As Above, So Below - the religion thread (formerly: People of California, beware)

I await your opinion very anxiously once you have then. (Wait... when did you get them?)

I find Dawkins a bit too rabid (although that may be rich coming from me: I tend to advocate carpetbombing Mecca, Vatican City and Jerusalem!). My main problem is that he tends to push his conclusions on the reader. I just happen to agree with these conclusions, but his style I think won't win over anone who isn't already a "convert" (so to speak).

I prefer a more propositional style, where the reader is left to draw his own conclusions.
I've yet to read any book on the subject that's not a pamphlet.

That said, I've never read Harris.

On your recommendation I'll give him a shot.

I don't find Dawkins rabid. Being a scientist, he's just very direct. He's every bit as direct when debating science, with other scientists. Rabid is a word I find more suitable for Hitchens. He often seems a bit of a prick.

One criticism I have towards Dawkins is that he has a habit of oversimplifying. This has led to many religious people saying he misses alot of nuances, and therefore doesn't address the subject properly. In some instances I think it's essential to simplify though, but there are others where it's taken a bit far, and as a consequence many people feel he's making straw man arguments.

Bregt, I also recommend his latest book "The greatest show on Earth" if you want to learn more about evolution and the evidence for it. It's a very entertaining read.

Peter

All criticisms aside, I think all of them are doing a good thing (and all are people I'd like to have a beer with).

That's exactly part of the problem you describe very astutely: with the myriad of different interpretations, readings and explanations out there of the many religious scripts, the No True Scotsman fallacy is now the massive blanket that covers up each and every transgression made in any which way by any religion.

To me the best plan of attack is not attacking the scriptures or even the thinking directly, but the deeds and their consequences. There is rather a massive and unmovable pushback against attacking underlying philosophies. But chipping away by condemning the deeds should slowly erode the slab of ancient, misogynic, illogical and narrowminded suffocation that underlies them.

But that's a whole different topic.

That's certainly to the point.

Just finished the Sam Harris book you recommended Steven, The End of Faith (the paperback in which he also addresses statements of reviewers of the book and opinions he got from e-mails).

He is certainly as clear about the case as Dawkins (perhaps even more seriously!), and especially touches upon the subject that religion completely bans reasoning and evidence, or any blind faith whatsoever (killing fields, nazism, ...). His chapter about spirituality and conscience is very interesting though, but hard to grasp since we do not experience it (at least I have no idea how to). He's not as much fun as Dawkins, but his footnote about the Hawaiian recipe was rather hilarious.

What I didn't liked, and I found a bit simple, was his constant reference to the islam and the fact that a lot of these countries have dangerous (nuclear) weapons. Of course, it's completely dangerous and absurd, that countries with such a strong connection with blind faith, have these destructive arms, but I found it a bit of a weak argument.

It's sad though, to see how strong religion still is, and how it violently grasps society (is it not the suicide bombers in the Middle-East, or the pope and condom use, or the creationist movement in America, or the recent comments on our own Belgian government). Bah!

I knew this before reading those book, and then I thought about the good things it does as well. After reading those books one realises that it is not religion that causes people to be good, but natural selection, altruism, love and happiness. They're all very human features. It's not that I didn't realise before, but it makes more sense somehow.

Thanks for the recommendation!

Next book is one about al-Andalus (by Jason Webster), the empire in southern Spain, in which three religions lived together peacefully for a long time, and created weatlh, knowledge and wisdom (at least that's what the cover says). It'll be interesting to see how this is confronted with the books above, if that might be the case.

I also got Hitchens book God is not Great, but I think I'm out-stupefied now.

Glad you enjoyed it. I prefer Harris to any of the other non-religious authors () for some reason. I just prefer his demeanor some how? I dunno. I just like the guy.

Just one thing:



How so?

Nothing to do with fear-mongering, but the very real consideration that any faith that considers life below a struggle and the ultimate reward to come only after will be far less hesitant taking lives.

More importantly, followers will be far less hesitant, even actively striving towards furthering their own inherently unreasaonable and uncompromisable goals by sacrificing their own lives.
Sso the classic anti-nuclear destruction threat of the mutual assured destruction -which more or less kept parties at bay during the Cold War- no longer applies.

In fact, mutual assured destruction might even be seen as a reasonable alternative, if the "infidels" cannot be converted or destroyed by any other means.

http://current.com/shows/vanguard/92438 … e-pt-1.htm

Holy shit.

Kindergarten!? You mean playschool!

Still, I wish I drew that.

Near-death experiences make more and more people turn towards God it seems.

Just read a chapter about how mormonism was created, in Hitchens' book. I knew there was something odd with this religion because it is often referenced in media. But holy fuck! It's pure gold!

Then I saw this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b0UQaBJQRg

Hilarious!

Apparently this is the fastest growing religion?

I'm just talking about how it was created and how the foundations were formed. I'm sure they are nice people, as within any religion.