The End of Biblical Studies by Hector Avalos

I just posted my review of this hard-hitting book, The End of Biblical Studies. I welcome all comments.

Tom

Wonderful review, and I am especially grateful for the tidbit at the beginning about Biblical Archaeology Review. It's one of those publications I am always so tempted to subscribe to, but now I won't have to waste my money on apologetics.

#1
You might be interested in the group Atheists review books. Nothing much happens there, maybe you could get it to be a bit more active.

Is Avalos's view of the possibility of reconstructing the original text really as negative as you make it: "... nor ... can an original text ever be reconstructed."? Clearly we will never know with absolute certainty exactly what the original texts were, but I would expect that we could get reasonably close in many cases by working back through the history of the differences between variants, much as biologists do (basically by using methods first developed by linguists and textual scholars).

>2 DaynaRT:

Thank you for your nice comment. I've come to the conclusion that there really isn't such a thing as Biblical archaeology because, after over a century of digging in the Near East, archaeologists have failed to turn up much of anything that relates to the Bible. The Bible is a book of myths and legends, and any historical material in it is there more by coincidence than design.

Tom

(5) the pretense of relevance causes the Bible to overshadow other, more worthy, ancient literature, which is left to languish untranslated and unstudied;

Could you please give a f'rinstance here? Particularly as to the "untranslated" part?

>3 jimroberts:

Yes, Avalos's view is as negative as I described it. Also take a look at Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus, in which he states that there are more variants among the New Testament sources than there are words in the New Testament. Here are a few daunting facts:

There are over 5,000 ancient NT manuscript sources, but no complete copies of any one of the NT books that's earlier than the 4th century--and no fragments earlier than the 3rd century. There are over 1,400 ancient copies of the Gospel of Mark with nine different endings among them. There are no Christian artifacts earlier than the 3rd century, although we do know that many Christian writings that have come down to us in copies can be dated to the 2nd century. However, no Christian writings, including the books of the NT, can be dated with any certainty earlier than the 2nd century: The 1st-century dating of the gospels and the writings of Paul is pure apologetic.

And even if scholars could reconstruct an original text, what good would it do except to satisfy antiquarian interests? As a society, we need to move beyond our reliance on sacred literature. Actually, most of the West has moved beyond it. It's largely in the US that the Bible is still regarded as relevant.

Tom

>5 gmork:

For example, there are piles of Mesopotamian texts on museum shelves that scholars haven't gotten to.

>7 MobileMaker:

Aren't those mostly things like tax records, records of grain harvests, (probably amounts to the same thing) etc.? Even assuming they're not, how can anyone claim to make a judgment as to being more (or less) worthy than how translators are currently spending their time?

Just seemed kind of out of character from the rest of the review.

>8 gmork:

You asked for an example, and I gave you one. Among the Mesopotamian texts are literary works, incidentally. But there are also worthy ancient texts that have been translated, but are ignored by everyone except specialists, such as the romance novels contained in Collected Ancient Greek Novels (University of California Press, 1989). Another example is the beautiful "Great Hymn to the Aten" written by Pharaoh Akhenaten. How many American school children are aware of it?

Avalos also provides examples to show that the Bible doesn't have the aesthetic qualities often claimed for it by those who want to sneak it into public schools as literature. It makes no sense to teach it as literature while ignoring the greatest works of ancient literature.

Tom

It sounds like you are rebuking humanity for prefering Hemingway to Joyce, or Clancy to Ludlum.

The best book I have read the last ten years was a book called Gilligan's Wake. It was funny, poignant, meaningful and an artful portrayal of 20th century America.

Few people have heard of it. Should I go on a rampage because everyone seemed to get excited about Lord of the Rings just because of the stupid movie, and should I start slamming LotR, because people prefer it over my favorite book?

I think not.

Your comment is a non sequitur. We do not have legions of citizens claiming that we should use Hemingway to define our behavior and values, as Christians claim for the Bible--although Hemingway might make more sense.

I can see studying the Bible as one of many ancient cultural artifacts, but it's importance begins and ends there. The most interesting aspects of the Bible have little to do with what it says, but how it came to be and why it says what is says. But there's nothing to be gained from it beyond academic interest.

Tom

Regarding the lack of translation issue -- Is it your experience that, in fact, scholars and translators ARE working on Biblical texts to the exclusion of other texts? My observance as an outsider seems to show that LOTS of texts -- from many cultures, eras, and languages -- are not translated to English (or other languages), which is a huge sorrow for those of us who can't read the originals. :(

But I always figured it was due to a lot of different factors, such as lack of expertise (especially perhaps with obscure or dead languages), lack of time, lack of resources/funding, or so on. Is there really that much focus on Biblical texts (outside of Jewish and Christian circles), and does it truly cut into time/resources for other texts (at least in the area of ancient Near Eastern studies)? I'm not a scholar or expert in this area, and it's a line of thought I hadn't encountered before, so I was just curious.

Thanks for the interesting and detailed book review.

Seems odd to me to suggest only academic interest to Bible study when a significant portion of the world's population believe this to have been the word of their God. Sort of like dismissing Mt. Rainier as just a transient geographical eructation: it certainly is, but while it's there it has to be dealt with.

>12 Essa:

I don't have a quantitative answer to your question. I reported Avalos's position in my review. That said, take a look at the huge Bible publishing industry, and you can see that there's a lot more demand for Bible translation than for translations of other ancient literature.

Tom

>13 mhodder:

One of Avalos's goals is to end belief in the Bible. He regards such belief as harmful and misplaced. When you study the Bible objectively, you see that there's nothing special about it. Compare it to, say, The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius--a better guide to behavior than anything in the New Testament, and better written.

Tom

I can't that I agree or disagree with the book without a bit more information, but it certainly sounds interesting. I'll be keeping my eyes open for this one.

Are you opposed to demand?

(That seems like beinig opposed to Mt. Ranier.)

Maybe I should rephrase it.

Demand can be like Mt. St. Helen's. It is there. It got very dangerous, and killed many people. But opposing it is futile.

In terms of religious behavior, it is, for better or worse, a part of human make up. For some reason, we evolved with that as an essential part of who we are as a species. (I speak of humanity in general here. I know that not every example of human exhibits this trait.)

Perhaps that trait is starting to disappear, but since it is still around, I guess we can assume it has a legitimate purpose. Or we can suppose that natural processes will take over, and the trait will disappear over time. But as a biological phenomenon it is neither good nor bad. It simply is.

Being upset at it is like being upset at the polar bear that mauled the kids on the North Slope. Polar bears do that. Scholars are not immune from that trait, so they are acting according to their nature when they prefer one text over another.

To say that the Bible serves no purpose denies, I think, our basic biology, given its evolutionary role in the development of humanity.

>17 Arctic-Stranger:

I'm opposed to irrational demand. As ideas change, demands change. Avalos is trying to change ideas. We've seen a dramatic drop off of Christian practice in Europe, and it's on a down-hill slide in the US. Perhaps Avalos and others with similar ideas can increase the rate of the slide. For example, Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus was a bestseller, and its main trust was to show how unreliable, and unrecoverable, the Biblical texts are. I can imagine that more than a few readers of that book walked away with less regard for the Bible than they had before.

Tom

>18 Arctic-Stranger:

Religious belief isn't in the human makeup; its simply an error in thinking. Once the error is corrected in the individual, religious belief disappears. Not everyone is open to reason, but a change in the zeit geist will take care of most of it. Not many people worship Isis these days, for example, and I expect that Jesus will suffer her fate someday.

Tom

#6
"Avalos's view is as negative as I described it."

Thanks, that was my main question.

"... there are more variants among the New Testament sources than there are words in the New Testament."

Yes, but more data mean better chances of reconstruction, not worse.

"There are no Christian artefacts earlier than the 3rd century, ..."

There are no sequenced genomes earlier than the 20th century - so what? Given lots of them, we can reconstruct history, apparently with reasonable success in some cases and getting better with more data.

"There are over 1,400 ancient copies of the Gospel of Mark with nine different endings among them."

Maybe we can't get very close to the end of Mark without more data. Getting fairly close, and knowing pretty well how close, still has value. And maybe we will find more, or maybe even some older, variants as research goes on.

"... what good would it do except to satisfy antiquarian interests? As a society, we need to move beyond our reliance on sacred literature."

I completely agree with you on that, except that there is some place for antiquarian interests. And in fact the very knowledge that there are large numbers of variant texts and knowledge of the fallible human methods that lead to the texts now commonly taken as authoritative helps to undercut reliance on sacred literature.

#9 "Avalos also provides examples to show that the Bible doesn't have the aesthetic qualities often claimed for it by those who want to sneak it into public schools as literature. It makes no sense to teach it as literature while ignoring the greatest works of ancient literature."

To me, the value of the Bible as literature depends not on the qualities of the original texts, but on the qualities of the translations available to us. I am a big fan of the AV as literature, while deploring its teaching. I agree that this is not for everybody. I have failed even to get any of my children to appreciate the language of the AV.

Re #13 "... a significant portion of the world's population believe this to have been the word of their God. "

And the sort of scholarship that Avalos is apparently decrying shows on what insecure ground they build (compare Matthew 7:24-27).
Though his point is maybe that we already have enough for this purpose and could move on to other research areas.

(Edited for typos)

I enjoyed the Avalos book, read it some 8-10 months ago. That having been said, it read at times like I was sitting at a religious studies conference and listening to interdepartmental squabbles. I think he has a point, namely that in the absence of new material, that there isn't that much more to be said about what we do have, and what current scholars are doing amounts to splitting hairs finer and finer to no apparent gain. I have spoken with some religious scholars who, while they probably wouldn't take the hard-line position that Avalos has taken, would probably agree that the sand has been sifted pretty finely to this point.

I do think it's a well done book, and I have wondered what sort of impact, if any, it'll have on the field. I suspect not much--jobs are at stake!

How can there be an error in thinking that persists for most of human existence? If that were ALL religion were, the idea of its longevity and pervasiveness (perversity?) would be a true evolutionary conundrum. How could something SO important to humanity over the ages be a mere error? If that is true, then evolution has a piss poor of processing itself.

I am not arguing for religion per se here, but I am saying that it has an evolutionary function. Perhaps that function is on the decline, perhaps not. (It depends on which countries and cultures you look at. Europe is definitely declining, but Africa and Latin America are not.)

In a sense it sounds like you are saying either a) religion is human mistake, that arose apart from our evolutionary process, which raises the interesting question about where it DID come from, or b) I don't like religion, therefore it has no value, or c) religion has no value to me, therefore it has not value, or d) something I am totally not understanding.

>23 Arctic-Stranger:

Aristotle defined man as the rational animal. That doesn't mean that man always will be rational, but that he's the only being that can be rational. Religion is the result of irrationality. Why is it so pervasive? Because using reason is harder.

In any case, I can't speak for Hector Avalos; I simply reviewed his book. I recommend that you read it, and write you own review.

Tom

Aristotle is not a biologist. Well, not one who knew anything about evolution. As a scientist, he was a bust.

If humans are rational and religion is irrational, where the deuce did it come from? If using reason is harder, therefore most or many people don't use their reason, than how can we really say that humans are rational?

Edited to add: After immersing myself in biblical studies for years, in both Germany and at Duke, I could have told you that Biblical Studies were at a standstill, if not a stopping point. That is the least controversial thing I have read on this thread.

>25 Arctic-Stranger:

One of the premiere evolutionary biologists today is the atheist Richard Dawkins. He somehow has missed finding the religion gene. He does know a delusion when he sees one, however.

Tom

This is a serious question. Is evolution solely gene based? Neuroscience has shown "religious" centers in the brain, where spiritual experiences are located. Does there have to be a gene to carry out the process? (I would really surprised if there was a religion gene, but how do we explain that part of our brain that is designed to process (or create) religious experiences?

#23 Arctic-Stranger: "... How could something SO important to humanity over the ages be a mere error? If that is true, then evolution has a piss poor of processing itself. ..."

I can't actually parse that, but I gather that you have invented a theory, which you call "evolution", which predicts that religion would not persist for three thousand generations unless it were, in the long term, advantageous.

You should know that there is a pre-existing theory with a similar name, the biological theory of evolution, which is still used successfully on a daily basis by biologists, geologists, medical researcher and others, which does a very good job of fitting observations and making successful predictions, and which does not have the defect of making the prediction which your theory makes.

Edit: oops, I wrote thirty and meant three, so I've corrected it.)

>25 Arctic-Stranger:

My term "religion gene" wasn't meant to be serious or scientific. And the fact that someone has the capability of a "religious experience" doesn't mean that religion is real or valid, any more than the hallucinations of a psychotic are real. And even if humans are hardwired for religious belief, how does one derive Sufism, Hinduism, Christianity, yadda, yadda, yadda? Where did the thousands of dead religions go? Why doesn't anyone worship Dagda or Zer-panitu anymore?

In its most basic form, religion is an attempt to explain nature by primitive, pre-scientific cultures, hence thinking mistake. As a culture progresses, religion is either thrown off or changed to become something acceptable to the more advanced culture (liberal Protestantism. for example). Progress is never in a straight line, however. Even within an advanced society, such as ours, religious adherence varies with the sophistication of individuals and groups. It should be no surprise, therefore, that 60% of scientists are atheists, while religious fundamentalism is largely found among our least educated citizens. Christianity is increasing becoming a Third-World religion while dying in the West. It's being replaced here with either outright atheism, or just a general belief in some sort of undefined god, and that everything will be soft clouds and harps when we die. (I'm hoping for Victoria's Secret angels.)

Tom

For those (like Arctic?) who might have an interest in the topic, Michael R. Trimble's book The Soul in the Brain: The Cerebral Basis of Language, Art, and Belief addresses this very topic (the neurophysiology behind religion, belief, etc.), and might be worth a look. I've yet to read it (as with most things on my list), but it gets good ratings on LibraryThing and good reviews on Amazon.

-27(and previous) I have to say I don’t find these arguments for religion very compelling.

How could there by errors in human thinking "that persists for most of human existence"? Please see the people over the ages that have thought that rape, murder, slavery, racism, and the subjugation of women were also lovely ideas.

As for the impossibility of humans being rational while creating (or suffering from) an irrationality, it should be clear from life experience that most people are eminently rational in most matters (they do not jump in front of moving cars, eat poison, or irritate large predators unless they want to be injured, for example) but can be highly irrational in others (love, politics, religion). No one is claiming that any human is perfectly rational or perfectly irrational, they are merely stating that rationality is preferable to irrationality.

Finally, the claim that the popularity of the Bible makes plain its value is hard to justify, given that many people are taught that the Bible has inherent value. Present a Bible and many other works of ancient literature to a naive person, and would they pick the Bible as a source of comfort and ethics? Unlikely. It only has value because it has historically had value. Not to mention that basing our spiritual quest on popularity might lead us into some very strange territory (vampire romance as a path to salvation, anyone?).

As for the evolutionary role of evolution, that is still ambiguous. There are theories that religious feeling could arise from certain programs of thought that were evolutionarily beneficial (assumption of agency, for example) while religion itself is not evolutionarily advantageous (religion as a spandrel, the side-effect of other adaptations). Others think that religion must have had a positive evolutionary effect at some time (which is not to say it has a positive effect now). Either way there has not been very much time for actual evolution in humans – we are essentially genetically identical to very early hunter gathers. So religion might have been irrational or rational at inception, but that still says nothing about the rationality of religion to people today.

>31 jlelliott:

I could not have said it better. Excellent post!

Now back to Biblical criticism, our original topic:

The only reason we find Judeo-Christian beliefs reasonable is that they've been embedded in our culture for a long time. I recall years ago, one scholar (whose name escapes me) commented to the effect that if Christianity had died out in the ancient world and we knew nothing of it today, and an archaeologist discovered the New Testament in a cave, we'd all be saying, what a strange set of beliefs; who could possibly have taken them seriously? Well, he's been proven right because in a sense, that has happened:

A couple of years ago, the Gospel of Judas came to light and was quickly translated and analyzed. It became quite a media sensation with several books, articles, and TV specials aimed at a popular audience. I watched several pieces about it on TV (I also read the whole gospel), and noticed more than one commentator describing the beliefs in it as bizarre and unbelievable. I wanted to shout at my TV, Haven't you read the New Testament?

Tom

a) I am not making arguments for religion (which seems to be assumed, but is in fact mistaken thinking), I am merely asking how something so essential to humanity could exist for as long as it has.

B) I am not making arguments against evolution. I don't have many problems with what I understand of it, and I am sure what problems I may have would be resolved if I had time to read more in the field. But, assuming evolution works within culture as well as within the confines of biology, then I wonder how a cultural mistake could haver persisted as long as it a has.

Has this been a useful mistake? If so, then how could it be a mistake? (In fact, while you could say people believe in something that is not there, the word "mistake" is value driven, implying that belief is somehow wrong. It may be inefficient, dangerous for the survivial of some humans, helpful, harmful, etc. But (and perhaps this is just semantics) it cannot be wrong. So what if people believe in something that is not there? In the grand scheme of things, how can that be right or wrong? It may be something you disapprove of, or even something dangerous to you, but in world explained by biology and physics, how can THAT be wrong?

I am not trying to be contentious here. I just want to see, I mean I really want to see, if the implications of secularism can really be lived out on a logical level. Can we only push it so far, or will that take us as far as we need to go, as humans? So while it may sound like I am being a smartass, I am really serious about this vein of investigation.

The essential question I have is this: If there is no overarching, non-biological meaning to our existence, then would it not be true that any meaning we do find is a no more than or less than what religion proposes to do. It is a nice fiction that we should take care of, or respect the rights of our fellow humans, but frankly I would rather be a Wall Street executive getting the billions from the taxpayers than my friend who got screwed with a subprime loan. And what is wrong with my preference, if anything?

>33 Arctic-Stranger:

When I was a child, I saw another boy about my age die from a disease because his parents insisted upon prayer in lieu of medical attention. That's how believing in something that doesn't exist is a thinking mistake--and not useful.

I liken religion to heroin addiction: When an addict needs a fix, he feels better when he gets one. But he would be far better off not needing a fix in the first place. He does find it "useful," though.

Also, I caution against applying evolutionary theory to anything but biology.

Tom

The way I look at it, religion is an epiphenomenon that has arisen as a product
of the self-referential process of dealing with emergent consciousness. I look
at art and expression in the same way.

I don't believe that it's a coincidence that the very first art we find is accompanied
by the vestiges of ritual. I believe they are both connected.

What would it mean, as a "non-conscious" or "semi-conscious" entity, to either suddenly
or over time, gain awareness of "self"? What would the presence of an internal dialogue
tell you about agency, about cause and effect? That dawning realization that 'if I throw
rock, rock goes', or some such thing, gives rise to "if I throw rock, what goes water' or
some other crude thought. Does the water have a "thought" that makes it go? What about
the sun? Animals? Enter animism, crude forms of nature worship. You can extrapolate
from there.

Julian Jaynes, in The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind
has a great theory (albeit scientifically unprovable) that consciousness is a recent human
phenomenon. It's a great read, and informs my thoughts on this quite a bit.

I don't think we're all done evolving consciousness. And what phenomenon will emerge from that
process, we have no way to know. But, in my opinion, that's what religion is. I don't think it's
a nice fiction that should be taken care of, I think it's a part of our "growing up" as a species,
and that at some point it will be left behind. (In the far flung future, I might add, if we make it)

As for the implications of secularism, or more succinctly, Naturalism, try Encountering Naturalism.
A difficult read, (meaning, existentially, not vocabulary and usage) even for a staunch
materialist/non-theist, to be sure, but lots to chew on in there about the implications of a solely materialistic
existence.

>36 Atomicmutant:

Man, you're thinking way too hard about this.

Tom

Why is a child dying a bad thing? People die everyday. There are already too many people. Did not that child do both his parents and his society a favor but not taking up more space and resources? Seriously, I deal with death everyday, including the deaths of children.

Why would that be a bad thing?

Other than our silly human emotional reactions. But in the world of reason, would it be so bad?

And what is wrong with heroin addiction? It is not how I would chose to live my life, but is their something wrong with it?

#38 In a book I'm reading now The Unthinkable: Who Survives When Disaster Strikes the author talks about 1970's case in which a man - Elliot - lost his capacity for emotion after a brain tumor was removed from his right frontal lobe.

Initially he seemed normal in every respect - he could talk, he tested with a superior IQ, etc

However, the new emotionless Elliot was unable to prioritize information and developed a tendency to obsess over meaningless details. He lost his job, his wife, and his life savings to a dubious business venture - all of which he would discuss with the disinterested tone of someone telling a tale of long ago.

His case lead to a study of others with right frontal lobe damage, and all bore the same characteristics, and faced the same problems.

The neurologist that lead the study - Dr Antonio Demascus of the University of Iowa (Hooray!) College of Medicine - concluded that rational thought is driven by a strong emotional component.

>39 vq5p9:

You're absolutely correct. Emotions and reason both have their place, and are part of human makeup. Problems occur only when we flip flop them.

Tom

Children anthropomorphize everything from the start. They want to feel safe and they/we carry the desire with us into adulthood in the form of religion.

The one god thing was just a way to save on goats.

#37 >Man, you're thinking way too hard about this.

I'm not the first, lol. :)

#11: We do not have legions of citizens claiming that we should use Hemingway to define our behavior and values, as Christians claim for the Bible

It all comes down to the ballot box, doesn't it? Sure, if a Bible thumper gets their way enacted upon society it's a sad case of the abuse of power. But to target one voting block over others in this way over such a scenario seems silly to me. I'm reminded of the Michael Cloud quote ""The problem isn't the abuse of power; it's the power to abuse." As a commited atheist, I dare say that all this rampant Dawkinism is somewhat misplaced.

I am still waiting to see if anyone hs a answer for my questions. I really am curious to see if this is sustainable.

You jumped from not needing religion to not needing emotions or morals. One does not follow from the other. What was your question again?

Suppose there is no soul, no transcendent meaning to life, that we are merely biological creatures, a part of a larger biological world where everything can be explained by science. There is no need for religion, for nothing exists outside of the natural world, and that all talk of religion has been a mistake of reason. How far can reason carry us? For Kant it was reasonable that we all act in such a way that we would wish all other people act as we do (The categorical imperative). But would it not be more reasonable to act in such a way that you get what you want, and others don't catch you at it? (Or as I said before, what is wrong with being a wall street executive who is making money off our tax dollars? Or an officer of Halliburton, making money off the war?)

Is a life based solely on science and reason sustainable? Could someone who believed this live according to their convictions?

>46 Arctic-Stranger:

I haven't noticed that religious people are particularly well behaved.

Tom

We all already are living according to our convictions; atheists and theists alike. Except for the criminally insane all of us have a moral code that we have adopted from our parents, our peers, our education, and our experience.

Theists are every bit as much moral relativists as atheists. The only difference is that they believe their code comes from a supernatural source.

As MobileMaker stated, there is no evidence that believers are more virtuous than non believers and some evidence to suggest that they are less so.

This is old material Arctic. What is your point?

#46, sure, it's sustainable. It's not easy, we are growing up as a species.

Think about it in a pseudo-buddhist way. If all is merely biological, contemplating
that, and what an existentialist would call the absurdity of existence, allows a
massive rush of compassion and empathy. We ARE ALL in the same boat. We
ALL feel the same things. Even my enemies, even those with whom I disagree.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. There, but for happenstance
go I. Love thy neighbor as thyself. All of this can flow, with a shift in thought,
from a materialist worldview.

Then, pause to consider the preciousness, the unlikelihood, of your existence. Of
the fact that you can perceive, that you can move in this universe, that you can
love, that you can experience it. What an amazing thing. There are infinitely more
people possible than will ever exist. You are lucky. Your senses are tuned to appreciate
this life. You suffer, you struggle, you laugh, you love. Why, in the absence of a god,
is that automatically empty? The answer is, it isn't.

To the question of "why not just do whatever you want", well, combine the aforementioned
feelings of empathy and compassion for everyone with the intelligence to understand that
a social order benefits you as well as others. Add evolved notions of love and understanding,
and the benefits of cooperation, and it's not hard to see that aberrant behavior is untenable
in this moral construct in the same way that it is in a theistic one.

Two children are misbehaving. One stops because they reason out that their behavior has
negative consequences for themselves and others. The other stops because an authority
figure sternly lectures them, threatens them with punishment, and reminds them that they
are ALWAYS being watched. Which of the children would you want yours to play with?
Which has the more highly developed moral sense?

As for the examples of a child dying, of heroin addiction. Yes, the universe is indifferent
to these things. How we choose to react to them, what we as individuals and as a society
choose to make of these things is a different matter. Meaning is infused through action
and reaction.

In sum, you've posed that old question, "can we be good without a god", and my answer
is emphatically, YES, of course. There are plenty of good books on this topic, and it would
do any curious individual some good to read and challenge themselves on this.

Thank you AM for a far more eloquent answer than I have ever been able to come up to that question.

However, this was all discussed quite thoroughly and recently in the morality thread. In that thread I learned that some theists are convinced that atheists cannot have a consistent morality and cannot be convinced otherwise. Arctic-Stranger, I didn't think that you were one of those.

This question was not, who is more moral. Yes, that is an old horse.

In 49 your answer seems to hinge on two virtues that are most commonly associated with religion, compassion and awe. On a personal level, I really resonate with the way you described that, but for me, that arose from my religious background, and throughout history these are commonly associated with religion. (Tons of caveats here: I am not saying you have to be religious to experience those, or that religous people experience them more or better. Just that I find it interesting that in trying to develop the grounds for a sustainable natural world view, you ended up using categories that are very familar to the religion crowd.)

The word that I think best describes the roots of secular morality might be cooperation. That sounds to me more like a biological term than a religious term. Love, understanding, etc, all depend on the premise that we accept these are good things. Why would accept that?

As to who my children played with, theoretically I can imagine a scenerio where a parent would choose child number two, because they see themselves as an authority, and they want their children to be submissive. (In fact, most children in the world are more like child two than child one. When I was in Israel, as the Muslim children greeted their father, they bowed and kissed his hand. Western culture teached independent thinking, but to a much greater extent than a lot of other places in the world.

I am not asking "Can we be good without god?" I am asking, "Why should we be good without god?" Clearly we can. I am not one of those people who believe you can only be good if you worship a particular god. That is clearly unsustainable. I guess I am not making myself clear, because I am getting answers to questions I am not asking.

To the extent that I am asking about religion, it is more, how do our moral notions arise? We clearly have them, atheists and believers. Is it neurologically programmed? If so, was that a function of evolution, and did religion play a role in the encoding process?

Why should we bother? Is morality just a personal choice? And where does that awe and compassion come from?

I deleted post 52 because it was a duplicate, LT was acting up . . . :)

-------------------------

Of course, there have been books and books, and books written about
these things in every era, in every major culture. Here's a couple of
thoughts that this humble creature has about these questions.

>I am asking, "Why should we be good without god?"

I "think" I already answered that, with my expression of profound
empathy and compassion for my fellow beings. Didn't I?

>And where does that awe and compassion come from?

Awe, I believe, is an evolved response to the world around us, just as
is fright, etc. Compassion arises out of contemplation of our situation,
and the realization that we are all the same. Neither one needs to have
been bestowed from on high.

>How do our moral notions arise?

I started with Michael Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil, which
first got me thinking about the notion of the decoupling of religion and
morality. I'd recommend that.

>Did religion play a role in the encoding process?

From my point of view, it hitched a ride. As I said, it has been our way of
dealing with notions that arise out of the fog of emergent consciousness.
A temporary notion that has accompanied us along the way. A way of
expressing that inner life that is so ineffable and difficult to understand.
Along the way, it has been co-opted for various power plays
and social organization (some would say naked control) mechanisms.
Groups have used and misused it, same as individuals.

>Is morality just a personal choice?

To a certain extent, yes, and a societal choice. Certain things seem to
be universal, certain others, greyer areas. But remember, I feel that a
lot of our behavior has evolved, and so the story of why any given action
is accepted as moral or not, is an involved question.
I think what you're getting at
is the "still, small voice" from 2Kings, otherwise popularized by C.S. Lewis
as a rationale for god dictating morality. The problem is, we have seen morality
evolve and change from biblical times until now. Radical changes since any of the
"revealed texts" were imparted to us.
An obvious example would be our attitude towards slavery, which used to seem
pretty keen and moral for a large percentage of the world's population.

I don't deny the "still, small voice" but I don't see it as having a
supernatural agency behind it, any more than the urge to "answer
the call of nature" is.

I guess in sum, what I would point out is that, for a reasonable portion
of the population, whose numbers are growing, there ARE answers that
are satisfying that do not involve a deity. There IS a morality that makes
sense, and "goodness" is not contingent on any sort of transcendent,
supernatural meaning to life. The curious response to this can be
"HUH. Well, I'll be. That works for some folks, huh." And keep asking questions, and keep looking into it.
A non-theistic universe can be a satisfying and
wonderful place to be. It doesn't eliminate the suffering and the
struggles, but it isn't bankrupt of strategies with which to cope, far
from it.

>52 Atomicmutant:/53
I want to marry your post.

Only one small fix from my perspective: A non-theistic universe can be is a satisfying and wonderful place to be.

>51 Arctic-Stranger:

Compassion and awe aren't virtues; they're emotions. The former can be experienced my someone capable of sympathy who encounters a sentient being who has suffered a misfortune. (An orphaned puppy works for me.) The latter can be experienced my someone who is capable of being moved by an awe-inspiring event or entity. (Beethoven's 9th Symphony never fails to produce a feeling of awe in me.) Neither is an appropriate concept for a system of morality. You can't require someone to experience awe, for example. On the other hand, you can require someone to be honest and judge them on that basis.

A discussion of whether we can be good without god is silly beyond description. Either god exists or s/he doesn't. Since we have no empirical evidence for god, the only rational position is to conclude that s/he doesn't exist, and then go forth in the world and endeavor to live a happy, fruitful life. If you think you need god to be good, then you have a serious problem that probably requires medical treatment.

Tom

Good points. But is -44 here, and I have been stuck inside for three days, so I am heading out for while. I don't like fleela's edit as much as the original. Soviet Russia was hardly a satisfyting and wonderful place, but I would imagine Sweden is.

-44, wow. It's been below zero here, but I haven't seen that since
I moved from Canada. Enjoy your walk!

The reason I put "can be" instead of "is", is because I would say the
same for a theistic worldview. I've seen plenty of morose Christians
in my day, so it's not a given that the world is all honey and daisies
when you choose any particular worldview!

So, let me fling the thought experiment back atcha. I am not putting words into your mouth,
but as I think about what you do day to day, AS, the question would, to me, become one
more practical. How would I minister to the dying and the grieving with a non-theistic worldview?
What comfort is there to give in that instance? What to hold on to?

So, I could start to think about this, I suppose. But I wonder, (not to put you on the spot) if
you were to take a minute, and a deep breath, and start to compose a response to that
question, what would it look like? What would you do in that instance, to console someone,
to ameliorate the pain, to give a family solace, to move ahead day-to-day?

The reason that I ask is that I honestly believe you'll have an interesting and thoughtful answer.
You encounter these situations every day. So the question is asked because of your
intelligence and thoughtfulness. Reinvent the wheel of what you do, and we'll all learn something,
I suspect.

Or decline, I would understand non-judgementally if you were to choose to not participate
in the thought experiment.

>56 Arctic-Stranger:

Sweden has a stagnant economy, so there isn't much opportunity there. And from what I've read recently, Sweden will probably be a Muslim country soon.

Tom

>56 Arctic-Stranger:
That's why I said "from my perspective". I do not live in Sweden nor did I ever live in Soviet Russia.

There is always this:

Lazarus Undone

Stop staring at me, my former love.
Don’t stare at my vacant shell.
Stop staring at what I used to be.
And who you once knew well.

For this is not that. I am not he.
I am gone. I am now spent.
What lies here ashen on the bed
Is better to forget.

You know what I was to you,
But see what I am now,
Something cold, and stiff and pallid,
Set free from all my vows.

And so you weep upon my corpse,
Your tears fall on my chest
But now I cannot feel them there
I am beyond all rest.

I know no Now, I am not here
Or there, or somewhere else,
There is no place or time for me
And nothing to be felt.

And what was I? Did I exist at all?
For I am nowhere to be found,
Except within your heart my love
Which matters nothing now.

And so it goes and so it went
For me and all I knew.
But fear not my love, take heart in this.
It will happen soon to you.

You could speculate with them on what their molecules will become next. Perhaps a flower or the claw of a bird. I find that thought more comforting then some grand pearly gate inquisition in any case.

>61 vq5p9:

I'm with you. I have no interest in an afterlife: I don't know what I'd do with all the time on my hands.

Tom

Nice poem. Who is the author and where is it from?

I gather from this that you would give up your
career were you to adopt a non-theistic worldview.

At least, that's what I took from that. I could be wrong,
it's just my impression.

I have no interest in an afterlife: I don't know what I'd do with all the time on my hands.

:-o

I'd use the time to read every single book on my infinte reading list. :D

Alas, I know of no religion who promises its followers unlimited reading time in the afterlife. The typical heavens usually seem to be full of clouds, angels, church services, wine, angels/maidens, endless battles, or the like. Yawn. ;)

>64 Essa:

Yeah, maybe I'd finally read the six-volume Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, which has been sitting on an end table in my living room for quite some time.

But as I've mentioned before, I'd prefer hell because that's where all the Jazz musicians will be.

Tom

60> de-lurking to ask Arctic-Stranger if that poem is by his own hand? If so, Bravo! The title and theme bring to mind Lady Lazarus by Sylvia Plath, whom I understand you're currently reading, if I'm not mistaken (I read through most of the SantaThing comments)? Wonderful stuff.

It was one of my poems. Thank you for the kind comments.

I did not answer mutant's question yet, but will.

#64 except John Coltrane, who is an semi-official official saint. If the 'Trane ain't going to be there, the music will be poorer for it.

Check this, from today's Alternet: "Why Belief Isn't That Different for Atheists or Religious People" (cut and paste?)

>64 Essa:...Wine in the after life? Sign me up! That is an afterlife I could get behind!

Ugh. This thread's veered into poetry and jazz? That's like invoking Godwin's Law for me.

>70 DaynaRT:

This tends to happen with these threads. The truth is, there isn't much of substance to the topic of religion, so we exhaust it quickly. I would love to see another review of Avalos's book, should anyone be crazy enough (as I am) to read it.

Here's a related topic that might generate some comment: For quite awhile now, I've viewed religious belief as a form of mental illness, ranging from a small character flaw (and we all have character flaws) to something so severe to require medical treatment. Freud tagged it a form of neurosis. This idea, of course, will seem way out of place, and even offensive, to most people. But why is it that if we encounter a harmless man who believes that he's accompanied by an invisible rabbit named Harvey, we're ready to call the guys in the white coats and have him put in a padded cell; but if he said that he has a guardian angel at his side, most of our fellow citizens would think he's quite reasonable, that is, not ill, and many would even applaud his strong faith?

Tom

#71, I did provide a brief review of the book above . . . I think Avalos has a
definite point about the discipline of Biblical Studies. I do wish we had a
currently studying biblical scholar around to hear what they would have
to say about this book. I remember a couple of years ago, a cousin of mine
who is a buddhist scholar was shaking his head about the Christian students,
bemoaning the fact that there was so little for them to study, when his field
was wide open, with thousands and thousands of texts, art, traditions to
study that had not even been touched, yet.

As for the mental illness thesis, somewhat sideways, I just read a good
book called Muses, Madmen, and Prophets, about the phenomenon of
hearing voices. There is some great writing in there about the tension
between science and religion when it comes to this topic. Among the personalities studied are Joan of Arc and Socrates. Definitely recommended, a great 'science read' and germane to your question.

As an overarching phenomenon, I think it's quite a reach to classify religious belief as mental illness. As Arctic points out, it's closely allied with the human condition. Were we to so broadly categorize illness, we'd probably have to lump, say, sports fans and computer nerds in to that same category. In Minnesota, having just lost in the football playoffs, I would say a fair amount of sports fans are undergoing existential angst, muttering to themselves in the streets, and other unsightly psychotic behavior. Not to mention the folks who painted themselves purple and grilled meat in 10 degree weather on Sunday, hoping for a miracle and a better playoff life to come. :)

Probably a good proportion of computer nerds have Asberger's syndrome.

Unfortunately, some computer nerds like to self-diagnose themselves with Asperger syndrome, using Wikipedia articles as a medical tool.

>72 Atomicmutant:

Good points. Although the thing about sports fans is that they are dealing with objective reality, which of course can be profoundly depressing. I'd say, though, that one who lives his life through sports and is seriously affected by loses probably needs professional help. I knew a guy, for example, who took his teams' loses out on his wife. It was pretty ugly.

Incidentally, how does one study the personality of Socrates? He's known mostly through the writings of Plato and might not be historical. The most you can conclude about him is that he's a character in Plato's dialogs.

Tom

#75, Read the book, it does a pretty good job of extrapolating things from the meager reference we do have. Not "scientific" per se, but interesting.

Socrates apparently heard voices that told him things throughout his life, and that played in to the state's need to be rid of him, something about his personal god undermining the "officially sanctioned" ones . .

Some scholars have supposed that the "voice" of Socrates' daimon was actually just kledomancy: the oracular interpretation of stray remarks and overheard fragments of speech.

There is no indication in classical literature that Socrates ever suggested that other people should have an allegiance to his daimon. It isn't even until later Neoplatonism that the idea develops that other people should cultivate their own daimons on Socrates' model.

On what scientific basis do you proclaim religious behavior as a mental illness? Have you done double blind studies? Or read academic studies that effect? Are you a mental health care professional? Can religious behavior (the run of the mill behavior one sees in the otherwise mentally healthy broad spectrum of the species) be up for a DSM-V category? Is it a personality disorder, and which cluster would it belong to? Probably not cluster B, but it does not fit A or C nicely either. It would be axis II, or would you make it an Axis one disorder?

Inquiring minds want to know.

>77 paradoxosalpha:

It seems to me that Socrates might have been Plato's Jesus--a pre-Christian Christ. We know that early Christians were strongly influenced by Platonism, and some early Christian apologists came from the ranks of Platonist philosophers. Opponents of Christianity in the 2nd century criticized the "new" religion for providing nothing new and unique--something the apologists, such as Justin Martyr, spent a lot of effort trying to refute. This is just random musings, but I think I'll look deeper into the matter.

Tom

>78 Arctic-Stranger:

A believer's break with reality is enough for me (and Freud's opinion isn't something to shake a stick at). But I'll leave it to the professionals to work out the details.

I imagine, though, that you aware of the various therapies available for believers, such as Christian fundamentalists, who need help in becoming well-adjusted adults after years of religious indoctrination.

Also, if you had scene the bizarre displays in fundamentalist worship services, as I had as a child, you might be willing to lock up the whole lot of them.

Tom

Wine in the after life? Sign me up! That is an afterlife I could get behind!

The Qur'an promises wine to believers in Jannah/paradise (presumably, because it is forbidden to them on Earth). "Believers," according to the Qur'an, does not necessarily mean only Muslims, but I'm pretty sure us non-Abrahamic-non-monotheists are right out. Bummer. Drink up while you can! :D

As for religion = mental illness ... I don't see how that necessarily follows. If a Buddhist meditates and tries to follow the Eightfold Path and finds that life works better; or a Hindu practices Yoga every morning and feels better afterwards; or a Jew derives fulfillment from reciting the Torah and partaking of communal ritual; I wouldn't say that they are suffering a mental illness. They're just taking actions that seem pleasurable or effective for them.

Now, Heaven's Gate sort of stuff ... eunuchs and suicide and all ... that veers into wackiness, in my book. But not all religions/religious people are like that. Fortunately.

# 80
Ahhhh. Things are getting clearer now.

>82 Arctic-Stranger:

Be careful drawing conclusions about someone you don't know. The only thing I've displayed here is my arguments.

Tom

It's not fun being on the recieving end of biased judgments, is it?

I am not drawing conclusions. And I probably saw as much wackiness in my life as you did. I spent my high school years alternating between being an acid head and attending a pentecostal house church.

>81 Essa:

Recall that I started my scale at "character flaw." Even a passive believer lacks healthy skepticism when it comes to religion.

Tom

I don't know about other people, but my spiritual leanings are the most, if not the only sane thing about me!

#71 "For quite awhile now, I've viewed religious belief as a form of mental illness..."

Given that atheists are in the minority, wouldn't that make us the deviants?

>87 vq5p9:

You have a point. :-) I guess we all need to be herded into re-education camps.

Tom

Although there are many more inmates in the asylum than there are nurses and docs. So numbers do not always imply sanity.

#89 Well, true, but there is definitely a 'by popular vote' component to evaluating mental illness. I guess the broader criteria, without getting into the DSM stuff, is 1.Unusual compared to the population and 2.Damaging to self and/or others.

Except that the "popular vote" is only cast by professionals, who have to go up against other professionals, all of whom have experience and expertise in the field.

This American Life did a fascinating program on how homosexuality was taken out of DSM-II (?) as a mental illness.

>91 Arctic-Stranger:

Yes, I remember learning about the issue of homosexuality and the DSM. That homosexuality was ever in the DSM as a disorder shows how hard it is to eliminate cultural bias. And societal norms are weak standards: Some of what we regard as pedophilia (and criminally prosecute people for) was regarded as a form of mentoring in ancient Greece. (See "Male Fantasies" by Timothy McNiven in Archaeology Odyssey, Sept/Oct 2003.)

Tom

</i>Actually, any ol' doofus can close the italics.

Even me.

So much for the "mystery":http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197&hl=en

>95 Naren559:

I listened to about a minute of this. What the heck is it?

Tom

I was looking around for a definition of religion for another thread in another group, and found this paper, which I thought people might find interesting.