This weekend I am in Vegas sampling some great shows, food and shopping. I took math in college, and so I know exactly why I shouldn't play the casinos. (It's not a question of morality; it's a question of knowing when you're being shafted.) Besides, I'm saving my brain for a bruising man-to-man debate against Christopher Hitchens. Every survey taken following one of my debates with leading atheists has me the winner, and I'd like to keep it that way.
In this blog I want to return to one of Hitchens's favorite arguments, one that he used in our New York debate last October and also in an Orange County debate last spring. In fact, in the Orange County synagogue event that also featured Jewish radio host Dennis Prager, Hitchens came out swinging with precisely this argument. Essentially Hitchens noted that Homo sapiens has been on the planet for approximately 100,000 years but for most of that time God seems to have been indifferent and inactive, choosing only to intervene in human history a few thousand years ago. What kind of a God, Hitchens contemptuously asked, behaves in this way?
When Hitchens first sprung this on me last year, I was surprised. But since then I've given some thought to it. When Hitchens brought it up a second time I was ready for him. Here I want to show how Hitchens' argument completely backfires on atheism. Let's apply an entirely secular analysis and go with Hitchens' premise that there is no God and man is an evolved primate. Well, biology tells us that man's basic frame and brain size haven't substantially changed throughout his terrestrial existence.
So here is the problem. Homo sapiens has been on the planet for 100,000 years, but apparently for more than 95,000 of those years he accomplished virtually nothing. No real art, no writing, no inventions, no culture, no civilization. How is this possible? Were our ancestors, otherwise physically and mentally undistinguishable from us, such blithering idiots that they couldn't figure out anything other than the arts of primitive warfare?
Then, a few thousand years ago, everything changes. Suddenly savage man gives way to historical man. Suddenly the naked ape gets his act together. We see civilizations sprouting in Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, China, and elsewhere. Suddenly there are wheels and agriculture and art and culture. Soon we have dramatic plays and philosophy and an explosion of inventions and novel forms of government and social organization.
So how did Homo sapiens, heretofore such a slacker, suddenly get so smart? Scholars have made strenuous efforts to account for this but no one has offered a persuasive account. If we compare man's trajectory on earth to an airplane, we see a long, long stretch of the airplane faltering on the ground, and then suddenly, a few thousand years ago, takeoff!
Well, there is one obvious way to account for this historical miracle. It seems as if some transcendent being or force reached down and breathed some kind of a spirit or soul into man, because after accomplishing virtually nothing for 98 percent of our existence, we have in the past 2 percent of human history produced everything from the pyramids to Proust, from Socrates to computer software.
So paradoxically Hitchens' argument becomes a boomerang. Hitchens has raised a problem that atheism cannot easily explain and one that seems better accounted for by the Book of Genesis.
Reader Comments ( Page 7 of 35)
91. And Hitchen's point, as you are missing, either intentionally or not, is that there is no reason for god to let humanity just putter along and then decide to jump in. Dinesh can not name a reason why God would interceed after doing nothing, nor can he cite what changed, nor when, but instead makes the grandiose claim that "sometime" in the past god did "something" that turned us from cavement and into modern humans.
The truth is when you look at archeological and anthropological evidence there is no magic moment where humans changed. Human change is gradual. If you want to point at a single universal changing event that affected all of humanity, the only two you can find is the internet and electricity. Everything else were social changes that took generations to unfold.
Consider your own example of writing. For millenia humans used pictography to record events: the cave drawings of France are an example. Pictures carried meaning. Over millenia the pictures became more standardized and abstract. They became what is refered to as iconography. For instance a full drawing of an ox became the more styleized head of an ox. Tools helped refine this process, such as the use of a stylus to assist in the formation of clean lines. When parchment and ink became available, straight lines were possible and the icons were broken down into a phonetic alphabet. Now language was written sound rather than a placeholder for an object.
Now, you could argue that this was a religious inspired theme in humanity IF it was concurrent in all societies in the world. Instead, the evidence shows that some civilizations imported their writing techniques from others, while others were forced to reinvent it. Society altered language to suit its needs. Ironically, the first writings were sale recipes for bartered goods.
Now. In regards to the red herring of 'theistic evolution', AKA intelligent design, please do the same. Provide some instances of biological evolution that would have been utterly impossible without the intercession of some outside intelligence. It is a fine thing to boldly declair 'God is Nature!' or 'God is in the Machine!' or 'God is the data of the internet!' But until you can present actual evidence of your claims you are simply wasting my time.
And like Dinesh, that ultimately is the clicher. You can't. You can't point at language and go 'God gave us this!' He also gave it to bees, dolphins, and elephants. You can't point at social concert and say 'God gave us this!' Even ants and termites work together for the survival of their genetic legacy. You can't point at agriculture and say 'God gave us this!' because there was no spasmadic leap from gathering to agriculture. Various cultures adopted varying kinds of agriculture at varying times.
Now, I can think of at least three counter arguments you could make. But why do your work for you?
Somber at 12:48PM on Jul 11th 2008
92. Somber, in terms of culture defining its religion, I totally agree. If you assert that concerning what man considers to be the supernatural, I pretty strongly disagree.
If you think Neanderthal was proto-human you'd be alone even among evolutionists. Thanks for replying by the way.
===================================================
"Genomes are completely known now, and the development and sharing of genetic traits and the evidence of their evolution is all molecular and very sound physical biochemistry, not metaphor."
Clif Kuplen at 12:19PM on Jul 11th 2008
You mean we know what we know, and that extrapolates to anything of the same type. The assumption is as sound as empirical data will let it be. It's not the assumption that is problematic it is the statement that it is fact.
Which unfortunately for evolution will always go back to its two main biological tenets: spontaneous generation and macro-evolution.
You can hide it in jargon, (I especially love the new emphasis on how macro-evolution is micro-evolution in groups. More smoke and mirrors, what that actually says without saying it, is that when you see micro-evolution you see macro-evolution. Hogwash) or dance around it, but evolution eventually falls into the area of...a brave new religion.
oneblood at 12:49PM on Jul 11th 2008
93. "It's full of STARS!"
Robert at 1:09PM on Jul 11th 2008
94. So you know where I'm coming from Clif, I find atheism tenable, credible, and utterly understandable (I used to be one). I don't go at evolution because I want to prove Genesis. I go at evolution because it is severely lacking in a demonstrable way. If evolution wants to retain any credibility it will have to evolve (pun intended).
To the evolutionist it's impossible that there is another natural/atheistic solution. When in reality, there most definitely could be another natural theory that most evolutionary theory is a product of. Evolution simply fits into a preconceived worldview.
It's as if Evolution and Creationism have actually developed in response to one another and not as independently as the devout adherents would like to believe.
oneblood at 1:12PM on Jul 11th 2008
95. Somber: there is no reason for god to let humanity just putter along and then decide to jump in
PV: It's a non-argument. Or, perhaps, it's an argument "from personal taste." Hitchens wouldn't do it that way. So what?
Somber: Dinesh can not name a reason why God would interceed after doing nothing
PV: Why would he need to? A Creator can opt to take as much time or as little time evolving creatures as the Creator wants. Plus the prior stage isn't exactly "nothing." It's just a prior stage.
Somber: It is a fine thing to boldly declair 'God is Nature!' or 'God is in the Machine!'...But until you can present actual evidence of your claims you are simply wasting my time.
PV: The idea that "God is in the machine" is a logical inference deduced from these facts: (1) matter originated from something non-material; (2) complex systems and designs contain the properties of clever function, form, and intent; and (3) morality is the idea that a thing has been given instructions for how it "ought to act." These things cause us to infer the existence of a Supreme Mind/Creator.
preteristvision at 1:15PM on Jul 11th 2008
96. Why does 'God' continually sound like a really whiny four-year old?
Robert at 1:17PM on Jul 11th 2008
97. Oy vey. Alright. A little clarification then...
Roughly a few million years ago some species of great ape was in a bind. It was a tree dwelling species, but the trees of africa were slowly giving way as climate changed and jungle became grasslands. This did NOT happen overnight. Forests became patchy. Then they became isolated islands of vegitation. Finally they disappeared all together to the newly established savannah.
During this time, this primitive ancestor of ours faced a challenge of adaptation. Long arms, thumbs, and binocular vision weren't very useful when the trees that made them weren't around any more. This primitive ancestor made the most revolutionary change imaginable... they changed from quadrapedia to bipedal. This gave them the advantage of height, allowing them to see opportunity and threats at a greater range. It also kept intact our keen vision and auditory systems that had developed in the forest.
All this increased input required a more efficient brain to process it. Despite severe setbacks, including a near extinction level event, we endured as bipedal animals. Being bipedal was more energy efficient than being quadripedal, and though it had a higher demand on our brains, it also meant we could survive for longer on less. It also freed up our hands. Well, there is a saying about idle hands. Many of our first tools were likely discovered though simple opportunity. A sharp piece of flint or stone. A particularly straight branch. humans had these hands that were no longer needed for locomotion, so instead we used them for manipulation. And tools were more efficient than natural equipment. A rock stays hard even when teeth crack or nails fail. The use of tools made survival even easier.
Now, the rise of intelligence is directly porportional to the efficiency of survival. The more spare time we had, the more brainpower we had to explore more possibilities of our environment. But the single greatest invention of all was to come; man kind's ultimate tool... fire. You might not think much of it, but fire is the ability to use energy other than our own metabolic processes. To stay warm our bodies required high amounts of energy, but now with fire we could use the chemical energy in the wood to heat ourselves. With fire, humanity achieved something that no other animal had; access to energy outside our own biology.
All human development has been a struggle to survive. It doesn't matter how easy or hard it is, we still strive to survive; be it personally or professionally, or culturally. As humans became more efficient at survival, we had so much surplus brain power that we didn't know what to do with it. And so fiction was created, because it gave us something to think about. Imagine, it's dark so you have nothing to do, you're not tired, so you talk. And eventually some one is going to tell a story, simply to give the group something to do. Cultural ritual was little more than a channel for this excessive leasure time and surplus energy. In short, humanity invented culture simply because we were bored.
Eventually we came to the point where it was less efficient to keep moving and more efficient to maximize a region's carrying capasity. This allowed for the establishment of settlements, which in turn gave greater time and focus on agriculture and animal husbandry, which in turn made human survival even more efficient, which in turn allowed for more humans to be born. At one point, humans were so efficient at survival that we had something unimaginable... a treasure that no other in the animal kingdom could... surplus.
Surplus. More stuff than we need to survive. It's unthinkable! Animals other than humans were never so efficient that they had more than what they needed! And what's more, by specializing in certain fields they could have even more surplus! And with that surplus they could trade for other things they needed. Suddenly division and specialization of labor was the most efficient means of survival.
No where in that system do you need God. God was invented, just like use of fire and tools, to make us more survivable. It gave people a common rallying point and a unifying trait. It also helped to organize political structures. Krog is chief. Why? Not because Krog is strongest, but because the fire God says Krog is chief. Yay for Krog. You disagree, take it up with fire God.
And now God is becoming inefficient to our survival. Superfluous. Like an appendix or tail its something that we're replacing with more abstract philosophies and with the more practical and useful applications of science. And now, our busy bored brains have given rise to the internet, where we can endlessly share our bordom with others like sitting around the fire.
Only with porn!
Somber at 1:19PM on Jul 11th 2008
98. Robert: once many moons ago when I was cobbling together a faith for myself I thought that he only thing that explained god would be if God were capable of growth and maturation. So god created the world as a little kid. In dealing with humans became a sulky teenager. And after becoming human as Jesus realized just what a shit he'd been to humanity and was a mature adult. The story ends when God dies for humanity to protect it from another God just as all powerful and mighty, leaving humanity to become Gods ourselves.
Then I realized that while it was a fun story, none of it was true. Then I became an atheist.
Somber at 1:26PM on Jul 11th 2008
99. Goddess1: But Judaism didn't vanish
PV: The Old Testament Judaism did. It went poof at AD 70. Extinct.
You're speaking of Deuteronomy Judaism as described by the priests and a later addition. Old Testament Judaism as practiced by Abraham, Moses, Joseph, Isaac, David had no temple. Remember that when Abraham first entered into the unknown land he built an alter to El. He never ascribed to a priest nor a temple for his religion.
Many Samaritans of Jesus' time claimed they worship in the true form, without priests or temples. This is the form of Judaism that never went extinct and the covenant with Abraham is what Jews without temples and priests still practice today. Even before Jesus the Essences and other Jewish sects were advocating for a return to ancient forms of practice and law without priests or temples. So Judaism in its true and ancient form never went extinct.
Since the Old Testament covenant with Abraham was unchanging and eternal the Jews deny that a new covenant ever replaced the old. They should know it's their religion. To them Christianity is a new invention with a new trilogy of gods.
goddess1prevail at 1:39PM on Jul 11th 2008
100. Somber: Then I realized that while it was a fun story, none of it was true.
PV: There are evidences that it is true, and they cumulatively they up to confidence about it being true. I would entirely agree with you if:
(1) we observed that matter and complex mechanisms/systems create themselves out of nothing by accident and don't imply the properties of clever intent, form and function
(2) central Christian tenets such as the resurrection had not been verified by the corroborating testimony of eyewitnesses (proof in any court of law)
(3) the quality of prescience found in Jesus' teachings was a provably natural ability common to humans
(4) a man claiming to be god hadn't against all odds become the most influential human being of all time
(5) the institutional dynasty founded by the christian "god-claimant" hadn't emerged as the longest-lasting, single most influential organization on the planet
(6) I wasn't convinced that moral rights are objective and not merely situational and relative
preteristvision at 1:43PM on Jul 11th 2008
101. OJ was acquitted in a court of law. Good enough for me!
Mokele Mbembe at 1:47PM on Jul 11th 2008
102. Sigh...
PV: (2) central Christian tenets such as the resurrection had not been verified by the corroborating testimony of eyewitnesses (proof in any court of law)
But, corroborating testimony of eyewitnesses is proof in any court of law. But what is NOT proof in a court of law is when you only have one witness who says that there is corroborating testimony of eyewitnesses, but doesn't produce the actual eyewitnesses.
Sigh...
Ryan Anderson at 1:50PM on Jul 11th 2008
103. 75.
"oneblood, what is your bible spin on neanderthals, cro-magnons and homo sapiens sapiens?"
JefFlyingV at 12:00PM on
Sorry JefF, I missed your slightly snide question (good for you). There is no bible spin on it. I am a creationist, but I don't consider the bible to be a scientific book or a complete account of the universe. You and I both know that Genesis was written to be authoritative. It's emphasizing the power of the deity more so than it is explaining cosmology and biology.
oneblood at 1:55PM on Jul 11th 2008
104. I am so smart!!!! S A M R T!
Ryan Anderson at 2:00PM on Jul 11th 2008
105. DD . . . YOU CAN'T FOOL ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME. WHEREAS 85% OR SO OF EARTHLINGS BELIEVE IN A "GOD", YOU'RE GOING TO WIN THE OPINION POLE AGAINST THE NON BELIEVERS. HOWEVER, HUMAN ADVANCES GO BACK TENS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS. PLEASE TELL US IN GREATER DETAIL HOW MATH HELPED YOU WHILE IN LAS VEGAS.
Daniel Mullane at 2:05PM on Jul 11th 2008