GOD- Chapter 1

Barker spends the earliest parts of this book leaping to the defense of mentor & originator of this book, Atheist icon Richard Dawkins. He defends him against religious types who had been (predictably) outraged by his previous work The God Delusion. He also once again (this is page 1) says that those who say Dawkins is strident are definitely, absolutely wrong, and also mentions that there are others who believe he is contentious (again, this is unequivocally true, if not a ‘bad’ thing.) He continues-

“There is precious little in The God Delusion that could be considered strident”

Well, I cannot directly comment on this as I have not read the book (& if I did, I forgot.) However, I would be willing to guess that is most certainly is strident from what little of Dawkins I have been exposed to, and the type of rhetoric he engages in, at least here.

One of the duo's central claims is that “the bible should be allowed to speak for itself,” a naïve assumption considering no text simply speaks, but is interpreted & constructed from the subjective glance of the viewer. This would most certainly be true of as contentious a text as the bible, & one that has been yoked to such an array of uses, from promoting tolerance to genocide -- pretty much you could use the bible for either, & anything in between. The bible is one of the most utilitarian & wide-purpose texts out there. This is not conjecture either, but a reflection of the long & storied history of biblical textual usurption. Rulers have been using it for literally millennia for such political purposes. At this point, the bible is the literary equivalent of Barack Obama c. 2008 -- all things to all people (while it is nothing to some others.)

Barker reveals in the introduction that he was educated in an Evangelical university as part of his past-life as pastor (he doesn’t say from which one here, though.) He reveals that this stint as pastor was just 19 years long; in contrast, Barker has spent the last 34 years as atheist-- his time as pastor was quite a short stint compared to his current incarnations as ‘new atheist.’ This is an interesting note, & one I would think would be notable to the reader as they move through Barker’s works.

A younger Barker

“If you are a believer,” he writes, “you should be happy to see us promoting bible-reading.” With a subtitle like the one this book has, fat chance. If they are reading this, chances are they are a movement atheist, a non-believer, or at least someone who is seriously questioning Christianity. On page 3, Barker says that bible translations sometimes not only come out different, but actually contradict each other. Intriguingly, he then drops this bit, inspired by his former works --

“...the evangelical New International Version (NIV), while often very good, sometimes distorts & obscures the meaning of the text making problem passages disappear”

Interesting, as NIV is a favoured translation (for now.) Barker then goes on critique President Obama’s lame & completely value-neutral criticism of terrorists as ‘warping religion,’ a religion that ostensibly in ‘un-warped’ form would be very peaceful & bring harmony to humans everywhere. Those of us who study history, of course, find that religion, especially those of the Abrahamic variety, often bring with them exactlly the opposite, leaving thousands dead in the wake. On pg3, Barker writes --

“...Obama’s own deity actually uses the word ‘terror’ to describe his intentions”

& then labels several instances where Yahweh actually does describe his intents & actions as terroristic, & quotes from Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Isiah, Jobe, Psalms, & Ezekial where this is evidently the case. Then he says that it is Yahweh who is strident, not he (This obsession about being strident!)

Various transcriptions of 'YHWH'

On pg 4, Barker quotes President Obama as saying:

“Talking about faith-based violence in the Middle East, Obama said on September 10, 2014: ‘No religion condones the killing of innocents”

On the contrary, Barker points out how Yahweh often commanded exactly that in his ‘good book.’ Christians (less often one finds Jews who support these positions contemporarily) will try to justify, for example, the extermination of the Canaanites as due to their ‘wicked’ nature, but Barker rightly points out--

“...the only reason they think the Canaanites were more corrupt than other cultures is because the bible says they were”

lol

Absolutely. He continues--

“...you will notice the words ‘evil’ & ‘wicked’ did not mean in the bible what we take them to mean today: they merely meant worshiping another god. Simply having the wrong religion made you a bad person, regardless of your actions”

I would say that this is not an attitude confined to the past, as the chauvinistically Yahwist Israelites’ attitude has transmitted, barely-modified, to Christians today. Doesn’t having the ‘wrong religion’ make you ‘bad,’ condemnable to hell by God for all eternity? I don’t think this has changed at all, & hiding under the surface, barely-concealed is the disdain for those of a different religion.

In the introduction, Barker points out that the books that comprise the orthodox bible we carry today were composed “sometimes...centuries later in another language and country, with a different agenda.”

Some cringe-inducing sentences early in the book:

“I have written elsewhere that theology is really me-ology”

“Anyone who talks like that is a dangerous person, or at least crudely insensitive. If I were that woman, I would start running toward the closest shelter”

That last quote is especially cringe-worthy because of the New Atheists track record of patriarchal attitudes, misogyny, & disrespect for women.

In the Introduction, we also learn that “the first time the word ‘love’ appears in the bible is when God told Abraham to burn the son that he loved,” & an interesting argument RE: figurative vs. literalist interpretations of the bible on pg 7:

“They (fundamentalists) should insist that metaphor be invoked as sparingly as possible. Otherwise, anything goes. Yes, the Prodigal Son is a parable, & Adam & Eve may be symbolic archetypes, but why stop there?...What is to stop me from saying that Yahweh himself is just one huge figure of speech?”

After introducing so many bible quotes and narration along the lines of “god said this, god said that,” Barker wants to assure some of his more sensitive New Atheist ideologue readers that he is not implying he actually believes Yahweh is real. “It would be excruciatingly tedious,” he writes, “ to keep qualifying ‘God, a fictional character,’ or ‘God, the deity depicted in the Hebrew stories,” although Barker apparently believes that this is what is necessary in terms of ideological purity for this crowd. Then Barker presents quotes suggesting that Thomas Jefferson & Thomas Paine would agree with his central premise, & the Paine quote is especially breath-taking:

“Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel & torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the world of a demon rather than the word of God”

As well as this Elizabeth Cady Stanton quote: “The Bible & the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of women’s emancipation,” which, I believe, is borne out by the historical record. Another gem reproduced by Barker here is that of Ruth Green, here described as a “grandmother,”

“I found that the bible’s personalities, God’s favorites, & even God himself to be utter reprobates”

Anne Baxter as Nefertiti in "The 10 Commandments"

Part one of GOD is ostentatiously named “Dawkins Was Right,” only confirming more that this book is a monument to Barker’s ideological mentor. We also get an interesting bit of exegetical knowledge that many of the ‘Ten Commandments’ statues erected in stone throughout the country were in fact produced as promotional pieces for the Cecil DeMille film “The Ten Commandments,” & that these “movie props, (include) meaningless ‘Canaanite’ lettering at the top, continued to be erected decades after the film was released.” Interesting, but also something that sort of undercuts the seriousness & reverence of much of these ‘hallowed monuments’ that people are so devoted to (see Supreme Court cases over their removal.). Also in chapter 1 is a somewhat-blatant insertion of Dawkins ideology fitted awkwardly into this book about the bible. After accusing the Israelite god of being ‘jealous,’ Barker writes “Jealousy is rooted in biology. We instinctively choose a mate primarily because of our ‘selfish genes’ that evolved to be copied into future generations.” & then undercuts the traditional Marxist-Sociology explanation for the development of patriarchy (tying the phenomenon together with the settlement of permanent agricultural plots), replacing this with a Dawkinite ‘biological’ argument:

“It is obvious that the Old Testament writers were projecting their biological feelings of sexual insecurity onto their culturally derived deity, a male god”

What the hell is a biological feeling? Would that refer to a thought prompted by instinct? A physical sensation borne out of sensory stimuli? Or something else? He doesn't develop that point further. Barker points out that Yahweh says that his name is ‘jealous,’ & also explains how the Watchtower Society’s use of the name ‘Jehovah’ is an erroneous constructed guess-name for the deity (inserted the vowels of 'Adonai' into the spaces in the tetragramaton YHWH.

Logo of the Watchtower Society, the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses

Some choice quotes:

“ The reason the ancient Israelites thought they possessed the source of all knowledge is because it says so in a book that they wrote” (11)

“...the Lord is avenging & wrathful” (Nahum 1:2) (13)

“The Lord Jealous clearly has issues with sexual insecurity & self-respect, not to mention anger management.” (17)

Sounds like Barker is describing his fellow New Atheist leaders in that last one. Lol.

More to come.