The Holy Bible: A Book Review
by Giulianna LamannaI don’t read a lot of fiction anymore. I made a valiant (at least I think so) attempt to keep myself awake through Clan of the Cave Bear by Jean M. Auel, but ultimately failed. And I want to learn how to live primitively! Maybe it was the asinine caveman stereotypes… and the stuffy prose… and her annoying habit of shoving our civilized social ills onto the shoulders of a species she didn’t even know enough about to know that they showed no signs of having a hierarchy, much less the “strict” one she describes, and what what the hell is up with Ayla inventing freaking everything?!
Ahem. Er… aheh… But I digress. As I said, I don’t read a lot of fiction, and I read even less popular fiction (Harry Potter being the exception). It’s more characteristic of me to curl up with some Derrick Jensen while everyone around me raves about something I’ve never heard of. However, lately I’ve been tired of being so cut off from the rest of popular culture. I decided to get up off my lazy bum and read the book everyone’s talking about, apparently the best-selling book of all time (even better than Harry Potter), The Holy Bible.
God is hardly what you might call a prolific author; despite over 5,000 years of writing, he still hasn’t reached, say, Stephen King level. I understand that he has written a total of four books (The Holy Bible being a combination of his first two): a trilogy consisting of The Tanakh, The New Testament, and The Holy Qur’an, followed by the alternate-ending sequel The Book of Mormon. Apparently, the alternate ending was meant to be humorous self-satire, but few fans got the joke.
What God lacks in number, he makes up for in length. Each of his novels are rather hefty tomes, and once you crack them open, it’s not hard to see why. This is a classic example of new authors trying to tackle epic storylines too complex for their current abilities. The Holy Bible is an attempt to combine science fiction and sociopolitical parable in one story, a la Kurt Vonnegut. But God is sorely lacking the skills Vonnegut possessed to make it work. The Holy Bible is also an inter-generational story - stretching across hundreds of generations. Even an experienced author has trouble writing a solid inter-generational story, and it’s unheard of to try to cover so many generations in a single book. Once again, God lacks the ability to reach his own lofty goals as a writer.
One of the main problems with The Holy Bible is the unrealistic characterization. The story revolves around a man (coincidentally named “God”) who creates a world of tiny people and rules over them like a king. Although The Holy Bible exhaustively covers the rules God wants his tiny people to follow, it is lax on his motivations for wanting his people to do such things. The reader is never entirely sure why God wanted to create people in the first place, especially as he spends most of the book being furiously mad at them. We are similarly never told why God wants his people to do the things he wants them to do, particularly in regards to genocide, meat, and sexual reproduction. Judging from God’s commands, it’s hard to not come away with the conclusion that God is a seriously disturbed individual, but the author makes no attempt to tell us how God got to be this way.
In The New Testament, the narration switches from God to his people, and suddenly his character takes a 180 degree turn, mainly because God seems to have decided to stop coming for visits. This is actually a rather cleverly subtle and illuminating way of showing different perspectives. It’s simply too good for the rest of the book.
Along with the disappearance of God comes the appearance of a new character: his son, Jesus. It seems that after several thousand years of yelling at his people, he decided to send his son down to speak with them personally, as one of their own. This could be interesting if not for Jesus’s idealized nature. Jesus turns out to be little more than a Mary Sue. He never does anything wrong, he solves everyone’s problems, he shames people into changing their ways with his wit and penetrating insights, and in the end, he nobly sacrifices himself while everyone cries and wishes they’d treated him better. The guy who turned him in kills himself out of guilt. A Pharisee who previously hated Jesus sees the light, although he still doesn’t seem to totally get it.
The book ends with God destroying his creation. This is an inevitable and predictable ending if one has only read The Tanakh, but it’s a bit confusing after The New Testament. I think it ties in with God taking leave of his people, resulting in them finding him to be a much nicer guy. However, their new perspective of him doesn’t change his overall nature, and Jesus knows this of his father. So he tells one of the people what God will eventually do, in an attempt to warn them and possibly to dissuade them from worshiping him. However, the people’s reaction is far from terror. Rather, they become ever more determined to bow down to their wrathful creator, hoping to be included in the few that are spared when God destroys everything. I can’t tell if this is a brilliant political statement on fascism or just bad writing.
Certainly, the rest of the book is badly written. For example, God always tells and never shows. It’s as if he’s completely oblivious to the rules of modern writing. Furthermore, the plot is uneven, often uninteresting, and even more often halted entirely to make room for moralizing. The dialog is clunky and unrealistic, and the prose - while occasionally poetic, as in Psalms - is more often dry. It reminds me of Wicked by Gregory Maguire, except that everything about Wicked that is painfully boring is more prevalent and even more boring in The Holy Bible.
Having read the best-selling book of all time, I am now reminded of why I so rarely read popular novels. They just don’t write ‘em like they used to.
You underestimate God’s prolificness as a writer. He actually has closer to 70 books. The Bible is more like an anthology of God’s greatest hits.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 23 August 2005 @ 2:26 PM
“It reminds me of ‘Wicked’ by Gregory Maguire…”
Hey! I thought you said you don’t read a lot of fiction. Then suddenly the fact that you read “Wicked” surfaces. This is in addition to the aforementioned Harry Potter and the Holy Bible. C’mon, Giuli! Are you holding out on us? How much fiction do you REALLY read?
“The story revolves around a man (coincidentally named ‘God’)…”
This had me rolling on the floor. Thanks!
Has anyone else heard of God’s upcoming 29-city book tour to promote the latest edition of his most famous work? I was hoping to go to a signing here in New York, but apparently he got stuck in the blackout last time around, and refuses to set foot in this city ever again. He was overheard saying, “Thou shalt not deny me a/c”, or some such diva nonsense.
Comment by Raku — 23 August 2005 @ 2:40 PM
Yeah, but most of them would be lucky to count as novellas or even short stories. I mean, look at Nahum.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 23 August 2005 @ 2:41 PM
Hey Roxy, since when do three books count as “a lot of fiction,” huh?!? Why don’t you get off my back about it?! All of you, get off my back!! I CAN QUIT ANYTIME I WANT!!!
Comment by Giulianna Lamanna — 24 August 2005 @ 11:51 AM
You will burn in hell, hippy.
Comment by Phillip Kaplan — 18 October 2005 @ 11:52 PM
But at least we’ll be in good company!
Comment by Jason Godesky — 19 October 2005 @ 5:36 AM
Have you read the article “Is God a Mistake” in Atlantic Monthly?
This maybe the entire article. Not sure.
http://p209.ezboard.com/finformedcitizenfrm30.showMessage?topicID=149.topic
To read it at the A-M site you need to be a subscriber.
Comment by Peter — 26 November 2005 @ 3:14 PM
An interesting bit of turning logic on its ear. The incidence of religious thought in infants … so, naturally, religious thinking is a mistake of cognitive functioning, and thus, proof that religious people suffer from some debilitating mental deficiency which our heroic atheists, being the creme of humanity’s crop, have overcome. Or, “the gods” formed our cognitive functioning in precisely this way to attune us to them and their will, and thus, it is a proof of their existence which only an atheist would be dull enough to miss.
Or both parties are simply self-serving and twisting the evidence to fit their own, pre-concieved notion of what it “should” be.
I tend to favor the latter.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 27 November 2005 @ 8:07 PM
You and I have a similar educational backgrounds. We both spent 12 years in Catholic school. Try as I might, I just never could tune into the “God Channel”. I tried as a child, as a teen, and at least twice as an adult. All I ever picked up was static and suffered much guilt as a consequence.
Believe me, I wish that I could pick something up. That way I wouldn’t be in a tiny minority in a country where 90% claim to believe in Jesus and angels.
So I ask you, why is the man in the article wrong then? Maybe people like him and I just see the tortilla and never the miraculaous Jesus in its center. Why are we self-serving if we simply admit that we can’t fill in the pattern? Or refuse to pretend to see it when there’s insufficient data?
Comment by Peter — 27 November 2005 @ 9:32 PM
“Or both parties are simply self-serving and twisting the evidence to fit their own, pre-concieved notion of what it “should” be.”
Okay, I have to ask: what evidence are you referring to?
On your suggestion, I read Ishmael and now I’m half-way through The Story of B. I’m bringing myself up to speed. According to Quinn, it was only after about 5 or 6 thousand years of agricultural civilization that man developed a need for salvationist religions. So he created them.
Your above statement appears to suggest that there is some evidence contrary to the atheist position on god. What might it be?
Comment by Peter — 27 November 2005 @ 9:53 PM
The article makes the claim that religious thinking is a “mistake” in our cognitive functioning, that religious people suffer from some severe mental deficiency which only the atheist has overcome.
This very same evidence has been used by religious people to come to the exact opposite conclusion: that G-d “wired us” to recognize Him.
If the same evidence can so easily conclude two opposite conclusions, then neither conclusion follows from the evidence quite as neatly as we suppose. What do we know? We know religious thinking appears in infants, and appears to be hard-wired into the human brain. That’s it. We have no idea how or if that relates to any kind of spiritual reality in any way. Maybe it’s the beacon of a benevolent god pointing us towards him, or maybe it’s a neurological mistake. Maybe it’s socially adaptive for us to believe in some religion, regardless of whether or not it’s true. It doesn’t matter. We can’t prove anything about G-d based on what humans think about the spirit. Non sequitur.
I’m not saying anything about your personal experience. I’m saying that religious people and atheists are all human beings, they all have the same brains. Religious people do not suffer from any kind of mental deficiency, and neither do atheists. We’d get a lot farther if we could recognize that, and if the fundamentalists on both sides would just go away. Either position is reasonable, given the lack of direct evidence, so no one needs to invoke mental illness, or pitiable lack of neurological maturity, to explain the other.
My stance is not against atheism, nor against theism. My stance is against the attitude found on both sides: “What kind of grievous lack is there in your mental faculties that makes you incapable of understanding the absolute, untarnished truth which I possess?”
Comment by Jason Godesky — 27 November 2005 @ 10:04 PM
Salvationist religions appeared 10,000 years ago. Religion appeared 40,000 years ago, and is a cultural universal that all humans possess.
I didn’t say anything about proofs for the existence of G-d, nor did I imply them. I said that if the same evidence can be used to argue contradictory conclusions, then it’s likely that both arguments are non sequiturs. The “hard-wiring” of religious thinking does not suggest that it is a “mistake,” and thus evidence of a pitiable lack of mental faculties on the part of the religious man, any more than it is evidence for the existence of G-d. It’s proof that humans are “hard-wired” to believe in some kind of religion. Whether or not that has anything to do with any kind of reality is a very open question. My own inclination would be that religious thinking is evolutionarily adaptive, because it creates group cohesion. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong, and that doesn’t mean it’s right.
It means we’re human, and we think like humans. Atheist and religious alike, we all have the same brains. You’re not more enlightened than a Jesuit priest, and he’s no more enlightened than you. You’re not mentally ill for not accepting Jesus as your personal savior, and a Buddhist monk is not a neurological infant because he can’t appreciate the untarnished truth of Western atheism.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 27 November 2005 @ 10:09 PM
In other words.
Evidence: Humans are “hard-wired” to think in religious terms.
Non sequitur argument A (made in the article): Because humans are “hard-wired” to think in religious terms, this is obviously a neurological mistake, and proof that religion is false, and religious people should be pitied because they still suffer from this neurological problem, unlike we enlightened atheists.
Non sequitur argument B (made by Christians): Because humans are “hard-wired” to think in religious terms, this is obviously a sign from a merciful G-d to point us towards Him, and atheists should be pitied because they are so obstinate that they cannot even see so clearly a sign as this, unlike we enlightened [insert favorite religion here].
My statement was:
Making no reference whatsoever to any kind of evidence for the existence of G-d, or making any address of the question at all. Atheists have no evidence (as proving a negative is impossible), and neither do theists. The rule of minimalism suggests we should not believe anything we cannot prove true. But living one’s life entire by the scientific method isn’t appealing to everyone, and all of us believe some things we can’t prove. We just pick which of those things it will be.
The evidence is the evidence above: humans are “hard-wired” for religious belief. It has been twisted by atheists as a proof that atheism is true and theists are fools, and it has been twisted by theists as a proof that theism is true and atheists are fools. I don’t know where you got the idea that I was going anywhere close to the question of G-d’s existence, as I don’t see it being raised anywhere in the preceding discussion. That really came out of left field, and I suspect you’re reading a lot more than I’m writing.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 27 November 2005 @ 10:18 PM
“The article makes the claim that religious thinking is a “mistake” in our cognitive functioning, that religious people suffer from some severe mental deficiency which only the atheist has overcome.”
You know, I didn’t get any sense of the article suggesting a “severe mental deficiency which only the atheist has overcome” at all.
I’ve been reading about the workings of the mind over the past year. It does tend to “jump to conclusions” based on the sparsest evidence. Your girlfriend says, “We need to talk”, and you immediately conclude that it’s over because the beginning of the end of every other relationship started with those 4 words. Similarly, some people see what appears to resemble two eyes and a nose in the tortilla and conclude that it’s Jesus making a miraculous appearance.
That’s what the article is saying. The mind likes to fill in the gaps.
Let me quote the final paragragh: “But the universal themes of religion are not learned. They emerge as accidental by-products of our mental systems. They are part of human nature.”
It says this is “part of human nature” not “part of a severe mental deficiency which only the atheist has overcome.”
I think you are attributing things to the article which are simply not there.
Let me ask you this, what exactly is your position on “god” these days? Sometimes you hint at being a lapsed Catholic but you are pretty quick to go after anyone who flat out says that god does not exist.
So, please clarify your position as it’s quite confusing to the typical visitor.
Comment by Peter — 27 November 2005 @ 10:37 PM
Speaking of religion, this month’s Harpers has an interesting article on Jesus as well. I forked out the $7 so that I could read it. It’s titled Jesus Without the Miracles by Erik Reece.
It opens with an intro to Thomas Jefferson’s Bible and moves onto the Gospel of Thomas (which no one in my church acknowledged back in the 1960s).
The article does a nice job of summarizing Jesus’s teachings, minus all the magical stuff.
I don’t know if it’s online yet but strongly recommend to anyone having an interest in what JC was really about before Paul came into the picture.
Comment by Peter — 27 November 2005 @ 10:56 PM
“Atheist and religious alike, we all have the same brains. You’re not more enlightened than a Jesuit priest, and he’s no more enlightened than you.”
I just want to clarify that I personally don’t think that I’m more enlightened than believers, if that’s what you were implying. As stated before, try as hard as I might, I just never could pick up the God Channel. And try I did so that I wouldn’t be different and wracked with guilt over my inability to do so.
Comment by Peter — 27 November 2005 @ 11:01 PM
Hey Peter…
Ever think you were tuning into the wrong channel?
After all, my great experiences with G-d all came long after I gave up the Jesus track and started talking to the forces here. It’s amazing what kind of ‘gaps’ your brain will fill in when you’re receptive to what’s there, as opposed to looking for what you’re told is there.
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 27 November 2005 @ 11:10 PM
I have no problems with spirituality…if that’s what you are referring to.
I found this quote on spirituality here at Anthropik which sums up its importance beautifully:
Shamanic ecstasy is the real “Old Time Religion,” of which modern churches are but pallid evocations. Shamanic, visionary ecstasy, the mysterium tremendum, the unio mystica, the eternally delightful experience of the universe as energy, is a sine qua non of religion, it is what religion is for! There is no need for faith, it is the ecstatic experience itself that gives one faith in the intrinsic unity and integrity of the universe, in ourselves as integral parts of the whole; that reveals to us the sublime majesty of our universe, and the fluctuant, scintillant, alchemical miracle that is quotidian consciousness. Any religion that requires faith and gives none, that defends against religious experiences, that promulgates the bizarre superstition that humankind is in some way separate, divorced from the rest of creation, that heals not the gaping wound between Body and Soul, but would tear them asunder… is no religion at all!
— Jonathan Ott
It’s really about that sense of connection with the universe and not about some deity.
Comment by Peter — 27 November 2005 @ 11:20 PM
I’m sure it looks that way to an atheist. Christians criticize me for being so quick to back up atheists, though.
That’s because I represent a third opinion, the one that doesn’t jibe well with fundamentalists of either stripe–and since fundamentalists, regardless of creed, live in a world of black and white, if I’m not one of them, I must be affiliated with the enemy.
I often jokingly refer to myself as a “recovering Catholic.” The thought patterns of guilt and self-hatred are set for life, and follow you around wherever you go, so it’s an ongoing process, like alcoholism.
I’m a pantheist, and a shamanist. I believe that the universe is a single being. Philo’s reconciliation of the Torah and Greek philosophy reached such a state, and posited the world as a single being (the Stoic Logos), as well as a divine Creator. Seems like two gods to me, so I apply Okham’s Razor and simply believe that the universe is a single being, and that being is G-d, and its own Creator. I find this sentiment reflected in the Bible, when it’s read without the evangelical framing.
I believe that it is possible for humans to align their sense of self in such a fashion that the distinction between their own self, and the Pantheos, becomes arbitrary. I believe this is what First Shaman achieved, and something Jesus achieved during his crucifixion. I can’t prove that, but it’s my belief. Call it a suspicion, if you will.
To atheists, I’m a theist, and to be pitied for my lack of neurological maturity. No, the article doesn’t make any claim like that outright–even the fundamentalist Christians rarely go that far. But religious thinking is a “mistake” of our neurology–a mistake atheists have overcome, but those poor theists are still trapped in. Mmm hmmm.
To Christians, of course, I’m an atheist. No personal god, separate from his Creation? No virgin birth, and such ambivalence towards the Resurrection? Unbeliever! Heretic! Burn him!
But I can see both sides. I don’t need people to agree with me, and with a slight rewording of those beliefs, I can sound a lot like either one. I’m madly in love with Giuli, and she’s an agnostic. Some of my best friends have been atheists. I love gnostic Christianity, the Gospel of Thomas, and I think liberal Christians are closer to the truth of the universe than Cenk Uygur ever will be. I’m in the unique position of having been abused by both sides of this “debate,” and thus, can see that it’s the fundamentalism more than the substance of any arguments you make that make both sides complete asshats.
So, I’ve seen the fundamentalism of both sides. You think I favor one over the other because you happen to represent one of those sides. Believe me, the Christians say the same in the other direction. I’m not criticizing the substance of what you’re saying, I’m criticizing the condescending sneer you put on it.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 27 November 2005 @ 11:34 PM
“Hey Peter…
Ever think you were tuning into the wrong channel?”
I have no problems with spirituality…if that’s what you are referring to.
I found this quote on spirituality here at Anthropik which sums up its importance beautifully:
Shamanic ecstasy is the real “Old Time Religion,” of which modern churches are but pallid evocations. Shamanic, visionary ecstasy, the mysterium tremendum, the unio mystica, the eternally delightful experience of the universe as energy, is a sine qua non of religion, it is what religion is for! There is no need for faith, it is the ecstatic experience itself that gives one faith in the intrinsic unity and integrity of the universe, in ourselves as integral parts of the whole; that reveals to us the sublime majesty of our universe, and the fluctuant, scintillant, alchemical miracle that is quotidian consciousness. Any religion that requires faith and gives none, that defends against religious experiences, that promulgates the bizarre superstition that humankind is in some way separate, divorced from the rest of creation, that heals not the gaping wound between Body and Soul, but would tear them asunder… is no religion at all!
— Jonathan Ott
It’s really about that sense of connection with the universe and not about some deity.
Comment by Peter — 27 November 2005 @ 11:58 PM
“I’m not criticizing the substance of what you’re saying, I’m criticizing the condescending sneer you put on it.”
Okay, need for clarification here.
Who is this “you”?
Is it me? If you are pointing at me then you are projecting something onto me that’s not there.
Comment by Peter — 28 November 2005 @ 12:02 AM
“I often jokingly refer to myself as a “recovering Catholic.” The thought patterns of guilt and self-hatred are set for life, and follow you around wherever you go, so it’s an ongoing process, like alcoholism.”
Amen to that. I decided it was all BS in the first grade. But what about the dinosaurs?! I’ve thought about putting a “I survived catholic school” bumpersticker on my car.
“I’m a pantheist, and a shamanist. I believe that the universe is a single being.”
I’ve been moving in this direction myself ever so gradually for a good ten to fifteen years now.
Comment by Peter — 28 November 2005 @ 12:09 AM
“To atheists, I’m a theist, and to be pitied for my lack of neurological maturity. No, the article doesn’t make any claim like that outright–even the fundamentalist Christians rarely go that far. But religious thinking is a “mistake” of our neurology–a mistake atheists have overcome, but those poor theists are still trapped in. Mmm hmmm.”
Good god, you are over-reacting, Jason! Atheists didn’t over-come it. They probably just never had it. Maybe they’re like people born “lefties” in a world of “righties”.
Comment by Peter — 28 November 2005 @ 12:13 AM
Well, not the shamanist part.
Comment by Peter — 28 November 2005 @ 12:18 AM
Peter,
Glad to hear you’re on the path you’re on. As for me, I want to win back the word “religion” from the younger practices (from Sumerian beliefs to modern Judeo-Christian-Muslim stuff).
I call myself a highly religious man. And yet, I’m an animist. I call what I practice a religion because I do it with others. One day, a tribe (or maybe even several) will practice a similar thing.
Then, we’ll meet up with other animists. They’ll have a completely different religion. But it will still be rooted in the reality of the world and we’ll consider them kindred spirits.
So am I talking about spirituality?
Sure.
But I’m also talking about religion.
Best
Bill Maxwell
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 28 November 2005 @ 12:39 AM
Despite being an atheist with regards to religions that try to tell us that we are all “born in sin” and must be saved, I have had a keen life-long interest in spirituality. During the early and mid-1990s I belonged to a community which was formed by a follower of the Rajneesh (aka Osho). Yeah, that one! I have explored Buddhism as well and a few other spiritual paths.
Can you point me to any sites which provide info on animism? My knowledge stops at the definition.
Comment by Peter — 28 November 2005 @ 12:55 AM
The [I]quintuple sequential[/I] post. Where few blogs fear to tread… Apocalypse is nigh…
Comment by JCamasto — 28 November 2005 @ 3:41 AM
“You” here is militant atheist fundamentalism. The attitude that people with faith are mentally ill/mentally deficient/infantile/inferior. Similar to Christian fundamentalism, but for a different creed.
To say there is no god is as much an unproven statement as to say there is; perhaps moreso, because proving a negative is impossible. The concept of a proof for G-d’s existence is at least concevable, after all. I can respect minimalism, just like I can respect faith, but I can’t abide either side’s intolerance of the other. You, Peter, very often take a very intolerant tone towards those who do not share your application of epistemological minimalism. And you’ll find that’s when I come down on you.
Intolerance like that. You don’t recognize faces? You never sat in the grass and saw shapes in the clouds when you were a kid? Never passed a Rorschach ink blot test? Then you “had” it. That doesn’t mean that you were ever “meant” to believe in G-d, it means you were born human, with a human brain that has as its primary functioning the formation of patterns from chaos, making intuitive leaps, and forming some kind of order out of a meaningless existence. If you can do it for visual stiumli, it’s only natural for your brain to do it for existence itself.
You ordered your points in a different shape. That’s fine. Atheists see a cup, and religious people see two people kissing. Which of you is right?
Many, many atheists believe they’ve overcome the problems that befuddle theists, and thus become “enlightened,” and speak of religious people with all the pomposity of any other religious zealot. You often echo these sentiments, and link to them–as you did with the article above.
Amen.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 28 November 2005 @ 11:03 AM
Peter and Jason:
I don’t feel either Theism or Atheism was advocated in that article. My impression is that it was trying to show that dualism is a common and natural human trait. By dualism I mean the intuitive feeling that I, or what might be considered my essence, is separate from my body. Having this feeling it’s easy to ascribe spirits to other beings or things and to conceive of alternative spirit worlds. It did not take a stand on whether or not doing this would describe reality.
Like both of you I am coming from a minority position. I neither believe in God(s) nor am I an Atheist. As a Buddhist I have a totally different perspective on these matters. Buddhist teachings recognize this propensity to perceive the spiritual as separate from the material as well as to see myself as separate from the environment and other beings. According to Buddhist teachings all of these separations are illusionary.
Comment by Bob Harrison — 28 November 2005 @ 12:22 PM
Jason,
Honestly, I read your responses here and I just don’t get it. When you respond here, it’s not to anything I might have said but to people/experiences from your past.
What is this militant fundamentalist atheism you constantly refer to? I have never come across it. Well, there was one exception. As a kid I saw the late Madalyn Murray O’hare on PBS once. She was so shrill and strident that she turned me off completely. The atheists I have met in real life keep their beliefs to themselves and simply express a bit of relief if they discover a like-mind.
In fact, most atheists need to keep quiet about their beliefs since they know that they are a minority of about 5% of the population. It can come back to haunt them if they make it public. (”How can we have a commie atheist on the payroll? We need to find a reason to fire him. How can you vote for someone who doesn’t believe in the lord?”)
I posted the link to the A-M article here because I found it interesting. In many cases, I am curious about why people believe what they believe. I thought it might induce a conversation. I didn’t do it to push your buttons.
Then you go ballistic.
You, Peter, very often take a very intolerant tone towards those who do not share your application of epistemological minimalism.
I am intolerant of people who lay guilt trips on small children by telling them that they were born in sin and must be saved if they are to avoid an eternity in the hell-fires. That’s what I am intolerant of, Jason.
Like I have said before, in the first grade of catholic school I decided their story was a crock of shit. Basically, the dinosaurs killed my faith. I even tested my suspicion by taking communion before my First Communion. I was fully prepared for god to strike me down as I walked back to my pew with the wafer melting on my tongue–but nothing happened.
Jason, you know anthroplogy and history. I know psychology. Think about this before replying: When people over-react in a situation it’s because they are in reality reacting to something from their past. The current situation is not the real trigger; it’s just reminding them of an experience(s) from their past. You sound like you had some painful experiences because of both your initial faith in catholiscism and then its subsequent loss.
Take a look at that.
You put it well, when you say that overcoming Catholiscism is a bit like overcoming alcoholism. The guilt they brainwashed you with as a child takes a long time to over-come. I’m a lot older than you and still fighting daily to overcome it–although its power has waned significantly over the last decade. But it’s still there.
What a fucked up thing to tell children: you are born in sin and can’t even go to heaven if you die as a baby.
I’m not criticizing the substance of what you’re saying, I’m criticizing the condescending sneer you put on it.
You keep using the loaded term of “sneering”. I don’t sneer but if I did it would be against such obscenity as described above.
As for the article, it simply describes how everyone’s brain is hard-wired. This includes mine. Although I reject the salvationist message, I accept the need for a spiritual connection with something bigger than ourselves. I have spent my entire life searching for it.
Nowhere does the article imply in anyway that atheists feel or are superior to believers. That’s you projecting your stuff onto the article and me.
Relax man, if you actually listened, you’d realize that we both have pretty well the same beliefs today.
Comment by Peter — 28 November 2005 @ 2:07 PM
Peter Wrote:
Bob Wrote:
Not so much advocated as assumed. To the atheist, religion is “an accidental by-product”. To the theist religion is “an intentional product”
I think that Jason’s statement best hits the mark:
Comment by JimFive — 28 November 2005 @ 2:54 PM
I think that Jason’s statement best hits the mark:
Or both parties are simply self-serving and twisting the evidence to fit their own, pre-concieved notion of what it “should” be.
What alternative is left then?
Comment by Peter — 28 November 2005 @ 3:04 PM
Well then, you walk like a duck and talk like a duck but you’re not a duck.
How can you link to some of its finest examples and claim not to know what it is? The article you linked to called religious belief a neurological disorder.
Very true. OK, take a look at this thread on MetaFilter, one of the more blatant dens of atheist fundamentalism you can find, where I was raked over the coals for suggesting that atheists do not simply assemble raw facts like a computer, but string them into narratives like humans.
The evidence is very interesting, and has been written about in any number of articles which took the same tone I did: here’s what we know, isn’t that interestng? You found the one that said: here’s what we know, and that’s the neurological disorder that afflicts all those poor non-atheists. We need to cure them so they can accept the unvarnished truth of atheism forthwith!
Then why do you keep posting articles about how Buddhists are mentally ill and historians researching early Christianity (many of them Jews and atheists) are running a conspiracy in leage with the Catholic Church? The stance you state above is perfectly reasonable, but you keep citing the most shrill, indefensible, unreasonable sycophants to back you up on it.
Maybe, but I’m really not angry. If you read it that way, it’s the miscommunication inherent in the medium. I’m exasperated. I’m tired of this nonsense. I’m tired of it from the Christians, and I’m tired of it from the atheists. If you don’t agree with the people you’re citing and saying you agree with, then I’m just tired of that, too.
Calling religious belief “a neurological mistake” certainly seems to imply that it’s some kind of medical condition requiring treatment if possible. And if atheists don’t suffer from that malady, doesn’t that imply a certain amount of superiority? When you call people who differ from you mentally ill, that’s simply a softer way of asserting your own dominance. Pity is a species of dominance, too.
Trying to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove that it’s a medical condition.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 28 November 2005 @ 4:19 PM
Then why do you keep posting articles about how Buddhists are mentally ill and historians researching early Christianity (many of them Jews and atheists) are running a conspiracy in leage with the Catholic Church? The stance you state above is perfectly reasonable, but you keep citing the most shrill, indefensible, unreasonable sycophants to back you up on it.
Jason, step away from the bong!
You clearly have me confused with someone else.
I have absolutely no idea what the hell you are referring to above.
Comment by Peter — 28 November 2005 @ 4:41 PM
Peter,
An alternative that is left is the possibility that religious-style dualistic thought actually is beneficial at an evolutionary level. It may be neither a mistake nor the result of a god, but a useful adaptation in its own right.
There may be other possibilities but the choices of “god” or “mistake” obviously does not take into account all the possibilities.
Comment by JimFive — 28 November 2005 @ 4:42 PM
Then why do you keep posting articles about how Buddhists are mentally ill and historians researching early Christianity (many of them Jews and atheists) are running a conspiracy in leage with the Catholic Church? The stance you state above is perfectly reasonable, but you keep citing the most shrill, indefensible, unreasonable sycophants to back you up on it.
I am absolutely flabbergasted by this claim.
While I’m critical of Christian Fundies because of the guilt trip they try to manipulate people with, I have never critiscized Buddhists, Jason. I even dabbled in it back in the earlyu 1990s.
I have no idea where this is coming from. I find your responses totally irrational here.
Either there is another “Peter” posting here whom I don’t know about or you owe me an apology for accusing me of doing something I clearly haven’t done.
Comment by Peter — 28 November 2005 @ 4:48 PM
An alternative that is left is the possibility that religious-style dualistic thought actually is beneficial at an evolutionary level. It may be neither a mistake nor the result of a god, but a useful adaptation in its own right.
Doesn’t “useful adapation” imply a mental trick we choose to play on ourselves in order to ease the pain of existence somewhat?
Honest question.
Comment by Peter — 28 November 2005 @ 4:52 PM
Hey –
Just a noteful thought…
Peter, you DID post an article about Buddhists being mentally ill… that’s the article under discussion from yesterday… ‘religious belief is a nuerologicial disorder’ does not ONLY apply to Judeo-Christians
Janene
Comment by Janene — 28 November 2005 @ 4:54 PM
Janene already said it.
That was my point: that you’re painting with a brush so broad that you’re taking out groups I don’t think you mean to malign–like Buddhists. I think you’d get along with Gnostic Christians and liberal Christians, too, if you gave them a chance. I think, like me, you’ve run afoul of a very specific group. I think, unlike me, you’re generalizing that far more than is justified.
Fundamentalists deserve your scorn, but this stuff you’re coming up with doesn’t just go after fundies, it goes after anybody who isn’t a rabid atheist attack dog.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 28 November 2005 @ 4:59 PM
Jason,
I think that you are a little bit too quick to label everyone a fundamentalist–except yourself.
I have been a “searcher” all my life after rejecting the Catholocism and fundamentalist Christianity at an early age.
A few days ago I spotted the new Atlantic Monthly cover story and thought, “That sounds like a good read.” But rather than spending $7 for one article, I googled it later and posted a link here for open discussion.
It has obviously pushed some buttons in you as you are going overboard in your reactions. That was not my intent. My intent was to try to better understand why even I still search despite rejecting the salvationist religions long ago.
I really do believe that you owe me an apology. But then it’s your board and not mine, so you’re free to do as you please.
Comment by Peter — 28 November 2005 @ 4:59 PM
That was my point: that you’re painting with a brush so broad that you’re taking out groups I don’t think you mean to malign–like Buddhists.
I am? Where have I ever maligned Buddhists?
Is there a misconception somewhere that I wrote that piece for the A-M or that I’m the researcher that’s put forth the theory in it?
I assure you that I’m neither. I’m simply some that put it up for discussion.
PLEASE GET A HANDLE ON THIS:
Just because I posted a link to a long article does not mean that I agree with everything said in it.
SHEEESH! Get a grip people.
Comment by Peter — 28 November 2005 @ 5:04 PM
I think you’ve read more into my comments than I’ve written, so I apologize for my inability to communicate. I’m definitely putting a sharp point on this, but you don’t seem to be catching why. The things you’re posting specifically on the topic of religion generalize far too much, and you’re maligning groups I don’t think you intend to. Because I don’t think you’re even considering their existence: because the world is divided between fundamentalist Christians and atheists, black and white, and nothing in between. Stop to think about it for a moment and the absurdity becomes apparent, but that’s always the case. Yet it keeps cropping up as an unspoken assumption. “What alternative is left then?”
I was once a Catholic fundie. I’ve been a research source for Giuli’s book because of that. I’m very ardent in my own beliefs, but I think I lack the defining characteristics of fundamentalism: lack of acknowledgement of alternatives, lack of understanding of the opposition, and an inability to change. I don’t think any of those describe me very well, so I would say that I am no longer a fundamentalist.
I describe very few people as fundamentalists, actually. Only a select few, who meet those three criteria.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 28 November 2005 @ 5:06 PM
Fundamentalists deserve your scorn, but this stuff you’re coming up with doesn’t just go after fundies, it goes after anybody who isn’t a rabid atheist attack dog.
Jumpin’ Jehozavats! Have you ever got me wrong, son.
Here’s another piece of biographical data you don’t know about me. Up until a few years ago, I attended services most Sundays at a Religious Science church. This went on for about two years. I only stopped attending because I moved over 100 miles away.
For the love of god, stop accusing me of saying and thinking things taht have no connection to reality.
Comment by Peter — 28 November 2005 @ 5:09 PM
Just a noteful thought…
Peter, you DID post an article about Buddhists being mentally ill… that’s the article under discussion from yesterday… ‘religious belief is a nuerologicial disorder’ does not ONLY apply to Judeo-Christians
So, no one can post articles here unless they sign an affadavit witnessed by a notary attesting to the fact that they agree with everything in said article 169%?
Comment by Peter — 28 November 2005 @ 5:11 PM
That was my point: that you’re painting with a brush so broad that you’re taking out groups I don’t think you mean to malign–like Buddhists.
What am I painting?
I have no clue?
All I did was post a link to an article I found interesting.
You need to get a handle on the fact that I’m not the dude with the theory which has so enraged you.
I can’t believe that we are having to even debate this.
Comment by Peter — 28 November 2005 @ 5:13 PM
I don’t know much about your biography, Peter, that’s why I’m trying not to say anything about you, or who you are, or what your experiences have been. I can only judge by what you write here. And in that, you’ve consistently painted with far too broad a brush–a brush that condemns fundamentalist Christians right along with liberal Christians, Gnostics, Reconstructionist Jews, Sufi Muslims, Buddhists, Shintoists, pantheists, shamans, and me.
The material in the A-M article you linked to has been covered reasonably in many articles. The article you linked to is not one of them. It targets fundamentalists, but paints with far too broad a brush–a brush that condemns anybody who isn’t a rabid atheist attack dog.
Maybe that reflects your beliefs. Maybe it doesn’t. All I know is, you’re the one who posted it and said, “This is really interesting!” Now, if you don’t agree with it, maybe now would be the time to say so, and to mention that it really goes too far and to call religious belief some kind of medical condition is no better than the rhetoric of Christian fundamentalists.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 28 November 2005 @ 5:16 PM
And in that, you’ve consistently painted with far too broad a brush–a brush that condemns fundamentalist Christians right along with liberal Christians, Gnostics, Reconstructionist Jews, Sufi Muslims, Buddhists, Shintoists, pantheists, shamans, and me.
This is news to me, Jason. I confess to critiscism of Christain Fundies and Catholics but I have never once mentioned any of the others here.
Sorry man, but you are are simply not being factual here. This is a case of you projecting your own baggage onto me.
Talk about painting everything with too broad of a brush.
Comment by Peter — 28 November 2005 @ 5:21 PM
Peter,
I assume it’s the medium, here. When people don’t know people, they tend to go into defense mode. It’s not surprising. Some jackass posted a few days ago noting that one of the authors here (who was mugged) deserved to see his girlfriend thrown in front of a train for not fighting back.
Re: Animism, one of these days, I’m going to have to write up a site on it since info always seems to be lacking.
However, we could continue a conversation over at Open Thread Shamanism on this site or, on a similar rein, at Ishcon, where they have a discussion at Revelations of Shamanism
Or hell, we could communicate off-list too. Don’t matter to me. I enjoy the conversation.
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 28 November 2005 @ 5:23 PM
Peter, the whole thing was a diatribe against all religion. If you don’t agree with any of it, then why did you post it? If I were to post an article from Stormfront, should I be surprised if people judge me as a racist?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 28 November 2005 @ 5:23 PM
The material in the A-M article you linked to has been covered reasonably in many articles. The article you linked to is not one of them.
I have news for you. I am not aware of those other articles. The cover story of the current A-M caught my eye at the supermarket, I googled it at ahome afterwards, and thought it might provide for some interesting discusion here rather than an all out assault on me for things I have not said.
Comment by Peter — 28 November 2005 @ 5:24 PM
Hey Peter –
Jason commented that you posted an article ‘about how Buddhists are mentally ill.’ This threw you and you jumped and said nu uh! so I was merely pointing out that his claim was correct.
I didn’t say anything about how much of the article you believed and accepted as valid And no one here assumed that you DO believe it… at least not until Jason pointed out the flaws in thier argument and you jumped to thier defense.
So who is attacking whom and who is making leaps?
Janene
Comment by Janene — 28 November 2005 @ 5:26 PM
I don’t think anyone’s attacking you, Peter. I certainly don’t mean to. Attacking that article, absolutely! Stand too close to it and you might get in the crossfire, but really, I don’t even have any kind of significant hate for the author, much less you. You make a lot of great contributions around here, though you often get on my nerves when it comes to religion. Maybe everyone needs to step back and take a breather. I’d hate to have to lock up this thread and make everyone go cool off for 24 hours.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 28 November 2005 @ 5:26 PM
Bill Maxwell says: Or hell, we could communicate off-list too. Don’t matter to me. I enjoy the conversation.
Thanks Bill, I have a feeling that I’m about to be banned here for simply refusing to have words and beliefs stuffed into my mouth and head.
Comment by Peter — 28 November 2005 @ 5:28 PM
Hey –
uhh… Bill? He didn’t suggest that she should be thrown in front of a train it was rather, more vulgar and hateful than that…
Janene
Comment by Janene — 28 November 2005 @ 5:29 PM
Peter,
Don’t worry about the heated words / potential banning. They haven’t banned me yet. Perhaps it is time for a cool-down.
Oh, and I’m at true[underscore]tom[at]pacbell[dot]net for reference.
Janene,
Yeah, I remember. Sorry for the misquote (hope it didn’t give offense) And I still try to keep that idiotic ugliness out of my head.
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 28 November 2005 @ 5:33 PM
Jason commented that you posted an article ‘about how Buddhists are mentally ill.’
Which article is that? Can you point me too it? I don’t recall it.
I spend about 6 hours a day reading and another 6 hours writing. I participate on several diverse blogs and forums.
Maybe I pointed to a specific idea in an article which happened elsewhere to be critical of Buddhism?
I have no idea what you’re referring to.
For the record, I have graet respect for Buddhism. As I pointed out far above, I actually dabbled in it. But I’m too un-disciplined to make a Buddhist.
Comment by Peter — 28 November 2005 @ 5:33 PM
Peter, you’re certainly not going to get banned. The worst might be that I might lock up this particular post for further comment for 24 hours so everyone can calm down. I don’t think I’m particularly worked up, but hey, maybe I’m more upset than I think. You seem to be getting kind of upset yourself.
But I don’t ban people for disagreement. I argue what I believe, but at the end of the day, the worst you’ll get from me is just me becoming exasperated and maybe I’ll yell at Giuli for a few minutes about how frustrated I am. Worst thing that’ll come of it is my blood pressure. Maybe you’ll feel guilty when that heart attack finally does me in, but hey, what can I do?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 28 November 2005 @ 5:38 PM
If x is a member of A, then x is a member of B.
y is a member of A.
THEREFORE
y is a member of B.
Now, let’s substitute some values.
A is “the set of religious believers.”
B is “the set of mentally ill people.”
y is “Buddhists.”
The first statement is the claim of the article. The conclusion was my statement, in order to illustrate how ridiculous the article is. No, the article did not specifically say Buddhists are mentally ill. It said people who believe in religion are mentally ill. I assume the author had Christian fundies in mind, rather than Buddhists, but that’s not what the claim was.
Therein lies my problem.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 28 November 2005 @ 5:42 PM
I have an idea.
Why don’t we ask people what they believe instead of just assuming.
I’m still searching. Look above and you’ll find me quoting Ott on “Old Time Religion”. That quote really struck a chord in me.
Spirituality is important for me. That’s where I part ways with the true atheists. They reject everything; I reject the “You’re born in sin and only worthy of hell unless we save you” religions.
Much more than that I can’t say at this time. I’m still working it out for myself after all these years.
Comment by Peter — 28 November 2005 @ 5:45 PM
I’m not assuming anything about your beliefs, Peter. I’m not commenting on your beliefs, on you, or anything about you. I’m commenting on an article that you posted. That article generalizes far too much, characterizes religious people as mentally ill, and is a work of rabid atheist fundamentalism.
I have no idea how that relates to your own beliefs, and would never presume to guess. All I know is that what the article presents, and I know you linked to it. Anything else would be pure speculation.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 28 November 2005 @ 5:53 PM
I’ve noticed that today seems to be “Yelling at Folks” Day. I wasn’t aware of this holiday. Someone should have posted a memo.
See, there’s also this fascinating discussion going on at Ishcon where people are yelling but not yelling, too.
What interests me the most about the phenomena is that, by this point, if we were at a party, someone would probably have offered the offended parties drinks, which would have cooled everything down (at least until the drunkeness came, which would lead to a whole new level of fun yelling).
Best
Bill Maxwell
Standing in for Coyote
And duplicate posting just for fun and non-profit.
Comment by Bill Maxwell — 28 November 2005 @ 6:02 PM
Jason,
I have a habit of throwing up quotes and links merely to stimulate discussion on topics of interest to me. I confess that I only scanned that A-M article before posting the link here. My intention was to reread it later if a discussion ensued.
I suppose that I found it interesting (not to say that I agreed with it!) because it ties in with my readings of late on how the human mind works. The mind really does tend to jump to conclusions. It takes in only so much data, and then as soon as it thinks that it’s recognized a familiar pattern, it stops downloading additional info and jumps to a conclusion.
There’s a decent intro to how the mind uses “models” of the real world as a shortcut to reaching a conclusion rather than taking each situation as new and unique. It’s in the first section of Jerry Yoram’s The Power of Impossible Thinking . Ignore the cheesy Tony Robbinesque title and focus on the fact that the publisher is Wharton School Publishing.
The first section is good but then it quickly fades.
I have an interest in this because my own inclination to jump to conclusions has cost me dearly in some areas of my life.
Comment by Peter — 28 November 2005 @ 6:14 PM
No harm no foul. I’m glad that ugliness seems concluded.
On a similar note, there’s a book I bought but have yet to read called, In Gods We Trust, all about the neurological basis of religion. “Neurotheology” is a definite interest of mine. You might like that book. I haven’t read it yet, so I can’t really say anything about it.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 28 November 2005 @ 6:22 PM
I don’t think it does. First of all, we don’t choose our adaptations, they are thrust upon us. Also, I don’t think adaptation implies “trick”. We have adapted to standing upright, but it is not some acrobatic trick we choose to perform to make life easier.
Another alternative to the article’s options is that the research doesn’t mean what it is being interpreted as meaning. There seemed to be two pieces of research thrown into the article.
1. Infants (based on measuring the length of time they remain focused) are more interested in unusual events than normal events. Conclusion: They have some internal concept of what is normal. (Or it doesn’t take them very long to figure out what normal is.)
2. Children (young, but unspecified ages), see their ’selves’ as being separate from their ‘body’. Since these are children that are old enough to talk and to some extent comprehend death it is difficult to control for their enculturation. Article’s Conclusion: Dualistic thought is inherent. My (oh so intelligent) response: huh?
The article then tries to combine those two tidbits into the statement that “They [Universal themes of religion] emerge as accidental by-products of our mental systems.”
The conclusion that religion is an “accidental by-product” doesn’t seem to follow any more than some other option.
Comment by JimFive — 29 November 2005 @ 9:34 AM
By the same token, our vision is not an accurate rendition of the world, anymore than infrared is. It’s a &#