Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

REVIEW: "Against Religion", Tamas Pataki

Expand Messages
  • Rob, grandpa of Ryan, Trevor, Devon & Han
    BKAGNRLG.RVW 20090306 Against Religion , Tamas Pataki, 2007, 1-921215-18-6, U$14.95/C$16.95 %A Tamas Pataki %C PO Box 523,Carlton North, Victoria,
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 30, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      BKAGNRLG.RVW 20090306

      "Against Religion", Tamas Pataki, 2007, 1-921215-18-6, U$14.95/C$16.95
      %A Tamas Pataki
      %C PO Box 523,Carlton North, Victoria, Australia 3054
      %D 2007
      %G 1-921215-18-6
      %I Scribe Publications Pty Ltd
      %O U$14.95/C$16.95 info@...
      %O http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1921215186/robsladesinterne
      %O http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/1921215186/robsladesin03-20
      %O Audience n- Tech 1 Writing 1 (see revfaq.htm for explanation)
      %P 136 p.
      %T "Against Religion"

      The introduction says that religion, particularly theism, is evil.
      There is little structure or thread to this argument, as presented,
      and Pataki seems to think that admitting the work is a polemic, with
      points chosen arbitrarily and incompletely, justifies saying pretty
      much anything. The writing is full of esoteric references but is
      neither compelling nor structured.

      In chapter one, Pataki says he will not argue, and does not care,
      whether a god exists, but also says that most people who believe in
      such a being are mostly stupid and irrational. Religion is growing,
      Pataki notes in chapter three, and then lists characteristics of
      fundamentalism. A psychological assessment is used, in chapter three,
      to indicate that monotheism is wish fulfillment. It is important to
      note that chapter four is based on psychoanalytic thought. The very
      specialized terminology of this field is used, and it is assumed that
      the reader understands it. Therefore, the reader without a specific
      academic or psychiatric background may fail to understand Pataki's
      attempt to explain that religion can be seen as an automatic process
      in the development of the growing mind, and not a conscious choice at
      all. (What the theory fails to explain is why some people are *not*
      religious.) Similar analysis is presented, in chapter five, to
      support reports that religious people are violent and warlike, and
      feel justified in attacking others because of a god's direction in the
      matter. Chapter six uses the same psychoanalytic basis to argue that
      religious people are sexually confused (although it is hard to argue
      that non-religious people are not so confused). The thesis that
      religious people are irrational is asserted in chapter seven. It is
      interesting that Pataki at one point rails that the "religiose do not
      have beliefs--they *know*." There really is no argument as such in
      this chapter. Pataki does not believe religious people cannot think
      rationally--he just knows it.

      It is extremely difficult to understand what Pataki intends the book
      to convey. As he states early on, he advances no reasoning to support
      disbelief in God. He proposes that religious people are foolish and
      possibly do unpleasant things, but does not demonstrate that non-
      religious people are wiser or kinder. He does a fair job of
      establishing that many, if not most, religious people believe for
      reasons that are intellectually suspect, but huge numbers of the
      populace conclude the truest things for the weirdest analyses, and the
      author does, reluctantly, admit that some religiose may believe from
      valid reasons. Pataki singularly does not illustrate that belief in a
      god creates irrationality or cruelty. Nor can we determine whether
      religious belief is any definitive indicator of untenable thought

      Sorry, but I'm definitely against this book.

      copyright Robert M. Slade, 2009 BKAGNRLG.RVW 20090306

      ====================== (quote inserted randomly by Pegasus Mailer)
      rslade@... slade@... rslade@...
      We want to be creative and different, but we're squeamish about
      `standing out', and we also want to fit in and belong--so let's
      join a sub-culture and all be eccentric in the same way,
      together. - Kate Fox, `Watching the English'
      http://blog.isc2.org/isc2_blog/slade/index.html http://twitter.com/rslade
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.