Saturday, February 13, 2016
The Bible as bad writing
**When I was a Bible student, reading it every day, reading about it often, interpreting it for various audiences I would deal with the obvious mess that the Bible is by explaining that the message got so polluted by various political, mental, technical and cultural influences that the REAL meaning, the SPIRITUAL meaning became obscured.
This is how Mary Baker Eddy explained it. She of course set herself up —as so many have —as someone who had the unique divine inspiration to comb through it and discern the SPIRITUAL meaning that others mostly missed. But in the end she did what just about every Bible thumper does: cherry-pick passages here and there and weave them into support for a particular thesis. (Her "proof" that she was indeed this inspired scribe was that the system of "spiritual healing" that she invented based on it worked. But it doesn't.)
I didn’t grasp this at the time because I, too, was working under the assumption — delusion — that there is a divine Agent active in the universe who is trying to get through to us but for some never-explained reason has to use these woefully inadequate scribes to do it. As I studied more about the history of what we today call the Bible, I learned that it was a particular compilation of various myths, rumors, cultic rituals and other so-called doctrines of christianity, which freely circulated within that halcyon land mass we today call the middle east. Which stories got compiled into the present Bible depended on the opinions and political clout of various church authorities and scholars at the time. The Emperor Constantine, knowing that nothing unites like a common delusion — diverse people holding to the same religious precepts — decided that there should be one religion, and therefore one religious document that everyone would have to take as the final statement on the truth of Christianity. So he commanded that it be created. Yes, the Bible was created at a certain time and place. Those texts that became the canonical “winners” excluded many — most — of the “gospels” floating around in the 4th century and earlier. With the discovery of the Nag Hammadi, an ancient library, biblical scholars had to deal with some of those contemporaneous texts: The gospel of Thomas, of Mary Magdalene, and a slew of other luminaries that would have been quite well known to the average person in the 4th century but who got obliterated by the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Not that those other pieces of oral tradition were much clearer or more “inspired” than what got canonized but they illustrate the arbitrariness of what so many people consider a finished, divine work. And reading them was one of the reasons why my faith eventually crumbled.
Recently, it was refreshing to encounter a blog called Southern Skeptic, since I now live in the middle of the Bible belt where the State legislature is currently working on six or seven bills about “religious freedom,” which obviously is only about freedom for the mainline christian religion, preferably of the evangelical variety, and oppression for everybody else. (You can imagine what atrocities they will try to push through.)
The writer, known only as “Matt,” explores his journey from fundamentalism to skepticism. His article, 7 Reasons God is a Terrible Writer does a good job of filleting this revered mashup that has been directly responsible for so much evil in human history. He asks:
This is how Mary Baker Eddy explained it. She of course set herself up —as so many have —as someone who had the unique divine inspiration to comb through it and discern the SPIRITUAL meaning that others mostly missed. But in the end she did what just about every Bible thumper does: cherry-pick passages here and there and weave them into support for a particular thesis. (Her "proof" that she was indeed this inspired scribe was that the system of "spiritual healing" that she invented based on it worked. But it doesn't.)
I didn’t grasp this at the time because I, too, was working under the assumption — delusion — that there is a divine Agent active in the universe who is trying to get through to us but for some never-explained reason has to use these woefully inadequate scribes to do it. As I studied more about the history of what we today call the Bible, I learned that it was a particular compilation of various myths, rumors, cultic rituals and other so-called doctrines of christianity, which freely circulated within that halcyon land mass we today call the middle east. Which stories got compiled into the present Bible depended on the opinions and political clout of various church authorities and scholars at the time. The Emperor Constantine, knowing that nothing unites like a common delusion — diverse people holding to the same religious precepts — decided that there should be one religion, and therefore one religious document that everyone would have to take as the final statement on the truth of Christianity. So he commanded that it be created. Yes, the Bible was created at a certain time and place. Those texts that became the canonical “winners” excluded many — most — of the “gospels” floating around in the 4th century and earlier. With the discovery of the Nag Hammadi, an ancient library, biblical scholars had to deal with some of those contemporaneous texts: The gospel of Thomas, of Mary Magdalene, and a slew of other luminaries that would have been quite well known to the average person in the 4th century but who got obliterated by the First Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Not that those other pieces of oral tradition were much clearer or more “inspired” than what got canonized but they illustrate the arbitrariness of what so many people consider a finished, divine work. And reading them was one of the reasons why my faith eventually crumbled.
 |
| From Southern Skeptic article |
Recently, it was refreshing to encounter a blog called Southern Skeptic, since I now live in the middle of the Bible belt where the State legislature is currently working on six or seven bills about “religious freedom,” which obviously is only about freedom for the mainline christian religion, preferably of the evangelical variety, and oppression for everybody else. (You can imagine what atrocities they will try to push through.)
The writer, known only as “Matt,” explores his journey from fundamentalism to skepticism. His article, 7 Reasons God is a Terrible Writer does a good job of filleting this revered mashup that has been directly responsible for so much evil in human history. He asks:
“So what would we expect to find in a book that was written by God (or “divinely inspired”)? Here are seven suggestions.(I’ll just quote the top line items and encourage you to read the details:)
1. It would be well-organized.While many would object to that last feature, he makes a convincing case that most of the stories are strange, pointless and/or disgusting. He prefers hundreds of other, human writers. As do I.
2. It would be more specific.
3. It would be easy to understand.
4. It would be perfectly consistent.
5. It would have specific, verifiable prophecies
6. It would contain knowledge that humans couldn’t have had.
7. It would have beautiful, heart-rending poetry and stories
Ask a believer why the Bible is inspired and the answer you get is, the Bible says it is. That's known as a tautology. But even if you accept that it could be inspired and absolutely true and an unerring guide to righteous human living, that acceptance would most likely crumble once you start reading it Because the writing is so bad.
Sunday, February 07, 2016
Maintenance or Revolution?
**The following is response to a FB post made by a friend:
___, I’ve appreciated your posts on FB and have wanted to chime in on the conversations about the campaigns, but I really don’t want to get into scraps with the likes of ___, who rails against a polarized nation and then goes to show why it’s so polarized. A one-issue voter is a failed voter, one who doesn’t/won’t understand that governance is complex. The Tea Partiers in Congress are a good example of what happens — and doesn’t happen — when these narrow thinkers get power. Worrying about unborn, non-viable “babies” is an effective distraction/excuse for not dealing with the general realities of life. Some of these realities concern actually born babies — most of whom are black or brown, poor and extra susceptible to poisoning — who have to suffer the consequences of such blinkered thinking,
___, I’ve appreciated your posts on FB and have wanted to chime in on the conversations about the campaigns, but I really don’t want to get into scraps with the likes of ___, who rails against a polarized nation and then goes to show why it’s so polarized. A one-issue voter is a failed voter, one who doesn’t/won’t understand that governance is complex. The Tea Partiers in Congress are a good example of what happens — and doesn’t happen — when these narrow thinkers get power. Worrying about unborn, non-viable “babies” is an effective distraction/excuse for not dealing with the general realities of life. Some of these realities concern actually born babies — most of whom are black or brown, poor and extra susceptible to poisoning — who have to suffer the consequences of such blinkered thinking,
There is an important distinction between the two Democratic candidates. As Robert Reich has said:
I’ve known Hillary Clinton since she was 19 years old, and have nothing but respect for her. In my view, she’s the most qualified candidate for president of the political system we now have.
But Bernie Sanders is the most qualified candidate to create the political system we should have, because he’s leading a political movement for change.
I just turned 75. I will feel no effects from the outcome of this election. My Social Security will continue. So will my Medicare. I live in a comfortable home with all the gadgets and amenities I could desire (thanks Apple discount). I even live now in a Red State but don’t expect to be persecuted much for being a Liberal/Progressive. Rednecks tend to leave old farts alone.
BUT, my kids and grandkids and people of your generation will have to live with the consequences of this election for a long time. And those consequences could be quite severe, — sometimes I think even apocalyptic: voting rights curtailed, police violence unrestrained, mass incarcerations, more medical bankruptcies, and other kinds of right-wing destructive lunacy rampant.
Despite being actuarially insulated from its consequences, I’m really concerned about how this election goes. It’s different from elections of recent times, even 2008’s watershed. That moment gave the first hint of the stakes on today’s table. Obama’s election wasn’t just about a black man being elected president. It was an indication that the public wants to be involved in the political process. Another word for that is “revolution.”
With all the trumpeting of personalities in the campaigns, the media is missing the point — maybe not missing it but attempting to distract from it: the choice is between maintenance and revolution. If a Democrat is elected the people either will get more power or they will stay unempowered. If a Republican, it’ll be the end of democracy, religious fanaticism will lead to the western version of sharia law, segregation, inequality and poverty will increase, and we’ll probably invade somewhere and lose.
I’m often tempted by Hillary’s “competence” and political savvy. She may maintain Obama’s management of government, but that would not be an entirely good thing. Obama has disappointed progressives by being a left-centrist. I understand that political realities may dictate that, and one person can hardly do what has needed to be done since the 2000 election debacle. No, it wouldn’t be as bad as a Republican victory in November. But that isn’t the only choice this season. Hillary would be maintenance. Bernie would be revolution.
No, Bernie can’t do it all by himself. But as a seasoned member of Congress he certainly knows the ropes when it comes to bipartisanship — after all, he’s had to work with both parties most of his career! But just as Obama’s inexperience was mitigated by his choice of advisors and Cabinet, so Sanders will lead in concert with like-minded people. And let’s not forget the importance of Supreme Court posts that will likely be filled during the next president’s term. A Democrat will help steer the court leftward, whereas a Republican will steer it toward more Citizens United, etc.
So, this year I will “waste” my vote on the prospect of revolution. I will vote for Bernie in the Primary and the Democrat in November.
I’m heartened by your activism and hope you will increase and extend it.
Friday, January 29, 2016
Recent books read
**A family member tries to dissuade me from reading books that aren't hope-inducing. I told him I don't read to gain hope. I read because I'm driven by inquisitiveness. And sometimes what I read convinces me that darkness is stronger than light. What think you of this list of recent readings"
The Map and the Territory - Houellebecq
A Different Kind of Same - Clink
Caught in the Pulpit: Leaving Belief Behind - Dennett et al
Our Mathematical Universe - Tegmark
Rise and Fall of the Third Reich - Shirer
The Relic Master - Buckley
Submission - Houellebecq
Career of Evil - Rowland/Galbreath
Corrupted - Scotoline
The Song Machine - Seabrook
Brief Candle in the Dark - Dawkins
Islam and the Future of Tolerance - Harris
The Girl in the Spider’s Web - Lagercrantz
A Cure for Suicide - Jessie Bell
Finders Keepers - King
Mr Mercedes - King
Between the World and Me - Coates
Speak - Hall
Waking Up- Harris
Sunday, January 24, 2016
Nevermore Evernote
**When the Evernote app came out several years ago, I adopted it as my main vault of ideas and potentially useful information. It also contained records of some of my darker thoughts and interests, things I didn't want to leave on a personal device. It got to be so useful that I eventually moved up to the paid Pro version.
But then recently Apple came out with its updated Notes app. It's most of what Evernote was, but free. I'm still concerned that my data is in the cloud, but I trust a little more in Apple's security. I downloaded everything and put it into Apple Notes. When my Evernote subscription runs out in a few months, I'll not renew and just keep the free version with its limited storage but email and web clipper features.
Monday, January 18, 2016
Authoritarians and demagogues
**I wrote earlier about the Trump phenomenon and the problem with focussing too much on his personality and not enough on the mental state of the electorate. I compared it to that of Germany in the years before the Nazi takeover.
Now there's a Politico article that adds some psychology to my observations. Matthew Macwilliams states:
Trump’s electoral strength—and his staying power—have been buoyed, above all, by Americans with authoritarian inclinations. And because of the prevalence of authoritarians in the American electorate, among Democrats as well as Republicans, it’s very possible that Trump’s fan base will continue to grow.
Read more:
...
Authoritarianism is not a new, untested concept in the American electorate. Since the rise of Nazi Germany, it has been one of the most widely studied ideas in social science. While its causes are still debated, the political behavior of authoritarians is not. Authoritarians obey. They rally to and follow strong leaders. And they respond aggressively to outsiders, especially when they feel threatened.
Instead of thinking for themselves, instead of making the effort to see the big picture as well as the important nuances about governing, too many voters are willing to let a strong man lead. Combine a strong man, a purchased Congress and a submissive public and we could throw the country into a dictatorship.
Saturday, January 02, 2016
The Dawn of Demagoguery
**“Demagogues thrive when we’re cynical about truth.” (Michael Signer in a recent interview on the podcast “On the Media.”)
"The truth is like poetry. And most people hate poetry." (The Big Short)
trumpery: "attractive articles of little value or use; practices or beliefs that are superficially or visually appealing but have little real value or worth." Also at Merrier-Webster dictionary and "The Relic Master"
Tracking Donald Trump since he became a presidential candidate, I’ve become more and more worried. Not about Trump himself, but about the enthusiastic response from the American electorate.
To Trump, and certain elements of the media, high poll numbers are the legitimizing factor of his candidacy even though his popularity comes mainly from Republicans who respond to polls. Even so, today's political climate speaks more about the state of the American public’s psyche, than about any specific issue Trump raises.
A friend recently wrote me that at the museum where he works there are eleven TV sets, each tuned to a different cable news channel. All but one feature non-stop Trump. The lone exception, Al Jazeera, has little time for Trump - an indication that to the rest of the world there are more important things to think about than the antics of America's political clowns.
There will always be unsuitable candidates for public office, and some of them will even rise to prominence. But in the end, the public makes a more sober choice. Usually. This isn’t to say there haven’t been bad presidents. But none could be categorized as demagogues. What’s troubling is that the public seems so ignorant of the implications of its infatuation with this bloviating outlier, and his competitors for the Republican nomination. It's troubling because history shows how badly things can go when the public allows a demagogue to become a leader.
I once worked with someone whose parents lived in Germany during the time of the Third Reich. She tried to excuse the German people (including her parents) from complicity in placing Hitler at the head of their country by claiming that most people didn’t realize the extent of the evil that was going on. But if you read detailed histories of that era, such as Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," it’s hard to believe any German didn’t know what was going on. Hitler’s vilification and victimization of the Jews, for instance, was a loudly proclaimed policy from the beginning. And his war on democracy in Germany was a major plank in his campaigns for leadership.
By his own account, he realized that after two failed attempts, a violent overthrow of the government was impossible. But a takeover by democratic means was much easier. And a major tool in capturing the leadership was the clever and extensive use of propaganda (aka the media). He manipulated public perceptions so that the people would willingly give up their democratic freedoms. The rest is horrific history.
I have believed for a while that more than ever something similar could happen here. Trump is a master manipulator of public perceptions, a self-promoter and fake populist. Making fun of him won’t derail him. Neither will calling him names or even criticizing him. Attention must be focused on the danger of the public’s own infatuation with this demagogue. The public needs to awaken to its complicity in this attack on its own fundamental interests.
Who or what can cause this awakening? I don’t yet see any clear indication. Whoever or whatever it is has to be a good student of history and good communicator of that history. Is it hopeless to expect the media to be that informed voice? It's hard to be hopeful. The recent film, Spotlight, chronicles one of the last great media victories in the fight against public cynicism and institutional corruption. This kind of investigative journalism happened early in the 21st century. By now, it appears that voice has been all but silenced.
To Trump, and certain elements of the media, high poll numbers are the legitimizing factor of his candidacy even though his popularity comes mainly from Republicans who respond to polls. Even so, today's political climate speaks more about the state of the American public’s psyche, than about any specific issue Trump raises.
A friend recently wrote me that at the museum where he works there are eleven TV sets, each tuned to a different cable news channel. All but one feature non-stop Trump. The lone exception, Al Jazeera, has little time for Trump - an indication that to the rest of the world there are more important things to think about than the antics of America's political clowns.
There will always be unsuitable candidates for public office, and some of them will even rise to prominence. But in the end, the public makes a more sober choice. Usually. This isn’t to say there haven’t been bad presidents. But none could be categorized as demagogues. What’s troubling is that the public seems so ignorant of the implications of its infatuation with this bloviating outlier, and his competitors for the Republican nomination. It's troubling because history shows how badly things can go when the public allows a demagogue to become a leader.
I once worked with someone whose parents lived in Germany during the time of the Third Reich. She tried to excuse the German people (including her parents) from complicity in placing Hitler at the head of their country by claiming that most people didn’t realize the extent of the evil that was going on. But if you read detailed histories of that era, such as Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich," it’s hard to believe any German didn’t know what was going on. Hitler’s vilification and victimization of the Jews, for instance, was a loudly proclaimed policy from the beginning. And his war on democracy in Germany was a major plank in his campaigns for leadership.
By his own account, he realized that after two failed attempts, a violent overthrow of the government was impossible. But a takeover by democratic means was much easier. And a major tool in capturing the leadership was the clever and extensive use of propaganda (aka the media). He manipulated public perceptions so that the people would willingly give up their democratic freedoms. The rest is horrific history.
I have believed for a while that more than ever something similar could happen here. Trump is a master manipulator of public perceptions, a self-promoter and fake populist. Making fun of him won’t derail him. Neither will calling him names or even criticizing him. Attention must be focused on the danger of the public’s own infatuation with this demagogue. The public needs to awaken to its complicity in this attack on its own fundamental interests.
Who or what can cause this awakening? I don’t yet see any clear indication. Whoever or whatever it is has to be a good student of history and good communicator of that history. Is it hopeless to expect the media to be that informed voice? It's hard to be hopeful. The recent film, Spotlight, chronicles one of the last great media victories in the fight against public cynicism and institutional corruption. This kind of investigative journalism happened early in the 21st century. By now, it appears that voice has been all but silenced.
As with the German populace in the ‘20s and ‘30s, general apathy and cynicism about the truth combined with the thrills of an exaggerated nationalism and xenophobia contribute to Trump’s popularity. Many Americans are impatient with the governing process and prefer the quickness and finality promised by a reality show President ("You're fired"), as opposed to the relative slowness of a process that copes with the complexities inherent in the separation of powers instituted by the Constitution. Unconsciously they don’t really want a President, they want a dictator, someone to make all the decisions and to keep them entertained but a little paranoid all the time. It’s that vulnerability, exacerbated by the media, that could lead to the unthinkable.
I'm increasingly concerned that super-nationalism is so close to the surface. And close to home. The other day I happened to glance out the window and saw our next door neighbor folding up a stepladder after having installed a flag holder and American flag on the light pole between our properties. When I lived in California, flag displays in my neighborhood usually indicated Republicanism, a thumb in the eye of the prevailing liberalism. I didn’t have the guts (or the clothing) to go out and ask him what that was all about. I suspect it was a response to the Paris attacks. Was it supposed to mean that he thought we were under attack now? Troubling to have this kind of nationalism be so close! Georgia is one of the states that announced its unwillingness to admit Syrian refugees, more signs of xenophobia that make me feel like a stranger in a strange land since moving here.
When the second Trump sign went up in my neighborhood, I promptly joined the county Democratic party organization and attended a holiday gathering. Pretty low-key. I’m hoping things will liven up after the new year and 2016 campaigning starts in earnest. In the meantime, I’m still listening for a strong voice to emerge that won’t just be about this or that candidate. But about the quality of the public’s psyche. Only a public made aware of the dangers of demagoguery can put up the resistance needed to neutralize the steady march toward the unthinkable: a US dictatorship.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)