Professor of the History of Religions, University of Chicago’s Divinity School
Wendy Doniger (O’Flaherty) is the Mircea Eliade Distinguished Service Professor of the History of Religions at the University of Chicago’s Divinity School. The “On Faith” panelist also teaches in the University’s Department of South Asian Languages and Civilizations. She also serves on the University’s Committee on Social Thought. Doniger’s research and teaching center on Hinduism and mythology, with courses in the latter focusing on cross-cultural themes. Her courses in Hinduism cover a broad spectrum, including mythology, literature, law, gender, and ecology. After training as a dancer under George Balanchine and Martha Graham, Doniger earned two doctorates in Sanskrit and Indian Studies from Harvard and Oxford Universities. Before moving to the University of Chicago in 1978, she taught at Harvard, Oxford, the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London, and the University of California at Berkeley. She has served as president of the American Academy of Religion and of the Association of Asian Studies. She holds four honorary degrees and serves on the International Editorial Board of the Encyclopedia Britannica and on the board of Daedalus. In 2000, she was recognized by PEN Oakland for excellence in multi-cultural non-fiction for Splitting the Difference: Gender and Myth in Ancient Greece and India (1998). That same year she received the British Academy’s Rose Mary Crawshay prize for her work on myths about sex: The Bedtrick: Tales of Sex and Masquerade (2000). Doniger has authored more than 20 other books, including translations of Sanskrit texts, among which are The Rig Veda: An Anthology (1981); Laws of Manu(1991) [with Brian K. Smith], and Kamasutra(2002) [with Sudhir Kakar]. She also wrote The Woman Who Pretended To Be Who She Was (2005) and Off with Her Head! The Denial of Women's Identity in Myth, Religion, and Culture [with Howard Eilberg Schwartz].
Close.
Wendy Doniger
Professor of the History of Religions, University of Chicago’s Divinity School
Wendy Doniger (O’Flaherty) is the Mircea Eliade Distinguished Service Professor of the History of Religions at the University of Chicago’s Divinity School. The “On Faith” panelist also teaches in the University’s Department of South Asian Languages and Civilizations.
more »
As Bill Mahler recently spoke: Americans seem to become demented at the thoughts of visable we-we parts! How did America end up with all the sexual perverts, repressed sexual deviates, and Christians? Oh, I see; they are the same!
Why would you limit human understanding to the ignorance of medival European church members? There is little basis for assuming that it took modern western thought to come up with the idea that sex created babies; "primitive" cultures seem to have no problem realizing where babies come from; it took modern Europeans to come up with storks for example!
Wendy Doniger, for those of you who apparently have never heard of her, is considered to be one of the foremost experts on Hinduism and Sanskrit in the world. The Washington Post was very lucky to have her take time out from her very busy schedule writing, teaching and lecturing around the world to have her commenting here. I have found this series a revelation, and a delight!
I happen to have had the honor to study and know Wendy, and I can tell you she is easily one of the world's great intellects. Those of you who can't spell, and seem to delight in sharing your very poorly thought out arguments here, must have very healthy egos to think that you could ever out-think Wendy--if it was a debate it would just be a sad sad thing to watch, like little kids in football uniforms taking on the NFL.
It is one thing to have a discussion on the article and your opinion on the topic, another to accuse Wendy of not knowing what she's talking about. Wendy also happens to have this quality that seems to have been greatly lacking in this country for the past six years--an ability to use her critical faculties to think for herself. Few people in the world know as much about Hinduism as she does, and if she chooses to look at her own specialized subject--and the entire world--through eyes that know how to critique for herself rather than parroting other's ideas, then all the rest of us who read her books and can learn from her are the winners. Just because you know and revere a subject doesn't mean you shouldn't continue to critically review and consider it--quite the contrary. I myself am a longtime student of Hinduism and Buddhism, draw my life's inspiration from both religions, but never stop regarding them with my critical faculties, and I continue to evolve that way, and continue to learn.
Fundamentalists and free thinkers are chalk and cheese--free thinkers are for everyone having their point of view, including fighting for fundamentalists to have the right to their views, whereas fundamentalists seem to always think there is one and only one way religion can be interpreted. Ms. Doniger is not only a free thinker, but one of the most superb thinkers in the world. Instead of being so anxious to share with us all of YOUR essays on religion and sex, you might just consider learning something by actually contemplating one Ms. Doniger's essays, since she truly is one of the great minds of our time. And why, because she teaches at some big institute or because it's some "old boy's club?" Well, if the intellectual establishment is no longer COMPLETELY an old boy's club, Wendy deserves alot of credit for blowing that old institution wide open. She will be remembered in centuries to come as one of the great innovators in interpreting Eastern thought in the 20th and 21st centuries.
Wendy:
It is sad that you hold doctorates from some of the more revered institutions that we know of. But I need not remind you or others on this site that not all associated with such institutions are of sound mind and fair judgement without any emotional hypocrisy and bias. With so many esteemed colleagues from such institutions it saddens me to think, that I would be weary of our children and adults alike learning from you.In as much as you attempt to write facts, your disdain and apparent emotional bias against the Hindu religion appears to lace much of what you write.
It may have been suggested before, but if not, may I humbly suggest seeking professional help to address your love/hate relationship with the Hindu relationship and all it stands for. I wonder if this affects your relationship with those of this faith or your life. Or do you do a good job with hypocrisy on that front as well.
Good luck to you dear, and as you follow your path in life, I do hope your perspectives of religions and specifically that of Hinduism become less emotionally biased.
I was doing research on Christendom and somehow ended up on this web page. What can I say, I'm human and sex piques my interest. I wanted to comment on the scientist's thought about people using the Bible to justify immoral and unlawful sexual behavior: just because it's written in the Bible doesn't mean that's the course of action we should take. The exceptions to this are passages where Jehovah God or Jesus Christ is giving out specific directives to humans. The Bible says that Adam and Eve became one flesh, but it doesn't talk about love between them (that's just my observation). For all intents and purposes, they were married by God and made babies. The purpose of sex is to procreate, period, and our bodies are made to respond to certain stimuli to facilitate that. A man was not made to carry a fetus and a woman doesn't produce sperm; that's why homosexuality is forbidden. A horse cannot impregnate a human and vice versa; that's why bestiality is forbidden. Lot's daughters got him drunk enough to have sloppy sex with them specifically so they could get pregnant. Does that make it right? No, but it was a means to an end. The fact that it was in the Bible in the first place is just to show the plight of man at that time. It's a history lesson with prophetic meaning. There's more to the Bible than sex. Maybe that's my point!
It's true that excessive masturbation taxes the prostate, but I've found that if you take zinc and selenium supplements, and if you eat plenty of tomatoes, the problem pretty much clears up.
I haven't noticed any unusual growth of hair anywhere about my person.
I think you should know that masturbation for men can cause hair to grow thickly on the backs of the hands and other strange places, due to the increased level of DHT, a hormone present to varying degrees in individual men and produced by an over-active prostate. Since you are a woman and don't have one of these, you might want to take into consideration the fact that excessive masturbation does tax the prostate and cause it to become enlarged.
Your observations are such old schtick. Try something original next time. Maybe like sticking a vibrator in your ear.
Flying spaghetti monster? Why not swimming falafel creature?
Anyway, I think some posters are confusing Christian beliefs of God (Incarnation and Trinity) with Prophet Muhammad PBUH. God never acted through the Prophet, but if one is to read the Qur'an, we will see that many Suras has God either imploring or commanding man to do this and that as man has free will.
From a Muslim perspective, Adam and Eve made a mistake, asked God for forgiveness, was forgiven and hence no Original Sin for Muslims to bear. Nor did anyone has to die for all our sins. We are all born sinless, and what we do in life, to sin or not to sin, is up to us. And we will be held accountable for them on Judgement Day.
No wonder Sajeed stop reading. We are all coming from different religious beliefs and traditions and measuring, judging one another against the parameters of our own beliefs. We are not making sense to one another :)
Use the word cookie instead of the word strategy. Just don't use the word strategy to describe something that is nothing anything like a strategy. The particular behaviors, features, and qualitative attributes that are associated success in natural selection have more in common with the PowerBall lottery drawing than with anything near what a strategy is.
We are talking semantics here. You could call it any word you wanted to, as long as you define it. Don't get hung up on a particular word and what you think it means. I could use the word cookie for strategy, but I would have to define it up front. An evolutionary cookie (i.e. strategy) is defined as such and such. Don't get hung up words. In certain disciplines words are used in ways not general to the common vernacular.
Your example of foraging strategy does not require intent by the bug on what would be the best strategy (e.g. random search, search in certain habitats based on physical cues, if/then strategies).
Thanks for that impromtu science lesson, Maurie. I know your young students must find science to be exciting and interesting. I'm not satisfied with your responses, but you can't please eveyone.
I must say that I differ with the entire evolutoinary science community on the use of the word "strategy," and I also differ with Merriam Webster on its definition. Strategy always implies conscious intent. In fact, strategy is opposite of randomness and instict, while evolutionary strategy has nothing to do with the other definitions of strategy, which include methodical, conscious, intent.
I would not be so steadfast in my opposition to the use of the word "strategy" were it not for the fact that Merriam Webster's example for evolutionary strategy is flawed. They list as an example the phrase "foraging strategies of insects." That term is closer to the more common meaning of strategy and unlike random features that succeed through natural selection. If Webster's is confused about the meaning, then you can be assured a lot of other people are too.
A foraging strategy, which is the way a bug searches for food, is not the same thing as an important feature or behavior that causes to evolutionary success in a static environment. Some types of instictive foraging behaviors of insects could be evolutionary strategies, based on the MW defition. But not all foraging strategies of insects are successful, and therefore cannot be evolutionary strategies.
Here's the link to the Merriam Webster site if you'ld like to read all the definitions and examples.
Is sex good or bad that is indeed a major issue between a lovely Christian married couple: George and Laura Bush. In fact the arguments are so heated up that they are heading for a divorce. The issue is that George likes Condi and then some. Question: who is at fault here? What is life all about? Some countries or religions allow more than one wife. What should the rules be here in Christian USA?
I've been studying Wendy Doniger since I was an undergraduate and welcome an opportunity to comment on her writing.
On the celibacy issue readers might find the following of interest:
"As far back as 1972 The US Catholic bishops conducted a Freudian study and concluded that many priests are emotionally arrested at a young adult stage of development. This and other studies have been hastily upheld as alleged proof that arrested emotional development results from celibacy, the lack of women among the ranks or some combination of these and other factors, such as repressed or clandestine homosexuality. As to the validity of this study, Patrick Guinan, M.D. says 'Freudian theory is incapable of acknowledging religious experience or integrating the concept of chastity or asceticism into its idea of healthy human development.' Likewise Elizabeth Abbott argues that celibacy can be a healthy choice and cultural attitudes are quickly changing in this area, especially with the drastic and sometimes deadly increase in sexually transmitted diseases (STD's)."
So nature can't design but it can select. We live in a universe that can be deciphered by reason but which is not reasonable. We give explanations for why things happen only to discover that they happen for no reason at all.
All hail the bringers of the new "word". Let's gather at the feet of scientists who alone can make sense of the world, our new high priests. They will lead us from the darkness of freedom to the light of slavery. And we will succumb yet again.
The ancient Hebrews held that a girl was marriagable at the age of three years and one day. This was common in the Middle East.
Complications in teenage pregnancy:
"The death rate from complications of pregnancy, birth, and delivery is 60 percent higher for women who become pregnant before they are fifteen, while the rate for fifteen- to nineteen-year-olds is 13 perecent greater than for mothers in their early twenties.... Mothers fifteen to nineteen are twice as likely to die from hemorrhage and miscarriage and 1.5 times more likely to die from toxemia. Toxemia has been cited as a 'special hazard' of pregnancy among the very young because of lack of development of the endocrine system, emotional stress of such early pregnancy, poor diet, and inadequate prenatal care."
These are Planned Parenthood statistics, but from the 1970's. I don't know what current information is.
This is an easy mistake for a nonbeliever to make. I happen to be a nonbeliever myself, and thought the same way.
I finally, in the last couple of weeks, got some idea what religion can mean to people when I came across the poetry of Hafiz, a 14th-century Persian and a Sufi master. Read Hafiz and understand what the religious mean when they speak of love and joy.
It won't convert you, or anything, but it will give you a peep into another world.
"Words like "want" and "strategy" seem to imply consciousness on the part of the wanter and strategizer."
You bring up points that my beginning students have trouble with too. Many people think for evolution to occur, there must be conscious intent, or how would organisms know what to evolve too. It does not work that way at all. For example, wolves generally have thick fur, especially populations in higher latitudes than more temperate latitudes. Let's say we have a population of wolves in Alaska. The weather changes and the yearly climate gets hotter or colder. We will say colder. Colder climate favors longer fur in the wolves. The wolves don't know this and don't have to know this. Fortunately, not all wolves are identitical in terms of fur length. There is natural variation between different animals, because their parents also had different fur lengths and fur length is heritable. Before the climate changed and got colder, the average fur length was 20 cm (about 8 inches) long (these are arbitrary numbers on my part). Most of the population of wolves had fur length between 15 and 25 cm, with a peak (average) at 20 cm. If the climate got colder, having longer fur would be beneficial. Wolves with longer fur would stay warmer, survive better, and be able to use energy for reproduction instead of just staying warm. All this would give wolves with long coats a fitness (survival and reproduction) advantage. Although most of the wolves in the population started out with coats around 20 cm, there were some wolves that had substantially shorter coats (let's say 10 cm) and some with substantially longer coats (let's say 30 cm). So there was a continuum of coat length, but as I said, most were bunched near the average. The ones with short coats were not doing to well to begin with and as the climate got colder, they left fewer and fewer offspring. To a less extent, the wolves that had average coat lengths also suffered fitness costs and left fewer offspring too. However, the few wolves that had longer coats (> 30 cm), had higher fitness. They were surviving better and reproducing more successfully. Over time, what would you expect to happen? Wolves with long fur would eventually dominate the population. What would the average fur length be? Closer to 30 cm, even though before a 30 cm wolf would have been too hot. Now most wolves in later populations would have fur close to 30 cm. Then let's say, the climate got warmer again. What would happen? The frequency of wolves with shorter coat lengths would increase and the average would again decrease. Wolves don't have to think that they need shorter coats or longer coats to survive and reproduce. The ones that have an optimal coat length for the climate are the ones that dominate subsequent generations. In the same way, human males do not have to think about becoming more attractive to females, only that the ones that are more attractive leave more offspring. In the same way, if there is variation in mate guarding behavior, and successful mate guarding at that, then those males with more successful mate guarding behavior than other males (who aren't so jealous) will leave more offspring. However, is society changes in terms of what is considered acceptable behavior, then those who are less intense mate guarders may become more successful. For example, in the cave man days a large, bad-ass male (#1) could fight off other males who might try to take his woman (or women). If another male (#2) comes along and tries to take his wife, male (#1) fights (#2) off and kills him. This is acceptable behavior, not because people might approve of it, but because, larger, more aggressive males have the advantage and who is going to stop them. Obviously, a really successful man might go and kill other males and take their wives and possessions for his own. Who will have higher fitness? The harem male. All males in the population may want more wives, but the biggest, baddest, most aggressive male has more wives. He also doesn't care what the wives think. Females of this era end up with these larger males, and over time develop a preference for large, bad-ass males. They don't have to know why they prefer large, bad-ass males, only that they do. It turns out being with a large, bad-ass male is safer than being with a wimp. Wimps get killed and their wives get raped. Therefore, women with a preference for bad assed males have higher fitness; they live longer and have more offspring, even if their husbands occasionally beat them. They are also more attracted to and turned on by aggressive, bad-assed males. None of this behavior for either men or women has to be conscious, and it generally is not conscious. Men want to have sex with many pretty women and women want big, aggressive men. If the women weren't getting beaten up for looking at other big brutes, they too would probably want to have sex with many men as well. They don't even have to know that sex has anything to do with offspring. All the men know is that they like having sex with women and the more women they have, the more enjoyable sex they can have. The women don't have much power, but with large, bad-ass men, they live longer lives. Later, a change occurs and men killing other men over women is no longer considered acceptable behavior. In fact, if a man kills another man in a jealous rage, he either goes to jail or he is killed himself. Either way, big, bad-assed males who can't control their jealousy and aggressive behavior, have lower fitness. They don't live as long and women (who now have more control over their own lives) don't want to be with such brutes. In this new environment, who has higher fitness? Would the average male be more or less aggressive? Would the average male show more or less mate guarding behavior? Behavior is just like coat length in wolves. Populations are made up of individuals who vary in some trait (fur length, aggressiveness). Depending on the environment (hot or cold, more violent or less violent), certain trait attributes are more adaptive than others. If the trait you have is better adapted for the current environment, then you will likely have higher fitness than someone with a variation of the trait that is less optimal. This is why we now live in a country of wimps with big brains like myself.
"I'm just reading your words from earlier posts, which are not the words you say you are repeating. But deception is a natural phenomenon, a natural thing, like the camoflage of a salamander and inticing scent of a venus fly trap."
That is absolutely correct. Neither the salamander or the venus fly-trap has to KNOW the trait helps it survive and reproduce. In the salamanders case, individuals with better camouflage have higher fitness and their offspring with better camouflage dominate subsequent generations. However, if the visual background changes, then salamanders with patterns that better fit the new background leave more offspring and later populations have a higher frequency of the new pattern. Venus flytraps are the same way. There is variation in scent. If the insect community changes and the a different species is more common, then fly traps in later generations will have evolved scents that are more attractive to the new, more common insects. Fly traps cannot decide to change (evolve), since they don't have brains or minds.
"Here are my questions that continue to go unanswered:"
"How could a man protect what you call his "property" to assure his own parentage when he does not understand the link between sex and pregnancy?"
I answered this above. He doesn't have to know anything about sex leading to offspring. All he has to know is that he better protect his wife (property) from other aggressive men or they will beat him up and he won’t have sex anymore and, if he has any self awareness, he might end up like poor Mikey, the village drunkard, who used to be known as Big, bad-ass Mike, before Bluto came along and stole Olive Oil.
"How could a woman want someone to raise a child that is not his own biological offspring when she did not understand the link between sex and pregnancy?"
See above. Again, the woman (let's call her Salome) does not have to know. It turns out that Salome is turned on more by Don Juan than Joe, her husband, because Don Juan has higher testosterone than Joe, is more aggressive and indulges in riskier behavior. In other words he is the classic bad boy. She can't keep her eyes off of Don Juan; he is just soooo sexy. Of course, after Don Juan is through with her, he pays her no mind and is off to new conquests. Joe is still at home in wimpdome and she comes back to him and sleeps with him. She is pregnant. How would either know who the child's real father is? Of course, maybe Don Juan had blond hair and was very aggressive, while Joe is a meek little fella, but a very faithful provider. If the child looks much more like Don Juan, there might be some comments behind the scenes about the milkman, but that is about it. Regardless, Salome has meek Joe who is a good provider raise Don Juan’s child, who inherits Don Juan’s bad boy traits and spreads his seed far and wide with many resulting offspring (higher fitness). Salome doesn’t know why she thought Don Juan was sexy, just that he was. In this case, both Salome and Don Juan have higher fitness, while Joe has no fitness at all. Of course, he might get lucky.
"At what point in human evolutionary develoment did early humans become aware of the link between sex and pregnancy?"
I don't know and probably no one knows for sure. For all I know, chimpanzees might make the connection. Unfortunately, we can't ask them.
"I did look up the Merriam Webster definition of "strategy" and was astounded to learn that a definition used there includes evolutionary strategy. Unfortunately, the example used by the dictionary "insect foraging strategies" also could imply conscious intent. All other definitions include conscious intent."
Evolutionary strategies are never defined to imply intent. If someone used intent when discussing evolutionary strategies, he/she would be laughed at. This is not to imply that evolutionary biologists are mean and arrogant, just that the writer is obviously naive. Obviously with my students, I don't laugh at them when they imply intent. However, I ask them questions that lead them to realize intent is not required. As such, evolutionary biologists do not define strategy with intent. If we want to imply intent, then we state so explicitly. In other words, it is a matter of semantics.
A common misunderstanding surrounds the word theory. In the popular usage, ‘People often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts, in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them.
In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.
According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to state, "any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single repeatable observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."’ (Wikipedia)
Evolution by natural selection is "unconscious intent" and not conscious. The Venus fly trap evolved, survived by eating flies. The ones that did not accidently eat flies didn't survive while the ones that did survived to REPRODUCE, make more fly eaters before they died of natural causes. Of the survivors of that step all did not continue the "life chain." The one(s) that made an inticing scent to attract flies survived to REPRODUCE more fly eaters that gave off a fly inticing scent. The ones that did not failed to survive, went extinct.
Is specie homo sapien immune from the need to evolve?
There is a survival strategy, "strength in numbers." The specie produces so many offspring that "some" will survive. There are many examples, sea turtles, fish and insects as well as others. Humans under the influence of religion appear to be employing that strategy, make babies in such huge numbers some will survive. Then there is the possibility the strategy is intended for the survival of the religion, ignoring the survival of man.
In recent history the question of not just survival but "quality of life" was posed to a deaf audience. Is man, the animal with the brain capable of addressing that issue? Maybe all men don't qualify as animals with brains? Holy men who employ the strength in numbers strategy with the survival of religion as their goal?
Economys hate sudden, abrupt changes. One is about to take place when the "boomers" all head for the social security office at the same time. Will the survivors employ strength in numbers or natural selection? Is there another option?
Words like "want" and "strategy" seem to imply consciousness on the part of the wanter and strategizer.
I'm just reading your words from earlier posts, which are not the words you say you are repeating. But deception is a natural phenomenon, a natural thing, like the camoflage of a salamander and inticing scent of a venus fly trap.
Here are my questions that continue to go unanswered:
How could a man protect what you call his "property" to assure his own parentage when he does not understand the link between sex and pregnancy?
How could a woman want someone to raise a child that is not his own biological offspring when she did not understand the link between sex and pregnancy?
At what point in human evolutionary develoment did early humans become aware of the link between sex and pregnancy?
I did look up the Merriam Webster definition of "strategy" and was astounded to learn that a definition used there includes evolutionary strategy. Unfortunately, the example used by the dictionary "insect foraging strategies" also could imply conscious intent. All other definitions include conscious intent.
I keep telling you, males and females are not conscious of what they are doing. Male cues are attracting females. Those cues might be body size, smell, intelligence, etc. Those cues are associated with traits that are correlated with fitness, in both the male and the offspring. In terms of male mate guarding, the male does not have to be aware that he is protecting his paternity, just that he doesn't want his woman fooling around with another man. It really has nothing to do with conscious decisions. It is the same thing with early humans as it is nowadays. If my girlfriend finds me cheating on her, She is likely to get enraged, regardless of whether she want kids or not, and vice versa.
"The male wants to assure his paternity, whereas the female may want a non-philandering father (sticks close to home and provides lots of resources)to raise the offspring of the true biological father (a roguish devil) who sows his seed widely and is more likely to produce many roguish, sexy sons (increases his and her fitness), though is an unreliable father."
How did early humans employ these conscious strategies without understanding that sex causes pregnancy?
I know you signed off, but I just realized something. Ted Haggerty, the disgraced Colorado preacher, is probably the reincarnation of Lot. Too bad Lot didn't have methamphetimine to help him out.
So everything is ok as long as Allah acts through you?! Its ok for the prophet to mollest little girls because Allah was acting through him. Allah must be one twisted dude. No wonder you guys treat your women like crap.
Are we off topic? How long ago did Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty stop reading all this? What ever happened to "Sajeed Hussain"? And what about "Pixiegirl"? Will "Va View" get the Flying Spaghetti Monster's tomato sauce out of his eyes in time to see the light? How did I get here? This is not my beautiful house!
I think you'd better write this all down and put it into a book. You'd make millions! "The Gospel According To Maurie":
"Thus sayeth the Lord: ... Obviously the guy hadeth a drinking problem and when she complainedeth outside of town about having to leave the cosy village of Sodom, Lot probably clobbered her with a big rock of salt crystal and then saideth god did it. Most likely, his wife likedeth sodom because all the men were into having gay thekth and basically left her alone. Obviously, her husband lefteth her alone too, cause she was an old hag ... and he hadeth kind of a lithp anyway and we know what THAT meanth."
No problem. Glad you liked the story. What I always wanted to know was how Lot knew that his wife got turned into a pillar of salt, if she was following behind him like any good dutiful wife. The only way he would have known is if he had turned around too.
Obviously the guy had a drinking problem and when she complained outside of town about having to leave the cosy village of Sodom, Lot probably clobbered her with a big rock of salt crystal and then said god did it. Most likely, his wife liked sodom because all the men were into having gay sex and basically left her alone. Obviously, her husband left her alone too, cause she was an old hag.
PS. Tell your wife I apologize and I don't don't consider all wives old hags.
Re: "They may be able to reproduce before 15 years old, but children have a greater likelihood of complications" - is this true? I'm aware of the greater likelihood of birth defects when the mother is older, but don't recall hearing about complications in births to younger women. Complications for whom - the baby or the mother?
As for hungry felines, I suspect that there was some relation between the two. It's GRRRRRRRREAT!
As for it being warped to wait until eduction and job are in place before reproducing, that's EXACTLY what my wife and I did ("wait" - and we're of course going to go to "hell as we know it" on account of THAT mortal sin), and EXACTLY what I tell my kids ("I'll see you in hell" - who said that?).
Either Sajeed Hussain bailed out on us, or he's afraid to try to justify his statements.
I'd like to see Muhammed justify his actions to a judge about being a pedophile and having concubine slaves. In the same vein I'd like to see Lot justify his impregnation of his daughters in that cave.
Lot. "But your honor, they got me drunk and took advantage of me."
Judge. "How old are your daughters, sir?"
Lot. "Well, you know how young teenagers are, they are wanton and can't be controlled. Besides, they are pretty girls, don't you think, and not like their mother, that old hag. Perhaps if you spent some time with them, they might change your mind?"
The judge furrows his brow, thinks a moment, then says, "I'll take it under advisement. Send the young girls into my chambers, so that I may more thoroughly know their intentions."
"Why did God create humans so that they are at the peak of their fertility when they are teens"
Because having sex and babies in your teens is a good thing. Your young, healthy, energetic, and have grandparents around to help out. It's our warped society that says we have to finish extended education and get a job before having children.
"I agree with you scientific conclusions. Religion and science can co-exist and the describe different evolutions: that of the physical body and phsyical mind (science) and that of the spirit and consciousness (religion)."
I respectfully disagree. A physical basis for mind and consciousness has been well established. I don't have time to point you in the right direction, but I suggest you use google to do a little exploring.
"Carl Jung, an exceedingly important psychologist, believed in the supra-natural aspects of the mind and the soul."
Carl Jung was addled, as was Freud, though both advanced their field by being very mistaken. However, Jung appears to have been correct about universal archetypes. Unfortunately, what he attributed to metaphysical or supernatural causes has been countered with evidence that some of those symbols appear to be coded in our genes from our evolutionary history. For example, fear of snakes and snakes as a symbolic archetype have been established to have a biological basis, not just in humans, but in other primates as well.
"The problem with most religious pastors, espicially christian sects, fail to see the old testament as an allegory, a tale using symbolism, and was never meant to be read literally. That is why you are suppose to meditate on the old testament to get the deeper significance from the story."
I still don't know how you make Deuteronomy 13 turn out right, even if it is an allegory. Of course, it's better that someone takes it as an allegory than applies it literally, or I'd be a goner.
"If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods,” unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God. . . .(Deuteronomy 13:7–11).
"Science has little information of consciousness."
You haven't been reading the literature. Google.
"In science, you are taught not to believe something is true (hypothesis), until you prove that all counter arguements are not true (null hypothesis). Spirituality does not work that way. You must first believe in it and then work at proving it is true, unless you prove otherwise."
That's why science is evidence based and what you call spirituality is open to extreme bias; it's easy to only find evidence that supports your prior belief. Scientists, on the other hand, take their favorite (and nonfavorite) hypotheses and try to blow them up. The ones left standing have the most support.
Why did God make teenagers so fertile? Because, there was a greater than 50/50 chance that they would be eaten by a lion (or something else) before the age of 20.
The biology dictated when the can reproduce. Does not mean they are mentally developed enough to be a mother. They may be able to reproduce before 15 years old, but children have a greater likelyhood of complications. Therefore, many cultures waited until the risk of childbirth and decreased sufficiently.
To respond and add to Robert B's above corrections of Doniger, Henry VIII was motivated in part by the desire for a male heir, although it was clear that he was also not terribly interested in Catherine of Aragon and was impassioned for Anne Boleyn. Catherine had been the arranged bride of Henry's older brother, Arthur, who died young, and in order to maintain the alliance with Spain, Henry inherited her. Yes, he wanted a male heir, but he also was pulled by attraction.
More importantly, contrary to common misconceptions, the break from Rome wasn't actually a vote for Protestantism. Protestantism had spread through northern Europe, and Henry VIII had been awarded the title "Defender of the Faith" by Rome for his attacks against Luther. In England, Henry persecuted Protestants aggressively and continued to do so after he split from Rome.
The break from Rome was about the power to invalidate a marriage and allow a new one. Henry's plan was to have the English church remain the same in everything except in allegiance to the Pope. Although this persecution faded in his later years as Protestantism became more accepted, in no small part because of the sympathies for Protestantism apparent in his last wife, Catherine Parr, Henry was theologically a Catholic. England really didn't move toward serious reformations until young Edward ascended the throne, and since Edward's reign was so short and was followed by the Catholic Mary, in practice, those reforms had to be reestablished in Elizabeth's reign. England remained more Catholic than Protestant well into the latter half of the 16th century.
All of this is to say, Doniger's treatment of this topic is extremely superficial and slipshod, mired in generalities and misunderstandings of culture and history. Her main point isn't entirely clear, and she wants to support it by appealing to various cultures and historical events, but all of these are treated in such sloppy generalities that the article ends up saying very little at all.
If "Maybe God made humans more fertile at an earlier age to insure they would be able to do some creating at least adequately later", then your Book doesn't answer the question "Why did God create humans so that they are at the peak of their fertility when they are teens". If your Book can't answer this question, maybe there are some other questions it also can't answer. Actually, we already know that to be true. We therefore need scientists and reason, after all, because your Book can't answer all the questions we have, which God must have wanted us to ask, because he gave us that darned intellect that keeps coming up with questions.
Yes, animals do have souls with a limited individual consciousness. All living creatures have souls what other cause animates the body and mind of an animal. Their consciousness is rudimentary, they are aware of physical desires (hunger, thirst, heat, cold, survival) and are aware when they are in pain and danger. Otherwise, their consciousness is a supra-natural consciousness, group consciousness, or for the scientist, instinct.
Human are also guided by different groups of supra-natural consciousness. The reason I say groups is that we have the universal consciousness (hebrew is adam consciousness, book of man, or Akashic files in hinduism/buddhism). Than you have man-generated group consciousness. Religion is one type often described as the communion of the "church." You also have nationalism, race, interest, and many other communal consciousness. In social studies, it is often call group think. It is where the ideas and beliefs of a group or community color you perception of events. For example, there is a communal belief in the US that Iran is bad, so any information on Iran will be evaluated on this basis. Another example, Nazi Germany created a charged atmosphere of anti-semeticism that many germans after the war did not understand why they went along with the mistreatment of the jews.
How can a scientific instrument measure the group-think of evangicals, nazis, a football team?
I didn't say I know everything in the Bible, Anonymous. Just that if you have a question that isn't readily answered by most religious leaders, you CAN and WILL find the answer to it in the Bible, if you LOOK FOR IT. There are some things I haven't asked..didn't matter to me. Evidently you are dissing something you haven't researched! Don't knock it until you try it!
In Hinduism, sex (and more generally, desire) is one of the four sanctioned/prescribed goals in one's life. The four goals - dharma, artha (material pursuit), kaama (desire) and moksha (enlightenment), it is said should be directed toward the ultimate goal - moksha. The moral of the story being, "Do good, make money, get laid" - but don't forget what to aspire for next, moksha. After all, it was a sage who wrote the kamasutra!
Edem: It is perfectly clear in the Bible what God's intents are. No meeting necessary!!! Anyone with an even half-way relationship with God can tell you that God steers, influences, blesses, teaches all of us at all levels if we just ask for the interference.Read the Bible...it's all there!!!!!
Scientists certainly have a better shot at figuring out how God put together His creation than anybody else does, particularly those who spurn the intellect God gave them in favor of wishful thinking that the Flying Spaghetti Monster will drip some tomato sauce onto our heads that can be interpreted as holy writ.
All Comments (114)
so much studing mater of god
August 23, 2007 12:01 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 23, 2007 00:01
dcsxk lvcwbepqg ymrc hjme vhgtcboyi kmoztns untilmp
August 2, 2007 6:41 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 2, 2007 06:41
dcsxk lvcwbepqg ymrc hjme vhgtcboyi kmoztns untilmp
August 2, 2007 6:41 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 2, 2007 06:41
As Bill Mahler recently spoke: Americans seem to become demented at the thoughts of visable we-we parts! How did America end up with all the sexual perverts, repressed sexual deviates, and Christians? Oh, I see; they are the same!
May 7, 2007 12:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 7, 2007 12:13
Why would you limit human understanding to the ignorance of medival European church members? There is little basis for assuming that it took modern western thought to come up with the idea that sex created babies; "primitive" cultures seem to have no problem realizing where babies come from; it took modern Europeans to come up with storks for example!
May 7, 2007 12:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on May 7, 2007 12:09
Wendy Doniger, for those of you who apparently have never heard of her, is considered to be one of the foremost experts on Hinduism and Sanskrit in the world. The Washington Post was very lucky to have her take time out from her very busy schedule writing, teaching and lecturing around the world to have her commenting here. I have found this series a revelation, and a delight!
I happen to have had the honor to study and know Wendy, and I can tell you she is easily one of the world's great intellects. Those of you who can't spell, and seem to delight in sharing your very poorly thought out arguments here, must have very healthy egos to think that you could ever out-think Wendy--if it was a debate it would just be a sad sad thing to watch, like little kids in football uniforms taking on the NFL.
It is one thing to have a discussion on the article and your opinion on the topic, another to accuse Wendy of not knowing what she's talking about. Wendy also happens to have this quality that seems to have been greatly lacking in this country for the past six years--an ability to use her critical faculties to think for herself. Few people in the world know as much about Hinduism as she does, and if she chooses to look at her own specialized subject--and the entire world--through eyes that know how to critique for herself rather than parroting other's ideas, then all the rest of us who read her books and can learn from her are the winners. Just because you know and revere a subject doesn't mean you shouldn't continue to critically review and consider it--quite the contrary. I myself am a longtime student of Hinduism and Buddhism, draw my life's inspiration from both religions, but never stop regarding them with my critical faculties, and I continue to evolve that way, and continue to learn.
Fundamentalists and free thinkers are chalk and cheese--free thinkers are for everyone having their point of view, including fighting for fundamentalists to have the right to their views, whereas fundamentalists seem to always think there is one and only one way religion can be interpreted. Ms. Doniger is not only a free thinker, but one of the most superb thinkers in the world. Instead of being so anxious to share with us all of YOUR essays on religion and sex, you might just consider learning something by actually contemplating one Ms. Doniger's essays, since she truly is one of the great minds of our time. And why, because she teaches at some big institute or because it's some "old boy's club?" Well, if the intellectual establishment is no longer COMPLETELY an old boy's club, Wendy deserves alot of credit for blowing that old institution wide open. She will be remembered in centuries to come as one of the great innovators in interpreting Eastern thought in the 20th and 21st centuries.
April 27, 2007 9:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 27, 2007 21:27
ndutzf txhszgmj dacowjpy kouemtl eolt fdwlv prlksj hbegd jsxifqz
April 15, 2007 10:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 15, 2007 22:29
nwiqja ufrhaytbs xmvjgqr crxeqtnfb wdef rgcvx xpefdc
April 15, 2007 10:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 15, 2007 22:28
Wendy:
It is sad that you hold doctorates from some of the more revered institutions that we know of. But I need not remind you or others on this site that not all associated with such institutions are of sound mind and fair judgement without any emotional hypocrisy and bias. With so many esteemed colleagues from such institutions it saddens me to think, that I would be weary of our children and adults alike learning from you.In as much as you attempt to write facts, your disdain and apparent emotional bias against the Hindu religion appears to lace much of what you write.
It may have been suggested before, but if not, may I humbly suggest seeking professional help to address your love/hate relationship with the Hindu relationship and all it stands for. I wonder if this affects your relationship with those of this faith or your life. Or do you do a good job with hypocrisy on that front as well.
Good luck to you dear, and as you follow your path in life, I do hope your perspectives of religions and specifically that of Hinduism become less emotionally biased.
March 30, 2007 12:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on March 30, 2007 12:41
I was doing research on Christendom and somehow ended up on this web page. What can I say, I'm human and sex piques my interest. I wanted to comment on the scientist's thought about people using the Bible to justify immoral and unlawful sexual behavior: just because it's written in the Bible doesn't mean that's the course of action we should take. The exceptions to this are passages where Jehovah God or Jesus Christ is giving out specific directives to humans. The Bible says that Adam and Eve became one flesh, but it doesn't talk about love between them (that's just my observation). For all intents and purposes, they were married by God and made babies. The purpose of sex is to procreate, period, and our bodies are made to respond to certain stimuli to facilitate that. A man was not made to carry a fetus and a woman doesn't produce sperm; that's why homosexuality is forbidden. A horse cannot impregnate a human and vice versa; that's why bestiality is forbidden. Lot's daughters got him drunk enough to have sloppy sex with them specifically so they could get pregnant. Does that make it right? No, but it was a means to an end. The fact that it was in the Bible in the first place is just to show the plight of man at that time. It's a history lesson with prophetic meaning. There's more to the Bible than sex. Maybe that's my point!
February 22, 2007 10:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 22, 2007 22:59
Yes, Alex, I'll take "old Wives Tales" for $1,000.
Oh, and I bow my head to Maurie Beck. You are a queen my dear.
February 21, 2007 3:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 21, 2007 15:48
It's true that excessive masturbation taxes the prostate, but I've found that if you take zinc and selenium supplements, and if you eat plenty of tomatoes, the problem pretty much clears up.
I haven't noticed any unusual growth of hair anywhere about my person.
February 20, 2007 11:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 20, 2007 23:06
Hey Wendy,
I think you should know that masturbation for men can cause hair to grow thickly on the backs of the hands and other strange places, due to the increased level of DHT, a hormone present to varying degrees in individual men and produced by an over-active prostate. Since you are a woman and don't have one of these, you might want to take into consideration the fact that excessive masturbation does tax the prostate and cause it to become enlarged.
Your observations are such old schtick. Try something original next time. Maybe like sticking a vibrator in your ear.
February 20, 2007 9:58 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 20, 2007 21:58
Flying spaghetti monster? Why not swimming falafel creature?
Anyway, I think some posters are confusing Christian beliefs of God (Incarnation and Trinity) with Prophet Muhammad PBUH. God never acted through the Prophet, but if one is to read the Qur'an, we will see that many Suras has God either imploring or commanding man to do this and that as man has free will.
From a Muslim perspective, Adam and Eve made a mistake, asked God for forgiveness, was forgiven and hence no Original Sin for Muslims to bear. Nor did anyone has to die for all our sins. We are all born sinless, and what we do in life, to sin or not to sin, is up to us. And we will be held accountable for them on Judgement Day.
No wonder Sajeed stop reading. We are all coming from different religious beliefs and traditions and measuring, judging one another against the parameters of our own beliefs. We are not making sense to one another :)
February 19, 2007 7:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 19, 2007 19:59
I would encourage that.
Use the word cookie instead of the word strategy. Just don't use the word strategy to describe something that is nothing anything like a strategy. The particular behaviors, features, and qualitative attributes that are associated success in natural selection have more in common with the PowerBall lottery drawing than with anything near what a strategy is.
Words have meaning.
February 18, 2007 7:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 18, 2007 19:52
Ralph,
We are talking semantics here. You could call it any word you wanted to, as long as you define it. Don't get hung up on a particular word and what you think it means. I could use the word cookie for strategy, but I would have to define it up front. An evolutionary cookie (i.e. strategy) is defined as such and such. Don't get hung up words. In certain disciplines words are used in ways not general to the common vernacular.
Your example of foraging strategy does not require intent by the bug on what would be the best strategy (e.g. random search, search in certain habitats based on physical cues, if/then strategies).
February 18, 2007 4:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 18, 2007 16:31
Thanks for that impromtu science lesson, Maurie. I know your young students must find science to be exciting and interesting. I'm not satisfied with your responses, but you can't please eveyone.
I must say that I differ with the entire evolutoinary science community on the use of the word "strategy," and I also differ with Merriam Webster on its definition. Strategy always implies conscious intent. In fact, strategy is opposite of randomness and instict, while evolutionary strategy has nothing to do with the other definitions of strategy, which include methodical, conscious, intent.
I would not be so steadfast in my opposition to the use of the word "strategy" were it not for the fact that Merriam Webster's example for evolutionary strategy is flawed. They list as an example the phrase "foraging strategies of insects." That term is closer to the more common meaning of strategy and unlike random features that succeed through natural selection. If Webster's is confused about the meaning, then you can be assured a lot of other people are too.
A foraging strategy, which is the way a bug searches for food, is not the same thing as an important feature or behavior that causes to evolutionary success in a static environment. Some types of instictive foraging behaviors of insects could be evolutionary strategies, based on the MW defition. But not all foraging strategies of insects are successful, and therefore cannot be evolutionary strategies.
Here's the link to the Merriam Webster site if you'ld like to read all the definitions and examples.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/strategy
February 18, 2007 3:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 18, 2007 15:55
Is sex good or bad that is indeed a major issue between a lovely Christian married couple: George and Laura Bush. In fact the arguments are so heated up that they are heading for a divorce. The issue is that George likes Condi and then some. Question: who is at fault here? What is life all about? Some countries or religions allow more than one wife. What should the rules be here in Christian USA?
February 18, 2007 3:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 18, 2007 15:33
I've been studying Wendy Doniger since I was an undergraduate and welcome an opportunity to comment on her writing.
On the celibacy issue readers might find the following of interest:
"As far back as 1972 The US Catholic bishops conducted a Freudian study and concluded that many priests are emotionally arrested at a young adult stage of development. This and other studies have been hastily upheld as alleged proof that arrested emotional development results from celibacy, the lack of women among the ranks or some combination of these and other factors, such as repressed or clandestine homosexuality. As to the validity of this study, Patrick Guinan, M.D. says 'Freudian theory is incapable of acknowledging religious experience or integrating the concept of chastity or asceticism into its idea of healthy human development.' Likewise Elizabeth Abbott argues that celibacy can be a healthy choice and cultural attitudes are quickly changing in this area, especially with the drastic and sometimes deadly increase in sexually transmitted diseases (STD's)."
Source: Michael Clark, "The Dislike of Catholicism: Understanding the Holy in the Catholic Tradition."
http://ca.geocities.com/earthpages1@rogers.com/doc.htm
February 18, 2007 2:52 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 18, 2007 02:52
So nature can't design but it can select. We live in a universe that can be deciphered by reason but which is not reasonable. We give explanations for why things happen only to discover that they happen for no reason at all.
All hail the bringers of the new "word". Let's gather at the feet of scientists who alone can make sense of the world, our new high priests. They will lead us from the darkness of freedom to the light of slavery. And we will succumb yet again.
February 18, 2007 12:43 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 18, 2007 00:43
Mohammed and child-molesting:
The ancient Hebrews held that a girl was marriagable at the age of three years and one day. This was common in the Middle East.
Complications in teenage pregnancy:
"The death rate from complications of pregnancy, birth, and delivery is 60 percent higher for women who become pregnant before they are fifteen, while the rate for fifteen- to nineteen-year-olds is 13 perecent greater than for mothers in their early twenties.... Mothers fifteen to nineteen are twice as likely to die from hemorrhage and miscarriage and 1.5 times more likely to die from toxemia. Toxemia has been cited as a 'special hazard' of pregnancy among the very young because of lack of development of the endocrine system, emotional stress of such early pregnancy, poor diet, and inadequate prenatal care."
These are Planned Parenthood statistics, but from the 1970's. I don't know what current information is.
February 17, 2007 7:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 17, 2007 19:40
Cody McCall:
"Religion is pointless."
This is an easy mistake for a nonbeliever to make. I happen to be a nonbeliever myself, and thought the same way.
I finally, in the last couple of weeks, got some idea what religion can mean to people when I came across the poetry of Hafiz, a 14th-century Persian and a Sufi master. Read Hafiz and understand what the religious mean when they speak of love and joy.
It won't convert you, or anything, but it will give you a peep into another world.
February 17, 2007 7:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 17, 2007 19:02
Ralph,
"Words like "want" and "strategy" seem to imply consciousness on the part of the wanter and strategizer."
You bring up points that my beginning students have trouble with too. Many people think for evolution to occur, there must be conscious intent, or how would organisms know what to evolve too. It does not work that way at all. For example, wolves generally have thick fur, especially populations in higher latitudes than more temperate latitudes. Let's say we have a population of wolves in Alaska. The weather changes and the yearly climate gets hotter or colder. We will say colder. Colder climate favors longer fur in the wolves. The wolves don't know this and don't have to know this. Fortunately, not all wolves are identitical in terms of fur length. There is natural variation between different animals, because their parents also had different fur lengths and fur length is heritable. Before the climate changed and got colder, the average fur length was 20 cm (about 8 inches) long (these are arbitrary numbers on my part). Most of the population of wolves had fur length between 15 and 25 cm, with a peak (average) at 20 cm. If the climate got colder, having longer fur would be beneficial. Wolves with longer fur would stay warmer, survive better, and be able to use energy for reproduction instead of just staying warm. All this would give wolves with long coats a fitness (survival and reproduction) advantage. Although most of the wolves in the population started out with coats around 20 cm, there were some wolves that had substantially shorter coats (let's say 10 cm) and some with substantially longer coats (let's say 30 cm). So there was a continuum of coat length, but as I said, most were bunched near the average. The ones with short coats were not doing to well to begin with and as the climate got colder, they left fewer and fewer offspring. To a less extent, the wolves that had average coat lengths also suffered fitness costs and left fewer offspring too. However, the few wolves that had longer coats (> 30 cm), had higher fitness. They were surviving better and reproducing more successfully. Over time, what would you expect to happen? Wolves with long fur would eventually dominate the population. What would the average fur length be? Closer to 30 cm, even though before a 30 cm wolf would have been too hot. Now most wolves in later populations would have fur close to 30 cm. Then let's say, the climate got warmer again. What would happen? The frequency of wolves with shorter coat lengths would increase and the average would again decrease. Wolves don't have to think that they need shorter coats or longer coats to survive and reproduce. The ones that have an optimal coat length for the climate are the ones that dominate subsequent generations. In the same way, human males do not have to think about becoming more attractive to females, only that the ones that are more attractive leave more offspring. In the same way, if there is variation in mate guarding behavior, and successful mate guarding at that, then those males with more successful mate guarding behavior than other males (who aren't so jealous) will leave more offspring. However, is society changes in terms of what is considered acceptable behavior, then those who are less intense mate guarders may become more successful. For example, in the cave man days a large, bad-ass male (#1) could fight off other males who might try to take his woman (or women). If another male (#2) comes along and tries to take his wife, male (#1) fights (#2) off and kills him. This is acceptable behavior, not because people might approve of it, but because, larger, more aggressive males have the advantage and who is going to stop them. Obviously, a really successful man might go and kill other males and take their wives and possessions for his own. Who will have higher fitness? The harem male. All males in the population may want more wives, but the biggest, baddest, most aggressive male has more wives. He also doesn't care what the wives think. Females of this era end up with these larger males, and over time develop a preference for large, bad-ass males. They don't have to know why they prefer large, bad-ass males, only that they do. It turns out being with a large, bad-ass male is safer than being with a wimp. Wimps get killed and their wives get raped. Therefore, women with a preference for bad assed males have higher fitness; they live longer and have more offspring, even if their husbands occasionally beat them. They are also more attracted to and turned on by aggressive, bad-assed males. None of this behavior for either men or women has to be conscious, and it generally is not conscious. Men want to have sex with many pretty women and women want big, aggressive men. If the women weren't getting beaten up for looking at other big brutes, they too would probably want to have sex with many men as well. They don't even have to know that sex has anything to do with offspring. All the men know is that they like having sex with women and the more women they have, the more enjoyable sex they can have. The women don't have much power, but with large, bad-ass men, they live longer lives. Later, a change occurs and men killing other men over women is no longer considered acceptable behavior. In fact, if a man kills another man in a jealous rage, he either goes to jail or he is killed himself. Either way, big, bad-assed males who can't control their jealousy and aggressive behavior, have lower fitness. They don't live as long and women (who now have more control over their own lives) don't want to be with such brutes. In this new environment, who has higher fitness? Would the average male be more or less aggressive? Would the average male show more or less mate guarding behavior? Behavior is just like coat length in wolves. Populations are made up of individuals who vary in some trait (fur length, aggressiveness). Depending on the environment (hot or cold, more violent or less violent), certain trait attributes are more adaptive than others. If the trait you have is better adapted for the current environment, then you will likely have higher fitness than someone with a variation of the trait that is less optimal. This is why we now live in a country of wimps with big brains like myself.
"I'm just reading your words from earlier posts, which are not the words you say you are repeating. But deception is a natural phenomenon, a natural thing, like the camoflage of a salamander and inticing scent of a venus fly trap."
That is absolutely correct. Neither the salamander or the venus fly-trap has to KNOW the trait helps it survive and reproduce. In the salamanders case, individuals with better camouflage have higher fitness and their offspring with better camouflage dominate subsequent generations. However, if the visual background changes, then salamanders with patterns that better fit the new background leave more offspring and later populations have a higher frequency of the new pattern. Venus flytraps are the same way. There is variation in scent. If the insect community changes and the a different species is more common, then fly traps in later generations will have evolved scents that are more attractive to the new, more common insects. Fly traps cannot decide to change (evolve), since they don't have brains or minds.
"Here are my questions that continue to go unanswered:"
"How could a man protect what you call his "property" to assure his own parentage when he does not understand the link between sex and pregnancy?"
I answered this above. He doesn't have to know anything about sex leading to offspring. All he has to know is that he better protect his wife (property) from other aggressive men or they will beat him up and he won’t have sex anymore and, if he has any self awareness, he might end up like poor Mikey, the village drunkard, who used to be known as Big, bad-ass Mike, before Bluto came along and stole Olive Oil.
"How could a woman want someone to raise a child that is not his own biological offspring when she did not understand the link between sex and pregnancy?"
See above. Again, the woman (let's call her Salome) does not have to know. It turns out that Salome is turned on more by Don Juan than Joe, her husband, because Don Juan has higher testosterone than Joe, is more aggressive and indulges in riskier behavior. In other words he is the classic bad boy. She can't keep her eyes off of Don Juan; he is just soooo sexy. Of course, after Don Juan is through with her, he pays her no mind and is off to new conquests. Joe is still at home in wimpdome and she comes back to him and sleeps with him. She is pregnant. How would either know who the child's real father is? Of course, maybe Don Juan had blond hair and was very aggressive, while Joe is a meek little fella, but a very faithful provider. If the child looks much more like Don Juan, there might be some comments behind the scenes about the milkman, but that is about it. Regardless, Salome has meek Joe who is a good provider raise Don Juan’s child, who inherits Don Juan’s bad boy traits and spreads his seed far and wide with many resulting offspring (higher fitness). Salome doesn’t know why she thought Don Juan was sexy, just that he was. In this case, both Salome and Don Juan have higher fitness, while Joe has no fitness at all. Of course, he might get lucky.
"At what point in human evolutionary develoment did early humans become aware of the link between sex and pregnancy?"
I don't know and probably no one knows for sure. For all I know, chimpanzees might make the connection. Unfortunately, we can't ask them.
"I did look up the Merriam Webster definition of "strategy" and was astounded to learn that a definition used there includes evolutionary strategy. Unfortunately, the example used by the dictionary "insect foraging strategies" also could imply conscious intent. All other definitions include conscious intent."
Evolutionary strategies are never defined to imply intent. If someone used intent when discussing evolutionary strategies, he/she would be laughed at. This is not to imply that evolutionary biologists are mean and arrogant, just that the writer is obviously naive. Obviously with my students, I don't laugh at them when they imply intent. However, I ask them questions that lead them to realize intent is not required. As such, evolutionary biologists do not define strategy with intent. If we want to imply intent, then we state so explicitly. In other words, it is a matter of semantics.
A common misunderstanding surrounds the word theory. In the popular usage, ‘People often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts, in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them.
In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.
According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to state, "any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single repeatable observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."’ (Wikipedia)
February 17, 2007 5:58 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 17, 2007 17:58
Evolution by natural selection is "unconscious intent" and not conscious. The Venus fly trap evolved, survived by eating flies. The ones that did not accidently eat flies didn't survive while the ones that did survived to REPRODUCE, make more fly eaters before they died of natural causes. Of the survivors of that step all did not continue the "life chain." The one(s) that made an inticing scent to attract flies survived to REPRODUCE more fly eaters that gave off a fly inticing scent. The ones that did not failed to survive, went extinct.
Is specie homo sapien immune from the need to evolve?
There is a survival strategy, "strength in numbers." The specie produces so many offspring that "some" will survive. There are many examples, sea turtles, fish and insects as well as others. Humans under the influence of religion appear to be employing that strategy, make babies in such huge numbers some will survive. Then there is the possibility the strategy is intended for the survival of the religion, ignoring the survival of man.
In recent history the question of not just survival but "quality of life" was posed to a deaf audience. Is man, the animal with the brain capable of addressing that issue? Maybe all men don't qualify as animals with brains? Holy men who employ the strength in numbers strategy with the survival of religion as their goal?
Economys hate sudden, abrupt changes. One is about to take place when the "boomers" all head for the social security office at the same time. Will the survivors employ strength in numbers or natural selection? Is there another option?
February 17, 2007 10:59 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 17, 2007 10:59
Words like "want" and "strategy" seem to imply consciousness on the part of the wanter and strategizer.
I'm just reading your words from earlier posts, which are not the words you say you are repeating. But deception is a natural phenomenon, a natural thing, like the camoflage of a salamander and inticing scent of a venus fly trap.
Here are my questions that continue to go unanswered:
How could a man protect what you call his "property" to assure his own parentage when he does not understand the link between sex and pregnancy?
How could a woman want someone to raise a child that is not his own biological offspring when she did not understand the link between sex and pregnancy?
At what point in human evolutionary develoment did early humans become aware of the link between sex and pregnancy?
I did look up the Merriam Webster definition of "strategy" and was astounded to learn that a definition used there includes evolutionary strategy. Unfortunately, the example used by the dictionary "insect foraging strategies" also could imply conscious intent. All other definitions include conscious intent.
February 17, 2007 4:31 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 17, 2007 04:31
Ralph,
I keep telling you, males and females are not conscious of what they are doing. Male cues are attracting females. Those cues might be body size, smell, intelligence, etc. Those cues are associated with traits that are correlated with fitness, in both the male and the offspring. In terms of male mate guarding, the male does not have to be aware that he is protecting his paternity, just that he doesn't want his woman fooling around with another man. It really has nothing to do with conscious decisions. It is the same thing with early humans as it is nowadays. If my girlfriend finds me cheating on her, She is likely to get enraged, regardless of whether she want kids or not, and vice versa.
February 16, 2007 7:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2007 19:29
"The male wants to assure his paternity, whereas the female may want a non-philandering father (sticks close to home and provides lots of resources)to raise the offspring of the true biological father (a roguish devil) who sows his seed widely and is more likely to produce many roguish, sexy sons (increases his and her fitness), though is an unreliable father."
How did early humans employ these conscious strategies without understanding that sex causes pregnancy?
February 16, 2007 7:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2007 19:08
Anonymous,
I know you signed off, but I just realized something. Ted Haggerty, the disgraced Colorado preacher, is probably the reincarnation of Lot. Too bad Lot didn't have methamphetimine to help him out.
February 16, 2007 7:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2007 19:03
Sajeed Hussain
So everything is ok as long as Allah acts through you?! Its ok for the prophet to mollest little girls because Allah was acting through him. Allah must be one twisted dude. No wonder you guys treat your women like crap.
Shantanu.
February 16, 2007 6:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2007 18:51
Bye everyone - it's been fun. Have a good weekend.
February 16, 2007 6:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2007 18:40
Are we off topic? How long ago did Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty stop reading all this? What ever happened to "Sajeed Hussain"? And what about "Pixiegirl"? Will "Va View" get the Flying Spaghetti Monster's tomato sauce out of his eyes in time to see the light? How did I get here? This is not my beautiful house!
February 16, 2007 6:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2007 18:10
Maurie Beck:
I think you'd better write this all down and put it into a book. You'd make millions! "The Gospel According To Maurie":
"Thus sayeth the Lord: ... Obviously the guy hadeth a drinking problem and when she complainedeth outside of town about having to leave the cosy village of Sodom, Lot probably clobbered her with a big rock of salt crystal and then saideth god did it. Most likely, his wife likedeth sodom because all the men were into having gay thekth and basically left her alone. Obviously, her husband lefteth her alone too, cause she was an old hag ... and he hadeth kind of a lithp anyway and we know what THAT meanth."
The word of the lawrd. Amen."
I'm laughing again.
February 16, 2007 6:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2007 18:04
Anonymous
No problem. Glad you liked the story. What I always wanted to know was how Lot knew that his wife got turned into a pillar of salt, if she was following behind him like any good dutiful wife. The only way he would have known is if he had turned around too.
Obviously the guy had a drinking problem and when she complained outside of town about having to leave the cosy village of Sodom, Lot probably clobbered her with a big rock of salt crystal and then said god did it. Most likely, his wife liked sodom because all the men were into having gay sex and basically left her alone. Obviously, her husband left her alone too, cause she was an old hag.
PS. Tell your wife I apologize and I don't don't consider all wives old hags.
February 16, 2007 5:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2007 17:52
um - sorry maurie for the typo ...
February 16, 2007 5:38 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2007 17:38
Marie Beck: "... not like their mother, that old hag ...." I am laughing out loud at this. Wait till I tell my wife. Ha ha ha ha ha.
February 16, 2007 5:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2007 17:36
Re: "They may be able to reproduce before 15 years old, but children have a greater likelihood of complications" - is this true? I'm aware of the greater likelihood of birth defects when the mother is older, but don't recall hearing about complications in births to younger women. Complications for whom - the baby or the mother?
As for hungry felines, I suspect that there was some relation between the two. It's GRRRRRRRREAT!
As for it being warped to wait until eduction and job are in place before reproducing, that's EXACTLY what my wife and I did ("wait" - and we're of course going to go to "hell as we know it" on account of THAT mortal sin), and EXACTLY what I tell my kids ("I'll see you in hell" - who said that?).
Grrrrrrr.
February 16, 2007 5:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2007 17:34
Anonymous:
Either Sajeed Hussain bailed out on us, or he's afraid to try to justify his statements.
I'd like to see Muhammed justify his actions to a judge about being a pedophile and having concubine slaves. In the same vein I'd like to see Lot justify his impregnation of his daughters in that cave.
Lot. "But your honor, they got me drunk and took advantage of me."
Judge. "How old are your daughters, sir?"
Lot. "Well, you know how young teenagers are, they are wanton and can't be controlled. Besides, they are pretty girls, don't you think, and not like their mother, that old hag. Perhaps if you spent some time with them, they might change your mind?"
The judge furrows his brow, thinks a moment, then says, "I'll take it under advisement. Send the young girls into my chambers, so that I may more thoroughly know their intentions."
February 16, 2007 5:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2007 17:31
"Why did God create humans so that they are at the peak of their fertility when they are teens"
Because having sex and babies in your teens is a good thing. Your young, healthy, energetic, and have grandparents around to help out. It's our warped society that says we have to finish extended education and get a job before having children.
February 16, 2007 5:15 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2007 17:15
Mark,
"I agree with you scientific conclusions. Religion and science can co-exist and the describe different evolutions: that of the physical body and phsyical mind (science) and that of the spirit and consciousness (religion)."
I respectfully disagree. A physical basis for mind and consciousness has been well established. I don't have time to point you in the right direction, but I suggest you use google to do a little exploring.
"Carl Jung, an exceedingly important psychologist, believed in the supra-natural aspects of the mind and the soul."
Carl Jung was addled, as was Freud, though both advanced their field by being very mistaken. However, Jung appears to have been correct about universal archetypes. Unfortunately, what he attributed to metaphysical or supernatural causes has been countered with evidence that some of those symbols appear to be coded in our genes from our evolutionary history. For example, fear of snakes and snakes as a symbolic archetype have been established to have a biological basis, not just in humans, but in other primates as well.
"The problem with most religious pastors, espicially christian sects, fail to see the old testament as an allegory, a tale using symbolism, and was never meant to be read literally. That is why you are suppose to meditate on the old testament to get the deeper significance from the story."
I still don't know how you make Deuteronomy 13 turn out right, even if it is an allegory. Of course, it's better that someone takes it as an allegory than applies it literally, or I'd be a goner.
"If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods,” unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God. . . .(Deuteronomy 13:7–11).
"Science has little information of consciousness."
You haven't been reading the literature. Google.
"In science, you are taught not to believe something is true (hypothesis), until you prove that all counter arguements are not true (null hypothesis). Spirituality does not work that way. You must first believe in it and then work at proving it is true, unless you prove otherwise."
That's why science is evidence based and what you call spirituality is open to extreme bias; it's easy to only find evidence that supports your prior belief. Scientists, on the other hand, take their favorite (and nonfavorite) hypotheses and try to blow them up. The ones left standing have the most support.
February 16, 2007 5:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2007 17:12
How about a reference on
tumescent Jesus which Leo Steinberg
February 16, 2007 4:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2007 16:56
Why did God make teenagers so fertile? Because, there was a greater than 50/50 chance that they would be eaten by a lion (or something else) before the age of 20.
The biology dictated when the can reproduce. Does not mean they are mentally developed enough to be a mother. They may be able to reproduce before 15 years old, but children have a greater likelyhood of complications. Therefore, many cultures waited until the risk of childbirth and decreased sufficiently.
February 16, 2007 4:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2007 16:47
To respond and add to Robert B's above corrections of Doniger, Henry VIII was motivated in part by the desire for a male heir, although it was clear that he was also not terribly interested in Catherine of Aragon and was impassioned for Anne Boleyn. Catherine had been the arranged bride of Henry's older brother, Arthur, who died young, and in order to maintain the alliance with Spain, Henry inherited her. Yes, he wanted a male heir, but he also was pulled by attraction.
More importantly, contrary to common misconceptions, the break from Rome wasn't actually a vote for Protestantism. Protestantism had spread through northern Europe, and Henry VIII had been awarded the title "Defender of the Faith" by Rome for his attacks against Luther. In England, Henry persecuted Protestants aggressively and continued to do so after he split from Rome.
The break from Rome was about the power to invalidate a marriage and allow a new one. Henry's plan was to have the English church remain the same in everything except in allegiance to the Pope. Although this persecution faded in his later years as Protestantism became more accepted, in no small part because of the sympathies for Protestantism apparent in his last wife, Catherine Parr, Henry was theologically a Catholic. England really didn't move toward serious reformations until young Edward ascended the throne, and since Edward's reign was so short and was followed by the Catholic Mary, in practice, those reforms had to be reestablished in Elizabeth's reign. England remained more Catholic than Protestant well into the latter half of the 16th century.
All of this is to say, Doniger's treatment of this topic is extremely superficial and slipshod, mired in generalities and misunderstandings of culture and history. Her main point isn't entirely clear, and she wants to support it by appealing to various cultures and historical events, but all of these are treated in such sloppy generalities that the article ends up saying very little at all.
February 16, 2007 4:45 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2007 16:45
Either Sajeed Hussain bailed out on us, or he's afraid to try to justify his statements.
February 16, 2007 4:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2007 16:34
VA View:
If "Maybe God made humans more fertile at an earlier age to insure they would be able to do some creating at least adequately later", then your Book doesn't answer the question "Why did God create humans so that they are at the peak of their fertility when they are teens". If your Book can't answer this question, maybe there are some other questions it also can't answer. Actually, we already know that to be true. We therefore need scientists and reason, after all, because your Book can't answer all the questions we have, which God must have wanted us to ask, because he gave us that darned intellect that keeps coming up with questions.
February 16, 2007 4:33 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2007 16:33
VA,
Yes, animals do have souls with a limited individual consciousness. All living creatures have souls what other cause animates the body and mind of an animal. Their consciousness is rudimentary, they are aware of physical desires (hunger, thirst, heat, cold, survival) and are aware when they are in pain and danger. Otherwise, their consciousness is a supra-natural consciousness, group consciousness, or for the scientist, instinct.
Human are also guided by different groups of supra-natural consciousness. The reason I say groups is that we have the universal consciousness (hebrew is adam consciousness, book of man, or Akashic files in hinduism/buddhism). Than you have man-generated group consciousness. Religion is one type often described as the communion of the "church." You also have nationalism, race, interest, and many other communal consciousness. In social studies, it is often call group think. It is where the ideas and beliefs of a group or community color you perception of events. For example, there is a communal belief in the US that Iran is bad, so any information on Iran will be evaluated on this basis. Another example, Nazi Germany created a charged atmosphere of anti-semeticism that many germans after the war did not understand why they went along with the mistreatment of the jews.
How can a scientific instrument measure the group-think of evangicals, nazis, a football team?
February 16, 2007 4:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2007 16:16
I didn't say I know everything in the Bible, Anonymous. Just that if you have a question that isn't readily answered by most religious leaders, you CAN and WILL find the answer to it in the Bible, if you LOOK FOR IT. There are some things I haven't asked..didn't matter to me. Evidently you are dissing something you haven't researched! Don't knock it until you try it!
February 16, 2007 4:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2007 16:09
In Hinduism, sex (and more generally, desire) is one of the four sanctioned/prescribed goals in one's life. The four goals - dharma, artha (material pursuit), kaama (desire) and moksha (enlightenment), it is said should be directed toward the ultimate goal - moksha. The moral of the story being, "Do good, make money, get laid" - but don't forget what to aspire for next, moksha. After all, it was a sage who wrote the kamasutra!
February 16, 2007 4:07 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2007 16:07
Edem: It is perfectly clear in the Bible what God's intents are. No meeting necessary!!! Anyone with an even half-way relationship with God can tell you that God steers, influences, blesses, teaches all of us at all levels if we just ask for the interference.Read the Bible...it's all there!!!!!
February 16, 2007 4:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2007 16:03
Wendy is a moron.
February 16, 2007 4:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2007 16:02
Re: Va View: "I don't claim to have all of God's answers" -
Ah, but Va View, you do claim that your Book does have all the answers.
February 16, 2007 3:58 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2007 15:58
Scientists certainly have a better shot at figuring out how God put together His creation than anybody else does, particularly those who spurn the intellect God gave them in favor of wishful thinking that the Flying Spaghetti Monster will drip some tomato sauce onto our heads that can be interpreted as holy writ.
February 16, 2007 3:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2007 15:55
Talking about God and what he/she intended. Who have ever met him/her and entrusted with his/her plans?
February 16, 2007 3:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 16, 2007 15:52
"God is a concept by which we measure our pain", hence:
(1) "The bipolar nature is a universal law of life designed by God himself";
(2) "Prophet Muhammad(Peace Be Upon His Soul)was not responsible for his actions because Allah acted through him";
(3) "Lot went into a cave with his daughters and emerged later with a family";
All just so much avoidance of responsibility in the name of some great Flying Spaghetti Monster, uh ... I mean "God".
February 16, 2007 3:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments