God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens

Read: 27 April, 2010

"God should be flattered: unlike most of those clamoring for his attention, Hitchens treats him like an adult."

The above quote is from the New York Times Book Review and appears on the cover of my edition. I find it to be an excellent summary of the book, and of Hitchens's work in general. He treats God like any other human adult, holding him responsible for the actions attributed to him, and not letting God's celebrity status get in the way of justice.

My complaint of this book is the same as my complaint of pre-sober Hitchens in general. He has a lot of zingers and truly quotable lines, but they're buried under a meandering and unstructured argumentation. The book is divided into chapters, but there's no build-up or progression. It's more like Hitchens merely writes in the train of thought and then publishes, without regard for editing.

I also didn't like the lack of notation. He does have end-notes, but they aren't marked in the text and mostly only provide citations for the passages he quotes. Any "facts" that he writes aren't sourced, so it's often difficult to check their veracity. For example, on page 110 of my edition, he write: "One recalls a governor of Texas who, asked if the Bible should also be taught in Spanish, replied that 'if English was good enough for Jesus, then it's good enough for me.'" Unfortunately, no details are provided about this incident that might help the interested look it up. No name, no year, nothing except the location. It seems plausible that it's true, but I have no way of verifying it.

I'm being harsh on the book, but I did enjoy it. Hitchens is an excellent writer - funny, interesting, and he certainly keeps the pace moving. So this is a fine book to read while travelling or sitting by the pool. What it isn't is a resource or an argument. It's the fluff of the atheist library.

The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty

Read: 27 September, 2009

Imagine if people living a couple hundreds of years from now forgot that the Harry Potter series was fiction. Imagine that they started to worship Harry Potter, to seek out relics from Hogwarts, and fought wars against those who did not believe that the historical Harry really did have magical powers.

That's essentially the premise of The Jesus Puzzle. According to Doherty, Jesus was a mythic character, invented consciously by individuals who were  embodying the teachings of their sect in an archetypal character. But then, as the religion spread outside of this original community, the allegory was forgotten and adherents came to see Jesus as an actual historical figure. This is how Doherty explains the discrepancies between the gospels and the lack of biographical information given in the epistles of Paul.

To a lay reader, the argument is convincing. That being said, it's worth noting that Doherty is not a scholar, the accolades on the book jacket are written by individuals (David B., Mary B., Jan K., and Rusty A., whoever they are), and he is something of a laughing stock among biblical scholars. "Mythers," as they are called within scholarly circles, tend not to be very well received.

Indeed, even a lay reader may grasp that something is amiss after Doherty's umpteenth reference to his persecution at the hands of academics. My own skeptical alarm bells tend to ring when authors imagine vast conspiracies against themselves or their ideas.

I'm not sure that I'd be willing to dismiss the book entirely, simply because Doherty does provide a perspective on many New Testament passages. I've found it useful in my reading of scripture over at my other blog, if only to have additional points of view to mull over while forming my own readings. Just keep in mind that Doherty is expressing a fringe opinion that is not taken seriously by those who know the material best.

The End of Faith by Sam Harris

Read: 4 April, 2010

After years of being told that I absolutely had to read The End of Faith and seeing Harris's TED presentation on universal morality, I finally took the plunge and bought a copy.

The book is divided into two distinct parts: the first is what doesn't work, and the second is what Harris believes will work. What doesn't work is, of course, religion. This part reads like must other Atheist books that have come out in recent years. Harris devotes a portion to each major religion, a little different than some books, perhaps, in that he addresses the Eastern religions as well. Of course, his focus is on the two major troublemakers of recent year, Christianity and Islam. The chapter on Islam includes four pages of Quranic quotes that are racist, anti-tolerance, anti-apostate, xenophobic, etc. That alone makes this book a valuable addition to a debater's bookshelf!

The second portion deals with spirituality, and a way to integrate spirituality with Atheism. Harris is a proponent of meditation. Unfortunately, many of his assumptions regarding the workings of the brain run contrary to what I've learned, some making rather strange leaps of logic and some being downright silly. Harris seems to lose his credulity in his search for "something more." That being said, I can appreciate what he's trying to do even if I don't agree with him (or think he's gone loony).

He also has the nasty habit of dropping bombs without any explanation. He's presumably writing for a sceptical audience, so it seems strange that he wouldn't devote a bit more time to explaining the concepts that would set off sceptical alarm bells. For example, he says that "there also seems to be a body of data attesting to the reality of psychic phenomena, much of which has been ignored by mainstream science" (p. 41). This particular bomb is dropped without examples or explanation, just a list of book titles in the end notes (obscure books that neither my library nor my university has ever heard of).

There were some historical inaccuracies that bugged me. For example, he refers to Isis as "the goddess of fertility, [who] sports an impressive pair of cow horns." Well, I've never seen Isis with cow horns. Her symbol was a throne with an egg on top. The cow horns belonged to Hathor. These sorts of little details really pulled me out of the book and made me wonder how much else he may have gotten wrong.

Despite some carelessness and strange choices, it's a worthwhile read. I do appreciate that he attempts to 'fill the gap' after dismantling religion, and I would like to see more of this in the mainstream Atheist discourse. I simply don't see his replacement as being any more rational than that which he seeks to replace.

Quiverfull by Kathryn Joyce

Read: 10 August, 2009

Joyce examines not so much the Quiverfull movement as she does the Christian Patriarchy movement - Quiverfull, of course, being one component of it. The Patriarchy movement centres around the belief that feminism has caused a number of social ills that can be remedied only by having women leave the workforce and return home to be submissive wives and mothers. Quiverfull is the added belief that all attempts to limit the number of children a family has is an insult to God (the most famous practitioners being the Duggar family with their eighteen - and counting - children).

Joyce's analysis is mostly uncritical, her own feelings only rarely show through and, then, introduced explicitly as her own views. Her style is to simply narrate with few adjectives the views of her subjects and allowing them to speak for themselves.

Despite her fairness, Joyce's writing style leaves something to be desired. Her sentences are so long and cover so many different ideas at once that I frequently found myself having to go back and read again. This interrupted the flow of my reading and, therefore, diminished the power of Joyce's writing. The organization of the book seems to be haphazard with ideas coming at the reader from every direction. If any transitions are present, they are surely feeling very lonely.

Stylistic elements aside, this was a fabulous book filled with information on a movement that has, for the most part, remained outside the mainstream West's awareness. I highly recommend it for all readers interested in religion and what is happening under the surface in Christian extremism.

Saints by Ruth Sanderson

The text was awful. It was written in a very point-by-point fashion that is barely interesting to an adult with a passion for religious tradition - I can imagine how dull it would be for a child who has a smaller tolerance for dullness. Take this sentence from the biography of Saint Lawrence for example, "Valerian hoped that if the flock of Christians had no shepherds, they would hopefully scatter" (emphasis mine).

That being said, the illustrations were beautiful - significantly raising my rating of the book. It's worth it if we intend to use it as a picture book, or if parents fill in their own stories based on the text rather than just reading it out.

Blind Faith by Ben Elton

Read: 19 December, 2008

Throughout my reading of this book, I kept thinking of the classics of dystopian fiction such as Brave New World, 1984, and Fahrenheit 451. In the end, that's exactly where this book lost its points for me. The televisions that cover every wall, the underground railroad for books, the total saturation of society with sex, food, and entertainment, etc. All of it was lifted directly from the exemplars of the genre. The only difference was that when Huxley, Orwell, and Bradbury wrote their novels, their visions were prophetic in a way. Elton's novel, on the other hand, merely took much of the world as it is and changed the names (FaceBook becomes Face Space, YouTube becomes MyTube or just Tube).

All this might have been forgiven if the characters had been better fleshed out. Instead, Trafford is merely a modern man stuck in a totally different world with little explanation for why he thinks as he does. In his conversations with others (particularly Cassius and Sandra Dee), he comes off as either pathetic or overly dramatic. This might have worked had it been clearer that many felt as he did but were, like him, too afraid to show it. It might have worked if we could see him incorporating bits of media into his speech so that we can, at least, know that the reason he makes such dramatic speeches is simply that this is how he has learned to talk. Instead, we just have a thoroughly modern character who regresses into the role of a babbling idiot when he meets like-minded people, and then suddenly takes on this obnoxious and self-important attitude when he decides he has a "mission." It all reeked of Hollywood.

Compare this to Winston Smith who, despite his doubt, remained thoroughly a man of his time. Or compare it to John of Brave New World who at least had a good reason for being an outsider and a throw-back from our time.

All in all, I found it to be a bit of an ego-stroke - a vehicle for ideas that are finding themselves increasingly in poor favour. All the atheist and scientific talking points were puppetted out by the various characters, which is all well and good. I would have liked a better setting for such gems, but this is what I got instead. Worth a read, but don't expect too much.

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

Read: 26 July, 2008

Overall, I loved this book. Dawkins is a wonderful writer and I think I would have enjoyed his style regardless of the subject matter. The only major flaw that irked me was his habit of veering off into tangents, but even this was made bare-able by not only his writing style, but also by the fact that most of his tangents were just plain interesting. Dawkins makes his case even stronger, in my opinion, by fulling admitting to and even going out of his way to point out the limits of his own personal knowledge. At several times during the book, he will say that he suspects one thing but does not know for certain, showing an inquisitive and flexible mind, both humble and confident. It's a refreshing break from the average writer who seems all too sure of her/his omniscience.

With all that out of the way, I'd like to address a couple of issues with the book. The first is with Chapter Four or "Why There Almost Certainly Is No God." I found the whole chapter to be a disappointment. Dawkins takes the question of "if there isn't a god, how did everything fall into place so perfectly to produce us?" and tries to answer it with science. This points him in an awkward and unnecessarily defensive position because the question itself is not a legitimate one (something he never once says outright). It's like asking "how did my parents know to have sex at just the perfect time to conceive me?" It assumes that we are an end result, a goal that the universe has been working towards - rather than the more accurate assumption that the universe is merely ambling along in one of billions (to pick an unrealistically small number) of possible ways and we just happen to be a bi-product (one of many possibilities) that happened to emerge. There is nothing special about the production of us, whether as individuals or as a species.

Another quibble I had with the book is that Dawkins repeats multiple times that natural selection gets rid of negatives and keeps positives, which is just sloppy. What about the vast majority of mutations, which are just neutral? Or mutations that have both positive and negative expressions?I understand the need for brevity and keeping things simple, but this is a major point and something that a lot of Dawkins's opposition can't seem to grasp.

And the final detail that I took issue with is his statement that "[monogamy] is what we expect, and it is what we set out to achieve." Is it? Maybe he's right, I don't know. Maybe monogamy really is the default. But that's not what even the quickest glance around the diversity of human societies in the world today will tell me. Many societies involve one man and several women, some even involve one woman and several men. If monogamy truly is the natural default, why isn't this expression universal? Like I said, maybe he's right - but because his statement was counter-intuitive, the existence of polygamous societies should have been addressed.

With all that said, this was a fabulous book and I am very glad that I've read it. It ought to have stayed on topic a little better, but that's okay. There were no parts of the book that I felt weren't worth reading and that's more than I can say for most books.

Life of Pi by Yann Martel

Read: 2005

Piscine Molitor Patel (known to all as Pi Patel) is the son of a zoo owner. He's an exceptionally bright young man and shows his maturity quite clearly when it comes to religion. He's a Muslim, a Hindu, and a Christian, all at the same time. But soon, political discontent drives his family out of India and towards Canada. The zoo is sold, the bags are packed, and the whole family (including several animals on their way to American zoos) board the Tsimtsum, a Japanese cargo ship with a Taiwanese crew.

"The ship sunk," begins Part II. From that point on, this is a story of survival against amazing odds. Not only does Pi Patel survive 227 days in the Pacific Ocean, but he does it in the company of an adult male Bengal tiger named Richard Parker.

The thing I love most about this book is the fact that you can read it once and interpret the story one way, but then you can read it again and see everything differently. The revelation of Part III is certainly really good food for thought. There's the literal interpretation of seeing the boy on a life-raft with a tiger. Then there is the alternative story given at the end of the boy on a life-raft struggling with his inner beast while trying to keep his humanity. Then, of course, there's the third possibility that the entire story is complete fiction and is just about a boy maturing and struggling with the different influences in his life. It's easy, especially as an English major, to really read too far into books and see things that just aren't there. But I think Yann Martel makes it quite clear that all three of these interpretations are intentional. Heck, he even gives us two of them up front!

Another thing I loved about the story was the three part system. Part I deals with introducing Pi and the society he is coming out of. I found that what I read in Part I really brought Pi to life and let me identify with him enough that I really cared about what happened to him in Part II. I had bonded with him enough that when he suffered in Part II, I suffered as well. When he started to lose touch with his humanity (like when he suddenly notices that he's eating like a tiger), I really feared for him. Thank goodness Part I ends with the message: "This story has a happy ending." I think it would have been very difficult and painful to read otherwise. Part II is his struggle on the raft. Part III is his interview in which he explains what happens. I found this to be a really important part. It's also a very interesting part in its function. It serves not only to ridicule the idea that the concept of the book (a boy surviving that long in the pacific with a tiger) is preposterous, but also serves to introduce a whole new perspective and the possibility that none of it might have happened at all (I mean that within the book's fictional world).

Several people I have spoken to have said that the transition is too abrupt. Of course, it would have to be since that's exactly what it was for Pi Patel: abrupt. But I've heard many times that there's too much character development at the beginning to wade through before getting to the meat of the story. To each her own, I suppose.

One final fantastic point I just want to bring up in relation to the two possible stories offered by Martel is the idea that the more interesting story is more important than the story that is true. So that's what Martel leaves us with: "Which is the better story, the story with animals or the story without animals?" Which is more important to you, a good story or the truth?

Lamb by Christopher Moore

Thank you, Zeba, for the recommendation.

Read: 11 January, 2008

The story is written from the perspective of Biff, Jesus's best friend. In the modern day, an angel raises Biff from the dead so that he can write a new gospel. It follows Jesus from the time Biff met him as a child up until their deaths. It shows us Jesus's early training as a stonemason, his travels into the East, and his eventual ministry.

Lamb is an absolutely hilarious comedy about Jesus that, surprisingly, manages to remain almost completely inoffensive. I loved reading it. It was very funny with a writing style similar to Carl Hiaasen's, but lacked Hiaasen's flaws (like the awfully disappointing endings). It was clever where it needed to be, sensitive where it needed to be, and funny where it needed to be. The characterizations of Jesus, Biff, and Mary Magdalene were stunningly constructed.

There were two portions that I felt a little let down by. The first is when Biff and Jesus get to Calcutta and see a ritual dedicated to the goddess Kali. The scene was important to the story, but it felt dry. It was too descriptive, like an anthropological study. I do understand that it's supposed to be horrifying, so the humour of the rest of the story would have been out of place. But it needed something different. Reading the Afterward, Moore mentions that he had learned about the ritual from Joseph Campbell, which goes a way to explain the tone of the passage. Unable to use his normal humour, Moor had resorted to Campbell's more academic writing style.

I was also a little disappointed that the story skipped over much of Jesus' ministry. The reason given in the book is that the real gospels already tell that story, but I would have liked to have heard Biff's perspective. I understand that it would have been more difficult to write about that portion without offending people and without getting preachy, but the pacing just didn't match up with the rest of the story. It felt like the last few chapters ended the book with a bit of a "plegh."

These two complaints are very minor, though. The book was awesome and I highly recommend it for pretty much anyone. Having studied the New Testament a bit, I found a lot of references to theories about Jesus and a lot of jokes that asked for a certain familiarity with the Bible to get and my previous knowledge enriched my reading. But friends who had no previous interest or understanding found no difficulty in following the story. I also think that reasonable Christians won't find it at odds with their faith. There's something for everyone.

The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood

Read: 2006

Offred is a handmaid in a Christian theocracy existing in what was once the United States. Her function is to produce a child for couples who cannot conceive. She is forbidden from reading and must cover her body at all times. She is valued only as a vessel for a potential heir. Her mind is suppressed, her individuality taken.

With all that has been going on these days about evolution being removed from school curriculums and abstinence-only education, Atwood paints a dismal picture of what is increasingly appearing to be a possible future. Most importantly, perhaps, she posits this world coming from a great disaster (albeit one that leaves most men sterile) and some connections may be made to the terrorist paranoia of recent years.

Atwood is a fantastic writer with an easy-to-read style and multi-layered storytelling. This is one of the aspects I've enjoyed most about her books. It is possible to read them for their surface story, but if interested, there are all sorts of allusions to discover.