Showing posts with label christian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label christian. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

'10 Books That Screwed Up the World: And 5 Others That Didn't Help' by Benjamin Wiker, Ph.D

Despite an interesting premise, with ‘10 Books That Screwed Up the World’, Doctor Wiker ultimately falls foul of his own double standards.

It’s a bold challenge Doctor Wiker makes with ‘10 Books That Screwed Up the World: And 5 Others That Didn't Help.’

He argues that some of the most infamous literature in history has become so ingrained in modern culture that people have accepted the ‘concept’ of these books without actually reading or contesting the original material.

These commonly accepted, yet half-understood ‘truths,’ he contends, are what’s responsible for promoting our materialistic, Godless and sexually promiscuous culture – of ‘screwing up’ the world, as he puts it.

But despite coming up with a fascinating premise for his book, Doctor Wiker sets off down the wrong path from step one – illustrating that the 10 books he’s highlighted haven’t so much ‘screwed up’ the world – just ‘the world’ as he believes it should be.

It’s clear Doctor Wiker is promoting an agenda simply by reading the list of the ten works be believes ‘Screwed Up the World.’ There are some logical choices there, like Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf.’ However, the rest reads like a Conservative shit-list, encompassing Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, Alfred Kinsey and Friedrich Nietzsche.

Taking into account Ben Wiker’s previous books, like “Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins’ Case Against God,” and “Moral Darwinism,” it’s fair to suggest that Doctor Wiker reached his condemning conclusions about ‘the worst books ever written’ before even bothering to examine them.

That much is clear in the attacks he makes: With Descartes' ‘Discourse on the Method,’ for example, Doctor Wiker’s own theological beliefs become so entangled in his quarrel with Descarte’s ontological argument that his conclusion winds up being utterly subjective and unconvincing.

Similarly, his interpretation of ‘The Descent of Man’ attempts to bulldoze Darwinism into the role of the founder of the Eugenics movement, despite the fact that Darwin himself argued in that very book against the idea of using Darwinian methods in civilized human society.

Margaret Mead and Alfred Kinsey, perhaps the mother and father of the ‘sexual revolution’, are demonized for popularizing the study of human sexuality and breaking down the boundaries of traditional (in Wiker’s case, read ‘Christian’) morality. His evaluation of ‘The Communist Manifesto’ is clearly colored by the supposed ‘evils’ of socialism once popularized by McCarthy.

From start to finish, Doctor Wiker’s evaluation of these ’10 books’ originates from such a rigid and inflexible position that it makes his arguments and conclusions somewhat blithe. For readers coming from a similarly Conservative, Christian standpoint, they might find a lot they agree with in Doctor Wicker’s appraisals of the ‘ten worst books.’ For everybody else, you’ll have to make several leaps of faith just to keep up with his ‘logic.’

I think Thomas E. Woods sums up the intended audience of ’10 Books That Screwed Up the World’ best with his quote on the back cover: “Benjamin Wiker has read the worst books in Western civilization so you don't have to.”

It’s the ‘…so you don’t have to’ which sums it all up. If you’ve already reached your conclusion about the evils of books like The Descent of Man and the Kinsey Report, ideally without reading them, you’ll find '10 Books’ to be well written and comforting, agreeing with everything you believe you know about these ‘terrible works.’

If you’ve got a slightly more open mind, however, you’ll find Doctor Wiker’s appraisal of these books to be shamelessly one-sided and his conclusions less than watertight.

Thursday, July 03, 2008

Tarred with the same brush?

Coffee Bean has been giving me a run for her money over on her blog, with a very brave and honest post about her faith and how it's ebbed and flowed throughout her life.

From what she wrote, I learned it's very easy to tar one group by the same brush as its more extreme members. For example, as April pointed out, not all people who identify as conservative Christians believe the world was created 6,000 years ago and condemn homosexuals.

This proves one important thing - that Christians are clearly more evolved than politicians. Apparently, to be a Democrat or Republican you must - MUST - believe in certain things to meet the approval of your party.

I find this very frustrating as we march towards the 2008 election.

Mostly because John McCain, who I respect enormously, is getting more and more ensnared by party political bullshit.

What I really admire about John McCain (apart from the fact that he can fly a fighter plane) is that he's a maverick. He has his own beliefs and for most of his political career, he wasn't afraid to share them.

Immigration. The Environment. Abortion. Homosexual rights. John McCain bucked the Republican trend on all of them and that made him an outstanding candidate in my book. A man who had sensible Republican financial ideals, but was able to rise about the social conservatism that I despise.

Sadly, now he's won the nomination for President in the face of more 'conservative' Republicans, John McCain faces the challenge of not only winning over undecided voters, but the more right-wing members of his own party as well.

That's meant he's been forced to compromise on some pretty important issues. His campaign website has shown a u-turn on certain issues - which is bad. Not just because it scares off more moderate voters. It also makes people concerned that McCain is buckling under the pressure of a party that has spent the last eight years making a litany of poor judgement calls.

McCain's biggest asset (aside from his gorgeous and brilliant daughter, Meghan) is his history of bipartisanship. If he loses the ability to cross party lines on decisive issues, he'll lose his appeal to the more moderate voters and that will cost the Republicans the election.

You have to ask the more right wing Republicans - what's more important? Sticking to your (hand)guns on all your so-called 'values?' Or actually winning the election?

Because until the right wing is willing to swallow their pride and stump up support behind their candidate, they have little hope of defeating Obama.

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Obama dares to confront Evangelical Hypocrisy

"Even if we had only Christians in our midst - if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America - whose Christianity would we teach in the schools?"

Bang. Nailed it right on the head. Well played, Mr Obama.

Barack was speaking in Colorado, trying to bridge the divide between the Democratic party and the Evangelical right wing (who could possibly muster up to eighty million votes in the coming election.)

With John McCain losing out because of his lack of 'conservative credentials' (i.e. he won't pander to the pious nutjobs who lead the Evangelical movement) Obama was hoping to convince some Christian groups to support him in the upcoming election.

He's not doing too bad a job, either. Up to 15% of conservative Christians who'd previously identified as 'Republican' have left that party - dismayed by the war in Iraq and the gloomy state of the economy.

But his comments today have upset some people - including James Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family and 'Kingmaker of the Religious Right.'

"I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology," Dobson said. "He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter!"

Basically, unless you're shouting out your hatred and intolerance for gay people, you've got no right to call yourself a Christian.

Fortunately, most sensible people agree that James Dobson is a complete and utter idiot.

Before Obama, the last person he'd picked a fight with was annoying cartoon character Spongebob Squarepants, who he accused of promoting a 'homosexual agenda.'

He also wrote a popular book 'Dare to Discipline,' which advocated corporal punishment for children - and warned parents that if their kid cried as a result, they should "offer him a little more of whatever caused the original tears." [i.e. wallop him again - Editorial Bear.]

Unfortunately, non-sensible people hugely outnumber the sensible ones and Dobson boasts of having delivered election victories to Bush in both Ohio and Florida in the 2000 election. He even warned the president that unless Bush upped the pressure against advocates of abortion and gay rights, he'd 'pay a price in four years time.'

Obama's measured and thoughtful speech might have impressed many people today - but it didn't impress Dobson and I've got a feeling we'll hear an awful lot more bullshit from him as a result.

Friday, February 01, 2008

Preamble to the Debate...

One of the recent bloggers I've stumbled across is CK.

On the face of it, CK and I seem to have wildly opposing views on all sorts of things. We started interacting over a post he'd made about one of my favourite country songs of all time - Sugarland's moving ballad 'Stay.'

It quickly became apparent that there weren't very many things CK and I agreed on. He dismisses evolution and global warming - and the factual evidence upon which they're based - and I objected to some of his arguements (like the Bible's attitudes towards homosexuality.)

Despite these disagreements, I have to admit that I've developed a lot of respect for CK. In England we often use the term 'he's a gentleman and a scholar' to describe somebody we respect. CK most certainly belongs in the 'gentleman' category and I'm only leaving him out of the 'scholar' part because I think he's spent too much time reading The Good Book instead of other, unreleated books (on things like evolution and global warming!)

But as gruff and opinionated as his blog makes him sound, he's a classy guy for the way he's debated things with me. Reading his blog also shows that he's a big hearted, generous bloke who goes out of his way to do things to support his friends in his church community.

However much I'm intellectually frustrated with Christianity, you can't really argue with the good work people like CK do in the 'name' of God. I watched Batman Begins the other day and one line reminded me of CK. District Attorney Rachel Dawes turns to her friend Bruce Wayne (who she has no idea is really Batman) and says: 'It's not who you are inside that counts. It's what you do.'

And CK's the kind of guy who rolls up to a neighbour's house on a weekend off to help them cut firewood for the weeks ahead. However much I disagree with his beliefs or politics, I can't help but be humbled by the generous and selfless things he does out there in the 'real world.'

CK might humbly dismiss is as part of his 'religious duty,' but I know the truth. He's just a really great guy - and you don't need to be religiously inclined to recognize that.

However frustrated I am at Christianity or religion in general, it brings people together and it often gives them a purpose. Purpose is a very important thing. If we didn't have it - and didn't believe in something - then it's very easy to become totally nihilistic.

CK's living proof that religion is only a bad thing when bad things come of it. When good things spring from faith - like a shed full of wood for a shivering family - it's difficult for even hard-core secularists like me to dismiss it's benefits.

I just thought I'd mention these things before I launch into CK's current debate. You don't have to agree with somebody to acknowledge their qualities.