When I received a book in the mail for potential review called Deconstructing God: A Heretic’s Case for Religion by Ian Gurvitz, I was reluctant, to say the least, to review the book. I justified my thinking with the old saying about avoiding discussions of religion and politics in polite company.
But then I watched the hosts of the TV show "The View" storm of the set of their own show after a heated exchange with their guest TV host and author Bill O’Reilly about the building of a Mosque on Ground Zero. Later that week, reporter Juan Williams was fired for comments he made about these events on O’Reilly’s show. These stories became big news and even trumped, in many cases, news stories regarding what I felt was the nastiest, most emotionally-charged mid-term election campaigns I’ve ever seen.
That’s when I realized that “polite company” no longer seems to exist in our country. It’s Us vs Them now. We’re right and they’re wrong and there’s nothing you can say to change our minds. This is our attitude. Tolerance and compromise be damned!
And sure, this is the worst economy we’ve had in 25 years, but must be destroy the good with the bad? Must our beliefs and politics become who we are and not what we do or what we think? Can’t it be that someone else’s thoughts or opinions, even if we wildly disagree with them, are in fact valid and worthy of debate or conversation? Might we even be wrong about some of things we think or believe?
With this in mind, I’d like to introduce Ian Gurvitz, author of Deconstructing God, a new book that’s been generating some buzz about its controversial stance on how we, as a culture define, argue and defend our various systems of beliefs. Bill Maher, talk-show host and outspoken Atheist, has said of the book, “Although I don't agree 100% with Ian Gurvitz's analysis of religion -- who does on this subject? -- I loved reading this insightful, funny, and illuminating book.”
I couldn’t agree more. What I like most about this book, however, is that Gurvitz goes beyond the deconstruction of religion as we know it. It’s not a simple dismissal of religion. After all, it’s easy to tear down “mystical” ideas – Bill Maher does it often and well, and so does Gurvitz in his book. What’s challenging, however, is taking the next step. That is, from the rubble, reconstructing an interesting and sophisticated argument [for religion] in its place. And that’s where this book is truly successful, even if you disagree with Gurvitz’ analysis and/or conclusion.
A native New Yorker, Ian Gurvitz has lived in Los Angeles for the last 20 years, working as a TV Writer/Producer. Author of Hello, Lied the Agent a behind-the-scenes account of the world of TV development, Gurvitz wrote and directed a movie -- L.A. Blues -- which was released in 2008. He is a regular contributor to The Huffington Post, and has published articles in the LA.Times and Creative Screenwriting magazine. Before Hollywood, he earned a B.A. in Philosophy and worked toward an M.A. in Buddhist Studies, which involved a year living in Japan, and marked the beginning of a decades-long study of religion, which eventually lead to the writing of this book.
Gurvitz also maintains a blog at IBREAL.BLOGSPOT.COM.
You can purchase Deconstructing God: A Heretic’s Case for Religion at Amazon.com in paperback, eBook and audio book formats.
Please take a few more minutes to read the revealing interview with Ian Gurvitz below.
Q. Can you describe Deconstructing God: A Heretic’s Case for Religion and how you came up with the idea to write it?
A. The idea behind the book is simple: Everything we think we know about religion is wrong. Every popular argument that we've been told is about religion -- that it's based on belief in God, a matter of faith as opposed to reason; that science and religion are in opposition -- is wrong. But these false ideas and arguments permeate our culture and infect the discussion to the point that we've been left with four basic intellectual stances: one is either a believer, an atheist, an agnostic, or some freelance Burning Man spiritual type. I studied philosophy in college and religion in grad school and after reading people such as William James, Bertrand Russell, Thomas Merton, Joseph Campbell, Alan Watts, Aldous Huxley, J. Krishnamurti, Thich Nhat Hanh, and many others, coupled with some of my own experiences, realized that there is a more sophisticated, though very basic understanding of religion that has been lost in modern culture.
Q. Bill Maher, talk show host and outspoken atheist, had some very positive remarks about your book. But your book is not just for atheists like Bill Maher. Who do you see as your intended audience, or who do you think would benefit most by reading your book?
A. The people I want to reach are self-proclaimed atheists like Bill who are intelligent, thoughtful individuals who look at the way religion is defined in our culture and reject it. If one accepts the popular supernatural definition with all its mythological baggage -- Talking Snakes, parting seas, miracles, heaven and hell, afterlives, prayer as an appeal to a sky wizard for help -- then an intelligent person's only rational response is atheism. My intention is to say that this definition of religion is wrong. What we think is religion, is not religion. It's not a phenomenon that takes place in some other time or place. It's a psychological phenomenon that occurs right here, and right now. It's not something we are. It's something we do. I think most thoughtful people who describe themselves as atheists should take another look at the actual meaning and purpose of religion, whether or not they incorporate it into their lives.
Q. Humor plays a major role in your writing – and is really refreshing in your book. But humor is not typically associated with this subject, not without a satirical slant. Were you worried about the tone of your writing or how some readers might interpret (or misinterpret) your sense of humor?
A. The book is divided into two parts. Part One -- Deconstructing God -- is aimed at a childish understanding of religion, along with the way it plays out in our lives. Putting aside the comfort that some people derive from it, which is another argument, if the goal is getting to the truth of religion, then certain silly ideas need to be dispensed with. And humor is effective in ridiculing ideas that deserve ridicule. It's not so much a conscious decision to employ it as a device. It's a visceral reaction to hearing a U.S. Senator say that "global warming isn't real, because God is still in control of the world." That kind of dogsh*t thinking is seen as reasonable by most people, and that infuriates me. And that anger comes out through humor. The second part of the book -- Reconstructing God -- is my attempt to redefine religion, or point to the way intelligent people have defined it over the last 2500 years and get people to look at the phenomenon with new eyes. In this endeavor, humor has no place. You can be funny saying what it isn't. Bill Maher's Religulous was hilarious. Saying what it is requires a more sober approach.
Q. So much of our religious beliefs come from our families and our cultures – it’s tradition. We are and we believe typically what our parents are and believe. As parents then, do you see it as unfair or irresponsible to pass down, or some might say “force”, our beliefs onto our children without allowing them to discover faith on their own? Is this something you address in your book?
A. It's something I tried to address. One element of our understanding I tried to dismantle is this idea of belief. Faith as "belief in things unseen." I don't believe in belief. Religion as it should be understood has nothing to do with belief. It's a set of activities designed to bring about a deeper experience of human life. Whether it's through prayer, meditation, or even rituals such as the Sabbath, going to church, or praying five times a day, the purpose of religious practice is to take our minds off our ego selves and focus on our common selves. Alan Watts described it as refocusing from our spotlight consciousness to our floodlight consciousness. In this respect, on an experiential level, religion is psychological.
Unfortunately, this idea has been all but lost in western culture and what we've been left with is the notion of religion as identity. We're Jewish. They're Christian. We're Christian. They're Muslim. We're right. They're wrong. It is absurd that the one activity that should be grounded in inclusiveness has devolved into "we're the good guys, they're the bad guys." Because most people, especially in the west, have a surface understanding of religion, it has become a mode of identity, a set of beliefs and practices that are passed down from generation to generation for the simple reason that people have been told it's important. But the actual reason religion is important has been totally lost.
Q. You’ve studied religion for decades. You even studied Buddhism in Japan. How did the experience of Eastern religion affect your beliefs and your writing?
A. Although it will sound like a broad generalization, I think eastern religions have kept more of a focus on what's been called religious or spiritual experience. It is the experiential core of all religions but remains more prominent in eastern traditions such as Zen Buddhism. There is no need to believe in anything. It is a psychological experience that takes place right here on earth. There's no elaborate cosmology. No blind belief. Just activity. Leading a simpler life. Meditating. The goal is that experience, along with the knowledge and sense of compassion it brings. Then the goal is to take that knowledge, incorporate it into the way one lives in the world. Eastern religions are based in this earthly experience and infers ideas from that experience. It requires no blind faith or belief in anything outside of this world.
Q. Is there a follow-up planned for Deconstructing God? Do you think that over time your opinions or beliefs might change?
A. The only follow-up I had in mind depended upon the reaction to this book. I'll see. I don't think my ideas will change. I do hope I can eventually incorporate certain practices like meditation into my life though I'm not sure I've got the self-discipline. At least not now.
Q. Who inspires you?
A. During the last few years while I was writing this, I listened to many books and lectures on tape. The two people I listened to over and over were Alan Watts and Joseph Campbell. They weren't dry scholars. They had a passion for the subject that transcended academia. It was about religion as a vital and valuable human experience. And they relayed their thoughts and feelings not just with passion, but with wit and humor. For anyone curious about the subject, I would rent the DVD of Joseph Campbell's The Power of Myth, his conversations with Bill Moyers right before Campbell's death. You get the full measure of his insight.
Q. What book or books are you reading right now? Are there any writers you feel deserve more attention than they already receive?
A. Thich Nhat Hanh. J. Krishnamurti. Daniel Berrigan. The others I mentioned above.
Q. What’s next for Ian Gurvitz?
A. I'm still trying to stay alive in TV. Writing a pilot for one network, pitching a few others. Blogging on Huffington Post and on my own blog. I think there is a spirited dialogue going on about religion, particularly given the work by Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins. I'd love to get involved in that because I think there's a point of view that's being left out. I'm hoping to either intrigue or piss off the right person. It's not easy to inject oneself into the public debate. And I don't have the commitment to make a sex tape.
Deconstructing God: A Heretic’s Case for Religion by Ian Gurvitz. (CreateSpace: June 2010). 248 pages.
For more author interview, check out Q and A at Frank Mundo's LA Books Examiner.
Frank Mundo is the author of The Brubury Tales.
Subscribe to my emails and follow me on twitter @LABooksExaminer.
Comments