Philo's guide to decoding the Hebrew Bible

[Ishtar]

Question? What the heck is sacred geometry? Is it just geometry in general that allowed them to figure out volumes and distances, astronomy and orbits? Back then that would have been powerful knowledge but I am wondering if there was more to it than that? I hated geometry but fell in love with Trig and Calc. I just don't understand anything particularly sacred about it.

Patti

Here is a bit of an explanation of sacred geometry but I'm by no means an expert.

Certain numbers, or sequences of numbers, to the ancients were considered to be sacred. Some because they were used in astrological calculations (i.e. 6, 60, 72, 12, 4 etc). Others were considered sacred because they regularly occur in nature in the same number sequence over and over again, and both these types of numbers and ratios are used in sacred geometry.

It's about 'as above, so below', and stemmed from at least as far back as Pythagorus. Architects and artists would try to reflect in their buildings and art the 'divine proportions' and 'golden ratios' that they found in Nature, which they saw as the visible face of God.

One example of sacred geometry would be the Fibonacci spiral. The Fibonacci number sequence is 0, 1, and then each subsequent number is equal to the sum of the previous two numbers of the sequence itself. which means the next number after 1 is 1 and then 2 and then 3 and then 5 and so on.

This Fibonacci pattern turns up many times in nature, such as in the branching of trees, how leaves are arranged on a stem, the parts of a pineapple, the flowering of artichoke, an uncurling of a fern, the arrangement of a pine cone, the spirals of shells, and also in the family trees of honeybees.

This is a Fibonacci spiral - a spiral constructed from the middle outwards by using the Fibonacci sequence of numbers:



So if the Dionsyiac Architects were going to construct a spiral staircase, they would use a Fibonacci spiral, and that's one example of sacred geometry.

But Fibonacci number sequences were not just used for buildings and paintings and statues.

Sanskrit poets going back thousands of years also would use the Fibonacci number sequence when composing the metres of their poems.

The first movement of Bartok's Music for Strings, Percussion and Celesta was composed by using Fibonacci numbers ... and there are many other examples.

I'm sure there are probably Biblical stories that used this sequence too ... and I bet Philo knew about them!

(I've just checked - number symbolism is 21 on the original list.)

Hope this helps.

[seeker]

The point is that I see the claims for the existence of god in the same light. They are fantastic claims for which there is no evidence.

What do mean by evidence? Evidence is a word used to describe what we perceive either naturally or through a microscope or through some other means. A thousand or so years ago, there was no evidence for oxygen. So does that mean that it didn't exist?

There certainly was evidence for oxygen but I think the point you are trying to make is that we don't necessarily know everything. That is true however we don't need to know everything to be able to look for natural explanations for natural events. In fact it only hurts us to assume explanations that we can never test or fully trust.

All the things that are attributed to God like creation, morality etc have natural explanations that fit the evidence.

'That fit the evidence'. Evidence is a moving feast .. as shown above.

That there are natural explanations for things do not discount a God. Wouldn't he be in charge of nature? Wouldn't he have put it in there in the first place?

Evidence is there when you look for it and, far from being a moving feast, is actually pretty stable. there is a difference between simply not have the technology to perceive the evidence and its not being there.

Saying that natural explanations don't necessarily mean that there is no God is the same as saying that I get presents at Christmas and know where they come from doesn't mean Santa Claus doesn't exist.

Simply put there is no reason to think that a God exists

You cannot find a reason, which is fair enough, and you're entitled to your views. But they are just that - views.

Gee thanks for allowing me my own views but they are also logical views. The distinction here is that my opinion on the matter is one based on evidence and reason rather than speculation.

I think you'd agree that God could never be proven short of his showing up on American Idol as a contestant. Saying you believe in a God could never be based on evidence, only on speculation. in fact you couldn't even really say what God was with any real degree of accuracy. As views go I'll stick with informed ones

[pattylt]

Ish,
You are correct, of course, that debunking the Judeo-Christian god does not rule out the possibility of the existence of god. Just how do you want to define god? If you go with a prime mover/creator that just started it all and couldn't give a rip about what happened after, then we are talking about something we can not know and it doesn't matter if we worship it or not. If you are talking about a prime mover/creator that does involve itself with our lives and desires our worship, then where is any consistent evidence of what he wants us to believe and how does he want us to worship him?

My feelings are that the proof of non existence is in the inability of any 2 people to discuss the same god. He is merely a believers self projection of the believer's beliefs. Each invents his own definition of god. So, my definition is that there is none. No ones beliefs changes anything. If something actually changed (real measurable change), then we could start talking about proof of existence.

[Ishtar]

Seeker

You missed my point with the oxygen. I was being sarcastic.. and my sarcasm often doesn't translate well.

Of course, there was evidence for oxygen - otherwise there would have been nothing here. But we couldn't perceive that oxygen. So if someone a thousand years ago said to us:

"Hey, it's a pretty good job we've got all this oxygen to breathe, isn't it? Otherwise we'd all be dead," ... we wouldn't have known what he was talking about... we may even have thought he was mad or deluded.

But the oxygen was there all along.

Same same.

Comparing God to Santa Claus is a cheap shot. We all know that Santa Claus does not exist and the two beings are in no way comparable.

But science has not proven - or even come close to proving that God does not exist.

And so what I resent is not people being atheists. That's fine. Everyone's entitled to their view. But what I resent is when said atheists assume the moral high ground by saying their views are the most rational, and logical and scientific, and that anyone who believes anything else is a fool.... like the guy a thousand years ago who talked about the oxygen.

[Ishtar]

Ish,
You are correct, of course, that debunking the Judeo-Christian god does not rule out the possibility of the existence of god. Just how do you want to define god? If you go with a prime mover/creator that just started it all and couldn't give a rip about what happened after, then we are talking about something we can not know and it doesn't matter if we worship it or not. If you are talking about a prime mover/creator that does involve itself with our lives and desires our worship, then where is any consistent evidence of what he wants us to believe and how does he want us to worship him?

Patti,

Your first point is the only one I'm interested in making here - that debunking the Judaeo-Christian god does not rule out the possiblity of the existence of God.

I don't want to go any further than that ... I can't anyway. I don't know if there is a God, let alone what sort of God I think he is.

I just wanted to knock down one particular wall, one heretofore unspoken assumption that science had proved the non-existance of God, which I seem to have now ... well, maybe .... you are agreeing with me on that point, at least!

After that, I respect your views ... as unscientific as mine!

[Minimalist]

But it is very different to what Dawkins is saying - that he is an atheist because science in the form of the fossil record has disproved the existence of God.

I think you need to read the book. Dawkins attacks creationism which purports to be "science" but is religion.

Talk about The God Delusion! Laughing

You're arguing about Judaeo-Christianity. I'm talking about God. Big difference! Laughing

Ish, I frequently don't know what you're talking about. However, the main difference is that Judaeo-Christianity exists while god does not.

[Ishtar]

I think you need to read the book. Dawkins attacks creationism which purports to be "science" but is religion.

I know creationism isn't science and I also know that it's religion. So why would I need to read Dawkins book?

Ish, I frequently don't know what you're talking about.

I know.

[seeker]

Seeker

You missed my point with the oxygen. I was being sarcastic.. and my sarcasm often doesn't translate well.

No, I got it. I just thought it was one of those kind of jokes that is said lightheartedly but covers a more serious perception

Of course, there was evidence for oxygen - otherwise there would have been nothing here. But we couldn't perceive that oxygen. So if someone a thousand years ago said to us:

"Hey, it's a pretty good job we've got all this oxygen to breathe, isn't it? Otherwise we'd all be dead," ... we wouldn't have known what he was talking about... we may even have thought he was mad or deluded.

But the oxygen was there all along.

The point I was trying to make though is that by just dismissing our being able to breathe as an 'act of God' we'd never have asked what we are breathing. You don't learn anything by assuming an answer, only by looking for answers that you can test.

Same same.

Not at all, the point is whether accepting something on faith is a good idea or not.

Comparing God to Santa Claus is a cheap shot. We all know that Santa Claus does not exist and the two beings are in no way comparable.

Really? How do you know Santa Claus doesn't exist? Maybe he exists and you are just naughty:P

Both God and Santa Claus are supernatural creatures, how are they different? Why do you hate Santa?

But science has not proven - or even come close to proving that God does not exist.

It also can't disprove Santa, Zeus, Odin, Osirus et al. Ahould we believe in all of them?

And so what I resent is not people being atheists. That's fine. Everyone's entitled to their view. But what I resent is when said atheists assume the moral high ground by saying their views are the most rational, and logical and scientific, and that anyone who believes anything else is a fool.... like the guy a thousand years ago who talked about the oxygen.

Or like when theists call atheists fools? i don't think anyone should call anyone a fool but I do think that not all beliefs are equal. If someone passionately believed that playing on the freeway was the path to salvation I would tend not to trust them to help me cross the street with my eyes closed.

[Minimalist]

But science has not proven - or even come close to proving that God does not exist.

One cannot "prove" (or disprove) a negative. You cannot "prove" that there is not a Flying Spaghetti Monster either although logic and reason certainly argues against it.

All science can do is address the claims of believers and show that those claims are wrong.

This they have done to a fair degree.

[Ishtar]

The quote function doesn't seem to be working.

[quote="seeker”]
No, I got it. I just thought it was one of those kind of jokes that is said lightheartedly but covers a more serious perception. [/quote]

Yes it was. The more serious perception being that it is all about perception, and perceptions change over time according to what we know.

[quote="seeker”]
The point I was trying to make though is that by just dismissing our being able to breathe as an 'act of God' we'd never have asked what we are breathing. You don't learn anything by assuming an answer, only by looking for answers that you can test. [/quote]

Seeker, this is not an attack on science. I’m very glad the scientists discovered the components of oxygen. Also the earliest Vedic scientists investigated the qualities of air - and light, and earth, and water and everything. So scientific investigation is not new.

[quote="seeker”]
Both God and Santa Claus are supernatural creatures, how are they different? Why do you hate Santa? [/quote]

[quote="seeker”]
[Science] also can't disprove Santa, Zeus, Odin, Osirus et al. Should we believe in all of them? [/quote]

No, of course not. But neither can we say that science has proven that they don’t exist. We can make an assumption based on what we know at the present time, that's all. Dawkins is basing his atheism on the fact that the fossil record proves that God didn’t create the world in six days. He says thus that science has disproven God. Of course, it’s nonsense.

[quote="seeker”]
Or like when theists call atheists fools? i don't think anyone should call anyone a fool but I do think that not all beliefs are equal. If someone passionately believed that playing on the freeway was the path to salvation I would tend not to trust them to help me cross the street with my eyes closed.[/quote]

Of course. But my point is far simpler than that. It has nothing to do with passionate beliefs or my beliefs or anyone’s beliefs.

It is about what Dawkins claims science has proved, and what it has not proved.

it is about the fact that the fossil record only debunks a Literalist interpretation of Genesis. It doesn’t debunk the existence of God.

Dawkins has put two ideas together and made them one. The Literalists say that the Bible is the Word of God so by debunking the Bible, QED, he is debunking God.

Well, that only works if you believe that the Bible is the Word of God.

Do you? No. Does Min. No? Do I? No. Does anyone in this thread? Maybe a few.

But science certainly never proved that the Bible was the Word of God.

So what Dawkins believes that science has debunked does not actually exist. He’s arguing from a false premise.

I think it’s called tilting at windmills.

Therefore, Dawkins teaching school children (as he was in the tv doc) that if they were really scientific, they wouldn’t believe in God is not only total nonsense and doesn’t hold up scientifically... but, imo, it’s also as sick as the creationists pressing their agenda in the classroom.

[Ishtar]

But science has not proven - or even come close to proving that God does not exist.

One cannot "prove" (or disprove) a negative. You cannot "prove" that there is not a Flying Spaghetti Monster either although logic and reason certainly argues against it.

All science can do is address the claims of believers and show that those claims are wrong.

This they have done to a fair degree.

Exactly. What they have done is to address the claims of the recent believers of one modern religion that's texts have been misunderstood anyway.

They have done that... to some extent... but their doing all that has absolutely no bearing on whether a Supreme Being exists or not.

[seeker]

Yes it was. The more serious perception being that it is all about perception, and perceptions change over time according to what we know.

All the more reason to revisit and be prepared to discard ancient beliefs.

Seeker, this is not an attack on science. I’m very glad the scientists discovered the components of oxygen. Also the earliest Vedic scientists investigated the qualities of air - and light, and earth, and water and everything. So scientific investigation is not new.

I didn't accuse you of attacking science. The point is that religious belief holds back science.

No, of course not. But neither can we say that science has proven that they don’t exist. We can make an assumption based on what we know at the present time, that's all. Dawkins is basing his atheism on the fact that the fossil record proves that God didn’t create the world in six days. He says thus that science has disproven God. Of course, it’s nonsense.

Actually that isn't what he said. What he said was that science disproves God and that for him a significant factor in his decision was the theory of evolution. Those are quite different things.

Of course. But my point is far simpler than that. It has nothing to do with passionate beliefs or my beliefs or anyone’s beliefs.

It is about what Dawkins claims science has proved, and what it has not proved.

it is about the fact that the fossil record only debunks a Literalist interpretation of Genesis. It doesn’t debunk the existence of God.

Dawkins has put two ideas together and made them one. The Literalists say that the Bible is the Word of God so by debunking the Bible, QED, he is debunking God.

Well, that only works if you believe that the Bible is the Word of God.

Do you? No. Does Min. No? Do I? No. Does anyone in this thread? Maybe a few.

But science certainly never proved that the Bible was the Word of God.

So what Dawkins believes that science has debunked does not actually exist. He’s arguing from a false premise.

I think it’s called tilting at windmills.

Therefore, Dawkins teaching school children (as he was in the tv doc) that if they were really scientific, they wouldn’t believe in God is not only total nonsense and doesn’t hold up scientifically... but, imo, it’s also as sick as the creationists pressing their agenda in the classroom.

You are a little handicapped by not having read his book but I do agree that in an absolute sense science doesn't disprove God. in fact Dawkins says as much in his book. What he also says though is that Science and logic render God so improbable that his (or her, or its if God is a hermaphrodite or something) existence is on the same level as any other imaginary character.

Ish, I do wish you could experience the kind of fundamentalism we have here in the states. I think its real easy to dismiss what is going on here as a few nuts escaping their shells. There is no comparing what Creationists here in the states are trying to do to what Dawkins is doing.

[Minimalist]

Perhaps this story from the NY Times just this past weekend will give Ish a sense of what these silly fucks are trying to do.

It is shorter than reading Dawkins. I just hope you're able to access it because the Times frequently requires registration....although it is free.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/educa ... ref=slogin

But in a nation where evangelical Protestantism and other religious traditions stress a literal reading of the biblical description of God’s individually creating each species, students often arrive at school fearing that evolution, and perhaps science itself, is hostile to their faith.

Some come armed with “Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution,” a document circulated on the Internet that highlights supposed weaknesses in evolutionary theory. Others scrawl their opposition on homework assignments. Many just tune out.

With a mandate to teach evolution but little guidance as to how, science teachers are contriving their own ways to turn a culture war into a lesson plan. How they fare may bear on whether a new generation of Americans embraces scientific evidence alongside religious belief.

“If you see something you don’t understand, you have to ask ‘why?’ or ‘how?’ ” Mr. Campbell often admonished his students at Ridgeview High School.

Yet their abiding mistrust in evolution, he feared, jeopardized their belief in the basic power of science to explain the natural world — and their ability to make sense of it themselves.

There is much more.

[Ishtar]

I appreciate that you have a real problem over there with creationists trying to get into the classrooms.

But I wish you could have seen the looks on the faces of the school children in the tv doc when Dawkins told them that if they were more scientific, they wouldn't believe in God. He made them feel small and confused.

I don't need to read Dawkins book especially if that's the best he can come up with - that the process of evolution disproves a Supreme Being.

That material went through a process of evolution does not rule a creator of the material that evolved. That there was a Big Bang doesn't disprove a creator of material to go bang.

I understand that you object to creationists forcing their views in the classroom. But Dawkins is doing the same thing in reverse. And neither side has any scientific proof to their case.

[Ishtar]

But in a nation where evangelical Protestantism and other religious traditions stress a literal reading of the biblical description of God’s individually creating each species, students often arrive at school fearing that evolution, and perhaps science itself, is hostile to their faith.

Well, they’d be right ... if Dawkins came into their classroom. He is definitely hostile to their faith, which would be fine if he only confined to that. But no ... he goes further. He is hostile to the very idea of a Supreme Being, and tells them that science proves the non-existence of such.

Some come armed with “Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution,” a document circulated on the Internet that highlights supposed weaknesses in evolutionary theory. Others scrawl their opposition on homework assignments. Many just tune out.

I'm not surprised when they are being fought over by opposing camps of Literalists - Literalist Christians versus Literalist Atheists.

With a mandate to teach evolution but little guidance as to how, science teachers are contriving their own ways to turn a culture war into a lesson plan. How they fare may bear on whether a new generation of Americans embraces scientific evidence alongside religious belief.

“If you see something you don’t understand, you have to ask ‘why?’ or ‘how?’ ” Mr. Campbell often admonished his students at Ridgeview High School.

Yet their abiding mistrust in evolution, he feared, jeopardized their belief in the basic power of science to explain the natural world — and their ability to make sense of it themselves.

It’s probably not their trust of evolution, per se. It’s being told that evolution disproves God. They are still simple enough in their thinking to understand that simple point doesn’t stand up, when many adults are not.

I understand that you have a problem about this in the States, but that in a way possibly means that you cannot understand what I’m saying objectively.

It’s just as wrong for Dawkins to tell children that if they were more scientific, they wouldn’t believe in God. There is no difference.