Skip to main content

BOOK CLUB

I am thinking of starting a blog book club. We pick a book. Each week we do a chapter. I write up a little piece on the chapter and all can then contribute...

You get two weeks' notice to acquire the book.

Does this appeal to anyone?

A God and Religion theme, and maybe broaden out later to philosophy generally. Fairly accessible books. Currently I am thinking: The God Delusion, The Devil's Delusion (which I just read, and which I loathed, predictably).

Comments

Duke York said…
I know I'm new to this blog, but I'd be interested.
August 16, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Tony said…
I'll pass on the God topic but may well patch into later ones.
August 16, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Sam Charles Norton said…
Excellent idea, I'd be up for it. Especially if you begin with Dawkins (God Delusion) as I've just started reading it.
August 16, 2008 at 1:36 PM
jeremy said…
Brilliant idea - I'm in.
August 16, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Anonymous said…
m up for it. Bonus points for choosing books with Kindle editions. Anything in the phil of religion/phil of mind areas would be good.
August 16, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Anonymous said…
I would be happy to do anything as long as we move as far away from the Sye responses as possible. Thanks for trying to get us back on track Stephen.
August 16, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Robert said…
It seems like a promising idea.
August 16, 2008 at 2:16 PM
crabsallover said…
a mini Philosophy Gym. Great!!
August 16, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Anonymous said…
Wouldn't it be better to read a proper work in the philosophy of religion, rather than The God Delusion?
August 16, 2008 at 3:20 PM
mjarsulic said…
Great idea. I'm in.

Mike
August 16, 2008 at 3:46 PM
Anonymous said…
What a great idea - I'd be up for that!
August 16, 2008 at 4:43 PM
anticant said…
I like the idea in principle, but with so much reading of my own to catch up on I'm not sure whether I could guarantee to participate every time.

A starting suggestion: "Atheism. The Case Against God" by George H. Smith [Prometheus Books]
August 16, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Stephen Law said…
I'm not looking for a commitment, anticant. Just an indication of whether people would be interested....

sounds like they would. I'll plan something.
August 16, 2008 at 6:13 PM
Andrew McNee said…
That is a great Idea. Gives me an excuse to buy the God Delusion too!
August 17, 2008 at 1:00 AM
Timmo said…
I will certainly follow along, even when I can't pick up the books you're writing about, Stephen. Maybe I can make a suggestion for future reading: How about Tom Regan's Empty Cages? I would also love to work through some Nozick, whether his Anarchy, State, and Utopia or his Philosophical Explanations. I even wrote a little post on him, Nozick on Skepticism.
August 17, 2008 at 1:04 AM
Kyle Szklenski said…
Anticant said,
"A starting suggestion: "Atheism. The Case Against God" by George H. Smith [Prometheus Books]"

This is probably better left as a later book - it is QUITE dense, as I'm sure you're aware. It is a great idea, though, to analyze the book eventually. The only crappy part is that I just gave mine to a friend to read. I'll have to buy it again, cause it's worth having two - when he gives the other one back, I'll give one to the library.

Just curious, how many of you have already read the aforementioned book by George Smith?
August 17, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Kyle Szklenski said…
P.S. Stephen, I love this idea. It sounds like a ton of fun.
August 17, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Anonymous said…
Yes, interesting first choice too. I've just returned from OU philosophy summer school where Mr Daekins name was raised once or twice. I'll be better informed for reading it, I hope.
August 17, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Anonymous said…
Hopefully it will also improve my spelling. Sorry Mr Dawkins.
August 17, 2008 at 2:43 PM
anticant said…
Not sure what you mean by "dense", Kyle? Smith's book is closely argued - which is surely a good thing on a philosophy blog!
August 17, 2008 at 5:22 PM
Kyle Szklenski said…
By dense I mean that it's extremely difficult to read and concentrate on. It could easily just be me that is dense, though. :) (I've heard of a lot of other people having trouble reading it, in my defense!)
August 17, 2008 at 7:03 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen
159 comments
Read more

Aquinas on homosexuality

Thought I would try a bit of a draft out on the blog, for feedback. All comments gratefully received. No doubt I've got at least some details wrong re the Catholic Church's position... AQUINAS AND SEXUAL ETHICS Aquinas’s thinking remains hugely influential within the Catholic Church. In particular, his ideas concerning sexual ethics still heavily shape Church teaching. It is on these ideas that we focus here. In particular, I will look at Aquinas’s justification for morally condemning homosexual acts. When homosexuality is judged to be morally wrong, the justification offered is often that homosexuality is, in some sense, “unnatural”. Aquinas develops a sophisticated version of this sort of argument. The roots of the argument lie in thinking of Aristotle, whom Aquinas believes to be scientifically authoritative. Indeed, one of Aquinas’s over-arching aims was to show how Aristotle’s philosophical system is broadly compatible with Christian thought. I begin with a sketch of Arist
49 comments
Read more

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se
446 comments
Read more