14 Replies to “#1 Book on Amazon: Godless: The Church of Liberalism

  1. 1
    Mats says:

    Yay!
    After I grab the book “The Biotic Message”, I will try to grab this one.

  2. 2
    BenK says:

    Completely off topic, but has anyone seen this?

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2220484,00.html

    nice!

  3. 3
    Cengiz Cebi says:

    Liberalism is religion, like naturalism. How then are they accepted as religion-free things by many of us? What makes people think that liberalism/naturalism is completely different from any other religions? Are there historical origins for this established worldview?

    And timesonline article is must-read. Thanks BenK.

  4. 4
    tinabrewer says:

    It would probably avoid a great many unnecessary and fruitless arguments if, instead of referring to Darwinism as a “religion”, the word “worldview” would be used. Worldview conveys the essential qualities of the schema, including the creation myth, without adding the unhelpful connotations of a higher power or supernatural forces contained in almost all religions.

  5. 5
    Michaels7 says:

    BenK,
    I commented on it below… didn’t see yours. Makes for good future convo here! Frances Collins, Director of Human Genome Research Institute….

    Dawkins will begin hiring a million chimps to type away on a million computers. Panda must be losing its thumbs and PZ will blow his tonsils(you know, those leftover-vestigial organs no one needs) on this new book.

    I’ll be looking out for Collins book.

  6. 6
    Mung says:

    I’m awaiting the scientifc evidence (and perhaps the book about it from Dennett) on how science itself is a religion, or no different from religion.

  7. 7
    bFast says:

    TinaBrewer, the term worldview is actually very effective at defining the filter through which people interpret their world. However, the term “religion” has been used as a vicious sword against the ID movement. It is a vicious sword to a great extent because of the “separation” clause of the first ammendment. Therefore, if athiesm, naturalism, liberalism (I am a little less fond of the liberalism thing) are also seen as “religion”, they too would not be promotable by government, ie, taught in school. I would dare to say that if liberalism is a religion, then conservativism is too. (Let me assure you that the conservativism = Christianity school of though is dead wrong.)

  8. 8
    crandaddy says:

    That’s an interesting article about Collins. He’d better look out, though. If he doesn’t quickly disavow intelligent design, the materialist inquisition is gonna git ‘im.

  9. 9
    DonaldM says:

    It would probably avoid a great many unnecessary and fruitless arguments if, instead of referring to Darwinism as a “religion”, the word “worldview” would be used. Worldview conveys the essential qualities of the schema, including the creation myth, without adding the unhelpful connotations of a higher power or supernatural forces contained in almost all religions.

    That would depend on the worldview. The Judeo-Christian worldview, as I’m sure you know, revolves around the existence of God and His involvement in the creating, sustaining and redemption of the universe and everything in it. Pretty tough to avoid the “connotation” of supernatural forces there.

  10. 10
    DonaldM says:

    Sorry, Dave, but Coulter is way over the top these days. Even if her conclusions are right, her arguments are intentionally inflammatory and that does not serve her or conservatism well. She’s gotten way too full of herself if you ask me.

    Well, you’re certainly entitled to an opinion. Personally, I’ll take every New York Times #1 best seller author stepping up to the plate and batting for ID that I can get. Heck, I’d even restrain myself from bad mouthing Hillary Clinton if she took up the cause. What’re the odds? There’s a promise I don’t have to worry about keeping. -ds

  11. 11
    terrylmirll says:

    Got my copy of _Godless_ in today’s mail and can’t wait to read it. I have to agree with Dave: Go, Ann, Go!

  12. 12
    apollo230 says:

    Hello, Donald! You may not want to criticize Anne here. Dave clearly has a thing for her. In fact, it would not surprise me if she is his goddess (so much then for him being an agnostic!). 🙂

    Best regards,

    apollo230

    I’d definitely put her on a pedestal. Steve Martin would too for the same reason. -ds

  13. 13
    FuzzyHead says:

    People really need to differentiate between the way they use the words religion and worldview. After all we think that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Paganism, Daoist, Confucionism and Hinduism. Not all of those even believe in God. The word religion is so confused. Gordon Clark, Christian apologist and philosopher, claimed that no real definition could be concluded in his book, Reason, Revelation and Religion.

  14. 14
    tinabrewer says:

    DonaldM; using the term “worldview” would not be controversial depending upon your worldview. That is the whole point. The term worldview, by definition, could be a theistic one, OR it could be an atheistic one. Whereas the term “religion” is necessarily and correctly loaded with connotations of forces which lie outside of matter. If an argument is being made that “liberalism” is a religion, I think this is needlesssly confusing, whereas saying “liberalism is an entire worldview which provides its adherents with the satisfaction typically derived from religion” would be far less argumentative. It is also just dishonest to conflate “liberalism” with “materialism”. It is simply untrue. I just got finished with a mini-chat with someone on this site, who claimed to be a religious Christian, and yet who adamantly holds that humans do not have an immortal soul, and are comprised entirely of the material substance of their physical bodies. This view is completely indistinguishable from materialism. With many people claiming not to be “materialists” holding such views, is it any surprise that materialism is winning?

Leave a Reply