What are you currently reading?

[Karl Henning]

If someone believes something to be superstition or myth, does that mean it is in fact superstition or myth?  I would have no argument with atheists if their billboards were phrased more as their beliefs and not so categorical as

Yes, Virginia, there is no God
Enjoy life now, there is no afterlife
Keep the merry - dump the myth

Can you not admit that this attitude by atheists is disrespectful to others whose beliefs are of a different kind?

It's almost as if these atheists want people of faith to hate them. Which is a cheap way of feeling instantly "superior," even though it is an abysmally ignoble pastime. "Look: we must be right, and they must be wrong, because we so easily provoked them to behavior which their own religion decries!"

Or perhaps some atheists suffer a martyrdom complex . . . .

[Opus106]

If someone believes something to be superstition or myth, does that mean it is in fact superstition or myth?

If what one holds to be true is demonstrably false and they offer nothing in return beyond "I just believe it", then for all practical purposes yes, it is a myth to the rest of the world. But I won't deny that there people out there (e.g. those who put messages on London's buses) who go to extremes and are, in my opinion, stupid.

[Karl Henning]

Sorry if I gave you the impression I was speaking of your hating or not.

[Fëanor]

If someone believes something to be superstition or myth, does that mean it is in fact superstition or myth?  I would have no argument with atheists if their billboards were phrased more as their beliefs and not so categorical as

Yes, Virginia, there is no God
Enjoy life now, there is no afterlife
Keep the merry - dump the myth

Can you not admit that this attitude by atheists is disrespectful to others whose beliefs are of a different kind?

Can you admit the disrespect is in the eye of the beholder?

I ask for a little sympathy for atheists.  The simple fact is that most atheists are also skeptics who, in fact, do not respect beliefs in absence of empirical evidence. Thus it takes a supreme effort to seem to show respect (what they consider) groundless beliefs -- and sometimes they fail.

[Fëanor]

Oh, I don't hate them.  I just find them intellectually dishonest.  Since proving or disproving the existence of God is impossible it all comes down to what someone would prefer to believe and reliance on that evidence they find compelling to support their chosen belief.  However, atheists suffer under the illusion that theirs are facts and religious folk are the ones with beliefs.

Sorry you feel that way about it.  However your comment illustrates a basic misconception religionists have about atheistm: that atheism is simply the belief that God does not exist.  The basis of atheism for most atheists is skepticism which strives to resist all belief that lacks empirical evidence.

[Elgarian]

I wish, I wish, I wish, that this 'religion v atheism' discussion were not taking place in the extremely valuable 'what are you reading?' thread. It will turn nasty sooner or later, and end in tears. Please could I ask - as politely and as respectfully as I possibly can - for a separate thread to be started for those who want to continue this discussion?

[Brian]

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.

If I can respect Alan's wishes by limiting myself solely to a discussion of their books, I think Daniel Dennett is the most "sober and fair" of the quartet, and I actually think Harris is the least so. Harris is the clearest, most powerful writer on atheism (his books are superior to God Is Not Great, I think), but he is also by a long distance the angriest, and he can reach a white heat of fury which is scary to behold, even to a fellow heathen like me. Dennett is the only one of the four I still read willingly, and the only book on atheism I can earnestly recommend (aside from my own manuscript, unpublished) is Walter Kaufmann's long out-of-print The Faith of a Heretic, which is a far better treatment of the subject than anything by Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, or Hitchens.

[Brian]

A few words by Walter Kaufmann, from the essay which he later expanded into The Faith of a Heretic:

Some evils and some kinds of suffering can be abolished, but not all suffering can be eliminated, and the beauty, goodness, and greatness that redeem life on earth are inseparable from suffering. Nietzsche once said: "If you have an enemy, do not requite his evil with good, for that would put him to shame. Rather prove that he did you some good." If life hurts you, the manly thing is neither to whine nor to feel martyred, but to prove that it did you some good.

I do not believe in any afterlife any more than the prophets did, but I don't mind living in a world in which people have different beliefs. Diversity helps to prevent stagnation and smugness; and a teacher should acquaint his students with diversity and prize careful criticism far above agreement. His noblest duty is to lead others to think for themselves.

I do not believe that anybody will suffer after death nor do I wish it.

Some scientists tell us that in our own galaxy alone there are probably hundreds of thousands of planets with living beings on them, more or less like those on the earth, and that there are about 100 million galaxies within the range of our telescopes. Man seems to play a very insignificant part in the universe, and my part is surely negligible. The question confronting me is not, except perhaps in idle moments, what part might be more amusing, but what I wish to make of my part. And what I want to do and would advise others to do is to make the most of it: put into it all you have got, and live and, if possible, die with some measure of nobility.

[Wakefield]

... the only book on atheism I can earnestly recommend (aside from my own manuscript, unpublished) is Walter Kaufmann's long out-of-print The Faith of a Heretic...

I could have sworn that you were a good boy, dear Brian! O tempora, o mores. 

[Karl Henning]

I should be honored to take some hot cocoa with you, Brian.

[Wakefield]

I should be honored to take some hot cocoa with you, Brian.

Well, me too. After all that's what my people do with lost sheeps... at least today.   

Seriously, I'm a Catholic, but I'm not easy to offend in these issues. Generally, I can even enjoy some "attacks" to my faith, when they are well written, for instance: "Here in Australia (we have an atheist Prime Minister), we don't invoke medieval supernatural forces to effect change". It's probably because I'm deeply persuaded that religion is the realm of indemonstrable things, where logical thinking has nothing to do. Religion, oh surprise, is about beliefs and not about ideas. But that's just my personal opinion, or maybe not even an opinion, but only another belief.

[Fëanor]

A few words by Walter Kaufmann, from the essay which he later expanded into The Faith of a Heretic:
...

I do not believe in any afterlife any more than the prophets did, but I don't mind living in a world in which people have different beliefs. Diversity helps to prevent stagnation and smugness; and a teacher should acquaint his students with diversity and prize careful criticism far above agreement. His noblest duty is to lead others to think for themselves.
...

What a pity this attitude is so rare amongst religionists.  Conformity to dogma and behaviours and suppression of dissent is more commonly their goal, to wit, the Roman Catholic and myriad Evangelical churches, and let's not omit fundamentalist Muslim organizations.

[Fëanor]

... I'm deeply persuaded that religion is the realm of indemonstrable things, where logical thinking has nothing to do. Religion, oh surprise, is about beliefs and not about ideas. But that's just my personal opinion, or maybe not even an opinion, but only another belief.

Yes, but this strikes me as just the standard attempt to put "personal faith" above critical discussion.

[Geo Dude]

If I can respect Alan's wishes by limiting myself solely to a discussion of their books, I think Daniel Dennett is the most "sober and fair" of the quartet, and I actually think Harris is the least so. Harris is the clearest, most powerful writer on atheism (his books are superior to God Is Not Great, I think), but he is also by a long distance the angriest, and he can reach a white heat of fury which is scary to behold, even to a fellow heathen like me. Dennett is the only one of the four I still read willingly, and the only book on atheism I can earnestly recommend (aside from my own manuscript, unpublished) is Walter Kaufmann's long out-of-print The Faith of a Heretic, which is a far better treatment of the subject than anything by Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, or Hitchens.

Interesting.  I've read Harris' first two books, check out his blog occasionally, and I've seen him give speeches and debates and I've never detected any white heat of fury from him.  I'm not familiar with Kaufmann's work, but there are a lot of other books on atheism out there, they're just a bit more obscure than the work of any of the 'big four'.

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.

I believe you've misinterpreted by post.  Perhaps it's my fault - many of my posts are first drafts and thus not always as clear as they should be.  I'm not a religionist nor do I believe that politeness is a necessity by any means.  It's simply that -- as I stated earlier -- I find that polemics tend to mix good arguments with bad quite frequently.


Thread duty:  I've just started reading the first book in the Gap Cycle by Stephen R. Donaldson, The Gap Into Conflict: The Real Story.  Interesting book, but not for the faint of heart.

[Wakefield]

Yes, but this strikes me as just the standard attempt to put "personal faith" above critical discussion.

I would be not worried if this were the standard attitude because it would avoid a good dose of violence in the world. Religion is a part of my personal life, protected by my inalienable right to freedom of conscience; like it's your right to don't believe and all the imaginable intermediate points. How could we discuss about my religion if we don't have a minimum common/shared language to this effect? A discussion like this is condemned to be a big misunderstanding, a shouting match. I always recall the famous "dialogue" between Bertrand Russell and Frederick Copleston (available in YouTube) as an exemplary and particularly vivid model of this. So, sorry, as I said before, I don't see how you could do a "critical" evaluation of my religion to decide if it's true or not, if that religion is not a set constructed on the basis of logical propositions.

[Fëanor]

I would be not worried if this were the standard attitude because it would avoid a good dose of violence in the world. Religion is a part of my personal life, protected by my inalienable right to freedom of conscience; like it's your right to don't believe and all the imaginable intermediate points. How could we discuss about my religion if we don't have a minimum common/shared language to this effect? A discussion like this is condemned to be a big misunderstanding, a shouting match. I always recall the famous "dialogue" between Bertrand Russell and Frederick Copleston (available in YouTube) as an exemplary and particularly vivid model of this. So, sorry, as I said before, I don't see how you could do a "critical" evaluation of my religion to decide if it's true or not, if that religion is not a set constructed on the basis of logical propositions.

Well we aren't disagreeing so much.  If it's true that we have no common basis for discuss, then attempting to do so will result in a shouting match ... which we ought to be avoided.

On the other hand I don't agree necessarily that "we don't have a minimum common/shared language".  I had a religious upbringing and a mother who was a believer all her life; I've heard the language for 65 years.  More importantly, I think it is quite possible to discuss personal faith as a psychological phenomenon and whether it is can be a bad thing at times.

So if you feel people can't discuss personal faith then just don't join in the discuss but let others have at it.

[Fëanor]

...
I believe you've misinterpreted by post.  Perhaps it's my fault - many of my posts are first drafts and thus not always as clear as they should be.  I'm not a religionist nor do I believe that politeness is a necessity by any means.  It's simply that -- as I stated earlier -- I find that polemics tend to mix good arguments with bad quite frequently.
...

That's very often true.  On the other hand it isn't necessarily true. The definition of polemic per Dictionary.com is simply "a controversial argument, as one against some opinion, doctrine, etc."

[Geo Dude]

That's very often true.  On the other hand it isn't necessarily true. The definition of polemic per Dictionary.com is simply "a controversial argument, as one against some opinion, doctrine, etc."

As I suspected, we have no real disagreement to resolve.

Also, I must voice my agreement with this:  "So if you feel people can't discuss personal faith then just don't join in the discuss but let others have at it."

While I don't think it was Gordon's intent to do so, I see this point brought up - generally in a hit-and-run post - quite often in discussions about religious beliefs with an intent to suppress the discussion.  I wouldn't be annoyed by it or even feel it worth mentioning if it wasn't for the fact that those beliefs which are supposedly beyond discussion are often acted on in a way that affects others.

Thread duty:  Finished The Real Story (it's a short book), will soon be starting on The Gap Into Vision: Forbidden Knowledge.

[Elgarian]

I'm going to ask again, please - as nicely as I can: could we keep this thread as a 'what are you reading?' exchange? Obviously people read books about atheism and religion, and there's no reason why they can't report their responses to those books here. But for the kind of extended discussion that's taking place there are any number of appropriate threads elsewhere, or a new one could be started. Unfortunately they usually turn sour, so please don't spoil this one. When used for its proper purpose, it's one of the most useful threads on GMG.

[Lake Swan]

I'm reading this fine novel by a Facebook friend.
[asin]184751328X[/asin]