HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » Feisty entry into content...

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:38 PM

 

Feisty entry into contentious field of atheist manifestos



The God Argument
The Case Against Religion and for Humanism
■ By A.C. Grayling
■ Bloomsbury, 258 pages, $27.50

Reviewed by: Morley Walker
Posted: 1:00 AM

Has a famous public intellectual been eavesdropping all the way from London, England, on some heated conversations here in Manitoba?

More than a few passages in British philosopher A.C. Grayling's erudite new humanist polemic would certainly give that impression.

Assisted suicide? Yup, Grayling weighs in on that knotty subject. Homosexuality and gay marriage? Yes, definitely.

And the role of human rights in a civilized society? Would Grayling take a position on whether or not Winnipeg should be home to that fancy national museum at The Forks.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/fyi/feisty-entry-into-contentious-field-of-atheist-manifestos-204991201.html

34 replies, 3358 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 34 replies Author Time Post
Reply Feisty entry into contentious field of atheist manifestos (Original post)
rug Apr 2013 OP
Warren Stupidity Apr 2013 #1
rug Apr 2013 #2
struggle4progress Apr 2013 #9
Warren Stupidity Apr 2013 #17
struggle4progress Apr 2013 #23
Joseph Ledger Apr 2013 #10
Warren Stupidity Apr 2013 #16
rug Apr 2013 #18
Warren Stupidity Apr 2013 #19
defacto7 Apr 2013 #27
struggle4progress Apr 2013 #3
struggle4progress Apr 2013 #4
dimbear Apr 2013 #21
struggle4progress Apr 2013 #24
struggle4progress Apr 2013 #25
dimbear Apr 2013 #28
struggle4progress Apr 2013 #29
dimbear Apr 2013 #31
struggle4progress Apr 2013 #32
dimbear Apr 2013 #34
struggle4progress Apr 2013 #5
struggle4progress Apr 2013 #6
struggle4progress Apr 2013 #7
struggle4progress Apr 2013 #8
skepticscott Apr 2013 #11
struggle4progress Apr 2013 #12
rug Apr 2013 #14
struggle4progress Apr 2013 #15
okasha Apr 2013 #13
skepticscott Apr 2013 #20
struggle4progress Apr 2013 #26
skepticscott Apr 2013 #33
dimbear Apr 2013 #22
Phillip McCleod Apr 2013 #30

Response to rug (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:42 PM

1. It is a humanist manifesto, not an atheist manifesto.

 

You might want to read it. Or at least read the cover. Humanism is something one can write a manifesto for, atheism, being simply the absence of belief in theistic nonsense, is not conducive to manifesto writing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 02:45 PM

2. That's the headline.

 

Although I will say the marketing niche it's entering is indeed that of explicitly atheist manifestos. Otherwise, The God Delusion would be a paragraph long. This one is more implicit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 04:03 PM

9. It seems to include many now-familiar rhetorical themes and salutes others who advance them:

... The book is really two books .. the first of which sets out to demolish any faith you might have had ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/9885308/Review-AC-Graylings-latest-attack-on-faith-is-smug-glib-and-lamentable.html

... by the second chapter, he is already .. making .. inevitable comparisons with tooth fairies and Father Christmas ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/mar/17/god-argument-ac-grayling-review

... You surely do not believe that fairies paint the flowers while you are asleep, he says: why then imagine that you can catch a glimpse of divinity in the beauties of nature? If you are prepared to accept the existence of God without conclusive evidence, why not stand up for "green cheese beneath the surface of the moon" as well? ...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/mar/07/god-argument-humanism-grayling-review

... This seems to be an attempt to delegitimise all religious discourse. “Atheism,” Grayling writes, “is to theism as not stamp-collecting is to stamp-collecting” ...
http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/02/apocalypse-now

... it is full of arguments in one sense: what philosophers call ad hominem ones directed at “religious apologists” ...
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/books/the-god-argument-the-case-against-religion-and-for-humanism-by-ac-grayling/2002605.article

... These arguments have been rehearsed on many occasions, particularly by the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, saluted in the introduction for their advancing of "the task" and "the cause" ...
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/the-god-argument-by-ac-grayling-8524807.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #9)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 08:36 PM

17. Perhaps instead of reading commentary you might go read the source.

 

The book is an easy read. I've read your stupid ass book. Go ahead, give it a try.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #17)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:10 PM

23. I already have stacks and stacks of stuff to read, stuff that actually challenges me

and gives me new ideas: books on cryptography, children living in poverty, number theory, critical editions of the gospels, the history of zen in china, root-finding techniques ...

I've never been a fundamentalist or biblical literalist, so I don't need to be read arguments against their ideas. I don't find the existence or non-existence of god an interesting philosophical problem, and it has very little to do with the reasons for my interest in religion. I'm already persuaded that ethics has very a large materialist component; I'm interested in science and consider it an entirely worthwhile collection of subjects. I'll been calling myself a humanist for many decades: whether or not you approve of me saying so, I largely support humanist values

But I find Dawkins and Hitchens banal. I'm usually suspicious when people tout their own rationality: nearly everyone considers himself/herself more rational than everyone else. I'm simply not interested in more silly rants about fairies in the garden, delivered by people with simplistic anti-religious views. I don't generally think I learn much about a person from whether they self-describe as "atheist" or "believer." I've heard the non-stamp-collector slogan so often it almost puts me to sleep

Grayling? Meh! The reviews indicate clearly enough what's there

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 05:19 PM

10. Exactly so. There's nothing inherent in atheism that lends itself to any particular

 

political position, though I will grant that American atheists are, on average, more left of center than the public at large.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joseph Ledger (Reply #10)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 08:33 PM

16. He does seem to have lit a fuse with out local religiously inflicted cohorts.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #16)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 08:36 PM

18. I don't think you can equate a yawn with lighting a fuse.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #18)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 08:42 PM

19. the line is "you fill me with inertia".

 

But no really see post 3-8.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:41 PM

27. Yes, but some

people just insist on redefining terms to meet the requirements of their dogma. Some don't even have a vested interest in said term See my signature. Anyway, I doubt reason is a tool for which they have any practice considering they equate it with verbosity minus thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:20 PM

3. The God Argument: The Case Against Religion and for Humanism by AC Grayling – review

Julian Baggini
The Observer, Saturday 16 March 2013

... But the most vocal atheists and the believers who take their bait appear ever more like a long-married couple who prefer the familiarity of their dysfunctional relationship to the emptiness that lies beyond an amicable divorce. They trade the same old niggles and complaints with no hope or expectation of mutual understanding ...

Grayling's case is most powerful against those who believe, literally, that holy texts convey the word of God, who is a real, personal being who cares for, rewards and punishes us. For a sensible philosopher like Grayling, this is all-too obviously ridiculous, and by the second chapter, he is already unable to resist making the inevitable comparisons with tooth fairies and Father Christmas ...

Nonetheless, there is much more to faith than a stone-age metaphysics of divine beings and miracles. Grayling, however, dismisses all the rest as the mere residue of an outdated worldview or the obfuscation of confused minds. For him, the matter is simple: all religion is built on supernatural beliefs and "when one rejects the premise of a set of views, it is a waste of one's time to address what is built on those premises". As a result, he simply refuses to engage with the most interesting aspect of the God debate: what, if anything, remains of truth and value in religion if you accept its stories as myths? ...

The God Argument sums up the mainstream humanist position well, but I can't see it taking the debate forward. Perhaps that would be a foolish hope. The public debate Dawkins started seems to have done as much to make the participants feel validated as it has to change their opinions. The God argument remains unwinnable.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/mar/17/god-argument-ac-grayling-review

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:25 PM

4. The God Argument: the Case Against Religion and For Humanism by AC Grayling – review

As a militant atheist, the philosopher AC Grayling has much in common with the literal fundamentalists he derides
Jonathan Rée
The Guardian, Thursday 7 March 2013 05.00 EST

... Grayling is happy to rush in where Russell feared to tread, and if you want to learn how to be a good humanist, then The God Argument might be the place to start. Humanism turns out to be "beautiful and life-enhancing", and as easy as pie. "It requires only clear eyes, reason, and kindness," according to Grayling. If you think that moral choices should be grounded in "the responsible use of reason" and "human experience in the real world" then you are already a humanist, though you may not know it. As a humanist you will like "human rights", and dislike "war, injustice, and poverty", but you will allow everyone to choose their own "values and goals" just as you have chosen your own. Best of all, as a humanist you will be frightfully jolly about sex: you will consider it a "deeply valuable thing", provided, of course, that it is practised in a fair-minded, hygienic and respectful manner ...

A believer might like to point out that science, too, can be traced back to the Dark Ages, and that contemporary physicists might be pretty embarrassed by the outmoded opinions of revered patriarchs such as Newton or Maxwell. But Grayling will press on with his interrogation. You surely do not believe that fairies paint the flowers while you are asleep, he says: why then imagine that you can catch a glimpse of divinity in the beauties of nature? If you are prepared to accept the existence of God without conclusive evidence, why not stand up for "green cheese beneath the surface of the moon" as well? Will you deny that you have sought guidance from religious sources – that you have in effect committed moral plagiarism by taking "a one-size-fits-all model" from the religious supermarket and passing it off as your own work? If this is not what your religion means, Grayling submits, then it has no meaning at all.

Militant atheism makes the strangest bedfellows. Grayling sees himself as a champion of the Enlightenment, but in the old battle over the interpretation of religious texts he is on the side of conservative literalist fundamentalists rather than progressive critical liberals. He believes that the scriptures must be taken at their word, rather than being allowed to flourish as many-layered parables, teeming with quarrels, follies, jokes, reversals and paradoxes. Resistance is, of course, futile. If you suggest that his vaunted "clarifications" annihilate the poetry of religious experience or the nuance of theological reflection, he will mark you down for obstructive irrationalism. He is, after all, a professional philosopher, and his training tells him that what cannot be translated into plain words is nothing but sophistry and illusion.

The distinction between believers and unbelievers may be far less important than Grayling and the New Atheists like to think. At any rate it cuts right across the rather interesting difference between the grim absolutists, such as Grayling and the religious fundamentalists, who think that knowledge must involve perfect communion with literal truth, and the sceptical ironists – both believers and unbelievers – who observe with a shrug that we are all liable to get things wrong, and the human intellect has a lot to be modest about. We live our lives in the midst of ambiguities we will never resolve ...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/mar/07/god-argument-humanism-grayling-review

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #4)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 09:40 PM

21. contemporary physicists might be pretty embarrassed by the outmoded opinions of revered patriarchs?

I don't think so. The results in question, Newton's laws and Maxwell's equations, are monuments of scientific thought and are used every day by engineers and scientists. The fact that they may differ slightly from the very latest results in the umpteenth decimal place is of little day to day import and the subject of no embarrassment. Compare the physical concepts revealed to us in the holy books, such as geocentrism.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dimbear (Reply #21)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:13 PM

24. "In the regions of interplanetary space the density of the aether is therefore very great compared

with that of the attenuated atmosphere of interplanetary space, but the whole mass of aether within a sphere whose radius is that of the most distant planet is very small compared with that of the planets themselves" is an outmoded opinion of Maxwell's, enshrined in his article in the Ninth Encyclopædia Britannica, titled Ether

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dimbear (Reply #21)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:16 PM

25. "Newton believed that ancient Greek and Roman mythology contained hidden alchemical secrets"

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/newton-alchemy.html

This seems to point at an outmoded opinion of Newton's

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #25)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:53 PM

28. Newton's life divides sadly into an early period of genius and a later period

of idle speculation, often on theological topics. Perhaps these are some of those.

He was apparently maddened by hecklers.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dimbear (Reply #28)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 11:17 PM

29. The Principia was published when he was about 45, which is not generally regarded

as early in a man's life

He seems to have had a mental crisis in his 50s. One natural theory is that in the late 1680s or early 1690s he had poisoned himself somewhat in his alchemical experiments, since in that era modern laboratory safety notions had not yet been invented, and many practitioners regularly tasted the results of their experiments

It did not prevent his subsequent election to the Royal Society, and he did run the mint for thirty years afterwards. IIRC there is mathematical work, by other people, from the era in which Newton would have been in his seventies, which Newton is believed to have helped produce

I think his problem with hecklers occurred early in his life: he seems to have been so gravely discouraged by opposition to the theory of optics he began to devise, that he abandoned the theory. And after Halley and others finally persuaded him to publish his astronomical mechanics, he indicated he had deliberately written it in a somewhat-difficult-to-understand way, so that the hecklers would have trouble understanding it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #29)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 03:24 AM

31. So much for Sir Isaac. But the other ostensible culprit, Maxwell. What's the

detract there? Is it his demons that are in question? I thought they were to be considered mostly snide rather than real. A construct in an argumentum ad absurdum.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dimbear (Reply #31)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 04:24 AM

32. Maxwell's demon isn't snide: it's a useful thermodynamic thought experiment

He was indeed a superb theoretical physicist. But he wasn't uniformly right: upthread I posted an excerpt from an article he wrote about the so-called ether, which on the modern view entirely misses the mark

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #32)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 05:35 PM

34. The important point is that Maxwell didn't actually believe in demons, we're

agreed there. That he wasn't uniformly right is also a point of agreement, where I disagree with the author you cite is that that would embarrass modern day physicists in any way.

I've read some physics books from the era in question. The luminiferous aether. How they did go on! Books like that mostly seem charming to me, or quaint, not embarrassing. The discarded theory pile isn't nearly as disdained as the discarded doctrine pile.

Just my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:30 PM

5. The God Argument: The Case Against Religion and For Humanism by A. C. Grayling

Martin Cohen asks what is the point of using logic to dismantle religious belief?
21 March 2013

The promise that A.C. Grayling makes to us is to thoroughly examine “all the arguments offered in support of religious belief” and to do so not “acerbically” but calmly. Strange, then, that he starts by thanking various “fellows in the cause”, such as (guess who) Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and cheeky Peter Cave. The word “cause” is revealing of the mindset, even if the next line strikes an unconvincing note of inclusivity, offering, like a poorly structured sermon, “that every generation must travel its own road, but with the hope of arriving at a destination further along than its predecessors”. Perhaps a wiser thought and a better metaphor would have been: every publisher must produce its own book explaining the same points about religion, but with the hope that each sells more than its predecessors.

This book, however, is supposed to be different - a philosophical examination of the arguments. That is perhaps why it is called The God Argument. Or perhaps the publisher came up with the name after Grayling submitted it. Although it is full of arguments in one sense: what philosophers call ad hominem ones directed at “religious apologists”. Thomas Aquinas, Leibniz and no doubt the local vicar would all fit into this group - but not, it seems, Buddhists or followers of Confucius, as these “are philosophies”. Which means that they are all right.

Religion, as presented here, has negligible philosophical content. Rather it seems to consist of hanging homosexuals, beheading or stoning to death adulterous women and subordinating “women and children” in Bible Belt America. “Throughout history, the religion-inspired suppression of women has robbed humanity of at least half of its potential creativity and genius.” We’re only on page two, by the way, of this exemplification of “calm rationality”, as a review from the Church Times promises on the back cover ...

The problem with this reasoning is that there could be another explanation for the bad things - like maybe inbred sexism, or aggressive pursuit of economic self-interest. But that, I suppose, is sociology. Here we only do logic. Mind you, some claims do look rather sociological, such as: “Whereas the consolations of religion are mainly personal, the burdens are social and political as well as personal.” It is likely that Grayling has no time for the Protestant work ethic that made being rich virtuous and justified the entire capitalist system - generally seen as an important factor in social development - or perhaps he would rather we returned to a kind of philosophical Year Zero, “before religion” ...


http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/books/the-god-argument-the-case-against-religion-and-for-humanism-by-ac-grayling/2002605.article

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:34 PM

6. Reviewed: The God Argument by A C Grayling

Apocalypse now.
By Bryan Appleyard
Published 28 February 2013 14:09

... There is also an irritating and highly self-serving argument that appears in various forms throughout the book. This seems to be an attempt to delegitimise all religious discourse. “Atheism,” Grayling writes, “is to theism as not stamp-collecting is to stamp-collecting.” In other words, not to be a stamp collector “denotes only the open-ended and negative state of not collecting stamps”. Equally, not being a theist is not a positive condition; it merely says this person “does not even begin to enter the domain of discourse in which these beliefs have their life and content”. The word “atheist”, therefore, is misleading; the phrase “militant atheist” doubly so.

This is silly. First, “militant atheist” is a phrase that Grayling justifies by his talk of comrades and causes. If he really believes this argument, he shouldn’t have written this book. Second, this is a transparent ruse to get the four (or five) horsemen off the charge that they write about religion while knowing nothing of theology. If religion is treated as a child-like superstition – like the belief in fairies – then there is no need to understand it in detail and, of course, this particular superstition is also dangerous and should therefore be exposed as well as refuted, if not in detail.

You may agree with this but consider the implications of where Grayling’s argument leads. He writes that the “respect agenda” – the tolerance of religious beliefs – is at an end. Is that really where atheists want to go?

At this point, the book needs discussing in a wider context. Western humanism in its present incarnation is a very small sect in the context of global beliefs and world views. The idea, advanced in this book, that it could and should become a world ideology is both wildly improbable and extremely dubious. Like it or not, religions are here to stay. Grayling sort of gets round this by ignoring the primary argument for their continued existence – that religion is a beneficial adaptation. He argues that religion is kept in place by, in essence, political power. This is altogether too weak and too inconsistent to explain the prevalence of religion and most thinkers accept some sort of evolutionary explanation. If you do accept at least some version of the adaptive argument – or, indeed, if you are a believer – then the study of religion becomes an obligation. Religious faith is not remotely like the belief in fairies; it is a series of stories of immense political, poetic and historical power that are – again, like it or not – deeply embedded in human nature. Seen in that light, to dismiss all religious discourse as immature or meaningless is to embrace ignorance or, more alarmingly, to advocate suppression. It will also make it impossible for you to understand the St Matthew Passion, Chartres Cathedral and the films of Andrei Tarkovsky ...


http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/02/apocalypse-now

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:38 PM

7. Review: AC Grayling's latest attack on faith is smug, glib and lamentable

By Tom Payne
7:00AM GMT 27 Feb 2013

People are still debating whether or not Life of Pi, book or film, can make you believe in God. The novel didn’t have that effect on me. A C Grayling’s book came much closer: his “case for humanism” made me begin to long for faith. Or at least to long for a longing for it.

The book is really two books, or a brace of pamphlets, the first of which sets out to demolish any faith you might have had. It is written in the style of a don seeking to be accessible and sometimes forgetting himself, so that there are sentences such as: “If any such do not mean by ‘religion’ what has been painstakingly identified in the foregoing, then that closes the conversation…” It’s worth saying that his definition of “religion” isn’t that painstaking, and by the end of the book, humanism means pretty much what he wants it to mean: lots of sensible people thinking and doing good things.

There is one joke that works, although maybe it isn’t a joke. Here it is: “Pascal said that… the existence of a deity can be neither proved nor disproved (here he was mistaken; see above)…” You had to be there. This is on page 99, at which point he’s spent a while seeking to disprove that god exists (no capital g for Him). What he really offers are rebuttals of those who have sought to prove that there is a God. Before that, he’s devoted some time to making those who entertain a faith seem as silly as possible. When he comes to quoting a philosopher of faith, Alvin Plantinga, who accuses the New Atheists of “inane ridicule and burlesque”, you can see that Plantinga has a point. Pity the fool ...

What’s most lamentable about this book is not the quirks of tone, the infelicities of emphasis or the inconsistency, indeed occasional lack, of method. It’s the façade of appreciating how believers have created great art, without recognising the imaginative process behind it, and indeed behind faith. St Anselm’s arguments for God, along with Descartes’, are more revealing about the capacity of the human mind than they are about God, and deserve celebrating for that ...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/9885308/Review-AC-Graylings-latest-attack-on-faith-is-smug-glib-and-lamentable.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 03:41 PM

8. The God Argument, By AC Grayling

Virtuous atheists may live well and do good – but can they give hope to the hopeless cases?
Catherine Pepinster
Friday 08 March 2013

... Alvin Plantinga is the philosopher who gets both of Grayling's barrels, as a leading proponent of the ontological argument (using reason to establish the existence of a deity). Plantinga has gone on to claim this argument proves not that God exists but that it is rational to think he exists, and entirely reasonable to say that there is a maximally great entity. His claim that this is a rational argument causes Grayling to see red. But Plantinga's description of Dawkins as "dancing on the lunatic fringe" undoubtedly adds to the fire. The forthright riposte from Grayling is to accuse Plantinga of "complete intellectual irresponsibility".

I would have preferred to see what Grayling had to say about Antony Flew, one of the most influential atheistic philosophers of our time and author of The Presumption of Atheism. He declared in 2004 that he had become a theist, on the grounds that the origins of life indicate a creative intelligence. But Flew doesn't get a mention.

Grayling's earnest manifesto for humanism had much the same effect on me as eating too much lettuce did on Peter Rabbit. While wit was as absent as in part one, I was roused to laughing out loud by his explanation of how important it is to be active, rather than idle: "The engagement does not have to be any more taxing than reading, knitting or gardening, though for some it has to take the form of climbing Everest or going to the moon. And there are plenty of worthwhile and creative activities in between".

Apart from their vilification of theists, one gets the impression that humanists are always nice, polite, and middle-class. They are as keen on people being good as any vicar. The trouble is people aren't always nice, and atheism has little to say about that. Attend a humanist funeral and you'll see it works for someone who was pleasant, worked hard, and left behind a loved family. But there is no hope of redemption for anyone who doesn't measure up. It's that search for meaning and hope for the hopeless that continues to capture the imagination of those convinced of their faith, for all the rational arguments put forward by Grayling and his fellows in "the cause".


http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/the-god-argument-by-ac-grayling-8524807.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #8)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 05:43 PM

11. Do have even a glimmer

 

of a thought of your own on the subject? Or is posting the results from the Almighty Google your limit of insight?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #11)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 07:26 PM

12. Etaoin shrdlu!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #12)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 07:43 PM

14. RIP Ottmar Mergenthaler.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #14)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 07:56 PM

15. Or I might have been thinking of the Pogo character

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 07:36 PM

13. Grayling has noticed that

there's an enthusiastic, uncritical audience for this stuff. He's just making a grab at market share.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #13)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 09:33 PM

20. If his audience were fundamentally uncritical

 

They'd be religious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to skepticscott (Reply #20)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 10:20 PM

26. And, in fact, some atheists are so full of faith in their atheism, that atheism might indeed

count as their religion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to struggle4progress (Reply #26)

Sun Apr 28, 2013, 09:50 AM

33. Find us some atheists

 

who wouldn't be willing to change their point of view, no matter how much objective evidence for the existence of a god was presented. Then your statement might have some basis.

I'm sure it's out there on Google. Knock yourself out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Original post)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 09:54 PM

22. Currently rating 3.8 out of 5 at Amazon. There is a single 1 star review,

and its author is candid enough to admit that he writes Christian books (blogs, or whatever) himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dimbear (Reply #22)

Sat Apr 27, 2013, 11:40 PM

30. k&r is the term..

 

..innt?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread