Review: God, No!

God, No!: Signs You May Already Be an Atheist and Other Magical Tales by Penn Jillette

My rating: 3 of 5 stars


God, No!: Signs You May Already Be an Atheist and Other Magical Tales was an entertaining read, to say the least. It was easy to see that Penn Jillette had written this book with the same bluntness of intention and voice as he has with most things he does.

I could almost hear his vocal inflections in my mind as I read his words insisting on the importance of being honest by saying "I don't know" when one just doesn't know. I imagined the strain in his voice as he emphasized the anguish of an incident with a hairdryer.

That was the thing about this book, like its author Penn, it was direct, abrupt, utterly honest, and without any sugar-coating added at all. Some of the stories were a bit off topic (sometimes even tangential), but -- like any good performer -- Penn ropes you back in to the discussion and keeps pushing ahead. You don't have to agree with Penn's politics or his decisive desire for evidence-based fact to appreciate his open-minded and socratic approach.

In fact, I can see more than a few parallels between Socrates and Penn. Socrates had ideas that many people disagreed with. Socrates was unforgiving in his search for fact and truth. Not all of Socrates ideas were correct, not all were well-delivered.

I may not agree with everything Penn has to say, but I'd like to think that giving his ideas a voice invites discussion and critical thinking. I'm sure there are quite a few people in the world that would like to have Penn drink hemlock; I'm not one of those people.

In my blog on "Silly Superstition", I said,

Finding humor is a good way to positively influence society to see the silliness of superstition, but critical thinking (asking "Why?") is the best way to stop superstitions before they start.

Through this book, Penn brings comedy to a heavy discussion and critical thinking to taboo discussion. In the end, I think it's worthwhile because the book invites the reader to ask "Why?" and sometimes simply answer "I don't know".



View all my reviews

The Wolf Festival

What's black, white, and red all over?

If it's two goats and a dog, then the answer is "The Wolf Festival", the ancient tradition which gave way to Valentine's Day. ["Lupercalia" - Wikipedia]

Mid-February is Lupercalia, the Wolf Festival, an ancient Roman festival of purification and fertility. During the festival, the Luperci -- the "brothers of the wolf" -- would sacrifice two male goats and a dog. They would then smear the blood of that sacrifice on the faces of new initiates into the Luperci. The initiates would then cut lashes of goat flesh and run through the city. Young women would present themselves along their route in order to be whipped by these lashes, which tradition held would ensure fertility.

Eventually, Lupercalia was banned (along with other out-of-fashion rituals) by Pope Gelasius, but we'll come back to that. Before we move forward into what Lupercalia became (spoiler: Valentine's Day), let's learn about where it may have had its origins.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:She-wolf_suckles_Romulus_and_Remus.jpg

Legend has it that Rome was founded by the twins Romulus and Remus, suckled as infants by a she-wolf. Much of Roman culture was of Greek origin, Lupercalia is no exception. The Luperci formed in honor of this she-wolf (lupa) and Lupercalia was born atop the rituals of a Greek festival of wolf lore called "Lykaia" [Wikipedia]¹.

Back to the future, Christianity eventually became the popular religion, so public displays of the old religions were banned. Many of the festivals and holidays of antiquity were replaced with new Christian equivalents. Winter solstice became Christmas. Spring equinox was replaced by Easter. Harvest festivals, celebrated with the cornucopia of Zeus or the wheat of Ceres, gave way to All Saints Day (and its All Saints Eve, aka Halloween).

When you're supplanting traditions with a multitude of deities and demigods with monotheistic beliefs, it is -- by definition -- easy to get out-numbered. That is, until you throw in your own versions of the divine on Earth: saints. So, Gelasius replaced Lupercalia with St. Valentine's Day, in recognition of a few early Christians (name Valentine) who were martyred for their then-unpopular beliefs.

Valentine's Day (and the other "new" holidays) anchored well into society and was largely untouched for almost a thousand years, at least until Chaucer put the spin of chivalry and courtly romance into it.

"For this was Seynt Valentyne's Day. When every foul cometh ther to choose his mate."

The popularity of this idea spread faster than the brief second it actually takes for avian insemination, Valentine's Day became a day of courting and affection.

Over the centuries to follow, Valentine's Day went through a slow metamorphosis into something "new": a ritual of fertility. Now, at the least, I hope that ritual doesn't involve the bloody flesh of a goat. Please let me remain blissfully ignorant, if that is not the case.

---

¹ The Lykaia festival of ancient Greece is part of the legendary heritage of the origin of werewolves. I'm sure it was no coincidence that Anne Rice released her newest novel "The Wolf Gift" yesterday during Lupercalia.

Politics, Religion, and Sex

Those who are different, change the world. Those who are the same, keep it that way.

The momentum of our changing world is driven by controversy and compromise. Change cannot happen without discussion and disagreement.

There are three things that society advises against discussing in polite company: Politics, Religion, and Sex.
In the spirit of investigation and progress, I am going to discuss why I question that logic. I do think there is an appropriate time and place for all things, however I think that the priorities and concerns with the discussion of these "taboos" have been so confused that there is no longer any room for the important intelligent discourse which drives discovery and change.

POLITICS
I would like to begin with the topic of Politics. By the very nature of what it is, Politics is a public matter. Your political opinion -- whether educated or ignorant -- affects us all through the magic of democracy. It is, therefore, very important that we all nurture mature and well-informed political opinions. That doesn't mean that I think that everyone should always stand atop a stump and proclaim their opinions to the world; in fact, I think that practice is part of the problem with the discussion (and practice) of politics. When did being right become more important than doing right?

Standing atop a stump or screaming in someone's face will never produce change. Remember what I said in my most recent article? "I learned years ago that you cannot change to a new system through confrontation or arrogance; you change through education in the new system while simultaneously slowly moving the old practice toward obsolescence." Education is the best way to learn the strengths and weaknesses of the idea/opinion currently held and the idea/opinion you would like to see.

I propose that political discourse is appropriate wherever a willing person or group is found. Please take note of the word "willing"; I've discussed previously that it's always important to me that a person's choices not interfere with the choices or freedoms of others. So, handing out pamphlets is acceptable, but physically stopping a person from carrying out their choices is definitely not. You should attempt to educate, not alienate.

RELIGION
With Religion, things get a bit more tricky. I think Religious preference is a personal choice and therefore should only be announced or discussed within familiar circles. I think it is fine that one would become excited about their personal choices, but it is very important that it be recognized and accepted that no one else should have to agree.

Quiet presentation is really the only appropriate method. Religion is generally something coached and conditioned throughout life, so it's deeply set. If you wish to discuss religion, I suggest that you spend more time asking questions than you do making your own statements. All-too-often a person will push a religious (or anti-religious) opinion which would not have been said without the religious pretense. Simplified, this is the "No offense, but..." approach to discussion. You hear someone say this and you already know that what they're about to say is wholly insulting, but they think a passive-aggressive statement will be less abrasive.

Recognizing my initial point that religion is a personal choice and should be mutually respected, should eliminate the desire to "change minds" and instead promote an intelligent exercise in listening and understanding.

SEX
Sex is a topic which I think American society has gotten completely backwards. The typical American family is frightened to discuss the topic, so they wish a class into schools to discuss it. The schools, in turn, have to dance around the two previous taboos (Politics and Religion) as they explain something perfectly natural to a classroom full of curious adolescents and/or teenagers.

In the home, a discussion about sexual choices should be as comfortable as a discussion about religion. Why is it that some parents can tell a child about one man murdering another (Cain and Abel), but they can't talk about eggs and sperm? What's worse is that this lack of communication is a learned behavior; sex has become an exercise in shame, instead of an exercise in relational interaction. Similar to religion, I think that sexual interaction is a personal choice. As long as that interaction does not hinder the freedoms or choices of another person, it is not something to be hidden or shamed.

So, how do people learn? If they don't already understand something, such as the example of a room full of students in a high school class, where do people turn when they want to learn? By building this wall of shame and taboo, we've prevented a healthy investigative process. It's important that this type of discourse happens first among friends and family (a place of already-known safety). Not only do you strengthen the feeling of trust for the individuals involved, but you have also possibly introduced new questions to a place where ideas and opinions have a tendency to stagnate.

The fascinating fact about discourse is that ideas and opinions change. The discussion of these topics through considerate exchange is the only way to truly evaluate the strength and logic of our ideas and opinions. However, one must recognize that these topics are tied closely with personal identification and security, so it is a horrible violation if you do not first ASK if you may talk about the topic of choice.

Furthermore, if someones decides they're done with the conversation, then it's over. Thank them for their willingness to participate in whatever fashion they already have (e.g. taking a paper, a few minutes of questions, sharing their opposing opinion). It's time to show some respect in discussion, maybe that'll change our mood about beginning them.