Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Freethinking Ruins All Things
by Daniel Larison, What's Wrong with the World
Thanks to Florian Widder for the link.
Reposted from:
http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2007/04/freethinking_ruins_all_things.html
Slate has started publishing excerpts from Christopher Hitchens' new book (so very cleverly titled God Is Not Great), the first of which is here. The argument he advances is certainly not new, nor does Hitchens say that it is. He takes some satisfaction that his objections have been recycled time and again. His "mildest" criticism that religion is man-made is supposed to be the stab to the heart, the "most devastating" thing one can say about religion. If this is the case, the religious people of the world can rest easy and return to quarreling with one another, leaving the pestiferous atheist to abuse someone else's patience with his tedious declarations of enlightenment.
At the heart of every freisinning appeal is a lie. They want free inquiry, Hitchens says, but there is no such thing. Every inquiry must at least have a purpose or a reason. Inquiry is never really free--it always has a cost, it always has limits and definitions and it always entails assumptions. To assume one thing is to exclude another; the freedom of choice, strictly speaking, is likewise not really free, because it presupposes the denial of myriad choices, the acceptance of the costs of the paths not taken, the constant constraints and finitude that limit the range of choice. The atheists and freethinkers say they want openmindedness, but their minds are plainly shut off to the fountains of wisdom of thousands of years because the wisdom contained in scriptures and hymns--from which virtually all great Western art and literature derive and to which all of it pays often unwitting tribute--is expressed in an idiom and attributed to a source that they reject out of hand because they cannot confirm in their wretched narrowness of spirit that the Author of life has spoken to men on the doubtful basis that He has never spoken to them (though it seems they would not listen to Him if He did).
Freethinkers supposedly want "the pursuit of ideas for their own sake," but no one pursues ideas simply for their own sake, but in order to understand, to act or to believe, or to have some combination of these. Men pursue ideas so that they may understand the world, and they seek to understand the world to have wisdom. Men desire wisdom in order to live well, and part of living well is to pursue and know the Good, and the Good is that which fulfills human nature and causes it to flourish. The desire to know is a natural desire, one implanted in us as part of our created being; we yearn to know and to enter into the unknown because we yearn for unity with the One Who desires that all things be united in Him. If no religion had ever caused men to live virtuously and flourish, religion would have disappeared ages ago. If no religion had produced saints and cultivated the finest aspects of human nature, very few would adhere themselves to it and even then it would only be the mad and obsessive. There is nothing interesting in rehearsing the catalogue of crimes that religious adherents have committed against each other, since men have always been slaughtering and oppressing one another and they have tended to do more of it when they are less in thrall to their religious tradition than when they are strictly obedient to it. What is remarkable is how much at least some religions have contributed to the civilisation and edification of men, which would hardly seem probable if they were not much more than elaborate exercises in self-deception and nonsense.
I know that when Hitchens says "'man-made," he means that he thinks religion is purely and completely the product of the human mind, an invention, a fraud. He thinks he has the religious fellow cornered by saying this, as if religious people are unaware that the history of the religions of the world is also the history of man. The inextricability of religious practice from human experience over the millennia is supposed to be proof that there is nothing true in any of it, as if it were not the remedy for that which ails man or as if it did not provide something that man requires by nature. But, of course, religion is man-made. Men build the temples, write the prayers, organise the rites and offer the oblations and sacrifices. That does not mean that there is no divinely inspired and true religion. It means that it is not always immediately self-evident and clear which is the true religion, and it means that those who have opted for the sterile, sad path of "freethinking," which is simply to inhabit a particularly wearisome set of prejudices, have simply lost patience in trying to discern the truth of the matter. They do not want free inquiry--they want easy inquiry, an inquiry that never leaves one in aporia, but always promises explanation and resolution. The typical freethinker believes that he is at home with uncertainty, and that it is the religious man who is in dire need of certainty, but the opposite is quite obviously true: the freethinker cannot really stand to have loose ends, puzzles or paradoxes. If this, then that is impossible, the freethinker says. The religious man not only assumes that paradox will occur, but he takes the paucity of reason to explain paradox as an indirect confirmation that there are realities that not even reason, as estimable and valuable as it is, can penetrate or comprehend. Freethinking can only desecrate, despoil and ruin. It can create nothing, because it has no vision of the Good, and it will always be judged as wanting on account of this.
Reposted from:
http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2007/04/freethinking_ruins_all_things.html
Slate has started publishing excerpts from Christopher Hitchens' new book (so very cleverly titled God Is Not Great), the first of which is here. The argument he advances is certainly not new, nor does Hitchens say that it is. He takes some satisfaction that his objections have been recycled time and again. His "mildest" criticism that religion is man-made is supposed to be the stab to the heart, the "most devastating" thing one can say about religion. If this is the case, the religious people of the world can rest easy and return to quarreling with one another, leaving the pestiferous atheist to abuse someone else's patience with his tedious declarations of enlightenment.
At the heart of every freisinning appeal is a lie. They want free inquiry, Hitchens says, but there is no such thing. Every inquiry must at least have a purpose or a reason. Inquiry is never really free--it always has a cost, it always has limits and definitions and it always entails assumptions. To assume one thing is to exclude another; the freedom of choice, strictly speaking, is likewise not really free, because it presupposes the denial of myriad choices, the acceptance of the costs of the paths not taken, the constant constraints and finitude that limit the range of choice. The atheists and freethinkers say they want openmindedness, but their minds are plainly shut off to the fountains of wisdom of thousands of years because the wisdom contained in scriptures and hymns--from which virtually all great Western art and literature derive and to which all of it pays often unwitting tribute--is expressed in an idiom and attributed to a source that they reject out of hand because they cannot confirm in their wretched narrowness of spirit that the Author of life has spoken to men on the doubtful basis that He has never spoken to them (though it seems they would not listen to Him if He did).
Freethinkers supposedly want "the pursuit of ideas for their own sake," but no one pursues ideas simply for their own sake, but in order to understand, to act or to believe, or to have some combination of these. Men pursue ideas so that they may understand the world, and they seek to understand the world to have wisdom. Men desire wisdom in order to live well, and part of living well is to pursue and know the Good, and the Good is that which fulfills human nature and causes it to flourish. The desire to know is a natural desire, one implanted in us as part of our created being; we yearn to know and to enter into the unknown because we yearn for unity with the One Who desires that all things be united in Him. If no religion had ever caused men to live virtuously and flourish, religion would have disappeared ages ago. If no religion had produced saints and cultivated the finest aspects of human nature, very few would adhere themselves to it and even then it would only be the mad and obsessive. There is nothing interesting in rehearsing the catalogue of crimes that religious adherents have committed against each other, since men have always been slaughtering and oppressing one another and they have tended to do more of it when they are less in thrall to their religious tradition than when they are strictly obedient to it. What is remarkable is how much at least some religions have contributed to the civilisation and edification of men, which would hardly seem probable if they were not much more than elaborate exercises in self-deception and nonsense.
I know that when Hitchens says "'man-made," he means that he thinks religion is purely and completely the product of the human mind, an invention, a fraud. He thinks he has the religious fellow cornered by saying this, as if religious people are unaware that the history of the religions of the world is also the history of man. The inextricability of religious practice from human experience over the millennia is supposed to be proof that there is nothing true in any of it, as if it were not the remedy for that which ails man or as if it did not provide something that man requires by nature. But, of course, religion is man-made. Men build the temples, write the prayers, organise the rites and offer the oblations and sacrifices. That does not mean that there is no divinely inspired and true religion. It means that it is not always immediately self-evident and clear which is the true religion, and it means that those who have opted for the sterile, sad path of "freethinking," which is simply to inhabit a particularly wearisome set of prejudices, have simply lost patience in trying to discern the truth of the matter. They do not want free inquiry--they want easy inquiry, an inquiry that never leaves one in aporia, but always promises explanation and resolution. The typical freethinker believes that he is at home with uncertainty, and that it is the religious man who is in dire need of certainty, but the opposite is quite obviously true: the freethinker cannot really stand to have loose ends, puzzles or paradoxes. If this, then that is impossible, the freethinker says. The religious man not only assumes that paradox will occur, but he takes the paucity of reason to explain paradox as an indirect confirmation that there are realities that not even reason, as estimable and valuable as it is, can penetrate or comprehend. Freethinking can only desecrate, despoil and ruin. It can create nothing, because it has no vision of the Good, and it will always be judged as wanting on account of this.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Friday, May 18, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 94 | | View Alternate Comment Thread
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #42244 by JemyM on May 18, 2007 at 1:20 am
Religion consists of two kinds of followers:1. The political agenda
2. The flock
Stopping freethinkers (freedom to think) from questioning the political agenda is important for thoose who want to own the world, and yes, we have a corrosive effect of the voters who they need to take power.
Other Comments by JemyM
3. Comment #42245 by Luthien on May 18, 2007 at 1:20 am
Hahahahahahahahah...It means that it is not always immediately self-evident and clear which is the true religion...
The assumption being that there is one?
and it means that those who have opted for the sterile, sad path of "freethinking," which is simply to inhabit a particularly wearisome set of prejudices, have simply lost patience in trying to discern the truth of the matter.
LOL
Freethinking can only desecrate, despoil and ruin. It can create nothing, because it has no vision of the Good, and it will always be judged as wanting on account of this.
...And yet he has published this little rant on the web, using a computer, all of which are "created" by free thinking scientists and engineers. I think I just had a fatal dose of irony there. *clutches at chest for dramatic effect*
Other Comments by Luthien
4. Comment #42246 by JJOneway on May 18, 2007 at 1:21 am
Freethinking can only desecrate, despoil and ruin. It can create nothingI assume the idiot, sorry author, means freethinking can create nothing apart from the thousands of scientific advances we can attirbute to this "sad and sterile" path?
I love the way they try to paint atheists as sad, lonely or insecure etc. I've never seen a room full of atheists wailing and crying under the guilty weight of original sin.
Other Comments by JJOneway
5. Comment #42247 by peahix on May 18, 2007 at 1:26 am
But, of course, religion is man-made. Men build the temples, write the prayers, organise the rites and offer the oblations and sacrifices. That does not mean that there is no divinely inspired and true religion.****************
of course, he misses the important point here, that god is man-made as well.
Other Comments by peahix
6. Comment #42251 by redfive on May 18, 2007 at 1:40 am
"Freethinking can only desecrate, despoil and ruin"That really says it all. What a complete dickcheese.
Other Comments by redfive
7. Comment #42252 by the great teapot on May 18, 2007 at 1:47 am
"the wisdom contained in scriptures and hymns--from which virtually all great Western art and literature derive and to which all of it pays often unwitting tribute."Off course it does dear.
Care to provide any backup to that statement.
I suppose the scriptures gave us our brains and our language too.Pompous pseudointellectual tripe.
Other Comments by the great teapot
8. Comment #42253 by mmurray on May 18, 2007 at 1:50 am
Just goes to show you can always find a new band of loonies. Haven't seen these ones before:
Statement of Purpose
What's Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: The Jihad and Liberalism.
We are happy warriors, for our defense is motivated primarily by gratitude for what our ancestors bequeathed to us. ....
Read the rest at
http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/about.html
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
9. Comment #42256 by arthursanford on May 18, 2007 at 2:04 am
This piece is analogous to those reactionaries who say atheism is as fundamentalist as religion.What a bloviated mess of an article.
Other Comments by arthursanford
10. Comment #42257 by Veronique on May 18, 2007 at 2:06 am
This is my response to the original article.Why do you and the rest of the xtian god botherers not accept that South American and Chinese and Japanese (and who knows how many others) predate your conception of religion and who is the true god? Your holy book was never written by anyone else but fallible and prosletysing human beings.
These afore-mentioned cultures predated xtianity which only ever related to Mesopotamia and its surrounds. It didn't even take into account the tribes to the north east of the Caspian, let alone the eastern reaches of our world. Do you want to assert that these peoples didn't exist in your religion's time frame? Do you want to assert that your xtian god (who supposedly created humanity) didn't know of the peoples outside his chosen realm? And what about the billions of planets that we know exist? We are special with a personal god who listens to the prayers of each one of the 6.6B people who inhabit this tiny little planet.
Are you trying to kid me? I think so. So I leave you. You have an extremely small egocentric mind and little understanding. You try to explain the unknowable by putting it in terms of the not worth knowing.
Bed time
V
Other Comments by Veronique
11. Comment #42259 by arthursanford on May 18, 2007 at 2:08 am
And I just looked at the web-zine this came from-- it is a bloviated and utterly rhetorical Christian nationalist site. Check it out if you want to see what nonsense on stilts looks like.Other Comments by arthursanford
12. Comment #42260 by astrosteed on May 18, 2007 at 2:09 am
The typical freethinker believes that he is at home with uncertainty, and that it is the religious man who is in dire need of certainty, but the opposite is quite obviously true: the freethinker cannot really stand to have loose ends, puzzles or paradoxes. If this, then that is impossible, the freethinker says. The religious man not only assumes that paradox will occur, but he takes the paucity of reason to explain paradox as an indirect confirmation that there are realities that not even reason, as estimable and valuable as it is, can penetrate or comprehend.
I think he's used some fancy-speak to say that whenever something doesn't make sense, then God did it. Stunning! The whole article could have been boiled down to "Nuh-uh, cuz religion has been around a long time, so it's gotta be true. If you don't think so, then you're a closed minded biggot, so there :p"
Other Comments by astrosteed
13. Comment #42261 by Nails on May 18, 2007 at 2:09 am
Inquiry is never really free--it always has a cost, it always has limits and definitions and it always entails assumptions. To assume one thing is to exclude another; the freedom of choice, strictly speaking, is likewise not really free, because it presupposes the denial of myriad choices, the acceptance of the costs of the paths not taken, the constant constraints and finitude that limit the range of choice. The atheists and freethinkers say they want openmindedness, but their minds are plainly shut off to the fountains of wisdom of thousands of years because the wisdom contained in scriptures and hymns--from which virtually all great Western art and literature derive and to which all of it pays often unwitting tribute--is expressed in an idiom and attributed to a source that they reject out of hand because they cannot confirm in their wretched narrowness of spirit that the Author of life has spoken to men on the doubtful basis that He has never spoken to them (though it seems they would not listen to Him if He did).
The cost of the pursuit of truth s to discard what is not true or unlikely to be true.
The reason religion has survived for millenia is that it crushes opposition, often violently.
And of course, if a diety had spoken to us he would have known the dangers of ambigious comments and of allowing translation to conform to hidden agendas without preserving the original text of his ideology.
Other Comments by Nails
14. Comment #42266 by Tycho the Dog on May 18, 2007 at 2:15 am
If someone uses capitalised 'him's' or 'he's' (god is a male for sure), it's a pretty good indicator they're spouting crap. Other Comments by Tycho the Dog
15. Comment #42270 by Corylus on May 18, 2007 at 2:19 am
Sniggers...Looks like the conscious-raising feminists haven't got to this guy yet.
"Men build temples", "Men desire wisdom", "the history of man", "the religious man" etc.
Bad boy, Bad!
Here's hoping some female theists read this and tell Mr Larison to (tries hard to think of a non-swearing four letter word... ah yes) SPIN.
Other Comments by Corylus
16. Comment #42272 by Jesse. on May 18, 2007 at 2:29 am
OK, I tried to understand the 'argumentation' in this article, just for fun. If I understand correctly it goes something like this:1) Every inquiry has its limits, assumptions and definitions
2) one of the limits of the utterly evil tactic of free inquiry is that it precludes mutually exclusive contradictory statements.
3) the religious man assumes there are such paradoxes and thus there are realms of knowledge reason can not penetrate
4) therefore: God
Other Comments by Jesse.
17. Comment #42288 by caledonventures on May 18, 2007 at 3:10 am
To Daniel Larson,You must be an adherent of LEO STRAUSS, who was an elitist that advocated that the rabble (the people) must be kept in line, controlled, by well thought up myths and lies, spewed out by neo-cons (nazis) in government. All for our own good.
To the rabble, of which I am one, google Leo Strauss and read the Wikipedia bio of this man. He is responsible for the present day neo cons who are continuing with the myths and lies.
BBC in 2004 aired 3 film segments about what this man advocated to keep the American public from Freethinking.
I was stunned and appalled when I viewed them.
Perhaps you will be too.
Here is the address if anyone would like to see them, it really is an eye opener. Of course, it has not been shown on U.S. T.V.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=881321004838285177
sincerely,
Scots wha hae
Other Comments by caledonventures
18. Comment #42290 by RickM on May 18, 2007 at 3:17 am
"The atheists and freethinkers say they want openmindedness, but their minds are plainly shut off to the fountains of wisdom of thousands of years because the wisdom contained in scriptures and hymns........"Once again, no sense in going any further.
Other Comments by RickM
19. Comment #42298 by infidel_michael on May 18, 2007 at 3:35 am
Yes, every inquiry starts with some assumptions and expectations about results, and the inquirer often believes that he will find the evidence supporting his idea. But the "free" inquiry means, that the inquirer is able to admit error and dismiss ideas which are not supported by evidence, or are proven wrong. The inquirer is free, when he is not a slave of an idea, which must be kept forever.Religion is the exact opposite - when there is a contradicting evidence, theologians redefine words or make them so vague, that no further inquiry is possible. But the words must stay the same, that is the point - the Scripture must stay the same, must be believed, even if the words mean something completely different as 2000 years ago, or even when nobody knows what these words mean anymore.
Science uses the former methodology and we see that the same results work everywhere in the world, independently of what anybody wants to believe.
Religion uses the latter methodology and we see that everywhere in the world there are different mutually incompatible results, but each of them must be kept forever.
If freethinking destroys something, it is the manacle of dogmatism.
Other Comments by infidel_michael
20. Comment #42303 by epeeist on May 18, 2007 at 3:42 am
This is just one in a long line of attempts to classify people into two camps, the human and sub-human. What the writer is saying is that "freethinkers" are incapable of appreciating the Good (which presumably includes nature, the arts, music and the like, and by extension are incapable of producing any of the latter) and therefore fall into the latter camp.It was an invalid argument when it was applied to black, to Jews and to homosexuals. It has no validity now.
Other Comments by epeeist
21. Comment #42308 by Scott McMeekin on May 18, 2007 at 3:57 am
What is remarkable is how much at least some religions have contributed to the civilisation and edification of men, which would hardly seem probable if they were not much more than elaborate exercises in self-deception and nonsense.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/denial
8. Psychology. an unconscious defense mechanism used to reduce anxiety by denying thoughts, feelings, or facts that are consciously intolerable.
Keep reaching for that rainbow!
Scott.
Other Comments by Scott McMeekin
22. Comment #42311 by Logicel on May 18, 2007 at 4:00 am
Corylus wrote, Here's hoping some female theists read this and tell Mr Larison to (tries hard to think of a non-swearing four letter word... ah yes) SPIN.________
Suck Pins In Neverland?
Other Comments by Logicel
23. Comment #42318 by Russell Blackford on May 18, 2007 at 4:06 am
slide protuberance into narwhal?Other Comments by Russell Blackford
24. Comment #42319 by USA_Limey on May 18, 2007 at 4:06 am
This is one of the worst pieces of drivel I have read on this site; it's definitely in the top 5 IMHO. This was the kicker for me:"But, of course, religion is man-made. Men build the temples, write the prayers, organise the rites and offer the oblations and sacrifices. That does not mean that there is no divinely inspired and true religion"
I pity him.
Other Comments by USA_Limey
25. Comment #42320 by Logicel on May 18, 2007 at 4:08 am
infidel_michael, nice post. Other Comments by Logicel
26. Comment #42325 by Logicel on May 18, 2007 at 4:16 am
From Wikipedia, In some parts of the world, the Narwhal is... referred to as a "reamfish."______
Hmmmmmm. A good one, Russell. I am cracking up!
Other Comments by Logicel
27. Comment #42326 by couldbethelasttime on May 18, 2007 at 4:22 am
Satisfying a need for certainty with religion is a bit like satisfying your hunger by smoking crack cocaine.Other Comments by couldbethelasttime
28. Comment #42340 by Yorker on May 18, 2007 at 5:03 am
17. Comment #42288 by caledonventures(Comment on this article not worth the expenditure of intellectual energy)
Yes, Strauss is quite a guy, but Hitchens seems to rate him highly. Us Scots wha' hae sense hoo'iver, think differently
Other Comments by Yorker
29. Comment #42350 by AtheistJunkie on May 18, 2007 at 5:26 am
This is the post of a desperate man trying to salvage according the first sentence of their About section "What's Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom".Freethought is here to destroy what remains. But it's not being done intentionally. We're not fear mongering, ruthless inquisitors. We use reason and rational thinking, religion's worst enemy.
And yes, god(s) are nothing but a figment of humans' imagination.
Other Comments by AtheistJunkie
30. Comment #42356 by Russell Blackford on May 18, 2007 at 5:33 am
Logicel, I didn't know about that alternative name for narwhals. Wow! *Falls off chair laughing yet again.*Other Comments by Russell Blackford
31. Comment #42372 by GodlessHeathen on May 18, 2007 at 5:51 am
I must admire the sometimes pretty shapes his mind makes as it wraps itself up in pretzel-like knotty shapes trying to get to his conclusions. Other Comments by GodlessHeathen
32. Comment #42385 by gcdavis on May 18, 2007 at 6:25 am
It's significant how often apologists for religion use the word "sterile" in relation to atheists. It is always used as a pejorative term; well the antonym of sterile is "dirty", presumably not how they see themselves. I think the word they really mean is "barren", a word heavy with connotation. They see us as cold and mean-spirited, as spoilsports who prefer fact to fiction, who prefer to describe a sensation rather than to feel it, who think that artistic inspiration is inferior to intellectual rigour.In contrast the religious invariably see themselves as generous, nurturing, and compassionate, the progenitors of morality, the inspiration for art and culture
How wrong they are. I have been an atheist nearly all my life. I have laughed and cried, I have felt the pain of my son dying when he was 28 while I live on into my sixties. I have three other children and wife and I love them all, I love music, art, sport, food, knowledge, running. I love my work as a designer and writer; I love a pint at the pub and comedy on TV. This is not sterile or barren, this rich and fulfilled*.
And I live this life without religion, without belief of any kind. There is no "lie" as Larison maintains. There is no contradiction between marvelling at the wonders of life and understanding how they have come about.
I strive to be an honest and ethical person but I do it because I know that by doing so I might make life just a little bit better for those I care about and not because a god demands it.
*...this is M&S rich and fulfilled, sorry, I can't stay serious for long!
Other Comments by gcdavis
33. Comment #42400 by SRWB on May 18, 2007 at 6:54 am
M & S - Marks and Spencers?Other Comments by SRWB
34. Comment #42406 by tom70 on May 18, 2007 at 7:00 am
i had a look at the website like someone suggested,"Jihad: It covers virtually all manner of crime with the shield of piety by blessing massacre, plunder, enslavement and treachery if these are judged necessary in the cause of Allah. There is nothing like it in Christian civilization"
hahaha, i thought they were christians, havent they read the bible?
Other Comments by tom70
35. Comment #42414 by GBile on May 18, 2007 at 7:07 am
In comment #41783 I introduced the Delud-O-Meter, which indicates the total of humankinds religious delusion. Earlier this week we saw the Delud-O-Meter going back in the direction of zero, by 1.0 Fw (Fw = Falwell, the (temporary!) unit of delusion).One could speculate how the indicator of the Delud-O-Meter would move when mr. 'Whatswrongwiththeworld' Larison would pass away.
I find this hard to say. If mr. Larison believes what he writes, the change could well be 0.8 Fw (again in the direction of zero). But maybe mr. Larison is not deluded at all (religiously that is) but thinks along the 'religion is Good for the masses' line. Could this be the case ? If so, CBUH, contempt be upon him.
It would put him in the neighborhood of Leo Strauss and this is a not neighborhood I would like to run out of gas in.
Other Comments by GBile
36. Comment #42419 by John P on May 18, 2007 at 7:16 am
Has anyone else noticed that the Christian critics seem to add the Capital "G" to the title of Hitchens' book? "God is not Great" instead of "god is not Great"?Just look at the spelling at the beginning of the review, and you can infer, without reading, the content. If they can't even get the title right, what makes them think they will understand the book?
Other Comments by John P
37. Comment #42421 by gcdavis on May 18, 2007 at 7:17 am
SRWBM & S - Marks and Spencers?
Yes its a yucky TV ad running in the UK
Other Comments by gcdavis
38. Comment #42428 by Flagellant on May 18, 2007 at 7:30 am
I have always thought that Hitchens' title should have been 'got is grot', from the British slang word 'grotty' = 1. unpleasant, nasty or unattractive; 2. of poor quality or in bad condition, unsatisfactory or useless. However, this might not have been universally understood. What a shame.
Once, though, I did manage to shout "god is grot" at a group of Muslim demonstrators. They didn't get it, either. Probably a good thing in this case.
Other Comments by Flagellant
39. Comment #42435 by ricey on May 18, 2007 at 7:41 am
Again, a misty higher being is hinted at but his/hers/its nature is not clarified. Have you noticed that intellectual religious apologists don't like treading on each others specific definition of god? They always avoid giving the details of their beliefs.At what point does the woolly but intellectual-sounding argument for a higher being boil down into nuts and bolts religion; miracles, angels, walking dead, incense, virgin births, prayer, infant baptism and all? Presumably Mr Larison subscribes to a defined belief structure beyond the concept of "a higher being". Let him state precisely what this is and defend it! The position of atheists is crystal clear by comparison.
It is revealing when high-brow, intellectual-sounding gibberish is employed to deflect honest questioning and, most tellingly of all, the ability to think for yourself is actively discouraged - Trust and Obey
Other Comments by ricey
40. Comment #42447 by Misha Vargas on May 18, 2007 at 8:09 am
Early in the article he seems to have misspelled the word freisinnig. I looked it up because I'd never seen it before. Other Comments by Misha Vargas
41. Comment #42451 by The author on May 18, 2007 at 8:16 am
"At the heart of every freisinning appeal"This moron doesn't even know how to write the word he is boasting with.
It is: "freisinnig", or "freidenkerisch".
Other Comments by The author
42. Comment #42454 by epeeist on May 18, 2007 at 8:22 am
I see they now have a guidance to postings on their site. Condensed it says "If you want to write anything that we don't agree with and attempts to undermine christianity you can fuck off. We reserve the right to say anything we like about you though"I wonder how long my response will last?
Other Comments by epeeist
43. Comment #42465 by Beave on May 18, 2007 at 9:02 am
It means that it is not always immediately self-evident and clear which is the true religion, and it means that those who have opted for the sterile, sad path of "freethinking," which is simply to inhabit a particularly wearisome set of prejudices, have simply lost patience in trying to discern the truth of the matter.
HA! The mental gymnastics this guy has gone through to reach his conclusions are something to behold. Just how has freethinking lost the patience to discern truth? It's the EXACT OPPOSITE you douchebag! Freethinking is always dynamic and neverending, never satisfied with "oh that's just the way it is."
They do not want free inquiry--they want easy inquiry, an inquiry that never leaves one in aporia, but always promises explanation and resolution.
Oooohhhh, we're always looking for real explanations to what we see in the world, what a horrible a sterile life I lead. I should just drop out of grad school now and fall into a mindless stupor accepting everything some anonymous person said about the son a carpenter 2000 years ago.
Other Comments by Beave
44. Comment #42468 by MarcusA on May 18, 2007 at 9:06 am
Cow dung! Daniel Larison is chasing his own tail.Other Comments by MarcusA
45. Comment #42477 by Dower on May 18, 2007 at 9:18 am
"At the heart of every freisinning appeal"
This moron doesn't even know how to write the word he is boasting with.
It is: "freisinnig", or "freidenkerisch".
I thought he was speaking of "freesinning."
;-)
Other Comments by Dower
46. Comment #42497 by dawgdoc2000 on May 18, 2007 at 9:50 am
To all:I am new to this site and I can't tell you all how fantastic this all is. I have recently allowed myself to embrace the ideas (such as the ones in these forums) that I discovered were bouncing around in my head all these years. (I had to shake off that repressing Catholic upbringing). I feel like I have an outlet now. In the past, when I read crap such as the article above I would rant inwardly which is not very satisfying. This is great! Finally, some intelligent, informed people to interact with! Thanks to everyone.
Other Comments by dawgdoc2000
47. Comment #42511 by Dower on May 18, 2007 at 10:09 am
Welcome DawgDoc!I was a Catholic, too, before becoming a hard-core Calvinistic Christian lay preacher in a fundamentalist church.
I became a Catholic in college while studying philosophy and "looking for the truth." The priest who instructed me did a real good job of "logically" answering all my questions.
Especially the part about the Catholic church being the one true church because of what Jesus said about founding his church "on a rock and that rock was Peter" and Peter was the first pope ... blah, blah, blah
I am 62 now, and have spent my whole life looking for "the most reasonable religion," an oxymoron if there ever was one.
Glad you are here.
Dower
Other Comments by Dower
48. Comment #42523 by bluebird on May 18, 2007 at 10:31 am
Our 'Freidenker' bumperstickers are arriving soon...Why do people presume to know us (as atheists and/or personally)?? A local columnist wrote "Even the atheist embraces god when they know their number is up". How could she know?!?
Yes, this website is a refreshing reprieve from all the dung, codswallop, inanity, et al, we encounter almost daily.
Other Comments by bluebird
49. Comment #42527 by Sapare Aude on May 18, 2007 at 10:38 am
The author is dumb. If freethinking is bad, then the middle ages should have been paradise. Yet, it was one of the bloodiest eras of human history, and maintained a thousand years of stagnation. However, the Middle East embraced freethinking and had a golden age, and once freethinking was introduced to Europe, the Renaissance began.Other Comments by Sapare Aude
50. Comment #42544 by Machoduck on May 18, 2007 at 11:12 am
The author of this article personifies everything I hate!This man is such an utter disgrace to humanity, to everything we have accomplished, everything we have ever written written, thought, built, composed, designed and so on.
Everything this fundie, this man representing the lowest form and absolute scum of humanity, (excuse my malevolent word selection, but I'm just honestly expressing what I feel about this...) - everything he claims in this despiceful article, can be labeled as an extreme case of faeces originating from male cattle by asking a simple question:
Name one person, group or action that has brought significant, more-or-less positive change to this world, without any from of free thought?
.....
That's right. Nobody. Even his own big hero, Jesus, can be called a freethinker if you considder considder that his preachings and ideas were extremely radical for his time...
On the other hand, the list of freethinkers who have brought positive change to humanity, would be thousands of names long, begining with Socrates, and ending with men like Dawkins and Hitchens.
In fact, new and radical ideas, as a result of freethinking, is the only thing that has propelled mankind forwards. Without free thought, our modern, western civilization - as well as any other great ones - could never had existed.
It is idiots like this man who is the largest contributor to all the shit that is in this world.
It's a wonder why natural selection haven't killed this sort of bastards...
Other Comments by Machoduck
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
Upcoming Events:
Mailing List
Enter your email:
DVDs
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Voices of Reason' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #42242 by BT Murtagh on May 18, 2007 at 1:14 am
In other words, they know their beliefs make no sense and despise those who insist on sense.
Other Comments by BT Murtagh