The Year of Living Biblically by A. J. Jacobs is exactly what it claims to be. I mean this statement in a way that goes beyond the simple aptness of the title. Say what you will about the merits of the project, but this is an excellent proposal for a book, and it is aptly executed by Jacobs. The seemingly simple concept is stretched for over 300 pages. After the first chapter or so, the reader pretty much gets the idea–but the book does remain interesting and entertaining for its entirety.

This journal of Jacobs’s experiences and thoughts are relayed in a blog-like format. Each chapter, which corresponds to a month, consists of multiple sections (“posts”), corresponding to the events and reactions of the day. To ensure a complete experience, Jacobs will often set himself specific rules or behaviors to focus on for a set time. I was a big fan of the Blogging the Bible sereis by David Plotz, but there were several aspects of Old Testament law I was completely unaware (for example: I’d somehow managed to remain unaware of both shofar blowing and various bird egg rituals). Jacobs frequency admits his obsessions with his Amazon.com rankings, and the placement of his previous book at airport stores. There is very clearly defined target audience for this work. Jacobs consistently hits the target dead center, leading to the unsurprising popular success of the novel.

I feel a little odd about this. It is generally advisable to review the book you actually read, not the book you wish the author had written. And like I mentioned, Jacobs succeeded in writing an interesting and readable book. But it is clearly aimed at the airplane-reading/book-of-the-month level. But I am an inherently selfish reader, and this book often was not what I wanted it to be. Whenever there is the opportunity to expand in some detail on the historical basis or philosophical implications of some topic, Jacobs consistently demurs. Instead, a witty declaration is offered, and the narrative amiably advances onward. Two examples stand out, but there are many others.

First, the notion of the relationship between the first commandment and strict monotheism. Part of the goal of the project is for Jacobs to “get into the head” of the ancient Israelites. Here is the entire discussion of how many gods there really are (pg 183 of the paperback, Day 154):

Even more exasperating: If I do get to the bedrock, it may be such a strange bedrock that I won’t be able to process it. In Karen Armstrong’s terrific book A History of God, she says that the ancient Israelites weren’t really monotheists. They believed in the existence of many Gods. Hence, the command “You shall have no other Gods before me.” It doesn’t say “You shall have no other Gods at all.”

Could I ever hope to get into the skull of an ancient Israelite who beleved in several gods? Do I want to?

End chapter. End thought. That’s as deep as we go on this point.

A second example: just who are the Samaritans and what is their religion? Pg 219 (Day 204):

On the cab ride back to the hotel, my mind keeps coming back to the Samaritan Bible. So similar, but so different, too. What if history had taken a left turn? What if the Samaritan Torah had become the standard, and millions of Semitic faithful flooded to Mount Gerizim every year to sacrifice lams, except for a few hundred people called hte Jews, who worshiped at an obscure site known as the Western Wall?

On these points Jacobs does offer some more details in a the appendix. But I would have preferred some more elaboration on the importance of historical contingency in what we now think of as the sacred. That seems like a relevant discussion if one wants to really get a grasp on religion and society.

I would have enjoyed a more fleshed out discussion of points such as these. But, then, those are the types of issues I’d find myself grappling with in such a project. Perhaps Jacobs simply had different concerns. Or, maybe he simply (and probably correctly), had a keener sense for what the audience really wanted.

Consider the following analogy:
Given world-wide shipping and the tenacity of Arthropods it is entirely possible that no matter where you live and given any typical means of storage there may be highly venomous spiders in your shoes when you go to put them on the in the morning (If this idea doesn’t cause you concern go watch the movie Arachnophobia). For most people the probability is low but the possibility is entirely supported by evidence and you don’t know for sure until you check. Most people do not check their shoes for spiders every morning. If a typical person were to inspect their shoes for spiders every morning we would call them insane for being concerned about something so unlikely to happen. There is infinitely more evidence to suggest there may be spiders in your shoes than that there might be a god. We should worry about the existence of god infinitely less than the existence of venomous spiders in situations known to generally be safe.

Consideration of the existence of a god is not warranted by lack of evidence. Lack of evidence either way being considered evidence in itself is classic self reinforcing delusion, not logic. There is no hard evidence to suggest that it’s even possible for an entity meeting any of the popular meaningful definitions of “God” to exist. Proving that the universe has more than four dimensions, an idea that real science is pursuing, might prove that it’s possible for a god to exist. Even if this possibility were proven, giving us a way to at least look for a god, we would then still have to prove that a god does indeed exist in one of those dimensions (proving that it’s possible that there is a spider in your shoes does not prove that a spider is in your shoes). Should evidence supporting a high possibility of the existence of a god come to light we might need to start checking our shoes for god-spiders waiting to bite our unrepentant feet, but until then it is entirely unnecessary. You can still check if you want. You won’t be a bad atheist; just a little bit paranoid.

Join us for a discussion of Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

philosophy != religion

I had to answer the question ~”isn’t Seattle Atheists like a religion?” at the University District Street Fair so many times. There are numerous Freethinkers (including some who I hope are reading this) who are afraid to support SA because they think it’s like a religion. It’s not. It’s an educational organization. The various ways that SA states ~”there is no evidence of woo woo” isn’t even philosophical, much less religious, it’s stating the obvious. Promoting Secular Government, Freedom of Religion for Atheists, and tolerance of Atheism is very philosophical but it’s hardly dogmatic and SA does it through education, not conversion.

SA is not a religion. SA will not fulfill your “spiritual” needs (there’s no such thing). SA is not trying to convert people to Atheism. SA might fulfill some of your social needs and make the world a better place but SA needs your support to achieve it’s mission (stated above and detailed in the constitution:
http://www.seattleatheists.org/documents/Seattle_Atheist_Constitution_and_Bylaws\.pdf). So please don’t let fear of joining an organization stop you from from promoting your values. Don’t let an irrational fear that you might accidentally foist your values on others prevent you for fighting for a government and a society that will not tolerate the insertion of dogma into science and law. Inaction serves only the goals of those who would happily force their religious values on all of us regardless of the results.

The easiest way to support SA is to become a member and/or make a donation but even more than that SA needs volunteers. At this point I believe everyone on the SA board is employed full time and none of them are payed for the work they do for SA. You can join online (http://www.seattleatheists.org/become_a_member.shtml) or you can attend meetings to find out more about volunteering (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SeattleAtheists/cal you don’t have to be a member to attend meetings).

Let me speak on the matter of the religiosity and definition of Atheism from a personal perspective for a moment.

I could easily call myself a skeptical agnostic, a freethinker, a secular humanist; I am those things. By the unstated definitions in the recent article by AFP on the Society for Ethical Culture’s non-religious Temple for the faithful non-theists (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5i9PAMO3EINjl18myLwaB5cJox4CA) I could even call myself “spiritual but not religious” or a “religious non-theist”. If I ever do call myself one of the latter two please slap me. I have plenty of ethics, plenty of philosophical ideas, and desire to do nice things for others and desire to be part of social groups, just like everyone else. These things do not resemble or require anything remotely similar to faith or spirituality, and certainly not religion or a belief in god. Sometimes I even come up with crazy off-the-wall hypothesis that appear to be impossible to prove or disprove. That’s entirely rational and scientific. What isn’t rational is taking the leap of faith from *having* an idea to *believing* the idea simply because I had it without proving it. I don’t do that. Outside of religion most people don’t do that.

I don’t have proof that god doesn’t exist. I may never have proof that god doesn’t exist. But I have surveyed the intellectual landscape and found that no one has any credible evidence that he does. I have surveyed my peers and respected educators and all that have looked for credible evidence of the supernatural have come to the same conclusion. I am an Atheist, just like half the rest of the people on this planet, by any other name, and I’m not afraid to say so and I am not afraid of being proven wrong. In fact, I would love to be proven wrong. That would be amazing. But I’m not holding my breath.

My Atheism is not based on my upbringing, it’s not based on dogma, it’s not based on rebellion, and it is definitely not based on a desire for religious belonging. It is a simple observation of the state of evidence for the paranormal: there is none.

Come enjoy Independence Day with fellow atheists, freethinkers, and the like.

More information can be found here.

Join us for our second discussion of Philosophers without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular
Life, a collection of essays edited by Louise M. Antony.
The meeting will be at Third Place Books in Lake Forest Park.