Still, I suppose my meaning would have been clearer if I had phrased it in terms of the naturalistic fallacy, pointing out that just because religion is good at surviving in the meme pool, it does not therefore follow that it is a good meme for humans.

I had previously considered that the commandment, as Christine S noted, implied the reality of the existence of other gods (though I've had arguments with Christian friends as to what that really means.). But clearly the use of Elohim (plural of El) in Genesis is consistent with that picture. Like you, I've also considered the "jealous" god as totally inconsistent with a "God of the cosmos as we now know it". It is also clear that jealousy can provide an evolutionary adaptive advantage, both for humans, and more speculatively, for memes. The tying together of man creating gods in his own image along with whatever traits for which evolution has selected is such an obvious and natural fit, I wonder how religions can keep denying it.

The major difference I see is that the NIV keeps generations in the love segment as is in the punishing segment. As another evidence that humans wrote the Bible, other than the evolutionary one that Ebon points out, give some thought to the details of exactly, what this says and the logical problems one would have figuring out how to deal with God's laws here.

If we go back to the Old Testament story, I would assume it is safe to say that Noah would get full credit for loving God, all the other generations notwithstanding. In doing so he, according to the Commandment cited above, would bestow God's love on a thousand generations. If we assume that a generation is 25 years, that means God's love is guaranteed for 25,000 years from Noah's time. So we still have about 18,000 years on God's love credit card. Can we assume that means that we are free to do whatever we want, that Noah gave us this free pass?

But wait, there is another problem in here. It says that up to the fourth generation will be punished for the sins of the father. So, if father A is responsible for generation B, C, D, and E how do we work things out if father A sins? He has apparently put the hoax on B, C, D, and E. But can B read the Bible and decide to love god and get a free pass and then remove A's hoax on himself as well as C, D, and E?

This is like God's example of Rocks, Scissors and Paper with Paper left out. And he forgot to tell us which is the rock and which is the scissor. Does Noah's love give us all a free pass for the next 18,000 years or so? Or does some generation down the line being sinful override Noah's good deed, and, if so, for how many generations? And how do we track this with certainty? If we get it wrong, the punishment could be eternity in hell. With that at risk, wouldn't you expect directions that are perfect, unquestionable?

This would appear to be important if you really believe that God exists. If we all have a free pass thanks to Noah, no apparent need to go to church or try not to sin, we are all set. Of course, after 18,000 years, someone is going to have to check back up line to see if one of their ancestors gave them a free pass, or got them in hot water.

A perfect God simply couldn't have dreamed up such a ridiculous system, only humans in their fallibility. The only way to devise a system with accountability is to make each person responsible for their own behavior. Humans not understanding this, wrote whatever they wanted in the Bible. Of course, including the incredible hoaxes that you could go to heaven or hell for eternity, not based upon your behavior, but what you said or didn't say.

Yet another lesson on the "is/ought" distinction.

Carrier shows, both in Sense and Goodness Without God and in this talk that the "is/ought" distinction really isn't. Or at least not what everyone says it is, isn't...oughtn't. Whatever.

I agree that it feels a bit "hanging" at the end, though - most of your posts have some kind of heartening conclusion. Looking over it again, perhaps it's the nature of the conclusion that makes it feel like it dangles: "All this trouble for all these thousands of years is just an emergent property of natural selection." I mean, that kinda sucks. But hey, sometimes the truth is stupid.

All in all, though, another very good post.

You have such a way with words. It makes feel all warm and fuzzy.

Thanks for your kindness.

In the words of Henny Youngman (PBUH): "We aim to please. You aim too, please!"

I love the smell of tautologies in the morning. Smells like auto da fé.

See, this is why I love your comments, helio. You have such a way with words. It makes feel all warm and fuzzy.

IMO, your assessment of Hinduism and Brahman seems pretty intact; I would reserve or possibly omit any connotation of the word 'being' with Brahman, however. Hinduism seems to assert that God is not a personal creator but the ultimate reality behind and beyond all things. Different from Brahma, which has personal attributes and character, Brahman is impersonal, ethereal, and all pervasive. In essence, Brahman is not the most rudimentary aspect of life or of the universe; it is the most rudimentary aspect. The term denotes the supreme unity, "that" or "that one," the all which lies behind or beyond both existence and non-existence. In Brahman, there are no fundamentally divisive or exclusive differences. Rest and action are joined, as are good and evil. Everything is united, part and parcel of the same god or creation force. Hindus use the neuter pronoun in order to avoid any idea of a manlike god, personal creator or first principle.

Although Hinduism is pantheistic in asserting that God is not a personal creator but the totality of all things seen and unseen, it is important to note that pantheism does not exclude the spirit world or spirits, and in Hinduism there are also personal beings, gods and deities of various order. A recurring Hindi trinity consists of Brahma, the creator; Shiva, the destroyer; and Vishnu, the redeemer. The three are said to work in a continuous cycle of creation, destruction and redemption. Brahma creates a new world. Shiva destroys it, presumably when the point of moral or spiritual 'no return' has been reached, and Earth cannot hold any more evil. Vishnu comes in the form of a human to teach men something for a problem they cannot solve on their own. So for many Hindus, the Buddha, Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Ghandi and other avatars are just further manifestations of Vishnu. One should note that not all Hindus interpret Brahma, Shiva, or Vishnu as personal beings, and some interpret them as essential human ideals humans imagine to be real. Under this idea, the real function of worshiping personal gods is to direct the worshiper towards the knowledge of the ultimate one truth.

Is Islam then a refinement (evolution) on this idea, given that it came later?

i.e. anyone leaving the religion is required to be murdered.

Judaism has a similar requirement.

(6)If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

(7)Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

(8)Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

(9)But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Deuteronomy 13:6-9

But doubtless John will tell us that this is merely allegory for, um, the glorious way in which people are free to accept or refuse God. Yeah, that'll be it.

I wonder how the Hindu pantheon has survived so well; under this thought experiment they should have burnt off their excess gods down to just one, but unless I misunderstand, there's still plenty of gods kicking around there.

Sort of. Hinduism sees all its gods as manifestations of Brahman which is a sort of supreme transcendent being that sustains the universe (if I understand correctly). Also, Hinduism is tends to absorb any nearby religions into itself, so it's not uncommon for Hindus to worship Jesus as just another part of Brahman. Actually, this tendency makes a lot of religious minorities in Hindu areas angry, since Hinduism declares their religion to be another part of Hinduism itself (Muslims and Sikhs especially dislike being told that Allah or Waheguru is not the one true divine being).

Please note that this is just my understanding. Correction from a Hindu or scholar of Hinduism will be greatly appreciated.

You see, whatever God does is good by definition.

I love the smell of tautologies in the morning. Smells like auto da fé.