Tag Archives | Morality

How Gay Rights Influenced my Deconversion

Last week Minnesota became the 12th state to legalize gay marriage. The law will go into effect on August 1, 2013. As you probably have surmised from my post last November on the vote to ban gay marriage and immortalize it in the Minnesota Constitution (which obviously did not pass), this decision makes me very happy. This momentous event has caused me to reflect on how important the issue of gay rights has been in my deconversion from Christianity, and ultimately from all religion.

To summarize, it has been very important.

I should start by setting the stage and let you know that I am not gay. Perhaps that shouldn’t be relevant, but I feel that it helps you to understand my perspective a little more fully. I do however have many gay family members and friends. I will not specify any further out of respect for their privacy except to say that many of these people have meant a lot to me throughout my entire life. I mention this not because I want you to let me off the hook for what I’m about to admit, but because it’s a pivotal fact in this story.

Hate the Sin; Love the Sinner and other Crap I Believed

It was during middle school that I began my journey into a very strong Christian faith. At some point along the way, I adopted a fairly common evangelical Christian mentality towards homosexuality which is to “hate the sin, but love the sinner.” At first, this seemed perfectly reasonable, loving, and in line with my understanding of what I believed the bible taught on the subject. I believed that god made man and woman, and that they (one man, one woman) should be together for the primary purpose of having children, and to create a perfect holy union within the trinity. I believed that within those boundaries were the only acceptable ways of expressing sexuality.

Prior to my path to devout Christian, my religious training was more general. I have discussed in other posts that my parents are believers, but not overtly dogmatic towards any denomination of Christianity. We attended a Lutheran Church, but frequently missed services, and I was a hit and miss Sunday school student. I cannot think of any discussions on the morality of homosexuality prior to my middle school years. And although I cannot remember the specific timeline, at some point I went from not having any memorable opinion about homosexuality, to believing it was a sinful lifestyle condemned by god.

In short, and to be clear, I now believe my religious understanding entirely shaped any opinion I later adopted regarding homosexuals and the immorality of homosexual behavior during the years of my faith.

I Think I Love Ya

At the same time, I still truly loved (in my mind) those in my life who were gay. But god’s message had put me into conflict with how I felt about my gay friends and family members. So to justify this belief, I likened homosexuality to alcoholism. I told myself it was the behavior — the physical acts of love — that offended god, not merely being gay. For, a recovering alcoholic can lead a healthy and moral life. It is only when they fall off the wagon that the downward spiral begins. And although at the time, I did not know any of the science surrounding the topic, I believed that a homosexual lifestyle was a choice, at least to some degree. Even if an inclination towards homosexuality is innate and inherited, it didn’t mean indulging in that behavior was ok. This too, I likened to alcoholism, and separated it from the idea of racial identity, and civil rights, where a person is born a certain way. We all had been given free will, I reasoned, and were empowered by god to push aside our base instincts and urges. We all have burdens to bear, and some were given the burden of being gay. This tactic worked for me for a long time. I had never felt hatred or anger towards gays. The emotion was closer to pity. I felt terrible that they had been afflicted by this demonic tendency and hunger for someone of the same gender. I prayed for them. I truly wanted them to find salvation in the house of god, and be able to live free from sinful behavior. I believed I was righteous, and I believed this was what god expected me to believe.

I look back on this way of thinking with extreme shame and humility. I now see clearly that I was wrong.

Over time, the thorny contradiction between god’s will and how I wanted to treat the people I loved poked at me. Some of the gay people I loved came out of the closet (none of those revelations were truly surprising frankly), and I began to feel conflicted between what I believed god wanted from me and what I felt was moral behavior towards a fellow human being who I loved and who loved others in return. I learned a little bit about the science of homosexuality as well, and came to the (true) conclusion that there is a strong biological component, and that even if the trait is not born in a person (which I believe it is), then it develops from an early enough age that it might as well be from birth. I began to question how a loving and just god could afflict his children (a fairly large total number of them at around 3% to 8%) in nearly every culture, yet condemn them for acting on their natural impulses. It would have been one thing if those impulses hurt others, but how is it hurting anyone if one person physically loves another person who consents to that love?

Why Does a Loving God Condemn Those Who Love and Are Loved in Return?

This single idea — that absent the word of god saying homosexuality is a sin, there is nothing else that makes it so – was a significant factor in my ultimate deconversion. After realizing the cruelty in god’s condemnation of such a victimless “sin”, in fact, of a behavior that actually promotes love towards other humans, I began to see other similar disconnects between the morality of Yahweh and the more evolved morality of modernity. I will not go into all of those here, but it’s not a small list.

After I made this leap in my own moral intuitions, it still took me some time to completely shed the baggage I had purchased during my religious obsession. For a while, I held onto the idea that civil unions would be a good alternative. That preserving tradition was a worthy goal. Or that keeping marriage between a man and a woman would prevent the slippery slope argument eventually leading to polygamy and goat marriage. I realized several years ago, even after I had begun to call myself an atheist, and truly believed that homosexuality was completely normal and moral, that even those arguments were deeply rooted in religion. They were reflexive beliefs more than well-thought out. It took more self-education in many areas of philosophy and science before I was able to articulate for myself a cogent world view that did not require a god for morality.

But it was this single issue that first revealed the Christian god (as I knew him) to be truly ancient, outdated, and immoral. It frustrates me today when I hear strains of “hate the sin, love the sinner” being expressed regarding this issue, even as I understand where it comes from. One reason I wanted to write this post is to explain that I do not believe most religious people who share that belief are haters or bigots, though they are often portrayed that way, even by other Christians. I think reality is more complicated than that. I do not doubt that many faithful Christians have grappled with the conflict I felt. It is a difficult choice to make between one’s all powerful god who controls your immortal soul’s destiny, and family and friends. Indoctrination is a powerful drug. Many who adopt an anti-homosexuality position tend to be regular people trying to live a good life, and trying to be a positive force in the world. Very few out there come even close to the level of vitriol spewed by the despicable Westboro Baptist Church. Regardless, of that, I do not fully give them (or my former self) a pass. If your god is forcing you to make a choice between him, and your treatment of other humans merely for behavior that has absolutely no impact on you or other sentient creatures whatsoever, I beg you to reconsider whether or not your god deserves that love and respect.

Photo Credit: http://img1.etsystatic.com/000/0/5583029/il_fullxfull.175325241.jpg

But They’re Not True Christians…

Some Christians get around this by claiming that anyone condemning homosexuality or homosexuals is not a “True Christian.” To those who say I have misunderstood the bible’s teaching in this respect, I would say, that is free for you to believe, but I believed and still believe there is more than adequate justification within the pages of the bible to support a position that gay love is morally repugnant. The notion is immortalized in the word “sodomy.” That said, if you must choose between being a fundamentalist Christian who condemns homosexuality, and a believer who cherry picks the parts you support and throws out the parts that offend you, I would rather you are the latter. I applaud your decision to ignore morally despicable teachings in favor of love for your fellow man, but not all of your brethren have been fortunate enough to grow up with that liberty in their faith. That is one thing I love about being an atheist. Unlike when I was a believer, and I felt that I had to find the truth in the whole bible, I can now choose any part of any world philosophy I want, and throw out others I have no use for without having to call myself a “true” anything.

For me, it all comes down to what are the things that improve human well-being and what are the things that destroy it? That is where my line of morality and immorality is drawn, and where the difficult discussions of right and wrong begin. I have yet to hear any reasonable argument that puts homosexual behavior of consenting adults remotely close to the “destroy well-being” category of behaviors. How can mutual love ever destroy the happiness of those who are in love, or those who live amongst them? If you can articulate an argument without invoking god (directly or indirectly), I’d be curious to entertain it, but I’d be surprised if you can.

A Path Towards Moral Maturity

As I think back to my former self, I am saddened by her and for her. I am saddened that she ever felt like she had to choose between her friends and family and her god, and I am horrified at the thought that she might have made anyone feel like a sinner. I am glad that I was able to shed my religious veil of self-righteousness relatively early in my life, and before I had met as many people as I have now, or will as my life continues. “Hate the sin, love the sinner” has its place in the world. There are many situations in life where we can deplore a loved one’s behavior, but still love them as a person. Homosexuality should never be included in that category, because at its heart, there is nothing inherently wrong with it. It’s a natural behavior that hurts no one any more than heterosexual behavior does among consenting individuals. As a result, although it’s under the guise of reasonability, the mantra to condemn the behavior but love the individual falls flat. If you have ever judged someone for their homosexual behavior while purporting to love them, you should know you have probably hurt them deeply, because the only way they can ever gain your acceptance is by suppressing something within them that is perfectly normal and good. If you find condemnation to be a moral way of treating your fellow human beings, then I feel sad for you, as I did for myself. I can only hope you may one day reconsider. 

Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes

As a Christian apostate, I have gotten a taste of what it is like for gays and lesbians to come out of the closet. In fact, the atheist community has adopted many of the tactics used by the LGBT community, and it has begun to pay real dividends in society’s acceptance of us. They bravely paved the way, often under real threat of violence and harm. I am thankful for that. I feel a little bookend of solidarity with them in their fight to change hearts and minds. I know from personal experience, that we all are capable of changing our thoughts, even on such emotionally charged topics as homosexuality and religion. I’m inspired by their willingness to be themselves in the face of hateful speech (even if inspired by misguided good intentions), and ancient ideologies still looming large in our culture. The tide is turning, and I am confident that in fifty years, or so, people will wonder what all the fuss was about, both when it comes to gay marriage, and atheists walking among the masses. Maybe by then atheists will also be able to hold office and serve on juries in all fifty states. But it is because of the LGBT community in part that I speak out about atheism, and my personal experiences as a former Christian. It is why I celebrate the new law in Minnesota and the previous states. The times they are a changin’.  Thank the stars!

Peace and love,

PersephoneK

Comments { 0 }

The Most Important Books I Read Last Year in 2012 (MIBIRLY 2012)

It’s that time of year again!  My 2nd Annual (hopefully) down and dirty reviews of the Most Important Books I Read Last Year in 2012. Like last year, I spent most of the summer biking to lovely places to sit and read, and yet again, I usually found myself reading non-fiction. Although I did manage to get in the first and second installments of Robert Kirkman’s The Walking Dead novels, [easyazon-link asin=”B004VMV49Y” locale=”us”]The Walking Dead: Rise of the Governor[/easyazon-link] and [easyazon-link asin=”B007RMYDMK” locale=”us”]The Walking Dead: The Road to Woodbury[/easyazon-link]. While I loved both of those (I’m a pretty big TWD fan), my annual review of the Most Important Books I Read has a different purpose (see the MIBIRLY 2011 for last year’s reviews). Best, favorite, most important… all very different meanings. I wouldn’t claim that novels about zombies are important (though there is much to be learned and discussed from a philosophical perspective about survival and the evolution and then breakdown of culture/society), but the books that made my list this year are books I think should be read by every student of the world. These books expanded my understanding of how the world and how humans work in some way. They dispel conventional wisdom, and use science as their foundations to build a more complete or changed view of human nature. My reviews won’t be lengthy because I’d rather you see this list and then go and read these fabulous books for yourself! I realize that most of these choices are not new releases. That they were not all published last year makes them no less important.  I hope you enjoy and more importantly, that you check one out!

 

[easyazon-image align=”left” asin=”0374275637″ locale=”us” height=”110″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41OYtkxKAoL._SL110_.jpg” width=”74″][easyazon-link asin=”B00555X8OA” locale=”us”]Thinking, Fast and Slow[/easyazon-link] by Daniel Kahneman

This book should be a standard among anyone in any analytical profession. Kahneman is a psychologist who earned the Nobel Prize in Economics. His brilliance shines through in the density of the book which illustrates the two basic ways that all human beings, regardless of intelligence level, think: Fast and Slow. Our “Fast” thinking can be best explained by thinking of our intuition, or muscle memory types of thinking. We make quick analytical judgments that take little effort. This type of thinking kept us alive while being chased by the myriad of predators on the African plains. In many ways this thinking is astonishing, but it fails us when we use it to make conclusions that require our Slow thinking drive. Slow thinking is the kind of thinking we use to solve complex mathematical equations. Its hard. It takes energy. We can only do it for short periods of time before it drains us. Kahneman illustrates the dangerous outcomes that can occur when we substitute our Fast Thinking for tasks that require Slow Thinking. And he highlights that we do this far more often than we should, even when (or especially when) we consider ourselves expert in an area. Making decisions based on intuition isn’t always bad. If you’re driving on the highway and a car swerves into your lane, it’s best if you allow your Fast Thinking brain to kick in and swerve out of the way. But if you’re drafting economic, scientific, military, intelligence, financial, etc etc etc… policies that have wide impacts, using your Fast Brain is about as useful as allowing a monkey to conduct analysis. As an analyst myself, I see lazy thinking all the time. Until we understand the strengths and weaknesses in how our brains work, we’ll continue making analytical errors that have grave impacts on how we live together in society.

 

[easyazon-image align=”left” asin=”B000QCTNIM” locale=”us” height=”110″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/416%2BaMQs3tL._SL110_.jpg” width=”71″][easyazon-link asin=”B000QCTNIM” locale=”us”]The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature[/easyazon-link] by Steven Pinker

One think I love about Steven Pinker… he is not afraid to stare conventional wisdom in the face and tell it to go away. And he has the evidence to prove it. The Blank Slate aims to shove aside decades, if not centuries, of conventional wisdom that has told us we all begin as a blank slate with no preconceived biases, ways of thinking and behaviors. Our environment alone shapes who we are. It is society that is the evil influence, and must be fixed. Through his understanding of psychology, linguistics, history, and other sciences, Pinker shows how simplistic that view is and how much it can harm progress in understanding human nature. He commonly cites twin studies to show how much evidence there is that genetics shapes us the most, then shared environment, then unique environment. If you want a more nuanced look at why we behave the way we behave, what the gaps in our understanding are, and why it matters to know the truth, this is a great read. If you want to continue to blame all our ills on the nebulous, evil “society” or “bad parenting” or even 100% on genetics, then don’t. You’ll be disappointed to learn the truth shaded in grays, that we have much more to learn, but that we know more than what we’ve been taught in anecdotal life lessons.

 

[easyazon-image align=”left” asin=”B000VDUWMC” locale=”us” height=”110″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/516CtJiKwwL._SL110_.jpg” width=”82″][easyazon-link asin=”B000VDUWMC” locale=”us”]Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies[/easyazon-link] by Jared Diamond

I don’t like to list any book on my list above the others. This is why I don’t put them into any particular order, however, if I had a gun to my head and were forced to choose one book to read the entire year, this would be it. It’s dense. Filled with details from just about every niche in science, all to prove (convincingly) how all humans from all societies are fundamentally able to achieve great things, but that the balance of power from the domestication of plants and animals to the present is shaped almost entirely by environment. Some cultures rolled the dice and ended up in the fertile crescent while others ended up in mostly infertile, barren Australia. His well told story amazingly and clearly proves that through science, the humanities can be better understood and tested. All humans have essentially the same genetic tools and capabilities (our differences are fewer than those of different breeds of dogs). Race is officially an antiquated concept that needs to stay forever on the bottom of the rubbish pile of ideas. That doesn’t mean some societies haven’t adapted better than others. Some have, but often those adaptions were shaped by environment rather than some inherent superiority of the people.

Other lessons I took away from this amazing book filled with too many lessons to list in a short review are that free markets and more bottom up (instead of strict top down) control and planning are the best way to improve the lives of large societies. It’s not necessity that is the mother of invention. It is sheer numbers allowing greater specialization and freedom for curious minds to wander and then share their ideas with the masses. Closed societies never learn as much as open ones. And the federal system is better than a one size fits all strong central government. It’s not in any way Diamond’s central theme, but through his ridiculous quantities of evidence and his amazing ability to synthesize disparate data, that conclusion rings loud and clear. Don’t believe me? Read this book!

 

[easyazon-image align=”left” asin=”B006IDG2T6″ locale=”us” height=”110″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41mPcj7zKCL._SL110_.jpg” width=”78″][easyazon-link asin=”B006IDG2T6″ locale=”us”]Free Will[/easyazon-link] by Sam Harris

I wish I could write as clearly, eloquently, and intelligently as Sam Harris. Last year, his brilliant The Moral Landscape made my “Most Important” list. While Free Will doesn’t quite live up to that standard, it is an important compendium or follow-up to the ideas brought forth in it. Harris’ background as neuroscientist is on full display in Free Will. The question “Do humans have free will or are we shaped by destiny” is as old as philosophy itself. In America, a country dominated by Judeo-Christian/Western ideals, it is almost a foregone conclusion that humans have free will and the ability to 100% shape their own future. The influence is seen in our work ethic and in our judicial system. Should we always be held responsible for our actions? If we have free will, then the answer is a resounding yes. If we don’t, its more complicated. In a surprisingly short book, Harris is able to prove through recent breakthroughs in neuroscience how people will act before they consciously think about acting. He doesn’t go so far as to say that we are not responsible for our actions. His analysis and conclusions are far more nuanced than his critics will likely give him credit for being, but he does raise groundbreaking and serious questions about the way we view crime and punishment and whether or not people deserve second chances. Why do we choose to act the way we act? And can we do anything about it? Harris will make you re-think what you’ve always believed the answers to those questions are without claiming he has the answers himself.

 

Caveat:  I wrote some of these reviews many months after I read the book because I did not have my act together at the time I finished it. Apologies for any minor errors, but please let me know if you find any!

Comments { 0 }

Better Angels, Triumphant

What can anyone say after a tragedy like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that is remotely adequate?  For me, there was almost so much to say that I had nothing at all to say.  Simply no words were sufficient.  Horrific might be the single best word, but even that grossly pales.  Last Friday, the nation glimpsed the worst of humanity, and we wept.

Inevitably following such an event, social and mainstream media, and everyone around the water cooler has been a-buzz with discussions about gun control (for and against), mental illness, the degradation of society, the loss of god in our culture/schools, and countless other proposed reasons to what’s “wrong with our society” and how to fix it, how to prevent such a terrible act from ever happening again. 

Instead, I find myself thinking over and over again about something else entirely.  I keep thinking that I feel lucky to be alive, in this country, in this point in time of human existence.  I keep thinking about how good life actually is right now, right here.

Our justified condemnation and outrage over an atrocity like children and teachers being murdered in the classroom tells me how far we have come as a species, a culture, and as a nation.  Our reflexive response tells us how rare an event this truly is, and how much we value the lives of children and the adults who want to protect them.  I’m sure as a result of what happened, our political leaders will rush to create new laws and limits on our freedom, and generally the people will support that reaction.  How could we not?  It’s to protect children, right?  Anyone speaking out against it risks being labeled insensitive, or stupid.   I do not intend for this to be a political discussion.  I think there are plenty of valid points on all sides of many of these debates.  From my perspective, creating new laws – at least immediately – is completely unnecessary, and is another nail in the coffin of liberty, and the reason for America’s existence.  Each one risks pushing our society backwards towards eventual despotism.   Knee-jerk responses to create more laws are unnecessary because by any reasonable standard, the world is getting better, partly as a result of increased liberty.  Often our emotional rush to action creates many more unintended consequences that are problematic (Department of Homeland Security, anyone??).  What I wish is before any decision is made about what actions to take is for us to take a collective breath and reflect on how wonderful our lives and society actually are.  

Recently I started reading the brilliant Steven Pinker’s “[easyazon-link asin=”B0052REUW0″ locale=”us”]The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined[/easyazon-link]”  The title is a nod to Abraham Lincoln’s beautiful sentiments in his First Inaugural Address in 1861.  Pinker’s book is thus far so extraordinary, that I recommend you stop reading this blog right now, and go read his book for yourself.  Pinker more eloquently states, with gobs (that’s the scientific term) of data, what I (and countless others before Pinker) have observed and believed about humanity for years: 

By almost every measurable standard, life is better now than it was in our past (recent and distant) for almost every human society, even the poorest among us.  And violence is undoubtedly on the decline. 

It’s sometimes difficult to believe those truths.  Some people willfully deny them despite there being ample evidence to the contrary.  Human society is more peaceful than it has ever been.  

Compared to the age of the earth and even compared to the time modern humans have walked on earth, our life spans are short (though getting longer all the time).  A generous one hundred years next to 200,000 is miniscule.  The blink of an eye.  We have an extremely difficult time comprehending times longer than a few decades, much less those on the scales such as these.  So, we get wrapped up in the here and now and compare something like what happened in Connecticut on Friday against our typical daily existence (which is usually quite peaceful, and relatively easy, especially in the west).  We are barraged daily by the media about the threat of terrorism, America’s homicide rate, and this atrocity and that one.  The news is littered with stories about murders, rapes, kidnappings, wars, and we think, what have humans descended to?  When will the violence end?  Surely, it wasn’t like this in the good ole’ days!  The truth is that more than ever before, humans are showing an ascendance of virtue.  We just have a natural tendency to remember the irregularities over the far more prolific prosaic experiences.

And the good ole’ days weren’t really that good after all.

Humans most certainly have a dark side.  Violence has always been a part of our species’ existence.  The capacity to commit violence has been evolving in us for millions of years along with other traits like competitiveness, ambition, empathy, compassion, and love. But consider this:  Only 2000 years ago, the greatest civilization in the world – the Roman Empire – regularly entertained themselves in great arenas by watching animals and humans rip other animals and humans to shreds in regular bloodbaths. This was their sport of choice. Gladiators were the Champions and heroes, the rock stars of their day.  People would spend an entire day eating, laughing, drinking while unbelievable carnage happened in front of them.  Today, in America, our bloodlust is channeled into the “violence” of football on Sunday afternoons, and into violent, but fictional, video games and movies. 

The Romans would have thought we are a weak society with those notions of violence.  They are welcome to that opinion.  But it is notable to consider how far we’ve come.  The Romans – the epitome of advanced and civilized society for their day – would have thought nothing of a game of football that resulted in mass homicide for one or both sides.  Simply for entertainment.

We have progressed.  We continue to do so.

We are fooling ourselves if we believe violence will evolve out of us anytime soon, (millions of years from now, perhaps) if ever. I’m often frustrated when people talk about the decline of our “culture.”  What this usually means is the loss of morality defined by religion.  Or the loss of some sort of repressed “Leave it to Beaver” style existence of post World War II America.  The fact is the murder of children, adults, sacrificial animals, is repeated over and over again within the bible (particularly the old Testament), and other holy books.  Violence was a far more acceptable and expected in everyday life for our ancestors than it is for us today.  Thankfully, we are moral in spite of some of the lessons taken from our holy books.  We are able to rationalize away, modify, or outright ignore those terrible stories of our religions’ (while retaining our religious beliefs) because we know that human suffering – especially the suffering of children — is bad.  

Through our intellect, capacity for reason, and the power of civilization (which despite popular belief to the contrary is the driving force of our mundane, peaceful lives), most of us are able to suppress the violent tendencies of our nature, ignore the casual and prolific violence of most of our history and our myths, and even decry with outrage when those tendencies are expressed in a rare event like Sandy Hook.  The better angels of our nature are far more prevalent today than they ever have been in our history as a species.  The atrocity of Friday, December 14, 2012 should not propel us to take emotional, and unnecessary actions that could be a step backwards from the progress of freedom and liberty that have helped bring those angels out to play far more than ever before.  At least not right now.  Not in the immediate wake of destruction when emotions are running high, and our rational sides are suppressed.  

We should mourn the loss of life.  We should remember them and cry over the lives shortened by the unspeakable evil that struck down so many before their lives had even really begun.  We should honor the heroic efforts of the protectors who died trying to save them.  We should support the families and friends of those lost.  We should try to figure out if anything reasonable can prevent another terrible day like that one, and talk about it without demonizing each other.  We should continue to progress and strive to eradicate violence from our nature, despite it being a fool’s errand.

But most of all, we should remember that life is precious.  Life is short.  Life is beautiful.  And this kind of evil is not who most of us are.  Not anymore.

 

Peace,

PersephoneK

[easyazon-image align=”none” asin=”B0052REUW0″ locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51De3EFfS1L._SL160_.jpg” width=”105″]
Comments { 2 }

The Five Most Important Books I Read in 2011

Before getting too deep into 2012 (ok, we’re a little deep, but I started drafting this a month ago), I wanted to make sure I tell you about some of the most important books I read during 2011, the same year I got a Kindle!

I read many great books as a result of that simple piece of technology and a commitment I made to myself to devote time reading each week.  Reading became more of a therapeutic meditation time for me last year than ever before, especially on beautiful summer weekends where I would bike ride and read by the several small lakes near my house.   I hope to make book reviews a regular part of this blog, since they’re an important part of my path of life.

So, while many books I read last year were fantastic, there were a handful that stuck out as not only enjoyable, but important.  Important, as in, every human should read them, without exception.  Not all of them were written last year, but last year is when I got the chance to read them.  Here are the five books (not in order of importance, but more in order of suggested reading), and some of my brief thoughts about each one:

1)     [easyazon-link asin=”0805091254″ locale=”us”]The Believing Brain, by Michael Shermer[/easyazon-link]

2)     [easyazon-link asin=”1846942721″ locale=”us”]The Religion Virus, by Craig A. James[/easyazon-link]

3)     [easyazon-link asin=”0060859512″ locale=”us”]Misquoting Jesus, by Bart Ehrman[/easyazon-link]

4)     [easyazon-link asin=”B006W3YQTK” locale=”us”]The Moral Landscape, by Sam Harris[/easyazon-link]

5)     [easyazon-link asin=”B005N0KL5G” locale=”us”]Lying, by Sam Harris[/easyazon-link]

 

The Believing Brain, by Michael Shermer simply and clearly explains how humans’ propensity for believing in superstition is driven by an evolutionary need to make quick decisions or end up as food, and how not believing in superstition was probably weeded out of our ancestors.  His story of an early primate who hears a rustling in the high grass having to make a decision about whether he hears a predator or just the wind is a pure genius, yet its a simple way of explaining why we see shadow monsters in the night.  Understanding this evolutionary ingrained intuition is the first step for humanity in moving past basing our decisions and societal structures on that false “patternicty,” as Shermer defines it. People believe their own brains far more than they should, and that has gotten us into a lot of trouble over the millennia.  Shermer nicely sets the foundation to understanding how all man-made myth and superstitions came to be.

[easyazon-image align=”undefined” asin=”B004GHN26W” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51FL9CmjpLL._SL160_.jpg” width=”106″]

 

The Religion Virus, by Craig A. James is the next step beyond The Believing Brain, taking why we’re prone to superstition into the reason why religion continues to this day, despite our development of the scientific method, and virtual disproof of most religions that exist today.  Beginning with the history of Yahweh, the God of the Israelites who would develop into the “all powerful” god Jews, Christians and Muslims know today, and then explaining how the meme’s — or stories — of religion stuck with each generation and evolved just as a virus, (or a good joke), does.  James also explains how animism turned into pantheism then to monotheism.  This book erased any doubt I may have had about the historical evolution of the idea of gods and god and did so with personal reflections, historical fact, wonderful metaphors, and brutal clarity.  With my own religious background being that of a Christian, now more than ever I am confounded by my former believing self for not seeing how the god of the old testament is clearly not the god of Christianity.  And if that is true, what among the Abrahamic religions is there to believe in?  Thank goodness, my answer is “nothing supernatural.”

[easyazon-image align=”none” asin=”B0046A9JMA” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51dstvLqHAL._SL160_.jpg” width=”103″]

 

Misquoting Jesus, by Bart D. Ehrman, dives into the specifics of one of those religious meme’s — the spread of Christianity, and specifically, how the books of the New Testament were written, and altered by regular humans, each with their very human agenda’s, biases, and flaws.  Ehrman explains that there are more mistakes — whether by intention or inattention — than there are words in the New Testament!  Most people know that the books of the new testament were written starting around 30 years after the death of Jesus Christ, and none of the books were written by people who ever had met Jesus, but what’s more astonishing is the idea that the earliest known texts contain more errors and discrepancies than the later versions, primarily because earlier scribes who would hand copy texts were untrained laymen, members of their congregations copying texts in their spare time, while later as Christianity spread, scribes were professional and devoted to accuracy.  Mis-quoting Jesus puts into plain words how the new testament contradicts itself in profound and important ways, and how biblical scholars, including clergy, have known this for at least a couple of centuries, but do not teach these well accepted understandings to the masses.  Beyond the errors, Ehrman outlines the different variations of early Christianity, and how each sect’s disputes with each other and their pursuit of converts impacted what eventually became the winning doctrine, and that the winner may not have been close to what Jesus’ mission actually was about. He proves that this is not some conspiracy theory from modern scientists, but historically supported concepts. The bible does contain significant flaws, and anyone believing current Christian doctrine does so while ignoring truths that in virtually every other area of human study would cause most people to dismiss their devotion to flawed thinking and ideas.

[easyazon-image align=”center” asin=”B000SEGJF8″ locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/512kDCXRwJL._SL160_.jpg” width=”106″]

 

The Moral Landscape, by Sam Harris, is by far the most important book I’ve ever read in my life.  As a former Christian, one of the things that pained and concerned me as I gravitated towards atheism was how to justify morality without God. I knew there were right and wrong answers, and that misery should be avoided and happiness should be increased, but I couldn’t articulate for myself or my Christian friends how to convey that morality can exist without a higher power dictating what the rules are.  Enter Sam Harris and BAM!  Everything was clear.  Harris doesn’t spend time detailing what behaviors are good or bad, but his main thesis is that there are one or more right ways to live and one or more wrong ways to live.  The right ways are those that maximize human well-being, and the wrong ways are those leading to human misery.  He likens these ways to peaks and valleys on a landscape.  There could be multiple high peaks and multiple routes to take to get to them, just as there are for the valleys.  There doesn’t have to be one right way to live, but Harris takes it a step further to say that morality can be scientifically understood and studied, at least to a point.  Right and wrong can be objective, even if studied through subjective data gathering methods.  There are wrong and right answers to our questions of well-being, whether or not we can ever know them.  It is on this point that I believe he loses many people, but why that is is a mystery to me.  He likens the concept to birds in flight.  Right now, there are a specific, finite number of birds in flight on earth.  There is a right answer to that question.  Whether or not we can know the answer (we can’t), does not change the fact that a specific, correct answer exists.  So it goes with morality, maybe.  Whether we can definitively know the answer does not mean we cannot study the question scientifically.  Everyone knows there is human happiness and there is human suffering. Sometimes it’s difficult to maximize happiness, without causing some suffering.  That is the difficulty of these questions, but that doesn’t mean we should forfeit that responsibility to a deity that makes it his business to watch us suffer rather than clarify such important questions for us.  If Harris left me with one idea, it’s that the single most important goal of our species should be to maximize (all) human well-being and minimize (all) human suffering.  And that responsibility rests within each of us, not with “god.”

[easyazon-image align=”center” asin=”B003V1WT72″ locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/519-RISqkmL._SL160_.jpg” width=”104″]

 

Lying, by Sam Harris and Anika Harris is a lovely conceptual footnote to The Moral Landscape, though not at all a sequel.  It is a short essay more than a book, so you have no excuse to not read it.  It will take you an hour max.  While I’m not sure I completely agree with the thesis, no book has stirred my thinking on a deeply personal level like this one did.  I previously believed that there are times when lying is ok (like not wanting to hurt someone’s feelings).  After reading “Lying” I’m not so sure anymore.  Harris makes a compelling argument for why lying is never good because every single lie erodes the fabric of trust between those involved. Eventually that trust leads to less deep relationships, and eventually all kinds of societal ills.  While not lying may be hard, and even uncomfortable (“no, I never wear that sweater you got me for Christmas, grandma, because its hiddeous.”), it is nonetheless pivotal to human growth and a better society, and better world to try.

[easyazon-image align=”center” asin=”B005N0KL5G” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31BX0aEcV%2BL._SL160_.jpg” width=”130″]

 

So, there you have it… My list of the most important books I read during 2011.  They took me on a journey of human historical, psychological, and ethical understanding that I wanted to share with you in the hopes that you might have a similar experience and chance to grow as a result.  These authors and their ideas certainly helped me take a few steps closer to being the person I want to be, and part of a society I want to live in.  Since I cannot come close to doing their books justice, I suggest you let them tell you in their own words what they have to say.  Check them out!

[easyazon-image align=”undefined” asin=”B004GHN26W” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51FL9CmjpLL._SL160_.jpg” width=”106″] [easyazon-image align=”none” asin=”B0046A9JMA” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51dstvLqHAL._SL160_.jpg” width=”103″] [easyazon-image align=”center” asin=”B000SEGJF8″ locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/512kDCXRwJL._SL160_.jpg” width=”106″] [easyazon-image align=”center” asin=”B003V1WT72″ locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/519-RISqkmL._SL160_.jpg” width=”104″] [easyazon-image align=”center” asin=”B005N0KL5G” locale=”us” height=”160″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31BX0aEcV%2BL._SL160_.jpg” width=”130″]

 

Comments { 1 }