tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post5374969381778119345..comments2024-03-03T21:51:46.662-05:00Comments on stylos: Book Review: Alister McGrath's "Twilight of Atheism"Jeffrey T. Riddlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16374856944409335186noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-37633320856475401172008-07-15T12:30:00.000-04:002008-07-15T12:30:00.000-04:00Except there are many books you don't have to read...Except there are many books you don't have to read to reply to. You only need to know (and not strawman) the arguments they give.<BR/><BR/>For example, the God Delusion. You can talk about the book without having read it- people only get upset if you claim he has a flaw or hole when he covers it in a book.<BR/><BR/>The simple fact is that EVERY atheist and theist argument is on the web. <BR/><BR/>Now, I could be wrong- the man could come up with an argument that has never been seen in six milenia of human civilization. I seriously doubt it- more so since the book devoted to tracing atheisms rise and fall.<BR/><BR/>As a rationalist I don't care about the rise and fall of ideas- I care about if they are true or not.<BR/><BR/>Before you think that I am closeminded, I have read apologetics and their ilk- on the net and in book form. I read "The Enemy at Home".<BR/><BR/>Of course, after reading I had an attack of fridge logic.<BR/>http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FridgeLogic<BR/><BR/>Now, to my knoledge, the only differance between the two of them is presentation, which means one rebuttal is as effective as another.Samuel Skinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01587994908818534357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-22688172868034128652008-07-15T09:06:00.000-04:002008-07-15T09:06:00.000-04:00Mr. Skinner,Thanks for your lengthy reply. As you...Mr. Skinner,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your lengthy reply. As you admit at the end, you have not read the book. I would encourage you to do so. You don't get to teach at Oxford by being a sloppy thinker.<BR/><BR/>JTRJeffrey T. Riddlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16374856944409335186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19219922.post-79457254144695878462008-07-15T02:31:00.000-04:002008-07-15T02:31:00.000-04:00I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to call BS- here ...I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to call BS- here is why:<BR/><BR/>First he declares atheism is declining without giving any data- unverified claim. He also states it is a revolt against God- a statement only made by those who have no idea what the word means.<BR/><BR/>Grath also gets it wrong for the Golden age of atheism. The first Golden age would be about 500 BC, when the Ionians formulaed way to understand the world without referancing the Gods.<BR/><BR/>As for the French Revolution... that is downright false. Robspierre, as with many other Englightenment individuals was a deist. Deism was the promonent view until 1859 and the origin of species, when how life came to its present form was explained. At that point you had more atheists, but they were rare and most prefered to call themselves agnostic.<BR/><BR/>In Europe, religion hit hard times due to WW1 and got heavily killed from WW2. It is worth noting that in the communist countries, worship wasn't always illegal.<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union<BR/><BR/>Yep- a third of Soviet citizens were theists. So much for the Berlin Wall. The only state that went full bore was Albania.<BR/><BR/>Saying atheism has "collapsed" is a totally false statement. Why? For starters you have the antitheist movement up the wood work AND the evidence hasn't changed in the past 19 years either.<BR/><BR/>Uh... no. I didn't know who Feuerbach was until looking it up know. Marx was a political theorist and Freud was a psychochrist. All three were atheists, but you can't really call them the foundations of atheism.<BR/><BR/>For starters, atheism is an absence of belief. He seems to believe these people were the foundations of madern atheism... why? Why not Voltaire? Or Ignersol? Or Darwin (not an atheist, but founations non the less)?<BR/><BR/>But more to the point why does he call it modern atheism? There is ZERO differance between my atheism and that of Epicurous- the support for the belief is differant, but the belief itself is the same.<BR/><BR/>Science would be the major differance between my belief and Epicurous- in fact, if he lived today I have little doubt he would get a similar beliefs as the "modern" atheists, simply by cracking a couple of good textbooks.<BR/><BR/>Science<BR/>Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is the effort to discover, understand, or to understand better, how the physical world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding. It is done through observation of existing phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate phenomena under controlled conditions. Knowledge in science is gained through research.<BR/><BR/>Faith<BR/>Faith is a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea that has not been proven. Formal usage of the word "faith" is usually reserved for concepts of religion, as in theology, where it almost universally refers to a trusting belief in a transcendent reality (therefore spirituality and spiritual immortality), or else in a Supreme Being and their role as a guide for people moving into an experience of such reality.<BR/><BR/>Lets take a look for a second. Science is based on that which can be proven with and dealt with. Faith deals with whatever you can make up. Honestly science and faith don't always conflict... but when they are appart, faith is conflicting with logic.<BR/><BR/>That might be because scientists are overwhelimgly atheists. It isn't a stereotype if it is true for the majority of a group.<BR/><BR/>You do realize that his analysis makes little sense. He is treating Christianity as if it is true... and at the same time as a good that wasn't promoted heavily enough and so is losing market shares. Call the consoltants!<BR/><BR/>Honestly, what happened to it being the "Good News". Or what about all the past playrights and writters who didn't have God in their stories... that would be... all of them? Almost no stories have God involved at all.<BR/><BR/>But apparently Christianity, the one true faith given to Moses and His literal word lost out to a insane man who wrote works so dense that even today academics give contradictory interpretations, a man whose depressing works aren't promoting atheism (God is dead so everything is allowed would be an argument against atheism). At least The Lord had the decency to survive those and be taken down by ... Victorian Romance Novels. What sort of God does Alister McGrath believe in? Cause this bears NO resemblance to the one of the Old OR the New Testament.<BR/><BR/>Moving past the sarcasm we get to his time cover and the USSR. As for the time cover... you do realize magazines make money with outrageous stories. And the religion many people practiced was dead- hardcore fundamentalism was dying. It got replaced by the wish washy stuff, so no atheism triumphant.<BR/><BR/>As for the communists... I'm reminded of the saying "There are two kinds of conquers- the Romans and the Spainards. The Romans want you to pay your taxes- they care no how many Gods your worship as long as you are loyal (although in the Roman case, religion was part of loyalty). Then you have those who insist on ideological purity and... cleanse their new territory".<BR/><BR/>Lets guess which one the commies were, shall we? The answer is B- they fought to spread communism- atheism wasn't their goal- in fact they eliminated it for a very simple reason- it was outside their control and an ally of the old regime. Notice that facists don't do this? They work with the old regime and get its support- Hitler is the closest exception because he wanted total loyalty. And, of course Mussolini signed an agreement with the Pope. I'd go on on how wrong this is- it would be like saying that the Xinhai Revolution was an atheist cleaning because it kicked out the role of emperor, who was chosen by the Gods. And, yes, I believe they cracked down on the native religious beliefs as backwards.<BR/><BR/>I'm a strong atheist. That is a far cry from agnostic. A lack of belief is not a matter of faith- I for one lack belief in gydts. As do you. Stating that God cannot exist, is a conclusion, one that must be defended like any other.<BR/><BR/>I want to hear a circular argument that atheists use. A rebuttal, not a poor argument that pops up on occasion. I can't think of any, and I'd LOVE to hear one, but he probably is making this up.<BR/><BR/>So Christianity is revived... by good writters? Even though their apologetics simply rephrase what has been previously been stated, but with differant words? <BR/><BR/>Pentocostilism has mostly exploded in the developing world and places where Christianity is new. And Star Trek... God that show had problems... horrible, horrible problems. TOS was Christian and good, TNG was atheist and okay, DS9 was Christian and worse, VOY and Ent were New Age and horrible.<BR/><BR/>Post modernism is, given his discription, a bunch of wishy washy insanity. Rejecting ideas because they are confining? I guess truth has no standing.<BR/><BR/>Belief in God is evil and must be eliminated is antitheism, not atheism. And technically it is religion is evil.<BR/><BR/>Atheism is intolerant because it insists that Christianity is not true... just like Christianity treats every other religion. And I sensing a double standard.<BR/><BR/>Atheists criticize use of bible- Christinas offer to stop using it? The major... targets of atheism is the idea that there is no reason to belief in God. You can't really fix that- reality doesn't work that way!<BR/><BR/>So the belief that religion is evil will depend on wheter or not religion is evil? You do realize you just unwittingly stated atheists are almost entirely rational, right?<BR/><BR/>Proper context? In the entire book he avoided the central point- the only one that matters- does God exist.<BR/><BR/>McGrath seems to have a problem with religions that work only from the bible... because it isn't compeling. I think my irony meter just exploded. Only religions that are packed right spread well, and if they don't appeal to people, people won't accpet them?<BR/><BR/>Next, he argues we should change are beliefs to make them more appealing... because truth apparently has little value.<BR/><BR/>I like his "rally the wagons". Does that include Jews, Hinuds and Muslims (the first for being the foundation, the second for recognizing Jesus as a prophet and the third for recognizing him as divine)?<BR/><BR/>I short, he ignores the only thing that actually matters- the truth. It tells you alot about an idea when an apologists everyone raves about does so.<BR/><BR/>Questions? Comments? I haven't read the book... but I am familiar with every argument he makes. They aren't origionalSamuel Skinnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01587994908818534357noreply@blogger.com