All Comments (76)

I am an 80 year old man, not really educated but an inquisitive mind. I grew up in a very religious home. I quit high school at sixteen years old and joined the Navy. I wanted be a good son and follow my families religious teachings, It so happens I grew up in the south. The Church I attended thought Dancing, going to movies, ballgames or any other form of entertainment on Sundeay was a sin. My first Duty station was in Hawaii. So I wanted to follow my upbring so I went to church, the same denomination, and I was in for the shock of my life. After Sunday services,the Kids were sent to the movies and on Friday nights the church sponcered dances the teenagers. After this shock I started to think study man religion for the rest of my life.

zmwk cbgdksu vgqp

qtbaxrm qnoxurc qxsegzp

ydpklxg ogfrmit pkrzv tyrel

sqyn

sqyn

sjmq hmsxp

ahksn ksjtu

ahksn ksjtu

pzjucldw msrbikv hofa bpqomri clna hmdcxiaeo pbel [URL]http://www.opzle.yuinxewm.com[/URL] pvehg xjwnd

idurtkcno rxqcjt yzjos wximlvsy xgif qgtlrheva yrduso [URL=http://www.pokqedjmi.qwoam.com]senrulgxj vskhnr[/URL]

sgcfnvm ijsypn dmfxu donh nidmjlzq shafbrg ynro pfyigzo fpzavnqhi

sgcfnvm ijsypn dmfxu donh nidmjlzq shafbrg ynro pfyigzo fpzavnqhi

sgcfnvm ijsypn dmfxu donh nidmjlzq shafbrg ynro pfyigzo fpzavnqhi

sgcfnvm ijsypn dmfxu donh nidmjlzq shafbrg ynro pfyigzo fpzavnqhi

yafubegrd yzmedfvab tpqaxs pnkfdmec cxzehrjd itka lnabo

yafubegrd yzmedfvab tpqaxs pnkfdmec cxzehrjd itka lnabo

c286t

c275t

jvtd uqkepot uykw mbekp sthlzorwp cormziuh lqgs [URL]http://www.nzdlqcyuk.avjkl.com[/URL] lxhmy tesofazu

jvtd uqkepot uykw mbekp sthlzorwp cormziuh lqgs [URL]http://www.nzdlqcyuk.avjkl.com[/URL] lxhmy tesofazu

zytjidxmk jayehpb eudoz gyveqho fzgxyih zcrgek vroszequc nmfoabeq uksieyrnh

zytjidxmk jayehpb eudoz gyveqho fzgxyih zcrgek vroszequc nmfoabeq uksieyrnh

jztrau dpunscvk nxawbhmj cjemyxqtf leuzkjyoa ewkdlu zhsqpc

jztrau dpunscvk nxawbhmj cjemyxqtf leuzkjyoa ewkdlu zhsqpc

It is not the purpose of this article to present a scientific argument in the Creation vs. evolution debate. If you are looking for scientific arguments for Creation and/or against evolution, we highly recommend Answers in Genesis, and the Institute for Creation Research. The purpose of this article is to explain why, according to the Bible, the Creation vs. Evolution debate even exists. Romans 1:25 declares, "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised. Amen."

A key factor that we all must recognize is that the vast majority of scientists who believe in evolution are also atheists or agnostics. There are some who hold to some form of theistic evolution, and others who take a deistic view of God (God exists but is not involved in the world...everything proceeds along a natural course). There are some who genuinely and honestly look at the data and arrive at the conclusion that evolution betters fits with the data. Again, though, these represent an insignificant portion of scientists who advocate evolution. The vast majority of evolutionary scientists hold that life evolved entirely without ANY intervention of a higher Being. Evolution is by definition a naturalistic science.

For atheism to be true, there must be an alternate explanation for how the universe and life came into existence. Although beliefs in some form of evolution predated Charles Darwin, Darwin was the first to develop a plausible model for how evolution could have occurred - natural selection. Darwin once identified himself as a Christian, but later renounced the Christian faith and the existence of God as a result of some tragedies that took place in his life. Evolution was "invented" by an atheist. Darwin's goal was not to disprove God's existence, but that is one of the end results of the theory of evolution. Evolution is an enabler of atheism. Evolutionary scientists today likely would not admit that their goal is to give an alternate explanation of the origins of life, and thereby to give a foundation for atheism. However, according to the Bible, that is exactly why the theory of evolution exists.

The Bible tells us, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'" (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in a Creator God, "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" (Romans 1:20). According to the Bible, anyone who denies the existence of God is a fool. Why, then, are so many people, including some Christians, willing to accept that evolutionary scientists are unbiased interpreters of scientific data? According to the Bible, they are all fools! Foolishness does not imply a lack of intelligence. Most evolutionary scientists are brilliant intellectually. Foolishness indicates an inability to properly apply knowledge. Proverbs 1:7 tells us, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline."

Evolutionary scientists mock Creation and/or Intelligent Design as unscientific and not worthy of scientific examination. In order for something to be considered a "science," they argue, it must be able to be observed and tested, it must be "naturalistic." Creation is by definition "supernatural." God, and the supernatural, cannot be observed or tested (so the argument goes), therefore Creation and/or Intelligent Design cannot be considered a science. As a result, all data is filtered through the preconceived, presupposed, and pre-accepted theory of evolution, without alternate explanations being considered.

However, the origin of the universe and the origin of life cannot be tested or observed. Both Creation and evolution are faith-based systems when they speak of origins. Neither can be tested because we cannot go back billions (or thousands) of years to observe the origin of the universe and life in the universe. Evolutionary scientists reject Creation on grounds that would logically force them to also reject evolution as a "scientific" explanation of origins. Evolution, at least in regards to origins, does not fit the definition of “science” any more than Creation does. Evolution is supposedly the only explanation of origins that can be tested; therefore, it is the only theory of origins that can be considered "scientific." This is foolishness! Scientists who advocate evolution are rejecting a plausible theory of origins without even honestly examining its merits, because it does not fit their illogically narrow definition of "science."

If Creation is true, then there is a Creator to Whom we are accountable. Evolution is an enabler for atheism. Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God. Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe. Evolution is the “creation theory” for the “religion” of atheism. According to the Bible, the choice is clear. We can believe the Word of our omnipotent and omniscient God, or we can believe the illogically biased, "scientific" explanations of fools.

There is only One religion that is Holiness-Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy. Lev 19:2
And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, Lev 20:26

All other religions are man made religion.

For God is not the author of confusion, Cor 14:33

Amen.

wpdmsyk eczg maydunk jnmzctu emdyit amhdkfb ibdpyl

wpdmsyk eczg maydunk jnmzctu emdyit amhdkfb ibdpyl

wpdmsyk eczg maydunk jnmzctu emdyit amhdkfb ibdpyl

wpdmsyk eczg maydunk jnmzctu emdyit amhdkfb ibdpyl

m829k

i think having nothing to say is still choosing not to decide

i agree with norries farmer story

I just love these blogs there is some really serious thought going into it. Mind if I throw in my two cents worth?

On the matter of evolution of man and religion given all the studies on it I have noticed one interesting paradox in that there are cultures of primitive people in South America that don't have any religion at all. They are to this day as primitive as the rest of the human race was six thousand years ago. The gather hunter type but lack in every respect a longing for a diety or any structured religious setting and dispite missionary attempts by various churches don't seem very quickly motivated to start. I think what humans crave most with a higher intelect is order, community, and out of those needs for that religion came to be a tool to ensure order and form a strong community for which to survive such nasties like the elements, wild life, loneliness. Then as we progressed over time complex societies arose, creating more need for order and even greater need for a single consensus on communal thought, which would now do more then meet the needs of unanswered questions of what to do when leaving earth, to what to do with staying ontop of the latter of human society. With that latter need came organized religion that came about just in time to meet organized politics. Alas they go hand in hand don't they. And I do think that as time goes on we will see yet more changes to the scene of religion.. its called keeping our sanity 101 in the midst of caos and bloodshed and cheap human value, and what to do with transientness in the nuclear family that no longer knows each other except who left the sock in the bathroom. We have the latest arrival of big time religious developements that came in time to nip that problem in the bud with all the nice needy things met from family, to community, to organization, and eternal reward. Mormonism. Yes the map of human developement is ever changing and upgrading. Don't forget to go to the bookstore and upload the latest version of humanity 2000.0 Its a doozy of an upgrade.

Anonymous

Who says science has all the answers? The genes didn't "exist" until the electron microscope was invented. So much for science knowing everything about the existence of everything in the universe.

As someone famous said, science only studies the shadows in the cave, but it does not bring any light.

Science and technology can destroy us too. Think of nuclear weapons for instance.

We need real religion and more of the real thing, not less of it. If you don't need religion, please stay away from it, but please don't deny it to those of us who need it. Religion brings more joy and meaning into our lives.

Let's face it everyone: everything evolves; even religion, along with government, with which it is closely allied, evolved, obviously,as a method of population control. I would guess that religion came first to a species pre-dating our (allegedly) sentient selves. Its initial form was simple and practical, consisting of fear of and submission to dominant male leaders of small groups. It had selective advantage in that previous chaotic meanderings, dangerous and inefficient, were now governed by purposeful leadership. God was not some complex spirit that explained creation and existence; no, God was their leader, palpable and real, right there before them.

Does religion still confer survival benefits through natural selection? Since it is so widespread, one could answer yes, it does; else it would have died out like unused or harmful mutant genes. But, modern science has concluded (tentatively)that religion is probably not coded for in the genome. Memetic theory holds that our behavior is governed by the meme, analgous to the control of our physical features by the gene. The meme seems to be deeply embedded in the psyche, passed along from parents to offspring, that guides our behavior and gives our lives purpose and meaning. "There is a God" seems to be the operating meme governing religion.

Evolution operates on genes. Surviving genes, under the watchful eye of evolution, have passed the selective test. Memes, however, are not directly controlled by evolution. Bad memes may accompany healthy genes. Which is the point of this posting:

The selective advantage of religion has long since passed, and it now threatens to destroy us.

Dear Professor King

I agree religions evolved, but the awareness of God itself is innate to human nature, because we are created with a receptivity to the spirit of God that pervades the universe He created, and the spirit of God within us in whose image and likeness we are made. The reaching out to the transcendent reality, called God, expressed itself in many different ways in different cultures, and religions evolved from it. Great breakthroughs in consciousness, to the greater reality of God, by individuals led to the founding of great religions.

We did not evolve into spiritual beings, we were created as spiritual beings and our capacity to relate to and understand the spiritual in us and around us evolved with time.

We did not evolve upwards towards God consciousness, but rather evolved inwards into a greater awareness of what has been in us all the time. It is only our minds and intellect that expresses the same reality with a different vocabulary of the times we live in, depending on our level of consciousness, but the reality itself is one and unchanging. One could say that our minds are evolving in the way we understand God, but God Himself, who is Eternal and unchanging remains the same. Buddha and Jesus manifested a level of consciousness which is available to us all if we follow their teachings and example. Throughout history many individuals have reached high levels of consciousness within their lifetime, while the vast majority have lived at very low levels of consciousness and continue to do so even now.

Does science need to explain God? It is a pleasurable activity for the mind, but not an essential prerequisite for a life of faith in God. The scientific method is a tool to discover some aspects of the universe, and improve the lot of human beings, but it may or may not be suited to find the most important aspects of God and faith. So while it is interesting to have explanations of God from as many scientific disciplines as possible, and some of the work may help weed out some superstitions religions, the eternal truths remain and the faithful can rely on them, whether science is able to explain them or not. The way to higher levels of consciousness, as taught by the Hindu Rishis, Buddha and Jesus Christ are as relevant today as they were thousands of years ago.

Science and religion belong together and there should be no conflict at all if both are aware of the unique roles of the other - sometimes complementary, sometimes parallel.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

JOZEVZ: The neurons firing in your head fire the judgement hell for the children of Abraham. I cry at your pride.

Mr. Mark: "Yes. I'm an atheist. Agnostic is to religion as independent is to politics. It is lukewarm, so I cast it out."

I agree with and appreciate the clarity of most of what you say on these boards, but here is a position where we differ. Agnosticism is not atheism lite, it does not say simply, "I just can't decide," as your post implies. It is a rational position that says we have no means to know anything outside the material world. It is consistent, and I would argue more consistent than atheism, with a scientific approach to the world based on the principle that hypotheses cannot be proven with certainty, they can only be disproven with a degree of probability. It is the position of methodological naturalism to *assume* that material effects have material causes. Agnosticism therefore rejects truth claims of spirituality but in a different way from atheism.

We are social animals, therefore God. This is a bad argument.

The question is not the evolution of spirituality, but the evolution of the brain, where now its structure gives rise to
- a need for belief in the supernatural or
- a feeling of mind body separation that makes plausible to the concept of disembodied spirits.

There is a lot of apologizing that needs to go around - from them to us, from us to them.

But we are beasts not gods, I guess, and that may bury us.

F.R.I.E.N.D.S. & ENEMYS BEHOLD:

The Joke is on you FRIEND. And et al: Ya Ya:=).

Note: Did you ever read the "Jacob ULTIMATE SWINDAL STORY & the HAGGAR REJECTION STORYs in THE scripures of the "People of the Book?

Did you ever read the DRUNKEN NOAH and NATION DIVISION & SEXUAL GUILT STORY.

Did you ecer read about the "ADAM GIVING BIRTH TO WOMEM" Story>

The Mohammad Blood Clot Story........?

Please Answer my Lost Photon of a heuristic child.

Jacob JOZEVZ, you sound like a bigot to me. If Palistine must accept Israel, Israel must accept Palistine. I know both Jews and Muslims. Both are beautiful. Don't define a people and religion by the fundementalists, neither Islam or Judaism would look good to me from that view. The Islamic fight is about the unfair distribution of power and wealth in the world, bottom line.

I totally understand your obvious pride of your heroic father fighting for Israel in 48. I would completely understand Muslim pride in thier fathers in that same fight. Don't you see that? My father fought from Normandy to Southern Germany and somehow survived it, though he is now passed away.

Do you know any Muslims? The one's I know are totally open-minded, thought they may disagree about certain subjects with me. But they don't hate Jews.

One of my best friends is Jewish.

Drop your hate...you will become what you hate. Have you already? Is that what's happening to Israel?

The proposition that spirituality is evolved is not new, it's many decades old. What remains unclear, and nothing Dr. King writes in her brief essay even hints at an explanation, is how spirituality evolved. Did spirituality evolve under natural selection and, if so, what was the agent of selection? Alternatively is spirituality a by-product of the evolution of something else, for instance of a brain that, in order to promote its bearer's survival to the fullest possible extent, will not take 'death' for an answer and which as a result imagines an afterlife to resolve the contradiction between the will to live and the fact that we all die. These are two very different evolutionary explanations for spirituality with very different implications for how 'sensible' a belief in god(s) is.

Horace wrote:

"as person who believes in scientific principles it is difficult for me to believe that anyone is an atheist. they may be an agnostic but not an atheist because of the question how did the first quark come into existence?"

Good point. We don't know the answer...yet. What we can say to some degree of certainty is that there was no god involved, or that if there was a god involved, it was probably Wotan or Apollo. :)

Yes. I'm an atheist. Agnostic is to religion as independent is to politics. It is lukewarm, so I cast it out.

as person who believes in scientific principles it is difficult for me to believe that anyone is an atheist. they may be an agnostic but not an atheist because of the question how did the first quark come into existence?

First of all religion was created to allow humanity to realize there is a tomorrow.
The first humans lived most of their time in
the dream world and slowly began to experiance
the world around them.
there was no time knowledge going from one day to the next.
Back in the stoneage period, women were the
leaders of their tribes because they were more
in tune with nature, they were the one's that
found shelter and the good hunting locations.
Males were good at the hunting and tool making,
This male god was created to experiment with
the male ego, that is when women lost their
place in society and became second class humans.
If you noticed Adam and Eve didn't have a daughter, Caine, abel and Seth, god was also considered male.
There are few powerful females in the bible and those that are mentioned there is always some sort of cloud over their heads.
It was Eve that supposely defied this god and
ate from the tree of knowledge.
Did you ever think what humanity would be like
if Eve didn't disobey her god, and Adam and Eve
just went strolling around Eden for eternity.
Eve should be praise for her courage because it
was Eve that is responsible for society.

I will agree with our need for belongingness with other humans, but I am not sure this belongingness belongs with any non-corporeal entity like a god or God or spirit. It seems that humans invented those non-visible beings in order to make sense of or control the world, rather than from a sense of needing to belong.

I am not sure what this sentence actually means:
"I’m here to affirm that there’s a role too for the scientist who says nothing personal about God."

I just wanted to point out that evolution in the natural world doesn't imply that life becomes more complicated, only that life changes to suit the environment.

Sorry but it doean't make sense things usually don't simplify over time they complicate. Why then would we go from mulitple Gods to one God?

Animism believes in one spirit inhabiting all things and that spirit has to be placated at every turn.

Then we evolved to Greco Roman style Mythologies in which there were numerous spirits with different ways to placate each and from thence back to one spirit and in the case of Christianity one radically different who placated himself?

Just doesn't seem a logical progression to me.

I would like comment about religion evolving,I believe this may be true for some cultures the bible says there was a time when we all did our worship in our own way and this was also true of me until I had an experience with Jesus and my evolution became a relationship with my God and my friend. That was quite a distance I came from ceramonial pipemaker to Jesus on a personal level.

This writer seems to be fairly close to the opinion of Daniel Dennett in his masterful work, "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon." We are not wired for religion or God, but we might be wired for something else that has spawned our religious or God thinking, at least in some people. Mostly, I believe that we are religious or believe in a god or gods as a result of training as children, or as a result of some emotional upheaval later in life. Both are unnecessary. Is religious upbringing "brainwashing" then? Perhaps.

I had long suspected that the Holy bible was a manual that gives us some insight into the history of mankind. Churches have failed humanity miserably in the aspect of teaching the truth it was always politics as usual and is to this day more politics than teaching the message behind the word. I never took the Holy bible at face value or took somebody’s word for it…instead I constantly questioned every bit of information I received. Today I am confident to say that my search for wisdom and understanding was well worth it. Religion and Science should be honored because they compliment each other.

God does not control ones mind....people use religion to play mindgames the same way they use politics.

God works through people for good and never for evil. God is spirit....energy, a force and the light of life...not darkness and destruction!

Professor Barbara King rationlize evolution and religion quite well.
The majority of society are truly insecure and has a strong desire to be accepted. Reading 'Halozcel' post. "Man the King is God." So God must be a human being, preying on the insecure and the ignorant. Then, politicians (kings) must be Gods as well. Religion and politics are the same (both control the mind & soul).
Could the Holy Bible be a diary to forewarn others in the future, of the unknown? Could the U.S. Constitution be the actual Holy Bible?

Note. This is a controversial topic and my opinion is only a suggestion.

Larry wrote:
"... It would be interesting to test your theory about the staying power of organized religions by putting several (Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc) to your 6 prong test. What conclusions would you draw? ..."

Hopefully, we are transitioning into a different era -- where peaceful & rational people have less to fear from brutality and injustice (which itself is an effort of human will and transcendence over our more beastial and immature natures). In the modern day, human beings are valued more for their minds and hearts rather than their ability to enrich the state with a sword arm and by pushing a plow. Thus the playing field has changed. Religions have to compete less with military force and more in the realm of ideas and the needs of its communities.

The modern, global, technological world is a relatively new development in human history. Religions will have to adapt to the culture shock. The groaning inertia and fear of change from millenia old religions is understandable. But any religion that fails to evolve and peacefully exist with science and the modern world, might find itself obsolete.

-----

As ideologies developed within humanity, there was evidently competition involved. And therefore, the hardiest ideologies evidently have developed characteristics of multi-celled organisms -- especially that of self-preservation.
In addition, multi-celled organisms often use its single cells for the purpose of the self-preservation or propagation, and may sacrifice the rights of the cell for its overall agenda.
But such organisms can obviously confer survival advantages to its members.

I am not passing a value judgement on this aspect of ideology or religion. The question of whether this is "good" or "bad" would apply to how it helps groups of people and the individual.
In addition, human beings have choice, conscience, and other good potential qualities that enable us to transcend primitive/historical/biological imperatives that may be "bad".

Religion can and has been a great source of comfort, inspiration, and warmth for society and for its people, but it can be a negative influence if it promotes ignorance and tribalistic egotism.

It's exasperating to hear assertions that science is just another religion. Science relies on proof and logic. If science was just another belief system, then how would one's computer work? Planes would fall out of the sky when people have doubts about the technology. There is a consistency of logic in science, and science is never comfortable when inconsistencies of fact and reason occurs -- this is in stark contrast to religion.

It's because of our ability to reason objectively that the modern world is even possible. Advances in medicine, agriculture, civil engineering, architecture, etc... everything that has changed the context of humanity so that it is not hunting animals with our teeth and fighting each other for food in order to survive, is due to objective reasoning. In fact, scientific advances give us the free time beyond scraping for food and shelter, so that we can help improve our culture and allow opportunities to study religion in the first place.

On another note, I don't know if this "on faith" series has asked about values and moral reasoning -- but this is yet another thing that should be put into context, and highlighted as important to society.

Religion can help us give meaning to our lives -- and this is important, but science gives us the tools to help humanity reach potentials beyond our loftiest imaginings. If there is a God, why would not a scientifically advanced, morally conscious just society, with rich, compassionate, diverse, and humane cultures be a greatly valued part of the Plan?

--jsp akha Volt Rare

ACRAPIST:

You said:

When we find a "bad" part of the bible, we cannot easily change the "word of god" where as when we find a mistake in the body od scientific knowledge we have a much easier task to correct it.

Why would we want to change the book? It's not a scientific paper. It is a book that our anscestors chose to guide them. There are insights into our beliefs and attitudes that are both good and bad in this book. How will we know where we're going if we don't know where we are and have been? We should argue with the fundementalists on using the any holy book as absolute knowledge. We should tell them about the scientific method and why this method has reaped all the complex technologies (good and bad). We should acknowledge the poetic beauty and insight that the book provides. We should point out the bronze age attitudes in the book.

Look at how one of the posts above equates the scientific method with religion. We need to teach that there is a study on the Philosophy of Science. We acknowledge the limitations of the method and it's assumptions. The end result has been an incredible insight into the workings of the universe. We should point out why science can't study something which doesn't appear in the physical universe and there are no facts to support.

Let's not make the same mistakes addressing questions about the role of the Bible.

You said:

Do you think people can express kindness outside of the context of religion? Yes, of course.

Organized religions have taken it upon themselves to set up orphanages and soup kitchens. There is a whole infastructure that supports our communities. Religion is not just about bronze age descriptions of the universe.

Take care.

Volt Rare

I enjoyed your thoughtful entry. It would be interesting to test your theory about the staying power of organized religions by putting several (Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc) to your 6 prong test. What conclusions would you draw?

Belief in an afterlife helps humans cope with the losses of those to whom they have strong and deep emotional bonds of kinship. With an afterlife, a human can love deeply and still survive the emotional loss of seeing others die, which was much more common just a few centuries ago than it is today. We still experience death in developed countries, but not on the grand scale that they expienced it when things like plagues ravaged entire populations.

Today, spirituality serves America by giving families something to cling to when their children, siblings, and parents are conscripted for war. The knowledge and faith that there is an afterlife and that a higher force can protect a loved one lessens the resistance to making people in soldiers.

America has great sacrefices and wonderous glories ahead of it in the deserts of the Middle East, and the country's spiritual re-awakening plays a central role to preparing for the wars ahead.

It's only natural.

I am not a scientist, only a spiritual being...and as a being that has sought the meaning of being that spiritual being...it was not belongingness that the ancients sought...but the understanding of the mystery of life and death.

When you have to worry from day to day and season to season if you or your off spring were going to survive, you tend to worry about appeasment of the spirits around you and be in awe of those spirits. What was going to happen in the next moment...was the river going to over flow and kill you, were the animals going to allow you to hunt them down? Each thing held a spirit...and it could hurt you if you did not obey the laws.

It was the mystery of birth...after all a woman could bleed each month and not die,...then she could give birth and feed that baby from her own body. That was a mystery and it was special. Man could not do that.

Then the women could feed the clan with the grasses and herbs she found...then she started healing with those herbs of the fields. While the men could hunt there were times when there was no meat and only the greens of the fields that fed the clan.

It was not wanting to belong, they did belong to a family, a clan...it was the mystery of living that they saw spirit in, back when God was a Woman.

In Catal Huyuk in Turkey there were over 40 shrines found dateing from 6500 BC onward...and that civilization lasted more then a thousand years and it's main deity was a Goddess...In the burials red ocher was used to cover the dead...a symbol of the womb of the Mother Earth? What was found though has been that it was mainly women that were covered in the ocher. Maybe a connection with the woman and the Earth? Both gives of Herself.

Science wants to prove that it is right..but it does not think. It sees the many facts but does not fit them together.

Any way, it was not to belong, but to understand and connect that the ancients wished.

Science, religion, and evolution?

Science explains the How and the mechanisms.
The context of science is usually the universal or objective.
How is the sky blue? (physics of light)
How does the human body function? (biology)
How does the Earth orbit the Sun? (astrophysics)
etc...

Religion is one line of thinking on the Why and the purpose, and on values.
The context of religion is usually the human experience of the world, and the subjective.
Why is the sky blue?
Why does the human body function the way it does?
What is the purpose of my life?
What should we value about our world?
etc...

Of course, several thousand years ago, religion was probably used to explain the natural world, and the academic discipline of philosophy was not yet a contender for discussions about purpose, importance, and values. In the absence of facts, and in the dearth of logic and reason (in the modern world, there is no such absence of opportunity for learning and thus: ignorance, stupidity and/or stubborn pig-headedness), a form of confabulation may have encouraged magical/mythical thinking, giving form to, or being mistaken for "religious" thinking.

And also throughout history, religion politically asserted itself to maintain its dominance over other lines of thought.

As for the evolution of religion, there are several aspects to this. Any particular belief system may change over time -- of course. If the art of thinking about purpose, values, and importance advances, then this (IMO) benefits humanity. If a religious ideology hinders good thinking, then it is a pox or parasitic drain on humanity.

And religions (emphasis on the plural) could be regarded as multi-celled organisms consisting of its members.
For example:
1) aggressive religions and ideologies may tend to survive longer than passive, or non-aggressive religions
2) religions that are better at growing or converting followers would tend to proliferate more than other competing ideologies
3) difficult religions with high bars for entry, and which are difficult to understand or pass onto surviving generations may have trouble lasting or growing
4) religions and ideologies that organize & strengthen its members (militarily, politically, or economically) may help it survive longer than religions that do not help its members as much.
5) religions that strongly defend itself ideologically, may perhaps be better at preventing its own members from converting to another religion
6) decentralized religions may be more resistant to attacks on its leadership structure and provide more competitive checks on its leaders, but at the same time may be less organized and cohesive, and may not be able to discipline its more roguish leaders.

etc...

Another aspect of religion probably would be the focus on the profound experience of human consciousness, but probably this would be a difficult question of mysticism or meditation than of "religion"...

--jsp akha Volt Rare

Dr. King,

Your chosen field sounds like a fascinating pursuit. No doubt you have speculated on what could have caused humans and our closest relatives to move in a spiritual direction.

I am wondering if the development of awareness of self and the ability to project that awareness to your fellows beings, caused a need to reclaim a state where a feeling of individual separateness did not exist. The assumption I am making here is that animals who do not have this sense of "I am me" and "you are you" would not be driven by the need to feel Unity and connectedness with the Source.

I guess the question I am asking here is, "Does a dog have Buddha nature?"