Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME FORUMS BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:19 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 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.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Ch. 1 - Rival Theories -- and Critical Assessment of Them 
Author Message
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Genius


Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 761
Thanks: 3
Thanked: 13 times in 12 posts
Gender: None specified

Post 
In the United states, an informal protestant Christian ethos affects much public discussion, despite the official separation of Church and State.

Aw, gee! I didn't think anybody noticed.

:lol:



Sat Mar 08, 2008 5:36 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Genius


Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 761
Thanks: 3
Thanked: 13 times in 12 posts
Gender: None specified

Post 
2. Christianity and Marxism Compared

Similarities . . . first, they each make claims about the nature of the universe as a whole.

Christianity - committed to belief in God . . .

Marx - condemned religion . . .

About history:

Christianity - the meaning is given by its relation to the eternal . . .

Marx - claimed a pattern of progress that is entirely internal to it.

Individuals:

Christianity -we are made in the image of God. We are free to accept or reject . . . doing so, decides whether we have a life after death.

Marx - denies life after death - denies judgment.

Problems:

Christianity - we are not in accordance with God's will . . . that's what causes our problems.

Marx - it's not 'sin', it's 'alienation'. Guess that means something the same, only the 'alienation' is from the communism - capitalism do not allow people to develop.

Christianity - once we accept Christ, we can begin to live a new, regenerate life.

Marx - the opposite - there can be no improvement until there's a radical change in society. Capitalism must be replaced by Communism!

Future:

Christianity - people restored to the state which God intends . . .

Marx - a perfect society where people may become their 'real selves', living in co-operation with each other.

(That'd be nice work if we could get it)

For Christianity there is the church . . .

For Marxism there are a variety of communist parties.

Each claims to be right.

-----------------------------------



Sat Mar 08, 2008 5:57 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Genius


Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 761
Thanks: 3
Thanked: 13 times in 12 posts
Gender: None specified

Post 
Other "Idelogies" about Human Nature

. . . between Christianity and Marxism . . . some have suggested that the latter is as much a religion as the former.

Well, in what way? In the way they are both so 'fist down on the table 'right'?

The theories of the ancient Greeks, expecially of their great philosophers Plato and Artistotle, still influence us today.

. . . a variety of thinkers has tried to apply the methods of science (as they understood them) to human nature.

Hobbes, Hume - Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Freud

. . . have fundamentally affected our understanding of ourselves.

Scientists - Skinner and Lorenz

Chinese, Indian and African conceptions . . .

Islam - often seen as oriental - closely related to Judaism and Christianity in its origins.

China - Confucianism has been given some official revival.

They are all 'ideology', so says this segment.

But the theories we have selected to discuss all exhibit the main elements of that common structure we have seen in Christianity and Marxiism:

1. a background theory about the world;

2. a basic theory of the nature of human beings;

3. a diagnosis of what is wrong with us; and

4. a prescription for putting it right.



Last edited by WildCityWoman on Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:12 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Genius


Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 761
Thanks: 3
Thanked: 13 times in 12 posts
Gender: None specified

Post 
In this same section the authors are saying:

With the modern psychological or biological theories, we cannot hope to be up to date with all the very latest developments, for the frontiers of science and speculation are constantly moving.

Hmmmm ... guess the Buddha was right - nothing is permanent!



Last edited by WildCityWoman on Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:17 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Genius


Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 761
Thanks: 3
Thanked: 13 times in 12 posts
Gender: None specified

Post 
The Criticism of Theories

Christianity - so if God is so good, why does He not answer the prayers and relieve suffering all over the world?

Marxism - revolutions against communism haven't occurred in the 'heart of capitalism' in the western world . . . and communism collapsed in the late twentieth century.

So doesn't that Marx's theory to be no good?

--------------------------

Are we really free and responsible for our own actions, or is everything determined?

Do we live after death?

Is it true that we're made of nothing but 'matter', in the light of our ability to think and process knowledge?

Christians - believe only Christ can save us;

Marxists - believe that we can save ourselves.

Neither have proved to be right - neither institution, the church or the communists groups have been able to prevent the suffering of mankind.



Last edited by WildCityWoman on Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:18 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Genius


Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 761
Thanks: 3
Thanked: 13 times in 12 posts
Gender: None specified

Post 
5. Defenses Against Objections - 'Closed Systems'

Even though Christianity has never proven to have the answers for the world, there still being war, hunger . . . suffering, and Marxism has failed miserably, there are still who hold to them.

Christianity is still going strong - people are converting all the time.

Marxism, although few are living by it, except where forced, is still believed in by some. Those few who are still clinging to it, argue there was nothing wrong with it - they were just doing it all wrong - not following Marx's instructions right.

Both sides give all kinds of excuses as to why Christianity or Marxism hasn't worked.

The Christian says God doesn't answer our prayers because sometimes it's better for us to suffer.

The Marxist says their followers were 'bought' off by the western world - that's why their system doesn't work.

The Christians say those who object/criticize their faith are sinners - they are blinded by sin and it is their own pride that prevents them from seeing the light.

The Marxists claim that non-believers are deluded by a 'false consciousness'.
It's the capitalists who distract them from the truth.

Two ways of preventing critical objections from turning people away:

1) not allowing any evidence to count against the theory, i.e., always finding some way of explaining away putative counterevidence; or

2) answering criticism by analysing the motivations of the critic in terms of the theory itself.


Then you get the 'closed system'.

The authors also include the Freudian theories as being defended in the same way.

. . . Christianity, Marxism and Freudian theory can be held as closed systems - - but this is not to say that all Christians, Marxists or Freudians hold their belief in that way.

Why should people want to maintain belief:

Inertia, and unwillingness to admit that one is wrong, must play a large part here.

. . . it takes courage to question or abandon one's life-commitment.

Well, I've always thought that too - even if someone of a particular faith - such as Islam - sincerely wants to change over, for whatever reason - Christianity holds more promise, his benefactors (host country/nation) have convinced him otherwise - it would be hard for a person to turn his back on the faith he has always practiced.

----------------------

I remember being at a school where job-search technique was being discussed. At the meeting, the teacher had us practice shaking hands with each other.

One of the Muslim men at the meeting wouldn't participate in that - he said his religion/culture prohibited him from shaking hands, or practicing any kind of touching with anyone who was not his wife, mother or sister.

He expressed feeling difficulty with this - he knew when he went for job interviews that he was expected to shake hands with a female who interviewed him.

Would that female have accounted for that, respected his faith and practice? Or would she be offended and consider him as being 'far too much trouble'.

What was she supposed to do? Have him come into the office on Monday morning to start work, then inform all the women in the office that they were to be very careful not to shake hands or touch him in any way.

Do we not walk up to each other, at times, tap the others back - maybe a playful punch? Are we to change our own values for the benefit of people from other cultures?

Kinda' hard to do that, I'd say. But just as much as it would be hard for us to get used to these 'new rules', it must be hard for the newcomer to do things he's just not accustomed to doing.



Last edited by WildCityWoman on Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:19 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Genius


Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 761
Thanks: 3
Thanked: 13 times in 12 posts
Gender: None specified

Post 
The Hope for Rational Discussion and Evaluation

Why should I believe this?

Why should I accept this authority?


The media of the so-called "global village" seem to bring different cultures together in the sense only of confrontation, not of dialogue.

That seems to be how it is a lot of the time - somebody just comes on the air, reports an incident, moves their eyebrows to denote that there's something important about it - like you ever see the way the newscasters use their facial language when there's been an incident that involves SMOKING?

It's like this is the most horrendous thing that has taken place in the history of man! Somebody was SMOKING!

Seems like the media tells us what to think.

--------------------------

For we can always distinguish what someone says from that person's motivation for saying it.

We can if we think about it - if we keep in mind that it is truly an individual person talking - but often as not, is just one more 'talking head' reading from what a group of individuals wants told.

-----------------------------

Nietzche - scorned the theory of knowledge and moral philosophy . . . displays a double standard at work in his own thought.

How does he know what's 'truth'?


For that matter, what is truth and what is what someone else wants you to think?

. . . the technique of meeting all criticism by attacking the motives of the critic . . .

Someone's motivation m ay be peculiar or objectionable in some way, and yet what the person says may be true and justifiable by good reasons.

Well, to put things in my own words, I see this segment as asking the reader the question of just how easy or difficult it can be to discuss issues thoroughly - in any issue, does everybody get the chance to put their own honest opinion on the table?

Often, there are things a person might want to say, but doesn't because of the general attitude of the room - the environment.

For instance . . . let's say we're at a meeting which has been called to discuss just how much money and resource should a city put into an upcoming Gay Pride event - the parade, the speeches, the get togethers - the policing of the event.

How much should be spent? How much manpower should be assigned to the event?

IF most of the people at the table are 'straights', who are put off by this kind of thing, then the few who are either 'gay' or 'gay sympathizers', aren't going to feel they can speak up and express their own views. They will keep quiet to avoid conflict.

IF most of the people at the table are 'gay' and are people who are all for this event, then the few who are not will not feel free to express their views.

----------------------

Say there's a meeting at your office - everybody's obligated to attend. The issue is whether to extend office hours to meet with an expected rise in business.

The owner of the business is, of course, all for the idea - she doesn't have to spend the extra time at the office, of course - her employees will be pressed into that service.

She, a couple of the company's major stockholders, the general manager, etc., are all there.

The employees are expected to give their views.

Most of the employees are family people and don't want to be forced into doing extra time they don't want to do. But they have to be careful what they say - they don't want to offend someone and have their job on the line.

Maybe even one of the top echelon in the company is against the extended hours - he believes it's better to find a way of handling the extra work within the regular hours. He's of the belief that employees should be free to be with their families, or their own personal pleasures on evenings and weekends.

He's not going to feel comfortable saying so with the stockholders who want the extended hours - with people who might even 'pull out' if he doesn't agree with them.

What I'm saying is that something could be put forth as being a statement that EVERYBODY agrees with - the poll was unanimous!

But it's not necessarily so - the results didn't really reflect what people really thought.

OK . . . so it isn't the most 'sophisticated' view of this segment, but those are my thoughts on it.

Image



Last edited by WildCityWoman on Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.



Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:20 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Genius


Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 761
Thanks: 3
Thanked: 13 times in 12 posts
Gender: None specified

Post 
7. Validity of Statements

'Explaining' and 'Explaining Away' . . .

Consider how Christians try to solve the problem of why God does not prevent suffering, and Marxists the problem of why revolutions did not occur in the West.

What do they mean by that? Revolutions about Christianity? Why would the west have revolutions about Marxism?

Anyway, my take on this small segment is that Christians and Marxists are quick to shoo away these questions by coming back with simple statements like 'God is good'.

Q:

If there is a kind sympathetic God - if he sees the 'little sparrow fall', then why is there so much suffering?

A:

God is good.

I don't really know what statements are used to defend Marxism. Probably the same kinda' thing.

What this segment is telling us is that both sides - Christians and Marxists -should make a better effort in answering questions, when looking to gain supporters.



Last edited by WildCityWoman on Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:20 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Genius


Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 761
Thanks: 3
Thanked: 13 times in 12 posts
Gender: None specified

Post 
7.1 Value Judgments

My take on this wee segment is that some 'statements' cannot be taken as factual - they are merely peoples' opinions, not facts.

The author's example - homosexuality is not normal - if you saw this statement somewhere, it could just be one person's (or a small group of people) opinion.



Last edited by WildCityWoman on Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:34 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Genius


Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 761
Thanks: 3
Thanked: 13 times in 12 posts
Gender: None specified

Post 
7.2 Analytic Statements

The example used here is the statement all human beings are animals.

In order to prove this wrong, you'd have to consider what the individual means by the word 'animal'.

Eating, sleeping, feeling, defecating - all animals do that - if that's how the word 'animals' is taken by the statement maker, then in his view 'all human beings are animals'.

That one's a 'thinker'.



Last edited by WildCityWoman on Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:14 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Genius


Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 761
Thanks: 3
Thanked: 13 times in 12 posts
Gender: None specified

Post 
7.3 Empirical Statements, Including Scientific Theories

Empirical Statements - these are formed by 'what we see'. Investigating and seeing for yourself - it often rains in Vancouver - anyone who has been there can see that for themselves.

So that would be an 'empirical statement'.

If you wanted to prove that it does NOT often rain in Vancouver, how would you prove it? Get absolutely unbeatable evidence that people stand on top of the buildings and pour pailfuls of water, just to make you think that it often rains in Vancouver?

Ha ha!



Last edited by WildCityWoman on Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:14 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Genius


Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 761
Thanks: 3
Thanked: 13 times in 12 posts
Gender: None specified

Post 
7.4 Metaphysical Statements

Here I go on that 'metaphysical' word again . . . in this book, I guess it means 'religious', or 'spiritual' - not 'supernatural'.

Well, other than scriptural text, what proof do we have that there's a God? Just a lotta' text where people wrote about it?

Have we seen anything to prove it.

If I have a spiritual vision tonight, I could well say 'OK - I know! There is a God!'

But it could be argued that I just had a vision caused by a migraine, a prescription medication, or maybe just a very vivid dream.

Unless I came up with pictures of the vision - actual prints, or digital images, I'd have no proof. And even if I had same, it could be argued that I manipulated it through the art of creative photography.

Like Kriss Angel walking from the top of one building to another - doesn't prove that he can really do it. It proves that he hires a lot of people to stand down at the bottom and go Ooooo, Ahhhhhh!



Last edited by WildCityWoman on Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:15 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Thinks Abridged Editions are an Abomination

Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 4072
Location: Canberra
Thanks: 1118
Thanked: 1148 times in 864 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Australia (au)

Post 
WildCityWoman wrote:
5. Defenses Against Objections - 'Closed Systems' Even though Christianity has never proven to have the answers for the world, there still being war, hunger . . . suffering, and Marxism has failed miserably, there are still who hold to them. Christianity is still going strong - people are converting all the time. Marxism, although few are living by it, except where forced, is still believed in by some. Those few who are still clinging to it, argue there was nothing wrong with it - they were just doing it all wrong - not following Marx's instructions right. Both sides give all kinds of excuses as to why Christianity or Marxism hasn't worked. The Christian says God doesn't answer our prayers because sometimes it's better for us to suffer. The Marxist says their followers were 'bought' off by the western world - that's why their system doesn't work. The Christians say those who object/criticize their faith are sinners - they are blinded by sin and it is their own pride that prevents them from seeing the light. The Marxists claim that non-believers are deluded by a 'false consciousness'. It's the capitalists who distract them from the truth. Two ways of preventing critical objections from turning people away: 1) not allowing any evidence to count against the theory, i.e., always finding some way of explaining away putative counterevidence; or 2) answering criticism by analysing the motivations of the critic in terms of the theory itself. Then you get the 'closed system'. The authors also include the Freudian theories as being defended in the same way. . . . Christianity, Marxism and Freudian theory can be held as closed systems - - but this is not to say that all Christians, Marxists or Freudians hold their belief in that way. Why should people want to maintain belief: Inertia, and unwillingness to admit that one is wrong, must play a large part here. . . . it takes courage to question or abandon one's life-commitment. Well, I've always thought that too - even if someone of a particular faith - such as Islam - sincerely wants to change over, for whatever reason - Christianity holds more promise, his benefactors (host country/nation) have convinced him otherwise - it would be hard for a person to turn his back on the faith he has always practiced. ---------------------- I remember being at a school where job-search technique was being discussed. At the meeting, the teacher had us practice shaking hands with each other. One of the Muslim men at the meeting wouldn't participate in that - he said his religion/culture prohibited him from shaking hands, or practicing any kind of touching with anyone who was not his wife, mother or sister. He expressed feeling difficulty with this - he knew when he went for job interviews that he was expected to shake hands with a female who interviewed him. Would that female have accounted for that, respected his faith and practice? Or would she be offended and consider him as being 'far too much trouble'. What was she supposed to do? Have him come into the office on Monday morning to start work, then inform all the women in the office that they were to be very careful not to shake hands or touch him in any way. Do we not walk up to each other, at times, tap the others back - maybe a playful punch? Are we to change our own values for the benefit of people from other cultures? Kinda' hard to do that, I'd say. But just as much as it would be hard for us to get used to these 'new rules', it must be hard for the newcomer to do things he's just not accustomed to doing.


Hi WCW, this is an interesting post. The characterization 'open-closed' presents a useful typology to analyse the sociology of belief. My view is that the quality of openness is a philosophical attribute, a virtue that can govern assessment of claims. Of course, it stands in tension with tradition, which judges that rival claims must pass a strong conservative test. Many accepted claims are integral to the traditional world view, so a closed system will not accept new ideas if they seem to lead to an unraveling of their conventional outlook.

I was recently reading a comment on the Book of Daniel, about his dream where he told Nebuchadnezzar that four empires were predicted by the statue with head of gold, body of silver and bronze, legs of iron and feet of iron and clay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadne ... n_Daniel_2 Now, the interesting thing here is that believers focus on the head of gold without noticing the feet of clay. For example, Christian creeds make many statements which are now known to be false. If the creed is the epistemic foundation for the institution, then any falsity in the creed functions like the clay mixed with the iron in the feet of the toppling statue.

Openness enables us to look at the assumptions of our beliefs, adapting to evidence. The trouble is that institutions are intrinsically closed because confidence supports their power, and so hardens to dogma, while openness undermines confidence through skepticism and critical thought. Openness was a key value of the scientific revolution and the modern enlightenment, but as with all such social movements, assumptions about the meaning of openness can become rigid, producing new forms of closure.

Regarding Marxism, your comments are interesting, but I am less sympathetic to Marx than to Christ, primarily on this openness question. Marx was very dogmatic, especially regarding the proletariat as the vanguard of the revolution, and his ideas set up systems which produced mass terror and death on a scale unimaginably larger than can be attributed to any of the ideas of Jesus.

My MA Hons thesis discusses openness at http://www.geocities.com/rtulip2005/Tul ... hics_I.htm



Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:52 pm
Profile Email WWW
User avatar
Years 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 
Quote:
RT
Marx was very dogmatic, especially regarding the proletariat as the vanguard of the revolution, and his ideas set up systems which produced mass terror and death on a scale unimaginably larger than can be attributed to any of the ideas of Jesus.


This is not entirely true... Jesus' temper tantrum in the Jewish temple where he called the Jewish bankers vipers has been used as justification to persecute and kill Jews for centuries. Jesus (if he existed) never spoke out against slavery, indeed he even supported the beating of servants, this has contributed to the long and ghastly persistence of slavery over the centuries.

Marxism was terrible, there is no denying it, but Christianity has been doing its damage for thousands of years, no one, short lived system such as Marxism can hope to compete with that.

Later



Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:18 am
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Genius


Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 761
Thanks: 3
Thanked: 13 times in 12 posts
Gender: None specified

Post 
Oh, I wouldn't say I'm sympathetic to Marx - don't really known that much about his work, actually.

I was more or less going by what I reading in the book under that heading.

I certainly couldn't see his theories working; it might have prevented a lot of suffering in that people wouldn't grieve for what they didn't have (and others seemed to have), I'd agree with that, but I think it would be a dull life.

People are naturally inclined to 'get' and it was probably so from the first time somebody traded a few beads for a few shells.

The trader ran home and yelled - look what I got!

Trading, earning things - I think the quest has always been in us.

I'm not that swift on this kinda' thing, Robert - I haven't studied things such as Marxism, Communism, all that closely.

I am enjoying reading through these segments. I'm not making very good time, I'm afraid, but maybe that's 'cause I'm blathering too much about it as I'm going - ha ha!



Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:18 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 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.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next



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:


A Nation Under Judgment by Richard Capriola


BookTalk.org Links 
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Info for Authors & Publishers
Featured Book Suggestions
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!
    

Love to talk about books but don't have time for our book discussion forums? For casual book talk join us on Facebook.

Featured Books






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.


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSBOOKSTRANSCRIPTSOLD FORUMSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICY

BOOK FORUMS FOR ALL BOOKS WE HAVE DISCUSSED
Frankenstein - by Mary ShelleyThe Big Questions - by Simon BlackburnScience Was Born of Christianity - by Stacy TrasancosThe Happiness Hypothesis - by Jonathan HaidtA Game of Thrones - by George R. R. MartinTempesta's Dream - by Vincent LoCocoWhy Nations Fail - by Daron Acemoglu and James RobinsonThe Drowning Girl - Caitlin R. KiernanThe Consolations of the Forest - by Sylvain TessonThe Complete Heretic's Guide to Western Religion: The Mormons - by David FitzgeraldA Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man - by James JoyceThe Divine Comedy - by Dante AlighieriThe Magic of Reality - by Richard DawkinsDubliners - by James JoyceMy Name Is Red - by Orhan PamukThe World Until Yesterday - by Jared DiamondThe Man Who Was Thursday - by by G. K. ChestertonThe Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven PinkerLord Jim by Joseph ConradThe Hobbit by J. R. R. TolkienThe Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas AdamsAtlas Shrugged by Ayn RandThinking, Fast and Slow - by Daniel KahnemanThe Righteous Mind - by Jonathan HaidtWorld War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War by Max BrooksMoby Dick: or, the Whale by Herman MelvilleA Visit from the Goon Squad by Jennifer EganLost Memory of Skin: A Novel by Russell BanksThe Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. KuhnHobbes: Leviathan by Thomas HobbesThe House of the Spirits - by Isabel AllendeArguably: Essays by Christopher HitchensThe Falls: A Novel (P.S.) by Joyce Carol OatesChrist in Egypt by D.M. MurdockThe Glass Bead Game: A Novel by Hermann HesseA Devil's Chaplain by Richard DawkinsThe Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph CampbellThe Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor DostoyevskyThe Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark TwainThe Moral Landscape by Sam HarrisThe Decameron by Giovanni BoccaccioThe Road by Cormac McCarthyThe Grand Design by Stephen HawkingThe Evolution of God by Robert WrightThe Tin Drum by Gunter GrassGood Omens by Neil GaimanPredictably Irrational by Dan ArielyThe Wind-Up Bird Chronicle: A Novel by Haruki MurakamiALONE: Orphaned on the Ocean by Richard Logan & Tere Duperrault FassbenderDon Quixote by Miguel De CervantesMusicophilia by Oliver SacksDiary of a Madman and Other Stories by Nikolai GogolThe Passion of the Western Mind by Richard TarnasThe Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le GuinThe Genius of the Beast by Howard BloomAlice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll Empire of Illusion by Chris HedgesThe Sound and the Fury by William Faulkner The Extended Phenotype by Richard DawkinsSmoke and Mirrors by Neil GaimanThe Selfish Gene by Richard DawkinsWhen Good Thinking Goes Bad by Todd C. RinioloHouse of Leaves by Mark Z. DanielewskiAmerican Gods: A Novel by Neil GaimanPrimates and Philosophers by Frans de WaalThe Enormous Room by E.E. CummingsThe Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar WildeGod Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher HitchensThe Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco Dreams From My Father by Barack Obama Paradise Lost by John Milton Bad Money by Kevin PhillipsThe Secret Garden by Frances Hodgson BurnettGodless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists by Dan BarkerThe Things They Carried by Tim O'BrienThe Limits of Power by Andrew BacevichLolita by Vladimir NabokovOrlando by Virginia Woolf On Being Certain by Robert A. Burton50 reasons people give for believing in a god by Guy P. HarrisonWalden: Or, Life in the Woods by Henry David ThoreauExile and the Kingdom by Albert CamusOur Inner Ape by Frans de WaalYour Inner Fish by Neil ShubinNo Country for Old Men by Cormac McCarthyThe Age of American Unreason by Susan JacobyTen Theories of Human Nature by Leslie Stevenson & David HabermanHeart of Darkness by Joseph ConradThe Stuff of Thought by Stephen PinkerA Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled HosseiniThe Lucifer Effect by Philip ZimbardoResponsibility and Judgment by Hannah ArendtInterventions by Noam ChomskyGodless in America by George A. RickerReligious Expression and the American Constitution by Franklyn S. HaimanDeep Economy by Phil McKibbenThe God Delusion by Richard DawkinsThe Third Chimpanzee by Jared DiamondThe Woman in the Dunes by Abe KoboEvolution vs. Creationism by Eugenie C. ScottThe Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael PollanI, Claudius by Robert GravesBreaking The Spell by Daniel C. DennettA Peace to End All Peace by David FromkinThe Time Traveler's Wife by Audrey NiffeneggerThe End of Faith by Sam HarrisEnder's Game by Orson Scott CardThe Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time by Mark HaddonValue and Virtue in a Godless Universe by Erik J. WielenbergThe March by E. L DoctorowThe Ethical Brain by Michael GazzanigaFreethinkers: A History of American Secularism by Susan JacobyCollapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared DiamondThe Battle for God by Karen ArmstrongThe Future of Life by Edward O. WilsonWhat is Good? by A. C. GraylingCivilization and Its Enemies by Lee HarrisPale Blue Dot by Carl SaganHow We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God by Michael ShermerLooking for Spinoza by Antonio DamasioLies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them by Al FrankenThe Red Queen by Matt RidleyThe Blank Slate by Stephen PinkerUnweaving the Rainbow by Richard DawkinsAtheism: A Reader edited by S.T. JoshiGlobal Brain by Howard BloomThe Lucifer Principle by Howard BloomGuns, Germs and Steel by Jared DiamondThe Demon-Haunted World by Carl SaganBury My Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee BrownFuture Shock by Alvin Toffler

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOur Amazon.com SalesMassimo Pigliucci Rationally SpeakingOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism BooksFACTS Book Selections

cron
Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2011. All rights reserved.
Website developed by MidnightCoder.ca
Display Pagerank