Ancient Cosmology is Function Oriented: Chapter 2

This is the second post of the book The Lost World of Genesis, written by Dr. John Walton. The first chapter is titled Genesis 1 is Ancient Cosmology. This is chapter 2 which is titled Ancient Cosmology is Function Oriented. This chapter deals with a question: What does it mean for something to exist? There could be different answers to this question.

One possible answer to the question is to deal at the ontological level; another one is to deal at the teleological level. (The author does not use the word 'teleological'; it's mine. But I understand that to be the point he is trying to say.) Ancient cosmology is not about dealing with the material existence of the known universe; it is rather about the function of the universe. When we talk about a computer's existence, it can be discussed at different stages. When the manufactured parts are assembled or when the programmes are written or when the softwares are installed or when someone connects power and make use of all the above. In ancient cosmological terms 'unless people (or gods) are there to benefit from function, existence is not achieved.' Or to put it in computer's terminology -- unless someone boots the computer and uses it to her benefit, the computer won't be considered to be existing. Materially the computer exists, but functionally it does not exist! Ancient cosmology does not 'bother' about the material world unlike present cosmology; it is rather about the function it performs. To understand ancient cosmology in term of function that it performs is widespread in ancient near east literature. This was the cultural norm of the day -- whether it's the Sumerian or the Babylonians or the Egyptians.
 

Summary of The Lost World of Genesis One: Chapter 1

I am going to summarise each chapter of the book The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate, written by John H. Walton. Dr. Walton is an Old Testament Professor at Wheaton College and has written numerous articles on Ancient Near East literature/thought. The book has eighteen chapters and consists of 191 pages, and each chapter is provided as a kind of a proposal in interpreting and understanding the opening chapter of the Bible. Here goes the first chapter. 

Genesis chapter one is ancient cosmology. Since it talks about ancient cosmic geography, one should not impose modern scientific reading into the text. Their cosmological understanding is different from ours. Scientific understanding changes over time. So concordism -- biblical texts have scientific information embedded in them -- is not the right approach to read and understand the Scripture. Ancient people thought that the sky is strong enough to support the residence of heavenly beings or that human being think and feel with their intestine (not with their brain). God did communicate what he wanted to communicate, but did not really communicate that human understanding about cosmology or anatomy was wrong. Moreover, the ancient did not have the distinction between 'natural' and 'supernatural'. For them the works of deities pervaded every aspect of their life. So it's not the law of motion/gravity that guides that solar system; it's the work of a deity. 

NB: I try to give a description of the text correctly. But for further engagement, best is to read the book. Dr. Walton may or may not get things right, but I trust his sincerity and faithfulness to do justice to the Word.

Picture!

Receiving Best Paper Award in the Research Scholars Category for the 2nd National Conference on Politics and Governance, held on 3rd August, 2014.

From left: Yours truly, Prof. Sanjay Kumar (Director, Centre for Study of Developing Societies), Dr. Nupur Tiwari ( Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi) and Fr. Dr. Denzil Fernandes ( Indian Social Institute, New Delhi)

Clouding Seeding: Making 'Artificial' Rain

                                                                Made in Texas, US

Children's Pictures, June-July, 2014

On the way back from the Church on a Sunday

Daniel on his first day in school, 2nd July, 2014

                                                      

Relaxing at home with Luke

The daughters!

Must Soldiers Fight Unjust Wars?

If the state ever legislates an act that says that all the citizens must worship the statue of the Prime Minister/President, do I have to obey the law? Or must I obey a law that says that I should never ever utter a word against the economic policy of the government? Living in such a state of condition would be terrible! It is likely that most people in 21st century may say that it would be better to rebel against such system and overthrow it; put to an end such kind of system. However, as many would be willing to fight against such regime – not even worthy of being called a government – there would be many others who would be willing to die fighting to protect such system.

Wars come and go. Some wars are just; some unjust. If we are to loosely define them, one may define them as wars that are waged to expand territory are unjust whereas wars that are fought in self-defence are just. On both counts, the soldiers play the key role. Even when it is an unjust war, it is the soldiers who go out to the field to fight; and again in just war too, it is the soldiers who go out to fight to protect the people and the territory. Whether it is the US invasion of Iraq on the pretext of Saddam Hussein producing WMD or the Qaddhafi's army fighting to protect his dictatorial regime, it was the soldiers who composed the main fighting unit. The moral dilemma that may emerge before a soldier is whether they join the fight against bad regime or fight and even kill the civilians who attempt to overthrow such oppressive government; or whether to go and even fight in a foreign territory as an occupational army or leave the army.

Army units do not function on democratic principle which guarantees one a significant amount of right to dissent though it is the civil government which may be in place. Whether it is a big army or a small army, army personnel are bound by the oath they have taken to follow the order of their superior. The order given by the superior may not always be just and fair, yet they are bound by the oath as long as they remain in the army. Imagine a situation where someone puts a revolver on your forehead and asks you to shoot a child. You can refuse to shoot and get yourself killed or you can shoot and yet remain blameless. The reason why you remain blameless despite killing an innocent child is because your action was not intentional. This is the kind of situation an army personnel face in a battlefield. You disobey an order of your superior and so get court-martialed or you obey order.

These are the options before a person: first, do not join the army and you face no such situation whether one must fight or not fight an unjust war; you take up other job. Second, join the army but quit much ahead because you see foresee potential dilemma. Third, stay in the army and report for duty and be obedient to the orders given to you. The third option is what many army personnel do. If the fight is judged to be unjust later, the responsible official or officer who gave the order is to be held responsible for the order, not the soldiers acting on the order.