going to New Orleans
So I have an bit of time to kill in the airport, and since google put in free wifi for the holidays I figured I'd update here. So here you go.
So my parents got a book called Atheist Delusions and I read it over break. It's pretty well done, essentially it's a response to the people who claim that Christianity is "a net negative in history". He does a good job of addressing the issue from several dimensions, with the second section which focuses on the history of various events used to support the thesis being quite interesting. It doesn't have much in the way of citations, but on the areas where I know the literature somewhat it does seem rather accurate. It is a bit too focused on the West, in my opinion, with Greek and Roman paganism representing paganism generally, and I'm not sure if it really is representative of all non-Judeo/Christian faiths. The argument might work just as well for traditional religions in Africa or Australia, but it'd be nice if they were addressed explicitly a little bit.
The one major problem I found, however, is in the tone. The book, especially the first part which establishes the premise, is somewhat triumphalist. I found the thesis (that modern secular values, though post-Christian are still based upon Christian values and are no more self-evident or permanent than any other set of values and that there's no guarantee that what they are developing toward will be "better" than what has come before given that it is being based entirely on uninhibited human will) quite convincing, and I'm obviously not the hardest sell on the idea that Christianity was not a historical tragedy, but even I thought the book was a bit antagonistic in its tone. This might not seem like a big deal, but I think it's a major weakness. The book will serve well to confirm the pre-conceptions of those who will read it, and maybe that's all it would have done in any event since I figure the hardcore atheist (regardless of any claims of open-mindedness and rationality) will not really be convinced of the historical value of Christianity by reasoned argument or historical evidence. There is too much emotion in the issue, and it's really never been about historical truth. Yet, I think the book owes it to its readers to try, and I don't think Hart does. Which is too bad, because even if not too many people will really examine their pre-conceptions after reading a book like this, you do want to give them a chance to get to the meat of their argument before you close them off by angering them through some offhand comment in the first part of your book.
Still, I do recommend the book to read over and see what Hart has to say about our past and where he sees us going in the future. It's an interesting vision even if his comments about other thinkers are sometimes somewhat jarring.
Anyway, I have my netbook with me in New Orleans, but I'm not sure how internet access will be. So, if I don't see you until then, have a happy New Year. Hopefully it'll be warmer wherever you are than it is in Boston right now...
So my parents got a book called Atheist Delusions and I read it over break. It's pretty well done, essentially it's a response to the people who claim that Christianity is "a net negative in history". He does a good job of addressing the issue from several dimensions, with the second section which focuses on the history of various events used to support the thesis being quite interesting. It doesn't have much in the way of citations, but on the areas where I know the literature somewhat it does seem rather accurate. It is a bit too focused on the West, in my opinion, with Greek and Roman paganism representing paganism generally, and I'm not sure if it really is representative of all non-Judeo/Christian faiths. The argument might work just as well for traditional religions in Africa or Australia, but it'd be nice if they were addressed explicitly a little bit.
The one major problem I found, however, is in the tone. The book, especially the first part which establishes the premise, is somewhat triumphalist. I found the thesis (that modern secular values, though post-Christian are still based upon Christian values and are no more self-evident or permanent than any other set of values and that there's no guarantee that what they are developing toward will be "better" than what has come before given that it is being based entirely on uninhibited human will) quite convincing, and I'm obviously not the hardest sell on the idea that Christianity was not a historical tragedy, but even I thought the book was a bit antagonistic in its tone. This might not seem like a big deal, but I think it's a major weakness. The book will serve well to confirm the pre-conceptions of those who will read it, and maybe that's all it would have done in any event since I figure the hardcore atheist (regardless of any claims of open-mindedness and rationality) will not really be convinced of the historical value of Christianity by reasoned argument or historical evidence. There is too much emotion in the issue, and it's really never been about historical truth. Yet, I think the book owes it to its readers to try, and I don't think Hart does. Which is too bad, because even if not too many people will really examine their pre-conceptions after reading a book like this, you do want to give them a chance to get to the meat of their argument before you close them off by angering them through some offhand comment in the first part of your book.
Still, I do recommend the book to read over and see what Hart has to say about our past and where he sees us going in the future. It's an interesting vision even if his comments about other thinkers are sometimes somewhat jarring.
Anyway, I have my netbook with me in New Orleans, but I'm not sure how internet access will be. So, if I don't see you until then, have a happy New Year. Hopefully it'll be warmer wherever you are than it is in Boston right now...