Lawrence

Mr. Harrison's book is an apologetic for those who choose to not believe there is god(s).

I take issue with this statement, but I'm sure you'll find my point of contention trivial or one of semantics. Not believing in a God or gods is the default position of all human beings. You, me and even the Pope were born as atheists or "lacking the belief in a God or gods." I'm not saying that we were born with the actual belief that a God or gods do not exist, but we certainly lacked the belief. Does a new born infant believe in Santa Claus? Of course not. They are introduced to this myth at a time when they are old enough to grasp it, but not too old so as to know to reject it as irrational.

The same applies to the God concept. It is only when the God concept is introduced that people have a choice to make, namely, whether or not to believe in a God or gods. Typically, the myth of a deity is introduced when a person is in their youth - their brains are young, naive and impressionable. Belief is not an option at this developmental stage.

So I would argue that, in most cases, faith is not an option, but a byproduct of brainwashing. And brainwashing is abuse. Brainwashing a child is child abuse. Oh, I am dead serious.

But a rejection of the God hypothesis is not a "decision" any more than it is a decision to believe that the Earth is spherical. Using the word "decision" implies that the atheist makes a conscious choice between believing and not believing. Rejecting the God concept was not a choice for even a single atheist I know. We rejected the myth of God because the evidence is so lacking that belief wouldn't make sense.

I would not recommend this book to those who do not believe in a god because Mr. Harrison is preaching to the choir.

I'm an agnostic atheist and I find great value in this book. Understanding how and why people believe what they believe is important to me as I really think this is the first step in helping these same people get rid of the crutch of faith. You cannot help a delusional person if you don't understand the nature and cause of their delusions. If all atheists wanted to do was roll up in a ball and live a solitary existence as if they are not an integral part of a greater social group than I can see the futility on reading and learning about how delusional people think and believe. But I am influenced daily by the thoughts, beliefs and subsequent actions of the faithful. I want to understand how they tick.

Please excuse my mixing of metaphors. He tromps on very tromped ground and brings nothing new to the public discourse other than well phrased rebuttals.

Sometimes authors write books because they think they have a new way of introducing subject material. Guy Harrison does a fantastic job of stepping through the reasons people give for believing in a god -- better than anyone I have ever seen before. I see value in this book. He is direct and to the point using no unneeded philosophical fluff.

It's precisely BECAUSE his book has no "philosophical fluff" (by which I'm sure you mean meaningful philosophical substance) that some of his arguments are so easily attacked.

I'm only on Chapter Five, since I'm writing my reviews and criticisms one chapter at a time, but it seems that in a lot of the chapters, he's building up a strawman Christianity, and then knocking it down. This isn't ALWAYS the case, but it has been with at least a couple of chapters.

He should have called this book "50 Reasons why the Overly Credulous and Bloody-Knuckled Believe in God."

-John (hegel1066)

I consider ALL philosophy to be irrelevant in this discussion (yet I love reading and thinking about philosophical issues.) Whether or not a God exists is more the domain of science, despite the continuous efforts of the faithful to set religous belief somehow apart from scientific inquiry and examination.

If a God is there we should see evidence. And we don't.

To Chris and Penelope:

I appreciate very much, Chris, the fact that you went back to analyze my definition of superstition with the resultant agreement. Over the decades, I have given this matter a lot of thought. Thanks again.

Penelope, I think love is not a bloody nuisance; it is indispensible to our deep (spiritual but non-religious, certainly non-supernatural-religious) meaning of life. This is most reasonable, namely to treat others as you would reasonably want and expect them to treat you if the roles were reversed. This is how I define the revised Golden Rule in my book, and I stand by it as being very rational, and very smartly selfish--not a nuisance, but a joy producer!

Congratulations, P, on living with a good atheist; I have found that most atheists are really good folk, probably because they are far more honest than the average superstitous person or wishful thinker. It is reasonable (long term) to be good to one another, starting with self but not ending with self.

Enjoy honest reality,

Steve

How can you honestly say that philosophy is irrelevant? You're stuck on one, single-minded conception of a Big Man In The Sky, Chris. He's not a little elf that drops clues so we can go on an Easter Egg hunt for them.

You're never going to get evidence for him. As I've said repeatedly in my posts, you're not going to get NATURAL evidence of the SUPERNATURAL. You're not going to get PHYSICAL evidence of the METAPHYSICAL.

But some people have moved on to more interesting, sophisticated interpretations of what divinity might be, and how to incorporate it into our lives.

What, precisely, makes you think that there would be evidence of god's existance if there was a god? What makes you 100% sure that science would leave something behind to tell us?

-John (hegel1066)

Stephen, I'll add your book to our http://www.booktalk.org/book-suggestions.php page soon.

Thanks, Chris. I think others will appreciate the addition of the book also.

Enjoy,

Steve

Chris said:-

You cannot help a delusional person if you don't understand the nature and cause of their delusions.

The cause of my 'delusions' ?

I have emotions....which are not rational.

Why do you want to help me? Because of your emotions....which are not rational......

Steve just admitted.....that his caring about other people was spiritual....but not religious.......spiritual is religious....without the dogma.

Because we cannot sum up our emotional/spiritual life in algebraic equations....doesn't mean it isn't real. But I agree it isn't rational.

I think we often try to argue about something using criteria or sets of values that do not apply.
If a scientist makes a new discovery we can ask him to demonstrate and give rational proof.

This should not be done with religious belief IMO. If somebody says "I believe in such and such god" I have no business to ask him for rational proof of the existence of the god or of whatever is written in a religious book (naturally, if they don't take it upon themselves to offer said proof to me by the hour I'll be greatly relieved.)
Likewise I have no interest or need to prove that none of the many gods worshipped by humans exist, I will only say that (so far!) I do not believe in any of them.

Similarly, if you think a painting is beautiful, you may talk about it in terms of feelings, or in terms of art, but nobody should say:"So, you can't apply rational thought to show that this is beautiful? You are being irrrational about this? I declare your appreciation worthless".

I'll give one more example of this confusion of genres: homeopathy. The majority of physicians (those who don't practise homeopathy) declare that homeopathy is no better than placebo and nothing can be proved because homeopaths do not want to have their medicine and treatment compared "scientifically". What they mean by that is clinical trials which have in the history of science and medicine, proved successful (to some extent) only for one thing: comparing whether one allopathy type of treatment is more efficient than another allopathy treatment (when you read about those clinical trials, it's not even that concinving). Medicine is not an exact science, yet traditional western medicine insists it knows best. Instead of trying to look for a different, creative way of evaluating homeopathy, they cling to the parameters that work for them.

(In case I sound like one of the deluded, I know a lot of people who have been treated successfully with homeopathy, but it has never worked for me. I am only using this as an example of wanted to apply criteria which don't fit).

One man's beliefs is another man's superstitions.

"superstition: a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation".
M-W

Whenever a new religion wanted to replace an older one, the previous beliefs were called superstitions.

Some rituals, taught by intelligent priests to intelligent believers, may have a spiritual meaning to the group. The same gestures, copied and transmitted without understanding, may be intruments of enslavement and obscurantism.

For an unbeliever, it's difficult to make a diiference between the belief and superstition. I'd say "belief" has a neutral or positive meaning, whereas "superstition" is a derogatory term believers may use about each other's practises.