Izgad 2009: The Highlights

We are finishing off the third complete year of Izgad. This year saw two hundred posts (counting this one). There were over eighteen thousand unique visits. (This was due, in large part, to one particular post.) I know that is not a lot compared to some other sites, but it marks a major step forward for me. To my loyal readers, your comments are appreciated particularly when you disagree with me. In case you missed it, here are some of the highlights.

I taught two-quarters of History 112, Modern European History, for Ohio State. This gave cause for numerous discourses about the nature of history and the historical method. There was my presentation on Wikipedia and why it is not a legitimate source. This would later lead to a letter published in the Columbus Dispatch. In my classes, I did not hold back from issues like slavery, absolutism, and the denial of equal rights to women even at the risk of going against politically correct orthodoxy. I am now teaching at the Hebrew Academy where I have had the opportunity to defend Martin Luther.

I posted my notes of a presentation given by noted atheist biologist P. Z. Myers. This turned out to be my most successful post to date in terms of hits and comments when Myers kindly put up a link. This led to several fruitful exchanges with readers of Myers' Pharyngula, who proved to be quite respectful.

My fantasy series, Asael, is beginning to take shape. For those of you who have not been following the story, there are two narratives about two different Asaels. Asael bar Serariah lives in a monastery library and is studying for the priesthood while trying to come to terms with a series of dreams involving a creature named Vorn and the legacy of his grandfather General Serariah Dolstoy. Decades earlier, Asael's uncle, Asael Dolstoy, has found himself taking a front seat to a game of scacordus and history as his father, Professor Serariah Dolstoy, takes his first steps to becoming the future legend. Both Asaels, in their own ways, must face their world's equivalent of the Enlightenment. So polish your musket, sharpen your bayonet and your Talmudic skills for things are about to get really interesting (and violent). Already there is one well toasted corpse left by an alter of a religious sanctuary, courtesy of an enforcer angel with a flaming sword.

The battle is never finished when you are fighting neurotypical bigots. Unfortunately, I also had to confront zealots from my own side. My problem is that when I talk about rights and liberty I actually mean very specific things. These are not catchphrases that you can slap on to whatever cause you wish to support at the moment. Despite my best intentions, I do seem to manage to get myself into trouble.

There were book reviews and discussions on both works of fiction and non-fiction. Christine Garwood took on flat earthers and creationists to boot. Frank Schaeffer was patient with God. (I would later lose patience with Schaeffer.) Jesus became a good Aryan Nazi. Europe lost its military culture. Harry Potter became a historical source. Did Charles Dickens have a mind-controlling beetle up his skull?

In the world of film, the Book of Esther managed to be butchered despite having some of the best talent Lord of the Rings had to offer. Transformer robots wiped Israel off the map. My favorite neighborhood vampires are starting to prove sparkly and dull, but I still love them and will defend them from the vampires of my past. Avatar might not be as liberal as many of its supporters and detractors believe.

Traveling to the very bowels of the Haredi world yielded numerous interesting conversations and tell us much about what is really going on in that world. I will not back down from exposing the followers of the late Rabbi Avigdor Miller and their apologists. You can blame me if Hershey Park gets banned. On this blog, we engaged in some friendly clashes with Bray of the Fundie over articles of faith and moral principles. At least Bray is not Authentic Judaism.

The summer trip to England yielded numerous adventures and mishaps. From my headquarters next door to Animal Farm, I hung out at Oxford and pursued acts of pilgrimage to shrines of C. S. Lewis, including a pint at his favorite pub. Burning heretics at the stake can be a worthwhile activity as long as it is done in a tolerant and ecumenical fashion. The Chabad couple in Oxford was really nice. I am not sure though if they would want me back anytime soon.

I presented papers at three different conferences. That brings my total of conference presentations up to three. At Purdue, I presented on David Reubeni and his use of violence. At Leeds, I presented on Jewish attacks on philosophy in fifteenth-century Spain. Finally, at West Georgia I presented on Orson Scott Card and the historical method.

My politics are a blend of my rationalist theism and my Libertarianism, which gives me the opportunity to make all sorts of fun arguments. Children should be given political and religious labels. People should be allowed to practice medicine without a license. We should seriously consider giving children the right to vote (and drafting them into the military).

See you all in 2010.

The Earth is Flat and We are Not Talking About the Thomas Friedman Variety: A Review of Flat Earth

Historians often find it difficult to write books that are scholarly yet narratively engaging and that fill the public demand to speak to the issues of the day. This later issue is particularly difficult because, strictly speaking, it is outside of the historian’s field and usually works against it. Any attempt to do so risks sliding into polemic. In studying history one quickly learns that the past is a different country and it is not connected to the present. Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea by Christine Garwood, though, handles this issue magnificently. On the surface Flat Earth is a book about Flat Earth theory, focusing on the history of the movement in England and America from the nineteenth century through the late twentieth century. While this may not seem to be the sort of issue of interest or of relevancy to many people, Garwood has crafted a powerful story that is very relevant.

The underlying and understated issue at hand in this book is Creationism both in its crude form and its more sophisticated, Intelligent Design, variety. Make no mistake about it Flat Earth is a polemic against Creationism. As a polemic, this book is remarkably effective. The flat earthers that populate the book’s narrative sound exactly like Creationists (Most of them, in fact, were Creationists as well.) I recommend this book to all those who accept evolution and are stuck trying to get well-meaning acquaintances of theirs to come on board as well as to those well-meaning acquaintances. The argument is never explicitly made in the book but it essentially amounts to there is no argument that can be used to challenge evolution that cannot also be used to challenge the spherical nature of the earth. The only reason that most people balk at rejecting the spherical view of the earth but not evolution is because in our society the rejection of the earth’s spherical nature is, for all intents and purposes, a one-way ticket to a padded cell, a straight jacket and a lifetime supply of happy pills. Say that you believe the world is flat and see how long it takes for people to not want you anywhere near their kids or in any position of authority and influence. Hopefully, it will one day be that people who reject evolution will be seen in a similar light. Until we reach that point those who are willing to put up with anti-evolutionists and take them seriously as scientists have some difficult questions to face.

The great irony of Flat Earth is that it achieves its aim not by mocking flat earthers but by taking them very seriously. One almost gets the sense that Garwood admires Parallax (Samuel Rowbotham (1816-85), the modern founder of flat Earth theory. Rather than view Parallax and his followers as aberrations of the modern world or as part of some long-running church-based anti-reason tradition in a continual war against science Garwood puts them within the context of nineteenth-century science. Parallax was not simply some sort of anti-science person. On the contrary, she sees him as someone who, for all of his anti-scientific establishment rhetoric, was, in a strange way, a “scientist.” His rejection of modern science was couched in the language and ideals of science and he was able to be successful precisely because he could appeal to scientific principles. He sold himself to the English public as an open-minded seeker of the truth challenging a scientific establishment with their hidebound sense of tradition.

In this sense, Garwood plays to the best ideals of the historical profession. She does not look down at flat earthers in order to congratulate herself and her audience for their modern thinking. On the contrary, they become a challenge to modern ways of thinking. She does not support or condemn either side of the flat earth debate but sees them as part of the modern narrative. In this vein, it is interesting to note that while Flat Earth is an attack against Creationism it is also an attack on the Whig narrative. If nothing else this book is worth every cent for its opening chapter where Garwood demolishes the notion that people in during the Middle Ages believed that the earth was flat and shows how this myth was manufactured during the nineteenth century. Garwood seems to take a certain pleasure in pointing out the irony that, while people like Washington Irving were in the middle of concocting the myth of the medieval belief in a flat earth to congratulate themselves on their growing sophistication and clear superiority over the Middle Ages, it was this same nineteenth century that spawned a real-life flat earth movement. Flat earth theory is something so incredible that only modern people could ever accept it.

Interestingly enough evolution does, after a fashion, come into this story in the form of Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913), the co-founder of evolution. Wallace is a fascinating figure, particularly since he defies the usual stereotype of an evolutionist and a scientist. For one thing, he was most definitely not an atheist. While Charles Darwin is a bit of an enigma (He most probably became an agnostic after losing his daughter Anne.) and Thomas Huxley described himself as an agnostic but was most probably what we would call an atheist, Wallace was a fairly traditional believing Christian. He also dabbled in the occult, which he wished to subject to scientific analysis. This attempt to create a “scientific” occult was actually not so uncommon during the nineteenth century. Wallace took it upon himself to come to the defense of science and of the spherical earth and participated in a number of well-publicized confrontations with flat earthers. Wallace was successful but still comes across with mud on his face for even allowing himself to be dragged into this business.

Flat Earth is more than just a good book. It is one of those books that I would want to hand out to as many people as possible and say read this book. This is a book that will help people gain a greater appreciation of what science is and may even work to shame people who should know better to not apologize for anti-evolutionists or attempt to grant them credibility. Of particular importance for me, though, this is a well written smart work of history, the product of a writer with the consciousness of a true historian and the willingness to present that consciousness to others.