Dr. Mark A. Foster's Editorials at SocioSphere

The Father and the Maiden: An Examination of the Abrahamic Patriarchate and the Divine Feminine

Mark A. Foster

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The headship of the Bahá'í Faith is, like all the Abrahamic religions, patriarchal or androcentric. In other words, at this level of authority and governance, the leadership of the Bahá'í community is, and has been, male. The Bahá'í patriarchate might include the Báb, Bahá'u'lláh, 'Abdu'l-Bahá, the Guardianship (Shoghi Effendi), and the men of Bahá on the Universal House of Justice. With respect to the Universal House of Justice and its head, the Guardian, 'Abdu'l-Bahá wrote:

According to the ordinances of the Faith of God, women are the equals of men in all rights save only that of membership on the Universal House of Justice, for as hath been stated in the text of the Book, both the head and the members of the House of Justice are men. However, in all other bodies, such as the Temple Construction Committee, the Teaching Committee, the Spiritual Assembly, and in charitable and scientific associations, women share equally in all rights with men.

(Revised translation from the Persian, authorized 1987)

Outwardly, Bahá'í gender differentiation can be only partially distinguished from previous faith traditions. Patriarchate, or institutionalized patriarchy, remains intact and has not been transformed into egalitarianism. One finds the same essential patriarchal framework which was present in the previous Abrahamic religious systems of Judaism, Christianity, and Islám.

To my understanding, the association of headship and "theocracy" (perhaps a term used by Shoghi Effendi to describe the House of Justice itself) with patriarchy (or patriarchalism) is common to all the Abrahamic religions, e.g., the Abrahamic Prophets, the Hebrew patriarchs, Paul's views on male headship in the NT, the twelve Imams, the Guardianship, and the men of Baha.

I don't think that the Baha'i system is theocratic as a whole. On the one hand, the Guardian's secretary referred to the "Bahá'í theocracy" (Directives from the Guardian 78-79):

What the Guardian was referring to was the Theocratic systems, such as the Catholic Church and the Caliphate, which are not divinely given as systems, but man-made and yet, having partly derived from the teachings of Christ and Muhammad are, in a sense, theocracies. The Bahá'í theocracy, on the contrary, is both divinely ordained as a system and, of course, based on the teachings of the Prophet Himself... Theophany is used in the sense of Dispensation...

On the other hand, Shoghi Effendi said that the theocratic element was only one aspect of the Bahá'í system (God Passes By 326). It appears as though the Bahá'í theocracy is the Universal House of Justice, not the entire World Order of Bahá'u'lláh: when the Guardian's secretary referred to the "Baha'i theocracy," she or he, presumably with the Guardian's authority, meant the Universal House of Justice. To break it down, here is how I see it (All from the following quotations are taken from God Passes By 326.):

1. aristocratic element: the Guardianship and primogeniture ("The hereditary authority which the Guardian of the Administrative Order is called upon to exercise, and the right of the interpretation of the Holy Writ solely conferred upon him")

2. theocratic (patriarchal) element: the Universal House of Justice ("the powers and prerogatives of the Universal House of Justice, possessing the exclusive right to legislate on matters not explicitly revealed in the Most Holy Book")

3. democratic element: free elections ("the specific provisions requiring the free and democratic election by the mass of the faithful of the Body that constitutes the sole legislative organ in the world-wide Bahá'í community")

4. autocratic element: not a representative democracy ("the ordinance exempting its members from any responsibility to those whom they represent, and from the obligation to conform to their views, convictions or sentiments")

Therefore, to call the Baha'i system a theocracy, in toto, would probably be misleading. The theocratic aspect is one holon, or structure, within the entire system, albeit a very important one, especially with the absence of a living Guardian.

I would speculate (perhaps a psychological projection!) that, since the Baha'i Dispensation represents the cyclic fulfillment of the Abrahamic tradition and of patriarchy (as well as of all previously revealed and inspired knowledge in general), the patriarchal principle may not be necessary after the present Dispensation.

For instance, when the meaning of baptism was understood, the symbolic rite was abrogated. Likewise, 'Abdu'l-Baha said that the hikmat for the male-gendered nature of the House of Justice (and perhaps for patriarchy in general?) will be known in the future. Perhaps, in the next Dispensation, it, too, will be abrogated.

The principle of the equality of the sexes is spiritual and, presumably, has been an element of all the religions of God. What changes, from age to age, are the social teachings, which are the means by which the Prophet orders human affairs in the manner He believes best for the duration of His Dispensation. It is with respect to the social, or non-essential, aspects of religon that gender equality is expressed more directly than in previous Abrahamic religions. Patriarchy, while remaining a social teaching, has been significantly limited in scope in the Bahá'í Faith.

Significantly, however, patriarchy is restricted to the Headship of the Bahá'í system. In earlier Abrahamic religions, whereas patriarchy included the patriarchate (Headship), it was much more encompassing. In other words, the principle of gender equality antidotes what might otherwise be a male-dominated moral community. Moreover, this patriarchal explanation of the continuity of male headship within the Bahá'í community, is historical and teleological and, as such, avoids focusing on the supposed gender incompetence of women to function on that level.

Patriarchy, in this case, does not refer exclusively to a system of kinship. Its broader meaning of is given in the unabridged Random House Dictionary:

a society, community, or country based on this social organization.

The American Heritage Dictionary is even clearer:

A family, community, or society ... governed by men. Also called patriarchy.

Finally, Jonathan Z. Smith, in The HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion (New York: HarperCollins, 1995 833), wrote:

patriarchal, a descriptive term for any aspect of religion that is male dominated.

It is in the above sense that the Bahá'í Faith may be seen as containing certain patriarchal elements. As such, the Bahá'í approach to patriarchy is a continuation of the globalization of ancient forms of patriarchy based on kinship and, in particular, of the biblical accounts of Abrahamic patrilineage. This process began as the authority of the patriarch, within a kinship system, became extended to other forms of social organization and governance through exogamous marriage and the development of civilization (living in cities)

It is within the context of the overall patriarchal structure of the Bahá'í leadership and administration that the opportunity structure for women has been expanded considerably from earlier Abrahamic traditions. In the Bahá'í Dispensation, patriarchate may also be instrumental in bringing about a greater degree of unity in diversity between women and men than had been accomplished in the past.

For instance, although Bahiyyih Khánum was, in principle, acting as the viceregent of the Guardian and was never, technically, the head of the Bahá'í Faith, her status during the early period of Shoghi Effendi's ministry could, nonetheless, be regarded as a coup for women's rights. It might also be pointed out that other high-level institutions, such as the Hands of the Cause and the Counsellors, have included women.

Perhaps it is because the Bahá'í Faith may, in a sense, be viewed as the fulfillment of the patriarchal Abrahamic Covenant that it, too, is patriarchal. Indeed, one might speculate that this pattern of male headship, which is also evident in what the House of Justice said about the family, will be further reduced, or even eliminated, in future Dispensations.

While the outward structure is patriarchal, the Spirit of the Age is, figuratively, the Maiden. For possibly the first time in recorded religious history, the symbol of the Holy Spirit, as it has appeared to the Prophet, has explicitly taken form as the divine feminine. Thus, we have God, symbolized as a Maiden, in mystic intercourse with Bahá'u'lláh and the dominant male structure of headship which represents Him. The divine feminine has become the transformative agent of patriarchy. This institutional synthesis, embodying the new archetype of gender equality, may be required to promote the sorts of planetary changes which are predicted for this age.

While aboard the S.S. Cedric, 'Abdu'l-Bahá was reported to have said (Star of the West, 8, No. 3, p. 4; cited: Bahá'u'lláh and the New Era 149):

The world in the past has been ruled by force, and man has dominated over woman by reason of his more forceful and aggressive qualities both of body and mind. But the balance is already shifting; force is losing its dominance, and mental alertness, intuition, and the spiritual qualities of love and service, in which woman is strong, are gaining ascendancy. Hence the new age will be an age less masculine and more permeated with the feminine ideals, or, to speak more exactly, will be an age in which the masculine and feminine elements of civilization will be more evenly balanced.

posted at 09:49:31 AM by Dr. Mark A. Foster

Editorials on Radical Religion

Page 2 Editorials (Coming Soon!)

Page 3 Editorials (Coming Soon!)

Page 4 Editorials (Coming Soon!)

Page 5 Editorials (Coming Soon!)

Sunday, February 11, 2001

Brain,

>>Except for the cloak of religion, such beliefs and actions would

otherwise cause an individual to be judged insane, and committed to an

institution for treatment.<<

Generally speaking, religion improves one's ability to function in the

world. In fact, religion has historically been the major force for

social control, encouraging people to conform to social norms (mores

and folkways) - even if those norms are not always those of the

majority (though they usually are). Insanity, on the other hand,

diminishes one's ability to function in the world.

>>The study of history will further justify the theory that religion

is a form of insanity.<<

You then refer to "bloody religious wars and crusades" and to the

Inquisition.

I would say that religion is sometimes, but not always, a source of

social oppression (not insanity). That is because religion has

frequently represented the interests of the elites. For instance, as

Marx observed, American slave owners would, on occasion, encourage

their slaves to practice religion so that, rather than rebel, they

would be content in their suffering and, in so doing, identify with

the Passion of Christ.

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains:

http://markfoster.net

Brain,

>>It is not those that are actively involved a form of religion that

are harmed most times, it is those who are not that have to live with

feelings of guilt and regret that has been taught to them by

religion.<<

I am afraid that I don't see your point. Aren't you just talking about

conscience?

Generally speaking, religions teach people to do things which most

people would regard as "good" - even if they are not supernaturalists.

(Of course, not all religions are inherently supernaturalistic, e.g.,

Neopaganism, Unitarian-Universalism, and Ethical Culture.) Therefore,

if folks are not behaving in the way they were taught, is it a bad

thing that their consciences will bother them? Moreover, one's

conscience might might be provoked for reasons other than religious

nonconformity.

>>You cannot deny than a majority of the wars and conflicst across the

globe and throughout history can be traced back to some conflict

revolving around religion.<<

The concept of religion is a creation of modernity. It developed as a

result of the (initially) Western tendency to separate the sacred from

the secular (and the profane), i.e., the process of desacralization or

secularization. Most historical societies made little or no

distinction between religion and civil life; and the majority of the

so-called "religious wars" were actually based on factors much broader

than religion (usually economic or territorial).

For instance, does the contemporary conflict between the Catholics and

the Anglicans in Northern Ireland have much to do with theology

(Papists vs. nonpapists)? Were the Crusades primarily about converting

the Muslims to Roman Catholicism? Obviously, what we now call

"religion" played some part. However, it was usually a secondary

consideration.

>>Other interesting facts are that 95% of prison imates in for violent

and non-violent crimes identify themselves with some form of religion,

mostly Christianity. It is interesting that less than 1% of prison

imates across the country identify themselves as athiest or

agnostic.<<

Yes. However, that needs to be looked at in more depth. First, the

percentages you gave are roughly similar to those of the general

population! Second, there does appear to be some correlation between

religious affiliation and crime. However, it is limited in its effect.

For instance, Southern Baptists are more inclined to homicide than

Roman Catholics.

(Likewise Roman Catholics are more likely to develop bipolar

psychosis; Protestants are more likely to commit suicide then either

Roman Catholics or Jews; and Baptists are more likely to become

alcoholics than Episcopalians.)

>>But at the end of the day I guess if it works for you and you are

happy then go for it. However for some of us, religion brings up more

questions than answers.<<

Interesting. However, that is quite a bit different from your earlier

statement that religion is a form of insanity.

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains:

http://markfoster.net

Brain,

>>Well Mark let's just say that I think the world would be a much

better place without religion.<<

It depends on how one defines religion. As a sociologist, I use what

is called a functional definition of religion. (The other common type

of definition is substantive.)

A functional definition of religion is one which looks for a set of

religious functions and then classifies anything which conforms to

them as being a religion.

A substantive (essentialist) definition is one which looks for a

shared religious "essence." The most common one is supernaturalist.

The problem with it is that non-supernaturalist systems (e.g.,

Neopaganism, Unitarian-Universalism, and Ethical Culture), which often

define themselves as "religions," do not get classed as such for

purposes of sociological analysis. Moreover, no matter which essence

one chooses, one is bound to leave some systems out.

The Durkheimian functional definition goes something like this:

A system of beliefs and praxes (practices), focused around the sacred

(that which is extraordinary), which unites people into a moral

community (one which shares similar values and norms).

Durkheim's definition, the most common one used by sociologists,

includes virtually all systems generally regarded as religions (except

personal, nonsocial ideologies, which have little sociological

relevance) plus systems such as Maoism, which also fit the criteria.

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains:

http://markfoster.net

posted by Mark Foster at 11:31 AM

I want to qualify this post by saying that I am a sociologist of

religion, not a biologist, paleontologist, or physical anthropologist.

Personally, I don't understand why old-earth creationists and many

intelligent design theologians (i.e., those who actually believe that

God is the designer) insist on promoting reductionist views of the

Supreme Being. IMO, this approach, as I said here once before, is both

bad science and bad religion.

First, it is bad science because it ignores the inherent limitations

of science and, in some sense, repeats the scientific colonialism, or

hegemony, of many Enlightenment thinkers and of the positivists

(particularly, Comte), i.e., if we assume that something exists (by

creation or design), then science should be able to detect it. Why?

Second, it is also bad religion. Creationists, and some intelligent

design theologians who believe that the designer is "God" (not some

extraterrestrial), are, in my view, engaging in a form of spiritual

materialism and reductionism. They are, like many of the Enlightenment

thinkers, reducing the divine or religion to what science can observe.

It is not science but scientism.

I have frequently observed that many intelligent design theologians

conflate methodological naturalism (or agnosticism, in T.H. Huxley's

sense of the word) with ontological naturalism (or atheism). Because a

scientist recognizes the operational limitations of science does not

make her or him an atheist.

If God created (or, as I believe, continually creates) the universe,

could He not have done so in such a way that it could be understood

through natural processes alone?

Cheers, Mark A. Foster http://markfoster.net http://evolution.kans.as

Hi, Dayton,

You wrote: >>I think it is particularly important to look

at your point that the IDist’s, who incorrectly accuse science of

embracing philosophical naturalism, are in fact the ones who act like

“philosophical Naturalists” as they seek to establish an empirical

basis for all aspects of the world, including our beliefs about God

and morality.<<

Yes, I agree. From a scientific viewpoint, it would be ontological

naturalism. From some religious perspectives, it would be seen as

reductionistic (perhaps even anthropomorphic).

>>It is the IDists themselves who place too great a value, a misplaced

value, on scientific explanations as an ultimate arbiter of truth.<<

Exactly, intelligent design "theology" appears to me to have a love-

hate relationship with the Enlightenment. On the one hand, they

condemn the world views engendered by it. On the other, they are

buying into many of its secularizing assumptions, i.e., the

universalization of the scientific method.

It was a similar mind set which gave birth to many of the so-called

"science" religions, e.g., Science of Mind, Christian Science,

Scientology, Divine Science, Science of Light and Sound (Radhasoami),

the science of prayer, etc.

>>They make the mistake they claim others are making: believing that

one must find empirical explanations for truths which must in fact be

reached in other than scientific ways.<<

Precisely. Personally, I accept that God creates the universe

(emanationism). However, I thoroughly reject all forms of creation

"science" and intelligent design theology.

In my view, "intelligent design" can sometimes be experienced through

ones meditations on the purpose of existence. Using the scientific

method to that end is inappropriate and, as I see it, an empirical

impossibility. Why would a chaotic universe be any less persuasive of

so-called intelligent design than an orderly one - a "Kosmos."

To my understanding, if God created the universe, He did so in such a

way that it could be studied through empirical means.

>>Unfortunately, their reason for adopting this position is not for

genuine theological reasons, even if those reasons are wrong. I

believe the real reason is that they think that if they can

scientifically establish that *some* aspect of the world points to

God, they will be justified in invoking that same God in all sorts of

other areas, even if the areas are moral, aesthetic, spiritual, or

whatever.<<

In my view, the proper places for a religious world view are in the

areas you mention above. Religion is about value, teleology, and

metaphysics. It should not concern itself with exobiology (the Seventh

Day Adventists, the Urantians, and the Raelians), with lost continents

(the Association for Research and Enlightenment, i.e., the Edgar Cayce

group), or with human biological origins (many Christian groups, among

others).

>>To be blunt about it, if we think we can establish that God created

the first cell, or perhaps all species, or what ever, we can move on

to establish that abortion is unequivocably wrong (being contradictory

to the “design” of human)s, or homosexuality, or whatever.<<

Well, regardless of my views on the subjects of homosexuality and

abortion, I do feel that those are among the proper areas of discourse

for religionists.

Science can never determine at what moment the soul connects with a

body (or even if there is a soul). Some Christian groups (the Way)

believe that it does not happen until the baby draws its first

independent breath. Others, of course, argue it occurs at the moment

of conception. This matter is outside the jurisdiction, or

"magisterium," of science. My objection is not to religionists

discussing abortion, but to their marshalling of supposed scientific

evidence for their positions. The soul cannot, IMO, be operationalized

or measured. The pro-life and pro-choice movements are for medical

ethicists, theologians, and religions - not for science.

>>The Discovery Institute wants to renew not just science, but

*culture* - they want to reinvigorate *natural law*, they say.<<

As a radical leftist (not a "liberal" ), I usually disagree

with their prescriptions. However, I support their right to work out

an agenda for this area - so long as they stay clear of science.

>>My point is here is that they are not really making the mistake of

“scientism” - they are *using* this as a tactic to try to insert their

own theistic viewpoint into all aspects of culture.<<

I agree that is true with some (but not all) of these folks.

Cheers, Mark A. Foster http://markfoster.net http://evolution.kans.as

Jabran,

>>To me and my understanding of PLAIN English both are terms denoting atheism.<<

Ontological naturalists are, by definition, atheists. Methodological

naturalists are not.

Like virtually all scientists (physical, biological, or social), I am

a methodological naturalist. However, I am not an atheist (an

ontological naturalist). As a methodological naturalist, I reject that

science can be used to demonstrate the existence of God. I do not

reject that the existence of God can be demonstrated through other

means.

>>If I understand what your saying, scientist may reject creationism

simply because they are limited in their attempt to disprove.<<

Well, I reject creationism because I am not a biblical literalist.

However, I reject intelligent design (as a scientific approach)

because of the inherent limitations of science. That does not mean

that I reject intelligent design in principle. To me, intelligent

design is shown through prayer and meditation - not through science.

Science cannot, for instance, measure the soul. That is a matter for

the human heart.

>>But the other side of that coin should also be rejected until it can

be disproved.<<

There is as much evidence for evolution (most of it genetic) as there

is for the heliocentric model of the solar system (that the sun, not

the earth, is its center). There is no other side of the coin.

Accepting evolution, however, does not mean that one rejects of God or

the soul. It does imply, a rejection of biblical literalism.

>>But then there would be nothing supernatural about God. How does one create matter from nothing using a natural process?<<

That is not what I said. I suggested that science does not have the

ability to study that process. I am talking about the limitations of

science - not the limitations of God.

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains:

http://markfoster.net

Name: mfoster Date: 01/24/2001 Time: 10:59:00 PM Category: Subject:

Re: Re: Re: Re: More on Creationism

Jabran,

>>I see no limitation to science in determining intelligent design.

Intelligent design has been found by science, though they refuse to

note it as such. Such things as the placement of the sun, and moon in

relation to the earth is evidence of intelligent design.<<

It could also be argued, though I would not personally want to do so,

that the fact that so few planets appear to be able to support life

demonstrates that life on this planet is simply an accident. It seems

an awful lot of space to waste in the universe, or at least the solar

system, just for one intelligent life form.

However, personally, I see no reason why chaos and order cannot both

be created by God. The assumption of many intelligent design folks is

that order, not chaos, demonstrates the existence of an intelligent

designer (creator).

In my view, whatever exists, whether order or chaos, are created by

God. Therefore, to use one or the other as evidence for design makes

no sense. What we think of, or interpret, as chaos may have some

purpose which only God knows.

>>The human heart cannot fathom anything without some external

evidence, sure you can reason from the heart but the heart needs a

position to start from.<<

Yes, but that position, in my case, is not science.

>>Any evidence for genetic evolution is what is called horizontal

evolution. It is not introduction of something new but simply the

reappearance of characteristics that may have been dormant for

generations.<<

That is not entirely true. Geneticists have observed the development

of new traits, as well. (I used to teach a course at the University of

Virginia, Wise campus, called "human evolution and prehistory.")

However, what some of the intelligent design theorists argue is that

these new traits support only microevolution (species adaptation) -

not macroevolution (transmutation from one species to another).

>>A change in allele frequency over time, is the only definition of

evolution that can be defended and is meaningless as far as a

departure from known form is concerned. Nothing new has ever been

observed to show evolution to a higher or lower form.<<

Again, that is what creationists and some intelligent design

theologians like to say. However, it has been thoroughly refuted by

Dawkins, Gould, etc.

The claims of these pseudoscientists (creationists and intelligent

design folks) are not, and never have been, recognized as legitimate

by the scientific community, since papers written by their proponents

do not measure up sufficient quality to be published in refereed

journals.

For instance, pragmatically, none of the so-called research by these

creationists, etc. has resulted in any major scientific findings. It

has been a complete dead end. It is, to be blunt, simply puffing.

Furthermore, these folks tend to dwell on issues largely irrelevant to

science, such as their claim that the only reason why people accept

evolution is because they are atheists - a claim which can be easily

refuted anyway.

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains:

http://markfoster.net

Name: mfoster Date: 01/26/2001 Time: 02:36:05 AM Category: Subject:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More on Creationism

Jabran,

>>Thats as I was saying, one or even a few instances like this could

be chance, but there are so many things like this that are vital to

life that one can only conclude an intelligent designer.<<

I agree with you that there is an intelligent designer, or Creator.

However, I don't think that this idea should (or legitimately can) be

applied to scientific research. IMO, God created the universe in such

a fashion that it could be understood by empirical (sensible) means

alone.

>>Correct, one cannot exist without the other, God created all things,

he created evil simply because he created good. Light presupposes a

condition of darkness.<<

Yes, but the ID folks focus on order (or, more properly, specified

complexity) as an evidence of design - not chaos. If chaos, order, or

anything in between, could have been created by God, then the entire

set of assumptions underlying intelligent design theory (that

intelligent design can be detected through empirical study) falls

apart.

>>"Traits" can mean many things, a larger nose or even social

attitudes. I dont know that this has anything to do with an arguement

of intelligent design but it is a classic example of creation versus

evolution. The emergence of new or most probably heretofore dormant

traits is an example of the variability within species and at most can

be called microevolution.<<

The distinction between macroevolution and microevolution, made by the

creationists, is mostly a diversion (in my view). The primary

empirical basis for macroevolution is not the fossil record but genes.

It is the genetic evidence, not the fossil record, which provides

incontrovertable evidence.

My guess is that, as the human genome project progresses, the evidence

will continue to pile up.

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains:

http://markfoster.net

Name: mfoster Date: 01/26/2001 Time: 03:00:37 AM Category: Subject:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More on Creationism

Jabran,

>>The refutations are simply denials no scientific proof has ever been

offered.<<

Evolution is the evidence. (By the way, there is no such thing as

scientific proof. Legal proof, yes. Logical proof, yes. Scientific

proof, no. Science develops by disproving, not proving.) In any event,

it is not the business of evolutionists to meet the challenges posed

by pseudoscientists. If intelligent design researchers were able to do

studies of a sufficient quality, they (at least some of them) would

have appeared in refereed journals, and the discussion would take

place in a legitimate academic forum. That is not the case. In fact,

the majority of the "leading" ID folks are Christian lawyers, not

scientists.

>>Thats untrue, one of these pseudoscientists as you call them is

Melvin Cook, Nobel Laureate with a Phd in chemistry has published many

times, as has Steve Austin Phd geology and Robert Gentry has published

so many papers in different scientific journals they would be hard to

count.<<

Yes, but they have not published articles on ID. Again, ID is not

science. It is theology. That is why articles on this subject are not

published.

>>Once it is known that a scientist is a creationist he then becomes

personna non grata and is no longer welcome to publish. Gentry with

many published papers and recognized at one time as the worlds leading

authority on pleochroic haloes has been ostracised to the point that

he can no longer work in the field and any attempt to publish is

rejected.<<

Creationists and ID people like to talk about supposed conspiracies

against them. There is no conspiracy - unless you would call a shared

desire for quality published research a conspiracy.

>>Not true again, all three listed above have and there have been

others.<<

I am not talking about these individuals - but about the field of ID.

The fact that ID itself is not science does not mean that its

proponents have not produced quality research in other areas.

>>That being said let me ask if you know how many scientists of the

hundreds of millions who have lived in the past and present, have had

a major scientific finding?<<

Again, I am not talking about individuals - but about the entire

field.

>>Most creationists think evolution is believed simply because it is

the only thing taught and it permeates every subject taught in public

schools and many religious schools.<<

From a scientific perspective, it is irrelevent what you or I

"believe." (In any event, I do not believe in evolution. I believe in

the Baha'i Faith. I accept evolution as a scientific fact.) What

matters is the consensus of scientists within relevant disciplines

(biology, physical anthropology, and paleontology).

>>Even books on home economics will have bits and pieces of evolution

in them, such as, blue dye is made from indigo, a plant that evolved

millions of years ago.<<

Again, that is irrelevant to the legitimacy of evolution.

>>Atheists are however the main thrust behind evolution, Darwin being

the first.<<

Except that Darwin was not an atheist.

>>Evolution is responsible for much of the worlds evil. The students

are taught that man evolved from animals and as such is just a higher

form of animal. They cannot be condemned for acting like an animal,

that is their legacy.<<

I rarely act like like an animal, have an active prayer and meditative

life, and am a bit of a mystic. Yet, I accept evolution. Likewise, the

Roman Catholic pope accepts the legitimacy of evolution. He seems to

me to be pretty non-animalistic, as well.

Actually, creationism (or something similar) is only accepted by a

tiny fraction of the world's population - being most dominant in the

U.S. and Australia, and the majority of those folks are fundamentalist

Christians, fundamentalist Muslims, and ultra-orthodox Jews.

Does that mean that everyone else acts like an animal? Or that Hindus,

Buddhists, Taoists, Confucianists, Sikhs, Jains, Zoroastrians, etc.

behave in a more animalistic fashion than fundamentalist Christians,

fundamentalist Muslims, or ultra-orthodox Jews?

I honestly do not understand your point. There are many people I would

unhesitatingly call "saints" who accept the legitimacy of evolution.

What you are, IMO, doing is projecting a narrow American

(fundamentalist) christocentrism on the rest of the world - everyone

else who does not subscribe to your beliefs, and alleging that they

are more likely (if I understand you correctly) to act like animals.

Do I understand you correctly?

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains:

http://markfoster.net

Name: mfoster Date: 01/27/2001 Time: 12:30:41 AM Category:

Subject: Re: More on Creationism

Jabran,

I had written: >>>>Evolution is the evidence.<<<<

You replied: >>Oh now why didnt I think off that. Of course that is

what they call circular reasoning.<<

And intentionally so. Evolution doesn't need to be defended - only

studied. The genetic resemblance of man and other primates, unknown to Spencer and Darwin, is the primary evidence for evolution - not the

fossil record.

>>You cant say something exists and make it so Mark. What is your

example of evolution?<<

See above.

>>In my opinion your field is pseudoscientism.<<

However, neither your nor my opinion really matters. All that counts,

from a scientific perspective, is that scientists in biology, physical

anthropology, and paleontology consider creationism to be

pseudoscience.

>>I know of one lawyer who has a book out, I know of hundreds of

engineers and scientists.<<

The intelligent design movement is mostly championed by attorneys -

those who have been challenging state statutes which mandate evolution

but not intelligent design. There are a number of scientists who

believe in ID, and the attorneys point to them in making their cases.

>>Do you know who Dean Kenyon is? He has published in peer reviewed

journals and was considered as one of the top biologist in the nation.

He was highly respected as a tenured professor at Berkely, and then.

He wrote the book "Of Pandas and People", suddenly he was no longer

welcome to publish in journals and the call went out to fire him. They

could not as he was tenured but they would not allow him to teach

(they called it infect) students. The crime,,,he said he could not

believe any longer in evolution. He is not a creationists but simply

thinks science should look for other avenues of origin.<<

I am not familiar with this case. However, if a scientist questions a

scientific fact - without providing sufficient evidence (capable of

being published in peer-reviewed journals) - then I can understand why

she or he might provoke the consternation of her or his colleagues.

>>You mean such things a study of the parameters of life sustaining

environments is not scientific?<<

Articles arguing for non-naturalistic causation are, by definition,

not scientific.

>>Immanuel Velikovski was hounded by conspirators to the point they

tried to deny him freedom of speech. Any academic employee who was

caught reading his work was fired, and many were. MacMillan publishing

was threatened with loss of the school book trade for publishing his

work and he was ridiculed in terrible manner. But it turned out he was

right more often than his critics and NASA hired him as a

consultant.<<

Velikovski's historical claims - and he has advanced the idea that the

histories of much of the ancient world need to be rewritten in light

of his catastrophism - have never been accepted as legitimate by

academic historians.

>>Not true again, all three listed above >>That is not irrelevant, it

shows the extent our children are being brainwashed at every

opportunity.<<

Brainwashing is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I have

problems with parents who home-school their children and teach them

creationism or intelligent design.

I wrote: >>>>Except that Darwin was not an atheist.<<<<

You replied: >>Darwin acknowledged that he was. He did not start out

that way but in his words he came to it little by little as he

developed his theory of evolution.<<

Darwin acknowledged, toward the end of his life, that he was an

agnostic (having started out as a theist of sorts) - not an atheist.

He borrowed the term "agnostic" from his "bull," Thomas Henry Huxley.

>>It's high time we quit criminalizing something that is so normal, so

natural, so harmless and so common among animals and recognize that

what we call "sodomy" is really quite natural after all.

>>We're animals. And being animals, we should quit trying to pretend

that we're not. What we call a "crime against nature" isn't unnatural,

and it shouldn't be a crime.

>>The above was taken from an article about the normalcy of sodomy.<<

Huh? How is that evidence that those who believe in evolution are more

likely to be animalistic? I am an evolutionist, and I do not regard

homosexual sodomy as acceptable or ethical. In my view, it is contrary

to God's purpose for humanity.

>>Im not positive but I think all the above groups have a creation

scenario connected with them.<<

That is not true. Buddhists are atheists (do not believe in a

creator). Ditto for Taoists and Confucianists.

>>Creationism has nothing to do with Christ. It merely assumes a

supreme creator. You could assume that zeuss was that creator.<<

Hmmm. I believe in a Creator, and yet I am not a creationist (in the

sense of rejecting evolution). What you wrote is a fundamentalist

Christian fiction. The reason most Christian creationists reject

evolution is because they are biblical literalists - not because

creation and evolution are, by nature, incompatible.

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains:

http://markfoster.net

You wrote: >>Of course there are genetic similarities between

species.... >>Like the great artists, who all have their recognizable

style, the similarity of the genetic code is ‘merely’ God’s

‘fingerprint’.<<

Talking about "God's fingerprint" is an interesting theological idea,

but it is not science. The scientific method is based on empirical,

sensory observation. Since "God" cannot be observed (either by the

unaided or aided human senses), your explanation is, by definition,

not scientific.

Now, from a spiritual standpoint, I believe that God creates the

universe. (Creates, not created. Theologically, I am an

Neoplatonic emanationist.) However, In my view, that creation has been

set up in such a fashion that it can be studied by empirical (usually

naturalistic) means.

What distinguishes my view from intelligent design is that I would

never want to argue that a "designer" could be induced from empirical

observation. Attempting to do so results in a "God of the gaps."

Belief in such a God is, among other things, reductionistic and

scientistic (not to mention sacriligious).

It is reductionistic because God is reduced to what science cannot, at

the present time, explain. It is scientistic, not scientific, in that,

like some of the Enlightenment thinkers, science is raised to a

universal standard of knowledge, i.e., if something is true then

science should be able to detect it.

What I would say is that it is God's purpose (teleology) for creation

and God's ethical guidelines (axiology) which can be detected - not

through empirical observation, but through meditation and prayer.

Arguing for intelligent design (as a supposed scientific theory or

explanation) also presupposes that, if God created (or continuously

creates) the universe, then it should look a certain way. Thus, order

and balance are taken as evidence of design. But why not chaos and

disorder? Who are we to say what form of universe God designs?

Cheers, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. Portal to my 12 domains: markfoster.net

evolution.kans.as

posted by Mark Foster at 11:31 AM

Monday, December 11, 2000

Exclusivistic views of God's grace are not becoming the Creator of all humanity.

posted by Mark Foster at 10:29 AM

America has a one-party system masquerading as two. Conservatism is the class consciousness of the oppressor. Liberalism is the false consciousness of the oppressed. They are, taken together, the two sides of one oppressive coin - parties to a culture war whose only victor is continued oppression.

Left Radicalism, on the other hand, is the class consciousness of the oppressed. The thesis (conservatism) x the antithesis (liberalism) = the synthesis (radicalism).

We need, it seems to me, a new liberation theology which will transform conventional religion from a tool of the oppressive class consciousness of the capitalist establishment and from the false consciousness of reform, characteristic of the religion of the oppressed, to a revolutionary spiritual class consciousness of the oppressed - a grass-roots liberation theology.

In plain speech, what I am suggesting is the following:

1. The differences between the two major parties are so insignificant that it would not be too far off the mark to say that we have a one-party system.

2. Conservatism allows those in power, the military-industrial complex (capitalism or the free market system), to justify their actions. It is the belief system of oppression.

3. Liberalism gives false hope to the oppressed by promising to reform an oppressive system (capitalism or the free market system). Thus, it discourages the masses from rebelling against capitalism.

4. Left radicalism is a way of thinking which, if adopted by the oppressed, would encourage them to revolt against capitalism.

5. The new liberation theology I am referring to would be the transformation of religion from an instrument of the capitalist oppressors to a tool of spiritual revolution.

The two-party system virtually assures that we will never have anything like what happened in the former Soviet Union. Third parties are prevented from having any meaningful impact on American politics.

Personally, I am a social radical and a moral conservative. However, our two-party system has made it appear that my perspective would be contradictory. As I see it, my collectivistic views and the essentially opposite ones of the libertarians are both more internally consistent than either liberalism or conservatism.

The anarchists (Buchanin et al.) believe that government is, by definition, oppressive. Personally, I would make a distinction between oppression and social control. The main issue in oppression is social stratification, or institutionalized social inequality, not power in itself.

I would not call oppression what is beneficial to the majority. For that reason, I reject the possibility of so-called reverse discrimination.

It seems to me that people should develop through the normal struggles we all experience - not given a special measure of them by an oppressor caste (men, whites, the able-bodied, etc.). Note that, in referring to an "oppressor caste," I have in mind groups and not individuals.

Liberalism is destructive.. However, I think that liberalism feeds on that destruction and also contains the seeds of its own destruction. Liberalism is reactionary.

I do not agree that conservatives as necessarily afraid of change. I think it is much more complex than that. Obviously, those who championed the so-called Reagan revolution were not afraid of change. Of course, that didn't make it any less evil.

Not only conservatives, but many liberals also want to return to the past.. For instance, many would like to return the Johnson and Nixon's "Great Society" program.

Many, sadly, are proposing psychological solutions to social (sociological) problems, i.e., laziness, fear, or lack of self-esteem. As I see it, the greatest barriers to change are oppression and injustice.

Capitalism is inherently unfair. Any "fairness" to the system has been a result of an infusion of socialism, i.e., medicare, medicaid, food stamps, SSI, social security. It would be even fairer if we had either socialized medicine or national health insurance.

The solution is given in the Book of Acts 2:40-47 - spiritual socialism. Not all religions are oppressive or the opiate of the people.

Marx and Engels correctly observed that religion is the opium of the people. It blinds people to their oppression by promising a reward in the afterlife. However, I would argue that religion does not need to be oppressive, as Latin American and Palestinian liberation theologians have pointed out.

With respect to Israel/Palestine I think that the Palestinians have the better case. They have history on their side. Modern-days Ashkenazic Jews (including my own ancesters) are not much more (if at all) related to the ancient Hebrews than are any other Central and Eastern Europeans.

Some liberation theologians have recently been making more conciliatory statements about capitalism. To me, that is unfortunate.

posted by Mark Foster at 9:32 AM

posted at 12:35:51 PM by Me