Blogs and Stories
How God Converted an Atheist
I’m wondering if you’ve gotten any reaction to your book from the neo-atheists. Have you heard from Hitchens or Dawkins or Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith?
No. I’ve never spoken with Hitchens. I met Harris and Dawkins before my book. I have things I’d like to argue with them about, and I’m available.
What would you tell them?
I would, first of all, say that I think attributing all the problems in the world to religion can have unfortunate political consequences, because it makes us ill-inclined to address grievances and defuse tensions. Dawkins has said that if not for religion there would be no Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If you believe that, then Obama needn’t bother trying to stop the settlements. We know religion isn’t going away. So if the problem is religion, why make the effort to improve the facts on the ground?
Anything else?
I think Sam Harris believes there is a transcendent source of meaning in the universe, and although I might get there by a different route, I tend to agree. I would say there’s reason to believe there is some sort of purpose unfolding through the natural workings of the world. This doesn’t by itself establish the existence of a god, much less a good one, but it seems to cut against the grain of pure atheism. I don’t know what he would say to that, but it would be fun to have that discussion.
You were brought up a Southern Baptist, but you don’t consider yourself a Christian. How would you describe yourself, religiously?
I try to orient my moral life around the worldview in my book, but I guess the closest I’ve come to practicing any religion as an adult was a one-week Buddhist meditation retreat at a place in Massachusetts. I lean toward a fairly secular neo-Buddhism.
That sounds something like Sam Harris.
Oh, he’s a much better Buddhist than I am. He has the serenity of a good Buddhist, which I totally lack.
Plus: Check out Book Beast, for more news on hot titles and authors and excerpts from the latest books.
Jerry Adler is a contributing editor at Newsweek, where he writes about medicine, science, and ideas. He is the author of High Rise: How 1,000 Men and Women Worked Around the Clock for Five Years and Lost $200 Million Building a Skyscraper.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Obama, the Un-decider
Lee Siegel has written about culture and politics and is the author of three books: Falling Upwards: Essays in Defense of the Imagination; Not Remotely Controlled: Notes on Television; and, most recently, Against the Machine: Being Human in the Age of the Electronic Mob. In 2002, he received a National Magazine Award for reviews and criticism.
What's Your Green IQ?
Jerry Adler is a contributing editor at Newsweek, where he writes about medicine, science, and ideas. He is the author of High Rise: How 1,000 Men and Women Worked Around the Clock for Five Years and Lost $200 Million Building a Skyscraper.
Helen Fisher Decodes Obama's Personality Type
Jerry Adler is a contributing editor at Newsweek, where he writes about medicine, science, and ideas. He is the author of High Rise: How 1,000 Men and Women Worked Around the Clock for Five Years and Lost $200 Million Building a Skyscraper.
This is an old story - Why is TDB focusing on this nonsense now? Don't you have more interesting/relevant/topical stuff to write about?
Like Wacko Jacko's spawn custody battle?
artois; there is nothing more important, interesting, or relevant than the parenthetical question posed by willy the shake; to be or not to be? which is what this article attempts to correct. for authentic substance though read Chris Hedges.
great article. can't wait to read the book.
@artois how can a fundamental component of global society not be topical and relevant?
Great book for those with open minds, i.e. Pre-"Sin for All, Salvation for Some" mentality. I consider religion to be much like greed and infidelity among politicians; a necessary evil designed to keep the would-be disasters in line (or in fear of punishment). Without it, the feeble would undoubtedly become emboldened and Darwin perhaps finally substantiated.
At the very least, Jesus's teaching very strongly implied a doctrine of universal love. After all, he's the "Love your enemies" guy. Loving your friends is a given. And if you can love your enemies, loving a stranger (or, for Will Rogers, a friend you haven't met yet) should follow logically, too.
"...humanity has expanded its moral compass and gotten more inclusive and tolerant..."
This seems to be the fundamental basis for this book.
It is one thing to articulate a hypothesis. It is quite another thing to argue that the hypothesis is, in fact, reality.
Inclusive? Tolerant?
This is not a serious book.
The argument it does not even bother to nail is patently absurd.
Tim Barrus, Paris
Why do those who appear to know next to nothing about real religion, or Jesus, invariably attempt to pontificate about both? Anyone can, intellectually, deny God and yet be morally good, loyal, filial, honest, and even idealistic; they may graft many purely humanistic branches onto our basic spiritual nature, and appear to prove their contentions in behalf of a godless religion, but that experience is devoid of survival values, God-knowingness, and God-ascension. Only social fruits are produced; not spiritual. The graft determines the nature of the fruit, even though the living sustenance is drawn from the roots of an original *divine* endowment of mind and spirit.
The God-knowing individual isn't blind to the difficulties and obstacles which stand in the way of finding God in a maze of superstition, traditional religion's falsehoods, and the materialistic sophistries of atheists like Dawkins; rather has he encountered all of them and triumphed over them through living faith, and attained a genuine spiritual experience in spite of them.
Atheists and Gnostics are right in most of their thinking
It has been common among religious believers to look with misgiving to atheists and Gnostics, and to think that they are mistaken; however, in many instances the opposite is the truth; some religious beliefs are not just irrelevant, but baseless. The "God" of main line traditions simply does not exist. I accepted the challenge of finding the One who may be recognized even by Gnostics and atheists: the Existence itself, "All-That-Is." If something is there, that is God. Look at the book "Christianity Reformed From ist Roots - A life centered in God" (Amazon.com). I am confident that some of your friends will be relieved of the illusion, as I did myself.
Jairo Mejia, M. Psych., Santa Clara University
Retired Episcopal Priest
Carmel Valley, California
http://www.mbay.net/~jmejia/Grudzen.htm
http://www.mbay.net/~jmejia/Churcher.htm
You quote: "The Evolution of God he treats religions not as the products of revelation, but reflections of the political and economic needs of the societies that gave rise to them. "
It is easy to prove 1.Universe is created by an intelligent Creator. 2. His Instructions is found in Torah.
So the author of "The Evolution of God" can believe how much he wants to believe that Torah is a work of man, but it will not change the fact that it is possible to prove using logic that Torah is the instructions of the Creator.
Read more here: www.netzarim.co.il
Anders Branderud
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.