But there is a Hebrew word for Jewish heresy: kefirah. The Karaites qualify.

Also, Kleiman's taxonomy of Jewish hashkafot (roughly, worldviews) is mistaken. The opponents of hasidism are the mitnagdim (lit., opponents); both are subsets of Haredi Judaism (often called "Ultra-Orthodox Judaism"). The terms "litvish" and "yeshivish" are usually used to describe the mitnagdim, given Lithuania's status as a center of opposition to Hasidism (due largely to the influence of the Vilna Gaon) and the large network of yeshivot tracing their origins to Lithuanian Jews. Though he's right that the two groups have managed to overcome their centuries-long enmity in favor of presenting a united front against Religious Zionism and secularism. Witness the alliance between the mitnaged Degel HaTorah and the hasidic Agudat Yisrael political parties in modern Israel. Further evidence, I guess, of Bob's thesis.

Mark Kleiman refutes aquinas: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/211...2:05&out=52:17

dear lord! if there's one more of the god vlogs i'm gonna become the first atheist suicide bomber!

I don't think Wright's use of "non-zero sum" really quite matches with my understanding of that phrase. If the early Jews murdered some hunter-gatherer tribe and used their land for intensive agriculture that'd be non-zero sum, because the net benefit would exceed the net cost (though admittedly I have no idea how Wright calculates these sums). I think the phrase "mutually beneficial" would be a better fit, if I understand what he's trying to say anyway. edit: actually, "non-zero sum" doesn't even imply a net benefit, does it? The Aztec religion was non-zero sum because it led to regular human sacrifices presumably without any compensating benefits

Please, stop with the shameless hawking of your book. Please. You are tying up the blogginghead airways with your mediocre book.

Quoting basilides: Please, stop with the shameless hawking of your book. Please. You are tying up the blogginghead airways with your mediocre book.

His site. His book. Doncha think?

I want to know if Bob's going to read Mark Kleiman's book!

Quoting basilides: Please, stop with the shameless hawking of your book. Please. You are tying up the blogginghead airways with your mediocre book.

Wow, what an asshole.
Keep these up Bob, their an interesting change.

Short commentary on Robert Wright's interpretation of St. Paul's motivations http://bahaicoherence.blogspot.com/2...and-other.html

When Bob says "non-zero," think "win-win." Of course, reading his book "Nonzero" would also be a good way to get his view on the subject.

I am puzzled why Bob insists that the conflicts between religions or within religions are mainly material in origin---disputes over territory, political jurisdictions etc. As Mark Kleiman points out, the doctrinal disputes within sixteenth-and-seventeenth century Christianity were ferocious at times, revolving around obscure theological points that were once able to rally believers of one sect to massacre the believers of another sect. I think he underestimates the extent to which belief, pure belief, is itself an incentive to hatred: if you think that your salvation hinges on correctness of belief, the "false" beliefs of others will be a direct threat to your peace of mind. Unless you convert them, after all, you may be wrong!

I find Bob's statement that religious conflict is not about religion to be a huge overstatement. It's certainly true that religious conflict is sometimes more an expression of some other kind of conflict (class conflict or ethnic conflict). It's probably very often true that purely religious conflicts won't remain purely religious for long -- as each side tries to gain supporters, it will try to drag in allies from existing conflicts.
But, given the importance of belief in Christianity -- having the right beliefs about the savior is part of salvation -- it's not hard to see how different metaphysical intuitions about God and Jesus might lead directly and independently to violent conflict. The debate over Jesus's humanity (and divinity) in the third century seems to me to be a very good case in point. Some people had the Platonic/Aristotelian intuition that to make God like humans or to say that God could become human would be to make God a petty thing -- to say that God could become human (and even suffer) would be a huge insult to God. Others felt the whole

God. God-god-god-god-goddy-goddy-god.
Repeat ad nauseam.

1) Bob: Ignore the carping from folks hostile to your book and its ideas who grouse that it's just endless and shameless hawking of wares. I find this a welcome change of pace from the unrelieved politics ad nauseum which, hashed and rehashed, choke off these more meaningful diavlog topics. 2) Seems that Bob's positing of a relatively straight-line positive evolution of humanity's conception of God is built on largely conjectural suppositions about the nature of belief as it supposedly existed many centuries ago, back before we have any historical evidence (that it was somehow necessarily polytheistic, that it necessarily had no moral component, etc.). This is just theorization with no assuredly solid factual basis. It's really just as likely that this is not evolution at all, but rather a repeatedly waxing and waning cycle that will alternate endlessly between terror and mellowness on into future eras. 3) Kind of ironic and funny that Bob's personal path seems lately to align more with the consciousness-transforming experience of elementary initial semi-Buddhist meditation states. (I heard him holding forth on it again on the Dianne Rehm Show yesterday.) One wonders if

Quoting I'm SO awesome!: dear lord! if there's one more of the god vlogs i'm gonna become the first atheist suicide bomber!

Martyr yourself for reason and science!

Americans seem to be convinced that Catholicism teaches or encourages fertility. That is probably the result of italian and mexican immigration. The fertility of these migrants were/are actually higher than in their homelands. Same thing can be observed with some muslim ethnicities in Europe. Catholicism traditionally encouraged and celebrated celibacy. The exceptionally pious even chose to live a celibate marriage, known as "Joseph's marriage", "angels marriage" or "white marriage".
The Nazis blamed Catholicism for low birthrates in 1920s Germany. I personally don't remember one sermon from my childhood or a lesson in religous instruction in school in which we were told that we were supposed to have children. Recently, the church has started to preach fertility und to blame secularism on infertility. But that doesn't seem to be based on traditional doctrine, rather than just the churches ongoing commentary on contemporary issues. It seems to me that if anything, catholicism served as a form of population control before the existance of contraceptives. The Evolution of God
I have only seen this and maybe two halfs of the recent barrage of videos about Roberts's book. His views seem ptolemaic to me. He is

Quoting Francoamerican: I am puzzled why Bob insists that the conflicts between religions or within religions are mainly material in origin---disputes over territory, political jurisdictions etc. As Mark Kleiman points out, the doctrinal disputes within sixteenth-and-seventeenth century Christianity were ferocious at times, revolving around obscure theological points that were once able to rally believers of one sect to massacre the believers of another sect. I think he underestimates the extent to which belief, pure belief, is itself an incentive to hatred: if you think that your salvation hinges on correctness of belief, the "false" beliefs of others will be a direct threat to your peace of mind. Unless you convert them, after all, you may be wrong!

I tend to agree. Bob seems to admit that he hasn't really looked at a lot of these situations, particularly the Christian-Christian conflicts. My guess (having not read the book yet, but still planning to do so soon) is that he does see material causes in a lot of the more recent religious conflicts, and in some cases progress based on material-type approaches. It's easier if one believes that material causes are the answer, since the religious disagreement goes away

Quoting dieter: Americans seem to be convinced that Catholicism teaches or encourages fertility. That is probably the result of italian and mexican immigration.

Maybe, but I think it's simpler -- basically that the particular focus is on the 20th century. Fertility in the US has tended to be traditionally quite high across all groups, but the jokes about Catholics and fertility are contrasting people in much more recent times. (It's also outdated, of course -- the current jokes would be particular sorts of religious people vs. more secular or secular-influenced people, religious or not.)

But that doesn't seem to be based on traditional doctrine, rather than just the churches ongoing commentary on contemporary issues.

I tend to agree with this, if you look back far enough certainly.

This was an interesting part of the diavlog: Bob's question about why intellectual converts are often drawn to Catholicism, and Mark's related comment that Protestantism "can't hold itself". Perhaps part of the answer to Bob's question is that the intellectual doesn't see his conversion as "buying into a ... belief system", but rather joining a highly developed intellectual edifice. It's sort of like opening a book on higher mathematics and seeing page after page of established, interlocking theorems. There is a feeling of safety, stability and the wisdom of the multitude. Mark's puzzlement about how the Protestant justifies his faith may be an under-appreciation of the personal connection with God. The individual receives inspiration directly from the source to explicate the scripture. If you are moved by the Spirit, surely this has more validity than centuries of circuitous and flawed human argument. In this light, selection of a denomination has less to do with doctrine and nothing at all to do with finding the one true church. It's mostly fellowship and comfort. Protestants wonder why the Catholic devotes himself to the cult without direct understanding. Catholics wonder why

I dont think all these informercials about the book will boost sales, because its too transparent that these bloggingheads sessions are meant for selling the book. Unless Robert has financial problems, and need money NOW, he shouldnt damage his credibility by turning the bloggingheads into a sales machine.
Its a reason why most TV-hosts doesnt appear in commercials. It damages their credibility. If he want to sell his book, he should be less direct about it. Mention and reference to it here and there, but dont pimp it all the time in every dialog.

Quoting TheReader: I dont think all these informercials about the book will boost sales, because its too transparent that these bloggingheads sessions are meant for selling the book.

I don't agree. Both participants said that this one was Mark's idea (though as far as I'm concerned Bob can do what he wants). I really enjoyed the discussion, and don't think it relied on the existence of the book for the interest -- the two simply could have been discussing topics of mutual interest (as I guess they were). I found the topics interesting (especially the whole thing about Mark's study group), and generally enjoy Mark and Bob as diavlog participants, so really enjoyed this one. (I wish Mark were on more; he's interesting whatever he talks about.) Now, if Bob wants to get into it with Dinesh D'Souza, that could be fun in a very different sort of way.

I enjoy these discussions occasioned by the publication of Bob's book very much. They are not dominating the site.

Mark makes a good point about the emergence of Maimonides as a thinker who wanted to re-make Judaism as a Credo religion in the manner of Christianity and Islam. This really never took, in my opinion, because atheism was already deeply embedded and tolerated within pre-Medieval Jewish society. People began to pay lip service to Maimonides' Ani Maamin (the Jewish credo), but belief (in the Christian sense) never penetrated ordinary life. This is a subtle point. Of course, Bob is right to insist that Jews believed in God. But they believed in Jewish identity and culture first and foremost. God was (is) a kind of accessory. Christians, on the other hand, are organized at the core as a community of faith. Culture is the accessory. Atheist Jews, known since ancient times as Apikoursim (Epicureans) were surely condemned but never rejected as non-Jews. Non-Jews since Biblical times are known as "goyim" (people of other nations), a completely different category. Conversion into Judaism (as in the story of Ruth) was viewed as joining a people (God is irrelevant in the story), while converting out was always viewed as opportunistic treason rather than a philosophical change. (Paul of Tarsus is

Though he's right that the two groups have managed to overcome their centuries-long enmity in favor of presenting a united front against Religious Zionism and secularism. Witness the alliance between the mitnaged Degel HaTorah and the hasidic Agudat Yisrael political parties in modern Israel. Further evidence, I guess, of Bob's thesis.

I saw an interview on Israeli television a few months ago of an Haredi (ultra-O) rabbi who had met with Ahmed Yassin, the disabled Hamas cleric later assassinated by the IDF as a "terrorist mastermind." The rabbi's point was that he had a wonderful rapport and understanding with Yassis, and if the evil secularists would just get out of the way, they could make lasting peace (non-zero sum?) peace in a couple of days. Similar alliances are rampant in the US between ultra-nationalist Settler groups (not to be confused with ultra-Orthodox) and Armageddon-minded Evangelicals. Strange bedfellows all over the place.

My reading of the statement in Genesis that human beings are created 'in the image of God' -- and this is based on a close reading of the Torah itself not my personal ideas -- is that only those others we encounter who believe in the God of Abraham -- ie, in a God who is "just" and who is "the judge of the earth" -- are considered to be fully human (and hence worthy to be treated as "a neighbor" to use the antidote about Akiba Mark Kleinman refers to). This reading is fully consistent with Abraham's actual behavior as described in Genesis. Thus he makes treaties and agreements with the tribes he encounters, who are in each case described as "God fearers," as for example at the well at Beersheba: treaties that are based on the principle of equity as opposed to physical force. It also explains Abraham's refusal to accept war booty by saying: "I have lifted up my hand to Almight God that I will not take so much as a shoelace that is not mine, less any should say 'I have made Abram rich'." BTW, the two

Wow sounds like a great book party. Kaus, Drum, Kleiman...but no Uncle Ebeneezer :-( Just sayin', Bob, my schedule is pretty wide open for the next one. I could even provide musical entertainment.

@ Bobs notion that conflicts are not so much about religion so much as other factors.. not sure about that.
A good test would be to look at different religious populations within a certain society, control for income and ethnicity, and see what the differences were in terms of crime and tolerance and general strife.
I have a very hard time believing a Buddhist community in India would be equally likely to produce violent members bent on murdering people compared to a population of muslims given similar treatment.
The source material is not interchangeable. It is harder to use the doctrines of certain belief systems to compel violence compared to others.
I think even Bob agrees with this in other areas, mentioning in another log how a certain view of religions (my view that they are a factor in the problems of a society) can lead to a more NEOCON (que psycho theme) bent. But even there, he acknowledges a certain world view is a force in the outcomes of behavior and action towards others. So why would this not be the case with different religious notions?

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/211...2:55&out=23:01

I mostly agree with Mark's comments on Judaism, but here's an minor quibble. I don't know what he was thinking when he said that Jews are focused not on the Tanakh (Bible) but on the Talmud. While the Talmud permeates all of observant Judaism, traditional Jews (men anyway) read and chant portions of the Torah 3 times a week and on all major holy days. The Torah reading ritual is absolutely central to Shabat services and any opening of the Sacred Ark. The congregation also discuss the weekly Torah parsha (chapter). The Torah, not the Talmud, is read publicly to the congregations, including women. Women and children in general are certainly better versed in Bible stories than Talmud disputations. Women usually get short shrift in these theological discussions. Judaism was until very recently (and remains in its ultra versions) a patiarchal religion with an all-male clergy. While literacy was universal among men, it was very limited among women. Also, the discussion about Hassidim vs. Mitnagdim (the Ashkenazi crowd) neglected the point of view of Mizrachi Jews (the non-European majority of Jews in Israel!) who have very different schools of thought.

My favorite take-away (only take-away, what were they talking about, anyway?) was Mark's statement regarding Pope John XXIII's liberal policies leading to the upsurge in fundamentalism. "....which just proves that it's very hard to do anything useful historically" Oh yes

This Jewish Edition diavlog reminds me that my three favorite 'vloggers are themselves Jewish: Kleiman (can we please get more of him?!), Josh Cohen, and Michelle Goldberg (though, admittedly, I'm guessing about the last two, based on their names.) The Holy Trinity of diavloggers!

I think Bob Wright has a point regarding various of the wars in which religion was a component, especially in the Catholic vs. Protestant wars you mention. If you look at the 30-years war in Central Europe for example, one component of the struggle was certainly the Catholic (Holy Roman) Imperials vs. the Protestants in the north of what is now Germany together with their similarly Luthern Sweedish allies, but it was hardly the only reason they were fighting. The stages of this war were just part of the ongoing power struggle between factions looking for control over the many small states that made up the region at the time, with the inclusion of players who found the wars a considerable source of personal wealth, as well as involving dynastic control.
This struggle never really ended until the northerners won and united Germany under Prussian domination. The Catholic vs. Protestant theme was part of wars over power and dynastic control in Britian as well. A couple of points stand out, regarding the role of religion in these wars. The first is that the subject of religion was of

I have a very hard time believing a Buddhist community in India would be equally likely to produce violent members bent on murdering people compared to a population of muslims given similar treatment.

I don't know. I mean, Buddhist suicide bombers seem a little absurd, but I'm sure they could find some justification somewhere. I think there were some Buddhist rebellions in early modern China. The Sri Lanka conflict has been pretty brutal, too, and you have Buddhists on one side and Hindus on the other.

Quoting Wonderment: Mark makes a good point about the emergence of Maimonides as a thinker who wanted to re-make Judaism as a Credo religion in the manner of Christianity and Islam.

This really never took, in my opinion, because atheism was already deeply embedded and tolerated within pre-Medieval Jewish society. People began to pay lip service to Maimonides' Ani Maamin (the Jewish credo), but belief (in the Christian sense) never penetrated ordinary life.

This is a subtle point. Of course, Bob is right to insist that Jews believed in God. But they believed in Jewish identity and culture first and foremost. God was (is) a kind of accessory. Christians, on the other hand, are organized at the core as a community of faith. Culture is the accessory.

Atheist Jews, known since ancient times as Apikoursim (Epicureans) were surely condemned but never rejected as non-Jews. Non-Jews since Biblical times are known as "goyim" (people of other nations), a completely different category.

Conversion into Judaism (as in the story of Ruth) was viewed as joining a people (God is irrelevant in the story), while converting out was always viewed as opportunistic treason rather than a philosophical change. (Paul of Tarsus is

Quoting kezboard: I don't know. I mean, Buddhist suicide bombers seem a little absurd, but I'm sure they could find some justification somewhere. I think there were some Buddhist rebellions in early modern China. The Sri Lanka conflict has been pretty brutal, too, and you have Buddhists on one side and Hindus on the other.

With all due respect: You don't know what you're talking about. Neither of these conflicts have any Buddhist doctrine upon which they can stand. These examples you cite were / are purely political civil conflicts. White Lotus was in no way a genuinely Buddhist tradition. It was another one of many wacky Chinese syncretistic religious sects. To call the Sri Lankan conflict a matter of "Buddhist" against "Hindu" is like calling our own Civil War an essentially "Christian" conflict. Absurd. If you had ever undertaken any even moderately serious reading on Buddhist tenets, you'd know that your assertion is wildly off-base. Theistic religions tend, when feeling threatened or hostile, to glorify slaughter of infidels. As I noted earlier (post #17 in this thread), Buddhism is neither theistic nor atheistic. In spite of Bob's occasional errors on this account (In these "God" diavlogs, he's sometimes ventured such judgments himself or approved diavlog

Quoting Wonderment: This is a subtle point. Of course, Bob is right to insist that Jews believed in God. But they believed in Jewish identity and culture first and foremost. God was (is) a kind of accessory. Christians, on the other hand, are organized at the core as a community of faith. Culture is the accessory.

How would this apply to the allegiance Jews have for the country they live in? If the focus of Jews starts with their culture and identity, then a suspicious and even hostile response to Jews by the larger society is understandable, no? Israel Shahak wrote a fascinating book on the subject of the frictions inherent in the teachings of the Talmud in regard to Gentiles.
http://www.amazon.com/Jewish-History...7835721&sr=8-1

I find Bob's statement that religious conflict is not about religion to be a huge overstatement.

All Bob has been saying -- in about a dozen of these book chats -- is that religion doesn't NECESSARILY lead to conflict. No matter what the doctrinal disputes, you can spin the religion to have a peaceful/cooperative message. And no matter what the doctrine says, you can spin it for mass murder. Nowhere could this be more ironically than in Christianity. Jesus was a pacifist who never hurt a human being in his life, if you discount a minor tussle with moneychangers at the temple. The religion is based on turning the other cheek, forgiveness and reconciliation. On the other hand, Gandhi spun the Bhagavad Gita, a manual of killing and macho militarism, into a pacifist bible. That's Bob's point: nothing in the texts precludes or promotes peace (or war).

Very interesting post. I was unaware that atheist Jews were always welcome in their community. But aren't you forgetting about Spinoza.... who was excommunicated and still seems to arouse a certain hostility in orthodox Jewish circles?

True. You do have the institution of excommunication (learned from European Christians), and it is not surprising that the rabbis had to play that card against Spinoza (and others). Spinoza was their first whiff of the Enlightenment and scared them; they thought he would bring heat on Jews from the "tolerant" Dutch Christians. He was a celebrated thinker and they concluded that they had to draw a line in the sand. With the Enlightenment, of course, the long march to secularization began in earnest, and the overwhelming majority of Jews have steadily abandoned Orthodoxy ever since. (Zionism -- founded by socialist atheists -- does have a revivalist component, but that's a separate story) The Pascal anecdote is great! Better than the famous wager.

Quoting Wonderment: Nowhere could this be more ironically than in Christianity. Jesus was a pacifist who never hurt a human being in his life, if you discount a minor tussle with moneychangers at the temple. The religion is based on turning the other cheek, forgiveness and reconciliation.

render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's is an implicit acceptance of the authority of the state. Since taxes then and now are used to finance a professional military, by Jesus saying you should pay your taxes, he is saying you should fund your government's military. I read the turn the other cheek admonition to apply to actions that dont injure you. It is the teaching that the rich man cant get into heaven, that is something Christians and the Church conviently forget about.

...by Jesus saying you should pay your taxes, he is saying you should fund your government's military.

I rest my case.

Ouch!!

Quoting DenvilleSteve: render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's is an implicit acceptance of the authority of the state. Since taxes then and now are used to finance a professional military, by Jesus saying you should pay your taxes, he is saying you should fund your government's military. I read the turn the other cheek admonition to apply to actions that dont injure you. It is the teaching that the rich man cant get into heaven, that is something Christians and the Church conviently forget about.

I was taught that Jesus isn't accepting the authority of the state over a Christian. And he isn't saying you should pay your taxes. He is just saying that state and taxes are irrelevant. A rich man can go to heaven after death because at that point he is penniless by definition.

I haven't watched a single vlog since the book came out. Is the book any good? The God vlogs are certainly a major turn-off for me.

I have also not yet read the book, but I have listened to Bob talk about it several times. The title, while quite sexy, seems to be a misnomer in that he is actually writing about the evolution of human conceptualizations of God. Seems to me that there are two more intriguing questions: 1. Has our experience of the sacred -- as well as our conceptualizations of that experience -- evolved over time? 2. Does God him/her/itself evolve? If God is equated with universal consciousness, does such consciousness evolve, or is it the one thing that does not?

Quoting sapeye: I'm a bit confused. I have also not yet read the book, but I have listened to Bob talk about it several times. The title, while quite sexy, seems to be a misnomer in that he is actually writing about the evolution of human ideas about God. The more intriguing question is: Does God him/her/itself evolve? If God is equated with universal consciousness, does such consciousness evolve, or is it the one thing that does not?

Why misleading? Taken literally, "evolution of God" is either incoherent or referential to something to which we have no access. "Evolution of 'God'" is too on the money for a good book title, which often seem to be required to contain some sort of double entendre. The only sense that seems to make sense is the sense in which it was intended, or at least so it seems to me.

To my ear, the title purports to point to something beyond the thinking mind; to direct experience of the numinous. But the actual book seems to stick with conceptualizations of that direct experience. How we interpret such experience and whether it is of something Other or not, is, of course, open to disagreement. What seems less open to disagreement among those who have actually spent time looking is that we do have the capacity to experience something beyond conceptual thinking that sometimes seems like Other.

welcome to disputes! the idea that god exists outside your mind is not going to be accepted as a fact by many in this discussion.

I saw Robert Wright on Bill Moyers the other night and enjoyed the interview...I think God is everything, even if everything is an illusion...we're all in this big dream and we have to wake up and not keep repeating the same consciousness that we limit ourselves to.

My understanding of what the book says about the way religion will affect the near future is that globalism will create more opportunities for non-zero sum interactions and produce a merging of culture and religion to incorporate all of the abrahamic religions. I would venture that we will see a mingling of Asian/Christian culture before a merger with the Muslim Faith. We have well entrenched non-zero relationships with Asia and in the last fifty years have already seen a broad cross fertilization of culture and spiritual practice. In the Muslim world our relationships are based on oil, a very zero sum commodity that is becoming scarcer and so conflict is growing. Pressing against the evolution of a global universalist culture is the fact that we are in a transition of global dominance and according to the book it is hegemonic power that fosters non zero relationships. An additional destabilizing force is the difference in time scale. Evolution on the religous timeline occurs over centuries, our current politcal timescale to stave off disasterous, even nuclear, conflicts are measured in tens of years