[finally17]

I read and argue in one other internet forum, so old it's not even web-based...Recently someone posted the following basenote there, and I thought it was a fascinating question, so I figured I'd post it here, see what y'all think.

Quote

So, being the glutton for books and good conversation that I am, I would
like to know what one or two books could I read that would best help me
understand where you, dear [BBO forum reader], are coming from in terms of the way
you think or argue.

I think my answers would be "The Cost of Discipleship" by Dietrich Bonhoeffer and "A Severe Mercy" by Sheldon VanAuken.

What say you?

[barmar]

Anything by Richard Dawkins. He has incredible insight, and his writing style is extremely enjoyable.

[Codo]

"Sophies world" is an easy first. The second is more difficult, maybe the Bible.
(Or maybe Prince Valiant? something from Karl May?)
Surely not my favourite books anymore, but a big part of my childhood, where books did influence me much more then they do today.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

tough, and most likely there is no answer, but I
will give it a try.

#1 Fynn "Mister God, this is Anna"
written by a mathematician (i have studied math),
discussing the central question

#2 The bible, ... but regular skipping the Gospel of
John and the revelation.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[hrothgar]

"A Theory of Justice" by John Rawls
"Economics" by Samuelson and Nordhaus
"Theory of Games and Economic Behavior" by Von Neumann et. al

[kenberg]

I agree with Marlowe that this is really tough. I regard the existence of reasonably democratic government and a reasonably civil society as something of a miracle and a fragile one at that. I'm interested in how it arrives and survives anywhere, but particularly here in the US since I am here in the US. So, for example, Chernow's biography of Hamilton makes the list.
Of course political development isn't everything. At a more personal level I'll have to give it some thought. I liked Tarzan when I was young and I am not so sure I have matured all that much in the ensuing sixty years.

[Al_U_Card]

"How to read your opponent's cards" by M. Lawrence.

Taught me that everything is obvious if you take a close look.

"Charlotte's Web"

Taught me about how people act based on how they feel.

Foundation series by I. Asimov.

Taught me that the big picture makes a difference.

[TimG]

barmar, on Feb 19 2008, 12:15 AM, said:

Anything by Richard Dawkins.  He has incredible insight, and his writing style is extremely enjoyable.

I've only read The God Delusion, but I found Dawkins to be preachy, which seemed to me to be a bit ironic given what he was arguing against.

[helene_t]

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...=12898&hl=books

[gwnn]

helene_t, on Feb 19 2008, 05:18 PM, said:

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...=12898&hl=books

that thread is totally unrelated in case of people like me who never read anything but bridge.

[mikeh]

TimG, on Feb 19 2008, 09:37 AM, said:

barmar, on Feb 19 2008, 12:15 AM, said:

Anything by Richard Dawkins.  He has incredible insight, and his writing style is extremely enjoyable.

I've only read The God Delusion, but I found Dawkins to be preachy, which seemed to me to be a bit ironic given what he was arguing against.

The God Delusion is definitely NOT the book by which to judge Dawkins as a writer. Mind you, I enjoyed it but he was preaching to the converted in my case (I can't help the religious allusion, sorry). However, The Selfish Gene or The Blind Watchmaker are brilliant, and far more useful imo.

Along the same lines, to some degree, almost anything by Stephen Jay Gould. I think, as Pinker writes, that Gould allowed his political correctness overshadow his analytical skills on topics relating to current sociological issues, but his writings on the history and development of evolutionary and geological science are wonderful.

Speaking of Pinker, I just finished The Blank Slate, which I greatly enjoyed and strongly recommend.

[finally17]

helene_t, on Feb 19 2008, 10:18 AM, said:

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...=12898&hl=books

Oh c'mon now, the question is totally different.:

Quote

Along similar veins...lets do a fav book category.

What did BBOers (or BBFers) enjoy reading?

This is not remotely similar to "books that affected the way you think or argue" and that helped form the person you are. Note that people (at least to start) posted fiction on that thread.

Anyway, I thought it was a very difficult question too...Took me 3 or 4 days to decide on 2 to mention, actually. Then I posted it here.

[mike777]

finally17, on Feb 19 2008, 12:01 AM, said:

I read and argue in one other internet forum, so old it's not even web-based...Recently someone posted the following basenote there, and I thought it was a fascinating question, so I figured I'd post it here, see what y'all think.

Quote

So, being the glutton for books and good conversation that I am, I would
like to know what one or two books could I read that would best help me
understand where you, dear [BBO forum reader], are coming from in terms of the way
you think or argue.

I think my answers would be "The Cost of Discipleship" by Dietrich Bonhoeffer and "A Severe Mercy" by Sheldon VanAuken.

What say you?

Fear Of Knowledge. Paul Boghossian.
Against Relativism and Constructivism.
A very short and readable book on Philosophy.

The Singularity is Near or the Age of Spiritual Machines. Ray Kurzweil.
Interesting ideas on the whole humans transcend biology discussion.

The end of Medicine. Andy Kessler
Discussion on Medicine and Technology.

The Real Price of Everything. edited by Michael Lewis
This very long book brings together 6 economic masterworks.
Smith, Malthus, Ricardo, Mackay, Veblen and Keynes.

Moneyball. Michael Lewis. Or anything by Bill James.
If you love discussing baseball, this book is a must.

Fortune's Formula. William Poundstone. Against the Gods Peter Bernstein. Fooled by Randomness. Nassim Nicholas.
Excellent books on risk and why smart people take stupid risks. Fun. Math for nonmath majors.

[barmar]

I agree that The God Delusion is unrepresentative, Dawkins's scientific books are much better. It got me started reading lots of atheist material (I'm currently working my way through The Portable Atheis, a collection of anti-religious essays throughout history, going back to Lucretius and Omar Khayam), but I was already leaning that way.

Actually, I think it's close to impossible to write anything anti-religious that won't sound preachy to believers, or vice versa. How can you try to convince someone to change a fundamental belief without preaching? I'm also reading The Quotable Atheist, a collection of short quotes (in the style of Bartlett's Familiar Quotations) mostly against religion (but a few pro-religion, to show how the other side thinks), and they almost all come off either preachy or sarcastic.

I've also read everything by Pinker, and enjoyed them as well, but his is a narrower field. I keep meaning to pick up stuff by Gould, but never get around to it. I feel like I have a good idea of what he's said, since he's referenced so often by other writers.

[TimG]

barmar, on Feb 19 2008, 04:55 PM, said:

How can you try to convince someone to change a fundamental belief without preaching?

Perhaps you are correct.

While I consider myself an atheist, I do not feel it is important that I convert others to this point of view. Dawkins struck me as something of an evangelical atheist -- The God Delusion was something of an attempt at conversion rather then enlightenment or education. There may be a fine line between the two which I have inadequately described.

[kenberg]

Appreciating that it is easier to be negative than positive, I can't imagine myself ever reading a book titled "The God Delusion". The writer's point seems to be summarized in the title. I gather he believes God doesn't exist. I agree. I lack a feeling of excitement here.

An interesting situation. Believers won't read this because they are insulted by having their beliefs called a delusion. Non-believers won't read it because it's boring to read something you already agree with. Has this book sold a lot of copies?

[TimG]

According to wikipedia:

Quote

As of November 2007, the English version of The God Delusion had sold over 1.5 million copies and had been translated to 31 languages.[2] It was ranked #2 on the Amazon.com bestsellers' list in November 2006.[3][4] In early December 2006, it reached #4 in the New York Times Hardcover Nonfiction Best Seller list after nine weeks on the list.[5] It remained on the list for 51 weeks until September 30, 2007.[6] It has attracted widespread commentary, with several books written in response.

[helene_t]

kenberg, on Feb 20 2008, 12:15 AM, said:

An interesting situation. Believers won't read this because they are insulted by having their beliefs called a delusion. Non-believers won't read it because it's boring to read something you already agree with. Has this book sold a lot of copies?

1.5 million according to Richarddawkins.net

It is impossible to compare that book to his scientific books. The God Delusion is a popular book. I find it quite informative.

[kenberg]

I'm impressed. I had never heard of it.

The Forum is my liberal education

[Al_U_Card]

Oh yeah, Bill James. He taught me that great numbers don't lie but that liars are in great number...lol