People on both sides of the issue of Global Warming are thoroughly convinced that they are correct.  Both sides use scientific data to back up their claims.  Those who stand to make a massive amount of money off of this debate are relished with the controversy, but the following verses are what people of the world need to be prepared for and fear the consequences of ending up on the wrong side :

2 Peter 3:7 (New International Version)
7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

Hebrews 10:26-27 (New International Version)

26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.

Hebrews 12:29 (New International Version)
29for our “God is a consuming fire.”

Revelation 16:8-9 (New International Version)

8The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was given power to scorch people with fire. 9They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.

Revelation 20:15 (New International Version)
15If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

John 14:6 (New International Version)

6Jesus [Yeshua in Hebrew] answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

2 Peter 3     The Day of the Lord   (New International Version)
1Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. 2I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.
3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.[a]

11Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.[b]That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.

14So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul [Shaul in Hebrew] also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

17Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position. 18But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ [Yeshua HaMashiach in Hebrew]. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen.

Hebrews 4:13  (New International Version)
¹³Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

Check out this NPR article from a couple months ago. According to the story, there’s a split among atheists over how to deal with religion: The “new atheists” (represented most vocally by Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins) insist that religion is dangerous and should be treated with contempt, whereas the old guard says that atheists should work with believers to find common ground.

Reading the article made me step back and consider my own perspective regarding religion. Sure, a part of me agrees whole-heartedly with Mr. Hitchens (a favorite writer of mine) when he says, “I think religion should be treated with ridicule and hatred and contempt … Religion is dangerous because it promotes ignorance … I see no reason to sugarcoat my position … If I said to a Protestant or a Quaker or a Muslim, hey, well, at least I respect your belief even if I don’t agree with it, I would be telling a lie.”

That’s blunt, but I have to say I agree with the sentiment. Now, that being said, I can happily have a conversation with a religious individual and respect that person.

But yes, I would be lying if I said I respected the belief systems of those who bow to organized religions. Sure, I acknowledge them, but I think blind allegience to Golden Age worldviews is silly, frankly.

And one aspect of the article that resonated with me is the following: “Look, this is still a largely religious country … This is going to insult many of the religious people who should be shown due respect.”

Due respect.

What is it, exactly, about religion that deserves respect? What would you point to? Is it the humanitarian works that result from a community of organized believers? Sure, that’s a genuinely beneficial aspect of church. But of course that’s not exclusively due to the religion itself; in fact, I’d argue that it has little to do with the worldview the church’s text promotes. It has more to do with people and their innate morality. So, is it the sense of common spirituality that comes from a long history of people following the same path? Are we really that respectul of unquestioning allegience?

I don’t consider myself a full-on, full-throttle atheist. I’m more in the agnostic camp, with shooters of atheism directed at the bigger book-based gods. I’m more interested in—as Center for Inquiry’s Ronald Lindsay puts it—”thoughtful, incisive, concise critiques of religion.” I’m not trying to insult believers but rather to understand them. As the article sums up quite effectively, I believe in “reason, science, and freedom from religious myth.”

That’s all I’m trying to communicate in this blog. And if sometimes it seems that—in pondering a current event or personal experience—I go on the offensive and seem to attack a religion or a believer, it’s only because I feel so strongly about how I feel the world needs to evolve. And how frustrated I am that it seems a long way from doing so.

Every year since I’ve become politically cognizant it seems I’ve had to endure people bickering about the ‘controversy’ over Christmas. Is it a war on Christmas, as right-wing TV and radio hosts purport? Is it offensive to say “Happy Holidays” or “Season’s Greetings” as opposed to “Merry Christmas?” Is being inclusive and saying “Happy Hanukkah,” “Happy Kwanzaa,” etc. a slippery slope? Is it hypocritical at best, politically or ethically untenable at worst, for non-theists to celebrate Christmas? Some non-theists don’t celebrate Christmas because of its religious connotations, and some theists think that non-Christians shouldn’t celebrate Christmas. It’s a whole, annoying bog.

The fact is that all of the alleged controversy can be rendered irrelevant by accepting that Christmas has become largely a secular holiday.

Out of the gate let me say that of course there is certainly a contingent of religious people for whom December 25^th is the birthday of Jesus Christ, and who celebrate the date as such. But generally the majority in the world who celebrate Christmas—even in countries with very few Christians—celebrate it as a secular tradition rather than a religious one.

Christmas is mostly about giving and receiving presents, eating a lot of food, getting shmammered, attending parties, and spending time with family and friends. For some, it is about all of these things and attending church. (Although in my experience I’ve found that many of the Christmas church-goers attend more out of habit, tradition, or ‘keeping up appearances’ than to worship a god. In many cases, the folks who attend mass on Christmas only go to church once or twice a year—the other being Easter.)

If the devoutly religious want Christmas to be purely about religion, then they must eschew all of the other Christmas traditions: gifts, food, lights, trees, etc. If they don’t and yet still complain about the secular ‘co-opting’ of Christmas, then they are nothing more than hypocrites.

But what is Christmas, anyway? Is it historically a purely religious, Christian celebration?

If it is true that Jesus were a real historical figure, it is the consensus of most historians and theologians based on available evidence that December 25^th was not the actual date of his birth. (Most accounts place it in the spring.) December 25^th was originally a Roman winter solstice festival known as Sol Invictus, which celebrated the “rebirth” of the Sun; several Sun gods were worshipped, including Sol and Mithras. Because it was already such a popular pagan holiday, it was claimed as the birthday of Jesus. Even so, celebrating the birth of Jesus was condemned and looked down upon by Christians for most of history, and Christians didn’t start celebrating Christmas as we know it until the 1800s.

The gift-giving part of Christmas—some would say the #1 Christmas tradition—was actually introduced long after the Church decided to celebrate the birth of Jesus. The tradition does not derive from the three wise men in the bible, as many believe. In fact, gift exchange derived from Saturnalia, a popular Roman holiday dating to 217 BCE that celebrated the god Saturn. Saturnalia involved sacrifices, a school holiday, and, yes, the exchange of gifts.

Even if we grant the war-on-Christmas types the two lies they claim as truth (that Jesus was born on December 25^th and that the gift-exchange tradition comes from the three wise men), I wonder how Jesus would feel about people celebrating his birth by literally trampling each other to death in a Walmart in order to buy the $450 video game on sale for $350.

As for that exalted symbol the Christmas tree—it is a tradition that dates to 16^th century Germany. It was considered good luck to hang an evergreen at the apex of a house, and over time this morphed into having the tree inside and decorating it. The tradition immigrated to North America along with the Germans.

Traditions are what society is based on, no matter where you live in the world or what your society looks like. Traditions are mostly benign. They are also malleable and tend to change over time. And generally society changes with them. We celebrate Halloween: kids dress up in costumes and beg for candy door to door; adults dress up in costumes and parade and/or party. We do not celebrate the Celtic festival Samhain, from which Halloween is derived, warding off evil spirits by disguising ourselves as them, or slaughtering livestock and casting their bones into bonfires. (At least I hope we don’t!)

Christmas may have meant one thing once upon a time, but now it means something different. No, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus, but we can still celebrate Christmas. Even the non-religious can celebrate Christmas because it’s about tradition, merriment, nostalgia, and making new memories. It’s an excuse to get together with family and friends we don’t see very often. It’s fun to see the excitement and awe in children’s eyes. The food, candy, and chocolate are great and some people even like Christmas music. The sweaters are mostly bad, and feelings about egg nog are split.

As for me, I have grown increasingly weary of Christmas. It seems the magic goes out of it when you’re no longer a child and don’t have children in your life. But it’s the crass commercialism and pure gaudiness that I abhor more than anything. (But if that doesn’t bother you and you still have some names to cross off your shopping list, may I suggest The Atheist’s Guide to Christmas, edited by the brain behind the atheist bus campaign, Ariane Sherine.)

Christmas is no Halloween, but if I remove the religiosity and the crass commercialism, it’s a pretty nice holiday. For whatever reason The Sound of Music is always on TV this time of the year, and that’s enough for me.

So Merry Christmas, Happy Festivus, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Human Rights Day, Happy Kwanzaa, Happy New Year, Happy Omisoka, Happy St. Lucia Day, Happy Winter Solstice, Merry X-mas …and Happy any-other-December-holiday-you-may-celebrate-that-I-may-have-inadvertently-left-out!

A few quotations from well-known scientists, skeptics, and atheists on this subject:

“But of course it has long since ceased to be a religious festival. I participate for family reasons, with a reluctance that owes more to aesthetics than atheistics. I detest Jingle Bells, White Christmas, Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer, and the obscene spending bonanza that nowadays seems to occupy not just December, but November and much of October, too. So divorced has Christmas become from religion that I find no necessity to bother with euphemisms such as happy holiday season. In the same way as many of my friends call themselves Jewish atheists, I acknowledge that I come from Christian cultural roots. I am a post-Christian atheist. So, understanding full well that the phrase retains zero religious significance, I unhesitatingly wish everyone a Merry Christmas.” – Richard Dawkins

“It seems to me to be obvious that everything we value in Christmas—giving gifts, celebrating the holiday with our families, enjoying all of the kitsch that comes along with it—all of that has been entirely appropriated by the secular world.” – Sam Harris

“My personal war on Christmas is fought in a way the Bill O’Reillys of the world don’t even recognize: I blithely wish people a Merry Christmas without so much as a germ of religious reverence anywhere in my body. I take this holiday and turn it into a purely secular event, with family and friends and food and presents. I celebrate the season without thought of Jesus or any of the other myths so precious to the pious idiots who get upset when a Walmart gives them a cheery ‘Happy Holidays!’” – PZ Meyers

Read “The Problem with Atheism” here:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1702,The-Problem-with-Atheism,Sam-Harris

I’m glad that this was brought to my attention, because I think Harris makes some excellent points. I do think that the word “atheism” carries with it some serious negative connotations. There are two definitions for the word “godless” on Encarta. The first definition states, “not believing in or worshipping any god,” while the second definition states, “having an evil or immoral nature.” Obviously, there are people who believe that atheists are wicked creatures who prey on the lowly, virtuous Christians. Sam Harris recognizes that, and proposes that the non-believers steer away from the atheist label which has alienated many. I too, feel that we tend to be irresponsible with labels in society, which can lead to misunderstanding, ignorance and bigotry. We find it much easier to judge rather than truly examine whatever it is that we do not understand and/or fear. We’re all guilty of it at some point, but are we missing something important because of it? Before we draw our conclusions about someone or something, we should take the time to educate ourselves. Why do so many people demonize atheists? Have they been victimized by atheists at some point? Or is it just easier to judge rather than understand? I would predict the latter hypothesis to be more probable. Nevertheless, this stigma exists.

Harris does not feel it is necessary to identify himself as an atheist. He concludes that atheism is not a “thing” or a philosophy, noting that those who believe in racial equality, would not be referred to as “non-racists.” (I would call them humanists – a title I’m much more comfortable adopting as well.) However, I feel it is inevitable that if we should have to argue our philosophy at some point, which we most certainly will, our unbelief in God will once again give rise to the atheist label, whether we say the word or not. Such judgments are nearly impossible to avoid when rejecting the dogma of a religion conflicting with what one deems to be an issue in society. The word “atheist” flies out of the mouth of the defendant like the searing flames of a dragon, but we are not burned – we’re frustrated. No one will listen.

Because of this reason, I am a bit pessimistic about successfully liberating the world from religion. Too many people are invested. Their talons are in deep, and their wings have been clipped. I will, however, entertain a hypothetical world in which the number of Americans who claim some form of religion is reduced from 80% to 49%… a little less than half of the U.S. population. 149 million vs. 240 million… Religion seems to play a more active role in right-wing politics, although not totally absent on the left, one must assume that in a country of 151 million non-religious citizens, (aiming for humanists, not merely “atheists”) the odds of a large portion of that population being elected into the judicial, legislative or executive branch are greatly increased, and the polarization of the dominant powers may be altered. In this situation, I would hope for a more productive, reasonable administration, advancing scientific research, passing/implementing environmental protection acts, federally regulating CO2 emissions, and improving our diplomatic relations with other nations. In this hypothetical 51/49 scenario, little can be predicted, but it is still worth contemplating. With our current proclaimed religious nut of a president, all seems stagnant and rotting. And why is he in power? Because enough Americans were lured into voting for him under his “I am a moral, religious man” guise. What we actually need is a leader who does not hinder the possibility of curing diseased individuals who could benefit from stem-cell research under the rancid “all life is sacred” argument. We need a leader who will protect what rare undisturbed Earth remains, instead of gutting it for oil that may lie underneath to line his pockets and fuel our behemoth SUVs. We need a leader who will seriously address the issue of global warming, and who will show concern for future generations that will certainly suffer due to our negligence. We need a leader who won’t require a bloated defense budget, and who will divert a large portion of it to things like public education, scientific research, and space programs. We need a leader who will advance our country, not one who will march us back to the dark ages. We need a truly moral leader – not one who simply calls himself a Christian. It has become very obvious over the last seven years, that it is not enough.

Many of us do hope that the United States and even the entire world will eventually come around to a more productive, reasonable, scientific way of thinking that excludes organized religion, but unfortunately, it may just be a pipe-dream. For ages, people have been treated as sub-humans for various reasons, most often due to their sex, skin color and religious beliefs. There are still many places in the world where this mentality persists, but fortunately, it has been greatly reduced in the United States. Why has this change come about in the last 50 years or so? (See chpt 7 of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion.) I would imagine that the reason is that gender and racial inequality negatively affected a large portion of the population in a number of ways, notably the discriminatory acts of violence. It is one thing for those unaffected by bigotry to step up and fight for the rights of their fellow human beings, but often times change does not come about unless enough people feel the effects themselves.

So, how can the non-religious community striving for change reach a large enough population today? If the negative effects of religion are not felt or understood by the religious community, what motivation is there for them to tear away their foundation in life? To make the negative effects tangible, we must find a way to educate the religious population without causing such upset that they do not listen at all. I do not think this can be done in the manner that Christian missionaries attempt to spread the word of Jesus to others. Just as we unbelievers loathe this method when it arrives at our door, we cannot expect the religious to open their ears and their minds to our message. Instead, there has to be an infiltration of reasonable thinking in every walk of life. We must properly educate our students from their earliest preschool years all the way through college. Education is the ultimate path to freedom, as Carl Sagan explained in his book, “The Demon-Haunted World,” noting Frederick Douglass’ self-emancipation through literacy, eventually becoming one of the most influential African American abolitionists.

It is often noted by Christians that there have been serious atrocities committed by atheists such as Stalin and Hitler, but there is no evidence that these acts were committed as a result of their non-beliefs. We must be able to distinguish between causation and coincidence. Does atheism cause people to become homicidal maniacs? The obvious answer is “no.” Every now and then, will one run across an unbelieving, immoral individual? Most certainly, but it cannot be argued that atheism equates to unruly, violent behavior. To the contrary: it seems that the overwhelming number of people who have been incarcerated and/or imprisoned believe in a higher power. It is fairly obvious that anarchy is not running rampant in the atheist community. We are not all driven to do good through fear of punishment. We are not children hoping to avoid a spanking. We are in fact, all grown up. As it turns out, human values are not dictated by the belief in a spiteful God. Is that really so difficult to grasp?

It is easy to point the finger at widely known homicidal figures in history, but what about the countless, lesser known individuals who have committed heinous acts of violence in the name of God? I urge the reader to consider the inhumane acts committed right here in the United States by Christians in the name of God. Slavery persisted in the United States from the time we arrived on the shores until the end of the Civil War in 1865 — for over 200 years. Although slavery had been eradicated, racism continued to run rampant in the North and South for another hundred years with the Ku Klux Klan, until the Civil Rights Movement, when women were also granted their inalienable freedoms. But why did it take so long? The bible was and is believed to be the word, and served as an excuse to allow out-dated bigotry to persist into the 20^th century. Even today, it continues to be used by many to justify their pursuits of intolerance and hate. Most recently, the issue of gay rights has been at the forefront, and once again, we find people quoting passages from the bible allegedly stating that homosexuality is a sin against God. The big guy in the sky seems a very intolerant fellow indeed, with the arrogance of a monarch and a penchant for cruel and unusual punishment

Unfortunately we may be stuck with him… at least for now there is still the “hiss” in “atheist,” which Harris hopes we can shake. But there is a sliver lining — It seems as though the number of atheists is on the rise, or perhaps more people are coming out of the atheist closet. I hope it is a sign of things to come. The challenge of creating a free-thinking, rational, skeptical nation is perhaps one of the last great endeavors we will be faced with in the United States. Vive la revolution.

Added 10.23.07:

As I read Christopher Hitchens’ “God is Not Great” and “The End of Faith” by Sam Harris, more than ever, I feel the urgent necessity to address the potentially catastrophic effects the Islamic community could pose to us should they ever attain WMDs… Such a threat should seem obvious after 9/11, but there is quite a difference between killing millions or billions of people VS hundreds or thousands. These death-obsessed “martyrs” have no problem trading their miserable lives for a promised eternal paradise, virgins-a-plentiful, and would gladly take us down with them to solidify their place in heaven. In fact, their dogma dictates such violent acts, commanding them to kill unbelievers and all those who do not abide by the strict tenets of Islam. It is a very intolerant religion indeed. Harris points out that we cannot deny that our current war is in fact, a war on Islam… Terrorism is the bastard son of the most abhorrent religious dogma, dictating its followers to lead a life of obedience which includes murderous acts. Potentially deadly technology lies in precarious hands. I fear that inevitably it will fall into the most destructive, death-obsessed hands of all… The threat of a different kind of apocalypse most certainly exists, but not in the way most Christians, Jews and Muslims would like to believe. If this day should come, all will be lost and no souls will be escorted to heaven to fornicate with woman, dine on lobster, or play pool with Jesus. No. We will simply vanish.

But perhaps thousands, millions or billions of years after we are gone, an archeological alien civilization will arrive on Earth and study our history; uncovering our tombs, technology and religious literature, immortalizing us as the laughing stock of the universe; the idiots of Earth who squandered their potential to grow as a civilization, and listen for other messages in the sky via radio telescope instead of relying on “prophets;” the daft species who could have furthered explored their true origins in the cosmos, but who instead opted for a fairytale they could never outgrow.

What will it take for people to realize the undeniably harmful effects of religion, demanding that we live perpetually in the dark ages, with reason in exile, drowning us in the blood of religions’ innumerable enemies? All three monotheist religions which are derived from one another contain barbaric demands of bloodshed in the name of the lord, whether he be Yahweh, God, or Allah. That some of the more civilized followers of these religions opt to disregard their deity’s heinous, murderous instructions is insubordinate according to those same people. These “holy” texts are presented as the word of God. Every scrap of them. If one finds any part of their sacred texts to be horrifying and/or nonsensical then one should discard the book in its entirety. To pick and chose messages from one’s god is to disobey one’s god and would result in damnation. This leaves the individual with two options: The person can either believe in and follow the sadistic messages as they appear, living perpetually in the dark ages, or one can live a life of reason and come to understand the true nature of the world, and the universe. To me, this doesn’t seem like a difficult choice to make, but for some reason too many lack the reason to draw these conclusions on their own. There is an enormous pink elephant trumpeting across the world, and hardly anyone will talk about it. It should come as no surprise, then, if our fate ultimately lies beneath its monstrous, reckless feet.

In today’s USA Today, Stephen Prothero argues that “there is a different voice emerging” to contend for atheism, and one that atheists would do well to embrace as there own. He writes:

Call it the new New Atheism — and with it a very different agenda from that of Hitchens and his angry acolytes. This friendlier atheism sounds more like a civil rights movement than a crusade. And it is far more likely to issue from the lips of friendly women than from the spittle of angry men.

If the hope is to pummel into submission the 93% of Americans who believe in God or a higher power, then this movement has about as much of a chance as an evangelical revival in the National Assembly of France. But if the hope is for a country where children can play with other children without regard for the religious (or non-religious) beliefs of their parents, then this is a wave many of us would happily catch.

Read the whole thing.

In defense of the method of the so-called “Four Horsemen” (Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins), showmanship and biting rhetoric are the most productive weapons in their arsenal. This is, of course, ironic given their alleged commitment to persuasion by pure reason. But who can blame them? If I and the other 93% of we dolts out there who are sacrificing our reason and intellect to religion aren’t going to wake up and smell the aroma of reason, what other choice do they have?

OK, enough with the sarcasm. Prothero goes on to give us a list of some “up and coming” kinder, gentler atheists. What I found interesting is that out of his list, I was only familiar with two: Susan Jacoby and Julia Sweeney. And there is a reason why I can’t remember having heard of the others and you probably haven’t either–and won’t otherwise. It’s because atheism, on its face, isn’t very persuasive, and quiet atheists are going to get little cultural traction. Atheism doesn’t need a better strategy, just a better argument.

Those who created religions had serious mental issues…

Continuing our examination of Sam Harris’ thought process; we will look at his second example – namely, the issue of embryos and stem-cell research. In order to provide an adequate examination, we will spend most of our time here on the issue of stem-cell research and focus very little on embryos. Through our evaluation of stem-cell research, the importance of preserving life (i.e. embryos) will be seen throughout our response.

The reality of stem-cell research:

One of the largest and most well known advocates for stem-cell research is none other than Michael J. Fox. Since his public announcement in which he said he suffers with Parkingson’s Disease., Fox has devoted the rest of his life promoting the advancement of stem-cell research. The question remains if stem-cell research is the most effective way of advancement. The question remains, “Just because we have the ability to advance in these areas, is it really in our best interest to do so?” There are great advancements in medicine and science that have been made in our lifetime, yet I wonder if they are all positive. Take for instance weapons of mass destruction (WMD). With these capabilities, we have made nuclear weapons that can blow up the world several times over. We have spent billions of dollars to make WMD bigger, and more destructive. We have now created fear in the minds of Americans as the ability to make such weapons available to terrorists in other countries. In the same breath, who is to say that stem-cell research is the most positive advancement we should make? For all the good it could end up bringing, have we truly counted the cost of this advancement? Would we want this ability to be passed on to our enemies in other countries? This is only one area of concern we should investigate.

The second area of concern we should consider is Harris’ statement regarding embryos as a whole. In his argument, Harris states that embryos are not even human beings. He states that they do not even possess a function brain during this period of growth and therefore are not alive. Well, Mr. Harris, I hate to tell you that your definition of life is flawed, but I respectfully must tell you that you are misguided in your definition. Any licensed medical professional will tell you that it is the heart’s ability to pump blood through the body on its own and not the brain. When the heart stops, an individual no longer is deemed alive. You will never see a doctor or a nurse place their fingers on a person’s brain to determine if the individual is dead or not. They always look for a pulse in the neck, the chest, or the left wrist, which has a vein that goes from a person’s ring finger to his/her heart.

As a final thought, we must ask what kind of advancement we have made thus far in stem-cell research. Have we really made such advancement in medicine and science that we must move forward in our pursuits? Based on what I have read and based on the individuals I have spoken to that work in the area of genetics research, the answer is no. That is not to say that there isn’t room to grow in it. It is also not to say that the possibilities aren’t endless in this area. They are amble. What we must consider though is the life – the embryo – that is affected through this process. Are there any other options in which we could advance scientifically?

In fact, there is: Chord blood research is another option in which we could advance. Chord blood comes from the placenta of a newborn baby. What is gained from this blood? Everything. In fact, the advancements that are possible through this method are astronomical. When science boasted in their ability to clone Dolly the sheep, they used the original sheep’s blood. No embryo sheep stem cell was used. Case and point: We do not need to advance in stem-cell research. We can use chord blood in order to create/clone new organs. There is no need to destroy embryos for this advancement. It’s just not needed.

I hope one day we can see people who are struggling with M.S. and other diseases healed through medical advancement. It’s a tall order to fill. I know my response is not popular, but I feel it is the best answer I can give given the information and research I have done thus far. I don’t claim to have all the answers of medicine. I am not a licensed medical professional. I am only an individual who researched and discussed this matter with those who engage in these conversations each and every day. To find out more about chord blood research, take a few moments and research it for yourself. There are several medical journals and reports online for free.

In the past two days, we’ve seen two pieces in the New York Times on religion. One by columnist Nick Kristof argues that we are seeing detente in the religion/atheism debates, moving away from the acrimonious, all-or-nothing approach from recent years and towards a softer, more diffuse, and less specific vision of spiritualism. The second is a straight news item reporting that voters in Switzerland voted to amend their constitution in order to prohibit the construction of minarets on mosques. The article hypothesizes that this recent ban is an indication of Switzerland’s becoming less tolerant and more skeptical of Muslim immigrants.

Looking at these two news stories, most people would notice contradictions. Which one is it? Is religious debate becoming more acrimonious, or are religious attitudes moderating? But if we look further, we notice that the Kristof piece and the news bulletin aren’t contradictory; rather, they are both indicative of the common trends in religious debate in the western world. Unfortunately, this trend is unambiguously bad for us.

First, the Kristof piece. I usually like his stuff, not necessarily because he ever comes up with something original to say, but because he puts the spotlight on issues that other media outlets tend to ignore. But this piece strikes me as the worst column Kristof has written in years. He criticizes “religious intolerance” and “irrelgious intolerance” with equal disdain, pointing to well-known atheist advocates Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris as well as the fundamentalist authors of the Left Behind novels as bomb-throwers who led an increasingly-acrimonious public debate about the existence of God starting several years ago. In contrast, Kristof praises the mushy-mouthed new group of ’spiritualists’ (like Robert Wright and Karen Armstrong) for moderating the debate focusing on positive aspects of belief.

This approach strikes me as entirely wrong. As a good friend pointed out to me, Wright’s argument (which Kristof quotes favorably) makes no sense. After documenting the moral growth of the character of God from Old Testament to New Testament and current perceptions, Wright says, “To the extent that ‘god’ grows, that is evidence — maybe not massive evidence, but some evidence — of higher purpose,” and the ultimate existence of a benevolent higher being. All due respect to Mr. Wright and Mr. Kristof, but that’s not true. The character of Harry Potter grows during the course of J. K. Rowling’s novels, but that isn’t evidence of Harry’s existence in the real world. It’s just evidence of good writing. Furthermore, shouldn’t God’s growth be a mark against the whole idea of God as a perfect, benevolent being? I mean, certainly mere human beings need to grow out of their Terrible Twos, but should we expect the same of an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good God?

The reason that Kristof and Wright and many other mushy-mouthed liberal theists fall into such silly arguments is that they don’t seem to take the concept of truth all that seriously. That’s how Kristof can endorse this silliness from Armstrong’s “The Case for God”:

Over the centuries people in all cultures discovered that by pushing their reasoning powers to the limit, stretching language to the end of its tether, and living as selflessly and compassionately as possible, they experienced a transcendence that enabled them to affirm their suffering with serenity and courage.

Comfort might be a nice side benefit to belief, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the accuracy of underlying beliefs. Most reasonable people could agree that it’s good for grieving humans to find comfort. But why give religion a pass on the specific truth claims it puts forward, any more than we give unicorns or the Tooth Fairy a pass? [Hat tip to Chris].

The trend that Kristof praises, and that I so evidently despise, is one away from issues of ultimate truth and towards a wishy-washy liberal ’spiritualism’. I agree with Kristof that this is a trend, but I can’t agree with him that it is positive. Truth matters. The conviction of belief matters. It is important to engage with these ultimate issues with ardor.

But neither am I happy to read the second news item from the Times, which reports that Swiss voters have recently banned the construction of new minarets in the country. It certainly seems like the 57.5% of Swiss that voted for the ban had the conviction of their beliefs and weren’t ready to opt for the mushy middle of spiritualism. But this action goes far beyond the realm of debate and actually impinges on religious practice in ways that I find completely unacceptable. Forget the silly notions that rightist Swiss leaders put forward during the campaign: disallowing minarets will do nothing to slow the growth of radical Islam, but it will piss off a large number of law-abiding, Westernized Muslims currently living in peace in the country. But more importantly, this law goes completely against the principle that people have the right to organize their lives as they see fit unless they are somehow harming others. If you think minarets are damaging, then I can’t see why steeples wouldn’t be, too.

Take together, these pieces show a disturbing trend. In the realm of actual belief, people are moving away from examining the actual validity of truth claims and towards a weak, colorless, and utterly-irrational spiritualism. In the realm of government action and regulation, however, it seems like we are becoming less tolerant and more willing to impose silly majoritarian preferences for visions of the good life.

This is dangerous. At the same time that we have increasingly unclear ideas about what to believe, we have a growing willingness to force other people to conform to our unexamined, unclear beliefs. Kristof would clearly favor unclear belief and no demand to conform. Others might want strict belief and strict practice. But I fall on the opposite spectrum of what we currently have. I’d favor robust debate about truth with a tolerant, small-L liberal vision of personal privacy and freedom. I don’t know why I have these preferences, but that’s a topic for another blog post.

Als ich mir neulich die Kirchenaustrittsstatistiken ansah, fiel mir folgendes auf: Seit Anfang der 1990er Jahre sind die Kirchenaustritte bis 2006 ziemlich kontinuierlich zurückgegangen. 2007 stiegen die Austrittszahlen dann wieder an (um ca. 9%), und 2008 schossen sie dann quasi noch einmal um weitere 25% in die Höhe. Wie ist das zu erklären?

Nun, 2007 könnte die Erhöhung der Mehrwertsteuer für manchen ein Anlass gewesen sein, aus der Kirche auszutreten, um wenigstens bei der Kirchensteuer zu sparen. Was aber erklärt den starken Anstieg in 2008? (2009 dürften die Austrittszahlen auf einem ähnlichen Niveau liegen, d.h. kein weiterer Anstieg.)

Die einzige Erklärung, die mir bisher dazu in den Sinn kam, ist der Umstand, dass Ende 2007 die Bücher der drei bekanntesten “Neuen Atheisten” auf den deutschen Markt kamen: Im September “Der Gotteswahn” von Richard Dawkins und “Das Ende des Glaubens” von Sam Harris, und im Oktober ”Der Herr ist kein Hirte” von Christopher Hitchens. Diesen wurde ja beachtliche Aufmerksamkeit zuteil, die sich u.a. in zahllosen “Gegen-Büchern”, aber auch Fernsehdiskussionen niederschlug, vom Internet ganz zu schweigen.

Papst Benedikt XVI. ist ja auch immer gut darin, Anlässe für Kirchenaustritte zu liefern, aber seine Entscheidung bzgl. der Pius-Brüder schlug erst dieses Jahr Wellen – also 2009.

Damit besteht meine einzige Erklärung für den deutlichen Anstieg der Kirchenaustritte ab 2008 in der Diskussion um die “Neuen Atheisten”. Damit meine ich nicht nur die Bücher, sondern natürlich auch die Diskussion darum, Internet-Aktivitäten, nicht zuletzt auch Arbeit der Giordano-Bruno-Stiftung. Es würde auch erklären, weshalb der “Hauptgegner” der Kirchen nunmehr der Atheismus zu sein scheint, während dieser noch vor zehn, zwanzig Jahren kaum beachtet wurde und stattdessen “Sekten” von den Kirchen als “Buhmann” aufgebaut wurden.

Kennt jemand eine andere Erklärung für den Anstieg der Kirchenaustritte in 2008?

University of Chicago atheist biologist Jerry Coyne, at his blog today, summed up Robert Wright’s recent piece in the New York Times this way:

The title of Wright’s piece is “Who created Major Hasan?”, and of course the answer is “America!”

Coyne then went on to attribute to Wright a rather base motive for his lack of patriotism: he wants to win a religious prize! Coyne also got in a Sean Hannity-like swipe at Islam as well:

This is all part and parcel of Wright’s apparent bid for the Templeton Prize, most recently displayed in The Evolution of God. Well, I’m not in favor of stereotyping individual Muslims, but as for Islam, well, it does seem to be an intrinsically belligerent religion.

And if there is any danger of Coyne being unclear, he also said:

Wright explicitly blames American belligerence against Islam as the force producing the Fort Hood shooting spree by Major Nidal Hasan.

Wright’s piece is being wildly misread and given a misleading spin. I’d ask fair-minded readers to actually look at what Wright said in his essay here. Wright does not say in any way, shape, or form that Maj. Hasan is America’s “fault.” Wright is making a sociological and media observation. He is not evaluating America’s essential “goodness” or “badness” with regard to foreign policy. He is not saying that America produced Maj. Hasan.

What then, is Wright saying? It’s simply this: Living in an Internet age means that fundamentalists can magnify emotional responses to military occupations, provoking unbalanced people to rogue violence and acts of terrorism.

Barack Obama’s potential assassination is the proper analogy. Barack Obama occupies the White House (as America occupies Iraq and Afghanistan). Does it screw up moderate and liberal white Christians for Obama to occupy the White House? No. But there is a whole Fox media-Internet subculture of “patriot fundamentalists” for whom occupation of the White House by a black man makes them crazy, and if Obama is assassinated it will probably come from someone steeped in this fundamentalist Internet subcultural. Occupation is a psychologically freighted condition in which people make parental projections (the motherland, the mother religion, the father’s house) and unbalanced people can become violent when their psychosexual boundaries are broached.

It appears that Hasan is one of those people on the fundamentalist Muslim side who cracked. That’s all Wright is saying: fundamentalism in the Internet age spreads malignant viral memes very effectively, and emotionally poisons unbalanced people. And it’s one of the things that Americans have to take into account when deciding what to do about the fact that they occupy two Muslim countries: Iraq and Afghanistan.

What Coyne doesn’t like is Wright’s prescription: If America is going to continue to occupy two Islamic countries, then Americans need to be careful not to conflate Islam generally with fundamentalist Islam in particular (just as, if Obama were assassinated, we would be careful not to equate moderate Christianity or soft patriotism with the fundamentalist brands of Christianity and patriotism that might fuel an assassin).

Here’s the salient passage from Wright’s piece (and that Coyne failed to quote):

One reason killing terrorists can spread terrorism is that various technologies — notably the Internet and increasingly pervasive video — help emotionally powerful messages reach receptive audiences. When American wars kill lots of Muslims, inevitably including some civilians, incendiary images magically find their way to the people who will be most inflamed by them. This calls into question our nearly obsessive focus on Al Qaeda — the deployment of whole armies to uproot the organization and to finally harpoon America’s white whale, Osama bin Laden. If you’re a Muslim teetering toward radicalism and you have a modem, it doesn’t take Mr. bin Laden to push you over the edge. All it takes is selected battlefield footage and a little ad hoc encouragement: a jihadist chat group here, a radical imam there — whether in your local mosque or on a Web site in your local computer.

Globebloggers Johnny Kaje and Anson Burlingame have had a dispute over the issue of “faith is crap,” culminating in Anson blogging about it and Kaje writing a humorous piece about her trip to Springfield to the Skepticon II event.

All of which has made me think about one of the most bizarre beliefs in the fundamentalist world.  There are some weird and disturbing interpretations of the Bible, and then there is the doctrine of the Rapture.

For those of you out of tune with modern fundamentalism and evangelicalism, here is the Rapture in one sentence:  At some point in the future—usually in “our lifetime“—Jesus is going to return to the Earth to “gather” his born-again followers, who will be “taken up” into the air to be with him, leaving everyone else to fend for themselves in the dark days ahead, which Christians call the Tribulation.

Now, as bizarre as this seems, apparently more than 40% of all Americans believe in some version of it.  I don’t mean they believe in Jesus’ return in general (most Christians so believe), but in the specific idea of the Rapture, the one in which a car on I-44, full of people, could have its driver raptured into heavenly bliss while its other, less saintly passengers, would end up smashed against an oncoming big rig, the driver of which was also the recipient of a ticket to ride. 

So, what does this have to do with politics?  Well, I have suggested that some Republican candidates, like Mike Huckabee for instance, sometimes appear to be unable to make a distinction between American foreign policy and Israeli foreign policy, as when the Huckster visited Israel recently and criticized Obama’s position on Jewish settlements in occupied territory.

Since Huckabee is a born-again Christian who believes in the Bible as the Word of God, his biblical views obviously have some impact on his political views and thus on his political decisions, particularly involving the Middle East.  And so do the biblical views of millions upon millions of other Americans.

As Sam Harris put it:

It really is not an exaggeration to say that some significant percentage of the American electorate, which if they turned on their television today and saw that a mushroom cloud had replaced Jerusalem, they would see a silver lining in that cloud.  In so far as people like that elect our presidents and congressmen and in so far as they get elected as presidents and congressmen, that’s a terribly dangerous state of affairs.

Dangerous, indeed. 

Just to remind you of how dangerous, here is a clip of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson—just two days after 9/11—discussing their religious view of America—again, one with which many Americans concur:

Now, that is why these bizarre beliefs must be challenged and ridiculed. 

Faith in a “higher being” is one thing, but specific beliefs that lead to the kind of reasoning employed by wildly popular evangelists like the late Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson is another.

UPDATE: 

Fox 31 TV in Denver posted a story on yet another right-wing Christian, this time a car dealer just outside of Denver, in Wheat Ridge, Colorado, who posted this billboard:  

A reporter for Fox 31 interviewed the car dealer:

“Since Fort Hood, I’ve had it,” owner Phil West* told FOX 31 News Friday. “You can’t suggest things. You can’t profile. You gotta call a spade a spade.”

“Everything I have read about Mr. Obama points right to the fact that he is a Muslim. And that is the agenda of what Muslim is all about. It’s about anti-American, it’s about anti-Christianity,” West said.

As I said, there are political implications of bizarre religious beliefs.  In fact, I’m surprised John Putnam, local birther, born-again Christian, and Captain of the Jasper County Morality Police, hasn’t erected such a sign on I-44.

*I believe the gentleman’s name is Phil Wolf.

Mom, dad I don’t have an imaginary friend like you.
It’s so strange how people get crazy over this.. does it perhaps show what people think about their god; Ohh no,the master of the universe is going to torture my baby forever.. SON//DAUGHTER YOU BETTER LISTEN… then they cover the real reason for their anger/fear with: No xmas presents for you, or cast them out.
Or: Ohh no my baby is going to ruin my ticket to hevn, no luxury for me.. I will be tortured forever.. Fuck; Listen to me kid, you better have the same imaginary friend as me or ELSE BANG BANG; Hey gawd, look at me, I took care of business..hold on to my ticket to hevn.

Bonus

Sam Harris’ asserted, “One of the most pernicious effects of religion is that it tends to divorce morality from the reality of human and animal suffering.” In my first post, I spent approximately 1500 words in response to this one statement. Building from my previous post, I will attempt to respond to the three examples given by Sam Harris to support his thesis. Sam Harris states, “This is explains why Christians like you spend more “moral” energy opposing abortion than fighting genocide.” I will first discuss the realities of abortion and genocide and conclude with the issues of morality.

The Reality of Abortion:

This is reality: Every 21.6 seconds another baby is aborted in the United States. This averages 4,000 babies a day. In an article written by Wm. Robert Johnston, the statistics regarding reasons given for obtaining abortions in the United States were tabulated and assessed. Johnston and his team share their findings: “In cases of rape or incest, 0.3%; in cases of risk to maternal health or life, 1%; and in cases to fetal abnormality, 0.5%. About 98% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control. This includes perhaps 30% for primarily economic reasons” (emphasis mine).

Harris writes, “Your principle concern appears to be that the creator of the universe will take offense at something people do while naked” (pg. 26). There are many Christians who attempt to pressure non-believers into following the commandments of God. How can any Christian expect a non-believer to follow Christian values or beliefs? It is impossible. So where does my principle concern rest? It rests in the above statistics given by Wm. Robert Johnston. My principle concern rests in knowing that approximately “98% of all abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control.” My principle concern is for that 98%. Harris wants to state that Christians divorce morality and the reality of animal and human suffering yet 98% of abortions have nothing to do with rape, incest, risk to maternal health, or fetal abnormality – human suffering. Does anyone else not see the fallacy in this?

The Reality of Genocide:

This is the reality: 6 million (the amount of people estimated to have been killed in Nazi Germany during WWII); 200,000-340,000 (The amount of Serbians estimated to have been killed during WWII by the Yugoslavian government); 1.7 million (number of Cambodians estimated to have been murdered under the reign of Khmer Rouge from 1975 – 1979); and 2 million (the number of people who been forced to flee their homes in Darfur, and Sudan). I cannot believe an intelligent country made up of intelligent people would be able to look at these numbers – these very real numbers – and not care about the individuals they represent. Even though there is a great disconnect from the United States and Darfur, it is within our human nature to respond to such heinous crimes. The Bible has much to say about such things as well. “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image” (Genesis 9: 6).

I believe Christians should be more active in responding to such tragedies. Though, I would also say it isn’t only our (Christians) responsibility to respond. We must all take responsibility for such issues/concerns. Being a Christian does not mean we have to carry the world’s burdens on our shoulders. We can’t. We must do our part, as should everyone. It isn’t a religion response – it is an individual response that must be shared upon all of us. Failure to see it that way will result in a lot of people pointing fingers without any hope, or any change. I’d like to ask Harris what work or efforts he contributes do regarding this issue. Has he been to a Darfur march? Has he promoted an Invisible Children campaign in his community? I don’t know. I don’t know how he spends his time or invests his efforts. Be assured though – if he is only going to write about it, yet do nothing or show forth his personal efforts regarding the atrocity of genocide, I find it fair to say that Sam Harris is a hypocrite, which probably wouldn’t matter much to him because he’s an atheist. Seems as though Dr. Harris is actually divorcing reality and morality more than most Christians I have come to know. That’s just a personal opinion though.

In closing, I find the issues of abortion and genocide to have no real connective tissue. They are two different issues. Actually, I take that back. They are connected in one way: Both issues deal with people being killed by other people who are selfish; who do not care about human life; who care more about their own intentions and motivations; who care only about their personal gain and having power over other human life. When it comes to the issue of life and death, we should fight for life at all costs. We should fight against the powers or individuals that seek to kill and destroy life for their own agendas or personal gain. I can’t see how anyone would disagree with that.

Last night a friend of our family was at our home and told about how they quit praying because it did not seem to do any good. This person would fervently lobby God, but each time the request would fall on deaf ears. This person was notably discouraged by this lack of response and therefore made the decision that prayer did not work.

Though I held my tongue at the time, I wanted to give her a hearty amen.

I haven’t been a real believer in the supposed power of prayer for quite some time and I must admit cringing a bit when others see fit to invoke it. This doubt is not the product of some selfish want that God didn’t fulfill, it’s not because God didn’t rain money from heaven like Joel Osteen or those of his ilk might claim, rather, it is the product of much time and thought and study.

First of all, I think the idea of successful intercessory prayer comes from a skewed or perhaps even nonexistent understanding of statistical probability. When one realizes that improbable does not equal impossible, the idea of a “miraculous” recovery takes on a much more realistic bend. Just because the chance of an event’s success is at the far end of the bell curve does not mean it cannot happen without divine help. Ask as atheist who survived an improbable health scare or the family of a believer who died and maybe that will put it in perspective. It does seem a bit arbitrary when you consider who makes it and who doesn’t. There was a recent study released on the phenomena of intercessory prayer and you can read about that here.

I wonder why people only pray for things within the realm of probability. Recovery from cancer is possible. In his debate with Rick Warren, atheist Sam Harris puts it this way:

You could prove to the satisfaction of every scientist that intercessory prayer works if you set up a simple experiment. Get a billion Christians to pray for a single amputee. Get them to pray that God regrow that missing limb. This happens to salamanders every day, presumably without prayer, so this is within the capacity of God. I find it interesting that people of faith only tend to pray for conditions that are self-limiting.

Thus you begin to wonder if Christians even believe in the power of prayer.

Now, this does not mean that prayer is not a useful tool. I feel quite certain that the peace of mind provided by having loved ones pray over you or by offering up your own prayer can be a great aid in recovery. While this may not be supernatural and is certainly not a gift solely relegated to Christianity, the belief that one will recover can go a long way. I imagine the psychological benefits are great for both those who receive and say prayers.

On another note, I often wonder if some prayers (not ones for physical recovery) stem from little more than laziness on the part of Christians. We can pray for God to feed the hungry and take care of those in need, but if we are not willing to get out in the world and actually work to make it a better place, what does that say of us?

Again, this is not to discourage anyone from praying or to say that I never will (I do). Instead, I’m just thinking some things through and wanting to put them in perspective.

And an interesting match up. Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris v. Robert Wright, Dinesh D’Souza, and a rabbi, Shmuley Boteach:

It’s already half way through November and I’m only just getting around to writing about October’s books – let’s hope I can spin a full post from my half-arsed notes.  As always, all my books are kept in chronological order, I then alternately read the book I’ve had longest (marked B.H.L.), followed by a free choice (F.C.).  For a full description of my insane book selection rules, please click here.

Books Read

I started the month by reading Street Magic (B.H.L.) by Paul Zenon.  I bought it a few years ago, probably from Borders, because I suddenly got it in to my head that it would be a good thing to be able to do a few magic tricks.  Please don’t ask me where this spurious thought came from as I don’t have a clue.  Anyway, I did read some of it at the time but it all seemed a bit like hard work, and, not being afraid to give up when something proves tricky, it found its way to my To Be Read pile.

As I started my second reading of the book I soon remembered my original sticking point: palming.   Not wanting to divulge too many magician’s secrets, this is the skill of concealing a coin in your hand.  And I just couldn’t do it.  I did practice, but, although I could have practised more,  I didn’t feel myself getting any better at it, and so I wondered if I was missing something fundamental.  Anyway, this time I decided just to read it through and see what happened.

There is actually a variety of impressive tricks within the book and it soon became apparent to me that it’s not enough to know the secrets of a magic trick; in order to pull it off you need equal measures of expertise and performance.  Far from spoiling my enjoyment of the art of illusion, reading this book actually increased my respect for its practitioners.

Next up came Archangel (F.C.) by Robert Harris.  This was a random purchase from the British Heart Foundation shop because I’d read, and enjoyed, Fatherland, Harris’ first novel.  This book has the distinction of being the first ever F.C. that has also been the B.H.L., for whatever that’s worth.  It’s an end-of-the-cold-war thriller that charts an academic’s quest to locate an old notebook of Stalin’s.  It’s one of those strange stories in which nothing really seems to happen and yet it is still somehow quite gripping.  It was a fun read but I don’t really have much more to say on it.

It’s another random British Heart Foundation buy next with The Man in the High Castle (B.H.L.) by Philp K. Dick, which I bought because I was interested to read a Philip K. Dick novel.  It was a great choice and I was hooked from the minute I started readig; it was the kind of book that makes you remember why you love reading so much.

It’s an alternate history novel set in an America following a Second World War which was won by Germany and Japan.  The Axis powers have carved the globe up between them, and this includes North America – the east coast belongs to Japan and the west to Germany.  This kind of premise could have carried out very heavy handedly, but Dick shows an incredibly subtle touch.  We see this unfamiliar world through the eyes of ordinary people and so the horrors perpetrated by the Nazis are only ever discussed third hand.  This makes them seem only more sinister.

In addition to this is a whole subtext about the nature of reality.  Many of the characters are reading a novel-within-a-novel called The Grasshopper Lies Heavy, which is in itself an alternative history in which the Allies won the war – which is a reality subtly but significantly different to our own.  There are moments in the story when one reality appears to blend in to another, but it is done in a way that you are unsure as to whether it happened or not.  What is true and what is false? There are no answers here but the questions are certainly interesting.

I first heard of The End of Faith (F.C.) by Sam Harris a few years ago, primarily because he is a pal of Richard Dawkins, and that is always a good recommendation.  It’s a devastating attack not only on religion but on the nature of faith itself.  To be fair, and pardon the pun, he is already preaching to the converted, so luckily there was even more food for thought.  For example, he poses the question as to whether torture be ethical, and asks if pacifism is immoral.  It’s a very well written, intelligent book, but towards the end he lost me a bit with his thoughts on spirituality as they, superficially at least, seem to conflict with his otherwise rational arguments.  It’s pretty brave of him to go down that road though.  A further, petty criticism is the amount of end notes – I didn’t know whether to skip them or not.

My final book of the month was the rather unusual choice of Buying and Running a Florist Shop (B.H.L.) by Alan Peck.  You’d be forgiven for thinking that it was a wacky women’s novel, but it is actually a manual on buying and running a florists shop.  In case you’re wondering, I didn’t buy the book and I won’t bore you with the details on how I came to own such a book.  Strangely, I actually found it to be an enjoyable read. It’s a slim, straightforward volume that gives an insight in to what it must be like to run a small business.  The main thing I took from it is that when you consider the low pay, long hours and undue pressure, being a florist is a thankless task.  I suggest you go out and buy a florist some flowers today.

Books Acquired

The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie by Muriel Spark – Bookmooch – This had been on my ‘wish list’ for years.  I think I remember seeing a programme about it as part of the BBC’s Big Read, but I cannot remember anything about why this made me want to read it.

Moving Pictures by Terry Pratchett – Salvation Army shop – I decided a while ago to start reading the Discworld novels and then, fortuitously, someone at work gave me a load of them.  Sadly, there were omissions and so any books that are not contiguous in the serial are not on my official TBR pile.  This was one of the missing and so I was very glad to see it.  It was 50p.

Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad – Salvation Army shop - It was slim, I’d heard of it and it was 50p.  Why wouldn’t I buy it?

Books Given Away on Bookmooch

How the Mind Works by Steven Pinker – I bought this from the British Heart Foundation even though I knew that there was a good chance that I already had it.  It’s the kind of book that you don’t see all that often in a charity shop, so I bought it anyway.  Of course, I already had it at home sat in my TBR pile.  It’s a weird feeling to give away a book that I haven’t read yet.

Result

Books Read 5 – Books Acquired 3, result – A WIN!!!!!

I never thought I’d see the day that I’d record a win in Reading Habits, so it’s champagne all around (if you happen to be in my house as I type this).  Everything is looking rosy – except that we’re already half-way through the current month and I know it’s going to take a miracle for it not to be a big loss.  Fingers crossed.