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.

 

[The Knize]

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.

I thought of this thread when I came across and watched this Jordan Peterson video.

. He seems to come in on the side of morals and good behavior developing as a part of the human socialization process, I would say individually and as for collective human development. Interesting because Peterson, especially recently, seems to be weighing in more on the importance of religion to humanity and the individual human.

Joseph Campbell famously characterized Christianity's great gift to the West being its doctrine of love and concern for one's fellow man. Whereas, as characterized by Campbell, as I recall, anyway, the teaching of Eastern religions was something like "the big fish eat the little fish, so the little fish better watch out." (I am not even sure how so that is. One can point to the traditional obsession of Hinduism about the caste system, rebirth, etc. But Buddhism certainly has the concept of loving kindness.)

I personally do not think that religion is necessary to having a strong moral compass. However, religion, especially Christianity, likely helps foster development good, altruistic, behavior across a society.

I do not know Dawkins at all. I, too, find Hitchens entertaining. He may be more clever than truly substantive though. I have liked Peterson more in the past. I think he has let being labelled a public intellectual kind of go to his head. He is an expert in some things, not all things. Although, I realize that there is a history of folks deep into human psychology opining on all things involving the human condition. Carl Jung for one. I wonder if Peterson still considers himself a Jungian psychologist.

Just my two cents. A gentleman does not discuss religion or politics. And is never unintentionally rude!

 

[coolcanuc]

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

View attachment 1843430

Fun series of books. I'm taking a break right now and reading other authors, but I'm about half way though the series. Enjoy the read.

 

[beginish]

I thought of this thread when I came across and watched this Jordan Peterson video.

. He seems to come in on the side of morals and good behavior developing as a part of the human socialization process, I would say individually and as for collective human development. Interesting because Peterson, especially recently, seems to be weighing in more on the importance of religion to humanity and the individual human.

Joseph Campbell famously characterized Christianity's great gift to the West being its doctrine of love and concern for one's fellow man. Whereas, as characterized by Campbell, as I recall, anyway, the teaching of Eastern religions was something like "the big fish eat the little fish, so the little fish better watch out." (I am not even sure how so that is. One can point to the traditional obsession of Hinduism about the caste system, rebirth, etc. But Buddhism certainly has the concept of loving kindness.)

I personally do not think that religion is necessary to having a strong moral compass. However, religion, especially Christianity, likely helps foster development good, altruistic, behavior across a society.

I do not know Dawkins at all. I, too, find Hitchens entertaining. He may be more clever than truly substantive though. I have liked Peterson more in the past. I think he has let being labelled a public intellectual kind of go to his head. He is an expert in some things, not all things. Although, I realize that there is a history of folks deep into human psychology opining on all things involving the human condition. Carl Jung for one. I wonder if Peterson still considers himself a Jungian psychologist.

Just my two cents. A gentleman does not discuss religion or politics. And is never unintentionally rude!

I’m all for the default switch being peace, love and understanding. Whatever helps get a person there is ok by me.

 

[Toothpick]

Not sure if I posted this or not…..
Listening to the audio book of this because i don’t think I could get through actually reading it. I read the first book so figured I might as well continue with the 2nd. This will be the last book I read just because I feel like I have to. Life is to dang short to read terrible books.

 

[The Knize]

I’m all for the default switch being peace, love and understanding. Whatever helps get a person there is ok by me.

So where are the strong, and who are the trusted?
And where is the harmony, sweet harmony?
'Cause each time I feel it slippin' away
Just makes me wanna cry . . . .

 

[Heron]

About ⅔ through this one on audio. It's a good mix of his personal life and behind the scenes making his movies.

 

[garyg]

James by Percival Everett. Reviews are right. Probably easily book of the year. By the author of American Fiction.

+1
This is a good book - probably been a couple decades since I read Huckleberry Finn .. this re-imagining evoked some of the memories but contained new twists. Nice work