bea, thanks for that video from kentucky @#97. i know there are protests going on around the country all the time. here's one that took place yesterday in bellevue wa.

Posted by: annie | Aug 29 2007 18:57 utc | 101

Here in Wired is an interesting bit of info about the FBI DCSNet telephone surveillance system, uncovered via FOIA request.

The network allows an FBI agent in New York, for example, to remotely set up a wiretap on a cell phone based in Sacramento, California, and immediately learn the phone's location, then begin receiving conversations, text messages and voicemail pass codes in New York. With a few keystrokes, the agent can route the recordings to language specialists for translation.

The numbers dialed are automatically sent to FBI analysts trained to interpret phone-call patterns, and are transferred nightly, by external storage devices, to the bureau's Telephone Application Database, where they're subjected to a type of data mining called link analysis.

Time for Uncle to remind us about the Panopticon!

Posted by: jonku | Aug 29 2007 19:00 utc | 102

Africa: Africa Opposed to U.S. Command Base - Lekota

Cape Town - There is broad consensus among African countries that foreign forces - specifically in the form of the United States' new African Command - would not be welcomed to establish themselves on the continent.

Defence Minister Mosiuoa Lekota expressed this sentiment Wednesday, during a briefing on the implementation of government's programme of action by Cabinet's International Relations, Peace and Security cluster.

The minister indicated a hesitance on the part of African countries to host the US's new dedicated command for the continent.

"The Africom [the US Africa Command] initiative has raised a lot of interest and attracted a lot of attention because ... Africa has to avoid the presence of foreign forces on her soil," Mr Lekota told reporters on Wednesday.
...
As a start, the 14-country Southern African Development Community had taken a decision that none of its members would be willing to host US forces, he said.

Mr Lekota said that the SADC had adopted the position that it would be better for the US not "to come and make a presence and create uncertainty here", the Defence Minister added.

"At the interstate defence and security committee meeting held in Dar es Salaam, the SADC defence and security ministers took the position and recommended that sister countries of the region should not agree to host Africom - in particular, to host [US] armed forces," he said.

That recommendation went to the heads of state of the region, who met recently at a summit held in the Zambia capital, Lusaka.

"And that's the position of SADC," he said, adding that the question may arise that a country in another region may differ.

"But as far as we aware the majority of the regions of our continent have taken that position," Mr Lekota added.

n reply to a question as to whether this decision had been communicated to the United States, he indicated that a decision made by the continental body, the African Union (AU), would likely be communicated by the Addis Ababa administration through the relevant channels.

The defence minister added, however, that "it is not unnatural" that one or two countries on the continent may differ from this position, but indicated that a decision not host US armed forces would likely be upheld by the AU's 53 members in the interest of unity.

"The interests of unity of African nations supersedes any individual view [of a constituent member]," he added.

right on

Posted by: b real | Aug 29 2007 19:01 utc | 103

btw, the accompanying article said there were 300 people. the announcement i got from the email on my listserve (w/photos) guessed about 1200. This was the largest protest in Bellevue history, unless you count the Fur Trapper Riot of 1904. there were other protests in seattle. of course 1200 is still a piddly amount, but 300? please.

Posted by: annie | Aug 29 2007 19:02 utc | 104

Are you saying that you had formed this creature in your dreams PRIOR to learning of them from society?

Certainly not. Of course I have heard of them to make up my phantasy. But that is part of being human. We don't grow up without contacts with other humans. People carry the social surrounding they grew up in with them all life, conscious or not. It's impossible of being totally free of that.

But whatever it is - how does this help the discussion.

My point is quite simple: A personal belief in some form of afterlife or being reborn after death is just as valuable as a belief that there is nothing after death. Who are you/I to judge over that?

If such believes organizes, usually within a certain culture/class/region they add rules to the believes that are beneficial to that society. In the middle east you don't eat pork because swines are poor 'users' of water for the amount of meat they give. Thus a "religious" rule to not eat pork.

The primary impulse of the religion, which is usually peaceful, becomes the justification of secondary laws that implement rules of the anthropologic society that help to keep up the primary rule. Then comes the third layer. Rules that set "us" against "them" and are used for nefarious reasons.

I don't mind the first set of personal construct of sense of life and death. Why should I? I have met lots of good people who have such believes, from various christians over muslim, hindi to buddhist and I like them and they like me while accepting disagreement on the individual belief system.

The second layer, social nessessary rules of a common, has been detached from religion when it was beneficial for the societies to do so. The westphalian peace settles this between group beliefs, forging independent nations. More important the enlightment settles the issue between personal beliefs, forging independent people. Kant finally put that secondary use of religion to a neutral foundation (in old greek tradition) arguing for a deeper moral, noreligious first base which recommends the second independent of religion. After that, the first base of religion was no longer needed as justification.

His view is still not universally accepted, but at least the position is taken seriously. (Khamenei, the Iranian leading cleric scholar certainly knows his Kant and Weber, often discussing them. He doesn't like him much but acknowledges their value. That's much more advanced than most christian positions btw.)

The third layer is what is used in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. A colonial war justified by some "us" versus "them". Such I dispise. It denies the rationality of human beings. I denies a neutral moral and a common interest free from anthropolical situations.

Posted by: b | Aug 29 2007 19:04 utc | 105

Pakistan's Musharraf will take off the uniform; deal with Bhutto near

Bhutto told 'The Daily Telegraph' that though other aspects of the deal is yet to be worked out, "the uniform issue is resolved". The completed deal is expected by the end of the month.

Bhutto's claim means the General will resign as army chief before seeking re-election as president.

In a reference to recent negotiations in London Bhutto said, "The uniform issue is key and there has been a lot of movement on it in the recent round of talks".

Bhutto, who has vowed to return to Pakistan by the end of the year, with or without a deal, is seen to be increasingly confident about coming to an agreement with Musharraf.

Posted by: Bea | Aug 29 2007 19:36 utc | 106

b real #103

right on, indeed. only a desperate continent would welcome us in, after iraq.

Let's hope they continue to stand firm.

Posted by: Bea | Aug 29 2007 19:37 utc | 107

Pepe Escobar: Bush's Brand New Poodle

Posted by: Bea | Aug 29 2007 19:44 utc | 108

@ The Truth Gets Vicious When You Corner It

I understand your argument... but b has some valid points... and iirc Carl Jung (contrary to what Richard Dawkins says) thought the god image is an inherent aspect of the psyche's structure, an a priori given of possible human experience. (according to Jung) The god image has symbolic significance; it is not to be taken literally.

Unfortunately, many do take the image literally.

And Matthieu Ricard thinks the world was very different when folks worshipped many gods... then along came the idea of the 'one true god - MY god... and the problems began.

The problem with fundamentalism comes down to "my" god... the only god, the only 'truth'- so, the ego may be the problem - for some it is a god.

I'm not religious - not anymore... and I used to tolerate others' adherence to a religious belief system... the fundies are making that difficult though -

Posted by: crone | Aug 29 2007 21:40 utc | 109

b real@103,

to add:

and there can be no doubt that the West African bloc (ECOWAS - 16 countries) will likewise take an identical position against hosting AFRICOM.

first, the African experience was essentially an economic/intellectual/cultural sanctions/blockade over four hundred years moreso than a military campaign.

and perhaps one of the greatest myths about Africa is that it was subdued & colonized by superior European military force. By and large it was not. However, Europeans were fed myths of the British & French colonial flags flying proudly over African lands where in most cases, there was virtually no (and had never been any) British or French presence.

It should also be noted that despite ethnic differences, virtually unanimous violent resistance resulted in every single country where the colonials/settlers were reluctant to yield --- Angola, Mozambique, South Africa, Zimbabwe.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Aug 29 2007 21:43 utc | 110

is big corporate oil writing congressional research service rpts? or is it just the common mindset...

The Role of National Oil Companies in the International Oil Market (pdf - 135kb)

In the United States, the term “big oil companies” is likely to be taken to mean the major private international oil companies, largely based in Europe or America. However, while some of those companies are indeed among the largest in the world, by many important measures, a majority of the largest oil companies are state-owned, national oil companies. By conventional definitions, national oil companies hold the majority of petroleum reserves and produce the majority of the world’s supply of crude oil. Since national oil companies generally hold exclusive rights to exploration and development of petroleum resources within the home country, they also can decide on the degree to which they require participation by private companies in those activities.

The national oil companies typically do not operate strictly on the basis of market principles. Because of their close ties to the national government, in many cases their objectives might include wealth re-distribution, jobs creation, general economic development, economic and energy security, and vertical integration. Although these objectives might be desirable from the point of view of the nation’s government, they are unlikely to be equivalent to the maximization of shareholder value, the stated objective of the private international oil companies. Differing objectives might be considered to be important only if they lead to different characteristics and outcomes, which is the case for the national oil companies. Many of these companies have been found to be inefficient, with relatively low investment rates. They tend to exploit oil reserves for short-term gain, possibly damaging oil fields, reducing the longer term production potential. Some also have limited access to international capital markets because of poor business practices and a lack of transparency in their business deals. High oil prices since late 2003 have masked the effect of some of these characteristics in the flow of oil revenues. However, if the price of oil moderates, the potential supply constraint related to the inefficient operations of the national oil companies may be a destabilizing factor in the world oil market.

A wide variety of policy directions can be taken to mitigate the potential challenge posed by the dominance of national oil companies. Demand management policy can reduce the U.S. dependence on imports. The U.S. government can use its political influence to try to encourage nations not to use national oil companies to forward the aims of the government, but to follow commercial practices to maximize revenue flows. An expanded supply of oil could be encouraged as a condition for trade and aid agreements in some cases. Finally, promoting international trade and recognized commercial practices could be encouraged.
...
Venezuela provides an early example of how the political influence of a government can affect the supply of oil, disturb existing market partnerships, both with companies and with the United States, and forward the interests of U.S. competitors. The private international oil companies are unlikely to be able to counter national oil companies to preserve their own profit-seeking interests as well as those of the U.S. market, which requires adequate physical supply at moderate prices.

Various policy directions are available to counter the effects of national oil companies, but the recognition that a potential problem exists, as well as a long-term commitment to any chosen policy direction, will likely be needed to minimize the threat to U.S. oil market stability and energy security.

meanwhile,
Venezuelan National Oil Company to Create Diversified Branch Companies

Caracas, August 29, 2007 (venezuelanalysis.com) —The Venezuelan government's Central Planning Committee is proposing the creation of seven new companies as branches of the state oil company to promote growth and development in diverse sectors of the economy.

Venezuelan Energy Minister Rafael Ramírez presented the plan to President Chavez on Monday in a meeting with the other major government ministers that make up the committee.

With enormous proven oil reserves, Venezuela is using its oil sector as the catalyst for a wide variety of development programs. This project will create seven companies as branches to PDVSA, which are PDVSA Industry, PDVSA Naval, PDVSA Agriculture, PDVSA Services, PDVSA Popular Gas, PDVSA Urban Development, and PDVSA Engineering and Construction.

The Central Planning Committee, headed up by Vice-President Jorge Rodriguez, was created as a permanent structure of the government last June with the intention of coordinating national economic planning and government management in order to achieve economic development and sovereignty.

Posted by: b real | Aug 29 2007 22:05 utc | 111

The U.S. government can use its political influence to try to encourage nations not to use national oil companies to forward the aims of the government, but to follow commercial practices to maximize revenue flows.

God this is really sickening. But this says it all, doesn't it? Sums up the whooooole war, and possibly the whole of our foreign policy, in one stinking sentence.

Posted by: Bea | Aug 30 2007 0:18 utc | 112

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 30 2007 3:22 utc | 113

yea, bea, it's unreal how unexamined the ideological premises underlying the thinking of economists is. judging from many of the footnotes & the plagarized title of the CRS rpt, it's based largely on a recent study by the james a. baker III institute for public policy study - "the changing role of national oil companies in international energy markets." looks like it's just repackaged here to shape congressional thinking (assuming they do think) & further misinform them.

i found the following blatant propaganda in the congressional rpt particularly insidious. (my emphases)

Perhaps the most recent and assertive example of national oil companies being tied to the geopolitical aims of their government is PDVSA and President Chavez and his Bolivarian Revolution. Some believe that Chavez sees the United States and its promotion of democracy and global markets as a threat to his revolution. To counter what Chavez sees as U.S. expansionism, he is using the promise of economic aid, joint energy projects, and favorable oil pricing to gain influence in Latin America, the Caribbean, and other areas. PDVSA plays an important role in these policies. Recently, the Chavez government has completed deals with Ecquador, Bolivia, Argentina, Nicaragua, and others.

Iran has used the possibility of oil cut-offs to the West as a threat, and possible deterrent, in the controversy over its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Posted by: b real | Aug 30 2007 3:41 utc | 114

from the latest issue of africa journal, put out by the corporate council on africa, promoting u.s. domination trade on that continent.

Continent Surfaces As New Frontier for Biofuels

2007 might as well be called "the year of climate change and biofuels." As the U.S. and EU ramp up their ethanol production and Brazil sets the stage for leadership in the field, sub-Saharan Africa plays an increasingly important role. Many sub-Saharan African countries, primarily South Africa, Angola, and Mozambique might soon become leading biofuel and carbon credit suppliers to world markets.

Sub-Saharan Africa's emerging biofuel industry serves the interests of developed markets on many levels, most notably by providing an alternative to hydrocarbon dependence. Industrialized countries subject to the Kyoto Protocol Greenhouse Gas Emissions caps can also meet their emissions reduction targets through Clean Development Mechanisms (CDMs).

CDMs award credits to companies that invest in energy efficient projects in developing countries.

The current portfolio of 800 CDM projects worldwide includes very few biofuel-oriented projects. Private and public sector institutions such as Agrinergy and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) are currently working to streamline the CDM biofuel approval process, which will enable industrialized countries to facilitate biofuel projects in Africa for their benefit. Increasingly, Africa will be a frontier for developed nations to diversify their energy supplies and attain carbon "neutrality."

yee haw

the director of biz dev at dyncorp is chairing CCA's upcoming conference on infrastructure dev. no word yet on whether dyncorp will also be providing the hookers.

Posted by: b real | Aug 30 2007 4:47 utc | 115

@annie:

Thanks for the illustrative anecdote about the potential harm of even the most simple, natural instances of faith.

@crone:

Who cares what Jung said? Giving up religion and then using Jung as an authority is like a slave trading one master for another; he belonged to the "any three cases establish a universal rule" school of early psychiatry, and has very little grounds for any of his claims.

To summarize that link, since I get the impression people aren't reading it thoroughly:

Over the previous century or so, it has been demonstrated that every single aspect of a human being's personality and individuality is based on the organic (electrochemical) mechanisms of the brain. Your memory, personality, emotions, ability to feel empathy or even recognize other people, your ability to read and write, your sense of space, your sense of individuality, your decision-making processes, and your ethics are all strictly physical. (The essay gives descriptions of the neurology behind these conclusions in depth, including references to the studies and cases involved, which is largely why it is so long.) Since it can be demonstrated that the soul does not have these functions, it has no relation to your personality.

This renders the notion of a soul nonsensical in the context of judgement or karma -- since all these functions can demonstrably the province of the physical, the soul must be completely detached from your consciousness and behavior, in roughly the same way that your toenails are. An afterlife for such an entity would be just as meaningless as an afterlife for your toenails, as would any sort of judgement. (For that matter, since your soul is independent of your behavior, having it judged for your behavior would involve the punishment of of something which is innocent of any intent or wrongdoing.)

As a result: any religion which claims an afterlife or judgement is automatically in conflict with science and/or logic. That includes pretty much the whole shooting match. If you agree that science and observation are valid guides to the world, then any such religion is wrong, and all the major religions are such religions. They are all false.

Now, b seems to be arguing that we should not press this conclusion because it provides comfort and helps people to behave regularly. I argue that this is not just irresponsible, but morally reprehensible. Every so often, somebody on this board will make mocking reference to Leo Strauss, because Strauss thought that "noble lies" were okay.

If we have reason to believe that religion is false, then failing to point out the reasons for this in order to give people a sense of comfort is a noble lie.

We are all Straussians now.

Posted by: The Truth Gets Vicious When You Corner It | Aug 30 2007 5:21 utc | 116

@TTGVWYCI

Here's a fun source on brain research. This is your brain on music by Daniel Levitin, punk rocker turned producer turned cognitive psychologist.

Posted by: catlady | Aug 30 2007 6:03 utc | 117

FINALLY Chileans are revolting against the radical right-wing nut Unca Miltie economics, that kos thinks is so liberal etc:

Thousands of Chileans took to the streets yesterday in a burgeoning middle class revolt against the 17 years of coalition government that has ruled since the fall of Augusto Pinochet in 1990.

Salaries for workers have been at the forefront of public debate after recent statements by Bishop Alejandro Goic calling for "an ethical [minimum] wage" for Chilean workers. Chileans take to streets in anger at regime

Posted by: jj | Aug 30 2007 7:48 utc | 118

Ahh TTGVWYCI many people are not interested with facts when their pet beliefs - p$ychics et al - are concerned

annie - I made some points please respond to them and as you are the author of this claim:

especially people who have psychic abilities, which is many of us.

It is down to you to prove this. It is not for me or anyone else to disprove your claim. So, how well did you do when I challenged you?

there is a lot of unexplained phenomena out there and we don't know how it works. considering we use such a small portion of our brain to think we don't have mental abilities we aren't using is naive

I knew you were going to say this. At least the unexplained stuff and brain part. I'm surprised that I'm the naif because I want p$ychic$ to prove they can do it.

Please enlighten us with the unexplained phenomena. A couple of verified bonified p$sychic$ should do it.

...bicentennial time magazine interviewed 50 of the worlds top scientista and ask them what they thought was going to be the dominent theme of science in the next century. by far, the overwhelming majority said.. the study of the brain.

Wow. Scientists studying the brain. I am naive. And what, pray tell, means and methods will they be using? Why the very same ones that have proven time and again that p$sychic$ are frauds.

At the turn of the last century, Houdini was exposing p$ychic$/medium$ for their fraudulent practices and all you've proven is that going back in time and talking about future tech will cause people to look at you funny...

How many of us are p$ychic$ and where are they? Hanging around at ATMs getting PIN numbers or making a killing at the track/casino...

Posted by: jcairo | Aug 30 2007 10:26 utc | 119

Interesting link catlady @ #117, it seems to me that the great advances in these type fields have been weaponized much more than they have been used for improving the human condition. For example, does Newt Grinch's infamous list of words for Rethuglicons to use not seem like a form of weaponized NLP?

And here's a post that coincidently ties right in with my argument...

For instance:

My APA Paper on Isolation, Sensory Deprivation & Sensory Overload

Snip:

Nearly every scientist on the frontiers of brain research found men from secret agencies looking over his shoulders, impinging on the
research.

Note: the above dkos post is not mine so there is no confusion because of the title.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Aug 30 2007 11:58 utc | 120

Jeezus, Uncle, yur harshin' my buzz. Right, right, anything can be weaponized: wine can be poisoned, LSD administered without consent, prayer perverted into propanganda, songs into sensory overload (I can vouch for the last; I live in a student neighborhood). "So they told us what they wanted was a sound that could kill someone from a distance...." K Bush

So, what's your point, other than sharing paranoia? My point, in linking to Levitin's work, is that there are good guys out there, and it might be good for us to learn about how our own brains function so as to counter the weaponizers. Come, follow, follow, follow me, I shall make you singers of songs.

Posted by: catlady | Aug 30 2007 15:34 utc | 121

annie - I made some points please respond to them and as you are the author of this claim:

It is down to you to prove this. It is not for me or anyone else to disprove your claim. So, how well did you do when I challenged you?

i don't have any answers for you jcairo, my statement came up in a discussion about the origin of how mankind likely chose to think there was a god, becasue of phenomena they either didn't understand or thought they did and some god like presence was the answer.

I want p$ychic$ to prove they can do it.

that is making the assumption that some one who experiences something they think of as psycic can reproduce this ability whenever they want, like at a seance or something.

all i know is that i have had some extemely clear images of things that have happened prior to them happening, some very unlikely things. sometimes very unpleasant. i'm not sure how this works tho it occurs to me it probably has some scientific explanation having to do w/time/space stuff. i am not a scientist nor have my experiences led me to believe there is some all powerful god out there i can pray to to make things happen. i do however believe we can have an effect on our future w/things like visualization.

so no, i cannot prove to you anything. i will tell you one story tho, i was with my siblings, just the 5 of us together and 4 of us had eaten some mushrooms. i was walking in back of my sister and i looked at them and had an overwhelming feeling we would never all be together again. i had never had any feeling like this before. i ask myself, who and knew immediately which one. at this time one of my sisters turned around, looked straight in my eyes and walked to me and ask what the matter was, i told her i had this feeling about us never being together again...

2 weeks later when my sister died in a car accident, the sister i had revealed my feeling to that day, she said, you knew. and yes, i guess i did.

maybe it was all just a coincidence, but people sometimes have very very strong premonitions. if you had them, repeatedly, perhaps your views would be altered. again, i don't have any answers, but i have studied parapsychology and i do not believe that all of our premonitions are coincidences. i do believe we will have more scientific explanations for phenomena we don't understand, for example doctors tracking the healing effects of people visualizing their well being. the idea that there is a field or fields of energy that exists that we cannot see or experience with our 6 senses is not that far out to many people.

i am very comfortable w/you not agreeing with me, and very comfortable having some ideas about things i can't prove.

Thanks for the illustrative anecdote about the potential harm of even the most simple, natural instances of faith.

for children learn to navigate the world they rely on their senses, have faith in their sense. they have faith that what they experience is real, without this we would all be lost. i also had faith in my experience of falling, that if i did it again it would happen again. obviously you have faith in your experience.

some poeple even think their is a reason we dream, a reason we all spend time experiencing reality from 'another world'. most of us learn to differentiate between this world of 'make believe'and the one on the outside. the same way it may be unexplainable the way we have strong feelings of fear, or strong feelings of being in love (say stronger than a little attraction) we also have strong feelings in dreams, sometimes overwhelmingly real. to a child, this is real, because it is their reality and we all assimilate information at a rate that is a reflection on our acceptance of an idea. this is why i can imagine a child could really believe in dragons.
of course there is potential harm of even the most simple, natural instances of faith. but don't forget, we have faith in things all the time. the sun coming up tomorrow for example. we have faith what we experience is real. people believe all the time in things they can't prove, and they spend years and years trying to prove them. many of them are called scientists.

Posted by: annie | Aug 30 2007 19:14 utc | 122

nice non answer and personal anecdotes. I bet you have hundreds and hundreds of similar ones that disprove your ideas, but like all faithful, these are quickly forgotten or rationalised away

"that is making the assumption that some one who experiences something they think of as psycic can reproduce this ability whenever they want, like at a seance or something."

I knew this was going to be said. Does that make me p$ychic?

And p$ychic$ certainly DO claim this ability and do hold seances/readings at their leisure or on Larry King or Montel Williams or any number of media outlets. Besides how will these scientists studying the brain be able to study this without a double blind test?

"the idea that there is a field or fields of energy that exists that we cannot see or experience with our 6 senses is not that far out to many people.

Like infrared and xray? Or chi? Right the energy devised by the ancient chinese because they didn't even open-up a frog to see how it works.

"people believe all the time in things they can't prove, and they spend years and years trying to prove them."

all the while ignoring all the facts (remember these?) piling up that disprove the thesis? Any scientist that did this would be just fooling themselves

6 senses?

Oh right, no answers. Just feelings and belief

faith/belief = the end of thought

Posted by: jcairo | Aug 31 2007 7:45 utc | 123

I′m a first-time e-mailer but a long-time admirer of your debunking work and I thought you might be interested in something I found very amusing. Here in the UK we have a TV show called "Test the Nation," which is a lighthearted live national IQ test that viewers can participate in, online.

For added interest, the program also features groups made up of members of various professions (about 30 or so people in each group) in the studio audience, who also take part in the IQ test live. The most recent program featured – among others – a group of clairvoyants, who of course you′d expect to do very well, given their abilities and the fact that the composer of the test was also in the studio, so they could easily have read his mind, perhaps?

At the end of the show, the scores were announced – and to their amazement (but I suspect not that of many others), the clairvoyant group came dead last out of all the professions featured, namely removals men [movers], surgeons and ex-reality TV show participants, in this case. But all was not yet lost, as one of the clairvoyants had also made a prediction that the top individual IQ for the night would come from a male member of the surgeon group. (no doubt most in the audience would have GUESSED this too)

Quite an educated guess anyway, you might think, given that surgeons tend to be smart and the group was mainly male, so surely that would give them something to crow about when they were right? (real p$ychic ability required there eh?)

Well, alas, no – the top score came from one of the reality TV stars. So not only could their abilities not steer them to the correct answers for themselves, they couldn′t even tell who would be the best from the people around them.

As to the fact that they had – on average – the lowest average IQ of the groups on that night, well I think to comment on that would just be putting the boot in [booting them out]!

Keep up the good work!

from randi.org a useful and educational place.

I suggest you avail yourself (apologies for the link, don't know why it don't work. It must be a demon ;)

Posted by: jcairo | Aug 31 2007 8:47 utc | 124

I don't think annie is talking about "felling/faith" as such in regards to the experiences she's talking about. The problem is that there are no adequate words to describe such experiences and because such experiences transcend normal experiences much like they transcend description, the tendency though is to describe the experience and the description in the language of the "normal" and the normally describable. Apparently jcairo has never had such an experience and so assumes such experiences do not really exist, except perhaps as a function of either belief or faith, to which religion and hucksters have sought to exploit - to which there is of course ample evidence. But contrarily, the history of both philosophy and science, particularily modern physics, would also evidence a world in perpetual transcendence of both experience and description - a world of apparently infinite density that defies ultimate or finality of description. Or, as Maurice Merleau-Ponty once remarked "how can we account for the fact that we can surprise ourselves by something we happen to say or do?" Or, account for that by intuition a problem might be solved or understood without being informed by the particular parts and details involved. Happens all the time here at the moon.

Posted by: anna missed | Aug 31 2007 8:48 utc | 125

"The problem is that there are no adequate words to describe such experiences"

english has well over 800,000 words, surely you could find a few (and if you do I'll stop calling you Shirley)

I have had plenty of coincidences like this and I do not ascribe it to psychic ability - ever watch Jeopardy (a TV show where the answers are given on a wide variety of topics and the contestants must provide the answers)? They have a final round and announce the category before going to commercial. One day (and I have done this several times, this is the one I remember most clearly) the category was furniture. Before the show resumed, I announced that the answer would involve Turkey or Istanbul/Constantinople and that the question would be "What is an ottoman?".

I was correct and that isn't p$ychic ability.

"a world of apparently infinite density that defies ultimate or finality of description"

What does this mean? I'm not sitting in front of a screen typing on a keyboard and neither are you? OoooK.

""how can we account for the fact that we can surprise ourselves by something we happen to say or do?"" - the dance of the conscious and subconscious

I knew physics was going to be dragged into this, maybe I am p$ychic. Philosophy and reality don't always intersect

"Happens all the time here at the moon." any examples come to mind

Posted by: jcairo | Aug 31 2007 9:23 utc | 126

@annie:

the same way it may be unexplainable the way we have strong feelings of fear, or strong feelings of being in love (say stronger than a little attraction) we also have strong feelings in dreams, sometimes overwhelmingly real.

Nonsense. It's completely explicable. You really, really, really need to read some neurology materials. Seriously.

maybe it was all just a coincidence, but people sometimes have very very strong premonitions. if you had them, repeatedly, perhaps your views would be altered.

I have strong premonitions all the time. The thing is, I started to keep track of them for a while, and they nearly all turned out to be false. I have a suspicion that your occasional positive results (which ought to be pretty numerous if your premonitions are as general as you describe) make you forget the more numerous negatives.

i do believe we will have more scientific explanations for phenomena we don't understand, for example doctors tracking the healing effects of people visualizing their well being.

Oh, we already have an explanation for that. It doesn't actually happen. The effect disappears in double-blind tests. Once again, people visualize and succeed, and it makes them forget the times they visualized and failed.

the idea that there is a field or fields of energy that exists that we cannot see or experience with our 6 senses is not that far out to many people.

Yes, and we all know that physics is settled by democracy and not by experiment. That's why you jump off your bed and fly, and teleport, and make time stop until you're ready to get up in the morning.

I find your theory about the origin of religion profoundly unconvincing, particularly in light of the two examples of recent, well-documented, and successful relgions: Mormonism and Scientology.

Mormonism is, quite frankly, a crock. Most people don't know much about its history -- which is a deliberate move on the part of the church, because widespread knowledge of the history of Mormonism would spell the end of new converts.

The founder, Joseph Smith, had a history as a charismatic con man playing on would-be mystics in the northeast U.S. One day he claimed that an angel had given him a set of golden tablets containing the history of a Jewish tribe which had been transplanted in ancient times to the Americas. (The American Jewish tribe, incidentally, was not an original idea -- it had been bandied about among the mystics Smith had been conning for a while.) He convinced a gullible neighbor to help him "translate" the tablets by taking dictation. The neighbor's wife, who had some common sense, was suspicious because Smith never actually let anyone else see the tablets. Eventually, she stole their notes and challenged Smith to read the text out again to prove that he wasn't just making it all up. He suddenly declared that holy verses could be mystically taken over by Satan and turned to evil without actually changing the text (I'm not making this up), so he could no longer produce the original text, which had been defiled by her ill intent.

As if this transparent ploy, combined with the behavior of the early Mormon church as it travelled west, weren't enough, there's the doctrine of polygamy. Smith championed polygamy quite openly (along with some other doctrines -- he originally claimed that Adam, as in "Adam and Eve", was actually god, a doctrine which has now been dropped). The church compiled a book of sermons and lessons from him and a few other founding fathers called the "Journal of Discourses", and for about 40 years this book was found in just about every Mormon home alongside their bible. Then the U.S. government declared polygamy illegal and the church decided it could not stand up to government authority, so they directed all followers to burn that book, and began to claim that Smith had been monogamous. (The legitimacy of the modern church is held to stem from the original revelation of Smith.) Revolting hypocrasy, and the church members complied and shoved the original doctrines down the memory hole. (Unfortunately for the church, a few copies survived, along with lots of references to the work, and photographic reprints are now available if you're willing to shell out the cash for them.)

Scientology, I hope, needs no introduction. There are numerous documented instances of Hubbard claiming, before the fact, that the best way to get rich was to found a cult, and there are plenty of surviving documents to prove that Hubbard certainly didn't have any ethical standards worth mentioning. (Go and look at xenu.net!) The Church of Scientology has behaved like a cross between the worst of the Republican Party under Nixon and the CIA in the third world, threatening baseless lawsuits here, planting false evidence to incriminate critics there... And all to protect a belief system that sounds not just like science fiction but like bad science fiction. You know, the kind that Hubbard mostly wrote before he founded a cult.

In light of this, let's look at a couple of mainstream older faiths for a moment, shall we?

Christianity: Christianity's early history is actually a little tricky, because the early history of it isn't well recorded. The first bits of Christianity to be written down, as far as biblical scholars can tell from the various versions which are known, were not the Gospels but the Epistles. Paul, in fact. The Gospels didn't get written down until decades after the latest point at which Jesus could possibly have died. Paul, however, makes some very strange statements:

--> His only claimed contact with Jesus was a vision, but he claims that nobody has a better claim to faith than him -- what about the disciples?
-->He claims that Christians don't know how to pray, when the Gospels give us the Lord's Prayer.
--> He claims that good men have nothing to fear from the earthly authorities, when Jesus (the ultimate Good Man, according to the Gospels) was actually killed by the authorities.
--> He describes Jesus as being "he who shall come" as opposed to someone who had already been and gone.
--> He makes several references to Jesus as a being of pure spirit, as opposed to a flesh-and-blood man, which hardly meshes with the Gospels at all.

The notion of a strictly spiritual being who undergoes sacrifice for human deliverance was actually a common theme in popular mystery religions in the late pagan era. It gives one furiously to think, as Hercule Poirot says repeatedly because Agatha Christie wasn't much for dialog.

The Gospels, on the other hand, are just as puzzling in another way. They contradict each other in small ways -- who, precisely, did the disciples see when they visited the empty tomb? One man? Two men? An angel? Nobody? They also claim that Jesus was famous far and wide, yet there are no contemporary references to him at all; the first mention made of Jesus other than the Bible itself doesn't come until several decades into the second century, long after everyone involved was dead. The Gospels also gloss over pretty much the whole of the middle of Jesus' career (suspiciously as though the authors were running out of ideas), and treat the disciples as idiots when they aren't left out of the narrative entirely (suspiciously as though the authors kept forgetting about them).

Then, also, there are the physical phenomena mentioned in the Gospels. Matthew says that the crucifixion was accomanied by a three-hour mid-day darkness, an earthquake, and the walking spirits of "the saints". Well, the only such thing mentioned elsewhere at all is the darkness, which two of the four other Gospels mention. Nobody mentions the earthquake or the walking dead: not the other Gospels, no messages from locals to spread the word to other areas, no historians -- and there were enough at the time that one might expect this, not even any letters or administrative documents in the Roman records saying "big earthquake, had to repair some buildings".

The first mention of Jesus anywhere outside the Bible is in Josephus, where there are two significant passages. But the passage which actually mentions Jesus is phrased in an unlikely fashion -- Josephus didn't have any respect for would-be messiahs, yet for some reason Jesus gets a big boost in the lone paragraph where he is mentioned -- and the paragraph which mentions the church, instead of Jesus himself, is likewise suspect. In addition, there is a pro-Christian argument from a few centuries later which quotes Josephus extensively, but fails to use either passage, which suggests that the passages in question are later insertions since they would have worked better than the sections which are used.

Now, the evidence about ages strongly suggests that the Gospels weren't written down until later. Keeping this in mind, and also keeping in mind that in the story of Ananias and Sapphira we actually have an instance of one of the original church fathers demanding money from believers with threats of damnation, it's very easy to see an alternate history for Christianity:

1. Paul is a student of mystery religions, or possibly just is thinking about them, when he either has some sort of vision or just decides to claim he has one in order to lend credence to his story.
2. Paul, however, is not a completely cynical person, and actually cares about people's morals, so the Epistles emphasize chastity and poverty and forgiveness and love.
3. Since Paul's church is not attempting to squeeze money out of his believers, people are reassured and Christianity spreads out a bit -- the Romans seldom suppressed a religion unless they had a reason.
4. A bunch of con men, either individually or as a group, realize that they can make a living by claiming to have met Jesus in person and learned from him. They make up a story about it, using the numerous would-be messiahs (there were plenty in Jewish territory; historians mention them, but fail to say anything about Jesus) as a starting point and Roman tyrrany (which was unpopular in the area anyway) as an excuse for why Jesus wasn't around any more. This goes against Paul's writings (see above) but who really cares? Certainly not a bunch of illiterate poor people who saw this as vindication of their belief system.
5. These con men are highly successful, and manage to make a lot of money (and get free lodgings and food) from believers, who have no way of checking up on their stories. The Romans, seeing this obvious fraud, start to seriously persecute Christian religious figures.
6. Eventually the "earthly" Jesus, being a large and successful (if illicit) commercial concern, takes over completely from the "spiritual" Jesus, using the reputation of the "spiritual" version as PR to increase membership. Subsequently, the Gospels are written down to add an appearance of legitimacy to the business of fleecing the gullible, and eventually passages are inserted in Josephus to aid in the business.

This is, barring the discovery of some sort of confession (which would not be believed by the faithful anyway), completely unprovable, but it fits the facts as we know them and also explains the difference between what's in the Gospels and what's in the other primary sources. It passes, shall we say, the Occam's Razor test.

Islam: the Mideast had seen an embarrassing procession of strong religions and governments from outside over a period of hundreds of of years: the Persian empire, Alexander the Great, the pagan Roman Empire, and Christianity in the immediate area, with Buddhism and the various Indian and Chinese governments in the east. The mesopotamian area (and environs) hadn't produced a strong ruler since the seventh century B.C., and unless you count Christian claims of religious roots in Judaism, they hadn't had any particular divine revelations either. Large areas were cultural backwaters, filled with poor, badly-educated people and thieves; those areas which weren't so backward were dispirited at seeing outsiders repeatedly claim power.

Mohammed decided to remedy all this, and had the ability to think big. Like Paul, he seems to have wanted to reform, and make his new religion a benign force in the region. (For example, although he insisted on retaining control, he would not allow anyone to create an image of his face, to make sure nobody would get confused and worship him as a god -- which sounds a little odd until you read some of the Gnostic gospels and realize how many branches there were in early Christianity.)

To give his vision legitimacy, he claimed divine revelation. (Plenty of precedent; look at Lykurgos in Sparta, for example.) As with other such "divine" operations, it gave his ideas moral authority and helped generate a feeling of inevitability. To make his doctrine mesh with the unification of all peoples which he planned, he advocated peace.

Unfortunately, he underestimated the difficulty of convincing people to do what was in their best interests. After repeatedly running into enemies who had no such qualms about resorting to violence, he changed his mind about the whole "peaceful" bit and endorced fighting for the Faith. (History does indeed record that Islam was anti-war until after Mohammed was repeatedly attacked, by the way, and skeptics have given this reason for a long time.)

Either way: Mohammed's immediate successor may or may not have shared his taste for reform. It's a moot point, because the succession quickly fell to a dispute between con artists, who thought of Islam as a source of money and power instead of reform. This led to the Sunni/Shia split and the eventual collapse of Islam's fast expansion.

Oh, and by the way, jcairo: there are six recognized senses. Touch, smell, taste, sight, hearing, and proprioception. Proprioception is the sense which tells you the location and position of your body without reference to the other senses. It is not mystical; just the result of the continuous feed of motor neurons to your brain. And, as with the other senses, you can lose it -- prolonged overdose of one of the vitamins, E I think, can cause it, or it can happen organically.

Posted by: The Truth Gets Vicious When You Corner It | Aug 31 2007 10:47 utc | 127

Truth, you and jcairo make very good points and logically explain your position. I tend to agree with everything you say. there is one small point that I would like to make.

how can you be sure? surely no one can prove the existence of God or any other supernatural being so it follows that you can not prove that God does not exist.

I totally agree that organized religion has brought many bad things to the world and that there are many people inside these religions who are self serving. However, there are genuinely good people who do help others and there are many who take comfort in their belief that there is someone who cares about them. religion fills the void created by helplessness and despair. if you were to take that away what would be gained? there will always be helpless and desparate people on this planet.

thanks to all for a great read. most people shy away from talking about politics and religion....here we can really have at it and they are without a doubt most interesting subjects.

Posted by: dan of steele | Aug 31 2007 11:38 utc | 128

jcario I knew physics was going to be dragged into this

lol, you are a fine one to talk about dragging anything anywhere. the only reason i responded to your rudeness was at your request. i suggest you avail yourself to my prior statement i am very comfortable w/you not agreeing with me, and very comfortable having some ideas about things i can't prove.

get it?

as in i don't give a flying f about your opinions in that matter or your link about what tv quacks do.

you challenged b basically calling him a liar.obviously this is not the first time you have heard any of this so of course you just knew what anyone was going to say.

english has well over 800,000 words, surely you could find a few (and if you do I'll stop calling you Shirley)

f off you little piece of shit.

vicious

Nonsense. It's completely explicable. You really, really, really need to read some neurology materials.

yes, i do think it is explicable.

I find your theory about the origin of religion profoundly unconvincing

which part? this part

myths were created around those instincts to justify or explain them.

specifically which part of my explanation do you find PROFOUNDLY unconvincing?

our original sense of 'morals' come from basic instinct.

that part.

the idea of god was most likely formed as a result of an experience of a overpowering strong sense of 'knowingness'. conceptualizing that who we are, and all we are is a grain of sand, and that our entire universe in contained inside something the size of a baseball inside our head is inconceivable to many people, much less conceivable than 'knowing' we are a part of something much larger. especially people who have psychic abilities, which is many of us.

try to grasp, just stretch your friggin imagination enough to conceive that while this is where i believe religions come from, it is not what i believe.

i happen to believe there are scientific explanations for everything. this is why i have no use for religion. but the FACT remains that many many people DO. why?

rules are not created for people who follow them, rules are created for people who don't.

for example, most people would not kill an innocent child. w/or w/out belief in god. now, someone kills a child. a 'group think' says this is wrong. why? a narrative is formed to explain why? within that narrative are caveats that allow for killing. a story (myth) is created to demonstrate the lesson, or rule.

religions were created as narrative to explain nature or sync the outside world w/the reality of thought or mind.

the idea of god was most likely formed as a result of an experience of a overpowering strong sense of 'knowingness'.

so tell me, since you find my statements so nonsensical tell me, while you are telling me how the IDEA OF GOD (notice i did not say hod, or a god) originated, why don't you also explain what kind of natural phenomena occurs in the course of human brain function, (forget premonitions or dreams or anything stupid like that) that would account for so much of mankind to embrace this idea of an all knowing all present entity in the universe.

really let go, don't for a second think that i would be stupid enough, or an idiot enough to to think that your explanation of how mankind embraced religion or the idea of god means that you embrace either.

btw, i scrolled thru all your stuff about religion. i've never been attracted to any of those myths. i haven't read the bible and i don't plan on it.

so, beside just telling me most of humanity is just stupid fools... why do you think it is these narratives were formed and why do people embrace them.

rules are not created for people who follow them, rules are created for people who don't

Posted by: annie | Aug 31 2007 13:06 utc | 129

the history of both philosophy and science, particularily modern physics, would also evidence a world in perpetual transcendence of both experience and description - a world of apparently infinite density that defies ultimate or finality of description.

lol, what are they going up come up w/next!!

thanks anna missed. the next century will undoubtedly be interesting, if global warming or the rapture doesn't doesn't end it for mankind.

Posted by: annie | Aug 31 2007 13:22 utc | 130

TGVWYCI

i was so fuming by the time i got to your post frankly i didn't have the patience to appreciate the effort you made, and your interesting historical references. so thank you.

Posted by: annie | Aug 31 2007 13:47 utc | 131

@dan of steele:

how can you be sure? surely no one can prove the existence of God or any other supernatural being so it follows that you can not prove that God does not exist.

I don't claim to be sure that no god exists. I do, however, claim that:
--> No soul exists, because it would be in contradiction to demonstrable truths of neurology. This alone wipes out the possibility that nearly any existing faith is true, expecially because of the following two things which follow immediately from this fact:
--> No afterlife exists, because that would require a soul.
--> People are not judged after death in any meaningful way, because that would likewise require a soul.
--> If a god or gods exist(s) then they cannot be all-powerful, because the quality of being "all-powerful" is a contradiction in terms (the famous argument about "can god create a rock so large he couldn't lift it", which has never actually been satisfactorily answered, is just one of the many, many forms of this argument)
--> If a god or gods exist(s) then they cannot be all-knowing, because an all-knowing being would necessarily be all-powerful -- if you know everything, then you must know how to become all-powerful, and being all-powerful would be impossible, so you can't really know that, so you can't know everything.
--> If a god or gods exist(s) then either they do not know about us or else they do not care about us one way or another, because if they both knew and cared about us, they would have made their existence plain by now in terms not capable of sustaining reasonable disbelief, such as appearing to everyone in the world in a dream on the same night once every ten years, or just being here.
--> If a god or gods exist(s) then they do not care about human suffering, since the world is constructed in such a way that even without any immorality there would still be suffering. (Natural disasters, old age, disease, etc.)
--> If a god or gods exist(s) then they do not care about morality, or else the universe would be constructed in a fashion that would reward morality and punish immorality, and it isn't.
--> If a god or gods exist(s), then they do nothing which conflicts with the numerical relationships we call physics, which is to say that they do nothing.

So, bearing all that in mind: sure, there might be a god, or even many gods. But if they do exist, there's no reason whatsoever to even think about them -- no reward for noticing them, no penalty for ignoring them, and apparently no desire on their part for us to do so. Religion is, at best, a waste of time, and should be abandoned in favor of more constructive things.

There might be gravity fairies. Physics has yet to detect a carrier particle for the force of gravity. (Photons carry the electromagnetic force, gluons carry the strong force, the weak force is carried by some very heavy particles known as Ws and Zs, but although gravitons have been theorized and even named, they have never been detected.) People have now been watching for them for decades, with no success. There is, therefore, no proof that gravity is not carried by gravity fairies, who produce gravity by pushing us in the direction of the nearest large mass just because they like us. However, there is nobody seriously -- or even as a serious jest, as far as I know -- suggesting that, hey, for lack of a detectable particle, let's write gravity fairies into the textbooks and stop looking for anything else.

(Of course, as pointed out in the Lee Smolin's The Trouble With Physics, it is possible that gravity is qualitatively different from the other forces, in which case it is not that we need to find a gravitational carrier particle but that we need to re-cast the quantum field theories into a background-independant form -- i.e. one which would still be functional within the framework of general relativity -- which would be based on a theory of gravity without carrier particles.)

When it comes to the existence of the universe, though, the "fairy option" is precisely what we do. No detectable specific reason? Hey, let's come up with an anthropomorphic (or at least anthropocentric) imaginary being or beings, give them the credit, and just stop looking! Then, let's use this imaginary being as a reason to do all kinds of stupid things! Now, let's take the money out of our pockets and send it to the church! Yes! Excellent! Now let's vote Republican!

That is why I, and many others, are both atheist and increasingly vocal about it: the time has come when we can no longer trust believers with control of the world. It's just too dangerous. We should, in fact, have started earlier. The minute nuclear weapons were invented, belief became too dangerous to leave unattended.

@annie:

I think your theory is unsatisfying because it is innocent, and I don't think of people as innocent. I don't think humans are stupid, exactly, just very gullible. As G. K. Chesterton says somewhere or other, "no mystic has ever denied the existence of false mystics." Your theory implies the equivalent of the following must have occurred:

A: Hey, the sun comes up every morning, travels in a straight line across the sky, and then sets. We really, really need to know why.
B: You're right, that's a bit of a puzzle, isn't it. Hmmm.
A: I know, let's just agree that the sun is flaming ball of dung being pushed by a giant dung beetle. Let's not, y'know, investigate or anything.
B: How does the dung beetle stay up there, then?
A: Doesn't matter, this is just an explanation for now, so that we don't have to keep wondering.
B: Sounds good to me, let's go sacrifice some animals to the giant dung beetle in the sky.
A: Yes. And let's teach all our children to do the same!

That sounds a bit too innocent -- inhumanly so -- to be true, particularly since different religions have sprung up all over the world over time, meaning that this had to occur many times. At the same time, we know that people suffer from what is called "confirmation bias" -- that's the thing I was referring to above without being able to think of the name. Specifically: people are more likely to remember the times that something is true than to remember the times when it is false, even if the times that it is false dramatically outnumber the times when it is true. (This is why double-blind studies exist in the first place; if the goal is to do something well, then confirmation bias is something which has to be specifically avoided, because it makes it difficult to determine which practice does the best job.)

My "dialog" is more like this:

A: Hmmmm. How can I make a living without having to do any work? I know. My father told me the sun went dark for a while when he was a kid. I'll pretend I had something to do with it. [Shouts at other people] The sun is going to go away because you aren't giving me free food!
[Nothing happens; Next day]
A: Dammit, I'm having to work! This sucks! [Shouts] The sun is going to go away because you aren't giving me free food!
[Nothing happens; Next day]
A: Grrr. I'm tired of living on raw mouse meat! [Shouts] The sun is going to go away because you aren't giving me free food!
[Nothing happens; this is repeated over and over again until:]
A: The sun is going to go away because you aren't giving me free food!
[Eclipse happens]
B, C, D, etc: Oh, no! Here's some food! Get the moon out of the way!
A: You have acted wisely. I will have the moon moved. But from now on, you're going to give me free food and lodgings, or else I'll, er, tell the being in charge of the moon --
B: Wait, there's a being in charge of the moon? I thought it just went in a straight line.
A: If that were true, how could I have made it cover up the sun?
B: Oh, I guess you're right. You did tell us in advance, after all.
A: From now on, you're going to give me free food and lodgings, or else I'll tell the being in charge of the moon to move in front of the sun and stay there. Got it? And we're going to sacrifice animals to this being, too. (And if they don't come and claim their meat, I get to keep it as their representative.)
C: Hey, does the moon-being care about my argument with D?
A: Hmm [thinks: gee, one minute I'm a bum, now they're worrying about what I think] yes, yes, the moon-being cares what happens. You and D come and see me tomorrow, with an offering for me-- I mean for the moon-being, and I'll tell you what the moon-being wants.

It's consistent with what we know about existing religions and with the gullibility of the human race in the form of confirmation bias.

By the way: if you want another modern sect with a history of entertainingly hypocritcal "down the memory" hole incidents, check out the Seventh-Day Adventists, who have been confidently predicting the end of the world at intervals of an average of roughly ten years, starting with the Great Disappointment in 1844, when thousands of people stayed up one night to catch a glimpse of Jesus' second coming, which (obviously) didn't happen. Each time the latest date passes, the church authorities come up with an explanation why, accompanied by a new date, and all the believers calmly accept this and, as it were, reschedule their appointments.

Posted by: The Truth Gets Vicious When You Corner It | Sep 1 2007 23:08 utc | 132

tgvwyci

tho i got a kick out of your let's just agree that the sun is flaming ball of dung being pushed by a giant dung beetle.

that is not exactly the analogy i would agree matches my theory ;). not to beat a dead horse but i did want to respond to your always well thought out explanations and sometimes reducing them to child's talk (while one could take this as an insult!) lets not go there... my request..

so tell me, since you find my statements so nonsensical tell me, while you are telling me how the IDEA OF GOD (notice i did not say god, or a god) originated,

my interprtation of your dialogue of early man gazing at the horizon sound more to me like the origin of religion, not the origin of the 'idea of god'. i think the god idea proceeded religion and that organized religion took advantage of a preexisting acceptance from at least a decent fraction of society to control the masses. using your helpful form of using pretend dialogue to demonstrate your hypothesis i will do the same. perhaps a few centuries or thousands of years prior to your dune beetle conversation imagine this possibly more likely scenario.

winter circa very early days

gee, i sure am hungry

me too

i haven't eaten for ages, me an the old hag have been having hallucinations.

dude, they aren't hallucinations, that is the other world.

there isn't another world

yes there is

no there isn't

enter:spring

wow, the sun sure is groovy, it must be good

think i'll eat. when i eat this plant i feel strong. that is because i am getting the power of the plant.

the plant spirit is entering you dude.

yeah and when i eat the rabbit i get a stronger spirit.

not as strong as me, i can kill a lion so i have a bigger spirit.

hence we have the leader of the pack, who is the strongest, who provides the most sustainment for the tribe being attributed w/the 'spirit of the animal'. in this way we have 'science' (or the understanding of strength from food) merging w/that of a 'belief' a spirit of the animal is consumed in the eater. we also have the first 'scientific experiments' by way of man noticing what foods kill you, and which don't, likely interpreted by some/many as good/bad omen because people understand pain vs pleasure, one being thought of as 'good' one 'bad' which likely leads to the beginning of the idea of 'morals', that which leads to good being 'good moral' one leading to bad being 'bad moral'. there is also a possibility that smart people who started to recognize which plants killed and which didn't were recognized w/in their community as more valued members. then theres the guy who started begging for the rain to come and volia,when it came people thought he brought it so when they wanted more they ask him to do it again.

there were also plants that made you hallucinate thereby increasing the likelyhood you were going to believe in spirit. but i do believe the need for food (if you have ever fasted you will know) likely could have been mans initial common experience w/'spirit'.

the combination of the strongest man being associated w/the strongest spirit (kill big animal..have strong spirit) likely became less as the smarter man/woman who could predict/plan/manipulate became more valued in community, or as valued, as the physically strongest man.

likely observations in the cycles of the environment (science) were reinforced/passed on thru stories or recollections that changed/grew/were exaggerated thru storytelling word of mouth and they became the first myth. this is because rather than just telling a story like the animal ate the plant, all childrens stories personify and stories are just better when we have 'characters'

the manipulation of myth, or the interweaving of different myths created the first 'religions'. it isn't just a beleif in 'spirit' it is 'spirit' associating w/other 'spirit', a movement so to speak that has the ability to expand .

that is where your scenario about guys trying to figure out how not to work likely came into play. but by that time, for centuries man had gone thru cycles of hunger and starvation providing them of constant opportunities to visit the 'other word' of forced fasting (and trial an error plant observation, likely mans first 'scientific experiments') which in turn brought about the hierarchy of certain members in the group.

i still posit mans experience of 'spirit' predates the organization of people thru their experience of, or belief in that spirit. and this applies whether one thinks spirit is real or not.

Posted by: annie | Sep 3 2007 18:19 utc | 133