GD Contrary to Religion?
Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 3:22 am
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?
"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?