What do you think?
Rate this book
A Manual for Creating Atheists
For thousands of years, the faithful have honed proselytizing strategies and talked people into believing the truth of one holy book or another. Indeed, the faithful often view converting others as an obligation of their faith—and are trained from an early age to spread their unique brand of religion. The result is a world broken in large part by unquestioned faith. As an urgently needed counter to this tried-and-true tradition of religious evangelism, A Manual for Creating Atheists offers the first-ever guide not for talking people into faith—but for talking them out of it. Peter Boghossian draws on the tools he has developed and used for more than twenty years as a philosopher and educator to teach how to engage the faithful in conversations that will help them value reason and rationality, cast doubt on their religious beliefs, mistrust their faith, abandon superstition, and irrationality, and ultimately embrace reason.
278 pages, Paperback
Published November 1, 2013
244 people are currently reading
3207 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 222 reviews
March 1, 2014
I have a tremendous amount to say about this book, but this review will be be a shortened version until I have sufficient time to (a) read it again (ugh!) quoting snippets to support my myriad contentions and concerns, and (b) write a defensible counter-argument to Boghossian's "manual" for creating atheists.
Boghossian's entire exhortation against religious belief is framed around an imputed epistemology that is based upon a definition of the term Faith, which he explains at the outset, as "pretending to know what one does not know."
This definition of faith/belief (he uses the terms interchangeably) is preposterous and it should only require a paragraph to show why. The verb "pretend" means to feign or act as if something is true when the agent knows it is false. Example: I am not a Priest, but if I don the requisite robes and assorted artifacts, ascend a pulpit, and proceed to sermonize a congregation in some Church, I would be knowingly pretending or feigning such a position. The critical element is that, when one pretends, one does so intentionally. One cannot be self-deceived (or ignorant) and, simultaneously, be guilty of pretense. Ironically and hypocritically, Boghossian is alleging that all religious believers are knowingly and willfully deceptive, both intrinsically and extrinsically, an assertion about which he is most assuredly "pretending to know what he does not know."
I researched the words "faith" and "belief" in several dictionaries and could not find a single source which uses or even implies that pretense is involved in the act of believing. While exceptions doubtlessly exist, it is patently false that most believers are faking when they attend worship services and outwardly display/express their deepest convictions. A more genuine and intellectually honest representation is that a belief is a statement about reality that the agent does not know to be true (or false) with certainty. Boghossian misconstrues believers' confident commitment to their tenets as logically equivalent to asserting an objective and indisputable claim of truth. In short, once Boghossian's pejorative and demeaning definition is recognized for the manipulative construct that it is, his mountain of assertions crumbles.
There is a lot wrong with this book and I have only scratched its soft underbelly which, among other absurdities, includes a set of strategies/tactics, many surreptitious and manipulative, that his "army" of atheists are urged to prosecute in successive "treatments" targeted at dislodging "faith" from witless, misguided and, yes, diseased "patients." He defends this active proselytism as fundamentally helping people to replace belief with critical reasoning; however, one thorough reading will convince a perceptive reader that his thinly veiled purpose is to discredit and dismantle religious belief. The book's foreward by Michael Shermer makes this objective plain: "Religion is still a powerful force in the world and the majority of humans still adhere to one faith or another...But this is changing thanks to rational thinkers and brave activists such as Peter Boghossian..."
I am an atheist and, as such, I do not believe any set of religious presuppositions; however, it does not occur to me that those who do necessarily lack intelligence, rationality, honesty, sincerity, and integrity. It seems to me the epitome of arrogance to presume that those who disagree with my worldview - a substantial majority I might add - need a bunch of recruited "Street Epistemologists" to retool their comprehension of the scientific method and elementary syllogistic reasoning. How is that likely to proceed productively when some of these "patients" are, themselves, logicians, scientists, physicians, lawyers, philosophers, and theologians? Hmmm...
In my humble opinion, Boghossian has done atheists everywhere a major disservice, which now requires that a counter-offensive be launched to dissociate ourselves from such a supercilious, divisive, and ill-conceived iconoclasm.
Boghossian should heed this warning from Nietzsche, "Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster ... for when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
Boghossian's entire exhortation against religious belief is framed around an imputed epistemology that is based upon a definition of the term Faith, which he explains at the outset, as "pretending to know what one does not know."
This definition of faith/belief (he uses the terms interchangeably) is preposterous and it should only require a paragraph to show why. The verb "pretend" means to feign or act as if something is true when the agent knows it is false. Example: I am not a Priest, but if I don the requisite robes and assorted artifacts, ascend a pulpit, and proceed to sermonize a congregation in some Church, I would be knowingly pretending or feigning such a position. The critical element is that, when one pretends, one does so intentionally. One cannot be self-deceived (or ignorant) and, simultaneously, be guilty of pretense. Ironically and hypocritically, Boghossian is alleging that all religious believers are knowingly and willfully deceptive, both intrinsically and extrinsically, an assertion about which he is most assuredly "pretending to know what he does not know."
I researched the words "faith" and "belief" in several dictionaries and could not find a single source which uses or even implies that pretense is involved in the act of believing. While exceptions doubtlessly exist, it is patently false that most believers are faking when they attend worship services and outwardly display/express their deepest convictions. A more genuine and intellectually honest representation is that a belief is a statement about reality that the agent does not know to be true (or false) with certainty. Boghossian misconstrues believers' confident commitment to their tenets as logically equivalent to asserting an objective and indisputable claim of truth. In short, once Boghossian's pejorative and demeaning definition is recognized for the manipulative construct that it is, his mountain of assertions crumbles.
There is a lot wrong with this book and I have only scratched its soft underbelly which, among other absurdities, includes a set of strategies/tactics, many surreptitious and manipulative, that his "army" of atheists are urged to prosecute in successive "treatments" targeted at dislodging "faith" from witless, misguided and, yes, diseased "patients." He defends this active proselytism as fundamentally helping people to replace belief with critical reasoning; however, one thorough reading will convince a perceptive reader that his thinly veiled purpose is to discredit and dismantle religious belief. The book's foreward by Michael Shermer makes this objective plain: "Religion is still a powerful force in the world and the majority of humans still adhere to one faith or another...But this is changing thanks to rational thinkers and brave activists such as Peter Boghossian..."
I am an atheist and, as such, I do not believe any set of religious presuppositions; however, it does not occur to me that those who do necessarily lack intelligence, rationality, honesty, sincerity, and integrity. It seems to me the epitome of arrogance to presume that those who disagree with my worldview - a substantial majority I might add - need a bunch of recruited "Street Epistemologists" to retool their comprehension of the scientific method and elementary syllogistic reasoning. How is that likely to proceed productively when some of these "patients" are, themselves, logicians, scientists, physicians, lawyers, philosophers, and theologians? Hmmm...
In my humble opinion, Boghossian has done atheists everywhere a major disservice, which now requires that a counter-offensive be launched to dissociate ourselves from such a supercilious, divisive, and ill-conceived iconoclasm.
Boghossian should heed this warning from Nietzsche, "Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster ... for when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
November 25, 2013
A Manual for Creating Atheists by Peter Boghossian
"A Manual for Creating Atheists" is a guide on how to talk people out of their faith. This book provides the framework on how to become a Street Epistemologist; that is a person equipped with the philosophical tools necessary to help others leave behind their faith and replace it with reason. Dr. Boghossian a professor of philosophy, offers atheists with a much needed tool that provides structure and confidence on how to convey and embrace doubt. This interesting 280-page book includes the following nine chapters: 1. Street Epistemology, 2. Faith, 3. Doxastic Closure, Belief, and Epistemology, 4. Interventions and Strategies, 5. Enter Socrates, 6. After the Fall, 7. Anti-Apologetics 101, 8. Faith and the Academy, and 9. Containment Protocols.
Positives:
1. A well-written, well-research book. Philosophical jargon is kept to a minimum. This book is accessible to the masses.
2. An interesting addition to my atheist collection...a guide on how to talk people out of their faith.
3. Excellent format. Each chapter includes a "Dig Deeper Section" that lists articles, blogs, and books. It also includes comprehensive footnotes.
4. Dr. Boghossian cuts to the chase. Clearly states his goals for the book, "The goal of this book is to create a generation of Street Epistemologists: people equipped with an array of dialectical and clinical tools who actively go into the streets, the prisons, the bars, the churches, the schools, and the community--into any and every place the faithful reside--and help them abandon their faith and embrace reason."
5. Does a good job of defining key terms and even includes a very helpful glossary for reference sake. "'Atheist,' as I use the term, means, "There's insufficient evidence to warrant belief in a divine, supernatural creator of the universe. However, if I were shown sufficient evidence to warrant belief in such an entity, then I would believe."
6. Great quotes abound in this interesting book, "No amount of belief makes something a fact." --James Randi.
7. The dangers of faith-based thinking. "We can also examine the dangers of formulating beliefs and social policies on the basis of insufficient evidence."
8. The five reasons reasonable people embrace absurd propositions.
9. Intervention strategies to begin your work as a Street Epistemologist. "I'm advocating that we move the conversation forward by refocusing our attacks primarily on faith. By undermining faith one is able to undermine almost all religions simultaneously, and it may be easier to help someone to abandon their faith than it is to separate them from their religion. Your interventions should target faith, not religion."
10. Faith has no stranglehold on morality. "The perceived association between faith and morality must be terminated. Faith-based interventions need to target and decouple the linkage between faith and morality." In fact, I denounce the Bible on moral reasons. Slavery is evil the Bible endorses the practice of slavery.
11. Find out what topics not to engage in.
12. How to use the Socratic method as a conversational intervention to liberate people of their faith. An explanation of the stages and my favorite part, the interventions (applied use of the method).
13. The author goes through the most common defenses of faith and provides his counters. ""How do you know the universe didn't always exist?" Even if appeals are made to the Big Bang, one can never know either that reality is one endless time loop with Big Bangs strung together for eternity, or that à la American theoretical physicist Brian Greene, we're part of a larger multiverse with an infinite number of Big Bangs constantly occurring."
14. The difference between claims made from science and faith. "Claims that come about as a result of a scientific process are held as tentatively true by scientists--unlike claims of faith that are held as eternally true."
15. The need to criticize bad ideas. "A criticism of an idea is not the same as a criticism of a person. We are not our ideas. Ideas don't deserve dignity; people deserve dignity. I'm criticizing an idea because that idea is not true, and the fact that people think it is true has dangerous consequences."
16. A plea to educators, "Withholding epistemological critique is wrong and needs to end. What educators should be teaching students is how to make better, more discerning judgments: how to discern reliable ways of reasoning from unreliable ways of reasoning."
17. Faith in a nutshell, "Faith is an unclassified cognitive illness disguised as a moral virtue."
18. The struggle for reason, "It's important we believe things that are true."
19. A great ending quote that captures the sentiment of the book, "We fear clear, honest, blunt dialogue, but what we ought to fear are stupid and dangerous ideas, because while blunt and honest dialogue might be offensive to some, stupid and dangerous ideas can be fatal to all of us." -- Matt Thornton, community activist.
20. Excellent supporting material. Links worked great!
Negatives:
1. I have reservations about actively seeking believers out to evangelize atheism to. I rather use this newfound tool as a means to counter believers who attempt to proselytize to me. I particularly have reservations when we are talking about elderly people who no longer proselytize and have limited ability to infect young minds. At the point of their lives I see very little value trying to talk them out of their faith.
2. I agree with Dr. Boghossian that in some cases people can be reasoned out of faith and the book does a wonderful job of focusing on that. However, what about the emotional stranglehold that faith has on people? There is no doubt in my mind that we as atheists have won the intellectual battle but the emotional one fueled by religious memes is one where we lag behind. (For the record the author does provide an example intervention). The sense of awe with no supernatural strings attached in science was not emphasized enough for me.
3. I love the "Dig Deeper" Section at the end of each chapter but I still prefer a separate formal Bibliography for the sake of easy reference.
4. One of the biggest difficulties with being an atheist besides dealing with people who have misconceptions associated with it is how to provide comfort without resorting to faith (pretending to know what you don't know). The book doesn't really address this issue to my satisfaction. The author acknowledges that, "What comfort does reality-based reasoning offer someone suffering or facing death? I don't know."
In summary, this is a provocative book. Dr. Boghossian is ready to arm a generation of street epistemologists with the word of reason. Though I'm not in favor of actively seeking believers, particularly elderly ones to talk them out of their faith I do see great value in having confidence in frank and direct discussions. The interventions are a lot of fun to read (I wished there were more). A great addition to my collection, I highly recommend it!
Further recommendations: "Think: Why You Should Question Everything" by by Guy P. Harrison, "Nonbeliever Nation: The Rise of Secular Americans" by David Niose, "The Dark Side of Christian History" by Helen Ellerbe, "Atheism For Dummies (For Dummies (Religion & Spirituality))" by Dale McGowan, "The End of Christianity" by John Loftus, "Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism" by David Mills, "Nailed" by David Fitzgerald, "The Portable Atheist" by Christopher Hitchens, "The God Argument: The Case against Religion and for Humanism" by A.C. Grayling, "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris, "Godless" by Dan Barker, "God is not Great" by Christopher Hitchens, "Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism" by Susan Jacoby, "Moral Combat" by Sikivu Hutchinson, "The Religion Virus" Craig A. James, "American Fascists" by Chris Hedges, "Doubt: A History: The Great Doubters and Their Legacy of Innovation from Socrates and Jesus to Thomas Jefferson and Emily Dickinson" by Jennifer Michael Hecht, "Society Without God" by Phil Zuckerman, "Why I'm Not a Christian" by Richard Carrier, and "Why are you Atheists so Angry?" by Greta Christina.
"A Manual for Creating Atheists" is a guide on how to talk people out of their faith. This book provides the framework on how to become a Street Epistemologist; that is a person equipped with the philosophical tools necessary to help others leave behind their faith and replace it with reason. Dr. Boghossian a professor of philosophy, offers atheists with a much needed tool that provides structure and confidence on how to convey and embrace doubt. This interesting 280-page book includes the following nine chapters: 1. Street Epistemology, 2. Faith, 3. Doxastic Closure, Belief, and Epistemology, 4. Interventions and Strategies, 5. Enter Socrates, 6. After the Fall, 7. Anti-Apologetics 101, 8. Faith and the Academy, and 9. Containment Protocols.
Positives:
1. A well-written, well-research book. Philosophical jargon is kept to a minimum. This book is accessible to the masses.
2. An interesting addition to my atheist collection...a guide on how to talk people out of their faith.
3. Excellent format. Each chapter includes a "Dig Deeper Section" that lists articles, blogs, and books. It also includes comprehensive footnotes.
4. Dr. Boghossian cuts to the chase. Clearly states his goals for the book, "The goal of this book is to create a generation of Street Epistemologists: people equipped with an array of dialectical and clinical tools who actively go into the streets, the prisons, the bars, the churches, the schools, and the community--into any and every place the faithful reside--and help them abandon their faith and embrace reason."
5. Does a good job of defining key terms and even includes a very helpful glossary for reference sake. "'Atheist,' as I use the term, means, "There's insufficient evidence to warrant belief in a divine, supernatural creator of the universe. However, if I were shown sufficient evidence to warrant belief in such an entity, then I would believe."
6. Great quotes abound in this interesting book, "No amount of belief makes something a fact." --James Randi.
7. The dangers of faith-based thinking. "We can also examine the dangers of formulating beliefs and social policies on the basis of insufficient evidence."
8. The five reasons reasonable people embrace absurd propositions.
9. Intervention strategies to begin your work as a Street Epistemologist. "I'm advocating that we move the conversation forward by refocusing our attacks primarily on faith. By undermining faith one is able to undermine almost all religions simultaneously, and it may be easier to help someone to abandon their faith than it is to separate them from their religion. Your interventions should target faith, not religion."
10. Faith has no stranglehold on morality. "The perceived association between faith and morality must be terminated. Faith-based interventions need to target and decouple the linkage between faith and morality." In fact, I denounce the Bible on moral reasons. Slavery is evil the Bible endorses the practice of slavery.
11. Find out what topics not to engage in.
12. How to use the Socratic method as a conversational intervention to liberate people of their faith. An explanation of the stages and my favorite part, the interventions (applied use of the method).
13. The author goes through the most common defenses of faith and provides his counters. ""How do you know the universe didn't always exist?" Even if appeals are made to the Big Bang, one can never know either that reality is one endless time loop with Big Bangs strung together for eternity, or that à la American theoretical physicist Brian Greene, we're part of a larger multiverse with an infinite number of Big Bangs constantly occurring."
14. The difference between claims made from science and faith. "Claims that come about as a result of a scientific process are held as tentatively true by scientists--unlike claims of faith that are held as eternally true."
15. The need to criticize bad ideas. "A criticism of an idea is not the same as a criticism of a person. We are not our ideas. Ideas don't deserve dignity; people deserve dignity. I'm criticizing an idea because that idea is not true, and the fact that people think it is true has dangerous consequences."
16. A plea to educators, "Withholding epistemological critique is wrong and needs to end. What educators should be teaching students is how to make better, more discerning judgments: how to discern reliable ways of reasoning from unreliable ways of reasoning."
17. Faith in a nutshell, "Faith is an unclassified cognitive illness disguised as a moral virtue."
18. The struggle for reason, "It's important we believe things that are true."
19. A great ending quote that captures the sentiment of the book, "We fear clear, honest, blunt dialogue, but what we ought to fear are stupid and dangerous ideas, because while blunt and honest dialogue might be offensive to some, stupid and dangerous ideas can be fatal to all of us." -- Matt Thornton, community activist.
20. Excellent supporting material. Links worked great!
Negatives:
1. I have reservations about actively seeking believers out to evangelize atheism to. I rather use this newfound tool as a means to counter believers who attempt to proselytize to me. I particularly have reservations when we are talking about elderly people who no longer proselytize and have limited ability to infect young minds. At the point of their lives I see very little value trying to talk them out of their faith.
2. I agree with Dr. Boghossian that in some cases people can be reasoned out of faith and the book does a wonderful job of focusing on that. However, what about the emotional stranglehold that faith has on people? There is no doubt in my mind that we as atheists have won the intellectual battle but the emotional one fueled by religious memes is one where we lag behind. (For the record the author does provide an example intervention). The sense of awe with no supernatural strings attached in science was not emphasized enough for me.
3. I love the "Dig Deeper" Section at the end of each chapter but I still prefer a separate formal Bibliography for the sake of easy reference.
4. One of the biggest difficulties with being an atheist besides dealing with people who have misconceptions associated with it is how to provide comfort without resorting to faith (pretending to know what you don't know). The book doesn't really address this issue to my satisfaction. The author acknowledges that, "What comfort does reality-based reasoning offer someone suffering or facing death? I don't know."
In summary, this is a provocative book. Dr. Boghossian is ready to arm a generation of street epistemologists with the word of reason. Though I'm not in favor of actively seeking believers, particularly elderly ones to talk them out of their faith I do see great value in having confidence in frank and direct discussions. The interventions are a lot of fun to read (I wished there were more). A great addition to my collection, I highly recommend it!
Further recommendations: "Think: Why You Should Question Everything" by by Guy P. Harrison, "Nonbeliever Nation: The Rise of Secular Americans" by David Niose, "The Dark Side of Christian History" by Helen Ellerbe, "Atheism For Dummies (For Dummies (Religion & Spirituality))" by Dale McGowan, "The End of Christianity" by John Loftus, "Atheist Universe: The Thinking Person's Answer to Christian Fundamentalism" by David Mills, "Nailed" by David Fitzgerald, "The Portable Atheist" by Christopher Hitchens, "The God Argument: The Case against Religion and for Humanism" by A.C. Grayling, "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris, "Godless" by Dan Barker, "God is not Great" by Christopher Hitchens, "Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism" by Susan Jacoby, "Moral Combat" by Sikivu Hutchinson, "The Religion Virus" Craig A. James, "American Fascists" by Chris Hedges, "Doubt: A History: The Great Doubters and Their Legacy of Innovation from Socrates and Jesus to Thomas Jefferson and Emily Dickinson" by Jennifer Michael Hecht, "Society Without God" by Phil Zuckerman, "Why I'm Not a Christian" by Richard Carrier, and "Why are you Atheists so Angry?" by Greta Christina.
August 13, 2016
"Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity . . . the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."--Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian
"The idea, therefore, that religious faith is somehow a sacred human convention--distinguished, as it is, both by the extravagance of its claims and by the paucity of its evidence--is really too great a monstrosity to be appreciated in all its glory."--Sam Harris, The End of Faith
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."--The basis of all skepticism. Is there any evidence, either extraordinary or ordinary, to prove anything about eternity or heaven? No. The author has created a group called the "Nones" because they check the box None when asked about religion.
Daniel Dennett coined the word "deepity" for a statement that looks profound but is not. They give examples in the book from the Bible and elsewhere that describe "faith." Faith can actually be defined in two ways: 1. Belief without evidence, and 2. Pretending to know things you don't know. Faith and hope are not synonyms. And hope is not the same as knowing.
"I contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do."--Stephen F. Roberts. An atheist means "There's insufficient evidence to warrant belief in a divine, supernatural creator of the universe. However, if I were shown sufficient evidence to warrant belief in such an entity, then I would believe." An atheist does not refuse to believe if there is solid evidence. The word agnostic is a cop out and should not be used.
"No amount of belief makes something a fact."--James Randi
"All men by nature desire to know."--Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book I
Certainty is the enemy of truth. Examination and reexamination are allies of truth.
Non-religious convert usually because of a personal event like the loss of a loved one. The path from faith to un-faith is much slower. Often by being exposed to small cracks in one's religious faith. Carl Sagan can make more converts because of his manner. I think Bill Nye's debate with Ken "The Scam Man" Ham helped anyone with doubts about their faith because of Nye's mild delivery.
Many people who have recovered from religion have self-reported that they have been reasoned out of their religious beliefs. Here are some former preachers who are now "evangelical atheists": Hector Avalos, Dan Barker, Kenneth W. Daniels, Jerry DeWitt, Joe Holman, John W. Loftus, Teresa MacBain, Nate Phelps, Robert Price, and Sam Singleton. They now help others to escape their religion. The focus needs to be on faith and not religion.
"I believe because it is absurd."--Tertullian (197-220 CE)
Filter Bubbles: Online portals like Google and Facebook deliver customized information based on algorithms that take preexisting data into account, such as previous searches and geographical location. So the information users see is in ideological conformity with their beliefs. So the user is in a type of bubble that filters out ideologically disagreeable information and opinions. This is doxastic entrenchment that lends credence to one's beliefs as confirming "evidence" appears at the top of one's Google search. Combine clustering in like-minded communities with filter bubbles and then add a cognitive architecture that predisposes one to belief and favors confirmation bias and then throw in the fact that critical thinking and reasoning require far more intellectual labor than acceptance of solutions and platitudes and then add in things like just trying to get through the day with work and kids and whatever and the result: Doxastic Closure!
Doxastic openness is the willingness and ability to revise one's beliefs. It is the beginning of genuine humility.
Science education does nothing to decrease belief in the paranormal. We need to teach young people how to think like scientists. Facts can actually backfire. Misinformed people often become more strongly set in their beliefs. Those people have not formed beliefs on the basis of evidence. When people start with their beliefs, any reasoning is useless. It only strengthens their beliefs. So Muslims use dhikr or zikr, which means remembering Allah in one's heart. Thus they repeat "Allah Akbar."
It is not as important to be an atheist as to be a person who values reason and rationality. You realize you don't have all the answers. Religion offers certainty without reason. Learn to be comfortable with uncertainty. There is no evidence for God's existence.
He refers to "parasitic ideologies" that have corrupted liberalism: relativism, subjectivity, tolerance, diversity, multiculturalism, respect for difference, and inclusion. These "invasive values betray classical and social liberalism's history of standing for basic freedoms and fighting all forms of tyranny."
Cultural Relativism: Believing that it's impossible to make reliable judgements of other cultures. I have known so many liberal minded people who refuse to comment on everything from burkhas to female genital mutilation. A criticism of a process, a cultural practice, a religious text, is not the same as a criticism of a person.
Leftists often believe that any ideas have dignity. It is not hate speech to criticize a religion. They accuse people of being part of a -ophobia, such as Islamophobia. Tolerance has "neutered" European democracies in dealing with Islamic radicals. American leftists blamed America for riots in Islamic nations over such things as Koran burnings. There was no excuse for those riots and killings. I am disturbed by those riots not because I don't understand them, but because I DO understand them.
Feminists seem silent about the treatment of women in other cultures.
Criticizing faith can be considered immoral. It is not. Apostasy, leaving a faith, is considered a crime in many nations, often punishable by death. To be silent is ideological blindness and moral cowardice.
Science teachers are criticized for correcting students who make faith-based claims in class tests. Faith is not science. The students should be asked to provide evidence, reasons, and arguments for their conclusions.
The author ends with a list of suggestions for promoting reason over faith:
1. Use the word "faith" only in a religious context. We need to be more careful and more thoughtful when we choose words to express our feelings. We have become too comfortable with this situation, and we need to act.
2. Stigmatize faith-based claims like racist claims. We need to follow the model used in the civil rights movement. Intelligent discussion should be at the adult table, not the children's table where faith should go. Don't be afraid to say that.
3. Parrhesia: Speaking truth in the face of danger. Faith claims go unchallenged. The faithful harbor the mistaken notion that faith makes them a better person. One remedy for this is honesty and bluntness. You will find that people will respect you more, not less, when you confront their faith claims. Sincere, honest people are respected.
4. Stay informed. Many books and online information. Take time to study the other side. But don't buy the books from the other side.
5. Contribute. Overcome your fear and do your part. I spent much of my life teaching philosophy to high school students and they responded.
6. Experiment and publicize. Fight the faith virus.
7. Form academic-community partnerships.
8. Treat faith as a public health crisis.
9. Financially cripple purveyors of faulty epistemologies. Ultimately, the tax exempt status of religious institutions must be removed. Highly unlikely, but still a goal to strive for. Revoke pension law exemptions granted to religious institutions. Support the Freedom From Religion Fund (FFRF).
10. Create skeptical (atheist) children. Raise a child so she doesn't hold preposterous metaphysical beliefs. Raise the child as a critical thinker, a skeptic, a humanist, or a free thinker. Develop an attitudinal disposition to skepticism. Model the behavior. Avoid stridency. Study other religions.
11. Remove religious exemption for delusion from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). It is crucial to remove this. Religious delusions are a form of mental illness.
One final story: The author gave a speech called "Jesus, Muhammad, the Tooth Fairy, and Other Evil Creatures." The organizer said to tone down the title. So he changed it to "Jesus, Mother Teresa, the Tooth Fairy, and Other Evil Creatures." It was accepted without question!
"The idea, therefore, that religious faith is somehow a sacred human convention--distinguished, as it is, both by the extravagance of its claims and by the paucity of its evidence--is really too great a monstrosity to be appreciated in all its glory."--Sam Harris, The End of Faith
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."--The basis of all skepticism. Is there any evidence, either extraordinary or ordinary, to prove anything about eternity or heaven? No. The author has created a group called the "Nones" because they check the box None when asked about religion.
Daniel Dennett coined the word "deepity" for a statement that looks profound but is not. They give examples in the book from the Bible and elsewhere that describe "faith." Faith can actually be defined in two ways: 1. Belief without evidence, and 2. Pretending to know things you don't know. Faith and hope are not synonyms. And hope is not the same as knowing.
"I contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do."--Stephen F. Roberts. An atheist means "There's insufficient evidence to warrant belief in a divine, supernatural creator of the universe. However, if I were shown sufficient evidence to warrant belief in such an entity, then I would believe." An atheist does not refuse to believe if there is solid evidence. The word agnostic is a cop out and should not be used.
"No amount of belief makes something a fact."--James Randi
"All men by nature desire to know."--Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book I
Certainty is the enemy of truth. Examination and reexamination are allies of truth.
Non-religious convert usually because of a personal event like the loss of a loved one. The path from faith to un-faith is much slower. Often by being exposed to small cracks in one's religious faith. Carl Sagan can make more converts because of his manner. I think Bill Nye's debate with Ken "The Scam Man" Ham helped anyone with doubts about their faith because of Nye's mild delivery.
Many people who have recovered from religion have self-reported that they have been reasoned out of their religious beliefs. Here are some former preachers who are now "evangelical atheists": Hector Avalos, Dan Barker, Kenneth W. Daniels, Jerry DeWitt, Joe Holman, John W. Loftus, Teresa MacBain, Nate Phelps, Robert Price, and Sam Singleton. They now help others to escape their religion. The focus needs to be on faith and not religion.
"I believe because it is absurd."--Tertullian (197-220 CE)
Filter Bubbles: Online portals like Google and Facebook deliver customized information based on algorithms that take preexisting data into account, such as previous searches and geographical location. So the information users see is in ideological conformity with their beliefs. So the user is in a type of bubble that filters out ideologically disagreeable information and opinions. This is doxastic entrenchment that lends credence to one's beliefs as confirming "evidence" appears at the top of one's Google search. Combine clustering in like-minded communities with filter bubbles and then add a cognitive architecture that predisposes one to belief and favors confirmation bias and then throw in the fact that critical thinking and reasoning require far more intellectual labor than acceptance of solutions and platitudes and then add in things like just trying to get through the day with work and kids and whatever and the result: Doxastic Closure!
Doxastic openness is the willingness and ability to revise one's beliefs. It is the beginning of genuine humility.
Science education does nothing to decrease belief in the paranormal. We need to teach young people how to think like scientists. Facts can actually backfire. Misinformed people often become more strongly set in their beliefs. Those people have not formed beliefs on the basis of evidence. When people start with their beliefs, any reasoning is useless. It only strengthens their beliefs. So Muslims use dhikr or zikr, which means remembering Allah in one's heart. Thus they repeat "Allah Akbar."
It is not as important to be an atheist as to be a person who values reason and rationality. You realize you don't have all the answers. Religion offers certainty without reason. Learn to be comfortable with uncertainty. There is no evidence for God's existence.
He refers to "parasitic ideologies" that have corrupted liberalism: relativism, subjectivity, tolerance, diversity, multiculturalism, respect for difference, and inclusion. These "invasive values betray classical and social liberalism's history of standing for basic freedoms and fighting all forms of tyranny."
Cultural Relativism: Believing that it's impossible to make reliable judgements of other cultures. I have known so many liberal minded people who refuse to comment on everything from burkhas to female genital mutilation. A criticism of a process, a cultural practice, a religious text, is not the same as a criticism of a person.
Leftists often believe that any ideas have dignity. It is not hate speech to criticize a religion. They accuse people of being part of a -ophobia, such as Islamophobia. Tolerance has "neutered" European democracies in dealing with Islamic radicals. American leftists blamed America for riots in Islamic nations over such things as Koran burnings. There was no excuse for those riots and killings. I am disturbed by those riots not because I don't understand them, but because I DO understand them.
Feminists seem silent about the treatment of women in other cultures.
Criticizing faith can be considered immoral. It is not. Apostasy, leaving a faith, is considered a crime in many nations, often punishable by death. To be silent is ideological blindness and moral cowardice.
Science teachers are criticized for correcting students who make faith-based claims in class tests. Faith is not science. The students should be asked to provide evidence, reasons, and arguments for their conclusions.
The author ends with a list of suggestions for promoting reason over faith:
1. Use the word "faith" only in a religious context. We need to be more careful and more thoughtful when we choose words to express our feelings. We have become too comfortable with this situation, and we need to act.
2. Stigmatize faith-based claims like racist claims. We need to follow the model used in the civil rights movement. Intelligent discussion should be at the adult table, not the children's table where faith should go. Don't be afraid to say that.
3. Parrhesia: Speaking truth in the face of danger. Faith claims go unchallenged. The faithful harbor the mistaken notion that faith makes them a better person. One remedy for this is honesty and bluntness. You will find that people will respect you more, not less, when you confront their faith claims. Sincere, honest people are respected.
4. Stay informed. Many books and online information. Take time to study the other side. But don't buy the books from the other side.
5. Contribute. Overcome your fear and do your part. I spent much of my life teaching philosophy to high school students and they responded.
6. Experiment and publicize. Fight the faith virus.
7. Form academic-community partnerships.
8. Treat faith as a public health crisis.
9. Financially cripple purveyors of faulty epistemologies. Ultimately, the tax exempt status of religious institutions must be removed. Highly unlikely, but still a goal to strive for. Revoke pension law exemptions granted to religious institutions. Support the Freedom From Religion Fund (FFRF).
10. Create skeptical (atheist) children. Raise a child so she doesn't hold preposterous metaphysical beliefs. Raise the child as a critical thinker, a skeptic, a humanist, or a free thinker. Develop an attitudinal disposition to skepticism. Model the behavior. Avoid stridency. Study other religions.
11. Remove religious exemption for delusion from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). It is crucial to remove this. Religious delusions are a form of mental illness.
One final story: The author gave a speech called "Jesus, Muhammad, the Tooth Fairy, and Other Evil Creatures." The organizer said to tone down the title. So he changed it to "Jesus, Mother Teresa, the Tooth Fairy, and Other Evil Creatures." It was accepted without question!
December 30, 2013
The best book on teaching critical thinking I have read. Includes "intervention dialogues" transcripts, plenty of research, genuine compassion and empathy for believers, plus a wealth of experience in the author (who has been teaching philosophy and talking about faith for decades).
Boghossian relentlessly focuses on attacking faith as a means of attaining truth, not attacking relgion:
"Reasoning away faith means helping people to abandon a faulty epistemology, but reasoning away religion means that people abandon their social support network."
"Bringing facts into the discussion is the wrong way to conceptualize the problem: the problem is with epistemologies people use, not with conclusions people hold."
And this rather lengthly paragraph:
"Religion is a social experience (Höfele & Laqué, 2011, p. 75; Moberg, 1962). Religious structures (churches, mosques, synagogues, temples) are places where people come together in friendship, love, trust, and community to do things that are fun, meaningful, and satisfying, that are perceived to be productive, or that grant solace. Communal celebrations of life milestones—birth, adulthood, marriage, death—are also significant social experiences. In church, for example, many people make new friends, play bingo in community halls, engage in casual sports with a team, sing songs with their friends and with strangers, date, etc. This is how the vast majority of believers experience their religious life—as a communal and social event that adds meaning, purpose, and joy to their lives (Argyle, 2000, p. 111). Attacks on religion are often perceived as attacks on friends, families, communities, and relationships. As such, attacking religion may alienate people, making it even more difficult to separate them from their faith. One of my students asked me if a person could be rational and go to church. I responded, “Can one be rational and sing songs? And read poetry? And play games? And read ancient texts? Of course. One can do all of these things and be rational.” Religion is not necessarily an insurmountable barrier to reason and rationality. The problem is not that people are reading ancient texts. I read Shakespeare with my son. I don’t, however, think that Iago, Hamlet, and Lear were historical figures. I also don’t derive my ultimate moral authority from Shakespeare’s works. I don’t want to kill people who have rival interpretations of Shakespeare’s plays. Nor do I attempt to bring Othello into decisions at the ballot box."
Boghossian relentlessly focuses on attacking faith as a means of attaining truth, not attacking relgion:
"Reasoning away faith means helping people to abandon a faulty epistemology, but reasoning away religion means that people abandon their social support network."
"Bringing facts into the discussion is the wrong way to conceptualize the problem: the problem is with epistemologies people use, not with conclusions people hold."
And this rather lengthly paragraph:
"Religion is a social experience (Höfele & Laqué, 2011, p. 75; Moberg, 1962). Religious structures (churches, mosques, synagogues, temples) are places where people come together in friendship, love, trust, and community to do things that are fun, meaningful, and satisfying, that are perceived to be productive, or that grant solace. Communal celebrations of life milestones—birth, adulthood, marriage, death—are also significant social experiences. In church, for example, many people make new friends, play bingo in community halls, engage in casual sports with a team, sing songs with their friends and with strangers, date, etc. This is how the vast majority of believers experience their religious life—as a communal and social event that adds meaning, purpose, and joy to their lives (Argyle, 2000, p. 111). Attacks on religion are often perceived as attacks on friends, families, communities, and relationships. As such, attacking religion may alienate people, making it even more difficult to separate them from their faith. One of my students asked me if a person could be rational and go to church. I responded, “Can one be rational and sing songs? And read poetry? And play games? And read ancient texts? Of course. One can do all of these things and be rational.” Religion is not necessarily an insurmountable barrier to reason and rationality. The problem is not that people are reading ancient texts. I read Shakespeare with my son. I don’t, however, think that Iago, Hamlet, and Lear were historical figures. I also don’t derive my ultimate moral authority from Shakespeare’s works. I don’t want to kill people who have rival interpretations of Shakespeare’s plays. Nor do I attempt to bring Othello into decisions at the ballot box."
November 20, 2013
I read a prerelease copy of this book and loved it. This is not a book to just read, but to study as well. Dr. Boghossian has written a very understandable approach to working with those who are infected with religious ideas. While logic is not always the answer, he helps show how simple questions can lead the way to deeper thought and understanding of the religious. His key notion that "faith is not a reliable way of knowing" is easy to understand yet profound. It is something the "faithful" have not questioned or understood in most cases. Read this book along with my book, The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture which Dr. Boghossian references. The two books will give you a complete picture of the psychology and the philosophy of conversion and deconversion.
July 2, 2016
This Doctor Should Follow His Own Prescription
I was assured this book would provide insight about why people believe what they do, and what it takes to change their minds. It delivered on this promise to some extent, but the author fails to follow his own good suggestions. Hence the title on the clumsy 1960’s style cover, and the unnecessarily polarizing writing inside.
The book is specifically intended to teach people how to talk others out of their faith. He defines “faith” in two ways: “Belief without evidence,” and his favorite, “Pretending to know things you don’t know.” As he says, “the word Faith is a slippery pig,” and his definitions are a bit slippery as well. Believers believe they have evidence, and the word “pretending” suggests deliberate fraud, which is definitely not the case for the truly faithful. Perhaps a negative definition is best – an unreliable method to gain knowledge.
Beyond asking, “what is faith?” we should ask, “who are the faithful?” Faith-based thinking is not confined to religion, it is found in every secular ideology. So why does he only challenge the religious variety?
As he quotes with approval, “Before one can deconstruct a tradition, one must really understand that tradition.” But he is really proposing to bypass the time and effort required for this detailed understanding. Instead, he suggests focusing on the underlying Epistemology - how we come to knowledge, what knowledge is, and what processes of knowing the world are reliable. The aim is not to directly change beliefs, but instead to lead people to a better way to form their beliefs. We are supposed to become “Street Epistemologists,” to apply our understanding of how beliefs are formed to challenge faith-based thinking, using clear, ordinary language.
He offers a lot of good advice on how to handle a conversation about the sensitive issue of a person’s faith. Try to be objective, avoid judgment, and never show anger or frustration. Better still, he advises that one should target faith itself, rather than a person’s religion. Remember that religion provides people with their identity and community, which are not easily given up. He also says “belief in God is not the problem. Belief without evidence is the problem.” He even adds, “Keep in mind the possibility that the faithful know something you don’t, that they may have a reliable method of reasoning you have overlooked, that they can help you to think more clearly.” Hardest of all, “model the behaviors you want others to emulate, such as being trustful of reason and willing to reconsider a belief.”
Somehow the “angry atheists” who will be attracted to this book are supposed to model the detached, objective behavior of a calm rational person. Maybe they can pray to Jesus for the strength to achieve this, or Buddha can help with the necessary detachment.
But seriously, this is great advice. Then why does the author not model this behavior in his book? Let me suggest how that would look. First, the title should be “A Manual for Promoting Reason.” Instead of disparaging others for their faith, admit that most of us (especially avowed atheists) have a faith problem that we need to work on. Focus less on a particular variant of faith (formal religion) and more on defending reason against all faith-based ideologies.
He calls challenging faith-based thinking an “intervention”. Apparently the author engages in several such interventions a day, telling us, “I view nearly every interaction as an intervention.” He admits to one exception, “I was unable to engage my mother about her faith in the last days of her life.” Never let it be said that he lacks perspective.
Fortunately, in chapter eight he finally performs an intervention on a problem closer to home. Now, listen up, atheists, read this chapter, then read it again. If you don’t get it, you are just as much an irrational faith-based believer as the people you are trying to convert.
The problem is “contemporary academic leftism”. Traditional liberalism was about limited government, rule of law, and various freedoms. Liberalism has now been corrupted by what he calls the “parasitic ideologies” of relativism, subjectivity and uncritical tolerance, which betray defending basic freedoms and opposing tyranny.
Cultural relativism is based on the observation that it can be difficult to judge another culture based on another culture’s viewpoint. This practical issue has been transformed into a moral value. Instead of saying that we cannot judge cultural practices, it demands that we should not judge them. This then gets extended into epistemic relativism, the idea that we have no right to judge other systems of understanding the world. Finally we get to subjectivity, the infantile notion that instead of a single objective reality, whatever you want to believe is true for you.
He attacks the notion that ideas have dignity. While of course it is unacceptable to criticize people for being what they are, it is legitimate to challenge their belief systems. But now questioning bad ideas in other cultures has become equivalent to racism.
He then objects to the medicalization of people who violate political correctness. For example, a critic of Islamic beliefs and practices is labeled an “Islamophobe.” The implicit message is that rational analysis and criticism are indicative of a medical disorder. Labeling someone who criticizes ideas as driven by some pathological condition is a complete betrayal of the core idea of classical liberalism.
That is a very good point. So why does he view every conversation as an “intervention” or a “treatment” with “subjects, as they are referred to in a clinical context” who have been “infected with the faith virus”. This medicalization of the problem leads to the obsession with eradicating one particular “virus”, ignoring other variants that are often worse. Physician, first heal thyself (and thy fellow atheists).
There are a lot of valuable ideas about challenging uncritical faith in this book. I intend to use some of them, but this Street Epistemologist will intervene with anyone who lets faith get in the way of reason. Starting with the author of this book.
I was assured this book would provide insight about why people believe what they do, and what it takes to change their minds. It delivered on this promise to some extent, but the author fails to follow his own good suggestions. Hence the title on the clumsy 1960’s style cover, and the unnecessarily polarizing writing inside.
The book is specifically intended to teach people how to talk others out of their faith. He defines “faith” in two ways: “Belief without evidence,” and his favorite, “Pretending to know things you don’t know.” As he says, “the word Faith is a slippery pig,” and his definitions are a bit slippery as well. Believers believe they have evidence, and the word “pretending” suggests deliberate fraud, which is definitely not the case for the truly faithful. Perhaps a negative definition is best – an unreliable method to gain knowledge.
Beyond asking, “what is faith?” we should ask, “who are the faithful?” Faith-based thinking is not confined to religion, it is found in every secular ideology. So why does he only challenge the religious variety?
As he quotes with approval, “Before one can deconstruct a tradition, one must really understand that tradition.” But he is really proposing to bypass the time and effort required for this detailed understanding. Instead, he suggests focusing on the underlying Epistemology - how we come to knowledge, what knowledge is, and what processes of knowing the world are reliable. The aim is not to directly change beliefs, but instead to lead people to a better way to form their beliefs. We are supposed to become “Street Epistemologists,” to apply our understanding of how beliefs are formed to challenge faith-based thinking, using clear, ordinary language.
He offers a lot of good advice on how to handle a conversation about the sensitive issue of a person’s faith. Try to be objective, avoid judgment, and never show anger or frustration. Better still, he advises that one should target faith itself, rather than a person’s religion. Remember that religion provides people with their identity and community, which are not easily given up. He also says “belief in God is not the problem. Belief without evidence is the problem.” He even adds, “Keep in mind the possibility that the faithful know something you don’t, that they may have a reliable method of reasoning you have overlooked, that they can help you to think more clearly.” Hardest of all, “model the behaviors you want others to emulate, such as being trustful of reason and willing to reconsider a belief.”
Somehow the “angry atheists” who will be attracted to this book are supposed to model the detached, objective behavior of a calm rational person. Maybe they can pray to Jesus for the strength to achieve this, or Buddha can help with the necessary detachment.
But seriously, this is great advice. Then why does the author not model this behavior in his book? Let me suggest how that would look. First, the title should be “A Manual for Promoting Reason.” Instead of disparaging others for their faith, admit that most of us (especially avowed atheists) have a faith problem that we need to work on. Focus less on a particular variant of faith (formal religion) and more on defending reason against all faith-based ideologies.
He calls challenging faith-based thinking an “intervention”. Apparently the author engages in several such interventions a day, telling us, “I view nearly every interaction as an intervention.” He admits to one exception, “I was unable to engage my mother about her faith in the last days of her life.” Never let it be said that he lacks perspective.
Fortunately, in chapter eight he finally performs an intervention on a problem closer to home. Now, listen up, atheists, read this chapter, then read it again. If you don’t get it, you are just as much an irrational faith-based believer as the people you are trying to convert.
The problem is “contemporary academic leftism”. Traditional liberalism was about limited government, rule of law, and various freedoms. Liberalism has now been corrupted by what he calls the “parasitic ideologies” of relativism, subjectivity and uncritical tolerance, which betray defending basic freedoms and opposing tyranny.
Cultural relativism is based on the observation that it can be difficult to judge another culture based on another culture’s viewpoint. This practical issue has been transformed into a moral value. Instead of saying that we cannot judge cultural practices, it demands that we should not judge them. This then gets extended into epistemic relativism, the idea that we have no right to judge other systems of understanding the world. Finally we get to subjectivity, the infantile notion that instead of a single objective reality, whatever you want to believe is true for you.
He attacks the notion that ideas have dignity. While of course it is unacceptable to criticize people for being what they are, it is legitimate to challenge their belief systems. But now questioning bad ideas in other cultures has become equivalent to racism.
He then objects to the medicalization of people who violate political correctness. For example, a critic of Islamic beliefs and practices is labeled an “Islamophobe.” The implicit message is that rational analysis and criticism are indicative of a medical disorder. Labeling someone who criticizes ideas as driven by some pathological condition is a complete betrayal of the core idea of classical liberalism.
That is a very good point. So why does he view every conversation as an “intervention” or a “treatment” with “subjects, as they are referred to in a clinical context” who have been “infected with the faith virus”. This medicalization of the problem leads to the obsession with eradicating one particular “virus”, ignoring other variants that are often worse. Physician, first heal thyself (and thy fellow atheists).
There are a lot of valuable ideas about challenging uncritical faith in this book. I intend to use some of them, but this Street Epistemologist will intervene with anyone who lets faith get in the way of reason. Starting with the author of this book.
June 2, 2016
If you want to turn the nominally religious (those who don’t really know what they believe or why they believe it) into atheists, the methods in this book will probably work. However, if you encounter people who know what they believe and know why they believe it, following Boghossian’s methods will fail miserably.
The foundational problem with this book is Boghossian’s definition of “faith.” In chapter two, the author gives us his two definitions for faith:
1. Belief without evidence.
2. Pretending to know things you don’t know.
The problem is that these are his definitions and not definitions found in most (if any) dictionaries. It’s not until chapter nine that he tries to justify these definitions by asserting that this is how the faithful use the word “faith” in religious contexts. That’s a might broad statement. No doubt, there are some who use the word “faith” in this way, but Boghossian gives no evidence that this is universal (ironic, as he says that belief without evidence is faith).
What does Boghossian consider to be insufficient evidence to make a belief “faith?” He never says. At one point he writes, “many apologists (especially American theologian William Lane Craig) have had considerable success reasoning people into holding unreasonable beliefs,” but never gives a standard for what is an unreasonable belief. If the evidence is insufficient for belief, what qualifies as sufficient evidence? Apparently, Boghossian doesn’t find the evidence sufficient, but he never says why. I was left with the feeling that he finds any evidence for faith insufficient simply because, in his mind, there can not be any sufficient evidence for faith.
Boghossian claims in chapter three, that if street epistemology (his term for creating atheists) doesn’t work on someone it’s because they either have brain damage, or that it just appears to not be to be working—they just seem to be holding onto their faith, but they’re on the way to recovery. So, don’t worry, even if there is no evidence that street epistemology is working, just believe that it is! Now who’s pretending to know things they don’t know?
Then in chapter five, Boghossian contradicts what he says in chapter three. With regards to a friend of his family he writes, “I’ve been engaging her on the topic of faith for more than five years, but to no avail.” He gives no indication that she has brain damage, so why hasn’t it worked? According to what he said in chapter three, she should be getting better, but he writes that it has been “to no avail.” Maybe his problem is having “faith” in his street epistemology.
To demonstrate how someone is closed minded about their beliefs, Boghossian relates an interaction he had with a professor of an evangelical university. At one point, the author asks, “What evidence would you need to make you change your mind?” The professor answers with, “the bones of Christ.” The author goes on to say that the professor has created impossible conditions and that this demonstrates the professor is closed to evidence. Perhaps realizing that this may be turned on him, later Boghossian says that if he’s asked what it would take to believe, he says something like, “if I walked outside at night and all of the stars were organized to read, ‘I am God communicating with you, believe in Me!’ and every human being worldwide witnessed this in their native language, this would be suggestive (but far from conclusive as it’s a perception and could be a delusion).” Note that his parenthetical comment allows him an escape if this highly unlikely event were to take place. However, Boghossian really doesn’t mean any of this. Three chapters later, he rejects the “God of the gaps” argument, which is precisely what his requirement to believe is. He proves that he’s as closed minded as any person of faith.
What Boghossian doesn’t seem to understand (or is unwilling to acknowledge) is that his unbelief is not because of the lack of evidence. It is because he starts with a presupposition of naturalism and interprets evidence from this lens. How can evidence lead you to belief in something supernatural when you can only interpret evidence with naturalistic explanations?
The foundational problem with this book is Boghossian’s definition of “faith.” In chapter two, the author gives us his two definitions for faith:
1. Belief without evidence.
2. Pretending to know things you don’t know.
The problem is that these are his definitions and not definitions found in most (if any) dictionaries. It’s not until chapter nine that he tries to justify these definitions by asserting that this is how the faithful use the word “faith” in religious contexts. That’s a might broad statement. No doubt, there are some who use the word “faith” in this way, but Boghossian gives no evidence that this is universal (ironic, as he says that belief without evidence is faith).
What does Boghossian consider to be insufficient evidence to make a belief “faith?” He never says. At one point he writes, “many apologists (especially American theologian William Lane Craig) have had considerable success reasoning people into holding unreasonable beliefs,” but never gives a standard for what is an unreasonable belief. If the evidence is insufficient for belief, what qualifies as sufficient evidence? Apparently, Boghossian doesn’t find the evidence sufficient, but he never says why. I was left with the feeling that he finds any evidence for faith insufficient simply because, in his mind, there can not be any sufficient evidence for faith.
Boghossian claims in chapter three, that if street epistemology (his term for creating atheists) doesn’t work on someone it’s because they either have brain damage, or that it just appears to not be to be working—they just seem to be holding onto their faith, but they’re on the way to recovery. So, don’t worry, even if there is no evidence that street epistemology is working, just believe that it is! Now who’s pretending to know things they don’t know?
Then in chapter five, Boghossian contradicts what he says in chapter three. With regards to a friend of his family he writes, “I’ve been engaging her on the topic of faith for more than five years, but to no avail.” He gives no indication that she has brain damage, so why hasn’t it worked? According to what he said in chapter three, she should be getting better, but he writes that it has been “to no avail.” Maybe his problem is having “faith” in his street epistemology.
To demonstrate how someone is closed minded about their beliefs, Boghossian relates an interaction he had with a professor of an evangelical university. At one point, the author asks, “What evidence would you need to make you change your mind?” The professor answers with, “the bones of Christ.” The author goes on to say that the professor has created impossible conditions and that this demonstrates the professor is closed to evidence. Perhaps realizing that this may be turned on him, later Boghossian says that if he’s asked what it would take to believe, he says something like, “if I walked outside at night and all of the stars were organized to read, ‘I am God communicating with you, believe in Me!’ and every human being worldwide witnessed this in their native language, this would be suggestive (but far from conclusive as it’s a perception and could be a delusion).” Note that his parenthetical comment allows him an escape if this highly unlikely event were to take place. However, Boghossian really doesn’t mean any of this. Three chapters later, he rejects the “God of the gaps” argument, which is precisely what his requirement to believe is. He proves that he’s as closed minded as any person of faith.
What Boghossian doesn’t seem to understand (or is unwilling to acknowledge) is that his unbelief is not because of the lack of evidence. It is because he starts with a presupposition of naturalism and interprets evidence from this lens. How can evidence lead you to belief in something supernatural when you can only interpret evidence with naturalistic explanations?
July 28, 2016
Peter Boghossian is a combative man. In "A Manual for Creating Atheists" he writes as if his fellow nonbelievers are entering a boxing match: spelling out, in blunt, uncompromising language, the tough rhetorical means by which they must convert the religious. His ideal "Street Epistemologist" is a "fighter...from the school of hard knocks" who represents "a humanism that's taken some hits and gained from experience". On the next page, now his readers are lacing up their gloves and fiddling with their shorts, he tells them that debates with the religious are "clinical interventions". Is a Street Epistemologist a boxer, a surgeon or both? Enough fun. Into the fray.
Boghossian's tough talk continues. Repurposing words of his friend, the philosopher Steven Brutus, he writes that a "Street Epistemologist" is "going to go to some tough places", with "bad guys", so "they had better learn how to handle [themselves]". No problem, because the Street Epistemologist is also "a tough son of a bitch" and "not much shocks them". But they are also "principled people" - "independent, strong, brave, self-reliant" - with "a stance, a code, a worldview". By God, they "stand for something"! Have you ever heard a religious person be so self-aggrandising? It is quite laughable.
The sad truth is that for all of Mr Boghossian's trash talking, his performance in the ring of epistemological inquiry is weak. He goes down in the first round with embarrassingly incompetent definitions of "faith": the great foe of his book that he somehow fails to identify. "Faith", for Boghossian, "belief without evidence" or "pretending to know things you don't know". It is telling that he does not base this on what religious thinkers and writers have said, for how would it describe, for example, C.S. Lewis, who wrote that faith "is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods"? How would it describe the faith of as authoritative a body as the Vatican Council, which maintains that "it has pleased God to give us certain external proofs of His revelation"? Mr Boghossian's maligning of his opponent is an effective strategy in the pro wrestling-style arena of rhetoric but in the "real" arguments of epistemology underestimating your opponent is a foolish and rather pathetic thing to do.
Boghossian might protest that the average believer is more crude in their approach to faith. They have done little reasoning, and do not understand the "proofs" on which their creeds were based. But does the average believer in Darwinian evolution understand the proofs by which that great tradition was promoted? All of us put our faith in different authorities and what matters is the extent to which they deserve it. If he wanted to pick on the small fry, Mr Boghossian should have dealt with on the big fish.
It is of course true that we have problems with unmerited belief, in religious and secular forms. Mr Boghossian is remarkably crass in his assessment of irrational ideas, however, drawing few distinctions between the friendly old Jehovah's Witness in the street and the wild-eyed Salafi fanatic at the madrassah. This is especially problematic because of how hostile to faith and how that hostility creeps into his writings on the faithful. There is the idea that faith means "pretending to know things you don't know", with its apparent implication of bad faith, and more alarming is the idea that faith is "a virus", and virus so virulent that it could be classified as a mental illness. Mr Boghossian's tough talk for his "Street Epistemologists" is mostly bluff, but his aggressive, condescending style is lamentable if it inspires legions of incuriously atheistic bores.
Boghossian's tough talk continues. Repurposing words of his friend, the philosopher Steven Brutus, he writes that a "Street Epistemologist" is "going to go to some tough places", with "bad guys", so "they had better learn how to handle [themselves]". No problem, because the Street Epistemologist is also "a tough son of a bitch" and "not much shocks them". But they are also "principled people" - "independent, strong, brave, self-reliant" - with "a stance, a code, a worldview". By God, they "stand for something"! Have you ever heard a religious person be so self-aggrandising? It is quite laughable.
The sad truth is that for all of Mr Boghossian's trash talking, his performance in the ring of epistemological inquiry is weak. He goes down in the first round with embarrassingly incompetent definitions of "faith": the great foe of his book that he somehow fails to identify. "Faith", for Boghossian, "belief without evidence" or "pretending to know things you don't know". It is telling that he does not base this on what religious thinkers and writers have said, for how would it describe, for example, C.S. Lewis, who wrote that faith "is the art of holding on to things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods"? How would it describe the faith of as authoritative a body as the Vatican Council, which maintains that "it has pleased God to give us certain external proofs of His revelation"? Mr Boghossian's maligning of his opponent is an effective strategy in the pro wrestling-style arena of rhetoric but in the "real" arguments of epistemology underestimating your opponent is a foolish and rather pathetic thing to do.
Boghossian might protest that the average believer is more crude in their approach to faith. They have done little reasoning, and do not understand the "proofs" on which their creeds were based. But does the average believer in Darwinian evolution understand the proofs by which that great tradition was promoted? All of us put our faith in different authorities and what matters is the extent to which they deserve it. If he wanted to pick on the small fry, Mr Boghossian should have dealt with on the big fish.
It is of course true that we have problems with unmerited belief, in religious and secular forms. Mr Boghossian is remarkably crass in his assessment of irrational ideas, however, drawing few distinctions between the friendly old Jehovah's Witness in the street and the wild-eyed Salafi fanatic at the madrassah. This is especially problematic because of how hostile to faith and how that hostility creeps into his writings on the faithful. There is the idea that faith means "pretending to know things you don't know", with its apparent implication of bad faith, and more alarming is the idea that faith is "a virus", and virus so virulent that it could be classified as a mental illness. Mr Boghossian's tough talk for his "Street Epistemologists" is mostly bluff, but his aggressive, condescending style is lamentable if it inspires legions of incuriously atheistic bores.
October 27, 2013
Here is the review I posted on my blog:
Peter Boghossian’s A Manual for Creating Atheists, is a timely and cogent new book that provides practical tools for talking people out of faith. In spite of its title, the book is not nearly as aggressive as one might suppose. What sets it apart from the pile of atheism books that have been written in the past decade is that Boghossian, a philosophy professor, goes after the certainty and knowledge claims of faith-based beliefs from a position of logic and reason. Those looking for scientific refutation of religion need look elsewhere. Likewise, those already versed in those arguments will find this book a refreshing change of direction in the ongoing cultural battle for reason.
Make no mistake, A Manual for Creating Atheists is not intended for current believers or those in the process of outgrowing faith-based belief. Instead, its target audience is people who have already embraced a life based on reason and rationality with the intent of providing tools to talk others out of faith at any given opportunity. Boghossian calls this approach “Street Epistemology.” (Epistemology is defined as “the study of knowledge.”)
The unique aspect of Street Epistemology that really resonated with me was that it targets faith over everything else. Boghossian provides two definitions of faith that are difficult to argue with: (1) Belief without evidence, and (2) Pretending to know things you don’t know. Based on these definitions (that Boghossian expounds upon in detail), it is obvious that faith is an unreliable way to approach truth. And since faith is, after all, the foundation of all religious belief, if it crumbles religion will topple down with it.
The tricky part of this approach is that one cannot depend on facts to dissuade someone out of faith. This is because people do not depend on evidence or reason to embrace faith. Therefore, one cannot expect to reason somebody out of something they didn’t reason themselves into to begin with. Based on this premise, Boghossian explains that “the core of [faith] intervention is not to change beliefs, but change the way people form beliefs.”
This is where A Manual for Creating Atheists really distinguishes itself. Boghossian plainly states that interactions should be viewed as interventions, not debates. The objective is not to “win,” rather it is to help people “see through a delusion and reclaim a sense of wonder.” He makes it clear that instantaneous deconversion is not the goal, nor is it to be expected. The point of Street Epistemology is simply to seek out what Boghossian terms “doxastic openness,” which simply means that a belief is now subject to change. But in order to accomplish this, believers need to come to the conclusion that they don’t know what they thought they knew, themselves. To assist Street Epistemologists in facilitating this revelation, Boghossian provides a crash course in the Socratic method.
For those unfamiliar with the Socratic method (as was I), Boghossian breaks it down into five stages: (1) wonder; (2) hypothesis; (3) elenchus (i.e. Q&A); (4) accepting or revising the hypothesis; (5) acting accordingly. Essentially the process begins with wondering about an issue. Then a hypothesis is proposed to explain the issue at hand. Once a hypothesis is identified, the elenchus begins. The elenchus is merely a pointed series of questions and answers with the intent to provide counterexamples to disprove the hypothesis. From there the hypothesis is either accepted, refuted, or revised until (ideally) one acts upon the results of the inquiry. If this seems too brief, don’t worry, there is an entire chapter devoted to the Socratic method that really serves as the heart of the book, as far as practical application is concerned.
Boghossian provides numerous conversations he has had in order to show when this approach works and also a few occasions when it didn’t. But even with varying degrees of success the core objective of Street Epistemology remains the same: to ask honest, sincere, and pointed questions that force a person to examine their belief to the point that they realize they’re not as certain as they thought. It is not about judging, berating, or debating. It is about meeting people at their current stage of belief and challenging them to question it until they, at the very least, reach a point of “doxastic openness” where they can admit: “I don’t know.” It really is that simple. Because once someone admits they don’t know something, they begin to ask their own questions.
Street Epistemology isn’t about being right or wrong. It is about being honest about what one knows and doesn’t know and challenging others to do the same. Boghossian implores the reader to “enter into discussions with an open and genuine attitude from the start.” And “if someone knows something you don’t know, acknowledge that you don’t know.” But most importantly, never pretend to know something you don’t know. Because after all, that’s what faith is!
Peter Boghossian’s A Manual for Creating Atheists, is a timely and cogent new book that provides practical tools for talking people out of faith. In spite of its title, the book is not nearly as aggressive as one might suppose. What sets it apart from the pile of atheism books that have been written in the past decade is that Boghossian, a philosophy professor, goes after the certainty and knowledge claims of faith-based beliefs from a position of logic and reason. Those looking for scientific refutation of religion need look elsewhere. Likewise, those already versed in those arguments will find this book a refreshing change of direction in the ongoing cultural battle for reason.
Make no mistake, A Manual for Creating Atheists is not intended for current believers or those in the process of outgrowing faith-based belief. Instead, its target audience is people who have already embraced a life based on reason and rationality with the intent of providing tools to talk others out of faith at any given opportunity. Boghossian calls this approach “Street Epistemology.” (Epistemology is defined as “the study of knowledge.”)
The unique aspect of Street Epistemology that really resonated with me was that it targets faith over everything else. Boghossian provides two definitions of faith that are difficult to argue with: (1) Belief without evidence, and (2) Pretending to know things you don’t know. Based on these definitions (that Boghossian expounds upon in detail), it is obvious that faith is an unreliable way to approach truth. And since faith is, after all, the foundation of all religious belief, if it crumbles religion will topple down with it.
The tricky part of this approach is that one cannot depend on facts to dissuade someone out of faith. This is because people do not depend on evidence or reason to embrace faith. Therefore, one cannot expect to reason somebody out of something they didn’t reason themselves into to begin with. Based on this premise, Boghossian explains that “the core of [faith] intervention is not to change beliefs, but change the way people form beliefs.”
This is where A Manual for Creating Atheists really distinguishes itself. Boghossian plainly states that interactions should be viewed as interventions, not debates. The objective is not to “win,” rather it is to help people “see through a delusion and reclaim a sense of wonder.” He makes it clear that instantaneous deconversion is not the goal, nor is it to be expected. The point of Street Epistemology is simply to seek out what Boghossian terms “doxastic openness,” which simply means that a belief is now subject to change. But in order to accomplish this, believers need to come to the conclusion that they don’t know what they thought they knew, themselves. To assist Street Epistemologists in facilitating this revelation, Boghossian provides a crash course in the Socratic method.
For those unfamiliar with the Socratic method (as was I), Boghossian breaks it down into five stages: (1) wonder; (2) hypothesis; (3) elenchus (i.e. Q&A); (4) accepting or revising the hypothesis; (5) acting accordingly. Essentially the process begins with wondering about an issue. Then a hypothesis is proposed to explain the issue at hand. Once a hypothesis is identified, the elenchus begins. The elenchus is merely a pointed series of questions and answers with the intent to provide counterexamples to disprove the hypothesis. From there the hypothesis is either accepted, refuted, or revised until (ideally) one acts upon the results of the inquiry. If this seems too brief, don’t worry, there is an entire chapter devoted to the Socratic method that really serves as the heart of the book, as far as practical application is concerned.
Boghossian provides numerous conversations he has had in order to show when this approach works and also a few occasions when it didn’t. But even with varying degrees of success the core objective of Street Epistemology remains the same: to ask honest, sincere, and pointed questions that force a person to examine their belief to the point that they realize they’re not as certain as they thought. It is not about judging, berating, or debating. It is about meeting people at their current stage of belief and challenging them to question it until they, at the very least, reach a point of “doxastic openness” where they can admit: “I don’t know.” It really is that simple. Because once someone admits they don’t know something, they begin to ask their own questions.
Street Epistemology isn’t about being right or wrong. It is about being honest about what one knows and doesn’t know and challenging others to do the same. Boghossian implores the reader to “enter into discussions with an open and genuine attitude from the start.” And “if someone knows something you don’t know, acknowledge that you don’t know.” But most importantly, never pretend to know something you don’t know. Because after all, that’s what faith is!
September 23, 2021
PB: "In your sons critical thinking class...I ask students to question everything. Everything...I NEVER tell you what to think. I ask you questions."
And so I questioned every bit of ATHEISM in this insanely militant hateful SMUG/ARROGANT biased short-sighted propaganda brochure. It was tons of fun. And YES! My Christianity is well intact and stronger than ever. I did notice that the author failed to question any of HIS BELIEFS and CONCLUSIONS. Hmmmm? He simply assumed a default position that suited his desires. I did enjoy him questioning Liberalism (pg. 178) Contemporary Academic Leftism. That was amusing. What is remaining of his audience exactly?
This book continually uses the lazy fringes of select belief groups to support his Core Straw man assertion. Typical: Dawkins and Harris are known for this as well. Simply lazy and cowardly militant atheism. I've met more impressive atheists. This is beginner stuff folks. If you want to take on a World Religion - you've got to go deep. Fluff only works on the fluffy.
Basically this Lesser Professor thinks he has all religions shutdown by his insistence, and poor understanding, of FAITH - as HE labels it. And that is the problem: He confuses Biblical faith with that of other beliefs, as well as Atheistic faith - like those that worship at the foot of scientism and evolutionary peer review (especially since so few of those are ACTUALLY scientists and peer reviewers.) Hmmmm, blind faith indeed.
The author is determined that His way of thinking will move the world towards a NEW enlightenment and way of reason. And yet: nowhere in the book does he define GOOD or BAD. What is at the end of his reason? He doesn't tell us. He just assumes...something to his liking. I say "Question that". Because He sure didn't.
Like I told an atheist earlier today: Guns don't kill (abort) babies by the millions - Science and educated people DO! Then Governments and politicians make logical laws supporting this ATHEISTIC GOODNESS. Atheism allows us as humans to reduce a child in the womb to mere biological Soulless dependents and inconvenient matter that is easily removed - like a weed. So be it! But when does this sort of thinking get around to any objective Good? That is my problem with the whole book: you remove religion and end up with??? What? The author doesn't tell us. Maybe it's a pub filled with atheists fighting over sex, money, greed, misunderstandings, biases, pride, desire, control, or worse: sports... Who gets to be in charge? Atheism doesn't say. Science doesn't equal goodness. Science builds nuclear devices and places them in human's hands. Science can play with viruses AND population control. Like Atheism: Science doesn't care. It really values nothing specifically. But we all know what Atheism hates. That's a given.
___________________
Okay, lets deal with this FAITH word that Petey chips away at endlessly.
I agree that most people religiously abuse the word FAITH. Often faith IS hope, trust and confidence - that could generically make any mystical fruity belief valid. But the Bible says more than that. This manual insists it's an abandoning of knowledge and certainty. Bible says:
Hebrews 11:1 (KJV)
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
I like this explanation. It has two words in it that will drive the author insane: "Substance" and "Evidence". Fun eh? He was determined to keep faith as a fluid illogical magic outside of His rational thinking.
Faith is substance, it is a gift from God. The author assumes POORLY that it is something we whip up ourselves and throw about poetically. But: Ephesians 2:8
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
I know this is useless data to atheists. But properly understanding Biblical faith makes you embarrass yourselves a tad less. Author assumes faith is our OWN doing - but it is not. Jesus even strangely said: Matthew 17:20
"You don't have enough faith," Jesus told them. "I tell you the truth, if you had faith even as small as a mustard seed, you could say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it would move. Nothing would be impossible."
Faith comes from hearing the Word of God. This is not as simple as it sounds. Hebrews 11:7
By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
Did Noah's faith come from nothing? No, He actually heard God. The Holy Spirit produces FAITH in him. Sorry atheists, because of spiritual blindness - you ain't about to comprehend the importance of this. We'll just move on.
____________________
It is fun when atheists declare that I have Blind Belief in Christianity. I often ask, "why then am I NOT a Baptist, or Anglican, or Catholic, or Lutheran, or 7th Day Adventist etc.?"
And then I give numerous scholastic reasons for being a specific Bible based Jesus follower. Pretty sure that removes the BLIND part. There was a lot of doctrine/theology and history to sort through to come to that conclusion. I wish atheists sorted through their rubble with as much... effort?
Let's get this bit of atheistic babble out of the way:
(pg. 212) "People who harbor strong convictions without evidence belong at the margins of our societies, not in our halls of powers." Sam Harris.
This book continually harps that Christians have no evidence. What a strange assumption. Why do certain atheists always have something very specific in mind when they demand evidence? Whenever I ask atheists what kind of evidence they want: I "100%" get requests for VISUAL evidence. And they reduce Empirical to simply immediate visual experience. (what would a blind atheist request?) They demand a deity be EVER PRESENT at all times for a thorough experience that will never have a moments allowable doubt. How boring is that? So if Jesus takes a weekend getaway - we will have billions of religious patrons immediately becoming atheists based on a lack of current hourly validated experiences. See the crap God has to put up with? Why don't they apply the same methodology and skepticism to Macro evolution? Faith perhaps.
I'm convinced simply by Good & Evil itself (no vacation getaway there) as the Bible clearly defines it. AS well as population expansion throughout the last few thousand years. There's no shortage of data in the thousand page Bibles I own. From empires to cultures to thought and geography.
But, the number 1 reason I am logically and rationally a Christian is: because of how things bounce off of the Biblical accounts. If atheists/Cults/Academics EVERYWHERE simply adored the Bible's tale but declared it not true - I would be horrified. The very hate and rebellion of atheists tells me a great deal... Lots to work with. Isaiah 5:
20Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! 21Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes And clever in their own sight!
This is similar to proud atheists like Christopher Hitchens debating GOODNESS while writing books about hard working (and giving) Nuns called "The Missionary Position."
Atheists have endlessly proven that goodness is beyond their grasp.
________________________
I made 8 pages of notes (concerns?) while reading this comical manual. I doubt i'll have enough room to get through them all. Here's a fun comment: (pg. 212)
"...people won't even think about using faith...like the idea that slavery is acceptable, will just go away."
Petey assumes he's sitting at the adult table. Yet, why does he assume atheism is against slavery? What is his source? Does science declare this? Or just a lack of religion? Does the universe factually demand a lack of enslaving? It seems the professor is demanding AND PRETENDING to know things he doesn't know.
Is he going to go around to Beehives and demand a democracy where freedom and votes are inserted amongst the masses based on? Nature has no problem with slavery or one animal eating another. This animal chat reminds me:
Pete Boghossian is like a Hyena. An animal that cowardly picks off the fat and lazy from herds. He doesn't take on the Apologetic or theologically educated of the religious - he waits for the slow to lag behind and then devours them in a safe place. This we see from his numerous examples of chats he shared with some really dumb religious folk. (surprisingly - even at this he mostly fails).
He keeps claiming that faith goes unchallenged. What exactly does he think us Christians have been doing for the last 19 centuries? We debate EVERYBODY. It's the funnest pastime we have. We put all the cards on the table and have at it. From Elijah and the prophets of Baal, to Jesus and the religious leaders, to the early church councils, through the Reformation, then dealing with Islam, Mormonism, J.W.'s, and endless cults. We even debate each other daily just for fun - not a day goes by that i'm not scholastically and theologically challenging a Christian liberal or charismatic or spiritual pagan. Discernment is a gift from God. Sorry, hate to inform you that we aren't usually arguing over talking donkeys - often it's the logical and rational abilities to read and think over a classic text.
___________________
Incase some deluded atheist assumes i'm being mean and unfair. Do recall that the Prof here proudly insists:
"...argue that we MUST reconceptualize faith as a virus of the mind..and treat faith like other epidemiological crises: contain and eradicate."
This book is a war manual. It is an attack. Some atheists are not concerned about people living and letting live, or being tolerant of others preferences. They DEMAND their worldview be enforced. The freaky part is: they haven't proven ANYTHING to me yet to validate their claims. They sure talk A LOT though. Makes me feel sorry for them.
I do appreciate that Petey suggests:
"...read different religious texts with our children, attend religious services with them, be eager and ready to help them answer any question they may have...don't make religion a forbidden fruit..."
OF course, Daddy has so many biases that it's doubtful he'd be any help at all to a curious child. Like a drunken Dad that mocks those who work hard everyday. Best to be equally skeptical of Dad himself.
________________
All of this reminds me of a recent experience:
I had one atheist inform me the Bible was written by stupid illiterate sheep herders, and another atheist was telling me He was a Greek scholar and explaining the proper depths of the New Testament texts. They both stopped talking and went away. YES, seldom will two contradictory atheists risk losing their high position. Which joyfully leaves me solidly secure.
It is often hilarious that atheism seldom applies its rants to itself. Here's one:
"...if you believe you have the truth then why would you seek another truth...certainty is the enemy of truth: examination and reexamination are allies of truth." (pg. 43)
Ummmh, how many atheists are certain their claims are true - and then stop any further examinations? Almost all of them. I often question their research, which is always met with: Atheism isn't a belief, or religion, or worldview, or... Whatever the Hell it is, they demand I fully embrace it unquestioningly or they will "sexually explicit something or other followed by mocking violence and insults against my GOODNESS and intellect. (i'm almost shocked that morally stable atheists don't seem to ever rise up against Vulgar Crude Brutish Atheists - apparently this is coming: as a few more tolerant Atheists are voicing their disapproval of Dawkin's, Hitchens and Harris and crap like this book. Goodreads even had a wise atheist or two denounce the author's lame attempts and rude unscholarly manor.
Author states:
"Faith taints or at worst removes our curiosity about the world..."
That is just a silly lie. Theistic scientists have been very busy for centuries exploring this planet with wonder and scientific pursuits. All atheism seems to do is give us WRONGLY Vestigial organisms and science that is Untestable, Unobservable, Unpredictable, and not useful.
Sure some religious folks are as useful as drunk academic atheists brawling over soccer at the local pub. We'll call that one even.
Comedy NOTE: "The Chickens are organized". (or the Atheists!)
Author attempts to make a theological comment (and fails): pg. 12.
"The only way to avoid eternal punishment for sins we never committed from this all-loving God is to accept his son - who is actually himself - as our savior..."
No wonder this Prof. failed at Christianity. He was Biblically illiterate. Here's why:
You DID commit sins. This entire book is a sin. You are accountable.
God is NOT all-loving towards everyone. Did you even bother to read the Bible? Apparently not. No surprise, few atheists honestly do. We don't simply accept His Son - we must fully embrace him. (Even Satan accepts Him for what He is.)
Trinity wise: the Father is NOT the Son. Did you even go to Sunday school? Embarrassing.
Sheesh! If you're gonna destroy Christianity with your enlarged intellect - first you have to properly comprehend it. Now I see why you don't do serious debates with professional Christian apologists.
Apparently language is too huge a challenge for this Prof. as well:
"am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." Petey then says: "Yikes! The sins of the Fathers are to be born by their children's children's children! What sort of Justice is that?"
Actually that’s NOT justice, that's FREEDOM in the name of Atheism. Your stupid decisions will trickle down and decay your families futures. You plant bad food - your family will EAT bad food for generations.
Do you even own a dictionary:
in·iq·ui·ty
iˈnikwədē/
noun
immoral or grossly unfair behavior.
Like I said: The freedom, rebellion and debauchery of atheism has repercussions.
_____________________
Almost done. Here's an interesting atheistic ASSUMPTION:
"Enter the street Epistemologist: an articulate, clear, helpful voice with an unremitting desire to help people overcome their faith and to create a better world - a world that uses intelligence, reason, rationality, thoughtfulness, ingenuity, sincerity, science, and kindness to build the future..."
How does atheism arrive at these standards? I'm not convinced the Prof. author is even close to these standards. All atheism guarantee's is a complete lack of religious order or beliefs. No reason to assume Goodness, honesty, or rationality with noble reasons will pop-up. I'm assuming it will be a barbarian onslaught of abusive human desires and lusts. That is basically what I see presented by atheists in chat groups. Even their supposed science is brutally determined by their materialistic rants and biases. Where the HELL do you get KINDNESS from? That is the last thing I experience from atheists.
________________________
I did enjoy his little propaganda chat with a Mormon fellow (pg. 124)
"...You assume the universe had to have a beginning. What if there was no beginning?"
Does this mean Mr. Atheist Professor of enlightenment and science doubts: SCIENCE? Interesting. Or does it mean he will use any lie to destroy a persons non-atheistic belief? (because he's such a sincere, kind, honest, scientific chap!!!)
Of course if science is wrong about that, what ELSE is factual science wrong about? Might as well be religious if scientists are going to be endlessly rewriting their textbooks. I'll just stick with the Bible: thanks.
Closing comments:
Did this guy go home at night and deprive his kids of Disney shows because they might cause his kids to embrace something Daddy can't immediately place in his limited reality? YES, only Nazi holocaust stories for these kids. WE don't want them dreaming or imagining universes and adjustable moralities --- unless they hope to have a career in science one day.
I would love to see this guy BE HONEST and write a book on Critical thinking as applied to the lies and assumptions of Atheism. I don't think he's qualified. (he hints at this on page 240... but no responses.) He did make a useful related comment though:
(pg. 82) "I could very well be wrong about any of my beliefs. I could also misconstrue reality. The difference between misconstruing reality and being delusional is the willingness to revise a belief."
And i'm certain this guy has no room in his biases for altering His chosen atheism. Which makes him Wide-open to being delusional. I'm constantly chatting with atheists/Muslims/Buddhists etc. to challenge my beliefs. They have to hold up to the mightiest of challenges. You don't just look for faults in a talking donkey and Walking dead guy - there are a few thousand other things presented in the Bible: Logic, rationality, philosophy, geography, history, demonology, cultures, comparative religions, good & evil, sociology... Just because some eager atheists find some bad news for Christianity - doesn't mean it gets blindly accepted.
Give me a better explanation for: Origins, Meaning, morality, and destiny - and I just might take it. I'll wait...
Time to chuck this paperweight in the fire place.
Now i'm going to go read Willie Nelson's biography. Probably more truth, science and theology in it than this offered.
And so I questioned every bit of ATHEISM in this insanely militant hateful SMUG/ARROGANT biased short-sighted propaganda brochure. It was tons of fun. And YES! My Christianity is well intact and stronger than ever. I did notice that the author failed to question any of HIS BELIEFS and CONCLUSIONS. Hmmmm? He simply assumed a default position that suited his desires. I did enjoy him questioning Liberalism (pg. 178) Contemporary Academic Leftism. That was amusing. What is remaining of his audience exactly?
This book continually uses the lazy fringes of select belief groups to support his Core Straw man assertion. Typical: Dawkins and Harris are known for this as well. Simply lazy and cowardly militant atheism. I've met more impressive atheists. This is beginner stuff folks. If you want to take on a World Religion - you've got to go deep. Fluff only works on the fluffy.
Basically this Lesser Professor thinks he has all religions shutdown by his insistence, and poor understanding, of FAITH - as HE labels it. And that is the problem: He confuses Biblical faith with that of other beliefs, as well as Atheistic faith - like those that worship at the foot of scientism and evolutionary peer review (especially since so few of those are ACTUALLY scientists and peer reviewers.) Hmmmm, blind faith indeed.
The author is determined that His way of thinking will move the world towards a NEW enlightenment and way of reason. And yet: nowhere in the book does he define GOOD or BAD. What is at the end of his reason? He doesn't tell us. He just assumes...something to his liking. I say "Question that". Because He sure didn't.
Like I told an atheist earlier today: Guns don't kill (abort) babies by the millions - Science and educated people DO! Then Governments and politicians make logical laws supporting this ATHEISTIC GOODNESS. Atheism allows us as humans to reduce a child in the womb to mere biological Soulless dependents and inconvenient matter that is easily removed - like a weed. So be it! But when does this sort of thinking get around to any objective Good? That is my problem with the whole book: you remove religion and end up with??? What? The author doesn't tell us. Maybe it's a pub filled with atheists fighting over sex, money, greed, misunderstandings, biases, pride, desire, control, or worse: sports... Who gets to be in charge? Atheism doesn't say. Science doesn't equal goodness. Science builds nuclear devices and places them in human's hands. Science can play with viruses AND population control. Like Atheism: Science doesn't care. It really values nothing specifically. But we all know what Atheism hates. That's a given.
___________________
Okay, lets deal with this FAITH word that Petey chips away at endlessly.
I agree that most people religiously abuse the word FAITH. Often faith IS hope, trust and confidence - that could generically make any mystical fruity belief valid. But the Bible says more than that. This manual insists it's an abandoning of knowledge and certainty. Bible says:
Hebrews 11:1 (KJV)
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
I like this explanation. It has two words in it that will drive the author insane: "Substance" and "Evidence". Fun eh? He was determined to keep faith as a fluid illogical magic outside of His rational thinking.
Faith is substance, it is a gift from God. The author assumes POORLY that it is something we whip up ourselves and throw about poetically. But: Ephesians 2:8
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
I know this is useless data to atheists. But properly understanding Biblical faith makes you embarrass yourselves a tad less. Author assumes faith is our OWN doing - but it is not. Jesus even strangely said: Matthew 17:20
"You don't have enough faith," Jesus told them. "I tell you the truth, if you had faith even as small as a mustard seed, you could say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it would move. Nothing would be impossible."
Faith comes from hearing the Word of God. This is not as simple as it sounds. Hebrews 11:7
By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
Did Noah's faith come from nothing? No, He actually heard God. The Holy Spirit produces FAITH in him. Sorry atheists, because of spiritual blindness - you ain't about to comprehend the importance of this. We'll just move on.
____________________
It is fun when atheists declare that I have Blind Belief in Christianity. I often ask, "why then am I NOT a Baptist, or Anglican, or Catholic, or Lutheran, or 7th Day Adventist etc.?"
And then I give numerous scholastic reasons for being a specific Bible based Jesus follower. Pretty sure that removes the BLIND part. There was a lot of doctrine/theology and history to sort through to come to that conclusion. I wish atheists sorted through their rubble with as much... effort?
Let's get this bit of atheistic babble out of the way:
(pg. 212) "People who harbor strong convictions without evidence belong at the margins of our societies, not in our halls of powers." Sam Harris.
This book continually harps that Christians have no evidence. What a strange assumption. Why do certain atheists always have something very specific in mind when they demand evidence? Whenever I ask atheists what kind of evidence they want: I "100%" get requests for VISUAL evidence. And they reduce Empirical to simply immediate visual experience. (what would a blind atheist request?) They demand a deity be EVER PRESENT at all times for a thorough experience that will never have a moments allowable doubt. How boring is that? So if Jesus takes a weekend getaway - we will have billions of religious patrons immediately becoming atheists based on a lack of current hourly validated experiences. See the crap God has to put up with? Why don't they apply the same methodology and skepticism to Macro evolution? Faith perhaps.
I'm convinced simply by Good & Evil itself (no vacation getaway there) as the Bible clearly defines it. AS well as population expansion throughout the last few thousand years. There's no shortage of data in the thousand page Bibles I own. From empires to cultures to thought and geography.
But, the number 1 reason I am logically and rationally a Christian is: because of how things bounce off of the Biblical accounts. If atheists/Cults/Academics EVERYWHERE simply adored the Bible's tale but declared it not true - I would be horrified. The very hate and rebellion of atheists tells me a great deal... Lots to work with. Isaiah 5:
20Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! 21Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes And clever in their own sight!
This is similar to proud atheists like Christopher Hitchens debating GOODNESS while writing books about hard working (and giving) Nuns called "The Missionary Position."
Atheists have endlessly proven that goodness is beyond their grasp.
________________________
I made 8 pages of notes (concerns?) while reading this comical manual. I doubt i'll have enough room to get through them all. Here's a fun comment: (pg. 212)
"...people won't even think about using faith...like the idea that slavery is acceptable, will just go away."
Petey assumes he's sitting at the adult table. Yet, why does he assume atheism is against slavery? What is his source? Does science declare this? Or just a lack of religion? Does the universe factually demand a lack of enslaving? It seems the professor is demanding AND PRETENDING to know things he doesn't know.
Is he going to go around to Beehives and demand a democracy where freedom and votes are inserted amongst the masses based on? Nature has no problem with slavery or one animal eating another. This animal chat reminds me:
Pete Boghossian is like a Hyena. An animal that cowardly picks off the fat and lazy from herds. He doesn't take on the Apologetic or theologically educated of the religious - he waits for the slow to lag behind and then devours them in a safe place. This we see from his numerous examples of chats he shared with some really dumb religious folk. (surprisingly - even at this he mostly fails).
He keeps claiming that faith goes unchallenged. What exactly does he think us Christians have been doing for the last 19 centuries? We debate EVERYBODY. It's the funnest pastime we have. We put all the cards on the table and have at it. From Elijah and the prophets of Baal, to Jesus and the religious leaders, to the early church councils, through the Reformation, then dealing with Islam, Mormonism, J.W.'s, and endless cults. We even debate each other daily just for fun - not a day goes by that i'm not scholastically and theologically challenging a Christian liberal or charismatic or spiritual pagan. Discernment is a gift from God. Sorry, hate to inform you that we aren't usually arguing over talking donkeys - often it's the logical and rational abilities to read and think over a classic text.
___________________
Incase some deluded atheist assumes i'm being mean and unfair. Do recall that the Prof here proudly insists:
"...argue that we MUST reconceptualize faith as a virus of the mind..and treat faith like other epidemiological crises: contain and eradicate."
This book is a war manual. It is an attack. Some atheists are not concerned about people living and letting live, or being tolerant of others preferences. They DEMAND their worldview be enforced. The freaky part is: they haven't proven ANYTHING to me yet to validate their claims. They sure talk A LOT though. Makes me feel sorry for them.
I do appreciate that Petey suggests:
"...read different religious texts with our children, attend religious services with them, be eager and ready to help them answer any question they may have...don't make religion a forbidden fruit..."
OF course, Daddy has so many biases that it's doubtful he'd be any help at all to a curious child. Like a drunken Dad that mocks those who work hard everyday. Best to be equally skeptical of Dad himself.
________________
All of this reminds me of a recent experience:
I had one atheist inform me the Bible was written by stupid illiterate sheep herders, and another atheist was telling me He was a Greek scholar and explaining the proper depths of the New Testament texts. They both stopped talking and went away. YES, seldom will two contradictory atheists risk losing their high position. Which joyfully leaves me solidly secure.
It is often hilarious that atheism seldom applies its rants to itself. Here's one:
"...if you believe you have the truth then why would you seek another truth...certainty is the enemy of truth: examination and reexamination are allies of truth." (pg. 43)
Ummmh, how many atheists are certain their claims are true - and then stop any further examinations? Almost all of them. I often question their research, which is always met with: Atheism isn't a belief, or religion, or worldview, or... Whatever the Hell it is, they demand I fully embrace it unquestioningly or they will "sexually explicit something or other followed by mocking violence and insults against my GOODNESS and intellect. (i'm almost shocked that morally stable atheists don't seem to ever rise up against Vulgar Crude Brutish Atheists - apparently this is coming: as a few more tolerant Atheists are voicing their disapproval of Dawkin's, Hitchens and Harris and crap like this book. Goodreads even had a wise atheist or two denounce the author's lame attempts and rude unscholarly manor.
Author states:
"Faith taints or at worst removes our curiosity about the world..."
That is just a silly lie. Theistic scientists have been very busy for centuries exploring this planet with wonder and scientific pursuits. All atheism seems to do is give us WRONGLY Vestigial organisms and science that is Untestable, Unobservable, Unpredictable, and not useful.
Sure some religious folks are as useful as drunk academic atheists brawling over soccer at the local pub. We'll call that one even.
Comedy NOTE: "The Chickens are organized". (or the Atheists!)
Author attempts to make a theological comment (and fails): pg. 12.
"The only way to avoid eternal punishment for sins we never committed from this all-loving God is to accept his son - who is actually himself - as our savior..."
No wonder this Prof. failed at Christianity. He was Biblically illiterate. Here's why:
You DID commit sins. This entire book is a sin. You are accountable.
God is NOT all-loving towards everyone. Did you even bother to read the Bible? Apparently not. No surprise, few atheists honestly do. We don't simply accept His Son - we must fully embrace him. (Even Satan accepts Him for what He is.)
Trinity wise: the Father is NOT the Son. Did you even go to Sunday school? Embarrassing.
Sheesh! If you're gonna destroy Christianity with your enlarged intellect - first you have to properly comprehend it. Now I see why you don't do serious debates with professional Christian apologists.
Apparently language is too huge a challenge for this Prof. as well:
"am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." Petey then says: "Yikes! The sins of the Fathers are to be born by their children's children's children! What sort of Justice is that?"
Actually that’s NOT justice, that's FREEDOM in the name of Atheism. Your stupid decisions will trickle down and decay your families futures. You plant bad food - your family will EAT bad food for generations.
Do you even own a dictionary:
in·iq·ui·ty
iˈnikwədē/
noun
immoral or grossly unfair behavior.
Like I said: The freedom, rebellion and debauchery of atheism has repercussions.
_____________________
Almost done. Here's an interesting atheistic ASSUMPTION:
"Enter the street Epistemologist: an articulate, clear, helpful voice with an unremitting desire to help people overcome their faith and to create a better world - a world that uses intelligence, reason, rationality, thoughtfulness, ingenuity, sincerity, science, and kindness to build the future..."
How does atheism arrive at these standards? I'm not convinced the Prof. author is even close to these standards. All atheism guarantee's is a complete lack of religious order or beliefs. No reason to assume Goodness, honesty, or rationality with noble reasons will pop-up. I'm assuming it will be a barbarian onslaught of abusive human desires and lusts. That is basically what I see presented by atheists in chat groups. Even their supposed science is brutally determined by their materialistic rants and biases. Where the HELL do you get KINDNESS from? That is the last thing I experience from atheists.
________________________
I did enjoy his little propaganda chat with a Mormon fellow (pg. 124)
"...You assume the universe had to have a beginning. What if there was no beginning?"
Does this mean Mr. Atheist Professor of enlightenment and science doubts: SCIENCE? Interesting. Or does it mean he will use any lie to destroy a persons non-atheistic belief? (because he's such a sincere, kind, honest, scientific chap!!!)
Of course if science is wrong about that, what ELSE is factual science wrong about? Might as well be religious if scientists are going to be endlessly rewriting their textbooks. I'll just stick with the Bible: thanks.
Closing comments:
Did this guy go home at night and deprive his kids of Disney shows because they might cause his kids to embrace something Daddy can't immediately place in his limited reality? YES, only Nazi holocaust stories for these kids. WE don't want them dreaming or imagining universes and adjustable moralities --- unless they hope to have a career in science one day.
I would love to see this guy BE HONEST and write a book on Critical thinking as applied to the lies and assumptions of Atheism. I don't think he's qualified. (he hints at this on page 240... but no responses.) He did make a useful related comment though:
(pg. 82) "I could very well be wrong about any of my beliefs. I could also misconstrue reality. The difference between misconstruing reality and being delusional is the willingness to revise a belief."
And i'm certain this guy has no room in his biases for altering His chosen atheism. Which makes him Wide-open to being delusional. I'm constantly chatting with atheists/Muslims/Buddhists etc. to challenge my beliefs. They have to hold up to the mightiest of challenges. You don't just look for faults in a talking donkey and Walking dead guy - there are a few thousand other things presented in the Bible: Logic, rationality, philosophy, geography, history, demonology, cultures, comparative religions, good & evil, sociology... Just because some eager atheists find some bad news for Christianity - doesn't mean it gets blindly accepted.
Give me a better explanation for: Origins, Meaning, morality, and destiny - and I just might take it. I'll wait...
Time to chuck this paperweight in the fire place.
Now i'm going to go read Willie Nelson's biography. Probably more truth, science and theology in it than this offered.
January 12, 2018
Interesting!
After reading Christian evangelical apologists for years and being taught to lead others to the faith, I was too curious to resist reading this. This review would have gotten 4 stars except for a minor detail that I I had a hard time ignoring: Boghossian speaks about "the medicalization of individuals based on their criticisms" (182). He does so in order to point out how nonsensical it is: "Labeling someone who criticizes ideas, in whatever domain, as driven by fear, or by some other pathological condition- in effect as mentally unbalanced- is a complete betrayal of the core ideas of classical and social liberalism..."He makes this statement after chapters of talking about "the faith virus"... he doesn't like it when the tables are turned and someone criticizes him with a similar tool that he himself uses?
I agree with him mostly, in regards to the irrationality of Faith claims, and I think it's important to engage the "faithful" in conversations about their faith claims, however, if the author wishes to not have people call him an islamophobe or a faithophobe, perhaps he should consider revising his comments on the faith virus.
After reading Christian evangelical apologists for years and being taught to lead others to the faith, I was too curious to resist reading this. This review would have gotten 4 stars except for a minor detail that I I had a hard time ignoring: Boghossian speaks about "the medicalization of individuals based on their criticisms" (182). He does so in order to point out how nonsensical it is: "Labeling someone who criticizes ideas, in whatever domain, as driven by fear, or by some other pathological condition- in effect as mentally unbalanced- is a complete betrayal of the core ideas of classical and social liberalism..."He makes this statement after chapters of talking about "the faith virus"... he doesn't like it when the tables are turned and someone criticizes him with a similar tool that he himself uses?
I agree with him mostly, in regards to the irrationality of Faith claims, and I think it's important to engage the "faithful" in conversations about their faith claims, however, if the author wishes to not have people call him an islamophobe or a faithophobe, perhaps he should consider revising his comments on the faith virus.
January 7, 2014
This isn't a book "about atheism," it's about the difference between critical thinking and faith (correctly applied) as a path to knowledge/knowing. That's the nutshell version - I had several parts noted that I wanted to address for this review. I'll pare it down, though, to my favorite points.
1) Boghossian discusses Aristotle's distinction between moral and intellectual virtues - important to remember when discussing epistemology (the study of knowledge).
2) He addresses the taboo of criticizing ideas - notes the distinction between ideas and the people who hold them. This taboo is a result of modern liberalism's love affair with moral relativism, and Boghossian laments the lack of classical liberalism in academia.
3) In general, he describes the use of the Socratic method as intervention - in this case, in one-on-one discussions in favor of critical thinking.
My recommendation is, if the title offends you, read it. You may be surprised. If the title doesn't offend you, read it, the content might. All for the better.
1) Boghossian discusses Aristotle's distinction between moral and intellectual virtues - important to remember when discussing epistemology (the study of knowledge).
2) He addresses the taboo of criticizing ideas - notes the distinction between ideas and the people who hold them. This taboo is a result of modern liberalism's love affair with moral relativism, and Boghossian laments the lack of classical liberalism in academia.
3) In general, he describes the use of the Socratic method as intervention - in this case, in one-on-one discussions in favor of critical thinking.
My recommendation is, if the title offends you, read it. You may be surprised. If the title doesn't offend you, read it, the content might. All for the better.
May 27, 2014
If you have already read the diatribes by Harris and Dawkins on religion then there's no real need to get this book. All Boghossian is doing is borrowing the language of 'faith' as a virus (which he doesn't substantiate by the way) and asserting that religion is delusional. Of course, Boghossian never actually gives any evidence for this and neither does he even attempt any serious interaction with the people he's criticizing in his book but instead clearly thinks the rhetoric alone will suffice as a substitute. Clearly for many it has.
As someone who has read a lot of epistemology his attempts at doing any serious epistemology are laughable. He gives his 'street epistemologists' a terribly trite introduction to the theory of knowledge and only goes so far as is needed by his anti-religious polemic. Of course, his anti-religious agenda means that any interaction with the philosophical giants who were religious is virtually non-existent. It's like he's embarrassed to admit people like Descartes and Locke were theists.
For those who think I'm being too critical we'll just have to let history be the judge but this book brings nothing new to the discussion - if anything it takes it back about 8 years. A waste of money and time.
I suggest listening to his debate with professional philosopher Tim McGrew on the 'Unbelievable' show. Then you will understand why Boghossian isn't getting any serious support from atheist academics in the field of philosophy.
As someone who has read a lot of epistemology his attempts at doing any serious epistemology are laughable. He gives his 'street epistemologists' a terribly trite introduction to the theory of knowledge and only goes so far as is needed by his anti-religious polemic. Of course, his anti-religious agenda means that any interaction with the philosophical giants who were religious is virtually non-existent. It's like he's embarrassed to admit people like Descartes and Locke were theists.
For those who think I'm being too critical we'll just have to let history be the judge but this book brings nothing new to the discussion - if anything it takes it back about 8 years. A waste of money and time.
I suggest listening to his debate with professional philosopher Tim McGrew on the 'Unbelievable' show. Then you will understand why Boghossian isn't getting any serious support from atheist academics in the field of philosophy.
July 20, 2015
This is a great book for so many reasons. Firstly, it is empathic. Boghassian treats those he is trying to rescue, from what he describes as a "faith virus", with respect, a willingness to listen, and a genuine concern for the welfare of those he writes about and for. Secondly, Boghossian speaks from experience. He clearly has had in-depth conversations with believers, listened to them, and responded to them with targeted "interventions" that fit the person, rather than using blunt instruments to beat people over the head. Thirdly, his approach is philosophically rigorous and rational. So much of what the author says makes sense and resonates with what we know from our own experiences. Fourthly, his suggestion that people move away from discussing conclusions/beliefs to exploring the way we arrive at beliefs, is profound and powerful. Finally (at least for this list - there is so much more that could be said), the book is easy to read. Boghossian is articulate and, despite his expertise in philosophy, speaks in language that is down-to-earth and entirely understandable. Atheists need this book so they can move on from angry rhetoric to respectful conversation.
September 29, 2019
Ξεκίνησα μεγάλες προσδοκίες αλλά δε μπορώ να πω ότι τις ικανοποίησε. Και εξηγούμαι.
Στα θετικά: εξηγεί βήμα προς βήμα την διαδικασία ανάπτυξης επιστημολογικής σκέψης και τις μεθόδους διαλόγου που μπορεί κάποιος να χρησιμοποιήσει ιδιαίτερα όταν έχει απέναντί του έναν υπέρμαχο ενός οποιουδήποτε δόγματος. Επιπλέον, έχει πλούσιο υλικό είτε στο τέλος του κεφαλαίου είτε στις βιβλιογραφικές αναφορές στο τέλος του βιβλίου που μπορεί κάποιος να ανατρέξει για περαιτέρω μελέτη. Ιδιαίτερα διαφωτιστικοί είναι οι διάλογοι που παραθέτει παρμένοι από την εμπειρία του ως καθηγητής ή συνομιλητής σε πάνελ αλλά ακόμα και από την καθημερινή του ζωή.
Στα αρνητικά: όπως και σε αλλά βιβλία παρόμοιας θεματολογίας μου έμεινε η αίσθηση της επίθεσης προς τους θρησκευτικά πιστούς. Θα μου πεις, εγχειρίδιο αθεΐας είναι ο τίτλος, τι περίμενες; Νομίζω πως η τόσο οξεία χρήση της γλώσσας και η απεγνωσμένη προσπάθεια να αποδείξουμε ότι ο πιστός κάνει λάθος, είναι αν μη τι άλλο υπερβολική και οδηγεί σε αντίθετα αποτελέσματα. Προσωπικά, δε μέμφομαι όποιον πιστεύει πραγματικά κάπου και αν μάλιστα είναι ικανοποιημένος και νιώθει πραγματικά καλά, εμένα με χαροποιεί. Θεωρώ πως η πεποίθηση του «να δείξουμε τον σωστό δρόμο» δεν έχει ουσιαστικό αποτέλεσμα, είτε γίνεται από την πλευρά των πιστών είτε από την πλευρά των ορθολογιστών καθώς παραμένει μια μορφή προσυλιτισμού. Επιπρόσθετα, σε κάποια υποκεφάλαια αισθάνθηκα ότι δε καταλάβαινα τι ακριβώς θέλει να πει καθώς απεραντολογούσε σχετικά με την σωκρατική θεωρία, την κοινωνική δομή και τα πολιτικά ρεύματα. Δεν είμαι σίγουρος ότι είχε θέση ένα αντίστοιχο κεφάλαιο σε ένα βιβλίο αμιγώς (αντί)θρησκευτικής προσέγγισης.
Συνολικά, ένα καλό και ενδιαφέρον βιβλίο το οποίο σε πολλά σημεία με βρήκε αντίθετο, σε κάποια σύμφωνο και σε κάποια αλλά απλά με ένα μεγάλο ερωτηματικό.
3,5/5
Στα θετικά: εξηγεί βήμα προς βήμα την διαδικασία ανάπτυξης επιστημολογικής σκέψης και τις μεθόδους διαλόγου που μπορεί κάποιος να χρησιμοποιήσει ιδιαίτερα όταν έχει απέναντί του έναν υπέρμαχο ενός οποιουδήποτε δόγματος. Επιπλέον, έχει πλούσιο υλικό είτε στο τέλος του κεφαλαίου είτε στις βιβλιογραφικές αναφορές στο τέλος του βιβλίου που μπορεί κάποιος να ανατρέξει για περαιτέρω μελέτη. Ιδιαίτερα διαφωτιστικοί είναι οι διάλογοι που παραθέτει παρμένοι από την εμπειρία του ως καθηγητής ή συνομιλητής σε πάνελ αλλά ακόμα και από την καθημερινή του ζωή.
Στα αρνητικά: όπως και σε αλλά βιβλία παρόμοιας θεματολογίας μου έμεινε η αίσθηση της επίθεσης προς τους θρησκευτικά πιστούς. Θα μου πεις, εγχειρίδιο αθεΐας είναι ο τίτλος, τι περίμενες; Νομίζω πως η τόσο οξεία χρήση της γλώσσας και η απεγνωσμένη προσπάθεια να αποδείξουμε ότι ο πιστός κάνει λάθος, είναι αν μη τι άλλο υπερβολική και οδηγεί σε αντίθετα αποτελέσματα. Προσωπικά, δε μέμφομαι όποιον πιστεύει πραγματικά κάπου και αν μάλιστα είναι ικανοποιημένος και νιώθει πραγματικά καλά, εμένα με χαροποιεί. Θεωρώ πως η πεποίθηση του «να δείξουμε τον σωστό δρόμο» δεν έχει ουσιαστικό αποτέλεσμα, είτε γίνεται από την πλευρά των πιστών είτε από την πλευρά των ορθολογιστών καθώς παραμένει μια μορφή προσυλιτισμού. Επιπρόσθετα, σε κάποια υποκεφάλαια αισθάνθηκα ότι δε καταλάβαινα τι ακριβώς θέλει να πει καθώς απεραντολογούσε σχετικά με την σωκρατική θεωρία, την κοινωνική δομή και τα πολιτικά ρεύματα. Δεν είμαι σίγουρος ότι είχε θέση ένα αντίστοιχο κεφάλαιο σε ένα βιβλίο αμιγώς (αντί)θρησκευτικής προσέγγισης.
Συνολικά, ένα καλό και ενδιαφέρον βιβλίο το οποίο σε πολλά σημεία με βρήκε αντίθετο, σε κάποια σύμφωνο και σε κάποια αλλά απλά με ένα μεγάλο ερωτηματικό.
3,5/5
October 2, 2014
I really admire Peter Boghossian for writing a book like this when humanity needs it perhaps more than ever before. Though the title is admittedly clunky, the insights and tools provided inside are essential to combating what is truly a faith "disease". AMFCA is a natural next step after reading Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins and Dennett (a quartet that Boghossian continuously refers to, in somewhat clunky fashion, as "The Four Horsemen".) Everything we've read and agreed with in those authors' very fine texts is reduced here to a guide on how to act, combined with Socratic insight, to the "faithful" we come across.
The atheist community is a big one, and naturally not all atheists are going to agree with the methods Boghossian promotes here, and that's a mistake. Atheists should care about what their fellow humans think and in what they believe, especially when they're almost always a friend, family member, or loved one and the belief one which can take all the joy out of life and replace it with only guilt and self-loathing. It takes someone who has come from a religious upbringing and escaped from it to perhaps see the value in this and the simple truth that, at best, religion is a form of abuse. Self-abuse if you're an adult convert, or child abuse if you were indoctrinated into it, as I was.
All faith is a form of Stockholm Syndrome even on its best day, and the truth always shines brighter. It is with much hope that I plan to put the tools Boghossian has given me into practice and to try and speed up the Renaissance of secularism and critical thinking.
The atheist community is a big one, and naturally not all atheists are going to agree with the methods Boghossian promotes here, and that's a mistake. Atheists should care about what their fellow humans think and in what they believe, especially when they're almost always a friend, family member, or loved one and the belief one which can take all the joy out of life and replace it with only guilt and self-loathing. It takes someone who has come from a religious upbringing and escaped from it to perhaps see the value in this and the simple truth that, at best, religion is a form of abuse. Self-abuse if you're an adult convert, or child abuse if you were indoctrinated into it, as I was.
All faith is a form of Stockholm Syndrome even on its best day, and the truth always shines brighter. It is with much hope that I plan to put the tools Boghossian has given me into practice and to try and speed up the Renaissance of secularism and critical thinking.
November 2, 2013
It must be Peter Boghossian's experience in martial arts that leads him to describe his method of street epistemology as the art of, 'confronting without confronting'. Some forty years ago I heard a charismatic Bruce Lee describe, in a similar manner , his style of fighting as, 'The art of fighting without fighting.'
The phrase has always stayed with me and it seems the perfect description for Boghossian's no-nonsense vaccine for, as he describes it, the faith virus.
From the sampling of intervention dialogues given in the book, Professor Boghossian seems quite at ease in tackling the faith virus wherever he finds it, be it family, friend, stranger, or colleague. Without attacking or mocking, he uses sincerity and the Socratic Method in an attempt to bring reason and critical thinking to the forefront.
The author also shares a personal tragedy about the death of his mother and the roles that faith vs reason play in providing solace during difficult times.
It was a time when Boghossian chose not to discuss the matter of faith vs reason. Rightfully of course.
But it does beg the question, are there other moments or stages in a person's life when the topic should remain unspoken?
The discussion would be an interesting one and I wish he would have shared his ideas more deeply on the topic.
I appreciate and admire his determined attitude not to let faith triumph over reason. Myself, I tend to pick my battles less frequently. My knowledge is nowhere near the level of Boghosian's, and my emotional control are no match for his.
But I'm trying!
The phrase has always stayed with me and it seems the perfect description for Boghossian's no-nonsense vaccine for, as he describes it, the faith virus.
From the sampling of intervention dialogues given in the book, Professor Boghossian seems quite at ease in tackling the faith virus wherever he finds it, be it family, friend, stranger, or colleague. Without attacking or mocking, he uses sincerity and the Socratic Method in an attempt to bring reason and critical thinking to the forefront.
The author also shares a personal tragedy about the death of his mother and the roles that faith vs reason play in providing solace during difficult times.
It was a time when Boghossian chose not to discuss the matter of faith vs reason. Rightfully of course.
But it does beg the question, are there other moments or stages in a person's life when the topic should remain unspoken?
The discussion would be an interesting one and I wish he would have shared his ideas more deeply on the topic.
I appreciate and admire his determined attitude not to let faith triumph over reason. Myself, I tend to pick my battles less frequently. My knowledge is nowhere near the level of Boghosian's, and my emotional control are no match for his.
But I'm trying!
January 1, 2014
Minus one star for the author's focus on eradicating religion instead of just harmful, irrational thinking (which can be both religious and nonreligious). Otherwise, full of excellent debate points and practical advice.
March 31, 2014
Condescending, totalitarian, and aiming for the lowest of the low fruit
February 14, 2015
Spent most of the day finishing this book. Appreciate the author’s call for atheists to become “Street Epistemologist”, willing to challenge faith as epistemology. Boghossian doesn’t waste time quoting and discrediting Bible stories and verses, nor does he talk specifically about the role of churches. No, he exposes and criticizes the epicenter of religion, faith itself as the source of the problem.
I agree with most of his analysis, and though I don’t get a chance to be a Street Epistemologist very often, I do try to take a sincere and humanistic approach to challenging the god-belief that people hold.
Boghossian prefers to challenge the use of faith using the Socratic method. But I find that method disingenuous at times. The person asking all the Socratic questions ends up sounding elitist and condescending, as he does in the examples he gives in the book. Instead, I try not to ask questions at all, unless I want to clarify a point that a person is making. And I typically do not engage and debate god-believers unless they are open for discussion and debate. I feel that when god believers invite or are open to discussion, it’s more meaningful, and my role is to make sure I don’t come off sounding arrogant or elitist because I am an atheist.
But I do agree with Boghossian that we atheists need to take more opportunities to challenge faith as epistemology. For far too long faith has been seen as a sign of virtue, and people have allowed themselves to become blind to a more realistic view of life and social constructions. But when you question them about their beliefs, it really is not faith at all. Most of the time it’s people just parroting what they have heard most of their life. As Boghossian points out, expression like “God only knows,” “Bless you,” “Act of God, “Count your blessings,”, etc, undermine our humanity. These expressions and views make it seem like we’re not agents of our destiny, that we’re powerless without “God.”
In this respect, I don’t seek to take people’s faith away just because I think it’s harmful to them. I challenge people because in the long run it strengthens our humanity.
There’s much more I could say about this book, but I want to highlight Boghossian’s views about multiculturalism and the so-called academic left. I no longer work in the academic arena, but he says in part that the academic left “takes a more pitiful view of the faithful while simultaneously becoming upset in response to questioning a person’s faith. They view attacks on faith as a type of intellectual hegemony and epistemological colonialism.” If you read the book, you will understand this better.
While I understand the cultural relativism has it problems, the reason many left academics point to intellectual hegemony is because of the Eurocentric and US-centric cultural hegemony that has existed in schools and universities for several hundred years. The very reason that multiculturalism emerged in the first place is in response to Western Eurocentric views and education. (I recommend Edward Said classic, “Culture and Imperialism” for a better view of multiculturalism.) For example, when “classical” literature and music is taught in schools, it is European literature and music that is perceived as classical, as if other cultures had no literature or music traditions before Europe came along. Or there’s the notion that to be educated is to be schooled on Western European culture. Multiculturalism on the other hand highlights that other cultures have literature, music, and even contributions to science. History ought not be viewed from the lens of just Western culture.
Boghossian’s Eurocentric view of the world follows in the footsteps of Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Dawkins, in that he continually throughout his book highlights the oppression of Arab women stemming from sexist views of Islamic religions and the marginalization of women in Islamic culture. But he basically assumes that you will agree with him, and he provides no evidence to back up his assertions about Islamic oppression.
Because of the inherent sexism within the ALL(!) the dominate religions, I agree in general with his criticism, but at the same time, 1 in 5 or 6 women are raped in the U.S. every year, and he had nothing to say about that. He also of course highlights violence stemming from Islamic faith, but he didn’t write one sentence about the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. He says nothing about the dismal state of poverty and racism in this country and how religion plays a role in it.
Boghossian references lots of good literature to back up his analysis. I suggest that he add the following to his reading list, “Godless Americana: Race and Religious Rebels,” by Sikivu Hutchinson, and “The Ebony Exodus Project: Why Some Black Women Are Walking out on Religion-and Others Should Too_”, by Candace R.M. Gorham (which by the way is published by same publisher of Boghossian’s book.)
While I can agree that cultural relativism can excuse many of the negative aspects of any culture, I think Boghossian needs to understand more about the intersection of faith, tradition and cultural oppression of minorities, or less politically powerful cultures. Again, I'm not a part of the academy, but there’s a lot more to multiculturalism than what Boghossian describes and criticizes.
Overall though, “A Manual For Creating Atheists” is very good book and I will definitely be dipping back into as I develop my skills as a Street Epistemologist.
I agree with most of his analysis, and though I don’t get a chance to be a Street Epistemologist very often, I do try to take a sincere and humanistic approach to challenging the god-belief that people hold.
Boghossian prefers to challenge the use of faith using the Socratic method. But I find that method disingenuous at times. The person asking all the Socratic questions ends up sounding elitist and condescending, as he does in the examples he gives in the book. Instead, I try not to ask questions at all, unless I want to clarify a point that a person is making. And I typically do not engage and debate god-believers unless they are open for discussion and debate. I feel that when god believers invite or are open to discussion, it’s more meaningful, and my role is to make sure I don’t come off sounding arrogant or elitist because I am an atheist.
But I do agree with Boghossian that we atheists need to take more opportunities to challenge faith as epistemology. For far too long faith has been seen as a sign of virtue, and people have allowed themselves to become blind to a more realistic view of life and social constructions. But when you question them about their beliefs, it really is not faith at all. Most of the time it’s people just parroting what they have heard most of their life. As Boghossian points out, expression like “God only knows,” “Bless you,” “Act of God, “Count your blessings,”, etc, undermine our humanity. These expressions and views make it seem like we’re not agents of our destiny, that we’re powerless without “God.”
In this respect, I don’t seek to take people’s faith away just because I think it’s harmful to them. I challenge people because in the long run it strengthens our humanity.
There’s much more I could say about this book, but I want to highlight Boghossian’s views about multiculturalism and the so-called academic left. I no longer work in the academic arena, but he says in part that the academic left “takes a more pitiful view of the faithful while simultaneously becoming upset in response to questioning a person’s faith. They view attacks on faith as a type of intellectual hegemony and epistemological colonialism.” If you read the book, you will understand this better.
While I understand the cultural relativism has it problems, the reason many left academics point to intellectual hegemony is because of the Eurocentric and US-centric cultural hegemony that has existed in schools and universities for several hundred years. The very reason that multiculturalism emerged in the first place is in response to Western Eurocentric views and education. (I recommend Edward Said classic, “Culture and Imperialism” for a better view of multiculturalism.) For example, when “classical” literature and music is taught in schools, it is European literature and music that is perceived as classical, as if other cultures had no literature or music traditions before Europe came along. Or there’s the notion that to be educated is to be schooled on Western European culture. Multiculturalism on the other hand highlights that other cultures have literature, music, and even contributions to science. History ought not be viewed from the lens of just Western culture.
Boghossian’s Eurocentric view of the world follows in the footsteps of Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Dawkins, in that he continually throughout his book highlights the oppression of Arab women stemming from sexist views of Islamic religions and the marginalization of women in Islamic culture. But he basically assumes that you will agree with him, and he provides no evidence to back up his assertions about Islamic oppression.
Because of the inherent sexism within the ALL(!) the dominate religions, I agree in general with his criticism, but at the same time, 1 in 5 or 6 women are raped in the U.S. every year, and he had nothing to say about that. He also of course highlights violence stemming from Islamic faith, but he didn’t write one sentence about the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. He says nothing about the dismal state of poverty and racism in this country and how religion plays a role in it.
Boghossian references lots of good literature to back up his analysis. I suggest that he add the following to his reading list, “Godless Americana: Race and Religious Rebels,” by Sikivu Hutchinson, and “The Ebony Exodus Project: Why Some Black Women Are Walking out on Religion-and Others Should Too_”, by Candace R.M. Gorham (which by the way is published by same publisher of Boghossian’s book.)
While I can agree that cultural relativism can excuse many of the negative aspects of any culture, I think Boghossian needs to understand more about the intersection of faith, tradition and cultural oppression of minorities, or less politically powerful cultures. Again, I'm not a part of the academy, but there’s a lot more to multiculturalism than what Boghossian describes and criticizes.
Overall though, “A Manual For Creating Atheists” is very good book and I will definitely be dipping back into as I develop my skills as a Street Epistemologist.
June 16, 2020
This book made me think A LOT, which is why I would recommend that everyone read it, regardless of your beliefs. The book has a not-so-thin veil of arrogance that I had to overlook, and I didn’t agree with everything, but there were things that really resonated with me. Reading this book forced me to think critically and that was cool.
May 26, 2014
Peter Boghossian is something of an atheist bulldozer, on a mission to create more bulldozers. The proposed target for their destructive power? Faith. I don't think Boghossian would object to the characterization, as he jumps straight into examples of his interventions with people of faith and strategies to marginalize faith as an epistemology toward the ultimate goal of eradicating it as one might polio or smallpox.
This is not a book aimed toward believers, and Boghossian doesn't waste any time with arguments against Christianity, the resurrection, or the existence of God. He takes their collective falsity as a given, and instead begins by defining terms. Faith is rendered as "pretending to know things you don't know". He spends some time dissecting common uses of the word "faith" (including attempts to label it as "hope") and discourages letting those ambiguities creep into conversations with believers. Doxastic closure is his term for a belief system that is not open to correction or reflection (Boghossian's livelihood is teaching Philosophy, and it shows here with often-unapproachable terms that one eventually absorbs by repetition). The goal is to engage the doxastically closed with Socratic dialog, probing them with questions to reveal contradictions and push them towards doxastic openness (skepticism).
Boghossian plays a tactical game: he advises against debates about particular scientific points or biblical exegesis. Rather, his goal is to target faith directly as a poor epistemology (way of knowing things), and lead the believer to admit there is no way she could know the thing she claims to know. He gives pointers for dealing with common rebuttals, and strategies that have worked well for him in his years as a professor and counselor in the prison system. Boghossian then spends time tackling some of the societal forces that support faith. One such force is progressive, relativist liberalism that equates questioning beliefs with intolerance and moral turpitude. Boghossian promotes the use of social shunning to call people out for claiming to know things they don't know, in the same way one might respond to a racist comment. He advocates removing tax breaks for religious institutions. Each move of the chess piece is in service of toppling faith.
While this all may make Boghossian sound like some kind of jerk (a few of his recounted conversations in the book might give one pause when inviting him to a mixed-company dinner party), he does genuinely respect all the people he meets. He simply feels the faithful have contracted a mind virus and need immediate treatment. Here stands the professor that Christian parents have feared their children will encounter in college.
Whether or not you choose to be enlisted in his army of "street epistemologists" in challenging faith in all its forms, this is a fascinating, direct, and unabashed defense of the approach and a good insight into the mind of many atheists.
This is not a book aimed toward believers, and Boghossian doesn't waste any time with arguments against Christianity, the resurrection, or the existence of God. He takes their collective falsity as a given, and instead begins by defining terms. Faith is rendered as "pretending to know things you don't know". He spends some time dissecting common uses of the word "faith" (including attempts to label it as "hope") and discourages letting those ambiguities creep into conversations with believers. Doxastic closure is his term for a belief system that is not open to correction or reflection (Boghossian's livelihood is teaching Philosophy, and it shows here with often-unapproachable terms that one eventually absorbs by repetition). The goal is to engage the doxastically closed with Socratic dialog, probing them with questions to reveal contradictions and push them towards doxastic openness (skepticism).
Boghossian plays a tactical game: he advises against debates about particular scientific points or biblical exegesis. Rather, his goal is to target faith directly as a poor epistemology (way of knowing things), and lead the believer to admit there is no way she could know the thing she claims to know. He gives pointers for dealing with common rebuttals, and strategies that have worked well for him in his years as a professor and counselor in the prison system. Boghossian then spends time tackling some of the societal forces that support faith. One such force is progressive, relativist liberalism that equates questioning beliefs with intolerance and moral turpitude. Boghossian promotes the use of social shunning to call people out for claiming to know things they don't know, in the same way one might respond to a racist comment. He advocates removing tax breaks for religious institutions. Each move of the chess piece is in service of toppling faith.
While this all may make Boghossian sound like some kind of jerk (a few of his recounted conversations in the book might give one pause when inviting him to a mixed-company dinner party), he does genuinely respect all the people he meets. He simply feels the faithful have contracted a mind virus and need immediate treatment. Here stands the professor that Christian parents have feared their children will encounter in college.
Whether or not you choose to be enlisted in his army of "street epistemologists" in challenging faith in all its forms, this is a fascinating, direct, and unabashed defense of the approach and a good insight into the mind of many atheists.
July 21, 2014
You don't need to want to convert others into atheism to enjoy this book. A theist would not be turned off while listening to this book. The author is fairly non-threatening in his presentation.
I usually don't listen to every word when I'm listening to an Audible book, because sometimes my mind will wonder. This book was different. I listened to every word from the author since he writes simple sentences and reads his own work better than a professional could have and says something I was really interested in, namely how the scientific process works.
Faith, is best thought of as "pretending to know something you don't know". Facts need support beyond "I just believe" and such people who believe such things belong at the child's table not the adult's table. He warns of falling for the trap of 'having faith" that the light will turn on when you turn the light switch on. You really have knowledge in that situation not faith. It's part of the 'word play' of Wittgenstein, but it is a way to confuse the word faith in the non believer.
The author explains what critical reasoning is and shows how it is a foundation to philosophical thought, but at the same time the listener will realize how the Socratic method is the foundation for the scientific process (he doesn't explicitly state this, but as I was listening to every word it became obvious).
Even if you don't want to convert others to be an Atheist, the book is still valuable. It will teach you about critical reasoning and how to learn about your proper place in the universe just a little bit better.
I usually don't listen to every word when I'm listening to an Audible book, because sometimes my mind will wonder. This book was different. I listened to every word from the author since he writes simple sentences and reads his own work better than a professional could have and says something I was really interested in, namely how the scientific process works.
Faith, is best thought of as "pretending to know something you don't know". Facts need support beyond "I just believe" and such people who believe such things belong at the child's table not the adult's table. He warns of falling for the trap of 'having faith" that the light will turn on when you turn the light switch on. You really have knowledge in that situation not faith. It's part of the 'word play' of Wittgenstein, but it is a way to confuse the word faith in the non believer.
The author explains what critical reasoning is and shows how it is a foundation to philosophical thought, but at the same time the listener will realize how the Socratic method is the foundation for the scientific process (he doesn't explicitly state this, but as I was listening to every word it became obvious).
Even if you don't want to convert others to be an Atheist, the book is still valuable. It will teach you about critical reasoning and how to learn about your proper place in the universe just a little bit better.
January 17, 2014
Wow. Peter Boghossian manages to get so, so much wrong about faith that a facepalm is the only appropriate response.
Arguing isn't an appropriate response. This book, which outlines a strategy to argue people out of religious faith, tells its readers not to accept ANY definition of faith other than "pretending to know things you don't know" from a believer and if a believer tries to argue faith is something different DON'T LET THEM. Therefore, I can't argue with him that this is NOT what faith is because he won't accept it.
So, once he makes this fundamental mistake, he builds the rest of the book on it.
Sloppy foundation = unstable building.
Therefore, Boghossian never gets off the ground here.
The scary part? While this book won't give the atheist an edge to beat someone like me, I believe that it WILL give the atheist an edge over 98% of American Christianity.
I blame the church for only teaching people WHAT to believe, not WHY we believe it.
This is evidence that the unbelievers are going to get more aggressive against the believers. So I recommend studying this book in churches -- believers need to know how BAD this book really is before its methods are used to de-convert more people.
Arguing isn't an appropriate response. This book, which outlines a strategy to argue people out of religious faith, tells its readers not to accept ANY definition of faith other than "pretending to know things you don't know" from a believer and if a believer tries to argue faith is something different DON'T LET THEM. Therefore, I can't argue with him that this is NOT what faith is because he won't accept it.
So, once he makes this fundamental mistake, he builds the rest of the book on it.
Sloppy foundation = unstable building.
Therefore, Boghossian never gets off the ground here.
The scary part? While this book won't give the atheist an edge to beat someone like me, I believe that it WILL give the atheist an edge over 98% of American Christianity.
I blame the church for only teaching people WHAT to believe, not WHY we believe it.
This is evidence that the unbelievers are going to get more aggressive against the believers. So I recommend studying this book in churches -- believers need to know how BAD this book really is before its methods are used to de-convert more people.
June 30, 2017
Really good stuff. A manual on how to stir the pot and not be a total dick about it.
My one qualm with the book is the title. I think it's going to do the book some harm. Boghossian says somewhere in the book (I lost the page) that he doesn't want lead people to atheism but to reason and logic. Atheism is just a byproduct of that reason. If that's the case, then maybe the title should reflect the reason and logic bit. More people would probably be willing to check this out if they didn't think it was some crazy indoctrination manual.
Don't worry, skeptical people: it's not. It's a book that will help you question your beliefs no matter what they might be. It's about keeping an open mind, but not being susceptible to every ridiculous claim you hear.
Religion is a problem, but faith is the root of that problem, and this book does a great job of discussing what we can do about it.
My one qualm with the book is the title. I think it's going to do the book some harm. Boghossian says somewhere in the book (I lost the page) that he doesn't want lead people to atheism but to reason and logic. Atheism is just a byproduct of that reason. If that's the case, then maybe the title should reflect the reason and logic bit. More people would probably be willing to check this out if they didn't think it was some crazy indoctrination manual.
Don't worry, skeptical people: it's not. It's a book that will help you question your beliefs no matter what they might be. It's about keeping an open mind, but not being susceptible to every ridiculous claim you hear.
Religion is a problem, but faith is the root of that problem, and this book does a great job of discussing what we can do about it.
April 9, 2014
One of the most interesting things for me was learning about how the author has applied these motivated-interviewing techniques to working with diabetes patients - That, I want to read a book about. Maybe a future work? I would be happy to help with that research.
Despite the agitprop title, I was attracted to this book post de facto for its robust attack on relativism and was not disappointed. Also, the guy lives in Portland, hey. I am personally not so interested in converting anyone (need I say it), but rather, curious about others' epistemological foundations. Still, everyone should be more rigorous when it comes to determining 'what is true' and sort out any kind of harmful beliefs.
Despite the agitprop title, I was attracted to this book post de facto for its robust attack on relativism and was not disappointed. Also, the guy lives in Portland, hey. I am personally not so interested in converting anyone (need I say it), but rather, curious about others' epistemological foundations. Still, everyone should be more rigorous when it comes to determining 'what is true' and sort out any kind of harmful beliefs.
February 17, 2016
This book teaches one important lesson, and its scope is more general than religious arguments. Here is the lesson:
Don't dispute facts. Establish common epistemology first.
I realize now that often I found myself arguing about facts, when it is "how do you know something is true" that should be agreed upon first.
Once the latter is done, the former becomes simpler.
If you cannot establish a common epistemology, thought, there is no point in arguing further.
Don't dispute facts. Establish common epistemology first.
I realize now that often I found myself arguing about facts, when it is "how do you know something is true" that should be agreed upon first.
Once the latter is done, the former becomes simpler.
If you cannot establish a common epistemology, thought, there is no point in arguing further.
January 7, 2014
I really enjoyed this book.
Peter's focus is amazing. He outlines his thoughts very well and offers compelling guidance.
Just the philosophical notes outlining faith, hope, epistemology, etc are worth the read.
I also enjoyed the distinctions he draws between religion and faith.
A great read.
Peter's focus is amazing. He outlines his thoughts very well and offers compelling guidance.
Just the philosophical notes outlining faith, hope, epistemology, etc are worth the read.
I also enjoyed the distinctions he draws between religion and faith.
A great read.
December 15, 2016
I don’t know how to explain this book. The title covers the whole thing pretty well. I saw an interview with the author and I liked him. He’s a philosophy prof that believes that uncritical thought is actively dangerous - and specifically that believing in a god is very uncritical (as opposed to benignly delusional, I guess). This book is meant to empower atheists to prosthylize random folks that one meets in day to day life. It’s filled with transcripts of conversations he’s had at parties, grocery store lines, at restaurants, or whatever. These conversations are mostly him taking innocent conversations and subverting the other person’s deeply held religious beliefs.
It seemed weird to me. At times, he will discuss the nature of belief, and provide data about what sort of tactics tend to work when trying to deconvert someone from belief. Apparently, asking pointed questions (as opposed to simply telling them they’re wrong) and avoiding their specific religion are important.
In all, I thought this was an interesting read. It reminds me of the sort of evangelizing I used to do as a teenager. I would often perform on these ‘street ministry’ teams where I, along with others, would stand on corners and try to engage people in conversation and either convert them to my faith, or plant a seed of their conversion to be reaped later. And back then, it wasn’t simply shouting about hell to people, but having conversations with them. Leading them gently to come to the conclusion I wanted them to.
It’s really sales techniques, I think. Except in this case the book is about selling people on doubting the existence of God.
And it’s funny to me. I spent a lot of time in my youth witnessing for Christ. I recall going to rock concerts, hanging around outside and then confronting people as they filed out. I would go to the mall. I travelled with a troupe one summer (I mentioned this above, a lot of this paragraph seems redundant, actually) that went all over the south (as far north as Indianapolis all the way down to New Orleans) and we would do these skits on the streets that would usually be funny, and involve some poor sap trying to do something, and would have to repent and receive Jesus in order to solve his or her problem. There were usually very large crowds by the end and I would talk to dozens, if not hundreds of people about their faith.
One time, I went to a pastor that believed God wanted him to knock on the door of every person that lived in his county and ask them to be saved. I knocked on probably 1000 doors over that period in my efforts to help him win souls…
…. Wait… I’m doing some quick math in my head. That probably isn’t a realistic number. Maybe 250 doors.
The point with all that, I talked to a lot of people over the years. Even when I went overseas to the Ukraine and would spend my days on the streets witnessing (via a translator) where Atheism was the state sanctioned position concerning God, I’m not sure I recall ever meeting a person who professed to be an atheist.
That doesn’t seem possible. I take that back. I met one guy at the mall once who seemed ready to profess his atheism, but our conversation was cut short because his friends sort of freaked out and drug him away, possibly out of fear of lightning from the heavens striking him down.
Okay, so aside from that one guy, out of many hundreds of one-on-one conversations over the years, and maybe thousands, I don’t think I ever met a person who would have called themselves an atheist.
An example, I’m in the Ukraine, and a hypothetical conversation (through a translator) might have gone like this:
“Hey, Jesus loves you.”
“Yes, I have heard of Jesus, but know nothing of him”
“Great!” I’d say, “he sent me here just so you can learn about him.”
A smile, almost always, would be my response. Then I’d go on with the spiel and in the end I’d have a convert. In fact, in the Ukraine, I got the feeling that something was wrong with those people because I could have told them just about anything and there was almost no skepticism at all. I mean, and I’m serious now. I would probably lead 50 to 100 people a day to convert. I was invited to speak at a University in Lvuv. I managed to lead the entire class, including the prof, into a conversion experience where they repented on their sins and devoted their life to Christ.
And again, it nagged at me. I simply could not comprehend that anyone would simply accept an entire belief system just on my word. Yes, I think the standard response from me at the time that I was only a vessel, a fountain doesn’t quench a man’s thirst, it’s the water that flows out of it.
Still, I’d had a crisis of faith a few years prior, as I’ve mentioned previously in tons of detail in other reviews, but felt at the time that I was on the true path. This sort of mass conversion stuff was worrying to me. There was almost never, and I mean, never, any sort of questions asked, like, “how do you know this is true?”
Anyway, after my own transition from belief to non-belief a few years after all that, I felt the default position was to simply leave everyone alone about this stuff. I clearly never knew what I was talking about, despite my confidence at one time, and perhaps I should shut up about it.
And that’s more or less the life I lived. Yes, I did drill down into my own questions with as much gusto as a reasonable person could at the time. But once all that was over, and was more than satisfied, I was convinced to never talk about it again to anyone else.
But a few things have been happening over the past couple of years. I’ve mentioned before the increasing religiosity of loved ones means very in depth conversations about faith are happening on a more regular basis now, and, seriously, the wide scale acceptance, and in some circumstances, celebration, of Donald Trump has me considering that maybe I should be more vocal about things. Not simply religion, or God, or politics…. But about why facts matter, about why believing whatever you want to about any topic might actually be bad, not just for you, but for the world you live in.
People take actions based on what they believe. They vote accordingly, they support causes, or oppose them, whether it be Global Warming or vaccinations, someone is actually right in these debates and someone is actually wrong. If the evidence points in one direction, maybe it should be heeded, no matter if it conflicts with my faith or not.
So, I don’t know. I’m thinking about it. And as such, this book seemed appropriate given my mood. I read it. It was fine.
It seemed weird to me. At times, he will discuss the nature of belief, and provide data about what sort of tactics tend to work when trying to deconvert someone from belief. Apparently, asking pointed questions (as opposed to simply telling them they’re wrong) and avoiding their specific religion are important.
In all, I thought this was an interesting read. It reminds me of the sort of evangelizing I used to do as a teenager. I would often perform on these ‘street ministry’ teams where I, along with others, would stand on corners and try to engage people in conversation and either convert them to my faith, or plant a seed of their conversion to be reaped later. And back then, it wasn’t simply shouting about hell to people, but having conversations with them. Leading them gently to come to the conclusion I wanted them to.
It’s really sales techniques, I think. Except in this case the book is about selling people on doubting the existence of God.
And it’s funny to me. I spent a lot of time in my youth witnessing for Christ. I recall going to rock concerts, hanging around outside and then confronting people as they filed out. I would go to the mall. I travelled with a troupe one summer (I mentioned this above, a lot of this paragraph seems redundant, actually) that went all over the south (as far north as Indianapolis all the way down to New Orleans) and we would do these skits on the streets that would usually be funny, and involve some poor sap trying to do something, and would have to repent and receive Jesus in order to solve his or her problem. There were usually very large crowds by the end and I would talk to dozens, if not hundreds of people about their faith.
One time, I went to a pastor that believed God wanted him to knock on the door of every person that lived in his county and ask them to be saved. I knocked on probably 1000 doors over that period in my efforts to help him win souls…
…. Wait… I’m doing some quick math in my head. That probably isn’t a realistic number. Maybe 250 doors.
The point with all that, I talked to a lot of people over the years. Even when I went overseas to the Ukraine and would spend my days on the streets witnessing (via a translator) where Atheism was the state sanctioned position concerning God, I’m not sure I recall ever meeting a person who professed to be an atheist.
That doesn’t seem possible. I take that back. I met one guy at the mall once who seemed ready to profess his atheism, but our conversation was cut short because his friends sort of freaked out and drug him away, possibly out of fear of lightning from the heavens striking him down.
Okay, so aside from that one guy, out of many hundreds of one-on-one conversations over the years, and maybe thousands, I don’t think I ever met a person who would have called themselves an atheist.
An example, I’m in the Ukraine, and a hypothetical conversation (through a translator) might have gone like this:
“Hey, Jesus loves you.”
“Yes, I have heard of Jesus, but know nothing of him”
“Great!” I’d say, “he sent me here just so you can learn about him.”
A smile, almost always, would be my response. Then I’d go on with the spiel and in the end I’d have a convert. In fact, in the Ukraine, I got the feeling that something was wrong with those people because I could have told them just about anything and there was almost no skepticism at all. I mean, and I’m serious now. I would probably lead 50 to 100 people a day to convert. I was invited to speak at a University in Lvuv. I managed to lead the entire class, including the prof, into a conversion experience where they repented on their sins and devoted their life to Christ.
And again, it nagged at me. I simply could not comprehend that anyone would simply accept an entire belief system just on my word. Yes, I think the standard response from me at the time that I was only a vessel, a fountain doesn’t quench a man’s thirst, it’s the water that flows out of it.
Still, I’d had a crisis of faith a few years prior, as I’ve mentioned previously in tons of detail in other reviews, but felt at the time that I was on the true path. This sort of mass conversion stuff was worrying to me. There was almost never, and I mean, never, any sort of questions asked, like, “how do you know this is true?”
Anyway, after my own transition from belief to non-belief a few years after all that, I felt the default position was to simply leave everyone alone about this stuff. I clearly never knew what I was talking about, despite my confidence at one time, and perhaps I should shut up about it.
And that’s more or less the life I lived. Yes, I did drill down into my own questions with as much gusto as a reasonable person could at the time. But once all that was over, and was more than satisfied, I was convinced to never talk about it again to anyone else.
But a few things have been happening over the past couple of years. I’ve mentioned before the increasing religiosity of loved ones means very in depth conversations about faith are happening on a more regular basis now, and, seriously, the wide scale acceptance, and in some circumstances, celebration, of Donald Trump has me considering that maybe I should be more vocal about things. Not simply religion, or God, or politics…. But about why facts matter, about why believing whatever you want to about any topic might actually be bad, not just for you, but for the world you live in.
People take actions based on what they believe. They vote accordingly, they support causes, or oppose them, whether it be Global Warming or vaccinations, someone is actually right in these debates and someone is actually wrong. If the evidence points in one direction, maybe it should be heeded, no matter if it conflicts with my faith or not.
So, I don’t know. I’m thinking about it. And as such, this book seemed appropriate given my mood. I read it. It was fine.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 222 reviews