Books affirming the value of Religion

Dissident Heart

I propose Booktalk include in its quarterly reading process one book that explicitly affirms the value the Religion.

At this time we have Non-Fiction, Fiction, and Free-Thinking categories. A fourth could be, simply, Religious.

I don't think this would offend any of the values or mission that Booktalk stands for; actually, I think it will bolster that part of Booktalk that is willing to learn and explore and make sense of the world around us. I think it will allow Booktalk to tackle a well developed thesis from some of the leading scholars and thinkers from the various religious communities across the planet.

I encourage Booktalk to engage some of the Religious scholars of today who approach their tradition and worldview critically, within context of today's more pressing political, cultural, and ecological concerns.

I think it will add to the diversity and depth of the communal ethos that seeks knowledge and engages debate.

Chris OConnor

I'm not intersted in doing anything to help religion in this community. We've discussed this in the past.

Mr. Pessimistic

I see very little value in religion anyway.

Chris...I am happy to read you say that!

Mr. P.

Mr. P's place. I warned you!!!

Mr. P's Bookshelf.

I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Chris OConnor

There are literally hundreds of thousands of web communities, books, magazines, movies, TV channels, churches, religious leaders and religious nuts jamming religion down our throats. BookTalk is supposed to be a place to get away from that nonsense and surround ourselves with people that can think independently or "freely." Rejecting religion isn't a contradiction of freethought. It is what rational people do, just as they reject the Easter Bunny and all surrounding mythology.

I don't mean you personally any disrespect, Dissident, but there isn't a snowballs chance in hell I'd allow religious books to be read here. Quality books struggle enough to get readership. The masses already devour religious texts. We're not going to endorse, promote or support ANY books that tell people that religion is healthy and that believing in a God is fine as long as your belief makes you happy and motivates you to be a good person. Figure out a different way to motivate people other than through deception and ignorance.

George Ricker

I just got here but wanted to add my endorsement of Chris' sentiments on this issue. The noise machine promoting religion and religious books is very prominent these days (especially in the U.S. where I'm posting from). I don't think we need to contribute to it. Those who are interested in discussions of the value of religions should avail themselves of the many venues available for such discussions.

Personally, I see little value in any religion.

George

Chris OConnor

George

Well said. And if we include books that promote the value of religion we should also include books that endorse and promote faith healing, astral projection, Reiki, alchemy, acupuncture, Bigfoot, Bible Code, magnet therapy, Kabalah, etc...

No thank you.

Edited by: Chris OConnor at: 11/23/06 2:03 pm

MadArchitect

My two cents:

BookTalk doesn't necessarily need to include books of religious advocacy in its readings, but I think it would be a patently bad idea to exclude books about religious topics. We just need to give some thought to the kinds of books that would entail.

To illustrate, consider two hypothetical books. One is a book advocating conversion to Hinduism, and is made up mostly of arguments as to why Hindus are better off than most other people. The other is a book about explaining what Hindus believe, the role those beliefs play in world culture, and a borad outline of how those ideas developed throughout history.

The first book BookTalk can safely ignore, and any BookTalk members who want to read it are certainly at liberty to do so on their own. The second book, however, has some bearing on the way that people and nations deal with one another. Given that religion is an institution which impacts the daily lives and thoughts of most of the world's population, I don't think it's a topic that we're safe ignoring altogether, and it might be good for a community with as many concerns as ours to consider every now and then -- and without the overt antagonism that we so often see in these forums -- how other people's beliefs should effect our own decisions regarding the world.

I say "without overt antagonist" because I think that mostly serves to blind us from the complexity of the situation. Learning about the role religion plays in culture and politics is not the same as considering religion as a person decision. So to read a book like this and simply dismiss religion or declare that everyone should turn atheist is to miss the point that there are a great many people whose lives are informed by religion, and we can't always understand their decisions without understanding their religion. Which is much the same as saying that it doesn't pay to ignore or oversimplify Democrat ideology even if you're a staunch Republican and have no intention of ever switching sides.

So I do think that we should consider religious books from time to time. And I think we should be careful to look for books that are neither outright affirmations nor pat dismissals (which is the kind of book that we're more prone to choose, and which, I think, DH is trying to balance against). Nor do I think that this requires the addition of another quarterly reading -- such books would fit quite nicely in our usual Nonfiction reading.

Mr. Pessimistic

There are other places for books like this. I joined booktalk to get away from religious junk. It is sad to me that you have so much say now in the direction booktalk is going, but what can I do about that? Nothing of course.

This is not the place I joined. When I came here, I felt it was a HAVEN for atheists and freethinkers (I do not include the religious as freethinkers, sorry), a place to get away from religion and god and have discussions about that and other related topics, all with the twist of focusing on books. Now, with people like Asana being tolerated and showcased...not so much.

I personally do not care about what people believe in. Keep it in your pants I say and lets relate as people...with our common concerns out front...not which fairy tale you believe in.

Mr. P.

Mr. P's place. I warned you!!!

Mr. P's Bookshelf.

I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Saint Gasoline

I am personally in favor of having a religious book being read, if only because it provides us an opportunity to debate, dialogue with it, and critique it.

For instance, we could read something by, say, Swinburne and discuss the flaws in his arguments for God's existence.

However, we should stay away from the trash bin. Most religious literature is not even remotely scholarly or even accurate. I wouldn't want to read shiite like "The Case for Christ" by Strobel or "Darwin on Trial" by that creationist kook.

Dissident Heart

I think there is a great deal to be said for generosity: the willingness to extend courtesy, favor and support to someone with little or no concern for return of favor. If for no other reason it can be one small oasis in the desert of animosities that choke so much of our contemporary landscapes. I think Booktalk has made sincere efforts to show generosity to it's resident Theists: within a context of substantial disagreement and debate. Animosities exist, feathers get ruffled, insults delivered, feelings hurt, intellects bruised...but that seems to be par for the course when debating ideas that import such value and urgency. Perhaps in a more perfect world everyone would agree about the things that mattered most and the rest would be seen as matters of personal taste: and generosity would make space for those things that simply can't be agreed upon.

I think Booktalk's reading of a specifically Religious book would speak volumes regarding the generosity of this community's willingness to seriously examine the "opposing" perspective. I think it would serve as a model for how diametrically opposed perspectives can be engaged, discussed and debated in rational, civil and humane ways.

I also think this process would expose the fallacy that all Religious perspectives are the same nonsense, reducible to proving the existence of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, but instead are complex approaches to making sense of the world and finding meaning in often banal, brutal and dangerous circumstances. I think there are frankly brilliant writers bringing first class scholarship to Religious issues and coming to very different conclusions than Dawkins, Dennett, Harris or Shermer. These scholars are not nuts jamming religion down anyone's throats but highly respected thinkers in various fields who bring carefully constructed perspectives not usually seen on your typical Religious or Atheist site.

I agree it is Chris' site, and that he has shown sincere largesse in his tolerance of anathema perspectives at Booktalk. Mr. P even thinks he may have gone too far, abandoning some crucial principles and threatening the integrity of the community's mission. I think the right kind of choices for Religious books will further reflect Chris' proper largesse, and will not lead to the disintegration that Mr. P fears already underway.

I think it will bolster the integrity of a community that is secure enough in its own self-identity to consider the extended arguments of perspectives radically opposed to its own.

Chris OConnor

There have been some great posts in this thread, so sorry for not commenting here in a few days. It appears that some of you may have misinterpreted my stance on books about religion. Sometimes I type super fast and don't explain myself very well. For this I apologize.

Quote:
I propose Booktalk include in its quarterly reading process one book that explicitly affirms the value the Religion.

I was replying to this suggestion when I responded with...

Quote:
I'm not interested in doing anything to help religion in this community.

In NO way was I saying that I don't want to read books about religion here. Heck, that is quite the opposite of how I feel. I do, however, have a problem with reading a book that "explicitly affirms the value the Religion." (I assume Dissident meant "value of religion") Explicitly affirming the value of religion is "helping" that religion. Religion already has a stranglehold on the majority of the world and there is no shortage of web sites that explicitly affirm its value.

Nick said, "I see very little value in religion anyway."

To some extent I agree. To me the negatives outweigh the positives, but I've never argued that the positives don't exist. But just because there are positives doesn't mean I want to contribute to the dumbing-down of society by operating a book group that focuses on these positives. That would be like offering free frozen Hemlock milkshakes to children. Hey, they taste good, right? Yes, but they'll eventually kill you. Why not find something else to drink that tastes just as good, but without risking your life in the process?

Quote:
The noise machine promoting religion and religious books is very prominent these days...

It looks like George also read Dissident's words as an attempt to add a section on BookTalk endorsing or promoting theism. And we can't do that here. Not without me having a partial lobotomy. I do NOT endorse religion, nor do I wish to tell people that religious belief isn't dangerous. Faith is the opposite of freethought.

Even Hitler had his good side. I remember sitting down to dinner with some German senior citizens who lived in Germany under Hitler’s rule. They had nothing but good things to say about the guy. I had the balls to ask, "But what about his direct hand in exterminating millions of human beings?" They brushed it aside and said it was all blown out of proportion. Wtf? I don’t care how many streets and schools Hitler built in Germany when he committed such atrocities. His negatives outweigh his positives. The same goes for religious belief. Yes, some good things can come out of believing that a god is watching you, loves you, and will reward or punish you for the decisions you make in life, but the negatives of believing in a magical superhero far outweigh the positives.

Then MadArchitect made an excellent post that pretty much sums up how I feel. As a freethinker community it is essential that we read and discuss books about religion. But these books need to be objective and academic. The field of “Comparative Religion” is fair game on BookTalk. My above post wasn’t an attempt to keep religion out of our community, but we’re not going to endorse or promote it.

Wikipedia defines comparative religion as:

Comparative religion is a field of religious studies that analyzes interpretive differences of common themes and ideas among the world's religions. It also makes comparisons between the rituals and other aspects of various faiths besides just the myths.

Not all of our nonbelievers are interested in learning about the various religions of the world, but in my opinion such study is essential to understanding the world in which we live. There are tons of great books that approach religion in an academic fashion.

I just ran a search on Amazon.com for "Comparative Religion" and looked through the search results.

The Illustrated World's Religions: Guide to Our Wisdom Traditions by Huston Smith
This would be a good choice.

History Of God: The 4000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam by Karen Armstrong
This is another excellent choice.

But these aren't the types of books I think Dissident wanted on the menu.

Notice that I'm not including books like...

The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason by Sam Harris
We all know what the above book is about. It is certainly not an objective approach to comparative religion. It has its place here on BookTalk, as we all know, but it isn't what we're talking about here.

A History of the World's Religions by David S. Noss
Another excellent and seemingly impartial choice.

The Best American Spiritual Writing 2006 by Peter J. Gomes
This is an example of a book we would never read here on BookTalk.

MadArchitect

DH, if Chris' last message hasn't made it clear, maybe I can spell it out. I don't agree with his (/their) position, but over the last few years I've read closely enough to understand it, at least. Sometimes I wonder if you read the posts here in order to understand them, or if you just look for the bits that will allow you to highlight your own points. For Chris and some (probably not all) of the other atheists at BookTalk, all religions can be judged on the basis that they hold the existence of supernatural beings to be true. And that's the bottom line. If you can a) demonstrate the existence of those beings, b) convince your audience that it's unnecessary to do so, or c) provide a better criteria for judging religion, then you might have a shot at getting them to take a second look. But it looks to me as though you've been sidestepping the God issue all along, and that's a mistake, because for the people you're trying to engage, that's the central, unavoidable issue.

Chris OConnor: Being a good person who gets along with other members of the same species and smaller social groups is something naturally selected for by millions of years of evolution. I find it laughable that theists try to claim some ownership rights to morality when "being moral" is what you are pre-programmed genetically to be in the first place.

I'm skeptical of the claims that we're genetically inclined towards moral behavior, if for no other reason than the fact that it's so easy to act immorally. The neo-Darwinian arguments (like that of Richard Wright) seem to me to first presume the Enlightenment doctrine that the natural state of man is peace and equality, and that only subjection to misguided social institutions cause us to deviate from that natural state. Given that premise, they've sought out biological arguments for why our natural state ought to be that rather than this, but they haven't really reconciled those arguments to the fact that we are -- and from a very early age -- selfish, vindictive, violent and rebellious, just as often and as easily as we are generous, forgiving, humane and communal.

What seems more likely to me is that our relationship towards others is analogous in most regards to our relationship to food, as described in "The Omnivore's Dilemma". We're capable of behaving in so many ways that we often have to look for, or devise, some criteria for determine how to behave.

That isn't to say that we should all rush to a copy of the Bible, posthaste, but rather that, regardless of who you are, one of the major sources for your moral disposition (in as much as anyone has one) is probably to a very large degree the result of social and cultural influences.

JulianTheApostate · Posted: Sat Dec 09, 2006 2:16 am Post subject: Sacred Fragments

As one data point, several months ago I read Rabbi Neil Gillman's Sacred Fragments: Recovering Theology for the Modern Jew. Even though I'm an atheist, I really enjoyed reading it.

My prior knowledge of Jewish thought had been acquired as an pre-adolescent from mediocre Sunday school teachers. It was neat seeing how a first-rate theologian viewed Judaism. And I'm equally curious about what a top-notch Christian or Muslim thinker would have to say.

Gillman didn't argue the virtues of religion, in part because his intended audience consists of Jewish believers. Instead, he presented a worldview incorporating Judiasm and the last several centuries of Western philosophy.

I read to learn more of the world, and the world includes vast numbers of people, many of them brilliant, who believe in God. Learning more about their beliefs is a worthwhile use of my time, even though I remain an atheist.


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	ADVERTISE	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CHAT	CONTACT