[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 221 KB, 640x480, photo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2962942 No.2962942 [Reply] [Original]

What's your opinion on this book, /lit/?

>> No.2962951

I don't much care for it. Although I'm an atheist, I think this argument that religious belief is fundamentally incorrect is not really necessary - if someone else believes in God, that's their position, although I obviously think they're wrong. I think his insistence on using the standards of science as the measure for all truth and belief is deeply misguided. and I think his argument that religion is inherently and particularly harmful is just pretty much wrong.

Just my two cents, though.

>> No.2962966

Just say no.

It´s better that way.

>> No.2962969

>>2962951
I believe his argument follows that organised religion is, in itself, moronic; not holding a spiritual belief.

And yes, religion is inherently harmful.

>> No.2962968

I think it's a wonderful book, OP. It gave a lot of people (including me) the courage to rebel against the religious shackles placed on them by their parents. It made not believing in a God an acceptable stance to take, and really brought it out into the public forum.

He was a bit heavy handed, but this gonzo-esque exaggeration was really needed when the opposing book is one of lying snakes and talking bushes. Unfortunately he receives a lot of hate on /lit/, because we have a lot of edgy kids who now rebel against atheism. This is in part because it is now too 'mainstream' and they need to feel superior, and part because they subscribe to empiricism and the belief that you can never really know if a God created the universe. Unfortunately, and perhaps because they haven't read it, they don't realise that this book isn't supposed to provide an answer to creation, it just dissects every point Christianity clings to, and reveals the absurdity of their beliefs.

>> No.2962977

>>2962968
>this gonzo-esque exaggeration was really needed when the opposing book is one of lying snakes and talking bushes

It´s not like TGD is a really bad rehash of what Spinoza wrote some 300+ years ago.

>> No.2962978

>>2962968
I don't disagree with it because I'm 'edgy', I disagree with it because I disagree with the things he says. In particular that Christian belief (or belief in any other organized religion) is inherently unreasonable.

>>2962969
>And yes, religion is inherently harmful.

how so? note: just listing a bunch of bad shit that religion did is not actually proof that religion is inherently harmful.

>> No.2962989

>>2962951
I wonder if anyone would actually believe that the scientific method is the wrong way to go about evaluating the many testable claims all existing world religions make if it provided some support for them. My guess is no.

Dawkins is still an obnoxious ignorant twat but he's right about this, if you're a deist that's fine but no epistemological exceptions for Christians or Muslims.

>> No.2962992

>>2962951
Dawkin's is the leader of the religion of science. Science will dam me for saying that though. Science has its flaws as well and sometimes doesnt make sense a bit like religion.

>> No.2962996

>>2962989
I'm an atheist, I don't have any skin in this game. I just don't think that the scientific method is the only appropriate epistemological standard to use in all given circumstances, and I can envision or imagine or understand ways in which it might be reasonable for a Christian or a Muslim or a Buddhist to believe the things they do.

>> No.2962997

>>2962978
Religion requires each individual of a certain society to subscribe to an enshrined philosophy. Should a minority depose a religion, or thereby the constitutional achievements of said belief system, they may only face oppression.

I.e: the abortion debate.

A western belief system dismisses the very ideological foundings of a state, and claims a morale monopoly. Attacks on abortion clinics are frequently made. A religion may, in some cases, produce a licence to violate an established order and harm others, with no due care to reason.

Also, see Extremism.

>> No.2962999

>>2962996
>I can envision or imagine or understand ways in which it might be reasonable for a Christian or a Muslim or a Buddhist to believe the things they do.

Like a fear of death, or desperately wanting a dead loved one to be in an afterlife?

>> No.2963000

>>2962969

Dawkins and the rest of the authors in his camp have a childishly facile understanding of religions and religious institutions. If you're an angsty nonbeliever and you have no background in anthropology, history, or religious studies, their works might resonate with you.

>> No.2963003

>>2963000
And you've got a doctorate in social anthropology then?

>> No.2963009

>>2962996
>I can envision or imagine or understand ways in which it might be reasonable for a Christian or a Muslim or a Buddhist to believe the things they do.
From a purely pragmatic perspective it doesn't seem to do much harm, for individuals at least, but reasonable in the sense of warranted belief? Obviously we're both unconvinced but what arguments would say are reasonable?

>> No.2963010

>>2963000
>Dawkins and the rest of the authors in his camp have a childishly facile understanding of religions and religious institutions.

No. You can hate him for being arrogant, conceited or obnoxious, but if you think that he (or Harris and Hitchens) have a facile understanding of religions, you have obviously never read their work.

>> No.2963011

>>2962997
>Religion requires each individual of a certain society to subscribe to an enshrined philosophy. Should a minority depose a religion, or thereby the constitutional achievements of said belief system, they may only face oppression.

But that relationship between religion and politics which may lead to oppression is not a necessary one. If you want to argue that religion is INHERENTLY harmful, you need to demonstrate why religion always comes into that kind of relationship with the state - where it seeks to become the dominant belief system for its society and use state instruments to oppress non-believers - you need to demonstrate that this kind of relationship is an inevitable consequence of religion. Which it's not, really.

>A western belief system dismisses the very ideological foundings of a state, and claims a morale monopoly. Attacks on abortion clinics are frequently made.

As I say - just listing bad things that religion does is not the same as arguing that religion is inherently harmful.

>A religion may, in some cases, produce a licence to violate an established order and harm others, with no due care to reason. Also, see Extremism.

There are many things that do this, though - it's by no means exclusive to religion. There are many things that motivate extremism and induce people to harm others. If religion produces a "license to violate an established order", that's not necessarily a bad thing - if the established order is not always good. Sometimes it is right and proper to violate an established order. But really, I don't think that what religion does in this case is different than what any code of moral beliefs does for any person who takes them seriously, whether it be inspired by a religion or not.

>> No.2963013

>>2963003

It doesn't take a PhD to recognize how silly their books are.

>> No.2963023
File: 66 KB, 200x298, ted.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2963023

>>2963011
>As I say - just listing bad things that religion does is not the same as arguing that religion is inherently harmful.

This is Ted Bundy. He killed 30 women and raped their corpses.
"just listing bad things that [Ted] does is not the same as arguing that [Ted] is inherently harmful."

>> No.2963025
File: 55 KB, 350x473, 34432432213132.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2963025

>>2962968
>Not liking shit is rebelling against atheism

>> No.2963027

>>2962999
>>2963009
Interior experience, visionary moments, witnessing something that you believe to be miraculous, etc. If someone has an experience of that kind, I think that religious belief could be a reasonable response to it, even though such an experience is by definition subjective and non-transferable and can't serve as evidence for any other person in the world to believe. Of course by the standards of the scientific method none of these things function as grounds for belief in any sense and it would be ludicrous to suggest that they do, but I think that for the individual person it is reasonable to use them as grounds for belief.

>> No.2963028

>>2963010

Are you kidding? Their 'assessments' are completely devoid of nuance and reflect their lack of even the most elementary understanding of the major religions' doctrines, contexts, and histories. I've found all of the stuff on religion and most of the stuff on politics I've read by Hitchens to be unimpressive. I've read less of Dawkins but he doesn't seem to be any better.

>> No.2963030

>>2963011
In relation to the matter of religion and the state, it should be noted that predominantly throughout history, religion has been a bastardized mechanism of the state itself; serving as a false-consciousness to those whom see no other truth. While this is perhaps the reverse of your statement, quite simply, it is easy to see an inherent struggle throughout multiple cultures to impose a blanket ideology through the force of religion may promote such barbarous actions. Through the enactment of power, and the assertion that its own philosophy is one of pure justice, under this reasoning, the nature of both the human condition and the very nature of the religion itself may oppress opposite ideological views.

Perhaps it was presumptuousness to state that ALL religions are inherently harmful, but it seems that only Utopian interpretations offer one in which peaceful co-existence may exist.

>> No.2963032

It has some of the best arguments against religion and God that you can find. Really, it's a revolutionary work. Beautifully written, too.

>> No.2963034
File: 147 KB, 1024x768, gates-of-hell-open.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2963034

ITT: Atheist hell meet up party.

>> No.2963042

ITT:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slKULc8W7lM

>> No.2963051

>>2963030
>In relation to the matter of religion and the state, it should be noted that predominantly throughout history, religion has been a bastardized mechanism of the state itself; serving as a false-consciousness to those whom see no other truth. While this is perhaps the reverse of your statement, quite simply, it is easy to see an inherent struggle throughout multiple cultures to impose a blanket ideology through the force of religion may promote such barbarous actions

That's a pretty extraordinarily reductive argument, I think, and one that largely ignores the really differences in conceptions of religion and its relation to politics down through the ages in favor of regarding all of them through the lens of post-Reformation European Christianity.

>Through the enactment of power, and the assertion that its own philosophy is one of pure justice, under this reasoning, the nature of both the human condition and the very nature of the religion itself may oppress opposite ideological views.

Yes, insofar as any system of beliefs whose proponents regard it as truthful may lead to the oppression of opposite ideological viewpoints. And that seems like an accurate descriptor of p much all human systems of belief / truth. So I would argue that, while religion may lead to oppression, that's not an inherent quality of religion and religion isn't inherently harmful; that's just an inherent quality of the way human beings operate. Like you say, nature of the human condition.

>Perhaps it was presumptuousness to state that ALL religions are inherently harmful, but it seems that only Utopian interpretations offer one in which peaceful co-existence may exist.

I don't think so at all.

>> No.2963052
File: 17 KB, 373x330, xkcd_atheists.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2963052

>>2963042

>> No.2963059

>>2963052

>Implying a normal, well-adjusted person shouldn't feel superior to nerds who sperg out over others' beliefs or lack thereof

>> No.2963062

>>2963059
Sure, but you're on /lit/. What's your reason?

>> No.2963063

So why did some philosophers accept the ontological argument as valid? I don't even understand how it could give someone the impression of being valid.

>> No.2963066

>>2963062

For being here? I'm not sure that I have an answer for that.

>> No.2963073

>>2963066
No, for feeling to superior to nerds who sperg about other people's beliefs. That's /lit/ in once sentence.

>> No.2963077

>>2963051
Then is it the will of the human himself to impose his religion unto another? Surely, if you concede that by nature, it is within man to oppress, then can a uniformed religion actually transpose unto those whom subscribe their ideals actually exist?

Does such a religion exist?

>> No.2963079

>>2963073

Oh. True, I guess I can only feel superior to the ones who do it outside of anonymous imageboards.

>> No.2963086

>>2962951
We should have just /thread here.

>> No.2963089

>>2963077
I'm not sure if you're ESL or not, but could you please try and make your posts a little more readable and not use elevated language if you can't do so coherently? I'm not trying to insult you, your posts are just kind of hard to decipher.

>Then is it the will of the human himself to impose his religion unto another? Surely, if you concede that by nature, it is within man to oppress, then can a uniformed religion actually transpose unto those whom subscribe their ideals actually exist?

I think that, to some extent, human nature, at times, to impose his beliefs and his way of life on others. I don't think that religion is particularly different from any other cultural, social, intellectual, economic, or political structure in this regard. That's my point. Religion isn't particularly dangerous or harmful as a tool of oppression.

>> No.2963107

>>2962951
>I think this argument that religious belief is fundamentally incorrect is not really necessary - if someone else believes in God, that's their position
Why doesn't /lit/ apply this standard to any other belief at any time in any other circumstance?

>> No.2963114

>>2963107
It shouldn't be applied to religion anyway. If someone says " I believe that goblins come out from under my bed and play a ukulele when I am sleeping" he should expect people to point out that his theory is ridiculous.

>> No.2963123

>>2963114

You would have to give those goblins deific qualities in order for such an analogy to hold up, otherwise it's just an appeal to absurdity.

Deities perform philosophical functions and there are important reasons that people believe in them, not so with goblins.

>> No.2963128

>>2963114
But (imo) he would still be perfectly justified in believing it if he actually saw some goblins coming out from under his bed and playing the ukulele, and was in all other respects reasonably sane.

>> No.2963133

>>2963089
Sorry, although I do believe I completely missed the second half of that sentence, I often have this issue.

Just a final question.

>I think that, to some extent, human nature, at times, to impose his beliefs and his way of life on others. I don't think that religion is particularly different from any other cultural, social, intellectual, economic, or political structure in this regard. That's my point. Religion isn't particularly dangerous or harmful as a tool of oppression.

Is the very nature of religion bound to man's will then? Like every other structure listed, they require humankind itself to function. If it is, indeed, that man should an aggressive tendency to impose his will by his very nature, should we not conclude that those who practice any form of religious, or political, economic, or intellectual pursuits are in a sense corrupting the ideal of the very institution they uphold? Is it not a paradox to suggest that a religion, that may teach the virtues of acceptance, toleration and 'love', should be kept 'alive' by those whose very nature opposes it?

>> No.2963132

>>2963123
I believe that is his argument, that belief in deities is just in fact just as absurd as belief in goblins. You would need good reasons to believe otherwise, not merely "important" ones and those aren't on offer.


sage for religion thread

>> No.2963136

>>2963133
>Is the very nature of religion bound to man's will then? Like every other structure listed, they require humankind itself to function. If it is, indeed, that man should an aggressive tendency to impose his will by his very nature, should we not conclude that those who practice any form of religious, or political, economic, or intellectual pursuits are in a sense corrupting the ideal of the very institution they uphold? Is it not a paradox to suggest that a religion, that may teach the virtues of acceptance, toleration and 'love', should be kept 'alive' by those whose very nature opposes it?

I think that's a reasonable thing to say, although I don't think it's a point against or for religion; just part of the complexity of human nature / the human experience. If it's a paradox, it's just one of those paradoxes which is unavoidable in human existence. We seek for ideals that may be unattainable.

>> No.2963144

>>2963042
>neil degrasse tyson for president

lel

>> No.2963148

>>2963123
>Deities perform philosophical functions and there are important reasons that people believe in them

Only if you live in the Middle Ages. What excuse do people today have?

>> No.2963152

>>2963136
TIL religion isn't bad, because other things are also bad.

>> No.2963153

Apparently fat bitches read it.

>> No.2963157

>>2963152
dafuq is TIL?

>> No.2963223

It was okay, a bit heavy handed as someone said, and Dawkins can come across a bit bitter sometimes.

god Is Not Great is better

>> No.2963228

>>2962942

It has a good PLOT OP.

>> No.2963265

I just don't care for the theories that claim that organized religions are harmful. Let people believe whatever makes them happier. I will, however, say that if someone tries to push their belief onto me that they are being an asshole. Whether it be a Jehovah's Witness or an atheist. Richard Dawkins comes off to me as a Jehovah's Witness of atheism.

>> No.2963290

>Religion is inherently harmful
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism

>> No.2963291

>>2963052
That comic is flawed and you should feel flawed.

For example:

>Personally, I (you) find people who are annoyed at fundamentalist atheists just as bad as them.

>Well, the important thing is that you feel superior to both.

>> No.2963293
File: 151 KB, 450x300, 1339035212393.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2963293

never read it lol

>Atheists keep up their scoffing at the higher being, which was also honored under the name of the "highest" or /être suprême/, and trample in the dust one "proof of his existence" after another without noticing that they themselves, out of need for a higher being, only annihilate the old to make room for a new. Is "Man" perchance not a higher essence than an individual man, and must not the truths, rights, and ideas which result from the concept of him be honored and—counted sacred, as revelations of this very concept? ... And, as the divine revelations were not written down by God with his own hand, but made public through "the Lord's instruments," so also the new highest essence does not write out its revelations itself, but lets them come to our knowledge through "true men." Only the new essence betrays, in fact, a more spiritual style of conception than the old God, because the latter was still represented in a sort of embodiedness or form, while the undimmed spirituality of the new is retained, and no special material body is fancied for it. And withal it does not lack corporeity, which even takes on a yet more seductive appearance because it looks more natural and mundane and consists in nothing less than in every bodily man,—yes, or outright in "humanity" or "all men." Thereby the spectralness of the spirit in a seeming-body has once again become really solid and popular.

>> No.2963299

>>2963157
A phrase only used on reddit.

I'm not going to imply any implications from that, but just so you know, that is only used on reddit.

>> No.2963364

http://www.armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/The-Jesus-Myth(1765162).htm

/thread

>> No.2963369

>>2963364
To quote to intro to the articles on this site-

>"There are thousands of religions, all making radically different claims. Here’s a question for everyone following any of these different belief systems. Is there anything that would stop you believing? That is, would you accept any kind of “falsification principle” being applied to your religion? Is there any “fact” that you would accept as a refutation of your chosen religion? If you cannot formulate such a possibility then doesn’t it mean that you believe blindly? If you proudly state that your faith is "unshakable" then you are not prepared to accept anything as evidence against your beliefs. Therefore, your beliefs constitute an irrational fanaticism, completely divorced from reality. The difference between you and an insane person is merely a matter of degree or opinion since a madman also adheres to unreasonable, unverifiable beliefs that he will never abandon under any circumstances. Scientists actively look for anomalies and inconsistencies. They seek data that doesn’t conform with the expected results. That’s where Quantum Mechanics came from. Classical physics couldn’t account for a number of observed phenomena so had to be discarded, no matter how painful. Do religious believers look for anomalies, for reasons not to believe? And, if they don’t, aren’t their beliefs worthless? They could literally believe anything if they are never willing to challenge their beliefs. Every religious person ought to be skeptical because why would the True God want to associate with fools and blind believers?"

>> No.2963387

>>2962942
It's really a "preaching to the crowd" book. Nothing you wouldn't come up with yourself.

>> No.2963414
File: 112 KB, 719x1080, tumblr_m0l8kbe8Lc1qja36qo1_1280.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2963414

>>2963293
Who wrote that? it's a mess and doesn't make any sense.

>> No.2963419

>>2962989
>Muslims.
Except Islam prompted people to explore the world around them. Granted it should have solely been a jumping point for intellectual investigation instead of a complete way of life, it still was necessary to allow the Arabs to advance as fast as they did considering they were, prior to Islam, warring, infanticile, gambling addicted, drunkards. Most Muslim scientists I've met have a very keen understanding of the world around them and approach science almost identically to the way Neil Tysone or Richard Dawkins advocates. That is, the universe is already here, so let's go explore as much as possible (only It's more like going through someone's attic rather than exploring a new land etc etc.)

>> No.2963421
File: 132 KB, 871x1280, 5616_022e_871.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2963421

>>2963369
A certain amount of stubbornness is necessary. For instance you wouldn't want to be 'open to evidence' that rape may in fact be right.

That entire argument is bullshit. Scientists have their unshakable faith as much as anyone else, whether it's something necessary or just a personal bias.

>> No.2963432

It's not great. Dawkins is good when it comes to biology, but mediocre when it comes to theology.