a reply to: SuperFrog
How is Science incompatible with Religion? The statements you provide do not answer that question.
What your statements regard is the difference between a scientist and a fundamentally religious person.
However, the actual story told in the three core books - the Bible/Quran/Tanakh - is not incompatible with our modern understanding of science.
Let me put it differently;
These aforementioned books all derive from one core story, which is the Eridu Genesis. You can attempt to attack the books INDIVIDUALLY (which is
actually good as all of them should be studied collectively) but if you really want to eliminate the idea of religion, at least personally, then you
will have to tackle the actual core message first and foremost.
What's the core story of the Eridu Genesis then? When read in conjunction with the SKL (Sumerian Kings List) and the Enuma Elish, the story goes
something like this:
150,000 to 200,000 years ago (derived from SKL reigns) the 'Gods' descend from Heaven onto Earth.
The 'sons of Gods', the Iggigi (or later called the Anunnaki/Nephilm) toiled the Earth for many generations for the 'Greater Gods'.
After 'many generations', the Iggigi complained about their position to the 'Greater Gods', and the the God Enki proposed the solution of a worker
You get a few different explanations here regarding what happened:
'The Gods created the black-headed people' - Eridu Genesis (note the conscious separation here).
'Man was created from the blood of Kingu and Tiamat' - Enuma Elish
'Man was created from the divine and of Earth' - Surrounding Myths
At this point, the Iggigi are given the task of over-seeing these workers. The Iggigi misbehave and instead teach us the 'ways of the Gods', giving us
knowledge that was not apparently wished for us.
The Iggigi also began having sexual relations with the workers, resulting in the countless references to 'Demi-Gods', 'sons of Gods' and so forth.
This is actually one of the most interesting parts of any of the religious texts or stories as it actually DIRECTLY refers to these 'Gods' as
posessing HUMANOID qualities rather than that of a spiritual, astronomical or symbolical nature.
That section is mostly composed from surrounding fragments and myths, Babylonian stories and finally what would become the Book of Enoch. The Eridu
Genesis doesn't directly mention this but it is missing a massive amount of text inbetween the creation of man and the flood, due to physical damage
to the tablet.
Anyway, the story then goes on to say that this really pissed off the 'Greater Gods', of which the council (led by the God's Anu and Enlil) had
decided to (as worded in the Eridu Genesis) agree on the destruction of the created worker race - or apparently us.
Interestingly, depending on the official translation taken - this would be achieved by either a naturally occurring flood that the Greater Gods were
aware of, or a flood directly caused by the Gods.
The God Enki goes against this decision and warns a man of the impending danger. He is told to build a boat and take 2 of each domestic animal at his
disposal (Eridu Genesis - written approx. 2500 BC).
The other Gods are furious that humanity survived (the Human-Iggigi offspring apparently didn't) but after hearing Enki out, the Greater Gods decide
to allow us to remain and establish 'kingship'.
At this point separate tablets show the God Enlil (depicted as a humanoid) gifting us the plow and we are also told that four legged animals to
provide our vital needs are given in abundance. Please see the British Museum for this tablet and the accompanying 'official' description (I'm usin my
mobile and getting references is a pain - sorry).
It is important to note that the SKL has the reigns of the 'Kings' up to this point as extremely long (1000s and 10,0000s) and after the flood as
becoming more human. It is also important to note that the first 7 reigns seem to be precessionary numbers.
At this point some surrounding myths talk of a new race being created, of which were to become the 7 sages, and the first of these - Adapa - was
personally of Enki's blood and a human's. These sages were to be advisors to the first human kings in the absence of the God's kingship and this is
also reflected in the SKL.
The story after this pretty much goes stale until the Tower of Babel (which arguably could have occurred before the 'flood') and then the coming of
JHWH (who is incredibly symbolic of Enlil), and later on Jesus Christ.
THERE'S YOUR STORY. Read it ALL together and that's the story you get - as simple as that. It's completely up for interpretation and people can think
what they want.
An important thing to consider here is that this was an evidently complex story being told by relatively primitive people. However, it is indeed a
fairly consistent story that stretches back to our very first cradle of true civilisation.
It is also important to note that untouched Amazonian tribes on the Earth TODAY may be explaining our aeroplanes in the most ridiculous of manners,
but this does not mean they are not actually seeing those aeroplanes.
Now - the key point here isn't me trying to convince you of a truth or a particular belief, but to simply say that a person could interpret that story
in a particular way which would make it scientifically plausible using MODERN KNOWLEDGE.
If you want to literally take an angel to mean an etheric being that does magic stuff with no apparent reasoning - then o.k, you can use modern
science to discredit this. If you look at the original definitions of these 'entities', then they could arguably just be an advanced humanoid species
separate to us.
It is not incompatible with evolution neither, and we know now enough about genetic engineering and DNA to have a much better idea of what is actually
My point is, yes, you can destroy the Bible and it's individual sentences easily. When you put it in the larger context, and try to figure out the
story actually being told rather than the semantics of each word, it becomes much harder to derationalise via science - since our scientific knowledge
itself allows us to comprehend the story in a potentially logical way.
That is the key point. I am neither religious nor do I truly believe that the story I have said above is 'true'. We should NOT be quick to dismiss
this story either.
We know now there was an abrupt ice age shift around 12,000-10,000 BC which would have caused global issues for everyone inhabiting it. We know
several humanoid races (who were physically larger with bigger brains as well) died out but we survived. We also now know we originated from Africa
and can be traced back to one modern descendant.
All those aspects of our history were spoken about in the ancient stories. Likewise, the stories of Atlantis/Lumeria and so forth in the Early Greek
period were also corresponding to a civilisation thousands and thousands of years ago that was devastated in a dramatic catastrophe.
I don't agree with your point that these things are incompatible though. That would require science to demonstrate a principle that is DIRECTLY
contradicted by attempting to rationalise the story - this is not the case - but rather one can actually rationalise the story more so than ever using
modern understanding of the universe and it's extrapolations.
edit on 14-5-2015 by DazDaKing because: (no reason given)