It may seem as if this horse being flogged is not only dead, but also very badly decomposed in the bargain.  But this is worth a look, and it's relatively brief.


The link is invalid so I've pasted the essay below.


The Ego and the ID
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 30/01/2007





Why I hate this intelligent design story. It's simply IDiotic, writes Richard Fortey


Scientists have found themselves trapped into appearing to be unreasonable in their pursuit of rationality. A snare has been cleverly set by the proponents of Intelligent Design in their quest to prove that Charles Darwin got it wrong.

The vast majority of scientists feel nothing but distress that the teaching of Intelligent Design has been promoted in a number of our schools, particularly the faith schools apparently beloved by Tony Blair. Fundamentalists of both Islamic and Christian persuasion meet on this rather implausible common ground. Both these groups of religious hard liners deplore Darwin and all his works.

advertisementScientists tend to get angry when confronted by what they see as the gross distortion of truth promulgated by Intelligent Designers. This has come across badly in 'balanced' debates in the media. As was the case with arguments over the MMR vaccine, the scientist when provoked can unwittingly appear to be a fulminating zealot. By contrast, many of the proponents of Intelligent Design (ID) have contrived to appear to be in favour of free speech. Aren't those scientists empurpled with rage and crying "nonsense' the very picture of a threatened Establishment? On this platform the evolutionary scientist rather than the ID enthusiast can seem to be the less reasonable of the two.

The trouble stems from the use of the weasel word "theory". Successive Presidents of the United States have got themselves off the hook with the influential Christian fundamentalist lobby by the deployment of this useful but traitorous word. Ronald Reagan would flash his aw-shucks smile and amiably reiterate: "I guess Evolution is just a theory". This has become a mantra among ID proponents. If evolution is one theory - then ID is another, or so the argument goes. Only a bigot would object to the airing of the alternative explanations.

The crux of ID is that evolution is purposeful, and that an 'invisible hand' has operated at crucial stages to direct the course of life onwards and upwards. The Intelligence of the Designer is manifest at certain critical points - such as the creation of life itself.

On the other hand, the scientific 'theory' of evolution actually breaks into two components. The first part is to assert that descent of all organisms from a common ancestor has, indeed, happened. To deny this is the equivalent of believing that the earth is flat as a pancake, or that the sun goes round it. Both could be described as theories, though nobody has taken them seriously for hundreds of years. Some fundamentalists still believe that creation happened a few thousand years ago. No respectable scientist believes this. Since the unscrambling of the genome has recently been added to evidence from the fossil record, it might be said that descent is simply a fact. We share genes with bananas and bacteria. At this deep level, DNA proves that humans are joined to all other life. This ought to awake nothing but wonder in all of us, but some find the thought of such a brotherhood of life scary.

The other part of Darwinism says that natural selection is the driving force behind evolution. This is where the ID protagonists come in. They accept the long time scale required from what we know of the age of the earth, but substitute supernaturally directed selection at critical points in life's long history. They might say that proteins are too darn complicated to have arisen by natural selection alone. This kind of assertion drives rationalists crazy, because it is impossible to refute by a critical experiment. There will always be another protein, another example of that supposed extra, guiding ingredient.

The problem for scientists is that when this additional design factor is added it serves only to suppress questions - and science is all about tackling questions head-on. Why should we spend money on setting up experiments to simulate the creation of the first living cell if the motive force was a "designer"? No experiment can detect such metaphysical seasoning in the primeval soup.

Science has always been about tackling new areas of knowledge, with theory and experiment interacting creatively . If God's influence is invoked for any breakthrough in life's story, research is simply stopped dead in its tracks: no point in investigating further. ID therefore becomes a brake on discovery, not a way of enriching it.

In my view, God has overly got mixed into the argument. Scientists are often presented as the champions of atheism. This is typified by Richard Dawkins' views of theistic "delusion". Although I might agree with much of what Dawkins has to say, it might be that his almost theological espousal of atheism has served to up the stakes in the ID debate. In fact, there are many world-class scientists who are also believers. But they also believe that God should not be introduced into the explanation of nature. Scientists of my generation remember the meretricious attractions of Tielhard de Chardin and his noosphere, the idea that the end of evolution is a kind of super-consciousness: not one scientific hypothesis of worth was generated from this metaphysical mayhem.

A worthwhile theory always suggests new lines of investigation, and on this criterion Darwinism has passed with flying colours. Field and laboratory studies helping us to understanding how evolution works are beyond counting. The behaviour of Darwin's finches on the Galapagos Islands has been studied for decades. A million generations of fruit flies have given up their lives to unravel the mysteries of the expression of genes. In the process many debates have opened up - like the relative importance of sex or geography in generating new species. This does not mean that Darwin is in trouble. It just means that the science is still vigorous, that understanding is honed progressively.

So that is why biologists get so mad at the propagation of ID. It wastes time. It suppresses research rather than encouraging it. It's not really a theory, it's a story. It deflects the young from asking the important questions. It serves to kill curiosity rather than encourage it. Sometimes it is right to get angry in the face of unreason. Darwinists are readily labelled. There should be an equivalent term for the proponents of Intelligent Design. May I suggest IDiots?


Richard Fortey, President Of The Geological Society Of London, will celebrate his Michael Faraday Prize on Tuesday 30th January with a lecture and an event at the Royal Society organised by The Daily Telegraph, the Society and Novartis. The prize is the UK's foremost award for communicating science to public audiences - previous winners include Richard Dawkins, David Attenborough, Susan Greenfield and Robert Winston.
Richard Fortey's Faraday lecture will be webcast that day at 5:30pm at www.royalsoc.ac.uk/webcasts, from where it will also be available to watch on demand later.





-- Modified on 2/2/2007 9:15:25 PM

-- Modified on 2/2/2007 9:20:53 PM

Basic philosophy of science: any hypothesis that is in essence untestable is not a scientific hypothesis.  Any claim that such-and-such phenomena is "too complicated" to have happened through  any process other than the direct intervention of God is, perforce, not a scientific hypothesis, since it cannot be tested empirically.

Similarly, null hypothesis cannot be directly tested.  For example, one cannot say that the moon is the ONLY force acting on the ocean in such a way as to induce tides.  One would have to be able to "rule out" ALL other possible hypotheses by empirical test; for example, God might be running the tides, there may be invisible beings from Planet XXYQZ that are trying to steal the ocean's water , but they are foiled every time by Intergalactic Police from Planet JBEBK.

The discomfort so many people feel with the scientific theory of life is very well articulated in Dan Brown's book "Angels and Demons", where the camerlengo Carlo Ventresca eloquently makes a case for the need of a guiding spiritual presence in a world where our sense of humanity is being undermined by the lack of values of science.

Not that I agree with the camerlengo.  But I do understand the revulsion that many people have to the apparent lack of spirituality in science, compounded by the chaos, uncertainty, and fear that living in our society so readily induces.  I live among such people.

Unfortunately, too many scientists go out on a limb to argue against the existence of God on so-called "scientific grounds".  Since that hypothesis is not empirically testable, it is not scientifically legitimate.  It is rather much like a person who was born blind saying that light cannot exist because he can't see it.

It is indeed unfortunate that more people can't be introduced to the writings of highly literate and open-minded scientist such as Lewis Thomas, Loren Eiseley, Steven Jay Gould, Richard Feinman, and Rachel Carson.  Such people bring out the deep humility and humanity of science by combining literary artistry and the magical beauty of science.

Insofar as Teilhard de Chardin is concerned, it seems to be forgotten that he was a Jesuit priest and not an empirical scientist.It is commonly assumed by scientists that, because psychic phenomena can neither be explained nor examined by any methods of science developed to date, such phenomena are delusions, or artifacts of ignorance, or even evolutionary mechanisms to help us cope with our own inadequacies.  But being blind to psychic phenomena does not mean they don't exist.

As you might expect, there are certainly many scientists who have had such experiences, but are unwilling to give in to the airheads who come up with all kinds of fairy tales about angels, guiding spirits, and/or the wonders of the coming New Age.  Since scientists disdain the psychic and most religious figures are either totally ignorant of them or see them as threats to their control of their flocks, there is little room for reasonable discourse on the subject.  The focus of many religions on prayer has the effect of redirecting the psychic capabilities of most people into "safe" channels.

They don't publish any work in scientific journals; they don't make any predictions and test their notion as a scientific theory.  It's not a conspiracy that scientific journals don't publish their papers; Creationists just don't submit anything.  It's unlike Einstein, who got training within his field and then upended it through his original work.  Creationists are outside the field trying to suppress or at least dilute scientific findings.    

They treat it as scriptural dogma that is equally important as the science.  They can easily hold their own "workshops" outside of the schools to give their points of view.  In fact, they do.  The fact that scientists don't, as that would be treating evolution as a religion, means there is no "equal time" to it.  

I refuse to use the term "intelligent design."  I refuse to call Creationism a theory.  "Intelligent Design" is a euphemism for something that has already been discredited many times over.    


-- Modified on 2/3/2007 11:51:42 AM

. . . and insisting that the creation fable must be true because otherwise your version of spiritualism doesn't work.  

A supreme being in the universe is a viable hypothesis, though not that I believe.  

The Biblical character of Jehovah/Yahweh, is not a viable hypothesis, however.  It's not that whether there's a God or spiritual realm that we've yet to scientifically detect, it is a matter of insisting on a very specific God with very specific personality and with specific commands for behavior-- the foremost being a belief in Him.  

-- Modified on 2/3/2007 11:53:23 AM

And that's the main point for me.  These fellows play fast and loose with the word "theory" and try to fob themselves off as scientists.  They are not.  Which is why I don't get heavily into this argument, as there's no point to it.  

They are free to try to pass of their religous dogma as science.  I'm free to point out that they're knowingly trying to pull the wool over our eyes.  And, using appropriate examples where necessary to illustrate my point, to leave it at that.

I have no problem with people being possessed of faith.  I have no problem with people tying to win adherents to their faith POV.  I part company when faith is fobbed off as science. [I'd be interested to know what percentage of scientists are active in their various religious denomination].

Just as we've tried to maintain a seperation of church and state, we need to remember to maintain a seperation of church and lab.  

...if you assume that the supreme being has any traits that don't manifest in an objectively observable fashion.  Lacking transcendant traits, it is hard to see how a "supreme being" could, in fact, be ontologically prior.

Or that it will forever be untestable.  

However, a hypothesis that cannot be tested and cannot be observed is useless from a scientific standpoint; it might as well be a work of fiction.  As hypotheses go, believing that there is a god is  a guess and not a very educated one either, but somebody can always win the lottery.

Even so, a conscious, minded process might have created this universe as far as anybody could tell.  

The thing that is testable, though, is whether the supreme being described in the Bible could be that supreme being.  The answer would be an unambiguous no.    



-- Modified on 2/3/2007 10:59:07 PM

I also see the arguments of young-earth types as foolish, but possible... When I consider the potential abilities of a being [the "creator"]with the power and wisdom to bring the universe and all that is in it into existance, then I'm humbled in his presence and certain that it is beyond my grasp to comprehend his time-line or methods... "Only the fool says in his heart there is no God"...

I am fine with intelligent design - although it can never be "proven"!  same as evolution...

As both a card carrying Christian and Scientist (although I am in recovery for that) I believe in both... but do I loose sleep over it?  no Do I teach both to my kids? yes.  Do I get upset if Evolution is taught in school?  No, as long as they do not say so, "this proves that all your religious teachings are wrong"!  cause know what - they don't.

Of course: inability to test a hypothesis is no indicator of its truth.  I would NOT, however, describe all hypotheses concerning the existence of a god as "not very educated guesses".  I have known a number of highly educated people who are deeply spiritual and convinced of the existence of a supreme being --- or supreme beingS, as the case may be.  I wonder if you have ever read any truly sophisticated discussions on the meaning of any given religion.

I personally have little patience for literal interpretations of scripture.  It seems abundantly clear to me that the primary mode of writing is mythological, not diachronic.  (As the anthropologist Maya Daren once put it, "Myths are facts of the mind made manifest in fictions of matter.")  This is, in great part, the average mind is not prepared to deal with direct contact with spiritual experience.  So we invent instructional fictions in hopes of evoking spiritual experience in our audience.  Too many people make the mistake of assuming that the fiction is fact.

Even the Bible warns us against this confusion.  In many places "God" is described as unknowable, myserious, etc., etc.  Even one of the ten commandments warns us to make no graven images.  Yet the entirety of the Bible seems to do precisely that: it gives us a seemingly intimate portrait of God in quite explicit terms.

Why? One reason, I suspect, is that the images of God presented there were images that the audience of the Bible could understand, could think through (not just blindly memorize and regurgitate), and apply.

It is worth noting that "God" has many names in the Old Testament --- which, among other things, informs us that "he" can manifest in many different ways, that "he" is not a monolithic entity.  Indeed, it suggests that "he" is, in fact, archetypal

I have a lot of trouble believing in a God who made the world a few thousand years ago in such a way as to incorporate lots and lots of evidence for its being much older than that.  At the very least it would seem to make Him duplicitous and maybe even a little sadistic.  I do NOT say there is "no God", but I DO believe that He is honest, and that the history of the world we see IS evidence of the way the world has grown up.  The trick is trying to find out how evolutionary theory reveals His glory, to put it in Christian terms.

-- Modified on 2/4/2007 12:22:25 PM

Infact, in the Biblical account, the created "firmament and waters" could easly refer to the common elements of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, and as his "spirit" hovered over those waters and seperated them into earth, sky and heavens, billions of years could have passed...

Infact, "The Sun and Moon" weren't put into synco-orbit until the 3rd day, and until they were recoganized in scripture, there was no measure of time in this solar-system... But, like I said before, it's I decided to accept that he created it by "faith", not evidence... He left plenty of ways in the creation-account to view his methods on different time-tables,...

I have to laugh at the young-earther, Let's group them in with the flat-earth society as purposing to remain foolish...  

Evolution has a few elements of truth, but it breaks down anytime we try and apply it to man-kind... It seems "logical" to assume we might just be a truely "unique" species on this planet, whereas all other "evolved-life" simply developed over the billions of years prior to God creating us as "Adam" and placing us in the garden... THe story is more of a "parable" than a scientific account... And from what we know of "God incarnate" [Jesus] He loved to explain things in parables, I don't see why he would have done any different when he told these stories to Moses, who was a highly educated man at that time, being educated by the Egyptians. However, we know that by todays standards he was a simplton, and the creation-story had to be relayed in a way a simplton could grasp...

Contrary to your belief, there is a VERY large amount of evidence concerning the evolution of man --- both physical and psychological.  If  you wish, I can cite a few of the many sources for my assertion.  What evidence do you have that evolution CANNOT be applied to humans?

God indicated he made all birds of the air, creatures of the deep, and animals of the earth in one broad-brushing creative stroke [evolution?]

But he paused, then made "man in his own image"...

I merely "believe" that we are a unique being on this planet, I'm aware of the theories out there that are presented as "proof" to counter the notion...

Still, by being "soulish creatures" such as we are, we posess a unique perspective to creation and life that no other functioning animal even approaches on the smallest level... That is evidence enough for me. (I still seek sex like an animal, I'm open to the possiblity that humans are a type of "hybrid"...)

The fact is that none of us can be educated right now as to the origins of this universe because we are all pretty much blind about it.  The most educated will say there was a Big Bang, which as it turns out, was no bang at all.  For that time and for right now, there is no apparent intelligence to it.  

I have to correct you.  There can be no "supreme beings."  Supreme means the one at the top.  Logically, there can be only one of those.  For polytheism, there are "super beings."

I am an atheist and an anti-spiritualist.  You have a higher estimation of the Bible than I do.  "An intimate portrait of God?"  Seemingly, because this is far different than a graven image.  Explicit terms?  What it shows is a vain, arrogant, murderous, autocratic, and idiot God which is then recast quite against his character into a benevolent one. The commandment on no graven images is impossible and impractical.    

People don't make the mistake of assuming the fiction is fact, they do it quite deliberately because otherwise the teachings don't work for them.  

What the multiplicity of names suggests is that the idea of a single God evolved from polytheistic religions.  "Elohim" was plural for a pantheon of deities worshiped at the time the first scriptures were made.  It's embarrassing for monotheists, because it's plural, and it occurs about 1,500 times in the first 5 books.  The pantheon also included such "brothers" to Yahweh as Mammon and Baal.  

What happened was, as the priests imposed monotheism, they promoted El, the chief among them, to Supreme Being, and composited the rest of the deities into him.  El-Shaddai, for instance was very specific deity.  So were the rest of the "names" of God, who were actually once different gods.  

Interesting to note: the word Israel looks itself to have been formed of the names of three Gods.  Isis, Ra, and El.

There is really nothing "archetypal" about it.  The Torah shows the seams of an evolution from polytheism to monotheism.  Those "many names of God" are a holdover from that-- and an excuse for why the scriptures show a pantheon rather than one God.    

to monotheism, my point was that the end result was a god of many facets, NOT the monolith so many fundamentalists assume he is.  By the way, the plural ending of "elohim" has been interpreted as being much like the royal "we".  (I involved the Bible primarily because even IT cautions against literal interpretations.  Why else are there TWO accounts of the creation in Genesis?)

I was rather surprised by your assertion that people assume the fiction is fact because "otherwise the teachings don't work for them."  There are a lot of Christians around who do NOT believe in the literal truth of the Bible, but who read it at a more sophisticated level.  Unfortunately, they tend to be as silent as peace-loving muslims these days --- but they are out there.

I would also challenge your assertion that there was no apparent intelligence to the Big Bang.  While we are nowheres close to a complete picture yet, the progression from "Big Bang" to our solar system, and the progression of life on our planet DOES seem to be the consequences of underlying laws of physics and chemistry.  Nonequilibrium thermodynamics has gone a long way toward showing us how living systems could have developed from abiotic soups.  While you may not wish to equate lawful behavior of the universe to an a priori intelligence, it certainly seems to have provided the context within which intelligence could evolve.

You both base what you claim on reverse studied hypothesis that fills in several blanks with what you consider to be now-known truths! NONSENSE!

You assume alot of "spiritual aether" to make the arguments of your observations connect! If you took the very same arguments but reversed the premise from "there is no God, and this is why", to a pre-concluded stance of "There is a God and this is how he brought a belief-system of himself into being through a lost and wicked people" it would hold up equally well!

The only reason you both so smuggly conclude that Judaism/Christianity is not TRUTH, is because you both have preconcluded in your hearts that there is no God! (At least not the God known as "Elohei Yitzchak ve Elohei Ya`aqov")

Fools! (IMHO, of course, lol!)




-- Modified on 2/5/2007 11:57:29 AM

For proof, look at Psalm 82 where God addresses his brother and sister Elohim.  "Are you not Gods?  Are you not all sons of El, Most High?"  It's in that very Psalm that God takes the place of El as the most high.  Strangely enough, he doesn't mention Jesus or the Holy Spirit amongst all those other Gods.  

Rather than "it has been interpreted, the better phrase might be "they've tried to explain . . ."

You misunderstand me saying that believers assume fiction is fact because it otherwise doesn't work for them.  I wrote it to mean some believers: the ones who then become fundamentalists.  They can't handle the dissonance of it.  For them, a perfect God would be very explicit in where he came from, what he did and what He wants.  

There's an immediate logic to this, but it leads  directly to absurdities.  These absurdities are then interpreted as tests of faith, since such a believer has concluded that God judges him foremost on his belief.  

I consider this "belief ethic" to be the most corrupt and mind warping part of monotheism:  no longer is belief just a mental process, it's a mystical process that's supposed to save you.

On your third point, looking back in this universe as far as we can, we have no explicit perception of God. That is what I meant.  The existence of order and physical laws is misinterpreted as evidence of this.  

To say that there's order in the universe misses the fact that by far the vast part of it is chaotic.  IMO, that shows that order is simply a special kind of chaos.  Corollary: chaos can exist without order, but order can't exist without chaos.

Some other things follow from this.  One thing is: unminded processes can give rise to minded ones, not because there's any purpose to it.  

Another is that the human kind can perceive order and perceive laws because that's exactly what our minds have evolved to do, but we are extremely poor at dealing with chaos.  

You presume to know what I believe and what I don't believe.  In fact, I DO believe in a higher power, BUT I also know that no one belief system can entirely catch his/her essence.  That is why I used the term "archetypal" in a previous message.  The fact that I don't have EXACTLY the same beliefs as you do does NOT mean I have no beliefs.

Since you are so Biblical, may I remind you of Jesus' statement "Whosoever shall say to another 'Thou fool' is in danger of hell fire".

While I am at it, what exactly is "spiritual aether"?  Exactly what is a "reverse studied hypothesis"?  Are you threatened by the fact that Zinaval and I know enough archeology to present facts that you apparently want to ignore?

You imply that Judaism/Christianity is TRUTH --- by your capitalization, I assume you mean absolute, LITERAL truth.  Is that what you are saying, Ben?  If not, you've got a nasty little job to separate out what IS absolute Truth in the Bible from all of the Untruths.  You have made no argument that addresses what either of us said.  Throwing out a lot of terminological obfuscation won't gain you any points with us.

מזמור לאסף אלהים
נצב בעדת־אל בקרב
אלהים ישפט׃

"God" [Actually, King David, speaking of God, not quoting God] is NOT refering to them in any form of kinship, or as to them being parallel-gods to himself... The Bible is "Polytheistic", and refers to many gods as being real and possesing "power", but their is a supreme-being that predates them all, and out-shadows them in omnipotence... This is the point you are not factoring in...  That Psalm you quote is missing the "ישפט׃" from the second "god" in reference and that implies "sub-creator" status... Perhaps arch-angelic in lore, but hardly "Gods" in the proper sense...

I would remind you that the book of Psalms is NOT a part of the Pentateuch; they are songs of David.  It is true that "Elohim" is has a masculine root and a feminine plural ending;.  I have had discussions with Jewish people about the feminine aspects of God, and, for the most part, Shekinah --- the bride of the sabbath --- is considered to be a feminine emanation of God.  (She is, by the way, the only pure feminine name attributed to YHVH.)  Why, by the way, does it surprise you that neither Jesus nor the Holy Spirit are mentioned in that psalm?  After all, David WAS a product of his times.

I suspected you might have been referring to fundamentalists in your comment about people taking fiction for fact.  I agree with you completely on that point.

Furthermore, I never ascribed any purpose to the creation of the universe: it simply happened.  WHAT has happened subsequently is a direct consequence of the structure of that universe, and needs no higher being to explain the outcome.  Whether there is, in fact, an immanent being that transcends the universe is another matter entirely.

Finally, you claim that the vast part of the universe is chaotic.  I would appreciate you giving me a somewhat more detailed description of what chaos is.  Do you mean that in the sense of entropy?  Or do you have another definition in mind?

I'm not lumping you and zin as both "athiests"... I'm saying that you are discrediting "The God of the jews" as not being the God of the universe... I accept that you believe in a "higher power", as I accept that zin believe in no such power... You BOTH share in folly that the Jews must have it wrong and their religion is merely a patch-quilt of other ancient mystical notions... That is the point I'm arguing...

(Yes, I am asserting and implying that "Judaism/Christianity" is infact "TRUTH" [ie.,"absolute, LITERAL truth"] BUT! I am not asserting that it is represented as such a truth the wat it is desplayed in "King's English"... I further assert that only a FOOL attempts to read a "Bible" as a "book", it is 66 seperate writings, comprised of "TRUTH" and balanced by tentioned-opinions from a variety of authors over thousands of years, but infact "the cradle-of-TRUTH" is buried within, that I know, but only present for discussion as an opinion (perhaps not so humbly...)

You say on the one hand that the Bible is LITERAL truth.  But then you say that the "cradle-of-TRUTH" is [somehow] buried within".  Either it is literally true or it is not.  Which is it, Ben?

Not everything is as black-and-white as you make it.  I am conceding that there is a great deal of truth in Judaism and in Christianity --- as seen through HUMAN eyes of particular people in particular times and places.  There is, however, a big difference between being a pointer to truth and a set of pointers to truth on the one hand, and being a literally true document in all of its details.  ALL great religions contain partial and incomplete images of the Supreme Being; it is a pity that people kill one another because they are too arrogant and small-minded to see the greater reality.

... I think that is part of the difficulty the Psalmist had as well...

God was never a male OR a female! And neither was the first "Adam", prior to God seperating "Adam" into two, distinct "genders" there was no purposed procreation... "Man" was not a "Male" in the begining, the "maleness" came in a form of de-evolution that "God" engineered into his created-being "Adam" during the time he was in "deep sleep"[perhaps millions of years?? The Bible is a fablistic story telling a course of God's creation, NOT a literal account!]

New testimate teaching helps illistrate this in Galations: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" [don't get hung up on the use of "Jesus Christ" in this text, it means something entirely diffrent in the origional language] It is a misunderstanding to read the words "Jesus Christ" as though it's a proper name in this particular placement in the Bible... It is a refrence-phrase to the fulfillment of "Old-testiment-redemtion" and the drawing of the created-being (us) back unto the creator(God)... NOT a refrence to the man of the times "Yeshua Ben Yosef", who was the "man" who taught this principle! [I'm not saying that "Yeshua" was not "God's son", I'm just saying that it's not the point that was being refrenced to the people of Galalee, to whom the letter was being penned!]  

Whew! Try having THAT discussion with a Baptist preacher! I get treated worse and called worse names than I do on this board, lol!

Your mystical reading of the passage in Galatians is certainly NOT a literal reading.  (Unless, of course, you mean something else by the word.)  But doesn't your "purism" lead you into trouble with the notion of the Trinity?  Either we CAN address Christ in prayer --- in which case He obviously has a name --- or we CANNOT (which violates a lot of what the church today stands for).

I am aware of the distinction between the historical Jesus and the Christ-force he ix said to have embodied.  To that degree, I agree with your point.  That, however, has nothing to do with seeing God in human (only) terms.

"Literal" is more your word than mine, but you automatically imply that it is a "fable" once you deny it's "literalness"... It is possible to have both working in unison, and not disproved by default as you and zin both imply from diffrent angles... (ie., "you are both wrong", lol!)

Judaism and Christianity are merely the "alpha and omega" of God's plan, told from diffrent cultures, diffrent milliniums, written in diffrent base-languages, and from a multitude of diffrent authors (often within the same book even!) In many of the books of the Bible the "story" that was written spans hundreds of years in the same paragraph! And was on occation written by several generations of a scribe's decendants, but "the Church" so often reads it as though it's a cover-to-cover "love-letter" from God written exclusivly to them, it exactly the point in history they are reading it!

I continue to assert my original premise that it is "TRUTH", but does require a bit of study of the times and cultures that recorded it to reveal the cord-of-truth that spans 6,000 years [unbroken!]

I have heard it said that God is neither female nor male.  That, of course, is why he is referred to as "Our Father".  That is why all the names of God in the Old Testament are grammatically masculine (save one: Shekinah, who has become the bride of the Sabbath).  That is why God is always pictured with a nice beard.  That is why the pronoun referring to God is ALWATS "he".  That is why the Catholic church will not ordain women to the priesthood.  That is why women in Jewish temples are supposed to sit in a balcony away from the men.  That is why Lilith --- the FIRST wife of Adam --- was demonized because she insisted on being treated equally with Adam.

I'm sorry: I just don't buy your argument that the Biblical God was never male.  The church has almost ALWAYS been a bastion of male chauvinism.  Just WHERE are the feminine aspects of God dwelt upon in the Bible?

I also don't see how the passage you cite from Galatians relates to the "de-evolution" that "God" engineering into his created-being Adam".  Perhaps you could clarify?

...in ways they can understand.  Consequently, the "God" we humans can envision is made more in our OWN image and that of our culture.  I am quite sure that "God" is not in the least troubled by that; it is only the insecure and arrogant humans who cling to claims of knowing the One and Only True God in precisely THEIR terms.

I would further suggest that God, being immanent and transcendant, is independent of any particular attribute --- and existence is an attribute.  Hence, for those who believe he/she doesn't exist, perhaps, for them, he/she doesn't exist.

I am reminded of the marvelous statement Nikos Kazantzakis made in his "Report to Greco": "We must give God solidity lest he perish, so that he can give us solidity lest we perish."

I still stand by that the clearest picture we have of the true God is through the Hebrews ancient accounts... But in reading it, it's important to consider they wrote it from the inside looking out, and we are reading it from the outside looking in... Much of what was "culture" at the time was used "decriptively", in the same way we often decribe "awsomeness" in comparitive terms... It is challenging to decribe "first encounters" when words don't yet exist to convey the actual occurances or the thoughts one has when remembering the occurances... But it isn't impossible to decypher when God is being qouted from when he is beind decribed... However it must be IMPOSSILE for a Catholic to decypher these diffrences, thus they have ended with such a mistical and mis-guided religion because of these thing... But they have their own internal problems from centuries of witholding the translation of truth from the people... A whole diffrent toppic of religiously confused..

When God created "Adam", he was a "man", yet he was not yet male or female, he was a "complete" being in the likeness of God. Then God seperated "man" into two being, from "one flesh", thus "male and female" became distinct, yet God still remained as he was prior...

Then the Adam & Eve became "wise" to the things of the world (The unique concousness that humans have over all other creatures) And after that "enlightenment" Man became "mortal"...(cast from the garden, and started reproducing in the same sexual way the animals do... I can relate, I fuck like a rabid animal, lol!)

"God" never devolved as Adam did, and there is no "female" of God since none was ever seperated off from him. He is a "complete" being, the term "Father" and the male refrences to him throughout the Bible are due to the pre-fallen, pre-seperated name God gave the created Adam of "MAN"... Not the "male gendered" implication of a breeder or sperm-donor...  God has no genitals...

The problem is what you quoted there is not the original message either. It's a mistake to think that just because it's in Hebrew, it is the original text.  

I think the subtlety you cite was edited in by the Pharisees-- who despite Biblical claims, did not rise to power till the third century CE.  That is when they took a mess of scriptures and ancient writings, edited them, put them in order, and brought high standards to their transcribing.  However, they edited the scripture to bring it into line with their own interpretation.    

Now, prior to that, The Torah and the majority of those scriptures were oral traditions for centuries before they were written down.  Scribes were scarce, good ones in an unstable area like ancient Palestine were rarer than blood diamonds.  Plus, there were several dialects in that diaspora, and the one that has been finally formalized and written probably has little resemblance to any of the ones actually spoken.  

Not to mention that some important parts, like the creation story and some of the Psalms, were translated from Egyptian and Babylonian.  

Moreover, you have noticed that Hebrew is written in a defective script?  No vowels.  Well, that introduces confusions right there.  It also indicates that what they found for scribes in Palestine were not competent ones.

If you're going to concede that God allows people to mis-translate and otherwise corrupt his message, why would he not have allowed it before the scriptures were written down?  

In fact, you have to wonder why a perfect being such as God would require any human intervention to process his message?  Why not just treat us all like Moses?  Deliver his words personally to all of us and skip the middlemen?  

The answer is: because some middlemen were playing God and making out very well doing it.  
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

-- Modified on 2/6/2007 10:12:30 AM

Look at the names of God given in the Old Testament.  Be aware that those were pagan Deities in the Elohim pantheon (and Elohim is named specifically).  Among Gods in that pantheon was Baal (Ba-el).

Here are the names God introduces himself as:

El Shaddai-- meaning "god of the mountain."
El Elyon-- "most high god"
El Roi-- God of vision"
El Sabaoth-- "God of Heavenly Host" (meaning heavenly general)

These are just a few.

The problem is they are all subordinate to the supreme God El.  That's a very specific character.  The pantheon was a very common one amongst the Babylonian, Phoenician, Aramaic, Canaanite, Arabic and Hebrew people.  

You talk about my premises, Ben, no the problem is not that I have rejected God in my heart.  If I could find God among those ancient ruins I'd accept it.  I insist on disciplined honesty about it.  It means I don't cheat just so I can believe.  

When you insist that the only good stand to take about it is: "There is a God and this is how he brought a belief system of himself into being  through a lost and wicked people" this is not a simple reverse of atheism.  You've adopted a very specific belief.  The only way to arrive at it is through a corruption of belief.  

You're basically saying: "I have to believe in God, otherwise I'm going to hell.  So my mission is to believe in God and then find proof."      

I feel no such obligation, Ben.  Belief neither saves nor damns me as far as I'm concerned.  It is just a mental process and has no mystical function.  

So, who is being impartial here Ben?  I might look at the evidence and find god there and then  believe there's a god.  

However, you will never look at the evidence and disbelieve.  In all truth, you will never look at the evidence without then pushing yourself to believe.  Which of us would be open-minded here?

If you have to make yourself believe because you fear punishment or expect gain, you're corrupt.  You're mental process is corrupt. I know saying that turns the basis of faith on its head, but I'll say it.  

Riddle me this: why would God (and I'm talking about a Supremo) be concerned about whether you believe in Him or not, or whether you believe he exists?

Second Riddle: what kind of being would have that kind of fixation?  

Answer to the second: a fiction might insist on being regarded as fact.  It sounds like an absurdity, but only if you don't consider the people who are selling the fiction and who might want to boost sales.

The Bible: Starring Jehovah

Based on a True Story.  

. . .just as the authorship of the gospels are, but of course, for the Psalms, that is just IMHO.  The authorship aside, the Psalm is still an account of its time and it notes the split between Judaism and the rest of the cult of El.  Yahweh is invited to a council of El-- it implies that at the time of the authorship, he was considered part of the Pantheon.  What is depicted here seems to be more a son of El telling the rest of the family that he is losing patience with them-- and they were an unruly bunch. Among El's sons, BTW, was Ba'el, Yahweh's arch-enemy.

Interesting to note: some minor gods in that pantheon later resurfaced as Archangels.  Micha-el.  Rapha-el, Asra-el.  

You digress to gender questions of God here.  Elohim has a feminine plural simply because it means "Children of El," or perhaps "Immediate Family of El."  El was the main God of that pantheon, which was worshiped all over that region, including by many factions of the Hebrews, at least.  Yahweh was originally a god in that pantheon, who the Hebrews first promoted to being the "real" El and then he was made the only real God of that pantheon-- when they made him into a War god.      

Shekinah: I have not heard the name before.  However, it looks like it might be the Hebrew form of the name Sophia, who I do know of in the role of the feminine "aspect" of God.  Her name means Wisdom from Greek, and Wisdom is the way she's written about in Proverbs. However, her "real" name was considered so powerful that it couldn't be mentioned or written without magical consequences, so just like Yahweh's really, where nobody knows how it was really pronounced, they substituted the Greek.  The results: nobody knows her original name now.

Her history, however, is very interesting.  El had a consort, an unruly slut named Asherah-- who was a goddess of fertility represented by the moon.  Worship of her was suppressed when monotheism was imposed, and Jeremiah wrote about this.  Since turning El into Yahweh essentially made Him sexually chaste and even prudish, they did need a feminine "aspect."  That is to say, somebody better behaved than Asherah. Sophia was promoted to that role, but at most, it was a grudging concession by the priests to popular demand.  Hence, she is now known only as an "emanation," not a wife, and then very quietly.  

Now about no mention of Christ or the Holy Spirit: It's an argument against a Christian interpretation of the Old Testament. If the Old Testament recognizes other Gods but doesn't then mention the Trinity, or even Jesus being at his right hand, this says that the whole "surprise" was not yet in the wings.  

Chaos: within the somewhat orderly dance of the planets, there are asteroids following their own chaotic drift.  Between the solar systems, there is disorganized hydrogen atoms, not to mention dark matter.  Within the entire universe, there are a quadrillion quadrillion neutrinos which whiz around fragmented.  

Chaos is literally things which follow no pattern.  Order is the number 3, a rational number.  Chaos is the square root of three which follows the initial law of a square root, but then gives a progression of random numbers.  Such a number cannot even be counted.  We can't perceive it when it occurs.  Yet its obeying the same "law" applied to the square root of 4.  Even among numbers, there are far, far more irrational ones than there are rational ones.  

It's apparent that integers are just a small orderly part of a disorderly system.  It implies that order is a tiny, rare phenomenon that occurs within chaos.