A non-theist asks, "What is the value of religion?" He discovers that religion serves real human needs. Religion and philosophy teach us how to live. Reason-based philosophy and faith-based religion, though, teach different lessons. This book shows how, guided by reason, human beings should live.
| |||||||||||||||
Book Description
Editorial Reviews
About the Author
Martin L. Cowen III was born in 1951. He read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged in 1971. After law school, he practiced family and criminal law for twenty years. A student of Objectivism for thirty years, Martin wondered why this brilliant philosophy had so little cultural impact, while religion remained a powerful cultural force. Martin asked, "What is the value of religion?" He discovered the answer and invented the Fellowship of Reason. This book, published in 2001, describes the world's first rational moral community and the philosophy of reason upon which it is based. The book answers the question, "How should I live in order to achieve happiness on earth?"
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
Customer Reviews
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
1.0 out of 5 stars
The hijacking of reason,
This review is from: Fellowship of Reason: A Moral Community for the 21st Century (Paperback)
The hijacking of reason
"We believe each individual's purpose and success in life are derived from, and ultimately determined by, the individual - not a supernatural authority." --M. Cowen M. Reason is the faculty that enables us to draw conclusions from premises or assumptions. The motor of this process is called `explanation'. To be reasonable, then, is to justify one's beliefs by laying out the how's and why's of their arrival. For example, if I assume that the Biblical description of creation is accurate, I can reasonably declare that the Grand Canyon was formed only during the three-thousand year time frame of Biblical narrative. If affluent individuals see themselves as the ethical center of their own world, one might reasonably expect them to invent an ideology of individualism. This belief system coheres to the premise that an educated, linguistically sophisticated subject exists independently of the society that educated him/her into a lucrative trade. Moreover, it would seem irrelevant to these `individualists' that he/she were instructed through twelve years of schooling to become proficient in the national language. So contrary to the water-fountain sarcasms of geologists, sociologists and philosophers, Creationists and Objectivists are just as `reasonable as the rest of us. Indeed, Randism is philosophy -gone- retarded, but what's lacking is something different--a reality check. This is because the art of thinking is just as much about content as the formal properties of reason. What we consider as either `facts' or `meaningful assumptions' dictate what is reasoned out. People who do not wade in the same factual pool, or who do not share common assumptions, will as violently disagree as those who correct each other by remarks such as, "You're not being logical, therefore you're unreasonable". In other words, being totally ignorant of Real World things and events does not preclude one's impeccable reasoning out of flufferies that exist only in their own minds, I also strongly disagree with Mr Cowen's citation, as quoted as an introduction to my text. He states his belief is that one's purpose and success is an individual event. But as no serious philosophy would totally discount social forces and birth status when describing life's chances and opportunities, no one should look to Mr Cowen for self-help advice. Moreover, his textual counter-positioning of "individual" with "supernatural" wrongly suggests that those who choose to remain believers are somehow less an individual than he. In this particular, too, our author simply chooses to ignore the fact that are we not only socialized into religion from childhood, but also out of it as well, as adults. So, thematically speaking, we see a tendency here, yes? The heroic, self-described `individualist' stands proudly, atheistically, above the cowering, believing sheep. John Galt is me! That he--as well as I-- became atheist is not to say that we chose that path as `individuals'. Social forces to a great extent determine both the content of religion and the availability of choices we make to enhance our personal lives. Therefore, this rejection of the social makes any advice that he might offer others to be utterly useless. Yet, in principle, to speak of a `fellowship of reason' isn't a bad idea. Whatever is discussed must follow the dictates of logic when offering up a conclusion. Bunkering down is not permitted. One must justify one's beliefs by explanation. On alternate days, then, perhaps FOR might discuss Creationism and Natural Selection, or Objectivism and Bergson. The rules of reason would be the only guideline to discursive permissiveness, and FOR is a value- neutral referee of logic and good manners. But this clearly isn't the case. Despite it's felicitous name (who can resist `fellowship' and `reason'!) Mr Cowen's group is nothing more than Randism with a human face; his book advertises accordingly. The same might, of course, be said of his presumed antagonist-critic, Mr Seltzer, in having reversed the moniker into "Reason's Fellowship". Here, I must admit that Mr Seltzer has a point in his rather stinging rebuke of FOR. Even as despicable as it might be, the genre of Objectivism that Mr Seltzer espouses is open, clear, and honest. There is no bait and switch. Somewhat akin to Marx's Manifesto, Seltzer hides nothing. On his own site, anti-objectivists are not permitted. Those unfortunate few who claim adherence in ways unbecoming are accordingly treated like chickens (are clucking sounds somehow a Germanic insult?). Seltzer seems all about the purification of the new master race... Now all of these measures are clearly important in order to maintain group cohesion. Otherwise, the young and the restless might pollute the minds of older members with interesting facts and concepts taken from college courses such as Philosophy, Sociology, and Economics. As well, those exposed to The Virus of Knowledge might have also accidentally caught a word or two spoken at the aforementioned water-fountain or -perish the thought!--have been told in a more direct way that Objectivism just isn't college-level material. Now it's been revealed to me that, as of late, Mr Cowen has turned from Objectivism into a garden variety Libertarian. This, in turn, seems to have caused a split within the ranks of FOR. I'm amused. Yet the citation remains on the FOR masthead as a statement of purpose, and what was once a thriving chat-room at the time of publication has been closed down. So will Mr Cowen repudiate his citation, or rather, are we simply dealing with a new level of deceit in order to attract membership that would otherwise be turned off by full-monty Randism? In any case, it would seem that Mr Cowen has learned a valuable lesson from Mr Seltzer that open debate on a chat room is a very bad idea. Members have non-member friends that would want to speak their minds, and perhaps even challenge a dogma or two. In this sense, heterodoxy can be labeled `abusive' for only so long before members start to talk, and to think for themselves. This ostensibly includes the use of simple words, such as, for example, `racism'. Moreover, speech which challenges received wisdom is somewhat akin to playing rhetorical football, while the assumed rules are those of basketball. What's considered foul play is more or less circumscribed by the working assumptions of the group, and the comparative status of members therein. So let's not forget the double standard which would permit Seltzer's hen-clucking and Cowen's demeaning of `Liberals', or even a rather dim-witted acolyte's employ of psychobabble to demean an outsider. Such is the nature of cultism; perhaps the former is simply jealous of the latter's success. Lastly, it's obvious that Mr Cowen's use of `Reason' implies that only his particular beliefs are `reasonable'. As a peculiarity of the southern dialect, the term is employed as a cheep cover-up for one's inability to defend an indefensible idea or belief. Just say it's `reasonable.'..or else we have a failure to communicate. Readers or Orwell will likewise recognize this linguistic inversion as the essence of fascism. Reason means discussing, debating, and accepting disagreement--not uttering declarations from a position of power. Sir Martin refuses dialogue because he can't openly compete in the marketplace of ideas. Cool Aide, anyone? Bill Harris
3 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Learn to live "pro" rather than "anti",
By
This review is from: Fellowship of Reason: A Moral Community for the 21st Century (Paperback)
This book is an eye-opener. It's okay to want the affirming aspects of "church culture" by consciously celebrating the good things about life from a rational point of view. The Fellowship of Reason will inspire you to live a "pro" life; i.e. pro-happiness, pro-success, pro-friends, pro-excellence; and to drop the "anti" obsession that taints so many atheist groups; i.e. anti-God, anti-religion, anti-believer. The Fellowship of Reason doesn't have time to be "anti".
2 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Solid, life enhancing advice good for any century!,
By Vera Norman (Atlanta, GA) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Fellowship of Reason: A Moral Community for the 21st Century (Paperback)
I don't ordinarily like self-help books: this one is different.Most self-help books amount to little more than a simple series of thematically related formulas designed to address such human problems as how to get more confidence, how to find a better job, how to marry the right person, how to bring up successful children...Cowen offers advice in these areas and more, but the main focus of his work is to reach, for the reader, the often unvoiced philosophical angst that hovers behind the seeming inability to put it all together and then do something about it! In a clear, well-plotted ten chapters, Cowen divides the psyche into its public and its private spheres. He talks about what it is "to be" and how to develop a public self that is consistent with the private self. He suggests exercises to discover the authentic self and more exercises to help the authentic self emerge. The theme of the book is to 1)know who you are and 2)become who you are. Cowen demonstrates that the willingness to introspect truthfully coupled with the confidence to act on the self's unmistakeable clues about what it yearns to be, leads to a life of fulfilled contentment. In case the reader is already derailed, there are exercises to get back on track by acknowledging previous mistakes and correcting them in order to get " past the past ".
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
Tag this product(What's this?)Think of a tag as a keyword or label you consider is strongly related to this product.
Tags will help all customers organize and find favorite items. |
Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store
If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store.
Learn more
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
