Sketches on Atheism

What Would Make You Believe?

upsidedownThe always-artful Ark has been doing a splendid series of articles (here, here, and here), asking Christians a very simple question: Why? Why are you a Christian?

The answers, perhaps predictably, have been less than convincing; each ultimately falling back on the cultural bedrock of childhood indoctrination, as opposed to any rational or verifiable evidence acquired in adulthood. Simple indoctrination, though, is proving a disastrous policy for the religious as “faith” (unjustified belief) cannot win in the marketplace of ideas. In his book, The Great Evangelical Recession, John S. Dickerson, notes: “260,000 [US] evangelical young people walk away from Christianity each year.” Those numbers are far higher in every other advanced country on the planet where reason has already supplanted superstition.

Following on from Ark’s investigation, I’ll ask the naturally accompanying question: What would you, the atheist, need to believe? What would convince you of the truth of any religion, including Christianity?

Now, this very question was asked to Bill Nye in his recent debate with Ken Ham, and his answer was as eloquent as it was brief: evidence. What, however, would that evidence look like? In the opening session of Moving Naturalism Forward Richard Dawkins noted that he had a “hard time even trying to imagine what anything but naturalism would look like,” and I have to agree with him on this point.

So the question stands: What would it take for you, the atheist, to believe?

For me I would be compelled to seriously look at any religion if one or two things could be established without any ambiguity:

  1. If it could be determined without doubt or hesitation that a religion had revealed anything to us, at any time, that we didn’t already know (meaning not a delusion or solipsistic error which has to be taken on “faith”)
  2. If any religion had emerged – or deity envisaged – twice anywhere on the planet, completely unassisted.

 

Advertisements

263 thoughts on “What Would Make You Believe?

  1. @Richard Re: The Flood

    Please please please don’t go there.

    The next claim after the flood is proof that earth is flat and their is a firmament of the heavens above our heads..

    Like

  2. Good morning Tildeb. I was just listening to a wonderful song at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRspIyKhniw by The Ragamuffin Band called “A Man of No Reputation.” I believe that it is important to say a couple of things. 1. I acknowledge that archaeologists are people with great expertise. I feel the same can be said about good car mechanics who can keep our hybrids running (like my best friend, John) and about systems and network administrators (which is what I am going to school to become). 2. I often think about the Renaissance — a time when people were able to be accomplished in more than one area of expertise in their lifetimes. This brings to mind America’s founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Benjamin Rush… 3. I think it is also important to mention once again that a priori suppositions affect everything for everyone, even archaeologists. When we say “sedimentary layers are made by natural process(es)” or when we talk about the creation of stars or the Grand Canyon, or about how seashells arrived on the tops of .mountains, it is difficult not to really reflect (excuse me, John) our epistemological position. Using the scientific method, a person with expertise in a field can look around and observe what is happening in the present–how sedimentary layers are laid down, how stars are created. The scientific method also allows us to build models by which we can extrapolate theories of what may have happened in the past and may happen in the future. However, the scientific method cannot tell us that something did happen or will happen. When we look back at the past, we can only surmise what we think happened based on some set of principles, and if our epistemology does not include the possibility of intervention from outside the system (of how things happen now), we have no room for the possible effects of cataclysmic events or the supernatural. Naturalism, materialism, are not scientific positions. They are philosophical ones. My philosophic position, my starting place, allows me to believe that anything is possible. It may seem simplistic, but I am still curious about the seashells, and I am still going to look into it. 🙂

    Like

  3. Rich, you say When we say “sedimentary layers are made by natural process(es)”… (snip)… it is difficult not to really reflect (excuse me, John) our epistemological position.

    You are trying to assert that that ‘natural process(es)’ is an a priori assumption and apply that to what I said. This is not true and it’s not part of the foundation of what constitutes the scientific method.

    What I said was “Using this geological model of how sedimentary layers are made by natural process, oil companies look for these kinds of deposits to indicate to them where oil and gas deposits are much more likely to be found. These companies wouldn’t make such huge investments drilling where they do if the same geological models didn’t work reliably and predictably well.”

    My point is exactly contrary to your assertion (that the method of science takes on board from the get go an epistemological assumption that you hint precludes divine intervention). Because the geological model works without any need for making room for divine intervention, this demonstrates why the addition you want to make for god is not productive. There is ZERO evidence for any such intervention and overwhelming evidence against it. This is reality’s arbitration of your claim and not mine or any group of scientist’s a priori assumption.

    To then grant confidence to YOUR assertion that there could be intervention is empty of anything from reality to back it up. That assertion you assume has epistemological value is wholly religious and divorced from reality. There is no justification from evidence adduced from reality to tell resource extraction companies that the geological model they use that works reliably and consistently well (an upon which they gamble billions and billions of dollars) might contain some heretofore supernatural component. It’s a claim as devoid of knowledge as it is evidence in its support. It is a faith-based belief not just divorced from reality but imposed on it to serve some theological – and not knowledge-driven – purpose.

    So when you suggest that we reflect on our how we gain knowledge about the reality we share (our epistemological position) and then turn right around and empower an incompatible religious epistemology that either ignores or supersedes reality role to arbitrate claims made about it, then you are the one who needs to revisit your epistemological position and find out where you went so badly astray to make such a colossal methodological blunder.

    Like

    • Tildeb, my point about epistemology was about the past and the future. One can extrapolate predictions from the present in both directions. And scientific and technological people do all the time, but it must be admitted that these are guesses, albeit educated ones. My epistemological position allows for the possibility that there were events that took place that I might not be able to know about using the scientific method, experimentation and modeling. The same is true for the future.

      Like

      • Rich, you say that My epistemological position allows for the possibility that there were events that took place that I might not be able to know about using the scientific method, experimentation and modeling.

        I understand your epistemology allows for that, which IS a problem if you maintain confidence in the possibility of unexplained events in specific examples like sedimentation. There is zero evidence of any unexplained event in sedimentation. It is a physical process fully understandable assuming all other naturally occurring factors remain stable over time (ie. the laws of physics). By assuming that these factors can and do change (and are, in fact, changeable) is a scientific hypothesis. What evidence you have to support this claim? If you have no evidence, then the possibility is as low as it can be. The claim is not supportable by evidence adduced from reality but imposed on it for reasons OTHER than pursing knowledge. If you are trying to do something else than find out FROM how it operates, by what mechanisms and agencies, then be honest about it and stop pretending that this a reasonable ‘alternative’; it’s an epistemology with a different goal altogether. And the goal you seek I think is obvious: to rationalize and privilege a priori faith-based assumptions on reality and then pretend it is adduced from it. This is inherently dishonest.

        Like

  4. @Tildeb

    It is almost like you’ve had this argument before. Very nicely put.

    It is the long form of saying that believing in magic is unjustified and irrational.

    I’d add stupid, but that’s just me. 🙂

    Like

    • What I’m saying is that it is a common tactic to present faith-based belief as if it is adduced from reality when, in fact, it is imposed on it. And this is clear when the burden of proof is accepted, namely, that when asked for this convincing evidence, the believer can produce none from reality to directly support the claim independent of the confidence the believer imports to it.

      Obviously, the claim gains confidence not from reality that produces little if any compelling evidence to justify the confidence granted to the claim but by some other means, from some other source, privileging some other consideration than what reality alone contains.

      The thing is, this same tactic is used to justify confidence in all kinds of woo claims that supporters then pretend is justified not by their credulity and gullibility and non critical acceptance but revealed by reality… usually by feeling special to have accessed this ‘other’ reality, this ‘higher’ plane of existence, this ‘hidden’ truth unavailable to the those who are ‘too close to the trees to see the forest’. That’s a clue….

      Like

      • I’m not quite understanding your comments. The article seems to be talking about uniformitarianism as subject to fits and starts. In an effort to verify that my understanding of the article is correct, I did more research this morning and came up with “Updating uniformitarianism: stratigraphy as just a set of ‘frozen accidents’” by Andrew D. Miall at http://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/early/2014/04/08/SP404.4.abstract. I found this article in its entirety at http://www.cspg.org/documents/Conventions/Archives/Annual/2012/004_GC2012_The%20Nature_of_the_Sedimentary_Record.pdf. In it, the author says: “It has long been understood that the stratigraphic record is fragmentary. Blackwelder (1909) recognized that the cratonic sedimentary cover of North America consists of a suite of unconformity bounded successions, later termed “layers of geology” by Levorsen (1943) and “sequences” by Sloss (1963). Barrell (1917) in a paper that was many years ahead of its time, was the first to clearly understood 1)
        the importance of what we now term accommodation, the space available for sediments to accumulate, and 2) the very episodic way in which accommodation is created and removed by geological processes. He demonstrated that under typical conditions of base-level rise and fall only a fraction of geologic time may actually be represented by accumulated sediment. This was emphasized by Ager (1973) who remarked that “the stratigraphic record is more gap than record.” In a later book, following a description of the major unconformities in the record at the Grand Canyon, he said, (1993, p. 14): “We talk about such obvious breaks, but there are also gaps on a much smaller scale, which may add up to vastly more unrecorded time. Every bedding plane is, in effect, an unconformity. It may seem paradoxical, but to me the gaps probably cover most of earth history, not the dirt that happened to accumulate in the moments between. It was during the breaks that most events probably occurred.” This all makes me think of Stephen Jay Gould’s Punctuated Equilibrium.

        Like

      • The previous comment I made was in response to Arb, who suggested that what I had written was “the long form of saying that believing in magic is unjustified and irrational.” I clarified that my comment was more about revealing the order of justification used by believers, which was often dishonest, namely, pretending their beliefs were adduced from reality when it was demonstrably imposed on it.

        As for the article, let’s revisit what uniformitarianism means in geology: the landscape has been developed over long periods of time through a variety of slow geologic and geomorphic processes. This hypothesis was developed by Hutton.

        When this hypothesis was presented (late 1700s), the prevailing principle to explain landscapes was called catastrophism (landscape as a result from the biblical global flood). He argued that geologic history could be interpreted in terms of processes currently observed. This was a revolutionary concept because we don’t see bedrock weathering, we don’t see isostatic rebound, we don’t see ice ages, we don’t see continental glaciation, we don’t see plate tectonics and mountain building, and so on. (Yet all of these explanatory global models work to accurately describe local geological processes). What we do see is local and tiny. Hutton suggested these small scale and local processes (like erosion of creek beds and sedimentation from local flooding) could be extrapolated to be in effect on a large scale, which could reveal an estimated calculation of what kind of time scale we were looking at.

        I get the impression that you assume that geologists think sedimentation rates are stable and ought to be uniform to produce the sedimentary layers we find in reality and on this belief that time calculations about, say the age of the earth, are made.

        No, on all accounts.

        Sedimentation rates vary across a very wide spectrum and are affected by all kinds of conditions that themselves change over time. And we see this in our local creek. Take a half dozen core samples across the creek bed and another half dozen up- and downstream and you will have a dozen different examples of variable sedimentation. But you will also find uniformitarianism at work, namely, the same sedimentary layers composed of the same materials spread across the same order of particulate size with the same catastrophic evidence if there (perhaps an ash layer from a volcanic eruption or forest fire, maybe a meteorite element layer, and so on).

        What you won’t find is the kind of geological evidence for a global flood, meaning the layers necessary to reveal geologic evidence for a global flood at an historical time. The particulate layer from such an event should be present globally and found in the same historical order of the layers as any other catastrophic event, and its just not there.

        As for calculating ages of sedimentary rock, we use an array of dating methods to validate approximations. The most fundamental is the order, meaning that the lower rock layers probably are older than the shallower layers. This isn’t always the case, however; sometimes we find sections reversed. How to explain this?

        Welcome to the world of geology where a life time of study isn’t enough to find all the explanations to all the questions we have. But we do have remarkable success creating geological explanatory models that work from the local to the global. That’s why uniformitarianism is an accepted principle upon which all our knowledge of geology is based. If this principle is wrong, then it is mind-bogglingly astounding that our knowledge base built on it continues uninterrupted to work for everyone everywhere all the time predictably and reliably well… by some strange yet ongoing coincidence.

        Like

    • Rich, you cannot go wrong looking to reality, examining what you find, and THEN coming up with an explanatory model to then be tested against new incoming data. This is methodological naturalism at work and it produces applicable knowledge about reality – knowledge that all of us use successfully on a daily basis. This method also contains the means to falsify claims made about reality by allowing reality to arbitrate claims made about it. It can also reveal supernatural intervention. It hasn’t… yet.

      You cannot help but go wrong if you apply a belief TO reality and then search for whatever data fits and call this ‘evidence’ for the belief while philosophically and metaphysically diverting data that doesn’t. This is faith-based methodology at work and it assumes supernatural causal effect by intervention. Not surprisingly, everything examined then becomes evidence for it because it assumes the conclusion as its premise. This method has no means to differentiate the natural from the supernatural because it doesn’t allow reality to arbitrate these claims but relegates it to be a servant of the belief. As a result, this method has yet to produce any applicable knowledge.

      Like

  5. @Richard

    the author is making a similar argument to the one I am making.

    I am curious as to why we should go see someone else making erroneous claims? Maybe you should quote the relevant material here, as it is you who are making the claim?

    Like

  6. I have not really looked into these things in any depth for a few years now, but looking into it, I am interested to find that Hutton himself was not trained as a geologist, but in medicine, and that he was a farmer. It appears that he published his “Theory of the Earth” in 1795, and that his work was based on the following a priori supposition: “The past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now… No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle.” Now, when I was taking Earth Science in high school (in the 1970s), I was taught without equivocation that uniformitarianism meant that the sedimentary layers of the earth had been laid down by means of natural processes that had remained and still remain uniform through time (“such as rivers depositing layers of silt, wind and water eroding landscapes, glaciers advancing or retreating”). That was just a little before Stephen Jay Gould wrote: “Charles Lyell (with whom the idea of uniformitarianism is generally associated) was a lawyer by profession, and his book is one of the most brilliant briefs published by an advocate… Lyell relied upon true bits of cunning to establish his uniformitarian views as the only true geology. First, he set up a straw man to demolish. In fact the catastrophists were much more empirically minded than Lyell. The geologic record does seem to require catastrophes: rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out. To circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the evidence. The geologic record, he argued, is extremely imperfect and we must interpolate into it what we can reasonably infer but cannot see. The catastrophists were the hard-nosed empiricists of their day, not blinded theological apologists.”
    I refer you to http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/10/9/455.abstract, published by http://www.geosociety.org/, which says the following:
    “Although uniformitarianism is widely recognized as the basic principle of geology, the geological literature is riddled with false and misleading statements as to what uniformitarianism means. These misconceptions must be eliminated so geologists feel free to propose any scientifically reasonable hypotheses and because they open geology to unwarranted attack from outside science. The twelve specific fallacies identified herein are that uniformitarianism (1) is unique to geology; (2) was originated by Hutton; (3) was named by Lyell, who established its current meaning; (4) should be called ‘actualism’ because it refers to ‘real’ causes; (5) holds that only currently acting processes operated during geologic time; (6) holds that the rates of processes have been constant; (7) holds that only gradual processes have acted and that catastrophes have not occurred during Earth’s past; (8) holds that conditions on Earth haven’t changed much; (9) holds that Earth is very old; (10) is a testable theory; (11) is limited in both time and place; and (12) holds that the laws governing nature have been constant through time. Geologists should abandon the terms ‘uniformitarianism’ and ‘actualism’ because they are fruitless, confusing, and inextricably associated with many fallacious concepts. Instead, the fundamental philosophical approach of science should be recognized as basic to geology.”
    My original point was about epistemology. I said that one can only “extrapolate predictions from the present in both directions. And scientific and technological people do all the time, but it must be admitted that these are guesses, albeit educated ones. My epistemological position allows for the possibility that there were events that took place that I might not be able to know about using the scientific method, experimentation and modeling. The same is true for the future.” And that is still my contention–that Science’s ability to say what happened in the past is limited. I think that is an honest assessment of my position. And I do not understand how you can honestly disagree with it.

    Like

    • Rich, you say My epistemological position allows for the possibility that there were events that took place that I might not be able to know about using the scientific method, experimentation and modeling. The same is true for the future.”

      I responded to that already and asked you for evidence to support the likelihood of such events. You have not produced any; instead you have tried to criticize uniformatarianism, as if by doing that you somehow strengthen your claim. That is not a substitute for evidence.

      Could such events have happened? Yes. But that’s not epistemology; it’s ontology. And is here where the rubber of epistemology meets the road of ontology. Does reality support the ontology? Does reality offer us some kind of justification for such a claim? Unless and until reality arbitrates the ontology to be a conclusion with merit outside of your willingness to empower it, you’ve fallen for the oldest trick in the book: believing your beliefs empower reality.

      This confusion is how magicians and conjurors and con men and snake oil salesmen make their living: off the credulity and gullibility of their clients… people convinced they have access to knowledge unavailable to others. And rationalizations for increased credulity and gullibility are the hallmarks of a very poor epistemology.

      Like

  7. Dear Tildeb,
    You say: “Could such events have happened? Yes. But that’s not epistemology; it’s ontology. And is here where the rubber of epistemology meets the road of ontology. Does reality support the ontology? Does reality offer us some kind of justification for such a claim? Unless and until reality arbitrates the ontology to be a conclusion with merit outside of your willingness to empower it, you’ve fallen for the oldest trick in the book: believing your beliefs empower reality.”
    You see here is the crux, in my opinion, of the discussion. Epistemologically, you say accede to the idea that there are things we cannot know–that are outside of our ability to know. But then you turn to Ontology and quickly define “Reality” for us, immediately framing the discussion for us. What is Reality? Based on your comments, I would have to say that for you Reality consists of the matter-space-time universe. I understand that. That is a reasonable hypothesis based on your experience, because you have never walked into a room and felt–experienced the awesome, humbling, somewhat frightening, but inexplicably attractive sense of the Presence of God–the feeling I have right now listening to a song at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzc9fqSHuGU. And I expect you have never felt the horrible unpleasant feeling of walking into an attic in someone’s home and thinking “Oh my, this looks like a place where someone might have held satanic rituals,” only to later go down into their basement and find multiple satanic signs hung by paperclips from a clothesline… The hair on my arms is standing while I write this. Tildeb, you speak with great confidence about things you know nothing about. Framing a discussion and then demanding that I comply with that framework does not make you right. It just makes you in control.
    Now about the idea about people being “convinced they have access to knowledge unavailable to others,” I say–that is your choice. To change that, all one has to do is say, “God, if You exist, I am willing to humble myself before Your power, before You, in the hope that You really are good. Please reveal Yourself to me,” and the knowledge will be available to you too.
    I read a poem today that I would like to share with you:

    “It’s good at first to be out in the night, naked to the cold mechanics of the starts. Space hurls outward, falconswift, mounting like an irreversible injustice, a final disease.

    I understood that the world was nothing: a mechanical chaos of casual, brute enmity on which we stupidly impose our hopes and fears. I understood that, finally and absolutely, I alone exist. All the rest, I saw, is merely what pushes me, or what I push against, blindly – as blindly as all that is not myself pushes back. I create the whole universe, blink by blink.

    …this one frail, foolish flicker-flash in the long dull fall of eternity.

    I too am learning, ordeal by ordeal, my indignity. It’s all I have, my only weapon for smashing through these stiff coffin-walls of the world. So I dance in the moonlight, make foul jokes, or labor to shake the foundations of night with my heaped-up howls of rage. Something is bound to come of all this. I cannot believe such monstrous energy of grief can lead to nothing!”

    I came to Christ accidentally–I was not looking for Him. But the experience of His Presence was irresistible for me. I found in Him everything I searched for all my lonely life. It was after I encountered His personhood–the Reality of it–that I began to address my intellectual questions, which I have and do and welcome.
    Be blessed…

    Like

    • Rich, I say you have confused epistemology (HOW we come to know) with ontology (WHAT we claim to know).

      You say your epistemology allows for the possibility that there were events that took place that you might not be able to know about using the scientific method. Then I say you cannot ‘know’ anything about WHAT you claim to know.

      For example, you claim to ‘know’ something about which the scientific method cannot examine, namely, experiences you’ve had. Ironically, you try to use reality to back up these claims (that you presume I cannot equivalently ‘know’ anything about), saying that (as a comparison) I’ve never walked into a room and felt… the way you have, that I have not listened to a piece of music and felt…., climbed into an attic and felt…. Do you see what you’re doing here?

      You’re using yourself in a physical environment subject to physical stimulation to which you respond with some measure of limbic arousal, and then ATTRIBUTE your feelings to be an indication for something more causing your attribution from reality, some influence causing your attribution beyond reality, some agency causing your attribution to be sourced outside of reality. You have assumed that your attribution of these personal experiences is evidence for the merit of the attribution!

      How could you ‘know’ if your attribution (WHAT is being described) was correct using this method, this epistemology (HOW you know) was correct?

      Well, when you assume it is, you’ve mixed up the premise for the conclusion. You cannot falsify such an attribution so you, in fact, do not KNOW if the attribution was correct. You assume it was because you assume it was correct.

      This is actually compelling evidence that your epistemology is unreliable. Covering up this unreliability with pious assertions doesn’t strengthen it; it strengthens your faith-based belief that your beliefs describe reality, that your attributions are trustworthy, that your ontology is therefore sound and can be presented as if knowledge. Your faith-based beliefs are privileged by this method you use and you continue to have no means at your disposal to find out if that privilege is deserved on its own merit, its own knowledge value supported by reality, rather than be fully dependent on your faith (change the epistemology leads to a change in the power of faith leads to a change in attribution leads to a change in ‘knowledge’ leads to a change in the ontology).

      Like

    • I meant to add to that last paragraph (demonstrated by the content of the parenthesis) that this method you use reveals your ontology to be based on faith and not knowledge.

      Like

  8. Dear Tildeb, your comments remind me of two of my favorite things. The first is the movie “Judgment of Nuremburg.” Toward the end, there is a private conversation between Judge Haywood and the prosecuting attorney, Herr Rolfe. The attorney comes to see the judge and tells him how pointless his efforts have been, and the judge replies, “Herr Rolfe, I have admired your work in the court for many months. You are particularly brilliant in your use of logic… But to be logical is not to be right, and nothing on God’s earth could ever make it right.” Your comments also remind me of a book by C.S. Lewis–“The Abolition of Man””–in that you have created a discussion all about my feelings and declare that they are the issue and not the experiences which fostered them.
    You say, “For example, you claim to ‘know’ something about which the scientific
    method cannot examine, namely, experiences you’ve had. Ironically, you
    try to use reality to back up these claims (that you presume I cannot
    equivalently ‘know’ anything about), saying that (as a comparison)
    I’ve never walked into a room and felt… the way you have, that I have
    not listened to a piece of music and felt…., climbed into an attic and
    felt…. Do you see what you’re doing here?” Let’s work through this– 1) Yes, I have had experiences to which the scientific method cannot adequately be applied. 2) I use the word “felt” here in the sense of “discerned”– noticed, became aware of, etc.
    You use the term “limbic arousal,” and I must confess that you have me at a disadvantage here. However, looking up the term it sounds like something Scientologists think a lot about. But this argument is right of Abolition of Man. I warrant to say that deeply-affecting experiences are stored in my amygdala, but that does not mean they did not happen.
    Tildeb, you say, “This is actually compelling evidence that your epistemology is
    unreliable. Covering up this unreliability with pious assertions
    doesn’t strengthen it; it strengthens your faith-based belief that
    your beliefs describe reality, that your attributions are trustworthy,
    that your ontology is therefore sound and can be presented as if
    knowledge. Your faith-based beliefs are privileged by this method you
    use and you continue to have no means at your disposal to find out if
    that privilege is deserved on its own merit, its own knowledge value
    supported by reality, rather than be fully dependent on your faith
    (change the epistemology leads to a change in the power of faith leads
    to a change in attribution leads to a change in ‘knowledge’ leads to a
    change in the ontology).”
    You continue to demand that my life-experiences fit into your frame of reference. Now I cannot say why. I cannot read your mind. Nor do I know your heart.
    I was an atheist. I was an atheist because I was convinced by someone that evolution was a fact. Evolution as fact gave me the freedom–an excuse–to ditch God. Ditching God did nothing for me, it just made me feel better to get back at the Creep who had ruined my life. And I lived in my atheism through my young-adult life. It took an experience with God to get me to take another look at evolution, and when I did I found that it was not the air-tight argument I had accepted as a 14-year old. Like the hero in Ender’s Game, I had been lied to. But I’m not 14 anymore, and I–like Judge Haywood–am no longer intimidated (or bullied, if you will) by logicians and logical positivists. One of my favorite C.S. Lewis books is called “That Hideous Strength,” which interestingly is also called “A Modern Fairy-Tale for Grown-Ups.” In it, Lewis describes a future world (it was written in 1945), I would call it a post-modern world, where “truth” is no longer a thing unto itself, but what writers say that it is. It’s a frightening world. And what I find the most interesting, is that while the wheels of secularism grind away, creating a godless tomorrow, there are several older folks–Christians too–who are not quick to be swept away by convincing-sounding argumentation. I do not argue here for ignorance, nor for stupidity. I argue for authenticity.

    Like

  9. @Richard

    You continue to demand that my life-experiences fit into your frame of reference. Now I cannot say why. I cannot read your mind. Nor do I know your heart.

    Because you keep retreating into your wacky fun-world where if you say it is “true for me” that is good enough. Instead of dealing with what Tildeb is saying, you’re waving your hands about trying to show people that choose reality as a “frame of reference” how amazing your wacky fun-world is.

    It isn’t.

    It took an experience with God to get me to take another look at evolution, and when I did I found that it was not the air-tight argument I had accepted as a 14-year old.

    So you looked at Evolutionary Theory and decided that, despite the massive weight of evidence in its favour, somehow isn’t the best way of describing reality?

    What were your objections? I’m guessing “my sky-daddy told me so” is close near the top of the list.

    is that while the wheels of secularism grind away, creating a godless tomorrow,

    Oh you mean progress and modernity. Gotcha.

    Christians too–who are not quick to be swept away by convincing-sounding argumentation.

    If there is a flaw in the argumentation you should clearly point it out.

    I do not argue here for ignorance, nor for stupidity. I argue for authenticity.

    Authentic what? The authentic right to believe in mendacious bullcookery – go hard.

    Like

  10. Good morning, Arbourist. I’ve had a pretty full week. Took finals in Applied Linear Algebra and Scripting Languages (Python, Perl, etc) and passed (by the grace of God) both classes. Became concerned that a 24/7 health clinic would be unable to administer treatment over the holiday weekend, so I configured a computer, ran it out there and installed it. Then I spent the weekend renting yard equipment and getting our yard under control. That is my “whacky fun world” you referred to.
    I have taken a pretty extensive look at Evolutionary Theory over the years, and I honestly hate to even get into this discussion, but I see that I have no choice. My own intellectual journey after accepting Christ began with a movement from naturalistic to theistic evolution, but it wasn’t too long before I began to understand that the Bible account of Creation is irreconcilable with any form of evolution. The Bible says that God created the earth first, and the sun and moon later. The creation of the stars is presented in an off-hand, seemingly careless manner: “He made the stars also.” The Bible also stands in the face of the evolutionary theory regarding plants, declaring that grasses and fruit trees were created alongside the simplest forms of plant life. There is no way to attempt to resolve the differences between the Bible and evolution in any intellectually honest way. If the world is millions of years old, the Bible is false, and if it isn’t that old, evolution cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, possibly be true. Are you prepared to accept that idea?
    I remember reading something a number of years ago that I have never forgotten. It’s from a New York Times review of “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark” by Carl Sagan by Richard Lewontin:

    “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism…”

    I think of evolutionary theory as a three-legged stool. The three legs being: 1) natural selection, 2) change over time, and 3) millions of years. Take away one leg and the system of thought goes down with it. Would you agree with this?

    Leg #1 – Natural selection — the idea that nature favors certain characteristics under certain circumstances, is I would think, without much controversy. Our oldest daughter’s name is Melanie, so our family has become cognizant over the years of the properties of melanin. And we all know about peppered moths and Darwin’s finches. So let’s agree that this leg of the stool is pretty solid.
    Leg #2 – Change over time — dog and horse breeders (and the wonderful people who develop new varieties of roses) explore this idea all the time. How far can they tweak the genetic material to produce desired characteristics? I submit that change in the characteristics of populations over time is a fact. However, what would be the mechanism for moving outside the limits of the original genetic material? I submit that that is more problematic, and that there is much dispute about it. It is my understanding that evolutionary theory accepts the limits of genetic material as problem and answers it with the idea of mutations. Here again, I submit that the likelihood of favorable mutations not only allowing an organism to thrive–but to supersede a prevailing population—is so remote as to be virtually impossible. Unless one were given…what is, for all intents and purposes, an unlimited amount time.
    Leg #3 – Millions of years — how can we know the age of the earth? This leg—by necessity—must be the crown jewel of evolutionary theory. I do not think this can be overstated. In the Bible, Jesus is recorded as having said, “Upon this Rock I will build My Church and the forces of Hades will not overpower it.” Similarly, millions of years must be acknowledged to be the rock upon which an evolutionary belief system must be built. But what if that rock is not solid? What will happen to those who cling to it?

    I found a number of quotations that are worth looking into, and I offer some below for your consideration, but there are so many that time does not permit me to enter more here. However, Arbourist, reading all these things, I find such a sadness coming over me, and once again I find myself thinking of C.S. Lewis’ “That Hideous Strength.” When I read the words of Julian Huxley (in “A New World Vision”):

    “It is essential for UNESCO to adopt an evolutionary approach…the general philosophy of UNESCO should, it seems, be a scientific world humanism, global in extent and evolutionary in background… The struggle for existence that underlies natural selection is increasingly replaced by conscious selection, a struggle between ideas and values…”

    Why? Why is evolution “essential” to UNESCO? According to Huxley, the mission of UNESCO was to “help the emergence of a single world culture, with its own philosophy and background of ideas, and with its own broad purpose.,” and that evolution “allows us to distinguish desirable and undesirable trends, and…shows us man as now the sole trustee of further evolutionary progress…” What does that mean? Huxley says, “But once more a new and more efficient method of [evolutionary] change is available… conscious selection (consisting of) a struggle between ideas and values in consciousness…(but also extending to) deliberate eugenic measures…”

    He says:
    “There are instances of biological inequality which are so gross that they cannot be reconciled at all with the principle of equal opportunity. Thus low-grade mental defectives cannot be offered equality of educational opportunity, nor are the insane equal with the sane before the law or in respect of most freedoms. However, the full implications of the fact of human inequality have not often been drawn and certainly need to be brought out here, as they are very relevant to Unesco’s task…
    Still more important, any such generalisations will give us a deeper understanding of the variations of human nature, and in doing so will enable us correctly to discount the ideas of men of this or that type…

    “There remains the second type of inequality. This has quite other implications; for, whereas variety is in itself desirable, the existence of weaklings, fools, and moral deficients cannot but be bad. It is also much harder to reconcile politically with the current democratic doctrine of equality. In face of it, indeed, the principle of equality of opportunity must be amended to read ‘equality of opportunity within the limits of aptitude.’

    “Biological inequality is, of course, the bedrock fact on which all of eugenics is predicated. But it is not usually realised that the two types of inequality have quite different and indeed contrary eugenic implications. The inequality of mere difference is desirable, and the preservation of human variety should be one of the two primary aims of eugenics. But the inequality of level or standard is undesirable, and the other primary aim of eugenics should be the raising of the mean level of all desirable qualities. While there may be dispute over certain qualities, there can be none over a number of the most important, such as a healthy constitution, a high innate general intelligence, or a special aptitude such as that for mathematics or music.

    “At the moment, it is probable that the indirect effect of civilisation is dysgenic instead of eugenic; and in any case it seems likely that the dead weight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability, and disease-proneness, which already exist in the human species, will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved. Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for Unesco to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”

    I submit to you Arbourist, that there are those who are using you, who are using those who adhere to evolutionary teaching—even when the support for it is questionable, because it fits in with their social and political schemes. That is what “That Hideous Strength” was all about.

    I quote again from Lewontin:
    “First, we are told that science “delivers the goods.” It certainly has, sometimes, but it has often failed when we need it most. Scientists and their professional institutions, partly intoxicated with examples of past successes, partly in order to assure public financial support, make grandiose promises that cannot be kept.”

    And again:
    “It is repeatedly said that science is intolerant of theories without data and assertions without adequate evidence. But no serious student of epistemology any longer takes the naive view of science as a process of Baconian induction from theoretically unorganized observations. There can be no observations without an immense apparatus of preexisting theory. Before sense experiences become “observations” we need a theoretical question, and what counts as a relevant observation depends upon a theoretical frame into which it is to be placed. Repeatable observations that do not fit into an existing frame have a way of disappearing from view, and the experiments that produced them are not revisited.”

    And again:
    “It is said that there is no place for an argument from authority in science…. But when scientists transgress the bounds of their own specialty they have no choice but to accept the claims of authority, even though they do not know how solid the grounds of those claims may be.”

    I submit the following quotes regarding radiometric dating techniques for your consideration:

    “There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio decay rates are not as constant as thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences…and events that brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather within the age and memory of man.” Jueneman

    “It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute daring methods they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable radiological clock.” Stansfield

    “No relevant geophysical or paleontological data are free of compromising assumptions and technical difficulties. Agreement among three independent lines of data does not add reliability to the conclusion.” Olsen

    “Subjective and, in many instances, incorrect use of radiometric data has become endemic in the earth science literature. Mathematical analysis of imperfect and in many cases, highly subjective data sets leads to dubious conclusions.” Baski

    “It is self-evident that a contaminated sample will give an erroneous date, but it is frequently impossible to ascertain if a sample has indeed been contaminated.” Bradely

    “The U-pb and Rb-Sr systems are known to be highly susceptible to resetting by hydrothermal. digenetic and metamorphic processes.“ Toulkeridis

    “The accuracy of any age can only be guessed at in that we do not know the true age of any geological sample.” Nature

    “The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks.” Rourke

    “It is widely believed that studies of lead isotopes in terrestrial samples provide a well determined age of the Earth. We show this to be incorrect, even though a roughly accurate answer is sometimes obtained, but is not necessarily at all related to the formation of the Earth,” Harper and Jacobsen

    “…To obtain the age of formation of a rock or mineral, the material must have remained a closed chemical system since its formation…unfortunately, geological environments and materials do not often meet this requirement.” Durrance

    “…The assumption that during the whole life of the rock volume being analyzed, neither the radio-active element nor its decay products have moved into or out of this volume is practically unlikely to be realized in nature at all or, if it is, it occurs only in exceptional cases.” Skobelin

    Like

    • Poor Palazzo,

      To quote Jeff Goldblum in his masterfully performed role of the highly intelligent Dr. Ian Malcolm:

      That is one big pile of shit.

      “I think of evolutionary theory as a three-legged stool”

      Going by the amount of different sources of support, it’s more like a millipede.

      “I submit the likelihood of favorable mutations not only allowing an organism to thrive–but to supersede a prevailing population—is so remote as to be virtually impossible”

      You do a lot of this “submitting”. Your submissions carry exactly zero weight. Evolution happens. We’ve watched and documented it happen to many species. There are people watching and documenting it happening right now. Indeed, it happens so often in every life form observed, that so far the likelihood is pretty much 1 in 1, the exact opposite of impossible.

      -On your barrage of quotes

      A collection of non-sequiturs, straw-men, unsubstantiated claims, and complete idiocy. Going back to my own quote, instead of throwing about heaps of fecal matter and hoping some of it sticks, perhaps invest your time into one or a select few of what you consider to be your best points. With the extra depth of thought, you may discover how ludicrous those points are. If nothing else, you will be able to present your actual thoughts instead of the incomplete, copy/pasted thoughts of others.

      Like

    • @Richard

      Took finals in Applied Linear Algebra and Scripting Languages (Python, Perl, etc) and passed (by the grace of God) both classes.

      You would have failed by the grace of god as well. Systems of thought that deny human agency are corrosive to ethical behaviour.

      That is my “whacky fun world” you referred to.

      I don’t take issue with every day happenings Richard, only when you decide to attribute actions and events to magical beings and mythology and then wonder where these atheists get the audacity to point out this departure from reality.

      My own intellectual journey after accepting Christ began with a movement from naturalistic to theistic evolution, but it wasn’t too long before I began to understand that the Bible account of Creation is irreconcilable with any form of evolution.

      The terms ‘intellectual journey’ and ‘movement from naturalistic evolution to ‘theistic evolution’ do not belong in the same sentence. If one is evaluate the evidence fairly it clear that there is no contest between the science of evolution and the mythology of creation. This distinction is at the very heart of this discussion. I mentioned in an earlier post, evolution is the most reasonable conclusion to come to, if facts matter.

      If facts don’t matter, then frack-ya, everything is possible. The mighty Sno-Cone Goddess Doubledippia created the heavens and the earth when she sneezed on the Celestial Sno-Cone from her mucousy goodness woman and man were formed…yadda yadda yadda.

      What makes Jebus *any* different that Doubledippia?

      The Bible says that God created the earth first, and the sun and moon later.

      So is the flat earth the center of the Solar System too as the bowl-like firmament of the heavens passes us by? Or, do we properly dismiss this biblical wisdom as rubbish because we now know better?

      If the world is millions of years old, the Bible is false, and if it isn’t that old, evolution cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, possibly be true. Are you prepared to accept that idea?

      I am prepared to accept wherever the evidence takes me. To date the answer is almost conclusively for the naturalistic evolutionary explanation.

      Here again, I submit that the likelihood of favorable mutations not only allowing an organism to thrive–but to supersede a prevailing population—is so remote as to be virtually impossible.

      That is precisely what happens. And it doesn’t take unlimited time, but a time dependent on the life cycle of the organism. Why do we have to get a new flu shot every year? – Because, though mutation the flu viruses change over time to become more successful than the prevailing population at spreading their genetic material.

      But what if that rock is not solid? What will happen to those who cling to it?

      The earth is old so sayeth the CBR. And what gentle readers is CBR, lets look to wikipedia for that lovely answer.

      Cosmic Background Radiation.

      No carbon dating involved – The earth is damn old – Next objection?

      Like

  11. Dear Arbourist (and Mystro),
    I do not believe in evolution because it disagrees with the Bible. I have spent years—many years—answering my own questions…

    I mean how could a Being exist for eternity? How could He know everything? How can He know my thoughts? How can He be aware of everything that happens to everyone everywhere? Why does He let people die—people we care about and love? Why does He let little children die? Why did He allow 9-11 to happen, and Mogadishu?

    It is, to my mind, understandable for a person to become an atheist.

    And I would think that a natural response to that statement would be to say, “Fine, then go away and leave me alone in my atheism.”

    And I guess I could, and perhaps should, do that. But to be honest, I feel that in some way, we have become friends…even Mystro…

    I work with a group of people I’ve known for many years, and many of them have become very dear to me. I have family members, brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews, who I love deeply…

    My whole life—the purpose of my life as I see it—is to be available, to be willing, to allow God to use me to somehow touch the lives of other people, especially those I love…

    I believe with all my heart that the future that we are heading toward is one where politicians and large corporations will create an ugly fascist global state, where people who don’t conform to the state model will be eliminated. This is right out of Rousseau’s Social Contract. Robespierre experienced it, millions in China and Russia have experienced it, and millions of Cambodians experienced it.

    Today, many laugh when the Nazis are brought into a conversation, but there such a classic case, a model, if you will. Another of my favorite movies is called “Mortal Storm,” and it shows the progression of the rise of Nazism in Germany, from the inside, through the eyes of one family (I believe the father is a biology teacher). It is a sad, sad story that begins with the joyful hope of secularism and follows the natural progression–the fruit, the outcropping of its ideas.

    Secularism is built on atheism. Secular humanism looks forward to a bright tomorrow. But that is not, based on historical precedence, realistic. The vision of Humanist Manifesto I, II, and III is consistent with what I wrote yesterday about UNESCO. There is a vision of a utopian tomorrow, and those in power in every field are working toward it, and they intend to weed out whom-ever for the sake of the general will. It is not, I think, an accident that one of the first books that influenced Darwin was Malthus’ “Essay on the Principle of Population.”

    Karl Marx once wrote:
    The hellish vapors rise and fill the brain,
    Till I go mad and my heart is utterly changed.
    See this sword?
    The prince of darkness
    Sold it to me.
    For me he beats the time and gives the signs,
    Ever more boldly I play the dance of death.”

    There is a Bob Dylan song I know (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xrdn20_bob-dylan-gotta-serve-somebody_music ), in which he says “It may be the devil, it might be the Lord, but you’ll have to serve somebody.” That notion is so foreign in postmodern America. But I tell you that in the end it is true. I often think about the play Les Miserables—about the young men singing behind those barricades, and I think about the Paris Commune of 1871.

    I am thinking of Les Miserables—the bishop who changed Jean Valjean’s life forever. The world had mistreated him and beaten him down—the book contains much more than the play—the injustice–the broken dreams, the disappointments–of post-Revolutionary France, and the ever-present Inspector Javert. It wasn’t the State that extended mercy to Valjean, but a small and unknown individual, a bishop. The State is cold and hard—it has one job—to enforce order—the Law. That is where Secular Humanism is heading. Is that where you want to go?

    Like

    • Friends, huh? Your tactics now include completely ignoring the points presented to you. While it is in no way surprising – apologists do it all the time – it is still rude, dishonest, and no way to treat a friend. Your fluffy language cannot hide your conduct.

      Further, your first three paragraphs illustrate how it doesn’t matter to you that your position doesn’t make sense, or that opposing views do make sense, you will stick with your beliefs in the face any amount of evidence to the contrary. That’s called being willfully ignorant.

      Willful ignorance and dishonesty also explains your fatuous presentation of humanism. Does it hurt pulling so much out of your behind, or has it gone numb from continuous practice?

      Like

    • @Richard

      I believe with all my heart that the future that we are heading toward is one where politicians and large corporations will create an ugly fascist global state, where people who don’t conform to the state model will be eliminated.

      It is not an improbable outcome given present day conditions. The answer however is not sticking our heads further into the sands of religious irrationality, but rather raising the consciousness of our fellow human beings, so together we can oppose unjust governance.

      a sad, sad story that begins with the joyful hope of secularism and follows the natural progression–the fruit, the outcropping of its ideas.

      Using Nazi Germany as secular model of development seems inappropriate, considering the religious nature of Germany at the time. What is wrong with choosing a model of secularism that has been working and continues to do so – Norway, Sweden and Finland are all prime examples of people ‘doing it right’.

      But that is not, based on historical precedence, realistic.

      But believing a fable about a omnipotent dude’s adventures on Earthland is realistic? Shall we examine just a brief snippet of holy-dudes adventures:

      This was his ‘to do’ list…

      1.Magic-rape a virgin so he can born – because apparently the creator of the universe *can’t* just make himself a body – he has to violate a woman to get shit done.

      2.Do some magic shit to inspire ignorant people – (Fishes! Loaves! Flatulence! Opa!)

      3.Get captured – despite being omniscient dude

      4.and torture himself – dude on dude action!

      5.Die, but not really – Omniscient creator of the Universe most pressing agenda item -“create cheesy soap opera in middle east” on back-water Earth for scared ignorant people.

      6.Came back – says the dude hates this place (the dude who created this place, doesn’t abide with this place) spins up the fucking magical disco ball and ascends back to his throne which he was still occupying because dude is STILL actually 3 dudes fucking with variations of himself on this jerkwater speck of dust in the armpit of the Universe because: REASONS!

      7.Laugh himself silly at 21st century people who take the ramblings of quasi-literate goat herders for the realz.

      8.Okay I made 7 up, but if I was Omniscient I would be pushing the boundaries to see what I could make people believe – Like hey, lets make my religion about “love” what symbol should I use…oh hey how about a instrument of heinous torture? Those idiots down there couldn’t possibly be that stupid…. oh damn, I already know the answer to that…

      9.Therefore we have proof: If god exists he’s a fucking dick.

      And you have the audacity to lecture people about historical precedents? Are you actually attempting to lecturing us on fucking realistic expectations? Really? Really, really, reeeeeeaaaaallllyyyy?!?!?!?

      I think, an accident that one of the first books that influenced Darwin was Malthus’ “Essay on the Principle of Population.”

      Do you know who the easiest person to fool is?

      Yourself.

      It is a primary attribute of humans to delude themselves with whatever bullshit makes them happy.

      That is why science is *hard*. Science is not hard because of differential calculus, stoichiometric calculations or general relativity. Science is hard because we have a mean streak of confirmation bias that shits at regular intervals into the gears of rationality if we let it.

      “Richard’s Deep Voyages into the Dreamy Land of Confirmation Bias” has been the leitmotif of every fracking post I’ve seen here – you start with the assumption that the Dude is real and look for evidence that fits your particular set of fatuous beliefs – is it any wonder you keep accumulating “evidence”?

      The State is cold and hard—it has one job—to enforce order—the Law. That is where Secular Humanism is heading. Is that where you want to go?

      Yes!.

      Anywhere is better that the latest incarnation of Les Misérables.

      -Russel Crow sing-speaking….*shuddering forever*.

      Like

      • -Russel Crow sing-speaking….*shuddering forever*.

        Oh man, I was just getting over that inner ear wound and you went ahead and reopened it.

        Damn.

        Like

  12. Arbourist, I have heard people say all kinds of horrible things about God, and I understand that. There are so many reasons–so many horrible things that happen to people… But, honestly, I have never heard anyone say such horrible things about Jesus of Nazareth… I have to admit, you have deeply hurt me with those comments. Mary, the person the Bible records as Jesus’ mother was such an admirable person–a woman who suffered very much. The recent movies “The Nativity Story” and “The Passion of the Christ” depict so poignantly her suffering, especially the scene where Mary watches helplessly Jesus falls under the weight of the cross. His torturers–my Italian ancestors-took such sadistic pleasure in torturing Him–the story itself (whether you believe it to be true or not) is quite heart-breaking… Now regarding the “magic-rape” — the Bible depicts the nobility of Mary’s character in that she says, “Let it be unto me according to your word.” She willingly accepted what she knew would be a very difficult life as an act of obedience to God. Now as far as Jesus’ magic. He didn’t have to do it–any of it. He healed all those people–even when the authorities around Him opposed it–out of love–and his enemies hated him for it–with an unnatural hate. And they killed Him for it. The Bible says He could have called legions of angels to come and help Him–to rescue Him, but instead He let Himself be killed. And they mocked Him for that too. This man who had only a week ago raised someone from the dead, allowed Himself to be brutalized and murdered. C.S. Lewis’ “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe,” especially the movies, do an excellent job of portraying this. The demons around Him, mocking Him, laughing, crazily jumping in glee and delight at the horrible spectacle of the innocent allowing himself to be killed.
    I love Jesus. He rescued me from a meaningless existence filled with hate and self-condemnation. I hated everyone and delighted in torturing them. Jesus somehow–by that very death on the cross that brought Him so much humiliation–rescued me and gave me a whole new life. I am not ashamed of Jesus. I bow my knee before Him, and praise Him!
    I pray for all the blessings of heaven to be poured out today on John, and Tildeb, and Arbourist, and Mystro, and anyone else who is listening–in Jesus Name!

    Like

    • Hi Rich,

      Can you name a single thing Jesus (allegedly) said or did which was original and/or marginally useful? Something truly new and unique; something that hadn’t already been said by someone earlier.

      Just one thing….

      Like

    • “I have never heard anyone say such horrible things about Jesus ”

      Oh dear, and I thought he was going easy on the guy.

      “She willingly accepted what she knew would be a very difficult life as an act of obedience to God”

      According to your myth book, a vengeful jealous deity “asked” Mary. That kind of difference in power equates to coercion. Your point would be like someone saying, “She did say she consented, it can’t be rape. Well, yeah I had a gun to her head, so what?” It’s absolutely disgusting.

      “He let himself be killed”

      Not really. According to you, he ain’t dead. That means he wasn’t killed in the same sense as all those other victims of crucifixion were killed. He knew his “death” was temporary, not even a blink of an eye for an eternal being. There is nothing noble about this “sacrifice”. Especially since it was to appease his own blood lust. That’s just messed up.

      Jesus advocated for thought crime and slavery, and quite happy to burn and torture people forever if they don’t play by his rules. He is the worst kind of hateful tyrant. That so many are duped into thinking he has anything to do with love is one of the most depressing things I can think of.

      On top of all that, much of the bible flies in the face of mountains of evidence – some of which already discussed on this very thread. Remember all those points you were (and still are) ignoring? As such it has proven itself to be a very unreliable document, to say the least. It’s nice to know that the monster jesus, as described in your bible, doesn’t exist.

      Like

    • @Richard

      But, honestly, I have never heard anyone say such horrible things about Jesus of Nazareth… I have to admit, you have deeply hurt me with those comments.

      Sorry Richard.

      He rescued me from a meaningless existence filled with hate and self-condemnation.

      I’m pretty sure you rescued yourself, no magic involved.

      Jesus somehow–by that very death on the cross that brought Him so much humiliation–rescued me and gave me a whole new life.

      Torture-porn for the winz?

      I am not ashamed of Jesus. I bow my knee before Him, and praise Him!

      Sweet. How is this not like the soft blanket from childhood? I loved my woogie for a long time. Maintaining good mental health isn’t a particularly mysterious equation people do it without resorting to magic all the time.

      I pray for all the blessings of heaven to be poured out today […]

      Err…thanks? Maybe next time do something useful instead?

      Like

  13. Hi John,
    If someone were writing a history of events happening in the U.S., or New York, or Long Island, where I live, I don’t think anything I’ve done would make it into the book. However, my children, my friends, those who knew me intimately might write something about me.
    You asked, “Can you name a single thing Jesus (allegedly) said or did which was original and/or marginally useful? Something truly new and unique; something that hadn’t already been said by someone earlier.”
    Let me apply that test to myself—have I ever said or done anything that was original? I don’t think so. I am not sure what my kids would say. I remember a day when I went with two of my daughters to find Mount Washington, where George Washington had a fort in New York City. We had a hilarious day and eventually did find the thing, a three-foot high rock protruding through the concrete in a park over the spot in Washington Heights (300 feet above sea level—we know because we walked every foot of it—on a hot July day). We also dipped our feet in the Hudson River and found a small red lighthouse nestled under the George Washington Bridge. We later tried to find the site of the Polo Grounds and went to Grant’s tomb. That’s one of the most original things I ever did… Oh, and I just remembered that when Make-a-Wish Foundation sent our family on a 9-day trip to England back in 2002,we saw the spot where William Wallace was condemned to death, and the place where he was drawn and quartered. On that trip, we also walked on the walls of York, climbed trees in Sherwood Forest, and went to visit Scrooby—and the very same manor house where William Brewster and the Pilgrims had held their early church meetings—it’s still there. I am not sure if any of the things we did will make history books, but they were special to us.
    If I were an itinerant preacher who got executed alongside two common criminals (something that was pretty common in the Roman Empire), I am not sure that would make it into any books. I can’t imagine why the Romans would care, and I don’t think the Jews would want to record the incident. Jesus’ followers, those who knew Him and saw what he had done, and what had happened, were probably the only ones who might have documented any of it. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the Bible at least contains these records.
    If that is the case, and again for the sake of argument, I am going to proceed from that possibility, then we might be able to answer your question from its pages. Did Jesus ever say anything or do anything original? Well, who came before Him?
    1500 BC – the Vedas
    500 BC – Buddha
    500 BC – the Tao
    500 BC – Confucius
    400 BC – Socrates
    380 BC – Plato
    350 BC – Aristotle
    100 BC – Cicero
    I honestly don’t know all of these writings well enough to say if Jesus said similar things as those who preceded him. I have no doubt that He did. The only things that were original are that: 1) Jesus referred to Himself as God’s Son—which the Jews of the time are recorded to have considered being equal with God; 2) Jesus claimed to have been alive before Abraham (like 2000 years earlier); 3) Jesus allowed Himself to be worshiped as God; 4) Jesus is said to have predicted His death and resurrection; 5) He is also said to have resurrected. Another thing that He did that was original (at least, I think, as compared to those I listed above) is to have claimed: “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through Me.”
    As far as being marginally useful, I can think of a number of situations. I think of John and Charles Wesley, and George Whitefield, who changed their generation—completely transforming both British and American Society—probably for 100 years. I have heard it said that it was only their work that prevented another French Revolution from occurring in Britain. And one of their converts, William Wilberforce almost single-handedly put an end to the slave trade in Britain. Another thing that comes to mind is the work of Charles G. Finney in upper New York State, whose work resulted in complete transformations of whole cities, eradication of drunkenness and crime of all kinds.
    Jesus Himself was a virtual unknown—He invested His life into a small number of people. He was not famous or powerful. But He influenced the lives of His followers and empowered them to go out and make a difference, and they did. Paul of Tarsus was such a man. He was an educated man who knew both Greek literature and Hebrew Scriptures. He knew also Roman Law, and stood before magistrates, governors and emperors. He wrote:
    “Not many are wise from a human perspective, not many powerful, not many of noble birth. Instead, God has chosen what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen what is weak in the world to shame the strong. God has chosen what is insignificant and despised in the world—what is viewed as nothing—to bring to nothing what is viewed as something so that no one can boast in His presence.”
    That is what—ultimately—is unique about Jesus of Nazareth—His Presence. And nothing valuable has ever been done in His Name without it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5G_scWoaJeU

    Like

    • 1) There have been many “son’s of god.”
      2) People have claimed all sorts of things… and Abraham wasn’t even a real historical character.
      3) You think Jesus was the only person who wanted to be worshipped as a god?
      4) Many people have made predictions.
      5) Others have claimed the same thing.

      So, Rich, you can’t actually name a single thing Jesus said or did which was original or truly unique.

      I’d suggest you meditate on this revelation…

      Like

  14. Good morning John,
    I would like to address your statement that “Abraham wasn’t even a real historical character.”
    To my experience, that is an unusual position. Most people I have run across either accept that he was or couldn’t care less. To find someone who has such a strong negative opinion on the matter is unusual for me, so naturally I find myself wondering why.
    The picture comes to my mind of the scene from “The Diary of Anne Frank,” when the Jewish people hiding away in an attic from the Nazis solemnly celebrate the Passover. The word “holy” comes to mind, for that was a holy moment for me—sacred—that those people cared so much about their Jewish heritage that they would not forgo the Passover, even when they were in danger of losing their lives…
    And I am thinking of Lois Lowry’s “Number the Stars,” when the Norwegian people risked their lives to get their Jewish neighbors to safety.
    And I am thinking of the wonderful little book, “The Chosen,” by Chaim Potok, where two Jewish leaders—one Orthodox and one Conservative—argue about the establishment of the Jewish State in Israel, and one of them says, “I am tired of waiting for the Messiah.”
    Who can blame the Jewish people—after Hitler—for giving up on the Messiah, and even for giving up on their cherished traditions?
    There is a portion of Scripture that has always intrigued me in regard to the Jewish people. It’s in the Book of Isaiah. The prophet is asking how long he should keep preaching to the people who seem never to be listening to him. And the Lord is recorded as replying:
    “Until cities lie in ruins without inhabitants,
    houses are without people,
    the land is ruined and desolate,
    and the LORD drives the people far away,
    leaving great emptiness in the land.
    Though a tenth will remain in the land,
    it will be burned again.
    Like the terebinth or the oak
    that leaves a stump when felled,
    the holy seed is the stump.”
    A tenth—that’s the percentage that would listen, and remain faithful, like a stump that remains after the tree has been cut down and removed…

    Like

  15. “The representation of a course of history is a priori to be regarded as untrue and ahistorical if supernatural factors interpose in it. Everything must be naturalised and likened to the course of history.” (Frank)
    “The familiar intercourse of the divinity with the patriarchs constitutes for me one of the determining considerations against the historical character of the narratives.” (Kuenen)
    “We cannot intelligently nor safely overlook the palpable bias against the supernatural which has infected the critical theories… All the acknowledged leaders of the movement have, without exception, scouted the reality of miracles and prophecy and immediate divine revelation in their genuine and evangelical sense. Their theories are all inwrought with naturalistic presuppositions, which cannot be disentangled from them without their falling to pieces.” (Green)
    “The fact becomes apparent, there is indeed, not the least attempt to disguise it–that, to a large and influential school of critical inquirers–those, moreover, who have had the most to do with shaping of the current critical theories–this question of a supernatural origin for the religion of Israel is already foreclosed; is ruled out at the start as a ‘a priori’ inadmissible.” (Orr)
    There was a movie, produced in 1943, starring the wonderful actor, Henry Fonda, called “The Ox-Bow Incident.” I highly recommend it. It is a moving drama, set in the Old West, and revolves around the lynching of an innocent man. The character that Fonda plays suspects that the man might be innocent, and even makes a weak attempt to defend him, but when the majority vehemently insists they are right, and go ahead and lynch the man, the Fonda character quietly acquiesces to the general will. Of course, they all find out later that the man was innocent, and the Fonda character feels ashamed and tries to make amends by taking a letter back to the man’s wife.
    Interestingly, Fonda also starred in a 1957 film, “Twelve Angry Men.” In this movie, the Fonda character is the sole juror in a murder trial who stands up for the innocence of an accused man, and this time, he argues against the majority until eventually, each is swayed to his opinion, and the man is acquitted.
    It is possible for the majority to be wrong.
    “The ultimate reasons for rejecting the Resurrection evidence are not historical. As Sabatier truly says, ‘Even if the differences were perfectly reconciled, or even did not exist at all, men who would not admit the miraculous would none the less decisively reject the witness. As Zeller frankly acknowledges, their rejection is based on philosophic theory, and not on historical considerations.'” (Benoit)

    Like

    • The rejection is based on lack of evidence.

      Want to know the quickest method to quell the skepticism regarding the historicity of the resurrection? Produce this resurrected fella named Jesus, and let us (like Thomas) examine the nail holes and wound in his side for ourselves.

      When can you arrange the meeting?

      Like

  16. Consensus…to be honest with you John, I am not overly impressed with the concept of consensus. My favorite sport is baseball. Baseball has always struck me as unique because, although it is a team sport, when push comes to shove, individuals determine the outcome of the game. The pitcher pitches to a batter, the batter swings, the fielder attempts to catch the ball. Responsibility rarely falls upon the aggregate. It is usually, or ultimately should fall upon the shoulders of a single person, who bears the brunt of what he does.
    After reading your comment, I thought of a situation that occurred in the Bible account of one of Paul of Tarsus’ missionary journeys:

    Acts 17:10-12
    “As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas off to Berea. On arrival, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. The people here were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, since they welcomed the message with eagerness and examined the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Consequently, many of them believed, including a number of the prominent Greek women as well as men.”

    The Greek word translated here, interestingly, as “open-minded” is eugenēs. It means “well-born,” “of noble race,” “noble-minded.”

    I am thinking of a personal anecdote that my older brother told me recently. He said that when he was a young man, he was eating lunch with his co-workers, and they began to complain about their boss and their wages. So they appointed a couple of their fellows, including my brother, to go and make their case to their employer. The delegation went to see the boss, who quickly pointed out all of the times when he had absorbed the costs of their idleness and various mistakes and sent them on their way. But, as they turned to leave, the boss called my brother back into the room.
    The boss, Mr. Goltzman, said to my brother, “Al, haven’t I always paid you well? Have I ever turned down any request you’ve ever made to me? When you’ve come to me and asked me for a raise, have I ever turned you down?” My brother shamefacedly had to agree with all Mr. Glotzman said. “Then, why?” he asked my brother, “when these other men were talking against me, did you join them? From now, if you have something you have to say, have the courage to come to me personally. Don’t throw in with people like that, who don’t have the ability to stand on their own.”
    My brother said that he never forgot that, and that he has lived by that philosophy ever since.

    Like

    • Ah, so you’re not particularly fond of expert consensus when it contradicts what you want to believe, but you’re all for it when it supports your position, like in the case of a historical Jesus.

      Interesting….

      Like

  17. Hi John,
    I figured that the best way to tackle a consensus opinion is to go back and see where the consensus began. Everything points to Wellhausen. It looks like Wellhausen took long-existing questions about the Pentateuch and in his “Prolegomena to the History of Israel” (1878) applied new Darwinian evolutionary ideas to develop his documentary hypothesis based upon variations in the text and studies in comparative religion. The philosophic ideas behind his assertions–the a priori assumptions–were 1) Darwinian evolution was a fact; 2) the only explanation for textual differences has to be different authors; 3) studies of comparative religion have shown an evolution in religious practice from polytheism to monotheism, therefore the Bible record of the de-evolution of Israel’s religious practices downward from monotheism to polytheism must be false.
    Got to go…

    Like

    • Oh, so you’re just going to ignore the 100 years of extensive physical archaeology conducted across Israel and her environs, the cross-textual analysis, the population maps and settlement patterns, the steles, reliefs, amulets and diplomatic correspondences.

      I see…

      Like

      • @JZ

        I see…

        You expected more?

        Brief Richard: God *argle-bargle*, wall of text + dubious quotes.

        Response (JZ, Mystro, Ron, Arb etc.): X,y, and z are wrong and here are the reasons why – please respond to these issues.

        Richard: New Topic *argle-bargle* + wall of text + dubious references.

        Response: WTF is this gish-gallop?

        Richard: Yet another new, but still fatuous topic….

        What the hell Richard? When will you be done pissing up this particular rope? Almost every ‘point’ you’ve made has been called into serious contention but rather than defend *any* of them you just post more stuff hoping for something, *maybe*, will sound reasonable?

        The spaghetti method of argumentation is tiresome at best. Oh hey, that important question from my first response to you:

        Richard, do facts matter?

        Still haven’t answered that.

        Like

      • Well, I have to say, I’ve never seen anyone blame Darwin before for the total absence of archaeological corroboration of the Pentateuch. I thought that was quite inventive… Insane, sure, hilarious even, but inventive nonetheless 🙂

        Like

  18. Hello, Arbourist…

    Dear John,
    Regarding your June 3rd post about 100 years of extensive physical archaeology, cross textual analysis, population maps, steles, reliefs, amulets and diplomatic correspondences…
    I would like to write a scholarly article in response, but our first grandchild is due any day, and we’re leaving tomorrow morning for a 10-hour trip to Virginia. I will try to do the best that time allows and we can talk more at another time…

    There is so much to tackle here that I am not quite sure where to start. In my last post I referred to Wellhausen. When you say the past 100 years—at least regarding textual analysis, I am assuming you are referring to the work of Smend, Kegel, Kennett, Eissfeldt, Lohr, Morgenstern, Volz and Rudolph, and Pfieffer. Regarding their work, I refer to K.A. Kitchen’s “Ancient Orient and Old Testament” (1966):

    “Through the impact of the Ancient Orient upon the Old Testament and upon Old Testament studies a new tension is being set up while an older one is being reduced. For the comparative material from the Ancient Near East is tending to agree with the extant structure of Old Testament documents as actually transmitted to us, rather than with the reconstructions of nineteenth-century Old Testament scholarship – or with its twentieth century prolongation and developments to the present day.

    “Some examples may illustrate this point. The valid and close parallels to the social customs of the Patriarchs come from documents of the nineteenth to fifteenth centuries BC (agreeing with an early-second-millennium origin for this material in Genesis), and not from Assyro-Babylonian data of the tenth to sixth centuries BC (possible period of the supposed ‘J’, ‘E’ sources). Likewise for Genesis 23, the closest parallel comes from the Hittite Laws which passed into oblivion with the fall of the Hittite Empire about 1200 BC. The covenant-forms which appear in Exodus, Deuteronomy and Joshua follow the model of those current in the thirteenth century BC- the period of Moses and Joshua – and not those of the first millennium BC.”

    Got to go. Hope to be able to speak more in the days to come.
    Rich

    Like

  19. Good morning all,
    Since my last post, I have been doing some reading whenever time permitted. Our grand-daughter, Kara Jayde was born on Sunday, and all are well! Mom and Dad and baby came home from hospital yesterday…
    Now as far as my research, I will endeavor to try to put it together in some sort of coherent system of thought. In working toward that purpose, I am going to try to focus on the Biblical record of the life of Abraham. We are told he was born in Ur of the Chaldees. Sir Leonard Woolley excavated the Royal Cemetery at Ur in the 1920s. The British Museum contains artifacts that he discovered. Today Ur is known as Tell el-Muqayyar. University of Manchester archaeologist Jane Moon seems to be working in that area now, and its pretty clear there was a highly civilized community in the area. The Bible says that Abraham left Ur to go to Haran. It is my understanding that 15,000 textual records were found in Mari northern Syria which document the existence of Haran. These texts also indicate that a number of cultural practices from the Bible record were practiced at the time. It is also my understanding that they are also corroborated by Egyptian execration texts.
    The Bible tells us that Abraham left Haran and went to Canaan. Canaan is described as a collection of city-states. I don’t have enough time available today to go into this as deeply as I would like, and I intend to pursue it more in future posts, but it appears pretty clear that five ancient cities have been found by Walter Rast and Thomas Schaub under the Dead Sea, two notably being referred to as Bab edh-Dhra and Numeira.
    Got to go…

    Like

    • Richard, are you aware of the term, Historical Fiction? Tom Clancy’s, The Hunt For Red October, is a work of historical fiction. Many place names in the story, like Moscow and Washington, are real, the names of the characters are period-accurate, and many of the fantastic technologies and toys mentioned in the tale are actual technologies and toys in use at the time of the yarns setting. This does not make Tom Clancy’s, The Hunt For Red October, a work of non-fiction.

      Like

      • @JZ

        I loved the hunt for Red October! I used to read Clancy quite a bit, my favourites was Red Storm Rising and Executive Orders.

        I don’t read TC anymore because his libertarian american exceptionalism made his books too gross to read after awhile. :/

        Like

      • Hey, i went through a Clancy phase shortly after arriving in Brazil. I devoured all his books… but also became a little turned-off after watching interviews on the interwebs.

        In a Robert Reed phase right now, and loving it.

        Like

  20. Good morning, all. I am back home again, and am looking forward to continuing our dialogue. I am still intrigued with the life of Abraham, and would like to pursue that more. I don’t have time this morning, but will try to post something later.
    Regards, Rich

    Like

  21. I think your point about historical fiction is well taken. However, what is intriguing me is this: Your contention is that the Bible’s account of the life of Abraham was written in the 6th century BC. But what if there are things–events, cities, people–that are in the account that people living in the 6th century could not have known about? That is what I am going to be looking into.

    Like

    • Rich, Abraham apparently had many camels. Camels, the authors of Abraham’s tales say, were everywhere. We know today, though, that camels were first on the Levant only in the 9th century BCE. Similarly, Abraham is constantly harassed by the Philistines, yet the Philistines didn’t arrive until 1150 BCE. You see, these are just two of numerous other examples of the authors spinning a tale with that which they had around them at the time of authorship, yet tossing that tale back into an imaginary time. The Pentateuch is peppered with such era-specific script blunders, and this is one of the reasons why all reputable biblical scholars today (and Jewish rabbis) say the work is nothing butt inventive historical fiction.

      Like

  22. Hi John,
    I typed “domestication of animals neolithic camels” in Google and got back site after site that talk about early domestication of camels.
    Rich

    Like

  23. Personally, this is a question that is slightly harder for me to answer than I’d like to admit. If, for example, God revealed himself to me, I would almost certainly reject this as a subjective and therefore mistaken experience. How did he reveal himself? Did I see him? Then I’d ask if I was having visual hallucinations, etc. Did he speak to me? Then I’d ask if I was having auditory hallucinations.

    Now, on the other hand, if God revealed himself to everyone on the planet at the same time, I’d like to say that this would be sufficient evidence to believe in him. However, the concept of God would still make absolutely no sense to me, so I would begin by asking if something occurred in our atmosphere such that the entire human race was affected. If this were the case, each hallucination would presumably be different, and thus we could probably identify a standard by which objectivity could be established. Also, we could test the atmosphere, etc.

    At any rate, if something akin to the latter scenario occurred I would probably believe in God. However, I’d still have reservations, and I’d want several other questions to be answered before I could even consider God worthy of my love. And, of course, the idea of worship is so foreign to me that I’d probably have a hard time climbing aboard that train if it was required. Nonetheless, I could acknowledge God’s existence upon receipt of objective evidence. Everything that follows is conditional on subsequent inquiries.

    Like

    • I love the way your mind works, Ryan.

      “if God revealed himself to everyone on the planet at the same time, I’d like to say that this would be sufficient evidence to believe in him”

      In his book, “Why is there Anything,” Matt Rave (physicist and writer of The Many Worlds blog) has a set of numbers forever floating in the sky. There is no explanation as to why these numbers are there, who put them there, or what they mean: they’re just there. One of the two protagonists point to the numbers as proof of God, the other isn’t at all convinced. I think you’d enjoy the read.

      As to worship and love, i completely agree. Despots require to be worshiped, and if this universe is the work of a designer, then I’d have some serious doubts about that designers competence, and, more importantly, motives.

      Apart from that, how are you, old man? Enjoying campus life?

      Like

      • Quite the complement! I thank you, fellow heathen.

        I haven’t started yet… My first semester will be in January, but I’ve made a couple trips up there and I like what I see. Lots of young ladies (I’m hoping to exploit my worldly experience on that front). 🙂

        How are things with you? Enjoying football in the adopted mother country?

        Like

      • I be fine, but taking the winter off from posting. On the days Brazil plays things do slightly insane, but this is a fun country, so no complaints.

        Like

  24. Good morning…
    R.L.: I think your point: ” I’d want several other questions to be answered before I could even consider God worthy of my love,” is valid. It seems to me that the God who created the human mind would very much want it to be used.
    John: do you have Erez’s email address?

    Like

  25. Hi dear John,

    Your posts are so ready- witted and clever…
    I liked when you say here above that religion is a result of cultural bedrock of childhood indoctrination and I truly agree with you…

    You have recently commented at my blog and made an interesting point regarding Eros, the winged God of Love (also known as Cupid in roman mythology)…

    Before being considered Aphrodite’ son, he was considered as a sort of primordial deity.

    ____

    Quoting these ideas:

    “In Hesiod’ s “Theogony” he is represented as a cosmic force which emerged self-born at the beginning of time to spur procreation.

    Hesiod was making reference to the Protogenos (primordial deity) of procreation who emerged self-formed at the beginning of time. He was the driving force behind the generation of new life in the early cosmos.

    According to Hesiod, Eros was the fourth god to come into existence, coming after Chaos, Gaia and Tartarus (the Abyss or the Underworld)”.

    He also held that Eros was one of the fundamental causes in the formation of the world, as he was the uniting power of love, which brought order and harmony among the conflicting elements of which Chaos consisted.
    And thus Hesiod said that there was Chaos, then came Ge, Tartarus, and Eros, the fairest among the gods, who rules over the minds and the council of gods and men.

    ______

    The specific excerpts of Hesiod’ s “Theogony” regarding cosmogony are 120, &c.
    Link to Hesiod’ s “Theogony” (lines 120 and further):

    http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0130%3Acard%3D104

    ____

    I can see an inner straight connection between the idea of Primordial deity and God…
    But well considered, also this could be a sort of biological principle, which would help these greek guys to explain the origins of the Universe!.

    Thanks for sharing your knowledge with us.
    All the very best to you, Aquileana 😀

    Like

    • Tell how at the first gods and earth came to be … In truth at first Chaos came to be, but next wide-bosomed Earth … From Chaos came forth Erebus and black Night; but of Night were born Aether2and Day, [125] whom she conceived and bore from union in love with Erebus. And Earth first bore starry Heaven, equal to herself, to cover her on every side, and to be an ever-sure abiding-place for the blessed gods.

      Love it. It really does set the imagination flying to wonder about the conversations had when Anaximander (611-547BCE) declared the earth wasn’t a disk (surrounded by the river Oceanus), but rather round and free-floating. Oh to be a fly on the wall!

      I remember now that Hesiod called “Chaos” a sort of “yawning nothingness,” which is similar in theme to the earliest known Vedic creation myth (Rig Veda, Purusha Sukta), 1100 BCE. To paraphrase:

      In the beginning there was a swirling dark chaos. Enveloping this thing that was neither non-existence nor existence there was a cosmic man, a giant named Purusha who had a thousand heads, a thousand eyes, and a thousand feet. Although there was nothing he pervaded everything and even stretched ten fingers’ breadth beyond. Purusha was all that was and all that would be, which presented certain, unavoidable problems. Before doing something, anything, Purusha realised that he would have already done it. The future was the present and the present was the past. Doing everything but nothing at the same time left Purusha just one option for his first (and last) ever action: he sacrificed himself, and from his body parts came all that is.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s