Peter Boghossian
Auteur van A Manual for Creating Atheists
Over de Auteur
Fotografie: Dr. Peter Boghossian
Werken van Peter Boghossian
Tagged
Algemene kennis
- Gangbare naam
- Boghossian, Peter
- Geboortedatum
- 1966
- Geslacht
- male
- Nationaliteit
- USA
- Beroepen
- professor
- Organisaties
- Portland State University
Prison Advisory Committee for Columbia River Correctional Institution
Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Leden
Besprekingen
Useful as a guide to debate etiquette when you're engaging in a debate with friends or with people who are benevolent to you. In the real world, most debates happen in a setting where people are hostile towards each other and only debate through means of rhetorical tricks without being interested in the other party's arguments. And in that regard, this book is of limited value.
A positive step beyond Dawkins and Harris. Instead of focusing on religion and God, Peter Boghossian speaks about faith - how to converse in an appropriate manner to encourage positive change in faith-based people.
The idea of a Manual for Creating Atheists intrigued me.
[a: Peter Boghossian|7096174|Peter Boghossian|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1442888770p2/7096174.jpg] explicitly places himself in the tradition of the so-called Four Horsemen of New Atheism. This movement has achieved a reputation of mean-spiritedness and abrasiveness which may be an impediment to proper evangelizing. At some level, Boghossian understands this, as he leaves his rather condescending remarks about religious people out of the actual sample conversations.
Now, the true meat of this book is the suggestion to use Socratic questioning to undermine the foundations of the other party's faith. This certainly seems like a valid and useful technique. Success might be somewhat limited as Boghossian only seems to consider a very narrow set of possibilities of why people believe. There is another case that I have found to be very common, and it is in fact one that Boghossian only treats as a by-product of his street epistemology. It is the situation in which the theist, finding their belief attacked, clings even more strongly to their faith in an effort to smother their growing doubt. Boghossian sees this as an acceptable result, as the doubt will eventually lead them to abandon their faith. I am personally not so sure of that. The aspiring street epistemologist might want to consider other cases. Primarily, Horseman [a: Daniel Dennett|6952980|Daniel C. Dennett|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1447369488p2/6952980.jpg]'s notion of belief in belief seemed to be noticeably absent.
The book would be merely an imperfect execution of an interesting idea, if not for some very bizarre rants about the alleged decline of liberalism. Diversity, inclusion and respect for difference are described as parasitic ideologies. Feminism is singled out. It is entirely out of place in this book. Combined with the author's continued involvement with the white supremacist [a: Stefan Molyneux|882627|Stefan Molyneux|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1388630101p2/882627.jpg], I find myself somewhat doubting Boghossian's self-identification as humanist.… (meer)
[a: Peter Boghossian|7096174|Peter Boghossian|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1442888770p2/7096174.jpg] explicitly places himself in the tradition of the so-called Four Horsemen of New Atheism. This movement has achieved a reputation of mean-spiritedness and abrasiveness which may be an impediment to proper evangelizing. At some level, Boghossian understands this, as he leaves his rather condescending remarks about religious people out of the actual sample conversations.
Now, the true meat of this book is the suggestion to use Socratic questioning to undermine the foundations of the other party's faith. This certainly seems like a valid and useful technique. Success might be somewhat limited as Boghossian only seems to consider a very narrow set of possibilities of why people believe. There is another case that I have found to be very common, and it is in fact one that Boghossian only treats as a by-product of his street epistemology. It is the situation in which the theist, finding their belief attacked, clings even more strongly to their faith in an effort to smother their growing doubt. Boghossian sees this as an acceptable result, as the doubt will eventually lead them to abandon their faith. I am personally not so sure of that. The aspiring street epistemologist might want to consider other cases. Primarily, Horseman [a: Daniel Dennett|6952980|Daniel C. Dennett|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1447369488p2/6952980.jpg]'s notion of belief in belief seemed to be noticeably absent.
The book would be merely an imperfect execution of an interesting idea, if not for some very bizarre rants about the alleged decline of liberalism. Diversity, inclusion and respect for difference are described as parasitic ideologies. Feminism is singled out. It is entirely out of place in this book. Combined with the author's continued involvement with the white supremacist [a: Stefan Molyneux|882627|Stefan Molyneux|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1388630101p2/882627.jpg], I find myself somewhat doubting Boghossian's self-identification as humanist.… (meer)
Lijsten
Misschien vindt je deze ook leuk
Gerelateerde auteurs
Statistieken
- Werken
- 2
- Leden
- 443
- Populariteit
- #55,291
- Waardering
- 3.9
- Besprekingen
- 7
- ISBNs
- 10
I will be using these skills and this information for the rest of my life.