Posted on 10/18/2006 5:25:05 PM PDT by wagglebee
CHICAGO (Reuters) - A fresh wave of atheistic books has hit the market this autumn, some climbing onto best-seller lists in what proponents see as a backlash against the way religion is entwined in politics.
"Religion is fragmenting the human community," said Sam Harris, author of "Letter to a Christian Nation," No. 11 on the New York Times nonfiction list on October 15.
There is a "huge visibility and political empowerment of religion. President George W. Bush uses his first veto to deny funding for stem cell research and scientists everywhere are horrified," he said in an interview.
Religious polarization is part of many world conflicts, he said, including those involving Israel and Iran, "but it's never discussed. I consider it the story of our time, what religion is doing to us. But there are very few people calling a spade a spade."
His "Letter," a blunt 96-page pocket-sized book condensing arguments against belief in quick-fire volleys, appeared on the Times list just ahead of "The God Delusion," by Richard Dawkins, a scientist at Oxford University and long-time atheist.
In addition, Harris' "The End of Faith," a 2004 work which prompted his "Letter" as a response to critics, is holding the No. 13 Times spot among nonfiction paperbacks.
Publishers Weekly said the business has seen "a striking number of impassioned critiques of religion -- any religion, but Christianity in particular," a probably inevitable development given "the super-soaking of American politics and culture with religion in recent years."
Paul Kurtz, founder of the Council for Secular Humanism and publisher of Free Inquiry magazine, said, "The American public is really disturbed about the role of religion in U.S. government policy, particularly with the Bush administration and the breakdown of church-state separation, and secondly with the conflict in the Mideast."
They are turning to free thought and secular humanism and publishers have recognized a taste for that, he added.
"I've published 45 books, many critical of religion," Kurtz said. "I think in America we have this notion of tolerance ... it was considered bad taste to criticize religion. But I think now there are profound questions about age-old hatreds."
The Rev. James Halstead, chairman of the Department of Religious Studies at Chicago's DePaul University, says the phenomenon is really "a ripple caused by the book publishing industry."
"These books cause no new thought or moral commitment. The arguments are centuries old," he told Reuters. Some believers, he added, "are no better. Their conception of God, the Divine-Human-World relationship are much too simplistic and materialistic."
Too often, he said, the concept "God" is misused "to legitimate the self and to beat up other people ... to rehash that same old theistic and atheistic arguments is a waste of time, energy and paper."
Dr. Timothy Larsen, professor of theology at Wheaton College in Illinois, says any growth in interest in atheism is a reflection of the strength of religion -- the former being a parasite that feeds off the latter.
That happened late in the 19th century America when an era of intense religious conviction gave rise to voices like famed agnostic Robert Ingersoll, he said.
For Christianity, he said, "It's very important for people of faith to realize how unsettling and threatening their posture and rhetoric and practice can feel to others. So it's an opportunity for the church to look at itself and say 'we have done things ... that make other people uncomfortable.' It is an opportunity for dialogue."
Larsen, author of the soon-to-be-published "Crisis of Doubt," added that in some sense atheism is "a disappointment with God and with the church. Some of these are people we wounded that we should be handling pastorally rather than with aggressive knockdown debate."
These are also probably some of the same people Harris says he's hearing from after his two books.
"Many, many readers feel utterly isolated in their communities," he said. "They are surrounded by cult members, from their point of view, and are unable to disclose their feelings."
"I get a lot of e-mail just expressing incredible relief that they are not alone ... relieved that I'm writing something that couldn't be said," Harris added.
Compare. You must be like a god to a scorpion. You decide (this is incomprehensible) that you love scorpions, and that you want to raise up scorpions to the level of being able to love you back. So you empty yourself of your human nature and take on a scorpion nature; you go down to live with the scorpions, teaching and healing and giving them everything, even while knowing that, scorpions being what they are, you will without a doubt end up being stung to death.
You don't know, with your scorpion-mind, that there would be any recovery whatsoever after death. You've heard such; but this is not "knowledge" in terms of the scorpion-mind; it would be based on sheer trust in a higher intelligence.
You spend years reaching out to the very limits of your nature, experiencing scorpion-life, dealing with scorpion-incomprehension. And then it happens; they kill you; you accept the pain of it and die willingly for them--- because you loved them.
Even if you went back at that point to being human, is what you did nothing? Or is it an unheard-of act of reckless extremism --- the extremism of self-sacrificing love?
Or here's another one. You're a barnacle. You have a brain the size of a sesame seed. You're attached to the hull of a nuclear submarine. How much comprehension do you have of the nature and power and inner workings of the submarine to which you cling?
It isn't much, is it?
That's your position. And mine.
I still see no ban on slavery in the Bible. It regulated slavery, and admittedly tried to make the life of the slave easier.
he become the first human being in the history of the world to speak out unequivocally against it (in his Letter to Coroticus) as being morally evil.
That is good. It is also long after the establishment of God's word.
As you imply, later Christians deeming slavery to be immoral is a re-interpretation of the Bible. But they did this according to the mores of the society of the time. Going back to find a supporting verse is simply justification for the decision.
Sometimes I think the Bible is poorly written because of the contradictions, etc. However, it would have been smart to put in all of the contradictions so that the interpretation of it could change with a growing society with an evolving set of mores, all with scriptural support. The better religious books tend to have all the bases covered.
There is no "right or wrong" in the scientific sense, there for one can't discuss "rightness" in logical terms. Science cannot speak to morality or ethics in ways that can be measured or falsified
Yet if one buys into the notion of divinely revealed knowledge, then one can perhaps have a discussion of "rightness or wrongness".
Junior, I'm aware of some your posts in the EVO/CREAT threads...that's why I'm parsing so carefully.
The founding fathers and Citizens of early America were influenced by a strong Judeo-Christian ethos, whether or not some totally bought into Christianity or not. They were agreed on certain values and beliefs that formed a basis of their sense of what was "rightness or wrongness"
and this was built into the formation of the constitution.
It was not just in humorous jest that Franklin proclaimed..."We have given you a republic, if you can keep it!"
They feared that factionalism, and disagreements as to what constituted "rightness and wrongness" would someday tear the republic apart!
In a way the story of Camelot, and its destruction by Mordred who was able to foment civil war by exploiting the past sins of his father Arthur, catching him in a moral quandary...over wanting to show mercy to Guenivere while needing to execute her at the same time is really a cautionary tale for our own society.
The Democrats are Mordred in this case, who are totally given to using the perversities of men to accentuate their power. The Republicans are Arthur, who was minded to build a great society of justice and goodness, but ultimately fail when the Dem's take advantage of the Repubs' own imperfections. In the end, Camelot destroys itself with the inhabitants reduced to tribalism and poverty! Unfortunately, I don't see a knight returning with the grail to heal our land in the near future!
:-)
Aren't you an atheist?
Here's my favorite:
Ecclesiastes 10:19: A feast is made for laughter, and wine maketh glad the life; and money answereth all things.
That is not in line with the "Jesus is God" doctrine. He knew who he was while he was human. Colossians 2 said Jesus had all treasures of wisdom and knowledge, and Matthew said he had all power in Heaven and Earth. This is not an ignorant barnacle.
You speak English?
Of course not, relatively. Any infinite, omnipotent being can endure an infinite amount of suffering. Therefore even the greatest of suffering is, by definition, so small as to be immeasurable compared to his capacity to endure suffering.
Didn't a judge also rule that ID wasn't science?
See my apology at #224.
Why do you mention science?
I pity you for that. I don't have to struggle with faith in nonsensical concepts anymore.
I have the answer. And it ain't Christianity.
Are you an atheist?
And can you answer without insult?
But that's where you're wrong. His death affected him EXACTLY as it affects every human: all the suffering, and the final wrenching separation of soul and body are there for him, as for you, at the end, or for me.
It's true that Jesus didn't get dismembered in a D&X abortion, or get eaten by a tiger, or get caught on the barbed wire and then bayoneted as in WWI, or die like a mother in childbirth. But as for his suffering, it was excruciating, since in His human nature he was the ultimate Man. He had finer sensitivity, deeper mental awareness, and a tremendous heart of love more wounded than any other man by cruelty, ingratitude, and betrayal.
If you mean he didn't "stay dead" because He's immortal: well, you're immortal, too. And you won't stay dead. either. Lke everyone else, you will rise: and then what? You'll see.
In any case, I will not consent to have Jesus wired up to your Martyr-o-tronic Calibrator and mocked for the sacrifice He made. Such a trifling attitude is desgraceful. I am ashamed for you.
But "modern" society, as you put it, condemns slavery only because all of us --secular people as well --- are living off of the moral capital of the Judeo-Christian "deposit of faith." To the extent that that deposit dwindles over time, not being renewed by faith, the moral structure becomes vitiated and finally disappears.
As Judeo-Christianity recedes, you've got Islam advancing with its frank endorsement of Koranic slavery which has never been repudiated in the Muslim world; you've got totalitarian slavery in North Korea and allied dictaorships; you've got human trafficking and sex-slavery in the West; and you've got the redefinition of human life as a product and not a person (e.g. through genetic engineering) which provides the technological preconditions for the New Slavery of the Future in which everyone will be a product and not a person.
Without reference at least to the Creationist-Deism of Jefferson ("all men are Created equal.. are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienble rights...") we have no axioms to rely upon which could supply a basis for a theory of human rights.
Slavery has been a given in almost all human societies. In the whole history of global cultures, it's the lack of slavery in our own society is an anomaly.
Why are Christian (and, for a while, post-Christian) societies so exceptional? For the answer, read a bit of Rodney Stark's book For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery or his other fascinating book, The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success.
Adherents to Atheism like to speak of their beliefs as grounded in science and objectivity. I was questioned regarding the intrisity of the knowledge of "rightness" but asked not to explain it in terms of "religion"...thus began a series of posts including a couple from Junior, a well known poster from the EVO/CREAT threads.
I was challenged in my notion that "intrisity of knowledge of rightness and wrongness" could not be explained scientifically by Junior and I was somewhat poking fun at him, mentioning that I remebemred him from the EVO threads. He had sought to challenge me on religious grounds concerning the "rightness" of religious wars in the Bible and in history and I reminded him that "rightness" could not be argued on a rational scientific basis but if one believed in divine revelation one might have a discussion on those terms!
So, are you saying that you are a Christian (or Jew or some other religion) and never find yourself tempted to question your faith, or that are you an atheist/agnostic who simply refuses to believe anything that is not intellectually satisfactory to you?
So you're saying the rest of us can pop back in a couple of days after we're dead to chat with old friends and take in a meal or two, too? Face it, when we die we know we're not coming back here, nor do we get to run dad's business after that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.