate it when others do around me and are otherwise not germ conscious. Unlike so many atheists, I don’t care much for leftwing politics. I am somewhat of a political enigma, being pro-torture and pro-death penalty on the one hand, and pro-euthanasia and pro-abortion on the other. I don’t care about “going green” to save the planet either. It matters about as much to me as that cross on the neck of a hot-legged Catholic schoolgirl you wish you’d banged when you had the chance.

And I am plenty aware of my faults too. I am impatient, selfish, picky, and much like I do life in general, I absolutely despise large portions of the population, especially cattle-like people who never struggle with the meaning of their existence (though, in a way, I’m a bit envious of them.) I don’t really care for the poor, and the mentally deficient tend to bother me, as do most special interest groups and other near-parasitical forces of society (Hey, at least I’m honest about it!) I am a recluse, by and large, and I prefer to keep it that way.

My ultimate desire in this predictably short charade I call life is to pass on my experiences and knowledge by way of the written word. I am a student of this cruel-but-curiously-stimulating universe, and if I can pass on my observations to future generations so that they may live through them or somehow make use of them, that is perfectly delightful to me. But all of this just describes one atheist—me. It doesn’t describe all atheists, but in fact describes very few atheists.

One atheist may have nothing in common with another except for one thing: both don’t believe in a deity. That is all—end of story. There need be no other similarities between them. An atheist may be educated or uneducated, smart or stupid, kind or mean-spirited, a law-abiding citizen or an outlaw. He may be charitable or stingy, morally straight-laced or downright perverted. She may be a republican, a libertarian, or a flat-out Marxist. I keep thinking the point has been made already. It isn’t that complicated, and yet I see so little understanding of this in relations between believers and atheists.

We vocal atheists have dealt with our share of email exchanges explaining to clueless inquisitors that agnosticism is not a halfway house between atheism and theism, but only a degree of atheism; an agnostic or weak atheist is less convicted and perhaps less vocal than a positive or strong atheist. And that is what atheism is—a conviction and not a philosophy, though it is sometimes classified as a philosophy or a discipline for reference purposes in the field of philosophy. But this simple misunderstanding has done leagues to impede the progress of our debates for who knows how long.

You see this royal misinformation at work every time some Simple Simon makes reference to “the church of atheism” or “the religion of the godless.” Since atheism is strictly a negative conviction, it cannot have a church or any institution built on it with creedal beliefs or affirmative regulations that affect belief, identity, conduct, or character (which is what churches and religions have and do). And yet, even amongst my atheist comrades, these same misunderstandings are being unknowingly propagated with what I have come to call “suit-and-tie atheism.”

Suit-and-tie atheism is the vain attempt on the part of some atheists to “churchify” their godless convictions under differing militant and evangelistic banners. They show frantic worry about “making de-converts” to join us in our “fight for unbelief.” The suit-and-tie atheist is concerned especially with “coming off” right (which usually means putting on a smiley face and displaying pretentiously Christian-like behavior). The suit-and-tie atheist’s goal: they want believers to be impressed with them in hopes of winning over an on-the-fence Christian who just might say, “These cats aren’t so bad. Maybe my Christian stereotypes of atheists are wrong? I think I’ll join them in their quest for reason.” But it doesn’t happen that way, regardless of how little profanity an atheist uses or how kind and inviting an atheist is in a written or oral debate, or if an atheist chooses the term “non-theist” instead of atheist to ward off any nasty preconceptions of them.

It is very important to the suit-and-tie atheist that no atheist in their company comes off like a “village atheist”—an unsophisticated, homegrown, “I’ll believe it when I see it” type who does not continually pay lip-service to the glories of Aristotelian logic, and who doesn’t have a big interest in arguing atheism with anyone and everyone he knows. But even worse to the suit-and-tie atheist is the “angry atheist” because the angry atheist makes all other atheists look depressed and grumpy—a cardinal sin in the eyes of so many happy-go-lucky, pro-marijuana, planet-loving, Toyota Echo-driving naturalists.

Since the suit-and-tie atheist is concerned mainly with appearance and getting people to agree with him/her – always careful to be pleasant to a fault – they naturally shy away from atheists like myself who are too edgy, too rambunctious, and just too brutally honest for their taste. The suit-and-tie atheist is more like a politician, distancing himself from bad imagery, shaking hands with a big smile on his face, while patting kids on the head as he works the crowd on the campaign trail. But as noble as it sounds to try and line up atheists as charming and inviting, it’s a bad idea because it creates yet another of what should be forthrightly shunned—an unfounded stereotype.

Atheists far and wide seem to be contributing to this suit-and-tie silliness, like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett (among others), who have voiced their desire for all atheists to identify themselves as “Brights.” “The New Atheists” is another description that is catching on and becoming increasingly popular. I was always amazed as a preacher at the tendency of churches to wear denominational names and the names of religious leaders, but I am just as amazed as an atheist at how quickly and easily atheists are guilty of the very same thing. The put-your-best-foot-forward mentality, the desire to label and re-label things to reflect excellence and great personal achievement appears to be universal.

As much as I hate to burst the bloated bubbles of these highly publicized and widely adored atheists, this label-wearing malarkey has got to stop. There are no “Brights” or “New Atheists” anymore than there are “New Deists.” The term “atheist” covers everything that needs to be covered. To go further than that only feeds the already fat market of misinformation on the identity of unbelievers and what we are all about. Add to that, the term “Brights” has a mighty arrogant come-off to it, regardless of whether it was intended to have or not. Those who go around saying (by implication or otherwise), “I am bright and you are not!” to them I proudly extend a middle finger, and rightly so! And why do we need “new” atheism anyway? What was wrong with the old? In addition to being a virtual spit in the face to us behind-the-times “old” atheists, gimmicky and trendy names like these wreak of being little more than pathetic sales-pitches for a new age.

Well, how about we get back to the four basic food groups of atheism: 1) Atheism, 2) is a, 3) conviction, 4) only! And being a conviction only, it does not and cannot lead to moral excellence or decay. It is not an idealistic construct. It offers me nothing. It offers you nothing. Like me, it may be the only position you can come to and honestly profess belief in, or it may not be. If you find atheism sound, then great; maybe you already fight at my side to break the rusting and corroding shackles of superstition, but if not, I won’t lose any sleep over the matter. If you believe in God, I have better things to do than to try and get you off that drug.

The truth is, I don’t care whether you believe in a ghost with a capital “G” or not. It doesn’t matter to me at all. I only want to make my experiences available to those who happen to be in a position to benefit from learning about them, and I will only fight against religious beliefs when they happen to be thrown in my face or when some Jeebus-ite starts to wax too missionary in his/her beliefs. But that’s it. Beyond that, I have no interest in “making atheists” out of anyone or putting new and cute labels on those who already identify themselves as infidels. Worship and pray to whomever or whatever you want, or don’t worship and pray at all. See if I care.

As far as the remaining theists are concerned, evolution will take care of them as God-belief ever-gradually continues to fade from the planet. Every time a Sunday school girl makes her teacher mad because she demands to know where Cain got his wife, religion is fading. Every time a young man begins to doubt the veracity of the great flood and the story of Noah’s ark, religion is fading. Every time another college student becomes emboldened enough to throw off his parent’s religion because of what he learned in geology class, we see that the age-old, male-glorifying, monotheistic blood-gods who for so long have vilified reason and promised damnation to those who think for themselves are at last losing the war. They are running for the hills as your eyes finish this sentence.

Atheism is the logical result of knowledge acquired by the sound use of reason. It does not come from pandering to Christians and straightening that proverbial tie to look good for the “camera” of public perception. Instead of worrying about who’s “hurting the cause of atheism,” we should instead see to it that atheism is understood; understanding that will eliminate the illusionary damage that has led to the public’s vilification of the position. The advancement of atheism is not about upholding an image, and it’s not about receiving a message. It’s about mankind being ready and able to accept the truth of her humble origins, her inevitable and hopeless demise, and her limited place in the cosmos. And when she is ready, she will! As the world becomes more enlightened, the atheists are going to be here. I have no doubt about it—unless, of course, a meteor hits the earth and the only ones who survive are the Sean Hannity types, but hey, we’re talking about more realistic possibilities!

Gentlemen, lose the jackets. Get rid of the ties. Ladies, let down your hair. And it’s okay to put your feet on the coffee table.

(JH)

Fun with Fallacies: The Hitler Fallacy

16 comments
When you don't have a good argument, just use the Hitler Analogy!

I love the blog The NonSequitur. It is a logical analysis of political Media. While most of the politics is over my head (since I'm not much of fan of politics) I do enjoy seeing a fallacy get a good rogering! One day this week they talked about Nazi Analogies in the political sphere.

Earlier this month I posted an article on eight reasons why it was a fallacy as used by Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor while discussing governments ruled by reason alone.

Anne Applebaum in her Washington Post column said the following about it.
The Hitler Analogy

No, I am not drawing comparisons between George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin, two vastly different men, by citing these statements. Nevertheless, it is clear from the above that Bush and Putin, despite their vast differences, share a common contemporary ailment: Each suffers from the inexplicable need to inject the Nazis into current political debate, whether they belong there or not.

True, it seems that Nazi analogies can be used with almost infinite flexibility.


It is so widespread that it is listed in the taxonomy of Fallacies over at the The Fallacy Files.
"The Hitler Card" from The Fallacy Files

And like a cool breeze on a warm summers day, Jamie Steele uses it in my article on "Brains 'Trust Machinery' Identified".

To which Evan pointed out this was predicted by Godwins Law

Hoist up the Jolly Roger, let out the sails! Catch that breeze and muster up ramming speed MATEYS, HAR!

Brain's 'Trust Machinery' Identified

90 comments
This is a datum to support my assertion that Biological Bases for Behaviors are incorrectly interpreted as "Sin".


Sciencedaily.com
The brain centers triggered by a betrayal of trust have been identified by researchers, who found they could suppress such triggering and maintain trust by administering the brain chemical oxytocin.


Brain processes were able to be manipulated without the subject noticing. This means that as far as our motives and desires go, we are our own frame of reference. We may not understand that our reactions, desires and motives fall outside the expectations of others or if we do realize that our behavior falls outside the expectations of others we may not believe that it is a problem. In effect, our perception of reality is a function of the electrochemical processes in our head to the point that we may very sincerely be wrong and very sincerely not realize it.

While the study doesn't relate specifically to sin, motives and desires, I will use it as an analogy to argue from based on the presumption built on evidence that the brain responds similarly to environmental and hormonal factors.

If our behavior can be manipulated from outside sources and we are not aware of it, the system of divine accountablity is flawed. No one can reasonably be said to be willfully sinning against God because, from the perspective of the Human, all the factors cannot be detected or taken into account.

For example, how do any of you, or even me for that matter, know that I have willfully rejected god? It could very easily be a malfunction in the brain. And conversely, christians that believe in God could very well be suffering from a malfunction in the brain. We could very well have a cocktail of chemicals that cause this feeling and we would not realize or believe that it is wrong.

How this relates to sin is that if we are not aware that we are sinning, how can we be held accountable? And since that is the case, if we are to be held accountable for eternity for our sins on earth, why is it possible to manipulate the center of our desires and motivations? Our behavior, desires and motives should be impervious to any influence that are not our own to ensure proper accountability.

While a rapist may very well know that he or she is doing wrong by raping he or she may have no control over the initiation of the desire to do it. He or she can't be said to "be evil" or have "lust in the heart" because the desire could very well be the result of electrochemical processes in his or her head. Some of us have overwhelming desires to do the wrong thing, something more along the lines of deception or gaining unfair advantage, that we can easily justify internally and not realize it is wrong. Behavior such a sweet grandmother that is racist. Behavior that is taught or picked up and embedded in our brains electrochemically until something changes it.

This demonstrates that there is no thought process that goes on outside the brain, there is only the thought process that goes on in the brain of which the brain is its own frame of reference and which can be manipulated by external agents of which it cannot detect.

No Stomach for N.T. Wright (but what about J.P. Holding?)

48 comments
N.T. Wright on page 290 of The Resurrection of Jesus Christ seems to be admitting the obviousness of a biblical contradiction that many biblical inerrantists (like J.P. Holding for instance) seem loathe to admit. Before reading the passage from N.T. Wright one needs to know which verses he is referring to. They are from a Pauline letter and one of the earliest New Testament discussions concerning what "resurrection" meant, i.e., Paul wrote in 1st Corinthians 6:13 & 15:50, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God," and, "Food is for the stomach, and the stomach is for food; but God will do away with both of them." About such teachings N.T. Wright wrote:

"There is that about the body which will be destroyed; in the non-corruptible future world, food and the stomach are presumably irrelevant. So, for that matter (since food and stomach point metaphorically here to sexual behaviour and sexual organs) will human reproduction be irrelevant. Paul is again treading a fine line here, since he wants to say simultaneously both that the creator will destroy the bits of the body which are being touted by some in Corinth as those to do what they like with and that there is bodily continuity between the present person, behaving this way and that, and the person who will be raised to new bodily life."

To comment on Wright's comment, one need only note that the two last Gospels (Luke and John) abandoned Paul's earlier teaching and depicted scenes in which the resurrected Jesus "ate fish" and declared himself "not a spirit," but one "having flesh and bone." Which makes one wonder whether Paul might not have found such late Gospel depictions of the resurrected Jesus "heretical" had Paul lived long enough to read them.

Speaking again of N.T. Wright, in his latest book he preaches that Christians will be resurrected in a new body to live on a new earth, which raises all sorts of questions. Will people be raised with or without sex organs? Will resurrection bodies have the anatomy of Barbie dolls? (In which case, how "PG-rated," finally a "family friendly creation!") Why have that stuff between your legs for eternity if it's to be of no use?

On the other hand, Christians like C. S. Lewis hoped there would be "sex" in the afterlife. And we'd probably require organs of some sort if we were resurrected in "physical bodies" and inhabiting a "new earth." Of course some people might not like being stuck with the same physical organ they once had on earth, either because of its size or shape, or they might like to imagine trying out a different sex organ entirely rather than only having had the experience of one. And what about people born in the old creation with a bit of both sexual organs, the "inter-sexed?" Will God reassign them a gender specific organ after they are resurrected? (Again, a nice PG-rated cosmos, safe from any gray or blurry areas.)

And speaking of a "family friendly" cosmos, how "family friendly" will it be if you can't raise families in it? If new creation resurrcted bodies have sexual organs can the gonads function and conceive children? "Post-resurrection new creation babies?" Such babies wouldn't be born in a fallen cosmos but would have all the advantages of being born in a "new creation" -- all the food, love, and daily miracles anyone might ever hope to see from birth onwards. A bit of an advantage I'd say over all the damned in hell born after Adam's fall.

Of course if giving birth is NOT an option in the "new creation," then God has sterilized the chosen for eternity. (Which is a bit funny after all the lessons Christians keep telling us on earth that sterilization is wrong.)

CONVERSATION OF A SEMI-REBELLIOUS QUESTIONING CHRISTIAN WITH GOD AFTER BEING RESURRECTED IN THE NEW CREATION: "Hey God! Thanks for the resurrected body! Glory! Hey where's my? Oh wait, I've still got it (whew). Does it still work? Yes? But I'm shooting blanks for eternity? I can't make babies? In the old creation You told us to procreate and to have kids which were a tremendous blessing. Now you want us to have sex for pleasure with no baby-making even possible? Weird how you reversed the rules. Almost sounds like a resounding wet dream victory for Hugh Hefner and the sexual revolution. Can we have cosmic orgies too? No? I see. So we have to do it for eternity with one spouse, or "spouses" if we'd thought ahead like king Solomon and married a couple hundred while living in the old creation. What if we died without choosing a partner but were still looking for one? Can we date in the new creation? Is heavy petting an option in the new creation? Can we continue dating till eternity ends without settling on any one partner? Oh, and thanks for sterilizing me, since the only children I WAS able to conceive never "came to Jesus" and are now roasting down below. No point risking letting me conceive more souls to fill hell, I guess. So thanks for the blessing of knowing that the only kids I will ever be able to conceive throughout eternity are suffering horrible pains forever."

Then Adam steps up and whispers in my ear, "Tell ME about it."

Hector Avalos v. Richard Weikart on Hitler, Darwin and Evolutionary Ethics

19 comments
Link. This is a formal debate. The premise was this: "Was Darwinism MORE significant than Christian anti-Judaism in explaining Nazi ideology?"

Does Science Make Belief in God Obsolete?

5 comments
Link. Thanks to Guy Harrison for this link.

William Lane Craig v. Louise Antony: "Is God Necessary for Morality?"

12 comments
I think Dr. Antony's opening statement brilliantly and succinctly summarizes the best criticisms of Dr. Craig's position. It's a good debate.

GENESIS 1:28-2:4a, Be Fruitful And Multiply, Founder Effect and Genetic Diversity

10 comments
This Article shows that even if the physical evidence didn't refute the special creation of the first humans, Adam and Eve, in Genesis 1:27, the problem of Genetic Diversity known as the "Founder Effect" would eventually lead to crippling genetic mutations or extinction.
The article also mentions some other characteristics of and similarities with Near Eastern (Southwest Asian) Myths and a little history of the Bible.

This article and its predecessors in the series are a collection of notes put together from sources that are represented by quick reference links to similar web pages to make it easy to get more information as quickly as possible. The original sources are listed at the end.

A LIST OF PREMISES AS ARTICLES REFUTING GENESIS 1-11 AND ROMANS 5 SO FAR
P1. The Interconnectedness of The Ancients - Demonstrates the robust ancient civilizations at the time and that Canaan, Israel and Judah were central to them. Discusses trade routes, seafaring, the link between whales and the Leviathans of Mythology and how long it would take to get from one civilization to another by sea.
P2. Genesis 1:1-25 Is An Amalgam of Near Eastern Creation Myths. Demonstrates the prior existence of key elements of the story of the creation of the Universe that appears in Genesis.
P3. Genesis 1:26-1:27, Creation of Humans in Near Eastern Myths And The Paleolithic Era. Demonstrates that the physical evidence contradicts the story of the making of the first humans in Genesis.
P4. GENESIS 1:28-2:4a, Be Fruitful And Multiply, Founder Effect and Genetic Diversity. This Article shows that even if the physical evidence didn't refute the special creation of the first humans, Adam and Eve, in Genesis 1:27, the problem of Genetic Diversity known as the "Founder Effect" would eventually lead to crippling genetic mutations or extinction.

The criteria for Folklore as described in Alan Dundees book "Holy Writ as Oral Lit" are "multiple existence and variation".

GENESIS 1:28-31
* In most Near Eastern myths, man is made to serve god, he doesn't have a special place in the earth, but Judaism is different. The Judaic God, in concept and in comparison to other Near Eastern Gods, is like a benefactor of Man, like Prometheus(1).

* Generally, Near Eastern Myths reflect the sophistication of the city-state, Kingdom, region or Empire they come from. They have many Gods each with a responsibility and organized in an hierarchy. Judaism, coming from a small nomadic tribe has a God that reflects their culture. Their religion is simple; One god, involved with their daily business like a small town preacher. When they lost their land and moved to Babylon, then lived under the Persians, and then Greece, Gods character and behavior changed remarkably over time marked by the development of his "hiddenness" and the theology of the Angels and Satan.

* God gives them vegetation for food, later (after the flood) God changes his mind and lets them eat meat. Being pastoral, its not good to eat all the profits.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

God told them to be fruitful and multiply, but the problem is, the population they should found would be less fit over time than the founders. Their DNA would degrade over time until after a few generations, they would exhibit defects such as color blindness, immune system deficiencies, dwarfism, and a whole host of other problems that would put them at a higher risk of extinction with every generation.

* Founder effect: "The term "founder effect" refers to the loss of genetic variation when a new colony is established by a very small number of individuals from a larger population"(2,3)

Though there are a very small number of mutations (genetic drift) in a new birth, a small breeding population will amplify that drift. The effect can be profound. Changes in few a people can be copied through subsequent generations(3a). One of the problems in inbred populations are immune system damage. Without wide genetic diversity, the immune system becomes less able to fight a wide variety of diseases(4). The overall result is that inbred populations are less fit than larger breeding populations. And in fact, historically in popular culture, the effects of inbreeding are the subject of jokes directed at populations such as those that live in the Appalachian mountains commonly known as "Hillbillies"(5,6). Some case studies in genetic diversity among small populations have been done. Two ironic cases are the Amish in Pennsylvania and the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in Colorado City, Arizona and Hildale, Utah.

In Eastern Pennsylvania there are a group of Christians that live communally preferring to keep themselves distinct according to their religious beliefs(7). The are called "The Amish". This community was founded by about 200 German Immigrants in the early 18th century, possibly 1744. Because of their preference to breed from among themselves, their genetic diversity has decreased over time leading to an extraordinarily high instance of inherited disorders such as dwarfism and extra fingers caused by genetic mutations.

In Colorado City, Arizona and Hildale, Utah, the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was founded by John Y. Barlow and Joseph Smith Jessop. Because of their preference to interbreed, their population now lives with extraordinarily high incidence of mental retardation, encephalopathy, unusual facial features, brain malformation and epileptic seizures caused by unusually low amounts of fumarase in their cells(8).

The Pingelap Atoll is one of a group of three islands in the Pacific(9). After being struck by a typhoon it was reduced to a population of about 20. They have an unusually high incidence of colorblindness. 10% of the population are colorblind and 30% carry the Gene.

While the study and predictions of adequate numbers in a founder population is inconclusive, the estimates obviously depend on the quality of the initial set of genes. The numbers that I have seen for a viable population go from 50 to 10,000 individuals. A recent study of the genetic diversity in the founding of the Americas(10) shows the retention of genetic material of only about 70 individuals. Some of the genetic material was lost due to attrition (less breeding by a certain group) so the number was higher. According to Claude A. Piantadosi "the minimum founder population for a remote permanent space colony is likely to be on the order of 100 to 200 unrelated individuals."(11,12) That should bring new meaning to the phrase "Planned Parenthood". I suppose a plan to ensure the greatest amount of genetic diversity would have to be established to ensure the greatest likelihood of long term preservation of health.

If we say that Adam and eve lived and were perfect, then as we have traced our lineage back, we find the genetic "Adam" at about 60,000 BC and we find the "Mitochondrial Eve" at about 200,000 BCE. with 140,000 years between them, this contradicts the scenario in the bible. That puts us to the very beginnings of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, who definitely were not like us, and were living at the same time of the Neanderthals.

Stipulating Adam and Eve actually existed we should extend to them perfect Genes when they were made. Even with that, they could not escape genetic drift. We can see through experience and case studies that without perfect genes, a breeding population of more than two hundred would be needed to avoid the type of problems experienced by the Amish, the LDS, and the Pingelaps. Even with perfect genes, we know by extending the principles of inbreeding that any population derived from Adam and Eve would be less fit than they would otherwise. To posit a perpetual miracle is to increase the depth of contrary-to-fact speculation and makes an unlikely scenario even more unlikely. In any case, the problem presents itself again with the story of Noah.
30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

GENESIS 2:1-2:4a
1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.

* The ancients used principles of influence to try to enforce policy. They used Gods to legitimate their policies and their Kingship. Egyptian Pharoahs were variously linked to Gods, and The Epic of Gilgamesh has Gilgameshes name inserted in as the name of the Hero.

* The assertion that God rested on the seventh day is obviously a myth and an indicator that the writer was trying to legitimize this policy by associating it with God. "All his work" shouldn't be any effort at all for an all powerful being. He wouldn't need rest. Was he setting an example? What value does and example add to a mandate from God especially when there is a behavioral double standard for God and Humans?

* Being nomadic, and so prone to displacement, they needed something holy to keep up with the near eastern tradition, specifically Canaanite tradition, so they made a day holy. Holiness in Time rather than place. It allows for "Portable" worship.

* Genesis 2:4a is the end of the story and Genesis 2:4b starts the second one. Normally the biblical chapters correlate to the start and end of a story. In this case Stephen Langton(13) of Magna Carta fame, evidently decided to make this an exception or hadn't worked out the correlation between chapter and story yet.

* I've found two opinions on Genesis 2:4a. One says that it is like the book end to the first sentence. The second says that it was interjected by the redactor to introduce the second story(14). I hate to disagree with Richard Elliot Friedman, but it sure does look like a literary device that opens and closes the first story and it does seem to fit better, in my mind, than opening the second story, only to reverse the words in the next breath.
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.
3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
4a. This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

End of the first creation story

That brings us to the second creation story.

QUICK REFERENCES
1. Prometheus
2. Founder Effect from wikipedia
3. Founder Effect from BookRags
3a. Genetic Overview
4. Inbreeding
5. Hillbilly
6. Hillbilly Jokes
7. Amish
8. Fumarase deficiency
9. Pingelap colorblindness
10. Peopling of the Americas
11. The Biology of Human Survival: Life and Death in Extreme Environments, Claude A. Piantadosi, Oxford University Press, USA; 1 edition (September 11, 2003) pg 246,
12. Google books- "The Biology of Human Survival: Life and Death in Extreme Environments" Online
13. Stephen Langton
14. The Bible with Sources Revealed Richard Elliot Friedman.

SOURCES
1. Human Prehistory and First Civilizations, The Teaching Company
2.
Understanding Genetics: DNA, Genes, and Their Real-World Applications
, The Teaching Company
3. Religion in the Ancient Mediterranean World, The Teaching Company
4. The Bible With Sources Revealed Richard Elliot Friedman
5. The Book of Genesis, The Teaching Company
6. Great Figures of the Old Testament, The Teaching Company.
7. Alan Dundees Holy writ as oral lit
8. National Geographic Genographic Project

Tertullian's Paradox; Insufficiency of both Reason & Scripture; C.S. Lewis & John Calvin; Victor Reppert & Paul Manata

8 comments
The less people know about some things the more they argue over them. And what do Victor Reppert (of the blog Dangerous Idea) and Paul Manata (of the blog Triablogue) actually "know" about the things they are discussing -- things that constitute some of the most heavily discussed and unresolved debates throughout centuries of Christian theology and philosophy?

In this case Paul (the Calvinist) and Vic (the C.S.Lewis-ian/Arminian) toss at each other grandiose concepts and words that have a core of incomprehensibility not only in and of themselves, but also in the different ways different thinkers have conceived of them relating to one another:

God / nature
omniscience / free will
predestination / free will
divine goodness / human goodness (or lack thereof w/ exception of "common grace")

Both Vic and Paul remain "certain" that any incomprehensibilities in each case accord with their religious/philosophical words and definitions to a far greater degree than the words and definitions of the other fellow's alternate system of explanation.

All of which reminded me of something Bernard Williams, a Christian philosopher, wrote in his essay, "Tertullian's Paradox":

"If the Christian faith is true, it must be partly incomprehensible. But if it is partly incomprehensible, it is difficult to see what it is for it to be true..."

He continued...

"It follows further... that it is difficult to characterise the difference between belief and unbelief [especially, I might add, in the sense of believing--or not believing--in philosophical & biblical explanatory systems propounded by other Christians--E.T.B.]."

Read on as I fan the flames and even explain how arguments from both Catholic and Protestant thinkers over the centuries, when combined, have helped create more agnostics...

There are (and have been) so many differences between Christians in matters of theology, philosophy, liturgy, spiritual regimes, buzz words, and other practices, that Christianity ought to be called "Christianities," a term preferred by some scholars. In fact a spectrum of systems exist for interpreting the Bible and for determining it's authority on various matters, and even further diversity exists in respect to interpreting the history of competing Christian dogmas and traditions over the centuries -- in order to determine what authority each holds -- and in order to "find God's will."

No doubt the hunt for "God's will" via interpreting holy books, dogmas, and traditions is endless and exhausting which explains why so many Christians feel relieved to leave such a hunt up to their pastor, or up to the Sunday School lessons their church receives in booklets sent from their parent institution, or up to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, or up to the living patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox church, or up to the guy with the weird haircut hawking "holy hankies" on TV.

I know it's exhausting because I tried and sought and prayed and read and read and continue to read up on the topic. So let's pour more oil on the fire of Vic and Paul's dialogue, and start by asking them both why they aren't Catholic? It's the single biggest Christian Church in the world. Nearly as big as all Protestant denominations combined. And it has what it calls "apostolic authority" going back to an apostle whom Jesus himself picked as a rock of faith to whom things on heaven and earth would be loosed, and they say that apostle picked others, etc. And here's the kicker, Catholics continue to use every reasonable, rational and historical argument in order to deny something near and dear to every Protestant, the sufficiency and perspicacity of Scripture. Instead of such a belief, Catholics teach that...

SCRIPTURE ALONE IS INSUFFICIENT

...which is also one of the things that Francis Beckwith, president of the Evangelical Theological Society, concluded last year before converting to Catholicism and leaving the presidency of that Protestant organization. Judging by his conversion (as well as that of Cardinal Newman's during the Victorian era which stunned England) Catholic critiques of the Protestant belief in "Sola Scriptura," are handy at helping to raise questions in the minds of conservative Protestants. Arguments between Catholics and Protestants on this matter even resemble the ones between freethinkers and conservative Protestants over the question of biblical inerrancy, and may help some Protestants grow a bit more moderate, even a bit more agnostic. See these articles for instance:

Ecclesiastical Authority in Scripture and Apostolic Tradition
by James Roger Black, Ph.D. in "Ancient Religions of the Eastern Mediterranean"

The headings in Dr. Black's paper include:

"Scripture alone is not a sufficient guide to faith and practice...
"Scripture is not self-defining...
"Scripture is not self-authenticating...
"Scripture is not self-interpreting...

"The Reformation principle of 'sola scriptura' -- i.e., reliance on 'Scripture alone' -- is not taught in Scripture itself, was not held by the early Church...

"The commonly cited biblical proofs of sola scriptura do not actually teach what they are alleged to teach...

"Both Jesus and the Apostles made use of -- and even appealed to the authority of -- the oral traditions, deuterocanonical and extracanonical writings, and varying textual recensions of their day."

See Black's article for the examples he cites beneath each heading. And see Dave Armstrong's articles as well:

Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

The Perspicuity ("Clearness") of Scripture

The Old Testament, the Ancient Jews, and Sola Scriptura

Are All the Biblical Books "Self-Attesting" and Self-Evidently Inspired?

Or check out this book: Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura ed., Robert A. Sungenis

Naturally if "Sola Scriptura" fails then Protestant's will be forced to recognize or at least look into Catholic claims of divinely-directed growth of dogma and traditions, not to mention centuries of miraculous and visionary experiences.

And here's where it beomes PROTESTANTISM'S turn to aid in leading more people toward greater agnosticism. Protestants over the centuries have gone through each miraculous tale propounded by the Catholic church with a fine-tooth comb and found them wanting. On the miracles reported to have taken place in the early church Rev. Dr. Conyers Middleton (18th century British Anglican clergyman, Cambridge graduate and author) says, regarding the early church fathers who reported them:

"I have shown by many indisputable facts, that the ancient fathers, by whose authority that delusion was originally imposed (that miracles existed in the early church), and has ever since been supported, were extremely credulous and superstitious; possessed with strong prejudices and enthusiastic zeal, in favour, not only of Christianity in general, but of every particular doctrine, which a wild imagination could ingraft upon it; and scrupling no art or means, by which they might propagate the same principles. In short; they they were of a character, from which nothing could be expected, that was candid and impartial; nothing but what a weak or crafty understanding could supply, towards confirming those prejudices, with which they happened to be possessed; especially where religion was the subject, which above all other motives, strengthens every bias, and inflames every passion of the human mind." [Conyers Middleton (1749), A FREE INQUIRY INTO THE MIRACULOUS POWERS WHICH ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE SUBSISTED IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH FROM THE EARLIEST AGES THROUGH SEVERAL SUCCESSIVE CENTURIES. Reprinted (1967). New York: Garland Publishing. Preface, pp. 21-22.]

Then in the 19th century one can read the Protestant theologian (and father of modern inerrancy), B. B. Warfield, to see how he debunked Catholic miracles and resurrection stories in his famous work, COUNTERFEIT MIRACLES. Which just goes to show, as Dr. Robert M. Price (an ex-fundamentalist Protestant), wrote, "The zeal and ingenuity of conservative evangelical scholars in dismantling the miracles of rival Christian groups (and exploding rival interpretations of Scripture used to support such miracles), is worthy of the most skeptical gospel critic."

In the 20th century after the worldwide rise of Pentecostalism, the conservative Protestant, George W. Peters, dismantled stories of "resurrections" that allegedly took place in the 1970s during the Pentecostal revival in the Phillipines. His book was titled, INDONESIA REVIVAL: FOCUS ON TIMOR(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), Chapter 4, "The Miracle Phenomena of the Revival," pp. 57-85. Other conservative Protestants have dismantled claims of miracles allegedly performed by Pentecostal televangelist Benny Hinn, including his claim, now withdrawn, that he had "raised someone to life."

This brings us to a Catholic book by Father Albert J. Hebert S.M., RAISED FROM THE DEAD: TRUE STORIES OF 400 RESURRECTION MIRACLES. Father Hebert claims many resurrection miracles have been performed by Roman Catholic saints. Naturally Protestants like Middleton, Warfield, and Peters are not going to simply allow Catholics to believe that their Church has a preponderance of resurrection miracles vouchsafed by God. They are going to question whether any such myriad of miracles ever took place, using every possible reason, rationalization or inkling of doubt in their minds.

But then one must ask how those same Protestants, so willing to employ every reason and rationalization at their disposal to deny Catholic miracles -- chalking them up to gullibility, blindness, folk tales, myths, legends, or the result of living in ignorant and superstitious times -- expect modern day people to believe every last miracle in the Bible instead?

On what historical grounds can the miracles of Protestantism's "enemy," the Catholic Church, be rejected without also rejecting or at least questioning heartily those found in the N.T.? If Father Hebert is correct then the miracles he enumerates serve as evidence of God's approval of the Roman Catholic Church's status as true church of God. And the miracles Father Hebert documents happened much more recently than those reported in the Gospels, and they are reported by people about whom we know more than is known about the Gospel writers. So what do we really know of the anonymous writers of the Gospels that assures us that they would not make use of whatever stories or pious legends were being spread about by others living in such a superstitious era?

Hence,
CATHOLICISM critiques the sufficiency of Scripture,
while
PROTESTANTISM critiques other Christian's beliefs in the movement of the spirit within their church (which was the Catholic church for centuries).

And that's but one reason why I remain agnostic concerning such matters. *smile* For a few others read,
If It Wasn't For Agnosticism I Would Know WHAT to Believe,
and,
Agnosticism: Reasons to Leave Christianity

Ed
( Edward T. Babinski )

"Loftus Entertains, Informs and Incites..."

3 comments
Here's a review of my talk in Ft. Wayne. Link.

The Detestable Practice of Divinely Sanctioned Child Sacrifice in the Bible

97 comments
Harry McCall is working on a post about child sacrifice that I'm anxiously waiting for. It's an issue that Christians want to hide under the rug. In the meantime let me prime the pump...

Child Sacrifice is Divinely Commanded in the Bible!

Exodus 22:29-30:
“You shall not delay to offer from the fullness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. The first-born of your sons you shall give to me. 30 You shall do likewise with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall be with its dam; on the eighth day you shall give it to me.”
God admitted he did this in Ezekiel 20:25-26 where he purportedly said:
25 “Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; 26 and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know that I am the Lord.”
The context of the Exodus passage concerns offerings and sacrifices, and it says God requires that first born sons are to be literally sacrificed to him. Hence, unlike other passages where there is the possibility of redemption with a substitute sacrifice (cf. Exodus 13:13; 34:10-20), none is specifically stated here. The concept of "redemption" is an interesting one that goes hand in hand with child sacrifice, because animals were substituted for the firstborn. Yet that says nothing against the idea that a better sacrifice was the firstborn child himself, and many people in the Old Testament did just that. Circumcision was probably a substitutionary child sacrifice (Exodus 4:24).

Child sacrifice should be understood within the whole concept of human sacrifice as a whole, which pleased God (Leviticus 27:28). Human sacrifice was probably only considered evil when it was done in the name of a foreign god, and doing so was punishable by death precisely because it was offered to another deity (Leviticus 20:2; 18:21 Deuteronomy 12:31 18:10; II Kings 17:17 23:10; II Chronicles 28:3 33:4-10; Ps 106:38; Isaiah 57:5,6; Jeremiah 7:31 32:35 Ezekiel 16:20,21 20:26,31 23:37,39 Acts 7:43).

Child sacrifice was something that several Biblical people either did, or assisted others in doing so. Abraham was not morally repulsed by the command itself (Genesis 22). Then there is Jepthah who probably sacrificed his daughter because of a stupid vow (Judges 11); David (II Sam. 21:7-9); Solomon and his wives (I Kings 3:16); Ahab (I Kings 16:33-34); Ahaz (II Kings 16:2-3); Hoshea (II Kings 17:7); and Manasseh (II Kings 21:6, II Chronicles 33:6). It was a problem for King Josiah ( II King 23:10), for Jeremiah (Jeremiah 7:30-31; 19:3-5; 32:35), and Ezekiel (Ezekiel 16:20-21; 20:25-26, 30-31). The prophet Micah wonders if he should sacrifice his oldest son “as a sin offering” (6:6-8). Child sacrifice to foreign gods was so prevalent that it’s named as one of the major reasons why God sent the Babylonians to conquer Israel and forcibly take many of them as captives (II Kings 17:16-18).

We even read where the King of Moab sacrificed his son which caused the Israelites to retreat in defeat. Moab’s sacrifice created a great “wrath,” (ketzef), which was an external divine force to the warriors in the story, indicating that his sacrifice caused some divinity to act on behalf of Moab. (II Kings. 3:26-27).

In the New Testament God the Father sacrifices his only son (Jesus) as the central redemptive act of Christianity, and God still seeks to fulfill his lust for human sacrifice by burning humans forever in the lake of fire.

Sin, Genes, Sugars and Alcohol

48 comments
This is a datum to support my assertion that Biological Bases for Behaviors are incorrectly interpreted as "Sin".

Genetic Variation Linked To Preference Sugary Food
It has long been recognized that Addiction to sugary foods are a predictor of alcoholism(1,3,4). Ethanol (alcohol that you can drink) is made from sugars and starch(6). Now a mechanism to account for the craving for sugar has been identified in the GLUT2 gene(2). While many "sins" can be attributed to poor choices, some sins that start with an inexplicable desire cannot. Various addictions are sustained by a "craving" that has yet to be explained in medical terms. It has traditionally been attributed to poor self-control or a lack of desire to behave properly.

While Cbsessive Compulsive Disorder does not fall into the substance abuse class of Sin, it does have the characteristic of lack of control for a desired behavior. Criminologists have theories on the lack of control for behavior and have identified that the desire for self control is separate from the capacity for self-control(5). One may desire not to steal, but one may be compelled to steal anyway.

While christians are quick to point out that God gave us free will to choose to obey his commands, they say that God won't influence us to follow his commands because it will "turn us into robots". However I have yet to see a christian explain why God doesn't have a problem building the DESIRE into us which, using thier principle, should make us a "robot" to sin. Since we have these desires built into us that cause some of us to do things that we wish we could stop, it refutes the concept of sin. Being a slave to sin, as I understand it, is a Calvinistic doctrine where predestination is a tenet. In my view, as I understand it, in this respect the Calvinistic view is the most logically consistant, however barbaric.


1. Does a Sweet Tooth Mean Alcoholism?
2. Genetic Variation Linked To Preference Sugary Food
3. Specificity of ethanol like effects elicited by serotonergic and noradrenergic mechanisms.
4. "Specificity of Ethanol..." Translated for the layman
5. Self-Restraint: A Study on the Capacity and Desire for Self-Control
6. From Cereal Corn To Alcohol

Ex-Preacher Says Good-bye to God

93 comments
*ahem* That's me. All are welcome.

Fun With Fallacies: Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor

4 comments
Which fallacies are the good cardinal guilty of and why?
...he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme why he thought it was dangerous to be governed by reason alone. He said that "supposedly faithless societies" ruled only by reason were like those created by Hitler and Stalin, ripe for "terror and oppression". Full Story

These are the ones I identified in the course of five minutes. Can you identify any others?

* Part to whole Comparison fallacy - If its true that societies created by Hitler and Stalin were "supposedly faithless", that doesn't mean that all "supposedly faithless" society are like Hitler and Stalins or that "supposedly faithless societies" necessarily will end up like Hitler and Stalins.

* Faulty Analogy - Hitler and Stalins societies had more going on in them than just being "supposedly faithless".

* Causal Oversimplification - Ignores qualifiers that made Hitlers and Stalins societies "ripe for terror and oppression".

* Unrepresentative Sample - Stipulating that the two examples are valid, two bad examples are not enough examples to show a trend that "supposedly faithless" societies are likely to be "ripe for terror and oppression".

* Special Pleading - Because not only "supposedly faithless societies" were ripe for "terror and oppression". I know that a few in the catholic church leadership over the centuries have quite a bit of blood on thier hands.

* Appeal to Consequences - Simply asserts that "supposedly faithless societies" are "ripe for terror and oppression" without saying why.

* Appeal to Emotion - Trying to evoke strong negative emotions in relation to a society ruled by "reason alone"

* Non-Sequitur - Because I don't think that any rational person would say that Hitler "governed by reason alone". In my view, Hitler was a little insane.

Faulty reasoning in leadership is scary.

Its also interesting to note that his motivation to respect atheists seems to be driven by his "concern about the increasing unpopularity of the Christian voice in public life".

Hone your skills over at the LSAT Logic in Everyday Life podcast.

Does Morality Come From the Bible?

12 comments