I have long felt very under informed about the Arab-Israeli conflict that is currently raging in the region, with specific regards to Gaza. The confliI have long felt very under informed about the Arab-Israeli conflict that is currently raging in the region, with specific regards to Gaza. The conflict between the Palestinians and Israel is probably as close to intractable as any in the world. The issues are obviously nuanced and difficult for those of us outside the parties involved, to take a broad and fair view. We have probably moved way past trying to parcel out blame here; there is plenty to go around with atrocities perpetrated by both sides over the decades.
This is a book that intends, as far as I can tell, to provide a factual account of how we got here. I have to say, it doesn't paint Israel in a particularly favorable light. However, as with all things around this topic, nothing is simple. Not being Jewish, it is hard to truly appreciate how the horrors of the Holocaust, rampant and rabid anti-semitism, massacres and pogroms throughout the ages have impacted the collective psyche. It is also hard for those of us not living in Israel, to imagine what it must be like being surrounded by enemies whose declared aim is to wipe you off the map. It is clear that Israel will aggressively, and disproportionately, respond to any attack or threat of attack and this is as clear in Gaza right now, as it has been throughout Israel's short history.
I am British and, although the two situations are by no means the same, I can't help drawing some parallels with another apparently intractable issue, that of Northern Ireland. As I say, not the same thing, but when I was growing up there seemed to be no way to reconcile the warring factions, one of which represented by the Provisional IRA who talked about "armed struggle" and were dedicated, through extreme violence, to removing the six counties from the United Kingdom and becoming united with the Ireland. This was eventually moved ahead when both sides seemed to realize that neither could completely defeat the other and that a political solution (ie talking meaningfully to one another) was the only way. This would have seems impossible when the IRA was trying to assassinate the UK Prime Minister and carrying out terrorist acts in Central London. MS-B makes a very telling point at the end of this book, which will likely upset those fighting Israel's corner. It's this: change may not happen until Israel decides that it's security is best served by having a peace agreement with its neighbors rather than conscripting it's young to fight and seeing security as being provided only by war.
This book is well written and easy to read which always makes one wonder to what extent it is oversimplified. It seems as though nothing is easy or straightforward with this conflict. We are taken through a short (as befits the title) history from essentially the times of the Ottoman Empire up to the present. However this was penned before the current war, although what is happening now is just an escalation of previous Israeli/Gaza wars.
As usual, the Brits have a lot to answer for and this is another mess that can be laid at the feet of colonialism. It is interesting to go through this history and understand the pivotal moments of which there are many. It is very possible to see both sides of this dispute and understanding how we got here is important. Vitally important. Sadly, I feel as though we have reached a stage where positions have become so entrenched, and the conflict is so unbalanced, that I fear we will never get to a resolution, even though those were my feelings on Northern Ireland too....more
I've long felt that I know insufficient facts about the history of the Middle East in general and the Israel/Palestine issue in particular. Given the I've long felt that I know insufficient facts about the history of the Middle East in general and the Israel/Palestine issue in particular. Given the current fighting that resulted from the Hamas terror attacks it seemed as though now was a good time to work on improving my knowledge and this book was recommended to me as a good place to begin.
It is an interesting approach to a narrative, and not one I have seen before. It is essentially written as a history, from the Israeli and Palestinian points of view and, as the subtitle suggests, these accounts are presented side by side. In other words, the same period of history is covered on the left hand side by the Israeli perspective, with the Palestinian take on the facing pages. This presents the reader with a decision as to how best to consume such a work. This is addressed in the book itself because it is so unusual. It is obviously not possible, at least for this reader, to coherently read one left page then a right page because the narrative would become far too disjointed. One is left deciding whether to read one chapter at a time, alternating the two narratives, or reading the whole book of one narrative, then the same for the alternate view. I chose the former and I think it just about works.
However, there is obviously a lot of duplication of material in this approach, but it is useful to hear two sides of the same historical periods. As one would expect, these takes vary but perhaps not as violently as I had expected. There is a genuine attempt to tell a story without mudslinging or hyperbole about the other side. Again, as one would expect, there are going to be accusations of terrorism and unreasonable attitudes leveled at protagonists from one side to the other, and these are definitely there.
As a Brit it is clear that the seeds of this conflict, although sown centuries ago certainly came to fruition under British rule and the withdrawal of my countrymen (almost all men of course) from the Palestine region after ostensibly pushing a very Zionist agenda at times but unafraid to make arguments from the other side too, and renege on promises made which was how we typically ran much of the Empire of course. Divide and conquer works well when you are a colonizing power. However, as much as one my support the Zionist cause, there was always going to be an issue with setting up a country in Palestine and sure enough, the relationships that have evolved over the years, through a myriad different figures and agreements has born that out over the subsequent decades. This may now be as close to an intractable issue as there is, especially as Israel now seems to be engaged in a war to flatten the Gaza Strip in an effort, an understandable effort, to eliminate the threat of Hamas.
It is a shame that the book doesn't cover this conflict because it was obviously written well beforehand. Being a somewhat amateur studier of history, I don't think that fighting to wipe out an ideology, however much it may be a spawning ground of terrorism is ever likely to succeed. There are always more people who share these views and are likely to become radicalized as a result. In discussions on this I often refer to "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland which were only able to move forward when the two sides accepted that the only way to achieve peace was through the ballot box and through negotiation and compromise. That seems thin on the ground in the Middle East right now and, indeed, it is hard to agree to negotiate with an organization such as Hamas who are egregious terrorists and espouse a goal of eliminating the country of Israel entirely. This makes it different of course.
I think it is also hard for those of us who are gentile, or who don't live in Israel to really appreciate the threats of anti-semitism and the threats to the physical existence of the country we call home. I would like to have seen this more overtly covered in this narrative but still, this was indeed an interesting look at the history of this conflict from the period leading up to the formation of Israel and the various attempts to solve this problem since. I think the style of side by side narratives just about works and is probably the best way to tell both sides within a single book and I applaud the publishers for this attempt at so doing....more
I remember hearing about the disastrous end to the Waco siege but I was living in the UK at the time so I wasn't aware of the backstory that led to thI remember hearing about the disastrous end to the Waco siege but I was living in the UK at the time so I wasn't aware of the backstory that led to the cataclysmic scenes of destruction that ended the siege of the compound near Waco. This definitely filled in the gaps for me, as well as covering the background of the Branch Davidians generally and the Seventh Day Adventists in general. Now, as an atheist, I find the whole religious thing incomprehensible especially when it comes to cults which this branch most definitely was.
This is a well written account and it is refreshing in that it attempts, and I think succeeds, in providing as close an account of the facts as possible, and doesn't seem to me to be taking a side in this dispute. Given the incendiary nature of this standoff, both literally and metaphorically, I appreciated there was no conspiracy of anti-government rhetoric on display in the account, although this was commented upon especially in the conclusion. I could have done with more of this commentary I think. Also, there is no specific lean to the government side where there were clearly faults aplenty. Abrahams tanks? I didn't realize that the FBI had access to such significant weapons of war as that. I wonder if they still do.
The story of this type of cult does force us to ask questions of ourselves. For example: at what point does this type of activity become worthy of government intervention? It is clear that the cult had managed to acquire a huge arsenal of weapons that they put to us killing ATF agents who were trying to get into their compound, having squandered any element of surprise they arrogantly assumed they had. A two hour gun battle was the result with deaths on both sides and I am still not clear exactly for what. Ostensibly this was to get to them for illegally modifying guns from semi-automatic to fully automatic mode and this is a worthy aim but one can't help wondering if it could have been done in ways other than a raid of this type.
Once the FBI took over and it ended up a 51 day siege eventually ending with the storming of the building speaks to other mishandling. However. It is also clear that Koresh was a charleton, a cult leader who conveniently decided he was entitled, as the next Christ figure, to take all the women in the compound for himself and sire as many kids as he could. He was undoubtedly a charismatic figure but also a liar and a conman and someone who the FBI were foolish to ever trust. When you run a doomsday cult that is praying for the end times, playing into that narrative is probably a bad idea.
This has clearly become a cause celebre for those who are anti-government, extreme right wing, militia groups etc. I hadn't realized there was a direct connection to Timothy McVeigh for example, who cites Waco as one of the causes of his radicalization. He wouldn't have termed it that way of course. It is clear that the government handled this very badly but I blame religion for a lot in this culture and whilst everyone is entitled to follow whatever charismatic preacher they want of course, I do find Koresh to be a vile character who may have believed what he was shilling, but who clearly had a self-serving agenda too. A sorry and sordid tale on all sides really....more
I sometimes struggle with books like this because they enrage me at a level perhaps not intended by the author, as I review this through the lens of aI sometimes struggle with books like this because they enrage me at a level perhaps not intended by the author, as I review this through the lens of atheism. As an atheist, why would I care what the Bible says? I see no evidential warrant to believe that what is in the Bible is the word of God, or should be paid any mind. Therefore any argument about how to interpret scripture is just mental masturbation in my opinion. Therefore, since I don't accept the premise that scripture is true, and that we should pay it any mind whatsoever as we search for truth, I am bound to find people who seek to legislate religious views of any stripe onto the rest of us, and who support someone as obviously vile and dangerous as Trump, despicable.
With that said, I have looked into the issue of christian nationalism, and actively fight against it, so there wasn't a ton here that was completely new to me. However, I did come away from this with much better understanding of the thought processes outlined here. I need to look into this further since, as a skeptic, I need further evidence to firm up some of the the thoughts herein espoused, but I do think they are quite compelling upon first examination. This book seems well researched and there is multiple sourcing and naming of evangelical leaders engaged in, usually sexual, scandals that are simply waved away by the churches concerned.
The main thrust (ooh-er) of this discourse seems to be that the modern manifestation of christian nationalism is obsessed with the notion that "men should be men and women should be subservient to such manly men and effectively know their place". The ideal christian man is therefore a rugged individualist who protects pure and virginal women and has the right to expect and demand sex from his wife and she is required to service him on demand and if we all did that the World would be a better place. Into this narrative, of course, fits Trump whose disgusting venality and immorality, sexual assault, disparagement of women etc. can simply be dismissed as "boys will be boys and that's how it should be" because that is how God wants men to be.
This makes more sense to me than it did prior to reading this and also helps explain why christians are enamored of the despicable racist and misogynist that was John Wayne, or Marion Morrison as we should probably refer to him. This isn't someone or something that displays hypocrisy or needs to be explained away, this is what they want. This is the behavior they admire and anything short of this makes men effeminate and effete and contributes to the downfall of American greatness. Or something.
In this regard this book has a lot to say, even though it is somewhat one-dimensional. There was passing reference to those in the evangelical community (maybe 20%) who do abhor the Trump narrative and despise what he is and stands for but that was, as is maybe the case in real life, understated here. I'd like to see this examined a little more although perhaps this is outside of the scope of the book. As much as I don't pay the Bible any mind as a source of truth or moral value, I can easily see how people cherry pick from it, in fact they always do. If you don't you would be advocating for all sorts of horrors like slavery, stoning adulterers, genocide, misogyny etc. I do see evangelical christian nationalism as a clear and present danger to the United States in particular and the world in general. This book helps explain why Trump and Wayne can thrive in this environment, but it offers no real clear way out of it and I'd like to have seen more on that, perhaps intractable, problem.
This is an interesting addition to the literature on racism and white supremacy in that it specifically addresses the role of Christianity in the perpThis is an interesting addition to the literature on racism and white supremacy in that it specifically addresses the role of Christianity in the perpetuation of said moral evils, seemingly with particular emphasis on white, evangelical christians who seem to be the most egregious offenders in the opinion of RPJ - to be fair there is a chapter dedicated to the studies that provide some empirical evidence to back this up.
In essence this is another book where the author has "seen the light" of racism and white supremacy after spending his life prior to this realization, drinking the Coolaid so to speak. Many of the themes of racism are revisited here; the prevalence of structural and institutional racism, the lack of awareness of racism in themselves and their lives by white people, the vile apologetics of the War of the Rebellion and promotion of the "Lost Cause" narrative and erection of confederate memorials by the UDC etc. However, as befits the subject matter and title, this is couched in terms of Christianity and whilst I am in total agreement on his overall approach, I felt, at times, some of these links might be a bit of a reach. Maybe I have read too much about the confederacy and its traitor in chief Robert E Lee to find this commentary at all novel of surprising.
The literature is replete with accounts of how christianity has been used for millennia to justify racism from the mark of Cain to the curse of Ham to the fact that slavery is specifically condoned in Exodus 21 (as well as other places) so again, this doesn't surprise me. What I thought was very interesting, and that I hadn't previously considered, was the christian view that sin is an individual failing versus what God wants us to be and therefore it is much easier, in fact almost required, to consider racism/police brutality/racially divisive policies etc. as a failing on a personal level or a one off. The idea that there could be institutionalized racism, or structural racism therefore doesn't fit comfortably, if at all, into that world view. This is interesting and explains a lot to me. However I think it undeniable that there is profound and deep structural racism in society and it is the work of antiracism to identify and dismantle that.
This is a well written and easy to read book, I just didn't find all that much that surprised me but that's probably because I don't subscribe to the worldview. I do like to read books from authors who have changed their mind in the light of evidence that challenged and ultimately reversed the way they see the world, and forces them to change some views they previously held as simple truths. I hope I would be capable of this but most people are not, and simply refuse to look at the evidence in front of them that refutes such deeply help views and simply double down. I think Christianity generally fails in this, but it is hardly unique in that regard. Ultimately the whole of the US has a legacy of white supremacy as do far too many countries including my country of birth, the UK. The sooner we accept that, either through the lens of christianity or through secular analysis, the better....more
I have watched the rise in right wing Christian Nationalism with something akin to horror and revulsion over the yers I have lived in the US. Coming hI have watched the rise in right wing Christian Nationalism with something akin to horror and revulsion over the yers I have lived in the US. Coming here as a Brit in the mid 2000s was a shock when it comes to the power of the right wing in general and Christianity in particular. As an extremely progressive liberal I struggle to understand their world view but it is clear that they are extremely effective at identifying and then taking over the levers of power.
So this book, extremely well researched and referenced, really didn't surprise me or move the needle much in terms of what I already understood. However it was very useful in filling in gaps in my knowledge and giving me more of the history. In the end it is all a little depressing but the overall tenet of this movement is well established: the goal of giving Christianity in general, and Christian Nationalism in particular a privileged position in society, the law and government under the guise of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. There is a vile victim mentality from these people who are somehow arguing that they are the ones under attack from a secular, satanic and liberal culture.
In essence they are the ones who are beating people they perceive to be sinners with a proverbial stick, and then crying and whining that their rights are being infringed when that stick is taken away. It is obvious for those who care to look closely, but too many people don't. There is no doubt an insidious plan being enacted here, enabled and advanced by Trump. Whether it will lose momentum now he has failed to gain reelection is debatable, but I think it unlikely given the current state of the courts, the legislatures and the ingrained church/state violations that have been enacted since the administration of America's most vastly overrated president, Reagan.
So, this was interesting to me but I would much rather have seen more page space dedicated to ideas to fight this situation. For sure, there is a 4 page epilogue where this is touched upon, but it hardly compensated for the 270 pages that precede it and only touches on ideas in a very top level sense like "let's get more income equality" and "stop gerrymandering". The core message of Christian Nationalism, that the US is built on Judeo-Christian values (presumably including an acceptance of slavery and definitely the subjugation of women) is demonstrably false. I would like to see this called out more widely and more vociferously but I won't hold my breath. I think that this point should have been more forcibly made in this book....more
I need to read more of Thomas Paine. Clearly one of the foremost thinkers of his, or perhaps any generation. The Age of Reason is incredibly modern inI need to read more of Thomas Paine. Clearly one of the foremost thinkers of his, or perhaps any generation. The Age of Reason is incredibly modern in much of its prose. It is not at all a stretch to imagine this written by those critiquing organized religion today. As a skeptic, I find a great deal to admire and relate to in this classic work. If is fascinating to me, how Paine lays out, in a straightforward way, his criticism and actually, contempt for the Bible both Old Testament and New.
I keep thinking that there isn't anything here I haven't read before, and then I remember that he was making these highly salient points in the late 18th Century. Truly remarkable, and these comments resonate greatly with me. However, as much as I relate to his criticisms, I cannot go along with his apparent conclusion which essentially espouses Deism as the, in his view, obvious truth of the Universe and its "creation".
As far as I can tell there are two main issues with his assertion that Christianity is untrue but that Deism and a creator god, is true. Firstly it seems to me to be nothing more than a "look at the trees" argument from ignorance. This is perhaps understandable at the time of writing, but after leveling withering criticism at the Bible, it's incongruous to simply argue, without evidence that there is a creator because, well, look at the majesty around you! Apart from the unsubstantiated claim (for which he offers no good evidence) being unproven, Deism seems to be a vapid concept in the extreme. Essentially an unfalsifiable proposition and a god that set all this in motion and is now nowhere to be seen except in the minds of those who can't conceive of a way all this could be here without a creator god. Paine goes further to assign characteristics of munificence and morality to this being with again, no evidence worthy of the name.
Which leads to the other issue I have which is a violation of Occam's Razor. I don't see the justification for positing the god he does from the position he takes on Christianity in particular and the revealed religions in general. I don't know why he needs to assert that there is a Deistic god from that. I just don't see how he gets there.
But still, this is an amazing argument for its time, and working purely from a critical evaluation of organized religion, it still has great resonance today....more
I saw Montgomery interviewed recently and that conversation led me to this book. It is not normally the sort of book I would pick up since my positionI saw Montgomery interviewed recently and that conversation led me to this book. It is not normally the sort of book I would pick up since my position on the veracity of the biblical flood account is fairly well established. However, there are always gaps in knowledge, and it pays to have one's assumptions challenged lest they turn out to be unreasonable presuppositions.
Overall I did learn things from this account but I found the line very unsatisfactory, as though DM was deliberately trying to take on a mild controversy without being controversial. I wish he had more ardently picked a lane without trying to appease both sides which I think is ultimately futile and an approach I found irritating.
The history of geologic thought versus scriptural takes on geomorphology were interesting. However, the history of religion's attitude to scientific advances before and during the enlightenment is hardly edifying. Penalties for suggesting heresies such as a heliocentric solar system are well documented but not given much attention here. DM seems more receptive to the idea that religion and geology/science are somehow parallel and have helped one another in the development of human knowledge and understanding. I find this to be an absurd line of thinking.
It is interesting how discovery works through the ages. Science is essentially a methodology that seeks to examine the evidence and put together ideas, hypotheses and finally theories, that best explain the evidence we see, and become predictive in terms of what results they would expect us to find. An example is the fossil Tiktaalik which was discovered in sedimentary rocks as per a prediction from evolution and geology. These theories are always tentative and open to challenge, change and reformulation. This was well illustrated in the book as science strove to explain the morphology of the Earth. It's fascinating stuff. Discoveries of glacial outflows on a colossal (though not global) scale were particularly interesting to me.
Religion is overlaid on this of course and as suggested by the title, we are talking about the Christian creation story here. Since this is written in unchanging scripture, evidence and facts that emerge have to be fitted into the presupposition that a god exists and that the Genesis account of creation and the flood is real. Therefore what we see today has to be made to fit that narrative, if we are to take the accounts literally. This is a fundamentally different approach from looking at evidence and coming up with hypotheses to explain what we see. I didn't feel that this point was made strongly enough.
DM also writes about the various explanations put forward, some as recently as the mid 20th Century, that seek to explain how Noah's flood shaped the Earth on a young Earth creationists timescale. There is obviously a fundamental issue of geologic time versus the young Earth timeframe. 6000-10000 years is nowhere near enough time to account for geologically explanations such as plate tectonics, erosion and deposits of sedimentary rocks, the fossil record etc.
Overall though this was very unsatisfactory to me. His concluding chapter tends to fall between two stools for me as well. I have my views on which account of the creation and the subsequent shaping of the Earth that I find more compelling but I actually think it is dishonest to try and assert, as Montgomery seems to do to my reading, that the two approaches are somehow compatible and have complimentary things to say, and that they are somehow mutually supportive. I may have misinterpreted what he is saying but that line of argument is, to me, patently absurd. I wish he had picked the side in a similar way to the authors of "The Genesis Flood" which I think would have been more honest....more
This was an interesting and challenging read for me, falling into the category of read that I am increasingly trying to consume i.e. from people with This was an interesting and challenging read for me, falling into the category of read that I am increasingly trying to consume i.e. from people with a fundamentally different worldview from mine. Don't get me wrong; I loathe Trump and everything he stands for. I deplore his crude rantings and the way he has divided the country apparently as a deliberate strategy. However, I am fascinated as to why those who support him from an evangelical viewpoint, seem to do so virtually unconditionally. I was keen to understand it and I did get some of that from Howe's book.
He is a never Trump christian and therefore he approaches his discourse from a position with which I have fundamental disagreement. I find it galling and nauseating when he throws in religious asides into the text such as claiming we are all fallen beings etc. but I can put up with that in order to try to gain the understanding I sought from this.
I did get some of that. I agree with the critique Howe puts forward too in many cases, but I am not seeking to figure this out from the basis of a betrayal of christian values which seems to be the standpoint here. I am keener to understand why Trump gains support when he is apparently such a contemptible individual, when in the past, we were told by the christian right that character was all important, and that immoral people can't act morally in positions on leadership etc. etc.
It seems that these moral positions were not actually held with conviction, but were rather more a matter of convenience. In other words, people are increasingly prepared to support a "vessel" such as Trump, as some form of divine plan to get them what they really want i.e. their wider agenda, whatever that may be: abortion, immigration, whatever. And apparently this can be justified according to scripture that asserts that god can use any vessel of his choosing to bring about his masterplan, whether or not the vessel is devout, christian, or even knows anything about this plan. This makes a lot of sense - not as an understandable approach, but because it is a convenient post hoc rationalization for supporting something otherwise seen as immoral. How convenient indeed.
There are other tenets to the book too, most telling was the discourse on how the right generally, and evangelicals in particular, are reacting now to the attacks emanating from the left, based upon issues that could be described as identity politics and culture wars. In other words, the left has been belittling and negating genuinely held views for years, especially during the time of the Bush 2 presidency, and was all too quick to label people as racist etc. I think this has merits. As progressive as I am, I am aware that this has been all too common an approach in the past. However I think it is also a bit rich when we have been variously subjected to vitriolic attacks the other way with accusations of being "libtards", "snowflakes", "vile socialists" etc. etc. It seems as though Howe is attempting to justify something that, whilst real, seems to be more of a two way street than he is suggesting. However, the argument certainly has some merit.
I think his points are well made and I like hearing the thoughts of a religious, anti-trumper for sure. I just don't share his worldview at all so whilst I might be in his camp when it comes to Trump, I have a different view on many other things and therefore I found the asides in this book as to what he thinks, to not hold a great deal more merit in terms of their truth, than those he is criticizing....more
This is a very well written set of persuasive, for the most part, arguments that rebut the oft stated opinion from Christian Nationalists that the US This is a very well written set of persuasive, for the most part, arguments that rebut the oft stated opinion from Christian Nationalists that the US is a nation founded on "judeo-christian" values/traditions etc. I have heard this countless times and it is always said with such certainty as if it were a truth, despite the separation of church and state that was written into the constitution.
Seidel comes at this, as you would expect, from a rational, reasoned argument from the perspective of an atheist and there are pretty thinly veiled attacks on religiosity throughout. How one feels about this tone depends on one's own worldview I guess. I think that the points are very well made but there are occasionally moments where I wonder if the argument is in danger of becoming an assertion, however much I might agree with it.
However this is a well written, easy to read book whose line of argument is pushing against a door that is widely open in my case. I realize that one should read books that challenge one's viewpoint rather than buttressing it, and I try to do that but it is hard work. Far preferable to me, is an examination of commonly asserted claims, so that I gain an understanding of why such claims are baseless and how to refute them with reasoned argument. This book very much helps in that regard.
Where I find the line slightly annoying is that there is an apparent attempt to figure out how theistic the founders were and dissect their utterances and written records. This is interesting, and it is worthwhile from the point of refuting ludicrous appeals to mythology such as Washington's fabled praying on his knees in the snow, for which there is no evidence. I think one can leave it at that; do we really need to go into the fact that he seemed a reluctant church goer and not someone prone to such symbolic gestures? Who cares. Same with Jefferson. TJ seems to be perhaps the most confounding of characters; apparently abolitionist yet a slave owner, deist/theist/atheist? We will probably never really know.
The point is surely that the constitution is all as far as nation founding is concerned. God doesn't appear and the only references to religion are to prohibit religious tests and the establishment of a state religion. Isn't that all we need to know? Does it matter what the founders were in terms of spirituality (although I hate that vague term)? The same goes for the declaration of independence which does include religious references. Seidel goes to great lengths to explain this away in terms of appealing to the masses and the king of England etc. but I think this will be a waste of time from a theistic worldview and will be summarily dismissed, as much as I think the case is made. I think the argument from the Constitution is the clincher. The SCOTUS doesn't make rulings based on the declaration of independence after all.
The chapters on the ten commandments are interesting and the points well proven although this is more interesting as a dismissal of the commandments themselves perhaps, and what they have to say to us today i.e. not much. The final critique of the 1950s, Cold War panics into "In God We Trust" in paper money and as a replacement for the much preferable (in my view) "E Pluribus Unum" as well as the insertion of "under god" into the pledge of allegiance is well trodden ground but of course, is absurd given what the constitution has to say.
Very good read, certainly gave me the arguments and filled in the blanks I was missing in some areas....more
I'd heard a lot about Ehrman and his back story, which he explains here, is interesting. He was a fundamentalist christian and he took his faith very I'd heard a lot about Ehrman and his back story, which he explains here, is interesting. He was a fundamentalist christian and he took his faith very seriously. This included attending a bible college and learning classical greek (and other classical languages) with a view to reading the original scriptures of the book he considered to be the literal word of God.
From the point of view of his keeping the faith, this was ultimately a mistake as it led him deep into the field of textual criticism and thereby leads a path to questioning the scriptures themselves, and the messages they contain. There is a glaring issue behind all this that I will come to below, but for the moment, the central argument of this book is fairly straightforward, and well argued here.
That argument posits that we don't have access to the scriptures in their original form since, if they were written down at all, they have long since disappeared and that subsequently, the only way to make and distribute copies was by hand, using scribes. There was also quite an argument over the centuries as to which books should make it into the New Testament as we currently understand it. However, as copies were made by hand, and the text of ancient greek was impenetrable at the best of times, replete with abbreviations and lacking punctuation, it was inevitable that the words, and often the meanings of the scripture would change by error alone.
Added to that is the agreement among scholars that there was significant change, omission and addition to the texts made by scribes trying to make scripture say something different, espouse their own beliefs, rectify what a previous scribe had written and so on. In the end the messages are significantly jumbled and we can't be sure of the original meanings any more. Sometimes this is trivial, but quite often it throws the whole theology into dispute (was Jesus God only, human only with a divine spirit dwelling in him that left him upon his crucifixion etc. etc.)
Of course, vanishing few people are able to read the scriptures in their original languages anyway, so we are left with translations, including the fabled KJV of the bible that many seem to consider somehow the ultimate word written in English. This sets up many more opportunities for error and mis-translation. The points as argued here are ultimately logical and reasonable to me but since I see no reason to suppose that the bible is the inerrant word of a god in the first place I guess this is just as obvious to me as the fact that messages change when copied down by hand and passed on, or when a verbal message changes during a game of chinese whispers. It seems obvious to me and always has since we don't know who wrote most of the books anyway, including the gospels.
Obviously for Ehrman this realization profoundly affected his world view to the extent I now understand him to be an agnostic atheist. However I don't see that this is going to be a problem for many who may not even want to think about these things too hard. I am interested in how the bible came to be the book we have today, and the items about interpolated sections (last verses in Mark, the story of the adulterous woman) are particularly fascinating as to how we can tell they are not original. However I am not a christian so I don't see any reason to give the bible any more credence than any other so called holy book and the fact that is has changed and been modified is of no surprise to me and ultimately, while interesting, this just filled in some gaps for me and it was useful from that perspective.
I don't think this book set out to change minds, but rather to illustrate the process of textual criticism and it was valuable from that point of view. I doubt it will change many minds as it undoubtedly changed BE's. It seems to me that if there was a god who wanted to reveal his true word, using text and fallible human beings was a pretty poor way to go about it....more
I saw this book on the shelf at our local bookstore and on flicking through it, thought it might be an interesting take on religious counter apologetiI saw this book on the shelf at our local bookstore and on flicking through it, thought it might be an interesting take on religious counter apologetics and it provided some of that, as well as some other refutations of religious thought and dogma. One of my favorite quotes comes from Russell: "The problem with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" which plays into the title of this book. I am of the belief that whilst the human condition craves certainty, I am unconvinced that we can ever be completely certain of anything. This leads us to the issue of hard solipsism which I can't see how to get past, but we are stuck with reason and logic as we have to operate in the reality that we apparently all share, and these things have proven their reliability for centuries.
I am unconvinced by faith based epistemologies. I am doubly unconvinced by presuppositionalists whose goal is to attack the circular reasoning of using reason to argue against religious thinking when they are forced to use that too, and because of their epistemology, simply say that they have had a revelation and cannot be wrong, and that reason needs a god to exist. There is so much wrong with this approach but here is probably not the place.
This book sets out arguments that are familiar to those who spend a lot of time thinking about these issues but it is written in a way that is very easy to read and avoids, for the most part, the danger of deep diving into esoteric philosophical arguments. Sometimes I found that the style was so conversational that I had to re-read certain passages as I wasn't sure if Houk was explaining something from the skeptical point of view, or explaining the thinking from the theist voice. This is a minor point, I was probably not paying enough attention.
The discussion of theodicy was well covered and seems to me, along with the Euthyphro dilemma, to be very damaging to the standard view of the Judeo-Christian God and require the most amazing mental gymnastics to construct an apologetic for them.
Interesting subjects for discussion and I like the way that Houk makes this potentially very dense topic approachable. I do wonder at whom this book is aimed I must say. I find the study of religion to be fascinating, and whilst this book majors on Christianity, there are certainly many asides to Islam as well. Issues that are worthy of continued discussion and this book is useful in that regard, although probably not for those looking for a very in depth philosophical examination of these issues, which is not its intent. We can, of course, all go to Hume, Kant, Kierkegaard et al for that....more
In the common ice breaker one is asked with whom one would choose to spend an evening over dinner. Stephen Fry is high on my list. He is a joy to listIn the common ice breaker one is asked with whom one would choose to spend an evening over dinner. Stephen Fry is high on my list. He is a joy to listen to certainly, and is a similarly gifted writer in my view.
Having written that, this is a refreshing, readable and enjoyable look at Greek mythology from the dawn of creation through to the rise of mortals BUT it is certainly not aimed at the academic or the purist. It is story telling (at which Fry excels) and there is no attempt to analyze or explain where the myths came from, rather it is a look at them with a somewhat sardonic eye. Greek mythology is fascinating and the relationship between the delightfully flawed Gods and their creations is very entertaining. I love the fact that there is no attempt in mythology to hold the gods up as perfect beings, incapable of error etc. as is so common in mainstream religions today.
On the contrary, the Olympian gods especially, are vain, pernicious, cruel, vindictive, licentious and generally reflective of human vices which makes sense, since gods generally are created in the image of humans and not vice versa. Gods are also not the aloof, hidden, transcendent, "outside of space and time" (ie indistinguishable from a god that doesn't exist) of today's theology, but rather beings that interfere with mortal life, father children with mortals, kill them, torment them, appear to them in disguise, challenge them to duels and generally walk among us. This leads to all sorts of shenanigans that usually end poorly for mortals, although not always.
Given that this is an explanation of the myths rather than a detailed analysis of same, the reader is left to come to these conclusions themselves, and get what they will out of the sometimes complex myths. I am interested to read the follow up book "Heroes" which takes it on from here, as this book does end rather abruptly and it must be a challenge to cover all these myths as they are partly chronological (from creation onwards) but also illustrative of certain themes like hubris, love, vanity, hospitality, rivalry with the gods etc. which are covered towards the end.
All in all very entertaining. I studied ancient history and literature in high school so some of this was familiar, but there is great depth here and many of these myths were new to me, although they sat alongside very well known tales such as that of Narcissus. Fry is the consummate story teller and even if you don't have a particular interest in this subject, it is worth reading to enjoy his flights of fancy as gods and humans converse in imagined dialog. Great read....more
I've made my way through several of Hitchen's works recently, and although this has a typically Hitchenesque introduction, most of the text here is taI've made my way through several of Hitchen's works recently, and although this has a typically Hitchenesque introduction, most of the text here is taken from leading atheist and agnostic lights (if that makes sense in this context) and specifically, from some of their most famous works.
It makes for fascinating reading. I found it hard to read in chronological order and I preferred to jump about to the authors and topics of most personal interest. There is some heavy going philosophical material to digest here but, at the very least, if gives one a taste of some of the most famous authors of all time and points to the original works.
Very much enjoyed it and will follow up many of the references for sure. Hitch is sadly missed, but fortunately we can still get a taste of his outspoken intellectualism through the materials he left behind, and the sources of his thinking which are laid out here for us to peruse at our leisure....more
I picked this up knowing the bare bones of this depraved story but it is so much worse than initially appeared to be the case. It is disturbing and inI picked this up knowing the bare bones of this depraved story but it is so much worse than initially appeared to be the case. It is disturbing and intensely anger producing and frankly, this ongoing scandal makes me wonder why the Church hasn't suffered more sanctions that in undoubtedly had.
Written by investigative journalists, this book presents the facts of the church's sexual abuse scandal. It's far more endemic and systemic than was initially believed as the church tried to pass these despicable acts off as anomalies and the work of isolated priests who were bad apples. Clearly there was shielding and a cover up that moved perverted priests from one parish to another without telling the congregations in each new places allowing them to perpetuate their abuse. Unacceptable and heads did eventually roll.
It's well written, matter of fact that somehow makes it seem even worse as though these were common occurrences. It's horrible to read but like all such horrors, we need to be aware of them so that we are on our guard. I like the approach that doesn't just document what went on, but at least attempts to ask the question "why did it happen?" and also attempts to ask what can be done - for example is this inevitable with an all male, celebrate priesthood? Is there a culture of deference so that the priests, as representatives of God on Earth are beyond question? We need to be asking these things a lot more and continue to do so. A thoroughly sordid tale indeed....more
This is an interesting take on the central claim of religions since time began i.e. the debate as to whether god or gods exist. This is steeped in culThis is an interesting take on the central claim of religions since time began i.e. the debate as to whether god or gods exist. This is steeped in culture as well of course since when the question: "Do you believe in God?" is posed, the natural, although rarely asked return question should be: "Which God?" since there have, in history, been thousands. The culture side dictates the normal thought however which leads most to answer from the perspective of the God of the Bible, Yahweh, Allah, the pantheon of Hindu gods etc.
This is a straightforward, rational take on the most common reasons that believers give for belief in their god of choice. I suspect that it will change few minds, but since this is the one of the most important questions ever and it is always worth discussing. Easy to read, not esoteric in any sense and sometimes a little repetitive....more
I love the fact that my local library loans out digital books. However there are only limited titles available so I sometimes end up picking up a bookI love the fact that my local library loans out digital books. However there are only limited titles available so I sometimes end up picking up a book I should not have, such was the case here. This rating is therefore harsh but since I have never read O'Reilly's book "Killing Jesus" of which this is a critique, it left me somewhat cold.
The contempt and dislike I hold for Bill O'Reilly is actually hard to articulate without resorting to profanity but I find him a bully; pretentious, holier-than-thou, dismissive and generally highly rude and unpleasant. I realize that this is a view that many don't support. I would never read one of his books on the grounds that I dislike him so intensely.
Therefore this book didn't make much sense to me. As I say, should never have read it - my bad!...more
There is so much written about Jesus and most of it is theological and examines this figure from a religious point of view. This book sets out to examThere is so much written about Jesus and most of it is theological and examines this figure from a religious point of view. This book sets out to examine the historical figure who led to the Christ stories that make up the New Testament. Aslan has a difficult task here as the historical record is poor, causing him to rely on the gospels and extrapolate from there. This is, of course, a problem and leads to a lot of conjecture. It is clear that the history of Jesus contradicts much of what is written in scripture leading much of the Bible to require things to be taken on faith which is the whole point I suppose.
Ultimately, Aslan makes the best of what he has to work with and I learned a lot about the era as well as the religious and scriptural aspects, a lot more about the birth of Christianity and its relationship to Judaism. I finally understand the issue that has long confused me, namely why Christians blame the Jews for the killing of Jesus, it seems that this was necessary when the gospels were written since they were penned many decades after the life of Jesus and often from Rome. It was necessary (apparently) to divorce the two religions at that time.
All this suggests that the ministry of Jesus was not intended to be the founding of a new religion, rather the saving of the Jewish kingdom which is where the zealotry comes in; anti the Jewish Temple as well as, or more so, than anti-Roman. Ultimately though, as enlightening as this is, I wonder where this leaves us. Aslan is extremely erudite and persuasive and his knowledge of Christianity and Judaism (and religions in general) is very comprehensive. He is a Muslim, but talks early in the book about his journey Into Christianity as a literal believer in the bible. Clearly from his writing and research, the bible can't literally be true but he doesn't use this to denigrate faith, but rather to separate the religious and the factual/historical.
However the fact remains that there is a great cavern between the historical and the religious figure, both of whom are obviously very interesting in their own right although I don't quite know where that leaves us! It's a very worthwhile reading that really educates the reader - this one anyway....more
Not bad so far but heavy going - shelved for a later date
Re-read: Well, I hadn't intended to wait a decade to get back to this book. Where does the tiNot bad so far but heavy going - shelved for a later date
Re-read: Well, I hadn't intended to wait a decade to get back to this book. Where does the time go? However, in the intervening 10 years I have studied and educated myself a great deal on the laws of logic, critical thinking, skepticism and philosophy generally so I am now far better equipped to tackle this book and indeed, many of the subjects raised here are now familiar to me, but that doesn't make it any less interesting and there is always something new, or topics forgotten.
I except that this is a somewhat esoteric read. It is probably not mainstream in these days of short attention spans, polarized and group thinking and a general lack of critical thinking skills that I see and experience every day. And, yes, I am aware of the arrogance and pretentiousness in that sentence. I still have a great deal to learn in this area and it is probably the work of a lifetime, frankly, and one I will never complete. It is relatively short in terms of the actual narrative, coming in at under 200 pages but the book itself is considerably longer given the copious and extensive notes and references section that speaks to how thoroughly SH researched the material. This is encouraging for those of us who seek evidence for our positions. Harris is, of course, a major proponent of that!
I find myself in agreement with much of what he writes. He is convinced that morality is based on maximizing the wellbeing of sentient creatures. He acknowledges, as we all should, that whilst this seems reasonable, and most people seem to work toward this goal, there is nothing "given" about this. Unlike receiving commands from a God for example. His main theme once accepting this as a basis, is how/if/when science will be able to shed light on this, since his other contention is that there is nothing magical about consciousness, the soul isn't a thing independent of a mind, and so greater understanding of the brain and evolution even, should lead us to more scientific understandings of morality itself.
I'm inclined to agree. Lacking a god belief as I do, divine command theory is no solution to this issue, and indeed, most of the god propositions with which I have been presented seem to have a moral compass that is badly awry, supporting as they do, such immoral practices as slavery, misogyny, genocide, murder, child rape etc. This leads us also to the Euthyphro dilemma although this is not discussed in detail in this book. There is, as one would expect, a chapter on religion as well as a separate one on belief generally and these are very interesting as, again, I find myself broadly in agreement with Harris here.
Philosophy is interesting and this is a worthwhile addition to the vast amount of literature on the subject, and is written in a fairly approachable format. However, one must approach this understanding that there are concepts here with which one might struggle, and will likely disagree so it isn't a light read. Morality isn't simple, but neither is it as complex as many people want to make it. It is fraught with generalizations (life is generally preferable to death, the outcome may be the same for two courses of action but one is deemed more morally virtuous than the other etc.) but once one accepts a general basis for morality, one can at least begin to assess which action is more moral. Adding scientific advances to this discussion can only help.
As a side note, I loved his critique of Francis Collins. A undeniably great scientist whose devout religious belief, and the communities pandering to it, seem to me be absurd so it was interesting to read Harris's deconstruction of it....more
Loading...
