DavidMills.Net wrote:

I'd like to personally invite everyone here in alt.atheism to listen to
my live interview this Wednesday evening, October 19th, at 8:00PM
Eastern Time on The Infidel Guy Radio/Web Broadcast from Atlanta. You
may freely access a live streaming audio feed of the broadcast at
http://www.infidelguy.com

I find the whole idea of evangelizing atheism somewhat disturbing -
perhaps even "vulgar".

I found this review on Amazon reflects my own feelings on this sort of
thing:

<quote>
I have read tons of books on the philosophy of religion, psychology of
religion, and the philosophy of science. I, myself, am studying to become
a mathematician and am somewhat ambivalent when it comes to religious
issues and convictions. While I found this book delightfully crisp and
concise to read, I have found books like this increasingly aggravating to
read. Mills takes a hard-ball, tow-the-line attitude toward religion that
simply lacks compassion and understanding. In these pages one finds a
dogmatism fairly reminiscent of the religious worldviews it criticizes. It
seems to assume that religion is the cause of all the worlds evils, and
that strictly "logical" thought is the cure. While its true that religious
convictions have led to seriously malevolent behavior in the world in the
form of terrorism and a host of emotional and psychological problems, it
is not the case that religion always, or even mostly leads to destructive
ends. Many of my close friends find religion a very rewarding aspect of
their lives and none of them feel a need to debate it, justify it or
pontificate over it. In fact, some recent research suggests that evolution
has instilled in us a natural propulsion to seek out and explore a
spiritual dimension to reality and that it is, in fact, a very healthy and
natural part of developing into a fully realized human being.

With that being said, I find books like these particularly disturbing. The
conclusion that is always reached is that religion is a fanciful
abberation which should be purged from the world via the crucible of
"logic". As a mathematician I feel I can boldly state that "logic" has
severe limitations. While mathemeticians, scientists and to a lesser
extent, philosopher, have used pure logic to create theories that model
the world to great precision it seems clear that whatever relation pure
logic bears to reality it is not a one-to-one correspondance. Once again,
the latest research indicates that our brains are the products of an
evolutionary process which has produced a world-processing machine (our
brains) of extreme limitations. It is not at all clear that our brains
have evolved to understand or ascertain "absolute truth" about the
universe, whatever it may be, but has evolved to produce rough and ready
sketches of the world around us.

Mill's insistence that his worldview is the only "reasonable" alterantive
is simply insulting to a lot of very respectable, intelligent people who
don't share his views. Like his opponents on the evangelical side of the
debate he insists that anyone who wants to disagree must deal with his
arguments. This is just silly. His idle philosophizing on the nature of
science and God is hardly the authority. While I understand that his main
aim is to make evangelicals and religious zealots "see" the error of their
ways, he seems blind to the fact this is exactly the tactic taken by the
people he criticizes. He thinks his arguments have settled the debate, so
do they. He thinks he is saving the lost, so do they. He thinks he has the
"Truth About Everything", so do they. Niether are actually communicating
with the other, and niether are open to seeing things from a less rigid
perspective. Both think that the world needs them to be the prophets of
truth.

People like Mills tend to see science as and "reason" as the new gospel
and are equally naive in their faith. I applaud Mills for his pursuit of
truth and his fight against dogmatism, but a little more restraint and
understanding on his part would probably be more effective in portraying
his message.
<unquote>

Mark.