| |
What Happened to Gregg Braden?
— A critique of his latest
work: The God Code
Andrew Paterson—03/2004 (Footnotes
updated 07/2007) |
| |
Gregg Braden is at the forefront
of the New Age movement with his books, Awakening
to Zero Point, The Isaiah Effect and Walking Between
The Worlds. An ex-engineer in the earth sciences
and aerospace industries, Braden presents himself
as a scientist and modern-day prophet at the cutting
edge of research into our collective destiny and
the science of prayer. Here is a review from a
lecture promoting his latest book, The God Code. |
| |
HAVE
JUST GOT BACK from a lecture at Alternatives in London given on the
29/3/04 by Gregg Braden, which covers the material
of his new book, The God Code. I had been looking forward
to this lecture for many months: I am a HUGE fan of
Braden's work, and it is very rare to see him in this
part of the world. So it was with absolute delight
that I went to hear him speak… and
ended up almost walking out.
This was the biggest load of pseudoscience I have
heard for a long time, and it was delivered in a thoroughly
patronizing manner (his target audience when preparing
this material can only be imbecilic). I cannot understand
this because none of this comes through in his previous
work — although I have never heard him lecture
before, I have read his previous books, some of which
were fantastic and are recommended on this site. I
have also listened to one radio interview, which was
great.
Braden prides himself on being a scientist, and in
his other material he presents the right balance between
scientific fact and "spiritual" interpretation
of those facts. But his latest work, The God Code,
seems to be fantasy masquerading as science, and actually
ends up discrediting his previous works. Throughout
his lecture he keeps trying to reassure the audience
with "this is proved scientifically" or "scientists
do not doubt this", when in fact nobody with any
scientific understanding could accept what he is claiming
on the evidence that he presents. It just isn't science,
period.
The crux of The God Code is that our DNA sequence,
when read by assigning Hebrew characters to the base
sequence, spells out the words of our Creator. His
mystical justification for this comes from the Sefer
Yetzirah (The Book of Creation) which is one of the
central texts in the Kabala tradition. Braden gives
us a quote from this mystical text which says, "Within
the letter is a great, concealed mystical exalted secret… from
which everything was created."
From this he looks at DNA and questions whether the
DNA base sequence lettering could be the lettering
referred to in the Sefer Yetzirah. Perhaps our DNA
is the "great, concealed mystical exalted secret" because,
after all he reasons, it also contains letters and
it is universal to life. He then presents his theory
that our DNA is a library of information (nothing new
there… even orthodox scientists would agree
with that), that each chromosome is a book (if you
want to call it a book Gregg… that's fine) and
that each gene-length is a sentence (yes… DNA
is the language of our Biology so the analogy is obvious
and has been made many times before). But his next
step is to say that code is literally translatable
into Hebrew! And he bases this grand hypothesis on
just single and very dubious 4-letter correlation. (There is exciting new evidence suggesting that the 90% "junk DNA" in our cells actually has grammatical structure and so may well be a language of some sort, but this is a far cry from Braden's puerile reasoning.)
To justify this revolutionary claim, Braden appeals
to numerology: he states that because the base molecules
in our DNA — the language codes of thymine, adenine,
cytosine and guanine — are made up of the elements
hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and carbon, with respective "atomic
masses" 1, 5, 6 and 3 [these are wrong], they actually
correspond with the 1st, 5th, 6th and 3rd letters of
the Hebrew Alphabet. Therefore, they spell YH VG which
means "God/Eternal… Within the Body".
Braden is blown away by this… although the audience
seems less sure of the connection or have been bamboozled
by his pseudoscience build up.
So this is the big secret that he has discovered
(at least I presume it is his discovery): within each
cell of our body is God's signature in Hebrew (and
because Hebrew is a Semitic language, this supposedly
works for Arabic as well). From this tiny numerological
connection he bases his entire case and claims a whole
new science. He tells the audience that it has taken
ten years to translate this "introduction to the
DNA" or "first level" but that subsequent
translations should now be much faster. (Quite why
such a basic numerological calculation would take 10
years is beyond me.) It is easy to play around to get
just 4 letters to fit, but to then state that this
implies the entire DNA is a library that will shortly
be read in Hebrew with the right translation is absurd.
Just in case there are doubters in the audience thinking
along these lines, Braden then makes the point that
the chance of getting this by accident is 1 in 234,256… a
figure calculated by "a statistician at the University
of Los Angeles." But is this statistic really accurate?
Braden repeatedly gives the audience the impression
that this is bona fide science, that scientists are
welcoming his work or at the very least cannot deny
it, but anyone with scientific training knows immediately
that this is not the case.
The holes in his theory are very easy to spot and
as wide as the Grand Canyon. Braden links the elements
hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and carbon to the Hebrew
Alphabet with "atomic mass". But the respective
atomic masses of these elements, which he gives as
1, 5, 6 and 3, are actually 1, 14, 16 and 12. To make
the evidence fit, he has resorted to a numerological
trick: 14 becomes 1 + 4 = 5; 16 becomes… well
6 (it does have 6 valence electrons though!); and 12
becomes 1 + 2 = 3. Also, the 1st letter of the Hebrew
Alphabet is actually alep. Yod, the Y in his YH VG
translation, is Hebrew letter number 10. But Braden
justifies calling 10 a 1 because 10 = 1 + 0 = 1.
The problem with this sort of fiddling, to get the
evidence to fit the theory, is that it invalidates
the "statistician's probability" above. If
unscientifically adding numbers together is okay, which
he has done with nearly all his "evidence",
then the following must be valid: nitrogen, with atomic
mass 14, could equally pertain to Hebrew letter 14
(1 + 4 =5), or even letter 15 by just getting rid of
the 1 as he did with oxygen; oxygen, with atomic mass
16, could also be Hebrew letter 15 (5+1=6) or Hebrew
letter 16; and carbon with atomic mass 12, could also
be Hebrew letter 12 or even 21 (2 + 1 =3). The link
between these "alphabets" now seems more tenuous,
and the 1 in 234,256 statistic starts to look a bit
optimistic.
But if the link is valid, as he says it is, then
it must be valid both ways. So Y, the tenth letter
of the Hebrew alphabet, could be relating to neon which
has atomic mass 10 or manganese with atomic mass 55
(5+5) or silicon with atomic mass 28 (2+8) or fluoride
with atomic mass 18 (1+8) or even radium with atomic
mass 226 (2+2+6). And that is just one letter and just
some of the transitional elements. Try doing it with
the other three letters and you come up with loads
of other elements. Also, why put the elements in the
particular order to give YV VG? The "introduction
to our genetic code" could just as well have been
YG VH (which, as any linguist from Los Angeles will
tell you, means "Yo, Gregg Vas Here"). There
is HUGE room here to cook the facts, which is exactly
what Braden seems to have done.
So his revelation is is just a clever numerological
trick that is faintly entertaining. 4 letters? Big
deal! But to base a whole scientific theory on such
contrivance is pure fantasy. Braden may well be right
in that the DNA is a message from our creator, and
it is entirely possible it is related to ancient alphabets — who
knows — but the way that he has tried to justify
this with very selective and subjective "evidence" with
just a 4 letter "fit" is nothing short of astonishing.
And the fact that his book is selling so well is a
testimony to the credulity and scientific illiteracy
of the New Age community (although it has no doubt
also sold on the strength of his previous work).
But how does he cover up the lack of scientific or
logical justification for his assertion of DNA being
a transcript of the Hebrew alphabet? It was simple:
he continually played the "I don't have the time
to go into all the science" card whilst rushing
through a padded out explanation of his theory in 30
minutes. The truth is that one and a half hours was
way too long for him to present his theory, let alone
30 minutes (5 minutes on a Post-It note would have
sufficed - seriously). So what does he do to fill the
time? He shows two "touchy feely" videos which,
although great watching (no words, just music to pictures
of people of different religions and pictures of people's
faces), have little relevance to this sort of lecture
except as a time filler and to trigger in his audience
sentiments that he feels his theory deserves. Braden
wasn't in a rush, he was actually desperate to fill
up the time slot! His theory is so weakly supported
that, although he was forced to pad it out ad nauseam
to fill up time and to make it seem a substantial theory,
he was also forced to rush through the little he had.
His actual lecture, outside the videos, is supported
by a slick Power Point presentation, and mixes genuine
science with pseudoscience in a way in which the authority
of the former all too easily rubs off on the latter.
This is deceptive to the non-scientific and, I am afraid,
intellectually dishonest (if he is indeed a genuine
scientist he must realize what he is doing). I had
the distinct impression during this lecture that I
was in the presence of a preacher, and not a scientist
or even a spiritual teacher. "Am I going to fast?" he
would continually ask, to which I would mentally reply, "Yes
you are Gregg, but if you go any slower the audience
will see how contrived and vacuous your theory really
is."
So what has happened to Gregg Braden? Why is he now
so firmly on the pseudoscience track? His sentiments
are admirable: he wants the whole world to be as One
and for humanity to forget its differences and live
in peace. We all want this. But in his effort to get
across this very valid message and goal, Braden tries
to justify it with numerology (and even then the "evidence" doesn't
quite fit), which he parades as frontier science. In
the process of this scientific charade, he not only
damages his own former works, but also the credibility
of genuine frontier science so excellently reported
by authors such as Lynne McTaggart, Rupert Sheldrake
and Michael Talbot, who have a genuine understanding
of what science is and what it can and cannot justify.
Braden seems confused on this issue, but believing
him to be sincere, I can only conclude that he can't
really be a scientist. It would be better for him to
keep entirely away from science and just speak about
prayer, which he is excellent at, as evidenced by his
book, The Isaiah Effect. But Braden seems caught up
in the role of a scientific New Age prophet, and he
is now compelled to dredge up pseudoscience if no real
science is there to back up his claims. In The God
Code, I feel he has jumped on the "Bible Code" bandwagon,
and in the process has morphed from scientist to preacher. |
| |
 |
| * * * |
| |
| |
| Author's Note 31/07/07: I have received a few emails over the years which mistakenly think that by criticising Braden I am criticising the idea that we are in important "end-times" etc. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let me illustrate this by copying you in on part of a recent email that I sent out in response to this sort of criticism:
"Braden lectures as a scientist. He uses scientific vocabulary and name drops scientific theories. He uses phrases like "scientists do not doubt this". He even presents himself as a scientist who used to work for the aerospace industries (I subsequently found out he was only a computer programmer). Given the context in which he presents himself and his ideas, it is very obvious that his basic message is: "What I am presenting is scientific."
"If someone presents themselves and their ideas in this way, then they have given us the framework by which to assess what they are saying. For example, if you say that the world is going to end in 2012, I cannot argue with you. I may privately believe you are deluded but there is nothing I can really say about this statement per se because the only framework by which to judge that statement is the credibility of the person who said it. There is almost no context in which to assess it. But if you said to me that it is a scientific fact that the world is going to end in 2012 because the Earth will align with the galactic core which will destroy it, then you have presented me with a context or framework by which I can assess whether what you are saying is consistent with your justification for it. And this assessment is valid whether I personally accept the scientific paradigm or not. It does not matter -- I am only looking for inconsistencies, not absolute truth. If it turns out that your statement about 2012 IS consistent with science, I still am not certain it will happen because science can be wrong. But you gain more credibility in my eyes because your justification holds water, and if I happen to believe strongly in the veracity of science, then it gains even more credibility. But if it is not consistent with science, then what I can be certain about is that you are putting out BS. (You may be lucky with your prediction, but your justification for it is pure baloney.)
"Braden presents us with the framework to see whether what he is saying is consistent or not. That framework is scientific, and he appears to be using that framework to glean credibility for his work. (Saying something is a scientific fact gets people's attention and automatically convinces non-scientists.) So I have every justification to assess his beliefs from a scientific point of view, WHETHER I HAPPEN TO BELIEVE IN THE SCIENTIFIC PARADIGM MYSELF OR NOT.
"This is an important point: just because I judge him by the scientific paradigm does NOT imply that this paradigm represents truth for me, or that I am holding up the scientific paradigm as some objective framework by which all things can be judged. I am NOT saying that science is the arbiter of all things, but I am saying that in this case it can certainly show up inconsistencies in Braden's work as he is presenting it as scientific.
"Another important point (this was briefly made in my criticisms of him) is that just because his justifications are fallacious does not mean that his ideas are. But they do lose him personal credibility. I personally share many of Braden's ideas, they are hardly new, but I dismiss the way in which Braden tries to justify them, a way that uses science but uses it so badly that he actually ends up losing credibility and damaging the very ideas he is trying to promote." |
| |
| |
| FOOTNOTES: Based
on the strength of this lecture, I declined to go to
his talk the next day at CPS, for which I had actually
bough 5 tickets months in advance. However, from friends
who went, I understand he stuck to prayer and so the
talk was much better. God's code was barely mentioned
and there were no time-wasting videos. So why did he
dumb down at Alternatives? However, if you read some
of the feedback below you might realize that even on
the subject of prayer and Biblical manuscripts, Braden
may not be the expert that he presents himself as. |
| |
| 25 Jun 08. Thank you Jeff for sending me a link to your own excellent review of Braden's work. Please visit: http://god-is-pink.blogspot.com/. We share many of the same observations. |
| |
| 12 Jan 05. Thank
you Richard Rockley for the feedback. Richard could
not understand why I would be "a HUGE fan" of
Braden's work when so much of it is pseudo-science.
I had to admit to him that it was because I actually
like the guy and have an emotional attachment in his
message. Richard wrote an excellent scientific
critique of Gregg's book Awakening to Zero Point which
is worth a read because it clearly shows the shortcomings
of the "science" Gregg is basing his work
on. |
| |
| 25 May 05. Thank
you to D.F. for your feedback. D.F. is a Bible scholar
and academic who has written the following: |
| |
| I sat in on part of
his lecture on The God Code, but had to leave
because I couldn't control my laughter. He claimed
(as he does not in his book) that the name of
God (Yod, He, Vav, He) had been removed from
the Bible (cf. Ex. 3:14,15 — "is that
a name?") and he, Gregg Braden, has rediscovered
it and (with permission of Rabbi So-and-so) can
give it to you now. Letter by letter, ha, ha!
This whole business went on for about 15 minutes,
culminated by the "discovery" of the
secret name of God on a tiny fragment excavated
at Qumran "just last year," and which
he has "permission" of the Israel Antiquities
Authority, ha, ha! to reveal to you now. This
fragment is presented differently in his book.
The name of God (יהוה)
was never removed from the Hebrew Bible. It is
found throughout the Bible, in the Prophets,
the Psalms, Genesis, etc., and of course thousands
of times in the Qumran manuscripts. |
| |
| D.F. goes on to question why I
praised Braden's book, The Isaiah Effect, in this article: |
| |
| Gregg Braden refers
to a "new" translation of the Isaiah
Scroll, as if it might reveal some previously
unknown secrets. Such a translation does not
exist. The text of the Great Isaiah Scroll from
Qumran is very close to the Masoretic text. There
is an excellent, parsed translation online at www.ao.net/~fmoeller with
commentary. Moreover, all of his citations of
the Book of Isaiah are from standard versions
of English translations of the Bible (all based
on Masoretic), not from this "new translation," which
is nowhere cited, since it does not exist. Read
the footnotes. He frequently quotes Edmond Bordeaux
Szekley's "The Essene Gospel of Peace." Whenever
Szekley is quoted, a sentence immediately follows
referring to the Dead Sea Scrolls — falsely
implying the quote came from DSS and/or Book
of Isaiah. Szekley's works were published between
1932 and 1937, several years before the discovery
of DSS. Szekley claimed he discovered his writings
in secret archives of the Vatican, but you may
be sure that if such manuscripts existed scholars
would have jumped all over them. So The Isaiah
Effect is Braden's imagination based on Szekley's
imagination. |
| |
| So it appears that Braden is not
only using spurious science to justify his position,
but also spurious Biblical research. Read our new Greg
Braden research exposé by clicking
here. |
| |
28 Nov 06: Thank you to Gwen Ceylon for the following email in which she tries a few different methods to extract Braden's conclusion from our DNA's encoded chemical makeup:
"I too like how he decided to use 15 as the atomic mass of Oxygen when it is really 15.9994. Anyone "scientific" would have rounded up the number to 16 and using numerology reduction would have come up with 7 — not 6.
In and around page 83, he does explain the order and how he derived alchemy's Fire, Air, Water, Earth to equate to Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Carbon, respectively. But I do not believe this to be accurate either. Without Oxygen combining with other elements there would be no combustion, so Oxygen is vital to Fire. Nitrogen is the most abundant element in our atmosphere so clearly it represents Air. And Hydrogen's name itself is derived from the ancient Greek word "hydro' meaning water, so it clearly represents Water. I somewhat agree that Carbon represents Earth, but it can also exist in gaseous form, which Braden fails to mention. And he never mentions Phosphorus which in the form of Phosphate (PO4) forms the backbone of DNA. Phosphorus is the only element of the five that make up DNS that can only exist in solid form, so in my opinion it truly represents Earth.
So if you want to take the original order of the elements as they are listed in the Sepher Yetzirah it would be air, water, fire and then, I presume, earth follows. Then using the real atomic masses and reducing them appropriately using numerology and adding the forgotten Phosphorus you get:
| Air |
Fire |
Water |
Earth |
Earth |
| |
|
|
|
|
| N |
O |
H |
C |
P |
| |
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
7 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
This would come up with the Hebrew letters:
Hey, Zayin, Alef, Gimel, Dalet
Or, if you wanted to use his trick of making H 1 expanded to 10 and use Yod it would be:
H, Z, Y, G, D
As far as I know, neither of these combinations mean anything. The closest I can get using my Hebrew/English dictionary, omiting Carbon and using only Phosphorus as Earth in the second, is "willful act", a term that could be appropriate for Braden's work. However, using the first and omiting Carbon again, you get the word "caution". Maybe that should be the message to Braden's readers." |
| |
|
|
| This article was written
straight after attending Gregg Braden's lecture here
in London. It is a first reaction to his work, The
God Code, and was written in a couple of hours. A
longer critique of his work may be forthcoming if
the author has the time. Braden is welcome to respond
to this critique, and any response would be unconditionally
published here. Editor |
| Click
here for our new review of Greg Braden's work/research. |
| |
| |
| |
| Andrew Paterson is an independent writer currently living in London. He has no affiliation to any religious or political organisation. To contact him, please email . |
|