One more suggestion, and then I'm done for the night.The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globilization Era, by Micheline IshayI deliberated for a while on whether this one should end up in the non-fiction thread or in the freethought thread. I decided finally on the freethought thread because a) the book relates specifically to humanism, which I take to be part of BookTalk's freethought angle, and b) because it looks as though one of the themes is the historical transition from an implicit religious basis for human rights to an explicit secular basis.From BooklistFrom a legal viewpoint, human rights are comparatively recent history, but their essence--that a person possesses inviolable qualities by virtue of being a person--is as old as Adam and Eve. Ishay's treatment seeks to survey how those qualities have been defined, and it leans decidedly toward the theoretical, a caution to readers preferring inspirational stories. Ishay presents a spectrum of writers on human rights whom she links through time on themes such as the friction between individual and group rights, or the rights of man versus the prerogatives of the state, as the problem was put in the Enlightenment. It is one of six chronological periods into which the subject is organized, beginning with ancient religious commentary on rights. Following discussion of the Enlightenment's liberal legacy, Ishay develops socialist conceptions of group rights that arose from the Industrial Revolution and that also echo in contemporary concerns with globalization. For scholars of and activists in human rights, Ishay sympathetically furnishes historical contexts for specific causes and campaigns. Gilbert TaylorCopyright

misterpessimistic: Are you seriously telling me that enough people are not reading this book to consider as a choice for discussion? Or is it simply your bias against anything Dawkins has to say?Are you scanning my posts or something? Didn't I say that I think it's likely to get picked, no matter what I say?Nor am I biased against everything Dawkins has to say. My opinion of him is nowhere near that black and white. I certainly wouldn't be voicing an objection if we were discussing a book in his field, biology.And as for bestseller's lists, Dawkins is currently sharing one with Bill O'Reilly (who is apparantly outselling him), and Bob Newhart. Millions of people are reading those, so maybe we should add them, too. A better guide to what's worth reading might be lists like this one. Edited by: MadArchitect at: 11/26/06 7:10 pm

Well..I used the NYT list...or is it, as usual, only the list YOU say is valid?Dawkins fits our mission statement, whereas O'Reilly and Newhart do not. Try again.And yes I scan your posts. I get bored quick with long windedness.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. - AsanaThe 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

Here's one more vote for Dawkins and The God Delusion. I've read the book through once, quickly, and probably will give it a second, more thorough, reading before we get around to it, but I certainly think it would be a good choice. Another good suggestion was Tim Callahan's Secret Origins of the Bible. All in all, it's an outstanding piece of work. As he notes in the introduction most of what he writes about isn't a secret to biblical scholars, regardless of their religious persuasions. His goal is to spread the knowledge outside that community.I'd prefer Dawkins' book, but either choice would be a good one.George "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

misterpessimistic: Well..I used the NYT list...or is it, as usual, only the list YOU say is valid?Bestseller's lists are misleading, for a number of reasons. For one thing, they usually aren't based on the number of copies bought by people, but rather on the number of copies bought by bookstores. My suggestions aren't the only valid lists available -- you're the only person suggesting that I even think that -- but I personally do prefer lists by people who have already read the book, and not lists based on sales.And yes I scan your posts. I get bored quick with long windedness.All of my posts on "The God Delusion" have been four paragraphs or less. They're actually shorter than most of the posts by everybody else! If that's your idea of long-winded, try ritalin.And have at it! As I said, I don't think anything I'm going to say is going to dissuade this group from picking "The God Delusion" for next quarter. You could probably even skip the formality of putting it to a vote.

My father and I were in Barnes & Nobles yesterday and he stumbled upon a NEW Carl Sagan book. New? Carl Sagan died 10 years ago of cancer. This must be a compilation of essays or lectures. I'll check it out, but the book looks awesome and anything by Carl Sagan is going to be good. For those that don't know we had Ann Druyan as a guest in our chat room a few years back. She is a really nice person.The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God by Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan (Editor) From Scientific AmericanSagan, writing from beyond the grave (actually his new book, The Varieties of Scientific Experience, is an edited version of his 1985 Gifford Lectures), asks why, if God created the universe, he left the evidence so scant. He might have embedded Maxwell's equations in Egyptian hieroglyphs. The Ten Commandments might have been engraved on the moon. "Or why not a hundred- kilometer crucifix in Earth orbit?... Why should God be so clear in the Bible and so obscure in the world?" He laments what he calls a "retreat from Copernicus," a loss of nerve, an emotional regression to the idea that humanity must occupy center stage. Both Gingerich and Collins, along with most every reconciler of science and religion, invoke the anthropic principle: that the values of certain physical constants such as the charge of the electron appear to be "fine-tuned" to produce a universe hospitable to the rise of conscious, worshipful life. But the universe is not all that hospitable-try leaving Earth without a space suit. Life took billions of years to take root on this planet, and it is an open question whether it made it anywhere else. To us carboniferous creatures, the dials may seem miraculously tweaked, but different physical laws might have led to universes harboring equally awe-filled forms of energy, cooking up anthropic arguments of their own. From Booklist"The objectives of religion and science, I believe, are identical or very nearly so." So declares Carl Sagan in the first of the Gifford Lectures he delivered in 1985, published now to mark the tenth anniversary of the astronomer's death. Because he finds that scientists share a deep sense of wonder, Sagan defines science as a type of "informed worship," a definition clarified by awe-inspiring astronomical photographs. However, many readers will conclude that Sagan fails to link science and religion as kindred pursuits of truth. For despite the titular nod to William James, another famous Gifford lecturer, Sagan wants no variety of religious experience that will not fit within an empirical paradigm. In the transcendent visions of scripture, he sees only the effects of biochemicals that confer reproductive advantage. Still, Sagan recognizes in Christian admonitions to love one's enemy a much-needed moral guide in a world threatened by the weapons science has made possible. And even readers who turn elsewhere for a fuller understanding of religion will appreciate Sagan's passion for a science that teaches us to look up.

I'm closing this suggestion thread and putting up the poll now.