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.

It’s bad taste for people to flaunt wealth in an economic downturn, whether they be CEOs of major US automakers, executives at AIG, or a church. It’s in even poorer taste to use perceived wealth, and the promise of wealth, to attract followers to a religion. Tax-exemption is best reserved to support non-profit organizations dedicated to the public good. Though there are organizations with religious affiliation that engage in charitable work, the propagation of a religious belief is not charitable in and of itself.

Since the definition of a tax exempt religious organization is very broad and there is little oversight of their activities, many churches continue to maintain tax-exempt status and huge incomes. While it is not the place of government to endorse or oppose religion, this obligation of neutrality does not logically extend to giving religious organizations a special exemption from taxes. Whether a community organization is educational, charitable, or social, its income should be reported and subjected to oversight if it wants to remain tax-free and accept tax-exempt donations—or it should pay taxes like any other private corporation. The Christian Faith Center is spending its money on a helipad, a luxury; other religious organizations have funneled ridiculous sums of money to provide personal luxury (and legal defense) to charismatic preachers or even to provide aid to terrorist organizations, all while remaining tax-free and largely un-scrutinized. Laws prohibit any private individual from benefiting from tax-exempt earnings, but these laws are unenforceable on religious organizations due to other laws limiting civil tax inquiries of churches.

While we don’t wish to interfere with the Christian Faith Center’s community building efforts, we think that their plan for a helicopter pad demonstrates poor taste given the current economic climate, is a misuse of their tax-exempt status, and wastes the hard-earned money of their donors. We would like to encourage the Christian Faith Center to scrap their plan of unneeded air transportation and instead donate the money to a local charitable organization that does not discriminate on the basis of religion, such as Seattle Atheists did when they raised nearly $1000 for Seattle Children’s Hospital by wrapping presents this holiday season.

— Lex Maxwell

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.

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.

I’ll start with education in the US.
Since the Scopes trial, there have been ongoing battles regarding origins of humans and the rest of life on earth. The Supreme Court eventually said that creationism isn’t science and can’t be taught in schools, so the same people who pushed creation, changed the tune a little and called it ‘Intelligent Design’. The word ‘God’ is not expressly stated, instead, it was a ‘Higher Power’. Interesting subterfuge, isn’t it?
So, in the early 21st century, we are still seeing fights in local school boards and state school boards trying to either stop teaching evolution, put it out as “only a theory” (you know, kind of like gravity is only a theory), or start teaching ID (in some cases, without the veneer of ID, but directly as ‘creationism’) along side of evolutionary biology as a ‘co-equal’ science.
A few cases of recent note:
Grantsburg, Wisconsin school officials revised their science curriculum to allow creationism teaching. This directly flouts the Supreme Court’s finding that this cannot be done. They are doing it with an eye towards fighting it all the way back to the SC thinking that the current makeup of the Court may overturn the existing law.
In Cobb County, Georgia, stickers were put in the biology textbooks reading “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.” I’d bet the people who put that in wouldn’t like a similar sticker placed in bibles saying that you should be open minded and critical. A federal judge found these to be unconstitutional, and they had to be removed. How much money was spent to put them in and then take them out? Do local taxpayers even pay attention?
Texas has been busy lately, with the ‘resignation’ of the science curriculum director on grounds that she forwarded an email announcing that a presentation was being given by Barbara Forrest, a key witness in the Dover, PA case, and author of ‘Inside Creationism’s Trojan Horse’ about the effort to get ID taught in public schools. All she did was forward it as an FYI.
Also in Texas, some current good news (mostly). The State Board of Education members said the theory of ID should be left out of the science curriculum in public schools. 10 of 15 board members felt that ID shouldn’t be taught. Next year, this battle will continue when the board rewrites the science curriculum. Keep an eye on the news.
The Dover case. As was presented in the PBS movie “Judgment Day”, the School District science curriculum was changed to require ID as an alternative. The Pennsylvania judge (appointed by GWB) found in no uncertain terms that ID is not science, is religion, and can not be taught in science class.
Florida (oh, Florida)… The State Education Department is proposing to set a standard with evolution only being taught in public schools, so far, so good. However, those who disagree have been very busy.
An official has been “counseled” for sending an unofficial email message (but invoking her position as an official in the Office of Instructional Materials) to urge fellow Christians to fight the proposal.
Clay County School Board members voted unanimously that evolution be presented as a theory, not a fact in the classroom.
A majority of Pinellas County School Board members support inclusion of ID in the science curriculum.
In Dixie County, the superintendent says evolution is “going to be taught as fact, and everybody knows it’s not a fact. There’s holes you can drive a truck through.”
At least 7 of Florida’s 67 school boards – all north of Ocala – have passed opposition resolutions.
The State board of education voted 4 to 3 on February 19 to add evolution to course work that the public schools must teach. However, it passed only after a last minute change that clearly labels every scientific law and theory as ‘merely a theory’. Looks like an almost win turned on its head.

I find it interesting that Texas and Florida should be having these issues and be home to major NASA headquarters and launch sites. Do they want only out of state people to be working in local science programs? This boggles the mind.
Not much of a shock, though when you look at the National Geographic study of “Western” countries that asked to respond to the statement: “Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals.” Possible answers were, true, false, and not sure.
The US was more accepting of evolution than Turkey! However, we were less accepting than all other countries polled. 40% Found the statement to be true, 40% false, and 20% are up in the air over it (let’s hope they land soon).
A CBS poll found that just 13% say God was not involved in the process of creating humans. 55% said God created humans in their present form, and two thirds want creationism taught alongside evolution. It just gets scarier.
Interestingly, in Brittan, Charles Darwin is just a dead, white Victorian male. But in the US, he’s the rebel with a theory. When the Darwin Fish started showing up as a parody of the Jesus fish, car rear-ends became a bit of a battleground. Now there are; Jesus fish eating a Darwin fish, Darwin fish eating a Jesus fish, a plump Buddha fish, Freudian fish in the shape of… never mind, a Science fish as a rocket, and even some rude ones involving copulation with a Jesus fish.

Another odd happening regarding evolution is about a creationist attempting to work as an evolutionary biologist. It’s been done more than once now. People of the creationist bent actually attending and getting degrees in the field and then announcing their belief that the world is 6000 years old. They usually get shown the door once it is discovered that they aren’t working towards increasing knowledge, but to prevent it. What a weird way to waste your time.
Now to finish on an up note; how about some current research?
Everyone with blue eyes, raise your hands! Look around at each other. You are seeing your somewhat close relatives. A team from the University of Copenhagen has tracked down a genetic mutation which took place 6,000-10,000 years ago and is the cause of all blue-eyed humans alive today. The mutation in question is of the OCA2 gene which is involved in production of melanin, the pigment that gives us skin, hair, and eye color. A major mutation to this gene gives us albinism (no color), but this change just affected eye color. This variation does not affect survivability. It is just a side note on the path of evolution.
It looks like the field of evo-devo (evolution and development {from egg to adult}) is gaining ground in that they are finding that not many genes are required to make major changes to life. It is just requiring little tweaks of existing genes instead of whole new genes or lots of genes for each mutation. No, I don’t understand it exactly either.

So, even though there is constant anti-evolution activity in this country, the science is still being expanded. If they manage to get ID in, or evolution out of our public schools, what will be the state of evolution in 20 years? We have to keep our eyes open for the next ‘wedge’ they try.