Was Douglas Adams right about the mice?

Cartoon mice might have been singing to us for a few decades.

But a recent finding suggests that real mice sing to each other too and that they choose mates on the basis of their songs.

Male house mice pro­duce me­lo­di­ous songs to at­tract mates, not un­like many birds, ac­cord­ing to new re­search.

The dit­ties are too high-pitched for hu­man hear­ing, but sci­en­tists at Vi­en­na's Un­ivers­ity of Vet­er­i­nary Med­i­cine an­a­lyzed them and found they con­vey in­forma­t­ion about ident­ity and kin­ship. The find­ings are pub­lished in the jour­nal Phys­i­ol­o­gy and Be­hav­ior and in the Jour­nal of Ethol­o­gy.  [Read on]

Admittedly that particular link is to a sensational online science article designed to appeal to the public, but there is much more information to be found in a more technical format, in other places.  In fact mouse song has been studied at some length in many places around the world.

One such publication is Development of Social Vocalizations in Mice.  In this paper it suggests that adult mice can vocalise 11 different syllables, and that their pups can manage nearly all of them while only a few days old.  The introduction to the paper begins

Mice are highly vocal animals, with both males and females vocalizing in same-sex and cross-sex social encounters. Mouse pups are also highly vocal, producing isolation vocalizations when they are cold or removed from the nest, despite the fact that they cannot hear until postnatal day 10. Adult mice can discriminate between vocalizations of pups and adults. For example, virgin female mice are attracted to playbacks of male song, but not pup vocalizations. In contrast, playback of pup vocalizations to mothers, but not to pup-naïve virgins, elicits search and retrieval behavior. These behavioral differences have a correlate in the auditory cortex, where physiological responses to pup syllables differ for maternal and virgin animals. The complexity of acoustic communication behaviors and the presence of neural correlates that underlie some of these behaviors provide a strong rationale to explore the details of this vocal communication system and how it changes developmentally.

So - mice can communicate with each other through their songs.  Indeed, their songs would probably sound more complex than the beautiful bird songs that we hear in everyday life if only our ears were able to pick up such high frequency sounds.

The revelation that mouse songs are clearly forms of communication is hardly enough to support the idea that Douglas Adams' claim in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe is true.  However, it is not quite as far-fetched as we all thought.  Maybe the mice really are the 3D manifestations of multi-dimensional intelligent beings after all.

Small note: No - I'm not really being serious!

Jihad against dogs

One of the things that I found most trying about Christmas Day last year was the presence of a Golden Retriever.  This lovely-natured dog belongs to some visiting relatives who came to lunch (and kindly provided part of it).  Much as I like dogs I prefer them to be somewhere other than in my house, and particularly somewhere other than my kitchen.  I find that it is like having a bear in the house.  Large dogs are even more destructive than toddlers, knocking things over with their tails indiscriminately.

But worst of all, whenever I put my hands below waist level I found that they were licked! I must have washed my hands more often that morning than any other in my life. 

Just this month though, I have discovered that it could be even worse if I was a Muslim.  I hadn't realised that many Muslims consider dogs to be unclean.

In one surprising news item, I read that 'Muslims declare Jihad on Dogs in Europe'

This latest canine controversy -- which the Dutch public has greeted with a mix of amusement and outrage -- follows dozens of other Muslim-vs-dog-related incidents in Europe. Critics say it reflects the growing assertiveness of Muslims in Europe as they attempt to impose Islamic legal and religious norms on European society.

I might not like having a dog in the house, but I wouldn't go as far as declaring jihad.  Then again - atheists don't create holy wars do we?  In order to do such evil we need god.

Now I know about this new jihad I have a new urge to invite more dogs into my house!

. . . the 'he' is always lower case!

Never having been a great fan of Steve Martin, I was surprised to hear this entertaining song. The link was kindly contributed by regular reader, Tony.



As they say:

"In their songs they have a rule,
The 'he' is always lower case!"

Things Christians Say, Part 1 - The Fool

A weekly series of responses to the things christians say to atheists, based on the video reproduced here on 30th January 2012.  The aim is to tackle one every weekend, to give both a moderate, polite response to each question ('Piano'), followed by a more forceful rebuttal of the same question ('Forte').

The fool hath said in his heart that there is no god

Piano

Psalm 14 verse 1.  Atheists do hear this assertion quite frequently - certainly often enough that we tend to know the verse of the bible that is being used.  Oddly enough, the same is not always true of the christian who asserts it. 

But when it comes down to it it is just a verse from the official handbook of the Christian faith, the bible.  That makes it more than a little biased and it means that it relies of certain assumptions that you take for granted.  In order for it to mean anything useful to the listener they would need to have some sort of faith that the bible is inspired by a god.

This is where the problem lies.  If you don't believe in a theistic god (as atheists by definition do not) then it is an obvious fallacy to assume that they will respect the contents of the bible. 

Coming from the opposite point of view, even bible readers who have any belief in a theistic god have all their work in front of them.  Considering that it is claimed to be the inspired word of their god, it is riddled with inconsistency and contradiction.  There are so many of these contradictions that I know you know about them and will not even bother to quote one.

On a more frivolous note, how can you 'say' anything in your heart anyway.  You might think it in your mind or say it with your voice.  Thought crime being a capital offence in the Old Testament, either might be considered dangerous.

***

Forte

What an offensive thing to say!  Are you calling me a fool?  Surely it is much more foolish to rely on blind faith in something transcendent which you cannot see, hear, smell, touch or taste.  This collection of writings that you call 'The Old Testament' doesn't make much sense, but the more you read the fragments, the more you realise that much of it is about the fight between Yahweh and the other gods in the host of heaven.  By trying so hard to deny the truth of polytheism, surely it actually achieves the opposite.  Even the one god who you choose to worship is undeniably a monster.  Here are the words of Richard Dawkins:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

See this link for a detailed unpicking of every phrase of it to prove to you, from your bible, that it is undeniably true.

How dare you use the moderate cuddly parts of christianity to lecture me about being a fool when you can't even recognise your own god for what he is?


Next week: You're a What?

Clarity about the Scots - and 1066

The classic historical parody, 1066 and All That  carries an

"Important Note"

The Scots (originally Irish, but by now Scotch) were at this time inhabiting Ireland, having driven the Irish (Picts) out of Scotland; while the Picts (originally Scots) were now Irish (living in brackets) and vice versa. It is essential to keep these distinctions clearly in mind (and verce visa).

I hope you have got that clear, because at the time of independence it might become important!

The book is a masterpiece of historical mis-information, written by  W C Sellar (Aegrot: Oxon.)** and R J Yeatman (Failed MA, etc., Oxon.).  They take the bits of history that you think you remember and they weave a delightful tale around these factoids, misleading the unwary and yet in a strange way teaching the curious.

Knowing the book quite well, from so many readings and re-readings that my treasured copy of the book is falling to pieces, I sometimes come across a bit of history and think "Aha!! That's what they meant in 1066!"  Knowing that usually makes the book even funnier.


** Small note:  Aegrot is short for 'aegrotat', the Latin term to describe a degree awarded even though the student was too sick to complete the course.  So one author never took his exams and the other failed.  Both have become famous in spite of their Oxford educations.  Of course both might be joking.

Everyone is searching . . .

I run Google Analytics on the Something Surprising blog and it tells me a bit about how my visitors found me.  Strangely enough, I even believe some of it (although not quite all).  It is more like a weather vane than a weather forecast, but a great service, and free, and informative.

Sometimes it is entertaining to see what search terms had been used in Google to get to Something Surprising.  Here are a few of them.

First - some slightly surprising ones - but bear in mind that I specialise in surprising things, so it should not be too surprising:

• what is the motto of the french navy? -- I gave a humorous answer here
• quite a night at the erawan -- Yes, I really covered that too
• smell the rectum of a whale in the most expensive of perfumes -- and this one
• bin laden homeopathy -- Yes, this one too.
• was william lane craig ever defeated? -- Oh yes!  Definitely!  But he would never admit it.
• lake with hole in the middle - here, and, frankly, quite a scary picture
• absurd irrational things -- Hmmm.  I generally prefer rational.  But . . . speaking of absurd and irrational

Some of the search terms are indeed absurd and irrational, and you might wonder how anyone could put all these words together in any single place:

• apollo 18 rock spiders
• dinosaur and unicorn receive a text message
• devonian hogmanay
• how can i convince myself that homeopathy works -- Hint:  It doesn't.

Some of them are theistic or simply naive (and ignorant)

• do unbelievers know right from wrong? -- How many guesses do you think you might need?
• can you convert an atheist -- Into what?
• are Christians on to something -- Yes, nearly their third millennium of waiting for the second coming.
• real reason dinosaurs became extinct noah arc -- No I think there was a different reason.
• why did god create science -- Perhaps so that it could confuse the believers?
• what do unbelievers see -- Erm?  Which way are they looking?

A few of them are more like statements of opinion than search terms:

• "jesus fish eating darwin fish" with the flying spaghetti monster in turn attacking the "jesus fish".
• muhammad is a narcissist, a pedophile, a mass murderer, a terrorist, a misogynist, a lecher, a cult leader, a madman a rapist, a torturer, an assassin and a looter." former muslim ali sina offered $50,000 to anyone who could prove otherwise based on islamic texts. the reward has gone unclaimed -- Who could possibly disagree?

And a few are slightly disappointing - I try not to be demotivational but have obviously failed.

• demotivational pictures natural beauty
• demotivational woman strong independant until things get a little bit di
• offensive jesus demotivational

But I just loved these

• why astrological predictions fail at times -- As if they succeed at other times?
• flat world ocean elephants turtles
• giant texas sinkhole keeps growing
• goldilocks and the three bears learning outcome
• how to make a fake fish tank
• have the russians been on the moon -- What? All of them?
  
• impossible discoveries
• uses of unstable isotopes: peaceful uses
• zombie compound fortification -- I think I can be sure I never touched on this topic

What fun!

Don't be so negative!

As a fellow skeptic, (are you?), have you ever been irritated by some supercilious twit telling you

Don't be so negative!

Usually in my experience they are saying this because

• they have failed to understand the situation properly
• they are trying to be motivational to other people (or sheeple) who are listening,
• they think it makes them sound positive
• and they think that is always a good thing.

In almost every case they do not have the wit to realise that there is a difference between skepticism and cynicism, and won't listen when you try to explain.  The negative/positive terminology fulfills the fallacy of the missing middle too.  That missing middle might include the word "realistic" in some cases.  (In a few other cases they might be right and I actually might be being negative!)

Each and every time I hear 'Don't be so negative' I wonder whether the speaker has realised the irony of their outburst.

After all - just tell me how can you tell someone not to be negative without being negative yourself?

Small note:  Speaking as a (sometimes negative) skeptical pedant (the last two of which I admit and celebrate) I feel uncomfortable with the lack of a question mark in that first paragraph.  Even so - I can't decide where to put it.  So here it is . . . ?  I feel a need for the Spanish technique of using an upside down question mark symbol to start a question, rather like quotation marks.

Nobeliefs.com - worth a a visit

Sometimes you come across a site that achieves many of the things that you always thought you might strive towards.  Although tempting to be disappointed that someone else has done it already, the inner pragmatist encourages me to enjoy reading the good material that has been collected there and to share a link with my readers.

I recommend a visit to NoBeliefs.com.  Among the highlights you find collections of great articles such as:

Did a historical Jesus exist? - a topic that I sometimes talk about here at Something Surprising.  The more I read, the more I am skeptical about it.

Problems with Islam - another topic close to my heart.  This is a great collection of articles on the topic from people who came from Islamic backgrounds and others.

Problems with Creationism - more evidence that there are few aspects of Creationism that do not have problems.

There is a lot more there too.  Go and have a look.

Things Christians say

I came across this video recently and found it both insightful and delightfully presented by a lady who should be a professional actress.  (The only thing I didn't really like is the title.)  The odd thing is that I have heard almost all these arguments used in my presence here in UK too (with the exception of those relating the the US 1st amendment - the separation of church and state).  I can't even think of many that she hasn't included.



Taking this as inspiration, I'm planning to start a series tackling the common things that christians say to atheists and giving an alternative viewpoint.  I haven't quite worked out the best format - but rest assured, I will! I think it might take the form of two separate viewpoints on each topic - the moderate accommodationalist and the outraged!

There's scope for a separate strand too - Things Islamists Say.  Any thoughts?  Check back soon to see what I come up with.

Part 1 - The Fool

Celebrate honour among thieves!

If you read Up with which WE will not put on Saturday, and even one of you signed the petition linked from there, then we can each feel justly proud of our small part in influencing public life in UK.

Hints that Hester might have a conscience!

The breaking news this morning is that Royal Bank of Scotland boss, Stephen Hester, has done the honourable thing and turned down the bonus that he was due to get for being head of a public-owned company which has lost nearly three quarters of a million pounds in the last year.

William Wright, investment bank analyst for Financial News told the BBC: "It sets a very dangerous precedent for RBS.  It raises the level of political risk and political interference in the day-to-day running of RBS to what some people many consider to be intolerable levels.  It raises very serious questions about who actually is running RBS day to day . . .

Yes it does, doesn't it!  Finally the public outrage has been noticed and it sets a precedent for justice

Enough said . . .  but whooopeeeeeee!

Chimps complain that their links are missing

We have all heard the Victorian term 'the missing link' used by anti-evolution campaigners and we have all heard it used as a puerile and pejorative put-down.

The odd thing is that so many missing links have been found in the line between us and our last common ancestor with the apes.  Setting aside the Piltdown Man hoax - a masterpiece of mischief or a disastrous prank - there are a lot of fossils of human-like ancestors and their distant cousins, stretching back through the 6 million years since humans began to separate from chimpanzees.

Piltdown hoax in leafy England!  A false positive in the search for missing links.

Naturally there are debates about the lineage of all these mysterious fossils.  Scientists debate about which are the direct ancestors and which are not, but in the grand scheme of things, considering the gradual nature of evolution, it matters very little.  There is a visible trend towards homo sapiens, world-wide.

Creationists would have you believe that this trend is false, and that every gap filled makes two more gaps.  Their scientific evidence for such an assertion comes from one place which is obviously riddled with error and inconsistency - the bible!

Surprisingly, chimpanzees would not have the same problem about missing links if they had the cognitive powers to worry about such things.  You might find it hard to believe, but no fossils of chimpanzees have ever been found between their current form and our common ancestor.  This is probably because they are forest dwelling creatures, and in such an environment the chance of being fossilised after death is even lower than it is anywhere else in the world.  You are much more likely to be eaten swiftly.

Fortunately they are blissfully unaware that their links are truly missing.

Up with which WE will not put!

Following on from yesterday's dose of humorous prepositional pedantry, here is an example of one thing 'up with which we will not put'.

Bankers bonuses!  Specifically the bonuses for the Royal Bank of Scotland!

The corpulent Mr Hester - not many lunches missed

Here is an image of a man who clearly hasn't missed many lunches while fighting to make his company profitable on behalf of its shareholders, the UK taxpayers.  These UK taxpayers are the same people who bailed out his beleaguered bank; the same people who have just seen the profitable part of Northern Rock sold off to Richard Branson at a discount price while we continue to carry the can for the rest of it.

It seems reasonable that we should start get quite upset about this now.

Can you imagine any other kind of company where the employees are rewarded for making a loss?  No profit always means no bonus, right?

Are the rest of the public sector workers going to be rewarded for their efforts in a similar way?  Of course not.  Their meagre bonuses are strongly related to the achievement of targets.  What is the difference?  Why does this man get a special deal?  Why doesn't someone tip over the trough that he has his snout embedded in?

If you live in UK I hope you signed the petition that was run by Avaaz, called  Osborne: Stop the RBS Fat Cats.  It is too late to sign that one now, but Avaaz is an organisation that is really beginning to be noticed by the barely elected government.  That particular petition reached over 100,000 signatures.  In spite of that, the Prime Minister has caved in and granted the discretionary £1m bonus to his crony. 

Now we can only try to shame Hester into not taking it.  Another highly noticeable campaigning organisation, 38 degrees, has now started a petition which has already gathered a lot of support.  At the time of writing it had already reached 55,000 votes in one day. 

I'm sure Hester feels that he has done something to deserve such a large sum on top of his already inflated salary.  I doubt that the word 'shame' is in his vocabulary.  However, please do join the rest of us in expressing our disgust at the things that happen in our name by signing the 38 degrees petition.

Fair's fair.  It would be alright to reward success (to a reasonable extent), or even to hold back this bonus until a success was achieved and pay it then.  But to pay a bonus for failure is simply outrageous!

Up with which I will not put!

First reported in Plain Words (1948) by Sir Ernest Gowers, it is said that Winston Churchill once made this marginal comment against a sentence that clumsily avoided a prepositional ending.

"This is the sort of English up with which I will not put".

What a good job he never read the following sentence as it ends with a surprising FIVE prepositions!

"What did you bring that book that I didn't want to be read to out of up for?"

It takes a bit of practise to say that!  There is your challenge for the day.

Cognitive Dissonance

'Cognitive dissonance' is a term that I hear surprisingly often these days.

It is sometimes described as the discomfort we feel when we hold two ideas that clash or conflict with each other.  It can also describe the difference between an attitude we hold and a behaviour that is inconsistent with the attitude.

As Lewis Black once said, "When an environmentalist buys an SUV they might as well be filling the fuel tank with cognitive dissonance."

When we are confronted with such a discrepancy we either have to admit that we were wrong or dismiss the evidence.  Tragically most people dismiss the evidence.

If we are able to see how dissonance works in our own lives we  might be able to reduce the  tendency to suffer unnecessary stress.  For example, unhappy smokers have to do one of two things - quit smoking or justify smoking. (Happy smokers can just enjoy it of course!)

Stress!  (A picture rescued from the archives here!

In my case I found that I had to quit church or find a way to justify attending even though I could see all the gaps in the arguments for a belief in God.  Ultimately, and for me personally, quitting church seemed to be the more intellectually honest of the two.  Since that time I wonder whether I can claim that I have no cognitive dissonance relating to my religious views.  I presume that I am not the right person to judge that.

It has been said that everyone can see a hypocrite in action except the hypocrite.  They do it by reducing the dissonance in some way that allows them to continue to think well of themselves.  This does not just apply to bad or evil people, but equally to good people who can fall for the fallacy of 'confirmation bias' just as easily.

In fact, we all see that people behave in surprising ways.  When a prophecy fails, such as Harold Camping's end of the world in 2011, you might assume that his followers would have given up their beliefs.  But dissonance theory predicts the opposite.  You are much more likely to dismiss the contradictory information without a thought than to change a treasured belief.

Many of Camping's followers have probably come out of 2011 with a stronger belief in him.  They would find some sort of religious explanation.  "Thanks to the belief of our little band, God has spared the world again."

I wonder how many false biases I have self-confirmed today!

Protection from ridicule

Have you heard about the fuss that erupted in London a couple of weeks ago?  It was all about the use of a Jesus and Mo cartoon on a poster created by an student atheist group at University College London.

You can find the whole story here on Richard Dawkins' web site.

The strange and simple Jesus and Mo cartoons have an appearance that belies their cleverness, and I can now say that I am a devout convert.  If you have never seen them before I should explain that the invisible character is the barmaid.  She speaks more sense than the two 'stars'.  (Oh by the way . . . erm . . . Mo is short for Mohammad.  I just thought I would mention that for the sake of clarity.)

Having seen this, you might understand why my Twitter icon has recently changed in support of the right to free speech.  If Islamist Fundamentalists are allowed to get away with silencing people in UK's capital then it is clear that the future of Britain as a free democracy is being eroded at its very heart.

Here is the latest brilliant cartoon in the series.  I recommend you to visit the site and look back through the archives.

Jesus and Mo is licensed under a Creative Commons License:

Feel free to copy for noncommercial purposes, under the same license.

Please provide a link back to jesusandmo.net

After Independence - civil war?

Let's assume that Scotland does get independence from UK within the next few years.  That would be great from the English perspective.  Would it be good for Scotland?

It all boils down to the question of whether Scotland is a single nation.  Having lived there for 4 years and enjoyed the friendship of many Scots, some of whom probably read my ramblings here, I notice divisions in Scotland that are at least as strong as those throughout UK as a whole.

All of my Scottish friends are moderate people with moderate views - possibly leaning towards supporting independence.  But we must face the fact that the majority of people in any country in the world do not think through the big political issues on an everyday basis.  They vote the way they vote because they always did.  In just the same way, they tend to follow the religious views of their parents and the people they grew up with.

Scotland is clearly made up of a collection of different secular communities on a geographical basis.  The Highlands and the Lowlands tend to despise each other, partly because of the cultural differences between the urban and rural lifestyles.  The Highlands and Islands tend to be lumped together - in opposition to the Lowlands, but the islanders are fiercely independent when you speak with them.  However, the Hebridean Islands seem to lean slightly more towards an association with the mainland than, say, Orkney.

All in all there are big differences to be found in the views of this one 'race' of 'the Scots'.

On top of that Scottish sectarianism is rife.  It is not by accident that people in Glasgow joke about what answer to give if you are stopped in the street by a gang of men, and asked whether you support Celtic (fiercely Catholic) or Rangers (fiercely Protestant).  One of the 'smart' answers is to say that you support Partick Thistle, and while they are rolling around the floor laughing at you, you make a run for your life!  You have to realise that this question is about MUCH more than two soccer teams.

One way or another, Scotland is a divided country.  I support the campaign for independence (as you might have noticed) but I fear that the fall-out from independence might not be quite what the Scots are expecting.

Twenty Twelve

At last the new millennium is establish in speech!  Ever since the beginning of the century people in England have been divided.

Initially there was a great debate about the true date of the beginning of the 21st century, with one side claiming January 1st 2000, and the opposition claiming 2001.  Well obviously the latter is strictly correct, and as a permanent pedant I could hardly be expected to take the opposite view.  After all, there was no year zero, so the last year of the first century (strictly speaking) was 100, and the first year of the second century was 101.  Logically 2001 got my vote.

Pedant or not, I am also a pragmatist.  When failure is inevitable I can be swayed to accept it, and after all, some battles are worth fighting and some are not.  In the minds of most of the public the number 2000 is much more important than 2001.  This is just numerology.  It doesn't actually matter at all does it.  The first day in the new millennium was simply the next day in our lives.

But this year it is different.  Until 2012 we have struggled with the question of how to say the year out loud.  It was impossible to contemplate saying 'Twenty One' because that is not written as 20-01 but 21.

'Twenty Oh One' just sound silly although shorter than 'Two thousand and One' it is not a saving that our aesthetics consider worthwhile.

Finally Twenty Twelve sounds right.  A few still say Two Thousand and Twelve, but let's face it, we will all be converted to the sensible shorter version soon.

Twenty Twelve marks the point when we are finally happy with our century.

Every colandar is really a bowl

Among the geological wonders of New Zealand, the Moeraki Boulders (see Wikipedia article) are surprisingly spherical in shape.

See this Youtube video - one of many but it has nice music.



Some regard these remarkable stones as proof of the existence of a god - presumably their own particular God.

Geologists who are aware of similar septarian concretions all around the world have theories about how they were created, but no definite conclusions.  As it says on the Wikipedia article linked in this paragraph:

A number of mechanisms, i.e. the dehydration of clay-rich, gel-rich, or organic-rich cores; shrinkage of the concretion's center; expansion of gases produced by the decay of organic matter; brittle fracturing or shrinkage of the concretion interior by either earthquakes or compaction; and others, have been proposed for the formation of septaria. At this time, it is uncertain, which, if any, of these and other proposed mechanisms is responsible for the formation of septaria in septarian concretions.

Claiming that this gap in our knowledge proves the existence of god is a logical fallacy.  Just because there is a gap, it doesn't mean that there has to be something to fill it.  Here are some gaps . . .

Every colander is really a bowl (with gaps)

Would you ever think of calling a colander a bowl?  It is the gaps that make it useful.

Make your computer monitor into a mirror

I happened across a silly question while surfing the web


"Does anyone know if it's possible to use a background that would essentially turn my computer monitor into a mirror? Scanning a mirror doesn't work."


That sounds as though he actually tried it.  As a matter of fact though, you might like to think about what you actually would get if you scanned a mirror.

More about 'Asherah - wife of Yahweh'

This is an unusual post today - drawing together some interesting feedback from an earlier article and a bit of a plug for the Reddit community.

One of my posts about the gods of the Old Testament from earlier in the year was submitted to the Reddit site recently, and for whatever reason it took off as a success for a day.  Reddit is a great site and I recommend it highly, whatever topic you might be interested it.  I still find the 'rediquette' slightly mysterious, and users seem to get accused of being spammers sometimes when they hadn't realised that they were doing anything wrong.  However, it seems to bring a good quantity of traffic to a web site or blog, along with an opportunity for feedback (good and bad) and there is a sense of community on many of the individual sub-reddits.

Since some of the readers of this blog will not have taken the plunge to become members of Reddit they will have missed some of the good feedback about 'Asherah - wife of Yahweh', which received over 3000 visits one day recently, along with more than 10 comments.  I'll quote a few of the most useful comments here and add links to some relevant items.

Irish_Whiskey kindly says

It's very interesting. The writer is correct in saying that there isn't "strong evidence" and it's one explanation among many, but is just one more thing which "all points towards the Old Testament being a huge mixed bag of myth and legend".

All the Abrahamic beliefs have changed massively over time. Christianity today hasn't been around for hundreds of years, let alone thousands. It just shares a name and a few limited claims with much older religions it descended from that were very different in practice and beliefs.


Keldrath has kindly provided a link to an interesting and believable Youtube video about polytheism in the bible.



unfinite gave a link to a BBC documentary on about polytheism in the bible.  Francesca Stavrakopoulou's BBC programme "The Bible's Buried Secrets - Did God have a wife?"

This is indeed the programme which provoked the thoughts leading to my series of posts about polytheism in the old testament. I have provided the link but I fear that it might not be available worldwide


Flonkkertiin says :
I took a class on ancient israel and this is a common thought. It is all part of the henotheistic origins that judaism is believed to have. YHWH started to pick up attributes from other deities to the point where he could replace them. Henotheism evolves into monolotry, monolotry to monotheism. Pretty interesting stuff I always thought.


cosmonaut205 says:
It's believed that Asherah was once the wife of El, amongst a pantheon of Gods, in which Yahweh was just one of many. In the earliest stages of the transition to monotheism (enacted mostly as a political measure to ensure a centralized worship center) Asherah was thus transitioned to be a wife of Yahweh instead.

The transition from polytheism to monotheism is referenced in Psalm 82.


badcatdog says:
I enjoy the "Persian imperial authorisation" motivation for Monotheism. 


Hank_of_Reddit
I can't provide a link because I'm on a mobile and don't know how to copy and paste but try googling youtube user Evid3nc3 and watch his video titled 3.3.3 A History of God. He does a good job covering Karen Armstrong's book by the same name.  [That is the video shown above.]


kontankarite just says:
Man, that's some interesting shit.


As you can see - Reddit provides some interesting feedback sometimes!  Why not join the redditors?