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.
- Log in to post 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?
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…
my granma si a angel
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!
"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.
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.
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.
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).
Dembski, not "Demski".
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.
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....
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.
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).
Frickin' faeries in the garden.
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...
"Christian intelligentsia?!" Now there's an oxymoron...
Well, 2002 wasn't all that long ago; it's considerably more recent than the last time PZ's (and my) hometown team won the championship. Not to mention that the 2002 Angels made it to the World Series by trouncing our Twins in the American League Championship Series, four games to one.
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.
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.
...the phenomenen of levitating lunatics - something science can't really explain.
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.
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 !
/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.
Why do squares make theological sense?
Because they contain four right angels.
(I'm available for parties)
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?
Haha Greg, I had a very similiar thought about something yesterday.
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.
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.
What does an omnipotent being need helpers for anyway?
Or is Yanweh just a lazy fucker.
Excuse the lame joke and the terrible pronunciation, but:
"AngeLOLogy".
Hmm, JohnnieCanuck, you raise an interesting possibility. Well, "Meet your new boss/Same as the old boss," I say.
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.
Still pure science and empiricism over in Dembski's lab, I see.
NickM, Oh, Dembski's definitely a pin head.
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.
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!
"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.)
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.
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:
oLeadership 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
oQuodlibet 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
oThe 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!
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:
oLeadership 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
oQuodlibet 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
oThe 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!
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?
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
"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!
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-o…
Look for posts by guys calling themselves "brother john" and "revcort."
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...
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.
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.
How about Charlie's Angels?
They looked real enough to me...
lunartalks #45
You left out Angel food cake. I think it goes between Choirs and Dominions.
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.
Woop! Woop! batshit crazy.
*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*
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.)
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.
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.
Moxiequz:
Eh, whether or not 3rd and 4th season actually happened is up for debate.
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/
"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.
"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?
Woozy wrote:
I saw Criss Angel levitate -- so I did see an Angel levitate. However, I think he used wires.
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.
lunartalks you forgot the Powers and Principalities.
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.
Keruvim are bull-sphinx, Seraphim are griffons, and so forth.
President Bush: "Human-animal hybrids."
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.
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!
That's too specific a term. We could shorten to LOLogists, and then just include theologians in there with them.
Seems to me the only capital "A" angels I've ever met just used that for their stripper...errr...I mean, stage name. =)
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.
The angels most people believe in have nothing in common with those described in the bible anyway.
I suspect you have it backwards: more likely he is simply peddling whatever he thinks they'll buy.
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?
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.)
How refreshing to see Dembski listed as a theologian! It makes me much happier than "mathematician"....
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).
#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?
Malakhim are essentially equivalent to fairies, although malakhim wander around in the desert and fairies tend to stick around their mounds.
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.
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.
"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.
ISTM that the Dover case sawed off their legs so short that they don't even bother pretending anymore.
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.
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.
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
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 than those on the right.
God
First Triad:
Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones
Second Triad:
Dominions, Virtues, Powers
Third Triad:
Principalities, Archangels, Angels
Humans
Yep, God is so omnipotent he needs three levels of middle management to handle things for him. Although I should point out that with two of those levels, Cherubim are his charioteers and Thrones, despite their name, actually make up his chariot. It shows you how highly he thinks of them, the highest triad is made up of one class of angels he sits on and another class that drags him around.
From DrFrank: "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."
Now see, your just playing the ID game. Just because we haven't intermediate fossils from the common ancestors shared by us and angels doesn't mean they disprove evolution. In fact, I distinctly remember seeing a nature documentary when I was little that showed some winged monkeys.
Or maybe angels are the result of some kinky man-duck hybridization. That might explain why they're embarassed to show themselves.
denying inconvenient aspects of reality. yes. shameful stuff.
Yeah? What have angels done for me lately? Feh.
Now here's somebody whose reality has been truly impinged.
Say what you want about the Muslims, but they at least practice the monotheism they preach.
Actually, I've read that Sunni purists like bin Laden attack Shiites for venerating martyrs at shrines (really). And he probably considered the Golden Mosque a den of idolatry because many Shiites think the Mahdi assumed control of Shia Islam and vanished from sight there. (I'm too lazy to find it now, but I think anyone a believer meets on the street could be the Mahdi.)
David Marjanovic, what on earth do you mean by "The Skinned One"? I assume you don't mean this guy, but whether you do or not, I don't understand the reference...
The funny thing is, if he'd argued for the existence of leprechauns, even his friends would call him crazy.
It's early days, and Dembski has not yet gotten cautious. Wait a bit, and it will no longer be "angels." It will be "unknown flying persons." Ok. Nothing but science, now.
Bah... We all know of course that the real truth is that angels are just Hollows playing at being people, or Hell Butterflies, since normal people can't actually *see* spirits, that the souls are sent to the other side by soul reapers and that heaven doesn't exist, but the Soul Society does. I even have a Sanbakto in my closet. Honest!! It works so much better for getting rid of evil spirits than chanting. lol
Seriously, when it comes to just being vaguely interesting, there are a myriad of alternate versions of heaven, hell, etc., that are about 900 times more interesting that the stupid BS these people believe in. If you have seen one dumb movie or TV show about some lame person that hears god all the time or speaks to angels, you have seen them all. And they are *all* boring.
Although many look for signs of angels from up high...
With my credit I need to find angels that will co-sign :)
Even though I am an atheist, I believe in angels.
"What?", you say. I answer, it is not the traditional types of angels. As it atands, angels have done a poor job of protecting humans over the years. Just in the last century, they were unable to stop the Nazi slaughter of most of eastern Europe, Stalinist purges, The Cultural Revolution, the genocide in Darfur and the Sudan and the many other acts of genocide. They have also done a poor job of helping abused children and beaten wives. When you get down to it, angels have down a poor job of helping the down trodden and oppressed.
But there is one group of humanity angels are looking out for, the terminally stupid. All of have dealings with people where we wonder; 'How does this person survive daily life? It cannot be by wits alone.' The answer is angels! They look after and bless the stupid.
The fool on the cell phone, weaving through traffic? An angels keeps that person from crashing.
The person rushing through a crowd, oblivious to the fact other people are around? Angels are the bodyguards.
You may ask; 'Are the intentions of the angels good?' They may think they are but it wrecks havec for the rest of us. The terminally stupid live longer then they should. They breed more and then raise their offspring to be stupid. (I am of the believe that most people are not born to be stupid but are, instead, raised to be stupid.)
The existance of angels are a bane of our existance.
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.
You our so write! Some crazie Cristain was talkin about epifanies and howe angels are offten misstaken four men in the buybull butt i now you are write i now another smart person when i sea won!!!!
They did? Where the heck do you live and how long will you let me sleep on your coach? Hot damn! A place with women who look like Charlie's Angels...
Hmmm, Is there something wrong with these people that they think there is something evil about fiction. Life's a dreary place if we can't have stories about flying beings and epic battles behind the scenes. But somehow people feel bad about liking stories if they are frivilous and false so they the pretend they are true and important? Then if someone else makes up a better story ("let's make the angels vulnerable to kryptonite!") you can put his stories down 'cause stories from "our secular imaginations" can't ever be as interesting as important as the real invisible world ("Are you nuts, everyone knows Superman had short hair, you post-modern heretic!") and are thereful evil. Vicious circle!
I think they have such a lack of imagination they can't imagine anyone else imagining something fanciful, so the assume if it's fanciful it must actually be true 'cause no-one could possibly be creative enough to make up angels.
"The conference was entitled 'The Nature of Nature' and focused on whether nature is self-contained or points beyond itself."
I'm having trouble understanding this as meaningful. Nature "points beyond itself" ... to what? "Nature" here is surely "everything that's out there" if the word has any meaning at all. What could Nature point to if it itself is everything?
"Yep, God is so omnipotent he needs three levels of middle management to handle things for him."
I was thinking that too, TheBlackCat. Especially when I was reading about the angels whose job it is to patrol the gates of Heaven and make sure no demons or condemned people get in. If God is so effing omnipotent, why does he need flunkies?
He sounds increasingly like a nine-year-old. "I could do that if I wanted to. I just don't want to."
As to evidence, though, I'm pretty sure there was an angel skeleton found underground during construction of a shopping mall near Springfield.
I fail to see how anyone can be surprised by this.
Is that a mushroom cloud hanging over the local irony-meter manufacturing plant, or is that just the angel dust?
Wait, I think I see the problem right here. They think what they imagine is real.
Ok, now how do we convince them that. no, not everything that happens unside your head is real. It was just a bad dream...
BTW, almost all of the prophets in the OT talk about god communicating with them IN THEIR SLEEP!
Hmm...one of my girlfriends is an angel; the other one is a demon. I love both of them, and they are both *quite* real, let me assure you...;)
Must be a mushroom cloud, because he obviously inhaled all the angel dust.
Janine has almost convinced me with her Theory of Angels (ToA).
It's classic - it's God's counter against evolution. You see, humans are perfect, we're exactly what God wanted us to be, so now he has to stop evolution. But how? Simple, unleash those angels (damn! my fingers refuse to type that word, it keeps coming out as 'angles'). Mess up the fitness function so that evolution just sort of drifts around aimlessly.
It's brilliant in it's subtlety - only a Supreme Being could have thought of it and pulled it off!
If God is omnipotent why does He need angels? He doesn't. God takes on different forms appropriate to the task. Angels are God, used to interact with mortals because mortals cannot handle God in all His glory.
In short, angels are God's sock puppets.
Of course there's an Angel hierarchy. It goes President, Vice President, Sergeant of Arms, Secretary/Treasurer, Patch members, prospects and hangarounds, and everyone from patches up has wings on their backs. And of course they've got drugs, guns, strippers, leather pants and really loud bikes. Good enough for me.
Oh, Norman, I have to concur, Revcort might be one of the most annoying trolls I've ever come across. I know that might be saying something, but still...damn that guy is odious.
Technically, there _is_ an invisible world out there that's weightier than our imaginations can comprehend. The black hole at the center of the galaxy contains how many million solar masses? And you can't see the darn thing at all!
I think what Dembski meant was "There is an imaginary world in my head that's more important to me than mundane reality. In reality I'm a washout, a sellout and a fraud. In my head I'm God's own personal bestest buddy and scientific sidekick. I am the Spock of the Divine Enterprise."
Angels are actually on the verge of extinction. What do you think they make angel-food cake from?
Incidentally, my very reasonably-proced Underworld Cookbook is still available on amazon.hel .
You'd think these angels that Dembski talks about would be intervening to help produce some of that mythical ID research. So far it seems that a miracle will be needed for it to happen. Aren't miracles in the job description for angels? Hell, a concise theory would do.
If I had a pet demon, do you think I could train it to get me a beer from the fridge?
Ok, now how do we convince them that. no, not everything that happens unside your head is real. It was just a bad dream...
Spike 'em up with LSD. Either they'll figure it out, or they'll descend into such raving lunacy that no-one could take them seriously.
Although I can't entirely rule out the possibility that this has already happened...
"Yes Mommy, I know the clay doggie I made has only three legs and one eye. That's just how I want him!"
Sock puppets? LOL. Hey, not even. Angels are God's wingmen in the holy flying formation inside the cosmic sock. They are the thumb and pinkie, Jesus and The Holy Spirit are the index and ring fingers, and God himself, standing tall and proud, commands the center.
Sorry to contradict you SEF but what you have written is simply not true, in fact it is complete crap.
If I recall correctly, you said almost exactly the same thing about the claim that we cannot possess absolutely certain knowledge.
This leads me to believe that the claim about Newton is more likely to be true than I thought before you made the claim.
Christian intelligentsia
That's AWESOME! I gotta remember that one.. Yeppers, it's going right on my list between "Jumbo Shrimp" and "Military Intelligence"
My girlfriend is an angel.
Do the wings get in the way when having sex?
It depends on the position. Airborne sex would add a whole new set of possibilities, too.
I don't believe you. I already know you are wrong about the rest of your post but I don't even believe your starter is true. Your apologeticness looks to be another of those imaginary things.
It depends on the position. Airborne sex would add a whole new set of possibilities, too.
I think it would also depend on how, exactly, they connect to the shoulders. The human shoulder is not particularly well-suited for the attachment of another pair of limbs, not to mention a pair with the massive muscles needed to support flight in a human-sized organism. If the wings are coming out the back that would obviously make lying down difficult, but I doubt flying like that would be possible either (it would limit the size of a wing stroke that would be possible). On the other hand if they came out the sides like are arms do or from a second pair of shoulders behind the arms but oriented the same way I don't think that would interfere with most positions. They might even act as support.
Angelology? It's been a while since I've studied Greek, but... wouldn't that be the study of messengers? Maybe they could put radio tags on bike couriers to study their migration, or watch Fedex guys in their native habitats. Of course, with modern telecommunications, it'd be far less important nowadays.
PS Slightly off-topic but since bits of the Newton evidence aren't that hard to find on the internet these days:
Some appears within this discussion, which draws from a text by Newton - and that and other sayings by Newton is further discussed here too.
Is this why creationists can't see transitional fossils? Angels keep getting in the way?
Move your fucking ass, Landon, you're confusing the stupids.
Sorry to contradict you SEF but what you have written is simply not true, in fact it is complete crap.
People who aren't stupid provide some basis on which their contradiction rests.
I don't know about angels, but Newton did say that the Bible predicts that the world will end in 2060 -- apparently he did that work to counter those of his own time who were claiming it would happen sooner.
"BTW, almost all of the prophets in the OT talk about god communicating with them IN THEIR SLEEP!"
I have asked numerous christians how they deferentiate between god speaking to a person in a dream and a person who dreams that god spoke to them.
Being a threat to the power of the Great King of Persia was not in the same ballpark as making weird implications about the power of the Roman Emperor. Accordingly, Mani, the founder of Manichaeism, was skinned alive. Crucifixion was way too good for him.
This brings up an intersting question. Are there any birds (or bats) that have airborne sexual intercourse?
I remember seeing a discovery channel/animal planet/something piece about a species of (alaskan?) Eagles in which males fight for dominance and mating privileges by playing an airborne version of chicken. They start at altitude with talons interlocked and dive straight down in a spinning motion. Vertical attitude is maintained and wings are not flapped. The individual who lets go first as the ground(water?) approaches loses.
So even if it doesn't exist yet, airborne intercourse for winged creatures doesn't seem completely impossible on biomechanical and aerodynamic grounds. But you'll probably have to be quick about it. :-)
"Do the wings get in the way when having sex?"
An angel does not make love... an angel IS love.
Once you give up angels and devils, the jig is largely up, a fact that was recognized by John Wesley (1703-1791). Wesley was the cofounder of the Methodists. Here's part of one of his comments on the reality of witchcraft.
"...giving up witchcraft is, in effect, giving up the Bible; and they [the skeptics] know, on the other hand, that if but one account of the intercourse of men with separate sprits be admitted, their whole castle in the air (Deism, Atheism, Materialism) falls to the ground."
"How does anyone manage to take religion at all seriously?"
If you really wanted to know the answer, you'd get past self-satisfied puffing and blowing and look up some of the scholarly literature on religion---its anthropology, sociology, psychology. You would take religion seriously as a diverse, complex phenomenon, seriously enough to seek to understand it. You would act like a scientist instead of barking rhetorical questions like a South Park caricature of Richard Dawkins. It reads like this is not about truth, but about the heady joy of being more enlightened than the next five billion schmucks.
Besides which, I would love to know what your toupee-popping outrage over the mere fact that religion exists has to do with evolutionary biology---as, usually, the postings on Panda's Thumb, where I met with this effusion, make some pretence of doing. What next? Rants about how middle-school girls are dressing too skimpy? Lists of favorite pizza toppings? How zero can zero get on the relevance meter?
Slipping the words "intelligent design" into the last few dozen words doesn't make it relevant.
SEF your original quote which I objected to specifically claimed that Newton practiced angelology none of the references (links) that you have provided prove your contention.
The first a is secondary text which interprets a single unpublished quote of Newton's about agents of god as being about angels even if this interpretation were correct a singular reference to an angel is a long way from being the practice of angelology. As to the correctness or not of this interpretation Newton believed himself to be an agent of god and he certainly did not consider himself to be an angel.
Your second reference (link) is the transcription of one of the numerous unpublished Newton manuscripts on religion, which contains no reference to angels. A search of all the manuscripts available on this site reveals that although Newton in his religious writings quotes many bible passages that refer to angels he himself never discusses them.
Your third reference (link) is to a book from Michael Crowe, an excellent historian of science, that concerns itself with the historical debate on the possibilities of extraterrestrial life and again has nothing to do with angelology.
Your case remains dismally unproved. Newton was by any standards a religious fanatic who by our standards believed many things that seem to us to be extraordinary for a man who is credited with laying the foundations of modern science however until now there is no evidence that he indulged in angelology, which is a special discipline within theology and concerns itself with the nature of angels. To prove your original contention you would have to provide a substantive text from Newton that does just that and this you have until now failed to do.
On the question as to whether Newton believed in angels the answer is almost certainly yes given the fact that he was an extremely devote christian even if his form of christianity was extremely heterodox.
Sorry if I was somewhat crass in my original post but I get very annoyed about people making sloppy and incorrect claims about major figures in the history of science.
Thony C.:
So your contention is that a man who believed that the ancients possessed a deep understanding of the world, and that vague and cryptic references to this knowledge could be found in Scriptural texts, would write countless times about the Biblical passages discussing angels but would never speculate as to their literal or figurative nature?
George Carlin put it most succinctly:
Angels? What are you, f-ing stupid?
I find it strange that somebody who insists that knowledge must be based on solid empirical evidence should in the case of history conclude that unfounded speculation is adequate!
It's not unfounded speculation (about Newton). It's merely that not all the evidence is "fossilised" on the internet. I pointed out that *some* of the evidence or hints to it, itself already rather damning stuff re Newton's angel beliefs, was now available.
Unfounded speculation? Where are you getting that?
We know that Newton believed the ancients possessed deep knowledge of the world (and thought that his Law of Gravitation was hinted at in the Scriptures).
We know that Newton was fond of alchemy and was familiar with the practice of hiding practical knowledge in symbolic and cryptographic references.
We know that Newton referred extensively to the Biblical passages describing angels.
Couple of decades ago, the proprietors of a mom & pop used book store would hold a "Let's Talk!" Saturday afternoon bull session where any woo-wrangler could spout for an hour. One speaker was a lady talking about angels. She said each person had a guardian angel and that angel could communicate with other guardian angels and angels could interfere with real objects (sorry, "objects on the material plane").
So when question & answer time rolled around, I asked her to ask her guardian angel to ask my guardian angel what my mother's name was. Blank stare and some mumbling about "it's not that easy."
A few minutes later, trying to find out how far angels could range and how fast they could travel, I asked if her angel could unfurl the Galileo probe's main antenna. More mumbling.
Well, I shut up after that. And Galileo's antenna didn't unfurl.
There was also the guy who was pushing the idea that Noah's Ark was actually an "arc" as in a section of circle, and had a toy called a rattleback to prove it...
But that's another story...
-- CV
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
Being a threat to the power of the Great King of Persia was not in the same ballpark as making weird implications about the power of the Roman Emperor. Accordingly, Mani, the founder of Manichaeism, was skinned alive. Crucifixion was way too good for him.