Hi Glenn,
Glenn Wrote: I would ask why one would doubt the Chauvet Cave example I
cited? Why else
would people take bear skulls (only skulls) into a dark cave and place
one
of them on a big rock in the center of the cave starting a fire behind
it?
I don't think it was a picnic. If you can convince me that these people
weren't people, then ok we need to interpret it another way. But if you
assume they weren't people to begin with, then you have assumed your
conclusion.
Without disproving your "people" factor, I would agree with Adrian's
comments. Would you disagree and/or could you disprove the idea that
something's perceived as religious, could just be a "show and tell"? Every
time you write a book and then promote it or display some honor or trophy is
it religious? Somehow I don't think this was the only thing they worried
about. While religion may in fact have been an essential part of their
lives, we have no proof. Even today, hunter will save the head's of their
kill as trophies and even mount them on the wall. Do you think this is a new
behavior, that was not practiced by preadamites? Let's get real. With the
exception of our technology and knowledge, we are not that different than
our ancestors. Human behavior has not changed much. It may mutate into some
new form of expressing the same emotion or belief, but the inner reasoning
is unchanged. I think anyone with a non-biased view would have to at least
accept the possibility that the placement of dead animals, which they
killed, are just a bunch of guys sitting around showing off their kills. I
am by no means implying that this was the case, but it is just as likely.
Now blood/ochre as you spoke does have a high degree of probability of being
related to religion. By the way, just because some cultures more recently
may have bear religions, does not mean that it did not develop more
recently. It may have started out with everyone just showing off their kill,
and then one day some guy comes in bragging about what he did and he ends up
with some bad luck. He then decides that everyone should say a prayer or ask
forgiveness from the bear to keep the bad luck from happening. This could he
been long ago, or not.
In either case, Keep up the good work and the debate. have a good weekend.
Don P
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of Glenn Morton
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 9:43 AM
To: Adrian Teo; Asa@Calvin. Edu
Subject: RE: How and when did we become "men"?
Adrian wrote of Chauvet:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Adrian Teo [mailto:ateo@whitworth.edu]
>Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 1:32 PM
>Certainly this arrangement of skulls could be evidence of religious
>activity, but it could also be simply an ancient show-and-tell, a game, or
>whatever. Don't you think it is uncomfortably speculative to readily
>conclude that this was an altar? Perhaps there needs to be a
>clearly defined
>(a priori of course) set of criteria that have to be met in order
>to for any
>structure or arrangements to be considered evidence of religious activity,
>but even so, I can imagine that a critic would always be able to find some
>other plausible explanation for them other than religious.
Yes, one can always find reason to doubt whatever one wants to doubt. We
have holocaust deniers, we have people who doubt the government's
explanations of UFOs, we have YECs who doubt every fact of science, we have
Geradus d'Bouw, another YEC, who doubts heliocentricity, we have the example
of many arabic peoples who doubt Bin Laden was behind the 911 attack
preferring instead to blame the Mossad. Yes, we can always have doubt if we
don't like the obvious conclusion. And we can make those doubts sound so
noble.
THe approach you are taking is one taken by Lewis Binford in anthropology.
No matter what activity is proposed by an anthropologist, Binford can find a
reason to discount it. What does that do to our understanding? It makes all
evidence simply separate and unconnected items, totally unrelated to
anything we know about.
Now, as I wrote you privately,The same can be said of the 4000 year old
temples in Malta. Who alive ever saw them used as temples and maybe they
only appear to be places of religious worship? And there is no historical
record of their use as temples. The base assumption is analogical, that
similarity between modern and ancient objects is due to similarity of use.
Could this be wrong? Yes, but if we take that approach to history, we won't
understand much of it. That approach is a road to solipsism and is often
used by people who can find no other reason to reject a conclusion.
I would ask why one would doubt the Chauvet Cave example I cited? Why else
would people take bear skulls (only skulls) into a dark cave and place one
of them on a big rock in the center of the cave starting a fire behind it?
I don't think it was a picnic. If you can convince me that these people
weren't people, then ok we need to interpret it another way. But if you
assume they weren't people to begin with, then you have assumed your
conclusion.
Adrian wrote of arranged Nahr Ibrahim:
>Or it could be the creative play of an imaginative mind. Children make
>interesting arrangements with objects without any concern for the
>spiritual,
>and so do some adults. I am just wondering if we may be reading too much
>into these events through modern 21st century eyes.
In modern primitive societies ocher is used as a symbol of blood. Women use
it to fake menstration so that the men will not bother them (the equivalent
of the headache). Can one read the minds of the people who went several
miles away to bring the ochre back? Of course not, they might have been
alien androids, but if they were human, then why not interpret this from a
human perspective?
Adrian wrote of Bilzingsleben:
>Yes, but that is only because we know so well modern religious activities,
>and have something to compare to. But again, a modern-day sculpture may
>easily be mistaken for a religious symbol by some future
>anthropologists who
>knows little about our civilizations and cultural activities. Since we in
>fact know so little about the cultures of these ancient hominids
>(especially
>those dating before the advent of symbolic representation), we have to
>entertain the possibility that we could be dead wrong in our conclusions.
>There is a high degree of uncertainty in these conclusions.
>
>I realize that I may be seen as being overly skeptical here, but I
>am making
>these objections in the name of scientific rigor.
Of course. I could be wrong. But what you seem to be doing is asking for
mathematical certitude in a historical science. NO conclusion from
historical sciences can be held to that standard. Apply your skepticism to
the Bible and you will find that we have no proof of the resurrection, no
proof that Jesus lived, no proof that Moses was real, no proof of David, the
exodus, the conquest, Solomon or any other event recorded in the Scripture.
I can claim that Jesus was a mythical figure inflated to existence by his
imaginative disciples and there is nothing you can do to prove me wrong. To
paraphrase you, There is a high degree of uncertainty in your conclusion
about the resurrection and the existence of Jesus--Of course I make it all
sound noble by noting that I am only making these objections in the name of
scientific rigor.
Live by the same standard you apply. If you are going to apply this standard
to archaeology, then apply it to the archaeology of the Bible. I don't think
you will be so happy with the results. If you don't apply this standard
equally to views you like as to views you don't like, then there is a word
for that kind of behavior.
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 09:12:37 EDT