Bob, Welcome to the Lake.

John, Thank you for Hosting today’s Book Salon.

Hey Bob. I’m eager to get your response to my response to your book. So waddaya think?

Bob is answering the first question.

Good afternoon John and Robert and welcome to FDL.

Robert, I have not had a chance to read your book but do have a question and please forgive me if you answer it in your book.

Superficially, it appears we (as humans) have been evolving our Gods for millenia, with the evolution from “hairy thunderer to cosmic muffin.” Doesn’t the “God” of a society reflect how the humans have evolved in worship more than it does anything else? Or am iI an idiot?

John, thanks for your kind words. As for the unkind ones: Well, it would take a lot of back and forthing to hash out our disagreements, and I hope we’ll have enough questions from FDL regulars today so that we don’t have time to do much of that. In which case I suggest we settle the matter later this week in a Bloggingheads.tv diavlog. The good folks at Firedoglake have already suggested they’d be willing to embed the video of that cage match here. I look forward to your abject humiliation. (Insert smileyface emoticon here.)

Meanwhile, a couple of clarifications/expansions.

First, in focusing on the “theological” part of my book I think you’ve given short shrift to the part of it that may be of most interest to readers of a political blog like this: I tell the history of the Abrahamic religions as a way to illuminate what brings out the best and worst in religion, and I contend that there’s a moral of the story for American foreign policy. Hence this little piece I wrote for the Huffington Post arguing that the scripture (read in historical context) vindicates Obama’s approach to the Middle East: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-…..12599.html [Sorry to enter the URL manually–I can’t get the hang of the embed-the-link feature.]

Now back to the “theological” part of your critique. Well, any very short summary of any arguments about God, a transcendent moral order, and so on, would probably mislead, so it’s not surprising that I don’t always recognize my beliefs in your characterization of them. All I can do is encourage readers to look at my own rendering of my ideas. In particular, the idea of a “moral order,” which you ridicule, is fairly clearly outlined in this 12-paragraph excerpt from the book’s final chapter.:
http://www.evolutionofgod.net/excerpts_chapter20/ And my analysis of whether, and in what sense, it’s valid to believe in a personal god can be found in its entirety here: http://www.evolutionofgod.net/excerpts_afterword/

And as long as I’m whining about being misrepresented: Your summary of what I say brings out the best and the worst in religion—“when God’s chosen people are down, God tells them to be nice; when they have the upper hand, they can crush unbelievers”—is a bit misleading, I think, as either that Huffington Post piece or this piece I wrote for Time magazine will show: http://www.evolutionofgod.net/time

OK, enough complaining. I guess I should answer at least one of your actual questions before pausing for more input. You asked about the theodicy—“Bob’s God also poses the old question: if God loves us, why is creation so crappy for so many people?” Well, that question only arises if God loves us and is omnipotent (i.e., if we know he has the power to make things non-crappy). And I never said God is omnipotent. For that matter, nowhere in the book do I say I believe in a God that loves us, or, really, any conventional kind of God at all. But I said I’d quit complaining about misrepresentation, so I guess this isn’t really a complaint. (Insert another smileyface emoticon.)

Any more questions? Or should I press on with more complaining?

Bob, haven’t read your book either. Did man create god in his image?

Welcome to Firedoglake – glad you could join us!

I agree that the god worshipped by a society is a projection/reflection of the people doing the worshipping. One thing I do in my book is trace the “moods” of God, which can fluctuate from belligerence to tolerance both in the Bible and in the Koran. And I try to figure out what circumstances on the ground inclined people to read belligerence or tolerance into their God. So when I argue that on balance God has “grown” morally (albeit with a lot of backsliding, including some recently), I’m really arguing that people have on balance advanced morally.

Bob, thanks for the gracious response. One thing I hoped to do in this chat is pin you down as to exactly what you believe. Is it the personal loving God you describe at the end of your book? And if this God isn’t omnipotent, what’s His/Her/Its relationship to reality and to us? In 25 words or less please.

I understand why early humans needed to cooperate.

I even understand why later humans needed to invent a monotheistic religion.

It all had to do with preserving certain humans.

But why do we need God today?

Certainly, the higher-ups preach God but live different lives.

bob Wright,

Your book is on my reading list.

I have long appreciated books like it, but as I age, my need to seek deeper meaning in what God or god is doesn’t seem to be increasing. I find it far more nourishing spiritually, to be fighting superstitious politically-based edifices and their seemingly growing power here and abroad, than to gnash my teeth about my soul’s destiny.

BTW – {{{{{egregious}}}}}

i was dismayed by the tone of your intro. and i’m not happy to see you dictating “In 25 words of less please.” if you actually want an answer, it might well take more than 25 words. and if you don’t want an answer, then maybe you would do well to keep your comments to well less than 25 words.

I know you won’t find this an adequate answer John, but:
I believe pretty strongly–on the basis of evidence, not divine revelation–that there is some larger purpose unfolding through the workings of nature (through the *material* workings of nature, not necessarily involving spooky ethereal stuff). As to the source of that purpose I’m more agnostic. It *could* be a God as conventionally conceived, but it could be something else, including something not at all like a God. In any event, this purpose seems to me to have enough moral directionality (specifically, in encouraging human beings to more closely approximate moral truth by expanding their realm of tolerance, compassion, etc.) that I can use it, or my conception of it, to help me orient my “spiritual” life. There, is that enough of a cop-out for you?

I don’t think we *do* need God. That is, I think people can lead a perfectly good life, morally, without believing in God. OTOH, religion ain’t going away anytime soon, so I wanted to figure out how we can bring out the best in religion, which is one of the main reasons I wrote this book.

Also, I think living a moral life is sufficiently hard that if people can use the notion of God to help them do it, God bless ‘em, so to speak.
(Besides, I believe God in some sense of the word may well exist–so they may be right.)

Bob, for our readers, could you give an overview of the time frame and different religions covered in the book?

Bob,
How do we reconcile the idea of God, filtered through the writings of old men (evidenced by the Koran, Torah, and the Old and New Testaments) with the folks who look at the Bible(s) as the inerrant word of God?

Don’t worry–notwithstanding the focus of John’s introduction, my book isn’t about spiritual guidance. It’s a history of religion that aims to increase our understanding of how to bring out the best in religion. (The review in today’s New York Times pretty well captures its spirit: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06…..?ref=books .)

In particular, I’m trying to emphasize that no religion has an eternal character. There’s no such thing as a ‘religion of peace’ or a ‘religion of war.’ All religions can be either, and it all depends on whether we make their adherents feel they have something to gain through tolerance. That’s what Obama gets–that job one is to emphasize that we respect people and don’t mean to threaten their values or their material interests.

Bob, that’s about as good as I expected. My belief shifts with mood and circumstance, and yours no doubt does too, so I suppose it’s unfair to try to pin you down. But can I ask you to respond to my concern about your concept of “moral truth”? What’s the upside in thinking that any moral precept is divine, or transcendent, or anything but an entirely human invention?

fyi… the torah and the old testament are one and the same.

Thanks for that reminder, Bev:

In the book I cover the history of God(s) from the stone age–back in our hunter-gatherer days–up through the emergence of monotheism in ancient Israel, the emergence of Christianity, and the emergence of Islam. Then I relate the lessons contained therein to the modern world–in particular to two “reconciliation” questions: Can the Abrahamic religions be reconciled to one another? (i.e., what are the ingredients of interfaith harmony); And can religion broadly be reconciled to science?

As I understand your question that’s going to be hard to reconcile. And my belief is that scripture *isn’t* the inerrant word of God.

I know but even within the context of Christianity, there are variants in the New Testaments of various Christian sects so I assume that the Christian New Testament “writers” did some editing such that the Old Testament and the Torah have both subtle and not-so-subtle differences.

Bob,

I’ve read that Neanderthal grave sites have been found with flowers, etc., buried with the bodies. That would seem to indicate a belief in an afterlife and some sort of God. And since Neaderthal human and Homo Sapiens last shared a common ancestor about 500,000 years ago, it also suggests that religion, or at least a belief in God, may predate that split – i.e., belief in God evolved before Homo Sapiens.

Any ideas on when that belief might have evolved? With Erectus? Habilus? As far back as Austrolopithecus?

I’d guess that it probably happened simultaneously with the evolution of language – if you’re gonna talk, ya gotta have someone on whom to blame your problems and other natural disasters, after all.

Your thoughts and/or speculation?

.

Thanks, that’s pretty much my feeling as well. It’s just that we now have way too many people claiming the inerrancy of the Sciptures, even when the massive contradictions are pointed out to them.

Bob,

If you are talking about something that from what I have read so far, seems to be almost nothing like common notions of a god, why not use or invent a term that does not carry the myriad connotations and distractions.

Ok, now that I have expressed my utter ignorance of your writings, I’ll go back and look at the links you gave above.

bob – do you think the need for one true way is something ingrained in people and religion comes from that need?

Let’s not forget that there have been numerous tranlsations from old, old,
old, old, old, fart to old, old, old, old, old fart and so on. Additionally there are several versions of the bible.

When you say, “What’s the upside in thinking that any moral precept is divine, or transcendent, or anything but an entirely human invention?” I think you’re bordering on a false dichotomy. If humans have “invented” their morality, but OTOH they’ve been strongly ‘incentivized’ by the direction evolution and of history to invent that very morality, then it could be that this invention is a manifestation of divine purpose.

As to the question of ‘upside’: Well, different people approach the struggle to lead a moral life in different ways. Some people are helped by the idea that their struggle is aligned with a transcendent moral order. (I’m one of those people.) I suspect you’re not one of those people. I say live-and-let-live–whatever helps you live a better life, God bless you. That’s why I don’t understand the jihad some people are on to wipe out religious belief. Religious belief can be a very positive thing, so the object of the game, IMHO, is to maximize the amount of positive religion, not wipe out religion altogether.

Bob,

I love the flora and fauna around me. Always have.

Isn’t loving our planet Earth the chief thing?

Actually, in standard usage the Torah is just the first five books of the Old Testament (aka the Hebrew Bible). And “Torah” also refers to the Jewish Law, which is thought to be embodied in those five books.

Exactly.

And now, the bible translations are filtering further and further from the original languages involved, making accurate translations that much more difficult if not impossible

I’ve often wondered what it would take for the Catholic Church to accept some updated version of the Bible, with extra books. Are we stuck with what they chose centuries ago?

Bob, I have not had the pleasure of reading your book either and am very curious.

I was wondering if you address the 12-step program “Higher Power” philosophy of God, a kind of unconditionally loving SUPER parent left up to the members’ own interpretations who is leaned on and discussed and prayed to quite successfully by many to recover from addictions and co-addictions. Kind of a very modern religious counter-culture in a secular world.

Bob, the problem is that, historically, many people who think they have “The Truth” aren’t content to live and let live. To the extent that religion is evolving in a positive direction, it’s evolving toward a secular, very modest conception of morality.

I address the question of how religion got off the ground–why it emerged from human nature–in the appendix to my book, which is available online: http://evolutionofgod.net/excerpts_appendix/

As for when exactly this happened: I don’t know, but I do think that the best way to reconstruct a fairly early version of religious belief–i.e. before the invention of agriculture–is to draw on recorded observations by anthropologists of hunter-gatherer religion. And that reconstruction suggests that originally religion was devoted to doing two things: trying to keep bad things from happening (drought, disease, etc.) and trying to make good things happen (plentiful food, victory in war, etc.). BTW, my chapter reconstructing early shamanism based on the anthropological record begins like this: http://evolutionofgod.net/excerpts_chapter2/

There are old texts and some scholars capable of retranslating which has some value only in a historical perspective.

Was just going to offer that, thanks. There’s also the matter of translations of content by different people at different times which impact both collections of texts. In the case of the Old Testament, there was considerable “weeding” and editing along the way, with whole texts omitted.

Which in itself offers some perspective of the evolution of God over the course of Jewish and Christian co-histories.

Language is bound up in culture, which is a compilation of memetic material – human knowledge which is transferrable. Our cultures have changed, the languages we use in those cultures have changed, the things we have worshipped and preserved or removed have changed along with culture. Both the Torah and the Bible have both been subjected to these forces in their creation, and again in an on-going basis through their interpretation and re-interpretation.

Yes, I agree that a more abstract-sounding term, like “the divine,” is more in keeping with modern conceptions of, well, the divine.

thanks and to dakine for your explanation as well.

Yes, John, but those people who believe in “The Truth” and do horrible things with it aren’t necessarily religious. Hitler, Stalin, etc. I’m not saying atheism is worse than religion in practical terms–I’m just saying it’s far from clear to me that religious belief, compared to the alternative, has on balance been bad for the world.

As long as you’re included humans along with the flora and fauna, yes, I’d call that a pretty laudible values system.

Do you agree with some of the recent work that the need/longing for God may be genetic or in our DNA?

No, I don’t get into 12-steps in the book, but I do think it’s a good example of how religious belief (however vague, in this case) can be good. BTW, I discuss in the book how the image of god as a comforting parent-figure doesn’t show up until around the second millennium BCE. Apparently there was something about urban life (ancient urban life, that is) that made people need consolation and comfort of a new kind.

But isn’t the “badness” of religion for the world bound up in the ability of religion and its followers to be co-opted by those who can manipulated it for personal agendas?

The problem, IMO, is that humans are wired to accept explanations too readily and fail to be skeptical; it’s this wiring which needs to be picked apart more fully. Is the tool of cooperation which has ensured our genetic success also an instrument of undoing in that it encourages our co-option?

Bob I absolutely agree that secular and even scientific ideology can be destructive. Nazism and Marxism have pseudo-scientific underpinnings. That’s why I side with Berlin and Popper and others who say that when it comes to morality/politics etc, those systems according to which we live our lives, it’s best to dispense with the idea of capital-T Truth. And that’s why I’m distressed when someone as influential as you tries to salvage Truth, even in a very attenuated form.

Just a comment. We get nowhere when we try to understand the universe using only the left half of our brain and ignoring the right brain and the formidable task of integrating the two.

I don’t think there’s a “god gene,” and I don’t think religious belief is an “adaptation” in the technical biological sense of that word (i.e., I don’t believe genes conducive to religious belief were preserved by natural selection because religion per se helped us get our genes into future generations). OTOH, I do believe that various genetically based features of human nature gave rise to religion. I spell out my views on this question here: http://evolutionofgod.net/excerpts_appendix/

Thanks. I think the 12-step international movement is pretty awesome in promoting spiritual good will and fighting dysfunctional “ego” problems using faith and fellowship.

And even in Catholicism, with the concept of trinity, God Father, Jesus and Holy Ghost. God Father more patriarchal and strict, and Jesus a more “brotherly” kind of unconditionally loving parent figure, altruistic and forgiving/god persona. Holy Ghost … hmmmm… have to work on that interpretation.

That “God gene” claim, by the geneticist Dean Hamer, is total BS. I critique it here: http://www.johnhorgan.org/work14.htm

I’d guess so, yes. But my book does get into the various Christianities that “might have been”–e.g., the Ebionites, or “Jewish Christians,” who insisted that their adherents follow Jewish dietary laws; and the “Marcionites,” who believed that the God of the Old Testament was a bad god and had been vanquished by the Good God represented by Jesus Christ. The Marcionites had a different collection of books from the New Testament, though with some overlap.

But they lost out, and I suspect that the “winning” canon is here to stay.

Having spent a great deal of time with medicine men on the Sioux reservations I have seen parallels between their beliefs and those of other religions. Primarily, I would start by saying that the problem of “evil” is the guiding principle. Additionally, I would say that mankind has evolved to a point where we have lost an appreciation for those among us who possess what would have to be defined as extrasensory abilities.

The mere fact that most cultures have developed religious practices is interesting. It of course invites the question as to how and why this happens…If there are cultures who did NOT develop such practices, they would be valuable exceptions to study- what’s DIFFERENT about them? Is anyone aware of any such?

Think WRT to Catholicism’s emphasis on the unity of the Trinity there’s an unconscious effort to integrate the past, present and the future as a whole. Particles become wave in the Trinity, where God the Father represents the past (and probably our unconscious human memories, individual and aggregated), Christ the Son represents man on earth being tugged by the past and nudged by the future while challenged by the confines of the human condition, and the Holy Spirit represents the promise of a future which we cannot grasp yet, must simply trust in and believe (our human prevision and foresight, tied to the past through our body, Christ).

Highly symbolic stuff, YMMV.

I agree that part of the power of religion lies in the human inclination to accept beliefs uncritically–with this credulity being, to some extent, an adaptive feature of human nature that’s genetically based. (I emphasize this in my appendix, which I’ve already linked to a couple of times, but here goes again: http://evolutionofgod.net/excerpts_appendix/

OTOH, I suppose there’s *some* virtue in the social cohesion that comes from people minimizing (even in their own minds, not just in what they say) their disagreements with one another. I agree that the problem is the exploitative manipulation of this credulity.

Bob Wright,

Is there a point at which the degree of religious belief in our public leaders becomes unacceptable or dangerous?

We’re used to examples cited in the media of the dangers of Islamic societies having control of particular minerals or weapons. But is it acceptable for Christians who believe they will see Jesus return in their lifetime to have the launch codes to nuclear weapons, for instance? Do you see religious views in the USA evolving to the point that the level of recruiting to fungelical sects in our military forces is forced to end?

I live in Alaska, and have witnessed the rise (no pun intended in the term) of Sarah Palin from mayor of my town to whatever it is she has now become. I consider her and people like her to be at least as dangerous as the clerics attempting to steer the course of Iran.

Actual outcomes from 12-step programs are uninspiring. Percentage of those ‘cured’ is maybe 4% [I can’t find the study & I’m not good at linking yet — but, while many are helped by giving-it-up-to-a-higher-power, more are apparently not helped.] Nice effort though.

Ever been asked “why”

“Many people” may indeed act in the way you describe, John, but many *more* do not — that’s why the picture Bob paints of the enlarging vision of community exists.

I’m intrigued by the implicit question Bob poses throughout the book, perhaps most explicitly in the chapter on Moral Imagination: who do “we” (whoever “we” might be) judge to be worth dealing with, and who is beyond the pale?

Devotion to family is easiest, because we know each other the best, but moving out from there is trickier. Clan (extended family), neighbors, city, state, nation . . .

As a Lutheran pastor, I’m more familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament than I am with the Koran or the texts/practices of eastern religions. Serious scholars of the Hebrew scriptures can see that the answer to Bob’s question is an expansive one. Indeed, the promise to Abraham was not simply that he would be the father of a great nation, but that all the world would ultimately be blessed. In the Torah, eunuchs and foreigners are declared to be outside the community of God’s people (or on its very outer margins), but Isaiah flatly contradicts this, saying that they are acceptable to God, their foreignness and physical conditions notwithstanding.

That question is the cross-over point when we move into more secular political discussions. Should Obama agree to talks with Iran, without conditions? With conditions (and what should they be)?

100 years ago, if you asked a Lutheran what a “mixed marriage” was, the answer might be a marriage between a Swedish Lutheran and a Norwegian Lutheran. 50 years ago, it would be between a Lutheran and a Roman Catholic. 30 years ago, it would be between an African-American and a Caucasian. Today, it wouldn’t be a mixed marriage that raises eyebrows, but a same-sex marriage.

The circle has been getting larger and larger. “Many people” may not like that, but many *more* do — which is why it is happening.

With a big dose of guilt just to keep everyone in line.

So far as we can tell from the anthropological record, every single hunter-gatherer culture has had religion, in the sense of believing in multiple gods, spirits and/or other supernatural powers. Interestingly, btw, they never *think* of their religion as religion; they don’t have a *word* for ‘religion’. (Even ancient Hebrew didn’t have a word for religion.) Their religion is so thoroughly ingrained in their way of thinking about the world that they don’t think of it as a distinct realm of belief.

What about the paradigm shift from an earth mother as Goddess to the more patriarchal “god” personae? When did that take place? Female paradigm about cooperation and partnership. Switch to religious “male paradigm” more about separation and power.

In Catholicism “Mary” is a role model for women, but setting up the madonna v. whore scenario double standard in societies. Priest higher on the heirarchal totem than nuns, etc. Only men can become priests, etc. Celibacy a law for religious vocations.

Think Branch Davidian or whatever that fringe group that committed mass suicide in S. America

Thank you, that is very interesting!

I don’t give a shit about religion.

It’s just a way to control people willing to be controlled.

That’s right–Popper, in his famous division of all thinkers into “foxes” and “hedgehogs,” said the hedgehogs–i.e., the people with big ideas–were dangerous.

But, wait, isn’t his fox-hedgehog paradigm a pretty big idea? I guess that one doesn’t count.

Why did multi-god religious systems lose out to monotheism, or God-based systems? Are we better off for it?

And thanks for chatting today. A spirited debate between reviewer/host and guest/author is always welcome here at FDL.

Bob, can you say why Buddhism has become so appealing to many western intellectuals, including yourself?

But give thanks to Mark (I have all the right answers) Sanford for castng some light on the C-Street Cabal, the Family, the Fellowship. If you have not yet read Harper’s The Family, do so soon. America is being undermined by power-grabbers who believe “Jesus plus nothing.”

Nice effort for me in this discussion or for them for giving it a try? I think a lot of people, along with me, would doubt your assertion.

Didn’t celibacy come about 850 yrs ago to resolve the problem of dividing assets between the church and a wife when the priest died. one of those edicts by an infallible pope.

God Bless you, Pastor Peterr :)
I’m curious: Do you ever use this in sermons–the idea that maybe this expanding moral compass of humanity is a manifestation of divine will?

12 steps helped me to give up smoking five plus years ago. basically because of the people i met who helped me through the rough spots in the beginning.

otoh, the spiritual practices were some of the doorways that opened me to find my way to my current sufi practices, which are for me an experience of god/the divine within rather than a sense of a god who rules. when i think about a god who rules, it gets too confusing. the best i can do, is go inside for my own inner personal guidance. then, if i’m not too rebellious, i even follow it!

You don’t have to go that far – to the Davidians or Jim Jones. There are so many nutty but dangerous practices by these folks being documented by the likes of David Neiwert and Max Blumenthal, just to name two writer/journalist/commentators, that as I see their actual political power grow in certain spheres (the military, the courts, rapidly growing fungelical university systems, recruitment of members of congress, etc), I see the opposite of “evolution” taking place.

Is that about when the persecutions started? At the end of the first, I think.

Bob, Re hedgehogs and foxes, you mean Berlin. But here’s an interesting fun fact: a long-term study by Tetlock of predictions by political/social/economic pundits found that foxes had a much better track record than hedgehogs.

Well, polytheism didn’t lose out to monotheism everywhere–mainly in the Middle East. And I don’t personally think monotheism is morally superior to polytheism. But I do argue in the book that monotheism isn’t *intrinsically* belligerent, as some people argue. At the birth of monotheism (which I place in the sixth centure BCE, during the Babylonian exile), I argue God was very belligerent and retributive–and not surprisingly so, given how Israel had been persecuted. But then after the exile, when the exiles were returned to Jerusalem, I see a more broadly compassionate and inclusive God emerging. And, again, for good reason: Because now the Israelites were surrounded by fellow members of the Persian Empire, not by enemies, and were allowed to worship their religion. Once they felt secure, their religion mellowed. There’s a lesson about modern foreign policy here, and I make it explicit in that HuffPost piece I mentioned at the outset.

OTOH, some forms of Hinduism, especially

I am always thrilled for those people for whom the 12 steps work, but studies (again, my apologies for being inept at providing stats) suggest that 12-step really doesn’t work for most people….. but I do know that the personal committment in a good group can have remarkable results….which I kind of think comes from the human-to-human contact more than from ‘letting go&letting god.” I’m not sure god has anything to do with it, except that I understand spiritual longing. I think I’m just particularly concerned at this point in time about the evangelicals and their hypocrisy and their desire to control the USA.

Not particularly in sermons, but I’ve talked about this sort of thing in education classes, particularly in discussing the Bible.

In my experience, once folks learn to view the Bible not as one book but as a collection of many books, they are astounded at what they find within it.

I often wonder if people attempting to understand religion make a mistake by pressing too hard on “belief” and “beliefs”. Certainly religious people may say “I believe” frequently- at least those who have become self conscious and defensive about their religious practices, but it’s a pretty odd sort of “belief” given that what they claim to believe often makes no literal sense at all and they have nothing that would ordinarily count as evidence for it….Might be better to just note–
“THEY SAY AND DO THE FOLLOWING”

Yeah, that’s a good one for Bob Wright, would love to hear what he says about that transition from the matriarchical to the patriarchical church.

Have read Leonard Schlain’s The Alphabet versus the Goddess: the conflict between word and image, in which Schlain theorized that the change in our perception of god/goddesses, with the shift in emphasis to literacy-based masculine left brain from image-based feminine right brain occurred in sync with the shift to gods or a god from goddesses. Interesting premise, but the biggest single caveat is that it’s written by a man who did not appear to be aware of the potential filtering affects of his own left brain on his theory. (Same goes for Richard Nisbett and his equally interesting The Geography of Thought: how Asians and Westerners think differently and why, failing to take into similar consideration his own inate western conditioned brain.)

I’m not talking about persecutions. I’m talking about the stress and alienation inflicted by urban life on a mind designed by natural selection for a hunter-gatherer society. I think that’s one of the forces that created the need for consoling parental gods. (Admittedly, this is a bit speculative, but I do adduce some evidence in the book.)

Was reading Eckhart Tolle’s A New Earth. He says “Religion can be used in the service of ego or the service of truth.” You get the authoriatrians speaking for a god, and the authoritarian followers lining up behind. And that dangerous tribalism, and cronyism and loyalty rather than individualism at same time global, world as one village, family of man and woman acceptance.

I haven’t read Schlain’s book, and I probably should, but in my researches I haven’t found any basis to believe that there *was* any big shift from goddess-based to god-based religion. I think of it more as a shift from a gods-and-goddesses world to a gods-only (or, really, God-only) world.

Incidentally, one thing I show in my book is that God–Yahweh–actually had a wife (or consort), the goddess Asherah. Her existence has been obscured by, among other things, misleadingly translating the word ‘Asherah’ in the Bible as ‘a wooden pole’. (Yes, the word may have indeed referred to a wooden pole, but if so it was a wooden pole that *represented* the goddess Asherah.)

Bob, we’ve got less than 30 minutes left. I’ve got one big question for you before this ends: Where do you expect and/or hope religious belief to be by the end of this century?

Why is Buddhism so appealing? I think:
(1) Buddhist scripture has an acute diagnosis of the human condition;
(2) the meditative practice, though demanding, can be an effective antidote to the problem of being human;
(3) What you might call American neo-Buddhism has been stripped of most of the religious trappings that accompany Buddhism in much of Asia (e.g. theism), so it seems easy to reconcile with a modern scientific world view.

Well, “the divine” helps some, but it’s still a term for ‘the god’.

The convention to capitalize usually confuses. There is the concept of a god which is all we really, imo, have to work with. All the hullabaloo is about the attempt to make the leap from an idea to something concrete.

I liken the situation to the Roadrunner already past the edge of the cliff, legs spinning in air and about to look around to see nothing beneath him.

the Torah and the OT are not the same. The torah is the first five books in the OT telling the story of the patriarchs and the ordering of their societies vis a vis their laws e.g. deuteronomy, etc, the OT includes history, many archetypal stories poetry, the prophets, etc.
Blessings

Both these books look fascinating. Yin and yang line up with the left, right brain attributes, too. And it feels like there is a hardening of anti-feminine (not in the biological sense, but yin/yang sense) values in our society. Humanism is a safer word than feminine, to be more politically correct. Even the outrage and apparent “threat” of the “empathy” of Judge Sotomayer. Certainly in the militarism. Women having trouble bonding in the present American military. Highly masculine, power totem, structure.

Dorothy Dinnerstein in Mermaid and Minotaur, I think that is the name of it, writes about how the “looming” mother of young boys causes an adult rebellion against women being in control. Boys growing up and their need to identify with their male role model made them rebel against “female” values and behavior, also homophobia, to ground themselves in the male identity, though they grew up often with that male figure far more remote than the mother figure so sometimes the traits adopted were less organic, and more rigid and stereoptypical.

I agree that viewing the “book” known as the Bible as a library is valuable and is probably more in keeping with the way the ancients would have thought of it. I think that’s one reason they were apparently not so concerned with contradictions. We think of contradictions among the gospels as “internal”–within the Bible–but when you think of the different gospels as different books within a larger library, it seems less surprising that ancient church authorities tolerated the contradictions.

the branch Davidieans were in Waco, Texas, and Reno gave persmission to do a major assault, which brought on the mass suicide by fire. They were never in South America. The South Americans were the Jones group that moved to Guyana ??? from their communal, interracial, intergenerational church and social order in San Francisco.

Ooh, fascinating. Can’t wait to read that section.

Remember reading years ago in Clarissa Pinkola-Estes’ Women who run with the Wolves that she prescribed gardening, digging in dirt, as a detoxifying therapy for people too stressed out by western culture.

I wonder whether our current economic and ecological crisis has a second potential constructive impact in the increased desire to garden at home for this reason.

Where do I *hope* religious belief will be by the end of this century?

Well, the main dimension that I care about is tolerance–in particular, tolerance of other religions. And I’m guardedly optimistic here. As I show in my book, all three Abrahamic faiths–Judaism, Christianity, and Islam–have in the past shown the ability to make benign moral adaptions, i.e., to expand their circle of tolerance. And, encouragingly, they’ve done so in ancient environments that were somewhat like the modern globalized environment.

Why are 60% of Evangelicals pro-torture ya think? Just loyal to their party? Cronyism. Xenophobia. Or something in the Bible/religion that would accept that as being an appropriate Christian behavior???? Thou Shalt Not Kill … also, pro capital punishment.

As I remember my OT class in seminary, the Torah was the first five books of the OT that tell the story of the patriarchs and they way their communities ordered their lives – e.g. the law in Deuteronomy. The OT further tells the history – vis a vis the kings in the creation and governance of of the Jews; the major and minor prophets, the poetry of the psalms, lamentations, proverbs, etc.; the stories ala Job and Jonah, Esther, etc.

Blessings,

Does that view give you hope for the Israel/Middle East future? You sound like that’s a premonition.

Well, belief in end times isn’t *inherently* dangerous. My parents were southern Baptists who thought of the end times as something far off that had no impact on how they would live their lives. But I agree that fundamentalist Christians who see a conflagration in the Middle East as a welcome manifestation of the second coming are very scary.

Bob, I hope the old religions become more tolerant too. I also hope, and expect, because we’re already headed in this direction, that more and more people will abandon traditional religions and seek out and create forms of spirituality that don’t carry so much baggage with them.

As we come to the end of this Book Salon,

Bob, Thank you for stopping by the Lake and spending the afternoon with us discussing your new book and the history of religion.

John, Thank you very much for Hosting this interesting Book Salon.

Everyone, if you haven’t bought Bob’s book yet, here is a link.

Thanks all.

Also pro-war, “Crusades” and all….. great question, libbyl…..hope someone has an answer.

It’s just a hope, not a premonition. But it’s strengthened by the fact that Obama seems to intuitively get what I’d call one of the main points of my book: if you make people feel unthreatened, their religion will be likely to move toward tolerance. Hence the importance of Obama’s insisting that settlement activity in the West Bank stop–the less threatened Palestinians feel, the less support radical Islam will have there. I try to illustrate this by reference to ancient Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but it’s just as relevant today,

Amen, precisely.
Which is why I sign off,
Blessings,

Thank you Bev, and Bob, and everyone, I enjoyed it.

I know you won’t find this an adequate answer John, but:
I believe pretty strongly–on the basis of evidence, not divine revelation–that there is some larger purpose unfolding through the workings of nature (through the *material* workings of nature, not necessarily involving spooky ethereal stuff). As to the source of that purpose I’m more agnostic. It *could* be a God as conventionally conceived, but it could be something else, including something not at all like a God. In any event, this purpose seems to me to have enough moral directionality (specifically, in encouraging human beings to more closely approximate moral truth by expanding their realm of tolerance, compassion, etc.) that I can use it, or my conception of it, to help me orient my “spiritual” life. There, is that enough of a cop-out for you?

Sorry, I’m late. A really excellent response imho.

Are you familiar with Schubert Ogden, Ph.D. or his 70 page essay, “The Reality of God.”?

Thanks, Dearie!

@Bob&John- This was a great book salon. I need to reread the thread, because such rich angles to ponder, and so many dimensions.

Looking forward to reading the book.

Thanks, John and Bob.

Thanks for your work…The promise of religion is hope, isn’t it. Thank you for coming.

And thanks to you, Bev and John, and to everyone else. I’m sorry I didn’t have time get to all the questions/comments. I’m a slow thinker and a slower typist (or is it the other way around?).

If anyone wants to read various excerpts from my book, here’s the site: http://www.evolutionofgod.net

Thanks again. And remember to stay tuned for the video cage match between me and John Horgan, which will be showing (we hope) on this site as well as Bloggingheads.tv.

Bob

The short answer is this: fear.

Why fundamentalist pastors persist in preaching “fear” is a real stumper, especially when you look at how often the phrase “do not be afraid” comes up in the gospels.

Of course, this might explain why I’m a Lutheran pastor and not a fundy pastor.

;)

THe Roman Catholics have a larger Bible than most protestants – as they have kept the apocrypha that covers the “intertestamental period” between the lesser prophets and the coming of the Messiah/Christ, so we have the wonderful stories of the Jewish uprisings against Rome and the siege of Masada, etc. Great literature.

Blessins,

I think the, surprising to me, acceptance of torture lately is related to that need to supress empathy.

I am pleased to see yin/yang arise in the comments. I would like to see a pertinent book salon. Rayne or Libbyliberal or anyone have any suggestions?

And talk about what makes empathy so dangerous or offensive…may be that would be a clue to why TX loves our death penalty.

They say there are only two basic root feelings in life. Fear and Love.

Intention of fear is to “protect” and separate from. Intention of love, to “explore” and embrace.

My grandmother was Danish Lutheran and married an Irish Catholic man and promised her family to raise her kids Catholic and my mother had to deal with that generation’s regarding her parents’ marriage as disturbingly mixed — original sin was bad enough but then her mom’s sin of being outside “the” religion. My mom honored some strict Catholic authoritarianism. Catholicism was always strict about not venturing into other churches and learning about them.

Always been curious about the Lutheran religion.

the weeding of texts occurred a lot in the early church and throughout church history. In our own US history Jefferson had his “weeded” text; and for all practical purposes the evangelicals do extensive “weeding” by their teaching emphases that ignore most of the biblical record and much of the NT that doesn’t conform with their narrow “strict constructionisht” aborted texts.

One of the reasons I’m an anglo-catholic, i.e. Episcopalian is that in our three year cycles, we will essentially read the entire Bible via the lectionary cycles. The evangelicals narrow their focus on a tiny portion of scripture; kind of like theological cherry picking. Thus news of the scripture quotes on Sec of Defense Rumsfeld’s memorandum was not at all surprising.

Blessings,
c

Would love to see that, too. Will be on the lookout. :)

Reminds me of Durkheim’s ennui in the city; or much of present-day urban life manifested in a variety of ways from withdrawals to compulsive “hooking up” behaviors, etc.

Blessings,

Thanks to all for another great Book Salon!

Yeah, I’ve kinda been waiting for one of the really advanced developed males on this list to grab the reins on that wagon so it doesn’t always fall to the females to take the lead. Females routinely navigate the male world view, it’s past time for males to return the favor.

joel, I’m your newest fan! :)

Thank you Bob, for appearing here today but my question still stands unanswered – did Man need to create some sort of god in order to justify his existence, ie, was Man required to create a god in his image or do you consider this to be an option? Yes, I know, Bob has left the building, but for whatever stupid reason I consider an answer to this question essential before I start exploring existing religions.

I came to this post a day light and several dimes short, but can’t help leaving a note to thank all the contributors for a truly stimulating discussion. It’s what makes this site the best. thanks