Washington's latest attempt to rally the American war-machine seems to fall on deaf ears. At least, on my deaf ears.
People who are gun-ho for a war with Iran seem to lack any education concerning war politics and the history of war itself. Whenever a regime falls, would it not be in the best interest of a nearest neighbor with the capacity to influence the new regime proceed to attempt to influence the regime? That is, when Hussein's regime fell, the new order in Iraq became open to outside influence and persuasion. Essentially, America lit the vacancy sign over Iraq, allowing area Turks, Jihadists, Iranians, Kurds, etc. to enter en masse to stake out their own sphere of influence (not to mention internal desires of the Iraqis). Welcome to political economics 101 where the game is to maximize marginal utility.
Administration officials and some legislatures seem intent on positing that Iran is killing American soldiers in Iraq by arming and training insurgents. I am a Patriot, but the rational side of me can see through the appeal to my patriotism. As Stephen Kinzer points out, there are several instance in history where a country indirectly aided an enemy of ours, and in each instance we did not go to war with the aiding country. China gave munitions and training to the North Koreans. The USSR gave munitions to the North Vietnamese. In several instances when America supplied munitions to one side in a conflict, the opossing side did not declare war on us.
The US treads on dangerous waters. A war with Iran would be detrimental to not only our reputation and our military, but to the entire world's health. I hate to be a fear-monger, but don't blink: this administration may lead us right into WW3.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Poor Design: God and DNA (YouTube video)
I came across the following YouTube video. I will warn you; there are pictures of birth defects not for the faint of heart.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Prominent ID member quote mines for the win...
Over at Uncommon Descent, Salvador Cordova (scordova) has managed to construct a quote mine from a recent PNAS paper..
Cordova quotes Masatoshi Nei: "Natural selection...is not the fundamental cause of evolution." As experience has shown, anytime an ellipse appears is a red flag that quote mining has ensued. The full quote, as written by Nei, reads: "Natural selection occurs as a consequence of mutational production of different genotypes, and therefore it is not the fundamental cause of evolution."
The Nei paper, as addressed by it's abstract, is presenting the notion that instead of phentoypic evolution being driven by natural selection with genetic mutation being an undercurrent, the roles of each are actually reversed. A novel notion, in my opinion, and the paper far exceeds my level of expertise in the topic. However, I don't see how this flies in the face of modern synthesis (aka "Neo-Darwinism"). The units of change are still genes, and a contributing factor to evolution is still natural selection via population dynamics. Nei seems to argue that the contribution of evolution via natural selection is less than that of mutation.
Cordova is doing nothing more than attempting to claim a cheap victory by a misquote. He thinks the paper contains some level of profundity to warrant mentioning. It reads like a new perspective on thinking of the contribution of mutation to natural selection.
Cordova's side-tangent into the fictitious Haldane's dilemma is evidence enough for me to not take him serious, though.
Cordova quotes Masatoshi Nei: "Natural selection...is not the fundamental cause of evolution." As experience has shown, anytime an ellipse appears is a red flag that quote mining has ensued. The full quote, as written by Nei, reads: "Natural selection occurs as a consequence of mutational production of different genotypes, and therefore it is not the fundamental cause of evolution."
The Nei paper, as addressed by it's abstract, is presenting the notion that instead of phentoypic evolution being driven by natural selection with genetic mutation being an undercurrent, the roles of each are actually reversed. A novel notion, in my opinion, and the paper far exceeds my level of expertise in the topic. However, I don't see how this flies in the face of modern synthesis (aka "Neo-Darwinism"). The units of change are still genes, and a contributing factor to evolution is still natural selection via population dynamics. Nei seems to argue that the contribution of evolution via natural selection is less than that of mutation.
Cordova is doing nothing more than attempting to claim a cheap victory by a misquote. He thinks the paper contains some level of profundity to warrant mentioning. It reads like a new perspective on thinking of the contribution of mutation to natural selection.
Cordova's side-tangent into the fictitious Haldane's dilemma is evidence enough for me to not take him serious, though.
It seems fitting...
Your Score: Haughty Intellectual
You are 100% Rational, 28% Extroverted, 14% Brutal, and 57% Arrogant.
You are the Haughty Intellectual. You are a very rational person, emphasizing logic over emotion, and you are also rather arrogant and self-aggrandizing. You probably think of yourself as an intellectual, and you would like everyone to know it. Not only that, but you also tend to look down on others, thinking yourself better than them. You could possibly have an unhealthy obsession with yourself as well, thus causing everyone to hate you for being such an elitist twat. On top of all that, you are also introverted and gentle. This means that you are just a quiet thinker who wants fame and recognition, in all likelihood. Like so many countless pseudo-intellectuals swarming around vacuous internet forums to discuss worthless political issues, your kind is a scourge upon humanity, blathering and blathering on and on about all kinds of boring crap. If your personality could be sculpted, the resulting piece would be Rodin's "The Thinker"--although I am absolutely positive that you are not nearly as muscular or naked as that statue. Rather lacking in emotion, introspective, gentle, and arrogant, you are most certainly a Haughty Intellectual! And, most likely, you will never achieve the recognition or fame you so desire! But no worries!
To put it less negatively:
1. You are more RATIONAL than intuitive.
2. You are more INTROVERTED than extroverted.
3. You are more GENTLE than brutal.
4. You are more ARROGANT than humble.
Compatibility:
Your exact opposite is the Schoolyard Bully. (Bullies like to beat up nerds, after all.)
Other personalities you would probably get along with are the Braggart, the Hand-Raiser, and the Robot.
*
*
If you scored near fifty percent for a certain trait (42%-58%), you could very well go either way. For example, someone with 42% Extroversion is slightly leaning towards being an introvert, but is close enough to being an extrovert to be classified that way as well. Below is a list of the other personality types so that you can determine which other possible categories you may fill if you scored near fifty percent for certain traits.
The other personality types:
The Emo Kid: Intuitive, Introverted, Gentle, Humble.
The Starving Artist: Intuitive, Introverted, Gentle, Arrogant.
The Bitch-Slap: Intuitive, Introverted, Brutal, Humble.
The Brute: Intuitive, Introverted, Brutal, Arrogant.
The Hippie: Intuitive, Extroverted, Gentle, Humble.
The Televangelist: Intuitive, Extroverted, Gentle, Arrogant.
The Schoolyard Bully: Intuitive, Extroverted, Brutal, Humble.
The Class Clown: Intuitive, Extroverted, Brutal, Arrogant.
The Robot: Rational, Introverted, Gentle, Humble.
The Haughty Intellectual: Rational, Introverted, Gentle, Arrogant.
The Spiteful Loner: Rational, Introverted, Brutal, Humble.
The Sociopath: Rational, Introverted, Brutal, Arrogant.
The Hand-Raiser: Rational, Extroverted, Gentle, Humble.
The Braggart: Rational, Extroverted, Gentle, Arrogant.
The Capitalist Pig: Rational, Extroverted, Brutal, Humble.
The Smartass: Rational, Extroverted, Brutal, Arrogant.
Be sure to take my Sublime Philosophical Crap Test if you are interested in taking a slightly more intellectual test that has just as many insane ramblings as this one does!
About Saint_Gasoline
I am a self-proclaimed pseudo-intellectual who loves dashes. I enjoy science, philosophy, and fart jokes and water balloons, not necessarily in that order. I spend 95% of my time online, and the other 5% of my time in the bathroom, longing to get back on the computer. If, God forbid, you somehow find me amusing instead of crass and annoying, be sure to check out my blog and my webcomic at SaintGasoline.com.
| Link: The Personality Defect Test written by saint_gasoline on OkCupid, home of the The Dating Persona Test |
Intelligent Design: Affirming the Consequent
As one who is attempting to educate themselves on anti-evolution demagogy, I often hear recited by proponents of intelligent design theory a variant of the teleological argument. The classic teleological argument read as follows:
Let us use the ID variant. Intelligent design proposes that, based on characteristics of a known designer, we can infer a designer from objects that possess certain attributes of design. That is, we know intuitively what occurs when a designer is present, and therefore it seemingly logically follows that we can infer a designer from the designed. That is: "If designer, then design".
So as to avoid confusion, that me rephrase the sentence as follows: "If designer, then complex specified information". Complex specified information is a term coined by IDists, so I will use that term (which is logically equivalent to the "design" mentioned earlier) so I can use intutive symbols to represent the atomic sentences or arguments as
- Every design has a designer
- The universe is designed
- Therefore, the universe has a designer
Let us use the ID variant. Intelligent design proposes that, based on characteristics of a known designer, we can infer a designer from objects that possess certain attributes of design. That is, we know intuitively what occurs when a designer is present, and therefore it seemingly logically follows that we can infer a designer from the designed. That is: "If designer, then design".
So as to avoid confusion, that me rephrase the sentence as follows: "If designer, then complex specified information". Complex specified information is a term coined by IDists, so I will use that term (which is logically equivalent to the "design" mentioned earlier) so I can use intutive symbols to represent the atomic sentences or arguments as
D -> C
were D is designer and C is complex specified information. Now, the IDist claims that complex specified information exists, and that the existence of said complex specified information provides evidence of a designer. However, we see in the construction above that the designer is the antecedent of the conditional sentence and the complex specified information is the consequent. This does not bode well for the IDist.
In logic, it is a non-trivial fashion to show that affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy that renders an argument unsound. The argument is unsound simply on the basis of the definition of a conditional sentence. A conditional sentence is only considered false in a truth analysis when the consequent is false. The sentence is true so long as the consequent is true independent of the truth or falsity of the antecedent. Therefore, one cannot derive a truth-value from analyzing a conditional sentence "backwards" which is the case of the IDist.
In logic, it is a non-trivial fashion to show that affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy that renders an argument unsound. The argument is unsound simply on the basis of the definition of a conditional sentence. A conditional sentence is only considered false in a truth analysis when the consequent is false. The sentence is true so long as the consequent is true independent of the truth or falsity of the antecedent. Therefore, one cannot derive a truth-value from analyzing a conditional sentence "backwards" which is the case of the IDist.
Friday, June 29, 2007
St. Augustine Was Wiser Beyond His Years
The following is an excerpt from one of St. Augustine's works, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim" (The Literal Meaning of Genesis). I find it highly applicable to loud-mouthed young earth creationists.
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.Click here to read the entire work.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Presidential Coincidences Evidence for an Intelligent Assassin
If we truly follow the arguments put forth by intelligent design advocates concerning the concept that all the cosmological constants are "just right" for our existence, then we are seemingly forced to concede much in terms of our human history being pushed by other intelligent agencies. Charles G. Lambdin puts it bluntly with the following example in his review on the intelligent design camp's latest movie:
The thesis of The Privileged Planet is no different than the classic case of Presidential coincidences: Abraham Lincoln was elected to congress in 1846. John F. Kennedy was elected to congress in 1946. Lincoln was elected President in 1860, Kennedy in 1960. Both of their last names have seven letters. Both of their wives experienced the loss of child in the White House. Both were shot in the head on a Friday. Both were assassinated by Southerners and succeeded by Southerners. Lincoln was succeeded by Andrew Johnson, who was born in 1808. Kennedy was succeeded by Lyndon Johnson, who was born in 1908. Lincoln’s assassin, John Wilkes Booth, has 15 letters in his name. Kennedy’s assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, has 15 letters in his name. Both assassins were known by three names. Booth was born in 1839, Oswald in 1939. As I am unable to imagine otherwise, these coincidences are too great to have occurred due to chance alone, so there must be some Intelligent Assassin behind it. Thus runs the reasoning throughout The Privileged Planet.To be honest, I never knew this concerning the two Presidents. You learn something new everyday.
Friday, June 15, 2007
The Social Structure of Plants
There is an old wives' tale about singing to plants to keep them healthy and glowing. I have always been skeptical of this concept, though, because plants lack a neural system. Our neural network allows us to transmit signals to be processed by our brain, whether they be sound waves that oscillate our chest cavity or the fine hairs of our ear canal. The only network located in a plant that I am familiar with are that of the xylem and phloem, but those only carry fluids and dissolved materials throughout the plant.
However, recent research has shown the intricate complexities that have evolved with our ridiculously distant relatives. Ethylene has been known to be released by plants to promote various cascade reactions depending on the plant. I remember reading once that some vegetables release similar chemical cascades when boiled (whether this is true or not is irrelevant to my main point, in the end). The author humorously posited that plants thus felt pain. This "pain" is obviously different then the "pain" the majority animals feel, but "life" is equally as differen for the plant then the animal.
Though the concept of plants having feelings or emotions are odd since they lack a nervous system, it is interesting to note that plants have the ability to recognize their siblings.
Though this doesn't change my perspective on my role in the predation of vegetables and fruits in my life, this find does suggest that plants are more sophisticated than naive reasoning allows.
However, recent research has shown the intricate complexities that have evolved with our ridiculously distant relatives. Ethylene has been known to be released by plants to promote various cascade reactions depending on the plant. I remember reading once that some vegetables release similar chemical cascades when boiled (whether this is true or not is irrelevant to my main point, in the end). The author humorously posited that plants thus felt pain. This "pain" is obviously different then the "pain" the majority animals feel, but "life" is equally as differen for the plant then the animal.
Though the concept of plants having feelings or emotions are odd since they lack a nervous system, it is interesting to note that plants have the ability to recognize their siblings.
“The ability to recognize and favour kin is common in animals, but this is the first time it has been shown in plants” said Susan Dudley, associate professor of biology at McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada. “When plants share their pots, they get competitive and start growing more roots, which allows them to grab water and mineral nutrients before their neighbours get them. It appears, though, that they only do this when sharing a pot with unrelated plants; when they share a pot with family they don’t increase their root growth. Because differences between groups of strangers and groups of siblings only occurred when they shared a pot, the root interactions may provide a cue for kin recognition.”My question, like any good scientist, is how. How do plants recognize one another? Considering the lack of eyes, I am going to have to assume it is some chemical recognition. Perhaps the mechanism is in the roots? I am fairly certain leaves have been studied ad naseum concerning the gases they release. It is a shame I am unable to log onto my university library's resources at the moment. I would attempt to find the paper the article discusses and other papers relevant to discussing the social network of plants.
Though this doesn't change my perspective on my role in the predation of vegetables and fruits in my life, this find does suggest that plants are more sophisticated than naive reasoning allows.
Regional Myths and Legends Found in Genesis
Author's note: I am currently pulling material from message boards that I interact on frequently. I dmit that these will be very rough. There is also a chance that I did not properly cite material due to being rushed or out of sheer laziness. I apologize ahead of time, and I have no problem fixing improper citations and give credit where credit is due, if necessary.
There are numerous stories and names that parallel Biblical stories and myths. Here a few.
The Creation: Enuma Elish
So you've read the Enuma Elish. Good, that makes discussion easier. Do you not recall the first four lines of the Amorite epic?
Although it was not directly taken from the Babylonian creation myth, there are elements that suggest influence.
Tiamet: Etymology
In the Ugaritic glossary of Canaanite Myths and Legends, John C. L. Gibson notes that tehom appears in the Ugaritic texts, c. 1400-1200 BCE, simply meaning the "depths of the sea". Such a depersonalized Tiamat (the -at ending makes her feminine) is the deep or abyss (Hebrew tehom) present at the beginning of the book of Genesis: "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." (Genesis 1:2).
Her name seems ultimately to have been a Sumerian one as in that language Ti is "life", and Ama is "mother", suggesting her original name may have been "the mother of all life" (Thorkild Jacobsen, 1968) "The Battle between Marduk and Tiamat" Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 88, No. 1, pp. 104-108.) This title was given to the divinised 1st King of the 3rd Dynasty of Kish, Kubau, who reappears in Hurrian mythology as Kheba (identified with the "mother of the Gods", Hannahannah) and with the Hebrew cognate Havva (Eve), also called "the mother of all living" in Genesis). ("Adam and Eve in Babylonian Literature". American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature Vol 15 (1899), pp.193-214)
The Slaying of the Dragon
The dragon slaying motiff is also present in the Bible in Psalm 74:14; Isaiah 27:1; Job 3:8, 9:13; Amos 9:3; Habbakkuk 3:10. This battle reflects the Syro-Palestinian version of a dragon slaying myth which is found in the cultures of the region. The closest rendition comes from the 14th century BCE Canaanite texts from Ra's Shamrah. Bhaal defeated a dragonlike monster: "You will crush the serpent; you will consume the twisting serpent, the mighty one with seven heads". This directly parallels the Biblical account (see Isaiah 27:1 and Psalm 74:14).
There is also a Babylonian version in the Creation Epic. Marduk slayed Tiamat and divided her corpse in two to create the earth and the sky. The extolation of Yahweh's military victory parallel's Marduk's, specifically in Isaiah 51:9, Job 26:12, and Psalm 74:13, 89:10.
The Serpent: The Causation of Life and Strife
Tiamat in Babylonian mythology was a serpent. The constellation Ophiuchus was viewed as representing Tiamat, the Bitter Ocean. She was the personified Chaos, which the Greek poet Hesoid alludes to in his Theogony: "First of all Chaos came into being". Tiamat married Apsus (which you mentioned in your post concerning the Enuma Elish) and begat many evil deities which created confusion, friction, and strife. In the war that ensued to destory her proginy, Apsus the god of Fresh Waters was killed by Ea. Tiamat then married her son Kingu and begat more offspring. Another war ensued, one in which the Son God Marduk slayed Tiamat. At this point, I must mention that Elohim (which is interpreted to correspond to the same figure as Yawheh) is said to have created the light from the darkness, the often motiff of religions in the region to associate light with good and life and dark with evil and death, as well as with the sun and sunset.
The serpent is present in Syrian mythologies as the (indirect) causer of life and strife. This motiff is exemplified in the Garden of Eden myth, in which the serpent persuades Eve to eat the apple of knowledge of good and evil. Egyptian lore has a serpent motiff concerning the mythology surrounding Apep. Apep is the serpent which attacks the Sun to prevent its rising.
The Garden of Eden: Plagiarism
Though the Garden of Eden account is not entirely plagiarized, it is not entirely original either. It is a latter evolved form which was influenced by the other creation accounts surrounding the area.
First, I will explain the account atrologically. Consider Genesis 2:8 "And the LORD God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed". This could mean Mesopotamia, but more than likely the Hebrews had in mind the heavens. Yes, the heavens, as the heavens always come from the east as the sun sets to the west. As the autumn equinox is passed into winter, the Virgin, the Herdsmen and Draco appear across the sky. Ophiuchus is also nearby, just to note. The Virgin holds a branch of fruit in her hand, symbolizing Autumn, which she is tantelizing the Herdsman with. When the Virgin and Herdsmen fall beneath the horizon, Perseus rises on the other side with a sword in his hand, seeming to drive them from the summer heaven. The term "fall of man" occurs astrollogically as the fall of the sun, when it descends past the halfway point towards its lowest point on the horizon during the winter months. This is symbollically parallel to the Christian crucifixion, as astrologers described the sun as beig crucifies as it crosses the halfway point towards descent. The cross is entirely symbolic of the sun's cycles, and it is not a coincidence. The shorter end corresponds to the shortest day, the winter solstice. The longer end corresponds to the longest day, the summer solstice. The two equal sides refers to the days with same lenths, the spring and fall equinoxes. This is not a coincidence; the cross comes from astrology and can be traced in the sky.
Secondly, consider the Sumerian paradise myth. The Sumerian Eden is located in Dilmun, modern day Bahrain, and is etymologically related to the old Babylonian name Gan-Eden, "the garden of the Middle East". Note that Mesopotamia means "between the waters", as well. Enki, the Sumerian water-God and God of wisdom, impregnated Ninhursag, wo gave him a duaghter. Desiring a son, Enki impregnated his daughter, who gave him yet another daughter. Ninhursag poisoned Enki with eight different plants. She then created Nin-ti in order to heal Enki. One of the sick organs is the rib. Nin-ti heals Enki. Etymologically, Nin-ti means "she who makes live" which (as will be shown later) is approximately the equivalent of Eve. Ti also means "rib", ironically, so she is also called "the lady of the rib".
Next, consider the Babylonian legend of Adapa. Adapa, son the god of Wisdom, Ea, broke the wing of the Storm bird who attacked him in the Persian Gulf. Ea summoned Adapa to question his violence and warned him that, having displeased Anu, King of Heaven, the gods would offer him the food and drink of death, which he must refuse. Anu, however, learning of this indiscreet disclosure, tried to foil Ea by offering Adapa the bread of life and the water of life instead. When Adapa refused, Anu sent him back to earth as a mortal. This story parallels the theme of the serpent's warning to Eve, that God had decieved her about the forbidden fruit.
Now, let us consider Gilgamesh and the Serpent. In this popular epic, Gilgamesh heard about a plant which held the secret to immortality. With much effort, Gilgamesh gets the plant from the bottom of the sea. On his journey back to his people, Gilgamesh set the plant aside to take a bath. SUddenly, a serpent appeared and snatched the plant. It shed its skin as it returned to the water. Thus, the serpent robbed humans of immortality and forcing them to be mortals, similar to how the serpent robbed Adam and Eve of life with as immortals.
Lastly, we will look at the words themselves. "Adam" is not an explicit proper name but comes from ha-adam, which in Hebrew translates "the man". The word adam comes from adamah meaning country, earth, gorun, husband, or land. This suggests the context of Genesis 3:19 "for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return". This is symbolic of the material which comprised of him, the very land he walks on. Likewise, "Eve" is from the Hebrew chavvaoh. This is Hebrew for lifegiver, as in "the mother of all living". Its root, chaya, means "serpent" in Aramaic. Eve and the serpent are thus to be taken synonymously. The word "Eden" is traced back to Sumer as "fertile land". As well,it came to mean to the Hebrews "delight", so the land of Eden was a garden of delight or enjoyment. Thus, Adam and Eve describe no one in particular as well as Eden not describing any place in particular. They are generic temrs meant to stay generic for the sake of the mythological Creation story.
Conclusion
It is an entirely silly proposition that the Hebrews were an isolated culture with no influence from others. They did not find God on a mountain or some divinely inspired epitomy. No, they created God as a means to explain their origins and purpose and borrowed willfully from the present creation stories present in the region. Do not be naive.
Sources and Recommended Readings
A Dictionary of Creation Myths by David and Margaret Leeming
Myths from Mesopotamia by Stephanie Dalley
Stories from Ancient Canaan by Michael David Coogan
Sumerian Mythology by Samuel Noah Kramer
Conceptions of God in Anceint Egypt by Erik Hornung
There are numerous stories and names that parallel Biblical stories and myths. Here a few.
The Creation: Enuma Elish
So you've read the Enuma Elish. Good, that makes discussion easier. Do you not recall the first four lines of the Amorite epic?
When in the height heaven was not named,Do a comparative analysis of the text with the very beginning of Genesis:
And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
And the primeval Apsu, who begat them,
And chaos, Tiamut, the mother of them both
In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.Deep and waters is important etymologically, as the Hebrew word used here (tehom) is etymologically traceable to Tiamet.
Although it was not directly taken from the Babylonian creation myth, there are elements that suggest influence.
Tiamet: Etymology
In the Ugaritic glossary of Canaanite Myths and Legends, John C. L. Gibson notes that tehom appears in the Ugaritic texts, c. 1400-1200 BCE, simply meaning the "depths of the sea". Such a depersonalized Tiamat (the -at ending makes her feminine) is the deep or abyss (Hebrew tehom) present at the beginning of the book of Genesis: "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep." (Genesis 1:2).
Her name seems ultimately to have been a Sumerian one as in that language Ti is "life", and Ama is "mother", suggesting her original name may have been "the mother of all life" (Thorkild Jacobsen, 1968) "The Battle between Marduk and Tiamat" Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 88, No. 1, pp. 104-108.) This title was given to the divinised 1st King of the 3rd Dynasty of Kish, Kubau, who reappears in Hurrian mythology as Kheba (identified with the "mother of the Gods", Hannahannah) and with the Hebrew cognate Havva (Eve), also called "the mother of all living" in Genesis). ("Adam and Eve in Babylonian Literature". American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature Vol 15 (1899), pp.193-214)
The Slaying of the Dragon
The dragon slaying motiff is also present in the Bible in Psalm 74:14; Isaiah 27:1; Job 3:8, 9:13; Amos 9:3; Habbakkuk 3:10. This battle reflects the Syro-Palestinian version of a dragon slaying myth which is found in the cultures of the region. The closest rendition comes from the 14th century BCE Canaanite texts from Ra's Shamrah. Bhaal defeated a dragonlike monster: "You will crush the serpent; you will consume the twisting serpent, the mighty one with seven heads". This directly parallels the Biblical account (see Isaiah 27:1 and Psalm 74:14).
There is also a Babylonian version in the Creation Epic. Marduk slayed Tiamat and divided her corpse in two to create the earth and the sky. The extolation of Yahweh's military victory parallel's Marduk's, specifically in Isaiah 51:9, Job 26:12, and Psalm 74:13, 89:10.
The Serpent: The Causation of Life and Strife
Tiamat in Babylonian mythology was a serpent. The constellation Ophiuchus was viewed as representing Tiamat, the Bitter Ocean. She was the personified Chaos, which the Greek poet Hesoid alludes to in his Theogony: "First of all Chaos came into being". Tiamat married Apsus (which you mentioned in your post concerning the Enuma Elish) and begat many evil deities which created confusion, friction, and strife. In the war that ensued to destory her proginy, Apsus the god of Fresh Waters was killed by Ea. Tiamat then married her son Kingu and begat more offspring. Another war ensued, one in which the Son God Marduk slayed Tiamat. At this point, I must mention that Elohim (which is interpreted to correspond to the same figure as Yawheh) is said to have created the light from the darkness, the often motiff of religions in the region to associate light with good and life and dark with evil and death, as well as with the sun and sunset.
The serpent is present in Syrian mythologies as the (indirect) causer of life and strife. This motiff is exemplified in the Garden of Eden myth, in which the serpent persuades Eve to eat the apple of knowledge of good and evil. Egyptian lore has a serpent motiff concerning the mythology surrounding Apep. Apep is the serpent which attacks the Sun to prevent its rising.
The Garden of Eden: Plagiarism
Though the Garden of Eden account is not entirely plagiarized, it is not entirely original either. It is a latter evolved form which was influenced by the other creation accounts surrounding the area.
First, I will explain the account atrologically. Consider Genesis 2:8 "And the LORD God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed". This could mean Mesopotamia, but more than likely the Hebrews had in mind the heavens. Yes, the heavens, as the heavens always come from the east as the sun sets to the west. As the autumn equinox is passed into winter, the Virgin, the Herdsmen and Draco appear across the sky. Ophiuchus is also nearby, just to note. The Virgin holds a branch of fruit in her hand, symbolizing Autumn, which she is tantelizing the Herdsman with. When the Virgin and Herdsmen fall beneath the horizon, Perseus rises on the other side with a sword in his hand, seeming to drive them from the summer heaven. The term "fall of man" occurs astrollogically as the fall of the sun, when it descends past the halfway point towards its lowest point on the horizon during the winter months. This is symbollically parallel to the Christian crucifixion, as astrologers described the sun as beig crucifies as it crosses the halfway point towards descent. The cross is entirely symbolic of the sun's cycles, and it is not a coincidence. The shorter end corresponds to the shortest day, the winter solstice. The longer end corresponds to the longest day, the summer solstice. The two equal sides refers to the days with same lenths, the spring and fall equinoxes. This is not a coincidence; the cross comes from astrology and can be traced in the sky.
Secondly, consider the Sumerian paradise myth. The Sumerian Eden is located in Dilmun, modern day Bahrain, and is etymologically related to the old Babylonian name Gan-Eden, "the garden of the Middle East". Note that Mesopotamia means "between the waters", as well. Enki, the Sumerian water-God and God of wisdom, impregnated Ninhursag, wo gave him a duaghter. Desiring a son, Enki impregnated his daughter, who gave him yet another daughter. Ninhursag poisoned Enki with eight different plants. She then created Nin-ti in order to heal Enki. One of the sick organs is the rib. Nin-ti heals Enki. Etymologically, Nin-ti means "she who makes live" which (as will be shown later) is approximately the equivalent of Eve. Ti also means "rib", ironically, so she is also called "the lady of the rib".
Next, consider the Babylonian legend of Adapa. Adapa, son the god of Wisdom, Ea, broke the wing of the Storm bird who attacked him in the Persian Gulf. Ea summoned Adapa to question his violence and warned him that, having displeased Anu, King of Heaven, the gods would offer him the food and drink of death, which he must refuse. Anu, however, learning of this indiscreet disclosure, tried to foil Ea by offering Adapa the bread of life and the water of life instead. When Adapa refused, Anu sent him back to earth as a mortal. This story parallels the theme of the serpent's warning to Eve, that God had decieved her about the forbidden fruit.
Now, let us consider Gilgamesh and the Serpent. In this popular epic, Gilgamesh heard about a plant which held the secret to immortality. With much effort, Gilgamesh gets the plant from the bottom of the sea. On his journey back to his people, Gilgamesh set the plant aside to take a bath. SUddenly, a serpent appeared and snatched the plant. It shed its skin as it returned to the water. Thus, the serpent robbed humans of immortality and forcing them to be mortals, similar to how the serpent robbed Adam and Eve of life with as immortals.
Lastly, we will look at the words themselves. "Adam" is not an explicit proper name but comes from ha-adam, which in Hebrew translates "the man". The word adam comes from adamah meaning country, earth, gorun, husband, or land. This suggests the context of Genesis 3:19 "for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return". This is symbolic of the material which comprised of him, the very land he walks on. Likewise, "Eve" is from the Hebrew chavvaoh. This is Hebrew for lifegiver, as in "the mother of all living". Its root, chaya, means "serpent" in Aramaic. Eve and the serpent are thus to be taken synonymously. The word "Eden" is traced back to Sumer as "fertile land". As well,it came to mean to the Hebrews "delight", so the land of Eden was a garden of delight or enjoyment. Thus, Adam and Eve describe no one in particular as well as Eden not describing any place in particular. They are generic temrs meant to stay generic for the sake of the mythological Creation story.
Conclusion
It is an entirely silly proposition that the Hebrews were an isolated culture with no influence from others. They did not find God on a mountain or some divinely inspired epitomy. No, they created God as a means to explain their origins and purpose and borrowed willfully from the present creation stories present in the region. Do not be naive.
Sources and Recommended Readings
A Dictionary of Creation Myths by David and Margaret Leeming
Myths from Mesopotamia by Stephanie Dalley
Stories from Ancient Canaan by Michael David Coogan
Sumerian Mythology by Samuel Noah Kramer
Conceptions of God in Anceint Egypt by Erik Hornung
Friday, June 8, 2007
Bad News for Science Education
A recent poll by USA today has shown that 44% of American believe that humans did not evolve, and 66% believe that humans were specially created 10,000 years ago. Yes, I am well aware that these numbers do not add up (more than likely due to the wording of the question itself), but even if we allowed a little leeway with the numbers, it is still disturbing that statistically speaking nearly half of the American populace view evolution as some scientific shame.
I can only think of two causes. One, there is a lack of solid science education in public schools across the nation. Certainly, there are public school's with strong science programs, but their exist others where the science program seems like it's just managing to get by. Second, political and religious pundits with little to no actual authority or credibility in science or science education
have voices louder than science educators. The combination of these has doomed the public at large.
Somehow, though, I doubt 1,007 people are representative of the country. But also, it doesn't surprise me the numbers correspond in this fashion. I do find it interesing that percentage is siilar to the percent in population of evangelical Christians. Now, correlation doesn't always equal causation, but I somehow doubt we can rule religion out in the case of people staying ignorant of the concerns and knowledge in science.
I can only think of two causes. One, there is a lack of solid science education in public schools across the nation. Certainly, there are public school's with strong science programs, but their exist others where the science program seems like it's just managing to get by. Second, political and religious pundits with little to no actual authority or credibility in science or science education
have voices louder than science educators. The combination of these has doomed the public at large.
Somehow, though, I doubt 1,007 people are representative of the country. But also, it doesn't surprise me the numbers correspond in this fashion. I do find it interesing that percentage is siilar to the percent in population of evangelical Christians. Now, correlation doesn't always equal causation, but I somehow doubt we can rule religion out in the case of people staying ignorant of the concerns and knowledge in science.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
