New Intellectual Press:  Congratulations on the release of Kaleidoscope.

Paul Gehrman:  Thanks. It took a long time to get to this point.

NIP:  How long did it take to write?

Gehrman:  Almost four years, and then another two trying to get it published.

NIP:  What kind of people do you think will enjoy the book?

Gehrman:  Well, I hope just about anybody. Obviously, religious fundamentalists aren't going to like it, but for anybody else with a friendly attitude toward humanity, I hope they'll find inspiration in it.

NIP:  How is Kaleidoscope inspirational?

Gehrman:  The book is strongly themed around the idea that people are heroic by nature and can live according to their own consciences, beliefs, and values. The protagonists in the book embrace life openly and honestly and they find great meaning and purpose in this approach. They also refuse to compromise their integrity despite societal pressure to do so. I think just about everyone would like to live this way, although it is difficult. It's something I think most people struggle with, myself included.

NIP:  Kaleidoscope also contains atheist or freethought themes.

Gehrman:  Yes. Thinking for oneself about life's ultimate questions has historically been considered beyond the ability of individuals, so people have relied on religious texts or the clergy to do their thinking for them. It's obviously important to consider all viewpoints and sources of information, but I can't imagine giving up the power to think for myself, and I know many other people feel the same way. That's why freethought is so inspirational because it puts people back in control where they belong. I'd also like to make one other point about atheism because that term has been used so extensively as a scare word by religious organizations to villify people that don't think like they do. I still commonly hear religious people say things like what prevents atheists from raping and murdering. Of course, this statement says quite a lot about how believers view humanity—you know, like humans are monsters that need to be controlled by the threat of eternal damnation. Ultimately, this attitude ties in firmly with the religious doctrine of Original Sin, which I think remains a powerful undercurrent in Christian culture. Now, with regard to the notion that freethinkers are free to rape and pillage, the point is that we don't think that way because unethical behavior conflicts so sharply with our natural moral impulses. All the freethinkers I know want the same things we all do: to love, to create, to contribute, to appreciate beauty, to hug our children, to connect with people in a meaningful way, etc. The only real difference is that freethinkers are committed to intellectual honesty, thinking for themselves, and creating a life based on the values they achieve through honest reflection on their own.

NIP:  Do you think freethinkers have a tendency to be arrogant about their views?

Gehrman:  Well, I'll be the first to concede that there is a little snobbery in freethought circles, but let's be clear. In vast contrast to religious leaders, freethinkers don't make any claims with absolute certainty. It's just like science; ideas are tentative based on the evidence available and the honest application of thought to that evidence. This is certainly a more humble approach than people who assert dogmatic views based on sacred texts or divine revelation, particularly since those sources don't have anything behind them except for somebody's say-so. At a minimum, institutional religion should concede any certainty. This would go a long way towards defusing the tension with science. But let me make one other point about this. I think the certainty asserted by religion creates a very unhealthy dynamic, particularly in the minds of young people.

NIP:  How so?

Gehrman:  Children are curious and naturally inclined to want an explanation for things, especially incredible claims like the ones made in the Bible or the Koran. The problem is that when these questions come up, people are told to have faith or risk eternal hellfire. Or people simply don't want to risk the disappointment or judgment of their loved ones. It also teaches children that they can't fully trust their own minds. In my view, this is the worst consequence of all. You have to be able to trust your own mind.

NIP:  You explore this dynamic in the book.

Gehrman:  Yes, with Josephine particularly. I don't want to give away too much of the story, but she faces a decision about whether to have faith and just go along with what people are telling her or trust her own mind. It's a difficult choice because what people are telling her is in a real sense horrifying, because it has no connection to her honest thoughts and conclusions. It just seems completely foreign. On the other hand, she risks isolation from her loved ones if she rebels and follows her own conscience. Clearly, this creates a very unhealthy dynamic. I think you can extrapolate this dynamic out to larger groups of people, even say, between Christians versus Muslims as a whole. It creates resentment and distrust, and I don't care how much each faith professes tolerance for the other, humanity will remain divided if we continue to glorify faith. And what's the conflict with Islam really over? Whose superstition is more absurd? There are real issues, of course, such as how women are treated, but much of the conflict is over essentially nothing. Theology. You know what Thomas Paine said about that?

NIP:  Theology is the study of nothing.

Gehrman:  Yes.

NIP:  So you don't think it's appropriate for people to turn to religion for their moral values?

Gehrman:  Appropriate's not the right word. It's not necessary. And the problem is that the good moral ideas, such as some of the ones attributed to Jesus, come attached to a bunch of nonsense that serves no real purpose other than dividing us. I mean, I'm never going to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin or magically rose from the grave. Even though I agree with many of the moral teachings attributed to Jesus, there's absolutely no reason to believe in the supernatural claims that people have attached to him. I can't even sit through a religious service anymore because they make claim after claim that is totally meaningless. It reminds me of Carl Sagan's quote that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Faith takes exactly the opposite approach. Also, in the West, keep in mind that lack of belief in religion is, for the most part, not about the moral philosophy, but about the superstition. There are some very important exceptions, of course, and I don't want to minimize those. The shameful way the Christian establishment treats homosexuals, for example.

NIP:  The secular view appears to be winning that battle.

Gehrman:  Yes and no. People's attitudes toward homosexuality are changing, but the underlying idea that faith in a sacred text is still relevant hasn't changed nearly as much. Also, if you think about the conflict with Islam, it seems to me that the only long-term solution is not to appease bad beliefs, but to push for a common set of moral principles that unite as one human community. That's why I'm such a strong advocate for secular humanism. It's based on a strong set of moral values that we should all be able to agree on, or at least it's a good place to start.

NIP:  That seems rather optimistic, especially with respect to Islam.

Gehrman:  Yeah, that's why I say it's a long-term, very long-term solution. I want to make one other point about faith. Obviously, most people practice their faith in peaceful and ethical ways. The problem is that faith still enables the bad stuff.

NIP:  How do you mean?

Gehrman:  Well, faith is one of the most potent methods that unscrupulous people use to justify bad behavior, take advantage of other people, or turn people against one another. There are other ways, like extreme nationalism, but faith strikes me as the most potent because it's the most impervious to reason.

NIP:  Any other issues you'd like to mention?

Gehrman:  Well, most of the issues are highlighted in Kaleidoscope, but I was thinking the other day about what I would tell my daughter if she asked me why women couldn't be priests. What can you say? Honey, you can be the President of the United States, but you can't be a priest because some guy wearing a medieval costume says that you're not good enough. I hate to be so flippant, but it is what it is—absurd and unethical.

NIP:  So you think the Vatican should give woman equal status?

Gehrman:  I think the Vatican should renounce the underlying thought system that makes this discrimination possible and accepted.

NIP:  How likely do you think that is?

Gehrman:  Not. The Vatican is both crudely anti-intellectual and arrogant. They won't change without a fight, and it would have to happen internally. Women inside the Church would have to start demanding equality, and I don't see that happening. If they support the Church, they implicitly assent to its practices. Besides, it doesn't really affect them all that much. The real harm is to the young girls who become aware of it and wonder what's going on. It sets a terrible example.

NIP:  You mean like a glass ceiling?

Gehrman:  Yeah, although I would call it a cement ceiling because it's so much harder to break through. You know, think about if General Electric said that they wouldn't allow women in upper management. They'd be prosecuted and probably run out of business. Why don't the same standards apply to the Church?

NIP:  What should people do about this? What would you do about it?

Gehrman:  Well, for me, nothing, other than just being clear on my view. I'm not a confrontational person. I'm more of a behind-the-scenes thinker, and so my contribution hopefully will be to provoke thought. Also, despite the strong writing in Kaleidoscope, I'm very sensitive to people's feelings. I don't like to argue with people about these issues because usually you don't convince anyone and people just get upset. But let me make one other related point. My dad had a long career in business where he dealt with large numbers of people, often in contentious settings. One piece of advice he gave me was to be hard on the issues, but easy on the people. I think this is good advice and I hope people perceive Kaleidoscope in that way. That is, the book is about ideas, not people. The people, or the characters in the book if you will, are just conduits to explore the ideas.

NIP:  Did you ever consider softening the tone of the book?

Gehrman:  No, if for no other reason than the fact that I hate books that are lukewarm. I could've written a book that was uninspired and didn't offend anyone, or a book that would inspire some, but offend others. That choice was a no-brainer even though, as I said, I am sensitive to people's feelings. Besides, I know it's a cliche, but books have a life of their own and this book had to be what it was meant to be.

NIP:  So how do you plan to respond to people who are offended by the book?

Gehrman:  I'm not planning to respond much to that, but I will mention one story. When I was in college, I took a course on 20th century U.S. History. The professor was very pointed in her criticisms of the country, which was something I wasn't used to or, at the time, very comfortable with. Somebody finally asked her why she always critcized the U.S. so forcefully. Her response was: "Because the United States can take it." I'll never forget that, and I realized that her criticism simply helped clarify what was really good about the country—it's ideals. I also learned about areas where the country could do better. Ultimately, I found this approach much more satisfying than simply hearing a rah-rah view. Kaleidoscope highlights some of the areas where I believe the U.S. doesn't fully live up to its ideals, but at the same time, the book also underscores ideas and values that I believe make people great.

NIP:  Thanks for your time, and good luck with the book.

Gehrman:  Thank you.