Book Review: The Case for Christ

The Case For Christ was first published in 1998 and was the first of many in a line of books by Lee Strobel using a legal methodology to assess the historical nature of Christ and His resurrection. It won the 1999 Gold Medallion Book Award from the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association. 



Strobel has 139k twitter followers and given Strobel's popularity and series of books based on similar methodologies, I have decided to act as an opposing attorney to his book The Case For Christ. 

Five Bullet Point Summary:

• In the quest for truth pertaining to Christ you should treat the evidence as an impartial juror. 
• The biographies of Jesus can be trusted, and is the same as the Jesus of faith
• Jesus claimed to be the son of God and fulfilled exactly the identity of the Messiah
• Jesus really died and was really resurrected. 
• After reviewing the evidence presented in this book you should conclude that the case for Christ is at least reasonable and perhaps even conclusive.

Extended Summary and Analysis:

The assumption of this book is that you should be like an open minded juror when assessing the evidence (pgs. 17-18). Almost every chapter opens with a legal analogy. In this book review I will take the role of opposing counsel. But before I officially start this role, I want to analyze the overall methodology. 

A legal methodology should not pretend to be nuanced enough to ascertain metaphysical truths. Thus, this methodology is inadequate to prove the metaphysical identity of Jesus the Christ. Similar to Lang below I object to a legal approach to settling questions of religion or metaphysics.

Second, and the main reason I am acting as opposing counsel is that Strobel has not done his job of presenting both sides. Only the case FOR Christ is presented, for instance the further reading sections almost without exception support the case for Christ and virtually every chapter ends with at least one leading question favoring the case for Christ. 

If readers are supposed to be an impartial juror, the other side should be presented. I will offer specific objections along these lines. However, I do not have enough space in a blog post present an entire defense.

I will assume the defense for a few reasons. First, Strobel uses analogies mostly from the prosecution side of American criminal trials. 10 of 14 chapters use a legal analogy from the side of the prosecution, and only one uses an analogy from the defense.  

Second, there are passages that suggests he is assuming the prosecutorial burden of proof:

Having been a legal affairs journalist who has covered scores of trials, both criminal and civil, I had to agree with the assessment of Sir Edward Clarke, a British High Court judge who conducted a thorough legal analysis of the first Easter Day: 'To me the evidence is conclusive and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. As a lawyer I accept the gospel evidence unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts that they were able to substantiate.' (Case for Christ pg. 320)

This seems to indicate that he is accepting 'beyond shadow of a doubt' burden of proof. Thus, I will consider it a win if I can offer only a shadow of a doubt.     

Defense:

My defense starts with specific legal objections to various quotes 
from the book.

The two main objections I use are the Best Evidence Rule and Counsel is Testifying. Both are actual objections a lawyer can use in court. 

The Best Evidence Rule means that when submitting something as evidence you need to present an original document instead of a copy when possible. 

In an actual trial, I would simply provide the evidence or the witness when making my case. However, to do that adequately would require me to write a book, instead I use this objection to note when he is not giving equal time to the other side. 

The other main objection is mostly self-explanatory. In court of law, counsel cannot testify; only witnesses can. 

These objections will form the basis of one of my counter-arguments. But except for documentation purposes these individual objections only matter in aggregate. 

Please feel free to skim the following section. 

Partial List of Objections:

Pg. 33: "That, I mused, was apparently what Matthew did with Mark--although Matthew had his own recollections as a disciple, his quest for accuracy prompted him to rely on some material directly from Peter in Jesus' inner circle.

I OBJECT: Counsel is testifying. 

Pg. 40: "Again I picked up Armstrong's popular book A History of God. "Listen to something else she wrote..."

I OBJECT: Best Evidence Rule. There is not enough of Armstrong's original material submitted into evidence. Nor is there an interview of Armstrong. 

Pgs 57-58: "Ironically," I pointed out, "if the gospels had been identical to each other, word for word, this would have raised charges that the authors had conspired among themselves to coordinate their stories in advance..."

I OBJECT: Counsel is Testifying

Pgs 87, 142-172, 188-190: References to the Jesus Seminar, a minority group of liberal Bible scholars.

I OBJECT: Best Evidence Rule. Rarely is their methodology discussed,  and they often summarily dismissed

Pg. 91 "Metzger had been persuasive. No serious doubts lingered concerning whether the New Testament's text had been reliably preserved for us through the centuries. 

I OBJECT: Counsel is testifying

Pg: 106, 133, 287-289, 291, 304, 312, 323, and 336: References to Michael Martin, professor and critic of The Bible. No interview, mostly casual mentions.

I OBJECT: Best Evidence Rule. Should submit large sections of his thought or ideally conduct an interview with Martin. 

Pg. 141: "John Marco Allegro's absurd book in which he theorized that Christianity emerged from a fertility cult in which adherents tripped out on hallucinogenic mushrooms!"

I OBJECT: Best Evidence Rule AND Counsel is Testifying. 

Pg. 185: In the context of determining whether a Messianic Jesus can be found in Gospels other than John, Strobel offers: "Immediately I thought of the famous exchange, recording in Matthew, in which Jesus asked his disciples in a private meeting, 'Who do you say I am? Peter replied with clarity, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Instead of ducking the issue, Jesus affirmed Peter for his observation. 'Blessed are you,' he said, 'for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.' " 

I OBJECT: Counsel is Testifying. 

Pg. 200-201: Briefly describes Ian Wilson's theory that Jesus was a master hypnotist. 

I OBJECT: Best Evidence Rule

Pg. 300: "In the face of the facts, they have been impotent to put Jesus' body back into the tomb."

I OBJECT: Counsel is Testifying. 

Pg. 305: Mentions Anthony Flew, but does not mention any of his books except the one with Habermas, who he is interviewing. 

I OBJECT: Best Evidence Rule

Pg. 320: "Without question, the amount of testimony and corroboration of Jesus' post-Resurrection appearances is staggering."

 I OBJECT: Counsel is Testifying. 

Pg. 333: JP Moreland is 'on the stand' talking about the motivations of the disciples."For what? For good intentions? No, because they were convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that they had seen Jesus Christ alive from the dead."

I OBJECT (expecting to be overruled): Argumentative, witness is drawing a conclusion. 

Pg. 361: "After a personal investigation that spanned more than six hundred days and countless hours, my own verdict in the case for Christ was clear."

I OBJECT: Counsel is Testifying. 

Counter Arguments:

I only have to show that there is a reasonable doubt that Jesus was not the Christ who arose from the dead. Given the context of the debate I am restricted to historical arguments, as metaphysical or scientific arguments are precluded in this methodology.   

First let me make my concessions. I concede that Jesus existed, I concede that he was crucified, I will even concede the tomb is empty.  My arguments will center around the resurrection. 

Remember all I have to do is show reasonable doubt based on the methodology of the book.

1) People can be convinced to die for various causes true or not. There was not a significant difference enough presented between the Early Church and Jonestown.

2) Reports of his post resurrection appearances could have been fabricated.  

3) The list of objections provide sufficient evidence to suggest that the content of this book does not mimic a fair and impartial trial, thus a verdict from this book is impossible. Thus, you should side with the defense.

First, the link between people being convinced about something and its truth is emphasized in many of the later chapters. Often the argument is made that what else besides the literal resurrection could convince people to sacrifice their lives. 

But everything from Hale Bopp, Jonestown, and the Manson Cult have had their followers greatly sacrifice for the cause. None of these are believed to be true by a significant number of people. 

News of Heaven's Gate mass suicide.

The difference between these according to J.P. Moreland:

"...this [the Christian] revelation was not done in a publicly observable way. So they could be wrong about it." Pg. 333.

That's it, that's the difference. So you have to demonstrate that the revelation was done in a publicly observable way. Which is a separate argument.

Second, the post-resurrection appearances break in nature from the earlier appearances. We have reliable witnesses to the existence of Jesus before death, but fewer after his resurrection. 

A lot of emphasis is placed on corroborating evidence of Jesus' existence in the early chapters of Strobel's book (see especially chapter 4). But once we get to the post-resurrection appearances this type of evidence is minimized or not invoked.

Granted the the presentation of Gary Habermas' analysis of 1 Corinthians 15, where Jesus appears to the 500 is not a lynch pin of his argument. It is interesting that we see a mild dismissal of the type of argumentation seen in chapter 4:

"...when you have only one source, you can ask, 'Why aren't there more?' But you can't downgrade this one source that way." (Pg. 313).

Furthermore, all the appearances listed on page 316 are followers of Christ. Thomas the only potential skeptic among them. Most were either original disciples or later apostles.  

Of course that is not all that damaging. According to the Gospels he returned for approximately two weeks post-Resurrection. And non-believers could have just thought these people were crazy. 

To convince you that there is at least reasonable doubt, I will propose an alternate scenario for the resurrection.  

First, Joseph of Arimathea moves the body. Perhaps he didn't really want the trouble of having Jesus' body on his land, perhaps he was politically motivated to cause chaos in the Jewish religious order for personal gain, or perhaps he was a secret follower and wanted the prophecy to appear to be fulfilled. He was at least sympathetic agreeing to bury Jesus in the first place. 

Second, some followers of Christ find this empty tomb and report back to the other followers. After hearing about this one of the followers claim to have seen Christ. This continues until he allegedly appears in front of 500. Each perhaps not convinced that they themselves have seen Christ and bolstered by the empty tomb believe in his resurrection.  

And if historians, other than Luke, did not have time to document his reappearance the amount of this public observability should be questioned. 

My third and final argument has to do with how this trial was conducted. The objections I raised earlier point to a systematic tendency to present the evidence in a favorable light for the case that Jesus died and was resurrected. 

In addition, virtually every chapter ends with Deliberations and Further Evidence that has leading questions and books that support the main claim. There is no balance. I argue that this trial is unfair and should thrown out at least until the second half of this case is presented.  

Bottom Line: 

The Case For Christ is one sided. And if Strobel is assuming the prosecution the defense would win. If he took the defense, I would advise his client to sue for incompetency. He would still likely win, but his burden of proof would be so minimal as to be virtually meaningless in the real world.

He could have simply presented these interviews without the gimmick of mimicking a trial and I likely would not have even bothered. But this book is fundamentally dishonest, asking us to be impartial for a case that is presented very partially.  

All of his other books that use a similar methodology will necessarily have very similar issues and thus, should be summarily dismissed until the other side of the case has been presented. 

Book Review: A Beginner's Guide to the Study of Religion

In his book, A Beginners Guide to the Study of religion, Bradley Herling correctly states that along with fact based religious literacy, we also need theoretical religious literacy. We need tools to think about what 'religion' means.

Beginners Guide is primarily designed for use in an introduction to religion course and secondly for use by the self taught individual who is interested in religion. It serves both populations very well.

Summary:

• In general, religious literacy is important because we are living in a global world where many are motivated by their religion. 
• Specifically, theoretical literacy of religion is important so that we recognize that religions don't necessarily fit our preformed judgments. 
• The definition of religion is contested among theorists of religion. 
• There are several theories/definitions that offer meaningful ways to look at religious phenomena. 
• A theory is good in so far as it can suggest different lens by which to assess and discover important practical aspects of religion.

Analysis:

Many people think studying religion is simply learning facts about the various religions. To these people studying religions is nothing more that memorizing beliefs and rituals, like one might memorize the elements of the periodic table. 

However, there is so much religious diversity not just between religions, but also within particular religions that a full catalog is impossible.

A better way to think about the study of religion is thinking about its nature. If you want to make an inquiry into the nature of hats it would be detrimental if you had a definition that was too wide (you might end up discussing clothing) and equally detrimental if it was too narrow (you might end up only discussing sombreros).

Of course, you could make a detailed study of sombreros (i.e. Buddhism, Judaism, Jainism, or etc...), a worthwhile pursuit in its own right. But you still need a conception or definition of sombreros, which would likely include a discussion about hats in general.

A fuller understanding of the nature of religion (or at least the problems with identifying its nature) will lead to better fact gathering and more thought provoking analysis.

For instance, if you accept the very common conception of religion that it is focused on belief and worship of God, gods, or other supernatural powers, you would likely miss the Native American emphasis on religion being tied to the sacredness of places.

Thankfully there are many alternatives.

For instance, perhaps you are preparing to interview a Hindu mystic, then you might want to recall William James' conception of religion:

Religion shall mean for us, the feelings acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine. 


He includes examples of what to look for:

1) The individual, non-rational experience at the core of myths, scriptures, rituals, institutions, etc.

2) The feeling of an objective but unseen presence, "something there."

3) Extraordinary states of consciousness marked by ineffability, deep insight or knowledge, transiency, and passivity, leading to a feeling of oneness and to a breakdown of distinctions between "self" and "the world".

4) The means of obtaining transformation: an interior feeling of bliss, freedom, and resolution (especially after considerable melancholy and suffering).

Or when you see a lively Christian worship service with everyone singing and praying together, you might want to recall Emile Durkheim's conception of religion:

A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden--beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them. 

And we should look for the following according to his conception:

1) The significance of "primitive" religions; i.e. folk or indigenous traditions that do not fit into one of the major "religions of the world.

2) The demarcation between the sacred and the profane, as expressed through rituals and beliefs. Practices that keep the sacred and profane separate or attempt to "manage" the power of the sacred: protecting against it and also inviting its aid or celebrating it. 

3) Rituals that cultivate a feeling of belonging; symbols or emblems that have a similar effect.

4) The appearance of power in religious phenomenon, especially when it suggest the existence of an impersonal energy or force: religious object that are treated as powerful by devotees.

These are just two examples of the various conceptions of religion covered in this book and when they might be relevant. There is no theory that has unanimous support. Though a theory is deemed useful when it incorporates new ideas and facts..

Bottom Line:

My favorite part of this book are the sections that explain what you can look for using various theories. I plan to have this book readily accessible for my various religious visits in the future. At least when I am writing these posts.

I will likely always favor Durkheim, but this book will help me incorporate theories that I am less familiar with. As well as find further resources about them.

Spotlight on Eastern Orthodoxy I: The Way of a Pilgrim

On Dec. 25th I visited the Holy Resurrection Orthodox Church and on this day they were celebrating a feast day of St. Herman of Alaska. They celebrate Christmas on Jan. 7 which is Dec. 25 on the Julian calendar (most of us use the Gregorian calendar).


(I will discuss the structure of Eastern Orthodoxy in a later post)


They were very kind and told me that I should read The Way of the Pilgrim to better understand Eastern Orthodoxy. The copy they gave me also included The Pilgrim Continues His Way. 


The Way of a Pilgrim and The Pilgrim Continues His Way were written sometime between 1853 and 1861 by an unnamed devout Eastern Orthodox man traveling throughout Russia. It was printed by an abbot in 1884.


This book does not contain an argument that can be put down in premises and conclusions. Instead it urges the reader to contemplate and pray internally. Thus, I will not provide a bullet point summary.


At the beginning of the book the pilgrim, the narrator and subject of the book, is confused about a question: How can one pray unceasingly as in 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18?


The answer he first receives from his starets (a monk distinguished for his piety) is essentially just do it. Say the prayer: "Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me." At first he was required to say it 3000 times in one day, then 6000, then 12000, and finally as many times as possible.


Eventually the prayer became something he did out of habit, such that he was continuously saying the prayer. This is part of the hesychast tradition in Eastern Orthodoxy. As Huston Smith notes in the introduction the prayer of this pilgrim is akin to a mantra, that gets repeated continuously.


He is also was told to read the Philokalia a book about internal prayer, what it is and how to do it written by various saints of Eastern Orthodoxy. 


The Way of the Pilgrim, and The Pilgrim Continues His Way is almost solely about that prayer and the Philokalia in the development of the pilgrim's spiritual life.



One commentary about this prayer in The Pilgrim Continues His Way struck me. Someone the pilgrim was speaking to told him that "have mercy on me," was an impressively economical use of words. 



The prayer can be a plea for forgiveness of debt and at the same time a request for alms. It can be a plea for forgiveness of sin and a plea to arouse in oneself holy feelings. And etc... 



Of course, this is because a plea for mercy is a vague plea, but sometimes you do not know what you require mercy for.


Throughout most of The Way of the Pilgrim, I was convinced that the pilgrim was very reverent. That he understood devoutness from experience. When he received mystical calmness and visions (such as being able to see the interior of his body), I believed that he was devout and a true believer in his religion.


However, the last part of The Way of the Pilgrim, did give me some pause. In this part, the pilgrim was rejoicing in the misfortune of a sinner because the misfortune helped bring the sinner closer to God. 


If I was that particular sinner, I would have contemplated hitting him. To make matters worse the pilgrim encouraged his companion to tell another story about misfortune befalling a sinner.


Up until this point I identified with the character, since he was visiting various Orthodox Churches and collecting stories. But for this brief moment I was hesitating. 


The story would give him his needed chastisement. At the very beginning of The Pilgrim Continues His Way, the pilgrim goes to confession and gets a harsher review than I could have ever given him.


A starets gave him the notes that he uses for his own confessions which in part reads:

...I listen to curious, unhappy stories about my neighbor, and I am not distressed; I remain quite undisturbed or, what is still worse, I find a sort of pleasure in them. - pg. 129.

Structurally The Pilgrim Continues His Way is simpler to read, because the person speaking is always identified in italics and it is written as a Socratic-style dialogue in defense of the ascetic lifestyle and internal prayer.


Despite promoting the internal life, ironically The Pilgrim Continues His Way convinced me that you need others around you to guide you, as the pilgrim realizes his flaws through confession and his travels to the Solovetsky monastery. 


Though, I would guess that even devout hermits would attend matins, confession, and communion, meeting this potential critique of the book.


The devout in this book are not holier than thou, they all recognize that they are imperfect humans. Thus, once their flaws have been pointed out work at it. And after reading it, there is simply no doubt that to be a good Orthodox Christian you have to read the Bible and pray daily. 

Bottom Line:

So far, from what I have witnessed and read followers of Eastern Orthodoxy are very devout, perhaps the most devout sect of Christianity in existence. 


In addition they seem to stress humility, in such a way that mitigates the problems that often come with such devoutness (i.e. judgments and in general a holier than thou attitude). 


The Way of the Pilgrim is a good quick read and should be read by anyone trying to understand prayer in the Christian tradition.  

Christmas I: God is in the Manger by Dietrich Bonhoeffer

For Christmastime, I decided to read God is in the Manger, an advent devotional composed of: selected writings by Dietrich Bonhoeffer (a famous German theologian and political prisoner of Hitler), some of his letters, supplemental writings from other authors, and scripture.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

This was organized and edited by Jana Reiss and translated from the original German by O.C. Dean Jr. Thus, though the words are Bonhoeffer's, it's organization is not.

The word 'advent' means waiting, so advent is about waiting for the coming of Christ the child. Those who read advent devotionals already know that Christ has come and, at least for Bonhoeffer, it is a reminder to await the second coming as well. 

A devotional assumes that you are Christian and are well versed in the story of Christ. Specifically it assumes that you believe that Christ's birth was foretold to Mary, the wise men, and shepherds, that Mary was a virgin, and that Christ would redeem us. 

For simplicity's sake this post will be written mostly from this perspective. (Remember the goal is to understand before critiquing).

Like many devotionals, this devotional is organized to be read daily and each week has a theme. 

The first week's theme is waiting. 

But how can you wait for something that has already happened? The first reading answers this question by comparing the wait of the first Advent to the wait for the second Advent:

The Advent season is a season of waiting, but our whole life is an Advent season, that is, a season of waiting for the last Advent, pg. 2.

This is followed by a letter from Bonhoeffer to his parents saying that he does not not know how much longer we have.

Not all can wait, some are satisfied or do not have respect, but those who do will also wait for Truth, love, and all that is good. If we cannot wait then we will not have these things. We have largely become indifferent to the fear that Christ's coming should arouse in us (pg 8).

The second week's theme is mystery of Christ and mystery in general.

Mystery is a child-like quality; mystery is where we reach the boundary of our being. The greatest mystery is the person next to us. And the deeper you know someone the greater the mystery; the greatest mystery is when you know someone so well that you fall in love. The fact that you can be so close to someone is the "greatest mystery" (pg. 20)

It is also the wonder of wonders that God loves the broken and the lowly, the excluded and the broken. He loves us so much he became one of us. Like God becoming mortal we should celebrate Christmas by laying down our power and dignity. By doing so we participate in the mystery that is Advent. 

The third week's theme is redemption. 

Jesus does not want to exonerate himself from the guilt because people he loves are living in it; so he becomes guilty, the one who takes all the guilt. He does this out of love. 

Even those who act responsibility should not want to absolve themselves of guilt, this would blind them to the guilt that all humanity shares. 

Advent reminds us that we are participants in world judgment and world redemption. But God does not wish to frighten us; we should not be afraid. pg. 44. But only by experiencing the initial fear described in the first week's reading, can we appreciate the beauty of advent. The initial fear should not last. 

The fourth week's theme incarnation.

God wants us to become human, pg. 50. God became human so that human beings can become human. "In Christ the form of human beings before God was created anew," pg. 52. 

Remembering the Incarnation every year at Christmas time is a reminder that he lets himself be found by everyone. He was here among us. 

The Christ-child is God despite his weakness and poverty because of his divine love. Bonhoeffer encourages us to pause at this statement: "God became a child!"

In this devotional it almost seems as if the transformation from God into God-child happens every Christmas pg. 58-59.

Before advent is a liminal period, an in between of promise and fulfillment - Luci Shaw quoted in God is in the Manger pg. 61.

After Christmas

There are readings for the twelve days of Christmas and the beginning of Epiphany as well. Though I won't write about those, at least not yet. 

Bottom Line

Overall I can see why this is a popular Christmas devotional. All the chosen pieces were beautifully written and Bonhoeffer was writing from a context of waiting to get out of a prison cell, giving it additional meaning. 

Supplementary readings from other authors and the Bible passages were well chosen to help put into context Bonhoeffer's main passage.

From an outside perspective you could criticize this devotional on its various theological claims. And you are free to do so. But personally I would find that uninteresting. 

And assuming an internal Christian perspective there is little to critique. It is a book that is intended to aid in Christmastide meditation/thought/prayer. A Christian may even disagree with the thoughts in the book, but that still means it did its job as an aid to Christian thought. 

One thing I would like to point out is to say that this is not a rational book, in the sense that it is not even trying to be rational. 

There is no real argument, there are only ideas to meditate on around Christmas time. This is something that certain critics of religion often forget; sometimes religion is not trying to be rational, nor should it necessarily always be rational. 

Religion is often experiential and this book is designed to aid in the religious experience of Christmas. 

Spotlight on Humanism and Atheism I: good without God book review

Sloppiness without Godliness

          

           Why should I cover atheism or humanism when they are not generally considered religions? Because there are some atheists and humanists that have developed communities that resemble evangelical churches. In the Boston area there is the Sunday Assembly and the Humanist Hub. Greg Epstein, humanist chaplain, lives in the Boston area and is the author of good without God, the subject of this book review. He argues that humanists should develop community (or a religion alternative) otherwise humanists risk sending them back to religion. He is probably right, but the execution of the book was annoyingly sloppy in a few key places.  What follows is the typical 140 word summary and then The Critique. Enjoy!

140 word summary of good without God:           

          

           Humanism is goodness without God and realizing that womb to tomb is the totality of human existence. Why and how we can be good without God are better questions than whether we can be good without God. Sociologically humanism resembles religion, but humanism differs from religion because it lacks supernaturalism. Humanists believe in subjective values that require argument. Humanism has a proud lineage from Epicurus to Freud, Marx, Nietzsche, and Darwin, to the unknown number of humanists today. Practically, the humanist message is to be passionate about preserving and advancing dignity. Dignity is an awareness that all human beings are human. This requires no God, just an awareness of other’s sufferings and celebrations. Humanism melds a comprehensive philosophy with a deeply practical and ethical social commitment. It is necessary for humanists to act together for the greater good. 

The Critique:       

           The sloppiness with Epstein’s book starts with the subtitle “What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe.” For Epstein, being ‘good without God’ is humanism and for this subtitle to be accurate one out of seven people in the world have to be nonreligious, think about their nonreligiosity, and think about what it means to be good without God. This type of humanism, with its emphasis on ‘good without God,’ is mostly restricted to the Western world. Thus, it’s unlikely that there are a billion or so humanists of this type in the world. Thus, to consistently maintain that you are adequately representing one billion nonreligious is arrogance. Luckily, he does not maintain this position consistently; he tacitly admits that ‘strivers’ those who just worry about getting more things, may be members of the world’s largest religion. Given these problems a different subtitle should have been chosen, perhaps: ‘good without God: What Everyone Needs to Know.’ Though, even this does not capture his call to action in later chapters.

           He is also sloppy in his discussion of science. He uses the phrase ‘the scientific method’ (emphasis added) as he complains that some people do not understand science. It is right and proper to hold science in high esteem, but any good introduction to the philosophy of science should convince anyone that there are multiple methodologies that scientists use, and there is no definitive definition of science. Giving Epstein the benefit of the doubt, his statement may just be poorly phrased. 

           My last example of sloppiness is a logical error. Epstein complains that people believe that you can’t be good without God because you can be evil and believe in God (e.g. Nazis and Bin Laden). This is not baffling. Essentially the first claim implies that all good people are with God, but it does not say that all people who are with God are good people. Thus, even logically, it’s possible for people to believe that you can’t be good without God and admit there are evil people who do their evil in the name of God. This is not baffling and something that many religious people will likely admit.

            So far I have just been talking about sloppiness. But there is some clear content that I find problematic, though not fatal to his project. He states that there are some people (both atheist and religious) who reject pluralism, the usual foundation for interfaith work. Pluralism is the position that diversity in religion is good and that other religious ideas have merit. While the sentiment behind interfaith is great and I would not dismiss the possibility of employment in interfaith work, excluding non-pluralists from the conversation is problematic, though perhaps necessary. But this means that interfaith organizations can devolve into liberal or moderate religious people talking only to each other about their liberalness and moderation. That being said, Epstein’s goal in this section to argue for the inclusion of atheists into these interfaith movements, not to discuss the merits or demerits of pluralistic interfaith dialogue.  

           One excellent point in the book is the observation that we should ask people what they believe about God, not if they believe in God. Asking if someone believes in God is insufficient because there are so many conceptions of God it should make your head spin. Is god omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent? Is God the ‘ground of being’? Is God love? Is God a person? And there are many many more. Also, some argue that none of these conceptions do justice to a God that is supposed to be wholly other. Epstein concludes this section by stating that the further removed you are from the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent conception of God the more someone like Rick Warren, famous evangelist, will consider you closer to humanism. And if he thinks you are a humanist, why not at least ally yourself with humanism and some of the nonreligious.  

Bottom line:

                

            Because of the sloppiness, this was a mediocre book. I agree with the sentiment that people should understand science and that people should acknowledge that people can be good without God. One thing that did annoy me greatly was the subtitle. It is arrogance to claim to speak for one billion people. If there was a book about Christianity titled ‘what 2 billion Christians do believe’, I would make similar comments, because the book would end up being filled with exceptions rather than common ground. But Epstein’s book did not really even focus on commonalities, rather it was almost a call for what humanists should believe and do (i.e. create community), rather than what they do believe.   

Spotlight on Tibetan Buddhism I: A Review of Beyond Religion by H.H. Dalai Lama

      

        This is my first post and thus the first spotlight on religion. For any spotlight series I will review three things, typically in separate posts, where possible. 1) A central book, in this case Beyond Religion by H.H. Dalai Lama 2) the content and experience of a particular sermon, teaching, or event 3) any outside criticism and/or interviews with believers/practitioners.

        Each book review will start with a 140 word (or less) summary. This is arbitrary, but I find it helps me focus on the most salient material and also easier on the reader. Then I will, admittedly, from my own point of view critique the book. Putting out my criticism should be seen as the beginning of a conversation not the end. If you think I am being too generous or unfair say something. We must engage in difficult conversations to become more religiously literate, which is important in this global society.

Summary of Beyond Religion:  

         

        Today we emphasize materialism, not inner values. Compassion, the desire to alleviate suffering, is the central inner value. We are born needing compassion, but not religion. The basis of ethics can no longer be religious, because there are many different religions, though religion can and does help cultivate inner values. Compassion, when practiced, expands to include all beings. Because we are born needing compassion, ethics are principles for inner self-regulation that promote well-being in ourselves and others, and are not primarily a method for reining in destructive tendencies, though these exist. Changing yourself is necessary to change the world. Destructive emotions can obstruct ethical life. Overcoming destructive emotions means recognizing they can and should be overcome. Accepting hardships and cultivating contentment help develop inner values. Meditation with moderate effort over a long period leads to the cultivation of inner values.

The Good:

            

       In general I am a fan of the Dalai Lama. His call for peace and mindfulness are important in a society that neglects or dismisses spirituality. He also has a deep respect for science and even incorporates scientific findings in Beyond Religion. I think he is right that the contemporary world does not emphasize inner values, that compassion is very important, and that the basis of ethics can no longer be religious.

The Questionable:

       

       There are two things I found questionable in this book. The first is H.H. Dalai Lama’s mostly implicit conception of religion and the second is his conception of human nature.

       When the Dalai Lama discusses religion he seems to take the central task of Buddhism, the alleviation of suffering, and apply it to all religion: “Even the very concept of religion, I think, has arisen out of this quest [for happiness],” pg. 27. Alleviating suffering is a concern for most, if not all, major religions, but it is most central to Buddhism. In most theistic religions suffering is a theological problem that is difficult to overcome. Take the example of Christianity. Most major Christian theologians have written about the seeming incompatibility of the existence of undue suffering with the existence a loving God. Why is there suffering is a difficult question to answer from a Christian perspective, whereas in Buddhism suffering is the result of human desire and can be alleviated by the proper state of mind and meditative practices. More central to Christianity is salvation, which in most Christian theologies does entail the prevention of eternal suffering; however, the Buddhist is much more concerned about the alleviation of suffering in the present life. This is in part because in most Buddhisms the way to achieve good karma and thus a good reincarnation is to aid in the alleviation of suffering. Faith is stressed in most Christianities, while actions are stressed in most Buddhisms, including Tibetan Buddhism. I place his conception of religion under questionable, because I cannot deny that the vast majority of religions do have something to say about ethical conduct. However, I do not think that ethics, alleviation of suffering, and the development of inner values are quite as central to all religions as H.H. Dalai Lama believes them to be.      

      

        H.H. Dalai Lama likely has an overly optimistic view of human nature. He states that human nature is predominately oriented toward kindness, pg. 18. He has good reasons, some of them scientific, to focus on this orientation toward kindness. though he is cherry picking the evidence. It is true that scientists studying emotion and well-being have found that people do tend to be happier when they make others happy. However, he does not acknowledge scientific studies suggesting that schadenfreude, taking pleasure in others misfortune or suffering, is as biologically rooted in human nature as our desire to make others happy. He could easily claim that schadenfreude tends to be one of the destructive emotions or tendencies; however, the fact that this emotion occurs at a very early age and is felt in adulthood undermines his generally positive conception of human nature. The existence of psychopaths, people who have no qualms taking advantage of a person’s compassion also poses a problem for his project. If he is willing to admit psychopathy as an exception then the universal ethic he is trying to construct becomes less universal. Or if he believes that these people can change and are fundamentally good, then he has to explain psychopathy, often considered to be innate. Schadenfreude and psychopathy are serious problems for his conception of human nature, but this is filed under questionable for two reasons. 1) He does admit that we all have destructive tendencies 2) The problems of schadenfreude and psychopathy were not addressed, instead of being addressed poorly.

The Bad:

      

       Frankly, I find nothing that can be categorized as bad in Beyond Religion. Though at times the book can be repetitive and perhaps slightly shallow, it is mostly a laudable attempt at constructing a general and secular ethical system.