Good non-fiction books

[habernac]

and......the hijack is complete.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

Hey, that's what pretty much what I wanted to say, but I didn't want bring this thread too off-topic. It is certainly a valid argument and one that has never explicitly been addressed by the neo-Darwinian atheists.

I would contest both the notion that Enlightenment principles-as-myth has never been addressed, and I'd moreover contest the notion that there is a serious group of intellectuals that you could describe as "neo-Darwinian atheists." There are atheists, and many of them use science as a way of arguing their viewpoint, but I feel the need to point out that Darwin himself was not an atheist. There are Darwinians, and many of them are also Christian, without feeling that there's any contradiction.

Marx may well have been an atheist, but as fatso pointed out, Hegel was not. In a way, though--that's neither here nor there, since to distinguish between Darwinism and Christianity is to create a false dichotomy--since science as we understand it today actually doesn't stipulate as to the existence of God, whatever Richard Dawkins may think.

I will agree that the notion of an "enlightenment teleology" is its own kind of myth--but it's one that in mainstream philosophy has been virtually debunked, certainly since poststructuralism.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I would contest both the notion that Enlightenment principles-as-myth has never been addressed, and I'd moreover contest the notion that there is a serious group of intellectuals that you could describe as "neo-Darwinian atheists." There are atheists, and many of them use science as a way of arguing their viewpoint, but I feel the need to point out that Darwin himself was not an atheist. There are Darwinians, and many of them are also Christian, without feeling that there's any contradiction.

Marx may well have been an atheist, but as fatso pointed out, Hegel was not. In a way, though--that's neither here nor there, since to distinguish between Darwinism and Christianity is to create a false dichotomy--since science as we understand it today actually doesn't stipulate as to the existence of God, whatever Richard Dawkins may think.

I will agree that the notion of an "enlightenment teleology" is its own kind of myth--but it's one that in mainstream philosophy has been virtually debunked, certainly since poststructuralism.

I would reiterate that neo-Darwinian atheists are almost exclusively Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. Atheists which almost exclusively use Darwinian evolutionary theory to support their beliefs. I think this label is fair given the impact these three have had upon public debate.

Science is science and should not impact upon philosophy. I totally agree with you there. My problem is with the modern atheist's notion is that they are untouchable and are completely immune for any criticism on a religious basis.

I'm not certain if enlightenment teleology needed to be debunked by poststructuralism, the neo-Platonists did a decent enough job on their own.

[Bobblehead]

Interesting discussion, and IMHO, a good derailment.

And speaking of RAILS and, the original topic, might I suggest The Last Spike, 1881-1885 by Pierre Berton? It is a good read to get a picture of Canadian history, especially in this area. The precursor to this book The National Dream, The Great Railway, 1871-1881 is also a good read, but lies in a lot more of the politics, financing and motivations of the railway.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by peter12

My problem is with the modern atheist's notion is that they are untouchable and are completely immune for any criticism on a religious basis.

Who thinks they are untouchable?

I think I am immune from criticism on a religious basis though because I don't have a religion. You can't criticize something I don't have.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Who thinks they are untouchable?

I think I am immune from criticism on a religious basis though because I don't have a religion. You can't criticize something I don't have.

http://ucalgary.ca/~dabergen/RELS%20...20Religion.htm

Look at the incredible variance of definitions on religion that scholars from all over have tried to find. It truly encompasses everything in the human experience. Atheism is no difference.

[peter12]

Religions has its leaders, the preachers of its tenets. So does atheism (Nietzsche, Feuerbach, Lenin, Marx).

All of those philosophers disagreed in many ways - thus supporting my contention that atheism, as such, does not have any set of "clearly defined rules" and is not a single religion. Many atheists, in fact, have no interest in those authors.

Do you think most Christians have any interest in Aquinas, Augustine, or Luther? Do you think they agreed with each other?

They still had an impact upon modern perceptions of Christian beliefs.