THe End of Faith

[AlexanderB]

Posted: 12/14/07 at 4:17am

I am currently reading this book for my Competing World Views seminar. It's really enjoyable (both the book and class.) I certainly do not agree with a large portion of the book, but think that it is for the most part well written and a good example of sensical argument...again, for the MOST part.

Anybody else have experiences with this book? Opinions?

[MatthewAddison]

Posted: 12/14/07 at 4:24am

Updated On: 9/5/08 at 04:24 AM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/14/07 at 9:38am

I like this book

[Becky2]

Posted: 12/14/07 at 11:53am

I find that he gives in to rhetoric more than he should, rather than sticking to a logical argument. Too many of his arguments are appeals to fears and emotions, rather than sense.

And if he's actually trying to convince theists to abandom their theism, he's not going to do a very good job. Most theists won't be able to see past his anger and insults.

I also disliked how he focused on the three major religions, and barely touched any religions, such as tribal beliefs. (And come on, having a chapter titled, "The Problem with Islam," is terribly cliche.) He also fails to mention that some of those hadiths he speaks of are not recognized as valid by all Muslims. And like the extremist Muslims, he takes many Quranic verses completely out of context.

If you want a good book on religion from an atheist perspective, I would recommend Pascal Boyer's "Religion Explained." I personally don't believe that it is enough to disprove the existance of supernatural entities, but it is a wonderful book. He makes sure that his theories are applicable to all religions, not just a few major ones. He combines several fields of studies such as anthropology, cognitive science, psychology, evolutionary biology, etc. to make a great argument.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 12/14/07 at 11:59am

Phyllis thanks for the tip. I always worry- what if I create a sock puppet and it grows up to be Kukla? I hate Kukla! (Not too crazy about Fran or Ollie, either!) What if I think I'm making a sweet lovable Lambchop and it runs amuck! I'm going to get that book!

[Unknown User]

Posted: 12/14/07 at 12:01pm

For those of you blessedly unfamiliar, here is Kukla (Shudder) and Ollie when they were panelists on Match Game, 1974.

[tazber]

Posted: 12/14/07 at 12:04pm

I found it to be shallow and pedantic, like Lois' meat loaf.

[MatthewAddison]

Posted: 12/14/07 at 1:14pm

Updated On: 9/5/08 at 01:14 PM

[AlexanderB]

Posted: 12/14/07 at 2:17pm

Beck2, thank you for the recommendation.

matthewAddison, what I appreciate about the book is that he wrote it as a response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. He makes example of the danger of fundamentalism, which I happen to agree with.

Aside from his over implications, as Becky2 pointed out, I have another issue. As much as he attacks religion, he attacks moderation and tolerance. It seems like he is trying to fight extremism with extremism, and that does not work too well for me.

[Elphaba]

Posted: 12/14/07 at 2:49pm

I mean at least PRETEND to not be a sock.....you are SO obvious it's just plain hilarious......

[MatthewAddison]

Posted: 12/14/07 at 7:02pm

Updated On: 9/5/08 at 07:02 PM

[Becky2]

Posted: 12/15/07 at 9:43pm

I can understand what he means when he suggests that religious moderation is fueling religious extremism, but I don't that we have to abolish religion in order to solve this problem. I think if we all stop being so touchy about our beliefs, it would satisfy this problem. Beliefs should be respected, but they should not be given the privilages that we sometimes give them.

But yeah, he is trying to fight extremism with extremism. And in many terrorist cases, it's not about religion, it's about a need for recognition and some sort of identity - a way of making oneself known in the world. (There are better ways of doing that, but these people seem to want to take the hard way...) Religion is just used to justify and legitimize it. A promise of paradise makes things more appealing, but the anger is there with or without that incentive.