Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

It is true that the author has provided many scientific and philosophical details and has let the reader to go for his/her own conclusions, rather than trying to prove anything that the author believes as true or false.

But when the essence of the book is taken into consideration, I feel like that the author's true intention has been to prove that the presence of the God (or a supreme being) is true.

What do you think about that? Do you agree with me?

[Alias]

It sounds to me like a personal quest, which doesn't require any hidden agenda, or "true intention" behind the stated one of confronting the veracity of religious teaching. It seems to be primarily about Catholic dogma, rather than religion in general.
Seems like he's sharing his own reflections and inviting the reader to question their own belief under a new light.
There is no need to prove or disprove anything; only to follow a line of reasoning to whatever conclusion you draw.

I haven't read the book. Reviews are generally favourable, though reserved: this is not the rave/slam reception that very confrontational or doctrinaire books about religion usually receive. Seems to make people think, so I'll take that to be its intent.

[Count Lucanor]

It is true that the author has provided many scientific and philosophical details and has let the reader to go for his/her own conclusions, rather than trying to prove anything that the author believes as true or false.

But when the essence of the book is taken into consideration, I feel like that the author's true intention has been to prove that the presence of the God (or a supreme being) is true.

What do you think about that? Do you agree with me?

I have not read the book and it is very unlikely that I will waste my time on it, but if the author attempts any proof by means of empirical demonstrations, then he most likely fails, as most religious people only need a justification to believe, in other words, to attribute events to some cause. They just rationalize their beliefs, even if takes some magic. So they will say something like: "nature is diverse and complex, therefore God". Actually, there can be many causes for nature's complexity, but the believer will not care about them.

[Sushan]

It sounds to me like a personal quest, which doesn't require any hidden agenda, or "true intention" behind the stated one of confronting the veracity of religious teaching. It seems to be primarily about Catholic dogma, rather than religion in general.
Seems like he's sharing his own reflections and inviting the reader to question their own belief under a new light.
There is no need to prove or disprove anything; only to follow a line of reasoning to whatever conclusion you draw.

I haven't read the book. Reviews are generally favourable, though reserved: this is not the rave/slam reception that very confrontational or doctrinaire books about religion usually receive. Seems to make people think, so I'll take that to be its intent.

Well , the reviews show the biased nature of the book towards Catholic belief system. But the author has not directly dedicated his book to discuss about the God, but he has stated various scientific facts that will indirectly show the presence of a supreme being. In other words, he has not made this into either a religious book or a philosophical book 100%. That was the reason for me to raise this question regarding a true intention, because it seems like the author is having a hidden intention

[Sushan]

It is true that the author has provided many scientific and philosophical details and has let the reader to go for his/her own conclusions, rather than trying to prove anything that the author believes as true or false.

But when the essence of the book is taken into consideration, I feel like that the author's true intention has been to prove that the presence of the God (or a supreme being) is true.

What do you think about that? Do you agree with me?

I have not read the book and it is very unlikely that I will waste my time on it, but if the author attempts any proof by means of empirical demonstrations, then he most likely fails, as most religious people only need a justification to believe, in other words, to attribute events to some cause. They just rationalize their beliefs, even if takes some magic. So they will say something like: "nature is diverse and complex, therefore God". Actually, there can be many causes for nature's complexity, but the believer will not care about them.

I agree. believers always see what they want to see, rather than seeing what is actually there. No one can convince them against their beliefs with whatever the evidence. Seemingly this author has gone to an unnecessary extent to prove the existence of a God, because the believers do not need scientific evidence to 'believe'.

Apparently the author has targeted the floating minds. He has supplied some convincing scientific data to prove a presence of a supreme being, so the swaying minds can be dragged towards the cluster of believers. That is why I say that this author is having a hidden agenda behind this seemingly innocent book.

[Count Lucanor]

Apparently the author has targeted the floating minds. He has supplied some convincing scientific data to prove a presence of a supreme being, so the swaying minds can be dragged towards the cluster of believers. That is why I say that this author is having a hidden agenda behind this seemingly innocent book.

I'm sure a big percentage of the motivations of preachers is not about convincing, but about reinforcing beliefs.

[Alias]

I don't know that this is a "preacher". It sounds - superficially, from the reviews - as if it were a disillusioned Catholic trying to find God by a different route: questioning handed-down belief and perhaps replacing them with new, original ones. If this is the case, it's a perfectly legitimate. If it helps other dissatisfied believers adjust their faith to something more tenable, it's a positive step.

[Sushan]

Apparently the author has targeted the floating minds. He has supplied some convincing scientific data to prove a presence of a supreme being, so the swaying minds can be dragged towards the cluster of believers. That is why I say that this author is having a hidden agenda behind this seemingly innocent book.

I'm sure a big percentage of the motivations of preachers is not about convincing, but about reinforcing beliefs.

Maybe that is true. Maybe the author's intention was to reinforce the beliefs of the believers. Yet, as far as I believe, believers do not need reinforcements if they are true believers. But there is a group of people who do not have a solid mind, so as their beliefs. To keep such people bound to a belief system, such reinforcements are necessary.

At the same time, this sort of writing can be used to completely convert minds that have no idea of believing in such a system.

[Sushan]

I don't know that this is a "preacher". It sounds - superficially, from the reviews - as if it were a disillusioned Catholic trying to find God by a different route: questioning handed-down belief and perhaps replacing them with new, original ones. If this is the case, it's a perfectly legitimate. If it helps other dissatisfied believers adjust their faith to something more tenable, it's a positive step.

I agree. You do not have to completely believe in what you have been handed down since your birth. You have the freedom to question it and think about it in a different manner. If you come to the same belief at the end of such a thorough research, then you can think that there is an actual validity for the belief system that you have been handed down at your birth. Seemingly this author has taken such an attempt and he has extended what he found to the rest of the world.

[Count Lucanor]

Yet, as far as I believe, believers do not need reinforcements if they are true believers.

For what I know, self-proclaimed true believers are the ones more in need of reinforcement.

[Tegularius]

What a phony piece of crap! Just reading a few paragraphs makes one puke with the hypocrisy of it. Just goes to show the plethora of educated idiots working hard to make their mark in the halls of academia.

[Alias]

Okay, I just read into it on amazon. He seems to have arrived by age 30 to where I was at 12 - he finally got round to reading the bible!! and wondering whether Jesus was for real. Maybe this whole book is the thought process most bright kids go through in adolescence. Maybe the late bloomers need more guidance.

[Sushan]

Yet, as far as I believe, believers do not need reinforcements if they are true believers.

For what I know, self-proclaimed true believers are the ones more in need of reinforcement.

Maybe yes. Yet, what I see is that they reinforce themselves without any help from the outside. There can be occasions that their faith is challenged, yet they find one way or other to reinforce their faith.

But I think that the floating minds can be swayed by this sort of books, and they might have been this author's primary target group.

[Sushan]

What a phony piece of crap! Just reading a few paragraphs makes one puke with the hypocrisy of it. Just goes to show the plethora of educated idiots working hard to make their mark in the halls of academia.

Pretty strong comment, yet it seems that you have spoken your mind off. This author is a well educated fellow, so he has spent some of his spare time to study about and criticize the Christian teachings and practices. Maybe his sole purpose was to mark his name among the academia and be a renowned guy. Your point is very much valid.

[Sushan]

Okay, I just read into it on amazon. He seems to have arrived by age 30 to where I was at 12 - he finally got round to reading the bible!! and wondering whether Jesus was for real. Maybe this whole book is the thought process most bright kids go through in adolescence. Maybe the late bloomers need more guidance.

I could not contain my laugh while reading your comment. With all due respect to the author, maybe you have a valid point regarding late bloomers. Yet I do not want to attribute that fully to this author since this author is a renowned figure.

A child can read the bible and think whether Jesus and God were true. But this author definitely has gone far more deeper and he has challenged the whole corrupted religious system which is adopted to the Catholic churches. I do not think a so called 'late bloomer' could have done such a thing.