What Are You Reading?

[beginish]

The problem with books like that is that if you’re taking something on faith, disproving it is as impossible as proving it. Christopher Hitchens is more entertaining to read than Dawkins when he goes about it.

 

[Jmp63]

I just finished reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins (no, not the Hogan's Heroes, Family Feud, and Running Man guy) and it took about three weeks for me to get through it. That's a LOT longer than normal for me and it doesn't count the two weeks I was on vacation in Portugal. The writing style is different than what I expected and is more akin to the transcripts of a series of persuasive/argumentative lectures or someone trying to convince you of something at a pub over a few beers Guinness, and that's simply why my time with the book dragged on. I was hoping for a more intellectual writing style and was let down.

Just in case you have not heard of it before, it is an attempt to show how silly, misguided and damaging religion is and how a 100% scientific view of the world is much better .

That said, there are a lot of intellectual arguments being made but I found all too often that his method of proving there is no God is to try to demonstrate that things(e.g. morals) would function the same without religion and therefore, religion is not the cause and therefore, morals cannot be something attributed to God. And as such, if God isn't responsible for morals, what else is he/she not responsible for that we currently credit to a greater power? Of course, I am simplifying his argument, but the same thing keeps popping up.

Genuinely curious, what/who does he posit is responsible for the moral law that we live by?

I’m quite fond of the argument (truth) of, if there’s a moral law, there must be a moral law giver.

In a similar note, when crediting science for something, he often goes through points a, b, c and says that there are many more such points showing scientific reasons are more valid than theological ones for such and such an item, but says to trust him that there is no need to lay out further proof.

In effect, the same way he dismisses many religious things, he uses the same "no proof" to ask for agreement in his pro-science arguments. I thought it strange that in his dismantling of religious faith, he asks for belief/faith in many of his argued but unproven points.

Yay for irony!

In my view, the book will not convert people of faith, may or may not swing some agnostics towards atheism, and will be an echo-chamber for those who already hold atheistic views.

Verdict: Hard to recommend, unless you're already leaning towards atheism.
View attachment 1842956

 

[Jmp63]

Just finished this short story. It was fast paced and fun. Could use some more polishing for sure. Overall an enjoyable read though

 

[rockviper]

Genuinely curious, what/who does he posit is responsible for the moral law that we live by?

Basically that being moral/good to each other is inherent/evolved human behaviour and is how we managed to survive by developing tribes/communities that worked to help its members.

 

[Tirvine]

Genuinely curious, what/who does he posit is responsible for the moral law that we live by?

I’m quite fond of the argument (truth) of, if there’s a moral law, there must be a moral law giver.

Yay for irony!

Given that we are rational and logical beings who see things operating in accordance with laws and cause and effect, I cannot understand how one can think past the big bang without positing X. Calling it X or God is irrelevant; it is unknown, and to it creation must logically be attributed.

I am reading The Dawn of Everything, a dense, challenging, and refreshing take on our reconstruction of human history.

 

[rockviper]

I am reading The Dawn of Everything, a dense, challenging, and refreshing take on our reconstruction of human history.

Added to my list of things to read. thx!

 

[Jmp63]

Basically that being moral/good to each other is inherent/evolved human behaviour and is how we managed to survive by developing tribes/communities that worked to help its members.

Thank you for the response!

Does he address bad/evil at all?

 

[rockviper]

Also recently added to my hit-list...

I'm hoping it's not a "How to..." book!

 

[rockviper]

Does he address bad/evil at all?

Same type of thing. Society will always have those with aberrant behaviour and that bad/evil is just a way of classifying "not generally accepted as good for the tribe" (my words, not his) rather than being due to a malevolent outside force.

 

[Jmp63]

Given that we are rational and logical beings who see things operating in accordance with laws and cause and effect, I cannot understand how one can think past the big bang without positing X. Calling it X or God is irrelevant; it is unknown, and to it creation must logically be attributed.

I am reading The Dawn of Everything, a dense, challenging, and refreshing take on our reconstruction of human history.

Added to mt list of things to read. thx!

+1 looks very interesting!

 

[Jmp63]

Same type of thing. Society will always have those with aberrant behaviour and that bad/evil is just a way of classifying "not generally accepted as good for the tribe" (my words, not his) rather than being due to a malevolent outside force.

Much obliged, thank you!

 

[beginish]

Basically that being moral/good to each other is inherent/evolved human behaviour and is how we managed to survive by developing tribes/communities that worked to help its members.

Kind of interesting idea (if true) that strength in numbers as a species begets community which selects for a collaborative nature, rather than every man for himself.

 

[cryhavoc]

The Alexandria Link by Steve Berry. I'm becoming a fan of his work and enjoying the book so far.