mwananthropolojia
Ukifuatilia quantum physics uta question validity ya "cause and effect".
Ukiamini kwamba kuna mungu muumba vyote kwa sababu kila kitu kina mwanzo, utakuwa unajidanganya kwa kutumia a fallacious self defeating argument.
Argument yako itasema ni lazima kuwe na mungu muumba wa vyote, kwa sababu kila kitu kina mwanzo.
Ukitumia argument hiyo hiyo ya "kila kitu kina mwanzo" basi mungu hawezi kuwa muumba yote kwa sababu hata na yeye atakuwa ana mwanzo.
Na ukisema yeye hana mwanzo utakuwa kimsingi umekubali kwamba si kweli kwamba kila kitu kina mwanzo, unaacha mlango wazi kwa vingine kutokuwa na mwanzo.
Maswali mengine kama hatujui majibu ni vizuri tu kusema hatujui, tukachunguza zaidi, kuliko kusema mythologies ni ukweli halafu wakati huo huo tunaji contradict kwa kusema hadithi za mythologies zinabadilishwa na kila generation, na kila utamaduni una hadithi zake za uumbaji, ina maana hii dunia imeumbwa mara ngapi?
Unfortunately what makes for a nice and politically correct anthropology hardly makes sense as truth, because the truth, at least as far as we know, cannot accommodate certain contradictions we see in the wide varying mythologies.
I understand the need for some social studies to make everything hunky dory for everyone, but that to me is akin to pacifying discordant children than answering serious adult questions.
You are basically saying the truth is whatever your mythology is, because every mythology is true, even if someone comes with an inherently self contradicting mythology telling us that a triangle has four angles.
How do you reconcile these obviously incongruous falsities into respectable truths beats me.
Halafu usipende ku condescend watu kwamba "
ningeweza kutoa mythologies za sumeria za enki na enlil lakin watu wengi watakua gizan..." wakati watu washaenda mpaka Dharamsala hapa wakaona dark matter kwenye quinine, wewe unafikiri watashangaa old mythologies walizosoma zamani.