[cartoon thanks to atheistcartoons.com]
[cartoon thanks to jesusandmo.net]
[cartoon thanks to treelobsters.com]
Why do alpha males tend to be keepers of the garden?
Before answering that question, let me explain what I mean by ‘keepers of the garden.’ No primate species but one will cultivate and tend a garden. Yet many if not most will defend a territory — not because they win Monopoly money for doing so, but because any territory worth defending contains gardens of the naturally occurring sort. Food sources.
Dominant males are also keepers because they fight not to lose what they have. Lastly, our own species qualifies as keepers in terms of tending to it in order to insure and optimize food production. In this regard females play a significant role, the size and importance of that role depending upon the particular culture.
Why do males tend to be ‘keepers’? Male primates tend to be larger and stronger. Which makes for a good defender. Additionally, males are more expendable. Evolutionary speaking. If you lose a female, you lose more than one individual. You also endanger if not lose dependent children, as well as lose the potential production of more offspring. The social group that has 5 females to every male will grow more quickly than will the opposite. To put it bluntly, wombs are limited resources. In contrast, as a naturalist friend of mine put it, “sperm is cheap.”
Why alpha’s? In terms of physical power and aggressiveness, alphas tend to be “at the top.” Perhaps more importantly, in terms of social power, they are definitely at the top of the heap. They are more likely to have others follow them and thereby multiply the muscle available for a task. Indeed, as Jane Goodall and others have documented, dominant males tend to take the lead in defending a “feeding territory for all members.”(1)
But why would a territory need to defending? Because resources equate to survival. They are valued for a reason. And can be stolen. As evidenced by these . . . Bible verses [emphasis added].
The sons of Jacob came upon the dead bodies and looted the city where their sister had been defiled. They seized their flocks and herds and donkeys and everything else of theirs in the city and out in the fields. They carried off all their wealth and all their women and children, taking as plunder everything in the houses. (Genesis 34:27-29)
So the LORD our God also gave into our hands Og king of Bashan and all his army. We struck them down, leaving no survivors. At that time we took all his cities. There was not one of the sixty cities that we did not take from them—the whole region of Argob, Og’s kingdom in Bashan. All these cities were fortified with high walls and with gates and bars, and there were also a great many unwalled villages. We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city—men, women and children. But all the livestock and the plunder from their cities we carried off for ourselves. (Deuteronomy 3:3-7)
Gardens need to be protected from vandals and other threats. Yet can you protect a garden from plagues and drought? Well, you can try. And when it comes to food, to not do everything in your power to protect it — that would be crazy. So maybe the many Bible verses that evidence attempts at assuring a healthy garden — while they are misguided — are not so crazy.
Let us fear the LORD our God, who gives autumn and spring rains in season, who assures us of the regular weeks of harvest. (Jeremiah 5:24)
What brings the rains that nourish your garden? If your understanding of nature is rudimentary and/or you have a hyperactive tendency to attribute events to the work of agents (related to the theorized human HADD – hyperactive agency detection device (2)).
Of course, a great leader-god gets credit for the good, because he is loving and/or pleased with his people. So be sure to please him. Refrain from behavior that could anger him. But when plagues strike, when rains don’t come and plants wither, this is also a god’s doing. But the bad does not reflect poorly on his nature. Rather, a bad turn of events will be attributed to a people’s bad actions, which provoked their god. Just ask Pat Robertson. This renown preacher from a more modern age informed people that the reason for the hurricane of 2005 that wrecked havoc on the city of New Orleans — bringing way too much of those nurturing rains — was that people had sinned. The nation had been too soft on the issue of abortion.(3)
A productive garden must be nurtured. And protected. This is why religion speaks to the issue so often. Food is indeed sacred — though in a fully mundane, evolutionary way.
—
(1) de Waal, F. B. M., (ed.), Tree of Origin: What Primate Behavior Can Tell Us About Human Social Evolution, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001, p. 19
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion
(3) http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1953778_1953776_1953771,00.html
The headline tells it: Queen’s study finds religion helps us gain self-control
It seems that three cheers are in order for religion. At least if you accept things on face value. And read no further than the headline. What did the study actually find?
“After unscrambling sentences containing religiously oriented words, participants in our studies exercised significantly more self-control,” says psychology graduate student and lead researcher on the study, Kevin Rounding.
Oh. Okay. But wait. Is this effect exclusive to religion? The answer: Can’t tell.
Rather than having a control condition involving the unscrambling of sentences neutral to religion, why not test to see if other terms have an equally pro-self-control effect? I can think of a few sets, including family (and/or other social-group-oriented words) career-aspirations, dangers in the world, etc.
My alternative headline: Compared to complete ambivalence, religion kinda moves people.
Bah.
—
Note: My comments are based upon the news release of the finding. Try as I might, I couldn’t find a link to more in-depth information about the study.
Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. (1 John 2:15)
While Christians are supposed to keep their eyes on the prize to come, I have my eyes on lunch. Continuing with last Sunday’s theme of the sacred mundane, I present to you part II of my personal Bible: The Culinary Commandments.
Maybe the following commandments ought to be discussed in Sunday school sessions across the land, in addition to the customary 10. You know, teach the controversy. Why not let children hear alternatives so they can choose for themselves?
—
The Lord of my stomach spake the Commandments (which had been scribbled upon the most holy index card and attached to the fridge with a kitty-cat magnet). The kitchen echoed with these words:
Thou shalt put no other Lords before me, not even the Lord of thy intellect, and especially not the Lord of thy privates.
Thou shalt not make graven images in thy mashed potatoes, nor shall thy wrestle naked in thy coleslaw.
Thou shalt surely kill thy fish and fowl and swine and steer and cook these before eating of them. Raw flesh is food of foreigners and trendy infidels. Thou must save thyself from the temptation to sample a bite.
Thou shalt not steal the plumpest shrimp from the platter before thine dinner guests arrive. Thou shalt nibble on the ugly little ones.
Thou shalt not lie about thine Thanksgiving pumpkin pie being made from “scratch.” If thou has taken up thy can opener, thou must pay homage to Del Monte.
Thou shalt not commit an adulteration of thy pancake batter. If it ain’t broke, thou shalt not go throwing chocolate chips in there.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s grilled sirloin, though the savory smoke wafts into thine open window, and thou full knowest that thou is having tunafish casserole for dinner.
Now the Lord fell silent. He pulled a package from the freezer, put it in the microwave, and set it on “defrost.” The Lord continued . . . .
Remember thy napkin, and keep it in thy lap, and not just when dining with Grandma, who hath an eagle eye.
Honor thy father’s and thy mother’s recipes. Thou shalt never banish the blessed, original ingredients and in their stead use the lesser, “low-fat” kind. Nor shalt thou ever attempt to sneak soycheese, soyburgers, or soydogs into thine unsuspecting family’s supper.
Thou shalt not bear false witness about the milk. Thou shall check the expiration date and lift it to thy nose and thy mouth. For if thy wife drinks of it, and becomes ill and perishes, she will nevermore be in the mood to be fruitful.
And finally, the Lord said, For six days shalt thou toil at thy sink and at thy stove. But on the seventh day, thou may use thy cell phone to cry out for pizza. And though that prayer will be answered, thou shalt be charged for it.
Amen.
If you delve into specifics, people today ‘hunger’ for a god for reasons that poorly overlap with more ancient reasons. At least in areas of the world with amply stocked supermarkets and respected borders. Today we enjoy relative peace and little hunger. Years ago — not so much. And so hundreds of verses in the Old Testament speak of a god as one who not only could vanquish the enemy, but also alleviate hunger. In fact, the Biblical drama all began in the Garden of Eden.
In a time of uncertainty, what individual wouldn’t welcome a leader who satisfied real hunger?
At twilight you will eat meat, and in the morning you will be filled with bread. Then you will know that I am the LORD your God. (Genesis 16:12)
The actions of gods in all religions reflect human concerns. As with all animals, for the human primate food ranks at the top of concerns, followed by reproduction and others. No, these issues are not transcendental, but fundamental.
Bread. What a fantastic commodity. It staves off hunger and provides the necessary energy to stand up and do what needs doing. To be daily provided with bread—what fortune! It is no surprise that the word bread appears in the Bible 250 times (New International Version). Of course, there are other terms that appear throughout the Bible and reflect this basic need. For example, famine appears 94 times, and crop(s) 60 times. Not to mention the many verses about a god as the provider of rain (such as Psalms 65:9).
As telling is the how the “promised land” granted to a god’s children is described.
Go up to the land flowing with milk and honey. (Genesis 33:2-3
But it doesn’t stop there.
And because of the abundance of the milk they give, he will have curds to eat. All who remain in the land will eat curds and honey. (Isaiah 7:22)
You will have plenty to eat, until you are full, and you will praise the name of the LORD your God, who has worked wonders for you. (Joel 2:26)
Plenty to eat. And honey no less! If hunger were a real occurrence in our lives, and there was a possibility of starvation, I imagine that the thought of being granted abundant food would just about make you fall to your knees. In thanks . . . to what? The government? As social animals, our instincts favor the thanking of an agent, even one of the imaginary sort.
In the New Testament, written during a more modern time–one of trade and markets–there is less talk of a god as the provider of food. Still, it appears in a number of places. Such as the “Lord’s Prayer.”
Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil. (Matthew 6:9-13)
Notice that in the prayer first comes praise, then an appeal. Chimp primates will “ask” (beg) for food from others with an extended hand, palm up. With this prayer, are humans asking for food by pressing their palms together?
I also discern in the prayer a sort of inverse hierarchy of needs. First comes food, sex/procreation is skipped, then we get to social needs. Help me get along better with others, for belonging to a social group is a real resource.
But back to the New testament. Jesus performs a number of food and hunger-related miracles. Okay, there was the water into wine thing. But you can’t use food stamps on wine, for good reason. So scratch that one. But there are least two beloved stories of him feeding many with food for a few. The fish and loaves thing.
Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the people. They all ate and were satisfied, and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. (Matthew 14:19-20)
Elsewhere, Jesus helps men catch an abundance of fish–a miraculous amount following hours of failed attempts by the experienced fishermen. And at the last supper, Jesus informs his followers that their high spiritual act will be to honor him by eating his body and drinking his blood. Weird? Not really. First, there are the numerous religious precedents that this idea is based upon. It didn’t come out of nowhere. Second, we have this mundane verity: Religion and food are intertwined because religion is a human invention, fully reflecting the concerns of an intelligent species of primate.
Recent Comments