What are you currently reading?

[Karl Henning]

I didn't question whether the book is interesting, only sober and fair ; )

Of course, many people who would agree that bigotry is a horrible, horrible thing, somehow feel that bigotry is a virtue when the object of one's bigotry is people of faith.

[bhodges]

Well, read it!    I'd be interested to know what you think. (Yes, I know, the title is deliberately provocative.)

--Bruce

[Karl Henning]

Well, read it!    I'd be interested to know what you think. (Yes, I know, the title is deliberately provocative.)

All things being equal, I might indeed find the book of interest, Bruce. I resent the penny-dreadful title and subtitle, and not merely from my perspective as a person who finds in religion a source of much that is not poisonous (unlike that book's subtitle, e.g.)

This month I am somehow particularly sensitive to how "sexed-up" new music has to be to get any purchase, not so much with the public, but with the performers and ensembles who champion new music.  I'm not going to throw a provocative subtitle onto my music to get the attention;  I'm all music and zero bullshit.

So a book like this, which in its subtitle embraces the bullshit, doesn't pass my sniff test.

If you need, I can lend you a clothespin ; )

[Karl Henning]

. . . It is interesting how each "fact" conspiracy buffs trumpet is proved to be, actually, not a fact at all.

Oh, we had ample exposure to that phenomenon, with a resident wacko in the past who had this daft idea that Mozart hadn't actually written any of Mozart's music . . . .

[Opus106]

So a book like this, which in its subtitle embraces the bullshit, doesn't pass my sniff test.

Sniff test for the editor's marketing tactics, maybe. Not really for the author and his ideas, is it?

[Karl Henning]

What if the subtitle is the author's own?

At some level the author is complicit, Nav.

A quick search on Amazon suggests, in a range of titles by the same author, that this is not any matter of an editor glossing the author's intent.

[Opus106]

What if the subtitle is the author's own?

At some level the author is complicit, Nav.

A quick search on Amazon suggests, in a range of titles by the same author, that this is not any matter of an editor glossing the author's intent.

That is not surprising, given the author in this example. Some might even say that he was a little too honest with the titles, and brutally so. But plenty of cases out there where the author had to accede to silly editorial wishes simply to get the book out, sexed-up and everything.

[Geo Dude]

When it comes to the so-called "New Atheists" I tend to favor Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.  Both are easily described as sober and fair.  Hitchens, while a fascinating man and a walking encyclopedia, was also a self-styled polemicist and while it makes for some chuckles (he had a sharp wit) it did result in over-extending his arguments (and conclusions) at times.  Dawkins can be the same way.  PZ Myers is not worth mentioning.

[Karl Henning]

I think the key is to respect the fellow who disagrees with you; and to conduct your part of the discussion in a way which commands his respect, in turn.  "How Religion Poisons Everything" isn't there, is it?

[Geo Dude]

I think the key is to respect the fellow who disagrees with you; and to conduct your part of the discussion in a way which commands his respect, in turn.  "How Religion Poisons Everything" isn't there, is it?

No disagreement there.  'How Religion Poisons Everything' screams 'polemic.'

EDIT:  The conversation above about not wanting to read the book reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend of mine some time ago.  She's the kind of person who watches Fox News, listens to Limbaugh occasionally, etc. so she can be angry at them.  She's also a voracious reader.  When Sarah Palin's first book came out I informed her that I expected a thorough review within the week.  She drew the line there in spite of my insistence that it would be written by a ghost writer and thus be filled with comprehensible English.

[Bogey]

[Florestan]

"How Religion Poisons Everything"

Right. One of the most venomous things on Earth is Bach's Mass in B Minor. Taking even a fugitive look at Velasquez's Christ on The Cross is the equivalent of drinking a cup of hemlock. And reading just the first four stanzas of Dante's The Divine Comedy is guaranteed to get you to a toxicological emergency room...

[Geo Dude]

"How Religion Poisons Everything"

Right. One of the most venomous things on Earth is Bach's Mass in B Minor. Taking even a fugitive look at Velasquez's Christ on The Cross is the equivalent of drinking a cup of hemlock. And reading just the first four stanzas of Dante's The Divine Comedy is guaranteed to get you to a toxicological emergency room...

Yes, clearly 'everything' was intended to be read literally.

[Opus106]

"How Religion Poisons Everything"

Right. One of the most venomous things on Earth is Bach's Mass in B Minor.

If the Church hadn't placed restrictions on what could be and, more importantly, what should not be composed and performed, the world would have discovered atonality a long time ago! And the intervening 500 or so years would have been ample time to realise some actually listenable contemporary music.

[Elgarian]

Carol Rifka Brunt: Tell the Wolves I'm Home. Told from the perspective of a 14-year-old girl whose much-loved uncle (an artist) dies of AIDS. This happens early in the book, and the novel unfolds the tale of what happened next. If that baldly-stated theme suggests this is a miserable, depressing affair, or something mawkish, rest easy: it isn't. It's exquisitely written in a prose that never goes over the top but is so fluent that one barely notices it. Delicate, nuanced, sensitive and at times so deeply moving that it's hard to read some passages out loud without choking with emotion. At the end of the book, the eccentric young June Elbus felt like a character I'd actually met, and become extremely fond of. She taught me to go back and listen again to Mozart's Requiem, and to buy some more versions of it and listen to those too, trying to recapture an 'innocent ear'. She showed me prejudices within myself that I didn't know I had, and made me feel all the better for having recognised them.

This is one of those very rare novels that had me re-reading it almost immediately after finishing it the first time, and finding the second reading even more rewarding. If Audrey Niffenegger's Her Fearful Symmetry won my 'Favourite novel of the last ten years' award, this runs it a close second. (Not that the two have anything in common beyond excellence.) Every time I think of it, Philip Larkin's line comes to mind:

"What will survive of us is love."

[Karl Henning]

What will survive of us is love.

Beautiful.

[Fëanor]

No disagreement there.  'How Religion Poisons Everything' screams 'polemic.'
...

Yes, Heaven forbid polemics: possibly hurtful to those who don't agree.  It is the a favourite logical fallacy of religionists: the Appeal to Politeness.

[Karl Henning]

What is the problem, exactly, with treating the other fellow with respect?  Just asking.

And may I point out the obvious? If your ideas have the strength of logic and truth, you needn't rely on mere scorn.

[Fëanor]

What is the problem, exactly, with treating the other fellow with respect?  Just asking.

And may I point out the obvious? If your ideas have the strength of logic and truth, you needn't rely on mere scorn.

Not a word you say above that I disagree with, Karl.  The problem is that many religionists perceive any criticism of their faith, (what they believe or the fact of that they believe), however reasoned, as "mere scorn".  This is then becomes a means to suppress discussion.

Richard Dawkins makes this same argument -- which is not to say that he isn't scornful at times.

[Karl Henning]

Not a word you say above that I disagree with, Karl.  The problem is that many religionists perceive any criticism of their faith, (what they believe or the fact of that they believe), however reasoned, as "mere scorn".  This is then becomes a means to suppress discussion.

A reasonable, and indeed largely a worthwhile objection.