Fun Stuff > ENJOY
Reading this summer
Liz:
Guys, let's just quit with the religion talk, alright? If you really want to argue about the book start a thread for it and let us get back to the topic of summer reading in this one.
I just finished Before Night Falls by Reinaldo Arenas, his autobiography. It is quite possibly one of the best books I have ever read. I highly recommend it.
At this point in time, I plan on doing a lot of re-reading this summer. I brought my mom's set of Little House books from home and I'm going through them all again for the fun of that. After that I plan on doing the Harry Potter series once through, then maybe moving on to some other things. I kinda want to read House of Leaves a second time before school starts again as well.
Ikrik:
rereading Harry Potter? Are you sure it's worth it?
I have 3-4 Yukio Mishima books that I'm also going to be reading this summer, they're pretty short so it'll be exciting.
I also have 3 books that total over 3000 pages on the Civil Rights Movement, they're called Parting the Waters, Pillars of Fire and something about Canaan by Taylor Branch, I'm pretty excited about it.
Liz:
I love Harry Potter, so it's totally worth it.
Jackie Blue:
--- Quote from: Surgoshan on 08 Jun 2008, 15:47 ---If you're talking about the existence of God, who gives a good god damn about the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus? The subjectivity of Eriugena, the grace of Rahner, or the hope of Moltmann are all also equally not the point.
--- End quote ---
As has been noted, The God Delusion's contention is not merely the nonexistance of God, but the value of religion. If Dawkins wants to discuss the value of religion, he should be aware of it. I cannot believe anyone is seriously denying that.
You say he opened your eyes to the harm religion has caused. What about the good it has caused? What about the harm science has caused? All inventions of man can be used in various ways, whether it's a Bible or an atom bomb.
--- Quote from: Misconception ---Guys, let's just quit with the religion talk, alright?
--- End quote ---
We're not talking about religion, we're talking about an author and one of his books that was brought up in this thread. How about let's quit with the backseat moderating and telling people what to post about? Unless this thread really is supposed to just be a list of books without any discussion, in which case, what's the point of that?
a pack of wolves:
--- Quote from: Surgoshan on 08 Jun 2008, 15:47 ---Now I'll go ahead and explain for you what the rebuttal meant. If you're talking about the existence of God, who gives a good god damn about the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus? The subjectivity of Eriugena, the grace of Rahner, or the hope of Moltmann are all also equally not the point. It's like insisting that someone learn all about different types of shoes, about the materials from which one could make shoes, and the different uses of shoes before he's allowed to point out that there isn't a pair of shoes in the middle of the floor.
--- End quote ---
That's a bad analogy. It's more like a failure to first understand what people mean when they use the word 'shoe'. The 'emperor's new clothes' argument is quite reminiscent of Dawkins' approach really, since it decides upon the opposing argument instead of listening to it. I agree with the conclusion Dawkins draws about the existence of god but unless you live in an environment conducive to it religious faith, particularly in a specifically Judeo-Christian god, requires an effort to sustain. It's really not hard at all to reach the conclusion of atheism. A child can do it. The assertion is not where Dawkins fails, he fails in his belief in the superiority in intellect and moral character of those who make it. Look at this quote from the first chapter of The God Delusion:
--- Quote from: Richard Dawkins ---The president of a historical society in New Jersey wrote a letter that so damningly exposes the weakness of the religious mind, it is worth reading twice... What a devastatingly revealing letter! Every sentence drips with intellectual and moral cowardice.
--- End quote ---
The letter itself is indeed very timid, he's right. However, Dawkns' glee and desire to revel in his own superiority are so extreme. As I said before, atheism is easy and for a man like Dawkins (a white, wealthy, English academic) it's the norm. It would be far more unusual if he said he did believe in god, so why is he so pleased with himself? He pours scorn upon anyone who disagrees with his philosophy, just like a preacher railing against heretics. If Dawkins had his way thought would advance no further than the enlightenment.
--- Quote from: Surgoshan ---The author of the linked review also, apparently, either didn't read Dawkins's book fully or else he didn't understand it. One of the points Dawkins made was that if you have a god who makes an appreciable and continuing difference in the universe (say, through miracles) then you must have an observable god. Effect and cause are linked. He then goes on to describe the rebuttals of contemporary theologians, with whom Dawkins has many discussions on these subjects, and they are almost uniformally a retreat into defined nonexistence. In short, they necessarily define god in such a way that there is no difference between a god who exists and one who does not. He lets the point stand for itself.
--- End quote ---
It makes no difference to him. It does make a difference to those who believe if they think that view of the world is true or not, and he never seems to even try to really get his head around that. It's their means of understanding and interpreting existence. As the review zerodrone linked points out he doesn't appear to have a good conception of what people actually believe (which is why it brought up the question of whether or not he'd read any other theologians, since it can seem doubtful). It's a failure to understand that something which cannot be tested using the scientific method (and this doesn't mean unobservable at all, as Dawkins claims, just untestable) can have validity for people. Should I not only disregard religion but also ignore the philosophy of Guy Debord since I have no means of testing for the existence of the spectacle? Even so, I believe in it. I think I'll give the last word to Raoul Vaneigem since I'm really enjoying 'The Revolution of Everyday Life' right now:
--- Quote from: Raoul Vaneigem ---ten thousand people are convinced that they have seen a fakir's rope rise into the air, while so many cameras prove that it hasn't moved an inch. Scientific objectivity exposes mystification. Very good, but what does it show us? A coiled rope of absolutely no interest. I have little inclination to choose between the doubtful pleasure of being mystified and the tedium of contemplating a reality which does not concern me. A reality which I have no grasp of, isn't this the old lie reconditioned, the highest stage of mystification?
From now on the analysts are in the streets. Lucidity is not their only weapon. Their thought is no longer in danger of being imprisoned, either by the false reality of gods or by the false reality of technocrats.
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version