

|
Loading... 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a Godby Guy P. Harrison
I read it cover to cover and it was fascinating, but it also makes a great reference book. It's the kind of book you'd buy just so you can highlight all the great bits and then lend it out to all your friends, even your religious friends. The book explains things pretty thoroughly but isn't overwhelming. I would love to buy this book just so I can highlight my favorite bits and write little notes in the margins. But I'm a total nerd. In spite of the insistence of the author that he has tried to respect religious people and that his book shouldn't offend those who are religiously liberal, it became obvious that most of the religious people I knew, no matter how liberal, would be offended by the end of the first page. This is not a problem for me, and is in fact a plus, since anyone who manages to write a book about why arguments for God fail without offending religious people has usually done an extemely poor job. Overall, the author does a pretty good job, though some of his arguments miss the mark, because he uses the weakest arguments on a couple of the reasons given. I suppose this could also be called "50 reasons atheists give for NOT believing in gods." This would make an interesting addition to a philosophy of religion course, if for no other reason than to spark excellent debates. Harrison often repeats himself and makes blanket assumptions and statements. For the most part, however, he does an excellent job of parsing out explanations for belief in religion. Clearly, most of his examples are for a western (and American) audience, but he has examples that show how other cultures use the same reasons/excuses for their beliefs and actions--many of which we would find criminal or silly here. For anyone who enjoys discussing and debating religion, or for any atheist looking for clear explanations of why they are so, this is a great book to dip into. '50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God,' by Guy P. Harrison is like many other books such as Richard Dawkins' 'The God Delusion' and Christopher Hitchens' 'god Is Not Great,' that seek to examine religion and religious beliefs. This book, however, does so in a much more milder tone. Harrison refrains from insulting or talking down to believers, and instead tries to clearly explain why each of the fifty reasons for belief in god that he lays out are misguided. Instead of insults, Harrison tries to reason with his reader, and I found his arguments to be very persuasive (assuming I were sitting on the fence; I am already a non-believer). The book is exceptionally well written in my opinion and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend this to a religious friend because of the milder tone. Many other atheistic books can be very insulting which can distract the reader from getting the core message. Harrison's book doesn't have this flaw. A few of the reasons covered are the following: My god changes lives, Intelligent Design proves my god is real, some very smart people believe in my god, and many others. As I mentioned, each claim is responded to very eloquently and in an honest and sincere manner. This is a clear and reasonable response to many reasons people give for believing in god. no reviews | add a review
References to this work on external resources.
|
Google Books — Loading...RatingAverage: (3.92)
Is this you?Become a LibraryThing Author. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
There's one major problem with Harrison's approach. He writes with a wrong-headed attitude - he expects to be convinced definitively one way or another of the existence of God with scientific evidence. Any intellectually honest Christian will admit to you that God is not something you reach by reasoning or logic; rather, it is the process of an existential, Kierkegaardian leap of faith in something beyond and above one's self. Therefore, all he really refutes is the religion of the fundamentalist, which isn't really religion at all - it's just a set of unquestioned dogma.
I get the firm impression that Mr. Harrison isn't familiar with more intellectually complex and honest forms of religion and their various theologies. Nowhere does he discuss Paul Tillich or Reinhold Niebuhr or Dietrich Bonhoeffer or any other theologians who appreciate the complexity and ecumenical natures of their faith. Harrison doesn't try to appreciate any of this. He wants scientific proof, when any one of the above would have told you flat out that science cannot prove the basic tenets of Christianity. So it seems that this entire book was written attempting to get an answer that he already had. Essentially, both writing it and reading it were a waste of time. (