Search
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated Writings Of Thomas Paine Volume 4 (1794 1796); The Age Of Reason in Books
Jun 29, 2018
Thomas Paine was a political theorist who was perhaps best known for his support for the American Revolution in his pamphlet Common Sense. In what might be his second best known work, The Age of Reason, Paine argued in favor of deism and against the Christian religion and its conception of God. By deism it is meant the belief in a creator God who does not violate the laws of nature by communicating through revelation or miracles The book was very successful and widely read partly due to the fact that it was written in a style which appealed to a popular audience and often implemented a sarcastic, derisive tone to make its points.
The book seems to have had three major objectives: the support of deism, the ridicule of what Paine found loathsome in Christian theology, and the demonstration of how poor an example the Bible is as a reflection of God.
In a sense, Paine's arguments against Christian theology and scripture were meant to prop up his deistic philosophy. Paine hoped that in demonizing Christianity while giving evidences for God, he would somehow have made the case for deism. But this is not so. If Christianity is false, but God exists nonetheless, we are not left only with deism. There are an infinite number of possibilities for us to examine regarding the nature of God, and far too many left over once we have eliminated the obviously false ones. In favor of deism Paine has only one argument—his dislike of supernatural revelation, which is to say that deism appeals to his culturally derived preferences. In any case, Paine's thinking on the matter seemed to be thus: if supernatural revelation could be shown to be inadequate and the development of complex theology shown to be an error, one could still salvage a belief in God as Creator, but not as an interloper in human affairs who required mediators.
That being said, in his support of deism, Paine makes some arguments to demonstrate the reasonableness in belief in, if not the logical necessity of the existence of, God which could be equally used by Christians.
For instance, just as the apostle Paul argued in his epistle to the Romans that, "what can be known about God is plain to [even pagans], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:19-20, ESV), so also Paine can say that, "the Creation speaketh an universal language [which points to the existence of God], independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be."
The key point on which Paine differs from Paul on this issue is in his optimism about man's ability to reason to God without His assisting from the outside. Whereas Paul sees the plainness of God from natural revelation as an argument against the inherent goodness of a species which can read the record of nature and nevertheless rejects its Source's obvious existence, Paine thinks that nature and reason can and do lead us directly to the knowledge of God's existence apart from any gracious overtures or direct revelation.
On the witness of nature, Paine claims, and is quite correct, that, "THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." What is not plainly clear, however, is that man is free enough from the noetic effects of sin to reach such an obvious conclusion on his own. Indeed, the attempts of mankind to create a religion which represents the truth have invariably landed them at paganism. By paganism I mean a system of belief based, as Yehezkel Kaufmann and John N. Oswalt have shown, on continuity.iv In polytheism, even the supernatural is not really supernatural, but is perhaps in some way above humans while not being altogether distinct from us. What happens to the gods is merely what happens to human beings and the natural world writ large, which is why the gods are, like us, victims of fate, and why pagan fertility rituals have attempted to influence nature by influencing the gods which represent it in accordance with the deeper magic of the eternal universe we all inhabit.
When mankind has looked at nature without the benefit of supernatural revelation, he has not been consciously aware of a Being outside of nature which is necessarily responsible for it. His reasoning to metaphysics is based entirely on his own naturalistic categories derived from his own experience. According to Moses, it took God revealing Himself to the Hebrews for anyone to understand what Paine thinks anyone can plainly see.
The goal of deism is to hold onto what the western mind, which values extreme independence of thought, views as attractive in theism while casting aside what it finds distasteful. But as C.S. Lewis remarked, Aslan is not a tame lion. If a sovereign God exists, He cannot be limited by your desires of what you'd like Him to be. For this reason, the deism of men like Paine served as a cultural stepping stone toward the atheism of later intellectuals.
For Paine, as for other deists and atheists like him, it is not that Christianity has been subjected to reason and found wanting, but that it has been subjected to his own private and culturally-determined tastes and preferences and has failed to satisfy. This is the flipside of the anti-religious claim that those who believe in a given religion only do so because of their cultural conditioning: the anti-religionist is also conditioned in a similar way. Of course, how one comes to believe a certain thing has no bearing on whether that thing is true in itself, and this is true whether Christianity, atheism, or any other view is correct. But it must be stated that the deist or atheist is not immune from the epistemic difficulties which he so condescendingly heaps on theists.
One of the befuddling ironies of Paine's work is that around the time he was writing about the revealed religions as, “no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," the French were turning churches into “temples of reason” and murdering thousands at the guillotine (an instrument of execution now most strongly identified with France's godless reign of terror). Paine, who nearly lost his own life during the French Revolution, saw the danger of this atheism and hoped to stay its progress, despite the risk to his own life in attempting to do so.
What is odd is that Paine managed to blame this violent atheism upon the Christian faith! Obfuscated Paine:
"The Idea, always dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty, — that priests could forgive sins, — though it seemed to exist no longer, had blunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others daily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also intimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself."
That Robespierre's deism finally managed to supplant the revolutionary state's atheism and that peace, love, and understanding did not then spread throughout the land undermines Paine's claims. Paine felt that the revolution in politics, especially as represented in America, would necessarily lead to a revolution in religion, and that this religious revolution would result in wide acceptance of deism. The common link between these two revolutions was the idea that the individual man was sovereign and could determine for himself what was right and wrong based on his autonomous reason. What Paine was too myopic to see was that in France's violence and atheism was found the logical consequence of his individualistic philosophy. In summary, it is not Christianity which is dangerous, but the spirit of autonomy which leads inevitably into authoritarianism by way of human desire.
As should be clear by now, Paine failed to understand that human beings have a strong tendency to set impartial reason aside and to simply evaluate reality based on their desires and psychological states. This is no more obvious than in his own ideas as expressed in The Age of Reason. Like Paine's tendency to designate every book in the Old Testament which he likes as having been written originally by a gentile and translated into Hebrew, so many of his criticisms of Christian theology are far more a reflection upon himself than of revealed Christianity. One has only to look at Paine's description of Jesus Christ as a “virtuous reformer and revolutionist” to marvel that Paine was so poor at introspection so as to not understand that he was describing himself.
There is much more that could be said about this work, but in the interest of being somewhat concise, I'll end my comments here. If you found this analysis to be useful, be sure to check out my profile and look for my work discussing Paine and other anti-Christian writers coming soon.
The book seems to have had three major objectives: the support of deism, the ridicule of what Paine found loathsome in Christian theology, and the demonstration of how poor an example the Bible is as a reflection of God.
In a sense, Paine's arguments against Christian theology and scripture were meant to prop up his deistic philosophy. Paine hoped that in demonizing Christianity while giving evidences for God, he would somehow have made the case for deism. But this is not so. If Christianity is false, but God exists nonetheless, we are not left only with deism. There are an infinite number of possibilities for us to examine regarding the nature of God, and far too many left over once we have eliminated the obviously false ones. In favor of deism Paine has only one argument—his dislike of supernatural revelation, which is to say that deism appeals to his culturally derived preferences. In any case, Paine's thinking on the matter seemed to be thus: if supernatural revelation could be shown to be inadequate and the development of complex theology shown to be an error, one could still salvage a belief in God as Creator, but not as an interloper in human affairs who required mediators.
That being said, in his support of deism, Paine makes some arguments to demonstrate the reasonableness in belief in, if not the logical necessity of the existence of, God which could be equally used by Christians.
For instance, just as the apostle Paul argued in his epistle to the Romans that, "what can be known about God is plain to [even pagans], because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:19-20, ESV), so also Paine can say that, "the Creation speaketh an universal language [which points to the existence of God], independently of human speech or human language, multiplied and various as they be."
The key point on which Paine differs from Paul on this issue is in his optimism about man's ability to reason to God without His assisting from the outside. Whereas Paul sees the plainness of God from natural revelation as an argument against the inherent goodness of a species which can read the record of nature and nevertheless rejects its Source's obvious existence, Paine thinks that nature and reason can and do lead us directly to the knowledge of God's existence apart from any gracious overtures or direct revelation.
On the witness of nature, Paine claims, and is quite correct, that, "THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD: And it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man." What is not plainly clear, however, is that man is free enough from the noetic effects of sin to reach such an obvious conclusion on his own. Indeed, the attempts of mankind to create a religion which represents the truth have invariably landed them at paganism. By paganism I mean a system of belief based, as Yehezkel Kaufmann and John N. Oswalt have shown, on continuity.iv In polytheism, even the supernatural is not really supernatural, but is perhaps in some way above humans while not being altogether distinct from us. What happens to the gods is merely what happens to human beings and the natural world writ large, which is why the gods are, like us, victims of fate, and why pagan fertility rituals have attempted to influence nature by influencing the gods which represent it in accordance with the deeper magic of the eternal universe we all inhabit.
When mankind has looked at nature without the benefit of supernatural revelation, he has not been consciously aware of a Being outside of nature which is necessarily responsible for it. His reasoning to metaphysics is based entirely on his own naturalistic categories derived from his own experience. According to Moses, it took God revealing Himself to the Hebrews for anyone to understand what Paine thinks anyone can plainly see.
The goal of deism is to hold onto what the western mind, which values extreme independence of thought, views as attractive in theism while casting aside what it finds distasteful. But as C.S. Lewis remarked, Aslan is not a tame lion. If a sovereign God exists, He cannot be limited by your desires of what you'd like Him to be. For this reason, the deism of men like Paine served as a cultural stepping stone toward the atheism of later intellectuals.
For Paine, as for other deists and atheists like him, it is not that Christianity has been subjected to reason and found wanting, but that it has been subjected to his own private and culturally-determined tastes and preferences and has failed to satisfy. This is the flipside of the anti-religious claim that those who believe in a given religion only do so because of their cultural conditioning: the anti-religionist is also conditioned in a similar way. Of course, how one comes to believe a certain thing has no bearing on whether that thing is true in itself, and this is true whether Christianity, atheism, or any other view is correct. But it must be stated that the deist or atheist is not immune from the epistemic difficulties which he so condescendingly heaps on theists.
One of the befuddling ironies of Paine's work is that around the time he was writing about the revealed religions as, “no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit," the French were turning churches into “temples of reason” and murdering thousands at the guillotine (an instrument of execution now most strongly identified with France's godless reign of terror). Paine, who nearly lost his own life during the French Revolution, saw the danger of this atheism and hoped to stay its progress, despite the risk to his own life in attempting to do so.
What is odd is that Paine managed to blame this violent atheism upon the Christian faith! Obfuscated Paine:
"The Idea, always dangerous to Society as it is derogatory to the Almighty, — that priests could forgive sins, — though it seemed to exist no longer, had blunted the feelings of humanity, and callously prepared men for the commission of all crimes. The intolerant spirit of church persecution had transferred itself into politics; the tribunals, stiled Revolutionary, supplied the place of an Inquisition; and the Guillotine of the Stake. I saw many of my most intimate friends destroyed; others daily carried to prison; and I had reason to believe, and had also intimations given me, that the same danger was approaching myself."
That Robespierre's deism finally managed to supplant the revolutionary state's atheism and that peace, love, and understanding did not then spread throughout the land undermines Paine's claims. Paine felt that the revolution in politics, especially as represented in America, would necessarily lead to a revolution in religion, and that this religious revolution would result in wide acceptance of deism. The common link between these two revolutions was the idea that the individual man was sovereign and could determine for himself what was right and wrong based on his autonomous reason. What Paine was too myopic to see was that in France's violence and atheism was found the logical consequence of his individualistic philosophy. In summary, it is not Christianity which is dangerous, but the spirit of autonomy which leads inevitably into authoritarianism by way of human desire.
As should be clear by now, Paine failed to understand that human beings have a strong tendency to set impartial reason aside and to simply evaluate reality based on their desires and psychological states. This is no more obvious than in his own ideas as expressed in The Age of Reason. Like Paine's tendency to designate every book in the Old Testament which he likes as having been written originally by a gentile and translated into Hebrew, so many of his criticisms of Christian theology are far more a reflection upon himself than of revealed Christianity. One has only to look at Paine's description of Jesus Christ as a “virtuous reformer and revolutionist” to marvel that Paine was so poor at introspection so as to not understand that he was describing himself.
There is much more that could be said about this work, but in the interest of being somewhat concise, I'll end my comments here. If you found this analysis to be useful, be sure to check out my profile and look for my work discussing Paine and other anti-Christian writers coming soon.
MichaelS (0 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Feb 20, 2018
"Meanwhile, at the Hall Of Justice..."
This movie is the culmination of a childhood full of Saturday mornings in front of the tv in pajamas with a bowl of cereal. "Superfriends" was superheroes at it's most basic. The bad guys wanted to take over or destroy the world and the good guys have to stop them. That was the depth of the plots for both those classic cartoons, and this movie. It's pure cartoon fun brought to life, and I loved every minute of it.
The plot only serves as a reason for these heroes to come together. So you can say that story is not a top priority. Character is the name of the game here, and on that level, the movie is gold. Each character is fully realized, with their own individual situation they need to grow from. Every hero is given his or her moment to shine as an individual. When they stand as a team, it's some of the best superhero action we've ever gotten.
The performances of the League members is spot on across the board. Every character is presented exactly the way they should be. Ben Affleck continues to prove all the doubters wrong, by giving us the best live action version of Batman we've ever seen. Right from the start you see how he demands fear from evildoers, but filled with hope for the good things in the world. Gal Gadot IS Wonder Woman. If there was any doubt left after her solo movie, it should be thoroughly erased now. She's strong in body, mind, and spirit. Jason Mamoa forever erases the idea of Aquaman being the wimpiest superhero. His "surfer dude" take on the character brings all the recklessness and abandon you'd expect from a beach bum. He's almost like a Spartan soldier that lives for the excitement of battle. Ezra Miller brings a youthful excitement of someone who is simply jazzed by what he, and others, can do with their abilities. He's almost the comic relief until you realize that the excited reactions he gives to everything is exactly what we would to if we were dropped in that situation.
SPOILER TERRITORY....skip to "END SPOILERS" if you don't want anything ruined
Although it should really come as no surprise to anyone, Superman does indeed return from the dead in this movie. Not only is that he's resurrected very cool, but the aftermath gives us the best fight scene of the film. Superman vs The Justice League. 'nuff said? I've always loved Henry Cavill as Superman, but now he owns the role. He has grown from a man filled with self doubt, trying to find his place in the world, to a man who now fully realizes who he is, and what purpose he serves to mankind. Lots of great Superman stuff in this movie, and that is the thing I'm most thankful for.
END SPOILERS
This is the most fun I've had with a superhero movie in a long time. It may not have the deepest plot, but that is fine with me, because this is truly a comic book come to life. It's full of the action and joyful spirit that the boy in me tuned into every weekend. Now, if the post credit scene in the movie delivers, it REALLY will be everything that the classic Challenges Of The Superfriends, and reduce me to that boy in pajamas again, cereal in hand, and a smile on my face.
The plot only serves as a reason for these heroes to come together. So you can say that story is not a top priority. Character is the name of the game here, and on that level, the movie is gold. Each character is fully realized, with their own individual situation they need to grow from. Every hero is given his or her moment to shine as an individual. When they stand as a team, it's some of the best superhero action we've ever gotten.
The performances of the League members is spot on across the board. Every character is presented exactly the way they should be. Ben Affleck continues to prove all the doubters wrong, by giving us the best live action version of Batman we've ever seen. Right from the start you see how he demands fear from evildoers, but filled with hope for the good things in the world. Gal Gadot IS Wonder Woman. If there was any doubt left after her solo movie, it should be thoroughly erased now. She's strong in body, mind, and spirit. Jason Mamoa forever erases the idea of Aquaman being the wimpiest superhero. His "surfer dude" take on the character brings all the recklessness and abandon you'd expect from a beach bum. He's almost like a Spartan soldier that lives for the excitement of battle. Ezra Miller brings a youthful excitement of someone who is simply jazzed by what he, and others, can do with their abilities. He's almost the comic relief until you realize that the excited reactions he gives to everything is exactly what we would to if we were dropped in that situation.
SPOILER TERRITORY....skip to "END SPOILERS" if you don't want anything ruined
Although it should really come as no surprise to anyone, Superman does indeed return from the dead in this movie. Not only is that he's resurrected very cool, but the aftermath gives us the best fight scene of the film. Superman vs The Justice League. 'nuff said? I've always loved Henry Cavill as Superman, but now he owns the role. He has grown from a man filled with self doubt, trying to find his place in the world, to a man who now fully realizes who he is, and what purpose he serves to mankind. Lots of great Superman stuff in this movie, and that is the thing I'm most thankful for.
END SPOILERS
This is the most fun I've had with a superhero movie in a long time. It may not have the deepest plot, but that is fine with me, because this is truly a comic book come to life. It's full of the action and joyful spirit that the boy in me tuned into every weekend. Now, if the post credit scene in the movie delivers, it REALLY will be everything that the classic Challenges Of The Superfriends, and reduce me to that boy in pajamas again, cereal in hand, and a smile on my face.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated H2O (The Rain, #1) in Books
Dec 7, 2018
<i>Thank you to NetGalley and Pan Macmillan for providing a proof copy to read and review.</i>
The world has already had to deal with worldwide pandemics spread by animals and birds such as swine flu and bird flu. What if there was a fatal disease in the rain? How would humanity cope? This is what Virginia Bergin explores in her debut novel aptly titled <i>The Rain</i>. If anyone were to come into contact with the rain, even a single drop, or contaminated water they would have an immediate reaction and be dead in less than three hours. Fifteen-year-old Ruby Morris, who has so far managed to survive this disaster, narrates the story starting from the first day that the disease arrived in Britain.
Ruby describes the losses of her friends and immediate family, the surprising improvement with her relationship with her stepfather Simon. She explains at length the things she had to face in order to survive, firstly with Simon and then with a particularly nerdy boy from school.
Despite hints from the title (and the blurb, of course) it is a long time before Ruby reveals what has actually happened. She talks to the reader as if they are experiencing the same thing and therefore know what she is referring to. Whilst this was probably an attempt to create suspense and to encourage the reader to keep reading it was slightly galling. What was really wanted was for Ruby to get to the point so that she and her audience would be on the same wavelength.
Whilst some readers may be able to relate to the main character: a teenage girl who loves to spend time with her friends and going to parties but has strict parents (and/or step-parents) who never let her do any of those things, which means she cannot easily have the thing she most desires – a boyfriend; she is actually a rather annoying, snobbish brat. She’s the kind of person that could be described as a “clueless bully”, a selfish girl who mostly, if not only, cares about appearances. Even in the face of the potential end of the world, or at least mankind, she is constantly worrying about the way she looks and what she wears, and is thrilled that she can break into expensive shops and take whatever make-up or clothing she wishes. There was probably a point in this character flaw – the exploration of how not only a young person copes on there own in dire situations, but someone of this particular mindset – however it was exasperating to read. She did change a little over the course of the story but not enough for her to become a likable character.
<i>The Rain</i> is more appropriate for young adult readers due to the nature of the main character, however it does deal with rather disturbing themes such as death and violence. Having said that there is nothing to stop older readers from enjoying the novel. It is an interesting concept, which, although highly unlikely to occur, will make people question how they would behave in the given situation. Would they be one of the first to die, or would they be in supermarkets fighting for the quickly disappearing food and drink? It is a thought-provoking idea!
The world has already had to deal with worldwide pandemics spread by animals and birds such as swine flu and bird flu. What if there was a fatal disease in the rain? How would humanity cope? This is what Virginia Bergin explores in her debut novel aptly titled <i>The Rain</i>. If anyone were to come into contact with the rain, even a single drop, or contaminated water they would have an immediate reaction and be dead in less than three hours. Fifteen-year-old Ruby Morris, who has so far managed to survive this disaster, narrates the story starting from the first day that the disease arrived in Britain.
Ruby describes the losses of her friends and immediate family, the surprising improvement with her relationship with her stepfather Simon. She explains at length the things she had to face in order to survive, firstly with Simon and then with a particularly nerdy boy from school.
Despite hints from the title (and the blurb, of course) it is a long time before Ruby reveals what has actually happened. She talks to the reader as if they are experiencing the same thing and therefore know what she is referring to. Whilst this was probably an attempt to create suspense and to encourage the reader to keep reading it was slightly galling. What was really wanted was for Ruby to get to the point so that she and her audience would be on the same wavelength.
Whilst some readers may be able to relate to the main character: a teenage girl who loves to spend time with her friends and going to parties but has strict parents (and/or step-parents) who never let her do any of those things, which means she cannot easily have the thing she most desires – a boyfriend; she is actually a rather annoying, snobbish brat. She’s the kind of person that could be described as a “clueless bully”, a selfish girl who mostly, if not only, cares about appearances. Even in the face of the potential end of the world, or at least mankind, she is constantly worrying about the way she looks and what she wears, and is thrilled that she can break into expensive shops and take whatever make-up or clothing she wishes. There was probably a point in this character flaw – the exploration of how not only a young person copes on there own in dire situations, but someone of this particular mindset – however it was exasperating to read. She did change a little over the course of the story but not enough for her to become a likable character.
<i>The Rain</i> is more appropriate for young adult readers due to the nature of the main character, however it does deal with rather disturbing themes such as death and violence. Having said that there is nothing to stop older readers from enjoying the novel. It is an interesting concept, which, although highly unlikely to occur, will make people question how they would behave in the given situation. Would they be one of the first to die, or would they be in supermarkets fighting for the quickly disappearing food and drink? It is a thought-provoking idea!
BookblogbyCari (345 KP) rated Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind in Books
Aug 5, 2018
This book was chosen to be the first book read and discussed in an online non-fiction book club I recently joined – and I’m glad we did choose this one!
The book is an overview of homo-sapiens as a species, and how we have changed over the ages, and what we have done, before finally touching on where we are going. As such the book is a cross-pollination of history, sociology, and economics.
As you may expect from a book with such a broad scope, there are some sweeping statements, and rather than being a neutral dispassionate account, Harari makes his opinions very evident. However rather than being irritating, I feel this makes for a more entertaining read.
The book begins by introducing the theme of homo-sapiens in the context of the presence of the other human species that used to exist. He then goes on to describe the cognitive and agricultural revolutions. Then it’s the establishment of patriarchal social hierarchies across the world, largely based on historical conventions. Next Harari states that the purpose of religion is to unify fragile societies with superhuman legitimacy.
Harari then moves on to the scientific revolution, describing how an admission of ignorance by Europeans, along with a desire to discover and conquer new lands was key to the movement.
The conversation moves swiftly then to economics, using the fact that a bank can loan £10 for every £1 it has, to argue that our economics is based on trust in the future. Harari states that a country’s credit rating is more important than its actual resources. Harari describes capitalism and consumerism as being 2 sides of the same coin with two commandments: rich must invest, rest of us must buy. Consumerism, he says, aims to convince people that indulgence is good and frugality is self-oppression.
Harari also argues that, now, instead of relying on local communities the individual relies on the market or the state. Parental authority no longer sacred, he says, and state intervenes. And so when Harari asks if we are any happier now than when we were hunter-gatherers, he argues that our rise of wealth is offset by the disintegration of community life.
Harari also speaks of ecological degradation and our tendency to treat other species as a means to an end, for example, the farming of cow's and chickens has cut years off the lives of both, since they are killed as soon as they reach their maximum weight.
In the final chapter, Harari speculates on the future of mankind. With improvements in medical knowledge comes new ethical conundrums, he says. How will we handle the options of genetic engineering? What will the advent of artificial intelligence mean for humanity?
In my book club, we found that the book generated a lot of talking points. What would the world be like now, had the other species of humans survived? Why have so many cultures across history and the world had patriarchal hierarchies? Can societies improve over time, or is one style better than another? Can communism be considered a religion? Are human rights really just a figment of our collective imagination?
Whilst not everyone in my book club enjoyed the book equally, I would say that it’s as enlightening as it is thought provoking. By the end, it was hard to argue with the author's conclusion that homo-sapiens are like dissatisfied and irresponsible gods.
The book is an overview of homo-sapiens as a species, and how we have changed over the ages, and what we have done, before finally touching on where we are going. As such the book is a cross-pollination of history, sociology, and economics.
As you may expect from a book with such a broad scope, there are some sweeping statements, and rather than being a neutral dispassionate account, Harari makes his opinions very evident. However rather than being irritating, I feel this makes for a more entertaining read.
The book begins by introducing the theme of homo-sapiens in the context of the presence of the other human species that used to exist. He then goes on to describe the cognitive and agricultural revolutions. Then it’s the establishment of patriarchal social hierarchies across the world, largely based on historical conventions. Next Harari states that the purpose of religion is to unify fragile societies with superhuman legitimacy.
Harari then moves on to the scientific revolution, describing how an admission of ignorance by Europeans, along with a desire to discover and conquer new lands was key to the movement.
The conversation moves swiftly then to economics, using the fact that a bank can loan £10 for every £1 it has, to argue that our economics is based on trust in the future. Harari states that a country’s credit rating is more important than its actual resources. Harari describes capitalism and consumerism as being 2 sides of the same coin with two commandments: rich must invest, rest of us must buy. Consumerism, he says, aims to convince people that indulgence is good and frugality is self-oppression.
Harari also argues that, now, instead of relying on local communities the individual relies on the market or the state. Parental authority no longer sacred, he says, and state intervenes. And so when Harari asks if we are any happier now than when we were hunter-gatherers, he argues that our rise of wealth is offset by the disintegration of community life.
Harari also speaks of ecological degradation and our tendency to treat other species as a means to an end, for example, the farming of cow's and chickens has cut years off the lives of both, since they are killed as soon as they reach their maximum weight.
In the final chapter, Harari speculates on the future of mankind. With improvements in medical knowledge comes new ethical conundrums, he says. How will we handle the options of genetic engineering? What will the advent of artificial intelligence mean for humanity?
In my book club, we found that the book generated a lot of talking points. What would the world be like now, had the other species of humans survived? Why have so many cultures across history and the world had patriarchal hierarchies? Can societies improve over time, or is one style better than another? Can communism be considered a religion? Are human rights really just a figment of our collective imagination?
Whilst not everyone in my book club enjoyed the book equally, I would say that it’s as enlightening as it is thought provoking. By the end, it was hard to argue with the author's conclusion that homo-sapiens are like dissatisfied and irresponsible gods.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Interstellar (2014) in Movies
Aug 9, 2018
Another top notch cinematic experience by the best director of our time
2014's INTERSTELLAR is one of Christopher Nolan's most ambitious works - and that is saying alot. It also is one of his best. Nolan - and his brother, the screenwriter of this film, Jonathan Nolan - wanted to make a "real" science fiction film, with the emphasis on the science, so they enlisted the help of noted theoretical physicist, Dr. Kip Thorne to ensure that they were not violating any established physical laws and that all speculations would spring from science and not fantasy.
And, for the most part, they succeed.
Following the adventures of "everyman" Cooper (if you call a farmer who is also a top notch astronaut, pilot and engineer an everyman), Interstellar tells of an Earth of the not-too-distant future that is running out of food and mankind must find a new planet to inhabit or else face extinction. Talked into leaving his family and heading into space, Cooper must face the challenges of his mission while fighting the emotions of leaving his family behind on a dying world.
As Cooper, Matthew McConaughey (at the height of his "McConnaissance") is perfectly cast as this "everyman". He brings the right balance of charisma, heroism, emotional maturity, intelligence and a "down to earth" behavior that has us rooting for him from the start. His acting is at the highest level and is matched, beat by beat by Jessica Chastain and (surprisingly to me at the time) Anne Hathaway as a fellow astronaut/scientist.
The special effects, worlds, circumstances, narrow escapes and deflating defeats are all handled in typical top-notch Nolan fashion, but it is the emotional stakes - specifically between McConaughey and Chastain (as his grown up daughter) are what keeps this film "grounded" and rises it above the standard sci-fi fair.
Nolan regular Michael Caine, the always great John Lithgow, Wes Bentley, Ellen Burstyn, a "before he was famous" Timothee Chalamet, another "before he was famous" David Oyelowo, Casey Affleck and a "surprise apperance" by a very famous "A" lister (who I will not name, so as not to ruin it) are all equally as good and give the proceedings the gravitas it needs.
Special notice needs to be made of the performance of Bill Irwin as the robot TARS (all space movies need a robot, right?). He performs the puppetry of the robot (Nolan wished to do everything as "practical" as possible) and adds large doses of humanity - and humor - to this non-human.
Another bit of special notice needs to be given to frequent Nolan collaborator - the brilliant Composer Hans Zimmer. He was tasked by Nolan to create a "unique" score - one that does not rely heavily on crescendoing strings and horns - and he succeeds tremendously with a hauntingly, melodic and driving score that heightens - but never overpowers - the scenes playing on the screen.
The decision as to whether or not you like this film will hinge on your "believability" of the final chapter - one where I "went with the flow" and was all right with, but (I'm sure) others will struggle with.
All in all, another top notch film by the best director of our day. If you have never seen INTERSTELLAR - or if you haven't seen it in awhile - I suggest you check it out, you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And, for the most part, they succeed.
Following the adventures of "everyman" Cooper (if you call a farmer who is also a top notch astronaut, pilot and engineer an everyman), Interstellar tells of an Earth of the not-too-distant future that is running out of food and mankind must find a new planet to inhabit or else face extinction. Talked into leaving his family and heading into space, Cooper must face the challenges of his mission while fighting the emotions of leaving his family behind on a dying world.
As Cooper, Matthew McConaughey (at the height of his "McConnaissance") is perfectly cast as this "everyman". He brings the right balance of charisma, heroism, emotional maturity, intelligence and a "down to earth" behavior that has us rooting for him from the start. His acting is at the highest level and is matched, beat by beat by Jessica Chastain and (surprisingly to me at the time) Anne Hathaway as a fellow astronaut/scientist.
The special effects, worlds, circumstances, narrow escapes and deflating defeats are all handled in typical top-notch Nolan fashion, but it is the emotional stakes - specifically between McConaughey and Chastain (as his grown up daughter) are what keeps this film "grounded" and rises it above the standard sci-fi fair.
Nolan regular Michael Caine, the always great John Lithgow, Wes Bentley, Ellen Burstyn, a "before he was famous" Timothee Chalamet, another "before he was famous" David Oyelowo, Casey Affleck and a "surprise apperance" by a very famous "A" lister (who I will not name, so as not to ruin it) are all equally as good and give the proceedings the gravitas it needs.
Special notice needs to be made of the performance of Bill Irwin as the robot TARS (all space movies need a robot, right?). He performs the puppetry of the robot (Nolan wished to do everything as "practical" as possible) and adds large doses of humanity - and humor - to this non-human.
Another bit of special notice needs to be given to frequent Nolan collaborator - the brilliant Composer Hans Zimmer. He was tasked by Nolan to create a "unique" score - one that does not rely heavily on crescendoing strings and horns - and he succeeds tremendously with a hauntingly, melodic and driving score that heightens - but never overpowers - the scenes playing on the screen.
The decision as to whether or not you like this film will hinge on your "believability" of the final chapter - one where I "went with the flow" and was all right with, but (I'm sure) others will struggle with.
All in all, another top notch film by the best director of our day. If you have never seen INTERSTELLAR - or if you haven't seen it in awhile - I suggest you check it out, you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated The Photo Traveler in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Originally posted on <a title="'The Photo Traveler by Arthur J. Gonzalez"' href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2013/05/blog-tour-the-photo-traveler-by-arthur-j-gonzalez-review-and-giveaway.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Original Rating: 4.5 out of 5
Note: Formatting is lost due to copy and paste (includes picture lost as well)
<i><b>Disclaimer:</b> I received this book from the author for free to review for the blog tour. My review is not influenced in any way.</i>
Seventeen-year-old Gavin Hillstone has been in foster care with an abusive father since his parents died in a fire at a young age. The only thing that lets him escape the torturous life is taking photos. Just when he thinks that he's going to be miserable for the rest of his life, he finds out that his dad's parents are still alive and enters the dangerous world of a small group of people called Photo Travelers.
I honest to goodness hate his adoptive family, except for maybe Dina and Leyla. What a nasty temper his adoptive father has. I'm so glad Gavin found his grandparents, because if I could, I would probably say good riddance to Jet (of course, if I actually said it... it would probably get pretty... ugly). Then there's Gavin's adoptive sister. Mel. I was thinking she at least changed a bit when she went after him after he left. I mean, I can see why she would act like that, but still... I'm sad to say I'm disappointed in her. :(
I guess that shows manipulative the villain is. 2 simple words with very simple (and good, if you look in the dictionary...) meanings... yet totally against what the other Photo Travelers are thinking of. It's kind of ironic what they mean to do for the good of mankind in the future, yet they can still break rules of all kinds.
Gavin is a pretty likable character in broad terms. He's loyal and protective when his family and friends are threatened by others. Though when it comes to some of his actions, I sometimes just want to give him a facepalm and ask, Why, Gavin, whyyy?
I love how The Photo Traveler started. My very first thought after reading the prologue was, Oh boy, this is going to a great 'ride!' I also love how Gonzalez was very accurate (at least in historical facts) when it came to Gavin's trips to places such as the Salem Witch Trials and the Great Depression. What's a bit aggravating about the book, however, is the dialogue. The characters, including Gavin himself, just seem so... happy, excited or yelling all the time. There just seems to be a bit of overuse in exclamation marks. :/
Then there's the ending. There's always that dreadful last few sentences at the end of the book where you hit the end and it seems to say right back, The End. With a lovely little cliffhanger. Somehow, you just want to say, But... but... it was just beginning to get really interesting! Despite the little mini protests, no one's going to hear me, so I'll hide in a cozy little corner, sip something nice and cold, and read on (after all, it's summer and time to... chillax). *unhappy face* I'm so glad cliffhangers don't have the ability to laugh at me... otherwise I'll be laughed at often. >_<
Original Rating: 4.5 out of 5
Note: Formatting is lost due to copy and paste (includes picture lost as well)
<i><b>Disclaimer:</b> I received this book from the author for free to review for the blog tour. My review is not influenced in any way.</i>
Seventeen-year-old Gavin Hillstone has been in foster care with an abusive father since his parents died in a fire at a young age. The only thing that lets him escape the torturous life is taking photos. Just when he thinks that he's going to be miserable for the rest of his life, he finds out that his dad's parents are still alive and enters the dangerous world of a small group of people called Photo Travelers.
I honest to goodness hate his adoptive family, except for maybe Dina and Leyla. What a nasty temper his adoptive father has. I'm so glad Gavin found his grandparents, because if I could, I would probably say good riddance to Jet (of course, if I actually said it... it would probably get pretty... ugly). Then there's Gavin's adoptive sister. Mel. I was thinking she at least changed a bit when she went after him after he left. I mean, I can see why she would act like that, but still... I'm sad to say I'm disappointed in her. :(
I guess that shows manipulative the villain is. 2 simple words with very simple (and good, if you look in the dictionary...) meanings... yet totally against what the other Photo Travelers are thinking of. It's kind of ironic what they mean to do for the good of mankind in the future, yet they can still break rules of all kinds.
Gavin is a pretty likable character in broad terms. He's loyal and protective when his family and friends are threatened by others. Though when it comes to some of his actions, I sometimes just want to give him a facepalm and ask, Why, Gavin, whyyy?
I love how The Photo Traveler started. My very first thought after reading the prologue was, Oh boy, this is going to a great 'ride!' I also love how Gonzalez was very accurate (at least in historical facts) when it came to Gavin's trips to places such as the Salem Witch Trials and the Great Depression. What's a bit aggravating about the book, however, is the dialogue. The characters, including Gavin himself, just seem so... happy, excited or yelling all the time. There just seems to be a bit of overuse in exclamation marks. :/
Then there's the ending. There's always that dreadful last few sentences at the end of the book where you hit the end and it seems to say right back, The End. With a lovely little cliffhanger. Somehow, you just want to say, But... but... it was just beginning to get really interesting! Despite the little mini protests, no one's going to hear me, so I'll hide in a cozy little corner, sip something nice and cold, and read on (after all, it's summer and time to... chillax). *unhappy face* I'm so glad cliffhangers don't have the ability to laugh at me... otherwise I'll be laughed at often. >_<
Red Sea Geothermal Provinces
D. Chandrasekharam, Aref Lashin, Nassir Al Arifi and Abdulaziz M Al-Bassam
Book
"Today, over two billion people in developing countries live without any electricity. They lead...
The History of the Jews
Book
The History Of The Jews: From The Earliest Period Down To Modern Times, In Three Volumes. (Vol. 3)...
Terraforming Mars
8.7
Rate It
Tabletop Game
In the 2400s, mankind begins to terraform the planet Mars. Giant corporations, sponsored by the...
Boardgame TerraformThis MeeplesChoice
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated Everlasting Dominion: A Theology of the Old Testament in Books
Jun 29, 2018
In Everlasting Dominion: A Theology of the Old Testament (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2006), Eugene H. Merrill sets out to provide a theology of the Old Testament which represents the O.T. as a consistent whole that has God as its ultimate source. As such, he supports a high view of biblical inspiration as verbal: “The word of God to the prophets was verbal; and what they spoke and wrote, therefore, was also verbal. The means by which the verbalizing was effected is never disclosed, nor is it necessary to know. The point is that the prophetic word, the highest form of divine revelation, was recognized at the time to be the words of God, a view maintained by virtually unanimous consensus in Jewish and Christian tradition until the inroads of modern criticism.”
Insofar as Merrill is a Christian writing about the Old Testament's theology, this creates a dilemma in regard to the role the New Testament is allowed to play in his interpretation. Merrill acknowledges this from the get go:
“Old Testament theology is the study of biblical theology that employs the methods of that discipline to the Old Testament alone while being aware of the limitations inherent in not addressing the New Testament witness in any comprehensive way. This delimitation can be justified on the grounds that the Old Testament speaks its own message, one that is legitimate and authoritative in every sense of the term even if, from the Christian viewpoint, its message is not ultimately complete.”
As such, his work attempts to focus on what the Old Testament says on its own, though he occasionally appeals to New Testament ideas as a means of providing an additional witness to his interpretation.
Merrill tends to provide basic level interpretation in the canonical order of the Old Testament books. As such, little of his exegesis is particularly creative. However, he does have one unique idea which comes up throughout the book and indeed inspired the title-- the idea that man was made by God as an intermediary for God's dominion over the world:
“The crowning work of creation was the appearance of mankind on the sixth day (Gen. 1:26–28). He is said to be in the image and likeness of God, but the grammar permits and theology favors the idea that he was created as his image and likeness, that is, as God's representative on earth... [This passage] is also the clearest expression of the divine purpose in creation. After all things else had been made and put into their several positions of function and interrelationship, the Lord said, 'Let Us make man [as] Our image, according to Our likeness. They will rule' (Gen. 1:26). The significance of this for communicating a (if not the) major theme of Old Testament theology cannot be overstated, and the fact that it is the first divinely articulated expression of the reason for man's existence makes it doubly significant. What is lacking apparently after the whole cosmos has been spoken into existence is its management, a caretaker as it were who will govern it all according to the will of the Creator. He could have done it himself without mediation, but for reasons never revealed in the sacred record, God elected to reign through a subordinate, a surrogate king responsible only to him.”
Merrill explains what had been lost in this divine intention after the Fall: “No longer did man have dominion over all things; instead, he abdicated his role as sovereign and worshipped what he should have ruled.” However, he still highlights partial fulfillments of the divine plan even after the Fall, such as in the Israelite monarchy:
“The creation mandate that mankind should 'be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it' and 'rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every creature that crawls on the earth' (Gen. 1:28) finds tangible expression even if only in a highly preliminary and anticipatory manner. David and his dynastic successors never exhibited this kind of universal dominion, of course, but the limited success they did enjoy, especially under Solomon (cf. 1 Kings 4:20–34), was a foretaste of the splendor, glory, and power of his descendants yet to come at the end of human history.”
Of course, this idea of human dominion as a vice-regent of God would only find its final fulfillment in Christ, the second Adam and the second David:
“If paradise was lost at the fall, it will be regained at the re-creation, not least in the restoration of man's glory as the vice-regent of the King of kings.”
The book seems to go out of its way to contrast the wild speculation of liberal theology, resulting in a work which is so straight-forward as to be dull. This is by no means always the case with Merrill's writings, as his Historical Survey of the Old Testament was one of the most interesting books I read as a new Christian. In Everlasting Dominion, however, where skeptical scholarship always assumes that the text is hiding something, Merrill takes it at face value. The result is a theology of the Old Testament which is more grounded, but that also often fails to soar to the heights that the text might allow for. Instead of elucidation and theologizing, Merrill tends to resort to extended (and I do mean extended) summary of the Hebrew canon.
The one major exception to this tendency is in Merrill's discussion of dominion, which we discussed above in detail. However, more work could certainly have been done on this topic, particularly in regard to how Jesus brings the idea to its fulfillment. Since it is Merrill's goal to explain the Old Testament with as little light from the New as possible, it is difficult to fault him for this. But it's also hard to fault the reader for wanting more when he reads tantalizing sections like this:
“What we propose in the following comments is done with a great deal of tentativeness since, as far as we can determine, we are virtually alone in making the case that Jesus, in his earthly ministry, frequently performed miraculous works to demonstrate not just his full deity but also his role as Urmensch, the second Adam who came to display in character and life what God had intended as the ideal for the whole human race. Without pursuing the biblical arguments for a full-blown Christology that is sensitive to both his divine and human natures, let it be said that there is universal consensus that the New Testament presents Jesus not only as God but also as perfect man.”
That being said, it does seem like an exaggeration to claim that Genesis 1:26 is the key text to understanding Old Testament theology. That it is a major theme, particularly in relation to its underemphasis by most biblical commentators, does not by any means strain credulity. It also seems to be in the back of the mind of many New Testament authors who emphasize restoration of the Kingdom of God involving our reigning with Christ and inheriting the eternal life and dominion over the world which was originally connected with our Edenic charge.
In the final analysis, Everlasting Dominion provides a good straight-forward overview of the Old Testament, but simply doesn't provide enough insight to warrant its nearly 700 pages.
Insofar as Merrill is a Christian writing about the Old Testament's theology, this creates a dilemma in regard to the role the New Testament is allowed to play in his interpretation. Merrill acknowledges this from the get go:
“Old Testament theology is the study of biblical theology that employs the methods of that discipline to the Old Testament alone while being aware of the limitations inherent in not addressing the New Testament witness in any comprehensive way. This delimitation can be justified on the grounds that the Old Testament speaks its own message, one that is legitimate and authoritative in every sense of the term even if, from the Christian viewpoint, its message is not ultimately complete.”
As such, his work attempts to focus on what the Old Testament says on its own, though he occasionally appeals to New Testament ideas as a means of providing an additional witness to his interpretation.
Merrill tends to provide basic level interpretation in the canonical order of the Old Testament books. As such, little of his exegesis is particularly creative. However, he does have one unique idea which comes up throughout the book and indeed inspired the title-- the idea that man was made by God as an intermediary for God's dominion over the world:
“The crowning work of creation was the appearance of mankind on the sixth day (Gen. 1:26–28). He is said to be in the image and likeness of God, but the grammar permits and theology favors the idea that he was created as his image and likeness, that is, as God's representative on earth... [This passage] is also the clearest expression of the divine purpose in creation. After all things else had been made and put into their several positions of function and interrelationship, the Lord said, 'Let Us make man [as] Our image, according to Our likeness. They will rule' (Gen. 1:26). The significance of this for communicating a (if not the) major theme of Old Testament theology cannot be overstated, and the fact that it is the first divinely articulated expression of the reason for man's existence makes it doubly significant. What is lacking apparently after the whole cosmos has been spoken into existence is its management, a caretaker as it were who will govern it all according to the will of the Creator. He could have done it himself without mediation, but for reasons never revealed in the sacred record, God elected to reign through a subordinate, a surrogate king responsible only to him.”
Merrill explains what had been lost in this divine intention after the Fall: “No longer did man have dominion over all things; instead, he abdicated his role as sovereign and worshipped what he should have ruled.” However, he still highlights partial fulfillments of the divine plan even after the Fall, such as in the Israelite monarchy:
“The creation mandate that mankind should 'be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it' and 'rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every creature that crawls on the earth' (Gen. 1:28) finds tangible expression even if only in a highly preliminary and anticipatory manner. David and his dynastic successors never exhibited this kind of universal dominion, of course, but the limited success they did enjoy, especially under Solomon (cf. 1 Kings 4:20–34), was a foretaste of the splendor, glory, and power of his descendants yet to come at the end of human history.”
Of course, this idea of human dominion as a vice-regent of God would only find its final fulfillment in Christ, the second Adam and the second David:
“If paradise was lost at the fall, it will be regained at the re-creation, not least in the restoration of man's glory as the vice-regent of the King of kings.”
The book seems to go out of its way to contrast the wild speculation of liberal theology, resulting in a work which is so straight-forward as to be dull. This is by no means always the case with Merrill's writings, as his Historical Survey of the Old Testament was one of the most interesting books I read as a new Christian. In Everlasting Dominion, however, where skeptical scholarship always assumes that the text is hiding something, Merrill takes it at face value. The result is a theology of the Old Testament which is more grounded, but that also often fails to soar to the heights that the text might allow for. Instead of elucidation and theologizing, Merrill tends to resort to extended (and I do mean extended) summary of the Hebrew canon.
The one major exception to this tendency is in Merrill's discussion of dominion, which we discussed above in detail. However, more work could certainly have been done on this topic, particularly in regard to how Jesus brings the idea to its fulfillment. Since it is Merrill's goal to explain the Old Testament with as little light from the New as possible, it is difficult to fault him for this. But it's also hard to fault the reader for wanting more when he reads tantalizing sections like this:
“What we propose in the following comments is done with a great deal of tentativeness since, as far as we can determine, we are virtually alone in making the case that Jesus, in his earthly ministry, frequently performed miraculous works to demonstrate not just his full deity but also his role as Urmensch, the second Adam who came to display in character and life what God had intended as the ideal for the whole human race. Without pursuing the biblical arguments for a full-blown Christology that is sensitive to both his divine and human natures, let it be said that there is universal consensus that the New Testament presents Jesus not only as God but also as perfect man.”
That being said, it does seem like an exaggeration to claim that Genesis 1:26 is the key text to understanding Old Testament theology. That it is a major theme, particularly in relation to its underemphasis by most biblical commentators, does not by any means strain credulity. It also seems to be in the back of the mind of many New Testament authors who emphasize restoration of the Kingdom of God involving our reigning with Christ and inheriting the eternal life and dominion over the world which was originally connected with our Edenic charge.
In the final analysis, Everlasting Dominion provides a good straight-forward overview of the Old Testament, but simply doesn't provide enough insight to warrant its nearly 700 pages.