'Catastrophe Ethics': In retrospect, wrong from the title

 I have been hitting a string of cropper and semi-cropper books in touted new philosophy books recently. (Sorry, Little Bobby Sapolsky and determinist fanbois, "Determined" is not a philosophy book, being Not.Even.Wrong, based on a category mistake and more.)

The latest? "Catastrophe Ethics." As usual, what follows is an expanded version of my Goodreads review.

Catastrophe Ethics: How to Choose Well in a World of Tough Choices by Travis Rieder
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

This book became fairly disappointing fairly early, contra the hopes I had from the title. In fact, reading backward, in a sense, at the end of the book, I realized the title itself was highly problematic. Even more is it problematic with the expanded review. Let’s start there.

One BIG problem? Nuclear weaponry is never discussed. Given the nuttery of US-Chinese saber-rattling, even to a new US nuclear strategic plan:

(T)he Biden administration has approved a highly classified nuclear strategic plan—the Nuclear Employment Guidance—that seeks to prepare the United States for possible coordinated nuclear challenges from Russia, China, and North Korea

failure to discuss this issue is ridiculous. Even atomic energy gets only mention in passing under climate change. And, the dirtiness of cobalt mining for batteries is discussed later; that of uranium mining is not. Beyond nuclear issues, looking at the weapons side, militarism in general is not discussed, other than a passing reference to threats to Ukrainian power plants by Russia. (Dimona, and the possibility of an Iranian missile hitting it, are not. And, I wonder if further political mindset is behind that. See below.)

Nor, even though we are emerging from a global pandemic and the author is a bioethicist, are pandemic catastrophe ethics discussed in detail. Drug addiction problems are touched on, scatteringly, throughout the book; the war on drugs and related issues are not. I just thought of this at the last chapter of the book, but realized that itself would probably knock it down a star.

And, that relates directly to the book’s title. And, since this is a book of matters philosophical, we’re going to get into linguistic philosophy. What IS a “catastrophe” to Rieder? We’re never given a clear definition, let alone a justification that one would expect to accompany such a definition. Another “missing example”? He talks about consumption behind climate change but never thinks about possibly including current capitalism in general as a catastrophe. Related? The ethics of the developing world wanting to live like the developed world and how that might affect climate change aren't discussed.

Now, Rieder might argue back that the book isn't intended to be comprehensive. If so, theoretically, he still owes an explainer on why he chose the particular catastrophes he did as illustrative.  And, in actuality, we never get that.

His "puzzle," in his details, might be parsed and teased out differently if he used different, or more, disasters to background it.

Chapter 2? The big problem is scientific. Most scientists who are honest climate scientists and not neoliberals say that the degree of temperature change by 2100 will be at least 3C if not more. (Michael Mann is in Rieder’s bibliography but James Hansen is NOT. I have written about this in various ways, including some of the recent study in general and about Hansen vs Mann (and Katharine Hayhoe).) Indeed, per that first link, there's a good chance we hit 4C, and a non-negligible chance we hit 5C, by 2100. And, while I may be gone, if that's the case, there's good chance that Rieder himself, not his child, experiences 3C, and an outside chance of 3.5C, before he passes away.

 Second problem is this is the first, but by no means the last place where he takes individual actions out of collective context. The “joyguzzler” inspires others; the philosophical argument that it’s not problematic becomes weaponized. And, minor harm is not the same as zero harm. And, here, as in chapter 9, there’s a self-conflict over not discussing virtue ethics more here, let alone going beyond the West in a search for philosophical ethics. He finally gets to this, on virtue ethics, in Chapter 11, but that then means we have poor writing and editing; this isn’t a murder mystery where head-faking is not only acceptable but encouraged. It’s logical argumentation. There’s another problem behind that, even more the case in Chapter 12 than in Chapter 11.

Chapter 3’s thoughts on public health did not follow from Chapter 2 on climate change or Chapter 3 on meat. The three have different ethical angles. There is no public health equivalent of “big polluter them” nor an equivalent of big ag’s stranded/marginal costs on factory farming.

Chapter 4 gets us on the beam of good philosophizing. For a chapter.

Chapter 5 is hit and miss. Rieder kind of pulls punches on the second horn of the Euthyphro dilemma, the horn of ethics existing outside of god. So, by not philosophizing about how that, in and of itself, is as wrong as the first horn, the larger picture is a bit short, because the left hand is Kantianism, to put that in more modern terms — command theory without the divine. He also misstates why the post-Peloponnesian War Athens put Socrates on trial. In blunt modern terms, Socrates was a traitor.

Chapter 6 nails “the myth of tolerance.”

Chapter 7: Contra Rosalind Hursthouse, with Rieder missing this? Her definition of virtue ethics by identifying virtuous people is circular. Otherwise, he comes down correctly that trolley problems are as much ethical trick as ethical reality. (And, this is why the r/philosophy subreddit is nutters.)

Chapter 8. Problems with Singer? First is the assumption that happiness is the maximum good, or even, in more stark presentations of Singer, the only good. Second, what is happiness? And, is the hedonistic calculus for measuring that calibrated to the moment? A short term after the moment? A longer term after the moment? I mean, if momentary, then Huxley’s Fordist government passing out soma is the height of good ethics. Doesn’t delve into the “nowhen” issue that parallels the “nowhere,” as in utilitarians cannot have a view from either nowhere or nowhen.

Part III

Chapter 9 His attempt to differentiate between “statistical harm” and “actual harm” seems cavilling. We use insurance actuarial tables to talk about harms all the time and nobody bifurcates them this way. To make this VERY personal given Rieder’s past, insurance actuarial tables will talk about the “statistical harms” caused by driving a motor vehicle while stoned on opioids. To go beyond that to physics? Statistical mechanics is exactly that. Doesn’t make it any less real. And, perhaps with protesting, we as a society accept actuarial norms — until, to riff back to climate change, “we” get bent out of shape when we’re in rural California or the Florida coast and our homeowner’s insurance skyrockets, if it gets renewed at all. Next, he seems to ignore virtue ethics on this issue, looking only at consequentialist and deontological stances. This seems a HUGE fail, and, unlike friend Massimo Pigliucci, I’m not in general a touter of virtue ethics. It’s weirder yet because his farmer friends in Chapter 11 are walking, talking virtue ethicists. Also, Walter Kaufmann, or thoughts similar to “Without Guilt and Justice,” are missing on other angles of individual vs collective justice. See here for a few thoughts on that book.

Chapter 10: Sex is not gender. So says me. So said the late Frans de Waal. So says biologist and philosopher Massimo Pigliucci. Outside of evolutionary biologists, so say some political leftists. This is also, in this case, a linguistic philosophy issue. As a public policy issue, that doesn't mean that both transsexual and transgender persons don't have certain civil rights. Whether they are 100 percent the same in 100 percent of issues? Possibly not.

On duty, obligation and intimacy, his riff on Maggie Little misses another point. We seemingly evolved biologically to be in maximum group sizes of 150. In the modern world, which is “controlling” on my “sphere of intimacy” — biological or cultural evolution? And, his use of Little misses that ensoulment personhood will simply reject this framing a priori. That’s not to say it’s wrong. It is to say that it relies on presuppositions that some would say are not in evidence. Third, claiming Little’s POV on abortion is “complex” medically or ethically is a reach, and it’s also PR, trying to “sell” this precisely because of alleged complexity, as I see it.

Next: No, “reasons” are not a small-granular unit of moral measurement. They MAY be, when purely moral, and later you seem to go back to that, but? You just admitted that reasons often have no moral attachment. There may be plenty of aesthetic good to getting fresh coffee; there is ZERO moral good unless I have some weird disease requiring coffee ingestion.

I agree with him on rejecting duty and obligation on many cases, at least within INDIVIDUALIST ethics. That, too, as well as rejecting Rawlsian liberal versions of political ethics, is something I learned from Kaufmann’s “Without Guilt and Justice.” See more below.

And, by this point, I realized I was sorry I recommended this book to Massimo Pigliucci and that, while it might not fall below three stars, it was quite unlikely to rise above it.

Chapter 11: Uses a farming husband and wife, neo-traditionalist farmers, as a “hook” for turning us back to virtue ethics and an intro to the next part. Not bad, but not failing to talk about the hook in advance is bad non-fiction writing. Also, re the purity ethic in Chapter 12? Are there issues with neo-traditionalist farming that he doesn’t discuss? As in, it’s an “out”? As in, the modern world couldn’t exist with only neo-traditionalist farms? As in, where do all of their customers get their money to pay its higher prices? To put it more bluntly, does this, like planting trees as alleged carbon offsets, act as a sort of environmental penance that doesn’t really do anything? Also, given conversation earlier in this book, would he protest, even raise his hackles, at such thought?

PART IV — finally, after bad editing in Chapter 2 and failing to put a “hook” in either it or Chapter 8 to point forward to Chapter 11.

Chapter 12: Problems with the purity ethic and its similarity to utilitarianism are good. But, there’s a larger problem that Rieder misses, and that’s a problem with **Western** philosophy. Confucianism, for example, has no problem talking about things that would be best called, in the taxonomy of Western ethics, “corporate duty” and “corporate obligation.” Virtue ethics to battle climate change just doesn’t get there. It doesn’t get there on other things. By not looking beyond the Western tradition, in essence, Reider is hamstrung. Also, by looking at duty and obligation as an on/off switch, rather than in terms of degrees, he's further hamstrung. 

I have long thought that the three schools of ethics in Western philosophy fall short. And, this book sharpened that belief, in part because all three schools, while they talk about how an individual's actions affect others, still ultimately are about individualist ethics and nothing more. Virtue ethics is a good example. Aristotle focused on individual flourishing; Master Kung, on that of societal groups.

Let us not forget that the Western world did NOT “invent” philosophy. India’s Charvaka skeptics, for example, existed by or before the Greek pre-Socratics. The Ajnana started about the same time. Beyond the scope of my original review, I realize that, as I get older, this comes more and more forward in my mind. Unfortunately, even a decent-sized public library, while it might have books on the evolution of Hinduism and Buddhism, and maybe even Jainism, won't have books about Indian philosophy. The closest it will get is talking about Philostratus talking about Apollonius of Tyana visiting the "naked philosophers" of India.

Chapter 13: I think it’s too harsh to call Schopenhauer a cynic for his “antinatalist” views. Ditto on David Benatar, whom I’ve also read. Also, to riff on Schopenhauer and Benatar, there’s the question of whether one should stop with one child, whether one’s own progeny or adopted, or go on to a second once that bridge has been crossed, on the grounds that only children may be less happy. Or other things. At least Rieder eventually somewhat softens his view. The only good argument against antinatalism is a selfishly utilitarian one of that it minimizes the happiness of the currently living, especially in developed countries where social safety nets for senior citizens depend in part on youth paying in.

Chapter 14: Racism is horrible. It’s arguably not a catastrophe. See top of this review for more on that issue. And, per books like “Conspirituality,” there are plenty of people who can be environmentalist but racist. Look at the German Völkish movement for 20-30 years before Hitler. Given my note at top about actual or potential catastrophes with ethical issues that Rieder doesn’t discuss, this chapter was a cropper. I’m also NOT a fan of Kendi, among listed authors of Rieder.

Beyond that, as a good non-liberal leftist, talking about racism without talking about classism falls short. Related to that, beyond Western philosophy? The book in general is presented from a Western perspective. The exploitation of Congo over its cobalt is mentioned, but plenty of "developing" nations are exploited for plenty of resources not related to climate change. There's also, again, the issue of the ethics of developed nations saying, "do as we say, not as we did in the past," but offering insufficient help on that.

There’s other things not mentioned on the “participatory” issue. On political action, I assume Rieter is a good Democrat by some of his angles. I’ll venture that he even thinks third-party voters like me waste our votes on climate change. Or nuclear tensions in particular and militarism in general. He might concede this is personal purity ethics but would probably still reject it as good social participation.

View all my reviews

De gustibus non disputandum on natural beauty

A couple of weeks ago, while on vacation, I was hiking the Grove of Titans trail at Jedidiah Smith Redwoods State Park. I was coming back to the trailhead, when a young lady, I'm guessing early 20s, perhaps late teens, asked me, "Isn't this the most beautiful spot in the world?" or something very similar.

(My photo from a different spot on the trail.)

It was quite a nice spot. And, since the various state parks in the Redwood State and National were created before the national park, they arguably have the best lands within the system.

That said, per the old Latin phrase, de gustibus non disputandum, this is to some degree a subjective question. Having stared at Lake Louise as well as hiked to one of those tea houses at Banff National Park, I'd offer that as one option off the top of my head. Or Bear Lake and nearby at Rocky Mountain National Park, especially when the lotus pads are in bloom. Or a sunset on the ocean strip of Olympic National Park. Or, outside of national parks entirely, one of the aspen groves and surrounding land on Grand Mesa. Or, speaking of sunsets, one out over the ocean at Big Sur.

Or inland, a sunset at a national wildlife refuge 30 miles away.

Author photo, Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge

Those are just off the top of my head.

So, what does constitute the best of natural beauty?

Savannah-like areas are definitely pleasing to the human eye, perhaps in part due to evolutionary heritage. But, none of the places I mentioned above, nor others that flit into my mind like Painted Rocks National Lakeshore, are close to savannah in nature. Well, I'll modify that. Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge is fairly close. 

Is it that they are that much different from savannah that makes them beautiful? What about the presence of water? That redwood grove didn't have it. Bear Lake does, and of course, there are many cataracts and falls in Rocky. Obviously, the Pacific Ocean and Lake Superior are covered. But Grand Mesa is similar to the land of the redwoods. That said, both sites have fairly large meadow areas that intrude into the forest. Neither one is the Black Forest on steroids.

What about deserts? For whatever reason, a place like Artist's Palette at Death Valley didn't spring into mind when I talked to this young lady, and I pondered about it even now.

Artist's Palette, author photo.

There's also the matter of personal background and experience. The young lady was from Los Angeles, where any site with that level of lush greenery would flash "beautiful." Someone from Washington State or British Columbia might have a more subdued, while yet interested, feeling.

That might be even more true in places in Redwood State and National where redwoods don't predominate.  As in, walking along Prairie Creek, in Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park.

One will notice I mentioned one place above that not only is not a U.S. national park, it's not even a part of the National Park Service. That's of course Jedidiah Smith Redwoods State Park.

Well, others I mentioned aren't part of the national park service. Hagerman NWR is US Fish and Wildlife Service. Grand Mesa, or another great area, land north of Steamboat Springs, Colorado, is US Forest Service. So is "the Bob," the Bob Marshall Wilderness beloved of Montanans.

Jedidiah Smith isn't US government land at all of course, but California State Parks.

Big Morongo Preserve, beloved West Coast birding Mecca, isn't even state land; it's county-level.

While not denigrating US national parks, or those in other countries, nor trying to get into a philosophical demarcation issue of what should constitute a national park, as well as what should constitute an idea of beauty, I personally don't fetishize national parks.

A few more r/AcademicBiblical tidbits — Jesus burial stupidity, Paul naming, more

 No, contra ZanillaMilla in this post, "Saul" was not a Greek signum, then Paul a Roman cognomen he later switched to, namely because Paul wasn't a Roman citizen, as I told Naugrith the Nazi 2 years ago, along with others.

Contra other commenters there, the one verse in Acts that's mentioned is way too slender a reed to lean on for any particular interpretation of "Luke's" comment.

The Sergius Paulus idea otherwise is "tenable" but likely? 

To me, the interpretation that does the least violence to the text and the most support to Luke's thought as we know it is that this is a deliberate wordplay, with Paul as a cognomen, as foreshadowing Luke's later claim that Paul was a Roman citizen.

Paul himself, of course, only identifies himself as Paul. Was that his actual name? Per other comments in that thread, maybe Paul changed his own name. Maybe, per my link, he was, without actually claiming Roman citizenship, trying to imply he had the "Latin right." (That would be like a "stolen valor" move today, claiming to have served in combat but staying vague on details.)

==

Jesus' burial would have been held for both midrashic reasons on passages in the Tanakh and for New Testament theological reasons of refuting the normal Roman treatment of a condemned criminal, contra this post. Contra the one commenter at the time I first saw it, why does Ehrman think his "mass grave burial" is a minority view among critical scholars? (I assume that's that the "minority view" references and doesn't also include fundagelicals.)

And, no, the idea of Jodi Magness and another of James Tabor that Jesus was buried twice, also at that post, is even stupider, especially Tabor. He, of course, ties this to his Jesus Dynasty schtick.

The last commenter there, noting that Acts and apocryphal materials support an alternate tradition of a "hostile" burial is indeed interesting, but the commenter doesn't carry it further. It, too, would ultimately be apologetic, to explain away the lack of bodily resurrection evidence. (Maybe, because the family of Dives in the Lukan story, that's the ultimate point: Behind Abraham telling Dives that if his family won't listen to Moses and the prophets, they won't listen to him from the dead, is maybe another twist on Jesus' "no sign shall be given.")

==

An interesting and generally informative Ask Me Anything with James McGrath, mainly about John the Baptizer. That said, was the John movement and the Jesus movement both part of the same "Way" at the time of Acts? Since I believe McGrath has early datings on NT books in general and the gospels and Acts in particular, that should be looked at critically. (I have had run-ins with him on Facebook about datings before.)

He also probably could have gone into a bit more detail about how close, or distant, Mandean thought is from that of John, and was from John by, say, CE 400, but he does later postulate multiple social and theological "flows" creating Mandeanism.

I used to think it was closer to the Johannine movement myself, but have read works in the past few years leading me to reassess that.

As for John's alleged "cosplay" as Elijah? Who says that he was doing that? Only Christian scriptures midrashing.

And, with that, and noting that McGrath, a conservative critical scholar, calls his biography/history of John "Christmaker," I stopped reading.

The Kingdom, the Power and The Glory: but no Red Heifer and no denominational thought

The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory: American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism by Tim Alberta
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This was a HARD book to rate, and so, as I’ve done once or twice before, I’m doing sub-ratings. These come from my dual background as a newspaper editor and a secularist with a graduate theological degree. And, I'm expanding on one issue from my original Goodreads review. I am also expanding it further than the expanded review on my main blog.

OK, subratings:

1. Conservative evangelicals in bed with Trump? (Note the word “conservative” and see below.) 3.5. The TL/DR answer that Alberta doesn’t expressly note (until the epilogue, spoiler alert)? Conservative evangelicals, or a large chunk of them, want to “own the libs,” like Trump. He says this indirectly, but no more than that, before that one aside in the epilogue. (That said, David French, Russell Moore and others appear to blow this as well, or else maybe they — and maybe Alberta, too — don’t want to admit that the desire to win, which Alberta does discuss, is that simple — and that crude. And, while more inchoate, was held long before Trump.)
Side note: Per my observation about Russell Moore last year, Christianity’s entanglement with politics in the US isn’t totally new either, per things like Teddy Roosevelt’s “Muscular Christianity.” And per that link, I have a more skeptical eye on Russell Moore’s past than Alberta does.

1A. Conservative evangelicals’ other problems, such as their version of the Catholic priests’ sex abuse scandal? 4.5. The interviews with Rachael Denhollander and Julie Roys and their legal and journalistic work, respectively, was very good. So was Denhollander’s speculation that whichever way the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Life Commission breaks on the sexual abuse database issue, it’s going to cause a denominational schism.

1B. In brief, Alberta's starting with the Reagan era is good, as he shows evangelicals' interest in politics — and per Falwell Sr. being focused on taking down Jimmy Carter — as being an early driver. Could have been explored more, namely, the degree to which evangelicals overlooked Reagan's religious failings, such as divorce, child conceived (tho not born) out of wedlock, consulting astrologers (contra legends, Ronnie, not Nancy, took the initial lead on this long before the presidency) and more, just like with Trump. Let's also not forget that the National Day of Prayer was pushed on Ike by evangelicals, and other related Cold War items. 3.25 for not more explicitly making these ties, especially the pre-Reagan ones. Alberta is sincere in his worries about politics overtaking evangelical Christianity today, but, whether he's actually less sincere, or he just didn't want to go into depth on this, he risks looking less sincere by not having explored these ties more.
Beyond the focus of this book, I suspect that my childhood Missouri Synod Lutheranism, without a formal schism, will have 10 percent of its congregations hive off over the next decade or so and that Matt Harrison will stop being able to even halfway thread the needle over the Lutefash issue.

And, speaking of not exploring ties more? ...

1C. Where’s apocalypticism and where’s Israel? I only thought about that at the end, but .... See point 5 and explication for more. 2.5 as a placeholder, but also lowered the rating on broader political commentary, especially re the issue of Israel. On apocalypticism and eschatology, no, not every evangelical has the same take, but, they’re all generally contra mainline Protestants, and Catholics and Orthodoxy’s, amillenialism. And, hellz yes, this influences their interaction with politics, and especially, in foreign affairs, Israel. (NO 1- or 2-star reviewer picked up on this; 3-star reviews were too many to read but I expect it was missed there, too. I'll expand on this, either here or at my blog sites.)

And, yes, this is the issue that gets expansion.

The Wikipedia page on millennialism is a good starter. For more on the three main options within Christianity, go to its pages on premillennialism, postmillennialism and amillennialism.

Premillennialism has two different stripes, one ancient and the other modern. Both, though, believe in a literal millennium, a 1,000-year rule of Jesus on earth. They differ on things like where to place the "Rapture" (scare quote needed) and the "Tribulation" vis a vis the millennium as a whole, but have broad similarities. Overall, historic premillennialism is less literalistic than modern dispensationalist versions, though, and it's those that drive the folks like Tim LaHaye and his "Left Behind" set.

To be complete? Postmillennialism is, per Wiki, more of a catch-all. That said, all varieties believe Jesus' second coming will not happen until AFTER a millennial period, hence the "post-" prefix. How literalistic or not to understand that millennial period itself has a wide variety of stances.

Amillennialism? Anything the bible says about a 1,000-year period is figurative.

As Wiki notes in the main article, some early church fathers were Historical Premillennialist. Others may have been around that. Postmillennialism in any form had no real foothold among the ante-Nicene fathers.

But then Nicaea happened. And everything related to it, like the legalization of Christianity inside the Roman Empire, followed by it being made the official state religion by Theodosius II less than 60 years later. And, no tribulation or any other premillennial verschnizzle had happened. (This is why, in the bible, most scholars think II Thessalonians is apocryphal; it totally ignores Paul's "Man of Lawlessness" of 1 Thessalonians. See here for the difference between that person, the Beast of Revelation and the various antichrists of Johannine epistles.)

Amillennialsts say that there is no literal millennium, and that Revelation is just referencing the time between Jesus' ascension and his return. There will be no reign of the righteous or improvability of the earth before he returns, contra postmillennialism, nor will he return to start a 1,000-year battle with the powers of darkness, let alone look for a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem after a spotless red heifer is found or anything like that.

So, per Alberta's book, who believes what?

Catholics, Eastern Orthodox are strongly amillennial. So is the Lutheranism of my youth. So is traditional Calvinism, including Alberta's Presbyterianism. Ditto on Anglicanism and Episcopalianism. "Fundamentalism" within old mainline Protestantism, as well as more liberal views of theology and interpretation in mainline Protestantism, are at least on paper, still amillennial today.

Baptist groups, and the broader Anabaptist tradition from which they arise? Also generally amillennial.

That said, premillennialism in modern times is not a 19th-20th century American issue. Many Puritans held that, seeing themselves as a "New Israel." And, tying that to the "ingathering" and conversion of all Israel. (Paul may have been speaking literalistically in Romans. But, he was still wrong.) It really exploded among 19th century British evangelicals, where John Nelson Darby essentially launched what became modern dispensationalism, then exploded further here in the U.S. with Cyrus Scofield and his infamous Scofield Reference Bible. Its impact was expanded even more by being printed right before World War I. Although Baptists' history is amillennial, dispensationalism has a strong foothold there. It does as well among charismatic and Pentecostal types.

As for where we're at now? The 1948 establishment of the nation of Israel factors largely into many dispensationalists' thoughts, including, yes, rebuilding a temple and other things.

And, ALL of this, and how it affects modern evangelical or fundagelical politics, versus Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, and on paper, Alberta's childhood Presbyterians, is ignored by him.

1D. Where's talk of various denominations and their decline? A couple of the churches Alberta visits are affiliated with some denomination, many are independent megachurches. Even more is that the case with the places Jeff Sharlet visited in "The Undertow." But, Alberta doesn't discuss the decline of denominations in general, let alone specifics, including the rise of independent megachurches tying with the rise of politicization of modern Protestant Christianity. (This is not to ignore decades-earlier Black churches' endorsements from the pulpit and such.)

Beyond the politicization, whether on Israel or other issues, the decline of denominations means a decline in church organization, church discipline and related issues. Alberta doesn't look at this either. Nor does he look at whether or not Humpty Dumpty can even be put back together.

1E. Somewhat related, Alberta doesn't discuss the pollination of conservative trends in modern American Roman Catholicism by fundagelicals, whether it's conservative priests, conservative bishops, conservative groups like Opus Dei, and more.

2. Defining “evangelical”? 3 Alberta admits it’s complex, but, without using the word “fundagelical,” takes a pass in one way. See below. Let’s also not forget that “evangelical” arose in part as a “branding” term.

3. Biblical and early Christian interpretation, even within “fundagelical” culture? 2.5.

4. The above, outside that? 2.25

5. Broader political commentary? Rating based in part on overlapping past political coverage with Alberta: 1.75

A weighted average of all of the above, weighting more for the 1 and 1A gives 3.2 stars. An unweighted average is 2.8.

Summary: I think Alberta is sincere in his description — as far as it goes. Why it doesn’t go even further, on evangelical history, and the unmentioned elephant in the room, I don’t know. Get’s a gentleman’s C 3 stars. Because of his sincerity, and because at least one of the 1-star reviews is crap, this is a solid rating. But, if he writes another book just about evangelicalism, figure out his audience and pitch first. If he writes another book about evangelicals’ intersection with politics, and it doesn’t cover that elephant, don’t read it.

Early on, like Bart Ehrman’s Armageddon, Alberta appears to have a Marcionite view of the Old Testament. (Later, he talks about the sweetness of the New Jerusalem in Revelation, but ignores the amount of divine wrath there. He ignores Tertullian’s riff on Lazarus and Dives with Christians taking joy over the torments of the dammed.)

Also early on, Alberta indicates a belief in American exceptionalism, such as talking about America’s “miraculous” victory over Great Britain. Nothing miraculous about it when you recognize that Yorktown was a 75 percent French, 25 percent American, win, which doesn’t appear in Alberta’s narrative.

There’s also problems with biblical interpretation and criticism elsewhere. Contra page 131, no Nero didn’t persecute Christians after the Great Fire and the Tacitus account is almost certainly an interpolation by a minor church father circa 400 CE.

The page before is an error that even a fundagelical should not make. Saul/Paul did NOT “supervise” the stoning of Stephen and the plain text of Acts never says that. What Acts 7:54-58 DOES say:

54 When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit … 57 At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58 dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.

A few pages later, from that same Wheaton conference? Maybe part of why evangelicals think, wrongly, they’re being persecuted today is even more than conservative Catholics, they’ve swallowed myths of early Christian martyrdom that Candida Moss showed more than a decade ago simply aren’t true.

Much later, on page 386, this howler: “If these women had complied with the Jewish norms of the day, which forbade women from instructing men in public spaces…” then “it’s true that Paul wrote in one letter that women should not teach men.” Alberta never delves into the issue of inerrancy, nor the critical theology knowledge that Paul didn’t write those words in 2 Timothy, but a pseudonynomous author did circa 120 CE.

Yes, I know this is not a book of biblical, and ante-Nicene and post-Nicene Christian church fathers criticism. Nonetheless, with the exception of Saul/Paul and Stephen, getting these issues wrong, and continuing to wrongly hold them, especially combined with American exceptionalism (including as expressed by Alberta) means that evangelicals, whether they continue to try to be highly engaged politically or not, will in some way get their relation to politics wrong.

The idea of dividing the book into three sections, on “The Kingdom, The Power and the Glory,” riffing on the end of the Lord’s Prayer of today (that almost certainly was not part of the original, per textual criticism) was good. But, where was Augustine, specifically, “The City of God,” in the Kingdom section? He’s referenced in passing twice in the Power section by people Alberta interviews, and that’s it. MAJOR failure there.

Also? Not all evangelicals are conservative evangelicals and Alberta makes an error of omission here like many of his theological kin do. For example, Sojourners magazine, the people behind it, and the mag’s average readers? Nowhere mentioned in your book. (I checked the index; the Russian Orthodox Church, which is definitely not a US evangelical church, is mentioned five times, and Sojourners zero.) Per Wiki, the Sojourners Community that founded the mag started at Trinity Evangelical, and I’ll venture Alberta knows this. Alberta isn’t the only person to get this wrong. So does Fred Clark at Patheos, whom I suspect knows better, and who may be loath to identify himself as a “liberal evangelical” if he is one; The New Republic, which doesn’t; and others. Whether “liberal evangelical” is totally the right word for folks like Sojourners, I don’t know, but, at least, “moderate evangelicals.” And, Jimmy Carter still self-identifies as an evangelical, I think. And, what about academics in exegetical theology who accept historical-critical methodology in general but are on the conservative edge of it like a James McGrath? They’re not fundamentalists, not in a narrow sense.

There’s also the question of who’s an evangelical and who’s a fundamentalist? I consider the conservative Presbyterian church in which Alberta grew up, does have “evangelical” in its name, but? After all, “The Fundamentals” arose from within Presbyterianism, at least as far as the Stewart brothers who funded it. And, I consider the conservative wing of Lutheranism, whether the larger Missouri Synod or the smaller Wisconsin Synod (one of the events Alberta attends is at a Wisconsin Synod church) to be fundamentalist too. (These Lutherans, including my Missouri Synod pastor’s wife sister, hate being called fundamentalists, but it’s true, even if their fundamentals aren’t Presbyterian ones.)

There’s also the question of what the core audience is? If it’s conservative evangelicals, maybe it’s not long enough. If the general public? Too long. 450 pages in relatively small font and leading for todays hardbound book world is pretty long. See the top portion of my ratings.

There’s also a bigger background issue, via a question not raised by Alberta. And, Jeopardy style, I’ll provide the answer via Ed Abbey:

“Growth for growth’s sake is the theology of the cancer cell.”

Indeed, per a biblical reference missed by Alberta, in Acts, Gamaliel says that if the movement by Jesus’ disciples is from god, it will succeed and if not it won’t.

Setting aside divine origins, for any organization that is convinced in a non-arrogant way of the rightness of its mission and ideas, focusing on growth for growth’s sake simply shouldn’t happen.

Then, there’s the general politics coverage.

On 298, Alberta repeats the canard (it is, Tim) that national Democrats generally support “abortion on demand.” Once again, he either knows better or decided not to know better.

Many, many Democrats in the House and Senate supported the Hyde Amendment, barring Medicaid funding of abortions, from when Henry Hyde first wrote it. That includes our current president, Joe Biden, while in the Senate.

Related and connected? Biden, as well as Clinton and Obama, failed to ask Congress as the start of their respective administrations, when Democrats controlled both houses, for legislation offering any federal protections for any portion of Roe that could be federally protected. Alberta knows that, too.

Also, at one point in the book, Alberta seems to treat with a half-sneer the idea in the Shrub Bush administration of looking for “moderate Muslims.” If he didn’t mean that, then, he needs to be more careful in how he describes Muslims in America.

Finally, in a BIG old issue that Alberta totally ignores? And that’s of new relevance since Oct. 7, 2023? At least on paper, the mainline Lutheranism of my youth still doesn’t cut blank checks to Israel. This, and apocalyptic thought in general, and how it fuels and festers fear, is an issue for both political coverage and the intersection of religion and politics.

Related? As I said in 2018 (maybe he’s gotten better) Alberta is not a smart / informed political writer, to put it politely, or he’s … well, he’s the same word as he is on Democrats and abortion, to put it somewhat less politely, or an l-word, to put it totally unpolitely, about Beto O’Rourke’s political stances. I interviewed Beto, per the background to that link, and during the 2018 Senate campaign general election race, not the Dem primary. Beto talked about "access for all," and said single payer was "one way to get there," but contra Alberta, that's not single payer. Period. He refused to cosponsor John Conyers' HR 676 in the House. And, he said he didn't like Sanders' similar bill in the Senate. Now, Alberta wasn't alone in drinking the Kool-Aid; so, too, for reasons of her own, did his primary opponent, Sema Hernandez. That still doesn't excuse Alberta.

==

Finally, sidebar observations. One two-star reviewer needs to actually read Alberta with an open mind rather than chastise. She won’t recognize herself in the mirror (nor allow comments). Another in the same vein.
And another:

The craptacular one-star review is by an apparent Gnu Atheist.

View all my reviews

The unbearable lightness of Chris(sy) Hanson

I spun this out of the first of two recent posts about the thoughts, presumably wrong thoughts, of "independent biblical researcher" (you don't get the s-word) Chris(sy) Hansen, who I only ran into at r/AcademicBiblical a couple of months ago after her their comments about Tacitus and whether his comments about Nero persecuting Christians in the Great Fire is an interpolation or not. (Her forceful stating that it's not led me to relook at my own writing that it probably is, though I don't know for sure. I find Hansen's wrong, certainly on the dogmatic conviction.)

I mainly spun this out of my first piece, about her their claim that 1 Clement is about Peter and Paul being killed by internecine Christian conflict.

Hansen also is .... interesting elsewhere. Hansen apparently thinks Shushama Malik is the real deal. I don't. See here for her take. Elsewhere, Hansen gets puffed by KamilGregor, who I don't think a lot of, but, he notes she has NO academic biblical background. See here for publishing CV. Great.

Chrissy Hansen is an example of an independent researcher with no formal degree in Biblical studies and she currently has eight(!) academic publications in Biblical studies listed as forthcoming. In 2022 alone, she managed to publish six journal articles (and in good journals, too).

OK? Not OK. Gregor doesn't disclose that he's a co-author with her at least once. That itself is an ethical issue, and I've already had other reasons to dislike him, too. And, given that at least one of the journals is specifically geared to contributions from people with no academic biblical background, how peer-reviewed are they? I mean, technically, if it's "peers," then it's being reviewed by people like her, or Paul Davidson, whom I also believe has no biblical degree, undergrad or grad. (One does name Shaye Cohen on the editorial board, but he's one of more than a dozen.) In addition, most are semiannual if not annual. (The one with Cohen is annual.) In other words, backwaters. And, just because he's on the editorial board, that doesn't mean he's a reviewer.

As for Malik? Here you go.

The Nero-Antichrist: Founding and Fashioning a Paradigm by Shushma Malik
My rating: 1 of 5 stars

A simplistic view of a book that in all likelihood had multiple layers of composition. Assuming an earlier core that was written at the time of Nero, later Christians could have adopted this at the time of Domitian, which is when Nero Redivivus rumors arose.

The author is also illiterate in terms of proper biblical criticism. The word and concept "antichrist" are nowhere mentioned in Revelation. Only the "beast." The word "antichrist," representing a totally different concept, is only in two of John's epistles. And, neither one of those is "the man of lawlessness," found only in 2 Thessalonians. See here for much more detailed discussion.

And, since for various reasons, since running into them, I like to kick Hansen, their missing this basic error in Malik undercuts their claim to be an independent "scholar." Per this person, anybody can claim to be a "researcher."

Please also note that reviewer Allen Russell Fuller's graduate theology "degrees" come from an online ordination certification mill, which is what Esoteric Interfaith Theological Seminary is, and even more whackadoodle in a New Agey-lite way than, say, the old Universal Life Church.

Beyond my review of Malik, see comments in this archived r/AcademicBiblical thread.

Academic siloing is sometimes bad, but often good. Shushma Malik is a classicist, not a scholar of biblical interpretation. 

And, Hansen is neither.

And, Hansen definitely is NOT a "scholar," despite her own claims. 

Here's a list of the only scholars (and myself) I know who notably interact with Carrier's work

You're not a scholar. I have an undergrad degree in classical languages, which includes biblical as well as classical Greek, and also read biblical Hebrew at that level, and have a graduate theological degree. You're not a scholar, and that's even shown at r/AcademicBiblical, because you have no "flair." See more below. 

Next, back to that CV page:

I professionally focus on Creative Writing outside of NT studies. I am currently applying for an MA in Creative Writing, and I hope to eventually teach it. I have edited for creative literature journals and magazines in the past, and I named the “Outstanding SVSU Graduate in Creative Writing” for my work (both in and out of classrooms).

Also, per it, there IS no "Canadian-American Theological Society." There is a CAT Association. Its website is a WordPress blog. I'm sorry, it now says elsewhere on teh Google that it is a society. Big whoop. And, asking people to "advertise with us" on a subvertical? Places like the Society for Biblical Literature never do that.

Back to the not a scholar? Said person (sic) has no current graduate degree in ANYthing:

I professionally focus on Creative Writing outside of NT studies. I am currently applying for an MA in Creative Writing, and I hope to eventually teach it. I have edited for creative literature journals and magazines in the past, and I named the “Outstanding SVSU Graduate in Creative Writing” for my work (both in and out of classrooms).

And I wasted time arguing with this person.

Carrier? Low-hanging fruit to go after him. No bona fides there. Trying to apply critical thinking while being a polytheist? (Person self-identifies as "pagan," and was from some sort of Methodist or similar background.) "Know thyself" honesty but no critical thinking bona fides. 

Weirdly, as noted briefly at the top, Hansen has been on r/AB for three years at least; never came across that person until last month. Said person also claim to be a friend of alleged atheist and actual papal apologist Tim O'Neill, though Hansen admits disagreeing with O'Neill on some things. Sorry, Hansen, plenty of non-mythicists find O'Neill laughable. (And about as pedantic as Richard Carrier.)

And, as discussed on my primary blog, there's another issue. You may already have figured it out.

Oh, while I'm at it, where does Paul Davidson of "Is that in the Bible" blogsite get off on r/AcademicBiblical with flair of "Hebrew Bible | Early Christianity"? (He's Captain Haddock there.) While he's a researcher of longer duration than Hansen, his "about" page on his blog lists no bachelor's, let alone graduate, degrees in the relevant fields. 

This shows that that site is about favoritism, and why I was comment-banned. Naugrith the Nazi had already ingratiated himself well enough that other moderators then were butt-hurt that I called him out. (At least one "chased" me to the new sub that I created, then said that with it marked as "restricted" or whatever Reddit's intermediate level of group privacy is, nobody would find it, not understanding that I made it thus to keep them away.)

And, with that, if I've not completely purged that site from my system, I've done a fair amount.