Book Review

This is a book review I recently wrote on Amazon for WH Uffington's The Greatest Lie Ever Told.
____________
I've recently been reading a bit about early Christian history and the evolution of pagan ritual and iconography which effected those in Christianity. My first stop along the way was to read Edward Carpenter's Pagan and Christian Creeds: their origin and meaning which describes an origin to Christ mythology in very early sun god worship and how that took shape out of a combination of agricultural and astronomical phenomenon. I've also read Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities : The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew and I'm very comfortable with the idea that The Bible is not a literal interpretation of the word of God and that has also been manipulated over time to meet people's political and economic ambitions.

I picked up Uffington's The Greatest Lie Ever Told expecting it to be a bit more scholarly than it ended up being. On the surface it seems extremely well researched and the author is careful to cite sources for most of what he presents. I'm always glad to see that, but there are several ideas in the book with which the author makes some great leaps of imagination, leaving the realm of sure footed research and diving headlong into the untested waters of wishful thinking.

The book has a central thesis that I find both appealing and potentially realistic. Uffington's idea is that:

1. The single generation of monotheism established by the pharaoh Akhenaten around 1,300 BC was kept alive after his death by priests and scribes who did not want to revert to polytheism.

2. These Aten worshipping priests left Egypt and settled in Canaan and over several hundred years their ideology evolved into early Judeism.

3. The early Judaic mythologies of the Old Testament about Jewish slavery in Egypt and the Exodus out of Egypt were a complete fabrication by Jewish writers in the 7th century BC for mostly political reasons.

4. Other influential aspects of Egyptian mysticism were kept alive over the centuries and collected together in Alexandria after the Ptolemy dynasty built the library there. Greek philosophers (Pythagoras, Plato, etc.) studied in Alexandra and brought these ideas back and spread them around the Hellenized world.

5. In the 500 years or so before Christianity, this mysticism took the shape of the many "Mystery Cults" that existed all over the Mediterranean and Middle East regions. These cults generally had a central hero or mythological figure with common characteristics, such as a virgin birth on or around December 25 and a death plus resurrection in the spring. Uffington contends that the priests of these cults understood an allegorical meaning behind their myths which was not to be taken literally, however...

6. After Rome sacked the Jewish homelands and brought back many slaves into Rome itself, the Jewish people's latched on to these allegorical myths and adopted them as literal teachings. Uffington makes a case for Jesus never existing, even as a historical figure and that Christianity became a literal bastardization of a set of allegorical mystical teaching that originally began in Egypt a long time before. Finally...

7. The original allegorical mysticism was kept alive through a sect of gnostic Christians who passed it on to the Templar knights and the Freemasons who encoded their symbols on many Christian monuments and cathedrals. Thus, this passing down of the original Egyptian mysticism explains why we continue to have Egyptian symbols on our money and around our government buildings.

If this were Uffintgon's only argument I would find it compelling. In and of itself it isn't enough for me to believe it to be "true", but it is enough for me to want to read more on the subject so that I can come to a more informed opinion later. At the very least I find it pretty clever and I do enjoy theories of how religion and mythology evolve over time and are carried on from one group of people to the next.

However, Uffington goes a bit further and makes two claims that throw the whole argument into the realm of wishful thinking. These are:

A) That the "original" source of Egyptian mysticism came from ancient aliens who helped build the sphinx and the pyramids about 10,000 BC, and,

B) That the truth behind the Egyptian mysticism and the mystery cults really actually IS TRUE and if we can figure out what that truth is then we can really understand how the universe operates for the betterment of all mankind.

This is where the book is at its weakest. Uffington's argument for an unusual interpretation of the development of monotheism along with subsequent Judaic and Christian history is both interesting and worth consideration. I would have preferred it if the author would have kept his personal desires for universal truth separate from his historical research.

I actually think it would be cool if aliens HAD visited ancient peoples on Earth and gave them technology and culture. But I've never been convinced that this is what happened. Like they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, whether those claims are about God or aliens. (One thing that has always puzzled me is this: If aliens gave so much technology to the ancient Egyptians, why didn't they also give them some basic engineering knowledge like the wheel or the pulley or the arch? Why help them levitate giant stone blocks and not give them the wheel?)

At the end of the book Uffington uses one of his several appendices to describe his version of cosmic truth. His idea (not a new one) is that human souls evolve in much the same way life evolves and that, as we learn to master the lessons of one plane of existence we evolve after death into a new, higher, plane of existence with more "lessons" to master. I'm a little murky on the details, but if I understand him correctly, I believe he is suggesting that God is not a separate entity who created the universe, but is instead the collective consciousness of all living things and that our goal through the process of life (or lives) is to reunite with and become one with that God. (If you google search the world "gnosticism" you'll find more information on that idea.)

I'm religiously agnostic and I've never been a member of a major religion. If I had to choose a way for the universe to operate I would certainly find these ideas appealing. They at least are more attractive to me than the morality plays of the Judeo-Christian tradition with their promises of eternal salvation and their threats of eternal damnation. But, just because I like the ideas doesn't make them true. At the very least this brand of gnosticism that Uffington is selling promotes the idea people should work together for the betterment of ALL of us; that there are no "chosen" members of an elite religion and that we should respect and tolerate our differences because of that. This is a very humanistic ideology and I respect it for that.

So, in the final analysis, I'm very glad to have read this book. I found it fascinating and often compelling and I'll be thinking about it for some time. I'm just not ready to drink all the Kool Aid that Uffington is selling. There are a lot of questions for which the answer "I don't know" is really the best option. It's really tempting to fill in all the gaps in our knowledge with all the things we wish were true, but we should take that leap very carefully and be honest with ourselves when we do so.

Article - Homeschooler Goes to College

Salon posted this article recently. It's a good read, but the many bitter comments also drew my attention.

Teaching Math

I don't know if this will be a long post or not, but I just wanted to quickly comment on teaching math at our house.

I always wanted to be a math teacher....I thought it was my true calling...that is, until I had a job teaching 5 remedial classes at a high school--six weeks of my life I will never get back.

Right now we are using Singapore math to teach both Simon and Gwen. Gwen is on level 2 and Simon is on level 5. For the most part, it is just a book with worksheets that are about 1-3 pages per lesson. I used to always think "practice makes perfect" and the more problems you did, the better you were at math....but my opinion has changed. It turns out, I can usually tell by 4-5 problems whether or not my kids understand the math. I know Simon hates long division (as do I) and if I see him doing everything right, I usually cut the assignment in half. Most of the pages seem to have about 10-14 problems, but again, half of the problems is plenty, especially since I know they'll be repeating the skills again in another lesson.

I guess I find it interesting (to me) how much my opinion of how kids learn has changed since we started homeschooling. It is obvious when they are frustrated, and definitely clear when they are enjoying the lesson....but I guess that is easy when you have a classroom of 2 kids plus teacher...

So, I am enjoying this new school year. I really look forward to coming home after work and doing math and science lessons with the kids...

That's all...now back to my lazy Sunday...

Born This Way

I am writing this blog post to vent my frustration at the many well meaning parents of angel children, or better yet, the friends who have no children but apparently know exactly what it takes to be perfect parents and how they would handle every situation or how it would NEVER happen to them.

I just read another article, Permissive Parents, Curb Your Brats, that just about put me over the edge again when it comes to other people's opinions about other people's kids.

I would have posted this on facebook, but I figure less people read our blog and I have a smaller chance of offending those I might be referring to, even though I know these people do not know I even co-write a blog. In fact, I am not even facebook friends with these people so I don't know why I worry about appearances.

But really...I am happy for you parents out there who have mastered, "The Look" or "The stare" or whatever magical ability it is you claim you use to control your children. I am glad that YOU are never frustrated, overworked, underpaid, exhausted, etc. enough to let me know that I am a bad parent. Thank you for that. All of us with the "children who run wild" REALLY appreciate knowing how much we suck!!!

Thank you for letting me know my child is a brat and is annoying everyone around them. Believe it or not, the screaming child in the restaurant does not annoy me--it makes me feel normal.

My kids are not BAD or EVIL or anything like that. I have one super sensitive child who practically sobs if he thinks he has done something that we disapprove of. I have another child who could care less what anyone else's opinion is other than her own and truly seems to believe at the ripe old age of 6 that the world does indeed revolve around her.

Did I raise these kids differently? Not that I am aware of...they have grown up in the same house, with the same two parents who rarely fight, who have been married for over 16 years.

Am I impressed by my childless girlfriend's tales of her sister's kids who once threw up at the dinner table and the sister made the kid clean up his own vomit? Not really. Am I upset when I see a kid crying their eyes out in a shopping cart at the store to a mother or father who is begging them to stop? No, I am just feeling a little bit of empathy for mom, dad and the kid...I don't know who is the most exhausted and I wish I could give all of them a break.

I am reminded by my own mother, while once in Kmart I remarked at the wise old age of 7 that if she BOUGHT my little sister the toy while she was having a temper tantrum, then she would merely learn that if she throws a tantrum she will know she gets her way. I also remember my mom's response to my wise advice which was, "Talk me me again after YOU have 8 kids."

As far as I know, I was a fairly shy and quiet child who didn't misbehave a lot. But my dad ruled by the iron fist (spanking) and yes, I was deathly afraid of him when he was mad. My mom usually just left the room. I have 7 siblings that range from shy and nerdy to outspoken and fashionistas. We were all raised by the same two parents...my mom and dad, still together after 52 years.

At this point I am sure it just sounds like I am babbling, but I do have a point. I honestly think that each kid's personality, for the most part--your kid was born that way. So for those of you lucky enough to have one or more angel children who do everything you say when you say--congratulations. I am very happy for you. And for all of my well-meaning friends out there who have no children (but want children) and have all this great advice on what we are doing wrong, well...I can't wait until you have kids of your own.

And finally, to all my friends who do not have any kids and never want to have any kids....if you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything. We don't need your help and it only hurts our feelings when you tell us how much our kids annoy you!

And finally, for all the parents of kids like mine who may or may not listen to me at any given moment of the day, I feel for you and I understand....baby they were born this way....

Barbnocity...

PS...I love my kids JUST the WAY THEY ARE!!! Thanks!

Teach Yourself

I've been following a conversation on homeschooling at one of the Amazon forums. In it, someone made a couple of points that I felt the need to follow up upon. The first of these was that teaching a child to read required specialized knowledge and the second was that teaching most subjects through the high school years required a professional, "expert" teacher. Here's my response:
__________________________________________________________

I have to disagree that teaching reading requires specialized knowledge. I've taught two of my kids to read in the past few years and all it took was researching a good phonics program to use, and then using that program for just a few minutes a day. (We used "The Ordinary Parents Guide to Teaching Reading"). Reading is just not a difficult thing for a child to learn, nor is it difficult to teach.

Regarding more complicated subjects in the high school years, there are a couple of schools of thought about this. A parent can first teach themselves a subject and then teach their child; a parent can, instead of "teaching" the subject, learn it alongside their child but act more as a facilitator of the process; an especially self directed kid may simply be able to teach themselves if they have a good set of books to use; or, by the high school years, a teen can often just take a class or two at a community college, which also helps get them college credits.

Earlier this year I decided to teach my son Latin (He's 9 years old). I took 2 semesters of Latin myself in college almost 20 years ago, but I didn't remember much about it. Instead of hiring a tutor (which I couldn't afford anyway) I studied the language myself every day for about 6 weeks and then researched and purchased a good Latin primer directed at elementary school kids. Now we do 1-2 lessons together from this primer each day and we're both learning the language together. It really just takes a conceptual change in now we think of learning. A teacher who lectures and then tests isn't necessary for most subjects up through high school (or perhaps beyond) when an adult and child together can learn alongside each other with great success.

I believe that one of the problems with our school system is that it conditions people to think that experts are required in order to acquire all new knowledge and skills. In school someone else always decides what you learn, how you learn it, when you learn it and (most importantly) whether or not you've succeeded. I believe that this process has conditioned many people to over-rely on expert opinion rather than trust their own capabilities. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely times when a good teacher is critical, but I believe that we've come to rely on them too much.

There is so much we can learn ourselves, and all it really takes is planning and dedication. As a homeschooling dad, part of my job is to teach my children, but it's also critical that I teach them how to teach themselves.