Ryan, Debi, and Toren Cragun's Blog

Spiegelman, Art. 1992. Maus II: A Survivor’s Tale: And Here My Troubles Began. 1st ed. Pantheon.

Rating:
8

Summary:
touching and honest

Art (Artie) Spiegelman is a cartoonist and the son of holocaust survivors Vladek and Anna Spiegelman. Art decided to tell his parents’ story in graphic novel (comic book) form. The first book, Maus, covers the meeting and marriage of Vladek and Anna and follows their story up until they enter Auschwitz during WWII.

This book follows their story from when they enter the camp until they are finally freed by the Russians. This part of the story is also related in pieces as Art visits his father. Vladek was surprisingly resourceful as a camp prisoner and was continuously able to find positions where he was needed, helping keep him alive. Anna, on the other hand, wasn’t always so lucky but she managed to stay alive. For both of them, much of what kept them alive was the hope of seeing the other person, which Vladek was amazingly able to arrange despite the men and women living in separate camps.

Eventually the war ends and they return, separately, to their hometown in Poland, though they have no knowledge of whether or not the other is alive. Thus, when Vladek, who arrives last, finally makes it home, it makes for a touching reunion.

Review:
This second book is definitely more touching than the first, though this is probably in large part due to the suffering the Spiegelman’s experienced. This book also does a good job of bringing the story closure, though it took quite a while for this book to be published after the first one was.

Once again, the author is critical of himself by illustrating a rocky relationship with his father rather than everything being rosy. This self-criticism leads to my final point. I think the allure of these two books is that the author doesn’t try to dress things up in a pretty package. He does his best to present things as they actually were (at least, as they were seen by his father). The result is that you see things like children having their heads bashed in by Nazi’s slamming them against walls and a son who only grudgingly helps his father but at the same time uses him for his story (that sounds a bit harsh as I’m sure the son was inspired to tell the story just to share it, but he also made money off of it, so he did use him in a sense).

As I did with the first, I would recommend this book. Keep in mind that the book makes no pretense to be an objective treatise on the holocaust – this is a survivor’s tale and it is at the subjective, individual level of one person who made it through. It is compelling and hopefully a warning for future generations about the potential maliciousness humans are capable of forcing on other humans.

Salazar, Roger B., and Michael G. Wightman. 1992. No Man Knows My Pastries: The Secret Not Sacred Recipes of Sister Enid Christensen. Signature Books.

Rating:
8

Summary:
Brilliant Mormon satire!

The book is a collection of authentic Mormon recipes… but ohhh so much more. Each recipe includes a satirical explanation or description. Additionally, each section of the book, ranging from Jell-O to zucchini, begins with a witty introduction. Also included are pictures of Sister Christensen (actually Roger Salazar in Mormon drag), Brother Christensen (a petite Michael Wightman), and their kids (all actors, of course): LaRoy, LaRue, LaRee, LaRay, and Shirl.

Review:
This is a brilliantly written satire of Mormon culture dressed up as a cookbook. Obviously the authors are intimately familiar with Mormon culture yet far enough removed from it that they can poke fun at some of the more ridiculous elements.

You do have to understand that the humor is very subtle and intended for a niche audience. For instance, the authors write, “We Mormons have suffered so much over the years to preserve our freedom. Thousands of our forefathers and foremothers walked from Nauvoo, Illinois, to Salt Lake City, starting in 1846. They did this because our religion is based on free agency and that, brothers and sisters, is the essence of the gospel” (p. 63). Anyone truly knowledgeable about Mormonism and Mormon culture will recognize that this excerpt is hilarious because it combines several elements of Mormonism, all of which are required in order to get the joke. Let me see if I can break it down. (1) Mormons erroneously believe, like other conservative and fundamentalist groups, that they are persecuted because they have the truth. (2) Mormons underwent their version of the Israelite Exodus – from Nauvoo to Salt Lake (technically, from Palymra to Salt Lake. (3) Free agency is, in fact, a component of Mormon theology, but not ‘The Gospel’. (4) The first principles of the gospel, as taught by Mormons (see Article of Faith 4), are couched in agency, but say nothing of it directly. (5) Mormons tend to have no idea what their doctrine really is. When you combine all of these elements, you get what Sister Christensen said, which is, in fact, gibberish. It makes no sense unless you understand all of the elements of Mormon culture, history, and theology and know that Mormons actually say such things. And that is why this book is so funny. The authors are able to write prose that so closely mirrors what you would actually experience in Mormonism yet they understand what they are writing (whereas the true Mormon acolyte hasn’t a clue how ridiculous they sound).

Another example of the subtlety comes from the description of one of the recipes aptly titled “Mountain Meadows Muffins,” “I am indebted to the Lee family of southern Utah for graciously sharing this recipe with me. Their neighbors, the Haights, have a different memory of the ingredients, but the Lee version is easier to swallow. Follow the instructions carefully and the brethren will massacre these” (p. 35). Once again, included in this short excerpt are numerous references to elements of Mormonism. John D. Lee was the Mormon scapegoat for the Mountain Meadows Massacre, thus the reference to the ‘Lee family’. Southern Utah is where John D. Lee lived. Because their has been so much controversy over what actually happened at Mountain Meadows, when the authors point out that the Haights have ‘a different version,’ it is in reference to the controversy. When the authors say “the Lee version is easier to swallow”, they are taking a polemical stand against the Mormon Church as it presented a version contrary to that described by John D. Lee. Finally, they conclude with their reference to the muffins ‘massacring’ the brethren, which is a none-too-subtle reference to the massacre and completes the obvious circle of references and allusions. Once again, an intimate familiarity with Mormonism beyond that taught by the Church is required to get the joke. Trust me, it is brilliantly constructed and written and makes me laugh every time I read it.

There really is very little more to say about this book other than it will take an open-minded Mormon, ex-Mormon, or scholar of Mormonism to find it humorous. One key indication of whether or not you’ll get the humor in the book is if you get the play on words that make up the title, ‘No Man Knows My Pastries.’ If you aren’t familiar with Fawn McKay Brodie’s biography of Joseph Smith entitled, ‘No Man Knows My History’, chances are this book isn’t going to make you laugh, at least not nearly as much as the student of Mormon culture will laugh. I highly recommend this book for anyone who gets the play on words that make up the title. Otherwise, you won’t appreciate its brilliance.

Holley, Vernal. 1992. Book of Mormon authorship: A closer look. 3rd ed. Vernal Holley.

Rating:
4

Summary:
The book is a short, self-published treatise looking at the similarities between an unpublished manuscript written by a relatively unknown pastor, Solomon Spaulding, and the Book of Mormon. Spaulding’s book was written about 20 years before Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, around 1812. Starting in around 1833, rumors and speculation started that Spaulding’s unpublished manuscript was the original source for the Book of Mormon, finding its way into Sidney Rigdon’s hands and allowing Rigdon to write the Book of Mormon (Rigdon was an early Mormon leader along with Joseph Smith). The rumors abounded until 1884 when the Spaulding manuscript resurfaced. At that point it was shown that the similarities between the two books were not particularly overwhelming. Since 1884, the theory/rumor has continued, but in a crippled form – it is basically considered to have very little credibility.

Holley’s book is trying to bring the issue back to the fore by minutely cataloging every possible similarity between the two. Holley shows that there are, in fact, a number of similarities, “While the Book of Mormon contains much more religious material than the Spaulding text, the outlines of the two stories are essentially the same. Each record was found in exactly the same way; was written for the same purpose; tells the story of the same ancient American inhabitants; has the same sea voyage; has light- and dark-skinned people; tells of the same arts and sciences; has a comparable Christian theology; presents a white Godperson; involves the use of seer stones; and tells of a war of extermination between two nations whose people were once brothers. The final battle in each story is fought on a hill. I also find a remarkable similarity in the literary style of the two works” (pp. 10-11).

The author carefully documents these and many other similarities.

Review:
While the number of similarities are actually surprising, the book is ultimately not very convincing in its primary argument – that Solomon Spaulding actually wrote the original draft of the Book of Mormon. I think Holley recognizes that such a claim is pretty ridiculous, so he proposes a few others. For instance, Holley hints at the idea that maybe Joseph Smith stole the manuscript from the widow of Solomon Spaulding and used it as an outline for the Book of Mormon. However, I think the most likely explanation for the similarities is something else, another point Holley makes, “It seems improbable to me that two writers, living less than one hundred fifty miles apart in the northeastern part of the United States, during the same early nineteenth century time period, could produce writings so much alike, unless there was some borrowing one from the other or dependence upon a common source” (p. 11). Spaulding and Smith never knew each other. And while it is impossible to to rule out Joseph Smith seeing a copy of the Spaulding manuscript before writing the Book of Mormon, I think the most reasonable explanation of the similarities is that these two people lived at roughly the same time and in roughly the same place and had access to basically the same sources. Drawing upon the surrounding cultural zeitgeist (which was explaining the origins of the Native American Indians at the time), the two authors crafted similar stories. The similarities in writing probably owe to similar educations and similar reading material. They don’t have to have worked together; what is most likely is that they drew on similar sources. Joseph Smith had the help of Ethan Smith’s “View of the Hebrews,” but it was published after Spaulding died, so Spaulding must have used sources similar to those used by Ethan Smith. In summary, Holley’s implications and assertions ultimately come up short and feel very unsatisfactory.

That said, his short monograph illustrating the similarities is intriguing reading and a nice little contribution to the debate. He does a good job documenting the similarities in writing, phrasing, etc. He is not a gifted writer and the speculation is rampant, but the idea is a good one.

A couple other points are worth mentioning. Holley claims that, because both books employ chiasmus (which is an idiotic premise if there ever was one), they were written by the same people. Chiasmus is prevalent in just about everything, meaning you could make the same argument about Wikipedia articles and the Book of Mormon – clearly they don’t have the same author. This is a poor argument.

Holley also points out a couple of contradictions in the Book of Mormon that gave me a good laugh, even though that wasn’t his intent, “The Book of Mormon author writes: “And I did teach my people… to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance. And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land . . .” (2 Nephi 5:15-16) Another example from the Book of Mormon: “And there were some who died with fevers, which at some seasons of the year were very frequent in the land — but not so much so with fevers, because of the excellent qualities of the many plants and roots . . .” (Alma 46:40)” (p. 33).

Finally, I think Holley’s understanding of the Spaulding and Book of Mormon geography is probably the most accurate there is and is really the best contribution of the book. In fact, this is one of the areas where Holley’s assertion that Smith drew on Spaulding almost seems plausible. I think Holley is right in asserting that Smith used the geography and topography of upstate New York and the surrounding area for the setting of the Book of Mormon, as did Spaulding. Smith just did a slightly better job covering it up.

Overall, I don’t recommend this book except for the most ardent students of these obscure controversies. It’s short and quick reading, but ultimately the argument is not all that convincing. It has some good information, as far as detailing the similarities, but the speculation is so off the wall that it’s really not worth reading. A much better treatise is Lester Bush’s 1977 Dialogue Article, “The Spaulding Theory Then and Now.”

Rudestam, Kjell Erik. 1992. Surviving Your Dissertation: A Comprehensive Guide to Content and Process. Newbury Park, Calif: SAGE.

Rating:
8

Summary:
As you might suspect from the title, this book covers the process of writing a dissertation in the social sciences. It is geared primarily toward psychologists and sociologists, but anyone in the social sciences will find the book of use. The chapters cover the basic sections of a PhD dissertation, including: Introduction, Literature Review, Statement of the Problem, Methods and Data, Results, and Discussion. The authors detail what belongs in each chapter and include a variety of helpful hints and bits of advice throughout to improve the quality of your writing.

After covering the basics of writing the dissertation chapters, the book then turns to some to basic writing suggestions for social scientists. The authors cover table construction, how to detail statistical results, and also talk about different software programs that can be useful in the process of conducting and writing up social scientific research.

Review:
I found this book useful, but I’m certain that has to do with the fact that I am currently working on a dissertation in sociology. The clear explanation of what belongs in each dissertation chapter was useful, as were some of the other suggestions the authors made. However, I would recommend that anyone considering starting a PhD program read this at the beginning of the process rather than halfway through writing your dissertation. The suggestions in the book are very informative, but also something you are likely to glean just by going through the process. For instance, I didn’t start my graduate program annotating articles using an article citation program. About a year into things, however, I became aware of the utility of such software and now use it religiously. I guess what I’m saying is that you probably won’t learn a whole lot from this book if you’re already working on your dissertation and have completed all your course work – in all likelihood you’ve learned everything they try to teach in this book the hard way: through experience.

If you want a bit of insight into what writing a social scientific dissertation is like, this is a good book to pick up. But, read it before you start your program instead of near the tail-end (like I did); what they have to say is relevant for the entire process, not just the dissertation.

McDowell, Josh. 1992. Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Volume 1: Historical Evidences for the Christian Faith. Revised.

Rating:
1

Summary:
Where to begin…? My wife and I agreed to help a co-worker of hers move. While there, I met one of the other people helping out, a very friendly and amiable gentleman named Chuck. We had an enjoyable day together (as enjoyable as loading a moving truck can be) and got along very well. After we had finished packing everything up, Debi’s co-worker invited us to dinner with them later that night, after we had all showered up. At dinner, the topic of my dissertation (likely religious apostasy) came up and that is when I found out Chuck is a fundamentalist Christian. We spent the next hour or so in conversation discussing religion and what not. It was actually a very genial conversation, despite the fact the three discussants were: (1) an atheist; (2) a liberal protestant; and (3) a fundamentalist Christian. At the end, Chuck asked me if I would be wiling to read a book. Since I never turn down such offers, I said yes. The book he recommended was Evidence that Demands a Verdict (ETDV), by Josh McDowell.

I have to admit I wasn’t all that excited to read the book because I knew it was just going to be a poorly written apologetic work that was utterly unconvincing. But I also knew that until I read a book or two like this, believing Christians could claim that I had not given their perspective a fair chance, that I had not weighed all the evidence. So, I agreed to do it. I read almost the entire book (I skipped two chapters – 2 and 9; I’ll return to 9 below), then began putting together my notes to write my review. Considering this is a well known Christian apologetic work, I was wondering if any other skeptics had reviewed it. I Googled the title and “review” and found this: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/
. What a find! It is basically a book length review of ETDV that, simply put, tears it to shreds. I actually considered just posting a link to that review instead of writing my own, but I didn’t want to be accused of not having actually read the book. So, I put together a few comments on the book. In a few spots, I will simply refer readers to the review on infidels.org, as it covers some of the issues in much greater detail than I have the time and energy to do.

The book is an openly apologetic attempt to provide evidence, both historical and Biblical, that Jesus was God incarnate and the savior of the world. Topics include: history of the Biblical canon, external references to Jesus, Biblical prophecies, and testimonies of the fruits of Christianity. The first four chapters attempt to illustrate that The Bible is a reliable and valid book. The remaining chapters then use The Bible to attempt to prove that Jesus was Christ, concluding with an entire chapter of testimonies.

The format of the book is unique – it is not written as flowing prose but rather presented as an outline. This makes the book excruciatingly disjointed and difficult to read. My comments on this format while reading the book went like this, “The outline format is an abomination to literature. I’d sooner skin myself alive than willfully read this. It’s awful. If you can’t write clearly and normally, don’t bother.” As if the outline format was not bad enough, the font and type set are unusual and cramped, making this even harder to read. If an author is going to force people to wade through a disjointed collection of quotes and allegations, the least he/she can do is use a decent font!

Review:
I have to admit that the book does do two things well. First, it gathers all of the evidence that can be mustered for the reliability of The Bible and the validity of Christianity into one convenient location (so it can then be dissected and refuted). And, it convinced me that apologetic attempts to defend Christianity are preposterous and absurd. I don’t think that second one was McDowell’s intent, but hey, I read it. How many Christians can actually say the same? After all, this is a behemoth of a book, weighing in at almost 400 dense pages, in outline format no less.

Having presented the positive aspects of the book, let me touch on just a few of the negative aspects (see the review on infidels.org for a much more thorough treatment). First, as noted in the summary, the first four chapters attempt to convince the reader that The Bible is reliable as a historical document. The rest of the book then relies on The Bible to prove Christianity is the “true” religion. The problem with this approach, of course, is that if you find the first four chapter utterly unconvincing, which I did, this undermines the remainder of the book. Why are these chapters so unconvincing? Here are a few reasons why…

McDowell makes no note of whether or not the people he cites are believers unless he is trying to dismiss their criticisms outright (e.g., he does this when he mentions Huxley and Russell) or if he can find some instance where a non-Christian isn’t very critical of his “evidence”. Don’t get me wrong, Christians can do good research, but when you are trying to prove the “truth” of a religion, there is a conflict of interest that needs to be revealed. Not doing so is dishonest. If it wasn’t, why does McDowell only mention the religion (or lack thereof) of non-Christians?

Interestingly, McDowell describes the “scholars” who provide the source documentation for this book with credentials like, “Robert Dick Wilson, a man who was fluent in more than 45 languages and dialects,” and “Wilbur Smith, who compiled a personal library of 25,000 volumes…” (p. 22). The last time I checked, owning a lot of books or speaking a lot of languages did not translate into expertise on Biblical historiography. This approach got me thinking: How many of the references are books published at university presses, an informal but simple measure of legitimate references? While I didn’t check every reference, I was hard-pressed to find books published by academic presses (Inter-Varsity is not an academic press; it’s a Christian press).

McDowell also employs a shady and dishonest tactic for building arguments. For some reason he seems to think that if you can bring together a whole bunch of quotes from people who seem like they must be authorities (even though he doen’t mention they are all Christians), then this is going to convince the reader there is no debate over the issues. McDowell does this time and again (see pp. 65-68 where he quotes a bunch of Christian archaeologists claiming archeology strengthens The Bible). What’s more, if he was using legitimate sources, he would only need one (see pp. 120-121 where he quotes 30 different people on Christ being sinless). This is not convincing. It’s just dishonest.

Let me touch on a few specific points McDowell makes that are way off the mark. “John Warwick Montgomery says that “to be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament”" (p. 40). There are several problems with this claim. First, it is a strawman fallacy. It sets up critics as though they are dismissing The Bible outright, when, in fact, by the very act of criticizing The Bible they are illustrating that they take it seriously. It also fails to consider that critiques of The Bible are critical of all classic works, not just The Bible. Finally, just because a book happens to be better documented than another doesn’t mean it can’t still be a myth; a well-documented myth is still a myth.

McDowell, though presenting only one side of the evidence, is still forced to make statements like this one, which is a weak claim to reliability, “I believe one can logically conclude from the perspective of literary evidence that the New Testament’s reliability is far greater than any other record of antiquity” (p. 46). Whether or not that is the case really isn’t the issue. If two diamonds are flawed, but one only has a minor blemish compared to the other one, they are both still flawed. McDowell is trying to bury the real issue – which is universally accepted by historians – that all ancient documents have problems. If one has a little more documentary evidence than another, that doesn’t mean it must be true and perfect, it just means it has more documentary evidence.

But where McDowell’s claims get really interesting is when he is forced to deal with the Old Testament and its reliability. He first admits that there is a significant gap between when the Old Testament was written and the oldest copy of it in existence, “This made a time gap of 1,300 years (Hebrew O. T. completed about 400 B.C.). At first sight it would appear that the O. T. is no more reliable than other ancient literature” (pp. 52-53). He claims this is a problem, but a page later actually turns it into evidence for the reliability of the Old Testament, “Why don’t we have more old MSS? The very absence of ancient MSS, when the rules and accuracies of the copyists are considered, confirms the reliability of the copies we have today” (p. 53). In other words, big time gaps for non-Biblical ancient texts is a bad thing, but for The Bible, it’s a good thing. Why? Because McDowell begins with the premise that The Bible is true, infallible, and accurate, thus all the evidence must point to that conclusion, regardless of the fact that it is illogical and completely contradictory.

Of course, points like these completely overlook the problem of apologetics to begin with: If you have evidence, you don’t need faith. This introduces a really interesting contradiction from the get-go. On page 8, McDowell says the evidence convinced him of the truth of Christianity, but then he turns his back on providing evidence, “The proper motivation behind the use of these lecture notes is to glorify and magnify Jesus Christ – not to win an argument. Evidence is not for proving the Word of God but simply for providing a basis for faith” (p. v). Not only does this indicate a remarkable misunderstanding of faith, but it is a serious contradiction. Lucky for McDowell, he doesn’t actually provide evidence, which means he can keep his misguided faith.

So, even though McDowell did not convince me that The Bible is reliable, which is the foundation for the remaining chapters, I continued to read the rest of the book, hoping he would actually saying something intelligent. He did quote a couple of intelligent people, but for the most part he continued to let me down.

I think the biggest beef I have with this book is that it actually uses the lack of something as evidence. To what am I referring? Only to the cornerstone of Christianity: The Resurrection. I find this claim so absurd that I’m dumbfounded when it is even mentioned anymore. McDowell notes the importance of the lack of evidence, “In Jerusalem, the place of Jesus’ execution and grave, it was proclaimed not long after his death that he had been raised. The situation demands that within the circle of the first community one had a reliable testimony for the fact that the grave had been found empty. The resurrection Kerygma [proclamation] ‘could have not been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned’” (p. 217). Yes, it’s true, the only evidence McDowell can provide that Christ was resurrected is the absence of a body (noted in that “reliable” Bible, of course). Pardon my French, but that is so fucking silly! This is like me claiming to have “owned” the Batmobile and providing as proof an empty garage. But McDowell does not seem to see how crazy this idea is, “The empty tomb is that silent testimony to the resurrection of Christ which has never been refuted. The Romans and Jews could not produce Christ’s body or explain where it went, but nonetheless, they refused to believe. Not because of the insufficiency of evidence but in spite of its sufficiency do men still reject the resurrection.” (p. 226).

This claim got me to thinking, so I came up with a parallel for today. See if you think it is convincing.
A man is called to testify in court, we’ll call him Paul, about a missing person, we’ll call him Josh.
Lawyer: You say Josh is missing.
Paul: Yes.
Lawyer: Did you know Josh?
Paul: Not personally, no.
Lawyer: How do you know he is missing.
Paul: Well, I haven’t seen him and I can’t find his body.
Lawyer: How did he go missing?
Paul: He ascended to heaven.
Lawyer: You saw this?
Paul: No.
Lawyer: How do you know this?
Paul: I’ve heard stories and he appeared to me in a vision.
Lawyer: Did anyone else see this?
Paul: Sure. Lots of people. Over 500+.
Lawyer: Can you name them?
Paul: One or two, but their both dead. The rest, no, I can’t.
Lawyer: So, no one else can verify this?
Paul: No.
Lawyer: Um, so we’re supposed to believe you, even though you didn’t see the “ascension”, can only point to a couple other people’s claims that it happened (both of whom are dead), and your only evidence is that the person – whom you never knew – is no longer here?
Paul: Yes.
Lawyer: If that’s all you’ve got, dude, I rest my case.

In short, the only “evidence” Christians have that Jesus was a god is a missing body! Seriously, re-read the last sentence. It’s astonishing. That is not evidence but a lack thereof. If Christians want to prove the truth of their religion, they are going to need to do a little better than this. I would accept any of the following as proof: (1) Jesus, (2) Noah’s Ark, (3) The Garden of Eden, (4) God, (5) A miracle. Speaking of which, I’ve always wondered if a scientist has tried getting a piece of Jesus’s DNA from a transubstantiated Eucharist in a Catholic’s mouth. Now there is a way of getting evidence!

Moving on, McDowell makes some additional claims that are worth refuting. For instance, on page 111, McDowell gives the following analogy to justify why God had to become a man, “We will use an ant illustration. Imagine you are watching a farmer plow a field. You notice an ant hill will be plowed under by the farmer on his next time around. Because you are an ant lover, you run to the ant hill to warn them. First you shout to them the impending danger, but they continue with their work. You then try sign language and finally resort to everything you can think of, but nothing works. Why? Because you are not communicating with them. What is the best way to communicate with them? Only by becoming an ant can you communicate with them so they will understand.” According to this analogy, god has the power to become man but not speak man’s language while god? Does that make sense to anyone else? ‘Cause it sure doesn’t make sense to me! An all-powerful god who can’t speak to man but can become his man? Yeah, whatever!

I could go on and on pointing out problems with this book (see my comments on the quotes below), but this is getting rather lengthy. So, let me return to a few of the things McDowell says at the beginning of the book. In the introduction, he is pretty clear about what he thinks of other religions, “…a Moslem fellow approached me and, during our most edifying conversation, he said very sincerely, “I know many Moslems who have more faith in Mohammed than some Christians have in Christ.” I said, “That may well be true, but the Christian is ‘saved.’ You see, it doesn’t matter how much faith you have, but rather who is the object of your faith; that is important from the Christian perspective of faith.” Often I hear students say, “Some Buddhists are more dedicated and have more faith in Buddha (shows a misunderstanding of Buddhism) than Christians have in Christ.” I can only reply, “Maybe so, but the Christian is saved”" (p. 4). The implication here, of course, is that it doesn’t matter if you are a good person and an atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, or anything but a Christian. You have to believe that some mythical figure who was alleged to have been nailed to a tree is your savior or you are a bad person. Well, that’s just plain insulting.

As if claiming non-Christians are bad people isn’t enough, he has to take this up a notch and claim, “I have found that most people reject Christ for one or more of the following reasons: (1) Ignorance; (2) Pride; (3) Moral problem” (p. 11). I hate this. Why can’t religious people accept that some people just don’t buy in to their make-believe shit? Is their faith so tenuous that they have to deny the existence informed, humble, moral non-believers? If anything, saying stuff like this illustrates that McDowell is not convinced by his claims and has to play psychological games to reinforce his feeble worldview. It is a dishonest and weak-minded approach.

In this same vein, McDowell states that “If any man comes to the claims of Jesus Christ wanting to know if they are true, willing to follow His teachings if they are true, he will know. But one cannot come unwilling to accept and expect to find out” (p. 12). Of course, the implication is that the problem can never be with Christianity; it’s always with the person. From this perspective, Christianity is flawless and if you can’t accept it, it’s because you have a problem, not because you think Christianity is a bunch of made up bullshit! Well, I obviously disagree with McDowell. He is welcome to believe in his myths, but I am absolutely not interested.

Two more points and I’ll wrap this up. First, on page 9 McDowell illustrates what he really thinks about history, “A basic definition of history for me is “a knowledge of the past based on testimony.” Some immediately say, “I don’t agree.” Then I ask, “Do you believe Lincoln lived and was President of the United States?” “Yes,” is usually their reply. However, no one I’ve met has personally seen and observed Lincoln” (p. 9). Is McDowell really claiming that Zeus and Thor must exist because they are mentioned in ancient texts and the evidence is as compelling as the existence of Abraham Lincoln? I’m guessing that’s not what he intended. But, of course, that is what he is saying here. Apparently for him it doesn’t matter how much evidence there is nor how rational the thought involved is, the only thing that is important is that there is historic mention of someone or something. Well, I’m off to Atlantis…

I did find one claim McDowell made worth investigating a bit further (beyond just checking with the information on the infidels.org website), “NOTE: The Bible is the first religious book to be taken into outer space (it was on microfilm)” (p. 24). While I don’t really doubt that it was the first religious book in outer space (it’s not like the astronauts were a bunch of Hindus), I thought I would see if I could verify this. I couldn’t, but I did find out that some asswipe astronaut left a copy of The Bible on the moon: (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/a15.clsout3.html#1674938 and . As if the first book we want aliens to read is one filled with wars, violence, lies, and deception. If I ever get to the moon, the first thing I’m going to do is toss that book toward the sun. Then McDowell will be able to claim that The Bible was the first book to be burned up by the sun!

Overall, reading this book was abut as close to a waste of time as you can come without actually wasting your time. I say this only because now I can honestly say I have “weighed the evidence.” And, like all of the millions of rational-thinking people before me, I am thoroughly convinced that The Bible is a collection of myths and there is absolutely no evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead. I don’t hold the pretense that my review is going to keep Christian acolytes from reading the book, but I hope it will at least make them consider that this book is not an honest treatment of the evidence. It is one-sided, poorly-written, illogical, dishonest, and deceptive. I don’t recommend this book for anyone but those who enjoy self-punishment.