God Gravediggers Why no Deity Exists edition by Raymond Bradley Politics Social Sciences eBooks
Download As PDF : God Gravediggers Why no Deity Exists edition by Raymond Bradley Politics Social Sciences eBooks 
Few can offer a more experienced view on religion than Raymond Bradley. Having been raised as a ‘winner of souls for Christ’ in the 1940’s, he spent the next 40 years as an atheist professor of philosophy and an outspoken critic/debater of religion.
Revered for his work in logic and his meticulous approach to debate, God’s Gravediggers is Bradley’s coup de grâce to religion. A career’s worth of work on a subject that could hardly be more important. Approaching the moral, logical and scientific arguments – using rich analogies, rational arguments and examples that non-academics would understand – he explores not only whether God exists, but also what damage the concept of God does. A timely book in an age of religious fundamentalism, hatred and conflict.
“Bradley does not gloss over difficult points of logic and reasoning. A pleasure to read.”
Professor Graham Oppy, Chair of Council of the Australasian Association of Philosophy
“Bradley's forte is logic and he brings that to bear throughout the work. It is well-written and thoroughly absorbing. I have nothing but praise for his project.”
Theodore Drange, Professor Emeritus, West Virginia University
“From a young person's rejection of Christianity, to a mature philosopher's cogent critique of all religions. This compelling defense of atheism is a brilliant read.”
Professor Robert Nola, University of Auckland.
God Gravediggers Why no Deity Exists edition by Raymond Bradley Politics Social Sciences eBooks
This is a unique book among all the popular "New Atheist" books you'll find out there. Bradley - a noted logician - applies his professional skills to the existence of the supernatural, an omni-God, heaven, and hell. And he does an excellent job. So much so that occasionally his arguments for why no deity exists and why God deserves to die get lost in his logical and philosophical discourse. But I regard that as a benefit of this book. Not that Dawkins and Harris haven't written closely reasoned volumes, but Bradley applies real philosophical and logical rigor to his claims. I will admit there were some sections in Chapter 6 (The Logic of Hell) and Chapter 7 (The Impossibility of an Afterlife) where he was more difficult to follow than you'd expect from a book written for the general public. But overall, you'll get a very nice introduction to logic from this book and read a very interesting application of it. Recommended.Product details
|
Tags : God's Gravediggers: Why no Deity Exists - Kindle edition by Raymond Bradley. Download it once and read it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Use features like bookmarks, note taking and highlighting while reading God's Gravediggers: Why no Deity Exists.,ebook,Raymond Bradley,God's Gravediggers: Why no Deity Exists,Ockham Publishing,Philosophy Movements Humanism,Religion Atheism
People also read other books :
- By Firelight edition by J Strickland Literature Fiction eBooks
- Spindrift edition by Amy Rae Durreson Literature Fiction eBooks
- Nostromo Joseph Conrad 9789684762855 Books
- Glinda of Oz edition by L Frank Baum Sheba Blake Literature Fiction eBooks
- Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death Color Illustrated Formatted for EReaders Unabridged Version edition by Patrick Henry Leonardo Literature Fiction eBooks
God Gravediggers Why no Deity Exists edition by Raymond Bradley Politics Social Sciences eBooks Reviews
I've read all the others- Dawkins et al - and enjoyed them all but I think this one is probably the one that does the best job is debunking God. I have no idea how I was not aware of this book until now. I have no formal training in philosophy or logic so struggled in some parts but enjoyed them nonetheless. It is also beautifully written. I thoroughly recommend it.
Bradley will really make you think and examine. If you are not up for complex logical syllogisms and deep analyses of philosophy, just turn around v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y, pull your hand off the book rack, and pretend you didn't see this book. Really this is so good. If you are like me you're going to have to read it more than once to understand it all. For the seasoned epistemologist or the critical thinker at grad school level, or simply somebody who really wants to delve into the nature of being and belief, and who is willing to have his beliefs honestly challenged, I can't recommend this book strongly enough.
The one sentence summary for this book would be this Another decent brief account of a person’s journey from theism to atheism while documenting generally very sound logic and evidence that the non-religious path is most reasonable. Or something like that. I really enjoyed the book, and Dr. Bradley gives numerous excellent mini lessons on logic throughout the book and then applies that in the examination of many theistic claims. It’s an overall very solid book that would be an ideal read for anyone questioning faith and religion, or sitting on the fence about the doctrines they’ve been taught. For one like myself, it’s more or less just preaching to the choir, but still containing valuable information.
One—and really the only—significant issue that I had with the book was Bradley’s chapter on morality. He begins by addressing absolute morality in order to set up his “moral argument for atheism,” which is itself somewhat nonsensical as a starting point in my opinion, at least as expressed. A better argument position would have been an argument for an objective basis for secular morality, which sounds similar but is different in approach and structure of argument. He nonetheless goes on to define absolute morality as “a set of moral truths that would remain true no matter what any individual or social group thought or desired.” (p. 177) Already, there are two problems here. One, he is linking absolute morality to the very existence of individuals/social groups, meaning it is not absolute, but contingent upon the existence of individuals, whereas if it is technically truly absolute, it is true regardless of whether any individuals exist or not. That is the essence of absolutism—it is not contingent upon another thing. This is tied to the second problem—it seems he has somewhat conflated absolute morality with objective morality. This becomes more evident as he moves forward and begins defending objective morality.
As Bradley gets more into the meat of his argument, he lays out what he believes to be 5 “paradigms of absolute, objective, moral truths” (p. 179) listed as P1-P5. We’ll dissect one as an example; P1 states that, “It is morally wrong to deliberately and mercilessly slaughter men, women, and children who are innocent of any serious wrongdoing.” (p. 179) The problems with this assertion should be immediately apparent. It’s almost certain that most of us agree that this is a great moral standard. But why? Bradley neglects this and it’s a fatal mistake in his argument, as the ‘why’ is the key to the basis of the argument. Here are some of the glaring problems. For one, terms such as mercilessly, innocent, and serious wrongdoing, are all subjective. He hasn’t defined any of those terms, and thus, leaves them open to any number of interpreted definitions. By whose standard of mercy? By whose standard of innocence? By whose standard of “serious wrongdoing?” Bradley does not clarify. Secondly—and more pertinent to the why condition—he never gives any reason as to why his “paradigms of absolute, objective, moral truths” should be accepted as such. A theist can simply say, “Because god tells us to or not to.” It doesn’t matter what God does/did, or what moral indictment one may make against him—that’s irrelevant. If God were to declare not to do it now, then he is the moral basis for accepting P1 whether he himself is bound by P1 or not. Bradley simply says that since (according to the bible) God violated P1 in the past, then he can’t be the basis for P1, much in the way my children think that if I drank from the milk jug, then somehow the rule that they aren’t to do so, is baseless—but it’s not. And yet, Bradley’s basis for P1 is nothing more than an arbitrary and fallacious appeal to the majority because—as of right now—most people would abhor the deliberate slaughter of men, women, and children. But it may not have always been like that, nor is it guaranteed to remain so in the future—it isn’t objective, but entirely contingent upon the majority approval, which can be variable. In not providing any basis for his “paradigms of absolute, objective, moral truths”—other than a fallacious “they just are”—he has left them completely non-absolute and not objective, but rather the product of the whims of his own moral compass and that of the current majority of people at any given time. And this is the same flaw in every one of his arguments, P1 through P5. He has merely removed God as the moral basis, and arbitrarily replaced his own reasoning—or what the majority of people might agree on at any given time—as the basis for the P1-P5 arguments he concocted. This is simply a bad argument, which is unusual for Bradley. Ironically, he even later writes, “At best, they would merely state prima facie moral prohibitions,” (p. 198) which perfectly describes each and every one of his P1-P5 arguments. Each one merely states prima facie moral prohibitions (such as the moral opposition to slaughter in P1 above) with an either arbitrary basis, undefined basis, or a basis rooted in either Bradley’s own moral compass, or that of the majority of people at any arbitrary time.
What I believe Bradley should have argued for first, is a well defined meaning for morality, and then addressed absolute, objective, and subjective morality as needed. He would have been far clearer in first accepting something along the lines of morality being defined as, ‘that which is conducive to the well being of a sentient and thinking being.’ And rather than wade into the murky waters of objective verses subjective morality, he should have more narrowly addressed objective moral truths that form the basis for morality. Then, the term innocent could be defined as something like, not having violated any other person’s well being. In this way, his P1 argument could have been substantiated from a secular moral basis by establishing that A) morality is that which is conducive to the well being of a sentient and thinking being, B) People are sentient and thinking beings, C) Slaughtering people directly and negatively impacts their well being, D) Thus, slaughtering innocent people is not moral. All of this is established without appeal to deity, revelation, arbitrary whims, or fallacious appeals—purely secular reasoning. We have A, an objective moral truth; B, an absolute truth; C, an objective moral truth; and D) a resulting objective morality from secular (non-theistic) principles. Had Bradley approached his arguments in this manner, they would have been solid and not full of holes and arbitrary determinations, leaving them ripe for apologists to dissect and dismiss.
The book however, returns back to very solid logic and arguments as Bradley takes on the asinine Free Will Defense propounded by Alvin Platinga and William Lane Craig. He pulls apart their ridiculously knotted pretzel-logic argument and effectively puts it in the grave. After handling that with relative ease, Bradley moves on to tackle several of the pseudo-philosophical theist arguments of the likes of Paul Tillich, Don Cupitt, and John Shelby Spong among others, all of whom seem to thrive on borrowing new age sounding, woo-woo language to use great verbosity to try and sell theological nonsense wrapped in philosophical gift paper. As with Platinga and Craig, Prof. Bradley eviscerates the arguments and dissects the nonsensical claims, putting them to rest with no hope of resurrection.
All in all, this is an excellent book with strong foundations in logic, barring the one issue that I touched on earlier. I would certainly recommend it to anyone questioning religion/faith, sitting on the fence, or even those aspiring apologists who would like to see how their arguments are dismantled before making the same mistakes as their forbears.
This is a unique book among all the popular "New Atheist" books you'll find out there. Bradley - a noted logician - applies his professional skills to the existence of the supernatural, an omni-God, heaven, and hell. And he does an excellent job. So much so that occasionally his arguments for why no deity exists and why God deserves to die get lost in his logical and philosophical discourse. But I regard that as a benefit of this book. Not that Dawkins and Harris haven't written closely reasoned volumes, but Bradley applies real philosophical and logical rigor to his claims. I will admit there were some sections in Chapter 6 (The Logic of Hell) and Chapter 7 (The Impossibility of an Afterlife) where he was more difficult to follow than you'd expect from a book written for the general public. But overall, you'll get a very nice introduction to logic from this book and read a very interesting application of it. Recommended.
0 Response to "[H6S]≫ PDF Free God Gravediggers Why no Deity Exists edition by Raymond Bradley Politics Social Sciences eBooks"
Post a Comment