Reddit reviews The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions
We found 12 Reddit comments about The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
> This book comes to mind, though it's about more than atheism.
> https://www.amazon.com/Atheists-Guide-Reality-Enjoying-Illusions/dp/0393344118
Although this book is really cringey so please do not use this as your starting point.
> Question: Why would naturalism imply an inherent unreliability of our senses?... articulate the arguments these "eminent philosophers" make against naturalism rather throw out a list of books.... Kinda goes against the peer-reviewed
The main problem: Here is the main problem with you Tibberclaw (and it happened in the last thread too), you want to make accusations without reading the relevant literature. You want to have strong opinions, without being well read.
And that attitude, the "tell me in a comment box so I don't have to read any books" is the real detriment to the peer-review process.
Free alternatives: With that said, this small, free and readable article gives a simplified version of Negal's argument. This Op-ed in the NY Times gives an very simplified version of Paul Davies argument. As for Plantengia, you might have to actually read a book on a subject you want to have strong opinion on without reading to hear his.
But since you might not even read those: But if you want the extremely terse version (which you should only critique after reading the full versions as surely the authors addressed your concerns in their books) here:
I will give one example. The aboutness or intentionality problem which is taken serious in philosophy. It is a big enough problem that even the atheist/philosopher Dr. Rosenberg in his book admits that the naturalism he espouses implies our brains cannot actually be conceiving the outside world but he argues that is okay. Well good for him as the easier interpretation is materialism fails to account how we can possible understand the cosmos.
Read the slate article for a better summary... or the book if you want the real thought out deal.
He also takes on the almost universal conclusion that is agreed upon by naturalist philosophers, like again Dr. Rosenberg above, that naturalism implies determinism. (Even if we disguise it with fancy words like compatibilism which is still just determinism where you think you have free choices)
And actually that last part is the problem. You cannot really trust your thoughts because you have no choice in the matter. You are an atheist because determinism says so, not because you have a free choice in the matter. You have been given the illusion of free choice, (like naturalist forms of compatibilism) but it isn;t free. So if naturalism is true, you have to admit you can't trust your own thoughts because they were forced down your throat by determinism.
Again, read the book if it still isn't registering. There is too much detail to cover.
Now, pretend you knew nothing about the universe except for these things: it is a blind, meaningless, purposeless, random entity that is indifferent to anything inside. Would you honestly guess such a universe is perfectly law abiding? (Nothing above suggests it has to) Would you guess that, the laws had a perfect rational structure in that it adhere to the immaterial abstract principles of logic? (Nothing above suggests it has to) Would you guess that, in addition these laws are perfectly suited for the minds of one of the creatures inside. Creatures that did not evolve on the tiniest or largest scales but can still comprehend it all?
These questions deeply troubled Einstein. It's like the universe we find ourselves in is rigged (even on scales we did not evolve on) to make sense to human minds in a rational way, and nothing about blindness, meaningless, purposeless, randomness would suggest this.
On the other hand, if you said the universe was created by a rational lawgiver in whose image humans would be, might you expect the universe to be this way. Yes! So one worldview just makes the rational nature of the universe confusing (like Einstein was), and the other almost predicts these attributes.
And again, read the book if you want the real deal.
There you go, You got your overly simplistic summaries. Now be an intellectual and learn to actually be well read before you attack with strong opinions.
My girlfriend got me this book for Christmas(heh) The Atheist's Guide to Reality. I think it's a really good read, especially for people who have questions about what it all means and the meaning of life.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Atheists-Guide-Reality-Illusions/dp/0393344118
http://www.amazon.com/Every-Thing-Must-Metaphysics-Naturalized/dp/0199573093
> The possibilities are endless, and some are better than others, but "the meaning of life" is inherently subjective.
According to what criteria are some better than others? If X is inherently subjective, how is my subjective meaning superior to Ted Bundy’s? The affirmation of intrinsic subjectivity AND objective differences is a contradiction.
Similarly, "Stealing is wrong" is a true statement, analogous to "613 is a Lukas prime," if and only if there is an objective difference between primes and composites, and right and wrong. "Rational systems of thought based on human need and social cohesion," however eloquent and ballyhooed, can’t change this. Morality can’t find True answers if no such domain exists. Rosenberg states it well:
>We have to acknowledge (to ourselves, at least) that many questions we want the “right” answers to just don’t have any. These are questions about the morality of stem-cell research or abortion or affirmative action or gay marriage or our obligations to future generations. Many enlightened people, including many scientists, think that reasonable people can eventually find the right answers to such questions. Alas, it will turn out that all anyone can really find are the answers that they like. The same goes for those who disagree with them. Real moral disputes can be ended in lots of ways: by voting, by decree, by fatigue of the disputants, by the force of example that changes social mores. But they can never really be resolved by finding the correct answers. There are none. (p. 96)
Yes, moral codes can exist in the absence of G-d. They just can’t be true. They’re outgrowths of an evolved mechanism to spread genes and ensure survival. Life's fulfilment per the Humanist Manifesto presupposes something not unlike Aristotelian teleology. Was Darwin cool with that?
"As opposed to some other theory that suggests existence is absurd?"
Well, I could see how that could be seen as a straw man. I think it is more that some people like Albert Camus (or who use similar lines of thinking) might conclude that reductionistic thinking about life makes human aims absurd. I am not sure what anything we currently know or think scientifically about life means that human existence is absurd. So, I could see how maybe that was a bad thing to put in the book description or in the book. I think it is a response to someone like Alex Rosenberg who wrote The Atheist's Guide to Reality: https://www.amazon.com/Atheists-Guide-Reality-Enjoying-Illusions/dp/0393344118 Rosenberg argues that the everything is ultimately just about the interactions of fermions and bosons. People have argued in response to him that he wrote a book to convey this, so apparently that's not all you need in order to understand everything. Anyway, Rosenberg isn't a scientist though and there isn't a scientific theory that argues human existence is absurd... just saying though.
Before I respond, you asked about professional philosophers. Here is a fine example
http://www.amazon.com/Atheists-Guide-Reality-Enjoying-Illusions/dp/0393344118/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Rosenberg
I hope he is professional enough.
He has characterized his position as "Nice Nihilism"
http://www.indyweek.com/artery/archives/2011/10/05/in-praise-of-nice-nihilism-alex-rosenberg-discusses-his-new-book-on-atheism
I applaud his honesty.
Isn't this last statement odd though?
>>Yes, they called themselves deists, the ones who weren’t atheists. And as far as I’m concerned, deists might as well be atheists.
For your post:
>Do I not know these things?
Yes and some inferences have more support than others.
> Here's the FBI's take on their motivations. Nihilism is not listed..
Materialism as a worldview makes the decisions rational, it is not necessarily a motivation. Ask the psychologists making that stuff up what worldview is used. If the worldview is of materialism then these things are assumed.
>That isn't true. I can think of two consequences: Firstly, they have to commit suicide. This is in and of itself a consequence. In fact, it's akin to the death penalty which is literally the worst consequence we offer.
The ending of ones existence via suicide is done by people anyway. If after suicide I cease to exist and if I am suffering now, then it is completely rational. Murder is only irrational under materialism if in my experience there is no pleasure out of killing someone. By the time they realize that, it is too late anyway.
>People's lives are very important to them even if they don't believe in God.
I never mentioned God. You are bringing this up.
The will to survive and live is there even without a lack of belief in God. That does not affect whether or not ceasing to exist to avoid punishment or suffering is rational. Some people believe in a sort of God, but think they can end their existence. So not sure of the relevance of this.
>So far you've written off losing one's life and the suffering of others as consequence.
If I have realized that my existence is only experiences and I am wormfood after I die, I can make the rational decision that living is not worth it. There is not enough pleasure in this world to counteract the pain, so there is no point in further existence. That is completely rational under materialism.
> I think that the only thing you count as a consequence is divine punishment but I don't see how you could possibly justify that.
I never mentioned anything about "divinity". If we live in a world of justice, it doesn't necessitate divinity, ask a Buddhist.
>It's not rational at all to be a serial killer. Doesn't matter what metaphysical viewpoints you hold. It isn't reasonable to be a serial killer.
Materialism is a worldview in which the consequences of being a serial killer do not affect me after a certain point. According to materialism Stalin doesn't exist anymore, such an entity was as real as a sandcastle washed away, doesn't matter how many millions he killed.
>Being rational is being reasonable, not seeing what you can get away with.
Are you saying a thief with no ethical compunctions about stealing who could steal something and get away with it would not be rational if he did the crime? The only way in which he is not rational is if the stealing hurt his conscience experience.
>It isn't reasonable to be a serial killer.
If I get pleasure out of killing and there are no consequences to me, then it is a completely rational decision to be a serial killer.
We are left with morality under moral realism actually existing. So the murder of someone is Bad. But since there is no entity after the material combination is finished, the murderer has no consequences, in fact the consequences are finished sooner with the death penalty.
>>A philosopher whose opinion does not differ from others is not considered a great philosopher. "
>There's no opinion held by everyone on earth unanimously so everyone's opinion will differ from others.
Yes and the person with the most unique and original opinions are considered the greatest philosophers. The point is that an original opinion is not necessary to understand the truth. The most sublime truth could be extremely simple and not require an original philosophy to understand, (i.e. the golden rule). This quote is about understanding truth.
>If you duplicate a gene then change the new sequence, then you're adding new information.
What new sequence? If you take some information, and copy that information - its the same information. Its a copy.
>You don't have to buy into it, but you clearly don't understand it.
I don't understand speciation? Didn't I just define it? Do not I know it so well that the problems with it, you admitted were accurate?
>That makes no sense.
You mean to tell me that you dont know the difference between science and scientific theory? You know what, you should really read a book. I think its something you will actually really enjoy - a book by atheists for atheists - {The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions by Alex Rosenberg}[http://www.amazon.com/Atheists-Guide-Reality-Enjoying-Illusions/dp/0393344118/ref=la_B001ITTUDA_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1370476239&sr=1-2]. Its so good for atheists - because it is a philosopher explaining how to convince people to fully embrace "scientism". Now, I believe you have already made this jump - if you cant tell the difference between what is a theory and what is reality. But at least it might reveal to you how deep the rabbit hole goes.
Guest request: Alex Rosenberg
For the following reasons:
Would be interesting to hear why Tamler now rejects the conclusion in that paper (if he does).
https://youtu.be/bhfkhq-CM84
I think he’d bring out the best/silliest in Dave and Tamler.
I suggest Alex Rosenberg's book The Atheist's Guide to Reality for an attempt to show that a commitment to science requires us to accept the non-existence of not only God but also minds, meaning, truth, objects that continue to exist from one moment to the next, etc.
I enjoyed this book: "The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions" by Alex Rosenburg
www.amazon.com/Atheists-Guide-Reality-Enjoying-Illusions/dp/0393344118/
Alex Rosenberg
An Atheists Guide to Reality
Try reading Nietzsche sometime.