Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Monday, March 3, 2008 | Reason : Backlash | print version Print | Comments

Document Fleas on the Horizon: In Defense of God

by Publishers Weekly

Reposted from:
http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6536518.html

In Defense of God
Atheist bestsellers have spurred on protectors of the faith

by Lori Smith -- Publishers Weekly, 3/3/2008

In the current cultural argument over God and faith, one thing is beyond doubt: as long as there are atheist bestsellers, there will be response books, and lots of them. The string of popular titles by Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett has spawned a batch of response books across the faith spectrum.

While previous titles (Alister McGrath's The Dawkins Delusion, InterVarsity, 2007) have responded to particular books, or, as in the case of Antony Flew (There Is a God, HarperOne, 2007), charted one person's spiritual journey, now authors are beginning to respond to the "new atheists" as a group or movement.

Philip Law, academic editor and U.K./E.U. publishing director for Westminster John Knox, sought out John Haught, professor of science and religion at Georgetown University, to write God and the New Atheism, published in December. "As far as I know," Law says, "there have not been any credible responses to all of these 'new atheists.'"

Part of this trend is a resurgence in titles defending the Christian faith—known in the category as apologetics—coming from both evangelical and other Christian publishers.

This year Ravi Zacharias, a well known apologist, offers The End of Reason: A Response to the New Atheists (Zondervan, May), addressing atheist arguments in a succinct 144 pages. Readers looking for more depth can turn to Zacharias's Beyond Opinion (Thomas Nelson, Jan.), which brought together members of his international team of apologists for what PW's review called "a relatively concise treatment of major apologetic themes."

Chuck Colson's new book, The Faith (Zondervan, Mar.), while not a direct response to atheist books, in some way grew out of the larger discussion about what Christianity is and why it matters. "It directly and indirectly answers the atheists, but it's bigger than just an immediate response," says Dudley Delffs, v-p and publisher of trade books for Zondervan. "It makes a direct and winsome case for the Christian faith, and we think it has the potential to endure as a contemporary classic."

Pastor Timothy Keller, whose Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan draws 5,000 people every week, spent years crafting his first book, The Reason for God (Dutton, Feb.)—in many ways a traditional apologetics book, but one that embraces doubt as a means of arriving at faith. David C. Cook plans to re-release Greg Boyd's bestselling Letters from a Skeptic in June; the title has sold over 250,000 copies since its initial publication in 1993.

Other Voices

But the breadth and intensity of the debate has created opportunities for varying approaches. The atheists write with what Matt Baugher, v-p and publisher for spiritual growth and Christian thought at Thomas Nelson, calls "venom," stridently stating that religious belief is delusional and dangerous and the world would be better off without it. Becky Garrison (InProfile, this issue), senior contributing editor for the smart Christian humor magazine the Wittenburg Door, offers a snarky, satiric response in The New Atheist Crusaders and Their Unholy Grail (Thomas Nelson, Jan.). Baugher said orders from mainstream retailers for Garrison's book have been double what they expected.

Blogger and political columnist Vox Day comes at the issues from a nontheological perspective in The Irrational Atheist (BenBella, Feb.), relying on factual evidence to counter atheist claims that religion causes war, that religious people are more apt to commit crime and that the Bible and other sacred texts are unreliable and fictitious. Journalist David Aikman examines atheism as a threat to American freedom in The Delusion of Disbelief: Why the New Atheism Is a Threat to Your Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness (Tyndale, Apr.).

Tina Beattie, v-p of the Catholic Theological Society of Great Britain, takes a broader approach in The New Atheists: The Twilight of Reason and the War on Religion (Orbis, Apr.), looking at the centuries-old conflict between science and faith and approaching religion with an appreciation for the "the realm of symbol, imagination, and creativity." Inclusive publisher O Books offers God Without God: Western Spirituality Without the Wrathful King (June) by former Church of England priest Michael Hampson, arguing that "the God the atheist denies is not the God that people of true faith affirm," according to the book's description.

All of these books aim to move the discussion in a less vitriolic direction, and none more so than Zondervan's A Friendly Dialogue Between an Atheist and a Christian (Feb.). The book charts conversations between evangelist Luis Palau and Chinese diplomat Zhao Qizheng and was a bestseller in China before Zondervan picked it up.

The Varieties of Atheism

But the atheist bestsellers are prompting responses from less conservative writers as well, criticizing their approach and reminding readers that atheists can be spiritual, too. André Comte-Sponville's The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality (Viking, Dec., 2007) argues that spirituality doesn't have to be tied to religion. PW's review said, "French philosopher Comte-Sponville makes a compelling argument for a profound dimension of experience that is god-free." Austin Dacey further explores this idea of "secular morality" in his The Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life (Prometheus, Mar.), asserting that ethics can be based on reason rather than faith and calling "secular liberals to... defend their own moral vision in society."

Chris Hedges, a war correspondent and graduate of Harvard Divinity School, believes that evolution alone can't make us good—we need to believe in something. In I Don't Believe in Atheists (Free Press, Mar.), Hedges equates the new atheists to the fundamentalist believers they critique and suggests that they're just as dangerous. Dominick Anfuso, v-p and editorial director, says, "Hedges attacks the atheists as being as dogmatic, if not more so, than what they're criticizing. Based on his experience as a war correspondent, he takes on their worldview, the idea that we are capable of spiritual improvement. Hedges says we're clearly not progressing morally as a species."

Nick Harding's How to Be a Good Atheist (Oldcastle Books, Apr.) explains the five types of atheism and the difference between an atheist and an agnostic, and is being pitched to readers tired of hearing that "anyone devoid of faith is evil, immoral, and responsible for societal ills."

Then there are tangentially related books whose marketing campaigns are tying them to the "new atheist" discussions. Former New York Times religion reporter Gustav Niebuhr's Beyond Tolerance: Searching for Interfaith Understanding in America (Viking, July) looks at the history of religious freedom in America and focuses on the need for better communication and cooperation. Viking describes the book as "a bracing rejoinder both to religious fanaticism and to books decrying religion." HarperOne is releasing a revised edition of When Religion Becomes Evil (Feb.) by Mideast politics expert Charles Kimball. PW said, "Kimball's clear and steady voice provides a helpful guide for those trying to understand why evil is perpetrated in the name of religion."

Sometimes publishers find themselves on both sides of the debate. Hachette published Hitchens's God Is Not Great through its Twelve imprint, which led FaithWords, another Hachette house, to want to respond. Publisher Rolf Zettersten looked to Catholic priest Thomas Williams for Greater Than You Think: A Theologian Answers the Atheists About God (June), which provides brief two-and three-page answers to a series of questions. Says editor Holly Halverson, "We wanted more of a handbook that wouldn't scare people off."

And HarperOne, which publishes Bart Ehrman—whose bestselling Misquoting Jesus led to Nicholas Perrin's Lost in Transmission (Thomas Nelson, Jan.)—will release the first Jewish contribution to the debate in September with Rabbi David Wolpe's Why Faith Matters, a personal account of his own faith struggle along with a response to the new atheism. Publisher Mark Tauber says this is part of HarperOne's purpose: "We have always tried to publish books that fuel the conversation. It is essential that our publishing program continue to put out books by authors on all sides who offer intelligent and compelling approaches to the many divisive and defining issues of the time."

Publishers generally agree that apologetics publishing will persist, but the trend of huge sales in the category may be dying. Zondervan's Delffs believes "the market is always open to authentic, well-written apologetics titles." Baugher says, "Apologetics will always be around, but there will be more titles and higher sales as long as contrary titles continue to sell well." HarperOne's Tauber doesn't think there are "many more huge books left in the category." Says Anfuso at Free Press, "You have to examine these books much closer now, sales-wise, because there are so many. It's a topic that will continue, but it can't sustain these huge sales. It's not going to become perennial, like diet books." BenBella publisher Glenn Yeffeth believes that as the political climate changes, particularly if a more liberal presidential candidate is elected, the chorus will die down.

For now, expect more. In August, Jossey-Bass publishes social psychologist David Myers's Letter to a Secular Culture, described as "a well-reasoned case for the many benefits of faith." In September InterVarsity Press has Amy Orr-Ewing's Is Believing in God Irrational? And Bart Ehrman's March title from HarperOne—God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question—Why We Suffer—will no doubt add to the fervor.

Comments 51 - 96 of 96 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

51. Comment #138184 by LorienRyan on March 4, 2008 at 3:25 am

 avatar
In not more than your own words, write a condensed version of all the flea books (marks will be deducted for any pretence that any of them contain evidence)


"God just exists, alright, He just does. Now don't hurt my feelings."

Other Comments by LorienRyan

52. Comment #138185 by Steve Zara on March 4, 2008 at 3:26 am

 avatarComment #138178 by PJG
If that is the case, I would have to say that I don't believe in any gods that I haven't heard of either - so I am with Nefrubyr on this one.


In "God: The Failed Hypothesis" Victor Stenger says that we can test the existence of the supernatural, so there could be evidence even for a "magic" god.

I am not sure I entirely follow his arguments on this, though.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

53. Comment #138199 by PJG on March 4, 2008 at 3:57 am

 avatarAshton Black

A being that had evolved would not be a god, because it would be natural. A being for which there was "evidence" would have to be explained by what we understand to be natural forces which would, again, make it a natural phenomenon.

Unless our understanding of "natural" was so turned on its head as to make everything we currently deem to be "evidence" invalid, there can be no gods.

Edit:

Steve,

Much as I enjoyed Stenger's book, I wasn't convinced by his arguments. I very much doubt they'd convince any theist (though maybe I will be proved wrong by one of his converts on here???)

P.S. I think you and I keep the same hours on this site - I always seem to post just after you!!!

Other Comments by PJG

54. Comment #138225 by Vadjong on March 4, 2008 at 4:43 am

 avatarI think I spotted a pattern :
Everytime an apologist is asked to explain his/her God, the drivel that follows gets easily reasoned away. Then they claim it's NOT their definition of Scot and they are deliberately or naively misunderstood.
So Richard (among many others) provides his own broadest possible spectrum of what would be considered a divine entity (from Stone Age 'bolt tossing sky daddy' to New Age 'some form of cosmic energy') and then pulls the rug lengthwise and sideways. AND STILL they claim their God is not flying on this carpet.
So they are asked to explain. They twist the emperor's knickers subtly and the whole cycle starts again.
Apologists ! Hah ! I wish they would apologize for wasting those braincells.

Other Comments by Vadjong

55. Comment #138227 by Major Bloodnok on March 4, 2008 at 4:47 am

 avatar
The atheists write with what Matt Baugher, v-p and publisher for spiritual growth and Christian thought at Thomas Nelson, calls "venom," stridently stating that religious belief is delusional and dangerous and the world would be better off without it.

Good grief. "Venom"? Leaving aside the gross misrepresentation of that quote, I've just finished reading Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason; if they think that Dawkins et al are being venomous, I dread to think what they'd say about Paine - and Paine wasn't even an atheist.

Other Comments by Major Bloodnok

56. Comment #138237 by Steve Zara on March 4, 2008 at 5:02 am

 avatarComment #138199 by PJG

Much as I enjoyed Stenger's book, I wasn't convinced by his arguments.


Me neither.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

57. Comment #138243 by Tycho the Dog on March 4, 2008 at 5:12 am

 avatarHasn't the idea of translating all the apologist arguments into a list/grid been mooted before? E.g., 'The Dawkins Delusion' uses arguments A, C, F, H, 'Why Faith Matters' uses A, B, D, H, and so on.

A map of apologist counter-arguments across the various flea volumes would make for an interesting resource, and would likely reveal a paucity of originality.

Other Comments by Tycho the Dog

58. Comment #138248 by hungarianelephant on March 4, 2008 at 5:22 am

 avatarTycho the Dog - What I would say to you is that that is not my A, C, F, H (repeat ad nauseam)

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

59. Comment #138253 by Styrer- on March 4, 2008 at 5:26 am

The New Atheist Crusaders and Their Unholy Grail


I do rather like it when faithheads employ terms from their own sphere to denigrate us atheists and anti-theists.

Robertson and his consistent reference to us as 'Dawkins' followers' - he's now gone as far as lending us sacred capitalisation in 'Followers', I note - show the same use of this conceit. No doubt they think it intimates some kind of wise, ironic commentary, when, of course, they are unwittingly expressing suspicion and criticism of those very terms themselves on which their claims to veracity lie.

A rather tasty irony, don't you think? And one which shows their sheer ignorance and short-sightedness even while being their most calculatingly duplicitous.

They really are on the run, if this is the best they can manage.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

60. Comment #138257 by Nefrubyr on March 4, 2008 at 5:31 am

 avatarDammit, I spent so long carefully crafting a response to Steve that the site logged me out and threw away my comment :-/ Must... think... faster....

Briefly, then: I don't consider myself antitheistic, although I'm not sure what that entails exactly. I'm concerned with what's true, not what ought to be or what sounds and feels good. I would prefer that the world is such that I am not the plaything of an almighty sex-and-death-obsessed creator, but if the evidence turns up that way I'll try not to fall into denial.

I define "god" basically by plagiarising TGD: an intelligence that deliberately designed and created the universe. I omit the word "supernatural" because I don't see that it carries any meaning. If something interacts with our universe in any way, it is natural (though not necessarily material) - it exists. If something does not interact with our universe, it cannot be said to exist in any meaningful way. No matter how much we can discover and deduce about the universe, we can always make up some stories about what there is outside of it. And I think, Steve, we are in agreement that there is no point sitting on the fence about such stories. Barring some incredible coincidence, they are almost certainly not true.

I haven't read Stenger's book but I think I would very much like to.

Other Comments by Nefrubyr

61. Comment #138259 by Zaphod on March 4, 2008 at 5:33 am

 avatarAs Hitchen has stated once or twice, these people have nothing new to say, there is no need to rebut their arguments, just underline them.

Other Comments by Zaphod

62. Comment #138264 by Zaphod on March 4, 2008 at 5:39 am

 avatar14. Comment #137990 by robert s on March 3, 2008 at 5:56 pm

"How to Be a Good Atheist explains the five types of atheism

I'm guessing type 1 is the type that doesn't believe in any gods.

Anyone know what the other 4 are? "

In the head of Dinesh D'Souza the other 4 types are "Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and Kim Jong-il"

Other Comments by Zaphod

63. Comment #138292 by P. Kelsey on March 4, 2008 at 6:52 am

Comment #138183 by Corylus

"As a group of books they demonstrate the subjective (and thus contradictory) notions of God that people have. I am beginning to wonder whether these authors will have an effect that they have not anticipated. I suspect that if any theist reads three of more of these books, the inherent contradictions might just begin to niggle."

But aren't such 'contradictions' supposed to be par for the course, 'normal'?

Other Comments by P. Kelsey

64. Comment #138294 by cowalker on March 4, 2008 at 7:00 am

Vadjong:
Richard (among many others) provides his own broadest possible spectrum of what would be considered a divine entity (from Stone Age 'bolt tossing sky daddy' to New Age 'some form of cosmic energy') and then pulls the rug lengthwise and sideways. AND STILL they claim their God is not flying on this carpet. So they are asked to explain. They twist the emperor's knickers subtly and the whole cycle starts again.


You nailed it. And your description of the cycle demonstrates exactly why Anfuso at Free Press is wrong to say:
"You have to examine these books much closer now, sales-wise, because there are so many. It's a topic that will continue, but it can't sustain these huge sales. It's not going to become perennial, like diet books."


The wave made by Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and Harris will subside, leaving more folks washed up on the beach of skepticism than there were before. But it's hard to do without Sky Daddy and the Heavenly Rewards when you're used to turning to them like a pacifier or favorite blanket, just as it's hard to accept that the only way to lose weight is to eat less and exercise more. (The Magic Mango and Moussakka diet sounds much more interesting.) So there will be a wave of books dedicated to drawing the skeptics back into the comfy shallows of belief. And some will succumb.

Repeat the cycle to the delight of publishers.

But given the propensity of American consumers to keep going back to the religious buffet to try something new I don't expect to see much of the old intensity of belief that led to the practice of uncomfortable "virtues" like obedience to clergy.

Other Comments by cowalker

65. Comment #138346 by Prom_STar on March 4, 2008 at 8:11 am

"anyone devoid of faith is evil, immoral, and responsible for societal ills."

I bet they bring up Stalin again. Which, of course, is a classic example of the fallacy of composition. By the same logic--or lack thereof--we should do away with all beef because some beef is tainted.

Other Comments by Prom_STar

66. Comment #138415 by Olliedog on March 4, 2008 at 9:26 am

Says editor Holly Halverson, "We wanted more of a handbook that wouldn't scare people off."


Because, you know, books with lots of pages, with developed and reasoned arguments backed up by research... that is just too much to ask of the flying Jewish zombie worshiper.

Ollie

Other Comments by Olliedog

67. Comment #138420 by Bonzai on March 4, 2008 at 9:32 am

Does any body know what is Stenger's reputation as a research scientist?

Other Comments by Bonzai

68. Comment #138424 by Steve Zara on March 4, 2008 at 9:40 am

 avatarComment #138420 by Bonzai

Pretty good by the look of it. I have just found out that he was on the Super-Kamiokande project that discovered neutrino mass.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

69. Comment #138433 by Yorker on March 4, 2008 at 10:08 am

What species of creature would write a book entitled "The End of Reason"? Not a human being surely? It's clear to me that all humans who manage to live from one day to the next use reason as their main means of ensuring survival! Why on earth anyone would want to write a book with such an idiotic title is, thankfully, beyond my understanding. Indeed, why anyone would waste time reading any kind of non-evidential flea book is also beyond my understanding. If such a book produced evidence for any kind of God it would instantly become the best book ever written, no such book ever will produce evidence; no such book will ever say anything at all that would cause me to re-evaluate my stance on religion; I will never learn anything at all from such a book, such books are completely without value.

No matter how well written; no matter how witty the anecdotes; no matter who wrote it; no matter how many copies are sold, if no evidence in support of the god-claim is produced, such garbage is a waste of paper. Crap presented in beautiful prose is still crap and certainly not worthy of my attention. I can see no "reason" to waste precious lifetime on fictional books that pretend to be non-fiction. I generally don't often buy works of fiction but when I do, they have the honesty to say so up front!

Religion and its apologists are detrimental to humanity; it's as simple as that. My goal is to see all religious influence be removed from public life. I'm convinced that debating religion, for or against, is a complete waste of time; it's time for action, we must fight religion wherever we find it, preferably before we all die bleating about it!

Other Comments by Yorker

70. Comment #138434 by willerror on March 4, 2008 at 10:09 am

--Chris Hedges, a war correspondent and graduate of Harvard Divinity School, believes that evolution alone can't make us goodâ€"we need to believe in something. In I Don't Believe in Atheists (Free Press, Mar.), Hedges equates the new atheists to the fundamentalist believers they critique and suggests that they're just as dangerous.--

There it is again, the false dichotomy, the thought that both extremes are wrong and the answer is in the polite, reserved middle. Why, atheists, with all their reliance on reason, self-examination, critical thinking and skepticism are JUST AS BAD as priests who molest children, preachers who bilk their congregations out of their retirements funds, everyday Americans so blinded by faith that they see Jesus in grilled cheese sandwiches but can't identify the 10 commandments or the Sermon on the Mount--yeah, sure, whatever. You got your work cut out for you, Hedges. Thought you were smarter than that.

Other Comments by willerror

71. Comment #138446 by Richard Morgan on March 4, 2008 at 10:40 am

 avatarYorker :
I'm convinced that debating religion, for or against, is a complete waste of time; it's time for action, we must fight religion wherever we find it
I understand what you're saying, but I feel that not all debates are a waste of time.
You're right - it's time for action, and I feel that one of those actions sometimes could be open debate.
Debate means that at least people are talking about the issue, and there must be many like myself, who needed to hear the arguments in order to be able to be freed from the delusions.
Action, indeed! I think it would be most useful if you could suggest what kind of actions would be most effective in order to "fight religion wherever we find it" - and win.
(Yes, I know we've been there before, but it's always useful to have new input on strategies for giving the Zeitgeist a boot in the pants to move it along a bit more!)

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

72. Comment #138465 by Polydactyl on March 4, 2008 at 11:41 am

One problem is that rationalism isn't the only alternative to religion. I meet a lot of people who have given up religion in favour of 'spirituality' or some variety of New Ageism or superstition. Not sure it isn't better to be opposed to something systematic than to be opposed to the nebulous irrational. Though I suppose the irrational doesn't necessarily involve fanaticism.

Other Comments by Polydactyl

73. Comment #138475 by cyris8400 on March 4, 2008 at 12:17 pm

I saw Chris Hedges's book "I Don't Believe in Atheists" at the bookstore a few days ago and read through the preface, and I can honestly say that whatever critical acumen he possessed when tackling the Religious Right in "American Fascists" must have been thrown to the wayside in order to criticize Hitchens and Harris (he says this book was formulated from his debates with Harris and Hitchens).

He tries to argue that we are utopian (that we believe we will bring about a golden godless age, which Hitchens would deny if you asked him and Harris would agree with in a non-strawman way), and that we are all imperialistic, all of us being pro-Iraq and anti-Muslim to a genocidal extent (Upside-Down Rush Limbaughs, I suppose).

All of these guys say the New Atheists are polemic and set up strawmen, but I have yet to see a single one of these dime-a-dozen backlash authors succeed in not portraying us how they complain of being falsely portrayed.

Sadly the only difference between an author like Chris Hedges or Alister McGrath and an author like Vox Day is that the former substitutes a defense of creationism for the Fallacy of the Golden Mean.

Other Comments by cyris8400

74. Comment #138486 by MaxD on March 4, 2008 at 12:34 pm

 avatarSteve Zara,
I though Stegner spelled out the program for testing the supernatural. At least in what I've read so far.
We can perform tests for ESP, the efficacy of Prayer, we make all kinds of predictions about what should happen if there is a divine creator and examine what falls out.
It is hard to do when the supernaturalist moves the goal posts after a failed test of course.

The supernaturalist and theologian all retreat back into the elephant in my trunk argument. Maybe its just really small. Maybe its invisible, maybe its hiding in some gap in the carpet and the spare tire well? No maybe over there then.

I think enough has been falsified to put the onus squarely on the believer to prove the proposition of some supernatural thingy and not continue to ask us to disprove a thing.

Though I will continue reading of course to see if I will later agree that he has over-stepped his case.

Other Comments by MaxD

75. Comment #138490 by Steve Zara on March 4, 2008 at 12:41 pm

 avatarComment #138486 by MaxD
I though Stegner spelled out the program for testing the supernatural. At least in what I've read so far.
We can perform tests for ESP, the efficacy of Prayer, we make all kinds of predictions about what should happen if there is a divine creator and examine what falls out.


You see, I just don't get why those effects, if they are true, need to involve terms like "supernatural".

What Stenger may mean is that we can test for what people call supernatural. But that does not mean the same thing to me.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

76. Comment #138504 by willerror on March 4, 2008 at 12:58 pm

--You see, I just don't get why those effects, if they are true, need to involve terms like "supernatural".--

Precisely. There isn't any such thing as the supernatural. Ghosts, gods, ESP, Atlantis, whatever--if it passes the scientific test, it's entirely natural. The supernatural cannot exist. But people are too swept up by old TV shows like X-Files or In Search Of... and think there are two orders of reality, the natural and the supernatural. Ooh, scary! Sorry, that ain't how things work.

Other Comments by willerror

77. Comment #138513 by Barbara on March 4, 2008 at 1:10 pm

 avatarMy response to this article is at
http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6536518.html

I had to make my points via a series of posts because of the limited space allowed for each comment. So far, I'm the only person to make any comment there.

Other Comments by Barbara

78. Comment #138786 by Garnok on March 4, 2008 at 7:28 pm

In not more than your own words, write a condensed version of all the flea books (marks will be deducted for any pretence that any of them contain evidence)


"Does too!"

or

"I know you are but what am I?"

I know I'm cheating but to me that seems to be the basic arguements coming from them when you break it down into essentials.

Other Comments by Garnok

79. Comment #139162 by Lil_Xunzian on March 5, 2008 at 8:34 am

I want to know where "New Atheist" #5 is--a Mrs. Cinq, a Mr. Wu--or is that Ehrman? Too bad the fact that there are more faithies than atheists will mean that they will yield more publications, but we do need a fifth. I'd do it myself, but I'm about eight years of being able to establish myself as an academic and write a book. I want to write a book comparing, from a philosophical point of view, the ethics of Confucius with the ethics of Jesus. You know, pit the oldest secular tradition against Jebus.

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

80. Comment #139641 by Blake C. Stacey on March 6, 2008 at 9:48 am

Norm Doering:

I tried to access your review of Vox Day's flea-book, but Blogger marks your site as "objectionable", and when I click the "go ahead" button, nothing happens. In the small hours of one insomniac night, I tried reading Vox's work myself. My reaction is recorded in the comments here:

http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2008/02/vox_day_abusing_darwin.php

Other Comments by Blake C. Stacey

81. Comment #139676 by Blake C. Stacey on March 6, 2008 at 11:40 am

Ah, finally! A cookie from some random server was being blocked.

Other Comments by Blake C. Stacey

82. Comment #139726 by Steve Zara on March 6, 2008 at 12:41 pm

 avatarThe Irrational Atheist, by Vox Day. A review:
http://zarbi.livejournal.com/110267.html

Other Comments by Steve Zara

83. Comment #139730 by Diacanu on March 6, 2008 at 12:45 pm

 avatarSteve Zara-

RAWK!!

*Air guitar gestures*

;)

Other Comments by Diacanu

84. Comment #139741 by Goldy on March 6, 2008 at 12:57 pm

 avatarPretty good Steve :-) Sam Tzu? Had to ask - is this a different Tzu or was it meant to be Sun Tzu? Haven't read Vox's book, btw, so can't really comment on the review, but you worte nicely :-)
(There, no one can accuse me of being too partisan now :-))

Other Comments by Goldy

85. Comment #139743 by Steve Zara on March 6, 2008 at 12:59 pm

 avatarGoldy:

The idea was to give a flavour of the book, and (as challenged) deal with some chapters. I don't have the stamina or energy that is apparent in Paula's work.

but you worte nicely :-)


[sic]

Other Comments by Steve Zara

86. Comment #139747 by Goldy on March 6, 2008 at 1:03 pm

 avatar
[sic]

:-) No spellcheck. I think I do OK mostly, but transposition of letters does seem to be my thing!
Ah, well, I'll leave it as is. Part of my humanity :-)
The Tzu feller is the same Tzu or a different one? Just asking becasue (sic) I don't want to sound stupid by sounding smart ;-)

Other Comments by Goldy

87. Comment #139751 by Steve Zara on March 6, 2008 at 1:07 pm

 avatar
The Tzu feller is the same Tzu or a different one? Just asking becasue (sic) I don't want to sound stupid by sounding smart ;-)


"Sam Tzu" is referring, I assume to Sun Tzu, implying that Sam Harris is a war-monger.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

88. Comment #139753 by Goldy on March 6, 2008 at 1:09 pm

 avatarAaaah, I get it now.
See, I am a bit dim on a Friday morning... It's the gin, you know...

Other Comments by Goldy

89. Comment #139757 by Steve Zara on March 6, 2008 at 1:12 pm

 avatarComment #139753 by Goldy
It's the gin, you know...


Don't worry.. the book induces such a mental state; apparently even indirectly.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

90. Comment #145165 by Fathom on March 17, 2008 at 10:31 am

 avatarI wasn't sure where to post this link but have you seen this?

http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/politicsphilosophyandsociety/story/0,,2265446,00.html

I didn't know there were 'secular suicide bombers'. Does anyone know if this is true - where the Tamil Tigers atheists?

F

Other Comments by Fathom

91. Comment #148384 by LiseYates on March 22, 2008 at 8:44 pm

 avatar"Inclusive publisher O Books offers God Without God: Western Spirituality Without the Wrathful King (June) by former Church of England priest Michael Hampson, arguing that "the God the atheist denies is not the God that people of true faith affirm," according to the book's description. "

They still don't get it. Atheists don't believe in evil, belligerant gods nor do we believe in gods on five different kinds of 'uppers' sprinkling gumdrops into the mouths of good litte Christians. They just don't get it.

Other Comments by LiseYates

92. Comment #148385 by Richard Morgan on March 22, 2008 at 8:58 pm

 avatarExcuse me for interrupting this thread.
http://www.myspace.com/fleabytes

MUSIC UPDATE

For PZMyers : "EXPELLED â€" another hole in the sock."






The Myspace dedicated player :

1. We saw the comet.
In "Climbing Mount Improbable", Richard Dawkins mentioned taking his baby daughter out one night to see a comet. He explained that she was probably too young to know what was going on, but since she would live to see it again (and he would not) he wanted her to be able to say, later in her life, that she'd seen it twice. I was very touched by this idea, and so composed this piece of music for Richard and his daughter.

2. Paula Kirby : TNT Truth, not Tales.
Well, it all started with Paula KIRBY, didn't it, this "Fleabytes" business!
3. MPhil : Emfill Rox!
An amazing young philosophical mind. (I asked my son Anthony to compose this piece, being a little unwell myself at the time.)
4. Past Fleas.
RD asked this question :
What would music inspired by the fleas sound like?
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2303,Add-another-flea-to-the-list,RichardDawkinsnet

Something to make them seem ridiculous, pathetic, desperate?
This composition is my answer.

5. Cartomancer : Gunshots and a Wobbly.
I'm chronically tone-deaf to the point where I didn't know what all the fuss was about when Jemini were the UK entry to the Eurovision Song Contest. My beloved teases me mercilessly about it. I tried to come up with some praise beyond "That sounds nice", or "I liked the wobbly bit with all those notes in it" but my abilities fail me utterly when it comes to describing my appreciation of music..
But Cartomancer is one of our most remarkable contributors, and deserved an, er, shall we say, appropriate musical portrait, with recognisable sounds.

6. Steve Zara : Simply SteveZ.
Enough said. Steve has a fine mind, and is totally lovable.


Standalone player (right column)
1. EXPELLED, another hole in the sock.
For PZ Myers
2. Sock on the Stair Reel â€" Bullshit!
3. Past Fleas.
4. Fleabytes â€" a thredley.
This is a medley of themes which expresses my impression of this everlasting thread.
5. Fingerprints, past time. (from The Lava Lizard's Tale.) (Voice : Richard Dawkins)
6. Broken Rings (from The Salamander's Tale) (Voice : Lalla Ward)
7. DIACANU.
(Mike told me himself that he felt that this portrait was pretty accurate. If you don't believe, read his comments!)
8. Bryan English : Bryan of OZ.
One of Australia's finest rock musicians.
9. Hitchindebate.
I composed a spontaneous impression of Christopher Hitches in debate with, well, just about anybody really.
10. The Quote Miner's lament.
11. Weeflea's always right.
Guess who this is?
12. Call me "Richard".
And guess who this is?


Standalone player (left column)
Sound track â€" Fingerprints, past time. (without the voice)

http://www.myspace.com/fleabytes

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

93. Comment #158661 by CITCOR on April 10, 2008 at 10:17 pm

I love how the Atheist and Christian book output ratio is about...what? 4:24. It defends my theory that Christians need reassurance, and that religion is nothing more than a mass-movement full of frustrated individuals who hate their life, and want to believe an invisible man in the sky is in charge of it. Pathetic.

Other Comments by CITCOR

94. Comment #158662 by CITCOR on April 10, 2008 at 10:23 pm

the God the atheist denies is not the God that people of true faith affirm


*sniff sniff* I smell the biggest, steaming pile of bullshit on the face of this Earth. That man needs to re-ezamine "The God Delusion" and read his Bible again. If those are not the same God, then I have a soul.

Other Comments by CITCOR

95. Comment #177548 by JernJane on May 9, 2008 at 9:27 am

 avatarSomeone should write a work of apologetics for Tor and Odin (Thor and Wotan/Woden) as a charicature of Christian apologetic theology.

Hell I might even do it myself.

Other Comments by JernJane

96. Comment #177558 by Diacanu on May 9, 2008 at 9:49 am

 avatarAh, the old Richard Morgan.
I mourn his loss.

Other Comments by Diacanu
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: First | Previous | 1 2

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: