Well, this reconciles Christianity with the sciences of the ancients, such as their astronomical observations. We still have the problem of the multi-layered heaven of Genesis and all of the incorrect scientific endeavors. The incorrect far outweighing the correct. So it's quite understandable to see people object to the assertion that the astrotheology of the ancients reconciles Christianity with science.

Tat, the claim that purported miracles are allegory for real observation entirely removes Christianity from the realm of supernatural fantasy. If you read the New Testament with a view to saying that wherever the authors describe something impossible, they are actually talking in symbolic terms, then the message can be reconciled with science.

It does though present a very harsh judgment on the level of delusion in Christian tradition, how popular desire for imaginary answers has overwhelmed efforts to provide a realistic ethic. I remain convinced that the source text, Q if you like, for the New Testament was thoroughly astrotheological, but this vision was steadily diluted as the committee worked towards a document that would engage a mass audience. The vision is still there in traces, covered over by a surface message that is compatible with the Jewish transcendental tradition.

Continuing this line, astrotheology is about deconstructing the message of religious texts. As those who know me may be aware, I wrote a Master of Arts thesis on the German existential philosopher Martin Heidegger, who was responsible for deconstruction as a philosophical movement. Wikipedia explains that Heidegger's German word "Destruktion" was translated as "Deconstruction" and "used in the sense of historicize the tradition, its categories and concepts, overcoming its blocks to our access to its primordial 'sources'."

Deconstruction is exactly what Murdock is doing for Christianity. The religious tradition is analyzed in its historical context to show how it blocks our access to its sources.

Continuing the idea of a cosmic-oriented source document from my last post, the question of a scientific orientation among the Bible authors of the cosmic Q should not be dismissed out of hand. It is not the modern systematic empiricism, but more the general principle of scientific method that we do not make any claims that lack evidence or that conflict with observation. Of course the Bible is chock full of unscientific claims. However, the line of speculation that I would like to explore is that the hidden geniuses who came up with the myth of Jesus Christ started off with the observation of their senses, and asked how the cycles of nature could be embedded in a believable story whose inner truth was compatible with observation. So there is this back story, for example reflecting the old Egyptian idea of the virgin birth as allegory for the rising of the sun at dawn, and the birth of Christ as allegory for the day the days start to lengthen each year at Christmas. Sunrise is an observable fact. Like in the art of Leonardo Da Vinci, perhaps we see in the Bible that human life (idealised in the story of the incarnation of Christ) is presented as a sort of fractal reflection of the observable facts of planetary reality.

This sort of scientific framework is deeply hidden in the Gospels, the Epistles and Revelation, but is definitely there if you look. We have to remember that the stars were like the television of the ancient world, especially in the clear dark skies of Egypt and Babylon. The myths would have had a familiarity in stories of the stars, as have come down to us from the Greeks.

Deconstruction of the Bible involves treating all impossible claims as allegory for something real. This requires a methodical atheism, in the sense of complete rejection of fanciful supernatural and miraculous fables, but an atheism that works through the evidence toward a real understanding of the presence of a natural divinity in our planetary existence.

That's probably a bit advanced for the average contemplator, but still sensible in many ways. It would be rather interesting if a first century source document were ever unearthed which blatantly showed an astrotheological origin and evolution.

To back track a bit, the gospel accounts are addressed to the solar cycle of the annual year starting with the solstice in Capricorn and coming around again with an emphasis on the connection between the three day stand still and the three months between the solstice and the equinox: http://www.usbible.com/astrology/gospel_zodiac.htm Not mentioned in CiE, but very relevant, is how the life's ministry of Jesus is carefully arranged to represent the last year of the former Great Year cycle ending in the Aeon of Aries the ram / lamb. Going into the crucifixion scene Jesus starts off as the "lamb of God" who takes away the "sins of the world." This is still addressed to the sun making it's last round during the last Aeon of the former Great Year cycle. The last supper draws nearer to the crossing over of the sun from the last Aeon of the last Great Year, into the first Aeon of the new Great Year cycle. This is straight away addressed to the movements of the sun according to the yearly cycle and the precession of the equinoxes. Some may not know of this, so it's best to lay it out simply (see link for clarification).

This was a very unique time in human history from their cyclic time perspective, a time worthy of a great effort of mythologization for ancient cultures. Two major crossings were taking place according to astronomical observation, the science of the priesthoods. The sun was both crossing over from one 2,000+ year Aeon to the next and from one entire Great Year precession of the equinoxes to the next. All of this astronomical observation by the priesthood was poured out into many of the parables and miracles of the Jesus myth. The loaves and fishes, as we'll read about later, had it's origins in Egyptian mythology. But during the Christian era this ancient motif was changed to taylor fit the astronomical significance of the end of the Great Year and the beginning of the new from another perspective. Perhaps we should save breaking down this miracle myth for the proper chapter dealing with the loaves and fishes allegory and it's Egyptian roots. But yes, many of the so-called miracles and parables break down into allegorical teachings that were aimed at the observation and then mythologization of natural events on the earth and in the sky. And yes it does tend to blast traditional supernatural miracle interpretation right out of the water. And this tends to effect both orthodox and gnostic apologists too. Both of which have staked claims on assuming that these miracles were real supernatural historical events, mystical magic tricks by some gnostic teacher, or anything other than simply basic astrotheological allegories the entire time...

Greetings all. Great discussion!

This talk of miracles interests me. It does seem highly likely most or all the "miracle" stories in the Bible are astrotheological allegories as discussed and maybe a few adapted tall tales from the careers of ancient wandering wise men like Apollonius of Tyana or whoever. Certainly it would be a highly dubious position to try to claim these tales were any sort of "proof" of intervention by a "God" of some sort.

That said, I find some resistance arising within me to some of the lines of argument used here. Mainly the whole "We know miracles couldn't really have happened because Science tells us so" routine. This strikes me as weaker than some of the lines of argument here as it invokes an external authority - Science - implicit in which is the assumption that a particular belief system is more valid than others. Can you actually PROVE it is impossible to materialize a fish out of thin air? No one can. It might actually be easier to produce a fish than such a proof. Science is invoked as an external authority to which belief is compulsory. Implicit therein is the idea that someone who doesn't agree is deluded or otherwise mentally deficient.

I think this line of argument might be unproductive and might unnecessarily alienate some people. It's entirely possible to deconstruct the Bible mythology without invoking scientific materialism as an alternate "authority."

Just my two cents and I'm really enjoying this discussion!

Hi Scooby - not sure if that name reminds me more of Anubis or Scooby Doo. Both have a touch of the miraculous about them anyway.

I try to be slightly provocative in discussing the status of science, and I am glad you have picked up on that. Science aims for a consistent and coherent explanation of the nature of the universe. My view of the current status of science is that there really is no challenge to the objectivity and accuracy of mainstream scientific knowledge, although of course there are always frontiers where things are far less certain. The outline history of our universe since the Big Bang, the laws of motion and evolution, the periodic table of the elements, these are facts that have been so abundantly proved that doubting them is stupid.

This leads to your question of the status of scientific knowledge. For me it is a matter of faith, something I hold as absolutely and ultimately true, that core scientific knowledge is true. This is why all claims of the existence of miracles and the supernatural are delusion. Science has enlightened us about the nature of the universe. However, we are still in the early days of applying scientific method to religious topics. This is where Christ in Egypt and other books by D.M. Murdock are so immensely valuable. The refusal to compromise integrity, refusing to give any respect to traditional error, produces a freedom and a vision that is pioneering.

I personally do not wish to engage in semantic doubt about whether it may be possible for someone to materialize a fish out of thin air. I have faith, grounded in the immense body of scientific observation, that any apparent magic trick of this kind can be explained in accordance with the laws of physics.

Jesus was no conjurer, and nor did he winkle loaves and fish into being using his super-duper supernatural power. Jesus was a myth. This miracle of the loaves and fishes, and all the rest of them, are allegories for a natural cosmic vision on the part of the original writers that has strong continuity with Egyptian precedent. This use of miracles as natural parables is hidden beneath the myth of incarnation, but that myth is just as imaginary as any pagan story.

Hi Robert, thanks for the response. I hope it was clear I wasn't trying to attack anyone's right to believe in scientific materialism or anything else. My suggestion is just that it's one of the weaker arguments in use here.

In fact appealing to any external authority - even Science - isn't an argument at all but an abdication of argument. I know it doesn't seem this way to many people because "it's obvious" that scientific materialism is "true." It should be equally obvious though that not everyone shares this belief. Invoking the "authority" of Science isn't that effective because it only works with people who share the same underlying assumption in which case you are just preaching to the choir anyway. To others you may run the risk of coming across as intolerant or closed-minded. (Not saying you ARE... But any "argument" based on appeal to a higher authority - most especially including Science - runs the risk of coming across this way.)

It seems significant you call this your "faith" - that's really what it is. Strictly speaking, saying miracles are impossible is not a scientific statement because it cannot be proved. "It is impossible to materialize a fish out of thin air" is a faith-based statement. (And no, I have never seen anyone materialize a fish or anything else, and perhaps it is in fact impossible. But I actually see no necessary reason to assume that.)

But my intention here wasn't really to get into an epistemological debate of this issue, which would most likely be futile as well as off-topic. Arguing with scientific materialists tends to be as circular as arguing with Christians. (LOL, sorry, couldn't resist!) The point I strive to make is that trying to deconstruct one authoritarian faith by recourse of appeal to another authoritarian faith is not very sound methodologically. More to the point I think it may unnecessarily alienate some people who otherwise might be sympathetic to some of the other arguments. It basically creates an "either-or" situation where there doesn't need to be one. Faith in Science is not the only alternative to faith in God.

ScoobyNubis wrote:The point I strive to make is that trying to deconstruct one authoritarian faith by recourse of appeal to another authoritarian faith is not very sound methodologically. More to the point I think it may unnecessarily alienate some people who otherwise might be sympathetic to some of the other arguments. It basically creates an "either-or" situation where there doesn't need to be one. Faith in Science is not the only alternative to faith in God.

This is a good insight and valuable to this discussion in my view. When I read over claims like this from Robert I understand the greater context and know what he's getting at. But it can come across the wrong way from another perspective for sure. I agree that it's impossible to make a fish appear from thin air, but that's mostly because it's not up to Robert or any one else to have prove that a fish can not pop into existence out of thin air by command. It's the other way around. Until some one does command a fish to pop into existence out of thin air and documents such a thing, it remains the subject of fantasy.

But I don't take Robert's direction of wanting to start out with an appeal to science on the myth of the loaves and fishes. I first look at it in the sense of how this story of the loaves and fishes just so happens to refer to the point in history where the astrological ages where changing from the Aries-Libra axis to the Pisces-Virgo axis. The coming of the age of Fish and the wheat / Virgin to be precise. We'll certainly have to deconstruct this myth when we catch up to the chapter dealing with the Egyptian counter parts to this myth. There's a whole lot of astrotheological symbolism arranged very carefully by the writers. And I realize that it doesn't rely on sciences rejection of supernatural miracles, that's just another point of consideration in the mix. And so I agree with the critique offered above. For those who don't put much faith in science and materialism there's still plenty of good reason to understand certain myths like the loaves and fishes as astrotheological allegory.

ScoobyNubis wrote:Hi Robert, thanks for the response. I hope it was clear I wasn't trying to attack anyone's right to believe in scientific materialism or anything else. My suggestion is just that it's one of the weaker arguments in use here.

Scooby, belief in science is not a "weaker argument", it is central to Christ in Egypt. Everything that Murdock says in this book is compatible with the evidence of observation.

A basic problem in this field of research is that people import unscientific assumptions, and her critics assume that Murdock is unscientific just because she is talking about myths, which of course have such an unscientific context. But I would challenge any reader to find any statement in this book that is not based on the best available evidence, and entirely compatible with modern scientific knowledge. The power of the argument derives from the real authority of science.

Your term 'materialism' has a bunch of mythical associations, arising from its centrality to the historical rejection of supernaturalism. The tendency in materialist philosophy is to say that myth is just false consciousness with no meaning, but that is not Murdock's view as I read it. It is possible to be entirely scientific while deconstructing what we could call the 'materialist logos' of the scientific enlightenment.

In fact appealing to any external authority - even Science - isn't an argument at all but an abdication of argument. I know it doesn't seem this way to many people because "it's obvious" that scientific materialism is "true." It should be equally obvious though that not everyone shares this belief. Invoking the "authority" of Science isn't that effective because it only works with people who share the same underlying assumption in which case you are just preaching to the choir anyway. To others you may run the risk of coming across as intolerant or closed-minded. (Not saying you ARE... But any "argument" based on appeal to a higher authority - most especially including Science - runs the risk of coming across this way.)

Your argument here is a misuse of the term 'authority'. Traditionally, argument from authority is contrasted to argument from observation. Authoritarian argument is fallacious because it says the credibility of a statement derives from who says it, from tradition, and ignores conflicting evidence. Taking science as an authority is completely different because it is based on evidence and observation and logic, and is always open to falsification.

However, this principle of falsification gets taken too far in skeptical epistemology, which says there is no room for faith in a theory of knowledge. If I say the authority of science tells me the sun will rise tomorrow, because that prediction coheres with all observation, I am justified in taking this on faith. This sort of scientific faith based on observation is completely different from traditional faith. If some one says Jesus is the incarnate son of God, based on authoritarian tradition, we find there is no actual observation that supports the claim, and in fact, as Christ in Egypt demonstrates, there is abundant evidence that Jesus was constructed as a myth.
The mythicist explanation is a new scientific paradigm with superior explanatory power.

The philosophy of science, for example Karl Popper, sought to take an ethical stand against authoritarian methods. My view is that Popper's philosophy emphasised a liberal openness to doubt that is finally untenable, because it leads to the logical conclusion that we cannot actually know anything. I say we do know facts about the nature of the universe, but this knowledge ultimately rests on belief in axioms, unprovable statements. In this case, the central axiom of scientific knowledge is that consistent observation is reliable. All axioms are statements of faith and cannot be proved. Without them we have the madness of solipsism, doubting everything, producing an ethical paralysis, and an absurd rejection of the abundant evidence of our senses.

It seems significant you call this your "faith" - that's really what it is. Strictly speaking, saying miracles are impossible is not a scientific statement because it cannot be proved. "It is impossible to materialize a fish out of thin air" is a faith-based statement. (And no, I have never seen anyone materialize a fish or anything else, and perhaps it is in fact impossible. But I actually see no necessary reason to assume that.)

But my intention here wasn't really to get into an epistemological debate of this issue, which would most likely be futile as well as off-topic. Arguing with scientific materialists tends to be as circular as arguing with Christians. (LOL, sorry, couldn't resist!) The point I strive to make is that trying to deconstruct one authoritarian faith by recourse of appeal to another authoritarian faith is not very sound methodologically. More to the point I think it may unnecessarily alienate some people who otherwise might be sympathetic to some of the other arguments. It basically creates an "either-or" situation where there doesn't need to be one. Faith in Science is not the only alternative to faith in God.

I don't think the epistemology (theory of knowledge) is futile, precisely because people unjustly accuse Murdock of a faulty epistemology. It is not 'authoritarian' to say that consistent evidence is reliable. If this 'alienates' people who prefer to be inconsistent, then so be it. It is in fact a sound methodology to deconstruct authoritarian tradition by use of observation and consistent evidence. That hardly makes the deconstruction equally authoritarian.

You imply some 'third way' between science and the supernatural. My view on this is that traditional supernatural myths do point to difficulties in the modern scientific worldview, which has a cultural hostility to myth. Murdock is applying the tools of science to analyze the meaning of myth. This is a purely objective scholarly quest.

Avoiding the epistemology is convenient if you wish to say perhaps the supernatural claims of the Bible are literally true. Given that we have an alternative scientific parsimonious explanation, namely that the claims of the Bible derive from mythic precedents, it is entirely reasonable to observe that this superior explanation coheres with modern recognition of the reliability of scientific observation, and the unreliability of everything else.

The 'circularity' here is that my view rests on the axiom that consistent evidence is reliable. Your questions, which are entirely logical by the way, rest on the assumption that perhaps this axiom is false. You have raised the important observation that even science cannot escape faith in its fundamental assumptions about the nature of reality. Just to assume the universe exists as we see it is a statement of faith. But it is a very powerful predictive statement, providing the foundation for systematic logic.

Robert I think you are conflating two different things in your argument. I am in no way denigrating or disavowing the importance of logic and rational thinking. But I think we need to distinguish two different things namely:

(1) the rational/scientific METHOD - which I wholeheartedly endorse - a key feature of which is that it proceeds according to a chain of reasoned arguments each of which proves to the arguer's ability the next step in the chain; and...

(2) what I was calling the "appeal to authority" - namely making an UN-demonstrated and in fact undemonstr-ABLE proposition - such as "Miracles can never happen" - then, basically because YOU feel it's "obviously rational" (I actually don't feel that way and there's no particular reason anyone should) treating that as an unassailable fact which anyone who disagrees with is "stupid" (your word) and then trying to use your entirely unfounded proposition to disprove or demonstrate other theses.

The second case is actually an ABUSE of the scientific method and amounts to little more than reducing it to a club with which to pound your opponents to silence, much as certain other people wield their Bibles.