Some Politically Incorrect Thoughts on Religiously Incorrect Topics

Literally me as I write this post

For my follow up to books I've read in 2016 part 1, I'm going to focus on RELIGION of both the ancient and modern variety. As a citizen of the modern-West, I'm not alone if I were to confess that religion is boring. Sure, on surveys and polls, % of atheists is beaten by that of Christians, but there's a hell of lot of Christians who don't attend church regularly and even more who don't understand the principal theological beliefs that would set one sect apart from the other. My parents, too, were one of these "nominally" religious folks, and despite making me go to church and Buddhist temples in my childhood, they didn't care enough to prevent their son from becoming a dirty infidel in his teens. And because of the godless environment I grew up in, I'd gotten a foolish idea that religion doesn't really matter. "Who cares what papal primacy is? Who cares about the difference between Pure Land and Zen Buddhism? No, please not another school field trip to the Sikh temple with bad food!" While I'm exaggerating my ignorance here, there really does seem to be a tendency for a lot of us infidels to not understand how important religion is. When a religious person does something bad, we blame the individual, not the religion. We recognize that individuals get out of religion what they bring to it, but rarely vice versa, that religions have distinct perspectives to impart change upon the believer. In short, religion is a mere jacket, an external identity one can adopt with ease without fundamentally changing one's internal identity. Fundamental to my abandoning of such ideas was learning to read history as less the tales of great men and epoch-making moments, but more as the evolution of human society. All of a sudden, war matters, not because "ooh, shiny swords and armour" but because how it shaped human society. Economy matters, not because of some vague idea that more money = power, but how wealth is generated, accumulated, and distributed fundamentally alters human society. And last but not least, religion also matters because duh, it also shapes human society. Call it my "road to Damascus" moment, if you'd be so kind to let this dirty infidel culturally appropriate a religious term.

Full T R I G G E R   W A R N I N G S ahead to the religious and politically correct for the remainder of this post.

The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts

YHWH is King: The Development of Divine Kingship in Ancient Israel

The appeal to tradition is one of my pet peeves, not because I'm some radical progressive seeking to tear down the tradition order, but because it upholds "tradition" as some monolithic and ever-constant cultural aspect. A quick look into history shows that very few "traditions" have stood the test of time, while far more "traditional" is the change of traditions accompanying cultural change. You see this in just about every aspect of human culture. Marriage pattern is a fun example. The neolocal marriage pattern now common in the West was something that only started to gain traction in the North Sea region from the dawn of the Early Modern age, while on the other side of Eurasia in Korea and Japan, the "traditional" patrilocal marriage was actually a new pattern that gradually replaced the older matrilocal marriage. In fact, it may be quite surprising to note that matrilocal marriages remained not uncommon among Korean peasants even up to the 18th century! And the same seems to hold for religious beliefs, even the ones backed by an "unchanging word of God." As I mentioned before, my blasphemous take on the Trinity is basically a bunch of Greek philosophy nerds getting a hold of a Middle Eastern religion and fanwanking so hard that they come up with a fan-canon which then irreversibly splits the entire fandom apart. But enough ragging on Christians. As the good ol' Nazis used to say, "Let's pick on the Jews for a change."

Jewish history is incredibly inspiring and depressing. If there is a God, I'm tempted to guess the Jews are some sort of sadistic lesson on why LCK and CHR shouldn't be ignored if you're into min-maxing. But bad jokes aside, the Jews really do seem like an aberration in world history. Has there ever been another single human group that has been at the mercy of so many foreign aggressors for millennia while still maintaining their religio-cultural identity and being vastly over-represented in significant human achievements with respect to their population % share in the world? If I were Jewish, I would imagine that would give me reason to have faith in the Holy Scriptures. But what happens to faith when one accepts the premise that "All religions are syncretic"? What happens to faith when one realizes that religion, like any other tradition, is subject to change in spite of scriptures' claim to unchanging truth? Is religion bust? These questions are at the heart of the heated controversy behind historical criticism when applied to religion. If any of this peaks your interest, I highly recommend The Bible Unearthed, in which archaeologists Finkelstein and Silberman give a highly readable historical interpretation of Jewish history from its beginnings to around the end of the Babylonian exile. Honestly, I'd recommend it especially if you're not interested in Jews. Basically, this book details the traditional account of Jewish history as told in the Hebrew Bible, and how the steady accumulation of archaeological findings in the 20th century have completely overturned it. I'd previously known about the whole "pyramids built by Jewish slave labour" being an unfounded lie, but I was surprised to see that was only the tip of the iceberg. The myth of the conquest of Canaan, the United Monarchy, the "sinful" Kingdom of Israel, extent of monotheistic practices, and other inconvenient truths make for really fascinating reading. But even more interesting is the human element in why. "Why did the Jews come up with such an elaborate mythos?" The authors lay out a very convincing explanation of how human hands culturally empowered what would otherwise be a marginal, weak people through the Hebrew Bible. 

The same idea is the center of YHWH is King: The Development of Divine Kingship in Ancient Israel. Shawn Flynn, similarly to archaeologists Finkelstein and Silberman, argues how and why human hands deliberately changed the depiction of Yahweh (don't burn me at the stake, it ain't blasphemy if I only write out Yahweh's name on the computer!). To summarize the book, Flynn argues against the prevailing view that Yahweh, being influenced by other Near Eastern deities like Baal and Marduk, was initially constructed as both a warrior and creator deity. Instead, he proposes that Yahweh started out as a warrior deity and only transformed later into a creator deity most likely due to the threat of Neo-Assyrian imperialism. If that sounds boring to you, I would strongly disagree. Just think about it. How the hell do you try to convince people that your god is superior to another god, whose worshipers are about to come to your front door and tear you a new asshole? By making your god the creator god who controls even your enemies, of course! I suppose for the PC-crowd today, that might seem a little like victim blaming if your own god brings bad luck to his own followers, who have no choice but to reason that their misfortune can only be attributed to their lack of piety... Still, the simple fact that 99% of people today would go, "literally who?" when you mention Ashur proves that the Jews came up with a lasting solution. Overall, both The Bible Unearthed and YHWH is King will shed a good light into how humans shape religion, and how that religion will, in turn, shape their futures as well. Sure, I might lack a reverent view for the Bible, but I sure as hell give mad respect to it as a great example of co-evolution.

*One extra note. YHWH is King is a PhD dissertation that got expanded into a book. It definitely shows in a negative way... As in I think it could have been a lot more concise. It's not that bad though, since it's less than 200 pages.

Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins

Oh boy... This book is something. Let me first point out that I am aware Robert Spencer, the author of Did Muhammad Exist?, is a vehement anti-Islamist and he doesn't exactly have any substantial scholarly credentials on Islam compared to actual specialists on Islam. Moreover, I don't buy (so far) that Muhammad was a fictitious figure. That being said, I think it is still worth reading so allow me to justify this belief.

Just fuck my shit up, fam

Every history fan has their own favourite quote on what history is. I'm not fond of the quotes that history is "something written by the victors," or "a set of lies agreed upon." I much prefer the idea of history as a "creative reconstruction of the past" and what matters is how one reconstructs it. It doesn't imply that historical truth doesn't exist, nor some sort of silly post-modern concept that all reconstructions are equally valid. But at the same time, it stresses the plurality of reconstructions with all their inherent biases. To put my views in less pretentious terms, when you see a shitty building, don't just uncritically dismiss it. Ask why. Is it just the aesthetic style that's fucked up? Are the building materials impractical to the form or function? Is it inharmonious to the location?

Now I'd previously known that Islam too, like Christianity and Judaism, had its own strain of historical-critical scholarship, with the gist of the skeptics' argument being that the Islam as we know it today was more the product of the early Abbasid period rather than the traditional view that Islam came into being fully formed since the Prophet directly received the word of God. But I never bothered to follow up on it, since everything I'd read in school never even hinted at an alternate interpretation to the birth of Islam, and one can only pay attention to so many conspiracy theories. However, since I've come to see how much bullshit gets by in the world of adults, I thought it was finally time to give it a go and I'm glad I did. Despite the sensationalist title of Did Muhammad Exist?, I found it enlightening to realize that neither side of the "Muhammad as a historical vs. fictitious figure" debate has what I'd consider conclusive evidence. There's quite a bit of shaky, or lack of evidence in general on the believers side, while for the skeptics, the absence of evidence is simply not enough. Like I said already though, if I had to pick a side, I'd choose the side of the historical figure for now. Even more praiseworthy on Spencer's part is the fact that if you're interested in the subject at all, Did Muhammad Exist? will make you want to go do more research. I mean, that's pretty much the best compliment you can give to a pop-history book, whether written by some Rhodes-scholar academic or amateur journalist. Immediately after reading  Did Muhammad Exist?, I went out and read highly critical reviews by both laymen and specialists. I looked at where Spencer was drawing his arguments for, since historical-criticism of Islam, while not as avidly explored as for Christianity or Judaism, has roots dating back to the 19th century. And that's how I was led to this next book...

The Hidden Origins of Islam: New Research into Its Early History

This is a collection of essays by various scholars (though some critics would argue that a few are rank amateurs) all pushing a revisionist view of early Islam. And these essays are a hell of a lot more fun than Spencer's book, assuming you do have some basic background knowledge of late antiquity. Jesus, I can't remember the last time I was so shocked by an essay as the one by Volker Popp that starts off this collection. There's the kind of moderate revisionist views on early Islam you see in Robert Holyland's In God's Path: The Arab Conquests and the Creation of an Islamic Empire (also recommended), which advocates a non-monolithic view of Islam's rise, which seems like common sense if you're not a Muslim. But then you have guys like Volker Popp who's just so out there it makes you feel like up is down, right is left, Kyoani is SHAFT. I really don't want to spoil the surprise, but here's one of his "milder" claims. Popp, citing the revisionist work Crossroads to Islam (which I haven't read, but its central thesis seems to be the same as Popp's), pushes the view that the Byzantine Empire abandoned attempts to assume direct control of Syria and Palestine from the late-6th century while the Byzantine-Sassanid wars were going on strong. He supports this with the fact that papyri show names of scribes had switched from Greek to Arabic forms, that Byzantine armies had largely withdrawn from the area, and that Heraclius' reorganization of the empire excluded Syria. He doesn't exactly go into any detail about these reforms, but I'm tempted to guess he's alluding to the themata reforms? If so, then that would hurt his argument since the prevailing view of who started the themata system has switched from Heraclius to one of the post-Heraclius emperors like Constans II, meaning that Syria had already been lost to the Arabs by that point. 

But I'm way in over my head here, since I'm nowhere near qualified to critique his claims. Still, I gotta say, it's fun having your assumptions challenged. The second essay is also equally thought-provoking. This is the infamous Luxenberg essay that argues for a re-interpretation of the Quran as a Syro-Aramaic Christian liturgical text (!!!), leading to radical interpretations like the whole promise of virgins in paradise actually being a mistranslation of promise of raisins. Even though you'd have to know all the ancient languages he mentions to really judge his claims, it's written such that a layman can understand his basic methodology and his findings. I'd recommend reading the review on Livius after reading the essay though for a more sober response. The rest of the essays aren't quite as bold as the first two, and some are downright dense as fuck, but like with Spencer's book, I think more people ought to read it just so they realize that there are alternative views out there on how Islam came into being. Overall, after reading these two books, as well as various other papers, I am quite convinced that the character of Islam changed between the time of Muhammad and Abbasid era, if the early coinage, inscriptions, and historical mentions prove anything. And if it did indeed change, I think that like with the transformation of both Christianity and Judaism, there's definitely a political reason underlying it. While I think it would be super fucking cool if Islam had actually originated simply as a non-Trinitarian Christian sect or a Jewish messianic sect, I can't say I quite buy it yet. Probably just heavily influenced would be my guess but who knows? The Yemeni dimension seems particularly fascinating though, which would lend credence to the influence of Judaism and Himyarite ideology. I had no idea Yemen was so influential in early Islam, considering they're the backwater of the modern Islamic world today. 

But enough fanboyish ramblings on the deconstructions of ancient religions. While I could end the post here having only annoyed religious fundamentalists, I can't help imagining some smug fedora-wearing atheist wagging his finger at the religious for being so blind as to the fabricated dimension of their faiths. So I want to try to humble them by pointing out a lot of so-called "atheists" in the modern-West are equally blind to their own religion as well. The central tenet of this new "modern religion" is that humans, regardless of their culture, religion, gender, sex, or race are the same. As such, any observed differences must come from the environment rather than their fundamental natures, meaning that if we could simply will our governments to alter our social environs enough, we can achieve true equality. Our new clergy are the academics (mostly in humanities) and social activists who pronounce biological differences as heretical. Instead of the Trinitarian formula or the Basmala, we have the phrase, "all humans are equal but some are more equal than others."

If you're an adherent of this new religion, I'm not sure if there's even anything I can say to convince you otherwise, anymore than I can convince a Christian that the Buddha had the right idea about the cosmos all along. I only ask that your faith be subject to critical examination, just as scholars have done to Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. If you don't know what you should be critically examining, here's a few topics. Is there a genetic component to intelligence and is it subject to evolutionary pressure? Is there a genetic component to human behavior? If one group of humans live in a market-integrated society with a strong state that holds a monopoly on violence and another group lives in a subsistent, tribal society where the individual has full claim to exercise violence, would you expect natural selection to churn out the same product? Can race have separate meanings as a social construct as well as a biological reality? Why is it that if poverty explains crime, not all poor peoples show the same tendency for violence? Why is it that if discrimination explains underachievement, not all discriminated people show the same level of achievement? Why is it that some countries can lift themselves out of poverty in just a few decades while others remain mired in endemic violence and corruption for centuries? If colonialism explains terrorism, why is it that France is continually threatened by Middle Eastern terrorists and not Southeast Asian ones? Why is it that there's a strong correlation to IQ and a nation's wealth, and that notable outliers are either oil-states or are/were communist states? Do people shape culture/institutions or vice-versa? And lastly, if you can accept that culture does matter, is advocating a government that promotes cultural values of protecting bad decision-makers and a subversion of meritocracy really going to promote a society's well-being in the long run?

Who knows, maybe I am a bigot that needs to be taken away by the new Spanish Inquisition...