Post 2

The Genesis passage from the Bible doesn't have the most cohesive argument in relation to the neanderthal articles. I'm hoping that it can be assumed that most of the stories with the Bible were not thought to be taken literally. In my opinion they are merely there to teach lessons and show a moral way of life. Their main problem that can lead this argument astray is that modern humans do not know everything about neanderthals, nor do we know how factual the story of Genesis was meant to be. However, on the basis of evolution and the creation of mankind we can compare them.

According to "The Singing Neanderthals" passage, "Genetic evidence indicates that our species, Homo sapiens, shared an ancestor with the Neanderthals somewhere between 300,000 and 500,000 years ago, and evolved quite separately" (222). This seems odd in contrast with Genesis, which claims that man has dominion over all things and that humankind, the reflection of God, all came from Adam and Eve. This may seem laughable, since it is incredibly unlikely that people actual believe this was really how mankind began. However, I feel like it is still an area of evolution that can be assessed. Really, humans share "99.5%" of DNA traits with neanderthals. We are really similar beings. When humankind interbreeded with neanderthals we had to have been at the same or a similar intellectual level. This intellectual level was not high. How could Adam and Eve have thought on such a high intellectual level if they had existed hundreds of thousands of years before humans and neanderthals interbreeded? It seems to me that it doesn't all compute well. I guess a lot of what I've discussed is based on interpretation. Well, food for thought.

Post 1

The assertions that Atran makes about "belief in hope beyond reason" seem entirely relevant to my own beliefs. I used to tag along with my folks to church, fold my hands together, bow my head, and pray. I quickly grew out of that stage and got some sort of satisfaction from criticizing christianity because it seemed so unreasonable to me. Like Atran, I too, cross my fingers and knock on wood. The only problem I've found in dealing with this, is purpose. I honestly can't think of any reason why I consume myself in these meaningless activities, other than the possibility that it could be a result of my own desire to have a connection with something supernatural or a being that trancends me.
This seems stunning to me because I've often found myself praying or involving myself in some form of prayer and questioned what its purpose was. Albeit, I talk myself out of it and pretend like I have no connection to anything that seems surreal. The information assessed in "Why Do We Believe?" seems entirely relevant to my own experiences. I feel that Atran and I are very parallel in belief and approach. I've never considered my tendency to not put my hand in magic box, if you will, something inherent or genetic. However, it seems entirely possible. I'm not announcing that I have a newfound earnest belief in a god, but the argument made that God created humans to want to have a connection with him seems plausible. Dawkins' belief, which seems pertinent, is something similar to a genetic flaw, or something that has been developed over time which shouldn't exist. I can't say which is right or wrong. Obviously, I am in no position to assert that one belief stands above the rest. From the conclusions I can draw from this material, humans do have a desire for religion. Whether or not this need for religion is created by God within humans or it's a genetic deformity I can't say, but it seems it exists within humankind. Atran's part in this article provides an excellent way for the reader to relate.