Is religion itself really the issue?
352132
Sam Harris is one of my heroes and I discuss his views often in my book "Religion As Art Form: Reclaiming Spirituality Without Supernatural Beliefs." His recent "encounter" with Ben Afflick on Bill Maher's "Real Time" HBO show placed into bold relief the tension between those who condemn all religion and those who limit their critique of religion to toxic versions of religion. An important example of "toxic faith" would be the kind of religion that uses the supposed authority of holy books to condemn sexual minorities. While there are both Christians, Muslims, and others who do this, it would be fair and accurate to say that a much larger percentage of Muslims are far from supporting such things as same-sex marriage while some Protestant denominations and many Roman Catholic folks do embrace sexual minorities. On this issue it can be said that Islam currently has a worse track record than Christianity and that, along with too many branches of Christianity, Islam as a whole does not face the issue with compassion and understanding.

 Where Harris and I do differ slightly has to do with the possibility of reclaiming a wider variety of religious  language, metaphors and stories. The biggest problem with "organized religion" is naive literalism and fear of change which is typically accompanied by anti-intellectual and anti-science attitudes.  Richard Dawkins lists some of the great things in the Bible at the conclusion of his book "The God Delusion." My point is that we need not throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to religion. With this book I think it is fair to say that Sam Harris agrees that not everything about religion is toxic. More and more people do seem inclined to replace religion with spirituality. But Albert Einstein described himself as "a deeply religious non-believer." The word religion itself is not the problem. Furthermore, specific religions with their unique flavors are not going to go away. What needs to go away is the hostility between science and religion, science and spirituality. I like the mantra "Religion is poetry plus, not science minus." Sam Harris stands squarely in the tradition of biblical prophets who were not afraid to criticize sacred cows and who pointed to "a still more excellent way." His commitment to universal well-being is exemplary.
3637046
Thanks to the ignorance of the World's political leadership, and the greed for power and control by its leaders, Religious Faith has been used to 'keep the lid on.'  In our modern civilization, driven by the technical creativity of the human mind, the thousand year old written scriptures upon which all religions are based are anachronisms.  Sam Harris encourages us to look beyond Faith to a world of rationality.  I agree with him.
93263
Religion is MAN made, plain and simple. There are people who at one time lived on islands and never read (or could read at all) the Bible or knew of God, religion,etc. So, what does that say about religion? What about the Aztecs--who knew nothing of Jesus? Just because a group or groups of people set out to write a Bible does not mean that it is law or truth. It is and always was a way to control the masses. The operative word is Control--and it still works today by all MAN-made religions. Few people really understand the cruelty done in the name of God,religion, and Christ. Some of the most judgmental people on Earth are extremely religious and very controlling. All religions want to separate people into affinity believers. The world would be better off for people to believe in just treating others well instead of using their God to create an "us and them" atmosphere.  We don't need the Bible to tell us how to be good citizens, how to treat others well, how to care of our children, how to just be the best we can be. Dawkins is trying to point out that we are more intelligent than the Bible, the Koran,etc. or religions would have us believe. We are not sheep! The God of Man is just an ancient rule maker to subdue anyone who would THINK for themselves and perhaps challenge the status quo. Thankfully, some were brave and intelligent and broke away from that limiting behavior of the pack or we'd all be still siting around waiting for God to tell us how to get out of the rain.
2858370
Hitchens brings a vibrant erudition to this subject. Any reader who disagrees with his assertions that religion can be poison has only to look at his sources to verify the accuracy and power of his arguments. Sadly, the current religious mania in the U.S. confirms Hitchens' fears and observations. Deities are not great; Hitchens' writings are.
174423
Religion isn't always an easy topic to tackle. Many writers and thinkers who try to approach religion these days have their works judged before they even have time to speak. Knoester, however, has approached modern activities through a religious paradigm, thus uniting what is often regarded as an antiquated idea with the modern context. In drawing on such themes as the computer, family, travel and love, Knoester uses prose and poetry to explore a theme that is both difficult to pin down and nearly universal.
4232494
Read as a memoir of the author's journey from growing up as a believer in Islam to rejecting the religion this is a good book. It clearly states what he finds wrong with Islam and by extension the other Abrahamic religions, namely Judaism and Christianity.  Among other problems with Islam he explains why it is not a "religion of peace".  But he never makes a positive argument for atheism.  This isn't surprising it's common in books by "new atheists" to concentrate on what is wrong with various religions.  But a positive case can be made and I think it should always be in a book purporting to be about atheism.  There is one slight nod in that direction.  He writes "But once we are on our own ... We have to learn to value truth over comfort -- and and comfort is what religion is so good at giving us, at least temporarily, until we can learn to derive comfort from truth."  You can, and should come to value truth and that will inevitably lead to atheism.  I recommend  Sean Carroll's  "The Big Picture" for how that works.
3103428
I live in Hawaii, the only things I remembered about Ireland having some problems was from U2s song "Blood Sunday" & the mention of IRA on news maybe ~10yrs ago. I had no exposure of Ireland's hx, so it's very surprising to see that Ireland's political conflicts strongly relates to their religious differences, which in this case, it's Catholicism vs Protestantism; and then liberation from British strongholds in NI.

I find it interesting b/c Middle East has so much criticism of their Islamic beliefs & some outsiders think that Islamic faith is the cause of their problems & promotes violence. And from history, one has to remind themselves, Catholicism, Christianity, as a whole, also has a very violent past as well, it's just not Islam that has it's devout believers.

Many wars have been justified by religious beliefs, which unfortunately involves politics in means to resolve the issues. This lil' intro of NI was ok, I thought it got too complex, esp if one doesn't have any previous hx of Ireland. I got more basic understanding by using Wikipedia. This short intro wasn't worth the $10.
4882523
I bought this book two years ago, when it first came out and finally got around to reading it and I am delighted with the author's take on the place of religion in American life.  G. Jeffrey MacDonald is an intelligent voice in a noisy world of religiosity, and articulates a number of the problems with modern-day religion, even if masquerading as "that ol' time religion!"  It seems to me that he's right on target naming people's desire for entertainment as missing the point of the scriptures by stressing comfort at the expense of repentance.  Too, he sees the turning away from God-as Judge to Church as-therapy.  Some things get lost in that translation.  A totally unexpected fact from the Pew Research Center speaks, it seems to me, to a real decline in the meaning of Christianity:71% of Americans, predominantly Christians, said that torture of suspected terrorists was justifiable!  How dreadful.  Shame on us.
As a clergyman, MacDonald reflects on his experiences as an interviewee at a series of lay search committees, noting that the ideal candidate would make them comfortable and entertained.  With these observations he transitions into a discussion about what can be done to make things better.  He suggests that the clergy can bring about real change in their conduct of their day-to-day affairs, they can act as leaders and facilitators, challenging the laity to action.  Indeed, MacDonald suggests a return to a form of asceticism such as is practiced by Environmentalists, for example.
MacDonald is not without hope for us and for the churches.  He cites examples from four churches in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area.  The details are worth considering, but too lengthy to include here.
As a church-goer, I found this analysis interesting and revealing and it has forced me to reconsider some things I have taken for granted in my church life.  Perhaps it is time for a general reappraisal of the role religion plays or should play in individual's lives and in society and maybe even take a chance on reformation.
438880
Dawkins makes it very clear here "I am not attacking any particular version of God. I am attacking God, all Gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented". He declares that this country was founded on secular not religious beliefs. He quotes Jefferson "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man" (Jefferson didn't know about Islam, apparently). Franklin "Lighthouses are more useful than churches". John Adams "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it".

Some chapters in this book are: "Arguments for God's Existence", "Why There Is No God", "Roots Of Religion", "Roots of Morality", "What's Wrong With Religion", along with discussions of polytheism, monotheism, agnosticism, Old and New Testament, Hitler and Stalin's beliefs and why the world would be better without religion, etc.

Dawkins believes that agnostic beliefs are a cop-out. Also, that theologians have nothing logical to bring to an argument on the existence of 'God' and that it is up to them to prove that there is a 'God' just the same as having to prove the existence of unicorns or tooth fairies. Unicorns and jackalopes can't be disproven although there is no fossil evidence or eye-witness testimony--impossible to prove the negative. I like his statement that with or without religion good people will do good deeds and bad people will do bad deeds, but it takes religion to make good people do bad deeds. He deliberately stays away from describing the horrors perpetrated during The Inquisition centuries, The Crusades (both Catholic and Muslim atrocities), and present-day Islamist terror.

He relates a study completed in 2006 by the Templeton Foundation to see if prayer had any effect on hospital patient recovery. Costing $2.4 million, with 1,800 patients, they found no difference at all in recovery between patients prayed for or not (except a few patients found out that they were being prayed for--that had a WORSE effect on their recovery).

As to whether "fear of God" makes people good he cites an incident in Montreal in 1969 where the police went on strike for a day: by the end of the day rioters looted, burned, caused $3 million (real money in 1969) in property damage--the army and Mounties had to be called in. Assuming most people were religious, where was fear of God?

I really appreciate Dawkins statement that children should not be identified as "catholic", "Muslim", "Jewish", "Christian",  "Buddhist" , or whatever just because their parents follow a certain religion. Children need to be educated about all and allowed to decide for themselves what they believe, when they are capable of deciding.

As Dawkins points out, the Bible's morals (and Jesus' morals, because he was a Jew who preached the Old Testament) are only for Jews ("thou shall not kill" means another Jew, "love thy neighbor" means neighbor Jew), the Koran is the same for Muslims. Anybody outside of the faith is fair game for genocide, enslavement, murder, cruelty, or rape. I like his assertion that "moderates" are not better than "extremists", the problem is with the religions picking and choosing which passage in the testaments to follow or ignore, and demanding blind "faith" without questions. Most people would probably be shocked to find out what is really in the Bible and Koran. It is truly amazing that the religious leaders have conned a majority over the last few millennia.
278975
Haven't actually seen this but just want to point out that the article on atheism is written by John F. Haught, Senior Fellow, Woodstock Theological Center, Georgetown University, formerly professor of theology at Georgetown (A Jesuit University). Why do I suspect that the topic will receive a somewhat less than sympathetic treatment? What does this say about the treatment of other subjects?
4448279
So far its not a bad book, but chapter 5 seems to be a little to preachy when God is mentioned as an influence of daily routine. Now that might work for some people, but when it comes to SELF IMPROVEMENT I honestly think God and religion in general should never be mentioned, unless it is a book designed to be put to use specifically in a religious setting or lifestyle.
1507007
The Art of Creative Living by Thomas Kinkade is very heavily tilted toward religion, and religious viewpoints.  This religious attitude is downplayed in the "official description" and in most of the reviews... so a potential purchaser may not know what they are receiving.  I gained some useful information from the book, but the view that everything is due to his focus on religion detracts from a more general "creative living" as some may view it. There may be other books on "creative living" that will suit a less religious reader better than this book.
151071
In his book, Filipino Spirit World, Rodney Henry confronts his readers with the reality of "folk religion" in the Philippines, and in particular "folk Christianity."  "Folk religion" is a blending of animism (ancestor or spirit worship) and whatever world religion the adherents follow, i.e., Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, etc.

In the case of "folk Christianity," the people of the Philippines have tended to relegate the "ultimate concerns" of life, i.e., death and the afterlife, etc., to the Church while relying on their animistic beliefs to deal with practical daily life issues, i.e., sickness, relationships, the spirit world, etc.  This situation has developed in part because the Filipino Church has failed to provide the Filipino people with culturally, and biblically appropriate solutions for dealing with daily life issues.

Part of the reason for the development of "folk religion" is the western church's unwillingness to deal with, and or acknowledge the reality of the spirit world as seen and experienced by the Filipino people.  Due to education and technological progression, the western world has effectively eliminated the need for belief in the spirit world, whereas the Filipino worldview still holds to a belief in the spirit world.

Henry therefore provides a challenge to "Filipinize" the Church (pg. 48).  This is a challenge to return to the Bible to develop a theology of the spirit world.  It is a call to make the beliefs and practices of the Filipino spirit world compatible with the Bible and with the Christian's relationship with God.  However, "it is not the goal of the Church to simply replace traditional forms with Christian forms.  The Church must seek change at the worldview level regarding man's relationship with God and let those changes spread throughout the rest of the culture" (pg. 170).
1944446
In the United States it seems that an ever more conservative, ever more intolerant christian religion has emerged to be just as fundamentalist as the radical muslims are in other parts of the world. Here is a 'New Kind of Christianity.'

Whenever a movement as strong as the fundamentalists form, an antithesis has to come about. The certainty that drives the fundamentalists has been replaced by doubt and uncertainty. The dictatorial view of the pastor has been replaced by questions of 'what do you think, what do you believe.'

An interesting point about the new Christianity is that it's main written foundation seems to be this trilogy (this is the third book in the series) which is written in the form of novels with the main characters (Pastor Dan Poole and his friend Neil Oliver) convey the theological message in the form of conversations. Well, why not, the Bible is mostly stories and parables. And if you approach this as just a novel, it's not bad reading, although they do talk about religion a lot.
3324597
This is an interesting book by respected philosopher Peter Byrne (editor of the prestigious academic journal, RELIGIOUS STUDIES). Byrne discusses 'the moral interpretation of religion," the view that "morality provides the anchor for belief in transcendent, sacred reality and, consequently, provides the means for interpreting belief in a religious ultimate." This book is not sympathetic to the view that morality needs a personal God as its foundation, though Byrne is equally willing to criticize secular ethics when appropriate.  Byrne argues (1) that if the foundation of morality is a personal God, then the autonomy of morality is undermined. (2) When theists appeal to moral arguments for theism, they are open to the counterargument that the problem of evil is a reason for favoring atheism over theism.  According to Byrne, the argument from evil is stronger evidence for atheism than the moral argument is for theism.
Of special interest to me was the book's second chapter, which focuses exclusively on an oft-neglected topic: the various moral arguments for theism. In that chapter, Byrne states a number of objections to moral arguments for God's existence. (Ironically, most of those objections have NOT appeared in atheistic literature in the philosophy of religion!) Along the way, Byrne manages to discuss the following topics:
* the Euthyphro dilemma,
* Robert Adams' modified divine command theory,
* Linda Zagzebski's claim that without God we must become moral skeptics,
* the suggestion that secular morality is deficient because it lacks a proper motivational background to pursue the moral good
In short, I would say that chapter 2 alone justifies purchasing the book.  If you have an interest in moral arguments for the existence of God, then you will definitely want to add this book to your library.
1166351
What makes this book outstanding is the chapter on Hopeful Predictions. For me those predictions showed the degree to which we have a religion-based government (theocracy) and that it's sociological impact is far more serious than commonly imagined.

The author articulates a number of reasons why it's unreasonable to believe in a God but I doubt that they are powerful enough to convince any true believers. Instead I would suggest that a deep scientific review of the reasoning and human communication process would be more valuable, particularly if it probed into two interrelated subjects (1) how we assess the credibility of human communication and (2) the neurological causes behind religious belief. See http://www. 999info.net/Informational%20Mechanics/45R9.pdf for an introduction.
529803
I'm not really sure that the author's conclusions are consistent. On the one hand, she seems anxious to assure her readers that not all conversions were insincere or based on hypocritical self-interest. On the other hand, she argues that, for most, abandonment of the old faith through religious conversion was the golden road to economic and social emancipation.