Books that dramatically changed the way you think

[DrZoidberg]

Yes, add Mere Christianity to your reading list. It might dramatically change the way you think.
Lewis' trilemma is highly contentious among anti-theists / counter-apologists.
Which is good because it promotes AvT discussion.

Lol. "contentious". I've actually read that garbage. It's interesting because C.S. Lewis was actually a highly regarded and thorough scholar. He was in no way an idiot. As his other works shows. Still produced this odyssey of logical brain farts. It's just embarrassing, as so many critiques of it has shown. It doesn't even require much effort to show the mistakes. It's just lazy writing. It is interesting how this book keeps being recommended. It shows how intellectually lazy most of it's readers are. It's audience clearly aren't doing even the most basic research on it or critical reading of it. They just turn their brains off and swallow the nonsense wholesale. Because it's preaching to the choir. I'd be willing to bet that this book has convinced nobody to convert to Christianity. It's a stupid book, and an embarrassment to Christian thought IMHO. Also an embarrassment to British scholars.

edit: here's good summary
https://infidels.org/library/modern/gaunilo2/mere.html

edit2:

Here's a similar critique by Christians. I didn't say all Christians are idiots. The author of this article is clearly one of the smart ones

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct...-christianity-should-have-bombed.html?start=1

At this point whenever anybody recommends Mere Christianity we should all point and laugh.

 

[Sarpedon]

Really, has anyone here NOT read and dismissed "Mere Christianity?"

 

[DrZoidberg]

Really, has anyone here NOT read and dismissed "Mere Christianity?"

Lion IRC, not only read it, but failed to spot the massive gaping logical holes.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Really, has anyone here NOT read and dismissed "Mere Christianity?"

Lion IRC, not only read it, but failed to spot the massive gaping logical holes.

Are we sure he read it?
My thumper cousins promote a lot of books they haven't read, and have protested movies they haven't seen. But an authority figure has told them what their opinions are and what their resources will accomplish.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Really, has anyone here NOT read and dismissed "Mere Christianity?"

Lion IRC, not only read it, but failed to spot the massive gaping logical holes.

The tragic thing is that when C.S. Lewis was challenged on the sloppy logic, and to be frank, idiocies of it, he squirmed in his chair and said it wasn't meant to be an academic work, that it was more a work of poetry or fiction. Which is pretty pathetic for a man of his status. Especially considering the type of work it is. He was hit pretty hard in the face with the stupid bat after it's release. So he clearly regretted publishing it. But the cat was out of the bag, so he rolled with it. But he spectacularly failed to spot his own idiocies. Which is remarkable.

 

[PyramidHead]

The big formative ones for me were:

Reflections on the Art of Living Joseph Campbell
This broke me out of my Christian upbringing and introduced me to the idea of parallels across religious beliefs and eastern ways of thinking.

On Dying Jiddu Krishnamurti
My first of many books by K. He started me on the path to skepticism about everything, though he himself was not an atheist per se.

Unweaving the Rainbow Richard Dawkins
Can't remember if this was my first book of his, but I eventually read them all (plus Hitchens, Harris, etc.) and became an annoying militant atheist/secular humanist.

Better Never to Have Been David Benatar
First major exposure to pessimism by way of anti-natalism. Completely upended Dawkins' sense of "we are so lucky to even be alive on this glittering planet" and made me realize I no longer needed to cling to the belief that life was, on balance, a good thing.

The Conspiracy Against the Human Race Thomas Ligotti
Pessimism from a writer of supernatural horror, and a study of how supernatural horror is an outlet for his sense that 'behind the scenes of life there is something pernicious that makes a nightmare of our world.' I haven't lost sight of that thing yet.

 

[tantric]

The Selfish Gene
Richard Dawkins

Dramatically improved my understanding of natural selection.

+1 for this one. This is one of the few books I have read that opened my mind to a way of looking at things I hadn't thought of before.

I would add John Haidt's "Righteous Mind" and Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel".

GG&S and Collapse were pivotal to me

Roger Coreless's The Vision of Buddhism, which was a textbook for a college course, is the foundation of spiritual understanding for me. It is a textbook, but it's also a buddhist book - the way the book is arranged, etc. About half of my class converted.

Naked Lunch by William Burroughs - though it's fiction, and obscene, this book showed me was addiction is, and how central it is to humanity. ever wonder why amphetamine, so similar to the neurotransmitter dopamine, is an appetite suppressant?

 

[rousseau]

I've hummed and hawed about picking this book up, having heard good reviews of it several times.

I wonder, though, would it be useful for someone who studied evolution in depth throughout university, or is it more of a popular work for those who agree with, but are only generally acquainted with it?

For someone who studied evolution in depth throughout university, this book probably wouldn't provide any new insights and may be quite boring.

I ended up picking it up last weekend anyway. After getting into it a bit I figure a lot of the insight is going to be pretty intuitive, but I had forgotten how much I enjoy reading Dawkins. The guy's so serious about promoting science and smart that it's still enjoyable listening to him shoot the shit about whatever topic. It's also nice reading a book where I'm familiar with the subject matter, which makes the process a little lighter. Anyway, I'm sure I'll still get a bit of insight out of it.

 

[rousseau]

I've hummed and hawed about picking this book up, having heard good reviews of it several times.

I wonder, though, would it be useful for someone who studied evolution in depth throughout university, or is it more of a popular work for those who agree with, but are only generally acquainted with it?

For someone who studied evolution in depth throughout university, this book probably wouldn't provide any new insights and may be quite boring.

I ended up picking it up last weekend anyway. After getting into it a bit I figure a lot of the insight is going to be pretty intuitive, but I had forgotten how much I enjoy reading Dawkins. The guy's so serious about promoting science and smart that it's still enjoyable listening to him shoot the shit about whatever topic. It's also nice reading a book where I'm familiar with the subject matter, which makes the process a little lighter. Anyway, I'm sure I'll still get a bit of insight out of it.

In retrospect, yep, The Selfish Gene definitely radically changed the way I think. I'd like to find more science books on this level, but I suspect it pretty much takes the cake.

 

[ronburgundy]

Here are 5 books that had a significant impact (all in my late teens and early 20's, which is when I went through the biggest qualitative changes in outlook).

The Bible: It's intellectually absurd and morally abhorrent contents lead me to be sure I was not a Christian or Monotheist, which freed me to reason about religion more generally and eventually arrive at both atheism and secular morality, which in turn reduced impediments to my rational thinking about most other topics.

Age of Reason by Thomas Paine: I felt a sense of intellectual and moral affinity with the United States (if you want to call that "Patriotism") that I never had prior. This book led to more learning about the Enlightenment in general and its role in the founding US ideas, including the huge influence that Paine himself had. A good friend of Jefferson, his book Common Sense was instrumental in gaining popular support for the US Revolution and was the most circulated and read book in America.

Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. Gave me a much better appreciation for and understanding of the evolution, inspiring me to read more about it, as well as to investigate the culture of anti-science in the US.

How to Think about Weird Things by Lewis Vaughn and Theodore Schick: A good intro to critical thinking given to me by my first Philosophy prof.

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You are, by Alan Watts. He was an ordained minister and Zen Monk who left both due to a dislike for the many ugly aspects of religion. At age 18, it was an important transition for me away from monotheistic assumptions. He attempted to bring his own positive and life-affirming flavor of Eastern philosophy to western minds with playful imagery and clever word play ("Just like trees "leave", the Universe "people's". It is more about an artistic way of using metaphor and myth to evoke a feeling about oneself and relation to the world than about any literal truths or moral lessons. I delved into Taoism and Zen for a bit, took away many positives but ultimately found their mysticism too wooish and moved on. Ironically, one of his thoughts in "The Book" is about how limited any book is in conveying big truths.

[P]

An ardent Jehovah's Witness once tried to convince me that if there
were a God of love, he would certainly provide mankind with a reliable
and infallible textbook for the guidance of conduct. I replied that no
considerate God would destroy the human mind by making it so rigid
and unadaptable as to depend upon one book, the Bible, for all the
answers. For the use of words, and thus of a book, is to point beyond
themselves to a world of life and experience that is not mere words or
even ideas. Just as money is not real, consumable wealth, books are not
life. To idolize scriptures is like eating paper currency.
Therefore The Book that I would like to slip to my children would
itself be slippery. It would slip them into a new domain, not of ideas
alone, but of experience and feeling. It would be a temporary medicine,
not a diet; a point of departure, not a perpetual point of reference

[/P]

 

[phands]

+1 on the bible. Few xtians actually read it. It's horrible, violent, disgusting nature convinced me that xtianity is a foul, pernicious blight on humanity.

I'll add "Godel Escher Bach, an Eternal Golden Braid" by Hofstadter. An incredible piece of work.

Also "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance" by Robert Pirsig.

When i was a kid, back in the 60s, I read a book called "From Molecule To Man", by an author I can't remember. It was a big, lavishly illustrated nook which took a trip through biology and what was known of genetics at the time - changed my brain significantly forever. Sadly, i can't fin a trace of it online...it was about 50 years ago.

 

[bilby]

+1 on the bible. Few xtians actually read it. It's horrible, violent, disgusting nature convinced me that xtianity is a foul, pernicious blight on humanity.

I'll add "Godel Escher Bach, an Eternal Golden Braid" by Hofstadter. An incredible piece of work.

Also "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance" by Robert Pirsig.

When i was a kid, back in the 60s, I read a book called "From Molecule To Man", by an author I can't remember. It was a big, lavishly illustrated nook which took a trip through biology and what was known of genetics at the time - changed my brain significantly forever. Sadly, i can't fin a trace of it online...it was about 50 years ago.

Perhaps Francis Crick's 'Of Molecules and Men' (1966)?

Beginning with a critique of "vitalism," the notion that an intangible life force beyond the grasp of biology distinguishes living organisms from inanimate things, Crick argues that in all likelihood the complex mechanisms of DNA, RNA, and protein synthesis fully explain the phenomenon of life. While admitting that many details are uncertain and much remains unknown about the origins of life, he nonetheless maintains that chance mutations over time, in conjunction with the law of natural selection, offer the most rational explanation of the evolution of life on earth from inorganic precursors. Although few speak of vitalism today, the controversy that Crick addresses is still with us in the form of intelligent design, which suggests that biochemistry and evolution alone do not sufficiently explain the uniqueness of life.

In his second lecture Crick explores the borderline between the organic and inorganic, presenting an elegantly clear description of DNA’s basic structure and function in relation to RNA and myriad enzymes.

In the final lecture, "The Prospect Before Us," he anticipates events and trends that have in fact come to pass in the past four decades: the increasing use of computer technology and robotics in mind-brain research, explorations into right-side vs. left-side uses of the brain, controversies surrounding the existence of the soul, the dead end of ESP investigations, and above all the daunting challenges of explaining consciousness in completely scientific terms.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Really, has anyone here NOT read and dismissed "Mere Christianity?"

Lion IRC, not only read it, but failed to spot the massive gaping logical holes.

The tragic thing is that when C.S. Lewis was challenged on the sloppy logic, and to be frank, idiocies of it, he squirmed in his chair and said it wasn't meant to be an academic work, that it was more a work of poetry or fiction. Which is pretty pathetic for a man of his status. Especially considering the type of work it is. He was hit pretty hard in the face with the stupid bat after it's release. So he clearly regretted publishing it. But the cat was out of the bag, so he rolled with it. But he spectacularly failed to spot his own idiocies. Which is remarkable.

This is interesting. Can you point me to where I can read about this?

 

[bilby]

There are so many books that have changed and shaped the way I think that it is hard to pick stand-outs. Perhaps Asimov's Guide to Science (1972) qualifies as such.

I would also mention J E Gordon's The New Science of Strong Materials (or Why You Don't Fall Through the Floor) - not so much for its content as an introduction to structural engineering and materials science, but for the fact that it is a masterpiece of science writing - approachable and easy to grasp even for a total novice, while not dumbing down or skimping on a rigorous treatment of the subject matter. Gordon's companion work Structures (or Why Things Don't Fall Down) is also excellent.

In fiction, it's hard to go past the work of Douglas Adams and Terry Pratchett, both of whom have an incredible eye for human (mis)behaviour.

I started reading at about the age of three, and have never stopped. The very first text I read independently began: 'Gartons HP sauce is made from a blend of the finest ingredients...' at which point my mum realized that if I was reading the condiment labels instead of throwing my food around, it was probably time to get me some real books.

To refer to myself as an avid reader would be to miss an excellent opportunity to use the word 'voracious'.

 

[rousseau]

To refer to myself as an avid reader would be to miss an excellent opportunity to use the word 'voracious'.

I've described myself as a voracious reader before but in the past few months I've been in a bit of a lull, struggling to find something that really grabs me. I think that's more an indication of my interests starting to wane, or at least hit a dry spell, after reading probably 100ish works of non-fiction over the past few years (caveat: a lot of that was speed or selective reading).

Lately I find myself re-visiting a lot of my old books and just browsing through the index.. oh and Paul Theroux, but him at a slower pace.

 

[Lion IRC]

The tragic thing is that when C.S. Lewis was challenged on the sloppy logic, and to be frank, idiocies of it, he squirmed in his chair and said it wasn't meant to be an academic work, that it was more a work of poetry or fiction. Which is pretty pathetic for a man of his status. Especially considering the type of work it is. He was hit pretty hard in the face with the stupid bat after it's release. So he clearly regretted publishing it. But the cat was out of the bag, so he rolled with it. But he spectacularly failed to spot his own idiocies. Which is remarkable.

This is interesting. Can you point me to where I can read about this?

Yes it is an 'interesting' claim.
Lewis regretted having written it?
Massive gaping holes in Lewis' logic?
I would like to read more too.

 

[Sajara]

Dulce et decorum est

That poem made me think a lot as a kid...even though I am proud of my country (less so lately), I have very little nationalism.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The tragic thing is that when C.S. Lewis was challenged on the sloppy logic, and to be frank, idiocies of it, he squirmed in his chair and said it wasn't meant to be an academic work, that it was more a work of poetry or fiction. Which is pretty pathetic for a man of his status. Especially considering the type of work it is. He was hit pretty hard in the face with the stupid bat after it's release. So he clearly regretted publishing it. But the cat was out of the bag, so he rolled with it. But he spectacularly failed to spot his own idiocies. Which is remarkable.

This is interesting. Can you point me to where I can read about this?

I cannot. I wrote this post quite a bit ago. I had recently read something before making that post. But I think that was the case. Don't forget that he worked in Oxford and shared a table with Tolkien. These guys read each others work and tried tearing it apart. I don't think he intended it as the serious book it was taken to be. So it didn't pass through the customary Oxford quality control. I think he said that is what he regretted. It was something like that.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The tragic thing is that when C.S. Lewis was challenged on the sloppy logic, and to be frank, idiocies of it, he squirmed in his chair and said it wasn't meant to be an academic work, that it was more a work of poetry or fiction. Which is pretty pathetic for a man of his status. Especially considering the type of work it is. He was hit pretty hard in the face with the stupid bat after it's release. So he clearly regretted publishing it. But the cat was out of the bag, so he rolled with it. But he spectacularly failed to spot his own idiocies. Which is remarkable.

This is interesting. Can you point me to where I can read about this?

Yes it is an 'interesting' claim.
Lewis regretted having written it?
Massive gaping holes in Lewis' logic?
I would like to read more too.

Have you read it? The logic is broken. Anybody can see that, can't they? The most famous is "lord, liar or lunatic". That's a false trilemma. How about all the thousands of other possible scenarios he just failed to mention? This guy is an academic. He should know better than making such a beginners mistake. This is a first year of university cock-up, unworthy of a full professor. The whole book is full of this. It's even become a joke, "Mere Assertions", as it's known in some quarters. In the book he keeps setting up false dilemmas and argues against the straw man, which only leaves God. It's frankly embarrassing to read. And I'm convinced he knew it. Not when writing it, but certainly when it was critiqued by people who paid attention.

 

[ruby sparks]

Do softback publications in magazine format count as 'books'?

If so, I'd like to cite Playboy, in and around 1972 (not sure which edition). A real eye-opener, as I recall, and in some important ways it changed my life.

I honestly, really, can't think of a better example.