State of Protest

This week in lieu of a Book Review, I’m going to share some other kinds of readings…

I live in Ann Arbor, a nice quiet college town where liberals are outspoken and reasonable people can comfortably discuss any and all controversial thoughts in public without fear of retribution. Bush supporters might disagree with me, but I think they like to feel persecuted when their mindless rotted brains see anything but highest praise for their fearful leader. I digress. I was quite pleased, though not surprised, to see one of our local events rags, Current, do a fun story for the December Issue on the pagan origins of Christmas. The free publication also highlighted several non-Christian events surrounding the Solstice.

The January edition, not surprisingly, had one of those hilariously over-the-top letters to the editor in outraged reaction. It must be rough for someone with a martyr complex and a remote stuck on Fox news to find a reason to freak out. I like to imagine the steam coming out of their ears and the one thought rattling around in those vacant heads of theirs as they wrote the following:

“BRING JESUS BACK!

We have seen in your advertising that you do not use the word “Christmas” and instead refer to some non-descript “Holiday”, even though 96 percent of all U.S. adults celebrate Christmas, and even 84 percent of those who claim to be non-Christians celebrate this religious holiday (Gallup Poll, December 2005). You use the word “Holiday” but superimpose images of Christmastime with it; you’re not fooling anyone into thinking that you’re not actually referring to Christmas. Your taking of a sacred holiday and ripping Christ’s name out of it, turning it into nothing more than a secular, pagan, materialistic occasion where the almighty dollar reigns supreme, is highly offensive. Your hatred of Christ and Christians is evident in your refusal to use His name, and we clearly see your bigotry.

We have not yet been a customer of yours, however due to your prejudicial, anti-Christian business practices, we refuse to patronize your business until you reverse your decision to discriminate against Christians.

-Allan and Jodi Fredrickson, Adrian Michigan.”

Oh, my how I laughed. That is so cute! I love it when they get all furious and illogical. I don’t know what’s funnier, their ignorance of the obvious etymology of the word “Holiday” (Holy Day, duh), the robotic obedience to sputtering windbag Bill O’Reilly, or their hyperbolic characterization of this cute lil’ townie mag as “Christ-hating”.

The editor’s response was fabulous, by the way:

“EDITOR’S NOTE: Thanks for your comments, Mr. and Mrs. Fredrickson. Hope you had a happy holiday.”

The only thing that surprises me is that a quick internet search didn’t turn up a word-for-word template of this idiotic screed. Something about the vagueness of the letter tells me that Allan And Jodi sent this letter to everyone on this list, too.

***********************************************************************

Next, here’s a nice post I ran across on LiberalAtheist: [reposted with permission] ¹ The other day I came across this page with a HUGE list of reasons a person may be a “fundy atheist”. I found it to be humorously ignorant starting with “fundy atheist”. An atheist simply lacks a belief in a god or gods. We have no set of principles we deem necessary to follow.Anyway I picked some of them from the Origins section which argues science and responded below in bold…You may be a fundy atheist if….

# You believe that planes, computers, calculators, compasses, etc, were “all obviously designed,” yet the human body, being intricately more complex was “obviously a product of biological evolution.” It seems the more complex the apparatus, the more obvious the “fact” that it was not designed.

You’re kidding right? Man-made non-living objects like the ones you mention here are incapable of cellular replication and incapable of sexual reproduction and therefore incapable of evolving. There’s no basis of comparison. You know how when someone makes an ignorant argument and you say “You’re comparing apples to oranges”? Well you’re not even doing that…you’re comparing apples to tennis balls.

# You claim that evolution and the big bang are two entirely separate theories that explain different aspects of the universe, yet, in what school of learning can you find any real separation or distinction between the two?

They ARE separate theories. The “Big Bang” is what is known as abiogenesis. That involves the study of cosmology and chemistry. Evolution involves the study of biology. You guys mistake that because you assume that chicken came before the egg and therefore you can’t understand the concept of the egg without the chicken.

# As a member of the Skeptic’s Society you pride yourself on being skeptical of extraordinary claims. You also pride yourself on silencing everyone who is skeptical of the extraordinary claims of evolution.

We don’t try to silence you. You can shout your ignorance from rooftops for all we care. You’re the one that looks foolish. Evolution isn’t an “extraordinary claim”. It’s an accepted scientific theory and fact. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution–or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter–they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

# Isaac Newton does not count as an example of a great scientist who believed in the Bible since he died before the Origin of Species was published.

Why should we care if he believed in ancient fairytales of a supernatural power or not? He’s a great scientist simply because he is credited with the discovering the theory of gravity. We don’t make any claims that he had anything to do with the theory of evolution or abiogenesis although gravity itself is related to abiogenesis. Newton just wasn’t aware of that because those theories weren’t presented til after his death.

# When you watch a punt returner run a 93 yard touchdown, you marvel at what evolution has done for the human race. But when someone gets cancer, you blame God for it.

Go look up “atheist” in a dictionary. Atheists do NOT believe in any god or gods. We can’t blame something on a supernatural being that we don’t even believe exists in the first place. We know that cancers are caused by such things as chemical carcinogens, ionizing radiation, infectious diseases, hormonal imbalances, immune system dysfunction, and hereditary.

# You descended from apes.(Think about it.)

For someone who criticizes evolution you sure don’t know much about it. I’ll have the Scientific American field this one for me: “This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.

The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, “If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?” New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.”

If you research the subject from respected scientific sources you’d know this stuff. We share genetic markers in our DNA with every living organism on the planet. Apes and other primates are simply our closest “cousins”.

# You think that humans are products of chance but when it comes to human reason we can believe in logic! (Think about it !)

More ignorance about evolution. Humans are not products of “chance”… it’s Natural Selection. No scientist would claim we are products of chance.

# You love to castigate Christians for being “anti-science” if they deny evolution from goo to you via the zoo, and to preach that they should adapt their thinking to the “science” of our day. But you also castigate the Church of 400 years ago for being anti-science, when it DID adapt its thinking to the science of ITS day, i.e. Ptolemaic cosmology, then joined with the Aristotelian scientists of the universities in rejecting Galileo!

Wow you sure like wearing your ignorance as a badge of honor don’t you? Ptolemy and Aristotle were mainly philosophers who liked to dabble in science. Galileo who actually WAS a scientist was condemned by the church and imprisoned because he believed the earth is round and it revolved around the sun. Science has proven his theory correct. Now over 300 years later you are trying to hinder scientific advancement by denying the evidence of evolution. Why is it the church is always dragged kicking and screaming into scientific advancement?

# You think that some guy named “Dr Dino” with no scientific credentials represents mainstream Evangelical thinking and scholarship about evolution and creation, and thus by spending inordinate amounts of time attacking him you are somehow dismantling the arguments of scholarly dissenters from evolution, creationists with earned Ph. D.s in science, and of advocates of intelligent design.

Who cares if he’s your front runner or just another ignorant moron? No creationist regardless of their scientific background or education will ever be taken seriously in the scientific community because their outrageous claims based on ancient texts disagree with modern scientific facts. You may as well be arguing that the world is flat.

# You claim poker-faced that “social Darwinism” and its spawn of eugenics have absolutely no connection to the biological theories propounded by Charles Darwin in “On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”

Eugenics is not related to natural selection. To think otherwise is just another example of ignorance. Forced breeding isn’t natural and even if it creates a stronger offspring than natural breeding there’s no telling what the ethical consequences of the practice would do in the future of the evolutionary process. It could very well be similar to inbreeding which is known to cause weaker offspring. Hitler tried to enforce this very practice with the support of the church during the Holocaust and create a “Master Race”. Such practices hinder evolutionary progress.

# You have recently stuck a Darwin fish on your car in the hopes the people with the Jesus fish on theirs will be offended.

We couldn’t care less if you are offended by us making our own statements, but if you are it’s actually funny because we aren’t offended by your Jesus fish… we just pity your ignorance.

# You also claim that not only is there no connection between Darwin’s theories and the doctrines of social Darwinism and eugenics (despite the fact that the term eugenics was coined and advocated by Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton, who acknowledged his debt to Origin), but that none of these philosophical positions have any connection to the modern fields of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology.

So someone’s cousin cashing in on his notoriety is evidence of a connection? Comparing eugenics to natural selection is like comparing rape to consensual sex. That’s about the only connection it shares.

# You can claim with as straight face on sites like Talk Origins that “Evolution does not have moral consequences” despite the fact that prominent evolutionary advocates like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett vehemently assert that evolution does transcend biology in a way that has a profound effects upon ethics.

Evolution itself doesn’t have moral consequences, but scientific advancements in genetics and biology could have scientists themselves doing research that has ethical concerns and also governments using scientific knowledge to do things that have ethical concerns with such ideas like eugenics for example. Those situations would have moral and ethical concerns, but not natural evolution left on it’s own.

# When the Pope says that God may have used evolution, he is an enlightened religious leader whom Christians should listen to. When the Pope preaches on the sanctity of human life from conception, and thus denounces abortion, he’s just a senile religious bigot who should keep his opinions to himself.

While I wouldn’t personally word it the way you just did here are you suggesting that we’re supposed to agree with everything the pope says? You’ve never disagreed with someone on one issue but agreed with them on another?

# Concerning the origins of life, you feel that though the chances of life forming without an intelligent creator are small it DID indeed happen that way. And yet you don’t believe me when a rock, coming from my direction, hits you in the back of the head and I tell you, “I didn’t throw it. There was a sudden shift in the earth’s gravitational pull and the rock levitated into your head…Sure the chances are small but it DID happen that way.”

Wow your ignorance knows no bounds does it? First of all there is absolutely NO scientific evidence supporting Intelligent Design… there’s PLENTY of scientific evidence supporting evolution. Your little rock example further shows your ignorance because such a gravitational shift could only be caused by something like the earth being knocked out of orbit or the speed of the earth’s rotation on it’s own axis changed. If the rock was affected every other living and non-living thing on the planet would also be affected and move it the same way.

# When you’re shown that your view of origins is silly, you can only respond, “Well…at least it’s better than believing in some invisible SKY DADDY!”

No one has shown me my views are silly. Evolution has been proven. Abiogenesis on the other hand is still a mystery although science has some ideas. Giving up on scientific research just to assume that a supernatural “God” was responsible would be scientifically irresponsible and would hinder scientific progress.

# When a Christian points out the impossibility of a biological system (or feature) forming by pure chance you accuse them of invoking a “God of the gaps”. YET, when you are asked how a particular feature could come about solely by chance you invoke “Evolution of the gaps” (i.e., we don’t know HOW but we do know that Evolution MUST have done it!)

And your point is??? Evolution has been scientifically proven. While we may not have found the “B” that links “A” and “C” together we DO know that the link is evolutionary and we aren’t giving up til we find the link. You creationists want to label it with “God” and forget about it without any further research or investigation. If you could prove it to be God without pointing to a 2000 year old bible and back it up with scientific evidence that would be different.

# You claim antibiotic-resistant bacteria is proof protozoa evolved into a person.

Science has discovered that some bacteria has evolved from a strain that isn’t resistant to a new strain that is. This is proof of microevolution. There’s a huge evolutionary gap between a protozoa and a human being, but it’s simply millions if not billions of years of microevolutionary changes creating a more complex and environmentally adaptable species and that species evolving and adapting into another and so on until a human being evolved. Because the process took millions or billions of years it would be impossible to recreate it in a laboratory environment within one human lifetime, but we can observe the evidence in biology and in studying fossils… among other things. While we are unable to show the exact evolutionary path of a protozoa evolving into a human we can reach that conclusion based on the facts we already know about evolution.

# You insist that science is completely partial to all ideas, is not dogmatic and researches all possibilities — except creationism and/or intelligent design.

As Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace said to Napoléon Bonaparte when asked about where God fit into his equations of celestial mechanics, “Sire I have no need of that hypothesis.”

I’ll have the Scientific American field this one for me, too.

In contrast, intelligent-design theorists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery at hand. Rather than expanding scientific inquiry, such answers shut it down. (How does one disprove the existence of omnipotent intelligences?)

Intelligent design offers few answers. For instance, when and how did a designing intelligence intervene in life’s history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human? Was every species designed, or just a few early ones? Proponents of intelligent-design theory frequently decline to be pinned down on these points. They do not even make real attempts to reconcile their disparate ideas about intelligent design. Instead they pursue argument by exclusion–that is, they belittle evolutionary explanations as far-fetched or incomplete and then imply that only design-based alternatives remain.

Logically, this is misleading: even if one naturalistic explanation is flawed, it does not mean that all are. Moreover, it does not make one intelligent-design theory more reasonable than another. Listeners are essentially left to fill in the blanks for themselves, and some will undoubtedly do so by substituting their religious beliefs for scientific ideas.

Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.

# You claim Creationists don’t research on evolution websites before debating against it. Luckily you caught this useful weapon against Christians at the evolution site you learned all about creation doctrine from.

I’ve been to creationist websites. They’re really good for when you need a good laugh. Like for instance the creationist claim that dinosaurs lived among humans and were plant eaters… Yet T-Rex had 6 inch razor sharp teeth. I’m sure he really needed those for eating grass and leaves. Modern plant eating animals don’t have the teeth of predator. Every animal that preys on another for food does have sharp teeth. Another silly creationist idea is that the earth is only about 10,000 years old which disagrees with modern science. But the toughest thing to swallow is that everything can be explained by a supernatural “God”, yet failing to explain where the god itself came from. Creationism will never be taken seriously as science by the scientific community because it hinders scientific advancement. You may as well be claiming the earth is flat.

# You think that every scientist who believes in Creationism and doesn’t mindlessly accept evolution as a fact is a “kook,” but you believe that Francis Crick (Nobel Prize winning co-discoverer of DNA), who reached into his nether regions and pulled out the “theory” of Directed Panspermia (which states with absolutely no support that aliens seeded the earth with life - see the movie “Mission to Mars”), is a great evolutionist scientist.

He’s a great evolutionary scientist because he is credited with the discovery of DNA. Directed Panspermia is not a widely accepted scientific theory, but it IS more logical than the idea of a supernatural god creating life. If there is life on this planet it’s logically possible that there is life on another planet. Scientists aren’t actively pursuing that hypothesis of Directed Panspermia for the same reasons they aren’t pursuing your creationist theory, because there is currently no evidence of alien life just like there’s no evidence of your god.

# When a creationist points out problems with the evolutionist model you claim that the whole point of science is to answer problems like these. But if you can point out even one problem in the creationist model it should instantly be abandoned as absurd.

Because unlike creationism, evolution actually has evidence to back it up that isn’t found in an ancient text. Modern science can’t take it seriously because during the time period your bible was written humans lacked the modern technology and scientific knowledge that humans have today. Studying creationism would be like asking your great-grandfather who has been blind from birth how to search for and download music onto an MP3 player or set up and run a DVD player. Creationism is about as satisfying as a starving child would be if you handed him a plate with a sheet of paper on it that has the word “food” written on it.

# You won’t bet $10 on the football game because a 50/50 chance isn’t good enough, but you have no problem gambling with your life on the nearly impossible odds of a cell randomly generating from nothing.²

More creationist ignorance. Science doesn’t think that cells randomly generated from nothing. Science believes that life started by a chemical reaction.

# Engaging the “slippery slope” fallacy, you think you can invalidate the whole bible by discrediting Genesis, since ‘the whole bible either stands together or falls apart’. However, when a Creationist tries to invalidate the whole doctrine of naturalistic evolution by exposing the sheer improbability and lack of evidence of abiogenesis, you note this point as ‘irrelevant’.

This is because even tho we don’t know all the answers we desire to find them rather than give up and assume that God is the answer. Theology hinders the advancement of science. Beyond that you believe your bible to be the infallible omniscient word of your god. It’s a little frightening to have modern science shake the foundations of your indoctrinated religious beliefs isn’t it? If science proves their hypothesis of abiogenesis and macroevolution it would completely render your beliefs and theology obsolete. Pushing your creationist agenda isn’t about science and progress… it’s about fear. So you are all trying to discredit science to save your religion.

# You ignore “Time Magazine’s” poll, which states that only 28% of Americans believe in evolution. But of course, “Time Magazine” must been run by creationists.

The collective ignorance of the American public is hardly scientific proof of creationism. 75% of Americans are Christians and were indoctrinated from birth about the creationist fantasy. The poll doesn’t reflect the opinions of the educated scientific community. That poll would have much drastically different numbers. 99% of earth and life scientists agree with the theory of evolution.

# You think that if schools teach the Intelligent Design theory of creation,they should also teach the “stork theory” of where babies come from.

That’s called sarcasm.

# You demand that Christians study advanced evolutionary biology before making claims about natural selection. You then claim that their theological ideas, which you have never examined before, are pure nonsense.

Theology isn’t science.

***********************************************************************

And finally, have some peer pressure with cheese:Holy Crap

1. StOP made minor grammatical and layout edits [↩]
2. Ed’s note: Since when is a football game ever a 50/50 chance? Here, try an experiment: record a football game. Say, the Super Bowl. Find out which team won. Then review your recording of the game and try to spot all the “chances.” In other words, find every substantial, verifiable instance in which there was an exact 50/50 chance of something happening or not happening. If you approach it scientifically, you’ll probably find none. The reason? Factors. A field goal kick equation may start off looking like Kicker (K) plus Ball (B) equals (or does not equal) Goal (G). However, it’s easy to start adding to that equation with variables, or factors that influence the outcome. Wind direction and speed, moisture/condensation, turf/grass grip, brand of Kicker’s shoes, what Kicker had to drink the night before, whether Kicker had a cold, and the condition of the holder and the ball. Those are only a handful of the variables in a field goal kick, which is only a small part of a football game. How could anyone possibly believe there’s a 50/50 chance? Heck, even the flip of a coin, how simple it may appear, is never exactly 50/50 (especially in the hands of an expert). -Procrustes [↩]

^{1 2}

1. No offense to the Rastafarians, of course. Jah was just the first god’s name I pulled out of the hat. My infinitely deep magic god-hat. So many names, so little time to gamble. [↩]
2. Art and Fear-Based Religious Oppressive Propaganic Theme, Jack Chick. Text, Procrustes, with the aid of Pascal and all of his dutiful followers. [↩]

This article is part of the series: Secrets of Christianity: Unearthed

“Today’s East-West dynamic began when Europe first invaded the Holy Land.”

That was the sub-heading for this article in the U.S. News and World Report. I found this set the tone for the rest of the article, which essentially set out to prove that Muslims are filled with hate and distorting reality in drawing comparisons between the Crusades and modern events.

The author states, “In the Arab and Muslim world, the Crusades have made an unfortunate rhetorical comeback.” He posits that their views have been “distorted almost beyond recognition by rhetoric and misunderstanding.” He accuses “angry Muslim nationalists” of adopting the Crusades as a “convenient metaphor.” He quotes historian Jonathan Riley-Smith, who claims the Muslims “turned the Western memory of the Crusades on its head and demonized it.” But what of the West? What of today’s Christians? After September 11^th, George W. Bush told the nation, “This crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile.”¹ When Jerusalem was captured from the Turks in 1917, British general Sir Edmund Allenby² proclaimed, “today the wars of the Crusades are completed.” Surely the author would have similar criticism for statements such as these? No, instead he insists, “Undoubtedly, George W. Bush had a different sense of the term in mind.” And as for Sir Allenby? Well, it was understandable, since the colonial powers considered the Crusaders to be their “ideological forebears.” Besides, according to the author, the Crusades weren’t very important to the Muslims before Sir Allenby’s time: “Before Europe’s colonial expansion into the Middle East, Muslim chroniclers paid little attention to the Crusades.” I see little reason to believe that anyone, from East or West, cannot plainly understand the horrible atrocities committed by Christians during the Crusades, yet according to this article, the East is primarily to blame for “demonizing” our conception of them.

The article refers to the Crusaders as “faithful,” “united under the cross” and “motivated by genuine religious feeling.” Riley-Smith is again quoted: “West European Catholics believed they could aid their salvation by fighting the infidel in the East. [Crusading is] as much a penance as fasting on bread and water.” In researching Jonathan Riley-Smith I found, unsurprisingly, that his views are greatly at odds with many other scholarly perceptions of the Crusades. He believes the Crusades were primarily a response to the aggression of Islam, and that the Crusaders were sincere and pious and demonstrated great personal sacrifice.³ The author obviously agrees when he refers to knights Godfrey of Bouillon and Tancred as “deeply religious.” He claims the belief that Crusaders may have been motivated by greed or land has been overturned. Yet, the history itself tells another story.

In 1095, the Byzantine Emperor, Alexios I Komnenos, sent his ambassadors to Pope Urban II to request help in taking Asia Minor from the Seljuk Turks. The Pope then called for the Council of Clermont, and there preached the First Crusade. Alexios met each leader personally to secure an oath that any conquered lands would be handed over to the Byzantine Empire.⁴ Yet, not one of these leaders intended on keeping their oath to Alexios. One by one, they each took the captured territories for themselves, and many of them became the leaders of these territories. Tancred actually refused to take the oath at all. So, were these knights “deeply religious” as U.S. News claims? Probably. But was their faith a replacement for greed? Absolutely not.

In one final jab at the Muslims, U.S. News purports that the industry, education, and culture that the Europeans gained as a result of their contact with the Arab world actually overshadows the atrocities they committed. He quotes Georgetown University’s John Voll: “Violent interactions were paralleled by economic and conceptual exchanges. In some ways the Crusades’ positive intellectual dimensions outweigh the negative impact.” He then quotes author Janet Abu-Lughod: “The Crusades…did integrate European travelers and traders into an ongoing world system. By stimulating an interest in the goods of the East, they had a double-back effect on the development of European economics.” U.S. News even takes these two comments a step further: “Even the Europeans’ increasing sophistication did little to redeem them in the eyes of the Muslims whose land they occupied and controlled.” I can’t think of a single reason why it should. Their families had been murdered, their holy sites destroyed, their land and homes stolen, but the author expects them to have been in awe of the Christians’ increasing “sophistication”? It’s hard for me to believe that U.S. News cannot recognize that the only people positively impacted in any way by the Crusades were the Christians, not the Muslims. For the East, the negative most certainly outweighs the positive, but that is not being considered in this article. I would implore anyone to consider the bias displayed here before giving any type of support to the U.S. News and World Report.

1. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010916-2.html [↩]
2. http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/allenby.htm [↩]
3. http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/jonathanrileysmith.html [↩]
4. A History of the Byzantine State and Society by Warren Treadgold, Stanford University Press, 1997 [↩]

The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever

selected by Christopher Hitchens

$17.5o, Paperback, Da Capo Press, Perseus.

Christopher Hitchens is a truly fascinating creature. I have met him on two separate occasions, and was intrigued, impressed, repulsed and annoyed by the man both times. He is a self-described contrarian, a position which demands confidence and a perverse pleasure at the destruction of the beliefs that most people hold sacred. Even Mother Teresa’s good intentions– usually lionized as an example of sympathetic humanity– suffer under his gimlet eye. While I sometimes strongly disagree with Mr. Hitchens, I will read anything he writes, because the man thinks, and he reads. In a world filled with people who habitually struggle with incomplete, incoherent, error-ridden sentences, he is fully armed with well-reasoned rhetorical elegance and acerbic wit. Christopher Hitchens can and does out-wit most of his opponents with half a liver tied behind his flask, and he doesn’t mind us knowing it.

When I came across this collection of readings that he selected and edited, I was intrigued. When I read the table of contents, I was enthralled. Hitchens’ selections form a powerful compendium of rationalist thought and argument. This collection bears his stamp of the unexpected perspective; the readings date from Antiquity to the present day, and come from all over the world.

Each reading provids cogent arguments useful to the rational activist who spends any amount of time refuting the most common and pernicious arguments used by religious apologists. This element was somewhat expected, but deeply appreciated. Few of us have infinite patience when dealing with the 75^th iteration of the “What is Morality to an Atheist” routine, or the 195^th verse of the old anthem “Atheism is a (fundamentalist) religion”. Elizabeth Anderson takes care of the first, while A.C. Grayling the latter.

One element that was unexpected, however, was the sustaining richness of the texts. These aren’t just diatribes to read only when angry, appalled or up in arms. Those things are represented, surely, but these are also texts to be savored, accented with poetry (of all things), humor, charm and wit. Ian McEwan’s “End of the World Blues” lopes through the history of the End of the World, one hysterical prediction at a time. Some people show up and do what they’re expected to do. Thomas Hardy breaks your heart, Mark Twain makes you laugh at something infuriating George Orwell shoots straight and Penn Jillette is Penn Jillette. Less expected are appearances by H.P. Lovecraft, Percy Bysshe Shelley (refuting Deism!) and Albert Einstein, whose vaguely Deist comments have been liberally misrepresented. Salman Rushdie’s “Imagine There’s No Heaven”: a Letter to the Sixth Billionth World citizen, might alone be worth the price of the book.

I cannot recommend this book highly enough. What I can do, however, is show you the table of contents:

Chapter 1: Lucretius, De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things), Book I, Translation by W. Hannaford Brown
Chapter 2: Omar Khayyám, Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám: A Paraphrase from Several Literal Translations by Richard Le Gallienne
Chapter 3: Thomas Hobbes, Of Religion, from Leviathon
Chapter 4: Benedict De Spinoza, Theological-Political Treatise
Chapter 5: David Hume, The Natural History of Religion, Of Miracles
Chapter 6: James Boswell, An Account of My Last Interview with David Hume, Esq.
Chapter 7: Percy Bysshe Shelley, A Refutation of Deism
Chapter 8: John Stuart Mill, Moral Influences in My Early Youth, From Autobiography
Chapter 9: Karl Marx, Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
Chapter 10: George Eliot, Evangelical Teaching
Chapter 11: Charles Darwin, Autobiography
Chapter 12: Leslie Stephen, An Agnostic’s Apology
Chapter 13: Anatole France, Miracle
Chapter 14: Mark Twain, Thoughts of God, From Fables of Man Bible Teaching and Religious Practice, From Europe and Elsewhere and A Pen Warmed Up in Hell
Chapter 15: Joseph Conrad, Authors’s Note to The Shadow Line
Chapter 16: Thomas Hardy, God’s Funeral
Chapter 17: Emma Goldman, The Philosophy of Atheism
Chapter 18: H.P. Lovecraft, A Letter on Religion
Chapter 19: Carl Van Doren, Why I am An Unbeliever
Chapter 20: H.L. Mencken, Memorial Service
Chapter 21: Sigmund Freud, From The Future of an Illusion, Translated and edited by James Strachey
Chapter 22: Albert Einstein, Selected Writings on Religion
Chapter 23: George Orwell, From A Clergyman’s Daughter
Chapter 24: John Betjeman, In Westminster Abbey
Chapter 25: Chapman Cohen, Monism and Religion An Old Story
Chapter 26: Bertrand Russell, An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish
Chapter 27: Philip Larkin, Aubade/ Church Going
Chapter 28: Martin Gardner, The Wandering Jew and the Second Coming
Chapter 29: Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World / The God Hypothesis
Chapter 30: John Updike, From Roger’s Version
Chapter 31: J.L. Mackie, Conclusions and Implications, From The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and against the Existence of God
Chapter 32: Michael Shermer, Genesis Revisited: A Scientific Creation Story
Chapter 33: A.J. Ayer, That Undiscovered Country
Chapter 34: Daniel C. Dennett, Thank Goodness!
Chapter 35: Charles Templeton, From A Farewell to God, A Personal Word, and Questions to Ask Yourself
Chapter 36: Richard Dawkins, Why There Almost Certainly is No God/ Gerin Oil/ and Atheists for Jesus
Chapter 37: Victor Stenger, From God: The Failed Hypothesis/ Cosmic Evidence
Chapter 38: Daniel C. Dennett, A Working Definition of Religion from “Breaking Which Spell?”
Chapter 39: Elizabeth Anderson, If God is Dead, Is Everything Permitted?
Chapter 40: Penn Jillette, There is No God
Chapter 41: Ian McEwan, End of the World Blues
Chapter 42: Steven Weinberg, What About God? From Dreams of a Final Theory
Chapter 43: Salman Rushdie, “Imagine There’s no Heaven”: A Letter to the Six Billionth World Citizen
Chapter 44: Ibn Warraq, The Koran, The Totalitarian Nature of Islam
Chapter 45: Sam Harris, In the Shadow of God, From The End of Faith
Chapter 46: A.C. Grayling, Can an Atheist Be a Fundamentalist? From Against All Gods
Chapter. 47: Ayaan Hirsi Ali: How (and Why) I Became an Infidel

This article is part of the series: Secrets of Christianity: Unearthed

In the 2007 special edition of US News & World Report, titled Secrets of Christianity, various references are made to ancient biblical texts.¹ These ancient texts are believed to be some of the original texts that comprise the religious books of Judaism and Christianity and provide historical information for the time period surrounding the formation of both religions. Given the significance of these works, the editors have allowed only passing references to be made to the content and context of these sources. Why do these ancient texts merit mostly passing references?

The most frequent references are made to the texts found near Nag Hammadi in Egypt and those of Qumran in Israel.² The Nag Hammadi texts are in better condition and are easier for scholars to discern their contents because they are a later edition than those of Qumran. However, the Qumran texts, known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, are considered the original biblical texts leading to Judaism and Christianity.³

What are the Dead Sea Scrolls?

The “scrolls” consist of thousands of documents found in caves located around the Dead Sea which were discovered between 1947 and 1956 by Bedouin shepherds and archaeologists. At most, there are 12 intact scrolls; the remainder is thousands of fragments of scrolls ranging in size from nearly a full page to pieces that are as small as fingernails. There is even one piece of pottery, known as an ostracon, which is inscribed in such as a way as to merit inclusion as subject material belonging to the scrolls. Together, this library of “inscriptional materials” consists of over 800 texts (once the thousands of documents were pieced together in a reasonably meaningful way – many still have not been).

What do the Dead Sea Scrolls represent?

The scrolls, written between 250 BCE and 68 CE, are the earliest known texts forming Judaism and Christianity. The scrolls are not complete religious works, nor are they complete libraries representing either religion. Nevertheless, these works are in their original forms and not subjugated by later interpretations, which were often biased by future languages and politics.

Scholars assume the scrolls complete part of an ambiguous historical period that coincides with early Jewish history. Only about 25% of the texts are considered biblical as all of the books of the Hebrew bible are contained within the scrolls except the book of Esther (noted by Shanks to be the only book which does not reference God – which by implication was either intentionally deleted from the collection or just coincidentally missing). The remainders are considered non-biblical in the sense that they are not canonical texts of any particular bible. The texts appear to reference various genres but include hymns, psalms, legal theories, non-religious literature and more. The Dead Sea Scrolls constitute a library, just not an entirely religious library.

Why were the scrolls hidden?

In ancient times, the regions comprising much of modern-day Israel, as well as parts of Jordan and Syria, were under constant conflict and shifting political control, culminating in the eventual invasion and occupation by the Romans in 70 CE. As a result of these conflicts, it is likely that these documents were moved from more theologically important locations, such as the religious temples in Jerusalem, to the locations in the caves surrounding the Dead Sea for safekeeping. For scholars of Judaism and Christianity, the year 70 CE, the year of Roman invasion, represents a theological and historical black hole because of missing documents that would otherwise provide a smoother join to the other works that date from the same period. In essence, a library of documents was moved, hidden and later forgotten forever only to be discovered many centuries later. The scrolls became an unintended time capsule, and no one is claiming divine intervention as the source or cause of their seclusion.

Why haven’t I heard more about the scrolls?

There is so much controversy over the Dead Sea Scrolls that any usefulness they represent is potentially obfuscated by the manner in which they were obtained, controlled and interpreted.

Because of the age of the scrolls and the manner in which they were stored (many were rolled up and stored inside vases and then stored in caves until discovered), the texts were subject to the ravages of weather and time. They disintegrated into thousands upon thousands of fragments that are, even today, being reassembled by appointed scholars. For much of their known existence, the scrolls were subjected to modern abuse through mishandling and inappropriate storage, as well as transport during wars between Israel, Egypt and Jordan. The scrolls continued to suffer the same problems but in different centuries.

Furthermore, the texts were first under control by Bedouin shepherds who had little knowledge of their importance. It is unknown what the Bedouin did with the first texts they discovered because some scrolls were found in the possession of Israeli antique dealers. To keep the texts from becoming further fragmented worldwide and preventing their reassembly, various groups joined to provide payment to the Bedouins as a method of securing the texts for study. For many years, various scholars and archaeologists were in possession and control of individual scrolls and rarely allowed anyone to see the contents of the scroll(s) in their possession. In the early 1990s, their hands were forced to share the contents of the scrolls when it was revealed that various non-scholars had possession of photographs which showed the details of the scroll contents. Actual physical inspection of the scrolls is still narrowly restricted and is often not possible because the scrolls have not received proper care since their discovery. The scrolls continue to deteriorate and some scrolls have become useless scraps of archaeology.

How do the scrolls relate to religion today?

First, one must ask which version of Judaism or Christianity may be impacted. These religious groups, especially the Christian ones, splintered over time and implement their belief systems differently. What impacts one may not impact another. Second, one must ask which book each of these groups uses to determine which tenets of belief to follow. The books of their bibles have been written reinterpretations of past versions and ultimately, the first interpretation of the texts of the scrolls. Every subsequent interpretation breeds a mutated set of beliefs. Religion has become a moving target.

Given the multitude of beliefs even within one branch of Judaism or Christianity, it is likely that the leaders of each belief system have no desire to have their belief systems fundamentally altered by a more accurate interpretation of the original texts. Even more recent corrections to previous interpretations have had little impact on how a particular religious belief is exercised. It is either ignored or derided. It appears that to correct interpretations of previous texts requires the formation of a new splinter version of the religion. Change comes only when change is desired.

The scrolls have little impact on today’s religions because most of the information held by the scrolls is non-biblical.⁴ The reassembled scrolls reveal circumstances that lead to the formation of Judaism and Christianity and of early religious and secular life. They reveal that many of the Christian traditions were actually Jewish traditions that continued even by identified Christians. Some traditions were later dropped by Jews and others were changed multiple times through separate Christian transformations.

Third, what level of importance can be given to documents that are so revered yet so poorly cared for? For what reason would God allow such treasured documents to be stored in forgotten places and disintegrate into nothing? These are the most important questions of all. Something as important as the original biblical texts for the religion of an omnipotent god should easily withstand the test of time. Instead, they have been largely forgotten, mishandled or guarded with the secrecy of the unknown. This situation hardly inspires one to think greatly of the importance of the scrolls to religious life, ancient or modern.

The editors of US News & World Report show little regard for what the Dead Sea Scrolls really mean for the significance of religion. Such an edition dedicated to religion should have had more than a passing reference to the most important documents of the foundation of Judaism and Christianity. While the documents may provide proof that ancient peoples believed in the Abrahamic God, and referencing the scrolls is appropriate for substantiating the source of the belief, the editors make no attempt to explore the circumstances of these ancient texts by themselves nor the potential they have to create skepticism for any of the Abrahamic faiths.

1. Mysteries of Faith: Secrets of Christianity. US News & World Report 2007, p. 7 [↩]
2. pp 8, 16. [↩]
3. Shanks, Understanding the dead sea scrolls. Random House, 1992, pp. xv, xix. [↩]
4. Shanks, xxi. [↩]

No Basis for Morality?

Concept: Procrustes

Art: Laura

In late 2007, well in time for the Christmas season, U.S. News & World Report began having book and magazine sellers across the nation stock their shelves with a “Collector’s Edition” magazine entitled: Mysteries of Faith: Secrets of Christianity.¹

The cover indicates some of the content: The Real Jesus, Miracles, The Lost Gospels, The Three Marys, Judas, Exorcisms, The Inquisition, Apocalypse 2012?

The innards have a frightening resemblance to a Sunday school lesson book. A painting from the late 1800s depicts what the magazine calls the “traditional view of Jesus”² as he “teaches a penitent sinner about God’s mercy.”³ Despite asking the question whether Jesus actually existed (at all, or as described in scriptural accounts), the language of the articles leans heavily toward lack of doubt, often describing Jesus in ways that mingle praise, admiration, and worship. “The most fascinating of all [the biblical] figures, of course, is Jesus himself, a brilliant, witty, intensely attractive, enigmatic, and visionary man, whose life, death, and Resurrection will continue to invite either speculation, skepticism, or fervent belief.” ⁴

“Jesus may have calmed the storm in a boat like the one at left.”⁵

“Today, there is broad consensus among even the most skeptical of scholars that Jesus probably did perform feats that would have been perceived as miracles at the time.”⁶

“”There is little doubt that Jesus performed exorcisms as they were understood in his time,” says John J. Rousseau, an archaeologist. “It was just a natural thing to do for an itinerant charismatic healer and teacher… and he was not the only one to do it.” ⁷

This apparent default assumption that Jesus lived as depicted in the bible is complemented by the magazine’s continued mischaracterization of skepticism and reason. “As recently as 25 years ago, a reasonable person weighing the purely scientific evidence on the issue [of the origin of the universe and humans] would likely have come down on the side of skepticism. That is no longer the case. The burden of proof has shifted. The barrier that modern science appeared to erect to faith has fallen. Of course, the anthropic principle tells us nothing about the Person of God or the existence of an afterlife. But it does offer as strong an indication as reason and science alone could be expected to provide that God exists.” ⁸ Yet, U.S. News fails to justify such a broad and unlikely assertion that a reasonable person today would, by default, believe in God, putting skepticism, reason, and science aside, apparently waiting for them to disprove God. The entire magazine reads as if it has chosen its authors and sources specifically based on this flawed principle.

It would not be an issue if this were a Christian publication, indicating that it was written from a Christian perspective (with an air of, but not actual, skepticism). However, this is U.S. News & World Report, which considers itself “the leader in delivering reliable information that [its] audience can act on, whether it’s voting for president or selecting a healthcare plan. [Its] credible, trusted content sets us apart—and it also propels [it] forward.” ⁹ The magazine well-known for its school rankings ¹⁰, boasts on its cover, “Rated America’s most credible print news source.”

Based on what seems to be U.S. News’ obvious pro-Christian bias in its self-proclaimed credible and trusted content, State of Protest has taken upon itself the duty to examine some of the articles in this magazine and address them in a scholarly manner to determine if U.S. News & World Report really should be calling itself “the most credible” anything when it publishes Collector’s Edition magazines such as this.

Keep an eye out for State of Protest articles headed “Secrets” for the continuation of this review.

-Procrustes

Also see:¹¹

1. Mysteries of Faith: Secrets of Christianity. U.S.News & World Report 2007 [↩]
2. p. 4 [↩]
3. pp. 2-3 [↩]
4. p. 11 [↩]
5. p. 11 [↩]
6. p. 18 [↩]
7. p. 18 [↩]
8. p. 75 [↩]
9. http://mediakit.usnews.com/brand/history.php?openNode=0,0 [↩]
10. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/rankindex_brief.php [↩]
11. http://jesusdynasty.com/blog/2007/12/13/jesus-dynasty-profiled-in-usnewsworldreport/ [↩]