Read and respond to this essay from the New York Times. Bring our class discussions about argument into play...you can even reference David Quammen and others.
I believe that the award for the worst book of 2011 was exactly as stated by Philip Kitcher, “misplaced.” Though the idea of scientism seems extreme and preposterous, so does the idea of praying to another. The thought that science can resolve all questions appears to be plausible in our forward moving society where we are constantly progressing and expanding our knowledge of life and the world around us. “You can reasonably expect that science will go much further” as put by Kitcher. We have been and are answering questions that were once a mystery, unable to be understood by anyone but God alone. Not being able to recognize human’s capability to understand and uncover the truth via science based on our previous accomplishments is ignorant. This is not to say that I agree with Rosenberg that “Morality, purpose and the quaint conceit of an enduring self all have to go,” because I believe we all should have a religion or God to look upon for hope and advice. I do believe that we must not let this faith interfere with our ability to see “the whole truth about reality” through our understanding of science. As for the author of The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, Alex Rosenberg, I believe he is an educated man dedicated to science just as a Christian is dedicated to living a life according to his/her religion. His award for the worst book of 2011 was received because he has an idea contrary to that of popular opinion, and it is seen as different. If the table were turned would the Bible have received this award instead?
Lets get straight to the point. Science has never quite been able to even scratch the surface of all the many things that make up life, the universe, and everything, so the idea that Alex Rosenberg's so-called "worst book", "THE ATHEIST’S GUIDE TO REALITY: Enjoying Life Without Illusions" is aptly named. In this bible revised catechism for atheists, the central plot revolves around the idea that "the facts of microphysics determine everything under the sun, Darwinian natural selection explains human behavior, and brilliant work in the still-young brain sciences shows us as we really are." As enticing as these points may sound, there are already serious flaws in all of these central points. Already stated earlier, science is still, in our day and age, very unprepared to define the basic cornerstones of the most important thing in the world, life. In response to the big, bad Darwin point, the article writer bluntly states, "his tales about the evolutionary origins of everything from our penchant for narratives to our supposed dispositions to be nice to one another are throwbacks to the sociobiology of an earlier era." Basicly, tiping your waiter even after you could have sworn you ordered your steak rare, disproves Rosenberg's outlook on Darwin fully understanding human behavior. And what of the idea of "brilliant work in the still-young brain sciences shows us as we really are"? Well, surprise, i completely agree with this point. The idea of illusions being abandoned, as suggested, “inescapable” is rather mind-boggling yet plausible to me. Saying that illusions do not exist could be true. Even the greatest magicians cannot create perfect illusions, even though we label them as such. Rosenberg just takes this idea into a persons subconscious habit of creating illusions that shock the person creating them. Definetly an atheistic point worth looking into, but not quite enough to delete the harsh rating of "worst book." Sorry.
The award for worst book was awarded to the wrong book. I have no doubt that there were worse written books then this in the year of 2011. However because the book is against religions, and America is a deeply religious country, it will encourage a lot of hatred. Scientism, the idea that Rosenberg espouses is becoming ever more reasonable in our modern world. As we learn increasing amounts about our world, we will continue to discover and unlock new truths about humanity as a whole. The author of the article does point out that the sciences we have now are unable to fully explain the mysteries that we are facing. As we continue to advance these sciences, we will eventually be able to understand the majority of questions that have been plaguing humanity since the beginning of time. However, the one thing wrong with scientism is the fact that it will not allow answers to come from any other realm except for the hard sciences. A true scientific approach would be to take all the evidence that is at our fingertips and use it to create general truths about humanity. Doing this would further our understanding of ourselves indefinitely and would not restrict us as the current crippling dependence on religion to answer all of our questions for us. While I cannot agree with the books violent attacks against religion as it has accomplished many good things, its insistence that we should use science to further our understanding of humanity is a very good point.
“The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life Without Illusions”, by Alex Rosenberg rightfully deserves the title of the “worst book” of 2011. Alex Rosenberg brings forth a version of modern atheism, presenting its name as “scientism” in which he “seizes as a badge of honor.” In this cult of followers of “scientism”, morality is completely thrown out the window along with any ideas that were once founded by Christians. Everything can apparently be explained and discovered by science, so they say. The loss of morality results in the loss of the Good Samaritan image. Microphysics one of “scientism’s” three principle ideas can only be done to a small degree these days and according to “scientism”, it “can determine everything under the sun and beyond it” also. As the title says “Enjoying Life Without Illusions”, the best things in life sometimes are the illusions, knowing that there is something to look forward to once you leave Earth, and having a purpose to live a good moral life. This hope that Christians live with all over the world is what keep people going when the going becomes rough and keeps the sick and dying hopeful that they have happiness on the raod ahead of them. Rosenberg and all who follow “scientism” loose all of this purpose to live. If there is no morality or hope then how do you live a just and right life? How do you love others? Will the members of this cult feel truly accomplished and as if they had lived there life the right way in the end or will they feel as if there life had been wasted? An atheist once told my father on his death bed, “Now that I have lived my life I have realized I wasted it with foolish beliefs, don’t waste your life, it only comes along once.”
Those who dismiss Rosenburg by stating that science can’t answer everything are missing the point that he was trying to make. Rosenburg’s main argument is that we do not need religion. He believes that religion is unnecessary for a society. Rosenburg glorifies science due to its ability to provide answers to problems that people once religion to provide the answers for, such as the origin of life. Obviously, science isn’t the answer to everything. Politics, sociology, and history are extremely useful in solving issues. Atheists usually like to focus on science as the key answer instead of these fields. The reason for this is that science is based off reason and undisputable claims. Politics, on the other hand, are debatable. It may be unclear what the best system of government is; the force of gravity, on the other hand, is absolute. Atheists like to contrast religion to science, claiming that religion is idiotic because it is not based upon disprovable facts and reason. In this way, religion is similar to fields like politics, where the truth may be debatable. Just because it may be difficult for politics and religion to yield unquestionable truths does not mean that they do not have value. Without religion, for instance, there is an unavoidable lacking of a sense of meaning to the world. There is somewhat of a comfort knowing that there is a higher power in the universe.
Being out in the old Boston Whaler, riding upon Wassaw Island, the gentle sea breeze running across my face, not a soul in my position could have doubted the presence a divine hand in the world. The universe cannot possibly be a random combination of atoms. There is absolutely no way. I refuse to deny the meaning within life. Conceded, “Recognizing what the last few centuries have achieved, you can reasonably expect that science will go much further. . . .?” I wholeheartedly support science as it continues to advance, although I was thinking more along the lines of curing cancer or reaching Mars and less about the prospect of disproving God’s existence (as if doing so were even possible). No matter how hard you try, how much time you put in, how much money you spend, how many resources you use, you will never be able to use science to solve any or all of life’s problems with some scientific equation. I believe that Leon Wieseltier deserves an award for being able to sift through thousands upon thousands of books and successfully select the worst: THE ATHEIST’S GUIDE TO REALITY: Enjoying Life Without Illusions. Somebody give that man a medal. The idea that everything in this world carries with it the ability to be microscopically simplified into some universal equation and solved is one that I find utterly and absolutely ridiculous. Try going up to your little old grandmother and explaining to her that you don’t believe in God and that you think the world had better rid itself of all organized religion. I don’t know about yours, but my Grandmama would have a heart attack on the spot. She was brought up a Christian, as was I, and it is concretely impossible for anyone to convince me or my grandmother or my pastor or hundreds of millions of other believers to throw away our faith and come flocking to the theology of scientism. It simply isn’t going to happen.
Can somebodies whole life be explained by a mathematical equation or be broken down by the scientific method? I think not. “The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life Without Illusions”, by Alex Rosenberg is quite deserving of the award for "worst book" of 2011. Religion is needed to sustain modern society. For over 2000 years religion has been the building blocks to a moral and just society. "Scientism" is a preposterous idea and cult like idea. The author is described as an imaginative philosopher. This is the farthest thing from science and this in no way makes him accredited. Religion is debateable but not to the point to where it can be proven but also it cant be disproven. At the same time this Scientism and new atheism is not an absolute joke but close to it because its farfetched and is written by an imaginative philosopher. Both sides are debateable but to say science disproves God and religion is not needed in society is unreasonable.
If the idea of scientism was grasped to the extent that the article preaches then the ideals of modern religion would be entirely forgotten, including morality, ethics and behavior. While scientism offers interesting and seemingly plausible notions about being about to solve any problem scientifically or explaining any phenomena just the same, the immediate dismissal of widely understood religious ideas such as “love one’s neighbor as one’s self” would send society careening into chaos. So while it may be appealing to some to turn their back on religion, it may be wise to first take a look at the values the world religions have instilled on modern society, which may now seem natural, but were actually taught over two thousand years. The possibility of everything being able to be explained may be plausible now if technology and human understanding continue to expand at the rates they are now, but without religion convincing humanity to begin working together in the first place, who’s to say we would have even made it this far?
I do not agree with the ideas mentioned in Rosenberg’s THE ATHEIST’S GUIDE TO REALITY: Enjoying Life Without Illusions, but i do not think it deserved to be recognized as the worst book written in 2011. Rosenberg is a highly educated man who has devoted his life to science rather than religion, and just because his views are different than the rest of society doesn’t mean he should have been recognized as writing the worst book of the year. There are plenty of non-educated men or women who have written less intelligent books than Rosenberg. The book said we do not need religion, which goes against the views of almost every person on earth. Whether a person is Catholic, Jewish, or Buddhist they all believe in a higher power that they look up to and glorify. If your audience does not agree with what you are writing, then more than likely it will not turn out to be popular. I believe that society needs a reasonable blend between people’s beliefs in science and religion. Believing in just one of them closes the door to many important pieces of information all people should know. I believe we need to use science to further our understanding of humility, and we also need to believe in a higher power to explain uncertain mysteries of our lives.
Judging by Kitcher’s overview of Rosenberg’s THE ATHEIST’S GUIDE TO REALITY: Enjoying Life Without Illusions, main problem is its abrasive nature. Anyone who challenges the majority’s view on something has some insight no matter how buried in provocation it is. The notion that his championed sciences are the only ones to hold any relevant knowledge is heinous. The truth is you can draw meaningful information from anything if you keep an open mind. It is understandable how a person can begin to believe that their ideas are superior to everyone else’s, and it appears Rosenberg was left unchecked for too long. His scientism may hold some truth, but no one is going to be swayed into joining Rosenberg in his beliefs except for painfully devout atheists. As we discussed in class today, Whether we like it or not, we have all been powerfully influenced by Christianity. Christians and atheists possessing any inkling of morality can agree that Jesus’s teachings are instrumental in having a peaceful society. And for someone to suggest we abandon something so influential to our civilized relationships we pride ourselves on, is just a dangerous idea.
Will science one day answer all of our Questions? Will God? No. These types of points will just leave someone to an inevitable life of wonder and argument, but just because Rosenburg does not believe in the modern Atheist ways gives him no write to deem this book “Worst Book of 2011”. Although I have not read this guide, or novelty book to some, I can surely imagine its deserving of something a bit more grateful than worst. What about all those terrible teenage life books no one reads, or a story of a vampire and wolf fighting for an unattractive normal small town girl like in the Twilight. Although I don’t agree with Rosenburg and his authority to rate others work, the idea of the Atheist guide just does not make sense. To suppose that there is a mathematical equation to figure out all the problems in life like grabbing the wrong change out of your pocket or spreading the icing on a cake. It’s just not sensible that EVERYTHING can be done with calculation and mathematics. Not to mention that the world has to have some form of religion to successfully stay organized and on par. Even if God or religion is not real, a type of order or separate laws has to be made for society to continue. The entire economy dates back to religion with money and how much a person keeps to themselves or gives away or whatever. Another point is that up until very recent centuries science math and religion were one, a part of the same category. The simplicity is that they cannot run without one another, and if the world was just simply centered only on mathematics, it would crumble at our feet.
I'd like to start off by saying that if I had know that there was an award for worst book of the year, I'd have written one myself. As for “The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life Without Illusions”, by Alex Rosenberg, I can imagine that there were worst books that had been published in 2011. However, since we live in a society with extremely heavy christian influences, we are naturally offended by a book concerning atheism and attacking religion. Rosenberg's idea of scientism was a fascinating concept to just sit down and contemplate about. I do believe that science has the potential to solve everyone of humanities' problems but to reject the idea that there isn't a higher intelligence that came up with all of the laws of nature is nearly impossible for me to do. I prefer to sit on a happy medium between science and religion that is a bit old timed in this day and age, deism. While believing that there is a higher power, I also believe that he doesn’t intervene with the set rules that the universe was intended to run on. Attacks made on Christianity may have been reasonable during the inquisition, however, the church, specifically the Catholic Church, has fostered the sciences since the Renaissance. For example, the church didn't put Galileo on house arrest for his idea of the earth revolving around the sun, they simply asked for evidence, in order to follow the scientific process, that supported his hypothesis and when he was unable to produce evidence they asked him to retract his statement until he could prove otherwise. There is no reasonable way to declare the modern day church an enemy of science, hindering its progress. It is however, completely reasonable to say that science will eventually solve all of life mysteries
“The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life Without Illusions”, by Alex Rosenberg deserves to the title “worst book” of 2011. Rosenberg brings up a modern type of atheism, calling it “scientism”. In this group of “scientism” believers, morality is completely unheard of.He claims that everything can be founded and thoroughly explained through science. The omitence of morality would results in the loss of "Good Samaritans". You can't explain everything through the scientific method. As much as we'd like to believe it, humans aren't capable of providing an answer for everything. If we don't have morality or christian beliefs, we lose our sense of love. You only live once, make it worthwhile and stand for something with a cause.
Alex Rosenburg's "The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life Without Illusions" definitely views the world in a different perspective than the common man because the majority of the world believes in some form of higher unknown power such as God, Mecca, Inti the sun god, or Buddha. Sure, it may not have been a good read but I'm almost certain it could not have deserved the title for worst book of 2011. I think it was named this because of the contrary to popular belief and that no one wanted to change their mind. People were most likely insulted by the fact that a man had just told them that what they have been believing in for the past so many years is totally false and that he can almost prove everything though science. Life isn't a mathematical problem with a set answer.I believe the best resolution is to balance between science and religion. Maybe allow them to work together in some way. Both science and religion play a valuable role in society and helping us understand ourselves as human beings.
I may not agree with everything that, I don’t think that his book is the worst of 2011. He makes some logical leaps and vast generalities, but when people like Ann Coulter, Bill O’reilly and Glenn Beck are also releasing books there must be books with more logical and factual errors than this one. Science is clearly extremely important for the development of moral ideas – discoveries that everyone has a similar anatomy help unite us around a similar humanity or research about the brain that help us realize that gay people aren’t just a bunch of immoral, god hating freaks. The belief that there are questions that science can’t answer is wrong, because science is constantly changing and growing exponentially. It is impossible for us to imagine the scientific advancements of the future, just like a man from the 15th century couldn’t imagine flying in jet planes. The progresses in science have made people more civilized. Science has made life more comfortable and, in part, has ended the need for many of the immoral behaviors in harsher times. Even though science holds a major role in our ethical decisions, it is not the only thing that has an effect on our morals. The book Uncle Tom’s Cabin, made major impacts on the idea of slavery all around the world. This book led to increased opposition to slavery and possibly to the civil war. There are countless pieces of art that have made major influences on moral decision making- Voltaire’s Treatise on Tolerance which impacted ideas on Capital punishment, Noam Chomsky’s influence on ideas of US international relations, “Food Inc,’s” impact on the food industry. There are many other cultural outlets that can answer the big questions in society.
The award given to Rosenberg’s “Atheist Guide” is indeed, misplaced. Rosenberg attacks many values that much of the American population holds in one way or another. The title itself is enough to invoke deep bias towards the book, enough for people to even hold the book, much less open it. But this brings to light a sad flaw in our population. Americans are closed-minded and you can hardly argue against that. As science advances Rosenberg’s “scientism” is becoming an ever more apparent truth. This has angered a lot of people. We have become complacent with our religion, and are unwilling to open our minds to facts that are right before us. Religion provides an easy excuse for everything hard, and some people don’t want that changed. What has caused the most grief in many religious sects, is the fact that science, is indeed, making huge advancements. This has them understandable worried, and left unknowing what to do. I too would be shocked if all I had learned as a child turned out to be false. Books like Rosenberg’s are, in my opinion, a little too harsh in a way. I think we have to reach these people at an easier pace; dumping nothing but cold hard facts after all, will only turn them away. These people aren’t scientists.
"The Athiest's Guide to Reality" is misplaced as the worst book of 2011. That is not because i agree with anything written in it, but it is because it is someone getting their ideas out and expressing their beliefs. Science cannot prove all things in the world. Some questions remain unanswered. It may be true that humans evovled from a primate ancestor their is undisputable of that face, but this does not disprove religion. The universe has been around for billions of years but many unnanswered questions still remain about it. The question of the origion of the universe and the earth has been asked as long as there has been humans. Humans has been around for millions of years, yet the questions still remained unnanswered. Christian theory is that there is a bigger being driving all of the occurrances in the universe from its origin to the beginnigns of life. These questions are very difficult to answere and it is unlikely that they will ever be answered.
To say that the book is the worst book of 2011 is horribly off. Most of the negative remarks and skepticism towards the legitimacy of the book's content comes from the simple fact that most of modern America is Christian, or at least believes in some higher being. And the way humans work, once we have an idea in our heads, its reinforced over time, so Rosenberg is almost guaranteed to have his critics. The truth is neither side is correct, Science cannot prove everything, and religion cannot either. Yes, science offers vasts amounts of knowledge pertaining to the universe we live in, and everyday we discover new things and uncover truths about ideas we previously thought were true, but that doesn't mean we know everything and many great scientists will openly admit it. As far as religion goes, its based on believing, and the core to belief is putting your trust into something and not necessarily having proof its true. So it can be said religion, dually offers insight onto many subjects of life but they come from a different perspective, but arguably true ones. In conclusion, there is a lot that we don't know, probably a lot more that we will never know, and thats simply how things are, there is no real black or white.
I believe that the award for the worst book of 2011 was exactly as stated by Philip Kitcher, “misplaced.” Though the idea of scientism seems extreme and preposterous, so does the idea of praying to another. The thought that science can resolve all questions appears to be plausible in our forward moving society where we are constantly progressing and expanding our knowledge of life and the world around us. “You can reasonably expect that science will go much further” as put by Kitcher. We have been and are answering questions that were once a mystery, unable to be understood by anyone but God alone. Not being able to recognize human’s capability to understand and uncover the truth via science based on our previous accomplishments is ignorant. This is not to say that I agree with Rosenberg that “Morality, purpose and the quaint conceit of an enduring self all have to go,” because I believe we all should have a religion or God to look upon for hope and advice. I do believe that we must not let this faith interfere with our ability to see “the whole truth about reality” through our understanding of science. As for the author of The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, Alex Rosenberg, I believe he is an educated man dedicated to science just as a Christian is dedicated to living a life according to his/her religion. His award for the worst book of 2011 was received because he has an idea contrary to that of popular opinion, and it is seen as different. If the table were turned would the Bible have received this award instead?
ReplyDeleteLets get straight to the point. Science has never quite been able to even scratch the surface of all the many things that make up life, the universe, and everything, so the idea that Alex Rosenberg's so-called "worst book", "THE ATHEIST’S GUIDE TO REALITY: Enjoying Life Without Illusions" is aptly named. In this bible revised catechism for atheists, the central plot revolves around the idea that "the facts of microphysics determine everything under the sun, Darwinian natural selection explains human behavior, and brilliant work in the still-young brain sciences shows us as we really are." As enticing as these points may sound, there are already serious flaws in all of these central points. Already stated earlier, science is still, in our day and age, very unprepared to define the basic cornerstones of the most important thing in the world, life. In response to the big, bad Darwin point, the article writer bluntly states, "his tales about the evolutionary origins of everything from our penchant for narratives to our supposed dispositions to be nice to one another are throwbacks to the sociobiology of an earlier era." Basicly, tiping your waiter even after you could have sworn you ordered your steak rare, disproves Rosenberg's outlook on Darwin fully understanding human behavior. And what of the idea of "brilliant work in the still-young brain sciences shows us as we really are"? Well, surprise, i completely agree with this point. The idea of illusions being abandoned, as suggested, “inescapable” is rather mind-boggling yet plausible to me. Saying that illusions do not exist could be true. Even the greatest magicians cannot create perfect illusions, even though we label them as such. Rosenberg just takes this idea into a persons subconscious habit of creating illusions that shock the person creating them. Definetly an atheistic point worth looking into, but not quite enough to delete the harsh rating of "worst book." Sorry.
ReplyDeleteThe award for worst book was awarded to the wrong book. I have no doubt that there were worse written books then this in the year of 2011. However because the book is against religions, and America is a deeply religious country, it will encourage a lot of hatred. Scientism, the idea that Rosenberg espouses is becoming ever more reasonable in our modern world. As we learn increasing amounts about our world, we will continue to discover and unlock new truths about humanity as a whole. The author of the article does point out that the sciences we have now are unable to fully explain the mysteries that we are facing. As we continue to advance these sciences, we will eventually be able to understand the majority of questions that have been plaguing humanity since the beginning of time. However, the one thing wrong with scientism is the fact that it will not allow answers to come from any other realm except for the hard sciences. A true scientific approach would be to take all the evidence that is at our fingertips and use it to create general truths about humanity. Doing this would further our understanding of ourselves indefinitely and would not restrict us as the current crippling dependence on religion to answer all of our questions for us. While I cannot agree with the books violent attacks against religion as it has accomplished many good things, its insistence that we should use science to further our understanding of humanity is a very good point.
ReplyDelete“The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life Without Illusions”, by Alex Rosenberg rightfully deserves the title of the “worst book” of 2011. Alex Rosenberg brings forth a version of modern atheism, presenting its name as “scientism” in which he “seizes as a badge of honor.” In this cult of followers of “scientism”, morality is completely thrown out the window along with any ideas that were once founded by Christians. Everything can apparently be explained and discovered by science, so they say. The loss of morality results in the loss of the Good Samaritan image. Microphysics one of “scientism’s” three principle ideas can only be done to a small degree these days and according to “scientism”, it “can determine everything under the sun and beyond it” also. As the title says “Enjoying Life Without Illusions”, the best things in life sometimes are the illusions, knowing that there is something to look forward to once you leave Earth, and having a purpose to live a good moral life. This hope that Christians live with all over the world is what keep people going when the going becomes rough and keeps the sick and dying hopeful that they have happiness on the raod ahead of them. Rosenberg and all who follow “scientism” loose all of this purpose to live. If there is no morality or hope then how do you live a just and right life? How do you love others? Will the members of this cult feel truly accomplished and as if they had lived there life the right way in the end or will they feel as if there life had been wasted? An atheist once told my father on his death bed, “Now that I have lived my life I have realized I wasted it with foolish beliefs, don’t waste your life, it only comes along once.”
ReplyDeleteThose who dismiss Rosenburg by stating that science can’t answer everything are missing the point that he was trying to make. Rosenburg’s main argument is that we do not need religion. He believes that religion is unnecessary for a society. Rosenburg glorifies science due to its ability to provide answers to problems that people once religion to provide the answers for, such as the origin of life. Obviously, science isn’t the answer to everything. Politics, sociology, and history are extremely useful in solving issues. Atheists usually like to focus on science as the key answer instead of these fields. The reason for this is that science is based off reason and undisputable claims. Politics, on the other hand, are debatable. It may be unclear what the best system of government is; the force of gravity, on the other hand, is absolute.
ReplyDeleteAtheists like to contrast religion to science, claiming that religion is idiotic because it is not based upon disprovable facts and reason. In this way, religion is similar to fields like politics, where the truth may be debatable. Just because it may be difficult for politics and religion to yield unquestionable truths does not mean that they do not have value. Without religion, for instance, there is an unavoidable lacking of a sense of meaning to the world. There is somewhat of a comfort knowing that there is a higher power in the universe.
Being out in the old Boston Whaler, riding upon Wassaw Island, the gentle sea breeze running across my face, not a soul in my position could have doubted the presence a divine hand in the world. The universe cannot possibly be a random combination of atoms. There is absolutely no way. I refuse to deny the meaning within life. Conceded, “Recognizing what the last few centuries have achieved, you can reasonably expect that science will go much further. . . .?” I wholeheartedly support science as it continues to advance, although I was thinking more along the lines of curing cancer or reaching Mars and less about the prospect of disproving God’s existence (as if doing so were even possible). No matter how hard you try, how much time you put in, how much money you spend, how many resources you use, you will never be able to use science to solve any or all of life’s problems with some scientific equation.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Leon Wieseltier deserves an award for being able to sift through thousands upon thousands of books and successfully select the worst: THE ATHEIST’S GUIDE TO REALITY: Enjoying Life Without Illusions. Somebody give that man a medal. The idea that everything in this world carries with it the ability to be microscopically simplified into some universal equation and solved is one that I find utterly and absolutely ridiculous. Try going up to your little old grandmother and explaining to her that you don’t believe in God and that you think the world had better rid itself of all organized religion. I don’t know about yours, but my Grandmama would have a heart attack on the spot. She was brought up a Christian, as was I, and it is concretely impossible for anyone to convince me or my grandmother or my pastor or hundreds of millions of other believers to throw away our faith and come flocking to the theology of scientism. It simply isn’t going to happen.
Can somebodies whole life be explained by a mathematical equation or be broken down by the scientific method? I think not. “The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life Without Illusions”, by Alex Rosenberg is quite deserving of the award for "worst book" of 2011. Religion is needed to sustain modern society. For over 2000 years religion has been the building blocks to a moral and just society. "Scientism" is a preposterous idea and cult like idea. The author is described as an imaginative philosopher. This is the farthest thing from science and this in no way makes him accredited. Religion is debateable but not to the point to where it can be proven but also it cant be disproven. At the same time this Scientism and new atheism is not an absolute joke but close to it because its farfetched and is written by an imaginative philosopher. Both sides are debateable but to say science disproves God and religion is not needed in society is unreasonable.
ReplyDeleteIf the idea of scientism was grasped to the extent that the article preaches then the ideals of modern religion would be entirely forgotten, including morality, ethics and behavior. While scientism offers interesting and seemingly plausible notions about being about to solve any problem scientifically or explaining any phenomena just the same, the immediate dismissal of widely understood religious ideas such as “love one’s neighbor as one’s self” would send society careening into chaos. So while it may be appealing to some to turn their back on religion, it may be wise to first take a look at the values the world religions have instilled on modern society, which may now seem natural, but were actually taught over two thousand years. The possibility of everything being able to be explained may be plausible now if technology and human understanding continue to expand at the rates they are now, but without religion convincing humanity to begin working together in the first place, who’s to say we would have even made it this far?
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with the ideas mentioned in Rosenberg’s THE ATHEIST’S GUIDE TO REALITY: Enjoying Life Without Illusions, but i do not think it deserved to be recognized as the worst book written in 2011. Rosenberg is a highly educated man who has devoted his life to science rather than religion, and just because his views are different than the rest of society doesn’t mean he should have been recognized as writing the worst book of the year. There are plenty of non-educated men or women who have written less intelligent books than Rosenberg. The book said we do not need religion, which goes against the views of almost every person on earth. Whether a person is Catholic, Jewish, or Buddhist they all believe in a higher power that they look up to and glorify. If your audience does not agree with what you are writing, then more than likely it will not turn out to be popular.
ReplyDeleteI believe that society needs a reasonable blend between people’s beliefs in science and religion. Believing in just one of them closes the door to many important pieces of information all people should know. I believe we need to use science to further our understanding of humility, and we also need to believe in a higher power to explain uncertain mysteries of our lives.
Judging by Kitcher’s overview of Rosenberg’s THE ATHEIST’S GUIDE TO REALITY: Enjoying Life Without Illusions, main problem is its abrasive nature. Anyone who challenges the majority’s view on something has some insight no matter how buried in provocation it is. The notion that his championed sciences are the only ones to hold any relevant knowledge is heinous. The truth is you can draw meaningful information from anything if you keep an open mind. It is understandable how a person can begin to believe that their ideas are superior to everyone else’s, and it appears Rosenberg was left unchecked for too long.
ReplyDeleteHis scientism may hold some truth, but no one is going to be swayed into joining Rosenberg in his beliefs except for painfully devout atheists. As we discussed in class today, Whether we like it or not, we have all been powerfully influenced by Christianity. Christians and atheists possessing any inkling of morality can agree that Jesus’s teachings are instrumental in having a peaceful society. And for someone to suggest we abandon something so influential to our civilized relationships we pride ourselves on, is just a dangerous idea.
Will science one day answer all of our Questions? Will God? No. These types of points will just leave someone to an inevitable life of wonder and argument, but just because Rosenburg does not believe in the modern Atheist ways gives him no write to deem this book “Worst Book of 2011”. Although I have not read this guide, or novelty book to some, I can surely imagine its deserving of something a bit more grateful than worst. What about all those terrible teenage life books no one reads, or a story of a vampire and wolf fighting for an unattractive normal small town girl like in the Twilight. Although I don’t agree with Rosenburg and his authority to rate others work, the idea of the Atheist guide just does not make sense. To suppose that there is a mathematical equation to figure out all the problems in life like grabbing the wrong change out of your pocket or spreading the icing on a cake. It’s just not sensible that EVERYTHING can be done with calculation and mathematics. Not to mention that the world has to have some form of religion to successfully stay organized and on par. Even if God or religion is not real, a type of order or separate laws has to be made for society to continue. The entire economy dates back to religion with money and how much a person keeps to themselves or gives away or whatever. Another point is that up until very recent centuries science math and religion were one, a part of the same category. The simplicity is that they cannot run without one another, and if the world was just simply centered only on mathematics, it would crumble at our feet.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to start off by saying that if I had know that there was an award for worst book of the year, I'd have written one myself. As for “The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life Without Illusions”, by Alex Rosenberg, I can imagine that there were worst books that had been published in 2011. However, since we live in a society with extremely heavy christian influences, we are naturally offended by a book concerning atheism and attacking religion. Rosenberg's idea of scientism was a fascinating concept to just sit down and contemplate about. I do believe that science has the potential to solve everyone of humanities' problems but to reject the idea that there isn't a higher intelligence that came up with all of the laws of nature is nearly impossible for me to do. I prefer to sit on a happy medium between science and religion that is a bit old timed in this day and age, deism. While believing that there is a higher power, I also believe that he doesn’t intervene with the set rules that the universe was intended to run on. Attacks made on Christianity may have been reasonable during the inquisition, however, the church, specifically the Catholic Church, has fostered the sciences since the Renaissance. For example, the church didn't put Galileo on house arrest for his idea of the earth revolving around the sun, they simply asked for evidence, in order to follow the scientific process, that supported his hypothesis and when he was unable to produce evidence they asked him to retract his statement until he could prove otherwise. There is no reasonable way to declare the modern day church an enemy of science, hindering its progress. It is however, completely reasonable to say that science will eventually solve all of life mysteries
ReplyDelete“The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life Without Illusions”, by Alex Rosenberg deserves to the title “worst book” of 2011. Rosenberg brings up a modern type of atheism, calling it “scientism”. In this group of “scientism” believers, morality is completely unheard of.He claims that everything can be founded and thoroughly explained through science. The omitence of morality would results in the loss of "Good Samaritans". You can't explain everything through the scientific method. As much as we'd like to believe it, humans aren't capable of providing an answer for everything. If we don't have morality or christian beliefs, we lose our sense of love. You only live once, make it worthwhile and stand for something with a cause.
ReplyDeleteAlex Rosenburg's "The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life Without Illusions" definitely views the world in a different perspective than the common man because the majority of the world believes in some form of higher unknown power such as God, Mecca, Inti the sun god, or Buddha. Sure, it may not have been a good read but I'm almost certain it could not have deserved the title for worst book of 2011. I think it was named this because of the contrary to popular belief and that no one wanted to change their mind. People were most likely insulted by the fact that a man had just told them that what they have been believing in for the past so many years is totally false and that he can almost prove everything though science. Life isn't a mathematical problem with a set answer.I believe the best resolution is to balance between science and religion. Maybe allow them to work together in some way. Both science and religion play a valuable role in society and helping us understand ourselves as human beings.
ReplyDeleteI may not agree with everything that, I don’t think that his book is the worst of 2011. He makes some logical leaps and vast generalities, but when people like Ann Coulter, Bill O’reilly and Glenn Beck are also releasing books there must be books with more logical and factual errors than this one.
ReplyDeleteScience is clearly extremely important for the development of moral ideas – discoveries that everyone has a similar anatomy help unite us around a similar humanity or research about the brain that help us realize that gay people aren’t just a bunch of immoral, god hating freaks. The belief that there are questions that science can’t answer is wrong, because science is constantly changing and growing exponentially. It is impossible for us to imagine the scientific advancements of the future, just like a man from the 15th century couldn’t imagine flying in jet planes. The progresses in science have made people more civilized. Science has made life more comfortable and, in part, has ended the need for many of the immoral behaviors in harsher times.
Even though science holds a major role in our ethical decisions, it is not the only thing that has an effect on our morals. The book Uncle Tom’s Cabin, made major impacts on the idea of slavery all around the world. This book led to increased opposition to slavery and possibly to the civil war. There are countless pieces of art that have made major influences on moral decision making- Voltaire’s Treatise on Tolerance which impacted ideas on Capital punishment, Noam Chomsky’s influence on ideas of US international relations, “Food Inc,’s” impact on the food industry. There are many other cultural outlets that can answer the big questions in society.
The award given to Rosenberg’s “Atheist Guide” is indeed, misplaced. Rosenberg attacks many values that much of the American population holds in one way or another. The title itself is enough to invoke deep bias towards the book, enough for people to even hold the book, much less open it. But this brings to light a sad flaw in our population. Americans are closed-minded and you can hardly argue against that. As science advances Rosenberg’s “scientism” is becoming an ever more apparent truth. This has angered a lot of people. We have become complacent with our religion, and are unwilling to open our minds to facts that are right before us. Religion provides an easy excuse for everything hard, and some people don’t want that changed. What has caused the most grief in many religious sects, is the fact that science, is indeed, making huge advancements. This has them understandable worried, and left unknowing what to do. I too would be shocked if all I had learned as a child turned out to be false. Books like Rosenberg’s are, in my opinion, a little too harsh in a way. I think we have to reach these people at an easier pace; dumping nothing but cold hard facts after all, will only turn them away. These people aren’t scientists.
ReplyDelete"The Athiest's Guide to Reality" is misplaced as the worst book of 2011. That is not because i agree with anything written in it, but it is because it is someone getting their ideas out and expressing their beliefs. Science cannot prove all things in the world. Some questions remain unanswered. It may be true that humans evovled from a primate ancestor their is undisputable of that face, but this does not disprove religion. The universe has been around for billions of years but many unnanswered questions still remain about it. The question of the origion of the universe and the earth has been asked as long as there has been humans. Humans has been around for millions of years, yet the questions still remained unnanswered. Christian theory is that there is a bigger being driving all of the occurrances in the universe from its origin to the beginnigns of life. These questions are very difficult to answere and it is unlikely that they will ever be answered.
ReplyDeleteTo say that the book is the worst book of 2011 is horribly off. Most of the negative remarks and skepticism towards the legitimacy of the book's content comes from the simple fact that most of modern America is Christian, or at least believes in some higher being. And the way humans work, once we have an idea in our heads, its reinforced over time, so Rosenberg is almost guaranteed to have his critics. The truth is neither side is correct, Science cannot prove everything, and religion cannot either. Yes, science offers vasts amounts of knowledge pertaining to the universe we live in, and everyday we discover new things and uncover truths about ideas we previously thought were true, but that doesn't mean we know everything and many great scientists will openly admit it. As far as religion goes, its based on believing, and the core to belief is putting your trust into something and not necessarily having proof its true. So it can be said religion, dually offers insight onto many subjects of life but they come from a different perspective, but arguably true ones. In conclusion, there is a lot that we don't know, probably a lot more that we will never know, and thats simply how things are, there is no real black or white.
ReplyDelete