I confess. I haven’t read The God Delusion. Nor have I read End of Faith or God is Not Great. Of course I’ve heard about them, and some snippets from them, but have never sat down and actually read them. There are so many other books and interests, I have not been able to work up the faintest curiosity to crack these open.
I know—I will likely lose my atheist card over it.
However, I am currently reading What’s so Great about Christianity? by Dinesh D’Souza, which has been compared to being the “Christian response” to the trifecta onslaught of atheist best-sellers. I have to say, the polemic is less than persuasive to someone who is not a Christian. I wonder if books such as The God Delusion produce equal responses of antipathy and disappointment in those who believe differently?
There is a growing curiosity to pick one up and read it as best I could from a Christian perspective. If they are similar, I could see why someone such as Dawkins is disliked by the Christian community.
Little effort would be required to go through and start bashing various statements within the book. Most of us have heard these claims before; nothing new. Further, because the author covers such a broad range within a few pages, it is necessarily shallow when covering topics which have taken multiple tomes.
Perhaps it will improve…
So—what books are YOU reading? What book(s) are you anxiously looking forward to read? What book have I not read, and you are disappointed in my failure to read it yet? *grin*
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I've been meaning to read that too.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that interested me was the claim that the number of deaths caused by "Christian atrocities" pale in comparison to "atheist atrocities". From a summary I read, I gather that they include Hitler in the "atheist" camp, is this so? And how do they justify the claim that Hitler was an atheist, when the evidence indicates he was (his own particular brand of) Christian? I have been seeing an uptick in the number of references to Hitler having been an atheist, as a counter to references to such things as the Crusades, etc.
I suspect they grossly underestimate the death-toll of the Crusades. They also don't appear to take into consideration the millions of American natives who were killed, abused in hideously calloused and severe ways, by the Catholics; and systematically hunted down and destroyed by the Puritans, with their "animalistic" and heathen natures always quick to be added to the lists of justificiations.
I've lately been reading The Jesus Mysteries, which makes a rather solid case that the stories of Jesus—virtually all of them—were stolen wholesale from existing myths, legends, stories and events from that period of time and previous. The symbolism of the fish (the "ichthus"), baptism (as washing away one's sins), having been born as a virgin, birthday of December 25, unjust and cruelly violent death and subsequent resurrection three days later, feeding multitudes with a small amount of fish... and many more.
I was very skeptical of claims that the stories of Jesus were taken wholesale from such god-heroes as Mithra and Osiris. But it's hard to escape that conclusion in the face of evidence, and even in many cases, acknowledgment of the similarities from Christian apologetics in the early Church.
There are, of course, a lot of things to verify, and I'd want to go back through and do a more in-depth study before I simply accept it as fact. But it's a surprisingly convincing case.
Really interesting entry. Some interesting reading for you would be nearly anything by John Dominic Crossan. While he proclaims himself a Christian, he is pretty well dis-owned by much of the Christian community. I can see why. He provides interesting perspectives on Christianity, and different ways of looking at it through the historical perspective. I'm not a Christian, but I still find it interesting.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I don't know if you're just looking for reading on religion or not, but I've been reading the "Discoverers" series by Daniel Boorstein. This series, while can be cumbersome at times, is fantastic for those interested in the history of mankind. So far I have read "Discoverers," "The Americans," and am currently reading "The Seekers," which is about the history of ideas. Really good stuff.
**I know—I will likely lose my atheist card over it.**
ReplyDeleteWouldn't that mean that there was a doctrine to atheism, though? ;)
I'm currently reading "How to read the Bible" by James Kugel. It's focusing on the Tanakh, and contrasting how ancient people read it compared to modern scholars, as well as somewhat contrasting the Jewish to the Christian viewpoint. It's a fascinating read -- I plan on buying it when it's in paperback.
As for books I'm anxious to read, I'm in the process of ordering a series by Jaroslav Pelikan. I've heard good things about his history of Christianity, in both the Western and Eastern perspectives. I want to say he started out in the Western branch, but converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. I'm hoping it goes in-depth into atonement theories, as it would be nice to get a better handle on them.
Oh Dear. I am a frequent business traveller, so I spend many long nights alone in a seedy hotel room with my nose in a book.
ReplyDeleteThe last book I finished reading was 'The Conquest of Paradise - Christopher Columbus and the Columbian Legacy', by Kirkpatrick Sale. No, it had nothing to do with religion, but I was struck by the legends that now surround the 'Historical Columbus', and how little we really know about the guy. Who do you think I constantly drew paralells to?
Right now I am reading 'The Life of Jesus Critically Examined', by David F Strauss, which I downloaded for *FREE* thanks to Google books. I think this was first published in the 1830's and set off the wave of 19th century German Higher Criticism. Struss takes the 4 gospels and dissects them to a degree I have never seen done before, laying out inconsistancies, implausibilities and contradictions, some of which I noticed myself but most I had never thought of. It is long, so I am taking copious notes as I go. There are a couple of other classics on Google books I am thinking of reading in the future.
I am also reading the Quran. It is taking me forever to slog through that thing. nuff said.
I have two books in my reading queue. Well, actually three, but one has nothing to do with religion. The other two are 'He that Cometh', by Simon Mowinckel that discusses the concept of 'Messiah' in the Old Testament and psuedapigraphal Jewish writings (so help me, I love apocalyptic literature). The other is 'Jesus and the Eyewitnesses' by Richard Bauckham, which, according to the reviews on Amazon, seems to present proof positive that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were indeed eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus and did in fact write the Gospels that bare their names. I can't wait to crack them open!
By the way DaGoodS, I have not read any Dawkins, Hitchens or Harris either. I dunno, they just don't sound too interesting to me.
DagoodS: "I confess. I haven’t read The God Delusion. Nor have I read End of Faith or God is Not Great."
ReplyDeleteRebecca: Me either.
My current reads are The Bible, A Biography, by Karen Armstrong, From Eve to Dawn, A History of Women, Volume 1: Origins, by Marilyn French, A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice, by Isaac Klein, In The Steps of The Master, by H.V. Morton, and The Day Christ Died, by Jim Bishop.
Micah Cowan,
ReplyDeleteThe Jesus Mysteries was one of the first books I read in the process of questioning skeptics. Although it has some points, I find some of its scholarship and conclusions…highly questionable, shall we say? You may draw your own conclusions.
D’Souza indicates the statements Hitler made which would lead one to think he had Christian tendencies were solely for propaganda. That Hitler’s personal feelings were extremely anti-Christian. Albeit D’Souza does not address any theistic tendencies of Hitler. Basically he downplays the deaths of the Crusades and Inquisitions and points out Stalin killed at least 20 million, Hitler at least 6 million Jews, and Mao possibly 70 Million.
Again, because of the broad subject area, he only spends a few pages regarding the comparison of Christian deaths vs. atheist deaths, with little detail. Imagine reading a 500 page book on Quantum Physics, and then reading 10-pages on the subject in another book which covers a variety of ideas. You will almost certainly be disappointed in the inadequacy of the completeness on the topic.
I find it fascinating we are apparently arguing over who has the “correct” position on truth, based upon who has killed fewer people.
Matthew,
ReplyDeleteThanks to your comment, I will put Crossan as third in my reading list. I might as well dig in there.
I do read other than religion (currently my favorite topic being the Pacific Theater in WWII), but I find, due to where I lurk and debate on the ‘net, religion is where I end up on most occasions when picking out reading material.
OneSmallStep,
ReplyDeleteA bit of an embarrassing confession. I was one of those Christians who pitied the Jews. They came so close—ya know? They had half of it right, and then biffed it with Jesus. How could they possibly be so blind to miss the blatantly obvious prophecies pointing directly to Jesus the Messiah?
Then, as the New Testament started to unravel, I gained more and more respect for the Tanakh. Unfortunately, many Christians fail to appreciate it, by smashing it either into their preconceived notion of prophetic statements, or worse—literalism. The Jews have a far better appreciation and understanding (in my opinion) of how to handle “sacred writings” and stay God-worshippers rather than writing-worshippers. They do a better job of seeing a variety of interpretations, for a variety of people, rather than one stringent interpretation which MUST be fit (no matter how painfully) to every single person who ever lived.
HeIsSailing,
ReplyDeleteI have tried on more than one occasion to read the Qur’an. I can’t seem to keep focused enough to stay with it. “Reading it” just to say my eyes covered every word, and my brain took it in, with no depth or appreciation seems to belittle it in some way. I have heard the Qur’an is a book that is supposed to be read aloud. Have you done that? Is it better that way?
Read Bauckham as soon as it came out. (Come ON! “Eyewitness Testimony”? “Jesus”? How could I possibly resist? *grin*) I would be curious as to your thoughts when you (finally) get a chance to read him.
Rebecca Shannon,
ReplyDeleteAlways like Karen Armstrong. As you know, I cannot get her concept of mythos vs logos out of my head. Should I read “A History of Women” or would it terrify me? What is “The Day Christ Died” about?
HeIsSailing: 'The Conquest of Paradise - Christopher Columbus and the Columbian Legacy', by Kirkpatrick Sale.
ReplyDeleteYeah, sometimes I feel I should wear black and half-mast the flag (if I had one) on Columbus Day. :\
I thoroughly enjoyed [the first few chapters of] People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn, which I haven't finished but hope to pick up again to do so, soon. This book, in turn, inspired me to get Eyewitness to America : 500 Years of American History in the Words of Those Who Saw It Happen by David Colbert, and Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies by Bartolome de Las Casas; both of which I plan to read after I get back to People's History.
The Destruction of the Indies is particularly interesting to me, as it apparently not only details the oppression of American natives, but a particular brand of religious fanaticism (on the part of the natives) which led them to believe that this group of white men had power to heal or to harm, to such a great degree that they would claim that by their blessing some who had died miraculously resurrected; and when they were displeased, natives died! I figure reading these accounts may help me to gain a better comprehension of how completely faith can affect perceptions of reality.
§
I have read Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, most of which I enjoyed, and started a couple other works, including The God Delusion, which I failed to maintain an interest in. I have not read, nor become sufficiently interested to read, Sam Harris.
I don't find the idea of belief itself, in God or a Supreme Being, to be something to fight against, particularly. I'm much more concerned with exclusionary and socially destructive ideas that stem from mistaken beliefs in specific revalations that God has supposedly given. I can't really agree with those that claim that liberal and generally open-minded religion provides a safe-haven environment for closed-minded and fundamentalist faiths; I don't see any evidence to support that conclusion (though, not having read the relevant books, I suppose I haven't given them the opportunity to present evidence, either). AFAICT, liberal Christians are annoyed that evangelicals get all the attention, and do so much damage to what they view as their faith; they don't applaud them for having a "truer" form of Christianity than they (really, I have always found that claim to be highly implausible).
DagoodS: Although it has some points, I find some of its scholarship and conclusions…highly questionable, shall we say? You may draw your own conclusions.
I can't say, one way or another, as I haven't had the time to research any of the source material they cite. But they seem to refer to a lot of source material to back up their claims; as to how well they actually do back up their claims, well, I'd have to check them out, wouldn't I? :)
I'll have to find some time to pick my favorite examples, and dig deeper to see how realistic the perspective being offered is. However, much of it is easily verifiable, so it shouldn't take too long, and I'd be amazed if they are representing such easily-verified sources as saying something they don't.
In the meantime, I'm hoping you can point me out to some specific examples of where you found their scholarship and conclusions to be highly questionable? At this point in time I'm not terribly far along: so I'm mainly talking about the things they present in "The Pagan Mysteries" and "Diabolical Mimicry", where they make the case that quite a few very critical stories and doctrines concerning Jesus were fundamentally the same as, or very, very similar to, various bits of the Osiris-Dionysus group of pagan traditions. Not having read more than a quarter of the book, they may well go quite south from there, as far as I know. However, it is these cases that will probably remain the most intriguing to me.
I find it fascinating we are apparently arguing over who has the “correct” position on truth, based upon who has killed fewer people.
Quite. It's a silly argument, but apparently one we (atheists/anti-Christians) started. I still think we'd win it, but I agree that it has nothing to do with who's more correct than whom.
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about Hitler's religious beliefs. I was a bit off, in that it appears he was more theist, not Christian (I thought it was just traditional forms of Christianity that he privately detested, but it looks like it was more Christianity in general).
DagoodS,
ReplyDelete** They had half of it right, and then biffed it with Jesus. How could they possibly be so blind to miss the blatantly obvious prophecies pointing directly to Jesus the Messiah?**
If it helps, this is similar to my belief structure when I was younger -- *obviously* Jesus was the Messiah and the Pharisees/the Jews were blinded by "the flesh." After all, Jesus fufilled all the prophecies -- the NT said so. There was a lot I accepted without questioning. I wouldn't say I pitied the Jews, because I didn't believe they were damned for their lack of belief. I guess I just felt their religion was superficial.
But after I started doing what you did, in examining the Judaic interpretation of the prophecies and precisely why they believe as they do, I saw all the complexities, and how the NT was used as an almost two-dimensional window at times into the Jewish faith. Their religion also has much more freedom in adapting, it seems (perhaps not with the Orthodox Jews, though). As you said, they seem to do a better job in many areas. Although liberal Christianity seems to follow suit, in not keeping things so literal.
DagoodS asks:
ReplyDeleteI have heard the Qur’an is a book that is supposed to be read aloud. Have you done that? Is it better that way?
I confess, the Quran is tough reading for me - and although it may have a poetic flow in its own language that I am missing, frankly it pales in comparison to much of the Bible. What keeps me going is reading the Quran's perception of Christianity and Judaism. But slogging through all of Allah's threats to the infidel on every third verse gets a little tedious.
I have never tried reciting the Quran, but maybe I'll give it a try. The chanting to Allah may frighten my wife in the other room, so I shall have to do it quietly. I have read parts of the Bible aloud when they are particularly striking to me. Many of the Psalms, and the Prophets especially are very powerful when read aloud.
Micah Cowan,
ReplyDeleteI misspoke with “highly questionable.” Let’s just leave it at “questionable.” I took out my copy and dusted it off. (Literally. There was dust on it.)
First of all, while not necessary to their thesis, the amulet on the cover is a fake.
Taking a few pages at random. They have issue with Paul saying the resurrected Jesus appeared to “the twelve” in 1 Cor. 15:5, when Judas was dead. They fail to take into account “the twelve” may be more of a title for the group. (See John 20:24) Pages 153-154. Or they claim Paul was only against women in the pseudopauline work of 1 Timothy, but fail to address 1 Cor. 14:34-35 which is equally problematic.
Or take page 41, Apollonius of Tyana, whose biography was written in the third century. The question is whether any similarities in the miracles of Apollonius and Jesus originated in Jesus’ stories of Apollonius stories? Usually we would go with the latter if close geographical proximity.
Or the two torchbearers of Mithras (one pointed up and one down, signifying the sun rising and sun setting) comparable to the two thieves with Jesus on the cross. Pg. 51 The authors say Cautes and Cautopates are “thought to have developed from Castor and Pollux” (without any demonstration of why this is “thought”) who are the Gemini Twins. I have been unable to locate where the Gemini Twins were called “sons of thunder.”
It is this stretching that caused me to wonder about the scholarship. Perhaps your mileage may vary, though, so don’t just take my word for it.
‘Sides, I read this pretty early in the deconversion process and a non-deity Jesus was unfathomable at the time, let alone a completely mythical one. I may be more gracious if I read it now.
I do think there was some pagan influence on Christianity, since it flourished among Hellenized Jews. Likewise, there could be Christian influence on pagan beliefs. Unfortunately we have so many possible legends, all arising 100 or more years after the alleged events, it becomes difficult to determine who was relying upon what. Further, there are so many varying legends (look at the comparison of the Synpotics with John, let alone the other non-canonical Gospels, or Acts of Paul, etc.) that we could pick and choose bits from one book or the other to compare to a pagan belief.
Micah Cowan, This appears to be an excerpt directly from his book, if you want to know what D’Souza said about Hilter.
ReplyDeletehere
First of all, while not necessary to their thesis, the amulet on the cover is a fake.
ReplyDeleteGeez, well, that's a bad way to start off! :) Do you have a reference to something about that?
They have issue with Paul saying the resurrected Jesus appeared to “the twelve” in 1 Cor. 15:5, when Judas was dead. They fail to take into account “the twelve” may be more of a title for the group.
Not to mention the fact that, according to Acts 1, a new “twelfth” was elected by lot to take his place.
Or they claim Paul was only against women in the pseudopauline work of 1 Timothy, but fail to address 1 Cor. 14:34-35 which is equally problematic.
Yup. The 1 Timothy one was the one that always made my jaw drop, though. :)
It is this stretching that caused me to wonder about the scholarship. Perhaps your mileage may vary, though, so don’t just take my word for it.
I see what you mean. There are a few references that I discounted as well, though I can't recall offhand what they were. However, there are still myriad others that seem pretty solid, and which I'd like to investigate further. As to taking your word for it, of course I won't, but I very much appreciate your taking the time to mention these issues.
For my part, I definitely dislike their lumping all these various Mysteries' men as Osiris-Dionysus in many of their references, even if they are essentially variations on a single myth. It makes it that much harder to check up on the stories. Fortunately, they generally mention the actual god or godman in their first reference to it, but thereafter they usually just lump them together under the composite name.
And you pointed out my other complaint, which is that I wish they'd just completely ignore anything from the first century CE or later; hardly adds to their case. And likewise, their comparisons with apocryphal or no-longer-accepted traditions, are mostly just cruft. It's not going to convince anyone, just mildly interesting, I guess.
However, such themes as being both God and the Son of God; the eucharist and the literal transmutation of the elements into God upon consumption; dying for the sins of the world and resurrecting on the third day; the apparently commonplace "miraculous sign" of feeding a multitude with a small amount of food; baptism as a traditional pagan practice; and some aspects of the fish-symbolism in Christianity (though I think they make some stretches in some cases)—these are the comparisons that have seemed compelling to me, and which I'd like to investigate further. If you have anything regarding these parallels, I'd welcome illumination/disillusionment. :)
This appears to be an excerpt directly from his book, if you want to know what D’Souza said about Hilter.
Thanks very much. While he makes a pretty damning case that Hitler was not in fact Christian, he doesn't seem to address the claim that Hitler was a theist. He talks about Nazism as being the culmination of social Darwinism, and I know that many Christians apparently equate Darwinism with atheism, but that doesn't quite cut the mustard.
Not that it matters either way, of course. :)
Amulet Forgery Discussion
ReplyDeleteThanks much for that DagoodS.
ReplyDeleteSummary: experts have deemed the amulet a forgery; and even if it were not, it would hardly be evidence for a pre-Christian pagan crucifixion, as it is from the 3rd century CE.
Is anyone aware of books that treat the topic with a bit more care than Freke and Gandy have in The Jesus Mysteries? I still find several points to be quite compelling, but I believe the whole thing would be a lot more enjoyable and instructive for me if I was reading from a less obviously-biased, fact-, name-, and time-blurring source.
ReplyDeleteMichael Cowen asks:
ReplyDeleteIs anyone aware of books that treat the topic with a bit more care than Freke and Gandy have in The Jesus Mysteries?
Michael, every book I have seen on this topic seems to have that Erich von Danikan / Charles Berlitz feel to them. Utterly mindblowing and earth shattering if true, but scholarship that seems more fitting on a late-night conspiracy radio program than a history book.
My suggestion is to do a study of mystery cults for what they are and come to your own conclusions. I have two slender books that I can recommend.
I really enjoyed 'The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World', by David Ulansey. It is not long - I knocked it off in a single evening - but it is just scholarly enough to keep me interested and yet not go over my head. Great stuff on astrology and archeology too.
The other suggestion is to read the ancient texts themselves. "The Ancient Mysteries - a Sourcebook of Sacred Texts", edited by Marvin Meyer is slower going but is loaded with interesting stuff. Dionysos, Mithras, Anatolian, Isis, Osiris, and yes, even mystery cults within ancient Judaism and Christianity as written by the ancient writers themselves! Selections from works by Origen, Plato, Josephus, Livy, Herodotus... I am just scanning the table of contents here... and loads more describe the ancient cults. There are some good introductions to each selection to put these things in some kind of historical perspective, and admitedly, some of it went over my head, but on the whole I think this book is really good.
So read those, or similar books and draw your own conclusions. That is what I suggest.
HeIsSailing, thanks much. That certainly seems like a much more reliable way to go.
ReplyDelete