Is an Atheism meme responsible?

[SOIL]

Has anyone read the following book?

 

Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, And The Meaning Of Life by Alister McGrath

 

I'm thinking it might be cool to do the following type of thing here:

 

- Setup an ongoing BOM thread: to discuss chapters from a mutually agreed upon: Book Of the Month (BOM) -

 

Perhaps if such a concept were to catch on, we could alternate each month between pro and con books (each relating to something like the relative benefits - or lack thereof - associated with Christian positions (in contrast with Humanist and/or other worldview based positions) concerning controversial subjects.

 

Principal Players (PPs) in such BOM threads, might consist of an equal number of pro and con, ex-christian (EC) and current-christian (CC) people.

 

Each of the PPs could agree to read through the given BOM book, and state their various opinions in the official BOM thread - maybe regulated by a unique set of rules. Then perhaps we could also have another parrallel "Peanut Gallery(PG)" thread, where we could encourage additional comments and discussion from any and everyone else who are not officially designated as PPs in the associated BOM thread (for the book being discussed).

 

I am not hereby volunteering to be a PP (on the Christian side of things), for any particular BOM thread (since I am conspicously challenged in both available-time and intellect areas) - however, if an initial couple of "PPs" would volunteer to discuss Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, And The Meaning Of Life - I would very much enjoy reading (here on this site) contrasting opinions about this book - both in a formal BOM thread and an associated PG thread (where I would probably feel more comfortable jumping in myself). I do have a passion for truth, but I find it very difficult and time-consuming to type out my thoughts in such a way as to effectively communicate - as well as I desire to - without robbing either my employer or my family of much of the time I should be using for their benefit.

 

-Dennis

 

P.S. I lost my hard-drive - and I haven't yet installed a spell checker on this one - so sorry about the spelling.

[Ouroboros]

Hmm. Interesting thought. I'll think about that, I like to read.

[been borg again]

havent read it, except websites devoted to Memes.

personaly I think rational objective scientific material logical & critical thinking

overrides the power of irrational or faith based memes.

While I might agree hard atheism could be a certian meme, since their is no evidence of no god. I think the most intellectualy honest postition is Agnostic or weak atheism, since all the physical material evidence neither proves nor disproves a diety. which makes all this Apologetic talk pretty meaningless. LOL

[Lokmer]

I hope McGrath doesn't embarass himself here like he did with his paper last year on why atheism is untenable.

 

I'm cringing reading through the Amazon introductory pages. I used to love McGrath - he's a first rate medievel historian and a good writer. But, if his previous attempts are any indication (such as his paper last year or his embarassing "Natural Theology" trilogy, which rehashes the same hackneyed arguments for the existence of an omnimax theistic God) he should stay out of philosophy, he isn't qualified to do it. It's one thing to believe in God, and to be willing to explore the subject and perhaps the character of God. It's quite another to believe you can prove the existence and relevance of self-contradictorially defined God that is easily dismissed on the grounds of his own supposed scripture.

 

I probably won't be reading this book until my Dad buys it and foists it upon me. I have better things to spend my money on.

-Lokmer

[been borg again]

SOIL,

good idea for the book of the month club.

An idea only, maybe pick a online book so we can all read it.

 

I have tons of links to online librarys with thousands of free books.

off the top of my head

sacredtext.com.. with about every holy book you can think of and all the christian classics

 

Oxford has a online library of all the Sumerian and Gilgamesh stuff

 

shit, cant think of the domain names, but I know of a bunch of sites that post all of the NAg HAuumadi, dead sea scrolls, gnostics, Medival books, all the books from Early Christin Fathers like Justin, ect.

And a data base of Zorastorism scriptures and the Jewish Talmud.

Buttloads of Roman books on the internet too.

 

Maybe if you want to do a topic like Memes, I know of a bunch of really indepth websites dedicated to the subject and authors. Maybe you should pick one of those instead of a a paper book we would all have to buy.

 

Also on the subject of atheism and philosphy, there exists buttloads of books and esseys too all over the internet.

[Ouroboros]

http://www.blackmask.com/cgi-bin/newlinks/page.cgi?d=1

http://www.gutenberg.org/

 

But I must say I like to read a real book made of paper. It's more relaxing.

[SOIL]

...

An idea only, maybe pick a online book so we can all read it.

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good idea bba,

 

I have been wanting to read all of this book: Slaves, Women and Homosexuals by William Webb (Lokmer, have you read this book?) ever since I read this review - but that IVP site didn't link on this page to ( "Appendix B: Women as More Easily Deceived Than Men" ) which the title of the link indicated they would - shoot! - and that was the main thing I wanted to read!

 

-Dennis

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

I'm thinking it might be cool to do the following type of thing here:

 

- Setup an ongoing BOM thread: to discuss chapters from a mutually agreed upon: Book Of the Month (BOM) -

 

Perhaps if such a concept were to catch on, we could alternate each month between pro and con books (each relating to something like the relative benefits - or lack thereof - associated with Christian positions (in contrast with Humanist and/or other worldview based positions) concerning controversial subjects.

Good idea Dennis. I'd like to join in, although I'm time-challenged like you and might have to comment from the peanut gallery.

[SOIL]

I haven't read this book yet - but it looks like it is completely available online - and I have liked some of the other things I have read by G.K.

 

Heretics by G. K. Chesterton

 

-Dennis

[Lokmer]

Slaves, Women and Homosexuals by William Webb (Lokmer, have you read this book?)

 

Yes, I've read the book.

 

A spectactularly erudite exercise in justifying a political/theological position that the author held for non-theological reasons. As a Christian (when I read it) I found the "redemptive hermeneutic" he posits to be artificial and to do violence to the text of the Bible. Moreover, he carefully deliniates beforehand the limits of his hermeneutic in order to ensure that he does not come out at the end in support of homosexuals, In other words, he goes to great lengths to justify his inconsistant treatment of scripture in order to remain just barely politically correct enough to justify his own theology and make the book salable to his audience.

 

I should also note, in the interests of journalistic integrity, that I have met the author and know him second-hand through three different avenues, and had the priviliage of witnessing a rather colorful doctrinal dispute that he and his book provoked in the ranks of the Evangelical Theological Society.

 

So, I think you'll enjoy the read, Dennis. But it is, in the end, just as circular as C.S. Lewis. Someone should have reminded Bill not to believe everything he thinks.

 

-Lokmer

[Loren]

I think this is a fine idea Dennis, however the idea of having an equal (more or less) number of posters on both sides might be problematic on this site.

 

I also liked been borg again's suggestion that it be kept to online books so we could all read them easily.

 

I don't know if or how much I'd participate due to time constraints of my own, but I think it's a very worthy thing to try.

 

It's always good to disseminate and discuss ideas. It makes for a healthier society.

 

Hope you're doing well,

Loren

[Ouroboros]

The idea is great, but the challenge is to agree to a book!

 

I guess, maybe you, SOIL, should make a list of several online books you find interesting, then we have a little debate to pick one...

[♦ ficino ♦]

what is a "meme"?

[Ouroboros]

what is a "meme"?

I haven't studied this theory much, but I'm planning to.

 

But I think it is that thoughts and ideas behave like a virus, they spread, by themselves. The idea has a "life" of its own. Cultural contract, morals and religion could be explained as memes.

[dogmatically_challenged]

what is a "meme"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

American Heritage Dictionary.

meme (mm) KEY

 

NOUN:

 

A unit of cultural information, such as a cultural practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another.

 

 

Helpful for reasearch. Wikipedia

[Amethyst]

I've seen websites on memes. One theory is that they are a type of mind virus that tries to survive for as long as possible.

 

A book of the month thread would be interesting. Now, if only I was all caught up on my other reading.

[SOIL]

...

... Moreover, he carefully deliniates beforehand the limits of his hermeneutic in order to ensure that he does not come out at the end in support of homosexuals,  In other words, he goes to great lengths to justify his inconsistant treatment of scripture in order to remain just barely politically correct enough to justify his own theology and make the book salable to his audience....

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lokmer,

 

Interesting, I was also wondering about what you say concerning the idea that homosexuality was being treated differently in the book ... however, I haven't read the source/original book yet - only that review (which I linked to earlier) and also part of another review by Wayne Grudem.

 

I do want to read the full original book though - since even the reviews have sparked my thinking so.

 

-Dennis

[SOIL]

Concerning: SHOULD WE MOVE BEYOND THE NEW TESTAMENT TO A BETTER ETHIC? ....

 

I had downloaded the above "analysis" to my PDA a couple of months back - and then, before I finished reading it, the device sort of went kaput (I can't recharge it's battery anymore and it now doesn't even work when plugged in!). Anyway, I got caught up in my work (and other personal stressful issues - generated by my participation at this site), and I didn't go back to the internet to finish reading it.

 

I just now read this part: "VII. THE DIFFICULT PASSAGES FOR DETERMINING CULTURAL RELATIVITY ARE FEW, AND MOST EVANGELICALS HAVE ALREADY REACHED A SATISFACTORY CONCLUSION ABOUT THEM", and it is pretty interesting reading. (Though I have always been very confused about the short hair for men thing - given Samson's problems when he allowed his hair to be cut - yeah, I know it is more complicated than that - but heck, sometimes I just get tired using my brain!.)

 

Now I guess I will read through that whole "analysis" - (my youngest daughter really gets irritated with me, when she sees I start reading something either in the middle or toward the last .... maybe I should learn yet another something from her).

 

-Dennis

[dogmatically_challenged]

SOIL. Are you a Christian Deist? You have the smell of a freethinker. Just sniffin a little is all. You are an interesting Person.

[Lokmer]

Interesting, I was also wondering about what you say concerning the idea that homosexuality was being treated differently in the book...

 

How exactly do you mean?

-Lokmer

[SOIL]

How exactly do you mean?

-Lokmer

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lokmer,

 

Well, it originally seemed to me that Mr. Webb might have felt (as I have personally felt at times) that some things which appear to be condemned - as absolute sin - in scripture, may simply be beyond the ability of people to overcome (even when aided by the Holy Spirit, in cases where people have sincerely requested his help, in the manner it looks like we are to do that, given how we interpret NT scriptures as we read them today).

 

For instance, the data concerning homosexual proclivity (as possibly being genetically predetermined) can be interpreted in such a manner - so it would make it difficult to believe God would require celibacy for someone who (through no fault of their own) was pre-wired (so to speak) - to be unable to demonstrate the ideal relationship between man and wife, which God has chosen to illustrate (as an earthly picture) the spiritual relationship between Christ and his bride, the church.

 

Now - I would think a compassionate person such as Webb - would be very tempted to use his "redemptive hermeneutic" - as a way help present the justice side of God's character in a bit more palatable way - especially for people who live in the added light available in this time and place (i.e. IF in fact there is more light available now?).

 

Rather than what I expected though - Webb seems to treat homosexuality different than he does the concepts of Slavery and Women's egalitarian ideas.

 

-Dennis

 

P.S.

 

BTW, late last night I read some more of Grudem's analysis - Wow, now that is what I call a pretty in-depth "analysis" - and I think well worth reading - I understand why you (while you were still refering to yourself as a Christian) didn't think the ideas in Webb's book fit with scripture.

[Lokmer]

My problem with Webb's book wasn't that it didn't "jive" with scripture. I appreciated his attempt to legitimize sexual egalitarianism from an Evangelical point of view - it's overdue. And, he is unusually compassionate towards homosexuals for someone of his doctrinal position.

 

And he deserves extra kudos for recognizing that the reasoning that frees the slaves must also free the women. But the same reasoning must needs also free the homosexuals, and my beef with him is that he works out a VERY contrived way, that ultimately is based on cultural and doctrinal prejudice and little else, rather than being consistant in his read of the text. The whole book amounts to special pleading - and that's what pisses me off about it.

 

-Lokmer