…and this is a 
Little imaginary beings
Category: Creationism • Kooks • Religion
Posted on: October 4, 2007 2:58 PM, by PZ Myers
I recently mentioned the way some serious theologians believe in demons and exorcisms. I can't help it; I find these notions ridiculous to an extreme, and the absurdity of serious scholars blaming diseases on demonic possession in the 21st century is something one has to find laughable. I was being hard on Christianity, though. I left out an important exonerating factor for these people.
Some of them believe in angels, too.
Yes, I'm joking when I say this is an exonerating factor. This merely makes them even more silly. But no, you say, they can't possibly argue for demons and angels being real agents in the natural world, can they? This must all be metaphorical, not literal. Judge for yourself.
Here's a passage from the foreword to a 2002 book by Peter S. Williams, The Case for Angels. This is a book that argues for the literal reality of angels, and that they are important because "Angels (with a capital 'A', good angels) are worth studying because they are true (real), noble, right pure, lovely, admirable, excellent and praiseworthy. Fallen angels (demons are worth studying because they are real and because it behoves every army, including the army of Christ, to know its enemy." The author of the foreword agrees. Can you guess who it is?
Peter Williams' The Case for Angels is about…the theological rift between a Christian intelligentsia that increasingly regards angels only as figurative or literary devices, and the great mass of Christians who thankfully still regard them as real (a fact confirmed by popular polls, as Williams notes in this book). This rift was brought home to me at a conference I helped organize at Baylor University some years back. The conference was entitled 'The Nature of Nature' and focused on whether nature is self-contained or points beyond itself. The activity of angels in the world would clearly constitute on way nature points beyond itself.
I know, that was too easy, and there were too many clues in the text. It's William Dembski, advocate for Intelligent Design creationism. Dare we hope that the man has at last come out with a concrete statement about who the designer (or, at least, the designer's assistants) are?
Watch Bill get even crazier.
Why is it important to know about angels? Why is it important to know about rocks and plants and animals? It's important because all of these are aspects of reality that impinge on us. The problem with the secular intelligentsia is that they deny those aspects of reality that are inconvenient to their world-picture. And since the intelligentsia are by definition intelligent (though rarely wise), they are able to rationalize away what they find inconvenient. This is what Bishop Sheen was getting at with the previous quote when he referred to the intelligentsia rationalizing evil, and this what Williams is so successful at unmasking in the intelligentsia's rejection of angels.
There exists an invisible world that is more real and weighty than our secular imaginations can fathom. I commend this book as a way of retraining our imaginations about that reality.
Geologists, botanists, and zoologists, move over. We gotta make room for the angelologists. After all, their subject of study is just as real as zebrafish or Arabidopsis or granite, you know. We're just rationalizing the angels away.
How does anyone manage to take religion at all seriously? This crap is just plain idiocy.
Comments
I find it deeply offensive that you are so down on the Angels. I mean, sure, they haven't won the World Series lately, but anybody who makes it into the majors deserves respect and... um, you were talking about baseball, weren't you?
Posted by: hoary puccoon | October 4, 2007 3:05 PM
They're right - this is a serious area of study. I wonder where Demski comes down on the "Pin head question"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_dance_on_the_head_of_a_pin%3F
Posted by: NickM | October 4, 2007 3:06 PM
my granma si a angel
Posted by: ralph wiggums | October 4, 2007 3:08 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't the Christians believe in "God's plan"? If so, then WHO is rationalizing away evil? If what we see as evil is merely a part of the god-character's ultimate GOOD plan, then is not evil merely misunderstood good?
Now THAT'S rationalizing!
Posted by: Denis Loubet | October 4, 2007 3:09 PM
"I commend this book as a way of retraining our imaginations about that reality."
Huh, what? How about we get some REAL evidence about said reality, instead of leaving its description to one's deluded imagination.
Posted by: JRY | October 4, 2007 3:10 PM
I see Dembski's up to his usual habit of projecting his faults onto his opponents: accusing them of "rationalizing away" inconvenient information. I guess it's never occurred to him that he's one of the biggest perpetrators of that kind of nonsense.
Posted by: Leon | October 4, 2007 3:10 PM
Isaac Newton was an "angelologist", among his diversions away from physics and maths (eg along with alchemy). He was trying to classify them. However, during his biblical studies, he did at least have the sense to reject the nonsense of the trinity and become one of the earliest unitarians - a bit of a potential embarrassment (to life, liberty and finances) which he needed to keep secret at the time, eg since he was at Trinity College!
There's always the chance he would have been intelligent to ditch the rest of the religious nonsense eventually though, had he lived long enough to be around when the crucial geological and biological discoveries were being made.
Posted by: SEF | October 4, 2007 3:12 PM
I lost a word there somehow. It should have been "sufficiently intelligent" or "intelligent enough" (I suspect the latter and that the word got pushed out, only to make its appearance later in the sentence instead).
Posted by: SEF | October 4, 2007 3:14 PM
Dembski, not "Demski".
Posted by: NickM | October 4, 2007 3:15 PM
I have a debate with Peter Williams about angels at
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/deb.htm
Apparently, demons are useful if you want to learn languages.
And Peter also pointed out the phenomenen of levitating lunatics - something science can't really explain.
Posted by: Steven Carr | October 4, 2007 3:16 PM
Peter Williams wrote to me
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/angels6.htm
'If demons are real, then one might very well think them capable of causing levitation. To respond to a reported levitation claimed to have taken place in the context of an exorcism that 'levitation can't happen so this can't have been a genuine case of possession' would clearly be to beg-the-question in an a priori manner that contradicts any claim to be open to the evidence.'
That was when I started to get a bit scared....
Posted by: steven carr | October 4, 2007 3:19 PM
SEF makes a good point. Jefferson believed in a creator (if not the divinity of Jesus) because he didn't live long enough to read The Origin of Species.
Posted by: Davis | October 4, 2007 3:21 PM
So get us a fucking angel to dissect. God, I'll grudgingly let off the hook, he's a notoriously mellifluous fellow. But if you're taking about winged dudes, then you had better deliver. And get me a goblin while you're at it (a la George Carlin's rant on the subject).
Posted by: Rey Fox | October 4, 2007 3:21 PM
Frickin' faeries in the garden.
Posted by: True Bob | October 4, 2007 3:25 PM
I am game. I would love to meet an Angel. Can someone arrange to bring them down to the grange hall on Wednesday nights so I can meet them?
I will bring some rocks, plants and animals...
Posted by: george | October 4, 2007 3:27 PM
"Christian intelligentsia?!" Now there's an oxymoron...
Posted by: Gene | October 4, 2007 3:28 PM
Plus, the Angels have a reasonably good chance of winning it all this year, too.
But if Dembski and Williams are cheering for Los Angeles, I might have to support (shudder) the Red Sox or Yankees.
Posted by: Rieux | October 4, 2007 3:29 PM
And Peter also pointed out the phenomenen of levitating lunatics - something science can't really explain.
I yield to no one in my study of the para-believable but "levitating lunatics"? That's a new one for me. This Peter fellow have a link. The only thing I can find on it is PZ asking why is anyone showing levitation to a scientists instead of just calling a exorcists.
Posted by: Bob L | October 4, 2007 3:30 PM
...the phenomenen of levitating lunatics - something science can't really explain.
That's because lunatics (and sane people for that matter) can't levitate and claims to the contrary are bogus.
That's sort of like saying Science hasn't been able to explain exactly why no one can see leprechauns.
Posted by: Keith | October 4, 2007 3:32 PM
I am a Christian albeit a fideist variety for the most part. This type of thing really makes me question,well, everything about my belief structure.
But then I guess I'm in the metaphor land that these guys dislike.
Posted by: Uber | October 4, 2007 3:32 PM
As God vanishes from the brain, so does the Devil.
As Angels vanish, so do Demons, and Saints/Sinners, Heaven/Hell.
Seems like the perfect exorcism.
Perhaps this could be sold as a product of the "New Atheism":
COME ONE, COME ALL ! CONVERT TO ATHEISM !
BANISH THE DEVIL AND HIS DEMONS !
FREE ! NO ASSEMBLY REQUIRED !
Posted by: June | October 4, 2007 3:36 PM
/to beg-the-question in an a priori manner/
So this idiots take a basic level philosophy course to learn jargon used in critical thinking without ever learning logic, false syllogisms and pseudo-refutations?
It impresses the near illiterate into believing that the idiot in question is competent and profound rather than the abuser of tortured logic and a pathological need to lie in order to support his delusions.
An old English dancehall song was titled "There are Faeries at the Bottom of My Garden", to which Noel Coward replied that if he'd sung it , it would have come out "There are Faeries in the Garden of My Bottom". Dumbski and Williams can have all the Angels they can and put 'em where the sun don't shine; and until I see one of 'em with a flappin' seraphim portruding from his sphincter, I'll know it's just shite.
Posted by: Jsn | October 4, 2007 3:38 PM
Why do squares make theological sense?
Because they contain four right angels.
(I'm available for parties)
Posted by: Christian Burnham | October 4, 2007 3:44 PM
One mystery no one's ever solved for me I call Demon Math. Presumably God didn't make any demons after the Rebellion in Heaven (and presumably there were no additional rebellions), so the number of demons should be fixed. Originally there were only two people. So Adam and Eve must have just been FLOCKED by demons. It must have been like that for several generations. But now there are, what? Almost seven billion of us? So shouldn't demons be spread thinner and thinner in the human population? And wouldn't that result in people getting better, because they are under less per capita demonic influence?
Posted by: Greg Peterson | October 4, 2007 3:44 PM
Haha Greg, I had a very similiar thought about something yesterday.
Posted by: Uber | October 4, 2007 3:51 PM
So Adam and Eve must have just been FLOCKED by demons.
According to the Midrash, Adam's 1st wife was fucked, if not flocked, by demons.
Well, it's unclear who initiated the acts. Lilith was apparently quite fun.
Posted by: Sarcastro | October 4, 2007 3:55 PM
Greg, what you aren't taking into account is the increasing number of New Atheists popping up everywhere.
Each one of them has signed a pact with the Devil and is now acting as His agent. The more Atheists there are, the weaker God's forces become and the sooner the Devil wins.
At which point, maybe, He declares Himself the True God and everything starts over.
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | October 4, 2007 4:01 PM
What does an omnipotent being need helpers for anyway?
Or is Yanweh just a lazy fucker.
Posted by: Euan | October 4, 2007 4:03 PM
Excuse the lame joke and the terrible pronunciation, but:
"AngeLOLogy".
Posted by: Colin | October 4, 2007 4:04 PM
Hmm, JohnnieCanuck, you raise an interesting possibility. Well, "Meet your new boss/Same as the old boss," I say.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | October 4, 2007 4:04 PM
That's sort of like saying Science hasn't been able to explain exactly why no one can see leprechauns.
Now you're just being silly.
Posted by: Dahne | October 4, 2007 4:06 PM
Still pure science and empiricism over in Dembski's lab, I see.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | October 4, 2007 4:07 PM
NickM, Oh, Dembski's definitely a pin head.
Posted by: AlanWCan | October 4, 2007 4:10 PM
a Christian intelligentsia that increasingly regards angels only as figurative or literary devices, and the great mass of Christians who thankfully still regard them as real (a fact confirmed by popular polls, as Williams notes in this book).
Considering that most Americans ALSO believe we've been visited by space aliens multiple times, it's a bad sign when Bill has to appeal to Joe Sixpack to back up the veracity of his mythology.
Posted by: George Cauldron | October 4, 2007 4:11 PM
There exists an invisible world that is more real and weighty than our secular imaginations can fathom.
There exists a level of bullshit that is more mind-numbingly moronic than I can stand.
Angels are important because they make b..s and con artists everywhere filthy RICH!
End of story.
Stop exploiting people's natural gullibility, you asshole!
Posted by: CalGeorge | October 4, 2007 4:19 PM
"At which point, maybe, He declares Himself the True God and everything starts over."
There are rumours that it already happened.
(Excuse my poor formatting skills.)
Posted by: fcaccin | October 4, 2007 4:23 PM
Josh Beckett, apparently, does not believe in the Angels.
On a more on-topic note, I love when Dembski's "I am totally basing things on evidence, I swear" schtick totally fails and he comes out with very blatant woo like this preface. Hopefully, it will help clue some other people in that the rest of what he says is just as filled with woo.
Posted by: Micah | October 4, 2007 4:30 PM
His C.V. is online:
Name: Peter S. Williams
Date of Birth: 23/09/74
E-Mail: peterswilliams@trinity73.freeserve.co.uk
Web Site @ www.peter-s-williams.co.uk
Occupation: Christian Apologist
Personal History
• 1993-1999, studied philosophy (specialising in the philosophy of religion) at Cardiff University (B.A), Sheffield University (M.A) and The University of East Anglia in Norwich (M.Phil - 'Truth, Goodness, Beauty and the Nature of God'), where I also worked as a part-time philosophy tutor.
• 1999-2002, worked as the full-time student assistant at Holy Trinity Church, Leicester. This role included leading a team of student helpers, organizing and leading events, writing study materials, evangelism (especially using the Alpha course), and mentoring students.
• Sept 2002, joining Christian evangelism organisation Damaris (c.f. www.damaris.org/index.htm) as resident apologist.
Publications
• I am the author of The Case for God (Monarch, 1999) and The Case for Angels (Paternoster, 2002).
Physicist turned priest and Templeton prize winner, Sir John Polkinghorne FRS, called The Case for God:
"A scrupulous and wide ranging survey of the arguments for the existence of God"
Bristol Baptist College tutor Robert Ellis said that The Case for God was: "a robust defence of basic Christian positions in the philosophy of religion from an evangelical but open point of view"; and commented: "There is an admirable breadth of learning and thought on offer here. . . He has interesting things to say on all these subjects." (Science & Christian Belief, Volume 12, Oct 2000.)
The Case for Angels has been commended by philosopher Peter Kreeft:
"The Case for Angels. . . is quadruply outstanding: stylistically, philosophically, theologically, and in scholarship. It is engagingly readable (a rarity among philosophers), persuasively argued, soundly Christian, and "covers the waterfront" (the author has done his homework). It reminds me of the works of Mortimer Adler and C.S. Lewis in successfully bridging the gap between the scholarly and the popular. . . Best of all, it gives the reader a deep and wide philosophical and theological education along the way, solving a number of serious current disputes clearly and reasonably (and with a rare economy of words). I can hardly imagine what more a book could possibly do to make a compelling and complete case for angels, unless it takes wing."
In his foreword, philosopher and theologian William A. Dembski writes:
"Williams identifies the key stumbling blocks that render angels implausible to our intellectual elite and successfully refutes them. Not surprisingly, the biggest of these stumbling blocks is naturalism, and Williams deals effectively with it. . . There exists an invisible world that is more real and weighty than our secular imaginations can fathom. I commend this book as a way of retraining our imaginations about that reality."
• I am a regular contributor to the Damaris website and discussion board:
o 'Leisure Without Television' @
www.damaris.org/olr/features/2000/leisurewithouttv.htm
o 'Why Naturalists Should Mind About Physicalism, and Vice Versa' @
www.damaris.org/dcscs/readingroom/2000/williams1.htm
o 'Terror from the Skies and the Existence of God' @
www.damaris.org/writing/articles/other_articles/worldtradecentre3.htm
o 'Review of Death and Philosophy' @
www.damaris.org/olr/features/2000/deathandphilosophy.htm
o 'Review of Alain De Botton's The Consolations of Philosophy' @ http://www.damaris.org/olr/features/2001/consolations.htm
• I have also been published on the internet with:
o Leadership University: 'Angelology and Biblical Skepticism' @
www.leaderu.com/theology/williams_angel.html &
'A Theistic Account of Aesthetic Values' @
http://www.leaderu.com/theology/williams_beauty.html
o Quodlibet theology journal: 'Aesthetic Arguments for the Existence of God' @ www.quodlibet.net/williams-aesthetic.shtml &
'New Testament Criticism and Jesus the Exorcist' @
www.quodlibet.net/williams-criticism.shtml
o The International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design: 'Intelligent Design, Aesthetics and Design Arguments' @
iscid.org/papers/Williams_Aesthetics_012302.pdf
• I have been published in Healing and Wholeness Magazine, Philosophy Now, The Philosopher's Magazine and Thirdway Magazine.
• I have conducted written debates with American atheists Prof. Michael Martin (in The Philosopher's Magazine) and Prof. Carl Stecher (of Salem State College - which we hope to publish), as well as British atheist Steven Carr (cf. www.bowness.demon.co.uk/deb.htm).
Society Membership
• I am a full member of the Evangelical Philosophy Society (EPS). cf. http://www.epsociety.org/
Hobbies
• Reading, Cinema, Playing the Flute
http://www.peter-s-williams.co.uk/CV.doc
WHAT A WASTE of a halfway decent brain!
Posted by: CalGeorge | October 4, 2007 4:34 PM
His C.V.:
Name: Peter S. Williams
Date of Birth: 23/09/74
E-Mail: peterswilliams@trinity73.freeserve.co.uk
Web Site @ www.peter-s-williams.co.uk
Occupation: Christian Apologist
Personal History
• 1993-1999, studied philosophy (specialising in the philosophy of religion) at Cardiff University (B.A), Sheffield University (M.A) and The University of East Anglia in Norwich (M.Phil - 'Truth, Goodness, Beauty and the Nature of God'), where I also worked as a part-time philosophy tutor.
• 1999-2002, worked as the full-time student assistant at Holy Trinity Church, Leicester. This role included leading a team of student helpers, organizing and leading events, writing study materials, evangelism (especially using the Alpha course), and mentoring students.
• Sept 2002, joining Christian evangelism organisation Damaris (c.f. www.damaris.org/index.htm) as resident apologist.
Publications
• I am the author of The Case for God (Monarch, 1999) and The Case for Angels (Paternoster, 2002).
Physicist turned priest and Templeton prize winner, Sir John Polkinghorne FRS, called The Case for God:
"A scrupulous and wide ranging survey of the arguments for the existence of God"
Bristol Baptist College tutor Robert Ellis said that The Case for God was: "a robust defence of basic Christian positions in the philosophy of religion from an evangelical but open point of view"; and commented: "There is an admirable breadth of learning and thought on offer here. . . He has interesting things to say on all these subjects." (Science & Christian Belief, Volume 12, Oct 2000.)
The Case for Angels has been commended by philosopher Peter Kreeft:
"The Case for Angels. . . is quadruply outstanding: stylistically, philosophically, theologically, and in scholarship. It is engagingly readable (a rarity among philosophers), persuasively argued, soundly Christian, and "covers the waterfront" (the author has done his homework). It reminds me of the works of Mortimer Adler and C.S. Lewis in successfully bridging the gap between the scholarly and the popular. . . Best of all, it gives the reader a deep and wide philosophical and theological education along the way, solving a number of serious current disputes clearly and reasonably (and with a rare economy of words). I can hardly imagine what more a book could possibly do to make a compelling and complete case for angels, unless it takes wing."
In his foreword, philosopher and theologian William A. Dembski writes:
"Williams identifies the key stumbling blocks that render angels implausible to our intellectual elite and successfully refutes them. Not surprisingly, the biggest of these stumbling blocks is naturalism, and Williams deals effectively with it. . . There exists an invisible world that is more real and weighty than our secular imaginations can fathom. I commend this book as a way of retraining our imaginations about that reality."
• I am a regular contributor to the Damaris website and discussion board:
o 'Leisure Without Television' @
www.damaris.org/olr/features/2000/leisurewithouttv.htm
o 'Why Naturalists Should Mind About Physicalism, and Vice Versa' @
www.damaris.org/dcscs/readingroom/2000/williams1.htm
o 'Terror from the Skies and the Existence of God' @
www.damaris.org/writing/articles/other_articles/worldtradecentre3.htm
o 'Review of Death and Philosophy' @
www.damaris.org/olr/features/2000/deathandphilosophy.htm
o 'Review of Alain De Botton's The Consolations of Philosophy' @ http://www.damaris.org/olr/features/2001/consolations.htm
• I have also been published on the internet with:
o Leadership University: 'Angelology and Biblical Skepticism' @
www.leaderu.com/theology/williams_angel.html &
'A Theistic Account of Aesthetic Values' @
http://www.leaderu.com/theology/williams_beauty.html
o Quodlibet theology journal: 'Aesthetic Arguments for the Existence of God' @ www.quodlibet.net/williams-aesthetic.shtml &
'New Testament Criticism and Jesus the Exorcist' @
www.quodlibet.net/williams-criticism.shtml
o The International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design: 'Intelligent Design, Aesthetics and Design Arguments' @
iscid.org/papers/Williams_Aesthetics_012302.pdf
• I have been published in Healing and Wholeness Magazine, Philosophy Now, The Philosopher's Magazine and Thirdway Magazine.
• I have conducted written debates with American atheists Prof. Michael Martin (in The Philosopher's Magazine) and Prof. Carl Stecher (of Salem State College - which we hope to publish), as well as British atheist Steven Carr (cf. www.bowness.demon.co.uk/deb.htm).
Society Membership
• I am a full member of the Evangelical Philosophy Society (EPS). cf. http://www.epsociety.org/
Hobbies
• Reading, Cinema, Playing the Flute
http://www.peter-s-williams.co.uk/CV.doc
Looks like studying phlodophy of religion is little more than an exercise in self-delusion.
What a waste!
Posted by: CalGeorge | October 4, 2007 4:39 PM
Hey I believe in Angels! In fact, I believe in all five seasons of Angel (give or take a few episodes). I've even (pre-)ordered the complete Angel-in-a-box set from Amazon. So.... am I qualified to be an angelologist now?
Posted by: Moxiequz | October 4, 2007 4:45 PM
Army?
Manichaean.
Believes he worships the Crucified One, but worships the Skinned One.
Naaah. Read the New Testament! Demons have no problem existing outside of people (...even if not outside of people's minds).
"Creationists are not just more stupid than we suppose, they are more stupid than we can suppose."
-- chuko
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 4, 2007 4:45 PM
"Why is it important to know about angels? It's important because all of these are aspects of reality that impinge on us. The problem with the secular intelligentsia is that they deny those aspects of reality that are inconvenient to their world-picture."
Of course "swat, thwack" damn it, another angel circling round my head and I missed it. Horrible bits of little glitterati all shining by the light of my lamp. If you can't thwack 'em, it's best to pretend they don't exist as they impinge on you. Trust me!
Posted by: sailor | October 4, 2007 4:48 PM
There are two demon believers who showed up in the comments area on Richard Dawkins' site:
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1647,Do-you-have-to-read-up-on-leprechology-before-disbelieving-in-them,Richard-Dawkins-The-Independent,page22#comments
Look for posts by guys calling themselves "brother john" and "revcort."
Posted by: Norman Doering | October 4, 2007 4:53 PM
I love Wild Bill's careful emphasis in not allowing fallen angels to have a capital "A." I wonder if their is a special decapitalizing ceremony when an angel falls, something like tearing the epaulets off of a disgraced officer's uniform during his court martial.
The harpist plays a solemn tune as the fallen Angel is marched before an assembly of his fellow Angels and Cherubs. None will meet his glance. In the center of the parade cloud stands his superior Archangel with a stern and unforgiving expression. The Archangel grabs the fallen's halo and snaps in half. The Cherubs stifle a sob. Then he takes the fallen's capital "A" and casts it into a lake of fire. Finally, he points the haloless and decapitalized fallen angel to the golden gates, to leave and never darken their silver lining again...
Posted by: John McKay | October 4, 2007 4:57 PM
Mere Angels? Please don't forget that there is an hierarchy in the heavenly Angel-hood: Archangels, Angels, Thrones, Dominions, Choirs, Cherubim and Seraphim. No really, I'm not making this shit up. Ex-catholics who have seen the light will back me up on this one.
I may have missed a couple out, and got the order wrong, but who gives a fuck since they don't exist.
Posted by: lunartalks | October 4, 2007 5:01 PM
It occurred to me 20 years ago that since Fundy Christians (and probably other superstitious folks) believe in a spirit world, including "good" and "bad" spirits, that when they watch horror flicks ("Angel Heart", for example), they're watching with a very different POV.
When I watch, I'm thinking, "Hmmm, nice special effects.", or, "Wow, that looks possible. Not.", and at the same time, the Fundy would be thinking, "This is an excellent documentary.", or "See what happens when you turn away from Jesus, kids?".
It's quite a paradigm shift.
When you finally realize and accept that there are fairy stories, and there is reality, life takes on a whole new, and much more satisfying, meaning. I figured it out when I was a senior at UC Santa Cruz, and I'm 49 years old now. I wish I handn't wasted years believing in fairies.
They're gone now. That's a good thing. And I can only thank the few Fundies at UCSC for attempting to bring me into that fold. Their superstitions let them down.
Posted by: MikeM | October 4, 2007 5:08 PM
How about Charlie's Angels?
They looked real enough to me...
Posted by: robd | October 4, 2007 5:29 PM
lunartalks #45
You left out Angel food cake. I think it goes between Choirs and Dominions.
Posted by: John McKay | October 4, 2007 5:30 PM
Yep lunartalks, that there sky is all kinds of filled with soulless winged things. I recommend reading up on the subject if only one ever gets to meet Dembski to ask him how many times he's been impinged upon by a cherub. Here is one of my favourite sources for such things: http://www.bookofratings.com/angels.html, http://www.bookofratings.com/angels2.html
Stuff like this makes me rethink my position on Xianity. I mean, some big jerk in the sky is one thing, but a massive invisible bureaucracy filled with middle managers, steering committees, and complicated tax codes? That just makes me want to drop to my knees in awe.
Posted by: Brownian | October 4, 2007 5:31 PM
Woop! Woop! batshit crazy.
Posted by: Rich | October 4, 2007 5:33 PM
*sigh* where does this idea that scientists are the type of people who when witnessing an angel or a demonic posession involving levitation would say it never happened? (Don't answer; it's rhetorical.)
No, a scientist is someone who will say when told of an angel witness or demonic posession involving levitation will say "I don't believe you". No one actually knows what a scientist would say if a scientist *did* see an angel or a demonic posession involving levitation because no scientist ever *has* seen an angel or a demonic posession involving levitation. (I imagine if one ever did the scientist would probably say something like "Holy Shit! What the Fuck?!!! How the hell is that *happening*!?!?" but that's only speculation. I doubt highly a chance to observe a scientist's reaction will ever occur.)
So who's that cognition guy and/or folklorist or neurologist who pointed out that when people (supposedly even intelligent people) are told "not X" will invariable forget the "not" and remember the "X". So apparently if you say "Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction" or "God didn't create the world" people will hear "Saddam had weapons of mass destruction" and "God created the world". However if you say "The world arose through natural causes" or .... hmmm ... "Saddam's weapons were minor"(????) ... it's tough to state a negative positively ... these will be remembered correctly.
So... "Scientists refute angels" and "There is no evidence for angels" transmute to "Scientists refute angels" and "There is evidence for angels" yields "Scientists deny evidence of angels".
*sigh* the fact that the human brain can actually work this way seems to prove evolution to me. If we were created, we'd surely have been made smart enough for this *not* to happen. I think in our evolution it was usually more beneficial to be quick than to be right. Result, we jump to conclussions, we fall for optical illussions, and we are seemingly incapible of objectivity. *sigh*
Posted by: woozy | October 4, 2007 5:41 PM
Yep lunartalks, that there sky is all kinds of filled with soulless winged things. I recommend reading up on the subject if only to be able to ask Dembski how many times he's been impinged upon by a cherub. For a brief and funny description of the angelic orders, google the Book of Ratings by Lore Sjöberg, click on archives, and look for 'Angelic Orders' (my links are bing held for moderation.)
Stuff like this makes me rethink my position on Xianity. I mean, some big jerk in the sky is one thing, but a massive invisible bureaucracy filled with middle managers, steering committees, and complicated tax codes? That just makes me want to drop to my knees in awe (and then figure out how to save my soul in an offshore account--maybe somewhere in limbo?--so God's Big Government in the Clouds can't get its spendocratic hands all over it.)
Posted by: Brownian | October 4, 2007 5:54 PM
I've never encountered an angel or seen any proof of their existance, therefore they have never been an inconvenience to me. I still don't believe in them.
Posted by: Kuhlmancanadensis | October 4, 2007 5:57 PM
The conference was entitled 'The Nature of Nature' and focused on whether nature is self-contained or points beyond itself.
Lol, more "pointing". Yes, nature is not self-contained and it is "pointing" at the angels. Pointy point-poitn.
And since the intelligentsia are by definition intelligent (though rarely wise),
Something tells me doesn't like smart people very much.
Posted by: 386sx | October 4, 2007 5:58 PM
Moxiequz:
Eh, whether or not 3rd and 4th season actually happened is up for debate.
Posted by: archgoon | October 4, 2007 5:59 PM
Some of them believe in angels, too.
What, you've never seen "Wings of Desire" (a Wim Wenders film .)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093191/
Posted by: Kamehameha the Great | October 4, 2007 6:20 PM
"Angel" is certainly a rather broad term for divine beings. Keruvim are bull-sphinx, Seraphim are griffons, and so forth. The whole "human with wings" thing is basically a post-Roman invention, particularly derived from Roman iconography of Mercury, Cupid, and so forth.
So not only are "angelologists" superstitious antiscientific nutcases, they're overtly practicing Paganism. Hooray for hypocrisy.
Posted by: JDP | October 4, 2007 6:23 PM
"There exists an invisible world that is more real and weighty than our secular imaginations can fathom."
is anyone starting to get the feeling that these guys ingest massive amounts of lsd before speaking or writing?
Posted by: cereal breath | October 4, 2007 6:27 PM
Woozy wrote:
I saw Criss Angel levitate -- so I did see an Angel levitate. However, I think he used wires.
Posted by: Norman Doering | October 4, 2007 6:27 PM
And since the intelligentsia are by definition intelligent (though rarely wise),
Something tells me doesn't like smart people very much.
Bill knows who does or does not buy his books.
Posted by: George Cauldron | October 4, 2007 6:44 PM
lunartalks you forgot the Powers and Principalities.
Posted by: Knight of L-sama | October 4, 2007 6:46 PM
There exists an invisible world that is more real and weighty than our secular imaginations can fathom.
It goes away when I stop drinking though. Theologians are still searching for the bible verse that explains why.
Posted by: melior | October 4, 2007 6:46 PM
Keruvim are bull-sphinx, Seraphim are griffons, and so forth.
President Bush: "Human-animal hybrids."
Posted by: melior | October 4, 2007 6:47 PM
Re SEF
The most important reason for Newton rejecting the trinity was his anti-catholicism. Since the concept of the trinity is central to Catholic theology, it is not surprising that he rejected it.
Posted by: SLC | October 4, 2007 6:54 PM
Let's not forget about how exciting the world must be when you really and truly believe that invisible angels and daemons are fighting it out right here and now amongst us. It's like a constant high-speed action movie!
Posted by: Bad | October 4, 2007 6:56 PM
That's too specific a term. We could shorten to LOLogists, and then just include theologians in there with them.
Posted by: Jon | October 4, 2007 6:57 PM
Seems to me the only capital "A" angels I've ever met just used that for their stripper...errr...I mean, stage name. =)
Posted by: Fastlane | October 4, 2007 7:05 PM
I am an Angel of the Lord. Here, I will prove it to you. I will look into the future and predict that the blasphemous show Cavemen will be cancelled during it's first season.
Posted by: ShinyAngel | October 4, 2007 7:09 PM
Posted by: Bobby | October 4, 2007 7:10 PM
Every time I tell myself I won't be surprised again, they go and outdo themselves. Does Dembski even realize it's talking like that that got them in trouble in Dover? I mean, it would have been at least a little harder to make a case that ID = Creationism if they didn't say so so often themselves. I'm guessing "The Nature of Nature" conference was about ID?
Posted by: Dan Cardinale | October 4, 2007 7:18 PM
Which religious authority gets to decide the nature of angels, etc? Or is it a theozoologist or whatever was mentioned above?
Or is it all, er, crap?
(NB:These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This post is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.)
Posted by: PalMD | October 4, 2007 7:23 PM
How refreshing to see Dembski listed as a theologian! It makes me much happier than "mathematician"....
Posted by: katie | October 4, 2007 7:28 PM
Dawkins bringing up fairies seems all the more appropriate. On the other hand, fairies are slightly less insane to believe in than angels (and more interesting if they did exist).
Posted by: travc | October 4, 2007 7:29 PM
#51-
Yep lunartalks, that there sky is all kinds of filled with soulless winged things.
Birds? Bats? Monarch butterflies? Demon-possessed palmetto bugs?
Am I getting warmer?
Posted by: Barn Owl | October 4, 2007 7:29 PM
Malakhim are essentially equivalent to fairies, although malakhim wander around in the desert and fairies tend to stick around their mounds.
Posted by: JDP | October 4, 2007 7:35 PM
Aha, but the question is, where exactly would Angels figure in the standard Tree of Life? Since they have wings and look human, they obviously disobey the ridiculous Darwinist dogma of a branching tree structure, thus proving evolution wrong and the Bible right once again.
QED, bitches.
Posted by: DrFrank | October 4, 2007 7:43 PM
No hypocrisy about it: when it got started, the Roman Catholic Church was big on pre-empting pagan iconography and mythology, including dates, "saints", &c. All so that people wouldn't feel any sense of displacement in the new religion. Sneaky, yes, but very deliberate.
Posted by: liveparadox | October 4, 2007 7:48 PM
"Demon-possessed palmetto bugs?"
Oh man, those are very very real, at least here is South Florida, I'm pretty sure I've heard them speaking in tongues.
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | October 4, 2007 7:55 PM
I'm guessing that it focused on their new whinge about materialists treating nature as natural, rather supernatural.Again, that seems to be the tune they've been singing post-Dover.
Posted by: Bobby | October 4, 2007 7:57 PM
I don't know. My definition of "hypocrisy" extends to sternly claiming "Thou shalt not have any false idols" and then turning around and saying, "Sure, you can 'venerate' 'Saint' Brigit because she's not exactly Brigid and you still pay the church a tithe."
Modern Christianity has been almost completely paganized. Say what you want about the Muslims, but they at least practice the monotheism they preach.
Posted by: JDP | October 4, 2007 7:57 PM
Oh man, those are very very real, at least here is South Florida, I'm pretty sure I've heard them speaking in tongues.
You know how you put your hands in the pockets of jeans or shorts that have been hanging outside to dry (a dubious term along the Gulf Coast), to push them down when you put them on?
Well, I did that once, and a palme....
"Nuf said. :-P
Posted by: Barn Owl | October 4, 2007 8:08 PM
I actually have a book handy that describes the angel heirarchy. They are broken up into 3 triads, the first triad being closst to god and the thrid being farthest. Each level passes on order to the level below. The following are laid out from left to right, with those on the left in a row being closer to god