What do you think?
Rate this book
10 Books That Screwed Up the World And 5 Others That Didn't Help
You've heard of the "Great Books"?
These are their evil opposites. From Machiavelli's The Prince to Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto to Alfred Kinsey's Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, these "influential" books have led to war, genocide, totalitarian oppression, family breakdown, and disastrous social experiments. And yet these authors' bad ideas are still popular and pervasive---in fact, they might influence your own thinking without your realizing it. Here with the antidote is Professor Benjamin Wiker. In his scintillating new book, 10 Books That Screwed Up the World: And 5 Others That Didn't Help, he seizes each of these evil books by its malignant heart and exposes it to the light of day. In this witty, learned, and provocative exposé, you'll learn:
---Why Machiavelli's The Prince was the inspiration for a long list of tyrannies (Stalin had it on his nightstand)
---How Descartes's Discourse on Method "proved" God's existence only by making Him a creation of our own ego
---How Hobbes's Leviathan led to the belief that we have a "right" to whatever we want
---Why Marx and Engels's Communist Manifesto could win the award for the most malicious book ever written
---How Darwin's Descent of Man proves he intended "survival of the fittest" to be applied to human society
---How Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil issued the call for a world ruled solely by the "will to power"
---How Hitler's Mein Kampf was a kind of "spiritualized Darwinism" that accounts for his genocidal anti-Semitism
---How the pansexual paradise described in Margaret Mead's Coming of Age in Samoa turned out to be a creation of her own sexual confusions and aspirations
---Why Alfred Kinsey's Sexual Behavior in the Human Male was simply autobiography masquerading as science
Witty, shocking, and instructive, 10 Books That Screwed Up the World offers a quick education on the worst ideas in human history---and how we can avoid them in the future.
These are their evil opposites. From Machiavelli's The Prince to Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto to Alfred Kinsey's Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, these "influential" books have led to war, genocide, totalitarian oppression, family breakdown, and disastrous social experiments. And yet these authors' bad ideas are still popular and pervasive---in fact, they might influence your own thinking without your realizing it. Here with the antidote is Professor Benjamin Wiker. In his scintillating new book, 10 Books That Screwed Up the World: And 5 Others That Didn't Help, he seizes each of these evil books by its malignant heart and exposes it to the light of day. In this witty, learned, and provocative exposé, you'll learn:
---Why Machiavelli's The Prince was the inspiration for a long list of tyrannies (Stalin had it on his nightstand)
---How Descartes's Discourse on Method "proved" God's existence only by making Him a creation of our own ego
---How Hobbes's Leviathan led to the belief that we have a "right" to whatever we want
---Why Marx and Engels's Communist Manifesto could win the award for the most malicious book ever written
---How Darwin's Descent of Man proves he intended "survival of the fittest" to be applied to human society
---How Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil issued the call for a world ruled solely by the "will to power"
---How Hitler's Mein Kampf was a kind of "spiritualized Darwinism" that accounts for his genocidal anti-Semitism
---How the pansexual paradise described in Margaret Mead's Coming of Age in Samoa turned out to be a creation of her own sexual confusions and aspirations
---Why Alfred Kinsey's Sexual Behavior in the Human Male was simply autobiography masquerading as science
Witty, shocking, and instructive, 10 Books That Screwed Up the World offers a quick education on the worst ideas in human history---and how we can avoid them in the future.
Audiobook
First published January 1, 2008
163 people are currently reading
1438 people want to read
About the author
Benjamin Wiker
28 books56 followersBenjamin Wiker is a writer, teacher, lecturer, husband of one wife, and father of seven children. He has a Ph.D. in Theological Ethics from Vanderbilt University, an M.A. in Religion from Vanderbilt University, and a B.A. in Political Philosophy from Furman University. He has taught at Marquette University, St. Mary's University (MN), and Thomas Aquinas College, and is now a Professor of Political Science and Director of Human Life Studies at Franciscan University, and a Senior Fellow of Franciscan's Veritas Center.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 314 reviews
August 31, 2012
It's not very often that a book makes me want to go out and commit physical violence on the author, but this book definitely takes the cake. I was seriously pissed off only one chapter in, and the only reason I finished at all is to write a review online and warn people about this sorry excuse for a book.
To be fair, the author does a good job of exposing the fallacies in the arguments he writes about, and showing just how ludicrous and/or dangerous the philosophies and theories would be when applied to real life. But his fine use of logic was tainted with bias and his own fallacies.
Dr. Wiker equates atheism with immorality, even evil. He doesn't seem to realize that you can be moral and not believe in God. One of the books he names, a book by Sigmund Freud, is only on his list because it repudiates religion. With almost every book he notes that the author was an atheist or simply rejected Christianity. In fact, Dr. Wiker continuously sneers at anything outside the conservative Christian framework. He has no use for liberal values and even for liberal Christianity -- in fact, he says liberal Christianity is a good tool for dictators because of its "flexibility." (I can't think of a single dictator who's a liberal Christian.)
I also noticed some glaring misconceptions in Wiker's writing which tie back to his bias against atheists and liberals. For instance, he claims that people who say "I have the right to control over my body" really mean "I want to have an abortion" and people who say "I have the right to privacy" are actually perverts who want to commit nasty sexual practices. That is absolute nonsense. Hasn't he ever heard the catchphrase, "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? There are plenty of people, myself included, who believe in a woman's right to have an abortion if she chooses, but who have never had an abortion themselves and probably wouldn't even if faced with a crisis pregnancy.
This book, I think, could only be liked by people like Wiker himself: that is, conservative evangelical Christians with very narrow minds. I was disgusted by it.
To be fair, the author does a good job of exposing the fallacies in the arguments he writes about, and showing just how ludicrous and/or dangerous the philosophies and theories would be when applied to real life. But his fine use of logic was tainted with bias and his own fallacies.
Dr. Wiker equates atheism with immorality, even evil. He doesn't seem to realize that you can be moral and not believe in God. One of the books he names, a book by Sigmund Freud, is only on his list because it repudiates religion. With almost every book he notes that the author was an atheist or simply rejected Christianity. In fact, Dr. Wiker continuously sneers at anything outside the conservative Christian framework. He has no use for liberal values and even for liberal Christianity -- in fact, he says liberal Christianity is a good tool for dictators because of its "flexibility." (I can't think of a single dictator who's a liberal Christian.)
I also noticed some glaring misconceptions in Wiker's writing which tie back to his bias against atheists and liberals. For instance, he claims that people who say "I have the right to control over my body" really mean "I want to have an abortion" and people who say "I have the right to privacy" are actually perverts who want to commit nasty sexual practices. That is absolute nonsense. Hasn't he ever heard the catchphrase, "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? There are plenty of people, myself included, who believe in a woman's right to have an abortion if she chooses, but who have never had an abortion themselves and probably wouldn't even if faced with a crisis pregnancy.
This book, I think, could only be liked by people like Wiker himself: that is, conservative evangelical Christians with very narrow minds. I was disgusted by it.
March 21, 2013
Looking over the previous reviews, I can see that Benjamin Wiker’s book really touched a nerve. Quite a few people hated it giving it only one star, and a few admitted that they were so upset they never finished it. Two people were so incensed that they said they wanted to physically harm the author. Wow! So much for the old adage attributed to Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
What has got these people so riled up? The short answer is – the author is a Christian. The 10 books he selected as being the most damaging to our world were all written by atheists who espoused moral relativism. Perhaps if the book had been written by a stereotypic, bible thumping, fundamentalist preacher, it could simply be ignored or made into an object of derision. But, Dr. Wiker is an articulate, well educated scholar with a B.A. in political philosophy, M.A. in religion and a Ph.D. in ethics.
The progression of ideas advanced in the books critiqued by Dr. Wiker might be viewed as a branching tree. (Analogy is mine, not Wiker’s.) The trunk from which all branches sprout is Machiavelli’s The Prince (1513). Machiavelli gets the ball rolling by counseling the prince to shed all moral and religious scruples. Wiker sums it up, “No act is so evil that some necessity or benefit cannot mitigate it.” From this base sprouts several larger branches. One can be called the eugenics branch. It begins with Charles Darwin’s Descent of Man with secondary branches for Margaret Sanger and Adolf Hitler. Another may be labeled the ruthless totalitarian branch with Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin. Still another is the libertine branch. It consists of Sigmund Freud, Margaret Mead and Alfred Kinsey.
The books Dr. Wiker chose to criticize all express an atheistic worldview and a call for an end to the restraints imposed by Judaic-Christian morality. So be forewarned. This author writes from a Christian perspective. If you take offense that the atheist viewpoint is presented in a not so favorable light, you may want to skip this book. To do otherwise makes as much sense as picking up a bible and complaining about all the talk about God.
What has got these people so riled up? The short answer is – the author is a Christian. The 10 books he selected as being the most damaging to our world were all written by atheists who espoused moral relativism. Perhaps if the book had been written by a stereotypic, bible thumping, fundamentalist preacher, it could simply be ignored or made into an object of derision. But, Dr. Wiker is an articulate, well educated scholar with a B.A. in political philosophy, M.A. in religion and a Ph.D. in ethics.
The progression of ideas advanced in the books critiqued by Dr. Wiker might be viewed as a branching tree. (Analogy is mine, not Wiker’s.) The trunk from which all branches sprout is Machiavelli’s The Prince (1513). Machiavelli gets the ball rolling by counseling the prince to shed all moral and religious scruples. Wiker sums it up, “No act is so evil that some necessity or benefit cannot mitigate it.” From this base sprouts several larger branches. One can be called the eugenics branch. It begins with Charles Darwin’s Descent of Man with secondary branches for Margaret Sanger and Adolf Hitler. Another may be labeled the ruthless totalitarian branch with Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin. Still another is the libertine branch. It consists of Sigmund Freud, Margaret Mead and Alfred Kinsey.
The books Dr. Wiker chose to criticize all express an atheistic worldview and a call for an end to the restraints imposed by Judaic-Christian morality. So be forewarned. This author writes from a Christian perspective. If you take offense that the atheist viewpoint is presented in a not so favorable light, you may want to skip this book. To do otherwise makes as much sense as picking up a bible and complaining about all the talk about God.
December 30, 2016
OK, here is one that I will not finish.
No need to, got the point.
I picked this up thinking it would be witty and a good summary of some controversial tomes of philosophy. A few pages in and I see that this critique is really just a vehicle for the very conservative author to blast liberal, ATHIEST schools of thought and the world he sees as screwed up is a non-Christian world.
I am a Christ-follower, but not conservative (but neither am I liberal) and so I am always a little taken aback when I hear a sermon like this decrying worldly thought as inherently bad. I recall a time that my wife and I visited a very conservative church. We knew going in that it would be more austere than we were accustomed, the decoration of the building and the dress and disposition of the congregation affirmed our early ideas. When the preacher began to speak though I was still surprised at the level of conservatism he was espousing. This was fire and brimstone of the kind Johnathon Edwards would deliver, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God revisited. And it was here that I understood the old Libertarian label that the Conservatives teach the doctrine of fear. That was what this preacher was ranting.
Fear!
The ideas that ran counter to his interpretation of the Word, was bad, no grey area, no compromise. This is what Professor Wiker is preaching, fear of any kind controversy or counter to his theological ideas. To his credit, he did oppose book burning in the opening pages and there may be creditable arguments later on, but I read all I need.
No need to, got the point.
I picked this up thinking it would be witty and a good summary of some controversial tomes of philosophy. A few pages in and I see that this critique is really just a vehicle for the very conservative author to blast liberal, ATHIEST schools of thought and the world he sees as screwed up is a non-Christian world.
I am a Christ-follower, but not conservative (but neither am I liberal) and so I am always a little taken aback when I hear a sermon like this decrying worldly thought as inherently bad. I recall a time that my wife and I visited a very conservative church. We knew going in that it would be more austere than we were accustomed, the decoration of the building and the dress and disposition of the congregation affirmed our early ideas. When the preacher began to speak though I was still surprised at the level of conservatism he was espousing. This was fire and brimstone of the kind Johnathon Edwards would deliver, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God revisited. And it was here that I understood the old Libertarian label that the Conservatives teach the doctrine of fear. That was what this preacher was ranting.
Fear!
The ideas that ran counter to his interpretation of the Word, was bad, no grey area, no compromise. This is what Professor Wiker is preaching, fear of any kind controversy or counter to his theological ideas. To his credit, he did oppose book burning in the opening pages and there may be creditable arguments later on, but I read all I need.
August 23, 2008
(Reprinted from the Chicago Center for Literature and Photography [cclapcenter.com]. I am the original author of this essay, as well as the owner of CCLaP; it is not being reprinted here illegally.)
This is one of four books that recently came in and out of my life without me finishing, which to tell you the truth almost made the snarky "Too Awful to Finish" list of essays at the CCLaP website; which is a real shame, because at first it seems like it's going to be a delightful little nonfiction romp, a series of essays by one of these pop-culture intellectuals concerning ten infamous books like Mein Kampf and Beyond Good and Evil, whose names have been cited over the centuries to justify all manner of evil. Ah, but then very quickly into it, the smart reader starts noticing a whole plethora of odd details about this manuscript: for example, that the main argument behind most of the essays seems to be that these books all go against the word of the Christian God, which is what made them "screw up the world;" that the entire second half of the book is a condemnation of such liberal touchstones as Darwin, Kinsey, and The Feminine Mystique; that the author currently teaches at a biblical theology center, and that all the people providing quotes for the dust jacket are prominent conservative Christians as well; that even the publishing company is a small press specializing in conservative Christian books. (And this is to say nothing, of course, of the embedded unattributed Christian Bible verses found scattered throughout this manuscript, their attributions deliberately removed so as to not cause attention to themselves.) Add it all together, and the resulting view is pretty clear; this is a book very plainly trying to secretly further a conservative Christian agenda, one that has the gall to directly compare Betty Friedan to Adolph Hitler, with every single usual stereotypical trait of "Christian publishing" deliberately stripped out in this case, obviously to try to "sneak" the book into mainstream popular culture as much as possible. (Hint: Look at the shape the front-cover image just happens to make, oh so subtly and without the book itself making any special mention of it.) It's deceitful, ethically shady, and I won't be a part of it; the whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth, frankly, and I wish now I had never come across this book to begin with. Regnery and Wiker, please save the sermons for Sunday morning, and leave the rest of us alone.
Out of 10: 0.0
This is one of four books that recently came in and out of my life without me finishing, which to tell you the truth almost made the snarky "Too Awful to Finish" list of essays at the CCLaP website; which is a real shame, because at first it seems like it's going to be a delightful little nonfiction romp, a series of essays by one of these pop-culture intellectuals concerning ten infamous books like Mein Kampf and Beyond Good and Evil, whose names have been cited over the centuries to justify all manner of evil. Ah, but then very quickly into it, the smart reader starts noticing a whole plethora of odd details about this manuscript: for example, that the main argument behind most of the essays seems to be that these books all go against the word of the Christian God, which is what made them "screw up the world;" that the entire second half of the book is a condemnation of such liberal touchstones as Darwin, Kinsey, and The Feminine Mystique; that the author currently teaches at a biblical theology center, and that all the people providing quotes for the dust jacket are prominent conservative Christians as well; that even the publishing company is a small press specializing in conservative Christian books. (And this is to say nothing, of course, of the embedded unattributed Christian Bible verses found scattered throughout this manuscript, their attributions deliberately removed so as to not cause attention to themselves.) Add it all together, and the resulting view is pretty clear; this is a book very plainly trying to secretly further a conservative Christian agenda, one that has the gall to directly compare Betty Friedan to Adolph Hitler, with every single usual stereotypical trait of "Christian publishing" deliberately stripped out in this case, obviously to try to "sneak" the book into mainstream popular culture as much as possible. (Hint: Look at the shape the front-cover image just happens to make, oh so subtly and without the book itself making any special mention of it.) It's deceitful, ethically shady, and I won't be a part of it; the whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth, frankly, and I wish now I had never come across this book to begin with. Regnery and Wiker, please save the sermons for Sunday morning, and leave the rest of us alone.
Out of 10: 0.0
January 3, 2022
10 Books That Screwed Up the World and 5 Others That Didn’t Help - Book Review
Ideas have consequences. That’s what this book is about. In fact, Benjamin Wiker’s introduction is titled “Ideas have Consequences”. More specifically; bad ideas have bad consequences like the 40 – 100 million people killed under the bad idea of communism (page 126). It is actually a mini-history of bad philosophy or more specifically ideology each building on the other from Machiavelli to Kinsey and Friedan.
Machiavelli – The Prince (1513)
Descartes – Discourse on Method (1637)
Hobbs – Leviathan (1651)
Rousseau – Discourse on Inequality (1755)
Marx – Communist Manifesto (1848)
Mill – Utilitarianism (1863)
Darwin – The Descent of Man (1871)
Nietzsche – Beyond Good and Evil (1886)
Lenin – The State and Revolution (1917)
Sanger – The Pivot of Civilization (1922)
Hitler – Mein Kampf (1925)
Freud – Future of an Illusion (1927)
Mead – Coming of Age in Samoa (1928)
Kinsey – Sexual Behavior in Human Male (1948)
Friedan – The Feminine Mystique (1963)
These ideas can be summarized under ideas about God, man, the state, and good & evil.
God: All 15 writers were atheists. One pretended there was a God for power (Machiavelli – The Prince). One created his own god (Descartes – Discourse on Method; ontological argument). All of them assumed there was no god and a few outwardly acknowledged their atheism (Marx – Communist Manifesto, Nietzsche – Beyond Good and Evil, Lenin – The State and Revolution, and Freud – Future of an Illusion). The high water mark (really the low water mark) is Nietzsche (1886) who became famous with the slogan “God is dead – we killed him”.
Man: All reject the biblical idea of man in God’s image; fallen yet redeemable. Some see man as purely mechanical (Descartes). Some see him as “natural” (Hobbes [everyman against every other – Leviathan] and Rousseau – Discourse on Inequality, Freud [id], Mead – Coming of Age in Samoa, and Kinsey – Sexual Behavior in Human Male [in some kind of sexual free for all until civilization or super- ego or Christian morals has to ruin it]). All basically see man as an animal (Darwin – The Descent of Man, Nietzsche, and Hitler – Mein Kampf, Freud, Mead, and Kinsey)
The state: The state is unnatural (Hobbs, Rousseau, Freud, and Mead). The state is a necessary evil (Hobbs, Marx, and Lenin). The state is a racial entity (Sanger, Hitler) The state is useful for your purposes (Machiavelli, Lenin, and Hitler)
Good and Evil: All reject biblical morality and none acknowledges sin. All would be comfortable with the idea that the end justifies the means. Mill – Utilitarianism represents the soft “liberal” side of this question and Nietzsche and Machiavelli the “realpolitik” side. Six concentrate on power – “might makes right” (Machiavelli, Hobbs, Marx, Nietzsche, Lenin, and Hitler) and four are really into the point that there are no sexual mores (Freud, Mead, Kinsey, and Friedan – The Feminine Mystique). Two were big on eugenics (Sanger, Hitler). There is an emphasis on equality as interchangeability and sameness that reaches its climax in Friedan. Justifying everything in the name of science is a recurring theme and selling your work by good prose and story telling is another.
I highly recommend this book.
Ideas have consequences. That’s what this book is about. In fact, Benjamin Wiker’s introduction is titled “Ideas have Consequences”. More specifically; bad ideas have bad consequences like the 40 – 100 million people killed under the bad idea of communism (page 126). It is actually a mini-history of bad philosophy or more specifically ideology each building on the other from Machiavelli to Kinsey and Friedan.
Machiavelli – The Prince (1513)
Descartes – Discourse on Method (1637)
Hobbs – Leviathan (1651)
Rousseau – Discourse on Inequality (1755)
Marx – Communist Manifesto (1848)
Mill – Utilitarianism (1863)
Darwin – The Descent of Man (1871)
Nietzsche – Beyond Good and Evil (1886)
Lenin – The State and Revolution (1917)
Sanger – The Pivot of Civilization (1922)
Hitler – Mein Kampf (1925)
Freud – Future of an Illusion (1927)
Mead – Coming of Age in Samoa (1928)
Kinsey – Sexual Behavior in Human Male (1948)
Friedan – The Feminine Mystique (1963)
These ideas can be summarized under ideas about God, man, the state, and good & evil.
God: All 15 writers were atheists. One pretended there was a God for power (Machiavelli – The Prince). One created his own god (Descartes – Discourse on Method; ontological argument). All of them assumed there was no god and a few outwardly acknowledged their atheism (Marx – Communist Manifesto, Nietzsche – Beyond Good and Evil, Lenin – The State and Revolution, and Freud – Future of an Illusion). The high water mark (really the low water mark) is Nietzsche (1886) who became famous with the slogan “God is dead – we killed him”.
Man: All reject the biblical idea of man in God’s image; fallen yet redeemable. Some see man as purely mechanical (Descartes). Some see him as “natural” (Hobbes [everyman against every other – Leviathan] and Rousseau – Discourse on Inequality, Freud [id], Mead – Coming of Age in Samoa, and Kinsey – Sexual Behavior in Human Male [in some kind of sexual free for all until civilization or super- ego or Christian morals has to ruin it]). All basically see man as an animal (Darwin – The Descent of Man, Nietzsche, and Hitler – Mein Kampf, Freud, Mead, and Kinsey)
The state: The state is unnatural (Hobbs, Rousseau, Freud, and Mead). The state is a necessary evil (Hobbs, Marx, and Lenin). The state is a racial entity (Sanger, Hitler) The state is useful for your purposes (Machiavelli, Lenin, and Hitler)
Good and Evil: All reject biblical morality and none acknowledges sin. All would be comfortable with the idea that the end justifies the means. Mill – Utilitarianism represents the soft “liberal” side of this question and Nietzsche and Machiavelli the “realpolitik” side. Six concentrate on power – “might makes right” (Machiavelli, Hobbs, Marx, Nietzsche, Lenin, and Hitler) and four are really into the point that there are no sexual mores (Freud, Mead, Kinsey, and Friedan – The Feminine Mystique). Two were big on eugenics (Sanger, Hitler). There is an emphasis on equality as interchangeability and sameness that reaches its climax in Friedan. Justifying everything in the name of science is a recurring theme and selling your work by good prose and story telling is another.
I highly recommend this book.
June 24, 2010
1.0 stars. Not at all what I was expecting when I bought the book. I was hoping for an interesting discussion regarding how certain classics of political and philosophical theory may have had a negative impact on our civilzation. Unfortunately, this book had no "substance" and was simply an attack on the authors of those classics because they were athiests. Bottom-line, this was just not a good book.
November 28, 2021
[Please Note: This review was written initially at a time in which Goodreads had a markedly shorter limit on the number of characters one could use; thus the review reflects this fact as I tried to use characters and glyphs as economically as possible. Also, I had so much more to say about this book than just Wiker's poor take on Descartes. At the time, I wanted to further comment on his deplorable sections on Darwin, Hobbes, Marx (Wiker just has no idea what Marx is talking about) and Nietzsche. Now, I simply don't have any desire to rummage through his garbage anymore.]
This book is a dogmatic polemic, full of personal attacks, sarcasm, & metaphor ridden “analysis.” Anyone who wants a clear, analytical critique had better go elsewhere. This book is terrible, contains no serious scholarship, & is an uncritical diatribe, strong on emotive language & cutesy analogies, but weak in substance & precise reasoning. Not only is the book full of ad hominem & circumstantial fallacies, but also substantive mistakes & interpretive caricatures. He doesn’t define the technical terms he uses, nor does he situate them historically. An instance of this is his remarks about skepticism, which he says is an “intellectual disease that arises among people who are both well fed & well read.” The book is full of this drivel. We get incomplete descriptions, more rhetorical than lexical. This book is intellectually irresponsible & reflects the extent to which many Christian authors perpetuate anti-intellectualism.
Here are a few problems with Wiker’s claims in his Discourse section. He sums up Descartes’ project “Descartes attacked skepticism, but only by denying reality. He proved God’s existence, but only by making it depend on our thinking Him into existence."
This is all wrong. Descartes didn’t attack skepticism directly, as if his entire project was the negative one of refuting skeptical arguments. His project was a positive one of finding a necessarily certain basis of knowledge. He did this via a method in which he would assent to what is true just in case its falsehood is inconceivable. The epistemic intuition here is that all judgments of knowledge should be free from relevant defeaters, & Descartes took possible falsehood as a relevant defeater. Consider Descartes’ method, which Wiker maligns more than explains. Wiker is wrong to say that the method is “doubt everything.” The mere act of doubting does not constitute a method anymore than the mere act of believing does. Descartes uses a specific kind of method for arriving at knowledge. This includes the act of doubting, but is not limited to it. For Descartes, knowledge admits of degrees corresponding to degrees of reality. The object of knowledge is substance, with God as ultimate object of knowledge, but the secondary substances of thought & extension can be known also. Descartes arrives at certainty that he is a thinking substance, that God exists, & that there is an external world of extended substance. Descartes’ method is an intellective approach for gaining indubitable knowledge. The key notion that Wiker misses is ’hyperbolic’. Descartes asks that we take our beliefs & subject them to a strict scrutiny of indubitability; he wants us to take all beliefs as possibly false until we can show them to be certain. His method is a skepticism that is exaggerated in that it is used as a theoretical tool, to be dissolved after he demonstrates that the method allows us to arrive at certain knowledge. Wiker interprets Descartes’ method as a practical one, for our daily use. That isn’t how Descartes intends the method to run. It’s a theoretical method, not a practical one. Wiker gets it wrong.
The method of doubt is the means by which one arrives at the indubitability of the claim: I am thinking, therefore I am. After doubting his beliefs, Descartes still knows that if he thinks, there must be something existing that is doing the thinking. He realizes that even if his sense perceptions deceive him, even if he can’t tell his dreaming experiences from his wakeful ones, & even if an evil demon were deceiving him about the veracity of his mental operations, he is still thinking. The method of doubt has thus yielded a certain truth.
But Wiker thinks it “ridiculous to single out thinking as the act by which I know I am existing.” He thinks that Descartes’ cogito formula is: “While I am doing X, I can’t doubt my existence b/c I have to exist to do X.” He concludes that Descartes’ cogito “is not essentially tied to thinking.” Wiker’s position is that Descartes could have been just as certain about his existence if he had claimed: I smell, therefore I am. This misses the point. The point of the cogito is not to establish that one exists, but to establish an indubitable proposition from which to build a foundation of knowledge. Of course I must exist if I smell something, b/c non-existent objects do not smell things. That is not Descartes’ claim, contrary to Wiker’s analysis. Descartes arrived at a claim that admits of no relevant defeators-the claim cannot possibly be false. This is not the case with claims about physical actions such as smelling. That was the point of Descartes’ skeptical arguments. My sense perceptions might be wrong. I could have the sensation of smelling a rose, but unknowingly I may be smelling a rose scented candle. Worse, I may think I’m having the sensation of smelling a rose, but I could be dreaming it. Still worse, all of my experiences could be fabrications generated by a deceiving demon. In the first case the reliability of my perceptions are in doubt, but at least I seem to know that I’m having experiences of the world. In the second case, the possibility of experiencing the external world is in doubt, since if I can’t know if I’m dreaming or not, then I can’t trust that I’m having any actual experience. At least if that were the case, Descartes thinks, I still have knowledge of conceptual notions-whether I’m dreaming or not, all triangles have 3 sides. Even this can be brought into doubt by the evil demon, if he were tricking me into thinking all triangles have 3 sides. Suppose that all my mental operations were manipulated by the evil demon each time I perform mathematical operations so that, while in fact 2+2 does not equal 4, I still believe it does. It seems that the truth of any proposition can fall under one of these 3 skeptical hypotheses. Yet, Descartes realizes that there is one proposition whose truth is indubitable-I am thinking, therefore I am. Wiker is wrong.
In Descartes’ ontology, putatively real things such as color, sound, taste, odor do not exist in things. They are qualities of a thing relative to a perceiver’s sensations. Thus qualities are not modes of substances b/c qualities are not in substances. For Descartes, only substance exists. God is infinite substance, & thinking substance & extended substance are finite substances. We come to know substance by means of the attributes of that substance. We also come to know a substance by means of its modes. For instance, body is known to us by means of the attribute of extension; but we can understand this extended body has having varying shapes, lengths, widths, depths. Such variances of body are modes of body. This holds similarly for the substance of mind. Mind is known to us by means of the attribute of thought; but we can understand this thinking mind as having various thoughts over time. Each particular thought is a mode of thought itself.
Descartes’ ontology is intertwined with his epistemology. Only what is real can be known, what can be known is substance. A key to Descartes’ epistemology is the notion of clear & distinct perception. Whatever is clearly & distinctly perceived is real, since what is real is substance, we have clear & distinct perceptions of substance. This eliminates sense perceptions from being clear perceptions, since ideas generated from the senses are obscure. They are obscure b/c they never are solely accessible to the mind intellectively; rather they are always combined with other ideas, which results in a conflation of ideas of both mind & body. A distinct perception is a species of clear perception whose difference is that it is separate from any & all other ideas. Any idea that is part of another idea or shared with another idea is not a distinct perception. An idea of this sort is a confused idea. A distinct perception, thus, contains within itself only what is clear. Since what is real corresponds to what can be perceived clearly & distinctly, & conversely what can be perceived clearly & distinctly corresponds to what is real, any relation that holds ontologically will have epistemic consequences. It is Descartes’ theory of distinctions that expresses these epistemic consequences & ontological relations. Descartes could not have said, “I smell, therefore I am” for these reasons. 1) odors are mere qualities relative to an agent’s sensations. Qualities are not in objects; hence, they are not ultimately real. If something is not real, it cannot be the basis for knowledge. 2) We can only have knowledge of what is real, which is substance. Smelling gets us only to qualities, not to substance; it doesn’t even get us to modes of a substance. 3) We can only know substance by means of clear & distinct perceptions. Odors are confused ideas & cannot be objects of knowledge. All these reasons spell out why Wiker’s interpretation of the cogito is wrong. Contrary to Wiker’s claim, it was not ridiculous for Descartes to single out thinking.
Finally: Descartes never believed that his thoughts created reality. Descartes said the opposite: that thought can't “impose any necessity on things, but the necessity which lies in the thing itself determines me to think in this way.” Descartes’ proof for God’s existence purports to demonstrate that God’s existence is necessary. It follows from Descartes’ claim that God determines him to think, since what is necessary determines his thought & God is that necessity. This is contra Wiker’s claim that the proof for God’s existence makes God’s existence depend on our thought of Him. Descartes holds to the opposite view: our idea of God depends on the necessity of God’s existence, not the contingency of our own thought.
This book is a dogmatic polemic, full of personal attacks, sarcasm, & metaphor ridden “analysis.” Anyone who wants a clear, analytical critique had better go elsewhere. This book is terrible, contains no serious scholarship, & is an uncritical diatribe, strong on emotive language & cutesy analogies, but weak in substance & precise reasoning. Not only is the book full of ad hominem & circumstantial fallacies, but also substantive mistakes & interpretive caricatures. He doesn’t define the technical terms he uses, nor does he situate them historically. An instance of this is his remarks about skepticism, which he says is an “intellectual disease that arises among people who are both well fed & well read.” The book is full of this drivel. We get incomplete descriptions, more rhetorical than lexical. This book is intellectually irresponsible & reflects the extent to which many Christian authors perpetuate anti-intellectualism.
Here are a few problems with Wiker’s claims in his Discourse section. He sums up Descartes’ project “Descartes attacked skepticism, but only by denying reality. He proved God’s existence, but only by making it depend on our thinking Him into existence."
This is all wrong. Descartes didn’t attack skepticism directly, as if his entire project was the negative one of refuting skeptical arguments. His project was a positive one of finding a necessarily certain basis of knowledge. He did this via a method in which he would assent to what is true just in case its falsehood is inconceivable. The epistemic intuition here is that all judgments of knowledge should be free from relevant defeaters, & Descartes took possible falsehood as a relevant defeater. Consider Descartes’ method, which Wiker maligns more than explains. Wiker is wrong to say that the method is “doubt everything.” The mere act of doubting does not constitute a method anymore than the mere act of believing does. Descartes uses a specific kind of method for arriving at knowledge. This includes the act of doubting, but is not limited to it. For Descartes, knowledge admits of degrees corresponding to degrees of reality. The object of knowledge is substance, with God as ultimate object of knowledge, but the secondary substances of thought & extension can be known also. Descartes arrives at certainty that he is a thinking substance, that God exists, & that there is an external world of extended substance. Descartes’ method is an intellective approach for gaining indubitable knowledge. The key notion that Wiker misses is ’hyperbolic’. Descartes asks that we take our beliefs & subject them to a strict scrutiny of indubitability; he wants us to take all beliefs as possibly false until we can show them to be certain. His method is a skepticism that is exaggerated in that it is used as a theoretical tool, to be dissolved after he demonstrates that the method allows us to arrive at certain knowledge. Wiker interprets Descartes’ method as a practical one, for our daily use. That isn’t how Descartes intends the method to run. It’s a theoretical method, not a practical one. Wiker gets it wrong.
The method of doubt is the means by which one arrives at the indubitability of the claim: I am thinking, therefore I am. After doubting his beliefs, Descartes still knows that if he thinks, there must be something existing that is doing the thinking. He realizes that even if his sense perceptions deceive him, even if he can’t tell his dreaming experiences from his wakeful ones, & even if an evil demon were deceiving him about the veracity of his mental operations, he is still thinking. The method of doubt has thus yielded a certain truth.
But Wiker thinks it “ridiculous to single out thinking as the act by which I know I am existing.” He thinks that Descartes’ cogito formula is: “While I am doing X, I can’t doubt my existence b/c I have to exist to do X.” He concludes that Descartes’ cogito “is not essentially tied to thinking.” Wiker’s position is that Descartes could have been just as certain about his existence if he had claimed: I smell, therefore I am. This misses the point. The point of the cogito is not to establish that one exists, but to establish an indubitable proposition from which to build a foundation of knowledge. Of course I must exist if I smell something, b/c non-existent objects do not smell things. That is not Descartes’ claim, contrary to Wiker’s analysis. Descartes arrived at a claim that admits of no relevant defeators-the claim cannot possibly be false. This is not the case with claims about physical actions such as smelling. That was the point of Descartes’ skeptical arguments. My sense perceptions might be wrong. I could have the sensation of smelling a rose, but unknowingly I may be smelling a rose scented candle. Worse, I may think I’m having the sensation of smelling a rose, but I could be dreaming it. Still worse, all of my experiences could be fabrications generated by a deceiving demon. In the first case the reliability of my perceptions are in doubt, but at least I seem to know that I’m having experiences of the world. In the second case, the possibility of experiencing the external world is in doubt, since if I can’t know if I’m dreaming or not, then I can’t trust that I’m having any actual experience. At least if that were the case, Descartes thinks, I still have knowledge of conceptual notions-whether I’m dreaming or not, all triangles have 3 sides. Even this can be brought into doubt by the evil demon, if he were tricking me into thinking all triangles have 3 sides. Suppose that all my mental operations were manipulated by the evil demon each time I perform mathematical operations so that, while in fact 2+2 does not equal 4, I still believe it does. It seems that the truth of any proposition can fall under one of these 3 skeptical hypotheses. Yet, Descartes realizes that there is one proposition whose truth is indubitable-I am thinking, therefore I am. Wiker is wrong.
In Descartes’ ontology, putatively real things such as color, sound, taste, odor do not exist in things. They are qualities of a thing relative to a perceiver’s sensations. Thus qualities are not modes of substances b/c qualities are not in substances. For Descartes, only substance exists. God is infinite substance, & thinking substance & extended substance are finite substances. We come to know substance by means of the attributes of that substance. We also come to know a substance by means of its modes. For instance, body is known to us by means of the attribute of extension; but we can understand this extended body has having varying shapes, lengths, widths, depths. Such variances of body are modes of body. This holds similarly for the substance of mind. Mind is known to us by means of the attribute of thought; but we can understand this thinking mind as having various thoughts over time. Each particular thought is a mode of thought itself.
Descartes’ ontology is intertwined with his epistemology. Only what is real can be known, what can be known is substance. A key to Descartes’ epistemology is the notion of clear & distinct perception. Whatever is clearly & distinctly perceived is real, since what is real is substance, we have clear & distinct perceptions of substance. This eliminates sense perceptions from being clear perceptions, since ideas generated from the senses are obscure. They are obscure b/c they never are solely accessible to the mind intellectively; rather they are always combined with other ideas, which results in a conflation of ideas of both mind & body. A distinct perception is a species of clear perception whose difference is that it is separate from any & all other ideas. Any idea that is part of another idea or shared with another idea is not a distinct perception. An idea of this sort is a confused idea. A distinct perception, thus, contains within itself only what is clear. Since what is real corresponds to what can be perceived clearly & distinctly, & conversely what can be perceived clearly & distinctly corresponds to what is real, any relation that holds ontologically will have epistemic consequences. It is Descartes’ theory of distinctions that expresses these epistemic consequences & ontological relations. Descartes could not have said, “I smell, therefore I am” for these reasons. 1) odors are mere qualities relative to an agent’s sensations. Qualities are not in objects; hence, they are not ultimately real. If something is not real, it cannot be the basis for knowledge. 2) We can only have knowledge of what is real, which is substance. Smelling gets us only to qualities, not to substance; it doesn’t even get us to modes of a substance. 3) We can only know substance by means of clear & distinct perceptions. Odors are confused ideas & cannot be objects of knowledge. All these reasons spell out why Wiker’s interpretation of the cogito is wrong. Contrary to Wiker’s claim, it was not ridiculous for Descartes to single out thinking.
Finally: Descartes never believed that his thoughts created reality. Descartes said the opposite: that thought can't “impose any necessity on things, but the necessity which lies in the thing itself determines me to think in this way.” Descartes’ proof for God’s existence purports to demonstrate that God’s existence is necessary. It follows from Descartes’ claim that God determines him to think, since what is necessary determines his thought & God is that necessity. This is contra Wiker’s claim that the proof for God’s existence makes God’s existence depend on our thought of Him. Descartes holds to the opposite view: our idea of God depends on the necessity of God’s existence, not the contingency of our own thought.
June 21, 2011
While I liked this book, I did not like or agree with some of the author's views. As a Christian, I believe this author is the exact kind of person who gives Christians a bad name. His judgemental views on being gay, working women, and abortion all kind of grated on my nerves. Several times I was going to give up on this book, but I kept coming back to it. Maybe I like to find things to argue about, I don't know.
This all being said, I did learn a great deal about books and authors I'd never read, political issues I'd only read a little about in high school, and learned a different perspective from another person. Reading the book was a learning experience and I don't feel I wasted my time. I just strengthened some of my existing opinions and gained some new ones. I would recommend it IF you feel you will not be offended, but please don't let this book make you think all Christians think this way.
This all being said, I did learn a great deal about books and authors I'd never read, political issues I'd only read a little about in high school, and learned a different perspective from another person. Reading the book was a learning experience and I don't feel I wasted my time. I just strengthened some of my existing opinions and gained some new ones. I would recommend it IF you feel you will not be offended, but please don't let this book make you think all Christians think this way.
December 22, 2008
I don't have the energy to describe the weakness and shallowness of this apparently educated person's arguments. Perhaps later. Sorry, readers. Don't take my word for it. And don't take his - read these books for yourself, so you'll know what you're talking about if you want to express your disapproval of them.
December 18, 2020
Full of circumstantial fallacies....
July 25, 2008
This book looks at books such as Coming of Age in Samoa and The Kinsey report and shows us how we ended up living the way we do in the 21st century. Very interesting look at philosophy/pseudo-science. Also good if you are interested in history. Once these major works are viewed in chronological order, it is easy to see the impact they've had on the world.
March 21, 2020
This is one of the most idiotic books I've ever read. And I have read plenty of bad literature. 10 Books that screwed up the world is a mans attempt to give atheism the finger in as many ways he think is possible.
Benjamin Wiker makes the wicked assumption that faith (believing in God)is the same thing as morality.
I do not see why an atheist would not know the meaning of right or wrong. According to Mr Wiker the atheist only knows what feels good or feels "ouch". Where the empathy and normal commonsense comes in to play, he doesn't say.
He also claims that the atheist doesn't outright say what he/she really wants. Like; "I have the right to have control over my body" really means "I want to have an abortion". Or the other example is "I have the right to privacy" but you actually wants to be a pervert and left alone. This is for me so stupid I have trouble finding the right words to explain how stupid. I want a woman to have the right to have an abortion if she wants to, it doesn't mean I am longing to have one. Or that my need for privacy means I want to cage up small children in my basement and use them as sexual playthings.
Mr Wiker completely ignores the evils that have been done in the name of religion. Mr Wiker also used the Evolution as the reason for Hitler, abortion and communism. If it hadn't been for Darwin, the feeble minded would never had been looked upon as a burden and it wouldn't have been "bad" to be different. Because Morality (aka Religion) is filled with love and need to take care of each other.
Not so sure the "witches" that was burnt on stakes, in the name of God, would agree on this statement. Or the poor people who happened to meet the crusaders. Or homosexuals that are being "converted to be straight".
But Darwin isn't the only bad Atheist that has written a book. (Then it would have been called "1 book that screwed up the world...") Talking about Nietzsche, Benjamin Wiker writes:
I thought, when I started listening to this book, that I would get more facts. Here is just a man blinded by his twisted beliefs. And I am chocked that Mr Wiker hasn't included The Bibel as one of the 10 books.
I wont recommend this book to anyone. Maybe if you have rage issues and need something to focus your anger on. This is way to narrow minded for me, I think I'll need to re read Richard Dawkins book: The God Delusion to clear my mind.
Benjamin Wiker makes the wicked assumption that faith (believing in God)is the same thing as morality.
"They want all the benefits of God not looking over their shoulders exacting moral demands but they also want an universe with moral structure."
I do not see why an atheist would not know the meaning of right or wrong. According to Mr Wiker the atheist only knows what feels good or feels "ouch". Where the empathy and normal commonsense comes in to play, he doesn't say.
He also claims that the atheist doesn't outright say what he/she really wants. Like; "I have the right to have control over my body" really means "I want to have an abortion". Or the other example is "I have the right to privacy" but you actually wants to be a pervert and left alone. This is for me so stupid I have trouble finding the right words to explain how stupid. I want a woman to have the right to have an abortion if she wants to, it doesn't mean I am longing to have one. Or that my need for privacy means I want to cage up small children in my basement and use them as sexual playthings.
Mr Wiker completely ignores the evils that have been done in the name of religion. Mr Wiker also used the Evolution as the reason for Hitler, abortion and communism. If it hadn't been for Darwin, the feeble minded would never had been looked upon as a burden and it wouldn't have been "bad" to be different. Because Morality (aka Religion) is filled with love and need to take care of each other.
Not so sure the "witches" that was burnt on stakes, in the name of God, would agree on this statement. Or the poor people who happened to meet the crusaders. Or homosexuals that are being "converted to be straight".
But Darwin isn't the only bad Atheist that has written a book. (Then it would have been called "1 book that screwed up the world...") Talking about Nietzsche, Benjamin Wiker writes:
"Unlike most atheists Nietzsche was brutally honest about what atheism really meant and that honesty ultimately cost him his sanity...//... No up or down. No good or evil. Just sheer human will swimming in an indifferent, if not, hostile cosmos."
I thought, when I started listening to this book, that I would get more facts. Here is just a man blinded by his twisted beliefs. And I am chocked that Mr Wiker hasn't included The Bibel as one of the 10 books.
I wont recommend this book to anyone. Maybe if you have rage issues and need something to focus your anger on. This is way to narrow minded for me, I think I'll need to re read Richard Dawkins book: The God Delusion to clear my mind.
August 31, 2017
I was greatly turned off when he mentioned Lenin's atheism as if it was the cause of his really bad decisions. Descartes was 'hiding atheism under the guise of religious belief.' This was the most damaging characteristic of his book.
I realize now that this author is an incredibly biased Christian and it might have been better to title the book 10 books that should offend Christians or some such nonsense.
This had the potential for such an interesting discussion. He could have posited how the world might be different had the individual works not been recognized in their time. Even with ideas that I agree have been harmful to the world, I'm incredibly disappointed with his superficial discussion.
When I picked up the book, I was excited to hear details on the historical impact of the books in question.
He glosses over that bit using broad conclusions without bothering to consider the details in history. For example, the Prince was on Lenin's bedside table. That could mean he was reading it for the first time when he died or something. I was imagining the author pointing out lines from speeches, writings, policies, propaganda, or specific actions taken...something that would clearly show the books' damaging influences. It would be good to show how a society's public opinion was drastically swayed after publishing the books. Nothing! It really started to feel like just anti-atheist propaganda.
I was even excited to see if he provided sufficient discussion to change one of my ideas. I postulated that some of these books were written on the wave of a social movement. Even if the particular author hadn't written the book at that time, another might have postulated the same ideas in his own way. Could we have escaped the genocide of WW2 if Hitler's book wasn't written? Sadly, I think one could argue that the murderous ideas were in general belief already and would have been distributed another way. But I was willing to change my idea if he's presented coherent arguments to the contrary.
I did find out later that the author's PhD is in theological ethics which has little to do with topic. Now if he had tried to document the Bible's positive or negative impact on the world, he might have had some credentials.
This book is a sad attempt to sell sensationalist material. I'm sad that a quality book on the topic would have to share shelf space with this garbage.
I realize now that this author is an incredibly biased Christian and it might have been better to title the book 10 books that should offend Christians or some such nonsense.
This had the potential for such an interesting discussion. He could have posited how the world might be different had the individual works not been recognized in their time. Even with ideas that I agree have been harmful to the world, I'm incredibly disappointed with his superficial discussion.
When I picked up the book, I was excited to hear details on the historical impact of the books in question.
He glosses over that bit using broad conclusions without bothering to consider the details in history. For example, the Prince was on Lenin's bedside table. That could mean he was reading it for the first time when he died or something. I was imagining the author pointing out lines from speeches, writings, policies, propaganda, or specific actions taken...something that would clearly show the books' damaging influences. It would be good to show how a society's public opinion was drastically swayed after publishing the books. Nothing! It really started to feel like just anti-atheist propaganda.
I was even excited to see if he provided sufficient discussion to change one of my ideas. I postulated that some of these books were written on the wave of a social movement. Even if the particular author hadn't written the book at that time, another might have postulated the same ideas in his own way. Could we have escaped the genocide of WW2 if Hitler's book wasn't written? Sadly, I think one could argue that the murderous ideas were in general belief already and would have been distributed another way. But I was willing to change my idea if he's presented coherent arguments to the contrary.
I did find out later that the author's PhD is in theological ethics which has little to do with topic. Now if he had tried to document the Bible's positive or negative impact on the world, he might have had some credentials.
This book is a sad attempt to sell sensationalist material. I'm sad that a quality book on the topic would have to share shelf space with this garbage.
September 28, 2024
DNF.
Wow. I haven’t had a DNF in a while.
Honestly, I should not be rating this. I usually do not rate books I don’t finish unless I’ve gotten a certain ways into them. I’m breaking my own rule.
Maybe 20 pages? 50 pages? I don’t remember where I stopped. I read some of the other reviews and it seems there are a lot of people who didn’t finish this one. I don’t have quite the same gripes that a lot of others do.
That’s because of the simple fact that I didn’t read enough to have those gripes , not that those grapes are not real.
The number one reason why I didn’t finish is because I thought this was a little bit something different. I thought it was gonna be kind of tongue and cheek which it kind of was but I thought it was gonna be more about the classics and why certain classics like — I don’t know — maybe 1984 didn’t appeal to the writer, something I would’ve liked to read.
Instead, it’s all about books that the author genuinely seems to dislike or hate. And he really seems to think they destroy the world or try to.
I haven’t read a lot of the books he mentioned, which was another issue for me and I really don’t have any desire to read about the themes of wickedness of any one book. It’s a little too philosophical for me m, dark philosophical, and what I mean by that is philosophical not in a good way.
The writing style also annoyed me because I am recovering from a Covid like virus and it was so wordy and long-winded. There were too many words getting into my head and I just couldn’t go on.
I mean he gets into it right away and I just — it wasn’t for me.
I thought it was gonna be a slow thoughtful read about various classics. This was kind of a case of Me mistaking a book for what it was with perhaps what I wish it to be.
That’s before I even got into the feminist aspect of it which I learned about from other reviews.
Honestly, I do consider myself a feminist, so I probably would’ve rated it a one, if I gotten deep into the nitty-gritty, and seeing some of the things that some of the reviews claim he writes about these feminist books
Altogether, this was a mistake for me. My apologies book world!
Wow. I haven’t had a DNF in a while.
Honestly, I should not be rating this. I usually do not rate books I don’t finish unless I’ve gotten a certain ways into them. I’m breaking my own rule.
Maybe 20 pages? 50 pages? I don’t remember where I stopped. I read some of the other reviews and it seems there are a lot of people who didn’t finish this one. I don’t have quite the same gripes that a lot of others do.
That’s because of the simple fact that I didn’t read enough to have those gripes , not that those grapes are not real.
The number one reason why I didn’t finish is because I thought this was a little bit something different. I thought it was gonna be kind of tongue and cheek which it kind of was but I thought it was gonna be more about the classics and why certain classics like — I don’t know — maybe 1984 didn’t appeal to the writer, something I would’ve liked to read.
Instead, it’s all about books that the author genuinely seems to dislike or hate. And he really seems to think they destroy the world or try to.
I haven’t read a lot of the books he mentioned, which was another issue for me and I really don’t have any desire to read about the themes of wickedness of any one book. It’s a little too philosophical for me m, dark philosophical, and what I mean by that is philosophical not in a good way.
The writing style also annoyed me because I am recovering from a Covid like virus and it was so wordy and long-winded. There were too many words getting into my head and I just couldn’t go on.
I mean he gets into it right away and I just — it wasn’t for me.
I thought it was gonna be a slow thoughtful read about various classics. This was kind of a case of Me mistaking a book for what it was with perhaps what I wish it to be.
That’s before I even got into the feminist aspect of it which I learned about from other reviews.
Honestly, I do consider myself a feminist, so I probably would’ve rated it a one, if I gotten deep into the nitty-gritty, and seeing some of the things that some of the reviews claim he writes about these feminist books
Altogether, this was a mistake for me. My apologies book world!
May 9, 2013
As soon as I saw the other reviews that accused the book of religious fundamentalism, then I knew this book must be good. I was right! Once I started it, I didn't want to stop until I completed all of it.
Whether you don't like the "religious" connections in this book or not, you can't argue with the brutally honest evaluation of these terrible tomes. The author points out that each book's "religious system" is based on a faith in atheism. I think someone asked, "What's God got to do with it?" This book answers, "Everything! Witness these results." These are the types of books -- and their results -- that you can expect when God's existence is denied and something else is put in His place.
I found the author's reviews excellent and thorough, and his logic was sound. I was already acquainted with a few of these books, but the others were new. Glad I missed them. I also thought the narrator was well-chosen.
I'll definitely be listening to this one again.
Whether you don't like the "religious" connections in this book or not, you can't argue with the brutally honest evaluation of these terrible tomes. The author points out that each book's "religious system" is based on a faith in atheism. I think someone asked, "What's God got to do with it?" This book answers, "Everything! Witness these results." These are the types of books -- and their results -- that you can expect when God's existence is denied and something else is put in His place.
I found the author's reviews excellent and thorough, and his logic was sound. I was already acquainted with a few of these books, but the others were new. Glad I missed them. I also thought the narrator was well-chosen.
I'll definitely be listening to this one again.
May 9, 2015
Of course Progressives and even Liberals think this book is a pack of lies. But it's not. This book does a very good job of shedding light on the devilish plans the Progressives in politics have for this country. These books, the 10 especially, have done more damage than all the politicians and lawyers since the turn of the 20th century.
March 20, 2020
I didn't technically finish this book. I read about 2/3 of it before I decided enough was enough.
First off: if you are Christian, you are more likely to agree. If you aren't, you are more likely to think he is an idiot.
Second: I'd like to address a critique put in one reader's review. He seemed shocked when he realized that the author's viewpoint was Christian, and then revealed that the author is a minister, the reviewers are Christian conservatives, and the publisher is a Christian bookseller. He presented this information as if he'd had to dig it up. Not so. Any pre-reading (look at the back, or the inside flap about the author) will tell you that much information before you even begin reading.
Third: I probably would agree with this guy over all, but I could only take so much of his writing style before I'd had enough. The one thing he said that I can agree with wholeheartedly is that -while these books maybe/are damaging to man's relationship to God and society- the best way to defend against them is not to destroy them, but to be familiar with their arguments, so that you will recognize them when you hear them, and will be able to refute them.
First off: if you are Christian, you are more likely to agree. If you aren't, you are more likely to think he is an idiot.
Second: I'd like to address a critique put in one reader's review. He seemed shocked when he realized that the author's viewpoint was Christian, and then revealed that the author is a minister, the reviewers are Christian conservatives, and the publisher is a Christian bookseller. He presented this information as if he'd had to dig it up. Not so. Any pre-reading (look at the back, or the inside flap about the author) will tell you that much information before you even begin reading.
Third: I probably would agree with this guy over all, but I could only take so much of his writing style before I'd had enough. The one thing he said that I can agree with wholeheartedly is that -while these books maybe/are damaging to man's relationship to God and society- the best way to defend against them is not to destroy them, but to be familiar with their arguments, so that you will recognize them when you hear them, and will be able to refute them.
August 22, 2014
This book is not for everyone, but it is for me. Wiker writes from a distinctly Christian worldview about the evolution of ideas that have produced the society we live in today. It is his conviction that though these books are evil, they should not be burned but should rather be read, understood, and critiqued. But he makes no apologies for seeing that atheism is at the core of almost all of these ideas and that, in fact, a rejection of the idea of God or blatant hostility toward God's authority is one of the motivations behind most of these author's theories.
I was stunned by the first few chapters of the book because I could easily recognize the effects of those ideas on our culture today and it took me aback to realize that at one point, these were just thought experiments but they've now become ideas nearly taken for granted we are so immersed in them.
I was stunned by the later chapters of the book for two reasons: 1) By that point, I could see clearly how the ideas of previous thinkers like Rousseau, Hobbes, Descartes, and Darwin logically culminated in the ideas of Hitler. While we all easily condemn Hitler, I hadn't realized how much he was a product of the thinkers that had gone before them (and how much the ideas that influenced him still influence thinkers today!) and 2) I was stunned by the self-justification that inspired some of the more recent thinkers to write their works. There is much to doubt about the "scientific" methods of these researchers and thinkers.
I have a great deal to say about this book. Even though I am finished reading it, I intend to keep it handy so I can continue to ponder some of the more interesting bits and continue to digest the whole progression of thought.
Near the end of the book, Wiker presents a thesis that sums up the whole book: "The desire that something be true, rather than the desire for truth itself, may well be the root of all evil. It is certainly the origin of all ideology, and ideology was the source of much of the evil in the past century" (191).
I found this book brilliant, fascinating, and enlightening at every turn and I recommend it highly... to the right audience. That is, I can see that this book does not win over those who don't already see the world from a Christian worldview. But if you do, I recommend it as highly as I can. It will encourage you greatly. If you don't, well, don't say I didn't warn you!
As a side note, one of the most fascinating themes (in my opinion) is Wiker's observation that many of these thinkers tried to erase the Garden of Eden's story of origin and replace it with their own Edenic origin myths. For example, for Rousseau primitive man was a "carefree, make-love-not-war ancestral archetype" whereas for Hobbes primitive men were at war with one another and entered into society only on the basis of a "you don't do X to me and I won't do X to you" arrangment (and, of course, other thinkers have their own theories.) In any case, it seems that these thinkers believed there was something missing from our current societal arrangement and that we must either return to this primitive state or evolve to a future higher state would be the best way to restore whatever was missing in present day society. Many of these thinkers aimed for a utopian future or an idyllic past, and pointed to the problems of their present day as a sign that we must move in one direction or the other. In any case, there was a pattern of thinkers reimagining the origins of human society in order to explain the problems in our present day society, and I found this fascinating. These thinkers seemed to believe that it matters where we came from. On that point, I couldn't agree more.
I was stunned by the first few chapters of the book because I could easily recognize the effects of those ideas on our culture today and it took me aback to realize that at one point, these were just thought experiments but they've now become ideas nearly taken for granted we are so immersed in them.
I was stunned by the later chapters of the book for two reasons: 1) By that point, I could see clearly how the ideas of previous thinkers like Rousseau, Hobbes, Descartes, and Darwin logically culminated in the ideas of Hitler. While we all easily condemn Hitler, I hadn't realized how much he was a product of the thinkers that had gone before them (and how much the ideas that influenced him still influence thinkers today!) and 2) I was stunned by the self-justification that inspired some of the more recent thinkers to write their works. There is much to doubt about the "scientific" methods of these researchers and thinkers.
I have a great deal to say about this book. Even though I am finished reading it, I intend to keep it handy so I can continue to ponder some of the more interesting bits and continue to digest the whole progression of thought.
Near the end of the book, Wiker presents a thesis that sums up the whole book: "The desire that something be true, rather than the desire for truth itself, may well be the root of all evil. It is certainly the origin of all ideology, and ideology was the source of much of the evil in the past century" (191).
I found this book brilliant, fascinating, and enlightening at every turn and I recommend it highly... to the right audience. That is, I can see that this book does not win over those who don't already see the world from a Christian worldview. But if you do, I recommend it as highly as I can. It will encourage you greatly. If you don't, well, don't say I didn't warn you!
As a side note, one of the most fascinating themes (in my opinion) is Wiker's observation that many of these thinkers tried to erase the Garden of Eden's story of origin and replace it with their own Edenic origin myths. For example, for Rousseau primitive man was a "carefree, make-love-not-war ancestral archetype" whereas for Hobbes primitive men were at war with one another and entered into society only on the basis of a "you don't do X to me and I won't do X to you" arrangment (and, of course, other thinkers have their own theories.) In any case, it seems that these thinkers believed there was something missing from our current societal arrangement and that we must either return to this primitive state or evolve to a future higher state would be the best way to restore whatever was missing in present day society. Many of these thinkers aimed for a utopian future or an idyllic past, and pointed to the problems of their present day as a sign that we must move in one direction or the other. In any case, there was a pattern of thinkers reimagining the origins of human society in order to explain the problems in our present day society, and I found this fascinating. These thinkers seemed to believe that it matters where we came from. On that point, I couldn't agree more.
July 4, 2017
Insightful examination of influential texts which have affected the philosophies that lie beneath our daily lives, and our history. Wiker offers simple introductions for each book, assuming that we haven't read them before, but he also respects his reader enough to assume we want to grasp complicated ideas. It's written from a Christian perspective and he definitely faults atheism for some of these dangerous ideas, so that's probably what's angered some other readers. But I admire how Wiker takes atheism to its nasty ends. Personally this is just up my alley; I loved this book and intend to seek out more of Wiker's writings in the future.
See my review of 10 Books Every Conservative Must Read: Plus Four Not to Miss and One Impostor.
See my review of 10 Books Every Conservative Must Read: Plus Four Not to Miss and One Impostor.
July 1, 2010
Did you know Stalin had a copy of Machiavelli's The Prince on his nightstand? The Prince was the inspiration for a long list of tyrannies - OR that Hitler's Mein Kampf was a kind of "spiritualized Darwinism" that accounts for his genocidal anti-Semitism. This as well as 13 others books are covered in detail. This is a GREAT book...you will enjoy it if you read it (I promise).
July 27, 2011
The 10 Books that Screwed Up the World by Dr. Benjamin Wiker is an intriguing read for those brave souls with a penchant for philosophy or the history of western civilization. From these ten infamous books Dr. Wiker aptly demonstrates how godless atheistic philosophies and thought have been malevolently used by those in power to promulgate massive human suffering in the 20th century. Starting with Machiavelli's The Prince whose insidious influence permeates all the other works particularly the amoral philosophies of Hobbs, Descartes, Rousseau and Nietzsche but even more potently in the political writings of Marx, Lenin, and Hitler. Wiker drives home his thesis with the over reaching pseudo science of Darwin, Freud and Sanger and then clinches his case with the social science frauds of Margret Mead, Alfred Kinsey, and Betty Friedan. Dr. Wiker argues that each of these malignant books screwed up the world because they essentially denied the reality of human sin that is inherent to the human condition. Each of these sophists replaced the Biblical myth of Eden with either their own primitive Eden myth from which we are striving to return or some future humanistic utopia toward which we are progressing often by any means necessary. Wiker estimates that in total these amoral philosophies as expounded in these infernal books have led to the demise of hundreds of millions of innocent souls. Very bad books indeed! However, Wiker believes that these books should not be banned but instead should be exposed to the critical light of reason to show them for what they truly are: evil in both word and deed.
February 24, 2010
A devastating look at the books we all encounter in college; the books that changed the world. They are read (sort of), discussed, held up, and revered. Wiker critically analyzes each book (The Prince, Leviathan, Communist Manifesto, etc), and cuts through the dangerous cultural relevant-ism of the present. Using the dictum - ideas have consequences - Wilker addresses the arguments of the authors, often designed not so much to build up, but to tear down, and cut free their vision of society free from any foundation, to drift to the next new idea.
Wiker's delivery is devastating and direct. He comes across curmudgeonly, as one tired of the polite applause for these authors. He proceeds to shred the main and secondary arguments of the authors and explores the damage of these argument to society. It is refreshing to hear such an analysis.
I think the author's critical critique is something to which all students of western thought (in college or lifelong) should be exposed. It sharpens our own thinking, teaching us to ask better questions, and helps develop a healthy skepticism for these works held up for reverence. I still want to go back and re-read both The Prince and Leviathan, but now I will do so with a sharper appreciation of not the text, but the subtext. All students should be given a copy of this book!
Wiker's delivery is devastating and direct. He comes across curmudgeonly, as one tired of the polite applause for these authors. He proceeds to shred the main and secondary arguments of the authors and explores the damage of these argument to society. It is refreshing to hear such an analysis.
I think the author's critical critique is something to which all students of western thought (in college or lifelong) should be exposed. It sharpens our own thinking, teaching us to ask better questions, and helps develop a healthy skepticism for these works held up for reverence. I still want to go back and re-read both The Prince and Leviathan, but now I will do so with a sharper appreciation of not the text, but the subtext. All students should be given a copy of this book!
September 8, 2008
I am still trying to repair the damage public (government) schools did to my education. This book is great for doing just that. Dr Wiker lists the books in chronological order not necessarily in order of the worst. He gives you quotes from each authors writings (except Kinsey, the Kinsey Institute wouldn’t let him use direct quotes – wonder why?)
He covers authors and their ideas such as Machiavelli, Descartes, Rousseau (So far my favorite most awful person and on a list of awful people that is saying something) Marx, Darwin, Nietzsche, Hitler, Freud to name a few.
Just think if you read this book you won’t have to drag yourself through the ideas of one atheist after another with their convoluted ideas- really I don’t know how they suckered anyone falling into their guess work on human nature and origins.
I have several Book of Mormon references in the margins, so even I was able to see the absurdities or their arguments.
The book was written for the lay person and Dr Wiker has laced it with humor through out.
He covers authors and their ideas such as Machiavelli, Descartes, Rousseau (So far my favorite most awful person and on a list of awful people that is saying something) Marx, Darwin, Nietzsche, Hitler, Freud to name a few.
Just think if you read this book you won’t have to drag yourself through the ideas of one atheist after another with their convoluted ideas- really I don’t know how they suckered anyone falling into their guess work on human nature and origins.
I have several Book of Mormon references in the margins, so even I was able to see the absurdities or their arguments.
The book was written for the lay person and Dr Wiker has laced it with humor through out.
July 7, 2010
Really interesting read. Benjamin Wiker knows his stuff and can burrow through all of the mess, find the message, and dispute it with reasonable arguments. One of my favorite passages in the chapter on John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism. "As atheists, they (Mills and Bentham) wanted all the moral benefits of Christianity, except without the Christianity part. They were the kind of self-assured chaps who took the fruits of centuries of Christian moral formation for granted even as they cheerfully chopped down the tree that had borne them. In consequence, they foolishly thought that because many Englishmen were generally solid and decent folk, moral solidity and decency could be counted on as standard equipment of human nature, and the whole religion thing could be thrown overboard as distracting nonsense."
August 14, 2009
EXCELLENT. Highly recommended. Concise, clearly written and explained. Highly, highly recommended. PG-13 rating, for sure, though, so I recommend parents reading first. Otherwise, absolutely a must read. It's a detailed review/exposing of the fallacies that have been inflicted upon the world since Machievelli first wrote his book "The Prince" in 1513. Definitely an eye-opener.
January 16, 2018
First of all, Kinsey is disgusting.
Second of all, some of my fellow reviewers are arguing for having the right to say or do things that the authors might not agree with, and yet they want to commit physical violence against the author for saying something offensive? seriously?
Now that I have that off my chest, this book was a good analysis and summary of the main works of the most prominent authors of modern and post modern philosophy. He also does a good job showing how one led to the other in simple and every day terms. (At least I think so)
Of course, this book is not pro-atheist and from a Christian perspective.
atheism is characterized by the authors here to be at it's root, a philosophical system with no authoritative legislator, which inherently means that there can not be no true right or wrong for the atheist from an objective perspective, even if the atheist decides (and they can, regardless of philosophical implications of a persons beliefs they are able to decide to be good to others) to adhere to noble and beautiful standards (of which there are people who do that and I respect them completely). But the authors of the books discussed are not like those atheists. They know full well the implications of what they are doing and decide to play with evil in order to achieve their aim. They are incredibly smart after all. Nitzche himself said that he wouldn't want an atheist wife and child because he knew that they would probably cheat and leave him if they were. Rousseu and Nitzche both agreed that, even though they were mainly anti religion, a society could not function without religion. Man would go bezerk, or their leaders would do it for them and lead to a moral anarchy under which only the state could construct a semblance of order. From there you get the authoritative philosophies of hard communism and fascism.
In a religious system there is a moral authority to be feared that is not man made, but in an atheistic one it is each mans morality against that of the other. Evolution cannot imbue us with a perfect moral system because of its two contradictory laws: survival in communities and survival of the fittest. Machiavelli understands this well as he says it would benefit man to learn how to 'be good and to not be good.' Be good enough to keep people's trust, but you need to be bad to survive or at least gain power. What constitutes as necessary evil is up to each and every individual and can range from white lies to murder. It benefits man to be two faced, for the simple and noble in a noble and simple society this might seem unfathomable, but put yourself in a society in where everyone is of the kind that they would harm you and your loved ones if you don't harm them. Without the authority of God, an extremely small minority of atheists would survive with their morality in tact after that. It's not easy to turn the other cheek in such a situation, that is when being a good citizen is looked down upon by a vicious society.
Post moderns tend to project more than moderns do, so you can make the argument that they understand consequences less and are more aproduct of modern thinking. But nonetheless, they do know to some extent what they are rebelling against and that they are doing so for their own ideology and gain.
Second of all, some of my fellow reviewers are arguing for having the right to say or do things that the authors might not agree with, and yet they want to commit physical violence against the author for saying something offensive? seriously?
Now that I have that off my chest, this book was a good analysis and summary of the main works of the most prominent authors of modern and post modern philosophy. He also does a good job showing how one led to the other in simple and every day terms. (At least I think so)
Of course, this book is not pro-atheist and from a Christian perspective.
atheism is characterized by the authors here to be at it's root, a philosophical system with no authoritative legislator, which inherently means that there can not be no true right or wrong for the atheist from an objective perspective, even if the atheist decides (and they can, regardless of philosophical implications of a persons beliefs they are able to decide to be good to others) to adhere to noble and beautiful standards (of which there are people who do that and I respect them completely). But the authors of the books discussed are not like those atheists. They know full well the implications of what they are doing and decide to play with evil in order to achieve their aim. They are incredibly smart after all. Nitzche himself said that he wouldn't want an atheist wife and child because he knew that they would probably cheat and leave him if they were. Rousseu and Nitzche both agreed that, even though they were mainly anti religion, a society could not function without religion. Man would go bezerk, or their leaders would do it for them and lead to a moral anarchy under which only the state could construct a semblance of order. From there you get the authoritative philosophies of hard communism and fascism.
In a religious system there is a moral authority to be feared that is not man made, but in an atheistic one it is each mans morality against that of the other. Evolution cannot imbue us with a perfect moral system because of its two contradictory laws: survival in communities and survival of the fittest. Machiavelli understands this well as he says it would benefit man to learn how to 'be good and to not be good.' Be good enough to keep people's trust, but you need to be bad to survive or at least gain power. What constitutes as necessary evil is up to each and every individual and can range from white lies to murder. It benefits man to be two faced, for the simple and noble in a noble and simple society this might seem unfathomable, but put yourself in a society in where everyone is of the kind that they would harm you and your loved ones if you don't harm them. Without the authority of God, an extremely small minority of atheists would survive with their morality in tact after that. It's not easy to turn the other cheek in such a situation, that is when being a good citizen is looked down upon by a vicious society.
Post moderns tend to project more than moderns do, so you can make the argument that they understand consequences less and are more aproduct of modern thinking. But nonetheless, they do know to some extent what they are rebelling against and that they are doing so for their own ideology and gain.
May 1, 2024
Ambleside Online year 12 book. My senior has already finished this and I finally read it. I’m not sure what I was expecting but the first half or two thirds was really interesting to me! There were several chapters near the end of the book (so talking about more modern books) that were a bit more explicit than I was expecting, although the chapter on the Kinsey report was less explicit than the chapter about it in The Marketing of Evil. This is one I wish I had read and discussed with her more thoroughly. There was certainly a lot to think about.
Some quotes that stuck out to me:
From the chapter about Leviathan - “A Hobbesian society is one in which each person considered himself first and foremost as an individual brimming with rights/desires, but with no fundamental responsibility to anyone else. For the Hobbesian individual, then, it is the entire job of government to protect and maximize the expression of these individual rights/desires while simultaneously minimizing conflict with other rights/desires bearing individuals. In short, the one and only task of government is merely to reproduce a happier version of the Hobbesian state of nature, where there is a maximum of liberty to pursue one’s personal desires, but without the nasty, violent death part.” This is definitely the type of society we live in.
From the chapter on Darwin’s The Descent of Man:
“ as cheerful as the ever widening spread of the bomb of sympathy sounds, there are two flies in the ointment. First, there are a few moral concepts as slippery as sympathy. At best, it substitutes indiscriminate niceness for goodness in human affairs. (Niceness is nice, but even a thief can be polite.) At worst, it embraces indiscrimination itself, and erases all boundaries between human beings and every other living thing. In trying to treat every living thing as part of one moral whole, it ends up inverting the entire moral order and the natural order along with it. The outcome is the animal rights activist who, overflowing with sympathy for the chimpanzee, destroys medical research clinics.”
And from the chapter about Mein Kampf:
” A madman is driven by mania for a very particular idea; a genius is driven by a grand vision, a malignant worldview. This distinction is essential for understanding the apex of Hitler’s evil: his apparent mania for exterminating the Jews.”
Some quotes that stuck out to me:
From the chapter about Leviathan - “A Hobbesian society is one in which each person considered himself first and foremost as an individual brimming with rights/desires, but with no fundamental responsibility to anyone else. For the Hobbesian individual, then, it is the entire job of government to protect and maximize the expression of these individual rights/desires while simultaneously minimizing conflict with other rights/desires bearing individuals. In short, the one and only task of government is merely to reproduce a happier version of the Hobbesian state of nature, where there is a maximum of liberty to pursue one’s personal desires, but without the nasty, violent death part.” This is definitely the type of society we live in.
From the chapter on Darwin’s The Descent of Man:
“ as cheerful as the ever widening spread of the bomb of sympathy sounds, there are two flies in the ointment. First, there are a few moral concepts as slippery as sympathy. At best, it substitutes indiscriminate niceness for goodness in human affairs. (Niceness is nice, but even a thief can be polite.) At worst, it embraces indiscrimination itself, and erases all boundaries between human beings and every other living thing. In trying to treat every living thing as part of one moral whole, it ends up inverting the entire moral order and the natural order along with it. The outcome is the animal rights activist who, overflowing with sympathy for the chimpanzee, destroys medical research clinics.”
And from the chapter about Mein Kampf:
” A madman is driven by mania for a very particular idea; a genius is driven by a grand vision, a malignant worldview. This distinction is essential for understanding the apex of Hitler’s evil: his apparent mania for exterminating the Jews.”
February 29, 2016
Some readers reported disappointment that the author harped on how the books he chose pushed public thought toward godless solutions in public policy and replaced the basis of public ethics in the West with a concern for pragmatic concerns only.
They did not feel he proved that this was a bad idea, just presumed that it was.
I found that he did touch on why he believed this was a bad idea, but only in a limited way, and without discussing other possible alternatives. Now, I agree with his premises and his conclusions, generally speaking, but then I believe in God and I have not seen better policy or better behaved people out of those who do not share the Judeo-Christian worldview. Quite the reverse, lately. Just the same, not addressing this area effectively limits reasonable interest in his work to those who already agree with his worldview. That's a shame, because nonbelievers are perfectly capable of reconsidering the negative effects of many of these philosophical viewpoints if they aren't alienated by its presentation.
His argument is a bit repetitive and presumes acceptance of the idea that ethics based on a good deity who requires people treat each other well (Christian/Judaic God) will be more effective than admonitions based on self-preservation, especially in private settings. I think Chesterton's writings or C.S. Lewis' Abolition of Man both made that point better, and with less presumption that their position was the only 'right' one that any decent person could consider. It was still worth reading, despite its depressive qualities and this significant drawback.
They did not feel he proved that this was a bad idea, just presumed that it was.
I found that he did touch on why he believed this was a bad idea, but only in a limited way, and without discussing other possible alternatives. Now, I agree with his premises and his conclusions, generally speaking, but then I believe in God and I have not seen better policy or better behaved people out of those who do not share the Judeo-Christian worldview. Quite the reverse, lately. Just the same, not addressing this area effectively limits reasonable interest in his work to those who already agree with his worldview. That's a shame, because nonbelievers are perfectly capable of reconsidering the negative effects of many of these philosophical viewpoints if they aren't alienated by its presentation.
His argument is a bit repetitive and presumes acceptance of the idea that ethics based on a good deity who requires people treat each other well (Christian/Judaic God) will be more effective than admonitions based on self-preservation, especially in private settings. I think Chesterton's writings or C.S. Lewis' Abolition of Man both made that point better, and with less presumption that their position was the only 'right' one that any decent person could consider. It was still worth reading, despite its depressive qualities and this significant drawback.
October 28, 2016
This is the 3rd or 4th time I've read this book and each time enjoy it just as much, if not more than the first time I read it.
March 18, 2020
There are great books and then there are what people have been led to believe are great books that may actually be harmful to society. This is according to 10 Books That Screwed Up the World: And 5 Others That Didn't Help by author Benjamin Wiker. You may find a few surprises contained in the book such as Hobbe's Leviathan, Darwin's Descent of Man, and Margaret Mead's Coming of Age to name a few. Of course there are some obvious choices the author includes such as Hitler's Mein Kampf and Marx and Engels's Communist Manifesto and others in between. The author explains why he points out these specific books as evil by exposing them to the light of day and discussing what he considers their appeal as well as their fallacies. With this book he attempts to educate readers about what he claims are some of the worst ideas in human history. I have read several of the books he addresses so I can understand the main points the author is making. They seem logical but so did some of the books he discusses. I guess you will have to make up your own mind.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 314 reviews