http://tikkun.org/magazine/tik0709/frontpage/neuroscience

Thanks, guys, for the opportunity to learn how others think. I enjoyed it!

What you didn’t mention (at least not in this post)—and maybe with good reason, I don’t know—is the family values dynamic of religion.

It is easy to conceive of the paleolithic or neolithic extended family unit as threatened by the precocity of its strong youth. What was to prevent the young men, in an environment of scarce resources, to shuck off their fathers like so much corn? We might say that “such would never happen,” but that’s because of the value system in which we were brought up, not because of anything in our genetic code. I am sure that this was a problem for early human families, and the totemic framework of early religion, in whatever other capacity it might have functioned, largely served to preclude the usurpation of the elders by the youth, just as it would go on to serve as a cohesive for the city-state, the empire, et cetera.

In the past several generations, science has presented data about the Universe which makes it more difficult than ever to rationalize religious belief. Ergo, it is faulty to assume that rational decision-making has very much to do with a person’s religious beliefs in this day and age. For some, it does; for far more, it is only claimed that it does—in reality, I feel quite comfortable saying that a majority of those persons who would claim to hold to theism for rational reasons of evidence are merely clinging to family values that they are unable to separate from religious dogma for personal reasons, including the terror of inevitable death. For this reason, hermeneutic intricacy is on the rise.

But, as an atheist, I have never understood the view that the brevity of life and the finality of death are cause for doom and gloom. This is to deny the sheer miraculousness of life—and the uber-miraculousness of consciousness—in the context of the icy vastness of the Universe. It is a matter of education and perspective, for me.

Great post.

That said, I see that there’s no convincing you, and that’s not really my intent anyway. I’ll be hoping (not praying ) that you will come to your senses some day

I, however, am a little crazy. I was one of those unfortunate individuals who was born with a creative brain, and where you excel in all things scientific, I excel in drawing Disney cartoons.

Yes, I know that there was no specific second, minute, day, week, etc. that humans developed. I was merely making an attempt at humor. And I realize more and more every day how much I suck at it.

Now. To answer your question. I did say that the concept of Adam and Eve made no sense in 2007. However, it quite possibly could’ve made sense thousands of years ago. I mean, things that made sense in 1950 don’t make sense now (and I’m not saying that’s a good thing). So just because something that happened thousands of years ago doesn’t make sense in this present day, does that mean it’s not true?

You know what? If God told me that a square circle existed, I’d believe it. And yes, because I WANT to believe it. I’m one of those people who enjoys what you personally consider a “fable”, or an untruth, or whatever you want to call it. I like to believe in “signs from beyond”. To me, it makes life more interesting. And besides, if I wrote a story about my life, no one would believe it. But, dang it, it would be true. And I would credit God with helping me to get through half of it. You would be crediting me alone. So it’s a win-win outcome in my book!