The Archeology of the Biblical Patriarchs

I´ve just been reading Werner Keller´s book in Portuguese Arqueologia da Biblia: das Patriarcas a Terra Prometida (Archeology of the Bible: from the Patriarchs to the Promised Land), and am enjoying his acounts of information that I haven´t seen reported elsewhere. I´ve looked with some interest at Joseph, for example. Appendix One: The Old Testament as History Christianity and Judaism are historical faiths. They base their faith on historical events (accompanied by their interpretations). The problem comes in trying to define or describe what is "history" or "historical study." Much of the problem in modern theological interpretation rests on modern literary or historical assumptions projected back onto Ancient Near Eastern biblical literature. Not only is there not a proper appreciation of the temporal and cultural differences, but also of the literary differences. As modern western people we simply do not understand the genres and literary techniques of Ancient Near Eastern writings, so we interpreted them in light of western literal genres. The nineteenth century's approach to biblical studies atomized and depreciated the books of the Old Testament as historical, unified documents. This historical scepticism has affected hermeneutics and historical investigation of the Old Testament. The current trend toward "canonical hermeneutics" (Brevard Childs) has helped focus on the current form of the Old Testament text. This, in my opinion, is a helpful bridge over the abyss of German higher criticism of the nineteenth century. We must deal with the canonical text that has been given us by an unknown historical process whose inspiration is assumed. Many scholars are returning to the assumption of the historicity of the OT. This is surely not meant to deny the obvious editing and updating of the OT by later Jewish scribes, but it is a basic return to the OT as a valid history and the documentation of true events (with their theological interpretations). A quote from R. K Harrison in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 1, in the article, "Historical and Literary Criticism of the Old Testament" is helpful. "Comparative historiographic studies have shown that, along with the Hittites, the ancient Hebrews were the most accurate, objective, and responsible recorders of Near Eastern history. . Form-critical studies of books such as Genesis and Deuteronomy, based on specific types of tablets recovered from sites that include Mari, Nuzu, and Boghazköy, have shown that the canonical material has certain nonliterary counterparts in the cultures of some Near Eastern peoples. As a result, it is possible to view with a new degree of confidence and respect those early traditions of the Hebrews that purport to be historiographic in nature" (p. 232). I am especially appreciative of R. K. Harrison's work because he makes it a priority to interpret the Old Testament in light of contemporary events, cultures and genres. In my own classes on early Jewish literature (Genesis – Deuteronomy and Joshua), I try to establish a credible link with other Ancient Near Eastern literature and artifacts. A. Genesis literary parallels from the Ancient Near East 1. Earliest known literary parallel of the cultural setting of Genesis 1-11 is the Ebla cuneiform tablets from northern Syria dating about 2500 b.c., written in Akkadian. 2. Creation a. The closest Mesopotamian account dealing with creation, Enuma Elish, dating from about 1900-1700 b.c., was found in Ashurbanipal's library at Nineveh and several other places. There are seven cuneiform tablets written in Akkadian which describe creation by Marduk. 1) the gods, Apsu (fresh water – male) and Tiamat (salt water – female) had unruly, noisy children. These two gods tried to silence the younger gods. 2) one of the god's children, Marduk, helped defeat Tiamat. He formed the earth from her body. 3) Marduk formed humanity from another defeated god, Kingu, who was the male consort of Tiamat after the death of Apsu. Humanity came from Kingu's blood. 4) Marduk was made chief of the Babylonian pantheon. b. "The creation seal" is a cuneiform tablet which is a picture of a naked man and woman beside a fruit tree with a snake wrapped around the tree's trunk and positioned over the woman's shoulder as if talking to her. 3. Creation and Flood – The Atrahasis Epic records the rebellion of the lesser gods because of overwork and the creation of seven human couples to perform the duties of these lesser gods. Because of (1) over population and (2) noise, human beings were reduced in number by a plague, two famines and finally a flood, planned by Enlil. These major events are seen in the same order in Genesis 1-8. This cuneiform composition dates from about the same times as Enuma Elish and the Gilgamesh Epic, about 1900-1700 b.c. All are in Akkadian. 4. Noah's flood a. A Summerian tablet from Nippur, called Eridu Genesis, dating from abut 1600 b.c., tells about Zivsudra and a coming flood. 1) Enka, the water god, warned of a coming flood 2) Zivsudra, a king-priest, saved in a huge boat 3) The flood lasted seven days 4) Zivsudra opened a window on the boat and released several birds to see if dry land had appeared 5) He also offered a sacrifice of an ox and sheep when he left the boat b. A composite Babylonian flood account from four Summerian tales, known as the Gilgamesh Epic, originally dating from about 2500-2400 b.c., although the written composite form was cuneiform Akkadian, is much later. It tells about a flood survivor, Utnapishtim, who tells Gilgamesh, the king of Uruk how he survived the great flood and was granted eternal life. 1) Ea, the water god, warns of a coming flood and tells Utnapishtim (Babylonian form of Zivsudra) to build a boat 2) Utnapishtim and his family, along with selected healing plants, survived the flood 3) The flood lasted seven days 4) The boat came to rest in northeast Persia, on Mt. Nisir 5) He sent out three different birds to see if dry land had yet appeared 5. The Mesopotamian literature which describes an ancient flood draws from the same source. The names often vary, but the plot is the same. An example is that Zivsudra, Atrahasis, and Utnapishtim are all the same human king. 6. The historical parallels to the early events of Genesis can be explained in light of man's pre-dispersion (Genesis 10-11) knowledge and experience of God. These true historical core memories have been elaborated and mythologicalized into the current flood accounts common throughout the world. The same can also be said of: creation (Genesis 1-2) and human and angelic unions (Genesis 6). 7. Patriarch's Day (Middle Bronze) a. Mari tablets – cuneiform legal (Ammonite culture) and personal texts written in Akkadian from about 1700 b.c. b. Nuzi tablets – cuneiform archives of certain families (Horite or Hurrian culture) written in Akkadian from about 100 miles SE of Nineveh about 1500-1300 b.c. They record family and business procedures. For further specific examples, see Walton, pp. 52-58. c. Alalak tablets – cuneiform texts from Northern Syria from about 2000 b.c. d. Some of the names found in Genesis are named as place names in the Mari Tablets: Serug, Peleg, Terah, Nahor. Other biblical names were also common: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Laban, and Joseph. 8. "Comparative historiographic studies have shown that, along with the Hittites, the ancient Hebrews were the most accurate, objective and responsible recorders of Near Eastern history," R. K Harrison in Biblical Criticism, p. 5. 9. Archaeology has proven to be so helpful in establishing the historicity of the Bible. However, a word of caution is necessary. Archaeology is not an absolutely trustworthy guide because of a. poor techniques in early excavations b. various, very subjective interpretations of the artifacts that have been discovered c. no agreed-upon chronology of the Ancient Near East (although one is being developed from tree rings) B. Egyptian creation accounts can be found in John W. Walton's, Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990. pp. 23-34, 32-34. 1. In Egyptian literature creation began with an unstructured, chaotic, primeval water. Creation was seen as developing structure out of watery chaos. 2. In Egyptian literature from Memphis, creation occurred by the spoken word of Ptah. C. Joshua literary parallels from the Ancient Near East 1. Archaeology has shown that most of the large walled cities of Canaan were destroyed and rapidly rebuilt about 1250 b.c. a. Hazor b. Lachish c. Bethel d. Debir (formerly called Kerioth Sepher, 15:15) Archaeology has not been able to confirm or reject the biblical account of the fall of Jericho (cf. Joshua 6). This is because the site is in such poor condition: a. weather/location c. uncertainty as to the dates of the layers b. later rebuildings on old sites using older materials Archaeology has found an altar on Mt. Ebal that might be connected to Joshua 8:30-31 (Deuteronomy. 27:2-9). It is very similar to a description found in the Mishnah (Talmud). 2. The Ras Shamra texts found at Ugarit show Canaanite life and religion of 1400's b.c. a. polytheistic nature worship (fertility cult) b. El was chief deity c. El's consort was Asherah (later she is consort to Ba'al) who was worshiped in the form of a carved stake or live tree, which symbolized "the tree of life" d. their son was Ba'al (Haddad), the storm god e. Ba'al became the "high god" of the Canaanite pantheon. Anat was his consort f. ceremonies similar to Isis and Osiris of Egypt g. Ba'al worship was focused on local "high places" or stone platforms (ritual prostitution) h. Ba'al was symbolized by a raised stone pillar (phallic symbol) 3. The accurate listing of the names of ancient cities fits a contemporary author, not later editor(s) a. Jerusalem called Jebus, 15:8; 18:16,28 (15:28 said the Jebusites still remained in part of Jerusalem) b. Hebron called Kiriath-arba, 14:15; 15:13,54; 20:7; 21:11 c. Kiriath-jearim is called Baalah, 15:9,10 d. Sidon is referred to as the major Phoenician city, not Tyre, 11:8; 13:6; 19:28, which later became the chief city Copyright © 2012 Bible Lessons International https://bible.org/seriespage/appendix-one-old-testament-history From the series: How It All Began: Genesis 1-11 PREVIOUS PAGE | NEXT PAGE Appendix One: The Old Testament as History Christianity and Judaism are historical faiths. They base their faith on historical events (accompanied by their interpretations). The problem comes in trying to define or describe what is "history" or "historical study." Much of the problem in modern theological interpretation rests on modern literary or historical assumptions projected back onto Ancient Near Eastern biblical literature. Not only is there not a proper appreciation of the temporal and cultural differences, but also of the literary differences. As modern western people we simply do not understand the genres and literary techniques of Ancient Near Eastern writings, so we interpreted them in light of western literal genres. The nineteenth century's approach to biblical studies atomized and depreciated the books of the Old Testament as historical, unified documents. This historical scepticism has affected hermeneutics and historical investigation of the Old Testament. The current trend toward "canonical hermeneutics" (Brevard Childs) has helped focus on the current form of the Old Testament text. This, in my opinion, is a helpful bridge over the abyss of German higher criticism of the nineteenth century. We must deal with the canonical text that has been given us by an unknown historical process whose inspiration is assumed. Many scholars are returning to the assumption of the historicity of the OT. This is surely not meant to deny the obvious editing and updating of the OT by later Jewish scribes, but it is a basic return to the OT as a valid history and the documentation of true events (with their theological interpretations). A quote from R. K Harrison in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 1, in the article, "Historical and Literary Criticism of the Old Testament" is helpful. "Comparative historiographic studies have shown that, along with the Hittites, the ancient Hebrews were the most accurate, objective, and responsible recorders of Near Eastern history. . Form-critical studies of books such as Genesis and Deuteronomy, based on specific types of tablets recovered from sites that include Mari, Nuzu, and Boghazköy, have shown that the canonical material has certain nonliterary counterparts in the cultures of some Near Eastern peoples. As a result, it is possible to view with a new degree of confidence and respect those early traditions of the Hebrews that purport to be historiographic in nature" (p. 232). I am especially appreciative of R. K. Harrison's work because he makes it a priority to interpret the Old Testament in light of contemporary events, cultures and genres. In my own classes on early Jewish literature (Genesis – Deuteronomy and Joshua), I try to establish a credible link with other Ancient Near Eastern literature and artifacts. A. Genesis literary parallels from the Ancient Near East 1. Earliest known literary parallel of the cultural setting of Genesis 1-11 is the Ebla cuneiform tablets from northern Syria dating about 2500 b.c., written in Akkadian. 2. Creation a. The closest Mesopotamian account dealing with creation, Enuma Elish, dating from about 1900-1700 b.c., was found in Ashurbanipal's library at Nineveh and several other places. There are seven cuneiform tablets written in Akkadian which describe creation by Marduk. 1) the gods, Apsu (fresh water – male) and Tiamat (salt water – female) had unruly, noisy children. These two gods tried to silence the younger gods. 2) one of the god's children, Marduk, helped defeat Tiamat. He formed the earth from her body. 3) Marduk formed humanity from another defeated god, Kingu, who was the male consort of Tiamat after the death of Apsu. Humanity came from Kingu's blood. 4) Marduk was made chief of the Babylonian pantheon. b. "The creation seal" is a cuneiform tablet which is a picture of a naked man and woman beside a fruit tree with a snake wrapped around the tree's trunk and positioned over the woman's shoulder as if talking to her. 3. Creation and Flood – The Atrahasis Epic records the rebellion of the lesser gods because of overwork and the creation of seven human couples to perform the duties of these lesser gods. Because of (1) over population and (2) noise, human beings were reduced in number by a plague, two famines and finally a flood, planned by Enlil. These major events are seen in the same order in Genesis 1-8. This cuneiform composition dates from about the same times as Enuma Elish and the Gilgamesh Epic, about 1900-1700 b.c. All are in Akkadian. 4. Noah's flood a. A Summerian tablet from Nippur, called Eridu Genesis, dating from abut 1600 b.c., tells about Zivsudra and a coming flood. 1) Enka, the water god, warned of a coming flood 2) Zivsudra, a king-priest, saved in a huge boat 3) The flood lasted seven days 4) Zivsudra opened a window on the boat and released several birds to see if dry land had appeared 5) He also offered a sacrifice of an ox and sheep when he left the boat b. A composite Babylonian flood account from four Summerian tales, known as the Gilgamesh Epic, originally dating from about 2500-2400 b.c., although the written composite form was cuneiform Akkadian, is much later. It tells about a flood survivor, Utnapishtim, who tells Gilgamesh, the king of Uruk how he survived the great flood and was granted eternal life. 1) Ea, the water god, warns of a coming flood and tells Utnapishtim (Babylonian form of Zivsudra) to build a boat 2) Utnapishtim and his family, along with selected healing plants, survived the flood 3) The flood lasted seven days 4) The boat came to rest in northeast Persia, on Mt. Nisir 5) He sent out three different birds to see if dry land had yet appeared 5. The Mesopotamian literature which describes an ancient flood draws from the same source. The names often vary, but the plot is the same. An example is that Zivsudra, Atrahasis, and Utnapishtim are all the same human king. 6. The historical parallels to the early events of Genesis can be explained in light of man's pre-dispersion (Genesis 10-11) knowledge and experience of God. These true historical core memories have been elaborated and mythologicalized into the current flood accounts common throughout the world. The same can also be said of: creation (Genesis 1-2) and human and angelic unions (Genesis 6). 7. Patriarch's Day (Middle Bronze) a. Mari tablets – cuneiform legal (Ammonite culture) and personal texts written in Akkadian from about 1700 b.c. b. Nuzi tablets – cuneiform archives of certain families (Horite or Hurrian culture) written in Akkadian from about 100 miles SE of Nineveh about 1500-1300 b.c. They record family and business procedures. For further specific examples, see Walton, pp. 52-58. c. Alalak tablets – cuneiform texts from Northern Syria from about 2000 b.c. d. Some of the names found in Genesis are named as place names in the Mari Tablets: Serug, Peleg, Terah, Nahor. Other biblical names were also common: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Laban, and Joseph. 8. "Comparative historiographic studies have shown that, along with the Hittites, the ancient Hebrews were the most accurate, objective and responsible recorders of Near Eastern history," R. K Harrison in Biblical Criticism, p. 5. 9. Archaeology has proven to be so helpful in establishing the historicity of the Bible. However, a word of caution is necessary. Archaeology is not an absolutely trustworthy guide because of a. poor techniques in early excavations b. various, very subjective interpretations of the artifacts that have been discovered c. no agreed-upon chronology of the Ancient Near East (although one is being developed from tree rings) B. Egyptian creation accounts can be found in John W. Walton's, Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990. pp. 23-34, 32-34. 1. In Egyptian literature creation began with an unstructured, chaotic, primeval water. Creation was seen as developing structure out of watery chaos. 2. In Egyptian literature from Memphis, creation occurred by the spoken word of Ptah. C. Joshua literary parallels from the Ancient Near East 1. Archaeology has shown that most of the large walled cities of Canaan were destroyed and rapidly rebuilt about 1250 b.c. a. Hazor b. Lachish c. Bethel d. Debir (formerly called Kerioth Sepher, 15:15) Archaeology has not been able to confirm or reject the biblical account of the fall of Jericho (cf. Joshua 6). This is because the site is in such poor condition: a. weather/location c. uncertainty as to the dates of the layers b. later rebuildings on old sites using older materials Archaeology has found an altar on Mt. Ebal that might be connected to Joshua 8:30-31 (Deuteronomy. 27:2-9). It is very similar to a description found in the Mishnah (Talmud). 2. The Ras Shamra texts found at Ugarit show Canaanite life and religion of 1400's b.c. a. polytheistic nature worship (fertility cult) b. El was chief deity c. El's consort was Asherah (later she is consort to Ba'al) who was worshiped in the form of a carved stake or live tree, which symbolized "the tree of life" d. their son was Ba'al (Haddad), the storm god e. Ba'al became the "high god" of the Canaanite pantheon. Anat was his consort f. ceremonies similar to Isis and Osiris of Egypt g. Ba'al worship was focused on local "high places" or stone platforms (ritual prostitution) h. Ba'al was symbolized by a raised stone pillar (phallic symbol) 3. The accurate listing of the names of ancient cities fits a contemporary author, not later editor(s) a. Jerusalem called Jebus, 15:8; 18:16,28 (15:28 said the Jebusites still remained in part of Jerusalem) b. Hebron called Kiriath-arba, 14:15; 15:13,54; 20:7; 21:11 c. Kiriath-jearim is called Baalah, 15:9,10 d. Sidon is referred to as the major Phoenician city, not Tyre, 11:8; 13:6; 19:28, which later became the chief city Copyright © 2012 Bible Lessons International https://bible.org/seriespage/appendix-one-old-testament-history

Wolves II: A "Transcendent God" Is Clearly Made Up By People- Somebody is Confused About What is "Irrelevant"

Gru D GruD 10 hours ago (edited) @Green Peacemst so 99% of your comment is irrelevant (see post Wolves in Galactic-Sheeps Clothing....) to what i asked and the 1% doesnt answer anything. "god cares because god is god". So deep. I see the question confused you. That was not my intention. My intention was to show the contrast between an all powerful god and its rules which are completely trivial. I mean if i knew the question would upset you so much id ask why god cares about what kind of clothes people wear. Or what they eat. Or why it has such a fragile ego that it cares about competition and even makes it the first commandment. Im sorry i cant take this god seriously. Its clearly made up by people. If theres a god, it isnt this one. Green Peacemst Green Peacemst 13 minutes ago (edited) ​ @GruD Well, dear soul, "confusion" isn´t the only experience in managing the complexity of the Levels of Analysis that are involved, and the levels of literacy and illiteracy that people have. I´m extremely well-rounded, and most people aren´t. Instead, most people just use their preferred and limited understanding to try to interpret and dictate what they think is really happening. "Confusion" for me is a brief feeling as I manage my ample understanding, while for you it seems to be a way to label someone else when you think they don´t meet your expectation for the logical grammar you are trying to impose in your box, at the level of understanding you try to fit things. 99% of my comment was "irrelevant" in your estimation? So, you don´t acknowledge your own confusion, and switch not to "unknown" or "not understood," or "need to try to understand," but reflexively to "irrelevant." You have presuppositions that you are trying to project and push as you interpret things by externalizing, as you indulge in this comment of yours. You jump to "Ah, it´s just people making it up." And so, it is you yourself refusing to or unable to engage with logical coherence about Jesus´ legacy and its corresponding reality, its relation to the transcendent cause at a higher order of reality, and the similarities and differences with other cultures. The brilliance of the Buddha´s spiritual-religious tradition left the Dalai Lama vulnerable to the Chinese Communists, while Zen Buddhism was subordinated to Tojo militarists in Japan. Christianity had developed the powerful tools used by the misguided brutal human bio-psychosocial tendencies of the Chinese communists and Japanese militarists, and they appeared not least of all in WWI, Russian communisim, and Hitler´s nasty fascism. That´s where FDR´s leadership stands out, along with his psychosocial and cultural orientations in reference to no one more essentially than Jesus, in his Christian social ethics reflecting his Social Gospel upbringing. Whatever the issue. The point is that you are trivializing issues and thinking there is an imposed barrier to the transcendent, personal cause of the Universe and Jesus´ legacy of personal relationship with that cause, that improved on Moses and the Jewish prophets. Jesus isn´t the only example, since shamans are a class of individuals who include those who acheived comparable forms of personal relating to the transcendent cause in their more limited context. Jesus, however, appeared in a supershamanic, superprophetic context. Your explanatory assertion, "this god...is clearly made up by people" confuses the locus of experience of God and the evaluation of what people say about God. That´s why the empiricism of evaluating Jesus is a distinct and central point. It also goes beyond noting the more limited contexts of shamanism. Buddhism is a powerful collateral and comparative study. The Buddha identifies ignorance, greed, and hatred as three central problems in human psychosocial conduct, for example. He´s not like Alexander the Great saying, "Build a Statue of Me, Because look at what I say!" Humans DO play a role in achieving their relationship with the transcendent cause. Alexander the Great exaggerated that role spectacularly, as you and others like PA do. Siddarta Gautama who became the Buddha or "the Awakened One," received the new title as his new name, and not because he emphasized his "discovery, Eureka! of the Four Noble Truths, yeah baby!" Instead, the Budha said, "There is a moral law and condition. The Four Noble Truths trace the problem of suffering to mistaking desires and words for reality, as in "Might makes right" or "Money is everything." The solution involves meditation and "right action," including insights like "Right makes might (as in Gandhi´s campaign)" and "Everything important can include money." Buddha identified the origin of his perception as transcendent and a "Source that dominates existence as a law." Buddha himself gained such a sacred status, that many Buddhists superimposed his sacred achievement as a human with the divine, which is a different quality than the "Might Makes Right" of the brutal context of Alexander the Great. The points I made in my last comment are built around that recognition. People in Christian Western Civilization haven´t done good primarily because they have climbed out of the Stone Age by themselves. First, they recognize the "Shoulders of the Giants" they are standing on, as Newton said. In FDR´s case, he said more simply, his "Christian service values." A biography shows that FDR was educated in the Social Gospel, that was inspired in 1877 by Washington Gladden´s inspired resurgent high integrity in Jesus´ legacy. Not just people thinking, "Hey, I´m a good guy, I wanna help people...." like modern secular tries to perpetrate a la Hollywood. That´s ahistorical and lacking in literacy, to put it politely and lightly. And all that got sparked more strongly and earlier in the Anglo-Saxon countries, where the Magna Carta seems to have helped, and George Fox was able to found the Quakers, and the English Civil War strengthened Parliament, and the American colonists founded a constitutional democracy. These are psychosocial and cultural elements people are juggling as people´s egos also perpetrate recurrent hypocrisy, abuse, and neglect of power. If you ignore historical development, psychological development, and sociological development, you are not literate in human behavior. If not, you miss the detail that "do-gooders" in Western Civilization aren´t just appearing randomly. They are overwhelmingly referring to Jesus, who proclaimed a loving, parental God, and himself amazingly as the Son of that loving, parental God. He used language like the "Kingdom of Heaven," and "Peter, put down your sword," not conquest like Alexander the Great. That was Jesus, and his legacy of loving integrity that followed which makes the history of Western Civilization actually filled with the accomplishments of high integrity Christians that have given it legitimacy in establishing the University-based, comparative religious studies-capable, UN human rights and sustainability community.

Wolves in Galactic-Sheeps´ Clothing- Scientific Materialism (Scientism), "Science", Philosophy, and Social Studies Disciplines

Based on the Peter Atkins vs William Lane Craig debate (first or second?) Green Peacemst 3 weeks ago You´re not quite noticing that Atkins is not functionally literate in this context, which is philosophy. He is thus very unprofessional in content. He gets away with it because it is a popular forum, not professional. Atkins is also rude and insulting. The only thing professional on his end is the adherence to the format.

Highlighted reply Gru D 10 hours ago @Green Peacemst i assume hes just angry because wlc is super dishonest. Green Peacemst

Green Peacemst 7 minutes ago (edited) ​ @GruD When you make an assertion, you need to justify it adequately. You call WLC "dishonest," as if you´re engaging in tit for tat with me. That means you´re ready to face the consequences of the honest truth. The truth begins with recognizing that "science" isn´t what it aspires to be. It´s original name as an activity was "natural, or scientific, philosophy." That is in fact what it is, a human activity of thinking, and just one using one kind of empirical methodology. "Science" isn´t actually the things it proposes about the Universe. It is ideas, no matter how linked to observable physical phenomena those ideas are. When it comes to complexities, "science´s" pretense and mystique of trying to identify with the grandeur of the physical Universe like a wolf in galactic clothing is nothing but a living, breathing flesh and blood human "wolf in galactic-sheep´s clothing." We see you.

The "facts" that it reasonably develops are philosophical in nature and subject to contextualization like Einstein showed about Newtonian mechanics, and DeBroglie et al´s Quantum Theory showed about Einstein´s "old" quantum theory. It is philosophy that studies the natural-physical-energetic realm using scientific empirical methods and naturalistic explanation, called "epistemology."

The next step, as other atheist naturalists have some inkling, Alexander Rosenberg and Sean Carroll in their own limited literacy levels, involves the question of the social studies disciplines. "Science," i.e. scientific philosophy, can´t reduce human experience to mere quanitifiable variables and experimental measurements. There has been a great foundation for understanding the interface by Bio Anthropologist Eliot Chapple, but few have paid attention to his body of work. Still, it´s based on the better known principles laid out by Pavolv´s dog studies and physiology of signal-to-symbol conditioning. JB Watson´s behavioral psychology also. The so-called "controversies" involve untenable claims to exclusivity: behaviorism doesn´t invalidate or supersede the complexities of human agency revealed more fully in therapeutic psychology, social service psychology, anthropology, and sociology, and so on, all as forms of MORAL philosophy supplemented by and a foundation of scientific and other forms of empirical methodology, depending. That includes various forms of introspection. All told, G Vico indicated the problem of mechanistic rationalism early on, and later Max Weber and Georg Simmel are credited with beginning to make strong assertions of antipositivism/interpretivism.

Both science and religion, consequently, are understood as human activities, with knowledge domains and phenomena domains, i.e. epistemologies. Thus, your claim about WLC´s dishonesty fits into PA´s and others´ own lack of adequate literacy and understanding about scientific philosophy´s own limits and human context. WLC smoothly fits "science" into philosophy, and is only "dishonest" by failing to hammer home with all out brutal clarity this little detail that the scientist is misleading himself and others by trying to assert, in effect, that "science" has no limits. But you atheist materialists feed your own illusions, as with Stephen Hawkings stating that "philosophy is dead." Oops for you all.

"Monotheism Is a Totalitarian Concept," Some Say

Originally posted at an atheist site in a comment about the Taliban not being identified as Islamic extremists. nappc · 20 hours ago Ancient deference to religion dies hard. And we have bought into the idea that to criticize a part is to criticize the whole. This seems to me a very totalitarian concept. But then monotheism is a totalitarian construct. Report Reply +1 Green Peacemst's avatar - Go to profile Green Peacemst · 3 minutes ago I see that you have co-opted Cold War corporate American establishment militarist anti-social propaganda of "anti-communism" and "totalitarian", and are misusing political concepts as a tool for broader reasoning. Antithetical, rebellious reasoning, or even, pluralist extremist, reasoning against unified conceptual realities is what, exactly? Is that itself a "non-totalitarian" construct? Shouldn´t it be intended to be a "fragmented" pluralist construct? Guess what. The question boils down to unifying concepts, and whether absolute truth exists. The playing field of absolute truth starts filling up with the less than absolute totalitarian smoke-blowers of smokescreens, whether they are totalitarian or anti-totalitarian in a totalitarian ideology. Anti-social "Freedom" is one of them, like Free market ideologues. The only "escape" has been achieved by the UN defining Human Rights, that comes from the modernization of Jesus´ 2 loving Commandments for Moses and God. The human right to the Freedom of Religion then allows University-based standards of Comparative Religious Studies that apply the standard of human rights to any religious practice. That way, pluralism now avoids the problem of anything remotely like death cults attributed to Satan or God, but advocates the invigorating diversity of anything like Gandhian interfaith Christian-Hinduism that might include what I´m getting fond of doing, citing God as Ganesh the six-armed blue elephant for Gandhi, Buddha, others, and centrally, Jesus. Personally, I´ll offer up some good news. As a former Unitarian Universalist interfaith spiritual seeker, I´ve done the key and essential work and analyzed the problem, including the meaning of "science" and its popular application as scientific materialism. Talk about "totalitarian constructs." In short, "science" itself is actually scientific philosophy, formerly natural philosophy. As such, our focus is brought back to "philosophy," which is liberating as "totalitarian constructs" go. lol. That is, as a liberal arts Bio Anthro major in college, with a masters in International Relations having drawn on social constructionism, etc, I´ve had the insight that instead of "science," the necessary and sufficient worldview needs to be Multidisciplinary Philosophy. So far, that realm is left anemically as "liberal arts" and "multidisciplinary studies." Monotheism, meanwhile, is an abstracted term that loses track of historical meaning, and psychosocial and cultural components that we can now articulate in a pluralist setting. Oblivious to the indoctrination scenario of US Big Biz economic ideology that structures your view of modest dissatisfaction of a media behavior, you just use your favorite scapegoat stereotype. Big Biz corp execs just keep pulling strings, yours, advertising, and Fox pundits, etc. Your freedom of thought corresponds to the desires of activists to advocate reform and in the end, eco-social justice. That corresponds to UN human rights and sustainability. Those are specfic values that didn´t exist under Alexander the Great in 330 BC/E, who assumed power in a vortex of assassination and execution. His own celebrated conquests resulted in his own assassination at the ripe young 32 years of age. Followed by 40 years of Civil War by his top 4 generals. Impressive. The Romans followed with their own adversarial fair weather friendships and blood baths. Ancient Greek Philosophers had sunk their teeth into something, and guess what the foundation of Socrates´ pivotal method was? A pronouncement by the Oracle of Adelphi. 100% transcendental. Uh oh. However, Aristotle fled Athens when he heard of his "protege" Alexander´s assassination. In his philosophy, he had deduced an Unmoved Mover, but couldn´t reconcile it with an eternal Universe that he believed in, despite his inductive deducing also the First Cause. So, as a "law enforcement officer for human rights and sustainability," I instruct you to put down your weapon, "totalitarian constructs." Jesus´ 2 Commandments are about love, not totalitarianism. You are extending your stereotypes based on some presumption about churches. Shift your focus to University-based learning and society, which I proclaim now as the eminent basis of modern high integrity Christianity for UN pluralism. The conquest of the world has been accomplished by Western culture´s good and bad Christian elements of integrity and human bio-psychosocial hypocrisy and worse. That "conquest" of US style corporate imperialism is a done deed. The good side resides in pluralism faced with the Christian-proclaimed, internationally and secularly negotiated standards of University-based, UN human rights and not for profit sustainability culture. That´s how that all begins to work. Revive the Saxon´s Holy Tree Irminsul, now in the modern context. Celebrate Ganesh the Divine Elephant with six arms! UN human rights sets the stage for the balance of spiritual truth and ethical and moral imagination.

Dreaming of Preaching Non-violence

I dreamed last night that I had gotten involved with a bunch of leftist extremists bent on violent protest. I found myself with the courage to preach non-violence to them.

The Train Goes Over a Cliff- Or Do You Doom the Son?- Moral Dilemmas

Saltyhills • a day ago The question makes me smile. You might first ask if people with the same beliefs can solve a moral dilemma. A dilemma is a counterintuitive or unacceptable result that arises within your own rules; not from an outsider having different assumptions about morality than you. That would be more like a moral conflict. The best known example: Say I believe lying is wrong in principle, then what about lying to protect a Jewish family hiding from the SS? The one mom used to tell: a railway switch operator sees his son running down the train track toward him, but if he doesn't switch the train to the track his son is on, then the train goes over a cliff. That one is interesting because it's supposed to show that Jesus died to save a lot of people. But the Father didn't just blast him without warning. And since when are Christians Vulcans? "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". What if the will and pleasure of God was to save the kid? How many Egyptians would God kill to save 100 Israelites? Anyway, when it comes to moral conflicts, one of the things people gotta' understand is that conflict is built into identity. If the largest religion in the world is splitting up over whether Jesus can be portrayed in an image, then finding the right philosophical or scriptural answer to the question is missing the point that the two sides are done with each other for other reasons. The doctrinal stance of something silly like that effectively becomes a gang sign that puts you in or out of the group. 2 • Reply • Share › Avatar Justafoolagain Saltyhills • 2 hours ago "The best known example: Say I believe lying is wrong in principle, then what about lying to protect a Jewish family hiding from the SS?" A sin or lie that has no evil intent or evil mind behind it, is by secular law, mens rea in Latin, no guilt attached to the liar. To tell an aunt that you like the tie she bought, even if a lie, is the right thing to do. Regards DL • Reply • Share › Show 1 new reply Avatar greenpeaceRdale1844coop Justafoolagain • 2 hours ago Except that, there are issues of integrity involved, and self-awareness. Thus, the issue is not simply "lying," but awareness that egotistical judgments aren´t all that healthy, American style. Does the person themself like it? What are your own values such that you "don´t like the thing"? Is there some quality in the thing that you really do like? For starters. American stock broker Bill W and medical Dr. Bob were alcoholics when they founded AA in 1935, shining a bright light on American culture as one among others. The 1893 Chicago Parliament of World Religions initiated by Swedenborgian CC Bonney was a landmark event that few Americans know about or appreciate. For another, and all for starters. • Edit • Reply • Share › − Avatar greenpeaceRdale1844coop Saltyhills • 2 hours ago • edited "And since when are Christians 'Vulcans'?" and "The Father didn´t just blast him without warning." and "doctrinal stance". I´ll cite you on those for strong agreement, but make the point that even "Vulcans" is a fictional notion. The factual truth is "rationalism" that normally goes with overspecialized scientific materialism And the truth of Jesus´ healing through love as a kind of foundational fabric to engage with the truth of the Resurrection beyond just self-effacing ogling. "Doctrinal stances" need to be grounded in their referent, Jesus´ loving integrity which actually has a clear legacy. All these evaluations need to be clear about assumptions, which takes the analysis beyond the assumption you engage that the "will and pleasure of God" is the appropriate modern manner of reasoning. I have to take the implications of my empirical theism that it isn´t. "Science" is taken for granted now, and theology has to be adjusted for empiricism, and that means accounting for them with the basis of philosophical truth, coherence and correspondence. The insight foundation that I´m framing involves the additional clarification that "science" is Christian-derived natural, or scientific, philosophy, and the whole of all modern disciplines need to be provided appropriate interaction. Capra´s multidisciplinary Systems Theory of Life is a sound start, but emergentism and antipositivism/interpretivism need adequate inclusion, as does phenomenology and related contemplative methodology. While "holistic thinking" and such terms have been tried by related efforts, "integrative" medicine has been sticking in that area, while "multidisciplinary studies" has its fans. To be clear, I see the simple step of identifying "Multidisciplinary Philosophy" as necessary. Now with that in place, the unaccounted element falls in place, say, with emergentism. Jesus´ Resurrection changed everything, and has changed it. The presumption of scientific materialism in the train example misses the point that the self-proclaimed Son of God who healed and taught spiritual practice in God´s love, didn´t just teach obligations of pious self-sacrifice (widely for the church itself, or the usurping nationalist state with its profiteering businesspeople). With the spiritual-religious context clear, the "kid" dies for the many, and gets Resurrected. Does he merely get ascended? Talk about the human healer Jesus going to Kashmir after the Resurrection and concomitant transcendental ascension (one man, two natures) is worth allowing now with an eye to situating churches in a spiritualized and modernized perspective. It is the University-based US-EU-UN system, with its less redeemed, rather excessively misguided unsustainable and exploitative WTO globalized system, with its very Christian "Freedom of Religion and Religion as a Human Right" that is in Jesus´ full, integrative legacy of loving integrity. Not just churches. Jesus Resurrected, in a very real sense, indeed. As for the OT context of Egyptians and Israelites, that has to be put in historical context. With that clear, the role of Christian-transformed Greek scientific philosophy clarifies that the Egyptians had allowed the Israelites to leave. God´s OT demonstrations with the Israelites had been clear, and when Pharaoh made his choice, he faced the consequences multiplied by his power and influence. It wasn´t "God´s whim" or "God´s bloodlust," but as Christian-derived, modernized Greek and eclectic University-based knowledge informs us, was part of the long rise from biological evolution and human historical development. Shamans had played and have been playing their role as great pioneers and "raw spirituality" practitioners. God´s work with the Israelites wasn´t deceptive or scheming, just preferential. Whatever the miracle of the Red Sea parting, it was an event for the Israelites, not for the Egyptians, as any "chance" event that allowed the British to turn the Spanish Armada into a confused mass of disaster. God blaming views are anachronistic and philosophically fallacious, for starters. We are in Jesus´ legacy of University based, US-EU-UN world oriented society now. Now everyone is getting educated about the meaning of sustainability and human rights, even if Saudi Arabia had slavery until the 1960s, or, has the world really eliminated slavery anywhere, given anti-union issues and sweat shops everywhere? Perhaps getting clearheaded about these things can shift things for the better and catalyze them. Thanks for a fun chance to reflect.

The Golden Rule and Jesus as "Just Another Golden Ruler"- No

punnet2 punnet2 7 hours ago (edited) "Neither are you very respectful in your verbal conduct." Coming from someone who makes condescending remarks like "pompous" about others. Such hypocrisy. Your explanation is still deficient: You gloss over how "personal growth work, social services and activist related work" led you to adopt belief in anything "spiritual", let alone christian science. (And I have to wonder if you consider Mary Baker Eddy "pompous".) I take it you're asking for other versions of the Golden Rule: - "This is the sum of duty. Do not unto others that which would cause you pain if done to you" (Mahabharata) - "What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man. That is the whole Torah; the rest is just commentary." (Rabbi Hillel) - "The sage has no concern for himself, but makes the concerns of others his own. He is good to those who are good. He is also good to those who are not good. That is the virtue of good." (Tao Te Ching -- didn't you study that?) So again: jesus is not special for articulating the Golden Rule. "Believing in God isn´t necessary to appreciate the value of the Golden Rule? " Correct. One can readily appreciate that a society where individuals practice the Golden Rule is more stable than one where they do not. No need to appeal to supernatural superstitions like god. "Now, solve the clarion call of sustainability without a unifying foundation that is the motivating force of a way of relating to God the Creator that allowed Christianity to defend itself against Islam and more, and someone like FDR to be in charge of the US just as the likes of Hitler was abusing other forms of Christian accomplishments of power." I'm not sure what you're insinuating, nor asking. We don't need "god the creator" as a "motivating force"; only a desire for a stable society. Your implication that "christianity defended itself against islam" is suspect: Christian Spain failed to defend itself against the Moors, and christian Byzantium failed to defend itself against the Turks -- not to mention the Holy Land itself. In any case, there is no need to appeal to a god to explain why one group defended itself another; military strategy is a far more reasonable explanation. And and far as FDR and Hitler: surely you're not claiming that your god played some role in WWII. Green Peacemst Green Peacemst 8 minutes ago (edited) @punnet2 Addressing the pompous attitude of others frankly isn´t hypocrisy, and clearly that´s part of your misguided attitude. Apparently, your view of the religious includes one of arrogant entitlement. Sorry. Your rudeness is a character flaw of yours that cuts to the later points. Mary Baker Eddy has left an approach that offers a powerful legacy. Your calling her "pompous" might refer to other less than polished qualities that she exhibited, but you like her contemporary detractors clearly try to impugn someone you know only from others ignorant and agenda-laden smears. Indeed, the pomposity continues with you. Clearly, it is part of your presuppositions and allegiances. Nice to see you actually citing religious texts, as you pompously frame it in terms of my needs. Do I know it from Taoism? I simply don´t confuse the issues like you do. The existence in other paths supports a number of things: an argument for the objectivity of moral law, and the soundness of Jesus´ representing the principle as Commandments for Moses and God, specifically with the word "love." Your assumption that such universality negates Jesus´ uniqueness and legacy is crude reductionist fallacy. The innovative combination with Jesus´ life, mission, message, including the religio-historical context, is something you appear unwilling or unable to recognize. That is your presuppositionalism. I uncovered the social studies scholars´ assessment processes in responding to the pretensions of rationalism, scientific materialism, and Comte´s positivism, and one significant approach is called naturally "antipositivism," and better "interpretivism." "We just need the desire for a stable society" And your rationalism betrays you. Rationalism depends on assumptions, and itself has formed in pockets that are small bubbles in society. Society in the US´s superpower quasi-"beacon" and "pacemaker" itself doesn´t involve people electing rationalist fingerwaggers and bookworm faux-idealists. Fundamentalists are the bad fruit of profiteers plotting and sculpting an evil Jesus "pro-life" for MAGA. Why would profiteers fund twisted Christianity? Better start asking some more empirical questions, dear rationalist. Meanwhile, progressives are also handcuffed in the US. Yet, the obvious problems of Big Biz undoing FDR´s pro-social approach until the Glass-Steagall act in 2000 are virtually left unacknowledged by progressives. Why? They have been subdued by Cold War propaganda and the fundamentalist wave that has twisted religious fervor, making progressive Christians secularists and rationalists, just still Christian in name. Otherwise, "desire for a better society" went the way of Bernie´s presidential campaign. He´s a secular Jew, and that´s not Christian. Your rationalism is blind from functional illiteracy in the multidisciplinary issues involved. Al Gore´s high integrity led him to do a slide show. It was made into a film, and he shared the Noble Prize. That shows how fast things can happen, and his public appeal is all characteristic of the spirit of Christian love. Noam Chomsky has shown before Bernie that Jews can be activists. Yet, he was largely intellectually rationalist in his approach. Gore can get a lot more homey and say the word, "a moral issue." Same with Michael Moore, who made jokes about how it would have looked if Jesus had needed medical insurance in his ministry. The science of unsustainability is clear. Europe´s actions in the right direction reflect the secular strength under the US´ protection and the squashing of WWII. Spiritual trends like yoga and Buddhism, and comparative religious studies are still in need of multidisciplinary integration there, without the same extent of the American tradition of religious freedom. "Military strategy" is not a competing, mutually exclusive explanation with religion, it is mutually inclusive in Levels of Analysis. Christian Iberia fell to the Muslims, as the Muslims swept unstoppably out to Indonesia over the years. Constantinople fell in 1453, actually. Western Europe, however, was defended in 732 by Charles Martel who showed the right stuff at the right time. He reflected the Christian principles that correlate with the rise of University-based education in Christianity and the fall of the Golden Age of scholarship in Islam. Christians established of monasteries for spiritual practice, the inclusion of classical literature with Bible study, and the later founding of Universities. Charles Martel´s preparations for the Islamic invasion reflected that dedication to truth in a monarch. The correlation with the monastic-University connection helps flesh out the psychosocial and cultural component issues that you simply can´t grasp in your ad hoc arguments and presuppositionalism. The same goes for FDR and Hitler. Your reductionist rationalism leaves you with snarkiness, not argument. Without taking psychosocial and cultural historical components in detail, you are operating according to the fallacies and ideology of secular and scientific materialism. FDR had pro-social and activist fervor cultivated during his Social Gospel upbringing that had him pushing up against crass business conservative isolationists, not abandoning his fervor. The investigation into Wall St had stalled until FDR supported its continuance with Pecora and his work. The isolationists didn´t want the US to get involved, like the British-French appeasement of Hitler. FDR pushed for aid to the UK, then Soviet Russia, and for an unprecedented peacetime draft after events broke the spell of the isolationists. The "desire for a better world" isn´t naturally sound. That´s why the Wall St Stock Market Crash happened, not a Denmark co-operative pro-social transformation by JP Morgan´s greedy acts. FDR did head towards Danish pro-sociality, and wasn´t deterred, which requires adequate orientation. FDR´s speeches to the nation, like 1936 Brotherhood Day, were religious speeches. "No greater thing could come to our land today than a revival of the spirit of religion...." Hitler appropriated Germany´s secularized scientific-tech capacities with raging, nationalist stereotypes and violence that are human bio-psychosocial inclinations. Sorry. You´re left holding an empty rationalist bag, popped and blubbering in the release of its last gases.

Minds are Not Separate from Brains- Oh, Really? And Then The Immaterial

Extended dialogue after Law vs Craig: punnet2 punnet2 3 days ago ​ @Green Peacemst "What don´t you understand about the fact that Plato died in ca 400 BC/E, yet his mind´s works live on?" I understand that the work produced by Plato's mind/brain "lives on" because it was written down and preserved; and I also understand that Plato's brain does not live on, and therefore, neither his mind. What did you not understand when I said, "By the evidence, minds (at least the ones we can observe) are not distinct from brains, and are demonstrably affected by physical stimuli (brain damage, sleep loss, drug use)"? "The expression 'Mind over matter' has become a cultural standard for a reason." Whatever the reason, it does not serve as proof that the mind is separate from matter. "Minds cannot create something from nothing." "Where is your reasoning?" If you and Craig think minds can create something from nothing, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it. My reasoning is: You haven't met that burden of proof. "In the human context and material plane, humans do that in their frames of reference all the time." Yes, but designing and planning the Pyramids (to use your example), is not the same as creating matter out of nothing, which is the ability Craig assigns to his postulated (and unproven) "immaterial mind". "An immaterial entity has its own logical qualities that we can observe, and is not subject to our human contexts when considering the Big Bang the modern frame of reference for the Universe." By my reckoning, an "immaterial entity" is indistinguishable from a "nonexistent entity". It's easy to assign any ad hoc "logical qualities" you want to such a poorly-defined concept. Green Peacemst Green Peacemst 0 seconds ago @punnet2 " I understand that the work produced by Plato's mind/brain "lives on" because it was written down and preserved; and I also understand that Plato's brain does not live on, and therefore, neither his mind." Well, that´s where your understanding of his "work" is lacking. What is "Plato´s work"? Why do you call it his "work" if his brain is dead, and mere pottery from archeology is normally unidentified? What does it represent? Does it look like his brain? No, it uses words and ideas. Is it merely useful for food gathering or hunting? No, it´s not merely utilitarian. Your arguing reflects your lack of understanding, and rather, your lack of interest in understanding. As for the "drugs affect the brain and the mind", you merely parrot my prompting form of communication without addressing my refutation of your point and indication that in many acts like education, but spectacularly in hypnosis, the mind is capable of creating new levels of behavior, which is operating on the brain and nervous system itself. Here´s an interesting pop list with hypnotic experiments that you can assuage yourself with. A hypnotized woman told cold scissors were hot got burned with wounds that didn´t heal for months. "Mind over matter" doesn´t mean mind is separate from matter" Your answer indicates that you don´t have a knowledge base to evaluate empirically, nor research adequately, and simplisically merely negate verbally. Firstly, the "mind" is distinct from the brain, as my examples begin to suggest. Secondly, the mind of cultivated individuals produces conventionally recognizable items, like the 40,000 year old Lion-Man figurine, no less. The explosion in tool use complexity in the Upper Paleolithic also implies a change. Psychologist Julian Jaynes made a proposal about the "Bi-Cameral Mind and the Origins of Consciousness" by studying the language patterns of ancient societies. "designing and planning the Pyramids (to use your example), is not the same as creating matter out of nothing," That´s correct! It´s not exactly the same! It is a familiar context, and one in the physical world that also demonstrates how human minds create innovative structures that they themselves imagine in new ways, whatever their original inspiration. The architect leads and does most of the imagining, in particular. Similarly, a model of a building is usually built by modern architects to test their ideas. Building a small scale model out of twigs and clay blocks, etc is not the same thing as building a 40 story Giza pyramid from enormous blocks. Yet, it is an important manner of preparation and planning by humans using their minds, that can even lead tired brains to work longer and lose sleep temporarily, at least, even though it´s not that pleasant. The mind acts distinctly from the brain. Similarly, a chimpanzee can have some limited capacity as a higher primate to use a twig to fish for termites. Even to learn some communication from humans. Evaluating the possible immaterial Cause of the Universe requires understanding how a mind is not the same as the brain, and demonstrates immaterial qualities in creating recognizably non-natural figures and other products that never existed before, had no prior existence, were at one level of not existing, or being "nothing." That begins to identify a mind adequately. Yet, understanding all that takes study, which you have not done adequately and your argumentation is overambitious and unqualified. Your unwillingness or inability to understand, or admit the need to try to understand is your own lack of qualification, not a legitimate argument. Simplistic negation and contradiction is presuppositionalism, not argumentation. You even use assert that "immaterial" equates to "non-existent," and showing no adequate effort to inform yourself about key terms, project your lack of being informed as "ad hoc logical qualities." Craig´s basic Kalam argument is simple and coherent. It is your careless and uninformed attributions that demonstrate projection fallacy. Ad hoc is all you. No clarity about time, space, and matter-energy being extrapolated to a Big Bang singularity? No clarity about the conceptual coherence of the need for a Cause of those familiar scientific qualities? That "timeless" or non-time-dependent, "spaceless" or "non-space-dependent," or "immaterial" or non-matter-energy dependent? As a materialist, you would tend to think, "Well, black holes just suck everything in after trillions of years, and then another Big Bang happens. It´s a cycle." That´s naturalistic, and mechanistic. Naturally enough, and I myself used to think the Cosmos worked that way. However, the issue is exposed because that´s a naturalistic ideology. We don´t know what happens with Black Holes. Similarly, thinking about whether there was a Big Bang and what it was like still hasn´t been completely understood in mathematical astrophysics. That highlights that "science" is not just writing a "technical manual." "Science" is a form of natural, or scientific, philosophy. Philosophy itself has been modernized and diversified in a specific context, starting with the Christian Universities like Paris and the giant effort of Thomas of Aquinas who rescued Aristotle´s abandoned First Cause argument. Aquinas also laid out sound lawful knowledge and phenomena domains: Nature ("Science"), Human (Social Science/Studies disciplines), Eternal, and Divine-Philosophy of Metaphysics/Religion; Comparative Religion; theology; multidisciplinary). Moreover, emergentism has gained clarity with v Bertanaffly´s Systems Theory, and now F Capra´s Systems Theory of Life. The Big Bang Cosmology also entails the process of how the phenomena of physics led to chemistry to biology to anthropology to psychology to history, and in history then to sociology to philosophy, basically. This is all University-based scholarly philosophical language, and requires an adequately well-rounded understanding to argue intelligently. Understanding the meaning of a "mind" and how it is not just a brain is part of that. That´s your need, and your job. Your resorting to simplistic negation and denialism exposes your inability to say and admit, "I don´t know about this, and I want to learn and investigate this subject." That´s why it´s not just me vs you. It´s me and a community of scholars seeking truth vs you and your kind.

Stephen Law´s Evil God Spurs New Look at Craig´s "Objective Morality"

punnet2 Highlighted reply punnet2 4 hours ago (edited) @Green Peacemst Craig didn't simply argue for theism in some broad sense, but specifically for a "good" god. To refute Craig's moral argument is sufficient to refute the specific god he is arguing for. Green Peacemst Green Peacemst 16 minutes ago (edited) ​ @punnet2 Craig made a multi-pointed argument, and for objective morality, which he presented as "good," implicitly reflecting a characteristically Christian argument. Law´s argument jumps into a whole soup mix with presumptions, presupposing that suffering equates with evil, and that lots of good exists, etc. What, who, where? It´s stimulating, but second-rate, since it´s founded on flimsy equivalence of scholastic disembodied metaphor and without sufficient empirical foundations, all in presuppositionalism, which is unexamined and fallacious, and he tries to feign its legitimacy following up with one fallacy after another, ad hom, projection, ad hoc, ad populum are some that I recognize pretty quickly. Moreover, the question of debate was if God exists, not even the exact kind of God Craig is arguing for. You´re a little unclear of the need to balance the forest and the trees, or the tree for all its parts, roots, trunk, branches, and leaves (and evolution of terrestrial autotrophs, no less, back to the Cause of the Universe, etc lol). In any event, the moral argument is ultimately intertwined with underlying premises that Craig can pull out of his utility belt. Law, and you all, are doing Platonic shadow boxing. I was just getting at the appropriate manner of examining the objective moral argument. Incest (usually child sexual abuse) taboos and laws against child abuse,don´t mean that violators don´t still perpetrate the act, or try to. In a related way, but with a twist, certain religious laws (Islamic Sharia Law) legislate the death penalty for rape victims, not the rape perpetrators. Objective morality needs to distinguish between the natural reality of cultural relativism and the Judeo-Christian standard that now juxtaposes human rights with national sovereignty and religious freedom. The achievement of UN human rights is a Christian-derived pluralistic achievement that can be analyzed. All people would prefer to have all their babies grow up in an ideal world without "either-or" and other competing demands that have caused infanticide. Human rights establishes that kind of general goal derived from Christian foundations, and maternal anthropology by the likes of John Bowlby. Meanwhile, UN national sovereignty allows cultural relativism, and variations on human rights accord law enforcement includes embargoes, maybe boycotts, etc. That accounts for the Islamic nations that have refused to sign the UN UD of human rights conventions. The US itself has refused to sign one, demonstrating its own compromising issues related to national sovereignty. Where there is choice or not within a context of national sovereignty then also occurs. In some Islamic nations, democracy activists have been jailed or worse. In the EU, one or more countries has issued Intl Ct of Justice warrants for the arrest of American officials in the GW Bush administration for the invasion of Iraq. The EU is preparing to charge carbon fees on imports from places like the US. Moral objectivity can be pursued despite differing views among individuals and groups, based on Christian-derived natural law legal and scientific principles now globalized in the Christian University-based principles of the pluralistic UN community of nations. It´s a little complex if someone is not adequately literate in social studies disciplines.

Stephen Law´s Evil God Hypothesis Is An Exquisite Red Herring. Or Straw Man. For an Atheist!

Stephen Law Went Up Against William Lane Craig back in 2011: ...So, just to reiterate, "Evil God" is not argument that the entirety of evidence is against a good god's existence, or that there can't be good reasons why god would allow suffering, but that such responses aren't good enough. There may well be good biblical or historical reasons to prefer a good god, but remember that we're exclusively asking which kind of god, if any, best fits the data of natural suffering. Isolating this data of suffering in the world and examining it through a philosophically neutral lens brings the conclusion that a good god is not a good explanation, despite appeals to free will, conception etc. Remember, we already agree that such appeals don't work for an evil god, a missing planet, or anything else. Sorry that was so long. It was meant to be short. Haha! Green Peacemst Green Peacemst 0 seconds ago @L.E.V.I Interesting how fallacy can serve presuppositions. The "evil anti-God" argues that "such responses aren´t good enough"? The ploy is exquisite fallacious maneuvering, the ultimate red herring for an atheist anti-theist. Talk about ideological neo-scholasticism. At least the "evil anti-God" didn´t "dance on the head of a pin." The data of "natural suffering" is now empirically part of biological and related perspectives, first of all. Any ad hoc attribution of "evil" has underlying presuppositions in the first place. Who cares about "evil" or an "evil God" unless you have had the concept presented in a context of significance? That is the sociohistorical context of the issue itself. The speculative assertion of an "Evil God" is imaginatively, but fallaciously raised under the assumptions of a scientific context that presumes to reject the sociohistorical context of Jesus´ very source of the sociocultural heritage community of Western Civilization. It places "Natural Suffering" as the reified mysterious God that is unexplained, when the scientific materialist view has summarily and rather prejudicially, but rather illiterately, rejected all relevant sociocultural and historical contextual cues and contexts. Fallacy. In short, it´s a false equivalence, indulgently in philosophical expansiveness and intricacy no less, among other things. Probably philosophical scientific materialist reductionism, more exotically. "The Universe has a cause?" Ans: "I don´t know, but if evil exists...it´s an Evil God.....!" Those are non-sequitors, and incoherent without admitting that those very concepts are being raised in the context of Christian-based Western Civilization, because Jesus was incredibly important. The amazing efforts of the Apostles after Jesus´ Resurrection isn´t just a detail, it has lead to the University-based British Empire of the UK´s past and the US-UN community of human rights and sustainability. That is all in Jesus´ legacy of loving integrity with the problems of human bio-psychosocial tendencies, hypocrisy, and other related issues, some horrible. Once the presupposition of naturalism is exposed, and "evil" eliminated. You can´t use "evil" for anything unless you acknowledge the cause of the standard of good, which is Jesus of Nazareth´s integrity of life, mission, and teachings, and Resurrection, and legacy community. That starts as simply history. Emperor Constantine I didn´t legitimize his mom´s knitting. He legitimized her apparent love for Jesus´ legacy that he appreciated in his own military-imperial way as her son, for example. At that same time, Christian monasticism was beginning, which led to Christian-based modern Universities and scientific philosophy itself. Scientists didn´t start with mostly overspecialized atheist radicals and free riders. They were Christians who knew where their standards were coming from and were presented with increasing opportunities to explore intellectually. The University of Paris preceded and ignited the U´s of Cambridge and Oxford with educated monks and bishop types. Thomas of Aquinas in the 1200s at U Paris wasn´t a giant intellect because he trashed God for naturalism. He salvaged Aristotle´s rejected First Cause argument as a Christian with the notion of a Creator God who issued Commandment moral laws. Bishop R Grosseteste in the UK was a protoscientist. He and others got some boosts when Aristotle was being idolized, when Aquinas´ work made clear how God´s lawful omnipotence was coherent. Aristotle thought things didn´t move in curved lines. A cannonball just went straight out, then straight down. He had thought the Universe was eternal, so there was no First Cause, just a heady Unmoved Mover so straight lines had to be all there was. The best Christian monastics had the spiritual practice to balance their metaphysics and fix that. And then came the Reformation, sparked by scientists and atheists, right? Uh, no. The monk Luther with his doctorate, a mix of his times but brilliant and courageous enough where it counted, sparked the incredible, and unwhitewashed and painful Reformation. And so on, as human bio-psychosocial tendencies and real world demands had to be dealt with in the real world social constructivism that is history. That takes literacy in the social studies disciplines, and that´s where legitimate contexts of good and evil, and the sufficiently multidisciplinary empirical contexts philosophical speculation can be established. Not merely simplistically juxtaposing philosophy with naturalism and the ultimate red herring of the "evil anti-God." &&& punnet2 Highlighted reply punnet2 4 hours ago (edited) @Green Peacemst Craig didn't simply argue for theism in some broad sense, but specifically for a "good" god. To refute Craig's moral argument is sufficient to refute the specific god he is arguing for. Green Peacemst Green Peacemst 16 minutes ago (edited) ​ @punnet2 Craig made a multi-pointed argument, and for objective morality, which he presented as "good," implicitly reflecting a characteristically Christian argument. Law´s argument jumps into a whole soup mix with presumptions, presupposing that suffering equates with evil, and that lots of good exists, etc. What, who, where? It´s stimulating, but second-rate, since it´s founded on flimsy equivalence of scholastic disembodied metaphor and without sufficient empirical foundations, all in presuppositionalism, which is unexamined and fallacious, and he tries to feign its legitimacy following up with one fallacy after another, ad hom, projection, ad hoc, ad populum are some that I recognize pretty quickly. Moreover, the question of debate was if God exists, not even the exact kind of God Craig is arguing for. You´re a little unclear of the need to balance the forest and the trees, or the tree for all its parts, roots, trunk, branches, and leaves (and evolution of terrestrial autotrophs, no less, back to the Cause of the Universe, etc lol). In any event, the moral argument is ultimately intertwined with underlying premises that Craig can pull out of his utility belt. Law, and you all, are doing Platonic shadow boxing. I was just getting at the appropriate manner of examining the objective moral argument. Incest (usually child sexual abuse) taboos and laws against child abuse,don´t mean that violators don´t still perpetrate the act, or try to. In a related way, but with a twist, certain religious laws (Islamic Sharia Law) legislate the death penalty for rape victims, not the rape perpetrators. Objective morality needs to distinguish between the natural reality of cultural relativism and the Judeo-Christian standard that now juxtaposes human rights with national sovereignty and religious freedom. The achievement of UN human rights is a Christian-derived pluralistic achievement that can be analyzed. All people would prefer to have all their babies grow up in an ideal world without "either-or" and other competing demands that have caused infanticide. Human rights establishes that kind of general goal derived from Christian foundations, and maternal anthropology by the likes of John Bowlby. Meanwhile, UN national sovereignty allows cultural relativism, and variations on human rights accord law enforcement includes embargoes, maybe boycotts, etc. That accounts for the Islamic nations that have refused to sign the UN UD of human rights conventions. The US itself has refused to sign one, demonstrating its own compromising issues related to national sovereignty. Where there is choice or not within a context of national sovereignty then also occurs. In some Islamic nations, democracy activists have been jailed or worse. In the EU, one or more countries has issued Intl Ct of Justice warrants for the arrest of American officials in the GW Bush administration for the invasion of Iraq. The EU is preparing to charge carbon fees on imports from places like the US. Moral objectivity can be pursued despite differing views among individuals and groups, based on Christian-derived natural law legal and scientific principles now globalized in the Christian University-based principles of the pluralistic UN community of nations. It´s a little complex if someone is not adequately literate in social studies disciplines.

Science Is The Best Means To Discover Truth: No, It Isn´t, Multidisciplinary Philosophical Forms Are

Avatar Pope Hilarius II • 3 days ago who cares? Science is the BEST means to discover truth. I’m sorry your gods remain so hidden, you cannot demonstrate them. I'm sorry your beliefs are based on indoctrination, and not evidence. STOP BLAMING SCIENCE, AND ATHEISTS, FOR YOUR IMPOTENCE IN DEMONSTRATING YOUR CLAIMS • Reply • Share › Avatar greenpeaceRdale1844coop Pope Hilarius II • 19 hours ago • edited "Ooh, love to love ya, baby." OK, it´s from a pop song of the 1970s, but let´s pretend it´s spiritual in meaning. Quiz: Who gave loving Commandments from Moses AND God 500 years after the Buddha taught about lovingkindness? • Edit • Reply • Share › Avatar Pope Hilarius II greenpeaceRdale1844coop • 7 hours ago No clue. But, please, STICK TO THE TOPIC • Reply • Share › − Avatar greenpeaceRdale1844coop Pope Hilarius II • an hour ago Going back to your original comment, your denial of God and "gods" reflects your own ideological adherence to scientific materialism, failure to examine your assumptions reflecting your lack of literacy in philosophy itself. As for your reply here, you are correct that there is a topic. However, you demonstrate how you lack integrity, and are a hypocrite. The OP title is "What Science Can´t Prove," and you failed to establish a rational argument in your own comment. You stated, "who cares?" You deviated from the topic by trying to dismiss it and assert your own unjustified and non sequitor assertion. Thus, you are a hypocrite now in asserting "stick to the topic." It is possible to make associations of looser statements, and form rational arguments. In your original non-sequitor assertion, a rational argument might go, "Science may not be able to prove logical and mathematical proofs, metaphysical truths, ethical statements about values, aesthetic judgments about what´s good or beautiful, or science itself, but science is the BEST means to discover Truth" At least that assertion is directly expressed in relation to the topic, which would give you some form of integrity and credibility. It´s unjustified and without adequate argumentation, so it´s little more than nothing, however. For anyone capable of engaging in rational argument, it´s worth repeating the oft-made point I make around here. Science is in fact scientific empirical philosophy, and its philosophical method is made for the study of physical objects and behaviors. It thus develops human knowledge about physical truths, as part of the larger philosophically based disciplines that study a wider range of truths. Thus, since Thomas Kuhn for one made an important point as a "philosopher of science" about the philosophical concepts that he identified as scientific paradigms, and their social use by people who form two communities when a scientific revolution occurs. The new paradigm is advocated by a new group in relation to a group that affirms the old paradigm. Are there some subdisciplines of psychology that are physically scientific, and others that are not? Sigmund Freud MD was a neurobiologist as he begin testing a hypnotherapeutic talking cure of relaxing and sharing thoughts about a physical pain. As the patient free associated from the pain, the associations became significant in following a meaningful sequence to remembered events of the past, until a foundational memory of pain was experienced emotionally. That was "abreaction," and resulted in "catharsis." It was from those social scientific empirical observations that he also identified the psycho-neurological process of "emotional repression" after an original experience of traumatic discomfort. That later became "converted" into a separate physical pain, in a process called "symptom conversion." It is thus that empirical philosophical methodology is the foundation of scientific philosophy itself, and in relation to people, becomes social scientific. The phenomena of human psychological processes are understood through words, as with Freud´s accumulation of observations, and later hypothesis of three components of the human mind, the id, the ego, and the superego. Freud shifted from his empirical observations of adults causing unnecessary, invasive, and traumatic discomfort in children, to an ideological notion of the Oedipus complex that imposed distorted intentions on children victims. He further remained primarily materialistic in his work. His legacy expanded the relevant conceptual tools in the field, including Jung´s development of the Higher Self as the Imago Dei, the reflection of God. His work referred to Aion, the Greek god of Eternity, and Jesus Christ of Nazareth, along with the collective unconscious. Thus, evaluating the meaning and significance of all these important developments involves forms of empirical philosophical disciplines that demonstrate that it is empirical philosophy that has been actually illustrated by "science´s" accomplishments, starting with Bishop R Grosseteste in the 1200s, and later more famously Vesalius, Copernicus, and Galileo. In fact, scientific philosophy´s development didn´t magically begin, but began in the context of Christians developing monastic schools into Universities, and confirming that the Universe and physical behavior wasn´t dictated by ancient Greek philosophers, but the metaphysical context itself of the Universe was lawful. Thomas of Aquinas took Aristotle´s rejected First Cause reasoning. Aristotle himself had been the student of Plato, who was the student of Socrates. Plato explains that Socrates was inspired to develop his method of philosophical questioning when his friend Chaerephon consulted the Oracle at Delphi about the "wisest man in Athens." The Oracle responded, "Socrates," the report of which spurred Socrates to begin asking men of Athens questions. Along with that foundation, Aristotle acknowledged Thales, who had begun making naturalistic explanations. Plato´s account of Socrates provides a specific account of a causal event associated with a spiritual-religious prophetic, non-natural phenomena. That spiritual event had an identifiable consequence of exceptional significance in human philosophical development. Returning to Aquinas, he diversified Aristotle´s rejected First Cause in relation to a lawful, loving Creator God through Jesus Christ. Bishop Tempier of Paris, shortly after Aquinas died, then also issued an authoritative decree in the Pope´s name against treating ancient Greek philosophers as unquestionable and in favor of the omnipotence of God. Aquinas also observed and identified the different basic areas of lawful study: Natural Law, Human Law, Eternal Law (metaphysics), and Divine Law (scriptural/metaphysical). Thus, "science" isn´t anything until it´s defined accurately as scientific empirical philosophy, a subdiscipline of philosophy in which philosophers study physical objects and processes. Is it the "best" form of "discovering truth", or doing philosophy? It leads some people to confuse physical scientific truth, with "actual, full, multidisciplinary, and wholly informed search for truth," so that is against "science" as best, for one thing. The larger role of empirical philosophy in developing therapeutic psychology illustrates how empirical philosophy is the basis of, and is larger than "science," as in Freud´s work and the extended efforts expanding concepts and understanding by Jung and others´. The historical sociology of scientific philosophy leads to the Christian and eclectic religion itself in its origins that show the operation of psychosocial cause and effect based on the specific spiritual-religious assumptions involved, and the very socio-political institutions developed. So, it is philosophy that is better than science in demonstrating truth, as Christians developed an adequate modern metaphysical philosophical foundation for systemic scientific empirical philosophy from ancient Greek and eclectic philosophy. Scientific empirical philosophy then supplemented moral and social philosophers as they developed the social studies disciplines. Again, your denial of God and "gods" reflects your own ideological adherence to scientific materialism, failure to examine your assumptions reflecting your lack of literacy in philosophy itself.

William Robertson Smith Reveals that Myths Began With Rituals!

Anthropological scholar A Boskovic has written about how mythology was looked at by the founders of Anthropology with early figures like E.B. Tylor and W.R. Smith. Smith recognized that rituals were important foundations that preceded more complex and elaborated myths. First, our current context and how we get to anthropology and myths. It is common nowadays to evaluate religious accounts by stereotyping them as "myth," often part of secular and scientific materialism, or scientism. For one, Thomas Kuhn years ago had introduced the important sociohistorical notion of scientific paradigms. For another, biologist turned philosopher M. Pigliucci went from anti-theist to the "limits of science," and points out that science is a form of philosophy. Moreover, trying to take scientific philosophy outside of the lab as an exclusionary, intolerant, and monomaniacal way of life in scientific materialism is anthropologically a religious viewpoint itself, as scholar N. Smart has pointed out. Scientism is scientific philosophy in ideological form, in which gods are replaced with abstractions and assumed beliefs like "science is not merely scientific philosophy, but truth and reality itself." To reinforce the point, that is a metaphysical and philosophical assertion, not a scientific one. One angle that is key is the way ALL modern scientific disciplines and subdisciplines themselves divide into different knowledge areas, that can be called epistemologies. Einstein´s relativity shifted perceptions away from Newton´s classical mechanics according to the speed of light and mass-energy equivalence. Einstein´s ideas that were indicating quantum mechanics were quickly superseded, leaving Einstein´s own ideas to be called "old quantum theory." That represented new domains within physics alone.

The knowledge domain difference between natural philosophy and human-social-moral philosophy had already begun to be defined by Thomas of Aquinas in the 1200s as he laid out the realms of study of lawful or logical phenomena and their Laws: Natural, Human, Eternal, and Divine. As for accounts of cross-cultural information, early Christian philosophers like Clement of Alexandria in the 200s had studied Greek religion in detail. Later in the 1200s, Marco Polo´s accounts of Asia, among others like the Muslim Ibn Battuta, began to provide cross-cultural information. By the time of Descartes in the 1600s, G. Vico was noting the problem of applying the geometric and mechanistic tools of natural philosophy to the human social realm as he asserted an early version of Piaget´s later contructivism, "verum factum," the truth is what we make." In recognizing the need to understand complex symbolic human behavior, it was also an early form of antipositivism and interpretivism. Sociologists like Max Weber and Georg Simmel began establishing that distinction more clearly by the early 1900s.

Meanwhile, neurobiologists like W Cannon discovered the initial details of such systems as the sympathetic nervous system and adrenal glands by the 1930s. The emotional neural circuits began to be identified by work like Paul Broca in the 1870s, James Papez in the 1930s, and Paul McLean by 1949. Similarly, Freud´s foundations in therapeutic psychology led him to observe the relief of physical pain as the "talking cure" began to reveal the principles of psychoanalysis, abreaction emotional reconnection, cathartic relief, and the implications for trauma and emotional repression in events, often in childhood. Carl Jung led other psychologists in extending mental health and personal growth into a context related to spiritual-religious contexts with his Higher Self notion related to individuation and with the Greek god of eternity as Jung´s book title, Aion (Uranus), he wrote about the Judeo-Christian Imago Dei, and Jesus of Nazareth specifically. He had traveled to Africa and India by that time, and developed the idea of the collective unconscious. Important efforts like those of Afro-Americans Booker T Washington, WEB Dubois, Eslanda Robeson, Zora N Hurston, and Francis Sumner advanced heterodox social studies by the 1930s. However, the work of philosophers Descartes, John Locke, and Spinoza had already begun to identify related issues including the ability of introspection to gain empowering emotional awareness back in the 1600s.

Jung´s kind of cross-cultural studies in therapeutic psychology, moreover, were largely possible because of the growth and diversification of moral philosophy informed by empirical social studies. Marco Polo might have been of greatest use to someone like Christopher Columbus, but the German C. Wolff had access to Catholic missionary work about Confucius already in the 1700s. British W Jones´ efforts in India spurred scholars like A Schopenhauer´s use of Hinduism. Archeology began with the likes of efforts by A. H. Layard´s discovery of Biblical Nineveh in the 1840s. Anthropology is usually credited to EB Tylor in the 1850s, but anthropological scholar A Boskovic makes the point that Tylor was more historically focused and static. Mythology, thus was considered to be merely ancient thinking. W. R. Smith, on the other hand, thought through the issue of mythology to the underlying empirical and behavioral basis in ritual, with human interactions also leading to the term "interactional." Greek philosophers themselves had participated in the "Mystery" rituals. Personally, I recall noticing citations that Aristotle refers to the Orphic Mysteries in his writing. One small variation is the history of Socrates told by Plato. Socrates´ friend Chaerephon visited the Delphi Oracle at Apollo´s Temple, asked who the wisest man in Athens was, to which the Oracle replied "Socrates." That response spurred Socrates to pursue the wise men of Athens and develop his famous philosophical method.

More generally about establishing the empirical referent for ancient myths, Boskovic writes as follows, quoting WR Smith: "In all the antique religions, mythology takes the place of dogma; is, the sacred lore of priests and people, so far as it does not consist of mere rules for the performance of religious acts, assumes the form of stories about gods; and these stories afford the only explanation that is offered of the precepts of religion and the prescribed rules of ritual (...) This being so, it follows that mythology ought not to take the prominent place that is too often assigned to it in the scientific study of ancient faiths. So far as the myths consist of explanation of ritual, their value is altogether secondary, and it may be affirmed with confidence that in almost every case the myth was derived from the ritual and not the ritual from the myth; for the ritual was fixed and the myth was variable, the ritual was obligatory and faith in the myth was at the discretion of the worshipper. (...) As a rule the myth is no explanation of the origin of the ritual to any one who does not believe it to be a narrative of real occurrences, and the boldest mythologist will not believe that. But if it not be true, the myth itself requires to be explained, and every principle of philosophy and common sense demand that the explanation be sought, not in arbitrary allegorical categories, but in the actual facts of ritual or religious custom to which the myth attaches. The conclusion is, that in the study of ancient religions we must begin, not with myth, but with ritual and traditional usage.(Smith 1914: 17-18, passim)"

Boskovic writes, "Smith believed that ritual should be considered before myth not only in order of importance (unlike the majority of the studies of his time), but that ritual literally preceded myth in time (Beidelman 1974: 64). Actions come first, human attempts to explain and rationalize them afterwards.9 This passage can also be understood as a reaction against the generalizations on the lines of the idea of the ‘primitive science’ of the ‘savages,’ as expressed by Lang (1884, 1887, 1911). Smith obviously believed that too much attention in the works of his time was being devoted to the beliefs and ‘stories about gods,’ at the expense of the rituals. Rituals should form the basis of any serious scholarship on ‘primitive religion,’ since they are essentially social in character, and since they reaffirm places and roles of average human beings within their communities (ethnic groups or tribes). What these individuals believed (or did not believe) in was a matter of their personal choice. What they were performing or participating in was not."

What are your understandings of rituals and myths? How do you reflect on W.R. Smith´s understanding that myths like Zeus , Thor, Horus, or Noah´s Ark can be analyzed for underlying points of reference? Telling the difference between the natural sciences, i.e. natural philosophy, and social studies, has been important from Thomas of Aquinas to G. Vico to Max Weber, and the like. Carl Jung sustained a healthy viewpoint that avoided scientific materialism in his notions like "active imagination," along with his ideas of "synchronicity" and the "collective unconscious." What are your thoughts on the differences between those phenomena and knowledge domains?