Concerns About Sony's Religious Intolerance

[Patricia]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Actually, I am about a third into The God Delusion, and I find it perfectly well-reasoned. Dawkins' arguments hardly make anyone look like a "bunch of intolerant whiners," not any more, than say those who dismiss the lunacy of a 7,000-year old Universe, based on current scientific knowledge, are a "bunch of intolerant whiners."

But, here is a nubie question:

I'd like to get the ebook version of The God Delusion as well. It is available from the Sony Store, but want to load it on my Iliad.

I've never bought an ebook from the Sony Store, and am wondering if my assumption that I can purchase the ebook, then strip the DRM and load it on my Iliad (as prc maybe,) is correct?

If the above is possible, is the formatting retained?

It's not possible. No one has yet devised a tool to de-DRM Sony books.

Incidentally, the forum at Richard Dawkins' website has noticed the Sony extract and people there wondered when the complaints would start rolling in. It's here:
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/view...hp?f=2&t=68073

Their homepage here http://richarddawkins.net/
has a link (on Amazon) to the extract which was the stimulus for this thread.

[msmith]

Very interesting. Over 430 posts on this issue.

What is intriguing to me, is the apparent preponderance of atheists and agnostics in this particular forum. I have noticed in parts of this thread where as soon as someone expresses a bit from the "faith" perspective, the atheists start to pile on. Curious. It is interesting to me why MobileRead seems to attract so many atheists and agnostics.

For those willing to be open minded on the other side of the debate and explore some stimulating viewpoints, I would strongly recommend the books I mentioned some 300+ posts ago.

These are collections of interviews with truly brilliant people from a wide range of academic disciplines, that are getting hammered with the toughest questions an atheist might ask. There are no punches pulled. At the very least, you will be intellectually stimulated by the fascinating responses given to the most difficult questions atheists frequently ask. Here are the books:

"The Case For A Creator" and "The Case For Faith" by Lee Strobel

If you don't want to actually purchase one of these books, there it a great one written by Vox Day called "The Irrational Atheist". It is an optional purchase (you choose the amount) or you could download it for free. It, also, is an excellent read regarding the main challenges with the the atheist argument from a purely secular perspective (many of the arguments found in this thread), and addresses Dawkins' worldview head on.

Here is the ebook download link.
http://irrationalatheist.com/downloads.html

Perhaps Sony could put it on future Readers along with Dawkins to create a little balance? If a book like this was on there to choose from, I would have no problems with Dawkins' book being there. At least there would be no bias on an obviously highly controversial topic (again--430+ posts on the issue).

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by msmith

... It is interesting to me why MobileRead seems to attract so many atheists and agnostics....

Perhaps because it's a forum where most are well read and reasonably intelligent....

Originally Posted by msmith

... For those willing to be open minded on the other side of the debate and explore some stimulating viewpoints....

With all due respect, you were the one calling for a boycott of Sony, because they included a best-selling book by a well-respected biologist. Hardly open-minded or tolerant, if you ask me.

For what it's worth, Dawkins is actually fairly gentle on Christianity, by at least not hammering in the glaring problem, that based on the evidence, the central character is unlikely to have ever been a real historical personality, biblical bootstrapping notwithstanding.

But this is a discussion for another venue. Just like religious proselytizing.

[Elfwreck]

I've downloaded The Irrational Atheist, and will read it (or at least start it) after the book I'm reading now. (Something from Harlequin which I forget the name of.)

I suspect I will not like it. I am very much not an atheist, but I also find no appeal in Christian apologetics, which most anti-atheist arguments seem to be. The ones I've seen so far, seem to make leaps with their "logic"--they go from "the atheists ignore some data" to "therefore, a single all-powerful creator made the universe and is watching people."

And they often claim that evolution is incompatible with theism.

Not saying this one has that, just that I've seen that argued in the past.

I have found this discussion remarkably polite, with diverse viewpoints able to discuss their beliefs without getting rude or vile, as is often the case in discussions of different religions. And for "why there are so many atheists/agnostics here"... there aren't. This seems like a very normal distribution of faiths to me. Those supposedly 80% who "believe in a god?" The majority of them aren't interested in discussions of religion. That leaves a small fraction of them, and *all* atheists & agnostics, who are--and the only reason the atheists & agnostics are, is because they get religion shoved in their faces on a regular basis.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Those supposedly 80% who "believe in a god?" The majority of them aren't interested in discussions of religion.

80% is not the percentage in Europe. And it varies between countries. From wikipedia:

A November–December 2006 poll published in the Financial Times gives rates for the United States and five European countries. It found that Americans are more likely than Europeans to report belief in any form of god or supreme being (73%). Of the European adults surveyed, Italians are the most likely to express this belief (62%) and the French the least likely (27%). In France, 32% declared themselves atheists, and an additional 32% declared themselves agnostic.[101] An official European Union survey provides corresponding figures: 18% of the EU population do not believe in a god; 27% affirm the existence of some "spirit or life force", while 52% affirm belief in a specific god. The proportion of believers rises to 65% among those who had left school by age 15; survey respondents who considered themselves to be from a strict family background were more likely to believe in god than those who felt their upbringing lacked firm rules.[102]

A letter published in Nature in 1998 reported a survey suggesting that belief in a personal god or afterlife was at an all-time low among the members of the U.S. National Academy of Science, only 7.0% of whom believed in a personal god as compared with more than 85% of the general U.S. population.[103] In the same year Frank Sulloway of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Michael Shermer of California State University conducted a study which found in their polling sample of "credentialed" U.S. adults (12% had Ph.Ds and 62% were college graduates) 64% believed in God, and there was a correlation indicating that religious conviction diminished with education level.[104] An inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence has been found by 39 studies carried out between 1927 and 2002, according to an article in Mensa Magazine.[105] These findings broadly agree with a 1958 statistical meta-analysis by Professor Michael Argyle of the University of Oxford. He analyzed seven research studies that had investigated correlation between attitude to religion and measured intelligence among school and college students from the U.S. Although a clear negative correlation was found, the analysis did not identify causality but noted that factors such as authoritarian family background and social class may also have played a part.[106]

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Patricia

It's not possible. No one has yet devised a tool to de-DRM Sony books....

Thanks for the answer and the pointers, Patricia.

It's really too bad, since now that I've discovered e-readers, I find them somehow more pleasant to read than books (I know, it's terrible, but I do:-) Strangely, I also find e-ink screens easier on my eyes than books, perhaps because of the more even light distribution.

I wish the book was made available in a format which I could transfer between my two readers - the publisher would have made another sale. Alas, I'll either finish it in pulp, or try one of the PDFs floating around.

[msmith]

Originally Posted by tompe

A November–December 2006 poll published in the Financial Times gives rates for the United States and five European countries. It found that Americans are more likely than Europeans to report belief in any form of god or supreme being (73%). Of the European adults surveyed, Italians are the most likely to express this belief (62%) and the French the least likely (27%). In France, 32% declared themselves atheists, and an additional 32% declared themselves agnostic.[101] An official European Union survey provides corresponding figures: 18% of the EU population do not believe in a god; 27% affirm the existence of some "spirit or life force", while 52% affirm belief in a specific god.

A letter published in Nature in 1998 reported a survey suggesting that belief in a personal god or afterlife was at an all-time low among the members of the U.S. National Academy of Science, only 7.0% of whom believed in a personal god as compared with more than 85% of the general U.S. population.[103] In the same year Frank Sulloway of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Michael Shermer of California State University conducted a study which found in their polling sample of "credentialed" U.S. adults (12% had Ph.Ds and 62% were college graduates) 64% believed in God, and there was a correlation indicating that religious conviction diminished with education level.[104] An inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence has been found by 39 studies carried out between 1927 and 2002, according to an article in Mensa Magazine.[105]

First of all, Wikipedia is not the most credible resource in the world, and tends to lean towards the bias of the editors--as do polls and studies.

So is the apparent inference from the posted statistics is that the French should be exponentially smarter than Americans because they don't believe in God to the overwhelming degree that Americans do (i.e. religious people= dumb, atheists=smart). That is patently absurd. The United States is one of the highest educated nations on the face of the earth, and one of the most religious. The U.S. trumps France in virtually every meaningful category of success, accomplishment, technological development, financial power and influence, which would naturally be a significant offshoot of intelligence. Would any thinking person actually argue that French as a whole are "smarter" than Americans? The book I mentioned tears apart such typical red herring arguments.

If it helps some people feel more "comfortable" reading it, Vox Day the author of "The Irrational Atheist" is a member of Mensa.

Here, again, is the ebook download link.
http://irrationalatheist.com/downloads.html

[Gideon]

Personally, I find Strobel even more obnoxious than Dawkins.

Dawkins has his faults (I think this article in NY Times Review of Books does a good job explaining it: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19775, and Daniel Dennet replies and the author replies back. Quite informative.)

Strobel... He's an apologist. He doesn't really deal with his critics or criticism of his ideas very well at all. It's about 2 inches from being anti-intellectual.

As far as I'm concerned, at least, I don't think either side of this debate has particularly good public intellectuals.

Of course... there aren't many in the way of public intellectuals these days as is. We've pundits and polemics in spades.... little else.

[mazzeltjes]

[QUOTE=msmith;342095]First of all, Wikipedia is not the most credible resource in the world, and tends to lean towards the bias of the editors--as do polls and studies.



I've heard the same said about the bible and bible-thumpers

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by msmith

... If it helps some people feel more "comfortable" reading it, Vox Day the author of "The Irrational Atheist" is a member of Mensa....

Actually, Vox Day is an often ill-informed, generally boisterous, largely anti-intellectual blogger (former video-game reviewer, as well as pop musician,) who seems to be convinced that the Age of Enlightenment ushered all the ills of the modern world. I have spent an hour here and there, reading his more bombastic pronouncements, and on a rare occasion he has a point, but he is hardly an authority on anything.

But since you are actually making reading suggestions, if you really want something more learned regarding biblical origins, try "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Sacred Texts" by Finkelstein (http://www.fictionwise.com/eBooks/eBook9494.htm?cache), or "Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?" by Dever (http://www.amazon.com/Were-Early-Isr...3626991&sr=8-2)

Or about Christianity, try these: "The Christians as the Romans Saw Them" by Wilken (http://www.amazon.com/Christians-Rom...3628238&sr=1-1), "Did Jesus Exist?" by Wells (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Exist-Ge...3627608&sr=1-1), or The Jesus Puzzle by Doherty (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Puzzle-C...ref=pd_sim_b_6). Unfortunately, not legally available as ebooks.

[msmith]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Actually, Vox Day is an often ill-informed, generally boisterous, largely anti-intellectual blogger (former video-game reviewer, as well as pop musician,) who seems to be convinced that the Age of Enlightenment ushered all the ills of the modern world. I have spent an hour here and there, reading his more bombastic pronouncements, and on a rare occasion he has a point, but he is hardly an authority on anything.

He is actually a nationally syndicated columnist with Universal Press Syndicate (in addition to having a blog). Perhaps it is not constructive for you to personally critique Vox Day, and who you do or do not believe him to be in your opinion. Why don't you critique his arguments against atheism, and against the most well-known modern proponents of it (one of them being Dawkins)?

And how in the world could Dawkins be considered qualified to comment on religion or God? Where is his authority or knowledge on theism? He has none. And he is intellectually dishonest. At least Day systematically takes each argument for atheism apart one by one with actual facts and evidence like a scientist would, rather than the vacuous and largely anecdotal shallow storytelling that Dawkins engages in.

You simply cannot take Dawkins seriously after reading "The Irrational Atheist". He has no credibility. He is a simple bomb throwing pundit with a poorly researched opinion.

And Gideon, I thought this actually was quite a fair and balanced review from a fan of Dawkins, (and I believe he is an agnostic): http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19775 Thanks for the link.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by msmith

.... Why don't you critique his arguments against atheism...? ...

...Day systematically takes each argument for atheism apart one by one with actual facts and evidence like a scientist would....

You simply cannot take Dawkins seriously after reading "The Irrational Atheist". He has no credibility. He is a simple bomb throwing pundit with a poorly researched opinion...

Hm, despite of your obvious baiting, this is not the forum to critique "arguments against atheism."

But..., OPEN RANT:

Really, what do you want me to critique? Inane statements, such as that modern non-Christian acculturated scientists are somehow "hindering" real scientific progress, and are intellectually inferior to the "Christian" scientists of centuries past?! Or that the Age of Enlightenment replaced the deep thinkers of yore with uppity and godless European peasants?!

I suppose, these may seem like powerful arguments, to those who believe that the Universe is 7,000 years old, or that they are made of dirt. Or a blood-clot.

I am aware of the premise of The Irrational Atheist, since, as I mentioned, I have read some of Vox Day's running arguments, collected in his new book. But seriously, how can you claim that Dawkins "is a simple bomb throwing pundit with a poorly researched opinion," when you have apparently not taken the trouble to read even the free chapter which came with your Sony?

By the same token, on what exactly do you base your opinion, that Orr's review in the NYT is "balanced." I personally have generally enjoyed most of Orr's reviews I've come accross, but this one seems a little personal, and a little weaker. Not that some of the criticism may not be valid.

But, statements like

"(Where do we draw the line between what medicine can accomplish and what it should be allowed to accomplish?). These questions are difficult and might well merit extended discussion between scientific and religious thinkers."

are too presumptuous in their assumption, that "religious thinkers" have something special to contribute to the question of what medicine can accomplish. I mean, really, are they more qualified than butchers, or plumbers, on the subject (any subject?)

Orr asks in his review of The God Delusion, "since when is a scientific hypothesis confirmed by philosophical gymnastics, not data?"

I think this kind of sums up the burden on those who make the claim that any deity should be taken seriously.

END OF RANT.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sonist

I'd like to get the ebook version of The God Delusion as well. It is available from the Sony Store, but want to load it on my Iliad.

I've never bought an ebook from the Sony Store, and am wondering if my assumption that I can purchase the ebook, then strip the DRM and load it on my Iliad (as prc maybe,) is correct?

No, you can't do that.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sonist

For what it's worth, Dawkins is actually fairly gentle on Christianity, by at least not hammering in the glaring problem, that based on the evidence, the central character is unlikely to have ever been a real historical personality, biblical bootstrapping notwithstanding.

With respect, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that Jesus was not a genuine historical figure. His reported activies are completely "in line" with the various "apocalyptic" cults we know from documentary evidence were prevalent in 1st century Judea - it was very widely believed at the time that the Roman occupation of Judea was a "punishment from God" and signalled the imminent end of the world.

Certainly by the mid-60's AD the "Christians" were a sufficiently well-known (and disliked) group for them to be a convenient "scapegoat" for Nero to blame them for the great Fire of Rome in 64 AD, as reported by the Roman historian Tacitus in "Annals XV":

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, was executed during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

(This is, by the way, the first "independent" historical mention of Christianity.)

That is, of course, entirely different from saying that Jesus was anything other than a normal human being - a think which I don't personally accept for an instant.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by msmith

And how in the world could Dawkins be considered qualified to comment on religion or God? Where is his authority or knowledge on theism? He has none. And he is intellectually dishonest.

Far less "dishonest", surely, than the religious groups who make pronouncements on topics such as evolution, despite having no qualifications to do so. Dawkins, as professor of evolutionary biology at Oxford University, is one of the best qualified people in the world to write about that topic, as he has done in his books such as "The Blind Watchmaker".