Is He/Isn't He: The God Thread

[always_searching]

So, as much discussion relating to God was removed from my last thread on "The Purpose of Life," I thought it would be interesting to have a discussion purly relating to why you hold there is/isn't a God.

 

 

 

As this tends to be a sensitive topic, there are a few rules that I ask you to follow:

1. Keep the discussion intellectual--give reasons for you assertions.
   
2. Don't bash other people's views especially by name-calling i.e. childish, stupid, uneducated, etc. And none of this , please.
   
3. If there is disagreement--and I'm certain there will be: please treat each other with respect and debate (again) intellectually.
   

As many of you already know where I stand and why, I'll allow someone else to begin the discussion.

 

Okay, all that being said, let's begin!

[Thaddeus]

Wow, the question is about as big as they come, isn't it?

 

I think it's important to define the term first, though. God, in what sense?

 

Do I believe there's a personalized god (uncapitalized deliberately) that takes interest in the affairs of humanity?

 

No. There's just no evidence for it.

 

Do I believe that there's some sort of intelligence behind the structure of the universe as a whole?

 

It's unclear. Ask me again once the existence of the Higgs boson is proven/disproven.

 

To my mind, the only rational conclusion is agnosticism.

[nobody's girl]

Over the years man has evolved from believing in multiple gods to the current monotheism the majority of the world believes. Is it much of a stretch to think that in another few generations the single deity will be eradicated altogether? We've already whittled it down to one because we're enlightened enough to know that there isn't a god pulling the sun across the sky and another one making volcanoes erupt.

 

And consider some of the different religious "styles" there's those that won't let you dance, those that won't let you drink and, my personal favorite, the one where women are prohibited from cutting their hair and they can only wear skirts. So this god character has a dress code?

 

I've heard many theological discussions where an individual of one faith will flat-out tell someone of a different faith, "Well, your religion is wrong." Wow, I'm not even religious and I take offense to that.

 

I find it difficult to believe that an all-knowing being created humans then left no proof of "his" existence. Sure, the religious zealots will tell you, "Look at the trees and the sun and the sky, that's proof of his existence." Uh no, all of that, and human life itself, can be traced back to evolution, the big bang theory and other scientific discoveries. The scientific views are a lot easier to believe than the blind faith of the devout.

 

I once had someone tell me how great my life would be if I would get married, have kids and go to church. At that time, my life was pretty darned good just the way it was. Not to mention the fact I don't want to be married, I can't have children, and it wasn't until I started to consider religion and the existence of god again that my life started going downhill.

 

You know, I actually considered attending a church service to slowly ease my way back into this whole religious mindset. But then it occurred to me that churches expect a donation and I have no money whatsoever. Hmmm, looks like the unspoken rule of religion is "You've got to pay to pray"

 

"Let Go and Let God" is one phrase the religious nuts love to spew. Funny thing is once I tried that things got even worse than they had been before. "But," respond the religious nuts, "God helps those who help themselves." Yep, tried that one too and got screwed yet again. Funny how they have an answer for everything and each answer contradicts itself.

 

Then there are the people that will tell you God answers all prayers, but sometimes his answer is no. Well, if he's answered any of my prayers I respectfully request that he do it again and speak up this time because I got no response, not even a "No." "But you have to look for the answers" they'll respond. Um, no if this guy can create an entire universe, he should be able to dial direct when answering a question or a request. I'm not asking for the meaning of life, I'm just asking for some guidance, and maybe a little help, with my own. Hell, didn't he send a burning bush to someone? Why can't I receive a communication like that? Or does he not do those tricks anymore? Why not?

 

"But what about the Bible?" The zealots reply. Well, let's see, it's a book of stories, kind of like the tales of the Brothers Grimm. Someone told stories for a living and they were eventually written down. Can't help but wonder if in another 1,000 years our descendents, who won't believe in any god, will think that their roots are derived from a young boy with magical powers who fought wizards and witches and dragons. Then there will be a new religion, the "Potters" whose number one son will be "The Boy Who Lived."

 

So let's recap some:

 

A mysterious all-knowing being that hides proof of his existence vs. scientific proof of evolution the creation of the universe

 

"Let go and let God" vs. "God helps those who help themselves"

 

One God but hundreds of different religions (some with dress codes)

 

Please come to church this Sunday, Oh and be sure to bring money to give to our cause

 

Oh, and I think my favorite thing is that god forgives all. So I can be as mean and hateful as I want then ask for forgiveness on my death bed and he'll forgive me and let me into heaven. So why should I give up my only day to sleep late to attend a religious ceremony with a bunch of hypocrites who were probably out partying the night before? Why not just have a good time now and, if there really is a god, ask him to forgive my transgressions just before I die?

[northstar1]

I became an Atheist when I was 13 after having attended a Catholic school for several years. By that point, I had been indoctrinated with enough of the teachings/dogma through religion classes that I was able to make a logical decision that I rejected the notion of God.

 

So, that would mean I do not believe in God or any sort of higher being.

 

IMO, man created God and the scriptures along the same lines as any other old folklore - a way to explain how the natural world worked around them. Before science provided the answers. There is no empirical evidence to support the God myth, so for me it left it pretty clear.

[always_searching]

Good morning, Thaddeus!

 

Wow, the question is about as big as they come, isn't it?

 

Indeed it is! As most of my discussion in other threads ultimately came down to this issue, I figured I would start a seperate thread on the matter.

 

LOL, and what better time to talk about these lofty issues than 9:00am?

 

I think it's important to define the term first, though. God, in what sense?

 

God as the unmoved first mover of existence--either the personal (Christian, Islamic, Jewish, etc.) God of creation who cares for and loves His creation, or the impersonal god (uncapitalized deliberately) who just happens to be accidently sustaining us i.e. the god of Aristotle.

 

I didn't define the term, because I want the contributors to the thread to do all the defining. So, again, I am only going to stipulate that God is a moving principle; whether or not he cares for us is up for grabs as far as this discussion is concerned.

 

Do I believe there's a personalized god (uncapitalized deliberately) that takes interest in the affairs of humanity?

 

No. There's just no evidence for it.

 

Two things: (1) Can you clairify why the God of creation is deliberately placed in lower-case for you? (2) You really don't see any evidence for why God 'takes interest in the affairs of humanity'?

 

Do I believe that there's some sort of intelligence behind the structure of the universe as a whole?

 

It's unclear. Ask me again once the existence of the Higgs boson is proven/disproven.

 

Interesting. I've heard very little about the Higgs boson. I'll have to look further into it.

 

To my mind, the only rational conclusion is agnosticism.

 

Huh. Well, I was agnostic for a number of years. I must say, it's very modern/Kantian of you. However, I think there are a number of rational explainations for why God must exist, both causal and ontological. I'll have to post them later, as I need to go to class and my fervor for posting died down when many of my better-articulated posts were deleted.

 

I will come back to this, though!

[Thaddeus]

Good morning, Thaddeus!

'morn *yawn*

LOL, and what better time to talk about these lofty issues than 9:00am?

And on a Monday, yet!

Two things: (1) Can you clairify why the God of creation is deliberately placed in lower-case for you?

Because the term is a purely human construct and has precious little to do with anything even remotely supernatural.

(2) You really don't see any evidence for why God 'takes interest in the affairs of humanity'?

No, I don't. I'm not talking about wars or famines or natural disasters (that's another discussion altogether), I'm talking about people I know personally who have done all they're supposed to do (prayer, tithing and all the rest) and still have their prayers ignored. And I'm not talking about prayers to win the lottery or some such nonsense, I'm talking about prayers for things like healing a sick family member or prayers for understanding or enlightenment.

 

So that tells me one of three things:

 

1. God isn't all-powerful
   
2. God is malevolent, and actively denies those pleas for help
   
3. God, in the personalized sense, doesn't exist.
   

It's got to be one of the three. Since there isn't any evidence for 1 and 2, I'll have to go with 3.

[always_searching]

So let's recap some:

 

A mysterious all-knowing being that hides proof of his existence vs. scientific proof of evolution the creation of the universe

 

"Let go and let God" vs. "God helps those who help themselves"

 

One God but hundreds of different religions (some with dress codes)

 

Please come to church this Sunday, Oh and be sure to bring money to give to our cause

 

Oh, and I think my favorite thing is that god forgives all. So I can be as mean and hateful as I want then ask for forgiveness on my death bed and he'll forgive me and let me into heaven. So why should I give up my only day to sleep late to attend a religious ceremony with a bunch of hypocrites who were probably out partying the night before? Why not just have a good time now and, if there really is a god, ask him to forgive my transgressions just before I die?

 

Good morning, nobody's girl!

 

Okay, I have much to say in response to this, yet no time right now to do so. So, if no one else has given responses to your objections regarding God and religion, I will lend you my own. So, do check back in later!

 

For now, I'll ask that you consider a few things:

 

Look into the causal and ontological proofs for God's existence i.e. Aquinas' five proofs, as well as Anselm's and/or Descartes' ontological proofs. Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of the arguments--I would post links, but not sure if that's allowed.

 

Also, remember that any errors that are found concerning God are on our (humanity's) part. So, yes, God reveals Himself and--if you are Christian--sets up His church through Jesus Christ. Now, not so many years later, the church begins to become corrupt, and people even break away from the church, claim that they know the truth, and start their own church i.e. the Reformation. The point is: this is all man's doing--not God's. He reveals Himself through the divine revelation and the Holy Spirit, and leaves much interpretation up to us. Now, for example, if you recall back to any English course, when you read a novel, how many interpretations can be formed? Of course, the author might have had a totally different intention when he formed and penned his novel. Yet, we the readers are engaged in the novel and bring our own perspectives to it, creating individual interpretations.

 

As far as the money is concerned: I don't know what church(s) you've attended, but generally it's considered a donation--no one is requiring that you pay to attend church. If you've gone to a church that does require such a thing: I wouldn't recommend anyone attend that church.

 

I have to run--more comments to come!

 

Thanks so much to everyone who has commented!

[always_searching]

And on a Monday, yet!

 

 

 

Because the term is a purely human construct and has precious little to do with anything even remotely supernatural.No, I don't. I'm not talking about wars or famines or natural disasters (that's another discussion altogether), I'm talking about people I know personally who have done all they're supposed to do (prayer, tithing and all the rest) and still have their prayers ignored. And I'm not talking about prayers to win the lottery or some such nonsense, I'm talking about prayers for things like healing a sick family member or prayers for understanding or enlightenment.

 

So that tells me one of three things:

 

1. God isn't all-powerful
   
2. God is malevolent, and actively denies those pleas for help
   
3. God, in the personalized sense, doesn't exist.
   

It's got to be one of the three. Since there isn't any evidence for 1 and 2, I'll have to go with 3.

 

I take it you've read Descartes' Meditations and/or his Discourse on Method? If not, you should! I think you would like it a great deal as he has the same problems and comes to a similar conclusion using reason alone. Now, he doesn't state that the personalized God doesn't exist--he was a devout Catholic, after all. However, he doesn't rationally prove a personal God unless you consider His actively being involved in our cause/creation and in sustaining us personal. Some might, but I don't think that's what you mean by the term--I'm assuming you mean a loving God when you think of a personal God.

 

What about stating something like: if God is, by His nature, all perfections and love is considered a perfection that God is love.

 

I'll come back to your other points regarding prayers and God not intervening, but I really do have to go!

 

LOL, someone please kick my behind off of loveshack and out of the door, else I'm going to miss out on other fun morning discussions regarding ethics!

 

[JamesM]

To answer your question regarding God (I capitalize that on purpose ).....

 

I cannot deny that He exists.

 

I cannot find enough proof to show that He does NOT exist.

 

Having been on many threads here regarding this question and having heard all sides, I cannot find evidence to make me change my mind.

 

Three question regarding God must be answered....

 

1. Is there a God who created this world? This does not define what kind of God. This does not say which religion is correct. It does not even say how long or how God created the world. It simply asks...is there an Intelligent Being who designed and began this world?

 

While science can contrive all sorts of theories to explain this away, the fact remains that life began somehow, and the most logical explanation is that intelligence is behind the intricate designs we see around us. It can be argued that it was done in a short time or in many, many years, but it cannot be ignored that random evolutionary steps "reacting" to environmental problems caused the marvelous wonders in the natural world around us.

 

Focusing on using natural explanations will only give natural answers, because it eliminates any other possibilities. And leaving a god out of the equation when examining evidences of how this world began will of course, leave only explanations that will be without a Creator.

 

And yes, I know that to us, they can only SEEM marvelous, but in any other area of life we can see how something is beautiful or creative or technologically advanced, and because we know a man exists, we easily draw the conclusion that it was done by someone. Yet when we look around is in Nature, we deny that this detail and design indicates that there is an Intelligent Designer.

 

This is not logical.

 

 

The second question is.....

 

2. Who is this God? How is this God "described?" What type of God is He/She/It?

 

And that one is not as easily answered...at least without more controversy. For me it is without question the God of the Christian Bible. For others it is not.

 

But not having the answer to the second does not change the answer to the first. And then this leads into a third question...

 

3. Does this God need to be worshiped? Does he need to be obeyed?

 

And this answer is linked to the second question. The answer to it defines how God is to be worshiped. If the answer is that God is a personal God, then it seems logical that a relationship must be formed with Him. If God is an impersonal God, then perhaps He does not need to be worshiped.

 

Is Obedience necessary to a God who has the intelligence and superior knowledge to create all that we see in some fashion. I would say that this seems logical

 

Now I know that there are many difficult questions that can be asked, and these do not have easy answers. However, getting off into a tangent of "How can there be a God with so much suffering" would mean that again another thread must be started.

[Thaddeus]

I cannot find enough proof to show that He does NOT exist.

James, I know you're a smart guy so I'm surprised - astounded, actually - that you'd fall into the trap of trying to prove a negative.

 

I can't prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. But that doesn't mean it does exist.

Yet when we look around is in Nature, we deny that this detail and design indicates that there is an Intelligent Designer.

You're undoubtedly aware, of course, that the species currently alive on the planet only consist of less than 1% of the species that have always lived on the planet, right?

 

So those Intelligent Designs for all those other species obviously didn't work too well, did they?

But not having the answer to the second does not change the answer to the first. And then this leads into a third question... And this answer is linked to the second question.

So, if I understand this, the third question is linked to the second question, and the second question is linked to the first. The first question - the whole Intelligent Design thing - is based on a false premise (that there's an intelligent designer, yet 99.99% of all the species to have lived on earth are now extinct, which means that their design wasn't perhaps so intelligent after all), therefore... well, you can do the logic.

[Trojan John]

I spent my first nine years of school in a Catholic school, and I must say that I was heavily indoctrinated. I almost ended up in seminary school as well. I did my initial studies in history and antiquities and really noticed the shift from polytheism to monotheism, and the primarily political reasons behind it, in the western world. The notion of "god" became as relevant to me then as "st-nicholas" becomes to a 12-year old once he figures the trick.

 

I think it's absurd to use a mystical explanation for things that we do not (yet) fully understand, as this has been proven wrong throughout written history. I think it equally absurd to ascribe purely human emotions like love, vengeance, jealousy, etc. to a supposedly all-powerful, all-knowing supernatural being. Worshiping said being would be what... a sign of narcissisme on its part?

 

God is a great motivational tool, for good and bad reasons, much like alcohol, ironically. Whether you believe or not, may His Noodly Appendage touch you all.

 

RAmen.

[JamesM]

I can't prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. But that doesn't mean it does exist.

 

First, I am surprised that YOU would use such a lame argument. As I said, we have been through this before. And the FSM has much less evidence for its existence than does a God who created the world. Besides, my first question doesn't eliminate any idea of God. It simply says there is a god. You are correct....the FSM could exist. But since we know that it originated in the mind of someone desperate to eliminate God from the school system...without ANY other evidence, then we can logically conclude that it probably does not exist.

 

Second, I am not only using a negative to prove an existence. I am adding that to the evidence that does exist.

 

Third, let's be careful that we do not stray from the threads intents and abide by the criteria that AS stated in her first post.

 

You're undoubtedly aware, of course, that the species currently alive on the planet only consist of less than 1% of the species that have always lived on the planet, right?

 

A couple of things here. Two assumptions are being made....

 

One, that there only 1% of the species are currently alive. This is a calculation/estimation based on the amount of species theoretically needed to have the number of species here today...if we assume that they evolved from a single cell organism. This is not based on oodles and oodles of fossils. It is based on the few fossils found.

 

Second, if a species died out, then it was not intelligently designed.

 

So those Intelligent Designs for all those other species obviously didn't work too well, did they?

 

Actually, death does not indicate a lack of intelligence. And a fading out of a species does not indicate that it was not a design. This question however IS linked to the idea that this world is no longer a perfect creation, too.

 

So, if I understand this, the third question is linked to the second question, and the second question is linked to the first.

 

They may be linked, but you started it out incorrectly. There can certainly be an Intelligent Designer who has no concern for the creation. There can be an Intelligent Designer that does not need to be worshiped. However, if there is no God, then the next two question are moot.

 

The first question - the whole Intelligent Design thing - is based on a false premise

 

No, it is not. There are two ways to look at how the world began. Either it began with a Creator who created life, or life began from non-life.

 

Neither is a false premise. IMO, one can be proven to be false.

 

...(that there's an intelligent designer, yet 99.99% of all the species to have lived on earth are now extinct, which means that their design wasn't perhaps so intelligent after all), therefore... well, you can do the logic.

 

Again, you are basing YOUR logic on a mathematical conclusion which is not based on actual evidences for those species. It is based on the necessity of those species to make idea that all of the species seen today evolved from a single cell...which somehow formed from a non-living chemical soup which somehow came together on its own and somehow "created" life. And well, you can do the logic.

[Thaddeus]

...make idea that all of the species seen today evolved from a single cell...which somehow formed from a non-living chemical soup which somehow came together on its own and somehow "created" life. And well, you can do the logic.

Frankly, I don't have any problem at all with the logical conclusion that life arose from non-living matter without divine intervention. Now, as I understand, we haven't been able to replicate that process in the laboratory (though some have tried and come pretty close - see the Urey/Miller experiment) but we've also been unable to artificially produce gravity... and, should you wish to drop an egg on your kitchen floor, as you wipe up the mess you can be pretty sure that gravity is real.

 

I sincerely respect your opinion but on this we must agree to disagree. I see no evidence of an intelligent designer, I see no evidence of a "loving" god, I see no evidence of anything remotely resembling a personal relationship with some sort of omniscient supernatural entity.

[norajane]

Our position in the universe, as tiny little specks on a tiny little planet among billions of stars and planets among immeasurable galaxies...I can't begin to give credence to a "god" having a hand in our day-to-day existence or even in the creation of such a universe.

 

The only thing that makes sense to me is that man created gods, goddesses, and God for its own purposes - because we need to believe in something or there is no meaning to our existence. It would be too, too tragic for some to believe that there is no real meaning other than existing, just like all the other life forms on the planet, including bacteria and viruses and cockroaches.

[quankanne]

why you hold there is/isn't a God.

 

I believe God exists, with a capital "G." And this doesn't make me believe any less in scientific findings, just realize that all science is, is giving an explanation of things to help them make sense, so that we can more easily grasp them. However, it's not so easy when it comes to The Big Guy, because his identity is purely subjective to the belief (or disbelief) of one considering him.

 

and I'll go the science route, and say that all that we know that exists cannot be possible without a God at the helm, designing and creating. Can man make a baby? Technically, yes ... sperm meets egg, fertilizes egg to create a zygote, which becomes an embryo that grows into a human child. But can man create sperm or egg? Or DNA? Mitochondria? Blood? Insulin? No. He can borrow, he can clone, but he cannot create. And for me, that reinforces God's role as chief Creator, as the whole reason behind Intelligent Design.

 

spiritually speaking, I also believe that because we are his creation, there is a spark of the divine in each of us. Why? Because there are so many people, who represent a gamut of spiritual belief, but the one thing that is the common denominator is their desire to do good, to lead moral lives. How does that get there? It's not something we decide at birth, saying, "I'm going to be an honorable person. I'm going to help others in need," it's just the way we are, whether you're Christian, Jew, non-believer, Hindu, Buddhist, whatever. It's his mark on us.

[northstar1]

why you hold there is/isn't a God.

 

I believe God exists, with a capital "G." And this doesn't make me believe any less in scientific findings, just realize that all science is, is giving an explanation of things to help them make sense, so that we can more easily grasp them. However, it's not so easy when it comes to The Big Guy, because his identity is purely subjective to the belief (or disbelief) of one considering him.

 

and I'll go the science route, and say that all that we know that exists cannot be possible without a God at the helm, designing and creating. Can man make a baby? Technically, yes ... sperm meets egg, fertilizes egg to create a zygote, which becomes an embryo that grows into a human child. But can man create sperm or egg? Or DNA? Mitochondria? Blood? Insulin? No. He can borrow, he can clone, but he cannot create. And for me, that reinforces God's role as chief Creator, as the whole reason behind Intelligent Design.

 

spiritually speaking, I also believe that because we are his creation, there is a spark of the divine in each of us. Why? Because there are so many people, who represent a gamut of spiritual belief, but the one thing that is the common denominator is their desire to do good, to lead moral lives. How does that get there? It's not something we decide at birth, saying, "I'm going to be an honorable person. I'm going to help others in need," it's just the way we are, whether you're Christian, Jew, non-believer, Hindu, Buddhist, whatever. It's his mark on us.

 

Science does explain the evolution of our DNA and cellular structure from single cell bacteria 300 million years ago.

[quankanne]

exactly my point, northstar! Science gives answers to our questions. However, some questions don't have easy answers (like whether God exists), but it doesn't make them any less valid.

[northstar1]

exactly my point, northstar! Science gives answers to our questions. However, some questions don't have easy answers (like whether God exists), but it doesn't make them any less valid.

 

Fair enough. Evolution gives us details, whereas Creationism (nicely branded to now be Intelligent Design) gives us vague scriptures.

 

Anyways, as we all know, it comes down to either you believe in logical reasoning and empirical evidence or you have faith in a Prime Mover and it's very seldom do we budge from those stances

[Trialbyfire]

As of yet, there hasn't been any empirical evidence which proves that God exists. As for using the Bible to prove that God exists, the bogeyman is also well documented throughout the ages. Lately, as referenced by Thaddeus, the Flying Spaghetti monster is also being well documented. Same goes for all the monster sightings, such as the Loch Ness monster.

 

It's just as plausible to believe that all these other things exist, if God exists. It's also just as plausible to believe that God was an alien, with advanced technology.

 

Ancient man believed all kinds of things, since they didn't have the sophistication to explain the unexplainable. One bit of nonsense, was that the Earth was flat which was fully upheld by theists.

[Thaddeus]

...it's very seldom do we budge from those stances

I did. I used to believe in an all-powerful, loving god.

 

No more.

[northstar1]

I did. I used to believe in an all-powerful, loving god.

 

No more.

 

Thaddeus had is own age of Enlightenment.

[quankanne]

TBF, it's not nice to make fun of the Cucuy ... he's out there!

 

Fair enough. Evolution gives us details, whereas Creationism (nicely branded to now be Intelligent Design) gives us vague scriptures.

 

Anyways, as we all know, it comes down to either you believe in logical reasoning and empirical evidence or you have faith in a Prime Mover and it's very seldom do we budge from those stances

 

why can't people believe in both? I do. I can see how evolution plays a part in God's work, just as I can see there being Intelligent Design behind the things science explains. We are not singularly scientific thinkers or singularly spiritual in nature, but a mixture of both. What we profess to be is simply which side we let "rule," hence the folks who get a little TOO slap-happy when it comes to God. Or science!

[Thaddeus]

... I can see there being Intelligent Design behind the things science explains.

I say this with the utmost respect: If you can see ID, then you're not looking closely enough.

 

ID is not a theory. It was created (pun intended) to try and bridge the gap between the creation vs evolution camps while still maintaining divine intervention.

 

Believing in both is to hold two completely opposing viewpoints that negate one another. It's logically inconsistent.

 

ID has nothing whatsoever to do with reality. It's a political movement, not a scientific one.

 

But perhaps that's a topic for a new thread.

[marlena]

To my mind, the only rational conclusion is agnosticism.

 

My turn to agree with you this time, Thaddeus. It is, when all is said and done, the only logical way to go. There just isn't enough evidence to prove otherwise. The scriptures can not do it. They are simply stories/events recorded and interpreted by man and as such are fallible. Until there is absolute scientific proof of the existence of a god, I prefer to just say that I do not believe nor disbelieve in his existence. I can not construct a religion based on a feeling alone, no matter how much I might want or need to.

[marlena]

I think it's absurd to use a mystical explanation for things that we do not (yet) fully understand, as this has been proven wrong throughout written history.

 

Yes, the Olympian gods have been proven not to have existed. As have many gods of ancient civilizations. I'm sure that in 2000 years the Bible will be reduced to nothing more than an interesting book of myths.