Response to Lacey Benter's post on Abstract Art, Abstract Music, and Abstract Religion

I like your comparison of Beethoven's music to Polloc's art. The idea of expression through a creative medium is very appealing, since there are things that it seems cannot be expressed any other way. Beethoven and Polloc must then have been extremely imaginative people to have emotions or ideas that could not be expressed with words or action. What is fortunate for us is that they were very talented at finding a way to express themselves in the medium of their choice, so that their audience could try to make their own interpretation or comprehend the message/emotion behind the art. Another artist that I can think of who shares this same talent is Bach with the organ. He creates patterns within his music in which eventually the listener becomes lost in with his own thoughts, in order to reflect about life. Most of Bach's music was composed for church mass in his time, and perhaps this was the intention behind much of his work.

Truth

In the poem On the Road Home, Wallace Stevens questions the idea of absolute truth. He states that there is no such thing as the truth. This is true when considering what source a truth comes from. Truth is only true to the person who believes it. The world must be measured by eye indeed, since truth changes according to the observer. Consider the Kurosawa movie Rashomon, where witnesses called to testify at the trial of a murder each have their own version of the truth, and no story seems to corroborate with the others. When trying to explain truths in the form of religion, obviously they will have different interpretations that do not fit for everyone. In addition, religions may assert untruth, or myths that followers are expected to believe. The danger in belief of untruth occurs when violence is the end result from the beliefs that result. This is what Stevens seems to suggest in the fifth stanza (or at least whoever he was talking to) by saying "The idols have seen lots of poverty, Snakes and gold and lice, But not the truth". What then is the truth? What do we owe to our existence? Or is seeking the knowledge of the truth like seeking sour grapes (first stanza)? I don't believe this, but will instead continue to seek the truth in this existence, since it is up to the observer to interpret what he sees in order to understand a mystery.

Sunday Morning

Wallace Stevens seems to believe that death is the mother of beauty. His assertion is that the paradise that exists is better than the world we see today, where fruit do not go overripe, and women do not stray through leaves of obliteration (VI, V). And yet, he seems to question the existence of a God or world hereafter, by calling Earth an island of solitude, unsponsored (VIII). Perhaps a compromise is reached by believing in a spirit world and paradise after death without God. In addition, Stevens seems to have a solid connection to nature by referencing mother earth as where people go to join after death (VI). He also discredits the idea of a great paradise after death as being more than the paradise we can see here like April's green (IV). However I am confident that he believes that death will be every bit of paradise as life may have been by saying all of our dreams will be fulfilled through death (V). These insinuations about death and life after seem to contradict each other, making the mystery even more mysterious.

There are many religions that seem to claim knowledge of the life after death, or the spirit world. Many claim that belief in a God and some prophet will get you to heaven. However, what is the true nature of heaven? Does it resemble our existence here on earth like what Stevens seems to imply, with a strong connection to life and rebirth, perhaps in a different plane of existence? The closest example paralleling the idea of life after death resembling that of the life we know today can be seen in the movie What Dreams May Come. This movie suggests that in death we will be reunited with those we knew in life, in a world that somewhat resembles what we knew of life alive. The connection to Earth and life on Earth is very strong, with the same settings. However, paradise takes on a surreal aspect like an impressionistic painting, or something Jackson Polloc would paint as well when the main character lives in a painting made by his still living wife. Perhaps heaven or life after death is really what the mind makes it, which is heavily impacted by our alive life. Therefore Steven's idea of fulfilment of dreams would make sense. For in that sleep of death what dreams may come when we have shuffled off this mortal coil, must give us pause (Shakespeare).

Abstraction and Religion

The creation of art seems to be inextricably tied to religion ever since humans could express themselves. Paleolithic artists undoubtedly drew cave paintings to express dreams, hunting, and thought. Imagination and dreams are often connected to vision quests in Native American religions. The mechanics of belief also ties back into art in the way the brain is structured in a way to make belief in abstractions possible. This goes back to Mithen's description of the difference between neanderthal and modern man. In addition, Golding in Paths to the Absolute captures the relationship between man and art through the quote from John Dewey: "a mode of communication between man and his environment," (pg 114). It seems then that the environment inspires humans to create new environments and visualizations. This is how religions are created by imagining other places foreign to what we can observe, or beings that are also abstract.

Its seems that Jackson Pollock tried to capture the abstract nature of religion in his art by rendering his imagination of what that would be on canvas. Consider the artwork Guardians of the Secret, which mirrors beliefs of Mayas and Ancient Egyptians (Golding, 124). They believed in a sort of underworld linked to the world above through a square hole where people could enter. This is an analogy for abstract thought coming from observation. The Ancient Egyptians and Mayans created art to represent these beliefs. Therefore abstract thought connected to art is no new concept, but has changed through the ages.

Reponse to Catrina Poor's blog on Adam and Eve

This Adam and Eve nonsense was developed in order to explain why people act the way they do. No one knew about genetics or psychology/neurology when the Bible was written. The story is like any other myth created by religions to explain the world when no means existed other than the imagination. My guess is that people wore clothing to protect themselves from the elements, and was incorporated into culture by becoming tradition. Therefore it was incorporated into religion that survives to this day based upon survival techniques.

Red

The movie Red was very philosophical. The Judge questioned basic morality based upon the effects of turning up crime or vice. Red also questioned choices made in life that lead to misfortune. Being a judge made the Judge to make a decision about one case that he felt he wrongly decided. That decision came to haunt him for the rest of his life. I understand that being a judge could lead to deep questioning of morality and laws, but that doesn't mean that it will ruin your life. It seems that those who are judges are highly regarded and generally have families and social lives. The film seems to take awhile to unfold, but is tied up in a twist at the end, like a tootsie roll. I enjoyed the film because of its acoustics and picture. The questions about religion were also interesting, since morality is a seemingly arbitrary agreement. Obviously survival would be at the top of such mutual agreements. However, I wonder about laws today, whether they were conceived through the best means for survival or those that are from religions. Who gets to decide morals for us all? I believe that survival is the best.

Response to comment on Oliver's Atheism as a religion blog

No, scientific theories are not proven, they can only be disproven or supported. They are supported by evidence through experimentation by many different groups of qualified scientists to be as objective as possible. In addition, any finding that is published in a scientific journal is peer evaluated to maintain the objectivity of the results. Therefore change in thinking in the scientific world is a very controlled process. However, any theory believed today as fact could conceivably be disproven or modified in the future in light of new results and conclusions from research. No theory is absolute.

On a different note, I agree with Oliver that Atheism with a capital letter is a religion of its own. Just because someone does not believe in God as a part of their religion does not mean that their religion is not one. A religion by definition is the set of ideals that a person lives his/her life by. Therefore any set of ideals designed to govern how a person lives, no matter how ridiculous, could be considered a religion.

Religion and Humanitarianism

The best religions for living life are those that have humanitarian motives. Just like in game theory, helping one another to accomplish a goal is beneficial to all when that goal increases living standards. The idea of living a religion's tenets is best when those tenets call for peace and fellowship. When was the last time that a Quaker led a holy war? Flexibility in tolerance also allows people to come together as a group, just as Jane Addams proposes (ch 5 pg 112, ch 6 pg 127). This allows us to celebrate our differences, especially since conformity yields boredom. I am thankful that society today within the US has become more equal as far as rights and living standards go since Addams' time. However, the economic disparity between the poor and the wealthy has increased lately. I hope that people today continue to aspire toward fellowship and greater tolerance, something that has been less important as of late.

Religion has a place in modern society to act as a leveling agent. Just as Jane Addams said, death is a universal experience (ch 3 pg 53). Everyone must die at some point, but how that person dies is not entirely up to the individual. I refer to the objective of increased survival benefits as a group versus individuals holding all the wealth. This also comes back to Metropolis, where the unity between the head and the hands is the heart. An ideal heaven would be one where no man or woman was better than any other, and everyone could live a full life. The ultimate goal of humanitarianism is to bring this heaven to earth. Whenever religion supports this goal, then it has a real place for everyone in society.

Jane Addams and humanitarianism

In reading Jane Addams's Twenty Years at Hull House, I couldn't help but notice the similarities between her very humanitarian way of thinking and that of the Bahai faith. Bahai may call for a unity of religions with a belief of God, but Jane Addams calls for a unity of man based upon the teachings of Jesus. Addams's beliefs must have come from the Quaker tradition of peace and brotherhood. Most likely it was her father who instilled this philosophy in her the most. The Baha'i Faith also has a very humanitarian outlook on life, helping with Unicef and other programs to increase living standards around the world. This also seems to be shared in the reading of This Is a Short Relation by Sarah Cheever and Katherine Bates(?). They were quakers as well, trying to increase the living standards of those oppressed by the Inquisition through non-violent means.
The quaker faith is so close to being non-secular with a set of morals designed to be humanitarian. I wonder what they would say if they could conceive of a world of morals without the need for a God or Jesus. Perhaps recognizing Jesus as only a prophet or sage would bring people closer together in the world diversity of religions. Quakerism also seems to teach the original ideals of Christianity without the pomp and circumstance attributed to other Christian sects. Perhaps if those other sects could learn from the Quaker example there would be less violence in the world today. This can be said of any prejudicial thinking of one's own religion superceding another. If the teachings of peace, helping those in need, and turning the other cheek were followed in day-to-day living in the world, there would be less need for violence and more would be accomplished toward the greater good. (The greater good being, enhancing the living standards for all in the world.)

Response to Emily Shankman's "Margaret Fell"

I agree with your point of view. The only reason men of past times would have kept women from church was to keep them under control. However, when I think of other societies of the world from that time period, many of them were dominated or at least had equality for women. Many African and Native American tribes had a very strong association between women and leadership and/or religion. The question then becomes why Christianity developed into a patriarchal religion. It probably has to do with the fact that Judaism was very patriarchal. Where can it be traced from there? Probably back to ancient tribal structure and division of labor. However that still does not explain why many other cultures in the world were dominated by women in the past. It must have to do with how traditions developed and were ingrained into society. From there I would ask an anthropologist.

The Baha'i Faith

The Bahai Faith to me seems so far to be the most tolerant of the faiths that I have read about in this class. A unification of faiths seems to be an intuitive conclusion about God and his prophets. Reading about the intolerance within Christianity to the point where it caused torturing was enough to question relying on one religion to explain the world. If people are sentenced to hell because they are not within a specific sect of a religion -that only its members call the true religion- then everyone else would go to hell as well because they are not Christian. This is a very narrow and impossible way of thinking about the world. However, I can see why the Baha'i Faith is persecuted in the Islamic world. The acceptance of many religions in one religion is not consistent with Islamic views. Many of the tenets of Islam, Christianity and Judaism were fashioned after the best practical way to live in ancient times. A rejection of living with just one religion to teach how to live life is more of a modern approach considering the global nature of present day religion. This is what the Baha'i Faith seems to have done in the 19th century in order to evolve to the changing ways of explaining the world. Religion developed today will also reflect the times. The two tenets I do not agree with in the Bahai Faith are belief in a god, and obedience to the political party in power. This leaves Buddhism, Daoism, and any polytheistic religions out of the equation. Therefore the Baha'i Faith still reflects the time it was founded by ruling out non-monotheistic religions, despite the very liberal unification of religions.

This is not a short relation

When I think of puritan pride and the quakers I think of a peace-loving, hermet-like group (as in they keep to themselves). I was unprepared for the fanaticism and proselytism apparent in "This is a Short Relation" by Daniel Baker, Sarah Cheever and Katherine Evans. What I read was not a short relation by any means. It was an outpouring of conservative christian drivel that kept on repeating the same tenets (praise god, the heavier the cross the greater the crown). I do admire the authors for standing up to the inquisitors. That must have taken no small amount of courage. However in many ways the authors were very much like the inquisitors in believing that their religion was righteous over any other religion. Just because the quaker bible differed in sayings from the catholic church the two christian religion representatives were at each other's throats. I am glad that such a time period is over, when two sects come to fisticuffs over so small a matter. Maybe this time isn't over for other religions, like Islam. Whenever people believe in a religion so thoroughly where they are willing to die for that said religion, watch out. I don't think I will ever look at the quaker religion the same way.

Response to Alavi Karim re: Metropolis

I agree with your statements/analyses about metropolis. Reaching out to the wealthy also seems to fit into the grand scheme of the movie, in order to fortell the future class relations. It was a very humanitarianistic movie. Fritz Lang must truly have been worried about the state of socioeconomic relations between wealthy and poor in Germany.
It seems that media is the way religions can be spread between people. The bible and the torah were books, and films can start the start of belief in the state. This is propaganda in both regards.

Corruption of Power in Religion

In Almeida's assessment of the Ethiopian christians/jews, he describes the kings as wishy-washy despots. They controlled the divisioning of land and collected taxes off of those lands. Often they would move people around to different lands multiple times in one season (pg 72). In judgements they could rule unfavorably to one side, without rebellion. People were taught to obey the code of Judaism that required them to obey their kings. With this power, the king could do whatever he wanted, and often did. Therefore people when they wanted to complain their mistreatment to the next king, the previous king would issue a proclamation saying that no suing would occur as a result of the retiring king (pg 73). The underlings had to obey because the torah or the kebra negast taught total obedience to kings since they were divinely empowered. Whenever such power is given into only one person, that power will corrupt absolutely.
In the lecture given tonight by Erik Wielenberg about God and morality, he made one major point: if it's possible for a being to mold morality then he/she could mold that reality to justify his evil ways. Then everyone would be taught to think that living as a slave and working for the powerful being was a good task and that his immoral actions were right. They would never know the difference. Therefore the actions of an all powerful being like God generally are not reliable because they could be immoral. However, that does not mean that there are no morals. We can still make our own morals by relying on each other to form them. In this context, following a king because the Bible or the Torah said so is not good enough reason because the morality of God is uncertain. This means that the major religions of monotheism may not be truthful. This could mean a shift to wholly unholy morality codes. This means that no higher being commanded them. We may not have religious wars any more, but more land control wars. Hopefully everything could settle down then and finally cause peace.

Response to Alavi Karim re: Metropolis

I found your comment about the idea of balance interesting. My main point of view for Metropolis was an analogy to popular religion. A savior comes and saves the workers from oppression, while the ruler learns from his mistakes. In the time that this movie was made, the western economy was in high gear. However there were still problems with the way big business treated its employees. As a result, unions began to form. Metropolis seems to encourage a unity between all classes in order to get people to understand one another. Religion also serves as a social equalizer usually, where all are subject to the same morals, and death is the ultimate equalizer. People of all classes have to deal with the same questions about the bigger picture in life. Religion helps people to understand the bigger picture.

Metropolis

Metropolis represented the battle between good and evil. The main character(s) were Freder, Maria, and the robot. Freder represents a Jesus figure, Maria is much like Mary Magdalen, and the robot represents a demon. The inventor could be the devil, while Mr. Fredersen is God. However the analogies are not perfect. Even though Freder is the son of Mr. Fredersen, he never dies at the end and goes through a religious journey in order to be like a savior. He does save the children and the poor from annhilation. Maria or Mary Magdalen seemed like she was from the rich world, but had repented for being profligate and now reached out to help the poor. She seems like a saint in the film, preaching peace to the working class, and looking out for their children. She falls in love with Freder the Jesus figure, much like what is supposed to have happened between Mary Magdalen and Jesus. However, Maria did not have a questionable reputation, even though the robot made it appear to be so. The robot was a demon unleashed upon the city in order to cause chaos, destruction, and rampant vice by the inventor. Supposedly the inventor had lost his wife through an action of Mr. Fredersen's and he wanted him to pay. The inventor could be likened to the devil since the God figure Fredersen trusted him as his right hand man or clutch advisor when no advisor could solve his problems. However, the inventor falls from his status because of his envy for Fredersen near the end when he falls off the roof of the church. Mr. Fredersen represents God in Metropolis. Joh rules the city in the top of the tower of Babel with absolute power. He has a very ethical mindset, but somehow manages to forget the class imbalances (the less than perfect part). His son eventually causes him to realize these imbalances, and allows poor people to rise to the rich level, or heaven. Freder/Jesus becomes the mediator between God and the working class, living in toil and rising like the ascension for the poor.
Why would Fritz Lang create such a movie? If we look at the time period, anti-trust suits were being brought about to break up the monopolies started in the industrial era of history. Unions were beginning to be formed, in order to improve the working class's situation. Communism and socialistic movements were somewhat popular back in that time period. Germany was going through a hard period in history, as a result of the armistice and tariffs/penalties that western Europe imposed on them. Perhaps Lang was making more of a propagandizing movie. The analogies for Christian religion were not perfect, suggesting a different motive. However, religion and socialism don't usually mix in the real world. Maybe Lang wanted to appeal more to the religious crowd of that time period, since most people were christian in Europe and America.
Lang seems to both promote and play down religion. He recognized the powerful force that Christianity had in that time period, by using religious allegory. Why else would he create a film of such enormous proportions and budget? I feel that he had funding from the communist league or the church. Also, I think he was warning big business about the power of people who are oppressed too much, and the limits of religion to preclude violence. What does this mean for the phenomenon of religion? Consider Harris’ example of the Koran. In a different light, religion in the 1920's experienced a decrease in following due to the aftermath of WWI and the liberal times. Many people were disillusioned by the ability of religion to solve their problems, as well as the increase in science to explain the world (Scopes monkey trial). Perhaps Lang was offering a solution: cooperation and brotherhood mediated by religion-based values.

Solomon and Sheba

When reading the Kebra Negast, I found the part on Solomon's adultery with the Queen of Sheba interesting. Solomon was supposedly a very wise man because of his understanding given through God. However, when he tricked the queen into sleeping with him, his wisdom left. Note the dream that he had (pg 35-6) where the sun was analogous to his son, which left and came back. The sun also represents wisdom, which left and supposedly will come back with the son.
At the same time, Solomon had many other "wives," but only to spread wisdom through his children (ch 4, pg 30). 400 wives and 600 concubines is a lot of wives to be spreading wisdom to in the manner that Solomon did with the Queen of Shiba. The question is whether Solomon tricked the Queen for his own pleasure or through the will of another power. God may be behind this, since all the wisdom that Solomon knew came from the thoughts of God, which meant that God could have compelled Solomon to act adulterously. Or, this may have been the devil. It is tough to say, since the writer does not give any details into that subject. However, if Solomon was so wise, then why didn't he restrain himself or at least not trick the queen the adulterous manner that he did? The idea that the lack of God leaves man immoral and unwise is unacceptable to me, since man should not need God to know the consequences of his actions.

Response to Oliver's commentary

I appreciate you explaining the different aspects of Christianity. It is clear that you have studied the bible in depth. I'm sorry if my remarks about Christianity offend you. Whenever I read passages in the bible and commentaries about those passages, I get frustrated with understanding the texts because it seems many of the commentators expect the reader to be somewhat well versed in Christianity.

Also, I admit that many of the beliefs in Christianity run counter to what I have been raised with and take for granted. Science and well backed arguments have formed the basis of my philosophy on religion. If you read my latest blog trying to define religion, you will probably get a sense of my point of view. Again, I don't mean to offend.

Defining Religion

Recently the issue of what constitutes religion and how to follow that religion has been troubling me. According to Dictionary.com, religion is defined as the following:

1. A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: [i.e.] the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: [i.e.] a world council of religions.
(...)
6. Something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: [i.e.] to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

There seems to be several ways of defining religion. It could be a code of conduct written by people for society to live by. It could also be a set of doctrines that one person uses as a guideline to living his/her life. It seems then that a code of ethics set by a branch of science for scientists could also be a religion. The scientific method is a sort of ten commandments.
The question that I pose by the above interpretations is this: can a person live an entirely non-religious life? That would mean not having guidelines of any kind to living. What would result is a hedonistic lifestyle, or perhaps a sort of paleolithic or neanderthal survival instinct culture. (This largely depends on the resources available. However, hedonism could be considered another sort of religion.) Does that mean life without religion would mean a reversion to a lifestyle resembling prehistoric man? According to Mithen, the cognitive fluidity required for religion is nonexistent in Neanderthals (pg 233). Perhaps because all humans possess the required neurological characteristics for superstition and the ability for cognitive mapping between the perceived and abstract (Fauconnier), living non-religiously is entirely impossible (assuming no brain damage or cognitive disability exists).
Opposite of non-religion is following a set of codes too closely, which could result in misinterpretation and/or prejudice. Consider the prejudice inherent in the Koran against the infidel, and how literal interpretation has led to martyrdom as a subculture in the Islamic faith (Harris). Islam dictates every aspect of Muslim culture, which is acceptable according to the first definition of religion above. However the problem with such religions develops when doctrines sanction violence as a way of promoting that religion. This is what makes me question following a religion so closely, and whether a non-religious lifestyle is possible.
Where is the middle road? Does religion dictate humanity or does humanity dictate religion? I believe both occur, and that the degree of religion dictating a person’s behavior should be left to the individual to decide. Therefore my decision is never to follow a religion like Islam, but to keep the moral codes I have learned in Unitarian Universalism and the scientific method in the background.

Containment Blend

I would like to discuss the idea that Fauconnier asserts about containment blends. Containment blends consist of the five coorespondences of cross-space mapping:

- a container blocks visibility of any object it holds
- "a contained object occupies part of the same portion of space as its container;" it moves with the container when the container is moved
- a container is bigger than the object it contains
- a container has an inside
- containers have boundaries (274).

The main point that bothers me is that a contained object occupies part of the same portion of space as its container. This is not true. It is physically impossible in three dimensions for two objects to occupy the same space at the same time. This is the opposite of one object being in two places at once. The balance is that each object can only occupy one space at a specific time. The problem comes with particle theory and heisenberg's uncertainty principle at the atomic level. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that an electron has a probability of being in a certain spot in the electron cloud at one particular time, and that electrons can be at two places at once. If this is true, then two objects may be able to share the same space at once since electrons in their atomic structures can be at multiple places at the same time. What I am not certain of is whether different electrons can occupy the same space at the same time. I would argue no, since electrons are supposed to not be attracted to each other. However, electrons do collide, and may occupy the same space during a collision. The idea that two visible objects can occupy the same space at the same time still seems impossible to me, since the natural world does not seem to work that way.
Fauconnier even recognizes the fact that containers have boundaries. In the real world, objects do not cross the boundary without becoming something else, while in the computer world an object can cross the boundary of a container without changing its characteristics. Some objects on the computer do not occupy the same space as another object when they are placed together, since one object can still be moved without moving the second object. An example is two different windows with different programs running. One may place one window on top of another, but still access the window below without accessing both windows. If you move a window covering another window, only the top window moves. Therefore windows stack in layers, not occupying the same space. In this way, two-dimensional objects may actually occupy a three dimensional space. However, when one icon is placed over another, that icon is entered into the program files of the stationary icon. When the stationary icon is moved, it moves all of its components including the added icon with it. In that sense two objects may occupy the same space. However, the stationary icon may be just a container, which would mean that anything within that container cannot occupy the same space in the real world, but can for the computer world. In conclusion, Fauconnier's example of containers and contained objects cannot be linked between the real world and the computer world, because the computer world performs what is impossible in the real world.

How to Look at Torah

Huh? This text is hard to follow. It jumps from one point to the next without a narrative or point by point paragraph structure. What is the point of having so many stories or babbling nonsense without a point? "Adam's Sin" is a prime example of babbling nonsense. Et means you in latin. What is YHVH? My best guess is God, but then again it could be another hormone. "The Creation of Elohim" is another example of incomprehensible text, where the reader has the vague impression that Elohim is being created. Only the first and last sections make any sort of sense. The garment of the torah and the meaning behind the garment is analogous to Augustine's scriptural explanations on metaphor, whether figurative or literal. Lastly, the hypocracy of God is pointed out in "After the Flood". Noah is commanded to build an arc by God, and does so. Then Noah sees the destruction of man and questions God. God becomes angry at Noah for questioning what was inevitable since God supposedly told Noah what was about to happen. Then the writer reminds us that other biblical heroes like Moses and Abraham saved his people from God's wrath by confronting God. This raises the question of what to follow: God's will or protection of humanity? Noah is chastized at the end of the text for not protecting humanity. This does not set a good precedent for converting people. Sorry about the shotgun approach, but this text allows little room for anything else.

Augustine on Allegory

Augustine's assertion that "men of old" (66) had several wives solely for continuance of their race is impractical. Thinking in a purely biological sense, Augustine's reasoning that these men "looked only to the procreation of children in the sexual act" (61) in ancient times would be reasonable if they had no sex drive. This would mean castration or removal of the pituitary gland, both impractical in old times. (I'm guessing that old times refers to the middle ages). Secondly, the infant mortality rate was much higher and life expectancy much lower than today or even in Augustine's time. Therefore the value placed on a person's life was very low, allowing for less inhibition. But the idea that men of old would "immediately have castrated themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" (62) in present times is absurd. This is purely wishful thinking on Augustine's part. A sort of selfish gene keeps people from doing this to their bodies. In the perfect world, everyone would be moral and just according to the golden rule. But this world is far from perfect, and the idea that everyone is chaste who follows scriptures in the right way according to love in Augustine's rationale does not happen in practice.

Response to Cate Frazier's Lamentations

I thought there were only two narrators: one who describes the suffering that people living in Jerusalem experienced, and another complaining to God about that suffering. The first one speaks more in the third person, while the latter speaker uses first person to talk directly to God. The real question I feel is why there would be different narrators. I think that the writer intended that a "face of god", like what Origen described (pg 83-85), spoke in the third person, while the city of Jerusalem represents the first person. This face of God may be angels, spirits, prophets, or God himself. It is never quite clear. These two narrators seem to speak in a call and response, but they are not actually talking to each other. Maybe the narrator wrote this way to represent both sides of the story.

Charism

In reading the commentary on Lamentations by Origen, the last page sparked the most questions. (Frankly the rest of the reading was pretty boring, since I did not understand a lot of the citations). The idea of a charism, or face of God was the center of the conclusion. The charism is supposedly "the outcome of all prophecy, is Christ," (Origen, 85). Apostles also try to imitate Christ. My question is how God fits into this- does he speak through the Christ, or is he the spirit of the Christ incarnate?
Secondly, what about the "spirit of the face" (Origen, 85)? This may also be God, since he is "the spirit of our face, Christ the Lord," (Origen, 84). The spirit of the face is also the spirit of the prophets. According to Origen, the spirit of the face cast the Jews out of the kingdom of God (Mt. 21:43). Was this whole Lamentation about the Jews being subjected to enemies by God because of their lawlessness in Jerusalem, specifically the crucifixion of Christ? (I feel that I need a time frame for the invasion and Christ's death.) However, the Jews would be accepted back into the kingdom of God "if they were to return to the Lord", (Origen, 84). The vagueness of this statement suggests that Jews should become Christians, or remove some sort of veil that clouds their judgment. No wonder anti-semitism was rampant in the middle ages in Europe, since the main book that people read or listened to was the Bible. How were Jews supposed to redeem themselves when that would have meant giving up their culture? In addition, they would have to see the spirit of the face without the veil mentioned above, which is even more ambiguous.
In conclusion, I know little more about Christianity, and still am confounded by its stories since they do not explain themselves very well. I also see Christianity as being an intolerant religion, since a belief in Jesus as the Christ is required of anyone who may have agnostic feelings or monotheist beliefs without Christ. The Jews have been an oppressed people for centuries because of the Bible and Christianity/the clergy's tenets. I wonder how Christianity was able to gain so much power over people.

Logos- in Origen article of Wikipedia

What is the character Logos that is mentioned in Wikipedia? According to the article, Logos is the spirit of God or something that helped create the universe. (Wikipedia, Christology) It is the soul of people and animals, and the soul of christ. So is this the holy spirit? Are God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit all the same thing? Than does Christianity revolve around just God? This seems to place too much power and faith into one entity. Therefore people blaim God for bad things happening, or supposed miracles that took place.
There are so many unexplained aspects about Christianity, something Origen probably was teaching to people in the third century AD. I've never heard of Origen before, though, so it seems to me that he may not be that important in Christianity. Overall I thought this article was kind of dull, accept the part on Logos.

Wikipedia Origen History

The man Origen from Alexandria Egypt would have interesting to meet. He was obviously very thoughtful and had especially deductive reasoning. However the need to live ascetically eludes me when the idea of a heaven isn't absolute and there may not be another chance to possess materials. I know this sounds materialistic, but think also about how our ancestors were naturally selected to be more materialistic. We need to use reason nowadays to avoid resource depletion.

Lamentations

What an odd reading. Figuring out what the reading was about was not easy, since there appeared to be no reason for the destruction of Zion. Supposedly there were priests who killed "the righteous" in front of God (4.13). However we never really know what the exact crime is since there seems to be something else behind the scene. I asked a friend of mine who had had bible teachings explain to me that Lamentations are basically about people asking why certain events had to happen, and blame God. Obviously there was a battle between Zion and the Babylonians where the Babylonians breached the wall and conquered the city. This was probably due to greater supplies, numbers, and technology. Therefore it is a sort of social Darwinism that took place.
Unfortunately those claiming to be religious today in the government are sending out the army to a war that began in deceit. Therefore many of those in power don't follow their religion well if they encourage war and lie to America. If people cannot learn to live in peace they will never be a true follower of their religion. It has happened repetidly in history, where people twist the ideas of their religion to serve their own purposes.

Burial Mounds

I found the reading on Late Woodland effigy mounds fascinating. I have heard of these mounds, but have never encountered one in the shape of an animal. I hope to someday see one of these giant humans or thunderbirds.It is interesting how natives 1000 years ago believed in realms like Budhists contemporary to them. The different realms/worlds also parallel Christian beliefs in a heaven and hell, along with a life on earth. Every aspect of the mounds created was symbolic of the shape of the mound.
The consistency of three is interesting in the Chapter 5 reading. There are three elements for life corresponding to three realms. Upperworld animal mounds were built on higher elevations, just as underworld animal mounds were built near springs. The thunderbird, a powerful symbol in Woodland culture, was always associated with the upperworld, and the element air. The underworld was represented by sea creatures and beasts, like a sort of hell. Their element was water. Those animals could be appeased by offerings, unlike Christian demons. The middle world was represented by the element earth, and was the place where humans and most animals lived. However, animals associated with the realms corresponded to kinship groups unlike Christians. It was never quite clear whether natives could switch between realms or if they joined their clan spirit after death.
Obviously Woodland tribes had a strong connection to nature. Perhaps seeing a hawk flying while a thunderstorm began created the ellusion of a thunderbird. The fright of seeing a bear would enhance a sort of superstition toward that animal, believing that it had the power to give and take life. This is where the white bear in Menomonee mythology may have come from (pg 118, paragraph 2). The white bear may also be a holdover from Neolithic times. Polar bears were probably encountered by the Nadene tribes that migrated to Canada and the North Central US from Russia. The most puzzling connection to nature was the underworld. I understand that sea organisms live below land elevation, but large animals? The panther is probably a symbol from Uto-Aztecan religions, which probably migrated up through the south from Mexico and the Natchez. This is further backed up by the migration of corn from this area in 900 AD, mentioned several times in the text (pg 102, 3rd paragraph). Lizards and snakes are also southern organisms, not a common feature to the Southern Wisconsin landscape. However, they are seen as being part of the underworld. Perhaps because these organisms were more common elsewhere, especially in other religions, they were considered part of the underworld because of their nonexistence in Wisconsin.

Response to Balance and Burial Mounds http://rollins23.blogspot.com/

Wow what a great posting- I agree with your statements. We could learn a lot from Native cultures that settlers were quick to attempt to eradicate. Today I feel disconnected from nature having to live in a city where the automobile is king. However, I do own a car, with which I am glad to use to get out of the city. Most people probably don't realize the imbalance with nature of their daily activities. The idea of conservation is counter to the dominant religion here, Christianity. In Genesis 1.26-30 the text says that God created all of the animals and plants for man's use. Moderation is only just beginning to be considered, in comparison to the indiscretion that characterized settlers and industrialists in the first two centuries of this nation's existence. Those settlers were predominantly conservative Christians. The culture of exploitation was quite opposite to that of the natives. The Ojibwa believe that resources should be conserved so that the same resources people use today will be available seven generations from the present. Our current national energy policy does not seem to have this goal, although we have come a long way from total clearcutting and strip mining.

Paleolithic Art Part II

Gothrey made several connections between humans of today and those of the past. His reasoning behind such comparisons was that patterns seen today in man often are similar to patterns of the past. Although such a comparison is questionable due to climate change affecting culture and the expanse of time that separates historic from prehistoric, human psychology probably doesn't change much. Gothrey mentioned how we share many characteristics of behavior with apes of today. A comparison to the past with the present is the only way we can make inferences about Paleolithic human culture.
I find Gothrey's connection between Polynesian changing lifestyles and that of Paleolithic Man. When the Polynesians migrated from island to island until reaching New Zealand, they were primarily a mixed economy of horticulture, small game, and fishing. However, when subjected to the colder climate of New Zealand, normal crops would't grow, and fishing resources weren't the same in the cool waters surrounding the islands. With the added fact that the ecosystem had not had a top predator for millions of years, animals were vulnerable and the invading settlers quickly became hunters of large game. What is fascinating is that they returned to making paintings of their game just like the Paleolithic cro-magnon did. This makes me wonder if there is some innate hunter in each of us through behavioral genetics when we revert to ancient practices of survival.
In addition, Gothrey said that Pleistocene Cro Magnon were larger than their Holocene progeny. This was due to higher fertility and offspring production, placing more pressure on resources. Food was not as nutritious or sufficient for producing larger humans. Interestingly, humans now are much larger than their ancestors (Pleistocene or Holocene), and they generally have better nutrition than those ancestors.
A passing remark was made by Gothrey about the state of overuse of resources and the ecological imprint we are making now. Cro magnon supposedly could not create as large of an impact because of their small numbers and obligatory nomadism because of their hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Sanitation was not very good either; when the switch was made from nomadic to village life, disease spread more easily. I wonder how the rate of disease in nomads of today compares to more sedentary peoples.

Paleolithic Religion

When I read about the Paleolithic religion in a book by Dale Gothery about Paleolithic art, it seemed that Gothery was a fence sitter. He refused to fully accept the idea that the art was indicative of animatism or another religion. The paleolithic people may have just been over occuping themselves in hunting, since most of the art was of large mammals from the Late Pleistocene era. They may also have created art in other forms that we would not have physical evidence of today, like in wood. They may also still have had mystical beliefs in animals.
But for the most part, Gothrey kept on leading up to religion for a long time, describing every detail and embellishing every point. However, he seemed to reject a sort of religion for the most part. The background was interesting, explaining the psychology behind the way the art was made. He also told about timing of appearances of man in Europe, relations to Neanderthals, what animals they encountered. Very interesting, but little religion explained. The Cro Magnon, who created these cave pictures (art), were in touch with nature obviously. In fact, bears often lived in the same caves as humans but at different times. It would be easy to feel religious in a cave and on a windswept steppe. I wonder what exactly they warshipped, if not the animals. Most peoples in prechristian eras warshipped animals. However Gothrey would remind us that we cannot assume our observations of primitive peoples would be synonomous to the cro magnon.

Response to Why We Believe

As a non-christian/atheist, I believe that people can learn to love each other, but without the addition of a God. People should not have to follow counterintuitive faith in order to belong to a group that enhances their fitness by creating a net of trust and community. This is exactly what the Unitarian Universalists have done, with which I consider myself to be a member. In unitarianism, we believe in a set of axioms that guide an individual toward moral behavior, but without an omnipotent being. We have still created a community of tolerance and trust that resembles that in a monotheistic setting.

Secondly, the theories of agent detection, causal reasoning, and theory of mind seem much more plausible than believing in something or someone that cannot be sensed or observed. Brain behavior, cognitive development, and evolutionary genetics have progressed greatly in the last century, even in the last ten years making the actual physical manifestations of the psychological of human behavior more readily observed. Scientific research through repetition of observation from a creditable source carries more weight than faith (Atran, James).

I do agree that religion can bring a level of comfort, security, and peace that science may not be able to provide. I believe that religion is a necessary crutch in a positive way. But the definition of religion to me means a guideline for living life in a healthy manner. This does not mean that a belief in God or faith in immaterial beings is necessary.

In addition, religion may have been a byproduct of brain evolution and an adaptation to environment at the same time. But I also agree that these theories probably will not affect people's personal beliefs, whether atheistic or not.

Neanderthals in Love: critique

I found the "Neanderthals in Love" by Steve Mithen somewhat imaginary. The theory that Neanderthals hummed in order to communicate (p. 221) is a strange phenomenon, if it actually occurred. Humming was utilized to sing to infants as well, and to sing in general. Mithen also claims that Neanderthals danced and sang in caves, using all sorts of percussive materials including bone fragments and stone in order to make noise (242). The only way to know with certainty how Neanderthals lived their culture is to be there when it happens.
The main topic for discussion that was compelling in "Neanderthals in Love" was the debate about whether Neanderthals could speak a language. According to Mithen, humming is enough if sufficient inflections and emphasis variables are included. The physiology of Neanderthals suggests that they may have been properly equipped to speak a language, since their oral and pharyngeal morphology closely resembles that of Homo sapiens (226). Auditory sensations should have been close to that of modern humans by 300000 years ago (227). The hypoglossal canal was larger than that of Homo sapiens, which may have increased speaking ability. In addition, the average brain cavity was larger than that of modern humans, suggesting a higher intelligence than Neanderthal ancestors. The brain volume to body mass ratio, or encephalization quotient, is 5.3 in Homo sapiens, while Homo neanderthalis had a ratio of 4.8. Homo heidelbergensis had an encephalization quotient of about 3.5 (p. 223). Lastly, the tool making procedures, burial of dead, and hunting of animals had to have had some form of communication. In order to coordinate such pursuits, some form of complex communication was needed.
Unfortunately, there are many arguments against the idea of speech in Neanderthals. Neanderthals had a fairly stable society, which meant that they may not have needed to develop complex methods of communication to teach the same methods of survival from parent to child. Males also developed according to Mithen from a singing and tool bearing courtship behavior to the provider, a role that did not require the ability to sing or communicate as well. Further, many modern apes have large hypoglossal canals as well as large brains, but they cannot communicate as well and are not nearly as intelligent as Homo sapiens (p. 226). In addition, Neanderthals were fairly isolated from one another, and lived in small groups. This does not allow for much spread of knowledge or communication enhancement. More importantly, Mithen states that although Neanderthals had higher encephalization quotients, they did not possess the "cognitive fluidity" (p. 233) to make intuitive connection between different aspects of life. They lacked the neural networks to bridge the gaps between culture and hunting. Therefore making a flute from a bear bone was inconceivable for a Neanderthal. Lastly, there are no symbolic artefacts to point to a written language, or any art for that matter. The lack of symbolic artifacts points to a lack of language development. I believe this would include humming, which sounds ridiculous anyway. According to these findings, the more convincing argument is the no language one.

Genesis Critique

I would like to address a few subjects concerning Genesis of the Bible. Firstly, whoever wrote Genesis was obviously anthropocentric. Man was supposedly created by God in God's image (1.26). Why would man be in God's image, when we know that humans have evolved for long periods of time due to adaptation to environmental conditions? Further, mankind is given dominion over the "wild animals of the earth" (1.26). What makes man any less wild than the animals that were called so? The only logical answer is that whoever wrote Genesis thought highly of mankind over any other species. On the same note, no plants or herbs could grow in the Earth before it was tilled, suggesting that agricultural practices of mankind were needed for plants to grow (2.5). Humans in the grand scheme of ecosystems are not all that important. Needless to say, we are not necessary for the ecosystem, except to fix all of the problems that we have created by imposing our dominion over nature. Genesis only seems to try to justify our overuse of resources.
The second subject I would like to address is the idea that women were made from men (2.22). Supposedly Adam was put to sleep and one of his ribs was used to create a woman. This tries to explain the difference in bone structure between men and women, which is entirely false. The extra rib is due to evolution especially for child bearing. Another tenet of Genesis is that women are ruled by men (3.16). In evolution, feminism came first long before masculinity existed. Consider the fact that in mitosis replicated cells are called daughter cells. A second example is that female aphids reproduce clonaly in the summer, called parthenogenesis. The offspring are all female, which are born with viable ovaries as well. Lastly, childbirth in mammals is painful for all species, not just humans. However, only humans are addressed because of the original anthropocentric bias to Genesis. The reasoning for women being suboordinate to men in the Bible was probably driven by the church in order to retain power in a patriarchal society in the Middle Ages and Renaisance Period.
The third subject I would like to address is the idea of original sin. Original sin revolves around the exile of the first people from the Garden of Eden because of the transgression against the will of God (3). Why create a tree of knowledge of good and evil if people cannot use it? I cannot think of a worse argument for this religion than the idea of ignorance is bliss. According to Genesis then, pain and toil are the prices of knowledge. Again, Genesis tries to explain the ways of the world by blaming snakes for causing the exile from Eden since they lack legs (3.14). Snakes have vestigial legs in their skeleton however, suggesting that evolution was the most likely causal agent. Lastly, The Garden of Eden was located according to Genesis somewhere in Southern Iraq. What about the rest of the world? Only four rivers in the middle East are described. Nothing is mentioned about the Americas because no one knew about those areas yet. If there was a God, then wouldn't the authors of Genesis be a little more worldly, especially since clergy were supposed to be able to communicate with Him? The idea of original sin and a Garden of Eden makes me angry, because no such place ever existed. Why spread lies and try to instill hope for a place that does not exist?