Posts Tagged ‘origins’
The other day on a social media site called “Quora” an interesting question was asked about why generally speaking the females of many animal species are smaller than the male. A person responded by asking the questioner to look at it from a different perspective and ask the reverse instead … why are males generally larger than females? When the question was rephrased, the answer is strikingly obvious.
In most of the animal world it is the male who fights for the right to mate with a female, and generally speaking it is the strongest and biggest male who wins the privilege of being chosen by the female to breed. Consequently, it is the strongest and most fit male who passes on his genes making his offspring the strongest and most fit for that environment.
As this evolutionary process continues generation after generation, the males become larger and stronger. Females on the other hand have a different set of selection pressures that act upon them, such as females who are most fertile and take care of their young the best are naturally the ones whose offspring survive and reproduce, thus passing on the genes for those qualities. When the question is approached from this angle it is quite easy to see what makes the evolutionary process work so well in allowing the most fit to pass on their genes. This logical approach is far different from the religious approach which arbitrarily states that god made men bigger and stronger than women so they could rule over them!
I’m reading a book by Steven Pinker called The Better Angels of our Nature, where he presents evidence for his claim that violence has declined over the course of history. In one section he quoted an excerpt from Homers Illiad and Odyssey where Agamemnon is explaining to King Menelaus his plans for war:
Menelaus, my soft-hearted brother, why are you so concerned for these men? Did the Trojans treat you as handsomely when they stayed in your palace? No we are not going to leave a single one of them alive, down to the babies in their mother wombs – not even they must live. The whole people must be wiped out of existence, and none be left to think of them and shed a tear.
Do these words set in the time period of 1200 BCE and written around 800 BCE not sound familiar? Let me share a passage from the Bible written in the same ancient time period.
Deut 7:2-3 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:
Here is another quote that comes from a book called The Rape of Troy written by literary scholar Jonathan Gottschall, where he discusses how archaic Greek wars were carried out.
Fast ships with shallow drafts are rowed onto beaches and seaside communities are sacked before neighbors can lend defensive support. The men are usually killed, livestock and other portable wealth are plundered, and women are carried off to live among the victors and perform sexual and menial labors.
Again, do not these words bring to mind passages in the Bible? For example: Read the rest of this entry »
My main focus in this article is on the religion of Christianity, which grounds its doctrines in the Bible versus naturalism. Imagine for a moment what the world would be like without the influence of the Bible or for that matter any other religious doctrine. If by a twist of fate, the Scriptures of the Old Testament disappeared into pre-Christian history, just as the mythological Ark of the Covenant did, the world would be free of three religions. Christianity was built off of Judaism, and Islam was built off of both Judaism and Christianity. The roots of the belief of innate human sinfulness lie in the teachings of Judaism in the Old Testament and were carried forth into the New Testament by teachers and writers like the apostle Paul. If I had to choose which doctrine in the Bible has caused the most suffering, I would have to pick the teaching of sin. The idea that innate sin somehow causes the evil in the world has wreaked havoc in the lives of so many people, it is beyond measure.
Something that many people fail to realize is how well naturalism explains all the suffering, tragedy and atrocities that happen in the world … there is no need for a doctrine of sin, which only servers to blame humans for all of the planets suffering. Under naturalism things that naturally happen in the world are not fair and just, but they can be explained by natural laws and random chance, not because of the whims of a capricious deity. Humans do not cause natural calamities because of “sins” like lack of belief or ones sexual orientation as some Christians would have you believe. Read the rest of this entry »
The inevitable consequence of being self aware is the sense of being eternal. Once the self emerges into existence it becomes inconceivable to itself that it will cease to exist at some point. The fact of being aware of oneself creates a witness that perceives itself. To be self aware is to have knowledge or information about oneself and be able to communicate with ourselves. The only way we can understand anything is by how it interacts with something else or ourselves giving a point of reference and forming a relationship. To be able communicate and have a relationship with oneself and others is the essence of self consciousness. Read the rest of this entry »
Science is founded on testable evidence; whereas religions are founded on belief, which is lack of evidence.
If the Bible is true and its god the creator of everything, then humans should be able to use their “god given” abilities to discover the world around them that he made. When humans discover dinosaur bones, or any other ancient fossils, and perform radiometric dating to calculate its age, the results that they get should correspond with what is written in the Bible, but it doesn’t. As it stands, practically every scientific discovery in some way contradicts the corresponding biblical explanation. Why is that? The main reason is that primitive minds struggled to understand the world around them, and for all the unknowns (of which there were many) they inserted god, or a reason that fit with their limited knowledge, which then became recorded as facts in their holy scrolls. Consequently we have a Bible that consists of:
- Records of historical events.
- Rules and laws given by its god.
- Assertions that “god did it”, instead of testable evidence about natural phenomenon. Read the rest of this entry »
A nationwide poll in 2009 reported that 40% of the American population believes that the first two humans were created within the past 10,000 years. If that is the case, why does one suppose that God chose to create humans with practically hairless bodies…that is to say naked? Having fur or feathers is extremely advantageous when it comes to keeping warm and protection, so why of all the animals did God chose to make humans the most vulnerable in that manner? Even in tropical climates people wear clothing for protection and use blankets to cover themselves with for sleeping.
The Garden story posits human nakedness as the way God created the first humans, Adam and Eve, yet all the other animals were given fur, feathers or extremely tough hides or scales. It does seem rather convenient that Adam and Eve were created naked, given the theme and outcome of the Garden story. When the forbidden fruit was eaten the consequence was the revelation to the hairless couple that they were naked, thus they sewed fig leaves together to make aprons for themselves. This knowledge of nudity was the secret contained in eating from the tree of good and evil, giving God the clue he needed that they had eaten from its fruit. Imagine if the naïve couple had a coat of fur like their primate cousins, what would then have been the consequence of eating the forbidden fruit? Read the rest of this entry »