I spend a lot of my free time reading about religion. Most of that time is on the features that make one religion different from another. That's why G. Willow Wilson's article on why intelligent design doesn't work in Islam and Judaism riveted me.

"The God of the Bible is omniscient and all-powerful, but the God of the Torah and the Quran is omnipresent and omniparticipant. This essential difference has led some religious scholars to draw a distinction between monotheism, the belief in one God, and monism, the belief in One."

The crux of her article is that Islam and Judaism are monistic (believe in One essence), and Christianity is monotheistic (believe in one God). That is the God of Islam and Judaism is an omnipresent essence of the universe. The God of Christianity is omniscient but limited to one all-powerful being. This is why iconography is forbidden in Islam and Judaism (because God is not part of our world) but very present in Christianity (because a local God interacts directly with people's lives). These fundamental differences play a role in whether a religion endorses intelligent design (ID) or not.

I think Mormonism actually finesses this point a bit. They have a recursive notion of God that allows him to be one being that is a part of universe, but also omnipresent and apart from the universe. Perhaps that's why Mormons don't seem to be leading the charge for ID?

She goes into more detail about how these differences impact ID. There's some really good stuff in there. G. Willow Wilson is a woman of many talents. She's writing a new comic book series called Air that I really enjoyed.

I really enjoy reading Grant Morrison. I can think of few writers who really grok the power of storytelling to change our reality like he does. I've learned a lot about the power of the written word from reading his comic books. What surprises me is when I come across those ideas in much older works, like the Bible.

Numbers 5:12-31 is about how husbands can force their wives to submit to an abortion if they merely suspect their wife has cheated on them. They go before a priest goes who has God curse some water before the wife drinks it. The cursed water causes her to miscarry and renders her barren if she cheated on him.

What fascinates me about this is the manner in which the priest creates the magic abortion potion.

The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. He shall have the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water will enter her and cause bitter suffering.

The priest is literally writing out what he wants to happen. Then the ink from those words is mixed with water that the wife is to drink. The written word has magical properties here. The priest is able to alter reality by writing a new story.

To further my point about the power of perception imagine a different story with the same facts. A woman is pregnant, but not by her husband. However, in this story she tells it as immaculate conception.

"Belief precedes action" is now added to the list of obvious truths I've completely missed until now.

I gleaned it from William James' speech on The Will to Believe. I'm missing something from the speech though. It felt like a fancier version of Pascal's Wager, not the clarion call to religious belief I was hoping for.

James' concludes with this quote from Fitz-James Stephen:

What do you think of yourself? What do you think of the world?...These are questions with which all must deal as it seems good to them. They are riddles of the Sphinx, and in some way or other we must deal with them...In all important transactions of life we have to take a leap in the dark...If we decide to leave the riddles unanswered, that is a choice; if we waver in our answer, that, too, is a choice: but whatever choice we make, we make it at our peril. If a man chooses to turn his back altogether on God and the future, no one can prevent him; no one can show beyond reasonable doubt that he is mistaken. If a man thinks otherwise and acts as he thinks, I do not see that any one can prove that he is mistaken. Each must act as he thinks best; and if he is wrong, so much the worse for him. We stand on a mountain pass in the midst of whirling snow and blinding mist through which we get glimpses now and then of paths which may be deceptive. If we stand still we shall be frozen to death. If we take the wrong road we shall be dashed to pieces. We do not certainly know whether there is any right one. What must we do? ' Be strong and of a good courage.' Act for the best, hope for the best, and take what comes...If death ends all, we cannot meet death better."

This is an even more dramatic restatement of Pascal's Wager. There's gotta be a good movie in there somewhere. I'm imagining Sophie's Choice meets The Screwtape Letters. Make it an action picture with a big Summer release.