Jesus, Interrupted by Bart Ehrman

The 4 Gospels are anonymous - the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were attached to the books by the early Church.

Of the 13 Pauline Epistles, 6 of them are thought to be forged.

We do not have any of the original manuscripts of the New Testaments - what we have are copies of copies of copies made much later (decades after Jesus' death).

Mark, Luke and John's portrayal of Jesus are very different from one another, each making different theological points, and cannot be reconciled.

These are just 4 summary points explained in detail in Bart D Ehrman's book Jesus, Interrupted. The book goes into what scholars know about textual variants and authors of the New Testament, how the Bible was put together, the radically different forms of early Christianity, the birth of antisemitism and Christian doctrines.

I think that any Christians who still give a damn about the Bible should read this book for starters.

There are 8 chapters:

1. A Historical Assault of Faith
2. A World of Contradictions
3. A Mass of Variant Views
4. Who Wrote the Bible?
5. Liar, Lunatic or Lord? Finding the Historical Jesus
6. How We Got the Bible
7. Who Invented Christianity?
8. Is Faith Possible?

The book is an excellent read - very interesting and informative. I would also highly recommend the audio book version for people who don't want to read books.

It's not really real (A History of God)

I have recently acquired A History of God by Karen Armstrong. It was an educational but nonetheless painful read.

A History of God is about the singular God of the three Abrahamic faiths - Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It is mainly about the how the theologies of the 3 religions changed through history. The book then ends on the note that the 3 religions must evolve new theologies to survive the current "empirical age".

I said that reading the book was painful because it really is quite heart wrenching to see human beings literally making shit up as they go (and that is pretty much what evolving new theologies mean). Yes, I am speaking as a person living in the "empirical age" but I think my "bias" is well justified. The ramifications of empiricism is much further than what Karen Armstrong seems to imply.

Karen Armstrong stressed repeatedly throughout the book that the stories about God (in the holy books or theologies conjured by religious thinkers through the ages) are never meant to be taken literally. Apparently, previous religious thinkers understood that. Karen goes so far as to say that God is not be understood as part of objective reality - God is "known" through subjective experience. Be it rationalistic, philosophically inclined school of thought or full on mysticism, God has always been thought to be incomprehensible or indescribable at least to some extent.

Right of the bat, she says the following.

A History of God, Page 5
Despite its other-worldliness, religion is highly pragmatic. We hall see that it is far more important for a particular idea of God to work than for it to be logically or scientifically sound. As soon as it ceases to be effective it will be changed - sometimes for something radically different. This did not disturb most monotheists before our own day because they were quite clear that their ideas about God were not sacrosanct but could only be provisional. They were man-made -- they could be nothing else - and quite separate from the indescribable Reality they symbolised

And indeed, through the book, the religious figures through history is said to create their own interpretations that were emphasized to be not rational, logical or scientifically accurate. For example, we have a statement like this:

A History of God, Page 76
For the first time, the Israelites became seriously interested in Yahweh's role in creation, perhaps because of renewed contact with the cosmological myths of Babylon. They were not, of course, attempting a scientific account of the physical origins of the universe but were trying to find comfort in the harsh world of the present.

That theme will ring throughout the book. So, literalists out there, you guys are just freaking wrong according to history.

Karen seems to think that a God that is not objective reality but known through subjective, religious experiences somehow solves the problem. And if I understood the underlying theme of the book, it seems to be saying that we just need to imagine a new theology like we've always done in the past. Is that what she really meant?

God is not real, he's just in your head - and that's a good thing? For the religious populace, that would turn everything they claim about their God on its head. As far as I'm concerned, if you enjoy such acts of mental masturbation, go ahead - just don't impose it on people.

Richard Dawkins on his latest book

Here's a nice short video of an interview with Richard Dawkins on his latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth.

I just did a search and found out that the book is now sold in Singapore. I am SO going to Konikuniya later to get it!

The Greatest Show on Earth

Richard Dawkins' new book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, will be out soon!

I am unsure of the exact date it would be on sale in Singapore though. But I await with anticipation. This is the kind of book that I have been waiting for.

Your Inner Fish

Your Inner Fish
by Neil Shubin.

I got this book like 2 weeks ago but I haven't finished it yet because I'm slacking wayyy too much. Eeek.

In case, you didn't know: Neil Shubin and his team discovered the fossils of Tiktaalik in 2006. Tiktaalik represents an important transition from fish to the early tetrapods. To learn more about Tiktaalik, check out Wikipedia for some general information.

In the first chapter, Neil describes how the expedition was planned and how it went. Using the theory of evolution amongst other evidence that were previously unearthed, the team predicted the location, age and type of the rocks where the transitional forms from fish to tetrapod could be found.

Chapter 1: Finding your inner fish (pg.10)
...there is strong geological evidence that the period between 380 million to 365 million years ago is the critical time. The younger rocks in that range, those about 360 milion years old, include diverse kinds of fossiled animals that we would all recognize as amphibians or reptiles...... [amphibians] with their necks, their ears, and their four legs, they do not look like fish. But in the rocks that are about 385 million years old, we find whole fish that look like, well, fish. They have fins, conical heads and scales; and they have no necks. Given this, it is probably no great surprise that we should find evidence of the transition between fish and land-living animals.

And then they discussed where to find such rocks...

Chapter 1: Finding your inner fish (pg.15)
...three areas with Devonian freshwater rocks, each with a river delta system. First there is the east coast of Greenland. This is home to the Jenny Clack's fossil, a very early creature with limbs and one of the earliest know tetrapods. Then there is eastern North America, where we had already worked, home to Hynerpeton. And there is a third area, large and running east-west across the Canadian Artic.

It took four expeditions to Ellesmere Island spanning 6 years and they finally found Tiktaalik. A transitional form that have both features of fish and tetrapods.

Chapter 1: Finding your inner fish (pg.23)
Our new creature broke down the distinction between these two kinds of animals [fish and tetrapods]. But like early land-living animals, it has a flat head and a neck. And, when we look inside the fin, we see bones that correspond to the upper arm, the forearm, even parts of the wrist. The joints are there, too: this is a fish with shoulder, elbow, and wrist joints. All inside a fin with webbing.

And what else does Neil has to say about Tiktaalik?

Chapter 1: Finding your inner fish (pg.26)
How can I be so sure that this fossil says something about my own body? Consider the neck of Tiktaalik. All fish prior to Tiktaalik have a set of bones that attach the skul to the shoulder, so everytime the animal bent its body, it also bent its head. Tiktaalik is different. The head is completely free of the shoulder. This arrangement is shared with amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals, including us. The entire shift can be traced to the loss of a few small bones in a fish like Tiktaalik.

The wonder of transitional forms.

The rest of the books describes the numerous evidence for evolution from fossils to cells and from genes to embryology. It's wonderful. I'd say it's a must read for those who enjoys an intellectual booster from various evidence neatly explained in the book (even for laymen readers).

The God Virus

*Book Alert!*

The God Virus.

It's official website can be found here. And apparently, it's hosting a "Create-a-Religion" contest. LOL.

This book extends the idea that religion is a virus which was introduced in "The God Delusion" and "Breaking the Spell". Chapters 1 and 2 are available online as a preview. I read a bit and I think I'm going to get it!

I also read this article tonight. It's the Objectivist point of view. I'd think I agree with everything. Just wished I could explain my disbelief with the eloquence that I've seen others did.

Thanks Jon

Thanks Jonathan!

Thank you for this wonderful addition, The Blind Watchmaker.
And thank "the blind watchmaker" for you, my friend. =D

One more book to be added to my collection of books. YAY!

* This actually took place on 29 December 2008, Monday.
But it is on the same day I made another post. Apparently the layout made the date disappear. So I altered the date for this post so that the date would appear for the other. Heh.