The Appeal of Atheism

The following is by Andres (a friend on myspace). Originally posted here.

“Religion, opium for the people! To those suffering pain, humiliation, illness, and serfdom, it promised a reward in afterlife. And now we are witnessing a transformation. A true opium of the people is the belief in nothingness after death. The huge solace of thinking that for our betrayals, greed, cowardice, murders, we are not going to be judged.”- Czeslaw Milosz

“Don’t ever ask me to rob a man of his religious belief, as if you thought my mind tended to such robbery. I have too profound a conviction of the efficacy which underlies all sincere faith, and the blight that comes with no faith, to have any negative propagandism in me. In fact I have very little sympathy with Freethinkers as a class, and have lost all interest in mere antagonisms to religious doctrines. I care to know, if possible, the lasting meaning which lies in all religious doctrines from the beginning till now.”- George Eliot

"Feuerbach argued that humanity constructed its own religious ideals for its convenience and consolation; in Milozs’ argument, we can see the recognition that both belief in God and a refusal to believe in God are themselves the result of human longings; the former a consolation and a longing for immortality, and the latter a longing for autonomy and a lack of accountability. Both are opiums of the people, different groups of people, but both needing their respective opiums." McGrath

Should Atheism designate those who positively reject belief in God, or should it also refer to those who do not at the moment actually believe in supernatural beings? Does atheism embrace all those who are still thinking about God and those who regard the question as insoluble (i.e. agnostics)? The college graduate who has suspended judgment on God while he/she reflects on the issues cannot be designated an atheist for that reason, she might be a potential atheist, but might equally end up as an agnostic or Christian. Is it acceptable to call a person an atheist because they do not presently believe in God? Atheism is not about the suspension of judgment on the God question; it is a firm and principled commitment to the non-existence of God, and the liberating impact of this belief. The very idea is declared to be outdated, enslaving, and a downright self-contradiction. At its best and most authentic, atheism is a protest, a protest against the social and personal injustices often linked with religion and certain of its ideas in the past, which are held to be reactionary, oppressive, or even demonic. How can you not respect atheism on these points?

'Do we not all share a hatred for belief in falsities? Of dated ethical codes that seemingly lead to violence, fanaticism, paranoia, hatred, and self-loathing? In essence however, these are the very same things that the very faith I was raised in spoke out against. How can two worldviews with passions so strongly alike, come to such diametrically opposed conclusions? One need not be an unbeliever to hate these things, but it seems like anti-religious propagandists will make you believe you have to shed all belief in God in order to gain a new appreciation for nature, a ‘true’ appreciation. Like Dawkins says, isn’t it enough to enjoy the beauty of a garden, without worrying about the fairies at the bottom? We all want for the same things; the Bible speaks of a new Earth in which every tear will be wiped out, where there will be no hunger, no thirst, and no needs. Similarly, a common theme in books writen by the new atheists devote the last chapters to describing a near utopian vision of the world. A world where disease is no longer rampant, through science, where hunger is no longer a problem, via genetic manipulation of the world’s crops, and where no man shall slay another man.

Atheism and Theism both seem to appeal to our human aspirations, they appeal to our sense that things aren’t the way they ought to be. They appeal to our hopes of a better world, a utopian world, whether physical or metaphysical, where past wrongs will be corrected, and life can be lived as it was meant to. The difference it seems, is how to define how exactly it is that life is meant to be lived. To some, let’s say, the lovers of reason, life is lived to the fullest when it is free of superstition, of ideas that enslave the mind, of living up to the wise aspect of our biological name Homo (wise) Sapiens (man). Aristotle believed the purpose of all things was to fulfill their ‘telos’, or their designed, to fulfill their purpose. To him, that purpose was being rational, it was to fulfill our duties as rational beings by acting in accord to reason. On the other side, we have those who take a different look of humanity, we do not place ourselves in a pedestal, that is, instead of looking at ourselves as divine creatures of our own accord, we look up at the author of our being as the only one capable of filling the gap. As the one whom our sense of alienation from this world points towards. Can’t there be both? Can’t we live a life committed to the principle that ‘the unexamined life is not worth living’, while recognizing that there may be something beyond the empirical realm that is the source of our hunger?

"For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust. The supporters of these systems claimed that in some way they embodied the meaning (A Christian meaning, they insisted) of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and at the same time justifying ourselves in our political and erotical revolt: we could deny that the world had any meaning whatsoever.”- Aldous Huxley

What exactly is the appeal of atheism then? To some, it may be in its proposal to eradicate religion. As Allister McGrath points out

“If atheism had represented itself simply as commending the merits of a godless worldview, I would not have been attracted to it- and neither would many others. Its lure lay in its proposal to change the world rather than to create a little club of the godless in the midst of a religious world. As Karl Marx had pointed out many years earlier, philosophers had merely offered interpretations of the world; what was really needed was a transformation. The atheist vision was totalizing-a panoramic view of a society that had been liberated from its chief enemy and oppressor, whether that was defined as God or religion.”

When religion, at least in America, seems to be more concerned about popular political elections, about whether or not gays should be allowed to marry, whether or not they should be allowed to adopt a child, and about denying well established scientific truths such as Global Warming and Evolution, there is no doubt as to why some would see it as a tremendous step forward for humanity were religion to be eradicated. Second,

“atheism seemed to make a certain degree of sense to things. If there was no God, then life was what we chose to make of it. It was, in some ways, a rather bleak philosophy of life- but if it was right, who cared? Having read Camus and Sartre, I had come to the view that there was a real integrity, not to mention a certain degree of bravery, in embracing such an austere philosophy, which contrasted rather pleasingly with what I regarded as the superstitious delusions of Christianity. To my slightly confused way of thinking, the bleaker an outlook, the greater the chance of its being right in the first place.”

It seems to me like there is also another appeal to Atheism, and that is ‘protest atheism’. Not an intellectual rebellion against belief, but a moral rebellion.

“In the brothers Karamazov, one of the brothers, Ivan, acts as a spokesperson for those who question the coherence of traditional Christian belief. Ivan’s criticisms are directed not so much against God as against the world that God is alleged to have created. How can one believe in God, when the created order itself seems riddled with injustice and contradiction? A refusal to believe in God is the appropriate principled response to the inequities of the world, and the God who is alleged to have brought it into being, yet such a response seems curiously distant from the world’s sorrow and pain. Raging against injustice, Ivan asks Alyosha to imagine a shocking scene. An eight year old child accidentally bruises the leg of a general’s favorite beagle. Outraged, the general sets a pack of dogs upon the child, who is torn to pieces in front of his mother. What’s the justice in that, asks Ivan? How can anyone sing “You are just and true, O God, for your ways are made clear”? Ivan continues: I hasten to return my entry ticket. And if I am at all an honest man, I am obliged to return it as soon as possible. That is what I am doing. It isn’t God I don’t accept, Alyosha. It’s just his ticked that I most respectfully return to him.”- McGrath

The argument from evil is perhaps one of the strongest and most widely known arguments against the existence of God. And who hasn’t stopped to ponder and think about these questions? How can we reconcile an all caring God as the one portrayed in the Tanakh and the New Testament with a world like ours? As much as this argument may make us stop and think, within the field of philosophy, it seems to have resulted in a stalemate. It doesn’t seem like either side has ‘won’. Philosopher William Alston pointed out that ‘any logical argument which attempts to show that evil is logically incompatible with the existence of God is ‘now acknowledged on (almost) all sides’ to be completely bankrupt.

Personally speaking, Atheism has lost its appeal on me. It no longer appeals to my intellect as it once did. Philosophically, it is in no better shape or grounds than Theism. There is a terrible misconception out there that Atheism represents all that is rational in the world, with its bright philosophers like David Hume, Bertrand Russell, etc. holding prominent places at the top of the intellectual ladder, while Theism is a sort of backwaters belief system whose leading advocates are no more sophisticated than the Westboro Baptist Church folks or the folks at Answers in Genesis. Philosophically speaking, they are at a stalemate. You wouldn’t think so were you to glance through popular online blogs and debates between believers and unbelievers, but within the philosophical scholarly community, where rhetoric is turned down, and an emphasis is placed on logical coherent methodological thinking, the final outcome is far from clear. Can human reason ultimately lead to a final watertight proof for the existence or non-existence of a Creator? I highly doubt it, at least if history is any indication. Many theologians accept this, and so do many atheists, so it seems to me like agnosticism is the only rationally justified conclusion.

"The grand idea that atheism is the only option for a thinking person has long since passed away, being displaced by a growing awareness of the limitations placed on human knowledge and the need for humility in religious and anti-religious advocacy."

“As Thomas Huxley pointed out, no such decision may be reached on the basis of the evidence available, forcing us to reach one of two conclusions: either no decision can be reached (a position that Huxley designated ‘agnosticism’), or a decision is reached on other grounds. As Blaise Pascal pointed out, ‘reasons of the heart’ play a far greater role in shaping our attitudes to God than we realize.”

So what would propel someone to come to belief then? McGrath defines faith as ‘belief lying beyond proof’, which I believe to be a good definition. Many atheists, like Dawkins and Hitchens, love to describe faith as ‘a process of non-thinking’, or ‘believing what you know aint so’, but for philosophers, faith is a much different thing. What can one do when faced with a dilemma between two seemingly valid positions to hold? Should one give up? Or should one adopt one of the two views? One cannot say atheism is a suspension of belief; that would be agnosticism, atheism would be the declaration that there is no God, which is beyond proof itself, and thus falls into the category of faith, if we define it to be as ‘belief lying beyond proof’. Atheism has its strengths, and a great appeal to a population that has been fed up with the corruption and seeming indifference of religious institutions to the real problems facing our world today. It is no surprise that a resurgence of Atheism came about after the attacks of 9/11.

"Atheism, I believe, becomes more popular when religious communities become more corrupt-and especially when their corruption includes violence. This occurred in the decades after the Thirty Years War in European history, and I think we're entering a similar period today. When religion seems to produce violent or arrogant or hypocritical believers, many people decided it is more ethical not to believe. When the world's second largest religion seems (to many people) too tolerant of terrorism and sectarian violence, and sometimes even encourages and justifies them, we shouldn't be surprised that many people reject religion. When the world's largest religion seems (to many people) too tolerant of militarism, unjustified war, and consumerism, and sometimes even encourages and justifies them, we should be even less surprised. When both religions do too little to promote active peacemaking, care for the poor, concern for the environment, and the renewal of communities, when they seem more concerned with 'straining out gnats' of religious trivia than 'swallowing camels' of massive social injustice, we should only be surprised that more people haven't become atheists."- Brian D. McLaren

Exclusivism, Inclusivism, Pluralism and Christianity

Different Positions On How God May Relate to Those Lacking Revelation

1 Exclusivism (restrictivism, fundamentalism)
- All religions are different and only one is true
- One can only be saved by hearing and accepting the message of Jesus in this life.
- Sharp distinction between general revelation and special revelation
- Christians have little or nothing to learn from others (at least with regard to salvation)
- There are few or no redeeming qualities in other religions
- People of other religions are at best tragically ignorant or at worst evil
- Harsh exclusivism or compassionate exclusivism.
Pros - Clarity, Strong set of convictions and lines in the sand, urgency of being missionary focused, Helps make sense of certain passages of scriptures, something stable and something to hold onto.
Cons - Very Narrow , How many people have no hope then?, How is this in line with a good and merciful God?

(Defense: A Calvinist might argue that humans do not really deserve forgiveness, hence anyone being forgiven at all is still testament to Gods incredible mercy, whereas one who adheres to this who believes in Free-will would argue that we should not blame God for the failures of humanity, and if we as humans and as Christ's Church had lived up to our ideal potential, then this would be a non-issue, hence the problem that is created by exclusivism is only the manifestation of a failure to truly follow God with abandon on the part of Christians or the Church.)
2 Pluralism (Liberalism)
- All religions are basically the same and all roads lead to God.
- No one religion can claim uniqueness or supremacy
- Christianity is one true religion among many
- Different religions are simply different cultural/historical expressions of the universal quest for truth.
- Normative Pluralism - All religions have "independent salvific potential"

John Hick - Grew up conservative Christian "God has many names" "the Metaphor of God incarnate"

Pros - Peace between religions, tolerant, Everyone wins, Room for explorations without fear of doing something wrong, Bridges for peace, All religions have the ability to teach one another about God.

Cons - Causes those to choose the God they want rather than conforming to Gods image, what do we do with the differences?, what about conflicting truth claims, what of religions that are harmful?, What does a Christian to do with pluralism and with Jesus Exclusivist claims? Seems to promote epistemological relativism. Arrogant in that it presumes that all religions actually are literally wrong. Has to claim that everyone misunderstands their own religions and that "I have to explain your religions for you". What about Evil? Claim to reinterpret all religion for all history for all people. Pluralism needs a mythological approach to truth. All world religions need to be mythological.

(defense: Talking about major world religions - must always move people from being self to God or others centered. All seek to bring peeps toward God. Similarities exist with regard to morality in mahy major world religions, (Blind men and the Elephant) and they would argue that the differences are due simply to cultural, manifestations, or what was needed to address the culture.)

3 Inclusivism (bahai are a good example of inclusivism)
- God can beeseen in other religions but all going in a single direction
- Progressive revelation

Christian inclusivism
- many starting points and many roads, but they all eventually lead to Jesus (even if the people don't know it)
- Christianity is unique, Jesus is The Answer, but God still mediates grace through others.
- Everyone that is saved is saved through Christ, even if they do not know it. (one can have a relationship with God, saved through the blood of Jesus and not know it)
- what they do not know is they have their access through Jesus.
- God saves people apart from a cognitive conversion to the christian faith.
- "Wider hope" - a wider hope for those who are not Christians
- God can be seen in other religions
- Saving grace in General revelation

Christian Inclusivists - C.S. Lewis!!!!, Clark Pinnock, Karl Rahner - "anonymous Christians" - Saved By Jesus and living in line with Gods Grace that don't even know it yet.

Pros - Wider hope, Continues maintaining a traditional understanding of who Jesus is, Not abstract there is still clarity and absolute truth, a more humble approach with allowing God to be God, and upholds the teachings about different religions about their own respective claims. Seems to uphold a high Christology, Who Jesus IS, in line with God's Mercy.
Cons - Less driven for missions, does spreading the Gospel decrease their chances?, Does it compromise teachings about Jesus?, How does it work what does it mean to be saved by Jesus without knowing it, Is there any reason for evangelism?

(Defense: A missionary to whom these questions were posed (who also happens to be a professor of philosophy) gave this answer, that the Gospel has the power to transform lives of both those who were previously receptive to revelation and those who were unreceptive too it in very positive ways, and while, it may not necessarily be an issue of salvation for all individuals, an understanding of Jesus kingdom, and Jesus plan has truly benefited their lives. (generally the most radical transformations occur in those least receptive to revelation before the arrival of additional revelation) There are dramatic turn arounds in many after the Gospel is introduced. For those who may not recognize Christ as who he truly is, the fundamental tenet of Inclusivism would still apply, that one could walk the path without recognize it.)

My own view:

I am an Inclusivist, I believe this makes the most sense and is rooted in the Christian faith, for example, if as according to Hebrews "the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sins" then how were the Hebrews or Abraham saved? Was it because they were all around "nice guys"? Or because of the death of Jesus? If we will claim that Christ's mercy extended to those who had not heard Christ's message before he came, then the examples of faith cited in the New Testament are lost. If, as some might do, one claims that God had mercy on those without full Revelation previously, yet now only those who hear and accept "Christianity", then to call the Gospel "Good News" is very misleading, as it would be very bad news in fact.

If we excuse the retarded or infants because they cannot be accountable for what they did not know or understand, how could we say differently for others? How could anyone be held accountable for revelation they have not been given?

I believe we need to take into account the principles found in Romans 1:20 and Romans 2:12 - 15,

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

So why it that men are without excuse? Because revelation is present. Is it a fully developed Christology with Jesus being made flesh and dying for one's sins present in this general revelation? Hahaha, NO!

Next passage:

Romans 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

But do you suggest a *Gasp* works salvation? Hell no. One is not saved by their works, they are saved by and through Christ, while one might typically pull out this verse to object to inclusivism, but it is not in conflict with it, but an important element one must understand about inclusivism.

John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

The only different way an inclusivist would interpret this passage than an exclusivist is the inclusivist would say this is true whether the person knows it or not.

C.S. Lewis had an interesting way of looking at the situation: “The world does not consist of 100 percent Christians and 100 percent non-Christians. There are people (a great many of them) who are slowly ceasing to be Christians but who still call themselves by that name: some of them are clergymen. There are other people who are slowly becoming Christians though they do not yet call themselves so. There are people who do not accept the full Christian doctrine about Christ but who are so strongly attracted by Him that they are His in a much deeper sense than they themselves understand."

Now that I have largely addressed exclusivism, I do not see the pluralist position as tenable either. The position taken makes each of the religious figures to be either extremely deluded or entirely dishonest. Between that, and the allegation that despite over a milennia, or in the very least, centuries of intellectual discussion and evaluation of a religion by its adherents, that they do not themselves understand the tenets of their own belief system, wherein an individual even with a shallow, understanding of any of these religions in question or their propositions has the intellectual authority to soundly "reinterpret" everything seems to be the height of arrogance.

Now I do not mean to undermine anyone, I have found very kind and well meaning individuals in every position nor will I be so bold as to claim that I can speak for God, but I will say that based upon what God has given us, to the best that I understand the issue, Inclusivism makes the most sense, and is the most defensible, and humble out of any of these positions.

How is this the only game in town?

O'Leary over at UD found an incredibly telling journal publication New Scientist:

Its (the cosmological constant) discovery was a huge blow. Up till then, physicists had hoped that some ultimate theory would deduce the values of fundamental constants of nature from first principles, including the cosmological constant, and explain why the laws of physics are as they are, just right for the formation of stars and galaxies and possibly the emergence of life. This seems not to be the case. Nothing in string theory, or indeed any other theory in physics, can predict the observed value of the cosmological constant.
However, if our universe is part of a multiverse then we can ascribe the value of the cosmological constant to an accident. The same goes for other aspects of our universe, such as the mass of the electron. The idea is simply that each universe's laws of physics and fundamental constants are randomly determined, and we just happen to live in one where these are suited for life. "If not for the multiverse, you would have these unsolved problems at every corner," says Linde.

What is also interesting is that the inflation that Linde proposes still requires fine tuning prior to inflation, and it is the only model which Hawking does not consider to be absolutely dead as a scientific theory. In any case, continuing on to the point of O'Leary's post:

“If it turns out to be positively curved, we’d be very confused. That would be a setback for these ideas, no question about it.” Until any such setback the smart money will remain with the multiverse and string theory. “It has the best chance of anything we know to be right,” Weinberg says of string theory. “There’s an old joke about a gambler playing a game of poker,” he adds. “His friend says, ‘Don’t you know this game is crooked, and you are bound to lose?’ The gambler says, ‘Yes, but what can I do, it’s the only game in town.’ We don’t know if we are bound to lose, but even if we suspect we may, it is the only game in town.”

Why is this the only game in town? I love this logic. "We are probably wrong, about there being multiverses, but it's better than nothing." In reality it is not the only game in town. Maybe the universe looks designed because it is designed. At what point did this cease to be a possibility??? Either way, O'Leary makes a strong point. Is this how science is supposed to be done?

I think ideological bias is apparent here. The question to me seems that how many more solid blows can the ideological forces attempting to silence ID advocates take before they lose their grip alltogether? Even Francis Collins and others are now advocating ID under other terms now. Their "Biologos" theory makes use of Cosmological ID and serves as a different name for "Theistic Evolution" to an extent. It is however, an explicitly theistic position, and Collins defends the idea that Fine Tuning, and interestingly, the argument from Morality. (see here) I think the deathgrip on science is slipping.

I see change on the horizon.

Lying for Science: The Texas Science Standards

With the recent Texas School Board Decision to do away with "strengths and weaknesses language" we have come across a lot of titles like this "Science Setback For Texas Schools" around now while I agree that doing away with such points is a Science setback, the articles take a different perspective. This is due to the fact that the actual vote was not strictly in favor of, but tied to maintain the ruling that the language be removed. However, from the afore mentioned article:

Although the "strengths and weaknesses" wording that has been part of the standards for over a decade was finally excised--wording that has been used to pressure science textbook publishers to include creationist arguments--a number of amendments put the creationist-inspired wording back in.

"What we now have is Son of Strengths and Weaknesses," says Josh Rosenau, a project director for NCSE. "Having students 'analyze and evaluate all sides of scientific evidence' is code that gives creationists a green light to attack biology
textbooks."

Now look at how little of the actual text we see quoted here. Is this what the ammendments really say? Let's take a look.

“in all fields of science, analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the student."

Wait... that seems a little different that what E. Scott implied. That doesn't even single out evolution. All it says is allow students to analyze and evaluate and critique scientific explanations. IOW critical thinking. If I have to be a "Creationist" to support critical thinking, I am fine with that. What I take issue with is lying to the scientific community about what is really going on, and lying to the public. We also hear from her:

"The final vote was a triumph of ideology and politics over science,"

"The board majority chose to satisfy creationist constituents and ignore
the expertise of highly qualified Texas scientists and scientists across the
country."

Orly? From another article we hear:

"Reasonable people understand we are not trying to cut off debate and stifle academic freedom. The problem is that [evolution] critics want religious perspective put into the classroom, which we know is unconstitutional," she (Mavis Knight) said.

Is that really what this is about? There are always at least two sides to a story. What do the "Creationists" say?

During its deliberations, the Board was presented with hundreds of articles from mainstream science publications documenting various scientific controversies over major evolutionary claims, and this past week the Board heard testimony from science teachers, students, and Ph.D. biologists about the need for students to critically analyze the scientific evidence for evolution.

Wait... why don't we ever hear about that? What we from the Creationists is like this:

"I don't see how we can say there is no disagreement about evolution. There is disagreement," said Mercer, taking issue with science teachers and academics who told the board that the theory of evolution is universally accepted in the scientific community.

Who is the one really pushing ideology over fact here? I will give you a hint. It is not "Creationists".

The Star of Bethlehem

Here is an intresting abstract from Science and the Christian Belief:

Evidence from the Bible and astronomy suggests that the Star of Bethlehem was a comet which was visible in 5 BC, and described in ancient Chinese records. A comet uniquely fits the description in Matthew of a star which newly appeared, which travelled slowly through the sky against the star background and which 'stood over' Bethlehem. The evidence points to Jesus being bom in the period 9 March-4 May, 5 BC, probably around Passover time: 13-27 April, 5 BC. Birth in the spring is consistent with the account in Luke that there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby keeping watch over their flock by night. Birth in 5 BC also throws light upon the problem of the census of Caesar Augustus. A new chronology of the life of Christ is given which is consistent with the available evidence. This chronology suggests that Christ died close to his 37th birthday.

The article can be read here. There is also a nice pdf powerpoint file here. This seems to be an empirical validation of the testimony of the Gospels with regards to the birth of Christ. Now the simple existence of a comet, while interesting wouldn't amount to much in the way of evidence to say that the magi (a group of astologers and persian-parthinian elite), would make the journey, but if astological signs were indicating that such a great, or divine, king was to be born in Israel in different ways over 3 three consecutive years, such conjunctions being obscenely rare, it is then not surprising or out of the ordinary to suggest that they would do so. Intrestingly, the article goes to address the behavior of the Comet as following exactly the same behavior as described of the Star in Matthew. In the past such ideas like a Comet were not considered as a probable explanation because of the question as to how a comet could follow the description of the star's erratic behavior, and the cultural implications. These are addressed in the article as well. Please don't take my word for it, or think you have to.

I understand that someone can accuse or make the argument of contrivance, but I do not think that the Gospel writers were even farmiliar with Persian Astrology. Of course even if they were it is still very coincidental that we have a conjunction in 7 BC, that occurs every 900 years, then one in 6BC, which occurs every 800 years, then the very next year, the appearance of a comet in coincidentally the right constellation (house of Saturn, the Divine Father) to suggest the birth of a Divine King. However you view it, this coincides with what Jesus claimed about himself, and could only be Jesus, because Israel was specified in the Pisces.

But questions arise from this of course. Astrology then can be valid? I know a number of people would suddenly shout "NO!" simply because our modern experience with astrology or because of the planet worship of many ancient peoples. Astrology however does not necessitate planet worship, and much of it has become bastardized from the original strains of whatever was what in the ancient world, through syncretism, and time. Now perhaps God was simply communicating to the Magi in a way they could understand. If the idea was fraudulent though, would he really have chosen to do it that way? I am not sure. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe thats a poor way to look at it. If we accept that Jesus was who he claimed to be, then is it possible that there is/was some kind of real and accurate astrology? If we don't, then there is obviously another big question staring us in the face. Either way, this world is a lot more mysterious than people give it credit for.

According to Colin Humphreys, he first presented these arguments in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical society. Here is the full citation for that article however I have not found it accessible online:

Colin J. Humphreys, "The Star of Bethlehem - a Comet in 5 BC -and the Date of the Birth of Christ", Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 32, p. 389 (1991).

A Different Perspective on Phineas Gage

For those of us who have taken Psych 101, we all know the name of Phineas Gage. The man who took a pole through his head, altering his personality which has been used to support claims that one's personality is fundamentally decided by the frontal cortex of the brain.

We hear accounts of how Gage's friends claimed he was

“no longer Gage”

And that he was suddenly without any social inhibitions.

Normally I would have pointed to the work of Wilder Penfield, or Viktor Frankl to demonstrate that Gage would have still had a will and consciousness which was immune to manipulation by the environment or to physical manipulation of the brain, and could still have chosen his actions, however a re-evaluation of the accuracy of that story has seriously questioned the accuracy of the current Gage myth. Please consider the following abstract from History of the Human Sciences, Vol. 20 No. 1, 115-131 (2007)

The 19th-century story of Phineas Gage is much quoted in neuroscientific literature as the first recorded case in which personality change (from polite and sociable to psychopathic) occurred after damage to the brain. In this article I contest this interpretation. From a close examination of the story of Gage I have come to conclude that first of all there was nothing psychopathic in Gage’s behavior and that changes in his life are more coherently explained by seeing them as his way of dealing with disfigurement that he suffered after the accident. This is not just a matter of reinterpreting a case. The way Gage has been presented and discussed in neuroscientific literature suggests that the new paradigm of neuroscientifically oriented psychiatry may lead to an erosion of clinical knowledge.

The actual story of Gage is quite sad.

First he meets his workmates. Their attitude towards him has changed; now they turn their eyes away, they are not the same easygoing fellows; and the girls do not laugh and flirt with him as they did. And if there was some lassie that he was particularly fond of, well . . . all this must be really difficult to take. Someone will look at him, and we can imagine him snapping back, ‘What are you staring at, you bastard?’ And there are also those who are only too ready to give advice, but giving advice to someone in Gage’s predicament is a risky business. Again, we can imagine him telling them to go to hell. Very ungrateful; definitely, to ‘his friends and acquaintances’ he is ‘“no longer Gage”’. It is different at home, at his mother’s, where the final recovery takes place. He entertains his nephews and nieces by making up fantastic stories; they must love Uncle Phineas, and they do not care about his scars. He also grows fond of pets, especially dogs and horses. Animals not only do not care about his scars, they do not even see them. Gage quickly becomes attached to them. But the outside world of adults cannot be ignored. Gage needs to go back to work. And here comes the first tangible blow: he is not wanted back …”

Gage went on to work at a freak show (briefly), then at a stable giving care to horses until his health failed, and he went to live with his mother, working on a farm until he died. Subsequent scientific mythmakers have portrayed him as psychotic, even to the point of being unable to plan for future events, but for those who know what happened to him after the incident, this is clearly at odds with the accounts of the doctors who knew him, and at odds with the rest of his life.

A more accurate story of Phineas Gage, which describes both the myth and the reality can be found here. This information was actually surprising and kind of new to me, so a Hat Tip to O'Leary on UD, is in order, which includes more excerpts and discussion.

What I thought was particularly interesting however, was this quote from the abstract.

The way Gage has been presented and discussed in neuroscientific literature suggests that the new paradigm of neuroscientifically oriented psychiatry may lead to an erosion of clinical knowledge.

What this says to me in not so many words is that the strictly physicalist/materialist approach to psychiatry is going to harm us by creating a false sense of impotence in clinical psychiatry which has typically had great success in the top down (dualist sympathetic) approach using the mind to influence the brain.

I have previously blogged about the dogmatic emphasis upon the "rules of science" limiting investigation of anything stipulated to be supernatural, and how this epistemologically cripples any human endeavor to discover truth through science, and how our society may suffer because of it. This is another case in point.

"Republicans" have sold out.

The "moral" issues of abortion and homosexuality which have now become political issues are not really the issue at all. This is just a smokescreen for the power struggles going on between two parties promoting extending the strength of the Federal government. Both parties "Republicans" and "Democrats" are trying to use the power of the Federal government to enforce their own particular version of Morality onto people. The Republican Party as it is today has completely and utterly sold out the old Republican ideals to seek after power. Both ruling for the banning of abortion or the banning of homosexuality, or the banning of stem cell research all pre-suppose a strengthening of Government. In this way, the selling out of the party has become abundantly clear as the very people (Republicans) who were supposed to be against the strengthening of the political power of the Federal Government are now pushing it using these "moral issues" to try and force one groups morality upon another.

The very political issues that are causing so much tension in the States right now between differing ideologies were predicted by the real Republicans (the Jeffersonians) centuries ago.

Read this excerpt from a Republican posted in the New-York Journal of October 25, 1787 called "Cato" (George Clinton) and tell me if his point has not been unequivocally demonstrated to be correct by the current political climate.

But whoever seriously considers the immense extent of territory comprehended within the limits of the United States, together with the variety of its climates, productions, and commerce, the difference of extent, and number of inhabitants in all; the dissimilitude of interest, morals, and politics, in almost every one, will receive it as an intuitive truth, that a consolidated republican form of government therein, can never form a perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to you and your posterity, for to these objects it must be directed. This unkindred legislature therefore, composed of interests opposite and dissimilar in their nature, will in its exercise, emphatically be like a house divided against itself.

Now while we understand Cato to be arguing against the adoption of the current Constitution, the more important issue here is the sovereignty of the states. He and the other Anti-Federalists like Jefferson and Madison did not feel the need to repudiate it once adopted, only to amend it. This is of course where our Bill of Rights comes from, and specifically to this issue, the Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Due to the political games of the "Republicans" and the "Democrats," the people are throwing all their power into the hands of a Federal government that can only become oppressive. If this continues, there will inevitably be a 'winning' and a 'losing' side wherein a massive body of people will be coerced into following a morality which they cannot or will not support.