Freethinker Sunday Sermonette: economist freaked out over atheist bestsellers

When will the religious get it? As an atheist I can't actively dislike that which I know not to exist.

I do actively dislike the influence religion exerts over my life.

Levitt's book Freakonomics is filled with interesting trivial that doesn't have any bearing on the central questions of economics (see here, here and here). The inimitable d-squared has also written about the books problems here, here and here.

Levitt's problem with the whole thing seems summed up in his suggestion that bird watching is analagous to theism. To a lot of people the question of God is really frickin' important, as it should be. He seems to be the one who is out of the norm with his blase response to the whole question. As my views of God have changed throughout my life I've never thought it is was an unimportant question.

It isn't that the irreligious have been hiding, they've been silenced by big media.
Go back 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 years, and look at what big media has had to say about atheism. There would be a long dry spell of dead silence for many years, then an article would appear in the NY Times or LA Times, or Time or Newsweek, about atheism, and they would trot out Madalyn Murray O'Hair, show a picture, give a few uninspiring quotes, and then balance the article by pandering to religious leaders of the christian and jewish persuasion, whoring for them, and even pimping them. Then would come another long drought. Without thinking much about it, anyone would get the idea that atheists were boring old bags with nothing worth listening to.

Now, with blogs, big media no longer have a stranglehold on local, state, national, or international news. As atheism emerged in the little media, big media could either cash in or be scooped, so they went for the money, and the publishing houses merely took advantage of an emergent demand.

Did it ever occur to Levitt that the Atheist books sold well because there are a lot of Atheists? The Left Behind series sold well because there were a lot of Christians. The Atheist books finally got a lot of publicity and marketed well while the genre had largely been ignored in the past. As a result it perked the interest of a lot of Atheists and fence sitters who wanted an interest filled with a new product.

Apparently anyone can call themselves an economist these days because Levitt doesn't understand the simple concepts of marketing and supply/demand.

Most people who call themselves Christians do not have a strong understanding of the bible in it's own context. They cherry pick the good sayings of Jesus and try to emulate their invented image of his perfection. For these people, reading a book like this is not nearly as challenging or damning as it may seem because their faith is so wishy washy and malleable that they can hide God from any conceivable evidence and observation. The intrigue of these books is in saying things that we all already know and have known for ages deep down and have simply never been able to publicly and openly acknowledge. After having listened to many interviews concerning the books, it is clear that even believers think they are good books, are forced to agree with most of their observations about religion. The erosion process is proceeding, which will lead to another morphing of Christianity into something even more half-assed and irrelevent.

aaron, perhaps you have some evidence of this process of "erosion"?

You know... because you aren't supposed to believe things without evidence.

Does anyone here have any evidence that the books are selling well to atheists? It wouldn't surprise me, but then again it wouldn't surprise me if Christians bought the majority of such books as well. After all, to a great many atheists, "Religious belief is delusional" is hardly news.

Levitt's comments are silly and barely worth a response. He starts with a subjective judgement that says nothing except that he has no interest in the book. Then he projects that same mind set on everyone who isn't religious. Then, adding poop to silliness, he makes an analogy that is completely absurd and meaningless in the context.

One wonders why Levitt bothered to comment at all.

RCG: Strangely, I hadn't thought of your (excellent) point. "They" no longer have iron control over the media.

Doug: Yes, my thought exactly.

aaron: I also think (consistent with other comments) that these books are tapping into a large market. People like to hear said out loud what they thought secretly or when they heard it immediately recognized for being true.

David: aaron is probably speculating but it is a reasonable speculation I think. I don't know who is buying the books. Probably not hard core atheists (I didn't buy most of them; they were given to me as review copies). I rather doubt that consciously believing Christians are much of the market. I'm guessing it is people who think rarely about religion although they may attend some species of worship house as a s social or cultural habit.

Tom: I agree. Maybe his hidden incentive is to have a blog post, an incentive not unknown in these parts.

I rather doubt that consciously believing Christians are much of the market.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I think many Christian pastors may buy the book in order to advise the congregation on how "bad" they think it is.

Personally, I read the God Delusion in a bookstore. As a hardback book, it is somewhat expensive, and I am not exactly swimming in money. I agreed with a great many points it made, but not with the title.

I doubt so much if atheist books sell well because there are a lot of atheists; the number of people in the US who actually buy books is a small percentage of the total population to begin with. However, I'd postulate that of that small percentage, a disproportionate number are probably atheists. (Or, to put it another way, atheists are more likely to be in the "clerisy," to use Robertson Davies' term. What a reversal.)

I also think that Levitt is falling into a pretty easy trap: Since when do atheists "hate God," "hate religion" or any of those things? (How can you hate something you don't believe exists, for starters?) As much as pretty much all of us think the world would be a better place if religion stopped having quite so much power and influence, that does not "hate" make.

Hey, Leavitt: I don't hate religion. I'm annoyed with religious people, in general, because they try to convert me; try to impose their beliefs on me by law; perpetrate atrocities and heinous crimes under the banner of religion; handwave away their coreligionists who perpetrate those things by claiming that they're "not true whatevers," and demand public and private respect for their beliefs and aren't willing to return the favour. Is that enough of a list of grievances to convince you that I'm not speaking out of prejudice? (You could actually call it a "postjudice," if you like.)

I hate religion so much I've spent a goodly portion of my life studying it. I've read the (Christian) Bible, most completely in the King James Version (you go to religious war with the texts you have, not the texts you want, ha ha), but partially in various vernacular-English versions, and partially in Old and Middle English. I've read portions of the Torah in Hebrew, and some of the Midrash stories as well, although I suspect those may have been "translated" into easier Hebrew for beginning readers. I'm reading the Qu'ran (M.M. Pickthall English translation, because my Arabic is next to nonexistent).

I consider all this as stuff I sort of need to know. I'm deeply interested in the (social) history of the Holocaust, and it's nearly impossible to escape the religious context there. I'm a fairly accomplished medieval history generalist...hard to get around religion there. I've written a manuscript on modern Islamic clothing. Religion again. I'm writing a book on the history of streetcars and rail in North America. There's not too much religion there, although if you burrow down into the subtexts of the politics of race and class in early to mid-20th Century North America, you're going to find it. Again.

I hate to sound like one of those Creationist trolls spouting off about theology, but I detect a whiff of ignorance there...

I think a lot of people have been scared into believing (ala Pascal's wager)or cowed into showing deference to this silliness. After 9-11, one couldn't help noticing that people will do most anything to "ensure a blissful eternity".

These authors say what many people feel but are afraid to say. They give us the courage to join our voices of reason and freedom from the tyranny of those who claim to speak for the invisible, immeasurable, overlord of the universe.

I hate religion so much I've spent a goodly portion of my life studying it.

An odd thing to do.

I'm annoyed with religious people, in general, because they try to convert me

Am I allowed to be annoyed at atheists which try to convert me to atheism? Or is that not allowed?

try to impose their beliefs on me by law; perpetrate atrocities and heinous crimes under the banner of religion

I agree. Religion shouldn't be imposed on you by law. Neither should it restrict my faith. It should be neutral. Seperate.

... the religious have driven the irreligious underground. Now they are emerging ...

As RCG I think the new medias are stirring and releasing new social forces, perhaps a lot of them. It will also mean a more international character, both for negative social forces (creationists, anti-abortionists, et cetera goes international) and positive forces, and a larger basis for information spread and cooperation.

I like to think positive forces will gain the most by these circumstances.

The weather's fine. Sunny and rational.

Oh, you mean Bright? :-P

David:

Am I allowed to be annoyed at atheists which try to convert me to atheism?

I think that would be de-convert, since people start out secular.

The clue is in the remainder of your comment and the post. Despite nominal freedom of religion, the secular sector is oppressed, especially in the US I think.

[Every time I have had to deal with organized religion where I live, they have managed to be particularly insensitive to the feelings of people outside their in-group. (Um, with an excellent exception for burials, thankfully. Guess they actually manage to put their empathy in gear then heavily provoked, and they practice burials a lot.) So it is a matter of degree.]

Am I allowed to be annoyed at atheists which try to convert me to atheism? Or is that not allowed?

of course you're allowed to be annoyed with that. but if that were all you ever allowed yourself to be annoyed with, how often would you really be annoyed, in honesty?

(personally, i get annoyed at loud vocal atheists who don't make good arguments for their non-belief. this tends to make me annoyed whenever i have the bad judgement to go trolling through the worse sections of YouTube, instead of simply avoiding them. that's not affecting my life even as much as the jehovah's witl^Hnesses, and they've long since given up on my house.)

"nominal freedom of religion" - nominal freedom for religion.

Gee, I was thinking of that distinction, so of course I typed the wrong version. :-|

I can tell you that these books made a huge difference in my life. I am a former minister and the Dawkins book in particular, helped me come to terms with reality and become an atheist. Each additional book only helped to solidify my beliefs and gave me the courage to "come out of the closet.

The author seems to not understand that bird watchers don't try to force the world to take up their hobby. The believers, however, can't be happy with their own beliefs, they are commanded by their faith to make converts. They also feel that those who do not join their hobby, will suffer eternal consequences. Also, just a few of their goals are to: redefine science, stop stem cell research, and control family rights.

Richard
http://lifewithoutfaith.com

First, I enjoy the intellectual jost from this blog. Please continue.

Second, religion is another way to control people, plain and simple. From holding intellectual providence over others by way of hidden knowledge (or disinformation) in times long ago, it has blossomed into a full-fledged weapon against dissent, personal enlightenment, individual freedoms, and, all too often, as a "justification" to exploit people for ill-gotten gain(s). Levitt appears to be a bit naive concerning the daily pain many people suffer from these so-called "religious" evil-doers.

I guess your line, "Did it ever occur to him that maybe there are a lot more people than he suspects that find religion and its consequences distasteful and irrational and they are only too pleased to see it discussed in sprightly, entertaining and thought provoking books?", pretty much sums it up for me. Well-done. Carry on...

Great,

Now I'm conflicted. I'm a naturalist-in the Naturalism (http://naturalism.org/) sense of the word-and I like birds.

Damn you Levitt, now I need therapy. OK, not really, lousy analogy.

Tully

I have been greatly effected by Levitts' powerful words. I now devoutly loath evil bird watchers and demand they get their damned binoculars out of my non-birding face.

Just keep those identification catechisms away from me and stop teaching bird calls to innocent children.. :)

But Levitt is still surprised that atheist books (Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens, soon Paulos) are so popular

Sam Harris anyone?
And, contemporaneous with (and predating) Madalyn Murray O'Hair, there was Bertrand Russell.
The (criticism-) free ride for religion is over.

The books allow many people who are somewhat tentative to think about a world that lacks of a god a platform of solid logic, rather than gut feeling.

To answer the question of whether one can be angry at atheists trying to convert theists: sure! The prisoners in Plato's cave attacked the freed prisoner when he returned to explain to them what is and is not reality. It should be expected. Since there is never any consensus as to what is reality we can all do what we can to explain our own perspective.

I own a copy of Freakonomics. After reading this I don't know if I will bother reading it if he can't notice what is plain and in front of him.

It might be surprising to Mr. Leavitt--and perhaps to some readers of this blog--but many of us who believe in God actually like to have our views challenged now and then, and are open to differing viewpoints. The Christianity I was taught to believe in as a child is certainly not the one I subscribe to now, thanks in part to the works of Elaine Pagels and John Shelby Sprong.

In the dispute between religion (superstition) and rational analysis (atheism, science), religion has an inherent advantage: it is not in any way penalized for its failure to engage "reality." The playing field -- where the dispute necessarily unfolds -- is innately uneven; and there is absolutely no possibility that it might be made level. And the argument cannot be removed to a region where the two might fairly contend. Reality. This is the legitimate domain of rational thought; and it's the birthplace of all of the products that have accrued as a result of the exercise of rational exploration in the common environment that reality affords all of us. And that includes everything associated with religion that takes any material form whatsoever. But the rational does not engage the irrational, here. With the exception of the various edifices, cultural manifestations, and other material expressions of religion, religions all reside entirely in the interior of the mind. And the core beliefs adduced, embraced, and promoted by any of these profoundly powerful parasites (that is the essential nature of their being, in all cases; regardless of how they might be otherwise portrayed) are designed to produce one outcome, above all others, on this manifestly uneven field...the manipulation of the individual that they happen to inhabit. These parasites are among the most dedicated, species specific contagions on the entire planet.

One does not "submit," or "convert," to atheism; you admit to it, instead. It is an act of "discovery." And it is a conscious, deliberate act of "mental housekeeping." And this happens when you survey all of the most persuasive arguments for the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent deity, and find even the most powerful of these to be entirely lacking in their ability to compel a rational mind to accept them on their own merit. Ever. And when the arguments trail off into the realm of special pleading, and threats (as they invariably do, of course; since they have nowhere else to go), then they are even less worthy of any consideration at all, in the mind of a sound, rational human being. Cleaning the attic of the useless clutter that has somehow accumulated there is a job that only the owner of the property can undertake; begin by opening the windows, and letting a little fresh air in.

Converting from one religion to another, on the other hand, cannot be viewed as a rational decision, at all; although it could be argued (in a limited sense) that the conversion is a "voluntary" act. If you could elect to switch from an advanced state of Parkinson's to an equally advanced state of Alzheimer's, that too could be conceived of as voluntary. And I'm sure that we'd consider a slave who escapes the confines of a plantation...so that he could become a field hand on an adjacent property, as engaging in "voluntary" behavior. But the initial encounter with religion is rarely, if ever, the result of a fully rational, informed decision. When your exposure begins in the very early period of your existence -- roughly contiguous with your regimen of toilet training; a highly worthwhile, and completely commendable practice, in comparison -- you are hardly in a position to give informed consent; or to ask what the alternatives, if any, might be. Your destiny has already been mapped out. Your fate has probably been sealed long before you first left the comfortable sanctuary of the womb. If the Southern Baptist parasite, or the Catholic parasite (a particularly malevolent, hideously destructive, and monstrously deformed creature) should reside in your parents (or caregiver's) house, then you will almost certainly be exposed and infected. There is no escaping it, at this point.

And once infected, the only possible treatment is exposure to an environment where reason freely radiates. And even this, alone, is not a guarantee that the parasite will be cleared from the mind. Cures are difficult to come by. The parasites did not survive, down through countless millennia, without acquiring a very formidable complement of weapons. Fear. Hate. Guile. Guilt. Self-loathing. Deceit. Doubt. Seduction. Appetite. These "elements," and many more, all play a part in the various exchanges that transpire between the parasite and its host. A remarkable arsenal. Completely worthy of something which wishes to dominate, and enslave, the entire globe. And reason is their sole opposition, here.

All religions are essentially one religion. Without exception they demand a complete suspension of reason, before you can fully accommodate them. They are tortured constructs that arise out of a fundamental weakness in the human character. A need for certainty in a universe that is simply not equipped to provide that commodity. Their various configurations are no more than superficial alterations of primary themes that course through all of them, collectively. The primary attributes are utterly indistinguishable. The territory is unremarkable, and the method of indoctrination consists largely of a collection of rituals (relentlessly dreary, in the eyes of any objective observer) designed to dull the mind, induce complacency and compliance, and clear a path down to the "spiritual" dungeon. And all religions are enormously insecure. That's the source of their relentless need to proselytize and convert. A few of the more "benign" forms of this affliction are less combative in their approach, but these are the exception and not the rule. They despise each other (witness the Pope's recent statements -- near rants, actually -- regarding Christian ecumenism), and rightfully so.

And they all fear and despise the light of reason. As they should. They are fully aware that it is the one instrument at the disposal of human beings that can ensure that they do not remain forever enthralled by these insatiable creatures. We have been here for many thousands of years, now...it is time to grow up. If your childishly pathetic, mythological Father conjures up a place that is absolutely indistinguishable from the utterly indifferent universe that I inhabit, and deposits you in it, then what good is he? If you "examine" this place, thoroughly, you will find no trace of a God, here; however, if you decide instead to retreat into the safe little confines of your mind -- and ignore reality -- you can find any sort of god that you wish to find; but you will not find him in the world that you and I equally share. The real world. This is a world that does not countenance the existence of mythological beings; reality is completely implacable, in this regard.

now if there were also some explanation for why The Celestine Prophecy, The Secret, the "Left Behind" series, anything by Tom Brown, or anything by Ann Coulter ever became bestsellers ...

Dylan,

Evidence? Do you have any?

In my opinion, David, it is incumbent upon those who propose -- vociferously, in most cases, I might add -- the existence of some ostensible entity to provide evidence for their particular claims. "They" are clearly unable to do this. How many centuries is it, now? This discussion did not begin with an assertion, by some unknown party, that "God does not exist!" The ball rests squarely in the court of the people who began the game. Your play, David. Display your "evidence" for such an entity, if you would, please. Faith is not evidence.

Dylan,

There have been reports, that remnants of the Ark may have been found.

But let me ask, do you believe, that Jesus Christ walked this earth?

Patch: No.

I have evidence for the existence of someone who refers to himself as "Revere." The evidence is not absolutely incontrovertible, or incontestable; but it is both substantial, and demonstrably endowed with a verifiable historical component. Revere and I have never met. But from his end I think he can say, with a very high degree of confidence, that the "person" that he has come to recognize as "Dylan" is a legitimate, corporeal being whose interactions with him, albeit at a distance, and never face-to-face, are sufficient for him to conclude that "Dylan" does indeed exist. The mutual recognition, here, might admit of some small element of "faith," but it would represent a very, very tiny fraction of what leads each of us to our individual conclusions. Both of our conclusions, in this regard, rest almost entirely on sound, rational foundations. The weight of available, objective evidence, comfortably supports the conclusions. Not so with religion.

Not so, either, with regard to the existence of Jesus Christ. There is exactly the same weight of evicence for his existence as there is for that of any other myth. None.

But, on very slight evidence (because I consider the evidence to be both "real," and publicly accessible), I am even willing to assign a relatively high probability to the likelihood of your existence too, Patch. But not quite as substantial a probability obtains here as that which I assign to Revere's existence, though. Although you might simply be some sort of unverifiable, insubstantial, Internet artifact.

No one can reasonably assign even this very modest, ephemeral suggestion of "existence" to the "idea" of Jesus Christ. You may conceive of whatever you wish to, in your mind; but there is no way that your "conception" can ever survive a trip to the public square. Unless it absolutely, objectively attaches to something verifiably in the public domain. It can obviously possess some measure of currency in a private setting; someone with a similar lack of evidence can embrace the same sort of mind-set that you display, and the two (or more) of you can exchange information about your "conceptions." But that is all they are. That is how religions function.

You are not in a position to present evidence -- of any nature whatsoever -- to aid in substantiating your claims, however. Sane people can reliably be expected to respond to the presentation of compelling evidence in the same manner: they acknowledge it, and act accordingly (not questioning your sanity, here, Patch; simply pointing out the fact that in the face of incontrovertible evidence we would all be persuaded to become Christians...but it's not happening). The absence of evidence evokes the opposite response. The religiously credulous, however, are not dependent upon the presentation of evidence as a cornerstone in the construction of their beliefs; otherwise, all religions would cease to exist. There is, lamentably, little likelihood of that outcome in the foreseeable future, though.

In the "court" that reality presides over, these claims -- totally lacking in any corroborating evidence -- are simply inadmissible. Today, it is utterly impossible to provide unbiased, evidence supported affirmation for the existence of Jesus that is even nominally persuasive -- as persuasive, at least, as the evidence for your existence, for example -- to an indifferent, objective observer. This evidence would suffice -- if one could somehow conjure it up -- to ensure that all other religions, along with atheism, would immediately evaporate. Not happening, Patch. Not going to happen, either.

Interesting. He's so apathetic to the birdwatching-like irrelavance of athiesm that he takes special time to comment on the books written about them. Is there a contradiction here. Sounds like he feels the need to add to the discussion of a thing which he things nobody like him feels the need to discuss.
Also did he bother to read the book? Then hed realize that birdwatching is a benign activity in which consequently the participants try to be as passive as possible to not disturb the targets. Where as the participants of religion are actively seeking to affect the lives of all of us through keeping its fingers in the orders of the state.

And then we have an atheist like Camille Paglia who, in a recent article, wrote the following:

"At this moment in America, religion and politics are at a flash point. Conservative Christians deplore the left-wing bias of the mainstream media and the saturation of popular culture by sex and violence and are promoting strategies such as faith-based home-schooling to protect children from the chaotic moral relativism of a secular society. Liberals in turn condemn the meddling by Christian fundamentalists in politics, notably in regard to abortion and gay civil rights or the Mideast, where biblical assumptions, it is claimed, have shaped US policy. There is vicious mutual recrimination, with believers caricatured as paranoid, apocalyptic crusaders who view America's global mission as divinely inspired, while liberals are portrayed as narcissistic hedonists and godless elitists, relics of the unpatriotic, permissive 1960s.

"A primary arena for the conservative-liberal wars has been the arts. While leading conservative voices defend the traditional Anglo-American literary canon, which has been under challenge and in flux for forty years, American conservatives on the whole, outside of the New Criterion magazine, have shown little interest in the arts, except to promulgate a didactic theory of art as moral improvement that was discarded with the Victorian era at the birth of modernism. Liberals, on the other hand, have been too content with the high visibility of the arts in metropolitan centers, which comprise only a fraction of America. Furthermore, liberals have been complacent about the viability of secular humanism as a sustaining creed for the young. And liberals have done little to reverse the scandalous decline in urban public education or to protest the crazed system of our grotesquely overpriced, cafeteria-style higher education, which for thirty years was infested by sterile and now fading poststructuralism and postmodernism. The state of the humanities in the US can be measured by present achievement: would anyone seriously argue that the fine arts or even popular culture is enjoying a period of high originality and creativity? American genius currently resides in technology and design. The younger generation, with its mastery of video games and its facility for ever-evolving gadgetry like video cell phones and iPods, has massively shifted to the Web for information and entertainment.

"I would argue that the route to a renaissance of the American fine arts lies through religion. Let me make my premises clear: I am a professed atheist and a pro-choice libertarian Democrat. But based on my college experiences in the 1960s, when interest in Hinduism and Buddhism was intense, I have been calling for nearly two decades for massive educational reform that would put the study of comparative religion at the center of the university curriculum. Though I shared the exasperation of my generation with the moralism and prudery of organized religion, I view each world religion, including Judeo-Christianity and Islam, as a complex symbol system, a metaphysical lens through which we can see the vastness and sublimity of the universe. Knowledge of the Bible, one of the West's foundational texts, is dangerously waning among aspiring young artists and writers. When a society becomes all-consumed in the provincial minutiae of partisan politics (as has happened in the US over the past twenty years), all perspective is lost. Great art can be made out of love for religion as well as rebellion against it. But a totally secularized society with contempt for religion sinks into materialism and self-absorption and gradually goes slack, without leaving an artistic legacy."

tenpenny: LOL. OK. Fine with me. Let's go back to the sixties (without the Vietnam War, of course).

revere:

Paglia detested that decade's flaccid posing that masqueraded as thinking, so the charge misfires. She draws from wells much older (and more traditional). Hewing to the topic at hand -- bestsellers on atheism -- Paglia wrote in her column yesterday:

"As a professed atheist, I detest the current crop of snide manifestos against religion written by professional cynics, flaneurs and imaginatively crimped and culturally challenged scientists. The narrow mental world they project is very grim indeed -- and fatal to future art."

Exactly so. And this narrow mental world is on full display here in your weekly bromides against religion -- a subject on which your ignorance is palpable to anyone who has seriously studied it. Paglia's atheism is an atheism I can respect, even if I do not personally share it, because hers has sweep. It takes in the full range of human experience. Yours, on the other hand, is like that of a spider that has selected its corner, spun its web, and is just waiting for the flies to come. Yours has no sweep.

"Art" is not one of the "categories" on your blog site, so it is hardly surprising that Paglia's point elicits from you only a dull and dismissive crack about the sixties. I doubt you've ever given any serious thought to art and its intrinsic relation to religion, so little do you regard art. It's obvious that you would welcome a humanity without religion. What about a humanity without art?

What's that, you say? You don't think that one necessarily follows the other? Which is to say that you think Paglia is wrong on this point. Fine. Let's see you argue your case. I'd like to see that, actually. It would be far superior to these endless bromides against religion that go nowhere.

On the other hand, if you think art is every bit as useless as religion, why not a weekly bromide against art -- for a change of pace, if nothing else? Ah, but that wouldn't fulfill your need to be a provocateur, would it? Nobody much cares if you attack art. Okay, Paglia, and a few cranks like me, maybe. But hey, we're statistically insignificant!

ten: Well we don't know each other so it is natural to jump to conclusions. I happen to be a musician (amateur, it is true, but devoted) and my favorite kind of music is the great music of the church (Bach's B minor mass being at the top, for me, but your mileage may differ). I am also the son of a well known painter (abstract expressionist), so while I am not gifted in graphic arts I have lived with it all my life and appreciate it. I also lived through the sixties as an adult and am older than Ms. Paglia. As for my "weekly bromides," well, what do you expect from a blog? There are 13 posts a week here. The idea is to get people thinking, reacting and for me to be able to say things I want to say. You don't have to read the Sermonettes, or if you do, feel free to argue. Everyone else does. I don't plead special scholarly knowledge about religion (although I studied Buddhism and sanskrit as a youth), and there are quite a other few things I'm not expert in, like the occult. I still feel free to say it's a pile of shit if it hurts people, as it frequently does. But primarily this is a public health blog, except when I feel like talking about something else. Art isn't one of the things I feel like talking about here, nor is music, not because I don't care about them but because I don't care to talk about them here. When I do, I'll write about them.

I think accusing me of being a provocateur while defending Paglia, who made her reputation as a provocateur, is amusing. She has become more than that in her middle age, but that was how she started, as you no doubt know, and it is still her style frequently (although not always; her recent book on poetry, was not in that style).

Anyway, feel free to argue with me about specific points. I don't always have time to answer as I have a busy professional life but surely someone else here will engage you if I don't. You are welcome any time.

thanks you for commet