tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8668668779597398465.post2147802465674926637..comments2022-03-25T14:26:07.431-07:00Comments on Saganist: A crappy review of The Reason For GodSaganisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12935512878581351503noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8668668779597398465.post-43006634284150478342011-03-12T10:47:30.088-08:002011-03-12T10:47:30.088-08:00Thanks, B.S. As I said in the post, these were my ...Thanks, B.S. As I said in the post, these were my personal notes, raw and uncut. I felt they were worth sharing but not worth the time it would take to clean them up. I certainly don't claim this is a well articulated stance, but I think it has some points worth considering.<br /><br />By the way, neither atheism nor agnosticism implies nihilism. Neither does unwillingness to accept Timothy Keller's flawed logic. I am certainly not a nihilist.Saganisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12935512878581351503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8668668779597398465.post-33161579528875682592010-12-11T20:29:36.735-08:002010-12-11T20:29:36.735-08:00Your youth is showing., Mike! If you have to use e...Your youth is showing., Mike! If you have to use expletives to get your point across that weakens your stance..<br /><br />Proof of God's existence or non-existence is not possible. It seems that nihilism is raging still---and it shows itself in your comments and in others in this blog. Sorry ,but it's not the answer.B.S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00212527140781462980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8668668779597398465.post-71583648851449567902010-10-21T02:45:58.956-07:002010-10-21T02:45:58.956-07:00I'm currently reading this book and so far I c...I'm currently reading this book and so far I completely agree with what you're saying. As an atheist, I feel that he makes assumptions that we are all cut-throat intolerant jerks and that we do not have an open mind to what believers, (or anyone else for that matter) have to say. That alone turns me off to his attitude. Too much assuming going on. I do enjoy the book however, and I'm glad I picked it up. Will continue to read on. Can't wait to get to the part when he says anyone who disagrees is dishonest and lacks integrity =)nicole.diane.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15063504643820358973noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8668668779597398465.post-91211871750656727842010-05-06T09:51:42.778-07:002010-05-06T09:51:42.778-07:00noohcs23, I'm not saying that the victims of S...noohcs23, I'm not saying that the victims of Stalin didn't exist. I would say that I think religion is generally orthogonal to violence and oppression. Those who seek to do harm to others will find a reason to do it. There are as many examples of those who shed blood in the name of religion as there are examples of those who shed blood in the name of politics or power. Even in the cases you mentioned where an oppressive government is explicitly secular, I wouldn't claim that secularism itself is the root cause of the violence. Would you? I would generally say the root cause is the desire for power. I think Keller is wrong to attribute violence to secularism and peace to religion. There are many counterexamples to both claims, and listing them proves nothing except that the issues are more complex than that.Saganisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12935512878581351503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8668668779597398465.post-1667111104783837442010-05-05T20:34:31.869-07:002010-05-05T20:34:31.869-07:00The main problem I have with your review is where ...The main problem I have with your review is where you say that the statement of Keller that secularism has caused as much violence as religion. You put question marks after it so I'm assuming you disagree with that statement, however, there is overwhelming evidence that would prove otherwise. Ever heard of Nazi Germany, or Soviet Russia, or Communist China, North Korea? All of these "utopias" were places were they made religion illegal mostly, but it only caused violence and destruction. Are you willing to say that the tens of millions of people who died for believing in Soviet Russia didn't exist? Or the Jews in Germany? Or modern day Christians who are underground in China?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8668668779597398465.post-7613228675067520412010-04-01T15:23:30.985-07:002010-04-01T15:23:30.985-07:00Hi Michael,
I think the "No True Scotsman&quo...Hi Michael,<br />I think the "No True Scotsman" fallacy you mention is a particular point of want in the broader cultural climate surrounding faith and skepticism. It's a bit dismaying that Keller falls prey to this. I just used an excerpt from his book in a brief post I did on the topic of God and reason, readable <a href="http://www.metatheism.com/2010/03/31/god-and-reason.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />I'm someone who is approaching the general topic from the point of view that religions, beliefs, and doubts are primarily things that people <i>do</i> rather than <i>have</i>. My first impulse is to see labelling some people as "fake" or "real" Christians to be an act which primarily serves to impede the willingness or ability of some individuals to "do belief" or "do doubt" with others, i.e. it is divisive.<br /><br />However, over time my attention has settled on the enhancing effect which this labelling provides, within the confines of the respective camps. It's curious that as the polarity and tension between the opposing camps rises, the cohesion within each respective camp tightens. People become certain of their enemy, and they mobilize to defend, or attack as the case may be.<br /><br />At present I see no tenable way of obviating the need for cohesion. Therefore I find that the situation calls for a way of creating cohesion, without resorting to polarization. Polarization seems to be the "autopilot" way of creating cohesion. The idea of "manually" creating cohesion has had quite the grip on my interest of late, although, in fairness I've only just started developing a position from which to accurately judge whether the idea might be more than a pipe dream.<br /><br />Thanks again for your review.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.metatheism.com" rel="nofollow">Lachrymus</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8668668779597398465.post-82426346781392924902010-01-14T09:09:19.487-08:002010-01-14T09:09:19.487-08:00Hi Michael,
I have not read the book yet, but cam...Hi Michael, <br />I have not read the book yet, but came across your review. I am very interested in reading it.<br />It sounds as if you are wrestling with God and his exitence. I was going through the same thing a number of years ago. I have spent time studying this topic and there are some authors you might consider looking into:<br /><br />William Craig - he has written many books concerning the existence of God such as: <br />God?: a debate between a Christian and an atheist, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics and Hard Questions, Real Answers.<br /><br /><br />Ravi Zacharias is another author who has written some great books such as: Beyond Opinion, Jesus among other gods and Can man live without God.<br /><br />Lee Strobel who was once a very proud atheist, but as an editor for a Chicago newspaper tried to disprove God and in the process found God instead. He has two very good books called: Case for Christ and Case for faith.<br /><br />I would love for you to read some of these books. Let me know what you think - I would love to talk more with you.<br /><br />my email is bradfun@hotmail.com<br /><br />have a good day!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02172227544015775878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8668668779597398465.post-19765652089858867922009-09-07T18:32:49.737-07:002009-09-07T18:32:49.737-07:00Thanks, Jarred! I appreciate your comment, and I l...Thanks, Jarred! I appreciate your comment, and I love your attitude. Yours is a very reasonable position to take. I wish more believers in gods would think and speak like you do!Saganisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12935512878581351503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8668668779597398465.post-45243114027019869852009-08-26T12:44:58.778-07:002009-08-26T12:44:58.778-07:00Interesting review. I may check out the book for ...Interesting review. I may check out the book for myself when I get a chance.<br /><br />Even as a believer in gods myself, I will be the first to admit that I doubt I could ever provide someone with compelling evidence that my gods -- or any other gods, for that matter -- actually exist. I simply believe because of subjective experiences I've had and the way I've decided to interpret those experiences. Others may interpret those experiences differently and may be rightly unconvinced by my subjective experiences.<br /><br />Unlike the author of the book you reviewed, however, I'm perfectly okay with that. I have no vested interest in convincing anyone that my subjective experiences or my interpretation of them are objective truth that they need to believe in. (In fact, I'm free to change my interpretation at any time.)<br /><br />Anyway, I can see why you find this book terribly unconvincing.<br /><br />By the way, I figured I was checking out your blog, I might as well make a few comments.<br /><br />-- Jarred.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8668668779597398465.post-56144376588496394482009-08-20T12:22:38.905-07:002009-08-20T12:22:38.905-07:00"I don't think I've heard any skeptic..."<i>I don't think I've heard any skeptics say that about it; for me, it's been believers who think the book actually addresses skeptical concerns, which it doesn't. Honestly, I think the author probably does feel that it addresses skeptical concerns...</i>"<br /><br />I think most apologetics are written to bolster the faith of those who already believe anyway, or who are on the edge of belief, want to believe, and need something to push them over the edge. My experience as yours has been that believers find this book very convincing.<br /><br />My only pause is that Keller obviously interacts with people with these questions, and no doubt built his material from those discussions. I'll guess that the people he is dialogging with are more open to the message by the fact that they have showed up at his church. Just a guess of course. And many people do not delve into the rational questions about historicity and philosophy, etc, and perhaps do not feel the need to. Oh well, at the end of the day, at least I know that *I* am not the target audience for the book!atimetorendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10563649474540441597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8668668779597398465.post-41116277320732088962009-08-20T12:08:33.025-07:002009-08-20T12:08:33.025-07:00Thanks, Steve! I've been sitting on this revie...Thanks, Steve! I've been sitting on this review for several months because I didn't feel like making the notes into something worth reading. But now that I look at them, I'd say they're worth reading on their own. Trying to synthesize them into something else may have made them less interesting than they currently are.<br /><br />The book was interesting to read, particularly because several people have recommended this book as a very good one for skeptics. I don't think I've heard any <i>skeptics</i> say that about it; for me, it's been believers who think the book actually addresses skeptical concerns, which it doesn't. Honestly, I think the author probably does feel that it addresses skeptical concerns, or else he wouldn't have subtitled it "Belief in an Age of Skepticism", and promoted it in that way. But it really didn't live up to the hype.<br /><br />Thanks, atimetorend! You make a good point. I think you're right that although the book is touted as a "logical" defense of faith, it sort of skips over its own gaping logical fallacies by appealing to emotion. I'm interested to hear how your notes compare with mine!Saganisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12935512878581351503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8668668779597398465.post-77064829507629386672009-08-20T10:59:33.003-07:002009-08-20T10:59:33.003-07:00I'll have to compare notes a bit more later wh...I'll have to compare notes a bit more later when I have a moment. I read this book early in the process of openly struggling with my faith. My overall impression of it is conventional apologetics wrapped in a modern packaging. I really struggle with thinking about it emotionally, resentful of what seem like tactics to get people in the door of Christianity.<br /><br />I feel Keller uses emotional pleas to cover up the lack of evidence. It seems he is eager to get people to try out Christianity, thinking that if they try it they will then be convinced of it's authenticity. Which is exactly the reason I got out -- experiencing the fruits of Christianity didn't change the fact that the facts didn't line up.<br /><br />Maybe I'll pull the book off the shelf tonight and look at my notes in the margins...atimetorendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10563649474540441597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8668668779597398465.post-81665659378439957282009-08-20T02:28:29.458-07:002009-08-20T02:28:29.458-07:00I couldn't agree more, Mike. I read the book ...I couldn't agree more, Mike. I read the book and came to many of the same conclusions, only I'm much too lazy to write such a review (particularly about a book I don't care for). And honestly, you're one of my only friends that would have been interested.<br /><br />Well done.Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04802637722975082815noreply@blogger.com