Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Wed Jul 27, 2016 4:06 pm

<< Week of July 27, 2016 >>
Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday
27 Day Month

28 Day Month

29 Day Month

30 Day Month

31 Day Month

1 Day Month

2 Day Month





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average. 
Godless in America: Why I wrote it 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Junior

Gold Contributor

Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 311
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 3 times in 3 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Godless in America: Why I wrote it
I wrote Godless in America: conversations with an atheist with two goals in mind.

The first was to explain atheism, as I understand it, and to show how it can lead to a positive outlook. The second was to address the status of nonbelief in the United States and the dangers I see in the efforts of fundamentalist religionists to coopt our public institutuions.

In order to address those issues, I felt it necessary to critique some fundamental aspects of religions and to explain why I find them less than satisfactory. My intent was not to attack the religious beliefs of individuals but to discuss general religious concepts and some of the problems inherent in them. However, my book is not a scholarly tome on religions.

My overall objective was to explain my view of atheism and why I find it preferable to a religious perspective. It was not to provide another tiresome compendium of arguments against the various versions of the god idea or of the many contradictions and imbecilities to be found in the holy books of most religions. Nor did I have any interest in leading my readers down one or another of the metaphysical ratholes into which such discussions often vanish.

I wanted to write in plain English about atheism and gods and religions. I hoped the reader would find the conversational tone of the book to be inviting and would come away from it with, at a minimum, a greater appreciation of this atheist's view of things.

Godless in America was published in April 2006, so it came out before Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell and Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation. In a sense it has been eclipsed by those other titles. However, I think most of those who have found my little book have, for the most part, enjoyed the experience.

George

http://www.godlessinamerica.com

"Godlessness is not about denying the existence of nonsensical beings. It is the starting point for living life without them."

Godless in America by George A. Ricker




Fri Aug 03, 2007 11:07 am
Profile WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Online
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Owner
Diamond Contributor 3

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 15093
Location: Florida
Thanks: 2899
Thanked: 1114 times in 882 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)
Highscores: 6

Post Re: Godless in America: Why I wrote it
Quote:
However, I think most of those who have found my little book have, for the most part, enjoyed the experience.
I've been enjoying your book immensely. While on the flight to and from Lake Tahoe this past weekend I devoured and apprciated your book.

I'd like to advertise that we're reading and discussing your book, but I'm not sure where to place the ads. Any suggestions?




Fri Aug 03, 2007 8:21 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Worthy of Worship


Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2021
Location: NY
Thanks: 560
Thanked: 171 times in 118 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Godless in America: Why I wrote it
I am going to try to find the book this weekend and if I have any free time I will read it while I am at the academy.

I really hope I have the time to read it, it sounds like something that I will enjoy.

Later

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well
preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out,
shouting..."Holy Crap...what a ride!"




Fri Aug 03, 2007 9:46 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Junior

Gold Contributor

Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 311
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 3 times in 3 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Godless in America: Why I wrote it
Chris: I'd like to advertise that we're reading and discussing your book, but I'm not sure where to place the ads. Any suggestions?

I guess anywhere that freethinkers and liberal religionists are likely to gather. I wish I could be more specific, but, when it comes to advertising on the web, I'm really clueless.

I did post an announcement on the "My blog/What's new?" page on my web site. Maybe a few people will migrate from there to here.

Glad to hear you liked the book. ::14

George

http://www.godlessinamerica.com

"Godlessness is not about denying the existence of nonsensical beings. It is the starting point for living life without them."

Godless in America by George A. Ricker




Sat Aug 04, 2007 4:10 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
I dumpster dive for books!

Bronze Contributor

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1790
Thanks: 2
Thanked: 18 times in 13 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Godless in America: Why I wrote it
George: The first was to explain atheism, as I understand it, and to show how it can lead to a positive outlook.

I appreciate your down to earth, informed, brass tacks approach to the subject George. I've visited your blog and have read a number of your posts there, as well engaged many of your important contributions at Booktalk. I don't know if I'll have time to read your book during this cycle of discussions, but it looks like something certainly worthy of careful reading when time is more available. Congratulations.

Of the theists I take seriously (Hans Kung, Nicholas Lash, John D. Caputo, to name a few) they have a similar approach to their work: explaining what it means to have faith in God and how that can lead to a positive outlook. An important part of that project involves taking account of the abuses and misuses of theism in the history of religion and ideas. In other words, some of the most incisive criticism of religious superstition, ideological thuggery, and theistic nonsense is written by theists. Obviously they draw very different conclusions than yourself, but they often share many of the same criticisms. Do you engage a similar critique of atheism and its abuses across history?

George: The second was to address the status of nonbelief in the United States and the dangers I see in the efforts of fundamentalist religionists to coopt our public institutuions.

What do you mean by fundamentalist religionists and do you make substantive distinctions when defining the differences within the communities of religious folk...do these distinctions allow for political allies among some theists? If political alliances are possible with some theists, do you expect them to leave their theology at home...or is there room for that in your struggle against the fundamentalist assault?




Wed Aug 15, 2007 3:47 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Junior

Gold Contributor

Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 311
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 3 times in 3 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Godless in America: Why I wrote it
DH: Do you engage a similar critique of atheism and its abuses across history?

Since I define atheism as the absence of belief in a deity, I'm not sure how abuse could enter into it. However, if I'm understanding the direction of your question, I waste no time at all dealing with political systems that feature atheism as a dogma. In my view atheism is antithetical to any sort of dogmatic approach and I think that's clear in what I have written.

DH: What do you mean by fundamentalist religionists and do you make substantive distinctions when defining the differences within the communities of religious folk...do these distinctions allow for political allies among some theists? If political alliances are possible with some theists, do you expect them to leave their theology at home...or is there room for that in your struggle against the fundamentalist assault?

I'm quite clear that there is tremendous variety of belief among religionists and that the fundamentalist variety I am addressing is a small but vocal minority within respective religious communities. As a matter of fact, I do note that many religious people also are concerned about many of my concerns regarding these issues.

However, my book is not a manual on communities of religious folk and makes no effort to categorize all the variations that are possible. As far as alliances with religious folk are concerned, I really don't discuss that in the book. As I've told you before in other threads, I have no problem with such alliances. Whether or not the religious folk in question leave their religious theologies at home is up to them. But if religion is driving the train, I won't be on it.

George

http://www.godlessinamerica.com

"Godlessness is not about denying the existence of nonsensical beings. It is the starting point for living life without them."

Godless in America by George A. Ricker




Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:55 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
I dumpster dive for books!

Bronze Contributor

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1790
Thanks: 2
Thanked: 18 times in 13 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Godless in America: Why I wrote it
garicker: However, if I'm understanding the direction of your question, I waste no time at all dealing with political systems that feature atheism as a dogma. In my view atheism is antithetical to any sort of dogmatic approach and I think that's clear in what I have written.

No doubt atheism has been abused by totalitarian regimes, especially during the 20th Century (Stalin and Mao sludge immediately to mind). Both systems had a particular vision for the future and were willing and prepared to sacrifice whatever stood in the way. Key to their ideology was an ancient practice of keeping dangerous ideas away from the community. Unacceptable thoughts, questions, notions, values, contrary visions for the future and debate about what was best for the people, party or state...borders are required and boundaries need be set in place to quarantine these infectious beliefs...they cannot be allowed to spread.

What is it about your form of atheism that keeps it from embarking on this ancient (and quite modern) practice of patrolling the borders of unacceptable thought: forcing a quarantine on the deluded and dangerous minded...being willing to silence, sacrifice, or eliminate whatever gets in the way?

garicker: I'm quite clear that there is tremendous variety of belief among religionists and that the fundamentalist variety I am addressing is a small but vocal minority within respective religious communities.

How do you define the fundamentalist variety? Do you spend any time in your book making sense of what motivates this small but vocal minority?




Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:54 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Junior

Gold Contributor

Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 311
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 3 times in 3 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Godless in America: Why I wrote it
DH: What is it about your form of atheism that keeps it from embarking on this ancient (and quite modern) practice of patrolling the borders of unacceptable thought: forcing a quarantine on the deluded and dangerous minded...being willing to silence, sacrifice, or eliminate whatever gets in the way?

Atheism is the absence of god-belief. It is not a religion, a philosophy or a political ideology. Totalitarian regimes that may advocate non-belief are problematic because they are totalitarian, not because they are atheistic. There is absolutely nothing in the statements "I have no belief in gods" or "I believe no gods exist" that could or should cause anyone to do anything to anybody. I think any attempt to impose atheism as some sort of dogma is antithetical to the nature of atheism as I understand it.

DH: How do you define the fundamentalist variety? Do you spend any time in your book making sense of what motivates this small but vocal minority?

Fundamentalism, in most religious traditions, is dogmatically orthodox, usually insists on the most literal interpretation of whatever holy book is followed by that religion and regards all departures from orthodoxy as anathema.

I don't think speculating about motives is especially profitable. My concern is more with the impact of fundamentalism on our society.

http://www.godlessinamerica.com

"Godlessness is not about denying the existence of nonsensical beings. It is the starting point for living life without them."

Godless in America by George A. Ricker




Thu Aug 16, 2007 5:26 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
I dumpster dive for books!

Bronze Contributor

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1790
Thanks: 2
Thanked: 18 times in 13 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Godless in America: Why I wrote it
George: There is absolutely nothing in the statements "I have no belief in gods" or "I believe no gods exist" that could or should cause anyone to do anything to anybody.

Until, I suppose, antithetical beliefs bump up against it. Then an additional belief would need to mobilize action against the demand "all must believe in god". Beliefs in self-defense, civil rights, personal liberties, or freedom of conscience might provide the spur to protect oneself from theistic intrusions...but atheism, itself, as you see it, would...well, what would/should it do in the face of totalitarian theologies and invading ideologies?

George: I think any attempt to impose atheism as some sort of dogma is antithetical to the nature of atheism as I understand it.

Why not impose it on others? If others are engaged in self-delusion that can and does lead to destructive impact upon surrounding communities and ecosystems: why not intervene on behalf of oneself and the community? Why not intervene on behalf of the truth?

George: Fundamentalism, in most religious traditions, is dogmatically orthodox, usually insists on the most literal interpretation of whatever holy book is followed by that religion and regards all departures from orthodoxy as anathema.

I'm not certain if any community can escape dogma, or avoid endorsing orthodoxy. The issue is whether said dogma or orthodoxy can be proven legitimate. Dogma, as I understand it, is the teaching that binds the rules of the community across geography and generations: it keeps the traditions in tact across space and time, providing an integrity of identity and mission; inculcating the vision and purpose of why this particular community chooses to organize itself. Orthodoxy involves what is correct thinking and proper deeds: truth and action. When a community abandons dogma and orthodoxy, it essentially abandons itself. The heretic does not reject orthodoxy and dogma, per se, but introduces a different teaching and opposing set of rules. This forces the orthodoxy of the community to make a decision: is this new introduction a threat to our integrity, or can it enrich our understanding?

I really don't see how any community can avoid this process. Again, the issue is whether the process is legitmate. How we define this legitimacy is complicated, no doubt. Totalitarians define it without debate, absent dialogue, and with scarce tolerance for anything beyond orthodoxy: and they impose it with brute force, violence and terror. Fundamentalists (if they lack the power of brute force) utilize similar narrow strictures of orthodoxy, and impose their beliefs with threats of social anomie, familial disarray, cultural decadence, and (often) eternal punishment in the fires of hell....as well as promises of temporal wealth and heavenly reward.

We both reject the legitmacy of totalitarian and fundamentalist imposition of orthodoxy and dogma: but do you agree that dogma and orthodoxy are inevitable?

George: I don't think speculating about motives is especially profitable. My concern is more with the impact of fundamentalism on our society.

Perhaps if we found a legitimate need being perversely met by totalitarian ideologies/fundamentalist religions, then by finding other ways to meet these needs: we reduce the attraction and allure of totalitarian and fundamentalist options?

Edited by: Dissident Heart at: 8/17/07 1:23 pm



Fri Aug 17, 2007 10:34 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Junior

Gold Contributor

Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 311
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 3 times in 3 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Godless in America: Why I wrote it
I wrote: There is absolutely nothing in the statements "I have no belief in gods" or "I believe no gods exist" that could or should cause anyone to do anything to anybody.

DH responded: Until, I suppose, antithetical beliefs bump up against it. Then an additional belief would need to mobilize action against the demand "all must believe in god". Beliefs in self-defense, civil rights, personal liberties, or freedom of conscience might provide the spur to protect oneself from theistic intrusions...but atheism, itself, as you see it, would...well, what would/should it do in the face of totalitarian theologies and invading ideologies?

You answer your own question. Obviously anyone has the right to assert freedom of conscience and to resist the attempt to impose belief. That's true of atheists and theists alike. It's not something that's unique to atheists or atheism.

I wrote: I think any attempt to impose atheism as some sort of dogma is antithetical to the nature of atheism as I understand it.

DH responded: Why not impose it on others? If others are engaged in self-delusion that can and does lead to destructive impact upon surrounding communities and ecosystems: why not intervene on behalf of oneself and the community? Why not intervene on behalf of the truth?

When belief leads to actions that are destructive to other people or groups of people, then societies have a right to intervene to prevent such behavior. However, there is no such right to force other people to abandon their beliefs. One might attempt to persuade or to inform another as to why a set of beliefs might be in error, but that's as far as it goes. The only exception might be in cases of serious psychoses when an intervention was necessary to prevent a person from self-inflicted harm or from harming others. Although, even here, a society must be very careful because anytime one attempts such action, the potential for abuse is great. Lots of people in Gulags around the world were placed in them, supposedly, because of psychological aberrations.

I should also add that I am always leery of attempts to impose "the truth." All my truths start with a small "t" and are subject to revision based on what I may learn tomorrow. I would never advocate imposing my beliefs on anyone because I thought I had some unique window on the truth. Truth is what we think we know today. But truth changes as we gain knowledge.

I wrote: Fundamentalism, in most religious traditions, is dogmatically orthodox, usually insists on the most literal interpretation of whatever holy book is followed by that religion and regards all departures from orthodoxy as anathema.

DH responded: I'm not certain if any community can escape dogma, or avoid endorsing orthodoxy. The issue is whether said dogma or orthodoxy can be proven legitimate. Dogma, as I understand it, is the teaching that binds the rules of the community across geography and generations: it keeps the traditions in tact across space and time, providing an integrity of identity and mission; inculcating the vision and purpose of why this particular community chooses to organize itself. Orthodoxy involves what is correct thinking and proper deeds: truth and action. When a community abandons dogma and orthodoxy, it essentially abandons itself. The heretic does not reject orthodoxy and dogma, per se, but introduces a different teaching and opposing set of rules. This forces the orthodoxy of the community to make a decision: is this new introduction a threat to our integrity, or can it enrich our understanding?

I really don't see how any community can avoid this process. Again, the issue is whether the process is legitmate. How we define this legitimacy is complicated, no doubt. Totalitarians define it without debate, absent dialogue, and with scarce tolerance for anything beyond orthodoxy: and they impose it with brute force, violence and terror. Fundamentalists (if they lack the power of brute force) utilize similar narrow strictures of orthodoxy, and impose their beliefs with threats of social anomie, familial disarray, cultural decadence, and (often) eternal punishment in the fires of hell....as well as promises of temporal wealth and heavenly reward.

We both reject the legitmacy of totalitarian and fundamentalist imposition of orthodoxy and dogma: but do you agree that dogma and orthodoxy are inevitable?

It may well be that some amount of dogma and some level of orthodoxy are the inevitable result of human beings living in social groups. However, recognizing that reality is a far cry from endorsing any sort of slavish devotion to the process or the product of that process. It may well be that we can evolve other modes of thinking in a cooperative framework that reduces the need for such institutionalized conformity.

Be that as it may, that's a subject for another day or maybe another book. We both agree that the imposition of dogma or orthodoxy by a totalitarian agency or fundamentalist religion is wrong, at least I think that's what you just said. I'll settle for that.

I wrote: I don't think speculating about motives is especially profitable. My concern is more with the impact of fundamentalism on our society.

DH responded: Perhaps if we found a legitimate need being perversely met by totalitarian ideologies/fundamentalist religions, then by finding other ways to meet these needs: we reduce the attraction and allure of totalitarian and fundamentalist options?

Sure, but I think we're talking about the same thing. In both cases the concern is not motivation but actions. Any ideologue who seeks power over people is going to have to meet some legitimate need. Even a dictator installed by brute military force attemps to justify the coup by invoking a societal need. Otherwise, the attempt is doomed at the outset. Seeking to meet that need by less coercive means is a worthwhile goal, but it doesn't really address motives but actions. Put another way, it's often said that, at least under this or that dictator's rule the trains ran on time (a legitimate need--to have reliable public transport). But the dictator's motive for meeting that need may have nothing to do with promoting a public good. In fact, given the track record of most totalitarian and fundamentalist ideologues, it's a safe bet that it probably doesn't.

This is also getting rather far from the subject of my book.

As I said, my concern with fundamentalist religion is at the point where it intersects with the society in which I live. When fundamentalists attempt to impose their beliefs by legislative fiat or to force them into our public schools or to dress our government in religious trappings, that leads me to react because of my concerns for the implications of such action. I'm not bothered by other people's religions unless they start bothering me with them.

George

http://www.godlessinamerica.com

"Godlessness is not about denying the existence of nonsensical beings. It is the starting point for living life without them."

Godless in America by George A. Ricker




Sat Aug 18, 2007 9:46 am
Profile WWW
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
The Pope of Literature


Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2553
Location: decentralized
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: None specified

Post 
Getting away, for a moment, from the line of inquiry DH is persuing, who did you envision as your audience for the book, George? Religious believers? Other atheists? People who were on the fence?



Wed Sep 26, 2007 2:52 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Junior

Gold Contributor

Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 311
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 3 times in 3 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post 
MadArchitect wrote:
Getting away, for a moment, from the line of inquiry DH is persuing, who did you envision as your audience for the book, George? Religious believers? Other atheists? People who were on the fence?


I hoped the book would be useful to nonbelievers to help them clarify their own thinking about atheism, etc., and would help some theists to gain a better understanding of atheism and what it means to be an atheist in the United States, or, at least, how this atheist perceives it.

I can't honestly claim I had a specific target audience in mind when I wrote the book, except to say that I was fairly confident fundamentalist religionists probably would not be reading it.

George


_________________
George Ricker

"Nothing about atheism prevents me from thinking about any idea. It is the very epitome of freethought. Atheism imposes no dogma and seeks no power over others."

[i][b]mere atheism: no gods


Wed Oct 03, 2007 10:16 am
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average. 



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:



Site Links 
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Info for Authors & Publishers
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!
IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

Featured Books

Books by New Authors


*

FACTS is a select group of active BookTalk.org members passionate about promoting Freethought, Atheism, Critical Thinking and Science.

Apply to join FACTS
See who else is in FACTS







BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.



Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2016. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank