Babeled

Rant Warning - Don’t Hate me Because I Suck

Well I am finally getting around to reading Stephen Hawking’s, A Brief History of Time. Yeah, it’s about 2 decades too late, I know. While I completely lack scientific know-how, I am taunted by an ever-growing curiosity of what makes our Universe tick. Sadly, I am crippled by mathematical ineptitude, and my laziness has done nothing to correct that. So here I sit, pontificating as an armchair physicist (you should probably stop reading now).

Enter Hawking; his watered-down writing style welcomes scientific know-nothings like myself into the fold. My desire to know more without the willingness to work hard is validated by Hawking’s simplistic overview of our elegant Universe. Happily reading along, pretending to understand, the path to the big bang was unfolding nicely until I arrived at the Solid State Theory. Then bam, Hawking’s words sprung from the page and slapped me in my metaphorical face.

Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention. (The Catholic Church, on the other hand, seized on the big bang model and in 1951 officially pronounced it to be in accordance with the Bible.) There were therefore a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a big bang. The proposal that gained the widest support was called the steady state theory.

The Initial Shock

There is no way in hell the Vatican would come to its senses and jump on board with a scientific theory so readily. I mean this is the benevolent organization that brought about such joy with Indulgences and Inquisitions. Not to mention the death grip it slipped around scientific discovery throughout the Middle Ages. I found it remarkable that the Holy See would acquiesce with Science in such a manner. Ignoring its great pastime of censorship on all things; still, I cannot put a finger on what is driving my skepticism in the first place…

Which Leads me to my Next Point

Why in God’s name would real scientists get so bent by the idea of divine intervention. So bent in fact that they were driven by biased motivation to dispute good science? I understand it is the role of scientists to be skeptical and ensure that theories make good predictions, and then follow through on said predictions with quantitative data. But to actively seek something better because the Church actually sees the light is just bad science.

It is clear that old grudges die hard, and two wrongs still do not make a right. Of course science has taken obscene abuse at the hands of the Church for centuries, but come on, are knee-jerk reactions necessary among professionals? Why can’t scientists take the high road, and not stoop to the level of their oppressor? All of this proves is childish behavior still dominates our better judgment.

Science and Religion Continue to Step on Each Other’s Toes

Science and Religion both seek the same answers to the ‘Big Question’. Yet there is a key fundamental difference. Science asks how, while Religion asks why. Scientists could care less about why we are here, and all the morality that lies within. It is our theists that seek the why, they seek need, they seek purpose. Their fear of being inconsequential veils better judgment and preys upon human nature’s need for purpose.

Still, there is something noble there. It makes perfect sense to want to be apart of something bigger than ourselves. We all want to be apart of a job, apart of a group, apart of friendship, and apart of family. Science ignores our predisposition to belong, and does not allow that bias to penetrate its theories. As I mentioned, it only seeks the how, while ruling out the why. However, in the instance of the Solid State Theory it brings the bias of why back into the equation. Since some scientists were essentially saying, why support the big bang (a great theory) because it is tainted by religious backing?

On that sole premise scientists sought to pursue a better theory, one that excised the divine intervention to which Hawking referred. So how about this proposition, why can’t science and religion seek their answers in peace, without being concerned about what the ‘opposition’ thinks? It is time to let bygones be bygones and stay focused on using logic instead of past feelings to drive your future developments.

Perhaps someday, religion will see the value of having science explain some of its long held beliefs. In much the same way that science should seek to resolve some of the long standing mysteries of the Bible. I know I am idealistic, but I bet both parties would be surprised by what they could learn from each other.

Rant over.

Ancient texts, which the Book of Genesis as part of the Old Testament certainly qualifies as, should always be viewed with a critical eye on the look out for metaphor and mysticism within the context of historical fact. By literally interpreting the words of our ancestors we can be nothing but fully responsible for our own misinterpretation of the text, which no doubt will occur if one is not careful to remove the fiction from the writing. It is the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis that I intend to address.

The following are premises that I hold to be true (mostly) of humans in prehistory:

• The human mind was just as intelligent and dynamic as it is today
• Oral tradition was the medium for passing cultural knowledge down through the generations
• They lived and died at the whim of the Earth’s bounty - if there was a drought and the supply of grain or grazing animals diminished, the human population followed suit for lack of food
• God/Earth were not considered separate entities
• There were, and are today, two human cultures: (A) agricultural expansionists (B) homeostatic tribes
• Agricultural expansionists - human cultures that adopted the practice of producing surplus food in order to sustain population growth
• Homeostatic tribes - human cultures that practiced subsistence farming, animal husbandry, and hunter/gatherer techniques of food acquisition not to exceed a sustainable population

I recommend reading Daniel Quinn’s Ishmael for a more in-depth exploration of the two human cultures, which he calls “Takers” (agricultural expansionists) and “Leavers” (homeostatic tribes).

It is now time for the critical eye to be put on the Book of Genesis by viewing it in the context of these premises.

Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil myth: the only tree in the Garden of Eden that bore fruit from which Adam and Eve were not to eat. This tree allegedly contained the knowledge that only God was privy to in regards to what is right and wrong; humans were not intended to obtain this knowledge.

The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil interpreted: the Tree is actually a metaphor for the knowledge of what should live and what should die (Quinn 160). The arrogance of man to assume that by eating the fruit he would obtain this knowledge is faulty, as only the Gods could possess this knowledge, regardless of whether man ate the fruit or not. This explains why they were thrown out of the Garden. By assuming that humans now had the means to rule the Earth themselves, they followed suit and have been “conquering” the world ever since. A plethora of examples exist in popular culture everyday: man is “conquering” space; man is trying to “conquer” earthquakes, etc. You hear phrases similar to these almost daily and think nothing of them. Perhaps now you will think differently the next time you hear a phrase that contains “man”, “conquer”, and a natural phenomena. That behavior is exactly what got humans thrown out of the Garden in the first place…

God myth: the sole creator and master of reality - a singular omnipotent, omniscient being.

God interpreted: this is where the Semitic tribes confused themselves. Originally in the oral tradition God represented Mother Earth as the sole provider of life and livelihood for prehistoric tribes. Later in written tradition, the descendants of the Semites called the Hebrews, brought in the concept of an omnipotent entity that existed outside of all creation and over-wrote the old traditions with this new found belief.

Adam/Eve myth: are said to be the first two humans, created by God and placed in the Garden.

Adam/Eve interpreted: represent the birth of human history and culture. Their struggles to learn how to live in their new bodies and in the new world (outside of the Garden) are the struggles of prehistoric tribes coping with the environment in which they lived. This is also closely related to the Akkadian Atra-Hasis story of creation, in which the junior gods who were assigned the responsibilities of farming the land revolted against the God of the Earth, Enlil. It was at this time that the gods created humans to fulfill the duties of manual farm labor, further solidifying the interpretation that the Creation story in the Book of Genesis is a corollary myth from a competing culture (homeostatic tribes) to the story of the agricultural expansionists espoused in Atra-Hasis.

Cain/Abel myth: the first two children of Adam and Eve - Cain was a farmer, Abel a shepherd. Cain killed Abel out of envy and greed.

Cain/Abel interpreted: Cain represents agricultural expansionist cultures and Abel the homeostatic tribes of the Semites. The “killing” of Abel is really the infringement and war of the agricultural expansionists on the Semites’ territories. The agricultural expansionists were the first peoples to effectively wage war for the sole purpose of conquering lands and people to support their future growth.

The Great Flood myth: Noah, a direct descendant of Seth (son of Adam to replace Abel), was instructed by God to build an Ark to survive the coming flood. On this Ark, he was to take mating pairs of animals so that life would go on after the flood waters purged Cain’s sinful descendants from the land.

The Great Flood interpreted: many scholars have shown how the story of Noah and his Ark is very closely related to, if not the same story, as the Akkadian Atra-Hasis, which was later adapted into the Epic of Gilgamesh, eleventh tablet. The Flood as described in this story probably relates to a flood that is depicted in historical texts from various peoples in Mesopotamia and confirmed factually by the graph below. The level of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers increased dramatically around 3400 BCE indicating flooding of the lands. Another possible flood incident occurred much later, making it less probable than the one noted above; however, circa 1400 BCE the rivers flooded again with a subsequently substantial drop in population (also noted on the graph below). This fits nicely with the myth that indicates the intent of the Flood was to eliminate Cain’s offspring, which it did if you consider the interpretation of Cain provided above - the flood killed off agricultural expansionists (Cain).

In summary, the Book of Genesis is a conglomerate of ancient myths passed down from two human cultures. Ultimately, the Book of Genesis was written by the agricultural expansionist descendants (the Hebrews) of the homeostatic tribal ancestors (Semites). In this way the two different cultural stories become hybridized and fictionalized even further, for there is little doubt the source stories from which the Book of Genesis was written were also mythological in nature to some extent. The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil represents the knowledge of what should live and what should die, which was how the Semites explained the actions of their aggressive neighbors, the agricultural expansionists; Adam and Eve represent the birth of modern human cultures; Cain and Abel represent the struggle between the agricultural expansionists and the homeostatic tribes; and the Great Flood represents the natural disaster of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers flooding and killing the agricultural expansionist peoples in Mesopotamia.

This is solely my interpretation of these stories based upon the premises stated and the various sources referenced. I must give credit to Daniel Quinn for illuminating me to the intricacies of this collection of stories and how to go about deconstructing them with historical contextual clues and fact.

References:

Quinn, Daniel. Ishmael. New York: Bantam, 1995.

Graph image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MesopotamiaTrends.jpg

Tree of Knowledge picture: http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/2854803/2/istockphoto_2854803_tree_of_knowledge_good_and_evil.jpg