Book Jacket

 

rank  Editors Pick
word count 15952
date submitted 01.05.2011
date updated 08.05.2012
genres: Young Adult, Non-fiction, Popular S...
classification: universal
incomplete

Man Made Gods: When, Why & How

Ajay Kansal

This book describes when, why, and how mankind created their gods. It's an effort to light a candle in the darkest corner of human consciousness.

 

After learning language, mankind recognized many powers around them, which were beyond their control but could harm or help them. People began to worship those powers. For example, during the last Ice Age, people recognized the Sun as their savior, which was beyond their control. After this knowledge, mankind initiated worship of the Sun.
There is enough evidence to assert that the ancestors of Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Christians, and Muslims worshipped the Sun before their religions came into practice. People learnt the solar worship in the similar way they learnt to make tools, to ignite fire, to speak language, and many more things.
Around three thousand years ago, mankind suffered new diseases, poverty, exploitation, crime, and injustice. Visionaries of those ages, such as the Buddha, Moses, Zoroaster, and Jesus, endeavoured to explain and eradicate human miseries. They visualized several gods and demons behind human sufferings. They propagated many morals and methods of worship to eradicate the sufferings.
After their death, priests documented their teachings as holy books such as the Bible, the Avesta, etc. Priests propagated the allegories mentioned in these scriptures as history. Thus, the ancient scriptures fashioned organized religions of the world.


 
rate the book

to rate this book please Register or Login

 

tags

, ancient, angels, anthropology, coming of age, death, demon, devine, evil, faith, fundamentalism, ghosts, god, historical, history, history of gods, ...

on 231 watchlists

251 comments

 

To leave comments on this or any book please Register or Login

subscribe to comments for this book
Kumar_India wrote 1074 days ago

This is a very concise and precise book exploring the concepts behind origin of two of the most important questions that always faced mankind on this planet (or for that any living matter in Universe) or could fathom - i.e.e that of a Superbeing, the God and the Religion -that is one of the most fundamental of the drives for any Civilization at any point of historical time or the individuals that go through the life's vicissitudes trying cope up with them. It allows one to think openly about the question of Religion and the role it has played, whether justified or unjustified, in human history. The subject matter in this book is not easily available in one handy volume such as this, but one has to go through dozens of books from different disciplines to readily understand the conceptual framework on which this book is visualized. It is a must read for any student at Undergraduate level in any educational or systemic setting to understand some of the meaningless differences that (are perceived to) separate people from different religions.

klouholmes wrote 1079 days ago

Hi Dr Ajay, This is fascinating and especially because of the point-to-point compilation of primitive and ancient peoples, their discoveries, and their possible explanations. It seems to be written for the Popular Science audience, a thorough examination that can be followed by a wide readership. And the research seems well-done. The charm of this is the logical process used and your ability to imagine the primitive and ancient peoples covered. Phrases like "To unveil Nature, one has to patiently sit in its lap" are also illustrative. I've often thought that religion is part of evolution, possibly a message that incorporates an idea into the human creature and establishes certain life rituals. As with science, you've shown how the human being advances from simple to more complicated expressions of religion and how that affects their eating habits and other life habits. Enjoyed reading this, shelved, and starred - Katherine (The House in Windward Leaves, The Swan Bonnet)

susanbrauner wrote 1077 days ago

Dr. Ajay, I am speechless, I don't have the words to tell you how much I enjoyed your book. Your book is on my bookshelf. If your book were for sale, I would buy a copy and have it on my real bookshelf. You writing is straight forward, you are very knowledgeable about your subject, and you have such wonderful examples from around the world. Finally there is a book that puts forth the logical and scientific evidence that religion and god are man made. I read every chapter so please post additional chapters, I want to keep reading. I to gave you 6 stars!


Susan
The Adventures of Sohi: Mystery of Moon Island

yellowdog wrote 1076 days ago

Hi Dr Ajay,

This is a remarkable work you have written. It follows a logical progression of thought, that perhaps mirrors the reasons why someone would take up belief, as it explains and illustrates the logical, rational basis of the advent of these practices. The book has an instructional element with the summaries at the end of each chapter and this helped me decide that there was a market for this book in those struggling with a belief, or taking one up in earnest.

Of course others books recently which put forward the rational view, but unfortunately I think they only engage those who are non-religious. I was told once that you can change what someone thinks by logical argument, example etc, but it is impossible to change someone's beliefs because they are not based on fact. Perhaps your book which seems to be directed in an educational manner may have some effect and make an inroad into the consciousness of the deluded.

The terrible thing to me is that God believers do not see the harm and reduced view of humanity, and indeed nature and all things that exist. They view everything through the filter of `God's creation' and deny the inate scientific miracle of life around us. They cannot enjoy life of itself.

You may cover this - I have read that man's development of a neo cortex and self-consciousness stimulated a need for an authorative father figure - otherwise we are alone and responsible for our thoughts and actions.

I have an interest in these matters my self and despair at the religious component of our society. I explore these themes in a differnet manner in my work - perhaps the ultimate crime.

Once again, great work I will be backing it immediately.

All the best

Brian
I applaud your efforts, the work you have obviously put in developing this work and I am putting your book on my bookshelf immediately.

Stark Silvercoin wrote 1074 days ago

Man Made Gods: When, Why, & How is more of a non-fiction book, told in a way that is interesting enough to almost be fiction. In many ways, it’s a more interesting book than most fiction I’ve looked at recently.

Author Dr. Ajay Kansal has done a masterful job of putting forward his argument that God was invented by man. He shows the scientific reasons behind the creation of religion in a way that makes sense and follows the historical record. That a lot of research went into this book is evident and will be appreciated by readers. It was a fascinating read to tell the truth.

I will say that I am a Christian and I do believe in God. However, I was not offended by this book in anyway. In fact, if nothing else, I learned a lot about ancient times and how people thought. I could easily justify the existence of God (at least to myself) by simply saying that God had a hand in the development of everything described in this book. There are some people who will really take issue with it, however, I think any good debate needs the presentation of all sides and Dr. Ajay Kansal has presented his beautifully. There is little doubt that Man Made Gods would find a wide audience when published.

John Breeden II
Old Number Seven

Tarzan For Real wrote 612 days ago

Too bad I'm finding this now Ajay. I would have one hundred percent backed this book on your rise to the shelf. You take logical insight into deity worship with extremely strong literary references. Good job on the research.--JL "The Devil Of Black Bayou" & "The Wings of the Seraph"

SteveSeven wrote 656 days ago

Great book and timely with sentiments such as: 'Mankind has to conceive a global religion of humanity'. Full stars and full support for your well researched and written book. Kind regards, Steve.

Jack Fish wrote 761 days ago

Dear Doctor, this is very good book I backed it a long time agon I hopw you are having well luck with it.

Dr Ajay Kansal wrote 809 days ago

xxxxxxx

Gronkowski wrote 882 days ago

I read the first chapter and it is disturbing how you assume that people in the past were these brutish idiots unable to understand the world around them. It feels like I am reading something written in the 19th century. Other than that this seems like a interesting subject. Maybe you should start over and do some research? This could be a good book.

sisteroficarus wrote 892 days ago

This is a wonderfully written book that opens up a much-needed discussion on religion, a practice which man has been partaking in since our evolution into homo sapiens sapiens. But what are gods, and what purpose do they serve? I think this is a wonderfully written book that needs some editing (not having English as a first language is not a fault). Great work, AJ! Good luck.

EMERSON HUGH wrote 895 days ago

This is the book that has a novel approach towards the concept of gods. Many times I used to think that why god made us with lots of differences but with the same concept of worshiping. I think that I would get the answer if I get a chance to read the entire book. The language that you have used in this book is very simple and easily understandable. As an engineer, and painter I used to think that language has no big deal to the field in which I am a part. Now I understand that language was behind everything. Thanks man for your eye brow raising information.

johnny 1979261 wrote 895 days ago

The introduction of the book itself creates a kind of feeling that the author is going to show us an atheistic concept in a very positive way. The chapters that have been posted have given me an intuition to know what he has found out and is trying to show us. I hope that It is one of the best books for the present world as it discusses the root level of fundamentalism through scientific evidences. You have tried your best mr. kansal. Wish u good luck.

Mr. Grassroots wrote 895 days ago

This book is a well-written that will surely stimulate discussion and debate. It will please some. It will anger and frustrate others. But one thing is certain, it will be bought, read and discussed with great frequency and Dr. Ajay will be a great moderator of that discussion. Has great national and international potential. The question of God is the essence of humanity. This book makes a thoughtful attempt at setting forth a number of theories about God and the origins of God. The idea of a female deity is not new, but it is certainly not discussed with any kind of intensity. If this book does nothing else, it will bring the subject of the gender of a deity to the forefront. As a former bookstore owner (over 15 years), the subject came up with frequency. I look forward to reading the final version of this book.

billetem wrote 896 days ago

This book says in chapter 8: `there is only one truth but there are many lies. Today, mankind has to conceive a global religion of humanity...far better to pay reverence and thanks to the Sun - the creator and nurturer of mankind...

Also in Chapter 8 we find: `Media could develop only with the help of modern information technology...'


This book is a strange mixture of sense and nonsense. I think Bev Allen said it best when she wrote: `I wept for the English language as I read this.' Can you think of a more accurate and concise verdict?

The Next Big Author wrote 897 days ago

Dear Ajay,

Wishing you luck, my friend.

Raymond

Bev Allen wrote 901 days ago

I wept for the English language as I read this.

Ariom Dahl wrote 903 days ago


I'm truly sorry, but when I read this line: 'Around five thousand years ago, farmers began socializing and transforming into something recognizably human.' I nearly fell off my chair laughing. Were farmers not recognizably human before this time?

And this one: "Today, major human population is enjoying adequate food, water, shelter, clothing, security, justice, and healthcare. " Oh, if only it were so!

I feel you have generalised and simplified what you are trying to say and you lost me as a reader quite early.

Sorry, but I can't back this book. Don't let it bother you; enough other people HAVE backed it for you to get to the ED.

creampuffwar wrote 904 days ago

Is this serious?

I can't read past the first chapter. You need to do some research that doesn't involve Wikipedia.

4wardassociates wrote 906 days ago

Fascinating speculation of early man's thinking. However, I doubt they were unaware of the role of copulation in regards to pregnancy. They could observe the same cause and effect in the rest of the animal kingdom and their livestock in later years. The understanding of how pregnancy occurred explains polygamy. The abundance of sculptures in the female form may have had more to do with a desire for wealth through reputation--virility, children, harem, etc. They may have developed a need for a god to promote pregnancy but I doubt they thought only a god caused pregnancy.

Scott , "Servant Leadership Practice..."

FRAN MACILVEY wrote 906 days ago

Sorry Ajay, i can't get this, and, given how much work you have done, I would like to.

It seems to me that your statements are littered with assumptions that I would love to quarrel with, such as cannibalistic ritualism in nomads...? I mean, why? What would be the point? Does any nomadic people, like the San of the Kalahari, practice cannibalism? I sincerely doubt it....

From my perspective, you make far too many assumptions, and your writing is uncomfortably masculine orientated. What about the great matrilineal and matriarchal societies that pre-dated the rise of man-kind?

What is your intention here, anyway? To give a scientific basis to religion? Why bother? Religion uses one part of the mind, and science another. At their farthest points from each other, science and religion meet, as the great sages have been telling us for thousands of years. The vedic books are full of wisdom that scientists now are beginning to understand does have a scientific basis, like quantum physics and the movement of matter. Ayurveda is a child of this understanding.

All the best, Ajay. though i am sorry that when your boat sails, I will not be beside you. I regret that.

Fran Macilvey, "Trapped"

woodenships111 wrote 907 days ago

This confuses me. I thought this was non-fiction but so much of it is made up or an opinion.

Why do you think people didn't know where babies come from until priests told them? That doesn't make any sense. And why is this book listed as young adult? I think you should have just called this book fiction and then I'd be able to take it seriously.

Maybe I'm missing the point?

Jack Hughes wrote 911 days ago

A very complete and analytical study of the fundamental principles of the common (and some not so common) faiths. This is a huge and complex subject matter and one that I'm sure will invite plenty of exciting debate and argument but it is an important book that challenges perceptions and therefore it deserves to be recognised. Excellent work.

Jack Hughes

rommyo wrote 918 days ago

"Prejudice"-wise, I wouldn't have been so wantonly mean if you weren't successful on this site. Other people were already saying nice things.

I'm not conventionally "religious," if that's what you're implying. My favorite atheist book is the Hitchens one, because it's mean in a fun way. "Religion Explained" by Pascal Boyer and "Treatise on the Gods" by H.L. Mencken actually address why primitive man intuitively embraced religion.

Dr Ajay Kansal wrote 918 days ago

Hi
I do not agree to any of your suggestions except that English is my second language. I have yet to understand whether you have some prejudices about my book or the subject. I suggest you that criticize some book only after doing thorough research.
Ajay

The English is literally ungrammatical--obviously in the second sentence, mind you (!). That's "THE Mammoth population of the world," or "the world's mammoth population is thriving..."

I don't mean to slander the mind and underlying cogitations of the author (although I will), but he should write in his native language and have a professional translate it. If you didn't learn English at age 4 like Nabokov, you're probably unable to write a book in English dexterously, if it's your second language. We're talking about writing a book in English, here. It's like trying to be a quarterback in the NFL with a gimpy arm--preposterous.

The Authonomy community apparently makes literary professionals look like Ayn Rand's wet dream of elite competence. I don't confess to understanding entirely.

Forget language, though. I'm going to focus on the profound underlying intellectual problems in *one paragraph*. more or less at random:

"Since time immemorial, men and women were anxious to know who created the first man and woman on the Earth."

Not all cosmologies begin with "Adam and Eve"--or "first" man/woman Earth-based beginnings--horrible generalization.

"Were they made by some supernatural power known as god?"

Is this an *Indian* person? Monotheism is a late development in human prehistory.

"To answer this question, anthropologists studied many human dead bodies belonging to the prehistoric age."

*Physical* anthopologists, *remains* of humans, and even if you clean up all the language, it's an inane generalization, intellectually or grammatically. That's not necessarily "why" the progress of science occurs.

"After the study"

"the" study? The single study of dead human remains?

"they concluded that men were not created by some god."

Who's "they"? Physical anthropologists? Archaologists? Darwin? Even Darwin wasn't necessarily saying that.

"On the contrary, mankind created different gods."

Did "they" conclude that, or did Herodotus? Or is "science," in some generalized, preposterous way, asserting this?

"Today, anthropologists have discovered why, when and how mankind made these superhuman powers called gods."

"Anthropologists" have? Physical anthropologists have evidence of early religious worship amongst humans, but the "duh" and revelation, and tone of having intuited something original, in the prose, is preposterous.

That's one paragraph. I could go on until I die of natural causes.

rommyo wrote 919 days ago

The English is literally ungrammatical--obviously in the second sentence, mind you (!). That's "THE Mammoth population of the world," or "the world's mammoth population is thriving..."

I don't mean to slander the mind and underlying cogitations of the author (although I will), but he should write in his native language and have a professional translate it. If you didn't learn English at age 4 like Nabokov, you're probably unable to write a book in English dexterously, if it's your second language. We're talking about writing a book in English, here. It's like trying to be a quarterback in the NFL with a gimpy arm--preposterous.

The Authonomy community apparently makes literary professionals look like Ayn Rand's wet dream of elite competence. I don't confess to understanding entirely.

Forget language, though. I'm going to focus on the profound underlying intellectual problems in *one paragraph*. more or less at random:

"Since time immemorial, men and women were anxious to know who created the first man and woman on the Earth."

Not all cosmologies begin with "Adam and Eve"--or "first" man/woman Earth-based beginnings--horrible generalization.

"Were they made by some supernatural power known as god?"

Is this an *Indian* person? Monotheism is a late development in human prehistory.

"To answer this question, anthropologists studied many human dead bodies belonging to the prehistoric age."

*Physical* anthopologists, *remains* of humans, and even if you clean up all the language, it's an inane generalization, intellectually or grammatically. That's not necessarily "why" the progress of science occurs.

"After the study"

"the" study? The single study of dead human remains?

"they concluded that men were not created by some god."

Who's "they"? Physical anthropologists? Archaologists? Darwin? Even Darwin wasn't necessarily saying that.

"On the contrary, mankind created different gods."

Did "they" conclude that, or did Herodotus? Or is "science," in some generalized, preposterous way, asserting this?

"Today, anthropologists have discovered why, when and how mankind made these superhuman powers called gods."

"Anthropologists" have? Physical anthropologists have evidence of early religious worship amongst humans, but the "duh" and revelation, and tone of having intuited something original, in the prose, is preposterous.

That's one paragraph. I could go on until I die of natural causes.

Paul J wrote 920 days ago

seems to be a lot of opening with not a lot of facts or credentials, but maybe I have to read more. the writing is good and the passion comes through. good stuff and well done getting so high.

Dr Ajay Kansal wrote 921 days ago

Hi KirkH
Thanks for minutely reading and commenting on the book. All your questions are logical and are answered in the later chapters. Regarding revelation of God, now, that is an obsolete theory. First, today, many of the Biblical revelations have been proved wrong e.g Sun circulates the Earth, Plagues, leprosy, and famine sent by GOD, demons of diseases. How could a God can reveal that big lie to prophet Moses. In fact, this was the knowledge of Moses. Secondly, the Bible describe epiphany many times that never happened after writing the Bible.
Anyway I wish to thank you again for your effort. Ajay


Dr. Kansal,

Although your book is interesting, I find it way too simplified. You are saying that religion and belief in a diety, (or dieties) is merely a relec of ancient pre-historic life where primitive man was unable to explain natural phenomenom and deseases or death, so they had to explain it in the form of spiritualism or religion, with a priesthood of some sort, with rituals and traditions and what not, to appease some divine power and give comfort and warnings to the adherents. So are you saying that religion and spirituality are non longer needed in the evolutionary process, growth and progress of man? Or that science, medicine and technology have explained everything and that we don't need these primitive things anymore?

In the Judeo-Christian parts of the world, this argument can be explained as the doctrine of revelation. General revelation and special revelation are the two ways God has chosen to reveal Himself to humanity. General revelation refers to the general truths that can be known about God through nature. Special revelation refers to the more specific truths that can be known about God through the supernatural.

General revelation is also taught in Romans 1:20, “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” Like Psalm 19, Romans 1:20 teaches that God’s eternal power and divine nature are “clearly seen” and “understood” from what has been made, and that there is no excuse for denying these facts. With these Scriptures in mind, perhaps a working definition of general revelation would be “the revelation of God to all people, at all times, and in all places that proves that God exists and that He is intelligent, powerful, and transcendent.”

Special revelation is how God has chosen to reveal Himself through miraculous means. Special revelation includes physical appearances of God, dreams, visions, the written Word of God, and specifically, from the Christian view —of Jesus Christ. The Bible records God appearing in physical form many times (Genesis 3:8, 18:1; Exodus 3:1-4, 34:5-7), and the Bible records God speaking to people through dreams (Genesis 28:12, 37:5; 1 Kings 3:5; Daniel 2) and visions (Genesis 15:1; Ezekiel 8:3-4; Daniel 7; 2 Corinthians 12:1-7).

Therefore, although from a historical-anthropological viewpoint you are accurate about the origins of primative religion, I can not accept your conclusions that the Jews saw God only as a "sky god" or that Moses made ten rules on his own, or that Jesus was "only someone who thought disease only came from demons". etc. It is much more complex than that.

It is true that man makes up gods in his imagination and can still pick and choose how he wants to worship - this is the essence of post-modernism and new age religions. Special revelation, as mentioned in the bible, seems to punch a big hole in this way of thinking and offers something that science, technology and human reasoning can not offer: things such as love, hope, faith, forgivness, and life - especially everlasting life after death. The man-made gods can ever explain these things in a satifactory way.

KirkH wrote 921 days ago

Dr. Kansal,

Although your book is interesting, I find it way too simplified. You are saying that religion and belief in a diety, (or dieties) is merely a relec of ancient pre-historic life where primitive man was unable to explain natural phenomenom and deseases or death, so they had to explain it in the form of spiritualism or religion, with a priesthood of some sort, with rituals and traditions and what not, to appease some divine power and give comfort and warnings to the adherents. So are you saying that religion and spirituality are non longer needed in the evolutionary process, growth and progress of man? Or that science, medicine and technology have explained everything and that we don't need these primitive things anymore?

In the Judeo-Christian parts of the world, this argument can be explained as the doctrine of revelation. General revelation and special revelation are the two ways God has chosen to reveal Himself to humanity. General revelation refers to the general truths that can be known about God through nature. Special revelation refers to the more specific truths that can be known about God through the supernatural.

General revelation is also taught in Romans 1:20, “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” Like Psalm 19, Romans 1:20 teaches that God’s eternal power and divine nature are “clearly seen” and “understood” from what has been made, and that there is no excuse for denying these facts. With these Scriptures in mind, perhaps a working definition of general revelation would be “the revelation of God to all people, at all times, and in all places that proves that God exists and that He is intelligent, powerful, and transcendent.”

Special revelation is how God has chosen to reveal Himself through miraculous means. Special revelation includes physical appearances of God, dreams, visions, the written Word of God, and specifically, from the Christian view —of Jesus Christ. The Bible records God appearing in physical form many times (Genesis 3:8, 18:1; Exodus 3:1-4, 34:5-7), and the Bible records God speaking to people through dreams (Genesis 28:12, 37:5; 1 Kings 3:5; Daniel 2) and visions (Genesis 15:1; Ezekiel 8:3-4; Daniel 7; 2 Corinthians 12:1-7).

Therefore, although from a historical-anthropological viewpoint you are accurate about the origins of primative religion, I can not accept your conclusions that the Jews saw God only as a "sky god" or that Moses made ten rules on his own, or that Jesus was "only someone who thought disease only came from demons". etc. It is much more complex than that.

It is true that man makes up gods in his imagination and can still pick and choose how he wants to worship - this is the essence of post-modernism and new age religions. Special revelation, as mentioned in the bible, seems to punch a big hole in this way of thinking and offers something that science, technology and human reasoning can not offer: things such as love, hope, faith, forgivness, and life - especially everlasting life after death. The man-made gods can ever explain these things in a satifactory way.

August Taylor wrote 921 days ago

Hi,
I noticed your book due to its ranking and its title.
I am surprised and disappointed that you assert Jesus was/is man-made.
He was, however, made FOR man:)
Sincerely, Ruby

John Alton wrote 922 days ago

Dear Ajay, I have read the first three chapters and this is an amazing book. The insights you have provided are wonderful. Everything about the book suggests the amount of research that must have been put into the facts and details. Well done!

just barbara wrote 926 days ago

very clear, consise, step-by-step guide to how the present civilisations developed. Easily understood by most age groups. Found it very interesting, and I think this book would make a good school text book. thanks for the chance to read.
regards barbara
awakening the Magic view book

HarryWarraich wrote 927 days ago

It's a shame you do not discuss Islam in depth, it is one of the more concerning theories of our modern world and in Particular the Indian subcontinent.

All in all, a very well written piece of work. Best of luck.

Harry

just barbara wrote 927 days ago

very clear, consise, step-by-step guide to how the present civilisations developed. Easily understood by most age groups. Found it very interesting, and I think this book would make a good school text book. thanks for the chance to read.
regards
barbara
awakening the Magic

Sandeshan wrote 933 days ago

Well written!!! I can see why this book has so many backings. All the best for the ED.

NoraD wrote 933 days ago

Excellent idea, promises to be a lovely book for young people. I do think, however, that it would benefit from toning down the dogmatism. Instead of stating your theories as bald fact, you could say (possibly just once, at the beginning) that this is how things may/might have developed, or even probably developed. And I have one major quibble with your use of 'men' to supposedly refer to the human race. "Mankind' is unproblematic, and generic 'man' can sometimes be OK. But what about (in your second paragraph): "... men were anxious to know who created the first man and woman ..." Really? Only the men?
Nora.

Eliza Doole wrote 934 days ago

Okay Ajay I'm going to review this book now. Positives first. (Am taking a deep breath.)
I took a weird decoy and only read chapter three.You have gone a long way towards investigating female deities and explaining why they were the reigning goddessess of their time/era. I'm not a paleontologist, and I only have a few episodes of "Bones" to go on here, but I can see that you are very interested in this subject and approach it with something akin to a boyhood wonder.
Negatives: I'm having 'tone' troubles. When you say something like "The myths that glorified the role of the fertility goddesses ..." - "The myths" implies to the reader that there is no way you believe in the validity of the people's beliefs you are discussing. "Glorified" - carries a tone of surprise which seems critical of female deities and detracts from your book's initial pitch which promises a wondrous exploration to 'light a candle" for us. The tone needs to be more impartial.
I can see that you wanted to pull your reader into a world where anthropology, sociology and those dusty old paleontologists come alive, imaginatively creating stories to infuse our understanding of how things happened. However, you need to beware sounding patronising, and it seems to occur often in your delineation of women. I personally find the idea that a woman discovered agriculture by lolling about while pregnant for two months after observing a midden heap: "Soon, she noticed the garbage heap ..." abhorrent. There is far too much assertion that men did all of the hunting, when it has been documented that women are expert with trapping small mammals in aboriginal cultures. And, I'm only making a few points here, but the very idea that men and women did not understand that sex created children, until after observing animals domesticated by agrarian agricultural practice is ridiculous.
I think a lot more research is needed, and I am sorry to be so harsh. With the level of paleontological awareness in the world, I think you would get shot down in flames for some of the creative bits. However, if you re think some of them, you may be able to achieve what you thought about doing with this book originally. It's a good premise - but not an easy one to pull off.
Good luck to you Ajay xx

iandsmith wrote 937 days ago

No. This book isn't good. The opening premise, "Today, science had achieved entirely new altitudes" is out of date by about forty years. Science reached a zenith in the 60s, and now fails to provide solutions to global warming, rising sea levels, over population. I just listened to Saving the Earth on BBC Radio 4. What happens when India and China are forced to go green? This book needs updating considerably. It's simplistic to say that man created god. A more exciting and modern book would be called Where Did Science Go Wrong? Or What is the New Age? Or Why Is Religion Winning? because it is. Look at the stats.

Terry Gilbert wrote 940 days ago

From a brief perusal this appears to be a well written, and well researched examination of the origins of religion, in a reasonably accessible style. I have no hesitation in putting it on my shelf.

One small criticism - the continual use of the words 'man' and 'men' to refer to the whole of humanity irked me, (and I'm male!). You might consider using 'humans' or 'people', so as to be more inclusive. There are sections of society who consider this usage outdated.

LivingChallenged wrote 943 days ago

I feel that the first sentence in your long pitch could be rewritten to sound more professional. In my opinion it should read something similar to the following:

"After learning language, mankind recognized many powers around them, powers beyond their control that could be harmful or helpful."

The next sentence also needs to be rewritten. It is grammatically incorrect and makes a bad impression if someone is reading your pitch to find out about your book. It is not clear what is beyond their control, the ice age, the fact that they recognized the sun as their savior, or the sun being their savior.

I hope this helps. :-)

A.P. Shinners wrote 944 days ago

Interesting and thought provoking. Any error's on accuracy have already been pointed out.
Richard Dawkins (excuse the spelling) has touched on this area, although not quite in the same way.
Your book differs by the way you contrast religion with science and the connection, throughout the world, of the human race. This flows like fiction, which makes it easy to read, no-one wants to be lectured after all.
This is fascinating.

jake1000 wrote 946 days ago

Sir, let me begin by first saying that your book is well written and clearly presents your position. You are possessed of an excellent analytical mind and a superb intellect. I wish you good success with your publishing contract in India. Congratulations! That being said, I would like to offer a few thoughts with the hope that it would lead to further dialogue. I am a Christian and I would like to make that clear before I begin. First, it seems to me that you have assumed the truth of your position and then leveraged that assumption to make your claims. To briefly elaborate, you make several bold claims within your preface regarding "science's" positive contributions to the world juxtaposed against "religion's" supposedly negative ones (in one place claiming that science delivered mankind from the darkness of religion). This blatantly ignores the existence of any positive impact of faith upon human history and grossly misrepresents what is known to be a false dichotomy (the dichotomy between faith and science). As a Christian I do not pit my faith against science for I believe that my faith (that is the christian faith) is the basis for the scientific impulse in the first place. Because I believe in a God who created the universe and set in place the "laws of science" I have a logical basis for seeking to discover those laws and realities and so it goes for logic and morality as well. In a purely material universe that is merely the byproduct of random chance we should have no good reason for engaging in scientific research at all for two reasons: 1. There would be no point. 2. There would be no good reason to expect order and consistency with regards to nature. Forgive the longevity of my comments but I really do wish to assist you in any way I can with making your book the best it can be. I would recommend that you seek out the writings of one of your countrymen, Ravi Zacharias, who is a notable Christian apologist, gifted communicator, and whose work would really allow you to perceive the broader context concerning the dialogue between Christianity (and by default other faiths) and your own secular naturalism. Thanks again!

Jacob Schmelzer
Re-Orthodox

hordak1972 wrote 950 days ago

This is a powerful piece of writing. I will say, if you have not yet run into it, it will be coming. You will most likely have a strong opposition to try and keep this book out of print. Congarts on your publishing rights in India. As far as your writing goes, it looks to me that you put plenty of thought and research into your project. I hope in your project you do touch more on fundemendalism, because even with the world attention that Usama Bin Laden and Al Queda had gotten. Plus people fail to realize that it is not just religion that is at play here and that it is also the lack of education of the suicide bomber, the person who conceives the plan actually is well educated. Like I said this is a powerful piece and I wish you the best in your venture.

Closet Writer wrote 952 days ago
M Atabo wrote 953 days ago

Hi Doc

As a scientist, I consider the contents of this book very insightful. Intelligence in man began a long time ago but it reacehed its peak on the modern man. Curiorsity gave birth to foundamentalism which inturn gave birth to human beleifs that consequently provokes actions either good or ill.

I love this book and and it will surely be on my watch list.

good work.

the groom wrote 953 days ago

dr ajay,
i admire your effort to scientifically explain how man and religions made god as a fruit from your observation and experiences...
if you don't mind, may i offer you for a read my book which ARTISTICALLY reveals God's message for all of us...
it is a collection of anagrams of a name revealing God's message to the world. for instance, SERGEV ROY L. MORENO if rearranged becomes SERVE RELY ON GROOM which means "Have faith to the Lord".....
honestly, i am not a good writer, but i can guarantee you that these anagrams were geniusly crafted by the Lord himself....
happy exchange reads....
sergev
the groom the bride and the wedding

sumit.agarwal1107 wrote 954 days ago

have added the book in my shelf as the topic itself is quite appealing...so definitely will go through it as soon as possible..will give my review comments if any.....

D M Sharples wrote 955 days ago

Ajay,

I've read through some of this and am torn over how to respond in this comment. On the one hand, you state this is aimed at young adults, and to a point this makes some of what I want to say unimportant. On the other hand, I have a background in some of the scientific topics you talk about in the first chapters and while there are some great and fascinating points raised, there are other, less...accurate statements.

But, first and foremost, I'll comment on your ability as a writer. Given some of the syntax errors I can assume English is not your first language. However, your grasp of it is superior to many native speakers I have met in my life, and I applaud the level of technical ability you demonstrate. This work uses simplistic styles to convey complex matters and you do so with an easy to read, informative structure.

Ok, now I'm switching to academic mode. Before I go on, I'd like to say that I am educated to a reasonable level in earth sciences and certain, related aspects of biology, and have written plenty of scientific reports and articles. I have also been published in this respect, if only in a somewhat minor journal. Some of what I will put here is not necessarily my opinion, it is more the facts as I understand them.

First, I would like to draw attention to the reference to evolution. The suggestion that Darwin's theories imply that "donkeys and horses, lizards and crocodiles", developed into one another is wildly inaccurate and contributes to a gross misrepresentation of the theory of evolution through natural selection. It is akin to stating that monkeys developed into humans. Basic online research into these species would show how flawed those examples are. Even being aimed at a younger audience, this needs revising; at the very least, you should delete those examples and insert a more appropriate choice of words. In a point related to this as well as other aspects of your work, I would be very careful about the paleoecological assumptions you make.

Next are a couple of factual errors I made note of:
- the oldest fossil Homo sapiens is dated to ~195,000 ya, not half a million
- the oldest jewellrey found is dated to ~100,000 ya, putting it outside your referenced timeframe and therefore not a good example to use in that context

Finally I'd like to make a point about your statement "Science has controlled human suffering such as slavery, women exploitation etc". Did you know there are estimated to be more slaves in existence today than at any other point in human history? Estimations range from 12 million to 27 million, a sombering thought I'm sure you'll agree...

The mistakes and inaccuracies I've mentioned are found in what can be called the introduction of your work, and their existence here, combined with the numerous unreferenced assumptions present, forces me to conclude that you have not conducted your background research in as critical and thorough a manner as I would expect. Indeed, this leads me to wonder how much of your main body of work contains the same problems.

Of course, as I have said, this is my academic approach to a criticism, and is far harsher than it would be had I merely reviewed this as a general reader. I think you are attempting to sit between academic work and a piece more readily accessible to the layman and/or a younger audience. If you were to aim to lean more toward the latter, I would suggest reconsidering how 'academic' you want this to appear and instead focus on your very readable style.

D M Sharples.

Twist2010 wrote 956 days ago

Ajay,
This is the first book in a while that truely made me think. I applaud your book and the research that you put into it. Sadly, for right now it is on my watchlist as I don't have any room on my shelf. I did give it a 5 star rating though.
Good Luck and Best wishes..
Samantha

David Marks wrote 957 days ago

"There is enough evidence to assert that the ancestors of Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Christians, and Muslims worshipped the Sun before their religions came into practice"

So what? Does the fact that someone did something before someone else prove anything?

ggarver wrote 958 days ago

Fascinating how many things that we take for granted without really thinking about it! Without language there’d be no religion - without doubt of religion there’d be no science. The human race is pretty amazing when it’s all put into perspective. :) It’s also very interesting to me how all the different cultures from all over the world discovered the same things and treated them all with the same (or very similar) behavior.

Below are some notes and thoughts I had while reading your work. Feel free to disregard any or all notes that you disagree with, or those you are already aware of.

Preface (1)
-They had not yet learnt (learned) **I know that ‘learnt’ is commonly used outside America, but I wonder if you should use ‘learned’ since this is an educational type book.
-…farming exposed men to pets (pests?)
-Till date… (To date? Until now?) *Maybe its just because we don’t use this term in the US…but it sounds strange to me.
*The excerpts from chapter 1 are all repetitive from the preface. I’m not sure you need the entire preface if you tell the reader the same thing again in future chapters. Maybe just leave in the intro part and your apology for offending anyone (if you want it there).

Ch1 (2)
-…until its soul [was in] the body. *This is a confusing sentence. Did you mean ‘…until its soul left the body’?
*In order to avoid too much repetition from chapter to chapter, perhaps consider fine-tuning each chapter into exactly the idea for that section. Separating each evolved idea into it’s own section. Overlapping isn’t bad, but it can get boring if the reader feels they’ve already read the same thing, at least twice, earlier in the book.

Ch2 (3)
-…knew fire [since ages]… *another sentence to consider reworking to make it flow better.
-Foetal (Fetal) *Maybe it’s only a different spelling in American-English.
-jewellery (jewelry)
*Does ‘Sun’ need to be capitalized every time?

Ch3 (4)
*In order to keep your book timeless, you may want to put actual years in instead of: fifty years ago, ten thousand years ago, etc.
-mollusc (mollusk?)
-…animals such as (the) dog, horse…
-(The next) Next chapter will discuss…

I find it so flabbergasting that at some point, people of faith determined there should be rules to the laws of nature. No sex before marriage, monogamy is the correct way to be in a relationship, etc. Though these things, for our generations, are practiced without thought or disagreement, people who act as our ancestors did, are judged for not taking the ‘moral high road.’ Really amazing stuff, these chapters really made me think and I know a lot of people (especially my own father) who would love this book.

Congratulations,
Wendy (Gwendolyn)
Breakaway

PetTastic wrote 959 days ago

I am afraid I only gave this a quick scan for now, but it does look extremely interesting and well written.
I have added it to my watch list to come back later.
It gives an interesting view on life, death diseases, that my book is tackling from the Sci-fi nano tech side.

Mark S F wrote 959 days ago

Ajay

Thank you for bringing your book to my attention.

I liked reading this work immensely. In my opinion it is well written and you eloquently make your points and subsequent conclusions. I find the history of the human race of great interest and I could picture the scenes of early humans trying to make sense of, and control, events beyond their comprehension.

I feel that I learned a lot from your book and really enjoyed the experience.

I wish you the very best of success with your book and I'm very pleased to see you at the top of the rankings.

Mark Shakespeare Fletcher
Charlie and the men in shoes

AudreyB wrote 960 days ago

This is certainly an interesting topic to explore. Many Christians have the same questions postulated in this manuscript. But the author displays a fairly unsympathetic attitude towards believers, which seems at cross purposes with his conclusions. The writing is also distracting in its present form; the author is clearly not a native speaker of English. With rigorous editing it's possible this could be an interesting read.

~Audrey

hockgtjoa wrote 961 days ago

This is a worthy attempt to bring reason into the discussion about God or gods. Unfortunately, I do not think that it brings any noteworthy new ideas and seems to me a bit awkward in its phrasing. I am sympathetic with the general aim of the writer and I guess there is room among the (Joseph) Cambells and (Richard) Dawkins and many others who have discussed this with passion. But I do not find this a powerful or persuasive work.