Lost, secret, censored, forbidden

Spent the day in the chapter on lost, secret, censored, and forbidden atheist docs. Protagoras’s On the Gods, of which only two sentences survive. The lost sutras of Carvaka, which called Hindu rituals “ignorant and unmanly” — then disappeared from history. Fortunately critics quoted long passages in order to rail against them, thereby wrapping them in a pretty bow and delivering them safely to posterity. Much of atheist history comes in the very same wrapping paper.

Included a para or two on Abu Bakr al-Razi, a 10th century Persian physician who defined new disease treatments, isolated new compounds, showed endless compassion for the less fortunate, saved countless lives — and oh, called Muhammad a fraud and a liar. Kind of out loud. Lots of his books on medicine and chemistry are still around, but the ones with titles like The Prophet’s Fraudulent Tricks and On the Refutation of Revealed Religions have gone inexplicably missing.

Also covered the censoring of Darwin by his own family and the censoring of Twain by his own damn self.

In the other track, I’m deep into secular morality. Stand by for questions on that. (And please, try not to snuff anyone while you’re waiting. I know it’s hard.)

Step on it, man!

I’m not panicking — just aware that I’m slightly off pace. What with the reading and traveling and all this week, and a little fussy wordsmithing, I only pushed out about 5,000 words. That’s 3,400 behind the weekly average I need to hit the mark. And if there’s one thing the publisher has made clear, it’s that marks are meant to be hit.

The first quarter of the manuscript (about 36,000 words) is due on August 13, nine days away, and I’ve got maybe 22 grand in the hopper. So that’s…okay, not so bad. I just need to bump up from 1,200 a day to about 1,600. That’s not excessive.

This week I learned (by sending my editor a chapter with a $100 swear in it) that the book can’t include $100 swears. It was in a quote, from the 14th century no less, but also translated from Late Old French, so there’s some wiggle room there. I’ll paraphrase to “fornication.”

See how easy I am to work with? Oh and ding.

The Eensy-Beensy Book of Hoody Doo!

I finished most of the section on whether science and religion are incompatible while on my flights to and from Denver. The short answer is that there’s a fatal problem with the question. Religion is a collection of values, practices and claims, while science is a method, a way of asking questions. It’s not even like comparing apples and oranges — it’s like comparing apples and math. “Does Religious Claim X hold up to scientific scrutiny?” or “Are science and revelation compatible methods of inquiry?” — NOW you’ve got apples and apples.

Also finished most of Andre Comte-Sponville’s Little Book of Atheist Spirituality. What a refreshing piece of work, rich and fulfilling. More on that soon.

A depressing observation (and the reason for my post title) is the title of Comte-Sponville’s book in its various releases. In the original French, it’s L’esprit de l’atheisme (The Spirit of Atheism). It was released in the UK as The Book of Atheist Spirituality. Only in the US was it thought necessary to dampen the off-putting grown-up quality by calling it The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality.

A similar example is Stephen Law’s book titled The Philosophy Files in the UK, then made safe and fun for the US as Philosophy Rocks!

GAWD we are such children. Though maybe the author of Atheism for Dummies isn’t one to talk.

Q: The Question question

Here’s another one for all y’all.

In one of the early chapters, I use one of my favorite Russell quotes as a hook for a section on questioning: “What is needed is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite.”

Questions about religion posed from the inside are a lot like questions about Santa posed from the inside of that belief. The will to believe trumps the will to find out, so the questions are timid and ancillary (“How do the reindeer fly?”, “Why do the innocent suffer?”) and even the most pitiful answers are readily accepted (“Magic corn!”, “No one is truly innocent”).

If/When the balance tips toward the will to find out, the central question is finally asked: Is Santa/God real?

Once you decide God does not exist, the tendency is to go back and ask all those old questions in a new light (like the brilliant ending of Letting Go of God). Then once that process is done, the newly-minted atheist begins to ask some entirely new questions — things that didn’t even occur to him or her to ask while a believer.

My question for you: What are some NEW questions you asked once you began to identify as an atheist?

Thinking follows chaos?

The responses to the meaning of life question are terrific — just what I needed. Watch for many more questions to come. Special thanks to James R. for introducing me to Quora, my new BFF.

Kept tripping on a historical pattern today, one I’d never noticed before — that “golden ages” of philosophy seem to coincide with or immediately follow periods of violence and instability. China, India, Greece, early Islam — each culture gets the greatest explosion of ideas during or immediately after these epic convulsions. I doubt I’m the first to notice this. Anybody?

It also can’t be a coincidence that philosophies and religions emphasizing nonviolence and order (Jainism, Confucianism, etc) dominate the conversation right after the national knickers have been in a major twist. Also interesting that they’re so often nontheistic.

(This will be maybe one sentence in the book, if that, and I spent hours today pursuing it. I’m a day behind schedule, and I’m convinced it’s because I keep chasing shiny, irrelevant objects. Ding.)