MODERN DISBELIVERS OF GODS REVELATION: THE BABEL AND THE BIBLE By Dr. P. R.

Palodhi In modern world the disbelieving scholastics detest the notion of Divine Command and reject the guidelines that God reveals to man. The reason for such disquiet is obvious: it put curbs for untoward freedom of truth-making ventures. What God has revealed in religion - is unacceptable to them. Hence they are struggling to find a valid definition by explaining origin of religion relying upon smug conclusions of frail horizontal enquiry. Evolution of human sentience is a continuous process where the falsehoods of human nescience must up-end in order to end up in actualizing the validity of pre-mental truths by which humanity has to go on living. In sharp contrast to animal living, wherever there is human life there is a cord of religion. Humanity on earth has always lived with the numinous feeling for unseen luminous centre of creation, the Original Impress. Hence reflections of religion befall in the entire range of human cultures self-expressions right from naming at the time of birth to closure of lifes chapter in the death rituals. The oldest textual documents in human history are religion bound; archaeological evidences of tens of thousand year-old systems of burial rites as well as widespread use of the clay-tokens for temple administration since early Neolithic age bespeak humanitys primordial bond with religion. The disbelievers demand answers of why to be as external as the level of their material experience, and they are closed in advance to the words of wisdom that go beyond the limits of their mental resources. Hence, the sphere of modern learning is found to be dominated by the overweening authors who turn a blind eye to the: I) lasting vitality of revealed wisdom against temporal relativism of human brilliance; II) authenticity of scriptural origin; and III) validity of authentic revealed words in the aftermath of human history. Hence God hath revealed: The unbelievers.are like the depths of darkness in a vast deep ocean, overwhelmed with billow topped by billow, topped by dark clouds: depths of darkness, one above another: if a man stretches out his hand, he can hardly see it! For any to whom God giveth not light, there is no light. (Q, 24: 30) If you obeyed most of those on Earth, they would misguide you from Gods way. They follow nothing but conjecture. They are only guessing. (Quran, 6: 116) Let us have some insight of the unbelievers overtures (babel) and how it has inflated only to be deflated by disintegrating into chaos of increasing contradictions. Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-76) [1] argued that there can be no true knowledge of anything beyond direct experience. Whatever order man discerns in the world around him, he argued, should be attributed to the universe itself not to any postulated outside cause. President de Brosses, a very close correspondent of Voltaire (1765) [2], challenged the Biblical guidance for mankind with his theory of mechanical formation of religion and tended to invent that the religion began with fetishism (sacred relics of stocks and stones) to be followed afterwards by polytheism and monotheism. Voltairian tradition attempted to use Zoroastrianism as a part to emancipate man from Christianity. For some years most of the history books on religion relied upon this theory. But Anquetil discovered Avesta from India (see: Anquetil- Duperron, Zend Avesta, 3 vols, 1771) and refused to find anything in the Avesta that could be used against Christianity this shattered the hopes of many like Voltaire, Grimm and Diderot etc. Gradually one after another theories continue to pile up -- each contradicting the other. A sigh of despair came from the prolific compiler of worlds religions Max Muller (1878, p.10): But what has been the result? Endless misunderstandings and controversies, which might have avoided in many cases, if both sides had clearly defined what they did, and what they did not understand by certain words [3]. The same note of despair we continue to hear after 100 years: Defining religion is a notorious problem (Platvoet and Molendijk 1999 [4] Pyysiainen and Anttonen 2002 [5]). They explained how the chaos of contradictions escalated rapidly as the origin of religion became a popular academic enterprise to the disbelieving eloquence of the 19th and 20th century. An attempt to guess the religions origin came from English anthropologist John Lubbock (1834-1913). He out lined an evolutionary scheme, beginning with atheism and continuing with fetishism, nature worship, totemism, shamanism, anthropomorphism,

monotheism, and finally, ethical monotheism. The English ethnologist Sir E.B. Tylor (1832-1917) expounded the thesis that that the animism, not atheism, is the earliest and most basic religious form. Out of these evolves fetishism, belief in demons, polytheism, and finally, monotheism, which derives from the exaltation of a great god in a polytheistic context. A somewhat similar system was advanced by Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) though he stresses ancestor worship rather than animism as the basic consideration. H. Spencer came out with the evolutionary hypothesis of religion (The Leader, 20 Mar; 1852) where he held that the primitive people began by worshipping ancestors and that as civilization developed, ancestors naturally were formed into hierarchies, and hierarchy in turn led to ranks, the highest ranks becoming deities. But British folklorist James Frazer (1854-1941) made another controversy by his thesis that humans must have began with magic and progressed to religion and from that to science. But since magical rituals do not work, primitive man then turns, according to Frazer, to reliance on supernatural beings outside his control, beings who need to be treated with respect if they are to co-operate with human purposes. With further scientific discoveries and theories, religious explanations gave way to the more and more fancies. Frazers scheme is reminiscent of that of the French father of sociology, Auguste Comte. Existentialist Sartres (1905-80) posits that it begins from the human desire to be the God, but God is, on Sartres analysis, a self-contradictory notion, for nothing can contain the grounds of its own being (this concept Sartre borrowed from pagan definitions of God, by remaining willfully blind of what God Himself had revealed). Untoward brilliance, solicitous of ascendancy, leaves no stone unturned to invent gimmicks. Psychoanalysts like Sigmund Freud and later S.J Preus identified from the ethnographic materials on totemism, two generative moments of religion: the fulfillment of irrepressible wishes and the institutionalization of repression. Religious system, to them are outcome of the urgent wishes (or illusions) of humankind: in the first place the oedipal wish (Freud) [6] to internalize the father and identify with him, in the second the instituting of the laws as sacred which prohibit men from fulfilling their repressed wish to murder the father and have an incestuous sexual relationship with the mother (Preus, pp. 190-1) [7]. It is no wonder if the invention of oedipal wish is a clever manipulation of the borrowed ideas from Biblical legend of Nimrod and his mother-wife Semiramis who began their kingdom and apostasy, insinuated false religion, and warfare, into and onto that great Sumerian civilization. Emile Durkheim [8] conjectured that ethnographic evidences of totemic principle in the Australian aborigines were the earliest records of the categorical distinction between the sacred and the profane on which the social origin and the foundation of religion rests (Durkheim, pp. 207-41). E.B. Tylor [9] posited that the supernatural was implanted in the primitive mind through the experience of dreams, trance, visions, death, and disease. The linkage between the notion of soul and the dream life is absent from the institutionalized concept of the supernatural (Gell [10] 1998: p. 121; Stringer [11] 1999: pp. 544-5). Hence Gell (1998: p.122) continues to argue that stones can be perceived as alive and thus worshipped as idols but the imputation of animacy to non living things cannot, as Guthrie seems to suggest, rest on people making category mistakes about whether inanimate objects such as boulders are really biologically living things, such as bears. Boyer [12] (1996b:89) opines that the answer to the issues of origin does not depend on the primitive speculations according to which various features of religious or, more generally, symbolic, thought consist in a return to some early stages of cognitive development. There are no such things as early animism and anthropomorphism, and therefore nothing to return to. As cognitive agents, humans are predisposed to the conceptual organizations not only of visions, sounds, smells, tastes, objects, events, but also of notions of unseen agents and entities; and, moreover, of the properties of things and objects on the basis of which they are set apart from other similar things and objects. Whether these abstractions are labeled religious, sacred, or just in some way different, they are nevertheless integral elements of human cognition (see Boyer [13] 1994; Sperber [14] 1996a). For Guthrie (1993,1995 [15]; 1980 [16];1996 [17]), religion is an accidental product of the evolutionary process that results from the inferential mechanism whereby human beings interpret while seeing and signify while interpreting. He thinks religion arises as a by-product of a perceptual and cognitive strategy (i.e., animism and anthropomorphism) which is not distinctively human and in the final analysis rests on the evolutionarily evolved strategy of humans to attribute life to non human domains. He holds that we cannot distinguish between religion and non-religion and in the end leaves the concept of religion unexplained. Let us reflect to other aspects of confusions and contradictions regarding the concept of religion; Schleiermacher (1768-1834) [18] attempted to curve out a territory for religious experience distinct from both science and morality, according to him religion consists in our consciousness of absolute

dependence on something which, though it determines us, we cannot determine in turn. Challenging this, Hegel (1770-1831) [19] initiated an outright opposite view: religion ought to be perfect freedom; for it is neither more or less than the Divine spirit becoming conscious of himself through the finite spirits (again he borrowed from the pagan concept of divine carefully abstaining from Gods Revelation). There is a famous, though not very wise saying of Hegel, that if the consciousness of dependence constituted religion, the dog would possess most religion (evidently he failed to realize that also man is essentially a dependent creature both physically i.e. food and shelter, as well as mentally. If a man is free from one belief invariably he is depending on some other belief i.e. if Mr. Hegel is not resting his faith upon Message of God in religion, then surely he is dependent on God denying notions of his pagan predecessors). Hegelian fallacy has immensely served the cause of human hubris that subsists by building bastions upon smug conclusions of apparent realities. The Hegelian dialectic of religion was worked out by twisting the original meaning of dialectic,* which he propounds as: opposites of human notion unite in a synthesis, which in turn produce its opposite, and so on. As if there is no Truth behind existence except what frail human individualism could claim by way of clever arguments! Let us have some insight into origin and aftermath of the word 'dialectic'. * Dialectic (From: Greek dialegein = art of conversation): For Plato, dialectic is knowledge that arises from conflicting opinions. Kant described dialectic as the logic of appearances, the art which invests falsehood with the appearance of truth as a method of sophistry. For Fichte and Hegel, dialectic was that form of thought which includes contradiction (negation) of a thought or idea in itself. Their dialectical method shows how a concept (thesis) can turn into its opposite (antithesis), and how from the contradiction between these two a higher concept (synthesis) emerges, which is then subject to the same fate. But for the believers, Hegelian dialectic holds true only in the realm of human skepticism where Idea itself ensues from denial of truth, hence these inflate only to be deflated. Such dialectic is invalid for the knowledge of pre-mental truths of existence which shall always exist irrespective of whether man realizes it or not. Propped up by Hegelian twist Feuerbach (1804-1872) in Germany (and Comte in France) could find a way to invest falsehood (a term pointed by Kant) by claiming that man himself, not only the subject, but also the object of religion and religious worship (See: Wesen der Religion by Feuerbach). Feuerbach wanted to reduce theology to anthropology: religion is reflection, the mirror image of the human being in himself. This anti-religious materialism had a lasting influence on the teachings of Marx, Engels and historical materialism. Merriam-Websters Encyclopaedia of Worlds Religions(1999, p. 918) writes: a number of Marxists, notably Lenin (1870-1924) and K. Kautsky (1854-1938), have developed social interpretations of religion based on the theory of class struggle. In their view, religion in the human primordial communist condition, at the dawn of historical dialectic, reflects ignorance of natural causes, which are explained animistically. The formation of classes leads, through alienation, to a projection of the need for liberation from this world to heavenly sphere, thus religion becomes an instrument for exploitation. This led a considerable debate in China because it did not deal particularly well with the role of religion in other cultures. Ascendancy of 19th century Hegelian philosophy entered a period of rapid decline in the early part of 20th century when G.E Moore (1873-1958) and Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) introduced a period of Empiricism in Britain, while W. Jamess Pragmatism had a similar effect in the USA. In Current Approaches in the Cognitive Science of Religion [20] the difficulties of defining religion have been elaborated, that we can summarize as follows: analyses by Malinowski (1948), Freud (1964) and Feuerbach (1972) limit religion to humans and wishful thinking, caught in the various existential traps, we fantasize ourselves rescued by gods and enjoying some comfortable post-mortem existence. Burkert writes to transmit religion is to transmit fear (1996: pp. 30-1). But Pinker finds wishful-thinking theory is weak because the people freezing to death dont comfort themselves with a belief that they are worm. That is even if all religious beliefs were comforting; we still would need to know why they are plausible. Another analysis (Tylor 1871; Horton 1993) called as intellectualist or cognitivist, is that religion constitutes explanation, and of course, only humans explain. But Lawson and Mc Cauley (1990) argue, explanation is closely interwoven with interpretation and is hard to distinguish from it; and certainly other animals interpret the world, since all perception is interpretation. Now coming to how religious ideas

persist, Pyysiainen and Anttonen (2002) tried to explain: As in Darwinian selection, they persist because of a selective advantage; here, their memorability. Memorability is conferred by a combination of intuitiveness and counter-intuitiveness. Ideas with this combination are variously supernatural, nonnatural and extra-natural. But they found a basic problem with this theory that because the reproductive success of ideas is independent of the success of their bearers unlike the relation of genes to their bearers the theory is inconsistent with the Darwinian account of selection. Authors like Smith (1982: xi), McCutcheon (1997: viii) and Saler (2000: 212-13,225) claimed that religion is not an autonomous phenomenon, but is only a product of the scholars attention. This was severely criticized by Boyer and Walker (2000) and Donald Wiebe (1994; 1999) for whom the religion exists as a real phenomenon. Ivan Strenski (1998) goes so far as to claim that behind the works of T. Fitzgerald, McCutcheon and the NAASR gang there is a hidden (or even explicit) agenda to play down the whole study of religion as separate field and to reduce religion to culture without residue. Pyysiainen and Anttonen (2002) elucidated the problems of defining religion and they considered a discipline without an object of its own, defined merely by a specific point of view, approach, or theory, which can be applied to any phenomena whatsoever, is in danger of turning in to empty speculation. Pyysiainen argues that there is one condition which can be taken as universal characteristic of all religion, although it is not a sufficient criterion for religion: Counter- intuitiveness. In counter-intuitiveness, the boundaries separating domains of intuitive ontology are violated, for example by transferring psychological properties to solid objects, or denying physical and biological properties to a person. Such phenomena violate peoples intuitive, tacit expectations of how entities normally behave. Naturally the phenomenon of religion thus defined must be somehow compatible with the common-sense understanding of religion. There is never an absolute gap between folk theories and scientific theories, because scientific theories ultimately rest on commonsense assumptions and conceptual postulations that cannot be proven (Churchland 1998: 149; Saariluoma 1997). They express (2002:118): Thus religion as a specific category cannot be reduced to any one domain of knowledge. It is not only an expression of the social (e.g. Durkheim 1937; Douglas 1984), or of psychodynamic conflicts (e.g. Freud 1950); not only derived from folk biology gone wild (nature mythology, see Dorson 1955); and not only an attempt to find a foundation for naive physics (e.g. God as the unmoved mover; Capra 1975). Not all serious belief, not everything that is socially shared, not all counter-intuitiveness, and not everything that is used in interpretations of life is necessarily an instance of religion. A concept of religion that is to have analytical value and explanatory power must be based on all these three criteria together. Yet many scholars have considered each of these criteria in turn as the foundation of religion. Hence, in long ago Al-Ghazali pointed that falsehoods in overtures to religion ascend via reductionism (Takhsis) and deviation (Tariff) of Tawhidic oneness in religion. Disbelieving geniuses are manifold: some are un-informed by remaining heedless of Gods Message; but while explaining religion they bank exclusively upon pagan concepts of God and religion (this especially th th we see in their early overtures of 16 -17 centuries). Some have remained charlatans by giving lies to Gods Truth via surface fiddling of scriptures. And more intriguing are well informed disbelieving geniuses who borrow partial aspects from universal Truths of Revelation and deviate from the cardinal truth by introducing likes and dislikes (volition) of their self will. They tend to ascend by erasing the borderline between what God Himself reveals and what man posits about God by denying His Words. It is rather easy for an author to impose self-will by fiddling externally with the fragments of truth than reflecting inwardly to the essential completeness of truth. For example, the eminent author like Max Muller has drawn parallels between Creator God and earthly fatherhood and then he tries to explain what should be right for God to His erring sons in terms of human father-son relationship (Max Muller, Lectures delivered in Westminister Abbey in April-June, 1878. pp. 368-377) [21]. After a great work like Sacred Book of the East Max Muller is found to stop short at the very basic question whether the God and His creations could be reduced to a relationship of worldly father and son? Because both are frail men and fallible to wrongdoings, but the God is not. That is why created Universe runs by the Will of its Lord where everything is measured out with a definite nature and definite end. Only the souls pertinent to the Divine light tend to gravitate towards God, but vast majorities rather have turned against the Will of God by choosing self-willed fancies about religion. Thus borrowing half-way the idea of a Universal Soul of mankind when they try to find unity irrespective of good and evil, they remain willfully blind about: what God really teaches about that Primordial Soul, how God made multiples of diversified creations out of that Soul, how pride and arrogance developed first in the soul of Satan who then began to seduce succeeding

human generations. And God has also revealed in Bible and Quran how shall He deal with such disobedient and incorrigible souls of the humanity. UNBELIEVERS WAY: AS VIEWED FROM BELIEVERS STAND POINTS Mysteries of religion are infinite, while scope of mans life is finite; the conventional knowledge of a life time is lame when answers of why are beyond the limits of its empirical process of reasoning. Hence, the snags of human ignorance tend to subsist by building bastions upon smug conclusions of the apparent realties but the spirits of human enquiry proceeds either with the fancies of human surmises, or with penchant to realize what God has revealed in the cycles of religious teachings. Denial of Divine Guidance a traditional wisdom of countless centuries, by reducing it to mediocre empiricism with the breadth of human caprices never has any independent but only a parasitical stand. Because their opinionated negations could inflate not before exploiting the prior knowledge of what to deny! Such erosion of spiritual vitality gives rise to the causes of materialist philosophy to upsurge and stone-blind the visions of human enquiry by placing profane subjectivity at the centre of reality and take puerile pride in denying any knowledge that proceeds not in the same fashion. As if intelligence allows not mind to extend any further than horizontal existentialism where man is distinguished from animal by mere human style of infra-human intelligence. By remaining indiscriminative and unconcerned about revealed and non-revealed aspects of religion unbelievers are reduced to a position that either they will have no content in religion or they will take such content as they have from the mythologies of false godhoods or the claims of incoherent human individualism but not from what God provides. Disbelievers reflections to religion turn out to be vague and vacant because they lack specific reference of God; and in dealing with generalized abstraction about God, they turn themselves into abstract. Even the most eminent and exalt pundits, when are heedless or willfully blind to revealed guidance in fact have no universally valid standard for religious truths. And they remain virtually incapacitated to distinguish between the right and wrong or the truth and falsehood in religion. In such contumacy their efforts can deliver only the seemingly right with the choice of wrongs. Religion turns out to be a vaguely defined phenomenon to the disbelievers of Gods Revelation. They have primarily ascended with the paralogism of bigot presupposition that the Divine omnipotence cannot or does not reveal truth to human instinct and the conjectural instinct of finite man independently alone have invented the infinite truths of the God and His will that we come across in revealed religions. Such fallacy astutely eschews the undeniable fact that man is essentially a dependent creature in both physical as well as on mental planes, whiles the truths behind creation of man are independent of the human minds. Human intellect is a faculty that can only receive, adapt, and transmit but does not create the laws of truth behind creation of existing creatures. Throughout the anthropic period, right from birth, childhood, and adulthood onwards the existence of mankind has been possible not without the conditions pre set by the supernatural intelligence. By stretching out his hand man cannot grasp the truth, mans capacity is limited by the time and space. Natural consequence of all-subjective living in lower order of animal kingdom tacitly points to the leader of its hierarchy that mans yearning for objective truth is incapacitated to sprout independently unless specially the instincts of mankind have selectively been actuated with the root ideas of truth by some supernatural intervention. We come across such episodes of recurring Divine interventions again and again in the scriptures of present as well as primitive religions theophanies, dreams, visions, auditions, ecstasies, and mighty supernatural deeds. The origin and significance of religion remained baffling to the disbelieving laureateships despite their frantic chases, simply because their modes of horizontal enquiries are incapacitated to reckon even the measuring criteria to resolve the mysteries of religions origin. They have been trying to negotiate infinite truths of religion violating the very basics of human wisdom. In fathoming the unknown obvious question arises: from where to start with proceeding from the known ground to the vague unknown, or vice versa? Here they are found to have played a deliberate game by choosing the opposite i.e. an oblique route of measuring with the scale of fancied conjectures while eschewing the true to life validities of existing religions so that truth can be fabricated according to ones own wishes rather than be attained. We must not forget that: from unknown material to determine required values (obviously if one knows the values), first and foremost prerequisite is the known pure standard against which to measure. Human enquiries could proceed rationally to know the unknown only after having a right foothold upon the

accessible valid ground of the present perspectives. Since religions origin is the unknown mystery, the searches cannot start from some vague assumptions. The proper accounts of prolonged developmental course are irrecoverable from the unfathomable past of anthropic evolutions. Modern science did not let us know the exact truths of human origin and its many thousand years pre-historical developments before the findings of excavated relics; archaeology provides us with the partial knowledge of isolated phases of the human past which are being concluded by the scholars either rightly or wrongly. Disbelievers searches primarily base upon the scanty knowledge of ongoing archaeological process, conjectures about the human past, fiddling with scriptural materials irrespective of their authenticities etc - and thereafter fabricate their fancied overtures about religion. Their claims can only be called as pretensions of rationality exclusively biased upon unfounded self-fancies which are more like Truth escaping maneuvers than that of Truth seeking; but awhile appear effective in satiating their fancies of God denial. Received wisdom in scripture is relevant because the sacred scriptures are the founts of religion; and more so because the knowledge of religions priori (from what religion came before) is beyond the scope of human investigation limited by time and space. Hence we have no choice but to depend on true to life validity of posteriori (from what religion came after) materials of existing religions. In quest of scriptural foundation ancient world is unfathomable, but the languages of new-world are discernible after development of alphabets. Our searches could begin after having a valid foot hold upon the textual foundation by distinguishing between the Prophet denying religions and the Prophetic religions where God Himself reveals. Here again the crux is the authenticity of scripture and the revealed truths enquiry of which essentially demands comparative study of worlds religions from synchronic and diachronic stand points. Comprehension of Gods Revelation in religion essentially demands truth seekers sagacity to embrace the recent authentic most Scripture which has not been tampered by human additions, and the archetypal words of God could be attested from the self evident Authority of God: where God reveals His Name to the Prophets in their respective languages and conveys the consistent religious guidelines for mankind. If there is Divine guidance as standard in religion, it should not be beyond the grasp of the bare threshold of consciousness that understands the difference between profundity of received wisdom (in Bible and Quran) and promiscuity of babbling human claims that tend to ascend via contradiction than conformity, obscurantism than transparency and anachronism than chronology. As fiddling, distortion and stultification of religion are the common traits of human caprices, correspondingly, restoration of unique God-centric principles from worn out older to a newer tradition is a certainty despite all religious divarications separated by time, place, generations, languages and modalities of human intellect. Without the universally valid Standard for evaluation obviously the quest fails to gravitate towards the truth. So far attained knowledge of the unknown ultra-structural truths of matter has been discovered after reckoning the pure standard from where a search gradually proceeds toward the mysteries of inner dimensions, and not from other way round. History of Judaism, Christianity and Islam evinces that the Universal religious guidance from Divine Authority comes in recurrent cycles; and in religions history these principles are the only consistent traditional continuity of religious wisdom. In our age the Will of the Creator God (Elohim in Hebrew; Allah in Arabic) has come in the Bible and again God has revealed in the Quran by preserving the authentic words of revelation. These scriptures informed the creational aspects of the heaven and the earth in six phases, genesis of pre-humans and human with respect to body, spirit and soul. After religion emanated from God humanity became aware of the ethical aspects: polarities of good and evil; actions of here and consequences in hereafter, and the Universal religious guideline of submission to the Will of God. The continuity of the inherent axis of revealed precepts bespeaks for unique root of its origin and also the restoration of religious vitality by repeated plantings of revealed knowledge in cycles of religion i.e., reincarnations of religious essence (and not the reincarnation by transfigurations of Soul). Without universal nature of its principles religion could not have prevailed as phenomenal reality in the history of mankind; and shoots and offshoots of religious aberrations could not have arisen without being parasitic upon it. According to believers reckoning true religion is the essential criterion for becoming a proper human being by integrating vertical consciousness with the knowledge of horizontal living. Only after instinct is enlightened by religious wisdom -- man could transcend the animal like horizontal existentialism.

Revealed truths are willed by the Divine words offering the facets of infinite translated in a dogmatic form to finite mans aptitude so that reflective intelligence can receive and actualize by consummating its depth and universal content; but remain impassable to the disbelievers discursive external level characterized by lack of virtue, pure intelligence, fidelity to self-fancies and iconoclastic ideals of pure truth. Braggart denial of Revelation, failing to penetrate the inner dimension of infinite truth which dominates all manifested forms have ascended in Kali Yuga by not knowing to what if the Divine Revelation is an indelible Truth and prophecies are going to come as Reality in near future! [Republished from my publication: http://www.articlesbase.com/religion-articles/modern-disbelivers-ofgods-revelation-the-babel-and-the-bible-5691937.html]

References: 1. 2. 3. 4. Hume, D. Natural History of Religion (1757); Dialogues concerning Natural Religion (1779) Voltaire. 1765. Traite de la Formation mechanique des Langgues Max Muller, F. 1878. Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion Platvoet, J.C, and A.I.Molendijk (eds). 1999. The Pragmatics of defining Religion: Contexts, Concepts, and Contests: Studies in the History of Religions (Numen Book Series), 84. Leiden: Brill. 5. Current approaches in the Cognitive Science of Religion, Ed. by Pyysiainen, I., & Anttonen, V. (New York), 2002 6. Freud, S. (1950) (1913). Totem and Taboo. (Trans. J. Strachey). New York: Norton 7. Preus, J.S. Explaining Religion: Criticism and Theory from Bodin to Freud. 8. Durkheim, E. 1995. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life: A New Translation. New York: Free Press. 9. Tylor, E.B. 1881. Anthropology an introduction to study of man.., London. 10. Gell, A. 1998. Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press 11. Stringer, M.D. 1999. Rethinking animism: thoughts from the infancy of our discipline. (J. of the Royal Anthropological Institute) n.s. 5:541-56. 12. Boyer, P. (1996b). What makes anthropomorphism natural? intuitive ontology and cultural representations. (J. of the Royal Anthropological Institute) n.s. 2: 1-15 13. Boyer, P. 1994. The Naturalness of Religious Ideas. (Berkley; Univ. of California Press) 14. Sperber, D. (1996a). Explaining Culture: A Naturalistic Approach. Oxford: Blackwell 15. Guthrie, S. (1995(1993). Faces in the cloud: A new Theory of Religion, p. 41, New York, Oxford Univ. Press, 16. Guthrie, S. 1980. A Cognitive Theory of Religion. Current Anthropology 21: 181- 203. 17. Guthrie, S. 1996. Religion what it is? Journal for scientific study of religion, 35: (1996) 18. Schleiermacher, 1799. On Religion: Speeches to its cultured despisers. 19. Hegel. The philosophy of History. (Trans. J. Sibree), N.York, 1956 (in (Max Muller, p. 20, Op.Cit) 20. Current approaches in the Cognitive Science of Religion Ed. by Pyysiainen, I., & Anttonen, V., (Continuum, New York), 2002 21. Max Muller. 1878. Origin and growth of religion. (Lectures delivered in Westminister Abbey in April-June). Indological Book House, Varanasi, India.