When I went back to look at it, thanks to someone requesting the exact wording, I found that it was, in fact, not a rib. In Gilgamesh, a goddess throws a rock (lump of clay) into a forest to create a person.
"When Anu in the sky heard this, he said to Aruru, great goddess of creation that she is: "You created humans; create again in the image of Gilgamesh and let this imitation be as quick in heart and as strong in arm so that these counterforces might first engage, then disengage, and finally let Uruk's children live in peace."
Hearing that, Aruru thought of Anu. Then she wet her creative fingers, fashioned a rock, and tossed it as far as she could into the woods.
Thus she fathered Enkidu, a forester, and gave birth in terror and in fright without a single cry of pain, bringing forth another likeness of Ninurta, god of war."
The Epic of Gilgamesh is one of the first known complete stories. The 12 clay tablets in cuneiform script describe the adventures of the historical King of Uruk who lived around 2750 and 2500 BCE.
The Gilgamesh story we have comes from the collection of a 7th century Assyrian king named Ashurbanipal. The original Assyrian version was copied from a composition in Old Babylonian times, based on legends and stories from older Sumerian sources. Sumer was in southern Mesopotamia the geographical area that is today called Iraq. The city of Uruk was on the Euphrates River. (Source: History Dept, University of Texas)
The rib story seems to come from a different Sumerian tale. This is still an earlier pagan source for the Bible story I read as a boy. Gilgamesh does, however, contain the flood myth with Noah (here named Utnapishtim taken from the earlier and more detailed story of Atrahasis), the ark, and other familiar elements.
Getting back to the rib, here is the quote from the ancient story, ENKI AND NINHURSAG:
"What hurts you most, dearest? ' My rib hurts me.' ' To the goddess Nin-ti, the Lady of the Rib and the One who makes Live, I have given birth for you to set your rib free.'
As soon as Ninhursag uttered the last sentence, Enki felt no pain or ache, revitalised and stronger than ever. Indeed, as if he himself had been reborn in the close embrace of Ninhursag."
How old is this story? I'm still searching for that answer. Clues: There was (according to one historical time line of milk) a temple of Ninhursag in the Sumerian city of Tell al-Ubaid in 3,000-2,500 BCE. Confirmed by a copper bull in the British Art Museum from Tell al-Ubaid, "around 2,600" BCE. Also, according to the New World Encyclopedia, Ninhursag's symbol, the omega (Ω), is depicted in art from around 3,000 BCE.
"Some commentators see the Bible's Eve as related to Nin-ti, Ninhursag daughter known as the "Lady of the Rib."
It is exiting to be able to reach back to stories that may be 5,000 years old, to meet the earth goddess Ninhursag who was the omega! As well, to find the origin of the "Greek" omega symbol, which is not generally known. The omega was most likely a stylized womb. Using the birth symbol as the last letter of the Greek alphabet is so Ouroboros.
It find it no stretch of the imagination that these ancient two stories merged and became the story of the creation of Eve though multiple oral re-telling over 1000 or more years..
... one of the great pleasures of studying Sumerian myths is exactly to trace resemblances and parallels between Sumerian and Biblical motifs. Sumerians could not have influenced the Hebrews directly, for they had ceased to exist long before the Hebrew people came into existence. But there is little doubt that the Sumerians deeply influenced the Canaanites, who preceded the Hebrews in the land later known as Palestine' (Kramer, Samuel Noah, History Begins at Sumer, The Pennsylvania University Press,1981:142). Some comparisons with the Bible paradise story that are described in this myth
1) the idea of a divine paradise comes from Dilmun, the land of immortals situated in southwestern Persia. It is the same Dilmun that, later, the Babylonians, the Semitic people who conquered the Sumerians, located their home of the immortals. There is a good indication that the Biblical paradise, which is described as a garden planted eastward in Eden, from whose waters flow the four world rivers including the Tigris and the Euphrates, may have been originally identical with Dilmun;...
4) most remarkably, this myth provides an explanation for one of the most puzzling motifs in the Biblical paradise story - the famous passage describing the fashioning of Eve, the mother of all living, from the rib of Adam.
Why a rib instead of another organ to fashion the woman whose name Eve means according to the Bible, 'she who makes live'? If we look at the Sumerian myth, we see that when Enki gets ill, cursed by Ninhursag, one of his body parts that start dying is the rib. The Sumerian word for rib is 'ti' . To heal each o Enki's dying body parts, Ninhursag gives birth to eight goddesses. The goddess created for the healing of Enki's rib is called 'Nin-ti', 'the lady of the rib'. But the Sumerian word 'ti' also means 'to make live'. The name 'Nin-ti' may therefore mean 'the lady who makes live' as well as 'the lady of the rib'.
Thus, a very ancient literary pun was carried over and perpetuated in the Bible, but without its original meaning, because the Hebrew word for 'rib' and that for 'who makes live' have nothing in common. Moreover, it is Ninhursag who gives her life essence to heal Enki, who is then reborn from her (Kramer, Samuel Noah, History Begins at Sumer, The Pennsylvania University Press, Philadelphia, 143-144).
via Enki and Ninhursag - www.GatewaysToBabylon.com.
Agreement on wikipedia:
Ninti (Lady Rib), is also a pun on Lady Life, a title of Ninhursag herself.
Here is confirmation in the form of the same text in a PDF from Professor Stephen Hagen at Kennesaw Sate University shows that birth was given out of a rib in this story.
For my satisfaction, I'd like to know the location and I'd like to see images of the actual tablets, the shards of pottery or whatever upon which ENKI AND NINHURSAG and Gilgamesh are written. What is the source of professor Kramer's translations of these myths? A transliteration, a word for word into English would be ideal. Anyone?
The Archaeological Evidence for Gilgamesh, according to SOAS (School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London), is the following:
The Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh is preserved on three groups of manuscripts (clay tablets), which give an account of the poem at different stages in its evolution, from the eighteenth century BC to the first millennium BC.
So far eleven pieces of Old Babylonian versions of the epic are extant, and eighteen pieces are known from later in the second millennium (Middle Babylonian and other intermediate manuscripts). If these twenty-nine fragments were all that had survived we would not be able today to give an accurate account of the poem's narrative and plot. Fortunately we have 184 fragments from the first millennium (count at January 2003). These come from ancient libraries in Assyria, most notably the library of the seventh-century king, Ashurbanipal, and from slightly later collections of tablets found in Babylonia, chiefly at Babylon and Uruk.
You can see how the different sources for the same story fit together in transliterations of the 12 tablets at this link.
If the Sumerians did deeply influence the Canaanites, who preceded the Hebrews, yet Christians still consider the older Hebrew version of the Genesis story to be correct.
I was led to believe the Bible's account of creation in the Old Testament sprang forth complete from divine inspiration.
According to Jewish tradition the Torah was revealed to Moses in 1312 BCE at Mount Sinai. ... the Torah is accepted by Christianity as part of the Bible, comprising the first five books of the Old Testament. - wiki
(The Torah could not have come to Moses all at once, however, since the book of Deuteronomy describes his death.)
Regarding the parallels of the creation myths, you can believe they are due to coincidence, or that the Genesis story, including the rib, is a distorted retelling (without mention of the sources) of several different stories 1,000 years older, written between 2750 and 2500 BCE.
In the second case, claims of divine authorship are debunked.
61 comments:
Here is another theory.... The existence of the baculum is unlikely to escape the notice of pastoralist and hunter-gatherer cultures (see also below), but there is no specific term for it—nor for the penis itself—in Biblical Hebrew. This leads to one interpretation on the origin of Adam's rib, or his 'bony part' as a direct translation from Hebrew, in the creation of Eve as told in the stories of Genesis. Tee hee penis bone!
You're really arguing with your own previous fundamentalism (or at least religious naivete) moreso than modern theological notions of inspiration. Accommodation, condescension, progressive revelation, inversions in polemical counter-Creation myths - all of these are very standard in many modern theories of theological inspiration. You may not have been introduced to them in Sunday school, but then again, Sunday school isn't so much a place of serious religious education.
I am arguing that your entire religion evolved from earlier pagan views. I think that there are the ideological equivalents of transitional fossils. There is evidence for the historical belief in Jesus, but not for the person himself. But putting that debate aside for a moment...
Do you think Jesus had DNA? Was he the result of a virgin birth? How does that work genetically? :-/
Thanks much.
As far as I can tell, the greatest discoveries have resulted from ignoring entrenched dogma. Experts, however, are typically great for locating primary sources, and for pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of various points of view.
How would you counter the hypothesis that the story of Jesus, a peaceful king betrayed by his own people the Jews, was a Roman (Flavius) invention to keep the Jews in line after the war?
Joseph Atwill - The Roman Origins of Christianity
"Atwill lays out a theory that the whole jesus mythos was part of a conspiracy by the Roman house of Flavian in order to get the jews under control following the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE.
Atwill goes on to call into question the writings of Josephus, his motivations (Roman propaganda?) and the similarity to the NT of the bible. Especially the favor shown the romans throughout the gospels. (surprising considering the dates of the gospels and the destruction of their world by the Romans)"
PDF of the first chapters here.
Xeno, that's a nice offer from Alex Dalton, whatever his real- as opposed to virtual-life credentials are. I'd consider it. That is, if you can stay put on a particular topic long enough. Xeno, you do seem to spread yourself over "vast domains," which is probably good. And, that's perhaps one reason why I enjoy your site.
Alex Dalton, when you write, "most of these pagan deities did not actually have anything near a virgin birth [as Jesus] when we consult the primary sources," what do you mean "anything near a virgin birth"? To what are you referring? The quality or the number of sources?
Besides calling the Flavian hypothesis crap and saying historical scholars believe in a historical Jesus for good reasons, could you tell me what those reasons are? I still don't see the details from history that would rule out Roman war propaganda. Thanks.
Well Xeno - just thinking about it quickly....Given that the Gospels have Jesus saying and doing all sorts of things that were very controversial to Jews, like rejecting the food laws, putting following himself before family and burial of family members, claiming to be the Messiah,etc. I doubt any Roman with half a brain would concoct such a scheme, and it didn't work out very well. Firstly, the Gospels are clearly Jewish documents, interwoven with references to and elaboration upon Old Testament scriptures and themes all throughout. Anyone writing them had to be *thoroughly* familiar with Judaism. Given that, to have a Messiah undergo crucifixion was about the least convincing thing you could do if you wanted Jews to believe in him. Why? Well, because a) it is one of the most shameful forms of death in the ancient world in general and b) anyone who was hung like that was considered to be cursed. This event would be confirmation that Jesus was really *not* the Messiah. Whether you raise him from the dead or not (there were already those raised from the dead in Judaism), the Messiah was, at that time, not expected to undergo such a scenario. Also, the Gospels are full of stories of Jesus' controversy with the Jewish authorities of the day. If you wanted to convince the Jews, convincing the Pharisees and scribes first, who were the local religious authorities, would be a much better way to go about it. Instead Jesus butts heads with the Pharisees and shames them on almost every issue. Lastly, Jesus makes divine or quasi-divine claims for himself throughout the Gospels and this is also something that no one who understood Judaism would have the Messiah do. We know from some of the early factions that this was a point of contention even amongst Jewish Christians.
Also - there is the whole matter of Paul. We have very good witness from Paul, prior to the destruction of the Temple, that Jesus was a flesh and blood person. Here's a critical review of Atwill that I've found:
http://www.tektonics.org/print.php4
Looks like his work is riddled with errors, and this would better explain why the scholarly community has not endorsed it since it was published 5 yrs ago.
Ann - I'm referring to the fact that alot of these are mere fabrications - like saying Mithras was born of a virgin (when he sprang from a rock and this whole iconography is about him being greater than the cosmos per Ulanssey), or saying Buddha was born of a virgin. There just aren't primary sources that back up these claims. In other cases, we have miraculous births or gods taking on physical form and impregnating humans, but these, like I said, are to be expected in the culture at the time and are already present within Judaism. We don't to posit borrowing to account for ideas like this.
Thanks, Alex. As I understand you, then, Mithras and Buddha were not born of a virgin, because they aren't any primary sources about these events. So, if I may (only wanting to understand), what is a "primary source"? (By the way I never heard that about Buddha, but about Mithras there's a lot. At least, I thought there was.)
And, doesn't the legend or story of Mithras pre-date Judeo-Christianity? That is, isn't its origin from the Middle East somewhere?
Thanks again.
It seems to me there may be an inverse relationship with "documentation" and age. The older something is the less documentation we may ever have of whatever we're looking at. It may be that solid documentation of some ancient activities and beliefs we may never obtain.
I can't really discuss whether the Persian Mithraism, which predates Christianity, and had some things or "nothing in common with Christianity". Although, there seems to be sources that says there was a commonality.
The first Jewish-Christians who meandered from the Middle East, after the crucifixion of Jesus, didn't take the world on by a storm. Did they? It was a while, about 300 years or so, which is actually a long time, before the conversion of emperor, Constantine, and early Christian beliefs and practices were lifted the status of a state religion. But, before that particular conversion, wasn't Mithras worship, or Sol invictus, a popular religion among the Roman soldiers, at least?
(The problem the early pre-Constantine Christians had with the Romans, as I understand it, is that they merely wouldn't honor the Roman gods. And, thus, there were the Christian persecutions. It wasn't anything that was particularly peculiar about early Christianity, only their lack of reverence for the state-gods. Isn't that correct?)
I followed the link to David Ulansey and it's interesting the connection of the stone, as the birthplace of Mithras, and its relationship to the Cosmos, as understood by the people then. The Cosmos was seen as a huge cave, and the cave could be seen, from the outside, as a rock. One could say, then, that the birthplace of Mithras was a cave, the underworld, perhaps? And, the underworld is a representation of the Cosmos, the huge bowel that covers us all, at least according to ancient beliefs. Correct?
It's curious to me how widespread the motif of the cave is. The kivas of the Native Americans in the U.S. southwest represent the underworld from which humans arose. A kiva, where rituals are performed, is constructed as a cave and relates to Native American legends of humans arising from the underworld. Among the ancient Greeks, Zeus and other gods were also born in caves, as well. Of course, from a biologically oriented perspective, the rise of humans from caves, or the underworld, could be interpreted as relating to the anatomical structures of the female body.
It seems what makes the Mithras story unique is that the cave is seen as a rock, i.e. from the outside. That's a sort of perspective not taken elsewhere, it seems. But, to attain that view of things, one must have a superior, as it were, perspective.
The Ulansey link quotes Plato as an important source of this view. Plato's dialogue, Phaedrus, talks about the view "Of that place beyond the heavens." What was the origin of Plato's thoughts? May we speculate?
Plato was a thinker and descendant of line of thinking from Parmenides, about whom Peter Kingsley wrote in his works ("In Dark Places" Inverness, 1999; "Reality" Inverness, 2003). But, Parmenides, according Kingsley told his students, in so many words, that they most experience "reality" and "truth," not just talk and think about it. Thus, we have, according to Kingsley, the students of Parmenides meditating for days in caves, in the darkness of the understand the world, a representation of the Cosmos, to find out what lies beyond it. This is sort of like the Hopis who work their rituals within the Kivas.
But, with Plato et al. Athenian philosopher-thinkers experiencing truth was replaced by talking about it, which fit quite nicely with state-religions controlled by elite rulers, who more inclined to maintain dominance than anything else.
... only thinking out loud ...
Thanks
You point out that Mithraism was not one set thing, that, as with Christianity, there are different varieties and that adherents from different places and times disagree over interpretations and practices. Do not current versions of beliefs for all religions result from competition between the mish mash of views? It seems so to me. Religious evolution.
As with biological evolution, changes were punctuated. They took place at a speed outside of our normal threshold of perception, too slowly to see, or in some cases, too quickly. Like an earthquake, there are rumblings for years, then rapid change. The quake, to most people, is the only part that is real. It is easy to ignore and deny the slow build up of pressure.
Hi Xeno,
Congratulations on stimulating some interesting discussion here. I wasn't aware of the "rib" connection so thanks for sharing this. I wish to comment on your Gilgamesh quotation and on links between the civilizing of Enkidu and the garden of Eden story.
Firstly, the quotation from Gilgamesh that you use is not a translation from the original texts. It is, at best, a very loose paraphrase that includes elements not found in the original. I would recommend a more literal translation (Dalley and AR George are good).
Secondly, there are a number of parallels between the story of the forbidden fruit and the civilizing of Enkidu. Firstly, Enkidu is a primeval man like Adam, created by the gods. Secondly, his relationship to animals is highlighted. Thirdly, both stories involve the man being "tempted" by the woman, succumbing to temptation, and experiencing a dramatic change from one state of being to another. This state is described in each text as "[becoming] like a god". Both texts speak of the man becoming "wise". Fourthly, the man and woman clothe themselves after their experience. Fifthly, the woman convinces the man to eat food that he has never tasted before. Finally, the couple move irrevocably from one realm to another (away from the garden, away from the wild) as the episode comes to a close.
Incidentally, frequent scholarly suggestions of sexual innuendo in the story of the garden of eden seem to be supported by these links with Gilgamesh.
Like the flood story, it seems clear that Genesis is in dialogue with an older Mesopotamian tradition. However, it is equally obvious that the perspective of Genesis conflicts with that of the older story. Whereas in Gilgamesh the journey away from the wild to the city is viewed as a great, civilizing step forward, in Genesis when the couple leave their "garden" home it is depicted as a tragic loss of innocence. The city in Genesis is embodied in the tower of Babel and later on in the national story as a place of captivity and hardship. So yes, Genesis uses older materials to construct its narrative, but it does so from the viewpoint of a people who have been harmed by their contact with more dominant civilizations.
I hope that this gives you a better idea of the dynamics of what is happening in Genesis. I agree with Alex that it doesn't automatically suggest that the bible is inauthentic, derivative, or fraudulent. Rather, it contradicts conservative views of biblical inspiration and inerrancy that try to make Genesis out to be something that it is not. Please note that I find the mesopotamian versions to be wiser and more humane in some cases - particularly in the case of the flood story.
Thanks much, interesting parallels!
If I stay true to my analogy, the same type of features or ideas do pop up from different sources when the environment is right. That happens, and there are interesting examples where different species look like the same thing, but are not.
Still, most creatures inherited what they have now from the past, mostly by the imperceptibly slow morphing of each new generation to fit the times.
Xeno, I have to say that I see alot of this overuse of the analogy of biological evolution when you're discussing the history of ideas. In this case of Persian vs. Roman Mithraisms, no, there was probably not any gradual or punctuated evolution. What we have evidence of in the historical record amounts to little more than the same name for the deity, hence the revolution in Mithraic studies post-Cumont. If you want to say some ideas stem from another, you need evidence of this, not just a vague idea about how things change.
Perhaps your faith prevents you from accepting what is to me a rational conclusion based upon the information we do have. If you want to say some idea is original, lets say divinely inspired, you have to prove *that* because in all the world, in all time periods, in all realms (save quantum mechanics), there is nothing that springs forth without a seed.
I can probably find more step by step evidence, but here is what is bothering me... How do I put this... You sound quite sane, brilliant in fact, yet at the foundation of your argument there is a magical extraterrestrial sky daddy super-being who impregnated a human woman with his perfect Y chromosome in order to create an alien-human hybrid he let die a horrible death on a cross because that allows us all to become immortal.
Nothing personal, but what a load of horse-feathers. It's like a story someone would create on a bad acid trip. ... not that I would know anything about that sort of thing.
Don't do drugs!
Xeno, please note, razorface (what an i.d.!, wouldn't want to meet him/her in alley at night) stayed put on Genesis at level of time (few thousand B.C.) and found parallels between biblical accounts and other contemporaneous sources. The ancient Jewish people did a lot a migrating and without doubt they picked up or influenced those with whom they intermingled.
Xeno, again. Try to find where I have made any extraordinary claims in any of the convos that we have had here. I have primarily been rebutting your claims. But indeed, I would be glad to share my reasons for accepting theism. And I think there is an abundance of evidence. Over the next few weeks, I'll share my views on these matters here. Be patient with me as I have my daughter on and off throughout the week.
The Sumerian tales were intentionally distorted myths loosely based upon more accurate oral accounts of the true happenings of creation and the flood. The Hebrew version is accurate and was received from GOD as a needed reminder of historical facts and other essential information. Jewish tradition cannot be always relied upon, however the Scriptures (which can always be relied upon) are clear that the LAW (TORAH) was given to Moses at Sinai and it was.
The writer of this baloney would like to be so sure that the Bible is errant that their biased desire to reach that conclusion blinds them to many possibilities and facts.
Hi Xeno -
I've been short on time. I'm glad you like Harry Potter. I saw the new one over the weekend and thought it was awesome. Self-organizing systems are not counter-intuitive to me at all, and there are plenty of theists for which this is not the case. In fact, self-organizing systems are evidence for theism on my view, as self-organization derives from deeper laws programmed into our universe - a deeper order. Organized complexity does not really arise from randomness, in fact, the universe, at its inception is a highly ordered state, and all such self-organization would derive from the laws of physics themselves which have a remarkable fine-tuning. See Roger Penrose's _Road to Reality_ on this. I don't assume someone created the big bang, I infer it from the fact that the laws of physics, fine-tuned for the origin of life, are highly ordered and intact, a literal blueprint for organized complexity, at the moment of the origin of the universe. You can choose to believe that all of that came from nothing; that to me, takes greater faith. I see the very properties of intelligence within this pattern. See Paul Davies _Cosmic Blueprint_ on this. As far as anthropomorphism, this is a common charge of the skeptic. Here's another way to look at it. We look around us and we see rationality and meaning, we see order and beauty in the cosmos of magnitudes that are beyond our own aesthetic and intellectual capacity to comprehend, even where there is no life:
http://heritage.stsci.edu/gallery/galindex.html
But the skeptic assumes that such meaning and beauty is not something objective and external - it is only based in the human mind. This is the extreme anthropocentricity. Ancient people saw this kind of meaning as something inherent in the cosmos. Modern skeptics say it is only to be found in them. This, to me, is the height of arrogance.
Saying the universe created itself is incoherent. The universe is finite, therefore it could not have created itself. In fact, name one emprical thing that has ever created itself. In order for it to create itself, *it* must exist. If it existed prior, we don't need to even *speak* of a creation. So the notion of self-creation won't get you anywhere. Believing that science will figure everything out is a type of faith. It is basically faith in scientism. We have learned alot, but I believe the more comprehensive the universe gets, the more it simply supports theism. The more our understanding shows the universe to be rationally comprehensible, to be ordered and astoundingly complex, the more we see a universe on the order of one we'd expect a divine mind to create. So I'm all for the progress of science. Science, however, is not equipped to study the divine. For that we need philosophy. And there are brilliant philosophers making very convincing arguments for the existence of God in our day. Are you familiar with the works of any modern theistic philosophers? Let me know. I would be glad to introduce you to some...
There are a host of problems with your reply to Kayl.
1. History actually doesn't show us any such thing about the idea of god being invented for the explanatory reasons you mention. It simply shows that people believed in god/gods and attributed such things to them. People still do that today. This, however, does not for a moment argue that god/gods was simply invented to account for *these* things. People who believe in god/gods as creator, will attribute any and all things to that being, whether directly or indirectly. This does not however give us the explanation of the origin of their belief. You are confusing attribution with causal explanation. They are not the same. I believe the mailman left the mail in my mailbox. Walking up to my mailbox and finding mysterious labeled envelopes in it one day, was not however what caused me to infer the existence of a mailman.
2. The more probable explanations for the origins of religion and theistic belief are based in neuroscientific study of religion. Human brains are simply wired for religious/theistic belief in some ways. See the work of Andrew Newberg and EG d'Aquili here.
3. Genetic fallacy - look this one up, remember it, and avoid it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
Very common logical fallacy. If you think you can explain an origin of a belief, you have not thereby falsified the belief. I see you committing this alot. Suppose I come to believe that 2+2=4 because my math teacher locks me in the school basement and performes mind-control experiments on me at the age of 7. Simply via post-hypnotic suggestion, every time she snaps her fingers, I instantly form the belief 2+2=4. This is not a sound epistemic source of justification for the belief that "2+2=4", however, the belief is still true.
Welome back Alex, You seem to me to simply choose to see no connection or no significance if something disagrees with your beliefs. I don't find your denials here compelling and I'll say why when I find time, but could you please tell me about the god you do believe in and why? Thanks!
Xeno - you don't always have to post if you don't have something substantive to say. It isn't the end of the world if you wait until you have more time to do so. There is no rush. I'm more interested in your lines of reasoning and your logical rejoinders than how you feel about my arguments. Posting ad hominems and psychological speculation about my "powers of denial" may be something that makes you feel like you've scored some rhetorical points, but this isn't a political campaign. Let's just discuss these things as time permits. I apologize if I seem like a relentless contrarian, but I disagree very strongly with most of what you say on religion, so I hope you won't mind if I continue to advocate another point of view. In fact, I've been holding back for the sake of time! There are often so many things that I disagree with in your posts that it would take 5 posts of my own, of equal length, to address them all.
As far as the God I believe in, I'm a somewhat liberal Christian. I thought that much was clear by now. I've outlined some of the reasons I favor theism as a metaphysical explanation for the cosmos already. I'll wait until you respond to those rather than flood you, and build into a more robust argument from there. To start off, we can discuss bare theism, and then from there, we can get into why I hold specifically Christian beliefs.
I think you misunderstood my question. Alex, assume I am an alien and I have never seen a god. What makes the god of your belief real for you? What is the evidence? Please describe your god and give actual reasons for your belief. ( If possible, avoid the use of biblical jargon that non-Christians would not understand.) Thanks.
Is not the substance of gods ( or lack thereof) the main point of our exchange?
Xeno - all of that is implicit in my recent comments. In speaking of "God", lets start with a working definition of a mind or intelligence, that stands behind material reality. On atheism, the ultimate explanandum must be a material or physical one. On theism, the ultimate explanandum is consciousness. This is a very basic and clear way to frame the discussion that doesn't get us bogged down into all sorts of theological speculation.
Sorry, I don't get it. Are you saying god is a consciousness that created everything? What is the evidence for that? Thanks.
P.S. - are you moderating my comments now? I've been having trouble getting my posts to go through, and some of them are saying that they are "awaiting moderation".
Xeno - do you think its best to go back into your own comments and change the content like you are? It makes me look a little nutty when I quote you, and those words are now nowhere to be found.
Hi Alex,
Well, moderation is required by me for anyone who includes any spam words or more than one link in a comment. I don't set any individuals to require moderation. Not even sure if WordPress allows that.
Wait, I'm with you all the way to the last point. The conditions had to be just what they are for us to be what we are. Okay... So? Where do you get a creator from that?
The corn grows where it does because the conditions are right. This does not mean an intelligence makes the rain fall there because it loves the corn. The condition of rain comes first, and what grows there then grows.
What am I missing?
Makes sense.
Xeno - we infer design, because the conditions are specified all within a very narrow range. The precision to which this fine-tuning occurs is what has startled scientists and caused many to see this as evidence of design. Let's envision the laws and constants as a series of 10 dials on the wall (by some estimations, there are at least 20 parameters). All of these dials are enormously large, let's say millions of miles wide. And they have millimeter-sized notches on them. One notch on each is marked red, and if the all dials are tuned to this precise notch, this will allow for the emergence of life. Now, anywhere these dials are tuned to, is as equally improbable as any other combination of tuning. So it is not mere improbability. What we have is enormous improbability for even one dial to be turned right, but not only this, we have a *specificity* in that all the dials are tuned to the red notch. We have something conspiring within the laws to allow for this pattern. This, not just mere improbability, is why scientists wishing to deny the fine-tuning as evidence for design, have resulted to multiverse explanations in which they suppose that there are an infinity of unobservable universes, in which all possible combinations of physics occur, therefore this combination had to come up somewhere. I think this is a very poor alternate explanation, but take note - they understand that this specified improbability *does* require an explanation beyond "it is what it is". If we come upon a safe with 10 numbers that had to be turned to, in order for the safe to be opened, and we see that the safe is open, we should conclude that the person who opened it *knew* the combination.
Is a chance event, even if astronomically minuscule [Alex, Nov 24, 2010 at 11:29 pm], the proof of the existence of God? It's merely a chance physical event that's all.
Further, despite whoever originally asserted it, isn't this a bit of an imaginative exaggeration: "an accuracy of one part in 1060 can be compared to firing a bullet at a one-inch target on the other side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away, and hitting the target"? I'm mean really! Even if it were possible to prove such a statement, arousing awe do not thoughtful statements make.
Kyle [#6] merely made certain assertions, Sumerians believed in myths, but the Hebrews didn't, he didn't prove anything or say anything widely accepted, that is, beyond a perhaps religious Judeo-Christian community.
Yes, conditions are rare... but still, so what? Rareness, no matter how rare the rareness be, is not proof of design.
This conclusion seems more a statement about not understanding the incredible size, age, and variation of laws in the universe, as well as not understanding probability and cause and effect.
If "common sense" exists, then why does Las Vegas exist? Why do we not have a true democracy? (We have a representative democracy.)
I hold that Hoyle is wrong about this, as is "common sense".
Research shows us that dramatic things seem more frequent to the common person's sense, but this is not true.
The idea of "fine tuning" presupposes a purpose. This entire argument is a tautology. You are just saying, it is true because it is true. A designer exists because the pattern is rare. Sure, the conditions are rare here, but with the size of the universe and all the time that exists, perhaps it has to be like this somewhere, AT RANDOM. We exist because conditions are right where we are.
You still seem to me to be the corn saying there must be a god conspiring to bring exactly the right amount of sun, soil, fertilizer, beneficial insects, lack of other plants crowding you out, worms, and rain... this must all have been designed for the benefit of the corn by a giant corn father.
Sorry if I'm still not getting your point. I'll re-read your posts a few more times.
I love your example of the safe, because, yes, you could conclude that someone opened it, but you could also conclude other things. For example, the safe was opened by your phone number which happens to be a common pattern when random pebbles blow around and hit safe buttons... And this safe is one of a trillion trillion different safes all with randomly selected 10 digit combinations.... But you only see the one safe.
... Or simpler still, the situation is an illusion because... The safe was never locked in the first place! :-)
It could be that our one universe is all you need to have the variability at random needed, because we may only so far be able to grasp a tiny portion of it. The big bang my just be a bright light that creates a time barrier which keeps us from seeing the rest of the universe. In that case, life is not miraculous, it is unavoidable.
Xeno - here is the article that you should read if my examples are not illustrating the point. It covers specificity and alot of other subjects:
http://www.lastseminary.com/teleological-cosmology-physics/Do Anthropic Coincidences Require Explanation.pdf
Let me know if that is helpful. The link may break but just cutpaste it (not sure why that is happening). I've already answered your locality argument. Its based on a misunderstanding of the laws/constants.
As far as your objection to the safe analogy, the point of it is not for you to tweak it with all of these other alternate scenarios to where it might not have been intelligently opened. I can just tweak the example and say that all of those other circumstances are not the case (e.g. "we know the safe was locked in the first place",etc.) The point is to elucidate the nature of a specified pattern, not make an argument from analogy to design. We don't even need to do that with fine-tuning.
Further, if the one in a trillion different safes argument is supposed to parallel the multiverse response to fine-tuning, there are many issues with that, and I'd be glad to discuss them. For an overview of some of them, see here:
http://www.lastseminary.com/teleological-cosmology-physics/Theism vs. the Many-Worlds Hypothesis.pdf
It is my view that you are making the same mistake the Church made all those years ago: You assume constant laws in the universe, as below, so above...but we are finding this is not the case. Our own spacecraft reaching the edge of our solar system are showing that we are short sighted. The "laws" are turning out to differ in different places and under different conditions. Thus, as we see more and more examples of local differences the entire argument about the universe being designed "just so," turns out to be based on a wrong assumption.
Varying laws of physics? I knew you'd go for that one. Actually, the laws *I* am discussing are considered invariant by the consensus of modern physicists, so I am well within the scientific consensus, and my argument is impervious to that objection.
If you're talking about something like the fine-structure constant (aka Alpha), then:
1. I didn't reference any fine-tuning of the fine-structure constant.
2. These are sensational claims picked up by the popular science newslines merely because they are so novel within the peer-reviewed literature. These are like papers published, claiming to refute General Relativity. Most physicists won't bat an eyelash at this stuff. You need to understand how to read science media - namely that the point is for you to *read* it, and that it doesn't always reflect how science actually *works*. As a perfect example, someone has a minor experimental anomaly with ONE constant, and we see headlines that read "THE LAW*S* OF PHYSICS VARY!", and then you cutpaste it on your blog, and tell us "we are finding" that such things are true. Utter nonsense (no offense).
Julian King et al's research on Alpha showed a minute variance of 1 part in 100,000 in the opposite hemispheres, but establishing that something like this is ACTUALLY occurring, and not just an observational error (as most physicists believe, since spectral line analysis is very difficult and these VERY SAME researchers reached opposite conclusions in an earlier paper on the same subject!) would require MULTITUDES of repeated/confirmed observations and would literally shake the foundations of modern science.
For a devastating critique of the alleged variation of the fine-structure constant by physicist Luboš Motl, see:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/09/variable-fine-structure-constant-is.html
Further, see here:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/evolving-fine-structure-constant.html
Response to this is way at the bottom [November 25, 2010 at 5:41 am]. Posted it there accidentally.
Short answer is "nope!"
Xeno wrote: "You seem unaware of your own power of creation, the power of the observer. By selecting only your one right situation, you are only saying you are right because you are right, another tautology."
Nowhere do I make any such tautological statement or argument. I don't think you really understand what a tautology is. Is calling the universe "a mess" supposed to be an argument? Can you even define randomness and show me where it exists anywhere in the universe? Randomness, as science usually use the term is a description of a limit on predictability which is about epistemic limitations, not ontological status. Nowhere will you find a physicist calling the universe a "mess", indeed the very fact that we can describe the universe using mathematics shows that it is anything but. I've just presented a series of arguments, rooted in observational physics, supported by professional philosophers and scientists, and this is all I get?
Very disappointing, Xeno.
Now you're resorting to "The universe is a big mystery". LOL, what happened to all that confidence in science to demystify? Only like science when you feel like it is on your side, eh? Typical. Anyway, the universe has mysterious elements but there is much we understand. Particularly, the claims regarding physical laws that I have discussed are based on hard data and repeated observation. So whatever your vague name-calling of the universe is all about, it doesn't address anything I've said. Who created God? LOL, weeeeeellll...since God would be a timeless being, a direct consequence of being the cause of time, God would not need a creator. Only things that begin to exist need a creator (e.g. the universe, which we know begins to exist). You don't have a concept really. You have an incoherent idea. I already refuted it. See above where I addressed your "self-creating" universe. Nothing creates itself, bc it would have to already exist in order to do so. I went to school for philosophy and we had this subject called Logic that we had to study. It was really helpful....I've given a perfectly adequate working definition for God. You don't even have to call my postulate God if you prefer not to. Call it what I've argued for - a creating consciousness...suits me just fine.
If the universe, within which we're living and the only we know something about, has such a low chance of existing that it couldn't be a chance event? No, it's still chance event. A royal flush is still a chance event.
Further, who is to say that this universe was the result of a chance event among a near-infinite, if not infinite events in the past? After all, one of cosmologists "wish list" is to "Make the mulitiverse go away." But, it hasn't.
Cosmologist Michael Turner says “The dilemma is, we have evidence that inflation took place and the equations of inflation say that if it took place once, it took place twice and it’s sort of like the mouse and the cookie – if it took place twice it could have taken place an infinite number of times,”
[A Cosmologist’s Wish List: Four Most-Wanted Discoveries, Universe Today, Nov. 17, 2010]
I love this - look at the logical leap here. There were two inflationary periods, therefore why not infinity? Anyway, I don't have any problem with the multiverse actually. I think its an elegant theory. An infinite exhaustive multiverse (very different concept and the only hope of a multiverse that explains fine-tuning), however, is entirely ad hoc. Firstly, Guth and Vilenkin (two of the greatest living cosmologists - the latter being a champion of the multiverse) have shown in their recent theorem that even a multiverse eternal into the future, is not eternal into the past and has an ultimate origin. See Vilenkin's recent book _Many Worlds in One_ for details. Secondly, the multiverse does not solve the problem of fine-tuning as physicist/philosopher Robin Collins has shown. It only ups the fine-tuning one more level as a universe generating mechanism that blasts out new inflationary bubble universes and simultaneously varies their physical laws with enough precision to keep them from collapsing back on themselves, requires another level of fine-tuning all in itself. Details here:
http://www.lastseminary.com/multiverse-theories/Does%20the%20Many-Universes%20Hypothesis%20Really%20Explain%20the%20Fine-Tuning.pdf
It is ironic that, when confronted with highly specified low-probability fine-tuning of physical law physicists either admit that it is evidence of some sort of design at work, or retreat to believing in an infinity of completely inaccessible, unobservable, unfalsifiable, non-evidenced universes where all things that could possibly have happened, have happened. This would have to be the most flagrant violation of Ockham's razor in the history of the world.
Fine tuning by a mysterious unknown consciousness, eh? You like this idea, but how do you know the fine tuning was not done by two or more gods ... Or by a machine? This is a leap of logic.
I still think the so called fine tuning is an illusion created by our self importance. I'm not getting why you can't accept random chance happening to create these exact conditions.
I suspect things are not as unlikely as they seem because there are physical constraints that guide the forces to be as the are, non conscious constraints, which remain as yet undiscovered.
Hope you are enjoying the holiday.
Xeno wrote: "Fine tuning by a mysterious unknown consciousness, eh? You like this idea, but how do you know the fine tuning was not done by two or more gods … Or by a machine? This is a leap of logic."
Alex: Well, any cause we postulate for space-time itelf (see my first argument), would have to transcend space-time and thus be timeless, and hence eternal. It would also have to transcend space and the physical world, and thus would not be a physical thing (like a machine). There are really only two non-physical entities that are considered in the philosophical literature, and these are abstract objects and conscious minds. Since abstract objects by definition lack causal efficacy, a conscious mind is better suited to the task. Further, if it were a law-like entity w/o volition, we'd have no explanation for why the effect of the universe's existence was instantiated at any particular point, and not co-extensive with the law, existing from eternity past. Agent causation, an ability of conscious minds can account for this. Thus we see that this is not a logical leap, but a logical inference.
Random chance doesn't create anything. Chance has no causal power and is rather a measure of our epistemic limitations of prediction. The origin of the universe is the origin of matter, energy, space, and time - thus all of physical existence.
Further, there is no physical thing to *vary* and bring anything else into existence. That's why speculative self-organizational scenarios fail. Further, to suppose that there is any ability for things to vary, and bring about dynamical complexity in the first place, is to suppose at *minimum* the regularity of causation itself, which is a type of order.
But really - the main point your are missing is that you can't invoke chance for low-probability events that have specifications like this. Have you read the Koons paper yet? Its a very poor explanation. You're free to believe it, but it goes against the evidence.
Your last faith-based appeal to as yet undiscovered laws ("physical constraints") just pushes the problem back further for you, and lands us in the same place. That the whole of existence should be ordered in such a manner to bring about this fine-tuning, and give rise to self-organizing complexity that eventually results in the universe becoming aware of itself through conscious living beings, self-sustaining biospheres, is better explained as the product of conscious intention than a brute fact, whether or not you look at the fine-tuned laws as they are, or appeal to some faith-based deeper laws that brought them into being.
Happy holidays to you as well. Not really celebrating the holiday this year, but having an ok time nonetheless....
Alex, I don't understand the "logical leap." If I stub my toe wearing flip-flops, but keep wearing the same type of shoe, it's likely I'll stub my toe again. Anyway, it isn't not a "logical leap" for Michael Turner.
Do I detect a bit of disgenuineness about Vilenkin as being one of two of the greatest living cosmologists? I mean who decides who is what? Personal opinions I can understand. But, a search of reviews of Vilenkin’s "Many Worlds in One" one quickly finds his views are not entirely accepted within the scientific community. Tim Folger in Discover Magazine said Vilenkin's ideas are as controversial now as when they were first forwarded in the mid-1980s. ...
The anthropic principle - that idea that the universe was made for us - first appeared in 1973 by Brandon Carter in a conference in Poland
honoring, ironically enough, Copernicus. It was this 16th century astronomer that overthrew the ecclesiastical view of the solar system, but it is Carter who opened the gate to allow that same sort of interpretation to enter cosmology.
Allowing religious notions to penetrate all the sciences is the popular trend within our culture now, so it seems. So, why shouldn't I expect the same especially in cosmology?
Quicksand? Funny, I'm here on the beach, enjoying a drink, listening to you tell me your analogy is not an analogy. ;-)
Yes, you do get it! The laws themselves are dynamic based on local conditions.
You challenge the variance of the fine structure constant (which is not debated, but not refuted, btw) but care to explain the voyager gravity mystery?
The fact that consciousness requires a brain follows from the evidence: 1) general anesthesia: propofol results in medial thalamic inactivity and consciousness is gone. 2) conjoined twins Tatiana and Krista who share a thalamus hear each other's thoughts, 3) out of body experience is caused by electrical stimulation of the brain. 4) no consciousness has ever been identified outside of a brain.
More Problems with a Varying Fine Structure Constant -
http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2010/09/_httpksjtrackermitedu20100907e.php
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/10/18/the-fine-structure-constant-is-probably-constant/
Alex
Oh, and on the voyager gravity mystery, I'll leave that to the astrophysicists.
From the article you shared:
“'If I were a betting man, which I am not, I would bet a whole case of cranberry juice that the Pioneer Anomaly will have an ordinary explanation that is within known physics,' said Irwin Shapiro, an astrophysicist at Harvard University"
I'll tell you what, if it is resolved without having to resort to a varying gravitational force "constant" (rather than just more accurate measurements or refinements of what G is), you mail me a check for $10,000. If G turns out to be variant and not truly a constant, then I will do the same for you. Deal?
Thanks, Alex.
Yeah, there's a big difference between saying, Vilenkin, as author "Many Worlds in One," one of the two "greatest living cosmologists," as you first wrote, and then recognizing the same author whose "ideas are controversial," however creative he may be.
About Vilenkin as author of his more "recent" works, I haven't a clue, of course, but I'll take your word for it or that of his reviewers that they're good.
No argument about the scientific process. Having done my share in several separate fields I think I know something about it. Perhaps that's why I don't like, what seems to me, hero worship, or exalting someone to almost super-human attributes. I'm sure you'll agree that there are reasons, other than merely conveying information or trying to teach, why writers do this.
---
Certainly, you must have some idea about my comment concerning religious views and cosmology particularly considering this entire discussion is under Xeno's post entitled, "The pagan origin of the biblical 'rib' story," a discussion, in which you present yourself as an authority on "primary sources" of ancient religions and then as an authority on cosmology. Furthermore, I'm sure you're also aware there's a great deal of and growing religious interest, as of late (say, in the last 20 yrs or so), in cosmology as there has been in evolution, medicine etc.,(and in other areas of our society far beyond the scientific fields). Cosmology is so popular now, so I read, it's up there with UFOs and the paranormal. It all part of a trend that actually has it origins, I think, dating back over 100 years, but I'll not go there.
Thanks again.
Hi Ann - no there really isn't a problem. You can be both one of the greatest living cosmologists and also have controversial ideas. Stephen Hawking is in the same boat. It helps if you understand that science is a process of testing creative and controversial hypotheses - and the whole history of science is one of mainly the falsification of hypotheses. See Karl Popper on this - philosopher of science who basically conceived of the notion of falsifiability that is so popular in modern scientific discussions as a criteria for theory adjudication. Great scientists will always be controversial because they usually advocate radical ideas that either overturn or have the potential to overturn the current consensus. To say that someone is one of the great cosmologists, is a pioneer, brilliant, etc. - this is not hero worship. It is ok to see great value in someone else's work, even if you disagree with it. There's nothing inherently religious about the cosmology being done nowadays, unless of course, you draw religious implications from the findings. That doesn't say anything negative about the actual data or the hypotheses though. Popularity also doesn't smear a particular science. Its probably popular because its fascinating. Are you now resorting to taking shots at cosmology because you don't like the fact that some of the data doesn't sit comfortably with your worldview? See my post to Xeno on defense-mechanisms of the mind, when worldviews are challenged.
Have a great night.
So if G is variant, which I think it is, even if this is not the explanation for the Pioneer Anomaly, you'll send me a real valid check for $10,000? Neat. I'd love to have that Taylor guitar and Newumann microphone for Christmas. Who is the judge as to what evidence counts and what evidence does not? Is your criteria a consensus? Of how many physicists? And on the flip side, how long does G have to stay invariant before I send you a check for $10,000? We'd have to agree on how much time would go by before we declare that G is invariant. The indisputable discovery may not happen for years, for example.
Xeno - so you are a musician?
All joking aside, I don't have 10k to bet, but please do show me what evidence leads you to conclude that G is not a true constant.
Xeno - two articles that might interest you on the survival or existence of consciousness, minus the brain.
One by an Oxford-trained philosopher, "Does Consciousness depend on the Brain?":
http://www.scienceandtheneardeathexperience.com/pages/Does-consciousness.pdf
And another by a physicist at the University of California, "Compatibility of Contemporary Physical Theory with
Personality Survival":
http://www-physics.lbl.gov/~stapp/Compatibility.pdf
Yes, Lots of good live music in my life. I write, sing, play guitar, bass, piano, and post my original songs here from time to time. Xenophilia was a band I started with a theme of "songs about strange stuff"... But eventually I decided that I enjoy recording more than playing live... And the strange stuff research for the songs took on a life of its own and eventually became this blog. Playing music is one of my favorite ways to connect with people.
Okay, now that the big bet is off the table, whew, I'll tell you my first clue that G varies in different places: the Russian Gravitational Society's Gravitation & Cosmology vol 8, 2002, no 3 (31), pp 243-246 gives experimental evidence that the gravitational constant varies with orientation.
I'm still checking this out... Not sure if anyone has repeated this or even taken it seriously.
My view: consciousness is an umbrella term that means many things, because consciousness is a nexus of many different things: internal dialogue, sense inputs, body image, language processing, memories, etc...but in essence consciousness is what it is like to have your particular experience of your mental model of yourself and the world while being fed by your sensory inputs.
Consciousness happens in the thalamus where many different parts of the brain connect.
A neurosurgeon can make your consciousness leave your body or turn it off completely by acting on your brain. The same is not true of your heart, lungs, liver, or big toe... The brain only.
You could argue that stopping the heart removes consciousness, but it doesn't unless blood flow to the brain is stopped as well. Keep pumping the blood and a person remains conscious, I think.
Further, and this is really the key, the individual aspects of consciousness such as language, memory, recognition, planning, love, pain, pleasure, revenge, math ability, even religious mystical experience can be observed with brain monitoring devices, and can be changed, brought on or turned off by changing the brain. This includes a person's "personality". We have learned some of this due to brain injuries, some due to brain surgery on conscious patients, etc.
Finally, people with joined brains (the thalamus) have joined consciounesses!
You say all of this proves nothing, but I find the above points completely convincing.
Consciousness without a brain is wishful thinking by the brain, a defense mechanism against anxiety caused by the big bummer of knowing the lights will one day go out forever. But fear not, for the dead care not. Nonexistence is 100% painless.
[this post was edited by the author to make it less insulting and to include more support for the argument presented.]
I'll look into the source on gravity. If it was published almost a decade ago, and no one is really pushing that line at present, that speaks volumes, IMO. I need a break from all this God-arguing for a bit though. I've gotten myself into some other arguments on other boards where I'll have to do some heavy-lifting....
That's a cool idea for a band. I love music myself. I listen to mostly instrumental music though - and that mostly electronica that involves heavy sampling...Odd that our ultimately purposeless universe burped up something as beautiful and transcendent as music upon us, eh? How did you get into all the conspiracy theory/UFO stuff, btw?
Go get em. :-) You are a great mind and I'm sure you will make others in addition to me consider their views more carefully.
I got into UFOs because my step dad was into them ... I must have been about 11 years old. We went camping and heard a big foot. It was eerie. Then I got into Star Trek and In Search of Ancient Astronauts since Spock/Nimoy hosted the show. Later, Art Bell kept me interested in the topic.
It seems that we constantly seek answers to how present day religions (Christianity and Judaism specifically) developed, and while the answers to that may shed some light on these belief systems, they do not answer the question as to why they developed, nor the probability that they are nothing but pure chimera.
Well, yes, the major "migration" that we have historical evidence for is the Babylonian captivity. This is when Jerusalem was destroyed and Nebuchadnezzar took many Judean captives to Babylon to work as slaves on state sponsored agricultural and building projects. Coincidentally, this is around or just before the time that most scholars date the final redaction of the book of Genesis. So the parallels in Genesis to mesopotamian myths, the negative depiction of the city and tower of Babel, and the stories about leaving great cities and civilizations behind to journey to a "promised land" (Abraham from Ur, the Israelites from Egypt)all find particular relevance to this situation of national captivity in Babylon.
Post a Comment