I scanned a book today at the bookstore that had a interesting concept: Certain books have been the cause of much of the bad we have seen and continue to see in society. Now, please don't shoot the messenger! I do not agree with him about these particular books, nor do I think there are any books that have "screwed up" our society. I think the different perspectives and cogent debates are precisely what is necessary for a well-balanced society.

The book, "10 Books that Screwed UP the World and 5 Others that Didn't Help" by Benjamin Wiker, cites these as the 10 books that screwed up the world:

1) The Manifesto of the Communist Party by Marx & Engels
2) Unilaterearlism by Mill
3) The Descent of Man by Darwin
4) Beyond Good and Evil by Nietzsche
5) The State and Revolution by Lenin
6) The Pivot Civilization by Sanger
7) Mein Kampf by Hitler
8) Coming of Age in Samoa by Mead
9) The Future of an Illusion by Freud
10) Sexual Behavior in the Human Male by Kinsey

The 5 that didn't help include:

1) The Prince by Machiavelli
2) Discourse on Method by Descartes
3) Leviathan by Hobbes
4) Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men by Rousseau
5) The Feminine Mystique by Friedan

It really sounds like the beginning of an amazing reading list!

My own view is that any and all religious texts that have been taken as other than history and/or metaphor fit in at the #1 spot.

I haven't read all these books, but I find that some of the leadership concepts in "The Prince" are valid today.

If my understanding of Mein Kampff is correct, I beleive that if more politicians had read it they would have been better prepared to oppose Hitler. I don't think the book screwed up the world; it was Hitler's doing just what he said he would do in the book that caused the problem.

I would say that books, in general, are not good or evil - it is the way that people choose to use the ideas in them that is important. When religious believers (and it's not only Muslims - although they are presently the main protagonists) choose to interpret the writings of their chosen book as being justification for evil against those who do not share their beliefs, it is easy to say that the evil is in the book; my belief is that the evil is in the interpretation of the book.

Forgive my breaking a long silence. The issue of bad books or books that harmed the world is too important to let pass without comment. As Richard notes “it was Hitler’s doing just what he said he would do in the book that caused the problem.” But that does not deny that books and television can and do influence peoples’ minds and thoughts. If that inculcates evil or destructive actions to the detriment of the rest of us then those texts or media are themselves forces of wickedness.
That is not to say that we should ban or destroy such books, though doubtless there are those who might say that a text that incited inhuman acts of terrorism should be banned.
There are no simple answers to this old and vexed problem. Shakespeare said of Caesar: “The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones”.

Glad to see you again, Pearce!

I agree with your above statements, but must ad that it is the critical analysis of media that's missing so often. In my own example, too often religious texts are taken as "gospel," resulting in fanaticism. If critical thinking were universally taught, we'd be in a better position to combat misunderstanding of intent, or to see evil intent hidden in seeming altruism.

Another statement from The Bard, this time from Hamlet: "There is nothing, neither good nor bad, but thinking makes it so."

Interesting article, Kalleh. I agree with you, Richard and Pearce here. The books on the list may have incited readers to do evil things, though I can't imagine that some of these books could be construed as evil or evil-inspiring at all. The inclusion of Mead, Friedan, Freud, Darwin and some of the others truly puzzles me. No, I have not read all of the books either, only about many of them.

Basically, a book is only the printed extension of its author, and it might be valid to say that some of these 15 authors had helped to rile things up--but messed up the world? I don't think so. Certainly there are thousands of people who have screwed up the world, but no books. And that includes books of "holy scripture" that some choose to interpret as permission to harm others.

Thank goodness for freedom of the press!

Wordmatic

quote:

2) Discourse on Method by Descartes

Those damn orthonormal basis vectors have been nothing but trouble!

What a silly list.

I see the author, Benjamin Wiker, is a senior fellow at Center for Science and Culture (link), a conservative Christian think tank that lobbies for the inclusion of intelligent design in class curricula.

No wonder he included Darwin, Mead, Friedan--now the puzzle makes sense!

WM

Now you know what isn't taught in home school.

I thought that his list made that obvious without knowing who he is.

quote:

What a silly list.

I agree, Neveu.

I nominate this as the All-Time Silliest idea on this Forum.

~~~ jerry

quote:

Forgive my breaking a long silence.

Hey, Pearce, we've missed you!

quote:

I see the author, Benjamin Wiker, is a senior fellow at Center for Science and Culture (link), a conservative Christian think tank that lobbies for the inclusion of intelligent design in class curricula.

I found the title on a shelf and thought it sounded interesting. Just scanning it, I realized that the author was a social conservative and particularly a religious conservative.

The list is actually an august one that I'd highly recommend to any students. I found Darwin to be quite strange, as that's just plain science. As for Kinsey, I did read a little of that chapter because Wiker moaned that Kinsey's publisher wouldn't let him quote from their work (I thought you could quote from anything as long as you give them credit). In that chapter Wiker complained that Kinsey reported the reality of what was happening in sexuality, instead of reporting what should be happening. Does Wiker not understand science? He must not.

quote:

Does Wiker not understand science? He must not.

If he's an evolution denier then he clearly doesn't understand the concept of scientific enquiry.

What is so worrying is that many of those who, like him, promulgate myth, mystique and mumbo jumbo, get so much exposure of their views in otherwise sensible media.

This site http://www.answersingenesis.org/ is a supreme example of a mumbo jumbo site that starts from the unswerveable belief that the Christian gospels are fact (which it actually states in its preface) and then uses all sorts of pseudo-scientific reportage (with facts, myths and half-truths all mixed up) to "prove" that Darwin's theory of Evolution (and other scientific theories that contradict the words of the gospels) are rubbish.

It's well worth taking a look at - although it is not a good idea if you're susceptible to clever brainwashing techniques and harbour any suspicions that science might possibly be a big con!

quote:

Wiker moaned that Kinsey's publisher wouldn't let him quote from their work

Ooh! My ideas are so impressive that they won't let me refute what they say by refusing to let me quote them.

Of course, quoting brief passages from books is entirely permissible under copyright law. It's just a way for him to appear hampered and oppressed in his efforts to make public the "truth."

Hey, I think this is the first time we've all agreed on something!

quote:

Hey, I think this is the first time we've all agreed on something!

A worrying precedent

quote:

Hey, I think this is the first time we've all agreed on something!

We can soon fix that!

quote:

Originally posted by Proofreader:
Now you know what isn't taught in home school.

Or public school: the only book on that list even remotely touched on in my school was The Descent of Man.

Personally, I think the book that most screwed up the world is the book of Revelations in the New Testament, but that's just me.

Pity they didn't read chapter 11 verse 18. ("God will ruin those who ruin the Earth") Screw it up until then, I guess.

quote:

Pity they didn't read chapter 11 verse 18

Perhaps they didn't notice that plea for environmental stewardship amidst the story of two prophets who shoot fire from their mouths (Rev. 11:3) and create droughts, plagues and rivers of blood (Rev. 11:6), the beast that rises out of the bottomless pit and kills them (Rev. 11:7), their dead bodies that were left to rot in the street (Rev. 11:9) becoming zombies (Rev. 11:11), the seven thousand dead in the great earthquake (Rev. 11:13), and the lightnings, voices, thunderings, earthquake and great hail (Rev. 11:19).

Which returns us to the thread title. May I offer Institutes of the Christian Religion by Jean Cauvin, AKA John Calvin.

My perspective is that no particular book could ever have that much effect.

quote:

My perspective is that no particular book could ever have that much effect.

If only that were true. Then we would never have had the many killings and wars perpetrated in the name of holy books such as the Bible and the Koran (to name but two).

Those books themselves aren't "bad." It's the misinterpretations and the resulting actins that are.

It's not books that endanger the world, nor, I would propose, is it their authors, per se. I think what brings more violence is the closed-mindedness of people with radical positions . . .including people who might vociferously dismiss all people who believe that the Bible is true as idiots.

Perhaps more grace and forgiveness and more curiousity about trying to discover why people believe what they do would benefit all sides of such arguments.

quote:

I think what brings more violence is the closed-mindedness of people with radical positions . . .including people who might vociferously dismiss all people who believe that the Bible is true as idiots.

Which must include all those who believe in other holy books such as the Koran.

quote:

If only that were true. Then we would never have had the many killings and wars perpetrated in the name of holy books such as the Bible and the Koran (to name but two).

Interesting. This is what you said before in this thread:

quote:

I would say that books, in general, are not good or evil - it is the way that people choose to use the ideas in them that is important.

I agree with that comment much more than I do with the previous one. Wars and killings aren't because of the books. They're because of extremists.

Nobody's calling religious people idiots, CW! Many people who changed the world in positive ways were religious. But, as has been said, "true believers," those who "just know" that thiers is THE ONLY TRUE WAY, are the ones who commit atrocities. As a Christian, CW, you must see that your own exemplar was murdered by "true believers" in his own religion.

Religion does not equal spirituality. I personally think that there's something about the human psyche that connects us - the "collective unconscious," Jung called it. Now if you really want to see a split, read both Francis Collins and Richard Dawkins.

quote:

I agree with that comment much more than I do with the previous one. Wars and killings aren't because of the books. They're because of extremists.

Call them what you will, they are using their holy book to justify their actions. And whereas it's easy to condemn the presnt Islamic extremists, we must not forget that Christians have been guilty of similar - maybe worse - acts. The Crusades, the Inquisition to name but two - all resposible for murdering people whose beliefs happened to differ from their own beliefs.

Even missionaries cannot be said always to have behaved with proper respect to those to whom they brought the "word of God". After all, what business was it of theirs to try to change the beliefs of those who, for generations, had happily held beliefs of their own? It's not as though they were medicos, helping to prevent diseases by giving proper advice to those who were ignorant of some kind of health practice; they were simply trying to change a people's unfounded beliefs into their own beliefs (also unfounded except insofar that they believed that the Bible was the literal truth).

And most religions have acted in similar ways over the millennia - although it is probably fair to say that Christians and Muslims lead the pack.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:

And most religions have acted in similar ways over the millennia - although it is probably fair to say that Christians and Muslims lead the pack.

It was a fellow Hindu who killed Gandhi. Percentage-wise, I doubt it makes any difference what religion one examines, the "true believers" in them are gonna kill people.

I thought about mentioning Hindus, who are pretty bellicose. Mind you, from what I know about the religion, I quite like it. I understand that you can choose your own personal god - I'll choose Bacchus, please.

Hollywood be thy name .....

All hail Jim Backus...

quote:

Percentage-wise, I doubt it makes any difference what religion one examines, the "true believers" in them are gonna kill people.

Well, not all "true believers," Asa, but the extremist ones. I am sure you meant that.

It's only fair to state the other side, too. There have been some really awful extremists who aren't believers at all. For example, while there is controversy about Hitler, it is clear that he gave up the Catholicism on which he was raised. While he did tout Christianity in his diatribes, he also made comments like "We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany." I'd consider him a non-religious extremist because it wasn't religion that fueled his movement.

I think we're all in agreement here that no one book has, is, or will screw up the world. It's the extremists who screw up the world. I suppose that sounds a little like it's not guns who kill people, it's people who kill people. I see those statements as very different, though. Guns themselves do the killing and there should be some control as to who has them (in my very humble opinion...and as a mother whose children were victims of an elementary school shooting so I am biased in that view).

quote:

It's the extremists who screw up the world. I suppose that sounds a little like it's not guns who kill people, it's people who kill people. I see those statements as very different, though. Guns themselves do the killing and there should be some control as to who has them

In fact I think the analogy is a good one. Guns only kill people if some other people aim them and squeeze their triggers. They respond to their operators' wishes. Books themselves are not weapons but they can give justification to those who want it, to kill or commit other evils. Neither books nor guns are evil except insofar their users make them so.

Well, I don't agree for the reasons stated, but I am not going to get into it on that subject.

The American Library Association has a "Banned Book Week" every year to make people aware of what books have been considered dangerous by this or that group. Just about everything, from the most innocuous to the most perverse, has been on that list at some time or other. For that reason I must agree with Richard.

CW, how about further comments on this, since it's your territory?

I have always enjoyed target shooting ever since I was at school and thus do have a slight bias about guns. My viewpoint is that guns, like so many other things, can be used for good or evil - but I do not think that evil potential, be it of a gun, knife or even book - should be grounds for banning that thing.

Control, yes - and in the UK we have probably the most stringent gun control regulations in the world - but an outright ban, no.

Next month I will be in Canada where gun ownership is high and I will be, I hope, doing a lot of shooting. But I understand that, in spite of high gun ownership, gun crime in Canada is relatively low - which does lead me to believe that it is people's attitude that matters, not their possessions.

quote:

Originally posted by Asa Lovejoy:
The American Library Association has a "Banned Book Week" every year to make people aware of what books have been considered dangerous by this or that group. Just about everything, from the most innocuous to the most perverse, has been on that list at some time or other. For that reason I must agree with Richard.

CW, how about further comments on this, since it's your territory?

Not sure what happened to this when I posted it earlier. Scroll right to the bottom.

Oh, that's amazing, Bob!

OK! I will comment on Banned Books Week.

It's an interesting thing about the ALA and the Banned Books list. The list is put together from all items that are disputed in any library of every type across the country.

That means that, say, if I were in a small elementary school with children ages 5 - 10 as my customers, and a parent came in and suggested that I remove a book from the shelves, stating that it was too mature of a story to share with such young children, that book could show up on the list.

Also, the list just keeps growing. They never (that I know of) take titles off. So, although Adventures of Huck Finn may not have been challenged in 20 years, it will remain on the list forever.

Oh yes, nearly all the books we would put on the "classics" shelf are on that list for one thing or another - racial slurs, rude language, sexual themes or scenes.

Please make no mistake, I do support the Banned Books Week idea, because it raises awareness of what a ridiculous idea it is to close the minds of children and "protect" them from naughty things when it's really so much better to read with your children and actually discuss the things you find in them!

I feel the same about television. I'd rather watch whatever Si chooses to watch (he's 14) and then discuss what I find objectionable about the behavior of the characters, or what I find admirable, and let him think and respond and, hopefully, engage him in a discussion! It seems much more productive and will help him develop his own ability (I'm hoping!) to discern right from wrong in a way that is compatible with our world views. Don't you think?

Of course, in our house we talk a lot about acceptance of (and, dare I say it, curiousity about) people who are different than we are, and grace and kindness and compassion . . . rather than hate, fear and murder . . . even though we are Christians. We tend to believe that the Bibles in our house are for study (as are all the books we have on weaponry), not browbeating.

Good job, CW!