To read other posts in review of his brilliant book click on the tag below. In this one I want to highlight how that he intends to revolutionize academic institutions, a big yet noble goal.I don't accept your claim that knowledge flows from "unproven presuppositions", but that's irrelevant....The problem is, no knowledge flows from your presupposition that god is the immaterial, timeless, spaceless and personal creator of everything. All your arguments must assume one of several of these things to support themselves.
If you must presuppose something to achieve a conclusion later, and your conclusion (god is the immaterial, timeless blah blah…) is hidden in your initial presupposition, then you never achieved any further conclusion at all. No knowledge was ever produced according to your own epistemic standards. In this case, you are basically lying to yourself: you are pretending to know things you don't know. And pretending to know things you don't know is a guaranteed, certified method to keep yourself deluded about reality.
To see them click on the tag below this post. In this one I want to highlight his core brilliant argument. In a previous post I mentioned the first thing I had noticed, that Richard Dawkins has had a change of mind! The second thing I noticed about Boghossian's book is that it will change our nomenclature, and this is one of the best things about his bestselling book, although there are many of them. |
| Church Security Officer |
Peter Boghossian: "If the arguments for the existence of God were rebutted, would you still believe?" She: "Yes". Boghossian: "Then you don't believe on the basis of arguments."Really? Let's talk about being disingenuous.
Dan Lambert: "The outrage at this woman's response is so disingenuous. The fact is that we all have certain beliefs that we will never give up, no matter what someone else 'proves.' That's because we all move the goal posts when confronted with a seemingly indisputable fact. Theists do it. Atheists do it. It's human nature. Big deal."
This anthology focuses on the harms of Christian faith that best explain why atheists argue against it. It contains new substantive essays written by superior authors on many of the most important topics relevant to its theme. In Part 1 the authors begin by showing that faith itself is the problem. It has no method, solves no problems, and gets in the way of the progress of science. With faith as a foundation almost anything can be believed or denied. Almost any horrific deed can be done too.
In Parts 2 through 4 the authors take a good hard look at many of the most important political, institutional, scientific, social and moral harms the Christian faith has generated. The Christian faith has caused and is causing great harm to the rest of us who want to live a peaceful successful life on this planet.
In the final part the authors answer the triple Christian retorts that 1) atheists cannot judge a harmful action without an objective moral standard, that 2) atheists need faith to solve the world’s problems, and that 3) atheists cannot live a good life without faith.
The harms of Christian faith need to be explained, not explained away. This is especially the case if there is a perfectly loving omnipotent omniscient God who invented it. The essays in this book clearly show that such a God-concept is not the author of the Christian faith based in the Bible with its terrible track record in history.
That’s the point of the book. The Christian faith can be empirically tested by the amount of harm it has done and continues to do in our world, given the Christian God-concept. The result is that Christianity fails miserably.
