GD Contrary to Religion?

[dane900]

I've been studying GD for almost three years now, and it's been one of the most interesting, relevant and valuable subjects I've ever come across. On the whole, I've found it gels extremely well with what I already know about history, as well as with what I see every day on the news or in my own relationships. There is one area, however, where I disagree with John. In the Generational Dynamics For Historians online book, he had this to say:

"Now, if God is all-powerful, and God created the earth, it's clear he could have created an earth where the food supply and population grew at the same rate. Instead, he created a world in which the population grows substantially faster than the food supply. That's his fault. That means that periodic wars are mathematically required. That's also his fault. Therefore, wars are God's fault, not humans' fault."

Now, John's atheism is not something I have a problem with (nor is it really any of my business), but obviously I do disagree with this. My own religion (Protestant Christianity) teaches that God did create such a world, and humans ruined it. I considered asking about this when I first read it, but since he was making a blanket statement that covered all the various gods of different religions (and because it went up way back in 2004) I decided to just let it go. But then recently, this came up:

"In fact, the Malthus effect is contrary to the tenets of every religion and ideology, since acceptance of the Malthus effect would make the religion or ideology valueless."

I find the Malthus effect to be extremely valid, both intuitively and from the evidence of history. But I disagree that it is either 'against the tenets' of my own religion, or that it 'makes the religion worthless.'

For one, right back in Genesis when God curses Adam, he does it in a specific way: 'Cursed is the ground because of you/through painful toil you will eat of it/It will produce thorns and thistles for you...' (Gen. 3:17-18). Could it be that the Malthus Effect is the true meaning of the curse given in Genesis? Elsewhere there are little clues as well - 'What has been will be again/what has been done will be done again/there is nothing new under the sun.' (Eccl. 1:9). A general lament from an old and depressed king, for sure, but could it also be the disquiet of seeing the younger generations make the same mistakes he saw in his youth? I haven't studied Judges in-depth yet, but I'd bet three beers that the cycles of 'Once more the Israelites did evil in the eyes of the Lord...' are generational too. Basically, I don't believe that 'all religions' and the Malthus effect are mutually exclusive, as John seems to believe.

As to the second point - if God really will bring all of humanity to a new world where the Malthus effect doesn't hold sway, then the effect makes the promise more valuable, not less.

I'm not trying to get John to change his text, I just think this is worthy of discussion. What does everyone else think?

[burt]

Now, John's atheism is not something I have a problem with (nor is it really any of my business), but obviously I do disagree with this. My own religion (Protestant Christianity) teaches that God did create such a world, and humans ruined it.

Poor human responsible of everything.

On my point point of view, your religion is fine, but use it to discover who you are and reinforce your human values, not to guess the world, it never works.
Never try to mix reality with religion, both belongs to 2 unconnected part of our poor brain.
Everyone is free to believe in the gods he likes, but, please don't bring them to earth.

This is also true for "communism", "capitalism", "Malthus" which are religions. They don't work on earth.
They are "logic", but that's all. And I don't say that it is bad to be in an ideology (we all are), just that you have to face it.

Thinking is always usefull, so, for me, Genesis is a tale, from this tale you can enrich yourself, and your understanding of the human world, but only a tale (and tales are among the richest things that man can produce...).

This is just an European point of view about religion (one among others, but, in Europe we have a VERY different point of view on religions than the one US people have), no more, just to give you an answer for further discussion.

So on my point of view, GD is surely NOT contrary to religion (religion belongs to something else), it tries to study the man at the group level, I disagree on some points (because of the lack of proofs), but John tries to explain and gives me further readings, so nice for me...

Regards

[John]

> For one, right back in Genesis when God curses Adam, he does it in
> a specific way: 'Cursed is the ground because of you/through
> painful toil you will eat of it/It will produce thorns and
> thistles for you...' (Gen. 3:17-18). Could it be that the Malthus
> Effect is the true meaning of the curse given in Genesis?
> Elsewhere there are little clues as well - 'What has been will be
> again/what has been done will be done again/there is nothing new
> under the sun.' (Eccl. 1:9). A general lament from an old and
> depressed king, for sure, but could it also be the disquiet of
> seeing the younger generations make the same mistakes he saw in
> his youth? I haven't studied Judges in-depth yet, but I'd bet
> three beers that the cycles of 'Once more the Israelites did evil
> in the eyes of the Lord...' are generational too. Basically, I
> don't believe that 'all religions' and the Malthus effect are
> mutually exclusive, as John seems to believe.

Saying that Adam ruined the earth doesn't solve the theological
problem.

If someone in the 20th century starts a war because his people are
starving because the population grows faster than the food supply,
then the war is still unavoidable. You can argue that the war is not
God's fault, but is Adam's fault, but that doesn't change the fact
that it's NOT the fault of the person who starts the war.

John

[dane900]

Kind of a roundabout way of getting there, but I agree entirely.

[leftback]

An interesting topic. While it may be a challenge to apply GD to the deity of your choosing, most of the major religions are human organizations, and GD should have an application. Let me suggest that the early chuch went through a series of changes, as it developed into the various denominations we have today. The early Councils addressed crisis issues that would change the direction of the church at that point. But do the Councils occur in the actual times of crisis, or are they held during times of Awakening, when the majority of parties can agree since they grew up in the times of crisis? As I try to figure out that little detail, here seem to be some of the critical points:

~50AD - Council of Jerusalem. Non-Jews allowed into the Church.
130AD - Bar Khorba Revolt. Christianity separates from Judaism.
~200AD - Gnostic Schism
~290AD - Manichaean Schism.
325AD - Council of Nicosia repudiated Arianism
381AD - First Council of Constantinople repudiated Arianism (again) and Macedonianism
431AD - Council of Ephesus repudiates Pelagianism
451AD - Council of Chalcedon repudiates Monophysitism
553AD - Second Council of Constantinople repudiates Nestorism
~630AD - Advent of Islam (not an internal crisis, so there should be something else)
680AD -Third Council of Constantinople repudiates Monothelite Schism
787AD - Second Council of Nicosia repudiates Iconoclasty
~850AD - ?? Rise of national vice universal church (Papal States becomes a geo-political entity)
~930AD - ??
~1010AD - ??
1054AD - East - West Schism
~1170AD - Albigensian Schism
~1208AD - Cathar persecution
~1250AD - Formation of the Inquisition (in reaction to...?)
1309AD - Avignon Papacy
1417AD - Council of Constance
1453AD - Fall of Constantinople (external event)
1517AD - 95 Theses
1563AD - Council of Trent

I''ll stop here for the moment. There is a general trend that runs up through Vatican II. There are gaps, and each entry needs to be addressed. Actually, up to the point of the Second Council of Nicosia, the Church was dealing with theological crises. Beyond that, European (specifically Italian) geopolitical situation tends to muddy things a bit.

So there you have it. Based on some rough time lines, I think Islamic and Buddhist history has similar periods of crisis, especially in their early stages. But I will stick to what little I know, and leave that for others. Any comments or feedback would be appreciated.