While objectively true, there is also the matter of social lubrication. Speaking as a geek, a nerd, and a gamer, someone who collects any number of small objects and unconsidered trifles, as well as three foot tall hunks of plastic shaped into fantasy robots, I have been told any amount of times that my hobbies are childish, foolish, and should be given up, that I should ‘grow up.’ I rarely appreciate that, and I never take it kindly, though I have learned to suffer in silence. The same consideration is applied towards religious views, that any of them are absurd, but no matter how much so, telling someone directly they are a fool rarely works. Rather, it is a method to preach towards the converted. And I do mean preach advisedly. Hellfire and damnation is simply a variation on the persuasive speech, meant not only to warn the parishioner, but to make them feel a part of the elect, the saved, and all else are fools.
Those who read these books are those who already question their faith, or who are deeply interested in such matters. They are not where the damage is done. The damage is done by the demogauges, by the charlatans, by those who preach hatred and intolerance. There is where we should concentrate our forces.
Science is not the enemy of faith. Neither is thought, nor education. All of these are simply ways to examine life, and an unexamined life is not worth living. And life without faith of any kind is a bleak thing. I’ve been there.
I have got to learn to preview. Yes, but I’d hope that people wouldn’t think of that after I punched them in the nose. Also, there’s the matter of the Bishop of Berkley, who refuted the ‘brains in bottle’ hypothesis.
Speaking of the ‘brains in bottle’ hypothesis (AKA, The Matrix Theory, that is, the theory that we are someone else’s dream, or that my brain is the only real thing and I’m in a vat with sensory information being fed to it, or any number of variants), it, the illusion of free will, and ‘Last Thursdayism’ share any number of philosophical similarities. They’re unfalsifiable, for one, and for two, all they really are, are sophisticated ways of begging the question. If the universe was created last thursday, as if it were 12.8 billion years old, then we have to act as if it were 12.8 billion years old. If we are all just complex computer programs in a hypercomputer, or if my mind is in a vat being fed sensory information, all we can do is test to see if there are any flaws in the simulation, as best we can, and otherwise treat it as real. If we do not actually have free will, it is nigh-impossible to prove so, as we certainly act in a heavily non-deterministic manner… I dare anyone to calculate the existence of my ViewSonic monitor and its precise location, and its adornments, including a chip of my tooth, from even as recent a point as a hundred years ago, let alone from 12.8 billion years.
We may have none of those things, but as far as I can tell, it is impossible to actually prove any of them in a conclusive manner. The same goes for life after death, and so on, simply because there can be no data on the matter brought back from that final frontier.
Actually, I think books like this tend to become highly valuable to theists and philosophers, as it helps them hone their anti-atheist rhetorical skills. You get the more common variety, who quote the most vituperative passages as evidence of the author’s degeneracy; you get the theological variety, who utilize clever but specious arguments which mostly talk past what the author is saying completely, and mischaracterize it generally so as to generate point-by-point disagreements with scripture and/or the wisdom of morally and intellectually superior theologians of the past; and finally the philosphical variety who seek to undermine the author’s arguments with logical sophistry to demonstrate the author himself is making a faith-based argument. It’s a very fruitful kind of symbiotic relationship, this critical dialetic about literally nothing.
No, nihilism. Nasty world outlook, that. Faith is about more things than religion. Faith, hope, and charity, are three things that religions have tried to co-opt as their own, when they are not exclusive to them.
But in the context of religion, “faith” means “belief without evidence.” I don’t see how that’s a good thing.
There are other definitions of faith, such as the trust I place in my wife, but I don’t think that’s the same thing we’re talking about in a religious context.
The reason I’m pretty sure that “belief without evidence” is the proper definition is that anytime you have a conversation with a theist about why they believe in god, there may be several paths that you can take in that conversation, but it ultimately ends up at the point where he says “I know there is no evidence; you just have to have faith.”
I read it. Yes, the arguments are familiar and he doesn’t really offer anything ne, and it is really short.
I liked that he takes a rational course - he is not an in-your-face athiest. On the other hand, some of his points will make “tolerant” liberals uncomfortable. He argues that Islam is much more dangerous than Christianity because of the radical message of it.
The book is not an argument about Christianity, it is about religion.
Not in the Biblical context. In the Christian context, faith is belief without proof. The Bible urges believers to “test all things,” for example (1 Thessalonians 5:21), and 1 Peter 3:15 urges believers to “always be ready to give a reason for the hope that is in you.” At no point did any of the Biblical writers say, “Ya just gotta believe, folks! Ya just gotta! Take that leap into the dark!”
Similarly, the Bible (most notably, the Gospel of Matthew) appealed to fulfilled prophecies to support its claim that Jesus was the Messiah. Now, one might contest the quality of this evidence or the conclusion warranted, but the point remains… Matthew expected his readers to examine the evidence. At no point did he ever tell his readers that they should believe for no reason whatsoever.
BTW, this is the point at which certain posters jump in and say, “There were no fulfilled prophecies!” or “Those prophecies don’t prove that Jesus was the Messiah! Heck, we don’t even know that he existed!” Whatever, dudes. We could debate those matters, but the point remains… There is no indication that any of the Biblical authors treated faith as though it were “belief without evidence.”
I have read the book, and I do recommend it. It is true that this book is both short, and has a lot of the same arguments as The End Of Faith. Although this is useful. The End Of Faith is a longer, more scholarly approach. This book you can lend to a friend and get it back in the same day.
Also, there’s the matter of the Bishop of Berkley, who refuted the ‘brains in bottle’ hypothesis.