Posted on 09/13/2016 2:46:45 PM PDT by Kaslin
When university studies of mythology began in the 19th century, scholars often saw myth as primitive science. ‘Why do seas surge and winds blow?’ Edward Burnett Tylor, Oxford University’s first professor of anthropology, argued that cultures evolve from seeing events as random to a higher belief in causation. ‘The tidal wave was not accidental. It came because Poseidon was angry. Next time we’ll make a sacrifice and avert his anger.’
Noah, of course, knew that the greatest physical disaster was not accidental. He communicated that understanding on to his descendants, but in a few generations some became fuzzy on the details and tried to stop minor floods by propitiating gods of their own creation. Refugees from the Tower of Babel created Hindu and Greek mythology. They did not want chance to rule their lives. They thought they could bring order by offering sacrifices, and some even killed their children in an attempt to gain control -- but they learned that mythology science didn’t work.
Christianity broke with the idea of exchange, the faith that ‘if I do something for God, He’ll do something for me.’ The New Testament taught that we could not ascend to God: He had come down to us. But that did not satisfy those who wanted more control. The medieval church hierarchy worked out a system of indulgences: Specific actions or payments would decrease the number of years we or loved ones would spend in purgatory. With indulgence science, man could control what had seemed to be uncontrollable -- and there seemed no way to disprove it.>When university studies of mythology began in the 19th century, scholars often saw myth as primitive science. ‘Why do seas surge and winds blow?’ Edward Burnett Tylor, Oxford University’s first professor of anthropology, argued that cultures evolve from seeing events as random to a higher belief in causation. ‘The tidal wave was not accidental. It came because Poseidon was angry. Next time we’ll make a sacrifice and avert his anger.’
Noah, of course, knew that the greatest physical disaster was not accidental. He communicated that understanding on to his descendants, but in a few generations some became fuzzy on the details and tried to stop minor floods by propitiating gods of their own creation. Refugees from the Tower of Babel created Hindu and Greek mythology. They did not want chance to rule their lives. They thought they could bring order by offering sacrifices, and some even killed their children in an attempt to gain control -- but they learned that mythology science didn’t work.
Christianity broke with the idea of exchange, the faith that ‘if I do something for God, He’ll do something for me.’ The New Testament taught that we could not ascend to God: He had come down to us. But that did not satisfy those who wanted more control. The medieval church hierarchy worked out a system of indulgences: Specific actions or payments would decrease the number of years we or loved ones would spend in purgatory. With indulgence science, man could control what had seemed to be uncontrollable -- and there seemed no way to disprove it.
Is this article about global warming and carbon credits?
I kind of think Job did it first. It just took a few thousand years for the idea to catch on.
Deja vu!
But if you worship the Clintons with a significant monetary sacrifice they really will do something for you.
Bump
To Read Later
all that’s changed for may folks is the name of their god...
they may have been born into good Christian or Catholic or Jewish families, but they now serve (and seek protection from life, fate, and anything else from) The State
That seems to be the money-quote and point of this otherwise pointless article.
The answer is that because natural-science, by definition, deals only with natural explanations for natural processes -- i.e., evolution -- it must necessarily posit "random" chance and "purposeless" events.
In order to see purpose and direction to such matters as evolution, you must first recognize something higher than natural and more directed than chance.
No, I'm not being coy here, just trying to spell out a point of departure between natural and supernatural, between worldly and God.
If you believe God created the Universe then no process like evolution is ever "random", "purposless" or "undirected", regardless of how it appears not natural science.
"how it appears not natural science." should read
"how it appears to natural science."
Look people, this is the 21st century! I can’t believe we’re even still having this discussion. How can any thinking person still believe in evolution?
Who said anything about a thinking person ?
LOL
Many thinking people would say the same about *not* believing in evolution.
Much depends on how you see cause and effect.
And I’m OK with that.
Some say “I’m a Christian and I don’t believe in Evolution.”
Some say “I believe in Evolution, and Christianity seems like a myth to me.”
And some say something different.
The problem is the aggressive atheist evangelists who hate Christianity and want it removed from all public places because it’s clearly a lie, and we KNOW Evolution is 100% settled science, so why are we even having this conversation you neanderthal child who believes in men who live in clouds????
I don’t mind serious conversations about Evolution. But a lot of secularists get real angry real fast.
Yes, there are very aggressive atheists. I used to say I was an agnostic that believed God would want me to act like an atheist. (but I was not aggressive with it.)
Now I have come back to Christ.
But I know all the arguments and the mindset.
Every newly discovered missing link in the fossil record or tree of life creates at least two more missing links.
And this is considered science.
Moving further away from the truth.
“Every newly discovered missing link in the fossil record or tree of life creates at least two more missing links.”
Every move halfway to a certain point creates another halfway point. Because you don’t do science or math, you will never get to that initial certain point.
Because I do, particularly calculus, I will reach that point.
This guy says that neo-Darwinists rely on random genetic drift, but he ignores natural selection and changing environment. He doesn’t understand science either.
I’m more concerned with learning “the reason why” rather than trying to deduce “the purpose of”. Trying to warp the natural world to fit an ancient allegorical writing is impossible. However if you read the writing as a guide to morality and how to conduct your personal life and what values the state or tribe you live in, I can support that.
Amazon has the “God Star” series by comparative mythologist Dwardu Cardona. In them you will find a scholarly and complete revelation on the catastrophic astrophysical events that underlie all ancient mythology. This is not Sitchin or Van Danniken, this is a massive and serious analysis of the mythological, geological and archaeological record covered in a half dozen volumes.
Thank you, I’ll check it out!
Surely you jest?
Of course, words like "belief" and "faith" are not used by science.
Instead, science proposes natural explanations called hypotheses which can be confirmed as theories, for example Darwin's basic theory of evolution.
Once confirmed, theories are accepted pending new data or ideas which might falsify them.
So belief and faith are matters for religion, not so much for science.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.