Eddie Tabash's Review of the New Book by Sam Harris
LINK.
Phil Zuckerman is a professor of sociology and secular studies at Pitzer College in Claremont, California. He is the author of Living the Secular Life, Faith No More, and Society Without God. He has also edited several volumes, including Atheism and Secularity, Sex and Religion, and The Social Theory of W.E.B. Du Bois. Zuckerman writes a regular blog for Psychology Today titled “The Secular Life.” His work has also been published in academic journals, such as Sociology Compass, Sociology of Religion, Deviant Behavior, and Religion, Brain, and Behavior. In 2011, Zuckerman founded the first Secular Studies department in the nation. He earned his PhD in sociology from the University of Oregon in 1998. He currently lives in Claremont, California, with his wife, Stacy, and their three children.Here is what he said recently:
The stats are staggering when it comes to people in the West who are abandoning religion. Secularism is growing in virtually all nations for which we have data; even the Muslim world, which contains the most-religious societies on earth, has a growing share of secular people (many of whom, unfortunately, must keep their secularity well hidden because of the danger of prison or death for being open about their lack of faith).[For the full text of what Zuckerman said in an interview with Sam Harris (from which I got his bio above), see below:
Labels: "Poll"
Resolved: That the Gospel of Jesus has done more to help more women than any other teaching in the history of Planet Earth. I challenge you, John. I issue this challenge assuming that John is sincere, and because millions of other people agree with him that Christianity has harmed women terribly. LINK.Marshall sounds just like Muslim apologists for their terrible track record against women though. I don't have to rehearse that record since Marshall agrees with me about it. But lookee here at a Muslim apologist for Women in Islam. As an outsider I see no difference between them in that both are attempting to whitewash away the facts.
Loftus also recommended three feminist books about how terrible the Bible was to me. But that's a lame response. My argument is historical, not primarily exegetical: that the Gospel of Jesus has in historical fact improved life for billions of women around the world.Notice first, Marshall thinks that providing book references to read on this issue is lame. I'm at a loss to know what to think of this. If I were to engage him in this debate I'd be quoting from them. So why not just read them? Why is a debate needed when I can provide book references where those arguments are made by people who know the issue better than I do? Second, Marshall said these references were written by feminists, as if that discredits them as not being objective about the issue. In truth, these references come from biblical scholars and/or theologians. Third, Marshall wants to focus on Jesus in the Gospels rather than the whole of biblical revelation, or so it seems clear to me. Why exclude the Old Testament or the writings of Paul?
So the news has just broken [March 14, 2012] that a Moroccan girl has committed suicide after being ordered by a judge to marry her rapist. Now before some self-righteous Christians begin mouthing off about how unenlightened Islamic culture is, let’s go to the source:Then comes the kicker:
“If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and forcibly seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman’s father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.” Deuteronomy 22:28-29.Now this law is often decried by religion’s detractors as barbaric and misogynistic. In fact, however, this law is designed specifically with the woman’s well-being in view.
Labels: "David Marshall", "Rauser", Marshall's Book
He has been an active humanist for nearly 20 years. Raised in a fundamentalist Christian home, he regularly questioned the role of religious beliefs in the routines of daily living. Having seen that religious beliefs were simply a byproduct of divisive, tribal mentality, he began actively engaging believers of various religions in an effort to disabuse them of their faith in favor of humanism, reason, and knowledge.
Greg Dawes is a philosopher who always thinks hard about religion, about the nature of religious faith and its relation to reason, about why philosophy as a handmaid of theology is frivolous, about naturalism, about the epistemological variety and the ontological variety and the methodological variety, on why Christians can’t avoid the fact that Evolutionism contradicts the Bible, about what’s wrong with intelligent design, on what theologians should do, about why belief isn’t an issue and inference to the best explanation is, about claims about divine action, about the God of the gaps, about historicism and religion and about Maimonides and the limits to interpretation. Don’t be fooled, this one’s got razors…I was particularly interested in what Dawes said about the philosophy of religion. The money quote is below:
Labels: Philosophy of Religion
L. Ron Hubbard |
I just wanted to say it is a terrific work. Thanks so much for bringing all those voices together in one handy book. I think the book is mis-titled though. Instead of "Christianity is Not Great: How Faith Fails" it should be: "Christianity is Not Great: Here's the Proof." As Dawkins said at the top of the front cover, it will change a lot of minds for those who "have the courage to read it." For certain. Anyone who could read the anthology and still wish to remain identified with the death cult that calls itself "Christian" is either brain dead or an apologist.
There are no bad reasons to stop believing the ridiculous.I have actually made such an argument in four parts to be read beginning here.
This paper reviews recent studies that claim to provide support, through statistical analysis of survey data, for the traditional proposition that being religious makes people more generous. The studies have serious shortcomings. First, the data consist exclusively of self-reports. Second, the dependent and independent variables are conceptually problematic and ill-defined. Third, even if there is a positive correlation between religious involvement and personal generosity, it may be due to selection bias. Thus, these studies do not provide serious evidence for the traditional hypothesis. Moreover, it has been directly controverted by experimental studies of economic and other behaviors. LINK.
Labels: "Christian Scholars"
Labels: Outsider Test Links
Labels: Ridicule
Labels: Ridicule