Fooled by Randomness: The Hidden Role of Chance in Life and in the Markets, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb
This is my second go-round through Fooled by Randomness for three reasons.
First, I greatly enjoy Taleb's prose in it's own right.
Secondly, I find his thesis extremely challenging, and his assertions have made me rethink and revisit a great many assumptions that I have held. Even as I resist some things, such as how he discounts the role that preparation and knowledge play in even chance events, overall, my world view has shifted significantly both from an intellectual (how I think about events) as well as a practical (how I throw money at the market) stance. That said, I can't claim the hubris of understanding everything he says, but that's what re-reading is for.
Thirdly, I'm getting primed for his new book, The Black Swan which comes out this week:
The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins
I didn't find The God Delusion nearly as challenging as Fooled by Randomness. Partly because I don't hold any special taboos or sacred cows for Dawkins to pillory. As a purely objective reader, and a staunch empiricist, there's nothing in the book to draw my ire, or provoke a reflexive rejection of his arguments. I can, however, appreciate the hostility this book has drawn from the ranks of the devout of all stripes. Dawkins savages religion with the fervid glee that is often evident in strident atheists. Unfortunately, his need to topple idols comes across as somewhat pathological. I say it's unfortunate, because ultimately, Dawkins doesn't cultivate any intellectual territory that goes beyond what Bertrand Russell already covered in his 1927 lecture "Why I am not a Christian."
Overal, The God Delusion is, firmly, a reasonable primer on Atheism 101, and is as good a text as any to add to a reading list as any for someone voyaging on the road to making their own self-discoveries. Sadly, the people most in need of reading it never will, because they have been told not to. The difference between fantatical and faithful is the ability to reason and consider opposing arguments. Someone who accepts dogma at face value, and rejects alternatives is a fanatic. Someone who can read, discuss, debate, and measure the weight of arguments is a theologian. It should come as no surprise which of the two I favor.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Recommended Reading: Thumbnail Reviews of Fooled By Randomness, and The God Delusion
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I'll take the bait here and add my two cents worth - which will be about all I can contribute at this point. I will begin by confessing that I have not read Dawkins' book and I am only familiar with its content insofar as it was covered in last weeks' Macleans cover story - "Is God Poison?".
That being said, I am generally aware of the arguments being made by most atheists these days so my comment will address at least a couple of reasons why most of them don't break new ground beyond Russell as you note.
I heard John G. Stackhouse, Jr. speak at a conference about 4 years ago. Prof. Stackhouse is the Sangwoo Youtong Chee Professor of Theology and Culture at Regent College, and also Adjunct Professor in the Department of Classical, Near Eastern, and Religious Studies at the University of British Columbia. One observation he made was that little if anything has been published to further the Christian side of the debate about God and Christianity since C.S. Lewis published "Mere Christianity" in the 40's - in part as a rebuttal to Russell. As Prof. Stackhouse put it, "He's (Lewis) still doing the bulk of our (Christian's) intellectual heavy lifting and he's been dead for 40 years."
Stackhouse is right. No one has written anything approaching Lewis's contribution since to advance the debate, and that leaves the opposing side with little to react to, save the positions articulated nearly a century ago. The interplay and reaction between opposing side of a debate is essential to keep the issue moving forward, but when neither side has new insights, ideas or arguments to present the exercise quickly loses its vitality and relevance.
Another dynamic that has entered the arena is the effect post-modernism has had on the pursuit of reasoned debate. Along with dispatching the authority of the meta-narrative, the new philosophy has also devalued authority generally resulting in reducing debate to a state of irrelevance if not rendering it completely moribund - especially in the areas of faith, though not exclusively.
Reasoned debate in any arena requires a sense of history and a respect for the ideas and skills of those who have dealt with the subject before. The post-modern perspective with its emphasis in personal experience as the ultimate litmus test for validity has no time or respect for historical context. Thus every new entry into any subject becomes an exercise in personal diatribe. As you noted - "strident", "pathological" - consider how often debates devolve to this level in any forum these days.
So these debates go 'round and 'round. As George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." I may read Dawkins' new book but it sounds like it may be a waste of time for me. I have already weighed Russell's and Lewis' arguments and decided for myself which ones I accept. Perhaps the second book you suggest will be worth the precious time I have.
Post a Comment