The Bible, whatever it’s other flaws or virtues, is undeniably an impressive compendium of entertaining stories. Of course, it can be tough slogging to read the whole thing from start to finish, suffused as it is with miscellaneous begats and exhortations against the eating of shellfish.
Fortunately, you can now get your Bible stories in easily-digestible comic form, from Holy Bibble. Cannan and Lucas have set themselves the task of rewriting the entire bible as humorous sequential art. Admittedly, some poetic license is occasionally taken with the material — I’m pretty sure there was no trip to Japan in the original Scriptures. But all of the stories are based on real Bible narratives, and you do learn a lot by reading them.
For example, we’ve all heard the story of Lot and his wife. Yahweh had decided to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for their various sinful activities. Lot, being virtuous, was given advance warning, and fled with his wife and two daughters. But his wife couldn’t resist looking back one last time, and was turned into a pillar of salt. God works in mysterious ways.
But the afterstory is so much more interesting. Lot and his daughters apparently thought they were completely alone, and there was some question as to how the family line would be able to continue. The women decided to take matters into their own hands — they got their father drunk and raped him in order to get themselves pregnant. The scheme worked, and they eventually gave birth to sons who fathered the Moabites and the Ammonites, two rival tribes to Israel.
The unwitting seductions actually happened on two successive nights, so one may question whether Lot shouldn’t have figured out what was going on. On the other hand, his daughters may have had some issues, as Lot had previously offered them up to a rampaging mob of Sodomites. At least, that’s what I gather from the comics; but apparently it’s all in the book.
Cain’s trip to Japan, though — pretty sure they made that up.
Update: David Plotz at Slate blogs the Bible!
PK: The subject of the “Dark Ages” is dealt in How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, along with works by other scholars. These are people who are trying debunk many of these old myths, by doing some good scholarship, not people with some sort of agenda to manipulate the facts in order to convey something false.
It’s summertime! Let’s read more books! Yay!
Belizean – I will partially retract from my overly harsh statement on Christianity. However, I am not entirely convinced that Christianity has – across the cultural spectrum – contributed to the overall good of Western Civilization.
“Why? Because you said so? How do you know that we won’t find one?”
Because “scientific laws” only have meaning when there’s an already existing universe. If there is no universe, in what sense can science provide an explanation for its existence? So it’s impossible to explain the origin of the universe from within the universe. I’m not sure if that would logically imply the existence of what we would call a God. But I think it’s very conVINCEing (ha ha ha…). How else would you account for the universe’s existence? If we somehow, someway, find out that the universe had always existed, it doesn’t mean that it exists necessarily. Thomas Aquinas has written tons about this stuff. So very cool! It just makes my mouth water!
I’m hungry. Time for dinner.
Cynthia: Then what has contributed to the overall good of Western Civilization. Is Western Civilization good? Why, or why not. If it is good, then where did this goodness come from? Who or what supplied it?
Vince: I believe both branches of culture – the arts/humanities as well as science/mathematics – have contributed to the overall good of Western Civilization. But I do not believe that Christianity is without flaw or has exclusively contributed to Western Goodness.
Certainly not! It’s so flawed I don’t know where to begin with…
Great literature also contributes a great deal to Western Civilization. Shakespeare, for example, is quite wonderful, and you don’t find people taking issue with his works. The difference is that nobody is misguided enough to think that they are actually true.
No atheist has any more of a problem with religion as culture than they do with the fact that lots of people seem to like John Tesh. Things would change, however, if people thought it was a good idea to base serious decisions about society on his lyrics.
No atheist has any more of a problem with religion as culture than they do with the fact that lots of people seem to like John Tesh.
Of course, the latter is absolutely horrifying!
True, but just not dangerous 🙂
Mark, that raises the interesting and important question: whose lyrics are current important decisions based on?
(my feeling is, whatever the answer is Tesh would probably be an improvement).
Incidentally, just found out that Vijay’s was rated by the NY Times as one of the 3 best Indian restaurants in north America, that is probably exaggerated…
I thought the food there was terrific moshe (thanks for treating me to it!). I’ve only been to two others in North America that compare. One in NYC and the other, which I actually think is the best I’ve had in North America, in Montreal.
As for current policy, I believe you have to play Tesh backwards to get it.
I suppose #23 was in a humorous vein when talking about the old saws of Oriental Despotism, and the start of trade and so on.
In case he is serious about the origin of trade:
The original and most enduring source of Western power in Asia has been the capacity of Western states to disrupt the complex organization that linked Asian societies to one another within and across jurisdictional and civilizational divides. This capacity has been rooted in Western advances in military technology on the one side, and in the vulnerability of Asian societies to the military disruption of their mutual trade on the other side. Writing in 1688 during the war against the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb, Sir Josiah Child, director of the East India Company and instigator of the war, captured the essence of this relationship. “The subjects of the Mogul,” he noted, “cannot bear a war with the English for twelve months together, without starving and dying by the thousands for want of work to purchase rice; not singly for want of our trade, but because by our war, we obstruct their trade with all the Eastern nations which is ten times as much as ours and all the European nations put together” (quoted in Watson 197x, 348-5).
from:
Beyond Western Hegemonies
G. Arrighi, I. Ahmad and M. Shih
http://www.binghamton.edu/fbc/gaht5.htm
“I believe both branches of culture – the arts/humanities as well as science/mathematics – have contributed to the overall good of Western Civilization.”
Good. I believe (in fact, I know) Christianity has contributed much to those two branches.
“But I do not believe that Christianity is without flaw or has exclusively contributed to Western Goodness.”
It depends on what you mean by “Christianity is without flaw”. Certainly, Christians are not without flaw, but if one is a believing Christian, he/she believes that the fundamental principles of Christianity are true, and that religions which deny the truth of those principles are false to that extent.
Perhaps Christianity hasn’t exclusively contributed to Western Goodness, but I think a good case can be made that much of this Goodness is due to Christianity.
Tim says:
“Don’t diss religion.”
Why? I’m sure religious persons may think of atheism as much as a fully mistaken and immoral system that atheists may think of religions and their actions. We must tolerate but must not respect each other.
“A universe which has always existed, is a universe without a scientific explanation.”
It is meaningless to ask science for explanations, it describes. However, here it also meaningless to ask for an explanation at all since either factual answer (existence or not) is good in itself. Furthermore, asking the question seems to me to be confused by an observer effect. If so, asking is not only meaningless but wrong.
Belizean says:
“You cannot expect any civilization to survive, if you destroy its ancestral religion without simultaneously introducing a secular alternative that is at least as effective in restraining inborn impulses.”
Have you ever heard of morals? That is something all people have, whether they are religious or not. That this is so makes me less scared than I could be when people suggest that their religion is the only thing that keeps them moral.
Most moral concepts have been highjacked by religions during history. That doesn’t mean that they are owned by religions. In fact, as Cynthia says, there are much history that says one can be suspect about religions claim of morality.
Finally, it is far easier to work with moral relativism.
Christianity submerged Western Civilization into the Dark Age. Subsequently, art and science lifted Western Civilization out of this Dark Age into the Renaissance.
And here I was all this time thinking the Roman Empire collapsed initiating the so-called Dark Age(s).
The scientific method stems directly from the ancient Greek tradition and was merely tolerated by Christianity. The Greek tradition came to a (temporary) halt with the collapse of the Roman Empire, after which Western Europe was firmly in the clutches of Christianity. With the renaissance (of Greek and Roman culture, that is) Christianity started losing ground, and the scientific method came into bloom.
Hence my earlier, slightly provocative statement. 🙂
I meant “Europe” of course, not just “Western Europe”.
PK: I would like to build upon your insightful comments. Firstly, 18th century Enlightenment was primarily a secular movement. For example, American Revolutionaries along with the American Declaration of Independence was inspired by the English philosopher John Locke. Furthermore, Modern Capitalism was spearheaded by the Scottish philosophers/economists, David Hume and John Smith. Undoubtedly, Democracy is pagan in origin; Democracy emerged from the Athenian State of Ancient Greece. In conclusion, Christianity is nowhere in this enlightened picture of western humanity.
This blog has become so far removed from Physics that I am
removing it from my favourites.
Anonymous says:
This blog has become so far removed from Physics that I am removing it from my favourites.
Oh no! I’m sure the folks at CV will be reeling from that blow for weeks.
A large scale civilization could not long survive or even come into existence without great uniformity in morals, any more than it could survive without great uniformity in language. Were its citizens truly independent in choosing personal morals, the extensive system of interactions and tacit contracts upon which civilization depends — which assumes a background moral uniformity — would break down. The means through which the required uniformity is established and maintained is called “religion”.
Torbjörn Larsson,
When irreligious people speak of devising their own personal morality, they do not realized that they are so steeped in the moral traditions laid down by their civilization’s ancestral religion, that they cannot normally bring themselves to deviate from it in any substantive way. Murder and theft are perfectly rational, completely natural, and, when performed intelligently, without personal detriment. Yet few secular moralists have developed an intellectual framework that brings them to advocate, even privately, murder and theft for personal gain. In short, the personal morals of the irreligious are almost certainly just slight variations on religiously determined civilizational norms. Their morals are as independently determined as their language, their mode of dress, the food they eat, or their table manners.
Like it or not, within our civilization (and all others) religion and its moral traditions are restraining the behavior of millions of people including you. You wouldn’t want it any other way. Just remember what happened the last time the views of secular moralists, who failed to respect religiously established moral traditions, were taken seriously (by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, for example).
Trust me when I tell you that you wouldn’t want to live in our society, if true moral relativism were to take root. There wouldn’t be enough policemen to even begin to restore order or enough morticians to bury the dead.
Belizean says:
“When irreligious people speak of devising their own personal morality, they do not realized that they are so steeped in the moral traditions laid down by their civilization’s ancestral religion, that they cannot normally bring themselves to deviate from it in any substantive way.”
I’m going to quote an interview with Sam Harris that I just read, that happened to describe what is going on here:
“The [sacred texts] themselves are very poor guides to morality. The only way you find goodness in good books is because you recognize it. They’re based on your own ethical intuitions.”
“All we have is human conversation to do this with. Either you can be held hostage by the human conversation that occurred 2,000 years ago and has been enshrined in these books, or you can be open to the human conversation of the 21st century. And if there’s something good in those books, then it is admissible in the 21st century conversation on morality.”
In summary, we need less religion and more morals. Morals are found by interacting with people.
“Just remember what happened the last time the views of secular moralists, who failed to respect religiously established moral traditions, were taken seriously (by Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, for example).”
Please! All three of these people were proponents of political/religious belief systems that constrained their actions. They weren’t secular moralists. But by conforming to the criteria of Godwin’s Law you have just lost this debate.
“Trust me when I tell you that you wouldn’t want to live in our society, if true moral relativism were to take root. There wouldn’t be enough policemen to even begin to restore order or enough morticians to bury the dead.”
I don’t trust you. In fact, I find it somewhat disrespectful the way you describe moral relativism, your expectations of it and your way of presenting this point to me. The first two things are okey, you don’t need to respect, only tolerate, my views and that I have another belief in what morals are and how they work best. However, I am sorry that your sense of morals wont insist on that you don’t just tolerate me as a person but respect me. Alas, perhaps you prove my point.
Quark,
No. Learning and ingenuity has been present in other cultures. Rationalism in its philosophic sense — the idea that the bulk of reality is fully intelligible to the human mind — is an aberration unique to the West traceable to Thales of Miletus. The idea that our puny minds can discover and grasp the deep secrets of existence has been regard by all other cultures as the height of childish arrogance.
Noel,
No. The existence of a supernatural authority does not automatically result in human compliance with the system of ethics that the authority endorses. My assumption is simply that what we call ethical behavior is unnatural (as is, for example, brushing one’s teeth). Consequently, large populations cannot be induced to adhere, generation after generation, to particular ethical rules without the system of mass ethical education and reinforcement that we call religion. This system need not require supernatural assumptions.
PK,
Yes. Western Rationalism was inherited from the Greeks. And yes, was it was merely tolerated by Christianity (unlike the intolerant oriental religions). What you fail to realize is that Greco-Roman civilization was technologically stalled because it lacked one ingredient due to Christianity — the idea of equality. Greco-Roman intellectuals regarded work — even scientific work — as being beneath them. Galen, for example, had his slaves perform actual surgical explorations. Aristotle never lowered himself to verify whether his pronouncement that women have fewer teeth than men was in fact true.
With the rise of Christian egalitarianism, the moral distinction between nobles, peasants, and slaves weakened to the point that learned men felt justified in getting their hands dirty. Without this medieval union of hand and mind and the subsequent death of the idea that work is only for menials, we might not have seen such inventions as the stirrup, the mechanical clock, the three field system, the cannon, the hour glass, the lateen sail, the book, the compass, advanced windmills, the gun, the horse shoe, the water wheel, eye glasses, or the printing press.
Torbjörn Larsson,
One’s ethical intuitions do not form in a vacuum. They result from having internalized the moral traditions of one’s society established and maintained by its dominant religion. A Greek aristocrat of the 12th century B.C., for example, would have considered it utterly immoral not to murder the man who killed his father, raped his wife, or affronted his honor. The ethical intuitions of many conservative Muslims in 21st century Jordan have compelled them to murder their daughters after they date Christian men. Other Muslims find it intuitively obvious that they should murder and maim women and children, while, curiously, Hindus, Buddhists, and Christians don’t share this view.
By all means have your conversation. Suppose that you finally arrive, thereby, at a satisfactory system of morals. If you confine your system to your personal morality and act on it, you will be killed or imprisoned if that morality differs substantively from the norms of your society. If you attempt to spread your system into the society at large, you will find that this is impossible to accomplish without a religion to transmit it to present and future generations. You will soon discover that publishing your brilliant idea in The Journal of Moral Philosophy or even writing a popular book will do little to instill your views in the developing minds of children or to reinforce them in adults who had read your book years earlier. Such moral education and reinforcement is the essence of religion, be it secular or mystical.
Never claimed that they were. They took seriously the ideas of secular moralists — Nietzsche in the case of Hitler, Marx in the case of the others.
Look, Torby Baby — you don’t mind if I call you Torby Baby do you? — you go right ahead and form a community of literal ethical relativists. None of this pseudo relativism, where some people have premarital sex and others don’t, but somehow everyone magically agrees that murder, rape, and theft are all wrong. I mean the real thing. [Don’t let the fact that no such society has ever existed in human history deter you.] You let me know how things work out in Relativityville. I’ll be happy to continue this discussion, after you get back to me.