yeah all that stuff is possible, but which do you think is more likely A) God made the carbon dioxide kill the babies b) carbon dioxide killed the babies and then someone incorporated it into a myth to make "their" god seem bad ass
On the other side of my perspective is a book, 'Origin of Conciousness and the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind', by Julian Jaynes. That has a more throrough theory on religion, man, and conciousness. It's much more rational than I've seen from any other.
I'd say life isn't made only of two options. It just makes the story more compelling, to say the least.
I agree. Religion was the best explanations we could come up with at that time. People would turn to 'god' for an explanation of anything that couldn't be understood.
I think the idea that one whom lives now, can simplistic view the past without a knowledge or analysis of something....is basing their view on more faith than those of faith. Which seems like a rather illogical path for the 'logical'.
But if you are a very logical and scientific person who believes in the God of the Bible - you are just a nut case right? (of course you can believe in fairies and be ok. LOL)
According to Julian study, man had different levels of conciousness, based on how his mind operated, and sophistation of his language. He historically documents the behaviour of ancient man, and demonstrates the differences in conciousness, and theorizes that prevalent 'scizo-like' view of hearing god was a matter of bicameral conciousness...and that man slowly through language and change in brain use started to lose god's voice. Interesting theory...a bit better than guessing, though.
A person of science should have a neutral mind-set, and use models/methods to assert the likelyhood of events occuring...they can't live in a mentality where they assert knowlege they know nothing of. Knowing these limits they must imply a certain level of ignorance.