Hilarious

[Brad]

Hey, that's great information, Pseudo. Thanks!
I didn't know almost any of that, and much is surprising, too.
Maybe you'll further indulge my curiosity here?

probably ubiquitous in the ancient European world prior to Greek civilisation, probably for reasons related to hygiene.

What do base that suggestion on? Do you happen to have a reference off the top of your, ummm... readily available?

Circumcision was essentially re-introduced because it was believed to be a treatment for masturbation

This, too, is a surprise. I'll google the history of circumcision. Maybe my questions can be answered there.
With the possible exception of Jim, I'd imagine that the treatment works unfailingly! For a couple of days, that is.

So actually, the prevalence of circumcision in the late 19th and early-to-mid 20th century English-speaking world is arguably due to over-eager medicine, not religion.

But, of course, you may as well ask this question of any type of cultural body modification, including ear piercing and armpit shaving.

Getting waaaayy off topic, I would have thought that armpit shaving might have originated as a cosmetic / olfactory practice, say, in harems with belly dancers (ahhhh, the thought of it ) rather than as some sort of medical or hygienic thing. This could be another bit of historical "news of the weird."

While there are apparently some potential health benefits to circumcision, [...]

I have to wonder about correlation and causation here. Circumcision is, obviously, a practice which is seen more in Jews and Muslims. These are groups who may practice stricter sexual hygiene for cultural reasons, as a general rule.

So then you'd agree with me, though I only alluded to this earlier, that the focus on circumcision in the Hebrew bible was born of cultural dispositions and control needs rather than from actual mandates by a Hebrew-speaking deity? And the same for Muslims, though rather second-hand through the Abrahamic zeitgeist of the seventh century Middle-East?

[gary_s]

Circumcision was essentially not practiced in the English-speaking world (unless you were Jewish, obviously) until the 19th century. Its re-introduction came at the same time as medicine was starting to become ubiquitous, in the sense that just about everything was considered to be a medical problem and thus have a medical solution. It was this time in history, for example, when doctors started presiding over childbirth, which was previously considered women's business, and women were treated for "hysteria".

Circumcision was essentially re-introduced because it was believed to be a treatment for masturbation, and later gathered other post hoc rationalisations, such as hygeine. Eventually, the influence of evolutionary theory in medicine led rise to the idea that the foreskin was probably vestigal.

So actually, the prevalence of circumcision in the late 19th and early-to-mid 20th century English-speaking world is arguably due to over-eager medicine, not religion.

But, of course, you may as well ask this question of any type of cultural body modification, including ear piercing and armpit shaving.

That's very interesting. The current reasoning among Protestants seems to be that the son should look like his father. This is what I've heard from numerous doctors and people having sons. I suppose so as not to confuse junior? In lieu of all this history, it does seem like an antiquated and obsolete practice.

And Jim, please understand that I'm not trying to be confrontational about your childhood memories, so I wouldn't attempt to get you to capitulate that you are wrong about it. It's merely a matter of curiosity for me. And I'm just an overactive skeptic. As I said, there are numerous physiological reasons why such memories are extremely unlikely. And as Brad pointed out, there are a myriad of plausible explanations for your perception of such memories. I sometimes experience this myself when my mother tells me of things I did as a young child. I can imagine remembering them and can construct sharp images in my mind, but I'm pretty sure these are merely figments of my imagination. Just as an aside, I once read about this woman who said she had memories of being inside her mother's womb and of the entire birthing process. These memories included things like faces, names, feelings of warmth, safety, danger...all of which are simply impossible for an infant, much less a newborn. With our minds being so unforatted as we are at birth, these things are meaningless to a new born.

[JustJim]

LOL!!! What can I say? That I don't remember what I remember because you don't think it's possible? LOL!!!

It's possible and probable that you remember your mother or someone else talking about it and not the circumcision itself.

My first reaction to your post was to say, "How dare you deny my experiences because they don't fit your experiences!" But on further consideration, I'd have to say, "How dare you deny my experiences because they don't fit your experiences!"

It is not "probable" that I remember my mother or other people talking about my circumcision, which they all claimed they never did. It is also not possible that I would remember their conversations, if they had happened, since I don't have any linguistic memories of the event and wouldn't have understood their conversations if they had them. And, as I've already said, I don't remember the circumcision itself, but only vague, foggy, partial visual and audio memories of the room, the sounds, etc. And the name of the doctor, which I'm not convinced I remember from the incident itself, rather than from when I explained my memory to my mother. I wonder how you think that my mother or others who may have talked about my circumcision (why in hell would they do that?) could have possibly talked about the room from my perspective or described visual and audio memories I have of the event from my perspective. They couldn't possibly have done that.

I think it's much more likely that the event was recorded in my memory as an infant, in the manner infants record memories of sights and sounds, and that's all there is to it. If you have no memories of your infancy, that's just fine. But it's not sufficient for you to deny mine. Holy shit... the GALL of you to do that!

I think I'm gaining some insight into how many Christians who come here must feel when we atheists/agnostics/other non-believers pooh-pooh their experiences and ridicule their claims of their experiences and their understandings/interpretations of them. How dare we do that?!?

Jim

[JustJim]

And Jim, please understand that I'm not trying to be confrontational about your childhood memories, so I wouldn't attempt to get you to capitulate that you are wrong about it. It's merely a matter of curiosity for me. And I'm just an overactive skeptic. As I said, there are numerous physiological reasons why such memories are extremely unlikely. And as Brad pointed out, there are a myriad of plausible explanations for your perception of such memories.

I understand, and I didn't take it as a confrontation about my memories. I'm an overactive skeptic myself, and so the memory of the doctor's name I still think might have come from discussions about the memories with my mother. The thing is, though, my mother never approached the subject with me. It was I who initiated it by describing my memories to her and asking her if she had any idea what that might have been. So maybe it was her interpretation of my memories that was in error? Maybe my memories were of something completely different from the circumcision, and her interpretation "planted" that explanation in my mind? Who knows? (The answer to that question, just to be clear, is "nobody"....)

Jim

[mitchellmckain]

It's possible and probable that you remember your mother or someone else talking about it and not the circumcision itself.

I would not express any skepticism regarding Jim's claim, but I can personally testify that planted memories is a very common widespread phenomena that has happened even when there was no intention of doing so. I personally had a memory that I know cannot be a memory of a real event, so I know how easily a dream or something can easily come to be perceived as a memory at some later time in life.

[Brad]

Good point, Mitch.
I, too, have had a very distinct memory of an event in my childhood that I now know could not possibly have happened, at least as I remember it.

And just this week I felt as though my girlfriend had made an extraordinary comment to me about a terrible personal experience she'd had. But when I asked her about it, she said that she never had any such experience and would never have made any such comment. Given her consistent honesty, not to mention the bizarre content of what I thought I heard, I'm sure that's true.
Now I think I must have dreamed the remark and then had it pop into my waking awareness as though it had happened there.
Weird!

The point being that all our memories are very fallible and are not at all like the recordings of events most of us imagine them to be.
This, of course, is why personal testimony, in both legal and religious contexts, is far less reliable than those who do the testifying, and many listeners to the testimony, often think, no?

So Jim, I don't think anyone has said your memory is impossible or dishonestly recounted, nor could anyone say that, but such a memory would be extraordinary, wouldn't you agree?
And in suggesting alternative and more commonplace explanations for the presence of your memory, it doesn't appear to me that anyone here intended any insult at all.
Is it possible that your indignation might be a bit misplaced?

As for how we dare question the personal experiences of religious people, you are not alone among atheists in asking that question. For example, in the Stephen Fry speech that I recently linked around here somewhere, he declares at least twice that it is none of our business to do so.
But he later had to recant a bit, I think.
For my part, I think we have a responsibility to challenge religious dogmas when they perpetuate clear falsehoods and most of all because of the harm they do to every human being on this round rock. To the degree that religious experience can be separated from that dogma and the harm it does, I agree with you and Fry - that's certainly none of my/our business. But there's the rub - where is that separation?

[Pseudonym]

What do base that suggestion on? Do you happen to have a reference off the top of your, ummm... readily available?

I base it on a little evidence and a lot of slander.

Plenty of cultures with ancient roots practised circumcision when first met by Abrahamic religions. It was practised, for example, by many sub-equatorial African groups before Islam. The Egyptians not only documented it...

...but also preserved a few dead people with mummification, so we can see that some of them are, indeed, circumcised.

The slander is even more interesting. The only Greek art which depict circumcised men are depictions of barbarians, satyrs and so on. The implication seems to be that uncivilised barbarians circumcise, unlike us.

Having said that...

So then you'd agree with me, though I only alluded to this earlier, that the focus on circumcision in the Hebrew bible was born of cultural dispositions and control needs rather than from actual mandates by a Hebrew-speaking deity? And the same for Muslims, though rather second-hand through the Abrahamic zeitgeist of the seventh century Middle-East?

I think that circumcision historically comes from culture, but it should be stressed that the Ancient Hebrews seemed to have a thing for being not like surrounding nations. By the Kingdom era, "uncircumcised" was a synonym for "heathen". So despite what I said earlier, it probably wasn't the case that everyone circumcised before the Greeks came along.

As for the second sentence, I have no idea. Circumcision seems to be ubiquitous amongst all the Semitic peoples, so it may well have been an Arab cultural practice which predated Islam. I don't know anything about that.

[JustJim]

I would not express any skepticism regarding Jim's claim, but I can personally testify that planted memories is a very common widespread phenomena that has happened even when there was no intention of doing so.

The point being that all our memories are very fallible and are not at all like the recordings of events most of us imagine them to be.

Infants are capable of memory, even though their memories would necessarily be non-linguistic - probably consisting entirely of distorted visual images (as seen from the point of view of an infant), auditory sensations, tastes, textures, and smells. Since they have no experiences to speak of to use to categorize and interpret the events their memories record, nor to use to "fill in the holes" in the events they remember, their memories must be very limited in scope, detail, and, certainly, accuracy. Later in life, when they do have language and become more adept at analyzing things and filling in missing information, I agree it is highly possible that a combination of implanted memories and distorted incomplete, non-linguistic memories could produce "updated" memories that are so far from the original as to be unrecognizable. But that doesn't mean there was no memory at all of the event.

What I remember is from the viewpoint of lying on my back with big faces around me and leaning over me, with a big bright light in the middle. I remember there was a lot of noise, which I think (I'm not sure) was garbled sounds of people's voices. I have a vague sense of the room being very large and cold. It's a very quick, fleeting memory of probably only a few seconds duration. What I remember fits very closely with my mother's descriptions of my circumcision, which she related to me after I told her about the memory and asked if she knew what it might have been. Maybe it was something else, completely unrelated to my circumcision. Maybe not.

What I remember might be a dream. It might be an image I put together from conversations I overheard later in life, even if I wasn't paying attention to them. Or a hundred other possibilities. ONE of those possibilities is that it's an edited, updated version of an ACTUAL memory of an ACTUAL event. I have no way of knowing, of course. And neither does anyone else.

So Jim, I don't think anyone has said your memory is impossible or dishonestly recounted, nor could anyone say that, but such a memory would be extraordinary, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, I agree. Extraordinary things happen, wouldn't you agree?

And in suggesting alternative and more commonplace explanations for the presence of your memory, it doesn't appear to me that anyone here intended any insult at all.
Is it possible that your indignation might be a bit misplaced?

Misplaced, no. An over-reaction, yes. If hamax had asked, "Is it possible that you remember your mother or someone else talking about it?" I probably wouldn't have allowed myself to be hooked. But he pronounced, "It's possible and probable..." Possible, of course. But probable? How could he know that? On what examination of my life's experiences could he possibly make that assessment? It's not an insult by any means. It's just a wild-ass guess.

All I wanted to do was to share a little piece of a memory I have, that I always thought was a memory of when I was circumcised (based on how well it lined up with my mother's descriptions of that event). I didn't mean to start a whole discussion about memory. We all know our memories are distorted, fallible, and biased. But we all claim to have them, and we usually trust them. It's no big deal.

Jim