Encyclopedia Duffytanica, 11 Dec 2007
This work is, without a doubt, the absolute benchmark when it comes to the study of English popular religion on the eve of the Reformation. Duffy brings the lost world of late medieval / early modern English Catholicism to life in such an enthralling fashion that you're almost as sorry about the Reformation even happening as Duffy is himself.

I would give it six stars if the computer would let me..., 24 Feb 2006
This book is not only meticulously researched and exhaustive on all the minutiae of common piety in late medieval/early modern England, it is far more readable and absorbing than such a weighty tome has any right to be. Duffy recreates a lost world in a way that is sensitive and sympathetic - the characters in the brief sketches he can offer from the sources become real people to us. Real quality.

The English Reformation Unmasked, 09 Oct 2002
A thoroughly satisfying book. Duffy makes it quite clear why he considers it important to examine late medieval English piety in such comprehensive detail in the first part of this book. His minute and coherent analysis is well repaid by illuminating his crisp narrative analysis in the second half. I wished he had spent more time on the background and motivation to the royal visitations which followed in Edward VI's and Elizabeth I's reigns. In particualar the Commons' vote after Elizabeth's succession gets very little space for such a momentous decision. A little more on how the clergy was reorganised and replaced in Mary's reign and Pole's cardinalate would have been interesting for someone new to this subject like myself. Just occasionally there is a tendentious note. For a modern catholic there is something slightly unhealthy in the lack of communion and the pax bread communion surrogate and here one is inclined to side with the reformers and to doubt the vitality of this late medieval piety. But the argument is pushed home with compelling detail. These are parishes not just stripped of their altars but with the very warp of their communities chopped and unravelled with nothing but the hollow clang of Cranmer's solemn humility to echo in the empty spaces.

A tendentious history, 26 Feb 2002
As a rationalization of late medieval religion this work will no doubt stand the test of time, but it is a most tendentious account of the Reformation.

For example although even the English bible was denied to the laity, little account is taken of the intense pressure, political and social to conform to traditional practices. Conformity in those circumstances does not imply commitment.

The reader asked to accept that the collapse in traditional will formats under Edward, when not a single catholic was burned, was only because these formats were now discouraged; but the rather partial recovery in traditional religion under Mary, when nearly 300 people were burned for their views, was simply people wanted it. Throughout, the impact of the teaching of that rather inconvenient second commandment, on the use of images is ignored. There are many, other examples in the work.

It is easy to be carried along with the flow of Duffy's rhetoric and the vigour of his assertions but point after point is either partial or highly contentious. It really does need to be read in conjunction with e.g. Whiting's, Local Responses to the English Reformation which provides a framework within which the various claims can be assessed.

Top rating for the description of late medieval religion but as an analytical work it is far too selective.

A revolution in thinking about the English church., 11 Jan 2000
During the last 30 years there has been a revolution in our thinking about the 16th century English church. This has been the result of a vast body of and also a great deal of cross-referring to other primary sources, including the church buildings themselves. One of the richest fruits of all this research is this extraordinary book, which manages to capture in less than a thousand pages the full panoply of pre-Reformation liturgy and life, and how it was effectively destroyed by the reformers. This study and others like it confront head-on the received tradition of a moribund and corrupt medieval English church 'rescued' by the Reformation. This tradition arose largely from the enthusiasm of the Oxford Movement, and the Anglican revival for which it was responsible. This harnessed popular anti-Catholic prejudice in the 19th century, to create the illusion of a modern Church of England which had evolved naturally from the church of St Augustine and the mind of the medieval liturgy, stripped of its corruption and excesses. The Reformation was presented by these people as a smooth, evolutionary process, whereby roods, wallpaintings, etc., were removed from churches in the 16th century because of 'new liturgical practices' that no longer required them. Any idea that the Reformation in England was a violent and unpopular fracture was quietly lost. The obvious destruction that had taken place in English parish churches was most often attributed to the ultra-protestant Puritans of a century later. Duffy, however, documents in some detail how the churches of England were comprehensively wrecked between 1538 and 1553, and then again after Elizabeth I's accession in 1558. He uses documentary evidence to show how this happened in specific churches, particularly in East Anglia. He visits these churches, to examine the damage that was caused. Ironically, the dull-headed attempt by Mary I to restore the Catholic church to England in the 1550s has left us with a great deal of evidence of the destruction that had occurred up to that point. Today, in many church guides this destruction is still attributed to William Dowsing and his fellow-Puritans of the 1640s. They are not men to be blamed for nothing; but Duffy unfolds in this book an amazing story, one all too rarely told, of an earlier holocaust on a massive scale. It enhances our understanding of how English parish churches have come to look the way they do. It also has tremendous consequences for our thinking about the modern Anglican church. It has to be said that there are those who are not entirely comfortable with this revisionist history. Some find it difficult because of the way it contradicts the Reformation history that English people of a certain age have grown up with. Some others will find it hard to accept that late-medieval English Catholicism was popular. For Anglo-Catholics, there is the further difficulty that Duffy (and others) is suggesting that the Church of England is not the inheritor of the medieval English church in they way they had understood. One Suffolk vicar with whom I discussed this (he will remain nameless; in any case, he is now in the Exeter diocese) said "Duffy is nothing but a bog-Irish upstart". Any book that causes a reaction like that HAS to be worth reading.

The picture of Islam as a violent, backward, and insular tradition should be laid to rest, says Karen Armstrong, bestselling author of Muhammad and A History of God. Delving deep into Islamic history, Armstrong sketches the arc of a story that begins with the stirring of revelation in an Arab businessman named Muhammad. His concern with the poor who were being left behind in the blush of his society's new prosperity sets the tone for the tale of a culture that values community as a manifestation of God. Muhammad's ideas catch fire, quickly blossoming into a political empire. As the empire expands and the once fractured Arabs subdue and overtake the vast Persian domain, the story of a community becomes a panoramic drama. With great dexterity, Armstrong narrates the Sunni-Shi'ite schism, the rise of Persian influence, the clashes with Western crusaders and Mongolian conquerors, and the spiritual explorations that traced the route to God. Armstrong brings us through the debacle of European colonialism right up to the present day, putting Islamic fundamentalism into context as part of a worldwide phenomenon. Islam: A Short History, like Bruce Lawrence's Shattering the Myth and Mark Huband's Warriors of the Prophet, introduces us to a faith that beckons like a minaret to those who dare to venture beyond the headlines. --Brian Bruya

Encyclopedia Duffytanica, 11 Dec 2007
This work is, without a doubt, the absolute benchmark when it comes to the study of English popular religion on the eve of the Reformation. Duffy brings the lost world of late medieval / early modern English Catholicism to life in such an enthralling fashion that you're almost as sorry about the Reformation even happening as Duffy is himself.

I would give it six stars if the computer would let me..., 24 Feb 2006
This book is not only meticulously researched and exhaustive on all the minutiae of common piety in late medieval/early modern England, it is far more readable and absorbing than such a weighty tome has any right to be. Duffy recreates a lost world in a way that is sensitive and sympathetic - the characters in the brief sketches he can offer from the sources become real people to us. Real quality.

The English Reformation Unmasked, 09 Oct 2002
A thoroughly satisfying book. Duffy makes it quite clear why he considers it important to examine late medieval English piety in such comprehensive detail in the first part of this book. His minute and coherent analysis is well repaid by illuminating his crisp narrative analysis in the second half. I wished he had spent more time on the background and motivation to the royal visitations which followed in Edward VI's and Elizabeth I's reigns. In particualar the Commons' vote after Elizabeth's succession gets very little space for such a momentous decision. A little more on how the clergy was reorganised and replaced in Mary's reign and Pole's cardinalate would have been interesting for someone new to this subject like myself. Just occasionally there is a tendentious note. For a modern catholic there is something slightly unhealthy in the lack of communion and the pax bread communion surrogate and here one is inclined to side with the reformers and to doubt the vitality of this late medieval piety. But the argument is pushed home with compelling detail. These are parishes not just stripped of their altars but with the very warp of their communities chopped and unravelled with nothing but the hollow clang of Cranmer's solemn humility to echo in the empty spaces.

A tendentious history, 26 Feb 2002
As a rationalization of late medieval religion this work will no doubt stand the test of time, but it is a most tendentious account of the Reformation.

For example although even the English bible was denied to the laity, little account is taken of the intense pressure, political and social to conform to traditional practices. Conformity in those circumstances does not imply commitment.

The reader asked to accept that the collapse in traditional will formats under Edward, when not a single catholic was burned, was only because these formats were now discouraged; but the rather partial recovery in traditional religion under Mary, when nearly 300 people were burned for their views, was simply people wanted it. Throughout, the impact of the teaching of that rather inconvenient second commandment, on the use of images is ignored. There are many, other examples in the work.

It is easy to be carried along with the flow of Duffy's rhetoric and the vigour of his assertions but point after point is either partial or highly contentious. It really does need to be read in conjunction with e.g. Whiting's, Local Responses to the English Reformation which provides a framework within which the various claims can be assessed.

Top rating for the description of late medieval religion but as an analytical work it is far too selective.

A revolution in thinking about the English church., 11 Jan 2000
During the last 30 years there has been a revolution in our thinking about the 16th century English church. This has been the result of a vast body of and also a great deal of cross-referring to other primary sources, including the church buildings themselves. One of the richest fruits of all this research is this extraordinary book, which manages to capture in less than a thousand pages the full panoply of pre-Reformation liturgy and life, and how it was effectively destroyed by the reformers. This study and others like it confront head-on the received tradition of a moribund and corrupt medieval English church 'rescued' by the Reformation. This tradition arose largely from the enthusiasm of the Oxford Movement, and the Anglican revival for which it was responsible. This harnessed popular anti-Catholic prejudice in the 19th century, to create the illusion of a modern Church of England which had evolved naturally from the church of St Augustine and the mind of the medieval liturgy, stripped of its corruption and excesses. The Reformation was presented by these people as a smooth, evolutionary process, whereby roods, wallpaintings, etc., were removed from churches in the 16th century because of 'new liturgical practices' that no longer required them. Any idea that the Reformation in England was a violent and unpopular fracture was quietly lost. The obvious destruction that had taken place in English parish churches was most often attributed to the ultra-protestant Puritans of a century later. Duffy, however, documents in some detail how the churches of England were comprehensively wrecked between 1538 and 1553, and then again after Elizabeth I's accession in 1558. He uses documentary evidence to show how this happened in specific churches, particularly in East Anglia. He visits these churches, to examine the damage that was caused. Ironically, the dull-headed attempt by Mary I to restore the Catholic church to England in the 1550s has left us with a great deal of evidence of the destruction that had occurred up to that point. Today, in many church guides this destruction is still attributed to William Dowsing and his fellow-Puritans of the 1640s. They are not men to be blamed for nothing; but Duffy unfolds in this book an amazing story, one all too rarely told, of an earlier holocaust on a massive scale. It enhances our understanding of how English parish churches have come to look the way they do. It also has tremendous consequences for our thinking about the modern Anglican church. It has to be said that there are those who are not entirely comfortable with this revisionist history. Some find it difficult because of the way it contradicts the Reformation history that English people of a certain age have grown up with. Some others will find it hard to accept that late-medieval English Catholicism was popular. For Anglo-Catholics, there is the further difficulty that Duffy (and others) is suggesting that the Church of England is not the inheritor of the medieval English church in they way they had understood. One Suffolk vicar with whom I discussed this (he will remain nameless; in any case, he is now in the Exeter diocese) said "Duffy is nothing but a bog-Irish upstart". Any book that causes a reaction like that HAS to be worth reading.

Poor, but not completely useless, 07 Oct 2007
This book is useful only as a short book with some general historical factual information, dates and the like. The analysis of historical and religions events and developements says more about the writer and her post-christian liberalism than it does about Islam. The writer shows some knowledge of the Qur'an but shows litle understanding of the Sunnah and Hadith which are critical to the developement of Islamic thought and practice.
Do NOT rely on what you read in this book. If you are interested in understanding Islam from a western perspective try books by Bernard Lewis instead - they are a harder read but what you read is of more value.

A good history book, but not a religious studies essential, 03 Jan 2007
I am doing an Open University religious studies course and wanted something to supplement the set text on Islam. This is a good run through the history of Islam but really spends most of its time in "history book" mode rather than "religious studies book" mode. As such, it is more a history of Arab conquest and defeat than a detailed examination of the religion that most of those Arabs followed. Also, Ms Armstrong tells the story of the prophet, and others, in quite a "cosy" way, speaking of them as if she knew exactly what he was thinking and why he did things, which is using a little too much artistic license - just something to be wary of.

However, it IS very well written, easy to read, and excellently laid out, with a very detailed timeline and glossaries of people and terminology for reference. Buy it as a high quality starter text (in fact buy it at this low price just for the reference pages alone), but if it is Islam (the religion, not the "state") you particularly want to know about, dont expect more than the basics.

Useful, but not always accurate, 02 Oct 2006
This is a useful book for anyone who wants a concise introduction to Islam; it is well written, and for such a short book it covers a lot of ground. The last chapter is of much value in the current climate of ignorance and fear towards Islam in the West.
However, it is not entirely accurate at places, ranging from small and relatively insignificant slips to more important instances of over and under-emphasis. There is a clear, if never annunciated, anti-Christian feel to this book too, which comes through in occasional offhand remarks, and more importantly in a general and quite blind disregard for the wonderful achievements of Medieval Christian Europe as such. The author espouses the values of post-Enlightenment Europe (minus spiritual malaise) but obviously sees its Christian history before the 17th century as a protracted and embarrassing affair quickly to be forgotten about. I find this attitude objectionable. Hence the 3 stars for what is otherwise a good book.

The death of my prejudice, 19 Nov 2005
This little history of Islam by Karen Armstrong has quelled the fumes of rage and anger I have always felt towards what I thought to be an illogical, irrational and violance loving religion.

As the reviewer of the Financial times rightfully said - an excellent antidote to prejucice!

Excellent In Places, 21 Aug 2005
This is a very readable book which I highly recomend to anyone who is intrested in but has little knowledge of the islamic world and its history. With its pleasant style and useful glosary of araboc terms is a very enjoyable and intresting read. However while Armstrong deals excellently with the early history of islam her section on modern islamic politics tends to lose objectivity and presents evidence to support her ideas ignoring other factors and explanations. I found it also a little hard to follow the sucession of the various monarchs discussed as there is no list to aid the reader.
Despite these problems this a deeply well written and informative book. I took this book out of the library and Iam considering buying a copy, Its just that good.

Encyclopedia Duffytanica, 11 Dec 2007
This work is, without a doubt, the absolute benchmark when it comes to the study of English popular religion on the eve of the Reformation. Duffy brings the lost world of late medieval / early modern English Catholicism to life in such an enthralling fashion that you're almost as sorry about the Reformation even happening as Duffy is himself.

I would give it six stars if the computer would let me..., 24 Feb 2006
This book is not only meticulously researched and exhaustive on all the minutiae of common piety in late medieval/early modern England, it is far more readable and absorbing than such a weighty tome has any right to be. Duffy recreates a lost world in a way that is sensitive and sympathetic - the characters in the brief sketches he can offer from the sources become real people to us. Real quality.

The English Reformation Unmasked, 09 Oct 2002
A thoroughly satisfying book. Duffy makes it quite clear why he considers it important to examine late medieval English piety in such comprehensive detail in the first part of this book. His minute and coherent analysis is well repaid by illuminating his crisp narrative analysis in the second half. I wished he had spent more time on the background and motivation to the royal visitations which followed in Edward VI's and Elizabeth I's reigns. In particualar the Commons' vote after Elizabeth's succession gets very little space for such a momentous decision. A little more on how the clergy was reorganised and replaced in Mary's reign and Pole's cardinalate would have been interesting for someone new to this subject like myself. Just occasionally there is a tendentious note. For a modern catholic there is something slightly unhealthy in the lack of communion and the pax bread communion surrogate and here one is inclined to side with the reformers and to doubt the vitality of this late medieval piety. But the argument is pushed home with compelling detail. These are parishes not just stripped of their altars but with the very warp of their communities chopped and unravelled with nothing but the hollow clang of Cranmer's solemn humility to echo in the empty spaces.

A tendentious history, 26 Feb 2002
As a rationalization of late medieval religion this work will no doubt stand the test of time, but it is a most tendentious account of the Reformation.

For example although even the English bible was denied to the laity, little account is taken of the intense pressure, political and social to conform to traditional practices. Conformity in those circumstances does not imply commitment.

The reader asked to accept that the collapse in traditional will formats under Edward, when not a single catholic was burned, was only because these formats were now discouraged; but the rather partial recovery in traditional religion under Mary, when nearly 300 people were burned for their views, was simply people wanted it. Throughout, the impact of the teaching of that rather inconvenient second commandment, on the use of images is ignored. There are many, other examples in the work.

It is easy to be carried along with the flow of Duffy's rhetoric and the vigour of his assertions but point after point is either partial or highly contentious. It really does need to be read in conjunction with e.g. Whiting's, Local Responses to the English Reformation which provides a framework within which the various claims can be assessed.

Top rating for the description of late medieval religion but as an analytical work it is far too selective.

A revolution in thinking about the English church., 11 Jan 2000
During the last 30 years there has been a revolution in our thinking about the 16th century English church. This has been the result of a vast body of and also a great deal of cross-referring to other primary sources, including the church buildings themselves. One of the richest fruits of all this research is this extraordinary book, which manages to capture in less than a thousand pages the full panoply of pre-Reformation liturgy and life, and how it was effectively destroyed by the reformers. This study and others like it confront head-on the received tradition of a moribund and corrupt medieval English church 'rescued' by the Reformation. This tradition arose largely from the enthusiasm of the Oxford Movement, and the Anglican revival for which it was responsible. This harnessed popular anti-Catholic prejudice in the 19th century, to create the illusion of a modern Church of England which had evolved naturally from the church of St Augustine and the mind of the medieval liturgy, stripped of its corruption and excesses. The Reformation was presented by these people as a smooth, evolutionary process, whereby roods, wallpaintings, etc., were removed from churches in the 16th century because of 'new liturgical practices' that no longer required them. Any idea that the Reformation in England was a violent and unpopular fracture was quietly lost. The obvious destruction that had taken place in English parish churches was most often attributed to the ultra-protestant Puritans of a century later. Duffy, however, documents in some detail how the churches of England were comprehensively wrecked between 1538 and 1553, and then again after Elizabeth I's accession in 1558. He uses documentary evidence to show how this happened in specific churches, particularly in East Anglia. He visits these churches, to examine the damage that was caused. Ironically, the dull-headed attempt by Mary I to restore the Catholic church to England in the 1550s has left us with a great deal of evidence of the destruction that had occurred up to that point. Today, in many church guides this destruction is still attributed to William Dowsing and his fellow-Puritans of the 1640s. They are not men to be blamed for nothing; but Duffy unfolds in this book an amazing story, one all too rarely told, of an earlier holocaust on a massive scale. It enhances our understanding of how English parish churches have come to look the way they do. It also has tremendous consequences for our thinking about the modern Anglican church. It has to be said that there are those who are not entirely comfortable with this revisionist history. Some find it difficult because of the way it contradicts the Reformation history that English people of a certain age have grown up with. Some others will find it hard to accept that late-medieval English Catholicism was popular. For Anglo-Catholics, there is the further difficulty that Duffy (and others) is suggesting that the Church of England is not the inheritor of the medieval English church in they way they had understood. One Suffolk vicar with whom I discussed this (he will remain nameless; in any case, he is now in the Exeter diocese) said "Duffy is nothing but a bog-Irish upstart". Any book that causes a reaction like that HAS to be worth reading.

Poor, but not completely useless, 07 Oct 2007
This book is useful only as a short book with some general historical factual information, dates and the like. The analysis of historical and religions events and developements says more about the writer and her post-christian liberalism than it does about Islam. The writer shows some knowledge of the Qur'an but shows litle understanding of the Sunnah and Hadith which are critical to the developement of Islamic thought and practice.
Do NOT rely on what you read in this book. If you are interested in understanding Islam from a western perspective try books by Bernard Lewis instead - they are a harder read but what you read is of more value.

A good history book, but not a religious studies essential, 03 Jan 2007
I am doing an Open University religious studies course and wanted something to supplement the set text on Islam. This is a good run through the history of Islam but really spends most of its time in "history book" mode rather than "religious studies book" mode. As such, it is more a history of Arab conquest and defeat than a detailed examination of the religion that most of those Arabs followed. Also, Ms Armstrong tells the story of the prophet, and others, in quite a "cosy" way, speaking of them as if she knew exactly what he was thinking and why he did things, which is using a little too much artistic license - just something to be wary of.

However, it IS very well written, easy to read, and excellently laid out, with a very detailed timeline and glossaries of people and terminology for reference. Buy it as a high quality starter text (in fact buy it at this low price just for the reference pages alone), but if it is Islam (the religion, not the "state") you particularly want to know about, dont expect more than the basics.

Useful, but not always accurate, 02 Oct 2006
This is a useful book for anyone who wants a concise introduction to Islam; it is well written, and for such a short book it covers a lot of ground. The last chapter is of much value in the current climate of ignorance and fear towards Islam in the West.
However, it is not entirely accurate at places, ranging from small and relatively insignificant slips to more important instances of over and under-emphasis. There is a clear, if never annunciated, anti-Christian feel to this book too, which comes through in occasional offhand remarks, and more importantly in a general and quite blind disregard for the wonderful achievements of Medieval Christian Europe as such. The author espouses the values of post-Enlightenment Europe (minus spiritual malaise) but obviously sees its Christian history before the 17th century as a protracted and embarrassing affair quickly to be forgotten about. I find this attitude objectionable. Hence the 3 stars for what is otherwise a good book.

The death of my prejudice, 19 Nov 2005
This little history of Islam by Karen Armstrong has quelled the fumes of rage and anger I have always felt towards what I thought to be an illogical, irrational and violance loving religion.

As the reviewer of the Financial times rightfully said - an excellent antidote to prejucice!

Excellent In Places, 21 Aug 2005
This is a very readable book which I highly recomend to anyone who is intrested in but has little knowledge of the islamic world and its history. With its pleasant style and useful glosary of araboc terms is a very enjoyable and intresting read. However while Armstrong deals excellently with the early history of islam her section on modern islamic politics tends to lose objectivity and presents evidence to support her ideas ignoring other factors and explanations. I found it also a little hard to follow the sucession of the various monarchs discussed as there is no list to aid the reader.
Despite these problems this a deeply well written and informative book. I took this book out of the library and Iam considering buying a copy, Its just that good.

Neutral evaluation, 05 Jun 2008
The "Lost Christianities" of Bart Ehrman is a very neutral description of the Christian history of the first 3 centuries AD. Ehrman has no axe to grind with competing scholars no dogmatic bias, just the open minded attempt to describe the different streams of Christianities before the orthodox were left as winners.

Part 1 of the book is evaluating the different forgeries of Gospels, epistles, revelations and prophecies which were circulating in the ancient Middle East. Gospels of different authors suppressed from the orthodox winners, sometimes only available as fragmented quotations from opponents of the other camp.

Part 2 is describing the 4 different main directions of early Christianity:
- Ebonite's based on the Jewish ancestry, following more the original apostle teachings, using the Gospel of Matthew and consider Jesus as a human teacher not divine `Son of God' but just adopted from God.
- Marcionites breaking completely with the OT and consider the Jewish God YHWH as imperfect creator of the earth and the true God is sending his son only as spirit (docetic) to wrestle control back from YHWH and forgive the sins of humans entrapping them to YHWH by faking a mortal dead of Jesus.
- Gnostics who are looking for the `Jesus within' everybody and consider only the truly knowing and enlighten elite as eternal spirits. They are predominantly in Egypt and were using several Gospel texts many of them found in Nag Hamadi, interpreting these texts as way to knowledge of the divinity inside themselves.
- The fourth group Ehrman calls proto-orthodox who considers Jesus as divine but made of flesh and blood, which caused many discussions even inside the proto-orthodox camp.

Part 3 finally is about the different tactics of the groups who called their opponents heretics and the trend even within the groups was changing over time. What was considered mainstream like Origen for proto-orthodox could be fall into disgrace a century later and forbidden as heretic.

The group of proto-orthodox had the strategic advantage of their stronghold in Rome which yielded power, money and influence. As Ebonite's would require the circumcision of all males and following the kosher food laws they had not much appeal to the Gentiles. The Marcionites missed the long ancient history to convince the wide public about their `truth'. The Gnostics were too elitist to be accepted from the wide masses. So only the proto-orthodox had a chance to end the final battle in their favor.

After all these detailed introductions I expected Ehrman to describe this as preparation of readers for the final battle at Nicaea 325AD and the tactics of the different groups. However the book is just rushing in a few sentences over this crucial Nicaea council and is ending like under time pressure to deliver the book to the publisher.


Variety is the spice of this and the next life!, 29 Dec 2007
This exploration of early Christianity is conducted in three parts:

Forgeries & Discoveries, in which four intriguing texts are examined as representative of the wide variety of fabricated narratives in religious history;

Heresies & Orthodoxies, an investigation and comparison of the divergent beliefs of various early Christian movements like the Ebionites, Marcionites, different Gnostic groups and the Proto-Orthodox;

Winners & Losers, that considers the conflicts that unfolded between the above-mentioned movements, focusing on the role of the Proto-Orthodox and how the New Testament came to be accepted in its present form.

The book opens with an alphabetical list of the major Christian Apocrypha under discussion, with dates and contents, under the headings Gospels, Acts, Epistles & Related Literature, and Apocalypses & Related Literature. In the Introduction, the author mentions the diversity within modern Christianity and compares it with the situation in the first three centuries, which was equally, if not more, bewildering.

The Gospel of Peter is discussed in chapter one; this Docetic document was discovered in 1886. The next deals with the Acts of Paul and Thecla plus some other apocryphal acts which were popular in antiquity. It seems Thecla was a popular heroine that inspired the ancient equivalent of Barbra Cartland-type pulp fiction. The Gospel of Thomas is considered in chapter 3, as well as the discovery of the The Nag Hammadi Library, whilst the last chapter of this section tells the story of Morton Smith and the secret "gospel" of Mark, a modern-day mystery.

The fascinating second part opens with a discussion of heresies and orthodoxies on the nature, teachings and significance of Jesus of Nazareth. It is clear that all the various forms and movements, no matter their vast differences, trace their lineage back to him. See the book How On Earth Did Jesus Become a God? by Larry Hurtado to understand how early this devotion started and how astonishing it was in the view of the Mother Religion, strict monotheistic second-temple Judaism.

Chapter 5 takes a closer look at the polar opposites in early Christianity; Ebionites and Marcionites. The first were Jewish followers of Jesus who adhered to Torah, believed in one God, considered Jesus to be completely human and distrusted the Apostle Paul. On the other hand, the Marcionites claimed there were two gods, utterly rejected the Old Testament, saw Jesus as completely divine and Paul as the only true apostle.

What is known about the various Gnostic beliefs is discussed in the next chapter under the headings Nag Hammadi Library, Origins & Tenets of Gnosticism as well as some texts like the Gospel of Truth. Ehrman briefly discusses apocalyptical Judaism and Middle Platonism as two roots of Gnosticism. An interesting and sympathetic book on this movement that includes a chapter on Marcion, is Gnosticism: New Light on the Ancient Tradition of Inner Knowing by Stephan A Hoeller.

The large tent of the Proto-Orthodox is explored in chapter seven, including its relation to the Jewish and prophetic traditions and the theological developments that led to the Nicene creed. Christian Anti-Semitism was inherent in Marcionism whilst amongst the Proto-Orthodox it appears in the writings of Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Melito of Sardis in a virulent form. Our Hands Are Stained with Blood by Michael L Brown and Why the Jews? The Reason for Antisemitism by Dennis Prager provide more info on this phenomenon in early Christianity.

The final part looks at the winners and losers with regard to the nature of the internecine conflicts and the strategies that proved effective in the long struggle for dominance. The winners determined the structure, creeds and canon of Constantine Christianity that triumphed in Europe. Here the author engages with the classical view of orthodoxy and analyses the assaults on orthodoxy by scholars like H Reimarus, FC Baur and Walter Bauer.

The victory was won in a battle of words and Ehrman also provides some examples of Ebionite and Gnostic attacks on Proto-Orthodoxy. Polemical treatises, personal slurs, forgeries and falsifications were used as weapons by all sides. Chapter 10 includes examples of Anti-Adoptionistic (Anti-Ebionite), Anti-Separationist (Anti-Gnostic) and Anti-Docetic (Anti-Marcionite and Anti-Gnostic) alterations to the New Testament text by the Proto-Orthodox.

The penultimate chapter investigates the formation of the New Testament over 300 years whilst the last one ponders the significance of it all, considering with sadness the remnants of what was lost and the question of tolerance and intolerance. The text is enhanced by black and white photographs of illustrated pottery sherds (ostrakons), manuscripts, works of art, places and inscriptions. The book concludes with notes arranged by chapter, a bibliography of seven pages and an index.

There is nothing in Lost Christianities that disturbed or offended me as a believer. Some other books on early Christianity that I have found illuminating include The Authentic Gospel of Jesus by Geza Vermes and Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus: New Insights from a Hebraic Perspective by David Bivin. As regards a few widely diverse modern strains of Christianity, I recommend the interesting works Serpent-handling believers by Thomas Burton, Yeshua the fullness of Yahweh by Lester McCracken and Kabbalah of Yeshua by Zusha Kalet.


Scary., 28 Oct 2007
If anyone is truly to know their faith then they must test it against that which their core beliefs hold most dear. Christians will find this difficult to read as it highlights many characteristics of our faith that don't hold true to that which we have grown up with.
To challenge these fundamentals is indeed scary or, at least, it was for me.
Some of these include; was Christ actually a normal person who's body was occupied by the son of God hence the words from the cross, 'Why hast thou forsaken me.' Taken by many Christians at the time to mean that the son of God had left his host at the time of death.
Be prepared for soul searching and lots of discussion if you buy this.

The Politics of Christian Experience, 25 Oct 2007
The huge interest in Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" revealed diversities and inadequacies within contemporary Christianity. In turning for answers to early Christianity, diversities and inadequancies have been found there as well. Life is rarely simple nor do foolish simplifications make it so.

Part 1 of "Lost Christianities", focused on forgeries, didn't grab me, but after that the book was absorbing. Ehrman covers a lot of ground, always with reminders of the inadequacies of labels. Unlike Karen King, however, he's willing to work closely with the label of "Gnostic" even as he acknowledges the weaknesses of using it. He notes, however, that the label "Christian" can be deceiving too, as can "orthodox" and "heretical". There were many kinds of heresy and some, such as Ebionite Christianity, weren't Gnostic. Until Constantine's time, it was questionable to speak of AN orthodoxy, but even then (and after) diversity within Church belief and practice continued (into our times, where diversity is still very much present).

Ehrman seems to keep an open and fair mind as he explores these developments. He acknowledges the current interest in Gnosticism and all the early Christian alternatives and recognizes that people today are looking for help to define their own faith, including from the Lost but now found Christianities.

Ehrman discusses Walter Bauer (1877-1960), who seems to have covered a lot of the ground Karen King addressed in her recent books. Bauer notes the "orthodox" and "heretical" seemed value judgements and recognizes a big diversity in emergent Christianity.

Ehrman says that in 325 C.E., only 5-7% of Constantine's empire were Christian. I'd never realized it was that small. But Constantine became Christian and by 400 C.E., 50% of the empire was Christian. He had quite an impact, which seems a lesson in the huge role political leaders play. At the least, it seems that Constantine deserves a great deal more recognition even if we don't celebrate his birthday or make movies of his life.

The contrast between Karen King's handling of Gnosticism and Ehrman's sticks on my mind. Does Ehrman err by generalizing Gnostic beliefs or by using that label when it might not apply to some "Gnostic" groups? Or is he being practical and gaining some advantage in noting important commonalities. I don't know but I appreciate that both King and Ehrman choose ways of sharing what they know about early Christianity. Like the diversity within Christianiity, the diversity within scholars can be enriching.

The open research by Ehrman and King in the early "alternative" Christians , as well as the huge positive response to "The Da Vinci Code", suggest to me that there's a widespread feeling of deficiency in mainstream Christianity and a longing to capture something meaningful that rote belief and ritual hasn't addressed. We may be witnessing the beginnings of a spiritual renaissance that will recapture the power that the early Christians felt.

"Thirty-one flavours" of Christianity?, 27 Apr 2006
Like the famous ice-cream store chain, Christianity offers a wide selection of options. At least one should meet the needs of the discriminating shopper. With so many consumers selecting the standard vanilla or chocolate fare, some of the more esoteric flavours fade from view. Ehrman seeks to bring some of the unusual or even obsolete versions of Christianity back into view. From the "orthodox" perspective , of course, many of these will seem distasteful, even bizarre. As he notes, from the now-available sources, the other "versions" should be granted equal weight with what has become "traditional". Certainly, the other writings on Jesus' teachings are no less plausible than what is currently believed by many.

In relating this captivating account of "lost" Christianities, Ehrman stacks a variety of writings against those he deems "proto-orthodox". The proto-orthodox are those who laid down a foundation later adopted by the Roman Empire as "official". Among the proto-orthodox writings is condemnation of the alternative "Christianities". These include the Gnostics, made more recently famous by the books found at Nag Hammadi in Egypt in 1945, and the "Gospels" of such figures as Peter, Thecla and a reputed twin brother of Jesus himself. The greatest departure from today's "orthodox" [if anything as diverse as modern Christianity can have such] are the docetists, who deny that Jesus had a corporeal state. As he concedes, the docetists in effect, thereby refute the notion of Jesus dying for the benefit of the rest of us.

Ehrman's running theme is that Christianity, indeed the history of the entire planet, might have taken a drastically different tack had one or more of these Christianities been granted greater impact on what people believed. The issue of "anti-semitism", which initiated Christianity, might have been vastly reduced down one path, or even more horribly intense on another. As the author notes, "Christianity" itself might have devolved into merely another Jewish sect had the voices he presents not been quelled by the victory of the proto-orthodox. He reminds us, also, that even when the proto-orthodox came to dominate, early writers attacking "heretics" were themselves condemned as inadequately focussed on which Christianity was the "correct" one.

The author uses the term "forgery" in a heavy-handed manner, even while acknowledging in theological writings that the term isn't absolute. A "forgery" can be anything from a document intended to deceive to a writer adopting a name as a means of veneration for a particular scholarly position. A plethora of "Peters", "Pauls" and "Johns" must be sorted out over time and place to derive which is the "original". None are, of course, since even the earliest writings known are copies of copies of copies . . . Ehrman is at some pains to show how errors creep in even with the most dedicated scribe doing the work. The passage of time makes things yet more confusing for modern students. With the history and interpretations of nearly four dozen "gospels" covered in this volume, it's clear that Ehrman has undertaken an immense task. This book is a companion volume to his "Lost Scriptures", which provides the foundation for this undertaking.

"Orthodox" Christians [whoever those might be] in the Western world have relied on the "Synoptic Gospels" - although even these are presented in the wrong order - given in the King James Version. How did these, and the remaining books in the New Testament, come to be chosen as the foundation for Roman Christianity? In part, says Ehrman, because of the wide range of beliefs allowed by other Authorities. Gnosticism, which has gained some active adherents - "in California" says Ehrman pointedly - lacked "definition" due to its wide diversity. Part of that diversity was resistance to a hierarchical church structure. Gnosticism, an early form of religious egalitarianism, was suspect in the view of imperial government. Although Athanasius had decreed the present Synoptic Gospels were the "official" texts of Christianity, this declaration wasn't given church sanction for another seventy years.

Ehrman has provided us with one of the most comprehensive views of early Christianity available. It is a strongly researched effort and presented in easy, conversational style. He poses questions any follower of one of the many Christianities should ask themselves. Read it in confidence that your outlook, even if non-theist, will be challenged. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

Encyclopedia Duffytanica, 11 Dec 2007
This work is, without a doubt, the absolute benchmark when it comes to the study of English popular religion on the eve of the Reformation. Duffy brings the lost world of late medieval / early modern English Catholicism to life in such an enthralling fashion that you're almost as sorry about the Reformation even happening as Duffy is himself.

I would give it six stars if the computer would let me..., 24 Feb 2006
This book is not only meticulously researched and exhaustive on all the minutiae of common piety in late medieval/early modern England, it is far more readable and absorbing than such a weighty tome has any right to be. Duffy recreates a lost world in a way that is sensitive and sympathetic - the characters in the brief sketches he can offer from the sources become real people to us. Real quality.

The English Reformation Unmasked, 09 Oct 2002
A thoroughly satisfying book. Duffy makes it quite clear why he considers it important to examine late medieval English piety in such comprehensive detail in the first part of this book. His minute and coherent analysis is well repaid by illuminating his crisp narrative analysis in the second half. I wished he had spent more time on the background and motivation to the royal visitations which followed in Edward VI's and Elizabeth I's reigns. In particualar the Commons' vote after Elizabeth's succession gets very little space for such a momentous decision. A little more on how the clergy was reorganised and replaced in Mary's reign and Pole's cardinalate would have been interesting for someone new to this subject like myself. Just occasionally there is a tendentious note. For a modern catholic there is something slightly unhealthy in the lack of communion and the pax bread communion surrogate and here one is inclined to side with the reformers and to doubt the vitality of this late medieval piety. But the argument is pushed home with compelling detail. These are parishes not just stripped of their altars but with the very warp of their communities chopped and unravelled with nothing but the hollow clang of Cranmer's solemn humility to echo in the empty spaces.

A tendentious history, 26 Feb 2002
As a rationalization of late medieval religion this work will no doubt stand the test of time, but it is a most tendentious account of the Reformation.

For example although even the English bible was denied to the laity, little account is taken of the intense pressure, political and social to conform to traditional practices. Conformity in those circumstances does not imply commitment.

The reader asked to accept that the collapse in traditional will formats under Edward, when not a single catholic was burned, was only because these formats were now discouraged; but the rather partial recovery in traditional religion under Mary, when nearly 300 people were burned for their views, was simply people wanted it. Throughout, the impact of the teaching of that rather inconvenient second commandment, on the use of images is ignored. There are many, other examples in the work.

It is easy to be carried along with the flow of Duffy's rhetoric and the vigour of his assertions but point after point is either partial or highly contentious. It really does need to be read in conjunction with e.g. Whiting's, Local Responses to the English Reformation which provides a framework within which the various claims can be assessed.

Top rating for the description of late medieval religion but as an analytical work it is far too selective.

A revolution in thinking about the English church., 11 Jan 2000
During the last 30 years there has been a revolution in our thinking about the 16th century English church. This has been the result of a vast body of and also a great deal of cross-referring to other primary sources, including the church buildings themselves. One of the richest fruits of all this research is this extraordinary book, which manages to capture in less than a thousand pages the full panoply of pre-Reformation liturgy and life, and how it was effectively destroyed by the reformers. This study and others like it confront head-on the received tradition of a moribund and corrupt medieval English church 'rescued' by the Reformation. This tradition arose largely from the enthusiasm of the Oxford Movement, and the Anglican revival for which it was responsible. This harnessed popular anti-Catholic prejudice in the 19th century, to create the illusion of a modern Church of England which had evolved naturally from the church of St Augustine and the mind of the medieval liturgy, stripped of its corruption and excesses. The Reformation was presented by these people as a smooth, evolutionary process, whereby roods, wallpaintings, etc., were removed from churches in the 16th century because of 'new liturgical practices' that no longer required them. Any idea that the Reformation in England was a violent and unpopular fracture was quietly lost. The obvious destruction that had taken place in English parish churches was most often attributed to the ultra-protestant Puritans of a century later. Duffy, however, documents in some detail how the churches of England were comprehensively wrecked between 1538 and 1553, and then again after Elizabeth I's accession in 1558. He uses documentary evidence to show how this happened in specific churches, particularly in East Anglia. He visits these churches, to examine the damage that was caused. Ironically, the dull-headed attempt by Mary I to restore the Catholic church to England in the 1550s has left us with a great deal of evidence of the destruction that had occurred up to that point. Today, in many church guides this destruction is still attributed to William Dowsing and his fellow-Puritans of the 1640s. They are not men to be blamed for nothing; but Duffy unfolds in this book an amazing story, one all too rarely told, of an earlier holocaust on a massive scale. It enhances our understanding of how English parish churches have come to look the way they do. It also has tremendous consequences for our thinking about the modern Anglican church. It has to be said that there are those who are not entirely comfortable with this revisionist history. Some find it difficult because of the way it contradicts the Reformation history that English people of a certain age have grown up with. Some others will find it hard to accept that late-medieval English Catholicism was popular. For Anglo-Catholics, there is the further difficulty that Duffy (and others) is suggesting that the Church of England is not the inheritor of the medieval English church in they way they had understood. One Suffolk vicar with whom I discussed this (he will remain nameless; in any case, he is now in the Exeter diocese) said "Duffy is nothing but a bog-Irish upstart". Any book that causes a reaction like that HAS to be worth reading.

Poor, but not completely useless, 07 Oct 2007
This book is useful only as a short book with some general historical factual information, dates and the like. The analysis of historical and religions events and developements says more about the writer and her post-christian liberalism than it does about Islam. The writer shows some knowledge of the Qur'an but shows litle understanding of the Sunnah and Hadith which are critical to the developement of Islamic thought and practice.
Do NOT rely on what you read in this book. If you are interested in understanding Islam from a western perspective try books by Bernard Lewis instead - they are a harder read but what you read is of more value.

A good history book, but not a religious studies essential, 03 Jan 2007
I am doing an Open University religious studies course and wanted something to supplement the set text on Islam. This is a good run through the history of Islam but really spends most of its time in "history book" mode rather than "religious studies book" mode. As such, it is more a history of Arab conquest and defeat than a detailed examination of the religion that most of those Arabs followed. Also, Ms Armstrong tells the story of the prophet, and others, in quite a "cosy" way, speaking of them as if she knew exactly what he was thinking and why he did things, which is using a little too much artistic license - just something to be wary of.

However, it IS very well written, easy to read, and excellently laid out, with a very detailed timeline and glossaries of people and terminology for reference. Buy it as a high quality starter text (in fact buy it at this low price just for the reference pages alone), but if it is Islam (the religion, not the "state") you particularly want to know about, dont expect more than the basics.

Useful, but not always accurate, 02 Oct 2006
This is a useful book for anyone who wants a concise introduction to Islam; it is well written, and for such a short book it covers a lot of ground. The last chapter is of much value in the current climate of ignorance and fear towards Islam in the West.
However, it is not entirely accurate at places, ranging from small and relatively insignificant slips to more important instances of over and under-emphasis. There is a clear, if never annunciated, anti-Christian feel to this book too, which comes through in occasional offhand remarks, and more importantly in a general and quite blind disregard for the wonderful achievements of Medieval Christian Europe as such. The author espouses the values of post-Enlightenment Europe (minus spiritual malaise) but obviously sees its Christian history before the 17th century as a protracted and embarrassing affair quickly to be forgotten about. I find this attitude objectionable. Hence the 3 stars for what is otherwise a good book.

The death of my prejudice, 19 Nov 2005
This little history of Islam by Karen Armstrong has quelled the fumes of rage and anger I have always felt towards what I thought to be an illogical, irrational and violance loving religion.

As the reviewer of the Financial times rightfully said - an excellent antidote to prejucice!

Excellent In Places, 21 Aug 2005
This is a very readable book which I highly recomend to anyone who is intrested in but has little knowledge of the islamic world and its history. With its pleasant style and useful glosary of araboc terms is a very enjoyable and intresting read. However while Armstrong deals excellently with the early history of islam her section on modern islamic politics tends to lose objectivity and presents evidence to support her ideas ignoring other factors and explanations. I found it also a little hard to follow the sucession of the various monarchs discussed as there is no list to aid the reader.
Despite these problems this a deeply well written and informative book. I took this book out of the library and Iam considering buying a copy, Its just that good.

Neutral evaluation, 05 Jun 2008
The "Lost Christianities" of Bart Ehrman is a very neutral description of the Christian history of the first 3 centuries AD. Ehrman has no axe to grind with competing scholars no dogmatic bias, just the open minded attempt to describe the different streams of Christianities before the orthodox were left as winners.

Part 1 of the book is evaluating the different forgeries of Gospels, epistles, revelations and prophecies which were circulating in the ancient Middle East. Gospels of different authors suppressed from the orthodox winners, sometimes only available as fragmented quotations from opponents of the other camp.

Part 2 is describing the 4 different main directions of early Christianity:
- Ebonite's based on the Jewish ancestry, following more the original apostle teachings, using the Gospel of Matthew and consider Jesus as a human teacher not divine `Son of God' but just adopted from God.
- Marcionites breaking completely with the OT and consider the Jewish God YHWH as imperfect creator of the earth and the true God is sending his son only as spirit (docetic) to wrestle control back from YHWH and forgive the sins of humans entrapping them to YHWH by faking a mortal dead of Jesus.
- Gnostics who are looking for the `Jesus within' everybody and consider only the truly knowing and enlighten elite as eternal spirits. They are predominantly in Egypt and were using several Gospel texts many of them found in Nag Hamadi, interpreting these texts as way to knowledge of the divinity inside themselves.
- The fourth group Ehrman calls proto-orthodox who considers Jesus as divine but made of flesh and blood, which caused many discussions even inside the proto-orthodox camp.

Part 3 finally is about the different tactics of the groups who called their opponents heretics and the trend even within the groups was changing over time. What was considered mainstream like Origen for proto-orthodox could be fall into disgrace a century later and forbidden as heretic.

The group of proto-orthodox had the strategic advantage of their stronghold in Rome which yielded power, money and influence. As Ebonite's would require the circumcision of all males and following the kosher food laws they had not much appeal to the Gentiles. The Marcionites missed the long ancient history to convince the wide public about their `truth'. The Gnostics were too elitist to be accepted from the wide masses. So only the proto-orthodox had a chance to end the final battle in their favor.

After all these detailed introductions I expected Ehrman to describe this as preparation of readers for the final battle at Nicaea 325AD and the tactics of the different groups. However the book is just rushing in a few sentences over this crucial Nicaea council and is ending like under time pressure to deliver the book to the publisher.


Variety is the spice of this and the next life!, 29 Dec 2007
This exploration of early Christianity is conducted in three parts:

Forgeries & Discoveries, in which four intriguing texts are examined as representative of the wide variety of fabricated narratives in religious history;

Heresies & Orthodoxies, an investigation and comparison of the divergent beliefs of various early Christian movements like the Ebionites, Marcionites, different Gnostic groups and the Proto-Orthodox;

Winners & Losers, that considers the conflicts that unfolded between the above-mentioned movements, focusing on the role of the Proto-Orthodox and how the New Testament came to be accepted in its present form.

The book opens with an alphabetical list of the major Christian Apocrypha under discussion, with dates and contents, under the headings Gospels, Acts, Epistles & Related Literature, and Apocalypses & Related Literature. In the Introduction, the author mentions the diversity within modern Christianity and compares it with the situation in the first three centuries, which was equally, if not more, bewildering.

The Gospel of Peter is discussed in chapter one; this Docetic document was discovered in 1886. The next deals with the Acts of Paul and Thecla plus some other apocryphal acts which were popular in antiquity. It seems Thecla was a popular heroine that inspired the ancient equivalent of Barbra Cartland-type pulp fiction. The Gospel of Thomas is considered in chapter 3, as well as the discovery of the The Nag Hammadi Library, whilst the last chapter of this section tells the story of Morton Smith and the secret "gospel" of Mark, a modern-day mystery.

The fascinating second part opens with a discussion of heresies and orthodoxies on the nature, teachings and significance of Jesus of Nazareth. It is clear that all the various forms and movements, no matter their vast differences, trace their lineage back to him. See the book How On Earth Did Jesus Become a God? by Larry Hurtado to understand how early this devotion started and how astonishing it was in the view of the Mother Religion, strict monotheistic second-temple Judaism.

Chapter 5 takes a closer look at the polar opposites in early Christianity; Ebionites and Marcionites. The first were Jewish followers of Jesus who adhered to Torah, believed in one God, considered Jesus to be completely human and distrusted the Apostle Paul. On the other hand, the Marcionites claimed there were two gods, utterly rejected the Old Testament, saw Jesus as completely divine and Paul as the only true apostle.

What is known about the various Gnostic beliefs is discussed in the next chapter under the headings Nag Hammadi Library, Origins & Tenets of Gnosticism as well as some texts like the Gospel of Truth. Ehrman briefly discusses apocalyptical Judaism and Middle Platonism as two roots of Gnosticism. An interesting and sympathetic book on this movement that includes a chapter on Marcion, is Gnosticism: New Light on the Ancient Tradition of Inner Knowing by Stephan A Hoeller.

The large tent of the Proto-Orthodox is explored in chapter seven, including its relation to the Jewish and prophetic traditions and the theological developments that led to the Nicene creed. Christian Anti-Semitism was inherent in Marcionism whilst amongst the Proto-Orthodox it appears in the writings of Justin Martyr, Tertullian and Melito of Sardis in a virulent form. Our Hands Are Stained with Blood by Michael L Brown and Why the Jews? The Reason for Antisemitism by Dennis Prager provide more info on this phenomenon in early Christianity.

The final part looks at the winners and losers with regard to the nature of the internecine conflicts and the strategies that proved effective in the long struggle for dominance. The winners determined the structure, creeds and canon of Constantine Christianity that triumphed in Europe. Here the author engages with the classical view of orthodoxy and analyses the assaults on orthodoxy by scholars like H Reimarus, FC Baur and Walter Bauer.

The victory was won in a battle of words and Ehrman also provides some examples of Ebionite and Gnostic attacks on Proto-Orthodoxy. Polemical treatises, personal slurs, forgeries and falsifications were used as weapons by all sides. Chapter 10 includes examples of Anti-Adoptionistic (Anti-Ebionite), Anti-Separationist (Anti-Gnostic) and Anti-Docetic (Anti-Marcionite and Anti-Gnostic) alterations to the New Testament text by the Proto-Orthodox.

The penultimate chapter investigates the formation of the New Testament over 300 years whilst the last one ponders the significance of it all, considering with sadness the remnants of what was lost and the question of tolerance and intolerance. The text is enhanced by black and white photographs of illustrated pottery sherds (ostrakons), manuscripts, works of art, places and inscriptions. The book concludes with notes arranged by chapter, a bibliography of seven pages and an index.

There is nothing in Lost Christianities that disturbed or offended me as a believer. Some other books on early Christianity that I have found illuminating include The Authentic Gospel of Jesus by Geza Vermes and Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus: New Insights from a Hebraic Perspective by David Bivin. As regards a few widely diverse modern strains of Christianity, I recommend the interesting works Serpent-handling believers by Thomas Burton, Yeshua the fullness of Yahweh by Lester McCracken and Kabbalah of Yeshua by Zusha Kalet.


Scary., 28 Oct 2007
If anyone is truly to know their faith then they must test it against that which their core beliefs hold most dear. Christians will find this difficult to read as it highlights many characteristics of our faith that don't hold true to that which we have grown up with.
To challenge these fundamentals is indeed scary or, at least, it was for me.
Some of these include; was Christ actually a normal person who's body was occupied by the son of God hence the words from the cross, 'Why hast thou forsaken me.' Taken by many Christians at the time to mean that the son of God had left his host at the time of death.
Be prepared for soul searching and lots of discussion if you buy this.

The Politics of Christian Experience, 25 Oct 2007
The huge interest in Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" revealed diversities and inadequacies within contemporary Christianity. In turning for answers to early Christianity, diversities and inadequancies have been found there as well. Life is rarely simple nor do foolish simplifications make it so.

Part 1 of "Lost Christianities", focused on forgeries, didn't grab me, but after that the book was absorbing. Ehrman covers a lot of ground, always with reminders of the inadequacies of labels. Unlike Karen King, however, he's willing to work closely with the label of "Gnostic" even as he acknowledges the weaknesses of using it. He notes, however, that the label "Christian" can be deceiving too, as can "orthodox" and "heretical". There were many kinds of heresy and some, such as Ebionite Christianity, weren't Gnostic. Until Constantine's time, it was questionable to speak of AN orthodoxy, but even then (and after) diversity within Church belief and practice continued (into our times, where diversity is still very much present).

Ehrman seems to keep an open and fair mind as he explores these developments. He acknowledges the current interest in Gnosticism and all the early Christian alternatives and recognizes that people today are looking for help to define their own faith, including from the Lost but now found Christianities.

Ehrman discusses Walter Bauer (1877-1960), who seems to have covered a lot of the ground Karen King addressed in her recent books. Bauer notes the "orthodox" and "heretical" seemed value judgements and recognizes a big diversity in emergent Christianity.

Ehrman says that in 325 C.E., only 5-7% of Constantine's empire were Christian. I'd never realized it was that small. But Constantine became Christian and by 400 C.E., 50% of the empire was Christian. He had quite an impact, which seems a lesson in the huge role political leaders play. At the least, it seems that Constantine deserves a great deal more recognition even if we don't celebrate his birthday or make movies of his life.

The contrast between Karen King's handling of Gnosticism and Ehrman's sticks on my mind. Does Ehrman err by generalizing Gnostic beliefs or by using that label when it might not apply to some "Gnostic" groups? Or is he being practical and gaining some advantage in noting important commonalities. I don't know but I appreciate that both King and Ehrman choose ways of sharing what they know about early Christianity. Like the diversity within Christianiity, the diversity within scholars can be enriching.

The open research by Ehrman and King in the early "alternative" Christians , as well as the huge positive response to "The Da Vinci Code", suggest to me that there's a widespread feeling of deficiency in mainstream Christianity and a longing to capture something meaningful that rote belief and ritual hasn't addressed. We may be witnessing the beginnings of a spiritual renaissance that will recapture the power that the early Christians felt.

"Thirty-one flavours" of Christianity?, 27 Apr 2006
Like the famous ice-cream store chain, Christianity offers a wide selection of options. At least one should meet the needs of the discriminating shopper. With so many consumers selecting the standard vanilla or chocolate fare, some of the more esoteric flavours fade from view. Ehrman seeks to bring some of the unusual or even obsolete versions of Christianity back into view. From the "orthodox" perspective , of course, many of these will seem distasteful, even bizarre. As he notes, from the now-available sources, the other "versions" should be granted equal weight with what has become "traditional". Certainly, the other writings on Jesus' teachings are no less plausible than what is currently believed by many.

In relating this captivating account of "lost" Christianities, Ehrman stacks a variety of writings against those he deems "proto-orthodox". The proto-orthodox are those who laid down a foundation later adopted by the Roman Empire as "official". Among the proto-orthodox writings is condemnation of the alternative "Christianities". These include the Gnostics, made more recently famous by the books found at Nag Hammadi in Egypt in 1945, and the "Gospels" of such figures as Peter, Thecla and a reputed twin brother of Jesus himself. The greatest departure from today's "orthodox" [if anything as diverse as modern Christianity can have such] are the docetists, who deny that Jesus had a corporeal state. As he concedes, the docetists in effect, thereby refute the notion of Jesus dying for the benefit of the rest of us.

Ehrman's running theme is that Christianity, indeed the history of the entire planet, might have taken a drastically different tack had one or more of these Christianities been granted greater impact on what people believed. The issue of "anti-semitism", which initiated Christianity, might have been vastly reduced down one path, or even more horribly intense on another. As the author notes, "Christianity" itself might have devolved into merely another Jewish sect had the voices he presents not been quelled by the victory of the proto-orthodox. He reminds us, also, that even when the proto-orthodox came to dominate, early writers attacking "heretics" were themselves condemned as inadequately focussed on which Christianity was the "correct" one.

The author uses the term "forgery" in a heavy-handed manner, even while acknowledging in theological writings that the term isn't absolute. A "forgery" can be anything from a document intended to deceive to a writer adopting a name as a means of veneration for a particular scholarly position. A plethora of "Peters", "Pauls" and "Johns" must be sorted out over time and place to derive which is the "original". None are, of course, since even the earliest writings known are copies of copies of copies . . . Ehrman is at some pains to show how errors creep in even with the most dedicated scribe doing the work. The passage of time makes things yet more confusing for modern students. With the history and interpretations of nearly four dozen "gospels" covered in this volume, it's clear that Ehrman has undertaken an immense task. This book is a companion volume to his "Lost Scriptures", which provides the foundation for this undertaking.

"Orthodox" Christians [whoever those might be] in the Western world have relied on the "Synoptic Gospels" - although even these are presented in the wrong order - given in the King James Version. How did these, and the remaining books in the New Testament, come to be chosen as the foundation for Roman Christianity? In part, says Ehrman, because of the wide range of beliefs allowed by other Authorities. Gnosticism, which has gained some active adherents - "in California" says Ehrman pointedly - lacked "definition" due to its wide diversity. Part of that diversity was resistance to a hierarchical church structure. Gnosticism, an early form of religious egalitarianism, was suspect in the view of imperial government. Although Athanasius had decreed the present Synoptic Gospels were the "official" texts of Christianity, this declaration wasn't given church sanction for another seventy years.

Ehrman has provided us with one of the most comprehensive views of early Christianity available. It is a strongly researched effort and presented in easy, conversational style. He poses questions any follower of one of the many Christianities should ask themselves. Read it in confidence that your outlook, even if non-theist, will be challenged. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

Polemic, 05 Sep 2008
A new addition to the recent new atheist polemics. Stenger has done only marginally useful scientific work. As for his suggestion that Anthropic Fine tuning is a non-problem because of his simplistic program MonkeyGod that purports to simulate universes and "show" that anthropic universes are commonplace, no serious cosmologist takes this seriously. Martin Rees's "Just Six Numbers" is a good guide to the real science. This book might be useful to those who are making use of the freedom God has given them to reject Him (see Pascal on 'why God hides'), but in reality the case for theism has never been stronger. Evidence of the Big Bang, anthropic coincidences, the fantastic complexity and functionality of biological systems, and the deepening intractability of naturalistic explanations for the origin of life and consciousness all support theism.

(This review originally ended here. But in response to a comment by 'Jack The Sausage' suggesting that it showed how little I understood 'actual scientific knowledge', I added the following to clarify it.)

Recent scientific knowledge has tended to offer strong epistemic support for religious belief (at the very least, the answer to the question 'does science contradict religion' is obviously 'no'). The Big Bang, to take just one example, is a reason theism fits the data better than atheism - undoubtedly one of the reasons atheists tried to avoid it so desperately and for so long.

Of course God is not a 'scientific' hypothesis, but then neither is atheism. They are both metaphysical postulates. The task human beings face is to decide which is the best fundamental interpretation on the basis of the evidence. Scientific evidence is involved in this.

Personally I believe theism is the most rational hypothesis we have. In fact one of the things it says is that reality is completely rational - arguably one of the reasons science never really got off the ground anywhere except the Christian West, where it was embedded in a theistic matrix. (Many great scientists of the past were believers, e.g. Kepler (astronomy), Pascal (hydrostatics), Boyle (chemistry), Newton (calculus), Linnaeus (systematic biology), Faraday (electromagnetics), Cuvier (comparative anatomy), Kelvin (thermodynamics), Lister (antiseptic surgery) and Mendel (genetics). See Stanley Jaki's 'The Road of Science and The Ways to God'). By contrast, one of the sillier aspects of the new atheist books (which will undoubtedly make for some interesting sociological analysis in 50-100 years time) is their 'evolution explains everything' stance - an idea that is at best unproven and at worst total nonsense - or a strange a priori assumption of materialism/metaphysical naturalism for which science provides absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Putting some philosophical goggles on before you do science isn't science at all. Science is supposed to look at facts then form theories, not (as we see in much modern biology) start with dogmas then ignore facts.

Many people who understand actual scientific knowledge much better than me, you or Stenger (who, as I stated in my review, has done only marginally useful scientific work) seem to agree that theism is a very rational position:

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist)"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

George Ellis (British astrophysicist) "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist) "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe. The impression of design is overwhelming."

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy) "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."

John O'Keefe (NASA astronomer) "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures. If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."

George Greenstein (astronomer) "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency-or, rather, Agency-must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist) 'The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics) "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say `supernatural') plan." Again: "I invite you to examine the snapshot provided by half a century's worth of astrophysical data and see what the pieces of the universe actually look like...In order to achieve consistency with our observations we must...assume not only creation of matter and energy out of nothing, but creation of space and time as well. The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole."

Roger Penrose (mathematician) "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."

Tony Rothman (physicist) "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist) "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist) "What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? ... Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why?" (Not a theist, but an important point lucidly put.)

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician) "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."

Ed Harrison (cosmologist) "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God-the design argument of Paley-updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument."

Edward Milne (British cosmologist) "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]."

Barry Parker (cosmologist) "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed."

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists) "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with `common wisdom'."

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics) "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (computational quantum chemist) "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, `So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan."

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."

Robin Collins, an American scientist with three degrees and two doctorates in mathematics, physics, and philosophy: "The extraordinary fine-tuning of the laws and constants of nature, their beauty, their discoverability, their intelligibility - all of this combines to make the God hypothesis the most reasonable choice we have. All other theories fall short."

Allan Rex Sandage (famous astronomer, dubbed the "Grand Old Man of Cosmology" by the New York Times, and a former atheist): "It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science. It was only through the supernatural that I could understand the mystery of existence."

Lord Kelvin, who made important discoveries in thermodynamics and died in 1907: "Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us...the atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words." (Proceedings of the Victoria Institute, No. 124, p.267).

Yes, science is amazing, beautiful and has proved an astonishingly fruitful investigation of the physical universe. But it doesn't exhaust reality. (It cannot even answer the question 'why is science possible?') Stenger thinks that because God isn't observable by the scientific method - i.e., can't be 'scientifically proven' - he doesn't exist. This is ridiculous. In fact the statement 'only believe something if it can be scientifically proven' is self-refuting (because it cannot be scientifically proven).

Stenger does have one thing going for him: he isn't as rude and bilious as Dawkins. But his arguments are really quite pitiful overall (in this book, Comprehensible Cosmos, Not by Design, misc. reviews). Nicholas Beale has convincingly refuted them.

* He says, correctly, that "if God exists he should be the source of our morals and values". He then claims that: "These principles should be original and clearly not of natural origin". All mainstream Christian thinkers would hold that God has been guiding people towards Him through their consciences since the dawn of history.
* "Believers should be observed to live by these principles and not decide right and wrong for themselves". He then interprets the former to mean that all believers should invariably live by these principles. Well that might be nice, but it is certainly the opposite of Christian doctrine on this point, and there is no reason to suppose that it should be true. Of course in general the worst crimes against humanity have been committed by Atheists, who have no solid basis for their morality, contrary to his statement that "atheists are just as moral as believers" - well some may be but on AGGREGATE not. And as for taking obsolete commandments from the OT, Chistianity has never held that these are binding on Christians. So his 'argument' might apply to certain extreme Jewish sects - I don't know - but it is certainly not a refutation of any mainstream Christianity I know.
* His idea that mystical or religious experiences should lead to empirically testable knowledge is again rather laughable. That is not what religious revelations are about - and no-one claims they are. There are excellent reasons to do with freewill why God does not do this.
* He also has a big non-argument that "If humanity is so special, why so much wasted matter in the universe"? Since it takes about 12bn yrs for humanity to evolve the Universe has to be c12bn light years in size, and to achieve the critical densities that are necessary you need about the matter that we have. He completely fails to engage with the anthropic fine tuning that even impresses atheist astronomers like Martin Rees - most cosmologists accept that the only reasonable alternative to Anthropic Fine Tuning is a vast plethora of multiverses: he seems to be stuck badly in the past and unwilling to engage with the facts. Another point is that Christianity has never said the humanity is THE purpose of the cosmos, just A purpose of the cosmos. The 'wasted matter' has value in itself: as Psalm 19:1-6 says,
"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun. Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it; and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof". (Genesis also records God saying 'it was good' at each stage of Creation.)
* He then suggests that the Bible makes scientific claims like "the earth is flat". (Well, Ps 93v2 says in the Prayer Book "He has made the round world, so sure that it cannot be moved" - but sadly this seems to be a mistranslation, and modern translations don't say "round"!) The fact is that the Bible is not a scientific treatise, and it says nothing about whether the world is flat or round. In OT times people probably assumed it was flat, by NT times it was known to be round. (Erastothenes (276-194 BC) famously made a reasonable estimate of its circumference.)
* His assertion that there is no evidence for the life and death of Jesus is absurd, and to say that "physical and historical evidence" "rules it out" is again pitiful. I'm not an expert on the 1st Temple but I very much doubt his assertions about this: as for archeological evidence of Exodus this is a moot point, but the fact is that Archeology can rarely prove a negative - the fact that you can't find something doesn't mean it doesn't exist!
* Again his "argument" "Evil exists, therefore God does not exist" is pitiful. No mainstream religion has ever claimed that Evil does not exist. And Stenger doesn't even engage with theodicy.
* The idea that the laws of nature arose from nothing is plain silly - only by a gross abuse of language can a "quantum fluctuation" be considered nothing - and it can only exist because of pre-existing physical laws!
* In his review of J.Polkinghorne's 'Belief in God in an Age of Science', Stenger says: "Theologians and scientists each seek understanding. But theologians rely on the mythical tales and subjective human experiences that emanate from the insignificant point in spacetime that encloses human history. Scientists, by contrast, view a range of space from inside atomic nuclei to the farthest quasar, and a range of time from a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang to the present. They see a universe more vast and with far more potential for development than has ever been imagined in any scripture or mystical trance."

This confuses what people look at and where they look from, and confuses size with SIGNIFICANCE. The actual vantage point of scientists is from a much smaller subset of spacetime than that of theologians. And theologians view Eternity, of which the Universe is an infinitessimal fraction. Furthermore in practice scientists each look at a tiny piece of the whole of the "scientific" domain in any depth.

Even Bertrand Russell, who called the human race a 'curious accident' in a backwater, was convinced that human beings dwarf the whole of the rest of the universe in value:

'I have long ardently desired to find some justification for the emotions inspired by certain things that seem to stand outside human life and to deserve feelings of awe. I am thinking...in part of the vastness of the scientific universe, both in space and time, as compared to the life of mankind...And yet I am unable to believe that, in the world as known, there is anything that I can value outside human beings...Not the starry heavens, but their effect on human percipients, have excellence; to admire the universe for its size is slavish and absurd'. ('The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell', ed. P.A.Schilpp, Northwestern University Press, p.19-20).
Einstein said much the same thing: 'If there were not this inner illumination [the human mind], the universe would be merely a rubbish heap'.

* In 'Not by Design', Stenger objects to Aquinas's argument for a first cause as follows:

'Later philosophers...have pointed out the error in Aquinas's logic: if a first cause, uncaused, is possible, why must it be God? The first cause, uncaused, could just as well be the universe itself'.

That would only be true if the universe were necessary and not - as it is - contingent. But the idea of the existence of the universe being necessary rather than contingent is patently absurd. As Stephen Barr says,

'The existence of the particular universe in which we live is plainly not a necessity. In this particular universe there is a sycamore tree in my front yard. It might just as well have been an apple tree. To say that this universe, in all its particularity, with all of its details, had necessarily to exist is not only absurd, it is also profoundly unscientific in spirit. It would mean that everything about the world could be deduced by pure thought without taking the trouble to do any experiments or make any observations. If the world with all its contents were necessarily as it is, then Columbus did not have to sail the ocean blue - he might have been able to deduce the existence of American and even to have mapped all its mountains and charted all its waterways without leaving his armchair'.

The problem with Stenger is this: there are philosophical difficulies for both Christian theism and Atheism, it is a balance of probablities and anyone who can say otherwise - like Stenger who suggests that Atheism is proven beyond reasonable (he may even say possible) - is simply ignorant or deceitful. Like most contemporary missionary atheists, Stenger is both.

The fact that Stenger's book is prefaced by Hitchens (who doesn't even PRETEND to be a scientist, philosopher or anything other than an angry person) should be a clear warning sign. (But at least Hitchens is honest - unlike Dawkins who is really nothing more than an expert in the behaviour of chicks at feeding time.)

The bottom line: there are much better books of pseudo-scientific atheist chic around than this one. Atheists would be better off spending their money on Weinberg's 'The First Three Minutes' - at least he's actually one of the most distinguished scientists of our time, unlike Stenger. But Stenger's book does make excellent devotional reading for Christians, just like Dawkin's God Delusion.

I believe Stenger is due to debate The Revd. Dr John Polkinghorne KBE FRS in the near future. It should be interesting.

Sorry this review was so long. Most of it was the collection of quotes - hopefully someone will enjoy having them collected together in one place.

(One final point: strictly speaking God, who is Being itself, does not exist (which means to be 'placed outside') in the same way as the created things which form the only object of experience for our natural faculties. That is why all the mystics and saints throughout human history have described the first contact with supernatural reality as being an experience of nothingness.)

Not a universally accepted viewpoint by scientists, 02 Jun 2008
"God" is clearly important enough to have generated a vast plethora of literature for and against "Him".

Whilst quite clearly presented and logical, Hitchens axiomatic basis for existence is for physical "obersvability" in some sense. Yet this is the the longest standing argument of asthestic philosophy, not something new.

I would love to see Hitchens expand his axiomatic basis for existence to encompass arguments that were new and more convincing that 'I cannot see(observe)' so 'I dont believe'

Our own existence is confounding enough - I am not sure humanity has truly solved this mystery.Why are we self aware? Who and what are we?
All this before what is "God"?

Paul Davies 'Goldilocks Enigma' and the 'Mind of God' present an alternative scientific viewpoint - he is a theortical physicist and comologist- the axiomatic basis for his arguments here are different. Why are we who we are and what exactly are we produces deep questions as to existence and in my view more fruitful than the 'prove he doesn't exist' approach of the God Hypothesis which is essentialy based on only one line of argument.

All in all great to see so much God talk like in this book.Its definitely the way forward but this book does not indicate the end of the road.




Scientific method for unscientific hypothesis , 02 Jun 2008
Victor Stenger is explaining in the entire first chapter the scientific method and what a theory is compared to hypothesis, and why/how science is able to test some of the religious hypothesizes.
The next chapter is then focusing on the testing of supernatural claims and highlights that several studies about the usefulness of prayers have been conducted. These studies were funded from religious organizations like Templeton, so not from "bad atheist scientists" who only want to disprove them. Nevertheless despite heavy intercessory praying of whole religious communities for the health of freshly operated patients, no positive effect of prayer could be found.

After this Stenger is demolishing the `fine tuning' Goldilocks argument about the basic constants of the universe, which is so often used from theists as the last deist refuge to house their God of the dwindling gaps. After reading several books mentioning this `fine tuning' and haven't found a strong scientific rebuttal, I was quite surprised that the so miraculous `fine tuning' argument is only valid if a single factor is changed c.p. (all other left unchanged). Stenger claims that several alternative combinations of the 4 fundamental constants are possible and are providing a stable universe where stars can form and burn for billions of years as well.
To give an example of real life: my car is so fine-tuned if the gearbox is just 2 millimeter from the engine block it would not work, if the clutch is just a few millimeter apart it would not close and can't drive, if the crankshaft is just a little shorter ...etc... yes true if just a single parameter is changed, but there are many other brands and models where another combination of all this parts result in a proper working car.

The maximal entropy of the initial universe makes a deity unnecessary and unable to control any future development of the universe especially when quantum effects prevent any deterministic Lamarckian plan. And the universe don't need to be `divinely created' as the universe has a zero balance of energy and mass versus gravity e.g. coming out of nothing.

All claims of creationist and ID are refuted by the usual arguments from evolution, and the millennia old philosophical word games as `proof of God' ala St. Augustine or Aquinas are countered by logical arguments from modern philosophers, who show logical arguments (proof) that God does not exists.

Also the Biblical history is outed as fiction and fairy tales as most stories from Genesis, great flood, Abraham, Exodus, Canaan's conquest, David and Solomon's powerful `golden empire' etc. are falsified from historical and archeological evidence. Ergo the god YHWH from the Bible as basis for Judeo-Christian-Islamic faith who is interacting with the local tribes of bronze-age gout and sheep herders does not exist.

In short Victor Stenger is claiming the absence of evidence on that grand scale plus all the falsifications of theist claims are evidence of absence and falsification of the theist God hypothesis, and is even a strong indicator for the non existence or of a deist God.


Good Science, Bad Theology, 13 May 2008
Stenger brilliantly proves that something he has called "god" does not exist. As any proper theist would agree. He is very learned in the best of Physics but what has he read of the best theologians - Thomas aquinas, Augustine of Hippo, Karl Rahner, Karl Barth ? Does not understand about double causation ? Has he never read that God being described as "all powerful" means not "can do anything" but "can do what He wills to do"
Physics answers the questions physics asks.
But he could just as easily write an equally learned and fatally flawed book entitled "How Science shows that Love does not exist " or "How Science shows that Beauty does not exist
If a non-scientist wrote a book entitled "How Philopsphy proves Science is wrong" Sterner would be affronted.

God: the eternal underachiever, 18 Jan 2008
One of the many tiresome conversation stoppers people resort to is "But you can't disprove the existence of God!" In this stunning book, Victor Stenger provides convincing arguments that, actually, you can. Stenger writes: "The thesis of this book is that the supernatural hypothesis of [the Judeo-Christian-Islamic] God is testable, verifiable, and falsifiable by the established methods of science." His strategy is to run with this hypothesis and, with an open mind, to look for any objective evidence that may support it, all the while maintaining the rigour of the best scientific inquiry. If such evidence is not found, if the universe reveals only purely material and mindless processes to our observation, then the likelihood is that there is no such God. The "lack-of-evidence argument" works hard and in the end the hypothesis fails: this is a very powerful "scientific argument against the existence of God".

Atheists since Bertrand Russell have replied to this question of "proof" by saying that you cannot disprove the existence of a teapot in orbit, but this doesn't mean you should believe that such an object exists, much less base your life on this belief. The knockdown argument against this response is, apparently, that belief in orbiting teapots would not inspire the great art that belief in, say, the Virgin Birth does. (The Archbishop of Canterbury recently used this very same argument in conversation with Ric