Textuality

Alpha Course Overnight Getaway: Parting Is Sorrow

2012-02-10T12:00:00.016-05:00

This is a special, mini-series within my larger series on the Alpha course. I am a Jewish-raised dude and now Gnu Atheist who has taken the Alpha Course along with my Christian wife. Names have been changed to protect privacy.

Part IV, Final Thoughts
On the second day of the Alpha retreat, after the morning events and concluding pleasantries, my wife and I packed up and headed home. I left with mixed feelings about the whole getaway and about Alpha. Clearly, many people participating in Alpha had personal hurts and trials to work through. They saw the group and its Christianity as helpful, as “safe” places to be themselves.

The group is safe because everyone has the same shared experience of Jesus, God and Holy Spirit. One’s personal senses of failure, weakness, or shame become released in a controlled environment of love and support. I can talk about how selfish and anxious I really am, and my prayer partner will call to God on my behalf.

What’s more, the worship is more active and personally fulfilling. People are not simply singing and reciting stock prayers. They are not merely sheep led by a pastor. No, they come to invest themselves emotionally in the act of worship. They come to release passion and to exercise emotional muscles that they cannot in public or even in one’s family. This church is perhaps the one place on earth where they feel encouraged to surrender to their passions. They get to surrender to their passions without restraint, and to express them openly. And they get to do it in a group, thus making it “normal” behavior. The whole thing is probably quite healthy.

What is the triune god, really? It’s an elaborate metaphor for the psychodrama in which each one of us lives. It’s a general code of conduct, yes. It’s a call to do and say--or not do and not say--certain things. But mostly, I think, it’s a screen upon which one unfolds and inspects a tightly wound psyche. Besides religion, there is no grass-roots social mechanism for helping people connect face-to-face with a community of people who also feel screwed up in the world. God-language provides the vocabulary and and concepts for capturing that screwed-up-ness.

But I have some reservations about the whole Alpha thing, and this overnight thing in particular. The friendly face of the course doesn’t hide some rather nasty views on homosexuality as immoral, on eternal damnation, and on the supposed goodness of God. As usual, I find God (and Jesus and the Spirit) superfluous. In principle, the personal sharing and healing could have happened without reference at all to God or Spirit or anything like that. Any group devoted to sharing and talking could have accomplished the same thing--talking about fears, self-doubts, and so on--with equal or better long-term success.

The orgiastic atmosphere of the evening witness event was just creepy. It was a lot of effort to get to a point where people could say “I’m afraid and I want to talk with someone.” And as I said before, none of what we heard or felt in the witness event overcame the facts that we have no evidence of God, no evidence supporting the divine and supernatural claims of the Bible, no evidence of the patriarchs, no evidence of the exodus, no evidence of Jesus, no evidence of miracles.

Most of all, though, I realized (or remembered) that I needed to stand together with my wife. I want to stand with her. She wants to be a Christian. Fine. It’s her life and her call. I’ll help her be the best damn Christian she can be. I don’t need to be a Christian myself. I don’t need to agree with her about Christianity, and I don’t need to say I agree. Regardless of what I think or don’t think about Christianity, I support her. I respect her. I will not do anything to violate her right to think for herself and to form her own opinions. Likewise with all the folks in my group. I will never stop being an atheist. I will never stop critiquing religious doctrine. But I do genuinely support the people.

It was a success, I think, that I “came out” as an atheist. I had never done this before in a face-to-face group setting. But it was a failure that there was not quite an environment created whereby a Christian-atheist dialogue could take place. I have said I don’t want to be a “token” atheist, but I am now out as a real atheist. I have claimed a place in my group, and I have forged bonds. It will be interesting to see if anything changes over the next few weeks.

Dear Believers: Embrace Your Doubts

2012-02-09T13:23:00.002-05:00

No gurus.

You like your religious beliefs and your religion. You like the stories--most of them, anyway--in the holy texts. You admire the central characters. You enjoy hearing and singing the devotional songs. You have a nice time at your place of worship, and the people there are very nice. You relate to them. You know the clergyman is pretty smart. He explains so clearly where the religious doctrines come from, and how they apply to the live we lead today. It is amazing, that the wisdom of old can resonate with each one of us. What's more, the sayings and the stories apply differently to such a variety of situations.

But you also have doubts. You pray, and you believe, but you have a twinge. How is God actually working in your life, how does that happen? When you look at your life, at the day by day of it, at the way the world works, how is it that God is so absent?

You have doubts. You wonder whether the religion's doctrines on gods and heaven and sins...are wrong. Maybe God didn't send Joseph down to Egypt or speak to Israel at Sinai or grant them victory over Jericho. Maybe Jesus wasn't the Son of God or the savior of humanity's sins or the conqueror of death. Maybe Mohammed wasn't a prophet. Maybe Joseph Smith made a mistake. Maybe Paul of Tarsus was a zealot. Maybe L. Ron Hubbard was only kidding. Maybe Mary was a regular mother.

My message to you, believers, is to embrace your doubts. I am not saying you should become an agnostic or an atheist. I am not saying to doubt everything or to believe everything. That's not at all what I want. Instead, I want for you to accept that it is right and good to have doubts. It is right and good to explore them, to understand them, to seek answers to them from various sources. It's not a bad thing to enjoy doubt because doubt helps you to look for more information, and the more you look the more you will see.

I'm saying it's OK that your religion does not have all the answers, and I'm saying that your life is fine. Life can be a struggle. It can be unfair. It can be maddening. It can be lonely. It can be scary. Your life has all sorts of stresses, setbacks, and sonofabitches.

But your life also has greatness. It has you, first of all. You're pretty neat. It has a sun, a sky, and stars. It has the most amazing animal and plants all around. It has color, sound, and texture. It has friendly people, wacky people, kind people, generous people, smart people, and super people. Your life has its own story and possibilities. Your life has love, laughter, interest, music, value, potential, significance, and consequence. It has all these things, just by virtue that you are here.

Embrace your doubts. Don't think that doubts are bad or shameful. Don't be afraid or embarrassed about them. Don't ignore them, but explore them.

Investigate your unbelief as much as you have investigated your belief. Give yourself permission to follow every question.

Dear believers, this is my message. What is yours?

Alpha Course Overnight Getaway: Outing Myself

2012-02-09T09:40:00.001-05:00

This is a special, mini-series within my larger series on the Alpha course. I am a Jewish-raised dude and now Gnu Atheist who has taken the Alpha Course along with my Christian wife. Names have been changed to protect privacy.

Part III, The Day After
Yesterday evening's session left me amused, perplexed, and sad. The whole scene was amusing for its kitsch and its fervor. With the lights down low and prayer groups forming and disbanding like bubbles in broth, I was reminded of the Witches' Sabbath from "Young Goodman Brown," a story by Nathaniel Hawthorne. I was also puzzled by the whole thing: how was it that folks were buying into this silly set of practices? How was it that people gave themselves over in all sincerity to what was so obviously contrived? Finally I was saddened. Although I couldn't hear all the prayers, and although I wanted not to eavesdrop or invade anyone's privacy, I strongly sensed that many people were praying to be healed. They wanted to recover from grief of loss. They wanted to overcome hard times. They wanted to fell better or happier. They wanted help for loved ones. I was sad in empathy and sad knowing that prayers weren't the answer.

I went for an early morning run the next day. After a good breakfast, everyone went to small groups to talk about the night before. People generally felt good. They felt closer to one another. The night had been about bringing down personal/social barriers, and the morning small group was the start of a re-building, where the new intimates sought to re-affirm themselves to one another--to assure everyone that what they felt was real.

Before our group adjourned the session, I spoke up. I needed to because the transition process beginning here concerned how people would go out into the world as Spirit-filled Christians. Conversation had turned to how the world seemed hostile to devoted Christians and to public displays of Christian devotion. I shared my feelings because I did not want to be the representative of that hostile world, as they perceived it.

I told them I was an unbeliever, in case anyone had not figured it out. I said I had been born to a Jewish home. There were periods when I believed and even believed quite intensely. I shared with the group that based on what I had learned and experienced, I had come to accept there was no God. I used the word “reject” to describe my relationship to God and religions.

But I affirmed my 100-percent support for my wife. My job as her husband, at least by my understanding, was to stand by her and with her. I promised to walk with her on any path she chose. Then I said I felt the same way about everyone in our group, that I did and would support them.

We went back to the big group and listened to music, and then we viewed the fourth and final DVD of the weekend. The main idea here was that people should aim to live their lives normally but as Christians. Don’t just be a banker but be a Christian banker, bringing Christian values to everything. We are, Gumbel said, ambassadors of Christ.

Gumbel made several comments about how difficult it is to be different--in this group, believe me, I could relate! As Christians, Gumbel said, we should use good speech and not harmful speech about others. The final appeal made by Gumbel was something to the effect of putting Jesus first in all things to be successful in them. If your goal is to make a lot of money, you may succeed but you won’t be happy. But if your goal is to make a lot of money to help the church feed and clothe the poor then you will be both successful and happy.

After the DVD, all the groups got in a big circle to talk about the previous evening. People recounted their experiences. One woman said she received the peace of mind about her late husband that she’d been waiting 13 months for. A man said that he had felt heat and tingling last night and that it couldn’t have been anything but the Holy Spirit.

Then the pastor led a communion service. I was the only person who did not get up to take a piece of bread and a sip of wine. After putting some money in the collection baskets (plural), we broke for lunch. Others stayed behind to get more prayers. Lunch was awesome. We drove away from the conference center at about 1:30 pm.

Next Time: Final Thoughts

Alpha Course Overnight Getaway: A Reflective Interlude

2012-02-08T09:31:00.001-05:00

Choreography.

This is a special, mini-series within my larger series on the Alpha course. I am a Jewish-raised dude and now Gnu Atheist who has taken the Alpha Course along with my Christian wife. Names have been changed to protect privacy.

Part III, The Aftermath
The long session of the evening was a remarkable experience. I was the only one who had declined to participate in the praying. I stood by my chair and observed the leaders as they put their hands on people and implored God/Jesus/Holy Spirit to come into the people's lives and to help or heal them. It was a lot of this kind of unburdening that was being asked for. Some of the people were emotional. Then the small prayer groups started, and again it was a lot of touching. I left the session drained from everything that had happened during the day.

Everything about the day had been choreographed: the sessions, the meals, the hike/free time, the extended worship. I don’t mean “choreographed” to sound critical, necessarily. Jewish prayers are similarly set up to lead the praying person to increasing levels of passion and focus. The idea is to work the penitent into the proper mindset, with worldly/vulgar distractions cleared away. Clearly, the Alpha playbook is to excite people over the course of the day and build them up to a mental/emotional freneticism by the time they get to appealing for the Holy Spirit to come.

I don’t make the connection with Judaism lightly. This whole Alpha Saturday reminded me of Yom Kippur day services. Gumbel has some Jewish background, so I wonder if there’s more to this connection. Regardless, this was an intense day, as it was designed to be. Is it a pressure environment? Is it a coercive environment? I think perhaps. I was the lone person to refuse a prayer. I was the only one, so far as I can tell, to look and observe not only the construction of the environment over time but the emotional endgame being played. If you were one who thought at all about being a Christian, you could hardly do anything except be swept away in the moment. You were guaranteed to feel as though something magical was happening.

Although I wasn’t swept away, my heart was racing. I was anxious as hell about what was going to happen. Were people going to break down? cry out? speak in tongues? We’re they going to approach me? What would I say? How would it be taken?

And why was I not swept away? Well, I was never sold on the arguments for the Holy Spirit, or Jesus, or God. I also remembered early on, even though it had no part later, that all of the assertions being made by Gumbel and the pastor people--no matter how congenial or nice the assertions were in their presentation and substance--were incapable of overcoming facts. Later, I recalled having felt similarly emotional at other times in my life. My wedding day, for instance, was the one time in my life I felt I might faint. So, my understanding of what happened was that some mentally/emotionally/physically tired people underwent an intense and anticipation-laden experience of joint excitement. I imagine that Scientology pairs come out of their sessions feeling as exhilarated as folks did on this night.

Next Time: The Day After

James Barham Knows Whether You Are Normal or Sick

2012-02-07T13:50:00.003-05:00

James Barham is a philosopher who runs a higher-education ranking site called The Best Schools. He also has a blog that recently has become little more than a mouthpiece for fading ID advocate William Dembski and professional debater William Lane Craig.

Barham's "Medicalizing Normality" is an ugly and irresponsible piece on proposed revisions to the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), scheduled for publication in 2013.

I have been monitoring the DSM-5 because Autism Spectrum Disorder is up for revision. My son was diagnosed with Autism when he was two years old. Now almost four, he has made wonderful advances thanks to school services and support. Despite these advances, if he were to stop receiving therapy today then he would suffer intellectually, emotionally, socially, and more. His present and future happiness would be at risk, even with a loving and supportive family.

Barham, however, sees the revisions as taking the US further along the path of "labeling essentially normal kids as sick." This is his thesis, and it's ugly enough--as I'll discuss shortly--but Barham's underlying (emphasis on lying) point is that "the trend toward medicalizing normality is a doomed effort to cure with science what is essentially a spiritual disease."

Pause on this quote for a moment because it really is disgusting.

Barham is not arguing on behalf of healthy people. He cares nothing for the tolls that illnesses exact on people, let alone their families. Any benefit that "science" delivers to autistic people and their families are only so-so to him. But what matters to Barham? What does he see as the most pressing issue for every child, woman, and man? Why, the biggest and baddest problem of all is that people don't believe in magic:

Why do we, as a society, seem to have this deep-seated need to medicalize normality? Why do we think we can—never mind should—take scientific control over every aspect of the human condition, including normal suffering, sadness, and even mortality itself?

I submit that this trend is partly a reflection of our widespread loss of religious faith. When most people believed in a divine order of things, human frailty and the inevitable suffering involved in human existence were much more readily accepted. Now, as so many have nothing else to believe in, and as they see no other point to human life than the maximization of pleasure, it is not surprising that they expect science to exempt them from all the less pleasant aspects of the human estate.

What?

First of all, there really is no trend to medicalizing normality; it's been there for a long, long, time--and not just in medicine. That term "normal" is suspect anyway, but my point is that medicine, science, and religion--yeah, religion too--have all sought to define and prescribe the bits and pieces of human experience: grief, friendship, love, sex, jealously, anger, and so on. These experiences and attitudes have all been religionized and medicalized over and again throughout the course of history. They all get -ized because we people are interested (maybe too much) in the things that happen to us.

So spare us the sanctimony, Barham: what's wrong with maximizing pleasure? With maximizing happiness? With living longer, with being pain-free, with having healthy and close relationships with others?

Secondly, the opposite of "essentially normal," whatever that is, is not "sick." The opposite of "essentially normal" is "essentially abnormal," and the opposite of "sick" is "healthy." If there is a legitimate danger for Barham to write about, it's the danger of treating healthy people as if they were ill. In his article, Barham's examples are people who were mistakenly thought to be less healthy than they actually were. It happens, and its a problem to mind carefully.

My experience in distinguishing unhealthy behavioral conditions comes from not only my son's Autism but also my wife's depression. In both cases, the standard we use is whether the behavior or emotions have a sustained negative impact on functioning in daily life. Is it a perfect indicator? No. That's why we consult with physicians. But I would rather be able to get help when I need it than worry about being mis-labled.

Barham apparently lives in a world where people are "normal" or "abnormal." I bet he considers himself normal. His friends, too. How convenient. But the world of normal is gone. The world of normal is the world where you get to crush me, in the name of your god, into your template. You get to feel moral while forcing me to play with G.I Joe "action figures," pushing me to my knees before a pulpit, deciding what makes a legitimate course of study, dictating who I can and cannot marry, defining what demographics are proper for my neighborhood, and so on until I die. The world of normal is the world where your authority is accepted unquestioningly.

Fuck your normal, fuck your world, fuck your authority, and fuck you too.

Barham's hierarchy of ills makes our "spiritual" sickness the most important one of all. Forget about that diseased internal organ. Screw your pain and discomfort. Got a mental disorder? It's not a priority. Barham scoffs at medicine and science for their vain attempts to lessen pain and prolong life. Medicine and science are alright, he says, but it's more important to address our all-pervasive spiritual ailment. I don't know why he doesn't come right out and say explicitly that we need Baby Jesus^TM to make us whole and happy.

Fortunately, we don't need Baby Jesus or religion. There is no spiritual ailment. Spiritual ailment is merely another way of saying "people aren't listening to me." Barham's Uncommon Descent-like site offers no content to take seriously.

On the other hand, we should take seriously that plenty of people would agree with Barham that "science" (and government) want to control absolutely every aspect of human daily experience. Many already pin science and government as nefarious partners in a liberal/communist plot to enslave all humanity. And many want to push religiosity on us--not to help anything at all, but rather to promote their parochial version of happiness above all others. They want people to be happy, after all, but only on their terms.

However, those of us on the side of reality, equality, equity, and individual liberty must continue to correct disinformationsists like Barham and to better them with facts and reason.

Alpha Course Overnight Getaway: The Main Event

2012-02-07T08:27:00.002-05:00

Some folks are not as into Jesus as they would like to be.

This is a special, mini-series within my larger series on the Alpha course. I am a Jewish-raised dude and now Gnu Atheist who has taken the Alpha Course along with my Christian wife. Names have been changed to protect privacy.

Part II, The Holy Spirit Cometh!
We had a hearty supper of chicken and veggies. Salad, too. The day had already been long and tiring, but we all knew that the upcoming session was the most important.

At 7:15 pm, we met as a big group and began an extended worship period with music. I remember thinking that many songs (some new, some we had heard many times before) were erotic. Here, for example, is a lyric from “The Potter’s Hand”:

Take me, mold me, use me, fill me.
I give my life to the Potter's hand.
Call me, guide me, lead me, walk beside me.
I give my life to the Potter's hand.

Eroticism here encompasses desire, physical intimacy, emotional surrender. The penitent says to God/Jesus: I want to be immersed in you, and you in me. I want to be the instrument of your desire and will.

Hot stuff. Here’s more of the same from “Spirit of the Living God”:

Spirit of the living God, fall afresh on me.
Spirit of the living God, fall afresh on me.
Melt me, mold me, fill me, use me,
Spirit of the living God, fall afresh on me.

Next came the third talk, on how to call upon the Holy Spirit and be filled with it. The talk started with Gumbel’s argument that a Christian filled with the Holy Spirit was at a different, better level than someone who simply identified as a Christian or professed belief. Gumbel’s mission is have people be active engagers with God/Jesus. He wants them to be worked up and excited in their belief.

It becomes clear that everyone in the room is going to be invited to call upon the Holy Spirit. A lot of the talk is like a ghost story (no pun intended). Gumbel is saying that you people are going to be filled with the Holy Spirit: don’t be afraid, don’t be worried, don’t be anything except ready to receive the Spirit.

One effect of his talk is to swell all of us, including me, with anticipation and uncertainty. Something great and powerful is going to happen to each one of us. None of us can predict how we or others will experience the Holy Spirit, but experience it we will.

We have come to the center of the course. This moment is what the Alpha course has been driving to from the beginning. This is the time and the place where all the doubting and believing Christians come together to pray and to convince themselves of Christianity’s truth. The lights dim. Everyone bows their heads and puts their hands in an open position.

The church leader says we’re all here tonight for a reason. She invites people to come up and have hands laid upon them, but no one went up. The music was playing in the background, and group leaders began moving to individuals, men to men and women to women. The leaders asked each person if he or she wanted to be prayed for. If the person said “yes” then the pair would move away and the leader would put hand to the person’s shoulder and begin praying.

When a leader from my group approached me, he appeared sheepish. I took this to mean he knew I would politely decline prayer, and I did. I cannot say I know exactly what was said when the prayers got going. I stood by my seat while the prayer pairs moved outside the chairs to have some room. Nevertheless, I gathered that the leaders were calling out to the Holy Spirit. Then, they prayed for anything the person wanted prayer to do. These individual prayers seemed to go on for about five or more minutes per person. When people were done, particularly the women, the group leader told the person “God bless you, [person],” and then the two would hug it out.

Honestly, with no disrespect intended, the intimacy of the pairs was...well...intimate. The way people looked at each other you might have thought one or both achieved orgasm.

In a sense, they did. This whole scene was very energized and dramatic. I’m not saying this was all vulgarly sexual or iniquitous. I am observing that there is an erotic undercurrent to the relationship with God/Spirit being sought through the prayers and songs. That much seems undeniable.

Now, I saw no one speaking in tongues, but plenty of tears. Two men in my group became declared Christians. After they got their individual prayers, they each went to separate smaller prayer groups of about four people. The whole thing began to break up at about 9:00 pm.

I was exhausted and quite shaken by what I had seen.

Next Time: The Aftermath

Single Petal of A Rose

2012-02-06T20:25:00.000-05:00

Single Petal of a Rose is a gorgeous song composed by Duke Ellington. It is one of several songs written for England's Queen Elizabeth II and included in The Queen's Suite. Recorded in 1959, the suite was pressed only once and presented to the Queen. It became commercially available in 1976, after Ellington had died.

This, I believe, is Duke himself.

And here is a charming version by Chris Potter:

Alpha Course Overnight Getaway: The Set-Up

2012-02-06T10:31:00.002-05:00

Everyone at the getaway is being set-up to meet the Holy Spirit in person.

This is a special, mini-series within my larger series on the Alpha course. I am a Jewish-raised dude and now Gnu Atheist who has taken the Alpha Course along with my Christian wife. Names have been changed to protect privacy.

Part I, The Getaway Begins
My wife and I left early on Saturday for the getaway, dropping the kids off at the grandparents and then making our way up to the conference center. The center itself was not especially pretty, but the area was. I love New Hampshire!

We all got together in a room, with each row for a certain small group. Most of my small group was in attendance. We viewed a brief welcome from Nicky Gumbel. Live music was everywhere: a guitar and keyboard. I’m not sure if we heard music first or if the DVD came first and then some music.

Before we got started one of the leaders in my group asked what I thought of Gumbel. I said I thought he was a good speaker and of good humor. She suggested that I would get a lot out of the weekend, that a lot of my questions would get answered. I considered saying that I didn’t have too many questions really, but I let it go. I later thought about this moment, because I felt as thought people saw me as someone with doubts and with a “struggle of faith,” which could not be farther from the truth.

In any case, there was music, some announcements and instructions, and then we were into the first DVD talk, which was an answer to the question “Who is the Holy Spirit?” Gumbel stressed the personhood of the Holy Spirit. He made the case for the Holy Spirit as a being asserted throughout the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. In some cases, the mention of the Spirit seemed more metaphorical (like saying “the hand of God”), but the key thing for me was that there was no address at all for justifying the existence of the Holy Spirit (more on this here).

On the one hand, it seems that we are using the reading of the Bible as authoritative in its assertion of the Spirit. On the other hand, it seems that we are using subjective experience as the confirmation of the existence of the Spirit. Clearly, the purpose of the weekend is to have people experience the presence of the Holy Spirit for themselves.

After a short break, we then went to a second talk. Music again was all around. The DVD was on what the Holy Spirit does. The thesis here was basically that the Holy Spirit empowers believers. It gives them strength, healing, and peace. One communes with "the Spirit" through prayer.

After the DVD, we went to small group. I forget whether this was supposed to be an open discussion or if there were prompts. The only thing I really remember was talking about Anselm and his argument from the Proslogion. Someone else had mentioned that they were interested in the encouragement from Gumbel that believing in Jesus makes sense of the rest of the doctrines: believe to understand. That’s when I brought in Anselm and his project of faith seeking understanding. I blathered on and on about Anselm, Aquinas, and Ockham--and even some about the moderns of the 17th and 18th centuries. I have no idea how I came off; I imagine that people gained the impression that I had some “book” knowledge of Christianity (as opposed to "faith" or experiential knowledge).

It was a long morning. We had started at 8:30 and were taking lunch at 1:00. Lunch was very nice. I had an egg salad sandwich. After lunch, a bunch of us (maybe 10-12?) gathered for a hike through the woods. We faced steep inclines and some muddy/watery spots, but it was quite refreshing. I talked a bit with one of my small group leaders, who asked me about Anselm and how I knew of him. I mentioned my former life as a medievalist. He is an organic chemist, it turns out. His research focuses on cell communication and he hopes to contribute to the fight against cancer. His mother, unfortunately, is on her deathbed with cancer. After the weekend, he has plans to return home to be with her. The hike was long and arduous. As we exited the woods, the sunlight was already fading.

At 4:00, we reconvened as a big group. As a big group we had an open forum. The woman leader from our church was up front along with a pastor. They invited any and all questions. There was a question from a woman who wanted to know if her dead husband was in heaven. Another person wanted to know about the rapture.

I asked a question: “Are we to take the Bible literally in all cases, as in six-day creation, talking snakes, and the dead walking around outside their graves?” The answer given started by saying that everything in the Bible (esp. the Hebrew Scriptures) has layers of interpretive meaning: literal, analogical, tropological, and (as I pointed out later [eschatalogical]). Then the answer talked about different ways to “frame” biblical statements. Some were obviously figurative. In other cases, one had to consider who was writing to whom, and at what point in history.

I replied, just to be clear, that the answer was essentially “yes,” that everything in the Bible had a literal aspect. The woman up-front suggested that it didn’t matter whether the serpent talked because the important thing was determining whether the Bible was inspired and therefore the important thing was to know the intent of the inspiring agent.

My rejoinder, as it were, was that if one believed the Bible to be divinely inspired the question of how to take specific passages was even more important. I didn’t follow up the argument, though. I should have said that if we could not determine literal from figurative, then how could we be sure of inspired/uninspired? How could we be sure of God’s instructions versus people’s beliefs of God’s instructions? There were more questions from others, including one about how nasty and genocidal the God of the Hebrew Scriptures is.

The pastor’s response to this question was awful: that the wars were for the good of both Israel and the world. The ends justify the means when it comes to God, I guess.

Next Time: The Holy Spirit Cometh!

NFL Playoff Predictions, Super Bowl (2011 Season)

2012-02-03T08:49:00.000-05:00

The rabbi is the meat in a quarterback sandwich, but he is in a real pickle determining which star's team will gain the Super Bowl victory.

Rabbi Itzalok has again huddled with the Divine One to predict the outcome of this coming weekend's National Football League Super Bowl.

Here is Rabbi I's pick, in his own words:

Ach! I don't know, I don't know.

Listen, I don't have time for this. I'm making a new video that is sure to go viral, "Shit Rabbis Say." If you must have a pick...uh...let's say the Giants. I like that Eli's name better than the other guy's. Read your Book of Judges. An Eli guy gets a bunch of bears sicked on some kids. That's awesome.

Giants win, 34-14. Now go away.

Alpha Course: Week 7, How Does God Guide Us?

2012-02-02T12:22:00.000-05:00

Dog guides us.

Shocking! Bizarre! The Alpha Course overnight getaway was truly an unbelievable experience. I have too many notes for one post, so I'll issue as many posts as needed next week to present all of my impressions. If you have been moved by any of the previous Alpha posts, you won't want to miss the series-within-a-series on the getaway!

This is the seventh official installment in the Alpha course series, in which I recall my experiences as a Jewish-raised dude and now a Gnu Atheist who took the Alpha course with his Christian wife. Names have been changed to protect privacy.

By tonight's class, I had completely disengaged from Alpha emotionally. I would no longer exert any effort to contribute. My goals would be only to enjoy being with my wife and to observe. I figured only to pipe up if atheists or atheism were mischaracterized.

Tonight's message is that God/Jesus is working right now in your life. Christians (and Jews, maybe Muslims too) are big on saying that Father God, Baby Jesus, and a host of dead believers are here and making an impact in our lives. They help us find lost toys, steer us away from car crashes, and push football field goals wide left. You can appeal to heaven and your friend will survive cancer.

Look, I get that people generally pray with loving intent. People offer a bit of themselves in situations where they really aren't otherwise helpful. They can't actually help cure the cancer, but praying on it helps them acknowledge this and immerse themselves in it. This immersion is what Alpha is building up to. The upcoming overnight getaway is going to be an experience in immersion...but we'll talk about the weekend next time.

My notes for tonight's session:

Sloppy Joes for dinner. Excellent desserts of cake and pumpkin cheesecake.
Two worship songs. I spaced out.
DVD on how God guides people.

God guides us in many ways, Gumbel asserts: Scripture, holy spirit, common sense, the church, and coincidences (this last term being mine, not his).

Love relationships emerged a few different times in the talk. Gumbel at one point advised that Christians should marry Christians. People should be “spiritually compatible.” I looked at my wife and chuckled.

Seriously, though. Fuck you, Nicky.

This is really a lecture about using various resources to make important life decisions.

Before accepting that job offer, consult the Bible, ask others for advice, consider whether it jibes with church teachings, search your feelings to know what you really want in the long term.
All of this is basically good advice; nothing any other religion couldn’t also say. I don’t think there’s anything about Christian doctrine or teachings that have special import.

More troubling is the advice that absolutely everything in one’s life should be filtered through Christianity.

This seems a narrow and unhelpful suggestion because, frankly, there’s more to life than Christianity.
I would hate to center all my learning and my life around this one thing when there are so many other things to learn and to do.
The Alpha-type Christianity appears very much to me like a co-dependent: “don’t leave me!”

Small group discussion

Sad news times two: Two of the group leaders have gravely ill parents. One is flying back to New Zealand for three weeks. The other may be flying out to England soon.

Mostly talk about people feeling that God has guided them in some way--usually coincidences. Lots of assent to this. No one claimed having God speak to him/her.

My Favorite Mohammed

2012-02-02T07:40:00.000-05:00

Inspired by Choice in Dying, which has the above image along with this caption:

Now that University College, London, is suppressing freedom in support of those who claim to be offended by religious mockery, and people at Queen Mary College have been threatened with death by a would-be Muslim terrorist, it's time to show the religious that this is a liberty interest. So, here's to Bombhead Mohammed

Interview Me! Debate Me!

2012-02-01T01:30:00.001-05:00

I'm your huckleberry!

Readers here will have picked up that I like to argue and I like to talk (in writing more so than verbally.)

If you want someone whose interested in getting to the heart of the matter, rather than to the same, pat talking points we always get--then I am your huckleberry.

Leave a comment to this post if you want either to interview me or debate me. I'll email you back for details.

Come on, bring it!

Everything Rests on Sinai: Final Thoughts on Kugel's How to Read the Bible

2012-01-31T16:22:00.000-05:00

If you are a Jew, a Christian, or a Muslim--or a theist in the Abrahamic vein--your foundational belief is the revelation at Sinai. This claim may surprise you, but bear with me for a moment.

Maybe you don't believe that 600,000 or 3,000,000 (depending on who you ask) Jews gathered at the base of a mountain. Maybe you don't believe the event took place at a mountain. Maybe you are not sure when it happened. But you believe something miraculous happened in the desert. You believe that divine and human communed there. What's more, you believe this event inaugurated the force behind the Torah, Israel, the First and Second Temples, Jesus, Paul, Peter, the New Testament, the Church, Mohammed, and the Qu'ran.

Sinai is unique in the Bible: it's the one thing that must have some kernal of real, historical truth.You don't need Adam and Eve to be a believer. You don't require Babel, or the deluge, or even Abraham's binding of Isaac. The Exodus is almost indispensable. Belief can survive without these. All these stories can be fictional or metaphorical, even wholly so.

The Sinai revelation is different. There is a limit on how metaphorical, poetic, or embellished this story can be. If it is total fiction, then all Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are fictions too. Jesus cannot be God-incarnate if God never gave Israel the two Torahs. Jesus cannot have died for anyone's sins, even his own, without the precedent of God's holy instruction to humanity. Mohammed cannot be a prophet if there was no prophet at Sinai. If nothing truly miraculous happened in the desert, then nothing miraculous happens in minyan, in church or mosque, and in history. The end of days will surely happen, but it too won't be miraculous.

Absolutely everything about Judeo-Christian-Muslim religious belief comes down to Sinai.

This is the lesson taught me by the series on Chapter 36 of James L. Kugel’s How to Read the Bible. It was not Kugel's lesson, as he did not dwell too much on being a believer except for that final section of the chapter. Nevertheless, as we leave Kugel's book and look at the world, the question that people have to answer and deal with is "What is it you think happened out there in the desert?"

I've given my answer. I don't know Kugel's, unless I have skipped over it. I imagine he thinks that something divine happened out there.

The more important question--that is, the one that has real consequences in the world--is why one would think something happened (or didn't) in that wilderness. The why is the more telling, for what happened merely separates us while why do you think that determines whether we are friends or enemies.

Music Pick-Me-Up

2012-01-27T15:10:00.000-05:00

I'm totally drained today.

How about some fun songs? Here's one from my childhood:

And another:

One more, this time from my adolescence:

An Atheist Jew Does the Alpha Course: Week 6, Why and How Should I Read the Bible?

2012-01-26T16:10:00.005-05:00

Holding tzitzit: Not all that different from praying with a Sani-Wipes container.

This is the sixth official installment in the Alpha course series, in which I recall my experiences as a Jewish-raised dude and now a Gnu Atheist who took the Alpha course with his Christian wife. Names have been changed to protect privacy.

Last week, after my small group passed around a Sani-Wipes container to be used as a prayer stick, I accepted that Alpha offered no place for my opinions and perspectives. Although the container was ridiculous as a worship aid, it was not by itself the reason I detached emotionally from Alpha. After all, in Judaism, tallis and tefillin have some prayer token capacities. We also lift the Torah scrolls high before the congregation and we kiss them.

But I was struck by the picture of people adopting the container for their incantations and with such reverance. In our group, intelligent adults grasped the the Sani-Wipes container with two hands. They bowed their heads before it, closed their eyes, and recited all their wishes to the Lord. The sight of a common household cleaner converted into a devotional instrument was too much. It represented how imaginary and emotional Alpha's appeals were. Alpha's leaders wanted to excite people's imagination and desires. The "big questions" they promised many weeks ago were not my questions or questions from participants, they were questions presented by Alpha and for Alpha to answer. The object and endgame of the course was one thing: assimilation. What's a successful Alpha course? One that gets as many people as possible to pray to Jesus and become active in the church.

My notes on the session:

This was a tough night because my family is displaced. A snowstorm knocked out power in our area and forced us to stay temporarily with my sister-in-law. The arrangements there were nice enough, but my wife and I would have preferred to be at home and on our routine.
Dinner was ham, veggies, and salad. I didn’t eat the ham. Conversation centered on the storm, and who did and did not have electricity back.
Live music again; contemporary worship stuff. Carmen, the singer, played two songs. As usual, one song had been performed the previous week and one song was new.

The songs seemed sterile. How many times can you sing “God, you are so awesome”?
Maybe it's that the songs come across as mawkish and theatrical.

Ten Bears, from The Outlaw Josey Wales.

For my money, a Jewish song of praise, such as "Aleinu" and "Adon Olam," has more emotional and intellectual content. More iron, as Ten Bears would say.

Gumbel’s DVD talk was particularly irritating tonight.

Subject was why and how to read the Bible.

Not clear what he meant by the Bible: Old Testament and New Testament together or just the New Testament?
People in group appear to refer only to the NT when they say "the Bible." At least, they seem concerned only with Genesis, Exodus, Psalms, Proverbs, and Job from the OT.

Said the Bible was a love letter from God to people.

My eyes roll at a sentiment such as this. The "love letter" metaphor is clearly interpretive; it carries ideas of affection, intimacy, it majesty. It intends to draw out feelings of nobility, humility, and gratitude. It encourages the ego's indulgence: the creator of the universe wants us to know that he loves us and wants us to love him too!
I have nothing against love letters or interpretations. My point is that an interpretation has to be demonstrated, and demonstrated carefully. My problem is that Gumbel made no such demonstration. He didn't even try.

Gumbel acknowledged total human authorship of the Bible and some historical gaffs, but asserted definitively that the Bible was 100 percent inspired by God and 100 percent true.

Here he used an analogy with architect Christopher Wren, who never himself built his buildings.
Said the Bible is for teaching, rebuking, guiding, and so forth.
Advised people to read the Bible in a quiet place and meditate on God, Jesus, and yatta-yatta

He explained that a person did not need to abandon belief just because of questions or problems with the Bible's unsavory aspects. One can have reservations and yet continue on developing a relationship with Jesus.

Surprisingly, this point did not come up in small group.

I have myself made similar points before (see here and here).

Gumbel's final story was complete rubbish. He was afraid his father had died not being a Christian. Gumbel prayed and read the Bible and felt--strongly felt--that his Dad came to know Jesus and was saved. He gathered through coincidence that, yes, Dad really had become a Christian before it was too late. Phew!

Some in our group seemed impressed by this story.

I was underwhelmed because the story came across as a combination of wish fulfillment and pattern seeking. Even if it’s all true, we know nothing of the real thinking that Gumbel’s father’s had on accepting/not-accepting Jesus.

Small group started with a question on who had read the Bible and what their experiences of reading it have been.

Most folks said they found it hard reading and kind of dull.

Some people said they were in study groups. Many of the group leaders, I learned, were in such groups. My knowledge of such groups is that they focus on a certain book, such as Job or Mark, and then follow a guided path. Several companies sell study materials and commentaries. What they teach, of course, is the party line.

Seems like group leader wanted me to talk more. I really have not spoken up for some weeks now.

Odd talk about a young painter named Akiane, apparently born into a house of atheist parents. At only four years old she had visions from God and painted pictures of Jesus and pretty horses. Now she sells the paintings for beaucoup bucks, no surprise, but some of the money goes to charity.

We read the sower parable from Luke 8:4-15 together.

I quickly reviewed the analogues from Mark and Matthew. The story changes slightly in each case.

Discussion focused on "see without seeing and hear without understanding."

They, the believers, are the ones who really get it because they believe. So they are the ones who do see and do understand.

Those who don’t believe or are unimpressed are “blind and deaf.” They are deficient. They are wrong.

This was the first time I had ever felt it was not OK to be a non-believer. Earlier posts have sketched the mounting pressure both to believe and to be actively Christian while simultaneously framing non-belief in negative terms. This week, that pressure was increased.

Unfortunately, I did not voice my displeasure. I don’t think I will be so quiet the next time.
I expected there to be another prayer time, but there wasn't. At my turn, I was going to say that it is possible not to accept Christianity, despite having seen and understood as in the parable. My point would have been that there is legitimate reason to reject Christianity. Even now, I maintain that I see as clearly and understand as much as anyone else, but I have what I think are pretty good reasons to think that Christianity’s core doctrines are false.

Inspiration? No, Thanks.

2012-01-25T09:59:00.007-05:00

A Facebook friend approvingly posted this picture.

With chubby cheeks, pigtails, and overalls, an innocent little girl prays for the repair of the US economy. Then she laments that a shadowy "some" have "taken" God/Jesus "out of our schools, government and even Christmas" [emphasis added]. Finally, the darling asks God/Jesus to return, arguing that more people want God/Jesus here than don't.

Many Christians think this nonsense is inspirational, yet it's obviously propagandist. Using the image of a sweet, praying child to comment on the price of gasoline is disgusting enough, but we all know what is meant by the "some" who want to take out God/Jesus--some liberals, some atheists. Vile secularists are the reason for the sluggish economy and for social unrest.

Once upon a time, say the inspired Christians, God/Jesus was in our schools. In those perfect days, God/Jesus was in our government and in Christmas. Those were the days when Jews didn't belong to our country clubs, blacks didn't go to our schools, gays didn't use our word "marriage," and women didn't work outside our homes.

Those were the days when we could dictate what happened in the oil markets, when the state could sponsor Christianity, and when we didn't have to acknowledge that some believed in a different god or had no god at all. --You can read my sarcasm here, right?

Then let me be serious and straightforward: go away with your fake prayers and your god-bothering. You want America's problems to disappear magically. You want it all fixed, but without any cost to you or your friends. Most of all, you want to appear pious and stoic.

Your inspiration, summarized: see a problem, cry about it, and start wearing a crucifix.

Kugel's HTRTB [Part 12]: Only One Bible

2012-01-23T10:19:00.003-05:00

We continue to read Chapter 36 in James L. Kugel’s How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now. This twelfth installment covers the last section.

In this final section, Kugel cautions against misrepresenting Chapter 36 or giving it greater importance than all of How to Read the Bible before it:

My subject has been not the ruin of the Bible but the Bible itself--its highways and byways, heroes, brigands, walk-ons, and also-rans, its mysteries and its ineffables, as well as its sometimes treacherous little details. Beyond these, this book is about two extraordinary sets of interpreters, and I have made no effort to disguise my admiration for both. Their approaches, however, are quite irreconcilable.

Reminding us of his main subject and aims, Kugel also describes a particular use for the book: "I hope that this book may at least offer some help in finding an escape from the box of original meaning." This specific help is very important; it's the key to everything Kugel has done:

Defined two different sets of biblical interpreters: the first interpreters (ancient period) and modern interpreters (post-DH scholars).
Showed that the approaches of the two sets are irreconcilable. One cannot read the bible as one set and accept the interpretations of the other set at all.
Argued, moreover, that modern biblical criticism is not criticism of the (real) Bible.

The third bullet point requires explanation. To do this, let me first refer back to the previous installment of our series, where I quoted Kugel on reading the Bible properly.

The texts that make up the Bible were originally composed under whatever circumstances they were composed. What made them the Bible, however, was their definitive reinterpretation along the lines of the Four Assumptions of the ancient interpreters--a way of reading that was established in Judaism in the form of the Oral Torah. Read the Bible in this way and you are reading it properly, that is, in keeping with the understanding of those who made and canonized the Bible. Read it any other way and you have drastically misconstrued the intentions of the Bible's framers.

My earlier analysis did not appreciate that Kugel’s point was eminently bold. In the quote, Kugel says that the Bible is only the Bible when approached as it was by the ancient interpreters. Implicitly, therefore, the approach of modern scholars makes the Bible not the Bible but rather a set of texts with disparate “original meanings.” These meanings thus have nothing to do with the Bible as Bible!

To illustrate further, you can read modern biblical scholarship. You can follow its arguments and even come to agree with its conclusions. The point is that these conclusions don’t affect you when you read the Bible properly. Reading properly takes you beyond the conclusions, and this is how you “escape the box of original meaning.”

With some personal pride, I say that this approach--separating the belief-based context from the historical--was one that I myself adopted when tried to retain a semblance of Jewishness. In those days, I reasoned that when I prayed at shul, it was as if Judaism was true. Judaism didn’t need to be true outside or in reality, but it could be and would be when I was playing the part of observant Jew. Shul was a theater and I a player.

In those days, I would have happily agreed with Kugel’s description:

Scripture in different religious traditions always seems to have the remarkable ability to become the locus of people’s deepest inner fumblings and mumblings: those words suddenly contain so much--their quality of Scripture gives them that right--and they fill up with all that is most important: they become the theater of the soul.

The Old Testament and the Hebrew Scriptures are different texts because the Old Testament is already rendered throughout as a translation that prefigures Jesus. People don't simply open the Old Testament and on their own start seeing Jesus parallels. Rather, the Old Testament has been translated with Christology in mind and the resulting text is available expressly to support Christian theological interpretations.

Read the Hebrew Scriptures as pre-figuring Jesus and you are not reading them as a Jew. For Kugel, the Bible really is the Hebrew Bible; there really is no other Bible. Neither the box of original meaning nor the box of Christian meaning ultimately affects the Bible, for the Bible only happens through a single set of approaches now associated with rabbinic Judaism.

I see wisdom in most everything Kugel says, and although I rarely disagree with him, I depart from him significantly. I depart when he contains the Bible to the approach of its first interpreters. I depart again when he connects belief and behavior, as when he discusses what it means to be an observant person. Kugel means religiously observant, Jewish particularly, but I don’t. He describes the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and the Jewish religious prohibition against approaching the area, "lest by accident [pious Jews'] foot defile the place where once the Holy of Holies stood, the place of God’s presence on earth (which could be entered only once a year, and only by one man, the high priest)." Kugel believes the Holy of Holies sat in an entirely different place from the current Temple Mount. Nevertheless, he follows other observant Jews and does not approach the Temple Mount.

Were the opportunity ever to come for me to ascend the Temple Mount, I probably would. How could I not? This, then, is where I depart from Kugel again.The tenets of my observance would encourage me to ascend, to see, to learn, to consider.

The departure continues. Kugel suggests that even if the rabbis are sometimes wrong, what matters is their project to record and represent God’s intent for His people. Their project to help His people live out God’s will. For Kugel, though, there is such a thing as God’s intent. There is a Holy of Holies somewhere in the textual archaeology of the Bible. There is a continuity between God's intent for His people and "the intentions of the Bible's framers."

Kugel says he "could not be involved in a religion that was entirely a human artifact." Neither could I. The difference is that I no longer see any reason to believe there is a Holy of Holies in the Bible. I cannot justify viewing the Bible as anything other than an entirely human artifact. And here's the most amazing thing of all: accepting that God and the Bible are man-made has brought me intellectually and personally closer to them than ever before.

Postmodern Writing

2012-01-20T16:45:00.002-05:00

Mathematician Jeffrey Shallit links to a 2004 paper titled “Cultural Topology: An Introduction to Postmodern Mathematics.” Written by Brent Blackwell, a professor of literature at Ball State, the essay exemplifies postmodern academic prose as unclear writing.

The paragraph below seems to be the thesis:

This essay develops a new way of thinking about the cultural relationships among and within the sciences and the arts through a new understanding of the term postmodernism that at once derives from literary theory and the mathematical discipline of topology. While topology forms the main vertebra of this connective approach in its capacity as the mathematics of connectivity, quantum mechanics and non-Euclidean geometry -- the atlas and axis of this spinal column -- form the context through which this “postmodern” approach will develop. However, in order to position topology as a “postmodern” branch of mathematics, some brief explanations are in order: first, regarding postmodernism, and finally regarding topology.

Only three sentences make up the paragraph; the first two each contain over 40 words, which is a lot. Sentence one promises “a new way of thinking about” the sciences and the arts, something to do with illuminating cultural relationships between them. Sentence one also introduces the essay’s sales hook, “a new understanding of the term postmodernism.” The source of the newness, Blackwell says, will come from his combining usage of the term in literary studies with ideas taken from the mathematical subject of topology. To re-cap: one sentence, 40-plus words, and two undefined topics. Topic one is the relationship of the arts and sciences; topic two is postmodernism infused with topology.

Sentence two confuses matters further. Blackwell uses “vertebra” as the metaphor for his argument. Topology, he explains, will be the argument’s main component. But then he abruptly brings in quantum mechanics and non-Euclidian geometry, fitting the two subjects into the metaphor without explaining how the whole argument relates to the initial point about the arts and sciences. In two sentences, we have come a long way. Sentence one starts with a new way to think about the arts and sciences. It ends with a new way to think about postmodernism. Then sentence two tells us our time will be spent on topology--and also quantum mechanics and non-Euclidian geometry.

Blackwell’s paragraph is a fucking mess. It’s subject is poorly defined and sprawling. It’s vague, verbose, and technical. The entire essay is the same way. In some circles, however, such prose remains perfectly acceptable. While postmodernism has largely died and been replaced by the digital humanities, it has influenced academic writing. Today’s academic writing tends toward clarity and away from stylistic excesses, at least from what I have seen in two years “back” in the academic world. Yet, postmodernism was never only about style; it opened subjects. An English major could focus on favorite novels and the practice of quilting, on poetry and feminism, on the teaching profession and politics. Postmodernism made everything the subject, and everything was subject to study, discussion, and critique.

I am sentimentally attached to postmodernism, even to its academic writing style. From the mid-1990s to 2002, when I was a full-time graduate student in a literary studies program, my writing style resembled Blackwell’s. I don’t have an example on hand of my worst writing offenses, but I have posted here part of what would have been the second chapter in my old dissertation:

To understand how different edited texts of the same literary work construct that work differently, we need a tool for capturing the structure and functions of literary language--that is, of literary language as it becomes represented in and through text. In The Literary Work of Art, first published in German in 1931, Roman Ingarden provides such a tool by demonstrating that the literary work has a heteronomous existence, existing both on its own and dependent upon the conscious activity of a reader. Ingarden gives us a sophisticated picture of the internal ontological constitution and articulation of the literary work and its world. Because edited texts result in part from the conscious, critical acts of editors, Ingarden’s model can be used to compare different edited texts and gauge the effects of their differences on our apprehension of them and their presented worlds.

Although I would love to make a few changes to this paragraph, I don’t think it's bad writing. I also see in it hallmarks of postmodern writing. For example, “literary language as it becomes represented in and through text” (emphasis added) is a postmodern formulation. Compare it with Blackwell’s “among and within the sciences and the arts.”

Blackwell and I also share a trope, a writing template in which the scholar uses terminology from another field to generate insights about fashionable or too familiar subjects. For instance, Blackwell adopts the language of topology to make points about academic animosity between the arts and sciences. For another instance, my paragraph tells readers I’ll apply literary critic Roman Ingarden’s concepts to a study of scholarly editions in medieval literature. The dissertation project I am working on now uses this trope, although not in quite the same way.

The point is that the literary scholar does more than simply read literature or argue a position in the arts-versus-sciences debate. This factor accounts for the appeal of postmodernism and the pretenses of its prose: we're doing more than reading books and making appeals. After all, at some point, one doesn't feel there's much else to say about "Young Goodman Brown" or "Ode on a Grecian Urn." To say something new about these works or about the world, one needs to set them in a new context. Postmodernism allowed for this, first by emphasizing that words held underlying assumptions and connotations and then by arguing that literary and non-literary words could be analyzed in the same way. One could deconstruct a political speech as well as a sonnet. One could rhetorically analyze any cultural feature--temples, malls, quilts, treatises, dissident movements, academic disciplines.

While postmodernism appealed to me because it laid open the world to language-based study, its obfuscating prose was difficult to emulate. I tried to write the way the big names did: Derrida, Spivak, Jameson, Lacan, Butler, Kristeva, Foucault, de Man, Deleuze and Guattari, and Zizek. To me, their way was erudite, playful, and complex. For example, here's Brian Massumi, a pretty good practitioner of the postmodern style, in a 2005 article:

In March 2002, with much pomp, the Bush administration’s new Department of Homeland Security introduced its color-coded terror alert system: green, “low”; blue, “guarded”; yellow, “elevated”; orange, “high”; red, “severe.” The nation has danced ever since between yellow and orange. Life has restlessly settled, to all appearances permanently, on the redward end of the spectrum, the blue-greens of tranquility a thing of the past. “Safe” doesn’t even merit a hue. Safe, it would seem, has fallen off the spectrum of perception. Insecurity, the spectrum says, is the new normal.

The alert system was introduced to calibrate the public’s anxiety. In the aftermath of 9/11, the public’s fearfulness had tended to swing out of control in response to dramatic, but maddeningly vague, government warnings of an impending follow-up attack. The alert system was designed to modulate that fear. It could raise it a pitch, then lower it before it became too intense, or even worse, before habituation dampened response. Timing was everything. Less fear itself than fear fatigue became an issue of public concern. Affective modulation of the populace was now an official, central function of an increasingly time-sensitive government.

The self-defensive reflex-response to perceptual cues that the system was designed to train into the population wirelessly jacked central government functioning directly into each individual’s nervous system. The whole population became a networked jumpiness, a distributed neuronal network registering en masse quantum shifts in the nation’s global state of discomfiture in rhythm with leaps between color levels. Across the geographical and social differentials dividing them, the population fell into affective attunement. That the shifts registered en masse did not necessarily mean that people began to act similarly, as in social imitation of each other, or of a model proposed for each and all. “Imitation renders form; attunement renders feeling.” Jacked into the same modulation of feeling, bodies reacted in unison without necessarily acting alike. Their responses could, and did, take many forms. What they shared was the central nervousness. How it translated somatically varied body by body.

Here, the prose gets denser as we go along. The beginning of the third paragraph is classic postmodernist academic writing, with blocks of phrases stacked after one another. Figurative language gets ever more elaborate, and the references of words become hard to discern. I was one person who wanted to write this way. The style spoke to how the ideas and scope of our work went way beyond "This poem represents man's inhumanity to man." Other academic disciplines used jargon and had their own prose conventions, so why not literary studies? Why were we supposed to remain the disheveled daydreamers in rumpled tweed jackets?

Even as a graduate student, however, I sensed that postmodern academic prose was overwrought. This was a product of my vanity. I thought I had good ideas, so I felt it was important for readers to understand them as I did. Later, when I joined the business world and led proposal teams, I largely abandoned the postmodern style, although I still use too many paratactic, polysyndetic, and preposition-conjunction-preposition constructions. Clear and relatively simple statements are prized in my current gig, which suits me fine. I am an inveterate editor and reviser who loves clear, punchy prose. I still hold the lessons of my graduate studies, that apparently straightforward prose sometimes contains nasty presuppositions. Indeed, the postmodern style emerged partly as an attempt make them explicit. Ideally, the postmodern writer wanted both to say something and to analyze the saying--at the same time.

It was a doomed wish; that's why postmodernism declined and the style receded.

NFL Playoff Predictions, Championship Round (2011 Season)

2012-01-20T01:25:00.015-05:00

In a world of moral uncertainty and depravity, I'm your best bet for NFL wagering.

Rabbi Itzalok has again huddled with the Divine One to predict the outcome of this coming weekend's National Football League playoff games.

Here are Rabbi I's picks for this all-important next round:

Baltimore Ravens at New England Patriots. QB Joe Flacco will become Hashem incarnate, leading the Ravens to a 31-21 victory over the Pats. Get thee behind me, Belichick!
New York Giants at San Francisco 49ers. Even if Eli is slightly ill, the Giants will mercilessly stomp the hopes and dreams of the 'Niners, 37-29.

Best part of the Denver Broncos' playoff loss to the Patriots: In response to a column in which he'd said the Patriots "exposed" the Broncos, sports journalist Bob Ryan received this email:

Exposed? You are the one exposed. Wrath of God. May the Lord of all creation tear you apart.

Dear readers, may the Lord of all creation tear you apart also--with jaw-dropping NFL playoff action! Thy will be done, holy shit, and yatta-yatta.

An Atheist Jew Does the Alpha Course: Week 5, Why and How Do I Pray?

2012-01-19T12:11:00.004-05:00

This week, we used a container of Sani-Wipes as a prayer stick. Judaism prohibits prayer sticks, right? As a form of idolatrous practice?

This is the fifth official installment in the Alpha course series, in which I recall my experiences as a Jewish-raised dude and now a Gnu Atheist who took the Alpha course with his Christian wife. Names have been changed to protect privacy.

Last week, I accepted that Alpha was not going to be anything like what I had hoped. Saddened in one sense, in another I was relieved. Now I was free to observe the proceedings without worrying about being a participant. It turns out that this week's proceedings were very enjoyable, in a "I can't believe what's happening" way.

Alpha hosts and small group leaders are now making a big push for people to participate in the retreat weekend. They say they have funds to help defray costs for people who might find it too expensive. It's about $100 or so per person. The weekend sounds fun, except for the group feely-feely stuff. It's going to be held at what sounds like a kind of campus in New Hampshire. There's supposed to be woods and walking paths around. My wife wants to go, and I'm on board if she is. So it looks like we are going.

My notes on this evening's content:

Dinner was chili; pretty good!
Worship music featured two songs, as usual.

Tonight, we heard “Lord I Lift Your Name on High” and “How Great Is Our God.”
The music comes across as both detached and mawkish. The first song seems self-centered, as if the worshiper is watching himself/herself pray. The second song is a communal high-five, but I don't see what it has to do with worship.

Tonight's DVD talk focuses on prayer.

Nicky Gumbel, the speaker in the DVD, breathlessly declares that prayer is real, it’s good for you, and it works.
Nothing very impressive here for me, except that Gumbel is all about telling stories in which people are just AMAZED (all caps) at something that has happened. Someone gets a job and someone else had prayed that it would happen, and they were both AMAZED. Many stories involve Gumbel coming to tears and/or someone pouring out his heart to someone else.
We got our first mention--that I can recall--of “the evil one.” I await a future talk that brings Satan into focus. Because a universe isn't complete without powerful and invisible beings on both the "good" and "bad" sides.
One ugly part was the idea that because Christians are forgiven, they are better able to forgive than others (other religions, other people). I forget now what the exact statement was, so I want to be careful and not misrepresent what was said. Nevertheless, there was the idea that feeling forgiven by God entails a greater capacity for and likelihood of forgiving others. This seems like a vacuous assertion. It’s all feel-good if one is a Christian, but the rest of us would like to see that claim backed up with some facts, please.

Small group talked about people’s experience with prayer.

We welcomed a woman into our group. She seems a sunny personality.
Some shared that they feel someone (i.e., a higher power or God) is listening when they pray. Several suggested that this feeling developed over time; when they were younger, or not part of their current church, prayer seemed less effectual or genuine. The “as if” and “as though” expressions amused me. One might feel as though she drives a million-dollar sports car, but feeling that way is different from it actually being the case.
Tonight, group leaders invited everyone to pray in public. They had a plastic container of Sani-Wipes. The person with the container was supposed to say a prayer out loud and then pass the container around to the next person, who would then offer a prayer.
One person declined to pray and simply passed the container.
When my turn came, I said I would not pray but that I appreciated being with everyone there and getting to know them. After the meeting, one of the group leaders said she was touched by what I said. She may have been telling the truth, but I also know that apparent kindness and unconditional positive regard are part of what the leaders are directed to offer.
As I listened to the discussion and heard people praying, I became filled with empathy. These folks are generally anxious and put upon in their lives. In church and in belief, they temporarily feel empowered and validated.

The One Book Everyone Should Read

2012-01-19T09:01:00.001-05:00

People who want to break away from religiously based literature ask what books they should read. Before pointing them to Darwin, Dawkins, Coyne, Russell, Hume, Bayle or most anyone else, recommend them to the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius.

Meditations is the preeminent work of reason. Fewer educated people have read it today; it's not universal in literature survey courses, and Classics courses continue to disappear. This is unfortunate. Our world would benefit greatly if politicians, teachers, lobbyists, and dissidents regularly adopted the Meditations in their discourse.

Sample three passages from Book 1:

From Diognetus, [I learned] not to busy myself about trifling things, and not to give credit to what was said by miracle-workers and jugglers about incantations and the driving away of daemons and such things; and not to breed quails for fighting, nor to give myself up passionately to such things; and to endure freedom of speech; and to have become intimate with philosophy; and to have been a hearer, first of Bacchius, then of Tandasis and Marcianus; and to have written dialogues in my youth; and to have desired a plank bed and skin, and whatever else of the kind belongs to the Grecian discipline.

From Rusticus I received the impression that my character required improvement and discipline; and from him I learned not to be led astray to sophistic emulation, nor to writing on speculative matters, nor to delivering little hortatory orations, nor to showing myself off as a man who practises much discipline, or does benevolent acts in order to make a display; and to abstain from rhetoric, and poetry, and fine writing; and not to walk about in the house in my outdoor dress, nor to do other things of the kind; and to write my letters with simplicity, like the letter which Rusticus wrote from Sinuessa to my mother; and with respect to those who have offended me by words, or done me wrong, to be easily disposed to be pacified and reconciled, as soon as they have shown a readiness to be reconciled; and to read carefully, and not to be satisfied with a superficial understanding of a book; nor hastily to give my assent to those who talk overmuch; and I am indebted to him for being acquainted with the discourses of Epictetus, which he communicated to me out of his own collection.

From Apollonius I learned freedom of will and undeviating steadiness of purpose; and to look to nothing else, not even for a moment, except to reason; and to be always the same, in sharp pains, on the occasion of the loss of a child, and in long illness; and to see clearly in a living example that the same man can be both most resolute and yielding, and not peevish in giving his instruction; and to have had before my eyes a man who clearly considered his experience and his skill in expounding philosophical principles as the smallest of his merits; and from him I learned how to receive from friends what are esteemed favours, without being either humbled by them or letting them pass unnoticed.

Everyone should read the Meditations. More should discuss it. It will not make one an atheist, nor will it make one a skeptic. It does not even challenge or criticize religion. Yet Meditations surpasses all in framing thought and in setting reason above desire.

We struggle to manage desire's rule, especially if we have been told that God or Jesus loves us. Especially if we enjoy being with friends and family at worship services. Especially if we like the architecture and atmosphere of a religious building. We want to feel personally empowered, loved, and connected.

The power of Meditations is to moderate desire. In fact, it puts desire in the service of reason. Until this happens, one cannot be persuaded that Jesus really isn't Lord, that God really isn't great, that Mohammed isn't Allah's prophet, that we are not sinners, that we do not have souls, that our dead loved ones reside neither in heaven nor hell, and that devils and angels are not fighting over us.

Two Examples of Jewish Religious Idiocy

2012-01-17T12:03:00.002-05:00

Two recent instances where religious bullies look foolish and petty as they struggle to hold their privilege.

Exhibit one is bigotry-soaked malcontent Jacob Stein, who calls himself the "Jewish Philosopher." The self-appointed philosopher doesn't think Jeffrey Falick, an ordained rabbi, ought to use the title of rabbi.

I have never written a post about another blog before, however I am making an exception in this case. I believe that it is an incredible insult to the rabbinate for an individual like this to claim to be a rabbi. If he simply called himself "Mr" I wouldn't give him a second thought. The Internet is loaded with liars, lunatics, perverts, scumbags and so on of all stripes. That's nothing noteworthy. However I do feel the need to protest when one calls himself "rabbi". I really haven't seen something like that before, surely not such an extreme example. Even Reform Judaism officially accepts a belief in God. A militantly atheist "rabbi" is just absurd. How can a clergyman be openly antireligious? Can one imagine the harm done if some naive person were to approach this man for spiritual guidance? I feel it's as if someone like Ron Jeremy (also Jewish by the way) would start calling himself "rabbi". Imagine the storm of disgust and protest that would provoke. What's next - "The Neo-Nazi Rabbi"? "The Islamic Terrorist Rabbi"?

Falick is more legitimately a rabbi than Stein is a philosopher. But Stein, a convert to Judaism, goes beyond mere intolerance to dangerousness. He surely intends to incite harassment by giving Falick's address, contact information, and employer. Meanwhile, Falick's response is elegant and dignified.

Exhibit two is up-and-coming attention whore Moshe Averick, who talks schoolyard trash attempting to bait a credible intellectual like Jerry Coyne:

Jerry, I apologize, because deep down I really like you, and the thought that I am causing you pain, even if it’s just your tuchus, disturbs me to no end. I did hold out the peace-pipe to you in one of my recent columns on Algemeiner.com where I suggested we meet and discuss our differences about Origin of Life in an adult forum at the lovely Hyde Park campus of the University of Chicago, but you have made it clear in several of your posts at Why Evolution is True that you prefer to have women do your fighting for you. That includes both Terri-Lynne McCormick (the wife of Origin of Life researcher Dr. Jack Szostak), and Faye Flam the Planet of the Apes columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. Although Ms. McCormick was mistaken about her accusations against me, I certainly admire a woman who “stands by her man,” as she felt she was defending her husband against unfair representation; and while Faye Flam’s arguments against my position were rather weak, to say the least, I do give her credit for (a) being polite and civil in both her public and private communication with me and (b) at least having the courage to write out some form of measured, coherent argument explaining why the utter cluelessness of scientists regarding a naturalistic origin of life does not imply the existence of a Creator. It is worth noting that both of these women spoke on behalf of Dr. Jack Szostak. It would be interesting to hear what Szostak himself has to say about the ignorance of science about origin of life and the challenges that ID theorists present to his position. [emphasis added]

Averick has a history of saying stupid and incorrect things, as he himself indicates in his long-winded way of calling Coyne a "pussy." His full intellect and personality revealed, Averick can now slink back in shame to the land of negligibility.

Birthday Lesson: All In

2012-01-15T16:16:00.004-05:00

For the past two years I have used my birthday to reflect on life lessons. I have no lessons this time. My 42nd year was trying in a number of ways. That's not to say it was a bad year or a troubling year, but I was very busy and often stressed. Although many great things happened this year, I can't say I fully enjoyed myself as much and as often as I should have.

I know the reasons for this. I have taken on too many activities and responsibilities. I have divided my thoughts and emotions into excessively small portions. It may not be that I'm doing too much but rather that when I do anything I need to be more present and engaged.

So, there is a lesson: full immersion; all in. Here's to being there in my 43rd year.

Pissing on the Dead: A Question for Opponents of Moral Relativism

2012-01-13T12:31:00.000-05:00

We use words like honor, code, piss. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline!

In response to the recent news item of U.S. Marines videoed urinating on what appear to be the corpses of Taliban fighters, many commenters have echoed and agreed with this defense:

To all of you that are ‘outraged’ or consider this barbaric I say this: Put your boots on and climb into the sand box. When you have been in combat for a few weeks, and you smell of urine, sweat, and the blood from you or a fellow soldier then talk about the humanity of war. When you see children and corpses used as road blocks for IEDs, then talk about the humanity of war. When the stench of death permeates the air around you day in and day out, then talk about the humanity of war. Urinating on a deceased enemy that a few minutes earlier was trying to kill you is somehow minute in the scheme of things. Lopping off heads and slitting throats is somehow not barbaric?

In the past, I took some heat for sympathizing with moral relativism and nihilism. Interlocutors offered different moral scenarios and asked me if moral relativism would allow me to call certain scenario actions "wrong."

Well, now I want to hear from you moral realists and those who talk about objective morality. If the individual Marines did what they are accused of doing, did they violate an objective moral law? Which law(s) specifically?

And what flaws do you see in the defense of the Marines's alleged behavior? Why do the defenders get it wrong?

NFL Playoff Predictions, Divisional Round (2011 Season)

2012-01-13T00:52:00.002-05:00

In a world of uncertainty and moral depravity, I'm your best bet for wagering on the NFL.

Rabbi Itzalok has again huddled with the Divine One to predict the outcome of this coming weekend's National Football League divisional playoff games.

He reminds you that he alone picked anointed Tebow's Broncos to crush the fedora-wearin', aggravated assaultin' Steelers.

Here are Rabbi I's picks for the next round:

Denver Broncos at New England Patriots. Hallelujah! Broncos shock the world and sacrifice a ram. They win 31-24.
New Orleans Saints at San Francisco 49ers. Barry Bonds shows up at the game to clobber Drew Brees. 'Niners 34-31.
Houston Texans at Baltimore Ravens. Who cares? Ravens by 10.
New York Giants at Green Bay Packers. Eli cries while Rodgers shows off his upgraded discount double-check dance. Pack, 41-24.

An Atheist Jew Does the Alpha Course: Week 4, How Can We Have Faith?

2012-01-12T17:19:00.001-05:00

Alpha begins to resemble Bizarro World.

This is the fourth official installment in the Alpha course series, in which I recall my experiences as a Jewish-raised dude and now a Gnu Atheist who took the Alpha course with his Christian wife. Names have been changed to protect privacy.

I was more alert entering into tonight's session because I was not sure how others in my group understood my perspective last week. Even today, I cannot tell whether at the time they thought I was a Christian with doubts, a Jew with questions, or an atheist bent on troublemaking.

In this uncertain context, tonight's session would confirm some of my thoughts about Alpha and about the group. I would learn why our small group had four leaders, people who had taken the course before and had had some training in participating as leaders. I would realize that the leaders were using techniques they had been taught as they conducted the class and contributed to small group discussions. And I would see and know what Alpha was really all about. Until tonight, I thought it was about inquiry. After tonight, I knew it was about evangelism.

My notes on the evening:

Chicken sausage and salad for dinner. Very good.
I thought someone would give me some questions at dinner, but I was wrong. No religious talk at the table.
A couple of songs played and sung by Carmen, with lights dimmed for mood.
Nicky Gumbel’s DVD talk was on how to have faith.

His argument was that one could know and have faith in Jesus/God by:

Reading the Bible
Considering the death and resurrection of Jesus as historical events
Having the proper attitude and frame of mind

Gumbel also talked about being a Christian as being a follower of Jesus.

Who determines who a follower is?
Can one be a follower and still think Jesus was OK in some respects but flawed in others?

Lots of emphasis on:

John's gospel, which of course is late and quite different from the synoptics. In fact, it is a wicked text.
Doctrinal teachings of Paul

So far, we are not answering “the big questions” but are rather being encouraged in the faith. This whole program is about helping folks become more sure of their faith and more religious.

Small group discussion started off with an ice-breaker. We went around with reactions to the talk and ideas about faith.

People talked about having conversations with Jesus/God, with coming to faith through prayer and so forth.

About 15-20 minutes in, the woo became too much for me and I asked why people felt that faith offered a “special sauce” to things they could do or get just as well without faith.

There was a comment on Christian values and such, as in why one would have any moral restraint at all if one wasn’t a Christian.

There was a comment on a morality derived from “survival of the fittest.”

It was recommended to me to read the Bible and how wonderful it would be. I mentioned that I have read the Bible many times.

I challenged the idea of Jesus having given a “free gift” because the consequences of not accepting the gift after the fact are H-E-L-L.

I am feeling irritated at being the “village atheist,” even if people don't yet get that I am an atheist.

I have not said I am and no one has asked.
I'm also irritated that Alpha is about encouraging faith, not about exploring “big issues.”
Everyone except me is looking for a reason and a way to accept the faith.

I was soured enough on the session to send the following note to my wife:

Hey,

Was thinking about something as I drove into work today.

I go to Alpha because I love you and want to be with you, and because I was invited by Carmen. I enjoy the people and the interaction, but I wonder if my presence will sooner or later become a nuisance.

Yesterday in small group, one woman encouraged me to read the Bible, and she made her statement in reference to what she imagined was my "struggle with faith." You of course know that I am not having any kind of struggle, but these folks don't. I would hate to have them think I attend Alpha either to achieve some sort of faith or to be a contrarian pest. I'm there for you and for the discussion (and for the food), and that's it. I'm not looking to buy Christianity or to sell not-Christianity.

I know that there are many more sessions to come, but so far it seems the purpose of Alpha is to encourage people in the faith. We have only skirted on addressing the "big questions." If faith-building is the main objective, I wonder if the group leaders and others would prefer that I not attend.

After all, I'm never going to be a Christian in their sense of the term, and I'm never going to conclude something radically different about gods and religions generally. I know what the texts are and how they were written. I know the historical questions and backdrops. I know the philosophies and the theologies. And I know the desires and fears that have always driven religious experience.

My point is that I can never be anything but an opponent to someone seeking faith or to a group trying to promote it. Scott, Karen, and Josh lead our group trying to get people to open themselves to faith. I'm "closed," of course, and so maybe they'd feel like they could better accomplish what they wanted if I were not there.

Now, I don't want to steer people away from faith. I don't even think I could do this if I wanted to. I don't care what people choose to believe. I care about facts, and I only feel like speaking when people play fast and loose with factual information.

I should also say that I enjoy being in the group and speaking up. I like to argue and to dialogue. I want to stay, but I understand if the group leaders feel as though my participation is going to jam them up or cloud matters for others.

So, could you please ask them--maybe through Karen--if they are comfortable with my continued participation? Are you comfortable?

Love,

Me

This note was never sent, fortunately. But I pretty much shut up after this class--pretty much, not totally. I decided that my role in the group was only to support my wife and to correct any misapprehensions about atheists.

I figured out that group leaders had been instructed to let others in the group air out their thoughts, experiences, views, doubts, and so forth. They were not to engage in debate but rather to recount their personal experiences. When they spoke, they often related their first-hand experience. The tactic was clear: "You may doubt miracles, but I know what I saw with my own eyes." The tactic also helped people feel close to those who were opening themselves up publicly.

I think two other people have emerged as having some reservations. What's remarkable is that the trouble for them does not seem to be Christianity but rather their self-consciousness at not being as open to it as they feel they should be. This assessment is speculative, but I understand it. I have posted here about how I once felt like my agnosticism was my fault and that I should be a better, more consistently-believing Jew.

Ironically, after writing the note to my wife and concluding about my role in the group and course, I settled down and just started to observe. From turmoil came solace. That's about the time I began to think about possibly posting my experiences. The experiences would start to get ever more bizarre.

Romney's Victory Speech from New Hampshire

2012-01-11T11:05:00.001-05:00

"I am truly humbled by how awesome it would be for me to be president."

Mitt Romney has spent decades running for the U.S. presidency. I remember when he campaigned for governor of Massachusetts. Everybody knew then he was angling for a bigger job; it was one of the knocks against him.

Romney's recent victories in Iowa and New Hampshire owe themselves to his monumental efforts for years to fashion himself into candidacy. I'm interested to see how he fares in the south and midwest. Will he be confirmed as the GOP candidate or taken down as too middle-of-the-road?

I won't vote for Romney. He was only a fair governor, and he seems to me to represent a more deleterious option than even the Obama administration. His espoused actions and values would benefit the well-off in the immediate future, leave workers and unemployed on their own, and devastate the poorest and neediest. I speculate, of course.

In a political campaign, the speeches alone have any value. They are where one learns about who the candidates think they are and who they are fighting. Here are selections from Romney's speech last night, following his victory in the New Hampshire Republican primary. I number them for reference afterward.

(1) Americans know that our future is brighter and better than these troubled times. We still believe in the hope, the promise, and the dream of America. We still believe in that shining city on a hill.

(2) The president has run out of ideas. Now, he’s running out of excuses. And tonight, we are asking the good people of South Carolina to join the citizens of New Hampshire and make 2012 the year he runs out of time.

(3) President Obama wants to put free enterprise on trial. In the last few days, we have seen some desperate Republicans join forces with him. This is such a mistake for our party and for our nation. This country already has a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy. We must offer an alternative vision. I stand ready to lead us down a different path, where we are lifted up by our desire to succeed, not dragged down by a resentment of success. In these difficult times, we cannot abandon the core values that define us as unique - We are One Nation, Under God.

(4) Make no mistake, in this campaign, I will offer the American ideals of economic freedom a clear and unapologetic defense.

Our campaign is about more than replacing a president; it is about saving the soul of America. This election is a choice between two very different destinies.

President Obama wants to ‘fundamentally transform’ America. We want to restore America to the founding principles that made this country great.

He wants to turn America into a European-style entitlement society. We want to ensure that we remain a free and prosperous land of opportunity.

This president takes his inspiration from the capitals of Europe; we look to the cities and small towns of America.

This president puts his faith in government. We put our faith in the American people.

He is making the federal government bigger, burdensome, and bloated. I will make it simpler, smaller, and smarter.

He raised the national debt. I will cut, cap, and balance the budget.

He enacted job-killing regulations; I’ll eliminate them.

He lost our AAA credit rating; I’ll restore it.

He passed Obamacare; I’ll repeal it.

When it comes to the economy, my highest priority as president will be worrying about your job, not saving my own.

(5) Internationally, President Obama has adopted an appeasement strategy. He believes America’s role as leader in the world is a thing of the past. I believe a strong America must – and will – lead the future.

He doesn’t see the need for overwhelming American military superiority. I will insist on a military so powerful no one would think of challenging it.

He chastises friends like Israel; I’ll stand with our friends.

He apologizes for America; I will never apologize for the greatest nation in the history of the Earth.

Our plans protect freedom and opportunity, and our blueprint is the Constitution of the United States.

I could have selected more passages, but this sample shows us plenty about Romney and the drama he wants people to imagine for the campaign:

(1) America needs to return to a Christianized awesomeness.
(2) Obama is weak and effete; the men are now coming to fix it all.
(3) Don't hate the well-off; we love the little people. If you are struggling, God wants you to STFU.
(4) America needs to just let business shit ride because as long as the people have jobs, it will all be okay.
(5) America needs to act like a bad-ass.

The main takeaway from Romney's speech is that he has illustrated what George Orwell complained about in "Politics and the English Language" (1946):

As I have tried to show, modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug.

The selected examples from Romney's speech show a deliberate, cynical attempt to invoke authority by ideal. The "city on a hill" meme in (1) traces back to the biblical Isaiah and the Sermon on the Mount as well as to more recent political speeches by John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. Example (2) casts Obama as the weak mayor of an old west town--yer out of time, mister! Romney's being an irresponsible dick in (3): "bitter politics of envy" means nothing except to invoke divisiveness to criticize others for being divisive. What can be more vacuous than saying "We are One Nation, Under God"? Anyone left in the room after hearing (3) should have walked away from Romney the second his verbal dysentery resulted in the soul and destiny-inflected slogans of (4). That whole passage says only that Romney's do-nothing policies will be enacted with a more pleasant and palatable attitude. And (5), too, is all about America's posture.

This rhetoric is intolerable. It's insulting. Do people really buy Romney's message? Why?

Religion and Smallness

2012-01-10T22:09:00.006-05:00

Checking in from dissertation land. As I get into the work, I tense up at how great the labor is, and how small I am before it. It's a multi-colored mountain of junk, trinkets, nuggets, knick-knacks, gems, and rotting fruit all piled higher than Babel. And I stand in front of it with slacked shoulders and bent knees, grabbing an item here to make a sort, walking around there to something else for a different sort. To say I'm daunted is way beneath understatement.

But continue on, I do. So Yoda has instructed.

My leisure thoughts turn to reflecting on 2011. My birthday approaches and I want to clarify one or two truths I've pulled from that other Babel pile, my life. More than anything else, the year was demanding. If last year I appealed to myself and to the blogosphere for peace, perhaps I sensed my desire to be--or at least feel--less put upon.

Didn't happen.

I was needed. My family needed my presence and engagement. My ambitions demanded my time and my mind. My work had its requirements, too.

Life is a wave passing by the center of the ocean, as far away from land as one can be. It has a force that I can't resist. I don't think anyone can. Some lucky folks keep their balance as the force moves them in the wave's direction. Some struggle in the sea for equilibrium. Others rotate around and around, unable to stop what the rushing wave caused for them.

In this image, I finally see what religion and religious experience really are. I don't mean the political religion of the popes and pastors and rabbis and mullahs and masters. I mean the private religion of people such as those I knew in my Chabad days and those I met at Alpha. I mean the faith of individual men and women trying to adjust to the wave.

Yes, religion involves community and stability. Yes, it feeds on family togetherness. Yes, it declares the believer's trust in what admired elders and righteous ancestors have openly, publicly shared. And yes, it helps one feel more certain that she is doing right.

These are all symptoms of a more basic awareness: that one is small and alone. When we get sick or scared, the awareness re-emerges. What drives religion more than anything else? What's the source of religion's symptoms and political fingerprints? It's not quite fear, as Bertrand Russell concluded, but both understanding the basic human situation and instinctively reacting to it.

It's a process. One slowly comes to grips with his smallness and solitude. One performs being small and alone, and one conjures a figure for the bigness and everythingness of the passing wave. One deals with oblivion by doing something, anything. It's something meaningless and pointless, but it orients one and directs his desire.

That's religion. Doing something for a release and for a wish. It might look like floating, or swimming, or surfing, or drowning. It might look like fun or fear or deference. But it's actually futility playing futility, an actor playing the part of herself. It's an undercover cop who actually is corrupt.

This is not a criticism of religion. How could it be?

NFL Playoff Predictions, Wild Card Weekend (2011 Season)

2012-01-06T06:56:00.003-05:00

I predict which teams will win the spiritual playoffs. And when I pick, it's a lock.

After many weeks, Rabbi Itzalok returns!

He has huddled with the Divine One to predict the outcome of this coming weekend's National Football League wild card playoff games.

Here are the picks from the ever-sharp Rabbi I:

Cincinnati Bengals at Houston Texans. Texans win the rematch, 27-21.

Detroit Lions at New Orleans Saints. I freaking hate the Saints, which gua-ron-TEES they'll win. I put it at 38-31.

Atlanta Falcons at New York Giants. Who cares? Giants pull away in the second half for a 29-20 victory, which will make their loss next week less bitter.

Pittsburgh Steelers at Denver Broncos. Broncos win 17-14 as Jesus favors Tim Tebow and fucks Bill Maher.

An Atheist Jew Does the Alpha Course: Week 3, Why Did Jesus Die?

2012-01-05T14:40:00.005-05:00

Cart before the horse: If Jesus is God, God is God.

This is the third official installment in the Alpha course series, in which I recall my experiences as a Jewish-raised dude and now a Gnu Atheist who took the Alpha course with his Christian wife. Names have been changed to protect privacy.

One striking item from the first two meetings was the "go directly to Jesus, don't worry about God or the Old Testament" approach. Alpha founder and DVD star Nicky Gumbel had argued that instead of first determining that God exists and then establishing that Jesus was who Christians say he was, we should focus on Jesus and use Jesus to confirm the truth of everything in the Old Testament.

Almost needless to say, I found this approach as much like putting the cart before the horse as actually putting the cart before the horse. Why? Because if you don't automatically grant the Bible as reliable, then Jesus has little to offer anyways and his story makes no impact whatsoever on the existence and nature of God. The figure, story, and cultural power of Jesus only make sense in the context of ancient Israel's providential God.

This was the week I decided to speak up. I wasn't about to take another small group session of listening to the clock on the wall tick the seconds away. My notes on the evening:

Good meal. No religion talk at the table, just small talk.
Introductory announcements increasingly emphasize an overnight getaway scheduled in four or five weeks. They want everyone to go. I'm ambivalent about it, but if the wife wants to go I probably will too.
A new feature: live music!

My wife's friend Carmen plays guitar and sings. In front of a PowerPoint slide with the lyrics, she performed "Amazing Grace" and "How Great is Our God."
A more-than-casual justification was given by Rose for including music in the program. She said that many people found music one of the best parts of Alpha. I don't recall whether she called it "worship," specifically, but that's what was going on. The songs were, after all, worship songs.
Lights were turned down low and everyone stood as the music played.
The words of "Amazing Grace" were combined with the tune and chorus of "Peaceful, Easy Feeling" by the Eagles. I'm not a fan of this approach. I can only imagine what Glen Frey would think.

Gumbel's DVD talk on why Jesus died.

Basically the case is that we all sin and Jesus came to bear our sins for us. Now we are free to have a relationship with God if we accept the “offer.”
Two analogies were used to explain the situation of our sin and what it was that Jesus did. Neither analogy was accurate to the doctrine, however. Both glossed over that (1) the “sacrifice” was made on our behalf without our prior knowledge or consent, and (2) a post-hoc demand to compensate the sacrifice was placed on us. For the analogies themselves, refer to Stephen Butterfield's account of Alpha. It's pretty much the same thing.

Small group discussion was lively, mainly because I grew intolerant of the silence and decided to speak.

I asked whether Jesus would have atoned on Yom Kippur, and how he would have done so. Not a great or a gotcha kind of question but just a reminder about how little we really know about an actual Jesus being a Jew in ancient Israel.There's also the strangeness of thinking about God incarnate in the crowd of Jews praying and atoning before God the Father.
I objected to the idea of sin as rather arbitrary and unbalanced. After all, I think we are probably more altruistic than sinful, if someone is keeping score. I questioned whether people are naturally sinful or whether they have impulses and tendencies.
I did not raise but might have why we were not created to be able to reach our full potential. Everything else in the universe gets to be what it’s supposed to be except us.
I raised the idea that incarnating oneself for the purpose of being humiliated and murdered hardly seems like an expression of love, and in any case it cannot be the best idea the Creator of the universe has to fix any problem.

Through my speaking, I became what earlier I did not want to be: the token Jew/Atheist/Non-believer.

I must point out that I did not monopolize discussion. Many people in the group spoke up and defended their ideas that we are sinners who need salvation and that Jesus did a great and noble thing by being crucified.

No one seemed hostile to anything I'd said, but on the other hand no one felt that my objection about sin was anything to make them re-think their ideas. Same when I suggested that perhaps Jesus's "sacrifice" wasn't all that necessary, even if it were true we were sinners in need of forgiveness. People seemed to be of the mindset "Well of course we needed Jesus, you silly!"

I get why they think this way. It's the sine qua non of Christianity. Still....

People generally left the session remarking the discussion was good and lively. I left nervous, not knowing if the group leaders or others would try to engage me specifically in argument the next week.

How I'm Writing the Dissertation

2012-01-04T14:35:00.000-05:00

People may be interested to know how I intend to go about writing my dissertation this year. My topic is medieval English literature, and I will write a software program to do a special sort of parsing for several texts in the corpus. I have three different types of parsing I want to do, and most of the dissertation will concern recording and analyzing the results generated by the program.

The project is pretty exciting, which is not an unimportant point because one reason I didn't finish my first dissertation back in 2001 was that I fell out of love with the topic. Back then, I had written two decent chapters but couldn't do the research or find a focus for the remaining chapters. My prospectus and plan were hardly helpful and I eventually had to resign myself to the idea that the project was untenable.

As I see it, once the software program is sufficiently developed, the dissertation itself should be relatively easy to complete. Of course, herein lies the major technical challenge: my ability to write the program. Software developing has been much more difficult than I imagined, but I'm working it. My hope is to have the program ready for trial by the end of this month or middle of next month.

Another challenge is my lifestyle. After all, I am a professional with a full-time salaried position. I'm not a graduate student with a few classes to teach and chunks of time that can be dedicated to library work and writing. I also have a household to care for, which means my family and my home. My kids want attention from me. My wife needs me to help out around the house. Bills need to be paid, errands need to be run, neighbors and friends need to be connected with. Finally, I need to manage my health and fitness.

Given my technical and time constraints, here is how I have game-planned the dissertation:

At least 15 minutes per day learning and doing software development.
At least 15 minutes per day planning dissertation content.

Fifteen minutes may not sound like a lot of time, but it can be. Besides, I often work for much longer than that. The main thing is to dedicate some time every day to being productive on the main elements of the project. In this way, I'm approaching the project similarly to how I conduct an exercise program or business project.

Indeed, the formal 15 minutes are "executive sessions" and not necessarily the execution work of programming or writing. These execution activities can take place throughout the day, even while I'm at my day job. Although I am at work during the day and have a full schedule of meetings and tasks, I also have pockets of time where I can focus exclusively on some part of the dissertation. What's more, I often have opportunities to work the dissertation as part of a multi-task scenario. In fact, that's how I blog as much as I do. Beyond the execution work, the 15-minute executive sessions will allow me to develop and refine the big picture of the dissertation, its important arguments, lines of support and evidence, critical background and objections, and paths forward.

The innovation (for me) of my approach lies in how I'll actually write the chapters. In short: I won't write. Instead, I am going to spend most of my time, at least in the early stage, using a storyboard process. Storyboarding is a technique I use in my job to help our technical teams develop proposal content. It's like a very robust outline that accounts for what information customers have asked for, what knowledge we bring to the subject, and what features and benefits distinguish our offering from other companies competing for the same business.

The advantage of storyboarding for the dissertation is that it allows for capturing a lot of data in individual sections while also making it possible to find places in the large-scale outline for new information and arguments. My dissertation writing plan, to make it basic, is to storyboard the dissertation so completely that it's practically written when I put everything together.

I have a high degree of confidence in this process because I've used it dozens of times at work. Nevertheless, it doesn't make completing the dissertation any easier or less labor intensive. But it will help me work on all of the dissertation instead of on individual chapters in sequence.

I'm excited about the project and about how I intend to conduct it. All that's left is to do it!

Medieval Jewish Scrolls...in Afghanistan

2012-01-03T16:47:00.000-05:00

From The Jerusalem Post:

The scholarly world is abuzz over the discovery of ancient Jewish scrolls in a cave in Afghanistan’s Samangan province.

If the scrolls are authenticated, they may be the most significant historical finding in the Jewish world since that of the Cairo Geniza in the 19th century, Channel 2 Arab affairs correspondent Ehud Ya’ari reported Friday.

“We know today about a couple of findings,” Haggai Ben- Shammai, professor emeritus of Arabic language and literature at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, was quoted as saying.

“In all, in my opinion, there are about 150 fragments. It may be the tip of the iceberg.”

The scrolls, which were part of a geniza – a burial site for sacred Jewish texts – date from around 1,000 years ago and are in Arabic, Judeo-Arabic and ancient Persian.

One scroll, a replica of which was shown to the cameras, was apparently a dirge written for an important person whose identity has not been determined.

“Where has he gone?” reads the text. “His family members are now alone.”

Other texts said to have been found include an unknown history of the Kingdom of Judea, passages from the Book of Isaiah and some of the works of 10th-century sage Rabbi Sa’adia Gaon.

In addition, rings with names such as Shmuel Bar-Yosef inscribed in Hebrew on them have surfaced.

The area in which the scrolls were discovered is on the Silk Road, a trade route that connected eastern Asia with the Middle East and Europe, and that Jewish merchants often traveled.

Ya’ari quoted sources as saying the scrolls had first been moved to Pakistan’s Peshawar province, and from there been sold to antiquities dealers in Geneva, London, Dubai and Jerusalem.

He said the Prime Minister’s Office and several Jewish businessmen had expressed interest in buying the scrolls from dealers and collectors, but the process was in its early stages.

The Cairo Geniza has produced 280,000 texts, providing a wealth of information on almost every aspect of Jewish history.

These texts apparently date to the 11th century and possibly belong to someone in the Karaite community.

An Embarrasment of Riches: Best Posts of 2011

2011-12-31T00:01:00.003-05:00

Motivation kitteh will push me to finish the dissertation in 2012.

The more I post on this blog, the more rewarding I find it.

To those who read and considered what I wrote this year: thank you. To those who read and were moved to comment on posts: thanks a lot. I have appreciated and enjoyed the dialogue.

Proceeding month-by-month, here are my selections for best posts of 2011:

January: Mystical and fuzzy thinking appears not only in the domain of religion. In Can Science Explain Art, Music, and Literature? I discussed some woo-laden points of art and music made by philosopher Roger Scruton. Another good post was the review of specious claims made in the Bible: I Don't Believe in Bibles: The A-Bible-ist. Since we still see the bogus idea that atheism is incompatible with common decency, I was happy with my take-down of intelligent design philosophy guy V.J. Torley in Torley: Atheists Don't Know When Not to Kill.

February: An Uncommon Descent regular, BA77, was taken on in It Takes More Than Just Having an Explanation, which examines the creationist appropriation of concepts and terms from quantum mechanics. Personal changes and happenings were at the forefront of my thinking in Autistic Son, Artistic Daughter. Finally, I challenged the long-winded and repetitive GEM (aka Kairosfocus) in Signs, Signs, Everywhere There's Signs and The Slings and Arrows of Outrageous Descent and. Like many in the Uncommon Descent crowd, GEM mixes bias, hasty conclusions, selective evidence, and an overweening sense of personal offense to dress up his creationism as science.

March: March was a funny month, I guess. In Pay Down Debt or Build Up Savings?, I championed savings over debt--although I really meant that both should be done--and thus far it seems I have both more savings and more debt. So, I dunno. I like Where's the 'Ski?, which is about the failure of chief ID guy and mathematician William Dembski to respond on his own site to legitimate questions.

April: Exhibiting a little frustration at the sheer volume of woo in our culture, I wrote How About We Promote the Good with Discussion Rather than with Pleasant Fictions? I said then what I feel now, that the ideas we want to pass along to our children "can be conveyed without bunnies, false friends, and warrior kings of the future." I then considered the Christian holiday of Easter in Good Friday, Depending on Perspective. I also looked at a central claim of the ID movement in The Medieval Castle of Intelligent Design.

May: In May, I argued on behalf of teachers in Teachers Deserve Competitive Salaries and Benefits. The topic of the Kuzari Principle was back in Kuzari Returns! and Kuzari: Belief and Evidence (and Bias, Oh My!). I thought I was being controversial with They Did Not Die For Our Freedom.

June: June was all about Kuzari, and four posts stand out: Deuteronomy Doesn't Validate the Sinai Revelation, Three Sinai Stories, Why Aren't There More Sinai-Like Stories? and A Reply to Dovid Kornreich on Evidence and Hypotheses. Dovid Kornreich, my dialogue partner at this time, bowed out and to this date has made no reply to posts he asked me to make.

July: Theology became the hot topic with Theodicy Is an End to Theology and Dear Theology: Show Me the Money! A final Kuzari post was made with How the Sinai Story Originated and Developed. No immodesty: I think this post, and the series, is devastating to any suggestion that Kuzari justifies Judaism.

August: A good month of posts. The immoral atheist meme was addressed again in a post appropriately titled Immoral Atheists. Then, a trollish amateur philosopher was corrected in his bizarre ontology in If You Build It, He Will Come -- And You Better Not Disagree with Me. Next, philosopher Roger Scruton was again taken on in Can Science Explain Art, Music, and Literature? (Part 2). I examined "just war theory" in Wednesday Comedy: Jesus Loves Nukes. Finally, I marveled at the poor reasoning of the highly regarded C.S. Lewis in A Bad Argument by C.S. Lewis.

September: I think We Belly Full but They Hungry, a commentary and prediction on changing American class dynamics, is an important post. I considered Edward Feser's smarmy taxonomy of atheist attitudes in Hardline Atheism Is Intellectually Productive. In With Prayer, the Medium Is the Message, I recalled my own experience with prayer brought in examples of prayer across several religious traditions. I brought Feser back for another beating, this time on the doctrine of "original sin," in Original Sin, Faith, and the Limits of Reason.

October: I talked about Jesus in The Sacrifice of Jesus as a Left Turn from Judaism. The important point here is:
The sacrifice of Jesus is not really a sacrifice but a buy out. It kicks people from being ransomed to God to being ransomed to Jesus, and it does so without people's knowledge. In both the Jewish and Christian world orders, people are chattel. The only question is who you think is your master, El or his son.
In Enjoy Your Freedom? Thank a Protester, I again tried to be controversial, although I think the main idea of the post has true merit. I attempted to defend cultural criticism and its postmodern pretensions in Attempted Witty Title: A Reply To Jerry Coyne. I agreed with Jerry on most everything, but felt the topic of Jersey Shore could have some academic and intellectual merit.

November: I was ecstatic to see that Jerry Coyne replied to a point I had made, and I sought to clarify and extend the point in He Noticed! Deuteronomy 2013-17 became topical this month and my contribution was The Moral Deity That Commands "You Shall Not Allow Any Soul to Live." Next, I stood flummoxed before the brazen demand to believe without evidence represented by the idea of the Holy Spirit. The post was called, appropriately, Holy Spirit, Holy Bullshit. This month saw me increasingly wanting to talk about my experiences in the Alpha course, and that desire motivated Prepare to Lose, which is about arguing to learn rather than arguing to declaim. Finally, I wrote In the Humanities, We Too Want to Find Things Out because the humanities share this goal with the sciences; however, we focus on squishy terms and ideas--such as "identity."

December: This has been an extremely busy month. I began my series on what happened when I tool the Alpha Course, A Jewish-Born Atheist Does the Alpha Course. I am also glad I talked about my family in Why My Children Go to Church (and Why I Occasionally Go Too). I like what I said at the end:
Science and religion don't mix, in my opinion. Atheism and religion don't mix, either. But they can co-exist, and they can even fall in love with each other.
The month's big controversy came when I argued for moral relativism in In Defense of Moral Relativism, Moral Relativism and What Christian Moralists Really Want, and Moar on Moral Relativism.

Let me give special mention to the series on James Kugel's How to Read the Bible. I should have finished the series this year but I did not. I can't imagine that it will remain unfinished through next year. Nevertheless, I like the work that's been done, and I am eager to get to the final installments.

On a personal note, I want to announce that 2012 must be the year to complete or near-complete my dissertation. I expect that blog posting will necessarily have to be cut back to allow time for dissertation writing. My wrap-up piece next year will hopefully include the good news that I am finished or on the precipice of doing so.

Happy New Year!

Solo (The Song So Far, Q4)

2011-12-30T04:31:00.016-05:00

What's better than a great musician improvising a solo?

Here's the brilliant and self-destructive Jaco Pastorius:

And here's the no-less brilliant yet thankfully less self-destructive John McLaughlin, who soars in the solo, starting at 7:22:

And finally...the Pat Metheny Group:

Leftovers

2011-12-23T15:49:00.001-05:00

I have pre-scheduled two posts for the end of the year, so this is probably the last post I will write and publish in 2011. At work, I am winding down for the year and have vacation coming up in less than two hours.

Notes and thoughts:

I never got around to finishing my thoughts on moral relativism, as I'd said I would. I tried writing up something earlier in the week, but I had trouble organizing the thing. Basically, I couldn't see how one could finally make the idea of an objective moral fact stick. When I think of objective, I think of something like nature: nature exists independently, whether people exist or not. Information, I have recently come to understand, can also be said to exist independently from people. I don't see how anything like a moral fact can exist independently of people, and if it cannot exist apart from us I don't see how it can be called anything but subjective. I also don't see why subjectivity is such a big negative for some folks. But maybe my little mind has just reached the end of its capacity. I'm willing to be educated if someone has an argument to make.
My vacation plans include lots of reading. I am especially looking forward to three books: The Idiot, by Fyodor Dostoyevsky; Rameau's Nephew, by Denis Diderot; and In the Valley of the Shadow, by James Kugel.
I marvel at what a tumultuous year 2011 has been. When I was younger, the years seemed more like adventures. I felt as though I had time to absorb the things that were happening in and around me. Now, life seems too eventful, too fast. I would prefer a slower, less eventful year in 2012 (I think!).
My "best of" post on December 31 will announce this also, but I plan to scale back my posting activity dramatically in 2012. Not only because of what I write above, but also because I have a dissertation to complete. I'll be 42 years old next year, and I have some new horizons to travel toward, so I want to finish up the one big project (i.e., the doctorate) that consumed my thoughts from early adulthood.
On the other hand, I have ideas for new series and new directions for this blog. Stay tuned....
I am excited to go with my older brother to see the New England Patriots play the Buffalo Bills on January 1.

The last two posts of the years will be short of extended, original content. They will be review and link pieces. Let me use this space, therefore, to wish you and the world the very best of this time. If you are vacationing or visiting family, be safe, be peaceful, be happy and joyous, be helpful, be smart, be free, be honest, be yourself, and be strong.

Muppets, Muppeteers and Personal Gods

2011-12-22T11:22:00.001-05:00

"I'm your friend to the end!"

For 25 years, "muppeteer" Kevin Clash has brought the popular Sesame Street character Elmo to life. Clash is the subject of Being Elmo, a documentary chronicling his personal and professional journey.

At one point in an interview with NPR's Terry Gross, Clash talks about how the illusion of Elmo stays intact, even when kids know the muppeteer is there:

We have a lot of children that will visit [the set of Sesame Street]. And what we've found is that they really don't care about us, about the puppeteers. They've watched these characters on the show, on TV for so long, that they're really like close friends. It's interesting. They really don't look at me when they see Elmo. They run to Elmo because it's a friend of theirs that they've been talking to and communicating with and singing with for so many years. We've found that the delusion is not broken by seeing us puppeteers. They see the characters in front of them. ... I get humbled by it all the time. The things that they tell Elmo, the expression on their face when they see their friend.

Are there not parallels here with God-belief? God/Jesus is familiar to people, especially Americans. Even non-believers and non-Christians can't get away from it. Witness the nonsensical levels of attention given in past weeks to the faith of Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow. On both my way to work and on the way home, someone has put a home-made sign on a tree by the side of the highway. Both read: "Jesus saves."

When people pray to God/Jesus, they don't see themselves as "pulling the strings." They don't see themselves animating the deity. What's more, perhaps like with Elmo, the illusion would not be broken if they saw.

If correct, this tells us something of the magnitude of fundamental psychological needs that are answered by god-belief. The belief is real and powerful, and it is personal. And maybe it doesn't have that much to do with God as a being or thing, but rather God as an ideal person giving ideal personal love.

An Atheist Jew Does the Alpha Course: Week 2, Who Is Jesus?

2011-12-21T15:58:00.002-05:00

This is the second official installment in the Alpha Course series, in which I recall my experiences as a Gnu Atheist and Jewish-raised dude taking the Alpha course with his Christian wife. Names have been changed to protect privacy.

After last week's introductory session, I began taking notes as soon as I got time at my computer. That session was titled "Is There More to Life Than This?" but we never--not once--talked about life! We didn't discuss being children and learning about the world. We dwelt not at all on the excitement and angst of adolescence. We had no words on the power and danger of early adulthood, or on the hard wisdom and humility gained in later adulthood. No mention was made of parenthood, of confronting death and mortality, or of human dignity and legacy.

In short, we spoke of nothing that had any value.

My session notes rambled as I searched my memory of the evening. If I were to continue in the course, should I speak up when I hear errors or unsupported assertions? Should I declare myself an atheist? Should I challenge the historicity and uncritical fan-dom of Jesus? Should I point out the sales agenda of everything that was happening at Alpha (so far)?

I never answered these questions as my wife and I arrived for the second session. Don't get me wrong: last week was not an awful, torturous experience. I liked being with my wife and talking to people. I was genuinely interested to come to this next session. Yet I had also hoped for something different than what I knew we were probably going to get in Alpha. Initially, I was excited by what the course promotional material said about the focus: "The emphasis is upon exploration and discovery in a relaxed and informal environment." No, the emphasis was not going to be on exploring and discovering but rather on first-person testimony and gentle coercion.

My impressions of this second session:

We met in a downstairs reception area, beside a kitchen. Not quite as warm and inviting as last week's rotunda.
Dinner was shells and sauce. Not as great as last week, but pretty good--and free.
Joe, the church pastor, and Rose, the Alpha director, made official welcomes and announcements. Joe's role is strictly to tell a joke and lift everyone's mood. Rose had several administrative items. Of interest to me was the library. They had books for sale and books to loan. Lots of C.S. Lewis, Nicky Gumbel (of course!), some Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, Francis Collins, and N.T. Wright.
The DVD talk tonight was "Who Is Jesus?" Gumbel waxed on about how Jesus was a real person who really lived, really rose from the dead, and has had a real impact on both individuals and world history.

I'm not going to rehearse the whole talk here. If you read Textuality at all, you know that there simply is not enough evidence to tell one way or the other whether there was an actual Joshua the Messiah who was the basis for the gospel stories and the MacGuffin of the Pauline epistles.
Gumbel made a good, lawyer's case for Jesus. After all, Gumbel was a lawyer before be became a clergyman. But remember what we know about lawyer's cases from that great movie, My Cousin Vinny:
Vinny: Look, maybe I could have handled the preliminary a little better, okay? I admit it. But what's most important is winning the case. I could do it. I really could. Let me tell you how, okay? The D.A.'s got to build a case. Building a case is like building a house. Each piece of evidence is just another building block. He wants to make a brick bunker of a building. He wants to use serious, solid-looking bricks, like, like these, right? (puts his hand on the wall)
Bill: Right.
Vinny: Let me show you something. (he holds up a playing card, the ace of spades, with the face toward Billy) He's going to show you the bricks. He'll show you they got straight sides. He'll show you how they got the right shape. He'll show them to you in a very special way, so that they appear to have everything a brick should have. But there's one thing he's not gonna show you. (turns the card, so that its edge is toward Billy. The card is now a joker.) When you look at the bricks from the right angle, they're as thin as this playing card. His whole case is an illusion, a magic trick.

It would have positively impressed me if Gumbel had acknowledged some of the problems of using Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus as evidence of Jesus. I would have been pleasantly surprised if he had mentioned Philo. He brought up textual criticism as a way to establish the trustworthiness of the texts, but he did not get into the particulars of real textual criticism, especially of the New Testament. Yet I am sure that Gumbel knows all this stuff. I can tell by the language he uses to talk about "the writers" of the Gospels. His theology background also tells me he knows that the case for Jesus is as far from a slam dunk as you can get at every point. So he could have given a fuller story, one more challenging to some believers but I would think ultimately more balanced and rewarding.

After the DVD, we are assigned to small groups. Each group adjourned to a separate room nearby.

Our group had about 15 people. My wife and I were one of only two couples in the group. Everyone seemed to be between 35 and 55 years old. We had two group leaders, Scott and Karen. My friend Josh was a helper, as was another woman named Joan. Only four of the group were women.
We began with an ice-breaker. First we went around and said why we were at Alpha. No big confessions from anyone. People were just curious. I said that I came because I was invited. Then we did a name game to get everyone familiar with one another.
Scott asked a few questions but got little response. He asked what people thought of Nicky Gumbel's talk and if anything about the talk surprised anyone. I could hear the clock on the wall ticking.
Group leaders seem to have been coached not to initiate discussion but to let group participants direct the conversation.
After all my turmoil at the outset, I refrained from talking. What was I supposed to say? However, I was so bored I resolved to stir things up next time.

So, tonight's session was supposed to establish that there is a lot of evidence to support Jesus' existence, which there isn't. More importantly, it was supposed to assert definitively that Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God, and there's lots of evidence of this.

After the session, I drove away disappointed by the entire presentation. I don't think I had ever really been as close before to the way Christianity talks about itself to modern believers. It is all total bullshit.

The world is lost, confused, and dark. That's why you need Jesus.
You can't fully live life without Jesus. That's why you need Christianity.
Christianity is true and all-encompassing. That's why you need to be Christian.
To be Christian, you must transform your life. That's why you need the church.

From alpha to omega, this doctrine is thoroughly, disgustingly, and arbitrarily authoritarian.

Chanukah, Oh Hanukkah

2011-12-20T11:46:00.002-05:00

The holiday of Chanukah (yeah, that's how I spell it) begins at sundown tonight. It commemorates the temporary victory of religious zealotry over political tyranny, but lit candles are pretty, aren't they?

Here is one of my favorite songs:

The apocryphal book of 1 Maccabees 4:52-59. provides the earliest account (late second-century BCE) of the origins of Chanukah. The Douay-Rheims text appears below:

52: And they arose before the morning on the five and twentieth day of the ninth month (which is the month of Casleu) in the hundred and forty-eighth year.
53: And they offered sacrifice according to the law upon the new altar of holocausts which they had made.
54: According to the time, and according to the day wherein the heathens had defiled it, in the same was it dedicated anew with canticles, and harps, and lutes, and cymbals.
55: And all the people fell upon their faces, and adored, and blessed up to heaven, him that had prospered them.
56: And they kept the dedication of the altar eight days, and they offered holocausts with joy, and sacrifices of salvation, and of praise.
57: And they adorned the front of the temple with crowns of gold, and escutcheons, and they renewed the gates, and the chambers, and hanged doors upon them.
58: And there was exceeding great joy among the people, and the reproach of the Gentiles was turned away.
59: And Judas, and his brethren, and all the church of Israel decreed, that the day of the dedication of the altar should be kept in its season from year to year for eight days, from the five and twentieth day of the month of Casleu, with joy and gladness.

A first-century BCE account is 2 Maccabees 10:1-8 (again, Douay-Rheims):

1: But Machabeus, and they that were with him, by the protection of the Lord, recovered the temple and the city again.
2: But he threw down the altars, which the heathens had set up in the streets, as also the temples of the idols.
3: And having purified the temple, they made another altar: and taking fire out of the fiery stones, they offered sacrifices after two years, and set forth incense, and lamps, and the leaves of proposition.
4: And when they had done these things, they besought the Lord, lying prostrate on the ground, that they might no more fall into such evils; but if they should at any time sin, that they might be chastised by him more gently, and not be delivered up to barbarians and blasphemous men.
5: Now upon the same day that the temple had been polluted by the strangers, on the very same day it was cleansed again, to wit, on the five and twentieth day of the month of Casleu.
6: And they kept eight days with joy, after the manner of the feast of the tabernacles, remembering that not long before they had kept the feast of the tabernacles when they were in the mountains, and in dens like wild beasts.
7: Therefore they now, carried boughs, and green branches, and palms for Him that had given them good success in cleansing his place.
8: And they ordained by a common statute, and decree, that all the nation of the Jews should keep those days every year.

The story about the oil lamp and the eight days appears first in the Megillat Ta'anit ("Scroll of Fasting"). Follow the link to the relevant passage in Hebrew. The story also is found in the Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 2 (page 34):

What is 'Hanukah? The rabbis taught: "On the twenty-fifth day of Kislev 'Hanukah commences and lasts eight days, on which lamenting (in commemoration of the dead) and fasting are prohibited. When the Hellenists entered the sanctuary, they defiled all the oil that was found there. When the government of the House of Asmoneans prevailed and conquered them, oil was sought (to feed the holy lamp in the sanctuary) and only one vial was found with the seal of the high priest intact. The vial contained sufficient oil for one day only, but a miracle occurred, and it fed the holy lamp eight days in succession. These eight days were the following year established as days of good cheer, on which psalms of praise and acknowledgment (of God's wonders) were to be recited.

If you thought I was going to include Adam Sandler's hokey Chanukah Song here, you were mistaken. Bah Chumbug!

Kugel's HTRTB [Part 11]: Reading the Bible as a Familiar Servant of God

2011-12-18T11:46:00.006-05:00

"Please don't stand so close to me." --God

We continue to read Chapter 36 in James L. Kugel’s How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now. This is the eleventh installment of the series.

Last time, Kugel argued that the Bible's ancient interpreters established its real meaning. As I summarized it:

Kugel's position, then, seems to be that modern biblical scholarship may be correct about the history and original meanings of biblical texts, but the scholarly consensus has no effect on what the texts really mean. The texts still mean what the Oral Torah says they do, even if they were originally created to communicate a very different kind of message. At some point in history, ancient interpreters got hold of the texts and were able to integrate them into a philosophy of God and Israel. By doing so, these interpreters brought out divine instructions and moral insights in the texts. The interpreters were building a textual universe predicated on God's relationship with His world, His patriarchs, and His people Israel. Their overriding mission was to help their own world of men and women follow from the textual universe; to make, in other words, the real world live out the model of the Torah.

Kugel allows that the Bible has multiple meanings, and that the texts originally meant something different from what later ancients took them to mean. Yet, he privileges the reading of the ancient interpreters above all others, as when he reasons:

The texts that make up the Bible were originally composed under whatever circumstances they were composed. What made them the Bible, however, was their definitive reinterpretation along the lines of the Four Assumptions of the ancient interpreters--a way of reading that was established in Judaism in the form of the Oral Torah. Read the Bible in this way and you are reading it properly, that is, in keeping with the understanding of those who made and canonized the Bible. Read it any other way and you have drastically misconstrued the intentions of the Bible's framers.

Of course, the argument cuts both ways. That privilege granted to the ancient interpreters sounds pretty good. I'd like to grant the same privilege to Abraham Joshua Heschel, or to the late Christopher Hitchens, or to Augustine of Hippo. My point is that Kugel makes a great case for promoting one interpretative tradition, but other great cases can be made also. When scholarship reveals or develops original meanings of biblical texts, it shatters faith in the interpretive tradition more so than in the Bible. To use one of Kugel's illustrations: one can fervently sing a spiritual yet not hold to a certain religious interpretation of it. One's reasons for singing it, for wanting to sing it, need not have anything to do with its "proper" spiritual message.

I have dwelt on the previous subsection of Chapter 36 because in the new subsection, Kugel leaves behind the argument we just discussed and layers on another one. As Kugel says of the previous argument:

This seems to me a plausible position in light of all we have seen about the emergence of the Bible. And yet, for someone who takes the Bible seriously, this stance alone hardly resolves the difficulties posed by the last century or so of biblical scholarship.

Kugel's new approach--which he says up front "is probably not the sort of answer that will satisfy most traditional readers of the Bible"--has to do with seeing oneself as a servant of God and with seeing orthodox practice in particular as the way of being a servant of God.

In a world where God will not encounter us here in our own reality, we must choose and act to stand close to God. Kugel explains:

The idea of human beings as the gods' servants has an ancient pedigree in the Near East, but in Israel this commonplace came to define a relationship, first between God and specific individuals, then between Him and the whole people: "They are My servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt" (Lev. 25:42,55). To be a servant or slave was to be in a state of humble subjection, ever eager to do the master's bidding; but it was also conceived to be a state of closeness, even familiarity. (This English word, it might be noted, is related to the Latin familiaris, the household of the slave who "belonged to the family.") To be God's servant was to be part of his household.

To serve God, one must carry out His statutes in everyday life. Civil law is also Divine law, and people must learn to live intuitively in the ways that God has instructed.

After the Babylonian exile, Kugel says, Israel renews its dedication to God's will, and "it is in this context that one should locate the seeds of the very idea of the Bible, a great, multifarious corpus of divinely given instruction." At this point in time, the knowledge and practices of being God's familiar servants start to be discussed and argued about and codified.

What's more, the Torah is preeminent but not absolutely immutable:

Yet here is a most interesting point: the words of that Torah were not sacrosanct. On the contrary, as we have seen throughout this study, their apparent meaning was frequently modified or supplemented by ancient interpreters--sometimes expanded or limited in scope, very often concretized through specific applications or homey example, sometimes (as with "an eye for an eye") actually overthrown.

How did humans dare to intervene in holy writ? What possible justification could they have to change or re-direct the meaning of the text? Kugel responds:

From the perspective offered above, what do we make of biblical scholarship's insights? My own opinion is that the discoveries and theories of Biblical scholarship would not undercut the religious belief and practice emerging out of this perspective. I also think my opinion largely agrees with Kugel's view. Traditional Judaism, Kugel says, is such a set of beliefs and practices deriving from the supreme sense that serving God overpowers everything, including Scripture. Kugel writes:

Judaism is not fundamentalism, nor even Protestantism. What Scripture is, and always has been, in Judaism is the beginning of a manual entitled To Serve God, a manual whose trajectory has always led from the prophet to the interpreter and from the divine to the merely human. To put the matter in, I admit, rather shocking terms: since in Judaism it is not the words of Scripture themselves that are ultimately supreme, but the service of God (the "standing up close") that they enjoin, then to suggest that everything hangs on Scripture might well be described as a form of fetishism or idolatry, that is, a mistaking of the message for its Sender and the turning of its words into idols of wood or stone.

The Bible, from Jewish vantage, is an expression of apprehending God as His familiar servants. It is one way of apprehending God, the way that came to prominence after the Babylonian exile. In later periods, Scripture would be viewed by different interpretive traditions that would make it undergo three significant revisions:

Christian interpretive tradition.
Protestant interpretive tradition.
Modern scholarship.

Kugel's point here asserts the importance of understanding the sequence of interpretive events, from pre-exile to modern times, that have influenced the way we see and understand both the Bible's words and its role in religious (and scholarly and skeptical) communities. His argument to us, then, is that we should broaden our perspective.

And what of the Bible's divine inspiration? Kugel suggests that our commonplace ideas of divine inspiration are not applied correctly to the Bible:

Divine inspiration is not, at bottom, a matter of conferring a seal of divine approval on this or that passage of Scripture, or even on Scripture as a whole....Rather, as some rabbinic texts themselves intimate, it all has to do with the great, single revelation that inaugurated (and on which was predicated) Israel's changed apprehension of God.

Kugel seems to be saying here that we really don't know what specific words or instructions might be from God Himself. Rather, the divine inspiration of the Bible holds insofar as it derives from the authority conferred by the liberation from Egypt, the revelation at Sinai, and the establishment of the kingdom of Israel.

Kugel has made a fantastic overall argument in this section, a case that has been developing from the beginning of the chapter. He has built the assertions carefully, balancing fact and opinion as deftly as anyone can do it. We will have time to consider the larger argument and to criticize it as we must, but let's close this installment by appreciating scholarship of the very highest order.

An Atheist Jew Does the Alpha Course: Week 1, Introductory Session

2011-12-14T12:48:00.004-05:00

Pleased to meet you....

This is the first official installment in the Alpha Course series, in which I recall my experiences as a Gnu Atheist and Jewish-raised dude taking the Alpha course with his Christian wife. Names have been changed to protect privacy.

This first Alpha activity was an informational dinner and DVD talk. My wife and I arrived for the event at the rotunda of a local church. The rotunda was very nice, with high ceilings, tall windows, and dimmed lights for a mellow feel. We picked up name tags, searched for the friends who had invited us to Alpha, and found seats. We made small talk with our friends, Carmen and Josh, and we met other folks briefly. We talked nothing of either Alpha or religion.

Soon after our table filled with people, we brought up our paper plates to another table at the other end of the room and got the dinner, turkey tetrazinni.We ate and continued talking with people, a lot of where are you from, how many kids, what kind of work type of conversation.

Then a man and a woman called from the front of the room for our attention. The man was the church pastor, Joe, who told a few ice-breaker jokes. His role would be emcee throughout the course--that is, in all future sessions. To my knowledge, he did not actually participate in any of the small group discussions held after the DVD talks. The woman at the front was the Alpha course director, Rose. Her job was to pitch the course and convince people that they could get their questions answered at Alpha and that their comfort zone would not be violated. Obviously, the big concern was that people would check out Alpha and decide it wasn't for them.

The really intriguing part in Rose's schpeel was she talked about Alpha as a “safe” place to raise questions and doubts about. I guess people sometimes don't feel "safe" or comfortable voicing their misgivings with Christian doctrine or practice. As I would later discover, of the people in my group who had "problems" with Christianity, the problems concerned church, not belief.

Rose called up one person who had taken the course before to talk about his experience. This person, named Scott, later became known to me as one of my small group leaders. He said he came to Alpha as an agnostic and a non-churchgoer. He said that now he has a relationship with Jesus. He pointed to the weekend retreat as the time when belief and practice really kicked in on a personal level.

The second man was Josh, the guy from my table. He told everyone that he had been transformed since taking Alpha last year. He had been at a low point in his life, and now, 10 months later, he was in a very good place. I'd heard a bit of Josh's story before. His girlfriend Carmen was good friends with my wife. The four of us had gone to dinner once. Josh was a nice guy, a little older than me, divorced and looking to get out of a very bad job situation.

Next came a long (looong) DVD talk by Nicky Gumbel on whether Christianity was uninteresting, untrue, and irrelevant. The video was projected on a big screen up front. Gumbel, an Englishman, is a former lawyer and now senior pastor at one of England's largest churches, Holy Trinity Brompton. Gumbel developed the Alpha course, and it has been very successful around the world.In his talks, he stands alone on a stage before a lectern. He speaks in a breathy and emotive way, cracking jokes and smiling at them. As I'll learn, he is a master at conveying amazement without losing a sense of intelligence. For example, when he will talk about his conversion to Christianity, he'll come across as fully enraptured yet in perfect intellectual command of the experience, the experience of feeling and knowing at the same time that something is true. If he reaches people, I bet his delivery is a big reason why.

Gumbel began the talk by saying he had been an atheist, but also one who didn't know all that much about Jesus or Christianity. Now, when Gumbel uses the word "atheist," and he will mention atheists a whole lot over the course, he usually means someone who has never been a fervent Christian. He's not talking about people who have examined Christianity and rejected it. These sorts of people will never come up in Alpha.

He said, however, that he discovered that Christianity was true both intellectually and personally. After a close friend had become a Christian, Gumbel became distressed and decided to read the Bible. He doesn't say exactly whether he started at Genesis or if he went to straight to the New Testament, but he spent the evening and the next day reading the Bible. At the end, he concluded that it was all true. Don't ask me how.

Jesus, Gumbel said, was a real historical figure and this was en established fact. Gumbel also claimed through an unnamed authority--a history professor at Oxford--that the bodily resurrection of Jesus was the most well attested fact ever.

I'll end the summary here. It was long, as I said, and presented a barrage of claims. But the main point was that we could feel confident and secure in the truth of Christianity and in the knowledge that Jesus chose to be born, to take our sins upon him, and to die so that we could have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe.

After the DVD talk ended, Rose told us that next week we would follow the same format and also have small group discussion following the talk. Finally, we all were given a booklet written by Gumbel on “Why Jesus?” It’s not very detailed and is mainly an argument for praying to Jesus as the way to fulfill one’s needs for happiness and forgiveness.

My impressions of the evening:

Everyone involved seems really nice, as expected.
I immediately felt a disconnect between the advertisement of the group as a place to explore “big questions” and the clear intent of the course to persuade people that Jesus is real, Jesus is God, and people should worship Jesus/God.
One part came off as repugnant. At the end of the video, Gumbel insisted that the truth of Christianity was the most important question in the history of questions. If Christianity was true then it was true for everyone and therefore everyone should be a Christian.

He didn't say this last part, but I thought the path of his argument would lead inexorably to the idea that it was not OK for people to not be Christians or to reject Jesus’s offer for a relationship. There was no “opt-out” in Gumbel’s world-view.
The reason this is a problem is that it makes people like me an automatic antagonist. If you believe Gumbel is correct that Christianity is true and super-important, how could you bear to get along with someone like me, who thinks Christianity is a collection of bad and unattested ideas? (I, of course, can get along with Christians because I know that bad ideas are part of what makes us human. Not sharing my bad ideas won't get you kicked out of my circle.)

Gumbel focused heavily on the “something is missing” meme. It’s a strange line of thinking: people are generally unhappy, Gumbel says. People long for something greater in this life. People ache for more. Viola! Have a relationship with Jesus and all your emptiness will be filled.

Of course, not everyone finds religion, including Christianity and a personal relationship with Jesus, to be the antidote to “the hole.” From what I can gather, the real antidote is not the attainment of things or status but the pursuit. It’s the challenge of a self-directed journey that seems to make people happy and satisfied. See this, for more.
So, I don’t buy the "Jesus fills the existential void" argument, and in fact my "void" has been filled by not worrying about it and by living more awake and mindfully. No god required.

I walked out of the introductory session apprehensive about what would come the next week. Based on Gumbel's talk, I was torn between not wanting to let some arguments stand uncontested, particularly when they misconstrued or omitted facts, and wanting generally just to be a passive participant.

I came to the group to share the time with my wife and to socialize. If people were only interested in being reassured that praying to Jesus wasn’t totally stupid, then I didn’t want to get in the way. But I also felt like I should be honest and forthright about what I really believed and why.

A Hockey Fight Over Poetry

2011-12-12T17:06:00.001-05:00

Jay Miller of the Boston Bruins: A great fighter.

Rita Dove, poet and scholar, is editor of The Penguin Anthology of Twentieth-Century American Poetry. This anthology was reviewed unfavorably by Helen Vendler, Harvard professor and a truly wonderful scholar of poetry.

Here is a snippet from Vendler's review, selected for touching on issues of religious and racial identity:

As “the melting pot was simmering,” the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War rise into Dove’s essay: “The old Euro-American literary standards were rejected, and African culture (or rather, an idealized idea of Africa)…became the rallying cry of the New Black Aesthetic.” Why should the precious and ever-rare concern for words and for their imaginative alignment be abused as “the old Euro-American literary standards”? It would have been useful if Dove had departed from her once-over-lightly historical summaries to explain the “literary standards” of “the New Black Aesthetic” as they appear in one of the poems she reprints, Amiri Baraka’s “Black Art”:
We want poems
like fists beating niggers out of Jocks
or dagger poems in the slimy bellies
of the owner-jews. Black poems to
smear on girdlemamma mulatto bitches
whose brains are red jelly stuck
between ‘lizabeth taylor’s toes. Stinking
Whores!…
Setting fire and death to
whities ass.
There is a lot of this showy violence (“cracking steel knuckles in a jewlady’s mouth,” etc.); and then Baraka, not finding any other way to close the rant, turns sentimental, in the manner of E.E. Cummings:
Let Black People understand
that they are the lovers and the sons
of lovers and warriors and sons
of warriors Are poems & poets &
all the loveliness here in the world
Dove must realize that the new “literary standards” behind this example of Baraka’s verse don’t immediately declare themselves. Printing something in short lines doesn’t make the writer a poet; it only makes him a person with a book of short lines. Nor is mere presence in the scene at a given moment enough to pronounce a person a poet. Although Dove mentions oral literature, orality has its own high standards (and we recognize them in action in everything from oral epic to Walt Whitman to black spirituals to Langston Hughes). If one wants evidence of black anger against “whitie” and “jewladies” and “mulatto bitches,” here it is. But a theme is not enough to make a poem.

Dove's reply is magnificent.

It is astounding to me how utterly Vendler misreads my critical assessment of the Black Arts Movement, construing my straightforward account of their defiant manifesto as endorsement of their tactics; she ignores a substantial critical paragraph in which I decry the fallout from the movement (“Against such clamor and thunder, introspective black poets had little chance to assert themselves and were swept under the steamroller,” I write in my introduction) and instead focuses on that handy whipping boy, Amiri Baraka, plucking passages from his historically seminal poem “Black Art” in which he denigrated Jews, thereby slyly, even creepily implying that I might have similar anti-Semitic tendencies. Smear by association…sound familiar? I would not have believed Vendler capable of throwing such cheap dirt, and no defense is necessary against these dishonorable tactics except the desire to shield my reputation from the kind of slanderous slime that sticks although it bears no truth. (I could argue equal opportunity offensiveness by having printed Hart Crane’s “A liquid theme that floating niggers swell”—but perhaps that makes me racist as well.)

In the same breath, Vendler—no slouch when it comes to lumping poets together by race—makes quick work of dismembering Gwendolyn Brooks, dismissing my description of Brooks’s “richly innovative” early poems as “hyperbole,” perhaps because I dared to compare those poems to “the best male poets of any race.” Evidently the 1950 Pulitzer committee thought highly enough of Ms. Brooks to award her the prize in poetry, at a time when there was little talk of diversity in America and the expression “multiculturalism” had yet to enter the public discourse. Analogous praise today, however, amounts in Dame Vendler’s eyes to nothing but “hype.”

What to make of this disagreement? Honestly, it's about time we had a good hockey fight in literary studies. We have needed some, and we need more. This is a good fight.

Let's argue about which poems to study and why. Let's compare Amiri Baraka to E.E. Cummings to Wallace Stevens to Gwendolyn Brooks. This is a terrific conversation, and we need to have it. And we need to have it publicly. We need to argue about and discuss literature as a model for how we wish the public to argue about and discuss literature.

Literature--poetry especially--is worth a fight.

Challenging the Christian God = Anti-Semitism?

2011-12-12T10:59:00.003-05:00

I cry when you criticize my dad.

Watch the Christian persecution complex stretched to heretofore unseen bounds.

I never could have imagined I'd see this argument:

A further, even more dangerous issue is that in a vast majority of key cases of alleged Bible issues and difficulties being raised to try to indict the God of the Bible as a "fictional" "bronze age tribal deity" and "genocidal moral monster," etc, the texts being snipped out of context come from the Old Testament or the Tanach, especially the Pentateuch or Torah.

So, Dr Dawkins and co, kindly note: the direct implication of these anti-God, anti-Bible arguments, is that they are implicit attacks on Jews and Judaism, not just Christians and Christianity. Those who would make them, need to ask whether they would be willing to explicitly substitute terms directly accusing or challenging Jews, for those that accuse or challenge Christians.
“The God of the ~~Old Testament~~ [read: Jews] is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully . . . ” [Cf. Lennox- Dawkins debate, here. For a quick initial response to this sort of rhetoric, cf. CARM here and JPH of Tektonics here, here, here and here. Also cf. Vox Day's short book length critique of the new Atheists in a free to download format here. (Available from Amazon here.)]
The subtext of thinly veiled Anti-Semitism should be obvious, once we headline the reference to "The God of the Old Testament." Let's spell that out, a little more plainly: The God of the ~~Old Testament~~ [Jews].

Dr Dawkins, would you be willing to explicitly say that "the God of the Jews" is "jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully"?

Obviously not, or you would not have resorted to the sort of snide euphemism that allows you to pretend that it is only Bible-believing Christians who are in your cross-hairs.

I see no anti-semitism whatsoever, even when one substitutes "God of the Jews" for "God of the Old Testament." Dawkins's point remains valid and true.

If you want to talk anti-semitism: why are you calling the Hebrew Scriptures an "old" testament? To Jews, that testament is still operative and the Christian testament is false.

Moar on Moral Relativism

2011-12-11T11:39:00.003-05:00

I continue to take a beating on my defense of moral relativism. Initially, the main purpose of my defense was to make only one claim:

To acknowledge cultural conditioning in morality does not prevent one from judging specific actions of another culture.

This claim still seems indisputably correct.

As is my wont, I took the one claim further and laid out a thumbnail defense of moral relativism. I was perhaps mistaken to do so, now that I reflect on matters. For one thing, I am not a philosopher and before these posts I have neither fully explored nor concretely adopted any particular philosophical stand related to morality. My mistake, then, has been to lock myself into a position of moral relativism before I have thoroughly investigated the scholarship in and around it.

Nevertheless, certain elements of relativism and objectivism seem irrefutable:

Cultural factors do play a role in what people consider moral and immoral behavior. Surely, we can agree on this?
An objectivist position that asserts universal rightness or wrongness of specific behavior/category X is indefensible. How can any human phenomenon, such as morality, be universal?

Beyond these elements, the important parts of the discussion concern not only when one is permitted to pass moral judgment on an act, as I've mentioned, but also when one is permitted to impose one's own morality on others by acting punitively or otherwise by prohibiting specific behavior.

I've also made a severe charge against some of the objectivists I have encountered:

Here's what I think actually is going on with these folks: What they are really after is sufficient justification for imposing one-world under Christianity. They're looking for the reason, not to use it necessarily but for the security of having it. They are like a nation that trusts only itself with nuclear weapons and doesn't get why that would make everyone else nervous.

Honestly, these statements frighten me a bit because they are serious. Yet, I am not sure they are incorrect. That's why I have not revised or stricken them. Perhaps someone can show me a reason to think I am wrong on these charges, but Christianity's self-appointed mission to evangelize strikes me as a reason to think I'm correct.

So what now? I will read up over the next week or two and aim to come back with a better articulated version of my position--whatever it may be--and why I think it is the most reasonable.

A week or two is virtually no time, and the matters under discussion can legitimately take a lifetime to argue and to study. I know that, and I mean no disrespect to the subject or the people who study it. My modest aim is to put together something coherent and more considered; my aim, in other words, is to improve.

I need 2012 to be about my dissertation, more than anything else. Many topics, and indeed blogging itself, will probably be placed on the back burner next year.

Perry's Hail Mary

2011-12-08T22:19:00.001-05:00

Clear desperation here. It's funny, except for the people who think he's sincere and who think he's correct.

Moral Relativism and What Christian Moralists Really Want

2011-12-08T14:38:00.004-05:00

I've been talking in one or two places across the blogosphere about moral relativism. Largely, the exercise has been frustrating because people have not even attempted to address my argument:

The argument in favor of moral relativism, therefore, boils down to this:
We are all already relativists in most every aspect of our daily lives.
Moral relativism is descriptive, not prescriptive; it is not itself a moral system but a condition of moral agents (plural) acting in the world.
Relativism does not entail moral equality between either acts or viewpoints.
Moral relativism does not preclude making, legislating, or enforcing moral behavior.
Relativism enables a necessary flexibility in assessing and evaluating moral acts, and improving moral law.

Yet in my travels, I've learned that the number-one source of discomfort for objectors is that moral relativism does not allow one to "claim the moral high ground."

Get that? Recognize that? They reject moral relativism because it does not give them the result they want: to be right, finally and irrevocably right. Being right--that is, having the moral high ground--is as political a position as there is: the superior vantage justifies imposing and enforcing the One True Morality^TM on absolutely everyone else.

I am not being hypocritical, self-righteous, or mean-spirited with the above comments. We know from the Mercier-Sperber paper that came out in SSRN this year that humans are built for the combat of argumentation, not the end-point of truth:

Abstract:
Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the function of reasoning should be rethought. Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade. Reasoning so conceived is adaptive given the exceptional dependence of humans on communication and their vulnerability to misinformation. A wide range of evidence in the psychology of reasoning and decision making can be reinterpreted and better explained in the light of this hypothesis. Poor performance in standard reasoning tasks is explained by the lack of argumentative context. When the same problems are placed in a proper argumentative setting, people turn out to be skilled arguers. Skilled arguers, however, are not after the truth but after arguments supporting their views. This explains the notorious confirmation bias. This bias is apparent not only when people are actually arguing but also when they are reasoning proactively from the perspective of having to defend their opinions. Reasoning so motivated can distort evaluations and attitudes and allow erroneous beliefs to persist. Proactively used reasoning also favors decisions that are easy to justify but not necessarily better. In all these instances traditionally described as failures or flaws, reasoning does exactly what can be expected of an argumentative device: Look for arguments that support a given conclusion, and, ceteris paribus, favor conclusions for which arguments can be found. [emphasis added]

I want to list some of the common objections to moral relativism that I have heard, but I think tThe objections to moral relativism are worth noting, but I won't comment on them because they are easily dispatched:

Objection 1: Any and every moral value is A-OK.
Objection 2: No way to condemn Hitler, Stalin, etc.
Objection 3: No way to resolve moral debates.
Objection 4: No way to make moral progress.

I am disheartened that folks can't bring themselves to accept that other people and other cultures can have different moral values, or that our own moral values are historically and culturally contingent. I've also been surprised at the visceral component of the resistance to relativism. People react strongly against it, and they cling ferociously to the idea of objective moral values.

Clearly, something more than reason and even more than the moral high ground are at stake.

Here's what I think actually is going on with these folks: What they are really after is sufficient justification for imposing one-world under Christianity. They're looking for the reason, not to use it necessarily but for the security of having it. They are like a nation that trusts only itself with nuclear weapons and doesn't get why that would make everyone else nervous.

I May Have to Go to a Movie Theater (Wednesday Comedy)

2011-12-07T23:44:00.002-05:00

I have not been in a movie theater since 2001, but The Three Stooges might bring me back. Seriously. I love the Stooges. Here's the trailer:

I do hope the movie includes a pie fight.

A Jewish-Born Atheist Does the Alpha Course

2011-12-07T14:15:00.002-05:00

Over the next several weeks, I am going to post my impressions of the Alpha course, a series of weekly meetings introducing people to Christian belief.

Interestingly, there are no pastors or preachers heading the sessions: they are run by churchgoers, which contributes to a collegiate atmosphere. The course's "We are all discovering together" message would be impossible in a clergy-run operation, where clerics dispense their wisdom to the unknowing. I would later learn, however, that the group leaders often had more knowledge than they had first let on.

In our course, the sessions went the same every week:

A meal (nominally free, but $5.00 per person donations were requested).
Two worship songs. Starting in week #3 and continuing throughout, a woman led everyone in songs, with words presented behind her in a PowerPoint presentation.
A DVD talk. Each talk is a recording of Nicky Gumbel, vicar of Holy Trinity Brompton church in England, speaking before an audience in his church. Everyone in the course has a handbook outlining Gumbel's talks.
Small group discussion. We had a group of 15 people, and we met together in a room to present responses to the talks, to share other impressions, and sometimes to go through exercises planned by the leaders. We had two nominal leaders and two helpers. They had taken the course before. Our group was one of three small groups. Group makeup seemed to be by age of the participants.

Hopefully, people will find my notes interesting and helpful. When I was first invited to take the course, along with my wife, I was happy to find at least one detailed account of an atheist's Alpha experience. This was the account of Stephen Butterfield in the UK.

But I am an American atheist, and my background is from Judaism. Also, my wife has a strong belief in Christianity. All of this gives me a different perspective on the course, and I am eager to share.

I did not intend at the outset to have a blog series on Alpha, but immediately I found it necessary to take notes and jot down impressions. Every week, I heard statements and arguments that were incredible. Yet, I felt like there was no outlet for me to question or challenge what was being said.

Should there have been such an outlet? I'm not sure, but I thought there would be one because the course was pitched as a way for people to get together to explore the "big questions." Here is a description from the Alpha web site:

Who Is Alpha For?
Alpha is for anyone…anyone who thinks there may be more to life than meets the eye.

People attend from all backgrounds, religions, and viewpoints. They come to investigate questions about the existence of God, the purpose of life, the afterlife, the claims of Jesus and more. Some people want to get beyond religion and find a relationship with God that really changes life. Others come for the close, long-lasting friendships that are built during the Alpha course.

Many guests have never been to church, others may have attended church occasionally but feel they have never really understood the basics of the Christian faith. Everyone is welcome.

My initial understanding was that the stuff about finding a relationship with God would be not as heavily pushed as it actually ended up being. Indeed, I soon learned that the primary aim of the course was to encourage and foster personal faith. We did not investigate--at least as I understand that word--the questions so much.

Over the next several weeks, I'll provide my notes on each session and additional commentary. I want to keep each post fairly light and brief. That is, I won't spend a lot of time refuting or challenging what I heard. What's the point? It's been done to death. Through brevity, I also want to protect the anonymity and privacy of the other people who participated in Alpha with me.

Everyone I met was very nice and seemingly open-minded, yet I was an outsider at Alpha and I remained one throughout. I was not always comfortable, and at times I was sad because I did not belong. That's a strange and awful feeling, to sense that you don't belong.

I'm interested to get reactions over the next few weeks. To me, it was ultimately worthwhile to take the course, if for nothing else then to be with my wife. I can't say I learned much that was new or surprising, except perhaps that people will accept extraordinary assertions. I dare say that given a similar environment, the obviously bullshit Gospel of Judas could have gotten a high level of acceptance in the group.

Why My Children Go to Church (and Why I Occasionally Go Too)

2011-12-06T02:48:00.039-05:00

At the risk of hurting my Gnu Atheist creds, such that they are, I want to explain why my children go to Christian services every week, and why I sometimes do too.

I'm disclosing here because of a press release from Rice University with the headline, "Science and religion do mix." The release discusses a paper recently published by sociologist Elaine Howard Ecklund. It reads:

They [Ecklund and co-authors] interviewed a scientifically selected sample of 275 participants, pulled from a survey of 2,198 tenured and tenure-track faculty in the natural and social sciences at 21 elite U.S. research universities. Only 15 percent of those surveyed view religion and science as always in conflict. Another 15 percent say the two are never in conflict, and 70 percent believe religion and science are only sometimes in conflict. Approximately half of the original survey population expressed some form of religious identity, whereas the other half did not.

“Much of the public believes that as science becomes more prominent, secularization increases and religion decreases,” Ecklund said. “Findings like these among elite scientists, who many individuals believe are most likely to be secular in their beliefs, definitely call into question ideas about the relationship between secularization and science.”

Many of those surveyed cited issues in the public realm (teaching of creationism versus evolution, stem cell research) as reasons for believing there is conflict between the two. The study showed that these individuals generally have a particular kind of religion in mind (and religious people and institutions) when they say that religion and science are in conflict.

Ecklund's paper and her previous research have already been treated by others, including Jerry Coyne, Eric MacDonald, P.Z. Myers, and Jason Rosenhouse. If you can stomach the sanctimoniousness, Uncommon Descent (Denyse O'Leary) has also noted Ecklund.

Now, I am not a scientist. But I am an atheist and I feel strongly that religious beliefs and rituals waste good human energy. That's why I stopped participating in and supporting my local Chabad Jewish center. One might therefore legitimately ask why on Earth I would agree to have my children go to church every week, and why I myself end up going to church stuff sometimes. So, if one should ask, these are my answers:

My wife takes the kids to church. She wants to go to church, she wants the children to be Christian, and I support her.
I go very infrequently, maybe two to four times a year. Usually, this is because one or more of the kids is singing or something like that. I would gladly go more often if my wife said that she wanted me to. I happen to like being with my wife. It's a love thing.
When I go, I don't pray or worship. I just observe and listen. Whatever opinions I have about it all are expressed here.
So far as I have gathered from asking questions and observing, most of what the kids learn at church is good stuff: be considerate, don't insult others, listen to Mommy and Daddy. The whole super-Jesus stuff is window dressing, as far as I can tell. It's another kind of Santa Claus belief, a metaphor for the stoic heroism that some think characterizes their lives.
I have no worries at all about my kids, religion, and atheism. I really don't. I might worry more about them becoming Republicans.
Do I want my kids to be atheists? No, I have no special desires about whether they decide to accept or reject religion. But I also have no special problem offering my opinion on religious beliefs and teachings. In the end, I trust that between what the kids learn from my wife's Christianity and from my own atheism, they'll find a religion or non-religion that makes them happy and supports their larger goals in life.
The real "prize," as it were, is the kids pursuing the education and professions that excite them. The endgame is for them to find love, happiness, and well-being. If they think kneeling before a cross is part of this, then I won't squawk. I just happen to think that supplication before imaginary beings is unnecessary. On the other hand, I imagine that church may provide professional networking benefits for the kids--and for my wife and me.
Do I think science and religion are in conflict? Yes, probably. I don't think they have a lot to say to each other, even though they would like to. But people negotiate conflicts all the time without being scarred.

So, I disagree with the headline: science and religion don't mix, in my opinion. Atheism and religion don't mix, either. But they can co-exist, and they can even fall in love with each other. And they can stay in love together--ooh, time for some Al Green.

In Defense of Moral Relativism

2011-12-05T06:45:00.009-05:00

Moral relativism is a good thing. What's more, we already accept relativism as part of our ethical framework. How, for instance, does the so-called Golden Rule work without relativism? How can we hope to understand how to behave towards others without considering their circumstances and experiences?

Moral relativism is not a problem. The problem is what to do with it. To illustrate, take the following account:

I was teaching my senior Philosophy class. We had just finished a unit on Metaphysics and were about to get into Ethics, the philosophy of how we make moral judgments. The school had also just had several social-justice-type assemblies—multiculturalism, women’s rights, anti-violence and gay acceptance. So there was no shortage of reference points from which to begin.

I decided to open by simply displaying, without comment, the photo of Bibi Aisha. Aisha was the Afghani teenager who was forced into an abusive marriage with a Taliban fighter, who abused her and kept her with his animals. When she attempted to flee, her family caught her, hacked off her nose and ears, and left her for dead in the mountains. After crawling to her grandfather’s house, she was saved by a nearby American hospital. I felt quite sure that my students, seeing the suffering of this poor girl of their own age, would have a clear ethical reaction, from which we could build toward more difficult cases.

The picture is horrific. Aisha’s beautiful eyes stare hauntingly back at you above the mangled hole that was once her nose. Some of my students could not even raise their eyes to look at it. I could see that many were experiencing deep emotions.

But I was not prepared for their reaction.

I had expected strong aversion; but that’s not what I got. Instead, they became confused. They seemed not to know what to think. They spoke timorously, afraid to make any moral judgment at all. They were unwilling to criticize any situation originating in a different culture.

They said, “Well, we might not like it, but maybe over there it’s okay.” One student said, “I don’t feel anything at all; I see lots of this kind of stuff.”

Another said (with no consciousness of self-contradiction), “It’s just wrong to judge other cultures.”

Anderson, the teacher, is correct to identify the real problem: the refusal to make moral judgments. Moral relativism is one thing; moral judgments are another. Moral relativism does not preclude making moral judgments and never has.

Yes, another culture might consider that its citizens have made a morally good action in mutilating Aisha. We have every right to challenge the moral justification of the action, even though we are not of that culture. They consider the action right. We consider the action wrong. We argue about it. We try to get to the heart of the matter and to a workable agreement about morally justified behavior.

Nothing about moral relativism prevents us from outrage over heinous acts or from punishing wrongdoing. All that relativism actually requires of us is an acknowledgment that our own moral frame of reference is not the only valid one for understanding specific acts. The alternative is to declare in all arrogance that we alone possess the One True Way^TM of all morality, and everyone else can go fuck themselves. Of course, this has been tried before--and it has failed miserably. Just see how the ironically named Catholic Church has done in imposing their One True Way^TM.

Those who wish to use Anderson's story to critique of materialism or postmodernism are being obtuse; they are barking up not the wrong tree but the stupid tree. Such people include the insidious "Best Schools" folks, who post Anderson's account as part of their drive to bring back straight, white, and Christian as the ideal in education and society.

But Anderson's story actually shows the power of moral relativism to establish judgment. With reasoned and reasonable judgment--the kind that only moral relativism allows--we may make responsible, nuanced appeals to those who possess moral frameworks which differ sharply from our own.

The argument in favor of moral relativism, therefore, boils down to this:

We are all already relativists in most every aspect of our daily lives.
Relativism is descriptive, not prescriptive; it is not itself a moral system but a condition of moral agents (plural) acting in the world.
Relativism does not entail moral equality between either acts or viewpoints.
Moral relativism does not preclude making, legislating, or enforcing moral behavior.
Relativism enables a necessary flexibility in assessing and evaluating moral acts, and improving moral law.

If one is not a relativist, how does one condemn the “mutilation”? After all, weren't the perpetrators enforcing divinely-sanctioned law? Yes, they were indeed acting according to an “objective” moral standard, as surely as the nation of Israel was in the slaughter of Deuteronomy 20:10-20. If one’s theory is that morality is divinely given, then one has nothing to say about either of the two cases above, except perhaps “hallelujah.”

One can be a relativist and then defend both cases. One can be a relativist and condemn both cases. But one cannot not be a relativist. The world is basically divided between people who accept this fact, and those who refuse to accept it.

Jazz Died in 1959

2011-12-04T10:40:00.001-05:00

For me, Coltrane is the best of those who pushed jazz music beyond the jazz label.

Trumpeter Nicholas Payton has gotten attention with a post called "On Why Jazz Isn’t Cool Anymore . . . ." Payton's piece is not so much about the coolness of jazz as it is about what defines jazz as a genre.

I like pieces like this because the challenge is enjoyable. I happen to love jazz. I love Miles and Coltrane, Monk and Ornette, Art Tatum and Keith Jarrett, Wayne Shorter and Tomasz Stanko, Bobo Stenson and Marilyn Crispell, Mingus and Avishai Cohen, Evan Parker and Charlie Parker. And many others. I love the music, that daring improvisational music.

So Payton has written something daring. In sprawling, swirling fashion, he says:

Jazz is a brand.

Jazz ain’t music, it’s marketing, and bad marketing at that.

It has never been, nor will it ever be, music.

Here lies Jazz (1916 – 1959).

Too many musicians and not enough artists.

I believe music to be more of a medium than a brand.

Silence is music, too.

You can’t practice art.

In order for it to be true, one must live it.

I agree with Payton on the main part of his argument, that the name "jazz" no longer has any useful or meaningful resonance for working artists who are placed under the jazz umbrella.

In the 1960s, Miles Davis started to place "Directions in Music by Miles Davis" on his albums. The term "jazz" no longer described what he was doing, according to his own conception. The contemporary artists I listen to, such as the Esbjorn Svensson Trio and The Bad Plus, do not consider themselves jazz artists, although they clearly love and respect jazz.

I part company with Payton on at least one distinction. I don't see why he separates musicians and artists as groups of people. This seems a self-serving and doctrinaire classification.

I like better the salvo Payton gives in a follow-up post:

The music was just fine before it was called Jazz and will be just fine without the name.

There is nothing to be afraid of except yourselves.

I am Nicholas Payton and I play Black American Music.

I appreciate that he stands his ground, that he defines his own music and makes it available to us. Maybe one day, Payton will decide he no longer plays Black American music but rather plays Nicholas Payton's music. That will be good, too.

The Torah Declaration on Homosexuality

2011-12-01T14:32:00.008-05:00

Love is not allowed in religion.

According to Jayson Littman, writing at the Huffington Post, some Orthodox rabbis have been asked to sign a declaration of the Jewish response to homosexuality, by which is specifically meant "homosexual Jews." Littman writes:

So this Declaration currently making rounds will serve as their official response in regards to guiding individuals with same-sex attractions. The endorser, Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky, of the Talmudical Yeshiva of Philadelphia, urges all rabbis and mental health professionals to sign this Declaration, which offers modification and healing through reparative therapy as the sole option.

I abhor the secrecy element of this. Aren't we Jews always being targeted as having secret, sinister meetings?

Littman provides the text of the declaration. It's infuriating stuff. Here's the opening:

Over the past few years homosexual activists have infiltrated every aspect of the secular world and have achieved acceptance in the media and most of the general culture. They have been fighting fiercely on issues pertaining to the legitimacy of the homosexual lifestyle in all aspects of society, including homosexual marriage, in order to gain full acceptance. The last line of resistance against acceptance of the homosexual agenda has been mostly from the religious communities.

Although the writer of the declaration wants to demonize "the homosexual agenda," his writing is a bit too clear. As mentioned, the homosexual agenda is for civil equality and social acceptance. These are noble, not demonic ends. These are the good objectives other groups in America have valiantly sought and struggled for. To stand up as one who resists equality and tolerance is to identify as a douchebag. But if the writer really wants to rouse hatred and suspicion against the homosexual agenda, he should have been less specific.

The declaration gets nastier, however, as when it refuses to acknowledge homosexuality as "a genuine identity":

The Torah makes a clear statement that homosexuality is not an acceptable lifestyle or a genuine identity by severely prohibiting its conduct. Furthermore, the Torah, ever prescient about negative secular influences, warns us in Vayikra (Leviticus) 20:23 “Do not follow the traditions of the nations that I expel from before you…” Particularly the Torah writes this in regards to homosexuality and other forbidden sexual liaisons.

Yes, folks you read the above correctly: the implication is that homosexuality derives from the gentiles. It's a goy thing, not a human thing. Here, our fine Jewish leaders sound no less bigoted and naive than Iranian President and psychopath Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who famously declared that Iran had no homosexuals.

The position of the declaration is that homosexuality should be suppressed and re-directed:

From a Torah perspective, the question (sic) whether homosexual inclinations and behaviors are changeable is extremely relevant. The concept that G-d created a human being who is unable to find happiness in a loving relationship unless he violates a biblical prohibition is neither plausible nor acceptable. G-d is loving and merciful. Struggles, and yes, difficult struggles, along with healing and personal growth are part and parcel of this world. Impossible, life long, Torah prohibited situations with no achievable solutions are not.

We emphatically reject the notion that a homosexually inclined person cannot overcome his or her inclination and desire. Behaviors are changeable. The Torah does not forbid
something which is impossible to avoid. Abandoning people to lifelong loneliness and despair by denying all hope of overcoming and healing their same-sex attraction is heartlessly cruel. Such an attitude also violates the biblical prohibition in Vayikra (Leviticus) 19:14 “and you shall not place a stumbling block before the blind.”

Homosexuality, the declaration says, is all and only about behavior, no different from an excessive love of Hostess Cup Cakes. Nevertheless, the declaration makes it clear that one should be ashamed of homosexual "inclination and desire." One should fight one's homosexuality.

My shame is to ever have thought highly of rabbis or their office.

The declaration closes with a focus on "love":

It requires tremendous bravery and fortitude for a person to confront and deal with same-sex attraction. For example a sixteen-year-old who is struggling with this issue may be confused and afraid and not know whom to speak to or what steps to take. We must create an atmosphere where this teenager (or anyone) can speak freely to a parent, rabbi, or mentor and be treated with love and compassion. Authority figures can then guide same-sex strugglers towards a path of healing and overcoming their inclinations.

The key point to remember is that these individuals are primarily innocent victims of childhood emotional wounds. They deserve our full love, support and encouragement in their striving towards healing. Struggling individuals who seek health and wellness should not be confused with the homosexual movement and their agenda. This distinction
is crucial. It reflects the difference between what G-d asks from all of us and what He unambiguously prohibits.

The declaration shows a remarkable lack of awareness of what love and compassion are. How can a person live a "full and healthy life" without being able to express romantic love freely? How can a person be happy and joyous in a community that rejects him or her?

I cry that Jewish rabbis do not see they espouse the same bigotry and ignorance that others have used against Jews in the Christian and Muslim worlds.

If what Shmuel Kamenetsky endorses is Jewish, then I am not Jewish. I will not be Jewish. I do not and will not accept either his authority on what the Torah says. His traditions are meaningless. They hold no weight either in interpreting what the Torah says or in what I should think or feel about subjects.

But this is not a Jewish problem, per se. It's a religious problem. It's a problem of using old books and religious tradition as over-riding authorities for opinions and decisions. Even the relatively benign "Statement of Principles" is unacceptable.

At some point, we have to admit that Halakhah can be wrong and immoral. The Torah can be wrong and immoral. The Talmud can be wrong and immoral. Jesus could be wrong and immoral. The New testament can be wrong an immoral. Mohammed, the Koran. Buddha, Confucius, Bruce Lee, George Clooney, Ronald Reagan, Albert Einstein, Mother Teresa--all of them can be factually wrong and immoral.

When will we grow up? Maybe we won't.

The introduction to the declaration says that questions can be emailed to TorahDec@Gmail.com. I plan to email not a question but a polite condemnation of the declaration.

Kugel's HTRTB [Part 10]: Judaism vs. Modern Biblical Scholarship

2011-11-25T15:34:00.003-05:00

After another too-long hiatus, we return to Chapter 36 in James L. Kugel’s How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now.

This is the tenth installment of the series. Last time, we concluded with Kugel again clarifying the problem of the Bible for modern readers, which is whether to accept it as both holy and true when so much of modern biblical scholarship seems to have cast doubt on its holiness and veracity:

Do we wish to follow the way Christian interpreters Paul or Jerome read the Bible? Do we wish to follow the way of the "anonymous group of Jewish interpreters" who in Kugel's special sense created the Bible from 300 BCE to the start of the common era? In any case, we cannot and do not read the Biblical text apart from ways of interpreting.

And what of the historical veracity problem? Kugel's argument here, I think, is that the value and efficacy of the Bible in the great change from 300 BCE onward never relied on faithful historical reconstruction. Historical veracity, in other words, is a serious problem only in a Protestant sola scriptura or text-centric interpretive matrix. The next subsection will present the way of interpretation deriving from Jewish tradition.

Unlike Christian traditions of reading the Bible, says Kugel, the Jewish tradition operates independently of the question of historical truth. This is because the Torah is not the sole or even primary authority in establishing God's instructions to humanity. There is the Torah, that is, the written Pentateuch, but there is also the Oral Torah, which encompasses "the traditions of [Torah's] proper interpretation and application." Both Torahs are asserted to have been given to Moses at the same time.

The Oral Torah includes not just biblical interpretation but also ritual, liturgical, and legal matters. The Oral Torah is said eventually to have become the Mishnah, the Tosfta, the two Talmuds, and various compilations of midrash. It's practical significance and utility in rabbinic Judaism were huge, for the written Torah meant whatever the Oral Torah said it meant.

The two Torah tradition, then, distinguishes Judaism from Christianity and Christian approaches to the Bible:

Judaism has at its heart a great secret. It endlessly lavishes praise on the written Torah, exalting its role as a divinely given guidebook and probing lovingly the tiniest details of its wording and even spelling [....] Yet upon inspection Judaism turns out to be quite the opposite of fundamentalism. The written text alone is not all-powerful; in fact, it rarely stands on its own. Its true significance usually lies not in the plain sense of its words but in what the Oral Torah has made of those words; this is its definitive and final interpretation.

Kugel argues that the Jewish tradition of interpretation cannot be reconciled with modern biblical scholarship. The Jewish tradition, as he had explained at the beginning of the book, encompasses Four Assumptions that all ancient interpreters seemed to share about biblical texts. I will give these assumption in abbreviated form, but the full text appears on pages 14-16:

1. The Bible is fundamentally cryptic.
2. The Bible is a book of lessons directed to readers in their own day.
3. The Bible contains no contradictions or mistakes.
4. The Bible is essentially a divinely given text, a book in which God speaks directly or through His prophets.

According to Kugel, the modern scholarly way of reading the Bible rejects the ancient interpretive traditions based on the Four Assumptions. The ancient traditions, on the other hand, do not take the Bible as standalone texts that are to be read at face value (even if they can, in fact, be read in such a way).

In light of the two Torah tradition and the Four Assumptions, what is Judaism's response to the discoveries of modern biblical scholarship?

The texts that make up the Bible were originally composed under whatever circumstances they were composed. What made them the Bible, however, was their definitive reinterpretation along the lines of the Four Assumptions of the ancient interpreters--a way of reading that was established in Judaism in the form of the Oral Torah. Read the Bible in this way and you are reading it properly, that is, in keeping with the understanding of those who made and canonized the Bible. Read it any other way and you have drastically misconstrued the intentions of the Bible's framers.

I wish Kugel had been even more argumentative at this point, particularly about the specific difference between the Jewish and fundamentalist responses to modern biblical scholarship. Kugel clearly thinks fundamentalism is unrealistic and isolationist. Yet he also thinks there is no reconciliation to be had in more liberal approaches, as we have seen in the immediately preceding posts of this blog series. Kugel also seems to agree with the consensus of modern biblical scholarship, which I recorded before from the publisher's book description:

The story of Adam and Eve, it turns out, was not originally about the "Fall of Man," but about the move from a primitive, hunter-gatherer society to a settled, agricultural one. As for the stories of Cain and Abel, Abraham and Sarah, and Jacob and Esau, these narratives were not, at their origin, about individual people at all but, rather, explanations of some feature of Israelite society as it existed centuries after these figures were said to have lived. Dinah was never raped -- her story was created by an editor to solve a certain problem in Genesis. In the earliest version of the Exodus story, Moses probably did not divide the Red Sea in half; instead, the Egyptians perished in a storm at sea. Whatever the original Ten Commandments might have been, scholars are quite sure they were different from the ones we have today. What's more, the people long supposed to have written various books of the Bible were not, in the current consensus, their real authors: David did not write the Psalms, Solomon did not write Proverbs or Ecclesiastes; indeed, there is scarcely a book in the Bible that is not the product of different, anonymous authors and editors working in different periods.

Kugel's position, then, seems to be that modern biblical scholarship may be correct about the history and original meanings of biblical texts, but the scholarly consensus has no effect on what the texts really mean. The texts still mean what the Oral Torah says they do, even if they were originally created to communicate a very different kind of message. At some point in history, ancient interpreters got hold of the texts and were able to integrate them into a philosophy of God and Israel. By doing so, these interpreters brought out divine instructions and moral insights in the texts. The interpreters were building a textual universe predicated on God's relationship with His world, His patriarchs, and His people Israel. Their overriding mission was to help their own world of men and women follow from the textual universe; to make, in other words, the real world live out the model of the Torah.

I am not entirely comfortable with Kugel's argument here--although we should bear in mind that he has not yet concluded. However, I am struck by the argument because it touches on an observation I have been following during my participation in the Alpha course: what we often mean by religious faith is faith in a group or tradition, rather than direct trust in God, Jesus, or the Bible. In other words, we trust in the Lord to the extent we accept the authority and credibility of church leaders, pastoral organizations, and religious commentators. Kugel's faith lies in the ancient Jewish interpreters and in the rabbinic tradition. The project of these interpreters had no need for the kind of data brought out by modern scholars.

As I said, I am not entirely comfortable with Kugel's argument. It reminds me of the non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) view of science and religion advocated by biologist Stephen Jay Gould. But I wonder if the conclusions about the Bible and the methods developed by ancient interpreters really are unaffected by what modern scholars discover about the original meanings of the texts or about the non-historicity and non-authorship of certain biblical characters.

But let's keep going through the chapter and seem how Kugel continues to unfold his argument.

Paul Motian, 1931-2011

2011-11-22T13:45:00.000-05:00

A great drummer and percussionist.

The War on the War on Christmas Begins Early

2011-11-22T09:27:00.003-05:00

A Facebook contact posted the above image, which gathered several "like" votes quickly.

Honestly, though, who says it's not OK to say "Merry Christmas" and "God Bless America"? For fuck's sake, people, say what you have to say.

Of course, it is no less OK to say "Happy Holidays." It is no less OK to wish people well without limiting the greeting either to Christmas or to the various religious holidays this time of year. It's no less OK to point out that not everyone is Christian, not everyone observes Christmas, not everyone agrees that Christmas generally is a good thing, and not everyone expresses patriotism in with "God Bless America."

You want people to see that you are a Christian and a good patriot, too. You don't beat your wife and you don't kick your dog. You drive a pickup truck and you go to parades. Bully for you, pal, bully for you.

Basically an Underachiever: Five Great Films by Woody Allen

2011-11-21T11:14:00.002-05:00

"If it turns out that there is a God, I don't think that he's evil. But the worst that you can say about him is that basically he's an underachiever."

I watched part one of the Woody Allen documentary last night on my local PBS station. It was very good, and though I had not planned to see it, it was quite compelling.

Many of Allen's films are special to me. Here are the standouts:

1) Manhattan (1979): My all-time favorite, not only because Mariel Hemingway is beautiful.

2) Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989): Great plot, great actors.

3) Zelig (1983): I love this movie! The PBS documentary had some moments that reminded me of the opening of Zelig.

4) Hannah and Her Sisters (1986): Another great 1980s film with an ensemble cast.

5) Sleeper (1973): Lots of smart gags.

The notable omission is Annie Hall (1976), which is unnecessary to put on a list. I have seen virtually no 1990s and beyond films by Allen (or anyone else, for that matter--in fact, I have not set foot in a movie theater since 2001).

I have a CD set of Allen's stand up act. It's the best stand up of all time, if you want my opinion.

The Evil God Challenge

2011-11-17T10:30:00.001-05:00

Which one represents the true nature of "God"?

If you like a good disagreement among philosophers, you should check out the discussion between Stephen Law and Edward Feser. I won't recall the full play-by-play here, but the point of contention is the coherence of Law's Evil God Challenge.

Law illustrates the evil god challenge like so:

One author dismisses the evidential problem of evil as an argument against the existence of God as “worthless”. Why is it worthless? The author sweeps the problem to one side because they suppose it’s entirely dealt with by two points. The first point is: they suppose we can look forward to a limitless afterlife in which we’ll enjoy the beatific vision, and this is going to more than compensate us for all the horror we experience in this life. The author quotes St. Paul, who said: “the sufferings of the present time are not worth comparing to the glory that is to be revealed to us.” The second point the author makes is this: that the pain etc. we experience now is the price paid for greater goods to be gained later. They illustrate by pointing out how suffering of child being forced to learn the violin is the price justifiably paid for great good of that child’s later being able to play violin (they admit this isn’t suffering on quite the scale of Auschwitz, but insist the same basic principle applies). Indeed, this particular author adds that, by supposing evil constitutes good evidence against a good God, the atheist is just assuming there’s no God and thus no wondrous afterlife etc. that more than compensates the evils we experience now. So the atheist’s argument based on suffering is hopelessly circular. Indeed, this author says that atheists who run such an argument need “a course in logic”!

But now here’s where the evil God challenge comes in. All these points made above can be flipped in defence of belief in an evil god. A defender of belief in an evil god can say we can look forward to an afterlife of unremitting terror and suffering, and this will more than compensate us for any good enjoyed now. Moreover, these goods we experience now are actually the price paid for greater evils (I give loads of examples in my paper). Moreover, by assuming that the goods we see around us constitute good evidence against an evil God, the evil-god-rejecter is just assuming there’s no evil God and thus no hellish afterlife that more than ou[t]weighs the goods. So this objection against belief in an evil god is hopelessly circular. Clearly, this critic of the evil god hypothesis needs” a course in logic”!

Feser's critique of the evil god challenge is nicely presented here:

Law claims that the evidence for the existence of a good God is no better than the evidence for the existence of an evil god, and that any theodicy a theist might put forward as a way of reconciling the fact of evil with the existence of a good God has a parallel in a reverse-theodicy a believer in an evil god could put forward to reconcile the presence of good in the world with the existence of an evil god. Now, no one actually believes in an evil god. Therefore, Law concludes, since (he claims) the evidence for a good God is no better than that for an evil God, no one should believe in a good God either. That’s the “evil god challenge.”

The trouble is that Law regards this as a challenge to theism generally, and it simply isn’t. It applies at most only to one, historically idiosyncratic version of theism. So, suppose you regard the divine attributes as in principle metaphysically separable -- that something that is, for example, omnipotent or omniscient could nevertheless fail to be all-good. Suppose also that you regard good and evil as on a metaphysical par, neither more fundamental than the other. And suppose that you consider the grounds for belief in God to consist in an inductive inference to the effect that God is the best explanation of various bits of evidence -- the orderliness of the world, the good we find in it, etc. Given those specific metaphysical and epistemological assumptions -- the sort that might be made by someone beholden to a “theistic personalist” conception of God and who thinks Paley-style “design arguments” and the like are the best reason to believe in God -- Law’s challenge might be a problem. (Or maybe not. But since I have no time either for theistic personalism or for Paley-style “design arguments,” I really couldn’t care less.)

Feser gives a good summary of Law's position, and Law's argument isn't particularly difficult at any rate. Yet at this stage I think Law has the better of the debate. Law says that Feser could overcome the evil god challenge by coming up "with some really extraordinarily good argument for the existence of a good god, an argument that’s so very, very compelling that it more than outweighs the mountain of evidence against such a god constituted by the vast quantities of horror and suffering we see around us."

But Feser's response is a variety of "not MY god," in that he claims his argument is not subject to the evil god challenge. Feser's argument for god, he claims, is different--making Law's challenge "irrelevant." Feser explains:

His “evil god hypothesis” doesn’t stalemate the arguments for classical theism, for two reasons. First, unlike the “good god” of theistic personalism, the God of classical theism isn’t in the same genus as Law’s “evil god.” The God of classical theism isn’t the same kind of thing as Law’s “evil god” at all. (Indeed, unlike everything else that exists, the God of classical theism isn’t in a genus or kind in the first place -- that’s part of the whole point of classical theism.) So there is no parallel between alternative “hypotheses” of the sort Law needs in order to get his “challenge” off the ground.

Second, the arguments typically employed by classical theists simply cannot be stalemated by “evidential” considerations because they are typically not “evidential” or inductive or probabilistic arguments in the first place. If an Aristotelian argument from motion, or Aquinas’s “existence argument,” or Neo-Platonic arguments work at all, they get you demonstratively to something that is pure actuality, or subsistent being itself, or an absolute unity; and the other metaphysical theses alluded to get you from there to something that is of necessity perfectly good (indeed, something that is goodness itself). To suggest that what is purely actual or subsistent being itself might, given the “evidence,” be evil, is simply unintelligible. To make such a suggestion would merely be to show that the one making it doesn’t understand the metaphysical concepts in question.

I don't hear Feser saying much here. His first argument basically accuses Law of using a straw man as the "good" god. The second argument is bizarre. Although the classical God is conceived as pure and transcendent, the argument to purity and transcendence begins with inferences from reality. I don't see why it makes a difference whether we are talking about pure and transcendent evil as well as pure and transcendent good. In neither case do I buy Feser's appeal to exceptionalism.

Law puts the matter best in his comment to Feser: "Anyway, that's my take for what it's worth. I don't doubt you will continue to maintain that the evil god challenge "doesn't apply" to your sort of theism, despite the fact that it actually very nicely reveals the inadequacy of the theodicies you offered in your book."

Announcements

2011-11-14T09:50:00.001-05:00

First, I am not moving over to Freethoughtblogs.com. I haven't been invited. Waaaah!

However, I have had my responses to set questions posted over at You, Me & Religion. Check it out. I answered the questions in the springtime, as you'll see by the reference to Pesach.

I have recently returned from an overnight getaway with my Alpha course group. It was a...a...a...an interesting experience, both personally and intellectually. I think I am going to start posting from my notes on the weekly sessions.

In the Humanities, We Too Want to Find Things Out

2011-11-11T01:09:00.088-05:00

Tauriq Moosa at 3 Quarks Daily is unconvinced by my defense of pop-culture humanities, including conferences such as the Jersey Shore conference held recently at the University of Chicago. Moosa says I fail "to offer good reasons for us to take the conference even a little seriously." He then proceeds to assess the conference program against my assertions of value for the topics (based only on the titled of topics and papers--I was not there).

Here is Moosa on the identity studies topic:

I’ve never understood what identity studies are about and what it means. I say this and I live in South Africa. Having engaged with it for many years, I’ve found identity studies to be nothing but nonsense posturing as deep, complex, psychological questions. In the end, who the hell cares? I’m an ex-Muslim who studies bioethics, to change public policy on matters on euthanasia and organ donation, and I read too many comics – I’ve never considered what my identity is or means in the context of a society that is largely unemployed and uneducated. What I have considered is what those factors of unemployment and no education will do when I attempt to engage in political change on matters of medicine (since the majority of the very population I want to benefit might not at first understand my reasons for wanting medical practioners to kill their patients, legally).

But will engaging with what it means to, say, be a man in today’s world really be an important topic? I’m always hesitant about such topics since sometimes people want to take what should be a discussion as a platform to advocate how men (or women) should be; which I think is unfounded, since gender roles don’t make sense anymore with, for example, increasing acceptance of homosexual relationships and artificial insemination. Who cares “how” a man should be in today’s world? I don’t think it’s a relevant topic, but then that’s just me.

Moosa is completely correct about a danger in identity studies to produce "nonsense posturing as deep, complex, psychological questions." One is well served to have a BS-meter handy when reading any paper that purports to focus on identity issues.

Yet, questions of identity do have importance, as does engaging with such questions. Moosa asks why one should care about the topic, and why it matters to have students engage with questions of masculinity or femininity or race or income level or legal status or...so on and so on.

Here's why: because we want to know how things work, including societies and cultures. Some people want to know how light behaves under certain conditions. Others want to know how an organism survived millions of years ago in a hostile environment. Some people want to know what happens when two different molecules interact with each other. Some people want to know how people make sense of the sounds and gestures produced by other people. And some people want to know how different ideas get expressed, used, shared, and altered in a culture.

I am one of the people in this last group. I think we can look at identity categories, for one thing, as a way of studying the historical character of cultures. I believe further that knowing more about such categories and their uses in cultures helps to advance the cause of civil/legal equality and to lessen bigotry.

Moosa asks "Who cares 'how' a man should be in today’s world?" The answer is that I do. I care how masculinity gets defined, and I think it has broad social implications and historical connections. There's a light beer commercial series that focuses on unmanly behavior. Usually, one guy in the commercial won't drink the right kind of light beer and it ties into some earlier behavior that was either too child-like or too feminine. These humorous constructions of masculinity have interesting tie backs to other beer commercials and to other literature where men better behave like men. And we all know of real-life groups and situations where it was a matter of harm or death to act unmanly.

So, yeah, it's relevant how people construct manliness or Italian-American-ness or most any other identity. It's important. Moosa repeatedly he uses the words "important" (10 times) and "pointless" (6 times) to dismiss both the subject of the conference--Jersey Shore--and the approach to the subject--too shallow and posturing.

But I see the humanities as able to play an important role in (1) developing the cultural knowledge mentioned above, and (2) teaching the critical thinking skills required for such knowledge. As I remark in another post:

My point is not about the relative quality of the products, Jersey Shore vs. The Brothers Karamazov; it's about their value (also not equal) in allowing students to learn, discuss, and hone critical thinking skills. In my ideal world, the best teaching would lead people to be offended that Jersey Shore was ever offered as an option for entertainment. And then the show would fold along with others of its ilk.

Moosa rightly points out the dangers of people getting on platforms to tell us how men or women should be. In my conception, the humanities is descriptive, not prescriptive. Moosa also asks why people like me want to know how people of the past saw their world, why people like me want to understand the fictional worlds created in our literature, and why people like me want to study reality shows and comic books. The answer is (again) because we, like you, want to know how the world works. For us, the pleasure of finding things out concerns things that are made and valued by people.

And that's why even a conference on Jersey Shore has a point and has importance. Moosa is quite right that the Jersey Shore conference could have been on anything: from the Darwin biopic to Lost, and everywhere in between. The point is, however, that we have companies and people who make something like Jersey Shore, we have companies and people who make money from the show, and we have people who watch it and have their various reactions to it. This point is important because it requires us to make up hypotheses, as Moosa does, for why the show is a hit. He says:

Most people are comfortably bored with their lives and, lacking creative stimulus enjoy seeing "better" versions of themselves through the tanned, ripped abs of Italian-American people from New Jersey; the show is so unbelievably stupid, you watch it the same way you do a car-crash in slow motion, except the things breaking are people’s lives and what’s dissolving is time better spent elsewhere; and so on.

These are excellent hypotheses and worth investigating. In my mind, in my conception of the humanities, these are precisely the kinds of questions to explore. I suspect that the papers of the Jersey Shore conference actually make just these explorations, except perhaps in a tapioca of puffed out prose, but the hypotheses are the point. We do humanities to make hypotheses, to make arguments, and to weigh and consider their merits and flaws.

From what I gather, a show like Jersey Shore screams for an explanation. Who would produce such a thing? Why would it resonate? If we start, dispassionately, at this show, what can we learn about the workings of a culture in which Snooki is a star?

These are questions of interpretation and argumentation, and they are also questions of information and data. Many of the cultural studies questions raised in the conference do or could lead to data. After all, most historical scholarship requires data on the period in question, even if the period is very recent. Indeed, data appears to be quite "hot" in the humanities right now.

Should the Jersey Shore conference be taken seriously? I say "yes" because it offers views of a cultural phenomenon, a phenomenon that can give us information on how our world actually works. I know folks in the sciences who get up in arms when the government or the public views their projects as frivolous, unimportant, a waste, or without benefit.

May I humbly suggest, then, that the scholars in Jersey Shore conference might have their own takes on why the conference was not a waste of funding and was a legitimate way to serve education? And may I humbly suggest that these scholars offer their takes publicly?

Prepare to Lose (for Tristan Vick)

2011-11-10T10:29:00.003-05:00

This post is respectfully dedicated to Tristan Vick, "Advocatus Atheist," who makes all of us better thinkers.

I mentioned before that I have been participating in an Alpha course with my wife, who is a Christian. I stand by my description of the course as:

A Christian outreach program. It consists of weekly sessions to persuade people into becoming more devout Christians. It purports to offer a "safe" place for raising doubts and questions about Christianity, but--if my experience is typical--it's really an ongoing sermon conducted in "free" dinners, worship songs, DVD lectures, and small group discussions.

The latter part of the description gives the most serious objection to the course, that it encourages doubts and questions to be raised but doesn't give time and attention for them to be pursued. This is problematic because it means the course is "safe" for voicing concerns but not for holding them. It's not a course in investigation or inquiry: it's a course in indoctrination.

Honest investigation and inquiry require one to be prepared to lose even cherished hypotheses and beliefs. Thus, I am ready to learn something new in Alpha that will change one or more of my opinions dramatically. If a compelling argument is brought before me, or if I come upon one myself, I am ready to admit that atheism is less correct or probably incorrect.

Yet, I wonder whether I really am prepared to give up atheism or whether I am just saying it to appear more rational to myself. Of course, I also wonder whether my fellow participants are prepared to lose Christianity. The point is that I have no reason to feel superior or satisfied in the course, even though I often cringe at what people say.

Beyond this, my fellow participants are my fellows: I like them and genuinely feel for the struggles and successes they face outside the classroom. Someone has a very ill parent. A couple is enduring the endless waiting of the adoption process. A couple is trying to make it work. A woman is coping with depression. A man is waiting on a job offer.

I have settled into thinking that my role in the course is to assert that atheists are normal people with legitimate reasons for rejecting religious and theistic doctrines. It is possible, I say, to perceive the full message of Christianity and to understand it as well as any believer...and also accept that it is untrue. It is possible to be good, happy, giving, peaceful, fulfilled, and whole without gods and religions.

Atheist philosopher George H. Smith wrote: "We have nothing to fear, and everything to gain, from the honest pursuit of truth." This is not quite true. Right or wrong, as individuals we often fear losing the comfort of familiar beliefs. We don't like the uncertainty that comes with the honest pursuit of truth. We don't like bracketing most everything we think or believe as provisional and conditional--and subject to revision.

But self-identifying atheists, more than other people, have to declare themselves willing to pursue truth honestly. I say "more than other people" because pursuing truth is a raison d'etre of atheism. We therefore need to show that our opinions and beliefs are not sacrosanct.

We should, forgiving the mystical language, accept the wise counsel of Bruce Lee: "Like everyone else you want to learn the way to win. But never to accept the way to lose. To accept defeat — to learn to die — is to be liberated from it. Once you accept, you are free to flow and to harmonize."

Holy Spirit, Holy Bullshit

2011-11-05T22:20:00.005-04:00

Because I was invited, I have been attending an Alpha course with my wife, who is a Christian. The Alpha course, for those who don't know, is a Christian outreach program. It consists of weekly sessions to persuade people into becoming more devout Christians. It purports to offer a "safe" place for raising doubts and questions about Christianity, but--if my experience is typical--it's really an ongoing sermon conducted in "free" dinners, worship songs, DVD lectures, and small group discussions.

In my participation in the course, I have sought to be neither the token Jew nor the token atheist. Certainly, if anyone is under the impression that I may turn Christian, s/he is quite mistaken. After all...facts are facts, and no doctrine or dogma will make me give up on facts. And the facts are against Christianity as they are against Judaism, Islam, and all other theisms.

I may post later on my experiences in Alpha. My double background--Jewish and atheist--may add something new to other perspectives on the course that are already available. For now, though, I want to talk about the Holy Spirit. In the course, we seem to be building up to a focus on the importance of believing in it and venerating it.

My life as a medievalist and as an American has given me some access to the idea of the Holy Spirit, but now that I must face it by itself, squarely, I must ask: How is it that that we can talk about a holy spirit and not have the sense that we're just making shit up? I don't mean to be rude, but...come on! A fucking spirit? Are people serious about this?

Of course they are serious. I understand the importance placed on believing in or denying the Holy Spirit. I wish, however, that someone would attempt to justify the concept to me. More than most anything else in Christian doctrine, the Holy Spirit demonstrates that the power of religion comes from its stimulation of the individual psyche.

Let's look at a few pronouncements on the Holy Spirit, and remember also that for many faith demands belief in the Holy Spirit. Hear it again: Faith demands belief. Faith does not entail belief or lead to belief or point to belief. It demands and requires belief. Believe it or else you are not one of the faithful. If you disbelieve, you are not one of the godly and one of the church. If you disbelieve, you are an opponent of God and an enemy.

The basics of the belief are:

The Holy Spirit is one "person" in the triune god. There's God the dad, Jesus the boy, and the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit shares the same essence as God and Jesus but is distinct: think of three separate impressions made in wax. Same substance, distinct forms.
The Holy Spirit is not material but is rather perceived within a person as having emanated from God.

With the Holy Spirit, we are basically talking about people feeling as though they are instruments of God's will. The Holy Spirit is God acting in man. Christianity uses the Greek New Testament exclusively as justification for the concept. The Gospel of John figures prominently in the defense, as does the Book of Acts and Paul's first letter to the Corinthians.

It's clear, however, that no justification for the concept of the Holy Spirit exists outside the NT and the Christian interpretive tradition. We cannot apprehend the Holy Spirit through the senses or through instruments. Yet we can get in big, big trouble for not believing in the Holy Spirit. This is the sin that will not be pardoned according to the Synoptic Gospels. And people scoff at Bertrand Russell for having said fear is the foundation of religion.

If you think religion is about intellectual or even emotional arguments, you are only partly and secondarily correct. The psyche, the motivational part of the mind, is the the endgame of religion. Religion is all about supplying motives and about motivating. The Holy Spirit is, ultimately, a metaphor for motivation: motivation against reason, motivation against intellect, motivation against interest.

I began thinking I didn't know what the Holy Spirit was, but I realize now that I get it perfectly. What's more, I get what Christianity uses it for.

He Noticed!

2011-11-03T16:06:00.001-04:00

I'm a-flutter (really, I am!).

Jerry Coyne gives mention to my criticism of his take on the Jersey Shore conference. In his response, Coyne writes:

But of one thing I’m sure: reading The Brothers Karamazov will make them think even more deeply.

I totally agree. A person's efforts will be much more rewarded by reading Dostoyevsky than by watching Jersey Shore.

Yet, good teaching can help students gain real value from both, and the value available to students from serious discussion of Jersey Shore has a relevance that is not offered even by literary classics. Being able to talk to students about the characters, the stories, the values, and the goals of Jersey Shore provides a right-now context for concerns that students also have right now. And unlike The Brothers Karamazov, Jersey Shore lends itself to students better: very few students ever think they understand Dostoyevsky, even when they do, while all students feel like they have a handle on Jersey Shore.

My point is not about the relative quality of the products, Jersey Shore vs. The Brothers Karamazov; it's about their value (also not equal) in allowing students to learn, discuss, and hone critical thinking skills. In my ideal world, the best teaching would lead people to be offended that Jersey Shore was ever offered as an option for entertainment. And then the show would fold along with others of its ilk.

The Moral Deity That Commands "You Shall Not Allow Any Soul to Live"

2011-11-01T11:14:00.003-04:00

Most everyone by now knows about the statement by biologist and public atheist Richard Dawkins on why he refuses to debate the Christian apologist William Lane Craig. A key reason, Dawkins explains, involves Deuteronomy 20:13-17 and Craig's endorsement of it. The passage has God commanding Moses to destroy various cities utterly, killing everyone indiscriminately.

Dawkins's refusal and citation of the Bible has, of course, caused fits of moral incoherence in the religious, who must reconcile (a) an authoritative picture of the god as vile and cruel with (b) a theory of the deity as good, just, and merciful. The reconciliation is impossible, and I'll admit to having enjoyed the conniptions of those who have sought to cling to their fantasy of a nice daddy-god.

Dawkins gives some of the biblical text in his article, but I prefer the Chabad version of the text, offered here with surrounding verses. This, then, is Deuteronomy 20:10-20:

10. When you approach a city to wage war against it, you shall propose peace to it.

11. And it will be, if it responds to you with peace, and it opens up to you, then it will be, [that] all the people found therein shall become tributary to you, and they shall serve you.

12. But if it does not make peace with you, and it wages war against you, you shall besiege it,

13. and the Lord, your God, will deliver it into your hands, and you shall strike all its males with the edge of the sword.

14. However, the women, the children, and the livestock, and all that is in the city, all its spoils you shall take for yourself, and you shall eat the spoils of your enemies, which the Lord, your God, has given you.

15. Thus you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you, which are not of the cities of these nations.

16. However, of these peoples' cities, which the Lord, your God, gives you as an inheritance, you shall not allow any soul to live.

17. Rather, you shall utterly destroy them: The Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivvites, and the Jebusites, as the Lord, your God, has commanded you.

18. So that they should not teach you to act according to all their abominations that they have done for their gods, whereby you would sin against the Lord, your God.

19. When you besiege a city for many days to wage war against it to capture it, you shall not destroy its trees by wielding an ax against them, for you may eat from them, but you shall not cut them down. Is the tree of the field a man, to go into the siege before you?

20. However, a tree you know is not a food tree, you may destroy and cut down, and you shall build bulwarks against the city that makes war with you, until its submission.

This is brutal, nasty, indefensible stuff.

Craig has now responded to Dawkins's charges. Christian Today reports Craig as offering:

"There was no racial war here, no command to kill them all," he said, alluding to extermination of the Canaanites in the Old Testament, "the command was to drive them out."

He then said: "I would say that God has the right to give and take life as He sees fit. Children die all the time! If you believe in the salvation, as I do, of children, who die, what that meant is that the death of these children meant their salvation. People look at this [genocide] and think life ends at the grave but in fact this was the salvation of these children, who were far better dead … than being raised in this Canaanite culture."

Craig's response stinks. In his "no command to kill them all," Craig might be referring specifically to Numbers 33:50-56, but of course that's a change from the text cited by Dawkins.

Craig's next bit is outright repulsive: "God has the right to give and take life as He sees fit"? No, no, he does not have that right. At least, it is not obvious that God has such a right either to give or to take life. I would like to see the philosophical case for this.

The rest of Craig's response continues the fail. By his reasoning, a fanatical religious group commanded by God may wipe out each of us, including our young and cute little babies. We should feel pretty good about being murdered, though, because our kids will be far better off in the afterlife--no matter their fear, crying, pain, suffering, and brutalization before death finally comes.

Better hope Westboro Baptist doesn't build up a stockpile.

Attempted Witty Title: A Reply To Jerry Coyne

2011-10-31T13:22:00.002-04:00

Obligatory cat picture because this post mentions Jerry Coyne.

Jerry Coyne slams a recent academic conference that focused on the TV series Jersey Shore. He mentions that he popped in on two lectures and heard bits of other talks. The conference took place at the University of Chicago, where Coyne is a biologist.

His offers a scathing assessment of the event:

Waste of time and the money used to fund it. I know readers will contest this, and I did go to only two talks, but both were dire, boring, and completely unenlightening. It was a deadly combination of postmodern theory and pop culture. It’s harmless to talk about this, I suppose, but it’s a question of how to prioritize academic funds—and scholarship

Wait a minute, Jerry. You posted the program of the event, and the broad topics seem worthwhile:

The Construction of Guido Identity: I don't know much about Jersey Shore in particular, but a session that looks at the show's representations of masculinity, race, sexuality, and identity seems pretty interesting. What makes someone manly in that world? What importance is placed on identifying as an Italian American?
Morality and Ethics: Again, the general topic seems worthy of the humanities. Why not use a popular TV show to explore moral behavior and ethical dilemmas faced by the characters (albeit as edited by the show's producers)?
Affect, Honor, and Desire: This is one session I would have liked to attend, especially the paper involving medieval Iceland. Ultimately, this session appears to want to understand how the characters of the show view their world. This understanding is the bread and butter of the humanities. We want to know the world just as Hamlet did, or just as Beowulf did, or just as Guinevere did. We want to capture the cultural perspectives that audiences in the past brought to their lives and to the artworks presented to them.
Guido Cultural Signifiers: Another good session, if the paper titles are any indication. Surely, the people on the show have personalities and behaviors that appeal to viewers. Asking why this is so and looking for answers that go beyond pat stereotypes--well, these seem like good things to me.

I don't see why Coyne judges these topics to be "shallow." I have some sympathy with the rest of his complaint, that academic pop-culture studies are "too infested with postmodern obscurantism, and ... replace more substantive material that can actually make students think deeply about things"--but focusing on Jersey Shore and the like can indeed generate substantive material that helps students think deeply about lots of things, not least about the things all around them on campus, in the clubs, and on their computers.

Coyne's final comment (or is it a caption to the picture of the Jersey Shore cast?) registers as the most unfortunate:

Guidos and guidetttes: many think they’re as educationally important as Shakespeare. They’re wrong.

Jerry, you don't have to like the show or think it offers anything of importance. But the quality of the show is almost irrelevant because what these scholars are doing is not praising Jersey Shore. They are not comparing the show to any of Shakespeare's works.

Yet there is an education an American co-ed can gain from humanities scholarship on a show like Jersey Shore. Issues of identity come up in Shakespeare. So do issues of morality, sexuality, race, power, and history. When we talk about Shakespeare, we can talk about these issues in the context of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. This discussion has immeasurable value for a twenty-first century reader.

When applied to culture as it is happening before our eyes, these discussions can also have an enormous impact on students. Their favorite show actually isn't a joke, even if its characters act like buffoons. That show they watch reinforces stereotypes, or changes them, or questions them. Humanities scholarship give students the tools to see that culture is everywhere, not just in England from 1564-1616.

Jerry's point on reading papers as opposed to giving talks is well-taken. I think most humanities scholars are taught, at least through imitation, to present the paper first and foremost, and worry very much less about connecting with an audience. This is unfortunate, especially since in our classrooms we are talking to our students and seeking to engage them as best we can.

The best parts of any conference happen when scholars receive questions and address challenges. It's an important skill, if frightening to acquire.

Season of the Kvetch

2011-10-31T08:08:00.000-04:00

New posts here have been sparse lately because life has been hectic!

My dissertation prospectus went in last week. My director was pretty happy with it, so I have high hopes that it will get signed off. This will leave only the writing to be done for my doctoral degree.
Work has been a roller coaster. I've had plenty of tasks on my plate. Our company also recently had layoffs, which has most everyone here angry and nervous. Unfortunately, the situation in my company is not unlike that of many US defense contractors. We're all shrinking, as must happen when war draws down.
Teaching has kept me pretty busy also. I've taught pretty much the same course for 10 years (16 if you count my earlier experiences as a TA), yet I still have to work at it.
I saw The Bad Plus on Friday night. The show was truly excellent. The trio sounded great and they were right in front of me! My brothers enjoyed the performance, but my father did not, as expected. Dad likes standards. I'm glad he came, though, and I think he was glad too.

Circumcision: Cruel and Unusual

2011-10-19T13:39:00.000-04:00

Watch the video and see if you agree.

Enjoy Your Freedom? Thank a Protester

2011-10-15T23:18:00.004-04:00

In America, we are constantly asked to bow our heads in reverence for agents of the state. Thank a veteran, thank a police officer, thank the fallen. They have sacrificed for our freedom.

Well, thank the protester too. Thank those who speak publicly and assemble in non-violent protest against state-enabled injustices. Appreciate those who walk and those who rally. Salute those who stand up against ignorance, inequity, and hypocrisy. Applaud those who call attention to the failings of economic and political systems. Understand the many sacrifices entailed by questioning and challenging both the state and the status quo.

Know the issues. Thank the protesters. And pass this message on.

Richard Carrier on Ancient Judaism's Suicide Messiahs

2011-10-15T07:17:00.004-04:00

I am Joshua. I shall redeem you through terrible films.
Do not despair ye, for each movie will offer my hot-hot young wife
being all kinds of naked.

I recommend everyone to Richard Carrier's recent post, "The Dying Messiah." Carrier here lays out a case some Jews in pre-Christian times held beliefs that the messiah would come and be killed. It's an interesting and important case because the popular wisdom holds that Jews expected the messiah to come and liberate Israel from the yoke, thereby ushering in a new and perhaps final world era. They did not expect the messiah to be tortured and executed, a la Jesus of Nazareth, as a low criminal; indeed, their expectation later blinded them to the "truth" of Jesus's messiahship.

Carrier argues the popular wisdom is inaccurate. In the time of Christianity's beginnings, he says,

Jewish beliefs were remarkably diverse, open to innovation, and not as conservative as later Rabbinical Judaism would become. In fact many an expert on ancient Judaism has called attention to the repeated mistake of assuming first century Judaism was "just like" medieval Rabbinical Judaism. So it would be more than safe to propose as a hypothesis for the origin of Christianity that some Jews did see these connections and did expect a dying messiah and that it is from their movement (or its influence) that Christianity arose.

Feeling "safe" enough, Carrier hypothesizes that one possible explanation for the emergence of Christian beliefs is that they had already been formulated to some degree within Judaism. Carrier concludes:

Seen in its actual context, there really isn't anything all that novel about Christianity's basic claims. The way it assembled the parts is unique, as every religion was and is, but the parts were already there for the taking.

Carrier leads us through the evidence very well. See, for example, how he introduces a key passage from the Dead Sea Scrolls:

A fragmentary pesher among the Dead Sea Scrolls explicitly identifies the servant of Isaiah 52-53 with the messiah of Daniel 9. This decisively confirms that this specific equation had already been made by pre-Christian Jews, as it exists not just in a pre-Christian text, but in this case a pre-Christian manuscript. The passage in question is in 11QMelch ii.18 (aka 11Q13). A pesher is an interpretive commentary on the OT that operates on the assumption that the OT text has hidden, second-level meanings (a view Christians shared, e.g. Rom. 16:25-26). Thus some pre-Christian Jews were already finding hidden "secrets" in the OT that basically are the Christian gospel: that Isaiah 52-53 is about the messiah whom Daniel 9 predicted will be killed (this same pesher also identifies Isaiah 61 as being about this same messiah, thus proving again that the Christians did not come to this conclusion post hoc either).

Carrier links to, but does not give, the passage in question. So, I offer the text here:

(...) And concerning what Scripture says, "In this year of Jubilee you shall return, everyone of you, to your property" (Lev. 25;13) And what is also written; "And this is the manner of the remission; every creditor shall remit the claim that is held against a neighbor, not exacting it of a neighbor who is a member of the community, because God's remission has been proclaimed" (Deut.15;2) the interpretation is that it applies to the Last Days and concerns the captives, just as Isaiah said: "To proclaim the Jubilee to the captives" (Isa. 61;1) (...) just as (...) and from the inheritance of Melchizedek, for (... Melchizedek), who will return them to what is rightfully theirs. He will proclaim to them the Jubilee, thereby releasing them from the debt of all their sins. He shall proclaim this decree in the first week of the jubilee period that follows nine jubilee periods.

Then the "Day of Atonement" shall follow after the tenth jubilee period, when he shall atone for all the Sons of Light, and the people who are predestined to Melchizedek. (...) upon them (...) For this is the time decreed for the "Year of Melchizedek`s favor", and by his might he will judge God's holy ones and so establish a righteous kingdom, as it is written about him in the Songs of David; "A godlike being has taken his place in the council of God; in the midst of divine beings he holds judgement"

(Ps. 82;1). Scripture also says about him; "Over it take your seat in the highest heaven; A divine being will judge the peoples" (Ps. 7;7-8) Concerning what scripture says; "How long will you judge unjustly, and show partiality with the wicked? Selah" (Ps. 82;2), the interpretation applies to Belial and the spirits predestined to him, because all of them have rebelled, turning from God's precepts and so becoming utterly wicked. Therefore Melchizedek will thoroughly prosecute the vengeance required by God's statutes. Also, he will deliver all the captives from the power of Belial, and from the power of all the spirits destined to him. Allied with him will be all the "righteous divine beings"(Isa. 61;3).

(The ...) is that whi(ch ...all) the divine beings. The visitation is the Day of Salvation that He has decreed through Isaiah the prophet concerning all the captives, inasmuch as Scripture says, "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger who announces peace, who brings good news, who announces salvation, who says to Zion "Your divine being reigns"." (Isa. 52;7) This scriptures interpretation: "the mountains" are the prophets, they who were sent to proclaim God's truth and to prophesy to all Israel. "The messengers" is the Anointed of the spirit, of whom Daniel spoke; "After the sixty-two weeks, an Anointed shall be cut off" (Dan. 9;26) The "messenger who brings good news, who announces Salvation" is the one of whom it is written; "to proclaim the year of the LORD`s favor, the day of the vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn" (Isa. 61;2)

This scripture's interpretation: he is to instruct them about all the periods of history for eternity (... and in the statutes) of the truth. (...) (.... dominion) that passes from Belial and returns to the Sons of Light (....) (...) by the judgment of God, just as t is written concerning him; "who says to Zion "Your divine being reigns" (Isa. 52;7) "Zion" is the congregation of all the sons of righteousness, who uphold the covenant and turn from walking in the way of the people. "Your divine being" is Melchizedek, who will deliver them from the power of Belial. Concerning what scripture says, "Then you shall have the trumpet sounded loud; in the seventh month . . . " (Lev. 25;9)

For Carrier, the text's connection between Isaiah 52-53 and Daniel 9 is particularly important:

Connecting Isaiah 53 with Daniel 9 proves that some Jews were already thinking this before Christianity even began. In fact Daniel 9:24 also says the messiah's death would atone for the sins of Israel and thereby bring about the end of the world (9:27), and this after a long preface complaining that those sins had been getting in the way. Should we be surprised that some Jews would come to believe that this had at last happened? For them, the death of the messiah, setting up the subsequent end of the world, was expected. That Christians taught all these things (their messiah had died, his death atoned for all sins, and the end was therefore nigh) is unlikely to be a coincidental reinvention of ideas the Jews were already getting on board with. No, the first Christians most likely came from these very Jews, or were directly inspired by their teachings.

Carrier makes an impressive and persuasive case, although I have only presented the first part of it. Why, though, is it important that specifically Christian beliefs emerged more or less directly from Jewish ancestors?

Wisely, he avoids trying to use his one case as the basis making another, different case. In a comment, he addresses whether the dying messiah in pre-Christian Judaism sheds light on one or more historical Jesuses/Joshuas:

This blog post takes no position on that and makes no argument either way. It is solely about this one fact, which can fit both mythicist and historicist hypotheses of the origins of Christianity. Indeed, in isolation, one could use what I establish here to argue in favor of historicity, since the other Jesus Christs were historical (Jesus is then just another historical figure posing as the Joshuan Messiah and trying to get himself killed). But one cannot argue from isolated items of evidence. A conclusion must come from a survey of all the evidence together.

I am not so wise as Dr. Carrier, so I'll take his case to make another of my own.

We make so much of religious beliefs, political beliefs, social beliefs, and beliefs generally. We take them as monolithic things. We discuss them and examine them as themselves and for themselves.

This is often how literature is taught and studied.

We cannot forget, however, that beliefs are like everything else: they have precedents and antecedents. They are real and palpable as subjects of discussion, writing, and dispute.

We therefore err to talk about beliefs--be they modern or ancient--only in terms of their content and personal use. If we only focus on beliefs in this or that god, and about how we should apply beliefs to our daily lives, we miss the most interesting stuff: the origins and development of the beliefs themselves.

We don't fully understand something if we only interpret what it is and what we can do with it. To understand, we must also pursue material origins.

I should footnote that Carrier's argument does not necessarily affect the point I make in a previous post, namely that the Christian understanding of Jesus's sacrifice appears to many of Jewish background--like me--as a "left turn" from Judaism. The Jewish dying messiah and the Christian dying messiah remain leagues apart, and they presuppose two very different gods.

Rabbi Itzalok Predicts Week 6 NFL Winners (2011)

2011-10-14T19:54:00.001-04:00

I predict which team will win the spiritual battle. And when I pick, it's a lock.

Rabbi Itzalok huddles with the Divine One to predict the outcome of each week's National Football League games.

To make matters even more interesting, the ever-sharp Rabbi I. tests his prophetic mettle against a computer picker and a fantasy league.

Here are this week's predicted winners:

	Rabbi Itzalok	Accuscore	Pick 'em
Car@Atl	Atl	Atl	Atl
Ind@Cin	Cin	Cin	Cin
SF@Det	Det	Det	Det
Stl@GB	GB	GB	GB
Buf@NYG	Buf	NYG	Buf
Jac@Pit	Pit	Pit	Pit
Phi@Wsh	Wsh	Phi	Wsh
Cle@Oak	Oak	Oak	Oak
Hou@Bal	Bal	Bal	Bal
Dal@NE	Dal	NE	NE
NO@TB	NO	NO	NO
Min@Chi	Chi	Min	Chi
Mia@NYJ	NYJ	NYJ	NYJ

How to Piss Off Your Professor

2011-10-14T10:07:00.000-04:00

You may know that I teach a class in introduction to literature. I enjoy the class, and it's going well this semester.

In addition to frequent reading assignments, the class has gone through two cycles for short essays. Normally, essay assignments are handed out about a week or more in advance of the deadline. Plus, every student is required to show me a working paragraph at least two days before the deadline. The requirement helps me guide students and give them feedback. It also helps students start their papers earlier, which can only help them hand in a better product.

This morning, the third short essay was due in class. One student, however, came to class but did not turn in a paper. In fact, this student received the assignment on Wednesday--the due date for the working paragraph requirement--because he had been absent from earlier classes.

He approached me after class to tell me he couldn't complete the paper because "the assignment was unclear." Also unclear, he said, was a long illustration I had written out showing how to properly quote literature and then explain to a reader what was just quoted. That illustration was given to students along with the essay assignment itself, and I had explained both and offered to answer student questions on them.

They were unclear, he asserted. Unclear.

I was pretty pissed at the deliberate phrasing he used. Essentially, he was saying he could have completed the assignment if it had been more explicit about what he was supposed to do. It was my fault, in other words.

I let him know, I hope clearly, that even if the assignment was unclear to him, he had let plenty of opportunities slip to get help. After talking more with him, he showed that he really did know exactly what to do: a literary analysis, just like we had done two times before. Just like everyone else in class was able to do for the assignment.

The student should have simply mentioned that he was unable to complete his paper on time. He should have stated what he understood the assignment to be for his chosen topic, and then he should have let me either confirm or correct his understanding.

He made a really bad move telling me the assignment was unclear.

I worked to develop that assignment. I worked to make it clear. I worked in class to explain it. I solicited questions from students. I required a mini-review two days before deadline to address any questions. I did my job.

That motherfucker's on my shit list now.

Rabbi Itzalok Predicts Week 5 NFL Winners (2011)

2011-10-07T17:43:00.000-04:00

I predict which team will win the spiritual battle. And when I pick, it's a lock.

	Rabbi Itzalok	Accuscore	Pick 'em
Phi@Buf	Buf	Phi	Phi
KC@Ind	Ind	KC	Ind
Ari@Min	Min	Min	Min
Sea@NYG	NYG	NYG	NYG
Ten@Pit	Pit	Pit	Pit
NO@Car	NO	NO	NO
Cin@Jac	Jac	Cin	Cin
Oak@Hou	Hou	Hou	Hou
TB@SF	SF	SF	SF
SD@Den	SD	SD	SD
NYJ@NE	NYJ	NE	NE
GB@Atl	Atl	GB	GB
Chi@Det	Chi	Det	Det

The Sacrifice of Jesus as a Left Turn from Judaism

2011-10-05T16:44:00.007-04:00

The scenario below illustrates why the execution of Jesus by the Romans is not quite the great sacrifice Christians say it is, and why Jewish believers see the whole fetishization of the sacrifice both strange and abhorrent:

There is a great empire ruled absolutely by a man named El. In this empire, every person has an obligation to pay a sum of $100 to the empire, and this sum must be paid at one time, in full, on the person's 30th birthday. If the sum is not paid at that time, the person will be sent permanently to jail for hard labor.

The people of the empire are very poor, and $100 dollars is more than most anyone is able to pay by themselves. You are one of the inhabitants of the empire, you are far short of the required $100, and your 30th birthday is fast approaching.

But then: the son of the king pays your full $100 for you. You don't know the son. You didn't ask him to make your payment, and you had no idea that he existed, let alone that he would make this payment on your behalf. In fact, you didn't even know it was permissible for someone to make your payment for you. Nevertheless, you are now square with the empire.

There is a catch, however. The son later says that he made your $100 dollar payment at the request of his father the king. Now the king and the son demand that you vote for the son to be prime minister in the upcoming election. Your vote is the price of the son's having paid your obligation. If you refuse to vote for him, then you will be sent permanently to jail for hard labor.

You discover that the son has paid the obligations of many others, too. All are imposed with the same condition. Cast your vote in favor of the son or go to jail. Everyone who learns that her or his obligation has been paid by the son must choose.

Representatives of the son come to your door frequently. They ask you whether you will vote for the son or not. So far you have delayed them, but you must make a decision soon.

This scenario captures what I think are essential difficulties with the doctrine of sacrifice that Jesus personifies for Christians.

Where does the obligation come from and on what authority?
How can it be that the son pays someone else's obligation without asking permission from that person?
By what right does the son coerce allegiance?
Isn't validation of the son, as opposed to straight gratitude for his having made a payment, superfluous? Why does he need to be recognized?

For someone from a Jewish background, like myself, it's hard to convey how strange the sacrifice of Jesus appears. To me, Christianity takes a complete left turn from Judaism and makes God a very different being than in Jewish doctrine.

More importantly, the sacrifice of Jesus is not really a sacrifice but a buy out. It kicks people from being ransomed to God to being ransomed to Jesus, and it does so without people's knowledge. In both the Jewish and Christian world orders, people are chattel. The only question is who you think is your master, El or his son.

Wednesday Comedy: Occupy Wall Street

2011-10-05T15:00:00.000-04:00

Go protestors! Get action!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Democracy on the Lurch - Wall Street Pepper Spray Incident

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

I Do Not Fear the Time

2011-10-03T01:20:00.006-04:00

My mother and father are married 47 years today.

In their honor, and in honor of the occasion, I have two mournful yet appropriate songs for them. This is, of course, a day to celebrate and be extremely joyful--partly because we know that it won't last forever. And so the celebration and joy includes mourning over the sweet receding past and the inevitable parting yet to come.

Here's a beautiful song written by Sandy Denny.

And here's a lovely one by Richard and Linda Thompson.

Don't Be A Seeker

2011-09-30T15:52:00.001-04:00

At one time in my early twenties, I fancied myself a spiritual seeker. I pored through books on eastern and western religion, philosophy, wisdom, and success. Outside of general education and idle thoughts on the world and myself, none of these works did me any lasting good or made me any happier.

In fact, only two things have made me feel happy, satisfied, and energized. The first thing is to remember reality. This life is it. This is what we get. It's actually quite an amazing life, and reality is almost unfathomably wonderful.

The second thing is to work.To me, work covers everything from reading to running, and from professional tasks to in-home fix-ups. When I work, I tend to be more active and more social, and it exhilarates me.

Spiritual seeking is not reality based, and it's not work. To seek is to denigrate reality because the seeker wants more or wants something else than reality. Seeking is work, but it's object is to cease working. The seeker looks to acquire something that will render seeking unnecessary. The seeker wants to arrive to a place where s/he can receive: receive enlightenment, receive peace, receive happiness, and so on.

People are enamored of seekers. They fashion seekers as romantic heroes, but this veneration is an old lie. A foolish, harmful lie.

Don't be a seeker. Be here and now. And let's work.

Rabbi Itzalok Predicts Week 4 NFL Winners (2011)

2011-09-30T12:55:00.001-04:00

I predict which team will win the spiritual battle. And when I pick, it's a lock.

	Rabbi Itzalok	Accuscore	Pick 'em
Car@Chi	Chi	Chi	Chi
Buf@Cin	Cin	Buf	Buf
Ten@Cle	Ten	Ten	Ten
Det@Dal	Dal	Dal	Det
Min@KC	Min	Min	Min
Wsh@STL	Wsh	Wsh	Wsh
SF@Phi	Phi	Phi	Phi
NO@Jac	NO	NO	NO
Pit@Hou	Pit	Hou	Hou
NYG@Ari	NYG	NYG	NYG
Atl@Sea	Atl	Atl	Atl
Den@GB	GB	GB	GB
NE@Oak	NE	NE	NE
Mia@SD	Mia	SD	SD
NYJ@Bal	Bal	Bal	Bal
Ind@TB	Ind	TB	TB