<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What am I Reading?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.tailrecursive.org/blog/2007/02/17/what-am-i-reading/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.tailrecursive.org/blog/2007/02/17/what-am-i-reading/</link>
	<description>The random mutterings of a propeller-head...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Jun 2010 20:33:19 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter</title>
		<link>http://www.tailrecursive.org/blog/2007/02/17/what-am-i-reading/comment-page-1/#comment-2972</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2007 06:19:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tailrecursive.org/blog/2007/02/17/what-am-i-reading/#comment-2972</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Interesting, I&#039;ll keep them in mind. If I don&#039;t have at least one book in the queue, I&#039;m not sure what to do with myself. Unfortunately (or not, depending) Herodotus was prolific for someone writing in a time where you had to make your own pens.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;An interesting point on religion and fundamentalism, by the way. I read the &lt;i&gt;Ancestor&#039;s Tale&lt;/i&gt; by Richard Dawkins last year, and he&#039;s particularly rabid about religion. I think, though, that he tars all religions when he should be looking at something more focused... basically fundamentalism. Still, the bulk of that book was about evolution... so in the few bits where he started attacking &quot;religion&quot; I just mentally sighed and slogged my way back to the science.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting, I&#8217;ll keep them in mind. If I don&#8217;t have at least one book in the queue, I&#8217;m not sure what to do with myself. Unfortunately (or not, depending) Herodotus was prolific for someone writing in a time where you had to make your own pens.</p>
<p>An interesting point on religion and fundamentalism, by the way. I read the <i>Ancestor&#8217;s Tale</i> by Richard Dawkins last year, and he&#8217;s particularly rabid about religion. I think, though, that he tars all religions when he should be looking at something more focused&#8230; basically fundamentalism. Still, the bulk of that book was about evolution&#8230; so in the few bits where he started attacking &#8220;religion&#8221; I just mentally sighed and slogged my way back to the science.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brenda</title>
		<link>http://www.tailrecursive.org/blog/2007/02/17/what-am-i-reading/comment-page-1/#comment-2835</link>
		<dc:creator>Brenda</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:47:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tailrecursive.org/blog/2007/02/17/what-am-i-reading/#comment-2835</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Hi!&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I just finished &lt;em&gt;The End of Faith&lt;/em&gt; by Sam Harris.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Harris is a Buddhist and an avowed atheist, but while that&#039;s apparent in this book, to dwell on it would be to only skim the surface.  He spends a great deal of effort going over what we know about the history of social damage caused by fundamentalism, first in medieval Christianity and then in reactionary Islam.  This is a book written for a popular audience, and the comparison of the two religions is illustrative without introducing any theoretical concepts about what they have in common.  This is a weakness, however, because Harris then simply blames the problems of fundamentalism on religion in general, which I think is facile... I believe that the real issue is the way that religious types (and societal stages), which are not much more evolved than fundamentalism, continue to enable it.  However, I doubt Harris could have successfully made so fine a point in a popular book.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Harris&#039; progressive bona fides are good, so it&#039;s interesting he comes dangerously close to the kind of Straussian argument that&#039;s been appropriated by the neocons to meddle with Islam.  Why do I say this? Read the chapter on torture and you&#039;ll see what I mean.  I think he has set up this argument to needle the reader, however.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;All in all, it is a good book, but for anyone who is already familiar with the problems and mass psychology of fundamentalism, no new ground is covered.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I would recommend the version of Graves&#039; developmental psychology now being promoted by Chris Cowan for an interesting take on the nature of fundamentalism is a stage in society, rather than as an aberration.  Hopefully I&#039;ll be reading up more on that next, as a new book as come out.    Let me know if you want my reaction to it.  Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi!</p>
<p>I just finished <em>The End of Faith</em> by Sam Harris.</p>
<p>Harris is a Buddhist and an avowed atheist, but while that&#8217;s apparent in this book, to dwell on it would be to only skim the surface.  He spends a great deal of effort going over what we know about the history of social damage caused by fundamentalism, first in medieval Christianity and then in reactionary Islam.  This is a book written for a popular audience, and the comparison of the two religions is illustrative without introducing any theoretical concepts about what they have in common.  This is a weakness, however, because Harris then simply blames the problems of fundamentalism on religion in general, which I think is facile&#8230; I believe that the real issue is the way that religious types (and societal stages), which are not much more evolved than fundamentalism, continue to enable it.  However, I doubt Harris could have successfully made so fine a point in a popular book.</p>
<p>Harris&#8217; progressive bona fides are good, so it&#8217;s interesting he comes dangerously close to the kind of Straussian argument that&#8217;s been appropriated by the neocons to meddle with Islam.  Why do I say this? Read the chapter on torture and you&#8217;ll see what I mean.  I think he has set up this argument to needle the reader, however.</p>
<p>All in all, it is a good book, but for anyone who is already familiar with the problems and mass psychology of fundamentalism, no new ground is covered.</p>
<p>I would recommend the version of Graves&#8217; developmental psychology now being promoted by Chris Cowan for an interesting take on the nature of fundamentalism is a stage in society, rather than as an aberration.  Hopefully I&#8217;ll be reading up more on that next, as a new book as come out.    Let me know if you want my reaction to it.  Thanks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
