Richard Dawkins
The God Delusion
This book made quite a splash in 2006 when it was published. I picked it up in 2007 to see what all the fuss was about. Didn't bother to write about it until 2008.
Dawkins is a well-known atheist who loves the controversy surrounding his philosophy. He gets validated by people like the South Park guys who had a version of Dawkins create a religion of science, full of all the brainwashing stupidity he attacks in his books. I'm sure Dawkins has already written something about it, he loves the spotlight of controversy.
This book claims to be written for the non-Atheist as a kind of missionary tract. Instead it is more like the kind of apologetic literature I read as a Mormon. While it claims to be for the non-believer, it is really just an excuse to re-affirm the believers.
The reasoning is a bit convoluted, but the stories are hilarious. The most unsettling part is how much of it is accurate. If it were more coherent as an argument I might recommend it. As it is, the book is a great string of funny stories, clever observations, and mildly witty paragraphs but never quite seals the deal it starts out to make.
Of interest:
On Pascal's wager that one should hedge one's bets on the existence of God by believing "just in case" (no harm done if you believe and are right, plenty of harm done if you don't believe and are wrong):
He makes a fascinating argument on pages 186ff that we
1-look for some agent to cause every event (hating the computer when it doesn't work, for example)
2-have the same rush of mania and chemicals when we fall in love as when we fall for God
Item 2 has some serious differences, but the similarities are striking:
--A reverence for icons from the object of our affection
--Warm and comforting feelings of being loved and protected and valued
--Emotional support in difficult times
--Loss of fear of death
I've often read women particularly who view their conversion in very romantic terms. LDS Missionary boys I knew had the same kind of protective feeling about their Church that fathers have over their wives or children. Both are childish reactions to primal emotions.
On being tolerant of non-fanatic believers:
John Krakauer's book is an exploration of this same facet in Mormonism: how the teachings of the pleasant, law-abiding, mainstream church can spin off such violence as the Lafferty brothers.
In all I can tepidly recommend Dawkin's book:
--For atheists because its funny and reaffirming (though that very fact makes it somewhat unsettling)
--For open-minded non-Atheists because it won't convert you, but will probably force your faith to deepen as you come to grips with some of the points he makes
--For close-minded theists? You haven't even read my review, so my recommendation doesn't matter anyway. Go back to not reading your own sacred books and complaining about how the rest of us are the cause of all suffering
The God Delusion
This book made quite a splash in 2006 when it was published. I picked it up in 2007 to see what all the fuss was about. Didn't bother to write about it until 2008.
Dawkins is a well-known atheist who loves the controversy surrounding his philosophy. He gets validated by people like the South Park guys who had a version of Dawkins create a religion of science, full of all the brainwashing stupidity he attacks in his books. I'm sure Dawkins has already written something about it, he loves the spotlight of controversy.
This book claims to be written for the non-Atheist as a kind of missionary tract. Instead it is more like the kind of apologetic literature I read as a Mormon. While it claims to be for the non-believer, it is really just an excuse to re-affirm the believers.
The reasoning is a bit convoluted, but the stories are hilarious. The most unsettling part is how much of it is accurate. If it were more coherent as an argument I might recommend it. As it is, the book is a great string of funny stories, clever observations, and mildly witty paragraphs but never quite seals the deal it starts out to make.
Of interest:
On Pascal's wager that one should hedge one's bets on the existence of God by believing "just in case" (no harm done if you believe and are right, plenty of harm done if you don't believe and are wrong):
Believing is not something you can decide to do as a matter of policy. At least, it is not something I can decide to do as an act of will. I can decide to go to church and I can decide to recite the Nicene Creed, and I can decide to swear on a stack of bibles that I believe every word inside them. But none of that can make me actually believe it if I don't. Pascal's wager could only ever be an argument for feigning belief in God. And the God that you claim to believe in had better not be of the omniscient kind or he'd see through the deception. The ludicrous idea that believing is something you can decide to do is deliciously mocked by Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency, where we meet the robotic Electric Monk, a labour-saving device that you buy 'to do your believing for you'. The de luxe model is advertised as 'Capable of believing things they wouldn't believe in Salt Lake City'.-104
He makes a fascinating argument on pages 186ff that we
1-look for some agent to cause every event (hating the computer when it doesn't work, for example)
2-have the same rush of mania and chemicals when we fall in love as when we fall for God
Item 2 has some serious differences, but the similarities are striking:
--A reverence for icons from the object of our affection
--Warm and comforting feelings of being loved and protected and valued
--Emotional support in difficult times
--Loss of fear of death
I've often read women particularly who view their conversion in very romantic terms. LDS Missionary boys I knew had the same kind of protective feeling about their Church that fathers have over their wives or children. Both are childish reactions to primal emotions.
On being tolerant of non-fanatic believers:
As long as we accept the principle that religious faith must be respected simply because it is religious faith, it is hard to withhold respect from the faith of Osama bin Laden and the suicide bombers...The teachings of 'moderate' religion, though not extremist in themselves, are an open invitation to extremism.-306
John Krakauer's book is an exploration of this same facet in Mormonism: how the teachings of the pleasant, law-abiding, mainstream church can spin off such violence as the Lafferty brothers.
In all I can tepidly recommend Dawkin's book:
--For atheists because its funny and reaffirming (though that very fact makes it somewhat unsettling)
--For open-minded non-Atheists because it won't convert you, but will probably force your faith to deepen as you come to grips with some of the points he makes
--For close-minded theists? You haven't even read my review, so my recommendation doesn't matter anyway. Go back to not reading your own sacred books and complaining about how the rest of us are the cause of all suffering
I concur that Pascal's wager isn't a good reason for belief. Also the "rush of chemicals" explanation for spiritual experiences is a fair alternative explanation. I do think that the only fair test is the "experimental" mode (which as you know, the Book of Mormon advocates).
If one attempts to put into practice the things advocated in the particular theology and then see if the desired/predicted results occur. If they don't- no harm, no foul. If they do, one has a basis for moving forward.
BTW- hi cuz!
Mark Stewart!?!? I'll assume no one is trying to impersonate you. I think its been over a decade since I saw you...
Have you read Dawkin's book? My review is more for my own amusement, its definitely not a substitute for his arguments.
I'll have to take your word for what the Book of Mormon says about anything, I haven't read it in years. But I see two flaws in what you propose:
1-I tried Mormonism for 25 years and have been happier since leaving than I ever was in it.
2-There is a "harm" and "foul" if you experiment with a belief system and it is destructive. You've then wasted precious time living in a way that makes you miserable.
I seem to recall a Christian aphorism about knowing the value of a way of life based on the product of that life. The fruits of all of the world's religions are not particularly better or worse than those of any other ideological system.
For myself, I advocate people living the way that walks the fine line between making themselves happy and causing the least amount of destruction in the world. That way is going to be different for everyone.
Yeah, its me roomie. Had only heard the title in passing before your review. BTW thanks for turning me onto Chess- I still listen to that CD regularly. By the time I was back from Australia you had kind of dropped from sight...
I think my statement is for someone first experimenting with religion or a new religion, rather than someone who is "born" into it. Its obviously harder to overcome the paradigm one is conditioned to and take a fresh look than it is for someone coming in from the outside. But that is true for all belief/non-belief systems.
Re: point 2: I believe usually it is a culture rather than a belief system that causes harm. That culture is a particular implementation of a belief system: ie: Russian Communism as a implementation of Marxist ideology. I think most everyone can agree that the implementation was the agent of harm more than the ideology.
I haven't observed that Utah Mormonism is particularly odious, in fact better than most in many ways. It seems to me that its ability and desire to move away from insularity and towards inclusion has been pretty steady. Like all societies it will serve some people better than others, and there will always be those who feel hurt or excluded, but considering the concentration level of a single faith, that seems minimal outside of Utah County.
The belief system itself is one that calls on people to find their best self and become it. That the inner man is capable of infinite progression and knowledge. To do no harm and be accepting of others beliefs so one can get tolerance for one's own. None of that seems particularly designed towards personal destruction.
I find it interesting that the author calls for intolerance, when I suppose he would find it unacceptable for the majority theist population to not tolerate atheism. I think tolerance is a balm that is best widely spread rather than being reserved for those we choose extend favor to. Extremism is usually a function of people looking to extend their power by whatever means available, whether religion, politics, or money.
Whenever someone gives up their decision making to an outside influence, then they become a vector for extremists. Religion is just one vehicle for extremists to commandeer.
Currently living in Austin, Texas- come and stay if you want to go to SXSW next year. They have some good technology seminars to go along with the music.
And its going on 20 years since we were roomies! Chess. Wow, that's some bad memories. I have it on my iTunes but keep it off rotation. Whenever I try to listen to it out of a sense of nostalgia I cringe at those cheesy-ass lyrics.
Your points are exactly what religious people (Mormon or not) have been saying for years and are not at all convincing. I'm rather tired of the arguments because they always go in circles, with believers, and are not issues that are important.
Our Bishop tried to argue that the LDS Church is more than its members. This seems absurd to me. An organization is nothing but the actions of its members. To break the two apart is to absolve yourself of any responsibility for your collective sins while taking on only your collective virtues. Its a nifty mind game, but not very honest.
Religions are not persecuted by non-religious people, they are persecuted by each other. Consider that, in most countries, no one can hope to win political office at any level by saying "I'm an atheist." This persecution complex is a boogyman dreamed up to justify pushing a majority's religious practices onto a minority group. You can get away with murder if you can convince people that it was self defense.
Religious systems do not make people happier, healthier, wealthier, or wiser. For every individual anecdote of how a religion worked for one person there's another for how that same religion was destructive. If you live longer because you don't smoke you die younger because you eat too much sugar. In the end its a wash. Just because it works for you doesn't mean it works for everyone.
Austin has been calling itself the "next Napa" for about 12 years now. Still waiting for that national break for your local wine industry. I have known many colleagues from that area and they all love it. In spite of what they say, I'm still convinced that it is part of Texas and therefore a place for me to avoid...
Oh, yeah, Chess is definitely cheesy. Still fun though, and I don't really have any negative associations to curb my enjoyment. Most broadway musicals are cheesy by definition, though I don't think I can call "Assassins" cheesy.
Any aggregation of human beings is going to create positive and negative action/reactions. Group dynamics are pretty well documented. If you want to take it down to the individual layer, you have to give credit at that layer as well as debit the accounts.
Its obviously anecdotal, but my personal experience has been that the church has been a positive force in my life and my family's. My parents have 11 kids that are all healthy, happy, stable marriages, never see the inside of a courtroom, positive contributers to the community, the economy and the arts. Ask any of them if the church has helped them in a positive way on that path and I'm quite sure of their answer. I'm the least "churchy" of the bunch and it is still a net positive. They have all had negative encounters with Utah Mormon culture, but the net is a big plus. That is enough for me to give it the benefit of the doubt when I encounter the downsides.
Didn't say it worked for everyone either, just that the experimental mode give those who it does work for a fair shot at finding that out. I'm rational enough to realize my personal religious experiences are subject to too many biases and irrational thinking for me to claim "TRUTH" to the world. I can easily make arguments against Mormonism, and Mormonism is the only religion with any pretensions toward "rational" thought at all, so I'm not going to bag on non-believers.
The persecution issue I'm going to partially disagree with. Europe is turning into a place where the religious person is considered the oddity. Atheists in office is going to be de rigueur there if it isn't already. If Atheists follow the attitude espoused by the book, persecution will soon follow. Hopefully post-religious Europe will be less hateful than the religious version, though the Nazi's and the Soviets don't give much comfort to that hope.
Don't know about the spirits industry, but the Music industry is doing quite fine. Austin is definitely still Texas, but it is also very much its own thing as well. You'd fit in just fine.
Uuurgh. Its like Fox News has invaded my website.
I have no bad memories of Chess, my tastes have just changed a lot in 20 years.
The Church is its members.
No one is telling you that your family isn't happy.
Mormonism is far from rational. That's not an indictment, much of what makes life good is not rational.
Most of the stories of martyrdom are fabrications. Its always a sign that a conversation is over when someone brings in the Nazis (who were mystical Christians, not atheists).
Did I say I wanted to "fit in" in Austin?
LOL- I agreed on its cheesiness- sorry for reading in the subtext that wasn't there- just juxtaposed the "bad memories" into it, in my opinion not a reach based on the composition of the sentence.
"The church is its members"- true, to which I replied you then have to give credit at the individual level as well as debits.
I started w/the "anecdotal" tag on purpose re: my family- and since the church is its members...
I said "pretense" before "rationality." But to me it is an interesting/important point. LDS cosmology posits intelligences that are material and part of the material world, including "God." Religion generally relies on ex nihlo, which is about as "rational" as putting out food for the faries.
Sorry for violating Godwin's Law w/the Nazi's.
"Fit in" as in "Austin is in Texas, therefore I don't want to go there." My reply implying that many of the things that turn you off about Texas are likely outweighed by the stuff that you may discover you would like about Austin. Your intellectual/artistic temperament would be in good company here.
No desire for an heated argument, just being a good little theist. ;)
And Fox News is just tabloid, which I avoid as much as any other tabloid...
May you and your happy siblings live happily ever after, but don't pretend that your story is representative of the whole. Do a google search for "Mormon sexual abuse" and see how many horror stories are out there. More than enough to offset your happy tale.
But you will never understand that (or that you aren't being attacked by evil atheists, or that outside of Mormon circles, Mormonism just isn't that important) which is why I stopped participating in Mormon-themed BBSs a decade ago.
/yawn
Defensive much?
Didn't attack anything you said or thought. I've labeled my opinions as such. I've avoided generalization, qualified my statements, just stated my opinions.
I know horrors can occur in any family, LDS or not. I haven't claimed otherwise.
I don't know why you are trying to characterize my beliefs about atheists as negative, when I've explicitly said "I'm not going to bag on non-believers." While agreeing that theist beliefs include ideas that generally non-rational in the strict sense.
I haven't lived in Utah for more than a decade, so I'm quite aware of how the church is perceived elsewhere.
I consider myself a friend, I understand you have baggage towards the family, but there is no need to lump me in with your preconceived notions about Utah Mormons or your direct family. We all perceive communications from others within our history, but like I said, I'm a friend, don't feel the need to convert you, just found a topic that interested me and commented.
You might be surprised at my ability to understand and not be trapped by the paradigm I was raised with. All of us hopefully grow past our childish views, but just because our journeys take us to different places, doesn't mean we have to be dismissive of where others have arrived. For instance I'm really enjoying reading Aristophanes "Wasps" in all its slapstick and profane glory.
Like I said, tolerance is a balm best widely spread...
Walk back with me to 1996: The Internet is young and a equally young Jeffrey is leaving Mormonism while finishing a degree at BYU. I spent many long hours arguing on email lists and blogs (before such a word existed) about why Mormonism was evil and I was right. Then one day I just got tired. Every exchange was the same. The same arguments, the same result.
Some years later, after I softened up a bit, I noticed many people that I like very much, Mormon or not, have the same views as the people I was arguing with online. Turns out those views (e.g. 90% of what has been said in this exchange) aren't very relevant to who a person is or why I like, or don't like, them.
I don't troll those blogs now, I don't go around trying to beat up the poor, ignorant masses with my superior intellect. I have my own little part of the Internet where I share what I am doing with my life with those who care to look.
If you want to reconnect after 20 years don't do it by trying to argue about a book you haven't read. Find another post here and tell me something interesting about your life.