The Good Book by A.C. Grayling

antiskeptic

This week sees the publication of The Good Book: A Secular Bible by … Well, it isn't by anyone. Rather, as the book jacket informs us in a typographical style imitative of the Christian template it seeks to displace, it is "made by" A C Grayling, in a process of redaction, editing and re-writing "in just the same way as the Judaeo-Christian Bible was made".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8428011/The-Good-Book-cant-be-bettered.html


Same place, same time - what say twenty five years from now to see how both it and the bible have weathered?

krudler

if its not on tape and not narrated by Larry King I'm not interested.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Same place, same time - what say twenty five years from now to see how both it and the bible have weathered?

With Grayling producing a beautiful thought like like:

AC Grayling wrote:

Love well; seek the good in all things; harm no others; help the needy; think for yourself; take responsibility; respect nature; do your utmost; be informed; be courageous

...versus the bible promising fiery vengeance, damnation of one's enemies and staying alive forever, for the price of believing that you can:

2 Thessalonians 1:6-10 wrote:

God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction [...]

I'm with you on this one antiskeptic -- I'll put money down that the bible's puerile, spittle-flecked fist-shaking will outlast kindness, decency and honesty any day!

raah!

I love when people put "think for yourself" amongst their list of instructions.

strobe

raah! wrote: »

I love when people put "think for yourself" amongst their list of instructions.

It's metaphorical, you have to read it in context.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

With Grayling producing a beautiful thought like like:

Does Ace (:))have anything to say about the snowballs chance in Hell anyone has of actually following through on his 'beautiful thought' with anything like a modicum of consistancy? Or maybe he sets his sights low.

You might not like the Bibles solutions to the problem (salvation from what you are ... or damnation because of what you are). But at least it poses them

I'm with you on this one antiskeptic -- I'll put money down that the bible's puerile, spittle-flecked fist-shaking will outlast kindness, decency and honesty any day!

Given the proportion of the output of this forum consisting of peurile, spittle flecked, fist-shaking at you know who..

sponsoredwalk

krudler wrote: »

if its not on tape and not narrated by Larry King I'm not interested.

How about James Earl Jones:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXU3RfB7308

Or Hal Riney:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU-IBF8nwSY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpwdcmjBgNA

The Mad Hatter

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

How about James Earl Jones:

Or Hal Riney:

None of those is a direct reference to The Simpsons :P (Well, except the first one...)

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

You might not like the Bibles solutions to the problem (salvation from what you are ... or damnation because of what you are). But at least it poses them

lol, oh dear that made me genuinely laugh out loud.

You appreciate dear anti, that neither of those things (salvation and damnation) are solutions to our problems.

- My car is stuck in the mud
- Well you can either shoot yourself with this gun, or have this ice cream.
- Er, ok, but what about my car ....

ShooterSF

That the journalist's surname is Fox just seems so fitting.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

You might not like the Bibles solutions to the problem (salvation from what you are ... or damnation because of what you are). But at least it poses them

It proposes an imaginary solution to an imaginary problem, and people only find this out when they're dead. This scam is easier most to see through!

antiskeptic wrote: »

Given the proportion of the output of this forum consisting of peurile, spittle flecked, fist-shaking at you know who..

"You know who" isn't there, we're laughing at religion and religious apologists.

In either case, check out the forum statistics - ~3500 posts on the funny side of religion versus 1000 on the hazards. From which I conclude that this forum finds religion almost four times funnies than threatening

sponsoredwalk

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

None of those is a direct reference to The Simpsons :P (Well, except the first one...)

I wanted to get the simpsons raven scene but then I found that other Raven
recording which is awesome so I said - why not? Also, the Hal Riney stuff is
there just because

Finally, I want to betray an arbitrary nativist strain pent up within me:

HumoUr

krudler

antiskeptic wrote: »

Does Ace (:))have anything to say about the snowballs chance in Hell anyone has of actually following through on his 'beautiful thought' with anything like a modicum of consistancy? Or maybe he sets his sights low.

You might not like the Bibles solutions to the problem (salvation from what you are ... or damnation because of what you are). But at least it poses them

What solutions? believe in the almighty sky wizard or perish for eternity? great. thats not a solution its just a stupid answer to a preposterous notion.

also, repeated the words "modicum of consistency" and "bible" in the same sentence over and over, bet you cant do it twice without laughing.

Dr. Loon

This humanist bible idea isn't sitting well with me. I'm not sure why. I don't like the idea of idiot atheists actually having some sort of bible, and it adds fuel to the fire of the "militant atheist" criers. I don't like the idea of a code to follow. I don't like the idea of any book telling me what to do I suppose. They already say Dawkins is the atheists god and saviour don't they? I wonder what will be said of this. I don't know, I can't explain it.

I will read it though.

philologos

raah! wrote: »

I love when people put "think for yourself" amongst their list of instructions.

It's a little ironic.

Are you thinking for yourself because someone tells you to, or are you thinking for yourself out of a genuine desire to think for yourself.

There is a philosophical conundrum in there somewhere :pac:

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

There is a philosophical conundrum in there somewhere

Not if one distinguishes, as one should in epistemology, between "How to think" and "What to think".

ShooterSF

Dr. Loon wrote: »

This humanist bible idea isn't sitting well with me. I'm not sure why. I don't like the idea of idiot atheists actually having some sort of bible, and it adds fuel to the fire of the "militant atheist" criers. I don't like the idea of a code to follow. I don't like the idea of any book telling me what to do I suppose. They already say Dawkins is the atheists god and saviour don't they? I wonder what will be said of this. I don't know, I can't explain it.

I will read it though.

Well here's a quote from Grayling it that very (hard to read) piece, ""The humanistic view of ethics," he continues, "is that no one is in a position to tell others how to live. You can give advice, and exhort them to think about their moral lives, but not in a goody-two-shoes, Mary Whitehouse way."

Seems it's a book of advice rather than some crazy book of rules!

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Not if one distinguishes, as one should in epistemology, between "How to think" and "What to think".

It doesn't matter much because you are still relying on someone elses testimony in some way or another, or trusting in someone as an authority.

Personally I don't get the idea that people who decide freely to become Christians aren't "thinking for themselves" :pac:

Dr. Loon

ShooterSF wrote: »

Well here's a quote from Grayling it that very (hard to read) piece, ""The humanistic view of ethics," he continues, "is that no one is in a position to tell others how to live. You can give advice, and exhort them to think about their moral lives, but not in a goody-two-shoes, Mary Whitehouse way."

Seems it's a book of advice rather than some crazy book of rules!

I can't argue with that, and I'm sure it'll be a good read. What doesn't sit well is the feeling that idiots will see this as some sort of actual atheist bible, and use it as though the words are a form of secular scripture.

So I suppose, what I'm saying is that idiots concern me. Isn't that true of everyone though? It's the idiots that are dangerous.

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

Personally I don't get the idea that people who decide freely to become Christians aren't "thinking for themselves" :pac:

The colour co-ordination is purely coincidental..

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

It doesn't matter much because you are still relying on someone elses testimony in some way or another, or trusting in someone as an authority.

Testimony? That's a something to think, not a how to think. Alternatively, you can view the "think for yourself" as an epistemological axiom, rather than a conclusion.

Jakkass wrote: »

Personally I don't get the idea that people who decide freely to become Christians aren't "thinking for themselves" :pac:

Again, you don't get the distinction between how-to-think and what-to-think, nor axioms or conclusions.

I thought you did a course in philosophy at some point. Didn't you cover basic epistemology?

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Testimony? That's a something to think, not a how to think. Alternatively, you can view the "think for yourself" as an epistemological axiom, rather than a conclusion.Again, you don't get the distinction between how-to-think and what-to-think, nor axioms or conclusions.

No, it's that I don't think there is a distinction. In this case that what-to-think pertains to the how-to-think. Both aren't mutually exclusive. It's not about me "not getting" anything, it's that I don't think this to be the case.

robindch wrote: »

I thought you did a course in philosophy at some point. Didn't you cover basic epistemology?

I've done a whole module on Epistemology from Descartes to Immanuel Kant. This distinction as far as I know isn't present.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

I've done a whole module on Epistemology from Descartes to Immanuel Kant. This distinction as far as I know isn't present.

Well, I'd complain to your lecturer then! What I'm referring to is, roughly speaking, the logical framework within which epistemology lives. The wiki article covers it, albeit tangentially:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

BTW, since you queried it -- and leaving aside your belief that there's a philosophical problem in here somewhere -- do you reckon that people shouldn't think for themselves?

philologos

As far as I remember the main distinction is between rationalism and empiricism. Locke, Hume and Berkeley going towards empiricism, Descartes towards rationalism and Kant took a middle of the road approach hence why he wrote "The Critique of Pure Reason".

robindch wrote:

BTW, since you queried it -- and leaving aside your belief that there's a philosophical problem in here somewhere -- do you reckon that people shouldn't think for themselves?

Of course I think people should think for themselves. It's at the root of Christianity or at least the understanding of it that I have come to that people should. It's also a key reason why the Reformation happened.

My point is that there is an irony in telling someone that they should think for themselves as there is an inherent contradiction there.

ShooterSF

Dr. Loon wrote: »

I can't argue with that, and I'm sure it'll be a good read. What doesn't sit well is the feeling that idiots will see this as some sort of actual atheist bible, and use it as though the words are a form of secular scripture.

So I suppose, what I'm saying is that idiots concern me. Isn't that true of everyone though? It's the idiots that are dangerous.

Idiots will be idiots Most people who are atheists though have broken free of not questioning some authority figure (Be it book or man). Note for those about to freak out: Not all atheists have such a background and plenty of believers have questioned their belief but found them, for whatever reasons, correct.

I don't think many people would treat it as a book of laws, hopefully! However with the provision that I haven't read it yet, I am quietly confident that if treated as a book of laws it would be better for society (to me) than the same person choosing the bible or quran. So worst case, it's the lesser of two evils.

Also at least Dawkins didn't create it or we'd be getting beaten continuously with that stick :pac:

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Of course I think people should think for themselves. It's at the root of Christianity or at least the understanding of it that I have come to that people should. It's also a key reason why the Reformation happened.

The difference is more subtle with protestantism which asserts that people can read the bible for themselves and form their own beliefs about it. Pretty much inevitably, you'll end up with more people believing that than will believe the (at least notionally) single-interpretation model that catholicism has. Particularly, when there's no state apparatus to enforce belief. The axiom, that the bible is true, is where protestantism goes off the rails.

Jakkass wrote: »

My point is that there is an irony in telling someone that they should think for themselves as there is an inherent contradiction there.

There is no contradiction if you view axioms and conclusions separately. "Think for yourself" is an axiom concerning how to think. "God exists" or "The Earth is flat" are both conclusions.

Alternatively, if you're going to revert to the nihilistic epistemological position that you, raah! and antiskeptic seem to find ironic in some way, and start by trusting nobody for anything, then you're going to have a hard time even learning a language to express anything in, and probably an even harder time convincing anybody else you're worth listening to.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

The difference is more subtle with protestantism which asserts that people can read the bible for themselves and form their own beliefs about it. Pretty much inevitably, you'll end up with more people believing that than will believe the (at least notionally) single-interpretation model that catholicism has. Particularly, when there's no state apparatus to enforce belief. The axiom, that the bible is true, is where protestantism goes off the rails.There is no contradiction if you view axioms and conclusions separately. "Think for yourself" is an axiom concerning how to think. "God exists" or "The Earth is flat" are both conclusions.

I don't think there is a contradiction in that it is also up to the individual to decide whether or not the Bible is telling the truth in the first place. It could be the scrawlings of a couple of illiterate goatherders and their scribes, or it could be the truth about humanity and the universe.

robindch wrote: »

Alternatively, if you're going to revert to the nihilistic epistemological position that you, raah! and antiskeptic seem to find ironic in some way, and start by trusting nobody for anything, then you're going to have a hard time even learning a language to express anything in, and probably an even harder time convincing anybody else you're worth listening to.

It's not just that I find it ironic in some way, it is that it is clearly ironic if you think about it for 2 seconds. Just compare the sentiment of the sentence with what is being described and it is very simple to see.

I think people should think for themselves certainly but it was just a comment to make in passing. I thought raah's (another contemporary of mine in the philosophy forum :pac:) post was good in that respect.

raah!

robindch wrote: »

Not if one distinguishes, as one should in epistemology, between "How to think" and "What to think".

Well I get what you mean. But to say "think for yourself" and then go on with this other list of moral axioms still seems rather questionable.

It assumes that "if you think for yourself, you'll come to these conclusions". It says that the 'what' will come naturally from the 'how'.

But then it puts forward moral axioms. There is a direct contradiction between "think for yourself - if this means think properly and without reference to other people" and "accept these moral axioms, that I give you".

This is a contradiction to the 'how to think', because in accepting the 'what' the how must be changed. A person who thinks for themselves would have no reason to accept someone elses axioms with regard to anything whatsoever. This is certainly the case with moral axioms, which are being presented here.

Though perhaps you could say the processes by which we arrive at axioms are not thoughts... But I don't know about that, or why you would say that

He would be much safer if he just changed his "think for yourself" to "be logical in travelling from axiom to conclusions".

Incidentally, in 5th or 4th year in school I read a really good article by A.C Grayling about walls and hating people (it was in our english comprehension text). In it he says "to hate we must hate an abstraction", I tried to find it after being reminded of him by this thread.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

lol, oh dear that made me genuinely laugh out loud.

You appreciate dear anti, that neither of those things (salvation and damnation) are solutions to our problems.

- My car is stuck in the mud
- Well you can either shoot yourself with this gun, or have this ice cream.
- Er, ok, but what about my car ....

You appreciate dear Knighty, that the problem isn't confined to being ours. It's God's problem too. And salvation/damnation certainly deal with it.

philologos

Just to clarify on this:

Jakkass wrote:

robindch wrote: »

Testimony? That's a something to think, not a how to think. Alternatively, you can view the "think for yourself" as an epistemological axiom, rather than a conclusion.Again, you don't get the distinction between how-to-think and what-to-think, nor axioms or conclusions.

No, it's that I don't think there is a distinction. In this case that what-to-think pertains to the how-to-think. Both aren't mutually exclusive. It's not about me "not getting" anything, it's that I don't think this to be the case.

I do think there is a distinction in general, but in this particular case there isn't because the what-to-think is a direct instruction in relation to how-to-think. As such in the case of saying "Think for yourself" they aren't separable whereas in normal cases they would be.

Apologies for the lack of clarity.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

As such in the case of saying "Think for yourself" they aren't separable whereas in normal cases they would be.

Close, but no cigar -- the advice to think-for-yourself concerns how to think; it doesn't tell you anything about what to think. It's meta-advice, so to speak.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Close, but no cigar -- the advice to think-for-yourself concerns how to think; it doesn't tell you anything about what to think. It's meta-advice, so to speak.

One must agree with what is being said in order to follow the advice given. This means that it does affect the "what-to-think" as well as the "how-to-think". It is advice that one should implement this advice "what-to-think" concerning how they should think. So there is both "what-to-think" and "how-to-think" contained in this. That's why it is unique, and ironic.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

One must agree with what is being said in order to follow the advice given.

Yes, of course. But I was replying only to raah's comment that "think for yourself" is inherently contradictory (on it's own, it's not; with the rest of the stuff, it certainly could be seen to be).

sponsoredwalk

raah! wrote: »

But then it puts forward moral axioms. There is a direct contradiction between "think for yourself - if this means think properly and without reference to other people" and "accept these moral axioms, that I give you".

If you read this statement in a vacuum, or purposely want to fish out a
contradiction for personal reason X, then what you're saying is correct.

But if we refer to the words of the text & read in context - something I'm
sure you'd be the first to argue people do - then what you've said is
simply clear evidence you're just fishing for contradictions instead of
taking what is being said seriously.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Well here's a quote from Grayling it that very (hard to read) piece, ""The humanistic view of ethics," he continues, "is that no one is in a position to tell others how to live. You can give advice, and exhort them to think about their moral lives, but not in a goody-two-shoes, Mary Whitehouse way."

That's all I need quote because it says it all, if you take the position that
no one is in a position to tell others how to live, or to force them to accept
moral axioms that "I give you", then a statement such as "think for
yourself" is merely advice & in no way any form of authoritarian
commandment.

raah!

Yes, tbh, by the time I had written that second post I was focussed solely on the sentence I had posted. Rather than what A.C Grayling was actually trying to convey. And in my defence; X = [to have a larf].


With that fuller understanding in mind; I would question the usefulness of a book full of "mere exhortations to think, and advice that you need not take". It seems that if it were titled "a book of advice (which isn't necessarily good or useful) for secular humanists", much of its appeal would be lost.

I'm rather skeptical too, that he fully remains in the domain of moral relativism described in that quote, unless he puts forward some sort of system to evaluate good or bad things, even his 'just advice' wouldn't have much meaning. Because why should people listen to his advice and not someone else's? If he attempts to answer that question he's already left the domain in which "no-one can tell anyone else how to live".

I would be curious to see how A.C Grayling would react to Sam Harris' new book in which he speaks of objective moral truths. And even at certain points talks about changing the desires of certain people, if those desires don't mesh properly with his notions of the objective Good.

Again, I'm not just trying to attack A.C Grayling or anything, I quite like him. As a youngster an article of his was one of my first encounters with a text which could unambiguously be considered "philosophy", since Ace is unambiguously a philosopher. It was an article about walls and hating things, I thought it was great. I think I shall go have a read of his "humanistic view of ethics".

raah!

raah! wrote: »

I love when people put "think for yourself" amongst their list of instructions.

robindch wrote: »

Yes, of course. But I was replying only to raah's comment that "think for yourself" is inherently contradictory (on it's own, it's not; with the rest of the stuff, it certainly could be seen to be).

I never said on it's own. There's the post up there. Also, jakass' post there is referencing the thing being contradictory on it's own. And he pointed out that the 'what to think' is the 'think for yourself'.

Jakass said that "on it's own, there is a philosophical problem",the problem of "in following the advice to think for yourself, are you thinking for yourself?" Regardless of whether or not this has been solved (I don't see that it has) it's certainly a problem on first glance.

Zombrex

I don't think "think for yourself" causes a problem

It is inheritable un-contradictory.

If you reading the advice and decide not to follow it, you are thinking for yourself and thus doing what the advice says.

If you read the advice and decide to follow it you are also thinking for yourself, by virtue of following the advice, and thus doing what the advice says.

Or to put it another way, you can't unthinkingly follow the doctrine of think for yourself, such an process would fail the requirement of the instruction. A sentence such as "He blindly thinks for himself" is oxymoronic.

Meh, my 2 cents

raah!

Those two examples you gave there are a good example of where the 'problem' mentioned is. This same kind of thing happens alot when a statement reflects on itself.

Wicknight wrote: »

If you reading the advice and decide not to follow it, you are thinking for yourself and thus doing what the advice says.

So there is already a paradox here, in thinking for yourself you are following the advice, but you've essentially said you followed the advice by not following it.

This leads on to the problem mentioned by jakass there, how do you know you are thinking for yourself on your own, or because you were told to. You could say "I was doing that anyway", but in this case the "advice" is irrelevant.

If you read the advice and decide to follow it you are also thinking for yourself, by virtue of following the advice, and thus doing what the advice says.

And in this sense, you are thinking for yourself by virtue of following the advice. But not thinking for yourself because you have taken the advice.

Those two paradoxes are based on the notion that in following advice you are taking instruction from someone, and thus not thinking for yourself.

I just read a negative review for this book in the Sunday Times there, but the woman was predisposed positively towards the actual bible, so perhaps this is not a review in which the posters here would put much stock.

sponsoredwalk

raah! wrote: »

Yes, tbh, by the time I had written that second post I was focussed solely on the sentence I had posted. Rather than what A.C Grayling was actually trying to convey. And in my defence; X = [to have a larf].

Yeah I get you, I guess it was a bit snappy

raah! wrote: »

With that fuller understanding in mind; I would question the usefulness of a book full of "mere exhortations to think, and advice that you need not take".

Again if you refer to the article:

The format, equally cheekily, is the same as the King James Bible, whose
400th anniversary is being celebrated this year: a template of chapters
and verses, set across two columns. "It is not intended as an affront,"
says Grayling. "It is practical recognition that the Bible is very successful
because of the way it is structured. It is very inviting to readers. It allows
you to read small amounts, to reflect, or find something that is quotable.
I didn't want page after page of dense text, which is rebarbative."

...

"The language of my book also has that formal feel because I am saying
things that have a slightly heightened importance in our lives. It enables
you to ask what is being said, and then to ask: which of the two books do
you find speaks more warmly, humanely and generously about the human
condition?"

I really think it's clear that this whole thing is nothing more than a means
to counteract the bible, to highlight the archaic & demonstrable qualities
of the good book while simultaneously imitating it due to the power that
some people see this format containing. I personally think it's a direct
way to get people to think a certain way by appealing to the
subconscious via an appeal to authority (the authority that the format
carries, some would see that format being part and parcel of the bible ergo
if you can get that kind of feeling/thought-process linked with this new
book you may be acheiving something).

raah! wrote: »

It seems that if it were titled "a book of advice (which isn't necessarily good or useful) for secular humanists", much of its appeal would be lost.

Yeah I agree, but I think that it was purposely done this way to act as
a challenge to the bible, to attempt to get it to have equal status in
the minds of people while simultaneously containing none of the "bossy"
aspects of the good book.

raah! wrote: »

I'm rather skeptical too, that he fully remains in the domain of moral relativism described in that quote, unless he puts forward some sort of system to evaluate good or bad things, even his 'just advice' wouldn't have much meaning. Because why should people listen to his advice and not someone else's? If he attempts to answer that question he's already left the domain in which "no-one can tell anyone else how to live".

First off the whole point is that nobody "should" listen to his advice they
are free to choose whether or not they want to. The whole philosophical
approach is that of choice, there is no requirement to read it. If there
was then you'd have your direct contradiction but there isn't because
the whole conception is a direct rejection of the mandatory requirement
to follow or even read a single claim put forth in the book. That, I hope,
answers the second half of your paragraph.

As for the first half, the whole point is that people use their own personal*
judgement of what is good or bad to evaluate claims. The whole point is
that we do not need a book like the bible to dictate to us what is good or
bad. This concept is a way to highlight the difference in what is good/bad
in the bible compared to the secular bible (which is conveying in a general
way the beliefs of secularists). People are free to see that in one book you
have a god who condones mass murder & espouses "bossy" dictates that
betray a strangely (flawed) human perspective (jealously, mistrust etc...)
and in the other you have advice such as:

"Love well; seek the good in all things; harm no others; help the needy;
think for yourself; take responsibility; respect nature; do your utmost;
be informed; be courageous."

No doubt you want to tell me that the bible also has things in it like this
but some of simply can't get past the genocidal urges. I beg you to find
some calls for genocide in the secular bible & I'll be the first to condemn
the whole thing

*As to the moral scaffolding that is constructed in the book, I think it's
clear that it would be that of Grayling's who would be espousing the beliefs
that are common in all forms of society & most definitely are the product
of our evolutionary history. I bet the thought process was to strive for
the most fundamental & innate moral concepts that would be common to
all because it is the dependable strain that runs throughout humanity,
even the most vicious murderers are, in some form, trying to satisfy those
precepts (in their own warped way).

I could be wrong, the book could be unashamedly laced with Western
values/biases or a myopic perception of what is right but judging by the
article I would think that the idea, whether executed skillfully or not, still
has a kind of merit on it's own. At the fundamental level it's simply trying
to espouse the secular principles.

raah! wrote: »

I would be curious to see how A.C Grayling would react to Sam Harris' new book in which he speaks of objective moral truths. And even at certain points talks about changing the desires of certain people, if those desires don't mesh properly with his notions of the objective Good.

Well it most certainly isn't a new idea for atheists to argue for objective
moral truth but I'd say Harris is using some serious evidence to make his
case. I'm guessing there but if he is I'd say the goal (sh)would be to
use evidence far more convincingly than has been done in the past.
I don't know though, just more guesswork as I'm far too busy to read his
new book at the moment.

sponsoredwalk

I can see why someone would think there is a paradox comes from with
being told to "think for yourself".

If someone tells you to think for yourself then you are not thinking for
yourself but thinking a certain way only because somebody told you to
do that - thereby defeating the concept that you are thinking for
yourself.

However, the idea is that once you are thinking for yourself you're doing
just that - thinking for yourself - & once you are thinking for yourself you
have independence of mind & can judge for yourself on matters
mathematical from simple to quadratical, so you are thinking for yourself
& it doesn't matter whether someone made you do it or not.

Everytime I hear/read the phrase I pause & think am I doing whatever I'm
doing because I want to or because I'm satisfying some external pressure.
The only meaning this phrase has for me is that it gets people thinking
for a second or two about themselves, I don't think it's that important
either - obviously people interpret it in a certain way that makes sense.
This argument is like me arguing - well it's paradoxical because the phrase
is saying something ridiculous, of course people think for themselves
because how can someone think for someone else? What do we do,
physically get inside other peoples brains & control their thoughts? It's
absurd :rolleyes: - I mean come on, it's just a colloquial anti-authoritarian
phrase. It's like the phrase "I'm losing weight", it's just stupid if you
interpret it in one way because you can go to the moon & lose loads of
weight but still be fat - you want to lose mass... Still, people interpret &
understand what is meant despite the ambiguity when interpreting from
one perspective.

So telling someone to think for themself is not telling someone to actually
do something it's a way to get people to ask themselves are they being
manipulated.

robindch

The Daily Mash does Grayling:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/%27atheist-bible%27-an-impossible-fairy-story,-say-christians-201104053690/

Daily Mash wrote:

'Atheist bible' an impossible fairy story, say Christians

THE idea that people could do good things without religion is a child's fairy story, Christians have claimed. Leading clerics have dismissed atheist philosopher AC Grayling's 'secular bible' as a 'cheap con trick designed to keep people scared by telling them they are instinctively co-operative'.

Grayling's The Good Book explains why human beings are capable of being nice to each other even without the guidance of divisive, self-serving organisations that preach a moral doctrine riddled with obvious contradictions. But the Right Reverend Julian Cook, the Anglican Bishop of Hatfield, said: "It suggests that a man who doesn't believe in the resurrection could help a neighbour or give money to charity. It just doesn't make any sense.

"In one chapter we are told that an ordinary person could volunteer at a homeless shelter when there is no evidence whatsoever that this person believes Jesus turned water into wine or healed a leper with his special finger." Monsignor Stephen Malley, a leading Catholic theologian, added: "So this person just woke up one day and miraculously decided to do something for someone else? "I'm sorry Professor Grayling, you may convince some people with this voodoo hocus pocus, but I will stick with the empirical logic of transubstantiation, thank you very much indeed."

Tom Logan, a practicing non-believer from Finsbury Park, said: "Yesterday I gave twenty quid to the Japanese Red Cross and then wiped my backside with St Paul's Third Letter to the Kardashians. "I think that's one of the ones where he encourages the ritual slaughter of homosexuals. "Nice man."

ShooterSF

robindch wrote: »

The Daily Mash does Grayling:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/%27atheist-bible%27-an-impossible-fairy-story,-say-christians-201104053690/

I read that post as the "daily mail". Didn't take me long to double back though

raah!

I wonder might I ask a question related to this humanist ethics espoused by our buddy A.C Grayling? Are the main "all atheists are morally perfect" arguments related to "innate biological ethics"? Is A.C. Grayling talking about "innate biological ethics" here? Why do people think things like "there are less atheists in jail" is an argument for "atheists are moral". This is related to the last thing there, where the guy goes "I gave money to charity, religion is bad".

robindch

raah! wrote: »

This is related to the last thing there, where the guy goes "I gave money to charity, religion is bad".

Um, you do realise that the Daily Mash is satire?

raah!

Well yes, just referencing a common argument used. That was one satirical incarnation of it there.

robindch

raah! wrote: »

Is A.C. Grayling talking about "innate biological ethics" here?

No, he's proposing a set of ethics based approximately upon honesty, decency and respect for the individual.

Mark Hamill

raah! wrote: »

I wonder might I ask a question related to this humanist ethics espoused by our buddy A.C Grayling? Are the main "all atheists are morally perfect" arguments related to "innate biological ethics"? Is A.C. Grayling talking about "innate biological ethics" here?

Did he say that all atheists are morally perfect? Bizarre claim if he did.

raah! wrote: »

Why do people think things like "there are less atheists in jail" is an argument for "atheists are moral".

Do they? I would see it as an argument for atheists being moral despite having no religious guidance, I wouldn't have thatought that this implies that all atheist are moral (as obvious some aren't, because there are some atheists in jail).

magicbastarder

guardian interview with grayling:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/apr/03/grayling-good-book-atheism-philosophy

raah!

robindch wrote: »

No, he's proposing a set of ethics based approximately upon honesty, decency and respect for the individual.

Is there any reason for anyone to accept this? Other than the assumption that you would be better off if you followed this system? How defensible do you think such an assumption is?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Do they? I would see it as an argument for atheists being moral despite having no religious guidance, I wouldn't have thatought that this implies that all atheist are moral (as obvious some aren't, because there are some atheists in jail).

Do you think that a person's intentions are important in determining whether or not they were acting morally? Or is it simply the outcome that matters?

Zillah

raah! wrote: »

Is there any reason for anyone to accept this?

Because it feels right. That's why you accept any moral proposition too, by the way, though you might like to convince us or yourself otherwise.

raah!

Very often a person will accept this or that moral principle because it agrees well with this or that other moral principle, or even this or that metaphysical assumption, or observation made. How we feel about things is related to how we think about them.

To say this, too, is just to hark indirectly to an innate moral system. That is why I asked robindch if that's what A.C grayling was doing. He said it's not what he was doing, so to say that we all have some universal propensity towards this system described by him is inaccurate.

There are lots of things that feel right, in terms of our innate biology, which I'm sure would not be in Grayling's list here. These are things like bullying dweebs... being racist, raping people etc.

By the way: this is the truth, though you might try to convince me or yourself otherwise.