Scan barcode
tobynicks's review against another edition
5.0
It's a transcript of a conversation which had no contrived direction so anything less than 5 stars would suggest missing the point of the book!
kevin_shepherd's review against another edition
5.0
"You don't have to boast a PhD or have read Thomas à Kempis, the Qur'an, the Book of Mormon and the teachings of Siddhartha (or indeed On the Origin of Species and Principia Mathematica) to be able to take part in such wrangling and disputation. But boy, isn't it wonderful when you can eavesdrop on four who have." ~Stephen Fry
Oh, to have the sagacious chops to merit a seat at that table! A secular Mt Rushmore. An evolutionary biologist, a neuroscientist, a philosopher, and Hitch (sorry, I couldn't describe Christopher Hitchens with just one word. Historian? Journalist? Contrarian? Sage? Even collectively they fall far short.)
One of my utopian fantasies would be to live in a world where all of us could practice and embrace rational discourse at this level. It's a pipe dream that has absolutely no chance, but I like to ponder the implausible. (I have a lesser utopian fantasy where I'm spooning with Uma Thurman, but I digress...)
Oh, to have the sagacious chops to merit a seat at that table! A secular Mt Rushmore. An evolutionary biologist, a neuroscientist, a philosopher, and Hitch (sorry, I couldn't describe Christopher Hitchens with just one word. Historian? Journalist? Contrarian? Sage? Even collectively they fall far short.)
One of my utopian fantasies would be to live in a world where all of us could practice and embrace rational discourse at this level. It's a pipe dream that has absolutely no chance, but I like to ponder the implausible. (I have a lesser utopian fantasy where I'm spooning with Uma Thurman, but I digress...)
itys's review against another edition
5.0
I appreciate New Atheism for the simple reason, as with the late Christopher Hitchens and his desire not to eliminate religion but to keep it as a dialectical partner (what's Socrates without an interlocutor), that its members are challenging. This book is a modified version of a conversation that happened between these four prominent intellectuals and atheists nearly 12 years ago. Detractions aside (the absence of women or people of colour in the discussion, the use of magisterial or ex cathedra sources as caricatures of "theology" and what "theologians do") there is much to learn within these pages, especially for the religious.
There were two points that stuck out to me. The first in a comment by Dennett: "I share your impatience with officials of the churches - the people who have this as their professional life. It seems to me that they know better. The congregation's don't know better, because it's maintained that they should not know better. I do get very anxious about ridiculing the belief of the flock, because of the way in which they have ceded to their leaders, they've delegated authority to their leaders, and they presume their leaders are going to do it right. Who stands up and says, 'the buck stops here'? Well, it seems to me it's the preachers themselves, it's the priests, it's the bishops. And we really should hold their feet to the fire. For instance, just take the issue of creationism. If somebody in a fundamentalist church thinks that creationism makes sense because their pastor told them so, well, I can understand that and excuse that. We all get a lot of what we take to be true from people whom we respect and whom we view as authorities. We don't check everything out. But where did the pastor get this idea? And I don't care where he got it. He or she is responsible because their job is to know what they're talking about, in a way that the congregation is not."
Creationism aside, Dennett's final point is haunting to me. In my field, experts often bemoan the ignorance of regular everyday believers. I think on the one hand it is the responsibility of experts to help every day people understand and connect with the best information, the best truth that they can. On the other hand, Dennett's point is also relevant because it is the responsibility that leaders and public spokespeople who decide to speak on issues outside of their necessary expertise (science, economics, politics, and often ironically the Bible and theology) must be careful because congregants rely on them to filter expertise down.
The second point that leap out at me was the following comment by Hitchens: "...as I realized when I thought one evening, they never come up with anything new. Well, why would they? Their arguments are very old by definition. And they were all evolved when we knew very, very little about the natural order." This is something that a lot of religious people take for granted, that our understanding of nature has changed. Even though our understanding of the natural and what is natural has changed, many still seem to be stuck asking questions attached to a former understanding of nature. So do we grasp our current understanding of nature and ask new questions, new formidable ways of expressing the infinite and the Incarnate? Or do we superimpose an archaic understanding of nature, useful in its own time, but empirically untenable for our own, in order to preserve some semblance of what we think or conceive "religious authority" to be?
There were two points that stuck out to me. The first in a comment by Dennett: "I share your impatience with officials of the churches - the people who have this as their professional life. It seems to me that they know better. The congregation's don't know better, because it's maintained that they should not know better. I do get very anxious about ridiculing the belief of the flock, because of the way in which they have ceded to their leaders, they've delegated authority to their leaders, and they presume their leaders are going to do it right. Who stands up and says, 'the buck stops here'? Well, it seems to me it's the preachers themselves, it's the priests, it's the bishops. And we really should hold their feet to the fire. For instance, just take the issue of creationism. If somebody in a fundamentalist church thinks that creationism makes sense because their pastor told them so, well, I can understand that and excuse that. We all get a lot of what we take to be true from people whom we respect and whom we view as authorities. We don't check everything out. But where did the pastor get this idea? And I don't care where he got it. He or she is responsible because their job is to know what they're talking about, in a way that the congregation is not."
Creationism aside, Dennett's final point is haunting to me. In my field, experts often bemoan the ignorance of regular everyday believers. I think on the one hand it is the responsibility of experts to help every day people understand and connect with the best information, the best truth that they can. On the other hand, Dennett's point is also relevant because it is the responsibility that leaders and public spokespeople who decide to speak on issues outside of their necessary expertise (science, economics, politics, and often ironically the Bible and theology) must be careful because congregants rely on them to filter expertise down.
The second point that leap out at me was the following comment by Hitchens: "...as I realized when I thought one evening, they never come up with anything new. Well, why would they? Their arguments are very old by definition. And they were all evolved when we knew very, very little about the natural order." This is something that a lot of religious people take for granted, that our understanding of nature has changed. Even though our understanding of the natural and what is natural has changed, many still seem to be stuck asking questions attached to a former understanding of nature. So do we grasp our current understanding of nature and ask new questions, new formidable ways of expressing the infinite and the Incarnate? Or do we superimpose an archaic understanding of nature, useful in its own time, but empirically untenable for our own, in order to preserve some semblance of what we think or conceive "religious authority" to be?
alanrussellfuller's review against another edition
2.0
"On the other hand, my concern is actually not so much with the evils of religion as with whether it’s true. And I really do care passionately about the fact of the matter: is there, as a matter of fact, a supernatural creator of this universe? And I really care about that bogus belief." - Dawkins, p.121
People are not perfect, and neither is religion because it is composed of people. Four leaders of the New Atheists discuss the shortcomings of religion more than whether there is a God or not, despite the assertion of Richard Dawkins.
aydanroger's review against another edition
challenging
funny
informative
inspiring
lighthearted
reflective
relaxing
fast-paced
5.0
uditnair24's review against another edition
3.0
Wonderful discussion between some of the great intellectuals of our time. It becomes important to read this work because atheists have the intellectual courage to accept reality for what it is and this book is just a reflection of that. An atheist have the moral courage to live to full the only life he is ever going to get:to fully inhabit reality ,rejoice it and do the best finally to leave it better. Also the universe is grand, beautiful,wonderful place and it's petty and parochial and cheapening to believe in God and supernatural creators and supernatural elements. Although a lot more could have been incorporated into this but I guess for starters this much is enough to get the brain rolling in the right direction. And when I say enough I mean the genuine persuasion based on rational and logical claims rather than stories and fiction.
christopherchandler's review against another edition
3.0
Once you get into the actual conversation, this is fascinating and worth the short amount of time to read. Hitchens and Dennett are in a league of their own. Dawkins embodies all there is to dislike about the new atheist movement and Harris was more in the background of the conversation.
jcka's review against another edition
2.0
I laughed out loud. In a plane. I mean, I obviously have opinions, but boy some of this has not aged well.
bclark8781's review against another edition
5.0
Four brave men discuss the foolishness that is organized religion. How can one be an intellectually honest person while surrounded by this silliness?