TS January Book of the Month

Discussion in 'General' started by Mama_Kim, Dec 26, 2007.

  1. Marieber

    Marieber Well-Known Member

    Okay, to my first post-it.

    I didn't start doing post-it markers until this section caused me to start.

    p.88 in the Chapter titled, "Arguments from Design."

    "...men produce infinitely more seminal fluid than is required to build a human family, and are tortured -- not completely unpleasantly -- by the urgent need to spread it all over the place or otherwise get rid of it. (Religions have needlessly added to the torture by condemning various simple means of relieving this presumably "designed" pressure.)"

    Discuss. :)
     
  2. rubyturquoise

    rubyturquoise Well-Known Member

    Well, I think they have to be ready for whenever the opportunity might arise, hence the overabundant supply. That makes sense from a biological perspective. Human females don't have obvious estrus cycles like many other mammals, so the males must be able to perform on a moment's notice.

    It seems to me that if one's culture values monogamy and chastity, disallowing males the logical solution of relieving themselves is going to be counterproductive.

    I can't really address the "design" aspect, because the only way that would work well is if (as they used to) people married when they reached sexual maturity. That doesn't work well with contemporary culture. It didn't necessarily work with the culture of wealthy people back then. Girls were often married very young for political/financial gain. Some cultures had rules against consummating the marriage before menarche. That leaves men in the same position as before, however.

    So the sensible approach is to give them a box of tissues and MYOB. IMO, some of this worry came about because of a simplistic interpretation of the story of Onan, who was punished for disobeying God's laws in wishing to avoid getting his SIL pregnant. I personally don't take that to be an injunction against spilled seed as much as against flouting God's rules. I can see how one could take it the other way, however, much to the dismay of young boys (and girls) for generations.
     
  3. niftywriter

    niftywriter Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(marieber @ Jan 17 2008, 11:11 AM) [snapback]576763[/snapback]
    Okay, to my first post-it.

    I didn't start doing post-it markers until this section caused me to start.

    p.88 in the Chapter titled, "Arguments from Design."

    "...men produce infinitely more seminal fluid than is required to build a human family, and are tortured -- not completely unpleasantly -- by the urgent need to spread it all over the place or otherwise get rid of it. (Religions have needlessly added to the torture by condemning various simple means of relieving this presumably "designed" pressure.)"

    Discuss. :)


    Marie, you imp! :laughing:

    I think Hitchens's sly point is well-taken though. THere are countless examples like this in the ID version of Creationism which have obvious difficulties and illustrate flawed design (especially within the proscriptions of Bible-based living) rather than a designed creation by a perfect Intelligence.

    QUOTE(rubyturquoise @ Jan 17 2008, 12:52 PM) [snapback]576909[/snapback]
    Well, I think they have to be ready for whenever the opportunity might arise, hence the overabundant supply. That makes sense from a biological perspective. Human females don't have obvious estrus cycles like many other mammals, so the males must be able to perform on a moment's notice.

    It seems to me that if one's culture values monogamy and chastity, disallowing males the logical solution of relieving themselves is going to be counterproductive.

    I can't really address the "design" aspect, because the only way that would work well is if (as they used to) people married when they reached sexual maturity. That doesn't work well with contemporary culture. It didn't necessarily work with the culture of wealthy people back then. Girls were often married very young for political/financial gain. Some cultures had rules against consummating the marriage before menarche. That leaves men in the same position as before, however.

    So the sensible approach is to give them a box of tissues and MYOB. IMO, some of this worry came about because of a simplistic interpretation of the story of Onan, who was punished for disobeying God's laws in wishing to avoid getting his SIL pregnant. I personally don't take that to be an injunction against spilled seed as much as against flouting God's rules. I can see how one could take it the other way, however, much to the dismay of young boys (and girls) for generations.



    I agree with Ruby's biological explanation...and I double agree with the last paragraph (especially the last sentence)!
     
  4. Mama_Kim

    Mama_Kim Well-Known Member

    I'm really growing weary of Hitchens. His ideas are definitely plausible, but his delivery is tiring to read for me <_< and, as someone of strong faith, I'm finding his attitude a bit condescending. Still, as I said earlier, I think he has hit a few key ideas, the main point being religion is man-made and as such imperfect. I just hope I can make it all the way through this book. I'm only about 1/3 of the way through right now. :wacko: I know others will think I am crazy but I cannot help feeling sorry for him as I read this book. I know I shouldn't so don't all jump on me for saying this. But I'm moving forward, attempting to take a few notes so I can really discuss this book. I will admit he has made me think and he has raised some very valid points. On it goes . . . .
     
  5. Marieber

    Marieber Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(MamaKim @ Jan 17 2008, 10:31 PM) [snapback]577590[/snapback]
    I'm really growing weary of Hitchens. His ideas are definitely plausible, but his delivery is tiring to read for me <_< and, as someone of strong faith, I'm finding his attitude a bit condescending. Still, as I said earlier, I think he has hit a few key ideas, the main point being religion is man-made and as such imperfect. I just hope I can make it all the way through this book. I'm only about 1/3 of the way through right now. :wacko: I know others will think I am crazy but I cannot help feeling sorry for him as I read this book. I know I shouldn't so don't all jump on me for saying this. But I'm moving forward, attempting to take a few notes so I can really discuss this book. I will admit he has made me think and he has raised some very valid points. On it goes . . . .


    I think I'm fascinated by just watching you try!! :) He is something of a condescending *******, isn't he?

    But why do you feel sorry for him? I'm not jumping all over you, just wondering why.
     
  6. Mama_Kim

    Mama_Kim Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(marieber @ Jan 17 2008, 10:46 PM) [snapback]577615[/snapback]
    I think I'm fascinated by just watching you try!! :) He is something of a condescending *******, isn't he?
    He truly is, isn't he? :lol:

    QUOTE
    But why do you feel sorry for him? I'm not jumping all over you, just wondering why.
    I hesitate to say this at the risk of offending non-believers but here goes. As a believer, it's so sad to me that he doesn't know God's love, peace and comfort in his life. I know he doesn't feel he's missing anything but I do. Logic and intellect are great but faith is something that no one can understand unless they have it.
     
  7. SweetpeaG

    SweetpeaG Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(MamaKim @ Jan 17 2008, 08:08 PM) [snapback]577642[/snapback]
    I hesitate to say this at the risk of offending non-believers but here goes. As a believer, it's so sad to me that he doesn't know God's love, peace and comfort in his life. I know he doesn't feel he's missing anything but I do. Logic and intellect are great but faith is something that no one can understand unless they have it.



    Kim, I TOTALLY understand this, but only from the perspective of being on the receiving end of such pity. Depending on who is dishing out the 'pity' usually determines my 'offended meter'. Coming from you, someone I respect and encounter/relate to on a regular basis, the meter is registering zero. Coming from an over-zealous acquaintance, or religious solicitor at my door, it's off the charts. ;)

    I can understand why you are having a hard time with the book. I imagine (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) that you must be feeling you are on the receiving end of this exact brand of "pity", being a 'believer' reading the book. It's a downright irritating feeling to be pitied for something that feels right for you and you don't want/need 'fixing'. It's a 2-way street. Unfortunately many people on both sides of the argument are certain they are on a one-way (my way or the highway :p ). I've said it before in other posts (Golden Compass?), and I'll say it again:

    I think you are an incredible person to be self-confident enough in your own faith to not simply be open-minded enough to read it, but to share your struggle with it here with us. I'm really happy for your kids because you're raising them in an atmosphere where they will be shown what you believe (and most likely embrace that as well), but shown that questioning things is healthy and ALLOWED...that is an incredible environment for a growing mind. Your boys will grow up with your strong values, and your strong sense of self...a powerful combination.

    Edited to relieve my hyphenation OCD. ;)
     
  8. Mama_Kim

    Mama_Kim Well-Known Member

    Thank you for that. I don't know if it's PMS, but I actually got tears in my eyes reading your comments, SweetpeaG! I'm serious, your words mean so much.

    I don't as much feel I am being pitied by Hitchens as much as being talked down to, sort of like I'm not capable of understanding this great revelation about faith and how nonsensical it all is. I am surprised, though, at how much I do agree with him on certain points about the church and religion. One that particularly stands out thus far is the chapter on "Religion Kills." It is so true. There has been more killing done in the name of religious differences than any other reason out there!

    One thing I feel Hitchens does not "get" about religion (at least at the point I am at in the book) is the whole community of religion and being in church every Sunday. It's not some oppresive environment where we are constantly being told how bad we are as sinners. Yes, we do talk about sin and the idea that we are all sinners, but the overall message is one of joy and hope in the knowledge that Christ died for us to deliver us from the sin of the world and that we are "born again" in Him. (I personally reject the term born again as a Christian, though -- its connotations are something I do not want to be associated with.) We are saved by God's grace and his grace alone. It's a beautiful thing and something joyous to celebrate each week. It's a support group too where we pray for one another and rejoice in each other's happiness or sympathize with each other when things aren't going well. It's just so much more that I cannot even begin to describe it!

    I also don't fit into his pattern about believers and the Creation story. I am not a literal believer in the Bible. I do believe the Bible holds God's message of love and salvation for us all, but I do not take every Biblical story literally. The Creation story would be one example. I believe in evolution and Creation both. I often feel he is describing someone else's faith in this book.

    One last thing at this point. My church actually has very healthy attitudes about sex. The only message is that sex is for marriage. But other than that, any kind of sex goes as long as its between two consenting adults (same sex of course since the church frowns upon homosexuals -- another point on which my church and I disagree) that are married. We don't have that repressed view of sex any longer. Sex is God's gift to us! And just because we are told sex is for marriage does not mean all of us listen. Remember, we are sinners! ;) If we're going to sin, let it be FUN! :D

    Anyway, I am still plodding through but I really am tired of it all. As I said, I think he does have some great insights and ideas, but I also think he gets a lot of what religion is about wrong. Interesting book, though.
     
  9. niftywriter

    niftywriter Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(SweetpeaG @ Jan 17 2008, 11:46 PM) [snapback]577739[/snapback]
    Kim, I TOTALLY understand this, but only from the perspective of being on the receiving end of such pity. Depending on who is dishing out the 'pity' usually determines my 'offended meter'. Coming from you, someone I respect and encounter/relate to on a regular basis, the meter is registering zero. Coming from an over-zealous acquaintance, or religious solicitor at my door, it's off the charts. ;)

    I can understand why you are having a hard time with the book. I imagine (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) that you must be feeling you are on the receiving end of this exact brand of "pity", being a 'believer' reading the book. It's a downright irritating feeling to be pitied for something that feels right for you and you don't want/need 'fixing'. It's a 2-way street. Unfortunately many people on both sides of the argument are certain they are on a one-way (my way or the highway :p ). I've said it before in other posts (Golden Compass?), and I'll say it again:

    I think you are an incredible person to be self-confident enough in your own faith to not simply be open-minded enough to read it, but to share your struggle with it here with us. I'm really happy for your kids because you're raising them in an atmosphere where they will be shown what you believe (and most likely embrace that as well), but shown that questioning things is healthy and ALLOWED...that is an incredible environment for a growing mind. Your boys will grow up with your strong values, and your strong sense of self...a powerful combination.

    Edited to relieve my hyphenation OCD. ;)


    :bow2: Siri took the words right out of my mouth! (At least that's what I'd like you all to think, though I doubt I could have expressed this nearly as well as she has!!). Kim, you are one of the very few believers who has the courage to read and discuss ideas which others find so threatening and I really admire that! :bow2:

    QUOTE(MamaKim @ Jan 18 2008, 06:30 AM) [snapback]577816[/snapback]
    Thank you for that. I don't know if it's PMS, but I actually got tears in my eyes reading your comments, SweetpeaG! I'm serious, your words mean so much.

    I don't as much feel I am being pitied by Hitchens as much as being talked down to, sort of like I'm not capable of understanding this great revelation about faith and how nonsensical it all is. I am surprised, though, at how much I do agree with him on certain points about the church and religion. One that particularly stands out thus far is the chapter on "Religion Kills." It is so true. There has been more killing done in the name of religious differences than any other reason out there!

    One thing I feel Hitchens does not "get" about religion (at least at the point I am at in the book) is the whole community of religion and being in church every Sunday. It's not some oppresive environment where we are constantly being told how bad we are as sinners. Yes, we do talk about sin and the idea that we are all sinners, but the overall message is one of joy and hope in the knowledge that Christ died for us to deliver us from the sin of the world and that we are "born again" in Him. (I personally reject the term born again as a Christian, though -- its connotations are something I do not want to be associated with.) We are saved by God's grace and his grace alone. It's a beautiful thing and something joyous to celebrate each week. It's a support group too where we pray for one another and rejoice in each other's happiness or sympathize with each other when things aren't going well. It's just so much more that I cannot even begin to describe it!

    I also don't fit into his pattern about believers and the Creation story. I am not a literal believer in the Bible. I do believe the Bible holds God's message of love and salvation for us all, but I do not take every Biblical story literally. The Creation story would be one example. I believe in evolution and Creation both. I often feel he is describing someone else's faith in this book.

    One last thing at this point. My church actually has very healthy attitudes about sex. The only message is that sex is for marriage. But other than that, any kind of sex goes as long as its between two consenting adults (same sex of course since the church frowns upon homosexuals -- another point on which my church and I disagree) that are married. We don't have that repressed view of sex any longer. Sex is God's gift to us! And just because we are told sex is for marriage does not mean all of us listen. Remember, we are sinners! ;) If we're going to sin, let it be FUN! :D

    Anyway, I am still plodding through but I really am tired of it all. As I said, I think he does have some great insights and ideas, but I also think he gets a lot of what religion is about wrong. Interesting book, though.



    You've made so many good points here I am not sure where to start. I do think you're right that he is too focused on one segment (fundamentalism and extreme fundamentalism) of the population of believers. I think he does that because that is where religion, taken to its extreme, can lead, and that is the form of religion which causes the most trouble in the world, either through outright violence (as in the case right now with Islamists) or with religious zealots trying to reduce the rights of others to make a country more "religious" as in America today where various individual rights have been chipped away over the past 20 years with the rise of the religious right. I don't think he is saying that all Believers believe all of the fundamentalist dogma; I think he is pointing to that as an example of what is most harmful and damaging about religion taken to extremes.

    I know you'll never really read much else on this topic because it makes you uncomfortable, but if you ever get up the courage, try Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism by Michelle Goldberg. I do not think you'd experience quite the same sense of irritation. It is one of many books that would chill the blood of any true patriot. It isn't a book describing paranoid fear of fundamentalism; it is a book which describes (with supporting evidence and interviews with people who were in positions of power) the quiet strategy of fundamentalists to insert their ideology into law and into society from the lower levels of government (so as not to raise a premature alarm) on up. I personally think that even moderate people ought to be worried about this because it threatens the rights of all of us, but I notice that many religious moderates are sensitive about criticism of more extreme religious people and I think it is because they worry about themselves. This has, incidentally, been a criticism leveled at moderate Muslims around the world! I find it ironic that moderate Christians can shake their heads and blame moderate Muslims for tolerating Islamic extremism, while doing exactly the same thing themselves! The need for religion is so great, it seems, that most people will continue to blindly defend any form of it (in order to protect themselves and their own need for their moderate religion) until it is too late.

    Anyway, that was beginning to go OT, but my point was that I believe Hitchens's main beef is with extremists, and the sidelong "condescension" you may be feeling is because we know that extremists cannot gain power without the tacit support of moderates. Many moderates suppress any misgivings they may have about rising fundamentalism in a misplaced confidence that our rights and freedoms could never seriously be threatened by these groups, and in telling ourselves that these groups are on the fringes of society, and do not represent the majority like ourselves. Sadly, while settled comfortably in this belief, we do not see the growing numbers of extremists everywhere...even as we drive past megachurches and read about challenges to reproductive rights, human rights, stem cell research funding, etc. We don't see it as a larger picture in which we have an important role because it is too disturbing to see. Our own fear about losing what we need makes us insist that the problem is not there. It's actually a pattern that has been repeated in history over and over again. :(

    If it seems like Hitchens is talking down to moderates, while not directly criticising their religious faith, I think your perceptions are probably accurate. I got the sense that this is exactly what Hitchens feels and that his exasperation with it comes across as condescension. The accusation of "stupidity"...which while not directly made toward moderate, intelligent, religious people, is still directed at them as enablers of the people who do believe in Creationism, banning abortion and stem cell research, amending the Constitution, etc. I'm not sure if I am 100% on board with Hitchens there, either, and certainly I think he might have reached for a little more diplomacy, but that's what I think is behind his "tone".

    I hear you about the social benefits of belonging to a church. (I agree with you completely on how important, psychologically, this is to most human beings). Church congregations can be wonderful for fulfilling this deeply entrenched need most of us have, but it is not the only way people can find community and belonging. I think that's Hitchens's point. I don't think he has a problem with attending church services and I think he enjoys them very much for what they are to him. He said as much and I find it easy to believe him (being much the same sort of person myself).
     
  10. Marieber

    Marieber Well-Known Member

    Great posts, everyone!

    Kim, I totally hear where you are coming from and of course didn't have the same sensitivities while I was reading. I do indeed understand the type of social benefits that can come from belonging and as I alluded to in the Religion Poll thread in the Corn, and I have some church-envy for that reason. Not enough to be pitiable, but I get what you are saying. I was also raised in a religious household and understand the solace and comfort one can have in faith. But you can't fake faith.

    The book is clearly aimed at fundamentalism.

    But tell me, how do you rectify Creationism and Evolution? And I'm not asking only Kim, I'm just throwing this out there. My mom (a science teacher and devout Roman Catholic, who recently said I am "a mess" because I am a non-believer) always said that she found evolution to be further proof of God's creation. I understand, and don't understand at the same time, what she's saying. I enjoyed the segments in the Hitchens book about evolution and evolutionary flaws -- like our eye and brain receiving and flipping images -- and evolutionary artifact. Why would we be created that way?

    Oops, gotta work, someone's here to see me!
     
  11. Mama_Kim

    Mama_Kim Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(marieber @ Jan 18 2008, 11:35 AM) [snapback]578161[/snapback]
    But tell me, how do you rectify Creationism and Evolution? And I'm not asking only Kim, I'm just throwing this out there. My mom (a science teacher and devout Roman Catholic, who recently said I am "a mess" because I am a non-believer) always said that she found evolution to be further proof of God's creation. I understand, and don't understand at the same time, what she's saying. I enjoyed the segments in the Hitchens book about evolution and evolutionary flaws -- like our eye and brain receiving and flipping images -- and evolutionary artifact. Why would we be created that way?
    It's pretty simple really. I believe God created evolution just as he created everything else. I believe in the Big Bang theory too as being God created. We've had many a discussion in the Corn about this topic. I am not a Bible literalist (in opposition to what my own church teaches, lol). I believe the Creation story is just that -- a story -- used to illustrate for people God's power. I love (adore) science and believe God gave us the minds that have been able to put all the science together for all of humanity. I believe the two, sicence and faith, can work together, not that they are mutually exclusive.
     
  12. SweetpeaG

    SweetpeaG Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(MamaKim @ Jan 18 2008, 04:30 AM) [snapback]577816[/snapback]
    Thank you for that. I don't know if it's PMS, but I actually got tears in my eyes reading your comments, SweetpeaG! I'm serious, your words mean so much.


    :hug99:

    I really think Joseph Campbell (Hero With a Thousand Faces or The Power of Myth) would have been a much more appropriate enjoyable choice for you to read...it would provide an across-cultures look at the evolution of religion and its iconography without passing judgements.

    I really enjoy getting your perspective on the book, and agree with you that he could have used a little more ambassador-like tone. Renée had a great explanation for his tone, but if I was reading from your vantage point I don't know that a great explanation would ease my annoyance one bit. ;)

    Now, as far as the masturbation discussion (how did I miss THAT?)
    Ruby, great points. As far as religion and sex goes, I feel that the whole 'original sin' bit was yet another way that organized religion placed itself between man and God with a convenient "lead the sheep" story. Over the years I feel that religious big brother has continued to move man further and further away from his own natural connection with God (celebrating/enjoying ones own body being one of those connections).

    As a very internal locus-of-control person, one of my biggest problems with organized religion is that I have no need of a middle man telling me what is or is not right, how to interpret this or that. I know what feels right for me and I prefer my relationships to be direct, not indirect.

    edited for typo
     
  13. Mama_Kim

    Mama_Kim Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(SweetpeaG @ Jan 18 2008, 01:30 PM) [snapback]578381[/snapback]
    As a very internal locus-of-control person, one of my biggest problems with organized religion is that I have no need of a middle man telling me what is or is not right, how to interpret this or that. I know what feels right for me and I prefer my relationships to be direct, not indirect.
    Not to be rude, but this makes no sense to me. Your relationship with God should be one-on-one, personal. Just because I belong to an organized church it has zero bearing on my relationship with God. I still have a direct, one on one relationship with Him. That's the way it's supposed to be. The church is just there to support your relationship. Not sure if I'm making sense.

    Maybe why I don't have a problem with this is because I realize that religion and the church are man-made. I still use my own mind to determine my own course of behavior and how much I "buy into" the whole thing. I think in that regard I share some views with Renée as well. I like the church for the sense of community and like-minded people, the liturgy and rituals and music. But I recognize its limitations. However, I don't let this interfere in my relationship with God.

    Now back to the book . . . I got a kick out of Hitchens' comments on page 99: leaving room for speculation as to what he did on the eighth day. Check out my siggie. I know what He did!! :D

    A thought occurs to me as I read his book. We are certainly not the only culture to have a corner on this religion/deity thing. So, where did the idea of a god and subsuquently religion come from in the first place? And why do so many cultures have so many religions with so many similarities and deities with so much in common? Isn't it possible that we really are all worshiping the same God on our own terms? Maybe I'm just weird, but it's how I think.

    I will say I do agree with Hitchens' views on Biblical construction. There are so many discrepancies throughout the Bible. But it's basic message is still there: God's grace and salvation and love. That never changes.

    One comment, I literally laughed out loud when I read his comments on page 115 about his attempts to be "fair and open-minded" in this case. Seriously? :lol: Depends on who you ask! ;)
     
  14. niftywriter

    niftywriter Well-Known Member

    QUOTE
    Now back to the book . . . I got a kick out of Hitchens' comments on page 99: leaving room for speculation as to what he did on the eighth day. Check out my siggie. I know what He did!!


    :rotflmbo:

    QUOTE
    A thought occurs to me as I read his book. We are certainly not the only culture to have a corner on this religion/deity thing. So, where did the idea of a god and subsuquently religion come from in the first place? And why do so many cultures have so many religions with so many similarities and deities with so much in common? Isn't it possible that we really are all worshiping the same God on our own terms? Maybe I'm just weird, but it's how I think.



    Yes! :good:
     
  15. SweetpeaG

    SweetpeaG Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(MamaKim @ Jan 19 2008, 08:05 PM) [snapback]580476[/snapback]
    Not to be rude, but this makes no sense to me. Your relationship with God should be one-on-one, personal. Just because I belong to an organized church it has zero bearing on my relationship with God. I still have a direct, one on one relationship with Him. That's the way it's supposed to be. The church is just there to support your relationship. Not sure if I'm making sense.


    Sorry, Kim. I didn't mean to convey that having an internal locus-of-control or personal relationship with "God" was mutually exclusive of participating in organized religion. This comment was really more of a reflection of my personal reaction to my specific religious upbringing, and it not resonating with me. The dogma I was raised on felt very intrusive to me and was presented (or at least perceived by me to be presented) in a double-binding manner. It is not a simple explanation, and I'm not sure I'm up for the challenge of explaining it as it has been about a decade since I made peace with those demons.

    FAIR WARNING: I left religion behind because it literally made me feel like I was crazy. You are about to experience a stream of consciousness from the mindset of a religion'ed Sweetpea. :icon_eek:

    You have to find out for yourself if the church is true
    If you pray you will find out that the chruch is true
    If you pray and you find out the church isn't true then you don't have enough faith

    Basically, the church not being true (or right for a given individual) wasn’t even an option! There was no winning. Everyone around you is praying and getting the ‘right’ answers, so what the **** is wrong with you? I knew I didn't believe it was true and so I was damned either way.

    There were many, many examples along these lines of thinking that caused years and years of anxiety and ambivalence not just with the church, but with myself. The more examples there were, the less faith I could put in myself…eventually, the easy way out seems to just swallow what you have been handed. Thinking for yourself becomes psychologically painful because you can’t coexist if your natural reaction doesn’t mirror the church’s.

    This line of thought allowed the church to ‘own’ my own good sense. It took away the validity of a ‘gut feeling’ and turned it into shame simply b/c it wasn’t the ‘right’ answer. It took me a very long time to be able to trust myself again, even though all along I knew it wasn’t right, it still made me question my judgement (and often my sanity).

    So I faked it as best I could at the expense of my SELF. I continued to put up with the charade for my (loving and wonderful) parents’ sake until I moved out for college. In the meantime, I internalized all the stress, which manifested itself in the form of child migraines and 10+ years of eating disorders as a way to exert some kind of personal control in my life (messed up, I know, but a defense mechanism is a defense mechanism). I broke the news to my parents immediately upon moving out, my migraines disappeared (until getting pregnant), and I began treatment for the eating disorders later that year.

    I don’t blame my parents for any of it. This church is the one thing they cherish and it was their way of providing me with what they knew was the best life they could hope for me. How could I hold that against them just because it didn’t jive with me and I was too terrified to disappoint them by talking to them about it?

    Sigh, sorry to tangent off like that. I told you it was complicated. I need a drink.



    QUOTE
    A thought occurs to me as I read his book. We are certainly not the only culture to have a corner on this religion/deity thing. So, where did the idea of a god and subsuquently religion come from in the first place? And why do so many cultures have so many religions with so many similarities and deities with so much in common? Isn't it possible that we really are all worshiping the same God on our own terms? Maybe I'm just weird, but it's how I think.



    I agree with you 100% on this. This is why I consider myself to be a very spiritual, simply not religious, person. I'm telling you, if you really want to know more about this line of thinking.....JOSEPH CAMPBELL!
     
  16. niftywriter

    niftywriter Well-Known Member

    Wow, Siri. :bow2: Thank you so much for sharing that! I can believe that it doesn't come easy to try to explain! I wish I had seen your post last night before I went to bed...I would have joined you for a virtual :drinks: and said, "Bravo"!!

    P.S. And thank you so much for the recommendation of Joseph Campbell. After you first mentioned him, I looked him up and was flabbergasted! The man was writing about just my philosophy 50 years ago! Why haven't I come across him before, I ask myself?! But I have now, thanks to you, and I ordered three of his books. I am so excited to expand my knowledge of mythos from around the world. From the short blurbs and reviews I read, he was a phenomenal mythos scholar and it sounds like he also weaves psychology into the study of mythos and world religion...everything I've been working on for almost 20 years in my own thinking and writing! I just cannot believe it! :a_smil09: LOL I guess that's the downside to studying on one's own for decades instead of going back to college and just taking Religious Studies as I ought to have done!
     
  17. Mama_Kim

    Mama_Kim Well-Known Member

    OK, OK, when I'm ready I'll read some Joseph Campbell. ;) I'm still reading and made some notes but don't have the gumption to type it all out right now. I'll be back later.
     
  18. Mama_Kim

    Mama_Kim Well-Known Member

    OK, few more points. On pg. 143, Hitchens talks about the resurrection of the dead, specifically Lazarus and Jairus' daughter, as well as Jesus. I think he personally completely misses the point of these miracles. These miracles were performed to show the true nature of Jesus, that He was God. And also to foreshadow Jesus' own death and resurrection.

    When he argues the point here, (Thus, those who say "Christ died for my sins," when he did not really "die" at all, are making a statement that is false in its own terms.), he couldn't be more wrong, imo. This is the very basis of Christianity in its simplest terms. Christ did die. He died, went to h*ll, suffered, rose again (resurrected) and then ascended into heaven. I know he has arguments against this but that particular turn of phrase really irritated me and just showed me he doesn't really know as much as he thinks he does.

    On to pg. 150 where he talks about the "evidence" for faith. But that is impossible according to my definition of faith. Evidence for faith is impossible really because faith is a belief in something which cannot be proven. It doesn't compute for me. I have the same argument on pg. 151 when he says science has shown religious myths to be false and that better and more enlightened explanations have evolved. Seriously? There he goes again with that condescending, "I know it all" attitude. Wow.

    The more I read of Hitchens, the more irritated I get! :lol: His last comments on pg. 153, But in general, I feel better, and no less radical, and you will feel better too, I guarantee, once you leave hold of the doctrinaire and allow your chainless mind to do its own thinking. Wow, how arrogant to assume that because one "buys into" religion in any way that your mind is not doing its own thinking. His book would be much more tolerable if he'd leave this sort of commentary out of it! I have zero respect for someone who assumes that because you are religious, you are not thinking for yourself.

    I did find his discussion on the Book of Mormon fascinating.
     
  19. niftywriter

    niftywriter Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(MamaKim @ Jan 21 2008, 11:45 AM) [snapback]582439[/snapback]
    OK, few more points. On pg. 143, Hitchens talks about the resurrection of the dead, specifically Lazarus and Jairus' daughter, as well as Jesus. I think he personally completely misses the point of these miracles. These miracles were performed to show the true nature of Jesus, that He was God. And also to foreshadow Jesus' own death and resurrection.

    I agree with you. I'm not sure why he bogs himself down with this sort of criticism, when it is irrelevant to his argument anyway and only serves to point up his own apparently petty need to say, "You're wrong and not only that your Holy book is wrong!" :blbl: like a little spoiled child. I totally agree with you that he completely misses the point and the meaning to which these Bible passages point.

    When he argues the point here, (Thus, those who say "Christ died for my sins," when he did not really "die" at all, are making a statement that is false in its own terms.), he couldn't be more wrong, imo. This is the very basis of Christianity in its simplest terms. Christ did die. He died, went to h*ll, suffered, rose again (resurrected) and then ascended into heaven. I know he has arguments against this but that particular turn of phrase really irritated me and just showed me he doesn't really know as much as he thinks he does.

    And I agree with you here, too. He is diluting his own argument by going off on tangents trying to prove things "false" that do not need proving false for his own idea to stand up. Again, I think it is a foolish and immature impulse. But he shares this tendency with several other writers, I have noticed. Perhaps his thesis isn't fully developed and is, in his mind, tied up with his own odd form of Bible literalism? Literalism, after all, begs to be refuted and is often proven "false", but mythos and meaning is taken on faith, speaks to the spirituality within and is, of course, unnecessary/impossible to disprove because there is no point in disproving it. These passages go beyond the literal into the realm of the Divine. It doesn't matter if people believe them literally or not, their power is undiluted: their meaning transcends interpretation and requires no "evidence". At least, that's my view. ;) Clearly Hitchens completely misses this and does not understand it. If he had stuck with his thesis-how religion poisons everything- he might have reached a better understanding of this, as a matter of fact, IMO. He might have discovered that it isn't religion, but people using religion that poisons some things. But, I guess that wouldn't have made such a good book title..."How Some Religious People Poison Some Things" just doesn't have quite the wallop of "How Religion Poisons Everything" ! :laughing:

    On to pg. 150 where he talks about the "evidence" for faith. But that is impossible according to my definition of faith. Evidence for faith is impossible really because faith is a belief in something which cannot be proven. It doesn't compute for me. I have the same argument on pg. 151 when he says science has shown religious myths to be false and that better and more enlightened explanations have evolved. Seriously? There he goes again with that condescending, "I know it all" attitude. Wow.

    I agree that he seems to misunderstand what "faith" is by mentioning "evidence" for faith. But I don't agree that his mentioning of scientific explanations and saying they are "better" is really a know it all attitude. I think it lines up fairly neatly with the Christian (Creationist) attitude that the Creationist explanation is "better". There's plenty of condescension to go around in that debate, IMO, and I don't really fault Hitchens for his natural reaction to that.

    The more I read of Hitchens, the more irritated I get! :lol: His last comments on pg. 153, But in general, I feel better, and no less radical, and you will feel better too, I guarantee, once you leave hold of the doctrinaire and allow your chainless mind to do its own thinking. Wow, how arrogant to assume that because one "buys into" religion in any way that your mind is not doing its own thinking. His book would be much more tolerable if he'd leave this sort of commentary out of it! I have zero respect for someone who assumes that because you are religious, you are not thinking for yourself.


    I agree with you that he will never find a receptive audience for his ideas if he insults the very people he claims to want to reach in this way. He ought to have done another final read through and struck out most of that "you...(and anything which presumes to know what Believers think or feel)"

    I did find his discussion on the Book of Mormon fascinating.


    Me too, but I've read more complete analysis of the Book of Mormon, which also made me wonder how thorough Hitchens' scholarship was on the rest of the book.

    Although I agree (but with far less passion) with his underlying thesis, (I do think that people misuse religion to poison everything...(or,rather, some things (I am not as pessimistic as Hitchens ;)), not that religion itself is responsible), I don't think he went about presenting his ideas in a way which will achieve what he seems to hope he can achieve. You cannot browbeat and insult people, essentially assuming -what...that you can embarrass them into dropping their faith? - and expect your ideas to be well-received by the audience which you think most needs to hear them! It's foolish! Another huge blind spot is that, like Christians who presume that an atheist must have
    questioned his faith or questioned the existence of God, when for most there was never any 'questioning', it just is what they've always known; he also presumes that Believers must somehow require evidence for their faith (which he seems to assume is the Bible) and so goes off on a tangent trying to disprove this "evidence" of his own imagining. What a waste of effort and how badly he missed the point.

    I guess the bottom line is that since Hitchens is as unable to understand the Believer's point of view as most Believers are of understanding his, I am not sure if there can ever be a meeting of minds between him and his hoped for audience. I would hope that Christopher Hitchens will give ti more thought and effort so that he can "get" that, because I think then he would have a great deal to contribute to the subject.

    As for his writing, I loved it and I always love reading Hitchens. He is so intelligent and so dry, and such an excellent writer, using understatement like a master artist. I just love it! And, as I said, I agreed mainly with his thesis ideas, though I don't agree with his misconceptions about belief, and think he could have presented his ideas in a far less provocative, but no less informative way, if he had tried a little harder and used that edit pen a little more freely.
     
  20. Mama_Kim

    Mama_Kim Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(Nifty @ Jan 21 2008, 02:08 PM) [snapback]582555[/snapback]
    Me too, but I've read more complete analysis of the Book of Mormon, which also made me wonder how thorough Hitchens' scholarship was on the rest of the book.

    Although I agree (but with far less passion) with his underlying thesis, (I do think that people misuse religion to poison everything...(or,rather, some things (I am not as pessimistic as Hitchens ;)), not that religion itself is responsible), I don't think he went about presenting his ideas in a way which will achieve what he seems to hope he can achieve. You cannot browbeat and insult people, essentially assuming -what...that you can embarrass them into dropping their faith? - and expect your ideas to be well-received by the audience which you think most needs to hear them! It's foolish! Another huge blind spot is that, like Christians who presume that an atheist must have
    questioned his faith or questioned the existence of God, when for most there was never any 'questioning', it just is what they've always known; he also presumes that Believers must somehow require evidence for their faith (which he seems to assume is the Bible) and so goes off on a tangent trying to disprove this "evidence" of his own imagining. What a waste of effort and how badly he missed the point.

    I guess the bottom line is that since Hitchens is as unable to understand the Believer's point of view as most Believers are of understanding his, I am not sure if there can ever be a meeting of minds between him and his hoped for audience. I would hope that Christopher Hitchens will give ti more thought and effort so that he can "get" that, because I think then he would have a great deal to contribute to the subject.
    He really lost me along the way because of his tone and lack of tact in presenting his topic. He actually would have had me on the bandwagon on a number of points about the original topic of how religion poisons everything but his arguments fall short of his goal as you pointed out.
     
  21. SweetpeaG

    SweetpeaG Well-Known Member

    Yes, I will have to chime on on the 'he missed the mark' theory. I think that it is a true shame that Hitchens fails to even acknowledge (I'm not all the way through yet) the benefits that religion can provide. Just because organized religion is not for me, does not mean that I can't appreciate that it has good points (even if my version of its good points may differ from someone else's).

    I felt the need to 'appreciate' religion after spending a few hours with Hitchens yesterday. After putting the boys to bed I tuned into our local Compline service via radio. While I don't subscribe to (or even fully recognize) their dogma, I do appreciate the meditative opportunity and encouragement to go within oneself to find God. I do appreciate the music, the recognition of something greater than myself, and the quiet peace that comes from searching one's soul. One of my favorite religious lessons is the value of praise (though my interpretation of that word has certainly been grossly evolved by my own experiences/beliefs). There's a segment from the book The Color Purple by, Alice Walker that sums up how I feel about appreciation/praise:

    Shug: More than anything God love admiration.
    Celie: You saying God is vain?
    Shug: No, not vain, just wanting to share a good thing. I think it pisses God off when you walk by the colour purple in a field and don't notice it.
    Celie: You saying it just wanna be loved like it say in the bible?
    Shug: Yeah, Celie. Everything wanna be loved. Us sing and dance, and holla just wanting to be loved. Look at them trees. Notice how the trees do everything people do to get attention... except walk?
    [they laugh]
    Shug: Oh, yeah, this field feels like singing!

    So far, my bottom-line for Hitchens is....Dry, witty: yes. Objective: no. Not that I expect a book with such a title to embrace any aspect of belief, but at least acknowlege it.
     
  22. niftywriter

    niftywriter Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(MamaKim @ Jan 21 2008, 01:47 PM) [snapback]582620[/snapback]
    He really lost me along the way because of his tone and lack of tact in presenting his topic. He actually would have had me on the bandwagon on a number of points about the original topic of how religion poisons everything but his arguments fall short of his goal as you pointed out.



    Yes, that's just what I thought, Kim.

    QUOTE(SweetpeaG @ Jan 21 2008, 02:04 PM) [snapback]582650[/snapback]
    Yes, I will have to chime on on the 'he missed the mark' theory. I think that it is a true shame that Hitchens fails to even acknowledge (I'm not all the way through yet) the benefits that religion can provide. Just because organized religion is not for me, does not mean that I can't appreciate that it has good points (even if my version of its good points may differ from someone else's).

    I felt the need to 'appreciate' religion after spending a few hours with Hitchens yesterday. After putting the boys to bed I tuned into our local Compline service via radio. While I don't subscribe to (or even fully recognize) their dogma, I do appreciate the meditative opportunity and encouragement to go within oneself to find God. I do appreciate the music, the recognition of something greater than myself, and the quiet peace that comes from searching one's soul. One of my favorite religious lessons is the value of praise (though my interpretation of that word has certainly been grossly evolved by my own experiences/beliefs). There's a segment from the book The Color Purple by, Alice Walker that sums up how I feel about appreciation/praise:

    Shug: More than anything God love admiration.
    Celie: You saying God is vain?
    Shug: No, not vain, just wanting to share a good thing. I think it pisses God off when you walk by the colour purple in a field and don't notice it.
    Celie: You saying it just wanna be loved like it say in the bible?
    Shug: Yeah, Celie. Everything wanna be loved. Us sing and dance, and holla just wanting to be loved. Look at them trees. Notice how the trees do everything people do to get attention... except walk?
    [they laugh]
    Shug: Oh, yeah, this field feels like singing!

    So far, my bottom-line for Hitchens is....Dry, witty: yes. Objective: no. Not that I expect a book with such a title to embrace any aspect of belief, but at least acknowlege it.



    (Adds The Color Purple to "to read" pile) Thanks Sweetpea!
     
  23. Marieber

    Marieber Well-Known Member

    I know I'm being totally superficial in this discussion, but here's my next post-it. I was struck by the fact that much of the Bible is self-serving.

    In the section on the Ten Commandments (p.100), well first there's this statement, "If god really wanted people to be free of such thoughts, he should have taken more care to invent a different species." Which goes along with the previous thoughts -- why invent/create us with eyes that need to flip images around ? The whole Creationism thing.

    But where my sticky is it says this:

    "Is it too modern to notice that there is nothing about the protection of children from cruelty, nothing about rape, nothing about slavery, nothing about genocide? Or is it too exactingly "in context" to nocite that some of these very offenses are about to be positively recommended? In verse 2 of the immediately following chapter, god tells Moses to instruct his followers about the conditions under which they may buy or sell slaves...and the rules governing the sale of their daughters. This is succeeded by the insanely detailed regulations governing oxes...micromanagement of agriculture disputes breaks off for a moment, with the abrupt verse (22:18) ' Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.' "
     
  24. niftywriter

    niftywriter Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(marieber @ Jan 22 2008, 02:36 PM) [snapback]584373[/snapback]
    I know I'm being totally superficial in this discussion, but here's my next post-it. I was struck by the fact that much of the Bible is self-serving.

    In the section on the Ten Commandments (p.100), well first there's this statement, "If god really wanted people to be free of such thoughts, he should have taken more care to invent a different species." Which goes along with the previous thoughts -- why invent/create us with eyes that need to flip images around ? The whole Creationism thing.

    But where my sticky is it says this:

    "Is it too modern to notice that there is nothing about the protection of children from cruelty, nothing about rape, nothing about slavery, nothing about genocide? Or is it too exactingly "in context" to nocite that some of these very offenses are about to be positively recommended? In verse 2 of the immediately following chapter, god tells Moses to instruct his followers about the conditions under which they may buy or sell slaves...and the rules governing the sale of their daughters. This is succeeded by the insanely detailed regulations governing oxes...micromanagement of agriculture disputes breaks off for a moment, with the abrupt verse (22:18) ' Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.' "



    I don't think your observations are superficial at all, Marie! I think you are right on about the various reasons why much of the material that survived to be included in the Bible was kept. I think we could have another thread going altogether to discuss the Bible itself. ( yes! Let's do this please! I have about half a dozen book recommendations! :banana: )

    And I guess this is partly what my criticism is of Hitchens's book. His interesting (and in my opinion very astute) observations about the contradictions between what the Bible actually says and what Believers want to believe it says are really good...and really irrelevant to his main argument.

    I think he ought to have written a book focusing on just that (how about God is Not Great: How the BIble Doesn't Say what Believers Want to Believe or something like that). But, his book is supposed to be about how religion poisons everything. While some mention of the Bible might be OK as background supporting his main thesis, I think he spends too much time lecturing Believers on how stupid they are to believe (rightly or wrongly) instead of focusing on how, in his opinion religion poisons everything. Does this make sense? He seems to miss his OWN point. And plucking passages out of the Bible to refute does not help him at all; he misses the power of mythos on people (making literal interpretation almost meaningless) and while he may be correct about the underlying purpose of the Bible books when they were written, it is not really directly relevant to why that book and religion itself poisons everything today (or in the past). Because Believers don't actually buy into the literal Bible (not even self-professed "literalists"); they are inspired by the mythos which also was used in the Bible; telling them how horrid and primitive and savage much of the Bible is won't budge them from their faith or from their belief that it is a "good" book with a wholesome message...because they really aren't listening to its literal message anyway.

    I think what Hitchens needed to do was a little more research to find out what is it about the pull of religion which draws and holds people in spite of the Bible and its fellows (Torah, other mythologies); then I think he might have mentioned THAT in passing and still focused on how that ineffable something--that psychological bond so powerful that people cling to it and call it beautiful in spite of the fearful hellfire and damnation prophesied for most of humanity-- does something to human psyche causing religion to be the rallying cause around which so many people fight and kill each other.

    I don't know if I am making any sense. Just trying to say, Marie, that I do see what you are saying and I think Hitchens's point is well taken---I just don't think it belongs in this book. It is slightly beside the point. Related, but just gone off on a little tanget away from the crux of his argument. I think his passion for his subject (how religion poisons so many things and it makes him angry), makes him unable to resist pointing out how horrible the Bible really can be and to imply that people who can believe in it must be crazy. This may or may not be true, but it is getting away from the point of his book into venting territory, IMO.

    Crazy or not, people do believe in it, and people do love religion...so just saying it is stupid does nothing to illuminate or move the understanding forward. Why do people believe in the Bible and insist that it is a good book? What power is it that religion holds, if it is, as he points out, devoid of true comfort and actually a rule of fear? How is it that religion poisons everything and by what method does this happen? He succeeds in telling us some of what happens, and also that it is STUPID that it happens, but he never explains why it happens, or how to break the hold of fanaticism, or anything else. If it were as easy as having a smart and witty guy just saying to people, "Hey there, did you know that you are unbelievably stupid to believe in all this pish posh? Wake up and smell the cappucino!" and all the religionists replying "By Jove, you're right! Thanks for pointing it out to us!", then that would be that. Obviously it isn't. And maybe he knows it and he was just writing a vent? Now that I think of it...maybe that IS what he was doing.....
     
  25. SweetpeaG

    SweetpeaG Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(MamaKim @ Jan 21 2008, 09:45 AM) [snapback]582439[/snapback]
    I did find his discussion on the Book of Mormon fascinating.


    I'm interested in what exactly you (not directed just at Kim) found fascinating about his discussion on this and how it may have altered how you viewed the LDS religion.

    Perhaps this is too off-topic and better discussed elsewhere?
     
  26. Marieber

    Marieber Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(Nifty @ Jan 22 2008, 09:47 PM) [snapback]585014[/snapback]
    I think he ought to have written a book focusing on just that (how about God is Not Great: How the BIble Doesn't Say what Believers Want to Believe or something like that). But, his book is supposed to be about how religion poisons everything. While some mention of the Bible might be OK as background supporting his main thesis, I think he spends too much time lecturing Believers on how stupid they are to believe (rightly or wrongly) instead of focusing on how, in his opinion religion poisons everything.


    I totally agree with this. I think it was just a more exciting name. They probably focus grouped it (that's a verb right?) and this one won. But your title is better. Or something like, "God is Not Great, How Naive Can You Be (Dumbass)!" or "Fundamentalism Is Not Great: How Excessive Literalism Poisons Everything." :laughing:

    (BTW, I started listening to The Year of Living Biblically this morning, and can't wait till he starts stoning blasphemers!)

    Isn't it more than a little ironic that it turns out that Hitchens is reporting more on the letter of the Book than on the spirit of religion?
     
  27. rubyturquoise

    rubyturquoise Well-Known Member

    Actually, I have just started "The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil," by Philip Zimbardo. This book is about psychology, not religion, but (and I'm only about 1/4 to 1/3 done with it) in it I see the underpinnings of the power grabs that Hitchens is referring to when discussing how religion poisons everything. It makes me think it's not so much religion as it is any system of power that allows some people to control other people. Maybe a little more research on human psychology, and less emphasis on "how can you believe this?" would have made for a clearer argument.
     
  28. niftywriter

    niftywriter Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(SweetpeaG @ Jan 22 2008, 11:41 PM) [snapback]585203[/snapback]
    I'm interested in what exactly you (not directed just at Kim) found fascinating about his discussion on this and how it may have altered how you viewed the LDS religion.

    Perhaps this is too off-topic and better discussed elsewhere?


    If anyone is interested, I think it would be a great topic all on its own! :good: Then we would not be limited to discussing only what Hitchens talked about (to stay OnT).

    QUOTE(marieber @ Jan 23 2008, 11:20 AM) [snapback]585776[/snapback]
    I totally agree with this. I think it was just a more exciting name. They probably focus grouped it (that's a verb right?) and this one won. But your title is better. Or something like, "God is Not Great, How Naive Can You Be (Dumbass)!" or "Fundamentalism Is Not Great: How Excessive Literalism Poisons Everything." :laughing:

    (BTW, I started listening to The Year of Living Biblically this morning, and can't wait till he starts stoning blasphemers!)

    Isn't it more than a little ironic that it turns out that Hitchens is reporting more on the letter of the Book than on the spirit of religion?


    :rotflmbo: Those titles of yours are hilarious and definitely capture the true spirit of Hitchens's book much more truthfully!

    ITA about the irony, but I think he got off track and the title doesn't reflect where the book really goes. In other words, I think the irony was unintentional...which for someone as intelligent as Hitchens just goes to show how strongly he feels about this and how much he wants to inject his argument for rationality to balance the religiosity into the public domain. I feel a bit sympathetic, too, but not for the same reason that Kim does. ;) I feel sympathetic for all people who see something else in all this religiosity and worry about the future of the world, yet who are so marginalized and talked down to by the Believers who form the overwhelming majority. I don't know if it was HArris or Dennett or Dawson who said something about the lunatics running the asylum, and I think that is how Hitchens might feel too.


    QUOTE(rubyturquoise @ Jan 23 2008, 11:35 AM) [snapback]585805[/snapback]
    Actually, I have just started "The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil," by Philip Zimbardo. This book is about psychology, not religion, but (and I'm only about 1/4 to 1/3 done with it) in it I see the underpinnings of the power grabs that Hitchens is referring to when discussing how religion poisons everything. It makes me think it's not so much religion as it is any system of power that allows some people to control other people. Maybe a little more research on human psychology, and less emphasis on "how can you believe this?" would have made for a clearer argument.



    This sounds like an interesting book Ruby! Is it very dense or a fairly easy to follow read? I plowed my way through the extremely scholarly and dense The Mind of the Bible Believer (which was a lengthy and throughly researched dissertation on the psychiatric study of Belief) a couple of years ago and, while it was really interesting and a completely new perspective for me, it was definitely hard going, especially at first. I had to read very slowly ;). But I feel like I learned a lot. However, I would love to read another book which discusses psychology (not pop psychology, but actual scholarly psychology (Freud, Jung, Skinner, Pavlov, et al).

    I agree totally with your last remarks...especially: QUOTE
    any system of power that allows some people to control other people.
    . I think this is what we have to figure out; what is the psychology in human beings, in mass groups, which allows them to be vulnerable to exploitation by individuals or smaller groups of leaders who will use religion to whip them into an "army for ???". Much of the evil Hitchens and others lays at the door to religion might, IMO< be more appropriately laid at the door of individuals and small groups (ie charismatic leaders who exploit followers for their own goals; clergy who also exploit the congregations for their own ambitions, etc) who use the religious drive and the power of Belief to manipulate followers to do things which normal, compassionate human beings might not otherwise do. This is just me thinking out loud....not a fully formed theory or anythng! ;)
     
  29. rubyturquoise

    rubyturquoise Well-Known Member

    This book is by the doctor who designed the famous Stanford Prison Experiment, which he has not discussed in full until this book because he needed some distance from it first. Right now I am reading the part about that (he will go on from here to Abu Ghraib). He writes smoothly and is not difficult to read in that sense, although some of what people do to each other in power systems does not make for pleasant reading! [OT: It's set in Photina, my favorite typeface; it's so elegant and has a beautiful italic.] So far he does not spare himself in his description of having been sucked into his role as prison superintendent.

    I think Hitchens did get a little lost from his original premise. I like his dry writing style, and I did appreciate that he actually addressed Eastern religions instead of holding them up as examples of what's "better" than Western religions as many do (or just ignoring them altogether), but he did get a little hung up on specific Bible stories, which isn't really the point, or it wasn't supposed to be the point, anyway.
     
  30. Mama_Kim

    Mama_Kim Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(rubyturquoise @ Jan 23 2008, 12:35 PM) [snapback]585805[/snapback]
    Actually, I have just started "The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil," by Philip Zimbardo. This book is about psychology, not religion, but (and I'm only about 1/4 to 1/3 done with it) in it I see the underpinnings of the power grabs that Hitchens is referring to when discussing how religion poisons everything. It makes me think it's not so much religion as it is any system of power that allows some people to control other people. Maybe a little more research on human psychology, and less emphasis on "how can you believe this?" would have made for a clearer argument.

    I agree with this as well.

    Hitchens may be intelligent but sometimes one can be too intelligent and miss the mark completely. I believe his premise was good but he went off on a tangent about the really extremist groups and completely left out of the equation more mainstream religious folks like myself. I'm not quite finished but I am ready to put the book down. He's really started to bore me.

    Marie, those would make some great book titles and much more aptly describe his attempt at tackling religion in this book.

    As far as the LDS thing, I know a few things about the origins of the faith from one other book I read years ago, but I did not know too much about Joseph Smith himself. It was just interesting to read and learn about and also about why the Mormon church is famous for its geneological records.
     
  31. Marieber

    Marieber Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(MamaKim @ Jan 23 2008, 05:20 PM) [snapback]586332[/snapback]
    As far as the LDS thing, I know a few things about the origins of the faith from one other book I read years ago, but I did not know too much about Joseph Smith himself. It was just interesting to read and learn about and also about why the Mormon church is famous for its geneological records.


    Unfortunately for me my first (and only so far) book about Mormonism was Under the Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer. An excellent book, but again, totally about fundamentalism -- and totally scary. But it gave great information about the history of the church too.
     
  32. Mama_Kim

    Mama_Kim Well-Known Member

    Well, I'm done. I basically skimmed the last two chapters. It's about all I could stomach. I'm moving on to the Schulz biography. I could use a little "Peanuts" humor after reading this one! :lol:
     
  33. Marieber

    Marieber Well-Known Member

    I think for our next BOTM we should just read whatever Kim wants us to! :)
     
  34. SweetpeaG

    SweetpeaG Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(marieber @ Jan 24 2008, 07:08 PM) [snapback]588531[/snapback]
    I think for our next BOTM we should just read whatever Kim wants us to! :)



    I TOTALLY agree.
    I think we definitely owe her full deciding privileges for the next month's book!

    One of the thoughts that kept going through my head while reading this (and acknowledging what a challenge it must have been from her spiritual perspective) was: would those of us 'non-believers' return the favor with such grace/respect? I tried imagining myself reading a similar argument from a 'believers' viewpoint. I don't think I could do it respectfully. ESPECIALLY if everyone I was 'discussing' it with was pretty much already aligned with said viewpoint.

    (this is not in ANY way a subtle hint to make our next book as 'heavy' as this one was). ;)
     
  35. SweetpeaG

    SweetpeaG Well-Known Member

    QUOTE(marieber @ Jan 23 2008, 09:20 AM) [snapback]585776[/snapback]
    Or something like, "God is Not Great, How Naive Can You Be (Dumbass)!" or "Fundamentalism Is Not Great: How Excessive Literalism Poisons Everything." :laughing:



    LOVE these, BTW. :laughing:
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
January Activity Thread General Jan 1, 2013
January Firsts! The First Year Jan 7, 2011
January Baby Bumps Pregnancy Help Jan 5, 2011
~~January Baby Bumps~~ Pregnancy Help Jan 4, 2010
January 2010 birth club Pregnancy Help Sep 14, 2009

Share This Page