This thread is for discussing the Introduction to Godless in America.

I just want to say that I think this is a great book choice!

If one of our regular members is published I think it is a good idea to add their work to our discussion group.

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!"

And the book is a damn good read too. George is a talented writer and an asset to the freethinker community. I'm proud to have him as a BookTalk member and now as one of our authors.

I really enjoyed the introduction ~ so many things resonate with my own personal journey.

I distinctly remember feeling liberated, downright exhilarated when I decided to quit trying to make myself believe. I was definitely one that "maintain(ed) my faith by suspending my disbelief."

What I do lack is people in my life that are comfortable discussing atheism with me, so I look forward to reading more, and perhaps getting to the point that George Ricker is of "volunteer nothing but to answer questions honestly." I'm still at the volunteer nothing part . . .

This is a great read!

Author's note

As is the case with most works, my goal in the introduction was to set the stage for what follows. I begin with a true story about an encounter with a co-worker years ago, continue with a discussion of some of the misconceptions that seem prevalent about atheism and atheists and talk briefly about my own background. I spend a good bit of time defining my terms in an effort to avoid any confusion about what I mean when I use the words "god," "religion," and "atheism." I also make crystal clear my own view of gods and religions, a position that, as I explain in the text, goes beyond mere atheism. Finally, I describe my purpose in writing this testimonial for atheism.

In the absence of a moderator, I thought I would go ahead and append a brief synopsis of each chapter in the appropriate threads. Needless to say, I'll be happy to answer any questions about the book that are directed my way.

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

Just so you know, I do intend to contribute to this discussion, but I ordered the book over a week ago, and I'm still waiting for it to arrive. At first I thought there might be a problem with my mailing address, having not-too-recently moved, but a check of the mailing status on Amazon.com reveals that they haven't even shipped it yet, and the estimated arrival time is between the last week of September and the first week of October. If that's just the lot of anyone attempting to order your book through Amazon, then it may be several weeks before this forum gets any new participants. As I mentioned before, I tried to find a copy in several local bookstores, but came up short, so for now at least, this is the best I can do. Sorry.

I don't understand why Amazon would take that long to ship it, but I'll be here whenever it arrives. We may have most of the discussion during the last quarter. As long as there's interest, we can just go ahead. Amazon does seem to be a bit spotty in the service area. I've always had pretty good luck with them. But I've had a few other people tell me it took a while for them to receive their copies. I don't think it's because the book is a POD because they seem to have it in stock.

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

Not sure what the problem is, really. I ordered two other books along with it, so maybe one of those is the hold up. Or maybe the estimated delivery date is wrong. Either way, I still haven't gotten the books yet.

Got my book today, it was delayed but the company had an "unexpected shortage", so you must be doing something right George.

So far I've just read the introduction. And so far so good. The tone is perfect for your stated intentions.

I have to say though that I think you should really change the cover-art at some point in the future George. It reminds me a little bit of something I'd fine advertised at Newsmax, which is kind of funny all things considered.

My Blog - with hidden tunes

Niall,

Glad to hear you got the book and liked the introduction.

With Chris planning to move this board in a few days, I'm thinking we probably should table any discussion of the book until after the move is made.

Maybe by then Mad will have his copy and a few others will join in as well. I know a some other members either have read it or are in the process.

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

We can keep this book out of the Archives and in the limelight beyond the end of the quarter. Things have been slow around here and they always are this time of the year. With a couple quick edits I will extend this book discussion for another month. Yes, we'll still pick new books and start those discussions.

That's great, Chris. With the late start and the switchover, I think we got behind the curve. I'm willing to stick to it as long as there's interest out there. I think both Mad and Niall are reading it now. So I hope everyone is ready to jump in now that things are settling down.

Love the new board. Good work.

George

You're going to love the board even more over time. This is just the very basics. The designer is working on sidebars for both the left and right sides. There will be so much added

Well, hopefully it won't just be them. Feel free to jump right in, Chris!

George

I'm reprinting this from the post I made while activity was still restricted to the temporary forums.

I know it probably won't count for much, but allow me to apologize in advance. As I write this, I'm finishing up chapter one, and have made notes as I progressed (which you'll see below and in the thread for chapter one). In a great many of those notes, I take issue with some of the things you've written. I've given a great deal of thought as to whether or not I should even post those thoughts, knowing that you're directly involved in the discussion. I didn't want to make a debate of the reading. I'm going ahead with posting them because I think it's entirely possible to agree with the larger part of the intent of the book while still dissenting on some of the particulars. On the whole, you can probably expect support and agreement from most of the regulars on BookTalk, and I have no doubt that my points of departure would seem much smaller were they couched in more discussion. I hope that counts for something.

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?

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.

I don't want to press the point too stridently, because the tone of your book is, so far, at least, far more conciliatory than that of most "New Athiest" bestsellers, but I hardly see how you can discourage that "charicature" of atheism by turning around and charicaturing theism. And I don't know how else to read a phrase like "cosmic super critter" save as charicature.

It seems almost indicative of atheist literature (though it is certainly not exclusive to atheist literature) that the express purpose of a book gets confused at some point. Clarification almost invariably turns into advocacy. It isn't enough that the theist be made to understand the atheist point of view; better that they share it as well. You say, for instance, that your "purpose... is not to convince you that I am right and you are wrong (if you believe in a god)", and I take it that the purpose you had in mind was to dissolve the negative connotations associated with atheism and make it possible for religious believers to understand and, at the very least, tolerate atheism more than they have historically. That seems, to me, a laudable goal. But only a few paragraphs before you say that Coleridge's "willing suspension of disbelief" is akin to what goes on in the minds of most religious believers. The one statement isn't really consistent with the other. Why call the theist's grounds for belief into question if your purpose isn't to convince them? If you had described your own position as one of suspension of disbelief, no one could argue, and few would be inclined to even try. But to extend that description to most theists turns it into a kind of argument by implication.

It's unfortunate, I think; but again, it's a far more minor complaint with your book than it is with others of the same genre. At least in these early chapters, it's something that could be amended without much effort. And I think the whole work would be stronger for it.

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.

You mentioned, for example, that most atheists you've met seemed like moral people. I have no doubt that they were, but we tend to assess their morality according to the standards of a society that premised its moral development on theistic belief. This is a point that I've raised in a number of other discussions, most notably, perhaps, in our discussion of Weilenberg's "Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe". Having removed God from consideration, Weilenberg then set about explaining how virtues like humility could be substantiated along naturalistic lines. He doesn't seem to have considered at all the possibility that atheism as a premise would lead to a set of values and morals completely distinct from the morality of theism! Adopting a new premise always carries with it the possibility (probability?) of logic leading to a new conclusion. Even if atheism is defined not as denial of god but simply lack of belief, that ought to change the course of the logic in any number of reasonings.

So while I sympathize with atheists who are forced by social circumstances to defend their morality against the claims of overweening theists, establishing an etiquette should not distract from the fact that the social variance does imply certain questions. Theists aren't necessarily the best source for those questions. Frankly, I think it's more imperative that the atheists ask them of one another. For whatever reason, they seem to have been reluctant to do so.

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? I know we talk of people who are "religious" fans of a particular baseball team, or who attend movies "religiously", but I don't think anyone takes those uses seriously -- they're a form of analogy. By the same token, I'd say it's possible to believe as strongly that your parents love you as you believe anything in religion, without that familial relationship necessarily becoming a religious matter. On the other side of the coin, I think it's just as possible to be religious without believing your religion as strongly as you believe in, say,
the force of gravity. On the whole, it looks to me as though the association of religion with doctrine -- that is, organized belief -- is the bias of the historical development of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions in the West. Apart from the role of any particular deity in a given tradition, I'm not sure that belief is the best criteria by which to define religion.

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.

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.

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. A great many atheists hold entrenched positions, and are eager to lock horns with anyone who would disagree. They want the challenge of a theistic debate -- not because they're open to challenges of their own beliefs, but because they want to see the opposition buckle. I don't think that's the case with you, but I did think it worth noting as it pertains to other atheists, as it's germaine to the question of why the overt conflict between theism and atheism hasn't dissipated in recent decades.

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?