The harm done by religious ‘god’ gibberish and black magical ‘prayer’
I wrote this post a while back and then withdrew it. But on reflection, after noting its rushed blog character I have restored because it points to something important. The issue is the misuse of t he term ‘god’ and the damage it does to discussion, and to the minds and understandings of its so-called religious users, in reality victims. References to ‘god’ are considered off limits and sacred but if one stands back and looks at the reality which is sad and which points to grotesque and slovenly abuse of language. I am neither a theist or atheist, but I am a ‘defacto atheist’ with respect to the common lingo of ‘god’ which is mostly gibberish and its usage does great harm to those who are enjoined to use it with reverence and awe. The sad reality is that the whole confusion destroys clarity and right thinking in its adherents and confuses all sense of physics, reality, and mostly sadly the very religion that seems to enjoin its use.
I f we examine history we can see there were many traditions of the ‘naming of god’ that exprssed reluctance to use such language, not least the early Hebraic with its now confused IHVH which in its original form shows the reluctance to use the tetrm at all. Anyone who stood at the dawn of monotheism must surely have grasped the danger and their reluctance is born out by the successive history which has spawned an almost grotesque discourse of ‘god talk’ and worse ‘god swearing’ and the whole sphere of incoherent theological pidgin theology. The efforts of secular humanists, despite their own confusions no doubt are thus important steps toward mental health and a warning as to the mental confusion of those who think they are using sacred terminology. Theologians have been powerless here and mostly have entered the confusion themselves.
The post was prompted by a deceptive piece of ID trash at the Uncommon Descent website.
The study of ID is a perfect good exercise in reviewing the ‘design’ factor in evolution and in nature. But the minute you use the term ‘intelligent’ a warning light goes on: a cryptic reference to ‘god’ often enters on the sly as if ‘intelligent’ design proved anything about ‘god’.
The ID group has sometimes shown discipline here and steered clear of creationism but they could never shake off theological double entendres. The book cited below shows the vice in action as one of the ID authors tries trojan horse style to conclude that, well, finally, ID demands reintroducing ‘god’.
In general god-language and the associated false black magical ‘prayer’ condoned by religious leaders has produced a public of religious idiots beyond semantic redemption.
The slovenly abuse of the term ‘god’ by the millennial muddle of the theocrats and their theocrap.
Blogging at Darwiniana redfortyeight.com I am often impressed by particular bits of data on the question of evolution from the ID site Uncommon Descent, but in every case such efforts are spoiled by the theism in the background.
The detection of ‘intelligent design’ is an achievement only in the demented milieu of the Darwnists who make life easy easy for design attacks. In fact the issue of design in evolution is almost a forgone conclusion despite the world of Dawkins and the obsession with natural selection.
To point to ‘intelligent’ design is easy but proves very little and it is a distortion of metaphysical presumption to think that the Discovery Institute can recycle ‘god’ on the basis of Dembski’s interesting but inconclusive discussions of design. The problem here is that religious critics cannot resist the pre-Kantian temptation to indulge in futile efforts to prove the existence of god. It is not even atheism to pronounce these efforts future, trash in fact. The term ‘god’ has been so abused over t he history of monotheism that its utterance borders too often on a form of evil. The term ‘god’ is the most abused word in the history of speech and its downright trashy aspect makes it what it has often become, a swear word. The term ‘god’ after the legacy of monotheism is a semantic whore prowling the verbal skidrow of religious idiots. Abuse of ‘god’ verbal abuse destroys people’s religious and psychological potential. The victims of Judaic/Christian verbal ‘god’ abuse are pathetic religious idiots, terminal cases in the metaphysical sense.
The irony is that the detection of design in nature is a no-brainer and that in any case tells up nothing about a ‘god’ of supernature. The idea that intelligent design in nature can tell us anything about theology is a genuine obsession with these religionists, but it is in every case pointless, as here with the new book by a Stephen Meyer. It is a tremendous disservice to prey on the muddled beliefs of Old Testament believers with this kind of bad science. You cannot point to design in nature and then annex that to Biblical apologetics. It is a dishonest form of fraud, what to say of fake science. The god tale sof the Old Testament are NOT evidence of intelligent design.
The presence of design in nature is a problem only for Darwin idiots. All other scientists might find the proposition trivial if still lacking a teleological form of science.
Discotute God propaganda cum evolution design mythology…
Today’s date in history, 211 years ago — February 12, 1809 — was a remarkable day. Abraham Lincoln was born that day, and so was Charles Darwin.
We recognize both as great men, measured by their impact, but in different ways: one for the good, one not for the good. Lincoln freed the American slaves, saved the Union, and wrote words that will never grow old. Darwin helped to enslave generations to materialism, encouraged a false split between science and faith, and articulated a theory that has not aged well at all.
Philosopher of science Stephen Meyer is among the foremost scholars who have exposed the inadequacy of Darwin’s theory and advanced a scientific alternative, the theory of intelligent design. In his forthcoming book, Return of the God Hypothesis, from HarperOne, Dr. Meyer takes the next step in his important work. He shows that materialist ideas about the universe and about life must retreat to make way for theism, the reality of a personal God. Meyer’s book comes out on March 30, and it’s already getting raves. Pre-order now and you’ll get some valuable perks — free!
Paul Ashby, Harvard-trained physical chemist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, praises Return of the God Hypothesis for toppling “the claim that the God hypothesis is unscientific.” University of Georgia biochemist Russell Carlson agrees, calling the book “clear, compelling, and entertaining to read.” Observe February 12 — Darwin Day — by joining together what should never have been divided. Meyer shows that the best science, far from undermining faith in God, strongly affirms it.