Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Lee Harris
My friend Dymphna at Gates of Vienna suggested I read The Next American Civil War by Lee Harris, in response to one of my recent posts. In the process of looking up the one book at Barnes and Nobel, I saw he had written two others of interest, Civilization and Its Enemies and The Suicide of Reason. I have finished the first and am close to completing The Next American Civil War.
This is the most original and brilliant modern thinker and philosopher I have read. In Civilization he applies a totally new way of looking at the way civilizations come about and how they are maintained. He also puts a totally different perspective on the terrorist acts of the Islamists. In The Next American Civil War he again provides a completely new way of looking at the rise of the United States and provides clear reasons as to why it is unique in the world, and how its functioning is unique.
The ideas are large in scope but the writing is very clear and logical. The books are not even weighty tomes, but are shorter than some novels. His writing style puts a lot of ideas into relatively few words. For anyone who cares about this country, where it is going, and what it faces from the rest of the world, these books provide plenty of material for new ideas. His views cannot be labeled with the usual labels of liberal, conservative, or libertarian. In fact, one cannot properly say he has presented views but rather analysis, excellent analysis.
I took time from my major projects to read these books and will also read The Suicide of Reason before I return to them. The time is well worth it. If nothing else, read Civilization and Its Enemies. If your mind is open to new ideas you will find them. If you want to keep your old, comfortable ways of thinking, its your choice but you will be the worse for it.
This is the most original and brilliant modern thinker and philosopher I have read. In Civilization he applies a totally new way of looking at the way civilizations come about and how they are maintained. He also puts a totally different perspective on the terrorist acts of the Islamists. In The Next American Civil War he again provides a completely new way of looking at the rise of the United States and provides clear reasons as to why it is unique in the world, and how its functioning is unique.
The ideas are large in scope but the writing is very clear and logical. The books are not even weighty tomes, but are shorter than some novels. His writing style puts a lot of ideas into relatively few words. For anyone who cares about this country, where it is going, and what it faces from the rest of the world, these books provide plenty of material for new ideas. His views cannot be labeled with the usual labels of liberal, conservative, or libertarian. In fact, one cannot properly say he has presented views but rather analysis, excellent analysis.
I took time from my major projects to read these books and will also read The Suicide of Reason before I return to them. The time is well worth it. If nothing else, read Civilization and Its Enemies. If your mind is open to new ideas you will find them. If you want to keep your old, comfortable ways of thinking, its your choice but you will be the worse for it.
Friday, May 27, 2011
The End of Faith
I have just finished Sam Harris' book, The End of Faith. It of course belongs with the other output from the so-called New Atheists, or as I term them, the Evangelical Atheists (EAs). However, much about the book is a marked departure from the usual polemics. Compared to Sam Harris, people such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, John Loftus, and Richard Carrier are more like rabid dogs, foaming at the mouth, and snapping at anything within reach. Harris has much to say, and though it may not all be accurate, he does it in a reasonable manner. One has the idea that he might actually be willing to discuss and reason with his opponents rather than subject them to some sort of ad hominum attack.
One of the more outstanding points in his book (and one that has apparently not set well with the other EAs) is that he is willing to consider that there may be something other than just materialism, that there may be things spiritual to consider. Another outstanding point and one he shares with Christopher Hitchens, is he is willing to tackle Islam as being what it is--a murderous political religion that is of necessity exactly that and not a "religion of peace." Harris' analysis is more thorough than that of Hitchens and certainly much more convincing.
There are places where his liberal political leanings show through, and to some degree I think they color his assessment of the role of religion in the US today. He does not really attack the Nazis, or the Communists (Stalin, Mao) with the same vigor and detail that he does Islam or the Inquisition. As a result the impression is much more skewed against religion, which is his objective.
A thorough analysis of his book will have to wait for another time. I will probably also include his ethics book with it when I do it.
Probably the most unusual part of reading this book was it was not painful, as was reading Dawkins, Hitchens, Loftus, and Carrier.
One of the more outstanding points in his book (and one that has apparently not set well with the other EAs) is that he is willing to consider that there may be something other than just materialism, that there may be things spiritual to consider. Another outstanding point and one he shares with Christopher Hitchens, is he is willing to tackle Islam as being what it is--a murderous political religion that is of necessity exactly that and not a "religion of peace." Harris' analysis is more thorough than that of Hitchens and certainly much more convincing.
There are places where his liberal political leanings show through, and to some degree I think they color his assessment of the role of religion in the US today. He does not really attack the Nazis, or the Communists (Stalin, Mao) with the same vigor and detail that he does Islam or the Inquisition. As a result the impression is much more skewed against religion, which is his objective.
A thorough analysis of his book will have to wait for another time. I will probably also include his ethics book with it when I do it.
Probably the most unusual part of reading this book was it was not painful, as was reading Dawkins, Hitchens, Loftus, and Carrier.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
An Observation
As part of my studies, I have been reading quite a few of the Evangelical Atheists, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, John Loftus, Richard Carrier, et al. One of the things that has impressed me the most, is that they constantly talk about logic and science vs. religion, and then use arguments whose logic is non-existent and draw conclusions as weak or weaker than those they accuse the Fundamentalists of having. [Note that they don't really attack mainline Christianity, but Fundamentalist Christianity and its reading the Bible at the literal face value of the words. They then claim they have attacked all of Christianity.]
They also are quite guilty of failing to properly read or interpret history. They continue to cite misquotes and misinterpretations of past conflicts to claim that they were science vs. religion when in actuality they were usually either political or cultural battles with science or religion as the excuse. The more history I read, the more ridiculous their interpretations appear.
As best as I can figure, when one is already on the side of atheism one will let all sorts of sloppiness pass as credible. That is the only way I can understand the lauds and praises of reviewers and the kind of sales they seem to have.
They also are quite guilty of failing to properly read or interpret history. They continue to cite misquotes and misinterpretations of past conflicts to claim that they were science vs. religion when in actuality they were usually either political or cultural battles with science or religion as the excuse. The more history I read, the more ridiculous their interpretations appear.
As best as I can figure, when one is already on the side of atheism one will let all sorts of sloppiness pass as credible. That is the only way I can understand the lauds and praises of reviewers and the kind of sales they seem to have.
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
Obama announces Bin Laden is dead
All of us want to believe it. For a different take see Ann Barnhardt. Actually, I think she is off-base here, unless a real raid on a compound was used to provide cover for a good propaganda ploy.
He most likely is dead regardless of scenario, or there would have been denials by now from Al Qaida. The problem with Ann's version, is that if there is any truth in it, our government is even more evil and crooked than we imagine. However, I did once post that it is always about politics.
He most likely is dead regardless of scenario, or there would have been denials by now from Al Qaida. The problem with Ann's version, is that if there is any truth in it, our government is even more evil and crooked than we imagine. However, I did once post that it is always about politics.
