This epistle from Sam to the Fundamentalist Yankee Christians started out so well. I came to it hoping to find new tools for talking to the theists inThis epistle from Sam to the Fundamentalist Yankee Christians started out so well. I came to it hoping to find new tools for talking to the theists in my life, new tools for coaxing them into hearing me rather than just yelling me down and attempting to shame my atheism, and though it started well and raised my hopes, Mr. Harris just couldn't help falling into belligerence and a touch of condescension that couldn't possibly sway any concreted hearts are steeled minds.
This letter definitely isn't for the atheists in Sam Harris' audience. But by the end it's clear that it is not for those on the extreme right fringes of American Christendom either. Sam Harris is really trying to reach those Liberal Christians who run the gamut from socially tolerant to fully socially accepting, to teach them that their stubborn clinging to Christianity actually facilitates the fringes of their faith, to try and get them to see that they don't need the scriptures of long dead sheep herders for their morals, their community, or their "spirituality," to try to get them to strangle out the outmoded beliefs that cause harm, even if their own version of those beliefs seem benevolent.
As an atheist I am all for what he's saying, but I am afraid that the way he says it isn't going to sway too many of the moderate Christians out there.
Yet there is a group to whom this letter would speak -- the deconverting. Those who find themselves earnestly turning away from religion need to read this letter. It will affirm their deconversion and give them tools to protect themselves from those who are trying to keep them in the flock. Had Harris addressed his letter the "Christian Deconverting" I would have given him more stars, but considering his stated target and what I see as a failure to communicate effectively to them I can only give him three, despite the fact that everything he said was spot on. ...more
I'm a longtime member of the choir, so this second visit to Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion (this time in audio form) was more about revisiting a frI'm a longtime member of the choir, so this second visit to Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion (this time in audio form) was more about revisiting a friend speaking passionately about why he loves science and why the universe is enough to fill him with wonder than a continued search for understanding of my own total atheism.
There are times when I wish Dawkins wasn't being quite so flippant because his wit lacks some of the scalpel sharpness of the late Christopher Hitchens, so his flippant moments leave a bit of a ragged opening rather than a deep, clean cut. Still, Richard Dawkins is passionate, and when he is pointing out theistic hypocrisy, pointing out the inherent abuse of religious thought, pointing out the dangerous role of the religiously moderate, pointing out the science of evolution and how and why it is no longer a theory, he is thoroughly convincing.
This time through, my favourite part of the book was his discussion about moral zeitgeist. It is a well reasoned argument that those of our '20s "cancel culture" should heed, for they may only be above cancellation due to a fluke of when they were born, while those they are quick to cancel from our past would more than likely have been as moral than they or more. I look forward to revisiting this argument next time I visit Dawkins.
I don't know if The God Delusion is actually capable of freeing anyone from religion, but I think it (and Hitchens' God is Not Great) would be a powerful influence in the loss of religion for one already on that path. It is important, for that reason, that this book is out there, but it is also nice to remember that those of us who are already atheist are not alone. It too often feels like we are. Thanks for the kind reminder, Mr. Dawkins. ...more
My newly teenage son was off for a weekend of acting workshops, and he found himself in a religious discussion with his mostly pious friends. He didn'My newly teenage son was off for a weekend of acting workshops, and he found himself in a religious discussion with his mostly pious friends. He didn't give it much thought, and simply stated that he was atheist. More than a few of his religious friends didn't speak to him for the rest of the weekend, and now he awaits his return to acting class this week to see if they will still see him as a friend or will have cast him aside. He's been angry with himself ever since for telling the truth. He wishes he'd kept his mouth shut.
I am sure most atheists have a similar story, or even multiple stories wherein we were ostracized for our position, lost people we cared about or found ourselves hiding in the irreligious closet so as to avoid the social stigma our position carries. Much of Christopher HitchensGod is Not Great is, I feel, a conversation about this. Oh sure, he is doing plenty to deconstruct religion and belief, to point out the damage religion has done and continues to do, to reveal all the ways it "poisons everything," even to point out that those supposedly secular moments of horror that the religious try to pin on atheism are still bound up in religion and faith, but at its most simple and effective, God is Not Great is a conversation from one atheist to other atheists.
Of all the books I've read by famous atheists, it strikes me that Hitchens is the least concerned with religious folks. He has no illusions whatsoever that his words might convert the faithful. Nowhere in these pages is that his goal. This book is not a sermon that attempts to reach a new congregation but only reaches the choir, it is a conversation between like minded individuals about why we are atheist, what it means to be atheist, about all of those things that led us to atheism, and about how we can navigate a world that despises and fears us.
God is Not Great is one of the most reassuring of all the atheist texts of the last decade or two. It's nice to be reminded that, indeed, we are not alone in our unbelief....more
Where Dawkins goes for maximum destruction, piling the misery and mockery on those he's battling, Sagan doesn't even acknowledge his enemy. The Demon-haunted World poses, instead (and very effectively), as a book in defense of skepticism, a book persuading the unskeptical to embrace reason in the form of open-mindedness, the pursuit of evidence, and a thirst for asking questions of everything.
To this end, Sagan takes on some of his favourite topics -- witch burning, demonic possession, science illiteracy, repressed memories, psychology, parapsychology, superstitions, UFOs and alien encounters -- and pokes at them with his skeptical stick to show us how a good skeptic (or good scientist) gets to the heart of an issue. He offers lessons in detecting fallacy (or "baloney," to use Sagan's technical term) and how to avoid it in our own arguments. He make a case for the importance of being skeptical of ourselves, our leaders, and our most cherished beliefs.
And underneath it all is a carefully mounted attack on theism. Sagan avoids detonating his explosives himself. He piles the dirt and camouflage on his landmine, hiding it with the skill of an old campaigner. He offers supposedly clear paths through the field, hoping that more than one will unwittingly trip the explosives and blow their belief systems to pieces.
I wonder, though, if Sagan's plan is too subtle to really make a difference. I wonder if Dawkins' preference for arguments of mass destruction is more effective. I felt like a sapper in Sagan's minefield. Aware or the landmines, appreciating their design, loving the patterns in which they were laid, but certain that most of Sagan's targeted personnel would simply wander through the field, unscathed, beneficiaries of their own dumb luck.
Whether Sagan's weapons have taken any theist casualities or not, it is a wonderful book about skepticism. A wonderful reminder to be ever vigilant. A book I can't wait to pass on to my children.
But it also made me just a little sad. I wish he'd been around when the Patriot Act was drafted. His voice would have been an important voice of dissent, and perhaps the USA wouldn't be as deep in the shit as they are. ...more
Loading...
