Only to the extent that I'm aware of the book and its title. It's a work I've always meant to get around to reading but haven't yet.MadArchitect wrote: Getting on to the discussion...
1. Several times you use the term "True Believer" to characterize a certain degree of religious conviction. I wonder if your thinking here is influenced by Eric Hoffer's book of the same name?
I'm using the phrase "True Believer" to refer to the most dogmatic religionists. The "True Believer" usually claims to have the only valid understanding of "God" and his or her religion. I think it's clear from the context, but let me make it clear if it's not, that I understand most religionists do not fall into the category of "True Believers."
Here we disagree. The "cosmic super critter" isn't intended to be a caricature of anyone's idea about god. The phrase is aimed at the generic god concept. One of the reasons I use it is to move away from the word "god" in recognition that not all ideas about deities use that language. The "cosmic super critter" is a characterization of a generic entity, not the "God" of any religion and certainly not the "God" worshipped by any believer. And, yes, I will confess it is my way of poking a little gentle fun at the vagueries associated with the concept.MadArchitect wrote: 2. If you issue a second edition, might I suggest that you go through and eliminate some of the phrases that work against your premise that "there is a need to talk about these subjects to the broad mass of people, and to do so in a way that is neither patronizing nor elitist." I'm thinking specifically of comments like, "What make atheists atheists is that they have no belief in a cosmic super critter of any description." From what I've read so far, it looks as though your book is comparatively free of that kind of characterization, but you could do better than "comparatively." On the whole, a great deal of the atheist literature I've read traffics in descriptions and analogies that derive a certain part of their strength from trying to make religious belief look as silly and ridiculous as possible: they compare it to belief in, say, Martian unicorns, or compare God to Superman, and so on. Maybe that's how you really feel about religious belief -- though I suspect you're more sympathetic than many atheists -- but I hope you can at least agree that language of that sort is not likely to foster genuine discussion or mutual understanding.
By the same token, I think it's clear my reference to Coleridge's "willing suspension of disbelief" is my opinion of the mechanism at the core of religious faith, most specifically the faith of the "True Believers" referenced earlier. It's certainly an arguable point, but I don't think it's necessary to avoid making the comment for fear someone may be offended.
Let's be clear. I don't have a very high opinion of most of the god ideas I've encountered and most of the religions I know about. This book is partly about my reasons for leaving those things behind. I don't know of any way to indicate those reasons without offering my opinions.
However, I assume this is for an audience of adults who can read without seeking out reasons for finding offense unnecessarily. I understand, as I indicated, that believers find it hard to have their beliefs criticized and tend to take it personally when they are. However, while I haven't intentionally gone out of my way to offend anyway, neither have I edited my opinions so as to avoid the possibility of giving offense
I think of atheism as a starting point from which one may well revisit a number of things, such as morality and so on. But one cannot legitimately infer a particular moral or philosophical (or any other) stance based on a declaration of atheism. Atheists come at these issues in all sorts of ways. The only legitimate implication to be drawn from atheism is that whatever position an atheist takes, a god won't be part of it.MadArchitect wrote: 3. To be honest, I find your quote from Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God" problematic. Not because I think atheists should be obliged to answer the questions or accusations of their opponents, but because I think the fact of a person's atheism implies some very valid and difficult questions, even given the definition of atheism as a lack of belief in, rather than a denial of, gods. Those questions aren't intrinsic, of course -- they arise from context in which all modern atheists live. In other words, an atheist living in an atheist culture wouldn't be faced with the same questions. But it does seem to me that a person who has accepted a great many of the institutions and assumptions of a culture that, over a long period of time, built those things on the premises of a particular belief (ie. theism), draws all of that into question when he abandons that belief.
No. Just that strongly held beliefs are sometimes called "religious." I wanted the reader to understand that when I use the word in this book, I'm referring to theistic religions and not the more colloquial uses of the word.MadArchitect wrote: 4. In the fourth footnote to this chapter, you equate religious belief with any strongly held set of beliefs. Do you mean that as literally as it reads?
Of course that doesn't mean that we ought not consider the origins (or what we think may be the origins) of such beliefs. I don't think that's so much an attempt to discredit religion as an attempt to understand it.MadArchitect wrote: 5. I think you make an excellent point in noting that the origin of a belief -- including religious belief -- neither justifies nor negates the validity of that belief. I've seen a lot of attempts to discredit religion by a sort of pseudo-historical method -- Dennett's "Breaking the Spell" comes to mind.
Such fragmentation is certainly true of large groups, including, as I note in the text, all other religions. However, it's important to understand that discussions about "Christianity" have to take that fragmentation into account, and that was the point of the comment.MadArchitect wrote: 6. It's also valid to point out that "Christianity is such a huge denomination with so many mutually exclusive elements, it seems wishful thinking to call it one religion." But I'd extend that principle. The same is true of political parties, of national organizations, of ethnic groups, etc. That sort of internal fragmentation seems indicative of any large group (the primatologist Robin Dunbar has some interesting comments along those lines), and I'm not sure it says anything about religion in particular that isn't equally applicable to any other kind of large group.
My opinion on the god/no god question is provisional because I think it has to be. I can see no way to prove or disprove the proposition "god exists" with any sort of certainty. That doesn't mean I don't have strong opinions on the matter, just that I recognize it may be futile to attempt to resolve it with any finality.MadArchitect wrote: 7. You also note that your personal position of the supposed existence of a god or gods is provisional. I hope that's true; I think it's a commendable position to genuinely hold. There's a lot of talk among atheists and metaphysical naturalists of provisional belief, but from my experience, a lot of them are towing a party line in the interest of diplomacy.
But you seem to be trying to have it on both ways when you speak of atheists "towing a party line in the interest of diplomacy" and then go on to say they're really itching for a fight with theists. I know that goes on, but I have to say that in my experience the vitriol and vehemence of the most extreme example of that sort of thing (feel free to chose your candidate for that honor) does not begin to compare with the vituperation that has been heaped by many members of the clergy and other theist as well on anyone who dares declare their atheism openly. Now I don't suggest that one justifies the other, but it certainly helps to explain it. Don't you think?
You have to read what I said. "For purposes of this discussion, I am using the term "god" as it is commonly used in western civilization. God is a supreme being (a cosmic super critter, if you will) who created the universe, who created all that is in that universe and created it for a purpose."MadArchitect wrote: 8. Oh, and just as a minor quibble, creator status is by no means consistent among religions as a criteria for divine status. This should be patently obvious with just about any polytheistic religion. Even if Hinduism attributes Creation to a god, it still makes reference to any number of gods that took no part in creating the world. The Greek creation story of Hesiod doesn't involve a creator god at all -- all the gods arise as parts of creation. So if having created the world is a baseline criteria for god status, how do we account for the plethora of non-creator gods that appear in so many religious traditions?
I think your quibble is misplaced. I'm not talking about every possible idea about a deity ever offered, and I certainly recognize there are lots of variations out there. I don't claim to be writing an exhaustive compendium of all the nuances and variations of religious belief on the planet.
George