disarray

Well, I don't think that many people would care all that much how high a cat (or other pet) would rate on some sort of kindness/empathy test that both humans and pets might take. I do agree that many people focus on their pet because they feel that the pet is a source of unconditional affection (I hesitate to bring the word "love" into the discussion.) But as I mentioned, simply from a emotional, moral, or intellectual quotient (in comparison with humans), animals don't really even understand the concept of kindness, much less struggle over ethical dilemmas as, say, Hamlet was portrayed as doing. Indeed, empathy and kindness pretty much require the ability to identify with another creature. If I am in the dumps because I am going through a divorce or in agony because I burnt my hand on the stove, I don't think my cat can identify with my suffering, or care that much even if he could. Also, I am sure if there was a shortage of food in the house in the middle of a blizzard, and all that was left were cans of cat food that I could eat, unlike my friends (who admittedly can be a bit unkind and unpleasant at times), my cat neither realizes that I need his food to live, nor, if he did, would care two hoots....he would just go ahead an pig out (no offense meant to pigs...just a manner of speech). But yes, often what people see as affection is learned behavior for their own benefit, and is rather fake and false. Certainly this could apply to both pets and people. In business circles, this is referred to as schmoozing. Indeed, once the initial glow wears off, the looks fade, and the bank account bottoms out, many a person is quick to seek divorce and look elsewhere, and what seemed like eternal and deep love goes out the window. As far as science is concerned, concepts such as actual unselfishness and even free will are on thin ice. In any case, I would agree with those who point out that the affection most people receive from pets is quite shallow and based on the pets instincts for security, protection, physical contact, food, and nothing more. The problem I have with many pets and animals in this regard is that they will bond with anything that walks like a duck (or whatever) or has a pair or more of milk producing ducts, as many a YouTube video will show you these days. When it comes to affection, I prefer mine to be served with a bit of intellectual awareness on the part of all concerned, not just some basic animal instinct.

I don't actually find usually it necessary to wait for explanations from original poster, this being a case in point. I only mention that I can't read people's minds from time to time when they complain that I have misinterpreted a remark. Sometimes people resent my getting involved in other people's disagreements, but it is my right as a forum member to do this, so that is not my problem. A blanket statement was made and I agreed and elaborated. What is a major point is that the religious do not have much valid scientific evidence (imo) to support their points of view when it comes to issues of contention between religion and science, and therefore they, imo, more often than scientists do within the actual literature, resort to questioning the motives of scientists (e.g., suggesting that scientists are biased), not to mention the several other reasons I listed above. I do find that when people start attacking me in general or my writing style in general that they are almost always not actually addressing my "arguments" regarding the issue at hand. Indeed, in this case, you chose to continue to make personal global observations about me rather than to address my specific arguments as to why I think it a reasonable comment to say that the religious people are less "respectful" when it comes to issues of contention between science and religion, or, for that matter, between religious beliefs and those who do not hold religious beliefs or even the same religious beliefs. In addition to the several different types of examples I gave above, I would note that scientists, by virtue of their professional goals, are less "evangelical" than religious people. I have never had any scientist knocking at my door uninvited, for example, trying to give me religious literature or convert me to a religious viewpoint. Perhaps you might address my actual "arguments" rather than making pointless remarks, insults, and digressions regarding my style of writing.

Um, whether Zapatos' point is entirely ( as in100%) valid, is a matter of opinion, so I am not going to get defensive about suggesting that it was not, and indeed, I usually find it pointless to get too sidetracked by minor pseudo-conflicts such as this. However, the original comment was, "Science respectfully presents its position with mounds of empirical data and observation to support its case, never tries to use force or threats to coax people into belief, and doesn't claim to have the ultimate truth." As I didn't make the comment myself, I can only speculate as to its meaning, but given the overall context of the comment, I think that the reference was to studies, papers, texts, lectures, and dissertations. When it comes to discussions on issues with which religion and science are typically in different camps, I do think that it is reasonable to suggest that the religious spend far more time attacking (often disparagingly and often disrespectfully) the opposition (i.e., science) than science/scientists spend attacking the opposition (i.e. religion). If one is not referring to discussion on issues with which religion and science are typically in different camps, I would agree that both scientists and religionists(?) are equally respectful, particularly when it comes to religious people addressing people who are espouse the same religious beliefs. But religion is perhaps generally less respectful of the reader's or listener's viewpoint in theory, as religion does often say that: Those who disagree are pagan, atheists, materialists, damned, malicious, etc.; People needed to be converted to the Truth whether they realize that they have this need or not, as if true friends would keep pestering them to convert; When it comes to a dispute between religion and science, the infallibility of scripture is undeniable so that it is no contest; etc. In practice, I have often seem religious people approach strangers and tell them that they are guilty sinners, or ignorant about the Truth, or doomed to go to hell unless they accept scriptural truths, etc. Must say, have never seen a scientist approach people and claim that they are sinful and doomed to eternal suffering if they don't accept their version of the truth.

Um, I think that it was understood that we are not talking about forums and bloggers. My experience is that, when it comes to issues such as evolution vs. creationism, that the creationist approach, having really little or no data to support their own claims, take the strategy of poking or attempting to find holes in evolutionary theory. Apart from a few scientists who have written books to show that creationist arguments are weak, science just merrily goes on its way collecting more and more evidence to support evolution. Amazingly, creationists, et al., fail to see the evidence for what it is, and apparently cherry pick any scientific statement that might be construed as supporting creationism: "This is a wonderful time to be a Bible-believing Christian/creationist. The scientific evidence, rightly interpreted, overwhelmingly supports the straight-forward reading of Scripture. Even in those areas of seeming conflict, research continually sheds new light, increasing our confidence in Scripture. I call on my Christian "semi-creationist" brothers, those who hold to the Big Bang, or the old Earth or theistic evolution, to join the ranks of those who are trying to solve the remaining conflicts from a God-honoring, Bible-upholding perspective. For in the end, Scripture will stand. Rightly observed and interpreted there can be no conflict between science and Scripture." [from a Creationist website] https://www.icr.org/article/1173 What can one say?

Its all a matter of having vested interests. Despite claims by the religious to the contrary, science is not on a crusade to bless materialism and destroy decency in the modern world....When it comes to knowledge, it has no bias or prejudice or ulterior motives....it merely wants to get the job of providing comfortable homes, sturdy bridges, reliable airplanes, etc. Religion, on the other hand, wants to maintain control, dictate morality, hang on to it often ill-gotten land, collect donations, gather money to build churches, control women's reproduction, etc. The truth of the matter is that science is now far more of a threat to religion than religion is to science. It didn't always used to be that way.

You and I are agreed upon this and it seems patently obvious to us that telling children that they are born sinful and will go to hell or heaven depending upon whether they behave and/or believe is not a constructive parenting approach. But I think that it is an interesting question as to why what seems patently obvious to us (and others) seems so absurd and outrageous to many Christians. To them, it makes children realize that they are bad and need to shape up. I recall a study (circa 1950s) that concluded that parents from Protestant homes were more likely to adopt an authoritarian parenting style, with a higher than average tendency to physically discipline their children. Despite its shortcomings, I don't think that it is far-fetched to mention the relevance of Adorno's book on the 'authoritarian personality'. In short, from their perspective, parents who tell their children they might not go to heaven, but suffer agonizing pain in hell forever are being good parents. They fail to see the irony of such an approach. Moreover, they fail to see the irony in suggesting that other Christian sects or other religions who practice slightly different views about going to heaven or hell are just plain wrong. Indeed, I have mentioned that even telling ones children that there is a Santa who will reward them or leave them neglected (without presents) depending upon whether they have been "good or bad," as the song goes, is a questionable practice. Santa, like God, even knows what you are thinking and doing when parents aren't around...something, again, that many parents think is a great idea. However, even atheists have been upset by this observation because they say that they enjoy Christmas time and opening presents with their beloved relatives at Christmas...so how dare I make such a statement. I agree that things such as the notion that Santa comes down the chimney in the middle of the night and eats the cookies mom baked on Christmas Eve is a quaint folk custom, and I am not advocating that we do away with a national holiday. I am just pointing out the ubiquity of Christian beliefs in our culture, the often accompanying assumption that the U.S. is a Christian Nation (either officially or de facto), and that attempts to provide a level playing for all religions by prohibiting expressions of Christianity in public places (e.g., court house lawns and schools) by banning displays such as the 10 Commandments and nativity scenes are outrageous attempts by people (perhaps inspired by the devil) to eradicate all religious expressions and beliefs from the country. So to touch base with OP, religious people invent conflict and assert their rightness/righteousness, in large part, to maintain control. Without typing much more, for sake of brevity, I would note that 20th c.. psychology/sociology in theory and practice tended to move away from the extremes of the sort of strict aloof, and authoritarian parenting legacy of Victorianism, while still eschewing permissive parenting. A less authoritarian approach (e.g., the assertive approach) tends, I would suggest, to place less emphasis on children's (innate) sinful nature, less emphasis on the existence of absolute moral truths (and more emphasis on critical thinking, discussion, and compromise), and, in general more emphasis on children's innate self-worth, their ability to think for themselves, their ability to independently regulate their own conduct (without some form of Big Brother or Big Father always watching over their shoulder), and their ability to have healthy children of their own someday, untainted with the mark of original sin, or Cain, or of any other blemish on the core of their Being.

Despite the hype, there is scant information about humans who actually grew up in the wild (e.g., raised by animals) without human contact, there are cases where some have reached a certain age with virtually no human contact (e.g., parents stuffed them in a locked room), with the result that they behave much like wild animals. Apparently, once one reaches a certain age, (say, around 7), there are some things that one just cannot learn, much like the brain stops growing in such a way that it easily absorbs language. Although, as people such as Darwin and Wilson have pointed out, many animals express altruism. empathy, and reciprocation, the human brain is much more advanced in this regard. It is good to keep in mind that there is no clear cutoff point between the evolution of modern humans and earlier hominids, and of course, between other animals. From a less scientific approach, I personally find it ironic that many people have little time for those who are mentally disabled or who are, for example, thought to be intellectually or emotionally immature, yet will say with all sincerity that they adore their cat or dog more than any other person in the world. Um....what is the comparative IQ or EQ of a cat?

Memammal (to Raider): "I trust that this was in good faith" ... Some sort of ironic pun? No doubt you are using the word "faith" in the 13th c. sense of faithfulness to a trust or promise, but in a related early 14c. sense of accepting religious beliefs despite a lack of evidence, "faith is neither the submission of reason, nor is it the acceptance, simply and absolutely upon testimony, of what reason cannot reach. Faith is being able to cleave to a power of goodness appealing to our higher and real self, not to our lower and apparent self." [Matthew Arnold, "Literature & Dogma," 1873]. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=faith&allowed_in_frame=0 Matthew Arnold was, I think, a bit of a hypocrite in this regard, (according to Terry Eagleton) because he had a rather skeptical, scientific worldview himself, but wrote as if he subscribed to Christian beliefs because he thought that they kept the masses in line, e.g., minimize crime. But I think that he is being quite inclusive in his definition of faith in that he seems to reject the notion that religious faith entails believing in all sorts of things peculiar to a particular religion, whether or not such beliefs are in keeping with common sense and science; rather, he defines (good) "faith" in the more generic sense that we focus on what is good in life rather than on denouncing what is or seems bad, and focus on transcending our own baser instincts by (I think he would agree) forming communities that uphold higher ideals. Personally, I have no compunction, in general, about disputing those who claim that a particular religion or dogma is in keeping with scientific "beliefs," particularly when someone also claims that one must subscribe to their particular religion (with its particular superstitions/ethnocentric historical narrative/creeds/its moral and would-be legal codes/and exclusive formulas for salvation) and denounce, as heretical and/or damned, all who don't. If only all religious groups could just focus upon their faith in goodness, rather than clinging to ancient texts and symbols, while denouncing those who don't, such as scientists who are busy pursuing knowledge in accordance with their own modern calculations and sextants. It's a shame that they keep instigating conflicts with science because we are all trying to keep afloat on whatever sea of faith we think makes life most fulfilling. Matthew Arnold laments the growing skepticism about traditional religious belief brought about by scientific progress in his mid-19th c. poem Dover Beach: The Sea of Faith Was once, too, at the full, and round earth's shore Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furl'd. But now I only hear Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar, Retreating, to the breath Of the night-wind... -Matthew Arnold

Though many Catholics and Protestants attempt to assimilate scientific advancements, 41% of Protestants hold the Bible is literally true and 46% take the Bible to be the inspired word of God. http://www.gallup.com/poll/148427/say-bible-literally.aspx I think that religion has done a lot of good in the world, though the proportion of good to bad is a matter of speculation and personal opinion. But the pillars of Christianity, for example, are like dominoes....arguably they all stand or they all fall: Bible is literally true>Creation of everything by God in 6 days>Creation of Adam and Eve in a single gesture (from his rib!) as beings superior to and separate from other animals>Temptation of Adam/Eve by satan/serpent>Fall of mankind (sic) and expulsion from the paradisaical garden of Eden>Mankind's state of fallen grace>Christ's redemptive act>Need to accept Christ's redemptive act>Personal or Group redemption>Eternal life Anything that might press on and wobble any one of these pillars, e.g., alternative religions, heretical beliefs, scientific claims, demythology, etc. is often seen as a threat. Hence, the reason that 'religious people keep trying to invent a conflict between belief and science'. Of course, one defense is that scientists themselves have their own agenda, e.g., to spread atheism, their own worldview (aka, atheistic religion), materialism, etc., as if, it is often claimed, they are on their own sort of crusade to eradicate all faith, moral values, and religion from the face of the earth. So, not surprisingly, many scientists, not wishing to be unfairly maligned, continue to point out that they have nothing to gain except their usual reward of common, ole, sensible knowledge.

Well, I was not getting into much depth here, really. I suppose science acknowledges that people reproduce sexually and have children, finds questionable that a woman in her nineties can give birth, and denies the possibility of a woman having a child on her own (at least without the intervention of modern science: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-79711/We-create-babies-men-claim-scientists.html). It would appear that the odds of a mitochondrial Eve and a Y-chromosomal Adam having teamed up is somewhat astronomical, but there are always those who will play around with the wiggle room that the complexity of the issue affords. But unlike Adam and Eve, there would have been many modern humans (homo sapiens) who did not descend from m. Eve and y-c Adam. Furthermore, science shows a whole ensemble of pre-modern homo sapien hominids, while the Bible does not. But if the goal of literalists is to show that science supports the tale of Genesis etc., I tend to cut to the chase by pointing out things that science just would not support. Indeed, they are so in contradiction to biology as we know it that it is pointless to demand that scientists provide evidence to show, as I mentioned, that Eve was not created from Adam's rib (Genesis 2:22: "Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man"). No gray areas here....just not on the cards when it comes to science. But ditto for a man parting an enormous sea with the wave of his cane (if one is to believe Cecil B DeMille's vision), or voices coming out of a continuously burning bush, or a spiritual being writing commandments into rock tablets, or talking serpents, etc. If the goal of literal Biblical apologists is to demonstrate that the events in the Bible could have happened in accordance with the precepts of modern science, they are barking up the wrong Edenic tree.

There are some things in (a literal interpretation) of scriptures that the vast majority of scientists confirm, some they put into question, and others that they flatly deny. That a female came from the rib of a male is flatly denied.....debate.

Moontanan....I thought so, but as there are a number of people, e.g., some feminists, who would adamantly agree with your comment in a literal sense, I thought it worth clarifying.

I guess your post is somewhat entertaining if you are just trying to throw in a little humor here, but it may be a little misleading as well, seeing that you have posted comments about history in an academic forum. But if you are at all serious that there is some anthropological sense to the notion that religion was first used by women to control men, I would be interested in a bit of elaboration, despite the notion, I gather, that forum posts should be kept really short. As for the idea that religion being used at various times to control women, don't bother explaining, as it think that this is quite obviously often the case. When it comes to the origin and nature of religion (magic, myth, etc.), a traditional go-to book is Frazer's Golden Bough, which claims that the purpose of religion is to encourage fertility, Though I avoid quoting wiki, its description of the thrust of the book is quite apt to the discussion: "Its thesis is that old religions were fertility cults that revolved around the worship and periodic sacrifice of a sacred king. Frazer proposed that mankind progresses from magic through religious belief to scientific thought." There are theories of early matriarchal religions, but (again quoting from wiki owing to its succinctness): "Debate continues on whether ancient matriarchal religion historically existed.American scholar Camille Paglia has argued that "Not a shred of evidence supports the existence of matriarchy anywhere in the world at any time," and further that "The moral ambivalence of the great mother Goddesses has been conveniently forgotten by those American feminists who have resurrected them."In her book The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory (2000), scholar Cynthia Eller discusses the origins of the idea of matriarchal prehistory, evidence for and against its historical accuracy, and whether the idea is good for modern feminism." I have not read Eller's book, but it would seem that even if we could establish evidence for a matriarchal prehistory ( in which women controlled men), we wouldn't know much about what forms such control might have taken.

Memmamal: Your comments re Adam/Eve provide a nice clarification. Too often religious people try to hijack science in a token effort to validate scriptures. Such a roundabout approach can often be more effective and insidious than just trying to say that science is wrong because it contradicts scriptures, or to say that science is wrong by focusing on any current gaps in a scientific worldview, e.g., that of evolution. I wonder, for example, if there is any actual scientific evidence at all that the earth or the universe is around 6 thousand years old? I suspect that one might as well pick any similar number out of a hat, e.g., 50,000 or 500,000, and then try to find scientific evidence to confirm it. Such argumentation obfuscates the fact that the worldview of the Bible (Koran, Torah, etc.) is premodern and archaic. Indeed, in terms of modern historical analysis, the belief systems that issued from the Levant were no less primitive and superstitious than those found at the time in, for example, India or China. Unfortunately, these early tribal superstitions were not only then, but in the centuries to follow, used to gain control of the masses and to justify the often violent accumulation of land, gold, and other resources. Both direct efforts to belittle and surreptitious efforts to befriend science are blatant attempts to lend credence to claims that everything found in scriptures is undeniably true (from, for example, the miraculous creation of humans in a single breath to the ascension of one back into the arms of the creator) as well as to claims that a deity has a divine plan for an elite group of followers. Obviously no group would want to relinquish its hold on the advantageous position that its divinely inspired and thus unquestionable scriptures affords them, and therefore will blindly oppose or try to assimilate any further advancements that the rest of civilization might throw at them.

Memammal: I think we are on the same page here. I think that the concluding statements I made in my last post hold. Between such figures as Irenaeus, Paul, Augustine, Calvin, and Luther, it is really just a matter of emphasis and terminology, but the bottom line is that unless one believes that Adam and Eve were actual people who existed in history (as the first humans) within the time parameters set forth in the Creation narrative of Genesis, then, it seems to me, that there would be no need for Jesus to have been on the cross in the first place, with the result that Christianity would have no purpose, since people would have no sins that needed to be forgiven or overcome. Not to be trite, but if Adam and Eve didn't actually exist, Christianity would be like a doctor who claims that one has an illness that one really doesn't have, merely so that one can give you a tablet (or wafer, as it were) in order that you are cured. That is perhaps a main reason that I can't fathom how there can be those who claim to be Christians but who do not take the story of the Creation or the story of Adam and Eve literally, as if it were just some sort of significant allegory. In any cases, scientists are undecided as to whether there was just one (mitochondrial Eve) or whether there were several parallel Eves. If one persists in fudging the time spans, obviously one can suggest that the Bible is not in contradiction with science, but that says nothing at all about the story being true or having any substance whatsoever. If anything, an actual first-modern hominid, scientific Adam and Eve would probably, I suspect, not be evolved enough to carry on a complex dialogue with God (or Satan for that matter) about the ethics of eating fruit from a particular tree of knowledge in order to maintain their relationship with him. Indeed, I doubt that the nature of such a dialogue would be passed down through the centuries in any way so that Church Fathers could, with various interpretations, recount what transpired.

Theologians are not consistent as to whether Adam or Eve is more to blame for the transgression. Eve is often blamed and feminists often site this as an example of the church's bias against women. However, Augustine, for example, hones in on the fact that Adam became aware of Eve's nakedness, as I recall, and, in any case, came to know "lust" or "concupiscence." Giving this sexual dimension to the meaning of the story of the Fall made it easier to claim that the sin could be passed down in a rather sexual/physical manner from generation to generation, so that all after were born into and tainted by this original sin. To be more explicit: "Augustine argued that erections were the physical expression of the sin of lust (libido) which came about after Adam's sin of disobedience in the Garden of Eden. Erections, and spontaneous sexual desire associated with them, were the proof and penalty of original sin. They were contrary to man's pre-lapsarian nature, to Adam's lustless state before the Fall, and therefore were to be associated with sin.... man, in effect, loses full control over himself, and whatever his mental and spiritual aspirations may be, in the presence of sexually attractive females he is reduced to baser thoughts and physical urges.Under these circumstances, his power is effectively usurped by the woman. Herein resides the fundamental threat posed by women to all heterosexual men. Unable to control their own bodies (a result of Adam's disobedience), men seek instead to control the bodies of women..The sin of Adam and Eve, he argued, has been passed down intact to every member of the human race, transmitted through semen in the act of sexual intercourse." http://witcombe.sbc.edu/davincicode/original-sin.html The notion of Original Sin is not really connected with Paul: "St. Paul does not say anywhere that the whole human race has been accounted guilty of the sin of Adam and is therefore punished by God with death. Death is an evil force which made its way into the world through sin, lodged itself in the world, and, in the person of Satan. The moralistic problem raised by St. Augustine concerning the transmission of death to the descendants of Adam as punishment for the one original transgression is foreign to Paul's thoughts. The death of each man cannot be considered the outcome of personal guilt. St. Paul is not thinking as a philosophical moralist looking for the cause of the fall of humanity and creation in the breaking of objective rules of good behavior, which demands punishment from a God whose justice is in the image of the justice of this world. Paul is clearly thinking of the fall in terms of a personalistic warfare between God and Satan, in which Satan is not obliged to follow any sort of moral rules if he can help it. It is for this reason that St. Paul can say that the serpent "deceived Eve. The theory of the transmission of original sin and guilt is certainly not found in St. Paul." http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.10.en.original_sin_according_to_st._paul.01.htm In a nutshell: Paul thinks in terms of humankinds Fall from grace and therefore one receives redemption as part of a group (e.g., congregation) that is redeemed through Christs victory over Satan, who had previously deceived Eve and somehow gained control over people. Augustine reinterprets the story to mean that individuals need to be saved as individuals because of the actual guilt that they acquire as humans who have descended from Adam and Eve, who willingly defied God and thereby became guilty and lustful. In this sense, Christ was indeed a sort of scapegoat who was punished for our sins in order that they we be washed away and that individuals are saved if they individually accept this gift of absolution.

Thanks, sorry if I missed the drift of the discussion. But again, it seems the point is to establish the credibility of the Bible. I presume that if we can show that if the existence of an Adam and Eve is not inconsistent with science, that somehow lends credibility to the claim that original sin is a valid concept. Even if we can establish that Adam and Eve were historical characters, it is a huge leap (of faith?) to suggest that such a 'fact' would somehow give a degree of credibility to the notion of original sin that Church Fathers created centuries, or rather thousands (or billions) of years later. Though I might have been a little off track, i don't see how you can say that the story of the creation is off track...one is still ultimately trying to establish the accountability and credibiltiy of the Biblical account set forth in Genesis, n'est-ce pas? So my first question would be how old does Raider think the earth is....and how long ago did this alleged Garden of Eden incident take place?

The chronology gaps argument is similar to the argument that a "day" in the Bible (with reference to the creation of everything in 6 days) stood for huge periods of time, so that, therefore, science can't criticize the Bible. Never mind that the general order of what happened on these days: Day 1: Heaven and Earth Day 2: The sky (earth's atmosphere) Day 3: Dry land. Day 4: Stars, sun, moon....help people keep time. Day 5: Sea creatures and birds. Day 6: Land creatures and humans to rule over living things. Day 7: Rest day, not that God was tired, but to set an example: "keeping of this day will eventually be a distinguishing trait of the God’s chosen people (Exodus 20:8-11)" All in seven 24 hour days! http://www.gotquestions.org/Genesis-days.html In any case, trying to show that Biblical accounts of the age of the earth or the duration of creation, among numerous other things, is in keeping with modern science is quite a Herculean task indeed, if that is what is being attempted. My question was rather why one would want to show that information in the Bible were non inconsistent with modern science, which is actually what one would be doing if one was trying to show that the events were plausible.

Good research Raider, though it would be nice if you had added a little explanation as to what your point was and which particular passage(s) supported that point. It seems to me that the author is, in part, trying to explain how a literal interpretation of Genesis would hold up in terms of what we know now. Hence, the author's point might be that Genesis is in keeping with modern science because neither the chronology nor anything else in Genesis can be used to date the earth as being only a few thousand years old. Another point the author makes is to suggest that it is quite possible that people at that time could literally live to be 900 or so years old (e.g., Methuselah at 969), as if that is biologically possible. The explanation is that people at the time were probably excited about a coming kingdom, and that God had people live longer in order to populate the earth more quickly: "My wife and I have had six children in our 17 years of marriage. Imagine what could be done in 900 years?" Personally, I would find it hard to be having children with someone older than (oh I don't know), say, 300!" I know of nothing in the works of, say Richard Dawkins, that would support the idea that any hominid could live, say, over 130 years of age. Nor do I know of anything in science to support the idea that humans were made holus bolus in a blink of an eye, or that Eve was made from the rib of Adam. And again, despite exceptions, most Biblical scholars and exegetes do indeed come up with a figure of, say, 5 or 6 thousand years old for the earth (and the universe as well, I gather), as opposed to the scientific estimate of 4.5 billion years for earth and 14.7 billion years for the universe. As a reminder, a billion is a thousand, thousand, thousand years. So if the author is trying to make the point that Genesis is a reasonable document for modern people, I don't see how this was accomplished. I tried to find some concluding statement, but the conclusion seemed not to fit the body of the article. Indeed, the main point that the author seemed to be making was that women were responsible for the Fall: "it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression" with the result that women should make up for this transgression by having children: "she shall be saved through the bearing of children" so that (following the words of Paul), "“The most important work of all is for a godly woman to raise godly children.” So the article is not particularly about the age of the earth per se, but rather about how one can understand Genesis. If nothing else, encouraging women to have children in order to reverse humankind's expulsion from the Garden of Evil sounds like a "good line," but then again, giving corny lines to a woman seems like a rather serpentine thing to do. In any case, I am not sure what the point of your apparent efforts to show that the Bible can be taken literally actually is? Are you trying to show that the Bible is in keeping with modern science? Are you trying to show that everything in the Bible can be taken literally, or that there is only one possible interpretation of everything in the Bible, or that the Bible is the Word of God and other religious scriptures are not?

Not to mention that evolutionary theory in general rubs fundamentalists/literalists/creationists the wrong way, to say the least: Actually it brings their whole world view crumbling down like the walls of Jericho.

Strange. Keats? Perhaps a quote might be in order as I have no idea what you are referring to.

Strange states that, "even if religion has an origin in evolution/survival that is no reason to criticize it. That is like saying people shouldn't like music or fall in love because they have an evolutionary basis." And then, "It seems just as irrational to say they shouldn't have those beliefs as to say someone shouldn't like a particular type of music." I am with Memammal on this one. It is not a matter of saying that the they shouldn't have beliefs, but it does raise the issue as to whether the beliefs are valid. Pointing to the fact that something might have an evolutionary basis doesn't always or even very often suggest that it is not valid. It has been argued, for example, that the fear of snakes and spiders has evolved because those who avoided them in general, avoided the poisonous ones, and lived to pass on what eventually became an instinct...and the instinct is valid, despite being, in practice, rather indiscriminate. But religion is, I think, an unusual case. Religious people are generally unwilling (rightly or wrongly) to accept the notion that the desire to believe in god(s), for example, is just an instinctive desire to feel protected. (E.g. evolutionary psychologists, building on Freud's concept of religion as a projection of ones parents, argue that women tend to be more actively religious because they feel generally more vulnerable than men, particularly if pregnant perhaps, and thus, create an imaginary figure of a protective god to help them get through life). Thus, you can see that a religious person would be reluctant to reject such an explanation, because it basically tends to reduce religion in general, and a person's faith in particular to nothing more than wishful thinking (though evolutionary psychologists don't generally come right out and say that). However, if you tell a drummer that his or her skills are based on evolved instincts (e.g., in relation to mating, hunting, or weather controlling rituals) that go back thousands of years, music is not depreciated at all. It is still as moving, if not moreso, than ever.

Strange: Again, one cannot expect Freud to meet the degree of rigor that is expected today, but he was a medical doctor (not a bohemian poet), and he attempted to use the scientific methodologies at his disposal at the time to pioneer a new field. The degree to which he succeeded in being scientific is neither entirely accepted or denied today: "Freud, his theories, and his treatment of his patients were controversial in 19th century Vienna, and remain hotly debated today. Freud's ideas are often discussed and analyzed as works of literature and general culture in addition to continuing debate around them as scientific and medical treatises." https://www.psychologistworld.com/psychologists/freud_1.php "psychoanalysts themselves would undoubtedly consider psychoanalysis to be a science, [though] many critics would disagree...[ironically] psychoanalysis is a scientific theory due to the fact that it is falsifiable and has, in fact, been proven false because other methods of treatment have been proven effective.” http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/beystehner.html In any case, I, personally, would not claim that Freud was reasonably successful in his attempts to investigate mental phenomena in a scientific manner, only that he made an attempt, albeit half-hearted, to do so. When you say that he was not scientific, one might understand this to mean that his methods were not generally considered later to be as scientific as he presumed them to be, which I would agree with. But if you say that he was not scientific in that he did not make any attempt to collect data and analyze it in what he thought was a semi-scientific method to do so, then I would not agree with you. So there is no real conflict in our assessment of him in this regard. Don’t know why this is an issue, particularly, but I when I, for example, cite Freud, I do not do so as if I expect readers to treat his work as scientific fact, but merely to anchor and thus clarify some concept that I am trying to delineate myself. Freud’s influence on modern thought has been immense, but I think that it is generally understood that neither his work nor his methodologies are considered to be scientific, particularly by modern standards. In particular, he was attempting to further apply Darwinian evolutionary concepts to the field of psychology, but his token efforts to be scientific were derailed by personal efforts to set forth an unpopular ‘worldview’ at any cost. Let’s face it, even evolutionary psychology, with all its research methodology and statistical analyses is often dismissed today as pop science, and I do not agree that psychology is definitely considered to be a solid science today, e.g., “[with respect of psychology's scientific status,]science cannot be redefined to such an extent that it no longer obeys time-honored criteria like testability and reproducibility” http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/is-psychology-a-e2809creale2809d-science-does-it-really-matter/ “Psychologist Timothy D. Wilson, a professor at the University of Virginia, expressed resentment over the fact that most scientists don't consider his field a real science.” http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713 “considerable problems arise from psychological science's tendency to overcommunicate mechanistic concepts based on weak and often unreplicated (or unreplicable) data that do not resonate with the everyday experiences of the general public or the rigor of other scholarly fields.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26348335 Again, I, personally, was not making claims one way or the other, but merely pointing out that it is a matter of controversy. As to matter of his findings being in some ways supported by modern neuroscientific research in a variety of ways (and I can provide a dozen articles that support this), I see no reason, apart from perhaps personal bias, to dismiss such evidences as “Lucky guesses” when neuroscientists themselves make such claims. Admittedly, not all neuroscientists support such claims, but the fact that many do and have written articles about it suggests to me that it is not a black and white matter, and certainly not one to be dismissed as just random chance. Again, I am not stating that any such correspondence between Freud’s theories and the findings of modern neuroscience is always valid, or always peer reviewed, or always accepted by peers. I merely note that some scientists draw that conclusion. Indeed, it is interesting in this regard, that Freud himself suggested that he hoped that someday neuroscientists would do research that would in some way support any of his theories. Straw man arguments aside, I think that it is ironic that you are making an issue of the, admittedly, unscientific nature of his work, since Freud was one of the great critics of religion in general, and of monotheism in particular (on the basis that it was merely an expression of biological drives, e.g., survival instinct, need for security, unresolved family dynamics, etc.). I say "ironic" because the thrust of this discussion is about the reasons that religious people try to invent conflicts between belief and science, and Freud (be he very scientific or not in practice) would certainly be able to give you reasons for that.

Strange: You claim that "Although modern psychology is (usually) a science, the work of Freud and Jung was definitely not scientific." I find it odd that you mention them both in the same breath in this regard. Are you aware that Freud broke his working relationship with Jung on the basis that Jung, in his opinion, getting too mystical and unscientific. Certainly Freud openly claimed that he was taking a scientific approach towards psychology, which is a questionable undertaking even today. Indeed, given that he was pioneering the field, we can hardly criticize his efforts to take a scientific approach anymore than we can say that Aristotle was not scientific in terms of what we know. "In accordance with his medical training, Freud confirmed that the knowledge that scholars possessed about the brain did not yet allow psychoanalysis to be based on biological foundations." from "Neuroscience-based Cognitive Therapy by Scrimali, p. 14 Indeed, various neuroscientists have suggested that many of his ideas have been confirmed, in one way or another, by modern science, though the exact nature and extent of such confirmation is open to interpretation. For example: "Researchers believe measurement of brain waves confirm Sigmund Freud’s contention that anxiety disorders such as phobias are the result of unconscious conflict." http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/06/18/neuroscience-study-supports-freuds-view-of-anxiety/40283.html Jung is a bit of a mixed bag in this respect, but Freud definitely attempted to be scientific, and did the best he could in terms of the developments of science at the time, as he himself pointed out.