Book Review: Quiet

http://www.amazon.com/Quiet-Power-Introverts-World-Talking/dp/0307352145

I downloaded this to my kindle because it was intriguing and alsobecause the title was unflattering to *extroverts.  Extroverts get on my nerves and I have known many who just don't know how to shut up.

The book draws on scholarly research but instead of being a dry presentation of those results, the author describes events and interviews with a variety of researchers, extroverts, introverts, and introverted pseudo-extroverts. 

There's a huge bias against the extroverts, but of course it made me go *yeah* or *snigger* rather than want to diss the book in this review.

Speaking of this review, why am I writing it?

Well, throughout the book there are hints at the reason why introverted people might be more drawn to atheism, or rather, put off by religion.  First, religion generally involves gathering with other people at least once a week.  That right there is a turn-off.  Then consider that introverts live more inside their own heads than take in stimulation from outside.  Listening to a pastor or even a rousing gospel choir isn't anywhere near as much fun for us as being lost in our own thoughts going in our own direction.  Then follow this torture with "coffee hour," during which we are forced to make cocktail party style small talk without the benefit of a cocktail.

Cain took one for the team by going to Rick Warren's Palace of Emotional Torture, a.k.a. Saddleback Church.  Huge, loud, obnoxious..... I shudder thinking of being there.  Her description was vivid and I felt every twitch of discomfort with her.  Of course there are churches where introverts won't feel overwhelmed, but her description got me thinking about a connection between introversion & atheism.  Ever since seeing the Myers-Briggs skewing of atheists online into the INT- camps, I've wondered if that was a reflection of atheism or of computer geekiness.  After reading this book I'm leaning toward the introversion theory.

We introverts apparently share a lot of qualities other than just recharging our batteries alone rather than at parties.  We can be more sensitive inwardly but also more sensitive to the social cues around us.  We "read" the social enviornment more keenly than extroverts, who basically just get high when they're in their element.  Could this mean we are attuned to the "tells" of the adults around us as children?  Were we the first to suspect that Santa Claus wasn't real, and could we tell that the priest/pastor/rabbi/imam didn't really believe every word they said?  Could our in-touchness put us more in the real world than our in-headness would suggest?  Or do we doubt more because we're just immune to religious group think because we're immune to all kinds of group think?

Wall Street bankers demonstrated the difference between extroverts and introverts quite dramatically:  the extroverts made stupid decisions when they saw the market starting to implode while introverts made more cautious, wiser decisions.  It wasn't so much that introverts are averse to risk (or else why would they be investment bankers in the first place?) but that extroverts get high on adventure, which isn't always a good thing.  Of course, it's not always a good thing not to go for adventure.

I really only skimmed through the chapter on child-rearing, since I don't have kids and I'm not a teacher.  What I remember of it was "yep, yep, yep."  Especially:  group assignments YECH!!!!  And when a kid is passionate about something, they will speak up so points for "class participation" are really just uhhhh talking points.  This chapter was a good complement to the view of the Asian culture of introversion, which coincidentally encourages scholarship, thought, and listening and discourages empty blather.

Perhaps predictably, she includes a yin-yang kind of story: FDR & his wife, quiet Eleanor.  He was an extrovert (as most politicians are) and Eleanor was an introvert.  Their marriage didn't work but as a political couple they complemented each other.  She was the sensitive soul that saw and felt the needs of the poor.  He was the astute and bold politician who could make things happen after she'd raised his awareness.  And she could "come out of her shell" for a cause that ignited her passion.  (The book also talks about how to survive a mixed marriage but I'll spare you that)

So... as an atheist introvert, I could see myself in most of this book, even the parts about introverts who learn to behave like extroverts.  I can bring my work-self to work but I need to get away for breaks to recharge my batteries.  I also related to the part about Asian culture.  I investigated Taoism & Buddhism on my way to skeptical-atheism (a-supernaturalism is too much of a mouthful).  Meditation is more my style than any type of church.  My only fond memories of being a Christian are listening to or performing classical music with the backing of a beautiful old organ.  And even that was a little much for me.

Interestingly, many of us can learn to "fake" being extroverted.  I think I learned how to be extroverted-seeming from my experiences with black people in workplaces where I was the only non-black.  One of my coworkers who didn't have much experience with white people accused me of being snobby... after she felt comfortable with me and vice versa.  I was shocked.  After that I made more of a point of trying to make a good impression, which usually meant acting extroverted, or at least being more open.  Once I got comfortable with the cultures in the various places I've been, I didn't feel like I was being untrue to my real self.  I still kept to myself in my head even though I was cutting up and being outgoing on the outside, if that makes sense.   When we all had to go to Myers-Briggs "training," everyone was surprised that I was an introvert.  Even today, in mostly-white Indiana, I make a point of being more forward with black people, like saying  "Hi don't fear me I'm not a bigot or a snob, m'kay?"  The people I meet here probably have lots of experience with white people but it's second nature for me to be extra friendly toward black people now.   Of course the downside is that white people think I'm sometimes too forward and brash - not midwestern at all.  (I tell them that's my "New York" showing when that happens)

... but I did meet lots of introverted black people in these all-black-but-me workplaces.  My first impression was probably that they didn't like me because I'm white, just as some extroverted people may have thought I was a bigot for being more reserved.  In both cases, after we got to know each other better in our own time everything was cool. See how thought-provoking this book is?  I never gave that a thought before.  The chapter on Asian-American relationships really helped me to see those experienes in a new light.

So... the book has a lot of food for thought and a lot of cheerleading for those of us who have been made to feel there was something wrong with us.  I recommend it for introverts & extroverts alike.

And I want to delve into psychological journals now to see if there really is a relationship between introversion and atheism.  Stay tuned!

*the author intentionally used the common "extrovert" spelling rather than the "correct" spelling, "extravert" so I did the same.

Religious Insanity kills another Indiana baby

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-23/church-baptismal-death/53217544/1

Employees told officers they found the child in water about 2 feet deep in the baptismal pool and called for help, said officer Kendale Adams, an Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD) spokesman.

Adams said the boy attended the day care center at the church. He was found about 1:45 p.m. and taken to St. Vincent Indianapolis Hospital, where he died a short time later, police said.

A one-year-old is able to wander off on unsteady feet, unnoticed, until he stumbles into a baptismal pool that shouldn't be accessible to him at all.  A tragedy, and sure stuff happens in other day care centers, but here's the kicker:

"This was preventable," said Emily Barrow, of Child Care Answers in Indianapolis. "Licensed facilities have a sight and sound regulation; child care ministries do not."

The "sight and sound" rule requires children to be within seeing and hearing distance of an adult at all times....

Among the other exemptions are staff-to-child ratios; educational requirements for owners or managers; medication monitoring; nutrition requirements; food safety and sanitation requirements; and heating and lighting standards.

The Praise Fellowship Assembly of God Church did have to meet an additional 17 requirements in order to receive federal funding. The most important of those included drug testing and limited criminal background checks for employees, officials said.

I looked up the statute (.pdf) and it's even worse than it sounds.  Not only are these places allowed to operate without a license, but parents sign waivers saying they'll take responsibility for kids' health and nutrition.  They can also exempt kids from vaccinations on religious grounds.  Other than Christian "Science," who would qualify for that?  Apparently Indiana lawmakers think that children in religious care are different from children in secular care.  I mean, the Baby Jesus waited until he was old enough before getting dunked, didn't he?

They get inspected for "fire safety" and "life safety," but nothing else.  At least they are eligible to be sued for injury due to negligence.  I hope the family sues the holy off the church.  It's too bad the state doesn't have an interest in making sure that injury doesn't happen in the first place.  Apparently prayer was enough for the idiots who make Indiana laws.

Until now, anyway.  They should name the inevitable too-late statute over the little baby that died.

This Blog doesn't have nearly enough followers

No, not this blog.  This blog!

Check out the list of new species on the blog.  I'm still going over old posts of this new discovery.

I really appreciate a pro putting it on the line to help us argue against the ostriches trying to claim that creationism is true and evolution is false.  What's happening in the U.S. ought to be criminal, but the First Amendment protects the rights of dumbasses to promote dumbassery.  They can sound very convincing to people who are ignorant and gullible (not their fault, should be their fault).

Indiana Students are Safe From Creationist Idiocy ... for now

http://www.indystar.com/article/20120214/NEWS05/202140366/Indiana-House-Speaker-says-he-s-killing-creationism-bill?odyssey=tab%7Cmostpopular%7Ctext%7CNEWS

Curiously, the local paper that has published so many letters on this topic did not carry this news item, but the Indy Star, owned by the same corporation, did:

A bill that would have specifically allowed Indiana's public schools to teach creationism alongside evolution in science classes has been shelved by the leader of the Indiana House of Representatives.

The proposal cleared the state Senate two weeks ago, but Republican House Speaker Brian Bosma is using a procedural move to kill the proposal for this legislative session.

“It seemed to me not to be a productive discussion, particularly in light that there is a United States Supreme Court case that appears to be on point that very similar language is counter to the constitution,” Bosma said Tuesday. “It looked to me to be buying a lawsuit when the state can ill afford it.”

He wouldn't admit that it's just plain WRONG to pass off fairy tales as science but at least he admits it's a waste of money to fight a losing battle.

I'm glad this sorry episode is over.   Now I can return to being embarrassed about Indiana for other reasons!



 
 

 

Four Faulty Foundations of Faith

1.  Revelation as the basis for belief

The basis for the Abrahamic religions is well known to be revelatory experiences.  Moses received revelations about Judaic law after seeing a burning bush.  Paul experienced a conversion on the road to Damascus.  Muhammed was visited by the Angel Gabriel.  There are a bunch more stories.  Dreams, angel visions, voices, it happens all the time throughout the holy books.

But these aren't all.  Buddha attained enlightenment under a Bodhi tree.  Mormonism is based on the revelations received by Joseph Smith.  Where L. Ron Hubbard got his stuff is scary to contemplate, but it seems he received "revelation."

Or was this all revelation?  L. Ron Hubbard sought psychiatric treatment during his 30s, long before learning the truth about aliens and humans, and then founding an anti-psychiatry "religion."  For the others, psychiatric treatment wouldn't have been possible, as the field of psychiatry wasn't developed until the twentieth century.  If Moses or Paul or Mohammed were alive today, would anyone take them seriously?  And how is Mormonism growing when it's based on such a psychotic story?

The thing is, revelation is indistinguishable from psychotic symptoms.  When Moses saw the burning bush, was there really a burning bush?  Conveniently, he was alone, so if it happened at all, there is nobody to corroborate it.  He could have been having alcoholic psychosis for all we now.   How about Paul's revelation?  He was alone as well.  Joseph Smith?  Who was that angel that directed him to the golden plates, that eleven people supposedly also saw.  Those eight would have been subject to incredible pressure from Smith to validate his revelation.  After being guided to the plates, he viewed them through a magic hat and was able to dictate a translation from ancient Egyptian.  So even though he supposedly had witnesses, nobody else was privvy to the revealed wisdom except via his translation.  That's convenient.

This is what http://www.schizophrenia.com/ has to say about hallucinations:

Hallucinations are false perceptions, inaccuracies that affect our senses & cause us to hear, see, taste, touch or smell what others do not. In the acute phases of schizophrenia, patients are likely to insist they are hearing voices that no one else can hear. Sometimes they hear noises, clicks or non-word sounds. On occasion they are disturbed by seeing, smelling or feeling things that others do not.


Descriptions of these perceptions differ. Sometimes they are experienced as very forceful & apparently important thoughts. Frequently they seem to come from outside the self & are heard as conversations between other people, or commands, or compliments (or insults) addressed to the person. Sometimes the voices are reassuring, at other times menacing. Often the remarks heard are not addressed to the person but seem to be concerned with them in an unclear (but perhaps derogatory) way. Individuals who experience this describe it "like a tape playing in my head". The experience is so real that many schizophrenics are convinced someone has implanted a broadcasting device in their bodies. Or they come to believe in a supernatural explanation for the strange sensation. It is so real to the person that it cannot be dismissed as imagination.

This sounds a lot like what Moses, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Jesus, Paul, the author of Revelation, Muhammed, Buddha, Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard experienced.    In the modern age, people who claim to hear angels, or to be the son of god, or to just know things nobody else knows, are considered psychotic.  In fact, religious delusions are rather common.

If we are to accept that one or all of the religious revelations of the major religions are actual, true, communication with a supernatural entity, then why not accept the religious delusions of the psychiatric population?   A very few are lucid enough to be very convincing.  The dangerous ones are called "cult leaders."  The somewhat less dangerous ones have been called, or called themselves, "prophets."

What distinguishes a psychotic from a prophet?  Charisma, control and a gullible audience.

According to schizophrenia.com, stress exacerbates psychotic symptoms.  What would cause this stress?   In some religions stress is self-induced so that even sane people will experience "the spirit."  Religions based on West Africa's traditions invite the spirit to enter through dance and song.  Ascetics deny themselves food and sensory input.  Self-denial of the sex drive could do it too, I bet.  What if you take a tradition that encourages this, and throw a charismatic person with a psychotic disease into it?

I would imagine this would be a recipe for prophesy.

Should people who are aware of the symptoms of psychiatric diseases believe in anything that's based on people hearing voices, seeing burning things that nobody else sees, or believing themselves to be divine?  I say, no.  That is absolutely no basis for a belief system for a relatively sane person.

I stop short of calling believers delusional, because they aren't the ones with the psychotic symptoms.  They are the vitims of delusional people.  They have been convinced via some very clever and charismatic manipulations.  I don't blame them for this but I do think they should be mindful of the fact that their psiritual heroes would be considered psychotic today.

The psychotic believes deeply that what they hear was actually said.  Hearing takes place in the brain, not in the ear.  If someone "hears" something that nobody else hears, it's their brain making stuff up.  So I don't blame the psychotics, either.  Their sincerity can be convincing because it is so sincere.  Today, they have symptoms relating to God, the devil, aliens, and celebrities.  Fortunately, we don't say they've been possessed by demons.  We diagnose them as psychotic and offer them treatment

Sadly, people with religiously-associated symptoms have caused a lot of damage, possibly more than people with other kinds of psychoses.  Andrea Yates killed her children.  Jim Jones killed his and others' children.  People have killed themselves because of what a delusional yet charismatic cult leader told them.  People have killed others because of what their cult leaders have told them.

If a person is born into a society full of people who believe in stories that would be considered psychotic today, you can't really blame them for believing their voices and believing the people who believe the voices.

But I have to ask believers:  why do you consider Harold Camping or Jim Jones or Andrea Yates crazy, but not the author of Revelation, or Paul, or Abraham?  Your religion isn't only based on ancient hallucinations and delusions, but it creates and atmosphere where mentally ill people feel even more justified believing their symptoms are real, and where others feel justified in following them.

I remember as a child, asking my grandmother, "Why did God stop talking to people like he talked to Noah?"  She had no answer.  With mental illness in our family, what could she say?  Humans, there's mental illness in our family.  It's time to call a spade a spade and accept that ancient delusions are not real and true revelations of anything but insanity.

2.  Authority of ancient (or even modern) texts.

Stories that date to periods before writing was commonplace were transmitted "orally," i.e. by speaking.  Anyone who has played the game of repeating a word or phrase from one person to the next to the next etc.knows that what you wind up with at the end is often very, very different from what you start with.  Even if everyone is trying very hard and listening very carefully, mistakes happen, and the mistakes cumulate.  Mistakes don't generally correct themselves - they only get more wrong.  When one recipient thinks they've heard something that doesn't make sense and then attempts to make sense of it, they would have to now which part didn't fit to know what to change.  The field of scholarship devoted to unraveling generations of mistakes in the written word is called "textual criticism."

Of course, you give people too much credit when you assume they always intend to transmit information faithfully.  Sometimes "faithfully" means putting in or taking out words or stories they think are "wrong."  The translator, copyist, and publisher may believe they would get it right because they prayed before they did their work each day, but since they come up with different variants, apparently those prayers don't wor.

And then there are the intentional changes.  I have reviewed two excellent books on the writing of the Bible.  The Bible Unearthed uses findings in archaeology to analyze the supposedly historic stories of the Old Testament, finding that there is some truth in them but the final revision was considerably influenced by political spin.  Forged by Bart Ehrman discusses the practice of outright forgery of religious texts during the early centuries of Christianity.  (Some of these forgeries made it into the Bible)
"You can't believe everything you read," and that should go double for ancient texts.  But "fundamentalists" believe the older the text the more authoritative it is. Well, it may be authoritative in that it represents the beliefs of people living in a certain cult at a certain time, but in no way can these ancient texts be considered "The Truth."


3.  Culture / Tradition. 

Most people believe in the religion that's dominant in their culture.  In Shintoism.  The received narrative of the religion was written down eventually, not as revelation, but as received wisdom.  For other religions, it's the way received delusions transmitted via ancient texts gets played out for average people.  Judaism, for example, includes "historic" texts that define the ethnic and cultural group as well as spell out the belief system.

The culture is really the more important of the two. The God Delusion makes some cogent points about this.  Many of the "rules" of religions are systematically ignored, while other rules are used to prop up rules that society already likes.  Morality is defined by community, and communities change over time.  Slavery is the most famous example in the United States.  Pro-slavery advocates drew on the Bible for justification.  Abolitionists drew on the Bible as well.

Clothing rules are another area where people just do what they want, then claim they are being consistent with the Bible, or whatever they believe.  Some of the local sects where I live insist that women dress like 19th century farm wives.  Others won't let their kids watch TV. 


And then there is the "I Love Jesus" youth movement that relies on peer pressure and pop music to keep secularized kids in the flock. (Such as Fields of Faith)

There are so many varieties of every major religion that it can't merely be due to psychotic prophets leading splinter groups.  Sometimes these groups do consciously separate themselves due to their splintering, but other times they are just part of a form of cultural evolution.

Basing your life on a religion because you grew up in it makes sense; we want to belong to our society.  But the fact that your parents, pastor, neighbors, or even your new friends in your goofy cult believe a certain belief does not make that belief true.  This is the ad populum fallacy.   High numbers of believers is an indication of the religion's effectiveness in proslytizing or of holding their members under tight control.  It doesn't mean that one set of founders had more true psychosis than all the other psychotic founders.

The term "freethinker" is really the best alternative to "atheist" in my opinion.  People who are bound by culture aren't free to question the basis for the culture.  In some places it could get you killed.  But if you look behind the authority of the people, books, and stories you have been led to believe are "true" you may change your mind.  Once you have freed your mind from authority, true "seeking" begins.

4.  Church, family, and pastor. 

You may be born into a culture with a dominant religion, or you may be born into a family that is part ofa religious minority.  As a child, your family is your culture; your parents are your gods.  Many children go to church from infancy, and even if they don't understand any of it, they do get that this is an extension of their family, because their family takes them there.  You may then go to religious school, which is a further extension.  It's all very comforting and cozy, but that doesn't make it true.

I have known many people who are children of pastors and never question whether what they learned was true.  At root, they trusted the authority figures, and that the authority figures knew what was  true.  Their authority figures decided what they should believe; they didn't.  Questioning the truth of the holy books would be the moral equivalent to questioning your parents, and conveniently, many religions teach their children never to question their parents.

The fallacy here is appeal to authority.  Of course, some authorities do get things right, but the rightness of their opinions isn't dependent on their authority.  You can tell how much authority means to some Christians when they bring up Darwin, or his current bulldog, Richard Dawkins.  If neither of these men had ever been born, there would still be a theory of evolution and there would still be people calling bullshit on evolution deniers.

So...  psychosis, written down, used to convince others to believe in the hallucinations, and then indoctrinated in children, is no basis for a belief system.  It's understandable, but not in any way guaranteed to be true.  Quite the opposite.

Pure Nuttery from a Creationist

The local paper continues to entertain:

The evolution theory is an irrational falsehood, zealously embraced by atheists, that is a phony conclusion of the 600+ million year fossil record. There is no “valid supporting data” for evolution. In a court of law, or in a public forum, the same evidence that evolutionists would use to try to “prove” the validity of that theory, I would utilize to reveal the truth of Genesis. In order to believe in evolution, you have to purposely ignore certain facts of reality. For example, when you see illustrations of primates being pictured as evolving into humans, it can be shown in a court of law that such a premise is impossible, because certain human and primate traits are different, and could not have ever been shared. The only “common ancestor” that humans and primates share is God Himself.

Current Creationism has refused to ...teach the truth of the Genesis text, and either teaches foolishness (young Earth), or false doctrines (non-literal reading of the text). Creationists thoughtlessly try to prove “Creationism”, rather than seeking and teaching the truth of Genesis. How can an untruth, ever prove another lie, to be in error? You can’t do it. That is why Creationism fails. It essentially is also a lie, and should be discarded, even by Bible believers.

The correct opposing view to evolution is the "Observations of Moses", which conveys the truth of Genesis chapter one.

Those that imply that God used evolution are infidels at worse, or clowns at best, that refuse to learn the truth of Genesis. The truth has been available for more than 18 years. Such a discussion is currently silly, and shows stubbornness against learning the truth of God's Word.

There are no "creation stories" in Genesis. In fact, about all of theology and creationism have no idea what Moses was writing about. You can't simply take an advanced book of math or science, and try to read from it on your own without personal instruction. 

For example, Genesis declares that mankind has been on this Earth, in his present likeness, for more than 60 million years. The "male and female" in Genesis chapter one was not "Adam & Eve". Has modern science discovered that yet?

Herman Cummings

ephraim7@aol.com

Finally, something useful from Facebook!

Annie Laurie Gaynor weighs in on the Indiana creationism bill

http://www.thestarpress.com/article/20120207/OPINION03/202070317/Shocking

It is shocking that a bill to teach creationism from the perspective of "multiple religions" has passed the state senate.


The Indiana Senate would lead public school students back into the Dark Ages. This month marks the 203rd anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin. It's been 153 years since Darwin's Origin of Species was published in 1859, with the incontrovertible evidence for evolution piling up since. These senators would dumb down understanding, belittle the scientific method, and ultimately, endanger our nation's standing in the world and our ability to compete in a global market which necessarily rewards accomplishment, not stupidity.

The comments show how such a shocking idea could take hold in the Texas of the Midwest.  Very discouraging.  In other news, the graduation rate is dropping.  Any wonder?  Their parents don't seem to value edjumacashun

African American Atheist Sign

The American black churches are seriously cultish and black atheists here & in Africa are *not* popular.Found this encouraging sign on reddit:

Baptising a Dead Atheist

Mitt Romney's family baptised his atheist stepfather into the mormon faith after his death.

Now there is a bit of (twisted) logic to doing genealogical research to "save" your ancestors who never heard of Mormonism, but this guy was a staunch atheist to his dying day.  Yep, until that day, but apparently not afterward.  And rather than merely pray for his soul, they had a ceremony with a family member standing in for him.  ... or rather enduring water torture for him.

They did it at the temple in Salt Lake City, at a baptismal thingy that has cows supporting it.  Does the congregation moooo when the thing has been done?  I hope so because if dad-in-law's spirit does indeed live on it was probably LOL'ing at the ridiculousness of it.

Wouldn't God prefer people who actually believe in him as ummm  believers?  What could be the purpose of baptising a dead atheist against his will?  You wouldn't baptise living people against their will (unless you're Mother Teresa).

Could the Mormon religion be any stupider? 


I did have to chuckle at the highest-rated comment to this article (so far):

I'm not surprised at all. I baptized a pet squirrel once after he died. He's waiting for me on the other side. I was screaming, "DON'T GO TOWARD THE LIGHT". But it was all too late


- resident, somewhere in America, 29/1/2012 23:04

If mormons would baptise their pets, I'd be a little more sympathetic toward them.  After all, my pets have more cognitive facilities than the fetuses they worry about.  I think they deserve a place in heaven.  They would howl if the heavenly angels sang out of tune, though.  They hate that.




 

Indiana Taliban Marches On

The Huffington Post covers the next step taken by the Indiana Taliban.  Incredibly, the ridiculous bill  has passed its second step, passage in committee.

Kudos to the Huffpo for including a video of Richard Dawkins.

It's so humiliating to live in a state where such idiocy is respected.  Coincidentally, the state is having a hard time attracting high-tech industry to build factories.

Book Review: The Bible Unearthed

I was inspired by the video I reviewed awhile ago, The Bible's Buried Secrets, to look for a readable book on the findings of Biblical Archaeology, or more properly, Middle East archaeology that happens to include places mentioned in biblical stories.  I wanted to dig into the details a bit.  The video is very vivid, as you'd expect, but the details fly by too fast to catch them, and anyway the book is usually better than the movie!

Refreshingly, it begins with a review of the main stories of the Bible, not assuming the reader has studied the Bible enough to know even that much.  Next they review biblical scholarship, also assuming no prior knowledge.  They don't get into the weeds here, just enough to set the stage for The Big Questions that archaeologists will tackle.

One of the first chinks in the armor of biblical inerrancy was when people realized (or dared to point out) that Moses couldn't possibly have written the story of his own death.  This took about 2500 years.  Then, scholars noticed that there were duplicate stories of many of the "early" stories in the first books of the Bible.  They teased apart the minds behind the words based on stylistic analysis and deduced that there were two traditions, one from Judea and one from Israel.  This makes sense.  The two parts of Judaism were separated for a long time as two kingdoms. 

Curiously, the authors are against the theory that there was an original version of all these stories that dates to the unified period of Judaism.  I don't know how the two halves of the religion could have come up with the same stories (varying in details) independently, but rocks don't lie and that's what I was reading the book for.  If I can find a readable book on Biblical textual criticism, I'll post a review here.

So anywho... after a summary of the main points in the "history" contained in the Bible, they give a run-down of all the findings of archaeology and history that point to the eighth century BCE as the likeliest time of the writing of the "history." 



Archaeology disproves some of the Bible through anachronisms uncovered in digs.  Camels are domesticated in the Bible long before they are domesticated in reality.  Capital cities are capitals in the Bible when they are still only tiny towns.  Products are traded before trade routes are established.  People are mixing before they meet.  And the only time period for these references to make sense was about the eighth century. 

My first thought, and apparently this is what everyone thinks, is that some eighth century editor threw in some touches for realism.  Nope, it turns out that after the destruction of the northern kingdom of Israel, Judah ... at just this time... was consolidating power and establishing itself as the heart of the Jewish people.  References to place names associated with the historic kings was a way to include the various segments of the population within their realm.

The book goes through the "history" as presented in the Old Testament, compared with the history that archaeologists are discovering.  Over and over the eighth century seems to be the period of the final edit, if not the wholesale writing, of the Old Testament.

Particularly interesting is the contrast between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.  Israel, to the North, experienced periodic migrations and "exodus" based possibly on climactic changes.  When the situation was good, the people settled down and farmed.  When not so good they became nomads and traveled with their animals.  The design of settlements reflects the lay-out of the tent cities they set up as nomads, and which nomads still use today. Later, the kingdom grew in numbers and land mass, culminating in a great kingdom, the Omri dynasty, headed by Ahab, husband of Jezebel.  Yes, those two!  They erected fabulous walled enclaves for palaces and administrative buildings, dating from the ninth century BCE.  This is about 100 years after Solomon's rule over his "great kingdom" headquartered in Jerusalem to the South.  In contrast to Ahab's accomplishments, Solomon's Jerusalem was a small town without much of a building program.  And yet the Old Testament portrays just the opposite:  Solomon's kingdom was rich and well built.  Could someone.... say, 8th-Century BCE King Josiah... be rewriting history to portray his kingdom as having more historical merit than the competition?

The book weaves the archaeology together with the Biblical stories (sometimes too much of the stories) and makes the history of the royal lineages of Israel and Judah much more interesting than the Bible makes them!

All of this stuff was new to me, so I appreciated the authors' assume-nothing approach and his overview of both the Bible and the history of "digs" around the "Holy Land."  People have been looking for proof of Biblical accuracy for almost 200 years, and at times they thought they'd found it.  This book tells you who did the digs, who is currently working a site, and what the scholars think about it all.  So while not scholarly, you can track down further information from scholarly sources with names and sites right at hand for searching.

I have two complaints.  One complaint is that some of the maps and charts are hard to read on a Kindle, which is a pretty minor thing but they are helpful because of the large number of names and places that come and go, and some come back.  The other is that they frequently refer to "ages" such as Bronze Age I or Iron Age, as if everyone knows when those are, and doesn't give a chart to line those up with the findings discussed in the book.

Searching the web to find cool pix for this blog entry has been a real adventure, making me appreciate this book even more.  The "Biblical Inerrancy" literalists of course want all the archaeology to go their way and they're quite upset by scholars who claim the writers of the Bible may have gotten a few details wrong... or even *gasp* made stuff up!

 
I also appreciate honesty of the archaeologists who have to be feeling heavy pressure to throw the data in the direction of the Bible.  It's not just the Christians who want the Bible to be 100% true.  Israel's very existence is predicated on the belief that this is historical land that belongs to the Jews.  And yet they support the archaeology that's undermining some of that "history."

This book could be used as a textbook in college level Bible history courses, but I suspect it's not being used that way.  That's a shame.  Christians are so good at rationalization that they could certainly incorporate the truths uncovered by archaeology and yet still believe that God doesn't lie to them.  I would respect a Christian that could do that much more than the ones who insist it's 100% true despite being riddled with errors, inconsistencies and as it turns out, political propaganda perpetrated by Josiah and later kings to justify their ambitions and unify the people of Israel.

Wikipedia on this book

Wikipedia on Tel Megiddo, one of the coolest places ever, also known as "Armageddon"

Wikipedia on Israel Finkelstein, one of the authors

Wikipedia on Neil Asher Silberman, the other author

Find a Dig:  You can volunteer to help on a dig and get academic credit!

Your Faith is a Joke

I've never heard of this guy before but he's brilliant.  His name is Pat Condell and he's a British comedian.  This video isn't particularly funny but it's the straightest straight shooting I've seen in a long time.   We need more Americans speaking out like this, but we are surrounded by more bullies than the Brits are.  One day I'll feel I can post this to FB using my real life name, but for now I'll settle for posting it here for other atheists to see.

Superstitious People =/= Stupid People

I made the mistake of not being near my remote control when one of The History Channel's infamous stupidities started to run.  I wound up watching Ancient Aliens, a show about early people who "may have had contact with extraterrestrials."

If you are not familiar with the depths to which The "History" Channel has sunk, here is a quote from the "Ancient Aliens" episode about underground cities that I saw:  "If there were extraterrestrials that visited Earth in the distant past, could they have looked like Ant People or Lizard People?  The Answer is Yes."  

Because of course the Hopi of Northern Arizona couldn't possibly have invented the image of lizard (or snake) people or ant people using just their imaginations!  They must have seen some in order to create art like this!

Or...  a human could have had sex with a lizard and created monstrous looking babies that got strung up like skinned goats.  Sure, why not?  And could a bunch of scifi geeks pull E.T. stories out of their asses rather than settle for natural explanations?  Yep, methinks yep yep yep.

What sucked me into this show was a fascinating archaeological find I hadn't heard of before:  Derinkuyu.  It's an eleven-level underground city, fed by a natural water source and ventilated by an ingenious system.  Or genius.  The obvious answer to the question of why people would make such a place is to hide from invaders.  A bunker.  We still have them. 

But oh nooo... bunkers are too vulnerable.  So they propose that people from ca. 1000 BCE were hiding from the next ice age, having survived the last one of thousands of years ago or somehow knowing about it despite being very stupid.  So... people can pass along memories over millenia, but they can't develop an engineering system.  Or maybe they were hiding from sky aliens!  Yeah, that's it!

Inevitably, they bring up Von Daniken, who popularized this ancient visitation theory and inspired a slew of crackpots who believe that they are brilliant but ancient people were stupid. 

There are other "underground" people too, in Ecuador and the Yucatan.  Besides claiming that these cultures have come up with ideas tha they couldn't have come up with on their own, they denigrate them by referring to legends as if they must certainly have been inspired by aliens.

The Mayans scared their people with images of animals and objects drawn from life: jaguars, bats, knifes, and possibly a river of blood.   Was the cave that held these things created before or after the book that describes them?  Does it really matter?  The Book of the Jaguar Priests references a bunch of gods coming down from the sky (on a road, not from a space ship), ergo we should think there were E.T.s influencing these people.  If there were E.T.s then why do the Mayans depict only animals they would have seen in their environment?

Why can't the Mayans have been inventive enough to come up with the idea of people in the sky without actually seeing some?  The sky was pretty easy to observe but not very easy to understand.  Almost every culture came up a population of sky people in their pantheons.  The people of ancient cultures had the intelligence to transmit their knowledge via language, to organize into societies, to build large cities, cultivate land, and domesticate animals.  They didn't have the knowledge or technology to explain the Cosmos correctly, but they did have the imagination to come up with satisfying stories.  They didn't need any outside help.  They were every bit as smart as we are.

The "Hollow Earth Theory" is introduced toward the end of the show, because of course you have to have seen the rest of the nonsense in order to be lulled into a properly gullible state of non-mind.  Who is their authority for this?  Edmond Halley.  Yes, of course because we know his comet we should therefore believe all of his other (unsupported) ideas.  Somehow there are huge openings into the middle of the Earth at each pole without all the water and ice falling into it.  Verne's fanciful story, Journey to the Center of the Earth, comes up too of course.

How's this one?  Admiral Byrd's plane flew over the North Pole was taken into the hole by a tractor beam and he got lectured to by aliens who are our protectors.  Washington, D.C is hiding his secret by claiming he was really at the South Pole, not the North Pole.  uhhh sure.

What really maes my blood boil is the assumption that modern people  are capable of coming up with fleshed-out fairy tales but not people of thousands of years ago.  Why believe it's impossible for ancient people in South America to make precisely built pyramids, but not for people in Egypt?  Why take the position that people who could figure out how to make buildings above ground couldn't figure out how to make them underground?  Anyone who has seen an animal burrow into the ground for protection could have come up with the idea of a bunker.

I want this hour of my life back, but at least I learned about Derinkuyu which is a pretty cool place.  I wish the "History" channel would interview archaeologists and anthropologists and real historians instead of "UFOlogists" and other crackpots.  You know, people who say "We don't know" and stop there. 

As a history buff, I am frequently amazed and awed by stories of the accomplishments of people who have been dead for thousands of years.   My reaction to their accomplishments is roughly parallel to the awe I feel when I learn something about the natural world.  I don't need to add something supernatural or extra terrestrial to the story.  I don't need to diminish the truth by putting some bigger mind to work on the problem.   Early people were pretty darn amazing.  They left behind some fabulous artifacts and intriguing mysteries.  They also created us, so they couldn't have been that stupid.

Anyone who believes superstitions today is stupid, or at least lazy, but we can't assume that because people thousands of years ago believed in sky people that they didn't have the intelligence to carry out impressive building projects.

Should I protest?

Today I went to a management training seminar thing, and on the whole it was rather interesting and entertaining.  The presenter was an independent contractor with a good sense of humor & paced things really well.  Also...
NO POWERPOINT!

So I'm all smiley and happy at the end, and have a few thoughts about what to do next with a situation at work.  Everyone is packing up their bags.  I put the presenter's business card in my bag.  I'm telling the other people at my table that it's been nice to meet them. I decide to sign up for the presenter's weekly e-mail.  It's all good.

...and then the presenter's final words to us are "God bless you."

Nobody had sneezed.

So... I'm totally offended like, why end a good session with an insipid Christian sentiment?  I could complain to our HR department guy who runs these things, or send an e-mail to the presenter, or I could keep quiet about it. It was just the one line when half the room wasn't really paying attention anymore, but it was uncalled-for and irrelevant to the session.  Any thoughts?

William Lane Craig is a Dumbass

It had to be said.

Some atheists have taken this fool so seriously that they engage in formal "debates" with him.  Why bother? 

The basic idea here is that debates can prove something, which of course they can't.  They are like football for dickless geeks.

There, I said it.  Debates are stupid.

The entire field of Philosophy, which spawned the "debate" format, is bullshit.  Engaging in the sport of philosophical "debate" is a waste of time.  People who make their reputations in this sport are dickless geeky dumbasses. How do I know this?  It's properly basic, of course.  It requires no basis in other beliefs.  Facts, either.  Why? Because I say so.  If I assert it, it is true.  Word.

N.B.:  Please note that the people who engage in this sport are *NOT* women.  That alone should tell you that the sport is a waste of time.

The basics of debating are thus:  Something is proposed.  The opponent attempts to smack it down.  Onlookers then argue about who won: their guy or the other side's guy.  It's always "our" guy.

There are two sides.  The winning side and the losing side.  Neither side is the "right" side.  And of course there can't be a third side, because philosophers can't count past two.

Take for example, the two-hour marathon of William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens, introduced with sports analogies, held in a basketball gymnasium at a Christian "college."  WLC says he is a "professional philosopher" here.  That alone should disqualify him from the realm of "People Worth Listening to."

I forgive Hitch and other atheists for engaging in this sport, because nonsense like Craig's opinions shouldn't go unchallenged.  WLC's fan club uses his hackneyed arguments to hide from the reality that they are believers because they have been born into a believing society.  If all they have to fall bac on is WLC's position, then watching someone with a mind take on his simplistic ravings may deconvert them.

Having heard a lot about WLC's debating skills, I decided to watch this video.  I really don't see how anyone could say he's a good debater.  Must be something in the rules.  Maybe he's the designated shitter and he's making four-point baskets before the checkered flag comes down.  Some arcane rule that isn't self-evident.

To spare you the agony, I'll summarize his performance:

Despite being a "philosopher, within a few minutes Craig's referring to astronomy and the Big Bang, which can't be uncaused because it's absurd to think of something being uncaused.  Of course something can't come from nothing, except God, which can come from nothing because uhhh god is nothing?   He'll cite science then delude himself that he's debunking it by logical argument rather than scientific observation.

Well isn't that conveeeeeeenient.

I think it's absurd that a "professional philosopher" has an opinion on astronomy.

This is the Cosmological argument.  Oh wait, that's what he calls it.  It's also called the Kalam argument, named after the medieval people who came up with it hundreds of years before Mr. Brilliant said it.

His other trick is unsupported "musts."  The universe must have a cause, and that cause must be beyond space and time, and it must be personal (because it would have to be either abstract numbers or a mind - there is no third option of course).  I guess all these "musts" come from his assumption that to believe otherwise is absurd.  My answer to all these "musts" is "why not?"  Well, no, my answer is really "You're such a fucking dumbass."  (This is why I can't be a debater.  Sometimes the ad hom attack just rolls off the lips)

Then he introduces the Teleological Argument, which then morphs into the Cosmological argument, because that's really all he has.  He's probably aware that "teleological" is often followed by the word "fallacy."  The fine-tuning of the universe to create things just as they are is something he believes has to come from a mind.  He throws around scientific concepts and constants, and claims life could not exist without them.  Apparently, in his smarter-than-you thinking there couldn't possibly be another universe in which life doesn't exist.

Physical necessity, chance, design.  (He uses his thumb plus two fingers to count them!)  He claims the life-supporting universe couldn't possibly exist by chance.  Apparently, while pursuing his philosophy degree he has studied statistics and astronomy such that he knows more than statisticians and astronomers.

Then we move on to The Moral Argument. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.  Objective morals exist.  Therefore God must exist.

Yes, he said it with a straight face.  He apparently believes that his morality can't be the product of his culture or genetics.  Note, he is wearing a wedding ring, which my coworkers have told me is forbidden in many churches because of some quotation in Timothy and Peter (books that Bart Ehrman says were forged, btw).  He is violating someone else's objective morality right there!

So...  it's "absurd" to believe that something came from nothing but it's not absurd to believe that a supernatural being with a big ego and a bad temper whipped it all up just for our amusement so he could test us with temptations he knew we couldn't resist (because he made us and he knows everything so he knew we'd fail) just so he could be born and then let himself be killed so he could tell himself to forgive the creatures he made for being as he made them.... something like that.



By his "reasoning," it's not absurd to believe those things. 

But apparently it is absurd to believe that storytellers, scribes, scholars, popes, or anyone else involved with the compilation of the Bible could have made shit up.  He takes the stories of the gospel as sufficient evidence that the Christian deity is in fact the one that fits the needs he laid out in the other "arguments."  He doesn't bother to lay out the shortcomings of the dozen or so other creators of the universe.  This would go against he black-or-white thinking of the well-honed debate skills of Mr. Absurd.  If G is true then G's book is true.  G's book is true, therefore G is true.

Yes, his arguments really are that stupid.  And improperly basic.  You'd think that somoene who has devoted his life to apologetics and philosophy would come up with something more original.

His arguments boil down to "God is true because I believe God is true."  I remain unconverted.

So now that I've summarized the dumbass's "points" for you, you can skip over the bullshit and go right to the Hitchslaps:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8

God Cares About Stolen Cars

http://www.fox59.com/news/wxin-couple-thanks-god-for-leading-them-to-stolen-jeep-20120102,0,7632994.column

Indianapolis, Ind.

A Crawfordsville couple's Jeep was lost but now it's found, and they say God is to thank.

On December 9th, Jared and Angela Pickett's Jeep disappeared from their Crawfordsville apartment.

"It was like I wanted to cry and then I wanted to be mad," said Angela Pickett. "But I'm like, 'who can I get mad at?'"

They were partially mad at themselves. Jared Pickett left his keys inside the Jeep between running errands, and he couldn't lock his driver's side door because he'd just replaced it with mismatched a dark green one...
After a week of praying for the best, the family began to lose hope...
"I had just come to the conclusion that we weren't ever going to get it back," Jared Pickett said. "We were going to have to cancel our family vacation that we were going to take this summer, so that we could replace the vehicle that we had got stolen."

Those plans changed Friday. Angela Pickett was at a youth convention at Calvary Tabernacle in Indianapolis. Before worship, she got lost while driving in search of breakfast. Her GPS took her to I-465 and she decided to get off at 10th Street. A few minutes later, she drove past Allison transmission and saw what appeared to be her husband's Jeep parked in a small parking lot.

... "I was in shock. I just texted all my friends. I'm like, 'I just found my husband's Jeep,'" Angela Pickett said. "It was a miracle. God led me to his Jeep."

Jared Pickett admits he had a hard time believing it until he saw his Jeep completely intact. Despite a mess left inside, he also found some valuable tools and his National Guard helmet left behind.

"Thank goodness," Jared Pickett said. "I couldn't believe that they didn't steal anything."

uhhh they stole the Jeep!  Maybe the GPS in the Jeep was as lame as the GPS in their car and the theives got lost too.

This was a very lucky thing but eventually that Jeep would have been recovered.  They would have credited Gawd if the cops had found it too.

I think the thieves prayed for a Jeep to ride around in while they smoked their weed or looked for their dealer.  Then, they came across this Jeep with the keys inside and thought "Hallelujah, God wants us to steal this Jeep."  So then they took their joyride, got lost, and parked it in a lot where a better vehicle was there for the taking.  God led them to that vehicle too.

The Indiana Taliban wants YOU!!!! (if you're a child)

Well aren't they special?  They want to make it possible for schools to force children to say the Lord's Prayer... unless they or their parents object, which of course any child would be willing to do despite facing rejection, bullying, and discrimination...   I look forward to the inevitable dispute over which version to use.  Debts or sins?  Forever?  Or forever and ever?

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/11/10100687-this-is-what-theocracy-looks-like

or read the original bill:

SENATE BILL No. 251
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning education.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

SOURCE: IC 20-30-5-4.6; (12)IN0251.1.1. --> SECTION 1. IC 20-30-5-4.6 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2012]: Sec. 4.6. (a) In order that each student recognize the importance of spiritual development in establishing character and becoming a good citizen, the governing body of a school corporation or the equivalent authority of a charter school may require the recitation of the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of each school day. The prayer may be recited by a teacher, a student, or the class of students.

(b) If the governing body or equivalent authority requires the recitation of the Lord's Prayer under subsection (a), the governing body or equivalent authority shall determine the version of the Lord's Prayer that will be recited in the school corporation or charter school.

(c) A student is exempt from participation in the prayer if:

1.  the student chooses not to participate; or
2.  the student's parent chooses to have the student not participate.

How does a child choose not to participate when we socialize them to obey their teachers?  How does a Catholic first grader know that they are reciting the "wrong" version of the Lord's Prayer?  How does a child recognize spiritual development from parroting words they don't understand?

...and What the FUCKING FUCK FUCK?????   Someone voted for these idiots who are proposing a bill that can't possibly pass.  What traction will they get from that?  "Hey voters, instead of trying to attract factory jobs so you ignorant slobs can buy bigger TVs, I proposed an unconstitutional bill!"

 

Take *that* William Lane Craig!

A brilliant smack-down of the Cosmological bullshit argument, especially as parroted represented by the bullshitter philosopher, William Lane Craig: