Forgive me if this is painfully obvious to everyone already, but Myers was probably making a rather simple-minded dig at Christians for following Jesus whom Myers believes has been dead for 2000 years.

For heaven’s sake, man, in this case the heart means the soul, or the soul-emotion-psyche aspect of a person. The word heart is used this way in many, many different places in literature. Jesus himself uses it this way when he says, “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.” No?

The following is from a guy who appears to deny the substitutionary atonement of Christ in his death on the Cross, and maintains a patronizing dismissive posture in general for one orthodox doctrine after another. So let the unlearned proceed with caution. Nevertheless, he does have some quite obviously valid observations to makes that are thought-provoking such as the following:

While the Hebrews, however, had only a rough and ready knowledge of bodily functions, they experienced the intimate identification of mental and emotional life with them. A man to them was primarily a body, animated, to be sure, with a breath-soul, but still basically a body, and all his experiences, intellectual and emotional as well as physical, were conceived in bodily terms.

Three organs, in particular, were regarded by the Hebrews as the seats of what we should call psychical activity — heart, kidneys, and bowels. Of these the heart came, in the end, to have the widest usage and the most abiding importance, so that it has passed over into modern speech and we still symbolize our emotions in terms of it. At the beginning, however, this usage was not confined to one organ, and far from being figurative, it represented the literal thinking of the people.

In the Old Testament the heart is used, as we use it, to express emotional experiences, such as anxiety — “his heart trembled”; (I Samuel 4:13.) joy — “the priest’s heart was glad”; (Judges 18:20.) love — “the king’s heart was toward Absalom”; (II Samuel 14:1.) even intoxicated gaiety — “Nabal’s heart was merry within him, for he was very drunken.” (I Samuel 25:36.) But it is also used to express mental activity, such as meditation — “Thou shalt say in thy heart”; (Deuteronomy 7:17.) or the achievement of wisdom — “an understanding heart to judge thy people.” (I Kings 3:9.) Even beyond this the word is used to express, as nephesh does, the whole inner life and character — “Man looketh on the outward appearance, but Yahweh looketh on the heart.” (I Samuel 16:7.)

The naturalness of this manner of speech in our usage should not deceive us as to its original meaning. To us it is figurative; at the beginning of our Hebrew-Christian tradition it was literal. The meaning then was not that personality, conceived somehow in metaphysical terms as a soul, had sensations and experiences mediated through or associated with its physical organism. Then the physical organism was the man and the bodily organs were the active agents of experience. ‘The heart’ was not a metaphor for ‘the spirit,’ nor was there any psychological theory to explain that the experiences of the self are associated with organic sensations. All such sophisticated thinking was still centuries ahead. It was the heart itself that felt, thought, desired, and decided. As H. W. Robinson summarily puts it: “The body, not the soul, is the characteristic element of Hebrew personality.” (The Christian Doctrine of Man, p. 12.) In a word, the Old Testament began with a thoroughgoing primitive behaviorism.

This is the more easily seen when we turn to the Old Testament’s use of bodily organs other than the heart. So alien to our manner of speech are certain passages that when the bowels, for example, are employed to express love (Song of Solomon 5:4.) or compassion (Isaiah 16:11.) or distress, Jeremiah 4:19.) the Revised Version declines a literal rendering and disguises what the Hebrew says in euphemisms — ‘heart’ or ‘inward parts.’ In the same way, the kidneys are used as the seat both of discontent (Psalm 73:21.) and of wise meditation, (Psalm 16:7) but in our translations we must turn to the margin to discover that the word rendered ‘heart’ really means ‘reins.’ The Old Testament, therefore, plainly begins with man as a physical being, whose emotional and intellectual life is a physical function.

Moreover, within the boundaries of the Old Testament, the Hebrew religion never outgrew the idea that man’s life is indissolubly associated with his body. This is evident from the fact that when the hope of life after death emerged, it took the form of bodily resurrection.

(from “A Guide to Understanding the Bible” by Harry Emerson Fosdick)

(Frankly for people who go read more of this guy’s writings, some or going to be led astray. But the fault of that is the reluctance of more orthodox sources to deal openly with the subject discussed above. Most other sites that discussed this were things like, “Atheists online” and the like, and the source I’ve included, such as it is, is the least objectionable I could find.)

I think he goes on to say that the Hebrews only gradually developed the idea of an immaterial self that is distinct from the body only through the influence of the Greeks. But if this notion did come from the Greeks, was it because they as well did not understand that cognition is centered in the brain. In other words, if they knew quite a lot about the brain and still adamantly maintained the existence of an immaterial self, their conviction in that regard would be more compelling. But certainly, all the references to “heart” in the Bible is the foundation in many people’s minds for the idea of cognition emanating from an immaterial source.

But what is really reprehensible to me is how all the modern translations have completely deleted references to kidneys and bowels and the like, so that for example

“I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give every man according to his ways, According to the fruit of his doings.”

actually reads,

“I, the LORD, search the kidneys, I test the heart, Even to give every man according to his ways, According to the fruit of his doings.”

But actually, an interpretation of this could go either way, if you think about it. I for one don’t think that it alone establishes that thought only involves a physical organ, or that the eternal God thought that thought took place in the kidneys, even if he said the above through a prophet (and frankly I do pretty much believe he did).

But I have to say the following – as what is being done with mind control becomes more well-known and coincides with what is prophetically discussed in scripture regarding the beast, (e.g. “…He taketh his seat in the temple of God showing himself to be God…”) people are going to have to come to grips with the reality that thought is a quite physical and tangible process, and not something that emanates from some ill-defined (or more accurately undefined) and hazy conception of a nonmaterial “mind”. And take all the amusement you care to from that assertion – for now.

“He [Hawking] theorised about possible answers to whether extraterrestrial life exists.

One option is that there likely is no life elsewhere.

Or maybe there is intelligent life elsewhere, but when it gets smart enough to send signals into space, it also is smart enough to make nuclear weapons.

Prof Hawking said he preferred the third option: “Primitive life is very common and intelligent life is fairly rare.” ” (emphasis added)

One key observation is that he is listing three possible answers to why we don’t detect signals coming from intelligent life. In other words, why didn’t SETI detect intelligent causation of radio signals apart from the mass of radio signals produced by undirected causes?

So, this is all about considering why a design detection experiment did not detect design (when the hypothesis expected to find it, if intelligent life is abundant).

If we did not think we could distinguish intelligently caused signals from undirected sources, they wouldn’t be having that conversation.

A secondary observation is that Hawking is just stating his preference among the three possible explanations.

He is not an OOL scientist. He doesn’t have any scientific basis for saying that the option of no life elsewhere is not true. However, that would reinforce the uncomfortable possibility that life here is intentionally designed.

The second option is not preferred simply because the idea that intelligent life usually kills itself off is depressing with regard to our own prospects. However, that also is not a scientific conclusion, merely a preference.

In short, he has no scientific basis for thinking even simple life is common. He is just saying, as a human, what he prefers to think is true.

You certainly have some oddly incongruous remarks.

[quote]I think its possible that Christ as a man thought that cognition literally took place in the human heart (i.e. the organ that pumps blood). The reason for this is that in castigating the Pharisees he says that what enter a man cannot defile him because it enters the stomach and is then eliminated, but out of the heart proceeds evil thoughts, etc. (So evidently he got the function of the stomach right, but not the other human organ he mentions – the heart.)[/quote}

For heaven's sake, man, in this case the heart means the soul, or the soul-emotion-psyche aspect of a person. The word heart is used this way in many, many different places in literature. Jesus himself uses it this way when he says, "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." No?

[quote]But if the word “spirit” is to enter the discussion in any meaningful sense, we must be able to attribute definite properties to it, describe how it interacts with the physical and so on.[/quote]

I agree.

Stephen Hawking, world famous Cosmologist has suggested that alien life is probably in the universe. Though it is probably bacterial. Intelligent life is rare. Isn’t this what ID has been saying?

http://ukpress.google.com/arti.....cKAEAoirug

I guess were veering pretty drastically into religion and so I don’t know if this will be deleted, but a few comments:

Speaking as a Christian I’m not sure the “whole heart mind and soul” injunction is any more than an idiomatic construct in which Christ is enjoining us to love God with all our capability. I don’t think it was Christ’s functional analysis of a human being. I think its possible that Christ as a man thought that cognition literally took place in the human heart (i.e. the organ that pumps blood). The reason for this is that in castigating the Pharisees he says that what enter a man cannot defile him because it enters the stomach and is then eliminated, but out of the heart proceeds evil thoughts, etc. (So evidently he got the function of the stomach right, but not the other human organ he mentions – the heart.) Also note that when Jesus miraculously calms the storm, he addresses the wind and waves directly, as if they were intelligent entities capable of comprehending his commands. For the record I do believe the miracle happened. It doesn’t appear to me however, that Christ’s divinity as a man was manifested in scientific knowledge comparable to what we have today (at least I don’t think so.)

AS far as Jesus saying those who worship God must worship him in spirit, I think the emphasis is getting away from viewing God as physically resident in a temple, and to whom outward cermonial laws must be observed. This was also in an age when sophisticated people thought their gods were physically resident in an idol.

But if the word “spirit” is to enter the discussion in any meaningful sense, we must be able to attribute definite properties to it, describe how it interacts with the physical and so on.

Just discussing this – not particularly enamored by any of my comments. Don’t know if they’re correct or not, hopefully they’re not heresy.

A very interesting post. It has inspired much thought. However, your understanding of Christianity is somewhat lacking. You are off the mark when you say that Christianity tells you to’let your reasonings about truth be grounded in physical reality.’ The most important command is to love God with your whole heart, and mind, and soul. Jesus gives this as the greatest commandment. In this command you are to love an immaterial being because Jesus has told us that God is spirit. I could go on but this makes the point.

adm6 atsign cornell dot edu

Thanks!

If you want to contact Dr. Menuge why don’t you email him or call him? I have actually spoke to him on his office phone when I called for information (time, location) regarding his up and coming debate with Myers (back when it was up and coming).
Wouldn’t emailing him directly be better than posting on a blog that he may or may not see?