ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

The Science delusion.

Updated on May 3, 2017
Source

For some years now I’ve been hearing about the science delusion. Is it true? Or is it just a ploy by the religious to counter what Dawkins calls militant atheism?

There are several points the proponents of the science delusion sight as proof that science has become a religion:

The assertion is: Science claims to already know the nature of reality in principal, leaving only the details to be filled in.

Science is a religion. People say: I don’t believe in god, I believe in science. In other words it’s a world view. A materialist world view.

Rupert Sheldrake tells us there are 10 dogmas of science which have limited it, and in fact tainted it.

1 Nature is mechanical and machine like. Humans are machine like, as are brains

2 Matter is unconscious. Animals aren’t conscious and we shouldn’t be either and probably aren’t.

3 The laws of nature are fixed. They can’t change.

4 The total amount of energy and matter is always the same. It sprang from nowhere at the instant of the big bang.

5 There is no purpose in nature.

6 Heredity is material. It’s all about genes.

7 Memories are stored in the brain as material traces.

8 Your mind is in your head.

9 Telepathy and psychic powers can’t exist because the mind is just the brain and it can’t affect the outside world.

10 Mechanistic medicine is the only real medicine.

So, let me start by saying I do agree that scientists can be dogmatic, so can people who think they know science and that is a bit of a danger. So what is it about science that allows it to become dogmatic? Scientists. Human beings. Media, Public understanding. In other words: science isn’t dogmatic, people are.

The scientific method is anything but dogmatic. And so what makes some scientists fall to dogma? Answer in a nut shell: Belief.

Belief is the enemy of science. There’s also convention, tenure , ego’s, old boys clubs etc. But belief is the main problem. People want certainty, desperately. For centuries we had absolute certainty. God or the gods, did their thing and who were we to even wonder about how it all works? We could never figure it out ourselves.

But we did wonder anyway, as is evidenced by books like Genesis and many other creation myths. So much so that early scientists and observers challenged religious ideas of nature and were proven right.

Then things became less certain. And as science grew and evolution reared it’s head, even god was in question.

For a while, after Newton, we thought we had certainty again.

The world ran like a clock work. It was mechanistic. Soon we’d know everything. And then two things happened that turned it all on it’s head. I say two, but it’s more like five. First, Einstein shocked the scientific world with relativity. Heisenberg and co gave us QM, and Hubble told us the universe isn’t static, it’s expanding. And then came Big Bang. That’s one.

Two is Lorenz, Mandelbrot, and perhaps a dozen others and their observations taken together suddenly formed a new science called chaos theory. That’s five.

Now we’re really uncertain as to what’s really going on so people hang on to the small certainties they think they have.

In debates and general conversations, you can see the belief some people have in such ideas as the many worlds theory, string theory, the Big Bang, etc.

Yet these theories are often not provable or more to the point, not falsifiable, and aren’t science fact.

A theory is a model created from facts. It’s an interpretation of observed or collected data from experiment. But it’s not a fact until it’s been proven by experiment. If it’s good it will usually predict something about reality. If it can’t be falsified even in principal, it’s just a guess.

So before I look at the so called ten dogma’s, let me say that there is nothing wrong with letting science form our world view. That is to say, to adopt the scientific method as a method for thinking about the world. It's the best tool we have to date. Part of that method being not having a stake in what the truth is.

Faith is the end of logic. Belief is never a requirement. Either something is a fact, or it’s a lie or guess. Believing a fact is redundant. We accept facts. But they have to be true facts. In fact, we can only accept them conditionally unless they are indisputable, like: I either ate an apple today or I didn’t. That’s an absolute fact. Or a tautology like: all black birds are black.

A lie certainly should not be believed, and speculation isn’t to be believed either. It is true or not, and requires evidence to back it up.

So, does science claim to have the basis or framework for reality? No. Scientists, not science, claim to have pieces of the puzzle, but few if any would tell us we have all the answers, or even close. We’ve known that isn’t true since Einstein. There are way too many competing interpretations for the facts we have.

Is science a religion? No. But that doesn’t stop people from using its findings to help them understand the universe and help form their world view. And there are religions like scientific pantheism that do exactly that. But science is a method, a tool. It can’t be a religion.

So to dogma number one: Nature is mechanical and machine like. Humans are machine like, as are brains.

I do hear that from some scientists and philosophers, but it’s not exactly true. Biology is decidedly dynamic. Not what we think of when we say machine like. A car is a bunch of metal and glass etc, with no idea what it is or does. We put it together in such a way that we can fill it with gas and drive around. A car doesn’t do anything without an operator. Neither does any other mechanical machine.

Biology is complex and dynamic. It’s the operator, not the machine. But that doesn’t imply a supernatural element to nature, which is what most scientists are saying when they say mechanical.

Nature, which we are part of, is endlessly creative and complex. Anything but machine-like.

Yes, everything follows the laws of physics, which aren’t laws at all, but rather the nature of nature. But that nature facilitates all we see including biology. Without limits/order nothing can function at all.

So the problem is the idea of a supernatural. Surely it too would have order/limits or it couldn’t function. So in light of the supernatural not being falsifiable even in principal, we can’t factor it into scientific inquiry and have to keep looking to the natural for information.

What scientists and philosophers should do is: stop saying mechanical when we mean natural.


“Matter is unconscious. Animals aren’t conscious and we shouldn’t be either and probably aren’t.”

I’ve never heard scientists say any such thing. But again, semantics get in the way here.

Consciousness is self evident. No one needs to prove it exists, just how it works in detail. But what is consciousness? Being awake? Being able to reason? Self awareness? So many definitions, so many aspects. Yet at its root, its complex awareness.

All biology is aware. Were a bacteria not to have even rudimentary awareness, it would keep bumping its head on the same obstacle and never get to its food, or take care of its needs. So to say animals aren’t aware is absurd.

Is matter aware in any way? Why should it be? It doesn’t need to be. And what is meant by matter? An atom? It has a nature. Auto response.

I do think auto response is the precursor to awareness. But that’s a model that still needs to be researched properly. But a precursor is not awareness itself, any more than rudimentary awareness is the same as human awareness/consciousness; and even though it’s all just a matter of degrees of complexity.

To say there is something other than energy and matter is to allude to a supernatural, and as there is no evidence a supernatural and some claim there can’t be, it can’t be added to our knowledge base in any meaningful way. So that objection is futile.

Are the laws of nature unchanging? Yes and no. Yes because experiment proves it. No, only in the sense that conditions can change and thereby change values. Water boils at 100 degrees C. Everyone knows that. But it’s not exactly that simple. It depends on altitude and purity. Additives may make water boil slower or faster. Altitude alters boiling point as well.

But if you replicate your conditions exactly, it will always give the same results. Speed of light is constant. Right? Only in a vacuum. Light moves slower through water, for instance. It bounces off things.

So yes, the nature of nature is constant. But it can be different in different conditions. Yet be constant in those conditions.

Is the total amount of energy in the universe always the same? Conservation of energy says yes. But it’s state alters. This is the basis of thermodynamics, which is a well tested and proven set of laws or natures of nature/physics.

Did it spring from nowhere at the start of the big bang? Hardly. The big bang is the most widely accepted theories of our origins. But it’s not alone. There are at least three other good competitors these days. And no tests have yet been done to prove it. Only mathematics.

Is it likely to be the answer? It’s a good theory, but unless it’s proven we can’t give it better than a good chance. Evolution is a fact. Big Bang isn’t.

So let’s say it is true. What does it say about energy? Well, it says the singularity was in an almost infinitely compressed state. What was? Some say all the matter in the universe. I’ve heard all the mater and energy in the universe. But I’ve never seen a version of the theory that says energy appeared from nothing.

I have heard recent claims from Hawking and Kraus that the universe came from nothing, but they are redefining nothing to be something. To be precise: quantum fluctuation. This supposed nothing spontaneously creates particle pairs which usually annihilate each other almost instantly. It’s well known that empty space is teaming with quantum activity.

It’s a kind of potential energy in the vacuum./ or fabric of space as Einstein said. Hardly nothing. Just apparently nothing. Not nothing at all. You can’t get something from nothing at all.

Einstein showed that matter has vast amounts of energy in it. He also said that matter was created not by mass, but by energy tensor density and momentum. That translates to dense energy below light speed creates matter. He also said:

“The mass of a body is a measure of its energy content.” Annalen der Physik 18, 639-641 (1905).

"It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing — a somewhat unfamiliar conception for the average mind. Furthermore, the equation E = mc², in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa. The mass and energy were in fact equivalent, according to the formula mentioned before." Albert Einstein.

This was shown to be true experimentally by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932,.

And then there's: "We have been all wrong! What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been lowered as to be perceptible to the senses."

So all the matter of the universe is condensed energy. So the BB would have been super dense energy. All indications are this is the case if BB happened. So it didn’t create energy, it was energy. And all the serious competition begin with energy.

Thermodynamics tell us energy can’t be created or destroyed. It transforms from state to state.

Is it fact? Yes. It’s held up under testing for almost 100 years. So I’d say it’s highly probable.


Is there purpose to the universe? Are we talking objective purpose? Is that even a rational question? Purpose is a subjective thing. I have my own purpose, that being trying to figure out the universe. But that’s my subjective purpose. My wife sees my purpose quit differently, as does my employer, my kids, the tax man. But while I fill some of those purposes gladly, I don’t think the tax man’s purpose for me is any way my purpose. Even if I am fulfilling it like it or not. Same with a god’s purpose for me were there one. It’s not my purpose, even if it’s my function.

Only subjective things have purpose. There is probably no such thing as objective purpose, and if there is, like procreation, gene imperatives etc, while it’s fun, you’re usually not thinking about spreading your genes, and actively trying to prevent it in many cases.

If we need purpose, we make it for ourselves. A god doesn’t give you a purpose. What ever purpose it has for you is it’s purpose. You may willingly fulfill it, but others may not. Purpose relative to the individual, not universal.


Is heredity about genes? Partly. It’s about DNA, which is more than just genes. A lot of code regulates how genes are copied, spliced, and expressed. Mutations there can be far more serious for better or worse than gene mutation.

I’m not sure where the speaker thinks it could or should come from.

Are memories stored in the brain? Short of having a soul I can’t see anywhere outside the body they could be stored. The brain being the most logical place. Science can’t take souls into consideration. They don’t seem to be falsifiable. Not that people haven’t tried. Scientists have to study what can be studied.

Same goes for minds.


Psychic phenomenon may or may exist. But if they do they aren’t necessarily supernatural. And this has been studied at great length both in the US and Russia for obvious reasons. So far, nothing showing it’s a fact.

Dr Persinger, of the god helmet fame, thinks if your brain were tuned to the earth’s magnetic field, telepathy would be possible. But our brains aren’t tuned to it. Who knows? So far, telepathy is still speculative.


As to medicine: a couple hundred years ago going to the doctor was a risk. They often made things worse. In those days there only was alternative medicine. We’ve come a long way in a short time. So its little wonder the focus is on modern medicine. Not that it’s perfect by any means. But it’s more effective than faith healing by a long shot. Might non standard treatments work? Sure. And if they prove themselves they become accepted.

Criticism of science is fine. But the objections to it by people who talk about the science delusion are only doing to counter Dawkins book “the god delusion”. Trying to make the point that if belief in god is a delusion, so is belief in science.

In a sense any belief is potentially delusional. To accurately talk about science you have to be up on what science actually says, what is fact, what is almost fact through experiment, and what’s just an unproven or completely un-falsifiable interpretation/guess.

Media and the public need to be far more educated about science than they are. That would help a lot. There is no science delusion; only science ignorance. Particularly, but not confined to, the religious community and its interests.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 hours ago from Texas

      Okay, let's take your fairies/leprechauns example. What if those same stories showed up across multiple cultures? What if all the cultures in that region of the world started writing about these small flying creatures? Maybe they called them different things and told stories about them that were different. But in every story there was this constant theme of a life where they coexisted with these little flying human looking creatures.

      Yes, there's differences between the stories, because in each case it was a different set of 'gods'. The descendants of Noah were dispersed in all directions at Babel. Some went to Sumer, some east to the Indus Valley, some west to Egypt, some north into Europe.

      Yes, even the Sumerians thought their gods came from another planet. It's as if they just 'appeared' one day. And then they became a central part of everything going on.

      I think you're missing the overall here. It's not any one of these things we're discussing. It's all of it, combined. It's not just the boost in inventions. It's not just the stories. It's not just the birth of civilizations. The behavior changes. It's all of it together.

      An ancient text that is still an influence to this day in human culture, this text that claims to depict the 'beginning', what this text describes marries up very well, across the board.

      We can argue this and argue this. You can try to justify each piece of it, the inventions or burst of creativity, the 'evolution' of culture, the 'imagined' stories. But in the end the simplest explanation is the one that fits best.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 9 hours ago from Ottawa

      So you don't think primitives made up stories. What about the leprechauns? Do you think they are or were real? What about fairies? No? They just made it up? Then why believe primitive Hebrews or Sumerians?

      And no, not all pantheons came from Sumer. The gods were independently created. Zeus conquered the god's parent's, the titans, and became head god. No similarity to Sumerian myth. Egyptians who arose just before the Sumerians, had their own myths and gods unrelated to Sumerian myth.

      Woden and Thor weren't Sumerian. Did humans arise from the armpit of a frozen giant? Is the world flat held up by turtles? Or was it all created by a raven or a magic egg? You believe that? No? So they all made shit up, but no! Not the Hebrews! They'd never make stuff up.... Wow... how absurd.

      Romans were polytheists. The more gods they could get on their side the better for Rome. Egyptians believed in the sun as the main god. So did Rome. How is that Sumerian?

      Yes, all these religions borrowed from each other over time. But were independently created. That's a fact.

      Egypt started bonding two gods together: AmunRa, for example. The Romans eventually started bonding three in one, and in the Roman tradition the Christian trinity was born with the Roman take over of the myth in the mid to late 300s CE, under Constantine. Three in one. Undeniably Roman theology.

      Moses was an invention of king David around 900 bce, in an attempt to unify the twelve tribes, who were constantly at war, and didn't all have the same religion. We know none of that story happened, and that there were not one but at least 4 exoduses from Egypt over a couple hundred years. Moses is probably a complete fabrication. He couldn't have written the first parts of the bible, and linguists and even theological scholars concluded it was written by at least three different people or groups.

      So, you can't prove a single god, yet you claim its true. You can't prove there aren't 80,000 gods either, can you? By your logic you shouldn't discount the idea.

      You think, what? That the descendants of Adam and Eve were giants that ruled Sumer and lived for thousands of years? You expect anyone to take you seriously? The ancient alien crowd says they were aliens from another planet, just like the myths say. Hindus and some American natives say the same. Gods came from another planet and taught us things.

      Other natives say the raven created the earth and their people, and often animals teach them stuff. So was it gods, animals, aliens or new giant jews, who shrunk after a while?

      More likely, where we got our innovations, who first baked bread or made beer or wine or the art of metal working was all lost in time, and they made up narratives to explain where such amazing ideas can come from. Surely a god must have told some one. An individual couldn't come up with that, right?

      Do you know who invented atomic bomb? It was a team of scientists based on Einstein's E= Mc squared. But we know this because it was all documented from day one. If no one documented it, it would be lost knowledge in a hundred years or less, as fewer and fewer people who knew exist.

      If you believe in gods you attribute stuff to them. Particularly inovations. Sure Bob the Sumerian invented writing, but he didn't do it on his own. A god had to have been guiding his hand, just as your bible myths, written by primitive humans, are supposedly guided by god. Yeah sure. Tell me another one. Even primitives could make shit up and invent stuff without help.

      As for Sumerian writing being sudden, do some real research. No scholar I have read says anything of the sort. Also, environment changes people and they in turn change their environment. It's called evolution. No god nonsense required.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 39 hours ago from Texas

      First, if there were evidence there'd be no need to hypothesize. How do you think evidence is found? How do you think tests are determined? A hypothesis is a 'what if'. If we only worked with what's already proven then we'd get nowhere.

      Yes, Sumerian writing was rather sudden considering humans had been kicking around for tens of thousands of years and had existed in highly populated organized societies for thousands. You're right that it started to account for grain and other items. The reason writing became the 'necessity' that mothered it is because the humans changed and now accountability was something that needed to be tracked. Before it didn't matter. It was a process, probably over a number of generations, but was still rather sudden in the landscape of human history.

      "If through scientific inquiry it is shown that the mind is not just brain, I'll accept that."

      Right, physical scientific evidence. There's just the brain physically, yet we all experience a mind that can't be seen or detected or measured. Only associated with physical happenings in that physical brain. There's no evidence it's there, yet we experience and know it's there. You can continue to wait on evidence all you like. That's your bad.

      So it's completely rational to you to think that multiple cultures, independent of one another, (Sumerians, Egyptians, Indus Valley, Greeks, Romans, to name a few) all "imagined" basically the same god-like beings? Just pulled it out of their ass? From nothing? And the commonality between all those doesn't suggest anything to you? At all?

      God is the only god. Humans were confused by these 'god-like' beings. I don't believe anything and everything. The simple fact is if the story Genesis is telling is accurate then all those cultures right there in that area that existed in that time, all of them coming up with such a similar concept of god-like figures lines up with that explanation. It's simply a better explanation than to think they all imagined them individually. That makes very little sense.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 days ago from Ottawa

      "There's the nonsense. That assumption that they were just ignorant and prone to writing stories of fiction, "

      Right. And people today don't just make up stories? Some people make a lot of money at it.

      Where do you stop? To me you're like a polytheist. They believe everything. All the gods, all the stories, they are all real. To them, even your god is real, but he's a real dick head. Tells his followers lies about being the only god.

      Do you believe all myths? Or only the ones that you can twist to your bias? Are all myths real? Or just yours?

      You are talking about uneducated primitives. Damn right I think they made up stories. Particularly since they aren't logical, and there is no evidence for them being true.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 days ago from Ottawa

      And yet you say it with no evidence, where as the evolution of written language is clear to linguists and archaeology. Particularly Sumerian writing which is one of the few that can be directly traced to its prehistoric roots. The word cuneiform refers to the reeds they used to write on clay and the type of impressions they naturally make due their shape.

      They used the same method for tallying grain and other items. It was a number system before it was a language system. And before that they used the reeds themselves to keep count of livestock.

      They started adding pictographs to their tally, like a stylized drawing of wheat, or a sheep, or what ever, to denote what the count was for.

      This was done in the temples, as that's where food stores were kept. Soon that evolved into writing religious pictographs on clay.

      Slowly this evolved from symbols with meaning into writing symbols to denote sounds/words. Which in turn had meaning to the speaker and reader, like today.

      It wasn't a sudden thing at all.

      That's what the evidence tells us. Where you get the idea that it was sudden is beyond me, and the evidence.

      As for your unprofitable myth or theirs, since there is no evidence for them being true, to include them in any serious hypothesis is not justified nor justifiable.

      That's not a science delusion, it's a way to keep science honest. No evidence? Sorry, can't accept it as anything of real value, let alone as real knowledge of fact.

      If science said otherwise, it wouldn't be science, it would be just another religion and useless for gaining real facts.

      My mind is fully open. If through scientific inquiry it is shown that the mind is not just brain, I'll accept that. But until then, my opinion is: brain in all likelihood is the mind. Short of it being a universal thing, as in: inherent in energy and matter, or a supernatural thing, it has to be. That's just logical.

      The evidence is pointing to that being the case, whether you like it or not. But its early days. Neuroscience is just beginning. Before the late 20th century science wouldn't even look at the question. But now we are. I'll wait and see what we discover.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 3 days ago from Texas

      This is yet another example of the harm of the science delusion. We've already concluded from previous conversations that you've got the brain all figured out. No reason to think it's anything other than what you just assume it is. And here again, based at least partially on that assumption, combined with what you know about human evolution, you've pieced together this explanation for how it all came together. And here I am pointing out how it doesn't line up with the evidence. It doesn't hold water. Yet here we are. Your faith remains strong.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 3 days ago from Texas

      "Typical of primitive minds"

      There's the nonsense. That assumption that they were just ignorant and prone to writing stories of fiction, assigning their accomplishments to fictional characters for whatever reason. They invented writing, irrigation, astronomy, organized government, mathematics, the wheel, sailboats, chariots, and on and on... yet here dismissed as "primitive minds". Typical.

      Which is why all your assumptions about how things evolved are off too. You starting with base assumptions that are off the mark so that you never have a chance of getting anywhere near the real truth.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 4 days ago from Ottawa

      So you say. But it's nonsense. Sure they invented fantasy stories about aliens who taught them stuff. So what? The start of those inventions were so far in the past they forgot who or how there knowledge came to be. Let's just say the gods taught us. Typical of primitive minds.

      And we now know how pyramids were built. Or haven't you heard?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 4 days ago from Texas

      It should also be pointed out, Ron, that while all three of these cultures made incredible advances in technology and inventions and accomplished things we still haven't figured out how yet (like the pyramids), we don't see the evolution of these inventions and practices. There's no progression to support what you're saying.

      In fact, while the Sumerians proved to be the most prolific inventors, after inventing writing they committed to clay tales that claimed they were taught these things. They invented these things, yet say somebody taught them. Why would they do that?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 5 days ago from Texas

      Having human occupation is one thing. And I'm sure that at least goes back to 7000BC as it was along a river bank. But the key is when the city flourished. There was already a settlement there, because there was a water supply there, but when they became a civilization capable of creating writing and all the rest, that came later.

    • Oztinato profile image

      Oztinato 6 days ago from Australia

      Von Noggin

      Other dates suggested in various articles etc

    • Oztinato profile image

      Oztinato 6 days ago from Australia

      Apparently this civilization is in the running for THE oldest cradle of "civilization" as in language, writing and science.

      Many of these early Indian cultures migrated far and wide.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 6 days ago from Ottawa

      http://www.ancient-civilizations.com/indus-valley-...

      Indus Valley Civilization is the one of the oldest ancient civilizations of the world. Indus River Valley Civilization was discovered by the archaeologists in the 1920s.

      It flourished in the Bronze Age (3300–1300 BCE; mature period 2600–1900 BCE, pre-Harappan cultures starting c.7500 BCE) along the Indus River (hence called Indus Valley Civilization) and the Ghaggar-Hakra River, which now lies in the area of modern Pakistan,

      Read more: http://www.ancient-civilizations.com/indus-valley-...

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 6 days ago from Ottawa

      I agree. I've seen some articles that suggest that recently.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 6 days ago from Texas

      What other dates?

    • Oztinato profile image

      Oztinato 6 days ago from Australia

      Other dates also suggest 7,000BC for the start of the Indus valley civilization

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 6 days ago from Ottawa

      The History of "Proto-Writing", Indus Script, and the Minoan Writing Systems. - by Stephen R Duren

      "Once the reader learns the basics of Indus Script in Chapter 1, the reader will then go on to read a more difficult and older style of Indus Script, which dates back to 3,500 BCE in the Indus Valley city of Harappa (currently said to be "proto-writing"). And so, as one would imagine: the oldest phonetic Sanskrit is included in this book, which is again the prehistoric parent writing system of Indus Script, called "Sanskrit Script".

      Note the word: Prehistoric.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 6 days ago from Ottawa

      Helen R. Pilcher 'Earliest handwriting found? Chinese relics hint at Neolithic rituals', Nature (30 April 2003), doi:10.1038/news030428-7 "Symbols carved into tortoise shells more than 8,000 years ago ... unearthed at a mass-burial site at Jiahu in the Henan Province of western China". Li, X., Harbottle, G., Zhang, J. & Wang, C. 'The earliest writing? Sign use in the seventh millennium BCE at Jiahu, Henan Province, China'. Antiquity, 77, 31–44, (2003).

      Neolithic graves in central China may hide the world's earliest writing, if the "signs" carved into 8,600-year-old tortoise shells can be deciphered by academics.

      The claim, made by a team of Chinese and American researchers in the March issue of Antiquity, a journal based at Cambridge University, Britain, has triggered heated debate among the world's archaeologists.

      China Daily. 12 June 2003.

      And if you look there are dozens more finds out there. Gobeci tempi may well have proto writing on the monoliths.

      That would put the evolution of writing to 12000 bce and earlier. Writing didn't just suddenly appear out of no where. To think it did isn't rational. All the skills we ever had evolved over time.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 6 days ago from Ottawa

      American natives had enemies and wars since they showed up in the Americas. And proto-writing is known to exist from the stone age.

      Proto writing isn't writing the way people speak. It's symbols with meaning to the viewer and writer.

      And again, evolution of writing is obvious. You can't see it because you don't want to. Doesn't fit your hypothesis.

      And no, apes and humans have extremely similar behavior. They only attack if they know they can win. usually five or six to one. If two guys are patrolling and see one guy, they might attack if he looks weak. If they see two or more they don't.

      And again, violence is far less among related animals, and far more likely among strangers. Mating competition, food competition land competition, and resource competition.

      Other animals follow the same pattern: lions for one. Two brothers will share a harem, but never two unrelated males.

      Why would humans be so different? They are not and never were. They wiped out other types of human, leaving only one in the end. But through rape and mating, those types still exist in our genes; particularly neanderthal.

      If man kind have been non-violent from the beginning we wouldn't be violent now. Our nature and the environment are both violent and nonviolent at the same time in different ways/circumstances. We're trying to become less violent. That's partially why we have religions. But logic can do a better job of getting us there.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 7 days ago from Texas

      Ron,

      Well, the consensus seems to be the Sumerians were first, so please show me what you mean by 'finds out there'.

      Chinese script emerging in the 14 century BC means 1400 BC, long after.

      And no, violence is what makes no sense. Anytime one engages in violent conflict there's a chance of injury. A lot of times injury meant death. Only those who minimally engaged in violent conflict would survive. There are significant differences between primates and humans. Humans are much more capable of understanding the risk/reward of violent conflict.

      Besides, this isn't how I'm "leaning" due to a somewhat related observation, this is in the evidence. Humans all throughout the food-gathering stage, up through thousands of years of farming and larger and larger communities, were overwhelmingly not violent. Even up through indigenous cultures. Native Americans, for instance, could get violent if threatened, but only did so in reaction to the new element that showed up on their shores. Very differently acting humans.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 7 days ago from Ottawa

      How are things dated? Usually by what's buried with it that can be dated. I don't know how this item was dated, nor do I claim to believe this story. I don't know how they date Sumerian tablets either. Are they accurate? I'm just saying there are finds out there that suggest pre-Sumerian writing.

      Evidence of evolution of writing is all over the place in number writing and proto-writing which definitely predate Sumerian writing by several thousand years. Chinese script emerged from proto-writing in the Chinese Bronze Age, during about the 14th centuries BCE called: Oracle bone script. If you can't see the evidence for evolution here you're looking with your eyes shut.

      Proto language is actually imbedded in every human baby. Chomsky and other linguists have shown this to be true. Animals have ways to communicate. Plants even do. What's different in us is abstract thought and the complexity of thought through language.

      As for violence among our ancestors, there have for a long time been two camps on this. You can give quotes and I could give quotes against yours for pages. But due to primate studies I'm leaning toward the violent past theory, with the exception of isolated related tribes. Makes sense since we are a species of ape. The meek mild mannered cave man doesn't ring true and knowing nature, doesn't make sense.

    • Oztinato profile image

      Oztinato 7 days ago from Australia

      The evolution of forms of writing is different from the evolution of language. They are two separate topics.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 8 days ago from Texas

      Ron, a few specific points ...

      Re: carbon dated tablets in Romania

      Let's think about this. What exactly was carbon dated so that the age of the writing could be determined? The clay? That's not going to register a carbon dating of just 5500BC. It's going to be quite a bit older.

      If you could maybe supply the evidence you're speaking of, because I read a lot on this topic and find it hard to believe I've never once run across this in all that time.

      Re: Critical Mass

      You speak about the invented wires, the electricity, etc. Yes, these were developments that built up into a 'critical mass'. Interconnected elements that led to something more. But there's none of that connective tissue to show the invention of writing to be the result of critical mass. It doesn't fit.

      Re: evolution of language

      This is a very tricky topic. It's one of those where there's very little to go on and rampant speculation everywhere you look. You obviously do a bit of seeing what you want to see yourself. This progression you piece together in your mind to explain the evolution of the mind and the boost it got with the introduction of verbal communication is just that, a pieced together progression.

      Re: Violence in prehistoric man

      Here's a bit from that book I refer to in my hubs. One I highly recommend you check out if given the opportunity ...

      "If this was the case - and most scholars agree that it was - then we could expect the transition to agriculture to be accompanied by a great deal of conflict as the groups competed over dwindling resources. But as we've seen, there is almost no evidence of warfare in these areas until the fifth millennium BCE, more than 3000 years after the advernt of agriculture"

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 8 days ago from Ottawa

      In the city of Tartaria, Romania, in 1961, archeologists found three clay tablets carbon dated to 5,500 bce. That means they may have already been writing in Europe before the Sumerians. And again, we only knew the Sumerians existed for less than a hundred years. Who knows what we’ll discover in the future?

      Of course humans invented writing independently around the same time. That’s how critical mass works. You can’t invent the telephone until you invent wire, discover electricity, and have all the elements in place including understanding. When everything is in place the phone invents itself.

      Bell got the patent but at least two others invented it independently in different countries within days of each other. Bell wasn’t the first.

      Written words didn’t come first. Written numbers have been used since the stoneage. It evolved and got more complex, used in trade. That led to written language for business use and evolved.

      The bigger change happened a hundred thousand years ago with slow evolution of language. As it evolved and got more complex, the human mind evolved new ways of thinking and explaining things to themselves. That facilitated creativity.

      That creativity accumulated to create math, write down numbers, and eventually write their languages.

      Yes egalitarian tribes existed with little violence. But they were related people who didn’t have encounters with unrelated tribes. In primates we see the same thing. Less violence toward relatives, nut extreme violence against members of unrelated groups.

      It is estimated by research done by Steve Pinker and others, that in many tribes in high populated regions, males had a 60 percent likelihood of being killed by a male from another tribe in battle.

      Believe it or not, violence has been decreasing, not increasing over last 100,000 years. Your likelihood of being murdered or killed in battle are less than 1 percent in most stable modern societies.

      Yes, there are spikes in violence. The first cities were trying to be cooperative and tolerant of others for the sake of trade. But slaves became more needed for the economy. Competition grew in ways it never had before. Others weren’t trusted. Cities were always at war with other cultures.

      But that evolved in to this. Nowhere near perfect, but much better than even a few hundred years ago.

      All I see is a constant evolution of mind and culture. Dr Ager said that evolution is like a soldier on the battle field. Long periods of boredom punctuated by moments of absolute terror. The terror being critical mass, where suddenly an accumulation of small almost unnoticed changes manifest as a large significant change. Language was a big one, so was written language, so was the printing press. So was the steam engine that started the industrial revolution. So was the discovery of electricity, the consequences of which seem infinite going forward. So was the invention of the wheel, and so was moving from hunting and gathering to farming to city living.

    • Oztinato profile image

      Oztinato 8 days ago from Australia

      The methods of writing is a different topic.

      It appears the proto indian languages developed in the indus valley civilization 7,0000 BC.

      This civilisation stretched much further geographically than other great river early civilisations.

      Don't forget Vedic sanskrit was a fully developed system that had to have evolved from early sanskrit forms.

      People often credit early outstanding maths to the greeks or others but the early indian indus valley civilisation was the earliest to develop maths, science and possibly actual proper language other than evolved grunts etc. This early indian civilisation migrated into actual india as we know it today after their river changed in some drastic way.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 8 days ago from Texas

      Sanskrit originated in the second millennium BC. Sumerian cuneiform originates in the fourth millennium BC. Cuneiform is written by making marks in clay with a sharpened stick, Egyptians of course used hieroglyphics, and the Indus Valley culture used a language and writing system that still to this day has not been interpreted.

      If they all had the same base language they'd all share that commonality that's just not there.

    • Oztinato profile image

      Oztinato 8 days ago from Australia

      Yes vedic sanskrit is a later form of sanskrit.

      Sanskrit roots are all indian hence terms such as "indo-european" and "indo-iranian".

      Indo (or Indian) early sanskrit as opposed to later Vedic (formalized religious) sanskrit predates all languages including egyptain.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 9 days ago from Texas

      "Sanskrit is a standardized dialect of Old Indo-Aryan, having originated in the second millennium BCE as Vedic Sanskrit and tracing its linguistic ancestry back to Proto-Indo-Iranian and Proto-Indo-European." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit

      It's not old enough. All three of these languages predate it by thousands of years.

    • Oztinato profile image

      Oztinato 9 days ago from Australia

      Von Noggin

      I believe Sanskrit is the root of all these languages.

      Not that it drastically changes your point.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 9 days ago from Texas

      A much more pronounced ego. Let me give you an example to illustrate.

      Three cultures, very advanced cultures, all came about within a few centuries of one another. Sumer, Egypt, and the Indus Valley. All three very different cultures speaking three very different languages.

      All three, all independent of one another, invented their own form of writing. Never before throughout the history of humanity had this ever been done before. But here, these three cultures, independent of one another, all invented three very different forms of writing.

      Necessity is the mother of invention. They invented writing because they needed it. What was different was not the environment or their way of life, what was different is now accountability was important. Personal possession. How much one owns or is owed.

      This became a need because it became important to these humans that they got what they were due. That all they owned or was owed could be tracked and accounted for.

      Before this change humans weren't concerned about possessions. All was one and one was all. The tribe shared everything. The land belonged to all the living. But once the change came surveyors began carefully plotting boundary lines. We humans became arrogant enough to say, this piece of land that's been here for millions of years, though I've only lived a century, this belongs to me.

      This change in humanity is the cause behind civilization. It's the cause that brought about violence and organized war.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 9 days ago from Ottawa

      "but the change didn't come from the outside. It was psychological. "

      What changes, specifically? Evolution of mind is both from external sources and internal ones. So give me the specific massive changes you're talking about.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 10 days ago from Texas

      Yes, I get it. But there's something bigger at work here. I get how and why you look to external changes in lifestyle and the environment they occupied, but the change didn't come from the outside. It was psychological. That's what the evidence shows.

      There's a bigger paint stroke here. That change led to both growing complex related tribes and violence/competition. It's what humans became.

      "throwing out ancient primitive superstitious fairy tales..."

      That's the problem. You, and many others, just assume these were all the products of over-imaginative primitive minds. That they were just dreamt up. Made up by simple minds to explain things they didn't understand. Not true.

      There's seeds of reality in those stories. They didn't just come from nowhere. Don't be so quick to dismiss them and wipe them off the table. You're trying to make sense out of what's left but it's not enough to tell the whole tale.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 13 days ago from Ottawa

      Well you weren't paying attention perhaps or I wasn't clear. The move of diverse populations in to cities is what increased violence. Not growing complex related tribes. And yes, there is ample evidence for that.

      And your insistence that it didn't happen elsewhere and should have is misinformed at best. You can't know that it didn't, and even if it did happen there first, it did happen elsewhere independently shortly after.

      The actual evidence we have, throwing out ancient primitive superstitious fairy tales, indicates plain old evolution.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 weeks ago from Texas

      "Moving from family tribes to mixed culture cities facilitates more violence, competition, etc."

      But that is demonstrably wrong. It makes sense, I agree. I understand how you think that would work. But it doesn't match the evidence. There were numerous highly populated cultures that came before Sumer and all the others, but there was no competition. There was no violence. All were equal. No male dominance. No dominant class over a working class.

      Sure, you can speculate that there were other cultures that came before. I'm open to it. Show me how the evidence suggests it. What I'm speculating I can show how and why it works in the evidence.

      Like Sumer, for instance. You say that it "had zero to do with Adam and Eve". I guess because the names "Adam" and "Eve" don't appear in Sumerian texts. But there are these gods they called the Annunaki who existed among them, who lived much longer than they did. Basically what Adam and Eve are described as, so too are the Annunaki.

      In fact Sumerian culture began, according to the Sumerians, with the arrival of an Annunaki named Enki. He gave them the gifts of civilization. Established the city of Eridu. Taught them all they eventually did, again, according to them.

      Genesis says after Cain was banished he left the garden and built a city. This is when it said that what it calls the 'sons of God' began marrying and having children with the 'daughters of humans'. So both stories talk about this interaction between humans and meta-humans of some kind. And this repeats well beyond just the Sumerians. Then the Egyptians told similar stories. Then the Greeks and Romans. And on and on.

      Maybe there's more to the story. I'm sure there is. Things yet to be discovered. But what we do know and what can be seen matches up incredibly well with what should be expected if the stories of Genesis actually happened.

      But what doesn't line up is your explanation. If it were just how the mind worked then when all these various cultures adopted farming and began forming highly populated, organized, settled farming cultures, then out of those conditions should have come about more civilizations than what's seen. They didn't. There should be evidence of the things you said, the violence, the competition. There isn't. In fact, there's evidence for the opposite.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "But civilization only started in one place."

      As far as we know. We didn't even know about Sumer a hundred years ago. And it had zero to do with Adam and Eve.

      Chinese civilization started independently. And we're not certain about anything before that.

      Ever heard of the dark ages? Rome brought advanced technology and civilization to Europe. When it fell it didn't take long for all of it to be forgotten. In England around the time of the vikings there was a legend that giants had once ruled there. Why? They found Roman statues and other artifacts that suggested exactly that to them.

      They forgot the Romans until much later, thanks to a very few educated people who knew better. And that was just after a few hundred years.

      Gobeci Tempi dates from 12000 bce. Obviously a civilization more advanced than others of the time .

      I'm not saying there were, but there may have been any number of advanced civilizations that came and went over the past million years. We don't know.

      The human mind part is about behaviour under specific conditions. Moving from family tribes to mixed culture cities facilitates more violence, competition, etc. No supernatural required.

      Things have to have a start It's about potential. It doesn't have to happen everywhere at once. Few if any human activities do. It all fits perfectly with evolution

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 weeks ago from Texas

      No, Ron, the evidence does not match ...

      "Agriculture began independently in different parts of the globe, and included a diverse range of taxa. At least eleven separate regions of the Old and New World were involved as independent centers of origin." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_agricultu...

      If it were, as you say, how the mind works, then we should have seen that evolution multiple times in multiple places. It didn't. Farming spread all throughout the world. But civilization only started in one place. And it spread from there. It's not like it appeared here, then there, then there. Nope, just that one time. And all other civilizations came from that.

      And no, my answers are not contrived. It came naturally through the progression. Initially can be tough for many, including nonbelievers, because you already have preconceived concepts and ideas about what it says that you have to let go of to really consider this with an open mind.

      As for believers, there's a lot I'm saying that flies right in the face of traditional Christianity. Most believers are cringing when they hear what I have to say.

      That's the whole problem with organized religion. You're not supposed to think. You're supposed to swallow what others have determined to be the truth and accept without question that it's right.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "No, an evolution from hunting gathering to farming to living cities does not match the evidence. "

      Yes it does. Genesis certainly doesn't. And the answers you have are contrived. Bible doesn't say or imply what you say it does. I can read.

      But I'm surprised you haven't got a cult following by now. I'd have thought believers would eat it up.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 weeks ago from Texas

      No, an evolution from hunting gathering to farming to living cities does not match the evidence. Farming spread all throughout the world rather rapidly. If you were right civilization would have sprung up in multiple places if that were just the way the human mind works. The evidence doesn't line up with that assumption.

      I do no gymnastics. Because I have an answer for every question you and others seem to think I'm bending things around. I'm not. What I've been saying has remained consistent since the beginning.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "Never before has an exact point in history been found where these stories were based. And not only can this be determined, but the change in human behavior that it's describing can be seen as well. And can be shown to be a pivotal turning point in human history."

      And the gymnastics you go through to get your hypothesis is astounding. But the changes you keep on about can best be explained by an evolution from hunting gathering to farming to living in cities. No supernatural required. It's the most logical explanation, borne out by the way the human mind works.

      You have no evidence to the contrary. And you want to prove it's all due to god, and Adam and Eve, and supposed free will. You can't.

      No matter what you claim, you have to prove god before you can prove the rest is even possible.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 weeks ago from Texas

      No, whether or not God exists doesn't matter in this context. What I'm pointing out is that Genesis gives a very specific timeline of over 2000 consecutive years. Those years and the series of events that happened during, including the flood and the Babel story, can be seen.

      Never before has an exact point in history been found where these stories were based. And not only can this be determined, but the change in human behavior that it's describing can be seen as well. And can be shown to be a pivotal turning point in human history.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "That the bible is accurate and a legitimate source of historical information. And it turns out these stories are describing a particularly pivotal point in human history. The dawning of civilizations."

      I am sure the bible has historic information in it. So you've already got that. But, as I stated: The Jewish bible is in and of itself just a model to explain facts. Facts like existence and origin among others you mentioned. To prove the model, you have to prove a god exists.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 3 weeks ago from Texas

      Ron,

      "You can’t test it. [[[[You can even find that some events in the bible are accurate.]]]] But that doesn’t mean a god actually had anything to do with it."

      I'm not trying to prove God exists. I'm just trying to show that the first 11 chapters of Genesis, can actually be pinpointed in both time and place. That out of all the unknowns surrounding this text, one thing it appears we can determine with a good level of certainty, is that the events described are based on this specific series of events during this period.

      That's what I'm showing. Not that a God exists. That the bible is accurate and a legitimate source of historical information. And it turns out these stories are describing a particularly pivotal point in human history. The dawning of civilizations.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 3 weeks ago from Tasmania

      If one starts with a presumption that “God exists,” then all subsequent thoughts, ideas, hypotheses, will be influenced by that presumption. Very difficult to free the mind from that influence.

      It would be like a scientist who gets locked into a mindset based upon one narrow idea that is so focussed it ignores all other possible outside influences. Hence the need for peer review in all honest scientific endeavour.

      Jeremy, you are frustrated in that others are not joining a dialogue with you to examine your research findings. Have you wondered why that is? Maybe they have taken a peep and found anomalies, then decided they have no wish to enter an argument.

      Just asking, not making a judgment.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 3 weeks ago from Ottawa

      Wrong. A hypothesis has to start with facts. You build a model to explain the facts and then test it to see if it does. But yours suffers from a significant problem. You can’t test it. You can even find that some events in the bible are accurate. But that doesn’t mean a god actually had anything to do with it. People attribute all kinds of events to god but can’t prove it. If you believe in gods you attribute things to them.

      The Jewish bible is in and of itself just a model to explain facts. Facts like existence and origin. To prove the model, you have to prove a god exists and then prove it has all the abilities and attributes you say it has. If one exists it may well not be yours.

      Here’s a model based on facts. The moon god loves us so much he gives us chickens and commands them to lay eggs for us to eat at breakfast. If we please him we find eggs in the morning. Great guy.

      Now, chickens exist and they lay eggs. And when you go into the coup in the morning you are likely to find eggs. But science tells us they don’t do it for us, they do it for survival of the species, procreation. Nothing to do with us. But no one prove the moon god exists or doesn’t, so the model is a matter of faith. If it doesn’t , it couldn’t have create chickens for us. If it does, you still have to show it created them, and even that it could.

      You have exactly the same problem. Your model can be as good as it likes. Unless you can prove your particular version of god exists, you can’t begin to prove your model. The facts can be explained by a dozen other models, all with various problems with proof, or we’d know.

      But many have the chance of being falsified or proven. Yours doesn’t.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 3 weeks ago from Texas

      No Ron, that isn't true. Just for this hypothesis to work, you have to hypothesis it's possible. If that's true, then all of these other things would be true as well. That's what a hypothesis is. Test whether or not something can be true.

      This has nothing to do with belief and it isn't about proving God. It's about finding the real truth about who we are. Our real history. Truth. The real truth. Clarity. We have more knowledge now than ever before. Yet the religions of the world are still going off of what people came up with centuries ago and didn't know as much as we know now.

      Religion isn't some mass delusion that humanity went through in their evolution of the centuries. Religion is the result of a cause. A significant cause that has caused ripples in humanity that still role on today.

      You can try to just convince yourself that it's all just silly made up nonsense, but I'd say that definitely doesn't appear to be the case.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 3 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "I have a claim that as far as I can tell can very well be the truth. "

      That's the trouble. You can't prove it true till you prove god true, no matter your claim.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 3 weeks ago from Texas

      Ron - "I just want the truth. I don't care what it is."

      I have a claim that as far as I can tell can very well be the truth. If true, it could lead to a lot of clarity where now there's only ignorance, hence the splintering of religious ideals. This "truth" I'm presenting, it would shed a lot of light and clear a lot of things up where all the religions of the world greatly differ now.

      I see the same problem you do and I too want the same thing you do. This is my solution. It's the best I've come up with.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 3 weeks ago from Texas

      Yes Ron, I understand how it works. I tried to falisfy my hypothesis. I was certain that I was out of my mind. That I could see something that nobody before has where millions of minds much stronger than mine have dedicated years to doing exactly this.

      So I tried to falsify it. I wasn't looking to prove it true. I was looking to prove it the nonsense I was sure it was.

      That's what I want from you guys. I want you to falsify it. Show me it can't be true. Not because you think it sounds like a confused believer's mindless ramblings, but because it factually can't have happened as the hypothesis states it did.

      I've said it many times to many people, so I apologize if I'm repeating something I've said before. This is also to Alan who seems to think I'm trying to push my beliefs onto him. I want this to be challenged. I want to find the smartest, most informed people I can to show me this isn't true.

      Because if it is true it's significant for a number of reasons. It could really clarify a lot of things. And if those better minds than I could start working off of a more accurate framework then God knows what we'll learn.

      I'm not peddling a religion. I don't have a church to take you to, Alan. I don't go. I'm not discussing beliefs with you. I'm explaining how, logically, the whole God concept really makes a lot of sense.

      I'm looking to move forward and make real progress in an area of concern that still divides this planet. I'm looking for knowledge. My bias is towards knowledge, not being right.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 3 weeks ago from Ottawa

      I agree with you, Alan. Religion has been beneficial to people in an evolutionary context. Believing one will see dead loved ones again is comforting. Believing we live on after death is stress relief, and stress is a major killer of humans.

      A firm faith can keep you from depression. These things have been studied now at length.

      Religion gives people a sense of community and commonality. They usually demand morality for a better life.

      the problem is, there isn't just one religion, or even a uniform religion. Each have offshoots, denominations and cults that facilitate the us against them sentiments, And that makes them as dangerous as nationalism or culturalism or racism or political affiliation.

      All things which benefit, include, but also exclude and demonize, leading to hate and violence.

      I just want the truth. I don't care what it is. Hence why I adopt a stance of no belief. I can only accept facts as knowledge. I'ts my method for getting at truth.

      And the funny thing is, science is showing how morality works. It's not a religious concept at all, it's a human need, enshrined in religion.

      But we don't need to enshrine it anymore. Atheists have the same understanding of it's requirement for a good existence, and science can tell us the real reasons why, just as tells us how all this works.

      We increasingly don't need other answers as given by religion. And science can unify people as religion fades by giving us real answers and taking religion's place as our guide.

      But if it's community we want, there are world views like Buddhism, that also caters to those who require afterlife to set their mind at ease, or modern pantheism who's basis is science and a reverence and awe for this amazing universe, where the findings of science are religious revelation and insight.

      We all want a better world. Only with truth unity and understanding will we make it happen.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 3 weeks ago from Tasmania

      Gentlemen, greetings. I have just returned from a 1-month visit to South India. As you know, India is a subcontinent with a rich history of religious beliefs, customs, traditions, cultures, ethnic and political confrontations, invasions, etc. Today, most if not all the major religions are represented in the population. I was in very close proximity to the funeral of a deeply respected old lady. The celebration was conducted according to the rites of the Syrian Orthodox Church.

      As you know, my views at this time are firmly atheist, but I come from a background of being Christian for the earlier half of my life. The clerical attire, incense, liturgy and supplications are not foreign to me, nor are the responses of the congregation. I can fully appreciate how they feel in such circumstances; and how the teachings, admonitions and required body language all build into the rock-hard dependability of that Church.

      None of it rings “true” for me personally. Yet it holds that community together. They depend on it and support it because their lives are totally in tune with it from day-to-day, from cradle-to-grave. Therefore I fully respect those people, even though none it is of any reality for me, personally.

      Jeremy, in a similar way, your objectives and your beliefs presented here are of no real interest to me, yet I can respect you nevertheless.

      The Syrian Orthodox Church is not asking me to become “one of them.” I can be happy if you are not asking me to take on any of your beliefs. In each case, I am free to do so, if I so desire. Equally not to do so.

      Simply put up your case and leave it for the taking thereof. Pro re nata.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 3 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "I'd agree with you if I hadn't formed the hypothesis first and then found the evidence to support it afterwards while testing it"

      Science tries to falsify hypothesis. Why? Confirmation bias. And like Alan said, and like I've said a dozen times to you, the fact that god and the supernatural are not provable or falsifiable, means you can't possibly support your claims.

      You can have all the logic following perfectly so that your conclusion must be true, (and you aren't even at that point.) But only if you start with a fact. Here your premise starts with "if", not facts. Therefore your end result can't be fact unless your premise can be show to be fact. That makes your conclusion meaningless and useless as knowledge.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 4 weeks ago from Texas

      I've had a couple of people who were moderately knowledgeable who continually insisted that my claim wasn't valid, but never a good solid reason why not. I'd love to have someone truly knowledgeable review this. I've shown it to anyone and everyone I could get to listen. Not sure what else to do.

      Science is all about explaining how/why things came to be as they are. This is part of that story. A part of that story that to this point science has failed to produce a satisfactory answer for.

      This, if true, explains that. Explains why we're the way we are. It explains a lot. So, as far as "in terms of science", that's what this is. Using science to either prove or disprove whether the stories of the bible actually happened. It directly claims to explain something that happened in humanity's history that science has yet to parse out.

      I've got mounds of evidence from every conceivable practice that continues to support that these things happened. It pinpoints an exact time and place in history to place these stories, and the impact of the events described can be seen. And the influences those events had on our world continue to be a factor today. Once this is understood in context then all of humanity as it is today makes a lot more sense. And that's really what it's all about. Better understanding.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 4 weeks ago from Tasmania

      Ok. And has anyone with deeper knowledge in all those areas of research ever come back to you with further legitimate confirmation or criticism of your conclusions?

      In my book, suggestions about the supernatural need to be set aside and not even considered in terms of science. Let them remain as beliefs.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 4 weeks ago from Texas

      Alan,

      I have no evidence of the supernatural. If there were physical evidence then it would not be supernatural. What I do have is sufficient evidence to show that the events described in Genesis 1-11 actually happened where and when it says it did.

      If there is any indication of the supernatural involved it would be the impact seen of a dramatic shift in human behavior from that point forward being the result of the 'supernatural' injection of free will/ego into the world through the introduction of Adam/Eve.

      This is the hub I wrote to give an overview of the hypothesis... https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/God-Creat...

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 4 weeks ago from Tasmania

      You may well find evidence which backs up your investigations concerning archeology and climactic events. That would be using, presumably, scientific methods and discipline.

      But are you trying to say those conclusions point to the supernatural? Surely not if your mind is focused on being able to “give proof of facts,” sufficient to convince your peers.

      So far, I have not seen any conclusive evidence of any claims you have made. To be fair on you, I have not followed the links you made some time back, for various reasons: 1. Most of my on-line reading and writing is done with a smart phone (3 yrs old) or a mini iPad. This makes linking somewhat arduous. And 2. I am not at all knowledgeable about history or archeology.

      So, if you would like to give a Link here to just one of your items of conclusive evidence, I will take the time and trouble to read it.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 4 weeks ago from Texas

      Ron,

      I'd agree with you if I hadn't formed the hypothesis first and then found the evidence to support it afterwards while testing it. The fact is the evidence supports what I speculated. Yet I didn't have knowledge of that evidence when I first formed the hypothesis. It would be one thing if I formed an explanation around the available evidence, but I didn't.

      I found evidence to account for each element time and time again. Over and over. In every direction I looked. Like finding that there actually was a traceable behavior change in the archaeological record that began both where and when the hypothesis said it would and lined up exactly with what it should be if true. Or a climatological event that actually did have the same impact on the people of that region as what's described in the Babel story.

      I know you want to assume I'm just another wildly speculating believer, but that just isn't true. I wouldn't waste your or my time with any of it otherwise.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 4 weeks ago from Ottawa

      " I've got an explanation, with extensive evidence to back it up."

      No you don't. You just think you do. There are a half dozen other explanations that would work were they true. Lack of knowing, due to lack of real evidence, which is true means you can't claim yours is either.

      You're the one wildly speculating, not me. And everyone can see that but you, apparently.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 5 weeks ago from Tasmania

      “Scientific”. Taken from Wikipedia: ....based on empirical or measurable evidence.....

      Supernatural is not empirical or measurable. You can paint a metaphorical picture of what you believe, then get a billion individuals to like and agree with what you believe. That still does not make it provable, disprovable or factual.

      If you want to continue arguing this, it will become a complete bore.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 5 weeks ago from Texas

      Alan,

      Why insist that we only discuss what is relevant scientifically, while simultaneously acknowledging there are things beyond what's scientifically relevant?What's there really to discuss on the scientific plain? Those truths have been discovered. Discussion is to find the truths in the abstract.

      What we're talking about encompasses all that exists. To limit yourself only to what is scientifically relevant is to only analyze part of the picture.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 5 weeks ago from Tasmania

      The supernatural is not relevant to the scientific. As far as the mind is concerned they can both be relevant. But the former cannot correlate to the latter. You are the one who brings confussion to the discussion, Jeremy.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 5 weeks ago from Texas

      Alan,

      You keep talking like this is something I'm choosing to inject into the discussion. Like it's not already a part of it. This isn't me at my insistence. It is in there. It is part of the story.

      You say this ...

      "Metaphysical entity......therefore not scientific. You can not prove it or disprove it. Purely down to your beliefs."

      ... as if to say unless it's scientific it isn't there. If it isn't scientific then it can only be imagined and not real.

      Something being "scientific" means that there is some way to confirm through the senses that this indeed is true. You can see/hear/smell/taste/feel it. There's physical light/sound waves/particles.

      It's not that the supernatural is uppermost in my mind. It's because it's totally relevant to the discussion being had. It's not in my mind.

      The only way to be responsible for something is to have done something you could have in some way done differently, but chose not to. If there was an actual choice made, there is metaphysical.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 5 weeks ago from Tasmania

      Also, why must you link responsibility to the metaphysical?

      Yes, part of my sense of ethics comes from my christian environment in early years, but that does not imply Christianity’s emphasis on the metaphysical was uniquely instrumental in my ethics.

      That social connection, considering how my way of life is effected by my actions, means that I can hope for a return of the favours. Not guaranteed of course.... this is primarily to do with living in the Here and Now.

      But I see it as presumptuous, maybe a bit arrogant, for Christian people to think they have a special purpose to police the world’s ethics. They can and do help, of course. But so can most people of Islam and Shiva and the Buddha. It’s more to do with culture than religion.

      If the factor of the metaphysical is uppermost in your mind, try questioning why it is uppermost. Is it somehow implanted there by your upbringing? Does it need to remain uppermost?

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 5 weeks ago from Tasmania

      You are free to “believe in” that metaphysical idea.” It obviously pervades your thinking. I don’t, therefore my thinking is different from yours. Also free.

      I have found Ron’s writing at the introduction of this discussion, to be very good food-for-thought.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 5 weeks ago from Texas

      Alan,

      See, this is the part where we always seem to struggle in these discussions. You speak about you're responsibility in your actions and behaviors, then at the same time completely dismiss the idea of metaphysical. Belief is simply an acknowledgement that a material/physical only universe can't account for accountability in one's actions.

      If there is no metaphysical, then there is no willful volition. There is no choice in what you do so therefore no accountability for what you do because you physically could not have done otherwise.

      So if you think we are willful beings responsible for our actions and decisions, then you're going to have to consider metaphysical. If that's an absolute no, then what you're left with is that you're a biochemical machine not able to do anything differently that what you do. You're not accountable because it's not up to you. You're just a passive observer.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 5 weeks ago from Tasmania

      Metaphysical entity......therefore not scientific. You can not prove it or disprove it. Purely down to your beliefs.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 5 weeks ago from Texas

      Alan,

      I do not mean to give the impression that the ego is in any way a bad or shameful thing. Ego/Free will is the gift given to us by that metaphysical entity. Our own minds and wills. It is responsible for all the worst and all the best things we are capable of. It's not all bad. It just makes us capable of bad. But it also makes us capable of good.

      Yes, I agree, our behavior and actions are our responsibility. It is our will. We are capable of good/bad, selfish/selfless, and it is totally up to each of us. We have a responsibility in all we do.

      As for my evidence, yes, this evidence is well documented and supported. I haven't done any of the testing and determining myself. The evidence has been found by others. Qualified others. I simply point out how it's consistent with what I'm talking about. The characteristics that show humanity to have an ego can be seen in our archaeological record. Where it began and where it went from there and when. It lines up with all of human history and provides a consistent coherent explanation for human behavior throughout our progression.

      What I'm speaking about isn't mere belief. There's evidence that supports what I'm describing. I don't simply 'believe' it because these things actually happened. We can ask what if's all we like. Asking what if is what got me to where I am today. Not simply accepting what others believe but testing and challenging everything for myself. This is why I have a full explanation and supporting evidence for everything I speak of. I'm not just talking out of my ass as it appears Ron is doing here. I'm speaking about things I know a lot about.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 5 weeks ago from Tasmania

      For my self, I don’t see the ego as something to feel ashamed or guilty about. It’s just part of our makeup as one species of animal that has evolved in social, gregarious groups. Our minds have evolved accordingly, involving jealousy/altruism; fear/courage; action/contemplation; intellect/emotion....etc. all the opposite characteristics that make us up as a complex bunch.

      To have an ego is not bad, as far as I am concerned. And I do not accept the notion that there is some metaphysical entity ready to pounce on me for having an ego.

      It’s how I understand this ego that matters to me. And what I do about it/with it. This is all MY responsibility. And no one else can take on my responsibility.

      My fellow humans are entitled to judge me and act accordingly with regards to how my dealing with this ego affects them directly or indirectly. But they are not entitled to take control of my brain, period.

      Now, this “evidence” you keep talking about, Jeremy. Is it evidence you have shared with others and found acceptance? Has it been proven to be either true or false? Is it falsifiable? Does it stand up to scrutiny by your peers who have a similar knowledge base to your’s? Please enlighten me on all these points.

      Your are fully entitled to believe anything you like, whatever suits you, as I have put my cards on the table.

      But to make any improvement in a discussion like you are having with Ron here, I guess there needs to be a bit more lateral thinking - what IF this? what IF that? IMHO.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 5 weeks ago from Texas

      And you're basing this on what exactly? Because, as you should know by now, I've got an explanation, with extensive evidence to back it up. Because this sounds to me like another example of you wildly speculating what you assume must be true. And then stating it as if it is the truth.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 5 weeks ago from Ottawa

      No ego, no consciousness. Been there on purpose. Not a place you want to be. All animals have ego and humans always had one. To assume we didn't is irrational, illogical and as delusional as thinking the earth is flat.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 5 weeks ago from Texas

      Yes, exactly Alan. The ego. That's where things went awry. And that ego came about at a very specific place and time in human history. And you're right, the ego wants to use whatever is at it's disposal to gain superiority/status. The ego is what gives us our love of material possessions. It causes us to draw a line in the sand and say this piece of the Earth right here is mine.

      But that doesn't mean there's no such thing as a selfless act. That means our ego is something more than just mere biology. It is the result of the introduction of free will into the world. It is capable of being selfless just as it's capable of being selfish.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 5 weeks ago from Tasmania

      We humans were primitive animals before civilisation, but not necessarily violent, only when the situation threatened existence. As a gregarious species the societal (herd) instinct was supremely important to survival.

      That altruistic trait you speak of is a moderne extension of the group/herd/safety-in-numbers instincts.

      Our egos wish to use it in order to prove superiority, taking credit for it. Thus, ultimately altruism is not self-less.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 5 weeks ago from Texas

      Alan,

      The good intention I'm speaking of is the intention that immediately precedes the action.

      Society and our whole social dynamic is built on our altruistic sensibilities. You and I can go into crowds of people knowing full well we'll be fine within those masses. You can walk amongst hordes of people with your children. That's the good it does. A civilized culture.

      If we couldn't do that society would fail. We all trust each other to behave and keep this thing going. Those who refuse, and there will always be 'those', are removed. But humanity overall, throughout history and prehistory, have proven to be social animals.

      Lots of people think we were violent primitive animals before civilization. Not true at all. And it's not selfish because it's not for the self. Not the individual self. But the collective.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 5 weeks ago from Tasmania

      I fully understand that, Jeremy. But you, I, everyone and anyone who has a “good intention,” can talk about it until the cows come home, but it will do no good, ultimately.

      Why? Because when we look afar trying to find people whom we think need our help, because it’s easier to do that and judge the standards of others against those of our own....than to c h a n g e our own way of living.... (... for a camel to go through the eye of a needle....).

      I saw something painted on a bus, here in southern India, the other day: Wealth depends on Attitude. Think about it. I’m not financially rich when placed beside many, by any stroke of the imagination, but I am happy with what I’ve got and try to use it wisely and unselfishly. Why? Because ultimately it makes me feel good. It’s called being human.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 5 weeks ago from Ottawa

      Intent. Exactly. Not selfless. Intent, which is anything but.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 5 weeks ago from Texas

      Alan,

      " Why not allow your self to be selfish?"

      Half the world's population is starving and impoverished because we allow ourselves to be selfish. There's plenty for everybody. You and I have more than enough.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 6 weeks ago from Texas

      Alan,

      Imperative as in without it society would fail. The social dynamic is very much dependent on our sense of altruism. Relating to and sympathizing with one another and forming a working bond between each individual.

      Ron,

      The keywords in my quoted statement are "done for". Intention. Whatever you may gain from helping, a good feeling, a clear conscience, a warm fuzzy, was not the intention. Therefore, the act was carried out without regard for that. That was not the purpose behind what was "done for" another. If it had been, then that good/warm/ cuddly whatever would not have happened, therefore canceling itself out.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 6 weeks ago from Ottawa

      " If something is done for someone else, with no regard for one self, that is selfless."

      No, it's not semantics. The above doesn't and can't happen. That's the point.

      Go, Alan.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 6 weeks ago from Tasmania

      Imperative? Who or what determines it imperative? Do I/you/we have a choice? What if I decide not to follow the imperative - what will be the consequence?

      If I attempt to pass through Border Control without the required visa, an imperative, I know something will happen as a result.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 6 weeks ago from Texas

      No Alan, this not my obsession with selflessness. It's arguing against the idea that there is no selfless act. There are, in fact, decisions and actions we carry out on a regular basis that are for others, for the tribe, for the masses. These are selfless acts.

      It's an imperative part of our social dynamic.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 6 weeks ago from Tasmania

      So, why this obsession with selflessness? Why not allow your self to be selfish? After all, it’s a basic instinct, The Survival Instinct to preserve one’s life. You and I were born with it.

      And it’s one of the primary instincts which we possess, giving rise itself to the instinctive drives to fear, hunger, thirst.

      So again, what’s your problem with being selfish? Who’s to care if you are?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 6 weeks ago from Texas

      Besides, intention is the key. If you do something for the purpose of gaining the 'good feeling' or whatever kind of reward for doing that act, knowing you're doing it for your own gain rather than the gain of another cancels out that feeling or reward. There's no reward to gain because the intention wasn't to do for another. It was to do for yourself.

      But if you're intention is to help another, and you feel good about doing so, then the intention of the act was still selfless. Whether or not you ultimately gained anything in the process.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 6 weeks ago from Texas

      Ron,

      Okay, I think this is a simple matter of symantics. You're taking the word 'selfless' and are applying a rigid definition that ultimately loses it's intended meaning. All it really means is the opposite of selfish. If something is done for oneself with no consideration for others, it is selfish. If something is done for someone else, with no regard for one self, that is selfless.

      Saying that something isn't selfless because you're doing what you feel is "right" is just ridiculous. It's argumentative for argument's sake. There's no ground to gain or lose in continuing down this course. There are selfless acts BECAUSE there are selfish acts. Selfless is the opposite. It's selfless when it isn't selfish. It's really that simple.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 6 weeks ago from Ottawa

      She did what she considered right at the time. Nothing selfless about that. You always help, so expect it of yourself. To not help would have gone against her grain. She wouldn't do that unless some other more pressing situation became dominant.

      Sorry, but there is no example of a selfless act in your terms. Only an accident as defined as an unintended act would come close. But that's not what you mean by selfless. And what you mean doesn't and can't exist.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 8 weeks ago from Texas

      Ron,

      I have an example of a unselfish/selfless act, even by your silly-ass standards, that I thought I would share.

      We have a neighbor who's constantly dealing with every medical issue you can imagine, and she does so with the most cheery disposition I think I've ever seen. I mean her skin has been turned a dark brown from her treatments and medication. She's constantly in the hospital dealing with infections and broken bones and such. She's lost at least half of every finger. She lives alone. You get the idea.

      My wife was out walking our dog this afternoon. She saw that it appeared our neighbor needed help like she often does. My wife and I have helped her with various things numerous times before. But today my wife really didn't want to because it was extremely hot outside and she hasn't been feeling good.

      Yet, without any sort of good feeling for doing so she helped her. She spent more time outside, getting hotter and hotter. Afterwards she just felt worse. She said her initial thought when she saw her was that she didn't want to help. Yet she still did it. And she knew she'd feel worse afterwards because that's how the heat often affects her.

      So, would you say that qualifies as an exception to your statement that there's no such thing as a selfless act?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 months ago from Texas

      No, not a lie. The evidence lines up. Consistently. Over 2000 years of Mesopotamian history lines up with the timeline and series of events described. Not possible if it's copied from the Sumerians. I formed the hypothesis first, based on the text, then tested against the evidence and found it consistent. Had no knowledge of the evidence before the hypothesis. Therefore impossible to be fantasy.

      You can tell yourself I'm lying and that it's all fantasy. Live in the "truth" that you're comfortable with. I'm not interested in changing your mind.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 months ago from Ottawa

      Well you tried, Alan. Headly is delusional and trys so hard to project his faults on me. A stupid tactic he tries over and over without success.

      No, Headly, What happened in the bible is only partially historical, and mostly fantasy, and is taken directly from Sumerian, not Hebrew stories from 2000 years before they even thought to take them for their own.

      And I'm not going to go over it all again. Yes my opinion is an educated guess and I've never claimed otherwise.

      You are the one with the delusion that your belief is truth. It's not. And claiming it is is a lie.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 2 months ago from Tasmania

      I am not going to argue ad infinitum, since it would get us nowhere useful. Bowing out of the discussion once again. Over to you, Ron.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 months ago from Texas

      Yeah, I'm familiar with the general train of thought you're following. It's all wild speculation, of course. Just an assumption that that must be how it progressed.

      Only, the evidence doesn't support it. Specifically the "I am the greatest" part. The human ego that you're referring to is definitely a crucial element, but it came along much later. And in a very specific time and place. That time and place is what Genesis is talking about.

      That isn't mass delusion. The Jew/Muslim conflict of 6000 years isn't mass delusion. They both existed at ground zero of the birth of the human ego and these interactions with a real God.

      Delusion, I agree, is a very real thing. But it's dangerous to just assume it of those you disagree with. It's also a perfect justification.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 2 months ago from Tasmania

      "delusion

      dɪˈluːʒ(ə)n/

      noun

      an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.

      "the delusion of being watched"

      synonyms: misapprehension, mistaken impression, false impression, mistaken belief, misconception, misunderstanding, mistake, error, misinterpretation, misconstruction, misbelief; ......"

      It's all in and from the human mind. Genetic traits, characteristic of one species of great ape that has, by a process of evolution, acquired an ability to think ahead, predict and prepare for eventualities, especially those which might threaten in any way.

      The ability to prepare for future events is not unique to us humans. Storing food, seasonal migration, building a nest, defences, social positioning, etc. These and more are common throughout living species. There is some indication it's not only true of animals, but of plants, bacteria and viruses as well. So, we humans are in good company.

      That ability to think ahead to a greater degree became a survival advantage. We were able to manipulate our food supply, serving the high energy needs of our brains and mental processes. Better brain power was passed on generation to generation.

      Then came the luxury of spare time, being able to conjure up imaginary superiority and inferiority, "I am the greatest." In some cases this led to dominance in reproduction....but not in all cases. In some of the great apes, a softer and more cooperative way was more beneficial, like the bonobo.

      All down to the human mind.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 months ago from Texas

      Yes, I get that humans can fool themselves. But the point here is that multiple vastly different cultures "imagined" basically the same beings. Delusion is one thing, but for that delusion to be exactly the same across the board, when each was formed independently, that's a little much. Common sense would say these depictions are all based on something real. A shared experience of some kind.

      Dismissing the inventors of civilization as over-imaginative and delusional is an easy answer, but it doesn't fit the data.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 2 months ago from Tasmania

      We humans are very capable of mass delusion. Very easily led in the way we think. The churches and temples to this day are evidence of that.

      If numerous populations of history, of various cultures, different countries and geographical circumstances tend to need belief in acceptance of a "God" figure, it surely points to a genetic predisposition. All the metaphors and analogies under the sun still don't prove the existence of a god.

      I am not discounting the possibility of an entity that somehow set this "creation" in motion. But that entity can only be referred to using metaphor. It can't be touched, seen, heard, smelled or tasted by you or me.

      We can see what our minds wish to see in the form a flower, a biological process under the microscope, the power of a volcano, a baby being born.....we are free to see a god in anything our mind chooses.

      We can apply science or belief as and when we choose. Both can be useful in arriving at an understanding, according to the individual. Still it's never a proof.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 months ago from Texas

      Ron,

      Based on probability? That's your problem. You're using your imagination to fill in gaps based on your assumption (see science delusion) that we have it all figured out. You can just fill in the gaps. But there's no evidence of these "far advanced" civilizations you speak of. None. And no evidence of natural disasters that could have erased them.

      But you're right, something else happened. And the stories Genesis describes could very well be that something else. It fits, and it fits the evidence.

      What's important here, Ron and Jonny, isn't proving God's existence. It's that Genesis is accurate history and very likely has something to teach us about how we came to be how we are. That's the focus.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 months ago from Texas

      Alan,

      Yes, that's what I believe. But the evidence supports what I believe. There is no, and can be no, evidence of supernatural. But the stories claim these were interactions by God and the things these stories said happened actually happened.

      And that includes beings who were god-like compared to humans. We've got numerous accounts from nearly a dozen vastly different cultures who all say these beings existed. They're part of each of their stories. How else do you explain that? Mass delusion repeated a dozen different times?

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 2 months ago from Tasmania

      Please excuse my butting in, but:

      "(1)But I can show that the events that Genesis says happened actually happened. (2)And those were direct interactions between this God and this physical world. "

      From my point of view, (1) - you might be able to offer plausible evidence historically. (I have not read all through your arguments to agree or not, I am not well versed in history).

      However, (2) comes directly from your beliefs. Primarily your chosen assumption that God exists according to your perceptions. This you can never, ever prove, because any "evidence" you present will be clouded by your own perceptions. The God is a product and a prisoner of your perceptions.

      So, after hundreds of postings, are you any closer to agreement of enlightenment?

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 months ago from Ottawa

      Vagueness comes from not knowing for a fact. I have no beliefs. I have opinion s based on fact and probability based on facts. Exactly because I can't know so many things as a fact, and I'm not going to fool myself into thinking I do.

      Fact is you have zero evidence for your beliefs. Your beliefs make no sense. You choose to believe anyway. Too bad. But that's not a life for me.

      My opinion, based on probability, is that there were civilizations far advanced from cave men 12000 years plus, most of whom were destroyed by natural disaster. If wrong, so be it. Something else happened. What? We can not yet know for a fact.

      But so far there is no real evidence of alien visits, and certainly zero evidence of Adam and Eve. So sorry, I can't buy it even if you fell for it hook line and sinker, and now have to do gymnastics with logic to try to prove it.

      You never will. You can't. That's your problem, not mine.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 months ago from Texas

      Vague explanations often come from belief. You're coming from a place of a preferred belief. That's your truth. My truth is wholly determined by evidence.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 months ago from Texas

      And that is what you want to believe. Of course nothing specifically sited to say what exactly you mean by my evidence doesn't hold up. Just vague statements.

      I thought believers were supposed to be the vague ones? You're supposed to be fact-based and specific, so where's that?

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 months ago from Ottawa

      "But I can show that the events that Genesis says happened actually happened. And those were direct interactions between this God and this physical world. "

      Sorry, no you can't. It's what you want to believe so in your head it's true and you see what you want to see.

      Again, I've read your interpretations and they don't work. If they did I'd have to agree with you and I'd be amazed. But you're evidence doesn't hold up as evidence. You and what? 2 billion Jews and Christians can't even agree on the first lines of Genesis, and it's pretty obvious what it says, and even when I read it, your version is miles from the printed word and its meaning.

      And then you have to first prove god exists before anything else you say about has any meaning. And you can't. So no, you can't prove any of the above.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 months ago from Texas

      You - "Right. I've seen your evidence and it's nonsense."

      I wish you'd be more specific than that. Just making that blanket statement to dismiss the mountain of supporting evidence I have is exactly what I'm talking about.

      That's the problem with the science delusion. You assume right from the get go that nothing I say can have any merit because it doesn't fit what you think we already have figured out, when clearly we don't.

      What I'm presenting is as close to evidence as there's going to be. Physical evidence of whatever is responsible for this universe is simply impossible. And ridiculous to demand. It means you don't understand well enough to actually know that what you're asking is inconsistent with the subject matter.

      But I can show that the events that Genesis says happened actually happened. And those were direct interactions between this God and this physical world. The evidence is consistent. What sparked the beginnings of the modern human world we know now are what Genesis is describing.

      Don't just say my evidence is nonsense. Show me how you know that.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 months ago from Ottawa

      Right. I've seen your evidence and it's nonsense. For the rest of your post it's a projection. You try to put your faults on me. You are the believer in supernatural gibberish, so you have a stake in what the truth is, so don't lie. You can't fathom anything but what you think you already know. Don't try to stick that on me.

      I don't believe anything. I look at the evidence and base my opinion on the best answer so far without evidence to the contrary. Usually the simple natural one. That's what's most likely historically until you or the ancient alien theorists come up with something real, not some wild interpretations based on their or your unfounded baseless models.

      Actually theirs have more basis than yours since you can't prove a god exists and you can't prove Adam existed, and I know for a fact free will doesn't exist, but everything has individual will which is as free as it gets but better.

      So as far as aliens are concerned, I'm not convinced, but the likelihood of aliens existing somewhere is high, while gods highly unlikely.

      Prove your god exists or your hypothesis are meaningless. In logic things have to follow. Your first premise must be a fact or all that follows is meaningless. God is not a fact, so no facts can be derived from the premise that it does.