Review of The Bible Unearthed

The power of the biblical saga stems from its being a compelling and coherent narrative expression of the timeless themes of a people liberation, continuing resistance to oppression, and quest for social equality.  It eloquently expresses the deeply rooted sense of shared origins, experiences, and destiny that every human community needs in order to survive. 

(Finkelstein and Silberman, The Bible Unearthed, 318)

If you’re looking for a book to bolster your beliefs in the absolutely 100% historical accuracy of the Bible, this is not that book.  That being said, the authors do respect the biblical narrative and the texts and realize their import in the lives of millions of people worldwide, calling it a “great national epic of liberation.”

… it is only when we recognize when and why the ideas, images, and events described in the Bible came to be so skillfully woven together that we can at last begin to appreciate the true genius and continuing power of this single most influential literary and spiritual creation in the history of humanity. (Finkelstein and Silberman, The Bible Unearthed, 318)

This book gently, but firmly breaks down several major parts of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament for you Christians out there); Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman present archaeological and historical evidence that much of the Bible was written to help coalesce the nation after several years of exile.  The Christian New Testament is not covered in this book, and partly, I believe that after chopping at the foundations, the building built on those foundations will also suffer; but, mostly, I believe it’s because the authors are Jewish and not Christian: hence, the New Testament is not their Bible.

So, I guess you could say that The Bible Unearthed actually uncovers the facts and many of the events that in fact took place, many directly opposed to what we find written in the pages of the Bible.  So, I guess you could say The Bible Unearthed unearths what happened outside of the Bible as we know it, and gives us something closer to what actually took place.  It gives detailed information, including bibliography and index and a few maps and illustrations.

Where does Biblical Inerrancy fit in here?  Some believe the Bible is 100% accurate history, science, etc.  They attempt to strengthen their arguments and their belief by going to the Bible itself.  Others have tried to manipulate archaeological and historical finds to fit what the Bible says.  At the end of the day, you just have to believe that if we were created, then God would not have given us minds that could figure things out if he didn’t want us to figure them out.  Also, if the Bible is inspired by God, and God is all-knowing (yes, I know the fancy word is omniscient), then he woulda known a looooong time ago that some smartass would come along and show how all the things written in there are not 100% accurate.  Some of those who attempt to defend the Bible forget that if there God is as powerful as they say they believe he is, he is more than capable of taking care of it himself.
  
Does that mean they are false?  NO!  It means the Bible is made up of stories which are meant to lead people to live a better life.  It was written to show people how to love and how to behave in the world.  It’s not always pretty; much of the Hebrew Bible is blood, murder, and other awfulness that one wouldn’t expect to see in a book about a God who is love.
 
I’m not trying to attack anyone’s faith, and I don’t believe that is Finkelstein and Silberman’s desire, either.  In fact, my faith was strengthened because I realized that Christianity wouldn’t be here if the Jews hadn’t pulled together and written their Tanakh (I know some fancy words, I know!  Actually, that’s an acronym for the three sections of the Hebrew Bible: Torah, Nevi’im, and Ketuvim: or The Law, the Prophets, and the Writings), and much of what I take for granted may never have happened.  I also realize that a lot of bloodshed wouldn’t have happened: i.e. the Crusades; the bloody Protestant/Catholic conflicts; the whole awful war going on in Israel and Palestine and that which is going on in the Middle East.

All the good and bad can be traced right back to that time when a group of Jewish exiles decided to put together a book for their nation, and then, use stories of their ancestors who obeyed and were blessed; and others who disobeyed and were cursed.  The blessings and the cursings all go back to those stories.  And, that is what they are: stories.

You cannot build a science on Genesis.  You cannot build a history on any of the “historical” books.  Yes, some of them have accurate depictions, but the timing is off.  The Exodus is a big one; as is the stories of the kings of both Judah and Israel. 

While this book does not cover the New Testament, I think Paul’s epistle to Timothy has probably come to mind and so, I will quote from verses 15 – 17 of the third chapter:

¹⁵ And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
¹⁶ All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
¹⁷ That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

You see?  It says there that all scripture is given by inspiration of God.  That’s the King James Version.  The English Standard Version says, in verse 16: “All Scripture is breathed out by God …”  New International Version says: “God-breathed.”  But, notice what these verses do not say.  They do not say that everything in the scripture is to be considered 100% accurate.  Does it have to say that?  Apparently some believe it does.  I for one have read the Bible many times and have never read in its pages anything remotely saying that it’s to be taken literally.  Rather, the more I read it, the more I believe it should be read literarily.
 
Basically, this guy's up here writing this review and saying that the Bible shouldn't be believed.  I am not saying that!  I’m saying that believe it the way it’s meant to be believed.  Use it for doctrine (a fancy word for the teachings of your particular belief system), for reproof (an antiquated word which means discipline), for correction, and for instruction in righteousness.  How can one do that with literature?  People do it all the time; in fact, it’s what we have all been doing for centuries. 

Realizing that something is not the way you have believed it can be difficult.  It can stun you, I know.  But, it can be liberating, too.  It can open completely new ways of thinking and understanding.  And, once your mind has been stretched to see something, it cannot un-see it, barring permanent amnesia. 
According to the entry on Biblical Inerrancy at the Religious Tolerance website:

Belief of biblical inerrancy in the U.S.:

On 2007-MAY-25, Gallup reported the results of a national poll on Biblical inerrancy. Those polled were asked which of three statements comes closest to describing their personal views about the Bible. The average of polls taken during MAY of 2005, 2006 and 2007 were:

• 31% believe that "The Bible is the actual word of God, and is to be taken literally, word for word." This would imply acceptance of biblical inerrancy.
• 47% believe that "The Bible is the inspired word of God, but not everything in it should be taken literally."
• 19% believe that "The Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man."
• 3% were uncertain or didn't answer.

• Margin of error was ±3 percentage points.

An identical poll taken during 2011-MAY showed little change:

• 30% believe that "The Bible is the actual word of God, and is to be taken literally, word for word."
• 49% believe that "The Bible is the inspired word of God, but not everything in it should be taken literally."
• 17% believe that "The Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man."
• 4% were uncertain or didn't answer.

Only 30% of those asked believe that each and every word of the Bible is to be taken literally.  I’m in between the 17% and the 49%: I believe that the Bible is inspired, but that it is recorded by humans.  Harold Bloom argues, in his The Book of J, that possibly parts of the Hebrew Bible (those written by one scholars call the Jahwist) were possibly written by a woman.  I like to think that that could be true: I like to hope that it is.  For more on these ideas of the “documentary hypothesis,” read this. 

There is a humorous take on the idea of taking the Bible literally on the Religious Tolerance site.

I love this book.  I really have to buy myself a copy, so I can spend more time going through it and its sources.  If you’re interested in the history of the Levant, the nation of Israel, the Bible, or in archaeology, or in old texts, I think you will enjoy this book.  If you don’t, please don’t throw it at me,  it is a pretty hefty tome and might do some serious damage to my spectacles. 

Early Review of Mitchell Bard's Death to the Infidels: Radical Islam's Against the Jews

Death to the Infidels: Radical Islam's War Against the Jews by Mitchell G. Bard
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Mitchell Bard's Death to the Infidels: Radical Islam's War Against the Jews, is an information packed history of the Israeli/Arab conflict. Bard makes the argument that Muslim states, particularly those who are radical will stop at nothing to see Jews wiped from the face of the Earth. I was gripped with the intensity with which the Israeli Jews fear for their lives.

The book is useful; I would have liked a few more sources, especially for those areas speaking against Israel's enemies. I know I can search online, but when I'm in the middle of a book, the last thing I want to do is to go online and get distracted while trying to find some piece of information that I expect to be in a book like this. Bard includes several sources, but there are a few places where he doesn't—and in those places they would do a lot to strengthen his side of the argument. As I pointed out, Bard includes a fair number of sources; a bibliography would facilitate the further study of these issues.

Bard argues that the conflict is at that bottom a religious one rather than a political one. It could be political using religion to carry our its ends. It wouldn't be the first time and that interpretation can be gathered from Bard's book.

I'm reminded while reading Death to the Infidels to try to look at both sides of the issue. When so much smoke and mirror propaganda and spin is being used by both sides of the issue, it's very difficult to know where to stand. From my view, which is not in the thick of it, I can see that both sides have done atrocious things to the other; that many people: soldiers, as well as non-military fighters, as well as civilians not involved in the fighting—innocent men, women, and children have died in this conflict that goes on for so long that media in the West stops covering because it's no longer news.

My heart breaks for the Israeli Jews who just want a homeland and it breaks for the Palestinians who want the same thing. It breaks for all those who are caught in the middle of this religio-political melee.

It's difficult to read/research both sides because each side has its own suffering and each side has its spin-doctors. I tend to agree with what Daniel Gilbert writes in Stumbling on Happiness, “When pro-Israeli and pro-Arab viewers [of news] are shown identical samples of Middle East news coverage, both proponents claim that the fact clearly show that the press was biased against their side” (168). They also claim that the other side started it. Gilbert later writes: “Alas, the only thing these facts clearly show is that people tend to see what they want to see” (168, emphasis in original). Bard has made it easier to see the Jewish side, and the fear that keeps the Israelis from giving in to the demands of the Palestinians.

According to Bard, every time the Israelis have given an inch, the Palestinians have taken a mile and have continued to bring terror in the form of firing rockets and suicide bombings. He makes the point, however, that when Israel fires back in defense, they are reprimanded by other nations. It's also interesting that each side claims that the West, especially the U.S. is aiding the other side: the Palestinians say that the U.S. helps Israel; Israel says the U.S. helps Palestine. Books like Bard's are important; he's not afraid to go against the current “politically correct” flow and to tell it like he sees it. He pulls no punches in saying that those who want Israel's and especially the Jews' demise are not moderate and radical, but should rather be called radical and more radical. He quotes (with sources) several who call for the decimation/annihilation of the Jews even if it takes centuries. Because of the lengths to which these radicals are willing to go, Bard argues, Jews and Israel have a long, hard road ahead of the them.

Bard covers a lot of information in a short book, and all of it is important. Read this if you're interested in this heart-wrenching conflict that has cost so many lives and will cost many more before it's over, if it will /can ever be over. I for one hope (probably foolishly) that Bard is wrong, even a little. Alas, it's not very likely: just look at the new escalation that is in the news right now (18 July 2014).

NOTE: This book is due to be published in September 2014.

View all my reviews

Review of Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy

Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy by Eric Metaxas
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Overall, I enjoyed this biography. As I read/listened to it, I kept trying to connect it to what I know of Church history and history in general from this time. It was fascinating to learn new things about the Nazi party, such as: they started their own Church: Reichskirke (officially: The German Evangelical Church).

Metaxas shows the many sides of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and does an excellent job of bringing the young pastor's internal and external struggles to the reader. Many people played many roles in the stand against Hitler's Nazi party during those years in Germany; it's interesting to see what role those leaders in the Protestant Church (particularly Lutheran) played.

Bonhoeffer and many of his friends and colleagues were punished and killed for their role in the downfall of the Third Reich.

If you're interested in the Lutheran Church, Church History, History before/during WWII, or the role played by the Church during the Nazi Third Reich, this is an interesting place to begin looking at those various topics/subjects.

As always, you'll just have to read it to discover if you'll like it or not.

View all my reviews

Review of Michael Krasny's Spiritual Envy: And Agnostic's Quest

Spiritual Envy: An Agnostic's Quest by Michael Krasny
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Krasny asks a book long question (that I shared to some extent), and asks the reader to join the question; he invites the reader to seek along with him. It's probably safe to say that not all agnostics feel the way he feels; but, questioning comes with the territory, I think. Krasny doesn't claim to know the answers. I really appreciate that in this time of such overpowering (sometimes almost nauseating) certainty: in both the believer and atheist camps. Certainty eludes me, as it eludes Krasny, and he isn't afraid to share his uncertainty and what he is doing in spite of it.

Lately, I've had some slight envy, similar to what Krasny writes about, and questions of how to be the best person I can be in this life I have. I don't believe religion is necessary for morality, but I can see how it has shaped morality, mores, and ethics in different societies and for individuals within those societies.

What I miss is the camaraderie that I enjoyed when I was a practicing Christian and that is the envy I have for those who are confident and solid in their faith. Occasionally, I envy the comfort that would come with certainty, but then I remember that if I were certain, I would not have the curiosity to keep my mental hunger fed.

If you are interested in how some agnostics think, this book can help you ask the kinds of questions to find your own way, without telling you how you should think or believe. Read it and see what you think.



View all my reviews

Get yourself a copy, here:
Spiritual Envy: An Agnostic's Quest

Review of Understanding the Mystery of the Cross

Understanding the Mystery of the Cross: We Died at a Tree; God Gave Us Life at a Tree by Mike Beecham
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

This is a well-written book on a very important area of Christian theology; it's also a great contribution to Christian theological writing, overall. While the topic/teaching is deep, Beecham clearly expounds on the meaning of the Crucifixion, and what that means for the Christian in their everyday lives and in the idea of salvation.

Mike Beecham writes with clarity and authority, developing this teaching and making it accessible to any reader while maintaining orthodoxy. I hope to see more books from him in the future.

I would recommend this for anyone interested in an excellent explanation of the Crucifixion and what that means in overall Christian theology/doctrine and belief.

View all my reviews

Visit the book's site for more info or to get a copy: Understanding the Mystery of the Cross
Update! The book is available on Kindle, now!
Get a copy here:
Understanding the Mystery of the Cross

Love ... Really?

Hello, call me the fool.1   

Since the Bible says so, some would say: "God is love."2  That that's all fine and good for those who believe in the Bible. It's nice that they consider the god in the book to be love. My experience with both the Bible and its god is a little different. For me, there is more hatred than love portrayed there; but not only portrayed in the Bible, but taught in many churches. 

You might argue and say, "I have never heard anyone teach or preach hatred in my church." And I hope you never do.  But, if you do, run from there like your butt's on fire. No, the teaching is with actions; with little innuendos: "We're better than 'those people,' those atheists, those drug addicts, those alcoholics." That's what is said with body language and unconscious vocabulary. I know, because I was once like this myself (I have to say, in my defense, that it was not intentional--but, nevertheless, I was guilty).  Aloud, you may hear something like: "We love them; we accept them, even as Jesus accepted us." But then, listen. 

You'll probably hear something not unlike this: "We just have to tolerate them until they grow (i.e. learn to think and believe as we do)."  Or: "We love the sinner, but not the sin."  That is a sneaky form of prejudice; it gives us a way to avoid the very people we are supposedly supposed to love.  It's a prejudice to which most people, especially those who believe themselves to be "chosen," will not consciously or readily admit (I'm sad to have to admit, again, I know this first-hand).  You may say: "I'm not like that.  And neither is anyone else in my church.  We really do love people."  I hope you're not like that.  I hope you and all the people in your church really do love people (e.g. esp. the "unlovable").  If you are like that, you are rare and that is beautiful.  I appreciate you!

For those not in that minority, those who are more like I was, my question is: Is that really love? Can I love people without being around them and being willing to get my hands dirty?  I'm not saying it's necessary to engage in immoral behavior in order to show our love, but often what we do is: we completely avoid those whom we claim to love.  And behavior toward the "loved" ones is stand-offish and squeamish and doesn't quite come across as love, but rather as disgust....

The Bible teaches that we should love all, in action not only in word: 

Matthew 25.35-40; 42-46 (KJV):

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

---

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

These are ideals to which anyone, Christian or not, can aspire.  If you're an unbeliever, just realize that you're doing this will not win you any brownie-points.  If you are a believer, then this should be the life you strive to live anyway, simply based on Jesus's teaching. 

To make this practical we can ask ourselves regularly: "Am I showing love to people around me; to strangers; to 'scary' people; to mean people; to people who will probably not love me in return; and not only when someone is watching me, and not hoping for a reward or a prize or even a simple pat on the back and an 'at-a-boy'?"

---

^1. Psalm 14.1
^2. 1 John 4:8, in case you're wondering. You're welcome.

Review of God's Problem by Bart Ehrman

God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question-Why We Suffer by Bart D. Ehrman
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

This is a good introduction to theodicy. Ehrman gives a broad and fairly thorough overview of what the Bible says about suffering. I like that he is not satisfied with the pat answers that are usually given for why people suffer.

Ultimately, I'm not satisfied with those answers, either and this idea of suffering was a key reason in my own leaving the Church and Christianity. This is not to say that I am an enemy of Christianity, but like Ehrman, I take an agnostic stance when it comes to the ideas of gods and spirits and other supernatural ideas.

I try to keep an open mind, and I have to be careful not to get set in one mindset; I appreciate Ehrman's way of presenting his discussion of this important subject: he didn't try to make those who believe the pat answers look ignorant or foolish, like so many militant atheist/agnostics do. He actually has an open mind, and with his current knowledge he makes many good points, all based on what is in the Bible.

The main thing, I think, is to start a dialogue and Ehrman has made an excellent starting place for such a dialogue.

This book resonates with me because many of the things Ehrman writes are similar or exactly my own thoughts, and it is always good to know that one is not alone when it comes to important issues and sometimes controversial topics.

If you wonder why the God of the Bible allows suffering and/or you're not satisfied with the pat and often parroted answers, you could do worse than to read this book. You may, as I did, walk away with more questions, but that is fine if you remember that the only thing that is certain in this world is uncertainty. We don't always have to have an answer.

View all my reviews

Get a copy here:

Too Good Not to Share

I have attempted to tell people this, but they simply do not want to believe it.  Their wrong beliefs regarding other religions are nearly as strong as the beliefs they have for their own.

It seems as if religious faith and open mindedness cannot co-habitate in the same mind--at least in the cases I have encountered.

Don't be closed minded....

Think About It

A Review of The Book of J

The Book of J by Harold Bloom
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Bloom shares his interesting ideas about the parts of the Torah/Pentateuch which were written by the Yahwist, whom he calls J. Rosenberg's translations of these parts is amazing; really bringing out the irony that Bloom mentions so often in this book.

Religion doesn't play a part in this project, in fact, Bloom makes the argument that J should be considered blasphemous when taken in conjunction with the orthodox views of God, Yahweh, or whatever one happens to call this character; that is what Yahweh is to J: a character.

Knowing something of the Bible is more than helpful; and actually, I can't imagine anyone who doesn't know the Bible fairly well being interested in this book. Even lit geeks, if a knowledge of the Bible is lacking, may have trouble with most of what Bloom says about the sections which scholars believe were written by J.

Bloom discusses J, E, P, D and R: writers and redactors who had a hand in what we now call the Torah or the Pentateuch. Some religious believers don't like this, because the Bible itself says that Moses is the author. However, scholars have been able to recognize different styles, and certain aspects of an earlier writer which were missed inadvertently by a later one.

I will spare the details, because Bloom does a much better job of expounding them. But, he doesn't go into depth with any writer, except J.

My interest in this book was from a textual comparison point of view; I have been fascinated by the differences, often glaringly contradictory, in many translations of the Bible (as well as other books). This is evidence that translations do indeed usually signify interpretation. Therefore, no translation can be 100% accurate, as even the original is open to interpretation. This can become a thorny mess and has led to many arguments, which thankfully, Bloom doesn't spend too much time on. His interest is mostly literary, so he avoids much of the theological/philosophical arguments concerning the meanings, etc. This also gives him freedom to take off the "rose colored glasses" of religious interpretation, which often blind readers to what is actually written.

If you are at all interested in the history of the text of the Tanakh/Old Testament, specifically the Torah/Pentateuch/Books of Moses; or in textual comparison, interpretation, criticism, etc.; then, I recommend this book. It does lack a scholarly apparatus, as many of Bloom's books do, making it difficult to do further research, etc. from this text. It is, however, a good place to begin, and (as it was meant to be) to be enjoyed by the lay reader/general public.

View all my reviews

To get your own copy:

Agnostic Seeking

"The important thing is not to stop questioning."

- Albert Einstein

For awhile now I have called myself an atheist.  I’m probably more of an agnostic, because I still look for something outside myself and something that could be called a “spirituality” (yet, paradoxically without spirits or other super-natural beings).  That being said,  I still believe there are no gods, goddesses, divine beings, spirits, ghosts, demons….  There is no way to be absolutely certain, one way or the other, I know, but from my experience (which is no more than most religious believers use to argue their points for those things), the evidence is stacked against their existence.  So, on my agnostic scale, I lean more toward atheist than theist (in all its many forms). 

Understand, I don't scorn religions, belief systems or faith; and I especially have nothing against believers.  I simply seek; I delve into questions on morality, on good and evil (and what those ideas may or may not mean), on whether there is life after death (e.g. eternal life, reincarnation, metempsychosis), and on why very bad things sometimes happen to seemingly very good (or innocent) people. 

I seek answers to these questions in science, literature (sacred and profane), art, current and past world events, conversations with friends and family, and in movies.  Some questions are unanswerable in our existing state of knowledge and awareness, others are trivial and/or unconvincing. All the same, I still ask the questions.

Sacred/Profane/Spiritual/Secular

Sacred and profane are not mutually exclusive.  If you read sacred literature closely, you will see how it is often the profane that is set aside for destruction, i.e. set aside for the deity.  The meaning of "set aside for destruction" is to "make sacred."

Spirituality and secularism are exclusive.  Or are they?  I have often pondered this question.  I consider myself secular, humanist and atheist, but I also have an aspect to my way of seeing and being that I cannot label anything other than spiritual.  It's not that I believe in fairy tale creatures or deities or ghosts or anything else supernatural.  It is more like a connection to Jung's collective unconscious (a term I find amusing, because to be unconscious is like being, you know, passed-out/fainted/...errr, unconscious).  While I'm not sure how much I hold to this idea, I do have a need to spend time in quiet contemplation, which could be equated to the spiritual practice of meditation -- which I am also interested in.

But, and this is a big-O but, I don't believe that we are genetically spiritual.  Some scientists have found "evidence" of spirituality in the brains of subjects.  I think a good experiment to follow this, is to have atheists go through similar tests, but to use non-spiritual language, images, etc., to see what kind of result they come up with.

No 'God Spot' In Brain, Spirituality Linked To Right Parietal Lobe

“We have found a neuropsychological basis for spirituality, but it’s not isolated to one specific area of the brain,” said Brick Johnstone, professor of health psychology in the School of Health Professions. “Spirituality is a much more dynamic concept that uses many parts of the brain. Certain parts of the brain play more predominant roles, but they all work together to facilitate individuals’ spiritual experiences.”

There should also be the caveat here: spirituality does NOT by default mean YOUR specific brand of spirituality.  If there is a neuropsychological basis for spirituality, that does NOT mean there is a basis for a deity.  It is non sequitur to reach such a conclusion from this data.

I believe that people can have a form of, what could be called, spirituality without having recourse to deities or spirits.

I also believe that atheists can hold things as sacred.  What do atheists deem as sacred?  Sacredness usually connotes holiness or has a spiritual aspect, but can it not simply mean "set apart"?  They might hold their families as sacred, their friends, their intellect, even science.  They may hold the quiet beauty of the deep forest, or top of a mountain as sacred: not because it is inhabited by a spiritual being, but because it is a place where they can reach the deepest parts of themselves.

Atheists still have faith, right?  So why not sacredness?

Think about the things you consider sacred/profane; and about your outlook: is it more spiritual or secular?

NOTES:

Merriam Webster's Dictionary: Sacred - 1. a : dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity <a tree sacred to the gods> b : devoted exclusively to one service or use (as of a person or purpose) <a fund sacred to charity>