For one of my choice essays I read "Is That All There Is?" from the New Yorker's "Critic at Large" section. I chose this essay at first because it dealt with religion, and religion intrigues me. I was hoping it would bring a new side to the Atheist-Believer debate, but alas, I was wrong. The essay didn't bring up any new theories or points for me to either agree or disagree with. To be honest it reminded me a lot of my philosophy class last year.
Because I found this essay in the "Critic" section, I thought it would be more edgy and criticize atheism instead of religion like many of the other editorials do, but after reading it, I'm not sure what side the author was on. At first I thought it was pro-religion, then throughout the whole middle section the author was providing points of why atheism or "secularism" is better, and then commented on religion again. I must say that I am quite confused after reading this. The author said that secularism was better because it dealt with facts, but he also commented about how people "need" religion so there will never be a 100% following of secularism.
(If you're getting confused reading this, I completely understand!)
All in all I would have to say that this essay was simply mediocre. It didn't provide any new thoughts or view-points on the common debate, and it used a lot of unnecessary long words. Plus he totally confused me with his last thought,"Secularism can seem as meaningless as religion...". Is he refuting both? How is that possible? I must say that this essay has left me with a lot of questions...
Yeah...I'm a little confused...it sounds like it could be kind of interesting..? Maybe not. It probably should have included thoughts or view-points like you mentioned. I'm not really sure what the author mentioned in the essay, but he probably should've touched what people want to hear.
ReplyDelete